Today in Jewish History:
• Noah's Ark Comes to Rest on Mt. Ararat (2105 BCE)
Seven months after the beginning of the Great Flood, and 17 days after the waters covering the earth began to subside, the Ark sheltering Noah, his family, and members of all animal species came to rest on the (still submerged) summit of Mount Ararat.
Links:
A Chronology of the Flood
The Torah's account of the Flood, with commentary (Parshat Noach)
More on The Flood
• Hasmonean Victory (circa 140 BCE)
The Hasmonean fighters recaptured Migdal Tzur from the Greek enemy and proclaimed this day a holiday (Talmud, Megilat Taanit).
Link: The Macabees
Daily Quote:
Anger will kill a fool[Job 5:2]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Behaalotecha, 5th Portion Numbers 10:11-10:34 with Rashi
• Chapter 10
11On the twentieth of the second month in the second year, the cloud rose up from over the Tabernacle of the Testimony. יאוַיְהִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּעֶשְׂרִים בַּחֹדֶשׁ נַעֲלָה הֶעָנָן מֵעַל מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת:
Of the second month: Hence, you say that they spent twelve months minus ten days at Horeb, for on the first day of [the month of] Sivan, they encamped there, and did not travel until the twentieth of Iyyar of the following year. בחדש השני: נמצאת אומר שנים עשר חודש חסר עשרה ימים עשו בחורב, שהרי בראש חודש סיון חנו שם ולא נסעו עד עשרים באייר לשנה הבאה:
12The children of Israel traveled on their journeys from the Sinai desert, and the cloud settled in the desert of Paran. יבוַיִּסְעוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַסְעֵיהֶם מִמִּדְבַּר סִינָי וַיִּשְׁכֹּן הֶעָנָן בְּמִדְבַּר פָּארָן:
On their journeys: In accordance with the regulations set down for the traveling of their banners which should be first and which should be last.] למסעיהם: כמשפט המפורש למסע דגליהם מי ראשון ומי אחרון:
In the desert of Paran: Kivroth HaTa’avah was in the desert of Paran, and that is where they camped after this journey. במדבר פארן: קברות התאוה במדבר פארן היה ושם חנו ממסע זה:
13This was the first journey at God's bidding through Moses. יגוַיִּסְעוּ בָּרִאשֹׁנָה עַל פִּי יְהֹוָה בְּיַד משֶׁה:
14The banner of the camp of Judah's children traveled first according to their legions. Heading the legion was Nahshon the son of Amminadab. ידוַיִּסַּע דֶּגֶל מַחֲנֵה בְנֵי יְהוּדָה בָּרִאשֹׁנָה לְצִבְאֹתָם וְעַל צְבָאוֹ נַחְשׁוֹן בֶּן עַמִּינָדָב:
15Heading the legion of the tribe of the children of Issachar was Nethanel the son of Zuar. טווְעַל צְבָא מַטֵּה בְּנֵי יִשָּׂשכָר נְתַנְאֵל בֶּן צוּעָר:
16Heading the legion of the tribe of the children of Zebulun was Eliab the son of Helon. טזוְעַל צְבָא מַטֵּה בְּנֵי זְבוּלֻן אֱלִיאָב בֶּן חֵלֹן:
17The Tabernacle was dismantled, and the sons of Gershon set out, [together] with the sons of Merari who carried the Tabernacle. יזוְהוּרַד הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְנָסְעוּ בְנֵי גֵרְשׁוֹן וּבְנֵי מְרָרִי נֹשְׂאֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן:
The Tabernacle was dismantled: Once the banner of Judah had set out, Aaron and his sons went in, took down the parocheth curtain and covered the Ark with it, as it says, “When the camp is about to travel, Aaron and his sons shall come” (4:5). The sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari dismantled the Tabernacle and loaded it on wagons. The Ark and the holy utensils, which were carried by the sons of Kohath, stood covered and were placed on poles, until the banner of the camp of Reuben set out. Following this,“the Kohathites… set out” (verse 21). והורד המשכן: כיון שנוסע דגל יהודה נכנסו אהרן ובניו ופרקו את הפרכת וכסו בה את הארון, שנאמר (במדבר ד, ה) ובא אהרן ובניו בנסוע המחנה, ובני גרשון ובני מררי פורקין המשכן וטוענין אותו בעגלות ונוסעים, והארון וכלי הקדש של משא בני קהת עומדים מכוסין ונתונין על המוטות עד שנסע דגל מחנה ראובן, ואחר כך ונסעו הקהתים:
18Then the banner of the camp of Reuben set out according to their legions. Heading its legion was Elitzur the son of Shdeur. יחוְנָסַע דֶּגֶל מַחֲנֵה רְאוּבֵן לְצִבְאֹתָם וְעַל צְבָאוֹ אֱלִיצוּר בֶּן שְׁדֵיאוּר:
19Heading the legion of the tribe of the children of Simeon was Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai. יטוְעַל צְבָא מַטֵּה בְּנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁלֻמִיאֵל בֶּן צוּרִישַׁדָּי:
20Heading the legion of the tribe of the children of Gad was Eliasaph the son of Reuel. כוְעַל צְבָא מַטֵּה בְנֵי גָד אֶלְיָסָף בֶּן דְּעוּאֵל:
21The Kohathithes, who carried the holy [equipment] set out, and they had erected the Tabernacle before they had arrived. כאוְנָסְעוּ הַקְּהָתִים נֹשְׂאֵי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְהֵקִימוּ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן עַד בֹּאָם:
Carried the holy: They carried the sacred equipment. נשאי המקדש: נושאי הדברים המקודשים:
And they had erected the Tabernacle: The sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari, who had preceded them [the Kohathites] by the departure of two banners [their own and Reuben’s], erected the Tabernacle as soon as the cloud settled. The signal for camping was seen in the camp of Judah, and when they encamped, the sons of Kohath were still traveling behind them, with the last two banners [Ephraim and Dan]. The sons of Gershon and Merari erected the Tabernacle so that when the sons of Kohath arrived, they found it set up. They brought in the Ark, the Table, the Candelabrum and the altars. This is the meaning of the verse: Those who erected the Tabernacle erected it עַד, [that is,] before the arrival of the Kohathites. והקימו את המשכן: בני גרשון ובני מררי, שהיו קודמים להם מסע שני דגלים, היו מקימין את המשכן, כשהיה הענן שוכן, וסימן החנייה נראה בדגל מחנה יהודה והם חונים, ועדיין בני קהת באים מאחריהם עם שני דגלים האחרונים, היו בני גרשון ובני מררי מקימין את המשכן, וכשבאים בני קהת מוצאים אותו על מכונו, ומכניסין בו הארון והשלחן והמנורה והמזבחות, וזהו משמעות המקרא והקימו מקימי המשכן אותו עד טרם בואם של בני קהת:
22Then the banner of the camp of Ephraim set out, according to its legions. Heading its legion was Elishama the son of Amihud. כבוְנָסַע דֶּגֶל מַחֲנֵה בְנֵי אֶפְרַיִם לְצִבְאֹתָם וְעַל צְבָאוֹ אֱלִישָׁמָע בֶּן עַמִּיהוּד:
23Heading the legion of the tribe of the children of Menasseh was Gamliel the son of Pedahzur. כגוְעַל צְבָא מַטֵּה בְּנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה גַּמְלִיאֵל בֶּן פְּדָהצוּר:
24Heading the legion of the tribe of the children of Benjamin was Abidan the son of Gidoni. כדוְעַל צְבָא מַטֵּה בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן אֲבִידָן בֶּן גִּדְעוֹנִי:
25Then the banner of the camp of Dan set out, the collector for all the other camps, according to its legions. Heading its legion was Achiezer the son of Amishaddai. כהוְנָסַע דֶּגֶל מַחֲנֵה בְנֵי דָן מְאַסֵּף לְכָל הַמַּחֲנֹת לְצִבְאֹתָם וְעַל צְבָאוֹ אֲחִיעֶזֶר בֶּן עַמִּישַׁדָּי:
The collector for all the other camps: The Jerusalem Talmud [states]: Because the tribe of Dan was numerous they traveled last, and if anyone had lost anything, they would [find it and] return it to him. There is an opinion that they traveled in box-like formation, and he derives this from the [the words], “Just as they camp so shall they travel” (2:17). Another opinion is that they traveled in the form of a beam, and he derives this from [the words], “collector for all the camps.” מאסף לכל המחנות: תלמוד ירושלמי לפי שהיה שבטו של דן מרובה באוכלוסין היה נוסע באחרונה וכל מי שהיה מאבד דבר היה מחזירו לו. אתיא כמאן דאמר כתיבה היו מהלכין, ומפיק לה מן (במדבר ב, יז) כאשר יחנו כן יסעו. ואית דאמרי כקורה היו מהלכין ומפיק לה מן מאסף לכל המחנות:
26Heading the legion of the tribe of the children of Asher was Pagiel the son of Ocran. כווְעַל צְבָא מַטֵּה בְּנֵי אָשֵׁר פַּגְעִיאֵל בֶּן עָכְרָן:
27Heading the legion of the tribe of the children of Naphtali was Ahira the son of Enon. כזוְעַל צְבָא מַטֵּה בְּנֵי נַפְתָּלִי אֲחִירַע בֶּן עֵינָן:
28These are the travels of the children of Israel according to their legions, and then they traveled. כחאֵלֶּה מַסְעֵי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְצִבְאֹתָם וַיִּסָּעוּ:
These are the travels: This is the order in which they traveled. אלה מסעי: זה סדר מסעיהם:
And then they traveled: On that day they set out. ויסעו: ביום ההוא נסעו:
29Then Moses said to Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses's father-in-law, We are traveling to the place about which the Lord said, I will give it to you. Come with us and we will be good to you, for the Lord has spoken of good fortune for Israel. כטוַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה לְחֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן משֶׁה נֹסְעִים | אֲנַחְנוּ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אָמַר יְהֹוָה אֹתוֹ אֶתֵּן לָכֶם לְכָה אִתָּנוּ וְהֵטַבְנוּ לָךְ כִּי יְהֹוָה דִּבֶּר טוֹב עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל:
Hobab: This is Jethro, as it says, “Of the children of Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses” (Jud. 4:11). So what does Scripture mean by saying,“They [the daughters of Jethro] came to their father Reuel” (Exod. 2:18)? It teaches that children call their grandfather, ‘father.’ He had many names: 'Jethro’-because through him a portion was added (יֶתֶר) to the Torah; 'Hobab’-because he loved (חֹבָב) the Torah, etc…. [see commentary toExodus 18:1]. חובב: הוא יתרו, שנאמר (שופטים ד, יא) מבני חובב חותן משה, ומה תלמוד לומר (שמות ב, יח) ותבאנה אל רעואל אביהן, מלמד שהתינוקות קורין לאבי אביהן אבא. ושמות הרבה [ושני שמות] היו לו יתר על שם שיתר פרשה אחת בתורה. חובב על שחבב את התורה וכו':
We are traveling to the place: Immediately, within three days, we will enter the Land. For on this first journey they traveled with the intention of entering the Land of Israel, but [because] they sinned at the episode of the complainers [they were punished and did not enter the Land until much later]. Why did Moses include himself with them [if he wasn’t going to enter the Land]? Because the decree against him [entering the Land] had not yet been issued, and [at that time] he thought he would enter. נסעים אנחנו אל המקום: מיד עד שלשה ימים אנו נכנסין לארץ, שבמסע זה הראשון נסעו על מנת להכנס לארץ ישראל, אלא שחטאו במתאוננים. ומפני מה שתף משה עצמו עמהם, שעדיין לא נגזרה גזרה עליו וכסבור שהוא נכנס:
30He said to him, I won't go, for I will go to my land and my birthplace. לוַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו לֹא אֵלֵךְ כִּי אִם אֶל אַרְצִי וְאֶל מוֹלַדְתִּי אֵלֵךְ:
To my land and my birthplace: Whether for the sake of my possessions or for the sake of my family. אל ארצי ואל מולדתי: אם בשביל נכסי, אם בשביל משפחתי:
31He said, Please don't leave us, for because you are familiar with our encampments in the desert and you will be our guide. לאוַיֹּאמֶר אַל נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ כִּי | עַל כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ לְעֵינָיִם:
Please don’t leave us: The word נָא is an expression denoting a request. [He made] this [request] as he didn’t want people to say:“Jethro did not convert out of commitment [for Judaism]; rather, he [thought that proselytes have a portion in the Land. Now that he realizes that they have no portion, he has forsaken them and gone his own way.” - [from Sifrei] אל נא תעזב: אין נא אלא לשון בקשה, שלא יאמרו לא נתגייר יתרו מחבה, סבור היה שיש לגרים חלק בארץ, עכשיו שראה שאין להם חלק הניחם והלך לו:
For because you are familiar with our encampments in the desert: It is fitting for you to do this [i.e., remain with us] since you are familiar with the places in which we will camp in the desert and you saw the miracles and wonders done for us. כי על כן ידעת חנתנו במדבר: כי נאה לך לעשות זאת על אשר ידעת חנותנו במדבר וראית נסים וגבורות שנעשו לנו:
For because you are familiar…: [The expression… כִּי עַל כֵּן] has the meaning of עַל אֲשֶׁר יָדַעְתָּ, [because you know], as in,“because (כִּי עַל כֵּן) I did not give her to my son Shelah” (Gen. 38:26);“for because (כִּי עַל כֵּן) you passed by” (ibid. 18:5);“for because (כִּי עַל כֵּן) they came [under the shade of my roof]” (ibid. 19: 8);“for because (כִּי עַל כֵּן) I have seen your face” (ibid. 33:10). כי על כן ידעת: כמו על אשר ידעת, כמו (בראשית לח, כו) כי על כן לא נתתיה לשלה בני, כי על כן עברתם (שם יח, ה), כי על כן באו (שם יט, ח), כי על כן ראיתי פניך (שם לג, י):
You will be our guide: The verse has the past tense, [and] as the Targum renders, [it means: all the wonders wrought for us, you have seen with your eyes.] Another explanation: [It is in] the future tense-If anything should be hidden from our eyes, you shall enlighten us [with your guidance]. A further interpretation: You shall be as beloved to us as the pupils of our eyes, as it says, “You shall love the proselyte” (Deut. 10:9). והיית לנו לעינים: לשון עבר כתרגומו. דבר אחר לשון עתיד, כל דבר ודבר שיתעלם מעינינו תהיה מאיר עינינו. דבר אחר שתהא חביב עלינו כגלגל עינינו, שנאמר (דברים י, יט) ואהבתם את הגר:
32And if you go with us, then we will bestow on you the good which God grants us. לבוְהָיָה כִּי תֵלֵךְ עִמָּנוּ וְהָיָה | הַטּוֹב הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יֵיטִיב יְהֹוָה עִמָּנוּ וְהֵטַבְנוּ לָךְ:
Then we will bestow on you the good: What good did they actually bestow upon him? They said, When Israel apportioned the Land, there was a fertile area of Jericho measuring five hundred by five hundred cubits, and they refrained from allocating it. They said, The one in whose portion the Temple will be built shall take it. Meanwhile, they gave it to the descendants of Jethro, to Jonadab the son of Rehab, as it says, “The sons of Keini, Moses’ father-in-law, went up from the city of dates [namely, Jericho]” (Jud. 1:16). - [from Sifrei] והיה הטוב ההוא וגו': מה טובה הטיבו לו, אמרו כשהיו ישראל מחלקין את הארץ היה דושנה של יריחו חמש מאות אמה על ת"ק אמה והניחוהו מלחלוק, אמרו מי שיבנה בית המקדש בחלקו הוא יטלנו, בין כך ובין כך נתנוהו לבני יתרו ליונדב בן רכב, שנאמר ובני קני חותן משה עלו מעיר התמרים וגו' (שופטים א, טז):
33They traveled a distance of three days from the mountain of the Lord, and the Ark of the Lord's covenant traveled three days ahead of them to seek for them a place to settle. לגוַיִּסְעוּ מֵהַר יְהֹוָה דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים וַאֲרוֹן בְּרִית יְהֹוָה נֹסֵעַ לִפְנֵיהֶם דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים לָתוּר לָהֶם מְנוּחָה:
A distance of three days: They completed a distance of three days travel in one day, for the Holy One wanted to bring them to the Land immediately. - [from Sifrei] דרך שלשת ימים: מהלך שלשת ימים הלכו ביום אחד, שהיה הקב"ה חפץ להכניסם לארץ מיד:
The Ark of the Lord’s covenant traveled three days ahead of them:This was the Ark that accompanied them in battle. The broken pieces of the [first set of] Tablets lay in them. It preceded them by three days of travel to prepare for them a place to encamp. - [from Sifrei] וארון ברית ה' נסע לפניהם דרך שלשת ימים: זה הארון היוצא עמהם למלחמה ובו שברי לוחות מונחים ומקדים לפניהם דרך שלשת ימים לתקן להם מקום חנייה:
34The cloud of the Lord was above them by day, when they traveled from the camp. לדוַעֲנַן יְהֹוָה עֲלֵיהֶם יוֹמָם בְּנָסְעָם מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה:
The cloud of the Lord was above them: Seven clouds are recorded in the account of their travels: four from the four sides, one above, one below, and one in front of them which would flatten the high land, raise the hollows and destroy snakes and scorpions - [from Sifrei]. וענן ה' עליהם יומם: שבעה עננים כתובים במסעיהם. ארבע מארבע רוחות, ואחד למעלה, ואחד למטה, ואחד לפניהם מנמיך את הגבוה ומגביה את הנמוך והורג נחשים ועקרבים:
From the camp: From the place where they encamped. מן המחנה: ממקום חנייתן:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 83 - 87
• Chapter 83
A prayer regarding the wars against Israel in the days of Jehoshaphat, when the nations plotted against Israel.
1. A song, a psalm by Asaph.
2. O God, do not be silent; do not be quiet and do not be still, O God.
3. For behold, Your enemies are in uproar, and those who hate You have raised their head.
4. They plot deviously against Your nation, and conspire against those sheltered by You.
5. They say, "Come, let us sever them from nationhood, and the name of Israel will be remembered no more.”
6. For they conspire with a unanimous heart, they made a covenant against You-
7. the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites,
8. Geval and Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre.
9. Assyria, too, joined with them, and became the strength of the sons of Lot, Selah.
10. Do to them as to Midian; as to Sisera and Yavin at the brook of Kishon,
11. who were destroyed at Ein Dor, and were as dung for the earth.
12. Make their nobles like Orev and Ze'ev, all their princes like Zevach and Tzalmuna,1
13. who said, "Let us inherit the dwellings of God for ourselves.”
14. My God, make them like whirling chaff, like straw before the wind.
15. As a fire consumes the forest, and a flame sets the mountains ablaze,
16. so pursue them with Your tempest and terrify them with Your storm.
17. Fill their faces with shame, and they will seek Your Name, O Lord.
18. Let them be shamed and terrified forever; let them be disgraced and perish.
19. And they will know that You, Whose Name is the Lord, are alone, Most High over all the earth.
Chapter 84
In this psalm of prayers and entreaties, the psalmist mourns bitterly over the destruction of Temple from the depths of his heart, and speaks of the many blessings that will be realized upon its restoration. Fortunate is the one who trusts it will be rebuilt, and does not despair in the face of this long exile.
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. How beloved are Your dwellings, O Lord of Hosts!
3. My soul yearns, indeed it pines, for the courtyards of the Lord; my heart and my flesh [long to] sing to the living God.
4. Even the bird has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she lays her young on the [ruins of] Your altars, O Lord of Hosts, my King and my God.
5. Fortunate are those who dwell in Your House; they will yet praise You forever.
6. Fortunate is the man whose strength is in You; the paths [to the Temple] are in his heart.
7. For those who pass through the Valley of Thorns, He places wellsprings; their guide will be cloaked in blessings.2
8. They go from strength to strength; they will appear before God in Zion.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, hear my prayer; listen, O God of Jacob, forever.
10. See our shield,3 O God, and look upon the face of Your anointed one.
11. For better one day in Your courtyards than a thousand [elsewhere]. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God, than dwell [in comfort] in the tents of wickedness.
12. For the Lord, God, is a sun and a shield; the Lord bestows favor and glory; He does not withhold goodness from those who walk in innocence.
13. O Lord of Hosts! Fortunate is the man who trusts in You.
Chapter 85
In this prayer, lamenting the long and bitter exile, the psalmist asks why this exile is longer than the previous ones, and implores God to quickly fulfill His promise to redeem us. Every individual should offer this psalm when in distress.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. O Lord, You favored Your land; You returned the captives of Jacob.
3. You forgave the iniquity of Your people, and covered all their sin forever.
4. You withdrew all Your fury, and retreated from Your fierce anger.
5. Return us, O God of our salvation, and annul Your anger toward us.
6. Will You forever be angry with us? Will You draw out Your anger over all generations?
7. Is it not true that You will revive us again, and Your people will rejoice in You?
8. Show us Your kindness, O Lord, and grant us Your deliverance.
9. I hear what the Almighty Lord will say; for He speaks peace to His nation and to His pious ones, and they will not return to folly.
10. Indeed, His deliverance is near those who fear Him, that [His] glory may dwell in the land.
11. Kindness and truth have met; righteousness and peace have kissed.
12. Truth will sprout from the earth, and righteousness will peer from heaven.
13. The Lord, too, will bestow goodness, and our land will yield its produce.
14. Righteousness shall walk before him, and he shall set his footsteps in [its] path.
Chapter 86
This psalm contains many prayers regarding David's troubles, and his enemies Doeg and Achitophel. It also includes many descriptions of God's praise. Every individual can offer this psalm when in distress.
1. A prayer by David. Lord, turn Your ear, answer me, for I am poor and needy.
2. Guard my soul, for I am pious; You, my God, deliver Your servant who trusts in You.
3. Be gracious to me, my Lord, for to You I call all day.
4. Bring joy to the soul of Your servant, for to You, my Lord, I lift my soul.
5. For You, my Lord, are good and forgiving, and exceedingly kind to all who call upon You.
6. Lord, hear my prayer and listen to the voice of my supplications.
7. On the day of my distress I call upon You, for You will answer me.
8. There is none like You among the supernal beings, my Lord, and there are no deeds like Yours.
9. All the nations that You have made will come and bow down before You, my Lord, and give honor to Your Name,
10. for You are great and perform wonders, You alone, O God.
11. Lord, teach me Your way that I may walk in Your truth; unify my heart to fear Your Name.
12. I will praise You, my Lord, my God, with all my heart, and give honor to Your Name forever.
13. For Your kindness to me has been great; You have saved my soul from the depth of the grave.
14. O God, malicious men have risen against me; a band of ruthless men has sought my soul; they are not mindful of You.
15. But You, my Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in kindness and truth.
16. Turn to me and be gracious to me; grant Your strength to Your servant, and deliver the son of Your maidservant.
17. Show me a sign of favor, that my foes may see and be shamed, because You, Lord, have given me aid and consoled me.
Chapter 87
Composed to be sung in the Holy Temple, this psalm praises the glory of Jerusalem, a city that produces many great scholars, eminent personalities, and persons of good deeds. It also speaks of the good that will occur in the Messianic era.
1. By the sons of Korach, a psalm, a song devoted to the holy mountains [of Zion and Jerusalem].
2. The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.
3. Glorious things are spoken of you, eternal city of God.
4. I will remind Rahav Egypt and Babylon concerning My beloved; Philistia and Tyre as well as Ethiopia, "This one was born there.”
5. And to Zion will be said, "This person and that was born there"; and He, the Most High, will establish it.
6. The Lord will count in the register of people, "This one was born there," Selah.
7. Singers as well as dancers [will sing your praise and say], "All my inner thoughts are of you."
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 6
• Lessons in Tanya
• Thursday, Sivan 17, 5775 · June 4, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 6
והנה מהתכללות המדות זו בזו, נראה לעין דאיהו וגרמוהי חד, שהן מדותיו
From the mutual inclusion of the attributes, their opposite natures notwithstanding, it is evident that “He and His causations” — i.e., His attributes — “are One,”
כי מאחר שהן ביחוד גמור עמו, לכן הן מתייחדות זו בזו וכלולות זו מזו
for since they are in complete unity with Him, they therefore unite with each other and are comprised of each other.
כמאמר אליהו: ואנת הוא דקשיר לון ומייחד לון וכו׳ ובר מינך לית יחודא בעילאי כו׳
As Eliyahu said, in the passage beginning Patach Eliyahu, in the introduction to Tikkunei Zohar, “And You are He Who binds them (i.e., the Sefirot and the attributes) together and unites them...; and apart from You there is no unity among those [attributes] above….”
The Alter Rebbe will say a little later that since the Divine Name Elokim, signifying the attribute of tzimtzum and concealment, is one with the Name Havayah, it follows that the concealment brought about by the Name Elokim is not a true concealment, for “an entity cannot conceal its own self.” Created beings are therefore absolutely nullified in relation to their source.
וזהו שכתוב: והשבות אל לבבך כי ה׳ הוא האלקים
This, then, is the meaning of the Scriptural phrase,1 “and take it unto your heart that Havayah is Elokim.”
Concerning this verse the question was asked in the first chapter: “Would it occur to you that there is a god dwelling in the waters beneath the earth, so that it is necessary to caution so strongly [and negate this thought by stating that one should] ‘take it unto your heart’?”
According to the explanation given here this question is answered: The statement that “in the heavens above and upon the earth below, there is no other,” is not intended to negate the existence of another god. Rather, the verse is telling us that there is nothing else besides G‑d: He alone enjoys true existence; everything else is totally nullified in relation to Him. And for this concept to be understood well, one must indeed “take it unto his heart.”
פירוש: ששני שמות אלו הם אחד ממש
That is, these two Names are actually one; i.e., although Havayah represents Chesedand revelation, and Elokim represents tzimtzum and concealment, they are nevertheless truly one,
-שגם שם אלקים, המצמצם ומעלים האור, הוא בחינת חסד כמו שם הויה
for even the Name Elokim, which conceals and contracts the light of the Divine life-force that is responsible for creation, is a quality of Chesed, just like the NameHavayah.
משום שמדותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא מתיחדות עמו ביחוד גמור
For the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, unite with Him in a complete unity,
והוא ושמו אחד, שמדותיו הן שמותיו
and “He and His Name are One,” for His attributes are His Names; i.e., the attributes correspond to His specific Names.
ואם כן
Since this is so, i.e., once you understand that Elokim is one with Havayah,
ממילא תדע שבשמים ממעל ועל הארץ מתחת אין עוד
you will consequently know that “in the heavens above and on the earth below,ein od” — there exists nothing else besides G‑d.
פירוש: שגם האר׳ החומרית, שנראית יש גמור לעין כל, היא אין ואפס ממש לגבי הקב״ה
This Hebrew phrase means that even the material earth, which appears to everyone’s eyes to be actually existing, is naught and utter nothingness in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He.
כי שם אלקים אינו מעלים ומצמצם אלא לתחתונים
For the Name Elokim obscures and contracts the light and life-force only for the nether creatures, so that they perceive themselves as possessing independent existence,
ולא לגבי הקב״ה, מאחר שהוא ושמו אלקים אחד
but not for the Holy One, blessed be He, since He and His Name Elokim are One. Hence the Name Elokim cannot possibly act as a concealment for Him.
ולכן גם הארץ ומתחת לארץ הן אין ואפס ממש לגבי הקב״ה
Therefore, even the earth and that which is below it are naught and utter nothingness in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He,
ואינן נקראות בשם כלל, אפילו בשם עוד, שהוא לשון טפל
and are not called by any name at all, not even by the name od (“else”), which would indicate a subordinate status,
כמאמר רז״ל: יהודה ועוד לקרא
as in the statement of our Sages, of blessed memory:2 Yehudah ve‘od likra — “Does a verse in the Torah require secondary (od) substantiation from [the customs of] the Land of Judah?!”
We thus see that the term od signifies secondary status.
וכגוף שהוא טפל לנשמה וחיות שבתוכו
This too is the case with the body, which is subordinate to the soul and life-force within it, for which reason it is referred to as od.
וזהו שכתוב: אהללה ה׳ בחיי, אזמרה לאלקי בעודי
(3And this is the meaning of the verse,4 “I will praise Havayah with my life, i.e., with my soul; I will sing to Elokai (”my L‑rd“) be‘odi, i.e., with my body.”
We thus see that the body is termed od, inasmuch as it is subservient to the soul. The reason the term Elokai is used in connection with the body’s song is this:
-שהחיים נמשכים משם הויה, והעוד, שהוא הגוף הטפל, משם אלקים
For the life, i.e., the soul, is derived from the Name Havayah, and the od, which is the body, its subordinate, from the Name Elokim.)
We thus see that the body is nullified in relation to the soul to the extent of od, i.e., it is subordinate to it; it is not, however, nullified out of existence in relation to the soul. The reason for this:
לפי שהנשמה אינה מהוה הגוף מאין ליש
For the soul does not bring the body into existence ex nihilo: it only provides it with life. The body is therefore called od, i.e., secondary to the soul, inasmuch as it is the soul that provides the body with life.
אבל הקב״ה, המהוה את הכל מאין ליש, הכל בטל במציאות אצלו, כמו אור השמש בשמש
But as to the Holy One, blessed be He, Who brings everything into existence ex nihilo, everything is absolutely nullified in relation to Him, just as the light of the sun is absolutely nullified in the sun.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Devarim 4:39. |
| 2. | Kiddushin 6a. |
| 3. | The parentheses are in the original text. |
| 4. | Tehillim 146:2. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Thursday, Sivan 17, 5775 · June 4, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 130
Consuming Ritually Impure Sacrificial Meat
"And the flesh that touches any impurity shall not be eaten"—Leviticus 7:19.
It is forbidden to eat of sacrificial meat that is ritually impure.
Consuming Ritually Impure Sacrificial Meat
Negative Commandment 130
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 130th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating sacrificial meat which has become impure.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Meat which touches anything impure may not be eaten."
One who transgresses this prohibition by eating is punished by lashes. The Tosefta in Zevachim2 explains that when a person is pure and he eats impure meat, he receives 40 lashes. Our Sages say in the second chapter of tractate Pesachim,3 "If the person is impure, the punishment is kares, and if the meat is impure, it is [just] a prohibition."4
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the 13th chapter of tractate Zevachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 7:19.
2.Ch. 5
3.24a.
4.Therefore punished by lashes, not kares.
Negative Commandment 129
Consuming Sacrificial Meat while Ritually Impure
"She shall not touch any holy thing"—Leviticus 12:4.
It is forbidden for a ritually impure individual to partake of sacrificial meat.
Consuming Sacrificial Meat while Ritually Impure
Negative Commandment 129
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 129th prohibition is that a person who is impure is forbidden from eating from the sacrifices.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 regarding a woman after childbirth, "She shall not touch anything holy."
The Sifra says, "The verse says, 'She shall not touch anything holy, nor may she enter the Temple.' Just as one who enters the Temple when impure is punished by kares, so too, one who eats from the sacrifices when impure is punished by kares."
The explanation — that the phrase, "She shall not touch," refers to one who eats — relies on the principle2 explained in tractate Makkos3 on G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "She shall not touch anything holy."
This is the passage from tractate Makkos: "For an impure person who eats sacrifices, the punishment is clearly written,4 'An impure person who eats meat of a peace-sacrifice to G‑d will be cut off [from his people].' What is the source of the actual prohibition? From the verse, 'She shall not touch anything holy.' "
The Talmud continues, "The verse, 'She shall not touch anything holy,' prohibits one from eating. You say it prohibits eating? You could think it prohibits touching! The Torah therefore writes,5 'She shall not touch anything holy and shall not enter the Sanctuary,' to compare sacrifices to the Temple: just as [entering] the Temple [when impure] is at the cost of one's life,6 so too [the prohibition regarding] the sacrifices is for something which costs one's life. And for touching, what loss of life is there!7 It must therefore refer to eating." And G‑d uses the word "touch," when it means, "eat," to teach that touching is [prohibited] like eating.8
From these passages it is clear to you that an impure person who eats from the sacrifices intentionally is punished by kares. If he does so accidentally, he must bring an adjustable sacrifice (korban oleh v'yored), as explained in Positive Commandment 72.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the 13th chapter of tractate Zevachim.9
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 12:4.
2.Chavel, 5727, translates, "willfully based on the principle," rather than, "relies on the principle." Kapach, 5731, points out that the 5718 Hebrew edition upon which Chavel's translation is based, is itself in error.
3.14b.
4.Ibid., 7:20.
5.Ibid.
6.I.e. kares.
7.Obviously that there is no kares for touching the sacrifice!
8.See Hilchos P'sulei HaMukdashin 18:12.
9.106a.
Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Six
Halacha 1
Women, slaves, and minors are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah of] sukkah. Atumtum and an androgynous are obligated because of the doubt [concerning their status]. Similarly, a person who is half slave and half free is obligated.
A minor who does not require his mother's [presence] - i.e., a child of five or six - is obligated [to fulfill the mitzvah] of sukkah according to Rabbinic decree, to train him in [the performance of] mitzvot.
Commentary Halacha 1
Women, slaves, and minors are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah of] sukkah. - The same laws that apply to hearing the shofar apply to Sukkah. Hence, women and slaves are free of obligation, as is the case regarding all mitzvot whose fulfillment is associated with a specific time. Minors have no obligations at all according to the Torah. (See the commentary on Chapter 2, Halachah 1.)
See also the commentary on Chapter 2, Halachah 2 regarding a woman's right to perform the mitzvah if she desires, and whether permission is granted for her to recite a blessing.
A tumtum and an androgynous are obligated because of the doubt [concerning their status]. - See the commentary on the above halachah for a definition of these terms and their status. Note Halachah 13 regarding their recitation of a blessing.
Similarly, a person who is half slave and half free is obligated. - See the commentary on Chapter 2, Halachot 1 and 3.
A minor who does not require his mother's [presence] - Sukkah 28b offers two definitions of this term:
a) a child who does not need his mother to help him after he relieves himself;b) a child who does not wake up in the night and call out: "Mommy! Mommy!"
Nevertheless, based on Eruvin 82a, the Rambam provided us with a more definite guideline...
i.e., a child of five or six - is obligated [to fulfill the mitzvah] of sukkah according to Rabbinic decree - According to Rashi (Berachot 48a) and the Ramban (Milchamot Hashem, Berachot 20b), there is no obligation incumbent on the child himself. The child's father is obligated to educate him. If he has no father, the obligation falls on his mother and on the local Rabbinic court (Terumat Hadeshen 99).
Tosafot (Berachot 48a) differs and explains that the Sages placed the obligation on the minor himself. From the Rambam's phraseology, it appears that he accepts this view.
Support for this premise can be derived from the Rambam's decision in Hilchot Berachot 5:15-16, which states that an adult who ate a small meal can fulfill his obligation by listening to a child reciting the grace after meals (for both are obligated by virtue of Rabbinic decree). Though others object on the grounds that the child himself is not obligated in the mitzvah, the Rambam states that such a practice is acceptable.
to train him in [the performance of] mitzvot. - The Rambam mentions the same concept in Hilchot Tzitzit 3:9, Hilchot Berachot 5:1, and Hilchot Lulav 7:19.
Halacha 2
The sick and their attendants are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah. This applies not only to a person who is dangerously ill, but also to one with a headache or a sore eye.
A person who is uncomfortable [when dwelling in the sukkah] is freed from the obligation [to fulfill the mitzvah] of sukkah. This applies to the person himself, but not to his attendants.
Who is "a person who is uncomfortable [when dwelling in the sukkah]"? A person who cannot sleep in the sukkah because of the wind or because of the flies, mites, or the like, or because of the smell.
Commentary Halacha 2
The sick and their attendants - Since the latter's performance of a mitzvah - tending to the sick - does not enable them to perform the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah, they are absolved from the obligation. (See Sukkah 25a, 26a.) However, this leniency is granted only during the time the sick person requires their assistance (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 640:7).
are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah. This applies not only to a person who is dangerously ill - who is free from the obligation to perform all mitzvot, even those as severe as the Sabbath or Yom Kippur;
but also to one with a headache - or any other minor illness (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 2:4).
This leniency is granted because of one of the basic principles related to the mitzvah of sukkah. Leviticus 23:42 states: "You shall dwell in sukkot (תשבו בסכת)." On that verse, Sukkah 26a comments: תשבו כעין תדורו - i.e., dwelling in the sukkah is comparable to living in one's own home. Thus, a person is not required to dwell in a sukkah under circumstances which would cause him to leave his own home.
Since a person who is sick would seek the most comfortable lodgings possible and would not camp outside, he is not obligated to do so to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah (Rabbenu Manoach).
or a sore eye. - Sukkah 26a relates that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was granted permission to sleep outside the sukkah for this purpose.
The Torah's prohibitions are suspended not only when a person's life is in danger, but also when a particular limb might be lost. Though this premise is accepted by the Rambam (see Hilchot Shabbat 2:4), it does not appear that he is referring to it here. Rather, it seems that he means a minor ailment comparable to a headache. See also Tosafot (Sukkah, ibid.).
A person who is uncomfortable [when dwelling in the sukkah] is freed from the obligation [to fulfill the mitzvah] of sukkah. - based on the principle of תשבו כעין תדורו, as explained above. Just as a person would seek out a comfortable permanent dwelling, he is obligated to dwell only in a sukkah which does not cause him unpleasantness.
Rabbenu Manoach states that this leniency does not apply on the first night of Sukkot, on which there is a binding obligation to eat in the sukkah. (See Halachah 6.) The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 640:4) quotes this statement as halachah.
This applies to the person himself, but not to his attendants. - Some earlier texts of the Mishneh Torah stated that leniency was also granted to such a person's attendants, but that is surely a printing error (Rabbenu Manoach).
Who is "a person who is uncomfortable [when dwelling in the sukkah]"? A person who cannot sleep in the sukkah because of the wind or because of the flies, mites, or the like, or because of the smell. - The Tur, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 640:4), and the Ramah emphasize that this law applies only when the discomfort is an unexpected occurrence. However, a sukkah which is constructed in a place where the discomfort will surely come is considered to be unfit to dwell in and is unacceptable for the performance of the mitzvah.
Halacha 3
A mourner is obligated [to fulfill the mitzvah] of sukkah.
A groom, his attendants, and all the members of the wedding party are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah throughout the seven days of [the wedding] festivities.
Commentary Halacha 3
A mourner - The term אבל refers to a person in the seven days of mourning which follow the burial of a father, mother, wife, brother, sister, son, or daughter. An אונן (a person in mourning for these relatives before their burial) is freed from the obligation of sukkah, because he is absolved of the duty to perform all mitzvot (Hilchot Eivel 4:6).
It must be noted that none of the mourning rites should be followed during a festival. If a close relative dies before the festival, the shiv'ah (seven days of mourning) is completed at the festival's commencement, even though all seven days have not passed (Hilchot Eivel 10:3, 8).
is obligated [to fulfill the mitzvah] of sukkah. - Sukkah 25b explains that a mourner (אבל) is obligated to fulfill all the mitzvot. Nevertheless, one might suppose that just as a person who is uncomfortable is freed from the obligation of sukkah, a mourner would also be absolved. Therefore, the Talmud includes a special teaching to emphasize the mourner's obligation, explaining that one is absolved only for discomfort which comes from external factors. In this case, the mourner brings discomfort upon himself. He should compose himself and concentrate his attention on the mitzvah.
Nevertheless, Shulchan Aruch HaRav (640:13) writes that if dwelling in a sukkah will cause a mourner more discomfort than dwelling in his home, he is allowed to choose the latter alternative.
A groom - because he is involved in the mitzvah of marriage. Sukkah 25b adds that generally, a sukkah is to small to carry out the wedding celebrations in the proper manner. Furthermore, the groom is obligated to rejoice together with his wife, and the sukkah is not an appropriate setting.
his attendants - In Hilchot Zechiyah Umatanah, Chapter 7, the Rambam describes the custom of שושבינות (attending a groom).
and all the members of the wedding party - They are absolved of the mitzvah only while they are involved in the mitzvah of celebrating together with the bride and groom, however, when they leave, they are obligated. Furthermore, there are many authorities who require that the meals served the groom and his attendants be served in a sukkah. (See Mishnah Berurah640:33.)
are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah throughout the seven days of [the wedding] festivities. - It must be emphasized that the wedding must have taken place during the four days between Yom Kippur and Sukkot. Weddings are not held during the Ten Days of Repentance, nor on Chol Hamo'ed.
Halacha 4
Emissaries charged with a mission involving a mitzvah are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah both during the day and at night. People who journey during the day are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah during the day and are obligated at night. People who journey during the night are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah at night and are obligated during the day.
A city's day watchmen are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah during the day and are obligated at night. Its night watchmen are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah at night and are obligated during the day. The watchmen of gardens and orchards are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] during the day and the night, because if the watchman constructs a sukkah, a thief will realize that the watchman has a fixed place and will go to steal from another place.
Commentary Halacha 4
Emissaries charged with a mission involving a mitzvah - e.g., to study Torah, to greet a Sage under whom one studied Torah, or to redeem captives (Rashi, Sukkah 25a).
are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah - i.e., they are not required to eat, sleep, or perform any of the activities in a sukkah described in Halachot 5-9.
both during the day and at night. - Rashi (Sukkah 25a, 26a) states that this applies even when they are lodging overnight. Since, at night they are also involved with thinking about how to fulfill the mitzvah, they are still considered as occupied with the performance of a mitzvah and are not required to seek out a sukkah. An example of this principle quoted by the Talmud supports this interpretation:
When Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna would attend [the lecture delivered] at the home of the exilarch on the Sabbath of the festival, they would sleep along the river banks of Sura.They explained: "We are emissaries involved in a mitzvah" (Sukkah26a).
Though these Sages were visiting a city which served as a center of Jewish life and surely could have found a sukkah to lodge in, they did not see the necessity for doing so. (See also Sukkah 10b.)
Nevertheless, Tosafot, Sukkah 10b, interprets the passage differently and explains that leniency is granted these emissaries only when dwelling in the sukkah would in some way prevent them from carrying out the mitzvah which they set out to perform. If it is possible to do both - perform the mitzvah they set out to do and fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah - one must endeavor to do so.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam shares Rashi's view. However, the final halachic position followed by most Ashkenazic authorities is closer toTosafot's position: i.e., these emissaries are not obligated to trouble themselves to find a sukkah. However, if there is a sukkah available, they should make use of it. Nevertheless, if sleeping in the sukkah would prevent them from getting proper rest, and thus hold them back from fulfilling their mitzvah in a proper manner, they are not required to sleep in a sukkah (Shulchan Aruch HaRav640:18; Mishnah Berurah 640:38).
(Abstractly, it is possible to differentiate between the two positions as follows. According to Rashi, there is no obligation of sukkah incumbent on this person whatsoever. In contrast, Tosafot would maintain that the person is obligated to perform the mitzvah. However, at all times he is bound by another commitment which takes precedence.)
People who journey during the day are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah during the day - i.e., while they are traveling. Tosafot, Sukkah 26a explains that this concept is derived from the principle: תשבו כעין תדורו - i.e., dwelling in the sukkah is comparable to living in one's own home. Since a person will occasionally leave his home on a journey, he is also entitled to leave his sukkah.
and are obligated at night - if they lodge in a settled place (Tosafot, ibid.).
People who journey during the night are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah at night - i.e., while traveling
and are obligated during the day. - if they lodge in a settled area.
A city's day watchmen are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah during the day - when they are on duty.
and are obligated at night - when they are replaced by their colleagues. Conversely,...
Its night watchmen are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] of sukkah at night and are obligated during the day.
The watchmen of gardens and orchards - who spend their entire day guarding the produce (Rashi, Sukkah 26a)
are freed from [fulfilling the mitzvah] during the day and the night, because if the watchman constructs a sukkah, a thief will realize that the watchman has a fixed place and will go to steal from another place. -Sukkah, ibid., explains that based on this principle, the leniency is granted only to watchmen charged with guarding an entire orchard or farm. However, if a watchman is charged with guarding produce which is collected in one place, he is capable of fulfilling the mitzvah and discharging his duty. Hence, he is obligated to construct a sukkah there.
Halacha 5
How must the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah be fulfilled? A person must eat, drink, and live in the sukkah throughout all seven days [of the festival], both during the day and at night, in the same manner as he dwells in his home throughout the year.
During these seven days, he must consider his house as a temporary dwelling and the sukkah as his permanent home, as [Leviticus 23:42] states: "You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days."
What does this imply? His attractive utensils and attractive bedding [should be brought] to the sukkah. His drinking utensils - i.e., his cups and crystal pitchers - [should be brought] to the sukkah. However, utensils used for food - i.e., pans and plates - [may be left] outside the sukkah. A candelabra [should be brought] to the sukkah. However, if the sukkah is small, it should be left outside the sukkah.
Commentary Halacha 5
How must the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah be fulfilled? A person must eat, drink, and live - performing all the activities mentioned in this halachah and Halachot 6-9.
in the sukkah throughout all seven days [of the festival] - These statements and the Rambam's introduction to these halachot imply that each moment a person dwells in the sukkah throughout the seven days of the festival, he fulfills a mitzvah. (Accordingly, a blessing is recited whenever one makes use of the sukkah [Halachah 12]. See Halachah 7.)
both during the day and at night - Sukkah 43a derives this concept by drawing an analogy (גזרה שוה) to the seven days of preparation for the dedication of the Sanctuary. Thus, just as the priests were required to stay in the Sanctuary for seven days - day and night - similarly, the mitzvah of sukkah must be observed in the same manner.
in the same manner as he dwells in his home throughout the year -following the principle of תשבו כעין תדורו mentioned above.
During these seven days, he must consider his house as a temporary dwelling and the sukkah as his permanent home - This statement is a quote from the Mishnah, Sukkah 2:8. In his commentary on that Mishnah, the Rambam defines קבע as "of primary importance and a constant practice."
as [Leviticus 23:42] states: "You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days."
What does this imply? His attractive utensils and attractive bedding - [should be brought] to the sukkah. His drinking utensils - i.e., his cups and crystal pitchers - [should be brought] to the sukkah. - Doing so is a sign of honor and respect for the mitzvah.
However, utensils used for food - i.e., pans and plates - [may be left] outside the sukkah. - Obviously, during the meal one's plates must be in the sukkah. The Rambam's intent is that after the meal there is no necessity to keep one's plates in the sukkah, because they are not attractive and are generally stored in pantries outside the home. In contrast, it is customary in many communities not to bring pots into the sukkah, even while eating (Mishnah Berurah 639:5). [Needless to say, plates that must be washed must be removed from the sukkah.]
The printed (as opposed to certain manuscripts) text of Rashi (Sukkah 29a) also shares the Rambam's interpretation. Tosafot explains the passage slightly differently, rendering "utensils used for food" as "utensils used in the preparation of food" - i.e., pots and pans.
A candelabra - i.e., the source of light
[should be brought] to the sukkah - even when it is not burning, since it is attractive.
However, if the sukkah is small, it should be left outside the sukkah. - lest it cause a fire (Tosafot, Sukkah, ibid.). This differs from Rashi's interpretation ofSukkah, ibid., which explains that the Talmud is referring to an earthenware lamp. Thus, we may assume that it should not be brought into the sukkah because it is unattractive. This, appears to justify the statements of the Maggid Mishneh, who writes that the lamp should not be brought into the sukkah when it is not burning. Both opinions are quoted by the later halachic authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 639:3; Mishnah Berurah 639:7-8).
Halacha 6
We should eat, drink, and sleep in the sukkah through the entire seven days [of the festival], both during the day and at night. It is forbidden to eat a meal outside the sukkah for the entire seven [day period]. However, [there is no prohibition] if one eats a snack the measure of a k'beitzah or less, or even slightly more.
One may not sleep outside the sukkah at all, even a brief nap. It is permissible to drink water and eat fruit outside the sukkah. However, a person who follows the stringency of not drinking even water outside the sukkah is worthy of praise.
Commentary Halacha 6
We should eat, drink, and sleep in the sukkah through the entire seven days [of the festival], both during the day and at night. It is forbidden to eat a meal - i.e., a meal of bread or food prepared from the five species of grain
outside the sukkah for the entire seven [day period]. - The B'nei Binyaminexplains that this expression includes the Sabbath and festivals, thus excluding the opinions which maintain that any meal of bread eaten on the Sabbath or festivals is significant and cannot be considered as a snack. See the commentary of Rabbi Akiva Eiger.
However, [there is no prohibition] if one eats a snack - even of bread, outside the sukkah.
Sukkah 26a defines "a snack" as "what the students will eat before they enter the study sessions." In his commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 2:4, the Rambam explains it as "a small amount, [eaten] without considering it as a meal, in order to satisfy one's hunger [temporarily], until one can complete eating afterwards."
Rabbenu Manoach explains that though there is no prohibition involved, it is not desirable to eat even a snack of bread outside the sukkah.
the measure of a k'beitzah or less, - The Mishnah (ibid.) relates that less than a k'beitzah of bread was brought once to Rabbi Tzadok and he ate it outside the sukkah.
or even slightly more. - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 639:2) restricts the leniency to a k'beitzah (approximately 56 cubic centimeters according toShiurei Torah and, in this instance, 41 cubic centimeters according to theChazon Ish) alone (See Tosafot, Yoma 79a.) The same principles are also applied to cooked foods made from the five species of grain.
One may not sleep outside the sukkah at all, even a brief nap. - In contrast to eating, where there is a difference between a fixed meal and a snack, no such difference exists regarding sleep. At times, even a rest of a few moments can have a major effect on a person. (See Sukkah 26a; Jerusalem Talmud,Sukkah 2:5.)
At present, there are many communities where leniency is taken in this regard. In some climates, the cold will cause everyone to consider sleeping in the sukkah as uncomfortable and, hence, they are freed of that obligation. Furthermore, in many communities, there is also a danger involved. In addition, if a husband would sleep in a sukkah, he would deprive his wife of some of the happiness and satisfaction that should accompany a festival. (See Ramah,Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 639:2.)
Nevertheless, many authorities explain that these leniencies apply only at night, but during the day one is obligated to sleep in the sukkah.
It is permissible to drink water - or any other beverage, including wine (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 639:2), outside the sukkah. There is a difference of opinion among the later halachic authorities if this decision also applies when one sits down to a party centering on drinking wine (קובע עצמו לשתות). Some (the Bach and Shulchan Aruch HaRav 639:12) require that such drinking be carried out in a sukkah. However, others (the Vilna Gaon and theMishnah Berurah 639:13) are more lenient.
and eat fruit outside the sukkah. - for these do not constitute a significant meal.
Sukkah 27a relates that Rabbi Elazar ben Shamu'a ate dates and grapes outside the sukkah, because "fruit does not require a sukkah."
Rabbenu Manoach and some other commentaries maintain that this leniency applies only to fruit. In contrast, meat, fish, cheese, and other substantial foods which form the basis of a meal must be eaten in a sukkah. While many later halachic authorities do not accept this view, some maintain that one should not sit down with company to a meal of such foods outside a sukkah. (SeeShulchan Aruch HaRav 639:11; Mishnah Berurah 639:15.)
However, a person who follows the stringency of not drinking even water outside the sukkah is worthy of praise. - To exemplify this principle, the Mishnah (ibid.) quotes the following:
Once they brought a cooked dish for Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pitcher of water for Rabban Gamliel. They said: "Take them up to the sukkah."
Sukkah 26b explains that often our Sages counselled against accepting extra stringencies upon oneself, lest one take pride in one's piety. However, in this instance they make no such reservations.
Halacha 7
Eating in the sukkah on the first night of the festival is an obligation. If a person eats merely a k'zayit of bread, he fulfills his obligation. Afterwards, [the matter is left to one's] volition. If one desires to eat a meal, one must eat it in the sukkah. If one desires, throughout the seven [days of the festival], one may eat only fruit or roasted grain outside of the sukkah. The same laws apply as those regarding the eating of matzah on Pesach.
Commentary Halacha 7
Eating in the sukkah on the first night of the festival is an obligation. -Sukkah 27a draws an analogy between the first night of Sukkot and the first night of Pesach. Just as eating a k'zayit of matzah on the fifteenth of Nisan is a mitzvah, so too, each Jewish male is required to eat in the sukkah on the fifteenth of Tishre.
If a person eats merely a k'zayit of bread - This is the minimum amount required by the Torah in all mitzvot that involve eating. In modern measurements, the figure corresponds to 28 cubic centimeters according toShiurei Torah, and 48 cubic centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.
he fulfills his obligation. Afterwards, [the matter is left to one's] volition. -The difference in the requirement between the first night and the remaining days has other ramifications. As mentioned in Halachah 2, a person who is uncomfortable in the sukkah is freed from his obligation. However, this leniency applies only on the first night after the mitzvah of eating a k'zayit has been fulfilled (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 639:3).
If one desires to eat a meal - including bread, or according to some authorities, other hearty foods, as mentioned above
one must eat it in the sukkah. If one desires, throughout the seven [days of the festival], one may eat only fruit or roasted grain - which may be eaten...
outside of the sukkah. - The Lechem Yehudah explains that the Rambam is speaking only from the perspective of the mitzvah of sukkah. However, one is obligated to eat three meals on the Sabbath as an expression of the mitzvah of honoring the Sabbath and taking pleasure in its celebration. (See Hilchot Shabbat 30:9.) Similarly, one is required to eat festive meals on the first day of Sukkot in honor of the holiday. These meals must be eaten in the sukkah.
The same laws apply as regards the eating of matzah on Pesach. - The Rambam's intent is that, as explained in Hilchot Chametz U'matzah 6:1, after the first night of the festival a person is not obligated to eat matzah and may subsist on other foods. Similarly, on Sukkot one may eat foods that do not require consumption within a sukkah.
However, according to most authorities, his choice of words is not exact. The mitzvah of sukkah differs from that of matzah. In the latter instance, there is no mitzvah involved in eating matzah after the first night of the holiday. In contrast, every activity performed in the sukkah constitutes a further fulfillment of the mitzvah.
Accordingly, after the first night of the festival no special blessing is recited before partaking of matzah. In contrast, as stated in Halachah 12, a blessing is recited every time we make use of the sukkah. See also the Moznaim publication of Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 6:1.
Halacha 8
It is forbidden for a person to sit and eat with his head and the majority of his body inside a sukkah while his table is in his home or outside the sukkah. It is considered as if he did not eat inside the sukkah. [Rather,] the table must also be inside the sukkah. This was decreed lest one be drawn after one's table. This law applies even in a large sukkah.
Commentary Halacha 8
It is forbidden for a person to sit and eat with his head and the majority of his body inside a sukkah while his table is in his home or outside the sukkah. - The Mishnah (Sukkah 2:6) records a difference of opinion on this matter between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. In this instance, the halachah follows the School of Shammai.
It is considered as if he did not eat inside the sukkah. - The Mishnah (ibid.) continues:
An incident occurred when the elders of the School of Shammai and the elders of the School of Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yochanan ben Hachoroni and found him sitting with his head and the majority of his body in the sukkah while his table was in his house...The elders of the School of Shammai told him: "If this has been your practice, you have never fulfilled the mitzvah of sukkah."
Rabbenu Nissim questions how the Sages' decree can negate the fulfillment of a mitzvah, and thus explains the last phrase to mean: "You have never fulfilled the mitzvah as desired by our Sages." However, Tosafot, Sukkah 3a explains that the Sages' decree is powerful enough to nullify the person's actions entirely, and it is considered as if he never fulfilled the mitzvah at all.
Halacha 9
Throughout the seven days [of the festival], a person should read in the sukkah. However, when he attempts to comprehend what he reads in depth and appreciate its details, he should do so outside the sukkah, so that his mind will be settled.
When a person prays, he may pray inside the sukkah or outside the sukkah, as he desires.
Commentary Halacha 9
Throughout the seven days [of the festival], a person should read in the sukkah. - Since the person must regard his sukkah as his home throughout the festival, in addition to eating and sleeping, he must perform all his other day-to-day functions inside of it. Hence, he should also read in the sukkah.
However, when he attempts to comprehend what he reads in depth and appreciate its details, he should do so outside the sukkah - Sukkahexplains that any time it is necessary to study a concept in depth, one should do so outside the sukkah...
so that his mind will be settled - while he studies. The Magen Avraham639:13 adds a further reason to study at home: the difficulty in bringing one's texts back and forth from the sukkah. The Magen Avraham explains that this matter also depends on the individual person. If he is as comfortable studying in the sukkah as studying at home, he is obligated to do so.
When a person prays - at a time when he is unable to pray in the synagogue (Magen Avraham 639:14)
he may pray inside the sukkah or outside the sukkah, as he desires -depending on where he will be able to concentrate more.
Halacha 10
If rain descends, a person may enter his home. When is one permitted to leave [the sukkah]? When enough raindrops descend into the sukkah so that they would spoil a cooked dish - even a dish of beans - were they to fall into it.
If a person was eating in the sukkah and rain descended, and hence, he entered his home, if the rains stop we do not obligate him to return to his sukkah {that entire night} until he is finished eating.
If he was sleeping and rain descended, and hence, he entered his home, we do not obligate him to return to his sukkah that entire night should the rains cease. Rather, he may remain sleeping in his house that entire night until dawn.
Commentary Halacha 10
If rain descends, a person may enter his home. - The descent of rain on Sukkot implies that our actions are not desired by God. The Mishnah (Sukkah2:8) compares the matter to a servant who came to serve his master drink and the latter poured the pitcher in his face.
Tzafenat Paneach explains that there is a fundamental difference between this law and the case of a person who is uncomfortable while in the sukkah. In the latter instance, in essence, the person is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah. However, because of his discomfort, his obligation is temporarily waived. In contrast, when rain descends it is impossible to fulfill the mitzvah at all, because the sukkah is not fit to dwell in. Hence, there is no obligation whatsoever.
There is a practical difference between these two abstract positions regarding the question whether a person is obligated to eat in the sukkah on the first night of the holiday even when it rains. (See the commentary on Halachah 7.) According to the Tzafenat Paneach, under these circumstances there is no mitzvah which one is required to fulfill. Thus, one may eat at home. In contrast, most authorities do not differentiate between rain and other uncomfortable situations. Thus, since eating in the sukkah on that night is a binding obligation, they require a person to fulfill the mitzvah.
There is a further aspect to this concept. The Maharil explains that a person who eats in a sukkah when he is not obligated to do so is a simple person and receives no reward for his "piety." On this basis, in many communities, people make no effort to stay in the sukkah when it rains. In contrast, there are some communities where people will continue to eat in the sukkah despite pouring rain.
What is the difference between these two approaches? The first approach follows the perspective that, during the rain, there is no mitzvah to dwell in the sukkah whatsoever. Hence, there is no need to strain oneself to remain there. In contrast, the second perspective does not differentiate between rain and any other uncomfortable circumstances, but maintains that, in essence, dwelling in the sukkah is a mitzvah even under such circumstances. Accordingly, they remain in the sukkah, because while they are involved in fulfilling God's will they do not feel even the slightest trace of discomfort.
When is one permitted to leave [the sukkah]? - The Maharil writes that when a person is forced to leave the sukkah because of rain, he should depart with humility rather than with anger.
when enough raindrops descend into the sukkah so that they would spoil a cooked dish - We need not wait until the food actually spoils. As soon as enough rain descends to spoil the food, one is free to enter one's home (Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 639:5).
even a dish of beans - i.e., a dish made from bean meal, which spoils quickly (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 2:8).
were they to fall into it.
If a person was eating in the sukkah and rain descended, and hence, he entered his home, if the rains stop, we do not obligate him to return to his sukkah - to finish his meal...
{that entire night} - This phrase is set off by brackets because it is most likely a printing error. It is not easily understood, nor is it found in the manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah or in the quotation of this halachah in theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 639:6).
until he is finished eating. - However, after he concludes eating he must return to the sukkah.
If he was sleeping and rain descended - The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 639:7) emphasizes that even the slightest amount of rain is sufficient to free one from the obligation of sleeping in the sukkah.
and hence, he entered his home, we do not obligate him to return to his sukkah that entire night should the rains cease. - The same law applies if it was raining when he desired to go to sleep, and hence, he never slept in the sukkah at all (Mishnah Berurah 639:39).
Rather, he may remain sleeping that entire night in his house - even if he wakes up in the middle of the night and it is no longer raining, he is not required to move to the sukkah.
until dawn. - The Maggid Mishneh and Rabbenu Manoach note that the Rambam's choice of phraseology implies that the person cannot sleep his normal measure, but must rise at dawn to return to the sukkah. They are not stringent and allow the person to remain sleeping at home until he wakes up. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 639:7) quotes the Rambam's statements verbatim. However, the Ramah includes this leniency.
Halacha 11
A person should not take apart his sukkah after he finishes eating on the seventh day [of Sukkot]. However, from the afternoon on, he may take down his utensils and remove them.
If he has no place to put the utensils, he should reduce its space by at least four handbreadths by four handbreadths.
If he has to eat later that day, he must eat in the sukkah, because the mitzvah extends throughout the seven days.
Commentary Halacha 11
This halachah applies only in places where Sukkot is celebrated for seven days, as required by the Torah. The laws pertaining to the Diaspora, where the festival is celebrated for eight days, are described in Halachah 13.
A person should not take apart his sukkah after he finishes eating on the seventh day [of Sukkot]. - lest he require it later during the day.
However, from the afternoon on, he may take down his utensils and remove them - Keeping one's utensils in the sukkah is included in the mitzvah of dwelling within it, as mentioned in Halachah 5. Nevertheless, one is allowed to take them home to prepare them for use on Shemini Atzeret as a sign of deference to that holiday. (See Sukkah 4:7.)
If he has no place to put the utensils - i.e., if he used his home as a sukkah, and thus must continue to remain there on Shemini Atzeret (see Sukkah 48a)...
he should reduce its space - by opening up [a portion of s'chach]
at least four handbreadths by four handbreadths - to make the sukkah, or at least a significant portion of it, unfit for use. This safeguards against the violation of the command of בל תוסיף (Deuteronomy 13:1), which forbids adding to the mitzvot of the Torah. These acts will differentiate between his eating in the sukkah during the festival, when he is required to do so in fulfillment of the mitzvah, and eating there afterwards, once the mitzvah has been completed (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 666).
The Ramah adds that this requirement applies only when one desires to eat in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret. Once that holiday passes, one may eat in a sukkah without making any changes.
If he has to eat later that day - even if he has removed his utensils or taken away part of the s'chach...
he must eat in the sukkah, because the mitzvah extends throughout the seven days.
Halacha 12
Whenever a person enters a sukkah with the intention of sitting down throughout the seven [days of Sukkot], he should recite the following blessing before sitting:
[Blessed are You...] who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to dwell in the sukkah.
On the first night of the festival, one should first recite the blessing on the sukkah, and then the blessing for the occasion.
One should recite all the blessings over a cup of wine. Thus, one should recitekiddush while standing, recite the blessing leishev basukkah, sit, and then recite the blessing shehecheyanu.
This was the custom of my teachers and the Rabbis of Spain: to recite kiddushwhile standing on the first night of the Sukkot festival, as explained.
Commentary Halacha 12
Whenever a person enters a sukkah with the intention of sitting down throughout the seven [days of Sukkot], he should recite the following blessing - Note the commentary on Halachah 7, which explains the difference between this law and the rules governing the blessing recited before eating matzah.
before sitting - The Rambam maintains that by sitting or doing any other activity which one would perform in one's home in the sukkah, one fulfills the mitzvah. Hence, the blessing is recited before one performs the mitzvah, as required by Hilchot Berachot 11:2.
The Maggid Mishneh questions why the blessing is not recited before one enters the sukkah, noting that the interpretation of the command לישב בסוכה is "to dwell in the sukkah," not "to sit in the sukkah." However, the Taz 643:2 explains that merely passing through the sukkah is not part of the mitzvah. Rather, one must perform an activity that reflects "dwelling." Hence, the blessing is not recited until one sits down, because previously it is not obvious that one wants to perform a significant activity in the sukkah.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, maintaining that one should recite the blessing only before partaking of a meal in the sukkah. This reflects the decision of the Ashkenazic authorities, who maintain that though the performance of all one's activities in the sukkah is a mitzvah, it is not customary to recite the blessing except when eating. When reciting the blessing on that occasion, one should intend to include all other activities. (See Tur andShulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 639:8.)
[Blessed are You...] who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to dwell in the sukkah. - The Maggid Mishneh states that there is no limit to the number of times one recites the blessing each day. Nevertheless, if one left the sukkah for a brief interval or left with the intent of performing an activity which would improve the sukkah, that departure is not considered an interruption and no blessing is required upon one's return.
On the first night of the festival, one should first recite the blessing on the sukkah, and then the blessing for the occasion - i.e., the blessingshehecheyanu, which thanks God for enabling us to reach this occasion. This blessing is recited whenever one performs a mitzvah that can be fulfilled only from time to time (Hilchot Berachot 11:9).
That halachah and, similarly, Sukkah 46a, imply that, at the outset, one should recite the blessing shehecheyanu upon construction of the sukkah. Though the Rambam makes no mention of that concept here, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 641:1) states that one should have the construction of the sukkah in mind when reciting shehecheyanu at night.
One should recite all the blessings over a cup of wine - as did Rav Kahana (Sukkah 46a).
Thus, one should recite kiddush - for the festival
while standing - The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 643:2) states that kiddush may be recited while sitting.
recite the blessing leishev basukkah - Though one might presume thatshehecheyanu would be recited first, since it is more frequent, precedence is given to leishev basukkah, because it is "the mitzvah of the day" (Rabbenu Manoach).
sit, and then recite the blessing shehecheyanu. - On the second night, it is Ashkenazic custom to recite to the blessing shehecheyanu before the blessingleishev basukkah, since on that occasion the blessing is associated with the celebration of the festival and not the mitzvah of sukkah. (See Bnei Binyamin.)
This was the custom of my teachers and the Rabbis - Rav Kapach notes that most of the manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah state רבי "the great men of" and not רבני, "the Rabbis of."
of Spain - The Ra'avad objects and comments that even in Spain such a custom was not followed.
to recite kiddush while standing on the first night of the Sukkot festival, as explained.
Halacha 13
At present, when we celebrate holidays for two days, we dwell in the sukkah for eight days. On the eighth day, which is the first day of the holiday of Shemini Atzeret, we dwell in the sukkah, but do not recite the blessing leishev basukkah.
Similarly, a tumtum and an androgynous never recite the blessing leishev basukkah, because their obligation [to perform the mitzvah is based] on doubt, and a blessing is never recited when one is doubtful [of one's obligation].
Commentary Halacha 13
At present - in the Diaspora and in certain places in Eretz Yisrael (Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, Chapter 9)
when we celebrate holidays for two days - because originally, the messengers sent by the Sanhedrin could not reach there in time to notify them when the holiday should be celebrated. Hence, even now, when we follow the fixed calendar, we continue to follow this custom. (See Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, Chapters 3 and 5.)
we dwell in the sukkah for eight days. - In deference to the possibility that the festival could have begun on the second day and the seven days should be counted from then.
The commandment בל תוסיף (Deuteronomy 13:1) forbids adding to the mitzvot of the Torah. Indeed, in Halachot 11 and 14, we find certain safeguards instituted because of this commandment. Nevertheless, dwelling in the sukkah on the eighth day does not constitute a violation of this commandment, because the time when the mitzvah is to be performed has already passed. Placing a fifth passage in one's tefillin during the day violates this commandment, because we are obligated to perform the mitzvah at this time. However, once the seven days of Sukkot pass, there is no mitzvah associated with the sukkah whatsoever (Rosh Hashanah 28b).
Nevertheless, many Ashkenazic authorities would carry out additional safeguards regarding this matter. For example, the Tur relates (though he opposes this practice himself) that some follow the custom of eating in the Sukkah only on the day of Shemini Atzeret, but not the night. Many of the Rabbis who would sleep in the Sukkah throughout the festival refrain from doing so on Shemini Atzeret. (See K'tav Sofer, Responsum 120.)
On the eighth day, which is the first day of the holiday of Shemini Atzeret - As its name implies, Shemini Atzeret is the eighth day of Sukkot. However, it also has certain aspects in which it is considered a holiday in its own right (Sukkah 48a).
we dwell in the sukkah, but do not recite the blessing leishev basukkah. -because as the Rambam explains, a blessing is not recited when a mitzvah is performed only because of a doubt.
Sukkah 47a relates that "Rav Huna bar Bizna and all the great Sages of the generation dwelled in a sukkah on the eighth day - which might have been the seventh day - [of the festival], but did not recite a blessing."
Similarly, a tumtum and an androgynous - See Chapter 2, Halachah 1 for a definition of these terms and these individuals' status.
never recite the blessing leishev basukkah, because their obligation [to perform the mitzvah is based] on doubt - i.e., they are required to perform the mitzvah because of the doubt concerning their status: maybe they are to be considered men.
and a blessing is never recited when one is doubtful [of one's obligation]. - This follows the rationale that when there is a doubt concerning one's obligation in matters required by the Torah itself, one must follow the more stringent view. However, regarding obligations of a Rabbinic nature, one may opt towards leniency. Since the mitzvah is required by the Torah, even a person in doubt must perform it. However, the blessing is a Rabbinic requirement; hence, there is no necessity in reciting it. Furthermore, by reciting the blessing when one is not required, one uses God's name in vain.
This perspective is not accepted by all authorities. As explained in the commentary on Chapter 2, Halachah 1, the Ashkenazic practice is to allow women and others who are not obligated in the performance of a mitzvah to recite a blessing when fulfilling it.
The above applies only regarding the doubts concerning the obligations of atumtum and an androgynous. However, on Shemini Atzeret, when there is a doubt concerning the obligation of the entire Jewish people even the Ashkenazic authorities would agree that a blessing should not be recited.
Halacha 14
After a person finishes eating on the eighth day [of Sukkot], he should take down his utensils and remove them.
When a person has no place to put the utensils, [the following rules apply]: If it is a small [sukkah], he should bring his candelabra into it; if it is a large sukkah, he should bring in his pots, plates, and the like, to bring to mind that it is no longer acceptable and that its mitzvah is completed. Since the day is a holiday, one may not reduce its space and nullify it.
Commentary Halacha 14
This halachah, like the previous one, describes the law in the Diaspora, where the holidays are celebrated for two days.
After a person finishes eating on the eighth day [of Sukkot], he should take down his utensils and remove them - from the sukkah and bring them home, where he will eat on Simchat Torah.
When a person has no place to put the utensils - and desires to continue eating in the sukkah on Simchat Torah,
[the following rules - safeguards adopted to differentiate between eating in the sukkah as required, and eating there afterwards
apply]: If it is a small [sukkah], he should bring his candelabra into it - As mentioned in Halachah 5, a candelabra should not be brought into a small sukkah for Sukkot.
It must be noted that the Rambam changes the text of Sukkah 48a, which states: "light his lamp there." (See Kessef Mishneh, Halachah 5.)
if it is a large sukkah, he should bring in his pots, plates, and the like -which are generally kept outside the sukkah, as explained in Halachah 5.
to bring to mind that it - the sukkah
is no longer acceptable and that its mitzvah is completed.
Since the day is a holiday, one may not reduce its space and nullify it. -as suggested in Halachah 11.
Halacha 15
A person who did not construct a sukkah [before the holiday] - whether intentionally or unintentionally - should construct a sukkah on Chol Hamo'ed. One should even construct a sukkah on the final moments of the seventh day, because its mitzvah lasts throughout the seventh day.
The wood with which the sukkah was constructed is forbidden [to be used for other purposes] on all eight days of the festival. This applies to both the wood used for the walls and the wood used for the s'chach. Throughout [these] eight days, no benefit may be derived from it for other purposes.
[They are prohibited on the eighth day] because the sukkah is muktzeh the entire seventh day, including the period beyn hash'mashot. Since it wasmuktzeh during the period beyn hash'mashot, it is muktzeh on the entire day [that follows].
Commentary Halacha 15
.
A person who did not construct a sukkah [before the holiday] - whether intentionally or unintentionally - Sukkah 27b explains that not only a person whose sukkah fell down in the middle of the festival should reconstruct it, but even one who never built a sukkah at all is entitled to do so.
should construct a sukkah on Chol Hamo'ed. - The literal translation ofDeuteronomy 16:13 is: "Make the Sukkot festival for seven days." Sukkah 27b interprets this verse to mean that a sukkah may be built during the seven days of the festival.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 2:7) explains that Rabbi Eleazar wanted to forbid a person who purposely did not build a sukkah from doing so during the festival, as a punishment for his failure to prepare for the festival. However, the Sages did not accept that premise.
A sukkah may not be constructed on the first day of the festival, even if the walls are already built and all that is necessary is to spread s'chach over it. However, even though certain types of work are forbidden on Chol Hamo'ed, there is no prohibition in this instance (Bi'ur Halachah 637).
One should even construct a sukkah in the final moments of the seventh day, because its mitzvah lasts throughout the seventh day. - See Halachah 11.
The wood with which the sukkah was constructed is forbidden [to be used for other purposes] - e.g., for use as a toothpick. This prohibition applies even in the event the sukkah falls. Also, in contrast to the decorations, as mentioned in the following halachah, this prohibition cannot be nullified by making a condition that one desires to use them for one's own purposes (Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 638:1).
on all eight days of the festival. - Sukkah 9a derives the prohibition against using the wood of the sukkah for other purposes throughout Sukkot fromLeviticus 23:34: "The Sukkot festival shall be seven days unto God." The latter term is used also regarding the Chaggigah offering sacrificed on the festival. Thus, its use in this context implies that the entities which enable us to celebrate the Sukkot festival must be consecrated "unto God" like those sacrifices.
The reason why the wood of the sukkah may not be used on the eighth day is explained below.
This applies to both the wood used for the walls and the wood used for the s'chach. - Rabbenu Asher differs and explains that the essential element of the sukkah is its s'chach. Hence, the prohibition applies only to the s'chach and not to the sukkah walls. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 638:1) quotes the Rambam's opinion. However, the Taz (638:1) explains that the prohibition against using the walls is only Rabbinic in nature.
Rav Chayim Soloveitchik explains that though the word sukkah as used by the Torah refers to the s'chach and not to the walls, a different principle is involved in this instance. The Torah teaches us that all the entities which enable us to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah may not be used for other purposes. Since the sukkah walls also serve that purpose, because a sukkah is not kosher without walls, they are also included in that prohibition.
Throughout [these] eight days - Note the contrast to the etrog in Chapter 7, Halachah 27.
no benefit may be derived from it for other purposes. - However, if the sukkah falls, it may be rebuilt using the same wood. Furthermore, the wood used for s'chach may be used for the walls and vice versa.
[They are prohibited on the eighth day] because the sukkah is muktzeh -Muktzeh literally means "set aside." In this context, it refers to objects which may not be used for mundane purposes.
the entire seventh day, including the period beyn hash'mashot. - Beyn hash'mashot is the period between sunset and the emergence of three stars.
Since it was muktzeh during the period beyn hash'mashot, it is muktzeh on the entire day [that follows]. - Hilchot Shabbat 25:10 states: "Any utensil which is forbidden to be moved during beyn hash'mashot is forbidden to be moved throughout the entire Sabbath, even after the factor that caused its prohibition has passed."
Halacha 16
Similarly, it is forbidden to take from the food and beverages that were hung in the sukkah as decorations for all eight days [of the festival]. However, if at the time one hung [the decorations], he made the condition: "I will not refrain from using them during the entire period of beyn hash'mashot," he is entitled to use them whenever he desires, because he did not set them aside, nor did the sanctity of the sukkah encompass them, nor are they considered part of it.
Commentary Halacha 16
Similarly, it is forbidden to take from the food and beverages that were hung in the sukkah as decorations - even if they fall (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 638:2). As mentioned in the commentary on Halachot 17 and 18, the sukkah decorations are not considered an independent entity, but rather as part of the sukkah itself. Furthermore, employing articles used to decorate a mitzvah for other purposes demonstrates lack of respect for the mitzvah (Rabbenu Nissim, Beitzah). Hence, the same restrictions that apply to the sukkah apply to it.
for all eight days [of the festival] - as is the sukkah itself.
However, if at the time one hung [the decorations] - Rabbenu Manoach questions what the law would be if the condition were made after the decorations were hung but before the holiday commences.
he made the condition: "I will not refrain from using them during the entire period of beyn hash'mashot" - Everything depends on the status of the decorations at the time the festival begins. If they are not considered part of the sukkah at that time, the "sanctity of the sukkah" does not affect them throughout the festival (Sukkah 10b).
The Ramban and the Ramah differ, and require that the person stipulate that he will not refrain from using the decorations during the entire period of beyn hash'mashot of each of the eight days of the festival. If he makes the condition regarding the first day alone, the decorations become forbidden on the subsequent days of the festival.
he is entitled to use them whenever he desires - In contrast to the walls ors'chach, in this instance the condition has an effect. It is possible for a sukkah to exist without decorations, but not without walls (Rabbenu Manoach).
for he did not set them aside, nor did the sanctity of the sukkah encompass them, nor are they considered part of it.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
Whenever any of the persons who are disqualified from performing Temple service take the handful of meal from a meal-offering,1 the offering is disqualified.2Similarly, if one of these individuals collected the frankincense,3 the offering is unacceptable, even if he did not take the handful of meal.
Halacha 2
[In all the following situations, a meal-offering] is disqualified:4
a) the handful [of meal] was taken by an acceptable [priest] and given to one who is not acceptable;
b) [the priest] took the handful with his right hand and then transferred it to his left hand and then placed it in a utensil;
c) he took the handful [of meal] from a sacred utensil and placed it in an ordinary utensil.
Halacha 3
If [while] taking a handful of meal, he lifted up a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, it is disqualified.5
Halacha 4
If he took the handful when he was outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then entered [the Courtyard], he should take a handful inside the Courtyard6 and it is acceptable.
Halacha 5
If the handful became scattered on the floor [of the Temple Courtyard], he should collect it again.7
Halacha 6
[In all the following instances,] a meal-offering [is unacceptable]:
it was not placed in a sacred utensil,
the handful of meal was not placed in a sacred utensil,
or it was mixed with oil outside the Temple Courtyard; [it is acceptable] only if it was mixed with oil in the Courtyard.10
Halacha 7
All of the meal-offerings are acceptable even if oil was poured over them by someone who was unacceptable for Temple service, e.g., a non-priest or the like, or such a person mixed [the oil with the meal], broke [wafers] into pieces,11or put salt upon them. If [such a person] approached the altar with them or waved them,12 a priest should approach the altar with them and/or wave them again. If a priest did not approach the altar with them and/or wave them again, they are [nevertheless] acceptable. [This is derived from Leviticus 2:2:] "And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron and [one] shall take a handful...." From taking the handful and onward, the mitzvah must be performed by a priest.13 Pouring and mixing [the oil] may be performed by a non-priest.
Halacha 8
When even the slightest amount of oil from another meal-offering or oil that was not consecrated falls into a meal-offering, it is disqualified. If [the full measure14of] its oil is lacking, it is disqualified. If, [by contrast, the full measure15 of] its frankincense is lacking, it is acceptable provided there are at least two particles of frankincense upon it. If there is only one particle, it is disqualified, as it is written:16 "on all its frankincense."17
Halacha 9
If he added to its [measure of] oil and frankincense, [including] up to two lugimfor every isaron and [up to] two handfuls of frankincense for every meal offering,18 it is acceptable. If one uses two lugim or two handfuls or more, it is disqualified.
Halacha 10
If one placed oil on the meal offering of a sinner19 or on the handful of meal taken from it, it is disqualified.20 If one placed frankincense on it, it should be gathered up.21 If [the frankincense] is ground, [the offering] is unacceptable because of the doubt, because it is impossible to gather [the frankincense].
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
If he placed even the smallest amount of oil24 on an olive-sized portion25 of the meal-offering,26 he disqualifies it because of the doubt involved. If, however, he placed oil on less than an olive-sized portion, he does not disqualify it. One does not disqualify [a meal-offering] with frankincense27 unless he places an olive-sized portion28 [on the offering].
Halacha 13
Even if he placed frankincense on the smallest portion of the meal-offering, he disqualifies it until he gathers it.
Halacha 14
If one mixed water with the meal and then took a handful, it is acceptable. [The Torah's requirement29 that the offering be] "dry" [refers only] to oil.
Halacha 15
A meal-offering from which a handful was taken twice - or many times - is acceptable, provided an olive-sized portion is offered on the altar's pyre at once. For no less than an olive-sized portion may be offered on the altar.
Halacha 16
If one offered the handful [of meal30 on the altar] without salt, it is unacceptable,31 for the salt is an absolute requirement for a meal-offering, as we explained.32 When a meal-offering was lacking33 before the handful was taken, he should bring [more meal] from home and complete the measure. For taking the handful is what defines [the meal as] an offering,34 not placing it into a sacred vessel.
Halacha 17
When a person donates a handful35 of frankincense independently, it is unacceptable if it is lacking at all. Similarly, if the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the [show]bread36 are lacking even the slightest amount, they are unacceptable. They must contain two handfuls from the beginning until the end.
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply when a] person set aside two handfuls [of frankincense] for one offering37and one was lost. If this occurred before the handful [of meal] was taken, [the association between them and this offering] was not [yet] established.38 If it occurred afterwards, [the association] has been established and [the offering] is unacceptable, because he increased its frankincense.
Similar [laws apply if one] sets aside four handfuls for the two bowls of the [show]bread39and two were lost. If this occurred before the bowls were removed [from the showbread],40 [the association between them] was not established and they are acceptable. If it occurred after the bowls were removed, [the association] was established and they are disqualified, because of the extra amount.
Halacha 19
When the handful taken from a meal offering became impure and then it was offered on the altar's pyre,41 the High Priest's forehead plate causes it to be considered acceptable, as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And Aaron shall bear [the iniquity....]"42
If the handful was taken outside the Temple Courtyard and then brought in and offered on the altar's pyre, the forehead plate does not cause it to be considered acceptable. For the forehead plate causes [sacrifices tainted by] impurity to be considered acceptable, but not those which are taken outside the Temple Courtyard.
Halacha 20
If one took the handful from a meal-offering and then the entire remainder [of the offering] became impure,43 was burnt, was taken out of the Temple Courtyard,44 or was lost, the handful should not be offered on the altar's pyre. [After the fact,] if it was offered, it is accepted [Above].45 If a small amount of the remnants [of the offering] remained acceptable, the handful should be offered. [Nevertheless,] the remnant that remains is forbidden to be eaten.46
Halacha 21
If there was a divider in the lower portion of a vessel containing an isaron [of flour] for a meal-offering, even though [the flour] is mixed together above, one should not take a handful.47 If one did, it is unacceptable.
Halacha 22
If, [by contrast,] the container was separated by a divider above, but [the contents] were mixed together below, one may take a handful from it.48
Halacha 23
If one divided the isaron in a single container and thus the portions were not touching each other, but there was no divider between them, there is an unresolved doubt whether the container causes [the two portions to be considered as] combined or not. Therefore, [at the outset,] one should not take the handful [in such an instance].49 If one did take the handful, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre. If it was offered, it is accepted [Above], but the remainder [of the offering] should not be eaten.50
Halacha 24
If one took a handful [of flour from a meal-offering] and placed the handful on the top of the [Golden] Table [elevated to] the height of the arrangement of the showbread,51 the Table causes it to be sanctified in that it can be disqualified,52but it does not sanctify it so that it can be offered. For [the handful of flour] should not be sacrificed until it was sanctified in a sacred vessel fit for the handful [of flour].
Halacha 25
If he attached the handful to the wall of the vessel and took it or overturned the vessel above his hand and took the handful while the opening of the vessel was turned downward, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.53 If it was offered, it is accepted [Above].
Halacha 26
[The following rules apply when] an isaron was divided and one of its portions were lost, another portion was set aside in its stead, the lost portion was found and the three are all placed in one container, but are not touching each other. If the portion that was lost becomes impure, it is combined with the first portion and they are disqualified.54The portion that was set aside [as a replacement] is not combined with them55 and it should be supplemented [to produce a fullisaron].
If the portion set aside [as a replacement] becomes impure, it and the first portion are combined and disqualified.56 The portion that was [lost and] discovered is not combined with them.57 If the initial portion becomes impure, both the portion that was lost and the portion set aside because of it are combined with it.58
Halacha 27
Similar concepts apply with regard to taking the handful. If one took the handful from the portion that was [lost and then] discovered, the remainder of it and the first portion59 may be eaten and the portion that was set aside [afterwards] may not be eaten.60 If one took the handful from the portion that was set aside [afterwards] the remainder of it and the first portion may be eaten and the portion that was [lost and then] discovered may not be eaten. If one took the handful from the first portion, neither [of the other] two may be eaten.61 [The rationale is that] they are both extra portions.62 For together they are an entireisaron and thus resemble an entire isaron from which a handful was not taken and which is hence, forbidden.
[One might ask:] How can the handful [that was taken] be offered, since there is an isaron and a half [in the vessel]? Because taking the handful is dependent on the intent of the priest and when he takes the handful, he has his mind on anisaron alone and the portions [of the isaron] are not touching each other.63
Halacha 28
When a handful [taken from] a meal-offering became mixed with a handful [taken from] another meal-offering, they should both be offered on the altar's pyre together and they are acceptable. Similarly, it is acceptable if a handful [taken from a meal-offering] became mixed with a meal-offering of a priest,64the meal-offering from an accompanying offering,65 or the chavitin offering of the High Priest.66 They should be offered on the altar's pyre together. [The rationale is that all of these substances] are offered on [the altar's] fire in their entirety.
Halacha 29
[The following rules apply when] two meal-offerings from which a handful had not been separated become mixed together. If [the priest] can remove a handful from each one separately, they are acceptable. If not, they are disqualified.
Halacha 30
When a handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with a meal-offering from which a handful had not been taken, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.67 If one did offer the entire mixture, the owner of [the offering] from which the handful was taken is considered to have fulfilled his obligation and the owner of the one from which the handful was not taken is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
Halacha 31
If the handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with the remaining portions of the offering or the remaining portions become mixed together with the remaining portions of another meal-offering,68 it69 it should not be offered.70 If it was offered, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See the description of the taking of the handful of meal in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:13.
|
| 2. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1), the Rambam explains that taking a handful of meal is equivalent to slaughtering an animal sacrifice. Hence if the act is performed by a person unacceptable, it is disqualified. Rav Yosef Corcus states more precisely that it is equivalent to receiving the blood of a sacrifice, thus also disqualifying a non-priest.
|
| 3. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:12 which mentions the separation of the frankincense.
|
| 4. |
The Kessef Mishneh understands the Rambam as ruling that these acts disqualify the offering permanently, even if the priest corrects the act afterwards. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), it appears that the deed may be corrected.
|
| 5. |
The frankincense should be shifted to side before the handful is taken. If afterwards any of these substances is found in the handful, it is unacceptable, because the handful is lacking [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1)].
|
| 6. |
Any place within the Temple Courtyard is acceptable (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12).
|
| 7. |
And the meal-offering is acceptable. The Kessef Mishneh states that this is referring to an instance where he placed the handful of meal into a utensil and from the utensil spilled to the floor. If, however, it falls to the floor from his hand, it is disqualified. As support, he cites a similar ruling with regard to the blood of a sacrifice (Chapter 1, Halachah 26).
|
| 8. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12 with regard to bringing the meal-offering to the altar.
|
| 9. |
Menachot 26a elaborates on the necessity of using a sacred utensil for each of these stages of service.
|
| 10. |
Although it need not be mixed with oil by a priest, it must be mixed in the Temple Courtyard (Menachot9b).
|
| 11. |
As required for certain meal-offerings; see Leviticus 2:6.
|
| 12. |
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12 which describes the waving process which is necessary for certain meal-offerings.
|
| 13. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23.
|
| 14. |
One log for every isaron (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7).
|
| 15. |
A handful per offering (ibid.).
|
| 16. |
There is no Biblical phrase using the exact wording employed by the Rambam. Menachot 11b derives the concept stated by the Rambam from Leviticus 6:8. Leviticus 2:2 uses a phrase very close to that cited by the Rambam.
|
| 17. |
The use of a plural term indicates that one particle is not sufficient.
|
| 18. |
Double the usual measure.
|
| 19. |
Concerning which Leviticus 5:11 states: "You shall not place upon it oil, nor shall you place upon it frankincense." See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7.
|
| 20. |
Because of the transgression involved.
|
| 21. |
Since the frankincense can be removed, the offering is not disqualified.
|
| 22. |
For the violation of the above prohibition.
|
| 23. |
The Rambam's wording appears to imply that as an initial preference, one should not place oil on these remnants. Nevertheless, from other sources, it would seem that there is no difficulty in doing so.
|
| 24. |
Either ordinary oil or oil from another meal-offering.
|
| 25. |
For anything less than an olive-sized portion is not halachically significant.
|
| 26. |
Before the handful of meal is removed.
|
| 27. |
I.e., when ground, as stated in Halachah 10. Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slight error.
|
| 28. |
For here also anything less is not considered significant.
|
| 29. |
Leviticus 7:10 speaks of a meal-offering "mixed with oil or that is dry."
|
| 30. |
The remainder of the offering, however, need not be salted.
|
| 31. |
Although Menachot 18a states: "If salt was not placed on it, it is acceptable," it is explained (ibid.20a): "If a priest did not salt it, but a non-priest did."
|
| 32. |
Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:12. As stated there, this is a severity that applies to the meal-offerings and not to other sacrifices.
|
| 33. |
I.e., it must contain at least an isaron, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5.
|
| 34. |
Hence it must be complete at that time.
|
| 35. |
This is the minimum size of the offering, as stated in ibid. 16:13.
|
| 36. |
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:2.
|
| 37. |
Doubling the minimum requirement.
|
| 38. |
And thus the offering is acceptable.
|
| 39. |
Doubling the minimum requirement.
|
| 40. |
On the afternoon of the Sabbath, before the showbreads are replaced by new breads, the bowls of frankincense are removed and the frankincense offered on the altar.
|
| 41. |
The Rambam is speaking after the fact. As an initial preference, once the handful of meal becomes impure, it should not be offered.
|
| 42. |
See Chapter 1, Halachot 34-35; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:7; Hilchot Me'ilah 3:9, et al.
|
| 43. |
Menachot 26a derives this from a comparison to the laws regarding offering the blood on the altar when the meat of a sacrifice became impure or otherwise disqualified.
|
| 44. |
Which causes the meal-offering to be disqualified.
|
| 45. |
And the person who brought it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
|
| 46. |
Menachot 9b derives this concept from Leviticus 2:3: "The remainder of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons." Implied is that the priests should receive the remainder of the offering and not the remainder of the remnants.
|
| 47. |
For the handful must be taken from an isaron of flour and since there is a division in the container, it is considered as if the isaron was brought in two containers which is unacceptable (Menachot24a).
|
| 48. |
Since the flour is mixed together below, it is considered to be a single entity.
|
| 49. |
Since the question was not resolved, one should not attempt to bring the sacrifice in this manner.
|
| 50. |
The commentaries have not found an explicit source for this ruling. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is derived from the Halachah 20 above.
|
| 51. |
15 handbreadths, for there are six showbreads in each arrangement and each one is two and one half handbreadths high.
|
| 52. |
I.e., if it remains overnight, is taken out of the Temple Courtyard, or the like. Beforehand, it could not be disqualified for those reasons. From the Rambam's wording, one can infer that placing the handful of meal on the table does not disqualify the handful entirely and if it is gathered and placed in a sacred vessel, it may be placed on the altar's pyre (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 53. |
Menachot 11a questions whether these situations are acceptable and leaves the matter unresolved.
|
| 54. |
The rationale for the ruling is that their presence in a common container causes the different elements of an offering to be considered as one, even if they are not touching (Chagigah 20b;Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 12:7). Hence, since these two portions were originally part of the same offering and they are now in the same container, the first part is also disqualified.
|
| 55. |
Since these two portions were never planned to be offered together, they do not share a halachic connection.
|
| 56. |
For the portion set aside as a replacement and the original portion were intended to serve as a single offering.
|
| 57. |
For as mentioned, it and the replacement have no intrinsic connection.
|
| 58. |
For they both share a connection with it.
|
| 59. |
In its entirety.
|
| 60. |
Instead, another portion should be combined with it and a second meal-offering brought (Zevach Todah).
|
| 61. |
The remainder of the first portion may, however, be eaten, because the handful is acceptable.
|
| 62. |
As the Rambam continues to explain, taking the handful from a meal-offering enables the remainder of the isaron from which it is taken to be eaten. It, however, only allows an isaron to be eaten, not more. Thus the two portions could not be eaten because when brought together, the three would comprise more than an isaron.
|
| 63. |
Since each portion is distinct from the other, it is possible for the priest to be focused on two, but not three.
|
| 64. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:9.
|
| 65. |
See ibid. 2:1.
|
| 66. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:9.
|
| 67. |
I.e., one might desire to offer the entire mixture so that he will have fulfilled his obligation to offer the handful. This, however, is undesirable for one will have offered a meal-offering without separating the handful from it.
|
| 68. |
Our translation reflects the version in the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah even though many commentaries have questioned it and have suggested that the text should read: "or [the handful] became mixed with the remaining portion of another meal-offering." This version appears preferable, for seemingly, even if two offerings become mixed together, if their handfuls have already been separated, why shouldn't the handfuls be offered? Halachah 29 apparently leads to such a conclusion. Nevertheless, we did not correct the text in this fashion, for the authoritative manuscripts and early printings employ the same version as the standard printed text. Moreover, the Rambam's text of the Mishnah (Menachot 3:3) also contains such statements.
|
| 69. |
In the first instance, this refers to the mixture of the handful and the remainder. In the second instance, according to the standard version of the Mishneh Torah, it refers to the handful for the remainder that became intermingled with another remainder.
|
| 70. |
Generally, when a forbidden substance becomes mixed together with a permitted substance of the same type, the forbidden entity becomes betal - it is considered nullified because it is a tiny proportion of the mixture. Nevertheless, in this instance, Menachot 23b quotes a textual association to prove that the handful does not become betal to the remainder of the offering.
|
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
Similarly, with regard to the two loaves, if lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice7 was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.
Halacha 4
And with regard to the showbread, if lacked [the required measure], before the the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre,8 it is unacceptable. If the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre, it is acceptable.
Halacha 5
With regard to the accompanying offerings that lacked [the required measure]: whether the sacrifice was offered or not, they are acceptable, but other accompanying offerings must be brought to complete [the required measure].
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] accompanying offerings were sanctified in a sacred vessel and then the sacrifice was disqualified. If it was disqualified through ritual slaughter, the accompanying offerings have not been sanctified so that they must be offered.9 If it was disqualified from the reception of the blood and onward,10the accompanying offerings have become sanctified, because what sanctifies the accompanying offerings so that they should be offered is solely the slaughter of the sacrifice [in an acceptable manner].11
What should be done with [these accompanying offerings]?12 If there was another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time,13 they should be offered together with it. If there was not another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time, they are considered as if they were disqualified because they were left overnight and they should be destroyed by fire.14
When does the above apply? With regard to communal sacrifices, because the heart of the court makes stipulations concerning them.15 [Different rules apply with regard to] individual sacrifices.16 Such [accompanying offerings] should not be offered together with another sacrifice even if it was sacrificed at that time. Instead, they should be left until they become disqualified because they remained overnight and then they should be destroyed by fire.
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
[The following laws apply with regard to] the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering, an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred, and [a situation in which] one separated his thanksgiving-offering, it was lost, and he separated another one instead of it.19 If [any of these animals] were to be offered after the owner's obligation was not satisfied with the original thanksgiving-offering, bread20 need not be brought with it. If the owner's obligation was satisfied with the original offering and it and the one separated in place of it, it and its offspring, or it and the animal onto which its holiness was transferred are both present before us, bread is required to be brought with both of them.21
When does the above22 apply? When one vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering.23 When, however, one designated an animal as a thanksgiving-offering, an animal set aside instead of it or one onto which its holiness was transferred require that bread [be offered with them].24 Its offspring does not require bread.25 [This applies] whether or not the owner's obligation was already satisfied with the original offering.26
Halacha 9
[The following laws apply if one] set aside an animal as a thanksgiving-offering27 and it was lost, he set aside a second one in its stead and it was also lost, he then set aside a third animal in its place and then the first two were found. Thus the three animals are standing before us. If he fulfills his obligation with the first one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.28 The third one, however, requires bread.29
Halacha 10
[The following laws apply when one] sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, other money was set aside in its place, but [the owner] did not have the opportunity to buy a thanksgiving-offering until the first money was found. He should bring a thanksgiving offering and its bread from a combination of the two. From the remainder, he should bring a thanksgiving offering, but it does not require bread.33 It does, however, require accompanying offerings.34
Similarly, when one sets aside [an animal for] a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, money was set aside in its place, and afterwards [the original animal] was found, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread with that money.35Similarly, if one sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, a thanksgiving-offering was set aside in its place, and then the money was found, the money should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering and its bread.36The second thanksgiving-offering should be offered without bread.
Halacha 11
[The following laws apply if a person] says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread."37 If the bread is lost, he should bring other bread, If the thanksgiving-offering is lost, he should not bring another thanksgiving-offering.38 [The rationale is that] the bread is brought because of the thanksgiving-offering, but the thanksgiving-offering is not brought because of the bread.
Halacha 12
When a person set aside money for his thanksgiving-offering and some remained, he should use it to bring bread. If he set aside money to bring bread and some remained, he should not use it to bring a thanksgiving-offering.39
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when] one says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering,"40 it becomes intermingled with an animal upon which its holiness was transferred, one died, but he does not know which is which. There is no way to correct the situation of the one which remains. Were one to bring bread with it, [it is possible that he will have erred,] for perhaps this is the animal upon which the holiness was transferred.41 [But] were he to bring it without bread, it is possible that it is the thanksgiving-offering.42 Therefore this animal should not be sacrificed at all. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.43
Halacha 14
When one of the loaves of the bread brought with a thanksgiving-offering was broken in pieces, they are all disqualified.44 If a loaf was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] or it became impure,45 the remainder of the breads are acceptable.
If the bread46 was broken in two, contracted impurity, or was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered, he should bring another bread and then slaughter [the sacrificial animal]. If the above occurred after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be cast [upon the altar], the meat [of the sacrifice] should be eaten, but all of the bread is disqualified.47 The person [bringing the sacrifice] does not fulfill his vow.48
If the blood has been cast [upon the altar] and afterwards some of the breads were broken in two, became impure, or were taken outside, [the person bringing the sacrifice] should separate one of the whole loaves49 for [all the loaves of that type, including] the one which is broken, one of the pure for [all the others, including] the one which is impure, and one which is in [the Temple Courtyard] for [all the others, including] the one which was taken outside.
Halacha 15
When a thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered in connection with 80 loaves, 40 of the 80 are not consecrated.50 If [the person bringing the sacrifice] says: "May 40 of these 80 become consecrated," he should take 40 from the 80 and separate one from each [category brought as] an offering. The other 40 should be redeemed and then they are considered as ordinary bread.51
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
If he slaughtered [an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] before the surface of the bread in the oven becomes hard, even if all of [the breads] became hard except for one, the bread is not consecrated.54
Halacha 18
If he slaughtered [the animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] and its slaughter was disqualified because of an improper intent concerning the time or the place [where the sacrifice will be offered or eaten]55 the bread is sanctified.56 If [the animal] is discovered to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it was tereifah,57or it was slaughtered with an improper intent,58 the bread is not consecrated. These laws also apply with regard to the ram brought by a nazirite.59
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1.
|
| 2. |
Ibid. 5:1.
|
| 3. |
And offered on the day following Pesach; ibid. 7:12; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5.
|
| 4. |
See ibid. 9:17-22.
|
| 5. |
Ibid.:23.
|
| 6. |
The animal offered with the loaves.
|
| 7. |
The communal peace-offerings brought on Shavuot.
|
| 8. |
Offering the frankincense is thus equivalent to offering the blood on the altar. See also Chapter 11, Halachah 17.
|
| 9. |
In all instances, however, they are considered sanctified to the extent that they must be kept overnight and then destroyed by fire.
|
| 10. |
According to the Kessef Mishneh, the intent is that even the reception of the blood was not performed in an acceptable manner. See the following note.
|
| 11. |
Hence since the sacrifices were slaughtered in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offerings should be offered on the altar. The Ra'avad notes that this ruling is the subject of a difference opinion between our Sages in Menachot 79a. Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon maintains that for an accompany offering to be offered, the blood of the sacrifice must be received in an acceptable manner. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi differs and maintains that as long as the slaughter is acceptable, even if the blood was not received in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offering should be offered.
The Ra'avad maintains that the Rambam follows Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh and R. Yosef Corcus, by contrast, elaborate to show that he accepts the position of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Moreover, they cite the Rambam's ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 18, as proof that this is the Rambam's understanding here. The Kessef Mishneh does, however, explain a way to interpret the passage according to the Ra'avad's view.
|
| 12. |
I.e., by definition an accompanying offering may not be sacrificed alone, only with a sacrifice, and in this instance, the sacrifice has been disqualified.
|
| 13. |
And does not have an accompanying offering to be brought with it.
|
| 14. |
The priests must wait until the next morning to burn them. For until a sacrifice is actually disqualified, it is forbidden to destroy it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:4).
|
| 15. |
I.e., the court takes into consideration all the possible eventualities that might crop up and has the accompanying offering brought with those possibilities in mind. Hence if the sacrifice is disqualified, the basis on which the accompanying offering was brought is not nullified.
|
| 16. |
For the court does not make such stipulations about them.
|
| 17. |
I.e., when one sacrificed it with the intent that it was another type of offering, e.g., one slaughtered an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering with the intent that it was a peace-offering.
|
| 18. |
For with the exception of a sin-offering, sacrifices are acceptable if slaughtered with such a mistaken intent. And there are no accompanying offerings for a sin-offering.
|
| 19. |
See the parallels to similar questions involving a sin-offering in Chapter 4, Halachah 4.
|
| 20. |
I.e., the 40 breads offered together with a thanksgiving-offering.
|
| 21. |
The apparent meaning of the Rambam's words here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot, loc. cit.) is that bread should be brought when offering both of these sacrifices.Shoham VeYashpah, however, cites Menachot 79b which states that when both a thanksgiving-offering and an animal separated as a replacement for it are both present before us, the breads should be offered with either one and the other, offered without bread. Even such an interpretation, however, is not appropriate with regard to an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred. The Rambam's ruling here is also slightly problematic when compared to the following halachah.
|
| 22. |
That bread is or is not required for both of the offerings in the above situations.
|
| 23. |
I.e., he did not designate a specific animal as a thanksgiving-offering, but instead, undertook the responsibility to bring such a sacrifice.
|
| 24. |
Rambam LeAm explains that when an animal is designated as a thanksgiving sacrifice and is lost, there is no need to bring another instead of it. Hence the second thanksgiving-offering is considered as an independent sacrifice and bread is required for it independently.
With regard to an animal upon which the holiness of the thanksgiving offering was transformed,Rambam LeAm questions the Rambam's ruling, because seemingly, bread should not be required for such a sacrifice after the first animal was offered. Based on Halachah 13, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error here and that in no instance is bread required when offering an animal on which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred.
|
| 25. |
I.e., in any situation; see Hilchot Temurah 4:1.
|
| 26. |
Rambam LeAm maintains that this line refers only to the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering.
|
| 27. |
This law applies when the person made a vow to bring a thanksgiving-offering, accepting responsibility for the sacrifice.
|
| 28. |
The second animal was set aside in place of the first. Since the owner fulfilled his obligation with the first, there is no obligation to bring bread with the second.
|
| 29. |
For it does not have a connection to the first. Therefore it is considered as a new thanksgiving-offering which requires bread.
|
| 30. |
For the third animal takes the place of the second.
|
| 31. |
For it is not associated with the third animal.
|
| 32. |
Because the middle one is associated with both of the others. It was set aside instead of the first and the third was set aside instead of it.
|
| 33. |
For if there are funds left over from the purchase of a sacrifice, the money should be used to purchase an offering of the same type, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 9. Nevertheless, the additional thanksgiving offering does not require bread as reflected by Halachah 8.
|
| 34. |
For it must be offered according to the requirements appropriate for thanksgiving-offerings.
|
| 35. |
I.e., the animal originally set aside as a thanksgiving-offering should be offered for that purpose together with the bread and the money should be used to purchase an additional thanksgiving-offering.
|
| 36. |
Since the money was originally set aside for this purpose, it should be used for the primary offering.
|
| 37. |
Setting aside a specific animal and bread.
|
| 38. |
Since he did not accept an obligation to bring a sacrifice upon himself, but rather designated an animal as a sacrifice, if that animal is lost, he is under no obligation. The fact that there is bread remaining does not obligate him as the Rambam explains.
|
| 39. |
Because the bread is referred to as a thanksgiving-offering, but the offering is not referred to as bread (Menachot 80a).
|
| 40. |
Designating an animal to be offered for that purpose.
|
| 41. |
And bread should not be brought with such an offering.
As mentioned above, there appears to be a contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 8, for Halachah 8 appears to imply that bread is required for an animal to which the holiness of a thanksgiving offering was transferred if the original animal had been designated for the sacrifice. For this reason, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error in Halachah 8.
|
| 42. |
Which requires bread.
|
| 43. |
At which time, it should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase another thanksgiving-offering and its bread. The Ra'avad maintains that the person should bring another thanksgiving-offering and bread from his own resources and the proceeds from the sale of the blemished animal should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering without bread. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, while the Chacham Tzvi (Responsum 24) reinforces the Ra'avad's objection.
|
| 44. |
The breads accompanying the thanksgiving offering must be whole. The Rambam is speaking about an instance when one of these breads became broken between the slaughter of the animal and the presentation of its blood on the altar.
|
| 45. |
Menachot 12b states that the High Priest's forehead plate causes those impure to be considered acceptable and the acceptability of those taken out of the Temple Courtyard is derived through Talmudic logic.
|
| 46. |
This is speaking about an instance when all of the loaves were disqualified in this manner. If only some of the loaves were disqualified, they should be replaced.
|
| 47. |
Rav Yosef Corcus and others question the Rambam's ruling, noting that he is equating the loaves becoming impure or taken outside the Temple Courtyard with their being broken when at the beginning of the halachah, he himself mentioned the difference between these categories. Also, this ruling would apparently contradict the ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 13. Rav Yosef Corcus suggests that the Rambam's statements are referring to a situation where all the loaves became impure or were taken out of the Courtyard.
|
| 48. |
And instead must bring another thanksgiving-offering. The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling is in direct contradiction to the standard printed text of Menachot 46b. They suggest that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage.
|
| 49. |
A total of 40 loaves (10 of four different types) are offered with the thanksgiving offering. One loaf of each type is given to a priest (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:12, 17-18).
|
| 50. |
Since only 40 are required, the additional 40 are not consecrated.
|
| 51. |
The commentaries question why the loaves must be redeemed. Since the person stated that only 40 are being consecrated, why is it necessary to redeem the other 40? Among the answers given is that originally, when setting aside the loaves, he mentioned that all the loaves would be consecrated.
|
| 52. |
This term refers to the wall that surrounds the Temple Mount. The term relates to the phrase (Daniel 1:5): patbag hamelech, "the food of the king" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:3)].
|
| 53. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that although the Torah states that the thanksgiving offering should be brought "on the bread," the intent is not they must be physically adjacent to each other. It is sufficient that they be close.
|
| 54. |
For in order to be associated with the sacrifice, the bread must be baked at the time that the animal is slaughtered.
|
| 55. |
See the following chapters which discuss these issues at length.
|
| 56. |
Because the disqualification came at the time of the slaughter of the animal and not beforehand. Since the bread becomes sanctified, it is considered as piggul
|
| 57. |
An animal that will die within a year. In these instances, since the animal was never acceptable for sacrifice - even if that was not discovered before its slaughter - the breads are not consecrated.
|
| 58. |
I.e., it was slaughtered with the intent of it being offered as another type of sacrifice. In this instance, even though the disqualifying factor took place at the time the animal is slaughtered, the bread is disqualified. For based on Leviticus 7:12, the Sifra states that for the bread to be consecrated, the animal must be slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering.
|
| 59. |
I.e., for this offering is also accompanied by bread. The same concepts also apply with regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuos and the two lambs brought at that time. See Chapter 17, Halachah 18.
|
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
There are three improper intents that disqualify sacrifices. They are: the intent [to offer a sacrifice]1 for a different purpose,2 the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, and the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.
What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose"?3 [The animal was designated as] a burnt-offering and [the priest] had the intent that it was a peace-offering, he slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, or for the sake of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, or he did not slaughter the sacrifice for the sake of its owners. These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose."
What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose4 with the intent of casting its blood or offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside the Temple Courtyard or eating a portion of it that is fit to be eaten outside the place designated for it to be eaten.5 These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] in an [improper] place." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper place.
What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose with the intent of casting its blood [on the altar] after sunset which is not the time at which its blood may be cast, with intent of offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre] on the next day, after dawn, which is not the time when it may be offered, or to partake of a portion of it that is fit to be eaten after the time when it is fit to be eaten.6These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] at an [improper] time." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper time. They are also referred to be the term piggul. This is the meaning of the term piggul mentioned in the Torah.7
Halacha 2
According to the Oral Tradition,8 we learned that the Torah's statements [Leviticus 7:18]: "If some of the meat of the peace-offering was eaten on the third day," [should not be interpreted literally]. Instead, it is speaking about one who has the intent while offering the sacrifice that it will be eaten on the third day.9 The same applies with regard to every sacrifice that, while offering it, one had the intent to partake of it after the time that is appropriate to partake of that type of sacrifice.
Similarly, [the sacrifice is disqualified] if one had the intent to offer portions of it that are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre after the time appropriate for them to be offered. According to the Oral Tradition,10 the following concept was derived: With regard to both consumption by man and consumption by the altar, if one had the intent that [sacrifices] be consumed after the appropriate time, the sacrifice is considered as piggul.
Halacha 3
When, however, a sacrifice was not disqualified because of an improper intent, but instead, its blood was cast on the altar in the proper manner, but it remained after the time allotted for it to be eaten, the portion that remains is considered notar. It is forbidden to eat it,11 but the sacrifice was already accepted and atonement was achieved. It is written with regard to the blood [of a sacrifice, Leviticus 17:11]: "And I gave it to you upon the altar to bring atonement." [Implied is that] since the blood reached the altar according to law, the owners achieved atonement and the sacrifice was acceptable. Therefore the concept of piggul applies only to entities that possess services that will enable [them to be consumed] either by men or by the altar, as will be explained.
The same laws apply if one had one of these three disqualifying intents when slaughtering a sacrifice, receiving its blood, taking its blood to the altar, or casting it on the altar.
Halacha 4
We derive from the above that it is with regard to these four services that a sacrifice can be disqualified because of an [improper] intent: slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it [to the altar], and casting it on the altar.12
Halacha 5
A fowl [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in two services:melikah and squeezing out the blood [on the altar].13
Halacha 6
The meal-offerings from which a handful is taken [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in four services: taking the handful, placing the handful in a sacred utensil, bringing the utensil to the altar, and casting it on the pyre.14
Halacha 7
If, however, one had an improper intent while performing services other than these: e.g., one had such an intent when skinning [sacrificial animal], when cutting it into pieces, when bringing its internal organs and fats to altar,15 when mixing [the oil and flour of] a meal-offering, when bringing it close to the altar,16or the like, that [improper] intent is of no consequence. [This applies] whether it is an intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose, an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, or an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.
Halacha 8
Similarly, if when performing one of these four tasks or all of them, one has an [improper] intent other than these three intents, that undesirable intent does not disqualify [a sacrifice] at all.
What is implied? When slaughtering [a sacrificial animal], receiving [its blood], bringing [the blood to the altar], and casting [on the altar], a person had the intent to:17
a) leave the blood of the sacrifice or the organs and fats to be burnt on the altar for the next day18 or to remove them from the Temple Courtyard,19
b) or he had the intent to cast the blood on the [altar's] ramp, where it is not opposite the base20
c) or [take] the blood of sacrifices that must be presented on the upper portion of the altar21on the lower portion or those to be presented on the lower portion22 on the upper portion,
d) or those to be presented on the outer altar23 on the inner altar, or those to be presented on the inner altar24 on the outer altar, or to bring the blood of a sin-offering into the inner chamber,
e) he had the intent that impure people or others disqualified from partaking of a sacrifice should partake of it,
f) that the sacrifice be offered by impure people or others who are disqualified from performing sacrificial service,
g) to mix the blood of the sacrifice with unacceptable blood;
h) he intended to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice or to eat from it while it is not thoroughly cooked;25
i) or he intended to burn a sin-offering that must be burnt26 outside its proper time or outside its proper place;
With regard to any of the above - or similar - intents, the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, if when taking the handful of meal, placing it into a vessel, bringing it to the altar, or casting it on the [altar's] pyre, one had the intent to leave the handful or the frankincense until the following day or to take them out of [the Temple Courtyard], the offering is acceptable.
Halacha 9
We already explained27 that bringing [blood or limbs to the altar] in a way other than walking is not considered as bringing them. Therefore an undesirable intent28does not disqualify [a sacrifice in such an instance]. Carrying [blood or a limb] to a place to which one need not is considered as carrying and [if one has] an undesirable intent while doing this, [the sacrifice] is disqualified.
What is implied? One received the blood and while standing in his place extended his arm to cast it on the altar and while he extended his arm, he had an undesirable intent, that intent does not disqualify it. If, however, he received the blood inside [the Temple Courtyard] and did not carry it toward the altar, but instead, carried it and took it [toward the area] outside [the Courtyard],29 having a disqualifying intent, [like one] involving the time [the sacrifice would be eaten] or the like, he causes it to be disqualified.30
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The particular activities which disqualifiy a sacrifice are mentioned in Halachot 4-6.
|
| 2. |
I.e., for the sacrifice of another type or not for the sake of its owner, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
|
| 3. |
Zevachim 1:1 states: "All of the sacrifices that were sacrificed without the proper intent are acceptable, but their offering does not fulfill the owner's obligation with the exception of a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice." Thus although most sacrifices that are not offered with the proper intent are acceptable, since the owner does not fulfill his obligation while offering them, the Rambam mentions them in this halachah (Kessef Mishneh). See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot4:10.
|
| 4. |
I.e., for the type of sacrifice for which it was designated and for the correct owner.
|
| 5. |
Sacrifices of the most sacred order must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard and sacrifices of lesser sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem.
|
| 6. |
Most sacrifices must be eaten on the day they were offered and on the following night. Certain others may also be eaten on the following day.
|
| 7. |
Leviticus 7:18; 19:7. The term has the implication of "rejected" (Targum Onkelos) and "abhorrent" (Rav Saadia Gaon).
|
| 8. |
Sifra to the verse quoted; Zevachim 29a; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:3).
|
| 9. |
I.e., the verse states: "if it was eaten on the third day, it is unacceptable." Peace-offerings may be eaten only for two days. The Oral Tradition explains that the intent is not that eating the sacrifice on the third day disqualifies it, but that having the intent that it be eaten on the third day while offering disqualifies it from the outset.
Although this interpretation is communicated by the Oral Tradition, there are allusions to it in the Torah's words. The above verse uses the term: "the one who offers it," implying that the disqualification involves the offering. And it uses the phrase venechshav ("and it will be considered"), implying that the disqualification has to do with thought.
|
| 10. |
Zevachim 28b explains that since the above verse uses a twofold construction for the term "eat,"haechol yaechol, our Sages interpreted it as referring to two types of consumption: consumption by the altar and consumption by man.
|
| 11. |
See Chapter 18, Halachah 10, for more details regarding this prohibition.
|
| 12. |
The rationale is that these four services are necessities for the offering of a sacrifice (Zevachim1:4.)
|
| 13. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:7), the Rambam writes that performing melikah is equivalent to slaughter and squeezing a fowl's blood on the altar equivalent to casting an animal's blood. In this instance, there are no parallels to receiving the blood or carrying it to the altar.
|
| 14. |
For these four services are comparable to the four services mentioned in Halachah 4 (Zevachim13b). As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:3) separating the handful is equivalent to ritual slaughter and the handful of meal, equivalent to the blood of a sacrificial animal.
|
| 15. |
All of these services are not essential to the offering of a sacrifice. Even if they are not performed, the sacrifice is acceptable.
|
| 16. |
These services are performed before taking the handful. Thus it is comparable to the services performed before slaughter which do not disqualify an animal.
|
| 17. |
All of the acts mentioned by the Rambam would disqualify a sacrifice or its meat if performed. In this instance, however, we are not speaking about a situation where these acts were performed. Instead, it is merely that the priest performing the service intended that they be performed.
|
| 18. |
While according to law, the blood must be cast on the altar on the day the sacrifice was offered and the limbs and organs must be burnt on either that day or the following night.
|
| 19. |
Which would disqualify them.
|
| 20. |
And the blood of certain sacrifices must be poured on the base of the altar.
|
| 21. |
Burnt-offerings.
|
| 22. |
Sin-offerings.
|
| 23. |
I.e., the overwhelming majority of both the communal and individual offerings.
|
| 24. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:11.
|
| 25. |
Both of these are forbidden (Exodus 12:46, 9).
|
| 26. |
See ibid. 7:2-5 with regard to the burning of these sin-offerings. As related there, they are burnt in a special place outside of Jerusalem on the day they were offered or on the following night.
|
| 27. |
Chapter 1, Halachah 23.
|
| 28. |
Even one of the three undesirable intents mentioned at the beginning of this chapter.
|
| 29. |
He did not actually take the blood outside - that would disqualify it - but he walked in that direction, away from the altar (see Rashi, Zevachim 16b).
|
| 30. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion in Zevachim, loc. cit., and the halachah appears to follow the view of Rabbi Elazar who maintains that a priest's intent can disqualify the sacrifice only when he is carrying the blood to the altar. The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution of the passage according to the Rambam's understanding.
|
• Thursday, Sivan 17, 5775 · 04 June 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'lach, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 83-87.
Tanya: Ch. 6. Now, the name (p. 301)...included in Chesed. (p. 303).
Refraining from deriving pleasure - in the fullest sense - from this world, is only a fine preparation for avoda. Avoda itself is transforming the physical into a vehicle for G-dliness.
Daily Thought:
A Glass Case
There is a place in the heart only G‑d knows. It is not something of which you are aware, or can be aware. It is just there, and for its sake you were formed.
All of you must become transparent, a nothingness. Then this treasure will shine forth.[Maamarei Admor Hazaken Haketzarim, page 370.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment