Today's Laws & Customs:
• Second Day of Shavuot
Outside of the Land of Israel, Shavuot is observed for a 2nd day today.
Links: Shavuot
• Yizkor
Yizkor, the remembrance prayer for departed parents, is recited today after the morning reading of the Torah.
Links:
The Yizkor Prayer
Honor Due to Parents
On Breavement and Mourning
• Sanctification of the Moon
Once a month, as the moon waxes in the sky, we recite a special blessing calledKiddush Levanah, "the sanctification of the moon," praising the Creator for His wondrous work we call astronomy.
Kiddush Levanah is recited after nightfall, usually on Saturday night. The blessing is concluded with songs and dancing, because our nation is likened to the moon—as it waxes and wanes, so have we throughout history. When we bless the moon, we renew our trust that very soon, the light of G‑d's presence will fill all the earth and our people will be redeemed from exile.
Though Kiddush Levanah can be recited as early as three days after the moon's rebirth, the kabbalah tells us it is best to wait a full week, till the seventh of the month. Once 15 days have passed, the moon begins to wane once more and the season for saying the blessing has passed.
Links:
Brief Guide to Kiddush Levanah: Thank G‑d for the Moon!
More articles on Kiddush Levanah from our knowledgebase.
Today in Jewish History:
• Ger Tzedek of Vilna Burned at the Stake (1749)
Avraham ben Avraham, the famed "Ger Tzedek" (Righteous Convert) of Vilna, was born as Valentin Potozki, the son of Count Potocki, one of the richest landowners in Poland. As a student in Vilna he discovered Judaism and decided to convert -- a capital offense in most countries in Christian Europe at the time. He fled to Amsterdam where he secretly converted to Judaism, assuming the name Avraham ben Avraham ("Abraham the son of Abraham").
Years later he returned to Vilna, where he was eventually recognized as the missing son of Count Potocki and arrested by the church. He refused to renounce his faith and was sentenced to death. He was burned at the stake in Vilna on the 2nd day of Shavuot of 1749.
Link: The Ger Tzedek of Wilno
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Naso, 2nd Portion Numbers 4:29-4:49 with Rashi
• Chapter 4
29[As for] the sons of Merari, you shall count them by their families, according to their fathers' houses. כטבְּנֵי מְרָרִי לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם תִּפְקֹד אֹתָם:
30From the age of thirty years and upward until the age of fifty years, you shall count them, all who come to the legion, to perform service in the Tent of Meeting. למִבֶּן שְׁלשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה וְעַד בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה תִּפְקְדֵם כָּל הַבָּא לַצָּבָא לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
31This is the charge of their burden for all their service in the Tent of Meeting: the planks of the Mishkan, its bars, its pillars, and its sockets. לאוְזֹאת מִשְׁמֶרֶת מַשָּׂאָם לְכָל עֲבֹדָתָם בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד קַרְשֵׁי הַמִּשְׁכָּן וּבְרִיחָיו וְעַמּוּדָיו וַאֲדָנָיו:
32The pillars of the surrounding courtyard, their sockets, their pegs, and their ropes, all their implements for all the work involved. You shall designate by name the implements charged to them for their burden. לבוְעַמּוּדֵי הֶחָצֵר סָבִיב וְאַדְנֵיהֶם וִיתֵדֹתָם וּמֵיתְרֵיהֶם לְכָל כְּלֵיהֶם וּלְכֹל עֲבֹדָתָם וּבְשֵׁמֹת תִּפְקְדוּ אֶת כְּלֵי מִשְׁמֶרֶת מַשָּׂאָם:
pegs and ropes: of the pillars, since the pegs and ropes of the hangings were included in the burden assigned to the sons of Gershon. There were pegs and ropes for the bottom of the curtains and the hangings so that the wind should not lift them up, and there were pegs and ropes for the pillars all around, from which to hang the hangings from their upper edge with poles and rods, as was taught in [the Baraitha] Melecheth HaMishkan. — [ch. 5] ויתדתם ומיתריהם: של עמודים, שהרי יתדות ומיתרי הקלעים במשא בני גרשון היו, ויתדות ומיתרים היו ליריעות ולקלעים מלמטה, שלא תגביהם הרוח, ויתדות ומיתרים היו לעמודים סביב לתלות בהם הקלעים בשפתם העליונה, וקלונסאות וקונטסין, כמו ששנויה במלאכת המשכן:
33This is the service of the families of the sons of Merari for all their service in the Tent of Meeting, which was under the supervision of Ithamar the son of Aaron the kohen. לגזֹאת עֲבֹדַת מִשְׁפְּחֹת בְּנֵי מְרָרִי לְכָל עֲבֹדָתָם בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּיַד אִיתָמָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן:
34Moses, Aaron, and the chieftains of the congregation counted the sons of the Kohathites, according to their families and their fathers' houses. לדוַיִּפְקֹד משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן וּנְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה אֶת בְּנֵי הַקְּהָתִי לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם וּלְבֵית אֲבֹתָם:
35From the age of thirty years and upward, until the age of fifty years, all who come to the legion, for service in the Tent of Meeting. להמִבֶּן שְׁלשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה וְעַד בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה כָּל הַבָּא לַצָּבָא לַעֲבֹדָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
36Their tally, according to their families: two thousand, seven hundred and fifty. לווַיִּהְיוּ פְקֻדֵיהֶם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם אַלְפַּיִם שְׁבַע מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים:
37These are the numbers of the Kohathite families, all who served in the Tent of Meeting, who were counted by Moses and Aaron as directed by the Lord to Moses. לזאֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי מִשְׁפְּחֹת הַקְּהָתִי כָּל הָעֹבֵד בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֲשֶׁר פָּקַד משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן עַל פִּי יְהוָֹה בְּיַד משֶׁה:
38The tally of the sons of Gershon, according to their families and their fathers' houses. לחוּפְקוּדֵי בְּנֵי גֵרְשׁוֹן לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתָם וּלְבֵית אֲבֹתָם:
39From the age of thirty years and upward, until the age of fifty years, all who come to the legion, forservice in the Tent of Meeting. לטמִבֶּן שְׁלשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה וְעַד בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה כָּל הַבָּא לַצָּבָא לַעֲבֹדָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
40Their total, according to their families and their fathers' houses: two thousand, six hundred and thirty. מוַיִּהְיוּ פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם אַלְפַּיִם וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וּשְׁלשִׁים:
41These are the numbers of the families of the sons of Gershon, all who served in the Tent of Meeting, whom Moses and Aaron counted as directed by the Lord. מאאֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי מִשְׁפְּחֹת בְּנֵי גֵרְשׁוֹן כָּל הָעֹבֵד בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֲשֶׁר פָּקַד משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן עַל פִּי יְהוָֹה:
42The tally of the families of the sons of Merari, according to their families and their fathers' houses. מבוּפְקוּדֵי מִשְׁפְּחֹת בְּנֵי מְרָרִי לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם:
43From the age of thirty years and upward, until the age of fifty years, all who come to the legion, for work in the Tent of Meeting. מגמִבֶּן שְׁלשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה וְעַד בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה כָּל הַבָּא לַצָּבָא לַעֲבֹדָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
44Their tally, according to their families: three thousand two hundred. מדוַיִּהְיוּ פְקֻדֵיהֶם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם שְׁלשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וּמָאתָיִם:
45These are the numbers of the families of the sons of Merari, whom Moses and Aaron counted as directed by the Lord to Moses. מהאֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי מִשְׁפְּחֹת בְּנֵי מְרָרִי אֲשֶׁר פָּקַד משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן עַל פִּי יְהוָֹה בְּיַד משֶׁה:
46All the numbers whom by Moses, Aaron, and the chieftains of Israel counted the Levites according to their families and their fathers' houses, מוכָּל הַפְּקֻדִים אֲשֶׁר פָּקַד משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן וּנְשִׂיאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַלְוִיִּם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם וּלְבֵית אֲבֹתָם:
47from the age of thirty years and upward until the age of fifty years, who are fit to perform the service for the service and the work of carrying, in the Tent of Meeting. מזמִבֶּן שְׁלשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה וְעַד בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה כָּל הַבָּא לַעֲבֹד עֲבֹדַת עֲבֹדָה וַעֲבֹדַת מַשָּׂא בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
to perform the service for the service: This refers to the music with cymbals and harps, which is a service for another service [the sacrifices]. עבדת עבדה: הוא השיר במצלתים וכנורות, שהיא עבודה לעבודה אחרת:
and the work of carrying: As it [the phrase] means literally. ועבודת משא: כמשמעו:
48Their tally: eight thousand, five hundred and eighty. מחוַיִּהְיוּ פְּקֻדֵיהֶם שְׁמֹנַת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וּשְׁמֹנִים:
49As directed by the Lord, they were appointed by Moses, each man to his service and his burden; they were counted as the Lord had commanded Moses. מטעַל פִּי יְהוָֹה פָּקַד אוֹתָם בְּיַד משֶׁה אִישׁ אִישׁ עַל עֲבֹדָתוֹ וְעַל מַשָּׂאוֹ וּפְקֻדָיו אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָֹה אֶת משֶׁה:
They were counted as the Lord had commanded Moses: Those that were counted were as commanded, from the age of thirty years until the age of fifty years. ופקדיו אשר צוה ה' את משה: ואותן הפקודים היו במצוה מבן שלשים שנה ועד בן חמשים שנה:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 39 - 43
• Chapter 39
David's prayer bewailing his suffering. But it is not suffering itself that pains him, rather he is saddened by its disturbing his Torah study. For man's days are few, "and if not now, when (will he study)?" for he may die, today or tomorrow. He therefore requests that his suffering be removed, to enable him to study Torah and acquire a place in the World to Come.
1. For the Conductor, for yedutun,1 a psalm by David.
2. I said that I would guard my ways from sinning with my tongue; I would guard my mouth with a muzzle, [even] while the wicked one is before me.
3. I became mute with stillness, I was silent [even] from the good, though my pain was crippling.
4. My heart grew hot within me, a fire blazed in my utterance, as I spoke with my tongue.
5. O Lord, let me know my end and what is the measure of my days, that I may know when I will cease.
6. Behold, like handbreadths You set my days; my lifetime is as naught before You. But all is futility, all mankind's existence, Selah.
7. Only in darkness does man walk, seeking only futility; he amasses riches and knows not who will reap them.
8. And now, what is my hope, my Lord? My longing is to You.
9. Rescue me from all my transgressions; do not make me the scorn of the degenerate.
10. I am mute, I do not open my mouth, for You have caused [my suffering].
11. Remove Your affliction from me; I am devastated by the attack of Your hand.
12. In reproach for sin You chastened man; like a moth, You wore away that which is precious to him. All mankind is nothing but futility, forever.
13. Hear my prayer, O Lord, listen to my cry; do not be silent to my tears, for I am a stranger with You, a sojourner like all my forefathers.
14. Turn from me, that I may recover my strength, before I depart and I am no more.
Chapter 40
The psalmist speaks of the numerous wonders that God wrought for the Jewish people, asking: "Who can articulate His might? I would relate and speak of them, but they are too numerous to recount!" He created the world and split the sea for the sake of Israel, [yet] He desires no sacrifices, only that we listen to His voice.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. I put my hope in the Lord; He turned to me and heard my cry.
3. He raised me from the turbulent pit, from the slimy mud, and set my feet upon a rock, steadying my steps.
4. He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn to our God; multitudes will see and fear, and will trust in the Lord.
5. Fortunate is the man who has made the Lord his trust, and did not turn to the haughty, nor to those who stray after falsehood.
6. You have done much, O You, Lord my God-Your wonders and thoughts are for us; none can compare to You; should I relate or speak of them, they are too numerous to recount!
7. You desired neither sacrifice nor meal-offering, but [obedient] ears You opened for me; You requested neither burnt-offering nor sin-offering.
8. Then I said, "Behold, I come with a Scroll of the Book written for me."1
9. I desire to fulfill Your will, my God; and Your Torah is in my innards.
10. I proclaimed [Your] righteousness in a vast congregation; behold I will not restrain my lips-O Lord, You know!
11. I did not conceal Your righteousness within my heart; I declared Your faithfulness and deliverance; I did not hide Your kindness and truth from the vast congregation.
12. May You, Lord, not withhold Your mercies from me; may Your kindness and truth constantly guard me.
13. For countless evils surround me; my sins have overtaken me and I cannot see; they outnumber the hairs of my head, and my heart has abandoned me.
14. May it please You, Lord, to save me; O Lord, hurry to my aid.
15. Let those who seek my life, to end it, be shamed and humiliated together; let those who desire my harm retreat and be disgraced.
16. Let those who say about me, "Aha! Aha!" be desolate, in return for their shaming [me].
17. Let all those who seek You exult and rejoice in You; let those who love Your deliverance always say, "Be exalted, O Lord!”
18. As for me, I am poor and needy; my Lord will think of me. You are my help and my rescuer; my God, do not delay!
Chapter 41
This psalm teaches many good character traits, and inspires one to be thoughtful and conscientious in giving charity-knowing to whom to give first. Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the sick one, providing him with his needs.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the poor, [for] the Lord will save him on the day of evil.
3. The Lord will guard him and keep him alive; he will be praised throughout the land; You will not deliver him to the desires of his enemies.
4. The Lord will support him on the bed of illness; You will turn him over in his bed all throughout his sickness.
5. I said, "Lord, be gracious to me! Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You!”
6. My foes say that evil [awaits] me: "When will he die, and his name perish?”
7. And if one comes to see [me], he speaks insincerely, for his heart gathers iniquity for himself, and when he goes out he speaks of it.
8. Together they whisper against me-all my enemies; against me they devise my harm, [saying]:
9. "Let his wickedness pour into him; now that he lies down, he shall rise no more.”
10. Even my ally in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has raised his heel over me.
11. But you, Lord, be gracious to me and raise me up, and I will repay them.
12. With this I shall know that You desire me, when my enemies will not shout gleefully over me.
13. And I, because of my integrity, You upheld me; You set me before You forever.
14. Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, to all eternity, Amen and Amen.
Chapter 42
This psalm awakens the hearts of the Children of Israel who do not feel the immense ruin, loss, and bad fortune in their being exiled from their Father's table. Were they wise, they would appreciate their past good fortune in coming thrice yearly, with joy and great awe, to behold God during the festivals, free of adversary and harm. May God place mercy before us from now to eternity, Amen Selah.
1. For the Conductor, a maskil1 by the sons of Korach.
2. As the deer cries longingly for brooks of water, so my soul cries longingly for You, O God!
3. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When will I come and behold the countenance of God?
4. My tears have been my bread day and night, when they say to me all day, "Where is your God?”
5. These do I recall, and pour out my soul from within me: how I traveled [to Jerusalem] in covered wagons; I would walk leisurely with them up to the House of God, amid the sound of rejoicing and thanksgiving, the celebrating multitude.
6. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him for the deliverances of His countenance.
7. My God! My soul is downcast upon me, because I remember You from the land of Jordan and Hermon's peaks, from Mount Mitzar.2
8. Deep calls to deep3 at the roar of Your channels; all Your breakers and waves have swept over me.
9. By day the Lord ordains His kindness, and at night His song is with me, a prayer to the God of my life.
10. I say to God, my rock, "Why have You forgotten me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the enemy?”
11. Like a sword in my bones, my adversaries disgrace me, when they say to me all day, "Where is your God?”
12. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
Chapter 43
A significant prayer concerning the magnitude of the troubles we have suffered at the hands of the impious nations. May it be God's will to send Moshiach and Elijah the Prophet, who will lead us to the Holy Temple to offer sacrifices as in days of old.
1. Avenge me, O God, and champion my cause against an impious nation; rescue me from the man of deceit and iniquity.
2. For You are the God of my strength; why have You abandoned me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the enemy?
3. Send Your light and Your truth, they will guide me; they will bring me to Your holy mountain and to your sanctuaries.
4. Then I will come to the altar of God-to God, the joy of my delight-and praise You on the lyre, O God, my God.
5. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Shaar Hayichud• Lessons in Tanya
• Monday, Sivan 7, 5775 · May 25, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
The theme of this treatise, as the Rebbe notes, is stated in its subtitle:
להבין מעט מזעיר מה שכתוב בזהר, דשמע ישראל כו׳ הוא יחודא עילאה, וברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד הוא יחודא תתאה
Let us understand [at least] in a small measure, the statement of the Zohar,2that3 Shema Yisrael... is yichuda ila‘ah (“higher-level Unity”) and4 Baruch shem kvod malchuto leolam vaed is yichuda tata’ah (“lower-level Unity”). Forvaed equals echad through the substitution (and thereby the descent) of letters,5 as stated in theZohar.
Thus, the object of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah will be to understand how it is possible to speak of two different levels of Divine Unity.
וידעת היום והשבות אל לבבך כי ה׳ הוא האלקים בשמים ממעל ועל הארץ מתחת, אין עוד
It is written:6 “Know this day and take it unto your heart that G‑d is the [mighty and just] L‑rd in the heavens above and upon the earth below; there is none other.”7
The verse, if understood simplistically, seems to declare that there are no other gods dwelling in heaven or earth.
וצריך להבין. וכי תעלה על דעתך שיש אלקים נשרה במים מתחת לארץ
This requires explanation. For would it occur to you that there is a god dwelling in the waters beneath the earth,
שצריך להזהיר כל כך: והשבות אל לבבך
so that it is necessary to caution so strongly [and negate this thought by stating that one should] “take it unto your heart,” and come to the realization that this is indeed not so?
הנה כתיב: לעולם ה׳ דברך נצב בשמים
It is written:8 “Forever, O G‑d, Your word stands firm in the heavens.”
ופירש הבעל שם טוב ז״ל
The Baal Shem Tov, of blessed memory, has explained this concept at length, and made it widely known9 that this means:
כי דברך שאמרת: יהי רקיע בתוך המים וגו׳
that “Your word” which you uttered, viz.,10 “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters...,”
תיבות ואותיות אלו הן נצבות ועומדות לעולם בתוך רקיע השמים
these very words and letters through which the heavens were created stand firmly forever within the firmament of heaven
ומלובשות בתוך כל הרקיעים לעולם להחיותם
and are forever clothed within all the heavens to give them life,
Note of the Rebbe: “The fact that these words were uttered thousands of years ago presents no problem, — ”
כדכתיב: ודבר אלקינו יקום לעולם
as it is written,11 “And the word of our L‑rd shall stand firm forever,”
ודבריו חיים וקיימים לעד כו׳
and as it is likewise written,12 “And His words live and stand firm forever....”
This refers not only to those creations such as the heavenly firmament which enjoy a permanent existence, but also to those creatures which perish as individuals, with only their species continuing to exist. In all instances, the Divine life-force which created a particular creature must constantly be vested within it, incessantly creating and vivifying it anew, just as it ceaselessly recreates the heavenly firmament, as shall soon be explained.
כי אילו היו האותיות מסתלקות לרגע, חס ושלום, וחוזרות למקורן
For if the creative letters were to depart even for an instant, G‑d forbid, and return to their source, that source being the degree of G‑dliness from whence they emanate,
היו כל השמים אין ואפס ממש, והיו כלא היו כלל
all the heavens would become naught and absolute nothingness, and it would be as though they had never existed at all,
וכמו קודם מאמר: יהי רקיע כו׳ ממש
exactly as before the utterance, “Let there be a firmament.”
Before that Divine utterance the firmament did not exist at all. Were the letters that constitute the Divine utterance to depart from the firmament, it would revert to the state of never having existed at all.
The Alter Rebbe now concludes that this is true not only of the firmament, but of all created beings.
וכן בכל הברואים שבכל העולמות עליונים ותחתונים
And so it is with all created things, in all the upper and lower worlds,
ואפילו ארץ הלזו הגשמית, ובחינת דומם ממש
and even this physical earth and the realm of the completely inanimate.
Even immobile beings that show no signs of animation or spirituality, not even the degree of animation observed in the process of growth in the vegetative world, — even this extremely low life-form constantly harbors within it the Divine life-force that brought it into being.
אילו היו מסתלקות ממנה לרגע, חס ושלום, האותיות מעשרה מאמרות שבהן נבראת הארץ בששת ימי בראשית
If the letters of the Ten Utterances by which the earth was created during the Six Days of Creation were to depart from it but for an instant, G‑d forbid,
היתה חוזרת לאין ואפס ממש, כמו לפני ששת ימי בראשית ממש
it would revert to naught and absolute nothingness, exactly as before the Six Days of Creation.
וזה שאמר האריז״ל, שגם בדומם ממש כמו אבנים ועפר ומים יש בחינת נפש וחיות רוחנית
This thought was expressed by the AriZal,13 when he said that even within that which appears to be utterly inanimate matter, such as stones or earth or water, there is a soul and spiritual life-force.
דהיינו: בחינת התלבשות אותיות הדבור מעשרה מאמרות המחיות ומהוות את הדומם
That is, i.e, although they evince no demonstrable form of animation, [within them] arenevertheless enclothed the letters of speech from the Ten Utterances which give life and existence to inanimate matter,
להיות יש מאין ואפס שלפני ששת ימי בראשית
enabling it to come into being out of the naught and nothingness that preceded the Six Days of Creation.
The Ten Utterances usher inanimate matter into a state of existence, in contrast to its former state of non-being, prior to the Six Days of Creation. Thus, the letters of the Ten Utterances which cause inanimate matter to be created are its soul and life-force.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | I.e., “The Gate to [the Understanding of] G‑d’s Unity and the Faith.” |
| 2. | I, 18b. |
| 3. | I.e., “Hear, O Israel, G‑d (Havayah) is our L‑rd (Elokim), G‑d is one”; Devarim 6:4. |
| 4. | I.e., “Blessed be the name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever”; Pesachim 56a. |
| 5. | Zohar II, 134a. Hebrew grammar classifies the letters of the alphabet according to their syntactic functions, their respective sources in the organs of speech, and so on. Within each group, the letters are interchangeable. The letters alef and vav both belong to the group of “connective letters” (otiyot hahemshech), and may thus be interchanged. The letters chet and ayin fall into the category of guttural letters (otiot groniyot), and may likewise be interchanged. Hence אחד is the equivalent of ועד. |
| 6. | Devarim 4:39. |
| 7. | Note of the Rebbe: “This verse continues the idea of an earlier verse [4:39], which begins with the phrase אתה הראת (‘You have been shown...’), and which refers to the time at which the Torah was given. At that time ‘G‑d spoke to you...’ (4:12), [with a warning against worshiping any of the components of the created universe]: ‘Lest you become corrupt’ [and worship creatures] of the lowest level, [viz.,] ‘any fish in the water below the earth’ [4:18], or of the highest level, [viz.,] ‘Lest you raise your eyes heavenward...’ [4:19].” |
| 8. | Tehillim 119:89. |
| 9. | Note of the Rebbe: “As mentioned in Likkutei Torah, beginning of Parshat Acharei, the germ of this concept is to be found in Midrash Tanchuma [on this verse].” |
| 10. | Bereishit 1:6. |
| 11. | Yeshayahu 40:8. |
| 12. | Liturgy, Morning Prayer. |
| 13. | Note of the Rebbe: “See also Etz Chayim, Portal 50 (ch. 2, 10).” |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Monday, Sivan 7, 5775 · May 25, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 66
Procedure of the Peace Offering
"And if his offering be a sacrifice of a peace-offering..."—Leviticus 3:1.
When offering a Shelamim (peace) offering, we are commanded to follow the applicable procedure outlined in the Torah.
Procedure of the Peace Offering
Positive Commandment 66
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 66th mitzvah is that we are commanded to bring a peace-offering in the manner described in [the passage beginning with] G‑d's statement,1 "If one's sacrifice is a peace-offering..." The Torah completes the description [in the passage2] "This is the law of a peace-offering...if it is offered as a thanksgiving offering..."
These four mitzvos3 — the burnt-offering, sin-offering, guilt-offering, and peace-offering — encompass all the sacrifices, since every animal sacrificed by an individual or the congregation falls into one of these four categories. The guilt-offering, however, is only brought by an individual, as we have explained on many occasions.4
Tractate Zevachim describes the laws of these four mitzvos, and everything pertaining to them — what one is required to do [in order that the sacrifice be valid]; what one is punished for doing; what will invalidate the sacrifice; and what is considered a valid sacrifice.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 3:1.
2.Ibid. 7:11-12.
3.In the original order in Sefer HaMitzvos, these are the preceding mitzvos, P63, P64, and P65. In the present edition, they may be found in Lessons 159 and 160.
4.See Introductory Principle 12.
Negative Commandment 147
Consuming Offerings before their Blood is Sprinkled on the Altar
"You may not eat within your gates ...your freewill offerings"—Deuteronomy 12:17.
It is forbidden to eat of the flesh of sacrifices – of the "holy" class; e.g., the Peace or Thanksgiving Offerings – before their blood is sprinkled on the altar.
Consuming Offerings before their Blood is Sprinkled on the Altar
Negative Commandment 147
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 147th prohibition is that we are forbidden from consuming kodshim kalim before their blood is sprinkled.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "In your settlements you may not eat [the tithes of your grain, wine, and oil, the firstborn of your cattle and your sheep, any animal you have vowed (to bring as an offering)] nor any animal you have promised [to bring as an offering]." [The beginning of the verse also applies to the last phrase, and therefore] it is as if the verse says, 'In your settlements you may not eat any animal you have promised [to bring as an offering].'
The Oral Tradition2 explains that this verse [which is otherwise redundant,] refers only to one who eats from the thanksgiving-offering or peace-offering before their blood is sprinkled — to teach you that he transgresses a prohibition. He, too, is punished by lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 12:17.
2.Sifri, ibid.; Makkos 17a.
Positive Commandment 67
Procedure of the Meal Offerings
"And if a person brings a meal offering to G‑d . . . and if a meal offering on a pan is your sacrifice . . . and if a meal offering [made] in a deep pot"—Leviticus 2:1, 5, 7.
When offering a Minchah (meal) offering – any of the different varieties of meal offerings detailed in the Torah – we are commanded to follow the applicable procedure outlined in the Torah.
Procedure of the Meal Offerings
Positive Commandment 67
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 67th mitzvah is that we are commanded to bring a meal-offering in the manner described in the Torah for each particular category.
The sources of this commandment are G‑d's statements,1 "If a person offers a meal-offering to G‑d..."; "If he offers a meal-offering [baked in an oven] ..."; "If it is a meal-offering fried in a pan..." "If it is a meal-offering prepared in a deep pot..." In completing the description, the Torah adds,2 "This is the law of the meal-offering..."
The details of this mitzvah with its numerous subdivisions are explained in the tractate devoted to this subject, tractate Menachos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 2:1-13.
2.Ibid., 6:7-11.
Negative Commandment 102
Putting Oil on a Meal Sin Offering
"He shall put no oil upon it"—Leviticus 5:11.
It is forbidden to mix oil into a meal Sin Offering [as is done by almost all other meal offerings].
Putting Oil on a Meal Sin Offering
Negative Commandment 102
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 102nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from placing oil in a sin-offering made from grain (minchas choteh).1
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "He shall not place any oil upon it."
One who does place oil in such an offering is punished by lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.This offering is brought by a person who committed one of the transgressions described in P72, and who cannot afford a more expensive offering.
2.Lev. 5:11.
Negative Commandment 103
Putting Frankincense on a Meal Sin Offering
"Neither shall he put any frankincense upon it"—Leviticus 5:11.
It is forbidden to mix frankincense into a meal Sin Offering [as is done by almost all other meal offerings].
Putting Frankincense on a Meal Sin Offering
Negative Commandment 103
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 103rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from offering a sin-offering made from grain (minchas choteh) together with frankincense.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "He shall not place any frankincense upon it."
One who does place frankincense in such an offering2 is punished by lashes.
In the words of the Mishneh,3 "One is punished separately for oil and frankincense," since they undoubtedly count as separate prohibitions.
The details of this mitzvah — i.e. of a minchas choteh — are explained in the 5th chapter of tractate Menachos.4
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid.
2.And then bring it as an offering. See Hilchos Ma'aseh HaKorbanos 12:8.
3.Menachos 5:4.
4.Ibid., 59b.
Negative Commandment 138
Consuming the Priest's Meal Offering
"And every meal offering of the priest shall be totally burnt; it may not be eaten"—Leviticus6:16.
It is forbidden to consume of a priest's Meal Offering. This prohibition also includes partaking of the daily Chavitin (meal) offering brought by the high priest.
Consuming the Priest's Meal Offering
Negative Commandment 138
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 138th prohibition is that we1 are forbidden from eating the a kohen's meal-offering.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Every meal-offering brought by a kohen must be completely burned. Do not eat it."
This prohibition is reiterated in reference to the chavitei kohen gadol,3 which is also a meal-offering.
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.
[We see that this counts as a prohibition from] the words of the Sifra: "The phrase [which says that a kohen's meal-offering] 'must be completely burned. Do not eat it' teaches us that for anything that, 'must be completely burned,' there is a prohibition to eat it."
FOOTNOTES
1.Even a kohen, who does eat the remainder of other meal-offerings.
2.Lev. 6:16.
3.Ibid., 6:15.
• 1 Chapter: Chometz U'Matzah Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Five Negative Commandment 147
Consuming Offerings before their Blood is Sprinkled on the Altar
"You may not eat within your gates ...your freewill offerings"—Deuteronomy 12:17.
It is forbidden to eat of the flesh of sacrifices – of the "holy" class; e.g., the Peace or Thanksgiving Offerings – before their blood is sprinkled on the altar.
Consuming Offerings before their Blood is Sprinkled on the Altar
Negative Commandment 147
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 147th prohibition is that we are forbidden from consuming kodshim kalim before their blood is sprinkled.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "In your settlements you may not eat [the tithes of your grain, wine, and oil, the firstborn of your cattle and your sheep, any animal you have vowed (to bring as an offering)] nor any animal you have promised [to bring as an offering]." [The beginning of the verse also applies to the last phrase, and therefore] it is as if the verse says, 'In your settlements you may not eat any animal you have promised [to bring as an offering].'
The Oral Tradition2 explains that this verse [which is otherwise redundant,] refers only to one who eats from the thanksgiving-offering or peace-offering before their blood is sprinkled — to teach you that he transgresses a prohibition. He, too, is punished by lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 12:17.
2.Sifri, ibid.; Makkos 17a.
Positive Commandment 67
Procedure of the Meal Offerings
"And if a person brings a meal offering to G‑d . . . and if a meal offering on a pan is your sacrifice . . . and if a meal offering [made] in a deep pot"—Leviticus 2:1, 5, 7.
When offering a Minchah (meal) offering – any of the different varieties of meal offerings detailed in the Torah – we are commanded to follow the applicable procedure outlined in the Torah.
Procedure of the Meal Offerings
Positive Commandment 67
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 67th mitzvah is that we are commanded to bring a meal-offering in the manner described in the Torah for each particular category.
The sources of this commandment are G‑d's statements,1 "If a person offers a meal-offering to G‑d..."; "If he offers a meal-offering [baked in an oven] ..."; "If it is a meal-offering fried in a pan..." "If it is a meal-offering prepared in a deep pot..." In completing the description, the Torah adds,2 "This is the law of the meal-offering..."
The details of this mitzvah with its numerous subdivisions are explained in the tractate devoted to this subject, tractate Menachos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 2:1-13.
2.Ibid., 6:7-11.
Negative Commandment 102
Putting Oil on a Meal Sin Offering
"He shall put no oil upon it"—Leviticus 5:11.
It is forbidden to mix oil into a meal Sin Offering [as is done by almost all other meal offerings].
Putting Oil on a Meal Sin Offering
Negative Commandment 102
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 102nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from placing oil in a sin-offering made from grain (minchas choteh).1
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "He shall not place any oil upon it."
One who does place oil in such an offering is punished by lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.This offering is brought by a person who committed one of the transgressions described in P72, and who cannot afford a more expensive offering.
2.Lev. 5:11.
Negative Commandment 103
Putting Frankincense on a Meal Sin Offering
"Neither shall he put any frankincense upon it"—Leviticus 5:11.
It is forbidden to mix frankincense into a meal Sin Offering [as is done by almost all other meal offerings].
Putting Frankincense on a Meal Sin Offering
Negative Commandment 103
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 103rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from offering a sin-offering made from grain (minchas choteh) together with frankincense.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "He shall not place any frankincense upon it."
One who does place frankincense in such an offering2 is punished by lashes.
In the words of the Mishneh,3 "One is punished separately for oil and frankincense," since they undoubtedly count as separate prohibitions.
The details of this mitzvah — i.e. of a minchas choteh — are explained in the 5th chapter of tractate Menachos.4
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid.
2.And then bring it as an offering. See Hilchos Ma'aseh HaKorbanos 12:8.
3.Menachos 5:4.
4.Ibid., 59b.
Negative Commandment 138
Consuming the Priest's Meal Offering
"And every meal offering of the priest shall be totally burnt; it may not be eaten"—Leviticus6:16.
It is forbidden to consume of a priest's Meal Offering. This prohibition also includes partaking of the daily Chavitin (meal) offering brought by the high priest.
Consuming the Priest's Meal Offering
Negative Commandment 138
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 138th prohibition is that we1 are forbidden from eating the a kohen's meal-offering.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Every meal-offering brought by a kohen must be completely burned. Do not eat it."
This prohibition is reiterated in reference to the chavitei kohen gadol,3 which is also a meal-offering.
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.
[We see that this counts as a prohibition from] the words of the Sifra: "The phrase [which says that a kohen's meal-offering] 'must be completely burned. Do not eat it' teaches us that for anything that, 'must be completely burned,' there is a prohibition to eat it."
FOOTNOTES
1.Even a kohen, who does eat the remainder of other meal-offerings.
2.Lev. 6:16.
3.Ibid., 6:15.
Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Five
Halacha 1
The prohibition against chametz applies only to the five species of grain. They include two species of wheat: wheat and rye; and three species of barley: barley, oats, and spelt.
However, kitniyot - e.g., rice, millet, beans, lentils and the like - do not become leavened. Even if one kneads rice flour or the like with boiling water and covers it with fabric until it rises like dough that has become leavened, it is permitted to be eaten. This is not leavening, but rather the decay [of the flour].
Commentary Halacha
in water on Pesach [to remove its husks] -- Rabbenu Manoach explains that the kernels of grain were placed in hot water, stirred vigorously, and then crushed to remove the husks.
because [the kernels] are soft and become leavened rapidly. If one did stir [barley] in water and [the kernels] softened to the point -- The cracking open of the kernels would be the clearest sign that the grain had become leavened. However, even if the leavening process has reached the point
that if they were placed at the opening to a roasting pan -- Our translation of ביב follows Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Chanan'el. See also Halachah 22. However, Rashi (Pesachim 40a) provides a different and more lenient interpretation.
upon which loaves were usually baked, they would burst open - behold, they are forbidden -- This is a very stringent measure. Once barley kernels are exposed to water, they will burst open shortly after being exposed to heat of this nature.
If they have not reached this degree of softness, they are permitted.
Halacha 2
With regard to these five species of grain: If [flour from these species] is kneaded with fruit juice alone without any water, it will never become leavened. Even if [flour] is placed in [these juices] the entire day until the dough rises, it is permitted to be eaten [on Pesach], for fruit juice does not cause [dough] to become leavened. It merely causes [the flour] to decay.
The following are [included in the category] of fruit juice: wine, milk, honey, olive oil, apple juice, pomegranate juice and all other similar wines, oils, and beverages.
This applies so long as no water whatsoever is mixed with them. If any water is mixed with them, they cause [the flour] to become leavened.
Commentary Halacha
With regard to these five species of grain: If [flour from these species] is kneaded with fruit juice alone -- מי פירות literally means "the water of fruit." However, as the halachah explains, the practical application of the term is much broader.
without any water, it will never become leavened. Even if [flour] is placed in [these juices] the entire day until the dough rises, it is permitted to be eaten [on Pesach] -- This halachah is a matter of controversy among the commentators. In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 3:1), the Rambam makes similar statements. However, in the Oxford manuscript of that text, the words "permitted to be eaten" are crossed out and replaced with the words "one is not obligated for כרת." However, it appears that this emendation was made by Rav Avraham, the Rambam's son, and not the Rambam himself.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 462:1) permits the use of fruit juice. However, the Ramah (462:4) states that it is Ashkenazic custom not to use fruit juice for matzah on Pesach out of the fear that some water might perhaps be mixed together with it (see below). Nevertheless, he does allow leniency for people who are ill or sick and have difficulty eating normal matzah.
Among the present day applications of this concept is commercially produced "egg matzah." According to the above guidelines, in the Ashkenazic community, such matzah:
a) cannot be used in the Seder, as explained in the commentary to Halachah 6:2;b) must contain only eggs and fruit juice, with no water whatsoever;c) even so, should be eaten only by those with medical problems that prevent them from eating normal matzah.
for fruit juice does not cause [dough] to become leavened -- and thus become chametz. Rather,
it merely causes [the flour] to decay. -- Nevertheless, dried out wine dregs which have fermented do cause the dough to become leavened (Tosefot, Pesachim 28b).
The following are [included in the category] of fruit juice: wine, milk, honey -- The Hagahot Maimoni explains that this applies to both bee and date honey.
olive oil, apple juice -- The dough is permitted even if the apple juice has begun to ferment.
pomegranate juice and all other similar wines, oils, and beverages --Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 462:2) defines
מי פירות as: "any liquid that is not derived from water... even if it does not come from produce."
This applies so long as no water whatsoever is mixed with them. If any water is mixed with them, they cause [the flour] to become leavened --Indeed, when water is mixed with these juices, the dough becomes leavened much faster than if it had been mixed with water alone. Generally, dough can be left eighteen minutes before it becomes leavened, but the limit for dough made from a mixture of these liquids and water is much less (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 462:2). See commentary to Halachah 20.
Halacha 3
[On Pesach,] we should not cook wheat in water - for example, cracked wheat - or flour [in water] - for example, dough balls. If one cooks [either of the above] - behold, it is absolutely chametz. This applies if [the kernels] crack open within the dish.
We may not fry dough in oil in a frying pan. However, we may cook a loaf [of matzah] or roasted flour. If one boiled a lot of water and, afterwards, placed flour into it - behold, it is permitted, because it is cooked immediately, before it could become leaven. [Nevertheless,] it is accepted custom in Babylonia, Spain, and the entire western [diaspora] to forbid this practice. This has been decreed lest one not boil the water well enough.
Commentary Halacha
[On Pesach,] we should not cook wheat in water -- Though raw wheat itself is not chametz, once wheat or flour is mixed with water, it becomes leavened within eighteen to twenty-four minutes. (See Halachah 12.) Less time is required when heat is applied to it. Hence, cooking or baking with wheat or flour on Pesach must be carried out under careful guidelines.
for example, cracked wheat -- wheat served as a grain.
or flour [in water], for example, dough balls -- A dish resembling kneidlach, but made with regular flour rather than matzah meal.
If one cooks [either of the above] - behold, it is absolutely chametz - for the wheat or flour has become leavened.
This applies -- This clause obviously refers only to cooking wheat.
if [the kernels] crack open within the dish -- the cracking open of the kernels is a sign that the wheat has expanded because of leavening.
We may not fry dough -- made with water
in oil in a frying pan -- The Maggid Mishneh explains that oil is considered מי פירות and, hence, will cause the dough to become leavened. (See also Nodah BiYhudah, Vol. II, Responsum 57.)
However, we may cook a loaf [of matzah] -- Pesachim 39b states that once matzah has been baked, it can be cooked again without the fear of leavening. Similarly, it can be ground into meal, and then used as flour without the fear of becoming chametz. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 463:3.)
This law is the basis of the widely practiced leniency of cooking and baking with matzah meal. Nevertheless, certain Ashkenazic communities refrain from using matzah meal because of the custom of שרויה, gebruks. Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Responsum VI; see also Sha'arei Teshuvah, Orach Chayim 460:10) writes that it is possible that some of the dough was not baked thoroughly and some flour remaining in it could become chametz when cooked again.
or roasted flour -- Once flour has become roasted, it will not become leavened. However, we must differentiate between roasted flour and flour made from roasted wheat; the latter flour may not be used on Pesach. (See Halachah 5.) The Pri Chadash even questions the leniency of using roasted flour.
If one boiled a lot of water and, afterwards, placed flour into it - behold, it is permitted because it -- the flour
is cooked immediately, before it could become leaven -- This practice was permitted only when the water was absolutely boiling at the time the flour was placed in it.
[Nevertheless,] it is accepted custom in Babylonia, Spain, and the entire western [diaspora] to forbid this practice. This was decreed lest one not boil the water well enough. -- The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 454:3) states: "At present, there are none who know how to boil foods in this manner. Hence, all boiling is forbidden."
Halacha 4
It is permissible to cook grain or flour in fruit juice. Thus, dough which was kneaded with fruit juice, cooked with fruit juice, or fried with oil in a frying pan is permitted, for fruit juice does not cause leavening.
Commentary Halacha
It is permissible to cook grain or flour in fruit juice -- Baking dough kneaded with מי פירות was discussed in Halachah 2. The present halachah explains that flour mixed with those liquids will not become leavened even when cooked or fried.
Thus, dough which was kneaded with fruit juice, cooked with fruit juice or fried with oil in a frying pan is permitted, for fruit juice does not cause leavening -- As explained above, it is Ashkenazic custom not to use dough or flour cooked with these liquids.
Halacha 5
Roasted grain which is singed in fire and then ground [into flour]: That flour should not be cooked with water, lest it has not been roasted well in the fire, and thus will become leavened when cooked.
Similarly, when preparing new pots, we should not cook in them anything other than matzah that was baked and then ground into flour. It is forbidden to do so with roasted flour, for perhaps it will not be roasted well, and thus may become leaven.
Commentary Halacha
Roasted grain -- Once wheat is roasted, flour that is made from it will never become leavened.
which is singed in fire -- lightly roasted in order to dry out any moisture.
and then ground [into flour]: That flour should not be cooked with water lest it has not been roasted well in the fire and thus will become leavened when cooked -- Rabbenu Manoach explains that this law applies only to light roasting. If grain is roasted thoroughly, its flour may be used. However, in instances of this nature, the Rabbis would rather forbid such practices entirely than allow a loosely defined leniency. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim463:3.)
Similarly, when preparing new pots --
מלל, the word used by the Rambam, means "husk." In his dictionary, Rabbenu Tanchum of Jerusalem explains the derivation of this term:
They take fresh barley, singe it, dry it, and grind it into flour. Afterwards, it is cooked until it is soft... and then, it is poured into new pots to reduce their porosity.
In his commentary on the Mishneh Torah, Rav Kapach notes that such practices are still followed in Yemen today.
we should not cook in them anything other than matzah that was baked and then ground into flour -- matzah meal. As explained in Halachah 4, once matzah has been baked, it will never become leavened.
It is forbidden to do so with roasted flour, for perhaps it will not be roasted well and thus may become leaven -- This statement is slightly problematic, for Halachah 4 mentioned that we may cook with roasted flour.
Halacha 6
We do not stir barley in water on Pesach [to remove its husks], because [the kernels] are soft and become leavened rapidly. If one did stir [barley] in water and [the kernels] softened to the point that if they were placed at the opening to a roasting pan upon which loaves were usually baked, they would burst open - behold, they are forbidden. If they have not reached this degree of softness, they are permitted.
Commentary Halacha
Halacha 7
It is permissible to stir wheat [kernels] in water to remove the bran, and then immediately grind them, as is done when grinding fine flour. [Nevertheless,] all Jews in Babylonia, Eretz Yisrael, Spain, and the cities of the western [diaspora] have accepted the custom of not stirring wheat in water. This decree [was instituted] lest [the kernels] be left aside and become leavened.
Commentary Halacha
It is permissible to stir wheat [kernels] in water to remove the bran --Wheat kernels are firmer than barley kernels.
and then immediately -- Once the grain has come in contact with water and it is left untended for the time it takes a person to walk a mil, it will become leavened. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 467:2.)
grind them, as is done when grinding fine flour. -- The commentaries note that in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:20, the Rambam states that the grain used for the meal offerings was not stirred in water, lest it become leavened. Among the resolutions offered to this difficulty is that chametz is a severe prohibition, and greater care would be taken.
[Nevertheless,] all Jews in Babylonia, Eretz Yisrael -- Gittin 57a explains why the term ארץ צבי is used as a reference for Eretz Yisrael.
Spain, and the cities of the western [diaspora] have accepted the custom of not stirring wheat in water -- Rabbenu Manoach mentions that this custom was several hundred years old in his time (approx. 1200 CE). Pesachim 40a mentions that even in Talmudic times, a בעל נפש (a person precise in the observance of the commandments) would not use wheat that had been stirred. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 453:5) states that stirring wheat is "prohibited."
This decree [was instituted] lest [the kernels] be left aside and become leavened -- i.e., the fear is not that the wheat will become leavened while the bran is being removed, but rather, that after it has been removed, it will be left to become leavened.
Halacha 8
A dish that was cooked, and barley or wheat was discovered inside it: If the grains have cracked open, the entire dish is forbidden, for chametz has become mixed together with it. If they have not cracked open, they must be removed and burned, but the remainder of the dish may be eaten. [This ruling was given] because grain that has been stirred in water without cracking open is not actual leaven as forbidden by the Torah. It is only a Rabbinic [ordinance].
Commentary Halacha
A dish that was cooked and barley or wheat -- Some authorities recommend more severe laws for wheat than for barley, but the Rambam equates the two.
was discovered inside of it -- One kernel of grain can create difficulties, for even the slightest amount of chametz that is mixed together with other foods causes them to be forbidden (Halachah 5 above).
If the grains have cracked open -- they have surely become chametz. Hence,
the entire dish is forbidden, for chametz has become mixed together with it -- Furthermore, the pot and utensils with which it was cooked are also forbidden during Pesach.
If they have not cracked open -- Halachah 6 above mentions a more severe measure. However, that ruling concerns the kernels of grain themselves, while our law deals with their effect on another dish, which is merely a Rabbinic ordinance. Hence, greater leniency is shown (Maggid Mishneh).
they -- the barley or wheat itself
must be removed and burned -- as if they were chametz
but the remainder of the dish may be eaten. -- The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 467:9) accepts this ruling. However, the Ramah and the other major Ashkenazic authorities forbid use of this dish. However, the Taz allows the dish to be sold to a gentile.
Halacha 9
[Exodus 12:17] states: "Keep watch over the matzot" - i.e., be careful of the matzot and protect them from any possibility of becoming chametz. Therefore, our Sages declared: A person must be careful regarding the grain which he eats on Pesach and [make sure] that no water has come in contact with it after it has been harvested, so that it will not have become chametz at all.
Grain which sunk in a river or came in contact with water, just as it is forbidden to eat from it [on Pesach], it is forbidden to keep [possession of] it. Rather, he should sell it to a Jew [before it becomes prohibited] and inform him [about its nature], so that he can eat it before Pesach. If he sells it to a gentile before Pesach, he should sell a small amount to a number of individuals, so that it will be finished before Pesach, lest the gentile go and sell it to [another] Jew.
Commentary Halacha
[Exodus 12:17] states: "Keep watch over the matzot" -- Some ancient manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah include these two lines in the previous halachah, but all published texts follow this division.
i.e., be careful of the matzot and protect them from any possibility of becoming chametz. -- Furthermore, as evident from Halachah 6:5, this verse also implies that the flour and the matzot made from it must be watched with the specific intent that they be used for the mitzvah of eating matzah on Pesach.
The above is the source for the practice of eating shemurah matzah, matzah made from grain which has been watched to ensure that it did not become chametz and prepared with the intent that it be used for the mitzvah of eating matzah. The use of such matzah during the Seder is an absolute requirement (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 460), and it is advisable to use it throughout the holiday.
Therefore, our Sages declared: A person must be careful regarding the grain which he eats on Pesach -- Pesachim 40a relates that Ravvah would tell the harvesters cutting wheat for Pesach: "Have the intent that this grain be used for the mitzvah of matzah."
and [make sure] that no water has come in contact with it -- The chronicles of Jewish community life in both Eastern Europe and North Africa relate how the harvest of the wheat used for matzah was always begun at noontime, long after the morning dew had risen.
after it has been harvested -- Based on the above passage from Pesachim, Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and the Rambam require that the grain be watched from the time of harvesting onward. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Asher follows a more lenient policy and does not require the wheat to be watched until it is ground. [Rabbenu Nissim explains that even Rav Yitzchak Alfasi only recommended watching the matzah from harvesting as a pious measure, and not as an absolute rule.]
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 453:4) explains that it is preferable to use grain that has been watched from harvesting; as a minimum requirement, one must use grain that has been watched from the time it has been ground into flour. If there is no other alternative, one may buy flour in the marketplace and begin watching from the time the dough is kneaded.
The Mishnah Berurah clarifies the latter point explaining that where grain is washed or submerged in water before grinding it into flour, such grain may not be used for matzah. (This practice is still common in many communities.) In practice, most shemurah matzah made at present is watched from the time the grain was harvested.
so that it will not have become chametz at all -- However, before the grain is cut, no precautions are ordinarily necessary. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 467:5) mentions that if the wheat kernels have dried out and no longer need nurture from the land, they can become chametz.
Grain which sunk in a river or -- Pesachim 40b mentions a ship which sank carrying a cargo of wheat. After the ship was recovered, Ravvah allowed the wheat to be sold. From that example, we can derive concepts governing all instances where grain
came in contact with water -- Rabbenu Manoach emphasizes that this halachah applies to wheat kernels that have not split open. Had they split open, a Jewish purchaser would immediately notice the fact and there would be no need to inform him.
just as it is forbidden to eat from it [on Pesach], it is forbidden to keep [possession of] it -- Halachah 7 mentioned that one could stir wheat in water to remove the husks without it becoming chametz. Since the wheat was constantly being agitated, it would not become leavened. In contrast, this halachah contains a more stringent ruling, for the grain was left at rest (Tzafnat Paneach).
Rather, he should -- preferably
sell it to a Jew -- and not a gentile
[before it becomes prohibited] -- after the fifth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan
and inform him [about its nature] so that he can eat it before Pesach -- If he does not inform him, it would be forbidden to sell the chametz to him, lest he keep possession of it on Pesach, and thus violate the commandment against owning chametz.
If he sells it to a gentile before Pesach, he should sell a small amount to a number of individuals -- Most texts of Pesachim (ibid.) read: "He should sell small amounts to Jews." Apparently, the Rambam's text of the Talmud did not contain that phrase. If a Jew knows that the grain has become leavened, he will surely take the necessary precautions so that it will not remain in his possession on Pesach.
so that it will be finished before Pesach, lest the gentile go and sell it to [another] Jew -- The later authorities (see Mishnah Berurah 467:3) question what to do if large amounts of grain come into contact with water on Erev Pesach, when it is not possible for the gentile to consume the entire amount before Pesach. They advise that it be sold to a gentile who will surely sell it back to the Jew after the holiday.
Halacha 10
Grain upon which [water] leaking [from the roof] has fallen: As long as [the leak] continues, drop after drop, it will not become chametz even if [the leak continues] the entire day. However, if [the leak] stops, if it remains [untouched] for the standard measure [of time] - behold, it becomes chametz.
Commentary Halacha
Grain -- Most texts of Pesachim 39b, the source for this law, read "flour" instead of "grain." Similarly, when quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 466:6) also states "flour."
upon which [water] leaking [from the roof] has fallen: As long as [the leak] continues, drop after drop, it will not become chametz. -- The dripping of the water agitates the grain and prevents it from becoming chametz.
even if [the leak continues] the entire day -- However, the grain must be made into flour and baked immediately after being taken from under the leak. Otherwise, it will become leavened (Shulchan Aruch).
However, if [the leak] stops -- or the grain is moved
if it remains [untouched] for the standard measure [of time] -- the time it takes a person to walk a mil, as explained in Halachah 13
behold, it becomes chametz.
Halacha 11
We do not knead a large dough on Pesach, lest it become chametz. Rather, [the size of the dough] is confined to the measure for which one is obligated to separate Challah.
We do not knead with hot water, with water heated in the sun, or with water that was drawn on the present day, only with water that has rested for a day. A person who violates [this requirement] and kneads using one of the above - behold, the [baked] loaf becomes forbidden.
Commentary Halacha
We do not knead a large dough on Pesach, lest it become chametz --Pesachim 48b relates that dough will not become chametz as long as it is being kneaded. However, a large dough is hard to manage. Hence, our Sages restricted a dough's size to insure that women kneading it will be able to continually agitate the entire dough.
The Rokeach mentioned that in his age, baking conditions had changed from Talmudic times. More people were involved in the process and the ovens were larger and baked matzot more quickly. Therefore, leniency was taken as regards the restriction of the size of the dough. However, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah both recommend adhering to the former practice.
Rather, [the size of the dough] is confined to the measure for which one is obligated to separate Challah -- 43 and a fifth eggs, as stated in the following halachah; approximately 73 fluid ounces, 9.125 cups, or 131.8 cubic inches in contemporary measure.
We do not knead with hot water, with water heated in the sun, or with water that was drawn on the present day -- Rashi (Pesachim 42a) relates that the position of the sun in the spring causes the temperature of well and spring water to rise. Hence, matzah may be kneaded
only with water that has -- been drawn [preferably, either slightly before or directly after sunset on the day before the matzot are to be baked (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 455:1)], and
rested for a day. A person who violates [this requirement] and kneads using one of the above -- types of water whose use the Sages forbade;
behold, the [baked] loaf becomes forbidden -- There is no debate about the prohibition against using hot water. However, with regard to the prohibition against using water drawn that day, the Shulchan Aruch (455:3) quotes the Rambam's opinion, but states that in a difficult situation, one may use matzah that was inadvertently kneaded with water that was not drawn on the previous day. The Ramah and the Ashkenazic authorities are more lenient and allow the use of such matzah in all situations.
Halacha 12
A woman should not sit in the sun and knead, nor [should she knead] under the open sky on a cloudy day, even in a place where the sun is not shining. [She should not] leave the dough and become involved in another matter. If she both kneads and bakes, she must have two containers of water, one to smooth [the matzot] and one to cool off her hands.
If she violated [these instructions] and kneaded dough in the sun, or did not cool off her hands, or made a dough larger than the measure for which one is obligated to separate Challah, the loaf is permitted. What is the measure for which one is obligated to separate Challah? Forty-three and a fifth eggs of average size - by volume and not by weight.
Commentary Halacha
A woman should not sit in the sun and knead -- lest the sun's heat speed up the leavening process.
nor [should she knead] under the open sky on a cloudy day, even in a place where the sun is not shining -- Yoma 28b states: "a cloudy day is all sun; the heat of a cloudy day is more severe than that of a sunny day."
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 459:1) mentions that it is customary not to knead near a window. The Shulchan Aruch states that the kneading area of a bakery should be distant from the baking area, so that the heat of the oven should not affect the dough.
[She should not] leave the dough -- The Shulchan Aruch adds "even for a moment."
and become involved in another matter -- the dough should not be left unattended. In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 3:4), the Rambam explains that preferably the preparation and baking of the matzah should be a speedy and uninterrupted process. See also the following halachah.
If she both kneads and bakes -- The Sages feared that her hands would become hot from the oven, and thus speed up the leavening process when she kneads the dough. Hence, they required that
she must have two containers of water -- the same water should not be used for both activities.
one to smooth [the matzot] -- Before the matzot are placed in the oven, the woman baking them would dip her hands in cold water and smooth and shape the loaves.
and one to cool off her hands -- from the heat of the oven. It must be noted that Rashi (Pesachim 42a) maintains that the activity of kneading the dough itself heats up the hands. Thus, he requires that a woman dip her hands in water between doughs to cool off her hands, even when she is not baking. TheShulchan Aruch (459:3) follows Rashi's interpretation.
If she violated [these instructions] and kneaded dough in the sun --unless one can actually feel that the temperature of the dough has risen (Magen Avraham 559:15).
or did not cool off her hands, or made a dough larger than the measure for which one is obligated to separate Challah, the loaf is permitted -- In these instances, the Sages did not feel that the leavening process would necessarily be speeded up if their instructions were not followed. Hence, בדיעבד (after the fact), they did not prohibit the use of matzot baked in this manner.
What is the measure for which one is obligated to separate Challah? Forty-three and a fifth eggs of average size -- Rabbenu Manoach notes that the numerical equivalent of Challah (חלה) is also 43.
by volume and not by weight. -- A given volume of dough is much heavier than the same volume of eggs.
In Hilchot Bikkurim 6:15, the Rambam elaborates further on this subject, by giving a measure according to weight as well. In modern measure, the figure he gives equals approximately 1.7 kilograms (close to 4 lbs.).
Halacha 13
As long as a person is busy with the dough, even for the entire day, it will not become chametz. If he lifts up his hand and allows the dough to rest so that [it rises to the extent that] a noise will resound when a person claps it with his hand, it has already become chametz and must be burned immediately. If a noise does not resound and the dough has lain at rest for the time it takes a man to walk a mil, it has become chametz and must be burned immediately.
Similarly, if its surface has become wrinkled [to the extent that it resembles] a person whose hair stands [on end in fright] - behold, it is forbidden to eat from it, but one is not liable for כרת [for eating it].
Commentary Halacha
As long as a person is busy with the dough, even for the entire day, it will not become chametz. -- As mentioned previously, as long as the dough is constantly being agitated it will not become leavened.
If he lifts up his hand -- from kneading
and allows the dough to rest so that [it rises to the extent that] a noise will resound when a person claps it with his hand -- The Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 459:2) mentions another sign; the appearance of cracks or folds in the dough.
it has already become chametz -- even if the time period explained below has not elapsed
and must be burned immediately -- The Rambam is describing an instance when matzah is being baked on Pesach eve or during the holiday, when the possession of chametz is forbidden.
If a noise does not resound -- when the dough is clapped, the possibility still exists that the dough has become chametz. The time the dough has been left unattended is then calculated
and -- if
the dough has lain at rest for the time it takes a man to walk a
mil -- two thousand cubits; according to most authorities approximately a kilometer in modern measure. Most authorities (including the Shulchan Aruchand many later Rabbis with regard to halachah l'ma'aseh) define eighteen minutes as the accepted period of time in which an average man would walk this distance. However, the Rambam (Commentary on the Mishnah 3:2) quotes a more lenient figure, 24 minutes.
it has become chametz and must be burned immediately -- The Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah suggest hurrying the process of kneading and baking matzah, because:
a) the heat generated by working the dough may cause it to become leavened faster.
b) though each particular hesitation may be less than eighteen minutes, the total of all hesitations may exceed that figure. (This point is not accepted by all authorities.)
c) once dough is left unattended after having been kneaded thoroughly, it will become leavened very quickly.
Similarly, if its surface has become wrinkled -- Rabbenu Manoach interprets the Hebrew הכסיפו as "whitened."
[to the extent that it resembles] a person whose hair stands [on end in fright] - behold -- this is a sign that the dough has begun to become leavened. Hence,
it is forbidden to eat from it, but one is not liable for
כרת [for eating it]. -- The commentaries question whether the Rambam's intent is to free the person from punishment entirely or whether he means that he is not liable for כרת, but receives a lesser punishment, lashes.
Halacha 14
There were two doughs which people stopped kneading at the same time and left unattended. From one, a sound [resounded when clapped]. From the other, no sound [resounded]. Both of them should be burned - behold, they are absolutely chametz.
Commentary Halacha
There were two doughs which people stopped kneading at the same time and left unattended -- for less than the time it takes a person to walk a mil.
From one, a sound [resounded when clapped] -- a clear sign the dough has become leavened, as stated in the previous halachah.
From the other, no sound [resounded] -- Nevertheless, since they both waited the same amount of time, we assume that a similar leavening process took place in both doughs. Hence,
both of them should be burned - behold, they are -- considered
Halacha 15
We should not make thick loaves with designs on Pesach, because a woman takes time making them. Thus, [the dough] will become leavened during that time. Hence, professional bakers are allowed to make [such designs], because they are skilled in their craft and quick in its execution.
[In contrast,] a private person is forbidden to make such a design, even if he does so using a [pre-cut] form. [This stringency was instituted] lest others attempt to make [the designs] without using the forms, delay in their work, and cause [the dough] to become chametz.
Commentary Halacha
We should not make thick loaves -- Pesachim 37a allows thin loaves to be made with designs. Commenting on this statement, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 460:4) suggests never making thick matzot for Pesach.
with designs -- Rav Yitzchak ibn Giat writes that it was customary to make designs of fish, doves, and other animals.
on Pesach, because a woman takes time making them -- However, there is no prohibition against making holes in their dough as is the common practice. On the contrary, this helps the matzah bake faster (Shulchan Aruch).
Thus, [the dough] will become leavened during that time. Hence, professional bakers are allowed to make [such designs] -- Pesachim (ibid.) records that Rabban Gamliel's household used such matzot, and hence was forced to make this differentiation.
because they are skilled in their craft and quick in its execution. -- Rashi (Pesachim, ibid.) adds that bakers usually have pre-cut forms.
The Mishnah Berurah (Orach Chayim 460:14) forbids all designs, whether made by private people or professional bakers, whether on thick or thin loaves.
[In contrast,] a private person is forbidden to make such a design, even if he does so using a [pre-cut] form -- which will not require time.
[This stringency was instituted] lest others attempt to make [the designs] without using the forms, delay in their work, and cause [the dough] to become chametz. -- Our Sages often instituted decrees uniformly, even though the reason for the decree did not apply in certain instances, lest people misinterpret the leniency and take total license.
Halacha 16
The water used to wash one's hands and the kneading trough after the kneading [is completed] and, similarly, the water used when kneading - behold, it should be poured out in a place which slopes downward, so it will not collect in one place and become leavened.
Commentary Halacha
The water used to wash one's hands and the kneading trough after the kneading [is completed] -- The Mishnah (Pesachim 40b) uses the expression "water used by a baker." In his commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam defines that term as above.
and, similarly, the water used when kneading -- when shaping the dough or cooling off one's hands, as mentioned in Halachah 12.
behold, it should be poured out in a place which slopes downward, so it will not collect in one place -- See Pesachim 42a. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 459:4) also gives instructions about cleaning the utensils used in preparing the matzah to ensure that no dough is allowed to remain stuck to them, and thus become chametz.
and become leavened -- This halachah applies when matzah is prepared and baked after the prohibition against chametz has gone into effect (Shulchan Aruch). However, some later authorities (Bach, Taz) forbid such water to collect even beforehand.
Halacha 17
We should not soak bran in water and leave it in front of chickens, lest it become chametz. However, we can boil bran for them, and then place it before them. Nevertheless, the majority of people have already adopted the custom of not boiling [grain products], lest the water not be boiled thoroughly.
Commentary Halacha
We should not soak bran -- The Mishnah Berurah 454:2 notes that there is a difference of opinion among halachic authorities if מורסן refers to the hard shell of the wheat kernels that falls off when the wheat is ground, or the soft shell, which is separated by sifting.
in water and leave it in front of chickens -- without supervision, in contrast to the following halachah.
lest it become chametz. However, we can boil bran for them -- As mentioned in Halachah 3, if grain products are placed directly in boiling water, they will never become chametz.
and then, place it before them. Nevertheless, the majority of people have already adopted the custom of not boiling [grain products], lest the water not be boiled thoroughly. -- as explained in the above halachah and in theShulchan Aruch and commentaries (Orach Chayim 454:3).
Halacha 18
It is permitted to prepare bran or flour for chickens in water if they are fed immediately, or if one places [the feed] before them and stands over them to ensure that the food will not stand more than the time it takes a person to walk a mil.
As long as they peck at it or one turns it over by hand, it will not become leavened. Once they finish eating, one should wash out the utensil in water and pour it out in a place which slopes downward.
Commentary Halacha
It is permitted to prepare bran or flour for chickens in water -- Rabbenu Manoach and the Meiri state that the Rambam's statements are based on theTosefta. However, no law of this nature is found in our text of the Tosefta.
Perhaps this lack of a clear source is the reason the Rambam's opinion is not accepted by other halachic authorities. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim465:1) forbids placing bran in water under any circumstances. The Ramah cautions against placing any grain products in a place where there is a residue of moisture.
if they are fed -- and consume the food
immediately, or if one places [the feed] before them and stands over them, to ensure that the food will not stand -- without any activity, as the Rambam continues
more than the time it takes a person to walk a mil -- 18 or 24 minutes, as explained in Halachah 13.
As long as they peck at it or one turns it over by hand -- for, like dough (see Halachah 13), as long as it is agitated
it will not become leavened. Once they finish eating, one should wash out the utensil in water and pour it out in a place which slopes downward -- as in Halachah 16. This halachah also applies only after chametz has become forbidden. Even the authorities who follow a more stringent view than the Rambam allow leniency before the prohibitions against possessing chametz take effect.
Halacha 19
A woman should not soak bran which she intends to take to the bathhouse in water [beforehand]. However, she may rub dry bran on her skin. A person should not chew wheat and then place it on his wound, for it will become chametz.
We should not place flour into charoset. If one did so, he should burn it immediately, because it will cause [the flour] to become leavened very fast. We should not place flour in mustard. If one did so, he should eat it immediately.
Commentary Halacha
A woman should not soak bran which she intends to take to the bathhouse in water [beforehand] -- The application of moist bran to skin renews the skin's natural moisture. Bran contains high quantities of Vitamin E and other natural cosmetics.
However, she may rub dry bran on her skin -- even though her skin is moist with sweat, without fear of it becoming chametz (Rashi, Pesachim 39b). TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 465:2) forbids the practice entirely.
A person should not chew wheat -- for the spittle can cause the wheat to become leavened.
and then place it on his wound -- as a poultice
for it will become chametz. -- Rabbenu Manoach notes that the Rambam writes (Hilchot Yesodai HaTorah 5:8) that, when there is danger to life or limb, it is permissible to use all substances as remedies, even if it is forbidden to benefit from them. That halachah specifically states that a sick person may be given chametz to eat as a remedy.
Furthermore, that halachah explains that if the sick person does not benefit from the forbidden substance in the normal manner, it may be used as a remedy even if there is no danger to life or limb. The Rambam gives the example of including chametz in a compress.
On that basis, Rabbenu Manoach questions why wheat cannot be used as a poultice as stated in our halachah. However, he resolves the issue by explaining that, in our case, the wheat would become chametz before it was applied to the wound.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 466:5 (and the Mishnah Berurah) emphasize that it is permitted to use grain as a remedy for a wound only if there is a question of danger to life or limb. Furthermore, this leniency is qualified as follows:
a) it must be an established medical fact that the remedy works;
b) effort must be made to reduce the chance of the grain becoming leavened to the greatest extent possible (e.g., preparing grain by boiling it in fruit juice which does not become leavened).
We should not place flour into charoset -- In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 10:3), the Rambam describes charoset as a mixture of dates, figs, spices, and vinegar.
if one did so, he should burn it - The popular texts of the Mishneh Torah use the word ישפך - "pour it out." However, most of the original manuscripts state ישרף as in our text. This version implies that it is feared that the flour has already leavened and, hence, must be burnt.
immediately -- as chametz
because it will cause [the flour] to become leavened very fast. -- In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 2:8), the Rambam explains that the vinegar in the charoset causes the flour to become leavened fast.
We should not place flour in mustard -- The Ramah (Orach Chayim 464:1) states that Ashkenazic custom forbids the use of mustard on Pesach entirely, placing it in the category of kitniyot.
If one did so, he should eat it immediately. -- In contrast to other dips, the sharpness of mustard prevents the flour from leavening (Pri Chadash).
Halacha 20
It is permissible to place spices, sesame seeds, poppy seeds, and the like into dough. Similarly, it is permissible to knead the dough with water and oil, honey or milk, or to baste with them.
On the first day, it is forbidden to knead or baste [the matzot] with any other substance besides water; not because of the prohibition against chametz, but rather so [the matzah] will be "poor man's bread." It is only on the first day that the "poor man's bread" must be commemorated.
Commentary Halacha
It is permissible to place spices -- Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 455:6) advises against placing spices in dough. The Ramah forbids matzah that was kneaded with pepper, maintaining that its sharpness causes the dough to become leavened.
sesame seeds, poppy seeds -- The Shulchan Aruch HaRav explains that even the opinions which advise against using spices in matzah permit these substances to be used. They are not sharp and will not speed up the leavening process.
and the like -- Salt is not included in this category. The Shulchan Aruch (455:5) explicitly advises against placing salt into dough, and the Ramah considers matzah baked with salt as chametz.
into dough -- for this mixture will not cause the dough to become chametz. In describing the meal offerings which cannot become leavened (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:17), the Rambam also states that they may be seasoned in a similar manner.
The Tosefta (Pesachim 2:13) and the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 2:4) go further and state that such matzah may even be used at the Seder. Though some halachic authorities accept this opinion, the later authorities counsel against using such matzah on that occasion.
Similarly, it is permissible to knead the dough with water and oil, honey or milk, or to baste with them -- This statement has raised controversy. In Halachah 2, when the Rambam described the use of מי פירות, he explained that they will not cause grain products to become leavened when used alone. However, if they are mixed with water, they can cause the grain products to become leavened. Indeed, the commentaries relate that the mixture of these liquids with water speeds up the leavening process.
Therefore, the Ra'avad and other authorities question the leniency granted by the Rambam. In practice, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 462:2) advises against, but does not forbid, mixing these liquids with water. The Ramah (and accordingly, Ashkenazic custom) prohibits such a mixture entirely.
It must be noted that the Maggid Mishneh's text of the Mishneh Torahsubstitutes the word יין (wine) for מים (water). According to such a rendition, there is no difficulty.
On the first day -- more particularly, for the matzah used to fulfill the commandment of eating matzah on Pesach night;
it is forbidden to knead or baste -- even though basting the dough with other substances will not change its taste appreciably, the Rambam forbids this. SeeOr Sameach.
[the matzot] with any other substance besides water -- Note the commentary on Halachah 6:5.
not because of the prohibition against chametz -- for, as above, the dough will not necessarily become chametz,
but rather so [the matzah] will be "poor man's bread" -- Deuteronomy 16:3states "For seven days eat matzah, poor man's bread." In contrast, dough mixed with these liquids is considered matzah ashirah, "rich matzah."
It is only on the first day that the "poor man's bread" must be commemorated -- to recall the "poor man's bread" eaten by our ancestors when they were slaves in Egypt.
Halacha 21
All earthenware vessels that were used for chametz while cold may be used for matzah while cold, except for the utensils in which yeast and charoset were placed, for their leavening effect is powerful. Similarly, a kneading trough in which chametz is kneaded and left to become leavened is considered as a place where yeast is soaked, and we do not use it on Pesach.
Commentary Halacha
All earthenware vessels -- In this and the following five halachot, the Rambam discusses how dishes and cooking utensils that were used for chametz during the entire year may be prepared for Passover use. It must be emphasized that in many communities, it is customary not to consider these options and to use separate sets of pots, dishes, and cutlery for the holiday.
that were used for chametz while cold -- Utensils absorb substances only when used together with both heat and liquid. Thus, in this instance, there is no fear that chametz is absorbed. Nevertheless, the utensil
may -- only
be used for matzah while cold -- lest its use cause people to err and permit use of earthenware vessels that were used for chametz while hot (Maggid Mishneh). This safeguard was only instituted for earthenware vessels, since the chametz absorbed in substances of metal or wood may be purged through הגעלה.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 451:22) does not recognize this prohibition at all and allows such utensils to be used for matzah even when hot. However, this is merely from an abstract halachic perspective. In practice, that text continues to explain, Jews are accustomed not to use any earthenware utensils or dishes that had been previously used for chametz on Pesach. This custom was already accepted in the days of Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher.
except for the utensils -- Leavening agents were placed directly in these utensils. Accordingly, even if they were made of other substances besides clay, more severe laws than usual apply regarding purging them from the chametz they absorbed. (See Magen Avraham 451:42.)
in which yeast and charoset -- This does not refer to the charoset used at the Seder, but to a similar mixture which was used throughout the entire year. The latter would frequently contain flour.
were placed, for their leavening effect is powerful -- Yeast is a powerful leavening agent. Similarly, the vinegar in the charoset will cause leavening. Even though the utensil was cleaned thoroughly of these substances, we regard that some was absorbed in the utensil's walls and will have an effect on food placed within it on Pesach.
Similarly, a kneading trough in which chametz is kneaded and left to become leavened is considered as a place where yeast is soaked, and we do not use it on Pesach -- lest the leavening agents that are absorbed cause the Matzah to become chametz.
Halacha 22
An earthenware roasting pan on which loaves of chametz are baked during the entire year should not be used to bake matzah on Pesach. If it was filled with coals and kindled on the place where chametz was cooked, matzah it is permitted to be cooked on it.
Commentary Halacha
An earthenware roasting pan on which loaves of chametz are baked during the entire year should not be used to bake matzah on Pesach --The prohibition is obvious. It appears that this statement was included only as an introduction to the following halachah, which describes how such a utensil may be prepared for Pesach use.
If it was filled with coals and kindled on the place -- This practice, referred to as ליבון, burns up any chametz that may have been absorbed in the pan.
Halacha 23
Metal and stone utensils in which chametz was boiled in water as a כלי ראשון - e.g., pots and stew pots - should be placed inside a large utensil. They should be covered with water, and the water should be boiled with them inside until they release [what they absorbed]. Afterwards, they should be washed off with cold water, and [then] one may use them for matzah.
Similarly, [with regard to] knives, the blade and the handle should be boiled in a כלי ראשון. Afterwards, one may use them for matzah.
Commentary Halacha
Metal and stone utensils -- In Hilchot Ma'acholot Asurot 17:3 and in his commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 7:12), the Rambam equates glass utensils with those made of these substances.
in which chametz was boiled in water as a כלי ראשון -- The term כלי ראשון is a fundamental concept in the laws of kashrut and the laws of Shabbat. It refers to a pot or cooking vessel that was directly exposed to the heat of an oven or range. Such a pot is still considered as a כלי ראשון even after it has been removed from the cooking surface.
e.g., pots and stew pots -- The Ramah (Orach Chayim 451:5) requires that the surface of the pot be smooth and free of nicks or cracks for this manner of purging to be effective.
should be placed inside a large utensil -- The process described below can be carried out only before chametz becomes forbidden. Once that prohibition takes effect, even the slightest amount of chametz can cause a larger mixture to be prohibited. (See Halachah 1:5.) Hence, were the process carried out at that time, the residue of chametz absorbed in the walls of the utensils would cause all the water to be considered as mixed with chametz.
They should be covered with water, and the water should be boiled -- The commentaries stress how the water must be bubbling because of the heat.
with them inside -- This process is referred to as הגעלה (purging) and is also used to prepare utensils that had been used for non-kosher food for kosher use. Thus, a similar description of this process is found in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:4.
The basic principle governing the kashering of utensils is כבולעו כך פולטו - "In the same manner as a [forbidden substance] is absorbed [by a utensil], so, too, is it released." Thus, since these utensils were used in hot water, the process of boiling is employed to cause them to release any chametz they might have absorbed.
until they release [what they absorbed] -- This phrase is taken from thehalachot of Rav Yitzchak Alfasi. However, it is omitted in some of the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. In practice, there is also debate about this issue. In his responsum, the Rashbah explains Rav Yitzchak Alfasi's view, stating that a person should leave the utensil submerged until he feels that all the absorbed chametz has been released. However, the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 121) and the Pri Chadash do not require waiting any substantial amount of time. Their view is accepted by the later authorities. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Orach Chayim 452:4.)
Afterwards, they should be washed off with cold water -- in order to cleanse them of any forbidden matter that might remain on their surface (Rabbenu Manoach). The source for this requirement is the description (Zevachim 97a) of the way the priests would purge the Temple pots used to cook the sin offerings after the previous day's service. Though some authorities do not require this stage, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (452:5) states that it is customary to follow this practice.
and [then] one may use them for matzah.
Similarly, [with regard to] knives, the blade -- Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:7 states: "A person who acquires a knife from a gentile must burn it out in fire." A similar decision is rendered by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 121:7). Nevertheless, the authorities suggest that chametz may be purged from knives by boiling. However, they do not permit this leniency in the following instances:
a) when the knives are rusty;
b) when they have serrated edges;
c) when the handle is separate from the blade and enclosed around it, allowing for the possibility for residue to collect between them.
In the latter instance, even ליבון (exposing the knife to open fire) is insufficient. Since most knives today are made in this manner, they should not be kashered for Pesach or for ordinary use after having been used with prohibited foods. Both the Mishnah Berurah and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav state that purchasing new knives for Pesach is the most desirable manner of fulfilling the mitzvah.
and the handle should be boiled in a כלי ראשון -- as described above.
Afterwards, one may use them for matzah.
Halacha 24
Utensils of metal, stone, and wood which were used for chametz as a כלי שני - e.g., bowls or cups - should be placed in a large utensil, and boiling water poured over them. They should be left in [the large utensil] until they release [the chametz they absorbed]. Afterwards, they should be washed off. [Then,] they may be used for matzah.
Commentary Halacha
Utensils of metal, stone, and wood which were used for chametz as a כלי שני -- a utensil into which one pours water that had been cooked over a fire.
e.g., bowls or cups -- can also be purged of chametz following the principle כבולעו כך פולטו - "In the same manner as a [forbidden substance] is absorbed [by a utensil], so, too, is it released." Thus, since these utensils absorbed chametz in a שני כלי, in order for them to release the chametz they absorbed, they
should be placed in a large utensil and boiling water poured over them --from a utensil that was heated on the fire. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 451:6) states that, at present, it is customary to boil all utensils on the fire itself (i.e., in a כלי ראשון), even though they were generally used as a כלי שני.
They should be left in [the large utensil] until they release [the chametz they absorbed] -- See the explanation of the similar phrase in the previous halachah.
Afterwards, they should be washed off -- as explained in the previous halachah.
[Then,] they may be used for matzah.
Halacha 25
All earthenware utensils that were used for chametz in hot water, whether as a כלי ראשון - for example, pots - or as a
כלי שני - for example, bowls - whether they were glazed and coated with lead so that they became like glass, or they were of simple earthenware: we do not use them for matzah. Rather, we put them aside until after Pesach, and then we may cook with them.
Commentary Halacha
All earthenware utensils that were used for chametz in hot -- See Halachah 21 with regard to earthenware vessels that were used for chametz while cold.
water -- In contrast to utensils made of other substances, the process of הגעלה cannot remove the forbidden matter absorbed in the walls of an earthenware vessel. Instead of all the absorbed matter being purged at once, it is released a small amount at a time, and there will always be a certain quantity of the previous substance contained in its walls.
Pesachim 30b explains that this concept is derived from the Torah itself.Leviticus 6:21 states that any pot in which meat from a sin offering has been cooked must be broken. A sin offering can only be eaten for one day. Once that time has passed, the taste of the meat absorbed in the pot is considered as נותר (sacrificial meat which has been kept past its required time), and thus forbidden. Hence, the pot itself must be destroyed.
whether as a כלי ראשון - for example, pots - or as a כלי שני - for example, bowls - whether they were glazed and coated with lead so that they became like glass -- i.e., china. Based on these principles, the authorities have stated that china can never be kashered. However, they have suggested certain leniencies when the china is very expensive.
or they were of simple earthenware -- As mentioned in Halachah 22, the Sages also forbade the use of ןוביל (exposing the utensil to fire), to remove chametz absorbed in most earthenware vessels, lest a person hesitate to expose them to the required heat out of fear that they would break. Thus, there is no way to prepare these utensils for Pesach use. Therefore,
we do not use them for matzah -- There would be no halachic difficulty against using these dishes on Pesach for cold foods. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade their use entirely, lest a person err and use them for hot substances as well.
Rather, we put them aside until after Pesach -- Though the taste of chametz is absorbed in the walls of these utensils, keeping them does not cause a person to violate the prohibition against possessing chametz on Pesach. Nevertheless, at present, when it is customary to sell chametz to gentiles, the Rabbis in charge of the sale usually sell this chametz as well.
and then we may cook with them -- This line was added to negate the opinion of Rav (Pesachim 30a), who maintains that each Pesach, a person was required to destroy any earthenware vessels he possessed which were used for chametz while hot.
Halacha 26
[A person possesses a utensil which is] a כלי ראשון and desires to boil it [in order to prepare it for Passover use], however, he cannot find a larger utensil into which [to place it] to boil it: Behold, he may place a border of clay around its [top] edge from the outside and fill it with water until the water overflows its edge. [Then,] he may boil the water in it, and this is sufficient. Afterwards, he washes it off and may use it for matzah.
Commentary Halacha
[A person possesses a utensil which is] a כלי ראשון and desires to boil it [in order to prepare it for Passover use] -- and hence must be kashered by boiling water inside of it, as explained in Halachah 23.
however, he cannot find a larger utensil into which [to place it] to boil it --Thus, were he to boil water in the utensil itself, its entire top edge would not be exposed to the boiling water.
Behold, he may place a border of clay around its [top] edge from the outside and fill it -- the utensil
with water until the water overflows its edge -- but is delayed in pouring out by the clay border.
[Then,] he may boil the water in it, and this is sufficient -- for the entire utensil will have been exposed to the boiling water. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 452:6) offers an alternative suggestion. After boiling the water thoroughly, placing a very hot stone into the water will cause the water to flow over the edges of the utensil on all sides. Thus, the entire utensil will be exposed to the boiling water.
Afterwards, he washes it off -- with cold water, as explained in Halachah 23.
and may use it for matzah.
Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment for the sin offerings and the guilt-offerings1 to be eaten,2 as [Exodus 29:33] states: "And they shall eat [the sacrifices] which convey atonement."3 The priests eat the sacrifices and the owners receive atonement. This also applies to other sacrifices4 that are eaten by the priests; partaking of them is a mitzvah.
Halacha 2
Similarly, partaking of the portion that remains from the meal offerings5 is a positive commandment,6 as [Leviticus 6:9] states: "What remains of it shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons."
Halacha 3
The sin-offering, the guilt-offering, and the remnants of the meal-offering may be eaten only by males7 of the priestly family in the Temple Courtyard.8 If they were eaten in the Temple building, their consumption is [acceptable], as [indicated by Numbers 18:9-10]: "For all of their meal-offerings, for all of their sin-offerings, and for all of their guilt-offerings.... In the most holy place,9 you shall partake of it.10 All males shall partake of it." Similarly, the communal peace-offerings are similar to the sin-offerings and the guilt-offerings, as we explained.11
Halacha 4
The breast and the thigh of the peace-offerings are eaten by both males and females of the priestly family, for with regard to these [Numbers 18:11] states: "I have given it to you, to your sons and your daughters." This also applies to the elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram,12 [ibid.:19] states: "All of the elevated portions of the consecrated [offerings] that the children of Israel shall raise up have I given to you, your sons, and your daughters."
Halacha 5
The same applies with regard to the firstborn offering, for concerning it [ibid.:18] states: "Their meat shall be yours, like the breast with which tenufah was performed and the right thigh."13
All of these14 [portions of sacrificial meat] that may be eaten by the women of the priestly family may be eaten by the priests' servants and their wives, liketerumah. All [these sacrifices]15 may be eaten throughout the city [of Jerusalem],16 as [Leviticus 10:14] states: "And the breast with which tenufahwas performed and the thigh that was lifted up shall you eat in a pure place." It was not specified that they [be eaten] "in a holy place," which would mean "the Temple Courtyard," but "in a pure place." This refers to the camp of the Levites.17 The parallel with regard to future generations is the city of Jerusalem.
The same laws apply to the tithe offering and the Paschal sacrifice, for they are sacrifices of lesser sanctity like the peace-offerings. The windows and the thickness of the wall is considered as being within [the city].18
Halacha 6
The peace-offerings may be eaten on the day they were slaughtered, throughout the [following] night, and throughout the following day until sunset, as [Leviticus 7:16-18] states: "On the day when his sacrifice was offered, it shall be eaten and on its morrow... If one would partake of the peace-offering on the third day...."19 Thus one can derive that they may be eaten for two days and one night. [This applies both] to the portion of the priests and the portions of the owners. This also applies to the firstborn and tithe offerings,20 for they are also sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, like the peace-offerings.
Halacha 7
The thanksgiving-offering, by contrast, even though it is one of the sacrifices of lesser sanctity, may be eaten only on the day of its sacrifice and the [following] night, as [ibid.:15] states: "It shall be eaten on the day it was offered. Do not leave anything from it until the morning." This also applies to the nazirite's ram and the bread which accompanies [these offerings], both to the portion of the priests and the portion of the owner. This also applies to the sin-offering, the guilt-offering, the communal peace-offerings, and the remainder of the meal-offerings. All of these are eaten for a day and [the following] night, as it is written: "It shall be eaten on the day it was offered."21 This appears to include all of the sacrifices with the exception of the peace-offerings concerning which the Torah explicitly [stated otherwise] and the firstborn and tithe offerings which resemble the peace-offerings.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
All of the sacrifices - both those of the highest degree of sanctity and those of a lesser degree - may be eaten only by those who are ritually pure24 and who are circumcised.25 Even if the duration of the person's impurity has concluded,26but he has not brought the [necessary] atonement,27 he may not partake of sacrificial foods. A tumtum28may not partake of sacrificial foods, because there is an unresolved doubt whether he is uncircumcised.29 It appears to me that anandrogynus30 may partake of sacrifices of lesser sanctity.31
Halacha 10
It is permitted to eat sacrificial meat together with any other food. Even the priests are permitted to eat their portions - both from the sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity and those of a lesser degree - together with any other food.32 And they may changed the manner [in which it is prepared] to be eaten, eating them roasted, lightly cooked, or thoroughly cooked33 and to spice them with spices that are not consecrated. They may not, however, spice them with spices that are terumah, lest this cause the terumah to be disqualified.34
The bones that remain are permitted [to be used for any purpose].35 A person may make any utensil he desires from them.
Halacha 11
If there was only a small amount [of sacrificial meat], ordinary food and terumahshould be eaten with it so that it will be eaten in a satisfying manner.36 If there is a large amount [of sacrificial meat], ordinary food and terumah should not be eaten with it so that one will not have overeaten.37 Similar concepts apply with regard to the remainder of the meal offerings.38
Halacha 12
A sin-offering and a guilt-offering should not be cooked together with the elevated portion of the thanksgiving-offering or the elevated portion of the nazirite's ram because doing so restricts the type of people able to partake of them39 and the place where they can be eaten.40 Nor may one [cook] the elevated portion of the thanksgiving-offering or the elevated portion of the nazirite's ram with the breast and thigh of the peace-offering because doing so restricts the time in which they may be eaten.41 Nor may the elevated portion of yesterday's peace-offering [be cooked] with a sin-offering or a guilt-offering brought today because doing so restricts the type of people able to partake of them,42 the place where they can be eaten,43 and the time in which they may be eaten.44
One may, however, cook sin-offerings and guilt-offerings together, the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram together, and the firstborn offering and the breast and the thigh [of the thanksgiving offering] together.45
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
With regard to a burnt-offering, [Leviticus 7:8] states: "The hide of the burnt-offering which the priest sacrificed will belong to him." With regard to a sin-offering, [ibid. 6:19] states: "The priest who performs the sin-offering shall partake of it." With regard to a guilt-offering, [ibid. 7:7] states: "It will belong to the priest who brings about atonement because of it." With regard to a peace-offering, [ibid.:14] states: "It will belong to the priest who pours the blood of the peace-offering." And with regard to the meal-offering, it is written: "The priest who offers it shall partake of it."54
In all the above instances, the verses are not referring [to the priest who actually brings the offering, but] to [any priest] who is fit to have done so. Any priest who is fit to perform the service has a right to share in the division [of the sacrifice] to partake of it.55 [Conversely,] one who is not fit [to serve] at the time it is offered, e.g., he was ritually impure, does not have a right to share in the division [of the sacrifice] to partake of it even if he will regain ritual purity in the evening.
With regard to the division, the entire [matter] is given to the men of the clan who offer sacrifices that day.56 They all share in the division of all of the sacraments of the Temple, each man [receiving the same portion] as his brother, whether he was the one who offered the sacrifice or he was together with him in the Temple, but did not offer the sacrifice.
Halacha 15
Why did the verse make a distinction between the meal-offerings that are baked and the meal-offerings of flour? For with regard to [the meal-offerings] that are baked, [Leviticus 7:9] states: "Any meal-offering that is baked in an oven... it will belong to the priest who offers it" and with regard to the meal-offerings of flour [ibid.:10] states: "Any meal-offering that is mixed with oil or that is parched shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, every man like his brother."
[The following explanation can be given:]57 When [the meal-offerings] that are baked are divided among the members of the clan, whenever a person receives a portion even if it is [merely[ an olive-sized portion of bread, it is fit for him to partake of it, because it may be eaten immediately. When, however, we are speaking of flour, if [such an offering] will be divided among them, there will be those who will receive only a handful of flour or less. This is not fit neither to be kneaded into dough or to be baked. Hence, one might think that one meal offering should be apportioned in consideration of another meal-offering instead of dividing each meal-offering individually among all the members of the clan.58Therefore it is necessary for the Torah to state [that it] "shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, every man like his brother," i.e., that it is divided individually.
On this basis, our Sages said:59 that a meal offering is not divided in consideration of another meal-offering, not even one offering brought in a flat frying pan in consideration of another such offering or one flour-offering in consideration of another such offering. Instead, what remains60 from every [offering] is divided individually.
Halacha 16
Similarly, an offering of fowl is not apportioned in consideration of another such offering, nor a sin-offering in consideration of another such offering, nor a breast and a thigh in consideration of another such portion.61 Instead, every [sacrificial portion] is divided among all [the members of the clan] equally.
Halacha 17
Even though it is permitted to feed a minor [meat even] from sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, he is not given a portion, even from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity.62 Similarly, a woman and an androgynus63 are not given a portion of the sacrifices from the Temple at all, as [the above verse] states: "Every man like his brother."64
[A priest] who has a disqualifying physical blemish - whether permanent or temporary, whether he was born with it or born unblemished and later disqualified - receives a portion of the sacrifices and may partake of them,65 as [Leviticus 21:22] states: "The food of his God, of the most sacred order... he may eat." [The above applies] provided he is fit to partake [of the sacrifice at the time it is offered]. If, however, he is impure, he is not given a portion to eat in the evening.66
Halacha 18
The High Priest may partake [of any of the sacrifices] without a division having been made. Instead, he may take whatever he desires.
Halacha 19
All [priests] who are fit to partake of sacrificial foods at the time the sacrifice is offered receive a share [of the sacrifice] to partake of. All [priests] who are not fit to partake of sacrificial foods at the time the sacrifice is offered, even though they are fit to perform sacrificial service and will be fit to partake [of the sacrifice in the evening] do not receive a share [of the sacrifice] to set aside until the evening.67
Halacha 20
All [priests] who are not fit to partake of sacrificial foods are not fit to perform sacrificial service with the exception of a High Priest who is an onein who may offer sacrifices, but may not partake [of sacrificial foods], as we explained.73All [priests] who are not fit to perform sacrificial service are not fit to partake of sacrificial foods74 except one disqualified because of a physical blemish [whose license to partake of sacrificial foods] is explicitly stated in the Torah.75
Halacha 21
All [priests] who do not receive a portion of the sacrificial meat do not receive a portion of the hides of the sacrifices.76 Even if a priest was impure at the time when the blood [of a sacrifice] was sprinkled on the altar, but pure at the time its fats were offered on the altar's pyre,77 he does not receive a portion of the sacrificial meat, as [Leviticus 7:33] states: "One who offers the blood of the peace-offering and the fat from the sons of Aaron, to him the right thigh will be [given] as a portion." [Implied is that] the priest must be pure and fit to perform service from the time [the blood] is sprinkled until after the fats are offered.78
Halacha 22
If [a priest] became impure after [the blood of the sacrifice] was sprinkled [on the altar] and immersed himself and thus was also pure when the fats were offered on the altar's pyre, there is an unresolved question whether or not he receives a portion.79 Therefore if he grabs a portion, it is not expropriated from him.80
Halacha 23
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 89) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 102) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 2. |
This mitzvah is incumbent on the priests; it is not a dimension of the obligation to bring a given sacrifice.
|
| 3. |
The choice of this prooftext and the concept it teaches sheds light on an issue debated by the commentaries: Is it a positive mitzvah to partake of the meat of the sacrifices of lesser sanctity? In his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam explains that since eating the other sacrifices does not bring about atonement, it should not be considered as an independent mitzvah. Instead, it is an extension of this mitzvah. In this instance, however, since the atonement of the person bringing the sacrifice depends on the priests' consumption of the sacrifice, it is considered as an independent mitzvah. There is extensive discussion on this issue by other Rabbis.
|
| 4. |
E.g., the communal peace offerings.
|
| 5. |
I.e., after the handful has been taken out to be offered on the altar. See Chapter 12, Halachah 9.
|
| 6. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 88) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 134) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This mitzvah encompasses partaking of all the different types of meal offerings (Radbaz).
|
| 7. |
Even minors; see Halachah 17.
|
| 8. |
Indeed, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 5, there is a prohibition against partaking of these sacrifices outside the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 9. |
This includes the Temple building.
|
| 10. |
Zevachim 63a asks: From that verse, it would appear that it is desirable (not merely acceptable after the fact) to partake of the offerings inside the Temple building. Our Sages then cite Leviticus 6:9 which indicates that the sacrifices should be eaten in the Temple Courtyard. They explain that it is preferable to consider the Temple Courtyard the primary place where the sacrifices are eaten, for the Temple building is the resting place for the Divine presence and it is not befitting for that to be the primary place for eating, an activity that is essentially a human need.
|
| 11. |
Chapter 9, Halachah 4.
|
| 12. |
The breads and the portions of meat given to the priest from those offerings; see Chapter 9, Halachah 12.
|
| 13. |
I.e., they are comparable to the peace-offering.
|
| 14. |
I.e., the portions from the sacrifices of lesser sanctity, including the breast and the thigh of the peace offering and the firstborn offering.
|
| 15. |
Not only the portions given to the priests, but also those given to the Israelites.
|
| 16. |
See Chapter 11, Halachah 6, which delineates the prohibition against eating such sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem.
|
| 17. |
As related in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:11, while the Jews were journeying through the desert, their encampment was considered as divided into three camps: the Camp of the Divine Presence, the Camp of the Levites, and the Camp of the Israelites.
|
| 18. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:9. See also parallel rulings in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 2:16; Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:1.
The Radbaz clarifies that this is referring to instances where the windows are open to the city. If they are open only to the area outside the wall, he maintains that they should be considered as outside the city.
|
| 19. |
The verse continues "he shall bear his sin," implying that there is a prohibition in partaking of the sacrifice at that time.
|
| 20. |
But not the Paschal sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:1, 15.
|
| 21. |
I.e., the Rambam understands the verse as referring to all sacrifices unless it is specifically stated otherwise.
|
| 22. |
The first appearance of the sun's rays - but not the sun itself - on the eastern hemisphere. According to different halachic views, it is between 72 minutes and two hours before sunrise.
|
| 23. |
I.e., if a person would be given the entire night, he might become lax and delay the consumption of the meat and come to partake of the meat after dawn. Giving him a more restricted time serves as a safeguard to prevent the violation of this limit. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 1:1).
|
| 24. |
Indeed, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:13, partaking of sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity violates a Scriptural prohibition. See also Hilchot Chagigah4.
|
| 25. |
As evident from Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4, sec. 69, the prohibition against partaking of sacrificial meat while uncircumcised is an extension of the prohibition against partaking of terumah while uncircumcised. See Hilchot Terumah 7:10; Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:7.
|
| 26. |
The literal meaning of the words used by the Rambam is "his sun has set." For in most instances, it is at sunset when the duration of the term of a person's ritual impurity ends.
|
| 27. |
See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, which explains that a zav, a zavah, a person who had been afflicted with tzara'at and a woman who gave birth or miscarried must immerse themselves in a mikveh (or in a stream) to regain ritual purity. Nevertheless, they may not partake of sacrifices until they bring the offerings required of them. See also Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim18:14.
|
| 28. |
A person whose gender is masked by an extra piece of flesh.
|
| 29. |
I.e., if he is in fact male, circumcision will not have been performed upon him.
|
| 30. |
One with both a male and female sexual organ.
|
| 31. |
For these sacrifices may be eaten by both males and females. Although there is a halachic uncertainty with regard to the definition of his gender (see Hilchot Nizirut 2:10), that should not prevent him from partaking of these sacrifices. He may not, however, partake of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, for these may only be eaten by males and he is not categorically defined as male.
The Kessef Mishneh clarifies that this leniency applies only when the male organ of theandrogynus has been circumcised.
|
| 32. |
There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's ruling, as noted by Rav Yosef Corcus in his gloss to the following halachah, for sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard and ordinary food may not be brought into the Temple Courtyard. Rashi (Temurah 23a) explains that the intent is that one may partake of ordinary food outside the Temple Courtyard and then enter the Temple Courtyard to partake of the sacrificial food. Tosafotexplains that the prohibition against bringing ordinary food into the Temple Courtyard applies only when it is not being brought there for a purpose connected with the Temple service. If, however, it is being brought there to be eaten together with the sacrifices, there is no prohibition.
|
| 33. |
The Paschal sacrifice may only be eaten while roasted, but that is a specific obligation that does not apply to other sacrifices.
|
| 34. |
The sacrifices may be eaten only for a limited amount of time as mentioned above (Halachot 6-7), while there is no limit on the time terumah may be eaten. Thus if the sacrifices were cooked withterumah, the terumah could be disqualified with the sacrifices and the time in which it could be eaten would be reduced.
|
| 35. |
I.e., this is not considered as a desecration of consecrated articles (Radbaz). This applies provided there are not any portions of the bones that are fit to be eaten (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 36. |
For it is not befitting for one to leave his master's table when he is hungry (Tosafot, Pesachim120a).
|
| 37. |
For that is also not becoming.
|
| 38. |
I.e., that other foods may be eaten with it if there is only a small amount (Kessef Mishneh). Indeed, the verse from which the above concepts are derived (Leviticus 6:9) concerns the meal offerings.
|
| 39. |
A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten by male priests, while the elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may also be eaten by their wives, their daughters, and their servant (Radbaz).
|
| 40. |
A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard, while the elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may also be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (ibid.).
Needless to say, one may not cook a sin-offering or a guilt-offering with the portion of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram to be eaten by the owner, for doing so certainly places restrictions on that meat, preventing even the owner from partaking of it.
|
| 41. |
The elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may be eaten only for a day and a night, while the breast and thigh of the peace-offering may be eaten on the following day as well (ibid.).
The same concepts apply with regard to cooking the meat of the thanksgiving offering or the nazirite's ram together with the meat of a peace-offering. It is only that since the Rambam had been speaking about the portions eaten by the priests, he continued to do so.
|
| 42. |
For sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten by male priests, while the peace-offerings may be eaten by Israelites and women (ibid.).
|
| 43. |
A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard, while the peace-offering may also be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (ibid.).
|
| 44. |
Here the restrictions are reversed for the peace offering of the previous day may only be eaten until sunset, while the sin-offering and the guilt-offering may also be eaten until midnight of the following night (ibid.).
|
| 45. |
In all of these instances, the pairs of offerings mentioned may be eaten by the same type of individual, in the same places, and for the same duration of time.
|
| 46. |
Which may only be eaten by priests.
|
| 47. |
Meat from a sacrifice that was slaughtered with the intent to sprinkle its blood, offer the portions required to be offered on the altar's pyre, or partake of its meat at an improper time (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1).
|
| 48. |
Meat that remained after the required time for partaking of this type of sacrificial meat passed (ibid.18:10).
|
| 49. |
There are others who include sacrificial meat that became impure in the list of prohibitions mentioned here and indeed this is the standard text of the Mishnah (Orlah 2:16) which serves as the source for this halachah. The Rambam does not, however, include that particular in his version of the mishnah. The rationale for this distinction is discussed by the commentaries. See the notes to the following halachah.
|
| 50. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this is speaking about an instance when there is sixty times more permitted meat than the piece of meat that is piggul ornotar and that forbidden piece of meat was removed. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:5-6 with regard to the latter points. This addition satisfies the objections raised by the Ra'avad.
According to this interpretation, the fundamental point of this ruling is that the meat is permitted only to priests and not to non-priests. Although the prohibitions against piggul and notar have been nullified since the sacrificial meat was originally to be eaten only by priests, that restriction still remains. There are, however, others who interpret the mishnah differently.
|
| 51. |
The term the Rambam uses literally translates as "the meat of desire," i.e., meat that there is no mitzvah to partake of.
|
| 52. |
Because it has absorbed the flavor of the sacrificial meat. The Radbaz states that even if there is enough ordinary meat to nullify the presence of the sacrificial meat, the prohibition against eating the sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity is not nullified.
|
| 53. |
As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:17), the intent is that if the sacrificial meat was from sacrifices of the most sacred order, the ordinary meat may be eaten by priests. If it was of sacrifices of lesser sanctity, it may be eaten by ordinary individuals, provided they are ritually pure.
In one of his responsa, the Radbaz mentions that only the ordinary meat is permitted to be eaten, the sacrificial meat is forbidden, because it is considered to have become ritually impure because of its contact with the ordinary meat. See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 11:5. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, the Rambam states that "everything may be eaten by pure priests" or "pure non-priests."
|
| 54. |
The verse cited in the text of the Mishneh Torah does not exist. The commentaries have suggested that the intent is Leviticus 7:9 as stated in the following halachah.
See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains why all the different verses are necessary, because the concepts cannot be derived from each other.
|
| 55. |
As indicated by Halachah 17 [see also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim12:1)], priests with a disqualifying physical blemish are not excluded from receiving a portion of the division of the sacrifices even though they are unfit to offer them, because there is a special verse that teaches that they should receive a portion.
|
| 56. |
See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11 with regard to what is meant by a clan.
|
| 57. |
The commentaries note that the explanation appears to be the Rambam's own, rather than to stem from a prior source.
|
| 58. |
I.e., if there were 20 meal-offerings and 60 priests, one might think that each of the meal-offerings would be divided among three priests rather than have all 20 divided among the 60. Hence, it is necessary to explicitly state that every priest receives a portion of a meal-offering of flour.
|
| 59. |
Sifra to the verse, Kiddushin 53a; Menachot 73a.
|
| 60. |
After the portions offered on the altar are taken.
|
| 61. |
In all these instances, one might think that it would be preferable to divide each of the sacrifices among a smaller number of priests.
|
| 62. |
Instead, he may only partake of what the other priests give him from their portions.
|
| 63. |
I.e., since the halachic status of the gender of an androgynus is not defined, he is not given a portion as a male would be.
|
| 64. |
The same phrase excludes both women and minors, because the term "man" implies that the recipient must be male and of age. Since they are not fit to perform service, they are not allocated a portion of the sacrifices.
|
| 65. |
Even though he is not fit to perform service, he is considered an ordinary member of the priestly clan and given a portion of the sacrifices. There is an explicit verse requiring this [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1)].
|
| 66. |
Even if he would regain his ritual purity by the evening.
|
| 67. |
For everything depends on the priest's state at the time the sacrifice is offered (ibid.).
|
| 68. |
I.e., which priests could be fit to perform service during the day and fit to partake of sacrifices after nightfall, but are unfit to partake of the sacrifices at the time they are offered.
|
| 69. |
But will not regain purity until nightfall.
|
| 70. |
A priest who had been a zav or who had been afflicted with tzara'at must immerse himself in a stream or a mikveh to regain ritual purity. In addition, he must bring a specific offering. Until he brings that offering, he is considered as lacking atonement, as explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah.
These two categories of priests are considered as fit to serve, because they would be fit to offer a communal sacrifice if it were to be brought in a state of ritual impurity. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash4:10 and Halachah 23 and notes.
|
| 71. |
The term onein refers to a person in the acute state of mourning experienced at the time of the death of any of seven close relatives. On the day of such a relative's death, one is an oneinaccording to Scriptural Law. If the relative is not buried on the day of his death, the priest is considered an onein according to Rabbinic Law until after the day of burial. Once the relative is buried, however, the priest may perform service and partake of sacrifices in the evening. SeeHilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:7, 9-10.
|
| 72. |
Who is permitted to serve even though he is in the state of onein mourning. See the following halachah.
|
| 73. |
Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:6-8.
|
| 74. |
The Or Sameach suggests that the text should read "are not fit to receive a portion of sacrificial foods," because women and children are fit to partake of the sacrifices, but are not fit to perform sacrificial service.
|
| 75. |
As stated in Halachah 17.
|
| 76. |
Zevachim 12:2 derives this concept from Leviticus 7:12: "The hide of the burnt-offering which he offered will belong to the priest," i.e., the priest must be fit to offer the sacrifice. If he is fit to offer it, he is fit to partake of it.
The Radbaz explains that it is necessary for the Rambam to mention the allocation of the hides explicitly, because one might not necessary derive this point from the allocation of the meat.
|
| 77. |
This is speaking about an instance where a priest was impure at the time a sacrifice was slaughtered and its blood was sprinkled on the altar. Nevertheless, the offering of the fats of the sacrifice was delayed and not performed until after nightfall. In the interim, the priest immersed himself and thus was pure at the time the fats were offered.
|
| 78. |
For the prooftext mentions both these services.
|
| 79. |
For although he was pure when both these services were performed, he was impure in the interim.
|
| 80. |
I.e., he is not given a portion, because he cannot prove that he is worthy of one, but it is not taken from him, since the other priests also cannot prove that he is not worthy. In both instances, the basis for the decision is the principle: When one seeks to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
|
| 81. |
I.e., as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10,12, when the majority of priests are impure, the communal offerings may be offered by the impure priests.
|
| 82. |
The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the glosses of the Radbaz and Rav Yosef Corcus who note that if the sacrifice was offered by impure priests, its meat is not eaten (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:11). Hence we are forced to say that we are speaking about a situation where the sacrifice could have been offered by impure priests, but in fact it was offered by pure priests. Thus the sacrifice may be eaten. One might think that the impure priests would receive a portion since they were fit to offer the sacrifice. Hence, the Rambam explains that they do not, because they were not fit to partake of it at the time it was offered.
|
| 83. |
I.e., even if they would be fit to partake of it in the evening.
|
Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
Anyone1 who eats an olive-sized portion2 of the meat of a burnt-offering, whether before its blood is sprinkled [on the altar] or afterwards,3 is liable for lashes,4as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:17]: "You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain...5 and [the sacrifices brought because of] the vows that you take." According to the Oral Tradition,6 it was taught that this is a warning against partaking of the meat of a burnt-offering.7
Halacha 2
Its fat, its meat, and the flour, oil, and wine of its accompanying offering - all five [of these components] can be combined to comprise this olive-sized portion.8
Halacha 3
Similarly, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion9 of any of the portions of the sacrifices to be offered on the altar's pyre, whether before the blood [of the sacrifice] is sprinkled [on the altar] or afterwards, whether he is a priest or an Israelite, is liable for lashes.10 For the portions to be offered on the altar's pyre must be totally consumed like the totality of the burnt offering. Now [Leviticus 6:16] states with regard to a meal-offering of a priest: "It shall be totally consumed; it should not be eaten." [From this, we derive that] there is a negative commandment [prohibiting] partaking of anything that should be consumed by [the fire of] the altar.11 One is liable for lashes for eating an olive-sized portion [of such substances].
Halacha 4
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of any of the sacrifices - even sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity - before their blood is sprinkled [on the altar]14 is liable for lashes,15 as it is written: "You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil... and [the sacrifices brought because of] your pledges." Implied is that you may not eat [the sacrifices brought because of] your pledges in your gates before their blood is sprinkled [on the altar] in God's gates.
According to the Oral Tradition,16 it was taught that this is a warning against partaking of [the meat of] a thanksgiving-offering or a peace-offering before the sprinkling of its blood. This also applies to [the meat of] other sacrifices, whether sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity or those of a lesser degree.17The six components of the thanksgiving offering, the fat, the meat, the flour, the oil, the wine,18 and the bread, may all be combined to comprise the olive-sized portion [for which one is liable].
Halacha 5
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of any of the [sacrifices of] the most sacred order that was taken outside of the walls of the Temple Courtyard and meat from [sacrifices of] a lesser degree of sanctity that was taken outside Jerusalem is liable for lashes,19 as [implied by] the verse: "You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your cattle and your sheep...." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that this is a warning against partaking of [the meat of] a sin-offering or a guilt-offering outside the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, one who partakes of [the meat of] the sacrifices of lesser sanctity outside Jerusalem is liable for lashes. For with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, the walls of Jerusalem are comparable to the walls of the Temple Courtyard with regard to sacrifices of the most sacred order. [Included equally are] the meat of the sin-offerings and the guilt-offerings and what remains of the meal-offerings.20
Halacha 6
Meat from [sacrifices of] the most sacred order that was taken outside of the walls of the Temple Courtyard and meat from [sacrifices of] a lesser degree of sanctity that was taken outside Jerusalem is disqualified and is forbidden forever. Even if it is taken back to its place, it is forbidden to partake of it. One who eats an olive-sized portion of it21 is liable for lashes, as [implied by Exodus 22:30]: "Meat in a field [from an animal that is] treifah, you shall not eat." Once meat has left its designated place, it is considered as treifah, as we explained inHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.22
Halacha 7
If meat from [sacrifices of] a lesser degree of sanctity was taken into the Temple Building, it is acceptable.23
Halacha 8
A non-priest who ate an olive-sized portion of meat from sacrifices of the most sacred order24 in the Temple Courtyard after their blood was sprinkled [on the altar] is liable for lashes,25 as [Exodus 29:33] states: "And they shall partake of [the sacrifices] which bring them atonement... and a non-priest shall not partake of them." [The association teaches26 that when sacrificial meat] was eaten by a non-priest in a place where a priest partakes of it and at a time when it is fit to be eaten, he is liable for lashes. If, however, a non-priest ate an olive-sized portion of meat from sacrifices of the most sacred order outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable for lashes for partaking of the sacrificial meat outside [the Temple Courtyard]27 and not because [of the prohibition against] a non-priest partaking of sacrificial foods,28 for they are not fit to be eaten by priests there. Similarly, if [a non-priest] partook of [such meat] in the Temple Courtyard before [the blood] was sprinkled [on the altar], he is liable for lashes only for partaking [of the meat] before the sprinkling of the blood, not because of [partaking of it] as a non-priest.
Halacha 9
A non-priest who ate an olive-sized portion of meat from a sin-offering from fowl is liable for two sets of lashes: one because he is non-priest partaking of sacred meat29 and one because he is partaking of a neveilah.30 For every [fowl killed by] melikah31 is a neveilah.32 When license was granted to partake of it, it was granted to priests, but not to non-priests. These two prohibitions are considered as two prohibitions that take effect at the same time,33 as we explained.34
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This prohibition applies equally to priests and Israelites (Radbaz).
|
| 2. |
This is a general principle with regard to all prohibitions involving eating. Lashes are given only for partaking of an olive-sized portion.
|
| 3. |
Compare to Halachah 4.
|
| 4. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 146) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 447) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As explained in Hilchot Meilah 1:3, this negative commandment is also the source for the prohibition against deriving benefit from consecrated articles (meilah).
|
| 5. |
This refers to the second tithe which must be brought to Jerusalem.
|
| 6. |
Sifri to the above verse, Makkot 17a.
|
| 7. |
For the latter term is understood as a reference to the burnt offering (ibid.).
|
| 8. |
I.e., since they are all considered as components of the burnt offering, they are all forbidden. The Radbaz mentions that the omission of the blood of the sacrificial animal indicates that it is not included.
|
| 9. |
The Radbaz explains that the Rambam explicitly mentions that one must partake of an olive-sized portion to be liable - instead, of allowing a reader to reach that conclusion on his own - because one might think that since the verse states that "It shall be totally consumed," as long as a person prevents it from being totally consumed, he is liable.
|
| 10. |
Besides the prohibitions mentioned here, a person who partakes of these sacrificial components also violates the prohibition against meilah.
|
| 11. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 138) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 137) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Although the commandment specifically refers to the meal offering brought by a priest, the Sifra understands it as applying to a greater scope of sacrificial foods, as the Rambam explains.
|
| 12. |
See Chapter 7, Halachot 2-4.
|
| 13. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 139) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 139) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. A separate commandment is necessary, for these sin-offerings are not burnt on the altar of the Temple.
|
| 14. |
As stated in Hilchot Meilah 2:1, after the blood is sprinkled on the altar, even one who is not permitted to partake of these sacrifices is not liable for meilah, misappropriating the sacred articles for one's personal use.
|
| 15. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 147) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 448) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, in his listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of this set of halachot, the Rambam mentions this prohibition only with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity.
|
| 16. |
For this is not the simple meaning of the verse (Rav Yosef Corcus).
|
| 17. |
Makkot 17a explains the process of exegesis through which the prohibitions against partaking of the other sacrifices are derived.
|
| 18. |
I.e., the flour, the oil, the wine that comprise the accompanying offering that is brought together with the thanksgiving-offering.
|
| 19. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 145) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 446) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, in Sefer HaMitzvot and in his listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of this set of halachot, the Rambam mentions this prohibition only with regard to sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity although he does state that one who partakes of other sacrifices outside of Jerusalem is liable for lashes. When listing the prohibitions for which lashes are given in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4, the Rambam lists these two activities separately.
|
| 20. |
After the handful was taken to be offered on the altar. All of these are considered as sacrifices of the most sacred order.
|
| 21. |
Whether it was returned to its place or not.
|
| 22. |
Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:9. As the commentaries explain there, the term "field" is referring to a place which is not the natural place for the meat to be found. Being there causes it to be considered treifah, unfit to be eaten. Similarly, the fact that this meat is taken outside its natural place causes it to become forbidden.
|
| 23. |
Since, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 3, after the fact, sacrifices of the most sacred order may be eaten in the Temple Building, taking sacrificial meat there is not considered as taking it outside its designated place. The Radbaz questions whether it is acceptable to eat meat from sacrifices of lesser sanctity in the Temple Building.
|
| 24. |
The Radbaz emphasizes that this applies only to meat from a sin-offering or a guilt-offering. If, however, a non-priest partakes of meat from a burnt-offering, he is liable only for the prohibition against partaking of the meat of a burnt-offering (see Halachah 1) and not because of the prohibition against a non-priest partaking of sacrificial meat.
|
| 25. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 148) includes this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Sefer HaChinuch, however, does not include it.
|
| 26. |
I.e., as Makkot 18b states, the prohibition against a non-priest partaking of this sacrificial meat applies only in an instance where atonement would be granted were a priest to partake of the meat there.
|
| 27. |
As stated in Halachah 5.
|
| 28. |
The Radbaz explains that there is a practical as well as a theoretical difference resulting from this concept, for if the non-priest was given a warning for partaking of the meat because he was a non-priest and not because he was partaking of it outside the Temple Courtyard, he is not liable.
|
| 29. |
This law also applies only when the meat of the fowl was eaten in a time and a place when the fowl would have been permitted to be eaten by the priests (Radbaz).
|
| 30. |
An animal that died without proper ritual slaughter.
|
| 31. |
Snipping off its head, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 21.
|
| 32. |
For this is not an acceptable process of ritual slaughter.
|
| 33. |
At the time the fowl's head was snipped off, it becomes both forbidden to non-priests and aneveilah.
|
| 34. |
Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8 states:
|
Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
There are three types of communal meal-offerings:
a) the omer with which tenufah is performed.5 [A portion of] it is offered on the altar, as will be explained.6
b) the two breads offered on Shavuot.7 They are called a meal-offering, but are not offered on the altar and are chametz.8 Concerning them, [Leviticus 2:12] states: "You shall offer them as a sacrifice of first fruits to God, but they shall not be offered on the altar."
c) The third meal-offering is the showbread that is brought every Sabbath. They are not offered on the altar, but instead are eaten entirely by the priests, as will be explained.9
Halacha 4
There are nine types of individual meal-offerings. They are all offered on the altar.10 They include:
a) the meal-offering of a sinner when he is obligated to bring a sin-offering, but is financially incapable.11
b) the meal offering of a sotah; it is the meal-offering of jealously. The manner in which it was offered has already been described.12
c) the meal-offering that every priest brings at the outset when he enters the Temple service the first time. He brings it himself. It is called the meal-offering of initiation.13
d) the meal-offering that the High Priest would offer every day. It is called thechavitin [offering];14
f) a flat-pan flour-offering.17 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge;
g) a deep-pan flour-offering.18 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge;
h) a flour-offering baked in an oven.19 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge;
i) an offering of wafers.20 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge.
Halacha 5
With regard to all of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar, none may be less than an isaron,21 even a small portion of it is an absolute requirement for the entire [offering to be acceptable].
A person may pledge and vow as large a quantity as he desires, even 1000isaronim22 for any of the five meal-offerings that are brought as a pledge or a vow. By contrast, the meal-offering of the omer, the meal-offering of a sinner, the meal-offering of jealously, the meal-offering of initiation, and the chavitinoffering must each be one isaron, neither more or less.
Halacha 6
All of the meal-offerings23 that are brought to the altar must be brought close to the altar on its western side, facing the tip of its southwest corner.24 Tenufah25is not required for them with the exception of the meal-offering of a sotah26 and the omer [offering].27 Both of them require both tenufah and being brought close to the altar.
Halacha 7
All of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar28 require that oil and frankincense be placed upon them,29 a log30 of oil for every isaron [of flour]31and a handful of frankincense for every meal-offering whether it comprised oneisaron or 60 isaronim32 - [the latter measure is mentioned because] more than 60 isaronim are never brought in one container, as will be explained33 - with the exception of the meal-offering of jealously and the meal-offering of a sinner, as [Leviticus 5:11] states:34 "He shall not place oil upon it,35 nor shall he place frankincense upon it."36
Halacha 8
If one placed [oil and/or frankincense on these offerings] and offered them,37 he is liable for the oil individually and the frankincense individually.38If one placed a container holding oil or frankincense on the offering, he does not transgress,39nor does he disqualify [the offerings].40 Oil must be added to each of the initiation and chavitin meal-offerings, as will be explained.41
Halacha 9
A handful is taken42 from all of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar.43That handful is offered on the altar in its entirety and the remainder [of the offering] is eaten by the priests with the exception of a meal-offering brought by a male priest. A handful is not taken from such an offering. Instead, the entire offering is offered on the altar's pyre, as [Leviticus 6:16] states: "Every meal-offering from a priest [is offered on the pyre in its entirety]."44 From this we learn that all [of the following offerings]: an initiation and chavitin meal-offering or a meal-offering of a sinner or a free-will meal-offering brought by a priest are all offered on the altar's pyre and a handful is not taken from them.
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
When sons [from a priestly family and one of Israelites] become intermingled and each of their identities are doubtful, a handful is taken from a meal-offering [brought by either], as is done with regard to a meal-offering brought by an Israelite, but [the remainder] is not eaten, as is done with a meal-offering brought by a priest.47
What is done? The handful alone is offered on the altar and the remainder is scattered over the ash heap.48
Halacha 12
The meal-offerings brought by all women married to a priest - whether from the priestly family or Israelites - are not eaten, because of the portion of the husband [present within them],49 nor is it offered on the pyre in its entirety, because of the portion of the woman.50 Instead, a handful alone is offered on the altar and the remainder is scattered over the ash heap.
The handful may be taken in any place within the Temple Courtyard. If it was taken in the Temple Building, it is acceptable.
Halacha 13
A meal-offering may be consecrated by [placing the flour] in a container [even] while it is placed on the ground.51 [Similarly,] the handful may be taken from a container [placed] on the ground, [but] the handful may not be consecrated52in a container [placed] on the ground.53
When is the remainder of a meal-offering permitted to be eaten? When the fire [of the altar] has consumed most of the handful.
Halacha 14
All of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar are unleavened.54Similarly, although the remaining portions of the meal-offerings that may be eaten by the priests may be eaten with all foods and with a sweetener,55 they may not be eaten while leavened, as [Leviticus 6:10] states: "It shall not be baked leavened; their portion...." [Implied is that] even their portion may not be leavened. If they cause the remaining portion to become leavened, they are liable for lashes.56One who performs an act that causes [the remaining portion of the meal-offering] to be leavened after it was leavened,57 is liable. One is liable for each act [that causes the remnants of the meal-offering to leaven].58
Halacha 15
What is implied? If one mixed [the remnants of a meal-offering] with water in manner that causes them to leaven, one kneaded them in a manner that causes them to leaven, 59 one shaped the loaves in such a manner, or baked them in such a manner, he is liable for lashes,60 as [Leviticus 2:11] states: "It shall not be prepared as leavened." [Now it is also written:] "It shall not be baked leavened." [Why are the two verses necessary?] To make one liable for every individual act performed [in its preparation]. If one prepared it as leavened from the beginning to the end, one is liable for lashes for every individual act performed.
Halacha 16
If one left yeast on a dough and then departed and sat elsewhere and [let] it leaven on its own accord, he is liable for lashes, for placing yeast [on the dough] is a deed.61
Halacha 17
If one dipped the remainder [of a meal-offering] in caraway or sesame seeds or any type of spice or oil, it is acceptable. It is matzah; it is merely called spicedmatzah.62
Halacha 18
A person who causes a meal-offering that was disqualified63 to become leavened is exempt, as [implied by Leviticus 2:11]: "which will be offered to God; it should not be prepared as leaven." [We can infer that the prohibition applies when the offering is] acceptable to God, not when it is disqualified.
If one caused [a meal-offering] to become leaven while it was acceptable and then it was taken outside the Temple Courtyard,64 and he then caused it to leaven again after it was disqualified, he is not liable65 for lashes.66 If one caused [a meal-offering] to become leavened at the top of the altar, he is not liable for lashes, for it is written "which will be offered," and this [offering] was already offered and it is acceptable.67
Halacha 19
One who causes the showbread to become leaven is liable for lashes, for [the verse cited] states: "Any meal-offering."68 [Causing] the meal-offering of the accompanying offering [to leaven] does not incur liability for lashes. For if [the flour] was mixed with water, it was disqualified before it became leavened.69And if it was mixed with the oil70 of the accompanying offerings, it is considered as fruit-juice and it does not cause [dough] to leaven.71
Halacha 20
We do not soak the wheat kernels72 for the meal-offerings, lest they leaven. For they would be soaked outside [the Temple Courtyard]73 and not everyone is ardent [enough] to watch them [so that they do not leaven]. With regard to the meal-offering of the omer, since it is a communal offering, [the kernels] are soaked, for [those acting on behalf of] the Jewish people as a whole are ardent74 and watch it.
Halacha 21
Halacha 22
In the place where the sacrifices of the most sacred order are cooked, the meal-offerings are baked,77 as [Ezekiel 46:20] states: "This is the place where the priests will cook the guilt-offering and the sin-offering, where they will bake the meal-offering...."
Halacha 23
The grinding and the sifting [of the flour] for the meal-offerings is performed outside [the Temple Courtyard],78 while the mixing of the dough, the kneading, and the baking are performed inside.79
All of the acts [necessary to prepare it] are acceptable [when performed] by a non-priest until it reaches the stage where the handful [of flour] is separated.80There were a flat frying pan and a deep frying pan in the Temple Courtyard. They were both considered as sacred utensils and caused [the substances placed in them] to be sanctified.81 The oven in the Temple Courtyard was made of metal.82
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 67) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 116) include bringing the meal-offerings as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 2. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
|
| 3. |
A woman suspected of adultery. See Hilchot Sotah 3:12.
|
| 4. |
This refers to the omer offering which is brought on the second day of the Pesach holiday. SeeHilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3-12.
|
| 5. |
This refers to the omer offering which is brought on the second day of the Pesach holiday. SeeHilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3-12.
|
| 6. |
See ibid.:12.
|
| 7. |
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1-16.
|
| 8. |
Leavened bread in contrast to almost all the other meal-offerings that are unleavened.
|
| 9. |
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:10-12; 5:5.
|
| 10. |
I.e., they are brought to the southwestern corner of the altar as described in Halachah 6 and a handful from them (or with regard to offerings brought by priests, the entire offering) is offered on the altar's pyre, as described in Halachah 9.
|
| 11. |
See Leviticus 5:11; Hilchot Shegagot 1:4;10:4.
|
| 12. |
A woman suspected of adultery. See Hilchot Sotah 3:12.
|
| 13. |
See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 5:16. See also Chapter 13, Halachah 4.
|
| 14. |
See Leviticus 6:13-15; Chapter 13, Halachot 2-4; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:18. The above four offerings are obligatory. The five that follow are voluntary.
|
| 15. |
See Leviticus 2:1; Chapter 13, Halachah 5.
|
| 16. |
See Hilchot Nedarim 1:2 with regard to the distinction between these two types of commitments.
|
| 17. |
See Leviticus 2:5; Chapter 13, Halachah 6.
|
| 18. |
See Leviticus 2:7; Chapter 13, Halachot 6-7.
|
| 19. |
See Leviticus 2:4; Chapter 13, Halachah 8.
|
| 20. |
This offering is also baked in an oven, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 8.
|
| 21. |
An isaron is 2500 cc in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah, and 4320 cc according to Chazon Ish.
|
| 22. |
The offerings must, however, be of complete isaronim.
|
| 23. |
The Radbaz explains that this includes the meal offerings brought by priests even though a handful of flour is not removed from them. It does not, however, include the meal-offerings brought as part of the accompanying offerings. The rationale for the distinction is that this rite is required only for the meal-offerings that are brought as independent offerings, not for those that merely accompany other offerings. The showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos are not brought close to the altar, because they are not offered on the altar at all.
|
| 24. |
Leviticus 6:7 states: "The sons of Aaron will bring it close, before God, towards the face of the altar." Sotah 14b interprets this as referring to the southwest corner of the altar."
|
| 25. |
See Chapter 9, Halachah 7, where this rite is described.
|
| 26. |
See Chapter 9, Halachah 16.
|
| 27. |
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12.
|
| 28. |
This term excludes the showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos, as mentioned above.
|
| 29. |
With the exception of the meal-offering of a sinner and a sotah, it is explicitly stated that oil must be brought with every meal-offering. Including frankincense is mentioned only with regard to the offering of fine flour. Nevertheless, Menachot 59a uses techniques of Biblical exegesis to derive that it should be included with every meal-offering.
|
| 30. |
A log is 344 cc in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah, and 600 cc according toChazon Ish.
|
| 31. |
This represents the minimum. More oil is placed on certain offerings as mentioned in Halachah 8.
|
| 32. |
In contrast to the oil which is added proportionately to the flour, a uniform measure of frankincense is included for every meal offering.
|
| 33. |
See Chapter 17, Halachah 6.
|
| 34. |
This verse applies to the meal-offering of a sinner. Similar statements are made with regard to the meal-offering brought by a sotah in Numbers 5:15. In both instances, the commentaries explain that the reason for the prohibition is so that the sinner's (or the suspected adulteress') sacrifice should not appear attractive.
|
| 35. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 104) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 366) include the prohibition against placing oil on the meal-offering of a sotah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See also Hilchot Sotah 3:13.
|
| 36. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 105) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 367) include the prohibition against placing frankincense on the meal-offering of a sotah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 37. |
The Rambam's understanding is that one is not liable unless he offers these meal-offerings on the altar after placing the oil and frankincense on them (Radbaz).
|
| 38. |
For they are considered as independent prohibitions.
|
| 39. |
Even if he offers the meal-offering on the altar in this manner (Radbaz).
|
| 40. |
If, however, he placed oil and/or frankincense directly on the meal-offering, he does disqualify it. Should one remove the frankincense after placing it upon the offering, the offering becomes acceptable again (Radbaz).
|
| 41. |
Chapter 13, Halachah 2.
|
| 42. |
See Chapter 13, Halachah 13, for a description of how this handful is taken.
|
| 43. |
The Radbaz states that this does not include the meal-offerings that are brought as part of the accompanying offerings, for they are offered on the altar in their entirety.
|
| 44. |
The passage from which the prooftext is taken speaks about the initiation offering and the High Priest's chavitin offering. Nevertheless, since it includes the word "every," the concept it states is applied to other offerings brought by priests (Radbaz).
|
| 45. |
I.e., one unmarried, alternatively, one married to an Israelite as evident from Halachah 12 (Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 46. |
Sotah 23b derives this concept from the fact that the prooftext cited above uses a male term for priest.
|
| 47. |
I.e., since there is a doubt involved, the offering is treated with both the stringencies applying to one brought by priests and those applying to one brought by Israelites (Yevamot 99b).
|
| 48. |
Rashi (ibid. 100a) interprets this as referring to the place outside the Temple Courtyard where the ashes from the altar are deposited. Tosafot interprets it as the place inside the Temple Courtyard where sacrifices of the most sacred order that are disqualified are burnt. This difference of opinion is possible, because the term ash-pile is used for several different places.
The offering may not be eaten, for perhaps the person bringing it is a priest and meal-offerings a priest brings may not be eaten. Nor may it be burnt entirely on the altar, for perhaps the person bringing it is an Israelite and an Israelite's offerings may not be burnt entirely.
|
| 49. |
For a woman will bring her offering from flour that belongs to her husband (Rashi, Sotah 23a).
|
| 50. |
For she is bringing it for her atonement.
|
| 51. |
I.e., it need not be held by a priest.
|
| 52. |
The consecration of the handful is discussed in Chapter 13, Halachah 12.
|
| 53. |
Menachot 7b derives this concept from a parallel to the receiving of the blood. Just as that is only acceptable when the priest holds the container in his hands, so too, the consecration of the meal-offering is acceptable only when the priest holds the container.
|
| 54. |
The only meal-offerings that are leavened are the two loaves brought on Shavuos and ten of the loaves brought for the thanksgiving offering and these are not brought to the altar.
|
| 55. |
Although a sweetener may not be offered on the altar (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:1), it may be eaten with sacrificial foods.
|
| 56. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 124) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 135) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 57. |
E.g., one allowed it to leaven while kneading it and then another baked it.
|
| 58. |
As explained in the following halachah.
|
| 59. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:2).
|
| 60. |
Each of these acts carries liability individually, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
|
| 61. |
And thus the person caused the dough to leaven.
|
| 62. |
See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:20 where the Rambam rules that the addition of such substances does not cause matzah to leaven.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, stating that it is permissible to dip baked matzah in the substances mentioned in this halachah, but not to mix them into the dough used to preparematzah. The Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh, and others support the Rambam's position.
|
| 63. |
Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 11, describes many different factors that can cause a meal offering to become disqualified.
|
| 64. |
Which disqualifies it, as evident from Chapter 11, Halachah 6.
|
| 65. |
For the second leavening. He is, however, liable for the first leavening (Rav Yosef Corcus).
|
| 66. |
Although generally one who causes a meal-offering to leaven a second time is liable (Halachah 14), in this instance, since it was disqualified in the interim, he is exempt.
|
| 67. |
It should not, however, be offered on the altar's pyre (but should be taken from the altar and discarded), because no leaven should be offered on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:1 (Radbaz).
|
| 68. |
And this also includes the showbread. The commentaries note that Menachot 57a derives this concept from a different prooftext.
|
| 69. |
For the flour of the accompanying offerings should be mixed with oil, not water (Chapter 2, Halachah 4).
|
| 70. |
Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text states "wine" and hence, has been questioned by many.
|
| 71. |
See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:2.
|
| 72. |
In the Talmudic era, when preparing fine flour, the wheat kernels would be soaked and then ground in a mill so that the shell of coarse bran would be removed. See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah5:7 which states that in order that the kernels not become leaven, they should be ground immediately.
|
| 73. |
By private individuals.
|
| 74. |
Rashi (Pesachim 36a) states that this sacrifice would be prepared by the agents of the court and those individuals would certainly act with the proper care and energy.
|
| 75. |
Even though lukewarm water will serve as a catalyst to cause the dough to leaven faster (Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:11), since the priests inside the Temple Courtyard are performing the service, we are not concerned that they will allow it to leaven.
|
| 76. |
And will not allow the flour to leaven.
|
| 77. |
For their status is the same.
|
| 78. |
See Chapter 13, Halachah 12; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:19.
|
| 79. |
Exceptions to this general principle were the the showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos which were also kneaded outside the Temple Courtyard, as stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:7; 8:7).
|
| 80. |
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:7.
|
| 81. |
For anything placed in a sacred utensil becomes sanctified, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash1:19.
|
| 82. |
Zevachim 96a explains that it could not be made of earthenware, because it had the status of a sacred utensil since the showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos were sanctified because they were baked inside of it and it is not befitting to make a sacred utensil from earthenware.
|
• Monday, Sivan 7, 5775 · 25 May 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Nasso, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 39-43.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah (p. 287)...are one. (p. 289).
Procedure for the congregant during the blessing by the kohanim (p. 268): When the kohanim say yevarech'cha, face forward; When kohanim say Hashem, turn head to right (which is the left of the kohein pronouncing the blessing). When the kohanim sayv'yishm'recha, face forward. While kohanim say ya'eir, turn head to left (which is to the right of the kohein pronouncing the blessing), etc. At shalom face forward.
Say Ribono shel olam only while the kohanim sing (the wordless accompanying melody); but when they pronounce the words, one must listen. When the kohanim sing the wordless melody prior to saying v'yaseim, say Ribono until hatzadik. During the similar choral introduction to l'cha, say from v'im until Elisha. Likewise before shalomsay from Uch'sheim until l'tova. As the kohanim finish pronouncing the word shalom, say v'tishm'reini u't'chaneini vetirtseini.
Adir bamarom is said after responding amein, while face is still covered by the tallit.
Daily Thought:
Do Something
Perhaps the Rebbe’s most common words:
The main thing is: Do something!
___________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment