Torah Reading
Behaalotecha (Numbers 8:1 Adonai said to Moshe, 2 “Tell Aharon, ‘When you set up the lamps, the seven lamps are to cast their light forward, in front of the menorah.’” 3 Aharon did this: he lit its lamps so as to give light in front of the menorah, as Adonai had ordered Moshe. 4 Here is how the menorah was made: it was hammered gold from its base to its flowers, hammered work, following the pattern Adonai had shown Moshe. This is how he made the menorah.
Today's Laws & Customs:
5 Adonai said to Moshe, 6 “Take the L’vi’im from among the people of Isra’el and cleanse them. 7 Here is how you are to cleanse them: sprinkle the purification water on them, have them shave their whole body with a razor, and have them wash their clothes and cleanse themselves. 8 Then they are to take a young bull with its grain offering, which is to be fine flour mixed with olive oil; while you take another bull for a sin offering. 9 You are to present the L’vi’im in front of the tent of meeting, and assemble the entire community of the people of Isra’el. 10 You will present the L’vi’im before Adonai, the people of Isra’el will lay their hands on the L’vi’im, 11 and Aharon will offer the L’vi’im before Adonai as a wave offering from the people of Isra’el, so that they may do Adonai’s service. 12 The L’vi’im will lay their hands on the heads of the bulls; the one you will offer as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering to Adonai to make atonement for the L’vi’im. 13 You are to place the L’vi’im before Aharon and his sons, and offer them as a wave offering to Adonai. 14 In this way you will separate the L’vi’im from the people of Isra’el, and the L’vi’im will belong to me.
(ii) 15 “After that, the L’vi’im will enter and do the service of the tent of meeting. You will cleanse them and offer them as a wave offering, 16 because they are entirely given to me from among the people of Isra’el; I have taken them for myself in place of all those who come first out of the womb, that is, the firstborn males of the people of Isra’el. 17 For all the firstborn among the people of Isra’el are mine, both humans and animals; on the day I struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I set them apart for myself. 18 But I have taken the L’vi’im in place of all the firstborn among the people of Isra’el, 19 and I have given the L’vi’im to Aharon and his sons from among the people of Isra’el to do the service of the people of Isra’el in the tent of meeting and to make atonement for the people of Isra’el, so that no plague will fall on the people of Isra’el in consequence of their coming too close to the sanctuary.”
20 This is what Moshe, Aharon and all the community of the people of Isra’el did to the L’vi’im. The people of Isra’el acted in accordance with everything that Adonai had ordered Moshe in regard to the L’vi’im. 21 The L’vi’im purified themselves and washed their clothes. Then Aharon offered them as a holy gift before Adonai and made atonement for them in order to cleanse them. 22 After that, the L’vi’im came to do their service in the tent of meeting in front of Aharon and his sons; they acted in accordance with Adonai’s orders to Moshe in regard to the L’vi’im.
23 Adonai said to Moshe, 24 “Here are instructions concerning the L’vi’im: when they reach the age of twenty-five, they are to begin performing their duties serving in the tent of meeting; 25 and when they reach the age of fifty, they are to stop performing this work and not serve any longer. 26 They will assist their brothers who are performing their duties in the tent of meeting, but they themselves will not do any of the work. This is what you are to do with the L’vi’im in regard to their duties.”
9:1 (iii) Adonai spoke to Moshe in the Sinai Desert in the first month of the second year after they had left the land of Egypt; he said, 2 “Let the people of Isra’el observe Pesach at its designated time. 3 On the fourteenth day of this month, at dusk, you are to observe it — at its designated time. You are to observe it according to all its regulations and rules.” 4 Moshe told the people of Isra’el to observe Pesach. 5 So they observed Pesach at dusk on the fourteenth day of the month in the Sinai Desert; the people of Isra’el acted in accordance with all that Adonai had ordered Moshe.
6 But there were certain people who had become unclean because of someone’s corpse, so that they could not observe Pesach on that day. So they came before Moshe and Aharon that day 7 and said to him, “We are unclean because of someone’s corpse; but why must we be kept from bringing the offering for Adonai at the time designated for the people of Isra’el?” 8 Moshe answered them, “Wait, so that I can hear what Adonai will order concerning you.” 9 Adonai said to Moshe, 10 “Tell the people of Isra’el, ‘If any of you now or in future generations is unclean because of a corpse, or if he is on a trip abroad, nevertheless he is to observe Pesach. 11 But he will observe it in the second month on the fourteenth day at dusk. They are to eat it with matzah and maror, 12 they are to leave none of it until morning, and they are not to break any of its bones — they are to observe it according to all the regulations of Pesach. 13 But the person who is clean and not on a trip who fails to observe Pesach will be cut off from his people; because he did not bring the offering for Adonai at its designated time, that person will bear the consequences of his sin. 14 If a foreigner is staying with you and wants to observe Pesach for Adonai, he is to do it according to the regulations and rules of Pesach — you are to have the same law for the foreigner as for the citizen of the land.’”
(iv) 15 On the day the tabernacle was put up, the cloud covered the tabernacle, that is, the tent of the testimony; and in the evening, over the tabernacle was what appeared to be fire, which remained until morning. 16 So the cloud always covered it, and it looked like fire at night. 17 Whenever the cloud was taken up from above the tent, the people of Isra’el continued their travels; and they camped wherever the cloud stopped. 18 At the order of Adonai, the people of Isra’el traveled; at the order of Adonai, they camped; and as long as the cloud stayed over the tabernacle, they stayed in camp. 19 Even when the cloud remained on the tabernacle for a long time, the people of Isra’el did what Adonai had charged them to do and did not travel. 20 Sometimes the cloud was a few days over the tabernacle; according to Adonai’s order, they remained in camp; and according to Adonai’s order, they traveled. 21 Sometimes the cloud was there only from evening until morning; so that when the cloud was taken up in the morning, they traveled. Or even if it continued up both day and night, when the cloud was up, they traveled. 22 Whether it was two days, a month or a year that the cloud remained over the tabernacle, staying on it, the people of Isra’el remained in camp and did not travel; but as soon as it was taken up, they traveled. 23 At Adonai’s order, they camped; and at Adonai’s order, they traveled — they did what Adonai had charged them to do through Moshe.
10:1 Adonai said to Moshe, 2 “Make two trumpets; make them of hammered silver. Use them for summoning the community and for sounding the call to break camp and move on. 3 When they are sounded, the entire community is to assemble before you at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 4 If only one is sounded, then just the leaders, the heads of the clans of Isra’el, are to assemble before you.
5 “When you sound an alarm, the camps to the east will commence traveling. 6 When you sound a second alarm, the camps to the south will set out; they will sound alarms to announce when to travel. 7 However, when the community is to be assembled, you are to sound; but don’t sound an alarm. 8 It will be the sons of Aharon, the cohanim, who are to sound the trumpets; this will be a permanent regulation for you through all your generations.
9 “When you go to war in your land against an adversary who is oppressing you, you are to sound an alarm with the trumpets; then you will be remembered before Adonai your God, and you will be saved from your enemies.
10 “Also on your days of rejoicing, at your designated times and on Rosh-Hodesh, you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; these will be your reminder before your God. I am Adonai your God.”
(v) 11 On the twentieth day of the second month of the second year, the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle of the testimony; 12 and the people of Isra’el moved out in stages from the Sinai Desert. The cloud stopped in the Pa’ran Desert.
13 So they set out on their first journey, in keeping with Adonai’s order through Moshe. 14 In the lead was the banner of the camp of the descendants of Y’hudah, whose companies moved forward; over his company was Nachshon the son of ‘Amminadav. 15 Over the company of the tribe of the descendants of Yissakhar was N’tan’el the son of Tzu‘ar. 16 Over the company of the descendants of Z’vulun was Eli’av the son of Helon.
17 Then the tabernacle was taken down; and the descendants of Gershon and the descendants of M’rari set out, carrying the tabernacle.
18 Next, the banner of the camp of Re’uven moved forward by companies; over his company was Elitzur the son of Sh’de’ur. 19 Over the company of the tribe of the descendants of Shim‘on was Shlumi’el the son of Tzurishaddai. 20 Over the company of the descendants of Gad was Elyasaf the son of De‘u’el.
21 Then the descendants of K’hat set out, carrying the sanctuary, so that [at the next camp] the tabernacle could be set up before they arrived.
22 The banner of the camp of the descendants of Efrayim moved forward by companies; over his company was Elishama the son of ‘Ammihud. 23 Over the company of the tribe of the descendants of M’nasheh was Gamli’el the son of P’dahtzur. 24 Over the company of the descendants of Binyamin was Avidan the son of Gid‘oni.
25 The banner of the camp of the descendants of Dan, forming the rearguard for all the camps, moved forward by companies; over his company was Achi‘ezer the son of ‘Ammishaddai. 26 Over the company of the tribe of the descendants of Asher was Pag‘i’el the son of ‘Okhran. 27 Over the company of the descendants of Naftali was Achira the son of ‘Enan.
28 This is how the people of Isra’el traveled by companies; thus they moved forward.
(S: vi) 29 Moshe said to Hovav the son of Re‘u’el the Midyani, Moshe’s father-in-law, “We are traveling to the place about which Adonai said, ‘I will give it to you.’ Come with us, and we will treat you well, because Adonai has promised good things to Isra’el.” 30 But he replied, “I will not go; I would rather go back to my own country and my own kinsmen.” 31 Moshe continued, “Please don’t leave us, because you know that we have to camp in the desert, and you can serve as our eyes. 32 If you do go with us, then whatever good Adonai does for us, we will do the same for you.”
33 So they set out from Adonai’s mountain and traveled for three days. Ahead of them on this three-day journey went the ark of Adonai’s covenant, searching for a new place to stop. 34 The cloud of Adonai was over them during the day as they set out from the camp. (A: vi) 35 When the ark moved forward, Moshe said,
“Arise, Adonai! May your enemies be scattered!
Let those who hate you flee before you!”
36 When it stopped, he said,
“Return, Adonai of the many, many
thousands of Isra’el!”
11:1 But the people began complaining about their hardships to Adonai. When Adonai heard it, his anger flared up, so that fire from Adonai broke out against them and consumed the outskirts of the camp. 2 Then the people cried to Moshe, Moshe prayed to Adonai, and the fire abated. 3 That place was called Tav‘erah [burning] because Adonai’s fire broke out against them.
4 Next, the mixed crowd that was with them grew greedy for an easier life; while the people of Isra’el, for their part, also renewed their weeping and said, “If only we had meat to eat! 5 We remember the fish we used to eat in Egypt — it cost us nothing! — and the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, the garlic! 6 But now we’re withering away, we have nothing to look at but this man.”
7 The man, by the way, was like coriander seed and white like gum resin. 8 The people would go around gathering it and would grind it up in mills or pound it to paste with mortar and pestle. Then they would cook it in pots and make it into loaves that tasted like cakes baked with olive oil. 9 When the dew settled on the camp during the night, the man came with it.
10 Moshe heard the people crying, family after family, each person at the entrance to his tent; the anger of Adonai flared up violently; and Moshe too was displeased. 11 Moshe asked Adonai, “Why are you treating your servant so badly? Why haven’t I found favor in your sight, so that you put the burden of this entire people on me? 12 Did I conceive this people? Was I their father, so that you tell me, ‘Carry them in your arms, like a nurse carrying a baby, to the land you swore to their ancestors?’ 13 Where am I going to get meat to give to this entire people? — because they keep bothering me with their crying and saying, ‘Give us meat to eat!’ 14 I can’t carry this entire people by myself alone — it’s too much for me! 15 If you are going to treat me this way, then just kill me outright! — please, if you have any mercy toward me! — and don’t let me go on being this miserable!”
16 Adonai said to Moshe, “Bring me seventy of the leaders of Isra’el, people you recognize as leaders of the people and officers of theirs. Bring them to the tent of meeting, and have them stand there with you. 17 I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take some of the Spirit which rests on you and put it on them. Then they will carry the burden of the people along with you, so that you won’t carry it yourself alone.
18 “Tell the people, ‘Consecrate yourselves for tomorrow, and you will eat meat; because you cried in the ears of Adonai, “If only we had meat to eat! We had the good life in Egypt!” All right, Adonai is going to give you meat, and you will eat it. 19 You won’t eat it just one day, or two days, or five, or ten, or twenty days, 20 but a whole month! — until it comes out of your nose and you hate it! — because you have rejected Adonai, who is here with you, and distressed him with your crying and asking, “Why did we ever leave Egypt?”’”
21 But Moshe said, “Here I am with six hundred thousand men on foot, and yet you say, ‘I will give them meat to eat for a whole month!’ 22 If whole flocks and herds were slaughtered for them, would it be enough? If all the fish in the sea were collected for them, would even that be enough?” 23 Adonai answered Moshe, “Has Adonai’s arm grown short? Now you will see whether what I said will happen or not!”
24 Moshe went out and told the people what Adonai had said. Then he collected seventy of the leaders of the people and placed them all around the tent. 25 Adonai came down in the cloud, spoke to him, took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy leaders. When the Spirit came to rest on them, they prophesied — then but not afterwards.
26 There were two men who stayed in the camp, one named Eldad and the other Medad, and the Spirit came to rest on them. They were among those listed to go out to the tent, but they hadn’t done so, and they prophesied in the camp. 27 A young man ran and told Moshe, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp!” 28 Y’hoshua, the son of Nun, who from his youth up had been Moshe’s assistant, answered, “My lord, Moshe, stop them!” 29 But Moshe replied, “Are you so zealous to protect me? I wish all of Adonai’s people were prophets! I wish Adonai would put his Spirit on all of them!”
(vii) 30 Moshe and the leaders of Isra’el went back into the camp; 31 and Adonai sent out a wind which brought quails from across the sea and let them fall near the camp, about a day’s trip away on each side of the camp and all around it, covering the ground to a depth of three feet. 32 The people stayed up all that day, all night and all the next day gathering the quails — the person gathering the least collected ten heaps; then they spread them out for themselves all around the camp. 33 But while the meat was still in their mouth, before they had chewed it up, the anger of Adonai flared up against the people, and Adonai struck the people with a terrible plague. 34 Therefore that place was named Kivrot-HaTa’avah [graves of greed], because there they buried the people who were so greedy.
35 From Kivrot-HaTa’avah the people traveled to Hatzerot, and they stayed at Hatzerot.
12:1 Miryam and Aharon began criticizing Moshe on account of the Ethiopian woman he had married, for he had in fact married an Ethiopian woman. 2 They said, “Is it true that Adonai has spoken only with Moshe? Hasn’t he spoken with us too?” Adonai heard them. 3 Now this man Moshe was very humble, more so than anyone on earth. 4 Suddenly Adonai told Moshe, Aharon and Miryam, “Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting.” The three of them went out.
5 Adonai came down in a column of cloud and stood at the entrance to the tent. He summoned Aharon and Miryam, and they both went forward. 6 He said, “Listen to what I say: when there is a prophet among you, I, Adonai, make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. 7 But it isn’t that way with my servant Moshe. He is the only one who is faithful in my entire household. 8 With him I speak face to face and clearly, not in riddles; he sees the image of Adonai. So why weren’t you afraid to criticize my servant Moshe?” 9 The anger of Adonai flared up against them, and he left.
10 But when the cloud was removed from above the tent, Miryam had tzara‘at, as white as snow. Aharon looked at Miryam, and she was as white as snow. 11 Aharon said to Moshe, “Oh, my lord, please don’t punish us for this sin we committed so foolishly. 12 Please don’t let her be like a stillborn baby, with its body half eaten away when it comes out of its mother’s womb!” 13 Moshe cried to Adonai, “Oh God, I beg you, please, heal her!” (Maftir) 14 Adonai answered Moshe, “If her father had merely spit in her face, wouldn’t she hide herself in shame for seven days? So let her be shut out of the camp for seven days; after that, she can be brought back in.” 15 Miryam was shut out of the camp seven days, and the people did not travel until she was brought back in. 16 Afterwards, the people went on from Hatzerot and camped in the Pa’ran Desert.)
• Ethics of the Fathers: Chapter 2
During the summer months, from the Shabbat after Passover until the Shabbat before Rosh Hashahah, we study a weekly chapter of the Talmud's Ethics of the Fathers ("Avot") each Shabbat afternoon; this week we study Chapter Two.
Link: Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 2
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Behaalotecha, 7th Portion Numbers 11:30-12:16 with Rashi
• Chapter 11
30Then Moses entered the camp; he and the elders of Israel. לוַיֵּאָסֵף משֶׁה אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה הוּא וְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
Moses entered: From the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. ויאסף משה: מפתח אהל מועד:
the camp: Each one to his tent. אל המחנה: נכנסו איש לאהלו:
entered: Heb. וַיֵאָסֵף, an expression denoting entering a house, as in,“You shall gather it (וַאֲסַפְתּוֹ) into your house” (Deut. 22:2). The origin for all these terms is,“he amasses, but knows not who will gather them in (אֹסְפָם)” (Ps. 39:7). This teaches that He [God] did not bring punishment upon them before the righteous men had retired to their tents. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:30] ויאסף: לשון כניסה אל הבית, כמו (דברים כב, ב) ואספתו אל תוך ביתך, ואב לכולם (תהלים לט, ז) יצבור ולא ידע מי אוספם, מלמד שלא הביא עליהם פורענות עד שנכנסו הצדיקים איש לאהלו:
31A wind went forth from the Lord and swept quails from the sea and spread them over the camp about one day's journey this way and one day's journey that way, around the camp, about two cubits above the ground. לאוְרוּחַ נָסַע | מֵאֵת יְהֹוָה וַיָּגָז שַׂלְוִים מִן הַיָּם וַיִּטּשׁ עַל הַמַּחֲנֶה כְּדֶרֶךְ יוֹם כֹּה וּכְדֶרֶךְ יוֹם כֹּה סְבִיבוֹת הַמַּחֲנֶה וּכְאַמָּתַיִם עַל פְּנֵי הָאָרֶץ:
and swept: Heb. וַיָּגָז, caused to fly; similarly,“for it passes (גָז) quickly” (Ps. 90:10),“and likewise, they have crossed (נָגוֹזוּ) and passed away” (Nah. 1:12). ויגז: ויפריח, וכן (תהלים צ, י) כי גז חיש, וכן (נחום א, יב) נגוזו ועבר:
and spread them: Heb. וַיִּטֹּשׁ, and strew them, as in,“Behold, they were spread out (נְטֻשִׁים) over the face of the land” (I Sam. 30:16);“I will spread you out (וּנְטַשְׁתִּיךָ) in the desert” (Ezek. 29:5). ויטש: ויפשוט, כמו (שמואל א' ל טז) והנם נטושים על פני כל הארץ, (יחזקאל כט, ה) ונטשתיך המדברה:
about two cubits: They flew at a height that they reached a person’s heart, so that it would not be difficult for them to gather them, so that they need neither rise up nor bend down. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:31] וכאמתים: פורחות בגובה עד שהן כנגד לבו של אדם, כדי שלא יהא טורח באסיפתן לא להגביה ולא לשחות:
32The people rose up all that day and all night and the next day and gathered the quails. [Even] the one who gathered the least collected ten heaps. They spread them around the camp in piles. לבוַיָּקָם הָעָם כָּל הַיּוֹם הַהוּא וְכָל הַלַּיְלָה וְכֹל | יוֹם הַמָּחֳרָת וַיַּאַסְפוּ אֶת הַשְּׂלָיו (כתיב השלו) הַמַּמְעִיט אָסַף עֲשָׂרָה חֳמָרִים וַיִּשְׁטְחוּ לָהֶם שָׁטוֹחַ סְבִיבוֹת הַמַּחֲנֶה:
[Even] the one who gathered the least: The one who gathered the least of all, the lazy and the disabled, gathered ten heaps. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:32] הממעיט: מי שאוסף פחות מכולם, העצלים והחגרים, אסף עשרה חמרים:
they spread them: They spread them out in numerous heaps. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:32] וישטחו: עשו אותן משטיחין משטיחין:
33The meat was still between their teeth; it was not yet finished, and the anger of the Lord flared against the people, and the Lord struck the people with a very mighty blow. לגהַבָּשָׂר עוֹדֶנּוּ בֵּין שִׁנֵּיהֶם טֶרֶם יִכָּרֵת וְאַף יְהֹוָה חָרָה בָעָם וַיַּךְ יְהֹוָה בָּעָם מַכָּה רַבָּה מְאֹד:
it was not yet finished: טֶרֶם יִכָּרֵת. As the Targum renders: it was not yet finished. [I.e., the quails had not yet finished coming (Be’er Basadeh). They had not yet finished eating (Gur Aryeh). All the quails had not yet been removed from the field (Be’er Mayim Chayim).] Another interpretation: He did not have the chance to chew it [lit., cut it] with his teeth before his soul departed. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:33] טרם יכרת: כתרגומו עד לא פסק. דבר אחר אינו מספיק לפסקו בשניו עד שנשמתו יוצאה:
34He named that place Kivroth Hata'avah [Graves of Craving], for there they buried the people who craved. לדוַיִּקְרָא אֶת שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא קִבְרוֹת הַתַּאֲוָה כִּי שָׁם קָבְרוּ אֶת הָעָם הַמִּתְאַוִּים:
35From Kivroth Hata'avah the people traveled to Hazeroth, and they stayed in Hazeroth. להמִקִּבְרוֹת הַתַּאֲוָה נָסְעוּ הָעָם חֲצֵרוֹת וַיִּהְיוּ בַּחֲצֵרוֹת:
Chapter 12
1Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses regarding the Cushite woman he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman. אוַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמשֶׁה עַל אֹדוֹת הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית אֲשֶׁר לָקָח כִּי אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית לָקָח:
[Miriam and Aaron] spoke: [The term] דִּבּוּר always connotes harsh talk, as it says,“The man, the lord of the land, spoke (דִּבֶּר) harshly with us” (Gen. 42:30). But wherever [the term] אֲמִירָה is found, it connotes supplication, as it says,“He said (וַיֹּאמֶר), 'my brethren, please do not do evil’” (Gen. 19:7);“He said (וַיֹּאמֶר), 'Please listen to My words’” (Num. 12:6). [The term] נָא always denotes a request. — [Tanchuma Tzav 13] ותדבר: אין דבור בכל מקום אלא לשון קשה, וכן הוא אומר (בראשית מב, ל) דבר האיש אדוני הארץ אתנו קשות, ואין אמירה בכל מקום אלא לשון תחנונים, וכן הוא אומר (בראשית יט, ז) ויאמר אל נא אחי תרעו, (במדבר יב, ו) ויאמר שמעו נא דברי, כל נא לשון בקשה:
Miriam and Aaron spoke: She spoke first. Therefore, Scripture mentions her first. How did she know that Moses had separated from his wife? [See below] R. Nathan says: Miriam was beside Zipporah when Moses was told that Eldad and Medad were prophesying in the camp. When Zipporah heard this, she said,“Woe to their wives if they are required to prophesy, for they will separate from their wives just my husband separated from me.” From this, Miriam knew [about it] and told Aaron. Now if Miriam, who did not intend to disparage him [Moses] was punished, all the more so someone who [intentionally] disparages his fellow. — [Tanchuma Tzav 13] ותדבר מרים ואהרן: היא פתחה בדבור תחילה, לפיכך הקדימה הכתוב תחלה, ומנין היתה יודעת מרים שפרש משה מן האשה, רבי נתן אומר, מרים היתה בצד צפורה בשעה שנאמר למשה אלדד ומידד מתנבאים במחנה, כיון ששמעה צפורה, אמרה אוי לנשותיהן של אלו אם הם נזקקים לנבואה שיהיו פורשין מנשותיהן כדרך שפרש בעלי ממני, ומשם ידעה מרים והגידה לאהרן. ומה מרים שלא נתכוונה לגנותו, כך נענשה, קל וחומר למספר בגנותו של חבירו:
the Cushite woman: [Moses’ wife was a Midianite, not a Cushite, but] Scripture teaches that everyone acknowledged her beauty just as everyone acknowledges a Cushite’s blackness. — [Tanchuma Tzav 13] האשה הכשית: מגיד שהכל מודים ביפיה, כשם שהכל מודים בשחרותו של כושי:
Cushite: כֻּשִׁית. Its numerical value is equal to יְפַת מַרְאֶה, beautiful in appearance. — [Tanchuma Tzav 13] כ = 20, ו = 6, ש = 300 , י = 10, ת = 400, total 736; י = 10, פ = 80, ת = 400, מ = 40, ר = 200, א = 1, ה = 5, total 736. כושית: בגימטריא יפת מראה:
regarding the… woman: Concerning her divorce. — [Tanchuma Tzav 13] על אדות האשה: על אודות גירושיה:
for he had married a Cushite woman: What does this [apparently superfluous clause] mean to say? You find a woman who is beautiful in appearance, but unpleasant in deed; [or a woman who is pleasant] in deed, but not of beautiful appearance. This one, however, was pleasant in every respect. [Therefore, she was called Cushite, as above.] - [Tanchuma Tzav 13] כי אשה כשית לקח: מה תלמוד לומר, אלא יש לך אשה נאה ביפיה ואינה נאה במעשיה, במעשיה ולא ביפיה, אבל זאת נאה בכל:
Cushite woman: She was called “the Cushite” [the Ethiopian] on account of her beauty, as a man would call his handsome son “Cushite” to negate the power of the evil eye. — [Tanchuma Tzav 13] האשה הכשית: על שם נויה נקראת כושית כאדם הקורא את בנו נאה כושי, כדי שלא תשלוט בו עין רעה:
for he had married a Cushite woman: And had now divorced her. - [Tanchuma Tzav 13] כי אשה כשית לקח: ועתה גרשה:
2They said, "Has the Lord spoken only to Moses? Hasn't He spoken to us too?" And the Lord heard. בוַיֹּאמְרוּ הֲרַק אַךְ בְּמשֶׁה דִּבֶּר יְהֹוָה הֲלֹא גַּם בָּנוּ דִבֵּר וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהֹוָה:
Has… only: with Him alone?- [Tanchuma Tzav 13] הרק אך: עמו לבדו דבר ה':
Hasn’t He spoken to us too?: Yet we have not abstained from marital relations. — [Tanchuma Tzav 13] הלא גם בנו דבר: ולא פרשנו מדרך ארץ:
3Now this man Moses was exceedingly humble, more so than any person on the face of the earth. גוְהָאִישׁ משֶׁה עָנָיו (כתיב ענו) מְאֹד מִכֹּל הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה:
humble: Modest and patient. — [Tanchuma Tzav 13] ענו: שפל וסבלן:
4The Lord suddenly said to Moses, Aaron and Miriam, "Go out, all three of you, to the Tent of Meeting!" And all three went out. דוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה פִּתְאֹם אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל מִרְיָם צְאוּ שְׁלָשְׁתְּכֶם אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וַיֵּצְאוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּם:
suddenly: He revealed Himself to them suddenly, when they were ritually unclean following marital relations, and they cried, “Water, water!” [They needed water to purify themselves.] He thus showed them that Moses had done right in separating from his wife, since the Divine Presence revealed itself to him frequently, and there was no set time for Divine Communication. — [Tanchuma Tzav 13] פתאום: נגלה עליהם פתאום, והם טמאים בדרך ארץ, והיו צועקים מים מים, להודיעם שיפה עשה משה שפרש מן האשה, מאחר שנגלית עליו שכינה תדיר ואין עת קבועה לדבור:
Go out, all three of you: This teaches us that all three were summoned with a single word, something impossible for the [human] mouth to utter and the ear to grasp. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:4] צאו שלשתכם: מגיד ששלשתן נקראו בדבור אחד, מה שאי אפשר לפה לומר ולאזן לשמוע:
5The Lord descended in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the Tent. He called to Aaron and Miriam, and they both went out. הוַיֵּרֶד יְהֹוָה בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן וַיַּעֲמֹד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וַיִּקְרָא אַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם וַיֵּצְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם:
in a pillar of cloud: Unlike a mortal, He went alone. For when a mortal king goes out to war, he departs accompanied by a large retinue, but when he travels in times of peace, he leaves with a small escort. But the custom of the Holy One, blessed is He, is that He goes out to battle alone, as it says, “[The Lord is] a man of war” (Exod. 15:3), but He goes in peace with a large retinue, as it says, “The chariot of God is twice ten thousand times, thousands of angels” (Ps. 68:18). - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:5] בעמוד ענן: יצא יחידי, שלא כמדת בשר ודם. מלך בשר ודם כשיוצא למלחמה יוצא באוכלוסין, וכשיוצא לשלום יוצא במועטים, ומדת הקב"ה יוצא למלחמה יחידי, שנאמר (שמות טו, ג) ה' איש מלחמה, ויוצא לשלום באוכלוסין, שנאמר (תהלים סח, יח) רכב א-להים רבותים אלפי שנאן:
He called to Aaron and Miriam: So that they should proceed to leave the courtyard, [drawn] towards the Divine word. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:5] ויקרא אהרן ומרים: שיהיו נמשכין ויוצאין מן החצר לקראת הדבור:
and they both went out: Why did He draw them away to isolate them from Moses? Because we relate only some of a person’s good qualities in his presence and all of them in his absence. Similarly, we find in the case of Noah, that in his absence, Scripture says [of him], “a righteous man, perfect” (Gen. 6:9). But in his presence it was said [by God],“for it is you that I have seen as a righteous man before Me” (Gen. 7:1) [but God makes no mention of his perfection]. Another interpretation: [God isolated them from Moses] so that he [Moses] should not hear the reprimanding of Aaron [by God]. - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:5] ויצאו שניהם: ומפני מה משכן והפרידן ממשה, לפי שאומרים מקצת שבחו של אדם בפניו וכולו שלא בפניו, וכן מצינו בנח, שלא בפניו נאמר (בראשית ו, ט) איש צדיק תמים, ובפניו נאמר (בראשית ז, א) כי אותך ראיתי צדיק לפני. דבר אחר שלא ישמע בנזיפתו של אהרן:
6He said, "Please listen to My words. If there be prophets among you, [I] the Lord will make Myself known to him in a vision; I will speak to him in a dream. ווַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְעוּ נָא דְבָרָי אִם יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֲכֶם יְהֹוָה בַּמַּרְאָה אֵלָיו אֶתְוַדָּע בַּחֲלוֹם אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ:
Please listen to My words: [The term] נָא always denotes a request. - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:6] שמעו נא דברי: אין נא אלא לשון בקשה:
If there be prophets among you: If you have prophets…. — [Targum Onkelos] אם יהיה נביאכם: אם יהיו לכם נביאים:
[I] the Lord will make Myself known to him in a vision: The Divine Presence of My Name is not revealed to him with distinct clarity, but in a dream or a vision. - [Tanchuma Tzav 13] ה' במראה אליו אתודע: שכינת שמי אין נגלית עליו באספקלריא המאירה אלא בחלום וחזיון:
7Not so is My servant Moses; he is faithful throughout My house. זלֹא כֵן עַבְדִּי משֶׁה בְּכָל בֵּיתִי נֶאֱמָן הוּא:
8With him I speak mouth to mouth; in a vision and not in riddles, and he beholds the image of the Lord. So why were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses ? חפֶּה אֶל פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ וּמַרְאֶה וְלֹא בְחִידֹת וּתְמֻנַת יְהֹוָה יַבִּיט וּמַדּוּעַ לֹא יְרֵאתֶם לְדַבֵּר בְּעַבְדִּי בְמשֶׁה:
Mouth to mouth: I told him to separate from his wife (Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:8, Tanchuma Tzav 13). Where did I tell him this? At Sinai; “Go and tell them, ‘Return to your tents,’ but you, remain here with Me” (Deut. 5:27). - [See Shab. 87a] פה אל פה: אמרתי לו לפרוש מן האשה. והיכן אמרתי לו, בסיני (דברים ה, כז) לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם, ואתה פה עמוד עמדי:
in a vision but not in riddles: “A vision” refers to the vision of speech, for I express My communication to Him with absolute clarity, and I do not obscure it with riddles in the way it was said to Ezekiel, “Present a riddle” (Ezek. 17:2). I might think that it refers to the vision of the Divine Presence [itself]! Scripture therefore teaches, “You are not able to see My face” (Exod. 33:23). - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:8, Tanchuma Tzav 13] ומראה ולא בחידות: מראה זה מראה דבור, שאני מפרש לו דבורי במראת פנים שבו ואיני סותמו לו בחידות, כענין שנאמר ליחזקאל (יחזקאל יז, ב) חוד חידה וגו', יכול מראה שכינה, תלמוד לומר (שמות לג, כ) לא תוכל לראות את פני:
and He beholds the image of the Lord: This refers to a vision of the “back,” as it says,“and you will see My back” (Exod. 33:23). - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:8, Tanchuma Tzav 13] ותמנת ה' יביט: זה מראה אחורים, כענין שנאמר (שמות לג, כג) וראית את אחורי:
against my servant Moses: Heb. בְּעַבְדִי בְמשֶׁה, lit., against My servant, against Moses. Scripture does not say בְּעַבְדִי משֶׁה, against My servant Moses, but בְּעַבְדִי בְמשֶׁה, against My servant, against Moses . [The meaning is thus:] against My servant even if he were not Moses, and against Moses, even if he were not My servant, you should certainly have feared him, and all the more so since he is My servant, and the servant of the king is a king himself! You should have said, “The King does not love him for nothing.” If you claim that I am unaware of his actions, this [statement] is worse than your previous one. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:8, Tanchuma Tzav 13] בעבדי במשה: אינו אומר בעבדי משה, אלא בעבדי במשה, בעבדי אף על פי שאינו משה, במשה אפילו אינו עבדי, כדאי הייתם לירא מפניו, וכל שכן שהוא עבדי ועבד מלך מלך, היה לכם לומר אין המלך אוהבו חנם. ואם תאמרו איני מכיר במעשיו, זו קשה מן הראשונה:
9The wrath of the Lord flared against them and He left. טוַיִּחַר אַף יְהֹוָה בָּם וַיֵּלַךְ:
The wrath of the Lord flared against them and He left: After He had informed them of their transgression, He issued a decree of excommunication against them. All the more so, should a mortal not become angry with his friend before he informs him of his offense. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:9, Tanchuma Tzav 13] ויחר אף ה' בם וילך: מאחר שהודיעם סרחונם גזר עליהם נדוי, קל וחומר לבשר ודם שלא יכעוס על חבירו עד שיודיענו סרחונו:
10The cloud departed from above the Tent, and behold, Miriam was afflicted with tzara'ath, [as white] as snow. Then Aaron turned to Miriam and behold, she was afflicted with tzara'ath. יוְהֶעָנָן סָר מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל וְהִנֵּה מִרְיָם מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג וַיִּפֶן אַהֲרֹן אֶל מִרְיָם וְהִנֵּה מְצֹרָעַת:
The cloud departed: and afterwards, “behold Miriam was afflicted with tzara’ath, [as white] as snow.” This is comparable to a king who said to a tutor,“Punish my son, but do not punish him until I leave you, for I feel pity for him.” - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:10, Tanchuma Tzav 13] והענן סר: ואחר כך והנה מרים מצורעת כשלג, משל למלך שאמר לפדגוג, רדה את בני, אבל לא תרדנו עד שאלך מאצלך, שרחמי עליו:
11Aaron said to Moses, "Please, master, do not put sin upon us for acting foolishly and for sinning. יאוַיֹּאמֶר אַהֲרֹן אֶל משֶׁה בִּי אֲדֹנִי אַל נָא תָשֵׁת עָלֵינוּ חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר נוֹאַלְנוּ וַאֲשֶׁר חָטָאנוּ:
for acting foolishly: Heb. נוֹאַלְנוּ, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders, [דִי אִטַפְּשְׁנָא, that we acted foolishly] from the term, אֱוִיל, “fool.” נואלנו: כתרגומו לשון אויל:
12Let her not be like the dead, which comes out of his mother's womb with half his flesh consumed!" יבאַל נָא תְהִי כַּמֵּת אֲשֶׁר בְּצֵאתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם אִמּוֹ וַיֵּאָכֵל חֲצִי בְשָׂרוֹ:
Do not let her be: This sister of ours. אל נא תהי: אחותנו זו:
like the dead: For the one afflicted with tzara’ath is considered like dead. Just as a corpse defiles through entry [if one enters the room where it lies], so does one afflicted with tzara’ath defile through entry. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:12, Tanchuma Tzav 13] כמת: שהמצורע חשוב כמת, מה מת מטמא בביאה, אף מצורע מטמא בביאה:
which comes out of his mother’s womb: It should have said, “our mother”? But Scripture euphemizes. Similarly, [it says,] “half his flesh.” It should have said, “half our flesh”? But [here too,] Scripture euphemizes. [The meaning here is:] For since she came out of our mother’s womb, it is to us as if half our flesh has been eaten away. This is similar to saying, “for he is our brother, our very flesh” (Gen. 37:27). Even according to the literal meaning of the text, it appears so. It is not proper for a brother to allow his sister to remain as if dead. אשר בצאתו מרחם אמו: אמנו היה לו לומר, אלא שכינה הכתוב. וכן חצי בשרו, חצי בשרנו היה לו לומר, אלא שכינה הכתוב. מאחר שיצאה מרחם אמנו היא לנו כאילו נאכל חצי בשרנו, כענין שנאמר (בראשית לז, כז) כי אחינו בשרנו הוא. ולפי משמעו אף הוא נראה כן, אין ראוי לאח להניח את אחותו להיות כמת:
which comes out: Since he [the dead one] came out of the womb of the mother of the one who has the power to help him but does not, it is as if half his [the latter’s] flesh is eaten away, since his brother is his own flesh. Another interpretation: Let her not be like the dead-If You do not heal her through prayer, who will confine her? Who will cleanse her? I myself may not examine her, since I am related, and a relative many not examine plague marks [symptomatic of tzara’ath], and there is no other kohen in the world. This is the meaning of, “since he has come out of his mother’s womb.” [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:12, Tanchuma Tzav 13] אשר בצאתו: מאחר שיצא זה מרחם אמו של זה שיש כח בידו לעזור ואינו עוזרו, הרי נאכל חצי בשרו, שאחיו בשרו הוא. דבר אחר אל נא תהי כמת, אם אינך רופאה בתפלה, מי מסגירה ומי מטהרה, אני אי אפשר לראותה, שאני קרוב ואין קרוב רואה את הנגעים, וכהן אחר אין בעולם, וזהו אשר בצאתו מרחם אמו:
13Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, "I beseech you, God, please heal her." יגוַיִּצְעַק משֶׁה אֶל יְהֹוָה לֵאמֹר אֵל נָא רְפָא נָא לָהּ:
I beseech you, God, please heal her: Scripture teaches you proper conduct, that if one asks his friend for a favor, he should precede [his request] with two or three words of supplication, and only then should he make his requests. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:13, Tanchuma Tzav 13] אל נא רפא נא לה: בא הכתוב ללמדך דרך ארץ, שהשואל דבר מחבירו צריך לומר שנים או שלשה דברי תחנונים ואחר כן יבקש שאלותיו:
saying: What does this [word] teach us? He [Moses] said to Him, Answer me as to whether You will heal her or not. Eventually, He replied,“If her father were to spit….” R. Eleazar ben Azariah says: In four places Moses asked the Holy One, blessed is He, to answer him if He would accede to his requests or not [and in all four he used the word, לֵאמֹר, to say , i.e., to answer]. Similarly, “Moses spoke before the Lord saying…” (Exod. 6:12). What does the word “saying” teach? Answer me as to whether You will redeem them or not. Eventually, He replied, “Now you will see…” (Exod. 7:1). Similarly, “Moses spoke to the Lord, saying, Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh appoint…” (Num. 27:15-16). He answered, “Take for yourself…” (verse 18). Similarly, “I pleaded to the Lord, at that time, saying” (Deut. 3:23). He answered him, “It is enough for you!” (verse 26). - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:13] לאמר: מה תלמוד לומר, אמר לו השיבני אם אתה מרפא אותה אם לאו, עד שהשיבו ואביה ירק ירק וגו'. רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר בארבעה מקומות בקש משה מלפני הקב"ה להשיבו אם יעשה שאלותיו אם לאו, כיוצא בו (שמות ו, יב) וידבר משה לפני ה' לאמר וגו', מה תלמוד לומר לאמר, השיבני אם גואלם אתה אם לאו, עד שהשיבו עתה תראה וגו'. כיוצא בו (במדבר כז טו - טז) וידבר משה אל ה' לאמר יפקד ה' אלהי הרוחות לכל בשר, השיבו קח לך (במד' כז יח). כיוצא בו (דברים ג, כג) ואתחנן אל ה' בעת ההיא לאמר, השיבו רב לך:
please heal her: Why did Moses not pray at length? So that the Israelites should not say, “His sister is in distress, yet he stands and prolongs his prayer.” [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:13, Tanchuma Tzav 13] (Another interpretation: So that Israel should not say, “ For his sister he prays at length, but for our sake he does not pray at length.”) - [Midrash Aggadah, Yalkut Shim’oni, Midrash Lekach Tov] רפא נא לה: מפני מה לא האריך משה בתפלה, שלא יהיו ישראל אומרים אחותו נתונה בצרה והוא עומד ומרבה בתפלה [דבר אחר שלא יאמרו ישראל בשביל אחותו הוא מאריך בתפלה, אבל בשבילנו אינו מאריך בתפלה]:
14The Lord replied to Moses, "If her father were to spit in her face, would she not be humiliated for seven days? She shall be confined for seven days outside the camp, and afterwards she may enter. ידוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה וְאָבִיהָ יָרֹק יָרַק בְּפָנֶיהָ הֲלֹא תִכָּלֵם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תִּסָּגֵר שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְאַחַר תֵּאָסֵף:
If her father were to spit in her face: If her father had turned to her with an angry face, would she not be humiliated for seven days? All the more so in the case of the Divine Presence [she should be humiliated for] fourteen days! But [there is a rule that] it is sufficient that a law derived from an ? fortiori conclusion to be only as stringent as the law from which it is derived. Thus, even as a consequence of My reprimand, she should be confined [only] seven days. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:14, B.K. 25a] ואביה ירק ירק בפניה: ואם אביה הראה לה פנים זועפות הלא תכלם שבעת ימים, קל וחומר לשכינה י"ד יום, אלא דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון, לפיכך אף בנזיפתי תסגר שבעת ימים:
and afterwards she may enter: I believe that when a derivative of the word אסף is used in reference to one afflicted with tzara’ath, it is related to his being expelled from the camp, and when he is healed, he is brought back (נֶאֶסָף) to the camp. That is why the term אָסִיפָה is used; it connotes bringing back in. — [See Rashi above on 11:30.] ואחר תאסף: אומר אני כל האסיפות האמורות במצורעים על שם שהוא משולח מחוץ למחנה, וכשהוא נרפא נאסף אל המחנה לכך כתוב בו אסיפה לשון הכנסה:
15So Miriam was confined outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not travel until Miriam had entered. טווַתִּסָּגֵר מִרְיָם מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְהָעָם לֹא נָסַע עַד הֵאָסֵף מִרְיָם:
the people did not travel: This honor was accorded her by the Omnipresent because of the time she remained with Moses when he was cast into the river, as it says,“His sister stood by from afar to know what would be done to him” (Exod. 2:4). - [Sotah 9b] והעם לא נסע: זה הכבוד חלק לה המקום בשביל שעה אחת שנתעכבה למשה כשהושלך ליאור, שנאמר (שמות ב, ד) ותתצב אחותו מרחוק וגו':
16Then the people departed from Hazeroth, and they camped in the desert of Paran. טזוְאַחַר נָסְעוּ הָעָם מֵחֲצֵרוֹת וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּמִדְבַּר פָּארָן:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 90 - 96
• Chapter 90
David found this prayer in its present form-receiving a tradition attributing it to MosesThe Midrash attributes the next eleven psalms to Moses (Rashi).-and incorporated it into the Tehillim. It speaks of the brevity of human life, and inspires man to repent and avoid pride in this world.
1. A prayer by Moses, the man of God. My Lord, You have been a shelter for us in every generation.
2. Before the mountains came into being, before You created the earth and the world-for ever and ever You are Almighty God.
3. You diminish man until he is crushed, and You say, "Return, you children of man.”
4. Indeed, a thousand years are in Your eyes like yesterday that has passed, like a watch of the night.
5. The stream of their life is as but a slumber; in the morning they are like grass that sprouts anew.
6. In the morning it thrives and sprouts anew; in the evening it withers and dries.
7. For we are consumed by Your anger, and destroyed by Your wrath.
8. You have set our wrongdoings before You, our hidden sins before the light of Your countenance.
9. For all our days have vanished in Your wrath; we cause our years to pass like a fleeting sound.
10. The days of our lives number seventy years, and if in great vigor, eighty years; most of them are but travail and futility, passing quickly and flying away.
11. Who can know the intensity of Your anger? Your wrath is commensurate with one's fear of You.
12. Teach us, then, to reckon our days, that we may acquire a wise heart.
13. Relent, O Lord; how long [will Your anger last]? Have compassion upon Your servants.
14. Satiate us in the morning with Your kindness, then we shall sing and rejoice throughout our days.
15. Give us joy corresponding to the days You afflicted us, the years we have seen adversity.
16. Let Your work be revealed to Your servants, and Your splendor be upon their children.
17. May the pleasantness of the Lord our God be upon us; establish for us the work of our hands; establish the work of our hands.
Chapter 91
This psalm inspires the hearts of the people to seek shelter under the wings of the Divine Presence. It also speaks of the four seasons of the year, and their respective ministering powers, instructing those who safeguard their souls to avoid them.
1. You who dwells in the shelter of the Most High, who abides in the shadow of the Omnipotent:
2. I say of the Lord who is my refuge and my stronghold, my God in whom I trust,
3. that He will save you from the ensnaring trap, from the destructive pestilence.
4. He will cover you with His pinions and you will find refuge under His wings; His truth is a shield and an armor.
5. You will not fear the terror of the night, nor the arrow that flies by day;
6. the pestilence that prowls in the darkness, nor the destruction that ravages at noon.
7. A thousand may fall at your [left] side, and ten thousand at your right, but it shall not reach you.
8. You need only look with your eyes, and you will see the retribution of the wicked.
9. Because you [have said,] "The Lord is my shelter," and you have made the Most High your haven,
10. no evil will befall you, no plague will come near your tent.
11. For He will instruct His angels in your behalf, to guard you in all your ways.
12. They will carry you in their hands, lest you injure your foot upon a rock.
13. You will tread upon the lion and the viper; you will trample upon the young lion and the serpent.
14. Because he desires Me, I will deliver him; I will fortify him, for he knows My Name.
15. When he calls on Me, I will answer him; I am with him in distress. I will deliver him and honor him.
16. I will satiate him with long life, and show him My deliverance.
Chapter 92
Sung every Shabbat by the Levites in the Holy Temple, this psalm speaks of the World to Come, and comforts the hearts of those crushed by suffering.
1. A psalm, a song for the Shabbat day.
2. It is good to praise the Lord, and to sing to Your Name, O Most High;
3. to proclaim Your kindness in the morning, and Your faithfulness in the nights,
4. with a ten-stringed instrument and lyre, to the melody of a harp.
5. For You, Lord, have gladdened me with Your deeds; I sing for joy at the works of Your hand.
6. How great are Your works, O Lord; how very profound Your thoughts!
7. A brutish man cannot know, a fool cannot comprehend this:
8. When the wicked thrive like grass, and all evildoers flourish-it is in order that they may be destroyed forever.
9. But You, Lord, are exalted forever.
10. Indeed, Your enemies, O Lord, indeed Your enemies shall perish; all evildoers shall be scattered.
11. But You have increased my might like that of a wild ox; I am anointed with fresh oil.
12. My eyes have seen [the downfall of] my watchful enemies; my ears have heard [the doom of] the wicked who rise against me.
13. The righteous will flourish like a palm tree, grow tall like a cedar in Lebanon.
14. Planted in the House of the Lord, they shall blossom in the courtyards of our God.
15. They shall be fruitful even in old age; they shall be full of sap and freshness-
16. to declare that the Lord is just; He is my Strength, and there is no injustice in Him.
Chapter 93
This psalm speaks of the Messianic era, when God will don grandeur-allowing no room for man to boast before Him as did Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, and Sennacherib.
1. The Lord is King; He has garbed Himself with grandeur; the Lord has robed Himself, He has girded Himself with strength; He has also established the world firmly that it shall not falter.
2. Your throne stands firm from of old; You have existed forever.
3. The rivers have raised, O Lord, the rivers have raised their voice; the rivers raise their raging waves.
4. More than the sound of many waters, than the mighty breakers of the sea, is the Lord mighty on High.
5. Your testimonies are most trustworthy; Your House will be resplendent in holiness, O Lord, forever.
Chapter 94
An awe-inspiring and wondrous prayer with which every individual can pray for the redemption. It is also an important moral teaching.
1. The Lord is a God of retribution; O God of retribution, reveal Yourself!
2. Judge of the earth, arise; render to the arrogant their recompense.
3. How long shall the wicked, O Lord, how long shall the wicked exult?
4. They continuously speak insolently; all the evildoers act arrogantly.
5. They crush Your people, O Lord, and oppress Your heritage.
6. They kill the widow and the stranger, and murder the orphans.
7. And they say, "The Lord does not see, the God of Jacob does not perceive.”
8. Understand, you senseless among the people; you fools, when will you become wise?
9. Shall He who implants the ear not hear? Shall He who forms the eye not see?
10. Shall He who chastises nations not punish? Shall He who imparts knowledge to man [not know]?
11. The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are naught.
12. Fortunate is the man whom You chastise, O Lord, and instruct him in Your Torah,
13. bestowing upon him tranquillity in times of adversity, until the pit is dug for the wicked.
14. For the Lord will not abandon His people, nor forsake His heritage.
15. For judgment shall again be consonant with justice, and all the upright in heart will pursue it.
16. Who would rise up for me against the wicked ones; who would stand up for me against the evildoers?
17. Had the Lord not been a help to me, my soul would have soon dwelt in the silence [of the grave].
18. When I thought that my foot was slipping, Your kindness, O Lord, supported me.
19. When my [worrisome] thoughts multiply within me, Your consolation delights my soul.
20. Can one in the seat of evil, one who makes iniquity into law, consort with You?
21. They band together against the life of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood.
22. The Lord has been my stronghold; my God, the strength of my refuge.
23. He will turn their violence against them and destroy them through their own wickedness; the Lord, our God, will destroy them.
Chapter 95
This psalm speaks of the future, when man will say to his fellow, "Come, let us sing and offer praise to God for the miracles He has performed for us!"
1. Come, let us sing to the Lord; let us raise our voices in jubilation to the Rock of our deliverance.
2. Let us approach Him with thanksgiving; let us raise our voices to Him in song.
3. For the Lord is a great God, and a great King over all supernal beings;
4. in His hands are the depths of the earth, and the heights of the mountains are His.
5. Indeed, the sea is His, for He made it; His hands formed the dry land.
6. Come, let us prostrate ourselves and bow down; let us bend the knee before the Lord, our Maker.
7. For He is our God, and we are the people that He tends, the flock under His [guiding] hand-even this very day, if you would but hearken to His voice!
8. Do not harden your heart as at Merivah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,
9. where your fathers tested Me; they tried Me, though they had seen My deeds.
10. For forty years I quarreled with that generation; and I said, "They are a people of erring hearts, they do not know My ways.”
11. So I vowed in My anger that they would not enter My resting place.
Chapter 96
The time will yet come when man will say to his fellow: "Come, let us sing to God!"
1. Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth.
2. Sing to the Lord, bless His Name; proclaim His deliverance from day to day.
3. Recount His glory among the nations, His wonders among all the peoples.
4. For the Lord is great and highly praised; He is awesome above all gods.
5. For all the gods of the nations are naught, but the Lord made the heavens.
6. Majesty and splendor are before Him, might and beauty in His Sanctuary.
7. Render to the Lord, O families of nations, render to the Lord honor and might.
8. Render to the Lord honor due to His Name; bring an offering and come to His courtyards.
9. Bow down to the Lord in resplendent holiness; tremble before Him, all the earth.
10. Proclaim among the nations, "The Lord reigns"; indeed, the world is firmly established that it shall not falter; He will judge the peoples with righteousness.
11. The heavens will rejoice, the earth will exult; the sea and its fullness will roar.
12. The fields and everything therein will jubilate; then all the trees of the forest will sing.
13. Before the Lord [they shall rejoice], for He has come, for He has come to judge the earth; He will judge the world with justice, and the nations with His truth.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 7• Lessons in Tanya
• Shabbat, Sivan 19, 5775 · June 6, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 7
The Alter Rebbe explained in the previous chapters that the Scriptural statement that “in the heavens above and upon the earth below there is none other,” is not intended to negate the existence of another god. Rather, it tells us that Divine Unity is such that there is no true existence other than G‑d, for all created beings are completely nullified in relation to Him and are united with Him. This is not perceived by them nor manifest in them, only because of thetzimtzum which conceals the Divine life-force that continuously brings about their existence ex nihilo. Being unable to perceive this life-force, they consider themselves to be independently existing entities.
This concealment, of course, applies only to created beings but not to their Creator. From the Divine perspective there is no concealment whatever, inasmuch as Havayah and Elokim are truly one: the concealment effected by Elokim thus does not act as a concealment for Havayah.
The Alter Rebbe will now explain how the above enables us to understand the teaching of the Zohar that Shema Yisrael is “higher-level Unity” and Baruch shem is “lower-level Unity.”
Were Divine Unity merely to signify the existence of one G‑d, it would be impossible to speak of higher and lower levels of Unity. According to the above explanation, however, that Divine Unity means the nullity of created beings and their unity with G‑d, it is indeed possible to speak of two diverse levels of Unity.
In this sense, “higher-level Unity” refers to the Divine faculty of creative speech (otherwise known as Malchut), considered at the stage in which it is still found within its source. By way of analogy, the seminal letters of a person’s speech are first encapsulated within his thought and emotions, which will ultimately be responsible for his subsequent speech. (The Rebbe notes that “this was explained in Part I, chs. 20-21.”)
The same is true Above: When Supernal creative speech is at the stage in which it is still included within the Supernal attributes — which, being infinite, are too lofty to serve as a source of creation, for it is inherently limited to space and time — creation as it exists in its source is united with G‑d at the higher level of Unity. Its manner of nullification is then similar to the nullification of the sun’s rays as they are found within the sun-globe.
When, however, the Divine creative power of speech (or Malchut), after undergoing a process of tzimtzumim, descends to a level at which it is able to serve as a source for creation, then the term “lower-level Unity” applies. Created beings at this level cannot be said to be completely and utterly nullified. For inasmuch as this level becomes the actual source of created beings, they must perforce have some measure of identity in relation to it. Although this level, too, is pervaded by the Ein Sof-light which unites with the Divine faculty of creative speech, this unification is nevertheless one of “lower-level Unity,” wherein created beings are seen to have some measure of existence — albeit a nullified form of existence, but existence nonetheless.
ובזה יובן מה שכתוב בזהר הקדוש דפסוק שמע ישראל הוא יחודא עילאה, וברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד הוא יחודא תתאה
With the above in mind, we may now understand the statement in the holyZohar, that the verse Shema Yisrael is yichuda ila‘ah (“higher-level Unity”), and that the verse Baruch shem kvod malchuto leolam vaed is yichuda tata’ah (“lower- level Unity”).
The connection between the last-mentioned verse and Divine Unity is now explained:
כי ועד הוא אחד בחילופי אתוון
The alef of echad interchanges with the vav of vaed, since both letters belong to the same group of letters, viz., alef, hei, vav, yud (which, the Rebbe notes, are known as otiyot hahemshech, the “connective letters”). The chet of echad interchanges with the ayin of vaed,since they share the same source (motza) in the organs of speech, and thus both belong to the category of “guttural letters,” viz., alef, hei, chet, ayin. Finally, the large daled of echadtransposes into the small daled of vaed.
כי הנה סיבת וטעם הצמצום וההסתר הזה שהסתיר והעלים הקב״ה את החיות של העולם, כדי שיהיה העולם נראה דבר נפרד בפני עצמו
The cause and reason for this tzimtzum and concealment with which the Holy One, blessed be He, obscured and hid the life- force of the world, making it appear as an independently existing entity, [is as follows]:
I.e., the Alter Rebbe is asking why it is indeed necessary for the world to appear as an independently existing entity. What would be lacking if the world would be perceived in its true state — as an entity wholly nullified in relation to its source? The reason for this is as follows:
הנה הוא ידוע לכל, כי תכלית בריאת העולם הוא בשביל התגלות מלכותו יתברך
It is known to all that the purpose of the creation of the world is the revelation of [G‑d’s] sovereignty,
דאין מלך בלא עם
for3 “there is no king without a nation.”
פירוש עם: מלשון עוממות
The word עם (“nation”) is related etymologically to the word עוממות (“dimmed, extinguished”), as in the expression גחלים עוממות (Rashi on Shoftim 5:14),describing coals in which the fire is not to be seen. In terms of the relationship of a king and his subjects, the word עם thus signifies those whose relationship with the king is not readily apparent,
שהם דברים נפרדים וזרים ורחוקים ממעלת המלך
for they — the subjects who comprise a nation — are separate entities, distinct and distant from the level of the king; only upon them does the king reign, as a result of their nullifying themselves to him.
כי אילו אפילו היו לו בנים רבים מאד, לא שייך שם מלוכה עליהם
For even if he had very many children, the term “kingship” would not apply to them, inasmuch as the king’s children are part of the king himself,
וכן אפילו על שרים לבדם
nor is it possible for a king to reign even over nobles alone.
Although they — unlike a king’s children — are not part of him, nevertheless, since their position puts them in constant and close contact with him, thereby lending them some of the aspects of kingship, the king cannot reign over nobles alone.
רק ברוב עם דווקא הדרת מלך
Only4 “in a numerous nation is the glory of the king.”
Only upon strangers can sovereignty apply. The same is true Above: The ultimate intent of the revelation of Divine Kingship finds expression in His reigning over lowly created beings, who perceive themselves as existing independently of Him — so that they, too, should humble and nullify themselves before Him.
ושם המורה על מדת מלכותו יתברך הוא שם אדנות, כי הוא אדון כל הארץ
The Name that indicates the attribute of G‑d’s Malchut (“Kingship”) is the Name of Adnut (“Lordship”), for His Kingship lies in the fact that He is L‑rd of the whole universe.
ונמצא כי מדה זו ושם זה הן המהוין ומקיימין העולם להיות עולם כמות שהוא עכשיו
Thus, it is this attribute (viz., Malchut) and this Name (viz., the Name of Adnut,signifying lordship) which bring the world into existence and sustain it so that it should be as it is now —
יש גמור, ודבר נפרד בפני עצמו, ואינו בטל במציאות ממש
a completely independent and separate entity, and not absolutely nullified,
כי בהסתלקות מדה זו ושם זה, חס ושלום, היה העולם חוזר למקורו בדבר ה׳ ורוח פיו יתברך, ובטל שם במציאות ממש, ולא היה שם עולם עליו כלל
for with the withdrawal of this attribute and this Name from the world, G‑d forbid, the world would revert to its source in the “word of G‑d” and the “breath of His mouth,” where it would be completely nullified, and the name “world” could not be applied to it at all.
Inherent in the name “world” is being and limitation. However, in the state in which the world finds itself within its source it would have no “being” and would not be limited.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | “A letter of mine dealing with this substitution appears in Kovetz Lubavitch.” ( — Note of the Rebbe). This letter has since been reprinted in Teshuvot U‘Biurim (Kehot, N.Y., 1974; Heb.), Section 13, p. 62. |
| 2. | “As stated in Zohar II, 135a.” ( — Note of the Rebbe). |
| 3. | Emek HaMelech, Shaar HaMitzvot, beginning of ch. 1; Rabbeinu Bachaye, Parshat Vayeishev, 38:2. Cf. Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, ch. 3. |
| 4. | Mishlei 14:28. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Shabbat, Sivan 19, 5775 · June 6, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 90
Burning Sacrifices that Contracted Ritual Impurity
"The flesh that touches any impurity shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire"—Leviticus7:19.
We are commanded to burn any sacrifice that has become ritually impure.
This mitzvah also includes the obligation to burn Terumah oil that has become ritually impure.
Burning Sacrifices that Contracted Ritual Impurity
Positive Commandment 90
Translated by Berel Bell
The 90th mitzvah is that we are commanded to burn sacrifices which have become impure.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Any [sacrificial] meat which comes in contact with something impure may not be eaten; it must be burned in fire."
When explaining the reason why on a holiday one may not burn oil of terumah which became impure, the Talmud in Shabbos2 says, "Refraining from work [on a holiday] is a positive commandment, giving the holiday both a positive commandment and a prohibition. A positive commandment alone cannot push aside both a positive commandment and a prohibition."
The explanation of this is as follows: Doing work on a holiday is prohibited, and if one does work, he transgresses a positive commandment, because he violated the positive commandment regarding the holiday,3 "It shall be for you a day of rest." He also transgresses a prohibition, namely,4 "No work may be done on these [days]," i.e. the holidays.
Burning holy things that became impure, however, is only a positive commandment. Therefore, because of the principle just mentioned, that "a positive commandment alone cannot push aside both a positive commandment and a prohibition," one may not burn them on a holiday.
Another statement there5 indicating the same point6 is, "Just as it is a commandment to burn sacrifices that have become impure, so too it is a commandment to burn terumah that has become impure."
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in tractate Pesachim7 and at the end of Temurah.8
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 7:19.
2.24b.
3.Lev. 23:24. This speaks of Rosh HaShanah, and the same applies to the other holidays.
4.Ex. 12:16.
5.Shabbos 95a.
6.I.e. that the burning is a positive commandment.
7.82a.
8.33b.
Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Eight
Halacha 1
[These are the rules governing] the four species: the lulav, the myrtle, the willow, and the etrog. If one of them was:
a) dried out,b) taken by force or stolen, even after [the owner had] despaired of its recovery,c) came from an ashera that has been worshiped, even though the worship of the ashera has already been nullified,d) or it came from an apostate city
it is not acceptable.
If one of them belonged to an idolater: at the outset, it should not be taken. If it was taken, the person has fulfilled his obligation.
If [one of the species] was wilting, but had not dried out entirely, it is kosher. In extreme situations or in a time of danger, a dried out lulav is kosher. However, [this does not apply] to the other species.
Commentary Halacha 1
[These are the rules governing] the four species: the lulav, the myrtle, the willow, and the etrog. If one of them was: a) dried out - The etrog is described as פרי עץ הדר (the fruit of the beautiful tree). Sukkah 31a explains that an analogy is established among the various species, and all of them must be "beautiful." Fruit or branches that are dried out do not fit the latter description.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 645:5, 646:7) defines "drying out" as losing all its green and fading to a whitish color. The Ramah mentions an even more lenient opinion.
b) taken by force - גזל - armed robbery or the like
or stolen - גנבה - petty theft and the like. Though in other areas there are differences between these two categories of theft, in this context the same laws apply.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:1), the Rambam explains that any of the species which are stolen may not be used for the mitzvah, because a sin may not serve as the medium with which a mitzvah will be performed (מצוה הבאה בעבירה). (See also Hilchot Chametz U'matzah 6:7; Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 5:7, 5:9.)
Sukkah 29b-30a mentions this reason, but also a second explanation: because, as stated in Halachah 10, on the first day of the festival a person must own the four species he uses for the mitzvah. (See the commentary on Halachah 9 for a further discussion of this matter.)
even after [the owner had] despaired of its recovery - According to the first reason, the owner's despair over the recovery of his article has no effect on the thief's potential to use it for a mitzvah. Even according to the second opinion, the despair over recovering the article is not sufficient to allow the thief to use it, as is obvious from Hilchot Gezeilah 2:1, where the Rambam writes:
A stolen article whose form has not changed...even though its owner has despaired of its recovery...must be returned to its owner.
Thus, the article is not considered to belong to the thief, and he may not use it to fulfill the mitzvah. However, if the thief performed a deed which changed the appearance of the lulav or any of the other species, he is considered to have acquired it and may fulfill the mitzvah with it. Nevertheless, he should not recite a blessing before performing the mitzvah with such a lulav (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 649:1).
c) came from an ashera - a tree which is worshiped as a deity. It is also forbidden to be used for the mitzvah, on the basis of the principle that a sin may not serve as the medium with which a mitzvah will be performed (מצוה הבאה בעבירה) (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid.).
that has been worshiped, even though the worship of the ashera has already been nullified - The commentaries on Sukkah 31b explain that this refers to an ashera that entered a Jew's possession before it was nullified, or an ashera that was worshiped by a Jew. In these instances, the nullification of the ashera will not cause it to be permitted for use; rather, it must be totally destroyed. Hence, it is considered to have no size at all, and, therefore, may not be used for the mitzvah (Maggid Mishneh). (See also the Commentary on Chapter 1, Halachah 3.)
Alternatively, since the ashera itself was worshiped, it may no longer be used for a mitzvah. A parallel can be found in Hilchot Tzitzit 1:11, which relates that the wool of a sheep that was worshiped may not be used for tzitzit, although that wool does not become prohibited.
d) or it came from an apostate city - All the property of an apostate city must be destroyed. Therefore, any of the four species that come from such a city is considered to have no size at all, and, thus, is unacceptable for use in the mitzvah. (See also the commentary on Chapter 1, Halachah 3.)
it is not acceptable.
If one of them belonged to an idolater - but was not worshiped itself (Rabbenu Manoach); i.e., it grew in a garden of the temple of an idol. However, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 649:3) explains that it applies even when the tree itself was worshiped.
at the outset, it should not be taken. - Because of its connection with idol worship, such an article is considered to be disgusting, and it is improper to fulfill the mitzvah with it (Rabbenu Manoach). However...
If it was taken, the person has fulfilled his obligation - provided the tree had belonged to a gentile and the latter had nullified its connection with idol worship before it came into the Jew's possession. Alternatively, on any day of the festival but the first, one may take it even before its connection with idol worship was nullified. Since the possibility exists that it can be nullified, it is not considered to be a nonexistent entity. (See also the commentary on Chapter 1, Halachah 3.)
If [one of the species] was wilting, but had not dried out entirely, it is kosher. - Sukkah 31a explains that as long as the species have some moisture left to them, they are not disqualified for use.
In extreme situations or in a time of danger, a dried out lulav is kosher. -Sukkah 32b relates that the inhabitants of the large cities would bequeath their lulavim to their descendants as part of their estate. Obviously, the lulavim would have dried out during this time.
However, [this does not apply] to the other species. - for only the lulav was mentioned in that passage.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even a dried out lulav is not acceptable. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 645:5) follows the Ra'avad's view.
Halacha 2
An etrog of orlah, of impure terumah, and of tevel is unacceptable. [An etrog] ofd'mai is permitted, for it is possible for a person to declare all of his property as ownerless. Thus, he will be a poor man who is permitted to eat d'mai.
An etrog of pure terumah and of ma'aser sheni in Jerusalem should not be taken, lest one cause it to become susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. However, if it was taken, it is kosher.
Commentary Halacha 2
An etrog - These laws apply only to an etrog, because the agricultural prohibitions mentioned in this halachah apply only to fruit and not to mere branches (Rabbenu Manoach).
of orlah - For the first three years of a tree's growth, one is forbidden to benefit from its produce (Leviticus 19:23).
The Torah's prohibition against orlah applies only in Eretz Yisrael. In the Diaspora, there is also a prohibition against orlah, which was received as a halachah from Moses from Mount Sinai. However, much greater leniency is involved, and if there is a doubt whether a fruit is orlah or not, it may be eaten (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 10:10). The same rules apply regarding its use for this mitzvah.
of impure terumah - Terumah refers to the portion of produce which must be separated and given to a priest (Numbers 18:12). If the terumah becomes ritually impure, it is no longer permitted to be eaten and must be destroyed (Hilchot Terumah 12:1).
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:8), the Rambam writes that etrogim of orlah and impure terumah are not acceptable because "they must be destroyed by burning. Therefore, they are unacceptable, because God requires 'a fruit,' and these are not fit to be eaten at all."
and of tevel - produce from Eretz Yisrael from which the agricultural requirements - Terumah, Ma'aser Rishon (the first tithe), and Ma'aser Sheni(the second tithe) - have not been separated. Tevel is also unfit to be eaten, and thus, it may not be used for the mitzvah.
is unacceptable.
[An etrog] of d'mai - Produce concerning which there is doubt whether or not the tithes have been separated (Hilchot Ma'aser, Chapter 9).
is permitted, for it is possible for a person to declare all of his property as ownerless. - In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam states "he can consecrate all his property to the Temple." In practice, there is no difference between the two.
Thus, he will be a poor man who is permitted to eat d'mai. - See Hilchot Ma'aser 10:11. Since there is a possibility of his being allowed to eat the etrog, he may use it for the mitzvah (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid.).
An etrog of pure terumah and of ma'aser sheni in Jerusalem - In the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the seven-year agricultural cycle, the second tithe had to be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there in a state of ritual purity (Deuteronomy 14:22-27).
The Rambam maintains that one can use an etrog of ma'aser sheni for the mitzvah only while in Jerusalem, since that is the only place that it is permitted to be eaten (Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid.). However, Rabbenu Nissim and others differ and allow such an etrog to be used for the mitzvah in other places as well. They maintain that though we are not allowed to benefit fromma'aser sheni outside Jerusalem, the fulfillment of mitzvot is not an act of personal benefit.
should not be taken, lest one cause it to become susceptible to contracting ritual impurity - which was undesirable. From Leviticus 11:34, our Sages learned that produce does not become subject to contracting ritual impurity until it comes into contact with water. Since the lulav was generally placed in water (see Chapter 7, Halachah 25), when it was taken together with the etrog it would probably make the etrog wet, and thus cause it to become subject to contracting ritual impurity.
However, if it was taken, it is kosher. - for there is no inherent difficulty with such an etrog.
Halacha 3
A lulav whose tip becomes cut off is unacceptable. Should it become split to the extent that the two sides of the split become severed and appear to be two, it is unacceptable.
If it is bent forward so that its shidrah appears like a hunchback, it is unacceptable. If it is bent backwards, it is kosher, since that is its natural pattern of growth. If it is bent toward either side, it is unacceptable.
If its leaves have separated one from the other, but they have not begun to hang downward like the top of a date palm, it is kosher. However, if its leaves have burst open and they hang down from the shidrah as does the top of the date palm, it is unacceptable.
Commentary Halacha 3
A lulav whose tip - According to the Maggid Mishneh and Rabbenu Manoach, this refers to the center leaf that extends outward from the shidrah, and not theshidrah itself. Rabbenu Asher and the Ra'avad explain that this refers to the majority of the lulav's leaves, and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 645:6) quotes their opinion. However, the Ramah quotes the Maggid Mishneh's statements.
becomes cut off is unacceptable. - because such a lulav is not "beautiful" (הדר: Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 3:1). All the other factors mentioned in this halachah disqualify a lulav for the same reason.
Should it become split to the extent that the two sides of the split become severed and appear to be two, it is unacceptable. - Sukkah 31b, 32a states: A lulav which is split is kosher; [but] if it is like a fork, it is not. The commentaries explain that the Talmud refers to a shape like a tuning fork, where the two ends are distant from each other. The commentaries explain that such a separation can disqualify a lulav even if the majority of leaves are not split in this manner, and hence, the principles mentioned in the following halachah would not apply.
If it is bent forward - i.e., the shidrah would be bent toward a person facing it
so that its shidrah appears like a hunchback, it is unacceptable - Sukkah(ibid.) states: If it is bent like a scythe, it is unacceptable. The Kessef Mishnehemphasizes that the bend must be severe (as described by the examples given by the Talmud and the Rambam). However, a slight curve will not disqualify a lulav.
If it is bent backwards - the shidrah bending away from a person facing it
it is kosher, since that is its natural pattern of growth - and this can be considered as a "beautiful" lulav (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 645:19). TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 645:9) differentiates between when the shidrahbends gradually and when it is bent over to the extent that its tip points downward. In the latter case, even if it is bent backwards, the lulav is unacceptable.
If it is bent toward either side, it is unacceptable. - Sukkah (ibid.) questions whether such a lulav is kosher or not and leaves the matter unresolved. Hence, we follow the more stringent view (Rav Yitzchak Alfasi).
If its leaves have separated one from the other, but they have not begun to hang downward like the top of a date palm - i.e., the leaves are still firm and pointed upward (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 3:1).
it is kosher. - However, the most proper way of performing the mitzvah is to use a lulav whose leaves are not separated at all (Maggid Mishneh).
However, if its leaves have burst open and they hang down from the shidrah as does the top of the date palm, it is unacceptable - even if they are bound together against the lulav. This applies only if the majority of the lulav's leaves have opened up in this fashion (Ramah, Orach Chayim 645:2).
Halacha 4
The natural pattern of growth of the leaves of the lulav is that two grow in pairs, connected at their back. The back of each pair of connected leaves is called thetiyomet. If the tiyomet is split, it unacceptable. Should a lulav's leaves grow individually from the beginning of its formation without having a tiyomet, it is unacceptable.
When a lulav's leaves do not grow on top of the other like all lulavim, but rather one below the other, [the following rules apply:] If the top [of the lower leaf] reaches the base of the one above it so that the entire shidrah of the lulav is covered with leaves, it is kosher. If the top [of the lower leaf] does not reach the base of the one above it, it is unacceptable.
Commentary Halacha 4
The natural pattern of growth of the leaves of the lulav is that two grow in pairs, connected at their back. The back of each pair of connected leaves is called the tiyomet. If the tiyomet is split, it is unacceptable. - TheMaggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam maintains that the lulav is not acceptable only if the majority of the leaves are split. However, others (Rashi,Tosafot) explain that this law refers to the middle leaf alone. If the majority of that leaf is split, the lulav is unacceptable. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim645:3) quotes the Rambam's opinion, while the Ramah favors that of Rashi andTosafot.
Should a lulav's leaves grow individually from the beginning of its formation without having a tiyomet, it is unacceptable. - i.e., there is no difference if the lulav's lack of a tiyomet is a natural phenomenon or is brought about through human activity; in all cases it is unacceptable.
When a lulav's leaves do not grow on top of the other like all lulavim, but rather, one below the other, [the following rules apply:] If the top [of the lower leaf] reaches the base of the one above it so that the entire shidrah of the lulav is covered with leaves, it is kosher. - This is the tzinei har habarzel mentioned in the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:1). Sukkah 32b relates that such lulavim grow at the entrance to Gehinnom.
Halacha 5
A myrtle branch whose top is cut off is acceptable. Even though most of its leaves have fallen off, it is kosher, provided three leaves remain in one row.
When there are more berries than leaves, [the following rules apply:] If they are green, it is kosher. If they are red or black, it is not acceptable. If one reduced their number, it is acceptable.
We may not reduce their number on the holiday itself, because [by doing so, one] makes [the myrtle] fit for use. If one transgressed and removed them or removed them one by one to eat them, it is kosher.
Commentary Halacha 5
A myrtle branch whose top is cut off is acceptable. - Since the myrtle branch is covered by its leaves, the fact that its top is cut off is not noticeable (Rabbenu Manoach).
Though the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:2) states that such a myrtle is unacceptable, the Talmud (Sukkah 34b) states that the halachah follows Rabbi Tarfon, whose opinion is quoted by the Rambam in this halachah.
In his commentary on this halachah, the Ra'avad states:
For a number of years, the spirit of prophecy has been present in our chamber of study, and we have determined that [such a myrtle] is not acceptable.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 646:10) quotes the Rambam's opinion. However, the Ramah writes that it is proper to adhere to the Ra'avad's view if possible. However, he quotes Rabbenu Nissim, who maintains that the top of a myrtle is only considered to be "cut off" when the top of the branch is broken. The leaves' falling off is not considered of significance.
Even though most of its leaves have fallen off, it is kosher, provided three leaves remain in one row. - The Maggid Mishneh explains that this refers to an Egyptian myrtle, which has seven leaves in each row. Rabbenu Manoach explains that this clause refers to the entire myrtle branch, stating that even though most of its leaves have fallen off, as long as it has one full row of leaves covering the branch (at its top, as in Chapter 7, Halachah 8), it is kosher.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 646:4) quotes the Maggid Mishneh'sstatements as halachah. In contrast, Rabbenu Manoach's interpretation is not accepted. Halachah 5 (ibid.) states that the majority of the length of the myrtle branch must be covered with leaves. However, if that condition is met, the myrtle is kosher even if the leaves at its top have fallen off.
When there are more berries than leaves, [the following rules apply:] If they are green, it is kosher - for their color is the same as the leaves of the myrtle.
If they are red or black - since the berries are a different color from that of the leaves...
it is not acceptable - since this is not considered to be "beautiful" (Rashi,Sukkah 33b).
If one reduced their number - so that there would be more leaves than berries,
it is acceptable.
We may not reduce their number - i.e., the number of black or red berries
on the holiday itself - i.e., on the first day of the festival, when the restrictions against work apply
because [by doing so, one] makes [the myrtle] fit for use - and this may not be done on a holiday. (See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:8.) However...
If one transgressed and removed them or removed them one by one to eat them - which is permitted. Sukkah 33b states that permission is granted, provided only that one has another myrtle to use for the mitzvah. Otherwise, it is forbidden to eat the berries, because through one's activity one will definitely make the myrtle fit for use. Hence, even though one's act was motivated by another intention as well, it is forbidden. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 646:13.)
The Maggid Mishneh quotes a slightly different version of the text, substituting "or if they were removed by another person" for the phrase "removed them one by one." Authentic Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah follow theMaggid Mishneh's text.
it is kosher - despite the fact that it was made fit for use on the holiday.
Halacha 6
A willow branch whose top is cut off is kosher. If its leaves have burst open, it is not acceptable.
Commentary Halacha 6
A willow branch whose top is cut off is kosher. - The Rambam maintains that the laws pertaining to the willow parallel those governing a myrtle. However, even many of the Sages who accept the Rambam's opinion regarding the myrtle disagree with regard to the willow. They explain that such a myrtle is acceptable because its leaves cover the branch's severed top. This concept does not apply with regard to a willow. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim647:2) also states that such a willow is unacceptable.
If its leaves have burst open - i.e., they are hanging down limply from the branch (Maggid Mishneh)
it is not acceptable - for this is not beautiful. Rabbenu Aharon Halevi interprets the Hebrew נפרצו as "split." The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 647:6 quotes both of these opinions as halachah.
Halacha 7
If an etrog is perforated from side to side - no matter how small the hole is - it is not acceptable. When [the hole] does not go from side to side, if it is the size of an isar or more, [the etrog] is not acceptable. If [a hole was made in an etrog which caused] even the slightest amount [of the etrog] to be missing, [the etrog] is not acceptable.
If its pitam - i.e., the small protrusion from which its flower grows - was removed, it is not acceptable. [Similarly,] if the stem from which it hangs from the tree is removed from the etrog itself and a hole is left, it is not acceptable.
If it becomes covered with bumps in two or three places, it is not acceptable. Even if it is covered with bumps in only one place, if that place covers the majority of the etrog's surface area, it is not acceptable. [Similarly,] if a bump grows on even the slightest portion of the pitam, it is not acceptable.
If its peel is removed without causing [the etrog] to lose any substance and it remains greenish yellow as in its natural state, [the following rules apply:] If the peel was entirely removed, it is not acceptable. If even the slightest portion of the original peel remains, it is kosher.
Commentary Halacha 7
If an etrog is perforated - even though none of the etrog's substance is missing
from side to side - This is the literal translation of the term מפולש. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Asher interprets that term differently, explaining that the etrog is unacceptable if the hole reaches the etrog's seed chamber. TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 648:3) quotes both opinions. Regardinghalachah l'ma'aseh, the authorities recommend heeding Rabbenu Asher's opinion. However, they state that when it is difficult to find a kosher etrog, the Rambam's opinion may be relied upon.
no matter how small the hole is - i.e., even if it was perforated with a thin needle
it is not acceptable. - This and the other factors mentioned in this halachah disqualify an etrog for use because it is not "beautiful."
The Ra'avad objects to this statement and maintains that some of the etrog's substance must also be lacking for it to be deemed unacceptable. The difference between these two opinions depends on a difference in the text of the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:6). The Rambam's text reads:
If [an etrog] was perforated, peeled, cracked, or lacking even the slightest amount of its substance, it is unacceptable.
In contrast, the Ra'avad's text read:
If [an etrog] was perforated, peeled, cracked: when it lacks even the slightest amount of its substance, it is unacceptable.
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 2) follows the Rambam's view. The Ramah writes that when it is difficult to find another kosher etrog, one may rely on the Ra'avad's view.
When [the hole] does not go from side to side, if it is the size of an isar -a silver coin from the Talmudic period, four barley corns in size (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 3:6).
or more - e.g., the hole was made by plunging an awl into the etrog (Rashi,Sukkah 36a).
[the etrog] is not acceptable. - Here, too, the Ra'avad differs and maintains that as long as none of the etrog's substance is lacking, it is kosher.
If [a hole was made in an etrog which caused] even the slightest amount [of the etrog] to be missing, [the etrog] is not acceptable. - The Ra'avad differs and maintains that an isar of the etrog's substance must be missing. In this and in the previous case, the same decisions of the Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah mentioned above apply.
If its pitam - i.e., the small protrusion from which its flower grows - TheMaggid Mishneh differentiates between the stem of the pitam and its tip from which its flower grew, maintaining that only the removal of the former disqualifies the etrog for use. The Ramah (ibid. 7) quotes this opinion as halachah. However, he suggests trying to use an etrog whose pitam is entirely complete.
was removed, it is not acceptable. - However, there is no difficulty in using an etrog that grows without a pitam, as many etrogim do (Rabbenu Manoach; Ramah, ibid.).
[Similarly,] if the stem from which it hangs from the tree is removed from the etrog itself and a hole is left, it is not acceptable. - However, if only part of the stem is cut off and the portion attached to the etrog remains, it is kosher (Ramah, ibid. 8).
If it becomes covered with bumps - The term חזזית is generally used to refer to human skin ailments - e.g., boils or warts. In this context, it refers to bumps which protrude above the etrog's surface. However, the commentaries disqualify an etrog only if the bumps grow naturally from the etrog itself. However, if they are caused by external factors - e.g., thorns - the etrog is not disqualified.
in two or three places - The Ra'avad asks why both the numbers two and three are mentioned. In response, the Mishneh Lamelech quotes many examples of the use of similar terminology throughout the Talmud. It must be noted that the Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), and theShulchan Aruch HaRav (648:19) mention only two places.
it is not acceptable. - because it looks spotty (Sukkah 35b).
Even if it is covered with bumps in only one place - i.e., as long as there is no place for an additional bump between the two, it is considered to be one place (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, ibid.).
if that place covers the majority of the etrog's surface area - The Magen Avraham 648:13 also disqualifies an etrog if there is a line of bumps that covers the majority of the etrog's circumference from any point on its surface.
it is not acceptable. [Similarly,] if a bump grows on even the slightest portion of the pitam - See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid.
it is not acceptable - because a blemish on the pitam is very obvious and unattractive.
Sukkah (ibid.) states: "if a bump grows on the etrog's nose, it is not acceptable." The Rambam interprets "nose" as referring to the pitam. However, Rabbenu Asher and others explain that it refers to the portion of the etrog which begins to narrow as it approaches the pitam. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 9) accepts the latter view.
If its peel is removed without causing [the etrog] to lose any substance and it remains greenish yellow as in its natural state - i.e, only the outer coating of the peel was removed and the thick, white inner peel is not yet revealed. Should this peel be revealed, the etrog is considered as though it has lost some of its substance (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid.).
[the following rules apply:] If the peel was entirely removed, it is not acceptable. - for the attractiveness of the etrog will begin to decrease without any possibility of its returning to its original state (Levush 586:6)
If even the slightest portion of the original peel remains - the peel could have regenerated itself if it had remained connected to the tree (Levush, ibid.). Therefore,...
it is kosher. - Tosafot, Sukkah 36a maintains that at least a portion of the original peel equivalent to a sela (a large silver coin) must remain. TheShulchan Aruch (ibid. 6) follows the Rambam's opinion.
Halacha 8
An etrog which is inflated, decaying, pickled, cooked, black, white, spotted, or green like a leek is unacceptable.
If it was grown in a mold and shaped into the form of another creation, it is unacceptable. If its natural form was preserved, even though it was shaped in different layers, it is kosher. Two etrogim that grow joined together, and an unripe etrog are kosher.
In places where the etrogim grow naturally with a slight black tinge, it is kosher. However, if [the etrogim] are very black - i.e., like a Kushite - they are unacceptable everywhere.
Commentary Halacha 8
An etrog which is inflated - i.e., water fell on it after being detached from the tree and it became inflated (Rabbenu Manoach, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 648:15).
decaying - i.e., it produces a foul odor because it is infested with worms (Rabbenu Manoach).
Based on Sukkah 36b, the Ba'al Halachot Gedolot writes that "inflated" and "decaying" etrogim are disqualified only when the blemish is externally visible. However, if the blemish is only internal, they are kosher. (See Shulchan Aruch(ibid. 4) and commentaries.)
pickled - The Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 15) defines "pickled" as "placed in vinegar." However, the Magen Avraham (648:22) maintains that "pickled" should be interpreted according to its definition in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah(105:1-2). Thus, if an etrog has been soaked in water or in any other liquid for more than 24 hours straight, it is considered to be "pickled" and disqualified for use. One should take care regarding this matter when soaking etrogim to preserve their freshness.
cooked - thoroughly on a fire or in boiling water (Rabbenu Manoach).
black, white, spotted - i.e., a mixture of any two or more colors. When the different color is concentrated in only one place, the etrog is not disqualified unless that color covers more than half the etrog's surface area. However, if there is more than one spot of different colors, it is disqualified regardless of their size (Shulchan Aruch, ibid. 16).
or green like a leek is unacceptable. - The Hebrew word ירוק refers to two different colors: dark green and yellow. Initially, the etrog, like most citrus fruit, is dark green. As it matures, it turns yellowish.
If it was grown in a mold and shaped into the form of another creation, it is unacceptable - It is not considered "beautiful" because its natural form was changed (Rabbenu Manoach).
If its natural form was preserved, even though it was shaped in different layers, it is kosher. Two etrogim that grow joined together - This is kosher because the etrogim grew naturally in this way. In this instance, when performing the mitzvah, a person should hold both etrogim in his hands. Though the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 20) accepts this decision, there are other authorities who differ. Hence, it is preferable to use another etrog (Mishnah Berurah 648:63).
and an unripe etrog are kosher. - Sukkah 31b mentions etrogim which are small and green as being not fully ripe. However, since the Rambam mentioned those factors previously, it appears that here the intent is different and refers to a fruit that is not yet ready to be eaten, even though it is as large as an egg and has begun to turn yellow. (See also Sukkah 36a.)
In places where the etrogim grow naturally with a slight black tinge, it is kosher. - Rashi (Sukkah 36a) states that if such an etrog is brought to a place where etrogim of a normal color grow, it may not be used.
However, if [the etrogim] are very black - i.e., like a Kushite - they are unacceptable everywhere - even in Africa, where etrogim of this color grow naturally (Rashi, Sukkah 34b).
Halacha 9
All the species which we categorized as unacceptable because of the blemishes we described or because they were stolen or taken by force are [disqualified for use] only on the first day of the festival. On the second day of the festival and on the other days, they are all kosher.
Those which are disqualified because of the association with idol worship or because the etrog is forbidden to be eaten are unacceptable both on the first day and on the later days.
Commentary Halacha 9
649) explains that these requirements apply only "on the first day." According to this explanation, these leniencies would also apply on the later days even in Jerusalem, where it is a Torah commandment to take the lulav on the later days (Chapter 7, Halachah 13).
Others explain that, as mentioned in Chapter 7, Halachot 13 and 15, at present, taking the lulav is a commandment from the Torah only on the first day of the Sukkot. On the subsequent days, the commandment is Rabbinic in origin, instituted to recall the Temple practice. Hence, greater leniency can be taken, because only a Rabbinic ordinance is involved.
All the species which we categorized as unacceptable because of the blemishes we described - Sukkah 36b relates that Rabbi Chanina would eat from an etrog and then use it for the mitzvah. Though an etrog which is lacking even the slightest amount of its substance may not be used (Halachah 7), he still fulfilled his obligation with it. From this incident, our Sages concluded that, on the later days, even such an etrog is kosher.
According to the Rambam's opinion, the same applies to all other physical blemishes on the species. Since there is no greater blemish than an etrog which is bitten into, none of the requirements for "beauty" must be observed on the later days.
Nevertheless, Tosafot, Sukkah 29b and Rabbenu Asher maintain that this leniency applies only to etrogim which are lacking in substance. All the species which were disqualified because they are not "beautiful" may not be used on the later days as well. Though the Shulchan Aruch 649:5 quotes the Rambam, the Magen Avraham (649:17) and the Taz (649:9) quote the other view.
or because they were stolen or taken by force - The Pri Megadim explains that even according to the Rambam, a blessing should not be recited when performing the mitzvah in this fashion.
are [disqualified for use] only on the first day of the festival. - As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1, there are two explanations why a stolen lulav may not be used on the first day:
a) a sin may not serve as the medium with which a mitzvah will be performed (מצוה הבאה בעבירה);
b) as stated in Halachah 10, on the first day of the festival a person must own the four species he uses for the mitzvah.
The commentaries explain that the Rambam follows the latter rationale. However, those who follow the first opinion (the Ra'avad, the Ramban, Rabbenu Asher) forbid the use of stolen species on the later days as well. TheShulchan Aruch (ibid.) quotes the Rambam, while the Ramah follows the other view.
[Though the above explanation is frequently used, it is difficult to accept. First, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:1), the Rambam mentions the reason of מצוה הבאה בעבירה. Also, in Hilchot Chametz U'matzah 6:7 and inHilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 5:7 and 5:9, he forbids the use of stolen articles for the performance of a commandment. In addition, he has not yet mentioned the halachah requiring one to own the lulav used on the first day.
The Taz (649:15) clarifies the matter slightly further by explaining that since taking the lulav on the second day is only a Rabbinic commandment, using a stolen lulav is allowed even though it is a מצוה הבאה בעבירה.]
On the second day of the festival - The literal translation of the Rambam's words are "from the second holiday," implying that these leniencies are granted even in the Diaspora, where the second day is celebrated as a holiday. Though all the laws of the holiday apply on the second day as well as the first, this applies only to the laws of the holiday itself. In contrast, in other contexts, since we follow a fixed calendar and know that the holidays fall on their appropriate dates, the restrictions applying to the first day do not apply on the subsequent days (Maggid Mishneh).
Rabbenu Asher differs and maintains that all the restrictions that apply to the lulav on the first day must also be observed on the second day as well. TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 649:5) writes that all the species disqualified on the first day may be taken on the second day, but a blessing should not be recited.
and on the other days - Chol Hamo'ed, when all opinions agree that...
they are all kosher.
Those which are disqualified because of the association with idol worship - mentioned in Halachah 1
or because the etrog is forbidden to be eaten - as mentioned in Halachah 2
Halacha 10
On the first day of the festival, a person cannot fulfill his obligation by using a lulav that belongs to a colleague and was borrowed from him, unless the latter gives it to him as a present.
If [the owner of the lulav] gives it to him as a present on the condition that he return it, he may fulfill his obligation with it and return it, because a present given on condition that it be returned is considered a present. If he does not return it, he does not fulfill his obligation, because it is as though it were stolen.
[On the first day,] a lulav should not be given to a minor, since, according to Torah law, a minor can acquire articles but cannot transfer them to others. Thus, [the minor's] return of the article is not considered to be a return [from a legal perspective].
The above applies to the lulav and to each of the other species of the four taken with it. If one of them was borrowed, the person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival.
Commentary Halacha 10
On the first day of the festival - It appears from the Rambam's statements that even in Jerusalem, where Torah law requires that the mitzvah be fulfilled for all seven days of the festival, the obligation to own the lulav applies only on the first day.
a person cannot fulfill his obligation by using a lulav that belongs to a colleague and was borrowed from him - As explained in the commentary on the previous halachah, the Biblical source for the mitzvah of taking the four species, Leviticus 23:40, states: "On the first day, take for yourself the fruit of a beautiful tree..." The phrase "for yourself" implies that a person must own the species he uses for the mitzvah (Sukkah 41b).
As mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 25, a borrowed sukkah may be used on the holiday. Though Deuteronomy 16:13 states "Celebrate the Sukkot holidayfor yourself for seven days." In this context, only a stolen sukkah is disqualified and a borrowed sukkah is permitted (Sukkah 27b).
Since in both cases, the source for the exclusion is the same phrase, one might ask why the laws pertaining to each are different. Many explain that since, as explained in the commentary to that halachah, the Torah includes a special verse to teach us that a borrowed sukkah is permitted, the scope of the exclusion implied by "for yourself" is limited.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 637:3 explains that since the person owning the sukkah grants his colleague the use of it, the borrowed sukkah can be considered "as his own." Since a person has to treat a sukkah as his permanent dwelling for the seven days of the holiday, it follows that the sukkah was lent for that purpose. Thus, while a person is using it, he may consider it "as his own," i.e., just like his own dwelling. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 19.
unless the latter gives it to him as a present. - Though there are certain restrictions against the transfer of property on a holiday, it is permitted to give a colleague a present (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 3:11).
If [the owner of the lulav] gives it to him as a present on the condition -The use of the Hebrew term על מנת frees one from certain obligations in phrasing the terms of the conditional agreement. (See Hilchot Zechiyah Umatanah 3:8.)
that he return it, he may fulfill his obligation with it and return it - There are authorities who require that the owner specifically state that he is giving the lulav to his colleague on the condition that the latter return it. However, theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 658:5) states that even if the owner gives a colleague a lulav without making such a statement, it is assumed that the lulav was given subject to this condition.
for a present given on condition that it be returned is considered a present. - See Hilchot Zechiyah Umatanah 3:9.
If he does not return it, he does not fulfill his obligation, because it is as though it were stolen. - i.e., by failing to fulfill the condition under which the present was given, the recipient nullifies the legal transfer of ownership. Thus, although he was in physical possession of the article, it did not belong to him. Hence, it is considered to be stolen and, thus, not eligible to be used for the mitzvah (Sukkah, ibid.).
[On the first day,] - before all the adults who desire to use it have fulfilled the mitzvah (Shulchan Aruch, ibid. 6)
a lulav should not be given to a minor - The definition of the term "minor" in this context has been the subject of debate among the Rabbis. From the Rambam's phraseology, it appears that he includes all minors in this category. However, Rabbenu Nissim writes that a child of six or seven can transfer property and, hence, his return of the lulav is valid.
Support for Rabbenu Nissim's position is brought from the Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 3:10), which relates that Rav Nachman bar Ya'akov gave his etrog as a present to his son and told him: "When you take possession of it and fulfill the mitzvah, return it to me." Nevertheless, the passage does not serve as conclusive proof, because the possibility exists that his son had already reached majority. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 6) follows the Rambam's view.
since, according to Torah law, a minor can acquire articles - which are given to him by others who consciously desire that the minor acquire the property, in contrast to ownerless articles, which he cannot acquire according to Torah law (Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Zechiyah Umatanah 4:7).
but cannot transfer them to others. - The transfer of the ownership of an article requires a conscious decision. Torah law maintains that a child lacks intellectual maturity (דעת), and thus is incapable of making such a decision.
Thus, [the minor's] return of the article is not considered to be a return [from a legal perspective]. - i.e., although he has physically returned the article, the child still remains the legal owner.
The Machaneh Ephraim (Hilchot Meshichah 2) notes that according to Rabbinic law, a child can transfer property that he owns to another. Thus, the Rambam's statements seem to imply that any of the four species that are acquired only according to Rabbinic law may not be used for this mitzvah.
A very practical point can be derived from this concept. According to Torah law, property that is purchased changes ownership only after it has been paid for. The completion of a transaction when the property are taken by the purchaser (meshichah) is a Rabbinic institution. Accordingly, if a person purchased a lulav and etrog on the condition that he pay for it after the holiday - even though the seller willingly consented - the purchaser has only acquired the lulav and etrog according to Rabbinic law. Thus, based on this halachah, he would not be able to use it for the mitzvah.
The above applies to the lulav and to each of the other species of the four taken with it. - The verse quoted above includes all the four species, and not only the lulav. Therefore...
If one of them was borrowed, the person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival.
Halacha 11
When partners purchase a lulav or etrog together, neither is able to fulfill his obligation with it on the first [day of the festival] unless his colleague gives him his portion as a present.
Should brothers purchase etrogim from the funds [of their father's] estate, which they have not divided yet: If one of them takes an etrog with the intent of fulfilling his obligation, [the following rules apply:] If he could eat it without the other brothers objecting, he has fulfilled his obligation. If they would object, he does not fulfill his obligation until they give him their share [in the etrog] as a present.
If one brother bought an etrog and another a quince, or together they bought an etrog, a pomegranate, and a quince from the funds [of their father's] estate, which they have not divided yet, one cannot fulfill one's obligation with the etrog until the others give him their share [in it] as a present, even though they would not object to his [use of it].
Commentary Halacha 11
When partners purchase a lulav or etrog together, neither is - considered to be the owner of the species in its entirety. Therefore, neither is...
able to fulfill his obligation with it on the first [day of the festival] - Bava Batra 137b relates that the requirement of owning a lulav includes not only having a share in it, but rather owning it entirely.
unless his colleague gives him his portion as a present. - The principles mentioned in the previous halachah regarding giving a lulav as a present also apply to giving a share of it as a present.
The Maggid Mishneh mentions a very frequent application of this concept: a lulav and etrog purchased by a synagogue for the use of all of its members. He quotes the Rashba, who explains that since the etrog was purchased with the intent that it be used by each member of that community, implicit in their agreement is that, on the first day, it will belong to each individual entirely at the time he uses it to fulfill the mitzvah.
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 648:7) quotes this statement as halachah. However, the Magen Avraham 648:10 raises questions concerning it and suggests that each member of the community should grant his colleague his share as a present.
Should brothers purchased etrogim from the funds [of their father's] estate, which they have not divided yet: - This is the case mentioned inBava Batra (ibid.), from which the above principle is derived. In such an instance, the estate is considered to be the mutual property of all the brothers concerned.
If one of them takes an etrog with the intent of fulfilling his obligation, [the following rules apply:] If he could eat it without the other brothers objecting - it is considered to be his own. Hence,...
he has fulfilled his obligation. If they would object - and require that an equal division of the property be made before it was used, he cannot be considered to be the full owner of the etrog. Hence,...
he does not fulfill his obligation until they give him their share [in the etrog] as a present.
The above principles apply only when the funds of the estate were used to purchase a number of etrogim. Since many fruits of the same species were purchased with the money from the estate, it is possible that the other brothers will not object to one brother's taking an etrog for his own use. However, if the money of the estate was used to buy a number of different species of fruit - e.g.,...
If one brother bought an etrog and another a quince, or together they bought an etrog, a pomegranate, and a quince from the funds [of their father's] estate, which they have not divided yet - we assume that the brothers would desire to have the property formally divided before using it. Hence, they are all considered to be mutual owners of the fruit. Thus,...
one cannot fulfill one's obligation with the etrog until the others give him their share [in it] as a present, even though they would not object to his [use of it].
Halacha 12
Even though it is a mitzvah to rejoice on all the festivals, there was an additional celebration in the Temple on the festival of Sukkot, as [Leviticus 23:40] commands: "And you shall rejoice before God, your Lord, for seven days."
What was done? On the eve of the first day of the festival, they would set up a place in the Temple where women [could watch] from above, and men from below, so they would not intermingle with each other.
The celebration would begin on the night after the first day of the festival. Similarly, on each day of Chol Hamo'ed, after offering the daily afternoon sacrifice, they would begin to celebrate for the rest of the day and throughout the night.
Commentary Halacha 12
Even though it is a mitzvah to rejoice on all the festivals - as Deuteronomy 16:14 teaches: "And you shall rejoice on your festivals." Though that verse is mentioned with regard to Sukkot, Deuteronomy 16:11 states with regard to Shavuot: "and you shall rejoice before God," and Rosh Hashanah 4b explains that an analogy is established to include Pesach as well.
there was an additional celebration in the Temple on the festival of Sukkot - The Rambam's words present a question: The Mishnah (Sukkah 5:1) refers to this celebration as Simchat Beit Hasho'evah, connecting it with the drawing of water for the water libation. (See Hilchot T'midim Umusafim 10:6-10.) Indeed, the Talmud (Sukkah 50b; see also the Rambam's commentary on the above-mentioned Mishnah) emphasizes that connection, quoting Isaiah 12:3: "And you shall draw water with happiness." However, here, the Rambam makes no mention of that water at all!
We are forced to say that the Rambam views the verse from Isaiah as a mereasmachtah (an allusion from the Bible with which our Sages connected a verse to an independent concept) and that the celebration came about because of the unique nature of the Sukkot festival. Though this celebration was associated with the water libation, the latter is not the source for the practice. Indeed, the choice of the name Simchat Beit HaSho'evah (the celebration of the house of drawing the water), and not Simchat Hasho'evah (the celebration of the drawing of the water) allows for such an interpretation. (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XVII).
as [Leviticus 23:40] commands: "And you shall rejoice
before God, your Lord - i.e., in the Temple
for seven days." - Although this verse is used to derive the requirement of taking the lulav in Jerusalem for each of the seven days of the festival (Chapter 7, Halachah 13), its simple meaning remains.
Nevertheless, this charge is not considered to be an independent commandment, but rather an extension (and an intensification) of the mitzvah of celebrating on the festivals. Thus, in Sefer Hamitzvot (Positive Commandment 54), the Rambam describes that mitzvah and explains that it includes "to celebrate with musical instruments and to dance in the Temple....This is Simchat Beit Hasho'evah."
This explanation resolves another question: Mo'ed Kattan 8b teaches that one celebration should not be interposed upon another. For this reason, weddings are not held during the festivals so that the wedding celebrations should not clash with those of the festival.
Thus, were one to consider the celebration of Simchat Beit Hasho'evah as associated with the water offering, one might ask why the Sages instituted such a celebration which might appear to overshadow the celebration of the festival itself. However, the above explanation resolves this difficulty as well, for as stated above, the Simchat Beit Hasho'evah celebration is an extension of the festival celebrations and not an independent matter. (See Likkutei Sichot, ibid.)
What was done? On the eve of the first day of the festival - Two reasons are given why the courtyard was not set up during the festival itself:
a) It involved construction, which is forbidden on Chol Hamo'ed (Knesset Hagedolah)
b) Preparing the courtyard before the festival would allow the celebrations to begin immediately after the departure of the festival (Kinat Eliyahu).
they would set up a place in the Temple - in the open courtyard before the entrance to the Temple courtyard proper. This was called Ezrat Nashim - the women's courtyard - because in contrast to the Temple courtyard, women were allowed to enter the Ezrat Nashim even when they were not offering sacrifices. The Rambam describes the Ezrat Nashim in Hilchot Beit Habechirah 5:7.
where women [could watch] from above, and men from below, so they would not intermingle with each other. - Originally, the men and the women would stand in separate sections on the same level. However, the Sages feared that, particularly during a time of celebration, such closeness might lead to frivolous interaction between the sexes, and decided to have a balcony constructed for the women (Sukkah 51b).
The celebration would begin on the night after the first day of the festival. - Since, as explained in the following halachah, the celebration was not held on the first night of the festival.
Similarly, on each day of Chol Hamo'ed, after offering the daily afternoon sacrifice, they would begin to celebrate for the rest of the day and throughout the night. - Sukkah 53a quotes Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah as saying: "While we were celebrating at Simchat Beit Hasho'evah, our eyes saw no sleep."
Halacha 13
What was the nature of this celebration? The flute would be sounded and songs played on the harp, lute, and cymbals. [In addition,] each person would play on the instrument which he knew. Those who could sing, would sing. They would dance and clap their hands, letting loose and whistling, each individual in the manner which he knew. Words of song and praise were recited.
This celebration does not supersede either the Sabbath or the festival [prohibitions].
Commentary Halacha 13
What was the nature of this celebration? - The Mishnah (Sukkah 5:1-2) states:
Whoever has not seen Simchat Beit Hasho'evah has never seen rejoicing in his life!...There were golden candelabras....There was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated with the light of Beit Hasho'evah.The pious and men of stature would dance before them with torches of fire in their hands and recite songs of praise. The Levites would play the harps, lutes, cymbals, and all other types of instruments on the steps...leading down from the Israelites' courtyard.
The flute would be sounded - Indeed, from the Mishnah (Sukkah 5:1), which states: "The flute, for five or six days; this was the flute of Beit Hasho'evah," it appears that this was the major element of the celebration.
and songs played on the harp, lute, and cymbals. [In addition,] each person would play on the instrument which he knew. Those who could sing, would sing. - See the quote from the Mishnah above.
They would dance and clap their hands, letting loose and whistling, each individual in the manner which he knew. Words of song and praise were recited. - Note the following halachah and commentary.
This celebration does not supersede either the Sabbath or the festival [prohibitions]. - Since, as explained above, the celebration involved musical instruments, it would not be held on the first night of the festival (or on the Sabbath), when playing such instruments is forbidden (Hilchot Shabbat 23:4).
The celebration is an extension of a Torah commandment, while the above prohibition is only Rabbinic in nature. Furthermore, it was held in the Temple, where Rabbinic prohibitions of this nature were usually suspended (אין שבות במקדש, Pesachim 65a). Nevertheless, since there is no specific Torah obligation to celebrate in this manner, the celebrations were suspended because of the Rabbinic prohibition (Likkutei Sichot, ibid.).
Halacha 14
It is a great mitzvah to maximize this celebration. The common people and anyone who desired would not perform [in these celebrations]; only the greatest of Israel's wise men: the Rashei Yeshivot, the members of the high court, the pious, the elders, and the men of stature. They were those who would dance, clap their hands, sing, and rejoice in the Temple on the days of the festival of Sukkot. However, the entire people - the men and the women - would come to see and hear.
Commentary Halacha 14
It is a great mitzvah to maximize this celebration - for the experience of genuine Torah happiness is a fundamental and necessary element of our service of God, as explained in the following halachah.
The common people and anyone who desired would not perform [in these celebrations] - Though they would attend, as mentioned in the final clause of the halachah
only the greatest of Israel's wise men: the Rashei Yeshivot, the members of the high court, the pious, the elders, and the men of stature. - for it was only their celebration that could inspire the people with spiritual feeling.
They were those who would dance, clap their hands, sing, and rejoice in the Temple on the days of the festival of Sukkot. - Sukkah 53a relates how Hillel the Elder would rejoice at Simchat Beit Hasho'evah. Other Sages would also participate. For example, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would juggle eight torches of fire and bow down so low he could kiss the ground. The Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 5:3) relates how Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzedek would perform unique feats of jumping.
However, the entire people - the men and the women - would come to see and hear - deriving joy from this passive participation.
Halacha 15
The happiness with which a person should rejoice in the fulfillment of the mitzvot and the love of God who commanded them is a great service. Whoever holds himself back from this rejoicing is worthy of retribution, as [Deuteronomy 28:47] states: "...because you did not serve God, your Lord, with happiness and a glad heart."
Whoever holds himself proud, giving himself honor, and acts haughtily in such situations is a sinner and a fool. Concerning this, Solomon warned [Proverbs 28:10]: "Do not seek glory before the King."
[In contrast,] anyone who lowers himself and thinks lightly of his person in these situations is [truly] a great person, worthy of honor, who serves God out of love. Thus, David, King of Israel, declared [II Samuel 6:22]: "I will hold myself even more lightly esteemed than this and be humble in my eyes," because there is no greatness or honor other than celebrating before God, as [II Samuel 6:16] states: "King David was dancing wildly and whistling before God."
Commentary Halacha 15
, the Rambam derives a fundamental principle in the service of God.
The happiness with which a person should rejoice in the fulfillment of the mitzvot and the love of God who commanded them is a great service. - By mentioning this concept at the conclusion - but as part - of the these halachot, the Rambam emphasizes how the celebration of the festivals is not just an isolated experience, but rather is intended to influence the totality of our service of God. The rejoicing of the festival of Sukkot enables us to appreciate true happiness in all aspects of our Torah service.
Whoever holds himself back from this rejoicing is worthy of retribution, as [Deuteronomy 28:47] states: "...because you did not serve God, your Lord, with happiness and a glad heart." - This verse comes after the full description of the curses and retribution which God will visit upon the Jewish people for their sins. From the Rambam's statements, it appears that it is the lack of happiness in the service of God, and not the sins themselves, which brought about this punishment.
The Ari, Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, explains that even though the punishment comes for the sins, had the Jewish people served God with true joy and happiness, that happiness would have caused Him to overlook those transgressions, regardless of how serious they were. In contrast, a lack of happiness in the performance of the mitzvot demonstrates a deficiency in the person's awareness of the connection to God established thereby.
Whoever holds himself proud, giving himself honor, and acts haughtily in such situations is a sinner and a fool - for he is concerned with himself, rather than with God.
Concerning this, Solomon warned [Proverbs 28:10]: "Do not seek glory before the King." - i.e., God, in whose presence we are at every moment.
[In contrast,] anyone who lowers himself and thinks lightly of his person in these situations - transcending his self-consciousness and committing himself to God totally, without any restrictions
is [truly] a great person, worthy of honor - his ability to open himself up to God allows him to serve as a medium for the expression of His greatness, and thus, his own personal prestige rises, because, as our Sages commented: "A king's servant is like a king."
who serves God out of love. - See Hilchot Teshuvah, Chapter 10.
Thus, David, King of Israel - The mention of David's position further emphasizes the concept explained. Alternatively, a king has a connection to each of his subjects. Thus, mentioning the example of the king of Israel emphasizes how each Jew has a potential to achieve this rung of service.
declared [II Samuel 6:22]: "I will hold myself even more lightly esteemed than this and be humble in my eyes," because there is no greatness or honor other than celebrating before God, as [II Samuel 6:16] states: "King David was dancing wildly and whistling before God." - When Michal, Saul's daughter, witnessed David's recklessness and total lack of inhibitions, she reproved him for conduct unbefitting a king. David answered her sharply, explaining that it is precisely this ability to give oneself totally over to Godliness which characterizes a Jewish monarch and makes him fit to lead the people in the service of God.
Though the Rambam stresses how an approach of humility and happiness befits people of honor - as is obvious from the nature of the Sages' celebration of Simchat Beit Hasho'evah - these ideas also apply to every Jew. When an individual is conscious of God's constant presence, he will naturally be infused with these two emotions. He will feel his own smallness in God's presence, yet he will also feel real joy at the knowledge that God is with him at every moment, and that through his service of Torah and mitzvot, he can develop a greater connection with Him.
May our service of God with joy hasten the time when "crowned with eternal joy" (Isaiah 35:10), we will be able to "rejoice before God, your Lord, for seven days," in the Messianic Temple. May we merit it, speedily, in our days.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17
Halacha 1
Whenever blood must be presented on the outer altar and the first presentation was made with a proper intent and a second or further presentation was made for the sake of a different sacrifice or he had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place or time, atonement is achieved and the sacrifice is acceptable.1
If the first presentation [of blood] was made with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time and [the priest] completed the presentation of the blood with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [The rationale is that] the first presentation of the blood is of fundamental importance.2
In contrast, with regard to all of the presentations of blood on the inner altar - since they are all absolute requirements [for the offering of the sacrifice], as we explained3 - if one of presentations was not made as required, but instead, one had a disqualifying intent, the sacrifice is unacceptable,4 even if all the other presentations were made as required.
Halacha 2
If one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time when making the first [of the presentations of the blood on the inner altar]5 and had no specific intent6regarding the remainder or he presented all of them as required with the exception of the final one, which he presented with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is not given that distinction] unless one makes [all] the presentations with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, for they are all considered as one presentation.
Halacha 3
[Having a disqualifying intent while] immersing one's finger in the blood of a sin-offering7 [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar can cause a sacrifice to become piggul.8
What is implied? If at the time [the priest] immersed his finger in the blood, he had a disqualifying intent concerning time, it is as if he had such an intent when presenting [the blood on the altar].
Halacha 4
If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to one of the sin-offerings [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar with regard to an aspect of the sacrifice that is performed in the Sanctuary, [the offering] is not piggul. If he had such an intent with regard to an aspect that is performed in the Temple Courtyard, it is piggul.
Halacha 5
What is implied? If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and said: "I am slaughtering [this animal] with the intent of presenting its blood tomorrow,"9[the offering] is not piggul, because presenting the blood is performed inside, in the Sanctuary.
Halacha 6
If [a priest] was standing in the Sanctuary and he said: "I am presenting [the blood] with the intent to pour the remaining [blood]10 on the following day, [the offering] is not piggul, because he had a disqualifying intent inside [the Temple Sanctuary] regarding a service performed outside. If, however, he was standing in the Temple Courtyard and slaughtered [the animal] with the intent to pour out the remainder [of the blood] on the following day or to offer the fats and the organs on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for he had a [disqualifying] intent while outside concerning a service that is performed outside.
Halacha 7
A [disqualifying intent] concerning a thanksgiving-offering causes the bread [that accompanies it] to become piggul, but a [disqualifying intent] concerning the bread does not cause the thanksgiving-offering to become piggul.11
What is implied? When one slaughtered a thanksgiving-offering and had the intent to partake of its meat, cast its blood on the altar, or offer its fats and organs on the following day, the offering and the bread are piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the bread on the following day, the bread alone is piggul; the thanksgiving-offering is not piggul.12
Halacha 8
Similar concepts apply with regard to the two sheep offered on Shavuot with the two breads offered with them. If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the sheep, the two breads are considered as piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the two breads on the following day, the two breads arepiggul and the sheep are not piggul.13 If while performing one of the four [significant] services, [the priest] had the intent partake of an olive-sized portion of the meat of the sacrifice together with the bread14 tomorrow, the bread alone is piggul15 and the thanksgiving-offering or the sheep are not piggul.
Halacha 9
When [a priest] offers the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the showbread and, while offering them, had the intent to partake of the showbread on the following day, the bread is piggul.16
Halacha 10
When one slaughters the two sheep for Shavuot and has the intent to eat one of the loaves on the following day, they are both piggul.17
Halacha 11
If one offered the two bowls [of frankincense] and he had the intent to partake of one of the two arrangements of bread on the following day, both arrangements are piggul.18
Halacha 12
Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] thought concerning time with regard to one of the breads of the thanksgiving-offering or with regard to one of the breads of meal-offering baked in an oven, all of the breads are piggul.
Halacha 13
If, by contrast, one of the two breads [of Shavuot], one of the two arrangements [of the showbread], or one of the breads of the thanksgiving offering19- whether before the casting on the altar20 or afterwards - becomes impure, only that bread or that arrangement are forbidden to be eaten. What is pure may be eaten in its state of purity.
Halacha 14
If, while performing the sacrificial service associated with one of the two sheep, [the priest] had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion of the two breads on the following day - and similarly, if while offering one of the two bowls [of frankincense], he had the intent to partake of an olive-sized portion of the showbread on the following day, the bread is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is given that distinction] only when he has a [disqualifying] intent while performing all the services that permit the bread to be eaten: [i.e.,] bringing both sheep and offering both bowls [of frankincense] on the altar's pyre.
Halacha 15
If one slaughtered one [of the sheep] and had the intent to eat half an olive-sized portion from one loaf on the following day and slaughtered the second lamb and had the intent of eating half an olive-sized portion on the following day, [the two intents] are combined to render the loaves piggul.21 Similar concepts apply with regard to the two bowls [of frankincense] and the two arrangements [of showbread].
Halacha 16
If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to one of the two sheep and offered the second with a proper intent, the one that was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time is piggul and the other is acceptable.22
Halacha 17
If one slaughtered one of [these two sheep] and had the intent while slaughtering it to partake of the meat of the other one on the following day, they are both acceptable. For the intent one has with regard to one is of no consequence regarding the second.
Halacha 18
The two lambs [offered on] Shavuot do not cause the bread to be sanctified unless they are slaughtered.
What is implied? If one slaughtered them and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, he did not sanctify the bread. If he slaughtered them with the proper intent and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, the bread is sanctified, but is not sanctified.23
If they slaughtered it for the sake of another sacrifice even though he cast [the blood] for the proper intent, the bread was not sanctified.
Halacha 19
When the two loaves were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] between the slaughter [of the two sheep] and the casting [of their blood] and the blood of the sheep was cast on the altar with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, the bread becomes piggul even though it is outside [the Temple Courtyard]. For casting [the blood] has an effect on [bread] that was taken out even though it is still outside [the Temple Courtyard].24
Halacha 20
When the two sheep offered on Shavuos were slaughtered with the proper intent and the breads were lost, they are disqualified if their blood was cast [on the altar] with the desired intent.25 If their blood was cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time26 after the bread was lost, there is an unresolved doubt if [the meat of the sheep] is permitted to be eaten or not.27
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Hence the person(s) bringing the sacrifice are not required to bring another one.
|
| 2. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
Chapter 16, Halachah 1, states that when a disqualifying intent concerning place is combined with a disqualifying intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but is not piggul. In the present instance, it is placed in the more severe category, because once the fundamental presentation was made in a manner that rendered the sacrifice piggul, the subsequent intentions the priest had are of no consequence.
|
| 3. |
Chapter 2, Halachah 3.
|
| 4. |
However, it is not piggul. The Kessef Mishneh explains that it is not considered piggul because one must have the disqualifying intent concerning time when performing all of the presentations.
|
| 5. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7.
|
| 6. |
Literally, the Rambam's words mean: "Remained silent with regard to the others."
|
| 7. |
See ibid.:8.
|
| 8. |
The commentaries note that this ruling appears to run contrary to the statements of Zevachim44a: "If one had a disqualifying intent that would render an offering piggul inside the Sanctuary, the offering is not piggul." Rambam LeAm suggests that Rabbi Elazar the author of the statement cited does not accept the concept that one's intent when immersing one's finger in the blood can cause an offering to be considered as piggul. If, however, he would have accepted that concept, he would also have accepted the Rambam's ruling here.
|
| 9. |
When they should be presented on the day the sacrificial animal is slaughtered.
|
| 10. |
On the outer altar (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:10).
|
| 11. |
For the bread is secondary to and dependent on the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not dependent on the bread [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:3)]. See also Chapter 15, Halachah 13.
|
| 12. |
Rashi's commentary to Menachot 15a implies that it is forbidden to eat the meat. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, it would appear that the meat is permitted entirely.
|
| 13. |
Here, also, the bread is considered as secondary to the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not secondary to the meat [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
|
| 14. |
I.e., half an olive-sized portion of meat and half an olive-sized portion of bread (Rashi, Menachot, loc. cit.).
|
| 15. |
Menachot, loc. cit., mentions both of the situations spoken about in this halachah. One opinion maintains that the ruling was given both with regard to the bread on Shavuos and the bread of the thanksgiving-offering. A second view maintains that it was given with regard to the breads and the offering of Shavuos, for they are interrelated as evidenced by the fact that they are waved together (Leviticus 23:20). It is possible, however, that it does not apply to the thanksgiving-offering. The Rambam accepts the more stringent view, because of the doubt involved (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 16. |
For it is the offering of the bowls of frankincense that enable the breads to be eaten.
|
| 17. |
For the two loaves are considered as a single offering.
|
| 18. |
Here too both arrangments are considered as a single offering.
|
| 19. |
The commentaries have noted the apparent contradiction to Chapter 12, Halachah 14. See the notes to that halachah.
|
| 20. |
Of the blood of the sacrifices or the frankincense for the showbreads [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:2)].
|
| 21. |
For he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to the entire offering that would enable the bread to be eaten.
|
| 22. |
In this context, each of the sheep is considered as an independent entity.
|
| 23. |
It appears that the Rambam follows the view of Ravva (Menachot 13b) that bread is considered as consecrated, but it is forbidden to be eaten .
|
| 24. |
The place where the bread is located is not of consequence.
|
| 25. |
For as stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:15, the offering of the bread is a fundamental requirement for the offering of the sheep and if the bread is lost, the sheep should be destroyed by fire.
|
| 26. |
The Kessef Mishneh maintains that this is a printing error and the text should read "with an intent for another sacrifice." This view, however, is not borne out by the manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah.
|
| 27. |
According to the Kessef Mishneh, the Rambam's ruling can be explained as follows: One might think that the meat would be permitted to be eaten, because they are peace-offerings and when a peace-offering is offered for the sake of another offering, it is permitted to be eaten, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 1. On the other hand, since the sheep are associated with the bread and the bread is lost, there is room to say that they have been disqualified. A question concerning this issue was raised by Menachot 47b. Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that according to the Rambam, the question was left unresolved. Rashi maintains that the question is rhetorical and that the meat is disqualified.
The Kessef Mishneh notes, however, that Rabbenu Yehoshua, one of the Rambam's descendants, was asked about the matter and explained the question according to the existing text. According to his view, the issue is that since the blood was cast on the altar after the bread was lost, the Sages had a question whether to consider their meat as ordinary meat or whether the meat should still be considered as sacrificial meat, because the sheep were slaughtered before the bread was lost.
|
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18
Halacha 1
Anyone who has an incorrect intent [while performing] sacrificial service violates a negative commandment,1 for [Leviticus 7:18] states: "He may not intent this."
Halacha 2
According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that included in this prohibition is not to cause sacrificial offerings to be disqualified through thought, for this is comparable to causing a blemish in sacrificial animals. Nevertheless, [a transgressor] is not punished by lashes,2 for thought is not considered as deed.3
Halacha 3
Whenever a sacrifice is defined as unacceptable - whether it was disqualified because of an intent, an action, or something which caused it to be disqualified - anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for lashes, as [a result of the prohibition, Deuteronomy 14:3]: "Do not partake of anything abhorrent."4
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
Similarly, when sacrificial animals which were [intentionally] blemished, a person who eats an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes, for they are included in the category of "anything abhorrent." [It is forbidden to partake of them] until they contract another blemish, [at which time,]7 they may be eaten because of the blemish, as we explained.8 Whenever there is a unresolved doubt whether [a sacrificial animal] has been disqualified, lashes are not given.
Halacha 6
Whenever a sacrifice has been deemed piggul because of a disqualifying intent concerning time, as we explained,9 anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for karet,10 as [implied by Leviticus 7:18]: "The soul which partakes of it will bear its sin."11 If one partakes of [the meat of such a sacrifice] inadvertently, he should bring a fixed sin-offering.12
Halacha 7
One is not liable for karet unless one partakes of entities that were permitted for consumption, either by a person or by the altar.13 If, however, one eats of the entity that permits [the sacrifice to be eaten] itself, one is not liable for karet.Instead, he is liable for lashes like one who partakes of disqualified sacrificial animals for which the transgression of karet is not involved.
What is implied? When a meal-offering becomes piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the remaining [meal]14 intentionally, he is liable forkaret. If, however, he partakes of the handful [that is separated to be offered on the altar] or from the frankincense, he is not liable for karet, for these are the substances that enable [the meal to be eaten] by men. Similarly, when a sacrifice is deemed piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of its meat or of the fats and organs offered on the altar or from the meat of a burnt-offering is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of an olive-sized portion of the blood, he is not liable for karet, because [the casting of] the blood permits the fats and the organs to be offered on the altar and [the offering of] the fats and the organs permit the meat [to be eaten by] a person. [Similarly,] the blood of a burnt-offering permits its meat [to be offered] on the altar. [The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering of fowl permits its meat to be eaten by the priests. [The presentation of] the blood of a burnt-offering of fowl permits its meat to be offered on the altar.
[The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering that is burnt permits its fats and the organs to be offered on the altar. Therefore one is liable for [partaking of] the fats and the organs as piggul. [Offering] the handful [of meal] and the frankincense permit a meal-offering to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two sheep15 on Shavuot permit the two loaves to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two bowls of frankincense permit the showbread to [be eaten by] the priests. Sacrificial entities that do not have entities that permit them [to be consumed either by the altar or by man], e.g., the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt or the meal-offerings that are burnt, are never deemed as piggul.
Halacha 8
These are the entities that are never deemed as piggul:16 the handful [of meal] and the frankincense; the incense-offering; the blood [of any sacrifice]; wine - whether wine that comes as part of the accompanying offerings17 or wine that is offered independently;18 and the meal-offerings that are burnt in their entirety; for there is not a handful that permits them, e.g., the meal-offering of a priest or the meal-offering of the accompanying offerings; the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt; and the log of oil brought by a nazirite.
If one would ask [with regard to the latter instance]: Does not the blood of the guilt-offering [brought by the nazirite] permit the oil to be eaten? [In resolution, it can be said that] one is not dependent on the other, for a person may bring his guilt-offering one day and the log of oil after several days, as will be explained in the appropriate place.19
Halacha 9
It is forbidden to leave sacrificial meat beyond the time in which it may be eaten,20 as [Leviticus 22:30] states with regard to the thanksgiving-offering: "Do not leave it over until the morning." This same applies to all other sacrifices.21
One who leaves over sacrificial meat is not liable for lashes, for Scripture enables [the transgression] to be corrected22 by [the fulfillment of] a positive commandment,23 as [Exodus 12:10] states: "That which remains from it until the morning should be burnt with fire."
Halacha 10
One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of sacrifices that were left beyond their required time intentionally is liable for karet.24 If he did so unintentionally, he must bring a fixed sin-offering, as [Leviticus 19:8]: "He who partakes of it shall bear his sin, for he has desecrated what is holy unto God; [that soul] shall be cut off."
From when is a person held liable for partaking of notar [this left-over meat]? If it is from sacrifices of the most sacred order, he is liable from dawn.25 If it is from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity,26 he is liable from sunset on the second day which is the beginning of the third day.
Where does the Torah warn against piggul and notar? With regard to [the sacrifices of] the dedication [of the Sanctuary], [Exodus 29:34] states: "[They shall not be eaten, for they are holy."27 This warns against [partaking of] any [sacrificial food] disqualified [in the Sanctuary], [stating] that there is a negative commandment against partaking of it.
Halacha 11
Piggul and notar can be combined to reach the minimum measure of an olive-sized portion28 [for which one is held liable]. All sacrificial foods that becamepiggul or notar can be combined [for this purpose].
Halacha 12
It is forbidden to cause sacrificial foods to contract impurity or to create a circumstance that makes them impure,29 for he disqualifies them.30 One who makes sacrificial foods impure is not liable for lashes, but a person who is pure who partakes of an olive-sized portion of sacred foods that have become impure is liable for lashes,31 as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "Meat that will touch anything impure should not be eaten."
The same also applies with regard to other sacrifices. [For example,] if one partakes of an olive-sized portion of the frankincense of a meal-offering that became impure after it was sanctified in a utensil is liable for lashes. [This refers] both to sacrificial food that became impure before atonement was attained32 or afterwards, whether it became impure because of contact with a primary source of impurity33 or a derivative of impurity34 of Scriptural origin. If, however, sacrificial foods contracted impurity that is Rabbinic in origin, one is not liable for lashes for partaking of them; he does, however, receives stripes for rebellious conduct.35
[Even one who partakes of sacrificial food that contracts impurity of Scriptural origin] is liable for lashes only when he partakes of it after its blood is cast [on the altar]. If, by contrast, he partakes of it before the casting of its blood, he is not liable for lashes because he partook of impure sacrificial food.36 He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 13
Any person who contracted a form of impurity that would make him liable forkaret for entering the Temple37 who ate an olive-sized portion of sacrificial food - whether the food is pure or impure38 - intentionally is liable for karet,39 as [Leviticus 7:20] states: "A soul that will partake... of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for God while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off." If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring an adjustable guilt-offering.40
What is the source that teaches that the verse is speaking about a situation where the person's body is ritually impure?41 [Leviticus 7:21] states: "When a soul will touch any impurity, whether impurity of a human, an impure animal, or an impure creature and he partook of the meat of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for God while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off."42 The same applies to all other sacrifices of the altar.
Where did [the Torah] warn concerning this prohibition? With regard to a woman who gave birth, [Leviticus 12:4] states: "She shall not touch anything that is sanctified."43
Halacha 14
According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that [the verse] is a warning to a person who is impure, that he or she should not partake of sacrificial food before he immerses himself [in a mikveh]. If one partakes of sacrificial food after immersion, before sunset of that day and before bringing the sacrifice that brings atonement,44 he or she is liable for lashes, but not for karet, for [Leviticus 7:20] states "while his impurity is upon him." [Implied is that] the full measure of impurity must be upon him.45
Halacha 15
If a person was impure because of impurity resulting from a Rabbinic ordinance, he is not liable for lashes [if he partakes of sacrificial food].46Needless to say, he is not liable for karet. He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 16
One is not liable for karet for partaking of sacrificial food that is made permitted by a particular act unless one partakes of it after that act is performed. If, however, he partakes of the meat [of a sacrifice] before its blood is cast on the altar, he is not liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial meat while impure.47
This is the general principle: Whenever sacrificial food is permitted because [of the performance of] a particular act, one is not liable for the violation of any of the prohibitions against partaking of piggul, notar, or impure sacrificial food unless the act which permits partaking of the food was performed according to law. Whenever there is not a given act that makes sacrificial food permitted, once it is sanctified in a consecrated vessel, one is liable for partaking of it if it becomes impure. Even if [sacrificial] meat becomes impure before the person partaking of it becomes impure, if the act [that would have] permitted the meat to be eaten was performed and the person partook of the sacrificial food, he is liable for karet.48Similarly, if a person who is impure partakes of the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt, after their blood is cast [on the altar],49 he is liable for karet.
Halacha 17
It was already explained for you,50 that even entities for which one is not liable for piggul, one may be liable for notar or because the object contracted ritual impurity?
What is implied? There is no liability for piggul for sacrificial entities that do not have an activity that permits them [to be eaten], but one may be held liable [for partaking of them if they] became notar or impure in such circumstances.
Similarly, even though there cannot be liability for piggul for the very entities that cause the sacrificial meat to be permitted, as we explained,51 one can be liable [for partaking of such entities if the sacrificial meat] became notar or impure with the exception of the blood. For one is liable for only one transgression for partaking of it.52
Halacha 18
When a person who is impure partakes of the fats and organs to be offered on the altar, he is liable for karet.
Halacha 19
[If an impure person] partook53 of Paschal sacrifice that was not roasted breads of the thanksgiving-offering of which the breads [to be given to the priest] were not taken, he is liable for karet because of the impurity of [his] body even though they are not fit for their [purpose at this stage].54
It is impossible for a person to be liable for the transgressions of piggul andnotar with regard to consumption of the same sacrifice.55 [The rationale is that]piggul is a sacrifice that was disqualified because of an unacceptable thought concerning time. It does not fulfill the obligations of a sacrifice and is not acceptable at all. Notar, by contrast, refers to the remnants of a sacrifice that was offered as required which remained after the time [prescribed] for its consumption.
Halacha 20
Halacha 21
When [sacrificial meat] that was piggul, notar, or impure was brought up to the altar, once the fire takes hold of the majority of it, their prohibitions take flight.
The fat and the organs can be combined with the meat, both with regard to a burnt offering or to other sacrifices with regard to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure.
Halacha 22
When a sacrifice becomes piggul or notar after the time for its consumption passes and a person partakes of it, from its skin, from the sauce or spices [in which it is cooked], the allal,58 the murah,59 from the giddim,60 the horns, and the hoofs, the nails, the beak [of a fowl], its feathers,61 or its eggs, he is not liable for karet.62 Similarly, if an impure person partakes of these substances from an acceptable sacrifice, he is not liable for karet. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 23
If one partook of a fetus or a placenta, he is liable for [violating the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure like one who partake of any other [portion of] the meat of a sacrifice.63
Halacha 24
[The prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure do not apply with regard to sacrifices brought by gentiles.64 Nor do they apply to sacrificial blood, as explained.65 Similarly, one is not liable for karet66 for [the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or partaking of [sacrificial entities] while impure67for partaking of frankincense, the incense offering, or the wood [of the altar].68
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The wording used by the Rambam is often employed when referring to one of the 613 mitzvot. Nevertheless, neither in the listing at the beginning of these halachot, nor in Sefer HaMitzvot, does he count this charge in that reckoning. The Ramban (in his Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 4) does give this charge that distinction. Megilat Esther explains that this charge is part of the directive to offer sacrifices in the proper manner and hence need not be considered as a separate mitzvah. See also Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 144) where the issue is discussed.
|
| 2. |
As is one who causes a blemish to sacrificial animals (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:7).
|
| 3. |
And lashes are given only when one violates a transgression while performing a deed (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2).
|
| 4. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 140) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 469) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 5. |
See the Sifri to the verse cited.
|
| 6. |
The Rambam is emphasizing this point lest one think that the charge also refers to other prohibited substances. This stress is necessary, for otherwise the prohibition could be considered a prohibition of a general nature (lav shebiklalut). Lashes are not given for violating a prohibition of this nature (Hilchot Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).
|
| 7. |
After they have been redeemed. As the Rambam LeAm elaborates, in addition to contracting a blemish, an animal dedicated as a sacrifice must be redeemed before the prohibition against partaking of its meat is lifted. (This constitutes a difference between the laws pertaining to such an animal and a firstborn animal.) Even after the Scriptural prohibition is lifted, there is a Rabbinic prohibition to partake of its meat until it contracts another blemish on its own accord. (This prohibition was instituted as a penalty lest one intentionally inflict such a blemish. See Bechorot34b.)
|
| 8. |
The Rambam's wording has aroused the attention of the commentaries, for this law is stated inHilchot Bechorot 2:7, where the entire law stated here is mentioned. As such, it would have been more correct for the Rambam to have stated "as will be explained." Some have suggested that the intent here is to the concept that a sacrificial animal that has contracted a blemish may be eaten after being redeemed, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:10.
|
| 9. |
In various halachot from Chapter 13, Halachah 1, onward.
|
| 10. |
Literally, that the soul is cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50,Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).
|
| 11. |
Since this phrase is also used with regard to notar (sacrificial meat left beyond its limit) in Leviticus 19:8 and the punishment of karet is explicitly stated with regard to that prohibition in that verse, theSifra makes an equation with regard to the punishment for the two transgressions.
|
| 12. |
This term is used to differentiate between this offering and an adjustable guilt-offering in which instance, the sacrifice the person required to bring is dependent on the person's means. SeeHilchot Shegagot 1:3-4.
|
| 13. |
Entities eaten by a person or consumed by the altar's pyre.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 4:3), the Rambam explains this concept as follows: The prohibition of piggul is derived from Leviticus 7:18 which pertains to the peace-offerings. Our Sages explain that the peace-offerings are unique in that they involve both consumption by the altar and consumption by man and that there is an act that permits such consumption (the offering of the blood permits the fats and organs to be offered and offering them permits the meat to be eaten). Hence this is established as a general rule with regard to all sacrifices.
|
| 14. |
I.e., the portion to be eaten by man.
|
| 15. |
The sheep themselves, however, can also become piggul, as stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 16.
|
| 16. |
For there is no other act performed that enables these to be offered.
|
| 17. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2.
|
| 18. |
Ibid. 17:12.
|
| 19. |
See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.
It must be noted that the latter point is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Mishnah. Rabbi Shimon maintains that the log cannot become piggul, while Rabbi Meir maintains that it can for the reasons stated here. Although the standard published text of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah states that the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon's view (as the Rambam rules here), Rav Kappach notes that all the manuscript copies of the Commentary to the Mishnah state that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon.
|
| 20. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 120) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 142) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 21. |
Nevertheless, Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 117-119) does count the prohibitions against leaving over the meat of the Paschal sacrifice, the chagigah offering, and the second Paschal sacrifice as separate commandments.
|
| 22. |
The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam mentions this point. True, it is mentioned byPesachim 84a, but that passage follows the opinion that lashes can be given for the violation of a prohibition even if a deed is not involved. The Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2) maintains that lashes are not given unless the transgression involves a deed. Hence, seemingly, he does not have to add the explanation given here.
|
| 23. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 143) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 24. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 131) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 215) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 25. |
The first shining of the light on the eastern horizon, between 72 and 120 minutes before sunrise according to the various authorities.
|
| 26. |
With the exception of the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite's ram for which one is liable from dawn of the day following their sacrifice.
|
| 27. |
The commentaries note that the Rambam's citation of the verse is not entirely exact. See alsoSefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit.
|
| 28. |
From the wording of the Mishnah (Meilah 4:3), one might think that these two prohibitions are not combined. Nevertheless, the Talmud (Meilah 17b) states that the Mishnah is speaking about the impurity of one's hands, but that with regard to the prohibition against partaking of the food, they may be combined.
|
| 29. |
Although the Rambam's wording implies that a Scriptural prohibition is involved, he does not include it as one of the 613 mitzvot. See a parallel in Hilchot Terumah 12:1.
|
| 30. |
The Or Sameach comments that the Rambam's wording implies that if the sacrificial foods were disqualified for other reasons, it is permitted to cause them to contract impurity. See Chapter 19, Halachot 5-6.
|
| 31. |
Partaking of sacrificial foods that have become impure is considered by Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 130) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 145) as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 32. |
The attainment of atonement refers to the casting of the blood on the altar.
Although the sacrifice became impure before the blood was cast on the altar, after the fact, it is acceptable, because the forehead plate of the High Priest causes such sacrifices to be considered acceptable (Menachot 25b). And since, after the fact, it is acceptable, one is liable for partaking of it if it became piggul.
|
| 33. |
In the original, an av tumah, literally, "a father of impurity," an object deemed inherently impure by Scripture decree which has the potential to make other objects impure. See the Rambam's introduction to the Order of Taharot in his Commentary to the Mishnah and also, Hilchot Tumat Meit 5:7 for more details regarding this and the term mentioned in the following note.
|
| 34. |
In the original, a v'lad tumah, literally, "the offspring of impurity," an object that contracts ritual impurity through contract with a primary source of impurity, which in certain instances can impart impurity to other substances.
|
| 35. |
The punishment given anyone who violates a Rabbinic ordinance.
|
| 36. |
Because such a sacrifice is disqualified and, as an initial preference, its blood should not be offered on the altar. The Mishneh LiMelech states that he is, however, liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial food before its blood was cast on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 11:1,4.
|
| 37. |
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:13-14. As mentioned in the Kessef Mishneh, there are certain states of ritual impurity for which one is not liable for karet for entering the Temple. This prohibition, however, focuses only on those concerning which this penalty can be incurred, because of an association between the words mikdash, "sanctuary," and kodesh, "sacrificial food."
|
| 38. |
There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:2) because there are two prohibitions involved: the prohibition against partaking of impure sacrificial meat and the prohibition against a person who is impure partaking of sacrificial meat. Rabbi Yossi maintains that since the meat is impure and unfit to be eaten, we are not concerned whether the person is impure or not. The Sages, by contrast, maintain that since the impure person is forbidden to partake of pure sacrificial food, the prohibition also applies when partakes of impure sacrificial food. The Rambam accepts the Sages' opinion. See also Halachah 16.
|
| 39. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 129) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 167) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 40. |
An obligation for which the offering changes dependent on the person's financial capacity (see Leviticus, ch. 5; Hilchot Shegagot 10:1).
|
| 41. |
For one could interpret the above verse as referring to sacrificial food that contracted ritual impurity.
|
| 42. |
This verse clearly indicates that the passage is speaking about a person who has contracted ritual impurity.
|
| 43. |
The interpretation of the verse is explained in the following halachah.
|
| 44. |
As stated in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, to be permitted to partake of sacrificial food or to enter the Temple, a zav (a male who has secretions similar to those produced by gonorrhea), azavah (a woman who experiences vaginal bleeding outside her menstrual cycle), a woman who gives birth or miscarries, and a person afflicted by the skin condition of tzara'at must do the following after they are fit to emerge from their ritual impurity: a) immerse in the mikveh, b) wait until nightfall after immersion, and c) bring the appropriate sacrifice.
|
| 45. |
Since the person has already immersed in the mikveh, a certain dimension of his or her ritual impurity has been removed. Hence, although he or she is liable for lashes for this transgression, there is no liability for karet.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even in such a situation, one is liable forkaret. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:9, the Kessef Mishneh cites Talmudic passages which could be used as support for both positions.
|
| 46. |
For according to Scriptural Law, he is not liable. Compare to Halachah 12.
|
| 47. |
In this instance as well, according to the Mishneh LiMelech, the person would be liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial food before its blood was cast on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 11:1,4.
|
| 48. |
See Halachah 13 and notes.
|
| 49. |
For afterwards, they are ready to be burnt.
|
| 50. |
I.e., this conclusion can be reached by comparing Halachah 7 with the previous halachah. An equation is made between sacrificial meat that is notar and that which contracted ritual impurity.
|
| 51. |
In Halachah 7.
|
| 52. |
I.e., the prohibition against partaking of blood, which appears uniformly, both to the blood of sacrificial animals and to that of ordinary animals. Since it is already prohibited, none of the other prohibitions apply to it. See Zevachim 4:5.
|
| 53. |
This is the version accepted by the R. Shabsi Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah. The Kessef Mishneh offers a different version of the text.
|
| 54. |
I.e., although these activities are necessary for these sacrifices to be acceptable, a person can still be held liable for partaking of the sacrifice in a state of ritual impurity.
|
| 55. |
This is a general rule. There are several particular aspects to it, as explained in Keritot 14a.
|
| 56. |
This is speaking about a situation where there is an olive-sized portion of all the prohibited substances. Nevertheless, one might think that the presence of one might nullify the other. The person receives a set of lashes for each prohibition he violates.
|
| 57. |
Instead, as stated in Halachah 11, they are combined together.
The commentaries have noted that this ruling appears to contradict the Rambam's own ruling inHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:18, that orlah nullifies the presence of terumah. See also the Beit Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 98.
It can be explained that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Rambam is speaking about an instance where there is sufficient amount of kosher food to nullify the prohibited substance according to Scriptural Law (for only a majority is required). Hence, for the additional amount required by Rabbinic Law, a forbidden substance is also sufficient. In this instance, however, the substances are not nullified according to Scriptural Law. Hence, one forbidden substance cannot nullify another.
|
| 58. |
In Chapter 14, Halachah 7, the Rambam defines this as: "the meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide."
|
| 59. |
The thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten (ibid.).
|
| 60. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), the Rambam explains that this is a general term referring to blood vessels, nerves, and sinews.
|
| 61. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:2), the Rambam explains that this term refers to the growth that remains after the large feathers are removed.
|
| 62. |
For these entities are not considered as fit to be eaten.
|
| 63. |
Based on a comparison to Chapter 14, Halachah 7, the Ra'avad explains this should be understood as meaning that if one intended to eat the meat of a sacrifice after the time when it was supposed to be eaten, the entire sacrifice, even the fetus and the placenta, become piggul. If, however, one's intent is to partake of the fetus or the placenta, the sacrifice does not becomepiggul.
|
| 64. |
As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2, burnt-offerings brought by a gentile may be offered on the altar. According to the Rambam, even though such sacrifices are acceptable, these prohibitions do not apply.
The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling appears to reflect the understanding of Rabbi Shimon in Zevachim 4:3 and, most authorities - including the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah - follow the view of Rabbi Yossi who differs. It can, however, be explained that Rabbi Shimon's opinion concerns only "one who offers them outside the Temple." The preceding clause of the mishnah concerning piggul and the like is accepted by all opinions (Kessef Mishneh).
In truth, the Rambam's opinion concerning this issue is somewhat problematic. His acceptance of Rabbi Yossi's view in his ruling in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:16. Nevertheless, his ruling inHilchot Me'ilah 5:15, like the one here, appears to follow Rabbi Shimon's view.
|
| 65. |
Halachah 17 above.
|
| 66. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it reflects the understanding of Rabbi Shimon in the above mishnah. Rav Kapach notes that in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, his original writing was rubbed out and his final statement is: "The halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon." The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution to the difficulty explaining that the Rambam is postulating that the transgressor is liable for lashes and not for karet. The exemption for karet is accepted by all opinions. Rabbi Shimon exempts the transgressor from lashes as well, but the initial opinion of the mishnah - which is accepted by the Rambam - holds him liable on that account.
|
| 67. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam equates a person partaking of them while he is impure with one partaking of them while they are impure. The Kessef Mishneh debates the Rambam's intent here.
|
| 68. |
Although wood does not usually contract impurity, sacrificial wood may [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
|
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 19
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to burn all the sacrifices that have become impure,1 as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "And the meat that will touch anything that [imparts] impurity may not be eaten. It must be burnt with fire."
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
There is an unresolved doubt with regard to the bulls and the goats which are to be burnt6 whether leaving them overnight or taking them outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the time to take them out7 disqualifies their meat as it would their fats and organs or not.8 Therefore, as a stringency, it is considered as if they were disqualified and they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.9
Similarly, there is an unresolved doubt if half [such] an animal was taken out [including] the majority of one limb.10 Therefore, as a stringency, it is considered as if it was disqualified and it should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.
Similarly, if five people carried [such] an animal to take it outside the Temple Courtyard and three departed from [the Courtyard] and two remained, but the three removed half of the animal, [such animals] are disqualified because of the doubt and they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.11 It appears to me that in such instances,12 it is not necessary to wait until the following day. [The rationale is that] regardless [such animals] will be burnt,13 even if they are not disqualified.
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply when] meat is found in the Temple Courtyard: [Whole] limbs are [considered as parts of] burnt-offerings. Pieces [of meat] are considered as parts of sin-offerings.14 Pieces which are found in Jerusalem are considered as parts of peace-offerings.15 Everything should be left until the following day and then taken out to the place where sacrifices are burnt lest it be notar.16
[One might ask: If so,] of what benefit will it be that it be considered as [part of] a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, or a peace-offering? [To define the law for one] who transgressed and partook of it.17
Notar is burnt only during the day, as stated: "On the third day,18 [it] shall be burnt with fire."
Halacha 5
Although peace-offerings are forbidden to be eating from the beginning of the night of the third day,19 [the remainder] is only burnt during the day, whether [it is burnt] at the appropriate time or not at the appropriate time.20 Similarly,piggul is burnt only during the day.21
Burning [sacrificial meat] that is impure, notar, or piggul does not supersede [the prohibitions against forbidden labor on] festivals.22 Needless to say, it does not supersede [the prohibition against work on] the Sabbath.
It is permitted to burn [sacrificial meat] that is impure, notar, and piggultogether.23
Halacha 6
When the meat of a sacrifice of the most sacred order became impure in [the Temple Courtyard], it should be burnt in [the Temple Courtyard]. When it became impure outside [the Temple Courtyard], it should be burnt outside [the Temple Courtyard].24[This applies] whether it became impure because of a primary source of ritual impurity or a derivative of ritual impurity.25
The priests never refrained from burning meat that contracted impurity from a primary source of impurity - and thus it is defined as impure to the first degree - with meat that contracted impurity from a derivative of impurity,26 even though this would increase the level of its impurity.27 For [an entity that is] of third degree impurity that touches an entity of first degree impurity is considered as of secondary impurity, as explained in [the appropriate] place.28 Moreover, even oil that became impure because it touched a person who immersed on that day,29 which is of third degree impurity is permitted to be burnt in a metal lamp30 that was touched by a person who is impure because of contact with a human corpse, in which instance, the lamp is a primary source of impurity.31Although the oil becomes impure to the first degree when it touches the lamp, since it was already deemed impure, we are not concerned with the increase of the impurity. We are only careful that an entity that is pure will not become disqualified.
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when a person] left Jerusalem and remembered that he had sacrificial meat34 in his possession. If he already passed Mt. Scopus,35he should burn it where he is. If not36 and it is the size of an olive-sized portion, he should return and burn it in Jerusalem.37 If he is a guest who does not have a home, he should burn it before the Temple38 with wood designated for the arrangement of wood [of the altar].39
Halacha 9
All of the bones of the sacrifices that do not have marrow need not be burnt40with the exception of the bones of the Paschal sacrifice.41 We already explained42 that when a sacrifice was disqualified after it was skinned, its hide should be given to the priests43 or to the owners, in the instance of sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness. If, however, [a sacrifice] was disqualified before it was skinned, the hide is considered as the meat and it should be burnt in its entirety.44
Similarly, if a sacrifice was skinned and then it was discovered to be tereifah or it was disqualified because of an improper thought concerning time or place, since the sacrifice was not accepted, the hide should be burnt. [This applies] both to sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity and to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. If, however, a sacrifice was offered for the sake of a different intent, even though the obligation of the owners was not fulfilled, since it is acceptable,45 the hide is given to the priests or the owners, as explained [above]. When a sacrifice was skinned before the blood was cast [on the altar46and the sacrifice was disqualified afterwards, the hide] is not disqualified.
Halacha 10
These are the entities that should be burnt:47 sacrificial meat that became impure, notar, or was disqualified, and also a meal-offering that became impure, notar, or was disqualified, a conditional guilt-offering in an instance when it became known to the transgressor that he definitely did not sin before its blood was cast [on the altar],48a sin-offering of fowl that is brought because of a doubt,49the hair of a nazirite who is ritually pure,50 and [produce that is]orlah51 or kilei hakerem.52Entities that are not fit to be burnt - e.g., liquids that are orlah or kilei hakerem - should be buried.
Halacha 11
These are the entities that should be buried: sacred animals that died, whether they were consecrated to [be offered on] the altar or for the sake of the Temple treasury - when sacred animals miscarry and discharge a fetus or a placenta, it should be buried - an ox that is stoned to death,53 a calf whose neck is broken,54 the fowl [used for the purification of] a person afflicted with tzara'at,55the hair of a nazirite who became impure,56 a firstborn donkey [which was not redeemed],57a mixture of milk and meat,58 and ordinary animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.59
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
[If] any of the entities that must be buried [are burnt], it is forbidden to benefit from their ashes. It is permitted to benefit from the ashes of all of the entities that must be burnt, [even if] they are sacred, with the exception of the ashes of the outer and inner altars and the ashes of the Menorah.63
Halacha 14
None of the entities to be burnt should be buried64 and none of the entities to be buried should be burnt. [The rationale for the latter point is that] even though he is stringent by burning it, he is being lenient with regard to its ash, for the ashes of the entities that are buried are forbidden.65
Halacha 15
If a person was offering sacrifices together with [a priest] and he told him: "[The sacrifices became] piggul," or if he was involved with entities that are ritually pure with a person and he told him, "They became impure," his word is accepted.66 A Jew is not suspected of lying in such an instance.67 If, by contrast, he told him: "The sacrifices which I offered for you on this and this day became piggul" or "those pure objects became impure," [different rules apply]. If [the person is one] whom he trusts, he should rely on his word. If not, according to the letter of the law, his word [need] not be relied upon. One who wishes to be stringent68 is praiseworthy.69
Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 90) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 146) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 2. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 143) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There the Rambam states that the commandment was instituted to correct the transgression of leaving the meat past its required time. See Chapter 18, Halachah 9.
|
| 3. |
This is speaking about a peace-offering which may be eaten on the day it was offered and on the following day. If it was left for a third day, it must be burnt.
|
| 4. |
In the Temple Courtyard, but not on the altar. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3-4 which states that there are three places where sacrifices are burnt.
|
| 5. |
We have translated the term used by the Rambam according to its halachic intent. The literal meaning is that it should be left long enough to decompose until it loses the appearance of meat. Our Sages understood that as being a twenty-four hour period.
Leaving the sacrifice until the next day disqualifies it and requires it to be burnt. Since initially there was a doubt involved, this is the desired course of action.
|
| 6. |
I.e., they are burnt in the ash heap outside of Jerusalem after their fats and organs were offered on the altar's pyre.
|
| 7. |
I.e., before their blood is cast upon the altar.
|
| 8. |
The fats and the organs would definitely be disqualified in such circumstances. Zevachim 104b questions whether this would also apply with regard to the meat of a sacrifice and leaves that question unresolved.
|
| 9. |
Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam's decision, because the Talmud's query seems to follow the opinion of Reish Lakish (Zevachim 89b) who maintains that when the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness was removed from the Temple Courtyard before their blood was cast on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified. According to Rabbi Yochanan who maintains that in such an instance, the sacrifice is not disqualified, seemingly, these sacrifices are also not disqualified.
Rav Yosef Corcus resolves the issue, explaining that even Rabbi Yochanan maintains that the meat of those sacrifices is disqualified. Hence, there is reason to question what his opinion would be in this instance.
|
| 10. |
If the majority of an animal is not taken out of the Temple Courtyard, it is not disqualified. Zevachim105a speaks about a situation where only half an animal was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, but included that half was the majority of one limb. If the remainder of that limb was considered as outside the Temple Courtyard, the majority of the animal would be considered to be outside.
|
| 11. |
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on both of these instances, maintaining that the Talmudic passage which is the Rambam's source (Zevachim 104b-105a) can be interpreted differently. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's interpretation can be substantiated.
|
| 12. |
All three instances mentioned above.
|
| 13. |
I.e., they will definitely be burnt. The question is only where they will be burnt, whether in the Temple Courtyard, like sacrifices that are disqualified or outside Jerusalem, as is required for these bulls and goats. When, by contrast, a doubt arises with regard to other sacrificial animals, there is no obligation to burn them unless they are disqualified. On the contrary, burning them would be considered as degrading for sacred articles (Rav Yosef Corcus). Hence they are required to be left until the next day, so that they will definitely be disqualified.
|
| 14. |
Even though it is permitted to cut the meat of burnt-offerings into portions (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:19), the priests were not accustomed to doing so. Rather a burnt-offering was cut up into several large portions and then brought to the altar. Hence if the meat of an animal was cut up into smaller pieces, one could assume that it was a sin-offering (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:3)]. The meat of such offerings must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard.
It is also possible that the meat was from a guilt-offering, but sin-offerings are more common and hence, they were mentioned. The meat could also have come from a peace-offering - for such offerings are also cut up into smaller pieces - but out of respect to the stringencies associated with sin-offerings, it is considered in that category.
|
| 15. |
Since peace-offerings may be eaten throughout Jerusalem, we can assume that meat found there was left over from such an offering.
|
| 16. |
Which is forbidden to be eaten or offered on the altar. Since it is possible that the meat was left beyond its appointed time, it must be burnt as required for such meat. Nevertheless, since it is also possible that it had been sacrificed on this day, it cannot be burnt immediately. Instead, we wait until the following day when it is certainly required to be burnt and burn it at that time. For peace-offerings, it is necessary to wait two days.
|
| 17. |
I.e., since it is possible that the sacrificial meat had not been left for an extra day, if a person who is permitted to eat such a sacrifice partakes of it, he is not obligated to bring a guilt-offering to atone for misusing sacrificial meat.
|
| 18. |
Since the verse mentions the day, it must be burnt during those hours.
|
| 19. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:6.
|
| 20. |
I.e., even if it is discovered at night, several days after the meat should have been consumed, it should be burnt on the following day and not immediately at night.
|
| 21. |
The verse regarding notar serves as the basis for the ruling regarding all sacrifices that must be burnt.
|
| 22. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:10), the Rambam states the rationale: The prohibition of work on festivals is mandated by both a positive and negative commandment, while the charge to burn notar is merely a positive commandment and a positive commandment never overrides the observance of both a positive and negative commandment. See also Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 3:8.
|
| 23. |
Although it is forbidden to cause sacrificial meat to contract ritual impurity - and by mixing notar orpiggul with impure meat, one would be doing so - since notar or piggul are already considered impure, this provision is granted (Pesachim 15b).
|
| 24. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3-4.
|
| 25. |
In the original, an av tumah, literally, "a father of impurity," and a v'lad tumah, literally, "the offspring of impurity." See Chapter 18, Halachah 12, for more details regarding these terms.
|
| 26. |
The Rambam is borrowing the wording of the Mishnah (Pesachim 1:6), even though - as he states in his Commentary to the Mishnah - the intent is "a derivative of a derivative," i.e., an entity of third degree impurity as mentioned here. Thus we are speaking about meat that touched an entity that had touched an entity that had touched a primary source of impurity. Indeed, the Kessef Mishnehand others suggest that text of the Mishneh Torah should be emended to reflect that understanding.
|
| 27. |
The meat becomes impure only according to Rabbinical decree. According to Scriptural Law, food does not cause other food to contract ritual impurity [Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 7:1; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].
|
| 28. |
See Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 4:15.
|
| 29. |
To emerge from most types of ritual impurity, a person must immerse in a mikveh and then wait until nightfall. Even if a person has already immersed in a mikveh, he does not regain impurity until night. Until that time, he can impart ritual impurity to certain entities (Tivul Yom 2:1).
|
| 30. |
But not an earthenware lamp touched by a person who became impure because of contact with a corpse, for an earthenware utensil never becomes a primary source of impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].
|
| 31. |
For the impurity resulting from contact with a corpse is so severe that even an entity that touches it becomes a primary source of impurity.
|
| 32. |
Which may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.
|
| 33. |
There is no necessity to bring it to the Temple and have it burnt there.
|
| 34. |
Meat from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem.
|
| 35. |
The last place from the surroundings of Jerusalem from which the Temple can be seen. SeeHilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:8.
|
| 36. |
And thus the difficulty in returning is not so great.
|
| 37. |
If, however, it is smaller, it is not significant and can be burnt wherever he is.
|
| 38. |
The Hebrew term birah is used to refer to the entire Temple complex.
|
| 39. |
This provision was made lest guests refrain from burning the sacrificial meat because of a lack of wood. See also Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:3 which touches on related matters.
|
| 40. |
It is sufficient to merely discard them.
|
| 41. |
See Hilchot Pesachim 10:1-2 which explain that the bones of the Paschal sacrifice are burnt together with its meat, because according to the Rambam, the prohibition against breaking a bone from the Paschal sacrifice applies even after the mitzvah to partake of the sacrifice is concluded, it is therefore desirable to burn the bones so that the do not become a cause of transgression. The Ra'avad mentions, based on Pesachim 83a, it can be concluded that only bones that had marrow and which were cracked open and the marrow removed must be burnt. If they have no marrow at all, there is no need to burn even the bones of the Paschal sacrifice.
According to this view, the difference between the law governing the bones of the Paschal sacrifice and those of other sacrifices can be explained as follows. It is forbidden to break open the bones of the Paschal sacrifice. Therefore if the bones of a Paschal sacrifice were broken open, we can assume that this was done after the Paschal sacrifice became notar, for, according to many authorities, there is no prohibition against breaking the bones of a Paschal sacrifice once it has been disqualified. In such a situation, the bones are forbidden, because they served notar(i.e., the marrow). (See the gloss of the Mishneh LiMelech who notes that in Hilchot Korban Pesach 10:6, the Rambam writes that even in such a situation, it is forbidden to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice, and offers a possible resolution.)
With regard to other sacrifices, by contrast, there is no prohibition against breaking their bones even during the time the sacrifice is acceptable. Hence we can assume that they were broken during that time and the marrow removed. Thus there is little likelihood that they served notar and thus became forbidden. According to this understanding, if a sacrifice was notar, any bone that contains marrow should be burnt. See the gloss of the Meiri to Pesachim, loc. cit., who implies that the Rambam should have been more explicit in his statements.
|
| 42. |
Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:20.
|
| 43. |
In the instance of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity.
|
| 44. |
As the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:2) states: "Whenever the altar did not acquire the flesh [of a sacrifice], the owners do not acquire the hide."
|
| 45. |
See Chapter 15, Halachah 1.
|
| 46. |
This is a violation of the norms of sacrificial practice (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:18). Nevertheless, it does not disqualify a sacrifice.
|
| 47. |
It is forbidden to benefit from these entities. They should be burnt so that they are destroyed entirely.
|
| 48. |
A conditional guilt-offering is brought when a person suspects he has violated a negative commandment, but has no definite knowledge that he did so. If he receives knowledge that he is guiltless after the animal has been slaughtered, but before its blood is cast on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified. Once its blood has been cast on the altar, the sacrifice is acceptable even if the person receives definite knowledge that he is guiltless. See Chapter 4, Halachah 19.
|
| 49. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
|
| 50. |
A nazirite's hair is considered "holy" and it is forbidden to be benefit from it. Therefore at the conclusion of his nazirite vow, he shaves his head and burns his hair in the Chamber of the Nazirites that was in the southeastern corner of the Women's Courtyard (Hilchot Nizirut 8:1-3).
|
| 51. |
Produce that grows in the first three years after the planting of a tree. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, ch. 10, and Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, ch. 10.
|
| 52. |
Species of grain or vegetables sown in a vineyard. See Hilchot Kilayim, ch. 5.
|
| 53. |
An ox - or any other animal - that killed a person. The ox is stoned to death and it is forbidden to benefit from its flesh at all (Exodus 21:29-32; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10).
|
| 54. |
When a wayfarer is found murdered and it is not known who killed him, a calf is brought as atonement. See Deuteronomy, ch. 21; Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 9.
|
| 55. |
As stated in Leviticus, ch. 14, Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at, ch. 11, when a person's whose body had been afflicted with tzara'at becomes pure, he must bring two birds as part of the purification ritual.
|
| 56. |
As stated in Hilchot Nizirut 6:11, when a nazirite becomes impure because of contact with a human corpse, he must have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days. He then has his hair shaved on the seventh day. This shaving need not be performed in the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 57. |
The firstborn male offspring of a donkey must be redeemed for a sheep. If it is not redeemed, it is executed and it is forbidden to benefit from its flesh (Exodus 13:13, Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 12).
|
| 58. |
Which is forbidden not only to be eaten but also to derive benefit from (Exodus 23:19; Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 9:1).
|
| 59. |
It is forbidden to benefit from the meat of such animals, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah 2:2.
|
| 60. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:2), the Rambam translates the term sit into Arabic. Most commentaries interpret his statements as meaning "the distance between the top of the thumb and the next finger [when the fingers are spread out]. This is one-sixth of the distance between the thumb and the middle finger." Rav Kappach notes that in fact such a calculation will not be accurate. He interprets the Rambam's words as defining a sit as half the distance between the index finger and the middle finger when spread out. This he maintains is two thumbreadths.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 13:4), the Rambam differentiates between "the width of a sit" and "the full length of a sit." As indicated by Hilchot Shabbat 9:20, "the full length of a sit" is two thumbreadths. In contrast, as stated (ibid.:7), "the width of a sit" is two thirds of a zeret, i.e., three thumbbreadths.
|
| 61. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:3).
|
| 62. |
Generally, the hair of an unredeemed firstborn donkey need only be buried, as stated in the previous halachah. Nevertheless, in this instance, the cloth must be burnt lest the forbidden substance not be recognized and the cloth considered as permitted (Temurah 34a).
|
| 63. |
Temurah, op. cit., derives this concept from the exegesis of the statements of Leviticus 25:3 with regard to the ash of the inner altar. From those statements, a parallel is established with regard to the other ashes mentioned here.
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam and maintains that it is only forbidden to benefit from the ashes which the priest removes when taking out the ash in the morning. He maintains that the ash on the altar is permitted. The Rambam, by contrast, maintains that all of the ash of the altar is forbidden.
|
| 64. |
Because in all these instances, the mitzvah is that the article be burnt.
|
| 65. |
While the ash of entities that are to be burnt is permitted.
|
| 66. |
The Ra'avad states that, on the basis of Gittin 54b, both of these statements should be understood as applying while the article in question is in that person's hands. The rationale is that since he could now make the article piggul or impure, his word is accepted when he says that it was previously brought to that state.
The Kessef Mishneh states that although that is the opinion of Abbaye in Gittin, loc. cit., Ravva differs, maintaining that the law applies even when the articles in question are not in his hand. Generally, the halachah follows Ravva's opinion, but in this instance, Abbaye's view is favored.
|
| 67. |
For this would cause acceptable sacrifices to be burnt unnecessary articles and pure entities to be destroyed.
|
| 68. |
And accept the other person's statements.
|
| 69. |
The wording of the Talmud that the Rambam quotes, "according to the letter of the law, his word [need] not be relied upon," implies that it is desirable to go beyond the letter of the law. See the parallels in Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:1; Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 13:8.
|
• Shabbat, Sivan 19, 5775 · 06 June 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'lach, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 90-96.
Tanya: Therefore, it was (p. 305)...Hava'ye is Elokim. (p. 307).
In the month of Marcheshvan 5613 (1852) the Tzemach Tzedek started an additional program of study with my grandfather,1 besides the Tzemach Tzedek's regular studies. This was for two and a half hours daily, starting at 10:00 p.m. winters, and at 4:00 a.m.summers. For two years they studied Kabala with chassidic interpretation. Thereafter, until Elul 5616 (1856), when this special program ceased, they studied the following philosophical works: Those of R. Saadya Gaon, and Moreh Nevuchim, Ikarim, Kuzari,etc. - according to Chassidic teachings.
FOOTNOTES
1. R. Shmuel, the Tzemach Tzedek's son; later, the Rebbe Maharash.
Daily Thought:
Strong Inside
The ego is not a source of strength. It is weakness in disguise.
Inside there is invincible strength. Remove the cloud of the mind’s ego, and the inner power will be free to shine.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment