Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: TUESDAY, TAMMUZ 17, 5774 • JULY 15, 2014 FAST OF TAMMUZ 17

Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: TUESDAY, TAMMUZ 17, 5774 • JULY 15, 2014 FAST OF TAMMUZ 17
TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• FAST DAY 
Tammuz 17 is a fast day, devoted to mourning the breaching of Jerusalem's walls and the other tragic events that occurred on this day (see "Today in Jewish History") and repenting and rectifying their causes. We refrain from all food and drink from "daybreak" (about an hour before sunrise, depending on location) until nightfall. Special prayers and Torah readings are added to the day's services.
Link: Halachic times for Tammuz 17
• "THE THREE WEEKS" BEGIN 
The 17th of Tammuz also marks the beginning of The Three Weeks period of mourning which culminates on the 9th of Av, commemorating the conquest of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Holy Temple and the dispersion of the Jewish people.
Weddings and other joyful events are not held during this period; like mourners, we do not cut our hair, and various pleasurable activities are limited or proscribed. (Consult the Code of Jewish Law (Shulchan Aruch) or a qualified rabbi regarding specific proscriptions).
The Lubavitcher Rebbe urged that the Three Weeks should be a time of increased giving of charity and Torah study (in keeping with the verse (Isaiah 1:27), "Zion shall be redeemed by law, and her returnees by charity"), particularly the study of those portions of Torah that deal with the laws and the deeper significance of the Holy Temple.
Links:
TheThreeWeeks.com
Some Laws and Customs of the Three Weeks
About Holy Temple
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• MOSES BREAKS TABLETS (1313 BCE) 
The Talmud (Taanit 28b) lists five tragic events in Jewish history that occurred on Tammuz 17, on account of which a fast was instituted on this day (see Laws & Customs").
The first of these occurred in 1313 BCE, forty days after the Giving of the Torah on Sivan 6. Upon descending Mount Sinai and witnessing Israel's worship of the Golden Calf (see "Today in Jewish History" for yesterday, Tammuz 16), Moses smashed the Tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments which he was carrying down from the mountain.
(for the other four tragedies of Tammuz 17, see below)
Links:
Broken & Whole
The 120-Day Version of the Human Story
Moses Breaks the Tablets
• TEMPLE SERVICE DISRUPTED (423 BCE) 
The daily sacrificial offerings (Korban Tamid) in the Holy Temple were discontinued, three weeks before the Babylonians' destruction of the First Temple in 423 BCE.
• JERUSALEM WALLS BREACHED (69 CE) 
The other three national tragedies mourned on Tammuz 17 are connected with the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and their destruction of the Second Temple in the year 69 CE:
--The walls of the besieged city of Jerusalem were breached.
--The Roman general Apostomus burned the Torah and,
--placed an idol in the Holy Temple.
The fighting in Jerusalem continued for three weeks until the 9th of Av, when the Holy Temple was set aflame.
Links:
The Destruction of the Holy Temple
The Three Weeks
DAILY QUOTE:
[We are all one] by virtue of the source of [our] souls in the One G-d; only the bodies are separated. Thus, for those who give major consideration to their bodies while regarding their souls as of secondary importance, there can be no true love and brotherhood among them, but only [a love] which is dependent on a [transitory] thing. This is what Hillel the Elder meant when he said in regard to the fulfillment of this commandment [--love of one's fellow], "This is the entire Torah; the rest is but commentary... " For the basis and root of the entire Torah is to raise and exalt the soul high above the body, reaching unto the Source and Root of all the worlds(Tanya, chapter32)
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Matot, 3rd Portion Numbers 31:13-31:24 with Rashi
• Chapter 31
13. Moses, Eleazar the kohen, and all princes of the community went out to meet them, outside the camp. יג. וַיֵּצְאוּ משֶׁה וְאֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְכָל נְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה לִקְרָאתָם אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה:
Moses, Eleazar the kohen… went out: because they saw the Israelite youths going out to grab the spoils. — [Sifrei Mattoth 42]
ויצאו משה ואלעזר הכהן: לפי שראו את נערי ישראל יוצאים לחטוף מן הבזה:
14. Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had returned from the campaign of war. יד. וַיִּקְצֹף משֶׁה עַל פְּקוּדֵי הֶחָיִל שָׂרֵי הָאֲלָפִים וְשָׂרֵי הַמֵּאוֹת הַבָּאִים מִצְּבָא הַמִּלְחָמָה:
Moses became angry with the officers of the army: Those appointed over the army. [This comes] to teach you that when a generation is corrupt, the leaders are held responsible, for they have the power to protest. — [Sifrei Mattoth 43]
ויקצף משה על פקודי החיל: ממונים על החיל, ללמדך שכל סרחון הדור תלוי בגדולים שיש כח בידם למחות:
15. Moses said to them, "Did you allow all the females to live? טו. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם משֶׁה הַחִיִּיתֶם כָּל נְקֵבָה:
16. They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Balaam's advice to betray the Lord over the incident of Peor, resulting in a plague among the congregation of the Lord. טז. הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם לִמְסָר מַעַל בַּיהֹוָה עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר וַתְּהִי הַמַּגֵּפָה בַּעֲדַת יְהֹוָה:
on Balaam’s advice: He said to them, "Even if you assemble all the multitudes of the world, you will not be able to overcome them. Are you more numerous than the Egyptians, who had six hundred chosen chariots? Come, and I will advise you. Their God hates immorality [thus, entice them to sin with your women…] as appears in [the chapter of] Cheilek (Sanh. 106a and in the Sifrei (Mattoth 43).
בדבר בלעם: אמר להם אפילו אתם מכניסים כל המונות [האומות] שבעולם אין אתם יכולים להם, שמא מרובים אתם מן המצרים שהיו שש מאות רכב בחור. בואו ואשיאכם עצה. אלהיהם של אלו שונא זמה הוא וכו', כדאיתא בחלק (סנהדרין קו א) ובספרי:
They were the same ones: This shows that they recognized them [saying,] "This is the one who led so-and-so astray. — [Sifrei Zuta, Yalkut Shimoni]
הן הנה: מגיד שהיו מכירין אותן. זו היא שנכשל פלוני בה:
17. So now kill every male child, and every woman who can lie intimately with a man you shall kill. יז. וְעַתָּה הִרְגוּ כָל זָכָר בַּטָּף וְכָל אִשָּׁה יֹדַעַת אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הֲרֹגוּ:
Every woman who can lie intimately with a man: Capable of sexual intercourse, even though she may never have experienced it. They passed them all in front of the showplate, and the faces of those capable of intercourse turned green. — [Yev. 60b]
וכל אשה יודעת איש: ראויה להבעל אף על פי שלא נבעלה. ולפני הציץ העבירום והראויה להבעל פניה מוריקות:
you shall kill: Why is this repeated? In order to make a pause in the text; so says R. Ishmael. For when I read, “kill every male child, and every woman who can lie intimately with a man… And all the young girls…” I would not know whether to kill them [the women of the first verse] with the males, or allow them to live along with the young [girls]. That is why it says [at the end of the verse] “you shall kill.” - [Sifrei Mattoth 45]
הרוגו: למה חזר ואמר, להפסיק הענין, דברי ר' ישמעאל, שאם אני קורא הרגו כל זכר בטף וכל אשה יודעת איש וכל הטף בנשים וגו' איני יודע אם להרוג עם הזכרים או להחיות עם הטף, לכך נאמר הרגו:
18. And all the young girls who have no experience of intimate relations with a man, you may keep alive for yourselves. יח. וְכֹל הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ מִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הַחֲיוּ לָכֶם:
19. And you, encamp outside the camp for seven days; whoever killed a person or who touched a corpse shall cleanse himself on the third and seventh day, both you and your captives. יט. וְאַתֶּם חֲנוּ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כֹּל הֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ וְכֹל | נֹגֵעַ בֶּחָלָל תִּתְחַטְּאוּ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי אַתֶּם וּשְׁבִיכֶם:
outside the camp: [This means] that they should not enter the courtyard [of the Mishkan].
מחוץ למחנה: שלא יכנסו לעזרה:
anyone who killed a person: R. Meir says, Scripture speaks of one who killed with a weapon susceptible to contamination, and it teaches that a vessel defiles a person when it is in contact with a corpse, as if he were actually in contact with the corpse itself. Or, I might think that [he becomes contaminated] even if he shot an arrow and killed him. Scripture therefore teaches, “or who touched a corpse,” equating the one who kills with the one who touches. Just as one who touches is [contaminated] through contact, so is the one who kills [contaminated] through contact. — [Sifrei Chukkath 48]
כל הורג נפש: ר' מאיר אומר בהורג בדבר המקבל טומאה הכתוב מדבר, ולמדך הכתוב שהכלי מטמא אדם בחבורי המת, כאלו נוגע במת עצמו, או יכול אפילו זרק בו חץ והרגו, תלמוד לומר וכל הנוגע בחלל, מקיש הורג לנוגע, מה נוגע ע"י חבורו, אף הורג ע"י חבורו:
shall cleanse himself: with sprinkling water, as is the law with others who were defiled through contact with corpses. For even those who believe that gentile graves do notcontaminate [an Israelite] if they are under the same roof-as it says, “You my sheep, the sheep of My pasture; you are men” (Ezek.. 34:31) [and the Sages add,] only you are called “men” (Yev. 61a)-admit that gentiles contaminate through contact and carrying, for [the term] “men” is said only in reference to uncleanness caused by being in the same tent [namely, under one roof] as it says,“[This is the law for a man (אָדָם) who dies in a tent” (19:14).
תתחטאו: במי נדה, כדין שאר טמאי מתים, שאף לדברי האומרים קברי גוים אינן מטמאין באהל, שנאמר (יחזקאל לד, לא) ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם, אתם קרויין אדם ואין הגוים קרויין אדם, מודה הוא שהגוים מטמאין במגע ובמשא, שלא נאמר אדם אלא אצל טומאת אהלים, שנאמר (במדבר יט, יד) אדם כי ימות באהל:
you and your captives: Not that gentiles are susceptible to contamination and therefore require sprinkling, but just as you are members of the covenant, so too your captives, should they become contaminated after they enter the covenant [of God], they require sprinkling. — [Sifrei Mattoth 46]
אתם ושביכם: לא שהנכרים מקבלין טומאה וצריכין הזאה, אלא מה אתם בני ברית, אף שביכם כשיבואו לברית ויטמאו, צריכין הזאה:
20. All garments, leather articles, any goat product, and every wooden article shall undergo purification." כ. וְכָל בֶּגֶד וְכָל כְּלִי עוֹר וְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים וְכָל כְּלִי עֵץ תִּתְחַטָּאוּ:
and any goat product: This includes articles made from the horns, the hooves, and the bones. — [Chul. 25b]
וכל מעשה עזים: להביא כלי הקרנים והטלפים והעצמות:
21. Eleazar the kohen said to the soldiers returning from battle, "This is the statute that the Lord commanded Moses. כא. וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶל אַנְשֵׁי הַצָּבָא הַבָּאִים לַמִּלְחָמָה זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
Eleazar the kohen…: Since Moses came to a state of anger, he came to err, for the laws of purging gentile vessels eluded him. A similar incident happened on the eighth day of the investitures [of the kohanim], as it says, “He [Moses] became angry with Eleazar and Ithamar” (Lev. 10: 16); he came to a state of anger, so he came to err. Similarly, in the episode of“Now listen, you rebels… and struck the rock” (20:10-11); through anger, he came to err. — [Sifrei Mattoth 48]
ויאמר אלעזר הכהן וגו': לפי שבא משה לכלל כעס בא לכלל טעות, שנתעלמו ממנו הלכות גיעולי נכרים. וכן אתה מוצא בשמיני למלואים, שנאמר (ויקרא י, טז) ויקצוף על אלעזר ועל איתמר, בא לכלל כעס, בא לכלל טעות, וכן (במדבר כ, י - יא) בשמעו נא המורים ויך את הסלע, ע"י הכעס טעה:
which the Lord commanded [Moses]: He ascribed the ruling to his mentor. — [Sifrei Mattoth 48]
אשר צוה ה' וגו': תלה ההוראה ברבו:
22. Only the gold, the silver, the copper, the iron, the tin, and the lead כב. אַךְ אֶת הַזָּהָב וְאֶת הַכָּסֶף אֶת הַנְּחשֶׁת אֶת הַבַּרְזֶל אֶת הַבְּדִיל וְאֶת הָעֹפָרֶת:
Only the gold etc.: Even though Moses warned you only about the laws of ritual uncleanness, you must further be warned of the laws concerning the purging [of contaminated vessels]. [The word] אַךְ “only” is an exclusive expression, that is to say, you are excluded from using vessels even after their purification from contamination by a corpse, until they have been purged from the absorption of the forbidden flesh of carrion. Our Rabbis said,“ Only the gold…” teaches you that one must remove its rust before one purges it. This is the meaning of אַךְ “only”-there should be no rust; “only” the metal itself in its original form. — [Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel, Yalkut Shimoni]
אך את הזהב וגו': אף על פי שלא הזהיר לכם משה אלא על הלכות טומאה, עוד יש להזהיר לכם על הלכות גיעול. ואך לשון מיעוט, כלומר ממועטין אתם מלהשתמש בכלים אפילו לאחר טהרתן מטומאת המת, עד שיטהרו מבליעת איסור נבלות. ורבותינו אמרו אך את הזהב לומר שצריך להעביר חלודה שלו קודם שיגעילנו, וזהו לשון אך, שלא יהא שם חלודה, אך המתכת יהיה כמות שהוא:
23. whatever is used in fire you shall pass through fire and then it will be clean; it must, however, [also] be cleansed with sprinkling water, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through water. כג. כָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ וְטָהֵר אַךְ בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָבֹא בָּאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בַמָּיִם:
whatever is used in fire: For cooking anything.
כל דבר אשר יבא באש: לבשל בו כלום:
shall pass through fire: It is purged in the manner it is used. If it is used in hot water, it must be purged in hot water, and if it is used for roasting, such as a spit or grill, it must be made to glow in fire. — [A.Z. 75b]
תעבירו באש: כדרך תשמישו הגעלתו, מה שתשמישו ע"י חמין, יגעילנו בחמין, ומה שתשמישו ע"י צלי, כגון השפוד והאסכלה, ילבננו באור:
it must, however, [also] be cleansed with sprinkling water: According to its simple meaning, this sprinkling was to cleanse it from contamination by a corpse. He said to them,“The vessels require purging to cleanse them from the [absorption of] forbidden [food], and sprinkling to cleanse them of [spiritual] uncleanness [caused by a corpse].” Our Rabbis expounded from here that even to make them fit for use [after contamination] from forbidden food, ritual immersion was required for metal utensils. They expound מֵי נִדָּה written here to mean water fit for a menstruant [Heb. נִדָּה] to immerse herself in. How much is that? Forty 'seah.’- [A.Z. 75b]
אך במי נדה יתחטא: לפי פשוטו חטוי זה לטהר מטומאת מת. אמר להם צריכין הכלים גיעול לטהרם מן האיסור, וחטוי לטהרן מן הטומאה. ורבותינו דרשו מכאן, שאף להכשירן מן האיסור הטעין טבילה לכלי מתכות. ומי נדה הכתובין כאן דרשו מים הראוים לטבול בהם נדה. וכמה הם, ארבעים סאה:
and whatever is not used in fire: Anything which is not used in fire such as ewers, cups, and jugs, all of which are used for cold [food] and did not absorb forbidden food. — [A.Z. 75b]
וכל אשר לא יבא באש: כל דבר שאין תשמישו ע"י האור, כגון כוסות וצלוחיות שתשמישן בצונן ולא בלעו איסור:
shall be passed through water: He immerses them and that is sufficient. This refers only to metal utensils. — [A.Z. 75b, Sifrei Mattoth 50]
תעבירו במים: מטבילן ודיו ודוקא כלי מתכות:
24. You shall wash your garments on the seventh day and become [ritually] clean; afterwards, you may enter the camp." כד. וְכִבַּסְתֶּם בִּגְדֵיכֶם בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וּטְהַרְתֶּם וְאַחַר תָּבֹאוּ אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה:
the camp: The camp of the Shechinah, for one who is defiled by the dead is not banned from the Levite camp or the Israelite camp. — [Pes. 67a]
אל המחנה: למחנה שכינה, שאין טמא מת טעון שילוח ממחנה לויה וממחנה ישראל:
-------
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 83 - 87
• Chapter 83
A prayer regarding the wars against Israel in the days of Jehoshaphat, when the nations plotted against Israel.
1. A song, a psalm by Asaph.
2. O God, do not be silent; do not be quiet and do not be still, O God.
3. For behold, Your enemies are in uproar, and those who hate You have raised their head.
4. They plot deviously against Your nation, and conspire against those sheltered by You.
5. They say, "Come, let us sever them from nationhood, and the name of Israel will be remembered no more.”
6. For they conspire with a unanimous heart, they made a covenant against You-
7. the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites,
8. Geval and Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre.
9. Assyria, too, joined with them, and became the strength of the sons of Lot, Selah.
10. Do to them as to Midian; as to Sisera and Yavin at the brook of Kishon,
11. who were destroyed at Ein Dor, and were as dung for the earth.
12. Make their nobles like Orev and Ze'ev, all their princes like Zevach and Tzalmuna,1
13. who said, "Let us inherit the dwellings of God for ourselves.”
14. My God, make them like whirling chaff, like straw before the wind.
15. As a fire consumes the forest, and a flame sets the mountains ablaze,
16. so pursue them with Your tempest and terrify them with Your storm.
17. Fill their faces with shame, and they will seek Your Name, O Lord.
18. Let them be shamed and terrified forever; let them be disgraced and perish.
19. And they will know that You, Whose Name is the Lord, are alone, Most High over all the earth.
Chapter 84
In this psalm of prayers and entreaties, the psalmist mourns bitterly over the destruction of Temple from the depths of his heart, and speaks of the many blessings that will be realized upon its restoration. Fortunate is the one who trusts it will be rebuilt, and does not despair in the face of this long exile.
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. How beloved are Your dwellings, O Lord of Hosts!
3. My soul yearns, indeed it pines, for the courtyards of the Lord; my heart and my flesh [long to] sing to the living God.
4. Even the bird has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she lays her young on the [ruins of] Your altars, O Lord of Hosts, my King and my God.
5. Fortunate are those who dwell in Your House; they will yet praise You forever.
6. Fortunate is the man whose strength is in You; the paths [to the Temple] are in his heart.
7. For those who pass through the Valley of Thorns, He places wellsprings; their guide will be cloaked in blessings.2
8. They go from strength to strength; they will appear before God in Zion.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, hear my prayer; listen, O God of Jacob, forever.
10. See our shield,3 O God, and look upon the face of Your anointed one.
11. For better one day in Your courtyards than a thousand [elsewhere]. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God, than dwell [in comfort] in the tents of wickedness.
12. For the Lord, God, is a sun and a shield; the Lord bestows favor and glory; He does not withhold goodness from those who walk in innocence.
13. O Lord of Hosts! Fortunate is the man who trusts in You.
Chapter 85
In this prayer, lamenting the long and bitter exile, the psalmist asks why this exile is longer than the previous ones, and implores God to quickly fulfill His promise to redeem us. Every individual should offer this psalm when in distress.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. O Lord, You favored Your land; You returned the captives of Jacob.
3. You forgave the iniquity of Your people, and covered all their sin forever.
4. You withdrew all Your fury, and retreated from Your fierce anger.
5. Return us, O God of our salvation, and annul Your anger toward us.
6. Will You forever be angry with us? Will You draw out Your anger over all generations?
7. Is it not true that You will revive us again, and Your people will rejoice in You?
8. Show us Your kindness, O Lord, and grant us Your deliverance.
9. I hear what the Almighty Lord will say; for He speaks peace to His nation and to His pious ones, and they will not return to folly.
10. Indeed, His deliverance is near those who fear Him, that [His] glory may dwell in the land.
11. Kindness and truth have met; righteousness and peace have kissed.
12. Truth will sprout from the earth, and righteousness will peer from heaven.
13. The Lord, too, will bestow goodness, and our land will yield its produce.
14. Righteousness shall walk before him, and he shall set his footsteps in [its] path.
Chapter 86
This psalm contains many prayers regarding David's troubles, and his enemies Doeg and Achitophel. It also includes many descriptions of God's praise. Every individual can offer this psalm when in distress.
1. A prayer by David. Lord, turn Your ear, answer me, for I am poor and needy.
2. Guard my soul, for I am pious; You, my God, deliver Your servant who trusts in You.
3. Be gracious to me, my Lord, for to You I call all day.
4. Bring joy to the soul of Your servant, for to You, my Lord, I lift my soul.
5. For You, my Lord, are good and forgiving, and exceedingly kind to all who call upon You.
6. Lord, hear my prayer and listen to the voice of my supplications.
7. On the day of my distress I call upon You, for You will answer me.
8. There is none like You among the supernal beings, my Lord, and there are no deeds like Yours.
9. All the nations that You have made will come and bow down before You, my Lord, and give honor to Your Name,
10. for You are great and perform wonders, You alone, O God.
11. Lord, teach me Your way that I may walk in Your truth; unify my heart to fear Your Name.
12. I will praise You, my Lord, my God, with all my heart, and give honor to Your Name forever.
13. For Your kindness to me has been great; You have saved my soul from the depth of the grave.
14. O God, malicious men have risen against me; a band of ruthless men has sought my soul; they are not mindful of You.
15. But You, my Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in kindness and truth.
16. Turn to me and be gracious to me; grant Your strength to Your servant, and deliver the son of Your maidservant.
17. Show me a sign of favor, that my foes may see and be shamed, because You, Lord, have given me aid and consoled me.
Chapter 87
Composed to be sung in the Holy Temple, this psalm praises the glory of Jerusalem, a city that produces many great scholars, eminent personalities, and persons of good deeds. It also speaks of the good that will occur in the Messianic era.
1. By the sons of Korach, a psalm, a song devoted to the holy mountains [of Zion and Jerusalem].
2. The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.
3. Glorious things are spoken of you, eternal city of God.
4. I will remind Rahav Egypt and Babylon concerning My beloved; Philistia and Tyre as well as Ethiopia, "This one was born there.”
5. And to Zion will be said, "This person and that was born there"; and He, the Most High, will establish it.
6. The Lord will count in the register of people, "This one was born there," Selah.
7. Singers as well as dancers [will sing your praise and say], "All my inner thoughts are of you."
-------
Tanya: Igeret HaTeshuva , end of Chapter 3
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Lesson
• Tuesday, 17 Tammuz 5774 - July 15, 2014
• Igeret HaTeshuva , end of Chapter 3
אכן מספר הצומות העודפים על רנ״ב וכהאי גוונא
However, there still remain the fasts in excess of (for example) the 252, i.e., whatever number exceeds three times the prescribed number of fasts for any particular sin,
שהיה צריך להתענות, לחוש לדעת המחמירים להתענות מספר הצומות שעל כל חטא וחטא כפי מספר הפעמים שחטא כנ״ל
that one ought to fast in deference to the more stringent opinion insisting on the appropriate number of fasts for every violation committed, as noted above.
יפדה כולן בצדקה, ערך ח״י גדולים פוליש בעד כל יום
He may redeem them all by charity to the value of eighteen “gedolim Polish” for each fast-day.
וכן שאר כל תעניות שצריך להתענות על עבירות שאין בהן מיתה
So, too, [charity may redeem] all other fasts that he should have undergone for sins not entailing death,
ואפילו על ביטול מצות עשה דאורייתא ודרבנן
and even for neglecting a positive command, whether explicit in the Torah or Rabbinically ordained,
ותלמוד תורה כנגד כולם
and for [neglect of the positive command of]1 “Torah study, which is equivalent to them all,”
כפי המספר המפורש בתיקוני התשובה מהאר״י ז"ל ורובם נזכרים במשנת חסידים במסכת התשובה
according to the number of fasts prescribed by the penances of the AriZal. (2Most of these are noted in Mishnat Chassidim, Tractate Teshuvah.)
הכל אשר לכל יפדה בצדקה כנ״ל, אי לא מצי לצעורי נפשיה כנ"ל
All of these fasts, then, he may redeem as explained above, if he cannot mortify himself, as explained above.
ואף שיעלה לסך מסויים, אין לחוש משום: אל יבזבז יותר מחומש
Though this might amount to a very considerable sum, he need not fear violating the injunction that3 “one should not extravagantly distribute more than one fifth [of one’s property to charity],”
דלא מקרי בזבוז בכהאי גוונא, מאחר שעושה לפדות נפשו מתעניות וסיגופים
for this kind of giving cannot be termed “extravagant distribution,” since he does it to redeem himself from fasting and affliction.
ולא גרעא מרפואת הגוף ושאר צרכיו
This is no less necessary than healing his body or his other needs, in which one does not restrict one’s spending to a fifth of his means.
ולפי שמספר הצומות המוזכרים בתקוני תשובה הנ״ל רבו במאד מאד
Since the number of fasts enumerated in the above-mentioned penances of the AriZal is exceedingly great,
לכן נהגו עכשיו כל החרדים לדבר ה׳ להרבות מאד מאד בצדקה
all who revere the word of G‑d are now accustomed to being unstintingly generous with charity, which is given in place of fasting,
מחמת חלישות הדור, דלא מצו לצעורי נפשם כולי האי
for the prevalent lack of stamina prevents them from mortifying themselves to this extent.
וכמו שכתוב במקום אחר על פסוק: חסדי ה׳ כי לא תמנו
(4A comment is made elsewhere on this subject on the words,5 “The kindnesses of G‑d, for they are not concluded.”)
The last three Hebrew words, here translated “for they are not concluded,” may also be interpreted to mean “for we are not perfect.” Accordingly, in Epistle 10 of Iggeret HaKodesh, the Alter Rebbe explains the verse thus: Since “we are not perfect,” burdened as we are by sins that plead for rectification, we are in need of G‑d’s infinite kindness and charity. And in order to elicit kindness and pardon of an infinite order, man for his part must exceed the conventional, finite bounds of charity.
FOOTNOTES
1. Peah 1:1.
2. Parentheses are in the original text.
3. Ketubbot 50a.
4. Parentheses are in the original text.
5. Eichah 3:22.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Tammuz 17, 5774 • July 15, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 70
The "Doubtful" Guilt Offering
"If a person sins and commits one of the commandments of G d which may not be committed, but he does not know, he is guilty, and he shall bear his transgression. He shall bring an unblemished ram from the flock, with the value for a guilt offering, to the kohen. The kohen shall then make atonement for his unintentional sin which he committed and did not know."—Leviticus 5:17-18.
One who is uncertain whether he committed a sin whose transgression would require him to bring a Sin Offering – e.g., two pieces of fat were before him, one permitted and one forbidden; he consumed one of them and the other was then lost (so as impossible to identify whether it was of the forbidden or permitted variety) – he must then bring an Asham Taluy (a "Doubtful Guilt Offering").
(If afterwards it was conclusively ascertained that he ate of the forbidden fats, he must bring a standard Sin Offering [even if has already brought his Asham].)
The "Doubtful" Guilt Offering
Positive Commandment 70
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 70th mitzvah is that we are commanded to bring a sacrifice called an asham talui, ("suspended guilt-offering") when in doubt regarding a sin [as to whether or not it has been committed. The type of sin referred to is one] which when done intentionally is punishable by kares, and when done unintentionally, one must bring a fixed sin-offering.1
An example of a doubt which would necessitate an asham talui is as follows: a person had two pieces of fat lying before him — one from the kidneys [and therefore prohibited] and the other from the heart [which is permitted]. The person ate one of them and the other was either eaten by someone else or lost. The person is now in doubt as to whether he ate the permissible piece or the prohib­ited piece. In this case, because of his doubt, he must bring a sacrifice in order to obtain atonement. This sacrifice is known as an asham talui.
If later on it became clear that he ate fat from the kidneys, we now know that he definitely committed an unintentional transgres­sion and must bring a fixed sin-offering.
The verse which speaks of this offering is G‑d's statement in the Torah portion Leviticus,2 "If a person sins by violating one of G‑d's prohibitions without knowing [for sure], he still bears respon­sibility. He must bring an unblemished ram with the prescribed value to the kohen as a guilt offering. The kohen shall then make atonement for the inadvertent sin that the person committed with­out knowing." [The phrase "without knowing"] refers to his not knowing whether he actually did or did not unintentionally perform the transgression. Our Sages3 refer to this as lo hodah.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Kerisus.4
FOOTNOTES
1.See P69.
2.5:17-18.
3.Kerisus, Ch. 1, Mishneh 2.
4.17a.
________________________________________
Rambam:
Class
• 1 Chapter: Sechirut Sechirut - Chapter 4 
Sechirut - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
When a person rents a donkey to lead it through the mountains, and instead leads it through a valley, he is not liable if it slips, even though he went against the intentions of the owners. If it is harmed due to heat, the renter is liable. If he rented it to lead it through a valley, and instead leads it through a mountain, he is liable if it slips, because one is more likely to slip in a mountain than in a valley. If it is harmed due to heat, the renter is not liable, since valleys are warmer than mountains, because there is wind blowing in the mountains. If, however, it becomes overheated due to the effort in climbing to the heights, he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, if a person rents a cow to plow on a mountain and plows with it in a valley, the renter is not liable should the cylinder of the plow break. The owner of the cow may sue the workers who did the plowing. Similarly, if the renter did not go against the owner's instructions and the cylinder of the plow broke, the owner of the cow may sue the workers. If he rented it to plow in a valley, and instead plowed on a mountain, and the cylinder of the plow breaks, the renter is liable. The renter may sue the workers.
Halacha 2
What is the ruling regarding the workers who break a plow while plowing? They must pay.
Who must pay? The one who holds the utensil while plowing." If, however, the field has several plateaus, they share the liability for the cost of the cylinder - both the person holding the guiding pole and the person holding the utensil.
Halacha 3
If a person rented a cow to thresh beans and he used it to thresh grain, he is not liable if it slips. If he rented it for grain and used it to thresh beans, he is liable, for beans cause slippage.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who rented his donkey to a colleague and told him: "Do not go with it on the way of the Pikud Ravine, where there is water, but rather on the way of the Neresh Ravine, where there is no water." The person who hired the donkey went on the way of the Pikud Ravine and the donkey died. There were no witnesses who were able to testify to which way he went, but the person himself admitted: "I went on the way of the Pikud Ravine, but there was no water, and the donkey died due to natural causes."
Our Sages ruled: "Since there are witnesses that there is always water in the Pikud Ravine, he is obligated to pay, for he deviated from the instructions of the owner. And we do not say: "Of what value would it be for him to lie," in a situation where witnesses were present.
Halacha 4
When a person rents an animal to bring 200 litra of wheat, and instead, brings 200 litra of barley, he is liable if the animal dies. For the additional volume] is more difficult to carry, and barley takes more space than wheat. The same laws apply if he hired an animal to carry grain, and instead used it to carry straw. If, by contrast, he rented an animal to carry barley and instead, brought the same weight of wheat, he is not liable if the animal dies. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
If a person rented an animal for a man to ride upon, he should not have a woman ride upon it. If he rented it for a woman to ride upon, he may have a man ride upon it. And he may have any woman ride upon it, whether she is small or large, even if she is both nursing and pregnant.
Halacha 6
The following rules apply when a person rents an animal with the intent that it carry a burden of a specific weight, and the renter added to that weight. If he added a thirtieth to the weight that he specified, and the animal died, he is liable. If it was a lesser measure, he is not liable. He must, however, pay the fee appropriate for the extra measure.
If the renter rented the animal without specifying a measure, he may load upon it the burden that is the local standard for that animal. If he added more than a thirtieth to that weight - e.g., it usually carried 30 measures and he loads it with 31 - and it dies or becomes injured, he is liable. Similarly, if a person loaded a ship with one thirtieth more than its ordinary cargo and it sank, he is liable to make restitution for its worth.
Halacha 7
When a person added one kav to the burden of a porter, and the porter was injured because of this burden, the other person is liable for his injury. For although the porter is a conscious being and feels the weight of the extra burden, he might think that it feels heavy because he is ill.
Halacha 8
When a person rents a donkey with the intent of riding upon it, he may place his garments, his flask, and his food for this journey upon it, for it is not customary for a renter to stop at each inn to purchase food. The owner of the donkey may prevent the renter from carrying with him anything more.
Similarly, the owner of the donkey may place barley and straw for the donkey's food on it for that day. The renter may prevent him from loading anything more, for it is possible for him to purchase these supplies at every inn. Therefore, if there is no place for him to purchase, he may load his food and food for his animal for the entire journey.
All of these guidelines apply when a person hires an animal without making any specifications in a place that has no known custom. If, however, there is an accepted local custom, everything follows that custom.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Shegagot Shegagot - Perek 3, Shegagot Shegagot - Perek 4, Shegagot Shegagot - Perek 5 
Shegagot - Perek 3
Halacha 1
When witnesses testify that a person violated a transgression that is punishable by a fixed sin-offering, but they did not warn him, instead, they told him: "We saw that you performed forbidden labor on the Sabbath" or "...that your partook of forbidden fat" and he replied: "I know that I did not perform that act," he is not liable for a sin-offering. The rationale is that since he would be exempt from bringing the sacrifice if he said: "I acted intentionally," when he says: "I did not eat" or "I did not perform," it is as if he said: "I did not eat inadvertently, but rather intentionally," in which instance, he is exempt from bringing the sacrifice and did not contradict the witnesses.
Halacha 2
If the alleged transgressor remained silent and did not contradict the witnesses - indeed, even if a woman told him: "You partook of forbidden fat" or "...performed forbidden labor on the Sabbath" and he remained silent - he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If one witness told him: "This is forbidden fat" and he remained silentand then he partook of it inadvertently, he must bring a sin-offering. If he warned him, he is liable for lashes, even though the essence of the testimony depends on one witness.
Halacha 3
We already explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim that a person who set aside a sin-offering for eating forbidden fat should not bring it for the desecration of the Sabbath or for partaking of blood, as implied by Leviticus 4:28 which states: "And he shall bring his sacrifice, a she-goat... for the transgression that he committed." The sacrifice must be for the sake of the particular sin; one should not offer one designated for one sin for another. If he offered it, he disqualifies it.
In addition, our Sages said that if one set aside a sin-offering for forbidden fat that he ate on the previous day, he should not bring it for fat that he eats on the present day. Nevertheless, if he brings it for that purpose, he finds atonement. Needless to say, if a father sets aside a sin-offering and dies and the son was liable for that same transgression, the son should not bring his father's sacrifice for his transgression, as explained there.
Halacha 4
When a person brings an animal as a sin-offering for two transgressions, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and be sold. Half of the proceeds should be used to bring a sin-offering for one transgression and half for a sin-offering for the second transgression.
Similarly, if two people bring one animal as a sin-offering for two transgressions, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and be sold. One should bring his sin-offering with half of the proceeds and the other should bring his sin-offering with the other half.
Halacha 5
If one brings two animals as sin-offerings for one transgression, he should sacrifice whichever one he desires. The second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and be sold. A freewill offering should be brought with the proceeds.
Halacha 6
If, however, a person brings two animals for sin-offerings for two transgressions without specifying the transgression for which each sacrifice is being brought, he should make that determination and slaughter one for one transgression and the other for the second.
Halacha 7
We already explained in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, that no sacrifices at all are accepted from an apostate who worships idols or desecrates the Sabbath in public. When a person is an apostate with regard to a particular sin, we do not accept a sin-offering for him for that sin.
What is implied? If a person was an apostate with regard to partaking of forbidden fat and then he inadvertently partook of fat and brought a sin-offering for this transgression, it is not accepted until he repents.
Even if he was an apostate with regard to partaking of forbidden fat to fulfill his desires and once he accidentally partook of forbidden fat instead of permitted fat and he brought a sacrifice in atonement, it is not accepted from him. Since he partook of the forbidden fat willfully, whether to purposefully anger God or merely to fulfill his desires, he is considered as an apostate with regard to that transgression.
If a person was an apostate with regard to partaking of forbidden fat and then he inadvertently partook of blood, we accept a sin-offering he brings for partaking of blood, as we explained.
Halacha 8
When a person committed a transgression punishable by karet inadvertently and set aside an animal as a sin-offering, and afterwards, became an apostate and then repented or he lost control of his intellectual or emotional faculties and then regained control, that animal may be brought as a sacrifice even though there was a time when it was not to be offered. The rationale is that living animals are not deemed unacceptable forever, as we explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim. Therefore that animal itself should be sacrificed. Just like if it contracted a temporary blemish and was healed, it returns to an acceptable state, so too, if the owners became disqualified and then became acceptable, it should be sacrificed.
Halacha 9
Those liable for sin-offerings and definitive guilt-offerings remain obligated to bring those offerings even after Yom Kippur passed. Those liable for tentative guilt-offerings, by contrast, are exempt after Yom Kippur passes, as indicated by Leviticus 16:30: "From all of your sins before God will you be purified." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: Any sin that only God recognizes will be granted atonement. Therefore if a person enters a situation where he is in doubt of whether he transgressed on Yom Kippur, even at nightfall, he is exempt from the obligation to bring a tentative guilt-offering, for the entire day of Yom Kippur generates atonement.
Thus we learn that a conditional guilt-offering is not brought for a situation concerning which one does not know which occurred on Yom Kippur, unless Yom Kippur will not generate atonement for that person, as will be explained.
Halacha 10
Yom Kippur, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings do not generate atonement unless one repents and believes in the atonement they grant. If, however, one rebels against them, they do not generate atonement for him.
What is implied? A person was in a state of rebellion, but brought a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, saying or thinking in his heart that these will not generate atonement. Accordingly, even though they were offered as commanded, they do not generate atonement for him. When he repents from his rebellion, he must bring another sin-offering and/or guilt-offering.
Similarly, when one is in a state of rebellion on Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur does not atone for him. Therefore if he was obligated to bring a tentative guilt-offering and Yom Kippur passed while he was in a state of rebellion, Yom Kippur does not generate atonement for him. When he repents after Yom Kippur, he is obligated to bring all the tentative guilt-offerings for which he is liable.
Halacha 11
All of the guilt-offerings required by the Torah hold back atonementwith the exception of the guilt-offering of a nazirite. A person who is in doubt whether he or she is required to bring a nazirite offering or an offering brought by one lacking atonement and a sotah who bring an offering because of doubt must bring their offerings after Yom Kippur.
Halacha 12
The following laws apply when a person is obligated to bring a sin-offering or a guilt-offering and he is being taken out of the court to be executed. If the animal to be offered had already been slaughtered, we let him tarry until the blood is cast on the altar and then he is executed. If, however, the animal to be offered has not been slaughtered, we do not let him tarry until it is offered on his behalf.
Shegagot - Perek 4
Halacha 1
When a person performs many transgressions for which one is required to bring a sin-offering in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for a sin-offering for every individual transgression. Even if he performs all the 43 transgressions that we listed in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for 43 sin-offerings.
Similarly, if a person performed one deed for which he is liable for many transgressions, he is liable for every transgression, provided all of the prohibitions involved take effect at once, the latter prohibition causes the entity to be forbidden to additional people, or the scope of the latter prohibition encompasses other entities together with the entity that was originally prohibited.
What is implied? A person who slaughters consecrated animals outside the Temple, on the Sabbath, for the sake of a false divinity is liable for three sin-offerings, one for slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple Courtyard, one for desecrating the Sabbath, and one for serving false divinities, for the three transgressions take effect at the same time.
When does the above apply? When the person serving the false divinity states that he is serving it at the conclusion of the slaughter of the animal. If, however, this was not his intent, as soon as he performed a portion of the slaughter for the sake of a false divinity, it becomes forbidden. Since he is not liable for slaughtering an animal outside the Temple Courtyard until he slits the two organs, necessary to slit for ritual slaughter or the larger portion of these two organs, when he completed the slaughter, he will have slaughtered an animal that is forbidden to be offered as a sacrifice, in which instance, he is not liable for slaughtering it outside the Temple Courtyard, as we explained.
If it was a sin-offering of fowl and half of its windpipe was cut and a person increased the slit even the slightest amount on the Sabbath for the sake of a false divinity, he is liable for three sin-offerings, for the three prohibitions take effect at the same time.
Similarly, a person who performs forbidden labor on Yom Kippur when it occurs on the Sabbath, is liable to bring two sin-offerings, because the two prohibitions take effect at the same time. Also, a person who is intimate with the wife of his brother who is alive while she is in the niddah state, he must bring three sin-offerings: one because he was intimate with a married woman and one, because she was his brother's wife;these are two prohibitions that take effect at the same time; and one, because she was in the niddah state, which is a prohibition that forbids additional entities besides the entity that was originally prohibited. Since this prohibition would apply with regard to her husband, it also applies to her brother-in-law.
In the same vein, one who sodomizes his father is liable for two sin-offerings, one because of the prohibition, Leviticus 18:7: "Do not reveal the nakedness of your father" and one because of the prohibition, ibid.:22: "Do not lie with a man." Similarly, one who sodomizes his father's brother is liable for two sin-offerings, one because it is written ibid.:14: "Do not reveal the nakedness of your father's brother" and one because of the general prohibition against sodomy.
When one sodomizes a male and has a male sodomize him in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for only one sin-offering, even though there are two bodies involved. This is derived from the prohibition: "Do not lie with a man" which makes both positions equally liable. Similarly, when one sodomizes an animal and has an animal sodomize him in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for only one sin-offering. One is deemed equally liable for either position of intimacy when engaging in relations with an animal or a male.
Halacha 2
It is possible that there be an instance where a person engages in a single act of intimacy and he is liable for eight sin-offerings.
What is implied? Jacob begat a daughter whose name was Timna from his wife Zilpa. Lavan married Timna and begat a daughter named Serach from her. Lavan does not have any daughters other than Rachel. Thus Serach is the daughter of Jacob's daughter, and his wife's sister on her father's side. These are two prohibitions that take effect at the same time. Serach married Reuven. She became forbidden to Jacob's other sons and thus became forbidden to Jacob as well, as his son's wife. If Reuven died or divorced her and Serach married Jacob's maternal brother, since she became forbidden to Jacob's other brothers through this marriage, she becomes forbidden to Jacob on another count, because she is the wife of his brother. If her husband died or divorced her and Serach married Yishmael, since she becomes forbidden to Yishmael's other brothers, a further prohibition takes effect with regard to Jacob, the prohibition against relations with the wife of his father's brother. If Yishmael died and Serach became eligible to undergo yibbum with Isaac and Isaac transgressed and performed yibbum with her even though she is forbidden to him as a secondary relation, since she became forbidden to Jacob's other paternal brothers, she also became forbidden to Jacob because she is his father's wife and because she is a married woman, for these are two prohibitions that take effect at the same time.
Now if Jacob acted inadvertently and was intimate with Serach when she was in the niddah state, during the lifetime of Isaac, her husband, and during the lifetime of Rachel, Jacob's wife, he is liable for eight sin-offerings because of his relations with her. She is his daughter's daughter, his wife's sister, his daughter-in-law, the wife of his brother, the wife of his father's brother, the wife of his father, a married woman, and in the niddah state. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
In all situations when a woman who is forbidden as a relative becomes forbidden again due a prohibition that causes the entity to be forbidden to additional people, those additional people must be alive at that time, so that she will be forbidden to them. Then, as a result, since she becomes forbidden to them, a prohibition is also added applying to this individual. If, however, they are not alive, we do not say that since, would this man have had brothers or sons, she would have been forbidden to them, hence she is forbidden to the elder person. For at present, he has neither a son, nor a brother. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
The following laws apply when a man is married to three woman and he is intimate with the mother of one of them, and she is the mother of the mother of his second wife and the mother of the father of his third wife. Even though this elderly woman is his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law, and these are three distinct prohibitions and they all took effect at the same time, he is liable for only one sin-offering. The rationale is that the Torah uses the same phrase, Leviticus 18:17: "They are close relatives; it is a depraved design" with regard to relations with a woman and her daughter, her son's daughter, and her daughter's daughter. Thus the Torah considered the three as one body. Therefore the three prohibitions are considered as one.
Halacha 5
If, however, one is intimate with his sister who is also the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, he is liable for three sin-offerings, as implied by Leviticus 20:17: "He revealed the nakedness of his sister." One might infer that he is liable for relations with his sister independently even though she is also the sister of his mother and the sister of his father.
How is such a situation possible? A man was intimate with his mother and begat two daughters with her. He was intimate with one of these daughters and begat a son. If this illegitimate child will be intimate with the other daughter, who is the sister of his illegitimate mother, who is his paternal sister, who is also the maternal sister of his father, he will be liable for three sin-offerings. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Shegagot - Perek 5
Halacha 1
When a man is intimate with a woman who is forbidden to him as an ervah many times in a single period of lapse of awareness, it is all considered as one inadvertent violation and he is liable only for one sin-offering. Even though there were many times between each experience of intimacy, since he did not become aware in the interim, and she is only one person, he is only liable once.
If, by contrast, one inadvertently engaged in relations with her, the transgression became known to him afterwards, and then he inadvertently engaged in relations with that same woman, the transgression became known to him afterwards, and then he inadvertently engaged in relations with that same woman again, he is liable for a sin-offering for every time he engaged in relations. For his awareness separates between the inadvertent transgressions.
Halacha 2
When a man engages in relation with a woman forbidden as an ervah many times in one ongoing state of lapsed awareness, but the woman with whom he engaged in relations became aware of the transgression between each experience of intimacy, thus from her perspective, the relations involved several lapses of awareness, he brings one sin-offering and she brings a sin-offering for every time they engaged in relations.
If he had knowledge of the transgressions in the interim and she act in one ongoing state of lapsed awareness, he brings many sin-offerings and she brings one sin-offering.
Halacha 3
When a man engages in relations with many women forbidden to him as ariyos in one ongoing state of lapsed awareness, he is liable for a sin-offering for every one of them. This applies even if they are all forbidden because of the same prohibition, because they are separate persons.
What is implied? A man was intimate with five women in the niddah state, he was intimate with five of his sisters or five of his daughters in one ongoing state of lapsed awareness, he is liable for a sin-offering for every person.
From this ruling, we learned the following interpretation of our Sages' statement that a person who sodomized a male and was sodomized by a male in one state of lapsed awareness is liable for only one sin-offering. When does this apply? When the same male was involved. If, however, there were two other males involved, whether he sodomized both or sodomized one and one sodomized him, he is liable for each person. The same laws also apply when one sodomizes an animal and has an animal sodomize him.
Halacha 4
When a women has many animals engage in relations with her in one period of lapsed awareness, she is liable for a sin-offering for every animal, for there are different bodies involved. It is like engaging in relations with many men in period of lapsed awareness in which instance, she is liable for a sin-offering for every man with whom she was intimate.
Halacha 5
When a woman's husband went overseas and she heard that he died or witnesses came and testified that he died and she married, whether on her own initiative or according to the counsel of the court, and then she discovered that her first husband is alive, she is liable only for one sin-offering. If she married many men or was promiscuous with many men, she is liable for a sin-offering for every man with whom she was intimate, for they are different persons even though she acted in one state of lapsed awareness.
The following rules applies when a man was intimate with a woman in the niddah state inadvertently, then she became purified from her niddah state, immersed herself, then became a niddah again and they were intimate a second time in the same period of lapsed awareness. He is liable for a sin-offering for every span of time in which she is in the niddah state, even though it is in one state of lapsed awareness and only one person is involved. The rationale is that one span of time in which she is in the niddah state is distinct from another span of time in which she is in the niddah state. It is as if he was intimate with two different women in the niddah state.
Halacha 6
When a man is intimate with his wife at a time when she is not expected to menstruate and she menstruates in the midst of relations, they are exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This is considered as a situation beyond their control and not an inadvertent transgression. For with regard to an inadvertent transgression, the transgressor carries a certain amount of culpability, for he should have checked and been careful. Had he examined the matter thoroughly and been careful in asking questions, he would not have transgressed. Since he did not take the trouble to examine and research the matter before acting, he requires atonement. In this situation, however, what should the person have done? She was pure and they were intimate at a time when menstruation was not expected. This is considered as a matter beyond their control. Therefore, whether the blood was found on her inspection cloth or his, they are exempt.
If, however, the man transgressed and was intimate with her close to the time when she could have been expected to menstruate, thinking that they could be intimate and separate before she would menstruate, and instead, she menstruated in the midst of relations, they are liable to bring a sin-offering, for this is an inadvertent transgression. Therefore, if blood is found on his inspection cloth, they are both impure and are obligated to bring a sacrifice. Slightly more lenient rules apply if blood was found on her examination cloth. If she cleaned herself immediately after separating from her husband, without waiting, they are both impure and are obligated to bring a sacrifice. If, however, she waited long enough so that she could have stretched her hand under the pillow or under the bolster and take an inspection cloth to examine herself and afterwards, she cleaned herself, they are both are considered to have contracted impurity of doubtful status and are exempt from bringing a sacrifice. If she waited long enough so that she could have descended from the bed and washedand afterwards, she cleaned herself and discovered blood, her husband is pure.
Halacha 7
When a man transgressed and was intimate with his wife close to the time when she could have been expected to menstruate with the intent that he would complete relations before she began to menstruate and the woman felt that she became impure in the midst of relations and informed her husband of this, he should not withdraw while erect, as we explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah. If he did not know that it is forbidden for him to withdraw immediately and he withdrew while erect, he is liable for two sin-offerings: one for entering, for he was intimate with a niddah, and one, for withdrawing, since withdrawing also afforded him pleasure, as entering did.
When does the above apply? When he knew that it was forbidden to be intimate close to the time when she could have been expected to menstruate, but had the intent that he would complete relations before she began to menstruate and did not know that it is forbidden to withdraw while erect. Thus it is as if he has two lapses of awareness regarding two experiences of intimacy. If, however, he did not know that it was forbidden to be intimate close to the time when she could have been expected to menstruate and did not know that it is forbidden to withdraw from an impure woman immediately, he is liable for only one sin-offering even when he withdrew immediately, while erect. The rationale is that his entry and his withdrawal are considered as two experiences of intimacy performed during one lapse of awareness.
The same principle applies with regard to other forbidden sexual relations. If one inadvertently was intimate with a woman under the conception that she was permitted and, while in the midst of intimacy, he became aware that she was forbidden, he should not withdraw immediately, for withdrawing also affords him pleasure, as entering does. If he does not know that it is forbidden to separate immediately and separates while he is erect, he is only liable for one sin-offering, for the act is considered as one inadvertent transgression.
-------
Hayom Yom:
•Tuesday, Tammuz 17, 5774 • 15 July 2014
"Today's Day"
Tuesday, Tamuz 17, 5703
Fast Day. S'lichot (p. 362). Avinu Malkeinu (p. 277).
Torah lessons: Chumash: Pinchas, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 83-87.
Tanya: There still (p. 353) ...are not concluded."). (p. 355).
The difference between the first tablets (of the Ten Commandments) and the second:
In the tablets proper: The first were the "work of G-d"1 but the second, "hew for yourself."2
In the script: According to the sages in Eiruvin 54a, only the first ones had (the spiritual quality described by the words)3 "engraved on the tablets."
In the spiritual standing of the people Israel: When the first were given, they were tzadikim, for as they stood at Mt. Sinai "their defilement came to an end." But at the second tablets they were baalei teshuva, repentants.
In the spiritual standing of Moshe: When the Torah was given, Moshe received one thousand "lights" as a gift; with the sin of the Golden Calf these were taken from him and were not restored with the second tablets (except on Shabbat, as stated in P'ri Eitz Chaim).
The second tablets, however, did have this superior quality: That they were given along with halachot (laws), midrash and aggadot, etc., a "double gift of Torah-wisdom,"4 as explained in Nedarim 22b. Also, at the second, Moshe's face shone with rays of light.
FOOTNOTES
1. Sh'mot 32:17.
2. Ibid. 34:1.
3. Viz. Rashi on Eiruvin 54a: Had the first tablets not been broken, the Torah would have remained forever engraved in Israel's heart, and would never have been forgotten. This immense "spiritual quality" was absent from the second tablets, although they too were engraved in a Divine, miraculous manner. See Likutei Sichot Vol. 14, p. 31 et seq., and footnote 11 ibid.
4. Iyov 11:6 according to Metzudat Tziyon. Midrash Sh'mot Raba, Ch. 46 (beg.). Viz Likutei Sichot Vol. 9, p. 248, and footnotes there.
-------
Daily Thought:
Tied to the Source
There are places you cannot go on your own accord.
To enter into the depths and stay connected above, to enwrap within darkness and be there a source of light, to take on this mission and return in peace is possible only if you are tied and bonded with a tzaddik.
You must be sent there by someone for whom this cavern does not exist; someone for whom the darkness is already light.(Maamar Padah B’Shalom 5726.)
-------