TODAY IS: THURSDAY, SIVAN 28, 5774 • JUNE 26, 2014 & TODAY IS: SHABBAT, SIVAN 30, 5774 • JUNE 28, 2014
ROSH CHODESH TAMMUZ
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• LUBAVITCHER REBBE ARRIVES IN US (1941)
After escaping Nazi-occupied Paris, and many perilous months in Vichy France, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994), and his wife, Rebbetzin Chaya Mushkah (1901-1988), boarded the SS Serpa Pinto in Lisbon, Portugal. On Monday, June 23--Sivan 28 on the Jewish calendar--at 10:30 A.M., they arrived in New York.
Shortly after his arrival, the Rebbe's father-in-law, the then Lubavitcher Rebbe Rabbi Yoseph Yitzchak Schneersohn (who had been rescued from Nazi-occupied Warsaw in 1940), appointed him to head the social and educational outreach programs of Chabad-Lubavitch. Thus the Rebbe began his decades-long revolutionary work to revitalize Jewish life in the Western Hemisphere, which spread, by means of the emissaries ("shluchim") he dispatched from his New York headquarters, to every part of the world.
Links:
Inspiring the Jewish American Revolution
World Jewry Thrives Seven Decades After Rebbe’s U.S. Arrival
DAILY QUOTE:
Four things were said regarding bread: One should not place raw meat on top of bread, one should not pass a full cup over bread, one should not throw bread, and one should not prop up his plate with a piece of bread(Talmud, Berachot 50b)
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Chukat, 5th Portion Numbers 20:22-21:9 with Rashi
• Chapter 20
22. They traveled from Kadesh, and the entire congregation of the children of Israel arrived at Mount Hor. כב. וַיִּסְעוּ מִקָּדֵשׁ וַיָּבֹאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּל הָעֵדָה הֹר הָהָר:
the entire congregation: All were perfect, ready to enter the Land. There was not among them even one of those upon whom the decree had been pronounced, for all those destined to die in the desert had already perished, and these were of those about whom it is written, “you… are all alive this day” (Deut. 4:4). - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukath 14, Num. Rabbah 19:16]
כל העדה: כולם שלמים ועומדים להכנס לארץ שלא היה בהן אחד מאותם שנגזרה גזירה עליהם שכבר כלו מתי מדבר, ואלו מאותן שכתוב בהן (דברים ד, ד) חיים כולכם היום:
Mount Hor: A mountain atop a mountain, [appearing like] a small apple atop of big apple. Although the cloud went in front of them and leveled out mountains, three of them remained: Mount Sinai for [the giving of] the Torah, Mount Hor, for the burial of Aaron, and Mount Nebo for the burial of Moses. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukath 14, Num. Rabbah 19:16]
הר ההר: הר על גבי הר כתפוח קטן על גבי תפוח גדול, ואף על פי שהענן הולך לפניהם ומשוה את ההרים, שלשה נשארו בהן הר סיני לתורה והר נבו לקבורת משה והר ההר לקבורת אהרן:
23. The Lord said to Moses and Aaron at Mount Hor, on the border of the land of Edom, saying, כג. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן בְּהֹר הָהָר עַל גְּבוּל אֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם לֵאמֹר:
on the border of the land of Edom: This teaches that because they associated themselves in a close relationship with the wicked Esau, a breach was made in their accomplishments, and they lost this righteous man. Similarly, the prophet said to Jehoshaphat, “When you joined up with Ahaziahu, God has breached your accomplishments” (II Chron. 20: 37). - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukath 14, Num. Rabbah 19:16]
על גבול ארץ אדום: מגיד שמפני שנתחברו כאן להתקרב לעשו הרשע, נפרצו מעשיהם וחסרו הצדיק הזה, וכן הנביא אומר ליהושפט (ד"ה ב' כ, לז) בהתחברך עם אחזיהו פרץ ה' את מעשיך:
24. "Aaron shall be gathered to his people, for he shall not come to the Land which I have given to the children of Israel, because you defied My word at the waters of dispute [Mei Meribah]. כד. יֵאָסֵף אַהֲרֹן אֶל עַמָּיו כִּי לֹא יָבֹא אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל אֲשֶׁר מְרִיתֶם אֶת פִּי לְמֵי מְרִיבָה:
25. Take Aaron and Eleazar his son and ascend Mount Hor. כה. קַח אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת אֶלְעָזָר בְּנוֹ וְהַעַל אֹתָם הֹר הָהָר:
Take Aaron: with words of solace; say to him, “You are fortunate that you can see your crown given over to your son, something I do not merit.” - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukath 17, Num. Rabbah 19:19]
קח את אהרן: בדברי נחומים. אמור לו אשריך שתראה כתרך נתון לבנך מה שאין אני זכאי לכך:
26. Strip Aaron of his garments and dress Eleazar his son with them. Then Aaron shall be gathered in [to his people] and die there. כו. וְהַפְשֵׁט אֶת אַהֲרֹן אֶת בְּגָדָיו וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּם אֶת אֶלְעָזָר בְּנוֹ וְאַהֲרֹן יֵאָסֵף וּמֵת שָׁם:
his garments: He dressed him in the garments of kehunah gedolah and then stripped him of them, to give them to his son in his presence. He told him, “Enter the cave,” and he entered. He saw a ready made bed, and a lighted candle. He told him, “Get up onto the bed,” and he got up. “Stretch out your hands,” and he stretched them out. “Close your mouth,” and he closed it. “Shut your eyes,” and he shut them. At that moment Moses yearned for such a death. This is why it was said to him, “in the way Aaron your brother died” (Deut. 32:50)-a death that you desired. — [Tanchuma Buber p. 132, Sifrei Ha’azinu 49]
את בגדיו: את בגדי כהונה גדולה הלבישהו והפשיטם מעליו לתתם על בנו בפניו. אמר לו הכנס למערה, ונכנס. ראה מטה מוצעת ונר דלוק. אמר לו עלה למטה, ועלה. פשוט ידיך, ופשט. קמוץ פיך, וקמץ. עצום עיניך, ועצם. מיד חמד משה לאותה מיתה, וזהו שנאמר לו (דברים לב, נ) כאשר מת אהרן אחיך, מיתה שנתאוית לה:
27. Moses did as the Lord commanded him. They ascended Mount Hor in the presence of the entire congregation. כז. וַיַּעַשׂ משֶׁה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶל הֹר הָהָר לְעֵינֵי כָּל הָעֵדָה:
Moses did: Although it was difficult for him, he did not hesitate. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukath, Num. Rabbah 19:19]
ויעש משה: אף על פי שהדבר קשה לו לא עכב:
28. Moses then stripped Aaron of his garments and dressed Eleazar his son in them, and Aaron died there on the top of the mountain. [Then] Moses and Eleazar descended from the mountain. כח. וַיַּפְשֵׁט משֶׁה אֶת אַהֲרֹן אֶת בְּגָדָיו וַיַּלְבֵּשׁ אֹתָם אֶת אֶלְעָזָר בְּנוֹ וַיָּמָת אַהֲרֹן שָׁם בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר וַיֵּרֶד משֶׁה וְאֶלְעָזָר מִן הָהָר:
29. The whole congregation saw that Aaron had expired, and the entire house of Israel wept for Aaron for thirty days. כט. וַיִּרְאוּ כָּל הָעֵדָה כִּי גָוַע אַהֲרֹן וַיִּבְכּוּ אֶת אַהֲרֹן שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם כֹּל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל:
The whole congregation saw: When they saw Moses and Eleazar coming down, and Aaron did not come down, they said, “Where is Aaron?” He said to them, “He died.” They said,“Is it possible that the one who stood up against the angel and stopped the plague can be overpowered by the angel of death?” Whereupon Moses asked for mercy, and the ministering angels showed him to them, lying in the bed. They saw [him] and believed. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukath 17, Num. Rabbah 19:20]
ויראו כל העדה וגו': כשראו משה ואלעזר יורדים ואהרן לא ירד, אמרו היכן הוא אהרן. אמר להם מת. אמרו לו אפשר מי שעמד כנגד המלאך ועצר את המגפה ישלוט בו מלאך המות. מיד בקש משה רחמים והראוהו מלאכי השרת להם מוטל במטה, ראו והאמינו:
the entire house of Israel: [both] the men and the women, for Aaron had pursued peace; he promoted love between disputing parties and between man and wife. — [Avoth d’Rabbi Nathan 12:4, Mid. Aggadah]
כל בית ישראל: האנשים והנשים, לפי שהיה אהרן רודף שלום ומטיל אהבה בין בעלי מריבה ובין איש לאשתו:
that [Aaron] had expired: Heb. כִּי גָוַע אַהִרֹן. I say that the one who renders דְּהָא מִית, because [Aaron] had died, is in error, unless he also renders, וַיִּרְאוּ as וְאִתְחֲזִיאוּ,“they [the congregation] were seen” [in the sense of exposed], for our Rabbis’ statement that the word Heb. כִּי is used here in the sense of ‘because’ applies only according to the Midrash [which states] that the clouds of glory departed, and as R. Abahu said,“Do not read וַיִּרְאוּ, they saw, but וַיֵּרָאוּ, they were seen [exposed].” According to this explanation, ‘because’ is appropriate, since it gives the reason for what precedes it: Why were they exposed? Because Aaron had died [and the clouds had departed]. But, according to the Targum’s rendering, וַחֲזוֹ כָּל כְּנִשְׁתָּא, and the whole congregation saw, [the rendering of the word כִּי as] ‘because’ is inapplicable, only it has the meaning of אֲשֶׁר, ‘that’ which is a usage of the word אִי, for we find that אִם [its Hebrew equivalent] can mean ‘that,’ as in,“so that (וְאִם) why should I not be short of breath?” (Job 21:4). And there are many other instances [of the word אִם] in this sense, [as in]“that (אִם) his days are limited” (ibid. 14:5).
כי גוע: אומר אני שהמתרגם דהא מית טועה הוא, אלא אם כן מתרגם ויראו ואתחזיאו, שלא אמרו רבותינו ז"ל כי זה משמש בלשון דהא אלא על מדרש שנסתלקו ענני כבוד, וכדאמר ר' אבהו (ראש השנה ג א), דא"ר אבהו אל תקרי ויראו אלא וייראו ועל לשון זה נופל לשון דהא, לפי שהוא נתינת טעם למה שלמעלה הימנו. למה וייראו, לפי שהרי מת אהרן. אבל על תרגום וחזו כל כנישתא, אין לשון דהא נופל אלא לשון אשר, שהוא מגזרת שמוש אי, שמצינו אם משמש בלשון אשר, כמו (איוב כא ד) ואם מדוע לא תקצר רוחי, והרבה מפורשים כזה הלשון (שם יד, ה) אם חרוצים ימיו:
Chapter 21
1. The Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the south, heard that Israel had come by the route of the spies, and he waged war against Israel and took from them a captive. א. וַיִּשְׁמַע הַכְּנַעֲנִי מֶלֶךְ עֲרָד ישֵׁב הַנֶּגֶב כִּי בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל דֶּרֶךְ הָאֲתָרִים וַיִּלָּחֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּשְׁבְּ | מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁבִי:
The Canaanite… heard: He heard that Aaron had died and that the clouds of glory had departed… as is stated in [Tractate] Rosh Hashanah (3a). Amalek was always a chastising whip for Israel, ready at any time to mete out punishment. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 18, Num. Rabbah 19:20]
וישמע הכנעני: שמע שמת אהרן ונסתלקו ענני כבוד וכו', כדאיתא בר"ה (דף ג א). ועמלק מעולם רצועת מרדות לישראל, מזומן בכל עת לפורענות:
who lived in the south: This refers to Amalek, as it says, “The Amalekites dwell in the south land” (13:29). They changed their language to speak in the language of Canaan so that the Israelites would pray to the Holy One, blessed is He, to deliver the Canaanites into their hands, and [since] they were not Canaanites [their prayers would have no effect]. But Israel saw that they were dressed like Amalekites though they spoke in a Canaanite tongue. So they said, “We will pray generally [for success],” as it says, “If You deliver his people into my hand….” - [Midrash Aggadah , Yalkut Shimoni from Midrash Yelammedenu . Note that in these sources, the Amalekites changed their dress as well, and that version is found also in the Reggio edition of Rashi . The Yemenite manuscript, however, conforms with our reading. See Chavel fn. 87, Yosef Hallel , Leket Bahir fn. ד. See also Num. Rabbah 19:20.]
יושב הנגב: זה עמלק, שנאמר (במדבר יג, כט) עמלק יושב בארץ הנגב. ושנה את לשונו לדבר בלשון כנען, כדי שיהיו ישראל מתפללים להקב"ה לתת כנענים בידם והם אינם כנענים, ראו ישראל לבושיהם כלבושי עמלקים ולשונם לשון כנען, אמרו נתפלל סתם, שנאמר אם נתון תתן את העם הזה בידי:
the route of the spies: Heb. דֶּרֶךְ הָאֲתָרִים, the southern route, taken by the spies (הַתָּרִים), as it says,“They went up in the south” (13:22). Another interpretation: The route of the great guide [the ark] (הַתַּיָּר) which went ahead of them, as it says, “traveled three days ahead of them to seek for them a place to settle” (10:33). - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 18, Num. Rabbah 19:20]
דרך האתרים: דרך הנגב שהלכו בה המרגלים שנאמר (במדבר יג, כב) ויעלו בנגב. דבר אחר דרך האתרים דרך התייר הגדול הנוסע לפניהם, שנאמר (במדבר י, לג) דרך שלשת ימים לתור להם מנוחה:
and took from them a captive: It was only a single maidservant. — [Midrash Aggadah , Yalkut Shimoni from Midrash Yelammedenu]
וישב ממנו שבי: אינה אלא שפחה אחת:
2. Israel made a vow to the Lord, and said, "If You deliver this people into my hand, I shall consecrate their cities." ב. וַיִּדַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶדֶר לַיהֹוָה וַיֹּאמַר אִם נָתֹן תִּתֵּן אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּיָדִי וְהַחֲרַמְתִּי אֶת עָרֵיהֶם:
I shall consecrate: I shall consecrate their spoils to Heaven.
והחרמתי: אקדיש שללם לגבוה:
3. The Lord heard Israel's voice and delivered the Canaanite. He destroyed them and [consecrated] their cities, and he called the place Hormah. ג. וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהֹוָה בְּקוֹל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי וַיַּחֲרֵם אֶתְהֶם וְאֶת עָרֵיהֶם וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם חָרְמָה:
He destroyed them: By execution.
ויחרם אתהם: בהריגה:
and their cities: He consecrated them to Heaven.
ואת עריהם: חרמי גבוה:
4. They journeyed from Mount Hor by way of the Red Sea to circle the land of Edom, and the people became disheartened because of the way. ד. וַיִּסְעוּ מֵהֹר הָהָר דֶּרֶךְ יַם סוּף לִסְבֹב אֶת אֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם וַתִּקְצַר נֶפֶשׁ הָעָם בַּדָּרֶךְ:
by way of the Red Sea: Since Aaron had died, and this war had come upon them, they turned back to the Red Sea route, which is the route they returned to after the decree [because of the sin] of the spies had been issued against them, as it says, “and journey into the desert by way of the Red Sea” (Deut. 1:40). Here they went back seven stations, as it says, “The children of Israel journeyed from the wells of Benei Yaakan to Moserah; there Aaron died” (ibid. 10:6). Did he really die in Moserah? Did he not die at Mount Hor? However, there [in Moserah] they again mourned for him and eulogized him, as if he had died in their presence. Go and study the stations, and you will find that there were seven stations between Moserah and Mount Hor. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 18, Seder Olam ch. 9]
דרך ים סוף: כיון שמת אהרן ובאה עליהם מלחמה זו חזרו לאחוריהם דרך ים סוף, הוא הדרך שחזרו להם כשנגזר עליהם גזירת מרגלים, שנאמר (דברים א, מ) ויסעו המדברה דרך ים סוף. וכאן חזרו לאחוריהם שבע מסעות, שנאמר (שם י, ו) ובני ישראל נסעו מבארות בני יעקן מוסרה שם מת אהרן. וכי במוסרה מת, והלא בהר ההר מת, אלא שם חזרו והתאבלו עליו והספידוהו כאילו הוא בפניהם. וצא ובדוק במסעות ותמצא שבע מסעות מן מוסרה עד הר ההר:
to circle the land of Edom: since they did not allow them to pass through their land.
לסבב את ארץ אדום: שלא נתנם לעבור בארצו:
and the people became disheartened because of the way: Because of the hardship of traveling, which was hard for them. They said, “Now we were so close to entering the Land, and we are turning back. So did our fathers turn back and remain for thirty-eight years, until today.” Therefore, they became disheartened by the hardship of traveling. In old French, encrote lor , or encrut lor, it discouraged them. It is, however, incorrect to say that the people became disheartened בַּדָּרֶךְ, meaning “while on the way,” without explaining what caused them to become disheartened, for whenever קִצּוּר נֶפֶשׁ [literally, shortness of spirit] is mentioned in Scripture, the cause of the discouragement is specified, as in, “I could not tolerate them (וַתִּקְצַר נַפְשִׁי בָּהֶם)” (Zech. 11:8), and as in, “He felt distressed because of the misery of Israel (וַתִּקְצַר נַפְשׁוֹ בַּעֲמַל יִשְׂרָאֵל)” (Jud. 10:16). Anything difficult for a person to bear is called קִצּוּר נֶפֶשׁ, like a person who is beset with trouble, and his mind is not composed enough to accept it. There is no place in his heart for the distress to settle. The thing causing the distress is described as ‘large’ since it is too large for him and weighs heavily on him, as in, “and their souls also loathed Me (בָּחֲלָה בִי)” (Zech. 11:8); they were too much for Me. [And also,] “And it is so great (וְיִגְאֶה) that you hunt me like a lion” (Job 10:16). In summary, the expression shortness of spirit (קִצּוּר נֶפֶשׁ) for a thing, means that it is intolerable, and the mind cannot bear it.
ותקצר נפש העם בדרך: בטורח הדרך שהוקשה להם. אמרו עכשיו היינו קרובים להכנס לארץ ואנו חוזרים לאחורינו כך חזרו אבותינו ונשתהו שלשים ושמונה שנה עד היום, לפיכך קצרה נפשם בעינוי הדרך. ובלשון לע"ז אינקרו"ט לו"ר [נמאס להם] ולא יתכן לומר ותקצר נפש העם בדרך בהיותו בדרך. ולא פירש בו במה קצרה, שכל מקום שתמצא קצור נפש במקרא מפורש שם במה קצרה, כגון (זכריה יא, ח) ותקצר נפשי בהם, וכגון (שופטים י, טז) ותקצר נפשו בעמל ישראל, וכל דבר הקשה על אדם נופל בו לשון קצור נפש, כאדם שהטורח בא עליו ואין דעתו רחבה לקבל אותו הדבר, ואין לו מקום בתוך לבו לגור שם אותו הצער, ובדבר המטריח נופל לשון גודל, שגדול הוא וכבד על האדם, כגון (זכריה יא, ח) וגם נפשם בחלה בי, גדלה עלי, (איוב י, טז) ויגאה כשחל תצודני, כללו של פירוש כל לשון קצור נפש בדבר, לשון שאין יכול לסובלו הוא, שאין הדעת סובלתו:
5. The people spoke against God and against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in this desert, for there is no bread and no water, and we are disgusted with this rotten bread."
ה. וַיְדַבֵּר הָעָם בֵּאלֹהִים וּבְמשֶׁה לָמָה הֶעֱלִיתֻנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לָמוּת בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּי אֵין לֶחֶם וְאֵין מַיִם וְנַפְשֵׁנוּ קָצָה בַּלֶּחֶם הַקְּלֹקֵל:
against God and against Moses: They equated the servant with his Master. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 19, Num. Rabbah 19:21]
בא-להים ובמשה: השוו עבד לקונו:
Why have you brought us up: Both of them [were considered] equal.
למה העליתנו: שניהם שוים:
and we are disgusted: Heb. וְנַפְשֵׁנוּ קָצָה. This too denotes intolerance and loathing.
ונפשנו קצה: אף זה לשון קצור נפש ומאוס:
with this rotten bread: Since the manna was absorbed into their limbs [and not excreted from their bowels], they called it rotten (Mizrachi , or cursed , according to Gur Aryeh.) They said,“This manna will eventually swell up in our stomachs.” Is there any mortal who ingests but does not excrete?- [Yoma 75b, see Rashi there]
בלחם הקלוקל: לפי שהמן נבלע באיברים קראוהו קלוקל. אמרו עתיד המן הזה שיתפח במעינו, כלום יש ילוד אשה שמכניס ואינו מוציא:
6. The Lord sent against the people the venomous snakes, and they bit the people, and many people of Israel died. ו. וַיְשַׁלַּח יְהֹוָה בָּעָם אֵת הַנְּחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים וַיְנַשְּׁכוּ אֶת הָעָם וַיָּמָת עַם רָב מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל:
the venomous snakes: Heb. הַנְּחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים, lit. the burning snakes, [so named] because they ‘burn’ a person with the venom of their fangs. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 19, Num. Rabbah 19:22]
את הנחשים השרפים: ששורפים את האדם בארס שיניהם:
and they bit the people: Let the snake, which was smitten for speaking evil [to Eve] come and punish those who spread slander [about the manna]. Let the snake, for which all types of food taste the same, come and punish those ingrates, for whom one thing [the manna] changes into various tastes. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 19, Num. Rabbah 19:22]
וינשכו את העם: יבא נחש שלקה על הוצאת דבה ויפרע ממוציאי דבה. יבא נחש שכל המינין נטעמים לו טעם אחד ויפרע מכפויי טובה, שדבר אחד משתנה להם לכמה טעמים:
7. The people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord that He remove the snakes from us." So Moses prayed on behalf of the people. ז. וַיָּבֹא הָעָם אֶל משֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ חָטָאנוּ כִּי דִבַּרְנוּ בַיהֹוָה וָבָךְ הִתְפַּלֵּל אֶל יְהֹוָה וְיָסֵר מֵעָלֵינוּ אֶת הַנָּחָשׁ וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל משֶׁה בְּעַד הָעָם:
So Moses prayed: From here [we learn] that someone who is asked to forgive, should not be so cruel so as not to forgive. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 19, Num. Rabbah 19:23]
ויתפלל משה: מכאן למי שמבקשים ממנו מחילה שלא יהא אכזרי מלמחול:
8. The Lord said to Moses, "Make yourself a serpent and put it on a pole, and let whoever is bitten look at it and live. ח. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אֹתוֹ עַל נֵס וְהָיָה כָּל הַנָּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אֹתוֹ וָחָי:
on a pole: Heb. עַל נֵס, on a post, perche in French. Similarly,“and like a flagpole (וְכַנֵּס) on a hill” (Isa. 30:17);“will I raise My standard (נִסִּי) ” (ibid. 49:22);“raise a banner” (נֵס) (ibid. 13:2). Since it stands high, and serves as a signal and is to be seen, it is called נֵס (a sign).
על נס: על כלונס שקורים פירק"א בלע"ז [מוט] וכן (ישעיה ל, יז) וכנס על הגבעה, (שם מט, כב) ארים נסי, (שם יג, ב) שאו נס, ולפי שהוא גבוה לאות ולראיה קוראו נס:
whoever is bitten: Even if a dog or a donkey bit him, he would suffer injury and steadily deteriorate, but a snake bite would kill quickly. That is why it says here [regarding other bites], “will look at it”-a mere glance. But regarding the snake bite it says “he would gaze”-“and whenever a snake bit [a man], he would gaze” (verse 9), for the snake bite would not heal unless one gazed at it [the copper snake] intently (Yer. R.H. 3:9). Our Rabbis said, Does a snake cause death or life? However, when Israel looked heavenward and subjected their hearts to their Father in heaven, they would be healed, but if not, they would waste away. — [R.H. 29a]
כל הנשוך: אפילו כלב או חמור נושכו היה נזוק ומתנונה והולך, אלא שנשיכת הנחש ממהרת להמית, לכך נאמר כאן וראה אותו ראיה בעלמא, ובנשיכת הנחש נאמר והביט, והיה אם נשך הנחש את איש והביט וגו', שלא היה ממהר נשוך הנחש להתרפאות אלא אם כן מביט בו בכוונה. ואמרו רבותינו וכי נחש ממית או מחיה, אלא בזמן שהיו ישראל מסתכלין כלפי מעלה ומשעבדין את לבם לאביהם שבשמים היו מתרפאים, ואם לאו היו נמוקים:
9. Moses made a copper snake and put it on a pole, and whenever a snake bit a man, he would gaze upon the copper snake and live. ט. וַיַּעַשׂ משֶׁה נְחַשׁ נְחשֶׁת וַיְשִׂמֵהוּ עַל הַנֵּס וְהָיָה אִם נָשַׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ אֶת אִישׁ וְהִבִּיט אֶל נְחַשׁ הַנְּחשֶׁת וָחָי:
a copper snake: He was not told to make it of copper, but Moses said,"The Holy One, blessed is He, called it a snake (נָחָשׁ), so I will make it of copper, (נְחשֶׁת), one term similar to the other term. — [Mid. Gen. Rabbah 19:31:8]
נחש נחשת: לא נאמר לו לעשותו של נחשת, אלא אמר משה הקב"ה קוראו נחש, ואני אעשנו של נחושת, לשון נופל על לשון:
-------
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 135 - 139
• Chapter 135
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Name of the Lord; offer praise, you servants of the Lord-
2. who stand in the House of the Lord, in the courtyards of the House of our God.
3. Praise the Lord, for the Lord is good; sing to His Name, for He is pleasant.
4. For God has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel as His beloved treasure.
5. For I know that the Lord is great, our Master is greater than all supernal beings.
6. All that the Lord desired He has done, in the heavens and on earth, in the seas and the depths.
7. He causes mists to rise from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings forth the wind from His vaults.
8. It was He who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, of man and beast.
9. He sent signs and wonders into the midst of Egypt, on Pharaoh and on all his servants.
10. It was He who struck down many nations, and slew mighty kings:
11. Sichon, king of the Amorites; Og, king of Bashan; and all the kingdoms of Canaan.
12. And He gave their lands as a heritage, a heritage to His people Israel.
13. Lord, Your Name is forever; Lord, Your remembrance is throughout all generations.
14. Indeed, the Lord will judge on behalf of His people, and have compassion on His servants.
15. The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the product of human hands.
16. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see;
17. they have ears, but cannot hear; nor is there breath in their mouth.
18. Like them will their makers become-all who trust in them.
19. House of Israel, bless the Lord; House of Aaron, bless the Lord;
20. House of Levi, bless the Lord; you who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.
21. Blessed is the Lord from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 136
This psalm contains twenty-six verses, corresponding to the twenty-six generations between the creation of the world and the giving of the Torah.
1. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is forever.
2. Praise the God of the supernal beings, for His kindness is forever.
3. Praise the Master of the heavenly hosts, for His kindness is forever.
4. Who alone performs great wonders, for His kindness is forever.
5. Who makes the heavens with understanding, for His kindness is forever.
6. Who spreads forth the earth above the waters, for His kindness is forever.
7. Who makes the great lights, for His kindness is forever.
8. The sun to rule by day, for His kindness is forever.
9. The moon and stars to rule by night, for His kindness is forever.
10. Who struck Egypt through its firstborn, for His kindness is forever.
11. And brought Israel out of their midst, for His kindness is forever.
12. With a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, for His kindness is forever.
13. Who split the Sea of Reeds into sections, for His kindness is forever.
14. And brought Israel across it, for His kindness is forever.
15. And cast Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Reeds, for His kindness is forever.
16. Who led His people through the desert, for His kindness is forever;
17. Who struck down great kings, for His kindness is forever.
18. And slew mighty kings, for His kindness is forever.
19. Sichon, king of the Amorites, for His kindness is forever.
20. And Og, king of Bashan, for His kindness is forever.
21. And gave their land as a heritage, for His kindness is forever.
22. A heritage to Israel His servant, for His kindness is forever.
23. Who remembered us in our humiliation, for His kindness is forever.
24. And redeemed us from our oppressors, for His kindness is forever.
25. Who gives food to all flesh, for His kindness is forever.
26. Praise the God of heaven, for His kindness is forever.
Chapter 137
Referring to the time of the destruction of the Temple, this psalm tells of when Nebuchadnezzar would ask the Levites to sing in captivity as they had in the Temple, to which they would reply, "How can we sing the song of God upon alien soil?" They were then comforted by Divine inspiration.
1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept as we remembered Zion.
2. There, upon the willows, we hung our harps.
3. For there our captors demanded of us songs, and those who scorned us-rejoicing, [saying,] "Sing to us of the songs of Zion.”
4. How can we sing the song of the Lord on alien soil?
5. If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [its dexterity].
6. Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I will not remember you, if I will not bring to mind Jerusalem during my greatest joy!
7. Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of [the destruction of] Jerusalem, when they said, "Raze it, raze it to its very foundation!”
8. O Babylon, who is destined to be laid waste, happy is he who will repay you in retribution for what you have inflicted on us.
9. Happy is he who will seize and crush your infants against the rock!
Chapter 138
David offers awesome praises to God for His kindness to him, and for fulfilling His promise to grant him kingship.
1. By David. I will thank You with all my heart, in the presence of princes I shall praise You.
2. I will bow toward Your Holy Sanctuary, and praise Your Name for Your kindness and for Your truth; for You have exalted Your word above all Your Names.
3. On the day that I called out You answered me, You emboldened me, [You put] strength in my soul.
4. Lord, all the kings of the land will give thanks to You when they hear the words of Your mouth.
5. And they will sing of the Lord's ways, for the glory of the Lord is great.
6. For though the Lord is exalted, He sees the lowly; the High One castigates from afar.
7. If I walk in the midst of distress, keep me alive; against the wrath of my enemies stretch out Your hand, and let Your right hand deliver me.
8. Lord, complete [Your kindness] on my behalf. Lord, Your kindness is forever, do not forsake the work of Your hands.
Chapter 139
A most prominent psalm that guides man in the ways of God as no other in all of the five books of Tehillim. Fortunate is he who recites it daily.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O Lord, You have probed me, and You know.
2. You know my sitting down and my standing up; You perceive my thought from afar.
3. You encircle my going about and my lying down; You are familiar with all my paths.
4. For there was not yet a word on my tongue-and behold, Lord, You knew it all.
5. You have besieged me front and back, You have laid Your hand upon me.
6. Knowledge [to escape You] is beyond me; it is exalted, I cannot know it.
7. Where can I go [to escape] Your spirit? And where can I flee from Your presence?
8. If I ascend to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in the grave, behold, You are there.
9. Were I to take up wings as the dawn and dwell in the furthest part of the sea,
10. there, too, Your hand would guide me; Your right hand would hold me.
11. Were I to say, "Surely the darkness will shadow me," then the night would be as light around me.
12. Even the darkness obscures nothing from You; and the night shines like the day-the darkness is as light.
13. For You created my mind; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14. I will thank You, for I was formed in an awesome and wondrous way; unfathomable are Your works, though my soul perceives much.
15. My essence was not hidden from You even while I was born in concealment, formed in the depths of the earth.
16. Your eyes beheld my raw form; all [happenings] are inscribed in Your book, even those to be formed in future days-to Him they are the same.
17. How precious are Your thoughts to me, O God! How overwhelming, [even] their beginnings!
18. Were I to count them, they would outnumber the sand, even if I were to remain awake and always with You.
19. O that You would slay the wicked, O God, and men of blood [to whom I say], "Depart from me!”
20. They exalt You for wicked schemes, Your enemies raise [You] for falsehood.
21. Indeed, I hate those who hate You, Lord; I contend with those who rise up against You.
22. I hate them with the utmost hatred; I regard them as my own enemies.
23. Search me, Lord, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts.
24. See if there is a vexing way in me, then lead me in the way of the world.
-------
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 7
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Thursday, Sivan 28, 5774 • June 26, 2014
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 7
כי מקור החיות הוא רוח פיו של הקב״ה, המתלבש בעשרה מאמרות שבתורה
For the source of the life-force is the “breath of the mouth” of the Holy One, blessed be He; it becomes enclothed in the Ten Utterances of the Torah, from which all created beings come into existence.
ורוח פיו יתברך היה יכול להתפשט לאין קץ ותכלית, ולברוא עולמות אין קץ ותכלית לכמותם ואיכותם, ולהחיותם עדי עד
The “breath of His mouth” could have diffused without end and limit, and created worlds infinite in their quantity and quality, and given [them] life forever, unlike their present state, in which they are limited in all these respects,
ולא היה נברא עולם הזה כלל
and this corporeal world, all of whose beings are limited and finite, would not have been created at all.
It was the contraction of the life-force that made possible the creation of this physical, limited world with its finite creatures.
The reason why the “breath of His mouth” — were it not to have been contracted — would have created worlds without end, is now explained by the Alter Rebbe in the parenthesis.
שכמו שהקב״ה נקרא אין סוף, כך כל מדותיו ופעולותיו, דאיהו וגרמוהי חד
(For just as the Holy One, blessed be He, is called “Infinite”, so are all His attributes and actions [infinite], “for He and His attributes are one”;
דהיינו החיות הנמשך ממדותיו, שהן חסד ורחמים ושאר מדותיו הקדושות, על ידי התלבשותן שמתלבשות ברוח פיו
i.e., the life-force that emanates from His attributes, namely, Kindness and Mercy and His other holy attributes, [emanates from them] through their being enclothed in the “breath of His mouth,” which refers to the Sefirah of Malchut.
כי הוא אמר ויהי
For creation results from G d’s speech and the “breath of His mouth,” as Scripture states,1 “For He spoke — and it came into being.”
ועולם על ידי חסד יבנה
Moreover, creation came about through Chesed, as it is written,2 “The world is built through Chesed,”
But how is it that the world is created both through Chesed and Malchut (the “word of G d”)? This means: the attribute of Chesed vests itself within Malchut,
בדבר ה׳ ורוח פיו, הנעשה כלי ולבוש לחסד זה
so that creation takes place through “the word of G d and the breath of His mouth,” which becomes a vessel and “garment” for this creative attribute of Chesed,3
כהדין קמצא דלבושיה מיניה וביה
“like the snail, whose garment is an integral component of his body.”)
The “word of His mouth” is thus a garment and vessel that unites with the attribute of Chesed, from which the world was created. The life-force emanating from the “breath of His mouth” is thus capable of creating worlds which are infinite both quantitatively and qualitatively.
אלא שצמצם הקב״ה האור והחיות שיוכל להתפשט מרוח פיו
The Holy One, blessed be He, however, contracted the light and life-force that could diffuse from the “breath of His mouth,”
והלבישו תוך צירופי אותיות של עשרה מאמרות וצירופי צירופיהן
and invested it in the combinations of the letters of the Ten Utterances, and the combinations of their combinations,
בחילופי ותמורות האותיות עצמן, ובחשבונן ומספרן
by substitutions and transpositions of the letters themselves and their numerical values and equivalents.
שכל חילוף ותמורה מורה על ירידת האור והחיות ממדרגה למדרגה
For each substitution and transposition indicates the descent of the light and life-force degree by degree,
דהיינו שיוכל לברוא ולהחיות ברואים, שמדרגת איכותם ומעלתם היא פחותה ממדרגת איכות ומעלת הברואים הנבראים מאותיות ותיבות עצמן שבעשרה מאמרות
so that it will be able to create and give life to creatures whose quality and significance is lower than the quality and significance of the creatures created from the very letters and words of the Ten Utterances
שבהן מתלבש הקב״ה בכבודו ובעצמו, שהן מדותיו
within which is enclothed the Holy One, blessed be He, in His Glory and Essence — which are His attributes, since they are one with G d Himself.
FOOTNOTES
1. Tehillim 33:9.
2. Cf. ibid. 89:3.
3. Note of the Rebbe: “As mentioned above, in Part I, end of ch. 21; quoted from Bereishit Rabbah 21:5.”
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah -Sefer Hamitzvos:
Thursday, Sivan 28, 5774 • June 26, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 161
Counting the Omer
"And you shall count for yourselves from the day following the [first day of Passover]"—Leviticus 23:15.
We are commanded to count the omer. Each individual is commanded to count 49 days [from the day when the Omer Offering was brought in the Temple, on the second day of Passover], counting both the days and weeks that have elapsed.
Women are exempt from this mitzvah.
Counting the Omer
Positive Commandment 161
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 161st mitzvah is that we are commanded to count [the days beginning with the offering of] the Omer.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "After the [Passover] holiday you shall then count [seven complete weeks]."
You should keep in mind that just as the court [beis din] is required to count the years of the Jubilee cycle — each year and each Shemitah cycle, as we explained above3 — so too each one of us is required to count the days of the Omer, each day and each week.
[We know that one must count the days] from the verse4 "You shall then count [until5] 50 days." [We know that one must count the weeks] from the verse6 "Count seven weeks for yourself." Just as counting the years and Shemitah cycles is one single commandment, as we explained,7 so too counting the Omer is one single commandment [not two commandments, one for the days and another for the weeks]. All those who preceded me also count it as a single commandment, and did so correctly.8
Do not be misled to consider [the counting of days and weeks as] two commandments because of the statement of our Sages,9 "It is a mitzvah to count the days, and it is a mitzvah to count the weeks."10 [They use the expression, "It is a mitzvah"] because for any mitzvah that has many parts, it is a "mitzvah" [i.e. we are commanded] to do each part. If the Sages would have said, however, "Counting the days is a mitzvah, and counting the weeks is a mitzvah," they would be considered two separate commandments.11 This is clear to anyone who thinks carefully about the wording; because when it is said that there is an "obligation" to do a certain act, that expression doesn't necessarily indicate that it is a separate commandment.
The clear proof of this [i.e. that counting the days and weeks are not separate commandments] is that we count the weeks every single night by saying, "It is this number of weeks and this number of days." If [counting] the weeks would be a separate commandment, [the Sages] would have established them to be counted only on those nights which [complete] the weeks. They also would have established two blessings: "[Blessed are You G‑d, King of the universe,] Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to count the days of the Omer," and, "to count the weeks of the Omer." This is not the case; rather the mitzvah is to count the days and weeks of the Omer as was commanded.
Women are not obligated in this commandment.12
FOOTNOTES
1.P44, i.e. the 16th of Nissan.
2.Lev. 23:15.
3.P140.
4.Lev. 23:16.
5.But not including the 50th day, i.e. 49 days.
6.Deut. 16:9.
7.P140.
8.See the Seventh Introductory Principle, where the Rambam notes that other lists of the 613 commandments often erroneously count the components of a single commandment as separate commandments.
9.Rosh HaShanah 5a; Chagigah 17b; Menachos 66a.
10.Since they use the phrase, "It is a mitzvah to count the days, and it is a mitzvah to count the weeks" (rather than saying, "It is a mitzvah to count the days and the weeks"), one might think that each counts as a separate mitzvah from the count of 613. The Rambam explains that this phrase only clarifies our obligation to count both, but does not establish them as separate commandments.
11.This is in accordance with the Rambam's principle that wherever the Sages say clearly that the commandments count separately, even parts of a mitzvah are counted as separate commandments.
12.Since it is a time-bound commandment.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 140
Eating the Flesh of an Animal that was Disqualified as a Sacrifice
"You shall not eat any abominable [food]"—Deuteronomy 14:3.
It is forbidden to eat of the flesh of an animal that was designated as a sacrifice and then became disqualified under certain conditions. Such as, if the animal was intentionally blemished so as to invalidate it as a sacrifice, or if after it was slaughtered (in the Temple) it became disqualified for offering on the altar.
Eating the Flesh of an Animal that was Disqualified as a Sacrifice
Negative Commandment 140
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 140th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating those invalid sacrifices which may not be eaten. This is when there is a blemish which was inflicted intentionally, as explained in tractate Bechoros,1 or when, after it was slaughtered, the sacrifice became invalid in a way that prohibits its consumption.
The source of this commandment is the verse,2 "Do not eat any abomination."
The Sifri says, "The verse, 'Do not eat any abomination,' refers to invalid sacrifices." It also says there, "R. Eliezer ben Yaakov says, 'What is the source in Scripture that one who blemishes the ear of a firstborn animal3 and eats from it transgresses a prohibition? It is the verse, 'Do not eat any abomination.'"
One who eats [from such a sacrifice] is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in tractate Bechoros.
FOOTNOTES
1.34a ff.
2.Deut. 14:3.
3.P79.
________________________________________
Rambam:• 1 Chapter: Sheluchin veShuttafin Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Four
Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Four
Halacha 1
When partners desire to establish a partnership, how does each one acquire the assets invested by his colleague, so that they are considered partners? If they desire to establish a partnership with money, each one should bring his money and place it in a common pouch. Then each of them lifts up the pouch.
If, however, they composed a legal document detailing the partnership and had witnesses testify that they both performed a kinyan chalifin that each will bring 100 zuz for the partnership, the agreement is not binding and the partnership has not yet been established, for money is not acquired through chalifin.
Therefore, if they established their partnership with regard to other movable property, when they entered into a kinyan that one would bring his barrel of wine and the other his jug of honey and they would become partners, the partnership is established in this manner. Similarly, if they mixed their produce together or hired a property in partnership, and one left the jug and the other the barrel with which they desired to act as partners, the partnership is established.
The general principle is: All the means of acquisition that a purchaser employs to acquire property can be used by partners to acquire the assets that are contributed to the partnership.
Halacha 2
When craftsmen join together in a professional partnership, even though they perform a kinyan with each other, they are not considered partners.
What is implied? If two tailors or two weavers stipulate between themselves that whatever either of them earns will be divided between them equally, they are not considered partners. For a person cannot transfer ownership to a colleague of an article that does not yet exist. If, however, they purchase the cloth for the garments with their common funds, sew them and sell them, or purchase the woof and warp with their common funds, weave garments and sell them, and a partnership has been established through the use of the money, they are partners. Whatever they earn as payment for their work and their commercial activity is divided equally.
Halacha 3
When three partners enter into a partnership, one investing a maneh, the second 200 zuz, and the third 300, and they all do business with the money, whether they profit or lose, the profit or loss is divided among them according to their number, not according to the size of their investments. Even if they purchase a bull for slaughter in which instance, if they slaughter it, each one of them would take a portion of its flesh according to the size of his investment. If they sell the bull while it is alive and profit or lose, the profit or loss is divided equally among the partners.
When does the above apply? When they bought and sold with the money of the partnership. If, however, the money still exists within the treasury of the partnership, and was not spent, but its value rose or dropped because of currency fluctuations depending on the ruling authority or the local populace, the profit or the loss is divided according to the amount of money invested.
When does the above apply? When the partners entered into the partnership without making a specific agreement. If, however, it was stipulated that the person who invested 100 zuz should receive three fourths of the profit, and the person who invested 200, one fourth, and if they lose the person who would be given three fourths of the profit would not suffer more than one fourth of the loss, and the one who would gain one fourth of the profit should suffer three fourths of the loss, the money is divided according to their stipulation. For every stipulation made with regard to financial matters is binding.
Halacha 4
When partners make a stipulation that they continue in the partnership for a specific duration of time, each them can prevent his colleague from dissolving the partnership. Neither one can withdraw until the set time arrives or the money in the partnership is exhausted. Neither can take his portion of the principal or of the profit until the end of that time.
If they established a partnership without making a stipulation and without establishing a set time, they may dissolve the partnership whenever any of them desires. This one should take his portion of the merchandise from the partnership, and this one should take his portion. If the merchandise is of the type that cannot be divided, or if making the division would cause a loss, the article should be sold and the money should be divided.
If there was a time when the merchandise of the partnership would ordinarily be sold, each partner can prevent his colleague from dissolving the partnership until the merchandise will be sold at the known time for such merchandise to be sold. Neither can take his portion of the principal or of the profit until the time of the division, unless a stipulation was made between them.
If the partnership was owed a debt by others, one partner cannot tell the other: "Let us not dissolve the partnership until we collect all the debts that are owed to us." Instead, the assets of the partnership should be divided. When the debts are repaid, each one should be given his portion.
The following rules apply when, by contrast, the partnership owes a debt to another person. If they are not responsible for each other, they should divide the assets of the partnership, and when the time for the debt comes, each one should pay his portion of the debt.
If they are responsible for each other, each one can prevent the other from dissolving the partnership until the time when the promissory note comes due and the debt is repaid. Why is each one given this right? Because one colleague can tell the other: "Since each of us can be required to pay the entire promissory note, let us continue to do business with the money until the date of payment comes."
If his colleague tells him: "Let us divide the assets, and you can receive all the money for the promissory note. Do business by yourself and pay the note when it comes due," the other colleague may still impede, saying "Maybe I will lose, for two people make greater profit than one."
Halacha 5
When a person gives a colleague money to go to a different country and buy merchandise, buy produce to sell as merchandise, or buy and sell merchandise while sitting in a store, the person who took the money may not retract and return the money to his partner until he goes to the place where the stipulation was made and returns, buys the produce and sells it, or sits in the store. The rationale is that this is considered as if he fixed a time to sell the merchandise.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Temidin uMusafim Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 9, Temidin uMusafim Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 10, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 1
Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
On the first day of Tishrei,1 for the additional offering of the day,2 we offer a bull, a ram, seven sheep, all as burnt-offerings and a goat as a sin-offering.3 This is the additional offering of the day aside from the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh that is offered on every Rosh Chodesh.4 Therefore [if that date] fell on the Sabbath, three additional offerings were brought: the additional offering of the Sabbath, the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh, and the additional offering of that date.
Halacha 2
What is the order in which they were offered? First they would offer the additional offering of the Sabbath, then the additional offering of the new month, and then the additional offering of the festival.5 [The rationale is that any offering brought] more frequently than another takes precedence over the other one.6 Similarly, if [an offering] is on a higher level of holiness than another one, it takes precedence over it.7If one has a choice of [an offering that] is brought more frequently and one which is on a higher level of holiness, one may award precedence to whichever one desires.8
Halacha 3
If one transgressed and slaughtered [an animal for an offering that was] not [brought] more frequently or one which was on a lower level of holiness first, one should offer it [on the altar]9 and then slaughter the one [brought] more frequently or one which was on a higher level of holiness.
Halacha 4
If the two [animals]10 were slaughtered at the same time,11 one should stir the blood [of the one that is less frequent or less holy] until the blood of the one that is more frequent or holier is sprinkled [on the altar].
Halacha 5
The blood of a sin-offering is given precedence12 over the blood of a burnt-offering, because the blood of a sin-offering brings atonement.13 [The offering of] the limbs of a burnt-offering take precedence over offering the fats and organs of a sin-offering, because a burnt-offering is consumed entirely by fire.14
[If one must choose] between the blood of a sin-offering15 or the limbs of a burnt-offering,16 one may give precedence to whichever one desires. Similarly, [if one must choose] between the blood of a burnt-offering and the fat and organs of a sin-offering17 or the blood of a burnt-offering and the blood of a guilt-offering,18 one may give precedence to whichever one desires.
Halacha 6
A sin-offering takes precedence over a burnt-offering.19 Even a sin-offering of a fowl takes precedence over a burnt-offering of an animal, as [Leviticus 5:8 which] states: "[who shall offer] the sin offering first." This is a general principal teaching that every sin-offering takes precedence over the burnt-offering that accompanies it. Similarly, when setting aside [animals for sacrifices], one should set aside the animal to be offered as a sin-offering and then the one to be offered as a burnt-offering.
Halacha 7
This does not apply with regard to the sacrifices of the holiday [of Sukkot].20 They are sacrificed in the order that they are mentioned in the Torah, for [Numbers 29:33] states: "according to their ordinance."
What is implied? At first the bulls [should be offered], after them the rams, and after them, the goats even though the goats are sin-offerings and those which preceded them are burnt-offerings.
Similarly, with regard to the burnt-offering of a bull and the sin-offering of a goat the community brings to atone for the inadvertent transgression [of the prohibitions] against the worship of false deities,21 the bull is given precedence, because [ibid. 15:24] states: "according to the ordinance."
The bull offered by the anointed priest22 is given precedence over the bull offered [to atone] for an inadvertent transgression by the community.23 The latter sacrifice takes precedence over the bull [offered to atone] for the worship of false deities.24The latter sacrifice takes precedence over the goat offered with it. Even though the bull is a burnt-offering and the goat is a sin-offering,25 [the bull is given precedence], for this is the order of the verses in the Torah.
The goat brought [to atone for] idolatry takes precedence over the goat brought by a king,26 for the king is one individual.27 The goat brought by a king takes precedence over the she-goat brought by an ordinary individual.28 The she-goat brought by a private individual takes precedence over a ewe,29 even though they are both sin-offerings. For a she-goat is fit to be brought [to atone] for [all] sins for which one is liable for karet for which a sin-offering is brought and the ewe may not be brought [to atone] for the inadvertent transgression of the prohibitions of idolatry.
Halacha 8
Even the sin-offering of a fowl brought by a woman after childbirth30 takes precedence over the sheep she brings.31 A sin-offering takes precedence over a guilt-offering, because its blood is applied to the four corners [of the altar] and on its base.32 All of the sin-offerings mentioned in the Torah take precedence over all of the guilt-offerings with the exception of the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted by tzaraat, because it comes to make a person fit.33
A guilt-offering takes precedence over a thanksgiving-offering and the ram brought by a nazirite, because it is a sacrifice of the most sacred order.34 A thanksgiving-offering and the ram brought by a nazirite take precedence over a peace-offering, because they may be eaten for only one day and require that bread bey brought with them. A thanksgiving-offering takes precedence over the ram of a nazirite, because it must be brought with four types of meal-offerings.35
A peace-offering takes precedence over a firstborn offering, because it requires two presentations of blood which are in fact four,36 leaning on the animal,37 waving the offering,38 and accompanying offerings.39 The firstborn offering takes precedence over the tithe offering, because it is sanctified from the womb and may be eaten only by priests.40
The tithe offering takes precedence over fowl41 because it involves ritual slaughter and it has an element of the most sacred order: its blood and the fats and organs are offered on the altar.42 Sacrifices of fowl take precedence over meal-offerings, for [they involve offering] blood.
If a person has a sin-offering of fowl, a tithe offering, and a burnt-offering of an animal [to sacrifice], since the burnt-offering takes precedence over the tithe offering and the sin-offering of the fowl takes precedence over the burnt-offering,43 he should sacrifice the sin-offering of the fowl first, then the burnt-offering and then the tithe offering.44
Halacha 9
When a person has several types of animals from one type of sacrifice,45in which order should they be offered? Bulls take precedence over rams, for their accompanying offerings are larger.46 Rams take precedence over sheep for the same reason. Sheep take precedence over goats, because they have more fats and organs offered on the altar, because the fat-tail is among the organs of the sheep offered and the goats do not have a fat-tail.47
The omer offering takes precedence over the sheep offered with it. The loaves take precedence to the two sheep [offered with them]. This is the general principle: An entity offered because of the day48 takes precedence over an entity brought because of the bread.49
Halacha 10
A meal-offering brought by a male takes precedence over one brought by a female.50 A meal-offering of wheat51 takes precedence over a meal-offering of barley.52 A meal-offering brought as a sin-offering takes precedence over a meal-offering brought as a free-will offering, because it comes [as atonement] for sin. With regard to a meal-offering brought as a free-will offering and the meal-offering of a sotah, one may give precedence to whichever one desires.53
Halacha 11
Meal-offerings receive precedence over wine libations.54 Wine libations receive precedence over oil.55 Oil receives precedence over frankincense.56 Frankincense receives precedence over salt57 and salt receives precedence over wood.58
When does the above apply? When they are all brought at the same time. When, however, a sacrifice is brought first, it is offered first and one which is brought last, is offered last.59
Halacha 12
All [the sacrifices] that receive precedence with regard to being offered also receive precedence with regard to being eaten.
Halacha 13
If a person had before him a peace-offering that had been sacrificed on the previous day60 and one that was offered the present day, the one offered on the previous day is given precedence, because the limit [until when it may be eaten] is closer.61 If one has a peace-offering from the previous day and a sin-offering or a guilt-offering from the present day,62 the sin-offering and the guilt-offering take precedence, because they are sacrifices of the most sacred order, as we explained.63
FOOTNOTES
1.Which is Rosh HaShanah. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 47) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 312) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.Although at present - and as explained in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:8, even at times in the Talmudic era - Rosh HaShanah was observed for two days, sacrifices were offered only on the day consecrated as the first of Tishrei.
3.See Numbers 29:1-5.
4.See Chapter 7, Halachah 1.
5.I.e., Rosh HaShanah.
6.Zevachim 89a derives this from the fact that Numbers 28:23 refers to the "the morning offering that is the continuous offering." The latter phrase teaches that it is given precedence because it is a continuous offering, brought every day.
7.For example, as stated in Halachah 5, since it brings about atonement, the blood of a sin-offering is considered as on a higher level of holiness than the blood of a burnt-offering. Hence, it is given precedence.
8.Zevachim 90b debates which of the two should be given precedence without resolving the matter. Hence, it is left to an individual's choice (Kessef Mishneh).
9.Lest its blood coagulate before the other animal was offered.
10.One from a sacrifice offered more frequently and one from a sacrifice offered less frequently or one on a higher level of holiness and one on a lower level.
11.More precisely, whenever the animal from the more frequent or holier offering was slaughtered before the blood of the other was sprinkled on the altar (see Radbaz).
12.I.e., this and the following instance exemplify the principle that an offering that is holier than another receives precedence over it.
13.While a burnt-offering, by contrast, is considered merely as a present to God (Zevachim 7b).
14.And hence is considered as holier.
15.As mentioned in the notes to the following halachah, this is speaking about a situation where both animals were already slaughtered.
16.Since each has a positive quality, neither is considered as holier than the other.
17.In this situation, neither possesses a distinctive positive quality in and of itself. Instead, the blood of the burnt-offering is secondary to its limbs and the fats and organs of the sin-offering are secondary to its blood.
18.Zevachim 89b states that the blood of a guilt-offering is not on the same level of holiness as that of a sin-offering. According to the Rambam's version, there is an unresolved question which is holier, its blood or that of a burnt-offering (Radbaz).
19.Rav Yosef Corcus understands this as referring to the slaughter of the sin-offering. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh ask: Since we know that a sin-offering receives precedence, why was it necessary to state previously that the blood of a sin-offering is given precedence? They explain that the previous halachah is speaking about a situation when both animals were already slaughtered and the question is which blood should be given precedence.
20.See Chapter 10, Halachot 3-4, where these offerings are described.
21.See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1 where these offerings are described.
22.The High Priest. As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 1:4; 15:1-2, when a High Priest inadvertently transgresses and violates a sin other than idol worship.
23.As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 12:1 if the High Court errs in the issuance of a halachic warning and causes the people at large to sin, each tribe is required to bring a bull as a sin-offering.
Horiot 13a derives the sequence of these offerings from Leviticus 4:21 which describes the bull brought by the High Priest as "the first bull." Our Sages understood that as implying that it is given precedence. Moreover, they maintain that it is logical to assume that the High Priest's offering should be given precedence, for he is the one who offers the bull on behalf of the community. Hence first he should atone for himself and then, offer atonement for the community.
24.When the community violates a transgression involving the worship of false deities due to an erroneous ruling by the High Court, each tribe must bring a burnt-offering of a bull and a sin-offering of a goat (Hilchot Shegagot, loc. cit.). Since this bull is a burnt-offering, the bull brought to atone for other transgressions is given precedence.
25.And sin-offerings should be given precedence, as stated in the preceding halachah.
26.As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 1:4, when a king sins and inadvertently performs a transgression punishable by karet other than idolatry. He must bring a goat as a sin-offering.
27.While the goat brought to atone for idolatry is brought on behalf of a tribe as a whole.
28.As a sin-offering. Hilchot Shegagot, loc. cit., states that an ordinary individual who performs a transgression punishable by karet must bring either a she-goat or a ewe as a sin-offering. The sin-offering brought by a king receives precedence, for his sacrifice is associated with his elevated position.
29.A she-goat can be brought to atone for all transgressions, including idolatry, while a ewe may not be brought for idolatry. This indicates that the goat is of greater power.
30.This offering is singled out, because it is not brought to atone for any particular transgression (Kessef Mishneh).
31.As related in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:2, after childbirth, in order to be able to partake of sacrificial foods, a woman must bring a dove or turtle-dove as a sin-offering and a sheep as a burnt-offering. Since the fowl is a sin-offering, it is given precedence.
32.See the description of the presentation of the blood of a sin-offering in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7. There are, by contrast, only two presentations of the blood of a guilt-offering on the altar (ibid. :6). Hence the sin-offering is given precedence.
33.As explained in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 10:5), this sacrifice enables the person to regain his ritual purity. Afterwards, he may enter the Temple Courtyard and partake of sacrificial foods. The order of the sacrifices brought by a person after he being healed from a tzara'at affliction is described in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.
34.While the latter two are considered as sacrifices of lesser sanctity.
35.The offering of these three types of sacrifices and the breads that accompany them are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh Korbanot, ch. 9. The fact that the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite's ram are eaten for only one day and a night indicate a higher level of holiness for those restrictions are also placed on a sin-offering and a guilt-offering which are sacrifices of the most sacred order (Radbaz). The inclusion of breads in these offerings also points to their importance.
36.The presentation of the blood on the altar for these sacrifices is described in ibid.:6.
37.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 3, which describes this practice.
38.The waving of the peace-offering is described in ibid. 9:6-8.
39.The obligation to bring accompanying offerings is mentioned in ibid., ch. 2. None of these rites are associated with the firstborn offering. Its blood is only poured out at the base of the altar (ibid. 5:17); it does not require the owner to lean upon it (ibid. 3:6); nor is it waved; nor are accompanying offerings brought with it (see (ibid. 2:2).
40.Both of these factors indicate a higher level of holiness.
41.I.e., sin-offerings and burnt-offerings brought from turtle doves and ordinary doves.
42.In contrast, when a fowl is brought as an offering, only its blood is offered on the altar.
43.As stated in Halachah 6.
44.I.e., were he not to have brought the burnt-offering, the tithe offering would have been sacrificed first, but because he brought it, the entire order is rearranged.
45.E.g., they are all burnt-offerings or sin-offerings.
46.As indicated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:4.
47.See ibid. 1:18.
48.I.e., the omer offering and the two loaves.
49.The sheep mentioned above.
50.This also applies to animal offerings brought by males (Radbaz).
51.Brought as a sin-offering, as evident from the concluding clause of the halachah.
52.I.e., the sotah offering, for this is the only individual meal-offering brought from barley. Wheat is a more important grain and hence, its offerings are given precedence.
53.For each have a positive quality lacking in the other. The free-will offering is brought together with frankincense and oil, but the sotah offering comes to clarify whether a transgression was performed (Menachot 90a).
54.For the meal-offering is called a "sacrifice" and the wine libation is not (Radbaz). Alternatively, a handful of meal is sprinkled on the altar's pyre, while the wine is merely poured down the shittin, holes on the base of the altar.
55.For the wine libations are poured out separately, while oil is always offered with other sacrifices (Radbaz). Alternatively, the majority of the oil is eaten by the priests, while the wine libations are poured on the altar in their entirety.
56.Because the minimum quantity of oil is larger than the minimum quantity of frankincense (Or Sameach).
57.The Radbaz questions the Rambam's statements, noting that nowhere does the Rambam mention offering salt as an independent offering.
58.For salt is associated with the sacrifices by the Torah (Leviticus 2:13), while wood is called a sacrifice only by Scripture (Nechemiah 10:35, see Kiryat Sefer).
59.This principle applies to all the above situations.
60.Peace-offerings may be eaten for two days and one night.
61.For the peace-offering sacrificed on the present day may also be eaten at night and on the following day, while the one offered the previous day must be completed by sunset.
62.In which instance, one must complete eating both before sunset.
63.Halachah 8; see also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:17.
Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
On the fast day of Yom Kippur an additional offering is offered like that of Rosh HaShanah:1 a bull and a ram - this ram is called "the ram of the people"2 - and seven sheep. All are burnt-offerings. A goat [is brought as] a sin-offering and it is eaten in the evening.3
Halacha 2
In addition, the community offers another goat as a sin-offering, it is burnt.4 Its pair is the goat sent to Azazel.5
Halacha 3
On the first day of the Sukkot festival, the following are brought as the additional offering of the day: thirteen bulls, two rams, and fourteen sheep. All are burnt offerings. And a goat which is eaten [is brought as] a sin-offering.6 Similarly, on all the seven days of [the Sukkot] festival, two rams, fourteen sheep, and a sin-offering of a goat are offered.
Halacha 4
The number of bulls [offered], however, is decreased each day.7 On the second day, twelve bulls are offered, on the third eleven,... until on the seventh day, seven bulls, two rams, and fourteen sheep are all brought as burnt-offerings and a goat is brought as a sin-offering.
Halacha 5
On Shemini Atzeret,8 the following are brought as the additional offering of the day: a bull, a ram, and seven sheep. All are burnt offerings. And a goat [is brought as] a sin-offering.9 This is a separate offering in its own right.10
Halacha 6
On all the seven days of the [Sukkot] festival, a water libation is poured on the altar.11 This practice is a halachah communicated to Moses on [Mount] Sinai.12The water was poured as a separate libation together with the morning wine libation.13
Halacha 7
If one poured the water into the wine or the wine into the water and then poured the two of them as a libation from a single utensil, the obligation is fulfilled.14 If the water libation was offered before the [daily] sacrifice - indeed, even if it was offered at night - the obligation is fulfilled.15
The libation was poured at the southwest corner, above the mid-point of the altar, and then it would all descend to the shittin,16 as we explained.17 How was it offered? He would fill a golden vessel that contains three lugin18 from the Shiloach stream.19When they reached the Water Gate,20 tekiah, teruah,, and tekiah blasts are sounded.21 [The priest] would ascend the ramp and turn to his left22 and pour the water into a cup that was positioned there. For there were two silver cups there.23 The water [was poured] into the western one and the wine libation [was poured] into the eastern one. They were pierced with two small holes like two small nostrils. The hole for [the cup] of water was thinner than that for the wine so that the water would conclude flowing together with the wine.
Halacha 8
They would tell [the priest] who would pour the water libation: "Lift up your hands,"24 because once [a priest] poured [the water] on his feet,25 and the entire nation stoned him with their esrogim. For they said: "He was a Sadducee,"26 for they say that there is no water libation.
Halacha 9
[The water libation] was performed on the Sabbath in the same manner in which it was performed during the week, except that on Friday, a golden jug that was not a sacrificial vessel27 was filled28 [with water] and left in the chamber. On the morrow, [the pitcher used for the libation] was filled from it.29
Halacha 10
If the water was spilled or was uncovered,30 one should fill [the pitcher] from the basin and pour the libation.
Halacha 11
On every day of the Sukkot festival, a separate song31 was recited for the Musaf offering. On the first day of Chol HaMoed, they would say: "Render to God, children of the mighty..." (Psalm 29).32 On the second [day of Chol HaMoed], they would say "And to the wicked, God said..." (Psalm 50).33 On the third, they would say: "Who will stand up for me against the wicked?..." (ibid. 94:16).34 On the fourth, they would say: "Understand, you senseless among the people..." (ibid.:5).35 On the fifth, they would say: "I removed his shoulder from the burden" (ibid. 81:7).36 On the sixth, they would say: "All the foundations of the earth tremble" (ibid. 82:5).37 If the Sabbath falls on one of [the days of Chol HaMoed, the verses beginning] "All the foundations tremble" are superseded [by the song for the additional offering of the Sabbath].38
Halacha 12
We have already explained39 that there are a total of 24 priestly watches and they all serve with equal rights during the festivals. On the holiday of Sukkot, each watch would offer [only] one bull, one ram, or a goat as a sin-offering. With regard to the sheep, however, [there was a difference]. There were watches which would offer two sheep and there were watches that would offer one.
What is implied? On the first day of the festival of Sukkot, there are thirteen bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for eight watches. Six watches offer two sheep and two watches offer one.
On the second day, there are twelve bulls,40 two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for nine watches. Five watches offer two sheep and four watches offer one.
On the third day, there are eleven bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for ten watches. Four watches offer two sheep and six watches offer one.
On the fourth day, there are ten bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for eleven watches. Three watches offer two sheep and eight watches offer one.
On the fifth day, there are nine bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for twelve watches. Two watches offer two sheep and ten watches offer one.
On the sixth day, there are eight bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for thirteen watches. One watch offers two sheep and twelve watches offer one.
On the seventh day, there are seven bulls, two rams, a goat, and fourteen sheep, [an amount of animals] equivalent to the number of watches. Each watch offers one animal.
Halacha 13
Whichever watch offered a bull one day did not offer a bull the next day. Instead, they would rotate. On the eighth day,41 they allot them through a lottery42 in which all watches are equal,43 as we explained.44
Halacha 14
When the first day of the festival of Sukkot fell on the Sabbath, there would be 61 esronim of accompanying meal-offerings from the additional offerings and the continuous offerings.45 They would not be mixed together.
Halacha 15
The accompanying meal-offerings46 are never mixed together.47Instead, the accompanying offerings of bulls [are prepared and offered] separately, those of rams separately, and those of sheep separately.48 [This applies] both with regard to communal offerings and individual offerings.
Halacha 16
All of the fats of the sacrifices [that are to be offered on the altar] - whether from communal sacrifices or from individual sacrifices - should not be mixed with each other.49 Instead, the fats and the organs of each sacrifice are offered on the altar's pyre separately. If, however, they become mixed together, they may be offered all as one.
Halacha 17
If the meal-offerings of the accompanying offerings become intermingled after each type50 was mixed with oil separately,51 they are acceptable.
Halacha 18
Since the meal-offerings were mixed together and their oil and meal have become intermingled, it is permissible to mix their wine [libations] together as an initial preference. Similarly, if the meal-offerings of the accompanying offerings were already offered, each one separately, it is permissible to mix their wine [libations] together.52
Halacha 19
When the wine-libations of the accompanying offerings are mixed together, it is permissible to mix a wine libation of a sacrificed offered on the previous day with one offered on the present day53 or those of an individual offering with those of a communal offering.
When one mixes together [wine libations], he may mix the wine libations of the accompanying offerings of bulls with those of the accompanying offerings of rams, or those of the accompanying offerings of sheep with others of the accompanying offerings of sheep. One should not, however, mix the wine libations of the accompanying offerings of sheep with those of bulls or rams.
Halacha 20
As an initial preference, one should not mix wine [libations] unless the meal-offerings have been mixed together or they have been offered, as we explained.54
Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 48) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 314) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:7-8.
2.In the Mishnah (Yoma 7:3). This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi (Yoma 70b) who maintains that the ram mentioned in Leviticus 16:5 is the same mentioned in Numbers. See also Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1.
3.After the conclusion of the fast.
4.See Leviticus 16:27; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:16.
5.As mentioned in Leviticus 16:5-9. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim, ch. 3, for a description of the service performed with these goats.
6.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 50) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 320) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:12-34.
7.The fact that the sacrifices of each day of Sukkot differ from each other endow the days of the holiday with an advantage over the days of the holiday of Pesach. For that reason, the full Hallel is recited on each of the days of Sukkot, while this is not true with regard to Pesach. Nevertheless, the fact that the sacrifices differ is not sufficient for each day to be considered a separate mitzvah.
8.Literally, "the eighth day of assembly."
9.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 51) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 322) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:35-38.
10.I.e., it is not a continuation of the Sukkot offerings. As Rosh HaShanah 4b, et al, state there are six aspects in which Shemini Atzeret is considered as an independent festival. One of them is that it has its own sacrifice.
11.In connection with the water libation, a special celebration, Simchat Beit HaShoevah was held in the Temple Courtyard. The Rambam describes that celebration and the immensity of the joy expressed at that time at the conclusion of Hilchot Shofar Sukkah VeLulav. Interestingly, however, in that source, he does not associate the celebration with the water libation and here, he does not mention the celebration.
12.A practice that is part of the Oral Law, but is not specifically mentioned in the Written Law. As the Rambam mentions in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:8), there are allusions to this practice in the Written Law.
13.I.e., initially, this is the preferred manner of observing the mitzvah.
14.I.e., after the fact; the initial preference is that each be poured separately as the Rambam proceeds to explain. The Radbaz explains that since ultimately, when the wine and the water reach the shittin, they will be mixed together, after the fact, it is acceptable if they were mixed together initially.
15.As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:5, libations offered in connection with a sacrifice must be offered by day, but those offered independently may be offered at night.
16.See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11 which explains that these were two cavities in the southwest corner of the Altar, through which the blood would run off and flow through the drainage canal and from there, to the Kidron River.
17.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1 and the discussion of the Rambam's ruling by the other commentaries.
18.A log is 346 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.
19.A stream that is located on the southern side of the Temple Mount.
20.One of the gates located on the south side of the Temple Courtyard. It was given its name, because the water for the libation was brought in through it.
21.See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 7:6.
22.Usually, the priests would circle the altar, turning first to the right. In this instance, they would turn to the left lest the smoke affect the water and the wine (Sukkah 48b; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:11).
23.In his gloss to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1, the Kessef Mishneh states that these cups were not a permanent part of the altar, but placed there only during the Sukkot holiday.
24.So that it would be obvious that he is pouring the water in the altar's cups (Rav Yosef Corcus).
25.Rather than on the altar.
26.Lit., "a follower of Tzadok." The Sadducees represented a splinter group within Judaism. They accepted the Written Law, but not the Oral Law. [In truth, they wanted to abandon Jewish practice entirely, but realized that they could never attract a large number of followers with such an approach and hence, adopted this ruse (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 1:3)]. Since the water libation is not explicitly stated in the Written Law, the Sadducees did not accept its validity.
27.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:9), the Rambam gives an original interpretation for the reason the water should not be held in a sacred vessel. Were it to be held in a sacred vessel, it would be possible that the priests would sanctify their hands with it. Thus they would perform that rite with water that was not consecrated or would use up the water and prevent it from being used for the libation (Rav Kappach's notes to that mishnah). This represents a different approach than that of the other commentaries.
28.With water from the Shiloach Stream.
29.This change was necessary, for going down to fill the pitcher with water from the stream was forbidden on the Sabbath, because one would be carrying from a public domain to a private domain.
30.Water that was uncovered is unacceptable as a libation, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:10.
31.I.e., in addition to the song recited for the daily sacrifice. See also Chapter 6, Halachot 8-9 which describe the Levites' songs.
32.This psalm contains the verse "The voice of God is upon the water" and thus is appropriate to mark the beginning of the offering of the water libation (see Sukkah 55a).
33.This psalm warns of coming to the Temple to celebrate and offer sacrifices without first repenting (Rashi, Sukkah, op. cit.).
34.From this verse until the end of the psalm. These verses were chosen, because they speak of confronting wicked powers. Our Sages ordained that it be recited in the Second Temple period when the Temple was under the authority of Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers (ibid.).
35.I.e., from verse 5 until verse 16. These verses speak about God's watchful eye that surveys man's actions. These verses were chosen, because Sukkot marks the end of the harvest season when the agricultural gifts must be given to the poor. These verses serve as a warning, impressing the people with the awareness that God is observing them at all times and seeing whether they give these gifts or not.
36.Until the end of the psalm. These verses contain words of comfort and the reassurance of Divine blessings.
37.These verses speak of Divine judgement and Hoshaana Rabbah, the day on which these verses are recited marks the conclusion of the judgment begun on Rosh HaShanah.
38.The song for the additional offering of the Sabbath (a portion of the song Ha'azinu, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 9) is recited on that day and the songs for the remaining days are pushed back a day (Kessef Mishneh).
39.Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3-4.
40.Because the number of bulls are being reduced by one each day. See Halachot 3-4 above.
41.When there are far fewer sacrifices, as stated in Halachah 5.
42.The Radbaz infers from this that no lotteries were conducted during the prior seven days. Although there were some days when one watch received more sheep to offer than another, they would balance that matter by allowing the other watches to receive more the following days.
43.There were two watches that did not offer three bulls throughout the Sukkot holiday. One opinion in Sukkot 55b maintains that on Shemini Atzeret, the lottery to offer the bull should be held only between these two watches. The Rambam accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi which maintains that all the watches are included in this lottery.
44.Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3-4.
45.According to the guidelines established in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:4, for the additional offerings of Sukkot, the thirteen bulls required a total of 39 esronim, the two rams, a total of 4 esronim, and the fourteen sheep, a total of 14 esronim, a total of 57 esronim. In addition, two esronim were brought for the additional offering of the Sabbath, and two esronim for the continuous offerings.
46.This includes the wine and the oil as well as the meal, as indicated by the concluding halachot of the chapter.
47.Indeed, if the meal-offerings for two types of animals become intermingled before they are mixed together with their oil, they are disqualified [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:4)].
48.The rationale for the separation is that the ratio of oil to meal is different for the offerings of sheep and bulls.
49.The Sifra derives this concept from Leviticus 3:11 which states "And he shall offer it on the pyre," using a singular form.
50.I.e., those of bulls, those of sheep, and those of rams.
51.As required by Halachah 15.
52.For the rationale for the restriction against mixing their wine libations is only to prevent their meal-offerings from being intermingled. Once the meal-offerings have been offered, there is no longer any need for that constraint (Menachot 89b). They may be mixed as an initial preference [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. See Halachah 20.
53.For as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:12, the wine libations may be brought several days after the sacrifice was offered.
54.In Halachah 18.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
All persons disqualified from performing sacrificial service1 may slaughter sacrificial animals, even sacrifices of the most sacred order, as an initial preference2 with the exception of a person who is ritually impure who may not slaughter as an initial preference. Even though he stands outside the Temple Courtyard3 and inserts his hands and slaughters in the Courtyard,4 [he was restricted]. This a decree, lest he touch the [sacrificial] meat.5
Halacha 2
If [an impure person] transgressed and slaughtered [a sacrificial animal], the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, with regard to the bull [brought by] the High Priest on Yom Kippur even though [Leviticus 16:11] states: "And Aaron... shall slaughter [the bull],"6if a non-priest slaughtered it, it is acceptable. Even a red heifer that was slaughtered by a non-priest is acceptable,7 for there is no slaughter by a non-priest that invalidates [a sacrifice].
Halacha 3
When a person slaughters sacrificial animals, but does not have the intent to slaughter them, but instead, is merely busying himself [thoughtlessly], they are disqualified. [He must] have the intent to slaughter them.
Halacha 4
One should not slaughter the heads of two sacrificial animals at the same time.8 If one slaughtered [in this manner], the sacrifices are acceptable.9
Halacha 5
Two people may slaughter a sacrificial animal together, just as they may slaughter an ordinary animal.10
Halacha 6
A minor may not slaughter sacrificial animals even if an adult is standing over him.11 [The rationale is that the slaughter of] sacrificial animals requires concentrated intent and a minor does not have such a potential. Even when [a minor's] deeds indicate that he is acting with intention, [he is] not considered [to have acted] with intention if that will produce a leniency,12 only if it will produce a stringency.
What is implied? If [an animal to be sacrificed as] a burnt-offering was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard] and a minor led it and brought it to the north where he slaughtered it - thus his actions indicate that he intended to slaughter a sacred animal13 - [the sacrifice] is still disqualified.
Halacha 7
When sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard] or their blood was received there, they are disqualified.
Halacha 8
If one was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], but he extended his hands into the northern portion and slaughtered [a sacrifice of the most sacred order], his slaughter is acceptable.14
Halacha 9
If, [by contrast, a priest] was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], but he extended his hands into the northern portion and received the blood [of such a sacrificial animal], his receiving of the blood is unacceptable.15
Halacha 10
If he brings his head and the majority of his body into the northern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], it is considered as if he was standing there.16
Halacha 11
If one slaughtered [such an animal] in the northern portion [of the Temple Courtyard] and then in the convulsive movements that accompanied its death, it moved to the southern portion or even if [a priest] took it to the southern portion, it is acceptable.17 If after these convulsive movements took it to the southern portion and then it returned to the northern portion and its blood was received there, it is acceptable.18
Similarly, if [animals to be slaughtered as] sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were inside [the Temple Courtyard]19 and one was standing outside the Temple Courtyard and inserted his hand inside and slaughtered it, his slaughter is acceptable.
Halacha 12
If, [while standing outside the Temple Courtyard, a priest] inserted his hand inside and received the blood, the receiving of the blood is unacceptable.20 Even if [the entire body of the priest] performing the service was inside [the Temple Courtyard] and his locks of hair21 were outside, his service is unacceptable, for [when describing the priests' service in the Temple, Leviticus 10:9] states: "When you come to the Tent of Meeting."22 Implied is that one must enter in his entirety.
Halacha 13
If in the convulsive movements that accompanied its death, [such an] animal moved out of [the Courtyard] after its blood was received,23 it is acceptable. For even if the organs and fats to be offered on the altar and the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken outside [the Courtyard] before [the blood] was presented [on the altar], the sacrifice is acceptable, as will be explained.24
Halacha 14
If the entire body of [such an] animal was inside the Temple Courtyard and its foot was outside and it was slaughtered, the sacrifice is unacceptable. For [when speaking of bringing the sacrifices, Leviticus 17:5] states: "And they shall be brought to God." Implied is that they should be entirely within [the Courtyard].25
Halacha 15
If one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal]26 while it was located entirely in [the Temple Courtyard] and afterwards, it moved one of its feet outside, he should cut off the meat until he reaches the bone27 and afterwards, the blood should be received. If he received the blood and afterwards, cut off the meat, it is disqualified because of the fat of the meat that is outside [the Temple Courtyard].28
With regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, there is no need to cut off [the meat]. Instead, he should bring its foot back inside [the Temple Courtyard], and receive the blood. For [even] if meat from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] before their blood was cast [on the altar], [the sacrifice] is acceptable.29
Halacha 16
If one hung the animal [above the earth] and slaughtered it in the free space of the Temple Courtyard, it is unacceptable, for [Leviticus 1:11] speaks [of slaughtering animals] "on the flank of the altar," implying that one must slaughter on the ground.30
Halacha 17
If the [sacrificial] animal was on the ground, but [the slaughterer] was hanging in the air and he slaughtered the animal while hanging, this disqualifies sacrifices of the most sacred order. Sacrifices of lesser sanctity, by contrast, are acceptable.31
Halacha 18
If one slit the lesser portion of the organs that must be slit for ritual slaughter32 outside [the Temple Courtyard]33 and one completed the slaughter inside or one slit the lesser portion of the organs34 in the southern portion of [the Temple Courtyard] and completed the slaughter in the north, they are unacceptable. For ritual slaughter is considered as one continuous, integral act from the beginning to its completion.35
Halacha 19
If one was hung and received the blood from the neck of a [sacrificial] animal36 that is located on the ground, [the act] is unacceptable, because this is not the manner of Temple service.
Halacha 20
If one was standing in the Temple Courtyard and hung a receptacle over his arm and received the blood in the air or lifted the animal and thus received the blood in the air, [the act] is acceptable, for the open space above the place is considered as the space itself.37
Halacha 21
If one placed one receptacle within a second receptacle and received the blood, [the act] is acceptable,38 one substance is not considered as an interposing substance for another substance of the same type.39 If one placed fibers inside the receptacle and received the blood, [the act] is acceptable, because the fibers are porous and thus the blood descends into the receptacle and there is no interference. If, however, one does this while taking a handful of flour from a meal offering and took the handful with the fibers, it is unacceptable.40
Halacha 22
Receiving the blood [of a sacrificial animal], bringing it to the altar, casting it on the altar and bringing the limbs [of a sacrificial animal] to the ramp are all tasks41that are only acceptable if performed by a priest who is fit to perform service, as we explained with regard to taking the handful of flour from a meal offering42 or snipping of the head of a fowl.43
Halacha 23
Bringing [blood or limbs] to the altar in a way other than walking is not considered as bringing them. Therefore if a priest44 receives the blood [and while] standing in that place, casts it on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified.45
Halacha 24
If [the priest] received [the blood] with his right hand and then transferred [the receptacle in which he received] it to his left hand, he should return it to his right hand.46 If he received [the blood] with an ordinary utensil, the sacrifice is disqualified. If he received it in a sacred receptacle and transferred it to an ordinary receptacle, he should return it to a sacred receptacle.47
Halacha 25
If [the blood] spilled out of the receptacle unto the floor [of the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice] is acceptable if one gathers up [the blood].48 If, however, it spilled out from the neck of the [sacrificial] animal to the floor and then was collected and placed in a sacred receptacle, the sacrifice is disqualified.49
Halacha 26
If some of the blood from the neck of the [sacrificial] animal was spilled on the ground and not collected, but [a priest] received the remainder from the neck of the animal, [the sacrifice] is acceptable,50 provided the blood that was received is [the animal's] lifeblood51 and not blood concentrated [in the limbs]52 or the blood of the skin.
Halacha 27
If any of the individuals who are unacceptable to perform Temple service53receive the blood [of a sacrificial animal], bring the blood to the altar, or cast it on the altar as required by law,54 the sacrifice is disqualified. If [a priest] who is acceptable for such service receives the blood and gives it to one who is unacceptable, but the latter does not walk with it, but instead stands in his place, he should return it to the acceptable [priest].55 If, however, the unacceptable person carried it [toward the altar] and then returned it to the acceptable [priest] who carried it [to the altar] or the acceptable priest carried it [to the altar] and then gave it to the unacceptable one who carried it, since it was carried by the unacceptable person, whether at the beginning or the end, the sacrifice is disqualified, because this matter cannot be corrected.
Halacha 28
[The following laws apply if] the blood was received by an unacceptable person. If any of [the animal's] lifeblood remains, an acceptable [priest] should receive the blood, bring it [to the altar], and cast [it upon it]. [The rationale is that] individuals who are unacceptable for Temple service do not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants.56
An exception is one who is impure. Since he is fit to carry out Temple service when a sacrifice is brought in a state of impurity as explained,57 he causes [the blood to be considered as] remnants. What is implied? If an impure [priest] received58 the blood [of a sacrificial animal] even if an acceptable [priest] received [the animal's] lifeblood afterwards and cast it [upon the altar], the sacrifice is disqualified. For [the blood] received by the acceptable [priest] afterwards is considered as remnants and is of no consequence.
Halacha 29
When even the slightest substance is taken from one of the [sacrificial] animal's limbs59 after it was slaughtered, but before its blood was cast upon the altar, it is disqualified. Even if one [merely] mutilated the ear of an animal before [its blood] was received, it is as if [its blood] was not received. [This is derived from Leviticus 16:14 which] states: "And he shall take from the blood of the bull." [Implied is that] it must be entirely whole at the time [the blood] is received. If one received [the blood] of an imperfect [animal] and cast it upon the altar, [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.
Halacha 30
If, however, its substance was reduced after [its blood] was received,60before it was cast [on the altar], even if the meat was lost before the blood was cast [on the altar] or it was consumed by fire, he should cast the blood [on the altar] as long as an olive-sized portion of the meat or the organs and fats to be offered on the altar's pyre remain.61 If not even that remains,62 he should not cast the blood. With regard to a burnt-offering, even if half an olive-sized portion from the meat and half an olive-sized portion of the organs and fats [remain, he should cast the blood], because the entire [animal] is [offered on the altar's] pyre.63
Halacha 31
If less than an olive-sized portion [of a burnt-offering remains], [the blood] should not be cast [on the altar]. If it is cast [upon it], the sacrifice is not received with favor [Above].64 If the meat65 is disqualified before [the blood] is cast on the altar or it was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, the blood should not be cast. If, however, it was cast, the sacrifice is received with favor [Above].66
Halacha 32
When the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity was taken out of the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast [on the altar], even though the blood was cast [upon the altar] while the meat was outside, the sacrifice is acceptable,67 because ultimately, the meat will be taken outside [the Temple Courtyard].68
Casting [the blood on the altar] is effective with regard to [the obligation to have the sacrificial meat] which was taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] burnt,69 but not to have it permitted to be eaten.70
Halacha 33
Similarly, when the organs and fats to be offered on the altar from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] before their blood [was cast on the altar] and the blood was cast [on the altar] when they were outside, the sacrifice was not disqualified. If they were returned [to the Temple Courtyard], they should be offered on the altar's pyre.71 Even if they were not returned [to the Temple Courtyard], one is liable for violating the transgressions72 [against partaking of] piggul,73 notar,74 and impure [sacrificial] meat75 if he partakes of them.76
Halacha 34
With regard to any sacrifices [brought by] a private individual, whether the meat became impure, but the fats are intact or the fats became impure, but the meat remains intact, the blood should be cast on the altar.77 If they both became impure, the blood should not be cast. If, however, it was cast on the altar, the sacrifice is received with favor [Above], for the High Priest's forehead plate arouses [God's] favor.78 Similarly, when fats and organs to be offered on the altar's pyre or the limbs of a burnt-offering became impure and they were [nonetheless]79 offered on the altar, the High Priest's forehead plate arouses [God's] favor, as explained.80 With regard to any of the communal sacrifices, [even if] all of the meat and fats became impure, the blood should be cast [upon the altar].81
Halacha 35
When the blood of sacrificial animals was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is disqualified. Even though it was brought back inside and cast on the altar, the sacrifice is not received with favor [Above].82
Halacha 36
No blood from sacrificial animals is susceptible to ritual impurity at all.83 For [Deuteronomy 12:16] states with regard to blood: "You shall pour it on the earth like water." [Implied is that] blood which is poured out like water is considered as water and is susceptible to ritual impurity. The blood of sacrificial animals, by contrast, is not poured out like water84 and hence is not susceptible to ritual impurity.
Halacha 37
When the sun sets and the blood from a sacrificial animal [slaughtered that day] has not been cast [on the altar], the sacrifice is disqualified. If [the blood] is cast [on the altar afterwards],85 [the sacrifice] is not received with favor [Above].
FOOTNOTES
1.A non-priest or a priest who was disqualified for various reasons. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:15 for a detailed list of such individuals.
2.The wording of Zevachim 3:1 (the source for this ruling) could be interpreted as implying that the slaughter is acceptable only after the fact. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (based on Zevachim 31b), the Rambam explains that this restriction applies only to a person who is ritually impure.
3.And thus does not violate the prohibition against entering the Temple Courtyard while ritually impure (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:6).
4.Where the sacrificial animals must be slaughtered. As stated in ibid. 3:18, it is forbidden for an impure person to insert his hand into the Temple Courtyard according to Rabbinic Law. Nevertheless, this person was willing to transgress. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) the Rambam offers an interpretation that does not require that the person transgress: he slaughtered with a long knife.
5.In which instance he would make the sacrifice impure and disqualify it. That is forbidden.
6.Seemingly, implying that the slaughter must be performed by a High Priest. Nevertheless, Aaron's name is explicitly associated with the verb vihikriv, "and he shall offer." According to the Rambam, the verse should be interpreted as meaning that the offering of the bull must be performed by the High Priest, not necessarily its slaughter.
7.Nevertheless, as an initial preference, the slaughter should be performed by a priest (Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:2; 4:17).
8.I.e., using a long knife so that the two are slaughtered with the same movements of the knife.
9.I.e., after the fact. This applies only with regard to sacrificial animals. Ordinary animals may be sacrificed in this manner as an initial preference. See Chullin 29a.
10.See Hilchot Shechitah 2:10.
11.Such slaughter is acceptable for ordinary animals after the fact (Hilchot Shechitah 4:5).
12.This is a principle applicable in many different contexts of Jewish Law, e.g., Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 3:10, 14:2; Hilchot Keilim 2:1.
13.For burnt-offerings may only be slaughtered in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2-3). Thus he obviously had the intent to slaughter the animal as a burnt offering.
14.Zevachim 48b interprets Leviticus 1:11 as implying is that what is significant is the place where the animal is standing and not where the slaughterer is standing.
15.Zevachim, op. cit., interprets the above verse as implying that with regard to the receiving of the blood, what is important is where the person performing that act is standing.
16.This reflects a general principle of Torah Law: the majority of a person's body is considered as his entire body (Rav Yosef Corcus).
17.For the slaughter was performed in the appropriate place.
18.The fact that between the slaughter and the receiving of the blood, it entered the southern portion of the courtyard does not disqualify it.
19.Where it is required that they be slaughtered (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:4).
20.For the blood must be received in the Temple Courtyard.
21.This translation is necessary, because we are speaking of a portion of the person's body and not his garments. See Ezekiel 8:3 for a similar usage.
22.Significantly, Zevachim 26a, the source for this law, uses a different prooftext. Some commentaries have suggested that perhaps a printing error crept into the text of the Mishneh Torah.
23.Implied is that if an animal moved out of the Temple Courtyard before its blood was received, it is disqualified.
24.See Halachot 32-33 of this chapter.
25.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:15.
26.From the sacrifices of the most sacred order.
27.He should not, however, cut off the bone, because that would render the animal as blemished before the reception of the blood and thus disqualify it (see Zevachim 26a and commentaries).
28.As indicated by Zevachim, op. cit., the problem is not because of the blood from the meat that was outside the Temple Courtyard, because our Sages made a distinction between the blood that flows from the animal at the time of ritual slaughter and the blood that remains within its body (see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:4). Nevertheless, the fat from the portion of the animal that is outside the Temple Courtyard becomes mixed with its blood. This blood could also be part of the blood which is received, causing that blood to be disqualified (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that sacrificial animals of the highest degree of sanctity become disqualified when they are removed from the Temple Courtyard whether before the blood was presented on the altar or afterwards. Moreover, even if the meat is cut off as Rambam suggests, the animal will become ritually impure, because there is an unresolved doubt whether our Sages decreed that any animal that is removed from the Temple Courtyard becomes ritually impure. Hence, because of the doubt, we should rule stringently (see Pesachim 85a). The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus resolve the Rambam's ruling.
29.Provided of course that the animal was returned to the Temple Courtyard and the blood received there. Even if a portion of the animal was outside the Courtyard, as long as the blood was received inside the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is not disqualified. Nevertheless, the portion that was outside the Temple Courtyard is forbidden to be eaten (see Halachah 32).
The Ra'avad states that after the blood was cast on the altar, the meat may be taken out of the Temple Courtyard. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this is obvious, because the meat of sacrifices of a less degree of sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 11:5-6).
30.Based on Zevachim 26a, the Kessef Mishneh interprets this halachah as referring only to sacrifices of the most sacred order. (This is reflected also in the prooftext which refers to such a sacrifice.) Sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, by contrast, may be slaughtered if they are hoisted in the air as long as they are within the space above the Temple Courtyard.
31.Based on Zevachim, op. cit., the Kessef Mishneh - and his objections are also seconded by Rav Yosef Corcus - suggests emending the text of this halachah. As stated in Halachah 19, there is a difficulty in receiving the blood of a sacrifice while hanging in the air, because this is not befitting to the Temple service. Nevertheless, slaughtering an animal is not a formal part of the Temple service (and hence can be performed by a non-priest). Therefore there is no difficulty in performing it while hoisted in the air. And as stated in Halachah 20, the open space of the Temple Courtyard is considered as the Temple Courtyard, so it is as if the slaughterer is standing in the Temple Courtyard.
32.The windpipe and the gullet.
33.For an animal to be sacrificed as a sacrifice of a lesser degree of sanctity.
34.Of an animal to be slaughtered as a sacrifice of the most sacred order.
35.See Hilchot Shechitah 4:13 for another application of this principle.
36.This applies both with regard to sacrifices of the most sacred order and those of a lesser degree of sanctity.
37.Thus the animal's blood is considered to have been received in the Temple Courtyard.
38.It is considered as if one was holding the receptacle in which the blood was received in one's hands.
39.This is a general principle, applying in several areas of Torah Law (e.g., Hilchot Shofar Sukkah ViLulav 1:5; 7:12).
40.The difference is that the blood will flow through the fibers, but the flour will not.
41.I.e., they are considered integral parts of the process of offering a sacrifice and therefore require a priest's involvement.
42.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23; 13:12.
43.The Kessef Mishneh states that this refer to ibid., ch. 6. The Lechem Mishneh states that he does not understand where in that chapter there is an allusion to the need for a priest to perform that service.
44.Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text states kohen gadol. Translating that term as "the High Priest" would not be appropriate at all in the present context. Some have suggested that the intent is a large priest, but most consider it a printing error.
45.Even if the blood was cast on the appropriate place.
46.And continue the service with it. If he received the blood while holding the receptacle with his left hand, the sacrifice is disqualified.
47.He may then continue the service; the sacrifice is not disqualified.
48.Since initially it was received in the proper manner, the fact that it spilled is not considered significant.
49.Since initially, it was not received in the proper manner.
50.For, after the fact, it is not necessary to receive all of the animal's blood (Kessef Mishneh). This is, however, the initial preference (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:8).
51.In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:3, the Rambam defines this term as "blood that flows out [from the animal] when it is slaughtered, killed, or decapitated as long as it is tinted red." See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 5:1).
52.Blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
53.A non-priest or a priest who was disqualified. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:15.
54.Once sacrificial blood has been cast on the altar as required by law, the blood remaining in the receptacle is considered merely as remnants and it is no longer able to be used to fulfill the service associated with this sacrifice.
One might object because, from Halachah 28, it appears that a person who is unfit to carry out Temple service does not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants. Hence, in the situation at hand, it would appear that if there is sufficient blood left in the receptacle, the sacrifice should not be disqualified. A distinction can however be made between Halachah 28 which speaks about blood that remains in the body of the sacrificial animal and this situation where the blood is remaining in the receptacle from which other blood was taken (Tosafot, Zevachim 92a). If the blood was not cast on the altar as required by law, the sacrifice is not disqualified and it is acceptable if that service is performed properly by an acceptable priest (Kessef Mishneh).
55.Who should then bring it to the altar. The fact that the person who was unacceptable held it does not disqualify the sacrifice.
56.With which the service may not be performed.
57.See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10.
58.The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the intent is that the impure priest received the blood and cast it on the altar. Receiving the blood alone does not disqualify the animal. He bases his interpretation on Hilchot Me'ilah3:2-3 where this concept is stated explicitly. In this manner, he resolves the Ra'avad's objections to the Rambam's ruling.
59.I.e., in a manner which would cause the animal to be disqualified as physically blemished. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7, for a list of such blemishes.
60.Note the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger who maintains that it is possible that it be necessary also to bring the blood to the altar while the animal is whole.
61.An olive-sized portion is considered significant. If even that small a portion of the meat can be eaten or the organs and fats can be offered on the altar, the purpose of the sacrifice will be consummated. Hence, it is appropriate to cast the blood on the altar.
62.The remnants are not considered as significant.
63.Hence the fat and the meat can be combined.
64.The sacrifice is disqualified and if the person was bringing it to fulfill an obligation, he must bring another one.
65.And the organs and fat to be offered on the altar.
66.In this instance, casting the blood on the altar is sufficient to cause the sacrifice to be considered acceptable. See also the following halachah.
67.I.e., the organs and the fats should be offered on the altar and the person bringing the sacrifice is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
68.For sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem.
69.Generally, when a sacrifice was disqualified, it would have to be burnt immediately. If, however, it was disqualified because of a difficulty with the casting of the blood or because the owners were disqualified, it should be kept until its form decomposes and then it is burnt (Rashi, Me'ilah 7b-8a).
70.I.e., casting the blood of sacrifices of a lesser degree enables the meat of the animal to be eaten. This applies, however, only when the animal was in the Temple Courtyard at the time the blood was cast on the altar. If not, the sacrifice is acceptable, but the meat may not be eaten (Rav Yosef Corcus). The Kessef Mishneh (see also Ra'avad) offers a different interpretation, saying the intent could be sacrificial meat taken out of the city of Jerusalem.
71.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, questioning why these organs and fats should be offered on the altar's pyre. The Rambam's maintains that since the prohibition of me'ilah and the prohibitions mentioned in this halachah apply, the sacrifice is not disqualified. Hence, there is no reason why these organs and fats should not be offered (Kessef Mishneh).
Rav Yosef Corcus avoids this difference of opinion by explaining that this is referring to an instance where the organs and the fats were returned to the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast upon the altar. According to all authorities, the fats and the organs should be offered in this instance.
72.These transgressions apply when the blood is cast on the altar in the proper manner. The Rambam is emphasizing that even in this instance when the fats and organs are outside the Temple Courtyard at the time the blood is cast on the altar - and therefore disqualified - these prohibitions still apply.
73.As will be explained in chs. 14-16, when a person slaughters an animal with the intent of partaking of its meat at times other than those which are permitted, the sacrifice is considered as piggul and it is forbidden to partake of its meat.
74.As explained in Chapter 18, Halachot 9-10, when sacrificial meat is left beyond the time when it should be eaten, it is called notar and it is forbidden to partake of it.
75.As stated in ibid.:12, when sacrificial meat becomes impure, it is forbidden to partake of it.
76.Even if these organs and fats were outside the Temple Courtyard at the time the blood was cast upon the altar, the casting of the blood caused them to be considered as sacrificial meat.
77.I.e., if either the meat could be eaten (or offered on the altar in the instance of a burnt-offering) or the fats could be offered on the altar, there will be some positive value to the sacrifice.
78.In Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:2, the Rambam writes that if a priest cast the blood on the altar when he knows that the Paschal sacrifice is impure, the forehead plate does not cause it to be considered acceptable, while in this instance, he does not make such a distinction. Nevertheless, the reason for this distinction is evident from the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Korban Pesach: the Paschal sacrifice is offered solely that it be eaten, while with regard to other sacrifices there is a positive dimension to the offering of the fats and organs on the altar even if the sacrifice is not eaten.
79.The initial preference is that they should not be offered on the altar.
80.See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:7.
81.In this instance as well, it is the High Priest's forehead plate that arouses the positive spiritual influences that cause the sacrifice to be accepted. In contrast to individual sacrifices, however, with regard to communal sacrifices, one should cast the blood on the altar as an initial preference even though both the fats and the meat have been disqualified, for the restrictions against ritual impurity are superseded by the obligation to offer communal sacrifices (Kessef Mishneh; Rav Yosef Corcus).
82.And another sacrifice must be brought in its place. The forehead plate does not cause such sacrifices to be acceptable (Zevachim 8:12).
83.Even if it comes in direct contact with a source of impurity, it does not become impure. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 8:4), the Rambam states that there are some Talmudic references to the blood of sacrificial animals becoming impure, but all of those statements were made before the testimony given by Rabbi Yossi ben Yoezar which stated that they never become impure. Once that statement was made, the principle was accepted without argument.
84.Instead, it is poured on the altar.
85.Whether at night or on the next day.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Thursday, Sivan 28, 5774 • 26 June 2014
"Today's Day"
Thursday, Sivan 28*, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Korach, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 135-139.
Tanya: For the source (p. 317)...are His attributes. (p. 319).
The Tzemach Tzedek once told his son, my grandfather, an incident1 in his experience, and concluded: For helping someone in his livelihood, even to earn just 70 kopeks (a small, low-value Russian coin) on a calf, all the gates to the Heavenly Chambers are open for him.
Years later my grandfather told this to my father and added: One should really know the route to the Heavenly Chambers, but actually it is not crucial. You only need the main thing - to help another wholeheartedly, with sensitivity, to take pleasure in doing a kindness to another.
FOOTNOTES
*. On this day in 5701 (1941) the Rebbe of righteous memory arrived in the U.S.A. together with his wife, the Rebbetzin Chaya Mushka, of blessed memory.
1. The Tzemach Tzedek was on the way to shul when someone asked him for a loan, it being a market day and he could then buy and sell and earn something. The Rebbe asked him to come back after the davening, and continued on to shul. In shul he suddenly realized that the poor fellow needed this loan now, so the Rebbe returned home, got some money, sought out the fellow with great difficulty, gave him the money and then went on to daven. The Alter Rebbe then appeared in a vision to the Tzemach Tzedek, beaming, and lauded him for his thoughtfulness. The Alter Rebbe had not appeared to him for quite some time before this incident; it was the favor to another that merited the appearance of the Alter Rebbe.
-------
Daily Thought:
Conviction
All the elaborate proofs, all the philosophical machinations, none of that will ever stand you firmly on your feet. There’s only one thing that can give you that, and that’s your own inherent conviction.
For even as your own mind flounders, you yourself know that this is so, and know that you believe it to be so. It is a conviction all the winds of the earth cannot uproot that has carried us to this point in time, that has rendered us indestructible and timeless.
For it comes from within and from the heritage of your ancestors who believed as well, back to the invincible conviction of our father, Abraham, a man who took on the entire world.
The doubts, the hesitations, the vacillations, all these come to you from the outside. Your challenge is but to allow your inner knowledge to shine through and be your guide.
Inside is boundless power.
-------
TODAY IS: FRIDAY, SIVAN 29, 5774 • JUNE 27, 2014
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• SPIES DISPATCHED (1312 BCE)
Moses dispatched 12 spies to tour the Holy Land in preparation for its conquest by the people of Israel.
Links:
The Torah's account of the story of the Spies
Generation Gap
More on the Spies
DAILY QUOTE:
When the camel went to demand horns, they cut off the ears he had(Talmud, Sanhedrin 106a)
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Chukat, 6th Portion Numbers 21:10-21:20 with Rashi
• Chapter 21
10. The children of Israel journeyed on and camped in Oboth. י. וַיִּסְעוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּאֹבֹת:
11. They journeyed from Oboth and camped in the wasteland passes in the wilderness, which faced Moab, toward the rising sun. יא. וַיִּסְעוּ מֵאֹבֹת וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּעִיֵּי הָעֲבָרִים בַּמִּדְבָּר אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי מוֹאָב מִמִּזְרַח הַשָּׁמֶשׁ:
the wasteland passes: Heb. בְּעִיֵּי הָעֲבָרִים. I do not know why they were called עִיּים, wastelands. The word עִי denotes a ruin; something swept aside with a broom. Only the letter ‘ayin’ in it belongs to the root; it derives from the word עִי“shovels” (Exod. 27:3), [and as in] וְיָעָה בָרָד,“and hail shall sweep away” (Isa. 28:17). - [Machbereth Menachem p. 135]
בעיי העברים: לא ידעתי למה נקרא שמם עיים. ועי לשון חורבה הוא דבר הטאוט במטאטא, והעי"ן בו יסוד לבדה והוא מלשון יעים, (ישעיה כח, יז) ויעה ברד:
passes: This was the route for those crossing Mount Nebo on the way to the Land of Canaan, which separates the land of Moab from the land of Amorites.
העברים: דרך מעבר העוברים שם את הר נבו אל ארץ כנען, שהוא מפסיק בין ארץ מואב לארץ אמורי:
facing Moab toward the rising sun: To the east of the land of Moab.
על פני מואב ממזרח השמש: במזרחה של ארץ מואב:
12. From there they journeyed, and they encamped along the stream of Zered. יב. מִשָּׁם נָסָעוּ וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּנַחַל זָרֶד:
13. From there they journeyed, and they encamped on the other side of the Arnon, which was in the desert, extending from the Amorite border, for Arnon was the Moabite border between Moab and the Amorites. יג. מִשָּׁם נָסָעוּ וַיַּחֲנוּ מֵעֵבֶר אַרְנוֹן אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר הַיֹּצֵא מִגְּבֻל הָאֱמֹרִי כִּי אַרְנוֹן גְּבוּל מוֹאָב בֵּין מוֹאָב וּבֵין הָאֱמֹרִי:
from the Amorite border: Heb. מִגְּבֻל הָאֱמֹרִי, the boundary at the edge of their territory. Similarly,“the border of Moab (גְּבוּל מוֹאָב),” a term denoting an edge and an end.
מגבול האמורי: תחום סוף מצר שלהם, וכן (דברים ב, יח) גבול מואב, לשון קצה וסוף:
on the other side of the Arnon: They circled the southern and eastern [sides] of the land of Moab, until they came to the other side of the Arnon [river] in the middle of the Amorite territory, to the north of the land of Moab.
מעבר ארנון: הקיפו ארץ מואב כל דרומה ומזרחה עד שבאו מעבר השני לארנון בתוך ארץ האמורי בצפונה של ארץ מואב:
extending from the Amorite border: A strip of Amorite territory protrudes from the Amorite border into Moabite territory [reaching] until Arnon, which is the Moabite border. The Israelites camped there, without entering the border of Moab, (for Arnon was the Moabite border, and they did not allow them to pass through their land. Even though Moses did not state this explicitly, Jephthah did explain it), as Jephthah said, “Also to the king of Moab he sent, but he was unwilling” (Jud. 11:17). Moses, however, alludes to it: “Just as the children of Esau who dwell in Seir, and the Moabites who dwell in Ar, did for me” (Deut. 2:29). [He meant to say:] Just as these [children of Esau] did not permit them to pass through their lands, but they circled around them, so did Moab too.
היוצא מגבול האמורי: רצועה יוצאה מגבול האמורי והיא של אמוריים ונכנסת לגבול מואב עד ארנון, שהוא גבול מואב ושם חנו ישראל, ולא באו לגבול מואב, כי ארנון גבול מואב, והם לא נתנו להם רשות לעבור בארצם. ואף על פי שלא פירשה משה, פירשה יפתח, כמו שאמר יפתח (שופטים יא, יז) וגם אל מלך מואב שלח ולא אבה. ומשה רמזה (דברים ב, כט) כאשר עשו לי בני עשו היושבים בשעיר והמואבים היושבים בער, מה אלו לא נתנום לעבור בתוך ארצם אלא הקיפום סביב, אף מואב כן:
14. Concerning this it is told in the account of the Wars of the Lord, "What He gave at the [Sea of] Reeds and the streams of Arnon. יד. עַל כֵּן יֵאָמַר בְּסֵפֶר מִלְחֲמֹת יְהֹוָה אֶת וָהֵב בְּסוּפָה וְאֶת הַנְּחָלִים אַרְנוֹן:
Concerning this it is told: Concerning this encampment, and the miracles that happened there, “it is told in the account of the wars of the Lord”: when they relate the miracles that happened to our forefathers, they will relate: “What He gave….”
על כן: על חניה זו ונסים שנעשו בה יאמר בספר מלחמות ה', כשמספרים נסים שנעשו לאבותינו יספרו את והב וגו':
What He gave: Heb. אֶת וָהֵב, like אֶת יָהֵב [which is the Aramaic root meaning to give]. Just as from [the root] יעד we say ועד so from יהב ‘to give’ [we get] והב, and the “vav” is [part of] the root. That is to say, what He gave (יהב) them and wrought many miracles at the Red Sea. — [Onkelos]
את והב: כמו את יהב, כמו שיאמר מן יעד ועד, כן יאמר מן יהב והב. והוי"ו יסוד הוא, כלומר את אשר יהב להם הרבה נסים בים סוף:
and the streams of Arnon: Just as we recount the miracles of the Red Sea, so should we recount the miracles that happened at the streams of Arnon, for here too, many great miracles were performed. What were those miracles?…- [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 20, Num. Rabbah 19:25]
ואת הנחלים ארנון: כשם שמספרים בנסי ים סוף, כך יש לספר בנסי נחלי ארנון, שאף כאן נעשו נסים גדולים. ומה הם הנסים:
15. And the spilling of the streams that turned to settle at Ar and leaned toward the border of Moab. טו. וְאֶשֶׁד הַנְּחָלִים אֲשֶׁר נָטָה לְשֶׁבֶת עָר וְנִשְׁעַן לִגְבוּל מוֹאָב:
The spilling of the streams: The Aramaic translation of שֶׁפֶךְ,“spilling,” is אֶשֶׁד -the spilling of the streams, for [there] the blood of the Amorites who were hidden there was spilled. The mountains were high and the gorge deep and narrow, and the mountains were so close to each other, that a man standing on the mountain on one side [of the gorge] could speak to his fellow standing on the mountain on the other side. A road passed along [the floor of] the gorge. The Amorites said, “When the Israelites enter the land by passing through the gorge, we will come out of the caves in the mountains above them and kill them with arrows and stones shot from catapults.” There were clefts in the rock on the Moabite side [of the canyon], and directly opposite those clefts, on the mountain on the Amorite side, there were protrusions, [appearing] like horns and breasts. When the Israelites prepared to pass through, the mountain of the Land of Israel trembled, like a maidservant going out to greet her mistress, and moved toward the mountain of Moab. Then those breastlike protrusions entered the clefts, killing them [the Amorites]. This is the meaning of, “that turned to settle at Ar.” The mountain swung from its place and moved toward the side of the Moabite border, and attached itself to it. Thus, “[it] leaned on the border of Moab.” - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 20, Num. Rabbah 19:25]
ואשד הנחלים: תרגום של שפך אשד. שפך הנחלים שנשפך שם דם אמוריים שהיו נחבאים שם, לפי שהיו ההרים גבוהים והנחל עמוק וקצר וההרים סמוכים זה לזה, אדם עומד על ההר מזה ומדבר עם חבירו בהר מזה, והדרך עובר תוך הנחל. אמרו אמוריים כשיכנסו ישראל לתוך הנחל לעבור, נצא מן המערות בהרים שלמעלה מהם ונהרגם בחצים ואבני בליסטראות. והיו אותן הנקעים בהר של צד מואב ובהר של צד אמוריים היו כנגד אותן נקעים כמין קרנות ושדים בולטין לחוץ, כיון שבאו ישראל לעבור נזעדזע ההר של ארץ ישראל, כשפחה היוצאת להקביל פני גבירתה, ונתקרב לצד הר של מואב ונכנסו אותן השדים לתוך אותן נקעים והרגום. וזהו אשר נטה לשבת ער, שההר נטה ממקומו ונתקרב לצד גבול מואב ונדבק בו, וזהו ונשען לגבול מואב:
16. From there to the well; that is the well of which the Lord said to Moses, 'Gather the people, and I will give them water.'" טז. וּמִשָּׁם בְּאֵרָה הִוא הַבְּאֵר אֲשֶׁר אָמַר יְהֹוָה לְמשֶׁה אֱסֹף אֶת הָעָם וְאֶתְּנָה לָהֶם מָיִם:
From there to the well: From there the flow [of blood] came to the well. How? The Holy One, blessed is He, said, “Who will inform My children of these miracles?” The proverb goes, “If you give a child bread, inform his mother” (Shab. 10b). After they passed through, the mountains returned to their places, and the well descended into the stream, and brought up the blood of the slain, their arms, and their limbs, and carried them around the camp. The Israelites saw them and sang a song. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 20, Num. Rabbah 19:25]
ומשם בארה: משם בא האשד אל הבאר. כיצד, אמר הקב"ה מי מודיע לבני הנסים הללו. המשל אומר נתת פת לתינוק הודיע לאמו. לאחר שעברו חזרו ההרים למקומם והבאר ירדה לתוך הנחל והעלתה משם דם ההרוגים וזרועות ואיברים ומוליכתן סביב המחנה וישראל, ראו ואמרו שירה:
17. Then Israel sang this song: "'Ascend, O well,' sing to it! יז. אָז יָשִׁיר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת עֲלִי בְאֵר עֱנוּ לָהּ:
Ascend, O well: from the stream, and bring up what you are to bring up. How do we know that the well informed them? For it says, “From there… the well.” Was it [really] from there? Was not [the well] with them since the beginning of the forty years? However, it descended to proclaim the miracles. Similarly, “Then Israel sang this song,” was said at the end of forty [years], but the well was given to them at the beginning of the forty [years]. Why was it [the song] written here [instead of earlier]? Because the subject [of the song] is explained in connection to what precedes it in the above text. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 20, Num. Rabbah 19:25]
עלי באר: מתוך הנחל והעלי מה שאת מעלה. ומנין שהבאר הודיעה להם, שנאמר ומשם בארה. וכי משם היתה, והלא מתחלת ארבעים שנה היתה עמהם, אלא שירדה לפרסם את הנסים, וכן אז ישיר ישראל. השירה הזאת נאמרה בסוף ארבעים, והבאר נתנה להם מתחלת ארבעים, ומה ראה ליכתב כאן, אלא הענין הזה נדרש למעלה הימנו:
18. A well dug by princes, carved out by nobles of the people, through the lawgiver with their staffs, and from the desert, a gift. יח. בְּאֵר חֲפָרוּהָ שָׂרִים כָּרוּהָ נְדִיבֵי הָעָם בִּמְחֹקֵק בְּמִשְׁעֲנֹתָם וּמִמִּדְבָּר מַתָּנָה:
A well dug out: this is the well dug out by princes, Moses and Aaron. — [See Mid. Lekach Tov, Mid. Hagadol, Mid. Aggadah]
באר חפרוה: זאת היא הבאר אשר חפרוה שרים משה ואהרן:
with their staffs: Heb. בְּמִשְׁעֲנֹתָם, with the staff [upon which the Explicit Name was engraved (Reggio edition)]. — [See Targum Jonathan, Exod. 4:20]
במשענותם: במטה:
from the desert: it was given to them [as a gift]. — [Onkelos]
וממדבר: נתנה להם:
19. From the gift, to the streams, and from the streams to the heights. יט. וּמִמַּתָּנָה נַחֲלִיאֵל וּמִנַּחֲלִיאֵל בָּמוֹת:
From the gift, to the streams: As the Targum renders it [since it was given to them, it descended with them to the streams].
וממתנה נחליאל: כתרגומו:
20. From the heights to the valley in the field of Moab, at the top of the peak, that overlooks the wastelands." כ. וּמִבָּמוֹת הַגַּיְא אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׂדֵה מוֹאָב רֹאשׁ הַפִּסְגָּה וְנִשְׁקָפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַיְשִׁימֹן:
From the heights to the valley in the field of Moab: For there Moses died and the well ceased. Another interpretation: A well dug out by princes - When they encamped each tribal chieftain took his staff and drew it toward his division and his camp. The waters of the well were drawn after that mark, and came in front of the camping place of each tribe - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 21, Num. Rabbah 19:25].
ומבמות הגיא אשר בשדה מואב: כי שם מת משה ושם בטלה הבאר. דבר אחר כרוה נדיבי העם כל נשיא ונשיא כשהיו חונים נוטל מקלו ומושך אצל דגלו ומחנהו ומי הבאר נמשכין דרך אותו סימן ובאין לפני חניית כל שבט ושבט:
through the lawgiver: Through Moses, who was called lawgiver, as it says, “for there the portion of the lawgiver is concealed” (Deut. 33:21). But why is Moses not explicitly mentioned in this song? Because he was smitten through the well. And because Moses’ name is not mentioned, the Name of the Holy One, blessed is He, is not mentioned. This can be compared to a king who was invited to a banquet. He said,“If my friend is there, I will be there, but if not, I am not going.” - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 21, Num. Rabbah 19:26]
במחקק: על פי משה שנקרא מחוקק, שנאמר (דברים לג, כא) כי שם חלקת מחוקק ספון. ולמה לא נזכר משה בשירה זו, לפי שלקה ע"י הבאר. וכיון שלא נזכר שמו של משה לא נזכר שמו של הקב"ה. משל למלך שהיו מזמנין אותו לסעודה, אמר אם אוהבי שם אני שם, ואם לאו איני הולך:
at the top of the peak: Heb. רֹאשׁ הַפִּסְגָּה, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders,“the top of the height.”
ראש הפסגה: כתרגומו ריש רמתא:
the peak: Heb. פִּסְגָּה, a term denoting height. Similarly, פַּסְּגוּ אַרְמְנוֹתֶיהָ (Ps. 48:14), raise high its palaces.
פסגה: לשון גובה, וכן (תהלים מח, יד) פסגו ארמנותיה, הגביהו ארמנותיה:
that overlooks: That peak [overlooks] a place called Jeshimon, a word which describes a desert, which is a desolate place (שָׁמֵם). Another interpretation: The well can be seen from the Jeshimon, for the well was hidden in the Sea of Tiberias [Kinnereth], and anyone standing on the wastelands [above the sea] can look down and see a kind of sieve in the sea, and that is the well. In this manner R. Tanchuma explained it. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 21, Num. Rabbah 19:25]
ונשקפה: אותה הפסגה על פני המקום ששמו ישימון, והוא לשון מדבר שהוא שמם. דבר אחר ונשקפה הבאר על פני הישימון שנגנזה בימה של טבריה והעומד על הישימון מביט ורואה כמין כברה בים והיא הבאר, כך דרש רבי תנחומא:
-------
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 140 - 144
• Chapter 140
David composed this psalm against his slanderers, especially the chief conspirator Doeg. Anyone confronted by slanderers should recite this psalm.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Rescue me from the evil man, protect me from the man of violence,
3. who devise evil schemes in their heart; every day they gather for wars.
4. They sharpen their tongues like a serpent; the spider's venom is forever under their lips.
5. Guard me, Lord, from the hands of the wicked, protect me from the man of violence-those who plot to cause my steps to slip.
6. Arrogant ones have hidden a snare for me, and ropes; they spread a net by my path, they set traps for me continually.
7. I said to the Lord, "You are my God!" Listen, O Lord, to the voice of my pleas.
8. God, my Lord, the strength of my deliverance, You sheltered my head on the day of armed battle.
9. Grant not, O Lord, the desires of the wicked; fulfill not his scheme, make it unattainable forever.
10. As for the head of my besiegers, let the deceit of their own lips bury them.
11. Let burning coals fall upon them; let it cast them down into the fire, into deep pits, never to rise again.
12. Let not the slanderous man be established in the land; let the evil of the man of violence trap him until he is overthrown.
13. I know that the Lord will execute judgement for the poor, justice for the needy.
14. Indeed, the righteous will extol Your Name; the upright will dwell in Your presence.
Chapter 141
This psalm teaches an important lesson: One should pray for Divine assistance that his mouth not speak that which is not in his heart. The gatekeeper only allows the gate to be opened for a purpose; let it be the same with one's lips.
1. A psalm by David. O Lord, I have called You, hasten to me; listen to my voice when I call to You.
2. Let my prayer be set forth as incense before You, the raising of my hands as an afternoon offering.
3. O Lord, place a guard for my mouth, keep watch over the door of my lips.
4. Do not incline my heart to a bad thing-to perform deeds in wickedness, with men, doers of evil; let me not partake of their delicacies.
5. Let the righteous one strike me with kindness and let him rebuke me; like the finest oil, let my head not refuse it. For as long [as I live], my prayer is [to preserve me] from their harm.
6. For their judges have slipped because of their [hearts of] rock, though they heard my words and they were pleasant.
7. As one who chops and splinters [wood] on the ground, so have our bones been scattered to the mouth of the grave.
8. For to You, God, my Lord, are my eyes; in You I take shelter; do not pour out my soul.
9. Protect me from the hands of the snare they laid for me, and from the traps of the evildoers.
10. Let the wicked fall into their own nets together, until I pass over.
Chapter 142
David composed this psalm while hiding from Saul in a cave, at which time he had cut off the corner of Saul's garment (to prove that he was able to kill him but did not wish to do so). He declared, "Where can I turn, and where can I run? All I have is to cry out to You!"
1. A maskil1 by David, when he was in the cave, a prayer.
2. With my voice I will cry out to the Lord; with my voice I will call to the Lord in supplication.
3. I will pour out my plea before Him; I will declare my distress in His presence.
4. When my spirit is faint within me, You know my path. In the way in which I walk, they have hidden a snare for me.
5. Look to my right and see, there is none that will know me; every escape is lost to me. No man cares for my soul.
6. I cried out to You, O Lord; I said, "You are my refuge, my portion in the land of the living.”
7. Listen to my song of prayer, for I have been brought very low. Deliver me from my pursuers, for they are too mighty for me.
8. Release my soul from confinement, so that it may acknowledge Your Name. Because of me, the righteous will crown [You] when You will deal graciously with me.
Chapter 143
1. A psalm by David. O Lord, hear my prayer, lend Your ear to my supplications. With Your faithfulness answer me, and with Your righteousness.
2. Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for no living being would be vindicated before You.
3. For the enemy has pursued my soul; he has crushed my life to the ground; he has set me down in dark places, like those who are eternally dead.
4. Then my spirit became faint within me; my heart was dismayed within me.
5. I remembered the days of old; I meditated on all Your deeds; I spoke of Your handiwork.
6. I spread out my hands to You; like a languishing land my soul yearns after You, Selah.
7. Answer me soon, O Lord, my spirit is spent; hide not Your face from me, lest I become like those who descend into the pit.
8. Let me hear Your kindness in the morning, for have I trusted in You. Let me know the way in which I should walk, for to You I have lifted my soul.
9. Deliver me from my enemies, O Lord. I have concealed [my troubles from all, save] You.
10. Teach me to do Your will, for You are my God. Let Your good spirit lead me in an even path.
11. For the sake of Your Name, O Lord, give me life; in Your righteousness, take my soul out of distress.
12. And in Your kindness, cut off my enemies and obliterate all those who oppress my soul, for I am Your servant.
Chapter 144
After triumphing in all his wars, David composed this psalm in praise of God.
1. By David. Blessed be the Lord, my Rock, Who trains my hands for battle and my fingers for war.
2. My source of kindness and my fortress, my high tower and my rescuer, my shield, in Whom I take refuge; it is He Who makes my people submit to me.
3. O Lord, what is man that You have recognized him; the son of a mortal, that You are mindful of him?
4. Man is like a breath; his days are like a passing shadow.
5. O Lord, incline Your heavens and descend; touch the mountains and they will become vapor.
6. Flash one bolt of lightning and You will scatter them; send out Your arrows and You will confound them.
7. Stretch forth Your hands from on high, rescue me and deliver me out of many waters, from the hand of strangers,
8. whose mouth speaks deceit and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood.
9. God, I will sing a new song to You, I will play to You upon a harp of ten strings.
10. He who gives victory to kings, He will rescue David, His servant, from the evil sword.
11. Rescue me and deliver me from the hand of strangers, whose mouth speaks deceit and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood.
12. For our sons are like plants, brought up to manliness in their youth; our daughters are like cornerstones, fashioned after the fashion of a palace.
13. Our storehouses are full, overflowing with all manner of food; our sheep increase by the thousands, growing by the tens of thousands in our open fields.
14. Our leaders bear the heaviest burden; there is none who break through, nor is there bad report, nor outcry in our streets.
15. Happy is the nation for whom this is so. Happy is that nation whose God is the Lord.
-------
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 7
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Friday, Sivan 29, 5774 • June 27, 2014
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 7
והחשבון מורה על מיעוט האור והחיות, מיעוט אחר מיעוט
The numerical value — even when it is not calculated through the substitution and transposition of letters — indicates the progressive diminution of the light and life-force,
עד שלא נשאר ממנו אלא בחינה אחרונה, שהוא בחינת החשבון ומספר כמה מיני כחות ומדרגות כלולות באור וחיות הזה, המלובש בצירוף זה של תיבה זו
until there remains from it only the final level, which is that of the sum and number of kinds of powers and grades contained in the light and life-force invested in a particular letter-combination of a particular word.
The extent of the remaining life-force is indicated by the sum, which reflects the progressive descent and the constant diminution of the life-force.
ואחר כל הצמצומים האלה וכיוצא בהן, כאשר גזרה חכמתו יתברך
(1It is only after all these contractions and others like them, as [G d’s] Wisdom has ordained,
הוא שהיה יכול האור והחיות להתלבש גם בתחתונים, כמו אבנים ועפר הדומם
that the life-force could invest itself even in the lower created beings, such as inanimate stones and dust in which no life-force at all is revealed, inasmuch as they represent the lowest levels of the nether created beings.
כי אבן, דרך משל, שמה מורה כי שרשה משם העולה ב״ן במספרו
For example, the name אבן ("stone") indicates that its source is in the Divine Name ב"ן which numerically equals fifty-two (נ"ב) i.e., the numerical value of the Divine Name Havayah when spelled out phonetically in a particular way,
ועוד אלף נוספת משם אחר (לישעם) [נראה שצריך להיות: לטעם] הידוע ליוצרה
with an alef added to it from another Name, for a reason known to its Creator.
והנה שם ב״ן בעצמו הוא בעולמות עליונים מאד
Now, the Name ב"ן, itself relates to very high worlds, and in its pristine state it can in no way serve as the source of physical stone,
רק שעל ידי צמצומים רבים ועצומים ממדרגה למדרגה, ירד ממנו חיות מועטת במאד מאד, עד שתוכל להתלבש באבן
yet through numerous and powerful contractions, degree by degree, i.e., from higher to lower levels, there descended from it a life-force so exceedingly diminished that it could clothe itself in a stone.
וזו היא נפש הדומם, המחיה ומהוה אותו מאין ליש בכל רגע, וכמו שכתוב לעיל
And this very greatly condensed life-force is the soul of the inanimate being, which gives it life and brings it into existence ex nihilo at every instant, as has been explained previously — in ch. 1, where it is stated that even inanimate creatures possess a soul that brings them into existence at every instant.
וזו היא בחינת ממלא כל עלמין, מה שאין כן בחינת סובב כל עלמין
This greatly condensed life-force is the level of “He fills all worlds,” as opposed to the level of “He encompasses all worlds”),2 wherein the life-force is not contracted in proportion to the spiritual capacity of created beings.
In summary: The Divine life-force is capable of creating worlds that are infinite both in quantity and in quality. Finite beings are created only when this life-force garbs itself in the letters and transpositions of the letters of the Ten Utterances and in their numerical values.
וכל כח ומדרגה יכול לברוא ברואים כפי בחינת מדרגה זו, גם כן לאין קץ ותכלית בכמותם ואיכותם, להחיות עדי עד
Each power and grade [of the life-force] — after it has descended and undergone contractions, so that there remains only the numerical equivalent of the letters of the Ten Utterances — would be able to create beings according to its own level, even unlimited in quantity and quality, giving [them] everlasting life,
מאחר שהוא כח ה׳ המתפשט ונאצל מרוח פיו, ואין מעצור כו׳
since it is the power of G d that diffuses and emanates from the “breath of His mouth,” and there is no restraint [to His ability to create unlimited worlds].
אך שלא יהיה איכותם במעלה גדולה כל כך, כאיכות ומעלת ברואים שיוכלו להבראות מבחינת כח ומדרגת האותיות עצמן
Their quality, however, would not be on a level as high as the quality and level of the creatures which could be created from the power and degree of the letters themselves.
I.e., the created beings resulting from the transposition of letters, and surely from the numerical value of the letters, would be inferior to the beings which could be created from the letters themselves
Commentary of the Rebbe On Chapter Seven
1. Among the explanations and innovative interpretations of the Alter Rebbe in Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, two major points stand out:
(a) The explanation of the “comment of the Baal Shem Tov” on the verse,3 “Forever, O G d, Your word stands firm in the heavens”; namely, that4 “‘Your word’ which You uttered, [viz.,5] ‘Let there be a firmament...,’ these [very] words and letters stand firmly forever within the firmament of heaven…to give them life…. For if the letters were to depart [even] for an instant, G d forbid, and return to their source, all the heavens would become naught and absolute nothingness, and it would be as though they had never existed at all,…exactly as before the Six Days of Creation.”
From this it will be understood6 “that each creature and being is in reality considered to be naught and nothingness in relation to the activating force and the ‘breath of His mouth’ which is within it, continuously calling it into existence and bringing it from absolute non-being into being.”
(b) The tzimtzum is not to be understood7 “literally — that the Holy One, blessed be He, removed Himself and His Essence, G d forbid, from this world, and only guides from above, with individual Providence, all the created beings which are in the heavens above and on the earth below.”
It could be argued (see below) that this statement — that tzimtzum is not to be understood in its literal sense — proceeds from the explanation of the Baal Shem Tov’s comment by way of corollary.
2.What is novel about the comment of the Baal Shem Tov is not only that the word of G d must constantly create all beings, but that the words “Let there be a firmament” must be8 “forever clothed within all the heavens to give them life.”
The same is true of all other created beings: the words and letters of the Ten Utterances which create them and provide them with life must be continuously vested within them.
(Thus indeed the Alter Rebbe explains at length9 how within every creature there is “a soul and spiritual life-force.” For even those beings not specifically mentioned in the Ten Utterances in the Torah also receive a spiritual life-force which descends from them by stages “by means of substitutions and transpositions of the letters, and by gematriot…until [the life-force] can be condensed and enclothed, and a particular creature can be brought forth from it.”)
Hence, rather than the Divine Utterance constantly creating a creature, which then becomes sundered from it, the Divine Utterance is actually vested within the particular creature itself — within its “space”, so to speak — to the point that the life-force (and soul) of every individual created being is the Divine Utterance that is clothed within it.
It may thus be understood how “every creature and being is in reality considered to be naught and nothingness in relation to the activating force and the ‘breath of His mouth’ which is within it, continuously calling it into existence and bringing it from absolute non-being into being.”
Accordingly, it would seem that the nullification of the created being is not total, for the life-force that permeates and enclothes itself within the created being is attenuated and limited (to suit each individual creature). As such, it “allows for a being’s existence.” Consequently, the nullification resulting from this life-force is also not complete.10
However, according to what the Alter Rebbe goes on to explain — that tzimtzum is not to be understood in its literal sense, G d forbid — this difficulty is resolved. For even in the “place” (i.e., level) in which the light and life-force contracts and enclothes itself within created beings,11 “There is no place devoid of Him,” and12 “His Essence and Being…completely fills the whole earth temporally and spatially.”
Thus the following two opposites coexist within each created being: Every created being possesses its own “soul and spiritual life-force” which it receives through the tzimtzum and vesting of the Divine Utterance within it; at the same time, every created being is bound up with the very Essence of G d, for in the same “place” in which it is found, G d’s “Essence and Being” is also to be found.
And the fact that G d’s Essence utterly transcends the world makes it possible for one to perceive that the existence of the world itself is G dliness (as in the classic phrase,13 “The created being is True Being”) —14 “There is none else apart from Him.”
From Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 25 (Kehot, N.Y., 1987), p. 193 (Parshat Vayeishev, Yud-Tet Kislev, 5744)
FOOTNOTES
1. Parentheses are in the original text.
2. Parentheses are in the original text.
3. Tehillim 119:89.
4. See above, ch. 1.
5. Bereishit 1:6.
6. See above, ch. 3, where this is explained at length.
7. See above, ch. 7 (s.v. “In the light...”).
8. See above, ch. 1.
9. See above, ch. 1.
10. See Hemshech Taf-Reish-Samech-Vav (Kehot, N.Y., 1984), p. 224.
11. Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 57, quoted above in ch. 7 (s.v. “In the light...”).
12. See above, ch. 7.
13. Biurei HaZohar, Parshat Beshallach (43c ff.); On the Essence of Chassidus, chs. 15-17.
14. Devarim 4:35.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Friday, Sivan 29, 5774 • June 27, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 132
Rejected Sacrificial Meat ("Pigul")
"...shall not eat of them, because they are holy"—Exodus 29:33.
It is forbidden to eat the flesh of a sacrifice that was "damaged" through an invalid thought on the part of the priest who was offering it—i.e. if the priest had in mind that the sacrifice would be consumed after the time limit for eating the sacrifice has elapsed, or if he had in mind to offer the parts of the sacrifice designated to be burnt on the altar after the proper time to do so.
Rejected Sacrificial Meat ("Pigul")
Negative Commandment 132
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 132nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating pigul. Pigul is a sacrifice which becomes invalid because of an improper thought at the time of its slaughter or offering.1 As we explained and clarified in [the Commentary on the Mishneh] chapter 2 of Zevachim, this means that the one who performs the sacrifice had in mind that it will be eaten after the proper time or that the parts which need to be burned will be burned after the proper time.
The source of the prohibition of eating pigul is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not eat them, because they are holy," as we explained in the previous commandment.3 The punishment is derived from the verse4 in the Torah portion Tzav es Aharon regarding pigul, "If he eats from the offering on the third day, [the sacrifice] will not be accepted. It will be pigul and it will not be counted in his favor. Any person who eats it will bear his guilt."
The Oral Tradition explains that the verse refers to an offering which became invalid because of [improper] thought at the time of the offering, and this is what is called pigul; and that the phrase, "if he eats," refers only to one who had in mind that it will eaten on the third day. Our Sages say,5 "Pay attention and listen: this verse refers to one who thinks about his offering that it will be eaten on the third day." The offering becomes invalidated as a result of this thought, and one who eats from it after there was such a thought is punished by kares, as the verse says,6 "Any person who eats it will bear his guilt." [We know that this refers to kares] as it is written regarding nosar,7 "One who eats them8 shall bear his guilt [...This person shall be cut off (spiritually) from his people]." Our Sages say in tractate Kerisus9 "Don't treat a gezeira shava10 lightly, for pigul is one of the essential laws of Torah, and it is taught solely through a gezeira shava: comparing the word 'guilt' with the word 'guilt' used regarding nosar. Here it is written,11 'Any person who eats it will bear his guilt,' and there it is written,12 'One who eats them shall bear his guilt.' Just as there it refers to kares, so too here it refers to kares."
One who eats pigul accidentally must bring a sin offering.
The details of pigul and nosar have been explained in different places in Seder Kodshim.
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. when receiving the blood in a vessel, bringing it to the altar, or sprinkling it on the altar. Hilchos P'sulei HaMukdashin, 13:4.
2.Ex. 29:33.
3.N131.
4.Lev. 7:18.
5.Zevachim 29a.
6.Lev. 7:18.
7.Ibid., 19:8.
8.See N131.
9.5a.
10.One of the 13 methods of deriving laws; when Scripture uses the same expression for two different laws. This is only valid when there is an unbroken Oral Tradition from Mt. Sinai for this comparison.
11.Lev. 7:18.
12.Ibid., 19:8.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Sheluchin veShuttafin Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Five
Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter FiveHalacha 1
When a person enters into a partnership agreement without making any stipulations, he should not deviate from the local custom followed with regard to that merchandise. He should not take the merchandise and travel to another place, enter into a partnership with other individuals, be involved with other merchandise, sell it on an extended payment plan unless it is ordinarily sold in such a manner, nor should it be entrusted to others unless a stipulation to that effect was made at the outset or he did so with the consent of his colleague.
If a partner transgresses, and performs one of the above activities without the knowledge of his colleague, but when he informs him afterwards of what he did the other partner agrees, he is not liable. A kinyan is not necessary to formalize a partner's consent to any of the above matters; a verbal commitment is sufficient.
Halacha 2
When one of the partners transgresses and sells merchandise on credit, takes it on a sea voyage, travels with it to another place, does business with other merchandise at the same time, or the like, he alone is liable to pay for any loss that occurs because of his activity. If he profits from his activity, the profit should be split between the partners according to their stipulations regarding profit.
For this reason, the following rules apply when a person gives a colleague money to purchase wheat as part of a partnership agreement and the partner purchases barley, or he gives him money to purchase barley and he purchases wheat: if there is a loss, it is suffered by the one who transgressed. If there is a profit, it is split.
Similarly, if a partner entered into partnership with another person using funds belonging to the partnership, if there is a loss, the persons suffers it alone. If there is a profit, it is split. If, however, he entered into a partnership with another person with his own money: if there is a loss, the persons suffers it alone. If there is a profit, he alone receives the profit. If a stipulation was made between the partners, everything is concluded according to that stipulation.
Halacha 3
When a person gives a colleague money to purchase produce with the profits to be divided in half, the person given the money is permitted to purchase more of that produce for himself. When he sells the produce, he should not sell the two together. Instead, he should sell the produce owned jointly separately, and his own produce separately.
Similarly, he should not purchase wheat for himself and barley for his colleague.Instead, he should purchase wheat for the entire amount, or barley for the entire amount, so that the funds of them both should be equal in case of loss.
Halacha 4
When one of the partners says: "Let's take the merchandise to this and this place, where it is highly priced, and sell it there," the other partner may prevent him from doing so even if the first partner accepts responsibility for any loss by factors beyond his control or depreciation that may occur. The rationale is that the second partner may tell the first: "I do not desire to give you the money that is in my possession and then have to pursue you and bring you to court to expropriate it from you." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
If one of the partners desires to let the produce age until the time when it is known to sell that produce, his colleague cannot prevent him from doing so. If there is no set time to sell this type of produce, his colleague can prevent him from aging the produce.
Halacha 6
When partners evaluated their produce, and then established a partnership with them, the laws of ona'ah apply to each of them. If they mixed their produce together without evaluating it, sold it, and then did business with the profits, they should evaluate the worth of the produce at the time the partnership was established, and appraise the profit or the loss accordingly.
Halacha 7
When custom collectors waived a fee from partners, each is granted an equal share. If the collectors say: "We waived the fee because of so and so," he alone is granted the value of the waiver.
The following rules apply when partners were traveling on the road and were attacked by thieves, who sought to steal the merchandise carried by the caravan.If one of the partners saved the goods from being taken, all the partners receive an equal share in what he saved. If he says: "I am saving it for myself," he has saved it for himself alone.
Halacha 8
When property is known to belong to the partnership, it is assumed that both partners have a share in its ownership throughout the entire duration of the partnership. This applies even though the property was located in the domain of only one of the partners. The partner in whose domain it is located may not claim that he purchased it from the other partner, or that he gave it to him as a present. In such an instance, we do not follow the principle: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague the burden of proof is on him. Instead, the property is assumed to belong to both partners unless one of them brings proof otherwise.
Halacha 9
When one of the partners desires to dissolve the partnership without the knowledge of his partner, he should divide the assets in the presence of three people. They may even be unlearned people, provided they are trustworthy and able to evaluate property. If a partner divides the assets in the presence of fewer than three people, his actions are of no consequence.
When does the above apply? When he divides produce. If, however, the partnership's assets were money, the money is considered as if it had been already divided. The partner may therefore divide the money outside the presence of a court and then deposit his colleague's share with the court for safe-keeping.
When does the above apply? When all the money is of one currency and of equal value. If, however, some coins are new and others old - and needless to say if some are considered desirable and others considered undesirable - the money is also considered as produce and should not be divided outside the presence of a court of three.
Halacha 10
It is forbidden for a person to enter into partnership with a gentile, lest his colleague be obligated to take an oath to him and he swear in the name of his false deity.
We have already explained in the appropriate place that it is forbidden to do business with produce that grows in the Sabbatical year, nor with firstborn animals, nor with animals that are trefah, nor with meat from dead animals, nor with produce that is terumah, nor with crawling or teeming animals. If a person transgresses and invests money belonging to a partnership in these, the profit should be divided among the partners. It appears to me that if he loses, he must bear the loss himself. This ruling is granted because he transgressed.
Halacha 11
When one of the members of a partnership or an investment agreement dies, the partnership or the investment agreement is nullified. This applies even if the agreement was originally made for a specific time. The rationale is that the money has already been transferred to the domain of the heirs. The Geonim ruled in accordance with this decision.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
[With regard to the presentation of] the blood from any of the sacrifices on the outer altar: as long as one makes one presentation of blood, atonement is generated.1Even with regard to a sin-offering, one presentation is of fundamental importance.2Making the remaining [three of] the four [required] presentations is [merely] the optimum manner of fulfilling the mitzvah, as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:27]: "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour on the altar."3 [One can infer that one] pouring of blood on the altar is of fundamental importance.
Halacha 2
Whenever [a priest] poured [blood] over the altar when he should have cast it upon it,4 the obligation is fulfilled, as [implied by the verse:] "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour."
Halacha 3
With regard to all of the blood presented on the inner altar,5 if one of the presentations is lacking, the sacrifice does not bring atonement. Instead, all of them are integral for the atonement, for Scripture was precise with regard to their number, as [Leviticus 4:7, 17; 16:14] states: "seven times."
Halacha 4
If the owner died after one of the presentations of the blood of a sin-offering was made, the remainder of the presentations should be made after his death.6
Halacha 5
If, however, he made one presentation during the day, he should not make the [remaining] three at night.7
Halacha 6
If one made one [of the presentations of blood required to be made on] the inner altar on [that altar] and made the remainder on the outer [altar], he is liable for [karet] for offering [a sacrifice] outside its appropriate place.8
Halacha 7
If [a priest] was sprinkling [the blood of a sacrifice9 on the altar] and his hand was cut off before the blood reached the space above the altar, the sprinkling of the blood is not acceptable.10
Halacha 8
If one changed [the order] of corners11 [of the altar on which the blood was presented when bringing] a sin-offering - whether for a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the inner altar12 or a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the outer altar13 - [the sacrifice] is disqualified.14 If, however, [the order of the presentation of the blood] for other sacrifices is changed, [the sacrifices] are acceptable.
Halacha 9
If [the priest] presented the blood beyond the corner of the altar - whether for a sin-offering or for another offering and whether for the inner altar or for the outer altar - [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.
Halacha 10
When blood that according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented above the midpoint of the altar15 was presented below it;
if according to [the Torah's] command, it should have been presented below the midpoint of the altar,16but it was presented above it;
if [blood that] according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented inside [the Temple]17 and was presented on the outer altar;
if [blood that] should have been presented on the outer altar was presented in [the Temple]; or
if blood that should have been presented on the outer [altar] was presented on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar],18
[in all these instances,] the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable.19 Nevertheless, the owners of the sacrifices receive atonement because of it, for its blood has reached the altar. Although it did not reach the proper place, it is as if it reached its [proper] place with regard to atonement.
When does the above apply? When the person casting [the blood] is acceptable for Temple service. If, however, a person fit for Temple service received [the blood] and gave it to a person who is unacceptable and that unacceptable person presented [blood] that should have been presented above [the midpoint] of the altar below its midpoint, [blood] that should have been presented [on the] outer [altar] was presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary], [blood] that should have been presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary] was presented[on the] outer [altar], or one presented [the blood] on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar],20 the meat of the sacrifice is not disqualified if [any of the sacrificial animal's] blood of life remains.21 Instead, an acceptable person should receive the remainder of the blood of life and cast it [on the altar] in its appropriate place.
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply when] the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed between two types of blood22 or between two cups of blood.23 If [the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] one presentation [of blood],24 one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture]. Similarly, if [the blood of sacrifices that require] four presentations [of blood was mixed] with [the blood of others that require] four presentations,25 four presentations should be made of the entire [mixture]. If, [however, the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] two presentations that are four,26 one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture].27
If [blood that was] to be presented on the upper [half of the altar] became mixed with [blood that was] to be presented on the lower [half of the altar],28 all [the blood] should be poured into the [waste] channel29 and the sacrifices are disqualified. Even if the remainder of [the blood from] a sin-offering30 is mixed with the blood of a burnt-offering in which instance, all of the blood should be presented on the bottom of the altar, the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.31
Halacha 12
If [blood from a sin-offering32 became mixed with the remnants of the blood of a burnt-offering]33 and [the priest] did not inquire [concerning the law], but instead presented some of the mixture on the upper portion [of the altar] and some on the lower portion, it is acceptable.34 If he presented a portion on the upper [portion of the altar] and then inquired, he should present [the remainder] on the lower portion.35 He is considered to have fulfilled his obligation for both [sacrifices].
Halacha 13
If blood that was required to be presented in the Temple building36 became mixed with blood to be presented on the outer [altar], the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.37 If he did not inquire and took the mixture of the blood and presented some in the Temple [building] and some outside - whether first he presented it inside and then he presented it outside or first he presented it outside and then he presented it inside - everything is acceptable.38
When does the above apply? With regard to the blood [of the sacrifices that must] be presented on the outer [altar] with the exception of a sin-offering. If, however, the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented outside becomes mixed with the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented inside, it is acceptable [only] if one made the presentation outside and then made the presentation inside.39 If, however, one made the presentation inside and then made the presentation outside, [the sacrifice whose blood was to be present outside] is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] the blood of a sin-offering that was brought into the Temple building - even the blood of a sin-offering brought by an individual [whose meat] should be eaten40 - becomes forbidden, as [implied by Leviticus 6:23]: "Any sin-offering whose blood has been brought [into the Tent of Meeting... shall not be eaten]."41
[The above applies] provided [the blood] is brought in through the gate to the Temple Building, for the prooftext speaks of it being "brought," implying an ordinary manner of entrance.42 If, however, it was brought in through a wicket43 or through a window or the roof, it is not disqualified.44
Halacha 14
When the blood from a bull brought [because of the violation a law] forgotten [by the High Court] or from a goat brought [because of the violation of the prohibition against] idol worship45 which should be brought into the Sanctuary was brought to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified. For this place is inward with regard to the appropriate place for this blood.46
Similarly, with regard to the bull and the goat brought on Yom Kippur47 whose blood is brought into the Holy of Holies, if the blood [of these offerings] was brought into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled there,48 was then taken to the Sanctuary and afterwards, returned to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified.49 [The High Priest] should not complete the sprinkling [of the blood] in the Holy of Holies. Once he departs, he has departed.50
Similarly, if he completed the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies, then brought the blood into the Sanctuary and made some of the sprinklings [required there], then took [the blood] out of the Sanctuary and afterwards returned it, he should not complete the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. [The rationale is that] since the blood was taken out of its place, it became disqualified.51
Halacha 15
If the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering52 was received in two cups and one of them was taken outside, the one that remained inside is acceptable and the sprinklings may be performed.53 If, [by contrast,] one [of the cups] was taken into the Sanctuary and sprinkled there, even the one left outside is disqualified, as [implied by the prooftext] : "whose blood has been brought in," i.e., even if only a portion of its blood was brought in to the Sanctuary to bring about atonement, it is disqualified.
Halacha 16
[The following rules apply when] the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering that was taken into [the Sanctuary] to achieve atonement, but nothing was done and instead, he took it out without sprinkling it inside. If he brought it in unknowingly, [the blood] remains acceptable and should be sprinkled outside, for nothing to achieve atonement was done in the Sanctuary.54 If he brought it in intentionally, it is disqualified.55
Halacha 17
If the sin-offering itself was brought into the Sanctuary,56 it is acceptable, because [the prooftext] mentions "whose blood was brought in," [i.e., it is the blood] and not the meat [that disqualifies it].
Halacha 18
When a sin-offering of a fowl moved in its death throes and entered the Sanctuary, it is acceptable.57
Halacha 19
If the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl was taken into the Sanctuary in its neck,58 there is an unresolved doubt whether its neck is considered a receptacle [which would disqualify the sacrifice].59
Halacha 20
If the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl60 was spilled61 and then collected,62 there is an unresolved question: Does the receptacle disqualify the blood or not? Therefore the fowl should be burnt63 like all the sin-offerings of fowl concerning which there are unresolved doubts. 64
Halacha 21
When [a priest] received the blood of a sin-offering in four cups and made one presentation [on the altar] from each cup, the remainder of all four cups is poured on the altar's base, as [Leviticus 4:30] states: "And all of its blood shall be poured [on the base of the altar]." If he made all four presentations from one cup, the remnants of that cup should be poured on the altar's base and the other cups poured in the drainage canal.65
Halacha 22
When blood falls into water or into ordinary blood,66 it should not be sprinkled on the altar. If it was sprinkled, it is disqualified.67 When water fell into blood in a receptacle, if it has the appearance of blood, it is acceptable. If wine or ordinary blood fell into it, we make an assessment [as follows]: Were it to have been water would there have been enough to nullify the blood in the receptacle to the extent that it would no longer have the appearance of blood, he should not sprinkle from [the mixture]. If there would not have been enough to nullify its appearance, he should sprinkle from it.68
Halacha 23
When the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed with the blood of animals that are disqualified from the altar or with the blood of sacrificial animals that were disqualified because of unsatisfactory ritual slaughter, the entire mixture should be poured into the drainage canal.69 Even if all the cups [of blood] were offered aside from one, it should be poured into the drainage canal and all of those offerings are unacceptable.
If the [life-]blood [of a sacrificial animal] became mixed with blood concentrated [in the limbs],70 [the mixture] should be poured into the drainage canal.71 If, [however,] one did not ask and presented [the blood on the altar], [the sacrifice] is acceptable.
Halacha 24
If one cast the organs and fats offered on the altar, the limbs of burnt-offerings, the handfuls [of meal offered on the altar], the frankincense, or the meal-offerings that are to be burnt on the [altar's] pyre after they were consecrated in a sacred utensil, whether by hand72 or with a utensil, whether with one's right hand or with one's left hand, they are acceptable.
Halacha 25
When wine or water was poured [on the altar as a libation] with a bowl, the hin measure,73 or another sacred utensil, it is acceptable. If they were poured with an ordinary vessel or by hand, they are unacceptable.
Halacha 26
When one arranged the limbs [of a burnt-offering] or the handful [of meal from a meal-offering] and then arranged the logs for the altar's pyre above them74 or arranged them at the side of the limbs, there is an unresolved doubt whether this is considered as the typical way of having them consumed by fire or not.75 Therefore as an initial preference, one should not offer them in this manner, but if one did, it is acceptable.
FOOTNOTES
1.Although there is a desired manner in which the blood from every sacrifice should be offered on the altar, that is merely the desired manner of fulfilling the mitzvah. After the fact, even one presentation of blood is sufficient.
2.Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Rambam's intent is that even if the priest did not present the blood of the sin-offering on the corners of the altar at all as required, but rather poured it on the wall of the altar, it is sufficient to bring atonement.
3.The Kessef Mishneh notes that rather than use the method of exegesis stated in Zevachim 37b, the Rambam quotes a different prooftext. This follows a pattern demonstrated in several other places in the Mishneh Torah where the Rambam derives a concept from the apparent meaning of Biblical verses even though the traditional Rabbinic approach is to derive the idea from other sources.
4.Casting blood on the altar refers to a situation where a priest stands slightly removed from the altar and casts the blood upon it powerfully. The blood of the burnt offerings, peace offerings, and guilt offerings are presented on the altar in this manner. Pouring the blood on the altar refers to a situation where the priest stands next to the altar and pours the blood gently upon it. The blood of firstborn offerings, tithe offerings, and Paschal sacrifices are presented in this manner.
5.This refers to the bull and the goat offered on Yom Kippur and the other sin-offerings which are burnt rather than eaten that are mentioned in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:5. See ibid. 5:11 for a description of the manner in which the sacrifice was offered.
6.If the owner of a sin-offering dies before even one presentation of the blood was made, the blood should not be presented (see Chapter 4, Halachah 1). If, however, one presentation was made, the sacrifice is fundamentally acceptable, as stated in Halachah 1. Hence the remainder of the presentations should also be made.
7.For the blood is disqualified at sunset (Zevachim 56a) and hence should not be presented upon the altar. Hence, even though the sacrifice is acceptable, the remaining presentations should not be made.
8.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:13.
9.The Torah uses the term haza'ah, "sprinkling," with regard to the sin-offering of a fowl and the sin-offerings whose blood is offered on the inner altar.
10.For at the time the sprinkling is completed, the priest who performed it was no longer acceptable for Temple service, because of his physical blemish. Even though the blemish did not occur until after the priest completed his activity, the time when the blood reached the altar is most significant. See Zevachim 15a.
11.Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah uses a different version.
12.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:12, 14, for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices.
13.See ibid.:10 for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices.
14.Based on Halachah 10, it appears that the intent in this and the following halachah is that the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable and may not be eaten. Nevertheless, the sacrifice itself is acceptable, since its blood has reached the altar.
15.As mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:9, there was a scarlet band dividing the upper half of the altar from the lower half. Sin-offerings of animals (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7) and burnt-offerings of fowl (ibid. 6:20) should be offered above the midpoint of the altar.
16.This refers to the blood of all other sacrifices.
17.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:6), the Rambam states that this refers to blood presented on the inner altar, on the Parochet (the curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies), and within the Holy of Holies itself.
18.The foundation of the altar did not surround the altar on its southern side, the place where the ramp was positioned. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that since the ramp is considered as equivalent to the altar in several contexts (see Menachot 57b; Zevachim 87a), after the fact, presenting the blood on it is considered equivalent to presenting it on the altar itself.
19.Since the blood was not offered in its proper place, in this context, it is as if the sacrifice was disqualified and the meat cannot be eaten. Nevertheless, even if "the blood of life" remains, it may not be offered upon the altar again. The rationale is that since the blood reached the altar, atonement is granted and another sacrifice is not required.
20.Although the Rambam does not mention all the instances that were mentioned in the first clause, they are all included in this ruling.
21.Since the casting of the blood is disqualified entirely because the person sprinkling it was unacceptable, it is as if it was not performed at all. Hence, if more "blood of life" remains, the sacrifice can be offered as if nothing had happened.
22.Blood from two sacrificial animals were mixed into the same cup.
23.The blood from two sacrificial animals was collected in separate cups, but it was forgotten in which cup the blood of each sacrificial animal was contained.
24.E.g., the blood of a firstborn offering with the blood of a tithe offering or of a Paschal sacrifice. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:17.
25.Sin-offerings are the only sacrifices that require four presentations of blood on the altar. The Rambam is speaking about a situation in which the blood from one sin-offering was mixed with the blood from another.
26.I.e., burnt-offerings, guilt-offerings, and peace-offerings whose blood is dashed on the northeast and southwest corners of the altar so that it will have been presented on all four sides as described in ibid. 5:6.
27.The rationale for this ruling is that it is forbidden to make more than one presentation of the blood that requires only one presentation, because doing so would be a violation of the prohibition of adding to the Torah's commandments (see Zevachim 8:10). And after the fact, it is sufficient to make one presentation of the blood of sacrifices that require more as stated in Halachah 1. Although in failing to make the four presentations required for a sin-offering, the priest is detracting from the Torah's commandments and that is also forbidden, he is not performing an act when doing so.
28.See the notes to Halachah 10.
29.See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11.
30.I.e., this refers to the blood that remains after the presentations on the corners of the altar were completed. This blood should be poured out at the base of the altar.
31.For the blood of the burnt-offering should be dashed on the wall of the altar, while the remnants of the blood of the sin-offering should be poured directly on the altar's base. It should not be poured on the altar's wall, for that would be considered as an addition to the required number of presentations.
32.Which must be presented on the upper half of the altar.
33.Which should be poured on the altar's base. The definition of the halachah as speaking about such a situation is taken from the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus, based on Zevachim 81b.
34.As an initial preference, he should not have presented the blood on the upper portion of the altar as stated in the previous halachah. Once he did, however, we assume that some of the blood from the sin-offering was presented there, thus the entire mixture is considered as the remainder of the blood of both a sin-offering and burnt-offering. In both instances, the remainder should be poured on the base of the altar.
35.I.e., on the altar's base. Once some of the mixture was presented on the upper half of the altar, the preferred course of action is to pour the entire mixture on the altar's base.
36.See Halachah 10.
37.Because, as an initial preference, there is no satisfactory manner of presenting this blood. For the blood from the sacrifices that is required to be offered in the Sanctuary should not be offered on the outer altar. Conversely, the blood that is required to be offered on the outer altar should not be offered in the Sanctuary.
38.For we assume that some of the blood for each sacrifice was presented in the appropriate manner.
39.I.e., even after the fact, it is acceptable only in this manner.
40.The Kessef Mishnehnotes that from the standard published text of Zevachim 82a, it would appear that the concept is more obvious with regard to an individual sin-offering than a communal sin-offering. They assume that the Rambam had a different version of the text.
41.Just as the sacrifice is forbidden to be eaten, the blood is forbidden to be presented on the altar. If, however, the blood was presented outside, the sacrifice is acceptable after the fact. The meat, however, is forbidden to be eaten.
42.The term huvah has as its root the word ba which means "come," leading to the inference the Rambam draws. See parallels in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:19; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 16:5.
43.See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:6 with regard to the wickets leading to the Sanctuary.
44.For these are not the normal manner through which blood is brought into the Sanctuary.
45.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:16 and notes for a description of these sacrifices.
46.I.e., just as blood that is required to be presented on the outer altar becomes disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary, blood that is to be presented on the inner altar, becomes disqualified when it is brought further inward, to the Holy of Holies.
47.See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1.
48.But the required number of sprinklings were not completed.
49.Just as the blood of an ordinary sin-offering is disqualified when taken out of the Temple Courtyard, so, too, the blood of these offerings is disqualified when taken out of the Holy of Holies before the sprinklings are completed.
50.Even though the blood of this sacrifice will later be sprinkled in the Sanctuary as well, at the present time, the sprinklings should have been completed in the Holy of Holies. Since that was not done, taking the blood out disqualifies it.
The Ra'avad (and similarly, Rashi in his commentary to Zevachim 82b-83a) has a different understanding of the passage on which the Rambam's ruling was based and hence, objects. The Kessef Mishneh offers grounds to justify the Rambam's understanding.
51.The same rationale applies here as in the previous clause. Rav Yosef Corcus questions why the Rambam rules that the blood has been disqualified. Seemingly, since Zevachim 83a leaves this as an unresolved question, the Rambam should not rule that it is definitely disqualified. He explains that although one of the Sages considered it an unresolved issue, when the entire passage is considered, it would appear that it is not acceptable.
52.That should be offered on the outer altar.
53.For as long as a portion of the blood of a sin-offering is offered in the appropriate manner, it is acceptable. Although the blood that was taken out is disqualified, it does not disqualify the blood that remains.
54.Implied is that if it was sprinkled inside, even unknowingly, it is disqualified.
55.Even if it was not sprinkled inside. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus note that this ruling appears to contradict Zevachim 36a. The Kessef Mishneh concludes that although the Rambam's ruling can be reconciled with the passage, the resolution still leaves certain points that require explanation.
56.Even after the animal was slaughtered and before its blood was received (Zevachim 92b).
57.This law is mentioned because of the contrast to the law that follows. The prooftext above speaks of a sacrifice being disqualified because its blood was "brought into" the Temple Sanctuary. In this instance, the fowl was not brought in, but rather entered on its own.
58.I.e., the fowl was slaughtered, but the neck was held upright instead of allowing the blood to flow out into a receptacle.
59.For when the blood of a sin-offering is brought into the Temple sanctuary in a utensil, it is disqualified, as stated in Halachah 13.
60.With regard to a parallel situation concerning a sin-offering of an animal, see Chapter 1, Halachah 25.
61.Unto the floor of the Temple Courtyard.
62.Into a receptacle. The blood of a fowl should be squeezed from the neck of the animal unto the altar directly as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:6. The question is whether collecting the blood in a receptacle disqualifies the sacrifice or not, i.e., when the Torah stated that the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl should be presented directly on the altar was that granting permission (but not negating, presenting it from a receptacle) or stating that it must be presented in this manner (see Zevachim 92b).
63.The Kessef Mishneh states that this also applies to the situation mentioned in Halachah 19.
64.See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
65.Since they were set aside as separate entities, but blood was not presented on the altar from them, they are not considered as the remnants of the blood presented and hence should not be poured on the altar's base. Yoma 57b derives this from the fact that Leviticus 4:26 states: "Its blood should be poured on the altar's base," implying that there are times when all of its blood is not poured there.
66.I.e., blood from an animal that was not offered as a sacrifice.
67.This applies even if it has the appearance of blood. From every drop of blood that falls into the mixture is nullified as it falls in. Thus it is considered as if there is never a majority of blood (Zevachim 77b).
68.See parallels to the above in Hilchot Shechitah 14:6; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 2:6.
69.In contrast to the instances mentioned in the previous halachah, in this instance even if the amount of the unacceptable blood is not sufficient to nullify the acceptable blood, the sacrifice is disqualified. Among the explanations given for the distinction is that the previous halachah describes mixtures that were made with ordinary blood and it is uncommon for ordinary blood to be found in the Temple Courtyard. Hence there was no need for a Rabbinic decree to serve as a safeguard. This halachah, by contrast, speaks of mixtures that could frequently occur in the Temple. Hence lest the mixture also be permitted even when the unacceptable blood could nullify the ordinary blood, our Sages were strict and disqualified all mixtures (Kessef Mishneh).
70.Blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
71.Here also, our Rabbis saw the need for a safeguard, because this is a common situation (Kessef Mishneh).
72.Rav Yosef Corcus notes that the Rambam's ruling here directly contradicts his ruling in Chapter 11, Halachah 6, which states that a handful of meal that is presented on the altar by hand is disqualified. He states that although the Rambam's ruling can be resolved with difficulty, the explanations appear forced.
73.This was one of the measures that were used in the Temple, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:17-18.
74.Instead of placing them above the logs.
75.More precisely, it is obviously not the ordinary way of offering these substances. The question is whether the departure from the norm is great enough to disqualify them or not.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
When sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered on the top of the altar, it is as if they were slaughtered in the northern [portion of the Temple Courtyard],1 as [Exodus 20:21] states: "You shall slaughter upon it2 your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." This teaches that the entire altar is an appropriate place for the slaughter of burnt-offerings3 and peace-offerings.4
Halacha 2
When a burnt-offering was slaughtered on the top of the altar or it was slaughtered below [on the ground of the Temple Courtyard] and then brought up to the top of the altar, it should be skinned and cut into portions in that place. The inner organs should be taken down and washed below5 and then brought back [to the top of the altar]. The skin should be taken down and given to the priests.6
Halacha 3
Similarly, when [other] sacrifices that had been slaughtered were brought up to the altar, they should be skinned and cut into portions in that place. The inner organs should be taken down and washed below and then brought back [to the top of the altar]. The skin and the meat should be taken down and given to the owners. The remainder [of the sacrifice] should be offered on the altar's pyre.
Why shouldn't he bring down the entire [carcass] instead of skinning it and cutting it up on the top of the altar? Because anything that is fit to be offered on the pyre7 if it was brought up to the top of the altar should not be taken down,8 as [indicated by ibid. 29:36]: "Everything that touches the altar shall be sanctified."
Does [the above principle apply] even when [the entity brought to the top of the altar] is not fit [to be offered on the altar's pyre]? It is taught [Leviticus 6:2] "It is the burnt-offering on the pyre." Just as the burnt-offering is fit to be consumed by the altar's pyre should not be taken down once it was taken up [to the altar], so too, any entity that is fit for the altar's pyre9 if it is brought up, it should not be brought down.
Halacha 4
When [an animal to be sacrificed as] a burnt-offering is brought up to the top of the altar while alive, it should be brought down, because it is not yet fit [to be consumed by the altar's pyre].
Halacha 5
Similarly, a handful of meal from a meal-offering that was not consecrated in a sacred vessel10 and all entities that are forbidden to be offered on the altar11should be taken down from the altar even if they were brought up, because from the outset, they were not fit [to be offered on the pyre].12
Halacha 6
Similarly, when a consecrated animal was slaughtered at night, its blood was spilled, or its [blood]13 was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, if it was taken up [to the altar's top], it should be taken down.14
Halacha 7
[Different rules apply] if, by contrast, sacrificial animals were left over night - whether their blood, their meat, or their fats and organs were left over night;15
a sacrificial animal was taken out of the Temple Courtyard;
it became impure or disqualified because of a disqualifying thought concerning the time [it was to be eaten] or the place [it was to be eaten];
it was sacrificed for the sake of a different offering;16
impure [priests] received its blood and cast it on the altar; [this is significant] since they are fit to perform Temple service when a sacrifice is brought in a state of impurity;17
when the blood was presented in an improper place;18
or sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the southern portion of the Temple Courtyard or their blood was received there.19
Although in all of these situations, [the sacrifices] are disqualified, if [the meat, fats, and/or organs] were brought to the top of the altar, they should not be taken down.
Halacha 8
[This is the general principle:] Whenever an entity is disqualified in the Temple Courtyard,20 the holiness [of the altar] accepts it.21 Just as when these entities were brought up, they should not be taken down, so too, if they were taken down, they should not be brought up a second time. For they have been disqualified.
Halacha 9
If the [altar's] fire took hold of them22 [before they were brought down from the altar], they should be brought up again [so that] they will be consumed by its fire.
Halacha 10
When the handful of meal [from the meal-offering] becomes disqualified as piggul,23 and a portion of it is on the ground and a portion took fire, the entire [handful] should be brought up [to the altar to be consumed].24
Halacha 11
When limbs, fats, and handfuls of meal were left overnight on the top of the altar, it is as if they were left overnight in the Temple Courtyard.25 If they were brought down from the altar, they should not be brought up again. If, however, they were not brought down, they should be offered on the altar's pyre in all situations.
Halacha 12
The open space above the altar is considered as the altar.26 When one brought the fats and the organs of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity27 up [to the altar] before their blood was poured on the altar,28 they should not be taken down, because they have become "the food of the altar."
Halacha 13
[The following law applies when a person] sets aside two [animals for] a guilt-offering,29 one intended to serve as surety for the other.30 If he slaughtered both of them and brought the fats and organs of one up [to the altar] before [the blood] was cast [upon it], they should be brought down.31
Halacha 14
When an unacceptable sacrifice and unacceptable wine libations32 were brought up to the altar, the sacrifice should not be taken down as we explained. The wine libations, [by contrast,] should be taken down.33 Similarly, when wine libations are brought independently and they were disqualified and brought to the top of the altar, they should be taken down.
Halacha 15
When melikah was performed on a fowl by a non-priest and then it was brought to the top of the altar, it should not be taken down.34 If, [by contrast,] a handful of meal was taken by a non-priest and brought to the top of the altar, it should be brought down. Even though both of these acts disqualify [the offerings], [the handful from the meal-offering] is considered as if it was never consecrated at all.35 [These laws apply to] a non-priest as well as to anyone else who is disqualified [from performing sacrificial service].36
Halacha 16
The following, however, should be taken down [even though] they were brought up to the top of the altar, anything that is not fit37 for the altar's pyre. [This includes:] the meat of sacrifices of the most sacred order, the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity,38 the remainder of the omer, the remainder of the meal-offerings,39 the two breads [offered on Shavuot], the showbread,40the incense offering,41 the wool that is on the heads of sheep, the hair on the beards of goats, the bones, the sinews, the horns, and the hoofs if they are not attached to [the animal's body].42 [In all these instances,] if [these entities] were brought to the top [of the altar], they should be brought down.
Halacha 17
If some of the oil from the handful of meal was squeezed out on a bone43[that had been laying on the altar] and then the bone was taken down, it should be returned [to the altar]. [The rationale is that] there is an unresolved doubt whether entities attached to entities that should be brought up [to the altar]44 are considered as if they should be brought up as well.
Halacha 18
The inner altar sanctifies unacceptable entities whether they are fit for it or not fit for it,45 but the outer altar only sanctifies unacceptable entities that are fit for it, as we explained.46
What is implied? When sacrifices that were disqualified are brought up to the outer altar, they should not be brought down. If an unfitting incense offering47 was offered upon it, it should be brought down, because an incense offering is not fit for the outer altar. If, by contrast, a handful of meal from the meal-offering was placed on the inner altar, it should not be taken off, whether it was fit or not fit. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Just as the altar sanctifies any entity that is fit for it, so too, the ramp, and other sacred utensils, sanctify what is fit for them. For with regard to the sacred utensils, [Exodus 30:29] states: "Any entity that touches them will be sanctified." Thus when an entity that is fit for it reaches the ramp, it should not be brought down even though it is disqualified.48 Similarly, if any entity that is fit for a sacred vessel reaches a sacred vessel, it should never be redeemed even though it was disqualified, as stated in Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach.49
Halacha 19
Vessels made for liquids do not consecrate solids and vessels made for solids do not consecrate liquids.
To what does the above apply? To the liquid and dry measures that existed in the Temple which we mentioned in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash.50 Receptacles,51 by contrast, consecrate both liquids and solids.52 Sacred utensils sanctify blood that was disqualified and cause it to be offered [on the altar].
Halacha 20
Sacred vessels only consecrate [entities] in the Temple.53 Also, they only consecrate [entities placed in them] willfully,54 from their insides,55 and when intact. [The following rules apply if] a hole was made within them. If they could still be used to perform the original task for which they were used when intact, they consecrate what is placed within. If not,56 they do not consecrate [their contents].
They consecrate [their contents] only when they are full. The measures do not consecrate their contents when they are lacking unless one intends to fill them. If one does not intend to fill them, they consecrate their contents only in that [the contents] could [later] be disqualified,57but not to have them offered.58
Halacha 21
[When an entity is placed] in a sacred vessel at an inappropriate time, it is consecrated only to the extent that is disqualified, not that it should be offered.
What is implied? When an entity whose mitzvah is performed during the day is placed into a sacred vessel at night, it is disqualified.59 It should be burnt,60 but not sacrificed. For example, if a handful is taken from a meal-offering at night and that handful is placed in a sacred vessel, it should be burnt.
Halacha 22
When an altar became damaged,61 all of the sacrificial animals that were in the Temple and had been slaughtered, but whose blood had not been cast on the altar, are disqualified.62 For there is no altar on which to cast the blood and [Exodus 20:21] states: "And you shall slaughter upon it your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." Implied is that when you slaughter [your offerings,] it shall be intact and not blemished.
Halacha 23
Sacrificial animals that were alive and located in the Temple Courtyard at the time [the altar] became damaged are not disqualified. Instead, when the altar is repaired, they should be sacrificed. [The rationale is that] living animals are not deemed unacceptable forever.63
Halacha 24
If animals were consecrated before the altar was built, they should be sacrificed after the altar was built, for the fact that they could not [be sacrificed] originally is not a disqualifying factor.
Halacha 25
Similarly, sacrificial meat should not be eaten while the altar is damaged, as [Leviticus 10:12] states: "You shall eat it64 as unleavened bread near the altar."65 This also applies to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity; they should not be eaten in Jerusalem while the altar is damaged until it is repaired.
FOOTNOTES
1.As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2, sacrifices of the most sacred order must be sacrificed in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard. Now, the altar is located in the southern portion. Nevertheless, based on the prooftext the Rambam cites, Zevachim 85a derives that it is acceptable to slaughter these sacrificial animals on the top of the altar.
2.The altar.
3.Since it is acceptable for burnt-offerings, our Sages assumed that it was also acceptable for other sacrifices of the most-sacred order.
4.Peace-offerings are sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity which may be sacrificed anywhere in the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:4). Nevertheless, it is necessary to state that they may be sacrificed on the top of the altar, because one might think that since there is ample space to sacrifice them, they would have to be sacrificed on the ground (Zevachim, loc. cit.; Gittin 67a).
5.For it is not respectful to clean out the wastes on the top of the altar.
6.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:19.
7.This refers to an entity like the carcass of a sacrifice which in its present state is not fit to be offered on the altar, but is not lacking any great tasks like slaughter.
8.This general principle (stated in Zevachim 9:1) is the subject of discussion in the following halachot.
9.But only an article that is fit to be consumed by the fires.
10.Unless a meal offering is consecrated in a sacred vessel, it is unacceptable.
11.Animals forbidden to be sacrificed, e.g., one that was worshipped, one that is treifah, or one which killed a person or the like. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:11.
The commentaries question why the Rambam does not mention animals with disqualifying physical blemishes. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:3) he rules that even if they were brought to the top of the altar, they should be brought down. And if the Rambam changed his mind, it would have been appropriate to say so explicitly. Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that such animals are also included in the general category of "entities forbidden to be offered on the altar," as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit..
12.The leniency that every entity brought up to the altar should be offered upon it applies only to entities that were disqualified after having been fit to be offered upon it. As our Sages taught (Zevachim 84a; see Halachah 8) whenever an entity was disqualified in the Temple, if it was brought to the top of the altar, it should be offered. In this instance, these substances were never fit to be offered on the altar's pyre.
13.This addition is obvious from a comparison to the following halachah.
14.Even though it was disqualified in the Temple, nevertheless, it was disqualified before the time its meat and/or fats and organs were to be offered on the altar's pyre (see Zevachim 84a,b).
15.Once blood is left past sunset, it is disqualified (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:1) and if the meat of a burnt-offering is left overnight, it is disqualified (ibid.:2). Nevertheless, since the meat of a peace-offering is acceptable if left overnight, this is not a serious enough disqualifying factor to prevent these entities from being offered on the altar's pyre (Kessef Mishneh).
16.See Chapters 13-18 with regard to these factors.
17.See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10-12.
18.In which instance, after the fact, in many instances, the sacrifice is acceptable, as stated in Chapter 2.
19.Rather than in the north as required (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2).
20.Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary, Zevachim 84a.
21.After the fact, as stated above.
22.See Chapter 18, Halachah 21, where the Rambam speaks of the fire taking hold of the majority of the entity. Seemingly, that concept would apply here as well.
23.See Chapter 13, Halachah 1, for a definition of this term.
24.For the handful of meal is considered as an integral entity.
25.I.e., they are disqualified. Nevertheless, they should be offered on the altar's pyre, because they are on the top of the altar.
26.Thus even if the disqualified sacrificial entities were not placed down on the altar, but held by a person standing on the altar, the above concepts apply (see Zevachim 88a). Rav Yosef Corcus notes that the Talmud mentions also a situation where a person is standing in the Temple Courtyard and holds a disqualified sacrificial entity over the altar with a pole. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the Talmud does not reach a final decision whether such an entity should be offered on the altar's pyre or not, because of the doubt, they should not be taken down from above the altar.
27.Certainly, this applies to the fats and the organs of sacrifices of the most sacred order (Kessef Mishneh).
28.Instead of afterwards, as required.
29.Or two sin-offerings (Kessef Mishneh).
30.I.e., if one was lost, the other would be sacrificed (Rashi, Meilah 7a).
31.The blood of the second animal should be cast on the altar and then its fats and organs offered. Since two animals were slaughtered and one offering can be carried out in a perfectly desirable manner, that is preferable to performing the offering in a manner that is effective only after the fact. Since the second animal will be offered in an effective manner, the blood of the first should not be cast on the altar. And since its blood should not be cast on the altar, the fat and the organs should not be offered on the altar's pyre (ibid.).
32.This clause is speaking about wine libations that were brought as accompanying offerings for a sacrifice.
33.This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in Zevachim 9:1, who maintains that for a disqualified entity to be offered on the altar, it must be fit for the altar's pyre and wine libations are poured over the altar and not on its pyre.
34.The rationale is that in the era when sacrifices could be brought on individual altars (see the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:1), it was possible for a non-priest to perform melikah on a fowl that was offered on a sacrifice. Hence, even after the Temple was built, when a non-priest performs melikah on a fowl, that act is significant enough to endow with holiness to the extent that if the fowl is brought to the top of the altar, it should be offered on the pyre (Zevachim 69a).
35.One might ask: Why isn't the handful of meal acceptable? When offerings were brought on an individual altar, a handful of meal could also be separated by a non-priest. In resolution, however, it is explained that in the Temple, the handful of meal was afterwards placed in a sacred utensil (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:12) and then offered on the altar and such service was not performed by a non-priest on an individual altar (Zevachim, loc. cit.).
36.E.g., a priest with a disqualifying physical deformity; one who is intoxicated; one in the state of severe onein mourning (see Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah).
37.I.e., halachically not fit to be offered, but either eaten, offered on the inner altar, or discarded.
38.The meat of these sacrifices should not be offered on the altar, but rather eaten by the priests and, with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, the owners.
39.After a handful of meal is taken from the omer and the meal-offerings, the remainder should not be offered on the altar, but eaten by the priests.
40.These breads are eaten by the priests.
41.This is not fit to be offered on the pyre of the outer altar, but instead, on coals on the inner altar.
42.Once these entities are separated from an animal's body, they should be discarded rather than offered on the altar's pyre. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:2.
43.The Rambam's ruling is derived from the version of Menachot 23a in his possession. Ra'avad, Rashi, as well as the standard published text of that passage follow a different version which reads eitzim, wood, rather than etzem,, bone.
44.The oil is the entity that should be returned to the altar and the bone is the entity attached to it (Rav Yosef Corcus). Although on its own accord, the bone should not be returned to the altar as stated in the previous halachah, since it is attached to the oil, it should be returned, lest this be considered as treating sacred articles with disdain (Kessef Mishneh).
45.The inner altar has an added measure of holiness, because it was anointed and thus is comparable to a sacred vessel (Rashi, Zevachim 23b).
46.See Halachah 16.
47.This includes all incense offerings, because no incense offerings are ever offered on the outer altar.
48.Instead, it should be offered on the altar's pyre.
49.Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:4-5.
50.Hilchot K'lei Hamikdash 1:16-17. The rationale is that these vessels were anointed only for the sake of measuring and only for measuring the particular types of substances - liquids or solids - intended for them.
51.The receptacles used to receive the blood from the sacrificial animal and then cast it on the altar.
52.Since they were anointed to serve as receptacles, they consecrate anything placed inside of them.
53.If, by contrast, an entity is placed within a sacred vessel outside the Temple Courtyard, it is not consecrated.
54.And not something that fell in accidentally.
55.If, however, solids are piled up over the edges of a sacred container, they are not consecrated. Note the apparent contrast to Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:19 which states that liquid measures consecrate the overflow that drips down their sides.
56.I.e., the hole prevents them from being used as a container.
57.I.e., if they remained overnight or were taken out of the Temple Courtyard.
58.This refers to offerings of flour and the like. As mentioned in the previous halachah, blood that is placed in such utensils is sanctified to be offered on the altar.
59.I.e., placing it in the sacred utensil is significant - for if it was not significant, it would not have been disqualified, and would have been able to be used on the following day.
60.As are sacred entities which became disqualified.
61.The square of the altar must be totally intact, even a slight chip disqualifies it, as stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:14-16; 2:18.
62.Even if the altar is repaired before sunset, the blood of these sacrifices should not be cast upon it. Since at the outset, the altar was fit to have their blood cast upon it and then there was a time when that service could not be performed, the blood is disqualified forever.
63.This is a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Chapter 4, Halachah 24; Chapter 6, Halachah 1; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4; et al.
As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:15, this represents a reversal of the Rambam's initial position on the matter.
64.The meal-offering brought as part of the dedication of the altar. As the verse states, it was considered as a sacrifice of the most holy order.
65.Zevachim 60a explains that there is no obligation to eat sacrificial food near the altar. Rather the intent is as explained here.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
[All of the following:]
a) the offspring of [an animal designated as] a sin-offering,
b) an animal exchanged for [an animal designated as] a sin-offering,
c)[an animal designated as] a sin-offering whose owner dies, and
d) such animal that was lost and then found only after the owner secured atonement,1 should be consigned to die.
[In the latter instance, if the first animal designated as a sin-offering] was found after the second that was set aside was slaughtered, but before its blood was presented on the altar, there is an unresolved doubt2 if it should be consigned to death or left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.3 Therefore4 it should be consigned to death.
What is meant by being consigned to death? Not that one should kill them with a utensil or by hand. Instead, they should be brought into a room, locked inside, [and left] until they die. All of these matters were conveyed by Moses our teacher.
All of the above applies only to a sin-offering designated by an individual. [An animal designated as] a communal sin-offering, by contrast, which was lost and then discovered after atonement was secured - whether it is fit [to be offered as a sacrifice] or unfit5- should be left to be pasture until it contracts a blemish and then sold.6 The proceeds should be used for freewill offerings.7
With regard to communal sin-offerings, it is impossible to speak of offspring, exchanges, or the owners dying, because all of the communal offerings are male.8 The community cannot exchange one sacrificial animal for another as will be explained.9 And the entire Jewish people will not die.10
Halacha 2
When the bull11 and/or the goat12 of Yom Kippur were lost, other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found], they should be left to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. [Then] they should be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings.13 [The rationale is that] a communal sin-offering is never consigned to death. [This same law applies when] the goats sacrificed as [atonement for the worship of] false divinities14 are lost other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found].
Why are [the animals that were lost and then discovered] themselves not offered as freewill offerings, for they are male? This is a decree, forbidding [offering them] after atonement was achieved, [lest they be offered as freewill offerings] before atonement [was achieved].15
Halacha 3
[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it, then the first one was found, and they both stood [before him]. If he took one of them and attained atonement through its [sacrifice], the other should be consigned to death.16 If he asks the advice [of the court],17 he is told to gain atonement through the one set aside first. The second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering.18
If one of them was unblemished and the other had a disqualifying physical blemish, the unblemished one should be sacrificed and the blemished one should be redeemed.19If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar],20 it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one].21 If they were both blemished, they should both be sold, a sin-offering should be purchased from the proceeds, and the remainder used for freewill offerings.22
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it and it was [also] lost, and he designated a third. Afterwards, the lost ones were found, and all three stood [before him]. If he received atonement through the first animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the third left to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish].23 If he received atonement through the third animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the first left to pasture.24 If he received atonement through the second animal [that was set aside], the first and the third should be consigned to death.25
Halacha 5
When a person sets aside two [animals for] a sin-offering for surety,26 he may gain atonement through which one he desires, the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
Halacha 6
When a person sets aside [an animal that] is pregnant as a sin-offering and it gives birth, it and its offspring are considered as two animals set aside for a sin-offering and as surety for it.27
Halacha 7
If one set aside a sin-offering and then its year passed,28 it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place. Similarly, if [an animal] was set aside as a sin-offering and it contracted a disqualifying blemish, [it should be sold and] the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place.
Halacha 8
Whenever [an animal designated as] a sin-offering was lost and then discovered before [the owner] achieved atonement,29 - even though when it was discovered it was blemished or its year had passed30 - it is not consigned to death.31 Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
If it was found after [the owner] achieved atonement, even if it was discovered when it was blemished or its year had passed,32 since it was lost at the time atonement was achieved, it is consigned to death.
Halacha 9
If [the animal] was stolen or robbed at the time atonement was achieved and afterwards returned, it is not consigned to death. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished], for all we heard from Moses our teacher was that [an animal] that was lost [should be consigned to death].33
If it first34 was lost at night, even though it remained lost at the time atonement was achieved, it is not consigned to death.35 Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished].
Halacha 10
If [the owner] considered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] lost, but the shepherd did not or the shepherd considered it lost, but the owner did not, it is not consigned to death [if it is discovered after another animal was offered in place of it].36 Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished].
Halacha 11
All of those [animals mentioned in the above laws] that are allowed to pasture, may pasture until they contract a blemish. [Then they are sold and] the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering.
Halacha 12
If [the animal] was considered lost by both [the owner] and the shepherd, but another person - even in a far corner of the world - knows of its existence, there is an unresolved doubt whether it should be consigned to death.37 Therefore it should be consigned to death.38
Halacha 13
[If the animal designated as a sin-offering] was hiding behind a door or behind a stairwell, it is considered as lost, for no one will see it at the time atonement is gained. If it is in a field or in a swamp, there is a doubt whether it is lost, for perhaps there is a person who saw it at the time atonement is achieved. Therefore it is consigned to death because of the doubt.
Halacha 14
When a person sends [an animal designated as] a sin-offering from a distant country, we sacrifice it under the assumption that he is alive.
When does the above apply? With regard to a sin-offering of a fowl or a sin-offering of an animal for a woman who does not perform semichah, as we explained.39[Different rules apply with regard to an animal set aside as] an unconditional guilt-offering.40 [If] its owner died or received atonement,41 it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering. Whenever it is deemed that [an animal designated as] a sin-offering should be consigned to death, [one designated as] a guilt-offering should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
Halacha 15
[If] any [animal set aside as] a guilt-offering that is consigned to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish] is sacrificed as a burnt offering itself,42 it is acceptable. Why is it not the initial preference to offer it as a burnt-offering? [This is] a decree, [using such an animal for a burnt-offering] after [its owner] gained atonement [is forbidden] lest [such an animal be used for a burnt-offering] before [the owner] gained atonement.43
Halacha 16
When a person sets aside a female [animal] for a guilt-offering in which he [is obligated], it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.44 [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a guilt-offering.45 If his guilt-offering was offered, the proceeds from the sale should be used to purchase a freewill offering. This also applies to her offspring.46
Halacha 17
When a person sets aside a female [animal] for a burnt-offering47 in which he [is obligated] and she gives birth to a male, [the offspring] should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a burnt-offering.48
Halacha 18
If, however, an ordinary person49 set aside a male [animal] for a sin-offering,50 a king51 set aside a she-goat as a sin-offering,52 or an anointed priest set aside a cow,53 these are not consecrated [at all], their physical person is not consecrated,54 nor is their worth consecrated.55 Therefore they may be sold [even] when unblemished.56
Halacha 19
[The following laws apply when a person] brought a conditional guilt-offering57 and then discovered that he did not sin58 or that he definitely sinned.59 [Should he become aware of this] before the animal was slaughtered, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.60 [The rationale61 is that] a person's heart feels contrite because of his sins. Since he designated [the animal as a sacrifice] because of a doubt, [we assume that] he resolved to consecrate it [regardless]. If he designated [an animal as a conditional guilt-offering] even because of witnesses62 and the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah,63[the above ruling applies and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
If this was discovered after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be poured out64 and the meat burnt as prescribed with regard to other sacrifices that were disqualified.65 If this was discovered after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be eaten by the priests like that of other guilt-offerings.66
Halacha 20
[This law] does not apply with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering. [In that instance,] if the person became aware that he did not sin before [the animal designated as a sacrifice was slaughtered], it should be allowed to go out and pasture among the flock like an ordinary animal.67 There is no holiness associated with it at all. If [he became aware of his innocence] after [the animal] was slaughtered, it should be buried.68If [he became aware] after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be taken to the place where [invalid sacrifices] are burnt like other sacrifices that were disqualified.69
Halacha 21
When a person became liable to offer a conditional guilt-offering and he set aside two [animals] as surety,70 he should gain atonement through one of them and the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.71[Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering.72 Needless to say,73 this law applies with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering.
Halacha 22
All of the guilt-offerings mentioned in the Torah should be brought when they are in their second year of life74 and their price should be [two] silver shekalim75 with the exception of the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at76 and the guilt offering brought by a nazirite77 which should be brought in their first year of life78 and their cost has no limit.
A conditional guilt-offering comes from both young lambs and elder ones.79 According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that it be brought only from [two] silver shekalim.
Halacha 23
If the price of rams decrease and a ram cannot be found for two silver selaim, the person has no means of correcting [his circumstance].80 He must wait until their price inflates and then bring one for two selaim, for the Torah was precise about their price and gave it an explicit limit.
Halacha 24
If a person set aside an animal as a guilt offering which was worth [only] one sela at the time it was set aside, but its worth appreciated to two at the time of atonement,81 it is acceptable. For the fact that it was initially unacceptable does not make it permanently disqualified, since it was not fit to be sacrificed until it was worth two [selaim]. Even though it increased in value on its own,82 a person can gain atonement through the increase in value of consecrated property.83
If it was worth two selaim at the time it was set aside, but its worth depreciated to one at the time of atonement, it is unacceptable.84 If its value later appreciated to two, it becomes acceptable again. For living animals are never permanently disqualified, as we explained.85 To what can the matter be likened? To a physical blemish that was contracted, but which disappeared.
Halacha 25
[The following rule applies when a person] set aside two selaim for a guilt-offering and purchased two rams for a guilt-offering with them. If one of them was worth two selaim, he should offer it as his guilt-offering86 and the other should be left to be pasture until it contracts a blemish [and then sold]. The proceeds should be used for a freewill offering.87
Halacha 26
If a person was obligated to bring a guilt-offering that was a year old,88and instead, brought one that was two years old,89 brought one that was a year old when he was obligated to bring one that was two years old, or brought one when the time for him to bring it had not come,90 it is unacceptable. It should be [left] until the next day91 and then it should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.
This is the general principle: Any factor that disqualifies a sin-offering disqualifies a guilt-offering except a guilt-offering that was slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice, which is acceptable, as will be explained.92
Halacha 27
When a burnt-offering that must be brought by a nazirite,93 a woman who gives birth,94 or a person who is being purified after tza'arat,95was slaughtered when it was more than twelve months old or the time for the owner to bring it had not come,96 it is acceptable97 and its accompanying offerings are required to be brought.
This is the general principle: Any factor that does not disqualify a burnt offering brought willingly does not disqualify a burnt-offering that is obligatory regardless of whether the one bringing it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation or not.
FOOTNOTES
1.Through offering a different animal as a sin-offering. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam mentions several conditions when an animal is consigned to death in such a situation. They are listed in Halachot 9-13.
2.The doubt arises because the person does not secure atonement until the blood is presented.
3.When an animal has been consecrated, but is unfit to be sacrificed for various reasons, it must be redeemed before being used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it may not be redeemed until it becomes disqualified as a sacrifice through contracting a physical blemish. Therefore it is left to pasture until it contracts such a blemish. During that time, it is still consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it.
4.For if it is to be consigned to death, it would be forbidden to benefit from it. Since there is a possibility that it is forbidden in this manner, it is not redeemed.
5.It became blemished or its age increased beyond that which is appropriate.
6.When an animal has been consecrated, but is unfit to be sacrificed for various reasons, it must be redeemed before being used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it may not be redeemed until it becomes disqualified as a sacrifice through contracting a physical blemish. Therefore it is left to pasture until it contracts such a blemish. During that time, it is still consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it.
7.I.e., the money is used to buy animals that are offered as burnt-offerings at a time when the altar is free [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4)].
8.Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15. Since they are male, there are no offspring.
9.Hilchot Temurah 1:1.
10.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 2:2), the Rambam cites Bava Batra 115b which states that an entire tribe will not die and states that how much more so does this apply to the entire Jewish people.
11.Sacrificed by the High Priest as atonement for his household and for the entire priestly family. Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1
12.The pair of the goat sent to Azazel. This goat is offered as a sin-offering, for the entire Jewish people (ibid.).
13.The wording used by the Rambam literally means "the proceeds should fall to a freewill offering." In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 3:3, Rav Kapach's edition), the Rambam explains the meaning of that phrase. There were thirteen chests shaped like shofarot in the Temple. Six of them were for money to be used for freewill offerings (see Hilchot Shekalim 2:2). The money from such a sale would be deposited in one of these chests.
14.See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1.
15.For as stated in the following halachah, it is preferable that the animals originally set aside as sin-offerings be offered for that purpose instead of their replacements.
16.Since he took one without questioning what should be done with the second, it is obvious that he consciously rejected the second one and is not concerned with its future. Hence it should be consigned to death (Rashi, Temurah 23a).
This ruling reflects a reversal in the Rambam's thinking. Originally [i.e., in the first version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:3)], he accepted the opinion of Rav Abba who made his statements in the name of Rav. According to that view, if he sacrificed the animal that was set aside originally, the second animal that was set aside need not be consigned to death. He later changed his mind (see Rav Kapach's version of the Commentary to the Mishnah; see also the gloss of Tosafot Yom Tov to Temurah, loc. cit.) and amended his text to read as above.
17.And thus shows that he is concerned about the fate of the other animal. Accordingly, it is not consigned to death.
18.See Chapter 5, Halachah 9.
19.And the proceeds used for freewill offerings as above.
20.The act that brings about atonement.
21.This follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezar ben Shimon (Temurah 24a) who maintains that once the owner receives atonement, it becomes forbidden to benefit from the second animal even if the second animal was already slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is unlikely the Rambam accepted this view when it is opposed by the majority of the Sages. Hence he suggests amending the text to read: "If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar], it is permitted. [If it was slaughtered] after [the blood of the first] was cast upon the altar, it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one]."
22.See Chapter 5, Halachah 3.
23.Since the third animal does not have a direct connection with the first, the fact that the owner received atonement through the sacrifice of the first does not cause the third to be consigned to death.
24.For the same reason as stated in the previous note.
25.For both of these share a direct connection with the second.
26.So that if one is lost or becomes unacceptable, he will be able to offer the other one. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this is speaking about a situation when the person says: "One of these two should be consecrated as a sin-offering."
27.And he can offer either as a sacrifice.
28.A lamb is not fit to be brought as a sin-offering if it is more than one year old.
29.Through the offering of another sacrifice.
30.And thus when it was discovered, it was no longer fit to be offered as a sacrifice. The Kessef Mishneh suggests that this clause is a printing error, because according to the Rambam's logic, the term "even though" is inappropriate.
31.According to the Rambam (see his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1-2), the determining factor is whether the animal was discovered before atonement is achieved or not. Only when it is lost at the time of atonement is it consigned to death.
32.In which instance, there is room to say that it should not be consigned to death, because perhaps it was already disqualified as a sacrifice at the time the other animal was offered. Even in such a situation, however, it is consigned to death.
33.As mentioned in Halachah 1, the laws applying to the consignment of an animal designated as a sin-offering to death are part of the Oral Tradition conveyed to Moses at Sinai. And all that was mentioned in that tradition was an animal that was lost.
34.Temurah 22b explains that this is the meaning of ikar in this instance.
35.Because at the time it was lost, it was not fit to be sacrificed, since sacrifices are not offered at night.
36.As long as one - the owner or the shepherd - knows of the animal's existence, it cannot truly be considered as lost.
37.Temurah 22b leaves this question unresolved. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam writes that as long as one person knows of the animal's existence, it is not consigned to death.
38.As stated in Halachah 1.
39.Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5. A sin-offering for a man, by contrast, should not be brought unless he is present to perform semichah upon it. Although, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable if semichah is not performed, as an initial preference, one should not offer it unless that rite could be performed.
40.The situations under which a person is required to bring such a sacrifice are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:6.
41.Through the sacrifice of another animal.
42.I.e., if instead of being left to pasture, the animal was itself offered as a burnt-offering.
43.For if it was discovered before the owner gained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, the initial preference would be to sacrifice it.
44.All guilt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10). Hence the animal cannot be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated.
45.For it was consecrated for that purpose.
46.If the female set aside as a guilt-offering became pregnant, its offspring (even if male) should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and then sold and the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering. The rationale is that the consecrated status of the offspring stems from the mother. Since the mother was not fit to be offered as a guilt-offering, the offspring also should not be used for that purpose.
47.All animals offered as burnt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8). Hence the animal could never be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated.
48.The offspring itself should not be offered for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah.
49.In contrast to a king or a High Priest.
50.All the sin-offerings brought by an ordinary person are female (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15).
51.This is the interpretation of the term nasi used by the Rambam (see Hilchot Shegagot 15:6).
52.Instead of a he-goat as required.
53.Instead of a bull as required.
54.So that they would be sacrificed for the stated purpose.
55.In which instance, they would have to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice.
56.The rationale is that, as stated in Hilchot Temurah 1:21, when an error was made in consecrating an animal as a sin-offering, it is not consecrated at all. The Ra'avad objects to this ruling based on Temurah 19b-20a, but states that there is a way to resolve the Rambam's perspective. The Kessef Mishneh recognizes the difficulty in the Rambam's ruling and also offers a possible resolution.
57.Which must be brought when he is in doubt of whether he inadvertently committed a sin that would make him liable for a sin-offering,
58.In which instance he would not have to bring a sacrifice at all.
59.In which instance, he would have to bring a sin-offering instead.
60.I.e., since it was consecrated, it should be used for the purchase of a sacrifice. It cannot, however, be sacrificed as a guilt-offering, because the person is not obligated to bring such a sacrifice.
61.I.e., since it was consecrated conditionally - i.e., because he might have sinned - when he discovers that he did not, there is room to say that the consecration is not binding. Indeed, Keritot 23b mentions an opinion to that effect. The Rambam does not, however, accept this view for the reasons stated.
62.I.e., he had no suspicions that he sinned, but witnesses told him that he performed an action that could have involved a transgression, e.g., he ate a piece of meat that could possible have contained an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat.
63.Hazamah refers to a situation in which other witnesses disqualify the witnesses who testified previously by stating that it was impossible for their testimony to be true, for the witnesses were together with them in a different place at the time the transgression mentioned in their testimony was performed (Hilchot Edut 18:2).
Here, also, there is room to say that the person consecrated the animal in error. Nevertheless, the rationale given previously applies in this instance as well.
64.In the drainage channel.
65.See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.
66.For the sacrifice was offered as prescribed, and from the outset, it was offered conditionally.
67.Since it was consecrated in error, the consecration is not binding at all.
68.I.e., it is governed by the laws pertaining to an ordinary animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.
69.See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.
70.I.e., if one will be lost, the other should be sacrificed in place of it.
71.As stated in Halachah 5, with regard to a sin-offering.
72.Since he set aside an extra animal because he wanted to be certain that he would be able to offer a sacrifice as atonement for his sins, we assume that he desired to consecrate it under all circumstances.
73.The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam feels that an unconditional guilt-offering is a more obvious matter than a conditional guilt-offering.
74.More precisely when they are at least thirteen months old.
75.As stated explicitly in Leviticus 5:15 with regard to the guilt offering that atones for the misappropriation of consecrated property. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam explains the process of exegesis through which this requirement is extended to apply to the guilt-offerings that atone for robbery and for relations with a maid-servant that was designated for another man.
76.A skin affliction similar, but not analogous to leprosy. The obligation to bring a guilt-offering when one emerges from this impurity is stated in Leviticus 14:10-12.
77.When the nazirite becomes impure and shaves his head before beginning his nazirite vow again, he brings several sacrifices including a guilt-offering as stated in Numbers 6:12.
78.As specifically stated in the Torah.
79.This rendering of the text is found in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah and in many reliable manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah. It is also cited by the Kessef Mishneh. Others maintain that the proper version is found in the early printings of the Mishneh Torah which reads "It is explicit that an unconditional guilt-offering is brought only from elder ones." This version is supported by the Rambam's statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). Also, Leviticus 5:18 specifically states that a ram should be brought for this sacrifice.
80.He is obligated to bring a guilt-offering and, as the Rambam proceeds to state, he may not bring such an offering for less.
81.I.e., when it was sacrificed.
82.I.e., the market price of rams rose; it was not fattened to the extent that its value increased (Rav Yosef Corcus).
83.I.e., it had already been consecrated at the time its value increased.
84.For at the time it is to be sacrificed, it is not worth the required amount.
85.Chapter 3, Halachah 22; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4.
86.Since it is of the required worth.
87.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam explains that this follows the general principle that if there is any money that was set aside for the purchase of a guilt-offering remains after the purchase of that offering, it should be used for the purchase of freewill offerings.
88.I.e., he was purifying himself from tzara'at or atoning for becoming impure while a nazirite.
89.As is obligated for the other types of guilt-offerings.
90.E.g., a nazirite must wait seven days after becoming impure to offer his sacrifice and a person who was purified from tzara'at must wait eight days. If these individuals sought to offer these sacrifices before this time came, they are unaceeptable.
91.We have translated the term used by the Rambam according to its halachic intent. The literal meaning is that it should be left long enough to decompose until it loses the appearance of meat. Our Sages (see Pesachim 34b, et al; Rashi, Menachot 46b) understood that as being a twenty-four hour period.
92.Chapter 15, Halachah 1. A sin-offering, by contrast, is unacceptable if slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice.
93.When he completes his nazirite vow, as stated in Numbers 6:14; Hilchot Nizirut 8:1.
94.The obligation for a woman to bring a burnt-offering after childbirth is mentioned in Leviticus 12:6; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3..
95.See Leviticus 14:10, 20; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, op. cit.
96.See note 88 with regard to the nazirite and the person purified after tzara'at. A woman who gave birth must wait 40 or 80 days before bringing a sacrifice as explained in the passage from Leviticus.
97.I.e., the sacrifice is acceptable. The person bringing it, however, has not satisfied his obligation and is required to bring another offering.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Friday, Sivan 29, 5774 • 27 June 2014
"Today's Day"
Friday, Sivan 29, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Korach, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 140-144.
Tanya: And the numerical (p. 319)...the letters themselves. (p. 321).
Man's avoda according to Chassidus: To accustom himself to perceive individual Divine Providence (hashgacha p'ratit), how G-d, in His goodness, renews the universe and all creatures every moment with His particular Divine Providence, which constitutes - to the exclusion of all else - the reality, life-force and sustained existence1 of all creatures.
FOOTNOTES
1. For the distinction between "reality" (metzi'ut) and "sustained existence" (kiyum), see Sefer Hamaamarim 5711 p. 31.
-------
Daily Thought:
To Each His Path
Just as it is a mitzvah to direct someone onto the path where he belongs, so too it is a crime to direct someone onto a path that does not belong to him.
Each person is born with a path particular to his or her soul, generally according to the culture into which he or she was born.
There are universal truths, the inheritance of all of us since Adam and Noah. In them we are all united. But we are not meant to all be the same.
Our differences are as valuable to our Creator as our similarities.
-------
TODAY IS: SHABBAT, SIVAN 30, 5774 • JUNE 28, 2014
ROSH CHODESH TAMMUZ
Torah Reading
Chukat (Numbers - Bamidbar 19:1 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe and unto Aharon, saying,
2 This is the chukkat hatorah which Hashem hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the Bnei Yisroel, that they bring thee a completely red female cow [that has not produced a calf], wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came ol (yoke):
3 And ye shall give her unto Eleazar HaKohen, that he may bring her forth outside the machaneh, and one shall slaughter (shachat) her before his face;
4 And Eleazar HaKohen shall take of her dahm with his finger, and sprinkle of her dahm directly before the Ohel Mo’ed seven times;
5 And one shall burn the heifer in his sight; her hide, and her basar, and her dahm, with her dung, shall he burn;
6 And the kohen shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and crimson thread, and cast it into the midst of the burning heifer.
7 Then the kohen shall wash his clothes, and he shall immerse his basar in mayim, and afterward he shall come into the machaneh, and the kohen shall be tamei until the erev.
8 And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in mayim, and immerse his basar in mayim, and shall be tamei until the erev.
9 And a man that is tahor shall gather up the ashes of the cow, and lay them up outside the machaneh in a makom tahor, and it shall be in safekeeping for HaEdah Bnei Yisroel for water of sprinkling; it is for sinpurification.
10 And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be tamei until the erev; and it shall be unto the Bnei Yisroel, and unto the ger that sojourneth among them, for a chukkat olam.
11 He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be tamei shivat yamim.
12 He shall make himself tahor with it on the Yom HaShelishi, and on the seventh day he shall be tahor; but if he does not make himself tahor on the Yom HaShelishi, then the seventh day he shall not be tahor.
13 Whosoever toucheth the body of any man that is dead, and maketh not himself tahor, makes tamei the Mishkan Hashem; and that nefesh shall be cut off from Yisroel; because the water of sprinkling was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be tamei; his tumah is yet upon him.
14 This is the torah, when a man dieth in an ohel, all that come into the ohel, and all that is in the ohel, shall be tamei seven days.
15 And every open vessel, which hath no covering bound upon it, is tamei.
16 And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a cherev in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a kever, shall be tamei seven days.
17 And for one who is tamei they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the purification [animal], and running mayim shall be put thereto in a vessel;
18 And an ish tahor shall take hyssop, and dip it in the mayim, and sprinkle it upon the ohel, and upon all the vessels, and upon the nefashot that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a kever;
19 And the tahor (clean person) shall sprinkle upon the tamei on the Yom HaShelishi, and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall make himself tahor, and wash his clothes, and immerse himself in mayim, and shall be tahor at erev [T.N. On the messianic mikveh see Co 2:11-12].
20 But the man that shall be tamei, and shall not purify himself, that nefesh shall be cut off from among the Kahal, because he hath contaminated the Mikdash Hashem; the water of sprinkling hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is tamei.
21 And it shall be a chukkat olam unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of sprinkling shall immerse his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of sprinkling shall be tamei until erev.
22 And whatsoever the tamei person toucheth shall be tamei; and the nefesh that toucheth it shall be tamei until erev.
20:1 Then came the Bnei Yisroel, even the kol HaEdah into the Midbar of Tzin in the first month; and the people abode in Kadesh; and Miryam died there, and was buried there.
2 And there was no mayim for the Edah; and they gathered themselves together against Moshe and against Aharon.
3 And the people contended with Moshe, and spoke, saying, If only we had died when our brethren died before Hashem!
4 And why have ye brought up the Kahal Hashem into this midbar, that we and our livestock should die here?
5 And why have ye made us to come up out of Mitzrayim, to bring us in unto this evil place? It is no place of zera (grain), or of te’enah (fig), or of gefen (grapevine), or of pomegranates; neither is there any mayim to drink.
6 And Moshe and Aharon went from the presence of the Kahal unto the entrance of the Ohel Mo’ed, and they fell upon their faces; and the kavod Hashem appeared unto them.
7 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe, saying,
8 Take the rod and gather thou the Edah together, thou and Aharon thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth its mayim, and thou shalt bring forth to them mayim out of the rock; so thou shalt give the Edah and their beasts drink.
9 And Moshe took the rod from before Hashem, just as He commanded him.
10 And Moshe and Aharon gathered the Kahal together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye morim (rebels, contentious ones); must we fetch you mayim out of this rock?
11 And Moshe lifted up his hand, and with his rod he struck the rock twice; and the mayim came out abundantly, and the Edah drank, and their beasts also.
12 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe and Aharon, Because ye believed Me not, to honor Me as kadosh in the eyes of the Bnei Yisroel, therefore ye shall not bring this Kahal into HaAretz which I have given them.
13 These were the Waters of Merivah (Quarreling); because the Bnei Yisroel quarreled with Hashem, and He showed Himself kadosh among them.
14 And Moshe sent messengers from Kadesh unto the melech of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Yisroel, Thou knowest all the hardship that hath befallen us:
15 How Avoteinu went down into Mitzrayim, and we have dwelt in Mitzrayim a long time; and the Egyptians did evil to us, and Avoteinu;
16 And when we cried unto Hashem, He heard our voice, and sent a malach, and hath brought us forth out of Mitzrayim; and, hinei, we are in Kadesh, a town in the edge of thy border;
17 Let us pass, please, through thy country; we will not pass through the fields, or through the kerem (vineyards), neither will we drink of the mayim of the wells; we will go by the Derech HaMelech; we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left until we have passed through thy territory.
18 And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass through me, lest I come out against thee with the cherev.
19 And the Bnei Yisroel said unto him, We will go by the main road; and if I and my livestock drink of thy mayim, then I will pay for it; I will only, without doing anything else, pass through on my feet.
20 And he said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with a large army, and with a yad chazakah.
21 Thus Edom refused to give Yisroel passage through his border; wherefore Yisroel turned away from him.
22 And the Bnei Yisroel, even Kol HaEdah, journeyed from Kadesh, and came unto Mt Hor.
23 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe and Aharon in Mt Hor, by the border of Eretz Edom, saying,
24 Aharon shall be gathered unto his people; for he shall not enter into HaAretz which I have given unto the Bnei Yisroel, because ye rebelled against My word at the Waters of Merivah.
25 Take Aharon and Eleazar bno, and bring them up unto Mt Hor;
26 And strip Aharon of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar bno; and Aharon shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there.
27 And Moshe did as Hashem commanded; and they went up into Mt Hor in the sight of Kol HaEdah.
28 And Moshe stripped Aharon of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar bno; and Aharon died there on the top of the mount; and Moshe and Eleazar came down from the mount.
29 And when Kol HaEdah saw that Aharon was dead, they mourned for Aharon shloshim yom, even Kol Bais Yisroel.
21:1 And when melech of Arad the Kena’ani, which dwelt in the Negev, heard that Yisroel came by the Derech HaAtarim; then he fought against Yisroel, and took some of them prisoners.
2 And Yisroel vowed a neder unto Hashem, and said, If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.
3 And Hashem paid heed to the kol Yisroel, and delivered up the Kena’ani; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities; and the place was named Chormah (Utter Destruction).
4 And they journeyed from Mt Hor by the way of the Yam Suf, to go around Eretz Edom; and the nefesh haAm was much impatient because of the way.
5 And the people spoke against Elohim, and against Moshe, Why have ye brought us up out of Mitzrayim to die in the midbar? For there is no lechem, neither is there any mayim; and our nefesh loatheth this wretched lechem.
6 And Hashem sent fiery nechashim among the people, and they bit the people; and Am rav miYisroel died.
7 Therefore HaAm came to Moshe, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against Hashem, and against thee; pray unto Hashem that He take away the Nachash from us. And Moshe davened for the people.
8 And Hashem said unto Moshe, Make thee a fiery serpent, set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9 And Moshe made a nachash of nechoshet, put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a nachash had bitten any man, when he beheld the nachash hanechoshet, then he lived [see Yn 3:14-15].
10 And the Bnei Yisroel set out, and encamped in Ovot.
11 And they journeyed from Ovot, and encamped at Iyei-HaAvarim, in the midbar which is before Moav, toward the mizrach hashemesh.
12 From thence they removed, and encamped in the Wadi Zered.
13 From thence they removed, and encamped on the other side of Arnon, which is in the midbar encroaching the Emori; for Arnon is the border of Moav, between Moav and the Emori.
14 Wherefore it is said in the Sefer Michamot Hashem, Vahev v’sufah and in the Vadis Arnon,
15 And at the stream of the brooks that goeth down to the site of Ar, and lieth upon the border of Moav.
16 And from thence they went to Beer; that is the Well whereof Hashem spoke unto Moshe, Gather the people together, and I will give them mayim.
17 Then Yisroel sang this shirah (song), Spring up, O well; sing ye unto it.
18 The sarim (princes) dug the well, the nobles of the people dug it, by the direction of the Mechokek (Lawgiver), with their rods. And from the midbar they went to Mattanah;
19 And from Mattanah to Nachaliel; and from Nachaliel to Bamot;
20 And from Bamot in the valley, that is in the country of Moav, to the top of Pisgah, overlooking the surface of the wasteland.
21 And Yisroel sent messengers unto Sichon Melech HaEmori, saying,
22 Let me pass through thy land; we will not turn into the fields, or into the kerem (vineyards); we will not drink of the waters of the well, but we will go along by the Derech HaMelech until we be past thy borders [Yn 14:6].
23 And Sichon would not suffer Yisroel to pass through his border; but Sichon gathered all his army together, and went out against Yisroel into the midbar; and he came to Yachatz and fought against Yisroel.
24 And Yisroel struck down him with the edge of the cherev, and possessed his land from Arnon unto Yabbok, even unto the Bnei Ammon; for the border of the Bnei Ammon was fortified.
25 And Yisroel took all these cities; Yisroel dwelt in all the cities of the Emori, in Cheshbon, and in all the villages thereof.
26 For Chesbon was the city of Sichon Melech HaEmori, who had fought against the former king of Moav, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon.
27 Wherefore they that speak in proverbs say, Come into Cheshbon, let the city of Sichon be built and prepared;
28 For there is a fire gone out of Cheshbon, a flame from the city of Sichon; it hath consumed Ar of Moav, and citizens of the heights of Arnon.
29 Woe to thee, Moav! Thou art undone, O people of Kemosh; he hath given his banim as fugitives, and his banot, captives unto Sichon Melech Emori.
30 Down they have been cast; Chesbon is perished even unto Divon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophach, which reacheth unto Meidva.
31 Thus Yisroel dwelt in Eretz HaEmori.
32 And Moshe sent to spy out Yazer, and they took the villages thereof, and drove out HaEmori that were there.
33 And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan; and Og Melech HaBashan went out against them, he, and all his army, to the battle at Edrei.
34 And Hashem said unto Moshe, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, all his army, his land; thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sichon Melech HaEmori, which dwelt at Chesbon.
35 So they struck him down, and his banim, and all his army, until there was none alive left to him: and they possessed his land.
[BALAK]
22 And the Bnei Yisroel set forward, and encamped in the plains of Moav on the bank of the Yarden by Yericho.)
TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• ROSH CHODESH OBSERVANCES
Today is the first of the two Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") days for the Hebrew month of "Tammuz" (when a month has 30 days, both the last day of the month and the first day of the following month serve as the following month's Rosh Chodesh).
Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited -- in its "partial" form -- following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh V'yavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.
Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh -- the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish Calendar.
Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files
• ETHICS OF THE FATHERS: CHAPTER 4
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 Four.
Link: Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 4
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Chukat, 7th Portion Numbers 21:21-22:1 with Rashi
• Chapter 21
21. Israel sent messengers to Sihon the king of the Amorites, saying: כא. וַיִּשְׁלַח יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְאָכִים אֶל סִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִי לֵאמֹר:
Israel sent messengers: Elsewhere, the sending [of messengers] is ascribed to Moses, as it says, “So I sent messengers from the desert of Kedemoth” (Deut. 2:26). Similarly, “Moses sent messengers to the king of Edom…” (above. 20: 14), but concerning Jephthah it says, “Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom…” (Jud. 11:17). These verses supplement each other; one holds back [information by not informing us who authorized the sending of the messengers] and the other reveals [that Moses sent them]. Moses is Israel, and Israel is Moses, to teach you that the leader of the generation is equal to the entire generation, because the leader is everything. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 23, Num. Rabbah 19:28]
וישלח ישראל מלאכים: ובמקום אחר תולה השליחות במשה, שנאמר (דברים ב, כו) ואשלח מלאכים ממדבר קדמות, וכן (במדבר כ, יד) וישלח משה מלאכים מקדש אל מלך אדום, וביפתח הוא אומר (שופטים יא, יז) וישלח ישראל מלאכים אל מלך אדום וגו', הכתובים הללו צריכים זה לזה, זה נועל וזה פותח, שמשה הוא ישראל וישראל הם משה, לומר לך שנשיא הדור הוא ככל הדור, כי הנשיא הוא הכל:
22. "Let me pass through your land. We will not turn into fields or vineyards, nor drink well water. We shall walk along the king's road, until we have passed through your territory." כב. אֶעְבְּרָה בְאַרְצֶךָ לֹא נִטֶּה בְּשָׂדֶה וּבְכֶרֶם לֹא נִשְׁתֶּה מֵי בְאֵר בְּדֶרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ נֵלֵךְ עַד אֲשֶׁר נַעֲבֹר גְּבֻלֶךָ:
Let me pass through your land: Even though they were not commanded to offer them peace, they nevertheless sought peace from them. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 22, Num. Rabbah 19:27]
אעברה בארצך: אף על פי שלא נצטוו לפתוח להם בשלום בקשו מהם שלום:
23. But Sihon did not permit Israel to pass through his territory, and Sihon gathered all his people and went out to the desert toward Israel. He arrived at Jahaz and fought against Israel. כג. וְלֹא נָתַן סִיחֹן אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבֹר בִּגְבֻלוֹ וַיֶּאֱסֹף סִיחֹן אֶת כָּל עַמּוֹ וַיֵּצֵא לִקְרַאת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמִּדְבָּרָה וַיָּבֹא יָהְצָה וַיִּלָּחֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל:
But Sihon did not permit: Since all the Canaanite kings paid him tribute for protecting them against marauding armies, when Israel said to him, “Let me pass through your land,” he said to them, “My very presence is only to protect them from you, so how can you suggest such a thing?” - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 23, Num. Rabbah 19:29]
ולא נתן סיחון וגו': לפי שכל מלכי כנען היו מעלין לו מס שהיה שומרם שלא יעברו עליהם גייסות, כיון שאמרו לו ישראל אעברה בארצך אמר להם כל עצמי איני יושב כאן אלא לשמרם מפניכם ואתם אומרים כך:
went out… toward Israel: Had Heshbon been full of gnats, no creature could have conquered it, and had Sihon been [living in] a weak village, no man could have conquered it. How much more so [was it invincible] since he [Sihon] was in Heshbon. The Holy One, blessed is He, said, “Why should I trouble My children to besiege every city?” He gave all the warriors the idea to leave the cities, and they all gathered in one place, where they were slain. From there Israel proceeded to the cities, where there met with no opposition, since only women and children were [left] there. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 23, Num. Rabbah 19:29]
ויצא לקראת ישראל: אילו היתה חשבון מלאה יתושין, אין כל בריה יכולה לכבשה, ואם היה סיחון בכפר חלש אין כל אדם יכול לכבשו, וכל שכן אלו שהיה בחשבון. אמר הקב"ה מה אני מטריח על בני כל זאת לצור על כל עיר ועיר, נתן בלב כל אנשי המלחמה לצאת מן העיירות ונתקבצו כולם למקום אחד, ושם נפלו. ומשם הלכו ישראל אל הערים ואין עומד לנגדם כי אין שם איש, אלא נשים וטף:
24. Israel smote him with the sword, and took possession of his land from Arnon to Jabbok, as far as the children of Ammon, for the border of the children of Ammon was strong. כד. וַיַּכֵּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפִי חָרֶב וַיִּירַשׁ אֶת אַרְצוֹ מֵאַרְנֹן עַד יַבֹּק עַד בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן כִּי עַז גְּבוּל בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן:
for…strong: What was its strength? The warning of the Holy One, blessed is He, Who said to them [Israel],“neither distress them [Ammon]” (Deut. 2:19). - [Mid. Aggadah]
כי עז: ומהו חזקו, התראתו של הקב"ה, שאמר להם (דברים ב, יט) אל תצורם וגו':
25. Israel took all these cities, and the Israelites dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon and all its villages. כה. וַיִּקַּח יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת כָּל הֶעָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל עָרֵי הָאֱמֹרִי בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן וּבְכָל בְּנֹתֶיהָ:
its villages: Heb. בְּנֹתֶיהָ, lit. her daughters, the villages near it.
בנתיה: כפרים הסמוכים לה:
26. For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, king of the Amorites, and he had fought against the first king of Moab, taking all his land from his possession, as far as Arnon. כו. כִּי חֶשְׁבּוֹן עִיר סִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִי הִוא וְהוּא נִלְחַם בְּמֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב הָרִאשׁוֹן וַיִּקַּח אֶת כָּל אַרְצוֹ מִיָּדוֹ עַד אַרְנֹן:
and he had fought: Why was it necessary to write this? For it says,“Do not distress the Moabites” (Deut. 2:9), and Heshbon belonged to Moab, Scripture writes that Sihon had taken it from them, and through him it was made permissible for Israel. — [Chul. 60b]
והוא נלחם: למה הוצרך להכתב, לפי שנאמר (דברים ב, ט) אל תצר את מואב, וחשבון משל מואב היתה, כתב לנו שסיחון לקחה מהם ועל ידו טהרה לישראל:
from his possession: Heb. מִיָּדוֹ, lit. from his hand, [meaning] from his possession. — [B.M. 56b]
מידו: מרשותו:
27. Concerning this, those who speak in parables say, "Come to Heshbon, may it be built and established as the city of Sihon. כז. עַל כֵּן יֹאמְרוּ הַמּשְׁלִים בֹּאוּ חֶשְׁבּוֹן תִּבָּנֶה וְתִכּוֹנֵן עִיר סִיחוֹן:
Concerning this: Concerning that war, which Sihon waged against Moab.
על כן: על אותה מלחמה שנלחם סיחון במואב:
those who speak in parables say: [This refers to] Balaam, about whom it says, “He took up his parable” (23:7).
יאמרו המשלים: בלעם, שנאמר בו (במדבר כג, ז) וישא משלו:
those who tell parables: Balaam and [his father] Beor. They said…. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 24, Num. Rabbah 19:30]
המשלים: בלעם ובעור. והם אמרו:
Come to Heshbon: because Sihon could not conquer it. So he went and hired Balaam to curse it. This is what Balak [meant when he] said to him,“For I know that whoever you bless is blessed” (22:6). - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 24, Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 19:30, 20:7, Mid. Aggadah]
באו חשבון: שלא היה סיחון יכול לכבשה והלך ושכר את בלעם לקללו, וזהו שאמר לו בלק (שם כב, ו) כי ידעתי את אשר תברך מבורך וגו':
built and established: Heshbon under the name of Sihon, to be his city.
תבנה ותכונן: חשבון בשם סיחון להיות עירו:
28. For fire went forth from Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon; it consumed Ar of Moab, the masters of the high places of Arnon. כח. כִּי אֵשׁ יָצְאָה מֵחֶשְׁבּוֹן לֶהָבָה מִקִּרְיַת סִיחֹן אָכְלָה עָר מוֹאָב בַּעֲלֵי בָּמוֹת אַרְנֹן:
For a fire went forth from Heshbon: After Sihon had conquered it.
כי אש יצאה מחשבון: משכבשה סיחון:
it consumed Ar of Moab: The name of that country was called Ar in Hebrew, and Lechayath in Aramaic. — [Onkelos]
אכלה ער מואב: שם אותה המדינה קרוי ער בלשון עברי, ולחיית בלשון ארמי:
Ar of Moab: Heb. עָר מוֹאָב, Ar, which belonged to Moab. — [Onkelos]
ער מואב: ער של מואב:
29. Woe is to you, Moab; you are lost, people of Chemosh. His sons he has given over as refugees and his daughters into captivity, to Sihon, king of the Amorites. כט. אוֹי לְךָ מוֹאָב אָבַדְתָּ עַם כְּמוֹשׁ נָתַן בָּנָיו פְּלֵיטִם וּבְנֹתָיו בַּשְּׁבִית לְמֶלֶךְ אֱמֹרִי סִיחוֹן:
Woe is to you, Moab: [Meaning] that they cursed Moab that it be delivered into his hand. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 24, Num. Rabbah 19:30]
אוי לך מואב: שקללו את מואב שימסרו בידו:
Chemosh: The name of Moab’s god. — [I Kings 11:7]
כמוש: שם אלהי מואב:
He has given over: The one who has given over his sons, that is, [not his own sons but] the sons of Moab.
נתן: הנותן את בניו של מואב:
refugees: who flee and escape the sword, and his daughters into captivity, etc.
פליטם: נסים ופליטים מחרב ואת בנותיו בשבית וגו':
30. Their kingdom is destroyed from Heshbon; it has been removed from Dibon; we laid them waste as far as Nophah which is near Medeba." ל. וַנִּירָם אָבַד חֶשְׁבּוֹן עַד דִּיבֹן וַנַּשִּׁים עַד נֹפַח אֲשֶׁר עַד מֵידְבָא:
Their kingdom: Heb. וַנִּירָם, their kingdom.
ונירם: מלכות שלהם:
is destroyed from Heshbon, it has been removed from Dibon: The kingdom and dominion that Moab had over Heshbon terminated from there. Similarly, עַד דִּיבֹן -the Targum of סַר ‘removed’ is עַד, that is to say, the kingdom was removed from Dibon. [The word] נִיר is a term denoting kingship and dominion [resulting from] the rule of man, as in “so that there be dominion for David My servant” (I Kings 11:36). - [Onkelos]
אבד חשבון עד דיבון: מלכות ועול שהיה למואב בחשבון אבד משם, וכן עד דיבון. תרגום של סר עד, כלומר סר ניר מדיבון. ניר לשון מלכות ועול וממשלת איש, כמו (מלכים א' יא, לו) למען היות ניר לדוד עבדי:
we laid them waste: Heb. וַנַּשִּׁים. The [letter] Heb. שׁ is punctuated with a dagesh [thus indicating a missing “mem,”], denoting ‘waste’ Heb. (שְׁמָמָה). Thus say those who tell parables: וַנַּשִּׁים אוֹתָם עַד נֹפַח, “we laid them waste as far as Nophah.”
ונשים: שי"ן דגושה לשון שממה, כך יאמר המושלים ונשים אותם:
31. Israel settled in the land of the Amorites. לא. וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאֶרֶץ הָאֱמֹרִי:
32. Moses sent [men] to spy out Jaazer and they captured its villages, driving out the Amorites who lived there. לב. וַיִּשְׁלַח משֶׁה לְרַגֵּל אֶת יַעְזֵר וַיִּלְכְּדוּ בְּנֹתֶיהָ וַיּוֹרֶשׁ אֶת הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר שָׁם:
Moses sent [men] to spy out Jaazer: The spies captured it. They said, We shall not do like the first group. We have [such] confidence in the power of Moses’ prayer that we are able to do battle. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 24, Num. Rabbah 19:31]
וישלח משה לרגל את יעזר: המרגלים לכדוה. אמרו לא נעשה כראשונים, בטוחים אנו בכח תפלתו של משה להלחם:
33. Then they turned and headed north toward the Bashan. Og, the king of Bashan, came out toward them with all his people, to wage war at Edrei. לג. וַיִּפְנוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ דֶּרֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן וַיֵּצֵא עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן לִקְרָאתָם הוּא וְכָל עַמּוֹ לַמִּלְחָמָה אֶדְרֶעִי:
34. The Lord said to Moses, "Do not fear him, for I have delivered him, his people, and his land into your hand. You shall do to him as you did to Sihon the king of the Amorites who dwells in Heshbon. לד. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה אַל תִּירָא אֹתוֹ כִּי בְיָדְךָ נָתַתִּי אֹתוֹ וְאֶת כָּל עַמּוֹ וְאֶת אַרְצוֹ וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ לְסִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר יוֹשֵׁב בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן:
Do not fear him: Moses was afraid to fight [against him] lest the merit of Abraham advocate for him, as it says, “The refugee came” (Gen. 14:13) -this was Og who had escaped from the Rephaim, who were smitten by Chedorlaomer and his allies at Ashteroth Karnaim, as it says, “only Og, the king of Bashan, was left of the remnant of the Rephaim” (Deut. 3:11). - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 24, Num. Rabbah 19:32]
אל תירא אותו: שהיה משה ירא להלחם, שמא תעמוד לו זכותו של אברהם, שנאמר (בראשית יד, יג) ויבא הפליט, הוא עוג, שפלט מן הרפאים שהכו כדרלעומר וחביריו בעשתרות קרנים, שנאמר (דברים ג, יא) כי רק עוג מלך הבשן נשאר מיתר הרפאים:
35. They smote him, his sons and all his people, until there was no survivor, and they took possession of his land. לה. וַיַּכּוּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת כָּל עַמּוֹ עַד בִּלְתִּי הִשְׁאִיר לוֹ שָׂרִיד וַיִּירְשׁוּ אֶת אַרְצוֹ:
They smote him: Moses slew him, as it says in [Tractate] Berachoth, in [the chapter beginning] Haroeh (54b): He uprooted a mountain of three parasangs [intending to throw it at the Israelites and crush them]….
ויכו אותו: משה הרגו, כדאיתא בברכות בהרואה (דף נד ב) עקר טורא בת תלתא פרסי וכו':
Chapter 22
1. The children of Israel journeyed and encamped in the plains of Moab, across the Jordan from Jericho. א. וַיִּסְעוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב מֵעֵבֶר לְיַרְדֵּן יְרֵחוֹ:
--------
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 145 - 150
• Chapter 145
One who recites this psalm three times daily with absolute concentration is guaranteed a portion in the World to Come. Because of its prominence, this psalm was composed in alphabetical sequence.
1. A psalm of praise by David: I will exalt You, my God the King, and bless Your Name forever.
2. Every day I will bless You, and extol Your Name forever.
3. The Lord is great and exceedingly exalted; there is no limit to His greatness.
4. One generation to another will laud Your works, and tell of Your mighty acts.
5. I will speak of the splendor of Your glorious majesty and of Your wondrous deeds.
6. They will proclaim the might of Your awesome acts, and I will recount Your greatness.
7. They will express the remembrance of Your abounding goodness, and sing of Your righteousness.
8. The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and of great kindness.
9. The Lord is good to all, and His mercies extend over all His works.
10. Lord, all Your works will give thanks to You, and Your pious ones will bless You.
11. They will declare the glory of Your kingdom, and tell of Your strength,
12. to make known to men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom.
13. Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds, and Your dominion is throughout all generations.
14. The Lord supports all who fall, and straightens all who are bent.
15. The eyes of all look expectantly to You, and You give them their food at the proper time.
16. You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing.
17. The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and benevolent in all His deeds.
18. The Lord is close to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth.
19. He fulfills the desire of those who fear Him, hears their cry and delivers them.
20. The Lord watches over all who love Him, and will destroy all the wicked.
21. My mouth will utter the praise of the Lord, and let all flesh bless His holy Name forever.
Chapter 146
This psalm inspires man to repent and perform good deeds while still alive. Let him not rely on mortals who are unable to help themselves, and who may suddenly pass on. Rather, one should put his trust in God, Who is capable of carrying out all He desires.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul.
2. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praises to my God while I yet exist.
3. Do not place your trust in nobles, nor in mortal man who has not the ability to bring deliverance.
4. When his spirit departs, he returns to his earth; on that very day, his plans come to naught.
5. Fortunate is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope rests upon the Lord his God.
6. He makes the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them; He keeps His promise faithfully forever.
7. He renders justice to the oppressed; He gives food to the hungry; the Lord releases those who are bound.
8. The Lord opens the eyes of the blind; the Lord straightens those who are bowed; the Lord loves the righteous.
9. The Lord watches over the strangers; He gives strength to orphan and widow; He thwarts the way of the wicked.
10. The Lord shall reign forever, your God, O Zion, throughout all generations. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 147
This psalm recounts God's greatness, and His kindness and goodness to His creations.
1. Praise the Lord! Sing to our God for He is good; praise befits Him for He is pleasant.
2. The Lord is the rebuilder of Jerusalem; He will gather the banished of Israel.
3. He heals the broken-hearted, and bandages their wounds.
4. He counts the number of the stars; He gives a name to each of them.
5. Great is our Master and abounding in might; His understanding is beyond reckoning.
6. The Lord strengthens the humble; He casts the wicked to the ground.
7. Lift your voices to the Lord in gratitude; sing to our God with the harp.
8. He covers the heaven with clouds; He prepares rain for the earth, and makes grass grow upon the mountains.
9. He gives the animal its food, to the young ravens which cry to Him.
10. He does not desire [those who place their trust in] the strength of the horse, nor does He want those who rely upon the thighs [swiftness] of man.
11. He desires those who fear Him, those who long for His kindness.
12. Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem; Zion, extol your God.
13. For He has strengthened the bolts of your gates; He has blessed your children in your midst.
14. He has made peace within your borders; He satiates you with the finest of wheat.
15. He issues His command to the earth; swiftly does His word run.
16. He dispenses snow like fleece; He scatters frost like ashes.
17. He hurls His ice like morsels; who can withstand His cold?
18. He sends forth His word and melts them; He causes His wind to blow, and the waters flow.
19. He tells His words [Torah] to Jacob, His statutes and ordinances to Israel.
20. He has not done so for other nations, and they do not know [His] ordinances. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 148
The psalmist inspires one to praise God for His creations-above and below-all of which exist by God's might alone.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise Him in the celestial heights.
2. Praise Him, all His angels; praise Him, all His hosts.
3. Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all the shining stars.
4. Praise Him, hea-ven of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens.
5. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for He comman-ded and they were created.
6. He has established them forever, for all time; He issued a decree, and it shall not be transgressed.
7. Praise the Lord from the earth, sea-monsters and all [that dwell in] the depths;
8. fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind carrying out His command;
9. the mountains and all hills, fruit-bearing trees and all cedars;
10. the beasts and all cattle, creeping things and winged fowl;
11. kings of the earth and all nations, rulers and all judges of the land;
12. young men as well as maidens, elders with young lads.
13. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for His Name is sublime, to Himself; its radiance [alone] is upon earth and heaven.
14. He shall raise the glory of His people, [increase] the praise of all His pious ones, the Children of Israel, the people close to Him. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 149
1. Praise the Lord! Sing to the Lord a new song, [recount] His praise in the assembly of the pious.
2. Israel will rejoice in its Maker; the children of Zion will delight in their King.
3. They will praise His Name with dancing; they will sing to Him with the drum and harp.
4. For the Lord desires His people; He will adorn the humble with salvation.
5. The pious will exult in glory; they will sing upon their beds.
6. The exaltation of God is in their throat, and a double-edged sword in their hand,
7. to bring retribution upon the nations, punishment upon the peoples;
8. to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with iron fetters;
9. to execute upon them the prescribed judgment; it shall be a glory for all His pious ones. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 150
This psalm contains thirteen praises, alluding to the Thirteen Attributes (of Mercy) with which God conducts the world.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise God in His holiness; praise Him in the firmament of His strength.
2. Praise Him for His mighty acts; praise Him according to His abundant greatness.
3. Praise Him with the call of the shofar; praise Him with harp and lyre.
4. Praise Him with timbrel and dance; praise Him with stringed instruments and flute.
5. Praise Him with resounding cymbals; praise Him with clanging cymbals.
6. Let every soul praise the Lord. Praise the Lord!
-------
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Chapter 8
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Shabbat, Sivan 30, 5774 • June 28, 2014
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Chapter 8
Creation effected absolutely no change in the Creator, neither in His Unity nor in His knowledge. This we learn from the verse, “I, Havayah, have not changed,” as the Alter Rebbe explained in the preceding chapter. Though one might assume that by bringing created beings into existence G d’s knowledge was supplemented — in that only after their creation did he become aware of them, so to speak — this in fact is not so, for G d’s knowledge is wholly one with G d Himself.
G d’s knowledge is thus entirely unlike man’s. Acquired knowledge constitutes an addition to a mortal soul, which is a compound, not a simple and perfect unity. G d’s Unity, by contrast, is perfect, without any superaddition. Accordingly, His unique manner of knowledge is such that by knowing Himself He knows all of creation, which derives from Him.
This knowledge of self existed before G d brought created beings into existence. By knowing them, therefore, nothing at all was added to His previous knowledge. And such a manner of knowledge, concluded the Alter Rebbe, is beyond the comprehension of man.
In the chapter before us, the Alter Rebbe goes on to explain that Maimonides‘ statement that “He is the Knowledge” applies not only to G d’s knowledge, but also to all His other attributes and Names, including His Chochmah and will. They are all completely united with G d Himself.
והנה מה שכתב הרמב״ם ז״ל, שהקב״ה, מהותו ועצמותו ודעתו, הכל אחד ממש, אחדות פשוטה ולא מורכבת כלל
Now, what Maimonides (of blessed memory) has said1 — that the Holy One, blessed be He, His Essence and Being, and His knowledge are completely one, a perfect unity and not a composite at all, —
כן הענין ממש בכל מדותיו של הקב״ה, ובכל שמותיו הקדושים, והכנויים שכינו לו הנביאים וחז״ל, כגון: חנון ורחום וחסיד וכיוצא בהן
this applies equally to all the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, and to all His holy Names, and the designations which the Prophets and Sages, of blessed memory have ascribed to Him, such as Gracious, Merciful, Beneficent, and the like.
וכן מה שנקרא חכם, דכתיב: וגם הוא חכם וגו׳
This is also true with respect to His being called Wise, as it is written,2 “And He is also wise,...”;
וכן רצונו: כי רוצה ה׳ את יראיו, וחפץ חסד הוא, ורוצה בתשובתם של רשעים ואינו חפץ במיתתם וברשעתם, וטהור עינים מראות ברע
and likewise with respect to His will, [as it is written,3] “G d desires those who fear Him,” and4 “He wishes to do kindness,” and5 “He desires the repentance of the wicked and does not desire their death and wickedness,” — thus we have verses indicating both what He finds desirable and undesirable; [so, too,6] “Your eyes are too pure to behold evil” — yet another thing that He does not desire.
From the above verses, then, we see that emotions, wisdom and will are all ascribed to G d. Nevertheless:
אין רצונו וחכמתו ומדת חסדו ורחמנותו ושאר מדותיו מוסיפים בו ריבוי והרכבה חס ושלום במהותו ועצמותו
His will and His wisdom and His attribute of kindness and His mercy and His other attributes do not add plurality and composition (G d forbid) to His Essence and Being,
אלא עצמותו ומהותו ורצונו וחכמתו ובינתו ודעתו, ומדת חסדו וגבורתו ורחמנותו ותפארתו הכלולה מחסדו וגבורתו
but His Being and Essence and His will and wisdom and understanding and knowledge, and His attribute of kindness and His might and mercy and beauty, [the last of] which is composed of His kindness and might,
וכן שאר מדותיו הקדושות, הכל אחדות פשוטה ממש, שהיא היא עצמותו ומהותו
and likewise His other holy attributes, — all the above, comprising his Being and Essence, and his will, and the Sefirot of ChaBaD and the middot, constitute an absolutely perfect unity, which is His very Being and Essence.
וכמו שכתב הרמב״ם ז״ל, שדבר זה אין כח בפה לאמרו, ולא באזן לשמעו, ולא בלב האדם להכירו על בוריו
And as Maimonides (of blessed memory) stated,7 “This [form of unity] wherein G d’s knowledge and so on is one with G d Himself is beyond the capacity of the mouth to express, beyond the capacity of the ear to hear, and beyond the capacity of the heart of man to apprehend clearly.”
כי האדם מצייר בשכלו כל המושכלות שרוצה להשכיל ולהבין, הכל כמות שהם בו
For man visualizes in his mind all the concepts which he wishes to conceive and understand — all as they are within himself.
כגון שרוצה לצייר בשכלו מהות הרצון, או מהות חכמה או בינה או דעת, או מהות מדת חסד ורחמים, וכיוצא בהן
For instance, if he wishes to envisage the essence of will, or the essence of wisdom or of understanding or of knowledge, or the essence of the attribute of kindness and mercy and the like,
הוא מצייר כולן כמות שהן בו
he visualizes them all as they are within himself.
Just as this is so with regard to envisaging one’s own intellect and emotions, so, too, regarding an individual’s desire to apprehend Divine Intellect and emotions: he endeavors to do so by envisaging intellect and emotion as they are found within himself.
אבל באמת, הקב״ה הוא רם ונשא וקדוש שמו
But in truth, the Holy One, blessed be He, is8 “high and exalted” and “holy is His Name”; i.e., His Name, too, is “holy” and set apart (for this is implied by the root קדש ).
כלומר, שהוא קדוש ומובדל ריבוא רבבות עד אין קץ ותכלית מדרגות הבדלות למעלה מעלה מערך וסוג ומין כל התשבחות והמעלות שיוכלו הנבראים להשיג ולצייר בשכלם
That is to say, He is Holy and separated many myriads of degrees of separations ad infinitum, above the quality, type or kind of praises and exaltation which creatures could grasp and conceive in their minds.
It is for this reason that G d is called the Holy One, blessed be He, for the degree to which He transcends the created universe defies mortal conception.
כי המעלה ומדרגה הראשונה אצל הנבראים היא החכמה, שלכן נקראת ראשית
For the first i.e., supreme quality and rank with regard to created beings is wisdom, for which reason it is called “the beginning,” as in the phrase,9 “the beginning of wisdom.”
So, too, Targum Yonatan interprets בראשית (in the verse, “In the beginning G d created...”) to mean “with wisdom.” Thus, “wisdom” also connotes that which is first in quality, and the source of all other attributes.
כי באמת היא ראשית ומקור כל החיות בנבראים
For it is indeed the beginning and fountainhead of all the life-force in creatures,
כי מהחכמה נמשכות בינה ודעת
for from wisdom are derived understanding and knowledge,
ומהן נמשכות כל המדות שבנפש המשכלת, כמו אהבה וחסד ורחמים וכיוצא בהן
and from them flow all the emotive attributes of the rational soul, such as love and kindness and mercy and the like; all of these derive from the intellectual attributes.
וכנראה בחוש, שהקטן שאין בו דעת הוא בכעס תמיד ואכזרי, וגם אהבתו היא לדברים קטנים שאין ראוי לאהבם
This is seen vividly — that a child, having no wisdom, is always angry and unkind, and even his love is for trivial things which are unworthy of being loved,
מפני שאין בו דעת לאהוב דברים הראויים לאהבם, שהאהבה כפי הדעת
because he lacks the understanding to love things which are worthy of love, for love varies with [the level of one’s] understanding.
Thus, the emotions are dependent on the intellect and understanding, inasmuch as they derive from them.
ומהמדות שבנפש, נמשכות בה תיבות ואותיות המחשבה
From the emotive attributes of the soul, words and letters of thought issue forth,
שהנפש מחשבת בדבר שאוהבת, או איך לפעול החסד והרחמים
for the soul thinks of that which it loves or of how to perform deeds of kindness and mercy.
וכן בשאר מדות
And so it is with the other emotive attributes: they all serve as a source for the words and letters of thought.
ובכל מחשבה שבעולם, מלובשת בה איזו מדה המביאה לחשוב מחשבה זו,ומדה זו היא חיותה של מחשבה זו
Within every thought in the world, there is clothed some emotive attribute that causes one to think that thought, and this attribute is the vivifying force of that thought.
ומאותיות המחשבה נמשכות אותיות הדבור, והן חיותן ממש
From the letters of [a man’s] thought proceed the letters of [his] speech, and they — the letters of thought — are their actual vivifying force.
והדבור מביא לידי מעשה הצדקה וחסד, כגון המלך שמצוה לעבדיו ליתן
Speech [in turn] gives rise to action, [such as] of charity and kindness, as in the case of a king who orders his servants to give [charity].
I.e., his speech causes his charitable thought to result in action.
וגם כשהאדם עושה בעצמו איזה דבר
And even when a man himself does some deed which he had thought of doing,
In this instance no speech is involved: his thought leads directly to action. Nevertheless — the Alter Rebbe goes on to say — here, too, in order for the life-force to descend from thought to action, it must pass through an intermediary stage which resembles speech.
הרי כח הנפש וחיותה, המתלבש בעשיה זו, הוא כאין ממש לגבי כח הנפש וחיותה המתלבש בדבור האדם
the power of the soul and its life-force, which clothes itself in this deed, is as absolute nothingness in relation to the power of the soul and its life-force which clothes itself in the speech of man;
וכערך ומשל הגוף לנשמה
[they are to each other] as the relation and comparison of the body to the soul.
To the same degree is there no comparison between the power of the soul and its life-force which clothes itself in the speech of man, and the power of the soul and its life-force which clothes itself in man’s actions. Therefore, when this power and life-force has descended so far that it is able to clothe itself in action, it has already undergone contractions and condensations which are far below the power of speech.
וכן ערך אותיות הדבור לאותיות המחשבה
Likewise — like the distance of body from soul — is the relation of the letters of speech to the letters of thought,
וכן ערך אותיות המחשבה למהות המדה המלובשת בה ומחיה אותה
and likewise is the relation of the letters of thought to the essence of the emotive attribute which is clothed in it and animates it;
I.e., the thought that derives from an emotion is in no way comparable to the emotion itself.
וכן ערך מהות וחיות המדה, לגבי החכמה בינה ודעת שכללותן הוא השכל, שממנו נמשכה מדה זו
and likewise the relation of the essence and life-force of the emotive attribute in comparison with the wisdom, understanding and knowledge which together constitute the intellect from which this attribute was derived.
We thus see that in the chain of descent from level to level — beginning with wisdom and culminating with action — each level bears no comparison at all even to the level that immediately precedes it; emotions cannot be compared to intellect, thought cannot be compared to emotions, and so on. Surely, then, there can be no comparison whatsoever between the lowest degree of action and the highest degree of wisdom.
וכל זה בנפש האדם ונפש כל הברואים שבכל העולמות עליונים ותחתונים, שבכולם החכמה היא ראשית ומקור החיות
All this applies to the soul of man and the soul of all the created beings in all the higher and lower worlds. In all of them, wisdom is the beginning and source of the life-force.
G d, however, as will soon be concluded, is as distant from the degree of wisdom as He is from that of action; from the Divine perspective, action and wisdom are humble equals
FOOTNOTES
1. Yad HaChazakah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, 2:10.
2. Yeshayahu 31:2.
3. Tehillim 147:11.
4. Michah 7:18.
5. Cf. Yechezkel 18:23; Liturgy, Neilah.
6. Chavakuk 1:13.
7. Loc. cit.
8. Liturgy, Morning Prayer.
9. Tehillim 111:10.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Shabbat, Sivan 30, 5774 • June 28, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 120
Leaving Sacrificial Meat Uneaten
"You shall leave none of it until the morning"—Leviticus 22:30.
It is forbidden to leave over sacrificial meat past the deadline when it may be eaten.
Leaving Sacrificial Meat Uneaten
Negative Commandment 120
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 120th prohibition is that we are forbidden from leaving over any part of the Thanksgiving offering (todah) until the morning [of the next day].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "[It must be eaten on the same day] with nothing left over until the [next] morning." From this offering we derive the principle for the other offerings: that whatever remains after the time designated for their consumption becomes nosar.2 One then is obligated to burn it, since this is a lav she'nitak l'aseh,3 and burning it is a positive commandment, as we explained in Positive Commandment 91.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 22:30.
2.See N131.
3.A prohibition that has a corresponding positive commandment to rectify the prohibited act.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Sheluchin veShuttafin Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Six
Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Six
Halacha 1
When two partners both do business with the money belonging to the partnership, even if the money was originally invested by only one of them, their relationship is referred to as a partnership. If they lose or they profit, the loss or the profit is divided equally, or they may stipulate any other division of the profits or the losses, as we have explained.
If, however, only one of the partners was doing business with the money belonging to the partnership, even if the money was originally invested by both of them, this type of partnership is called an esek (an investment agreement). The person who does the buying and selling is called an administrator, for he alone is the one involved in the transactions. And the partner who is not involved in the business dealings is referred to as the investor.
Halacha 2
Our Sages ordained that whenever a person entrusts money to a colleague to use for business purposes, half of the money should be considered a loan. The administrator is responsible for this money even if it is destroyed by forces beyond his control. The second half is considered an entrusted object, and the investor is responsible for it. If the half that is considered an entrusted article is stolen or lost, the administrator is not liable to pay. Therefore, any profit that is earned by this half of the investment will belong to the investor.
According to this construct, the profit or the loss of the entire investment should not be equally divided between the investor and the administrator. For if this were the case, the investor would receive a profit for the half of his money that is an entrusted object without doing anything for it. The administrator is working for the sake of the half of the investment that was an entrusted article, because of the money that he was lent. Thus, this brings the two to avak ribit, the shade of interest.
What should be done if they desire that the profit or the loss be equally shared? The investor should pay the administrator the wages to be paid to an unemployed laborer of the profession in which he was involved. If the administrator has any other occupation in which he is involved aside from caring for this investment, the investor does not have to pay him a daily wage. Instead, even if he paid him only one dinar for the entire time of the partnership, this is sufficient. If the partnership lost or gained, the loss or profit should be divided equally.
Similarly, if the investor told the administrator: "In addition to the portion that is divided, you will receive one third or one tenth of the profit," since he has another occupation, it is permitted. If there is a loss, the loss is divided equally.
If the administrator is a sharecropper working the fields of the investor, and he has another business, he is not required to pay him any other wage at all. For a sharecropper is obligated to take care of the interests of the owner of the field.
Halacha 3
Our Sages also ordained that whenever a person gives a colleague money to use for a business and the investor did not desire to pay the administrator a wage, and they did not make any stipulation with regard to the division of the profits and the losses, the profit or the loss should be divided as follows: The wage of the administrator for handling the half of the investment that is considered an entrusted article is one third of the profit of that half, which is one sixth of the profit of the entire investment.
Therefore, if a profit is made, the administrator should receive two thirds of the profit: half of the profit stemming from the half of the investment that was a loan, and the sixth of the profit that is his wages for handling the money considered as an entrusted article. Thus, he receives two thirds of the profit.
If there is a loss, the administrator should bear a third of the loss. This figure is reached as follows: He is liable for half the loss because of the half [of the original investment that was a loan. He deserves a sixth of the loss as his wage for handling the half of the investment that was considered an entrusted article. Thus, his responsibility is one third of the loss. The investor must bear two thirds of the loss.
Halacha 4
There is an opinion that makes an error, maintaining that when a person makes an investment without making any stipulations with regard to the division of profits and losses, they should be divided as follows: If there is a profit, the administrator should receive half, but if there is a loss, he must bear only a third of the loss. This is not the rule unless they made an explicit stipulation to this effect.
Similarly, if they stipulated that if there be a loss the administrator should suffer half the loss, and if there be a profit he should be granted two thirds of the profit, this is permitted. Similarly, if they stipulated that if there be a profit, the administrator should receive one ninth and if there be a loss, he should lose one tenth, this stipulation is binding. The rationale is that they made a stipulation that the administrator should receive a greater share of the profit than his share of the loss, and he is granted this additional amount because of his work.
My teachers ruled that such a conditional agreement is not effective unless the administrator has another occupation. If he does not have another occupation, the profit that the administrator can receive must be at least a sixth more than the loss he could suffer, as we have explained. They maintain that a prohibition is involved, and the stipulation cannot supersede it. This ruling does not appear correct to me.
Halacha 5
My teachers ruled that if a stipulation was made that the administrator should receive three fourths of the profit and the investor only one portion, only one fourth of the money will be considered an entrusted article and three fourths will be considered a loan. Therefore, if there is a loss, the administrator should bear three fourths of the loss, minus a twelfth. The investor should suffer a fourth of the loss plus a twelfth - i.e., one third of the entire loss.
What is implied? The investor gave the administrator 100 dinarim according to this stipulation, and they lost 24 dinarim, the investor should lose eight, and the administrator sixteen.
These ratios should be followed at all times. Whenever there is a profit, the investor should receive the share of the profit that was stipulated. If there is a loss, he should bear that same proportion of the loss, but should be given one third of the investor's portion. Thus, according to this approach, if it was agreed that the administrator would receive a fourth of the profits, he does not lose anything if there is a loss. For in place of the fourth of the loss that he is required to bear, he is due one third of the portion of the owner - i.e., one fourth. And so, one cancels out the other.
These authorities maintain that similar principles apply if a stipulation was made regarding losses without mentioning profits. If a loss was incurred, the administrator must bear the loss as stipulated. If a profit was made, the administrator should receive the share of the loss that he was supposed to bear, plus one third of the portion to be received by the investor.
What is implied? If a stipulation was made that in the event of a loss, the administrator should bear one fourth of the loss. If there is a loss, he must pay the investor one fourth. If there is a profit, the administrator receives half the profit.
Although the rules that they issued are words of logic, if these principles are followed, it is possible for the administrator to cause a loss and yet receive profit.
What is implied? It was stipulated that the administrator should receive one seventh of the profit. A loss was incurred. Thus, the administrator should receive as a wage one seventh in addition to this loss.
How is this illustrated? They suffered a loss of seven dinarim. The administrator will tell the investor: "I owe you one dinar according to our stipulation, but you owe me two dinarim, which is one third of the portion of the entrusted article." Thus, the investor is obligated to pay him a dinar as wages for losing seven dinarim. And if he had lost fourteen dinarim, the investor would have to pay him two dinarim as wages. This is an unfathomable matter, which cannot be accepted by logic. To me, it appears like a dream.
Instead, the proper approach and the true law appears to me as follows: If there is a loss, the administrator should bear as a loss two thirds of the percentage he would receive if there were a profit. Similarly, if they made a stipulation concerning a loss and they profited, the administrator should receive the portion he would lose in the event of a loss, plus a third of the share of his colleague. Thus, according to this approach, if a stipulation was made that the administrator should receive one fourth of the profit and he incurred a loss, he should pay one sixth of the loss. And if a stipulation was made that he should lose a fourth and he profited, he should receive a half. Following this approach will not lead to unthinkable results, and there will be expressed a law that is just.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 6, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 7
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering and dies, the money should be [thrown] to the Mediterranean Sea.1 Similarly, when a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, another sin-offering is offered in its place, and then the [initial] money is found after atonement was achieved, [the money should be thrown] to the Mediterranean Sea.2
Halacha 2
When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, and he set aside other money in its stead, but did not have the opportunity to purchase a sin-offering with the later funds before the first funds were found, he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds.3 The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.4
Halacha 3
When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, and he set aside [an animal] as a sin-offering in its stead, but before he sacrificed it, the [original] funds were found and the [animal was discovered] to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it should be sold and he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds.5 The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.
Halacha 4
When a person set aside [an animal] as a sin-offering, it was lost, he set aside money in its stead, but was not able to purchase [an animal] as a sin-offering with it before the [first] animal was found, but it [was discovered] to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it should be sold and he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds. The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.
Halacha 5
If he set aside two piles of money for surety [that he will be able to purchase a sin-offering], he should gain atonement with one of them6 and the other should be used for freewill offerings.7
Halacha 6
If he set aside [an animal for] a sin-offering or the money for a sin-offering, because he thought that he was obligated [to bring one] and then he discovered that he was not so obligated, [the animal or the money] is of ordinary status; it is not consecrated.8
If he set aside two [animals for] sin-offerings or the money for two [animals] because he thought was obligated to bring both and then it was discovered that he was only liable to bring one, he should bring one as a sacrifice and the other should be used for freewill offerings.9
Halacha 7
When he picks up coins in his hand or was in the process of collecting them and said: "I will bring my sin-offering from these," the remainder are not consecrated.10Similarly, it appears to me11 that an inference can be drawn [from this ruling] to [similar situations involving] other sacrifices and the remainder are not considered as consecrated.12
Halacha 8
When a person sets aside money for a meal-offering of a sinner13 and brings a meal-offering from those funds, or he set aside a meal-offering itself, and [in either of the above instances, money] was left over, the remainder should be used to bring a freewill meal-offering.14Any extra [meal15 left after] the tenth of the ephah that is brought by the High Priest as his chavitin offering16 should be left to rot.17Similarly, the remainder [of meal left after preparing] the bread for a thanksgiving offering or the bread for a nazirite's offering18 should be left to rot.19
The remainder of money for wine libations should be used for freewill offerings.20We have already explained in [Hilchot] Shekalim,21 that any money remaining from the half-shekalim are considered as ordinary funds.
Halacha 9
[Any money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] pairs of doves for zavim, zavot or for women after childbirth,22 sin-offerings, or guilt-offerings should be used for freewill offerings. They should be offered as burnt-offerings, as explained.23
[Any money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] burnt-offerings should be used for burnt-offerings, [to purchase] peace-offerings, for peace-offerings, [to purchase] meal-offerings, for meal-offerings, [to purchase] a Paschal sacrifice, for peace-offerings,24[to purchase] nazirite-offerings, for nazirite-offerings,25 [to purchase] the offerings for a particular nazirite, for [freewill] offerings to be brought by that nazirite.26
When does the ruling that [money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] a sin-offering should be used for freewill offerings apply? With regard to a fixed sin-offering. When, however, one was obligated to bring an adjustable guilt offering27 and set aside money for a sin-offering of an animal and became poor, he should bring a fowl instead.28He may transfer the holiness from those funds to the fowl and benefit from them.29 Similarly, if he set aside money for a fowl and became poor, he should bring a [meal-offering] of a tenth of an ephah instead.30 He may transfer the holiness from those funds to [the meal] and benefit from them.
Halacha 10
If a person set aside an animal [for an adjustable guilt-offering], it contracted a disqualifying physical blemish, [and he became poor],31 it may be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a fowl.32 If, however, he set aside a fowl [for such an offering], it was disqualified, [and he became poor], he may not sell it and bring a tenth of an ephah from the proceeds of the sale, for a fowl [that was consecrated] may not be redeemed, as stated in [Hilchot] Issurei HaMizbeiach.33
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply to] all those obligated by the Torah34 to bring pairs of doves35 who set aside money for those doves. If they desired to use all the money for sin-offerings of fowl alone, they may.36 If they desire to use it for burnt-offerings of fowl, they may. Even if they had [originally] said: "This is the money for my sin-offering and this is the money for my burnt-offering," he may mix the money together and buy the two offerings together, or use the money solely for sin-offerings, or solely for burnt-offerings. [The rationale is that the identity of] pairs of doves is designated only when purchased by the owners or when offered by a priest.37
Halacha 12
Therefore if one set aside money for a pair of doves without making a determination and died, all of the money that was undetermined should be used for freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it is all fit to used for a burnt-offering.38
Halacha 13
[The following laws apply when someone] was obligated to bring a sin-offering and he said: "I pledge a burnt-offering," and set aside money saying: "This is for my obligation." If he desires, he may use them to bring an animal as a sin-offering or he may use them to bring an animal as a burnt-offering.39 If he died and left the money, it should be taken to the Mediterranean Sea.40
FOOTNOTES
1.The ruling is comparable to that governing an animal set aside as a sin-offering whose owner died mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 1. Since this money was set aside to be used for a sin-offering, it may not be used for any other purpose. Hence, it should be cast in a place where no one will benefit from it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:2).
Although the term Yam HaMelech is generally translated as "the Dead Sea," it literally means "the Salt Sea." In several places in his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, the Rambam interprets the term as referring to the Mediterranean.
2.I.e., this ruling is comparable to that governing an animal set aside as a sin-offering which was lost and the owner attained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, as stated in Chapter 4, op. cit.
3.Since both sets of money were set aside for the purchase of a sin-offering, they should be used primarily for that purpose. It is preferable to purchase a more expensive animal for a sin-offering than to have more money left over to purchase burnt-offerings.
4.Since the money was not used as of yet and the person did not yet gain atonement, any funds that remain can be used for another purpose.
5.For the same reasoning as in the previous halachah.
6.He should not, combine the two to purchase a single offering.
7.See Chapter 4, Halachah 5.
8.For the consecration was made in error and hence is not binding. See Chapter 4, Halachah 20.
9.I.e., with regard to money, the money should be used to purchase freewill offerings. With regard to an animal, the animal should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. It should then be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings (Kessef Mishneh). Since he did not specify which of the animals should be associated with the particular sin and he is liable for one sin-offering, the remaining animal is not considered to have been consecrated in error (Rav Yosef Corcus).
10.Since he said, "from these," the implication is that all of the coins were not consecrated, only those necessary to purchase the animal for the sin-offering.
11.This phrase introduces a conclusion drawn by the Rambam through logic that is not based on any explicit prior Rabbinic source. The rationale is that when bringing a sin-offering it is likely that the person feels remorse and is willing to give more to attain atonement. Nevertheless, none of the extra money is consecrated. It follows logically that this principle should also apply with regard to a freewill offering in which instance the donor may not be as powerfully motivated.
12.The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's conclusion with regard to sacrifices that one is obligated to bring, but differs with regard to burnt-offerings and peace-offerings that one gives of his own volition. In those instances, he maintains that the extra money should be used for those sacrifices. The Kessef Mishneh, however, substantiates the Rambam's approach.
13.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:4; Hilchot Shegagot 10:4.
14.Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:5) which states that since we are speaking about what remains after bringing a sin-offering, it should be used to bring freewill burnt-offerings.
15.I.e., in this and the following situations, the person required to bring a meal-offering brought more than the required amount.
16.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:2.
17.For the concept that the remainder of what was set aside should be used for burnt-offerings was stated with regard to sin-offerings and not these types of sacrifices (Menachot 108a).
18.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:5 which states that the bread are integral parts of these two types of offerings.
19.The rationale is that these breads are not considered as independent sacrifices, but as elements of the thanksgiving or nazirite offerings. Hence they were consecrated - and may only be used for - those sacrifices.
20.For wine libations are sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity. Hence the laws governing them are the same as those governing sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.
21.Hilchot Shekalim 3-13.
22.The requirement for these individuals to bring doves as sacrifices is mentioned in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3.
23.Ibid. 2:2-3, and in several instances in this and the previous chapter.
24.For they are both sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:5)].
25.See Hilchot Nizirut 9:1 which states: "[The following rules apply when a person] sets aside money for the sacrifices of [poor] nazirites, those sacrifices were offered, and there is money left over. He should bring sacrifices of other nazirites with those funds." In his Commentary to the Mishnah, op. cit., the Rambam interprets this teaching as referring to nazirites who desire to pool their offerings.
26.Since the money was designated for the offerings of that particular person, it cannot be used for the sacrifices of another nazirite.
27.See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3 and ch. 10, which explains that there are certain transgressions for which the atonement offering required varies according to the transgressor's financial capacity.
28.As obligated of a person who violated these sins but did not have the means to purchase an animal as a sacrifice.
29.Keritot 27b derives this law through a process of Biblical exegesis.
30.As obligated of a person who violated these sins but did not have the means to purchase doves as a sacrifice.
31.The bracketed additions are based on Hilchot Shegagot 10:11.
32.Even though the animal had already been purchased for the sacrifice, since it was disqualified and his status changed, he is allowed to use the proceeds from its sale to bring a lesser offering.
33.Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:4. This applies only to a fowl itself. Money set aside for a fowl may be redeemed, as stated in the previous halachah.
34.I.e., the individuals mentioned at the beginning of Halachah 9.
35.Generally, a pair of doves includes one to be offered as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering.
36.The person must, however, bring another dove(s) for the other burnt- or sin-offerings, he or she is obligated to bring.
37.I.e., if the owners specify which doves are to be offered for which specific offering, the fowl is designated for that purpose. Alternatively, if such a distinction was not made, they become designated by the priest at the time he offers them (Keritot 28a; see Chapter 8, Halachah 8).
38.Were, however, the fowl to have been designated for sin-offerings, they would be consigned to die, as evident from Halachah 1. See also the previous chapter.
39.The Ra'avad differs and, based on Nazir 27a, maintains that the text should read: "He should not bring a sin-offering.... He should not bring a burnt-offering." He also explains that this version is preferable, for, otherwise, there would be no reason why the money mentioned in the following clause should be consigned to be destroyed. Seemingly, there is no difference between that clause and the situation mentioned in the previous halachah.
The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam had a different version of that text. Because of the difficulties, the Ra'avad raised, the Kessef Mishneh suggests a third version: If he desires to bring a sin-offering, he should. If he desires to bring a burnt-offering, he should not.
40.According to the Rambam, since he has an obligation to bring a sin-offering and did not clarify his intent, we must accept the possibility that the money is associated with a sin-offering and must be done away with, as stated in Halachah 1.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
If one of [the animals designated as] a sin-offering that was consigned to death or an ox that was condemned to be stoned1 becomes intermingled with any other sacrificial animals - even in a ratio of one to a myriad - they should all be consigned to death.2 [The rationale is that] living animals are important and are never considered insignificant [in a mixture].3
If [the animals] were sacrificed,4 [the sacrifices] are acceptable, because living animals are never permanently disqualified.5
Halacha 2
If [sacrificial animals] became intermingled with [animals that are] forbidden to be offered on the altar,6 they should all be allowed to pasture until they contract disqualifying physical blemishes. They should then be sold and the proceeds from the sale of the most choice animal among them7 should be used to bring sacrifices from the type in which [the forbidden animal] became intermingled.8
Halacha 3
If sacrificial animals become intermingled with unblemished ordinary animals, the ordinary animals in the mixture should be sold as sacrifices of that type, and they should all be sacrificed.
What is implied? If four animals that were designated as peace-offerings became intermingled with four unblemished ordinary animals, the four ordinary animals9 should be sold to someone who is obligated to bring peace-offerings and they should all be offered as peace-offerings. Similar laws apply with regard to burnt-offerings and guilt-offerings.
The proceeds of the sale are considered as ordinary money, for they are the proceeds of the sale of ordinary animals.
Halacha 4
When an ox that was consecrated became intermingled with ordinary animals, the largest among them is considered as the consecrated one10 and the others should be sold for sacrifices of that type.11 If sacrifices of the most sacred order became intermingled with animals consecrated for the same purpose,12 each one should be offered for the sake of its owner, even though none [of the owners] recognize their sacrificial animal.
When does the above apply? With regard to sacrifices to be brought by women in which there is no obligation for semichah.13 With regard to sacrifices to be brought by men, since each one of them is obligated to perform semichah on his sacrifice,14 these animals should not be offered until each one gives his portion [in the sacrificial animal] to his colleague15 or until they all become blemished and are sold. [In that instance,] each one should then bring a sacrificial animal equal in value to the more select of that type.
Halacha 5
If [sacrificial animals of] two [different] types become intermingled, e.g., a peace-offering with a burnt-offering, they should not be sacrificed, even as the more sacred.16 [The rationale is that] we should not cause sacrificial animals to become disqualified.17
Halacha 6
Just as we may not reduce the time [in which sacrifices] may be eaten,18so too, we may not limit the people eligible to partake of them,19 nor the place where they can be eaten.20 Instead,21 what should be done? All [of the sacrificial animals of mixed identity] should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish. Then each one should be sold individually. He should purchase a sacrifice for each type of the value of the most choice animal. He must suffer the loss22 from his own resources.
Halacha 7
Even though the person already sacrificed the burnt-offering or the peace-offering which he was obligated to bring,23 he should nevertheless bring a different burnt-offering and peace-offering from the proceeds [of the sale] of the mixture.
Halacha 8
When a sin-offering becomes intermingled with a peace-offering, [the two] should be allowed to pasture until they contracted disqualifying physical blemishes and were redeemed. He for should bring a peace-offering of the value of the most choice animal and a sin-offering of the value of the most choice animal. If he took the initiative and offered another [animal as a] sin-offering for the sin-offering that was set aside for him first,24 they should all be consigned to death.25
Halacha 9
Similarly, if money for a sin-offering becomes mixed together with money for a guilt-offering, one should take two animals and transfer the holiness of the money for the sin-offering wherever it is on [the animal set aside as] a sin-offering and transfer the holiness of the money for the guilt-offering on [the animal set aside as] a guilt-offering.
If he already offered his sin-offering, all of the money should be taken and thrown to the Mediterranean Sea.26 If he had already offered his guilt-offering, all of the money should be used for freewill offerings.27
Halacha 10
When a thanksgiving-offering becomes mixed with an animal exchanged for it,28 they should both be offered and the bread [that accompanies the thanksgiving-offering] should be waved with [both of] them.29
If a thanksgiving-offering becomes mixed with other sacrificial animals, even if the person offered [another animal as] his thanksgiving-offering, all [the sacrificial animals] should be allowed to pasture until they contract a blemish. He should then bring another thanks-offering of the value of the most choice animal and the other offering of the value of the most choice animal.30
Halacha 11
If [a thanksgiving-offering] becomes mixed with a nazirite's ram, they should both be sacrificed31 and the bread waved with them.
Halacha 12
When a firstborn offering becomes intermingled with a Paschal sacrifice, they should both be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish, and then eaten as a [blemished] firstborn offering.32
Why aren't they sacrificed?33 Because a Paschal sacrifice may be eaten by any person until midnight34 and the firstborn offering is eaten for two days and is eaten only by priests. [We follow the principles that] we do not cause sacrifices to be disqualified35 and we do not reduce the amount of people eligible to partake of them.36
Halacha 13
Similarly, when a tithe offering becomes intermingled with a Paschal sacrifice, when they contract a disqualifying physical blemish, they should be eaten according to the prescriptions regarding a tithe offering.37 When a firstborn and a tithe offering become intermingled, they may be eaten [as ordinary meat]38 after contracting a disqualifying physical blemish.39
Halacha 14
Similarly, when other sacrificial animals become intermingled with a firstborn or a tithe offering, they should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish. They may be eaten according to the restrictions applying to a firstborn offering or a tithe offering that became blemished.
Halacha 15
When a guilt-offering became intermingled with a peace-offering, even though only the fats and the organs are offered and the meat is eaten, they should not be offered.40 Instead, they should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish and bring a guilt-offering of the value of the more choice one and a peace-offering of the value of the more choice one. [The owner should] suffer the loss of the difference [between the value of these animals and the animals lost] from his own resources. If he took the initiative and offered his guilt-offering first, they should both [be allowed to pasture until they become blemished and sold, with the proceeds] used for freewill offerings.41
Halacha 16
It is possible for sacrificial animals of any type to become intermingled with other sacrificial animals of the same species with the exception of [animals consecrated] as sin offerings and [those consecrated as] guilt-offerings, because guilt offerings may be brought only from male sheep42 and sin-offerings are brought from female sheep.43
Halacha 17
If any of the sacrificial animals [of two types] that were intermingled while alive were sacrificed,44 they are acceptable, because living animals are never permanently disqualified.45
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply with regard to] any animal found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder46 or that radius to any other direction.47 If it is a female [that can be estimated to be] a year old, it is placed in a closed room to die, lest it be a sin-offering.48 If it [appears to be] two years old, it should be brought as a peace-offering49 and bread should be brought with it, lest it be a thanksgiving-offering.50
If a male that [appears to be] two years old is found, there is no way of correcting the situation, for it is possible that it is a guilt-offering whose owner has not yet received atonement.51
If one found a male animal that is a year old, he should allow it to pasture until it becomes blemished, bring two animals in its stead and make a stipulation, stating: "If the [blemished animal] was a burnt-offering, this is designated as a burnt-offering in place of it. If it was a peace-offering, this is a peace-offering in place of it."52 He then offers the first as a burnt-offering. Its accompanying offerings53 should be brought from communal funds.54 The other should be brought as a peace-offering together with bread, lest it be a thanksgiving-offering.
What should be done with the animal that was found? It should be eaten after it contracts a blemish. For even if it was a firstborn offering or a tithe offering, it could be eaten after it was blemished.55 If it was a Paschal sacrifice whose time had passed, it is considered as a peace-offering. And during the time the Paschal sacrifice [must be offered], everyone is careful regarding it.56 If one might ask: Maybe it is a guilt-offering of a nazirite or a person purified from tzara'at?57 These are not frequently found. Therefore [the Sages] showed no concern about them.
Halacha 19
If sacrifices became intermingled with other sacrifices after the animals were slaughtered, they should be eaten according to the laws pertaining to the more severe category.58 If [such sacrifices] became intermingled with sacrificial animals that were disqualified or ordinary animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard,59 they should [be left] until their form is no longer recognizable60 and then be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.
Halacha 20
When the limbs of a sin-offering become mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering, the entire mixture should [be left] until their form is no longer recognizable.61[Afterwards,] they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard in the place where sacrificial animals that were disqualified are burnt.62
Halacha 21
When a limb from a blemished [sacrificial] animal becomes mixed with the limbs of sacrificial animals - even one in a thousand63 - they should all be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.64 Even if all the limbs [of the sacrifices] were offered except for one, it should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard in the place where sacrificial animals that were disqualified are burnt.
Halacha 22
When pieces [of meat] from sacrifices of the most sacred order become mixed with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness or those which are eaten for one day65 become mixed with those eaten for two days, they should be eaten according to the prescriptions of the more severe of the two.
Halacha 23
When a piece [of meat] from a sin-offering that has become impure becomes intermingled with 100 pieces of meat from a pure sin-offering or a slice of the showbread that has become impure becomes intermingled with 100 slices of the showbread that are pure, [the mixture] may be considered acceptable,66 as we explained in [Hilchot] Terumot.67
Halacha 24
If, however, a piece [of meat] from a sin-offering became mixed with 100 pieces of ordinary meat or a piece of the showbread which is pure becomes mixed with 100 pieces of ordinary bread, [the mixture] should not be considered as acceptable.68 Instead, the entire mixture should be eaten by priests, as is true with regard to any mixture of consecrated food and ordinary food.69
FOOTNOTES
1.For killing a human; see Exodus 21:29-32; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10. As stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:6, such an animal is unfit for sacrifice on the altar. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam states that, in this context, the term also applies to an ox that was sodomized by - or forced to participate in sexual relations with - a Jew, for it is also condemned to be executed.
2.For it is possible that every animal is that animal condemned to die.
3.I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a forbidden substance is considered as insignificant if mixed with a larger volume of permitted substances (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:1). Even according to Rabbinic Law, it is considered insignificant if mixed with more than sixty times its volume in most situations (ibid.:5). Nevertheless, this situation is an exception for the reason stated by the Rambam.
4.For their designated purpose.
5.This is a general principle applicable in many contexts, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 24; Chapter 3, Halachah 22; and Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4. Thus the fact that as an initial preference the animal should not have been sacrificed is not significant, for according to Scriptural Law, the presence of the forbidden animal is nullified. Hence, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable.
6.E.g., animals that were set aside for sacrifice to false deities, an animal given to a prostitute, or one exchanged for a dog. See a full listing of such animals in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:11.
7.For perhaps the sacrificial animal was the most choice.
8.After selling the animals, the person obligated to bring the offerings must say: "The holiness of the sacrificial animal is transferred to these funds" and with those funds, he should purchase a new sacrificial animal.
9.Even though the owner does not know which four animals they are, he may sell them (Rav Yosef Corcus). To avoid the difficulty mentioned in the following halachah, however, the owners must specify which animals are being given to the purchaser.
10.And should be sacrificed for the purpose for which the animal was consecrated originally.
11.For it is possible that any one of them is the consecrated animal.
12.E.g., burnt-offerings with burnt-offerings.
13.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5
14.Although, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable if semichah is not performed, as an initial preference, one should not offer it unless that rite could be performed.
15.Rabbi Akiva Eiger questions the Rambam's statements here, noting that in Hilchot Meilah 4:8, the Rambam rules that a person cannot sell an animal set aside as a peace-offering or as a burnt-offering. By the same reasoning, it would seem that it would be forbidden to make the exchange mentioned here.
16.I.e., in the example given above, to offer both of them as a burnt-offering.
17.See the explanation of this principle in Halachah 12. This rationale is given by Zevachim 8:3 with regard to a peace-offering and a guilt-offering that became mixed together, for it is possible that the meat of one of the animals will not be finished during the first night and will therefore be disqualified, lest it be that of the guilt-offering. This is undesirable, because perhaps it is from the peace-offering and thus it will be disqualified, before its appropriate time (for peace-offerings may be eaten on the following day as well).
This explanation of this concept is slightly different for a mixture of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, since a burnt-offering is not eaten at all. Instead, in that instance, offering the peace-offering as a burnt-offering is forbidden, based on Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:4 which states that it is forbidden to offer the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity on the altar. As a result, the meat of the sacrifice is disqualified.
18.As explained in the previous note. See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:12.
19.For example, a firstborn offering which may be eaten only by priests, became mixed with a tithe offering that can be eaten be anyone.
20.Sacrifices of the most sacred order may be eaten only in the Temple Courtyard, while sacrifices of lesser sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem.
21.I.e., for this reason, we do not merely take one animal for one type of sacrifice and another for the other.
22.The difference between the price of the most choice animal and the other animal.
23.Using another animal so that he will not delay the fulfillment of his obligation.
24.I.e., before these animals became blemished.
25.As is the law with regard to an animal set aside as a sin-offering that was lost and another was offered in its place (Chapter 4, Halachah 1). Since the animal cannot be sacrificed because its identity is unknown, it is as if it was lost (see Rav Yosef Corcus who discusses this issue). Since it is not known which one of the mixture was consigned to death, both are given that fate.
26.As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, with regard to money set aside for a sin-offering that was lost.
27.Rambam LeAm states that this refers to the money that remains after some of the money was used to purchase a sin-offering.
28.I.e., he desires to transfer its holiness to the other animal, in which instance, we follow the rule (Leviticus 27:33): "It and the animal exchanged for it shall be holy."
29.There is an obligation to wave the thanksgiving-offering together with its bread (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:6-7). When an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering is exchanged for another animal, the holiness of the original offering is not nullified. Nevertheless, the second animal should also be offered as a sacrifice, but bread should not be offered together with it (Chapter 12, Halachah 8). In this instance, since we do not know which is the original animal and which is the one exchanged for it, the bread should be waved with both of them.
30.The Ra'avad states that bread should not be brought with the second thanksgiving-offering. The Kessef Mishneh states that, since the thanksgiving-offering had already been brought, this is obvious. The Ra'avad mentioned the matter only lest one will think that it is parallel to the situation described in the first clause.
31.The forearm of the nazirite's ram may be eaten only by the priests (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:4). Thus to a certain extent, the amount of people eligible to partake of the sacrifice is being reduced (see Ra'avad), because a thanksgiving-offering can be eaten by everyone (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot). Nevertheless, since only one limb is involved, it is not considered significant (Kessef Mishneh).
32.A blemished firstborn animal may be eaten as ordinary meat. There are, however, some restrictions that apply; see Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:12; Hilchot Bechorot 1:18.
Pesachim 98b states that one should also transfer the holiness of the blemished Paschal sacrifice to another animal and offer it as a peace-offering. The Rambam mentions this point in his restatement of the law in Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:8.
33.For they are both sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. As Pesachim 98b relates even if there is company of priests, they should not offer these animals on the fourteenth of Nisan for the reason stated by the Rambam.
34.I.e., according to Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:15).
35.As the firstborn offering could be, if forced to be eaten within the time restrictions of the Paschal sacrifice.
36.As would be done with regard to the people eligible to partake of the Paschal sacrifice.
37.After contracting a blemish, a animal set aside as a tithe offering may be eaten as ordinary meat. There are, however, some restrictions which apply; see Hilchot Bechorot 6:6. As above, the holiness of the Paschal sacrifice must be transferred to another animal.
38.But only by a priest.
39.In this instance, there is no obligation to offer an animal in their stead.
40.For doing so would reduce the amount of time in which the peace-offering could be partaken.
41.This ruling combines that of Halachah 9 with regard to sin-offerings with that of Chapter 4, Halachah 14.
42.Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10.
43.Ibid.:9.
44.One arbitrarily being taken for one sacrifice and the other, for the second sacrifice.
45.Thus even though as an initial preference, the animals should not have been sacrificed because of the confusion about their identities, after the fact, the sacrifices are acceptable.
46.A small town not far from Jerusalem.
47.I.e., since it was found close to Jerusalem, we must consider the possibility that it had been consecrated for a sacrifice. Hence, it must be treated as a sacrificial animal with regard to all the possible consequences.
48.We suspect that its owner had attained atonement through another sacrifice. Hence the animal is consigned to death, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
49.At this age, it is unacceptable to be offered as a sin-offering or a burnt-offering. We do not suspect that it was lost earlier and wandered aimlessly until this time.
50.Although a thanksgiving-offering must be eaten by midnight, while a peace-offering may be eaten for an extra day, the Rambam's wording does not imply that a second animal should be brought. Instead, he should bring one animal and stipulate: "If it is a peace-offering,.... If it is a thanksgiving offering..." (Kessef Mishneh). The Lechem Mishneh, however, states that one could infer from Kiddushin 55b, that two offerings should be brought.
51.And thus it could not be used for another purpose. If the owner had attained atonement, it should be allowed to pasture until it becomes blemished as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 14.
52.For a male animal of that age could be consecrated for either of these types of sacrifices.
53.The meal, oil, and wine.
54.Shekalim 7:5 states that originally our Sages would obligate the person who found the animal to bring the accompanying offerings from his own resources. The financial burden, however, was apparently too great and the people would abandon the animals they found so that they would not be obligated in this manner. When the Sages realized this, they ordained that the accompanying offerings be brought by the community.
55.Without having to be redeemed.
56.So it would not have been lost.
57.For these individuals also must bring male animals that are a year old.
58.In the previous halachot, the Rambam favored the alternative of letting the intermingled animals pasture until they contract a blemish so that none of the sacrifices will be placed under unnecessary restrictions. In this instance, since the animals have already been slaughtered, this alternative is no longer viable (Rav Yosef Corcus).
59.The meat of the latter two types of animals is forbidden to be eaten.
60.In practice, this phrase, used by the Talmud in several instances (Pesachim 34b, et al), is interpreted (Rashi, Menachot 46b) as meaning "to be left overnight." For it is forbidden to burn sacrifices until they have been disqualified.
61.The meat from the burnt-offering may not be eaten and the meat from the sin-offering may not be burnt on the altar. Hence, the mixture should be left overnight, at which point, it is disqualified and consigned to be burnt.
62.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3.
63.Since the limbs of the disqualified animals are significant entities, their presence is never nullified in the mixture.
64.And burnt there. The rationale is that since the limbs of the blemished animals are forbidden to be eaten and forbidden to be burnt on the altar, the entire mixture must also be done away with.
65.I.e., if sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness that are only eaten for one day (thanksgiving offerings) become mixed with other sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, which (with the exception of the Paschal sacrifice) are all eaten for two days and one night. See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:3).
66.The rationale is that there is enough acceptable meat or bread to render the presence of the unacceptable meat or bread insignificant.
Some commentaries have suggested that, based on Yevamot 81b, we are forced to say that this is speaking about small pieces of meat that are not significant enough to be used to honor guests. If they are larger and significant, their presence in the mixture is never nullified. However, it is more likely that since the concept that significant pieces of meat are nullified is a Rabbinic safeguard, it was not applied in this instance (see Lechem Mishneh, Kessef Mishneh to the law from Hilchot Terumah cited in the following note).
67.Hilchot Terumot 14:14.
68.Since there is an option for the entire mixture to be eaten by priests, there is no reason for leniency.
69.The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling here is in direct contradiction to his ruling in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:13 where he states that when a piece of the showbread becomes intermingled with pieces of ordinary bread, the mixture is permitted if there is 101 times the amount of ordinary bread.
In his gloss to Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Kessef Mishneh explains that here, the Rambam is speaking about pieces of the showbread that are ritually pure. Hence the entire mixture should be eaten by the priests. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, by contrast, we are speaking about pieces of the showbread that are impure. If the showbread was a significant part of the mixture, the entire mixture would have to be burnt. Since it is not significant, we considered its existence negated.
(As evident from a comparison to that source, the laws governing sacrificial foods are more stringent than those applying to terumah.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
Whenever anyone who is unacceptable to perform Temple service performs the rite of melikah,1 the melikah is unacceptable. [Nevertheless,] even though the dove [killed by such a melikah] is unacceptable, it is not considered as a nevelah2 of a kosher fowl with regard to the laws of ritual impurity.3
Similarly, if one performed melikah at night or slaughtered an ordinary dove in [the Temple Courtyard] or a consecrated dove outside [the Temple Courtyard], they are not nevelot.4
Halacha 2
If one performed melikah on turtle-doves before they reached the appropriate age or on young doves who passed the appropriate age5 or on a dove whose wing shriveled, whose eye was lost6 or whose leg was cut off,7 it is considered as a nevelah in all contexts. This is the general principle: Any disqualifying factor that takes place after [a dove] entered the Temple Courtyard8 disqualifies it, but does not render it a nevelah. If the disqualifying factor did not take place after it was brought into the Temple Courtyard, [the dove] is a nevelah in all contexts.
Halacha 3
For this reason, when a person performs melikah and the animal is discovered to be tereifah,9 he performed melikah with a knife,10 or performed melikah on an ordinary dove in [the Temple Courtyard] or a consecrated dove outside [the Temple Courtyard],11 they are considered as a nevelah in all contexts. For melikah permits and purifies only a dove that is acceptable to [be offered on] the altar.12
Halacha 4
In contrast, if melikah was performed on a dove that was sodomized, set aside for pagan sacrifice, worshiped, given to a prostitute as her fee, exchanged for a dog, was a tumtum13 or an androgynus,14 it is considered as a nevelah in all contexts. It causes a person's garments to become impure when it [enters his] gut.15 The rationale is that the holiness [of a sacrifice] does not fall upon them16 and thus it is not considered as having been disqualified [after entering] the Temple Courtyard.
Halacha 5
We already explained in [Hilchot] Ma'aseh Hakorbanot,17 that [the blood from] a sin-offering of fowl is presented on the lower [half of the altar] and [the blood from] a burnt-offering of fowl is presented on the upper [half of the altar].18When [the blood from] a sin-offering of fowl is presented on the upper [half of the altar], it is unacceptable. [This applies] whether the blood was presented in the manner of a sin-offering19 or in the manner of a burnt-offering,20 whether it was offered for the sake of a burnt-offering or for the sake of a sin-offering.
Halacha 6
Similarly, when [the blood from] a burnt-offering of fowl was presented on the lower [half of the altar], even if he performed melikah on one of the signs of ritual slaughter21 on the lower half and the other sign on the upper half, it is unacceptable. [This applies] whether the melikah was performed in the manner of a burnt-offering or in the manner of a sin-offering,22 whether it was offered for the sake of a sin-offering or for the sake of a burnt-offering.
Halacha 7
When melikah was performed on a sin-offering of a fowl on the lower half of the altar in the manner as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering,23 or as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering,24 it is unacceptable.
Halacha 8
Similarly, when a burnt-offering of a fowl was presented on the upper [half of the altar] in the manner as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering or as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, it is unacceptable. If, however, he performs it as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, it is acceptable,25 but it is not considered as if the owner fulfilled his obligation.26
Halacha 9
All of these fowl that are disqualified because of the place [in the altar] where their blood was presented, because of the difference in the manner in which [melikah] is performed, or the intent for which they are offered, are not considered as a fowl that has become a nevelah with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Similarly, when a sin-offering or a burnt-offering of fowl becomes piggul,27 impure,28 or notar29 it does not cause impurity in one's gut30 as does a fowl that has become a nevelah, for all of these became disqualified [after having entered] the Temple Courtyard.31
Halacha 10
When a sin-offering of fowl is brought because of a doubt, it should be offered as required, but not eaten.32 Instead, it should be burnt like all other sacrificial animals that become disqualified.33
When is such a sacrifice brought because of a doubt? When there is an unresolved question whether a woman is a zavah,34 impure because of childbirth,35or the like. There is no concept of an animal being brought as a sin-offering because of a doubt, because if a person is unsure whether or not he committed a sin, he should bring a conditional guilt-offering, as will be explained in Hilchot Shegagot.36
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply when] a sin-offering of fowl is brought because of a doubt and then it is discovered that the woman is definitely obligated to bring [the sacrifice]. If she realized this before melikah was performed on the [the dove], it should be offered with certainty and eaten.37 If she did not discover this until after melikah was performed, the sprinkling and presentation of its blood [on the altar] should be completed. Then it should be burnt,38 so that it will not be said that a sin-offering of fowl brought because of a doubt is eaten. For at the outset, [this offering] was brought because of a doubt.
Halacha 12
If, after melikah was performed, she discovered that she was not obligated to bring a sacrifice, it should be buried.39
FOOTNOTES
1.The process of snipping of the head of a sacrificial dove. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:8.
2.An animal that dies without ritual slaughter.
3.A person who eats the corpse of a kosher fowl that was not slaughtered according to Torah Law contracts ritual impurity as stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:1.
4.In all of these instances, it is forbidden to partake of the meat of these doves. For melikah is acceptable only during the day (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:1), ordinary doves slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard are considered as tereifah (Hilchot Shechitah 2:1-2), and sacrificial doves slaughtered outside the Temple Courtyard are disqualified (see Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:9). Nevertheless, since melikah is a valid process for killing sacrificial doves and the doves that were slaughtered in the wrong locations were slaughtered properly, the corpses do not convey impurity as a corpse of a nevelah would.
5.As stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2, young doves are acceptable as offerings only when they are still underdeveloped, before they begin to sprout yellow feathers and turtle-doves are acceptable only after they pass this stage of development.
6.I.e., not merely blinded, but having lost the eye.
7.And thus was disqualified as a sacrifice, as other doves which have lost a limb or organ (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:1.
8.Our translation is based on Rashi, Zevachim 68b. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 7:5), the Rambam defines the term as meaning disqualification due to the intent of the priest, a factor which disqualifies him from performing service, or because of the place the offering was slaughtered.
9.A dove which is tereifah is not acceptable as a sacrifice (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:1).
10.Melikah may only performed with the priest's hands.
11.See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:12.
12.I.e., melikah is not an acceptable means of slaughter. It is acceptable only for sacrificial doves. Therefore when it is performed on a dove that is not acceptable as a sacrifice or in a place where a sacrifice is unacceptable, it is considered as if the animal has merely been killed.
13.An animal whose sexual organ is covered by a mound of flesh and thus its gender cannot be determined.
14.An animal which has both male and female sexual organs. All of the animals mentioned above are not acceptable as sacrifices, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, chs. 3-4.
15.As stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:1, a person and his garments do not become impure from eating a nevelah of a kosher fowl until he swallows it. While it is in his mouth, he and his garments are pure.
16.Since these types of animals are fundamentally unacceptable, they are not considered as sacrificial animals. See Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach 3:10.
17.Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:20; 7:6.
18.As mentioned in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, after purification, a zav (a male with discharges resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea), a zavah (a woman with vaginal bleeding outside her menstrual cycle) and a woman after childbirth, are required to bring a pair of doves, one as a sin-offering and one, as a burnt-offering. The remainder of this chapter and the three subsequent chapters deal with the possibilities that a dove designated as a sin-offering becomes intermingled with one designated as a burnt-offering.
A convert also must bring a pair of two doves and they are offered as burnt-offerings, but since this is a rare occurrence, it is not taken into consideration [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 1:2)].
19.As described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:20.
20.As described in ibid. 7:6.
21.Ritual slaughter involves slitting two "signs" - the windpipe and the gullet. These two organs must also be slit during melikah.
22.In addition to the place on the altar where the blood of the two is offered, there are two differences between the way melikah is performed for a burnt-offering and for a sin-offering:
a) The head of the dove may not be severed while performing melikah on a sin-offering. For a burnt-offering, by contrast, there is an obligation that the head be separated.
b) The blood of a burnt-offering is squeezed out on the wall of the altar. The blood of a sin-offering, by contrast, is sprinkled on the altar.
23.For a sin-offering is not acceptable if it is not offered for the proper intent (see Chapter 15, Halachah 1).
24.I.e., not only is the offering unacceptable as a sin-offering; it is also unacceptable as a burnt-offering (Radbaz).
25.For a burnt-offering is acceptable even if it is not offered for the proper intent.
26.See also Hilchot Meilah 3:7.
27.As will be explained in chs. 14-16, when a person slaughters an animal with the intent of partaking of its meat at times other than those which are permitted, the sacrifice is considered as piggul and it is forbidden to partake of its meat.
28.As stated in ibid.:12, when sacrificial meat becomes impure, it is forbidden to partake of it.
29.As explained in Chapter 18, Halachot 9-10, when sacrificial meat is left beyond the time when it should be eaten, it is called notar and it is forbidden to partake of it.
30.As stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:1, a person and his garments do not become impure from eating a nevelah of a kosher fowl until he swallows it. While it is in his mouth, he and his garments are pure.
31.Our translation is based on Rashi, Zevachim 68b. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 7:5), the Rambam defines the term as meaning disqualification due to the intent of the priest, a factor which disqualifies him from performing service, or because of the place the offering was slaughtered.
32.The sacrifices may not be eaten, for if the women were not obligated to bring them, the doves are considered as ordinary animals slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard which are forbidden to be eaten (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:6-7).
Hilchot Shegagot 11:2 explains that the women the Rambam mentions are allowed to bring the sacrifices because of a doubt even though it is forbidden to offer a sin-offering if one is not liable, because their purification process is not completed until the sacrifice is offered. Hence they are granted this leniency to allow them to become ritually pure.
33.See Chapter 2, Halachah 20; Chapter 19, Halachah 10.
34.A woman had a series of vaginal secretions, but there is a doubt whether they render her a zavah or not.
35.A woman becomes impure because of childbirth even when she miscarries. There are times when there is a question whether a miscarriage is serious enough to render her impure or not.
36.Hilchot Shegagot 8:1.
37.As would an ordinary sin-offering.
38.As it would have been originally.
39.So that no one will benefit from it. None of the remaining rites should be performed, since there is no need to bring the offering.
Keritot 26b explains that this is a Rabbinic safeguard. According to Scriptural Law, it is permitted to benefit from the dove, as long as its blood was not presented on the altar.
--------
Hayom Yom:
• Shabbat, Sivan 30, 5774 • 28 June 2014
"Today's Day"
Shabbat, Sivan 30, Shabbat Rosh Chodesh, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Korach, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 145-150.
Tanya: Ch. 8. Now, what (p. 321)...of the life-force. (p. 325).
In reviewing the weekly parsha, twice the text and once the Targum Onkelos, we review verse by verse. We also review the haftora; two, in case of Shabbat-Rosh Chodesh or combined parshiot, etc.
The Alter Rebbe's response to a young genius, famed for his intellectual gifts, at his first yechidus in 5555 (1795) in Lyozna: Spiritual and physical are antithetical in their very essence. A superior quality in the physical is a deficiency in the spiritual.
In material matters, one who is "satisfied with his lot"1 is an individual of the highest quality. A person possessing this trait will, through avoda, attain the highest levels. In spiritual matters, however, to be satisfied with one's lot is the worst deficiency, and leads, G-d forbid, to descent and falling.
FOOTNOTES
1. Avot 4:1.
-------
Daily Thought:
To Each His Path
Just as it is a mitzvah to direct someone onto the path where he belongs, so too it is a crime to direct someone onto a path that does not belong to him.
Each person is born with a path particular to his or her soul, generally according to the culture into which he or she was born.
There are universal truths, the inheritance of all of us since Adam and Noah. In them we are all united. But we are not meant to all be the same.
Our differences are as valuable to our Creator as our similarities.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment