Today in Jewish History:
• Miriam Quarantined (1312 BCE)
Miriam, the elder sister of Moses and Aaron, was afflicted with tzaraat (leprosy) after speaking negatively of Moses, and was quarantined outside of the camp for seven days--as related in Numbers 12
Links:
The Biblical account (with Rashi's commentary)
About Miriam
About Lashon Hara (negative speech)
Daily Quote:
There are seven things that characterize a boor, and seven things that characterize a wise man. A wise man does not speak before one who is greater than himself in wisdom or age. He does not interrupt his fellow's words. He does not hasten to answer. His questions are on the subject and his answers to the point. He responds to first things first and to latter things later. Concerning what he did not hear, he says "I did not hear." He concedes to the truth. With the boor, the reverse of all these is the case.[Ethics of the Fathers, 5:7]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Shlach, 3rd Portion Numbers 14:8-14:25 with Rashi
• Chapter 14
8If the Lord desires us, He will bring us to this land and give it to us, a land flowing with milk and honey. חאִם חָפֵץ בָּנוּ יְהֹוָה וְהֵבִיא אֹתָנוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וּנְתָנָהּ לָנוּ אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִוא זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ:
9But you shall not rebel against the Lord, and you will not fear the people of that land for they are [as] our bread. Their protection is removed from them, and the Lord is with us; do not fear them." טאַךְ בַּיהֹוָה אַל תִּמְרֹדוּ וְאַתֶּם אַל תִּירְאוּ אֶת עַם הָאָרֶץ כִּי לַחְמֵנוּ הֵם סָר צִלָּם מֵעֲלֵיהֶם וַיהֹוָה אִתָּנוּ אַל תִּירָאֻם:
you shall not rebel: And consequently,“You will not fear….” אל תמרדו: ושוב ואתם אל תיראו:
for they are [as] our bread: We will consume them like bread. כי לחמנו הם: נאכלם כלחם:
Their protection is removed from them: Their shield and strength, their virtuous ones have died- [namely,] Job, who protected them [See Rashi on Sotah 35a, B.B. 15a]. (Another interpretation: The shade [protection] of the Omnipresent has departed from them.) סר צלם: מגינם וחזקם. כשרים שבהם מתו, איוב שהיה מגין עליהם. דבר אחר צלו של המקום סר מעליהם:
10The entire congregation threatened to pelt them with stones, but the glory of the Lord appeared in the Tent of Meeting to all the children of Israel. יוַיֹּאמְרוּ כָּל הָעֵדָה לִרְגּוֹם אֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים וּכְבוֹד יְהֹוָה נִרְאָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֶל כָּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
to pelt them: [I.e.,] Joshua and Caleb. לרגום אותם: את יהושע וכלב:
the glory of the Lord: The cloud descended there. — [Mid. Tanchuma Shelach 12] וכבוד ה': הענן ירד שם:
11The Lord said to Moses, "How long will this people provoke Me? How much longer will they not believe in Me after all the signs I have performed in their midst? יאוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה עַד אָנָה יְנַאֲצֻנִי הָעָם הַזֶּה וְעַד אָנָה לֹא יַאֲמִינוּ בִי בְּכֹל הָאֹתוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ:
How long: Until when. — [Onkelos] עד אנה: עד היכן:
provoke Me: Heb. יְנַאֲצֻנִי, anger me. - [Onkelos] ינאצני: ירגיזוני:
after all the signs: After all the miracles I performed for them, they should have believed that I am capable of fulfilling My promises. בכל האתות: בשביל כל הנסים שעשיתי להם היה להם להאמין שהיכולת בידי לקיים הבטחתי:
12I will strike them with a plague and annihilate them; then I will make you into a nation, greater and stronger than they." יבאַכֶּנּוּ בַדֶּבֶר וְאוֹרִשֶׁנּוּ וְאֶעֱשֶׂה אֹתְךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל וְעָצוּם מִמֶּנּוּ:
and annihilate them: Heb. וְאוֹרִשֶׁנּוּ. As the Targum [Onkelos] renders, a term denoting destruction [rather than inheritance]. You might ask, What will become of the oath I made to the patriarchs?[Mid. Tanchuma Shelach 13] ואורשנו: לשון תרוכין. ואם תאמר מה אעשה לשבועת אבות:
I will make you into a great nation,: for you are descended from them. ואעשה אתך לגוי גדול: שאתה מזרעם:
13Moses said to the Lord, "But the Egyptians will hear that You have brought this nation out from its midst with great power. יגוַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל יְהֹוָה וְשָׁמְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָ בְכֹחֲךָ אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה מִקִּרְבּוֹ:
But the Egyptians will hear: They will hear that You killed them. ושמעו מצרים: ושמעו את אשר תהרגם:
that You have brought up: Heb. כִּי. This כִּי is used in the sense of אִשֵׁר,“that.” And they saw that You brought them up from among them with Your great might, and when they hear that You killed them, they will not assume that they sinned against You, but they will say that against them You were able to fight, but against the inhabitants of the Land You were unable to fight; this is [the meaning of the following verse]: כי העלית: כי משמש בלשון אשר, והם ראו אשר העלית בכחך הגדול אותם מקרבם וכשישמעו שאתה הורגם לא יאמרו שחטאו לך, אלא יאמרו שכנגדם יכולת להלחם אבל כנגד יושבי הארץ לא יכולת להלחם. וזה הוא:
14They will say about the inhabitants of this land, who have heard that You, O Lord, are in the midst of this people; that You, the Lord, appear to them eye to eye and that Your cloud rests over them. And You go before them with a pillar of cloud by day and with a pillar of fire by night, ידוְאָמְרוּ אֶל יוֹשֵׁב הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת שָׁמְעוּ כִּי אַתָּה יְהֹוָה בְּקֶרֶב הָעָם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר עַיִן בְּעַיִן נִרְאָה | אַתָּה יְהֹוָה וַעֲנָנְךָ עֹמֵד עֲלֵהֶם וּבְעַמֻּד עָנָן אַתָּה הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם יוֹמָם וּבְעַמּוּד אֵשׁ לָיְלָה:
They will say about the inhabitants of this Land: Heb. אֶל, like עַל, concerning the inhabitants of this Land. What will they say about them? What is stated at the end of the passage (verse 16), “Since the Lord lacked the ability….” Because they heard that You, O Lord, dwell among them, and You reveal Yourself to them eye to eye in an affectionate manner, and until now they had not realized that Your love for them had been withdrawn, ואמרו אל יושב הארץ הזאת: כמו על יושב הארץ הזאת. ומה יאמרו עליהם, מה שאמור בסוף הענין, מבלתי יכולת ה', בשביל ששמעו כי אתה ה' שוכן בקרבם, ועין בעין אתה ה' נראה להם, והכל בדרך חבה, ולא הכירו בך שנתקה אהבתך מהם עד הנה :
15and if You kill this nation like one man, the nations who have heard of Your reputation will say as follows: טווְהֵמַתָּה אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד וְאָמְרוּ הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר שָׁמְעוּ אֶת שִׁמְעֲךָ לֵאמֹר:
and if You kill this nation like one man: suddenly, consequently, the nations who have heard…. והמתה את העם הזה כאיש אחד: פתאום, ומתוך כך יאמרו הגוים אשר שמעו את שמעך וגו':
16'Since the Lord lacked the ability to bring this nation to the Land which He swore to them, He slaughtered them in the desert.' טזמִבִּלְתִּי יְכֹלֶת יְהֹוָה לְהָבִיא אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לָהֶם וַיִּשְׁחָטֵם בַּמִּדְבָּר:
Since the Lord lacked the ability: Because the inhabitants of the Land are strong and powerful. Pharaoh cannot be compared to thirty-one kings. They will say this about the inhabitants of this land,“Since [the Lord] is incapable”-Because He did not have the ability to bring them, He slaughtered them. מבלתי יכלת וגו': לפי שיושבי הארץ חזקים וגבורים, ואינו דומה פרעה לשלשים ואחד מלכים, זאת יאמרו על יושב הארץ הזאת:
ability: Heb. יְכֹלֶת. This is a noun form. מבלתי יכלת: מתוך שלא היה יכולת בידו להביאם שחטם:
17Now, please, let the strength of the Lord be increased, as You spoke, saying. יזוְעַתָּה יִגְדַּל נָא כֹּחַ אֲדֹנָי כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ לֵאמֹר:
Now, please, let the strength of the Lord be increased: By implementing Your word. יגדל נא כח ה': לעשות דבורך:
as You spoke, saying: What was the statement? כאשר דברת לאמר: ומהו הדבור:
18'The Lord is slow to anger and abundantly kind, forgiving iniquity and transgression, Who cleanses [some] and does not cleanse [others], Who visits the iniquities of parents on children, even to the third and fourth generations.' יחיְהֹוָה אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד נֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וָפָשַׁע וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים עַל שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל רִבֵּעִים:
The Lord is slow to anger: [both] towards the righteous and towards the wicked. When Moses ascended on high, he found the Holy One, blessed is He, sitting and writing, “The Lord is slow to anger.” He said to Him, “Towards the righteous?” The Holy One, blessed is He, answered him, “Even toward the wicked” He [Moses] said to Him, “Let the wicked perish!” He said to him, “By your life, you will have need for this [patience for the wicked]. When Israel sinned at [the incident of] the [golden] calf and at the [time of the] spies, Moses prayed before Him [making mention of] ”slow to anger.“ The Holy One, blessed is He, replied to Him, Did you not tell me ”Toward the righteous“? He [Moses] responded, But did You not reply to me, ”Even toward the wicked"? - [Sanh. 111a] ה' ארך אפים: לצדיקים ולרשעים. כשעלה משה למרום מצאו משה להקב"ה שהיה יושב וכותב ה' ארך אפים. אמר לו לצדיקים. אמר לו הקב"ה אף לרשעים. אמר לו רשעים יאבדו. אמר לו הקב"ה חייך שתצטרך לדבר. כשחטאו ישראל בעגל ובמרגלים התפלל משה לפניו בארך אפים, אמר לו הקב"ה והלא אמרת לי לצדיקים. אמר לו והלא אמרת לי אף לרשעים:
cleanses: those who repent. - [Yoma 86a] ונקה: לשבים:
does not cleanse: those who do not repent. - [Yoma 86a] לא ינקה: לשאינן שבים:
19Please forgive the iniquity of this nation in accordance with your abounding kindness, as You have borne this people from Egypt until now." יטסְלַח נָא לַעֲוֹן הָעָם הַזֶּה כְּגֹדֶל חַסְדֶּךָ וְכַאֲשֶׁר נָשָׂאתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה מִמִּצְרַיִם וְעַד הֵנָּה:
20And the Lord said, "I have forgiven them in accordance with your word. כוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה סָלַחְתִּי כִּדְבָרֶךָ:
in accordance with your word: Because of what you said, namely,“They might say that God lacks the ability…” כדברך: בשביל מה שאמרת פן יאמרו מבלתי יכולת ה':
21However, as surely as I live, and as the glory of the Lord fills the earth... כאוְאוּלָם חַי אָנִי וְיִמָּלֵא כְבוֹד יְהֹוָה אֶת כָּל הָאָרֶץ:
However: Heb. אוּלָם like אִבָל, but this will I to do them. ואולם: כמו אבל זאת אעשה להם:
as surely as I live: A term expressing an oath. Just as I live and My glory fills the entire earth, so will I fulfill regarding them, “that all the people who perceived…If they will see the Land.” This verse is transposed. [It should be understood as follows:] As surely as I live, that all these men, if they see the Land…[i.e., they will not see the land] yet My glory shall fill the entire earth, so that My Name shall not be desecrated through this plague by [people] saying “Since God lacked the ability to bring them.” For I shall not kill them suddenly, as one man, but gradually, over a period of forty years. חי אני: לשון שבועה. כשם שאני חי וכבודי ימלא את כל הארץ, כך אקיים להם, כי כל האנשים הרואים וגו' אם יראו את הארץ. הרי זה מקרא מסורס, חי אני כי כל האנשים אם יראו את הארץ וכבודי ימלא את כל הארץ, שלא יתחלל שמי במגפה הזאת לאמר מבלתי יכולת ה' להביאם, שלא אמיתם פתאום כאיש אחד אלא באיחור ארבעים שנה מעט מעט:
22that all the people who perceived My glory, and the signs that I performed in Egypt and in the desert, yet they have tested me these ten times and not listened to My voice, כבכִּי כָל הָאֲנָשִׁים הָרֹאִים אֶת כְּבֹדִי וְאֶת אֹתֹתַי אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי בְמִצְרַיִם וּבַמִּדְבָּר וַיְנַסּוּ אֹתִי זֶה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ בְּקוֹלִי:
have tested Me: This is to be understood literally. וינסו: כמשמעו:
these ten times: Twice at the [Red] sea, twice with the manna, twice with the quails…, as is stated in Tractate Arachin (15a). זה עשר פעמים: שנים בים שנים במן ושנים בשליו וכו', כדאיתא במס' ערכין (טו א):
23if they will see the Land that I swore to their fathers, and all who provoked Me will not see it. כגאִם יִרְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לַאֲבֹתָם וְכָל מְנַאֲצַי לֹא יִרְאוּהָ:
if they will see: They will not see it. אם יראו: לא יראו:
will not see it: They will not see the Land. לא יראוה: לא יראו את הארץ:
24But as for My servant Caleb, since he was possessed by another spirit, and he followed Me, I will bring him to the land to which he came, and his descendants will drive it[s inhabitants] out. כדוְעַבְדִּי כָלֵב עֵקֶב הָיְתָה רוּחַ אַחֶרֶת עִמּוֹ וַיְמַלֵּא אַחֲרָי וַהֲבִיאֹתִיו אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר בָּא שָׁמָּה וְזַרְעוֹ יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה:
another spirit: Two spirits, one [which he spoke] with the mouth, and one [he concealed] in his heart. He told the spies, “I am with you in your plot,” but in his heart he intended to say the truth. Because of this, he was able to silence them, as it says, “Caleb silenced…” (13:30), for they thought that he would concur with them. This is what is stated in the Book of Joshua (14:7),“I [Caleb] brought back word to him [Moses] as it was in my heart”-but not according to what I had said. - [Mid. Tanchuma Shelach 10] רוח אחרת: שתי רוחות אחת בפה ואחת בלב, למרגלים אמר, אני עמכם בעצה, ובלבו היה לומר האמת ועל ידי כן היה בו כח להשתיקם, כמו שנאמר (לעיל יג ל) ויהס כלב, שהיו סבורים שיאמר כמותם, זהו שנאמר בספר (יהושע יד ז) ואשיב אותו דבר כאשר עם לבבי, ולא כאשר עם פי:
and followed Me: Heb. וַיְמַּלֵא אַחֲרָי, lit., he filled after Me. He followed Me wholeheartedly [lit., he filled his heart after Me]; this is an elliptical verse [since the word לִבּוֹ,“his heart,” is missing but implied]. וימלא אחרי: וימלא את לבו אחרי וזה מקרא קצר:
to which he came: Hebron shall be given to him. אשר בא שמה: חברון תנתן לו:
will drive it[s inhabitants] out: Heb. יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders,“They will drive out.” They will expel the giants and the people who dwell in it. But it [the word יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה] is not be rendered as“will inherit it” unless the text has יִירָשֶׁנָּה. יורשנה: כתרגומו יתרכינה, יורישו את הענקים ואת העם אשר בה, ואין לתרגמו יירתינה, אלא במקום יירשנה:
25The Amalekites and the Canaanites dwell in the valley. Tomorrow, turn back and journey into the desert toward the Red Sea." כהוְהָעֲמָלֵקִי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי יוֹשֵׁב בָּעֵמֶק מָחָר פְּנוּ וּסְעוּ לָכֶם הַמִּדְבָּר דֶּרֶךְ יַם סוּף:
The Amalekites: If you go there [to the valley] they will kill you, since I am not with you. והעמלקי וגו': אם תלכו שם יהרגו אתכם, מאחר שאיני עמכם:
Tomorrow, turn back: Turn around and travel [back to the desert]. מחר פנו: לאחוריכם וסעו לכם וגו':
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 106 - 107
• Chapter 106
The psalmist continues the theme of the previous psalm, praising God for performing other miracles not mentioned previously, for "who can recount the mighty acts of God?" Were we to try, we could not mention them all!
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. Who can recount the mighty acts of the Lord, or proclaim all His praises?
3. Fortunate are those who preserve justice, who perform deeds of righteousness all the time.
4. Remember me, Lord, when You find favor with Your people; be mindful of me with Your deliverance;
5. to behold the prosperity of Your chosen, to rejoice in the joy of Your nation, to glory with Your inheritance.
6. We have sinned as did our fathers, we have acted perversely and wickedly.
7. Our fathers in Egypt did not contemplate Your wonders, they did not remember Your abundant kindnesses, and they rebelled by the sea, at the Sea of Reeds.
8. Yet He delivered them for the sake of His Name, to make His strength known.
9. He roared at the Sea of Reeds and it dried up; He led them through the depths, as through a desert.
10. He saved them from the hand of the enemy, and redeemed them from the hand of the foe.
11. The waters engulfed their adversaries; not one of them remained.
12. Then they believed in His words, they sang His praise.
13. They quickly forgot His deeds, they did not wait for His counsel;
14. and they lusted a craving in the desert, they tested God in the wilderness.
15. And He gave them their request, but sent emaciation into their souls.
16. They angered Moses in the camp, and Aaron, the Lord's holy one.
17. The earth opened and swallowed Dathan, and engulfed the company of Abiram;
18. and a fire burned in their assembly, a flame set the wicked ablaze.
19. They made a calf in Horeb, and bowed down to a molten image.
20. They exchanged their Glory for the likeness of a grass-eating ox.
21. They forgot God, their savior, Who had performed great deeds in Egypt,
22. wonders in the land of Ham, awesome things at the Sea of Reeds.
23. He said that He would destroy them-had not Moses His chosen one stood in the breach before Him, to turn away His wrath from destroying.
24. They despised the desirable land, they did not believe His word.
25. And they murmured in their tents, they did not heed the voice of the Lord.
26. So He raised His hand [in oath] against them, to cast them down in the wilderness,
27. to throw down their progeny among the nations, and to scatter them among the lands.
28. They joined themselves to [the idol] Baal Peor, and ate of the sacrifices to the dead;
29. they provoked Him with their doings, and a plague broke out in their midst.
30. Then Phineas arose and executed judgement, and the plague was stayed;
31. it was accounted for him as a righteous deed, through all generations, forever.
32. They angered Him at the waters of Merivah, and Moses suffered on their account;
33. for they defied His spirit, and He pronounced [an oath] with His lips.
34. They did not destroy the nations as the Lord had instructed them;
35. rather, they mingled with the nations and learned their deeds.
36. They worshipped their idols, and they became a snare for them.
37. They sacrificed their sons and daughters to demons.
38. They spilled innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land became guilty with blood.
39. They were defiled by their deeds, and went astray by their actions.
40. And the Lord's wrath blazed against His people, and He abhorred His inheritance;
41. so He delivered them into the hands of nations, and their enemies ruled them.
42. Their enemies oppressed them, and they were subdued under their hand.
43. Many times did He save them, yet they were rebellious in their counsel and were impoverished by their sins.
44. But He saw their distress, when He heard their prayer;
45. and He remembered for them His covenant and He relented, in keeping with His abounding kindness,
46. and He caused them to be treated mercifully by all their captors.
47. Deliver us, Lord our God; gather us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to Your Holy Name and glory in Your praise.
48. Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, forever and ever. And let all the people say, "Amen! Praise the Lord!"
Chapter 107
This psalm speaks of those who are saved from four specific perilous situations(imprisonment, sickness, desert travel, and sea travel) and must thank God, for their sins caused their troubles, and only by the kindness of God were they saved. It is therefore appropriate that they praise God and tell of their salvation to all.
1. Give thanks to the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. So shall say those redeemed by the Lord, those whom He redeemed from the hand of the oppressor.
3. He gathered them from the lands-from east and from west, from north and from the sea.
4. They lost their way in the wilderness, in the wasteland; they found no inhabited city.
5. Both hungry and thirsty, their soul languished within them.
6. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He delivered them from their afflictions.
7. He guided them in the right path to reach an inhabited city.
8. Let them give thanks to the Lord, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man,
9. for He has satiated a thirsting soul, and filled a hungry soul with goodness.
10. Those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, bound in misery and chains of iron,
11. for they defied the words of God and spurned the counsel of the Most High-
12. He humbled their heart through suffering; they stumbled and there was none to help.
13. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He saved them from their afflictions.
14. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and sundered their bonds.
15. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man,
16. for He broke the brass gates and smashed the iron bars.
17. Foolish sinners are afflicted because of their sinful ways and their wrongdoings.
18. Their soul loathes all food, and they reach the gates of death.
19. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He saved them from their afflictions.
20. He sent forth His command and healed them; He delivered them from their graves.
21. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man.
22. Let them offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, and joyfully recount His deeds.
23. Those who go down to the sea in ships, who perform tasks in mighty waters;
24. they saw the works of the Lord and His wonders in the deep.
25. He spoke and caused the stormy wind to rise, and it lifted up the waves.
26. They rise to the sky, plunge to the depths; their soul melts in distress.
27. They reel and stagger like a drunkard, all their skill is to no avail.
28. They cried out to the Lord in their distress, and He brought them out from their calamity.
29. He transformed the storm into stillness, and the waves were quieted.
30. They rejoiced when they were silenced, and He led them to their destination.
31. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man.
32. Let them exalt Him in the congregation of the people, and praise Him in the assembly of the elders.
33. He turns rivers into desert, springs of water into parched land,
34. a fruitful land into a salt-marsh, because of the wickedness of those who inhabit it.
35. He turns a desert into a lake, and parched land into springs of water.
36. He settles the hungry there, and they establish a city of habitation.
37. They sow fields and plant vineyards which yield fruit and wheat.
38. He blesses them and they multiply greatly, and He does not decrease their cattle.
39. [If they sin,] they are diminished and cast down through oppression, misery, and sorrow.
40. He pours contempt upon distinguished men, and causes them to stray in a pathless wilderness.
41. He raises the needy from distress, and makes their families [as numerous] as flocks.
42. The upright observe this and rejoice, and all the wicked close their mouth.
43. Let him who is wise bear these in mind, and then the benevolent acts of the Lord will be understood.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 7• Lessons in Tanya
• Tuesday, Sivan 22, 5775 · June 9, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 7
והנה במה שנתבאר, יובן מה שכתוב: אני ה׳ לא שניתי
Now, from the foregoing exposition one will be able to understand the verse,1“I, Havayah, have not changed.”
פירוש
This means:
Not only has there been no change in G‑d’s conduct, or even His will, with regard to rewarding the righteous and so on, but this verse means explicitly that there is no change, heaven forfend, in G‑d: there exists nothing that can alter Him.
The only consideration that might possibly cause one to wonder about there being a change in G‑d’s unity is His bringing created beings into existence. Before their creation nothing whatever existed other than Him. After their creation, however, one might erroneously conclude that there now exists something in addition to Him — the various worlds and their denizens. And were this to be so, this would constitute a change in G‑d’s absolute unity, heaven forbid. The verse therefore anticipates this by saying, “I, Havayah, have not changed.”
שאין שום שינוי כלל: כמו שהיה לבדו קודם בריאת העולם, כך הוא לבדו אחר שנברא
there is no change in Him at all; just as He was alone before the creation of the world, so is He alone after it was created.
Superficially this is difficult to understand. How can we possibly say that G‑d is alone after the world was created, when there now exists an additional entity — the world?
However, according to the explanation given here regarding Divine Unity, this matter is clearly understood. Since the world is truly nullified in its entirety in relation to Him and is wholly united with Him, G‑d is thus just as truly alone after the world was created as He was alone prior to its creation.
וזהו שכתוב: אתה הוא עד שלא נברא העולם, אתה הוא כו׳
Accordingly it is written,2 “You were [the same] before the world was created; You are [the same after the world was created],”
It would have been simpler to state, “You are the same before and after the world was created.” The text, however, chose to be more explicit in order to stress that the “You” that existed before the world’s creation remains exactly the same “You” after its creation.
בלי שום שינוי בעצמותו, ולא בדעתו
without any change in His Being, nor even in His knowledge,3
One might have supposed that with the creation of the world G‑d’s knowledge underwent a change,4 inasmuch as He could not have possibly known the world beforehand; once the world was created, G‑d would thus know something that previously He did not. The Alter Rebbe therefore tells us that G‑d’s knowledge has not changed at all:
כי בידיעת עצמו, יודע כל הנבראים, שהכל ממנו ובטל במציאות אצלו
for by knowing Himself, He knows all created things, since all derive from Him and are nullified in relation to Him.
Creation thus added nothing to G‑d’s knowledge. This knowledge of self existed before creation, and it is with this prior knowledge that He knows of all of creation.
וכמו שכתב הרמב״ם ז״ל, שהוא היודע והוא הידוע והוא הדיעה עצמה, הכל אחד
As Maimonides, of blessed memory, stated,5 that He is the Knower, He is the Known, and He is Knowledge itself: all are one.
This is radically different from mortal knowledge, which comprises three distinct elements: (a) the person’s soul — the knower; (b) the subject that is known; and (c) the power ofknowledge — the faculty of Daat, which enables the knower to know the known. In the Divine realm, however, these three elements are all one: all are G‑d. (See ch. 2 of Part I for further elaboration of this theme.)
ודבר זה אין כח בפה לאמרו, ולא באזן לשמעו, ולא בלב האדם להכירו על בוריו
This — Maimonides goes on to say — is beyond the capacity of the mouth to express, beyond the capacity of the ear to hear, and beyond the capacity of the heart or mind of man to apprehend clearly.
כי הקב״ה, מהותו ועצמותו, ודעתו, הכל אחד ממש מכל צד ופינה, בכל דרך יחוד
For the Holy One, blessed be He, His Essence and Being, and His Knowledge — are all absolutely one, from every side and angle, and in every form of unity.
ואין דעתו דבר נוסף על מהותו ועצמותו כמו שהוא בנפש האדם, שדעתה דבר נוסף על מהותה ומורכב בה
His Knowledge is not superadded to His Essence and Being as it is in a mortal soul, whose knowledge is added to its essence and is compounded with it.
הרי כשהאדם לומד ויודע איזה דבר, כבר היתה בו נפשו המשכלת בטרם שלמד וידע, ואחר שלמד וידע ניתוספה ידיעה זו בנפשו
For when a man studies a subject and knows it, his rational soul was already within him before he studied and knew it, and afterwards, this knowledge was added to his soul.
Man’s knowledge is thus a supplement to his intrinsic being; through it he becomes aware of something he did not know before.
וכן מידי יום ביום: ימים ידברו, ורוב שנים יודיעו חכמה
And so, day after day,6 “Days speak, i.e., instruct a person, and a multitude of years teach wisdom.”
ואין זו אחדות פשוטה, אלא מורכבת
This is not a simple i.e., perfect unity, but a composite.
The Alter Rebbe means the following: Although man’s knowledge, too, is united with him (lit., “with his soul”), for it is the person himself who knows, nevertheless this is not a perfect unity, for “simple” implies that any alternative would be inconceivable. Since a man’s knowledge is acquired, not having been part of his essential being, its acquisition yields an imperfect and composite form of unity, a unity comprised of two separate entities that have coalesced.
אבל הקב״ה הוא אחדות פשוט, בלי שום הרכבה וצד ריבוי כלל
The Holy One, blessed be He, however, is a perfect unity, without any composition or element of plurality at all, inasmuch as it is impossible to speak of any aspect of Him as not having existed previously.
ואם כן
Hence, since His unity is perfect and uncompounded, one cannot say that His Knowledge is something apart from Him, for that would imply, heaven forbid, a composite — that his knowledge is superadded to His Essence, effecting a change within Him. Rather:
על כרחך מהותו ועצמותו ודעתו הכל דבר אחד ממש, בלי שום הרכבה
one must conclude that His Essence and Being and Knowledge are all absolutely one, without any composition.
ולפיכך, כשם שאי אפשר לשום נברא בעולם להשיג מהות הבורא ועצמותו, כך אי אפשר להשיג מהות דעתו
Therefore, just as it is impossible for any creature in the world to comprehend the Essence of the Creator and His Being, so it is impossible to comprehend the essence of His knowledge, which is One with G‑d Himself;
רק להאמין, באמונה שהיא למעלה מהשכל ומהשגה, שהקב״ה יחיד ומיוחד
[it is possible] only to believe, with a faith that transcends intellect and comprehension, that the Holy One, blessed be He, is One and Unique.
Inasmuch as faith transcends intellect, it is able to apprehend truths that lie beyond the province of mortal intellect.
הוא ודעתו הכל אחד ממש, ובידיעת עצמו מכיר ויודע כל הנמצאים, עליונים ותחתונים
He and His knowledge are all absolutely one, and knowing Himself, He perceives and knows all the higher and lower beings, i.e., the beings in the higher and lower worlds,
עד שלשול קטן שבים, ועד יתוש קטן שיהיה בטבור הארץ
including even a small worm in the sea7 and a minute mosquito that may be found in the center of the earth;8
אין דבר נעלם ממנו
there is nothing concealed from Him.
ואין ידיעה זו מוסיפה בו ריבוי והרכבה כלל, מאחר שאינה רק ידיעת עצמו, ועצמותו ודעתו הכל אחד
This knowledge does not add multiplicity and composition to Him at all, since it is merely a knowledge of Himself; and His Being and His knowledge are all one.9
Thus, by knowing Himself, He knows all created beings that derive their existence from Him and that are utterly nullified to Him and unified with Him.
ולפי שזה קשה מאד לצייר בשכלנו, על כן אמר הנביא: כי גבהו שמים מארץ, כן גבהו דרכי מדרכיכם ומחשבותי ממחשבותיכם
Inasmuch as this form of knowledge is very difficult to envisage, the Prophet [Isaiah] therefore said,10 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.”
וכתיב: החקר אלקה תמצא וגו׳, וכתיב: העיני בשר לך, אם כראות אנוש תראה
It is likewise written,11 “Can you by [intellectual] searching find G‑d?...”; and so too,12 “Have You eyes of flesh, and do You see as man sees?”
שהאדם רואה ויודע כל הדברים בידיעה שחוץ ממנו
For man sees and knows everything with a knowledge that is external to himself, and hence something is added to him by his knowledge,
והקב״ה בידיעת עצמו
whereas the Holy One, blessed be He, [knows all] by knowing Himself.
עד כאן לשונו
These are the [paraphrased] words [of Maimonides].
עיין שם בהלכות יסודי התורה, והסכימו עמו חכמי הקבלה, כמבואר בפרד״ס מהרמ״ק ז״ל
(13See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah. The Sages of the Kabbalah have agreed with him, as is explained in Pardes of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, of blessed memory.)
There are a number of Torah sages who sharply disagree with Maimonides‘ view. They claim that no descriptive term may be applied to G‑d — not even that of knowledge, and not even of a form of knowledge so rarefied that it is completely beyond the realm of human experience. To say that G‑d is the “Knower” and the “Knowledge” and so on, so the argument runs, is to give Infinite G‑d a description which would serve to limit Him.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Malachi 3:6. |
| 2. | Liturgy, Morning Prayer; Yalkut, Parshat Va-etchanan, Remez 835. |
| 3. | Note of the Rebbe: “Knowledge being merely a descriptive term, just as (though keeping in mind a thousand and more distinctions) man’s knowledge is far inferior to the essence of his soul — with regard to its simplicity (פשיטות), being (עצמות), and so forth.” |
| 4. | Note of the Rebbe: “Inasmuch as [knowledge] is only one of His descriptive terms, which surely does not cause a change in His Essence.” |
| 5. | Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2:10, et passim; Moreh Nevuchim I, ch. 68. |
| 6. | Iyov 32:7. |
| 7. | Note of the Rebbe: “[‘The smallest of all creatures’ — Rashi on Chullin 40a] of the sea[according to the text of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, Section 4].” |
| 8. | Note of the Rebbe: “The most insignificant of all creatures; see Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2:9; see also Bereishit Rabbah, beg. of ch. 8.” |
| 9. | The following paraphrases a note of the Rebbe. It would seem that the complete subject under discussion has now been concluded. Since it is not within the province of Tanya to expound Scriptural verses, why does the Alter Rebbe now proceed, “The Prophet [Isaiah] therefore said...,” and so on? One cannot compare this passage with ch. 2, where the verses cited contribute to the explanation of the matter at hand, namely, the limits of man’s comprehension. Here, however, since these verses appear to add nothing, why does the Alter Rebbe quote and explain them? A solution: By doing so, the Alter Rebbe answers a question which seems to contradict all that has been stated earlier. For the Alter Rebbe had written earlier that a perception of Maimonides’ concept that “He is the Knowledge...,” is the “lower-level Unity” which is applicable to every man (as opposed to the “higher-level Unity” which can be achieved only by select individuals who have attained a singularly exalted spiritual state). However, Maimonides‘ concluding words on this subject in this very text seem to indicate otherwise, namely, “This is beyond the capacity...of the heart of man to apprehend clearly”:no man, even the most spiritual, is able to comprehend this matter. This question becomes even more acute in the light of that which Maimonides writes inHilchot Teshuvah, end of ch. 5: “This is what the prophet states, ’My thoughts are not your thoughts‘”; i.e., this statement is even made by the Prophets. This seems to contradict the Alter Rebbe’s earlier statement that “lower-level Unity” may be achieved by all. For this reason the Alter Rebbe says: “The prophet [Isaiah] therefore says...,” since this matter is indeed difficult to envisage intellectually. Nevertheless, this manner of spiritual service is indeed within the reach of all, even of those who are only at the level of “lower-level Unity.” |
| 10. | Yeshayahu 55:9. |
| 11. | Iyov 11:17. |
| 12. | Ibid. 10:4. |
| 13. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Tuesday, Sivan 22, 5775 · June 9, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 113
Doing Work with Animal Designated for Sacrifice
"You shall not do any work with the firstborn of your ox"—Deuteronomy 15:19.
It is forbidden to do work with an animal designated for sacrifice [e.g., to use the animal to plow or to transport a load].
Doing Work with Animal Designated for Sacrifice
Negative Commandment 113
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 113th prohibition is that we are forbidden from doing work with sanctified animals.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not work with your firstborn ox."
[This verse speaks only about the firstborn animals, but] we derive the prohibition from working with all sanctified animals from the law of the firstborn.
It has been explained in the end of tractate Makkos2 that one who works with a sanctified animal is punished by lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 15:19.
2.21b.
Shekalim - Chapter Three
Halacha 1
Coins of a half-shekel were required by everyone so that each individual could give the half-shekel he was obligated to give. Therefore, when a person went to a money-changer to exchange a shekel for two half-shekalim, he would give the money changer an extra amount in addition to the shekel.1 This extra amount is referred to as a kolbon. Therefore, when two individuals give a shekel [to discharge the obligation incumbent] upon both of them, they are obligated to give a kolbon.2
Halacha 2
Any [two individuals] who are not obligated to give shekalim - e.g., two women or two slaves - and who gave a shekel are not obligated to give a kolbon.3Similarly, if one person was obligated and another was not obligated, and the one who was obligated gave [a half-shekel] on behalf of the one who was not obligated - e.g., a man gave a [full] shekel on his own behalf, and on behalf of a woman, or on behalf of a slave - he is not obligated to give a kolbon.
Priests are also not obligated to give a kolbon,4 nor is a person who gives on behalf of a priest.
Halacha 3
A person who gives a shekel on behalf of himself and a poor person, or his neighbor, or an inhabitant of his city, is not obligated to give a kolbon, if he gave [the half-shekel on behalf of his colleague] as a gift.5 [The rationale is] that he gave an [extra] half-shekel to increase the number of shekalim. If, however, he gave the half-shekel on behalf of his colleagues as a loan to be repaid when they have the means, he is obligated to give a kolbon.
Halacha 4
Brothers who have not divided the estate left to them by their father - and similarly, partners6 who give one shekel on behalf of the two individuals - are not obligated to give a kolbon.7
When does the above apply? When the partners have conducted business with the funds of the partnership, and [the initial funds are no longer present]. If, however, one individual brought funds and the other brought funds and they joined them together, but did not exchange or spend the funds, they are obligated to give a kolbon.8
If they conducted business with the funds of the partnership, afterwards divided the assets, and then entered into a new partnership, they are obligated to give a kolbon until they conduct business under the new partnership agreement, and exchange the money [in the partnership's account].
Halacha 5
When [by contrast] brothers or partners jointly own an animal and funds, and then they subsequently divide the funds, they are obligated to give a kolbonalthough they have not divided the animal.9 Conversely, however, if they divided the animal, but did not divide the funds, they are not obligated to give akolbon until they divide the funds. We do not say that the funds are about to be divided.10
Halacha 6
When a person gives a shekel to the Temple treasury so that it will be considered as if he gave the half-shekel he is obligated to give, and so that he should receive a half-shekel that was collected from others, he is obligated [to give] two kolbonot.11 In contrast, if his shekel were given entirely to [the Temple treasury], he would be obligated to give one kolbon [only].12
Halacha 7
What is the value of a kolbon? When two dinarim were given as a half-shekel, the value of a kolbon was half a ma'ah - i.e., one twelfth of a dinar. A kolbon of a lesser value was never given.13
The kolbonot do not have the same status as the shekalim. The money-changers would gather them in a separate collection until they were required by the Temple treasury.14
Halacha 8
A person whose shekel is lost is responsible for it until it is given to the Temple treasury.15
[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a city send their shekalim by means of an emissary and they are stolen or lost: If [the emissary] was an unpaid watchman, he should take an oath to them,16 and then he is freed of liability, as is any other unpaid watchman. [The people] then must give their half-shekalim a second time.17
If the inhabitants of the city say, "Since we are giving our shekalim a second time [regardless], we do not desire for the emissary to be required to take an oath, for he is trusted by us," their request is denied. It is an edict of the Sages that [nothing] consecrated should be released without an oath having been taken.18
If the first19 shekalim were discovered after the emissary took the oath, both sets of shekalim are consecrated, but [the later shekalim] are not considered [as payment] for the following year. The first [shekalim] should be included among the shekalim of the present year, and the later [shekalim] should be included together with [the collection of shekalim] from the previous year.20
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when] they sent their shekalim with a paid watchman, who is liable in the event of theft and loss, and [the shekalim] were lost because of forces beyond their control - e.g., they were taken by armed thieves. [The emissary] is not held liable.21
[Whether or not the inhabitants of the city are required to pay a second time depends on whether or not the funds in the Temple treasury have been set aside22.] If [the inhabitants' funds] were lost because of forces beyond [the emissary's] control after the funds [in the Temple treasury] were set aside, the emissary is required to take an oath23 to the Temple treasurer,24 and the inhabitants of the city are no longer liable. For the person who set aside the funds in the Temple treasury, did so on behalf of [those whose funds] have been collected, and on behalf of [those whose funds] have not yet been collected. Thus, the funds were already in the custody of the Temple treasury.25
The inhabitants of the city [are freed of liability], because there was nothing more that they could have done. They gave [the funds] to a paid watchman, who is liable in the event of theft and loss, and [the loss of property] due to forces beyond a person's control is an uncommon phenomenon.
If [the inhabitants' funds] were lost before the funds [in the Temple treasury] were set aside, they are considered as still being in the possession of the inhabitants of the city. The emissary is required to take an oath to the inhabitants of the city, and they are required to pay [their half-shekalim a second time].
If [the emissary] took [the required] oath, and they collected shekalim a second time, and then the thieves returned [the stolen funds], both sets of shekalim are consecrated, but [the later shekalim] are not considered [as payment] for the following year. Instead, [the later shekalim] should be included together with [the collection of shekalim] from the previous year.
There is an opinion26 that states that the first shekalim, which will be included among the shekalim of the present year, are the shekalim that were originally stolen, lost, or taken by forces beyond the emissary's control and returned. Another opinion states that the first shekalim are the shekalim that come to the hands of the Temple treasurer first.
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a person gives a half-shekel to a colleague to give to the money-changer on behalf of the donor, and instead the agent gives it to him on his own behalf, so that he will not be compelled [to give his own half-shekel at this time]: If the funds [in the Temple treasury] were already set aside,27 the agent is considered to have misappropriated consecrated property.28 For the [half-]shekel was already considered to be the property of the Temple treasury, since [the funds] were set aside on behalf of all those who would give in the future. Thus, [the agent] extricated himself29 [by using] consecrated funds and hence derived benefit from this [half-]shekel.
If the funds [in the Temple treasury] have not yet been set aside, the agent is not considered to have misappropriated consecrated property. He is, however, obligated to return the half-shekel to the colleague who gave it to him. Similarly, a person who robs [one of the money-changers of the Temple treasury] of a half-shekel, or steals30 it from him, and uses it for his half-shekel, is considered to have fulfilled his obligation [to give a half-shekel]. He must [reimburse] the [money-changer], [and] pay twice its value31 or add a fifth of its value32[depending on the situation].
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply when] a person give his half-shekel from consecrated funds:33 After the funds from the Temple treasury are set aside, when the funds [from the Temple treasury] are used [to purchase a sacrifice], the person becomes obligated for the misappropriation of consecrated property.34 He has, however, fulfilled his obligation to give a half-shekel.
Should one give [a half-shekel] from funds that were designated as the second tithe,35 he should partake of a quantity of food that is of equivalent value in Jerusalem.36 Should one give [a half-shekel] from funds that were given in exchange for the produce of the Sabbatical year,37 he should partake of a quantity of food that is of equivalent value, and treat it with the sanctity of the produce of the Sabbatical year.38 Should one give [a half-shekel] from an apostate city,39 his act is of no consequence whatsoever.40
Halacha 12
When a person has set aside a [half-]shekel under the impression that he was obligated to give it, and then discovers that he was not obligated, his [half-]shekel is not consecrated.41
When a person gave two [half-]shekalim, and later discovered that he was obligated to give only one, [the following rules apply:] If he gave them one after another, the second [half-]shekel is not consecrated.42 If he gave them both at one time, one is a [half-]shekel, and one is considered as overpayment for a [half-]shekel.43 If a person set aside a [half-]shekel and died, the [half-shekel] should be designated as funds donated [for the purpose of purchasing burnt offerings].44
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when a person] takes coins in his hands and says, "These are for my [half-]shekel,"45 or when he collects ma'ah46 after ma'ah orprutah47 after prutah, and says, "I am collecting money for my [half-]shekel": Even if he collects an entire purse-full, [all that he is required] to give is the half-shekel that he is obligated to give, and the rest of the funds remain unconsecrated. For [any] overpayment given for the [half-]shekel remains unconsecrated.
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply when] money is discovered [in the collection area in the Temple] between the chest of the [half-]shekalim and the chest designated for donations [for burnt offerings]:48 [If the funds are] closer to [the chest of] the shekalim, they should be considered as shekalim. If they are closer to [the chest designated for] donations [for burnt offerings], they should be used for that purpose.49 If the funds are equidistant between the two chests, they are designated as donations for burnt offerings. [The rationale is that] these donations [involve a more severe type of offering,50 for they] are used entirely for burnt offerings. The shekalim, by contrast, are used for burnt offerings and for other purposes.51
Halacha 15
Similarly, all the funds that are found between chests should be designated for the purpose of the chest to which they are closest. If [funds] are [discovered] equidistant between chests - for example, if they are between the chest [whose contents are used to purchase] wood and the chest [whose contents are used to purchase] frankincense - they should be designated [for purchasing] frankincense.52 [If they are discovered] between the chest [whose contents are used to purchase] pairs of doves53 and the chest [whose contents are used to purchase] doves for burnt offerings, they should be designated [for purchasing] doves for burnt offerings.54
This is the general principle: In all cases, we designate [the funds for the purposes of the chest] to which they are closest;55if [the funds] are equidistant [from two chests], [we designate them] for the purposes that are governed by] more stringent requirements.
All the coins found on the Temple Mount are [considered] unconsecrated funds,56 because the Temple treasurer does not take money out of the Temple treasury until he transfers their consecrated dimension to the animals that he purchases for sacrifices.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Rashi (Chulin 25b) explains that this additional amount was given to tip the scales in favor of the money changer. The Meiri explains that since half-shekel coins were in demand, the value of two such coins was slightly more than a shekel. Rav Kapach [based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 1:6)] explains that this additional amount was a fee paid to the Temple treasury for providing the services of a money-changer. Based on the latter two explanations, if a person gives a half-shekel coin, he is not obligated to add a kolbon.
|
| 2. |
A single kolbon. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit.].)
|
| 3. |
Since their gift is voluntary in nature, they are not obligated to add more to it.
|
| 4. |
Since priests are not compelled to give a half-shekel for the reasons mentioned above (see the notes on Chapter 1, Halachah 10), they are also not obligated to give a kolbon (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 5. |
Although these individuals are obligated to give a half-shekel, since they did not give on their own behalf, the individual who gave on their behalf is doing a service for the Temple treasury. Hence, he is freed of the obligation of the kolbon.
|
| 6. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, because of a disagreement regarding the version of the text in the Mishnah (Shekalim 1:7), which serves as the Rambam's source. The Rambam's version of the text appears to have read האחים והשותפים, "The brothers and the partners." The Ra'avad's version of the text read האחים השותפים, "The brothers who are partners." According to the Ra'avad, ordinary partners are obligated to give a kolbon.
|
| 7. |
Since their business interests are combined, they are considered as a single individual. In the above-mentioned Mishnah, and in Bechorot 9:3 and other sources, our Sages contrast the obligation to give a kolbon with the obligation to tithe one's herds. Whenever these individuals are not obligated to give a kolbon, their herds are considered as a single entity, and they are obligated to tithe them together. Whenever they are obligated to give a kolbon, their herds are not considered as a single entity, and they are not obligated to tithe them together.
|
| 8. |
Although joining the funds together establishes a partnership (Hilchot Shluchin V'Shutafin 4:1), as long as the initial funds are still in the hands of the partnership, there is still an individual dimension to each person's investment (loc. cit.:3). When the initial funds have been spent and the partnership begins generating its own income, then the two people are considered to have a joint income.
|
| 9. |
The intent appears to be that since the brothers or the partners divided the funds available to them, it is clear that they no longer desire to conduct business as a single entity. We assume that the reason they did not divide the animal was merely one of convenience, and ultimately the partnership will be divided entirely.
The Ra'avad quotes the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:7), which states that this applies only when the livestock do not comprise the majority of the assets of the estate or the partnership. If they did comprise the majority of the assets, a different ruling would apply. The Kessef Mishnehand the Migdal Oz offer different explanations for the Rambam's position.
|
| 10. |
Although there is no difficulty in dividing funds, the very fact that the funds have not been divided is an indication that the brothers and the partners still intend to do business as a single enterprise.
|
| 11. |
He is requiring that two different exchanges be made on his behalf: a) the division of his shekel so that he will have fulfilled his obligation of giving a half-shekel; and
b) that he receive a half-shekel in return.
He is obligated to pay a kolbon for each of these transactions (Rav Kapach, based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shekalim 1:6).
|
| 12. |
As stated in Halachah 3.
|
| 13. |
For as explained in Chapter 1, Halachot 5-6, this was the value of the half-shekel given in the desert. A lesser amount was never given.
|
| 14. |
The Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:4) quote different Sages who offer varying opinions regarding the purpose for which the kolbonot were used. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam used an indefinite choice of words because no final decision is reached in these texts.
|
| 15. |
Even if the initial setting aside of funds had already been performed in the Temple, the half-shekalim given afterwards are required actually to reach the Temple treasurers.
|
| 16. |
The emissaries must take three oaths: that the funds were lost or stolen, that they did not use them for their own purposes prior to their being lost, and that they were not negligent (Hilchot She'ilah UFikadon 4:1).
|
| 17. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:1), the Rambam emphasizes that the people are required to pay a second time because entrusting the funds to an unpaid watchman is considered a careless and irresponsible approach.
Note the contrast to the laws regarding a paid watchman in the following halachah, which differentiates between whether or not the loss took place before funds were set aside from the Temple treasury.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that it is possible to interpret Bava Metzia 58a as implying that the inhabitants should be freed of the obligation of paying a second time if the money was lost after the funds were set aside in the Temple treasury. The Rambam, however, does not choose this interpretation, for the reasons mentioned above.
|
| 18. |
According to the Torah itself, an oath is never required concerning consecrated articles. Bava Metzia (loc. cit.) explains, however, that our Sages instituted this oath so that the people would not treat consecrated articles in a disrespectful manner.
|
| 19. |
We have translated the terms "first" and "later" without adding any clarification at this point, because, as mentioned in the conclusion of the following halachah, there is a difference of opinion regarding their meaning.
|
| 20. |
As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachot 1-2, every year, it was possible for a person to give a half-shekel to compensate for his failure to do so in the previous year. The extra shekalim were added to this collection.
|
| 21. |
A paid emissary is never liable for losses due to forces beyond his control, as explained in Hilchot Sechirut, Chapter 3.
|
| 22. |
As described in Chapter 2, Halachot 4 and 9.
|
| 23. |
This oath, like the one mentioned in the previous halachah, and like the one mentioned in the following clause, is Rabbinic in origin.
|
| 24. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam is quoting the text of the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:1) despite the fact that the meaning of that phrase is changed by an interpretation offered in the preliminary discussion of the issue in Bava Metzia 58a: that the emissary takes the oath to the inhabitants of the city in the presence of the Temple treasurer in order to collect his wage, or in order to clear their reputation.
The Kessef Mishneh maintains, however, that once the Talmud mentions the reason for the oath stated in the previous halachah, "that [nothing] consecrated should be released without an oath having been taken," this interpretation is no longer necessary.
|
| 25. |
As explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 9, when the person setting aside the funds in the Temple treasury makes the separation, he has the intention that the money set aside should be used to purchase sacrifices on behalf of all the Jews who donated or who will donate money for that purpose. Therefore, after the inhabitants of the city fulfill their obligation by sending the funds with a paid watchman, it is considered as if the funds were already given to the Temple treasury.
|
| 26. |
The source for the difference of opinion mentioned by the Rambam is the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 2:1).
|
| 27. |
This ruling is also based on the principles mentioned in the previous halachah: that the person who set aside the funds has in mind all the funds that will be donated in the future. Accordingly, once the person gives his half-shekel to his colleague, it becomes the property of the Temple treasury.
|
| 28. |
If his act was intentional, he receives lashes as punishment and must reimburse the Temple treasury. If his transgression was unintentional, he is obligated to bring a sacrifice for atonement and to reimburse the Temple treasury, adding a fifth of the shekel's value. (See Hilchot Me'ilah1:3.)
|
| 29. |
A person is liable for misappropriating consecrated property when benefit is derived from it. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:2), the Rambam emphasizes that the benefit the person derives is that he extricates himself from a situation where his property would be taken to compel him to pay the half-shekel. The actual fulfillment of the mitzvah is not taken into account, because "the mitzvot were not given for our personal satisfaction."
|
| 30. |
In halachic terminology, robbery refers to the seizure of a person's property by force, while stealing refers to the theft of an object without his knowledge.
|
| 31. |
This ruling applies to a thief, but not to a robber. If, at the time of the theft the funds had not been set aside in the Temple treasury, the half-shekel the person steals has not been consecrated. Hence, the thief is required to make double restitution, as stated in Exodus 22:3.
|
| 32. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that this refers to a person who steals from a money-changer after the funds have been set aside in the Temple treasury. He is thus making personal use of consecrated property and must add a fifth of its value when making restitution, as explained above.
The Or Sameach differs and states that this refers also to a person who steals before the funds have been set aside in the Temple treasury. A person who is charged with theft, clears himself by taking an oath in court, and later admits the theft, is required to add a fifth of its value when making restitution, as explained in Hilchot Gezeilah 7:1.
|
| 33. |
I.e., money that was designated for the improvement of the Temple complex. The Rambam is speaking about an instance where the person is unaware that the funds that he used had been consecrated. If he had been aware, different rules would apply.
|
| 34. |
For a portion of his half-shekel is considered to have been used towards this purchase. The commentaries question why the Rambam does not mention the need for an animal to be purchased with the funds from the Temple treasury in the previous halachah as well. (See Or Sameach.)
|
| 35. |
I.e., money used to redeem the second tithe, which must be used to purchase food that will be eaten in Jerusalem. (See Deuteronomy 14:24-26.)
|
| 36. |
I.e., after the fact, it is as if he transferred the designated nature of the half-shekel to the funds he later used.
|
| 37. |
When produce that grew in the Sabbatical year is purchased, the seller may use the funds he receives for only one purpose: to purchase produce (that was not grown in the Sabbatical year). Moreover, the produce he purchases must be eaten according to all the laws that pertain to produce of the Sabbatical year. (See Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 6:6-10.)
|
| 38. |
In this instance, as well, after the fact it is as if he transferred the designated nature of the half-shekel to the funds he later used.
|
| 39. |
Which must be destroyed entirely, together with all the property contained within it. (SeeDeuteronomy 13:17.)
|
| 40. |
For the property from such a city is considered as having no value whatsoever. It is as if he gave ashes. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's statements, noting that this concept is so well known that it would seem unnecessary for the Rambam to mention it.
Several of the later commentaries offer possible resolutions to this difficulty. For example, theMerkevet HaMishneh states that this refers to money from the second tithe found in an apostate city. (See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 4:15.) Aruch HaShulchan states that this refers to money set aside for the half-shekel, but not given to the money-changers for that purpose. If it has already been given, it should be brought to the Temple treasury.
|
| 41. |
This follows a general principle that when a person consecrates property because of a misconception, the property is not consecrated.
|
| 42. |
For this is identical to the situation described in the first clause.
|
| 43. |
Which, as stated in the following halachah, remains unconsecrated.
|
| 44. |
The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 105) explains the reason for this law. Exodus 30:15 states that the half-shekalim are given for the purpose of atonement, and the dead are not in need of atonement.
|
| 45. |
The decision rendered in this clause represents a reversal of the Rambam's opinion from that of his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:3), where he writes that if a person brings money and says that it is for his half-shekel, the remainder is considered a donation and is used to purchase burnt offerings. This change of view is based on the discussion of the subject in the Jerusalem Talmud.
|
| 46. |
A ma'ah was worth one sixth of a half-shekel in Talmudic times (Chapter 1, Halachah 6).
|
| 47. |
A coin of little value.
|
| 48. |
Kin'at Eliyahu notes that there is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements, which are based on those of the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:1). According to the description of the order of the chests in Chapter 2, Halachah 2, there are several other chests between the chests of the half-shekalim and the chests for the donations for burnt offerings.
|
| 49. |
Actual closeness is considered the determinant of primary importance in this and other halachic questions.
|
| 50. |
And this becomes the determining factor, as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 51. |
As explained in the following chapter.
|
| 52. |
For the frankincense was itself considered a sacrifice, in contrast to the wood, which was considered merely a medium to make possible a sacrifice (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 53. |
Which were sacrificed, one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering.
|
| 54. |
For the pairs of doves are offered, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering. Since the priests also partook of the sin offerings, the burnt offerings are considered more stringent.
The Kessef Mishneh cites the commentary of Rabbi Ovadiah of Bertinoro on Shekalim 7:1, where he states that a pair of doves were also donated from communal funds to be sacrificed, one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering. In this manner, if the funds came from those donated for this purpose, the person would receive atonement.
|
| 55. |
Regardless of whether the contents of the chest are used for purposes that are governed by more lenient or more stringent requirements.
|
| 56. |
As indicated by Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:2, a person was not allowed to enter the Temple Mount holding money in a visible manner. Thus, we can assume that most of the money lost there came from the Temple treasury, and that as the Rambam continues to explain, that money had already been redeemed through the purchase of the sacrifices.
|
Me`ilah - Perek 2
Halacha 1
The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity until the blood has been cast on the altar. If the blood has been cast on the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the fats and organs until they are taken to the ashheap, for they are designated for the altar's pyre. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to an entity that is to be eaten as explained.
Even if the fats and the organs were brought to the altar before the blood was cast upon it, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply until the blood is cast. If the fats and the organs were taken outside the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply until the blood is cast. If the blood was cast while they were outside and they had not been brought back in, the prohibition against me'ilah does apply, for casting the blood has an effect on the status of a sacrifice, whether it leads to a lenient ruling or a stringent one.
Halacha 2
The prohibition against me'ilah applies to all the sacrifices of the most sacred order from the time they were consecrated until the blood is cast upon the altar. Once the blood is cast, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the portions of them that are to be consumed entirely by the altar's pyre until they are burnt and taken to the ashheap. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the portions that are to be eaten, as explained.
Halacha 3
What is implied? The prohibition against me'ilah applies to a burnt-offering - both of fowl and of an animal, the handful of meal and the frankincense from a meal-offering, a meal-offering of priests, the chavitin offering of the High Priest, and the meal-offering of the accompanying offerings, from the time they were consecrated until they were taken out to the ashheap after being burnt on the altar.
Halacha 4
Similarly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the bull and the goats that are burnt from the time they were consecrated until they are burnt - and their burning is complete - in the ashheap and their meat is burnt thoroughly,in their entirety. Before it is burnt thoroughly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it even though it is in the ashheap.
Halacha 5
Similarly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the red heifer from the time it was consecrated until it was reduced to ash. Even though its status is that of an entity consecrated for the improvement of the Temple, concerning it, Numbers 19:9 states: "It is a sin-offering." It is one of the conditions established by the court that a person does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah with the ashes of the red heifer.
Halacha 6
The prohibition against me'ilah applies to all the following: sin-offerings of animals, guilt-offerings, and communal peace-offerings from the time they were consecrated until the blood is cast on the altar. Once the blood is cast, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to their organs and fats until they are taken to the ashheap. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the meat.
Similarly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to a sin-offering of fowl from the time it is consecrated until its blood is presented on the altar. After its blood was presented, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply. It is, however, forbidden to benefit from its murah and its feathers. If one benefits from them after the blood is presented, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah.
Halacha 7
The prohibition against me'ilah applies to meal-offerings from the time they were consecrated, even though they have not become consecrated by being placed in a sacred utensil, until the handful of meal is offered on the altar's pyre. Once the handful is offered, the remainder of the offering is permitted to be eaten. If the remainder of the offering becomes disqualified or lacking in substance and then the handful is offered, a question arises. Since offering the handful does not cause the remainder to be permitted to be eaten in such a situation, there is an unresolved doubt if the meal-offering is absolved from the prohibition against me'ilah or not.
Halacha 8
The prohibition against me'ilah applies to the showbread from the time it was consecrated - even though it was not baked - until the bowls of frankincense are offered on the altar's pyre. Once the bowls of frankincense were offered, it is permitted to be eaten. Similarly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the two loaves of Shavuot from the time they were consecrated, even before they were baked, until the blood of the sheep is cast on the altar. After the blood of the sheep was cast, they are permitted to be eaten.
Halacha 9
The prohibition against me'ilah applies to the libations once they have been consecrated. Once they are poured and descend to the shittin,the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies.
As long as the water which is poured as a libation on the Sukkot holiday is in the golden jug, benefit should not be derived from it, but one who benefits is not liable for me'ilah. If it was placed in the pitcher, the prohibition against me'ilahapplies to it in its entirety, for it is one of the libations.
Halacha 10
The prohibition against me'ilah applies to the log of oil brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at from the time that it was consecrated in a sacred vessel until the blood of the guilt offering was cast on the altar. Once the blood of the guilt-offering was cast, one should not benefit from it until the placements are made from it, but the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies. After the placements were made, it is permitted for the priests to partake of the remainder of the oil like the meat of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.
Halacha 11
The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to any of the blood of sacrificial animals that were slaughtered whether before atonement is attainedor after atonement is attained until it flows out to the Kidron River. Once it flows out to the Kidron River, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to itbecause it was sold as fertilizer for gardens and the proceeds of the sale are consecrated. If, however, one lets the blood of a consecrated animal, it is forbidden to benefit from that blood and the prohibition of me'ilah applies to it. Since the animal cannot exist without blood, it is considered as its body.
Halacha 12
With regard to the bones, the giddim, the horns, and the hoofs which were separated from sacrificial animals of the highest degree of sanctity. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to those separated before the blood was cast on the altar, but not to those which were separated after the blood was cast.
With regard to the bones of a burnt-offering that were separated before the the blood was cast on the altar, once the blood is cast, the prohibition no longer applies.The casting of the blood causes them to be permitted. If they were separated after the blood was cast, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to them forever.47
When the bones of a burnt-offering fly off the altar before midnight, the prohibition against me'ilah applies.After midnight, that prohibition no longer applies even though they flew off before midnight. The rationale is that since midnight arrived, all of the bones are considered as if they have been consumed by fire and as if they have been reduced to ash.
Halacha 13
When a coal flies off the altar - whether before midnight or after midnight - it is forbidden to benefit from it, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to a coal that was consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. It is forbidden to benefit from a flame, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to it.
Halacha 14
The prohibition against me'ilah applies to the ashes of the outer altar, both before the ash is removed from the altar and after it was removed.
Halacha 15
With regard to the ashes of the inner altar and the ashes of the Menorah, we may not benefit from them, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to them.
Halacha 16
Whenever there is an animal that was consecrated for a sacrifice of the most sacred order that contracted a disqualifying physical blemish - whether the blemish preceded its consecration or came afterwards - the prohibition againstme'ilah applies until it is redeemed. This even applies if the animal is unable to be sacrificed because of a time factor.
A different law applies with regard to turtle-doves whose time to be offered] has not arrived and young doves whose time to be offered has passed that were consecrated to be offered on the altar. Even though it is forbidden to benefit from them, one who derives benefit has not violated the prohibition againstme'ilah. The rationale is that since they are not fit to be redeemed, they are comparable to sin-offerings consigned to death. Therefore the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to them.
Me`ilah - Perek 3
Halacha 1
When animals consecrated as sacrifices for the altar die, the prohibition againstme'ilah no longer applies to their carcasses according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, the prohibition continues to apply according to Rabbinic Law. Similarly, if sacrificial animals will become disqualified because of matters that disqualify such animals as we have already explained, the prohibition againstme'ilah continues to apply according to Rabbinic decree.
When does the above apply? When there was no time that the sacrificial animal could be eaten by the priests. Different rules apply, however, if animals consecrated as sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity which are intended to be eaten had a time when they were permitted and then disqualified and forbidden to be eaten. Since they were permitted at a given time, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to those entities that are fit to be eaten, as we explained.
What is implied? When sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity were disqualified before their blood was presented on the altar according to law, e.g., they were slaughtered in the southern portion of the Temple Courtyard even though the blood was received in the north, they were slaughtered in the north, but the blood was received in the south, they were slaughtered during the day and the blood was cast on the altar at night, they were slaughtered at night, but the blood was cast during the day, they were offered with a disqualifying intent concerning time or place, the blood was received by unacceptable persons even though it was cast by acceptable ones, it was cast by unacceptable persons even though it was received by acceptable ones, all of the blood and the meat were taken out of the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast, or the blood remained overnight - in all these instances, the principle of me'ilahapplies forever, because there was never a time when these offerings were permitted to be eaten.
If, however, the blood reached the altar as commanded, but afterwards the meat or the portions to be offered on the altar remained overnight, or the meat or those portions became impure, or were taken outside the Temple Courtyard, or a portion of the meat was taken outside before the blood was cast, in all these instances and the like, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the remainder of the meat, because there was a time when it was permitted to be eaten, as explained above.
Halacha 2
If persons who are unacceptable received a portion of the blood and cast it on the altar and then others who are acceptable to perform Temple service received the remainder of the animal's lifeblood and cast it on the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies to the meat. The rationale is that the sacrifice is acceptable, because the unacceptable persons do not cause the remainder of the lifeblood to be considered as remnants unless he is unacceptable due to ritually impurity. In that instance, since he is fit for communal Temple service, he causes the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants.
Halacha 3
What is implied? If an impure priest received the blood and cast it on the altar, even if afterwards an acceptable person received the remainder of the life blood and cast it on the altar, this sacrificial animal never had a time when its meat was permitted and the prohibition of me'ilah applies to the meat in its entirety. The rationale is that this blood is considered as "remnants" and the casting of "remnants" on the altar is not effective.
We have already explained that the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity except to the fats and organs after the blood is cast on the altar, provided the casting is effective. If, however, sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity have been disqualified as piggul, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to their fats and organs even though the blood has been cast. Similarly, if the blood was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to their fats and organs even though it was brought back in and cast on the altar.
Halacha 4
It is forbidden to benefit from any of the sin-offerings that are consigned to death, e.g., the offspring of a sin-offering, an animal onto which its holiness was transferred, or the like. If one benefits, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah.
Halacha 5
The prohibition against me'ilah applies to all the sin-offerings which should be allowed to pasture until they contract a blemish until they are redeemed.
Halacha 6
The following laws apply if one set aside his sin-offering, it was lost, he set aside another one instead of it, afterwards, the first one was found, and they are both present. If both of them were slaughtered at the same time and cast the blood of one of them, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply neither to the meat whose blood was cast on the altar, nor to the meat of the other even though the second one is not fit to be eaten. The rationale is that if one desires one may cast the blood of this one or the other one. If, however, one slaughtered one after the other, the blood of the first one is not effective with regard to the other, even after it is cast on the altar, for there was no time that it was fit for its meat to be permitted.
Halacha 7
The prohibition against me'ilah apply to all sin-offerings of fowl or burnt-offerings of fowl that were disqualified because of a deviation in the way they should have been offered or in the place where they were offered. An exception is a burnt-offering of a fowl on which melikah was performed on the lower half of the altar for the sake of a sin-offering. Although it did not fulfill the obligation of the owners, the prohibition of me'ilah does not apply, since he changed its intent, the place where it was offered, and the manner in which it was offered to a type of sacrifice to which the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply.
Halacha 8
When a meal-offering was brought in a manner causing it to be deemed piggulor it was brought with a disqualifying intent regarding the place - and similarly, if the two breads of Shavuot or the showbread were brought in a manner causing them to be deemed piggul or were brought with a disqualifying intent regarding the place, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to them, because there was never a time when they were permitted to be eaten.
Halacha 9
Similarly, if the handful of meal taken from a meal-offering was taken outside the Temple Courtyard or if it remained overnight, the prohibition against me'ilahapplies to the remainder, because there was never a time when it was permitted to be eaten.
If, however, the handful became impure and it was offered on the altar's pyre, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the remainder, because the High Priest's forehead plate brings about acceptance for the handful when it becomes impure, but not when it remained overnight or was taken outside the Courtyard.
When the remainder of the meal-offering was taken out or became impure and afterwards, the handful was offered on the altar's pyre, even though the remainder is forbidden to be eaten, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to it, for the handful was offered as commanded,
Halacha 10
When one benefits from any of the sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity before their blood is cast on the altar or from the fats and organs of the sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity even after their blood has been cast, one derives benefit from a burnt-offering, or from the handful of meal, the frankincense, a meal-offering brought by priests, or a chavitin offering, the value of the benefit he receivedshould be used for free-will offerings. If he violated the prohibition against me'ilah with regard to a communal offering, the benefit he received should be given to the chamber.
Halacha 11
If one benefits from the meat of sacrifices of the most sacred order that became impure before the casting of the blood or one benefits from the fats and organs of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity that became impure even though he brought them to the top of the altar before the casting of the blood, he is exempt.
Halacha 12
It is forbidden to benefit from the milk or the eggs of animals or fowl consecrated as sacrifices for the altar, but one who benefits does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. For that reason, the offspring of a consecrated animal or the offspring of an animal designated for the tithe-offering should not nurse from its mother, but rather from another animal that is not consecrated.A person may make a gift, saying: "The milk of this unconsecrated animal will be consecrated in order that the offspring of consecrated animals will nurse from it so that they do not die."
Halacha 13
If one consecrated the value of an animal or a fowl to the altar, e.g., he said: "The value of this animal is consecrated for an accompanying offering" or "The value of this young dove is consecrated for a peace-offering," they are like entities consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. The prohibition againstme'ilah applies to them, their milk, and their eggs, as will be explained.
Me`ilah - Perek 4
Halacha 1
When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, turtle-doves, or young doves, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to them from the time he set them aside. If he set them aside for peace-offerings, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply.
Halacha 2
When a person consecrated the value of one limb of an animal to the altar, there is an unresolved doubt whether the holiness spreads throughout the entire animal or not. Therefore it should be offered and not redeemed. If it is redeemed, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the money used to redeem it.
Halacha 3
When a person sets aside money for the sacrifices to be offered at the conclusion of his nazirite vow, it is forbidden to benefit from it. If one benefits from it, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, because all of the funds are fit to be used to purchase a peace-offering and the prohibition againstme'ilah does not apply to a peace-offering, except to its fats and organs after the blood has been cast. If he dies, the money should be used for freewill offerings.
If the money was explicitly designated for the particular sacrifices, the money for the sin offering should be taken to the Mediterranean Sea. One should not benefit from them, nor does the prohibition against me'ilah apply. The money for the burnt-offering should be used for a burnt-offering and the prohibition against me'ilah applies.
When the person said: "This money is for my sin-offering and the remainder for my nazirite offering, if he benefited from all the remaining money, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If he benefited only from part of it, he does not violate that prohibition. Similarly, were he to say: "This money is for my burnt-offering and the remainder for my nazirite offering, if he benefited from all the remaining money, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If he benefited only from part of it, he does not violate that prohibition. The rationale is that the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to a peace-offering.
If he set aside money and said: "This is for my burnt-offering; this is for my sin-offering; and this is for my peace-offering," and the money became intermingled, the prohibition against me'ilah applies both whether he benefited from the entire sum or only a portion of the money. What should he do to correct the situation? He should bring three animals and transfer the holiness of the money for the sin-offering wherever it is on one for a sin-offering, that of the money for the burnt-offering on one for a burnt-offering, and that of the money for the peace-offering on one for a peace-offering.
Halacha 4
When one of the individuals obligated to bring a pair of doves separated money and said: "This is for my obligation," the prohibition against me'ilah applies whether he benefited from the entire sum or only a portion of the money. If the person dies, the money should be used for freewill offering, as explained above with regard to a nazirite. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to it.
Halacha 5
When a person sets aside a sin-offering for partaking of forbidden fat and brings it for partaking of blood, he does not secure atonement. Therefore he is not considered to have violated the prohibition against me'ilah. If he set aside money for a sin-offering to atone for partaking of forbidden fat and instead purchased a sin-offering to atone for partaking of blood with it inadvertently, he can secure atonement with that offering. Therefore he has violated the prohibition against me'ilah applies. If he did so intentionally, he cannot secure atonement with that offering. Therefore he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah.
Halacha 6
When a person sets aside two selaim for a guilt-offering and uses them to purchase two rams as ordinary animals, he has committed me'ilah, for he purchased ordinary animals with money designated for a guilt-offering. He is obligated to pay ten dinarim, i.e., the two selaim and an additional fifth. He should use this money to buy a ram for a guilt-offering and should bring another guilt-offering to atone for his me'ilah. Therefore if one of the two rams that he had purchased is worth two selaim and the other is worth ten dinarim, he should bring the one worth ten as a guilt offering for the money that he misappropriated and the additional fifth and he should bring the one worth twoselaim as a guilt-offering for his violation of the prohibition of me'ilah.
Different rules apply if he purchased one of the rams as a guilt-offering and one as an ordinary animal. If the one purchased as a guilt-offering was worth twoselaim, he should bring that for the first guilt-offering for which he was originally liable. Similarly, if the one purchased as an ordinary animal was worth twoselaim, he should bring it as a guilt-offering for his misappropriation of consecrated funds, for he misappropriated one sela of the money originally set aside for a guilt-offering. He should pay five dinarim which should be used for a freewill offering.
Halacha 7
When one benefits from money set aside for a sin-offering before the sin-offering is offered, he should add a fifth to the amount he benefited and bring his sin-offering with this money. And he should bring a guilt-offering for his misappropriation of consecrated funds.
Similarly, when one benefits from money set aside for a guilt-offering before the guilt-offering is offered, he should add a fifth to the amount he benefited and bring his guilt-offering with this money. And he should bring a guilt-offering for his misappropriation of consecrated funds. The rationale is that the money paid for the misappropriation of animals consecrated to be offered on the altar should be used for such sacrifices. Money paid for the misappropriation of articles consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple should be used for that purpose.
In the instance mentioned above, if he discovered that he committed me'ilahwith a portion of the money and afterwards, his sin-offering was sacrificed, but he did not set aside the money he misappropriated or he set it aside, but did not include it with the money for his sin-offering, the money he misappropriated and the additional fifth should be taken to the Mediterranean Sea. If he discovered that he committed me'ilah with a portion of the money and afterwards, his sin-offering was sacrificed, the money for the misappropriation and its additional fifth should be used for a freewill offering, for money is not set aside at the outset to be destroyed. In either instance, he must bring a guilt-offering for me'ilah.
Were the above situation to take place with regard to a guilt-offering, whether he discovered that he committed me'ilah before his guilt-offering was offered or afterwards, the money for the misappropriation and its additional fifth should be used for a freewill offering, because it is considered as money left over from a guilt-offering. And he must bring a guilt-offering for me'ilah.
Halacha 8
A person who sells an animal designated as a burnt-offering or a peace-offering has done nothing of consequence. According to Scriptural Law, the money should be returned to its original state. Nevertheless, our Sages penalized the purchaser and required that the money be used for a freewill offering. Even if the animal was worth four zuzim and it was sold for five, all of the five should be used for a freewill offering. The prohibition against me'ilah, however, does not apply, neither according to Scriptural Law, nor according to Rabbinic Law.
Halacha 9
The prohibition against me'ilah applies to articles set aside through vows. What is implied? A person said: "This loaf is considered like a sacrifice" or "...consecrated property for me." If he partakes of it, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, even though the loaf is permitted to others. Therefore such an article cannot be redeemed, for it is only considered as consecrated for this person.
If he said: "This loaf is consecrated" or "...a sacrifice," whether he or someone else partakes of it, the prohibition against me'ilah is violated. Therefore it can be redeemed. If a ownerless loaf was before a person and he said: "This loaf is consecrated," should he take it to partake of it, he is considered to have misappropriated its entire value. If he took it to endow it to others, he is considered to have misappropriated the value of giving such a gift.
Halacha 10
When a person tells a colleague: "My loaf is considered as consecrated property for you," and then gives it to that colleague, the recipient violates the prohibition against me'ilah when he uses it. The giver does not violate this prohibition, because the article is not forbidden to him. Similar laws apply to all analogous situations applying to other types of vows; the prohibition againstme'ilah applies to those forbidden to benefit from them.
All entities forbidden to a person because of a vow can be combined. If he derived a p'rutah's worth of benefit from the combination, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.
Halacha 11
When a person says: "These plantings are a sacrifice if they are not cut down today" or "This garment is a sacrifice if it is not burnt today," and the day passed without the plantings being cut down or the garment being burnt, they are consecrated and they should be redeemed like other consecrated property. Only afterwards may one benefit from them.
If, however, he says: "These plantings are a sacrifice until they are cut down," he cannot redeem them. For whenever they will be redeemed, they will become consecrated again until they are cut down and once they are cut down, they need not be redeemed, but one may benefit from them immediately.
When does the above apply? When the person who consecrated them redeemed them. If, however, another person redeemed them, they do become ordinary property even though they have not been cut down and they are permitted even to the person who consecrated them.
• Tuesday, Sivan 22, 5775 · 09 June 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'lach, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 106-107.
Tanya: Now, although He (p. 309)...the lower (worlds). (p. 311).
In Ahavat olam (p. 44-5), at the words vehavi'einu leshalom, bring together the two fronttzitzit. Then join to them the tzitzit of the left back corner, then the tzitzit of the right back corner, holding them together between the little finger and ring finger of the left hand.
Kiss the tzitzit six times, at the words tzitzit, tzitzit, l'tzitzit, emet, kayemet and la'ad.
Daily Thought:
Nameless
High upon her precipice, the soul is nameless, for she has no form—she will be whatever she must be.
Peering below, beneath the clouds, she perceives a faint shimmering of her light in the deep, wet earth. There she finds form, and she calls it a name, and she is called when that name is called, for she says, “This is me.”
But it is not her. It is only a faint glimmering of her light within the frame of a distant world.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment