Today in Jewish History:
• Jewish Books Spared from Destruction (1510)
In 1509, Emperor Maximilian of Germany ordered that all Jewish books in the cities of Cologne and Frankfurt am Main be destroyed. This followed the request of Pfefferkorn, a baptized Jew, who claimed that Jewish literature was insulting to Christianity. The Jews appealed to the Emperor to reconsider this edict, and Maximilian agreed to investigate the matter. He appointed Johann Reuchlin, a famed German scholar, to conduct the investigation. The report issued by Reuchlin was very positive. He demonstrated that the books openly insulting to Christianity were very few and viewed as worthless by most Jews themselves. The other books were needed for Jewish worship, and contained much value in the areas of theology and science.
The Emperor rescinded his edict on the 14th of Sivan, 1510.
Daily Quote:
The daily prayers were instituted in place of the daily sacrifices in the Holy Temple[Talmud, Berachot 26b]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Behaalotecha, 2nd Portion Numbers 8:15-8:26 with Rashi
• Chapter 8
15Following this, the Levites shall come to serve in the Tent of Meeting. You shall cleanse them and lift them as a waving. טווְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יָבֹאוּ הַלְוִיִּם לַעֲבֹד אֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְטִהַרְתָּ אֹתָם וְהֵנַפְתָּ אֹתָם תְּנוּפָה:
16For they are wholly given over to Me from among the children of Israel; instead of those that open the womb all the firstborn of Israel I have taken them for Myself. טזכִּי נְתֻנִים נְתֻנִים הֵמָּה לִי מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תַּחַת פִּטְרַת כָּל רֶחֶם בְּכוֹר כֹּל מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָקַחְתִּי אֹתָם לִי:
wholly given over: Hebrew נְתֻנִים נְתֻנִים, [the double expression denoting] given over for [the service of] carrying and given over for the singing [in the Temple]. - [Midrash Aggadah] נתנים נתנים: נתונים למשא נתונים לשיר:
that open: פִּטְרַת, the opening of. פטרת: פתיחת:
17For all the firstborn among the children of Israel are Mine whether man or beast since the day I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt; I have sanctified them for Myself. יזכִּי לִי כָל בְּכוֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה בְּיוֹם הַכֹּתִי כָל בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי אֹתָם לִי:
For all the firstborn… are Mine: The firstborn are Mine by right, for I protected them among the Egyptian firstborn, and I took them for Myself-until they erred through the golden calf; so now “ I have taken the Levites” (verse 18). כי לי כל בכור: שלי היו הבכורות בקו הדין, שהגנתי עליהם בין בכורי מצרים ולקחתי אותם לי עד שטעו בעגל, ועכשיו ואקח את הלוים:
18And I have taken the Levites instead of all the firstborn of the children of Israel. יחוָאֶקַּח אֶת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת כָּל בְּכוֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
19I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his sons from among the children of Israel, to perform the service for the children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting and to atone on behalf of the children of Israel, so that the children of Israel will not be inflicted with plague when they approach the Sanctuary. יטוָאֶתְּנָה אֶת הַלְוִיִּם נְתֻנִים | לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּלְכַפֵּר עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶגֶף בְּגֶשֶׁת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ:
I have given…: “The children of Israel” is mentioned five times in this verse, thus declaring the affection [God has] for them, for their mention is repeated in one verse as many times as the five books of the Torah. I saw this in Gen. Rabbah [3:5]. [Note that this is not found in Gen. Rabbah, but in Lev. Rabbah 2:4] ואתנה וגו': חמשה פעמים נאמר בני ישראל במקרא זה, להודיע חבתן שנכפלו אזכרותיהן במקרא אחד כמנין חמשה חומשי תורה, וכך ראיתי בבראשית רבה:
so that the children of Israel will not be inflicted with plague: So that there will be no need for them to approach the holy [Sanctuary], for if they do approach, there will be a plague. ולא יהיה בבני ישראל נגף: שלא יצטרכו לגשת אל הקדש, שאם יגשו יהיה נגף:
20So Moses, Aaron, and the entire congregation of Israel did [this] to the Levites; the children of Israel did [in accordance with] all that the Lord had instructed Moses regarding the Levites. כוַיַּעַשׂ משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן וְכָל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לַלְוִיִּם כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה לַלְוִיִּם כֵּן עָשׂוּ לָהֶם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
So Moses, Aaron and all the congregation: Moses presented them, Aaron lifted them up, and the Israelites rested their hands [on them]. ויעש משה ואהרן וכל עדת וגו': משה העמידן ואהרן הניפן וישראל סמכו את ידיהם:
21The Levites cleansed themselves and washed their clothes. Then Aaron lifted them as a waving before the Lord, and Aaron atoned for them to cleanse them. כאוַיִּתְחַטְּאוּ הַלְוִיִּם וַיְכַבְּסוּ בִּגְדֵיהֶם וַיָּנֶף אַהֲרֹן אֹתָם תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה וַיְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיהֶם אַהֲרֹן לְטַהֲרָם:
22After that, the Levites came to perform the service in the Tent of Meeting before Aaron and before his sons; they did to them just as the Lord had commanded Moses regarding the Levites. כבוְאַחֲרֵי כֵן בָּאוּ הַלְוִיִּם לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדָתָם בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לִפְנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְלִפְנֵי בָנָיו כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה עַל הַלְוִיִּם כֵּן עָשׂוּ לָהֶם:
they did to them just as the Lord commanded Moses: [This is written] to extol those who performed [this rite] and those upon whom it was performed, [for] none of them objected. כאשר צוה ה' וגו' כן עשו: להגיד שבח העושין והנעשה בהן, שאחד מהן לא עכב:
23The Lord spoke to Moses saying: כגוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
24This is [the rule] concerning the Levites: From the age of twenty five years and upwards, he shall enter the service to work in the Tent of Meeting. כדזֹאת אֲשֶׁר לַלְוִיִּם מִבֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה יָבוֹא לִצְבֹא צָבָא בַּעֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
This is the rule concerning the Levites: Age disqualifies them, but physical blemishes do not disqualify them. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:10, Chul. 24a] זאת אשר ללוים: שנים פוסלים בהם, ואין המומים פוסלים בהם:
From the age of twenty-five years: Elsewhere (4:3) it says, “From the age of thirty.” How can this be reconciled? However, from the age of twenty-five they came to study the laws of the service; they would study for five years, and at the age of thirty they would [begin] work. From here we learn that a student who does not experience success in his learning for five years, will never experience it. — [Chul. 24a] מבן חמש ועשרים: ובמקום אחר אומר (במדבר ד, ג) מבן שלשים שנה, הא כיצד, מבן כ"ה בא ללמוד הלכות עבודה ולומד חמש שנים, ובן שלשים עובד, מכאן לתלמיד שלא ראה סימן יפה במשנתו בחמש שנים, ששוב אינו רואה:
25From the age of fifty he shall retire from the work legion, and do no more work. כהוּמִבֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה יָשׁוּב מִצְּבָא הָעֲבֹדָה וְלֹא יַעֲבֹד עוֹד:
and do no more work: [I.e.,] the work of carrying on the shoulders; however, he can return to [the work of] locking the gates, singing, and loading the wagons. This is the meaning of“He shall minister with his brethren (אֶתאֶחָיו)” [in the next verse]-with his brethren, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders (עִם אֲחוֹהִי). ולא יעבוד עוד: עבודת משא בכתף, אבל חוזר הוא לנעילת שערים ולשיר ולטעון עגלות, וזהו ושרת את אחיו עם אחוהי, כתרגומו:
26He shall minister with his brethren in the Tent of Meeting to keep the charge, but he shall not perform the service; thus shall you do for the Levites regarding their charge. כווְשֵׁרֵת אֶת אֶחָיו בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לִשְׁמֹר מִשְׁמֶרֶת וַעֲבֹדָה לֹא יַעֲבֹד כָּכָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לַלְוִיִּם בְּמִשְׁמְרֹתָם:
to keep the charge: To camp around the Tent and to assemble and dismantle [it] at the time of the travels. לשמר משמרת: לחנות סביב לאהל, ולהקים ולהוריד בשעת המסעות:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 72 - 76
• Chapter 72
David composed this psalm for Solomon, praying that he be granted the wisdom to provide justice for the poor.
1. For Solomon. O God, impart Your justice to the king, and Your righteousness to the son of the king.
2. May he judge Your people with righteousness, Your poor with justice.
3. May the mountains bear peace to the nation, also the hills, in [reward for their] righteousness.
4. May he judge the nation's poor, save the children of the destitute, and crush the oppressor,
5. so that they will fear You as long as the sun [shines] and the moon endures, generation after generation.
6. May [his words] descend like rain upon cut grass, like raindrops that water the earth.
7. In his days may the righteous flourish, with much peace until the moon is no more.
8. And may he rule from sea to sea, and from the river until the ends of the earth.
9. May nobles kneel before him, and may his enemies lick the dust.
10. The kings of Tarshish and the islands will return tribute, the kings of Sheba and Seba will offer gifts.
11. All kings will bow to him, all nations will serve him;
12. for he rescues the needy one who cries out, the poor one who has no one to help him.
13. He pities the impoverished and needy, and saves the souls of the destitute.
14. He redeems their soul from deception and violence, and their blood is precious in his eyes.
15. He revives [the poor], and gives him of the gold of Sheba; and so [the poor] pray for him always, and bless him all day.
16. May there be abundant grain in the land, upon the mountaintops; may its fruit rustle like the [cedars of] Lebanon, and may [people] blossom from the city like the grass of the earth.
17. May his name endure forever; may his name be magnified as long as the sun [shines]. And all nations will bless themselves by him, they will praise him.
18. Blessed is the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who alone performs wonders.
19. Blessed is His glorious Name forever, and may the whole earth be filled with His glory, Amen and Amen.
20. The prayers of David, son of Jesse, are concluded
1
Chapter 73
This psalm addresses the question of why the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper, and prays for an end to our long exile. Read, and you will find repose for your soul.
1. A psalm by Asaph. Truly God is good to Israel, to the pure of heart.
2. But as for me, my feet nearly strayed; in an instant my steps would have been swept aside.
3. For I envied the revelers when I saw the tranquility of the wicked.
4. For there are no bonds1 to their death, and their health is sound.
5. They have no part in the toil of men, nor are they afflicted like other mortals;
6. therefore they wear pride as a necklace; their bodies are enwrapped in violence.
7. Their eyes bulge from fat; they surpassed the fantasies of their heart.
8. They consume [others], and talk wickedly of oppression-from on high do they speak.
9. They set their mouths against Heaven, while their tongues walk upon the earth.
10. Therefore His people return here,2 and suck the full [cup of bitter] waters.
11. And they say, "How can it be that God knows? Is there knowledge in the Most High?”
12. Behold these are the wicked, and they are ever tranquil, they have gained much wealth.
13. Surely in vain have I purified my heart, and washed my hands in cleanliness;
14. for I was afflicted all day, and my rebuke came each morning.
15. Were I to say, "I shall tell it like it is," behold I would turn the generation of Your children to rebels.
16. And when I pondered to understand this, it was unjust in my eyes;
17. until I came to the sanctuaries of God, and perceived their end.
18. Only on slippery places do You set them, You cast them into darkness.
19. How they have become desolate in an instant! They came to an end, they were consumed by terrors,
20. like a dream upon awakening. O my Lord, disgrace their image in the city.
21. When my heart was in ferment, and my mind was sharpened,
22. I was a boor and did not understand, like an animal was I with You.
23. Yet I was always with You; You held my right hand.
24. Guide me with Your counsel, and afterward, receive me with honor.
25. Whom do I have in heaven [besides You]? And when I am with You I desire nothing on earth.
26. My flesh and my heart yearn; God is the rock of my heart and my portion forever.
27. For behold, all those who are far from You perish, You cut down all who stray from You.
28. But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have put my trust in my Lord, God, that I may recount all Your works.
Chapter 74
The psalmist mourns and weeps over all the synagogues and study halls that have been burned: the Philistines destroyed the Tabernacle of Shiloh; Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the first Temple. We have been in exile for so long, without seeing any signs of redemption! When will the redemption come? Read, and you will find lamentation and consolation.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Why, O God, have You abandoned us forever, does Your wrath fume against the sheep of Your pasture?
2. Remember Your congregation which You acquired long ago, the tribe of Your inheritance whom You redeemed [and brought to] Mount Zion, where You rested Your Presence.
3. Lift Your steps to inflict eternal ruin, because of all the evil done by the enemy in the Sanctuary.
4. Your foes roared in the midst of Your meeting place; they considered their omens to be [genuine] signs.
5. The axes in the thicket of trees2 were reckoned as bringing [an offering] to the Above.
6. And now, all her ornaments together are smashed by hammer and hatchet.
7. They set Your Sanctuary on fire; they desecrated the Abode of Your Name to the ground.
8. Their rulers thought together in their hearts; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land.
9. We have not seen our signs; there is no longer a prophet, and there is none among us who knows how long.
10. How long, O God, will the adversary disgrace, will the enemy blaspheme Your Name forever!
11. Why do You withdraw Your hand, even Your right hand? Cast it out from within Your bosom!
12. For God is my King from long ago, working salvations in the midst of the earth.
13. In Your might, You divided the sea; You shattered the heads of the sea-monsters on the waters.
14. You crushed the heads of the Leviathan,3 leaving him as food for the nation [wandering in] the wilderness.
15. You split [the rock, bringing forth] fountain and brook; You dried up mighty streams.
16. Yours is the day, the night is also Yours; You established the moon and the sun.
17. You set all the boundaries of the earth; summer and winter-You created them.
18. Remember this, how the enemy reviled the Lord, and the vile nation blasphemed Your Name.
19. Do not give the soul of Your turtledove to the wild beast; do not forget the life of Your poor forever.
20. Look to the covenant, for the dark places of the earth are filled with dens of violence.
21. Do not turn back the oppressed in disgrace; [then] the poor and needy will praise Your Name.
22. Arise, O God, champion Your cause; remember Your insults from the perverse all day long.
23. Forget not the voice of Your adversaries; the tumult of Your opponents ascends always.
Chapter 75
How great is Israel! During their holidays they do not engage in frivolity, but in song and praise, and the study of the holiday's laws. Also, when they proclaimed (at the giving of the Torah), "We will do and we will hear!" they allowed the world to remain in existence. This psalm also admonishes those who indulge in worldly pleasures and attribute their prosperity to their own efforts.
1. For the Conductor, a plea not to be destroyed. A psalm by Asaph, a song.
2. We gave thanks to You, O God, we gave thanks; and Your Name was near [when] they1 told of Your wonders.
3. When I choose the appointed time, I will judge with fairness.
4. When the earth and all its inhabitants were melting, I established its pillars forever.
5. I said to the perverse, "Do not pervert [Israel]," and to the wicked, "Do not raise your pride.”
6. Do not raise your pride heavenward, nor speak with an arrogant neck
7. For not from the east or the west, nor from the desert does greatness come.
8. For God is Judge; He humbles one, and elevates the other.
9. For there is a cup [of punishment] in the hand of the Lord, with strong wine of full mixture; He pours from this, and all the wicked of the earth will drink, draining even its dregs.
10. But as for me, I will tell of it forever; I will sing to the God of Jacob.
11. I will cut off all glory of the wicked, but the glory of the righteous will be raised up.
Chapter 76
This psalm contains the prophecy of when the vast army of Sennacherib was seized with a deep slumber that rendered the hands of the soldiers powerless to raise their weapons; thus did they all fall in battle.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a psalm by Asaph, a song.
2. God is known in Judah, His Name is great in Israel.
3. His Tabernacle was in Shalem,1 and His dwelling place in Zion.
4. There He broke the flying arrows of the bow, the shield, the sword and battle-forever.
5. You are illumination, mightier than the mountains of prey.
6. The stout-hearted were without sense, they slept their sleep, and all the warriors were unable to find their strength.
7. At Your rebuke, O God of Jacob, chariot and horse were stunned.
8. You, awesome are You! Who can stand before You once You are enraged.
9. From heaven You let the verdict be heard; the earth feared and was still,
10. when God rose to pass judgement, to save all the humble of the earth forever.
11. The anger of man will cause us to thank You;2 You will restrain the residue of wrath.
12. Make vows to the Lord your God and fulfill them; all who surround Him will bring tribute to the Awesome One.
13. He cuts down the spirit of nobles; He is awesome to the kings of the earth.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 4• Lessons in Tanya
• Monday, Sivan 14, 5775 · June 1, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 4
(והנה בחינת הצמצום והסתר החיות נקרא בשם כלים, והחיות עצמו נקרא בשם אור
1(The tzimtzum and concealing of the life-force is called in kabbalistic terminologykelim (“vessels”), and the life-force itself is called or (“light”),2 which signifies revelation.
שכמו שהכלי מכסה על מה שבתוכו, כך בחינת הצמצום מכסה ומסתיר האור והחיות השופע
For just as a vessel covers that which is within it, so does the tzimtzum cover and conceal the light and the life-force that flows into created beings, and thistzimtzum makes it impossible for them to perceive the G‑dliness that is vested within them.
והכלים הן הן האותיות
The kelim are verily the letters of the Ten Divine Utterances (or their substitutions and transpositions, etc.) which are the life-force of created beings,
ששרשן ה׳ אותיות מנצפ״ך
and [all these letters] are rooted in the five letters3 מנצפ״ך
It is explained in the Kabbalah that these are the source of all letters, —
שהן ה׳ גבורות המחלקות ומפרידות ההבל והקול בה׳ מוצאות הפה, להתהוות כ״ב אותיות
since they represent five degrees of Gevurah i.e., five restraining forces that divide and separate the breath and voice in the five organs of speech, thus enabling the twenty-two letters to be formed.
Just as the five physical organs of speech divide sounds and letters into five separate categories (labial, guttural, etc.), so too do the five spiritual levels of Gevurah give rise to the twenty-two supernal letters.
ושרש הה׳ גבורות הוא בוצינא דקרדוניתא
The source of the five levels of Gevurah is termed in the Kabbalah Butzina deKardunita, which is Aramaic for (lit.) “light out of darkness,” signifying a level of concealment that transcends light.
שהיא גבורה עילאה דעתיק יומין
This is the supernal Gevurah of Atik Yomin, the spiritual level of Keter that transcends all Worlds, including Atzilut;
ושרש החסדים הוא גם כן חסד דעתיק יומין
and, correspondingly, the source of [the various levels of Divine] kindness isChesed of Atik Yomin,
כידוע ליודעי ח״ן)
as is known to those well versed in the Esoteric Wisdom,)4 i.e., the Kabbalah.
Since the tzimtzum and the letters (on the one hand) and the revelation of the Divine light and life-force (on the other hand) both emanate from the level of Atik Yomin, it follows that thetzimtzum does not effect an objective concealment, as viewed from their common source Above. For, as previously explained, “No entity can conceal itself from itself.”
Thus, tzimtzum affects and is only felt by created beings, who because of this concealment are unable to perceive the Divine life-force that continuously creates them. This is necessary in order for them to think of themselves as independently existing — a state which must be felt by them if they are to “tangibly exist.”
In truth, however, they are utterly nullified within their source Above.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | The parenthesis is in the original text. |
| 2. | The Sefirot are comprised of both “lights” and “vessels”, which are, respectively, the infinite and the finite aspects of the Sefirot. The function of the “lights” is to reveal; the function of the “vessels” is to conceal, i.e., to allow “light” to be revealed in proportion to the capacity of the finite beings. |
| 3. | These five letters have two alternative forms, one of which is used (e.g., ך instead of כ) when it terminates a word. Since their use in this way restricts the appearance of any other further letters, it is an act of limitation, and hence an expression of the attribute of Gevurah. |
| 4. | The closing parenthesis is missing in many editions of Tanya. See the commentary of the Rebbe, which appears below, following ch. 5. |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Monday, Sivan 14, 5775 · June 1, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 132
Rejected Sacrificial Meat ("Pigul")
"...shall not eat of them, because they are holy"—Exodus 29:33.
It is forbidden to eat the flesh of a sacrifice that was "damaged" through an invalid thought on the part of the priest who was offering it—i.e. if the priest had in mind that the sacrifice would be consumed after the time limit for eating the sacrifice has elapsed, or if he had in mind to offer the parts of the sacrifice designated to be burnt on the altar after the proper time to do so.
Sacrificial Meat ("Pigul")
Negative Commandment 132
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 132nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating pigul. Pigul is a sacrifice which becomes invalid because of an improper thought at the time of its slaughter or offering.1 As we explained and clarified in [the Commentary on the Mishneh] chapter 2 of Zevachim, this means that the one who performs the sacrifice had in mind that it will be eaten after the proper time or that the parts which need to be burned will be burned after the proper time.
The source of the prohibition of eating pigul is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not eat them, because they are holy," as we explained in the previous commandment.3 The punishment is derived from the verse4 in the Torah portion Tzav es Aharon regarding pigul, "If he eats from the offering on the third day, [the sacrifice] will not be accepted. It will be pigul and it will not be counted in his favor. Any person who eats it will bear his guilt."
The Oral Tradition explains that the verse refers to an offering which became invalid because of [improper] thought at the time of the offering, and this is what is called pigul; and that the phrase, "if he eats," refers only to one who had in mind that it will eaten on the third day. Our Sages say,5 "Pay attention and listen: this verse refers to one who thinks about his offering that it will be eaten on the third day." The offering becomes invalidated as a result of this thought, and one who eats from it after there was such a thought is punished by kares, as the verse says,6 "Any person who eats it will bear his guilt." [We know that this refers to kares] as it is written regarding nosar,7 "One who eats them8 shall bear his guilt [...This person shall be cut off (spiritually) from his people]." Our Sages say in tractate Kerisus9 "Don't treat a gezeira shava10 lightly, for pigul is one of the essential laws of Torah, and it is taught solely through a gezeira shava: comparing the word 'guilt' with the word 'guilt' used regarding nosar. Here it is written,11 'Any person who eats it will bear his guilt,' and there it is written,12 'One who eats them shall bear his guilt.' Just as there it refers to kares, so too here it refers to kares."
One who eats pigul accidentally must bring a sin offering.
The details of pigul and nosar have been explained in different places in Seder Kodshim.
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. when receiving the blood in a vessel, bringing it to the altar, or sprinkling it on the altar. Hilchos P'sulei HaMukdashin, 13:4.
2.Ex. 29:33.
3.N131.
4.Lev. 7:18.
5.Zevachim 29a.
6.Lev. 7:18.
7.Ibid., 19:8.
8.See N131.
9.5a.
10.One of the 13 methods of deriving laws; when Scripture uses the same expression for two different laws. This is only valid when there is an unbroken Oral Tradition from Mt. Sinai for this comparison.
11.Lev. 7:18.
12.Ibid., 19:8
Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Three
Halacha 1
How many shofar blasts is a person required to hear on Rosh Hashanah? Nine.
[This figure is derived as follows]: The Torah mentions the word תרועה [sounding the shofar] three times in association with Rosh Hashanah and theYovel. Every תרועה must be preceded and followed by a [single] long blast. According to the oral tradition, we learned that - whether on Rosh Hashanah or on Yom Kippur of the Yovel - all the soundings of the shofar of the seventh month are a single entity.
Thus, nine shofar blasts must be sounded on both of them: teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah; teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah; teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah.
Commentary Halacha
How many shofar blasts is a person required to hear on Rosh Hashanah -according to Torah law?
Nine. - However, as explained throughout the chapter, the Sages have required us to hear many more.
[This figure is derived - See Rosh Hashanah 33b.
as follows]: The Torah mentions the word תרועה [sounding the shofar] three times - Teru'ah is also mentioned in relation to sounding the trumpets (Numbers, Chapter 10), but that is not relevant in this immediate context.
in association with Rosh Hashanah - twice: Leviticus 23:24 and Numbers 29:1.
and the Yovel. - once: Leviticus 25:9.
Every תרועה must be preceded and followed by a [single] long blast. -Leviticus 25:9 states: והעברת שופר, and Numbers 29:1 states: תעבירו שופר. In both cases, the verb means "cause to pass." From that expression, Rosh Hashanah, ibid., derives that a long note should be sounded before the תרועה.
Based on the above, the text Galia Masechta (Orach Chayim 3) explains that the essential element of the mitzvah is the teru'ah, since that is the sound specifically required by the Torah. The teki'ot are required only as a supplementary factor.
According to the oral tradition, we learned that - whether on Rosh Hashanah or on Yom Kippur of the Yovel - Rosh Hashanah, ibid. notes that the verses which describe the sounding of the shofar on both occasions share a common word. Hence, an analogy (שוה גזירה) is established between them. Therefore...
all the soundings of the shofar of the seventh month, are a single entity. - Thus, on each occasion, the same three series of blasts must be sounded.
Thus, nine shofar blasts must be sounded on both of them: teki'ah - The single, long blast preceding the teru'ah
teru'ah - a blast which is interrupted into shorter sounds, as described in Halachot 2-4.
teki'ah - The single, long blast following the teru'ah
teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah; teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah. - two other identical series of blasts.
Halacha 2
Over the passage of the years and throughout the many exiles, doubt has been raised concerning the teru'ah which the Torah mentions, to the extent that we do not know what it is:
Does it resemble the wailing with which the women cry when they moan, or the sighs which a person who is distressed about a major matter will release repeatedly? Perhaps a combination of the two - sighing and the crying which will follow it - is called teru'ah, because a distressed person will sigh and then cry? Therefore, we fulfill all [these possibilities].
Commentary Halacha
Over the passage of the years and throughout the many exiles, doubt has been raised concerning the teru'ah which the Torah mentions, to the extent that we do not know what it is. - Rosh Hashanah 34a explains that our custom of blowing the shofar was instituted by Rabbi Abahu in Caesaria approximately one hundred years after the destruction of the second Temple. In this halachah, the Rambam explains the reason for Rabbi Abahu's action.
The Rambam's statements are accepted by Rabbenu Asher, Rabbenu Nissim, and most other authorities. Nevertheless, it is significant that Rav Hai Gaon, one of the major authorities who preceded the Rambam, offers a different explanation for Rabbi Abahu's actions.
Rav Hai Gaon maintains that it is impossible that a doubt existed among the Jewish people concerning such an important manner as sounding the shofar. Since the shofar was sounded each year, surely the tradition could have been maintained. Hence, he explains that all the different manners of sounding the shofar were acceptable and that Rabbi Abahu's contribution was the establishment of a uniform custom that included all the different practices common among the Jewish people. By mentioning the "many years" and "exiles," the Rambam addresses himself to the question raised by Rav Hai Gaon.
Does it resemble the wailing with which the women cry - thus, it would be short, staccato sounds like sobs
when they moan - The word teru'ah is translated into Aramaic as yevavah(moan), as in Judges 5:28: "Sisra's mother gazed out the window and moaned through the lattice."
or - does a teru'ah resemble...
the sighs - i.e., longer sounds
which a person who is distressed about a major matter will release repeatedly? - Since before a person cries, he sighs (Rosh Hashanah 33b).
Perhaps a combination of the two - sighing and the crying which will follow it - is called teru'ah, because a distressed person will sigh and then cry. Therefore, we fulfill all [these possibilities]. - as explained in detail in the following halachah.
The commentaries have emphasized the homiletic aspects of these halachot. On Rosh Hashanah, a Jew must concentrate on the coronation of God as King of the world. He may feel internal distress when he meditates on how his daily behavior does not reflect the proper relation between a subject and his king. Ultimately, this may motivate him to sigh and even to cry.
Halacha 3
The crying refers to what we call teru'ah. The repeated sighs refer to what we call three shevarim.
Thus, the order of blowing the shofar is as follows: First, one recites the blessing and sounds a teki'ah; afterwards, three shevarim; and afterwards, ateru'ah; and afterwards, a teki'ah. He repeats this pattern [until he completes] three series.
[Then,] he sounds a teki'ah; afterwards, three shevarim; and afterwards, ateki'ah. He repeats this pattern [until he completes] three series.
[Then,] he sounds a teki'ah; afterwards, a teru'ah; and afterwards, a teki'ah. He repeats this pattern [until he completes] three series.
Thus, there are a total of thirty shofar blasts, in order to remove any doubt.
Commentary Halacha
The crying - mentioned in the previous halachah
refers to what we call teru'ah. - short, staccato sounds like sobs. Since ateru'ah is considered to be a single blast, the entire series of sounds must be completed without the person who blows pausing to catch his breath.
The repeated sighs - mentioned in the previous halachah
refer to what we call three - The Maggid Mishneh writes that one may add to the number of shevarim as long as one does not take a breath between them. However, the Magen Avraham (590:2) writes that it is Ashkenazic custom not to sound more than three shevarim.
shevarim. - Like sighs, these sounds are neither short like teru'ot, nor prolonged like teki'ot, but rather of intermediate length, as described in the following halachah.
Thus, the order of blowing the shofar - to fulfill the mitzvah as commanded by the Torah.
is as follows: First, one recites the blessing - as explained in Halachah 10.
and sounds a teki'ah; afterwards, three shevarim; and afterwards, a teru'ah; and afterwards, a teki'ah. - in accordance with the opinion that maintains that a teru'ah resembles both sighing and crying.
He repeats this pattern [until he completes] three series. - in order to have heard the three series of blasts required by Halachah 1.
Although the pattern of shofar blowing described by the Rambam has become universally accepted among the Jewish people, it is unclear when this practice was first instituted. One of the fundamental texts of the period directly following the conclusion of the Talmud, the Sh'eltot of Rav Achai Gaon (note 171), mentions a different practice.
Three series of blasts from each pattern are not blown directly after each other. Rather, after sounding three series of teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah, teki'ah, three series of teki'ah, shevarim, teki'ah, and then three series of teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah is sounded.
[Then,] he sounds a teki'ah; afterwards, three shevarim; and afterwards, a teki'ah. - in accordance with the opinion that maintains that a teru'ah resembles sighing. It must be noted that from the passage on Rosh HaShanah 34a it seems that Rabbi Abahu instituted the series of three teru'ot before the series of three shevarim.
He repeats this pattern [until he completes] three series. - to fulfill the obligation explained in Halachah 1.
[Then,] he sounds a teki'ah; afterwards, a teru'ah; and afterwards, a teki'ah. - in accordance with the opinion that maintains that a teru'ah resembles crying.
He repeats this pattern [until he completes] three series. - as explained above.
Thus, there are a total of thirty shofar blasts, - 18 teki'ot, six shevarim, and six teru'ot.
From the Rambam's expression, it appears that he considers the shevarim andteru'ah sounded in the first series as two separate blasts. From this, the Maggid Mishneh derives a halachic insight, maintaining that according to the Rambam, one may take a breath between the two. (The Mayim Chayim supports this conclusion, noting that, regarding this series, the Rambam states that one should blow "three shevarim, and afterwards, a teru'ah.") Nevertheless, the Ramban and other authorities do not permit this leniency.
Regarding halachah l'ma'aseh, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 590:4) suggests adhering to the more stringent view regarding the teki'ot required by Torah law. However, the Ramah maintains that this is unnecessary. Both theShulchan Aruch HaRav 590:9, 10 and the Mishnah Berurah 590:20 suggest adhering to whichever practice is customarily followed in one's local community. However, if there is no accepted custom, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav suggests accepting the more stringent practice.
in order to remove any doubt - as mentioned in the previous halachah.
Though all three sounds would be included in the series of teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah, teki'ah, it would be insufficient for such a series alone to be sounded. According to the opinions that maintain that a teru'ah is either sobbing or crying alone, there would be another sound interrupting between either the teki'ahwhich precedes or that which follows the teru'ah (Rosh Hashanah 34a).
Halacha 4
The required length of a teru'ah is that of two teki'ot. The required length of the three shevarim is that of a teru'ah.
When a person sounds a teki'ah and a teru'ah, and afterwards sounds a longteki'ah, extending it twice the length of the original one, we do not say that it may be considered to be two teki'ot - thus allowing one [to complete the series merely by] sounding a teru'ah and another teki'ah. Rather, even if one extended a teki'ah the entire day, it is considered to be only a single teki'ah and one must sound another teki'ah, teru'ah, and teki'ah [until he completes] three series.
Commentary Halacha
The required length of a teru'ah is that of two teki'ot. - These statements are the source of much controversy among the Rabbis. The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 33b) states: "The required length of the teki'ah is three teru'ot; ateru'ah is three sobs."
The Talmud questions:
Behold, the baraita has taught: "the required length of a teki'ah is that of ateru'ah!"Abbaye replied: "The author of the Mishnah considered the length of all theteki'ot in comparison to the length of all the teru'ot. The author of the baraitaconsidered the length of each blast. There is no difference of opinion between them."
In his commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam interprets the above to mean: "The required length of all six teki'ot is equivalent to the required length of all three teru'ot," thus establishing each teru'ah as twice the length of a teki'ah. Hence, according to the Rambam, the length of the teki'ot are dependent on the length of the teru'ot.
Rabbenu Nissim objects to the Rambam's interpretation, explaining that the word והעברת, the verb mentioned in the commandment to blow the shofar, implies a long blast, and hence the measure mentioned by the Rambam would not be appropriate.
Similarly, the Ra'avad does not accept the Rambam's interpretation, and explains that the Mishnah establishes an independent measure for the length of a teki'ah - three teru'ot - with each teru'ah being equal to three short sobs. Thus, the measure of a teki'ah is equivalent to nine short sounds. The Ramban and the Rashba also subscribe to this view.
Rashi and most Ashkenazic authorities accept the simple meaning of the Mishnah and explain that a teki'ah is equal to the length of a teru'ah. However, as explained in the previous halachot, there are three different interpretations of the definition of a teru'ah. Thus, the required length for the teki'ah varies accordingly.
Regarding halachah l'ma'aseh, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 590:3) mentions the views of Rashi and the Ra'avad, but not that of the Rambam.
The required length of the three shevarim is that of a teru'ah. - i.e., the length of the three shevarim should resemble a series of teru'ot.
When a person sounds a teki'ah and a teru'ah, and afterwards sounds a long teki'ah, extending it twice the length of the original one - with the intention that it be considered to be the final blast of the first series and the initial blast of the following series
we do not say that it may be considered to be two teki'ot - although it is of sufficient length
thus allowing one [to complete the series merely by] sounding a teru'ah and another teki'ah. - This represents a rephrasing of the Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 4:9 and Rosh Hashanah 28a.
Rather, even if one extended a teki'ah the entire day, it is considered to be only a single teki'ah - This decision runs contrary to the statements of the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 3:3), which does not accept a teki'ah blown with such an intention at all.
and one must sound another teki'ah, teru'ah, and teki'ah [until he completes] three series. - This law is quoted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 590:6). However, the Ashkenazic authorities maintain that deference should be paid to the opinion mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud.
Halacha 5
If a person hears one shofar blast at one hour and a second one an hour later - even if he waits the entire day - the two may be considered to be a single unit and he may fulfill his obligation.
The above applies provided each series is heard in the proper order; i.e., one may not hear a teru'ah and afterwards two teki'ot, or two teki'ot, and afterwards a teru'ah, and the like.
Commentary Halacha
If a person hears one shofar blast at one hour and a second one an hour later - even if he waits the entire day - Rosh Hashanah 34a-b quotes Rabbi Yochanan: "If a person heard the nine shofar blasts even over a span of nine hours, he fulfills his obligation."
the two may be considered to be a single unit - It is undesirable to delay the shofar blasts or to interrupt between them by talking or performing any other activity. Nevertheless, if an interruption was made between blasts, as long as one concentrates one's attention on each shofar blast, they are considered to be a single halachic unit.
and he may fulfill his obligation. - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim588:2) quotes this law. However, the Magen Avraham (588:2) compares this situation to the laws of Kri'at Shema (see Ramah, Orach Chayim 65:1) and explains that if one is prevented from hearing the shofar by forces beyond one's control, it is considered to be an interruption and one must begin the last series of blasts anew.
The above applies provided each series is heard in the proper order - ateki'ah, the series ofshevarim, teru'ot or the combination of the two, and then ateki'ah, as stated in Halachah 1.
i.e., one may not hear a teru'ah and afterwards two teki'ot, or two teki'ot and afterwards a teru'ah, and the like. - The Maggid Mishneh explains that with this phrase, the Rambam implies that even though a delay does not constitute an interruption, any shofar blast which is not in the proper order invalidates the entire series. Most other authorities (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav590:12) explain that this applies only if one sounds the shofar with an improper blast, intending to fulfill one's obligation. Otherwise, no significance at all is attached to the shofar blast and it is not considered an interruption.
Halacha 6
If a person heard nine shofar blasts from nine men simultaneously, he has not fulfilled his obligation for a single blast. [If he heard] a teki'ah from one, ateru'ah from another, and another teki'ah from a third, in sequence, he has fulfilled his obligation.
The above applies even if one heard [the shofar blasts] with interruptions, even if [the blowing was extended] over the entire day. A person does not fulfill his obligation until he hears all nine shofar blasts, for they are all [only] one mitzvah. Thus, they are dependent one on the other.
Commentary Halacha
If a person heard nine shofar blasts from nine men simultaneously - At the same time, six blew teki'ot and three, teru'ot, so that the person could have heard the required number of shofar blasts
he has not fulfilled his obligation for a single blast. - Rabbenu Manoach gives two reasons for this decision:
a) because of the cacophony of sounds, the listener is unable to properly distinguish any one;
b) As stated in the previous halachah, one must hear the shofar blasts in the proper order, a teki'ah preceding and following a teru'ah; that requirement is not fulfilled in this instance.
Rashi, in his commentary on Rosh Hashanah 34b, disagrees with the Rambam's decision, explaining that Rosh Hashanah 27a states that even though two people blow the shofar simultaneously, since the mitzvah is dear to the hearer, he will concentrate sufficiently to differentiate between the sounds. Furthermore, the Tosefta 2:12 states specifically that one does fulfill one's obligation in this manner.
Tosafot disagrees with Rashi, mentioning the second reason stated by Rabbenu Manoach. It appears that the Rambam goes further and discounts Rashi's opinion entirely. According to Tosafot, the listener will have heard at least the first teki'ah, while the Rambam explicitly states "he has not fulfilled his obligation for a single blast." (See Lechem Mishneh.)
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 588:3 quotes the Rambam's decision as halachah. The Ramah quotes the law from Rosh Hashanah 27a, allowing a person to fulfill his obligation even though he heard two people blowing the shofar at the same time, provided he heard the blasts in the proper order.
[If he heard] a teki'ah from one, a teru'ah from another, and another teki'ah from a third, in sequence, he has fulfilled his obligation. - The fact that different people sounded the shofar does not prevent the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
The above applies even if one heard [the shofar blasts] with interruptions, even if [the blowing was extended] over the entire day. -There is a certain redundancy with this statement, because the same principle was mentioned in the previous halachah. Nonetheless, the Rambam included it to emphasize that the passage of time is not considered an interruption even when the shofar is being blown by different people (Rabbenu Manoach).
A person does not fulfill his obligation until he hears all nine shofar blasts, for they are all [only] one mitzvah. - as explained in Halachah 1.
Thus, they are dependent one on the other. - Based on this principle, a person who does not know how to blow either the shevarim or the teru'otshould not sound the teki'ot, for he will accomplish nothing by doing so (Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 33b). Nevertheless, if a person knows how to sound both teki'ot and shevarim, he should sound three series of such blasts even if he does not know how to sound a teru'ah. Since it is possible that the mitzvah may be fulfilled by these series (as explained in Halachot 2 and 3), at the very least they should be sounded (Rabbenu Nissim, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 593:2).
Halacha 7
The congregation is obligated to hear the shofar blasts together with the order of blessings.
How is this expressed? The chazan recites Avot, Gevurot, the sanctification of God's name, Malchuyot [ - at this point,] the shofar is sounded three times;Zichronot - the shofar is sounded three times; Shofarot - the shofar is sounded three times - [and concludes the Amidah with] the Avodah, an acknowledgement [of God's wonders], and the priestly blessing.
Commentary Halacha
The congregation - but not an individual (Rosh Hashanah 34b)
is obligated to hear the shofar blasts - i.e., the nine blasts mentioned in Halachah 1
together with the order of blessings. - Rosh Hashanah 16b explains that the Sages instituted the blowing of the shofar in the midst of the prayer service in order to confuse Satan, lest he lodge accusations against the Jews in the midst of their prayers. The Sages explain (ibid., 32b) that it would have been appropriate to institute the shofar blowing in the morning service. However, the Romans desired to stamp out the performance of the mitzvot and sent guards to make sure that the mitzvah was not fulfilled. After midday, the guards left, and then, in the musaf service, the shofar would be sounded.
Originally, the Sages' decree involved determining the place of the service when the mitzvah required by the Torah would be fulfilled and this halachah must be interpreted in that context. However, as explained in Halachot 11 and 12, it became universally accepted Jewish custom to blow the shofar before the musaf prayers to fulfill the Torah's commandment, and thus "confuse the Satan" even before the beginning of our prayers, and then to sound the shofar again in the midst of those prayers to fulfill the Rabbinic decree. See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 592:7.
How is this expressed? The chazan recites Avot - literally, "patriarchs"; the first blessing of the Amidah, which praises God as "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."
Gevurot - literally, "mighty acts"; the second blessing of the Amidah, which begins: "You are mighty," and recounts different expressions of God's power.
the sanctification of God's name - The third blessing of the Amidah, which includes the Kedushah prayer.
Malchuyot - Three additional blessings are recited in the musaf service of Rosh Hashanah: Malchuyot (acceptance of God's sovereignty), Zichronot(acknowledgement of God's remembrance of the Jewish people), and Shofarot(describing the significance of the sounding of the shofar).
Rosh Hashanah 16a states:
The Holy One, blessed be He, declares: "On Rosh Hashanah, recite before meMalchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot.Malchuyot - so that you will crown Me as King over you.Zichronot - so that I will remember you for good.By what means? Through the shofar."
These blessings are described in the following halachot.
The prayers mentioning the sacred nature of the holiday and the sacrifices which were offered in the Temple are also included in the Malchuyot blessing.
[at this point,] the shofar is sounded three times - i.e., one series of teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah required by the Torah. Though this point is disputed in the Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 32a relates that this opinion (quoted in the name of Rabbi Akiva) was the accepted practice in Yavneh.
Zichronot - the shofar is sounded three times - the second series of teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah required by the Torah.
Shofarot - the shofar is sounded three times - the final series of teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah required by the Torah.
[and concludes the the Amidah with] the Avodah - literally, "the service," i.e., the blessing R'tzey, which asks God to accept our prayers and restore the Temple service.
an acknowledgement [of God's wonders,] - the blessing Modim.
Halacha 8
These three intermediate blessings recited on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur of the Yovel - Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot - are each dependent on each other.
In each of these blessings, one is required to recite ten verses reflecting the content of the blessing - three verses from the Torah, three from the Book of Psalms, and three from [the words of] the prophets. One concludes with a verse from the Torah. Should a person conclude with a verse from the prophets, he fulfills his obligation.
Should a person recite only one verse from the Torah, one from the sacred writings, and one from the prophets, he fulfills his obligation. Even if he states: "In Your Torah, God, our Lord, it is written..." and recites one verse from the Torah and concludes, nothing further is necessary.
Commentary Halacha
These three intermediate blessings recited on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur of the Yovel - The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 26b) states: "Rosh Hashanah and the Yovel are identical regarding the sounding of the shofar and the blessings."
Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot - The blessings must also be recited in this order (Magen Avraham 593:4).
are each dependent on each other. - i.e., a person who cannot recite all three blessings should not recite any. Generally, a person who does not know all the blessings of the Amidah should recite those that he knows. However, on the musaf service of Rosh Hashanah, a person should begin the Amidah only if he knows the entire service (Magen Avraham 593:2). (See also the Bi'ur Halachah.)
In each of these blessings, one is required to recite ten verses - Rosh Hashanah 32a explains that the number ten alludes to the ten expressions of praise used by King David in Psalm 150; or, alternatively, to the ten statements of creation; or, alternatively, to the ten commandments. The Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 4:7) explains that the ten verses of Malchuyot refer to David's ten expressions of praise; the ten Zichronot, to the ten calls to repentance proclaimed by Isaiah; and the ten Shofarot to the ten sacrificial animals offered in the Temple on Rosh Hashanah.
One may recite additional verses if one desires (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim591:4). Indeed, the text of the blessings generally recited for Malchuyot andShofarot includes eleven quotes.
reflecting the content of the blessing - as explained in the commentary on the previous halachah
three blessings from the Torah - Since the Torah is on a higher level of holiness, its verses are mentioned first.
three from the Book of Psalms, and three from [the words of] the prophets. - The commentaries question why the Book of Psalms is given prominence over the words of the prophets, when generally the prophets' statements are considered on a higher level of holiness. Among the resolutions offered to this difficulty is that chronologically, the Psalms were written before the prophecies quoted (Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 32a).
Examples of the verses recited are mentioned in the following halachah and commentary.
One concludes with a verse from the Torah. - because of the dearness of the Torah. Rosh Hashanah 32b explains that this was the custom of the experienced Sages of Jerusalem.
Should a person conclude with a verse from the prophets, he fulfills his obligation. - However, one should preferably conclude with a verse from the Torah. This is our present practice.
From the statements of the Rambam and the relevant passages from the Mishnah and Talmud, it would appear that originally there was no standard text containing universally accepted verses for these blessings. Rather, certain verses were commonly accepted and would be recited by almost all those who prayed. Others were left to the preference of each individual.
(One must remember that machzorim were uncommon in this period, and most of the prayers were recited by heart. Thus, the verses chosen by an individual might often have been those which he had been able to commit to memory.)
Should a person recite only one verse from the Torah, one from the sacred writings, and one from the prophets - Thus mentioning three verses in each blessing, one from each division of the T'nach
he fulfills his obligation. - after the fact. However, at the outset it is desirable to recite all ten verses.
Even if he states: "In Your Torah, God, our Lord, it is written..." and recites one verse from the Torah and concludes, nothing further is necessary. - The commentaries have questioned the Rambam's statements, which appear self-contradictory. In the previous clause, he stated that one must recite three verses - one from the Torah, one from the prophets, and one from the writings - to fulfill one's obligation, while this clause implies that the recitation of one is sufficient.
The source for the difficulty is the following quotes: The Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 32a, states:
One should not recite fewer than ten verses for Malchuyot, ten for Zichronot, and ten for Shofarot. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri says: "If one recites three - three of each - one fulfills his obligation."
Rosh Hashanah 35a quotes Rav Chanan'el as saying in the name of Rav:
Even if he states: "In Your Torah, it is written..." [and recites one verse], nothing further is necessary.
From the Talmud, it appears that both these statements are accepted as halachah. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam interprets Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri's requirement of three verses as the total for all three blessings. Thus, for each blessing, one must state "In Your Torah, it is written..." and recite a single appropriate verse. [This surely differs from the Rambam's statements in his commentary on the Mishnah.]
The Ramban, Rabbenu Nissim, and others explain that Rav Chanan'el agrees with Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and thus, in addition to "In Your Torah, it is written...," he also requires one to say: "In Your holy writings, it is recorded...," and: "by your prophets, it was proclaimed...," mentioning an appropriate verse in each instance. (This opinion is quoted by Shulchan Aruch HaRav 586:8 and the Mishnah Berurah 591:11.)
Alternatively, one may explain the Rambam's position as follows: Ideally, one should recite ten verses for each blessing; after the fact, three are sufficient, as stated by Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri. When does this apply? Once one has recited at least one verse from the Torah. However, if one has not recited any verses, it is sufficient to say "In Your Torah, it is written..." and recite a single verse from the Torah, as Rav Chanan'el said in the name of Rav.
The flexibility regarding the number of quotes in each blessing was only granted in the previous generations. Since at present we have adopted a standard set of blessings, a person should not delete verses at will (Magen Avraham 591:6;Shulchan Aruch HaRav 591:8).
Halacha 9
One should not recite [verses for] Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot which describe [Divine] retribution; for example, for Zichronot, [Psalms 78:39]: "And He remembered that they were mere flesh..."; for Malchuyot, [Ezekiel 20:33]: "With outpoured anger, I will reign over you..."; for Shofarot, [Hoshea 5:8]: "Blow the shofar in Givah..."
Similarly, Zichronot which are merely associated with an individual [should not be mentioned] even if they are of a positive nature - for example, [Psalms 106:4]: "Remember me, O God, amidst the favor of Your people," [Nehemiah 5:19]: "Remember me, my God, for good."
Verses using the verb פקד - for example, [Exodus 3:16]: "I have surely taken note..." - may not be included as Zichronot. One may mention verses that refer to retribution to be visited upon the gentile nations - for example, [Psalms 99:1]: "God is King, the nations will tremble..."; [Psalms 137:7]: "Remember, O God, against the Edomites, the day of Jerusalem"; or [Zechariah 9:14]: "God, the Lord, will sound the shofar and proceed in a southerly storm-wind."
All the following verses: [Deuteronomy 6:4]: "Hear Israel, God is our Lord, God is one"; [Deuteronomy 4:35]: "To you, it has been revealed that you may know..."; and [Deuteronomy 4:39]: "And you shall know today and draw it close to your heart..." express the concept of God's sovereignty. Even though [these verses] do not explicitly mention His kingship, they are equivalent to [Exodus 16:18]: "God will rule forever and ever"; and [Deuteronomy 33:5]: "When He became King in Jeshurun."
Commentary Halacha
One should not recite [verses for] Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot which describe [Divine] retribution - Since Rosh Hashanah is a day of judgement, we are careful not to mention any factors that might lead to negative repercussions. For this reason, no confessional prayers are recited on Rosh Hashanah, and extreme care is taken regarding all aspects of our prayers and speech. (See Maharsha, Rosh Hashanah 32b.)
for example, for Zichronot, [Psalms 78:39]: "And He remembered that they were mere flesh..." - It is uncertain why the Rambam mentions a verse forZichronot before one of Malchuyot.
for Malchuyot, [Ezekiel 20:33]: "With outpoured anger, I will reign over you..." - Rosh Hashanah 32a mentions that this prophecy concludes with the redemption of our people; since it is associated with anger and wrath, it is not fit to be mentioned on Rosh Hashanah.
for Shofarot, [Hoshea 5:8]: "Blow the shofar in Givah..."
Similarly, Zichronot which are merely associated with an individual [should not be mentioned] even if they are of a positive nature - for example, [Psalms 106:4]: "Remember me, O God, amidst the favor of Your people"; [Nehemiah 5:19]: "Remember me, my God, for good." - Even though on Rosh Hashanah each man is judged individually, and his own personal future is determined (see Rosh Hashanah 16b; Hilchot Teshuvah 3:3), it is desirable to look beyond these individual matters and concentrate our prayers on the welfare of the Jewish people as a whole.
Verses using the verb פקד - for example, [Exodus 3:16]: "I have surely taken note... - Rosh Hashanah 32a also mentions another verse - Genesis 21:1: "and God granted providence to Sarah" - as an example of this principle. The Talmud objects to this verse because it is of an individual nature. Though it continues to resolve that difficulty, explaining that God's granting providence to Sarah effected the future of the entire Jewish people, the Rambam nevertheless avoided the problem by choosing the verse which is clearly of general import.
may not be included as Zichronot. - The meaning of פקד is often "remember." Indeed, the Targum of the cited verse in Genesis is דכיר, the Aramaic for "remembered." Furthermore, the Talmud mentions that Rabbi Yosse allowed verses using the verb פקד, and although Rabbi Yehudah objected, in differences of opinion between the two, Rabbi Yosse's position is generally favored. Nevertheless, since there are many verses that use the verb זכר, there is no difficulty in establishing a practice that will be accepted by all opinions (Beit Yosef 591).
One may mention verses that refer to retribution to be visited upon the gentile nations - for example, [Psalms 99:1]: "God is King, the nations will tremble..."; [Psalms 137:7]: "Remember, O God, against the Edomites, the day of Jerusalem"; [Zechariah 9:14]: "God, the Lord, will sound the shofar and proceed in a southerly storm-wind." - Despite this decision, only the latter verse is included in the text of the blessings we recite on Rosh Hashanah.
All the following verses: [Deuteronomy 6:4]: "Hear Israel, God is our God, God is one"; [Deuteronomy 4:35]: "To you, it has been revealed that you may know..."; and [Deuteronomy 4:39]: "And you shall know today and draw it close to your heart..." express the concept of God's sovereignty. -These verses all express the oneness of God and creation; thus they emphasize how "He is unique and one, with none that compare to Him. His Kingship permeating all dominion." (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 591:11).
Even though [these verses] do not explicitly mention His kingship, they are equivalent to [Exodus 16:18]: "God will rule forever and ever"; and [Deuteronomy 33:5]: "When He became King in Jeshurun." - Shemot Rabbah 48:4 states that this verse refers to Moses. Though the Rambam accepts the principle that Moses served the people as a king (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:11), he does not necessarily view this verse as the source for that concept.
The verses which have been accepted in the standard text for these blessings are as follows:
MALCHUYOT
Torah
And you shall know today and draw it close to your heart that God is the Lord in the heavens above and the earth below. There is nothing else (Deuteronomy 4:39).God will rule forever and ever (Exodus 15:18).He does not look at iniquity in Jacob or see wrongdoing in Israel; God, his Lord, is with him and the desire of the King is in him (Numbers 23:21).And there was a King in Jeshurun and the heads of the people assembled, together with all the tribes of Israel (Deuteronomy 33:5).
Psalms
For sovereignty is God's and He rules over the nations (22:29).God is King. He has clothed Himself with grandeur; the Lord has girded Himself with strength. He has established the world firmly so that it will not falter (93:1).Lift up your heads, O gates; be upraised, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter. Who is the glorious King? God, strong and mighty, God, mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O gates; be upraised, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter. Who is the glorious King? The God of hosts. He is the glorious King for eternity (24:7-10).
Prophets
Thus said God, King and Redeemer of Israel, the God of hosts, "I am the first and I am the last. Aside from Me, there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).Deliverers will ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau and the kingship will be God's (Ovadiah 1:21).God will be King over the entire earth. On that day, God will be One, and His name, One (Zechariah 14:9).
Concluding Verse
Hear Israel, God is our Lord, God is One (Deuteronomy 6:4).
ZICHRONOT
Torah
And God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters were calmed (Genesis 8:1).God heard their outcry. And God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob (Exodus 2:24).I will remember My covenant with Jacob, also my covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land (Leviticus 26:42).
Psalms
He has made a remembrance of His wonders, gracious and merciful is God (111:4).He provides sustenance to those who fear Him. He will remember His covenant forever (111:5).For them, He remembered His covenant and He relented in accordance with His abundant kindness (106:45).
Prophets
Go and call out in the ears of Jerusalem, saying: "Thus said God, 'For you, I remember the devotion of your youth, the love of your bridal days, as you went after Me in the desert, in an uncultivated land' (Jeremiah 2:2).I will remember My covenant with you [made] in the days of your youth, and I will fulfill it for you as an everlasting covenant (Ezekiel 16:60)."Is Ephraim not My beloved son? Is he not a precious child? For whenever I speak of him, I recall him even more. The inner parts of my being stir for him. I will surely have compassion on him," says God (Jeremiah 31:19).
Concluding Verse
For them, I will remember the covenant with their ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations to be their Lord. I am God (Leviticus 26:45).
SHOFAROT
Torah
And it was on the third day, at dawn. There was thunder and lightning and a heavy cloud on the mountain. The sound of the shofar was very strong and all the people in the camp trembled (Exodus 19:16).And the sound of the shofar proceeded, becoming stronger. Moses spoke and God answered Him out loud (Exodus 19:19).And all the people saw the voices and the flames, the sound of the shofar and the mountain smoking. The people saw and recoiled and stood off from afar (Exodus 20:15).
Psalms
The Lord ascends through teru'ah, God through the sound of the shofar (47:6).Sound off with trumpets and the call of the shofar before the King, God (98:6).Blow the shofar on the new moon, on the appointed time of our sacred day. For it is a statute for Israel; an ordinance of the Lord od Israel (81:4-5)Praise God. Praise the Almighty in His holiness. Praise Him in the firmament of His strength. Praise Him for His mighty acts. Praise Him according to His abundant greatness. Praise Him with the call of the shofar. Praise Him with harp and lyre. Praise Him with timbrel and dance. Praise Him with stringed instruments and flute. Praise Him with loud cymbals. Praise Him with resounding cymbals. Let every being with a soul praise God. Halleluyah (150).
Prophets
All those who inhabit the world, who dwell on earth: When the banner is raised on the mountain, you will see. When the shofar is sounded, you will hear (Isaiah 18:3).And it shall be on that day, that a great shofar will be sounded, and those who were lost in the land of Asshur and those who were banished in the land of Egypt shall come and bow down to God on the holy mountain in Jerusalem (Isaiah 27:13).And God will appear over them and His arrow shall go forth like lightning. God, the Lord, will sound the shofar and proceed in a southerly storm-wind (Zechariah 9:14-15).
Concluding Verse
And on the days of your rejoicing; on your holidays, and on your Rosh Chodesh days, you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt-offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings, and they shall be a remembrance for you before your Lord. I am God, your Lord (Numbers 10:10).
Halacha 10
The following is the commonly accepted custom for blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah in the communal services:
After the Torah is read and returned to its place, the congregation is seated. One person stands and recites the blessing:
Blessed are You, God, Lord of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to hear the sounding of the shofar.
The entire congregation responds "Amen." He then recites the blessingshehecheyanu, and the entire congregation responds "Amen" to him. Thirty shofar blasts are sounded in the proper order.
Kaddish is recited. The congregation stands and recites the musaf service. After the chazan completes the fourth blessing - i.e., Malchuyot - a teki'ah, three shevarim, a [series of] teru'ot, and a teki'ah are sounded once.
He then recites the fifth blessing - i.e., Zichronot. After he completes the blessing, a teki'ah, three shevarim, and a teki'ah are sounded. He then recites the sixth blessing - i.e., Shofarot. After he completes the blessing, a teki'ah, a [series of] teru'ot, and a teki'ah are sounded once, and he concludes the prayers.
Commentary Halacha
The following is the commonly accepted custom for blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah - As mentioned in Halachah 7 and the commentary, the Sages had originally ordained that a person hear the shofar blasts required by the Torah in the midst of the musaf service. However, as evident from Rosh Hashanah 16a-b, even in Talmudic times the custom mentioned by the Rambam was already the general practice.
in the communal services: - The laws pertaining to an individual are mentioned at the conclusion of Halachah 12.
After the Torah is read - Hilchot Tefillah 13:10 states:
The common custom is to read on the first day: "And God showed providence to Sarah..., and on the second day: "And God presented a trial to Abraham..."
As stated in that halachah, the haftarah is recited after the Torah reading is concluded.
and returned to its place - Though at present, Ashkenazic custom is to blow the shofar in the presence of the Torah scrolls, the Rambam's son, Rav Avraham, supports his father's decision in the Ma'aseh Rokeach, explaining that it is not proper to make any interruptions between the shofar blowings which precede musaf and those within the prayer service.
the congregation is seated. - This practice is mentioned in Rosh Hashanah16a and the Sh'eltot of Rav Achai Gaon. However, today it is Ashkenazic custom to stand when hearing these shofar blasts. Nevertheless, based on this original practice, these are still referred to as teki'ot meiyoshav - "the teki'otsounded while seated."
One person stands - Rabbenu Manoach questions the need for the person blowing the shofar to stand. He offers two possible explanations:
a) as a mark of deference to the community;
b) in respect for the blessing recited, as implied by Nehemiah 8:4.
The Hagahot Maimoniot quotes the Jerusalem Talmud (the location of the source in the Jerusalem Talmud is a matter of question) as drawing an analogy (גזרה שוה) between the blowing of the shofar and the counting of the Omer. Hence, just as the Omer must be counted while standing, the shofar should be sounded in a similar position.
and recites the blessing - as required before the fulfillment of any positive commandment (Hilchot Berachot 11:1,2,8).
Blessed are You, God, Lord of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to hear the sounding of the shofar. - As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, the fundamental aspect of the mitzvah is hearing, not blowing, the shofar. Nevertheless, the Sh'eltotsuggests concluding the blessing "to blow the shofar" and the Sefer Mitzvot HaGadol advises the text "concerning the blowing of the shofar."
The entire congregation responds "Amen." He then recites the blessing shehecheyanu - as is necessary before the fulfillment of any mitzvah performed infrequently (Hilchot Berachot 11:9).
and the entire congregation responds "Amen" to him. Thirty shofar blasts are sounded in the proper order. - as explained in Halachah 3.
Kaddish is recited. - "The chazan always recites Kaddish before and after every prayer service (Rambam, Seder Tefillot kol Shanah)."
The congregation stands - and remain standing during the repetition of the the Amidah as well. Therefore, the shofar blasts sounded during these prayers are referred to as teki'ot m'umad (the shofar blasts sounded while standing).
and recites the musaf service. - in a hushed tone.
The Tur relates that there were varying customs regarding the recitation of the musaf service in a hushed tone. In certain communities, it had been customary for the congregation to recite the musaf prayers as on other festivals without reciting Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot. Only the chazan would recite the latter. However, even in the Tur's time, the prevailing custom was that even the congregation recited these three blessings.
The Sh'lah records the custom of sounding the shofar for Malchuyot, Zichronot,and Shofarot while the congregation recites the Amidah. However, this custom is not accepted in all communities.
After the chazan completes the fourth blessing - i.e., Malchuyot - a teki'ah, three shevarim, a [series of] teru'ot, and a teki'ah are sounded once. - The rationale for this practice and the different customs associated with these shofar blasts are discussed in Halachah 12 and its commentary.
In the text of prayers with which the Rambam concludes Sefer Ha'ahavah, he also mentions the recitation of the prayer Hayom Harat Olam.
He then recites the fifth blessing - i.e., Zichronot. After he completes the blessing, a teki'ah, three shevarim, and a teki'ah are sounded. He then recites the sixth blessing - i.e., Shofarot. After he completes the blessing, a teki'ah, a [series of] teru'ot, and a teki'ah are sounded once, and he concludes the prayers.
Halacha 11
The person who sounds the shofar while they are sitting also sounds the shofar according to the order of blessings while they stand. He should not speak between the shofar blasts while the congregation is seated and those sounded while they stand. If he did talk between them, even though it is a transgression, he does not repeat the blessing.
Commentary Halacha
The person who sounds the shofar while they are sitting - the thirty shofar blasts mentioned in Halachah 3.
also sounds the shofar according to the order of blessings - i.e.,Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot
while they stand. - Rav Hai Gaon also mentions this practice. The Kolboexplains that it is appropriate, since "when a person begins a mitzvah, we tell him to complete it" (Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1:8). Nevertheless, theMagen Avraham 592:7 writes that in many communities, it has become customary to divide the honor of shofar blowing between two individuals.
He - i.e., the person blowing the shofar. Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher write that not only he, but the entire congregation should refrain from speaking. The Maggid Mishneh does not accept this view, yet it is quoted by theShulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 592:3.
should not speak - Permission is granted to speak about matters required for the prayers or for blowing the shofar (Ramah).
between the shofar blasts while the congregation is seated and those sounded while they stand - for since they are both part of one mitzvah, it is improper to interrupt between them.
If he did talk between them, even though it is a transgression, he does not repeat the blessing. - Since, essentially, the mitzvah is fulfilled by hearing the teki'ot before musaf, and the others are sounded only "to confuse Satan" (Rabbenu Manoach).
Halacha 12
It is logical that each series of shofar blasts should be sounded three times for every blessing, as [the shofar] was sounded while [the congregation] was seated. However, since they satisfied every possible doubt [by hearing] the shofar while seated, there is no need for the congregation to repeat them in their entirety during the order of blessings. Rather, it is sufficient for them to hear one series for each blessing, and they will thus have heard the shofar during the order of blessings.
All of the above applies only to a congregation. However, there is no [set] custom regarding an individual. He fulfills his obligation whether or not he hears [the shofar blasts] during the order of blessings, whether seated or standing.
Commentary Halacha
It is logical that each series of shofar blasts should be sounded three times for every blessing - Because of the doubt mentioned in Halachah 3, it would be proper for us to blow three series of blasts - i.e., teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah, teki'ah; teki'ah, shevarim, teki'ah; and teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah - at the conclusion of each blessing.
as [the shofar] was sounded while [the congregation] was seated. - the shofar blasts sounded before musaf.
However, since they - the congregation
satisfied every possible doubt - regarding the proper manner of blowing the shofar, as explained in Halachah 3.
[by hearing] the shofar while seated, there is no need for the congregation to repeat them - these shofar blasts
in their entirety during the order of blessings. Rather, it is sufficient for them to hear one series for each blessing - as explained in Halachah 10
and thus, they will have heard the shofar during the order of blessings -and fulfilled the requirement of the Sages mentioned in Halachah 7.
In practice, a number of different customs are followed regarding this matter. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 592:1) suggests following the pattern described by the Rambam, but sounding each series three times, rather than once. The Ramah writes that Ashkenazic custom is to sound one series -teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah, teki'ah - after each blessing. However, the Sh'lahsuggests blowing three series of blasts - i.e., teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah, teki'ah; teki'ah, shevarim, teki'ah; and teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah - at the conclusion of each blessing.
All of the above applies only to a congregation - as specifically stated in Halachot 7 and 10.
However, there is no [set] custom regarding an individual. He fulfills his obligation whether or not he hears [the shofar blasts] during the order of blessings - Some authorities object to the permission granted by the Rambam for an individual to interrupt his recitation of the the Amidah in order to hear the sounding of the shofar. However, the Rambam's opinion is based on his interpretation of Rosh Hashanah 34b. (See Ma'aseh Rokeach.)
whether seated or standing.
Halacha 13
The blessings are not dependent on the teki'ot, nor are the teki'ot dependent on the blessings.
When there are two cities - in one it is known that there will definitely be someone to recite the nine blessings, but there is no one to blow the shofar - in the other, a doubt exists whether or not there will be someone to blow the shofar, one should go the latter, since the sounding of the shofar is a requirement of the Torah, while the blessings are of Rabbinic origin.
Commentary Halacha
The blessings - Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot.
are not dependent on the teki'ot - Therefore, if it is impossible for a person to hear the shofar blown, he should still attempt to recite or hear the blessings.
nor are the teki'ot dependent on the blessings. - Thus, if it is impossible for a person to hear the blessings, he should still attempt to hear the shofar being blown.
When there are two cities - in one it is known that there will definitely be someone to recite the nine blessings - recited in the musaf service on Rosh Hashanah
but there is no one to blow the shofar - in the other, a doubt exists whether or not there will be someone to blow the shofar, one should go the latter, since the sounding of the shofar is a requirement of the Torah -as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 1
while the blessings - as is the prayer service in its entirety
are of Rabbinic origin. - i.e., surely if one could be sure of fulfilling the Torah commandment, one should do so at the expense of the fulfillment of the Rabbinic commandment. However, even if, as in the case described, there is a doubt whether one can fulfill the Torah commandment, one should take that risk, rather than forego the opportunity entirely, even if doing so will cause one to negate the fulfillment of the Rabbinic commandment.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
[With regard to the presentation of] the blood from any of the sacrifices on the outer altar: as long as one makes one presentation of blood, atonement is generated.1Even with regard to a sin-offering, one presentation is of fundamental importance.2Making the remaining [three of] the four [required] presentations is [merely] the optimum manner of fulfilling the mitzvah, as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:27]: "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour on the altar."3 [One can infer that one] pouring of blood on the altar is of fundamental importance.
Halacha 2
Whenever [a priest] poured [blood] over the altar when he should have cast it upon it,4 the obligation is fulfilled, as [implied by the verse:] "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour."
Halacha 3
With regard to all of the blood presented on the inner altar,5 if one of the presentations is lacking, the sacrifice does not bring atonement. Instead, all of them are integral for the atonement, for Scripture was precise with regard to their number, as [Leviticus 4:7, 17; 16:14] states: "seven times."
Halacha 4
If the owner died after one of the presentations of the blood of a sin-offering was made, the remainder of the presentations should be made after his death.6
Halacha 5
If, however, he made one presentation during the day, he should not make the [remaining] three at night.7
Halacha 6
If one made one [of the presentations of blood required to be made on] the inner altar on [that altar] and made the remainder on the outer [altar], he is liable for [karet] for offering [a sacrifice] outside its appropriate place.8
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
If one changed [the order] of corners11 [of the altar on which the blood was presented when bringing] a sin-offering - whether for a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the inner altar12 or a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the outer altar13 - [the sacrifice] is disqualified.14 If, however, [the order of the presentation of the blood] for other sacrifices is changed, [the sacrifices] are acceptable.
Halacha 9
If [the priest] presented the blood beyond the corner of the altar - whether for a sin-offering or for another offering and whether for the inner altar or for the outer altar - [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.
Halacha 10
When blood that according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented above the midpoint of the altar15 was presented below it;
if according to [the Torah's] command, it should have been presented below the midpoint of the altar,16but it was presented above it;
if [blood that] according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented inside [the Temple]17 and was presented on the outer altar;
if [blood that] should have been presented on the outer altar was presented in [the Temple]; or
if blood that should have been presented on the outer [altar] was presented on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar],18
[in all these instances,] the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable.19Nevertheless, the owners of the sacrifices receive atonement because of it, for its blood has reached the altar. Although it did not reach the proper place, it is as if it reached its [proper] place with regard to atonement.
When does the above apply? When the person casting [the blood] is acceptable for Temple service. If, however, a person fit for Temple service received [the blood] and gave it to a person who is unacceptable and that unacceptable person presented [blood] that should have been presented above [the midpoint] of the altar below its midpoint, [blood] that should have been presented [on the] outer [altar] was presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary], [blood] that should have been presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary] was presented[on the] outer [altar], or one presented [the blood] on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar],20 the meat of the sacrifice is not disqualified if [any of the sacrificial animal's] blood of life remains.21 Instead, an acceptable person should receive the remainder of the blood of life and cast it [on the altar] in its appropriate place.
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply when] the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed between two types of blood22 or between two cups of blood.23 If [the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] one presentation [of blood],24 one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture]. Similarly, if [the blood of sacrifices that require] four presentations [of blood was mixed] with [the blood of others that require] four presentations,25 four presentations should be made of the entire [mixture]. If, [however, the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] two presentations that are four,26one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture].27
If [blood that was] to be presented on the upper [half of the altar] became mixed with [blood that was] to be presented on the lower [half of the altar],28 all [the blood] should be poured into the [waste] channel29 and the sacrifices are disqualified. Even if the remainder of [the blood from] a sin-offering30 is mixed with the blood of a burnt-offering in which instance, all of the blood should be presented on the bottom of the altar, the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.31
Halacha 12
If [blood from a sin-offering32 became mixed with the remnants of the blood of a burnt-offering]33 and [the priest] did not inquire [concerning the law], but instead presented some of the mixture on the upper portion [of the altar] and some on the lower portion, it is acceptable.34 If he presented a portion on the upper [portion of the altar] and then inquired, he should present [the remainder] on the lower portion.35 He is considered to have fulfilled his obligation for both [sacrifices].
Halacha 13
If blood that was required to be presented in the Temple building36 became mixed with blood to be presented on the outer [altar], the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.37 If he did not inquire and took the mixture of the blood and presented some in the Temple [building] and some outside - whether first he presented it inside and then he presented it outside or first he presented it outside and then he presented it inside - everything is acceptable.38
When does the above apply? With regard to the blood [of the sacrifices that must] be presented on the outer [altar] with the exception of a sin-offering. If, however, the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented outside becomes mixed with the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented inside, it is acceptable [only] if one made the presentation outside and then made the presentation inside.39 If, however, one made the presentation inside and then made the presentation outside, [the sacrifice whose blood was to be present outside] is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] the blood of a sin-offering that was brought into the Temple building - even the blood of a sin-offering brought by an individual [whose meat] should be eaten40 - becomes forbidden, as [implied by Leviticus 6:23]: "Any sin-offering whose blood has been brought [into the Tent of Meeting... shall not be eaten]."41
Halacha 14
When the blood from a bull brought [because of the violation a law] forgotten [by the High Court] or from a goat brought [because of the violation of the prohibition against] idol worship45 which should be brought into the Sanctuary was brought to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified. For this place is inward with regard to the appropriate place for this blood.46
Similarly, with regard to the bull and the goat brought on Yom Kippur47 whose blood is brought into the Holy of Holies, if the blood [of these offerings] was brought into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled there,48 was then taken to the Sanctuary and afterwards, returned to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified.49[The High Priest] should not complete the sprinkling [of the blood] in the Holy of Holies. Once he departs, he has departed.50
Similarly, if he completed the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies, then brought the blood into the Sanctuary and made some of the sprinklings [required there], then took [the blood] out of the Sanctuary and afterwards returned it, he should not complete the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. [The rationale is that] since the blood was taken out of its place, it became disqualified.51
Halacha 15
If the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering52 was received in two cups and one of them was taken outside, the one that remained inside is acceptable and the sprinklings may be performed.53 If, [by contrast,] one [of the cups] was taken into the Sanctuary and sprinkled there, even the one left outside is disqualified, as [implied by the prooftext] : "whose blood has been brought in," i.e., even if only a portion of its blood was brought in to the Sanctuary to bring about atonement, it is disqualified.
Halacha 16
[The following rules apply when] the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering that was taken into [the Sanctuary] to achieve atonement, but nothing was done and instead, he took it out without sprinkling it inside. If he brought it in unknowingly, [the blood] remains acceptable and should be sprinkled outside, for nothing to achieve atonement was done in the Sanctuary.54 If he brought it in intentionally, it is disqualified.55
Halacha 17
If the sin-offering itself was brought into the Sanctuary,56 it is acceptable, because [the prooftext] mentions "whose blood was brought in," [i.e., it is the blood] and not the meat [that disqualifies it].
Halacha 18
When a sin-offering of a fowl moved in its death throes and entered the Sanctuary, it is acceptable.57
Halacha 19
Halacha 20
Halacha 21
When [a priest] received the blood of a sin-offering in four cups and made one presentation [on the altar] from each cup, the remainder of all four cups is poured on the altar's base, as [Leviticus 4:30] states: "And all of its blood shall be poured [on the base of the altar]." If he made all four presentations from one cup, the remnants of that cup should be poured on the altar's base and the other cups poured in the drainage canal.65
Halacha 22
When blood falls into water or into ordinary blood,66 it should not be sprinkled on the altar. If it was sprinkled, it is disqualified.67 When water fell into blood in a receptacle, if it has the appearance of blood, it is acceptable. If wine or ordinary blood fell into it, we make an assessment [as follows]: Were it to have been water would there have been enough to nullify the blood in the receptacle to the extent that it would no longer have the appearance of blood, he should not sprinkle from [the mixture]. If there would not have been enough to nullify its appearance, he should sprinkle from it.68
Halacha 23
When the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed with the blood of animals that are disqualified from the altar or with the blood of sacrificial animals that were disqualified because of unsatisfactory ritual slaughter, the entire mixture should be poured into the drainage canal.69 Even if all the cups [of blood] were offered aside from one, it should be poured into the drainage canal and all of those offerings are unacceptable.
Halacha 24
If one cast the organs and fats offered on the altar, the limbs of burnt-offerings, the handfuls [of meal offered on the altar], the frankincense, or the meal-offerings that are to be burnt on the [altar's] pyre after they were consecrated in a sacred utensil, whether by hand72 or with a utensil, whether with one's right hand or with one's left hand, they are acceptable.
Halacha 25
When wine or water was poured [on the altar as a libation] with a bowl, the hinmeasure,73 or another sacred utensil, it is acceptable. If they were poured with an ordinary vessel or by hand, they are unacceptable.
Halacha 26
When one arranged the limbs [of a burnt-offering] or the handful [of meal from a meal-offering] and then arranged the logs for the altar's pyre above them74 or arranged them at the side of the limbs, there is an unresolved doubt whether this is considered as the typical way of having them consumed by fire or not.75Therefore as an initial preference, one should not offer them in this manner, but if one did, it is acceptable.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Although there is a desired manner in which the blood from every sacrifice should be offered on the altar, that is merely the desired manner of fulfilling the mitzvah. After the fact, even one presentation of blood is sufficient.
|
| 2. |
Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Rambam's intent is that even if the priest did not present the blood of the sin-offering on the corners of the altar at all as required, but rather poured it on the wall of the altar, it is sufficient to bring atonement.
|
| 3. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that rather than use the method of exegesis stated in Zevachim 37b, the Rambam quotes a different prooftext. This follows a pattern demonstrated in several other places in the Mishneh Torah where the Rambam derives a concept from the apparent meaning of Biblical verses even though the traditional Rabbinic approach is to derive the idea from other sources.
|
| 4. |
Casting blood on the altar refers to a situation where a priest stands slightly removed from the altar and casts the blood upon it powerfully. The blood of the burnt offerings, peace offerings, and guilt offerings are presented on the altar in this manner. Pouring the blood on the altar refers to a situation where the priest stands next to the altar and pours the blood gently upon it. The blood of firstborn offerings, tithe offerings, and Paschal sacrifices are presented in this manner.
|
| 5. |
This refers to the bull and the goat offered on Yom Kippur and the other sin-offerings which are burnt rather than eaten that are mentioned in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:5. See ibid. 5:11 for a description of the manner in which the sacrifice was offered.
|
| 6. |
If the owner of a sin-offering dies before even one presentation of the blood was made, the blood should not be presented (see Chapter 4, Halachah 1). If, however, one presentation was made, the sacrifice is fundamentally acceptable, as stated in Halachah 1. Hence the remainder of the presentations should also be made.
|
| 7. |
For the blood is disqualified at sunset (Zevachim 56a) and hence should not be presented upon the altar. Hence, even though the sacrifice is acceptable, the remaining presentations should not be made.
|
| 8. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:13.
|
| 9. |
The Torah uses the term haza'ah, "sprinkling," with regard to the sin-offering of a fowl and the sin-offerings whose blood is offered on the inner altar.
|
| 10. |
For at the time the sprinkling is completed, the priest who performed it was no longer acceptable for Temple service, because of his physical blemish. Even though the blemish did not occur until after the priest completed his activity, the time when the blood reached the altar is most significant. See Zevachim 15a.
|
| 11. |
Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah uses a different version.
|
| 12. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:12, 14, for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices.
|
| 13. |
See ibid.:10 for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices.
|
| 14. |
Based on Halachah 10, it appears that the intent in this and the following halachah is that the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable and may not be eaten. Nevertheless, the sacrifice itself is acceptable, since its blood has reached the altar.
|
| 15. |
As mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:9, there was a scarlet band dividing the upper half of the altar from the lower half. Sin-offerings of animals (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7) and burnt-offerings of fowl (ibid. 6:20) should be offered above the midpoint of the altar.
|
| 16. |
This refers to the blood of all other sacrifices.
|
| 17. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:6), the Rambam states that this refers to blood presented on the inner altar, on the Parochet (the curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies), and within the Holy of Holies itself.
|
| 18. |
The foundation of the altar did not surround the altar on its southern side, the place where the ramp was positioned. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that since the ramp is considered as equivalent to the altar in several contexts (see Menachot 57b; Zevachim 87a), after the fact, presenting the blood on it is considered equivalent to presenting it on the altar itself.
|
| 19. |
Since the blood was not offered in its proper place, in this context, it is as if the sacrifice was disqualified and the meat cannot be eaten. Nevertheless, even if "the blood of life" remains, it may not be offered upon the altar again. The rationale is that since the blood reached the altar, atonement is granted and another sacrifice is not required.
|
| 20. |
Although the Rambam does not mention all the instances that were mentioned in the first clause, they are all included in this ruling.
|
| 21. |
Since the casting of the blood is disqualified entirely because the person sprinkling it was unacceptable, it is as if it was not performed at all. Hence, if more "blood of life" remains, the sacrifice can be offered as if nothing had happened.
|
| 22. |
Blood from two sacrificial animals were mixed into the same cup.
|
| 23. |
The blood from two sacrificial animals was collected in separate cups, but it was forgotten in which cup the blood of each sacrificial animal was contained.
|
| 24. |
E.g., the blood of a firstborn offering with the blood of a tithe offering or of a Paschal sacrifice. SeeHilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:17.
|
| 25. |
Sin-offerings are the only sacrifices that require four presentations of blood on the altar. The Rambam is speaking about a situation in which the blood from one sin-offering was mixed with the blood from another.
|
| 26. |
I.e., burnt-offerings, guilt-offerings, and peace-offerings whose blood is dashed on the northeast and southwest corners of the altar so that it will have been presented on all four sides as described in ibid. 5:6.
|
| 27. |
The rationale for this ruling is that it is forbidden to make more than one presentation of the blood that requires only one presentation, because doing so would be a violation of the prohibition of adding to the Torah's commandments (see Zevachim 8:10). And after the fact, it is sufficient to make one presentation of the blood of sacrifices that require more as stated in Halachah 1. Although in failing to make the four presentations required for a sin-offering, the priest is detracting from the Torah's commandments and that is also forbidden, he is not performing an act when doing so.
|
| 28. |
See the notes to Halachah 10.
|
| 29. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11.
|
| 30. |
I.e., this refers to the blood that remains after the presentations on the corners of the altar were completed. This blood should be poured out at the base of the altar.
|
| 31. |
For the blood of the burnt-offering should be dashed on the wall of the altar, while the remnants of the blood of the sin-offering should be poured directly on the altar's base. It should not be poured on the altar's wall, for that would be considered as an addition to the required number of presentations.
|
| 32. |
Which must be presented on the upper half of the altar.
|
| 33. |
Which should be poured on the altar's base. The definition of the halachah as speaking about such a situation is taken from the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus, based on Zevachim 81b.
|
| 34. |
As an initial preference, he should not have presented the blood on the upper portion of the altar as stated in the previous halachah. Once he did, however, we assume that some of the blood from the sin-offering was presented there, thus the entire mixture is considered as the remainder of the blood of both a sin-offering and burnt-offering. In both instances, the remainder should be poured on the base of the altar.
|
| 35. |
I.e., on the altar's base. Once some of the mixture was presented on the upper half of the altar, the preferred course of action is to pour the entire mixture on the altar's base.
|
| 36. |
See Halachah 10.
|
| 37. |
Because, as an initial preference, there is no satisfactory manner of presenting this blood. For the blood from the sacrifices that is required to be offered in the Sanctuary should not be offered on the outer altar. Conversely, the blood that is required to be offered on the outer altar should not be offered in the Sanctuary.
|
| 38. |
For we assume that some of the blood for each sacrifice was presented in the appropriate manner.
|
| 39. |
I.e., even after the fact, it is acceptable only in this manner.
|
| 40. |
The Kessef Mishnehnotes that from the standard published text of Zevachim 82a, it would appear that the concept is more obvious with regard to an individual sin-offering than a communal sin-offering. They assume that the Rambam had a different version of the text.
|
| 41. |
Just as the sacrifice is forbidden to be eaten, the blood is forbidden to be presented on the altar. If, however, the blood was presented outside, the sacrifice is acceptable after the fact. The meat, however, is forbidden to be eaten.
|
| 42. |
The term huvah has as its root the word ba which means "come," leading to the inference the Rambam draws. See parallels in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:19; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 16:5.
|
| 43. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:6 with regard to the wickets leading to the Sanctuary.
|
| 44. |
For these are not the normal manner through which blood is brought into the Sanctuary.
|
| 45. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:16 and notes for a description of these sacrifices.
|
| 46. |
I.e., just as blood that is required to be presented on the outer altar becomes disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary, blood that is to be presented on the inner altar, becomes disqualified when it is brought further inward, to the Holy of Holies.
|
| 47. |
See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1.
|
| 48. |
But the required number of sprinklings were not completed.
|
| 49. |
Just as the blood of an ordinary sin-offering is disqualified when taken out of the Temple Courtyard, so, too, the blood of these offerings is disqualified when taken out of the Holy of Holies before the sprinklings are completed.
|
| 50. |
Even though the blood of this sacrifice will later be sprinkled in the Sanctuary as well, at the present time, the sprinklings should have been completed in the Holy of Holies. Since that was not done, taking the blood out disqualifies it.
The Ra'avad (and similarly, Rashi in his commentary to Zevachim 82b-83a) has a different understanding of the passage on which the Rambam's ruling was based and hence, objects. TheKessef Mishneh offers grounds to justify the Rambam's understanding.
|
| 51. |
The same rationale applies here as in the previous clause. Rav Yosef Corcus questions why the Rambam rules that the blood has been disqualified. Seemingly, since Zevachim 83a leaves this as an unresolved question, the Rambam should not rule that it is definitely disqualified. He explains that although one of the Sages considered it an unresolved issue, when the entire passage is considered, it would appear that it is not acceptable.
|
| 52. |
That should be offered on the outer altar.
|
| 53. |
For as long as a portion of the blood of a sin-offering is offered in the appropriate manner, it is acceptable. Although the blood that was taken out is disqualified, it does not disqualify the blood that remains.
|
| 54. |
Implied is that if it was sprinkled inside, even unknowingly, it is disqualified.
|
| 55. |
Even if it was not sprinkled inside. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus note that this ruling appears to contradict Zevachim 36a. The Kessef Mishneh concludes that although the Rambam's ruling can be reconciled with the passage, the resolution still leaves certain points that require explanation.
|
| 56. |
Even after the animal was slaughtered and before its blood was received (Zevachim 92b).
|
| 57. |
This law is mentioned because of the contrast to the law that follows. The prooftext above speaks of a sacrifice being disqualified because its blood was "brought into" the Temple Sanctuary. In this instance, the fowl was not brought in, but rather entered on its own.
|
| 58. |
I.e., the fowl was slaughtered, but the neck was held upright instead of allowing the blood to flow out into a receptacle.
|
| 59. |
For when the blood of a sin-offering is brought into the Temple sanctuary in a utensil, it is disqualified, as stated in Halachah 13.
|
| 60. |
With regard to a parallel situation concerning a sin-offering of an animal, see Chapter 1, Halachah 25.
|
| 61. |
Unto the floor of the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 62. |
Into a receptacle. The blood of a fowl should be squeezed from the neck of the animal unto the altar directly as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:6. The question is whether collecting the blood in a receptacle disqualifies the sacrifice or not, i.e., when the Torah stated that the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl should be presented directly on the altar was that granting permission (but not negating, presenting it from a receptacle) or stating that it must be presented in this manner (see Zevachim 92b).
|
| 63. |
The Kessef Mishneh states that this also applies to the situation mentioned in Halachah 19.
|
| 64. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
|
| 65. |
Since they were set aside as separate entities, but blood was not presented on the altar from them, they are not considered as the remnants of the blood presented and hence should not be poured on the altar's base. Yoma 57b derives this from the fact that Leviticus 4:26 states: "Its blood should be poured on the altar's base," implying that there are times when all of its blood is not poured there.
|
| 66. |
I.e., blood from an animal that was not offered as a sacrifice.
|
| 67. |
This applies even if it has the appearance of blood. From every drop of blood that falls into the mixture is nullified as it falls in. Thus it is considered as if there is never a majority of blood (Zevachim 77b).
|
| 68. |
See parallels to the above in Hilchot Shechitah 14:6; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 2:6.
|
| 69. |
In contrast to the instances mentioned in the previous halachah, in this instance even if the amount of the unacceptable blood is not sufficient to nullify the acceptable blood, the sacrifice is disqualified. Among the explanations given for the distinction is that the previous halachah describes mixtures that were made with ordinary blood and it is uncommon for ordinary blood to be found in the Temple Courtyard. Hence there was no need for a Rabbinic decree to serve as a safeguard. This halachah, by contrast, speaks of mixtures that could frequently occur in the Temple. Hence lest the mixture also be permitted even when the unacceptable blood could nullify the ordinary blood, our Sages were strict and disqualified all mixtures (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 70. |
Blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
|
| 71. |
Here also, our Rabbis saw the need for a safeguard, because this is a common situation (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 72. |
Rav Yosef Corcus notes that the Rambam's ruling here directly contradicts his ruling in Chapter 11, Halachah 6, which states that a handful of meal that is presented on the altar by hand is disqualified. He states that although the Rambam's ruling can be resolved with difficulty, the explanations appear forced.
|
| 73. |
This was one of the measures that were used in the Temple, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash1:17-18.
|
| 74. |
Instead of placing them above the logs.
|
| 75. |
More precisely, it is obviously not the ordinary way of offering these substances. The question is whether the departure from the norm is great enough to disqualify them or not.
|
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
When sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered on the top of the altar, it is as if they were slaughtered in the northern [portion of the Temple Courtyard],1 as [Exodus 20:21] states: "You shall slaughter upon it2 your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." This teaches that the entire altar is an appropriate place for the slaughter of burnt-offerings3 and peace-offerings.4
Halacha 2
When a burnt-offering was slaughtered on the top of the altar or it was slaughtered below [on the ground of the Temple Courtyard] and then brought up to the top of the altar, it should be skinned and cut into portions in that place. The inner organs should be taken down and washed below5 and then brought back [to the top of the altar]. The skin should be taken down and given to the priests.6
Halacha 3
Similarly, when [other] sacrifices that had been slaughtered were brought up to the altar, they should be skinned and cut into portions in that place. The inner organs should be taken down and washed below and then brought back [to the top of the altar]. The skin and the meat should be taken down and given to the owners. The remainder [of the sacrifice] should be offered on the altar's pyre.
Why shouldn't he bring down the entire [carcass] instead of skinning it and cutting it up on the top of the altar? Because anything that is fit to be offered on the pyre7 if it was brought up to the top of the altar should not be taken down,8as [indicated by ibid. 29:36]: "Everything that touches the altar shall be sanctified."
Does [the above principle apply] even when [the entity brought to the top of the altar] is not fit [to be offered on the altar's pyre]? It is taught [Leviticus 6:2] "It is the burnt-offering on the pyre." Just as the burnt-offering is fit to be consumed by the altar's pyre should not be taken down once it was taken up [to the altar], so too, any entity that is fit for the altar's pyre9 if it is brought up, it should not be brought down.
Halacha 4
When [an animal to be sacrificed as] a burnt-offering is brought up to the top of the altar while alive, it should be brought down, because it is not yet fit [to be consumed by the altar's pyre].
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
[Different rules apply] if, by contrast, sacrificial animals were left over night - whether their blood, their meat, or their fats and organs were left over night;15
a sacrificial animal was taken out of the Temple Courtyard;
it became impure or disqualified because of a disqualifying thought concerning the time [it was to be eaten] or the place [it was to be eaten];
it was sacrificed for the sake of a different offering;16
impure [priests] received its blood and cast it on the altar; [this is significant] since they are fit to perform Temple service when a sacrifice is brought in a state of impurity;17
when the blood was presented in an improper place;18
or sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the southern portion of the Temple Courtyard or their blood was received there.19
Although in all of these situations, [the sacrifices] are disqualified, if [the meat, fats, and/or organs] were brought to the top of the altar, they should not be taken down.
Halacha 8
[This is the general principle:] Whenever an entity is disqualified in the Temple Courtyard,20 the holiness [of the altar] accepts it.21 Just as when these entities were brought up, they should not be taken down, so too, if they were taken down, they should not be brought up a second time. For they have been disqualified.
Halacha 9
If the [altar's] fire took hold of them22 [before they were brought down from the altar], they should be brought up again [so that] they will be consumed by its fire.
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
When limbs, fats, and handfuls of meal were left overnight on the top of the altar, it is as if they were left overnight in the Temple Courtyard.25 If they were brought down from the altar, they should not be brought up again. If, however, they were not brought down, they should be offered on the altar's pyre in all situations.
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
When an unacceptable sacrifice and unacceptable wine libations32 were brought up to the altar, the sacrifice should not be taken down as we explained. The wine libations, [by contrast,] should be taken down.33 Similarly, when wine libations are brought independently and they were disqualified and brought to the top of the altar, they should be taken down.
Halacha 15
When melikah was performed on a fowl by a non-priest and then it was brought to the top of the altar, it should not be taken down.34 If, [by contrast,] a handful of meal was taken by a non-priest and brought to the top of the altar, it should be brought down. Even though both of these acts disqualify [the offerings], [the handful from the meal-offering] is considered as if it was never consecrated at all.35 [These laws apply to] a non-priest as well as to anyone else who is disqualified [from performing sacrificial service].36
Halacha 16
The following, however, should be taken down [even though] they were brought up to the top of the altar, anything that is not fit37 for the altar's pyre. [This includes:] the meat of sacrifices of the most sacred order, the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity,38 the remainder of the omer, the remainder of the meal-offerings,39 the two breads [offered on Shavuot], the showbread,40the incense offering,41 the wool that is on the heads of sheep, the hair on the beards of goats, the bones, the sinews, the horns, and the hoofs if they are not attached to [the animal's body].42 [In all these instances,] if [these entities] were brought to the top [of the altar], they should be brought down.
Halacha 17
If some of the oil from the handful of meal was squeezed out on a bone43[that had been laying on the altar] and then the bone was taken down, it should be returned [to the altar]. [The rationale is that] there is an unresolved doubt whether entities attached to entities that should be brought up [to the altar]44are considered as if they should be brought up as well.
Halacha 18
The inner altar sanctifies unacceptable entities whether they are fit for it or not fit for it,45 but the outer altar only sanctifies unacceptable entities that are fit for it, as we explained.46
What is implied? When sacrifices that were disqualified are brought up to the outer altar, they should not be brought down. If an unfitting incense offering47was offered upon it, it should be brought down, because an incense offering is not fit for the outer altar. If, by contrast, a handful of meal from the meal-offering was placed on the inner altar, it should not be taken off, whether it was fit or not fit. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Just as the altar sanctifies any entity that is fit for it, so too, the ramp, and other sacred utensils, sanctify what is fit for them. For with regard to the sacred utensils, [Exodus 30:29] states: "Any entity that touches them will be sanctified." Thus when an entity that is fit for it reaches the ramp, it should not be brought down even though it is disqualified.48 Similarly, if any entity that is fit for a sacred vessel reaches a sacred vessel, it should never be redeemed even though it was disqualified, as stated in Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach.49
Halacha 19
Vessels made for liquids do not consecrate solids and vessels made for solids do not consecrate liquids.
Halacha 20
Sacred vessels only consecrate [entities] in the Temple.53 Also, they only consecrate [entities placed in them] willfully,54 from their insides,55 and when intact. [The following rules apply if] a hole was made within them. If they could still be used to perform the original task for which they were used when intact, they consecrate what is placed within. If not,56 they do not consecrate [their contents].
They consecrate [their contents] only when they are full. The measures do not consecrate their contents when they are lacking unless one intends to fill them. If one does not intend to fill them, they consecrate their contents only in that [the contents] could [later] be disqualified,57but not to have them offered.58
Halacha 21
[When an entity is placed] in a sacred vessel at an inappropriate time, it is consecrated only to the extent that is disqualified, not that it should be offered.
What is implied? When an entity whose mitzvah is performed during the day is placed into a sacred vessel at night, it is disqualified.59 It should be burnt,60 but not sacrificed. For example, if a handful is taken from a meal-offering at night and that handful is placed in a sacred vessel, it should be burnt.
Halacha 22
When an altar became damaged,61 all of the sacrificial animals that were in the Temple and had been slaughtered, but whose blood had not been cast on the altar, are disqualified.62 For there is no altar on which to cast the blood and [Exodus 20:21] states: "And you shall slaughter upon it your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." Implied is that when you slaughter [your offerings,] it shall be intact and not blemished.
Halacha 23
Sacrificial animals that were alive and located in the Temple Courtyard at the time [the altar] became damaged are not disqualified. Instead, when the altar is repaired, they should be sacrificed. [The rationale is that] living animals are not deemed unacceptable forever.63
Halacha 24
If animals were consecrated before the altar was built, they should be sacrificed after the altar was built, for the fact that they could not [be sacrificed] originally is not a disqualifying factor.
Halacha 25
Similarly, sacrificial meat should not be eaten while the altar is damaged, as [Leviticus 10:12] states: "You shall eat it64 as unleavened bread near the altar."65 This also applies to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity; they should not be eaten in Jerusalem while the altar is damaged until it is repaired.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2, sacrifices of the most sacred order must be sacrificed in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard. Now, the altar is located in the southern portion. Nevertheless, based on the prooftext the Rambam cites, Zevachim 85a derives that it is acceptable to slaughter these sacrificial animals on the top of the altar.
|
| 2. |
The altar.
|
| 3. |
Since it is acceptable for burnt-offerings, our Sages assumed that it was also acceptable for other sacrifices of the most-sacred order.
|
| 4. |
Peace-offerings are sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity which may be sacrificed anywhere in the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:4). Nevertheless, it is necessary to state that they may be sacrificed on the top of the altar, because one might think that since there is ample space to sacrifice them, they would have to be sacrificed on the ground (Zevachim, loc. cit.; Gittin 67a).
|
| 5. |
For it is not respectful to clean out the wastes on the top of the altar.
|
| 6. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:19.
|
| 7. |
This refers to an entity like the carcass of a sacrifice which in its present state is not fit to be offered on the altar, but is not lacking any great tasks like slaughter.
|
| 8. |
This general principle (stated in Zevachim 9:1) is the subject of discussion in the following halachot.
|
| 9. |
But only an article that is fit to be consumed by the fires.
|
| 10. |
Unless a meal offering is consecrated in a sacred vessel, it is unacceptable.
|
| 11. |
Animals forbidden to be sacrificed, e.g., one that was worshipped, one that is treifah, or one which killed a person or the like. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:11.
The commentaries question why the Rambam does not mention animals with disqualifying physical blemishes. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:3) he rules that even if they were brought to the top of the altar, they should be brought down. And if the Rambam changed his mind, it would have been appropriate to say so explicitly. Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that such animals are also included in the general category of "entities forbidden to be offered on the altar," as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit..
|
| 12. |
The leniency that every entity brought up to the altar should be offered upon it applies only to entities that were disqualified after having been fit to be offered upon it. As our Sages taught (Zevachim 84a; see Halachah 8) whenever an entity was disqualified in the Temple, if it was brought to the top of the altar, it should be offered. In this instance, these substances were never fit to be offered on the altar's pyre.
|
| 13. |
This addition is obvious from a comparison to the following halachah.
|
| 14. |
Even though it was disqualified in the Temple, nevertheless, it was disqualified before the time its meat and/or fats and organs were to be offered on the altar's pyre (see Zevachim 84a,b).
|
| 15. |
Once blood is left past sunset, it is disqualified (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:1) and if the meat of a burnt-offering is left overnight, it is disqualified (ibid.:2). Nevertheless, since the meat of a peace-offering is acceptable if left overnight, this is not a serious enough disqualifying factor to prevent these entities from being offered on the altar's pyre (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 16. |
See Chapters 13-18 with regard to these factors.
|
| 17. |
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10-12.
|
| 18. |
In which instance, after the fact, in many instances, the sacrifice is acceptable, as stated in Chapter 2.
|
| 19. |
Rather than in the north as required (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2).
|
| 20. |
Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary, Zevachim 84a.
|
| 21. |
After the fact, as stated above.
|
| 22. |
See Chapter 18, Halachah 21, where the Rambam speaks of the fire taking hold of the majority of the entity. Seemingly, that concept would apply here as well.
|
| 23. |
See Chapter 13, Halachah 1, for a definition of this term.
|
| 24. |
For the handful of meal is considered as an integral entity.
|
| 25. |
I.e., they are disqualified. Nevertheless, they should be offered on the altar's pyre, because they are on the top of the altar.
|
| 26. |
Thus even if the disqualified sacrificial entities were not placed down on the altar, but held by a person standing on the altar, the above concepts apply (see Zevachim 88a). Rav Yosef Corcus notes that the Talmud mentions also a situation where a person is standing in the Temple Courtyard and holds a disqualified sacrificial entity over the altar with a pole. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that since the Talmud does not reach a final decision whether such an entity should be offered on the altar's pyre or not, because of the doubt, they should not be taken down from above the altar.
|
| 27. |
Certainly, this applies to the fats and the organs of sacrifices of the most sacred order (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 28. |
Instead of afterwards, as required.
|
| 29. |
Or two sin-offerings (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 30. |
I.e., if one was lost, the other would be sacrificed (Rashi, Meilah 7a).
|
| 31. |
The blood of the second animal should be cast on the altar and then its fats and organs offered. Since two animals were slaughtered and one offering can be carried out in a perfectly desirable manner, that is preferable to performing the offering in a manner that is effective only after the fact. Since the second animal will be offered in an effective manner, the blood of the first should not be cast on the altar. And since its blood should not be cast on the altar, the fat and the organs should not be offered on the altar's pyre (ibid.).
|
| 32. |
This clause is speaking about wine libations that were brought as accompanying offerings for a sacrifice.
|
| 33. |
This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in Zevachim 9:1, who maintains that for a disqualified entity to be offered on the altar, it must be fit for the altar's pyre and wine libations are poured over the altar and not on its pyre.
|
| 34. |
The rationale is that in the era when sacrifices could be brought on individual altars (see the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:1), it was possible for a non-priest to perform melikah on a fowl that was offered on a sacrifice. Hence, even after the Temple was built, when a non-priest performsmelikah on a fowl, that act is significant enough to endow with holiness to the extent that if the fowl is brought to the top of the altar, it should be offered on the pyre (Zevachim 69a).
|
| 35. |
One might ask: Why isn't the handful of meal acceptable? When offerings were brought on an individual altar, a handful of meal could also be separated by a non-priest. In resolution, however, it is explained that in the Temple, the handful of meal was afterwards placed in a sacred utensil (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:12) and then offered on the altar and such service was not performed by a non-priest on an individual altar (Zevachim, loc. cit.).
|
| 36. |
E.g., a priest with a disqualifying physical deformity; one who is intoxicated; one in the state of severe onein mourning (see Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah).
|
| 37. |
I.e., halachically not fit to be offered, but either eaten, offered on the inner altar, or discarded.
|
| 38. |
The meat of these sacrifices should not be offered on the altar, but rather eaten by the priests and, with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, the owners.
|
| 39. |
After a handful of meal is taken from the omer and the meal-offerings, the remainder should not be offered on the altar, but eaten by the priests.
|
| 40. |
These breads are eaten by the priests.
|
| 41. |
This is not fit to be offered on the pyre of the outer altar, but instead, on coals on the inner altar.
|
| 42. |
Once these entities are separated from an animal's body, they should be discarded rather than offered on the altar's pyre. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:2.
|
| 43. |
The Rambam's ruling is derived from the version of Menachot 23a in his possession. Ra'avad, Rashi, as well as the standard published text of that passage follow a different version which reads eitzim, wood, rather than etzem,, bone.
|
| 44. |
The oil is the entity that should be returned to the altar and the bone is the entity attached to it (Rav Yosef Corcus). Although on its own accord, the bone should not be returned to the altar as stated in the previous halachah, since it is attached to the oil, it should be returned, lest this be considered as treating sacred articles with disdain (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 45. |
The inner altar has an added measure of holiness, because it was anointed and thus is comparable to a sacred vessel (Rashi, Zevachim 23b).
|
| 46. |
See Halachah 16.
|
| 47. |
This includes all incense offerings, because no incense offerings are ever offered on the outer altar.
|
| 48. |
Instead, it should be offered on the altar's pyre.
|
| 49. |
Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:4-5.
|
| 50. |
Hilchot K'lei Hamikdash 1:16-17. The rationale is that these vessels were anointed only for the sake of measuring and only for measuring the particular types of substances - liquids or solids - intended for them.
|
| 51. |
The receptacles used to receive the blood from the sacrificial animal and then cast it on the altar.
|
| 52. |
Since they were anointed to serve as receptacles, they consecrate anything placed inside of them.
|
| 53. |
If, by contrast, an entity is placed within a sacred vessel outside the Temple Courtyard, it is not consecrated.
|
| 54. |
And not something that fell in accidentally.
|
| 55. |
If, however, solids are piled up over the edges of a sacred container, they are not consecrated. Note the apparent contrast to Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:19 which states that liquid measures consecrate the overflow that drips down their sides.
|
| 56. |
I.e., the hole prevents them from being used as a container.
|
| 57. |
I.e., if they remained overnight or were taken out of the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 58. |
This refers to offerings of flour and the like. As mentioned in the previous halachah, blood that is placed in such utensils is sanctified to be offered on the altar.
|
| 59. |
I.e., placing it in the sacred utensil is significant - for if it was not significant, it would not have been disqualified, and would have been able to be used on the following day.
|
| 60. |
As are sacred entities which became disqualified.
|
| 61. |
The square of the altar must be totally intact, even a slight chip disqualifies it, as stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:14-16; 2:18.
|
| 62. |
Even if the altar is repaired before sunset, the blood of these sacrifices should not be cast upon it. Since at the outset, the altar was fit to have their blood cast upon it and then there was a time when that service could not be performed, the blood is disqualified forever.
|
| 63. |
This is a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Chapter 4, Halachah 24; Chapter 6, Halachah 1; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot15:4; et al.
As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:15, this represents a reversal of the Rambam's initial position on the matter.
|
| 64. |
The meal-offering brought as part of the dedication of the altar. As the verse states, it was considered as a sacrifice of the most holy order.
|
| 65. |
Zevachim 60a explains that there is no obligation to eat sacrificial food near the altar. Rather the intent is as explained here.
|
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
[All of the following:]
a) the offspring of [an animal designated as] a sin-offering,
b) an animal exchanged for [an animal designated as] a sin-offering,
c)[an animal designated as] a sin-offering whose owner dies, and
d) such animal that was lost and then found only after the owner secured atonement,1 should be consigned to die.
[In the latter instance, if the first animal designated as a sin-offering] was found after the second that was set aside was slaughtered, but before its blood was presented on the altar, there is an unresolved doubt2 if it should be consigned to death or left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.3 Therefore4 it should be consigned to death.
What is meant by being consigned to death? Not that one should kill them with a utensil or by hand. Instead, they should be brought into a room, locked inside, [and left] until they die. All of these matters were conveyed by Moses our teacher.
All of the above applies only to a sin-offering designated by an individual. [An animal designated as] a communal sin-offering, by contrast, which was lost and then discovered after atonement was secured - whether it is fit [to be offered as a sacrifice] or unfit5- should be left to be pasture until it contracts a blemish and then sold.6 The proceeds should be used for freewill offerings.7
Halacha 2
When the bull11 and/or the goat12 of Yom Kippur were lost, other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found], they should be left to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. [Then] they should be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings.13 [The rationale is that] a communal sin-offering is never consigned to death. [This same law applies when] the goats sacrificed as [atonement for the worship of] false divinities14 are lost other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found].
Why are [the animals that were lost and then discovered] themselves not offered as freewill offerings, for they are male? This is a decree, forbidding [offering them] after atonement was achieved, [lest they be offered as freewill offerings] before atonement [was achieved].15
Halacha 3
[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it, then the first one was found, and they both stood [before him]. If he took one of them and attained atonement through its [sacrifice], the other should be consigned to death.16 If he asks the advice [of the court],17 he is told to gain atonement through the one set aside first. The second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering.18
If one of them was unblemished and the other had a disqualifying physical blemish, the unblemished one should be sacrificed and the blemished one should be redeemed.19If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar],20 it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one].21 If they were both blemished, they should both be sold, a sin-offering should be purchased from the proceeds, and the remainder used for freewill offerings.22
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it and it was [also] lost, and he designated a third. Afterwards, the lost ones were found, and all three stood [before him]. If he received atonement through the first animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the third left to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish].23 If he received atonement through the third animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the first left to pasture.24 If he received atonement through the second animal [that was set aside], the first and the third should be consigned to death.25
Halacha 5
When a person sets aside two [animals for] a sin-offering for surety,26 he may gain atonement through which one he desires, the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
Halacha 6
When a person sets aside [an animal that] is pregnant as a sin-offering and it gives birth, it and its offspring are considered as two animals set aside for a sin-offering and as surety for it.27
Halacha 7
If one set aside a sin-offering and then its year passed,28 it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place. Similarly, if [an animal] was set aside as a sin-offering and it contracted a disqualifying blemish, [it should be sold and] the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place.
Halacha 8
Whenever [an animal designated as] a sin-offering was lost and then discovered before [the owner] achieved atonement,29 - even though when it was discovered it was blemished or its year had passed30 - it is not consigned to death.31 Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
If it was found after [the owner] achieved atonement, even if it was discovered when it was blemished or its year had passed,32 since it was lost at the time atonement was achieved, it is consigned to death.
Halacha 9
If [the animal] was stolen or robbed at the time atonement was achieved and afterwards returned, it is not consigned to death. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished], for all we heard from Moses our teacher was that [an animal] that was lost [should be consigned to death].33
Halacha 10
If [the owner] considered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] lost, but the shepherd did not or the shepherd considered it lost, but the owner did not, it is not consigned to death [if it is discovered after another animal was offered in place of it].36 Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished].
Halacha 11
All of those [animals mentioned in the above laws] that are allowed to pasture, may pasture until they contract a blemish. [Then they are sold and] the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering.
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
[If the animal designated as a sin-offering] was hiding behind a door or behind a stairwell, it is considered as lost, for no one will see it at the time atonement is gained. If it is in a field or in a swamp, there is a doubt whether it is lost, for perhaps there is a person who saw it at the time atonement is achieved. Therefore it is consigned to death because of the doubt.
Halacha 14
When a person sends [an animal designated as] a sin-offering from a distant country, we sacrifice it under the assumption that he is alive.
When does the above apply? With regard to a sin-offering of a fowl or a sin-offering of an animal for a woman who does not perform semichah, as we explained.39[Different rules apply with regard to an animal set aside as] an unconditional guilt-offering.40 [If] its owner died or received atonement,41 it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering. Whenever it is deemed that [an animal designated as] a sin-offering should be consigned to death, [one designated as] a guilt-offering should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
Halacha 15
[If] any [animal set aside as] a guilt-offering that is consigned to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish] is sacrificed as a burnt offering itself,42 it is acceptable. Why is it not the initial preference to offer it as a burnt-offering? [This is] a decree, [using such an animal for a burnt-offering] after [its owner] gained atonement [is forbidden] lest [such an animal be used for a burnt-offering] before [the owner] gained atonement.43
Halacha 16
When a person sets aside a female [animal] for a guilt-offering in which he [is obligated], it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.44[Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a guilt-offering.45 If his guilt-offering was offered, the proceeds from the sale should be used to purchase a freewill offering. This also applies to her offspring.46
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
If, however, an ordinary person49 set aside a male [animal] for a sin-offering,50a king51 set aside a she-goat as a sin-offering,52 or an anointed priest set aside a cow,53 these are not consecrated [at all], their physical person is not consecrated,54 nor is their worth consecrated.55 Therefore they may be sold [even] when unblemished.56
Halacha 19
[The following laws apply when a person] brought a conditional guilt-offering57and then discovered that he did not sin58 or that he definitely sinned.59 [Should he become aware of this] before the animal was slaughtered, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.60 [The rationale61 is that] a person's heart feels contrite because of his sins. Since he designated [the animal as a sacrifice] because of a doubt, [we assume that] he resolved to consecrate it [regardless]. If he designated [an animal as a conditional guilt-offering] even because of witnesses62 and the witnesses were disqualified throughhazamah,63[the above ruling applies and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
If this was discovered after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be poured out64 and the meat burnt as prescribed with regard to other sacrifices that were disqualified.65 If this was discovered after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be eaten by the priests like that of other guilt-offerings.66
Halacha 20
[This law] does not apply with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering. [In that instance,] if the person became aware that he did not sin before [the animal designated as a sacrifice was slaughtered], it should be allowed to go out and pasture among the flock like an ordinary animal.67 There is no holiness associated with it at all. If [he became aware of his innocence] after [the animal] was slaughtered, it should be buried.68If [he became aware] after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be taken to the place where [invalid sacrifices] are burnt like other sacrifices that were disqualified.69
Halacha 21
When a person became liable to offer a conditional guilt-offering and he set aside two [animals] as surety,70 he should gain atonement through one of them and the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.71[Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering.72 Needless to say,73 this law applies with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering.
Halacha 22
All of the guilt-offerings mentioned in the Torah should be brought when they are in their second year of life74 and their price should be [two] silver shekalim75with the exception of the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at76and the guilt offering brought by a nazirite77 which should be brought in their first year of life78 and their cost has no limit.
A conditional guilt-offering comes from both young lambs and elder ones.79According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that it be brought only from [two] silver shekalim.
Halacha 23
If the price of rams decrease and a ram cannot be found for two silver selaim, the person has no means of correcting [his circumstance].80 He must wait until their price inflates and then bring one for two selaim, for the Torah was precise about their price and gave it an explicit limit.
Halacha 24
If a person set aside an animal as a guilt offering which was worth [only] onesela at the time it was set aside, but its worth appreciated to two at the time of atonement,81 it is acceptable. For the fact that it was initially unacceptable does not make it permanently disqualified, since it was not fit to be sacrificed until it was worth two [selaim]. Even though it increased in value on its own,82 a person can gain atonement through the increase in value of consecrated property.83
If it was worth two selaim at the time it was set aside, but its worth depreciated to one at the time of atonement, it is unacceptable.84 If its value later appreciated to two, it becomes acceptable again. For living animals are never permanently disqualified, as we explained.85 To what can the matter be likened? To a physical blemish that was contracted, but which disappeared.
Halacha 25
[The following rule applies when a person] set aside two selaim for a guilt-offering and purchased two rams for a guilt-offering with them. If one of them was worth two selaim, he should offer it as his guilt-offering86 and the other should be left to be pasture until it contracts a blemish [and then sold]. The proceeds should be used for a freewill offering.87
Halacha 26
If a person was obligated to bring a guilt-offering that was a year old,88and instead, brought one that was two years old,89 brought one that was a year old when he was obligated to bring one that was two years old, or brought one when the time for him to bring it had not come,90 it is unacceptable. It should be [left] until the next day91 and then it should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.
This is the general principle: Any factor that disqualifies a sin-offering disqualifies a guilt-offering except a guilt-offering that was slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice, which is acceptable, as will be explained.92
Halacha 27
When a burnt-offering that must be brought by a nazirite,93 a woman who gives birth,94 or a person who is being purified after tza'arat,95was slaughtered when it was more than twelve months old or the time for the owner to bring it had not come,96 it is acceptable97 and its accompanying offerings are required to be brought.
This is the general principle: Any factor that does not disqualify a burnt offering brought willingly does not disqualify a burnt-offering that is obligatory regardless of whether the one bringing it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation or not.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Through offering a different animal as a sin-offering. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah4:1), the Rambam mentions several conditions when an animal is consigned to death in such a situation. They are listed in Halachot 9-13.
|
| 2. |
The doubt arises because the person does not secure atonement until the blood is presented.
|
| 3. |
When an animal has been consecrated, but is unfit to be sacrificed for various reasons, it must be redeemed before being used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it may not be redeemed until it becomes disqualified as a sacrifice through contracting a physical blemish. Therefore it is left to pasture until it contracts such a blemish. During that time, it is still consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it.
|
| 4. |
For if it is to be consigned to death, it would be forbidden to benefit from it. Since there is a possibility that it is forbidden in this manner, it is not redeemed.
|
| 5. |
It became blemished or its age increased beyond that which is appropriate.
|
| 6. |
When an animal has been consecrated, but is unfit to be sacrificed for various reasons, it must be redeemed before being used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it may not be redeemed until it becomes disqualified as a sacrifice through contracting a physical blemish. Therefore it is left to pasture until it contracts such a blemish. During that time, it is still consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it.
|
| 7. |
I.e., the money is used to buy animals that are offered as burnt-offerings at a time when the altar is free [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4)].
|
| 8. |
Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15. Since they are male, there are no offspring.
|
| 9. |
Hilchot Temurah 1:1.
|
| 10. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 2:2), the Rambam cites Bava Batra 115b which states that an entire tribe will not die and states that how much more so does this apply to the entire Jewish people.
|
| 11. |
Sacrificed by the High Priest as atonement for his household and for the entire priestly family.Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1
|
| 12. |
The pair of the goat sent to Azazel. This goat is offered as a sin-offering, for the entire Jewish people (ibid.).
|
| 13. |
The wording used by the Rambam literally means "the proceeds should fall to a freewill offering." In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 3:3, Rav Kapach's edition), the Rambam explains the meaning of that phrase. There were thirteen chests shaped like shofarot in the Temple. Six of them were for money to be used for freewill offerings (see Hilchot Shekalim 2:2). The money from such a sale would be deposited in one of these chests.
|
| 14. |
See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1.
|
| 15. |
For as stated in the following halachah, it is preferable that the animals originally set aside as sin-offerings be offered for that purpose instead of their replacements.
|
| 16. |
Since he took one without questioning what should be done with the second, it is obvious that he consciously rejected the second one and is not concerned with its future. Hence it should be consigned to death (Rashi, Temurah 23a).
This ruling reflects a reversal in the Rambam's thinking. Originally [i.e., in the first version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:3)], he accepted the opinion of Rav Abba who made his statements in the name of Rav. According to that view, if he sacrificed the animal that was set aside originally, the second animal that was set aside need not be consigned to death. He later changed his mind (see Rav Kapach's version of the Commentary to the Mishnah; see also the gloss of Tosafot Yom Tov to Temurah, loc. cit.) and amended his text to read as above.
|
| 17. |
And thus shows that he is concerned about the fate of the other animal. Accordingly, it is not consigned to death.
|
| 18. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 9.
|
| 19. |
And the proceeds used for freewill offerings as above.
|
| 20. |
The act that brings about atonement.
|
| 21. |
This follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezar ben Shimon (Temurah 24a) who maintains that once the owner receives atonement, it becomes forbidden to benefit from the second animal even if the second animal was already slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is unlikely the Rambam accepted this view when it is opposed by the majority of the Sages. Hence he suggests amending the text to read: "If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar], it is permitted. [If it was slaughtered] after [the blood of the first] was cast upon the altar, it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one]."
|
| 22. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 3.
|
| 23. |
Since the third animal does not have a direct connection with the first, the fact that the owner received atonement through the sacrifice of the first does not cause the third to be consigned to death.
|
| 24. |
For the same reason as stated in the previous note.
|
| 25. |
For both of these share a direct connection with the second.
|
| 26. |
So that if one is lost or becomes unacceptable, he will be able to offer the other one. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this is speaking about a situation when the person says: "One of these two should be consecrated as a sin-offering."
|
| 27. |
And he can offer either as a sacrifice.
|
| 28. |
A lamb is not fit to be brought as a sin-offering if it is more than one year old.
|
| 29. |
Through the offering of another sacrifice.
|
| 30. |
And thus when it was discovered, it was no longer fit to be offered as a sacrifice. The Kessef Mishneh suggests that this clause is a printing error, because according to the Rambam's logic, the term "even though" is inappropriate.
|
| 31. |
According to the Rambam (see his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1-2), the determining factor is whether the animal was discovered before atonement is achieved or not. Only when it is lost at the time of atonement is it consigned to death.
|
| 32. |
In which instance, there is room to say that it should not be consigned to death, because perhaps it was already disqualified as a sacrifice at the time the other animal was offered. Even in such a situation, however, it is consigned to death.
|
| 33. |
As mentioned in Halachah 1, the laws applying to the consignment of an animal designated as a sin-offering to death are part of the Oral Tradition conveyed to Moses at Sinai. And all that was mentioned in that tradition was an animal that was lost.
|
| 34. |
Temurah 22b explains that this is the meaning of ikar in this instance.
|
| 35. |
Because at the time it was lost, it was not fit to be sacrificed, since sacrifices are not offered at night.
|
| 36. |
As long as one - the owner or the shepherd - knows of the animal's existence, it cannot truly be considered as lost.
|
| 37. |
Temurah 22b leaves this question unresolved. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam writes that as long as one person knows of the animal's existence, it is not consigned to death.
|
| 38. |
As stated in Halachah 1.
|
| 39. |
Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5. A sin-offering for a man, by contrast, should not be brought unless he is present to perform semichah upon it. Although, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable if semichah is not performed, as an initial preference, one should not offer it unless that rite could be performed.
|
| 40. |
The situations under which a person is required to bring such a sacrifice are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:6.
|
| 41. |
Through the sacrifice of another animal.
|
| 42. |
I.e., if instead of being left to pasture, the animal was itself offered as a burnt-offering.
|
| 43. |
For if it was discovered before the owner gained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, the initial preference would be to sacrifice it.
|
| 44. |
All guilt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10). Hence the animal cannot be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated.
|
| 45. |
For it was consecrated for that purpose.
|
| 46. |
If the female set aside as a guilt-offering became pregnant, its offspring (even if male) should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and then sold and the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering. The rationale is that the consecrated status of the offspring stems from the mother. Since the mother was not fit to be offered as a guilt-offering, the offspring also should not be used for that purpose.
|
| 47. |
All animals offered as burnt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8). Hence the animal could never be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated.
|
| 48. |
The offspring itself should not be offered for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah.
|
| 49. |
In contrast to a king or a High Priest.
|
| 50. |
All the sin-offerings brought by an ordinary person are female (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15).
|
| 51. |
This is the interpretation of the term nasi used by the Rambam (see Hilchot Shegagot 15:6).
|
| 52. |
Instead of a he-goat as required.
|
| 53. |
Instead of a bull as required.
|
| 54. |
So that they would be sacrificed for the stated purpose.
|
| 55. |
In which instance, they would have to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice.
|
| 56. |
The rationale is that, as stated in Hilchot Temurah 1:21, when an error was made in consecrating an animal as a sin-offering, it is not consecrated at all. The Ra'avad objects to this ruling based onTemurah 19b-20a, but states that there is a way to resolve the Rambam's perspective. TheKessef Mishneh recognizes the difficulty in the Rambam's ruling and also offers a possible resolution.
|
| 57. |
Which must be brought when he is in doubt of whether he inadvertently committed a sin that would make him liable for a sin-offering,
|
| 58. |
In which instance he would not have to bring a sacrifice at all.
|
| 59. |
In which instance, he would have to bring a sin-offering instead.
|
| 60. |
I.e., since it was consecrated, it should be used for the purchase of a sacrifice. It cannot, however, be sacrificed as a guilt-offering, because the person is not obligated to bring such a sacrifice.
|
| 61. |
I.e., since it was consecrated conditionally - i.e., because he might have sinned - when he discovers that he did not, there is room to say that the consecration is not binding. Indeed, Keritot23b mentions an opinion to that effect. The Rambam does not, however, accept this view for the reasons stated.
|
| 62. |
I.e., he had no suspicions that he sinned, but witnesses told him that he performed an action that could have involved a transgression, e.g., he ate a piece of meat that could possible have contained an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat.
|
| 63. |
Hazamah refers to a situation in which other witnesses disqualify the witnesses who testified previously by stating that it was impossible for their testimony to be true, for the witnesses were together with them in a different place at the time the transgression mentioned in their testimony was performed (Hilchot Edut 18:2).
Here, also, there is room to say that the person consecrated the animal in error. Nevertheless, the rationale given previously applies in this instance as well.
|
| 64. |
In the drainage channel.
|
| 65. |
See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.
|
| 66. |
For the sacrifice was offered as prescribed, and from the outset, it was offered conditionally.
|
| 67. |
Since it was consecrated in error, the consecration is not binding at all.
|
| 68. |
I.e., it is governed by the laws pertaining to an ordinary animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 69. |
See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.
|
| 70. |
I.e., if one will be lost, the other should be sacrificed in place of it.
|
| 71. |
As stated in Halachah 5, with regard to a sin-offering.
|
| 72. |
Since he set aside an extra animal because he wanted to be certain that he would be able to offer a sacrifice as atonement for his sins, we assume that he desired to consecrate it under all circumstances.
|
| 73. |
The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam feels that an unconditional guilt-offering is a more obvious matter than a conditional guilt-offering.
|
| 74. |
More precisely when they are at least thirteen months old.
|
| 75. |
As stated explicitly in Leviticus 5:15 with regard to the guilt offering that atones for the misappropriation of consecrated property. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam explains the process of exegesis through which this requirement is extended to apply to the guilt-offerings that atone for robbery and for relations with a maid-servant that was designated for another man.
|
| 76. |
A skin affliction similar, but not analogous to leprosy. The obligation to bring a guilt-offering when one emerges from this impurity is stated in Leviticus 14:10-12.
|
| 77. |
When the nazirite becomes impure and shaves his head before beginning his nazirite vow again, he brings several sacrifices including a guilt-offering as stated in Numbers 6:12.
|
| 78. |
As specifically stated in the Torah.
|
| 79. |
This rendering of the text is found in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah and in many reliable manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah. It is also cited by the Kessef Mishneh. Others maintain that the proper version is found in the early printings of the Mishneh Torah which reads "It is explicit that an unconditional guilt-offering is brought only from elder ones." This version is supported by the Rambam's statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). Also,Leviticus 5:18 specifically states that a ram should be brought for this sacrifice.
|
| 80. |
He is obligated to bring a guilt-offering and, as the Rambam proceeds to state, he may not bring such an offering for less.
|
| 81. |
I.e., when it was sacrificed.
|
| 82. |
I.e., the market price of rams rose; it was not fattened to the extent that its value increased (Rav Yosef Corcus).
|
| 83. |
I.e., it had already been consecrated at the time its value increased.
|
| 84. |
For at the time it is to be sacrificed, it is not worth the required amount.
|
| 85. |
Chapter 3, Halachah 22; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4.
|
| 86. |
Since it is of the required worth.
|
| 87. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam explains that this follows the general principle that if there is any money that was set aside for the purchase of a guilt-offering remains after the purchase of that offering, it should be used for the purchase of freewill offerings.
|
| 88. |
I.e., he was purifying himself from tzara'at or atoning for becoming impure while a nazirite.
|
| 89. |
As is obligated for the other types of guilt-offerings.
|
| 90. |
E.g., a nazirite must wait seven days after becoming impure to offer his sacrifice and a person who was purified from tzara'at must wait eight days. If these individuals sought to offer these sacrifices before this time came, they are unaceeptable.
|
| 91. |
We have translated the term used by the Rambam according to its halachic intent. The literal meaning is that it should be left long enough to decompose until it loses the appearance of meat. Our Sages (see Pesachim 34b, et al; Rashi, Menachot 46b) understood that as being a twenty-four hour period.
|
| 92. |
Chapter 15, Halachah 1. A sin-offering, by contrast, is unacceptable if slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice.
|
| 93. |
When he completes his nazirite vow, as stated in Numbers 6:14; Hilchot Nizirut 8:1.
|
| 94. |
The obligation for a woman to bring a burnt-offering after childbirth is mentioned in Leviticus 12:6;Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3..
|
| 95. |
See Leviticus 14:10, 20; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, op. cit.
|
| 96. |
See note 88 with regard to the nazirite and the person purified after tzara'at. A woman who gave birth must wait 40 or 80 days before bringing a sacrifice as explained in the passage from Leviticus.
|
| 97. |
I.e., the sacrifice is acceptable. The person bringing it, however, has not satisfied his obligation and is required to bring another offering.
|
• Monday, Sivan 14, 5775 · 01 May 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Beha'alotecha, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 72-77.
Tanya: Now this attribute (p.297)... out of nothing. (p. 299).
In putting on the tallit-katan in the morning, with "clean" hands1 and in a place where a b'racha may be said, recite al mitzvat tzitzit; (L'hitateif b'tzitzit is only said for a large tallit that has the size for "enwrapment.") If one may not say a b'rachawhen putting on a tallit-katan, then before davening, hold the four tzitzit and say theb'racha then. However, if one is wearing a large tallit as well, no b'racha is said for the tallit-katan.
FOOTNOTES
1. Namely after the ritual handwashing (Sidur p. 6).
Daily Thought:
Representatives
We are representatives of the One Above. And as such, we live as two opposites at once:
We are not beings for ourselves. We are but agents of that which is beyond us.
Yet we must be free-thinking, independent beings—because to represent the One Above, we must have our own will and our own sense of being as He does.
And if you should say, “But this is an impossibility! Two opposites in a single being!”
Yes, you are correct, it is an impossible paradox without resolution.
Which is why this renders us representatives of the Impossible One Above.[Maamar]
____________________________
