Today's Laws & Customs:
• Torah Reading: Ten Commandments
The Torah reading for the 1st day of Shavuot is from Exodus 19-20, which recounts the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai (see "Today in Jewish History") and includes the "Ten Commandments" proclaimed at Sinai that encapsulate the entire Torah.
Links:
The Shavuot Torah Readings
About the Ten Commandments
• Children in Shul
The Lubavitcher Rebbe urged that all children -- including infants --should be brought to the synagogue on the 1st day of Shavuot to hear the reading of the Ten Commandments in re-enactment of the Giving of the Torah at Sinai. Our sages relate that when G-d came to give the Torah to the people of Israel, He asked for a guarantee that that they will not forsake it. "The heaven and the earth shall be our guarantors," said the Jews, but G-d replied that "they will not last forever." "Our fathers will guarantee it," said the people, but G-d said that "they are busy." It was only when we promised that "our children will guarantee it" that G-d agreed, "These are excellent guarantors."
Link: Our Children, Our Selves
• Book of Ruth
It is the custom in many communities to read the biblical Book of Ruth, which tells the story of Ruth, a Moabite princess--and ancestress of King David--who converted to Judaism.
Links:
Text of Book of Ruth and its connection to Shavuot
How Does One Convert to Judaism?
• Dairy Foods:
It is customary to eat dairy foods on Shavuot. Traditional Shavuot dairy foods include cheesecake and blintzes.
Links
Why we eat dairy foods on Shavuot
Shavuot recipes
• More on Shavuot
Visit our Shavuot megasite
Today in Jewish History:
• Giving of the Torah (1313 BCE)
On the 6th Sivan of the year 2448 from creation (1313 BCE), seven weeks after the Exodus, G-d revealed Himself on Mount Sinai. The entire people of Israel (600,000 heads of households and their families), as well as the souls of all future generations of Jews, heard G-d declare the first two of the Ten Commandmentsand witnessed G-d's communication of the other eight through Moses. Following the revelation, Moses ascended the mountain for 40 days, to receive the remainder of the Torah from G-d.
At Sinai, G-d rescinded the "decree" and "divide" (gezeirah) that had been in force since the 2nd day of creation separating the spiritual and the physical into two hermetic worlds; from this point on, "the higher realms could descend into the lower realms, and the lower could ascend to the higher." Thus was born the "mitzvah" -- a physical deed that, by virtue of the fact that it is commanded by G-d, brings G-dliness into the physical world.
Links: The Torah: an Anthology
The Giving of the Torah
• Passing of King David (837 BCE)
David, a descendent of Judah the son of Jacob as well as of Ruth, a Moabite convert to Judaism, was anointed King of Israel by Samuel in 878 BCE. All future legitimate kings of Israel were David's descendents, as will be Moshiach (the messiah), who will "restore the kingdom of David to its glory of old."
David fought many wars, defeating Israel's enemies and securing and expanding its borders. He conquered Jerusalem, purchased the Temple Mount from its Yebusite owner, and prepared the foundation for the Holy Temple (which was built by his son, King Solomon). David served as the head of the Sanhedrin and the foremost Torah authority of his generation; he is also the "sweet singer of Israel" who composed the Book of Psalms that for 28 centuries has embodied the joys, sorrows and yearnings of the Jewish people.
King David passed away on the 6th of Sivan of the year 837 BCE, age 70.
Links: King David
• Cologne Jews Martyred (1096)
During the first crusade (see "Today in Jewish History" for Iyar 8), the Jews of Cologne, Germany chose to be killed rather than convert to Christianity. This was the case, during the first crusades, for many of the Jews who were given the choice between being killed or being baptized. Most of those who converted continued to practice Judaism in secrecy and, one year later, were permitted by Henry IV to openly return to Judaism.
• Passing of R. Israel Baal Shem Tov (1760)
In 1734, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov ("BeSHT", 1698-1760), who up until that time had lived as a hidden tzaddik, began to publicly disseminate his teachings. While adding nothing "new" to Judaism, he re-emphasized truths and doctrines that had been buried under the hardships of exile: the immense love that G-d has for every Jew, the cosmic significance of every mitzvah a person performs, the divine meaningfulness that resides in every blade of grass, in every event, and in every thought in the universe. He spoke to the downtrodden masses and to the aloof scholars, giving meaning to their existence, and thus joy, and thus life. Many disciples came to imbibe the "inner soul" of Torah from him, and the new movement came to be known as "Chassidism."
Rabbi Israel passed away on the 6th of Sivan of 1760, and was succeeded (one year later, on the first anniversary of his passing) by his disciple, Rabbi DovBer of Mezeritch.
Links: Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Naso, 1st Portion Numbers 4:21-4:28 with Rashi
• Chapter 4
21The Lord spoke to Moses saying: כאוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
22Take a census of the sons of Gershon, of them too, following their fathers' houses, according to their families. כבנָשׂא אֶת רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי גֵרְשׁוֹן גַּם הֵם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם:
Take a census of the sons of Gershon, of them too: As I commanded you with regards to the children of Kohath, to see how many there are who have reached the category of [those fit for] service. את ראש בני גרשון גם הם: כמו שצויתיך על בני קהת לראות כמה יש שהגיעו לכלל עבודה:
23From the age of thirty years and upward, until the age of fifty years you shall count them, all who come to join the legion, to perform service in the Tent of Meeting. כגמִבֶּן שְׁלשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה עַד בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה תִּפְקֹד אוֹתָם כָּל הַבָּא לִצְבֹא צָבָא לַעֲבֹד עֲבֹדָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
24This is the service of the Gershonite families to serve and to carry. כדזֹאת עֲבֹדַת מִשְׁפְּחֹת הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי לַעֲבֹד וּלְמַשָּׂא:
25They shall carry the curtains of the Mishkan and the Tent of Meeting, its covering and the tachash skin covering overlaid upon it, and the screen for the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. כהוְנָשְׂאוּ אֶת יְרִיעֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְאֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד מִכְסֵהוּ וּמִכְסֵה הַתַּחַשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו מִלְמָעְלָה וְאֶת מָסַךְ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
the curtains of the Mishkan: The ten lower ones. את יריעות המשכן: עשר תחתונות:
and the Tent of Meeting: The curtains of goat hair made as a tent over it. ואת אהל מועד: יריעות עזים העשויות לאהל עליו:
its covering: The ram skins dyed red. מכסהו: עורות אילים מאדמים:
the screen for the entrance: The screen on the east side. מסך פתח: וילון המזרחי:
26The hangings of the courtyard, the screen at the entrance of the gate of the courtyard which is around the Mishkan and the altar, their ropes, all the work involved, and everything that is made for them, and thus shall they serve. כווְאֵת קַלְעֵי הֶחָצֵר וְאֶת מָסַךְ | פֶּתַח | שַׁעַר הֶחָצֵר אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב וְאֵת מֵיתְרֵיהֶם וְאֶת כָּל כְּלֵי עֲבֹדָתָם וְאֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה לָהֶם וְעָבָדוּ:
which are around the Mishkan: That is to say, the hangings and the screen of the courtyard, which shelter and protect the Mishkan and the copper altar all around. אשר על המשכן: כלומר הקלעים והמסך של חצר הסוככים ומגינים על המשכן ועל מזבח הנחשת סביב:
and everything that is made for them: As the Targum [understands it]: everything that is given over to them, that is, to the sons of Gershon. ואת כל אשר יעשה להם: כתרגומו ית כל דיתמסר להון, לבני גרשון:
27All the service of the sons of Gershon shall be by the instruction of Aaron and his sons, regarding all their burden and all their service. You shall designate their entire burden as their charge. כזעַל פִּי אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו תִּהְיֶה כָּל עֲבֹדַת בְּנֵי הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי לְכָל מַשָּׂאָם וּלְכֹל עֲבֹדָתָם וּפְקַדְתֶּם עֲלֵהֶם בְּמִשְׁמֶרֶת אֵת כָּל מַשָּׂאָם:
by the instruction of Aaron and his sons: Which of the sons was appointed over them? [The answer is:] “under the supervision of Ithamar the son of Aaron the priest” (verse 28). על פי אהרן ובניו: ואיזה מהבנים ממונה עליהם, ביד איתמר בן אהרן הכהן:
28This is the service of the families of the sons of Gershon in the Tent of Meeting, and their charge, which was under the supervision of Ithamar, the son of Aaron the kohen. כחזֹאת עֲבֹדַת מִשְׁפְּחֹת בְּנֵי הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּמִשְׁמַרְתָּם בְּיַד אִיתָמָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 35 - 38
• Chapter 35
This psalm is an awe-inspiring and wondrous prayer about David's enemies-that they be as chaff before the wind, chased by the angel of God. It also declares that everything comes about through God's help.
1. By David. Fight my antagonists, O Lord, battle those who battle against me.
2. Take hold of shield and armor and arise to help me.
3. Draw a spear, and bar the way before my pursuers; say to my soul, "I am your deliverance.”
4. Let those who seek my life be shamed and disgraced; let those who devise my harm retreat and be humiliated.
5. Let them be as chaff before the wind; let the angel of the Lord thrust them away.
6. Let their path be dark and slippery; let them be chased by the angel of the Lord.
7. For without cause have they laid their nets in the pit for me; without cause have they dug [pits] for my soul.
8. Let darkness come upon him unawares; let the very snare that he hid trap him, in darkness he will fall in it.
9. And my soul shall exult in the Lord, rejoice in His deliverance.
10. My entire being shall declare: Lord, who is like You? Who saves the poor from one stronger than he, the poor and the destitute from one who would rob him.
11. Corrupt witnesses rise up [against me], they demand of me things of which I do not know.
12. They repay me evil for good, death for my soul.
13. But I wore sackcloth when they were ill; I afflicted my soul with fasting. Let my prayer return upon my own bosom.
14. As if it were my friend, my brother, I went about; like a mother in mourning, I was bent over in gloom.
15. But when I limped, they rejoiced and gathered; the lowly gathered against me-even those whom I do not know; they laugh and cannot be quiet.
16. With flattery and scorn, for the sake of a meal,1 they gnash their teeth at me.
17. My Lord, how long will You look on? Restore my life from their darkness; from young lions, my soul.
18. I will thank You in a great congregation, amidst a mighty nation I will praise You.
19. Let not those who hate me without cause rejoice over me; [let not] those who despise me without reason wink their eye.
20. For they speak not of peace, rather they scheme deceitful matters against the broken of the land.
21. They opened their mouths wide against me, they said, "Aha! Aha! Our eyes have seen [his misfortune].”
22. You saw, Lord, be not silent; my Lord, be not distant from me.
23. Rouse and awaken Yourself to my judgement, to my cause, my God and my Lord.
24. Judge me according to your righteousness, Lord my God; let them not rejoice over me.
25. Let them not say in their hearts, "Aha! We have our desire!" Let them not say, "We have swallowed him!”
26. Let them be shamed and disgraced together, those who rejoice at my trouble; let them be clothed in shame and humiliation, those who raise themselves arrogantly over me.
27. Let those who desire my vindication sing joyously and be glad; let them say always, "Let the Lord be exalted, Who desires the peace of His servant.”
28. My tongue will speak of Your righteousness, Your praise, all day long.
Chapter 36
This psalm is a message to those who follow their evil inclination, that tells them, "Do not place the fear of God before you," and brings them to sin by beautifying evil deeds in their eyes. For so is his way: "He descends (to earth) and corrupts, then goes up (to the Heavenly Court) and prosecutes."
1. For the Conductor, by the servant of the Lord, by David.
2. [I think] in my heart: Sin says to the wicked, "There is none [who need place] the fear of God before his eyes.”
3. For Sin makes itself appealing to him, until his iniquity be found and he is hated.
4. The speech of his mouth is evil and deceit; he fails to reason, to improve.
5. On his bed he contemplates evil, he stands in a path that is not good; he does not despise evil.
6. O Lord, Your kindness is in the heavens; Your faithfulness is till the skies.
7. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, Your judgements extend to the great deep; man and beast You deliver, O Lord.
8. How precious is Your kindness, O God; man takes shelter in the shadow of Your wings.
9. They will be filled by the abundance of Your house; from the stream of Your Eden, You will give them to drink.
10. For the source of life is with You; in Your Light do we see light.
11. Extend Your kindness to those who know You, and Your righteousness to the upright of heart.
12. Let not the foot of the arrogant overtake me; let not the hand of the wicked drive me away.
13. There1 the doers of evil fell, thrust down, unable to rise.
Chapter 37
King David exhorts his generation not to be jealous of the prosperity of the wicked, for it may lead to falling into their ways. Rather, put your trust in God, conduct yourselves with integrity, and God will take care of everything.
1. By David. Do not compete with the wicked; do not envy doers of injustice.
2. For like grass they will be swiftly cut down; like green vegetation they will wither.
3. Trust in the Lord and do good; then will you abide in the land and be nourished by faith.
4. Delight in the Lord, and He will grant you the desires of your heart.
5. Cast your needs upon the Lord; rely on Him, and He will take care.
6. He will reveal your righteousness like the light, your justness like the high noon.
7. Depend on the Lord and hope in Him. Compete not with the prosperous, with the man who invents evil schemes.
8. Let go of anger, abandon rage; do not compete with [one who intends] only to harm.
9. For the evildoers will be cut down; but those who hope in the Lord, they will inherit the earth.
10. For soon the wicked one will not be; you will gaze at his place and he will be gone.
11. But the humble shall inherit the earth, and delight in abundant peace.
12. The wicked one plots against the righteous, and gnashes his teeth at him.
13. My Lord laughs at him, for He sees that his day will come.
14. The wicked have drawn a sword and bent their bow to fell the poor and destitute, to slaughter those of upright ways.
15. But their sword shall enter their own hearts, and their bows shall break.
16. Better the little of the righteous, than the abundant wealth of the wicked.
17. For the strength of the wicked will be broken, but the Lord supports the righteous.
18. The Lord appreciates the days of the innocent; their inheritance will last forever.
19. They will not be shamed in times of calamity, and in days of famine they will be satisfied.
20. For the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord are as fattened sheep: consumed, consumed in smoke.
21. The wicked man borrows and does not repay; but the righteous man is gracious and gives.
22. For those blessed by Him will inherit the earth, and those cursed by Him will be cut off.
23. The steps of man are directed by God; He desires his way.
24. When he totters he shall not be thrown down, for the Lord supports his hand.
25. I have been a youth, I have also aged; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his offspring begging bread.
26. All day he is kind and lends; his offspring are a blessing.
27. Turn away from evil and do good, and you will dwell [in peace] forever.
28. For the Lord loves justice, he will not abandon his pious ones-they are protected forever; but the offspring of the wicked are cut off.
29. The righteous shall inherit the earth and dwell upon it forever.
30. The mouth of the righteous one utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice.
31. The Torah of his God is in his heart; his steps shall not falter.
32. The wicked one watches for the righteous man, and seeks to kill him.
33. But the Lord will not abandon him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged.
34. Hope in the Lord and keep His way; then He will raise you high to inherit the earth. When the wicked are cut off, you shall see it.
35. I saw a powerful wicked man, well-rooted like a vibrant, native tree.
36. Yet he vanished, behold he was gone; I searched for him, but he could not be found.
37. Watch the innocent, and observe the upright, for the future of such a man is peace.
38. But sinners shall be destroyed together; the future of the wicked is cut off.
39. The deliverance of the righteous is from the Lord; He is their strength in time of distress.
40. The Lord helps them and delivers them; He delivers them from the wicked and saves them, because they have put their trust in Him.
Chapter 38
A prayer for every individual, bewailing the length of the exile. One who is in distress should recite this psalm, hence its introduction, "A psalm... to remind" (to remind us to recite it in times of distress). One can also derive many lessons from it.
1. A psalm by David, to remind.
2. O Lord, do not rebuke me in Your anger, nor chastise me in Your wrath.
3. For Your arrows have landed in me, Your hand descended upon me.
4. There is no soundness in my flesh because of Your rage, no peace in my bones because of my sin.
5. For my iniquities have flooded over my head; like a heavy load, they are too heavy for me.
6. My wounds are rotted; they reek because of my foolishness.
7. I am bent and extremely bowed; all day I go about in gloom.
8. My sides are inflamed; there is no soundness in my flesh.
9. I am weakened and extremely depressed; I howl from the moaning of my heart.
10. My Lord, all that I desire is before You; my sighing is not hidden from You.
11. My heart is engulfed, my strength has left me; the light of my eyes they, too, are not with me.
12. My friends and companions stand aloof from my affliction; my intimates stand afar.
13. The seekers of my life have laid traps; those who seek my harm speak destructiveness; they utter deceits all day long.
14. But I am like a deaf man, I do not hear; like a mute that does not open his mouth.
15. I was like a man that does not perceive, and in whose mouth there are no rebuttals.
16. Because for You, O Lord, I wait; You will answer, my Lord, my God.
17. For I said, "Lest they rejoice over me; when my foot falters they will gloat over me.”
18. For I am accustomed to limping, and my pain is constantly before me.
19. For I admit my iniquity; I worry because of my sin.
20. But my enemies abound with life; those who hate me without cause flourish.
21. Those who repay evil for good resent me for my pursuit of good.
22. Do not forsake me, O Lord; do not be distant from me, my God.
23. Hurry to my aid, O my Lord, my Salvation.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Introduction• Lessons in Tanya
• Sunday, Sivan 6, 5775 · May 24, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Introduction
אך הנה ידוע ליודעים טעמא דקרא, מאי דכתיב: כי שבע יפול צדיק וקם
Now, those who are familiar with the esoteric meaning of Scripture know the meaning of the verse,1 “For a tzaddik may fall seven times, and yet rises again.”
Even a tzaddik can (as it were) fall from his level and then regain his stature. There thus exists a certain interval of time during which he does not maintain his higher level of love for G‑d.
ובפרט שהאדם נקרא מהלך, ולא עומד
Especially so, since the conditions of spiritual service dictate that at given times he will not maintain his level, for man is called “mobile” and not “static”,
This phrase not only means that man is obliged to be ever reaching for ever greater heights; it means, moreover, that his newly-attained level is infinitely more elevated than his previous level.
When one is constantly on the same level, or even when one advances in finite stages from one comparable level to the next, there is no need to abandon one’s former level before establishing one’s foothold on the next; on the contrary, one’s former position may well help one to take the next step upward. When one is truly mobile, however, climbing from one level to an infinitely higher one, his previous level — which is finite compared to the level he is about to attain — actually hinders his progress. Indeed, if he aspires to mature to a more exalted spiritual mindset, he must first purge himself of his previous one.2
וצריך לילך ממדרגה למדרגה, ולא לעמוד במדרגה אחת לעולם
and must therefore advance from one level to another infinitely higher level, and not remain forever at one level.
For if his new level is merely within range of the first, he is essentially fixated at the same level.
ובין מדרגה למדרגה, טרם שיגיע למדרגה עליונה ממנה, הוא בבחינת נפילה ממדרגתו הראשונה
Between one level and the next, before he can reach the higher one, he is in a state of decline from his previous level, and thus he lacks the superior level of love in which he is accustomed to delight.
אך: כי יפול לא יוטל, כתיב
Yet, it is written,3 “Though he falls, he shall not be utterly cast down” from his spiritual service and from his love for G‑d.
ואינה נקראת נפילה אלא לגבי מדריגתו הראשונה, ולא לגבי שאר כל אדם, חס ושלום
This is considered a decline only relative to his former state, and not (G‑d forbid) relative to all other men; he is most assuredly loftier than those who have not attained the level of tzaddik,
שאף על פי כן הוא למעלה מכל האדם בעבודתו, כי נשאר בה בחינת רשימו ממדריגתו הראשונה
for notwithstanding his fall he still surpasses them in his divine service, inasmuch as it retains an impression of his former level.
אך עיקרה: מאהבה שנתחנך והורגל בה מנעוריו, בטרם שהגיע למדרגת צדיק
For the mainstay of his service while he is in this fallen state is the love of G‑d in which he had been educated and trained from his youth, before he attained the level of tzaddik, with its higher reaches in the love of G‑d.
Just as then his love of G‑d was born of contemplation, so too now, this lower level of love is the root of his divine service.
וזהו שכתוב: גם כי יזקין וגו׳
This, then, is what is meant by saying that “even as he grows old [he will not depart from it],” from the path of his youth.
Not “when he is old” but “as he grows old.” This implies an ongoing, lifelong climb from level to level. Yet even when he has risen to the dizziest heights of love for G‑d, he will yet have occasion to revert to the path of his youth — to the lower, more measured level of love that is born of meditation.
* * *
והנה ראשית הדברים המעוררים האהבה והיראה, ויסודן, היא האמונה הטהורה ונאמנה ביחודו ואחדותו, יתברך ויתעלה
First among the factors that arouse love and fear, and their foundation, is a pure and faithful belief in the Unity and Oneness of G‑d, may He be blessed and exalted. (“Oneness” here means that all of creation is united with G‑d and utterly nullified to Him.)
That is to say, pure faith in G‑d’s Unity is the starting-point and foundation of one’s meditation on yichuda ila‘ah (“higher-level Unity”) and yichuda tata’ah (“lower-level Unity”), and this meditation in turn leads to the love and fear of Him.
There are truths that transcend intellect and that can be perceived only through faith. At the same time, utilizing faith for something that can be comprehended is making use of the wrong faculty: intellect must grasp that which is within the reach of intellect, and faith must be used to apprehend that which transcends intellect. When within belief there is a mingling of the rational and the superrational — when truths that are accessible to comprehension are confused with things that defy comprehension — such belief is not “pure”, for pure belief deals only with that which transcends rationality. It is only when one utilizes his intellect to comprehend all that is subject to comprehension and his power of faith is then utilized solely for that which defies intellect, that such faith can then be deemed “pure faith.”
Since both categories are represented in the subject of G‑d’s Unity and Oneness, it becomes necessary to explain those aspects of the subject that are capable of being comprehended so that one’s faith will be “pure” — relating only to those matters that entirely transcend comprehension.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Mishlei 24:16. |
| 2. | Note of the Rebbe: “Similar to R. Zeira, who fasted in order to forget the Babylonian Talmud[as a prerequisite to his attaining mastery of the spiritually more elevated JerusalemTalmud]” (cf. Bava Metzia 85a). |
| 3. | Tehillim 37:24. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Sunday, Sivan 6, 5775 · May 24, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 89
Consumption of the Sacrificial Flesh
"And they shall eat [the sacrifices] with which atonement was made"—Exodus 29:33.
The kohanim (priests) are commanded to eat the flesh of the sacrifices. This includes the flesh of the Sin and Guilt offerings—for which the priests' consumption actually effects the desired atonement—as well as all the other sacrifices and even the Terumah tithe.
There are two types of sacrifices: the "holy of holies" and the "holy." [Examples of the "holy of holies" are the Sin and Guilt Offerings. Examples of the "holy" are the Peace Offering and the Firstborn.] The former class of sacrifices must be eaten by male priests only, on the day when the sacrifice was offered or the night that follows. The latter class can be eaten by priests and their wives and children, until the nightfall of the day following the offering of the sacrifice (with the exception of the Thanksgiving Offering and the Nazirite Ram, which though they are of the "holy" class, they share the more stringent time restriction of the "holy of holies").
Consumption of the Sacrificial Flesh
Positive Commandment 89
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 89th mitzvah is that the kohanim are commanded to eat the meat of the sacrifices, i.e. the sin-offering and guilt-offering, which are kodesh kadashim.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "They shall eat [those offerings] which are brought for atonement."
In the words of the Sifra: "What verse teaches us that the consumption of the sacrifices achieves atonement for the entire Jewish people? The verse,3 'It has been given to you to remove the community's guilt and atone for them before G‑d.' How is this done? The kohanim eat and the non-kohanim thereby receive atonement."
One of the conditions of this commandment is that the mitzvah of eating [the sacrifice] applies only on the day [on which the sacrifice was brought] and the following night until midnight.4 The eating is considered a mitzvah only during the proper time period, and consuming that sin-offering or guilt-offering afterwards is prohibited.
It is clear that this mitzvah also applies only to male kohanim and not to females, since women may not eat the sacrifices that are mentioned in this mitzvah — i.e. kodshei kadashim.
The other category of sacrifices, known as kodshim kalim, however, [differ in both respects]. In general, they may be eaten for two days, including the night in between. The exceptions to this rule are the thanksgiving-offering and the ram offered by a nazir which, although in this category, still may be eaten only for one day and the following night. In addition, women are allowed to partake of kodshim kalim, and their [kodshim kalim] consumption is also considered a mitzvah.
Consumption of terumah is also considered a mitzvah. However, consumption of kodshim kalim and of terumah are not on the same level as the consumption of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering. This is because only the consumption of the latter offerings brings atonement, as explained above, and the actual commandment was said only in reference to them. There is no explicit mention, however, of the consumption of terumah or kodshim kalim. They are therefore included in this mitzvah [rather than counting as separate mitzvos5], and one who consumes them is considered to have fulfilled a mitzvah.6
[We see one who consumes terumah is considered to have fulfilled a mitzvah from] the words of the Sifra:7 "The verse8 'I am giving your priesthood as a gift' comes to compare the consumption of terumah9 in all Eretz Yisrael to the service in the Temple: just as washing the hands must precede the Temple service, so too it must precede the consumption of terumah in Eretz Yisrael."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in a number of passages in tractate Zevachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lit. "holy of holies," i.e. a sacrifice of the higher degree of holiness, which may be eaten only by kohanim.
2.Ex. 29:33.
3.Lev. 10:17.
4.This is by Rabbinic decree. By Torah law, it may be eaten until morning. See Hilchos Ma'aseh HaKorbanos 10:8.
5.See Yad Halevi, note 13.
6.Regarding whether the Rambam holds that it is obligatory to consume terumah, see Zohar Harakiah, ch.54; Rif Perlow, Vol. 2, p. 316d.
7.In our versions, Sifri, Numbers, piska 116.
8.Num. 18:7.
9.See Zohar Harakiah, op. cit. (See also Sifri Zuta 18: "R. Tarfon would eat terumah in the morning and say, 'I've brought the morning tamid sacrifice.'")
Negative Commandment 145
Consuming Offerings outside their Prescribed Boundary
"You may not eat within your gates..."—Deuteronomy 12:17.
It is forbidden – even for a priest – to consume of the flesh of a Sin or Guilt Offering outside the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, it is forbidden for anyone to consume of the flesh of other sacrifices outside the walls of Jerusalem.
Consuming Offerings outside their Prescribed Boundary
Negative Commandment 145
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 145th prohibition is that anyone, even kohanim [who are normally allowed to consume the sacrifices,] are forbidden from consuming the meat of a sin-offering or guilt-offering outside the Temple courtyard.
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." [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 the tithes of your grain, your cattle, and your sheep."
Our Sages explained:2 "The phrase 'your cattle and your flocks' comes only to make a prohibition for one who eats a sin-offering or guilt-offering outside the curtains [of the Tabernacle]."3 One [who transgresses this prohibition] is punished with lashes.
One who eats kodshim kalim outside the walls [of Jerusalem] also receives lashes, as explained in tractate Makkos.4 This is because the verse, "In your settlements you may not eat..." applies to anything which is eaten outside the proper place. One should keep this in mind.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 12:17.
2.Sifri, ibid.
3.In the Temple, this corresponded to the walls of the courtyard.
4.17a. Kodshei kadashim may be eaten only within the courtyard. Kodshim kalim may be eaten in all of Jerusalem.
Negative Commandment 148
Consuming First Fruits outside of Jerusalem
"You may not eat within your gates...the offering of your hand"—Deuteronomy 12:17.
It is forbidden for a priest to consume bikurim (the First Fruits) outside of Jerusalem.
Consuming First Fruits outside of Jerusalem
Negative Commandment 148
Translated by Berel Bell
The 148th prohibition is that kohanim are forbidden from eating bikkurim outside [Jerusalem].
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "In your own settlements, you may not eat...the terumah of your hand." The Oral Tradition2 explains that [the phrase] " 'the terumah of your hand' refers to bikkurim," since the verse explicitly mentions everything else which must be brought [to Jerusalem]. The general phrase, "the terumah of your hand" undoubtedly refers to bikkurim, which the Torah clearly says3 must be brought [to Jerusalem]. [We know that this phrase could not refer to regular terumah because] it is well known that regular terumah need not be brought [to Jerusalem]; so how could there be a prohibition to eat it "in your own settlements"? [This point is said clearly] in the words of the Sifri: "This phrase speaks only of bikkurim, which the verse does not mention explicitly as being prohibited."
It is explained in the end of Makos4 that the prohibition applies only [if he eats them] before they are placed in the Temple courtyard. But once they have been placed in the courtyard — even if the proclamation5 has not yet been made — one is exempt from punishment.
The same condition which applies to ma'aser sheni governs bikkurim, i.e. the prohibition applies only after they have "seen the face of the Temple" [i.e. were brought inside the walls of Jerusalem]. The prohibition is transgressed if they are eaten after they have entered Jerusalem and before they have been placed in the courtyard. If he is a kohen, he is punished by lashes; if an Israelite, his punishment for eating bikurim is a heavenly death sentence [misah biy'dei shamayim], even if the proclamation was made. Our Sages explicitly said,6 "For terumah and bikkurim one must add a fifth; their punishment is death; and they are prohibited to non-kohanim." [This means that] if he ate them intentionally, he is punished with misah biy'dei shamayim; if it was unintentional, he must [pay the value and] add on an additional fifth, as is the case with terumah. The reason for this is since the verse calls it "the terumah of your hand," all the laws of terumah apply.
You should understand this well in order to avoid confusion: a kohen who eats bikurim after they have entered Jerusalem and before they have been placed in the courtyard is punished by lashes. The source of this prohibition is the verse, "In your own settlements, you may not eat...the terumah of your hand," as explained in Makos. This is just like the law of an Israelite who eats ma'aser sheni outside the proper place — he is punished by lashes even though the food belongs to him.
But an Israelite who eats bikurim after they were brought to Jerusalem is punished by misah biy'dei shamayim regardless of where he ate them. The source of this prohibition is the verse,7 "Any non-kohen may not eat sanctified objects," as explained in Prohibition 133.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Makos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 12:17.
2.Makos 17a.
3.Deut. 26:2.
4.19a.
5.See P132 below.
6.Bikurim 2:1.
7.Lev. 22:10.
Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Four
Halacha 1
The Torah (Exodus 13:7) states: "No chametz shall be seen for you." Perhaps, if it were buried or entrusted to a gentile, he would not transgress the commandment? The Torah (Exodus 12:19) states: "leaven should not be found in your homes," [implying] even if it is buried or entrusted.
Perhaps he would only transgress [the commandment] when chametz is [found] in his house, but if it were outside his house, in a field or in another city, he would not violate [the commandment]? The Torah states (Exodus 13:7): "[No leaven shall be seen for you] in all your territory" - i.e., in all your possessions.
Perhaps a person will be obligated to remove from his property chametz that belongs to a gentile or that was consecrated? The Torah states (ibid.): "No [leaven] shall be seen for you." [We may infer]: You may not see your own [leaven]. However, you may see [leaven] belonging to others or which was consecrated.
Commentary Halacha
The Torah (Exodus 13:7) states: "No chametz shall be seen for you." Perhaps if it were buried -- because the chametz is not "seen."
or entrusted to a gentile -- because ostensibly, the leaven is not "for you."
he will not transgress the commandment? The Torah (Exodus 12:19) states: "leaven should not be found in your homes," [implying] even if it is buried or entrusted -- it is still "found in your homes." The place in which a watchman keeps an entrusted article is also considered "your homes."
The prohibition against entrusting chametz to a gentile is not explicitly stated in the Talmud. It can be derived from the leniency allowing one to maintain possession of chametz belonging to a gentile mentioned at the conclusion of the Halachah. Some authorities explain that the Rambam derived the concept from the Mechiltah of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.
In his commentary on the Torah (Exodus 12:19), the Ramban differs with the concept in its entirety and states that a person does not transgress the prohibition against possessing chametz when it is entrusted to a gentile. TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 440:4) accepts the Rambam's opinion. No later halachic authorities question the matter.
Perhaps -- if the latter verse were taken as the source of the prohibition
he would only transgress [the commandment] when chametz is [found] in his house -- as that verse states
but if it were outside his house, in a field or in another city, he would not violate [the commandment]? -- Therefore,
The Torah -- includes the verse originally mentioned which
states (Exodus 13:7): "[No leaven shall be seen for you] in all your territory" - i.e., in all your possessions -- in the totality of a person's domain.
Perhaps a person will be obligated to remove from his property chametz that belongs to a gentile or that was consecrated? -- for that is also "seen." Therefore,
The Torah states (ibid.): "No [leaven] shall be seen for you." -- From the addition of the latter phrase
[we may infer]: You may not see your own [leaven]. However, you may see [leaven] belonging to others -- for that is not "for you." The rules governing this concept are the major subject of this chapter.
or which was consecrated -- for use in the Temple, or to be sold for the purposes of the Temple. Once an article has been consecrated, it no longer belongs to its original owner and becomes the property and responsibility of the Temple treasury. Property consecrated to be given to charity is not governed by these rules.
Halacha 2
[From the above,] you can learn that chametz belonging to a Jew which was left in his possession, even though it is buried, is located in another city, or is entrusted to a gentile, causes him to violate [the commandments]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found."
Chametz that either was consecrated or belongs to a gentile, and is located within a Jew's property, even if it was with him at home--behold, this is permitted, for [the chametz] is not his. Even if it belonged to a resident alien under the authority of the Jewish people, we need not force him to remove the chametz from his property on Pesach.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to construct a partition at least ten handbreadths high in front of chametz belonging to a gentile, lest one come to use it. [With regard to chametz] that has been consecrated, this is unnecessary; everyone shies away from consecrated property, lest they infringe on [the prohibition of] מעילה.
Commentary Halacha
[From the above,] you can learn that chametz belonging to a Jew which was left in his possession, even though it is buried, is located in another city, or is entrusted to a gentile, causes him to violate [the commandments]: "[chametz] shall not be seen" and "[chametz] shall not be found" -- for in each of these instances, chametz was present within a Jew's possession on Pesach.
Chametz that either was consecrated or belongs to a gentile and was in a Jew's possession, even if it was with him at home -- As evident from the following halachah, this law applies only when the Jew does not accept responsibility for the chametz.
behold, this is permitted, for [the chametz] is not his -- the Jew's,
Even if it belonged to a resident alien -- Hilchot Melachim 8:10 and Hilchot Avodah Zarah 10:6 define this term as referring to a gentile who keeps the seven universal laws given to Noah's descendants. A gentile who accepts these rules of behavior may be granted the privilege of living in Eretz Yisrael.
under the authority of the Jewish people -- Pesachim 5b emphasizes that even a gentile who lives in a Jew's home may keep chametz during Pesach.
we need not force him -- the Jew
to remove the chametz from his property on Pesach -- Some manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah state: "We need not force him (i.e., the gentile) to remove his chametz from our property."
Nevertheless, it is necessary to construct a partition at least ten handbreadths high in front of chametz belonging to a gentile -- A similar partition is not required when a gentile entrusts other forbidden objects to a Jew. As mentioned above, greater stringencies are taken regarding chametz than other forbidden substances, since the use of chametz is permitted during the entire year.
lest one come to use it. -- The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Halachah 3:8, the Rambam considers covering the chametz with a utensil as a sufficient measure to prevent the use of the chametz. Two explanations are offered why, in the present instance, a more stringent measure is required:
a) the amount of chametz the gentile entrusted for safekeeping is probably too large to be covered by utensils;
b) covering the chametz with a utensil is only a temporary measure, intended to be effective only until the end of the day of the festival. Once that day is concluded, the chametz must be destroyed. In contrast, in this instance the chametz will remain in the Jew's possession throughout the entire holiday. Hence, more severe measures must be taken.
The Ramban and the Ba'al HaItur do not accept this requirement and maintain that if a Jew does not accept responsibility for the chametz, he is not obligated to construct a partition. All that is necessary is that the chametz be placed out of the way. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 440:2) and the later halachic authorities all follow the Rambam's opinion.
[With regard to chametz] that has been consecrated, this is unnecessary; everyone shies away from consecrated property, lest they infringe on [the prohibition of]
מעילה. -- Leviticus 5:15-16 describes the prohibition of מעילה, the misappropriation of consecrated property for personal use.
Halacha 3
A gentile who entrusted his chametz to a Jew: Should the Jew accept the responsibility of paying for the worth of the chametz if it is lost or stolen--behold, he is obligated to destroy it. Since he accepted responsibility for it, it is considered as though it were his.
If he did not accept responsibility for it, he may keep it in his domain and may eat from it after Pesach, for it was in the gentile's possession.
Commentary Halacha
A gentile who entrusted his chametz to a Jew: Should the Jew accept the responsibility of -- caring for the chametz as a watchman would, and
paying for the worth of the chametz if it is lost or stolen -- due to factors other than his personal negligence. Rashi and Rabbenu Asher obligate a Jew to destroy any chametz belonging to a gentile for which he has accepted responsibility, even if his responsibility is less than that specified above. TheShulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 440:13,16) and the Mishnah Berurahadvise following the latter opinion.
behold, he is obligated to destroy it -- before the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan.
Since he accepted responsibility for it -- and would have to pay for it if it is lost.
Pesachim 5b offer two possible explanations why the chametz is considered as if it belongs to the Jew. One opinion maintains that throughout the Torah, an article that causes financial liability is considered as one's responsibility.
Another opinion maintains that in this instance, since the Torah adds a special commandment "leaven should not be found," extra stringency must be taken. From this discussion, we see that the responsibility to destroy this chametz stems from the Torah itself, and is not merely a matter of Rabbinic decree.
it is considered as though it were his -- and, hence, must be destroyed.Tosefot, Pesachim 6a maintains that if a Jew designates a specific place within his home for the gentile and tells him to place his chametz there, he is not obligated to destroy it even though he accepted responsibility for it. Rashi does not accept this position. From the Rambam's omission of the matter, we may assume he also follows Rashi's view (Lechem Mishnah).
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 440:1) quotes the Rambam and hence, requires the acceptance of the more stringent position. However, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (440:16) and the Mishnah Berurah (440:3) mention certain leniencies based on Tosefot's position.
If he did not accept responsibility for it -- the gentile's chametz
he may keep it in his domain -- without transgressing the prohibitions against possessing chametz
and may eat from it after Pesach -- in contrast to chametz possessed by a Jew during Pesach which is forbidden to be used (Halachah 1:4)
for it was in the gentile's possession -- Pesachim 6a mentions a situation where a gentile brings chametz that he wishes to entrust to a Jew, and the latter designates a particular portion of the house for him to put the chametz. Under such circumstances, there is no need to destroy the chametz.
There are some authorities who explain that the Talmud is speaking about a situation in which the Jew accepted responsibility for the chametz. Nevertheless, since he told the gentile to put it in one specific place, it is considered as if that place belongs to the gentile, and thus the chametz is not found in the Jew's possession.
The Rambam does not accept this interpretation and requires the gentile's chametz to be destroyed whenever a Jew accepts responsibility for it. Though the Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah mention the more lenient opinion, they require that the more stringent approach be followed.
Halacha 4
Should a gentile who forces his way upon people entrust his chametz to a Jew: If the Jew knows that if it is lost or stolen, [the gentile] will obligate him to pay for it--forcing and compelling him to pay even though he did not accept responsibility--he is obligated qo destroy it. It is considered as though it were his, for the gentile holds him responsible for it.
Commentary Halacha
Should a gentile who forces his way upon people -- a literal translation of the word אנס. Some editions of the Mishneh Torah use the expression אלם instead. However, the intention remains the same, regardless of which term is used.
entrust his chametz to a Jew: If the Jew knows that if it is lost or stolen, [the gentile] will obligate him to pay for it -- This law is derived from the following passage (Pesachim 5b): Ravvah told the inhabitants of Mechuzah: "Destroy the chametz belonging to the king's soldiers." Since the army would hold the Jews responsible if it were stolen, it was considered their property.
forcing and compelling him to pay even though he did not accept responsibility -- In the previous halachah, the Rambam requires a Jew to destroy chametz only if he willingly accepts responsibility for it. Nevertheless, in this instance,
he is obligated to destroy it. It is considered as though it were his, for the gentile holds him responsible for it -- whether the Jew willingly accepts that responsibility or not. Certain opinions maintain that this law applies only when the secular law of the land would uphold the gentile's view, as in the instance cited from Pesachim, and not when a private individual takes the law into his own hands (Maggid Mishneh). Nevertheless, this differentiation is not accepted by most halachic authorities.
Halacha 5
A Jew who gives his chametz to a gentile as security for a loan and tells him: "If I do not bring the money between today and such and such a date, you acquire the chametz [retroactively] from the present moment," the chametz is considered as in the gentile's possession and is permitted to be used after Pesach. This applies if the date specified was before Pesach.
However, if he did not tell him: "you acquire the chametz [retroactively] from the present moment," that chametz is considered as an article entrusted to the gentile, and it is forbidden to benefit from it after Pesach.
Commentary Halacha
A Jew who gives his chametz to a gentile -- before Pesach, transferring it into the latter's domain
as security -- The Aruch relates that the word רהן means security in Arabic.
for a loan and tells him: "If I do not bring the money between today and such and such a date, you acquire the chametz [retroactively] from the present moment" -- This specific statement is required, because although a Jewish lender is considered to have acquired a certain degree of ownership over an article given him as security, this principle does not apply with regard to a gentile (Pesachim 31b, Maggid Mishneh).
the chametz is considered as -- payment for the loan. Hence, it is
in the gentile's possession -- In a responsa (no. 252), the Rambam writes that it is as if the Jew sold the chametz to the gentile outright.
and is permitted to be used after Pesach -- as is all chametz that belonged to gentiles during the holiday.
This applies if the date specified was before Pesach -- more specifically, before the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan.
The Ra'avad disagrees with this law and maintains that if this stipulation was included, the chametz is considered as belonging to the gentile even if the date mentioned is after Pesach. The Rambam maintains that since the Jew has the right to redeem his chametz during Pesach, it is still considered his (Rabbenu Ephraim). In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 441:1) accepts the Ra'avad's view.
Nevertheless, this leniency applies only when the Jew willingly foregoes any right to the chametz and considers to have repaid his loan with it. Should the Jew decide to redeem his chametz after Pesach, he is retroactively considered the owner and is liable for possessing chametz throughout the holiday.
However, if he did not tell him: "you acquire the chametz [retroactively] from the present moment," -- even if the day of payment is fixed before Pesach
that chametz is -- not considered as repayment for the loan. Rather, it is
considered as an article entrusted to the gentile -- to ensure payment. Hence, it is still considered as the Jew's property
and it is forbidden to benefit from it after Pesach -- as stated in Halachah 1:4.
The Ra'avad disagrees with this point as well, maintaining that if the date mentioned is before Pesach, the chametz becomes the gentile's property, and the Jew does not transgress the prohibitions against possessing chametz.
The difference between the Rambam and the Ra'avad revolves around the principle of Asmachtah, an agreement which was never intended to be fulfilled. The Ra'avad maintains that, generally, the fact that a borrower does not specify that the security would retroactively become the lender's property implies that he never really intended to sell it to him and always considers it as his own. Thus, were such a transaction to be carried out between Jews, the Ra'avad maintains that the security would never become the lender's property. However, he explains that this law applies only regarding business dealings carried out between Jews, and not to those involving gentiles. Therefore, in this instance, the chametz given as security becomes the gentile's property.
In contrast, the Rambam does not consider such an agreement an Asmachtah. However, he does not accept a gentile's right to an article given as security. Hence, though the date for repayment passes before Pesach, he still considers the article as belonging to its original Jewish owner.
In this matter, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav follows the more stringent view if the chametz is worth more than the loan, and forbids its use after Pesach. However, if it is not worth more than the loan, that text and, similarly, theMishnah Berurah, require the Jewish borrower to redeem his chametz before Pesach. However, if he fails to so, they allow people to rely on the Ra'avad's opinion and benefit from the chametz.
Different laws apply to chametz given to a Jew as security by a gentile or by another Jew. In the former instance, a Jew is considered the owner of the chametz if the agreement included the clause specifying retroactive ownership, even though the time for payment is not fixed until after Pesach. If the agreement lacked that clause, and the Jew is not held responsible for the chametz (see Halachah 3 above), the Jew is not liable for that chametz (Shulchan Aruch). Nevertheless, other authorities do not accept this decision.
Halacha 6
A Jew and a gentile are traveling together in a ship, and the Jew possesses chametz. When the fifth hour [on the fourteenth of Nisan] arrives--behold, he should sell it to the gentile or give it to him as a present. He may return and buy it back from him after Pesach, as long as he gives it to him as an outright present.
Commentary Halacha
A Jew and a gentile are traveling together in a ship -- This halachah is a quote from the Tosefta, Pesachim 2:6. Nevertheless, it is worthy of question why the Rambam quotes that source verbatim. Often, when mentioning such a law, the Rambam will eliminate particulars that are extraneous to the principle he wishes to communicate.
and the Jew possesses chametz -- in the ship or in other places.
When the fifth hour [on the fourteenth of Nisan] arrives - behold, he should sell it to the gentile -- Today, in many Jewish communities, the sale of chametz to gentiles is an almost indispensable element in the observance of Pesach. Nevertheless, the details of the sale and the legal provisions which,
a) on one hand, ensure that the gentile is the sole legal owner of the chametz on Pesach, andb) assure the Jewish owner of receiving the goods in return, or their monetary equivalent
are a technical matter which has been discussed by the Rabbis in their responsa over the generations. For this reason, it is not advisable for a person to sell his chametz himself. Rather, he should entrust the local Rabbi with the responsibility of carrying out the sale.
or give it to him as a present -- Hilchot Avodah Zarah 10:4 states that we should not give presents to gentiles. However, in this instance, giving such a gift will prevent a Jew from violating a Torah prohibition. Hence, there is no objection.
The halachic authorities emphasize that the sale or gift of chametz to the gentile must be formalized by a kinyan (legal transaction) recognized by both Torah and secular law. Thus, the gentile becomes its legal owner.
He may return and buy it back from him after Pesach -- The Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 448:3) states: "Even though the Jew who sells it to the gentile knows that he will not touch it at all, but will watch it for him until after Pesach and then return it to him, it is permitted."
as long as he gives it to him as an outright present -- This expression excludes conditional gifts or sales, as explained in the following halachah.
Halacha 7
The Jew may tell the gentile: "Rather than buy a manah's worth [of chametz], come and buy two hundred [dinars'] worth [of chametz]... Rather than buy from a gentile, come and buy from a Jew. Perhaps I will need [chametz] and will buy from you after Pesach."
However, he cannot sell or give [chametz] to him on condition. If he does so--behold, he transgresses [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found."
Commentary Halacha
The Jew may tell the gentile -- This is a continuation of the above Tosefta, ibid. 2:7.
"Rather than buy a Manah's worth [of chametz], come and buy two hundred [dinars'] worth [of chametz] -- i.e., don't buy a small amount from me; buy a larger quantity. Alternatively, some interpret this quote within the context of the circumstances mentioned in the Tosefta, and explain that the gentile was buying provisions for the journey for himself. The Jew tells him: "Don't buy enough only for yourself; buy for me as well."
Rather than buy from a gentile, come and buy from a Jew -- i.e., from me
Perhaps I will need [chametz] and will buy from you after Pesach." -- The halachic authorities even allow the Jew to promise the gentile a profit. These statement are permitted as long as the Jew does not make a binding commitment. The intimation that he will repurchase the chametz after Pesach is not considered significant.
However, he cannot sell or give [chametz] to him on condition. -- This includes all conditional agreements, not only those requiring the gentile to return the chametz after Pesach.
If he does so - behold, he transgresses [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found." -- For until that condition is fulfilled, the Jew remains the owner of the chametz.
The above restrictions apply even if the condition is phrased in a manner in which, once the gentile fulfills the condition, he retroactively becomes the owner of the chametz from the time the agreement was originally made. We fear that, perhaps, the gentile will not fulfill his commitment, and thus the Jew will remain the owner of the chametz. Hence, even though the chametz was in the physical possession of the gentile during Pesach, the Jew might be its legal owner. See also Radbaz, Vol. 5, Responsum 1416.
Halacha 8
[A person] who possesses a mixture of chametz transgresses [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found" because of it; for example: pickle-brine, Babylonian kotach, and Median beer, which are made from flour.
[The same applies] to other similar substances which are eaten. However, a substance which contains a mixture of chametz, but is not fit to be eaten, may be kept on Pesach.
Commentary Halacha
[A person] who possesses a mixture of chametz transgresses [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found" because of it -- As explained in Halachah 1:6, according to the Rambam a person who eats a mixture of chametz does not transgress the same Torah prohibition as one who eats chametz itself. Hence, he is not liable for the punishment of כרת. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the possession of these mixtures only violates the prohibitions against possessing chametz when they contain a substantial amount of chametz (at least the size of an olive in a quantity to be eaten בכדי אכילת פרס).
Rav Moshe HaCohen maintains that even the possession of a smaller amount violates these prohibitions. Rav Yosef Caro supports this view in the Kessef Mishneh. Although he does not explicitly state so in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 442:1) when discussing this law, the later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Mishnah Berurah) accept this opinion as binding.
for example: pickle-brine -- a mixture containing brine, fish-hash, flour, and sometimes wine.
Babylonian kotach, and Median beer -- See Halachah 1:6 for a description of these substances.
which are made from flour.
[The same applies] to other similar substances which are eaten -- or drunk.
However, a substance which contains a mixture of chametz, but is not fit to be eaten -- by human beings.
may be kept on Pesach -- This is called חמץ נוקשה, "hardened chametz," and is permitted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 447:12). See the following halachot. However, if the substance is originally intended for human consumption and then becomes spoiled, one is considered to have violated the prohibitions against possessing chametz until it becomes spoiled to the extent that it will not be eaten by a dog. (See Halachah 11.)
Halacha 9
How is [the latter principle] applied? A tanner's trough into which one placed flour and animal hides: Even if this was done one hour before [the time chametz must be] destroyed, one may keep it. If one placed flour [in the trough] without animal hides three days before [the time chametz must be] destroyed, one may keep it, for the [chametz] has surely become spoiled and rotten. Within three days, one is obligated to destroy it.
Commentary Halacha
How is [the latter principle] -- allowing one to keep chametz unfit for consumption
applied? A tanner's trough into which one placed flour and animal hides -- The flour is useful in drying out the hides and absorbing their natural moisture. See also Shabbat 79a ("There are three hides").
Even if this was done one hour before [the time chametz must be] destroyed -- the end of the fifth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan
one may keep it -- for as soon as the flour comes in contact with the hides, it is no longer fit for consumption.
If one placed flour [in the trough] without animal hides three days before [the time chametz must be] destroyed, one may keep it, for the [chametz] has [surely] become spoiled and rotten -- from the residual moisture and odor left in the trough. If the chametz was placed in the trough
within three days -- of the end of the fifth hour on the fourteenth
one is obligated to destroy it -- for it may not have spoiled.
Halacha 10
Similarly, an eye salve, a compress, a plaster, or Tiriac into which chametz was placed may be kept on Pesach, for the nature of the chametz is spoiled.
Commentary Halacha
and the like, though one may keep it [during Pesach] -- as stated in Halachah 10.
eating it is prohibited -- Though the mixture is generally not used for human consumption, the fact that an individual eats from it shows that he considers it as food. Hence, it is prohibited.
until after Pesach -- Nevertheless, a person may benefit from it on Pesach (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 442:24, Mishnah Berurah).
Even though it contains only the smallest amount of chametz -- less than the size of an olive בכדי אכילת פרס, as in Halachah 1:6.
eating it is forbidden -- Nevertheless, in the case of danger to life or limb, one may use a remedy which is chametz in the midst of Pesach (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 466:5, Mishnah Berurah).
Halacha 11
Bread itself which has become moldy and is no longer fit for consumption by a dog, or a compress that has become spoiled, need not be destroyed.
Clothes which were washed with starch and, similarly, papers which were stuck together with chametz, and other like cases, may be kept on Pesach. Their [possession] does not constitute a [violation of the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found," for they no longer have the form of chametz.
Commentary Halacha
Bread itself which has become moldy and is no longer fit for consumption by a dog -- in contrast to chametz which is not human food, as mentioned in the previous halachot, and is permitted once it is no longer fit for human consumption.
Rav Chayim Soloveitchik (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 15:1) differentiates between the two cases as follows. Chametz itself is a forbidden substance. Hence, it must be spoiled to the point that a dog cannot benefit from it. In contrast, the other substances are merely mixtures of chametz. They are only forbidden because they contain the taste of chametz. Hence, once that taste is no longer suitable for human consumption, there is no reason why they should remain forbidden.
He continues relating that, as stated in Halachot 11 and 12, chametz that is obviously designated for purposes other than food can be used even though it has not become spoiled. Thus, one could explain that once the chametz in the above mixtures becomes unfit for human consumption, it is clearly not food. In contrast, bread which is originally made for that intent must spoil more.
or a compress -- This compress differs from the one mentioned in the previous halachah. It is made from wheat and figs that have been chewed, and is then applied to an infected area. (See Bava Kama 102a.) It is not mixed with bitter medications, and hence is generally fit to be eaten before it becomes spoiled.
that has become spoiled -- beyond being fit for consumption by a dog. Rabbenu Manoach emphasizes that it must become spoiled before the prohibition against chametz takes effect. Otherwise, it must be destroyed.
need not be destroyed -- for in its present form it is no longer considered useful.
Clothes which were washed with starch -- made from wheat
and, similarly, papers which were stuck together with chametz, and other like cases, may be kept on Pesach -- This law is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch. However, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 442:3) states that if the chametz is visible as a separate entity, it must be destroyed.
their [possession] does not constitute a [violation of the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found," for they no longer have the form of chametz -- i.e., they are not in the form of food. Halachah 2:15 provides a similar example: a mound of yeast that has been set aside as a seat.
Halacha 12
A substance which is not eaten by people, or one which is generally not eaten by people, with which chametz has become mixed-- e.g., Tiriac and the like, though one may keep it [during Pesach], eating it is prohibited until after Pesach. Even though it contains only the smallest amount of chametz, eating it is forbidden.
Commentary Halacha
A substance which is not eaten by people, -- even if it has not been spoiled to the point that it is unfit for human consumption (Rav Chayim Soloveitchik, ibid.)
Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to offer the sin-offerings1 according to its statutes as they are written in the Torah. How are the sin-offerings which are eaten2brought? One slaughters [the animal] and sprinkles its blood in the manner described,3 skins it, and separates the eimorim.4 He salts them and casts them on the pyre. If he desires to place the eimorim in a container while they are being carried to the altar, he may. The remainder of the meat in eaten by male priests in the Temple Courtyard.5
Halacha 2
How are the sin-offering which are burnt brought? One slaughters [the animal] and sprinkles its blood in the manner described. Afterwards, one rips open [its belly] and removes the eimorim. He places them into a container, salts them, and casts them on the pyre. The remainder [of the animal] should be taken outside the city6 and cut up there as the burnt offering is cut up7 with its hide.8[The pieces] are burnt there in the ash pile.9
Halacha 3
There are three places [where sacrifices] are burnt: The first is in the midst of the Temple Courtyard.10 [The following are] burnt there: sacrifices [of the highest order of sanctity] that have been disqualified,11 the eimorim of sacrifices of lesser sanctity which were disqualified,12 the bulls and goats that are burnt if they are disqualified, whether before their blood was sprinkled or after their blood was sprinkled,13 e.g., they became impure, they were taken outside the Temple Courtyard before the time they were supposed to be taken out arrived, or their meat or their eimorim remained overnight [without being burnt].14
Halacha 4
The second place is on the Temple Mount. It is called the birah.15There we burn sin-offerings that are to be burnt if they were disqualified16 after they departed from the Temple Courtyard.
The third place is outside Jerusalem. It is called the ash-pile. There we burn the sin-offerings that are burnt when they are burnt according to their commandment.17
Halacha 5
It is acceptable for the burning of all of [the sacrifices] that must be burnt18to be performed by a non-priest19 and at night.20 Any type of wood, even straw and stubble, is acceptable21 for the burning of all of the sacrifices that must be burnt outside the Temple Courtyard , as [Leviticus 4:12] states: "On wood with fire," any type of fire. Why is wood mentioned? To exclude lime or hot ash.
Halacha 6
How is a sin-offering from fowl brought? Melikah should be performed on the southwest corner [of the altar],22 as we explained.23 He should descend with his nail until he cuts the organs [required for ritual slaughter]24or [at least] the majority of one of them. He should not separate the head from the body.25 If he does, he disqualifies [the sacrifice] and is liable for lashes,26as [Leviticus 5:8] states: "He shall nip off its head at the nape [of the neck], but should not separate it."
He then sprinkles its blood on the wall of the altar, below its midpoint.27 The remainder of the blood should be squeezed out on the altar's base,28 as stated [ibid.: 9]: "And the remainder of the blood, he shall squeeze out on the altar's base." One can conclude from this that when one presents the blood on the wall [of the altar], [the fact that] the remainder [of the blood] is squeezed out toward the base [indicates that] "the wall" refers to the lower [portion] of the wall.29
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
How should the fowl brought as a sin-offering be held at the time of melikah? He should hold its two feet between two of his fingers32 and its two wings between his other two fingers,33 extending its neck over [the thumb for]34 a width of two fingers and then snip off its head.35
This was one of the difficult tasks performed in the Temple. If one deviated and held the fowl in any other manner, it is acceptable.
Halacha 9
Every part of the altar is acceptable for melikah, provided he sprinkles its blood below the midpoint of the altar. If he sprinkles it anywhere [on the altar], it is acceptable provided he presents [at least] a small amount of the blood of the soul36 below [the midpoint of the altar].
Halacha 10
The upper half of southwest corner of the altar would serve three purposes and the lower half would serve three purposes. The lower half was used for themelikah of a fowl brought as a sin-offering, approaching the altar with the meal-offering,37 and pouring the remainder of the blood of the burnt-offerings, the sin-offerings that are eaten, the guilt-offerings, and the peace-offerings upon its [base].38
The three purposes for which the upper portion was used are: the water libation on Sukkos,39 the wine libation of the accompanying offering [of Sukkot],40 and the burnt offerings of fowl if there are many of them. If the southeast corner41does not have the capacity for all of them,42 [the priests would] turn to the southwest corner and perform melikah there.43
Halacha 11
All of those who ascend the altar on the right [side of the ramp],44 circle it, and descend on the left [side] except for one who ascends for one of the latter three purposes mentioned above which are performed on the upper portion45 of this corner. [Those involved in these services] ascend on the left side, turn to the left, to that corner, perform their task, and retrace their steps.
Why do they turn to the left? So that they will encounter the southwest corner first. For if they would turn to the right and circle the entire altar until they reached the southwest corner, the water or the wine might become smoky46 or perhaps the fowl would die because of the altar's smoke.
Halacha 12
Therefore when someone who performs a water or wine libation circles the altar,47 he should not have anything in his hands. He begins circling from the southeast corner, [proceeding] to the northeast and then to the northwest and the southwest. He should not be holding anything. When he reaches the southwest corner, the water or the wine is placed in his hand and he performs the libation. If he does not [desire to] circle [the altar], he may ascend [the ramp], turn to the left, perform his service, and descend.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 64) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 138) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Even though there are several different types of sin-offerings, since they are all offered in the same manner, they are considered only as one mitzvah (Radbaz).
|
| 2. |
In Chapter 1, Halachot 15-16, the Rambam mentions which sin-offerings are eaten and which are burnt.
|
| 3. |
See Chapter 5, Halachot 1-3, with regard to the slaughter of the animal and Halachot 7-10 of that chapter with regard to casting its blood on the altar.
|
| 4. |
The fats and inner organs offered on the altar. See Leviticus 4:8-10.
|
| 5. |
Leviticus 6:19 speaks of the priests partaking of the sin-offerings in the Courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. See Chapter 10.
|
| 6. |
Leviticus 2:12 speaks of these sacrifices being burnt outside the camp. See also Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:7.
|
| 7. |
Chapter 6, Halachot 5-9.
|
| 8. |
They are not skinned before being burnt, as related in Chapter 5, Halachah 18.
|
| 9. |
See Halachah 4.
|
| 10. |
It was to the east of the ramp ascending to the altar (Sifra, Vayikra 9:3).
|
| 11. |
Rashi (Zevachim 104b) explains that since these sacrifices are eaten in the Temple Courtyard, they should also be burnt there.
|
| 12. |
Since these eimorim should have been burnt on the altar, they are burnt in the Temple Courtyard if they became impure (Radbaz). The sacrifices of lesser sanctity themselves should be burnt in Jerusalem (the place where they are eaten). We can assume that they were burnt on the Temple Mount, at the birah (ibid., gloss to Halachah 4).
|
| 13. |
Although they had reached a stage where they were to be taken out of the Temple Courtyard, since in fact they had not been removed from the Temple Courtyard before they were disqualified, they should be burnt there (Radbaz).
|
| 14. |
See more details in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:3.
|
| 15. |
The term birah means "tower" or "large building." At times, it is used to refer to the Temple complex as a whole.
|
| 16. |
Because of impurity or because they remained overnight. These factors can still disqualify these sacrifices even though they have been taken out of the Temple Courtyard (Radbaz).
|
| 17. |
I.e., when they have not been disqualified. The Biblical commandment is to burn them "outside the camp." In later times, that meant "outside Jerusalem" as stated in Halachah 2. The term ash-pile has several meanings; see Chapter 6, Halachah 21.
|
| 18. |
I.e., those sacrifices which must be burnt outside Jerusalem. Those that must be burnt in the Temple Courtyard must be burnt with wood fit to be used for the altar (Sifra).
|
| 19. |
This indicates that burning them is not a fundamental element of the sacrificial service (Radbaz).
|
| 20. |
There are some exceptions to this as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:5.
|
| 21. |
I.e., the wood need not meet the criteria for wood required for the altar.
|
| 22. |
From Zevachim 63a,b, it is apparent that, after the fact, a sin-offering is acceptable if melikah is performed at any place in the Temple Courtyard. (See also Halachah 9.) This corner is mentioned as an initial preference, because the blood must be sprinkled there (Radbaz).
|
| 23. |
Rav Yosef Corcus states that the reference is to the order of melikah described at the conclusion of ch. 6. Melikah at the southwestern corner of the altar is not mentioned elsewhere.
|
| 24. |
The windpipe and the gullet.
|
| 25. |
In contrast to the requirement for the burnt-offering mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 20.
|
| 26. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 112) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 124) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The Lechem Mishneh quotes authorities who understand this as meaning that one may not separate both the gullet and the windpipe entirely. The Kessef Mishneh, however, maintains that the Rambam's words should be explained simply: the head may not be severed from the body. If it is attached, even if these two organs are severed, the prohibition is not violated.
|
| 27. |
In contrast to the requirement for the burnt-offering mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 20.
|
| 28. |
Hence when performing melikah, the priest does not ascend on the ramp, but rather stands on the ground (Radbaz).
|
| 29. |
The Rambam is explaining why the obligation is to present the blood of a sin-offering from fowl on the lower half of the altar in contrast to the blood of a sin-offering from an animal which is presented on the upper half.
|
| 30. |
Although there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Talmud and there are passages which appear to follow the other view, the Rambam's approach represents the consensus, as indicated by Me'ilah 9b (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 31. |
See Chapter 10.
|
| 32. |
The pinky and the finger next to it on his left hand.
|
| 33. |
The index finger and the middle finger.
|
| 34. |
The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:4).
|
| 35. |
With his right hand.
|
| 36. |
As indicated in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:3, this term refers to the blood that flows out when the fowl is slaughtered.
|
| 37. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 6; Chapter 13, Halachah 12.
|
| 38. |
See Chapter 5, Halachot 6, 10.
|
| 39. |
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6.
|
| 40. |
I.e., in contrast to the wine libations offered throughout the year which are offered on the lower portion of the altar. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, and notes.
|
| 41. |
Which was the preferential place for them to be offered, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20.
|
| 42. |
I.e., if many fowl were being offered and it was difficult to approach that corner of the altar.
|
| 43. |
For this is close to the place where portions of the sacrifices are discarded.
|
| 44. |
I.e., they should turn to the southeastern corner. The rationale is that, at the outset, one should always turn to the right.
|
| 45. |
Those who perform the tasks on the lower portion of this corner do not ascend the ramp at all, but instead, approach the altar from the ground.
|
| 46. |
Wine that became smoky is unacceptable for a libation (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:9). We can assume that the same law applies with regard to water.
|
| 47. |
There is no necessity - or even preference - that the priest circle the altar. The matter is solely dependent on his choice. The Mishnah (Tamid 6:6) that is the source for this teaching speaks about a High Priest, but as the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the concept applies to any priest. If he desires, he may circle the altar before performing this service.
|
Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
There is a stringency that applies with regard to an animal1 brought as a sin-offering that does not apply [even] to other sacrifices of the most sacred order. If blood from an animal brought as a sin-offering will spew from the container in which the blood was received2 onto a garment before [the blood] was sprinkled [on the altar],3 that garment is obligated to by washed with water4 in the Temple Courtyard, as [Leviticus 6:20] states: "If its blood is spewed on a garment, that which it has been spewed upon must be washed in a holy place."
Halacha 2
A garment made from wool or linen,5 a soft hide,6 or a garment from goat's hair7 is required to be washed. A firm hide, however, is considered as wood8and one should scrape the blood from it.
[The above applies to] the blood of sin-offerings that are eaten or those which are burnt,9 but not to sin-offerings from fowl, as implied by [ibid.:18]: "the sin-offering will be slaughtered," i.e., the Torah is speaking about [an offering] that is slaughtered and not one that is killed by melikah.10
Halacha 3
When a sin-offering was disqualified, its blood need not be washed [from garments]. This applies whether there was a time when it could have been acceptable or there was never a time when it could have been acceptable.
What is meant by [an offering] that had a time when it could have been acceptable? One which was left overnight, that became impure, or that was taken outside of the Temple Courtyard.11 What is meant by [an offering] that never had a time when it could have been acceptable? One that was disqualified because of [the manner in which] it was slaughtered12 or the manner in which its blood was sprinkled.
Halacha 4
Only the place where the blood [was absorbed] must be washed.13 [The above applies provided the garment or] utensil14 is susceptible to contract ritual impurity and is fit to be washed. If, however, the blood spews on a wooden utensil or a metal utensil, it need not be washed because it is not fit to be washed. Instead, one should merely scrape the blood off.
Halacha 5
If [the blood] spewed onto the skin of a fish, it is not necessary to wash it, for [the skin of a fish] is not susceptible to ritual impurity.15 If it was spewed onto the hide of an animal that was not skinned, it need not be washed. If, however, [the hide] was skinned [from the animal], it must be washed. Even though it is not susceptible to ritual impurity in its present state,16 it will be susceptible to ritual impurity after it has been treated.
Halacha 6
If blood spewed from [the animal's] neck onto a garment, it sputtered from the corner of the altar [to a garment],17 or the blood spilled to the floor [of the Temple Courtyard],18 it was gathered and then it spewed on to a garment, there is no requirement that [the garment] be washed, as [the prooftext] states: "If its blood is spewed...."19 [Implied is that the requirement] was stated only with regard to blood that was received in a sacred utensil and is fit to be sprinkled [on the altar], [because it is] of sufficient measure [to be sprinkled].20
Halacha 7
If the four presentations of blood21 were made and then some of the remainder of the blood spewed from the container onto a garment, it need not be washed even though the remainder of the blood was not yet poured out on the base [of the altar].22 Similar principles apply with regard to the sin-offerings that are burnt.23
Halacha 8
[If the blood of a sin-offering] sputtered from [a priest's] finger after he performed its sprinkling with his hand, [the garment onto which it sputtered] need not be washed, because the remainder of the blood on his finger is not acceptable for sprinkling.24
Halacha 9
If [the blood] spewed from one garment to another, the second garment need not be washed.25 If [blood] spewed on an impure garment, it need not be washed.26
If blood from a sin-offering sputtered onto a garment and then ordinary blood27sputtered onto the blood from the sin-offering, it must be washed.28 If, however, ordinary blood - or even blood from a burnt-offering - sputtered onto a garment and then blood from a sin-offering sputtered on to it, it is not required to be washed, because [the blood from the sin-offering] is not absorbed in [the garment].29
Halacha 10
When the place [stained by] the blood is washed, it should be washed very thoroughly with water until no trace [of the blood] remains. All of the seven detergents30that are used [to determine whether] a stain is blood or not31should be used to [wash away] the blood of a sin-offering with the exception of urine, for urine should not be brought into the Temple.32
Halacha 11
An earthernware vessel in which a sin-offering that is to be eaten33 was cooked must be broken34 in the Temple Courtyard. A metal vessel in which [a sin-offering] was cooked must be cleansed35 and rinsed in water36 in the Temple Courtyard, as [Leviticus 6:21] states: "An earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken."
Although this verse does not state "in a holy place,"37 the same laws that apply to washing [a garment] apply. Just as the washing must be performed in a sacred place, so too, the breaking of an earthenware vessel and the cleansing and the rinsing of a metal utensil must be performed in a holy place. [These laws apply equally to] a utensil in which [the sin-offering] was cooked and one into which it was poured while it was boiling.38
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
When does the above apply? When one cooked [sacrificial meat] in these utensils after their blood was sprinkled as required by law. If, however, he cooked in [these utensils] before the sprinkling [of the blood]43 or he cooked meat from sin-offerings that were to be burnt in such utensils,44 it is not necessary that they be washed thoroughly and rinsed.45
If one cooked [the meat of a sin-offering] in [only] a portion of a utensil, the entire utensil must be washed thoroughly and rinsed.46
Halacha 14
There is an unresolved doubt [concerning the ruling] when meat [from a sacrificial offering] was roasted in the space of an earthenware oven:47 Must [the oven] be destroyed48 since [the meat] was cooked inside of it49 or need it not be destroyed, since it did not touch it?50 [The above] does not apply only with regard to a sin-offering. Instead, all utensils that were used for [meat] from sacrificial offerings with hot water,51 whether sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity or sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, are required to be washed thoroughly and rinsed after52 the time for eating from them.53 Similarly, a spit and a grill should be purged after eating [from the sacrifice which they were used to cook].
They should not be left until one desires to eat from them a second time.54Instead, when the time for eating from them is completed, one should purge the grill and the spit and wash thoroughly and rinse the utensil whether it be a metal utensil or an earthenware utensil.55 [There is] one exception: [the meat from] a sin-offering. An earthenware utensil [in which it was cooked] must be broken. [Nevertheless,] one may cook [in a utensil] and do so a second and third time immediately, whether using a metal utensil or an earthenware utensil. [The requirement to] wash it thoroughly and rinse it [applies only] at the conclusion of the time permitted to partake [from these sacrificial foods].
Halacha 15
Utensils made from animal turds,56 stone, or earth57 are not required to be thoroughly washed and rinsed even [when the meat of] a sin-offering was cooked in them. All that is necessary is that they be cleansed.58
With regard to a sin-offering, [Leviticus 6:20] states: "Anything that will touch its meat will become sanctified,"59 i.e., it will be of the same status. If it has been disqualified, anything that touches it is also disqualified. If it is kosher, anything that touches it should be eaten according to the laws that apply to it, with the same degree of holiness.60
Halacha 16
When does the above apply? When [the flavor of the meat of a sacrificial offering] was absorbed by it. If, however, it merely touched it, but its flavor was not absorbed, it does not cause it to become sanctified.61 The above applies both to a sin-offering and any other sacrificial offering, whether sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity or sacrifices of a severe degree of sanctity, as [implied by Leviticus 7:37]: "This is the law for the burnt-offering, the meal-offering...."62
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
[The following laws apply to] a utensil in which sacrificial food and ordinary food were cooked together or sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity were cooked together with sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. If there is a sufficient amount [of the sacrificial food] to impart its flavor,65 the entire mixture must be eaten according to the laws governing the food of the most severe category. The utensil must be thoroughly washed and rinsed according to the laws governing the food of the most severe category.66 If it did not impart its flavor to them, the foods of the more lenient category need not be eaten according to the laws governing the food of the most severe category and they are not governed by their laws at all. The utensil [in which the mixture was cooked], however, must be thoroughly washed and rinsed.67
Halacha 19
When the blood of a sin-offering sputtered on a garment and then that garment was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, it should be returned to the Temple Courtyard and washed there.
What should be done if [the garment] became impure outside the Temple Courtyard?68 It should be torn69 so that it will become pure.70 He should then bring it into [the Temple Courtyard] and wash it there. He must leave intact a portion of the garment the size of a handkerchief, for [the relevant verse]71speaks of a "garment," i.e., a garment must be washed.72 Even though [the remnants of the garment] are impure due to Rabbinic decree,73 because of the remnant the size of a handkerchief, since the majority of it is torn, it is ritually pure according to Scriptural Law and it is permitted to bring it into the Sanctuary to wash out the blood.74
Halacha 20
What should be done when blood from a sin-offering sputtered on [the High Priest's] cloak,75 it was taken out [of the Temple Courtyard], and became impure? [The difficulty is that] one who tears it is liable for lashes, as we explained. He should bring it into [the Temple Courtyard] less than three fingerbreadths at a time76 and wash it in [the Temple Courtyard]. After all the blood has been washed off it little by little, it should be immersed [in a mikveh]77outside [the Temple Courtyard].
Halacha 21
When an earthen-ware utensil in which a sin-offering78 was cooked was taken out of the [Temple] Courtyard, it should be brought back in and broken there.79If it became impure outside the Temple Courtyard, it should be perforated to the extent that a small root [could protrude through it] so that it will be ritually pure,80 and then bring it back inside [the Temple Courtyard] and break it there. If it is broken with a larger hole, it should not be broken in [the Temple Courtyard], because only utensils are broken there.81
Similarly, when a metal utensil in which [sin-offerings] were cooked was taken out of the [Temple] Courtyard, it should be brought back in and thoroughly washed and rinsed there. If it became impure when it was taken out, its [bottom] should be opened82 until it becomes pure83 and then it should be brought back inside [the Temple Courtyard] [The metal] should then be flattened so that the opening becomes closed as is the form of utensils.84Afterwards, it should be thoroughly washed and rinsed in the Temple Courtyard, as [Leviticus 6:21] states: "If [it was cooked] in a copper utensil, [it should be thoroughly washed and rinsed with water]." [Implied is that] only "utensils" are thoroughly washed in the Temple Courtyard.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
But not a fowl (Halachah 2).
|
| 2. |
If, however, it spewed forth from the animal at the time of slaughter, sputtered from the blood sprinkled to the altar, or spilled to the floor and was collected from there, these laws do not apply (Halachah 6).
|
| 3. |
Similarly, once the blood was sprinkled this stringency does not apply (Halachah 7).
|
| 4. |
See Halachah 10.
|
| 5. |
This is the meaning of the term beged (Rashi, Zevachim 93b).
|
| 6. |
See Halachah 5.
|
| 7. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:1).
|
| 8. |
See Halachah 4.
|
| 9. |
See Chapter 1, Halachot 15-16.
|
| 10. |
Although melikah is equivalent to ritual slaughter in certain contexts, since the verse specifies "slaughter," it is excluded in this instance (Radbaz).
|
| 11. |
I.e., in all these instances, the ritual slaughter and the sprinkling were performed in an appropriate manner and thus the meat could have been consumed in an acceptable manner.
|
| 12. |
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 15:1 which mentions several ways in which ritual slaughter can be disqualified.
|
| 13. |
And not the entire garment (Zevachim 93b).
|
| 14. |
I.e., this requirement applies not only to garments, but also other objects made from these materials.
|
| 15. |
See Hilchot Keilim 1:3-4; 10:1. Zevachim 93b states that only an article that is susceptible to ritual impurity must be washed.
|
| 16. |
For it is not considered as a k'li, a useful article, in its present state.
|
| 17. |
Since it has already been sprinkled on the altar, these laws no longer apply to it (Zevachim 92b).
|
| 18. |
Without first being received in a sacred utensil. In such an instance, it is not fit to be sprinkled on the altar (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:25). If, however, it was first received in a sacred utensil and then spilled, it is fit to be sprinkled on the altar. Hence, if it spewed onto a garment, the garment must be washed.
|
| 19. |
The same Hebrew root haza'ah is used both for the sprinkling of the blood on the altar and the spewing of the blood on a garment, leading to the inference stated by the Rambam.
|
| 20. |
Our translation is based on the gloss of the Radbaz.
|
| 21. |
As prescribed in Chapter 5, Halachah 7.
|
| 22. |
Because pouring out the remainder of the blood is not an essential element of the sacrifice.
|
| 23. |
I.e., once the priest has completed the sprinkling of their blood that is required as explained in Chapter 5, Halachot 12-18, the remaining blood does not require that it be washed.
|
| 24. |
As evident from Chapter 5, Halachah 8.
|
| 25. |
Zevachim 92b compares this to the situation described in Halachah 6 when blood was spilled onto the floor and then sputtered onto a garment.
|
| 26. |
For it is considered as if the blood became impure beforehand and thus would have been unacceptable for sprinkling. Zevachim 93a associates this situation with the question whether water set aside to be used for the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer that became impure can be purified or not. Based on that discussion, Rav Yosef Corcus suggests that there is a printing error in the text of the Mishneh Torah and the ruling is that the garment must be washed. This conclusion is supported by the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:36 which states that blood from consecrated animals can never contract ritual impurity.
|
| 27. |
I.e., blood from an animal that was not consecrated. As evident from the following clause, seemingly, the same law would apply with regard to blood from a burnt offering. Indeed, Zevachim98a-b states this explicitly.
|
| 28. |
For the blood from the sin-offering is absorbed into it and is not washed away by the other blood.
|
| 29. |
For it had already absorbed the other blood.
|
| 30. |
The saliva of a person who has not eaten, beans that have been chewed, urine that has become sour, marsh mallow, natron, glasswort, and soapwort. [The names of these detergents were taken from Rav Kappach's translation of the Arabic terms used in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 9:6).]
|
| 31. |
If the stain is removed when these seven detergents are applied to it, we conclude that it was blood. If it is not removed, we assume that it is paint or another type of dye.
|
| 32. |
For it is not respectful to bring such a substance into a place where the Divine Presence is overtly revealed.
The commentaries have noted that Zevachim 95a (the source for this halachah) mentions that urine was brought into the Temple, except that it was first mixed with the saliva so that it was not taken in as an independent entity.
|
| 33. |
As opposed to those which are burnt.
|
| 34. |
The rationale is that the flavor of the meat of the sin-offering can never be totally purged from an earthenware vessel.
|
| 35. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 11:8), the Rambam defines this term as meaning "thoroughly washing a utensil until everything attached to it is removed."
|
| 36. |
There the Rambam interprets this as meaning "pouring water over the utensil without scraping the filth off by hand." The Radbaz elaborates on the difference between the Rambam's approach (who appears to require only the thorough cleaning of the vessels) and that of Rashi who interpretsZevachim 95b as requiring that these utensils must be purged in the same manner as one purges non-kosher food from a vessel into which it was absorbed.
According to this conception of the Rambam's approach, the problem is not that the fat absorbed in the utensil becomes notar, "sacrificial food that remained overnight," and must be destroyed. Instead, the question involves merely the thorough cleaning of the utensil. This interpretation is borne out by the continuation of the Rambam's statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah where he speaks about the issue of notar with regard to the food attached to the utensil, but does not mention the food absorbed within it.
|
| 37. |
As does the preceding verse which mentions washing the blood from a garment.
|
| 38. |
Since the stew including the meat of the sin-offering was boiling while it was poured into the vessel, it is considered as if it was cooked there.
|
| 39. |
This represents the Rambam's version of Zevachim, loc. cit. There are, however, other versions of that Mishnah.
|
| 40. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that the intent of this comparison is to imply that the container must be washed until there is no trace of the previous substance, as one would a cup from which he would drink.
|
| 41. |
To remove the fat absorbed in the container (ibid.).
|
| 42. |
In the above source, the Rambam explains that this purging follows the same process in which non-kosher food is purged from cooking utensils. Significantly, however, when he mentions the process of purging non-kosher cooking utensils (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 17:3-4), he does not mention the need to rinse them in cold water although he does mention that requirement in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:23.
|
| 43. |
This would disqualify the sacrifice.
|
| 44. |
See Halachah 11.
|
| 45. |
The Radbaz questions this ruling, because seemingly, the fat absorbed in the utensil, becomesnotar, "sacrificial food that remained overnight," and it must be destroyed. He offers three possible resolutions:
a) the Rambam is speaking about an instance when the utensil was used on the same day. Hence, the problem does not arise.
b) the issue does not concern notar at all, as explained in the notes to Halachah 12.
c) since the absorbed fat is more than a day old when it becomes notar, its flavor is impaired (notain taam lifgam). Hence, since the prohibition against the absorbed food is merely a Rabbinic safeguard, our Sages did not apply it in this instance, because the situation involves the Temple service.
|
| 46. |
The Radbaz uses this law as a further support, for his idea that the fat need not be purged from the utensil. For the concept that cooked food which is absorbed in part of a utensil is considered as if it were absorbed in the entire utensil is an established principle.
|
| 47. |
Similar laws apply with regard to sacrifices cooked in a metal oven, except that the question involves the requirement to be thoroughly washed and rinsed.
|
| 48. |
As required by Halachah 11.
|
| 49. |
For the Torah mentions the necessity of washing out or destroying the utensil after sacrificial meat was cooked in it. It does not state that for requirement to apply, the flavor of the meat must be absorbed in the utensil.
|
| 50. |
I.e., the above question is discussed by Zevachim 95b and is left unresolved by our Sages.
|
| 51. |
I.e., sacrificial meat was either cooked in it or poured in it while warm [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 11:8)].
|
| 52. |
Our translation is based on the glosses of the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh.
|
| 53. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam quotes Zevachim, loc. cit., explaining that this concept is derived as follows. Leviticus 6:21-22 states: "All of the priestly males shall partake of it" and directly afterwards states: "and it shall be washed thoroughly and rinsed in water," implying that the two activities should be performed in direct sequence.
|
| 54. |
I.e., beyond the time when it is permitted to eat from them.
|
| 55. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that there is no point in washing an earthenware utensil thoroughly. Even if one does so, the taste of the sacrificial offering will remain absorbed within it. The Rambam's understanding is that the Torah only required that an earthenware utensil be broken when it was used for cooking a sin-offering, if it was used for cooking other sacrifices, there is no obligation. This difference of opinion relates to a question of greater scope: the difference of opinion mentioned above whether it is necessary to purge the utensils from the food absorbed in them or not.
|
| 56. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:1), the Rambam mentions that there are some who interpret the Hebrew term as referring to utensils made from marble. He, however, favors the translation given above.
|
| 57. |
This refers to utensils made from earth that were not fired in a kiln and hence, are not governed by the laws applying to earthenware utensils.
|
| 58. |
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that since the Torah does not make any specifications with regard to such utensils (as it does with regard to earthenware and metal utensils), there is no obligation with regard to them. He does not mention wood utensils, because wood utensils do not resemble earthenware and metal.
|
| 59. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 12, which states that at the outset, a sin-offering should not be eaten together with other sacrifices.
|
| 60. |
I.e., it can only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard by males of the priestly family on the day the sacrifice was offered and on the following night.
|
| 61. |
Zevachim 97a, et al, derives this concept from the fact that the term the prooftext uses for "its meat," bibisarah, literally means "in its meat." Implied is the flavor must be absorbed into the meat of the other food.
|
| 62. |
Zevachim 98b interprets this verse as teaching that there is a fundamental commonality to all the sacrificial offerings.
|
| 63. |
A soft, spongy wafer [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:4)].
|
| 64. |
And only that portion becomes sanctified.
|
| 65. |
Unless there is a priest who can distinguish whether the taste was imparted or not, we assume that if the food in the more lenient category is 60 times the amount of the food in the more severe category, the taste of the more severe type of food has not been imparted. Otherwise, we must be stringent (Zevachim 97a).
|
| 66. |
Similarly, if an earthenware vessel was used to cook meat from a sin-offering, according to the Rambam, it must be broken. According to Rashi and others, this applies whenever sacrificial offerings are cooked in an earthenware utensil (Radbaz).
|
| 67. |
I.e., when meat from sacrifices of the most severe degree of sanctity is cooked together with a larger quantity of meat from sacrifices of lesser sanctity, the utensils need not be purged at the time the commandment to partake of the sacrifices of the most severe degree of sanctity is concluded, because that meat is considered insignificant, due to the majority of the other meat. Nevertheless, when the time to partake of the sacrifices of the lesser degree of holiness is concluded, the utensils must be thoroughly washed and rinsed (ibid.). When sacrificial meat is cooked together with ordinary meat, even if its taste is not recognizable, we require that the utensils be thoroughly washed and rinsed, because of the stringencies involving sacrificial food (Radbaz).
|
| 68. |
And thus it would not be permitted to return it to the Temple Courtyard in its present state [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 11:6)].
|
| 69. |
This refers to both ordinary garments and priestly garments with the exception of the cloak. Although it is forbidden to tear priestly garments with a destructive intent (Hilchot K'lei Hamikdash9:3), tearing it for this purpose is not considered as tearing it with a destructive intent.
|
| 70. |
As stated in Hilchot Kelim 23:11, when the majority of an impure garment is torn, the remnants are considered as ritually pure.
|
| 71. | |
| 72. |
Anything smaller than a handkerchief could not be justifiably called a garment.
|
| 73. |
And thus one might think that they should not be brought into the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 74. |
I.e., our Sages did not enforce their decree in this instance, because doing so would lead to the nullification of a Scriptural obligation.
|
| 75. |
Concerning which there is an explicit prohibition not to tear it (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, loc. cit.). Hence the advice given in the previous halachah is not relevant.
|
| 76. |
A portion of cloth less than three fingerbreadths wide is not considered as a garment. Hence, the laws of ritual impurity do not apply to it. Although in this instance, the cloak is intact and hence, is larger than this measure, since there is no alternative, this provision is allowed.
|
| 77. |
To purify it.
|
| 78. |
The Radbaz maintains that this law applies to the meat of a sin-offering, but not the meat of other offerings.
|
| 79. |
Zevachim 94b explains that this concept is derived from the laws governing the washing of a garment mentioned in Halachah 19.
|
| 80. |
Zevachim 95a explains that "a utensil" must be able to contain liquids and if has a hole, it is no longer fit for such a purpose. Thus once the utensil has been broken, it is ritually pure. (This represents the Scriptural Law. With regard to Rabbinic Law, see Hilchot Keilim 19:2.)
|
| 81. |
And if it is broken to a greater extent, it is not considered as a utensil at all and therefore should not be brought into the Temple Courtyard.
Why was a utensil broken to the extent that a root could project through it allowed to be brought into the Temple Courtyard? Since our Sages considered it a utensil in certain contexts, they allowed it to be considered a utensil so that the obligation to break utensils in the Temple Courtyard could be fulfilled.
|
| 82. |
With a large hole (see Hilchot Keilim 11:1-2).
|
| 83. |
Because it is no longer fit to be serve as a utensil.
|
| 84. |
Hilchot Keilim 12:1 states that when a metal utensil that had regained ritual purity, because it had been opened, because closed again, it reverts to being ritually impure. This, however, is a Rabbinic safeguard and our Sages did not uphold their decree in this instance so that the practice of purging the utensils could be fulfilled.
|
Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
13It is a positive commandment to offer the guilt-offerings1 according to its statutes as they are written in the Torah. How are the guilt-offerings brought? Both the definite guilt offerings2 and the conditional guilt-offerings3 should be slaughtered and their blood should be sprinkled on the altar, as we explained.4They are skinned,5 the portions offered on the altar6 are removed, salted,7 and tossed on [the altar's] pyre. If one desires to carry [these portions] to the altar in a [sacred] utensil, he may. The remainder of the meat is eaten by males of the priestly family according to [the laws that govern the consumption of] sin-offering.8
Halacha 2
There is a difference with regard to [the laws governing] the acceptance of the blood of the guilt offering brought by a person who had been afflicted withtzara'at,9 as will be explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah.10 Nevertheless, all of its other procedures, the sprinkling of its blood on the altar, and its consumption are analogous to that required for other guilt-offerings in all regards.11
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
What is the procedure for bringing the communal peace offerings? [The sacrificial lambs] should be slaughtered and their blood should be sprinkled on the altar, as we explained.15 They are skinned,16 the portions offered on the altar17 are removed, salted,18 and brought to be consumed by [the altar's] pyre. The remainder [of the meat] is eaten by males of the priestly family according to [the laws that govern the consumption of] sin-offering and a guilt-offering, for these [sacrifices] are also sacrifices of the most sacred order, as we explained.19
Halacha 5
There are three types of individual peace-offerings:
a) a peace-offering that is brought without bread, e.g., the festive peace-offering20 or the peace-offering of celebration,21 they are called peace-offerings;
b) peace-offerings brought with bread because of a vow or a pleadge;22 these are called thanksgiving offerings and the bread is called the bread of the thanksgiving offering;
c) the peace-offering brought by a nazirite on the day he completes his nazirite vow; this offering is accompanied by bread and is called the nazirite's ram.23
Halacha 6
What is procedure for bringing these three [types of offerings]? [The sacrificial animals] should be slaughtered and their blood should be sprinkled on the altar, as we explained.24 They are skinned25 and the portions offered on the altar26are removed. Afterwards, the meat is cut up and the breast and the right thigh are set aside.27 The portions to be offered together with the breast and the thigh are placed on the hands of the owners. A priest places his hands below the hands of the owner and performs tenufah28 with all these items "before God," to the east [of the Altar].29 Whenever there is a requirement for tenufah, it is performed to the east [of the Altar].
Halacha 7
How is tenufah performed? [The items] are taken [to each of the directions]30and returned, lifted up and brought low.31 If the sacrifice was a thanksgiving offering, one should be taken one from each [of the four] groups of ten breads that are brought with it32 and place it together with the breast, the thigh, and the portions offered on the altar. Tenufah should be performed with all of these items upon the owner's hands, as explained.33
Halacha 8
How are they placed on the owner's hands? The fats are placed on the owner's hands with the breast and the thigh above them. The two kidneys and the lobe of the liver are placed above them and if [the offering includes] bread, it is placed above them34and tenufah is performed with all these items.
Halacha 9
If the sacrifice was a nazirite's ram, [the priest] should remove the portions to be offered on the altar, set aside the breast and the thigh, and cook the remainder of the ram in the Women's Courtyard.35 The priest takes the cooked foreleg from the ram36 and one from each [of the two] groups of ten breads that are brought with it,37 together with the breast, the thigh, and the portions offered on the altar and places everything on the nazirite's hands. The priest places his hands under the owner's hands and moves all [items] as we described.38
Halacha 10
What is meant by the breast? The portion [of the animal's body] that faces the ground that extends from the neck until the belly. Two ribs on either side should be cut off [and given to the priest] together with it. What is meant by the foreleg? The portion from the upper-joint until the ankle joint; two limbs, one connected with the other.39 The foreleg that is mentioned refers to the right foreleg. The corresponding portion in the rear leg is the thigh that is referred to universally.
Halacha 11
After tenufah is performed with [these portions], they are offered on the pyre of the altar except for the breast and the thigh that are eaten by the priests,40as [Leviticus 7:34] states: "but the breast with which tenufah was performed and the thigh that was lifted up...." The remainder of the peace-offerings are consumed by the owner.41 The priests do not acquire the breast and the thigh until after the portions to be offered on the altar were placed on its pyre.42
Halacha 12
Similarly, the bread with which tenufah was performed from the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram and the cooked foreleg are eaten by the priests. The remainder of the bread and the remainder of the meat are eaten by the owner. The bread with which tenufah was performed together with the breast and the thigh is referred to43 as "the elevated portion from the thanksgiving offering." The cooked foreleg together with the breast and the thigh and the bread with which tenufah was performed are referred to as "the elevated portion from the nazirite's ram."
Halacha 13
There is an unresolved doubt whether the bread from the elevated portion of the thanksgiving offering44 is categorized as terumah or not.45 Therefore one is not liable for death,46 nor to repay an additional fifth, [as one is when partaking of] terumah. Nor is a mixture of it subject to the laws of dimua47 as is a mixture of terumah.48
Halacha 14
If the person bringing the thanksgiving offering was a priest, the remainder of the bread may be eaten by the owner like a thanksgiving offering brought by an Israelite. For the bread that accompanies a thanksgiving offering or a nazrite's ram is not called a meal offering.49
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
When a woman is the one bringing a sacrifice, she does not perform tenufahwith it. The priest must perform that rite,52 for the sacrifice requires that tenufahbe performed with it and a woman is unacceptable to perform that rite. A woman never performs tenufah except in two instances: a sotah53and a female nazirite, as we explained.54 Tenufah should always be performed before [the elements of the sacrifice] are brought close to the altar.55
Halacha 17
What is meant by the bread that is brought together with the thanksgiving offering? One should take 20 isaronim56 of fine flour. He should make tenisaronim leavened and ten unleavened. The ten that are made leaven should be made into ten loaves.
Halacha 18
How are they made leavened? He should bring enough yeast to cause the dough to leaven and place it in the measure of an isaron. He then fills the measure. Even though ultimately, [the measure] will be lacking or excessive because of the yeast,57 for at times [the yeast] will be thick and hard58 and at times it will be soft [and inflated],59 we are concerned only with its measure at the present time. Hence he should measure full isaronim.
From the ten isaronim for the unleavened bread, he should make 30 loaves of the same size, ten of each [of the following three] types: ten loaves baked in an oven, ten loaves of flat-cakes, and ten loaves of fried cakes.60
Halacha 19
How are the fried cakes prepared? [The cakes] should be scalded with boiling water.61 Then they should be baked slightly and then fried in oil in a roasting pot or the like, like doughnuts and fried. A large amount of oil is used for them. This is the deepfrying process mentioned in all places.
Halacha 20
Halacha 21
With regard to the loaves [that are baked]: their flour should saturate in the eighth [of a log]. Afterwards, they should be kneaded and baked. The oil should be poured over the wafers after they have been baked.
The priest takes four loaves from the entire [mixture], one of each type, as [Leviticus 7:14] states: "One from each [type], a sacrifice."
Halacha 22
When one made [only] four loaves for the bread for the thanksgiving offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. [The Torah] mentions 40 only as [the optimum way of fulfilling] the mitzvah. [This applies] provided he separates a challah from each of the types of sacrifices while they are still dough.65 For a piece of bread may not be separated [as a sacrificial portion].66 [This is implied by the prooftext:] "One from each [type], a sacrifice," that the priest should not receive a portion.
Halacha 23
What is meant by the bread that is brought together with the nazirite's ram? He should take six and two thirds isaronim of flour and make 20 equal sized loaves from them. They must all be unleavened bread.67 Ten should be wafers with oil poured over them and ten loaves whose flour was saturated in oil. The entire amount should be baked in an oven. A fourth [of a log] of oil is used for them.68This measure is a halachah communicated to Moses at Sinai. The priest takes two of the loaves, one from each type.69
Halacha 24
Halacha 25
How are the firstborn, tithe, and Paschal sacrifices offered? After their blood is poured on the altar as we explained,72 they are skinned, the portions offered on the altar are removed,73 salted, and placed on [the altar's] pyre.74 The remainder of the meat of the firstborn offering is eaten by the priests. The remainder of the meat of the tithe sacrifice is eaten by the owner. The remainder of the meat of the Paschal sacrifice is eaten by those enumerated upon it according to its laws, as will be explained in Hilchot [Korban] Pesach.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 65) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 140) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 2. |
See Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 9, for a description of the transgressions for which these sacrifices are brought.
|
| 3. |
See Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 8, for a description of the situations which warrant bringing these sacrifices.
|
| 4. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 2, with regard to slaughter, and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to sprinkling the blood on the altar.
|
| 5. |
As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18.
|
| 6. |
The fats, the lobe of liver, and the kidneys described in Leviticus 7:3-4.
|
| 7. |
For every element of a sacrifice offered on the altar must be salted (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach5:11).
|
| 8. |
For Leviticus 7:7 establishes an equation between the guilt-offering and the sin-offering. See also Chapter 10, Halachah 3.
|
| 9. |
A skin affliction similar to, but not identical with leprosy, that afflicts people, their clothes, and their homes because of spiritual inadequacies, in particular speaking lashon hara, uncomplimentary gossip (the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at).
|
| 10. |
Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.
|
| 11. |
This sacrifice is given as an example of one of the Thirteen Principles of Biblical Exegesis taught by Rabbi Yishmael (Sifra 1:4), It describes an entity (the guilt offering brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at) that was once included in a general category (all guilt offerings), was singled out with regard to a new stipulation (that its blood be received in a different manner). Hence the laws that apply to that general category apply to it only because there is an explicit verse (Leviticus 14:13) that returns it to the general category.
|
| 12. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 66) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 141) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 13. |
The two lambs offered on Shavuot (Leviticus 23:19).
|
| 14. |
The Radbaz emphasizes that there is a difference between peace-offerings and other sacrifices. Most of the peace-offerings are brought voluntarily, while most of the other offerings are brought due to an obligation.
|
| 15. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 2, with regard to slaughter, and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to sprinkling the blood on the altar.
|
| 16. |
As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18.
|
| 17. |
The fats, the lobe of liver, and the kidneys described in Leviticus 7:3-4.
|
| 18. |
For every element of a sacrifice offered on the altar must be salted (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach5:11).
|
| 19. |
Chapter 1, Halachah 17; Chapter 5, Halachah 3.
|
| 20. |
Brought when making the festive pilgrimages (Hilchot Chagigah 1:1).
|
| 21. |
Additional peace-offerings brought at the time of the festive pilgrimages (ibid.).
|
| 22. |
The term "vow" refers to a promise to bring a sacrifice. The term "pledge" refers to a promise to bring a particular animal as a sacrifice (Hilchot Nedarim 1:2).
|
| 23. |
See Hilchot Nizirut 8:1.
|
| 24. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 2, with regard to slaughter, and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to sprinkling the blood on the altar.
|
| 25. |
As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18.
|
| 26. |
The fats, the lobe of liver, and the kidneys described in Leviticus 7:3-4.
|
| 27. |
Ultimately, they will be given to the priests as stated in Halachah 12.
|
| 28. |
As explained in the following halachah.
|
| 29. |
Our translation is based on Rashi, Menachot 61a. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot5:6), the Rambam writes: "With regard to the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted withtzara'at..., it is written (Leviticus 14:12): 'And tenufah should be performed with them before God.' A tradition has been received interpreting 'before God' as meaning 'in the east.'
Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this to mean that even the area to the east of the altar is considered as "before God," but the area to the west certainly warrants that description. The Rambam does not accept this understanding. His interpretation is question by the Kessef Mishneh and others, for the Holy of Holies was to the west of the altar. Seemingly, the closer one comes to it, the more one is "before God."
|
| 30. |
The bracketed addition is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:5). This is also the perspective of Rashi (Menachot 62a) based on our Sages' statements that this action is intended to prevent destructive winds.
|
| 31. |
This is intended to prevent harmful dews (ibid.).
|
| 32. |
See Halachot 17-22 for a description of the breads which would accompany the thanksgiving offering.
|
| 33. |
In the previous halachah.
|
| 34. |
In this way, the bread will not be spoiled through excessive contact with the meat (Radbaz). In his gloss (based on Menachot 61b), he cites exegetical reasons why the other items are placed in the order mentioned.
|
| 35. |
More particularly, as mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:8, there was a chamber in the southeast portion of the Women's Courtyard set aside for this purpose.
|
| 36. |
As commanded by Numbers 6:19. The Radbaz explains that it would appear that the foreleg would be placed above the other portions of the sacrifice, but below the bread.
|
| 37. |
See Halachah 23.
|
| 38. |
In the previous two halachot.
|
| 39. |
An animal's foreleg is comprised of three bones. According to the Rambam, the lower two are given to the priest. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 10:4). Others maintain the upper two should be given to the priest.
|
| 40. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 4.
|
| 41. |
And any - both male and female - with whom he desires to share the meat.
|
| 42. |
Pesachim 59b derives this law from the order in which the concepts are stated in the Torah. Similarly, the owner may not partake of his portion until that time (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim18:7).
|
| 43. |
See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:21; Hilchot Bikkurim 1:15.
|
| 44. |
There is, however, no such doubt with regard to the elevated portion of the nazirite's ram (Radbaz).
|
| 45. |
For Leviticus 7:14 uses the word terumah when describing this offering. Nevertheless, since we find exclusions with regard to penalties associated with terumah in other verses, it is possible that they do not apply with regard to these breads. Accordingly, Menachot 77b leaves the matter unresolved.
|
| 46. |
Hilchot Terumot 6:6.
|
| 47. |
As stated in Hilchot Terumot 13:1-2, in such an instance, one hundred times the amount ofterumah is required before the mixture is permitted.
|
| 48. |
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that if these breads become mixed with ordinary breads, seemingly, there is a question whether a Scriptural prohibition applies and one should rule stringently. They explain that as long as there is a majority of permitted substances, the Scriptural prohibition is considered as nullified and the prohibition is only Rabbinic in origin (see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:13). This also applies with regard to a mixture of terumah (Hilchot Terumot14:7). Accordingly, in this instance, since it is possible that the laws of terumah are not applied to these breads, we do not impose the Rabbinic prohibition.
|
| 49. |
As will be stated (Chapter 12, Halachah 9), in contrast to the meal offerings brought by Israelites, meal offerings brought by the priests are consumed entirely by the altar's pyre. Hence, the Rambam felt it necessary to clarify that these breads are not in that category.
|
| 50. |
If the two partners would perform tenufah each one holding part of the items, neither would be performing the rite as required. If one put his hand below the hand of the other one, there would be an interposition between that person's hand and the sacrificial items. And it is also impossible for them to perform tenufah, one after the other, because the Torah speaks about tenufah, using the singular, and not tenufot, using the plural (Menachot 94a).
|
| 51. |
That rite must be performed by each of the partners individually (Chapter 3, Halachah 9).
|
| 52. |
The Radbaz suggests that if she is married, her husband should perform this rite on her behalf.
|
| 53. |
A woman suspected of adultery who is required to bring an offering as part of her process of atonement.
|
| 54. |
Hilchot Sotah 3:15; Hilchot Nizirut 8:4.
|
| 55. |
Menachot 61a derives this concept from Numbers 5:25 which speaks of tenufah being performed with a sotah's offering and then of it being brought to the altar.
|
| 56. |
An isaron is defined as a measure equivalent to the volume of 43 and 1/5 eggs.
|
| 57. |
I.e., the space intended for the flour will be taken by the yeast.
|
| 58. |
And thus take up only a small amount of space.
|
| 59. |
And thus take up a lot of space.
|
| 60. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:3), the Rambam writes that he has found no definition for the term murbechet, but that appears to him that it implies that a large quantity of oil is used in the preparation of the cakes.
|
| 61. |
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:6; Menachot 9:3), where he describes how these fried cakes are made.
|
| 62. |
Those loaves which are leavened do not require oil [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:4)].
|
| 63. |
A half a log is 172 cc. according to Shiurei Torah and 300 cc. according to Chazon Ish.
|
| 64. |
The Radbaz maintains that the measure of half a log was communicated to Moses, but the breakdown of how this measure should be used was not. Hence, after the fact, the sacrifice is not disqualified if there was some deviation.
|
| 65. |
Although the person desires to bake only four loaves, he must also separate one loaf of each type for the priest. This separation must be done beforehand, as the Rambam precedes to explain. Thus one tenth of each type of dough must be separated and prepared for the priest.
|
| 66. |
I.e., it would not be deferential to give the priest a piece of each of the four doughs as his sacrificial portion.
|
| 67. |
The nazirite is bringing two thirds of the unleavened bread brought in connection with a thanksgiving offering. Hence, he uses two thirds the amount of flour.
|
| 68. |
I.e., a similar amount of oil is used as is used for the corresponding loaves of the thanksgiving offering.
|
| 69. |
As stated in Numbers 6:19.
|
| 70. |
I.e., if any of the types of bread are lacking, the sacrifice is unacceptable and nothing should be brought at all.
|
| 71. |
In his gloss to the Mishnah (Menachot 3:7), Tosafot Yom Tov writes that these breads were baked in Beit Pagi, a small settlement, outside, but close to the Temple Mount.
|
| 72. |
Chapter 5, Halachah 17.
|
| 73. |
Chapter 5, Halachah 18.
|
| 74. |
See Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:14; Hilchot Bechorot 1:2; 6:4.
|
• Sunday, Sivan 6, 5775 · 24 May 2015
"Today's Day"
During The Torah-reading of the Ten Commandments, stand and face the seferTorah. Akdamut (p. 400) is not said.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Nasso, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 35-38.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim (p. 283)...blessed and exalted. (p. 285).
The Baal Shem Tov passed away on Wednesday, the first day of Shavuot, 5520 (1760) and is interred in Mezibuz. The Alter Rebbe Commented (on Wednesday, the 20th of Kislev 5559 (1798) in Petersburg): "On the fourth day the luminaries were taken away."1
FOOTNOTES
1. On the fourth day of Creation (Wednesday), the luminaries (sun, moon and stars) were hung (nitlu with a tav) in the expanse of the heaven. The Rebbe's comment is based on reading nitlu with a tet ("taken away") instead of a tav.
Daily Thought:
Do Something
Perhaps the Rebbe’s most common words:
The main thing is: Do something!
___________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment