Today in Jewish History:
• Moses Ascends to the Top of Mount Sinai (1313 BCE)
"Moses went up to the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain...for six days. On the seventh day G-d called to Moses from within the cloud... And Moses came within the cloud, and he went up to the top of the mountain, and Moses was upon the mountain forty days and forty nights" (Exodus 24:15-18).
On the morrow of the giving of the Ten Commandments (see Jewish History for the 6th of Sivan), Moses ascended Mount Sinai in order to receive from G-d the remainder of the Torah -- the remaining commandments and the Oral Law. After being "cleansed" by the cloud for six days, he was ushered into the presence of G-d on the 13th of Sivan.
Links:
The Giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai
Moses
• Bombing in Cairo Jewish Quarter (1948)
Following the War of Independence (see Jewish History for the 6th of Iyar), citizens in many Arab countries began harassing their Jewish co-citizens, often times inflicting casualties and substantial property damage.
The 5,000 Jews living in Cairo, Egypt were also repeatedly victimized. On the 13th of Sivan a bomb exploded in the Jewish quarter of Cairo, murdering 22 Jews and wounding more than 40 others.
The systematic persecution caused most Egyptian Jews to flee, many choosing to move to Israel. Today, there are virtually no Jews remaining in Egypt.
• Rebbe's Parents Wed (1900)
The Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory's, parents, Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Schneerson (1878-1944) and Rebbetzin ChanaYanovsky (1880-1964) were married on the 13th of Sivan, 1900. Their oldest son,Menachem Mendel, was born two years later, on the 11th of Nissan of 1902.
Links:
Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Schneerson
Rebbetzin Chana Schneerson
Marriage: an Anthology
Daily Quote:
The first thing we heard from the Rebbe was: "What is forbidden, one must not; and what is permitted, one need not"[Rabbi Mordechai of Haradak, a disciple of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Behaalotecha, 1st Portion Numbers 8:1-8:14 with Rashi
• Chapter 8
1The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2Speak to Aaron and say to him: "When you light the lamps, the seven lamps shall cast their light toward the face of the menorah." בדַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו בְּהַעֲלֹתְךָ אֶת הַנֵּרֹת אֶל מוּל פְּנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה יָאִירוּ שִׁבְעַת הַנֵּרוֹת:
When you light: Why is the portion dealing with the menorah juxtaposed to the portion dealing with the chieftains? For when Aaron saw the dedication [offerings] of the chieftains, he felt distressed over not joining them in this dedication-neither he nor his tribe. So God said to him, “By your life, yours is greater than theirs, for you will light and prepare the lamps.” - [Tanchuma Beha’alothecha 3] בהעלתך: למה נסמכה פרשת המנורה לפרשת הנשיאים, לפי שכשראה אהרן חנוכת הנשיאים חלשה דעתו, שלא היה עמהם בחנוכה, לא הוא ולא שבטו, אמר לו הקב"ה חייך, שלך גדולה משלהם, שאתה מדליק ומטיב את הנרות:
When you light: Heb. בְּהַעֲלֹתְךָ, lit., when you cause to ascend. Since the flame rises, Scripture describes kindling in terms of ascending. He is required to kindle the lamp until the flame rises by itself (Shab. 21a). Our Sages further expounded from here that there was a step in front of the menorah, on which the kohen stood to prepare [the lamps]. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 3] בהעלתך: על שם שהלהב עולה, כתוב בהדלקתן לשון עליה, שצריך להדליק עד שתהא שלהבת עולה מאליה. ועוד דרשו רבותינו, מכאן שמעלה היתה לפני המנורה שעליה הכהן עומד ומטיב:
toward the face of the menorah: Toward the middle lamp, which is not on [one of] the branches, but on the menorah itself. — [Men. 98b] אל מול פני המנורה: אל מול נר אמצעי שאינו בקנים, אלא בגוף של מנורה:
shall cast their light: The six on the six branches; the three eastern ones-that is their wicks-facing towards the center one, and likewise, the three western ones, the tops of their wicks facing toward the center one. Why [were the wicks facing inwards, thus giving off so little light]? So that [people] should not say that He [God] needs the light. — [Tanchuma Beha’alothecha 5] יאירו שבעת הנרות: ששה שעל ששת הקנים, שלשה המזרחיים פונים למול האמצעי, הפתילות שבהן, וכן שלשה המערביים ראשי הפתילות למול האמצעי. ולמה, כדי שלא יאמרו לאורה הוא צריך:
3Aaron did so; he lit the lamps toward the face of the menorah, as the Lord had commanded Moses. גוַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן אַהֲרֹן אֶל מוּל פְּנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה הֶעֱלָה נֵרֹתֶיהָ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
Aaron did so: This shows Aaron’s virtue that he did not deviate [from God’s command]. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:5] ויעש כן אהרן: להגיד שבחו של אהרן שלא שינה:
4This was the form of the menorah: hammered work of gold, from its base to its flower it was hammered work; according to the form that the Lord had shown Moses, so did he construct the menorah. דוְזֶה מַעֲשֵׂה הַמְּנֹרָה מִקְשָׁה זָהָב עַד יְרֵכָהּ עַד פִּרְחָהּ מִקְשָׁה הִוא כַּמַּרְאֶה אֲשֶׁר הֶרְאָה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה כֵּן עָשָׂה אֶת הַמְּנֹרָה:
This was the form of the menorah: As God had shown him with His finger, for he had difficulty with [constructing] it. That is why it says, “This is….” - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 7] וזה מעשה המנורה: שהראהו הקב"ה באצבע לפי שנתקשה בה, לכך נאמר וזה:
hammered work: In old French, batediz, beaten, an expression similar to,“[and his knees] knocked (נָקְשָׁן) one against the other” (Dan. 5:6). There was a block of gold weighing a talent. He pounded it with a hammer, and cut it with a chisel to extend its limbs in the prescribed manner, and it was not made limb by limb and then connected together. — [Baraitha Melecheth HaMishkan] מקשה: בטדי"ץ בלע"ז [עשוי בהכאה] לשון דא לדא נקשן (דניאל ה, ו). עשת של ככר זהב היתה, ומקיש בקורנס וחותך בכשיל לפשט אבריה כתקונן, ולא נעשית אברים אברים ע"י חבור:
from its base to its flower: Its base was the hollow box above the legs, like the silver candelabra that stand before nobles. עד ירכה עד פרחה: ירכה היא השידה שעל הרגלים, חלול כדרך מנורות כסף שלפני השרים:
from its base to its flower: That is to say, the menorah itself and everything attached to it. עד ירכה עד פרחה: כלומר גופה של מנורה כולה וכל התלוי בה:
from its base: Which was a large unit. עד ירכה: שהוא אבר גדול:
to its flower: Which was its finest work-it was all hammered work. It is customary to use the word עַד in this sense [to include everything], as in,“from the stacks to the (עַד) standing grain to the (עַד) olive groves” (Judges 15:5). עד פרחה: שהוא מעשה דק שבה הכל מקשה. ודרך עד לשמש בלשון זה, כמו (שופטים טו, ה) מגדיש ועד קמה ועד כרם זית:
according to the form which the Lord had shown…: According to the design He had shown him on the mount [Sinai], as it says, “Now see and make, according to their pattern [which you are shown on the mountain]” (Exod. 25:40). כמראה אשר הראה וגו': כתבנית אשר הראהו בהר, כמו שנאמר (שמות כה, מ) וראה ועשה בתבניתם וגו':
so did he construct the menorah: I.e., the one who made it [namely, Bezalel]. The Aggadic Midrash [Tanchuma Beha’alothecha 3] states that it was made by itself through the Holy One, Blessed is He. כן עשה את המנורה: מי שעשאה. ומדרש אגדה ע"י הקב"ה נעשית מאליה:
5The Lord spoke to Moses saying: הוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
6Take the Levites from among the children of Israel and cleanse them. וקַח אֶת הַלְוִיִּם מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְטִהַרְתָּ אֹתָם:
Take the Levites: Take them with words: You are fortunate in that you have merited to become attendants of the Omnipresent. — [Torath Kohanim 8:165, Midrash Aggadah] קח את הלוים: קחם בדברים, אשריכם שתזכו להיות שמשים למקום:
7This is what you shall do to them so as to cleanse them: sprinkle them with cleansing water and pass a razor over all their flesh; then they shall wash their garments and cleanse themselves. זוְכֹה תַעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם לְטַהֲרָם הַזֵּה עֲלֵיהֶם מֵי חַטָּאת וְהֶעֱבִירוּ תַעַר עַל כָּל בְּשָׂרָם וְכִבְּסוּ בִגְדֵיהֶם וְהִטֶּהָרוּ:
Sprinkle them with cleansing water: from the ashes of the red cow, so as to cleanse them from contamination by those who were in contact with the dead. הזה עליהם מי חטאת: של אפר הפרה מפני טמאי מתים שבהם:
and pass a razor over all their flesh: I found in the writings of R. Moses Hadarshan (the preacher): Since they [the Levites] were submitted in atonement for the firstborn who had practiced idolatry [when they worshipped the golden calf], which is called sacrifices to the dead-and one afflicted with tzara’ath is considered dead-they required shaving like those afflicted with tzara’ath. והעבירו תער: מצאתי בדברי רבי משה הדרשן, לפי שנתנו כפרה על הבכורות שעבדו עבודה זרה והיא קרויה זבחי מתים, והמצורע קרוי מת, הזקיקם תגלחת כמצורעים:
8Then they shall take a young bull with its meal offering of fine flour mingled with oil. And you shall take a second young bull as a sin offering. חוְלָקְחוּ פַּר בֶּן בָּקָר וּמִנְחָתוֹ סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשָּׁמֶן וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת:
Then they shall take a young bull: That is a burnt offering, as it is written, “and designate…and one as a burnt offering” (verse 12); this is the communal offering [to atone] for idolatry. ולקחו פר בן בקר: והוא עולה, כמו שנאמר (פסוק יב) ועשה את האחד עולה, והוא קרבן צבור בעבודה זרה:
and a second young bull: What does it mean by “a second” ? It teaches that just as a burnt offering is not eaten, so is [this] sin-offering not eaten. There is a support for his [R. Moses’] comments in Torath Kohanim (Obligatory sacrifices 3:4) [which states that this sin-offering was burnt up]. I, however, believe that this was a temporary injunction [not to atone for idolatry], since they should have brought a goat as a sin-offering for idolatry, with the bull for a burnt offering. ופר שני: מה תלמוד לומר שני, לומר לך, מה עולה לא נאכלת, אף חטאת לא נאכלת. ובזו יש סמך לדבריו בתורת כהנים. ואומר אני שהוראת שעה היתה, ששעיר היה להם להביא לחטאת עבודה זרה עם פר העולה:
9You shall bring the Levites in front of the Tent of Meeting, and you shall gather the entire congregation of the children of Israel. טוְהִקְרַבְתָּ אֶת הַלְוִיִּם לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהִקְהַלְתָּ אֶת כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
And you shall gather the entire congregation: Since the Levites were submitted as an atonement offering instead of them, let them [the Israelites] come and stand with their offerings [namely the Levites] and rest their hands upon them. — [Midrash Aggadah] 11 והקהלת את כל עדת: לפי שהלוים נתנים קרבן כפרה תחתיהם, יבואו ויעמדו על קרבנם ויסמכו את ידיהם עליהם:
10You shall bring the Levites before the Lord, and the children of Israel shall lay their hands upon the Levites. יוְהִקְרַבְתָּ אֶת הַלְוִיִּם לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה וְסָמְכוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת יְדֵיהֶם עַל הַלְוִיִּם:
11Then Aaron shall lift up the Levites as a waving before the Lord on behalf of the children of Israel, that they may serve in the Lord's service. יאוְהֵנִיף אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַלְוִיִּם תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָיוּ לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת יְהֹוָה:
Then Aaron shall lift up the Levites as a waving: in the same way that the guilt-offering of one afflicted with tzara’ath requires waving [the animal] while it is alive. Three wavings are mentioned in this section: the first (verse 11) refers to the sons of Kohath, and for this reason it states with regard to them, “that they may serve in the Lord’s service,” since they were responsible for the work involving the most holy objects-the ark, the table, etc. The second (verse 13) refers to the sons of Gershon. Therefore, it is stated with regard to them,“a waving before the Lord” (verse 13), for even they were assigned holy work-the curtains and the clasps, which could be seen in the Holy of Holies. The third [waving] was for the sons of Merari (verse 14). - [Midrash Aggadah] 16 והניף אהרן את הלוים תנופה: כדרך שאשם מצורע טעון תנופה חי. שלש תנופות נאמרו בפרשה זו, הראשונה לבני קהת, לכך נאמר בם והיו לעבוד את עבודת ה', לפי שעבודת קדש הקדשים עליהם הארון והשלחן וגו'. השניה לבני גרשון, לכך נאמר בם תנופה לה', שאף עליהם היתה עבודת הקודש יריעות וקרסים הנראים בבית קדש הקדשים, והשלישית לבני מררי:
12The Levites shall lay their hands on the heads of the bulls, and make one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering to the Lord, to atone for the Levites. יבוְהַלְוִיִּם יִסְמְכוּ אֶת יְדֵיהֶם עַל רֹאשׁ הַפָּרִים וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶת הָאֶחָד עֹלָה לַיהֹוָה לְכַפֵּר עַל הַלְוִיִּם:
13You shall present the Levites before Aaron and his sons, and lift them as a waving before the Lord. יגוְהַעֲמַדְתָּ אֶת הַלְוִיִּם לִפְנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְלִפְנֵי בָנָיו וְהֵנַפְתָּ אֹתָם תְּנוּפָה לַיהֹוָה:
14Thus shall you set apart the Levites from the midst of the children of Israel, and the Levites shall become Mine. ידוְהִבְדַּלְתָּ אֶת הַלְוִיִּם מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 69 - 71
• Chapter 69
1. For the Conductor, on the shoshanim,1 by David.
2. Deliver me, O God, for the waters have reached until my soul!
3. I have sunk in muddy depths without foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the current sweeps me away.
4. I am wearied by my crying, my throat is parched; my eyes pined while waiting for my God.
5. More numerous than the hairs on my head are those who hate me without reason. Mighty are those who would cut me off, those who are my enemies without cause. What I have not stolen, I will then have to return.
6. O God, You know my folly, and my wrongs are not hidden from You.
7. Let not those who hope in You be shamed through me, O my Lord, God of Hosts; let not those who seek You be disgraced through me, O God of Israel,
8. because for Your sake I have borne humiliation, disgrace covers my face.
9. I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons,
10. for the envy of Your House has consumed me, and the humiliations of those who scorn You have fallen upon me.
11. And I wept while my soul fasted, and it was a humiliation to me.
12. I made sackcloth my garment, and became a byword for them.
13. Those who sit by the gate speak of me, and [of me] are the songs of drunkards.
14. May my prayer to You, Lord, be at a gracious time; God, in Your abounding kindness, answer me with Your true deliverance.
15. Rescue me from the mire, so that I not sink; let me be saved from my enemies and from deep waters.
16. Let not the current of water sweep me away, nor the deep swallow me; and let not the pit close its mouth over me.
17. Answer me, Lord, for Your kindness is good; according to Your abundant mercies, turn to me.
18. Do not hide Your face from Your servant, for I am in distress-hurry to answer me.
19. Draw near to my soul and liberate it; redeem me, so that my enemies [not feel triumphant].
20. You know my humiliation, my shame, and my disgrace; all my tormentors are before You.
21. Humiliation has broken my heart, and I have become ill. I longed for comfort, but there was none; for consolers, but I did not find.
22. They put gall into my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
23. Let their table become a trap before them, and [their] serenity, a snare.
24. Let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and let their loins continually falter.
25. Pour Your wrath upon them, and let the fierceness of Your anger overtake them.
26. Let their palace be desolate, let there be no dweller in their tents,
27. for they persecute the one whom You struck, and tell of the pain of Your wounded ones.
28. Add iniquity to their iniquity, and let them not enter into Your righteousness.
29. May they be erased from the Book of Life, and let them not be inscribed with the righteous.
30. But I am poor and in pain; let Your deliverance, O God, streng-then me.
31. I will praise the Name of God with song, I will extol Him with thanksgiving!
32. And it will please the Lord more than [the sacrifice of] a mature bull with horns and hooves.
33. The humble will see it and rejoice; you seekers of God, [see] and your hearts will come alive.
34. For the Lord listens to the needy, and He does not despise His prisoners.
35. Let heaven and earth praise Him, the seas and all that moves within them,
36. for God will deliver Zion and build the cities of Judah, and they will settle there and possess it;
37. and the seed of His servants will inherit it, and those who love His Name will dwell in it.
Chapter 70
David prays that his enemies be shamed and humiliated for their shaming him and reveling in his troubles. Then the righteous will rejoice, and chant songs and praises always.
1. For the Conductor, by David, to remind.
2. O God, [come] to rescue me; O Lord, hurry to my aid.
3. Let those who seek my life be shamed and disgraced; let those who wish me harm retreat and be humiliated.
4. Let those who say, "Aha! Aha!" be turned back in return for their shaming [me].
5. Let all who seek You rejoice and delight in You, and let those who love Your deliverance say always, "May God be exalted!”
6. But I am poor and needy; hurry to me, O God! You are my help and deliverer; O God, do not delay!
Chapter 71
In this awe-inspiring prayer, David speaks of his enemies' desire to kill him, declaring him deserving of death.
1. I have taken refuge in You, O Lord; I will never be shamed.
2. Rescue me and deliver me in Your righteousness; incline Your ear to me and save me.
3. Be for me a sheltering rock, to enter always. You have ordered my salvation, for You are my rock and my fortress.
4. O my God, rescue me from the hand of the wicked, from the palm of the scheming and violent.
5. For You are my hope, O my Lord, God, my security since my youth.
6. I have relied on You from the womb; You drew me from my mother's innards; my praise is of You always.
7. I became an example to the masses, yet You were my mighty refuge.
8. Let my mouth be filled with Your praise, all day long with Your glory.
9. Do not cast me aside in old age; do not forsake me when my strength fails;
10. for my enemies say of me, and those who watch my soul conspire together,
11. saying, "God has forsaken him. Give chase and catch him, for there is no rescuer.”
12. O God, do not distance Yourself from me; my God, hurry to my aid.
13. Let the adversaries of my soul be shamed and consumed; let those who seek my harm be enwrapped in disgrace and humiliation.
14. But as for me, I will always hope; I will add to all Your praises.
15. My mouth will tell of Your righteousness, all day long of Your deliverance, for I do not know their number.
16. I come with the strength of my Lord, God; I mention Your righteousness, Yours alone.
17. O God, You have taught me since my youth, and to this day I tell of Your wonders.
18. Even into old age and hoariness, O God, do not abandon me, until I tell of Your might to the generations, and of Your strength to all who are to come.
19. Your righteousness, O God, reaches the high heavens, for You do great things; O God, who is like You!
20. You, Who has shown me many and grievous troubles, You will revive me again; You will lift me again from the depths of the earth.
21. You will increase my greatness; You will turn and console me.
22. I too1 will thank You on the lyre for Your faithfulness, My God; I will sing to You on the harp, O Holy One of Israel.
23. My lips will rejoice when I sing to you, as well as my soul which You have redeemed.
24. My tongue will also utter Your righteousness all day, for those who seek my harm are shamed and disgraced.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 4• Lessons in Tanya
• Sunday, Sivan 13, 5775 · May 31, 2015
• Sunday, Sivan 13, 5775 · May 31, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 4
והנה כמו שמדה זו היא שבחו של הקב״ה לבדו
Now, this attribute of “HaGadol”, the attribute of Chesed that spreads forth His life-force into all the worlds so as to create them ex nihilo, is exclusively the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He,
שאין ביכולת שום נברא לברוא יש מאין ולהחיותו
for no created thing can create a being out of nothing and give it life.
Creatio ex nihilo is utterly beyond the realm of created beings. In the words of theMidrash:1 “Even if all mankind were to gather together they would not be able to create even the wing of a gnat and animate it.”
וגם מדה זו היא למעלה מהשכלת כל הברואים והשגתם
This attribute of benevolence, whereby G‑d creates ex nihilo, is also beyond the cognition of all creatures and their understanding,
שאין כח בשכל שום נברא להשכיל ולהשיג מדה זו ויכלתה לברוא יש מאין ולהחיותו
for it is not within the power of the intellect of any creature to comprehendthrough the faculty of Chochmah or understand through the faculty of Binah this attribute and its ability to create a being out of nothing and vivify it.
כי הבריאה יש מאין היא דבר שלמעלה משכל הנבראים, כי היא ממדת גדולתו של הקב״ה
For creatio ex nihilo is a matter which transcends the intellect of all creatures, inasmuch as it stems from the Divine attribute of Gedulah.
והקב״ה ומדותיו אחדות פשוט, כדאיתא בזהר הקדוש: דאיהו וגרמוהי חד
Now the Holy One, blessed be He, and His attributes are a perfect unity, as the holy Zohar states,2 “He and His causations i.e., His attributes are One,”
וכשם שאין ביכולת שום שכל נברא להשיג בוראו, כך אינו יכול להשיג מדותיו
and just as it is impossible for the mind of any creature to comprehend its Creator, so is it impossible for it to comprehend His attributes, for they are One with Him.
Until now we have been speaking of the specific attribute of Gedulah, or Chesed. The Alter Rebbe will now say that just as this attribute, which is responsible for creation, is unfathomable, so too with regard to the attribute of Gevurah, or “contraction”. The function of this attribute is to conceal from created beings the activating force within them, enabling them to exist as tangible entities, instead of being utterly nullified within their source.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
וכמו שאין ביכולת שום שכל נברא להשיג מדת גדולתו, שהיא היכולת לברוא יש מאין ולהחיותו, כדכתיב: עולם חסד יבנה
And just as it is impossible for the mind of any creature to apprehend His attribute of Gedulah, which is the ability to create a being out of nothing and give it life, as it is written,3 “The world is built by i.e., created through the attribute ofkindness,”
כך ממש אין ביכלתו להשיג מדת גבורתו של הקב״ה, שהיא מדת הצמצום ומניעת התפשטות החיות מגדולתו
exactly so is it impossible for it to apprehend the Divine attribute of Gevurah(“might,” “restraint”), which is the faculty of tzimtzum (“condensation,” “contraction,”),restraining the spreading forth of the life-force from His attribute of Gedulah,
מלירד ולהתגלות על הנבראים, להחיותם ולקיימם בגילוי, כי אם בהסתר פנים
preventing it from descending upon and manifesting itself to the creatures, and providing them with life and existence in a revealed manner, but rather with His Countenance concealed; i.e., the Divine activating force is at work within creation in a concealed manner.
Thus, it is the attribute of Gevurah and tzimtzum that enables the life-force to be concealed from the very creature it is creating.
שהחיות מסתתר בגוף הנברא, וכאילו גוף הנברא הוא דבר בפני עצמו
For the life-force conceals itself in the body of the created being, [making it appear] as if the body of the created being had independent existence,
ואינו התפשטות החיות והרוחניות כהתפשטות הזיו והאור מהשמש, אלא הוא דבר בפני עצמו
and [making it appear as though] the created being was not [merely] an extension of the life-force and the spirituality that creates it — just like the diffusion of the radiance and light of the sun — but an independently existing entity.
ואף שבאמת אינו דבר בפני עצמו, אלא כמו התפשטות האור מהשמש
Although, in reality, [the created being] has no independent existence, and is only like the diffusion of the light from the sun,
Just as the sun’s rays are merely a diffusion from the sun, so, too, all of creation is but a diffusion of G‑d’s activating force. Since, however, created beings are continuously found within their source (unlike the sun’s rays which do leave their source), their Divine source should cause them to be completely nullified within it, just as the light of the sun is in a state of complete nullification when found within the sun.
מכל מקום הן הן גבורותיו של הקב״ה, אשר כל יכול
nevertheless, this nullification is not felt by created beings even though they are but a diffusion of G‑d’s activating force, for this [capacity for self-concealment] is the very restraining power of the Holy One, blessed be He, Who is Omnipotent,
G‑d’s omnipotence expresses itself not only in His ability to bring forth light and bestow life, but also in His ability to conceal this same light and life from the beings He creates.
לצמצם החיות והרוחניות הנשפע מרוח פיו ולהסתירו
[and hence able] to condense the life-force and spirituality which issues from the “breath of His mouth” and to conceal it,
שלא יבטל גוף הנברא במציאות
so that the body of the created being shall not become nullified out of existence,and hence, notwithstanding the fact that the created being is but a diffusion of the rays of its source, it is thus enabled to perceive itself to be an independently existing entity.
וזה אין בשכל שום נברא להשיג מהות הצמצום וההסתר
It is beyond the scope of the mind of any creature to comprehend the essential nature of the tzimtzum and concealment,
-ושיהיה אף על פי כן גוף הנברא נברא מאין ליש
and [to comprehend] that nonetheless — the tzimtzum notwithstanding — the creature itself be created ex nihilo.
But since creation is an act of revelation rather than concealment, creatio ex nihilo should surely consist of the revelation of the Divine life-force within the created being. How, then, do both these things manifest themselves at one and the same time? On the one hand, the revelation of the Divine life-force; on the other, the condensation and concealment of this life-force, so that created beings will be unaware of it and consider themselves to be independently existing entities, and not utterly nullified within their source.
Indeed, the paradox of tzimtzum defies the comprehension of mere created beings, —
כמו שאין יכולת בשכל שום נברא להשיג מהות הבריאה מאין ליש
just as it is not within the capacity of the mind of any creature to comprehend the essential nature of the creation of being out of nothing.
Since the capacity for tzimtzum emanates from the Divine attribute of Gevurah, one might erroneously infer that it actually serves to create an independently existing entity; i.e., not only does the created being regard itself as such, but the Creator views it so as well.
For inasmuch as G‑d causes this concealment, and His attribute of Gevurah, the ability to conceal, is as real and as effective as His attribute of Gedulah, His ability to reveal, we may mistakenly liken creation to the sun’s rays insofar as they exist beyond the confines of the sun-globe.
Forestalling this possible error, the Alter Rebbe now explains that G‑d’s power to reveal and His power to conceal are truly one and the same. For revelation and concealment are respectively “light” (or) and its “vessels” (kelim), which are fused in complete and total unity. Moreover, in the state in which they exist in their supernal source, they are not only united: they are one and the same.
Now it is axiomatic that “No entity can conceal itself from itself.”
An illustration of this concept is found in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, where it is stated that covering one’s head with one’s hand does not serve as a valid head-covering, because head and hand are part of the selfsame individual; the hand cannot be said to conceal that which the head itself reveals.
The same is true here too: Since the power to reveal and the power to conceal are essentially one and the same power, which is a manifestation of G‑d’s limitless ability, it is impossible for tzimtzum to bring about a real concealment that will be so regarded when viewed from the Divine perspective. Tzimtzum only enables created beings to perceive themselves as independently existing entities; G‑d does not view them this way at all.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | See Talmud Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin, beginning of ch. 7; Bereishit Rabbah 39:14; Sifri, Va‘etchanan 6:5. |
| 2. | Introduction to Tikkunei Zohar (3b). |
| 3. | Tehillim 89:3. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Sunday, Sivan 13, 5775 · May 31, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 161
Counting the Omer
"And you shall count for yourselves from the day following the [first day of Passover]"—Leviticus 23:15.
We are commanded to count the omer. Each individual is commanded to count 49 days [from the day when the Omer Offering was brought in the Temple, on the second day of Passover], counting both the days and weeks that have elapsed.
Women are exempt from this mitzvah.
Counting the Omer
Counting the Omer
Positive Commandment 161
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 161st mitzvah is that we are commanded to count [the days beginning with the offering of] the Omer.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "After the [Passover] holiday you shall then count [seven complete weeks]."
You should keep in mind that just as the court [beis din] is required to count the years of the Jubilee cycle — each year and each Shemitah cycle, as we explained above3 — so too each one of us is required to count the days of the Omer, each day and each week.
[We know that one must count the days] from the verse4 "You shall then count [until5] 50 days." [We know that one must count the weeks] from the verse6 "Count seven weeks for yourself." Just as counting the years and Shemitah cycles is one single commandment, as we explained,7 so too counting the Omer is one single commandment [not two commandments, one for the days and another for the weeks]. All those who preceded me also count it as a single commandment, and did so correctly.8
Do not be misled to consider [the counting of days and weeks as] two commandments because of the statement of our Sages,9 "It is a mitzvah to count the days, and it is a mitzvah to count the weeks."10 [They use the expression, "It is a mitzvah"] because for any mitzvah that has many parts, it is a "mitzvah" [i.e. we are commanded] to do each part. If the Sages would have said, however, "Counting the days is a mitzvah, and counting the weeks is a mitzvah," they would be considered two separate commandments.11 This is clear to anyone who thinks carefully about the wording; because when it is said that there is an "obligation" to do a certain act, that expression doesn't necessarily indicate that it is a separate commandment.
The clear proof of this [i.e. that counting the days and weeks are not separate commandments] is that we count the weeks every single night by saying, "It is this number of weeks and this number of days." If [counting] the weeks would be a separate commandment, [the Sages] would have established them to be counted only on those nights which [complete] the weeks. They also would have established two blessings: "[Blessed are You G‑d, King of the universe,] Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to count the days of the Omer," and, "to count the weeks of the Omer." This is not the case; rather the mitzvah is to count the days and weeks of the Omer as was commanded.
Women are not obligated in this commandment.12
FOOTNOTES
1.P44, i.e. the 16th of Nissan.
2.Lev. 23:15.
3.P140.
4.Lev. 23:16.
5.But not including the 50th day, i.e. 49 days.
6.Deut. 16:9.
7.P140.
8.See the Seventh Introductory Principle, where the Rambam notes that other lists of the 613 commandments often erroneously count the components of a single commandment as separate commandments.
9.Rosh HaShanah 5a; Chagigah 17b; Menachos 66a.
10.Since they use the phrase, "It is a mitzvah to count the days, and it is a mitzvah to count the weeks" (rather than saying, "It is a mitzvah to count the days and the weeks"), one might think that each counts as a separate mitzvah from the count of 613. The Rambam explains that this phrase only clarifies our obligation to count both, but does not establish them as separate commandments.
11.This is in accordance with the Rambam's principle that wherever the Sages say clearly that the commandments count separately, even parts of a mitzvah are counted as separate commandments.
12.Since it is a time-bound commandment.
Negative Commandment 140
Eating the Flesh of an Animal that was Disqualified as a Sacrifice
"You shall not eat any abominable [food]"—Deuteronomy 14:3.
It is forbidden to eat of the flesh of an animal that was designated as a sacrifice and then became disqualified under certain conditions. Such as, if the animal was intentionally blemished so as to invalidate it as a sacrifice, or if after it was slaughtered (in the Temple) it became disqualified for offering on the altar.
Eating the Flesh of an Animal that was Disqualified as a Sacrifice
Eating the Flesh of an Animal that was Disqualified as a Sacrifice
Negative Commandment 140
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 140th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating those invalid sacrifices which may not be eaten. This is when there is a blemish which was inflicted intentionally, as explained in tractate Bechoros,1 or when, after it was slaughtered, the sacrifice became invalid in a way that prohibits its consumption.
The source of this commandment is the verse,2 "Do not eat any abomination."
The Sifri says, "The verse, 'Do not eat any abomination,' refers to invalid sacrifices." It also says there, "R. Eliezer ben Yaakov says, 'What is the source in Scripture that one who blemishes the ear of a firstborn animal3 and eats from it transgresses a prohibition? It is the verse, 'Do not eat any abomination.'"
One who eats [from such a sacrifice] is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in tractate Bechoros.
FOOTNOTES
1.34a ff.
2.Deut. 14:3.
3.P79.
Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Two
Halacha 1
Everyone is obligated to hear the sounding of the shofar: priests, levites, Israelites, converts, and freed slaves. However, women, slaves, and minors are free of the obligation.
A person who is half slave and half free, a tumtum, and an androgynous are obligated [to hear shofar].
Commentary Halacha
Everyone is obligated to hear - Though the Rambam's statements are based on Rosh Hashanah 29a, he makes a slight emendation, adding the expression "to hear," in order to emphasize that the mitzvah is hearing, not blowing, the shofar.
the sounding of the shofar: priests, levites, Israelites, converts - Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:17 states:
All the gentiles - when they convert and accept all the mitzvot of the Torah - ...are considered as Jews in every regard.
and freed slaves. - Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:19 states: "Freed slaves are the same as converts."
However, women, - Women are freed from the obligation to perform mitzvot that are linked to a specific time. Nevertheless, based on Rosh Hashanah 33a, the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 589:6 states that we are allowed to blow the shofar for them.
The Shulchan Aruch continues that the women should not recite a blessing before hearing the shofar. Those statements are based on the Rambam,Hilchot Tzitzit 3:9 and Chapter 6, Halachah 13 below. The rationale is that the blessing recited before a commandment praises God "for commanding us to..." There is no commandment, either from the Torah or the Sages, requiring women to hear the blowing of the shofar. Hence, they should not recite this blessing.
The Ashkenazic concept differs. The Ramah (based on Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah, ibid.) maintains that women may recite a blessing. Since our Sages explained that the women are granted reward for fulfilling these mitzvot, it is obvious that the commandment is relevant to them and they may say "who commanded us."
slaves - i.e., gentile slaves (עבדים כנעניים), who are required to fulfill only the mitzvot for which women are obligated. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11, 14:9.) A Jew sold as a slave (עבד עברי) is required to fulfill all the mitzvot.
and minors are free of obligation - Until a person reaches majority, he is not obligated to perform any of the mitzvot. Nevertheless, when a child reaches an age when he can appreciate the mitzvah, his father is obligated to train him to hear shofar as part of his education. (See Hilchot Nachalot 11:9.)
A person who is half slave and half free - In Hilchot Avadim 7:4, the Rambam explains that a slave can reach this status in one of three ways:
a) his owner took money with the intent of freeing half of the slave;b) his master freed half the slave and sold or gave the other half to a colleague;c) a slave belonged to two masters; one freed him and one did not.
Such a slave is considered as having two different natures included in the same person. Thus, the aspect of him which is a free man is obligated to hear the shofar, and the aspect which is a slave is not. See also Halachah 3.
a tumtum - an expression meaning "closed one" in Hebrew. It refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by a layer of skin. Hence, this person's gender cannot be determined without this skin's removal. Thus, there is a doubt whether this person is male or female. However, should this layer of skin be removed and the person's gender be discovered, there is no difference between him and an ordinary person of the same gender. (See Hilchot Ishut2:25.)
and an androgynous - a term borrowed from the Greek, in which andromeans "man," and gynous "woman." It refers to person who has both male and female sexual organs. The Sages were unsure whether to consider such a person a male or a female. (See Hilchot Ishut 2:24 and also the commentary on the following halachah.)
are obligated [to hear shofar] - In the latter two cases, the obligation results from the doubt which exists whether these individuals are male (and hence obligated to hear shofar) or not.
Halacha 2
Whoever is not [himself] obligated regarding this matter cannot facilitate the performance of the mitzvah for one who is obligated. Thus, if a woman or a minor blows the shofar, one who hears does not fulfill his obligation.
An androgynous can facilitate the performance of the mitzvah for one of his kind, but not for one who is not of his kind. A tumtum cannot facilitate the performance of the mitzvah [for anyone], whether of his kind or not of his kind, for if [the layer of skin covering] the tumtum's [genitalia] is cut open, it is possible that it will be discovered that the tumtum is a male, but it is possible that it will be discovered that the tumtum is a female.
Commentary Halacha
Whoever is not [himself] obligated regarding this matter - i.e., those mentioned in the previous halachah, a שוטה (a mentally unstable individual) and a חרש (a deaf person). In contrast, a blind person is obligated to hear the shofar.
cannot facilitate the performance of the mitzvah - by blowing the shofar
for one who is obligated. - However, a male who has already fulfilled his obligation to hear the shofar can blow the shofar for a colleague (Rabbenu Manoach).
Thus, if a woman or a minor blows the shofar, one who hears does not fulfill his obligation - Nevertheless, they are allowed to blow the shofar for themselves. (See Halachah 7 and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 589:6.)
An androgynous can facilitate the performance of the mitzvah for one of his kind, - i.e., another androgynous
but not for one who is not of his kind - a normal adult male or a tumtum.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statement, noting that there is a difference of opinion among the Sages (Yevamot 83a) whether an androgynousis considered as half male and half female, or as a unique entity in his own right. The latter opinion is compatible with the Rambam's decision. However, according to the former opinion, it appears that an androgynous would resemble a person who is half slave and half free. As the following halachah states, such a person cannot blow the shofar even for himself, let alone for others.
The Maggid Mishneh defends the Rambam's decision, explaining that the Rambam does not consider the difference of opinion in Yevamot as unresolved. Rather, he, as does Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (the Rif), maintains that the halachah follows the latter opinion.
Furthermore, the Maggid Mishneh explains that even according to the former opinion, it is possible to differentiate between an androgynous and one who is half slave and half free, the former condition being brought about by God; the latter, by man.
A tumtum cannot facilitate the performance of the mitzvah [for anyone], whether of his kind or not of his kind, for - in his case, the doubt is not about the general category, but an individual question about the particulartumtum's nature
if [the layer of skin covering] the tumtum's [genitalia] is cut open, it is possible that it will be discovered that the tumtum is a male - and theteki'ot he blows are acceptable.
but it is possible that it will be discovered that the tumtum is a female -and hence, unable to blow the shofar for a male.
Halacha 3
A person who is half slave and half free cannot even facilitate the performance of the mitzvah for himself, because the aspect of himself which is a slave cannot facilitate the performance of the mitzvah for the aspect of himself which is free.
How should he fulfill his obligation? He should hear a free man blow the shofar.
Commentary Halacha
A person who is half slave and half free cannot even facilitate the performance of the mitzvah - by blowing the shofar
for himself - let alone for others,
because the aspect of himself which is a slave cannot facilitate the performance of the mitzvah for the aspect of himself which is free. - Every activity performed by such an individual is considered as a combined effort carried out by both aspects of his being. The aspect of his being which is a free man is obligated to hear shofar blown by one who is obligated to perform the mitzvah. Hence, the teki'ot he blows himself include the influence of his slave side, and are not sufficient to facilitate his performance of the mitzvah (Rosh Hashanah 29a).
How should he fulfill his obligation? He should hear a free man blow the shofar. - One might ask: Since his hearing the shofar also involves his slave side, how is that hearing sufficient to allow him to fulfill his obligation?
The Tzaphnat Paneach explains that there is a difference between hearing the shofar and blowing it. Hearing the shofar is a complete act in and of itself. Hence, since the free side of the person has heard the shofar, he is considered to have performed the mitzvah. In contrast, the blowing of the shofar is merely the preparation for the fulfillment of the mitzvah. Hence, the free side of the person cannot fulfill his obligation by hearing tekiot which were produced by a person whose entire being was not obligated to perform the mitzvah.
Based on this explanation, we can understand how such a person fulfills the mitzvah of lulav, for there as well, the act of taking the lulav constitutes rather than prepares for, the fulfilment of the mitzvah.
Halacha 4
A person who occupies himself with blowing the shofar in order to learn does not fulfill his obligation. Similarly, one who hears the shofar from a person who blows it casually does not fulfill his obligation.
If the person hearing had the intention of fulfilling his obligation, but the person blowing did not have the intention of facilitating the latter's performance of the mitzvah, or the person blowing had the intention of facilitating his colleague's performance of the mitzvah, but the person hearing did not have the intention of fulfilling his obligation, [the person hearing] did not fulfill his obligation. Rather, both the person hearing and the one allowing him to hear must have the [proper] intention.
Commentary Halacha
A person who occupies himself with blowing the shofar in order to learn -without the intention of fulfilling the mitzvah of hearing the shofar
does not fulfill his obligation. Similarly, one who hears the shofar - even though he desires to fulfill the mitzvah
from a person who blows it casually - without the intention of facilitating his colleague's performance of the mitzvah
does not fulfill his obligation. - for he has heard an unacceptable shofar blast (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 589:5).
These laws relate to a question of a much larger scope: Must a person who performs a mitzvah have the intention of doing so or not? Rosh Hashanah 32b, which is the source for these decisions, maintains that such intention is necessary. However, other Talmudic sources imply that there is no need for such intention. Whenever a person performs the deed of a mitzvah, he fulfills his obligation, regardless of his intention.
On the surface, the Rambam's own decisions regarding this question appear paradoxical. Hilchot Chametz U'matzah 6:3 states:
A person who eats matzah without the intention [of fulfilling the mitzvah] - e.g., if gentiles or thieves force him to eat - fulfills his obligation.
There, it appears that the Rambam does not require a person to have the intention to fulfill a mitzvah, for in this instance the only reason the person ate the matzah was the coercion of the gentiles.
The commentaries attempt to resolve the issue. The Maggid Mishneh states that to fulfill his obligation, the person being forced to eat the matzah must know that today is Pesach, that he is obligated to eat matzah, and that it is matzah which he is eating. Rabbenu Nissim, the Kessef Mishneh, and Rabbenu Manoach follow a different line of reasoning. They differentiate between eating matzah and hearing a shofar. In the former case, a person's body benefits from the activity regardless of his intention. To support this thesis, they draw a parallel to the following passage.
Generally, the Torah frees a person from liability if he commits a transgression while being only מתעסק (performing a deed without any thought). However, a person who eats forbidden foods or engages in forbidden sexual relations in this manner is liable, because he derived pleasure from his activities (Keritot19b).
Similarly, since the person derived physical satisfaction from eating the matzah, even though he was forced to do so, the action is attributed to him. In contrast, since his body did not benefit from hearing the shofar, he does not fulfill his obligation until he hears the shofar blown in the proper manner.
As regards halachah l'ma'aseh, in Orach Chayim 589:8, the Shulchan Aruchquotes the Rambam's decision concerning blowing the shofar, stating that a מתעסק does not fulfill the mitzvah. Similar decisions are rendered concerningKri'at Shema (Orach Chayim 60) and lulav and etrog (Orach Chayim 651).
Concerning matzah, the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 475:4 quotes theMaggid Mishneh's opinion, and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav adds the explanation mentioned in the name of the Kessef Mishneh. (Even so, the Pri Chadash and other commentaries do not accept this decision.)
If the person hearing had the intention of fulfilling his obligation, but the person blowing did not have the intention of facilitating the latter's performance of the mitzvah - Rosh Hashanah 28b quotes Rabbi Zeira as instructing Shamaya: "Have me in mind and blow for me."
or the person blowing had the intention of facilitating his colleague's performance of the mitzvah, but the person hearing did not have the intention of fulfilling his obligation, [the person hearing] did not fulfill his obligation. - The Magen Avraham (189:4) states that if a person comes to the synagogue on Rosh Hashanah with the intention to fulfill his obligation to hear the shofar, that intention is sufficient. Even if he has no specific intention while the shofar is being blown, he fulfills his obligation.
Rather, both the person hearing and the one allowing him to hear - i.e., the person blowing the shofar
must have the [proper] intention.
Halacha 5
If a person blew the shofar with the intention of enabling all those hearing his blowing to perform the mitzvah, and a listener heard while having the intention to fulfill his obligation - even though the person blowing did not have a specific intention that this individual would hear his blowing, nor did he know about him - the listener has fulfilled his obligation, because the blower had in mind all those who heard him.
Accordingly, if a person was traveling on a journey or was sitting in his home and heard the teki'ot from the person leading the congregation, he has fulfilled his obligation if he had that intention, since the leader of the congregation had the intention of enabling the many to fulfill their obligation.
Commentary Halacha
If a person blew the shofar with the intention of enabling all those hearing his blowing to perform the mitzvah - The blower need not have each individual in mind. However, as the previous halachah states, he must have the intention that his blowing enable people to fulfill their obligation to hear shofar. If he blows without that intention, their listening is of no consequence.
and a listener heard while having the intention to fulfill his obligation -However, as stated in the previous halachah, if the listener lacks that intention, he does not fulfill his obligation.
even though the person blowing did not have a specific intention that this individual would hear his blowing, nor did he know about him - the listener has fulfilled his obligation, because the blower had in mind all those who heard him. - Rosh Hashanah 29a derives this principle by contrasting the law mentioned in the previous halachah with the law mentioned in this halachah's latter clause.
Accordingly, if a person was traveling on a journey - The Magen Avraham(589:5) explains that a person who continues traveling must be sure that he has the intention of fulfilling his obligation. However, if he stops to hear the shofar, that itself is sufficient proof that he desires to fulfill the mitzvah.
or was sitting in his home and heard the teki'ot from the person leading the congregation, he has fulfilled his obligation if he had that intention, since the leader of the congregation had the intention of enabling the many to fulfill their obligation. - In his commentary on the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 3:5), the Rambam writes: "the [function of] leader of the congregation was instituted in that capacity only in order to enable the many to fulfill their obligation."
Halacha 6
If the festival of Rosh Hashanah falls on the Sabbath, the shofar is not sounded in every place. [This law was enacted] even though blowing [the shofar] was forbidden only as sh'vut.
It would be appropriate for [the shofar] to be sounded, for a positive commandment of the Torah should supersede sh'vut instituted by the Sages. If so, why is the shofar not sounded?
Because of a decree [of the Sages] lest a person take it in his hands and carry it to a colleague so that the latter can blow for him, and [in the process,] carry it four cubits in the public domain or transfer it from one domain to another, and thus violate a prohibition punishable by being stoned to death. [This is necessary because] all are obligated in the mitzvah of blowing the shofar, but not all are skilled in it.
Commentary Halacha
If the festival of Rosh Hashanah falls on the Sabbath - According to the fixed calendar we use, Rosh Hashanah never falls on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday (Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 7:1). Thus, the second day of Rosh Hashanah will never fall on the Sabbath. However, it is not at all infrequent for the first day of Rosh Hashanah to fall on the Sabbath.
the shofar is not sounded in every place. - However, it is sounded in certain places, as explained in Halachot 8 and 9. There is an allusion to this in the Torah itself. Though Numbers 10:10 describes Rosh Hashanah as a day of "the sounding of the shofar," Leviticus 23:24 refers to it as a day of "the remembrance of the sounding [of the shofar" - i.e., this refers to Rosh Hashanah which falls on the Sabbath, when the shofar is not actually sounded (Rashi, Rosh Hashanah 32a).
[This law was enacted] even though blowing [the shofar] was forbidden only as sh'vut. - See the commentary on Chapter 1, Halachah 4 for a definition of the term sh'vut. Rosh Hashanah 29b equates the blowing of the shofar with removing bread from the oven. It appears from Shabbat 117b that the removal of bread from the oven was forbidden only because it is "a weekday act," not in the spirit of the Sabbath. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav588:4.)
It would be appropriate for [the shofar] to be sounded, for a positive commandment of the Torah should supersede sh'vut instituted by the Sages. - A question can be raised, based on the Rambam's statements in Chapter 1, Halachah 4:
Regarding a shofar to be used on Rosh Hashanah: It is forbidden to violate the festival's laws to obtain it. This applies even when the forbidden practice is in the category of sh'vut.
The Lechem Mishneh offers a number of resolutions to this difficulty. Among them:
a) Had the proper attention been paid to the matter before Rosh Hashanah, thesh'vut mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4 with regard to obtaining the shofar would not exist. In contrast, the sh'vut involved in blowing the shofar cannot be avoided.
b) The sh'vut mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4 must be violated before the mitzvah is performed. Hence, there is no way the prohibition can be relaxed in the mere expectation that a mitzvah will be performed. In contrast, in this instance, the performance of the mitzvah and the sh'vut occur concurrently.
However, the order of the halachot here suggests a different explanation. As the Rambam states in the following halachah, certain leniencies are taken regarding the sh'vut of sounding the shofar on Rosh Hashanah (since, as mentioned above, it is forbidden only because it is a "weekday act"). In contrast, the activities mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4 are of a more severe nature, and hence no leniency may be taken in their regard.
If so, why is the shofar not sounded? Because of a decree [of the Sages] lest a person take it in his hands and carry it to a colleague so that the latter can blow for him - The Rambam alters the expression used by Rosh Hashanah 29b, which states: "perhaps he will take it to a skilled person so that the latter will teach him." Perhaps, the emendation was made because it is more likely that a person would desire that his colleague blow for him than begin to teach him on Rosh Hashanah itself.
and [in the process,] carry it four cubits in the public domain or transfer it from one domain to another - Hilchot Shabbat 12:8 equates the two and explains the nature of this melachah. It must be noted that the phrase "transfer it from one domain..." is the Rambam's addition and does not appear in Rosh Hashanah, ibid. (Indeed, Tosafot, Megillah 4b explains that there is no suspicion that the latter prohibition will be violated.)
and thus violate a prohibition punishable by being stoned to death - as is the commission of all Shabbat melachot (Hilchot Shabbat 1:1-2.)
[This is necessary because] all are obligated in the mitzvah of blowing the shofar, but not all are skilled in it. - A similar expression is also found inHilchot Megillah 1:13, explaining why the Megillah is never read on the Sabbath. It must be noted that while the Temple was standing, a similar decree was not enacted on the first day of Sukkot which fell on the Sabbath, even though it is possible that a person would carry his lulav in a forbidden manner. Note our commentary on Chapter 7, Halachot 13 and 14, which explains the difference between the two festivals.
The fact that a Rabbinic decree can cause a mitzvah to be nullified - particularly as significant a mitzvah as the blowing of the shofar - has been the subject of much discussion by the Rabbis. In his commentary on the tractate of Sukkah, Rabbenu Nissim states that this decree was instituted only because in most Jewish communities, the people were not aware of the date the Rabbis had established for Rosh Hashanah. Hence, since the people could not be sure that they were in fact performing a mitzvah, the Rabbinic decree had the power to negate its performance. Even in the places where they were conscious of the proper date, they would not blow the shofar in such a year, so that great divisions in Torah practice would not be created among the Jewish people.
In Likkutei Torah, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi explains the matter from a mystical perspective. He writes that the Sabbath itself generates spiritual influences which resemble those produced by the blowing of the shofar. Thus, there is no necessity to blow the shofar, and the Sages were therefore willing to allow such a decree to negate its observance.
Halacha 7
Children who have not reached an age at which they can be educated: We need not prevent them from blowing [the shofar] on a Sabbath which is not the festival of Rosh Hashanah, so that they will learn [to blow].
An adult is permitted to be involved in the instruction [of children in the blowing of shofar] on the festival. [This applies] concerning both children who have reached an age at which they can be educated and those who have not reached that age, for blowing [the shofar] is prohibited only as sh'vut.
Commentary Halacha
Children who have not reached an age at which they can be educated -Rabbenu Manoach explains that this refers to children of six or seven.
We need not prevent them from blowing [the shofar] on a Sabbath - even though blowing the shofar on the Sabbath is prohibited for an adult
which is not the festival of Rosh Hashanah, so that they will learn [to blow]. - This halachah is not directly related to the laws of Rosh Hashanah, but rather to the laws of the Sabbath. If a child has not reached the age where he can be educated concerning the mitzvot, his parents are not required to prevent him from violating any of the mitzvot (Yevamot 114a).
The law stated here represents a reversal of the Rambam's understanding ofRosh Hashanah 33a from that in his commentary on the Mishnah. Indeed, his change in interpretation caused the Ra'avad to object to this halachah. It is interesting to note that the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 4:9) and the primary interpretation mentioned in the Halachot of Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (the Rif) - sources which the Rambam relies upon heavily - follow the Rambam's initial approach.
An adult is permitted to be involved in the instruction [of children - He may tell them to blow the shofar and teach them how to blow (Maggid Mishneh).
in the blowing of shofar] on the festival. - even though the blowing of the shofar is prohibited on the Sabbath.
[This applies] concerning both children who have reached an age at which they can be educated and those who have not reached that age, for blowing [the shofar] is prohibited only as sh'vut. - Since the prohibition against blowing the shofar is not severe, a number of leniencies are taken in this regard. The shofar is sounded for women (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim589:6), and similarly, additional blasts are sounded to "upset Satan" (Ramah,Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 596:1). However, it is forbidden for an adult to sound the shofar on Rosh Hashanah unnecessarily. Nevertheless, even a child who has reached the age when he is educated concerning the mitzvot need not follow this stringency (Ramah, ibid.).
Halacha 8
When [the Sages] decreed not to sound [the shofar] on the Sabbath, they applied that decree only to places which lacked a court. However, while the Temple was standing and the Supreme Court was seated in Jerusalem, everyone would sound the shofar in Jerusalem throughout the entire period the court held its sessions there.
[This did not apply] to the people of Jerusalem alone. Rather, every city that was within the outer limits of Jerusalem and [whose inhabitants] could:
see Jerusalem - i.e., excluding those within a wadi;hear the shofar blown in Jerusalem - i.e., excluding those on the mountaintops; andtravel to Jerusalem - i.e., excluding those separated by a wadi from the city
the people of these cities would blow the shofar on the Sabbath as in Jerusalem. However, in the other cities of Israel, they would not sound [the shofar on the Sabbath].
Commentary Halacha
When [the Sages] decreed not to sound [the shofar] on the Sabbath, they applied that decree only to places which lacked a court. - The Sages forbade sounding the shofar on the Sabbath lest someone carry it in a forbidden manner, as explained in the previous halachah. However, that decree was not applied to places where the Sanhedrin, Israel's supreme court, held its sessions. The influence of the court would be felt throughout the entire city and its surroundings. Hence, the people would be more scrupulous in their observance of the mitzvot. (See the Rambam's commentary on the MishnahRosh Hashanah 4:1 and the following halachah.)
However, while the Temple was standing and the Supreme Court was seated in Jerusalem - After the Temple was constructed, the Sanhedrin held its sessions in the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the Temple. Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, the Sanhedrin was forced to move from that place to other locations in Jerusalem. (See Hilchot Sanhedrin 14:12-13.)
everyone - i.e., not only was the shofar sounded at the seat of the Sanhedrin and on the Temple mount, but throughout the city; even private individuals were allowed to blow the shofar (Rosh Hashanah 30a).
would sound the shofar in Jerusalem throughout the entire period the court held its sessions there. - The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statements. He disagrees with the Rambam on two points:
a) while the Temple was standing, the Rambam maintains that the shofar was sounded throughout Jerusalem, while the Ra'avad maintains that it was sounded in the Temple alone.
b) after the Temple's destruction, the Rambam maintains that the shofar was not sounded in Jerusalem, while the Ra'avad argues that it was.
The difference between the two depends on the Rambam's interpretation of the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 4:1):
When the festival of Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath, they would sound the shofar in the Mikdash, but not in the country at large.
In his commentary on that Mishnah, the Rambam writes: "We have already explained to you several times (see Ma'aser Sheni 2:4, Shekalim 1:3, Sukkah3:10) that the term mikdash refers to the entire city of Jerusalem." Thus, he maintains that if Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath while the Temple was standing, the shofar would be sounded throughout the city. After the destruction of the Temple, this practice was discontinued.
[This did not apply] to the people of Jerusalem alone. - The influence of the Sanhedrin could be felt even on the outskirts of the city.
Rather, every city that was within the outer limits - This refers to the תחום שבת - 2000 cubits from the outermost house from each point on the city's circumference. (See Hilchot Shabbat, Chapters 27 and 28.)
of Jerusalem - There were a number of smaller villages surrounding Jerusalem which met all the requirements specified below.
and [whose inhabitants] could see Jerusalem - i.e., excluding those within a wadi - below the mountains, who could not see Jerusalem.
hear the shofar blown in Jerusalem - i.e., excluding those on the mountaintops - Since they were situated on the mountaintops, they could see the city even from afar. However, the sound would not carry that far.
and travel to Jerusalem - i.e., excluding those separated by a wadi - which they would be unable to cross
from the city - The exclusions mentioned by the Rambam are quoted fromRosh Hashanah, ibid., based on the text of the Mishnah. The Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 4:1) interprets the Mishnah slightly differently.
the people of these cities would blow the shofar on the Sabbath as in Jerusalem. However, in the other cities of Israel - even where the courts held session
they would not sound [the shofar on the Sabbath].
Halacha 9
At present, while the Temple is destroyed, wherever a court whose judges received semichah in Eretz Yisrael permanently holds sessions, the shofar is sounded on the Sabbath. Furthermore, the shofar is sounded on the Sabbath only in a court that has sanctified the new moon. However, the shofar will not be sounded in other courts, even though their judges have received semichah. Also, the shofar is sounded only in the presence of a high court.
It may be sounded during the entire time they are in session. Even after they have begun preparing to rise - as long as they have not risen - the shofar may be sounded before them. However, outside the court, the shofar may not be sounded.
Why is the shofar allowed to be sounded in the court? Because the court is scrupulous [in the observance of the mitzvot] and, in its presence, those who blow the shofar will not carry the shofar in the public domain, for the court will warn the people and inform them.
Commentary Halacha
At present, while the Temple is destroyed, wherever a court whose judges received semichah - Semichah is the term used to refer to the permission granted to a judge to act in that capacity. Only a judge who himself possesses semichah can convey this distinction to a colleague. Moses gave Joshua and the seventy elders semichah, and they began a chain that stretched over many generations, ending several hundred years after the destruction of the Temple. (See Hilchot Sanhedrin 4:1-2.)
in Eretz Yisrael - semichah could be conveyed only in Eretz Yisrael (ibid.:6).
permanently holds sessions - i.e., if, on Rosh Hashanah, the court held special sessions in a city where it was not normally located, the shofar would not be sounded. (See the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 4:1.)
the shofar is sounded on the Sabbath. - The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 29b) states:
When the Temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai ordained that the shofar be sounded in every place where a court holds sessions.
The Talmud elaborates:
[After the destruction of the Temple,] Rosh Hashanah once fell on the Sabbath, and all the cities gathered together [in Yavneh]. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai asked the family of Beteira: "Shall we blow?""Let us consider the matter," they replied to him."Let us blow, and then consider the matter after having blown," he answered them."Let us consider the matter," they replied again.He told them, "The sounding of a horn has already been heard in Yavneh. Once a deed has been performed, no further discussion is entertained."
Furthermore, the shofar is sounded on the Sabbath only in a court that has sanctified the new moon. - Originally, the months were sanctified by the courts after hearing the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon. (SeeHilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, Chapters 1 and 2.)
However, the shofar will not be sounded in other courts, even though their judges have received semichah. - The Rambam's statements represent a middle road in a difference of opinion between the Rabbinical giants upon whom our understanding of the Talmud is based. Rashi (Rosh Hashanah 29a) states that the shofar was sounded on the Sabbath only in the presence of the Supreme Sanhedrin. Thus, this law applied only in Yavneh and in the few other cities where the Sanhedrin subsequently held its session.
Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (the Rif) quotes this law in his Halachot even though he quotes only those laws which are applicable in his age. From this it appears that he maintains that the shofar may be sounded in the presence of any court of stature on the Sabbath, even if its judges do not possess semichah. Indeed, the Ramban and Rabbenu Nissim write that Rav Yitzchak Alfasi would have the shofar sounded in his own court when Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath. Similarly, the text Haezer records that the author saw a Sage from Damascus who stated that he saw the shofar blown on Rosh Hashanah which fell on a Sabbath.
(The Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid., does not mention the need for the judges to possess semichah. Thus, it is possible that he also originally subscribed to this view.)
In the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam's position lies in between these views. On one hand, unlike Rav Yitzchak Alfasi, he requires that the judges possesssemichah and be of sufficient stature to have sanctified the new moon (thus, excluding any contemporary courts). Nevertheless, unlike Rashi, he allows the shofar to be sounded in the presence of any court that has those qualifications, and not the Supreme Sanhedrin alone.
Also, the shofar is sounded only in the presence of a high court - Our translation of בית דין גדול is based on the Kessef Mishneh, who explains that in this context the term refers to an established court of judges with semichah, and not the Supreme Sanhedrin, as is sometimes the case. Indeed, authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah from Yemen omit the word גדול from the above expression.
It may be sounded during the entire time they are in session. - but only while they are in session. If they have risen, the shofar can no longer be sounded. However...
Even after they - the judges
have begun preparing to rise - as long as they have not risen - the shofar may be sounded before them - Though the Sages (Rosh Hashanah 30a) raised a question on this matter and left it unanswered, the Rambam allows the shofar to be sounded under such circumstances. Since the question concerns a Rabbinic decree, the more lenient approach is taken (Maggid Mishneh).
However, outside the court, the shofar may not be sounded. - In this aspect, there was a difference between the sounding of the shofar on the Sabbath between Jerusalem and Yavneh. In Jerusalem, the influence of the Temple and the court was felt so strongly that even outside the presence of the court, the shofar could be sounded. In contrast, in Yavneh and other cities where courts were located, the shofar was sounded only in the presence of a court (Rosh Hashanah, ibid.).
Why is the shofar allowed to be sounded in the court? Because the court is scrupulous [in the observance of the mitzvot] and, in its presence, those who blow the shofar will not carry the shofar in the public domain, for the court will warn the people and inform them. - The S'dei Chemedderives a general principle from this law. Hilchot Shabbat 21:27 states that all Sabbath and festival prohibitions that were categorized as sh'vut were suspended in the Temple, because the priests were scrupulous in their observance of the mitzvot and there was no danger that any infringement of Torah law would occur. Similarly, the above text continues, all decrees of this nature may be suspended in the presence of a high court, because the court will ensure that the Torah's laws will be kept.
This logic runs contrary to a statement of Rabbenu Nissim, who writes that although Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted the blowing of the shofar on the Sabbath in the presence of a court, he was not that lenient regarding the taking of the lulav and etrog. Thus, we see that the leniency mentioned here applies to the shofar alone and not to other cases.
Halacha 10
In the present age, when we celebrate Rosh Hashanah in the exile for two days, the shofar is sounded on the second day just as it is sounded on the first.
If the first day falls on the Sabbath, those who were not in the presence of a court fit to blow the shofar on the Sabbath may blow the shofar on the second day alone.
Commentary Halacha
In the present age, when we celebrate Rosh Hashanah in the exile for two days - There is a slight imprecision with the Rambam's statements. Rosh Hashanah was celebrated for two days throughout almost the totality of Eretz Yisrael even while the Temple was standing. It was impossible to notify the people in most of the land (for the messengers were not allowed to travel more than two thousand cubits beyond Jerusalem) whether or not the court had substantiated the testimony of the witnesses on the day when Rosh Hashanah was expected to fall. (See Beitzah 4b-5a; Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 5:7-8.)
the shofar is sounded on the second day just as it is sounded on the first. - This refers to the actual sounding of the shofar. According to Sephardic custom, there is a difference concerning the recitation of the blessingshehecheyanu (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 499:3).
If the first day - As mentioned above, according to the fixed calendar which we employ at present, it is impossible for the second day of Rosh Hashanah to fall on the Sabbath.
falls on the Sabbath, those who were not in the presence of a court fit to blow the shofar on the Sabbath - The Kessef Mishneh notes that there is some difficulty correlating this statement with that of the previous halachah, which implies that, at present, no courts are of sufficient stature to blow the shofar on the Sabbath. Among the possible resolutions to this difficulty are:
a) as the Rambam writes in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 5:3, until the age of Abbaye and Ravvah, there were courts of judges who sanctified the new month based on the testimony of witnesses. Thus, the Rambam could be referring to such a court.
b) In Hilchot Sanhedrin 4:11, the Rambam discusses the possibility of the renewal of the practice of semichah. He could be referring to such an eventuality in the present instance.
may blow the shofar on the second day alone. - This is our practice at present.
Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
On the first day of Tishrei,1 for the additional offering of the day,2 we offer a bull, a ram, seven sheep, all as burnt-offerings and a goat as a sin-offering.3This is the additional offering of the day aside from the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh that is offered on every Rosh Chodesh.4 Therefore [if that date] fell on the Sabbath, three additional offerings were brought: the additional offering of the Sabbath, the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh, and the additional offering of that date.
Halacha 2
What is the order in which they were offered? First they would offer the additional offering of the Sabbath, then the additional offering of the new month, and then the additional offering of the festival.5 [The rationale is that any offering brought] more frequently than another takes precedence over the other one.6 Similarly, if [an offering] is on a higher level of holiness than another one, it takes precedence over it.7If one has a choice of [an offering that] is brought more frequently and one which is on a higher level of holiness, one may award precedence to whichever one desires.8
Halacha 3
If one transgressed and slaughtered [an animal for an offering that was] not [brought] more frequently or one which was on a lower level of holiness first, one should offer it [on the altar]9 and then slaughter the one [brought] more frequently or one which was on a higher level of holiness.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
The blood of a sin-offering is given precedence12 over the blood of a burnt-offering, because the blood of a sin-offering brings atonement.13 [The offering of] the limbs of a burnt-offering take precedence over offering the fats and organs of a sin-offering, because a burnt-offering is consumed entirely by fire.14
[If one must choose] between the blood of a sin-offering15 or the limbs of a burnt-offering,16 one may give precedence to whichever one desires. Similarly, [if one must choose] between the blood of a burnt-offering and the fat and organs of a sin-offering17 or the blood of a burnt-offering and the blood of a guilt-offering,18 one may give precedence to whichever one desires.
Halacha 6
A sin-offering takes precedence over a burnt-offering.19 Even a sin-offering of a fowl takes precedence over a burnt-offering of an animal, as [Leviticus 5:8which] states: "[who shall offer] the sin offering first." This is a general principal teaching that every sin-offering takes precedence over the burnt-offering that accompanies it. Similarly, when setting aside [animals for sacrifices], one should set aside the animal to be offered as a sin-offering and then the one to be offered as a burnt-offering.
Halacha 7
This does not apply with regard to the sacrifices of the holiday [of Sukkot].20They are sacrificed in the order that they are mentioned in the Torah, for [Numbers 29:33] states: "according to their ordinance."
What is implied? At first the bulls [should be offered], after them the rams, and after them, the goats even though the goats are sin-offerings and those which preceded them are burnt-offerings.
Similarly, with regard to the burnt-offering of a bull and the sin-offering of a goat the community brings to atone for the inadvertent transgression [of the prohibitions] against the worship of false deities,21 the bull is given precedence, because [ibid. 15:24] states: "according to the ordinance."
The bull offered by the anointed priest22 is given precedence over the bull offered [to atone] for an inadvertent transgression by the community.23 The latter sacrifice takes precedence over the bull [offered to atone] for the worship of false deities.24The latter sacrifice takes precedence over the goat offered with it. Even though the bull is a burnt-offering and the goat is a sin-offering,25[the bull is given precedence], for this is the order of the verses in the Torah.
The goat brought [to atone for] idolatry takes precedence over the goat brought by a king,26 for the king is one individual.27 The goat brought by a king takes precedence over the she-goat brought by an ordinary individual.28 The she-goat brought by a private individual takes precedence over a ewe,29 even though they are both sin-offerings. For a she-goat is fit to be brought [to atone] for [all] sins for which one is liable for karet for which a sin-offering is brought and the ewe may not be brought [to atone] for the inadvertent transgression of the prohibitions of idolatry.
Halacha 8
Even the sin-offering of a fowl brought by a woman after childbirth30 takes precedence over the sheep she brings.31 A sin-offering takes precedence over a guilt-offering, because its blood is applied to the four corners [of the altar] and on its base.32 All of the sin-offerings mentioned in the Torah take precedence over all of the guilt-offerings with the exception of the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted by tzaraat, because it comes to make a person fit.33
A guilt-offering takes precedence over a thanksgiving-offering and the ram brought by a nazirite, because it is a sacrifice of the most sacred order.34 A thanksgiving-offering and the ram brought by a nazirite take precedence over a peace-offering, because they may be eaten for only one day and require that bread bey brought with them. A thanksgiving-offering takes precedence over the ram of a nazirite, because it must be brought with four types of meal-offerings.35
A peace-offering takes precedence over a firstborn offering, because it requires two presentations of blood which are in fact four,36 leaning on the animal,37waving the offering,38 and accompanying offerings.39 The firstborn offering takes precedence over the tithe offering, because it is sanctified from the womb and may be eaten only by priests.40
The tithe offering takes precedence over fowl41 because it involves ritual slaughter and it has an element of the most sacred order: its blood and the fats and organs are offered on the altar.42 Sacrifices of fowl take precedence over meal-offerings, for [they involve offering] blood.
If a person has a sin-offering of fowl, a tithe offering, and a burnt-offering of an animal [to sacrifice], since the burnt-offering takes precedence over the tithe offering and the sin-offering of the fowl takes precedence over the burnt-offering,43 he should sacrifice the sin-offering of the fowl first, then the burnt-offering and then the tithe offering.44
Halacha 9
When a person has several types of animals from one type of sacrifice,45in which order should they be offered? Bulls take precedence over rams, for their accompanying offerings are larger.46 Rams take precedence over sheep for the same reason. Sheep take precedence over goats, because they have more fats and organs offered on the altar, because the fat-tail is among the organs of the sheep offered and the goats do not have a fat-tail.47
Halacha 10
A meal-offering brought by a male takes precedence over one brought by a female.50 A meal-offering of wheat51 takes precedence over a meal-offering of barley.52 A meal-offering brought as a sin-offering takes precedence over a meal-offering brought as a free-will offering, because it comes [as atonement] for sin. With regard to a meal-offering brought as a free-will offering and the meal-offering of a sotah, one may give precedence to whichever one desires.53
Halacha 11
Meal-offerings receive precedence over wine libations.54 Wine libations receive precedence over oil.55 Oil receives precedence over frankincense.56Frankincense receives precedence over salt57 and salt receives precedence over wood.58
When does the above apply? When they are all brought at the same time. When, however, a sacrifice is brought first, it is offered first and one which is brought last, is offered last.59
Halacha 12
All [the sacrifices] that receive precedence with regard to being offered also receive precedence with regard to being eaten.
Halacha 13
If a person had before him a peace-offering that had been sacrificed on the previous day60 and one that was offered the present day, the one offered on the previous day is given precedence, because the limit [until when it may be eaten] is closer.61 If one has a peace-offering from the previous day and a sin-offering or a guilt-offering from the present day,62 the sin-offering and the guilt-offering take precedence, because they are sacrifices of the most sacred order, as we explained.63
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Which is Rosh HaShanah. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 47) and Sefer HaChinuch(mitzvah 312) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 2. |
Although at present - and as explained in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:8, even at times in the Talmudic era - Rosh HaShanah was observed for two days, sacrifices were offered only on the day consecrated as the first of Tishrei.
|
| 3. |
See Numbers 29:1-5.
|
| 4. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 1.
|
| 5. |
I.e., Rosh HaShanah.
|
| 6. |
Zevachim 89a derives this from the fact that Numbers 28:23 refers to the "the morning offering that is the continuous offering." The latter phrase teaches that it is given precedence because it is a continuous offering, brought every day.
|
| 7. |
For example, as stated in Halachah 5, since it brings about atonement, the blood of a sin-offering is considered as on a higher level of holiness than the blood of a burnt-offering. Hence, it is given precedence.
|
| 8. |
Zevachim 90b debates which of the two should be given precedence without resolving the matter. Hence, it is left to an individual's choice (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 9. |
Lest its blood coagulate before the other animal was offered.
|
| 10. |
One from a sacrifice offered more frequently and one from a sacrifice offered less frequently or one on a higher level of holiness and one on a lower level.
|
| 11. |
More precisely, whenever the animal from the more frequent or holier offering was slaughtered before the blood of the other was sprinkled on the altar (see Radbaz).
|
| 12. |
I.e., this and the following instance exemplify the principle that an offering that is holier than another receives precedence over it.
|
| 13. |
While a burnt-offering, by contrast, is considered merely as a present to God (Zevachim 7b).
|
| 14. |
And hence is considered as holier.
|
| 15. |
As mentioned in the notes to the following halachah, this is speaking about a situation where both animals were already slaughtered.
|
| 16. |
Since each has a positive quality, neither is considered as holier than the other.
|
| 17. |
In this situation, neither possesses a distinctive positive quality in and of itself. Instead, the blood of the burnt-offering is secondary to its limbs and the fats and organs of the sin-offering are secondary to its blood.
|
| 18. |
Zevachim 89b states that the blood of a guilt-offering is not on the same level of holiness as that of a sin-offering. According to the Rambam's version, there is an unresolved question which is holier, its blood or that of a burnt-offering (Radbaz).
|
| 19. |
Rav Yosef Corcus understands this as referring to the slaughter of the sin-offering. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh ask: Since we know that a sin-offering receives precedence, why was it necessary to state previously that the blood of a sin-offering is given precedence? They explain that the previous halachah is speaking about a situation when both animals were already slaughtered and the question is which blood should be given precedence.
|
| 20. |
See Chapter 10, Halachot 3-4, where these offerings are described.
|
| 21. |
See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1 where these offerings are described.
|
| 22. |
The High Priest. As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 1:4; 15:1-2, when a High Priest inadvertently transgresses and violates a sin other than idol worship.
|
| 23. |
As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 12:1 if the High Court errs in the issuance of a halachic warning and causes the people at large to sin, each tribe is required to bring a bull as a sin-offering.
Horiot 13a derives the sequence of these offerings from Leviticus 4:21 which describes the bull brought by the High Priest as "the first bull." Our Sages understood that as implying that it is given precedence. Moreover, they maintain that it is logical to assume that the High Priest's offering should be given precedence, for he is the one who offers the bull on behalf of the community. Hence first he should atone for himself and then, offer atonement for the community.
|
| 24. |
When the community violates a transgression involving the worship of false deities due to an erroneous ruling by the High Court, each tribe must bring a burnt-offering of a bull and a sin-offering of a goat (Hilchot Shegagot, loc. cit.). Since this bull is a burnt-offering, the bull brought to atone for other transgressions is given precedence.
|
| 25. |
And sin-offerings should be given precedence, as stated in the preceding halachah.
|
| 26. |
As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 1:4, when a king sins and inadvertently performs a transgression punishable by karet other than idolatry. He must bring a goat as a sin-offering.
|
| 27. |
While the goat brought to atone for idolatry is brought on behalf of a tribe as a whole.
|
| 28. |
As a sin-offering. Hilchot Shegagot, loc. cit., states that an ordinary individual who performs a transgression punishable by karet must bring either a she-goat or a ewe as a sin-offering. The sin-offering brought by a king receives precedence, for his sacrifice is associated with his elevated position.
|
| 29. |
A she-goat can be brought to atone for all transgressions, including idolatry, while a ewe may not be brought for idolatry. This indicates that the goat is of greater power.
|
| 30. |
This offering is singled out, because it is not brought to atone for any particular transgression (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 31. |
As related in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:2, after childbirth, in order to be able to partake of sacrificial foods, a woman must bring a dove or turtle-dove as a sin-offering and a sheep as a burnt-offering. Since the fowl is a sin-offering, it is given precedence.
|
| 32. |
See the description of the presentation of the blood of a sin-offering in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7. There are, by contrast, only two presentations of the blood of a guilt-offering on the altar (ibid. :6). Hence the sin-offering is given precedence.
|
| 33. |
As explained in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 10:5), this sacrifice enables the person to regain his ritual purity. Afterwards, he may enter the Temple Courtyard and partake of sacrificial foods. The order of the sacrifices brought by a person after he being healed from a tzara'at affliction is described in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.
|
| 34. |
While the latter two are considered as sacrifices of lesser sanctity.
|
| 35. |
The offering of these three types of sacrifices and the breads that accompany them are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh Korbanot, ch. 9. The fact that the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite's ram are eaten for only one day and a night indicate a higher level of holiness for those restrictions are also placed on a sin-offering and a guilt-offering which are sacrifices of the most sacred order (Radbaz). The inclusion of breads in these offerings also points to their importance.
|
| 36. |
The presentation of the blood on the altar for these sacrifices is described in ibid.:6.
|
| 37. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 3, which describes this practice.
|
| 38. |
The waving of the peace-offering is described in ibid. 9:6-8.
|
| 39. |
The obligation to bring accompanying offerings is mentioned in ibid., ch. 2. None of these rites are associated with the firstborn offering. Its blood is only poured out at the base of the altar (ibid.5:17); it does not require the owner to lean upon it (ibid. 3:6); nor is it waved; nor are accompanying offerings brought with it (see (ibid. 2:2).
|
| 40. |
Both of these factors indicate a higher level of holiness.
|
| 41. |
I.e., sin-offerings and burnt-offerings brought from turtle doves and ordinary doves.
|
| 42. |
In contrast, when a fowl is brought as an offering, only its blood is offered on the altar.
|
| 43. |
As stated in Halachah 6.
|
| 44. |
I.e., were he not to have brought the burnt-offering, the tithe offering would have been sacrificed first, but because he brought it, the entire order is rearranged.
|
| 45. |
E.g., they are all burnt-offerings or sin-offerings.
|
| 46. |
As indicated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:4.
|
| 47. |
See ibid. 1:18.
|
| 48. |
I.e., the omer offering and the two loaves.
|
| 49. |
The sheep mentioned above.
|
| 50. |
This also applies to animal offerings brought by males (Radbaz).
|
| 51. |
Brought as a sin-offering, as evident from the concluding clause of the halachah.
|
| 52. |
I.e., the sotah offering, for this is the only individual meal-offering brought from barley. Wheat is a more important grain and hence, its offerings are given precedence.
|
| 53. |
For each have a positive quality lacking in the other. The free-will offering is brought together with frankincense and oil, but the sotah offering comes to clarify whether a transgression was performed (Menachot 90a).
|
| 54. |
For the meal-offering is called a "sacrifice" and the wine libation is not (Radbaz). Alternatively, a handful of meal is sprinkled on the altar's pyre, while the wine is merely poured down the shittin, holes on the base of the altar.
|
| 55. |
For the wine libations are poured out separately, while oil is always offered with other sacrifices (Radbaz). Alternatively, the majority of the oil is eaten by the priests, while the wine libations are poured on the altar in their entirety.
|
| 56. |
Because the minimum quantity of oil is larger than the minimum quantity of frankincense (Or Sameach).
|
| 57. |
The Radbaz questions the Rambam's statements, noting that nowhere does the Rambam mention offering salt as an independent offering.
|
| 58. |
For salt is associated with the sacrifices by the Torah (Leviticus 2:13), while wood is called a sacrifice only by Scripture (Nechemiah 10:35, see Kiryat Sefer).
|
| 59. |
This principle applies to all the above situations.
|
| 60. |
Peace-offerings may be eaten for two days and one night.
|
| 61. |
For the peace-offering sacrificed on the present day may also be eaten at night and on the following day, while the one offered the previous day must be completed by sunset.
|
| 62. |
In which instance, one must complete eating both before sunset.
|
| 63. |
Halachah 8; see also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:17.
|
Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
On the first day of the Sukkot festival, the following are brought as the additional offering of the day: thirteen bulls, two rams, and fourteen sheep. All are burnt offerings. And a goat which is eaten [is brought as] a sin-offering.6 Similarly, on all the seven days of [the Sukkot] festival, two rams, fourteen sheep, and a sin-offering of a goat are offered.
Halacha 4
The number of bulls [offered], however, is decreased each day.7 On the second day, twelve bulls are offered, on the third eleven,... until on the seventh day, seven bulls, two rams, and fourteen sheep are all brought as burnt-offerings and a goat is brought as a sin-offering.
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
If one poured the water into the wine or the wine into the water and then poured the two of them as a libation from a single utensil, the obligation is fulfilled.14 If the water libation was offered before the [daily] sacrifice - indeed, even if it was offered at night - the obligation is fulfilled.15
The libation was poured at the southwest corner, above the mid-point of the altar, and then it would all descend to the shittin,16 as we explained.17 How was it offered? He would fill a golden vessel that contains three lugin18 from theShiloach stream.19When they reached the Water Gate,20 tekiah, teruah,, andtekiah blasts are sounded.21 [The priest] would ascend the ramp and turn to his left22 and pour the water into a cup that was positioned there. For there were two silver cups there.23 The water [was poured] into the western one and the wine libation [was poured] into the eastern one. They were pierced with two small holes like two small nostrils. The hole for [the cup] of water was thinner than that for the wine so that the water would conclude flowing together with the wine.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
[The water libation] was performed on the Sabbath in the same manner in which it was performed during the week, except that on Friday, a golden jug that was not a sacrificial vessel27 was filled28 [with water] and left in the chamber. On the morrow, [the pitcher used for the libation] was filled from it.29
Halacha 10
If the water was spilled or was uncovered,30 one should fill [the pitcher] from the basin and pour the libation.
Halacha 11
On every day of the Sukkot festival, a separate song31 was recited for theMusaf offering. On the first day of Chol HaMoed, they would say: "Render to God, children of the mighty..." (Psalm 29).32 On the second [day of Chol HaMoed], they would say "And to the wicked, God said..." (Psalm 50).33 On the third, they would say: "Who will stand up for me against the wicked?..." (ibid.94:16).34 On the fourth, they would say: "Understand, you senseless among the people..." (ibid.:5).35 On the fifth, they would say: "I removed his shoulder from the burden" (ibid. 81:7).36 On the sixth, they would say: "All the foundations of the earth tremble" (ibid. 82:5).37 If the Sabbath falls on one of [the days of Chol HaMoed, the verses beginning] "All the foundations tremble" are superseded [by the song for the additional offering of the Sabbath].38
Halacha 12
We have already explained39 that there are a total of 24 priestly watches and they all serve with equal rights during the festivals. On the holiday of Sukkot, each watch would offer [only] one bull, one ram, or a goat as a sin-offering. With regard to the sheep, however, [there was a difference]. There were watches which would offer two sheep and there were watches that would offer one.
What is implied? On the first day of the festival of Sukkot, there are thirteen bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for eight watches. Six watches offer two sheep and two watches offer one.
On the second day, there are twelve bulls,40 two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for nine watches. Five watches offer two sheep and four watches offer one.
On the third day, there are eleven bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for ten watches. Four watches offer two sheep and six watches offer one.
On the fourth day, there are ten bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for eleven watches. Three watches offer two sheep and eight watches offer one.
On the fifth day, there are nine bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for twelve watches. Two watches offer two sheep and ten watches offer one.
On the sixth day, there are eight bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for thirteen watches. One watch offers two sheep and twelve watches offer one.
On the seventh day, there are seven bulls, two rams, a goat, and fourteen sheep, [an amount of animals] equivalent to the number of watches. Each watch offers one animal.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
When the first day of the festival of Sukkot fell on the Sabbath, there would be 61 esronim of accompanying meal-offerings from the additional offerings and the continuous offerings.45 They would not be mixed together.
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
All of the fats of the sacrifices [that are to be offered on the altar] - whether from communal sacrifices or from individual sacrifices - should not be mixed with each other.49 Instead, the fats and the organs of each sacrifice are offered on the altar's pyre separately. If, however, they become mixed together, they may be offered all as one.
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
Since the meal-offerings were mixed together and their oil and meal have become intermingled, it is permissible to mix their wine [libations] together as an initial preference. Similarly, if the meal-offerings of the accompanying offerings were already offered, each one separately, it is permissible to mix their wine [libations] together.52
Halacha 19
When the wine-libations of the accompanying offerings are mixed together, it is permissible to mix a wine libation of a sacrificed offered on the previous day with one offered on the present day53 or those of an individual offering with those of a communal offering.
When one mixes together [wine libations], he may mix the wine libations of the accompanying offerings of bulls with those of the accompanying offerings of rams, or those of the accompanying offerings of sheep with others of the accompanying offerings of sheep. One should not, however, mix the wine libations of the accompanying offerings of sheep with those of bulls or rams.
Halacha 20
As an initial preference, one should not mix wine [libations] unless the meal-offerings have been mixed together or they have been offered, as we explained.54
Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 48) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 314) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:7-8.
|
| 2. |
In the Mishnah (Yoma 7:3). This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi (Yoma 70b) who maintains that the ram mentioned in Leviticus 16:5 is the same mentioned in Numbers. See alsoHilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1.
|
| 3. |
After the conclusion of the fast.
|
| 4. |
See Leviticus 16:27; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:16.
|
| 5. |
As mentioned in Leviticus 16:5-9. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim, ch. 3, for a description of the service performed with these goats.
|
| 6. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 50) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 320) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:12-34.
|
| 7. |
The fact that the sacrifices of each day of Sukkot differ from each other endow the days of the holiday with an advantage over the days of the holiday of Pesach. For that reason, the full Hallel is recited on each of the days of Sukkot, while this is not true with regard to Pesach. Nevertheless, the fact that the sacrifices differ is not sufficient for each day to be considered a separate mitzvah.
|
| 8. |
Literally, "the eighth day of assembly."
|
| 9. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 51) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 322) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:35-38.
|
| 10. |
I.e., it is not a continuation of the Sukkot offerings. As Rosh HaShanah 4b, et al, state there are six aspects in which Shemini Atzeret is considered as an independent festival. One of them is that it has its own sacrifice.
|
| 11. |
In connection with the water libation, a special celebration, Simchat Beit HaShoevah was held in the Temple Courtyard. The Rambam describes that celebration and the immensity of the joy expressed at that time at the conclusion of Hilchot Shofar Sukkah VeLulav. Interestingly, however, in that source, he does not associate the celebration with the water libation and here, he does not mention the celebration.
|
| 12. |
A practice that is part of the Oral Law, but is not specifically mentioned in the Written Law. As the Rambam mentions in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:8), there are allusions to this practice in the Written Law.
|
| 13. |
I.e., initially, this is the preferred manner of observing the mitzvah.
|
| 14. |
I.e., after the fact; the initial preference is that each be poured separately as the Rambam proceeds to explain. The Radbaz explains that since ultimately, when the wine and the water reach the shittin, they will be mixed together, after the fact, it is acceptable if they were mixed together initially.
|
| 15. |
As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:5, libations offered in connection with a sacrifice must be offered by day, but those offered independently may be offered at night.
|
| 16. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11 which explains that these were two cavities in the southwest corner of the Altar, through which the blood would run off and flow through the drainage canal and from there, to the Kidron River.
|
| 17. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1 and the discussion of the Rambam's ruling by the other commentaries.
|
| 18. |
A log is 346 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.
|
| 19. |
A stream that is located on the southern side of the Temple Mount.
|
| 20. |
One of the gates located on the south side of the Temple Courtyard. It was given its name, because the water for the libation was brought in through it.
|
| 21. |
See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 7:6.
|
| 22. |
Usually, the priests would circle the altar, turning first to the right. In this instance, they would turn to the left lest the smoke affect the water and the wine (Sukkah 48b; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot7:11).
|
| 23. |
In his gloss to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1, the Kessef Mishneh states that these cups were not a permanent part of the altar, but placed there only during the Sukkot holiday.
|
| 24. |
So that it would be obvious that he is pouring the water in the altar's cups (Rav Yosef Corcus).
|
| 25. |
Rather than on the altar.
|
| 26. |
Lit., "a follower of Tzadok." The Sadducees represented a splinter group within Judaism. They accepted the Written Law, but not the Oral Law. [In truth, they wanted to abandon Jewish practice entirely, but realized that they could never attract a large number of followers with such an approach and hence, adopted this ruse (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 1:3)]. Since the water libation is not explicitly stated in the Written Law, the Sadducees did not accept its validity.
|
| 27. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:9), the Rambam gives an original interpretation for the reason the water should not be held in a sacred vessel. Were it to be held in a sacred vessel, it would be possible that the priests would sanctify their hands with it. Thus they would perform that rite with water that was not consecrated or would use up the water and prevent it from being used for the libation (Rav Kappach's notes to that mishnah). This represents a different approach than that of the other commentaries.
|
| 28. |
With water from the Shiloach Stream.
|
| 29. |
This change was necessary, for going down to fill the pitcher with water from the stream was forbidden on the Sabbath, because one would be carrying from a public domain to a private domain.
|
| 30. |
Water that was uncovered is unacceptable as a libation, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach6:10.
|
| 31. |
I.e., in addition to the song recited for the daily sacrifice. See also Chapter 6, Halachot 8-9 which describe the Levites' songs.
|
| 32. |
This psalm contains the verse "The voice of God is upon the water" and thus is appropriate to mark the beginning of the offering of the water libation (see Sukkah 55a).
|
| 33. |
This psalm warns of coming to the Temple to celebrate and offer sacrifices without first repenting (Rashi, Sukkah, op. cit.).
|
| 34. |
From this verse until the end of the psalm. These verses were chosen, because they speak of confronting wicked powers. Our Sages ordained that it be recited in the Second Temple period when the Temple was under the authority of Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers (ibid.).
|
| 35. |
I.e., from verse 5 until verse 16. These verses speak about God's watchful eye that surveys man's actions. These verses were chosen, because Sukkot marks the end of the harvest season when the agricultural gifts must be given to the poor. These verses serve as a warning, impressing the people with the awareness that God is observing them at all times and seeing whether they give these gifts or not.
|
| 36. |
Until the end of the psalm. These verses contain words of comfort and the reassurance of Divine blessings.
|
| 37. |
These verses speak of Divine judgement and Hoshaana Rabbah, the day on which these verses are recited marks the conclusion of the judgment begun on Rosh HaShanah.
|
| 38. |
The song for the additional offering of the Sabbath (a portion of the song Ha'azinu, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 9) is recited on that day and the songs for the remaining days are pushed back a day (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 39. |
Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3-4.
|
| 40. |
Because the number of bulls are being reduced by one each day. See Halachot 3-4 above.
|
| 41. |
When there are far fewer sacrifices, as stated in Halachah 5.
|
| 42. |
The Radbaz infers from this that no lotteries were conducted during the prior seven days. Although there were some days when one watch received more sheep to offer than another, they would balance that matter by allowing the other watches to receive more the following days.
|
| 43. |
There were two watches that did not offer three bulls throughout the Sukkot holiday. One opinion in Sukkot 55b maintains that on Shemini Atzeret, the lottery to offer the bull should be held only between these two watches. The Rambam accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi which maintains that all the watches are included in this lottery.
|
| 44. |
Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3-4.
|
| 45. |
According to the guidelines established in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:4, for the additional offerings of Sukkot, the thirteen bulls required a total of 39 esronim, the two rams, a total of 4esronim, and the fourteen sheep, a total of 14 esronim, a total of 57 esronim. In addition, twoesronim were brought for the additional offering of the Sabbath, and two esronim for the continuous offerings.
|
| 46. |
This includes the wine and the oil as well as the meal, as indicated by the concluding halachot of the chapter.
|
| 47. |
Indeed, if the meal-offerings for two types of animals become intermingled before they are mixed together with their oil, they are disqualified [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot9:4)].
|
| 48. |
The rationale for the separation is that the ratio of oil to meal is different for the offerings of sheep and bulls.
|
| 49. |
The Sifra derives this concept from Leviticus 3:11 which states "And he shall offer it on the pyre," using a singular form.
|
| 50. |
I.e., those of bulls, those of sheep, and those of rams.
|
| 51. |
As required by Halachah 15.
|
| 52. |
For the rationale for the restriction against mixing their wine libations is only to prevent their meal-offerings from being intermingled. Once the meal-offerings have been offered, there is no longer any need for that constraint (Menachot 89b). They may be mixed as an initial preference [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. See Halachah 20.
|
| 53. |
For as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:12, the wine libations may be brought several days after the sacrifice was offered.
|
| 54. |
In Halachah 18.
|
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
All persons disqualified from performing sacrificial service1 may slaughter sacrificial animals, even sacrifices of the most sacred order, as an initial preference2 with the exception of a person who is ritually impure who may not slaughter as an initial preference. Even though he stands outside the Temple Courtyard3 and inserts his hands and slaughters in the Courtyard,4 [he was restricted]. This a decree, lest he touch the [sacrificial] meat.5
Halacha 2
If [an impure person] transgressed and slaughtered [a sacrificial animal], the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, with regard to the bull [brought by] the High Priest on Yom Kippur even though [Leviticus 16:11] states: "And Aaron... shall slaughter [the bull],"6if a non-priest slaughtered it, it is acceptable. Even a red heifer that was slaughtered by a non-priest is acceptable,7 for there is no slaughter by a non-priest that invalidates [a sacrifice].
Halacha 3
When a person slaughters sacrificial animals, but does not have the intent to slaughter them, but instead, is merely busying himself [thoughtlessly], they are disqualified. [He must] have the intent to slaughter them.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
Two people may slaughter a sacrificial animal together, just as they may slaughter an ordinary animal.10
Halacha 6
A minor may not slaughter sacrificial animals even if an adult is standing over him.11 [The rationale is that the slaughter of] sacrificial animals requires concentrated intent and a minor does not have such a potential. Even when [a minor's] deeds indicate that he is acting with intention, [he is] not considered [to have acted] with intention if that will produce a leniency,12 only if it will produce a stringency.
What is implied? If [an animal to be sacrificed as] a burnt-offering was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard] and a minor led it and brought it to the north where he slaughtered it - thus his actions indicate that he intended to slaughter a sacred animal13 - [the sacrifice] is still disqualified.
Halacha 7
When sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard] or their blood was received there, they are disqualified.
Halacha 8
If one was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], but he extended his hands into the northern portion and slaughtered [a sacrifice of the most sacred order], his slaughter is acceptable.14
Halacha 9
If, [by contrast, a priest] was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], but he extended his hands into the northern portion and received the blood [of such a sacrificial animal], his receiving of the blood is unacceptable.15
Halacha 10
If he brings his head and the majority of his body into the northern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], it is considered as if he was standing there.16
Halacha 11
If one slaughtered [such an animal] in the northern portion [of the Temple Courtyard] and then in the convulsive movements that accompanied its death, it moved to the southern portion or even if [a priest] took it to the southern portion, it is acceptable.17 If after these convulsive movements took it to the southern portion and then it returned to the northern portion and its blood was received there, it is acceptable.18
Similarly, if [animals to be slaughtered as] sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were inside [the Temple Courtyard]19 and one was standing outside the Temple Courtyard and inserted his hand inside and slaughtered it, his slaughter is acceptable.
Halacha 12
If, [while standing outside the Temple Courtyard, a priest] inserted his hand inside and received the blood, the receiving of the blood is unacceptable.20Even if [the entire body of the priest] performing the service was inside [the Temple Courtyard] and his locks of hair21 were outside, his service is unacceptable, for [when describing the priests' service in the Temple, Leviticus 10:9] states: "When you come to the Tent of Meeting."22 Implied is that one must enter in his entirety.
Halacha 13
If in the convulsive movements that accompanied its death, [such an] animal moved out of [the Courtyard] after its blood was received,23 it is acceptable. For even if the organs and fats to be offered on the altar and the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken outside [the Courtyard] before [the blood] was presented [on the altar], the sacrifice is acceptable, as will be explained.24
Halacha 14
If the entire body of [such an] animal was inside the Temple Courtyard and its foot was outside and it was slaughtered, the sacrifice is unacceptable. For [when speaking of bringing the sacrifices, Leviticus 17:5] states: "And they shall be brought to God." Implied is that they should be entirely within [the Courtyard].25
Halacha 15
If one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal]26 while it was located entirely in [the Temple Courtyard] and afterwards, it moved one of its feet outside, he should cut off the meat until he reaches the bone27 and afterwards, the blood should be received. If he received the blood and afterwards, cut off the meat, it is disqualified because of the fat of the meat that is outside [the Temple Courtyard].28
With regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, there is no need to cut off [the meat]. Instead, he should bring its foot back inside [the Temple Courtyard], and receive the blood. For [even] if meat from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] before their blood was cast [on the altar], [the sacrifice] is acceptable.29
Halacha 16
If one hung the animal [above the earth] and slaughtered it in the free space of the Temple Courtyard, it is unacceptable, for [Leviticus 1:11] speaks [of slaughtering animals] "on the flank of the altar," implying that one must slaughter on the ground.30
Halacha 17
If the [sacrificial] animal was on the ground, but [the slaughterer] was hanging in the air and he slaughtered the animal while hanging, this disqualifies sacrifices of the most sacred order. Sacrifices of lesser sanctity, by contrast, are acceptable.31
Halacha 18
If one slit the lesser portion of the organs that must be slit for ritual slaughter32outside [the Temple Courtyard]33 and one completed the slaughter inside or one slit the lesser portion of the organs34 in the southern portion of [the Temple Courtyard] and completed the slaughter in the north, they are unacceptable. For ritual slaughter is considered as one continuous, integral act from the beginning to its completion.35
Halacha 19
If one was hung and received the blood from the neck of a [sacrificial] animal36that is located on the ground, [the act] is unacceptable, because this is not the manner of Temple service.
Halacha 20
If one was standing in the Temple Courtyard and hung a receptacle over his arm and received the blood in the air or lifted the animal and thus received the blood in the air, [the act] is acceptable, for the open space above the place is considered as the space itself.37
Halacha 21
If one placed one receptacle within a second receptacle and received the blood, [the act] is acceptable,38 one substance is not considered as an interposing substance for another substance of the same type.39 If one placed fibers inside the receptacle and received the blood, [the act] is acceptable, because the fibers are porous and thus the blood descends into the receptacle and there is no interference. If, however, one does this while taking a handful of flour from a meal offering and took the handful with the fibers, it is unacceptable.40
Halacha 22
Receiving the blood [of a sacrificial animal], bringing it to the altar, casting it on the altar and bringing the limbs [of a sacrificial animal] to the ramp are all tasks41that are only acceptable if performed by a priest who is fit to perform service, as we explained with regard to taking the handful of flour from a meal offering42 or snipping of the head of a fowl.43
Halacha 23
Halacha 24
If [the priest] received [the blood] with his right hand and then transferred [the receptacle in which he received] it to his left hand, he should return it to his right hand.46 If he received [the blood] with an ordinary utensil, the sacrifice is disqualified. If he received it in a sacred receptacle and transferred it to an ordinary receptacle, he should return it to a sacred receptacle.47
Halacha 25
If [the blood] spilled out of the receptacle unto the floor [of the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice] is acceptable if one gathers up [the blood].48 If, however, it spilled out from the neck of the [sacrificial] animal to the floor and then was collected and placed in a sacred receptacle, the sacrifice is disqualified.49
Halacha 26
If some of the blood from the neck of the [sacrificial] animal was spilled on the ground and not collected, but [a priest] received the remainder from the neck of the animal, [the sacrifice] is acceptable,50 provided the blood that was received is [the animal's] lifeblood51 and not blood concentrated [in the limbs]52 or the blood of the skin.
Halacha 27
If any of the individuals who are unacceptable to perform Temple service53receive the blood [of a sacrificial animal], bring the blood to the altar, or cast it on the altar as required by law,54 the sacrifice is disqualified. If [a priest] who is acceptable for such service receives the blood and gives it to one who is unacceptable, but the latter does not walk with it, but instead stands in his place, he should return it to the acceptable [priest].55 If, however, the unacceptable person carried it [toward the altar] and then returned it to the acceptable [priest] who carried it [to the altar] or the acceptable priest carried it [to the altar] and then gave it to the unacceptable one who carried it, since it was carried by the unacceptable person, whether at the beginning or the end, the sacrifice is disqualified, because this matter cannot be corrected.
Halacha 28
[The following laws apply if] the blood was received by an unacceptable person. If any of [the animal's] lifeblood remains, an acceptable [priest] should receive the blood, bring it [to the altar], and cast [it upon it]. [The rationale is that] individuals who are unacceptable for Temple service do not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants.56
An exception is one who is impure. Since he is fit to carry out Temple service when a sacrifice is brought in a state of impurity as explained,57 he causes [the blood to be considered as] remnants. What is implied? If an impure [priest] received58 the blood [of a sacrificial animal] even if an acceptable [priest] received [the animal's] lifeblood afterwards and cast it [upon the altar], the sacrifice is disqualified. For [the blood] received by the acceptable [priest] afterwards is considered as remnants and is of no consequence.
Halacha 29
When even the slightest substance is taken from one of the [sacrificial] animal's limbs59 after it was slaughtered, but before its blood was cast upon the altar, it is disqualified. Even if one [merely] mutilated the ear of an animal before [its blood] was received, it is as if [its blood] was not received. [This is derived fromLeviticus 16:14 which] states: "And he shall take from the blood of the bull." [Implied is that] it must be entirely whole at the time [the blood] is received. If one received [the blood] of an imperfect [animal] and cast it upon the altar, [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.
Halacha 30
If, however, its substance was reduced after [its blood] was received,60before it was cast [on the altar], even if the meat was lost before the blood was cast [on the altar] or it was consumed by fire, he should cast the blood [on the altar] as long as an olive-sized portion of the meat or the organs and fats to be offered on the altar's pyre remain.61 If not even that remains,62 he should not cast the blood. With regard to a burnt-offering, even if half an olive-sized portion from the meat and half an olive-sized portion of the organs and fats [remain, he should cast the blood], because the entire [animal] is [offered on the altar's] pyre.63
Halacha 31
If less than an olive-sized portion [of a burnt-offering remains], [the blood] should not be cast [on the altar]. If it is cast [upon it], the sacrifice is not received with favor [Above].64 If the meat65 is disqualified before [the blood] is cast on the altar or it was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, the blood should not be cast. If, however, it was cast, the sacrifice is received with favor [Above].66
Halacha 32
When the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity was taken out of the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast [on the altar], even though the blood was cast [upon the altar] while the meat was outside, the sacrifice is acceptable,67 because ultimately, the meat will be taken outside [the Temple Courtyard].68
Halacha 33
Similarly, when the organs and fats to be offered on the altar from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] before their blood [was cast on the altar] and the blood was cast [on the altar] when they were outside, the sacrifice was not disqualified. If they were returned [to the Temple Courtyard], they should be offered on the altar's pyre.71 Even if they were not returned [to the Temple Courtyard], one is liable for violating the transgressions72 [against partaking of] piggul,73 notar,74 and impure [sacrificial] meat75 if he partakes of them.76
Halacha 34
With regard to any sacrifices [brought by] a private individual, whether the meat became impure, but the fats are intact or the fats became impure, but the meat remains intact, the blood should be cast on the altar.77 If they both became impure, the blood should not be cast. If, however, it was cast on the altar, the sacrifice is received with favor [Above], for the High Priest's forehead plate arouses [God's] favor.78 Similarly, when fats and organs to be offered on the altar's pyre or the limbs of a burnt-offering became impure and they were [nonetheless]79 offered on the altar, the High Priest's forehead plate arouses [God's] favor, as explained.80 With regard to any of the communal sacrifices, [even if] all of the meat and fats became impure, the blood should be cast [upon the altar].81
Halacha 35
When the blood of sacrificial animals was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is disqualified. Even though it was brought back inside and cast on the altar, the sacrifice is not received with favor [Above].82
Halacha 36
No blood from sacrificial animals is susceptible to ritual impurity at all.83 For [Deuteronomy 12:16] states with regard to blood: "You shall pour it on the earth like water." [Implied is that] blood which is poured out like water is considered as water and is susceptible to ritual impurity. The blood of sacrificial animals, by contrast, is not poured out like water84 and hence is not susceptible to ritual impurity.
Halacha 37
When the sun sets and the blood from a sacrificial animal [slaughtered that day] has not been cast [on the altar], the sacrifice is disqualified. If [the blood] is cast [on the altar afterwards],85 [the sacrifice] is not received with favor [Above].
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
A non-priest or a priest who was disqualified for various reasons. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash9:15 for a detailed list of such individuals.
|
| 2. |
The wording of Zevachim 3:1 (the source for this ruling) could be interpreted as implying that the slaughter is acceptable only after the fact. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (based on Zevachim31b), the Rambam explains that this restriction applies only to a person who is ritually impure.
|
| 3. |
And thus does not violate the prohibition against entering the Temple Courtyard while ritually impure (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:6).
|
| 4. |
Where the sacrificial animals must be slaughtered. As stated in ibid. 3:18, it is forbidden for an impure person to insert his hand into the Temple Courtyard according to Rabbinic Law. Nevertheless, this person was willing to transgress. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) the Rambam offers an interpretation that does not require that the person transgress: he slaughtered with a long knife.
|
| 5. |
In which instance he would make the sacrifice impure and disqualify it. That is forbidden.
|
| 6. |
Seemingly, implying that the slaughter must be performed by a High Priest. Nevertheless, Aaron's name is explicitly associated with the verb vihikriv, "and he shall offer." According to the Rambam, the verse should be interpreted as meaning that the offering of the bull must be performed by the High Priest, not necessarily its slaughter.
|
| 7. |
Nevertheless, as an initial preference, the slaughter should be performed by a priest (Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:2; 4:17).
|
| 8. |
I.e., using a long knife so that the two are slaughtered with the same movements of the knife.
|
| 9. |
I.e., after the fact. This applies only with regard to sacrificial animals. Ordinary animals may be sacrificed in this manner as an initial preference. See Chullin 29a.
|
| 10. |
See Hilchot Shechitah 2:10.
|
| 11. |
Such slaughter is acceptable for ordinary animals after the fact (Hilchot Shechitah 4:5).
|
| 12. |
This is a principle applicable in many different contexts of Jewish Law, e.g., Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 3:10, 14:2; Hilchot Keilim 2:1.
|
| 13. |
For burnt-offerings may only be slaughtered in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2-3). Thus he obviously had the intent to slaughter the animal as a burnt offering.
|
| 14. |
Zevachim 48b interprets Leviticus 1:11 as implying is that what is significant is the place where the animal is standing and not where the slaughterer is standing.
|
| 15. |
Zevachim, op. cit., interprets the above verse as implying that with regard to the receiving of the blood, what is important is where the person performing that act is standing.
|
| 16. |
This reflects a general principle of Torah Law: the majority of a person's body is considered as his entire body (Rav Yosef Corcus).
|
| 17. |
For the slaughter was performed in the appropriate place.
|
| 18. |
The fact that between the slaughter and the receiving of the blood, it entered the southern portion of the courtyard does not disqualify it.
|
| 19. |
Where it is required that they be slaughtered (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:4).
|
| 20. |
For the blood must be received in the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 21. |
This translation is necessary, because we are speaking of a portion of the person's body and not his garments. See Ezekiel 8:3 for a similar usage.
|
| 22. |
Significantly, Zevachim 26a, the source for this law, uses a different prooftext. Some commentaries have suggested that perhaps a printing error crept into the text of the Mishneh Torah.
|
| 23. |
Implied is that if an animal moved out of the Temple Courtyard before its blood was received, it is disqualified.
|
| 24. |
See Halachot 32-33 of this chapter.
|
| 25. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:15.
|
| 26. |
From the sacrifices of the most sacred order.
|
| 27. |
He should not, however, cut off the bone, because that would render the animal as blemished before the reception of the blood and thus disqualify it (see Zevachim 26a and commentaries).
|
| 28. |
As indicated by Zevachim, op. cit., the problem is not because of the blood from the meat that was outside the Temple Courtyard, because our Sages made a distinction between the blood that flows from the animal at the time of ritual slaughter and the blood that remains within its body (seeHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:4). Nevertheless, the fat from the portion of the animal that is outside the Temple Courtyard becomes mixed with its blood. This blood could also be part of the blood which is received, causing that blood to be disqualified (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that sacrificial animals of the highest degree of sanctity become disqualified when they are removed from the Temple Courtyard whether before the blood was presented on the altar or afterwards. Moreover, even if the meat is cut off as Rambam suggests, the animal will become ritually impure, because there is an unresolved doubt whether our Sages decreed that any animal that is removed from the Temple Courtyard becomes ritually impure. Hence, because of the doubt, we should rule stringently (seePesachim 85a). The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus resolve the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 29. |
Provided of course that the animal was returned to the Temple Courtyard and the blood received there. Even if a portion of the animal was outside the Courtyard, as long as the blood was received inside the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is not disqualified. Nevertheless, the portion that was outside the Temple Courtyard is forbidden to be eaten (see Halachah 32).
The Ra'avad states that after the blood was cast on the altar, the meat may be taken out of the Temple Courtyard. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this is obvious, because the meat of sacrifices of a less degree of sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 11:5-6).
|
| 30. |
Based on Zevachim 26a, the Kessef Mishneh interprets this halachah as referring only to sacrifices of the most sacred order. (This is reflected also in the prooftext which refers to such a sacrifice.) Sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, by contrast, may be slaughtered if they are hoisted in the air as long as they are within the space above the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 31. |
Based on Zevachim, op. cit., the Kessef Mishneh - and his objections are also seconded by Rav Yosef Corcus - suggests emending the text of this halachah. As stated in Halachah 19, there is a difficulty in receiving the blood of a sacrifice while hanging in the air, because this is not befitting to the Temple service. Nevertheless, slaughtering an animal is not a formal part of the Temple service (and hence can be performed by a non-priest). Therefore there is no difficulty in performing it while hoisted in the air. And as stated in Halachah 20, the open space of the Temple Courtyard is considered as the Temple Courtyard, so it is as if the slaughterer is standing in the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 32. |
The windpipe and the gullet.
|
| 33. |
For an animal to be sacrificed as a sacrifice of a lesser degree of sanctity.
|
| 34. |
Of an animal to be slaughtered as a sacrifice of the most sacred order.
|
| 35. |
See Hilchot Shechitah 4:13 for another application of this principle.
|
| 36. |
This applies both with regard to sacrifices of the most sacred order and those of a lesser degree of sanctity.
|
| 37. |
Thus the animal's blood is considered to have been received in the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 38. |
It is considered as if one was holding the receptacle in which the blood was received in one's hands.
|
| 39. |
This is a general principle, applying in several areas of Torah Law (e.g., Hilchot Shofar Sukkah ViLulav 1:5; 7:12).
|
| 40. |
The difference is that the blood will flow through the fibers, but the flour will not.
|
| 41. |
I.e., they are considered integral parts of the process of offering a sacrifice and therefore require a priest's involvement.
|
| 42. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23; 13:12.
|
| 43. |
The Kessef Mishneh states that this refer to ibid., ch. 6. The Lechem Mishneh states that he does not understand where in that chapter there is an allusion to the need for a priest to perform that service.
|
| 44. |
Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text states kohen gadol. Translating that term as "the High Priest" would not be appropriate at all in the present context. Some have suggested that the intent is a large priest, but most consider it a printing error.
|
| 45. |
Even if the blood was cast on the appropriate place.
|
| 46. |
And continue the service with it. If he received the blood while holding the receptacle with his left hand, the sacrifice is disqualified.
|
| 47. |
He may then continue the service; the sacrifice is not disqualified.
|
| 48. |
Since initially it was received in the proper manner, the fact that it spilled is not considered significant.
|
| 49. |
Since initially, it was not received in the proper manner.
|
| 50. |
For, after the fact, it is not necessary to receive all of the animal's blood (Kessef Mishneh). This is, however, the initial preference (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:8).
|
| 51. |
In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:3, the Rambam defines this term as "blood that flows out [from the animal] when it is slaughtered, killed, or decapitated as long as it is tinted red." See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 5:1).
|
| 52. |
Blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
|
| 53. |
A non-priest or a priest who was disqualified. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:15.
|
| 54. |
Once sacrificial blood has been cast on the altar as required by law, the blood remaining in the receptacle is considered merely as remnants and it is no longer able to be used to fulfill the service associated with this sacrifice.
One might object because, from Halachah 28, it appears that a person who is unfit to carry out Temple service does not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants. Hence, in the situation at hand, it would appear that if there is sufficient blood left in the receptacle, the sacrifice should not be disqualified. A distinction can however be made between Halachah 28 which speaks about blood that remains in the body of the sacrificial animal and this situation where the blood is remaining in the receptacle from which other blood was taken (Tosafot, Zevachim92a). If the blood was not cast on the altar as required by law, the sacrifice is not disqualified and it is acceptable if that service is performed properly by an acceptable priest (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 55. |
Who should then bring it to the altar. The fact that the person who was unacceptable held it does not disqualify the sacrifice.
|
| 56. |
With which the service may not be performed.
|
| 57. |
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10.
|
| 58. |
The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the intent is that the impure priest received the blood and cast it on the altar. Receiving the blood alone does not disqualify the animal. He bases his interpretation on Hilchot Me'ilah3:2-3 where this concept is stated explicitly. In this manner, he resolves the Ra'avad's objections to the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 59. |
I.e., in a manner which would cause the animal to be disqualified as physically blemished. SeeHilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7, for a list of such blemishes.
|
| 60. |
Note the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger who maintains that it is possible that it be necessary also to bring the blood to the altar while the animal is whole.
|
| 61. |
An olive-sized portion is considered significant. If even that small a portion of the meat can be eaten or the organs and fats can be offered on the altar, the purpose of the sacrifice will be consummated. Hence, it is appropriate to cast the blood on the altar.
|
| 62. |
The remnants are not considered as significant.
|
| 63. |
Hence the fat and the meat can be combined.
|
| 64. |
The sacrifice is disqualified and if the person was bringing it to fulfill an obligation, he must bring another one.
|
| 65. |
And the organs and fat to be offered on the altar.
|
| 66. |
In this instance, casting the blood on the altar is sufficient to cause the sacrifice to be considered acceptable. See also the following halachah.
|
| 67. |
I.e., the organs and the fats should be offered on the altar and the person bringing the sacrifice is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
|
| 68. |
For sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem.
|
| 69. |
Generally, when a sacrifice was disqualified, it would have to be burnt immediately. If, however, it was disqualified because of a difficulty with the casting of the blood or because the owners were disqualified, it should be kept until its form decomposes and then it is burnt (Rashi, Me'ilah 7b-8a).
|
| 70. |
I.e., casting the blood of sacrifices of a lesser degree enables the meat of the animal to be eaten. This applies, however, only when the animal was in the Temple Courtyard at the time the blood was cast on the altar. If not, the sacrifice is acceptable, but the meat may not be eaten (Rav Yosef Corcus). The Kessef Mishneh (see also Ra'avad) offers a different interpretation, saying the intent could be sacrificial meat taken out of the city of Jerusalem.
|
| 71. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, questioning why these organs and fats should be offered on the altar's pyre. The Rambam's maintains that since the prohibition of me'ilah and the prohibitions mentioned in this halachah apply, the sacrifice is not disqualified. Hence, there is no reason why these organs and fats should not be offered (Kessef Mishneh).
Rav Yosef Corcus avoids this difference of opinion by explaining that this is referring to an instance where the organs and the fats were returned to the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast upon the altar. According to all authorities, the fats and the organs should be offered in this instance.
|
| 72. |
These transgressions apply when the blood is cast on the altar in the proper manner. The Rambam is emphasizing that even in this instance when the fats and organs are outside the Temple Courtyard at the time the blood is cast on the altar - and therefore disqualified - these prohibitions still apply.
|
| 73. |
As will be explained in chs. 14-16, when a person slaughters an animal with the intent of partaking of its meat at times other than those which are permitted, the sacrifice is considered as piggul and it is forbidden to partake of its meat.
|
| 74. |
As explained in Chapter 18, Halachot 9-10, when sacrificial meat is left beyond the time when it should be eaten, it is called notar and it is forbidden to partake of it.
|
| 75. |
As stated in ibid.:12, when sacrificial meat becomes impure, it is forbidden to partake of it.
|
| 76. |
Even if these organs and fats were outside the Temple Courtyard at the time the blood was cast upon the altar, the casting of the blood caused them to be considered as sacrificial meat.
|
| 77. |
I.e., if either the meat could be eaten (or offered on the altar in the instance of a burnt-offering) or the fats could be offered on the altar, there will be some positive value to the sacrifice.
|
| 78. |
In Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:2, the Rambam writes that if a priest cast the blood on the altar when he knows that the Paschal sacrifice is impure, the forehead plate does not cause it to be considered acceptable, while in this instance, he does not make such a distinction. Nevertheless, the reason for this distinction is evident from the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Korban Pesach: the Paschal sacrifice is offered solely that it be eaten, while with regard to other sacrifices there is a positive dimension to the offering of the fats and organs on the altar even if the sacrifice is not eaten.
|
| 79. |
The initial preference is that they should not be offered on the altar.
|
| 80. |
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:7.
|
| 81. |
In this instance as well, it is the High Priest's forehead plate that arouses the positive spiritual influences that cause the sacrifice to be accepted. In contrast to individual sacrifices, however, with regard to communal sacrifices, one should cast the blood on the altar as an initial preference even though both the fats and the meat have been disqualified, for the restrictions against ritual impurity are superseded by the obligation to offer communal sacrifices (Kessef Mishneh; Rav Yosef Corcus).
|
| 82. |
And another sacrifice must be brought in its place. The forehead plate does not cause such sacrifices to be acceptable (Zevachim 8:12).
|
| 83. |
Even if it comes in direct contact with a source of impurity, it does not become impure. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 8:4), the Rambam states that there are some Talmudic references to the blood of sacrificial animals becoming impure, but all of those statements were made before the testimony given by Rabbi Yossi ben Yoezar which stated that they never become impure. Once that statement was made, the principle was accepted without argument.
|
| 84. |
Instead, it is poured on the altar.
|
| 85. |
Whether at night or on the next day.
|
• Sunday, Sivan 13, 5775 · 31 May 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Beha'alotecha, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 69-71.
Tanya: Ch. 4. It is (p. 295)...to do good." (p. 297).
The Tzemach Tzedek composed many melodies. He studied Torah aloud and with song. It would happen that he would interrupt his studies, or his writing Chassidus or responsa, and sing some melody.
My grandfather related that from the sound of the Tzemach Tzedek's melody he could tell in what subject he was then occupied.
FOOTNOTES
*. This day marks the marriage, in 5660 (1900) of R. Levi Yitschak Schneerson and Rebbetzin Chana, parents of the Rebbe of righteous memory.
Daily Thought:
Ego Preservation
The ego is not to be destroyed. It, too, is a creation of G‑d—and all that He made, He made within divine purpose.
Only this: that the ego must know that it is a creation, and that all He made, He made with divine purpose.[Simchat Bet Hashoeva 5714:20; Kedoshim 5727:10; Heichal Menachem vol. 1, pg. 240.]
_____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment