Candle Lighting -
Today's Laws & Customs:
Light Candles before sunset ––:––
• Shushan Purim
In cities that are surrounded by a wall dating from the days of Joshua (13th century BCE) -- a prominent example is the city of Jerusalem -- the festival of Purim is observed on the 15th of Adar (instead of the 14th), in commemoration of the fact that in the ancient walled city of Shushan, the first Purim was celebrated on this day (see "Today in Jewish History").
(For an overview of the Purim observances and links to more information, see "Laws and Customs" for Adar 14.)
Today in Jewish History:
• Purim Victory Celebrated in Shushan (356 BCE)
The battles fought between the Jews and their enemies, which took place on Adar 13 throughout the Persian empire (see "Today in Jewish History" for that date), continued for two days -- Adar 13 and 14 -- in the capital city of Shushan, where there were a greater number of Jew haters. Thus the victory celebrations in Shushan were held on the 15th of Adar, and the observance of the festival of Purim was instituted for that day in Shushan and all walled cities. (See Laws and Customs below).
Daily Quote:
Each and every year there descends and shines a new and renewed light, which has never yet entered the world[Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Tzav, 6th Portion Leviticus 8:22-8:29 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 8
22And he brought near the second ram, the ram of the investitures, and Aaron and his sons leaned their hands [forcefully] upon the ram's head. כבוַיַּקְרֵב֙ אֶת־הָאַ֣יִל הַשֵּׁנִ֔י אֵ֖יל הַמִּלֻּאִ֑ים וַיִּסְמְכ֞וּ אַֽהֲרֹ֧ן וּבָנָ֛יו אֶת־יְדֵיהֶ֖ם עַל־רֹ֥אשׁ הָאָֽיִל:
the ram of the investitures: Heb. אֵיל הַמִּלֻּאִים. [This expression is equivalent to] אֵיל הַשְּׁלָמִים, “the completion ram” [i.e., the word מִלֻּאִים does not mean “inauguration,” but rather,] it denotes שְׁלָמִים, for these rams filled (מְמַלְּאִים) and completed (מַשְׁלִימִים) the [status of the] kohanim in their kehunah. — [see Torat Kohanim 8:184] איל המלואים: איל השלמים, שמלואים לשון שלמים, שממלאים ומשלימים את הכהנים בכהונתם:
23And he slaughtered [it], and Moses took some of its blood, and placed it on the cartilage of Aaron's right ear, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot. כגוַיִּשְׁחָ֓ט | וַיִּקַּ֤ח משֶׁה֙ מִדָּמ֔וֹ וַיִּתֵּ֛ן עַל־תְּנ֥וּךְ אֹֽזֶן־אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן הַיְמָנִ֑ית וְעַל־בֹּ֤הֶן יָדוֹ֙ הַיְמָנִ֔ית וְעַל־בֹּ֥הֶן רַגְל֖וֹ הַיְמָנִֽית:
24And he brought Aaron's sons forward, and Moses placed some of the blood on the cartilage of their right ears, on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the big toes of their right feet, and Moses dashed the blood on the altar, around. כדוַיַּקְרֵ֞ב אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י אַֽהֲרֹ֗ן וַיִּתֵּ֨ן משֶׁ֤ה מִן־הַדָּם֙ עַל־תְּנ֤וּךְ אָזְנָם֙ הַיְמָנִ֔ית וְעַל־בֹּ֤הֶן יָדָם֙ הַיְמָנִ֔ית וְעַל־בֹּ֥הֶן רַגְלָ֖ם הַיְמָנִ֑ית וַיִּזְרֹ֨ק משֶׁ֧ה אֶת־הַדָּ֛ם עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ סָבִֽיב:
25And he took the fat, the tail, all the fat which was on the innards, the diaphragm of the liver, the two kidneys together with their fat and the right thigh. כהוַיִּקַּ֞ח אֶת־הַחֵ֣לֶב וְאֶת־הָֽאַלְיָ֗ה וְאֶת־כָּל־הַחֵ֘לֶב֘ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־הַקֶּ֒רֶב֒ וְאֵת֙ יֹתֶ֣רֶת הַכָּבֵ֔ד וְאֶת־שְׁתֵּ֥י הַכְּלָיֹ֖ת וְאֶת־חֶלְבְּהֶ֑ן וְאֵ֖ת שׁ֥וֹק הַיָּמִֽין:
26And out of the basket of unleavened bread that was before the Lord, he took one loaf of unleavened bread, and one loaf of oily bread, and one wafer, and he placed them on top of the fats and the right thigh. כווּמִסַּ֨ל הַמַּצּ֜וֹת אֲשֶׁ֣ר | לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֗ה לָ֠קַ֠ח חַלַּ֨ת מַצָּ֤ה אַחַת֙ וְחַלַּ֨ת לֶ֥חֶם שֶׁ֛מֶן אַחַ֖ת וְרָקִ֣יק אֶחָ֑ד וַיָּ֨שֶׂם֙ עַל־הַ֣חֲלָבִ֔ים וְעַ֖ל שׁ֥וֹק הַיָּמִֽין:
and one loaf of oily bread: This refers to the רְבוּכָה, the loaves made by scalding [the dough] with boiling water, [and are called “oily bread,”] because a large quantity of oil was used for it, equal to that used for the loaves and the wafers combined. Thus it is explained in [Tractate] Men. (78a; 89a). וחלת לחם שמן: היא רבוכה, שהיה מרבה בה שמן כנגד החלות והרקיקין, כך מפורש במנחות (עח א):
27And then he placed it all on Aaron's palms and on his sons' palms, and he waved them as a waving before the Lord. כזוַיִּתֵּ֣ן אֶת־הַכֹּ֔ל עַ֚ל כַּפֵּ֣י אַֽהֲרֹ֔ן וְעַ֖ל כַּפֵּ֣י בָנָ֑יו וַיָּ֧נֶף אֹתָ֛ם תְּנוּפָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
28And Moses took them from their hands and made them [go up in] smoke on the altar along with the burnt offering. They were investiture offerings, as a pleasing fragrance, a fire offering to the Lord. כחוַיִּקַּ֨ח משֶׁ֤ה אֹתָם֙ מֵעַ֣ל כַּפֵּיהֶ֔ם וַיַּקְטֵ֥ר הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חָה עַל־הָֽעֹלָ֑ה מִלֻּאִ֥ים הֵם֙ לְרֵ֣יחַ נִיחֹ֔חַ אִשֶּׁ֥ה ה֖וּא לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
[And Moses…] caused them to [go up in] smoke on the altar: Moses performed the service throughout all the seven days of investitures, [dressed] in a white robe. — [A.Z. 34a] ויקטר המזבחה: משה שמש כל שבעת ימי המלואים בחלוק לבן:
along with the burnt-offering: after [he had burnt] the burnt-offering. With the exception of this one, we do not find anywhere [in Scripture], [a case of] a thigh of a peace-offering being offered up [on the altar]. על העלה: אחר העולה. ולא מצינו שוק של שלמים קרב בכל מקום חוץ מזה:
29And Moses took the breast and waved it as a waving before the Lord. It belonged to Moses as a portion from the ram of the investitures, as the Lord had commanded Moses. כטוַיִּקַּ֤ח משֶׁה֙ אֶת־הֶ֣חָזֶ֔ה וַיְנִיפֵ֥הוּ תְנוּפָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה מֵאֵ֣יל הַמִּלֻּאִ֗ים לְמשֶׁ֤ה הָיָה֙ לְמָנָ֔ה כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־משֶֽׁה:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 77 - 78
• Hebrew text
• English text•
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• English text•
Chapter 77
1. For the Conductor, on the yedutun,1 by Asaph, a psalm.
2. [I raise] my voice to God and cry out; [I raise] my voice to God and He will listen to me.
3. On the day of my distress I sought my Lord. My wound oozes at night and does not abate; my soul refuses to be consoled.
4. I remember God and I moan; I speak and my spirit faints, Selah.
5. You grasped my eyelids; I am broken, I cannot speak.
6. I think of olden days, of ancient years.
7. During the night I recall my music, I meditate with my heart, and my spirit searches:
8. Is it for eternity that my Lord forsakes [me], nevermore to be appeased?
9. Has His kindness ceased forever? Has He sealed the decree for all generations?
10. Has God forgotten mercy? Has He in anger restrained His compassion forever?
11. I said, "It is to ter- rify me that the right hand of the Most High changes.”
12. I remember the deeds of Yah, when I remember Your wonders of long ago.
13. I meditate on all Your works, and speak of Your deeds.
14. O God, Your way is in sanctity; what god is as great as God?
15. You are the God Who works wonders; You make Your might known among the nations.
16. You redeemed Your people with a mighty arm, the children of Jacob and Joseph, Selah.
17. The waters2 saw You, O God, the waters saw You and trembled; even the deep shuddered.
18. The clouds streamed water, the heavens sounded forth, even Your arrows flew about.
19. The sound of Your thunder was in the rolling wind; lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked.
20. Your way was through the sea, Your path through the mighty waters; and Your footsteps were not known.3
21. You led Your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument(Metzudot).
2.Of the Red Sea.
3.The waters returned to cover the trail.
Chapter 78
This psalm recounts all the miracles that God wrought for Israel, from the exodus of Egypt to David's becoming king over Israel.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Listen, my people, to my teaching; incline your ear to the words of my mouth.
2. I will open my mouth with a parable, I will utter riddles of long ago;
3. that which we have heard and know [to be true], and that our fathers have told us.
4. We will not withhold from their children, telling the final generation the praises of the Lord, and His might, and the wonders He has performed.
5. He established a testimony in Jacob, and set down the Torah in Israel, which He commanded our fathers to make known to their children,
6. so that the last generation shall know; children yet to be born will rise and tell their children,
7. and they shall put their hope in God, and not forget the works of the Almighty; and they shall guard His commandments.
8. And they shall not be like their fathers, a wayward and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart straight, and whose spirit was not faithful to God.
9. The children of Ephraim, armed archers, retreated on the day of battle.2
10. They did not keep the covenant of God, and refused to follow His Torah.
11. They forgot His deeds and His wonders that He had shown them.
12. He performed wonders before their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan.3
13. He split the sea and brought them across; He erected the waters like a wall.
14. He led them with a cloud by day, and all night long with the light of fire.
15. He split rocks in the wilderness, and gave them to drink as if from the abundant depths.
16. And He brought forth flowing waters from the rock, and caused waters to descend like rivers.
17. Yet they again continued to sin against Him, to provoke the Most High in the parched land.
18. And they tested God in their hearts, by requesting food for their craving.
19. They spoke against God; they said, "Can God set a table in the wilderness?
20. True, He hit the rock and waters flowed, streams gushed forth; but can He also give bread? Will He prepare meat for His people?”
21. And so the Lord heard and was enraged; a fire was kindled against Jacob; wrath, too, flared against Israel.
22. For they did not believe in God and did not trust in His salvation,
23. [though] He had commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven.
24. He had rained upon them manna to eat, and given them grain of heaven.
25. Man ate the bread of angels; He sent them [enough] provisions to satiate.
26. He drove the east wind through the heaven, and led the south wind with His might.
27. He rained meat upon them like dust, winged birds like the sand of seas;
28. and He dropped them inside His camp, around His dwellings.
29. And they ate and were very satiated, for He brought them their desire.
30. They were not yet estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths,
31. when the wrath of God rose against them and slew their mighty ones, and brought down the chosen of Israel.
32. Despite this, they sinned again, and did not believe in His wonders;
33. so He ended their days in futility, and their years in terror.
34. When He slew them they would seek Him, they would return and pray to God.
35. They remembered that God is their rock, God the Most High, their redeemer.
36. But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and deceived Him with their tongue.
37. Their heart was not steadfast with Him; they were not faithful to His covenant.
38. Yet He is compassionate, pardons iniquity, and does not destroy; time and again He turns away His anger, and does not arouse all His wrath.
39. He remembered that they were but flesh, a spirit that leaves and does not return.
40. How often they provoked Him in the desert, and grieved Him in the wasteland!
41. Again and again they tested God, and sought a sign from the Holy One of Israel.
42. They did not remember His hand, the day He redeemed them from the oppressor;
43. that He set His signs in Egypt, and His wonders in the field of Zoan.
44. He turned their rivers to blood, and made their flowing waters undrinkable.
45. He sent against them a mixture of beasts which devoured them, and frogs that destroyed them.
46. He gave their produce to the grasshopper, and their toil to the locust.
47. He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamores with biting frost.
48. He delivered their animals to the hail, and their livestock to fiery bolts.
49. He sent against them His fierce anger, fury, rage, and affliction; a delegation of messengers of evil.
50. He leveled a path for His anger, and did not spare their soul from death; He delivered their animals to pestilence.
51. He struck every firstborn in Egypt, the first fruit of their strength in the tents of Ham.4
52. He drove His nation like sheep, and guided them like a flock in the desert.
53. He led them in security and they did not fear, for the sea covered their enemies.
54. And He brought them to the boundary of His holy place, this mountain which His right hand acquired.
55. He drove out nations before them, and allotted them an inheritance [measured] by the cord; He settled the tribes of Israel in their tents.
56. Yet they tested and defied God, the Most High, and did not keep His testimonies.
57. They regressed and rebelled like their fathers; they turned around like a deceptive bow.
58. They angered Him with their high altars, and provoked Him with their idols.
59. God heard and was enraged, and He was utterly disgusted with Israel;
60. And He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shilo, the Tent where He had dwelled among men.
61. He put His might into captivity, and His glory into the hand of the oppressor.
62. He delivered His nation to the sword, and was enraged with His inheritance.
63. Fire consumed His young men, and His maidens had no marriage song.
64. His priests fell by the sword, and their widows did not weep.5
65. And the Lord awoke like one who had been asleep, like a warrior shouting [to sober himself] from wine.
66. He beat His enemies into retreat, and dealt them eternal disgrace.
67. He was disgusted with the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim.
68. He chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loves.
69. And He built His Sanctuary [permanent as] the heavens; like the earth, He established it forever.
70. And He chose David His servant, and took him from the sheep corrals.
71. From following the nursing ewes, He brought Him to shepherd His nation Jacob, Israel His inheritance.
72. And he tended them with the integrity of his heart, and led them with the skill of his hands.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
2.The Ephraimites escaped Egypt before the other tribes, but were defeated when trying to enter the land of Canaan.
3.Capital of Egypt (Radak).
4.Progenitor of the Egyptians.
5.They died before being able to weep (Targum).
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 37• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Saturday, Adar II 15, 5776 · March 25, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 37
• כאשר כל הנשמה ונפש האלקית שבכל ישראל, המתחלקת בפרטות לששים רבוא, תקיים כל נפש פרטית כל תרי׳׳ג מצות התורה
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Friday, Adar II 15, 5776 · March 25, 2016
When the whole neshamah, the divine soul1 in all of Israel, which is divided into 600,000 particular offshoots (the standard figure for the members of the Jewish nation, all individual souls being further subdivisions of these 600,000 “general” souls, as will be explained further) will fulfill, each individual soul thereof, the 613 mitzvot of the Torah:
שס״ה לא תעשה, להפריד שס׳׳ה גידים של דם נפש החיונית שבגוף
when they will refrain from transgressing the 365 prohibitions, to restrain the 365 blood vessels of the animal soul in the body,
שלא יינקו ויקבלו חיות בעבירה זו מאת שלש קליפות הטמאות לגמרי, שמהן נשפעים שס׳׳ה לא תעשה דאורייתא, וענפיהן שהן מדרבנן
so that they do not draw nurture or receive vitality by means of such transgression, from any one of the three completely unclean kelipot from which are derived the 365 Biblical prohibitions, and the Rabbinical prohibitions — their offshoots.
Since all that derives its vitality from the three wholly unclean kelipot cannot rise to holiness, were a Jew to transgress any prohibition, and thereby cause the particular blood-vessel associated with that prohibition to receive vitality from thesekelipot —
ושוב לא תוכל נפש החיונית לעלות אל ה׳, אם נטמאה בטומאת השלש קליפות הטמאות
the vitalizing soul could not longer ascend to G‑d, having been tainted by the impurity of the three impurekelipot.
שאין להן עליה לעולם, כי אם ביטול והעברה לגמרי
[For] these [kelipot] can never be elevated, but must be nullified and utterly destroyed,
כמו שכתוב: ואת רוח הטומאה אעביר מן האר׳
as it is written,2 “And I shall drive out the unclean spirit from the earth.”
Similarly, anything which derives its vitality from them can never ascend to holiness. Therefore, only the observance ofall the 365 prohibitions allows the entire vital soul to ascend, without any part of it held back by the impurity of thesekelipot.
ורמ״ח מצות עשה, להמשיך אור אין סוף ברוך הוא למטה
When, furthermore, every individual soul will fulfill also the 248 positive commandments, thereby drawing down the blessed Ein Sof-light below,
להעלות לו ולקשר ולייחד בו כללות הנפש החיונית שברמ״ח אברי הגוף ביחוד גמור, להיות לאחדים ממש
to elevate to Him and to bind and unite with Him the entire vital soul, which is in the 248 limbs of the body, in perfect unity, (such is the effect of a mitzvah in uniting the vital, animal soul with G‑d), so that they become actually one [with Him],
כמו שעלה ברצונו יתברך להיות לו דירה בתחתונים, והם לו למרכבה כמו האבות
in accordance with His Will that there be an abode for Him in the lower realms, and so great is this unity thatthey (the limbs of the body with the vitality of the animal soul invested in them) become a “chariot” for G‑d, as were the Patriarchs — whose every limb was in total submission to the Divine Will, wherefore they are designated as G‑d’s “chariots” — and so will every Jew become a chariot by performing the mitzvot.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | The Rebbe asks the following question: We are speaking here of the vital soul’s energy which is clothed in the letters of Torah study, prayer, and the performance of divine commandments. This energy comes from the person’s food and drink, which is under the dominion of kelipat nogah. And it is through the vitalizing soul that the life-force of kelipat nogah is transformed and absorbed into holiness. Moreover, the Alter Rebbe is now about to explain more specifically how the vitalizing soul (and through it the general vitality of this world) is united with G‑d’s Will and infinite light through the performance of both the positive and prohibitive commands of the Torah. This being so, why does the Alter Rebbe interpolate the phrase, “When the whole neshamah, the divine soul in all of Israel,” when we are in reality speaking of the vitalizing soul? The Rebbe says that the answer may possibly lie in the fact that a certain number of the 613 commandments are carried out through a person’s thought processes. The effect of the vitalizing soul, however, is felt mostly in those matters that relate to speech and action, inasmuch as the vitalizing soul is bound up with the corporeal limbs and organs. These are utilized for those commandments that are performed through action or speech. Conversely, the commandments performed through the person’s thought are for the most part carried out by the divine soul without the intermediacy of the vitalizing soul. The term “divine soul” is therefore used here, for the ultimate source of power that enables a person to perform all the commandments is the divine soul. |
| 2. | Zechariah 13:2. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Friday, Adar II 15, 5776 · March 25, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 133
A Non-Priest Eating the Priestly Tithe
"No non-priest shall eat of the holy [food]"—Leviticus 22:10.
An individual who is not a priest may not eat Terumah (the priestly tithe), nor any of the other holy foods whose consumption is restricted to priests [and certain of their family members and non-Jewish indentured workers].
This precept also includes the prohibition against deriving benefit from any object that belongs to the "holy" [i.e. sacrifices or items belonging to the Temple coffers].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A Non-Priest Eating the Priestly Tithe
Negative Commandment 133
Translated by Berel Bell
The 133rd prohibition is that any non-Kohen is forbidden from eating any kind of terumah.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "No non-Kohen may eat kodesh (holy things)." This instance of kodesh refers to terumah, as well as bikkurim, which is also called terumah, as we shall later explain.2 This was my intention in writing "any kind of terumah." This categorization also applies to the case of intentional me'ilah (unauthorized use of sanctified objects).
One who intentionally ate terumah receives misah bidei shamayim,3 but does not have to pay the additional fifth of the value4 [as he would should he have eaten it unintentionally],5 as explained in the 6th and 7th chapters of tractate Terumah.
In the 9th chapter of tractate Sanhedrin,6 our Sages enumerate those who receive misa bidei shamayim, and include among them the non-Kohen who eats terumah. They prove this from the verse7 [which instructs the Kohanim to be careful with the terumah,] "because profaning it is a sin which could cause them to die." The verse, "No non-Kohen may eat kodesh (holy things)," immediately follows this verse [implying that the punishment applies in that case as well].
In the 2nd chapter of tractate Bikkurim, our Sages say, "Terumah and bikkurim are forbidden for non-Kohanim, and the punishment [for transgressing this law] is [a heavenly] death penalty] and repaying an extra fifth."
Rav — who [,although he was an Amora,] has the status of a Tanna, and therefore the right to disagree with Mishnayos — disagrees with all those Mishnayos and says that a non-Kohen who eats terumah is punished by lashes.
We explained in our commentary on the Mishneh that in any disagreement which deals only with theory but is not of practical importance, the halachah is not decided, and the Gemara doesn't say, "the halachah is like him." Therefore, the Gemara does not say that "the halachah is in accordance with Rav," or [the halachah is] in accordance with the Mishneh" — because according to everyone, he receives lashes. This is because anyone who receives misa bidei shamayim for a transgression, also receives lashes, as explained in our Introduction to this work.8
So too, without a doubt, one who intentionally uses sanctified objects without permission receives lashes. The source of this is the law9 regarding the vow of a boy shortly before bar mitzvah — "If he sanctifies it, and others eat it, both Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish agree that they receive lashes."
FOOTNOTES
1.
Lev. 22:10.
2.
N148.
3.
One receives a heavenly death penalty before reaching the age of 60. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p.134, note 21.
4.
One-fifth of the total, i.e. one-fourth of the primary amount.
5.
Hilchos Terumos, 6:6.
6.
83a.
7.
Lev. 22:9.
8.
Beg. of 14th Principle.
9.
Niddah 46b.
Negative Commandment 134
A Priest's Servants Consuming of the Priestly Tithe
"A tenant of the priest or a hired servant may not eat the holy [food]"—Leviticus 22:10.
The tenant [i.e. a Hebrew servant indentured until the Jubilee year] of a priest, as well as the priest's hired servant [i.e. a Hebrew servant serving for a six-year term] may not eat Terumah (the priestly tithe).
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A Priest's Servants Consuming of the Priestly Tithe
Negative Commandment 134
Translated by Berel Bell
The 134th prohibition is that even one who resides1 with a Kohen or works for him is forbidden from eating terumah.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "Even if a person resides with a Kohen or is hired by him, that person may not eat kodesh."
Should he eat [terumah], he is judged like any other Jew.3
FOOTNOTES
1.
See Hilchos Terumos 6:5.
2.
Lev. 22:10.
3.
See N133 above.
• 1 Chapter: Biat Hamikdash Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 9 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 9
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
When a non-priest serves in the Temple, his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [Numbers 18:7] states: "A non-priest who draws close will die." According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that one does not become liable unless he draws close to perform service.1Where is the warning concerning this?2 [Ibid.:4] states: "A non-priest shall not draw close to you."3
What is meant by a non-priest? Anyone who is not a male descendant of Aaron, as [Leviticus 1:8] states: "And the sons of Aaron shall arrange" and [Leviticus 3:8] states: "And the sons of Aaron shall set afire." [These service are performed by] "the sons of Aaron" and not the daughters of Aaron.4
Halacha 2
Although non-priests are warned not to perform any of the services associated with offering sacrifices, they are liable for death [at the hand of Heaven] only for performing "complete service,"5 not on service that is followed by other service.6 [Thus] a non-priest is liable for death only for four services: a) sprinkling;7 b) setting afire [sacrifices on the altar];8 c) pouring water [on the altar] on Sukkot, and d) pouring wine on the altar at all times.
Halacha 3
How is one liable for sprinkling? Whether he dashed [blood] inside [the Temple building]9 or outside, [in the Temple Courtyard],10 performed sprinkle one of the sprinklings of blood or performed one of the sprinklings of the sacrifices brought by a person afflicted with tzara'at,11 he is liable for death.
Halacha 4
How is one liable for setting afire [sacrifices on the altar]? Whether he set afire limbs [of animal sacrifices], a handful of flour, or of frankincense12 on the altar - or even if he turned over limbs that had not been consumed by fire and hastened their being burnt,13 he is liable for death, provided he set afire an olive-sized portion of these entities. Similarly, if one sets afire incense on the golden altar, when he sets afire an olive-sized portion,14 he is liable. In contrast, one who sets fire to incense on Yom Kippur in the Holy of Holies is not liable for death for this until he sets fire to a handful, for that is the measure explicitly [required] by the Torah.15
Halacha 5
[A non-priest] who arranges two logs of wood on the altar's pyre is considered comparable to one who set [sacrificial] limbs afire and he is liable for death [at the hand of heaven for doing so]. For the wood is also considered as a sacrifice.16
In contrast, [a non-priest] who pours [oil onto the flour offerings], one who mixes [the flour offerings with oil],17 one who breaks [the wafers of meal offerings] into pieces, one who salts [the sacrifices], one who waves [the sacrifices], one who brings [a meal offering] close to the altar, one who arranges the showbread or the bowls of incense on the [golden] table, one who prepares the lamps [of the Menorah],18 one who kindles light on the altar, one who takes a fistful [of flour or incense], and one who receives the blood [of a sacrifice], even though he disqualifies his service, he is warned against doing so and is liable for lashes for doing so, he is not liable for death at the hand [of Heaven]. [The rationale is that] all of these services are followed by another service and they do not represent the completion of the offering [of a given sacrifice].
Halacha 6
The slaughter of sacrificial animals is acceptable if performed by non-priests.19 [This applies even to] sacrifices of the most holy order, both individual sacrifices and communal sacrifices, as [Leviticus 1:5] states: "And he shall slaughter the bull before God and the sons of Aaron shall offer it." Implied is that from receiving [the blood], the mitzvah belongs to the priesthood. Similarly, skinning an animal, cutting it up, and bringing wood to the altar are acceptable when performed by non-priests, for with regard to the limbs, [ibid.:9] states: "And the priest shall set afire everything on the altar," this refers to bringing limbs [from sacrificial animals] to the [altar's] ramp. [We may infer that] bringing such limbs requires a priest, but not bringing wood.
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
The removal of the ashes [from the altar] must be performed by a priest,22as [Leviticus 6:3] states: "And the priest will put on his linen fit tunic...." If an Israelite removes [the ash], he is liable for lashes.
He is not liable for death [at the hand of Heaven] even though this is a service that is not followed by another service.23 [This is derived as follows. The verse that speaks of the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven,Numbers 18:7,] speaks of "work of giving."24 [Implied is that] the work of giving must be performed by a priest alone. If a non-priest offered [a sacrifice], he is liable for death. The service of removal25 does not make a non-priest liable for death. Similarly, if a non-priest cleaned the inner altar or the Menorah, he is not liable for death.
Halacha 9
[If a non-priest] arranged the wood on the altar, the arrangement should be taken apart and rearranged by a priest, because the [initial] arrangement is unacceptable.26
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When a non-priest performs [Temple] service on the Sabbath, he is liable for violating the Sabbath laws36 and for serving as a non-priest.37 Similarly, when a priest with a physical blemish serves while ritually impure, he is liable [both] for [serving] while impure and for serving with a blemish.38
Halacha 13
Any priest who served a false deity, whether willingly or inadvertently - even if he repented completely - may never serve in the Temple,39 as [Ezekiel 44:13] states: "They40 shall not draw near to Me, to serve Me." [This prohibition applies] whether [a priest] serves the false deity in its rites, e.g., he became a priest to the false deity, he bowed down to it, or acknowledged its [divinity] and accepted it as god. [In all these instances,] he is disqualified [to serve in the Temple] forever.
If [such a priest] transgressed and performed service, his sacrifice is not considered as a pleasing fragrance41 even if he acted inadvertently when he served, bowed down to, or acknowledged [the false deity]. If, by contrast, one slaughtered an animal for a false deity inadvertently and then transgressed and offered a sacrifice [in the Temple], the sacrifice is considered a pleasing fragrance and is accepted, for he did not perform service for the false deity or become its priest; all he did was slaughter an animal for it42 and that was performed inadvertently. Nevertheless, as an initial preference, he should not perform service [in the Temple].
Halacha 14
If one transgressed and built a shrine outside the Temple and offered a sacrifice to God there,43 it is not considered as a Temple to a false deity. Nevertheless, any priest who serves in such a shrine should never serve in the Temple. Similarly, utensils that were used there should never be used in the Temple. Instead, they should be entombed. It appears to me44 that if a priest who served in such [a shrine] performs service in the Temple, it does not invalidate it.45
Halacha 15
Thus there are eighteen factors that disqualify [a person] from serving [in the Temple]. They are: a) one who served a false deity;46 b) a non-priest;47 c) one with a disqualifying physical blemish;48 d) one who is uncircumcised;49e) one who is impure;50 f) one who immersed that day [and must wait until nightfall to become pure];51 g) one who is lacking atonement;52 h) one who is in a state of acute mourning;53 i) one who is intoxicated;54 j) one who is lacking the priestly garments;55 k) one who is wearing extra garments;56 l) one whose garments were torn;57 m) one whose hair has grown long;58 n) one who did not wash his hands and feet;59 o) one who sits;60 p) one who had an entity intervening between his hand and the sacred utensil [he is using];61 q) one who had an entity intervening between his foot and the earth;62 r) one who served with his left hand.63
All of the above are disqualified from serving and if they serve, they invalidate their service with the exception of those with long hair, those with torn garments, and one who slaughtered for a false deity inadvertently. If these individuals serve, their service is acceptable.
Blessed be God who offers assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., and it does not forbid merely entering the Temple or ascending the Altar.
2.
I.e., where is stated the prohibition for which this punishment is given? (Sifri)
3.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 74) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 390) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.
Thus restricting the priestly service to males and excluding females. The Radbaz questions why two verses are necessary to exclude the women of the priestly family. He explains that since they are permitted to part of terumah and certain sacrificial foods, they are not entirely similar to Israelites. Hence, a second verse is necessary.
5.
Service which is the final stage in a sacrifice being brought to the altar (Yoma 24a).
6.
E.g., receiving the blood, carrying the blood or the limbs to the altar.
7.
See Halachah 3.
8.
See Halachah 4.
9.
As performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and also when offering certain atonement offerings.
10.
The sprinkling or dashing of blood on the external altar.
11.
See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2 where these sprinklings are mentioned. Rav Yosef Corcus questions why the water libations and the wine libations are considered as separate categories and the sprinkling of blood and oil are not. He explains that the two different libations stem from entirely different commandments. The sprinkling of the oil, by contrast, is not a commandment in its own right, but an ancillary element to the offering of a sacrifice and that sacrifice also involves sprinkling blood. Hence, the two are included in the mitzvah.
12.
I.e., entities that are usually set afire on the altar.
13.
As Sh'vuot 17b states, this applies even if the entity would have ultimately been consumed by fire without his activity, but his act hastens its consumption.
14.
For one to be liable, a portion of this minimum size is necessary, for an incense offering may not be smaller, as stated inHilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:2. Hence, if he sets afire less, he is not performing service. Even though a larger amount of incense is offered each day, that is a Rabbinic enactment and not a Scriptural requirement (Radbaz).
15.
Leviticus 16:12; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim5:26. If he sets fire to a lesser amount, he is not performing service. Hence, he is not liable.
16.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:1. Arranging these two logs is the final stage in the arrangement of wood on the altar. Hence a non-priest is liable (Radbaz).
17.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger cites Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23 which states that the preliminary stages of the offering of a meal offering may be performed by a non-priest.
18.
See Halachah 7.
19.
Se also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:1;Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:1.
20.
Even as an initial preference (Radbaz). The Ra'avad differs and maintains that, after the fact, if a non-priest kindled the lamps, it is valid, but as an initial preference, he is not allowed to kindle them. The Radbaz brings support for the Rambam's position fromYoma 24b which states that kindling the lamps of the Menorah is not an act of service. Since it is not an act of service, asks the Radbaz, why should a non-priest be restricted from performing it? How is it different from the slaughter of an animal?
The Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 98) reinforces the Ra'avad's question, asking how is it possible for the Menorah to be lit outside its proper place? The Rambam LeAm explains that the mitzvah is not lighting the lamps, but rather putting the lamps in their place.
21.
I.e., out from the Temple building to a place in the courtyard where a non-priest is allowed to stand. Note the discussion of the meaning of the term hatavah in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:12 and notes.
22.
See ibid. 2:10.
23.
See Halachah 2.
24.
I.e., the verse has two connotations: a) that the priestly service is a gift to the priests, b) (and this is the focus here), that the priestly service involves giving: offering sacrificial substances on the altar.
25.
I.e., the removal of the ashes.
26.
Because arranging the wood is considered sacrificial service (Radbaz). The Kessef Mishneh points out that from Yoma 27-28a, one might conclude that it is permitted for a non-priest to arrange the wood of the altar. Nevertheless, according to the Rambam that passage only absolves a non-priest from the punishment of death. It does not grant him permission to arrange the wood.
27.
The commentaries question why the Rambam omits a priest who does not wear the priestly garments. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that it is not necessary to mention such a person because in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 10:4, the Rambam stated that a priest who does not wear the priestly garments is considered as a non-priest.
28.
I.e., each one is liable according to the punishment appropriate for him. An impure priest and one who did not wash his hands and feet are liable for death and one who is physically blemished is liable for lashes (Kessef Mishneh).
29.
I.e., services that are not followed by other services which involve giving.
30.
And must wait until the evening before performing service.
31.
E.g., a person afflicted with tzara'at who must bring an atonement offering before serving.
32.
With another type of impurity.
33.
Since he violated many prohibitions with one act of service, he is liable for a sacrifice for each violation.
The Ra'avad cites a Tosefta that does not accept the Rambam's ruling on this point and instead, maintains that he is liable for only one sacrifice. The Radbaz and theKessef Mishneh, however, support the Rambam's ruling, explaining that each of the prohibitions expands the scope of the obligation. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 7:2 andHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:6 which discusses the ground rules for these concepts.
34.
Even if he also possessed all the other disqualifying factors.
35.
For all of the other prohibitions were given only to a priest. They do not apply to a non-priest (Kessef Mishneh).
36.
For the Temple services involve performance of forbidden labors. These prohibitions are superseded by the obligation to offer the sacrifices, but since a non-priest's service is not valid, he is considered as liable for these prohibited acts.
37.
Here also although a single act is performed, since two different prohibitions are involved, he is liable for both of them. We do not follow the principle: One prohibition does not fall on another prohibition, because the prohibition against performing the Sabbath labors is greater in scope, encompassing other acts besides the Temple service.
38.
For the ritual impurity increases the scope of his liability, making him liable also for entering the Temple and partaking of sacrifices. Since it is of a greater scope, we do not follow the principle, one prohibition does not fall on another (Radbaz).
39.
A parallel also exists with regard to the recitation of the priestly blessing. See Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 15:3. There the Rambam also excludes a priest who was compelled to serve idols and he cites a different prooftext,II Kings 23:9.
40.
The priests who "who distanced themselves from Me during Israel's straying, when they strayed after false deities" (Ezekiel 44:10).
41.
I.e., though it is not disqualified, it is not considered as desirable.
42.
Note a parallel in Hilchot Shechitah 2:15.
43.
The Rambam is not speaking about a mere hypothetical situation. As he relates in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot13:10), Chonio, the son of Shimon the Just entered into a power struggle with his brother Shimi to inherit his father's position as High Priest. Chonio incurred the people's wrath, because he brought about a very deprecating situation in the Temple. He fled to Alexandria where he established a following, constructed a temple to God resembling the Temple in Jerusalem, and offered sacrifices there just like those offered in Jerusalem. Needless to say, our Sages shunned Chonio's shrine, because its sacrificial worship violated the prohibition against offering sacrifices outside the Temple. Indeed, the majority of those who worshiped there were non-Jewish Egyptians whom Chonio had attracted to God's service.
44.
This represents a conclusion reached by the Rambam on the basis of deduction without a prior Rabbinic source.
45.
Since they were disqualified by Rabbinic decree, after the fact, their service is acceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
46.
Halachah 13.
47.
Halachah 1.
48.
Chapter 6, Halachot 1-2.
49.
Ibid.:8.
50.
Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
51.
Ibid.:4.
52.
Ibid.:5.
53.
Chapter 2, Halachah 7.
54.
Chapter 1, Halachah 1.
55.
Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 10:4.
56.
Ibid.:5.
57.
Chapter 1, Halachah 14.
58.
Ibid.:8-9.
59.
Chapter 5, Halachah 1.
60.
Ibid.:17.
61.
Ibid.
62.
Ibid.
63.
Ibid.:18.
• 3 Chapters: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 7, Terumot Terumot - Chapter 8, Terumot Terumot - Chapter 9 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Terumot - Chapter 7
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class•
---------------------
Audio: Listen | Download• Terumot - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
A priest who is ritually impure is forbidden to partake of terumah whether it is ritually pure or ritually impure,1 as [Leviticus 22:4] states: "Any person from the seed of Aaron who is afflicted with tzaraat2or is a zav3 may not partake of consecrated food." Which consecrated food may be eaten by all the descendants of Aaron, both male and female? We must say: terumah.4
[Thus] any impure person who eats terumah that is ritually pure is liable for death at the hand of heaven. Therefore he is given lashes,5 as [ibid.:9] states: "And you shall protect My charge and not bear sin because of it [and die because of it]."
Halacha 2
Impure [priests who have immersed to purify themselves] may not partake ofterumah until the sun sets and three stars appear afterwards8 [on the day the impure person immerses himself], as [implied by ibid.:7]: "And the sun will set and he will become pure"9 - until the sky will become pure of the light - "afterwards he may partake of the consecrated foods."
Halacha 3
A priest who is ritually pure who ate terumah that is ritually impure is not liable for lashes, because [the prohibition is the result of] a positive commandment. For the verse states: "Afterwards he may partake of the consecrated foods."10 [Implied is that,] after he becomes purified, he may partake of food that is in a state of holiness. Food which is impure, by contrast, he should not eat, even though he becomes purified. A prohibition that stems from a positive commandment11 has the status of a positive commandment.12
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
We may immerse a deaf-mute or intellectually or emotionally unstable [priest] and feed him terumah after nightfall on that day.15 We guard them to make sure that they do not sleep after immersing themselves, because if they sleep, they are [considered] impure for perhaps they had a seminal emission16unless a copper container is made for them.17
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
When a woman engages in intimacy, she may immerse herself and partake ofterumah in the evening,20 provided she did not turn over during intimacy.21If she turned over during intimacy she is forbidden to partake of terumah for a duration of three days. For it is impossible that she will not discharge [semen] and become impure,22 as will be explained in the appropriate place.23
Halacha 8
Since the primary obligation of terumah [separated] in the Diaspora is Rabbinic in origin,24 it is forbidden only to a priest who becomes ritually impure because of a discharge from his body: i.e., men who had a seminal emission,zavim,25 zavot,26 niddot,27 and women who give birth.28 All of these individuals may partake [of terumah] after they immersed even if they did not [wait] until nightfall.29 Those who, by contrast, became impure because of contact with a source of ritual impurity - whether contact with a human corpse, a form of impurity which is impossible to purge in the present age30 or contact with [the corpse of] a crawling animal - need not immerse themselves [to partake of] terumah separated in the Diaspora.
Halacha 9
For this reason, a male priest who is a minor who has not yet had a seminal emission or a female of the priestly family who has never experienced menstrual bleeding may partake of [terumah from the Diaspora] at all times without undergoing an inspection, for the presumption that they did not have a discharge that would render them ritually impure applies to them.31
Halacha 10
A priest who is uncircumcised is forbidden to partake of terumah according to Scriptural Law.35 [This concept is derived as follows: Leviticus 22:10] speaks of a resident worker and a hired worker with regard to [partaking of] terumahand [Exodus 12:45] speaks of a resident worker and a hired worker with regard to [partaking of] the Paschal sacrifice. Just as with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, the resident worker and the hired worker spoken about refer to those who are uncircumcised and who are forbidden [to partake of] it,36 so too, with regard to terumah, we learn that a resident worker and a hired worker who are uncircumcised are forbidden [to partake of] it. 37 If such a person partakes [of terumah], he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law.
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
Although an uncircumcised priest and all those who are impure are forbidden to partake of terumah, their wives and their servants may partake [of it].46
Halacha 13
[The following laws apply to a priest] who has maimed testicles or a severed member. They and their servants may partake of terumah.47 Their wives may not partake of terumah.48 If [such a priest] was not intimate with his wife after suffering these wounds, [his wife] may partake of terumah.49 Similarly, if he married the descendent of converts, she may partake of terumah.50
Halacha 14
When a priest with maimed testicles consecrates the daughter of a priest, she may not partake of terumah.51 [When a priest is] a eunuch who was brought to this state through natural means,52 he, his wife, and his servants may partake of terumah. [When a priest is] a tumtum or an androgynus, their servants may partake of terumah,53 but not their wives.54
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
When an androgynus [of the priestly family] engages in intimacy - whether through anal intercourse57 or vaginal intercourse - with a person who is disqualified from partaking of terumah, he is disqualified from partaking ofterumah as a woman would be.58 His servants also may not partake ofterumah.59
Similarly, if he engages in intimacy with another adrogynus with whom relations would disqualify a woman from partaking of terumah, he is disqualified. Neither he nor his servants may partake of terumah. [The latter law] applies when he engages in intimacy through vaginal intercourse.60 If, however, he is intimate through anal intercourse,61 [the above does not apply], because a male does not disqualify another male from priestly [privileges].62
Halacha 17
When a servant belongs to partners and one of them is a priest, that does not entitle him to partake of terumah.63 [Instead,] this servant is forbidden to partake [of terumah]. Whenever [the ownership of a servant] entitles him to partake of terumah, it also entitles him to partake of the breast and the thigh [of the peace sacrifices].64
Halacha 18
When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest and brings servants [to his domain] - regardless of whether they are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel65 - they may partake [of terumah]. Similarly, when the servants of priests purchase servants or the servants of a priest's wife purchase servants, they may partake of terumah, as [intimated by Leviticus 22:11]: "[When a priest] will purchase a soul, the acquisition of his money, [he shall partake of it]." Implied is even an acquisition of an acquisition.66 An acquisition of [a priest] who is permitted to partake of terumah may entitle others to partake [of terumah]. An acquisition who does not partake of terumah may not entitle others to partake [of terumah].67
Halacha 19
When the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite and brings servants [to his domain] - regardless of whether they are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel - they may not partake [of terumah].68
Halacha 20
[The following laws apply when] a widow marries a High Priest or a divorcee or a woman who underwent chalitzah - whether the daughter of a priest or an Israelite - marries an ordinary priest69 or [a priest] marries another one of the women with whom marriage is prohibited [by Scriptural Law].70 If she brings servants [to his domain] which are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel [to his domain], those classified as nichsei milog may not partake [ofterumah],71 even though he is required to provide for their sustenance. Those classified as nichsei tzon barzel may partake of terumah, for they are the husband's property. If [a priest] married a shniyah,72 she may partake [ofterumah],73 but her servants who are nichsei milog may not partake [ofterumah].74
Halacha 21
When the daughter of a priest who is a widow is consecrated by a High Priest or one who is divorced is consecrated by an ordinary priest, they may not partake of terumah,75 because they are designated for intimate relations that are forbidden according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, if they enter the chupah76without being consecrated, they may not partake [of terumah]. For [entering into] the chupah disqualifies them.77
If such a woman is widowed or divorced after consecration [but before marriage], she returns to suitability and may partake of terumah. If, however, she had married, she may not partake of terumah, because she already became a chalalah.78
Halacha 22
When the husband of the daughter of a priest who is himself a priest dies and she falls before yevamim, one of which is a challal,79 she may not partake ofterumah because of her connection to the challal.80 [This applies] even if one of the acceptable [brothers] issued a mamar81 to her, for a maamar does not constitute a complete acquisition of a yevamah.82
Halacha 23
[Although a yavam who is] a priest gives a bill of divorce83to his yevamah, [despite the fact that] she becomes forbidden to him, she still remains connected to him.84 Hence, she is entitled to partake of terumah. [She is not disqualified,] because she is designated for relations that are forbidden [only] by Rabbinic decree, since a bill of divorce disqualifies a yevamah only according to Rabbinic decree.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 136) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 279) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.
Tzara'at is a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with leprosy, that comes as a result of gossip and imparts ritual impurity.
3.
This refers to a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea that imparts ritual impurity.
4.
It does not refer to the breast and thigh of the peace offerings, for a woman of the priestly family who marries and is widowed or divorced may not partake of them (Yevamot 74b).
5.
If his transgression is observed by witnesses and they issued a warning. Whenever lashes are given on the earthly plane, the transgressor receives atonement and is no longer held liable for death by God.
6.
From the fact that Sanhedrin 83a,b emphasizes that an impure priest is not liable for death for partaking of impureterumah, the Rambam concludes that a transgression is involved.
7.
Its impurity nullifies its holiness. See Chapter 6, Halachah 6 and notes, however.
8.
The Kessef Mishneh states that this is approximately 20 minutes after sunset. This applies in Eretz Yisrael. In different latitudes, the duration of this time period varies.
This represents a stringency over other laws where ritual purity is required. In many such instances, as soon as one immerses himself, his purification is completed and no further wait is necessary. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:11.
9.
The simple meaning of the verse is that the person's purification process is not completed until the sun sets. The rules of Biblical exegesis, however, leave room for the meaning mentioned by the Rambam.
10.
The Rabaz emphasizes that with regard to partaking of the sacrifices, in certain instances, an impure priest must also bring a sacrifice to mark his immersion from impurity.
11.
I,e., as in the case at hand, there is no verse that says "Do not eat impure terumah," but from the positive commandment regarding pure terumah, we can conclude that partaking of the impure terumah is prohibited.
12.
Hence, its violation is not punishable by lashes.
13.
Which would render him ritually impure.
14.
For he does not become ritually impure until the semen actually emerges and in this way, he could swallow the terumah first (Niddah40a).
15.
These individuals are not responsible for their conduct. Nevertheless, their priesthood is intact. Hence, we immerse them to purify them and then enable them to partake ofterumah.
16.
I.e., because of the doubt, we considered them impure.
17.
Which would allow a seminal emission to be detected. Were the container to be made of cloth, the semen could be absorbed (Radbaz).
18.
The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "warmth."
19.
See the gloss of the Radbaz who states that the Rambam's wording implies that this ruling applies only when one rides bareback [see Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 23:7)]. He also explains why it applies only to camel-riders and not those who ride on other animals.
20.
I.e., intimate relations cause both the man and the woman to become impure. To emerge from that impurity, they must each immerse in the mikvah and wait until nightfall (see Leviticus 15:18).
21.
Intimate relations can cause a woman to become impure for two reasons:
a) as stated above, the very act of intimacy brings about ritual impurity;
b) she comes in contact with semen and touching semen makes one ritually impure (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 5:9).
As long as the semen is in the woman's vagina, it is not considered to have touched her, because it is touching her body internally, not externally. If, however, it flows outside her vagina and touches her externally, she does become impure. According to the Rambam, if the woman does not turn over in intimate relations, the semen will remain in her vagina and not flow outside. Hence, after immersing herself and waiting until nightfall, she may partake ofterumah. If, however, she turned over in the midst of intimacy, the semen will flow out. Moreover, it is possible that it will not flow out immediately, but will do so over the course of the coming days. Now, semen is considered to remain viable until the third day after intimacy. Hence for three days, the woman must consider the possibility that the semen flowed out from her body and made her impure. Hence, she cannot immerse herself in the mikvah to regain ritual purity until three days have passed.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even if the woman did not turn over during intimacy, as soon as she arises from bed, it is possible that semen will flow out from her vagina and touch her body. He quotes Niddah 41b in support of his explanation. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh suggest that the Rambam had a different text of that Talmudic passage and they validate his ruling.
22.
Because of it touching her body.
23.
Ibid.:11. There the Rambam states that the intent is not that semen remains viable for three full days, but that it can remain viable until the third day after relations.
24.
As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, according to Scriptural Law, the requirement to separate terumah applies only in Eretz Yisrael. The early Sages ordained that it should be observed in certain neighboring countries.
25.
This refers to a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea that imparts ritual impurity.
26.
Women who become impure because they experienced menstrual bleeding at times other than her ordinary cycle.
27.
Women who become impure because they experienced ordinary menstrual bleeding.
28.
Who becomes impure as explained inHilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 10. Since the obligation to separate terumah in these lands is only Rabbinic in origin, the Sages were lenient regarding the restrictions incumbent on those who partake of terumah.
29.
In contrast to terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law when such a wait is necessary, as stated in Halachah 2. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and refers to Bechorot27a in support of his position. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer different explanations of that passage that support the Rambam's interpretation.
30.
For to purge the impurity resulting from contact with a human corpse, it is necessary to have the ashes from a Red Heifer sprinkled upon one's body and those ashes are not available in the present age.
31.
Once a male or a female attains majority, by contrast, we assume that they have become impure and they must immerse themselves before partaking of terumah (Radbaz).
32.
Tzara'at is a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with leprosy, that comes as a result of gossip and imparts ritual impurity.
33.
For his impurity is also a result of a physical condition (ibid.).
34.
For a person afflicted by tzara'at does not become ritually impure until a priest declares him so (Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 9:2). With regard to the establishment of a priest's lineage, see the notes to Chapter 6, Halachah 2.
The Radbaz adds that the reason the impurity of tzara'at is not observed in the present age is that we have no priests whose lineage is established to declare people ritually impure. The physical conditions for the impurity may exist in the present age.
35.
The Radbaz writes that this prohibition applies even if he is uncircumcised with the Torah's permission, e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision, in which instance, caution is shown before circumcising him.
36.
See Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:7.
37.
Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 135) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 282) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There is, however, a slight difficulty with this classification. The Rambam maintains that any commandment that is derived through one of the Thirteen Principles of Biblical Exegesis does not have the status of a Scriptural command, nor is such a prohibition punishable by lashes (Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2) and as the Rambam states here, there is no direct commandment prohibiting an uncircumcised person from partaking ofterumah. Instead, it is derived by our Sages (Yevamot 70a) through an association of verses (gezeirah shaveh). Hence, seemingly, it should not be placed in that category. The Rambam notes this difficulty when discussing this mitzvah in Sefer HaMitzvot and states that since our Sages mentioned that this mitzvah was of Scriptural origin, he considered it as having that status.
38.
I.e., one was originally circumcised, but underwent an operation so that it would appear that he was not circumcised. In the Hellenist and Roman periods, there were Jews who underwent such operations so that they would resemble non-Jews.
39.
For according to Scriptural Law, his original circumcision was effective and he can never revert to being uncircumcised.
40.
The Radbaz writes that the intent is not that he is forbidden to partake of terumah until he is circumcised again. Instead, the intent is that he is advised to undergo the operation and not to partake of terumah until he does so. The Sefer HaMitzvot and the Sefer HaChinuch (loc. cit.), however, say that such an individual is prohibited by the Rabbis from partaking of terumah.
41.
Although it is necessary to draw a drop of blood from such a person's organ (Hilchot Milah 1:11), it cannot be said that such a person is uncircumcised. Hence, he is permitted to partake of terumah (Radbaz).
42.
A child whose genital area is covered by a mass of flesh and thus his gender cannot be determined.
43.
Since his gender is undetermined, we do not know whether or not he must be circumcised.
44.
A person with both male and female sexual organs.
45.
Although there are many unresolved questions about such a person's status vis-à-vis gender, there is no difficulty in him partaking of terumah for both males and females of the priestly family are permitted to partake of it.
46.
They are prohibited from partaking ofterumah due to outside factors. Their membership in the priestly family is, however, intact. Hence, their wives and servants may partake of terumah (Radbaz).
47.
Although their wounds prevent such priests from serving at the Altar, they are still members of the priestly family. Hence, they and their servants may partake of terumah.
48.
As stated in Deuteronomy 23:2 and Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 16, a person with such wounds is forbidden to marry a natural born Jewess. Hence, if a priest is intimate with his wife after suffering such wounds, she becomes a zonah and a chalalah and hence, is forbidden to partake of terumah.
49.
Since they were not intimate, she has not become a chalalah and may partake ofterumah. The Kessef Mishneh states that this refers to an instance where the couple were married and then he suffered this wound. If, however, a priest suffers such a wound and then consecrates a woman, she may not partake of terumah. See the notes to the following halachah.
50.
Ordinarily, a priest cannot marry a convert or the descendant of a convert. In this instance, however, because of his injury, the full measure of the holiness of the priesthood does not rest upon him and he may marry such a woman (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 16:1). Once he marries such a woman, she is entitled to partake of terumah, because she is the wife of a priest.
51.
Since this woman is prepared to engage in intimate relations that are forbidden to her, our Sages prohibited her from partaking ofterumah even though she had not actually engaged in such relations. Moreover, she is no longer permitted to partake of terumah by virtue of her being a member of the priestly family, because she was consecrated, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 1.
52.
See Hilchot Ishut 2:14 for a more precise definition of the term used by the Rambam. As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 16:9, such a person is permitted to marry a native-born Jewess. Hence, there is no difficulty with the wife of a priest with such a condition partaking of terumah.
53.
For in this context, there is no difference between them and the servants of an ordinary priest.
54.
For there is an unresolved doubt if their marriages are acceptable. Needless to say, if a tumtum undergoes an operation and it is determined that he is a male, his wife may partake of terumah even if he consecrated her before the operation.
55.
These individuals are considered as not being responsible for their actions and their acquisitions are not valid. Hence, the servants they purchase by themselves are not their property according to Scriptural Law and may not partake of terumah.
56.
Because the acquisitions are binding and they have become the property of a priest.
57.
The literal translation of the Rambam's words would be "as a male would be the object of intimacy."
58.
For such relations would cause a woman to be considered as a chalalah. Since there is an unresolved question regarding the gender of an androgynus, we are stringent and consider the possibility that he is a female. And a female is disqualified fromterumah if she engages in intimacy that would render her a chalalah regardless of whether it is vaginal or anal intercourse (Radbaz).
59.
For their right to partake of terumah is dependent on that of their owner.
60.
For such relations would render a woman achalahah and, because of the unresolved question regarding the status of theandrogynus, we apply that stringency to him as well.
61.
The literal translation of the Rambam's words would be "as a male would be the object of intimacy."
62.
A male priest does not become a chalalbecause he entered into a forbidden sexual relationship.
The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishnehquestion the Rambam's ruling, noting that, seemingly, the person should be disqualified from partaking of terumah based on the same rationale as the first clause of the halachah: i.e., that the androgynus also has a feminine dimension and that feminine dimension will be disqualified through anal intercourse. Hence, they ask: Why does the Rambam only view this relationship as intimacy between males and hence, not able to disqualify the androgynus? Why not see it as a relation between a male and a female? Among the explanations given is that since both of the androgynies are engaging in relations as males, it is not appropriate to deem one a male and one a female.
63.
The Jerusalem Talmud (the conclusion of tractate Terumot) states that for a servant to partake of terumah, he must belong to priests entirely. If an Israelite has even a one-hundredth share in the ownership of the servant, he may not partake of terumah.
64.
Which may be eaten by all the members of the priest's household.
65.
When a woman marries, her husband receives the right to benefit from her property. As explained in Hilchot Ishut, ch. 16, there are two arrangements under which a husband is allowed to benefit from his wife's property:
nichsei milog - in this instance, in the event of divorce or the husband's death, the property reverts to the ownership of the woman according to its value at that time, regardless of the profit or loss she suffers;
nichsei tzon barzel - in this instance, the property is evaluated at the time of marriage; in the event of divorce or the husband's death, the woman receives that amount, regardless of the worth of the property at that time.
Servants can be classified in either of these categories. In both instances, they have the right to partake of terumah. With regard to servants who are nichsei tzon barzel, they are the husband's (the priest's) acquisitions, for it is as if he acquired them when he accepted financial responsibility for their worth. With regard to those who are nichsei milog, they are "the acquisition of his acquisition," i.e., property belonging to his wife whom he has acquired. See Halachah 20.
66.
I.e., servants acquired by servants who were acquired by the priest. The inference is derived based on the fact that the verse contains to derivatives of the word koneh - "acquire."
67.
When the wife of a priest is not entitled to partake of terumah (see Halachot 20-22), her servants may also not partake ofterumah.
68.
The servants who are nichsei tzon barzelcertainly may not partake of terumah for they are now the property of an Israelite. Even the servants who are nichsei milogmay not partake of terumah, for at this time, their owner - the Israelite's wife - is disqualified from partaking of terumah.
69.
These three types of relationships are forbidden, the first two by Scriptural Law, the latter by Rabbinic Law. Thus the woman will become a chalalah and hence, forbidden to partake of terumah. Since she is forbidden to partake of terumah, her servants are likewise forbidden.
70.
I.e., a woman who is forbidden to him because of one of the prohibitions that apply to all Jews, even non-priests. Nevertheless, if he engages in relations with that woman, she becomes a zonah and thus prohibited against partaking of terumah. In this instance as well, since she is forbidden to partake of terumah, her servants are likewise forbidden.
71.
For they are the woman's poperty, it is just that they are "on loan" to her husband, as it were.
72.
A relatively distant female relative with whom our Sages prohibited marriage as a safeguard against the Scriptural prohibitions of incest. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6.
73.
For according to Scriptural Law, she is the priest's wife and relations with him do not disqualify her, neither as a zonah or achalalah.
74.
Seemingly, since such a woman has the right to partake of terumah, her servants should also be so entitled. The Radbaz explains that since her marriage is not sanctioned by Rabbinic Law, her husband is under no obligation to sustain her. Hence, her servants do not receive the right to partake of terumah. Those servants that arenichsei tzon barzel are permitted to partake of terumah according to all authorities, for they are her husband's acquisitions as explained above.
75.
I.e., were it not for the reason stated by the Rambam, they would be permitted to partake of terumah by virtue of their membership in the Priestly family.
76.
Entering the chupah means entering a private place with her husband. This is the act that constitutes the beginning of the second phase of the marriage relationship,nissuin.
77.
Even though a woman enters the chupahwithout consecration, that act causes her to be considered as designated for intimate relations that are forbidden.
78.
Through intimate relations with her husband.
79.
I.e., her husband, the priest, had several brothers, one of whom was born from a relationship forbidden to the priesthood, and thus had the status of a challal.
80.
Since she could be married by the challal, she is disqualified even though she is a member of the priestly family.
81.
A maamar is a Rabbinic institution in which ayevam declares his intention to marry his brother's childless widow by consecrating her through giving her money (Hilchot Yibbum 2:1).
82.
If another brother would perform yibbum with the widow, he would become her husband despite the maamar given by his brother. Thus the connection to the yevam who is achallal is still intact.
83.
I.e., instead of performing chalitzah which would absolve the connection between him and his yevamah, he gave her a bill of divorce. According to Scriptural Law, the bill of divorce is not effective at all. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it disqualifies the woman from carrying outyibbum with any of the brothers (Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 5:1).
84.
For according to Scriptural Law, their connection is still intact.
85.
And thus became forbidden to a priest by Rabbinic decree.
86.
A relatively distant female relative with whom our Sages prohibited marriage as a safeguard against the Scriptural prohibitions of incest. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6.
87.
Because she is a member of the priestly family. In contrast to the women mentioned in Halachah 21, these women are designated for relations that are forbidden only by Rabbinic decree. Hence, they are not disqualified.
Were the yevamah to be the daughter of an Israelite, she would not be permitted to partake of terumah despite the fact that she is bound to a priest through the obligation ofyibbum (Radbaz).
88.
A women whose female sexual characteristics are underdeveloped.
89.
Although the priest may divorce her because she cannot have children, until he does so, he may be intimate with her. Hence, she is entitled to partake of terumah.
Terumot - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
A fetus, a yavam, consecration, a deaf-mute, and a child of nine years old disqualify [a woman] from partaking of terumah, but do not entitle her to partake [of it].1
Halacha 2
What is meant [by the above statement] with regard to a fetus? A daughter of an Israelite who was impregnated by a priest2 is not entitled to partake ofterumah by virtue of the fetus.3 When the daughter of a priest, by contrast, was impregnated by an Israelite,4 she is prohibited against partaking ofterumah because of the fetus. [This is derived from Leviticus 22:13:] "And she shall return to her father's home as in her maidenhood." This excludes a pregnant woman.5
Halacha 3
When an Israelite has relations with a daughter of a priest,6 we do not suspect that she became pregnant. Instead, she may immerse herself [in the mikveh]7and partake [of terumah] in the evening. If she was married to an Israelite and her husband died, she may immerse herself and partake of terumah in the evening [and continue doing so] for 40 days.8 If her fetus is recognized [afterwards], retroactively, her [actions] are objectionable9 from the fortieth day onward. For, throughout the forty days, the embryo is not considered as a fetus, merely as water.
Halacha 4
When a daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest and he died, leaving her pregnant,10 her servants11 should not partake of terumah because of the fetus. For only a child that was born entitles others to partake [of terumah]. One which is not born does not entitle others to partake [of terumah]. Therefore if the fetus was a challal [and the woman had other acceptable children, the fetus] does not disqualify the servants from partaking ofterumah.12 Instead, they may partake of it by virtue of his brothers who are acceptable priests until this challal is born, at which point, the servants become forbidden to partake [of terumah].13
Halacha 5
What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a yavam? When a daughter of an Israelite is under the obligation to perform yibbum with a priest,14she may not partake of terumah, for [ibid.:11] states: "When a priest will purchase a soul" and this [yavam] has not acquired [the woman] yet.15
When the daughter of a priest is under the obligation to perform yibbum with an Israelite, she is forbidden [to partake of terumah]16 because of her yavam, as [implied by the verse:] "And she shall return to her father's home as in her maidenhood." This excludes a woman under obligation to perform yibbum.17
Halacha 6
When a yavam who is a priest engages in relations with his yevamah by force or without intent or he merely uncovers her and does not complete the act of intercourse,18 he acquires [his yevamah], as stated in Hilchot Yibbum.19Nevertheless, he does not entitle her to partake of terumah until he completes the act of intercourse with her consent.
Halacha 7
What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a consecration? When a daughter of a priest is consecrated by an Israelite, she is forbidden to partake [of terumah], for he has already acquired her. When the daughter of an Israelite has been consecrated by a priest, she may not partake [of terumah] until she enters the chupah, lest she give terumah to the members of her father's household, as we explained.22
Halacha 8
When an Israelite tells the daughter of a priest: "Behold, you are consecrated to me after 30 days," she may partake [of terumah] for these 30 days,23 for the consecration has not taken effect yet.24 If, however, he told her: "You are consecrated to me from the present and after 30 days,"25 she is forbidden to partake [of terumah] immediately.26 Similar laws apply with regard to other conditional agreements of this type.27
Halacha 9
What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a deaf-mute? When a daughter of a priest is married to an Israelite who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah], since he acquires her by virtue of the ordinance of our Sages who instituted marriage for him.28 When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah], because he does not acquire [her] according to Scriptural Law,29 because he is not of [adequate] intellectual capacity.
Halacha 10
[When a woman] was consecrated by a priest of ordinary mental capacity, but he did not marry her until he became a deaf-mute, she may not partake [ofterumah].30 [In the above situation, if after consecrating a woman, a priest] died and she fell before a yavam who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [ofterumah].31 If, however, he married her when he was of ordinary mental capacity and then became a deaf-mute, she may [continue] to partake [ofterumah].32 If he died and she fell before a yavam who is a deaf-mute and he performs yibbum with her, she may [also continue to] partake [of terumah]. [The rationale for the leniency is] that she was partaking of terumahbeforehand.33
When the wife of [a priest who is] a deaf-mute bears him a child, she may partake [of terumah] by virtue of her child.
Halacha 11
What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a child of nine years old?34 [When a daughter of a priest] engaged in relations with a child of nine years old who is forbidden to her, since sexual relations in which he engages are significant,35 she is disqualified from the priesthood and forbidden to partake of terumah, because she becomes a zonah or a chalalah, as we explained.36 [This applies] even if [the child] is sexually impotent.37
When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest who is nine years old, even though the relations in which he engages are significant, she is not entitled to partake of terumah because of [this] child, because he cannot acquire her [as his wife] until he reaches majority.38
Halacha 12
All of the relationships [mentioned above] that do not entitle a woman to partake of terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law also do not entitle her to partake of terumah prescribed by Rabbinic Law. [This is] a decree lest they have them partake of terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law.
Halacha 13
The [following] individuals neither disqualify [the daughter of a priest from partaking of terumah]43 or enable [the daughter of an Israelite] to partake of it:44a rapist, a seducer,45 or a mentally or emotionally unstable person.46 [This applies] provided she is not forbidden to them, in which instance, they disqualify her through relations, because she becomes a zonah or a chalalah, as we explained.47
Halacha 14
When a woman married a priest who was intellectually or emotionally unstable or a priest raped her or seduced her and she bore him a child, she may partake of terumah because of her son.48 There is a doubt concerning the matter, for since she was not consecrated to him, it is possible that she was impregnated by another person. Nevertheless, we operate under the presumption that the child was conceived by [the priest] who engaged in relations with her. [This applies] provided rumors did not circulate concerning her with another person. Instead, everyone gossips about her and this priest.
Similar concepts apply when an Israelite who is intellectually or emotionally unstable engages in relations with the daughter of a priest or [an Israelite] raped or seduced her and she became pregnant. She may not partake ofterumah because of the fetus. If the fetus is is aborted, she may partake [ofterumah].49
Halacha 15
When witnesses concerning a [sotah] warning and witnesses concerning [asotah] meeting testify against a woman50 married [to a priest], she is forbidden to partake of terumah until she drinks the bitter water, because there is a question whether she is a zonah. If her husband dies before she drinks the water or she is one of the women who are absolved from drinking51 and do not receive the money due them by virtue of their ketubah, she is forbidden to partake of terumah forever.52 Whenever the wife of a priest says: "I have been unfaithful," she is forbidden to partake of terumah.53
Halacha 16
When a daughter of an Israelite who has not attained majority marries a priest without her father's consent, whether in his presence or in his absence, she may not partake of terumah even though her father consecrated her.54 [The rationale is that] her father might object and then she would retroactively be unfit [to partake of terumah]. [The reason] he remains silent even though he sees is because he is angry because she married without his consent.55
FOOTNOTES
1.
This statement is explained in the halachot that follow.
2.
Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.
3.
I.e., as soon as the baby is born, the mother is entitled to eat by virtue of her child. Until it is born, however, the restrictions apply.
4.
Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.
5.
Rashi (Yevamot 67b) explains that a pregnant woman is excluded, because she does not resemble a maiden.
6.
Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.
7.
To purify herself from the impurity she contracted because of the relations in which she engaged (see Leviticus 15:18). Note, however, Chapter 7, Halachah 7, and notes, from which it is apparent that there are times when a woman will have to wait longer.
8.
For even if she became pregnant, the pregnancy is not significant as the Rambam continues to explain. Hence, after 40 days passed, she should refrain from partaking ofterumah until it is clear that she is not pregnant.
9.
She is required to make restoration of theterumah and add a fifth of its value as atonement.
10.
Without any other children.
11.
She herself may also not partake ofterumah, as stated in Halachah 2. This halachah is speaking about her servants that are nichsei tzon barzel and thus belong to the heirs of her husband's estate. Until the fetus is born, it is not a significant entity and the servants that belong to it do not have the right to partake of terumah because of it.
12.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and maintains that the right of the fetus to the servants is significant even before the fetus is born. Hence, he disqualifies them from partaking of terumah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer interpretations of the relevant Talmudic portions that substantiate the Rambam's ruling.
13.
Until the estate is divided and each brother receives his share.
14.
Regardless of the age of the prospectiveyavam.
15.
Although she was married to the brother of the yavam, the yavam does not acquire her until he performs yibbum. The Radbaz emphasizes that this ruling applies even if the yavam gave her a ma'amar, designating her as his wife.
16.
Which, were she not obligated to her yavam, she could partake of by virtue of her membership in the priestly family.
17.
Rashi (loc. cit. 67b) explains that such a woman is excluded, because she may not return to her father's home.
18.
As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:10, the term "uncover" is of Biblical origin (Leviticus 20:18) and refers to the insertion of the corona alone in the woman's vaginal channel. "Completing relations" refers to the insertion of the entire male organ.
19.
Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 2:3.
20.
And thus was not yet entitled to partake ofterumah by virtue of her initial marriage.
21.
I.e., during her first marriage.
22.
Chapter 6, Halachah 3, explains that the Sages forbade such a woman from partaking of terumah for this reason. According to Scriptural Law, she is entitled to partake of it.
23.
By virtue of her ancestral right.
24.
When a woman's husband words his statement in that manner, the consecration does not take effect until the 30 days pass (Hilchot Ishut 7:10).
25.
In which instance, the wording he uses is confusing and there is a doubt whether the consecration takes effect immediately or only after 30 days (ibid.:12).
26.
Because of the doubt regarding her status.
27.
I.e., if the man consecrated the woman conditionally, but stated that when the condition is fulfilled, the consecration would take effect from the present time (see ibid.: 6:16).
28.
According to Scriptural Law, a deaf-mute does not have the capacity to consecrate a woman as his wife. Our Sages, however, desired that these individuals be given a chance to enjoy the basics of family life (seeHilchot Ishut 4:9, 11:4).
29.
And the acquisition ordained by our Sages does not have the power to supercede Scriptural Law.
30.
For her consecration did not entitle her to partake of terumah and her marriage to a deaf-mute (through yibbum) does not give her this right either.
31.
In this instance, the yibbum performed by the deaf-mute creates a marriage-bond that is effective according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, the relations with which he engages with her resemble the inadvertent relations mentioned in Halachah 6 and hence do not entitle the woman to partake ofterumah.
32.
For she is married according to Scriptural Law.
33.
And the relations with the yavam restore her to her previous status.
34.
The Rambam speaks about a boy "nine years and one day old." Nevertheless, the intent is that he has completed nine years of life and entered his tenth year. Even a portion of a day is considered as an entire day. Thus as soon as a child reaches his ninth birthday, he is nine years and one day old. Hence, for the purpose of brevity, we have translated as above.
35.
Although such a child is a minor and not entirely sexually potent, at this age, he is somewhat physically mature. Hence, relations in which he engage are significant to a certain extent. See Hilchot Ishut 11:3;Hilchot Yibbum 1:16; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah1:13.
36.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 7.
37.
I.e., and he inserted his organ in hers without an erection. The Radbaz explains that this is the fundamental new concept taught by this halachah. Otherwise, it would be obvious that since relations with this child are significant and they are forbidden to this woman, they disqualify her from partaking ofterumah.
38.
For a male cannot acquire a wife until he reaches majority. Such a marriage is not significant even according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Ishut 11:6-7).
39.
In which instance, she would be forbidden to partake of terumah.
40.
In which instance, she would be permitted.
41.
Because of the doubt.
42.
For a child does not reach maturity - and hence, a marriage that he enters is not significant - until he manifests bodily signs, two pubic hairs for a male, that he has reached maturity. Attaining the age of maturity is itself not sufficient (Hilchot Ishut2:10-11).
Seemingly, this clause is also speaking about an instance where the daughter of a priest is marrying a youth who disqualifies her and the question is whether he is of sufficient physical maturity for the marriage to be significant. In that instance, however, it would be proper to speak of consecration, not marriage. For this reason, Rav Yosef Korcus defines this clause as referring to a daughter of an Israelite who is marrying a priest and the question is whether the marriage entitles her to partake of terumahor not.
43.
If the individual involved is an Israelite fit to marry this woman.
44.
If the individual involved is a priest.
45.
I.e., one who seduced a girl under majority. In that instance, even though the relations were with consent, since the girl is a minor, they are considered to have been carried out against her will.
46.
In the first two instances, since the relations were carried out outside the context of marriage, they are not significant with regard to terumah. In the latter instance, since the marriage of an intellectual or emotionally unstable person is of no significance whatsoever (Hilchot Ishut 11:6), the relations are considered as taking place outside the context of marriage.
47.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 7. In such an instance, the woman is disqualified even if the relations were carried out under duress.
48.
Since he is a priest, he entitles his mother to partake of terumah. See Chapter 6, Halachah 12.
49.
I.e., she resumes her previous status.
50.
A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery who is subjected to a test of her fidelity by drinking special water, the "bitter water" mentioned by the Rambam, prepared in the Temple. For a woman to be required to take this test, two witnesses must testify that she was warned by her husband not to enter into privacy with a particular man and two witnesses must testify that she in fact entered into privacy with the said person (Hilchot Sotah 1:1).
51.
See Hilchot Sotah 2:2 which mentions fifteen women that are placed in this category.
52.
For the sotah test is necessary to very whether or not she was faithful to her husband and that test is not administered unless the husband is alive (ibid. 2:7).
53.
This is not speaking about a sotah, but rather an ordinary woman married to a priest.
Hilchot Ishut 24:23 states that, in this situation, we do not accept the woman's word and we require her to remain married to her husband, for we suspect that she was not unfaithful and made this statement only so that she would be divorced and free to marry someone else. Nevertheless, her word is accepted with regard to terumah and her husband must provide her with other food.
54.
Until a girl attains majority, she cannot marry without her father's consent. Thus it is as if the marriage is conditional until he consents and if he does not consent, it is nullified (Hilchot Ishut 3:13, 22:5). Hence, we do no allow her to partake of terumah, for if the marriage is nullified, she would have no right to partake of terumah.
55.
And does not desire to speak his mind until he calms down.
Terumot - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
A woman may partake of terumah until her bill of divorce reaches her hand or the hand of her agent whom she appointed to receive it.1
Whenever there is a doubt whether or not a woman was divorced, she may not partake of terumah.2 When a woman appoints an agent to receive her bill of divorce, she is forbidden to partake of terumah immediately.3 If she said: "Receive the bill of divorce for me in this-and-this place," she is not forbidden [to partake of terumah] until the agent reaches that place.4
Halacha 2
[The inhabitants of] a city under siege, [the voyagers on] a ship in danger of sinking at sea, and a suspect to be judged [for a crime worthy of capital punishment] are presumed to be alive.8 Needless to say, this applies to one who goes on a caravan journey.9
[In the following instances,] however: a city was captured by besieging forces, a ship was lost at sea, or a person was going out to be executed by a gentile court,10 a person dragged by a wild beast, one upon whom a landslide fell, or one carried away by a river, we regard the individuals with the stringencies appropriate to both the living and the dead.11 Therefore if among the women were the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite12 or the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest,13 they may not partake [of terumah].
Halacha 3
If a woman left her husband while he was in his death throes in another country, she may not partake of terumah, whether she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite or the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest. [The rationale is that] most people in their death throes die.16
If one witness testifies that [a woman's husband] has died and one testifies that he has not died, she may not partake [of terumah].17
Halacha 4
[When a man is married to two wives and] one of the wives tells the other that their husband died, since [the other wife] cannot marry by virtue of this testimony,18 she may continue to partake of terumah19 on the presumption that her husband is alive until a person upon whose testimony is sufficient to enable her to marry testifies concerning her. [The same ruling applies] if such testimony is given by any of the five women whose testimony is not accepted if they say that her husband died.20
Halacha 5
When [a priest] frees his servant, from the time he transfers21 his bill of emancipation22 to him, he disqualifies him from partaking of terumah. Whenever a servant is given his freedom, but his bill of emancipation is withheld as will be explained in Hilchot Avadim,23 he is, nonetheless, forbidden to partake of terumah.
Halacha 6
There is a doubt [whether the transfer of the ownership of a servant is effective in the following situation]. A person composed a legal document transferring his property - which included servants - to another person. He [did not give the document to that person directly, but instead] gave it to another person on his behalf.24 The recipient [of the present] remained silent and afterwards, protested. There is a doubt whether his protests reflected his initial disposition25 and thus [the servants] have never left the initial domain or whether his protest after his initial silence is [interpreted as] a renunciation of his initial position.26 Therefore, [the servants] may not partake of terumah. [This applies] whether the second master27 was an Israelite and the first master, a priest or the first master was an Israelite and the second, a priest.28
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
When an Israelite receives a cow from a priest for the sake of fattening it and has it evaluated so that its increase in value will be split,31 he may not feed itterumah even though the priest has a share in its increase in value. If, by contrast, a priest receives a cow from an Israelite for the sake of fattening it and has it evaluated, he may feed it terumah. [The rationale is that] although the Israelite has a share in its increase in value, its body belongs to the priest, because he has [accepted responsibility] for its value.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
It appears to me35 that if a priest sold his cow to an Israelite and took payment, he can no longer feed it terumah even though the purchaser has not drawn it into his domain as of yet. [The rationale is that] according to Scriptural Law, the transfer of money completes a transaction, as will be explained inHilchot Mekach UMemcar.36 [Conversely,] if an Israelite sold a cow to a priest, he should not feed it terumah until he draws it into his domain37 even though he already made payment.
FOOTNOTES
1.
This latter point requires qualification as the Rambam proceeds to state.
2.
For a Scriptural prohibition is involved and we follow the general principle: Whenever there is a question regarding a point of Scriptural Law, we rule stringently. Hence, even though her husband is liable to provide her with her sustenance in such a situation (Hilchot Ishut 5:13), he may not give herterumah.
3.
This is a corollary to the point mentioned beforehand. Since a woman is forbidden to partake of terumah whenever there is a doubt that she was divorced, she is forbidden as soon as she appoints her agent, for at any time, he may receive her bill of divorce. Even though the matter is not entirely in the agent's hands, for the bill of divorce must be given on the husband's initiative, we follow the presumption that the agent will fulfill the mission with which he is charged (Radbaz).
4.
For the bill of divorce is not effective if given elsewhere (Hilchot Gerushin 9:34).
5.
For in this instance, the agent is acting in place of the husband and the divorce is not completed until he gives the woman the bill of divorce (ibid. 6:5).
6.
Such an arrangement was often made when a couple were childless so that if the husband died the woman would be free of the obligation of yibbum.
7.
For we fear that he might die at any moment. Hence, from the previous hour onward, she would have partaken of terumah without having the right to do so.
8.
And if they are priests, their wives may continue partaking of terumah.
9.
We are speaking about a caravan journey through the desert. Although there is a certain amount of danger to the travelers, we operate under the presumption that they are alive until we receive information otherwise.
10.
The officers of a gentile court are likely to accept bribes. Hence, the fact that one was sentenced to death is not necessarily proof that he died.
11.
In these situations, there is a high likelihood - but no definite proof that the person died. Hence, his wife must assume that he is dead and accept all the stringencies that state would apply. At the same time, she cannot act on the assumption that he is dead and remarry. The Rambam continues explaining the implications of this status vis-à-vis terumah.
12.
She must presume her husband is alive and may not partake of terumah for that reason.
13.
She must presume her husband is dead and may not partake of terumah for that reason.
14.
A person sentenced to be executed may be given a reprieve from execution if a redeeming factor is found for him (Hilchot Sanhedrin 13:1). Nevertheless, once he has already been brought to the place of execution, it is very unlikely that this will happen (Kessef Mishneh).
15.
I.e., if she is the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest. If she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, she may partake of terumah.
16.
Hence, the daughter of the Israelite may not partake of terumah. On the other hand, not all die. Hence, since a daughter of the priest married to an Israelite was not partaking ofterumah beforehand, this is not considered sufficient reason to allow her to do so (Radbaz).
17.
Although a woman is not given permission to remarry in such an instance (Hilchot Gerushin 12:18), she is still not permitted to partake of terumah.
18.
Hilchot Gerushin 12:16 states that, if no one contradicts the testimony, whenever a witness testifies that a woman's husband died, his or her word is accepted with the exception of five women: another wife of that man, a woman who is her husband'syevamah, the woman's mother-in-law, her mother-in-law's daughter, and her husband's daughter from another wife. In all these instances, we fear that there is enmity between these women and the man's wife and they will testify falsely so that she will marry another man and hence, be forced to accept a divorce from her husband.
19.
The Ra'avad does not accept the Rambam's ruling and maintains that even though the woman is not allowed to remarry, she should not be allowed to partake of terumah. For perhaps these women are telling the truth. The Radbaz supports the Rambam's ruling.
20.
Hilchot Gerushin 12:16 states that, if no one contradicts the testimony, whenever a witness testifies that a woman's husband died, his or her word is accepted with the exception of five women: another wife of that man, a woman who is her husband'syevamah, the woman's mother-in-law, her mother-in-law's daughter, and her husband's daughter from another wife. In all these instances, we fear that there is enmity between these women and the man's wife and they will testify falsely so that she will marry another man and hence, be forced to accept a divorce from her husband.
21.
The Rambam's wording allows for the interpretation that this ruling applies whether he gives the bill of emancipation to the servant or to another person on behalf of the servant (see Hilchot Avadim 6:1).
22.
The formal legal contract freeing him from slavery.
23.
As stated in Hilchot Avadim 5:4, et al, there are certain situations where a servant is deserving of his freedom. Nevertheless, he does not receive the status of a freed servant until he receives his bill of emancipation. Even so, he is forbidden to partake of terumah from the time he becomes worthy of freedom.
24.
In such a situation, we say that since generally, it is considered desirable to receive a gift, the intended recipient acquires the property unless he lodges an objection at the time he hears about the gift. SeeHilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:2.
25.
I.e., that he never desired to receive the present and thus it never left the domain of its initial owner (ibid.:3).
26.
And thus, he is considered to have acquired the property - and the servants - and then to have renounced ownership of it and them.
27.
The recipient of the present.
28.
For in either situation, there is a possibility that their present owner is an Israelite.
29.
Because the rental does not interrupt the priests's ownership. The Israelite must, however, transfer ownership of the terumahto the priest before feeding it to the animal.
30.
There are, however, contexts where rental is considered equivalent to purchase. SeeHilchot Sechirut 7:1.
31.
This was a popular arrangement in the Talmudic era. The owner of livestock would give it to a shepherd to fatten. The shepherd would have it evaluated and accept responsibility for its value although he did not actually pay the priest anything. Afterwards, when it has been fattened, the value which the shepherd accepted responsibility for is returned to the owner and the two share the profits equally. See Hilchot Shluchin VeShutafim 8:1-4 and Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 8:12 for more details concerning this arrangement.
32.
And thus the law mentioned in the first clause of Halachah 7 applies.
33.
A type of legume used as animal fodder.
34.
Even a priest may not feed his dovesterumah, for terumah may only be given to domesticated animals. Nevertheless, everyone, even Israelites, need not take precautions against an animal eating vetch that is terumah on its own initiative. The Radbaz explains that the rationale is that the obligation to separate terumah from vetch is merely Rabbinic in origin. Implied is that if the obligation was Scriptural in origin, one could not take such leniency. It must be noted, however, that not all authorities consider the obligation to separate terumah from vetch as Rabbinic.
35.
This introduction precedes a law which the Rambam derived through his own process of deduction without an explicit source in the previous Rabbinic literature.
36.
Hilchot Mechirah 3:1. There it is explained that the Rabbis required the purchaser to draw the article into his possession for the transaction to be completed.
37.
And thus completes the transaction.
• English Text | Video Class•
"Today's Day"
Adar II 15, 5776 · 03/25/2016
Monday Adar Sheini 15, Shushan Purim 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tzav, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 77-78.
Tanya: When the whole (p. 171)...were the Patriarchs. (p. 171).
My grandfather said that the Mitteler Rebbe wrote specific maamarim and a special book for every different kind of maskil and oveid1 in the Chassidic community. Shaar Hayichud and Shaarei Ora, however, are general, written for all chassidim. Shaar Hayichud is the key to the teachings of Chassidus; Shaarei Ora is the alef-beit of Chassidus.
FOOTNOTES
1.Maskil is the term used to denote one who devotes himself primarily to the intellectual aspects of Chassidus, while the oveid devotes himself primarily to the emotional and worship aspects. The oveid is a maskil and the maskil is an oveid, for the intellectual and emotional are both essential, and symbiotic. The distinction is merely in their primary emphasis.
•
Daily Thought:
Being Not That
Be simple.
In whatever you do,
in whatever form you take,
in whatever you decide you are,
. . . always remember you are not that.
No comments:
Post a Comment