TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• YAHRTZEIT OBSERVANCES
Chabad-Lubavitch Chassidim observe the customs of the yahrtzeit (anniversary of the passing) in accordance with the customs instituted by the Rebbe for the yahrtzeit of his father-in-law and predecessor, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (1880-1950), following his passing on the 10th of Shevat in 1950.
Links:
A Letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe outlining his suggested observances for Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak's first yahrtzeit.
More on Yahrtzeit
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• JOSHUA STOPS THE SUN (1273 BCE)
On the third of Tammuz of the year 2488 from creation (1273 BCE), Joshua was leading the Jewish people in one of the battles to conquer the Land of Israel. Victory was imminent, but darkness was about to fall. "Sun," proclaimed Joshua, "be still at Giv'on; moon, at the Ayalon valley" (Joshua 10:12). The heavenly bodies acquiesced, halting their progress through the sky until Israel's armies brought the battle to its successful conclusion.
Links:
Three Natural Miracles The Book of Joshua
• LUBAVITCH FIRE (1851)
A great fire destroyed much of the town of Lubavitch, including the home of the third Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch (the "Tzemach Tzeddek", 1789-1866) and many invaluable manuscripts of Chassidic teaching.
• R. YOSEF YITZCHAK RELEASED FROM PRISON (1927)
The sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (1880-1950), who was arrested on Sivan 15 of 1927 by agents of the GPU (soviet secret police) and the Yevsektzia ("Jewish section" of the Communist Party) for his work to preserve and disseminate Jewish learning and observance throughout the Soviet Empire. Held in the notorious Spalerno prison in Leningrad, he was repeatedly interrogated and beaten. Initially sentenced to death, international pressure compelled the Soviet regime to first commute the sentence to ten years hard labor in Siberia, and then to a three-year term of exile in Kostrama, a town in the interior of Russia.
On the 3rd of Tammuz, 18 days after his arrest, he was released from prison and allowed six hours at home before reporting to the Leningrad train station to embark on his exile. Many gathered at the station to see him off. Though he knew that there were GPU agents present, he spoke to the assembled crowd, encouraging all to persist in the very activities for which he had been arrested. "This," he proclaimed "all the nations of the world must know: Only our bodies were sent into exile and subjugated to alien rule; our souls were not given over into captivity and foreign rule. We must proclaim openly and before all that any matter affecting the Jewish religion, Torah, and its mitzvot and customs is not subject to the coercion of others. No one can impose his belief upon us, nor coerce us to conduct ourselves contrary to our beliefs!"
(On the 12th of Tammuz, after serving only nine days of his three year term, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak was informed that he was free to return home. Shortly thereafter, he was allowed to leave the Soviet Union and resettled in Riga, Latvia.)
Links:
Days of Light (the Rebbe's prison diary)
Three Natural Miracles
• REBBE'S YAHRTZEIT (1994)
The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of righteous memory (b. 1902) passed away in the early morning hours of the 3rd of Tammuz, of the year 5754 from creation (1994). See today's Laws & Customs.
Links
The Ohel (the Rebbe's resting place)
Portal commemorating the Rebbe’s anniversary of passing
More on the 3rd of Tammuz
A brief biography of the Rebbe
DAILY QUOTE:
And Jacob worked seven years for Rachel; and they seemed to him but a few days, for the love he had to her.(Genesis 29:20)
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: with Rashi
• Chapter 22
21. In the morning Balaam arose, saddled his she-donkey and went with the Moabite dignitaries. כא. וַיָּקָם בִּלְעָם בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּחֲבשׁ אֶת אֲתֹנוֹ וַיֵּלֶךְ עִם שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב:
saddled his she-donkey: From here [we learn] that hate causes a disregard for the standard [of dignified conduct], for he saddled it himself. The Holy One, blessed is He, said, “Wicked one, their father Abraham has already preceded you, as it says, 'Abraham arose in the morning and saddled his donkey’” (Gen. 22:3). - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:12]
ויחבש את אתנו: מכאן שהשנאה מקלקלת את השורה, שחבש הוא בעצמו. אמר הקב"ה רשע כבר קדמך אברהם אביהם, שנאמר (בראשית כב, ג) וישכם אברהם בבקר ויחבוש את חמורו:
with the Moabite dignitaries: His intent was the same as theirs. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:12]
עם שרי מואב: לבו כלבם שוה:
22. God's wrath flared because he was going, and an angel of the Lord stationed himself on the road to thwart him, and he was riding on his she-donkey, and his two servants were with him. כב. וַיִּחַר אַף אֱלֹהִים כִּי הוֹלֵךְ הוּא וַיִּתְיַצֵּב מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ לְשָׂטָן לוֹ וְהוּא רֹכֵב עַל אֲתֹנוֹ וּשְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו עִמּוֹ:
because he was going: He saw that this was considered evil by the Omnipresent, yet he longed to go.
כי הולך הוא: ראה שהדבר רע בעיני המקום ונתאוה לילך:
to thwart him: It was an angel of mercy [as the Name vuvh denotes the attribute of mercy], and he wanted to prevent him from sinning, for should he sin, he would perish. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:13]
לשטן לו: מלאך של רחמים היה והיה רוצה למנעו מלחטוא, שלא יחטא ויאבד:
and his two servants were with him: From here we learn that a distinguished person who embarks on a journey should take two people with him to attend him, and then they can attend each other [so that when one is occupied, the other takes his place]. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:13]
ושני נעריו עמו: מכאן לאדם חשוב היוצא לדרך יוליך עמו שני אנשים לשמשו וחוזרים ומשמשים זה את זה:
23. The she-donkey saw the angel of the Lord stationed on the road with his sword drawn in his hand; so the she-donkey turned aside from the road and went into a field. Balaam beat the she-donkey to get it back onto the road. כג. וַתֵּרֶא הָאָתוֹן אֶת מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה נִצָּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ וַתֵּט הָאָתוֹן מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ וַתֵּלֶךְ בַּשָּׂדֶה וַיַּךְ בִּלְעָם אֶת הָאָתוֹן לְהַטֹּתָהּ הַדָּרֶךְ:
The she-donkey saw: But he [Balaam] did not see, for God permitted a beast to perceive more than a man. Since he [man] possesses intelligence, he would become insane if he saw demons.
ותרא האתון: והוא לא ראה, שנתן הקב"ה רשות לבהמה לראות יותר מן האדם, שמתוך שיש בו דעת תטרף דעתו כשיראה מזיקין:
with his sword drawn in his hand: He said, “This wicked man has forsaken the tools of his own art, for the weapon of the heathen nations is the sword, and he is coming against them with [the power of] his mouth, which is their specialty. I too, will take hold of his (art) and accost him with his own art.” This indeed was his fate [as it says],“and Balaam the son of Beor they slew with the sword” (31:8). - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:13]
וחרבו שלופה בידו: אמר רשע זה הניח כלי אומנותו, שכלי זיינן של אומות העולם בחרב, והוא בא עליהם בפיו, שהוא אומנות שלהם, אף אני אתפוש את שלו ואבוא עליו באומנותו. וכן היה סופו (במדבר לא, ח) ואת בלעם בן בעור הרגו בחרב:
24. The angel of the Lord stood in a path of the vineyards, with a fence on this side and a fence on that side. כד. וַיַּעֲמֹד מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה בְּמִשְׁעוֹל הַכְּרָמִים גָּדֵר מִזֶּה וְגָדֵר מִזֶּה:
in a path: Heb. בְּמִשְׁעוֹל, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders, בִּשְׁבִיל, in a path. Similarly,“if the dust of Samaria will suffice for the soles (לִשְׁעָלִים) ” (I Kings 20:10) -the dust that sticks to the soles of the feet while walking. Similarly,“Who measured the waters with his step (בְּשָׁעֳלוֹ) ?” (Isa. 40:12) -with his feet and with his step [as one measures by pacing].
במשעול: כתרגומו בשביל. וכן (מ"א כ, י) אם ישפוק עפר שומרון לשעלים. עפר הנדבק בכפות הרגלים בהלוכן, וכן (ישעיה מ, יב) מי מדד בשעלו מים, ברגליו ובהלוכו:
with a fence on either side: Heb. גָּדֵר. Unless specified otherwise, גָּדֵר refers to one made of stone.
גדר מזה וגדר מזה: סתם גדר של אבנים הוא:
25. The she-donkey saw the angel of the Lord, and she was pressed against the wall. She pressed Balaam's leg against the wall, and he beat her again. כה. וַתֵּרֶא הָאָתוֹן אֶת מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה וַתִּלָּחֵץ אֶל הַקִּיר וַתִּלְחַץ אֶת רֶגֶל בִּלְעָם אֶל הַקִּיר וַיֹּסֶף לְהַכֹּתָהּ:
She was pressed: וַתִּלָּחֵץ. [The ‘ niphal’ form denotes] she herself.
ותלחץ: היא עצמה:
She pressed: וַתִּלְחַץ. [The ‘kal’ form denotes that she pressed] something else, namely, Balaam’s leg.
ותלחץ: את אחרים את רגל בלעם:
26. The angel of the Lord continued going ahead, and he stood in a narrow place, where there was no room to turn right or left. כו. וַיּוֹסֶף מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה עֲבוֹר וַיַּעֲמֹד בְּמָקוֹם צָר אֲשֶׁר אֵין דֶּרֶךְ לִנְטוֹת יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול:
The angel of the Lord continued going ahead: He continued further ahead of him, [that is,] to be before him in another spot, as in,“he [Jacob] went ahead (עָבַר) of them” (Gen. 33:3). The Midrash Aggadah in Tanchuma (8) [asks]: What made him stop in three places? For he [the angel] showed him [Balaam] symbols alluding to the patriarchs.
ויוסף מלאך ה' עבור: לעבור עוד לפניו להלוך להיות לפניו במקום אחר, כמו (בראשית לג, ג) והוא עבר לפניהם. ומדרש אגדה יש בתנחומא מה ראה לעמוד בשלשה מקומות, סימני אבות הראהו:
27. The she-donkey saw the angel of the Lord, and it crouched down under Balaam. Balaam's anger flared, and he beat the she-donkey with a stick. כז. וַתֵּרֶא הָאָתוֹן אֶת מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה וַתִּרְבַּץ תַּחַת בִּלְעָם וַיִּחַר אַף בִּלְעָם וַיַּךְ אֶת הָאָתוֹן בַּמַּקֵּל:
28. The Lord opened the mouth of the she-donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you that you have struck me these three times?" כח. וַיִּפְתַּח יְהֹוָה אֶת פִּי הָאָתוֹן וַתֹּאמֶר לְבִלְעָם מֶה עָשִׂיתִי לְךָ כִּי הִכִּיתָנִי זֶה שָׁלשׁ רְגָלִים:
these three times: He hinted to him, You seek to uproot a nation which celebrates three festivals (שָׁלשׁ רְגָלִים) in a year?- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 9, Num. Rabbah 20:14]
זה שלש רגלים: רמז לו אתה מבקש לעקור אומה החוגגת שלש רגלים בשנה:
29. Balaam said to the she-donkey, "For you have humiliated me; if I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now." כט. וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם לָאָתוֹן כִּי הִתְעַלַּלְתְּ בִּי לוּ יֶשׁ חֶרֶב בְּיָדִי כִּי עַתָּה הֲרַגְתִּיךְ:
you have humiliated: Heb. הִתְעַלַּלְתָּ. As the Targum [Onkelos] renders it, a term denoting shame and disgrace.
התעללת: כתרגומו לשון גנאי ובזיון:
If I had a sword in my hand: This matter made him greatly contemptible in the eyes of the dignitaries. This man was going to kill an entire nation with his mouth, yet for this she-donkey he needed weapons!- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 9, Num. Rabbah 20:14]
לו יש חרב בידי: גנות גדולה היה לו דבר זה בעיני השרים, זה הולך להרוג אומה שלמה בפיו, ולאתון זו צריך לכלי זיין:
30. The she-donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your she-donkey on which you have ridden since you first started until now? Have I been accustomed to do this to you?" He said, "No." ל. וַתֹּאמֶר הָאָתוֹן אֶל בִּלְעָם הֲלוֹא אָנֹכִי אֲתֹנְךָ אֲשֶׁר רָכַבְתָּ עָלַי מֵעוֹדְךָ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה הַהַסְכֵּן הִסְכַּנְתִּי לַעֲשׂוֹת לְךָ כֹּה וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא:
Have I become accustomed: Heb. הַהַסְכֵּן הִסְכַּנְתִּי. As the Targum [Onkelos] renders [lit., have I learned to do this?]. Similarly,“Does man learn (יִסְכָּן) for God?” (Job 22:2). Our Rabbis, however, expounded this verse in the Talmud: They [the Moabite dignitaries] said to him, “Why aren’t you riding on a horse?” He [Balaam] said to them, “I sent it out to pasture.” [Immediately, the she-donkey retorted, “Am I not your she-donkey?” He said to her, “Just for bearing burdens.” She retorted, “on which you have ridden.” He said to her, “Only on occasion.” She retorted,“since you first started until now, and not only that but I provide you with riding by day, and with intimacy at night, (interpreting Heb. הַהַסְכֵּן הִסְכַּנְתִּי as”I heated you up,") as is stated in Tractate Avodah Zarah [4b].
ההסכן הסכנתי: כתרגומו, וכן (איוב כב, ב) הלאל יסכן גבר. ורבותינו דרשו מקרא זה בגמרא אמרו ליה, מאי טעמא לא רכבת אסוסיא. אמר להון ברטיבא שדאי ליה וכו', כדאיתא במסכת עבודה זרה (ד ב):
31. The Lord opened Balaam's eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road, with a sword drawn in his hand. He bowed and prostrated himself on his face. לא. וַיְגַל יְהֹוָה אֶת עֵינֵי בִלְעָם וַיַּרְא אֶת מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה נִצָּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלֻפָה בְּיָדוֹ וַיִּקֹּד וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ לְאַפָּיו:
32. The angel of the Lord said to him, "Why have you beaten your she-donkey these three times? Behold, I have came out to thwart you, for the one embarking on the journey has hastened against me. לב. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה עַל מָה הִכִּיתָ אֶת אֲתֹנְךָ זֶה שָׁלוֹשׁ רְגָלִים הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי יָצָאתִי לְשָׂטָן כִּי יָרַט הַדֶּרֶךְ לְנֶגְדִּי:
for the traveler has hastened against me: Heb. יָרַט. Our Rabbis, the Sages of the Mishnah, expounded this word (יָרַט) as an acronym [of the words] יָרְאָה רָאֲתָה נָטְתָה,“She feared, she saw, she turned aside” (Shab. 125a), because the course you took is contrary to me, that is to say, you [made this journey] to make me vengeful and provoke me. According to the literal meaning [it means חָרֵד],“because the journey was hurried against me.” The term יָרַט is cognate with רָטַט, rapid movement, [meaning,] for I saw that the one embarking on the journey [Balaam] has hastened and hurried on his way, in order to anger me and provoke me. The verse is elliptical [as it should read בַּעַל הַדֶּרֶ, the one embarking on the journey]. Similar is וַתְּכַל דָּוִד“David longed” (II Sam. 13:39), which means וַתְּכַל נֶפֶשׁ דָּוִד,“David’s soul longed,” [as is apparent from the feminine prefix of the verb וַתְּכַל. Another interpretation: [The term] יָרַט denotes desire. Similar is,“through the wicked He placates me (יִרְטֵנִי)” (Job 16:11); He appeases me and comforts me through the wicked, who do nothing but provoke me. [Hence, the verse is rendered: the one who embarked on the journey desired to provoke me.] - [Machbereth Menachem p. 163]
כי ירט הדרך לנגדי: רבותינו חכמי המשנה דרשוהו (שבת קה א) נוטריקון יראה ראתה, נטתה, בשביל שהדרך לנגדי, כלומר לקנאתי ולהקניטני. ולפי משמעו כי חרד הדרך לנגדי לשון רטט, כי ראיתי בעל הדרך שחרד ומיהר הדרך שהוא לכעסי ולהמראתי. ומקרא קצר הוא, כמו (ש"ב יג, לט) ותכל דוד. לישנא אחרינא ירט לשון רצון, וכן (איוב טז, יא) ועל ידי רשעים ירטני, מפייס ומנחם אותי על ידי רשעים, שאינן אלא מקניטים:
33. When the she-donkey saw me, it turned aside these three times. Had she not turned aside before me, now also I would also have killed you and spared her [the she-donkey]." לג. וַתִּרְאַנִי הָאָתוֹן וַתֵּט לְפָנַי זֶה שָׁלשׁ רְגָלִים אוּלַי נָטְתָה מִפָּנַי כִּי עַתָּה גַּם אֹתְכָה הָרַגְתִּי וְאוֹתָהּ הֶחֱיֵיתִי:
Had she not turned: Heb. אוּלַי, like לוּלֵא ‘if not.’ Sometimes אוּלַי is used in the sense of לוּלֵא.
אולי נטתה: כמו לולא, פעמים שאולי משמש בלשון לולא:
I would also have killed you: Heb. גַּם אֹתְכָה הָרַגְתִּי, I would have killed you also. This is a transposed verse, like הָרַגְתִּי אֹת ְגַּם, I would also have killed you, meaning to say: Not only would the delay have befallen you through me but even [your] death.
גם אתכה הרגתי: הרי זה מקרא מסורס, והוא כמו גם הרגתי אותך, כלומר לא העכבה בלבד קראתך על ידי, כי גם ההריגה:
and spared her: But now, since she spoke and rebuked you, and you could not withstand her rebuke, as it is written, “He said, No,” therefore, I have killed her, so that [people] should not say, “This is the one that silenced Balaam with her rebuke, and he could not respond,” for the Omnipresent shows regard for human dignity. Similarly, “you shall kill the woman and the animal [through which the sin was committed]” (Lev. 20:16), and, “you shall kill the animal” (ibid. 20:15) - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 9, Num. Rabbah 20:14]
ואותה החייתי: ועתה מפני שדברה והוכיחתך ולא יכולת לעמוד בתוכחתה, כמו שכתוב (פסוק ל) ויאמר לא. על כן הרגתיה, שלא יאמרו זו היא שסלקה את בלעם בתוכחתה ולא יכול להשיב, שחס המקום על כבוד הבריות, וכן (ויקרא כ, טו - טז) ואת הבהמה תהרוגו, וכן (שם) והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה:
34. Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, "I have sinned, for I did not know that you were standing on the road before me. Now, if it displeases you, I will return." לד. וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה חָטָאתִי כִּי לֹא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אַתָּה נִצָּב לִקְרָאתִי בַּדָּרֶךְ וְעַתָּה אִם רַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ אָשׁוּבָה לִּי:
for I did not know: This too is a [mark of] disgrace for him, but he was forced to concede, for [earlier] he had boasted that he was aware of the thoughts of the Most High, but now his mouth professed, “I did not know.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 9]
כי לא ידעתי: גם זה גנותו, ועל כרחו הודה, שהוא היה משתבח שיודע דעת עליון, ופיו העיד לא ידעתי:
if it displeases you, I will return: This reply was a challenge against the Omnipresent. He [Balaam] said to him, “He [God] Himself commanded me to go, yet you, an angel, annul His words. This is His custom: He says one thing and angel retracts it. He said to Abraham, ”Take now your son“ (Gen. 22:2), and through an angel He annulled His words. I, too; if it displeases you, I will have to return.”- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 10, Num. Rabbah 20:15]
אם רע בעיניך אשובה לי: להתריס נגד המקום היא תשובה זו. אמר לו הוא בעצמו צוני ללכת, ואתה מלאך מבטל את דבריו, למוד הוא בכך, שאומר דבר ומלאך מחזירו, אמר לאברהם (בראשית כב, ב) קח נא את בנך וגו', וע"י מלאך בטל את דברו, אף אני אם רע בעיניך צריך אני לשוב:
35. The angel of the Lord said to Balaam, "Go with these men, but the word I will speak to you-that you shall speak." So Balaam went with Balak's dignitaries. לה. וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה אֶל בִּלְעָם לֵךְ עִם הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶפֶס אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תְדַבֵּר וַיֵּלֶךְ בִּלְעָם עִם שָׂרֵי בָלָק:
Go with these men: A man is led along the path he wishes to follow. — [Mak. 10b] (
לך עם האנשים: בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה, מוליכין אותו. לך עם האנשים, כי חלקך עמהם וסופך להאבד מן העולם:
Go with the men: For your portion is with them, and you are destined to perish from the world. — [Mak. 10b])
ואפס: על כרחך את הדבר אשר אדבר וגו':
but: Against your will, “the word I will speak [to you-that you shall speak.”
עם שרי בלק: שמח לקללם כמותם:
with Balak’s dignitaries: He was glad to curse them as much as they were. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 10, Num. Rabbah 20:15]
:
36. Balak heard that Balaam was coming; so he went out toward him to the city of Moab which is on the border of Arnon-at the extreme edge of the border. לו. וַיִּשְׁמַע בָּלָק כִּי בָא בִלְעָם וַיֵּצֵא לִקְרָאתוֹ אֶל עִיר מוֹאָב אֲשֶׁר עַל גְּבוּל אַרְנֹן אֲשֶׁר בִּקְצֵה הַגְּבוּל:
Balak heard: He sent messengers ahead to inform him. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 10, Num. Rabbah 20:16]
וישמע בלק: שלח שלוחים לבשרו:
to the city of Moab: Its capital, its most important city, as if to say, “Look what these [people] are trying to uproot!” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 10, Num. Rabbah 15]
אל עיר מואב: אל מטרפולין שלו, עיר החשובה שלו, לומר ראה מה אלו מבקשים לעקור:
37. Balak said to Balaam, "Did I not send to you to call for you? Why did you not come to me? Am I indeed incapable of honoring you?" לז. וַיֹּאמֶר בָּלָק אֶל בִּלְעָם הֲלֹא שָׁלֹחַ שָׁלַחְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ לִקְרֹא לָךְ לָמָּה לֹא הָלַכְתָּ אֵלָי הַאֻמְנָם לֹא אוּכַל כַּבְּדֶךָ:
Am I indeed incapable of honoring you?: He prophesied that in the end he would leave him in disgrace. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 10, Num. Rabbah 20:16]
האמנם לא אוכל כבדך: נתנבא שסופו לצאת מעמו בקלון:
38. Balaam said to Balak, "Behold I have come to you, do I have any power to say anything? The word God puts into my mouth-that I will speak." לח. וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל בָּלָק הִנֵּה בָאתִי אֵלֶיךָ עַתָּה הֲיָכֹל אוּכַל דַּבֵּר מְאוּמָה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָשִׂים אֱלֹהִים בְּפִי אֹתוֹ אֲדַבֵּר:
-------
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 18 - 22
• Chapter 18
If one merits a public miracle, he should offer a song to God, including in his song all the miracles that have occurred since the day the world was created, as well as the good that God wrought for Israel at the giving of the Torah. And he should say: "He Who has performed these miracles, may He do with me likewise."
1. For the Conductor. By the servant of the Lord, by David, who chanted the words of this song to the Lord on the day the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul.
2. He said, "I love You, Lord, my strength.
3. The Lord is my rock, my fortress, and my rescuer. My God is my strength in Whom I take shelter, my shield, the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.
4. With praises I call upon the Lord, and I am saved from my enemies.
5. For the pangs of death surrounded me, and torrents of evil people terrified me.
6. Pangs of the grave encompassed me; snares of death confronted me.
7. In my distress I called upon the Lord, I cried out to my God; and from His Sanctuary He heard my voice, and my supplication before Him reached His ears.
8. The earth trembled and quaked; the foundations of the mountains shook-they trembled when His wrath flared.
9. Smoke rose in His nostrils, devouring fire blazed from His mouth, and burning coals flamed forth from Him.
10. He inclined the heavens and descended, a thick cloud was beneath His feet.
11. He rode on a cherub and flew; He soared on the wings of the wind.
12. He made darkness His concealment, His surroundings His shelter-of the dense clouds with their dark waters.
13. Out of the brightness before Him, His clouds passed over, with hailstones and fiery coals.
14. The Lord thundered in heaven, the Most High gave forth His voice-hailstones and fiery coals.
15. He sent forth His arrows and scattered them; many lightnings, and confounded them.
16. The channels of water became visible, the foundations of the world were exposed-at Your rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of Your nostrils.
17. He sent from heaven and took me; He brought me out of surging waters.
18. He rescued me from my fierce enemy, and from my foes when they had become too strong for me.
19. They confronted me on the day of my misfortune, but the Lord was my support.
20. He brought me into spaciousness; He delivered me because He desires me.
21. The Lord rewar-ded me in accordance with my righteousness; He repaid me according to the cleanliness of my hands.
22. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not transgressed against my God;
23. for all His laws are before me, I have not removed His statutes from me.
24. I was perfect with Him, and have guarded myself from sin.
25. The Lord repaid me in accordance with my righteousness, according to the cleanliness of my hands before His eyes.
26. With the kindhearted You act kindly, with the upright man You act uprightly.
27. With the pure You act purely, but with the crooked You act cun- ningly.
28. For the destitute nation You save, but haughty eyes You humble.
29. Indeed, You light my lamp; the Lord, my God, illuminates my darkness.
30. For with You I run against a troop; with my God I scale a wall.
31. The way of God is perfect; the word of the Lord is pure; He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him.
32. For who is God except the Lord, and who is a rock except our God!
33. The God Who girds me with strength, and makes my path perfect.
34. He makes my feet like deers', and stands me firmly on my high places.
35. He trains my hands for battle, my arms to bend a bow of bronze.
36. You have given me the shield of Your deliverance, Your right hand upheld me; Your humility made me great.
37. You have widened my steps beneath me, and my knees have not faltered.
38. I pursued my enemies and overtook them; I did not turn back until I destroyed them.
39. I crushed them so that they were unable to rise; they are fallen beneath my feet.
40. You have girded me with strength for battle; You have subdued my adversaries beneath me.
41. You have made my enemies turn their backs to me, and my foes I cut down.
42. They cried out, but there was none to deliver them; to the Lord, but He did not answer them.
43. I ground them as the dust before the wind, I poured them out like the mud in the streets.
44. You have rescued me from the quarrelsome ones of the people, You have made me the head of nations; a nation I did not know became subservient to me.
45. As soon as they hear of me they obey me; strangers deny to me [their disloyalty].
46. Strangers wither away, they are terrified in their strongholds.
47. The Lord lives; blessed is my Rock; exalted is the God of my deliverance.
48. You are the God Who executes retribution for me, and subjugates nations under me.
49. Who rescues me from my enemies, Who exalts me above my adversaries, Who delivers me from the man of violence.
50. Therefore I will laud You, Lord, among the nations, and sing to Your Name.
51. He grants His king great salvations, and bestows kindness upon His anointed, to David and his descendants forever."
Chapter 19
To behold God's might one should look to the heavens, to the sun, and to the Torah, from which awesome miracles and wonders can be perceived--wonders that lead the creations to tell of God's glory.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. The heavens recount the glory of the Almighty; the sky proclaims His handiwork.
3. Day to day speech streams forth; night to night expresses knowledge.
4. There is no utterance, there are no words; their voice is inaudible.
5. Their arc extends throughout the world; their message to the end of the earth. He set in them [the heavens] a tent for the sun,
6. which is like a groom coming forth from his bridal canopy, like a strong man rejoicing to run the course.
7. Its rising is at one end of the heavens, and its orbit encompasses the other ends; nothing is hidden from its heat.
8. The Torah of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the Lord is trustworthy, making wise the simpleton.
9. The precepts of the Lord are just, rejoicing the heart; the command of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes.
10. The fear of the Lord is pure, abiding forever; the judgments of the Lord are true, they are all righteous together.
11. They are more desirable than gold, than much fine gold; sweeter than honey or the drippings of honeycomb.
12. Indeed, Your servant is scrupulous with them; in observing them there is abundant reward.
13. Yet who can discern inadvertent wrongs? Purge me of hidden sins.
14. Also hold back Your servant from willful sins; let them not prevail over me; then I will be unblemished and keep myself clean of gross transgression.
15. May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable before You, Lord, my Strength and my Redeemer.
Chapter 20
If a loved one or relative is suffering-even in a distant place, where one is unable to help-offer this prayer on their behalf.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. May the Lord answer you on the day of distress; may the Name of the God of Jacob fortify you.
3. May He send your help from the Sanctuary, and support you from Zion.
4. May He remember all your offerings, and always accept favorably your sacrifices.
5. May He grant you your heart's desire, and fulfill your every counsel.
6. We will rejoice in your deliverance, and raise our banners in the name of our God; may the Lord fulfill all your wishes.
7. Now I know that the Lord has delivered His anointed one, answering him from His holy heavens with the mighty saving power of His right hand.
8. Some [rely] upon chariots and some upon horses, but we [rely upon and] invoke the Name of the Lord our God.
9. They bend and fall, but we rise and stand firm.
10. Lord, deliver us; may the King answer us on the day we call.
One who is endowed with prosperity, and whose every desire is granted, ought not be ungrateful. He should praise and thank God, recognize Him as the cause of his prosperity, and trust in Him. For everything comes from the kindness of the One Above.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. The king rejoices in Your strength, Lord; how greatly he exults in Your deliverance!
3. You have given him his heart's desire, and You have never withheld the utterance of his lips.
4. You preceded him with blessings of good; You placed a crown of pure gold on his head.
5. He asked of You life, You gave it to him-long life, forever and ever.
6. His glory is great in Your deliverance; You have placed majesty and splendor upon him.
7. For You make him a blessing forever; You gladden him with the joy of Your countenance.
8. For the king trusts in the Lord, and in the kindness of the Most High-that he will not falter.
9. Your hand will suffice for all Your enemies; Your right hand will find those who hate You.
10. You will make them as a fiery furnace at the time of Your anger. May the Lord consume them in His wrath; let a fire devour them.
11. Destroy their offspring from the earth, their descendants from mankind.
12. For they intended evil against You, they devised evil plans which they cannot execute.
13. For You will set them as a portion apart; with Your bowstring You will aim at their faces.
14. Be exalted, O Lord, in Your strength; we will sing and chant the praise of Your might.
Chapter 22
Every person should pray in agony over the length of the exile, and our fall from prestige to lowliness. One should also take vows (for self-improvement) in his distress.
1. For the Conductor, on the ayelet hashachar, a psalm by David.
2. My God, my God, why have You forsaken me! So far from saving me, from the words of my outcry?
3. My God, I call out by day, and You do not answer; at night-but there is no respite for me.
4. Yet You, Holy One, are enthroned upon the praises of Israel.
5. In You our fathers trusted; they trusted and You saved them.
6. They cried to You and were rescued; they trusted in You and were not shamed.
7. And I am a worm and not a man; scorn of men, contempt of nations.
8. All who see me mock me; they open their lips, they shake their heads.
9. But one that casts [his burden] upon the Lord-He will save him; He will rescue him, for He desires him.
10. For You took me out of the womb, and made me secure on my mother's breasts.
11. I have been thrown upon You from birth; from my mother's womb You have been my God.
12. Be not distant from me, for trouble is near, for there is none to help.
13. Many bulls surround me, the mighty bulls of Bashan encircle me.
14. They open their mouths against me, like a lion that ravages and roars.
15. I am poured out like water, all my bones are disjointed; my heart has become like wax, melted within my innards.
16. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my palate; You set me in the dust of death.
17. For dogs surround me, a pack of evildoers enclose me; my hands and feet are like a lion's prey.
18. I count all my limbs, while they watch and gloat over me.
19. They divide my garments amongst them; they cast lots upon my clothing.
20. But You, Lord, do not be distant; my Strength, hurry to my aid!
21. Save my life from the sword, my soul from the grip of dogs.
22. Save me from the lion's mouth, as You have answered me from the horns of wild beasts.
23. I will recount [the praises of] Your Name to my brothers; I will extol You amidst the congregation.
24. You that fear the Lord, praise Him! Glorify Him, all you progeny of Jacob! Stand in awe of Him, all you progeny of Israel!
25. For He has not despised nor abhorred the entreaty of the poor, nor has He concealed His face from him; rather He heard when he cried to Him.
26. My praise comes from You, in the great congregation; I will pay my vows before those that fear Him.
27. Let the humble eat and be satisfied; let those who seek the Lord praise Him-may your hearts live forever!
28. All the ends of the earth will remember and return to the Lord; all families of nations will bow down before You.
29. For sovereignty is the Lord's, and He rules over the nations.
30. All the fat ones of the earth will eat and bow down, all who descend to the dust shall kneel before Him, but He will not revive their soul.
31. The progeny of those who serve Him will tell of the Lord to the latter generations.
32. They will come and relate His righteousness-all that He has done-to a newborn nation.
------
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 9
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Tuesday, Tammuz 3, 5774 • July 1, 2014
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 9
הגהה
NOTE
The Alter Rebbe now briefly explains the various tzimtzumim that had to take place in order to enable the attributes of Atzilut to emanate from the [infinite] Ein Sof-light.
סוד הצמצום באור אין סוף ברוך הוא
[This note will outline] the mystical principle of the tzimtzum of the Ein Sof-light,
Before the tzimtzum, G d’s infinite manifestation was predominant. Tzimtzum caused His capacity for limitation and finitude, which previously had been submerged within His infinite power, to be revealed.
וצמצום אדם קדמון
and the tzimtzum of Adam Kadmon, which is the highest state of existence after the tzimtzum, and the primal thought that contains and is the source of all subsequent emanations and creations,
וסוד הדיקנא
and the esoteric doctrine of [the tzimtzum of] Dikna.
The life-force that animates hair is exceedingly attentuated, to the point that cutting it causes no pain. Accordingly, the terms Dikna (lit., “beard”) and se‘arot (“hair”) are used to represent a certain form of tzimtzum.1
שסוד כל הצמצומים: לצמצם האור, שיתלבש בבחינת כלים די׳ ספירות
For the underlying purpose of all the contractions is to condense the light, in order to enable it to become enclothed within the vessels of the Ten Sefirot [of the World of Atzilut].
These “vessels” assume the specific form of wisdom or kindness. By contrast, the divine light that permeates these vessels is essentially simple. When, through tzimtzum, the vessels come into being and the light clothes itself within them and becomes fused with them, wisdom and kindness become one with G d.
והנה אחר שנתלבש אור אין סוף בבחינת כלים דחב״ד, אז שייך לומר מה שכתב הרמב״ם: הוא היודע והוא המדע והוא הידוע, ובידיעת עצמו וכו׳
It is only after the Ein Sof-light becomes clothed within the vessels of ChaBaD that Maimonides‘ statement [about the Holy One, blessed be He] is in place: “He is the Knower, and He is the Knowledge, and He is the Known,…and by knowing Himself [He knows all creation].”
לפי שבחינת כלים דאצילות נעשים נשמה וחיות לבריאה יצירה עשיה ולכל אשר בהם
For the vessels of Atzilut become the soul and life-force of [the Worlds of] Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, and all [the creatures] therein.
By “knowing Himself” with the knowledge that is to be found in the vessels of Atzilut, He also knows all the Worlds and creatures of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, since they derive their life-force from these vessels.
All this, however, can only come about after the various tzimtzumim have brought about the contraction of the light, enabling it to be vested in the vessels of Atzilut.
אבל בלי צמצום והלבשה הנ״ל, לא שייך כלל לומר: הוא היודע והוא המדע וכו׳
However, without the aforesaid tzimtzum and investiture [of the light in the vessels], it is not at all appropriate to say that “He is the Knower and He is the Knowledge...;” i.e., the whole category of knowledge cannot be ascribed to G d, even in so exalted a manner as in the statement that “He is the Knower.,”
כי אינו בבחינת וגדר דעת ומדע כלל, חס ושלום
for He is not within the realm and domain of knowing and knowledge at all, G d forbid,
אלא למעלה מעלה עילוי רב עד אין קץ, אפילו מבחינת וגדר חכמה
but infinitely elevated above even the level and the bounds of wisdom,
For even the statement that “He is the Knower.” implies restricting G d, so to speak, to one particular faculty — viz., wisdom, as distinct from (say) the attribute of kindness or mercy. G d, however, utterly transcends all such bounds,
עד שבחינת חכמה נחשבת אצלו יתברך כבחינת עשיה גשמית
to the extent that in relation to Him, the level of wisdom is considered like the level of physical action.
END OF NOTE
Before the note the Alter Rebbe had said that “the manner and nature of the flow and emanation — how and what — is known to the savants.” I.e., it is they who understand how from the Ein Sof-light there emanated the intellectual and emotive attributes, which even after their emanation are so completely fused with G d that it can be said that “He is the Knowledge….” The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say:
והנה אין לנו עסק בנסתרות
Now, we are not concerned with esoteric matters — how the emanations of the Sefirot from the Ein Sof-light came about, and the subsequent manner of their unity with Him,
אך הנגלות לנו: להאמין אמונה שלמה דאיהו וגרמוהי חד
but it is incumbent upon us to believe with complete faith, matters that are revealed to us — that He and His attributes, viz., the vessels and Sefirot, are One.
דהיינו: מדותיו של הקב״ה, ורצונו, וחכמתו ובינתו ודעתו עם מהותו ועצמותו
I.e., the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His will, and His wisdom and understanding and knowledge, [are One] with His Essence and Being,
המרומם לבדו רוממות אין קץ מבחינת חכמה ושכל והשגה
Who alone is exalted by infinite elevations above the level of wisdom and intellect and comprehension.
ולכן גם יחודו, שמתייחד עם מדותיו שהאציל מאתו יתברך, גם כן אינו בבחינת השגה
Hence, since He totally transcends intellect and comprehension, His union with the attributes which He emanated from Himself is also beyond the realm of comprehension;
להשיג איך מתייחד בהן
[i.e., it is impossible] to understand how He unites with them; rather, this may be apprehended only through faith.
ולכן נקראו מדותיו של הקב״ה, שהן הספירות, בזהר הקדוש: רזא דמהימנותא
In the holy Zohar, therefore, the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, which are the Sefirot, are called “the secret of faith,”
שהיא האמונה שלמעלה מן השכל
which is the faith that transcends intellect, for this concept cannot be grasped intellectually, but only through faith
FOOTNOTES
1. Note of the Rebbe: “This is explained more extensively in many places in Chassidut, e.g., in Shaar HaYichud [in Ner Mitzvah veTorah Or of the Mitteler Rebbe].”
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Tuesday, Tammuz 3, 5774 • July 1, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 91
Burning Leftover Sacrificial Meat
"But that which remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire"—Leviticus 7:17.
We are commanded to burn sacrificial meat that remains after the deadline for its consumption has passed.
Included in this mitzvah is also the commandment to burn sacrificial meat that is Pigul.
Burning Leftover Sacrificial Meat
Positive Commandment 91
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 91st mitzvah is that we are commanded to burn nosar.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "What is left over from the meat of the sacrifice on the third day must be burned in fire."
Regarding the Pascal lamb, G‑d A‑lmighty said,3 "Do not leave any of it over until morning. Anything that is left over until morning must be burned in fire." The Mechilta4 says explicitly, "This verse comes to add a positive commandment to the prohibition."
In many places in tractates Pesachim,5 and Makkos6 and elsewhere,7 our Sages say explicitly that the prohibition of nosar is a lav shenitak l'aseh, and one is therefore not punished by lashes for transgressing it.8 The aseh [positive commandment] is, as we said, "Anything that is left over until morning must be burned in fire."
The law of pigul is identical to that of nosar, as will be explained in the Prohibitions.9 This is because pigul is referred to [in Scripture10] as nosar.
The details of this mitzvah as well have been explained in tractate Pesachim11 and in the end of Temurah.12
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. sacrificial meat which was not consumed within the designated time and thereby became invalid.
2.Lev. 7:17.
3.Ex. 12:10.
4.Our version of the Mechilta does not contain this passage. It may be found in Mechilta D'Rashbi, chapter 12.
5.84a.
6.4b, 16a.
7.Sanhedrin 63a; Shavuos 3b; Chullin 82b, 91a, 141b; Temurah 4b.
8.See N120. This point is discussed here to demonstrate that the burning is counted as a positive commandment.
9.N132. One is therefore also obligated to burn pigul.
10.Lev. 7:18.
11.27b.
12.34a.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Sheluchin veShuttafin Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Nine Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Nine
Halacha 1
The following - all types of partners, sharecroppers, guardians of orphans who were appointed by the court, a woman who does business in the family home or who was charged by her husband to serve as a storekeeper, and a member of the household - are all required by Rabbinic Law to take an oath, despite the fact that the claimant does not have a certain claim against them, lest they may have stolen something from their colleague while performing business on his behalf, or perhaps they were not exact when making a reckoning.
Why did the Sages ordain this oath? Because these people give themselves license, thinking that they are deserving of whatever they will take from the property of the owner, since they do business and work on his behalf. Therefore, the Sages ordained that they are required to take an oath despite the fact that the claimant does not have a certain claim against them, so that they will perform all their deeds justly and in good faith.
Halacha 2
None of the above are required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim until the plaintiff suspects them of taking two silver pieces - i.e., two silver me'ah, as will be explained. If, however, they are suspected of taking less than this amount, they are not required to take an oath.
Halacha 3
Based on this, my teachers ruled that if one partner died, the heirs cannot compel their father's partners to take an oath concerning an indefinite claim. For they are not knowledgeable about their father's affairs and do not know for certain that their father suspected the partner of wrongdoing so that it can be said that the heirs suspect the partner of taking two silver me'ah.
There are, however, others who rule that the heir may require him to take an oath despite the fact that his claim is indefinite. It is proper to rule in this manner. For we see that the heirs may require a widow who became a guardian during the lifetime of her husband to take an oath.
Halacha 4
Although there are no witnesses that a person was his colleague's sharecropper or partner, but rather he himself admits to this fact, saying: "I am his partner, sharecropper or member of his household - but I did not steal anything from him," he must take an oath while holding a sacred article. The rationale is that we do not employ the principle of migo to free a person from the responsibility of taking an oath, but only to free him from a financial commitment.
Which member of the household can be required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim? One who brings workers in and leads workers out, who brings produce in and takes produce out. When, however, a member of the household is not involved in the business affairs of the household, but merely enters and leaves, he cannot be required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim.
Similarly, a guardian appointed by the father of orphans before his death cannot be required by the orphans to take an oath because of an indefinite claim. Similarly, a woman who did not serve as a guardian in her husband's lifetime, and did not do business with the property of the estate after her husband's burial cannot be required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim.
Similarly, if she did business with the property of the estate between her husband's death and burial, she is not required to take an oath regarding the transactions conducted during this period. For if she were required to take an oath, she would not sell any property in order to make the burial possible, and the deceased would become loathsome.
Halacha 5
When a person sends an article with a colleague to sell, or sends money with him to purchase produce or merchandise for him, even though the principal did not pay the agent a wage, and the agent does not own any portion of the merchandise nor derive any benefit from it, since he did business with his colleague's money, he is considered a member of his household. Even though the principal has merely an indefinite claim, the agent can be required to take an oath that he did not steal anything from him when he brought him the merchandise that he purchased or a portion of it, or the money from the sale he conducted for him.
Halacha 6
When both partners are involved in the business of the partnership or the one who is involved in the business entrusts the merchandise - or a portion of the merchandise - or the funds belonging to the partnership without weighing, measuring or counting them, there is a doubt concerning both of them, and either one can require the other to take the oath required of a partner. If, however, only one of the partners does business and the other is not involved in the business dealings at all, only the former can be required to take this oath.
Halacha 7
The above oath can be administered when the initial relationship is still current. If, however, the partners or the sharecroppers dissolved their relationship, the woman was divorced, the member of the household went elsewhere, or the agent brought the principal the merchandise he purchased for him or the money from the merchandise he sold for him, the principal remained silent without making a claim against the other party, and the other party departed, the principal is not able to require that other party to take an oath because of an indefinite claim afterwards. If, however, the principal has a definite claim against him, he can require him to take an oath, and then require him to take additional oaths concerning anything he desires.
Similarly, if at a later time, the other person is required to take an oath to the principal - whether required by Scriptural Law or by Rabbinic Law - e.g., he became a partner or a member of the person's household again - the principal can require him to take an oath that he did not steal anything during their present partnership or while he was his partner, sharecropper, member of his household or guardian previously. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 8
When partners have dissolved their partnership, but the partnership is still owed debts by others, the partners cannot require each other to take an oath because of an indefinite claim, for they have already divided the partnership's resources. The debts that remain are not significant in this context, for they are matters of public knowledge. When any portion of the debt is repaid, they will each take their appropriate portion of the debt.
Similar concepts apply if it has been made known that cash remains in the coffers of the partnership, but the partners have not taken their portion of that cash. Neither may require an oath of the other, because cash is considered as if it is already divided.
Similarly, if a reckoning was made of the assets of the partnership possessed by all the partners, and it was determined that one partner was holding a specific and known entity belonging to another, it is considered as if the assets were divided, even though he had not taken it as of that time.
If, however, any of the produce belonging to the partnership remained, and it had not been divided or weighed, or any dimension of the partnership remained concerning which an accounting had not been made and thus, neither of them knew the extent of the portion that is due him, the partnership is still considered viable, and either may require the other to take the oath mentioned above.
Halacha 9
When a person issues a claim against a colleague after the dissolution of a partnership, he cannot compel him to take an oath except through the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, as explained above. He may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who stole from his colleague while he was his partner, sharecropper or member of his household, and does not admit that he stole.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 14, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 15, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 14
Halacha 1
[With regard to the intent that could disqualify a sacrifice:] The only intent that is significant is that of the person performing the Temple service. The intent of the person bringing the sacrifice is of no consequence.1 Even when we heard that the owner had an intent which would cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul,2 if the person performing the Temple service had the proper intent, the sacrifice is acceptable.
Halacha 2
The intent of [the person performing sacrificial service] is significant only when he is fit to perform this service, he is performing service with an entity fit for service, and is doing so in a place fit for service.3
What is implied? If a person who is unfit for Temple service receives the blood, brings it to the altar, or casts it on the altar and at the time he is performing this service has an unacceptable intent with regard to place or time, his intent does not disqualify the sacrifice, because he is not fit to perform Temple service.4 The blood that he received or a portion that remained after he cast some [on the altar] should be poured into the drainage canal.5If "the blood of the soul" remains [within the animal], a person who is fit to perform Temple service should receive it with a proper intent.6
If, however, a person who is unfit for Temple service has an disqualifying intent at the time he slaughters [the animal], he disqualifies it with his intent, because ritual slaughter is acceptable if performed by an unfit person, as explained.7
They are sacrifices that are acceptable if they are offered for an intent other than specified originally,8 as will be explained.9 Therefore, [in those instances,] if a priest who is not fit for Temple service receives the blood, carries it, or casts it on the altar, he disqualifies the sacrifice as if he offered it for the desired intent in which instance, it would be disqualified. Even if "the blood of the soul" remains and it was received by an acceptable [priest] and cast on the altar, the sacrifice was already disqualified. It was not disqualified because it was offered for a different purpose, but because [service] was performed by someone unfit for service, as we explained.10
Halacha 3
What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard] to "performing service with an entity fit for service"? [For example,] if a handful was taken from the meal-offering of the omer without the proper intent,11 it is considered as if it was taken with the proper intent and the remnants are eaten. [The rationale is that] it is offered from barley and barley is not a substance fit for other offerings.12
Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the meal-offering of envy13 while frankincense was on it, before the frankincense was removed,14there is no consequence to that intent, because [it does not involve] an entity fit for service. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard to "performing service] in a place fit for service"? When the altar has become damaged and [the priest offering the sacrifice] had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the sacrifice was to be offered or eaten], he did not disqualify the sacrifice with this intent,15 because the place was not fit for Temple service at that time.16
If one took a handful of flour from a meal-offering outside the Temple Courtyard and had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the meal-offering was to be offered or eaten] while taking the handful, the intent is of no consequence.17
Halacha 5
These are elements of sacrificial [animals] that are not fit to be eaten, but are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre:18 its blood,19 its eimorim,20the meat of a burnt-offering, and the handful of meal and the frankincense from the meal-offerings from which such a handful is removed.
Halacha 6
These are the elements that are fit to be eaten and are not fit to be offered on the altar: the meat that is eaten from any of the sacrifices, whether eaten by the priests or by all other people, the remainder of the meal offering,21 the two breads [offered on Shavuot], and the showbread.
Halacha 7
These are the elements that are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre: the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt [outside the Temple Courtyard],22the entire hide of an animal with the exception of the hide of the fat-tail which is fit to be eaten, [and] the murah, the thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten. [This category] also [includes] the bones, the giddim,23 the horns, and the hoofs, the feathers24 of a fowl, its nails, its beak, the tips of its wings, and the end of its tail.25 Even with regard to the soft places of the above which cleave to the flesh and would cause bleeding if cut off from a living animal, since they are not important, they are considered as an entity that is not fit to be eaten with regard to the sacrifices.26 This also applies to the sauce [in which a sacrifice is cooked], the spices [with which it is cooked], a fetus, a placenta, the egg of a fowl, and meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide; it is called the allal. All of the above are not significant with regard to an intent [that could disqualify] sacrifices. They are considered as a matter that is not fit to be eaten.
Halacha 8
A [disqualifying] intent is significant [even though] it concerns an entity that ultimately will be destroyed or that will ultimately be burnt.
If, while performing any or all of the four [significant] services,27 one has a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of an entity that is not usually eaten or to offer on the altar's pyre an entity that is not usually offered there, the sacrifice is acceptable.
What is implied? One thought to drink the blood of a sacrifice or partake of its eimorim or of the handful of meal or the frankincense [taken from a meal offering] outside [the Temple Courtyard]28 or on the following day,29 the sacrifice is acceptable.30 [This ruling also applies] if one had the intent of offering the meat of the sacrifice or what remains of the meal-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day.
Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of or to offer on the altar's pyre the hide [of a sacrificial animal], its bones, giddim, sauce, allal, or the like, the sacrifice is acceptable.31 Similarly, if one had the intent to partake of the bulls or the goats that are burnt,32 outside [Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, the sacrifice is acceptable.33 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 9
If34 one had the intent that [other] persons who are impure or who are disqualified shall partake of an entity that is fit to be eaten or that these persons should offer an entity that is fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside of the set times for it to be eaten or offered, the sacrifice is piggul,35 as we explained.36 If he [had the intent that they partake of it or offer it] outside the places designated for eating and offering, the sacrifice is unacceptable, but not piggul.37
Halacha 10
The concept of eating does not apply to a substance smaller than an olive, nor does the concept of offering an entity on the altar's pyre apply to a substance smaller than an olive.38 Therefore if a person had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of less than an olive size portion of an entity fit to be eaten or to offer less than an olive-sized portion of an entity fit to be offered, the sacrifice is acceptable.39
If he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] and offer half an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] or he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for eating and offer half an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for offering, the sacrifice is acceptable. [The rationale is that] eating and offering are not combined [to be considered as a single activity]. If, however, he used the wording achilah, saying: "Half an olive-sized portion should be eaten and half an olive-sized portion consumed by [the altar's] fire," the [two halves] are combined, for the wording of achilah is one.
If one had a [disqualifying] intent to eat or offer half an olive-sized portion and then in the same thought had an intent concerning another half of an olive-sized portion, the two can be combined. If one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to eat half of an olive-sized portion and that an animal or beast should eat half of an olive-sized portion,40 they can be combined because both are called eating.
If one had a [disqualifying] intent that two people partake of the sacrifice, the two are combined. Even though one intended to partake of an olive-sized portion in longer than the time it takes to eat a half a loaf of bread,41 the eating is combined.42 If at the time of slaughter, he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an olive-sized portion and at the time of casting [the blood on the altar], he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an olive-sized portion, the two intents - whether concerning the place or the time - are combined. Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning an olive-sized portion43 at the time he received [the blood] and [such an intent] concerning an olive-sized44portion while bringing [it to the altar, they are combined]. For all the four services [mentioned above]45 are combined and can be considered as a single service.
If one had a [disqualifying] intent regarding offering half an olive-sized portion of the handful [of meal] and [a similar intent] regarding half an olive-sized portion of the frankincense,46 they are combined. For with regard to the meal-offering, the frankincense and the handful [of meal] are considered like the eimorim for an animal sacrifice. Therefore if one had the intent to offer an olive-sized portion of frankincense at an improper time, [the meal-offering] is considered piggul, as was be explained.44
Whether one had the intent to cast all [of an animal's] blood outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day or had the intent to cast [only] a portion of its blood outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, since he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning the amount of blood sufficient to present on the altar,47 [the sacrifice] is disqualified.
FOOTNOTES
1.Note the parallel in Hilchot Shechitah 2:22.
2.Vayikra Rabbah 22:7 states that even if the owner "sits and thinks [unacceptable intents] the entire day," the sacrifice is not disqualified.
3.The Rambam proceeds to define each of these concepts.
4.For these undesirable intents disqualify a sacrifice only when they alone are the factors that disqualify it and not when it is disqualified for other reasons [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:1)].
5.For it is disqualified and must be disposed.
6.He should then bring it to the altar and cast it upon it. The sacrifice is then acceptable. As stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 27-28, the rationale is that "individuals who are unacceptable for Temple service do not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants." Hence it is as if the blood of the sacrifice had never been taken.
7.Chapter 1, Halachah 1.
8.E.g., a burnt-offering is offered with the intent that it is a peace-offering.
9.Chapter 15, Halachah 1.
10.The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is implying that since the sacrifice is acceptable in these instances, even though in other instances, such a change in intent would disqualify it, a person who is not fit for Temple service is considered just like one who is. His intent is significant and could disqualify the sacrifice. The Kessef Mishneh, however, questions on what the Rambam bases this principle.
11.I.e., with the intent that it be offered as another type of meal-offering.
12.I.e., all of the other meal-offerings were brought from wheat and thus the barley used for the omer offering is unfit to be used for other meal-offerings. Hence even if one had the intent to offer it as another type of offering, that intent is of no consequence. (The meal-offering of a sotah is also brought from barley, but there are fundamental differences between it and the omer offering.)
The Rambam's understanding is based on his understanding of Menachot 5b which states that the omer offering is a chidush, something new and different than other meal-offerings, for it is from barley, as explained. The Ra'avad follows a different version of the text which states that the omer offering is different, because it is brought from chadash, wheat from the new harvest.
There is an advantage to the Ra'avad's understanding, because - as he explains - according to the Rambam, the same rationale could seemingly be used with regard to the sotah offering mentioned in the second clause of the halachah. There would be no necessity to mention frankincense. The Kessef Mishneh favors the Rambam's version and explains that by mentioning frankincense, our Sages (and the Rambam) chose one of two possible answers. They could also have stated that it is unfit to be used for other offerings.
13.The term used by Numbers 5:15,18 to describe the meal-offering brought by a woman suspected of adultery.
14.It is forbidden to place frankincense on this offering (Numbers 5:15). Thus before the offering is brought, the frankincense must be removed and until it is removed, the offering is not fit. Hence, whatever intent the person has concerning the offering at that time is of no consequence.
15.And it may be offered when the altar is repaired.
16.This applies even if he had this intent while performing service in the Temple Courtyard. Since the altar is not fit for sacrifices to be offered upon it, the place is not considered as fit for service.
17.Because the act was performed outside the Temple Courtyard, a place where sacrificial service may not be performed.
18.The definitions given in this and the following two halachot are necessary to understand the laws stated in Halachot 8-10 (Kessef Mishneh).
19.The commentaries have noted that the Rambam's wording is not exact, for although the blood is presented on the altar, it is not "offered on the altar's pyre."
20.The fats and organs offered on the altar (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:18).
21.I.e., what remains after the handful is removed.
22.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:2-5 which describes the burning of these sacrifices.
23.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), the Rambam explains that this is a general term referring to blood vessels, nerves, and sinews.
24.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:2), the Rambam explains that this term refers to the growth that remains after the large feathers are removed. [The Mishnah there uses the term mourah. The spelling of that term is important, for some spell it in the same way as a term the Rambam translates as referring to one of a fowl's stomachs.]
25.In the above source, the Rambam explains that when the feathers are removed from these places, they remain dry projections that are unfit for consumption unless the fowl is very fat.
26.Similarly, they are not considered as meat with regard to the prohibitions against partaking of forbidden foods and the laws of ritual purity. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:18, 9:7; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 1:7.
27.See Halachah 2 above.
28.I.e., a disqualifying intent because of the place.
29.I.e., a disqualifying intent because of the time.
30.Because the substances mentioned are not usually eaten.
31.For these entities are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre.
32.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:2-5 which describes the burning of these sacrifices.
33.Because these sacrifices are not fit to be eaten. With regard to a disqualifying intent while burning these sacrifices, see Chapter 13, Halachah 8.
34.While performing one of the four services mentioned previously.
35.The Kessef Mishneh notes that, as stated in the following halachah, our Sages considered an animal's consumption as "eating." Hence consumption by such individuals will certainly fall into that category.
36.In Chapter 13, Halachah 1. The fact that the person who was intended to partake of the sacrifice or offer it was impure or disqualified is not significant.
37.See Chapter 13 which explains that the concept of piggul applies only when the disqualifying intent applies time alone.
38.An olive-sized portion is 27 cc according to Shiurei Torah. Both the mitzvot and the prohibitions involving eating center on partaking of an olive-sized portion of food. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1; Hilchot Terumot 10:2, et al. This measure is also of consequence with regard to offering substances on the altar as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 15.
39.Because his forbidden intent is of no consequence.
40.Zevachim 31b refers to II Kings 9:10 as support for the concept that consumption by animals can be termed achilah.
41.I.e., an equivalent of three egg-sized portions. Generally, if a person stretches out his consumption of an olive-sized portion beyond this time span, it is not considered as "eating," for he will not have ingested a significant amount at once. The Rabbis mention different opinions with regard to this time span, referred to as k'dai achilat pras, some as brief as 2 minutes and some as long as 9 minutes. Based on Shiurei Torah, the suggested practice is to consider k'dai achilat pras as 4 minutes with regard to eating matzah on Pesach, but 9 minutes with regard to eating on Yom Kippur.
42.For here the emphasis is not on the person's activity of eating, but on the sacrifice being eaten (Kin'at Eliyahu).
43.The Kessef Mishneh suggests amending the text to read "half an olive-sized portion" and in that way fit the context of the entire halachah. The notes to the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah, however, indicate that all of the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah speak of an olive-sized portion.
44.An olive-sized portion is 27 cc according to Shiurei Torah. Both the mitzvot and the prohibitions involving eating center on partaking of an olive-sized portion of food. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1; Hilchot Terumot 10:2, et al. This measure is also of consequence with regard to offering substances on the altar as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 15.
45.See Halachah 2 above.
46.The Mishneh LiMelech notes that in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, the Rambam writes that two grains of frankincense are sufficient for a meal-offering to be considered acceptable. Seemingly, then, that amount should also be enough to disqualify such an offering.
47.I.e.,. a very small amount.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 15
Halacha 1
Any of the sacrifices - whether individual sacrifices or communal sacrifices1 - that were sacrificed for a different purpose than that for which they were originally designated are acceptable,2 but they did not satisfy the obligation incumbent on their owner with the exception of sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice.3If they are offered for a different purpose, they are unacceptable. [This applies whether] one changes the purpose of the sacrifice at the time of slaughter, at the time he receives its blood, he brings it to altar, or when he casts it upon it, as we explained.4
What is meant by saying that [the owner] does not fulfill his obligation through such [a sacrifice]? For example, one slaughtered [an animal designated as] a burnt-offering as a peace-offering. It does not fulfill the obligation of the owner, neither for the burnt-offering for which he is obligated or for a sin-offering. Instead, he is obligated to bring another sacrifice. Similarly, if one slaughtered a burnt-offering brought by Reuven for the sake of Shimon, it does not fulfill the obligation either of Reuven or of Shimon.5
When does the above apply? When one changed the purpose of the sacrifice intentionally. If, however, one erred and had the impression that the [animal designated as] a burnt-offering was [designated as] a peace-offering and carried out all of its services for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Similarly, when one offered a sin-offering or a Paschal sacrifice for a different purpose in error, they are acceptable. For supplanting [a purpose] mistakenly is of no consequence.6
Similarly, if one performs melikah on a fowl [designated as] a burnt-offering or squeezed out its blood for a different purpose, it is acceptable,7 but does not fulfill the obligation of the owner. And a sin-offering of fowl [brought for a different purpose] is unacceptable.
Halacha 2
Similarly, all of the meal-offerings that were offered for a different intent than that originally conceived are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation with the exception of a meal-offering of a sinner8 and a meal offering of a sotah.9If while performing one of the four services10 one had an intent for a different purpose, [the meal-offering] is unacceptable.11
What is implied? One separated a handful from a freewill meal-offering for the sake of a meal-offering of a sinner, from an offering intended to be prepared in a deep frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a flat frying-pan, or from an offering intended to be prepared in a flat frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a deep frying-pan.12 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
It is forbidden to have an incorrect intent [when performing sacrificial service with] consecrated animals, as will be explained.13 Therefore if one slaughtered a sacrificial animal for a different purpose or took a handful from a meal-offering for a different purpose, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he is obligated to complete the remainder of the services for the proper purpose. Even if one slaughtered [the animal], received its blood, and brought it to the altar for an improper purpose, one is obligated to cast it on the altar for the proper purpose.14
Why are the laws governing a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice different from those governing all other sacrifices and the laws governing a meal-offering of a sinner and that of a sotah different from those governing all other meal-offerings? Because the Torah singled them out. With regard to a sin-offering, [Leviticus 4:33] states: "And he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering," i.e., that it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin-offering. Similarly, all of its other services [must be performed] for the proper intent, as [implied by ibid.:28]: "for his sin," i.e., that its service must be performed for the sake of [atoning for] that sin. And [ibid.:26] states: "And he will atone for him," i.e., [the service must be performed] for the sake of its owner.15
And with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, [Deuteronomy 16:1] states: "And you shall offer a Paschal sacrifice to God, your Lord," implying that all of the acts must be performed for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. [Exodus 12:27] states: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto God,' implying that it must be slaughtered for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. Thus if one altered the purpose for which it was sacrificed or [offered for] a different owner,16 it is not acceptable.
And with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner, [Leviticus 5:12] states: "It is a sin-offering."17 And with regard to the meal-offering of a sotah, [Numbers 5:15] states: "It is a meal-offering [resulting from] envy." [The implication is that] all of the actions associated with them must be performed for that purpose.
Halacha 4
When a sin-offering is offered for the sake of another sacrifice, e.g., it was offered for the sake of a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, or a peace-offering, it is unacceptable, as we explained. If, however, it was slaughtered as an ordinary animal, it is acceptable, but the owner does not fulfill his obligation.
Halacha 5
According to the Oral Tradition,18 was derived that [an intent for] sacrificial purposes can disqualify sacrificial animals, but an intent for ordinary purposes does not.
Halacha 6
If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for another sin, e.g., it was brought [to atone] for partaking of fat and one slaughtered it [to atone] for partaking of blood, it is unacceptable.19
Halacha 7
If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a sin-offering, even an adjustable guilt-offering,20 it is unacceptable.
Halacha 8
If, however, one slaughtered it for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a burnt-offering ,21 it is acceptable, but the owner has not fulfilled his obligation.
[The concept mentioned previously22 derived from Leviticus 4:26:] "And he will atone for him," [i.e., "for him,"] and not for his colleague who is obligated to bring a sin-offering like he is.
Halacha 9
If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] for the sake of a deceased person, it is acceptable, but it does not satisfy the obligation of the owner, because there is no atonement for the dead [through sacrifices].23
If one slaughtered it for the sake of a person who is not obligated to bring a sacrifice at all, not a sin-offering, nor a burnt-offering, nor any other sacrifice, it is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] perhaps he is obligated [to bring a sacrifice],24 but does not know.25
Halacha 10
If one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] with the desired intent, but at the time of slaughter had the intent to cast its blood on the altar for a different purpose, it is disqualified, for the intent one has for one service during the performance of another service [is significant].26 Thus the intent one had during the time of slaughter is considered as if it was in [the priest's] mind at the time he cast [the blood on the altar]. Therefore [the sacrifice] is disqualified.
Halacha 11
A Paschal sacrifice that was slaughtered for a different intent - whether for the sake of another sacrifice or whether as an ordinary animal27 - it is unacceptable, as it is written: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto God,'28
When does the above apply? When it was slaughtered on its appropriate time, the day of the fourteenth of Nisan. Moreover, even if it was slaughtered in the morning of that day29 for a different intent, it is unacceptable.30 If, however, one slaughtered it with a different intent at a time not appropriate for its [sacrifice], it is acceptable.31
[If it was slaughtered] for the sake of others and not for its owner, it is considered as if it did not have an owner on the day [when it should be sacrificed] and it is unacceptable.
Halacha 12
When a Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered with the proper intent on the fourteenth of Nisan before noon, it is unacceptable, because this is not the time of the sacrifice. If it was older than one year32 and it was slaughtered at the appropriate time for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice and similarly, if one of the other sacrifices were slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice, even if it was slaughtered after noon, they are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation.
Halacha 13
When a thanksgiving-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner's obligation is fulfilled. When a peace-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering, the owner's obligation is not fulfilled. [The rationale is that] a thanksgiving-offering is called a peace-offering,33 but a peace-offering is not called a thanksgiving-offering.
Halacha 14
When a burnt-offering was slaughtered for the sake of another person who was not obligated to bring a sacrifice at all, the owner does not fulfill his obligation,34for it was not slaughtered for his sake. Although the person for whom it was sacrificed is not liable for any sacrifice in his own mind, it is impossible that he is not obligated [to seek] atonement from heaven, for there is no Jewish person who has never violated a positive commandment.35
Halacha 15
When a burnt-offering that was brought after the death [of the person who set it aside] was offered for the sake [of that person set aside and] not for the sake of its owner,36 the owner37 is considered to have fulfilled his obligation, for there is no conception of ownership after death.
Halacha 16
When the two sheep to be brought on Shavuot were slaughtered with the intent that they were rams,38 the community is not considered to have fulfilled its obligation.39 If [the priests] thought they were rams and slaughtered them with the intent that they were rams, they are considered to have fulfilled their obligation, for the intent was uprooted in error.40
Halacha 17
When a guilt-offering of a person [to be purified from] tzara'at41was slaughtered for the sake of another type of sacrifice or its blood was not placed on the thumb and large toe of the person seeking atonement,42 accompanying offerings43 are required.44For if it were offered without accompanying offerings, it will be as if one offered a freewill offering. And a guilt-offering is never brought as a freewill offering.
Halacha 18
When the sheep that is brought together with the omer offering45 was slaughtered for a different intent, one should not bring two esronim for its accompanying offering.46 Instead, he should bring one isaron, as is brought for other freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it did not satisfy the obligation.47
Similarly, when [a lamb intended as] a continuous offering was slaughtered for a different intent, the two logs of wood48 should not be brought up with it, as is done for the other continuous offerings. [The rationale is that] it does not fulfill the obligation of the continuous offering, but instead, is like other freewill offerings.
Halacha 19
When the sheep offered on Shavout49 where slaughtered for a different intent or they were slaughtered before their appropriate time or after their appropriate time, the blood should be cast upon the altar and the meat eaten50 even though the obligation of the community was not fulfilled. If it was the Sabbath, the blood should not be cast [on the altar].51 If it was cast [upon the altar], it is considered acceptable insomuch as the eimorim should be offered in the evening.
Halacha 20
Similarly when the peace-offerings of a nazirite were offered for a different intent, even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation, they are eaten for a day and a night52 and do not require bread.53 Similarly, when the guilt-offering of a nazirite or the guilt-offering of one [to be purified from] tzara'at54 were offered for a different intent, they are eaten, even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation.
FOOTNOTES
1.The mention of communal sacrifices represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1, which is preserved in the standard printing of that text), he writes that a communal sacrifice slaughtered for a different intent fulfills the community's obligation. Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura also follows this view. In his later years, however, the Rambam emended his text to agree with this ruling (see Rav Kapach's text). Note also Rabbi Akiva Eiger's gloss who questions the initial version of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah.
2.Hence, even if one slaughtered an animal designated as a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, one should continue performing all the subsequent tasks for the sake of a burnt-offering [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)]. See Halachah 3.
3.See Halachah 3 which explains why these offerings are singled out in contrast to all others.
4.Chapter 13, Halachah 4.
5.See Halachah 3 which explains the derivation of this concept. The Mishneh LiMelech questions the Rambam's equation of sacrifices offered for a different purpose than they were originally designated and those offered for the sake of a different person. There is, he explains, a fundamental difference between them. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of another person, the owner is still considered to have fulfilled his obligation. It is only when the blood is cast on the altar for the sake of another person that he is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless, the Rambam's statements can be interpreted as referring to an instance when one slaughtered the animal with the intent to cast its blood on the altar for the sake of another person.
6.This also represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1), which is preserved in the standard printing of that text), he writes that if an intent is supplanted in error, it is considered to be supplanted. In his later years, however, the Rambam emended his text to agree with this ruling (see Rav Kapach's text).
7.This applies even if its blood was presented on the lower portion of the altar as is the blood of a sin-offering.
8.I.e., the mal-offering brought by a transgressor obligated to bring an adjustable guilt-offering who is very poor. See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 10.
9.A woman suspected of adultery. This meal-offering is comparable to that of a sinner.
10.Mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 6.
11.See Halachah 3 which explains why these offerings are singled out in contrast to all others.
12.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 13, for a description of the differences between these offerings.
13.Chapter 18, Halachah 1.
14.The rationale is that since the sacrifice is acceptable, its functions must be performed for the proper intent.
15.Zevachim 7a interprets the phrase cited as implying: for him and not for his colleague. See Halachah 8.
16.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1), the Rambam states that the first verse teaches that the offering must be brought as a Paschal sacrifice and the second, that it must be brought for the sake of its owner. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 5:2), the Rambam quotes the Jerusalem Talmud which mentions only the second verse and states that a Paschal sacrifice that is not offered for the proper purpose is unacceptable. See also Halachah 11.
17.Our text reflects an amended version. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah contains a different prooftext.
18.Zevachim 46b derives this principle through Biblical exegesis.
19.I.e., even though it was slaughtered as a sin-offering, since it was not slaughtered for the sake of the sin for which the animal was originally designated, it is unacceptable.
20.Since this is a different type of sacrifice, one might think that the situation is comparable to that stated in the following halachah, slaughtering a sin-offering for the sake of a person obligated to bring a burnt-offering. Nevertheless, since both offerings atone for sins punishable by karet, they are considered as comparable. Hence the sacrifice is disqualified (Rashi, Zevachim 9b).
21.To atone for the failure to observe a positive commandment.
22.I.e., the law stated in Halachah 7. From this concept, it is also possible to derive the law stated in this halachah, for the implication is that when one offers a sin-offering for the sake of another person who is obligated to bring a sin-offering, it is disqualified, but not when one offers it for the sake of another person who is not so obligated (Zevachim 7a).
23.Hence the deceased person is not considered as obligated to bring a sacrifice. Therefore, this is not considered as an instance where one offered a sacrifice for the sake of another person obligated to bring a sacrifice.
24.A burnt-offering to atone for the failure to observe a positive commandment.
25.Hence he is considered to be obligated to bring a sacrifice.
Zevachim 71-7b explains that there is a difference between such a situation and a person who knows he is obligated to bring a burnt-offering (in which instance, the sin-offering is not disqualified, as stated in the previous halachah). When the person knows he must bring a burnt-offering, his atonement is associated with that offering only. When, however, he does not know that he must bring a burnt-offering, he will not seek atonement. Hence, the sin-offering he brings will bring him a certain measure of atonement for the positive commandments he did not perform. For as stated in Halachah 14, everyone has certain positive commandments that he has failed to fulfill.
26.The Mishneh LiMelech restricts the scope of the Rambam's statements, maintaining that if at the time of slaughter or the performance of one of the other three services mentioned in Halachah 2, one has a disqualifying intent concerning receiving the blood or bringing it to the altar, the sacrifice is still acceptable.
27.The commentaries question the Rambam's ruling, because even a sin-offering is acceptable when slaughtered as an ordinary animal. The Kessef Mishneh states that the phrase "unto God" in the prooftext excludes slaughtering the animal for ordinary purposes. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 5:2), the Rambam cites the Jerusalem Talmud which states that the phrase "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice' excludes all other intents.
28.See Halachot 1 and 3.
29.The Paschal sacrifice may not be sacrificed until the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan. Nevertheless, since it is offered on that day, the morning is considered "the time of its sacrifice" with regard to the disqualification of an offering.
30.There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Zevachim 1:3. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam maintaining that the more lenient opinion should be accepted. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam accepted the more stringent view because it is debated in the Talmud.
31.For if it was slaughtered at such a time, it is considered as a peace-offering and a peace-offering that was slaughtered with a different intent is acceptable.
In the clause which follows, the sacrifice is unacceptable, because there is no one to partake of it and a Paschal sacrifice is brought only to be eaten (Hilchot Korban Pesach, ch. 2).
32.At this age, it is no longer fit to be offered as a Paschal sacrifice.
33.See Leviticus 7:15 which speaks of "the thanksgiving-peace sacrifice."
34.For it is considered to have atoned for the person for whose sake it was sacrificed, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
35.And atonement for these unknown faults will be secured by this sacrifice.
36.The heir.
37.For it is considered to have atoned for the person for whose sake it was sacrificed, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
38.As stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1, together with the two loaves brought on Shavuot are offered several burnt offerings, among them two rams, and two sheep as communal peace-offerings.
39.And two other sheep must be brought.
40.As stated in Halachah 1.
41.A skin malady similar to, but not identical with leprosy that renders one ritually impure.
42.See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.
43.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2.
44.Even though the person has not fulfilled his obligation and must bring another sacrifice, he is required to bring the accompanying offerings, for the reason mentioned by the Rambam.
45.See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3.
46.As would be required were it offered for the specified intent (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:5).
47.In contrast to the guilt-offering mentioned in the previous halachah, it is customary to bring burnt-offerings as freewill offerings. Hence, the accompanying offerings should be brought accordingly.
48.See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2:2-3.
49.As stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1, together with the two loaves brought on Shavuot are offered several burnt offerings, among them two rams, and two sheep as communal peace-offerings.
50.The commentaries note that it is forbidden to offer the eimorim on the festival and question whether the intent is that the meat may be eaten on the festival or whether it is necessary to wait until the evening.
51.For only obligatory sacrifices are offered on the Sabbath.
52.Like the peace-offerings of a nazirite, rather than for a two days and a night like other peace offerings.
53.Bread must be brought with the peace-offerings of a nazirite (Hilchot Nizirut 8:1).
54.A skin malady similar to, but not identical with leprosy that renders one ritually impure.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16
Halacha 1
We have already explained1 that when a person has a disqualifying intent with regard to the place [a sacrifice will be offered or eaten] while performing one of the four [specified] services,2 the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul. If he had a disqualifying intent with regard to the time [the sacrifice would be offered or eaten], it is piggul.
When does the above apply? When no other intent is combined together with the concerning time. If, however, an intent concerning the place - or with regard to the Paschal sacrifice or a sin-offering, an intent concerning the type of sacrifice3 - was combined with the intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul.4
What is implied? If one slaughtered, received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time or [even if] he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time while [perfoming] one of these services and his intent was proper or he had no intent while performing the other services, [the sacrifice] was piggul. If, however, If one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place or slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.5
Similarly, if a Paschal sacrifice or sin-offering were slaughtered for a different purpose, but one received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, or one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] for a different purpose, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.
The same principles apply with regard to offerings of fowl and meal-offerings. The term piggul applies only when a sacrifice is disqualified because of an intent concerning time, without a [disqualifying] intent concerning place is combined with it, neither at the outset or at the end, nor is an intent concerning the type of sacrifice combined with it with regard to those sacrifices that are disqualified when offered for a different purpose.
Halacha 2
When, while performing one or all of the four services, a person has the intent to eat6 an olive-sized portion of a substance that is fit to be eaten7 outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and an olive-sized portion on the following day;
an olive-sized portion on the following day and an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],8
half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and half an olive-sized portion on the following day, or
half an olive-sized portion on the following day and half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],9 the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. Similarly, if one combined another disqualifying intent regarding offering [a sacrifice with one regarding time, the sacrifice] is disqualified, but not piggul.
Halacha 3
If one had the intent to eat or to offer half an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place and to eat or to offer an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [This applies] whether the [disqualifying] intent concerning the olive-sized portion was first or last. [The rationale is that] half an olive-sized portion is not significant in relation to an olive-sized portion.10
Halacha 4
If he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and a [disqualifying] intent concerning place with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, and then a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, [the sacrifice] is piggul.11
Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and then a [disqualifying] intent with regard to an olive-sized portion: with regard to half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, and with regard to the other half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, [the sacrifice] is piggul.12
Halacha 5
If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the lower portion [of the altar] on the upper portion [of the altar] or he had an intent to present [blood] that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion [of the altar] or the like, [these] intents that do not disqualify [a sacrifice], as explained.13 If one combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul.14If he combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning place alone,15 [the sacrifice] is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.
Halacha 6
If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,
[an intent] to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,
he had an intent to present blood that should be presented in the Sanctuary on the outer altar on the following day, or
he had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the outer altar in the Sanctuary on the following day, [the sacrifice] is not piggul. Even though he had an intent concerning the time, since he changed the place where the blood was presented in his mind, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but is not piggul.16
Since we have explained in these halachot17 that when blood is presented in a place other than the desired place, it is considered as if it was presented in the desired place, why is [the sacrifice] not considered as piggul because of this intent to present the blood outside of its desired place on the following day? [The rationale is that] even though the sacrifice is acceptable, since the blood which was not presented in its proper place, it does not cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, as we explained.18[There is a general principle:] In any situation where blood is cast upon [the altar, but it] does cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, if one had the intent to present it at a time [after the prescribed time], it is not piggul. Therefore, [in the circumstances mentioned above,] if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to this sacrifice, it is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.
Halacha 7
If a person had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he took [the handful of flour from a meal-offering], but did not have such an intent at the time he collected the frankincense or he had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he collected the frankincense, but did not have such an intent at the time he took [the handful of flour, the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul.19 [An offering becomes piggul] only when one has a disqualifying intent with regard to all [the substances which] cause it to be permitted [to be eaten], i.e., the handful of meal and the frankincense, at the time the handful is taken and the frankincense is collected, or when they are both placed into a sacred utensil, brought [to the altar], or cast [upon its pyre].
Halacha 8
If at the time he cast the handful [of meal] on the altar's pyre, he had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day, it is not piggul, because an intent to offer something on the altar's pyres while offering something else on the pyre does not cause the offering to be piggul.20 Similarly, if one offered only the frankincense or only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to eat the remainder on the following day, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that a disqualifying intent involving only] half [the substances which] cause an offering to be permitted [to be eaten], does not cause it to be considered as piggul.
If, [by contrast,] one offered only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day and afterwards offered the frankincense and had the intent to partake of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for the [disqualifying] intent concerning time has spread throughout the entire meal-offering.21
Halacha 9
If one offered a portion of the handful [of meal] the size of a sesame seed together with the frankincense with the intent that he eat a sesame seed-sized portion of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [even if] he continues offering the entire handful [of meal] with the frankincense with [the same disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that] even though eating little by little is an ordinary manner of eating,22 this is not the ordinary manner in which entities are offered on the altar. Instead, it is like a meal-offering whose handful was not offered on the altar's pyre.23
Halacha 10
When there was frankincense placed on the meal-offering of a sinner or that of a sotah24 and one had a [disqualifying] intent involving time before the frankincense was removed, [the offerings] are disqualified, but are not piggul.25If after he collected the frankincense he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the offering, it is piggul.26
Halacha 11
If the remaining portion [of a meal-offering] was diminished between the time the handful was taken and it was offered on the altar and then the handful was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, there is a doubt whether it was established [as fit to become] piggul27 and thus it is piggul or it was not established28 and it is not piggul.
FOOTNOTES
1.Chapter 13, Halachah 1.
2.Slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, and casting it on the altar, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 4, and in the following halachah.
3.Implied is that with regard to other sacrifices which are not disqualified when slaughtered for another purpose, if there was a disqualifying intent concerning time, the fact that they were slaughtered for a different purpose does not prevent them from being considered as piggul.
4.As stated in Chapter 18, Halachot 3 and 6, when a sacrifice is merely disqualified, a person who partakes of its meat is liable for lashes. If, however, it is deemed piggul, he is liable for karet, a much more serious punishment.
5.I.e., there is no difference which disqualifying intent a person has first, as long as another intent is mixed together with the intent involving time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. In Zevachim 29b, there is a differing opinion which maintains that if the intent involving time is first, the sacrifice is deemed piggul even if there is another disqualifying intent afterwards.
6.More precisely, that the meat be eaten whether by himself or by someone else.
7.See Chapter 14, Halachah 8.
8.Both of these situations are examples where a disqualifying intent involving place is combined with a disqualifying intent concerning time.
9.As mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 10, to disqualify a sacrifice one must have an intent concerning an olive-sized portion. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that even though two different intents are involved, they may be combined.
10.In the previous halachah, the half portion was considered significant, because there was no olive-sized portion present and it can be combined with another half portion. In this halachah, there is an olive-sized portion present. Hence, nothing concerning the smaller portion is significant.
The commentaries note that the Rambam apparently had a slightly different version of the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for this law than the standard printed text.
11.I.e., the same law mentioned in the previous halachah applies in this instance as well. The fact that - had the person not had the second disqualifying intent concerning time, the first half portion would have been combined with the second half portion is not of consequence Ravva (Zevachim 31a) states lyrically: "The piggul arises, like one rising from sleep.".
12.Although the second disqualifying intent combines an intent concerning place and one concerning time and thus there is room to think that they cannot be separated from each other, the two intents concerning time are considered as one unit and the intent concerning place is disregarded.
13.Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
14.Since these intents are not significant, they do not prevent the sacrifice from being considered as piggul.
15.The Kessef Mishneh notes that this word is problematic, because even if a disqualifying intent concerning time is also combined, the sacrifice is not piggul.
16.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Ra'avad's objection follows the interpretation of Zevachim 27a advanced by Rashi. The Rambam, he maintains, has a different understanding of that Talmudic passage.
It is possible to distinguish between the situations mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in the previous halachah as follows: In the situations mentioned here, the very same thought which concerned the place where the blood of the sacrifice would be offered concerned also its time.
17.Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
18.Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
19.Although the priest had a disqualifying intent while performing one of these acts, we do not say that he had the same intent concerning the other unless he explicitly had such a thought.
20.For, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 6, a disqualifying intent concerning time causes a meal-offering to be considered piggul only when one thinks of it while performing one of the four services mentioned in the previous halachah.
21.Even though neither of the intents in their own right would cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul, when combined, they have this effect.
To explain: Until the frankincense is offered, it is forbidden to partake of the remaining portions of the meal-offering. Thus having the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day is equivalent to having the intent to partake of the remainder of the offering on the following day.
22.As indicated by Chapter 14, Halachah 10, which states that if one had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion in an extended interval, he can be held liable.
23.There is a difference of opinion concerning this instance in Menachot 16b. One sage maintains that the offering is acceptable. One maintains that it is piggul, and one rules as the Rambam rules here. The Rambam accepts that view, because there are a majority of opinions, negating either of the extremes (see Kessef Mishneh).
24.Even though there are explicit negative commandments not to place frankincense on these offerings. See Chapter 14, Halachah 3; Chapter 11, Halachah 10.
25.Because the offering is not fit to be brought on the altar until the frankincense is removed.
26.Because the offering is fit to be brought on the altar.
27.For the handful is fit to be offered on the altar. Hence if one has a disqualifying intent while placing the handful in a sacred vessel, bringing it to the altar, or offering it on the altar's pyre, there is room to say that it is piggul. (See Rashi, Menachot 12a.)
28.For it is unfit to partake of such a meal-offering.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Tuesday, Tammuz 3, 5774 • 01 July 2014
"Today's Day"
Tuesday, Tamuz 3, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Chukat, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 18-22.
Tanya: Note:(The mystical (p.329)..that transcends intellect. (p.329).
My grandfather said: A Jewish groan which, G-d forbid, arises from physical misfortune, is also a great teshuva; how much more so then, is a groan arising from spiritual distress a lofty and effective teshuva. The groan pulls him out of the depths of evil and places him on a firm footing in the realm of good.
-------
Daily Thought:Connecting
A true master of life never leaves this world
—he transcends it, but he is still within it.
He is still there to assist those who are bonded with him with blessing and advice, just as before, and even more so.
Even those who did not know him in his corporeal lifetime can still create with him an essential bond.
The only difference is in us:
Now we must work harder to connect.
-------
Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: WEDNESDAY, TAMMUZ 4, 5774 • JULY 2, 2014
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• PASSING OF RABBEINU TAM (1171)
Rabbi Yaakov ben Meir of Romereau (1100?-1171), known as "Rabbeinu Tam", was a grandson of Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105), and one of the primary authors of the Tosaphot commentary on the Talmud; the Bet-Din (rabbinical court) he headed was regarded as the leading Torah authority of his generation.
Links:
Rabbeinu Tam (Rabbi Yaakov ben Meir)
• MAHARAM IMPRISONED (1286)
Rabbi Meir ben Baruch ("Maharam") of Rothenburg (1215?-1293), the great Talmudic commentator and leading Halachic authority for German Jewry, was imprisoned in the fortress at Ensisheim. A huge ransom was imposed for his release. The money was raised, but Rabbi Meir refused to allow it to be paid lest this encourage the further hostage taking of Jewish leaders. He died in captivity after seven years of imprisonment.
Link: Maharam (a brief biography)
DAILY QUOTE:
For so said the L-rd, the Creator of heaven, Who is G-d, Who formed the earth and made it, He established it: He did not create it for chaos, He formed it to be civilized(Isaiah 45:18)
DAILY STUDY
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: with Rashi
• Chapter 22
39. Balaam went with Balak, and they arrived at Kiryath Huzoth [a city of streets]. לט. וַיֵּלֶךְ בִּלְעָם עִם בָּלָק וַיָּבֹאוּ קִרְיַת חֻצוֹת:
Kiryath Huzoth: A city full of markets, with men, women and children in its streets, as if to say, See, and have pity, so that all these people are not annihilated. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 11, Num. Rabbah 20:17]
קרית חצות: עיר מלאה שווקים אנשים ונשים וטף בחוצותיה, לומר ראה ורחם שלא יעקרו אלו:
40. Balak slaughtered cattle and sheep and sent [some] to Balaam and to the dignitaries with him. מ. וַיִּזְבַּח בָּלָק בָּקָר וָצֹאן וַיְשַׁלַּח לְבִלְעָם וְלַשָּׂרִים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ:
cattle and sheep: A small number, only one bull and one sheep. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 11, Num. Rabbah 20:17]
בקר וצאן: דבר מועט, בקר אחד וצאן אחד בלבד:
41. And in the morning Balak took Balaam and led him up to Bamoth Baal, and from there he saw part of the people. מא. וַיְהִי בַבֹּקֶר וַיִּקַּח בָּלָק אֶת בִּלְעָם וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ בָּמוֹת בָּעַל וַיַּרְא מִשָּׁם קְצֵה הָעָם:
Bamoth Baal: As the Targum [Onkelos] understands it:“to the heights of his deity,” [Baal being] the name of a deity.
במות בעל: כתרגומו לרמת דחלתיה, שם עבודה זרה:
Chapter 23
1. Balaam said to Balak, "Build me seven altars here, and prepare for me seven bulls and seven rams." א. וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל בָּלָק בְּנֵה לִי בָזֶה שִׁבְעָה מִזְבְּחֹת וְהָכֵן לִי בָּזֶה שִׁבְעָה פָרִים וְשִׁבְעָה אֵילִים:
2. Balak did as Balaam had requested, and Balak and Balaam offered up a bull and a ram on [each] altar. ב. וַיַּעַשׂ בָּלָק כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בִּלְעָם וַיַּעַל בָּלָק וּבִלְעָם פָּר וָאַיִל בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ:
3. Balaam said to Balak, "Stand beside your burnt offering, and I will go. Perhaps the Lord will happen to appear to me, and He will show me something that I can tell you," and he went alone. ג. וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם לְבָלָק הִתְיַצֵּב עַל עֹלָתֶךָ וְאֵלְכָה אוּלַי יִקָּרֶה יְהֹוָה לִקְרָאתִי וּדְבַר מַה יַּרְאֵנִי וְהִגַּדְתִּי לָךְ וַיֵּלֶךְ שֶׁפִי:
Perhaps the Lord will happen to appear to me: He is not accustomed to speak to me by day.
אולי יקרה ה' לקראתי: אינו רגיל לדבר עמי ביום:
and he went alone: Heb. שֶׁפִי, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders:“alone.” The term denotes ease and quietness, that he was accompanied by nothing but silence.
וילך שפי: כתרגומו יחידי, לשון שופי ושקט, שאין עמו אלא שתיקה:
4. God chanced upon Balaam, and he said to Him, "I have set up the seven altars, and I have offered up a bull and a ram on [each] altar." ד. וַיִּקָּר אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֶת שִׁבְעַת הַמִּזְבְּחֹת עָרַכְתִּי וָאַעַל פָּר וָאַיִל בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ:
[God] chanced upon: Heb. וַיִּקָּר, an expression denoting [a] casual [meeting or occurrence], and it denotes something shameful, an expression [used for] the uncleanness caused by seminal emission קֶרִי, as if to say, [God appeared to him] with reluctance and with contempt. He would never have appeared to him by day, but He wanted to show His love for Israel. — [Gen. Rabbah 52:5]
ויקר: לשון עראי, לשון גנאי, לשון טומאת קרי, כלומר בקושי ובבזיון, ולא היה נגלה עליו ביום אלא בשביל להראות חבתן של ישראל:
the seven altars: “I prepared seven altars” is not written here, but “ the seven altars.” He said to Him, “Their patriarchs built seven altars before You, and I have prepared [seven] corresponding to them all.” Abraham built four-“There he built an altar to the Lord Who appeared to him” (Gen. 12:7); “Abraham moved from there to the mountain… [and built an altar there]” (ibid. 8); “Abraham pitched his tent [and built an altar there]” (ibid. 13:18), and one on Mount Moriah (ibid. 22:9). Isaac built one-“He built an altar there” (ibid. 26:25), and Jacob built two-one in Shechem (ibid. 33:20) and one in Beth El (ibid. 35:7). - [See Mid. Tanchuma Balak 11, Tzav 1, Num. Rabbah 20:18]
את שבעת המזבחת: שבעה מזבחות ערכתי אין כתיב כאן, אלא את שבעת המזבחות, אמר לפניו אבותיהם של אלו בנו לפניך שבעה מזבחות, ואני ערכתי כנגד כולן. אברהם בנה ארבעה (בראשית יב, ז) ויבן שם מזבח לה' הנראה אליו, (שם יב, ח) ויעתק משם ההרה וגו', (שם יג, יח) ויאהל אברהם וגו' ואחד בהר המוריה. ויצחק בנה אחד (שם כו, כה) ויבן שם מזבח וגו'. ויעקב בנה שתים; אחד בשכם ואחד בבית אל:
and I offered up a bull and a ram on [each] altar: whereas Abraham offered up only a ram. - [See Mid. Tanchuma Balak 11, Tzav 1, Num. Rabbah 20:18]
ואעל פר ואיל במזבח: ואברהם לא העלה אלא איל אחד:
5. The Lord placed something into Balaam's mouth, and He said, "Return to Balak and say as follows." ה. וַיָּשֶׂם יְהֹוָה דָּבָר בְּפִי בִלְעָם וַיֹּאמֶר שׁוּב אֶל בָּלָק וְכֹה תְדַבֵּר:
6. When he returned, Balak was standing next to his burnt offering, he and all the Moabite dignitaries. ו. וַיָּשָׁב אֵלָיו וְהִנֵּה נִצָּב עַל עֹלָתוֹ הוּא וְכָל שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב:
7. He took up his parable and said, "Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, from the mountains of the east [saying], 'Come, curse Jacob for me and come invoke wrath against Israel.' ז. וַיִּשָּׂא מְשָׁלוֹ וַיֹּאמַר מִן אֲרָם יַנְחֵנִי בָלָק מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב מֵהַרְרֵי קֶדֶם לְכָה אָרָה לִּי יַעֲקֹב וּלְכָה זֹעֲמָה יִשְׂרָאֵל:
Come, curse Jacob for me and come invoke wrath against Israel: He told him to curse them with [their] two names, for perhaps one of them was not [their] distinctive [one].
ארה לי יעקב ולכה זעמה ישראל: בשני שמותיהם אמר לו לקללם, שמא אחד מהם אינו מובהק:
8. How can I curse whom God has not cursed, and how can I invoke wrath if the Lord has not been angered? ח. מָה אֶקֹּב לֹא קַבֹּה אֵל וּמָה אֶזְעֹם לֹא זָעַם יְהֹוָה:
How can I curse whom God has not cursed: Even when they deserved to be cursed, they were not cursed, [namely,] when their father [Jacob] recalled their iniquity, [by saying,] “for in their wrath they killed a man” (Gen. 49:6), he cursed only their wrath, as it says, “Cursed be their wrath” (ibid. 7). When their father [Jacob] came in deceit to his father [Isaac], he deserved to be cursed. But what does it say there? “He, too, shall be blessed” (ibid. 27:33). Regarding those who blessed, it says, “These shall stand to bless the people” (Deut. 27:12). However, regarding those who cursed, it does not say, “These shall stand to curse the people” but, “These shall stand for the curse” (ibid. 13), for He [God] did not want to mention the word ‘curse’ in reference to them [the people]. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 12, Num. Rabbah 20:19]
מה אקב לא קבה אל: כשהיו ראוים להתקלל לא נתקללו, כשהזכיר אביהם את עונם, כי באפם הרגו איש. לא קלל אלא אפם, שנאמר (בראשית מט, ז) ארור אפם. כשנכנס אביהם במרמה אצל אביו היה ראוי להתקלל, מה נאמר שם (שם כז, לג) גם ברוך יהיה. במברכים נאמר (דברים כז, יב) אלה יעמדו לברך את העם. במקללים לא נאמר ואלה יעמדו לקלל את העם, אלא על הקללה, לא רצה להזכיר עליהם שם קללה:
If the Lord has not been angered: I myself am powerless, except that I can determine the precise moment when God becomes angry, and He has not become angry all these days since I have come to you. This is the meaning of the statement, “O my people, remember now what he [Balak king of Moab] planned… and what Balaam… answered him… may you recognize the righteous deeds of the Lord” (Mic. 6:5). - [Ber. 7a, Sanh.. 105b, A.Z. 4b]
לא זעם ה': אני אין כחי אלא שאני יודע לכוין השעה שהקב"ה כועס בה, והוא לא כעס כל הימים הללו שבאתי אליך, וזהו שנאמר (מיכה ו, ה) עמי זכר נא מה יעץ וגו' ומה ענה אותו בלעם וגו' למען דעת צדקות ה':
9. For from their beginning, I see them as mountain peaks, and I behold them as hills; it is a nation that will dwell alone, and will not be reckoned among the nations. ט. כִּי מֵרֹאשׁ צֻרִים אֶרְאֶנּוּ וּמִגְּבָעוֹת אֲשׁוּרֶנּוּ הֶן עָם לְבָדָד יִשְׁכֹּן וּבַגּוֹיִם לֹא יִתְחַשָּׁב:
For from its beginning, I see them as mountain peaks: I look at their origins and the beginning of their roots, and I see them established and powerful, like these mountains and hills, because of their patriarchs and matriarchs. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 12, Num. Rabbah 20:19]
כי מראש צרים אראנו: אני מסתכל בראשיתם ובתחלת שרשיהם, ואני רואה אותם מיוסדים וחזקים כצורים וגבעות הללו ע"י אבות ואמהות:
It is a nation that will dwell alone: This is [the legacy] their forefathers gained for them-to dwell alone, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders it [it is a nation that is alone destined to inherit the world].
הן עם לבדד ישכון: הוא אשר זכו לו אבותיו לשכון בדד, כתרגומו:
and will not be reckoned among the nations: As Targum [Onkelos] paraphrases, they will not perish along with the other nations, for it says, “for I shall make an end of all the nations…” (Jer. 30:11); they will not be reckoned with the rest. Another interpretation: When they rejoice, no other nation rejoices with them, as it says, “God alone will guide them [to future happiness]” (Deut. 32:12). And when the nations prosper, they will receive a share with each one of them, but it will not be deducted from their account, and this is the meaning of, “and will not reckoned among the nations.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 12, Num. Rabbah 20:19]
ובגוים לא יתחשב: כתרגומו, לא יהיו נעשין כלה עם שאר האומות, שנאמר (ירמיה ל, יא) כי אעשה כלה בכל הגוים וגו' אינן נמנין עם השאר. דבר אחר כשהן שמחין אין אומה שמחה עמהם, שנאמר (דברים לב, יב) ה' בדד ינחנו. וכשהאומות בטובה, הם אוכלין עם כל אחד ואחד ואין עולה להם מן החשבון, וזהו, ובגוים לא יתחשב:
10. Who counted the dust of Jacob or the number of a fourth of [or, of the seed of] Israel? May my soul die the death of the upright and let my end be like his." י. מִי מָנָה עֲפַר יַעֲקֹב וּמִסְפָּר אֶת רֹבַע יִשְׂרָאֵל תָּמֹת נַפְשִׁי מוֹת יְשָׁרִים וּתְהִי אַחֲרִיתִי כָּמֹהוּ:
Who can count the dust of Jacob: As the Targum [Onkelos] renders, “the children of the house of Jacob, [concerning whom it was stated, 'they shall be as many as the dust of the earth, or one] of the four camps” - [referring to] the four divisions. Another interpretation: The dust of Jacob-The number of mitzvoth they fulfill with dust are innumerable: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey [together]” (Deut. 22:10);“You shall not sow your field with a mixture of seeds” (Lev. 19:19), the ashes of the red cow (19:19), the dust used for a woman suspected of infidelity, and others similar to these. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 12, Num. Rabbah 20:19]
מי מנה עפר יעקב וגו': כתרגומו, דעדקיא דבית יעקב וכו' מארבע משרייתא, מארבע דגלים. דבר אחר עפר יעקב אין חשבון במצות שהם מקיימין בעפר (דברים כב, י) לא תחרוש בשור ובחמור, (ויקרא יט, יט) לא תזרע כלאים, אפר פרה, ועפר סוטה וכיוצא בהם:
or the number of the seed of: [The word רֹבַע denotes] their copulations; the seed which issues from sexual intercourse. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 12, Num. Rabbah 20:19]
ומספר את רבע ישראל: רביעותיהן, זרע היוצא מן התשמיש שלהם:
May my soul die the death of the upright: Among them.
תמת נפשי מות ישרים: שבהם:
11. Balak said to Balaam, "What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, but you have blessed them!" יא. וַיֹּאמֶר בָּלָק אֶל בִּלְעָם מֶה עָשִׂיתָ לִי לָקֹב אֹיְבַי לְקַחְתִּיךָ וְהִנֵּה בֵּרַכְתָּ בָרֵךְ:
12. He answered, saying, "What the Lord puts into my mouth that I must take care to say." יב. וַיַּעַן וַיֹּאמַר הֲלֹא אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָשִׂים יְהֹוָה בְּפִי אֹתוֹ אֶשְׁמֹר לְדַבֵּר:
-------
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 23 - 28
• Chapter 23
When King David was in the forest of Cheret and nearly died of starvation, God provided nourishment for him with a taste of the World to Come. David then composed this psalm, describing the magnitude of his trust in God.
1. A psalm by David. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall lack nothing.
2. He lays me down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters.
3. He revives my soul; He directs me in paths of righteousness for the sake of His Name.
4. Though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff-they will comfort me.
5. You will prepare a table for me before my enemies; You have anointed my head with oil; my cup is full.
6. Only goodness and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the House of the Lord for many long years.
Chapter 24
If the fulfillment of one's prayer would result in the sanctification of God's Name, he should pray that God act for the sake of the holiness of His Name. One should also invoke the merit of his ancestors, for we know that "the righteous are greater in death than in life"
1. By David, a psalm. The earth and all therein is the Lord's; the world and its inhabitants.
2. For He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers.
3. Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord, and who may stand in His holy place?
4. He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not used My Name in vain or sworn falsely.
5. He shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and kindness from God, his deliverer.
6. Such is the generation of those who search for Him, [the children of] Jacob who seek Your countenance forever.
7. Lift up your heads, O gates, and be lifted up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
8. Who is the glorious King? The Lord, strong and mighty; the Lord, mighty in battle.
9. Lift up your heads, O gates; lift them up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
10. Who is the glorious King? The Lord of Hosts, He is the glorious King for all eternity.
Chapter 25
The verses in this psalm are arranged according to the alphabet, excluding the letters Bet, Vav, and Kuf, which together equal the numerical value of Gehenom (purgatory). One who recites this psalm daily will not see the face of purgatory.
1. By David. To You, Lord, I lift my soul.
2. My God, I have put my trust in You. May I not be put to shame; may my enemies not gloat over me.
3. Indeed, may all who hope in You not be put to shame; let those who act treacherously without reason be shamed.
4. O Lord, make Your ways known to me; teach me Your paths.
5. Train me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation; I yearn for You all day.
6. O Lord, remember Your mercies and Your kindnesses, for they have existed for all time.
7. Do not recall the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions; remember me in accordance with Your kindness, because of Your goodness, O Lord.
8. Good and upright is the Lord, therefore He directs sinners along the way.
9. He guides the humble with justice, and teaches the humble His way.
10. All the paths of the Lord are kindness and truth for those who observe His covenant and testimonies.
11. For the sake of Your Name, O Lord, pardon my iniquity, for it is great.
12. Whoever is a God-fearing man, him will He teach the path that he should choose.
13. His soul will abide in well-being, and his descendants will inherit the earth.
14. The secret of the Lord is to those who fear Him; He makes His covenant known to them.
15. My eyes are always turned to the Lord, for He releases my feet from the snare.
16. Turn to me and be compassionate to me, for I am alone and afflicted.
17. The sufferings of my heart have increased; deliver me from my hardships.
18. Behold my affliction and suffering, and forgive all my sins.
19. See how numerous my enemies have become; they hate me with a violent hatred.
20. Guard my soul and deliver me; may I not be put to shame, for I place my trust in You.
21. Let integrity and uprightness guard me, for my hope is in You.
22. Redeem Israel, O God, from all its afflictions.
Chapter 26
In this psalm King David inundates God with prayers and acts of piety, because he envies those who are his spiritual superiors, saying, "If only I were on their level of piety and virtue!"
1. By David. Judge me, O Lord, for in my innocence I have walked, and in the Lord I have trusted-I shall not falter.
2. Try me, O Lord, and test me; refine my mind and heart.
3. For Your kindness is before my eyes, and I have walked constantly in Your truth.
4. I did not sit with men of falsehood, and with hypocrites I will not mingle.
5. I detested the company of evildoers, and with the wicked I will not sit.
6. I wash my hands in purity, and circle Your altar, O Lord,
7. to give voice to thanks, and to recount all Your wonders.
8. I love the shelter of Your House, O Lord, and the place where Your glory resides.
9. Gather not in my soul with sinners, nor my life with men of bloodshed,
10. In whose hands are schemes, and whose right hand is filled with bribes.
11. But I walk in my innocence; redeem me and show me favor.
12. My foot stands on level ground; in assemblies I will bless the Lord.
Chapter 27
King David acknowledges and praises God, placing his trust in Him because of his victories in war. "Nevertheless, it is not wars that I desire, for I cannot gain perfection with them. Only one thing do I ask: to abide day and night in the study hall studying Torah, to gain perfection so that my soul may merit the life of the World to Come."
1. By David. The Lord is my light and my salvation-whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life-whom shall I dread?
2. When evildoers approached me to devour my flesh, my oppressors and my foes, they stumbled and fell.
3. If an army were to beleaguer me, my heart would not fear; if war were to arise against me, in this I trust
4. One thing I have asked of the Lord, this I seek: that I may dwell in the House of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the pleasantness of the Lord, and to visit His Sanctuary.
5. For He will hide me in His tabernacle on a day of adversity; He will conceal me in the hidden places of His tent; He will lift me upon a rock.
6. And then my head will be raised above my enemies around me, and I will offer in His tabernacle sacrifices of jubilation; I will sing and chant to the Lord.
7. Lord, hear my voice as I call; be gracious to me and answer me.
8. In Your behalf my heart says, "Seek My countenance"; Your countenance, Lord, I seek.
9. Do not conceal Your countenance from me; do not cast aside Your servant in wrath. You have been my help; do not abandon me nor forsake me, God of my deliverance.
10. Though my father and mother have forsaken me, the Lord has taken me in.
11. Lord, teach me Your way and lead me in the path of righteousness, because of my watchful enemies.
12. Do not give me over to the will of my oppressors, for there have risen against me false witnesses, and they speak evil.
13. [They would have crushed me] had I not believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.
14. Hope in the Lord, be strong and let your heart be valiant, and hope in the Lord.
Chapter 28
A prayer for every individual, entreating God to assist him in walking the good path, to prevent him from walking with the wicked doers of evil, and that He repay the wicked for their wickedness and the righteous for their righteousness.
1. By David. I call to You, O Lord; my Strength, do not be deaf to me; for should You be silent to me, I will be like those who descend to the pit.
2. Hear the sound of my pleas when I cry out to You, when I raise my hands toward Your holy Sanctuary.
3. Do not draw me along with the wicked, with evildoers who speak of peace with their companions, though evil is in their heart.
4. Give them according to their deeds, and the evil of their endeavors; give them according to their handiwork, render to them their just deserts.
5. For they pay no heed to the acts of the Lord, nor to the work of His hands; may He destroy them and not rebuild them.
6. Blessed is the Lord, for He has heard the voice of my pleas.
7. The Lord is my strength and my shield; in Him my heart trusted and I was helped; my heart exulted, and with my song I praised Him.
8. The Lord is a strength to them; He is a stronghold of deliverance to His anointed.
9. Grant salvation to Your people and bless Your heritage; tend them and exalt them forever.
-------
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 10
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Wednesday, Tammuz 4, 5774 • July 2, 2014
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 10
Concluding the previous chapter, the Alter Rebbe explained that since G d is infinitely exalted above intellect, intellectual means are inadequate to grasp His absolute union with the Sefirot of the World of Atzilut. These are limited to the particular Divine attributes of wisdom, kindness, and so on. The Zohar thus terms these attributes “the secret of faith,” for their union with the Divine beggars mortal comprehension.
אך בכל מקום
Nevertheless, despite the fact that the Sefirot transcend intellect and comprehension,
הואיל ודברה תורה כלשון בני אדם, לשכך את האוזן מה שהיא יכולה לשמוע
since1 “the Torah speaks as in the language of man” in order to2 “modulate for the ear what it is able to hear,”
לכך ניתן רשות לחכמי האמת לדבר בספירות בדרך משל
permission has been granted to the Kabbalists (lit., “the scholars of truth”) to speak allegorically of the Sefirot.
Note of the Rebbe: “The use of the term משל (‘allegory’) stresses that the allegory and its object are not identical, but merely that there is a similarity between the relationship that subsists among the particulars of the analogy to the relationship that subsists among the particulars of the analogue. There is, however, no connection at all between the particular aspects of the analogy and the analogue.
“Here, for instance: the sun’s rays and the sun do not compare in any way at all to the Sefirot and their Source. The analogy refers only to the manner in which the sun’s rays are united (i.e., related) with the sun itself. This analogy makes it easier for us to comprehend the unity of the Sefirot with their Source.”
וקראו אותן אורות
[The Kabbalists] called [the Sefirot] “lights”, using terminology borrowed from the revelation of light,
כדי שעל ידי המשל הזה, יובן לנו קצת ענין היחוד של הקב״ה ומדותיו
so that by means of this metaphor, the nature of the unity of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His attributes, will be somewhat understood by us.
שהוא, בדרך משל, כעין יחוד אור השמש שבתוך גוף כדור השמש, עם גוף השמש שנקרא מאור
It is, by way of illustration, like the unity of the sunlight that is within the solar globe, with the solar globe [itself], which is called not only “sun” but also a “luminary,” inasmuch as it emits light,
כמו שכתוב: את המאור הגדול וגו׳
as it is written,3 that G d created “the greater luminary...,” i.e., the very source of light.
והזיו והניצו׳ המתפשט ומאיר ממנו נקרא אור, כמו שכתוב: ויקרא אלקים לאור יום
The radiation and the beam which spreads forth and shines from it is called “light”, as it is written,4 “And G d called the light — day.”
וכשהאור הוא במקורו, בגוף השמש, הוא מיוחד עמו בתכלית היחוד
When the light is within its source in the orb of the sun, it is united with it in absolute unity,
כי אין שם רק עצם אחד, שהוא גוף המאור המאיר
for there, within the sun, there is only one entity, namely, the body of the luminary which emits light;
It would hardly be reasonable to say that within the orb of the sun there exist two things: the luminary and its light. Within the sun globe, only the sun itself exists.
כי הזיו והאור שם עצם אחד ממש עם גוף המאור המאיר, ואין לו שום מציאות כלל בפני עצמו
for there the radiation and light is absolutely one being with the body of the luminary which illuminates, and it has no existence by itself at all.
The appearance of radiation and light outside the sun would seem to indicate that light exists within the sun itself, for if it reaches out and illuminates the whole world it is surely found within its source. In fact, however, when sunlight is considered at the stage at which it is found within the luminary itself, it is so completely identified with it that it cannot be termed light at all; within the sun, the light has no existence with an independent identity.5
וכדברים האלה ממש ויותר מזה, הן מדותיו של הקב״ה ורצונו וחכמתו בעולם האצילות, עם מהותו ועצמותו, כביכול
Precisely in this manner, and even more so, is [the unity of] (on the one hand) the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Will and wisdom in the World of Atzilut, with (on the other hand) His Essence and Being, as it were,
המתלבש בתוכם ומתייחד עמהם בתכלית היחוד
Who becomes clothed in them — in the Sefirot of Atzilut — and unites with them in perfect unity,
מאחר שנמשכו ונאצלו מאתו יתברך, על דרך משל, כדרך התפשטות האור מהשמש
since they derived and emanated from Him just as (by way of analogy) light is diffused from the sun.
אך לא ממש בדרך זה, רק בדרך רחוקה ונפלאה מהשגתינו, כי גבהו דרכיו מדרכינו
However, [G d’s unity with His attributes] is not exactly in this manner, i.e., like the fusion of the sun with the light which is still within it, but in a manner which is remote and concealed from our comprehension, for6 His ways are higher than our ways.
FOOTNOTES
1. Berachot 31b.
2. Mechilta and Tanchuma on Shmot 19:18.
3. Bereishit 1:16.
4. Ibid. 1:5.
5. Commenting on the above statement that the light “has no existence by itself at all,” the Rebbe notes: “It is impossible to say that in relation to the luminary the light is of absolutely no account, inasmuch as the luminary itself gives significance to light. (Indeed, it is on account of the light that it is termed a luminary.)”
6. Cf. Yeshayahu 55:9.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Wednesday, Tammuz 4, 5774 • July 2, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 90
Burning Sacrifices that Contracted Ritual Impurity
"The flesh that touches any impurity shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire"—Leviticus 7:19.
We are commanded to burn any sacrifice that has become ritually impure.
This mitzvah also includes the obligation to burn Terumah oil that has become ritually impure.
Burning Sacrifices that Contracted Ritual Impurity
Positive Commandment 90
Translated by Berel Bell
The 90th mitzvah is that we are commanded to burn sacrifices which have become impure.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Any [sacrificial] meat which comes in contact with something impure may not be eaten; it must be burned in fire."
When explaining the reason why on a holiday one may not burn oil of terumah which became impure, the Talmud in Shabbos2 says, "Refraining from work [on a holiday] is a positive commandment, giving the holiday both a positive commandment and a prohibition. A positive commandment alone cannot push aside both a positive commandment and a prohibition."
The explanation of this is as follows: Doing work on a holiday is prohibited, and if one does work, he transgresses a positive commandment, because he violated the positive commandment regarding the holiday,3 "It shall be for you a day of rest." He also transgresses a prohibition, namely,4 "No work may be done on these [days]," i.e. the holidays.
Burning holy things that became impure, however, is only a positive commandment. Therefore, because of the principle just mentioned, that "a positive commandment alone cannot push aside both a positive commandment and a prohibition," one may not burn them on a holiday.
Another statement there5 indicating the same point6 is, "Just as it is a commandment to burn sacrifices that have become impure, so too it is a commandment to burn terumah that has become impure."
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in tractate Pesachim7 and at the end of Temurah.8
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 7:19.
2.24b.
3.Lev. 23:24. This speaks of Rosh HaShanah, and the same applies to the other holidays.
4.Ex. 12:16.
5.Shabbos 95a.
6.I.e. that the burning is a positive commandment.
7.82a.
8.33b.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Sheluchin veShuttafin Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Ten Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Ten
Halacha 1
The following law applies when a partner claims that the partnership relationship with his colleague involved a certain stipulation, and the colleague denies that such a stipulation ever existed or admits the existence of a stipulation, but claims it was for a lesser amount than the plaintiff claims. The plaintiff may determine the oath the defendant takes.
The same ruling applies if the plaintiff asks that property belonging to the partnership be returned to him, and the defendant claims to have given it to him, but the plaintiff claims that he never received it, or the defendant claims that merchandise was his, while the plaintiff claims that it belongs to the partnership, or with regard to any other claims of this type.
What is implied? If the plaintiff desires not to require the partner to take the oath required of partners, but instead to require him to take merely a sh'vuat hesset on the claim he denies and does not admit to have taken place, he may require him to take only the lesser oath. If he desires, he can include all the claims in the oath required of a partner. Although he has an indefinite claim, he will require the partner to take an oath that he did not steal anything throughout the duration of the partnership, that these and these stipulations existed between the partners, that the merchandise was his, or that he paid this and this amount. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 2
The following rule applies when a person lodges a claim against a partner with the intent of obligating him to take the oath required of partners, the defendant claims: "We have already divided the assets of the partnership, and nothing that belongs to you remains in my possession," and the plaintiff differs, maintaining that the assets were not divided, nor was a reckoning made. The defendant cannot be required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim. [This ruling also applies when the plaintiff admits dividing the assets, but claims that the division was made with the stipulation that the defendant take the oath required of partners whenever the plaintiff demanded, and the defendant has constantly been procrastinating.
This ruling applies even when the defendant admits that after the division of the assets, he owed the plaintiff something, but claims that the plaintiff agreed to consider that as a debt, or considered it as an object entrusted to the defendant for safekeeping.
Even if there are witnesses that the two were once partners, the plaintiff cannot require an oath with an indefinite claim. Nor may the plaintiff require the defendant to take a sh'vuat hesset that they divided the assets or that they were never partners. The rationale is that a sh'vuat hesset is never required, nor even is a claim included in an oath using the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, unless the claim is such that if the defendant admitted it, he would be liable to pay money. If, however, the claim is one that if the defendant admitted it, he would be required only to take an oath, he may not be required to take an oath on the indefinite claim, even because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah. Geonim, who are masters of instruction, ruled in this manner.
Halacha 3
The following rule applies if the plaintiff claims: "You are still my partner, and property belonging to me worth such and such remains in your possession,"and the defendant counters, by claiming: "We already divided the assets of the partnership, and I no longer have anything belonging to you in my possession," or "I was never your partner." The defendant must take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not possess anything belonging to the plaintiff, and because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he must include in the oath that he did not steal anything from him. The defendant need not include in the oath that he was not his partner or that they already divided the assets of the partnership, for the reason explained above.
Halacha 4
The following rule applies when the plaintiff claims that he and the defendant are still partners, and that he therefore has the right to require him to take an oath because of an indefinite claim, while the defendant denies ever becoming the plaintiff's partner. If the plaintiff brings witnesses who testify that the defendant was his partner, and the defendant then claims: "We divided the assets of the partnership," his claim is not accepted. The rationale is that he was proven to be a liar with regard to this oath. Therefore, he is required to take the oath required of a partner. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
The convention of gilgul sh'vuah is also relevant in the following situation. Reuven placed 400 dinarim in the coffers of the partnership, while Shimon invested 200 dinarim. They worked as partners and did business together, but all the money was held by Reuven. If Reuven claimed that there was a loss of 500 dinarim, Reuven may not take the oath required of partners that he suffered such a loss to require Shimon to pay 50 dinarim from his own funds. Instead, Reuven should take the oath required of partners that there was a loss. He should take the maneh that is in his possession, but Shimon is not required to pay anything.
If Reuven claims that Shimon has definite knowledge of the loss, he may require Shimon to take the oath required of partners, and based on the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he may compel him to include that he does not have definite knowledge of this loss.
Different rules apply if Shimon was not at all involved in the work of the partnership. Shimon should take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not have definite knowledge of the loss, and he is then freed of liability. Moreover, if the maneh that remains was in Shimon's possession, it should be divided equally between them. The rationale is that a partner is not one of those who is required to take an oath and then collect money from the defendant. Instead, the oath he takes enables him merely to be freed of responsibility or to assume ownership of property in his possession. Be careful with regard to this law, for even masters of instruction have erred with regard to it.
Halacha 6
The following law also involves the division of the assets of a partnership. Shimon claims that he owes Levi a maneh because of this partnership. If he has resources of the partnership in his possession that are sufficient to pay the debt, and he can give them to Levi, his word is accepted. He should repay the debt, and afterwards he and Reuven should calculate how the assets should be divided.
If Shimon does not have funds from the partnership in his possession, we do not rely upon his word to expropriate money from Reuven or merchandise known to belong to the partnership, lest Shimon and Levi are perpetrating deception, seeking to obtain Reuven's property. Even if the loan is recorded in a promissory note, Reuven is not required to pay any portion of it.
If Shimon claims that Reuven has definite knowledge that the debt Shimon incurred came as a result of the partnership, and should be borne by both of them, Reuven is required to take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not know that the partnership has incurred this debt - or because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he should include this statement in the oath he takes as required of partners. Afterwards, Shimon should pay the debt from his own funds.
Similarly, if there is a promissory note stating that, due to Shimon, Levi owes the partnership 100 dinarim, and Shimon claims: "I received payment and returned the money to the coffers of the partnership," or "I extended credit to him for a two- or three-year period," his word is not accepted, lest he be perpetrating deception, seeking to obtain Reuven's property.
How should this case be adjudicated? Levi was already freed from obligation through Shimon's admission. If Shimon does not bring proof of his claim, Shimon must pay Reuven's share from his own funds. He should then demand payment from Levi at the end of the time span he mentioned. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 19
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17
Halacha 1
Whenever blood must be presented on the outer altar and the first presentation was made with a proper intent and a second or further presentation was made for the sake of a different sacrifice or he had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place or time, atonement is achieved and the sacrifice is acceptable.1
If the first presentation [of blood] was made with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time and [the priest] completed the presentation of the blood with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [The rationale is that] the first presentation of the blood is of fundamental importance.2
In contrast, with regard to all of the presentations of blood on the inner altar - since they are all absolute requirements [for the offering of the sacrifice], as we explained3 - if one of presentations was not made as required, but instead, one had a disqualifying intent, the sacrifice is unacceptable,4 even if all the other presentations were made as required.
Halacha 2
If one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time when making the first [of the presentations of the blood on the inner altar]5 and had no specific intent6 regarding the remainder or he presented all of them as required with the exception of the final one, which he presented with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is not given that distinction] unless one makes [all] the presentations with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, for they are all considered as one presentation.
Halacha 3
[Having a disqualifying intent while] immersing one's finger in the blood of a sin-offering7 [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar can cause a sacrifice to become piggul.8
What is implied? If at the time [the priest] immersed his finger in the blood, he had a disqualifying intent concerning time, it is as if he had such an intent when presenting [the blood on the altar].
Halacha 4
If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to one of the sin-offerings [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar with regard to an aspect of the sacrifice that is performed in the Sanctuary, [the offering] is not piggul. If he had such an intent with regard to an aspect that is performed in the Temple Courtyard, it is piggul.
Halacha 5
What is implied? If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and said: "I am slaughtering [this animal] with the intent of presenting its blood tomorrow,"9 [the offering] is not piggul, because presenting the blood is performed inside, in the Sanctuary.
Halacha 6
If [a priest] was standing in the Sanctuary and he said: "I am presenting [the blood] with the intent to pour the remaining [blood]10 on the following day, [the offering] is not piggul, because he had a disqualifying intent inside [the Temple Sanctuary] regarding a service performed outside. If, however, he was standing in the Temple Courtyard and slaughtered [the animal] with the intent to pour out the remainder [of the blood] on the following day or to offer the fats and the organs on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for he had a [disqualifying] intent while outside concerning a service that is performed outside.
Halacha 7
A [disqualifying intent] concerning a thanksgiving-offering causes the bread [that accompanies it] to become piggul, but a [disqualifying intent] concerning the bread does not cause the thanksgiving-offering to become piggul.11
What is implied? When one slaughtered a thanksgiving-offering and had the intent to partake of its meat, cast its blood on the altar, or offer its fats and organs on the following day, the offering and the bread are piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the bread on the following day, the bread alone is piggul; the thanksgiving-offering is not piggul.12
Halacha 8
Similar concepts apply with regard to the two sheep offered on Shavuot with the two breads offered with them. If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the sheep, the two breads are considered as piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the two breads on the following day, the two breads are piggul and the sheep are not piggul.13 If while performing one of the four [significant] services, [the priest] had the intent partake of an olive-sized portion of the meat of the sacrifice together with the bread14 tomorrow, the bread alone is piggul15 and the thanksgiving-offering or the sheep are not piggul.
Halacha 9
When [a priest] offers the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the showbread and, while offering them, had the intent to partake of the showbread on the following day, the bread is piggul.16
Halacha 10
When one slaughters the two sheep for Shavuot and has the intent to eat one of the loaves on the following day, they are both piggul.17
Halacha 11
If one offered the two bowls [of frankincense] and he had the intent to partake of one of the two arrangements of bread on the following day, both arrangements are piggul.18
Halacha 12
Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] thought concerning time with regard to one of the breads of the thanksgiving-offering or with regard to one of the breads of meal-offering baked in an oven, all of the breads are piggul.
Halacha 13
If, by contrast, one of the two breads [of Shavuot], one of the two arrangements [of the showbread], or one of the breads of the thanksgiving offering19- whether before the casting on the altar20 or afterwards - becomes impure, only that bread or that arrangement are forbidden to be eaten. What is pure may be eaten in its state of purity.
Halacha 14
If, while performing the sacrificial service associated with one of the two sheep, [the priest] had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion of the two breads on the following day - and similarly, if while offering one of the two bowls [of frankincense], he had the intent to partake of an olive-sized portion of the showbread on the following day, the bread is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is given that distinction] only when he has a [disqualifying] intent while performing all the services that permit the bread to be eaten: [i.e.,] bringing both sheep and offering both bowls [of frankincense] on the altar's pyre.
Halacha 15
If one slaughtered one [of the sheep] and had the intent to eat half an olive-sized portion from one loaf on the following day and slaughtered the second lamb and had the intent of eating half an olive-sized portion on the following day, [the two intents] are combined to render the loaves piggul.21 Similar concepts apply with regard to the two bowls [of frankincense] and the two arrangements [of showbread].
Halacha 16
If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to one of the two sheep and offered the second with a proper intent, the one that was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time is piggul and the other is acceptable.22
Halacha 17
If one slaughtered one of [these two sheep] and had the intent while slaughtering it to partake of the meat of the other one on the following day, they are both acceptable. For the intent one has with regard to one is of no consequence regarding the second.
Halacha 18
The two lambs [offered on] Shavuot do not cause the bread to be sanctified unless they are slaughtered.
What is implied? If one slaughtered them and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, he did not sanctify the bread. If he slaughtered them with the proper intent and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, the bread is sanctified, but is not sanctified.23
If they slaughtered it for the sake of another sacrifice even though he cast [the blood] for the proper intent, the bread was not sanctified.
Halacha 19
When the two loaves were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] between the slaughter [of the two sheep] and the casting [of their blood] and the blood of the sheep was cast on the altar with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, the bread becomes piggul even though it is outside [the Temple Courtyard]. For casting [the blood] has an effect on [bread] that was taken out even though it is still outside [the Temple Courtyard].24
Halacha 20
When the two sheep offered on Shavuos were slaughtered with the proper intent and the breads were lost, they are disqualified if their blood was cast [on the altar] with the desired intent.25 If their blood was cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time26 after the bread was lost, there is an unresolved doubt if [the meat of the sheep] is permitted to be eaten or not.27
FOOTNOTES
1.Hence the person(s) bringing the sacrifice are not required to bring another one.
2.See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
Chapter 16, Halachah 1, states that when a disqualifying intent concerning place is combined with a disqualifying intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but is not piggul. In the present instance, it is placed in the more severe category, because once the fundamental presentation was made in a manner that rendered the sacrifice piggul, the subsequent intentions the priest had are of no consequence.
3.Chapter 2, Halachah 3.
4.However, it is not piggul. The Kessef Mishneh explains that it is not considered piggul because one must have the disqualifying intent concerning time when performing all of the presentations.
5.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7.
6.Literally, the Rambam's words mean: "Remained silent with regard to the others."
7.See ibid.:8.
8.The commentaries note that this ruling appears to run contrary to the statements of Zevachim 44a: "If one had a disqualifying intent that would render an offering piggul inside the Sanctuary, the offering is not piggul." Rambam LeAm suggests that Rabbi Elazar the author of the statement cited does not accept the concept that one's intent when immersing one's finger in the blood can cause an offering to be considered as piggul. If, however, he would have accepted that concept, he would also have accepted the Rambam's ruling here.
9.When they should be presented on the day the sacrificial animal is slaughtered.
10.On the outer altar (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:10).
11.For the bread is secondary to and dependent on the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not dependent on the bread [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:3)]. See also Chapter 15, Halachah 13.
12.Rashi's commentary to Menachot 15a implies that it is forbidden to eat the meat. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, it would appear that the meat is permitted entirely.
13.Here, also, the bread is considered as secondary to the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not secondary to the meat [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
14.I.e., half an olive-sized portion of meat and half an olive-sized portion of bread (Rashi, Menachot, loc. cit.).
15.Menachot, loc. cit., mentions both of the situations spoken about in this halachah. One opinion maintains that the ruling was given both with regard to the bread on Shavuos and the bread of the thanksgiving-offering. A second view maintains that it was given with regard to the breads and the offering of Shavuos, for they are interrelated as evidenced by the fact that they are waved together (Leviticus 23:20). It is possible, however, that it does not apply to the thanksgiving-offering. The Rambam accepts the more stringent view, because of the doubt involved (Kessef Mishneh).
16.For it is the offering of the bowls of frankincense that enable the breads to be eaten.
17.For the two loaves are considered as a single offering.
18.Here too both arrangments are considered as a single offering.
19.The commentaries have noted the apparent contradiction to Chapter 12, Halachah 14. See the notes to that halachah.
20.Of the blood of the sacrifices or the frankincense for the showbreads [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:2)].
21.For he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to the entire offering that would enable the bread to be eaten.
22.In this context, each of the sheep is considered as an independent entity.
23.It appears that the Rambam follows the view of Ravva (Menachot 13b) that bread is considered as consecrated, but it is forbidden to be eaten .
24.The place where the bread is located is not of consequence.
25.For as stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:15, the offering of the bread is a fundamental requirement for the offering of the sheep and if the bread is lost, the sheep should be destroyed by fire.
26.The Kessef Mishneh maintains that this is a printing error and the text should read "with an intent for another sacrifice." This view, however, is not borne out by the manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah.
27.According to the Kessef Mishneh, the Rambam's ruling can be explained as follows: One might think that the meat would be permitted to be eaten, because they are peace-offerings and when a peace-offering is offered for the sake of another offering, it is permitted to be eaten, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 1. On the other hand, since the sheep are associated with the bread and the bread is lost, there is room to say that they have been disqualified. A question concerning this issue was raised by Menachot 47b. Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that according to the Rambam, the question was left unresolved. Rashi maintains that the question is rhetorical and that the meat is disqualified.
The Kessef Mishneh notes, however, that Rabbenu Yehoshua, one of the Rambam's descendants, was asked about the matter and explained the question according to the existing text. According to his view, the issue is that since the blood was cast on the altar after the bread was lost, the Sages had a question whether to consider their meat as ordinary meat or whether the meat should still be considered as sacrificial meat, because the sheep were slaughtered before the bread was lost.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18
Halacha 1
Anyone who has an incorrect intent [while performing] sacrificial service violates a negative commandment,1 for [Leviticus 7:18] states: "He may not intent this."
Halacha 2
According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that included in this prohibition is not to cause sacrificial offerings to be disqualified through thought, for this is comparable to causing a blemish in sacrificial animals. Nevertheless, [a transgressor] is not punished by lashes,2 for thought is not considered as deed.3
Halacha 3
Whenever a sacrifice is defined as unacceptable - whether it was disqualified because of an intent, an action, or something which caused it to be disqualified - anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for lashes, as [a result of the prohibition, Deuteronomy 14:3]: "Do not partake of anything abhorrent."4
Halacha 4
According to the Oral Tradition, we learned5 that the verse was warning solely against [partaking of] sacrificial animals that were disqualified.6
Halacha 5
Similarly, when sacrificial animals which were [intentionally] blemished, a person who eats an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes, for they are included in the category of "anything abhorrent." [It is forbidden to partake of them] until they contract another blemish, [at which time,]7 they may be eaten because of the blemish, as we explained.8 Whenever there is a unresolved doubt whether [a sacrificial animal] has been disqualified, lashes are not given.
Halacha 6
Whenever a sacrifice has been deemed piggul because of a disqualifying intent concerning time, as we explained,9 anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for karet,10 as [implied by Leviticus 7:18]: "The soul which partakes of it will bear its sin."11 If one partakes of [the meat of such a sacrifice] inadvertently, he should bring a fixed sin-offering.12
Halacha 7
One is not liable for karet unless one partakes of entities that were permitted for consumption, either by a person or by the altar.13 If, however, one eats of the entity that permits [the sacrifice to be eaten] itself, one is not liable for karet. Instead, he is liable for lashes like one who partakes of disqualified sacrificial animals for which the transgression of karet is not involved.
What is implied? When a meal-offering becomes piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the remaining [meal]14 intentionally, he is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of the handful [that is separated to be offered on the altar] or from the frankincense, he is not liable for karet, for these are the substances that enable [the meal to be eaten] by men. Similarly, when a sacrifice is deemed piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of its meat or of the fats and organs offered on the altar or from the meat of a burnt-offering is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of an olive-sized portion of the blood, he is not liable for karet, because [the casting of] the blood permits the fats and the organs to be offered on the altar and [the offering of] the fats and the organs permit the meat [to be eaten by] a person. [Similarly,] the blood of a burnt-offering permits its meat [to be offered] on the altar. [The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering of fowl permits its meat to be eaten by the priests. [The presentation of] the blood of a burnt-offering of fowl permits its meat to be offered on the altar.
[The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering that is burnt permits its fats and the organs to be offered on the altar. Therefore one is liable for [partaking of] the fats and the organs as piggul. [Offering] the handful [of meal] and the frankincense permit a meal-offering to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two sheep15 on Shavuot permit the two loaves to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two bowls of frankincense permit the showbread to [be eaten by] the priests. Sacrificial entities that do not have entities that permit them [to be consumed either by the altar or by man], e.g., the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt or the meal-offerings that are burnt, are never deemed as piggul.
Halacha 8
These are the entities that are never deemed as piggul:16 the handful [of meal] and the frankincense; the incense-offering; the blood [of any sacrifice]; wine - whether wine that comes as part of the accompanying offerings17 or wine that is offered independently;18 and the meal-offerings that are burnt in their entirety; for there is not a handful that permits them, e.g., the meal-offering of a priest or the meal-offering of the accompanying offerings; the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt; and the log of oil brought by a nazirite.
If one would ask [with regard to the latter instance]: Does not the blood of the guilt-offering [brought by the nazirite] permit the oil to be eaten? [In resolution, it can be said that] one is not dependent on the other, for a person may bring his guilt-offering one day and the log of oil after several days, as will be explained in the appropriate place.19
Halacha 9
It is forbidden to leave sacrificial meat beyond the time in which it may be eaten,20 as [Leviticus 22:30] states with regard to the thanksgiving-offering: "Do not leave it over until the morning." This same applies to all other sacrifices.21
One who leaves over sacrificial meat is not liable for lashes, for Scripture enables [the transgression] to be corrected22 by [the fulfillment of] a positive commandment,23 as [Exodus 12:10] states: "That which remains from it until the morning should be burnt with fire."
Halacha 10
One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of sacrifices that were left beyond their required time intentionally is liable for karet.24 If he did so unintentionally, he must bring a fixed sin-offering, as [Leviticus 19:8]: "He who partakes of it shall bear his sin, for he has desecrated what is holy unto God; [that soul] shall be cut off."
From when is a person held liable for partaking of notar [this left-over meat]? If it is from sacrifices of the most sacred order, he is liable from dawn.25 If it is from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity,26 he is liable from sunset on the second day which is the beginning of the third day.
Where does the Torah warn against piggul and notar? With regard to [the sacrifices of] the dedication [of the Sanctuary], [Exodus 29:34] states: "[They shall not be eaten, for they are holy."27 This warns against [partaking of] any [sacrificial food] disqualified [in the Sanctuary], [stating] that there is a negative commandment against partaking of it.
Halacha 11
Piggul and notar can be combined to reach the minimum measure of an olive-sized portion28 [for which one is held liable]. All sacrificial foods that became piggul or notar can be combined [for this purpose].
Halacha 12
It is forbidden to cause sacrificial foods to contract impurity or to create a circumstance that makes them impure,29 for he disqualifies them.30 One who makes sacrificial foods impure is not liable for lashes, but a person who is pure who partakes of an olive-sized portion of sacred foods that have become impure is liable for lashes,31 as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "Meat that will touch anything impure should not be eaten."
The same also applies with regard to other sacrifices. [For example,] if one partakes of an olive-sized portion of the frankincense of a meal-offering that became impure after it was sanctified in a utensil is liable for lashes. [This refers] both to sacrificial food that became impure before atonement was attained32 or afterwards, whether it became impure because of contact with a primary source of impurity33 or a derivative of impurity34 of Scriptural origin. If, however, sacrificial foods contracted impurity that is Rabbinic in origin, one is not liable for lashes for partaking of them; he does, however, receives stripes for rebellious conduct.35
[Even one who partakes of sacrificial food that contracts impurity of Scriptural origin] is liable for lashes only when he partakes of it after its blood is cast [on the altar]. If, by contrast, he partakes of it before the casting of its blood, he is not liable for lashes because he partook of impure sacrificial food.36 He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 13
Any person who contracted a form of impurity that would make him liable for karet for entering the Temple37 who ate an olive-sized portion of sacrificial food - whether the food is pure or impure38 - intentionally is liable for karet,39 as [Leviticus 7:20] states: "A soul that will partake... of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for God while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off." If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring an adjustable guilt-offering.40
What is the source that teaches that the verse is speaking about a situation where the person's body is ritually impure?41 [Leviticus 7:21] states: "When a soul will touch any impurity, whether impurity of a human, an impure animal, or an impure creature and he partook of the meat of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for God while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off."42 The same applies to all other sacrifices of the altar.
Where did [the Torah] warn concerning this prohibition? With regard to a woman who gave birth, [Leviticus 12:4] states: "She shall not touch anything that is sanctified."43
Halacha 14
According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that [the verse] is a warning to a person who is impure, that he or she should not partake of sacrificial food before he immerses himself [in a mikveh]. If one partakes of sacrificial food after immersion, before sunset of that day and before bringing the sacrifice that brings atonement,44 he or she is liable for lashes, but not for karet, for [Leviticus 7:20] states "while his impurity is upon him." [Implied is that] the full measure of impurity must be upon him.45
Halacha 15
If a person was impure because of impurity resulting from a Rabbinic ordinance, he is not liable for lashes [if he partakes of sacrificial food].46 Needless to say, he is not liable for karet. He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 16
One is not liable for karet for partaking of sacrificial food that is made permitted by a particular act unless one partakes of it after that act is performed. If, however, he partakes of the meat [of a sacrifice] before its blood is cast on the altar, he is not liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial meat while impure.47
This is the general principle: Whenever sacrificial food is permitted because [of the performance of] a particular act, one is not liable for the violation of any of the prohibitions against partaking of piggul, notar, or impure sacrificial food unless the act which permits partaking of the food was performed according to law. Whenever there is not a given act that makes sacrificial food permitted, once it is sanctified in a consecrated vessel, one is liable for partaking of it if it becomes impure. Even if [sacrificial] meat becomes impure before the person partaking of it becomes impure, if the act [that would have] permitted the meat to be eaten was performed and the person partook of the sacrificial food, he is liable for karet.48Similarly, if a person who is impure partakes of the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt, after their blood is cast [on the altar],49 he is liable for karet.
Halacha 17
It was already explained for you,50 that even entities for which one is not liable for piggul, one may be liable for notar or because the object contracted ritual impurity?
What is implied? There is no liability for piggul for sacrificial entities that do not have an activity that permits them [to be eaten], but one may be held liable [for partaking of them if they] became notar or impure in such circumstances.
Similarly, even though there cannot be liability for piggul for the very entities that cause the sacrificial meat to be permitted, as we explained,51 one can be liable [for partaking of such entities if the sacrificial meat] became notar or impure with the exception of the blood. For one is liable for only one transgression for partaking of it.52
Halacha 18
When a person who is impure partakes of the fats and organs to be offered on the altar, he is liable for karet.
Halacha 19
[If an impure person] partook53 of Paschal sacrifice that was not roasted breads of the thanksgiving-offering of which the breads [to be given to the priest] were not taken, he is liable for karet because of the impurity of [his] body even though they are not fit for their [purpose at this stage].54
It is impossible for a person to be liable for the transgressions of piggul and notar with regard to consumption of the same sacrifice.55 [The rationale is that] piggul is a sacrifice that was disqualified because of an unacceptable thought concerning time. It does not fulfill the obligations of a sacrifice and is not acceptable at all. Notar, by contrast, refers to the remnants of a sacrifice that was offered as required which remained after the time [prescribed] for its consumption.
Halacha 20
When one combined [different types of sacrificial food that were] piggul, notar, and impure and partook of them,56 he is liable. Even though there was more of one type of prohibited substance than another, it does not nullify it, because [these] prohibited substances do not nullify each other.57
Halacha 21
When [sacrificial meat] that was piggul, notar, or impure was brought up to the altar, once the fire takes hold of the majority of it, their prohibitions take flight.
The fat and the organs can be combined with the meat, both with regard to a burnt offering or to other sacrifices with regard to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure.
Halacha 22
When a sacrifice becomes piggul or notar after the time for its consumption passes and a person partakes of it, from its skin, from the sauce or spices [in which it is cooked], the allal,58 the murah,59 from the giddim,60 the horns, and the hoofs, the nails, the beak [of a fowl], its feathers,61 or its eggs, he is not liable for karet.62 Similarly, if an impure person partakes of these substances from an acceptable sacrifice, he is not liable for karet. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 23
If one partook of a fetus or a placenta, he is liable for [violating the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure like one who partake of any other [portion of] the meat of a sacrifice.63
Halacha 24
[The prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure do not apply with regard to sacrifices brought by gentiles.64 Nor do they apply to sacrificial blood, as explained.65 Similarly, one is not liable for karet66 for [the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or partaking of [sacrificial entities] while impure67 for partaking of frankincense, the incense offering, or the wood [of the altar].68
FOOTNOTES
1.The wording used by the Rambam is often employed when referring to one of the 613 mitzvot. Nevertheless, neither in the listing at the beginning of these halachot, nor in Sefer HaMitzvot, does he count this charge in that reckoning. The Ramban (in his Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 4) does give this charge that distinction. Megilat Esther explains that this charge is part of the directive to offer sacrifices in the proper manner and hence need not be considered as a separate mitzvah. See also Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 144) where the issue is discussed.
2.As is one who causes a blemish to sacrificial animals (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:7).
3.And lashes are given only when one violates a transgression while performing a deed (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2).
4.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 140) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 469) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
5.See the Sifri to the verse cited.
6.The Rambam is emphasizing this point lest one think that the charge also refers to other prohibited substances. This stress is necessary, for otherwise the prohibition could be considered a prohibition of a general nature (lav shebiklalut). Lashes are not given for violating a prohibition of this nature (Hilchot Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).
7.After they have been redeemed. As the Rambam LeAm elaborates, in addition to contracting a blemish, an animal dedicated as a sacrifice must be redeemed before the prohibition against partaking of its meat is lifted. (This constitutes a difference between the laws pertaining to such an animal and a firstborn animal.) Even after the Scriptural prohibition is lifted, there is a Rabbinic prohibition to partake of its meat until it contracts another blemish on its own accord. (This prohibition was instituted as a penalty lest one intentionally inflict such a blemish. See Bechorot 34b.)
8.The Rambam's wording has aroused the attention of the commentaries, for this law is stated in Hilchot Bechorot 2:7, where the entire law stated here is mentioned. As such, it would have been more correct for the Rambam to have stated "as will be explained." Some have suggested that the intent here is to the concept that a sacrificial animal that has contracted a blemish may be eaten after being redeemed, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:10.
9.In various halachot from Chapter 13, Halachah 1, onward.
10.Literally, that the soul is cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).
11.Since this phrase is also used with regard to notar (sacrificial meat left beyond its limit) in Leviticus 19:8 and the punishment of karet is explicitly stated with regard to that prohibition in that verse, the Sifra makes an equation with regard to the punishment for the two transgressions.
12.This term is used to differentiate between this offering and an adjustable guilt-offering in which instance, the sacrifice the person required to bring is dependent on the person's means. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3-4.
13.Entities eaten by a person or consumed by the altar's pyre.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 4:3), the Rambam explains this concept as follows: The prohibition of piggul is derived from Leviticus 7:18 which pertains to the peace-offerings. Our Sages explain that the peace-offerings are unique in that they involve both consumption by the altar and consumption by man and that there is an act that permits such consumption (the offering of the blood permits the fats and organs to be offered and offering them permits the meat to be eaten). Hence this is established as a general rule with regard to all sacrifices.
14.I.e., the portion to be eaten by man.
15.The sheep themselves, however, can also become piggul, as stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 16.
16.For there is no other act performed that enables these to be offered.
17.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2.
18.Ibid. 17:12.
19.See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.
It must be noted that the latter point is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Mishnah. Rabbi Shimon maintains that the log cannot become piggul, while Rabbi Meir maintains that it can for the reasons stated here. Although the standard published text of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah states that the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon's view (as the Rambam rules here), Rav Kappach notes that all the manuscript copies of the Commentary to the Mishnah state that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon.
20.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 120) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 142) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
21.Nevertheless, Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 117-119) does count the prohibitions against leaving over the meat of the Paschal sacrifice, the chagigah offering, and the second Paschal sacrifice as separate commandments.
22.The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam mentions this point. True, it is mentioned by Pesachim 84a, but that passage follows the opinion that lashes can be given for the violation of a prohibition even if a deed is not involved. The Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2) maintains that lashes are not given unless the transgression involves a deed. Hence, seemingly, he does not have to add the explanation given here.
23.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 143) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
24.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 131) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 215) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
25.The first shining of the light on the eastern horizon, between 72 and 120 minutes before sunrise according to the various authorities.
26.With the exception of the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite's ram for which one is liable from dawn of the day following their sacrifice.
27.The commentaries note that the Rambam's citation of the verse is not entirely exact. See also Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit.
28.From the wording of the Mishnah (Meilah 4:3), one might think that these two prohibitions are not combined. Nevertheless, the Talmud (Meilah 17b) states that the Mishnah is speaking about the impurity of one's hands, but that with regard to the prohibition against partaking of the food, they may be combined.
29.Although the Rambam's wording implies that a Scriptural prohibition is involved, he does not include it as one of the 613 mitzvot. See a parallel in Hilchot Terumah 12:1.
30.The Or Sameach comments that the Rambam's wording implies that if the sacrificial foods were disqualified for other reasons, it is permitted to cause them to contract impurity. See Chapter 19, Halachot 5-6.
31.Partaking of sacrificial foods that have become impure is considered by Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 130) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 145) as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
32.The attainment of atonement refers to the casting of the blood on the altar.
Although the sacrifice became impure before the blood was cast on the altar, after the fact, it is acceptable, because the forehead plate of the High Priest causes such sacrifices to be considered acceptable (Menachot 25b). And since, after the fact, it is acceptable, one is liable for partaking of it if it became piggul.
33.In the original, an av tumah, literally, "a father of impurity," an object deemed inherently impure by Scripture decree which has the potential to make other objects impure. See the Rambam's introduction to the Order of Taharot in his Commentary to the Mishnah and also, Hilchot Tumat Meit 5:7 for more details regarding this and the term mentioned in the following note.
34.In the original, a v'lad tumah, literally, "the offspring of impurity," an object that contracts ritual impurity through contract with a primary source of impurity, which in certain instances can impart impurity to other substances.
35.The punishment given anyone who violates a Rabbinic ordinance.
36.Because such a sacrifice is disqualified and, as an initial preference, its blood should not be offered on the altar. The Mishneh LiMelech states that he is, however, liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial food before its blood was cast on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 11:1,4.
37.See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:13-14. As mentioned in the Kessef Mishneh, there are certain states of ritual impurity for which one is not liable for karet for entering the Temple. This prohibition, however, focuses only on those concerning which this penalty can be incurred, because of an association between the words mikdash, "sanctuary," and kodesh, "sacrificial food."
38.There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:2) because there are two prohibitions involved: the prohibition against partaking of impure sacrificial meat and the prohibition against a person who is impure partaking of sacrificial meat. Rabbi Yossi maintains that since the meat is impure and unfit to be eaten, we are not concerned whether the person is impure or not. The Sages, by contrast, maintain that since the impure person is forbidden to partake of pure sacrificial food, the prohibition also applies when partakes of impure sacrificial food. The Rambam accepts the Sages' opinion. See also Halachah 16.
39.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 129) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 167) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
40.An obligation for which the offering changes dependent on the person's financial capacity (see Leviticus, ch. 5; Hilchot Shegagot 10:1).
41.For one could interpret the above verse as referring to sacrificial food that contracted ritual impurity.
42.This verse clearly indicates that the passage is speaking about a person who has contracted ritual impurity.
43.The interpretation of the verse is explained in the following halachah.
44.As stated in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, to be permitted to partake of sacrificial food or to enter the Temple, a zav (a male who has secretions similar to those produced by gonorrhea), a zavah (a woman who experiences vaginal bleeding outside her menstrual cycle), a woman who gives birth or miscarries, and a person afflicted by the skin condition of tzara'at must do the following after they are fit to emerge from their ritual impurity: a) immerse in the mikveh, b) wait until nightfall after immersion, and c) bring the appropriate sacrifice.
45.Since the person has already immersed in the mikveh, a certain dimension of his or her ritual impurity has been removed. Hence, although he or she is liable for lashes for this transgression, there is no liability for karet.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even in such a situation, one is liable for karet. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:9, the Kessef Mishneh cites Talmudic passages which could be used as support for both positions.
46.For according to Scriptural Law, he is not liable. Compare to Halachah 12.
47.In this instance as well, according to the Mishneh LiMelech, the person would be liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial food before its blood was cast on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 11:1,4.
48.See Halachah 13 and notes.
49.For afterwards, they are ready to be burnt.
50.I.e., this conclusion can be reached by comparing Halachah 7 with the previous halachah. An equation is made between sacrificial meat that is notar and that which contracted ritual impurity.
51.In Halachah 7.
52.I.e., the prohibition against partaking of blood, which appears uniformly, both to the blood of sacrificial animals and to that of ordinary animals. Since it is already prohibited, none of the other prohibitions apply to it. See Zevachim 4:5.
53.This is the version accepted by the R. Shabsi Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah. The Kessef Mishneh offers a different version of the text.
54.I.e., although these activities are necessary for these sacrifices to be acceptable, a person can still be held liable for partaking of the sacrifice in a state of ritual impurity.
55.This is a general rule. There are several particular aspects to it, as explained in Keritot 14a.
56.This is speaking about a situation where there is an olive-sized portion of all the prohibited substances. Nevertheless, one might think that the presence of one might nullify the other. The person receives a set of lashes for each prohibition he violates.
57.Instead, as stated in Halachah 11, they are combined together.
The commentaries have noted that this ruling appears to contradict the Rambam's own ruling in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:18, that orlah nullifies the presence of terumah. See also the Beit Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 98.
It can be explained that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Rambam is speaking about an instance where there is sufficient amount of kosher food to nullify the prohibited substance according to Scriptural Law (for only a majority is required). Hence, for the additional amount required by Rabbinic Law, a forbidden substance is also sufficient. In this instance, however, the substances are not nullified according to Scriptural Law. Hence, one forbidden substance cannot nullify another.
58.In Chapter 14, Halachah 7, the Rambam defines this as: "the meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide."
59.The thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten (ibid.).
60.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), the Rambam explains that this is a general term referring to blood vessels, nerves, and sinews.
61.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:2), the Rambam explains that this term refers to the growth that remains after the large feathers are removed.
62.For these entities are not considered as fit to be eaten.
63.Based on a comparison to Chapter 14, Halachah 7, the Ra'avad explains this should be understood as meaning that if one intended to eat the meat of a sacrifice after the time when it was supposed to be eaten, the entire sacrifice, even the fetus and the placenta, become piggul. If, however, one's intent is to partake of the fetus or the placenta, the sacrifice does not become piggul.
64.As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2, burnt-offerings brought by a gentile may be offered on the altar. According to the Rambam, even though such sacrifices are acceptable, these prohibitions do not apply.
The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling appears to reflect the understanding of Rabbi Shimon in Zevachim 4:3 and, most authorities - including the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah - follow the view of Rabbi Yossi who differs. It can, however, be explained that Rabbi Shimon's opinion concerns only "one who offers them outside the Temple." The preceding clause of the mishnah concerning piggul and the like is accepted by all opinions (Kessef Mishneh).
In truth, the Rambam's opinion concerning this issue is somewhat problematic. His acceptance of Rabbi Yossi's view in his ruling in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:16. Nevertheless, his ruling in Hilchot Me'ilah 5:15, like the one here, appears to follow Rabbi Shimon's view.
65.Halachah 17 above.
66.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it reflects the understanding of Rabbi Shimon in the above mishnah. Rav Kapach notes that in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, his original writing was rubbed out and his final statement is: "The halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon." The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution to the difficulty explaining that the Rambam is postulating that the transgressor is liable for lashes and not for karet. The exemption for karet is accepted by all opinions. Rabbi Shimon exempts the transgressor from lashes as well, but the initial opinion of the mishnah - which is accepted by the Rambam - holds him liable on that account.
67.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam equates a person partaking of them while he is impure with one partaking of them while they are impure. The Kessef Mishneh debates the Rambam's intent here.
68.Although wood does not usually contract impurity, sacrificial wood may [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 19
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to burn all the sacrifices that have become impure,1 as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "And the meat that will touch anything that [imparts] impurity may not be eaten. It must be burnt with fire."
Similarly, it is a mitzvah to burn notar,2 as [ibid.:17] states: "What remains from the meat of the sacrifice on the third day3 shall be burnt with fire." Included in [the category of] notar is piggul and all other sacrifices that were disqualified. They must all be burnt.
Halacha 2
When a sacrifice becomes piggul or is [otherwise] disqualified, it should be burnt in the Temple4 immediately. Whenever there is a doubt whether a sacrifice has been disqualified, it should be left until the next day5 and then burnt in the Temple.
Halacha 3
There is an unresolved doubt with regard to the bulls and the goats which are to be burnt6 whether leaving them overnight or taking them outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the time to take them out7 disqualifies their meat as it would their fats and organs or not.8 Therefore, as a stringency, it is considered as if they were disqualified and they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.9
Similarly, there is an unresolved doubt if half [such] an animal was taken out [including] the majority of one limb.10 Therefore, as a stringency, it is considered as if it was disqualified and it should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.
Similarly, if five people carried [such] an animal to take it outside the Temple Courtyard and three departed from [the Courtyard] and two remained, but the three removed half of the animal, [such animals] are disqualified because of the doubt and they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.11 It appears to me that in such instances,12 it is not necessary to wait until the following day. [The rationale is that] regardless [such animals] will be burnt,13 even if they are not disqualified.
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply when] meat is found in the Temple Courtyard: [Whole] limbs are [considered as parts of] burnt-offerings. Pieces [of meat] are considered as parts of sin-offerings.14 Pieces which are found in Jerusalem are considered as parts of peace-offerings.15 Everything should be left until the following day and then taken out to the place where sacrifices are burnt lest it be notar.16
[One might ask: If so,] of what benefit will it be that it be considered as [part of] a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, or a peace-offering? [To define the law for one] who transgressed and partook of it.17
Notar is burnt only during the day, as stated: "On the third day,18 [it] shall be burnt with fire."
Halacha 5
Although peace-offerings are forbidden to be eating from the beginning of the night of the third day,19 [the remainder] is only burnt during the day, whether [it is burnt] at the appropriate time or not at the appropriate time.20 Similarly, piggul is burnt only during the day.21
Burning [sacrificial meat] that is impure, notar, or piggul does not supersede [the prohibitions against forbidden labor on] festivals.22 Needless to say, it does not supersede [the prohibition against work on] the Sabbath.
It is permitted to burn [sacrificial meat] that is impure, notar, and piggul together.23
Halacha 6
When the meat of a sacrifice of the most sacred order became impure in [the Temple Courtyard], it should be burnt in [the Temple Courtyard]. When it became impure outside [the Temple Courtyard], it should be burnt outside [the Temple Courtyard].24[This applies] whether it became impure because of a primary source of ritual impurity or a derivative of ritual impurity.25
The priests never refrained from burning meat that contracted impurity from a primary source of impurity - and thus it is defined as impure to the first degree - with meat that contracted impurity from a derivative of impurity,26 even though this would increase the level of its impurity.27 For [an entity that is] of third degree impurity that touches an entity of first degree impurity is considered as of secondary impurity, as explained in [the appropriate] place.28 Moreover, even oil that became impure because it touched a person who immersed on that day,29 which is of third degree impurity is permitted to be burnt in a metal lamp30 that was touched by a person who is impure because of contact with a human corpse, in which instance, the lamp is a primary source of impurity.31 Although the oil becomes impure to the first degree when it touches the lamp, since it was already deemed impure, we are not concerned with the increase of the impurity. We are only careful that an entity that is pure will not become disqualified.
Halacha 7
Notar left over from sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness32 should be burnt by the persons bringing the sacrifice in their homes.33
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when a person] left Jerusalem and remembered that he had sacrificial meat34 in his possession. If he already passed Mt. Scopus,35 he should burn it where he is. If not36 and it is the size of an olive-sized portion, he should return and burn it in Jerusalem.37 If he is a guest who does not have a home, he should burn it before the Temple38 with wood designated for the arrangement of wood [of the altar].39
Halacha 9
All of the bones of the sacrifices that do not have marrow need not be burnt40with the exception of the bones of the Paschal sacrifice.41 We already explained42 that when a sacrifice was disqualified after it was skinned, its hide should be given to the priests43 or to the owners, in the instance of sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness. If, however, [a sacrifice] was disqualified before it was skinned, the hide is considered as the meat and it should be burnt in its entirety.44
Similarly, if a sacrifice was skinned and then it was discovered to be tereifah or it was disqualified because of an improper thought concerning time or place, since the sacrifice was not accepted, the hide should be burnt. [This applies] both to sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity and to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. If, however, a sacrifice was offered for the sake of a different intent, even though the obligation of the owners was not fulfilled, since it is acceptable,45 the hide is given to the priests or the owners, as explained [above]. When a sacrifice was skinned before the blood was cast [on the altar46 and the sacrifice was disqualified afterwards, the hide] is not disqualified.
Halacha 10
These are the entities that should be burnt:47 sacrificial meat that became impure, notar, or was disqualified, and also a meal-offering that became impure, notar, or was disqualified, a conditional guilt-offering in an instance when it became known to the transgressor that he definitely did not sin before its blood was cast [on the altar],48a sin-offering of fowl that is brought because of a doubt,49the hair of a nazirite who is ritually pure,50 and [produce that is] orlah51 or kilei hakerem.52Entities that are not fit to be burnt - e.g., liquids that are orlah or kilei hakerem - should be buried.
Halacha 11
These are the entities that should be buried: sacred animals that died, whether they were consecrated to [be offered on] the altar or for the sake of the Temple treasury - when sacred animals miscarry and discharge a fetus or a placenta, it should be buried - an ox that is stoned to death,53 a calf whose neck is broken,54 the fowl [used for the purification of] a person afflicted with tzara'at,55 the hair of a nazirite who became impure,56 a firstborn donkey [which was not redeemed],57a mixture of milk and meat,58 and ordinary animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.59
Halacha 12
When a person weaves the full length of a sit60 from the hair of a nazirite or a firstborn donkey with a weave of goatshair,61 it should be consigned to flames.62
Halacha 13
[If] any of the entities that must be buried [are burnt], it is forbidden to benefit from their ashes. It is permitted to benefit from the ashes of all of the entities that must be burnt, [even if] they are sacred, with the exception of the ashes of the outer and inner altars and the ashes of the Menorah.63
Halacha 14
None of the entities to be burnt should be buried64 and none of the entities to be buried should be burnt. [The rationale for the latter point is that] even though he is stringent by burning it, he is being lenient with regard to its ash, for the ashes of the entities that are buried are forbidden.65
Halacha 15
If a person was offering sacrifices together with [a priest] and he told him: "[The sacrifices became] piggul," or if he was involved with entities that are ritually pure with a person and he told him, "They became impure," his word is accepted.66 A Jew is not suspected of lying in such an instance.67 If, by contrast, he told him: "The sacrifices which I offered for you on this and this day became piggul" or "those pure objects became impure," [different rules apply]. If [the person is one] whom he trusts, he should rely on his word. If not, according to the letter of the law, his word [need] not be relied upon. One who wishes to be stringent68 is praiseworthy.69
Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 90) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 146) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 143) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There the Rambam states that the commandment was instituted to correct the transgression of leaving the meat past its required time. See Chapter 18, Halachah 9.
3.This is speaking about a peace-offering which may be eaten on the day it was offered and on the following day. If it was left for a third day, it must be burnt.
4.In the Temple Courtyard, but not on the altar. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3-4 which states that there are three places where sacrifices are burnt.
5.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 understood that as being a twenty-four hour period.
Leaving the sacrifice until the next day disqualifies it and requires it to be burnt. Since initially there was a doubt involved, this is the desired course of action.
6.I.e., they are burnt in the ash heap outside of Jerusalem after their fats and organs were offered on the altar's pyre.
7.I.e., before their blood is cast upon the altar.
8.The fats and the organs would definitely be disqualified in such circumstances. Zevachim 104b questions whether this would also apply with regard to the meat of a sacrifice and leaves that question unresolved.
9.Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam's decision, because the Talmud's query seems to follow the opinion of Reish Lakish (Zevachim 89b) who maintains that when the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness was removed from the Temple Courtyard before their blood was cast on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified. According to Rabbi Yochanan who maintains that in such an instance, the sacrifice is not disqualified, seemingly, these sacrifices are also not disqualified.
Rav Yosef Corcus resolves the issue, explaining that even Rabbi Yochanan maintains that the meat of those sacrifices is disqualified. Hence, there is reason to question what his opinion would be in this instance.
10.If the majority of an animal is not taken out of the Temple Courtyard, it is not disqualified. Zevachim 105a speaks about a situation where only half an animal was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, but included that half was the majority of one limb. If the remainder of that limb was considered as outside the Temple Courtyard, the majority of the animal would be considered to be outside.
11.The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on both of these instances, maintaining that the Talmudic passage which is the Rambam's source (Zevachim 104b-105a) can be interpreted differently. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's interpretation can be substantiated.
12.All three instances mentioned above.
13.I.e., they will definitely be burnt. The question is only where they will be burnt, whether in the Temple Courtyard, like sacrifices that are disqualified or outside Jerusalem, as is required for these bulls and goats. When, by contrast, a doubt arises with regard to other sacrificial animals, there is no obligation to burn them unless they are disqualified. On the contrary, burning them would be considered as degrading for sacred articles (Rav Yosef Corcus). Hence they are required to be left until the next day, so that they will definitely be disqualified.
14.Even though it is permitted to cut the meat of burnt-offerings into portions (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:19), the priests were not accustomed to doing so. Rather a burnt-offering was cut up into several large portions and then brought to the altar. Hence if the meat of an animal was cut up into smaller pieces, one could assume that it was a sin-offering (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:3)]. The meat of such offerings must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard.
It is also possible that the meat was from a guilt-offering, but sin-offerings are more common and hence, they were mentioned. The meat could also have come from a peace-offering - for such offerings are also cut up into smaller pieces - but out of respect to the stringencies associated with sin-offerings, it is considered in that category.
15.Since peace-offerings may be eaten throughout Jerusalem, we can assume that meat found there was left over from such an offering.
16.Which is forbidden to be eaten or offered on the altar. Since it is possible that the meat was left beyond its appointed time, it must be burnt as required for such meat. Nevertheless, since it is also possible that it had been sacrificed on this day, it cannot be burnt immediately. Instead, we wait until the following day when it is certainly required to be burnt and burn it at that time. For peace-offerings, it is necessary to wait two days.
17.I.e., since it is possible that the sacrificial meat had not been left for an extra day, if a person who is permitted to eat such a sacrifice partakes of it, he is not obligated to bring a guilt-offering to atone for misusing sacrificial meat.
18.Since the verse mentions the day, it must be burnt during those hours.
19.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:6.
20.I.e., even if it is discovered at night, several days after the meat should have been consumed, it should be burnt on the following day and not immediately at night.
21.The verse regarding notar serves as the basis for the ruling regarding all sacrifices that must be burnt.
22.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:10), the Rambam states the rationale: The prohibition of work on festivals is mandated by both a positive and negative commandment, while the charge to burn notar is merely a positive commandment and a positive commandment never overrides the observance of both a positive and negative commandment. See also Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 3:8.
23.Although it is forbidden to cause sacrificial meat to contract ritual impurity - and by mixing notar or piggul with impure meat, one would be doing so - since notar or piggul are already considered impure, this provision is granted (Pesachim 15b).
24.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3-4.
25.In the original, an av tumah, literally, "a father of impurity," and a v'lad tumah, literally, "the offspring of impurity." See Chapter 18, Halachah 12, for more details regarding these terms.
26.The Rambam is borrowing the wording of the Mishnah (Pesachim 1:6), even though - as he states in his Commentary to the Mishnah - the intent is "a derivative of a derivative," i.e., an entity of third degree impurity as mentioned here. Thus we are speaking about meat that touched an entity that had touched an entity that had touched a primary source of impurity. Indeed, the Kessef Mishneh and others suggest that text of the Mishneh Torah should be emended to reflect that understanding.
27.The meat becomes impure only according to Rabbinical decree. According to Scriptural Law, food does not cause other food to contract ritual impurity [Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 7:1; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].
28.See Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 4:15.
29.To emerge from most types of ritual impurity, a person must immerse in a mikveh and then wait until nightfall. Even if a person has already immersed in a mikveh, he does not regain impurity until night. Until that time, he can impart ritual impurity to certain entities (Tivul Yom 2:1).
30.But not an earthenware lamp touched by a person who became impure because of contact with a corpse, for an earthenware utensil never becomes a primary source of impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].
31.For the impurity resulting from contact with a corpse is so severe that even an entity that touches it becomes a primary source of impurity.
32.Which may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.
33.There is no necessity to bring it to the Temple and have it burnt there.
34.Meat from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem.
35.The last place from the surroundings of Jerusalem from which the Temple can be seen. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:8.
36.And thus the difficulty in returning is not so great.
37.If, however, it is smaller, it is not significant and can be burnt wherever he is.
38.The Hebrew term birah is used to refer to the entire Temple complex.
39.This provision was made lest guests refrain from burning the sacrificial meat because of a lack of wood. See also Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:3 which touches on related matters.
40.It is sufficient to merely discard them.
41.See Hilchot Pesachim 10:1-2 which explain that the bones of the Paschal sacrifice are burnt together with its meat, because according to the Rambam, the prohibition against breaking a bone from the Paschal sacrifice applies even after the mitzvah to partake of the sacrifice is concluded, it is therefore desirable to burn the bones so that the do not become a cause of transgression. The Ra'avad mentions, based on Pesachim 83a, it can be concluded that only bones that had marrow and which were cracked open and the marrow removed must be burnt. If they have no marrow at all, there is no need to burn even the bones of the Paschal sacrifice.
According to this view, the difference between the law governing the bones of the Paschal sacrifice and those of other sacrifices can be explained as follows. It is forbidden to break open the bones of the Paschal sacrifice. Therefore if the bones of a Paschal sacrifice were broken open, we can assume that this was done after the Paschal sacrifice became notar, for, according to many authorities, there is no prohibition against breaking the bones of a Paschal sacrifice once it has been disqualified. In such a situation, the bones are forbidden, because they served notar (i.e., the marrow). (See the gloss of the Mishneh LiMelech who notes that in Hilchot Korban Pesach 10:6, the Rambam writes that even in such a situation, it is forbidden to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice, and offers a possible resolution.)
With regard to other sacrifices, by contrast, there is no prohibition against breaking their bones even during the time the sacrifice is acceptable. Hence we can assume that they were broken during that time and the marrow removed. Thus there is little likelihood that they served notar and thus became forbidden. According to this understanding, if a sacrifice was notar, any bone that contains marrow should be burnt. See the gloss of the Meiri to Pesachim, loc. cit., who implies that the Rambam should have been more explicit in his statements.
42.Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:20.
43.In the instance of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity.
44.As the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:2) states: "Whenever the altar did not acquire the flesh [of a sacrifice], the owners do not acquire the hide."
45.See Chapter 15, Halachah 1.
46.This is a violation of the norms of sacrificial practice (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:18). Nevertheless, it does not disqualify a sacrifice.
47.It is forbidden to benefit from these entities. They should be burnt so that they are destroyed entirely.
48.A conditional guilt-offering is brought when a person suspects he has violated a negative commandment, but has no definite knowledge that he did so. If he receives knowledge that he is guiltless after the animal has been slaughtered, but before its blood is cast on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified. Once its blood has been cast on the altar, the sacrifice is acceptable even if the person receives definite knowledge that he is guiltless. See Chapter 4, Halachah 19.
49.See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
50.A nazirite's hair is considered "holy" and it is forbidden to be benefit from it. Therefore at the conclusion of his nazirite vow, he shaves his head and burns his hair in the Chamber of the Nazirites that was in the southeastern corner of the Women's Courtyard (Hilchot Nizirut 8:1-3).
51.Produce that grows in the first three years after the planting of a tree. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, ch. 10, and Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, ch. 10.
52.Species of grain or vegetables sown in a vineyard. See Hilchot Kilayim, ch. 5.
53.An ox - or any other animal - that killed a person. The ox is stoned to death and it is forbidden to benefit from its flesh at all (Exodus 21:29-32; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10).
54.When a wayfarer is found murdered and it is not known who killed him, a calf is brought as atonement. See Deuteronomy, ch. 21; Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 9.
55.As stated in Leviticus, ch. 14, Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at, ch. 11, when a person's whose body had been afflicted with tzara'at becomes pure, he must bring two birds as part of the purification ritual.
56.As stated in Hilchot Nizirut 6:11, when a nazirite becomes impure because of contact with a human corpse, he must have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days. He then has his hair shaved on the seventh day. This shaving need not be performed in the Temple Courtyard.
57.The firstborn male offspring of a donkey must be redeemed for a sheep. If it is not redeemed, it is executed and it is forbidden to benefit from its flesh (Exodus 13:13, Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 12).
58.Which is forbidden not only to be eaten but also to derive benefit from (Exodus 23:19; Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 9:1).
59.It is forbidden to benefit from the meat of such animals, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah 2:2.
60.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:2), the Rambam translates the term sit into Arabic. Most commentaries interpret his statements as meaning "the distance between the top of the thumb and the next finger [when the fingers are spread out]. This is one-sixth of the distance between the thumb and the middle finger." Rav Kappach notes that in fact such a calculation will not be accurate. He interprets the Rambam's words as defining a sit as half the distance between the index finger and the middle finger when spread out. This he maintains is two thumbreadths.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 13:4), the Rambam differentiates between "the width of a sit" and "the full length of a sit." As indicated by Hilchot Shabbat 9:20, "the full length of a sit" is two thumbreadths. In contrast, as stated (ibid.:7), "the width of a sit" is two thirds of a zeret, i.e., three thumbbreadths.
61.Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:3).
62.Generally, the hair of an unredeemed firstborn donkey need only be buried, as stated in the previous halachah. Nevertheless, in this instance, the cloth must be burnt lest the forbidden substance not be recognized and the cloth considered as permitted (Temurah 34a).
63.Temurah, op. cit., derives this concept from the exegesis of the statements of Leviticus 25:3 with regard to the ash of the inner altar. From those statements, a parallel is established with regard to the other ashes mentioned here.
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam and maintains that it is only forbidden to benefit from the ashes which the priest removes when taking out the ash in the morning. He maintains that the ash on the altar is permitted. The Rambam, by contrast, maintains that all of the ash of the altar is forbidden.
64.Because in all these instances, the mitzvah is that the article be burnt.
65.While the ash of entities that are to be burnt is permitted.
66.The Ra'avad states that, on the basis of Gittin 54b, both of these statements should be understood as applying while the article in question is in that person's hands. The rationale is that since he could now make the article piggul or impure, his word is accepted when he says that it was previously brought to that state.
The Kessef Mishneh states that although that is the opinion of Abbaye in Gittin, loc. cit., Ravva differs, maintaining that the law applies even when the articles in question are not in his hand. Generally, the halachah follows Ravva's opinion, but in this instance, Abbaye's view is favored.
67.For this would cause acceptable sacrifices to be burnt unnecessary articles and pure entities to be destroyed.
68.And accept the other person's statements.
69.The wording of the Talmud that the Rambam quotes, "according to the letter of the law, his word [need] not be relied upon," implies that it is desirable to go beyond the letter of the law. See the parallels in Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:1; Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 13:8.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Wednesday, Tammuz 4, 5774 • 02 July 2014
"Today's Day"
Wednesday, Tamuz 4, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Chukat, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 23-28.
Tanya: Ch.10. However, since (p. 329)..higher than our ways. (p.331).
One single chassid or student who devotes his heart, mind and soul to Torah and to bolstering Torah, effects wonders in a large city, in all that city's affairs - in a manner that transcends the natural order, by the merit of our Patriarchs, "Fathers of the World."
-------
Daily Thought:The Tzaddik
The tzaddik is at one with G‑d.
We recognize him because within each of us is also a tzaddik who is at one with G‑d.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment