Daily Quote:
One who learns Torah in order to teach, is given the opportunity to learn and teach. One who learns in order to do, is given the opportunity to learn, teach, observe and do.[Ethics of the Fathers 4:5]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayak'hel, 4th Portion Exodus 36:8-36:19 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 36
8Then all the wise hearted people of the performers of the work made the Mishkan out of ten curtains [consisting] of twisted fine linen, and blue, purple, and crimson wool. A cherubim design, the work of a master weaver he made them. חוַיַּֽעֲשׂ֨וּ כָל־חֲכַם־לֵ֜ב בְּעֹשֵׂ֧י הַמְּלָאכָ֛ה אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן עֶ֣שֶׂר יְרִיעֹ֑ת שֵׁ֣שׁ מָשְׁזָ֗ר וּתְכֵ֤לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן֙ וְתוֹלַ֣עַת שָׁנִ֔י כְּרֻבִ֛ים מַֽעֲשֵׂ֥ה חשֵׁ֖ב עָשָׂ֥ה אֹתָֽם:
9The length of one curtain [was] twenty eight cubits, and the width of one curtain [was] four cubits the same measure for all the curtains. טאֹ֜רֶךְ הַיְרִיעָ֣ה הָֽאַחַ֗ת שְׁמֹנֶ֤ה וְעֶשְׂרִים֙ בָּֽאַמָּ֔ה וְרֹ֨חַב֙ אַרְבַּ֣ע בָּֽאַמָּ֔ה הַיְרִיעָ֖ה הָֽאֶחָ֑ת מִדָּ֥ה אַחַ֖ת לְכָל־הַיְרִיעֹֽת:
10And he joined five of these curtains to one another, and [the other] five curtains he [also] joined to one another. יוַיְחַבֵּר֙ אֶת־חֲמֵ֣שׁ הַיְרִיעֹ֔ת אַחַ֖ת אֶל־אֶחָ֑ת וְחָמֵ֤שׁ יְרִיעֹת֙ חִבַּ֔ר אַחַ֖ת אֶל־אֶחָֽת:
11And he made loops of blue wool on the edge of one curtain [that is] at the edge of the [first] set, and he did the same on the edge of the outermost curtain of the second set. יאוַיַּ֜עַשׂ לֻֽלְאֹ֣ת תְּכֵ֗לֶת עַ֣ל שְׂפַ֤ת הַיְרִיעָה֙ הָֽאֶחָ֔ת מִקָּצָ֖ה בַּמַּחְבָּ֑רֶת כֵּ֤ן עָשָׂה֙ בִּשְׂפַ֣ת הַיְרִיעָ֔ה הַקִּ֣יצוֹנָ֔ה בַּמַּחְבֶּ֖רֶת הַשֵּׁנִֽית:
12He made fifty loops on [the edge of] one curtain, and he made fifty loops on the edge of the curtain in the second set; the loops corresponded to one another. יבחֲמִשִּׁ֣ים לֻֽלָאֹ֗ת עָשָׂה֘ בַּיְרִיעָ֣ה הָֽאֶחָת֒ וַֽחֲמִשִּׁ֣ים לֻֽלָאֹ֗ת עָשָׂה֙ בִּקְצֵ֣ה הַיְרִיעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר בַּמַּחְבֶּ֣רֶת הַשֵּׁנִ֑ית מַקְבִּילֹת֙ הַלֻּ֣לָאֹ֔ת אַחַ֖ת אֶל־אֶחָֽת:
13And he made fifty golden clasps, and he fastened the curtains to one another with the clasps; so the Mishkan became one. יגוַיַּ֕עַשׂ חֲמִשִּׁ֖ים קַרְסֵ֣י זָהָ֑ב וַיְחַבֵּ֨ר אֶת־הַיְרִיעֹ֜ת אַחַ֤ת אֶל־אַחַת֙ בַּקְּרָסִ֔ים וַיְהִ֥י הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן אֶחָֽד:
14And [then] he made curtains of goat hair for a tent over the Mishkan; he made them eleven curtains. ידוַיַּ֨עַשׂ֙ יְרִיעֹ֣ת עִזִּ֔ים לְאֹ֖הֶל עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֑ן עַשְׁתֵּֽי־עֶשְׂרֵ֥ה יְרִיעֹ֖ת עָשָׂ֥ה אֹתָֽם:
15The length of one curtain [was] thirty cubits, and the width of one curtain was four cubits; the same measure for the eleven curtains. טואֹ֜רֶךְ הַיְרִיעָ֣ה הָֽאַחַ֗ת שְׁלשִׁים֙ בָּֽאַמָּ֔ה וְאַרְבַּ֣ע אַמּ֔וֹת רֹ֖חַב הַיְרִיעָ֣ה הָֽאֶחָ֑ת מִדָּ֣ה אַחַ֔ת לְעַשְׁתֵּ֥י עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה יְרִיעֹֽת:
16And he joined the five curtains by themselves, and the [other] six curtains by themselves. טזוַיְחַבֵּ֛ר אֶת־חֲמֵ֥שׁ הַיְרִיעֹ֖ת לְבָ֑ד וְאֶת־שֵׁ֥שׁ הַיְרִיעֹ֖ת לְבָֽד:
17And he made fifty loops on the edge of the outermost curtain of the [first] set, and he made fifty loops on the edge of the [outermost] curtain of the second set. יזוַיַּ֜עַשׂ לֻֽלָאֹ֣ת חֲמִשִּׁ֗ים עַ֚ל שְׂפַ֣ת הַיְרִיעָ֔ה הַקִּֽיצֹנָ֖ה בַּמַּחְבָּ֑רֶת וַֽחֲמִשִּׁ֣ים לֻֽלָאֹ֗ת עָשָׂה֙ עַל־שְׂפַ֣ת הַיְרִיעָ֔ה הַֽחֹבֶ֖רֶת הַשֵּׁנִֽית:
18And he made fifty copper clasps to fasten the tent together so that it became one. יחוַיַּ֛עַשׂ קַרְסֵ֥י נְח֖שֶׁת חֲמִשִּׁ֑ים לְחַבֵּ֥ר אֶת־הָאֹ֖הֶל לִֽהְיֹ֥ת אֶחָֽד:
19And he made a covering for the tent, of ram skins dyed red and a covering of tachash skins above. יטוַיַּ֤עַשׂ מִכְסֶה֙ לָאֹ֔הֶל עֹרֹ֥ת אֵילִ֖ם מְאָדָּמִ֑ים וּמִכְסֵ֛ה עֹרֹ֥ת תְּחָשִׁ֖ים מִלְמָֽעְלָה:
---------------------
The psalmist continues the theme of the previous psalm, praising God for performing other miracles not mentioned previously, for "who can recount the mighty acts of God?" Were we to try, we could not mention them all!
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. Who can recount the mighty acts of the Lord, or proclaim all His praises?
3. Fortunate are those who preserve justice, who perform deeds of righteousness all the time.
4. Remember me, Lord, when You find favor with Your people; be mindful of me with Your deliverance;
5. to behold the prosperity of Your chosen, to rejoice in the joy of Your nation, to glory with Your inheritance.
6. We have sinned as did our fathers, we have acted perversely and wickedly.
7. Our fathers in Egypt did not contemplate Your wonders, they did not remember Your abundant kindnesses, and they rebelled by the sea, at the Sea of Reeds.
8. Yet He delivered them for the sake of His Name, to make His strength known.
9. He roared at the Sea of Reeds and it dried up; He led them through the depths, as through a desert.
10. He saved them from the hand of the enemy, and redeemed them from the hand of the foe.
11. The waters engulfed their adversaries; not one of them remained.
12. Then they believed in His words, they sang His praise.
13. They quickly forgot His deeds, they did not wait for His counsel;
14. and they lusted a craving in the desert, they tested God in the wilderness.
15. And He gave them their request, but sent emaciation into their souls.
16. They angered Moses in the camp, and Aaron, the Lord's holy one.
17. The earth opened and swallowed Dathan, and engulfed the company of Abiram;
18. and a fire burned in their assembly, a flame set the wicked ablaze.
19. They made a calf in Horeb, and bowed down to a molten image.
20. They exchanged their Glory for the likeness of a grass-eating ox.
21. They forgot God, their savior, Who had performed great deeds in Egypt,
22. wonders in the land of Ham, awesome things at the Sea of Reeds.
23. He said that He would destroy them-had not Moses His chosen one stood in the breach before Him, to turn away His wrath from destroying.
24. They despised the desirable land, they did not believe His word.
25. And they murmured in their tents, they did not heed the voice of the Lord.
26. So He raised His hand [in oath] against them, to cast them down in the wilderness,
27. to throw down their progeny among the nations, and to scatter them among the lands.
28. They joined themselves to [the idol] Baal Peor, and ate of the sacrifices to the dead;
29. they provoked Him with their doings, and a plague broke out in their midst.
30. Then Phineas arose and executed judgement, and the plague was stayed;
31. it was accounted for him as a righteous deed, through all generations, forever.
32. They angered Him at the waters of Merivah, and Moses suffered on their account;
33. for they defied His spirit, and He pronounced [an oath] with His lips.
34. They did not destroy the nations as the Lord had instructed them;
35. rather, they mingled with the nations and learned their deeds.
36. They worshipped their idols, and they became a snare for them.
37. They sacrificed their sons and daughters to demons.
38. They spilled innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land became guilty with blood.
39. They were defiled by their deeds, and went astray by their actions.
40. And the Lord's wrath blazed against His people, and He abhorred His inheritance;
41. so He delivered them into the hands of nations, and their enemies ruled them.
42. Their enemies oppressed them, and they were subdued under their hand.
43. Many times did He save them, yet they were rebellious in their counsel and were impoverished by their sins.
44. But He saw their distress, when He heard their prayer;
45. and He remembered for them His covenant and He relented, in keeping with His abounding kindness,
46. and He caused them to be treated mercifully by all their captors.
47. Deliver us, Lord our God; gather us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to Your Holy Name and glory in Your praise.
48. Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, forever and ever. And let all the people say, "Amen! Praise the Lord!"
Chapter 107
This psalm speaks of those who are saved from four specific perilous situations(imprisonment, sickness, desert travel, and sea travel) and must thank God, for their sins caused their troubles, and only by the kindness of God were they saved. It is therefore appropriate that they praise God and tell of their salvation to all.
1. Give thanks to the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. So shall say those redeemed by the Lord, those whom He redeemed from the hand of the oppressor.
3. He gathered them from the lands-from east and from west, from north and from the sea.
4. They lost their way in the wilderness, in the wasteland; they found no inhabited city.
5. Both hungry and thirsty, their soul languished within them.
6. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He delivered them from their afflictions.
7. He guided them in the right path to reach an inhabited city.
8. Let them give thanks to the Lord, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man,
9. for He has satiated a thirsting soul, and filled a hungry soul with goodness.
10. Those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, bound in misery and chains of iron,
11. for they defied the words of God and spurned the counsel of the Most High-
12. He humbled their heart through suffering; they stumbled and there was none to help.
13. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He saved them from their afflictions.
14. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and sundered their bonds.
15. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man,
16. for He broke the brass gates and smashed the iron bars.
17. Foolish sinners are afflicted because of their sinful ways and their wrongdoings.
18. Their soul loathes all food, and they reach the gates of death.
19. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He saved them from their afflictions.
20. He sent forth His command and healed them; He delivered them from their graves.
21. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man.
22. Let them offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, and joyfully recount His deeds.
23. Those who go down to the sea in ships, who perform tasks in mighty waters;
24. they saw the works of the Lord and His wonders in the deep.
25. He spoke and caused the stormy wind to rise, and it lifted up the waves.
26. They rise to the sky, plunge to the depths; their soul melts in distress.
27. They reel and stagger like a drunkard, all their skill is to no avail.
28. They cried out to the Lord in their distress, and He brought them out from their calamity.
29. He transformed the storm into stillness, and the waves were quieted.
30. They rejoiced when they were silenced, and He led them to their destination.
31. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man.
32. Let them exalt Him in the congregation of the people, and praise Him in the assembly of the elders.
33. He turns rivers into desert, springs of water into parched land,
34. a fruitful land into a salt-marsh, because of the wickedness of those who inhabit it.
35. He turns a desert into a lake, and parched land into springs of water.
36. He settles the hungry there, and they establish a city of habitation.
37. They sow fields and plant vineyards which yield fruit and wheat.
38. He blesses them and they multiply greatly, and He does not decrease their cattle.
39. [If they sin,] they are diminished and cast down through oppression, misery, and sorrow.
40. He pours contempt upon distinguished men, and causes them to stray in a pathless wilderness.
41. He raises the needy from distress, and makes their families [as numerous] as flocks.
42. The upright observe this and rejoice, and all the wicked close their mouth.
43. Let him who is wise bear these in mind, and then the benevolent acts of the Lord will be understood.
• Wednesday, Adar I 22, 5776 · March 2, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, Chapter 31
In ch. 29 the Alter Rebbe began to deal with the problem of timtum halev, insensitivity of the heart. He quoted the statement of the Zohar that a body impervious to the light of the soul needs to be crushed. By crushing one’s spirit, one crushes the sitra achra of his animal soul, whose arrogance is the cause of timtum halev.
In chs. 29-30, the Alter Rebbe described various means of arriving at a feeling of contrition (lit., “brokenheartedness”); e.g., reflecting on one’s spiritual failings in not waging an adequately strenuous battle against his evil impulse, and realizing that one’s failure in this area places him on a level lower than that of the lowliest of his fellow Jews (as explained at length in ch. 30).
But while these methods may effectively dispel timtum halev, they would seem to have an undesirable side-effect — depression. Ch. 31 deals with this problem.
והנה אף אם כשיאריך הרבה להעמיק בעניינים הנ״ל כשעה ושתים להיות בנמיכת רוח ולב נשבר, יבא לידי עצבות גדולה, לא יחוש
Even if dwelling long and deeply into the above-mentioned matters for an hour or two, to be lowly of spirit and contrite of heart, leads one to profound depression, let him not be perturbed.
ואף שעצבות היא מצד קליפת נוגה ולא מצד הקדושה
True, atzvut (depression) derives from the realm of kelipat nogah, not of holiness.
כי בצד הקדושה כתיב: עוז וחדוה במקומו, ואין השכינה שורה אלא מתוך שמחה, וכן לדבר הלכה וכו׳
For concerning the realm of holiness it is written:1 “Strength and gladness are in His place”; andlikewise, 2 “The Divine Presence abides... only in [man’s] joy,... and the same joy is required for the study of the Halachah.”
אלא שאם העצבות היא ממילי דשמיא היא מבחינת טוב שבנוגה
Any depression, then, comes from the realm of kelipat nogah, except that if the depression is due to spiritual matters arising from one’s realization of his spiritual failings, it stems from the good contained in kelipat nogah; for, as mentioned in ch. 1, kelipat nogah contains both good and evil — the evil innogah is the source of ordinary depression, and the positive element in nogah gives rise to spiritually motivated depression. Yet, even the element of good contained in nogah is, after all, kelipah.
ולכן כתב האר״י ז״ל שאפילו דאגת העונות אינה ראויה כי אם בשעת הוידוי
( 3For this reason the AriZal writes that even worry over one’s sins is appropriate only during confession,
ולא בשעת התפלה ותלמוד תורה, שצריכים להיות בשמחה שמצד הקדושה דווקא
but not during prayer and Torah study. These must be conducted with a joy deriving exclusively from the realm of holiness, as opposed to frivolity and the like.)
Why then should one strive to crush the spirit of sitra achra with methods that lead to depression, which itself stems from the sitra achra of nogah
אף על פי כן, הרי כך היא המדה, לאכפיא לסטרא אחרא במינה ודוגמתה
Yet, this is precisely the method of humbling the sitra achra — through something of its own species and kind; i.e., the sitra achra is most effectively attacked by utilizing the good contained within it as a weapon against itself.
כמאמר רז״ל: מיניה וביה אבא לשדיה ביה נרגא, ופגע בו כיוצא בו
As our Sages expressed it: 4 “From the forest itself comes [the handle for] the ax [which fells the forest]”; and in a similar vein, 5 “He encountered one of his own kind.”
ועל זה נאמר: בכל עצב יהיה מותר, והיתרון היא השמחה הבאה אחרי העצב, כדלקמן
Of this sadness resulting from contemplation of one’s spiritual state it is written, 6 “In every sadness there will be profit.” The profit lies in the joy which follows the sadness, as will be explained later — i.e., in what way the sadness itself leads to joy.
אך באמת אין לב נשבר ומרירות הנפש על ריחוקה מאור פני ה׳ והתלבשותה בסטרא אחרא נקראים בשם עצבות כלל בלשון הקודש
In truth, however, the state of being contrite of heart and bitter of soul i.e., remorseful over one’s remoteness from G‑d, and over the fact that one’s soul is clothed in the sitra achra, — this state can by no means be described in the Holy Tongue (Hebrew) by the term “atzvut”.
The word atzvut, meaning “melancholy”, stems from a root which means “constricted”. In this context, it refers to a numbing depression that constricts one’s heart, blocking out all feeling, as the Alter Rebbe continues:
כי עצבות היא שלבו מטומטם כאבן ואין חיות בלבו
For “atzvut” means that one’s heart is as dull as a stone, and that there is no vitality — arousal of feeling — in his heart.
אבל מרירות ולב נשבר, אדרבה, הרי יש חיות בלבו להתפעל ולהתמרמר
But “bitterness” (merirut) and contrition are just the opposite, since the very fact that one is moved to be embittered is itself a sign of life,
רק שהיא חיות מבחינת גבורות קדושות, והשמחה מבחינת חסדים,כי הלב כלול משתיהן,
except that this vitality derives from the holy attributes of severity (gevurot) and it therefore expresses itself as bitterness, whereas joy derives from the holy attributes of kindness (chasadim), for the heart contains both these attributes — kindness and severity.
At any rate, we see that the dejection accompanying one’s disappointment with his spiritual situation stems from the realm of holiness, unlike atzvut, which derives from kelipat nogah. 7
והנה לעתים צריך לעורר בחינת גבורות הקדושות כדי להמתיק הדינים,שהם בחינת נפש הבהמית ויצר הרע כששולט חס ושלום על האדם,
At times one must arouse the holy attributes of severity (gevurot) in order to temper (lit., “sweeten”) stern judgements, which in this context denote the animal soul and the evil inclination, whenever it (the latter)dominates a man, G‑d forbid,
כי אין הדינים נמתקין אלא בשרשן
for stern judgements i.e., restraints on one’s spiritual wellbeing can only be “sweetened” by means of their source.
All evil is simply a degenerate form of the attribute of severity (gevurot) that derives from the realm of holiness. Myriad “contractions” (tzimtzumim) and descents of this attribute transform it to evil, the evil of kelipah. Naturally, this includes also the sitra achra of one’s animal soul and his evil impulse. In order to elevate or “sweeten” evil, to return evil to the realm of holiness, it is necessary to bring its source to bear on it. In terms of one’s divine service, this means crushing one’s evil impulse by merirut, bitter remorse, which derives its vitality from the holy attribute of severity — the source of the evil impulse.
ולכן אמרו רז״ל: לעולם ירגיז אדם יצר הטוב
For this reason our Sages said: 8 “One should always incite the good inclination to anger [against the evil inclination].”
Since anger stems from the attribute of severity, it is capable of “sweetening” the evil inclination.
והיינו בכל עת שרואה בנפשו שצריך לכך
The word “always” (“one should always incite...”) is, however, to be understood in a qualified sense. Joy, not severity, is usually the proper setting for divine service. Thus, when our Sages state that one should always incite the good inclination, this means — whenever he finds it necessary for himself; as, for example, when one sees that the arrogance of his animal soul does not permit the light of his divine soul to penetrate his heart, causing timtum halev.
אך שעת הכושר שהיא שעה המיוחדת וראויה לכך לרוב בני אדם
However, the appropriate time for this “anger” of the divine soul at the animal soul, meaning, the time which is opportune and fitting for most people,
היא בשעה שהוא עצב בלאו הכי ממילי דעלמא, או כך בלי שום סבה
is when one is in any case depressed over mundane matters, or just so, without any discernible cause. 9
אזי היא שעת הכושר להפך העצב, להיות ממרי דחושבנא הנ״ל
This is an opportune time for redirecting the depression toward spiritual matters, to be among the “masters of accounts” mentioned above, i.e., to engage in soul-searching and spiritual stocktaking,
ולקיים מאמר רז״ל: לעולם ירגיז וכו׳ כנ״ל
and to fulfill the previously mentioned teaching of our Sages, that one should always incite his good inclination against his evil inclination, since both of these paths harness the attribute of severity.
ובזה יפטר מהעצבות שממילי דעלמא
He will thus also be rid of the depression brought on by mundane matters.
I.e., redirecting his depression into soul-searching, and into anger at his evil inclination, will dispel the mundane depression.
ואחר כך יבא לידי שמחה אמיתית, דהיינו, שזאת ישיב אל לבו לנחמו בכפליים אחר הדברים והאמת האלה הנ״ל
He will then arrive at a true joy, as follows: In order to comfort his heart in double measure, let him — in the wake of the above words of truth concerning his lowly spiritual stature — tell himself the following.
The comfort is dual: not only is his depression eliminated, but he will also attain a joy which he would never experience were it not for his earlier depression.
לאמר ללבו: אמת הוא כן בלי ספק שאני רחוק מאד מה׳ בתכלית, ומשוקץ ומתועב כו׳,
Let him say to his heart: “Indeed, without a doubt, I am far removed, utterly remote from G‑d, and am despicable, contemptible, and so on.
אך כל זה הוא אני לבדי, הוא הגוף עם נפש החיונית שבו
But all this is true only of me — that is, my body and the animating soul within it.
אבל מכל מקום יש בקרבי חלק ה׳ ממש, שישנו אפילו בקל שבקלים,שהיא נפש האלקית עם ניצוץ אלקות ממש המלובש בה להחיותה,
Yet within me there is a veritable ‘part’ of G‑d, which is present even in the most worthless of my fellows,so that even if I am no better than he, I still have this ‘part’ of G‑d within me, namely, the divine soul and the spark of G‑dliness itself clothed in it, animating it.
רק שהיא בבחינת גלות
It is only that when the body and animating soul are in such a lowly state, the divine soul is in exile within them.
ואם כן, אדרבה, כל מה שאני בתכלית הריחוק מה׳, והתיעוב ושיקוץ
“If so, then, on the contrary, the further I am removed from G‑d, and the more despicable and contemptible,
הרי נפש האלקית שבי בגלות גדול יותר, והרחמנות עליה גדולה מאד
the deeper in exile is my divine soul, and all the more is it to be pitied.
ולזה אשים כל מגמתי וחפצי להוציאה ולהעלותה מגלות זה,להשיבה אל בית אביה כנעוריה,
“Therefore, I will make it my entire aim and desire to extricate it from this exile, and to ‘return her to her father’s house i.e., to restore it to its source and its original state as in her youth,’
קודם שנתלבשה בגופי, שהיתה נכללת באורו יתברך ומיוחדת עמו בתכליתו
i.e., as it was before being clothed in my body, when it was completely absorbed in G‑d’s light and united with Him.
וגם עתה כן תהא כלולה ומיוחדת בו יתברך, כשאשים כל מגמתי בתורה ומצות, להלביש בהן כל עשר בחינותיה כנ״ל
“Now too will it likewise be absorbed and united with Him once again, when I concentrate all my aspirations on the Torah and the mitzvot, in an effort to clothe therein all [of the soul’s] ten faculties; i.e., by applying my mental faculties to Torah study, and my emotive faculties to the performance of themitzvot with the vitality lent them by the love and fear of G‑d, as explained above in ch. 4. Thus will my divine soul be reunited with G‑d.
ובפרט במצות תפלה, לצעוק אל ה׳ בצר לה מגלותה בגופי המשוקץ, להוציאה ממסגר, ולדבקה בו יתברך
“Especially in fulfilling the mitzvah of prayer will I try to release my divine soul, by crying out to G‑d because of the distress of its exile in my loathsome body, so that He release it from captivity and bind it to Himself.”
וזו היא בחינת תשובה ומעשים טובים
This service of G‑d, in which one seeks to restore the soul to its source, is referred to as 10 “teshuvahwith good deeds.”
This is an oft-used Talmudic expression denoting the mitzvot (as in the statement, “One hour of teshuvah with good deeds in this world is better than all the life of the World to Come”). At first glance, the juxtaposition of the two seems incongruous;teshuvah deals with atoning for one’s past imperfections, while “good deeds” are performed in the present and would seem to bear no relation to one’s past. According to the Alter Rebbe’s statement, however, that one’s performance of the mitzvotshould be motivated by a desire to return his soul to its source within G‑d, the connection between the two is clear: the “good deeds” themselves actually constitute teshuvah, which means “return”. As the Alter Rebbe continues:
שהן מעשים טובים שעושה כדי להשיב חלק ה׳ למקורא ושרשא דכל עלמין
This denotes the “good deeds” which one does with the intention of returning the soul which is part of G‑d, to the [Divine] source and root of all the worlds.
וזאת תהיה עבודתו כל ימיו בשמחה רבה, היא שמחת הנפש בצאתה מהגוף המתועב, ושבה אל בית אביה כנעוריה בשעת התורה והעבודה
This, then, should be one’s lifelong aim in the service of G‑d with great joy — the joy of the soul upon leaving the loathsome body, and returning, during one’s study of the Torah and service of G‑d through prayer, to “her father’s house as in her youth,” i.e., to the unity with G‑d that it enjoyed before it descended into the body.
וכמאמר רז״ל: להיות כל ימיו בתשובה
This corresponds to the statement of our Sages 11 that one ought to engage in teshuvah throughout his life.
If the word teshuvah is understood only in the sense of repentance for sin, why the need for further repentance once one has already repented
However, teshuvah as explained here, returning the soul to its source, is something in which one may well engage throughout his life — whenever he studies Torah or performs a mitzvah.
ואין לך שמחה גדולה כצאת מהגלות והשביה, כמשל בן מלך שהיה בשביה וטוחן בבית האסורים ומנוול באשפה
Surely, there is no joy as great as that of being released from exile and captivity. It is comparable to the joy of a prince who was taken captive, and was subjected to the hard labor of turning the millstone in prison, 12 while covered with filth,
ויצא לחפשי אל בית אביו המלך
and who then goes free to the house of his father, the king.
Such a prince, descended from the Supreme King, is the soul — and by means of the Torah and the mitzvot it is redeemed from the captivity and degradation imposed on it by the body.
ואף שהגוף עומד בשיקוצו ותיעובו, וכמו שכתוב בזהר, דנקרא משכא דחויא
True, the body remains abominable and loathsome, and as the Zohar says, it is called “a serpent’s skin,”13
כי מהותה ועצמותה של הנפש הבהמית לא נהפך לטוב, ליכלל בקדושה
since the essential character of the animal soul has not been transformed to good, so that it might be absorbed into the realm of holiness.
For, as explained above, the Beinoni may indeed elevate the “garments” of the animal soul — the thought, speech and action through which it expresses itself — by performing the mitzvot by means of his thought, speech and action; but theessential character of the animal soul — its intellectual and emotional faculties — remains subject to the realm of kelipat nogah. How, then, can one be expected to rejoice, knowing that his body and animal soul are still in such an undesirable state
מכל מקום תיקר נפשו בעיניו לשמוח בשמחתה יותר מהגוף הנבזה,שלא לערבב ולבלבל שמחת הנפש בעצבון הגוף,
Yet, let his divine soul be more precious to him than his loathsome body, so that he rejoices in the soul’s joy at its liberation, through the observance of the Torah and the mitzvot, from the exile of the body,without letting the sadness on account of the lowly state of his body interfere with or disturb the joy of the soul.
והנה בחינה זו היא בחינת יציאת מצרים, שנאמר בה: כי ברח העם
This form of divine service — in which the divine soul breaks free of its exile within the body, while the body and animal soul remain in their lowly state — is analogous to the Exodus from Egypt, of which it is written that14 “the people escaped.”
The Jews told Pharaoh that they would leave Egypt for only three days, but upon being released from his land they escaped.
דלכאורה הוא תמוה למה היתה כזאת, וכי אילו אמרו לפרעה לשלחם חפשי לעולם, לא היה מוכרח לשלחם
At first glance it seems strange: Why should it have been so, in a manner of flight? Had they demanded of Pharaoh that he set them free forever, would he not have been forced to do so, having been stricken by the Plagues?
The explanation, the Alter Rebbe goes on to say, lies in the spiritual aspect of the Exodus, and this was reflected in its physical counterpart just as every event in Jewish history reflects a parallel spiritual process.
The corporeal enslavement of the Jewish people in Egypt reflected the enslavement of their souls by the kelipah of Egyptian impurity. Their Exodus from Egypt likewise represented a spiritual liberation from this kelipah. Since the spiritual Exodus was an act of escape — i.e., their soul broke away and “escaped” from the impurity of Egypt, while the body and animal soul were still in exile within the kelipah — therefore the physical Exodus likewise assumed the manner of an escape.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
אלא מפני שהרע שבנפשות ישראל עדיין היה בתקפו בחלל השמאלי
But escape was necessary because the evil in the [animal] souls of Israel was still strong in the left part of the heart, the seat of the animal soul,
כי לא פסקה זוהמתם עד מתן תורה
for their impurity (the impurity of kelipah) did not cease until the Giving of the Torah. 15
רק מגמתם וחפצם היתה לצאת נפשם האלקית מגלות הסטרא אחרא, היא טומאת מצרים, ולדבקה בו יתברך
Yet their aim and desire was that their divine soul leave the exile of the sitra achra — the impurity of Egypt, and that it cleave to G‑d. 16
וכדכתיב: ה׳ עוזי ומעוזי ומנוסי ביום צרה וגו׳, משגבי ומנוסי וגו׳,והוא מנוס לי וגו׳,
So it is written17 — that there is a divine service which consists of the divine soul’s “escape” from the impurity of the body and animal soul: “G‑d is my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction”; 18 “[He is] my high tower and my refuge”; and19 “He is my escape...”
And the Exodus from Egypt exemplified this idea of “escape”.
ולכן לעתיד, כשיעביר ה׳ רוח הטומאה מן הארץ, כתיב: ובמנוסה לא תלכון כי הולך לפניכם ה׳ וגו׳
Hence it is written of the Redemption which will take place in the time to come, when G‑d will remove the spirit of impurity from the earth and there will therefore be no evil necessitating spiritual escape: 20“[You will not go out in haste,] nor go in flight, for G‑d will go before you.”
The Exodus from Egypt, however, took place in a manner of flight, for the evil was still strong in the people’s animal soul. Similarly, whenever one disregards the lowliness of his body and animal soul and engages in the Torah and the mitzvot in order to free the divine soul from its corporeal exile, he effects the spiritual equivalent of the Exodus from Egypt.
ולהיות בחינת תשובה זו ביתר שאת ויתר עז מעומקא דלבא, וגם שמחת הנפש תהיה בתוספת אורה ושמחה
One may lend this teshuvah — the restoration of his soul to its source — additional strength from the depths of his heart, and likewise add a greater measure of light and joy to the joy of his soul brought on by the teshuvah,
כאשר ישיב אל לבו דעת ותבונה לנחמו מעצבונו ויגונו, לאמר כנ״ל
by comforting his heart from its distress and sorrow, through reflecting (lit., “speaking to his heart”) with knowledge and understanding, as follows:
הן אמת כו׳, אך אני לא עשיתי את עצמי
“Certainly it is true, as said above, that I am utterly remote from G‑d, etc.; but it was not I who created myself in a manner that permits the divine soul to be exiled within the impurity of the body and animal soul. It was G‑d Who created me thus.
ולמה עשה ה׳ כזאת, להוריד חלק מאורו יתברך, הממלא וסובב כל עלמין, וכולא קמיה כלא חשיב, והלבישו במשכא דחויא וטפה סרוחה
“Why then has G‑d done such a thing — to cause [the divine soul,] a part of His light which fills and encompasses all worlds and before which all is as naught, to descend into [the body], and be clothed in a ’serpent’s skin‘ and a ’fetid drop‘
אין זה כי אם ירידה זו היא צורך עליה
“Surely this descent must be for the sake of a subsequent ascent.
להעלות לה׳ כל נפש החיונית הבהמית שמקליפת נוגה, וכל לבושיה, הן בחינות מחשבה דבור ומעשה שלה
“That is, to elevate to G‑d the entire animating, animal soul, which derives from kelipat nogah, and also its ’garments‘ of thought, speech and action,
על ידי התלבשותן במעשה דבור ומחשבת התורה
by means of clothing them in the action, speech and thought of the Torah.
For by performing the mitzvot, and by speaking and thinking words of Torah, the animal soul and its ’garments‘ are elevated toward G‑dliness.
וכמו שכתוב לקמן ענין העלאה זו באריכות, איך שהיא תכלית בריאת העולם
(21The subject of this ascent will be discussed further on at length; 22 it will be shown how this is the purpose for which the world was created.)
ואם כן איפוא זאת אעשה, וזאת תהיה כל מגמתי כל ימי חלדי
“If this be so, there is one thing for me to do, and this shall be my sole aim throughout my life:
לכל בהן חיי רוחי ונפשי, וכמו שכתוב: אליך ה׳ נפשי אשא
To immerse therein — in the thought, speech and action of the Torah and the mitzvot — the life of my spirit and soul, as it is written, 23 “To You, G‑d, I raise my soul.
דהיינו, לקשר מחשבתי ודבורי במחשבתו ודבורו יתברך, והן הן גופי הלכות הערוכות לפנינו, וכן מעשה במעשה המצות
“In practical terms, this means: To bind my thought and speech with G‑d’s thought and speech — which are, in fact, the very laws which have been set out before us. For the laws of the Torah are G‑d’s “thought” and “speech”, and by studying them one binds his own faculties of thought and speech with their Divine counterparts. Similarly with action: I will bind my faculty of action with G‑d’s faculty of action, through performing the commandments.”
שלכן נקראת התורה משיבת נפש, פירוש, למקורה ושרשה
For this reason, the Torah is described as24 “that which restores the soul,” i.e., it restores the soul to its source and root.
ועל זה נאמר: פקודי ה׳ ישרים משמחי לב
Moreover, concerning this occupation in the Torah and the mitzvot which brings joy to the soul by restoring it to its source, and which banishes the sadness of its exile in the body and animal soul, it is written: 25 “G‑d’s commandments are just; they gladden the heart.”
When one considers that one’s study of the Torah and observance of the mitzvot elevate not only his divine soul, but also his animal soul, his teshuvah will gain in depth, and the joy of his soul will gain in intensity.
For although the soul’s “escape” from exile within the body and animal soul (spoken of earlier) would in itself be sufficient cause for great joy, yet this is a joy tempered by sadness over the lowly state in which one’s body and animal soul remain. When one realizes, however, that Torah and the mitzvot elevate the body and animal soul as well, his joy will be untarnished.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Divrei HaYamim 16:27. |
| 2. | Shabbat 30b. |
| 3. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 4. | Cf. Sanhedrin 39b. |
| 5. | Shabbat 121b. |
| 6. | Mishlei 14:23. |
| 7. | Now that the Alter Rebbe has established that sadness arising from one's spiritual stocktaking is not atzvut (depression) but merirut (bitterness), several difficulties arise: (1) Earlier, the Alter Rebbe stated that one ought not be perturbed by such sadness, even though it is in fact atzvut (which stems from the sitra achra), because "this is precisely the method for humbling the sitra achra - through something of its own kind..." Why the need to justify atzvut if this sadness is not atzvutat all, but merirut." (2) Several lines further, the Alter Rebbe states that the opportune time for dwelling on one's failings is when one is in any case depressed over some material concern; the depression that such contemplation arouses will rid him of his materially-inspired depression. But the Alter Rebbe has just pointed out that this is not depression at all; how, then, does this dispel any other depression? A possible explanation: When one dwells on his spiritual failings, and concludes that he is indeed worse than the kal shebekalim, his first reaction will be despondency; he will feel utterly worthless and disgraced in his own eyes. In this state, there is no stirring of feeling, no vitality; it is, indeed, classic atzvut. But if this stocktaking was undertaken in its proper spirit, the despondency will last only momentarily. Immediately after sinking into depression the individual will feel the stirrings of bitterness, of anger at his having allowed himself to fall so low; he will begin to seek means of extricating himself from this sorry state. It is with regard to the momentary atzvut that the Alter Rebbe advises one not to be perturbed, since his atzvutis an effective weapon against the sitra achra. Regarding the bitterness and anger that follow it, the Alter Rebbe states that they are not atzvut at all, inasmuch as they are alive and active. Likewise, when the Alter Rebbe states that depression over one's spiritual failings is effective in ridding one of depression due to other causes, he again refers to the aforementioned temporary depression which immediately follows one's spiritual stocktaking. (- From a comment by the Rebbe.) |
| 8. | Berachot 5a. |
| 9. | From a superficial reading, it would appear that the Alter Rebbe advocates spiritual accounting at such a time when one is in any case depressed simply so that the depression resulting from this accounting will not hinder one from joyful service of G-d. However, the expression, "the time which is opportune and fitting for spiritual stocktaking..." clearly indicates that one's depressed state actually aids him in some way in this self- evaluation. For when one is in a joyful frame of mind on account of his physical well-being, it is difficult for him to shift to a reflective, introspective one, and to feel truly saddened by his spiritual failures; being in a state of depression simplifies the process. We find a similar correlation between one's physical circumstances and his spiritual objectives in the following statement of the Sages: "When the Temple stood, the joy `of the festivals' consisted of eating `the sacrificial' meat; now that the Temple is no longer, the joy lies in drinking wine." (Pesachim 109a) Although the festivals were given for our souls to rejoice in holiness ("...And Your people Israel will rejoice in You"), yet meat and wine are prescribed, so as to harmonize the moods of body and soul. |
| 10. | Avot 4:17. |
| 11. | Cf. Shabbat 153a. |
| 12. | Cf. Shoftim 16:21; Rashbam on Shemot 11:5. |
| 13. | The term "serpent" refers to the three utterly impure kelipot. The body of a Jew, which derives its vitality from kelipat nogah, is thus the "skin" - the "outer shell," so to speak, of the "serpent." The subject is explained at length by R. Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch (author of Tzemach Tzedek) in his Sefer HaChakirah, p. 136. |
| 14. | Shemot 14:5. |
| 15. | Shabbat 146a. |
| 16. | This explains why "[when the hour of Redemption arrived G-d did not detain them [in Egypt] even for a moment” (Mechiltaon Shemot 12:41) - lest the evil within them drag them back to the impurity of Egypt. (- Based on a comment by the Rebbe.) |
| 17. | Yirmeyahu 16:19. |
| 18. | II Shmuel 22:3. |
| 19. | From the hymn that begins "Adon Olam." |
| 20. | Yeshayahu 52:12. |
| 21. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 22. | Chapters 35, 36, and 37. |
| 23. | Tehillim 25:1. |
| 24. | Ibid., 19:8. |
| 25. | Ibid., 19:9. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Wednesday, Adar I 22, 5776 · March 2, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 61
Violating Oaths
"Do not swear falsely by My Name"—Leviticus 19:12.
It is forbidden to violate an oath which one makes obligating himself to do or not to do a certain action (unless the fulfillment of the oath involves violating a religious precept).
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Wednesday, Adar I 22, 5776 · March 2, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 61
Violating Oaths
"Do not swear falsely by My Name"—Leviticus 19:12.
It is forbidden to violate an oath which one makes obligating himself to do or not to do a certain action (unless the fulfillment of the oath involves violating a religious precept).
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Violating Oaths
Negative Commandment 61
Translated by Berel Bell
The 61st prohibition is that we are forbidden from violating the type of oath called a sh'vuas bitui.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not swear falsely in My name."
A sh'vuas bitui is an oath to do something (or to refrain from doing something) that the Torah does not prohibit (or require).3 We are required to fulfill such an oath4 and are prohibited from violating it by virtue of His statement, "Do not swear falsely in My name."
Our Sages said in tractate Sh'vuos,5
"What is a sh'vuas sheker?6 When one swears to change [the truth."]7
The Gemara amends this, "It should read, 'When one swears and changes,'" i.e. swearing to do something, and then doing the opposite of the oath. 8
In the third chapter of Sh'vuos, as well as in tractate T'murah,9 it is explained that a sh'vuas sheker is the non-fulfillment of a sh'vuas bitui. There our Sages say, "What kind of sh'vuas sheker is meant?" This refers to the Gemara's previous statement regarding a sh'vuas sheker where no action was performed [and the punishment is nevertheless lashes]. "If you say [it refers to a case where the person swore,] 'I will not eat,' and the person ate, then an action was performed. [Therefore, that case could not be what the Gemara was referring to.] If you say [it refers to a case where the person swore,] 'I will eat,' and the person didn't eat, is he punished by lashes? [This cannot be, for] it says explicitly..." [that there are no lashes in such a case.]10
One who transgresses this prohibition intentionally is punished by lashes. If it was done unintentionally, he must bring an offering of adjustable value, as explained in positive commandment 72. The source for this is the statement in the third chapter of Sh'vuos,11 "This is a sh'vuas bitui, which, if one violates intentionally, is punished by lashes, and if unintentionally, must bring an offering of adjustable value." The details of this mitzvah are explained there.
You should be aware that when I said that this prohibition is punished by lashes if done intentionally, this does not mean that there is another prohibition for which there is lashes even if done unintentionally. Rather, you should keep in mind that every time I say that a certain prohibition is punishable by lashes (whether it was said in a previous mitzvah or in a following mitzvah), this is only when done intentionally, in the presence of witnesses, and after being warned — the conditions regarding the witnesses and the warning being found in tractate Sanhedrin.12
If, however, the transgression was done unintentionally, or if the person was forced, or if he made an error, he is not punished by lashes or kares, and certainly not by execution. You should keep this in mind, for it applies to all the mitzvos.
In those few mitzvos where we say explicitly that the punishment is lashes or execution when done intentionally, this is said in order to distinguish from the case where an unintentional violation necessitates a sacrifice. [This must be said] because not every unintentional prohibition entails a sacrifice.13
But every case of punishment by kares, lashes, or execution is carried out only where there were witnesses and a warning. You should keep this principle in mind so that it will not necessary to repeat it.
FOOTNOTES
1.As defined immediately below. This is in contrast to a sh'vuas shav, discussed in the next mitzvah.
2.Lev. 19:12.
3.If, however, someone swears to eat pork, or not to wear tefillin, the oath is called a sh'vuas shav rather than a sh'vuas bitui. See N62.
4.See P94.
5.21a.
6.Although the commandment speaks of a sh'vuas bitui, and this passage speaks of a sh'vuas sheker, the Rambam soon explains that they are identical.
7.I.e. swearing that he did something in the past, although he really did not (for example, swearing that he ate, when in fact he did not.
8.The Rambam's intention in quoting this passage seems to be providing Talmudic proof for the definition he just gave for a sh'vuas bitui, i.e. swearing to do something in the future. The final conclusion is that swearing falsely about the past is also called a sh'vuas bitui. See Hilchos Shavuos 1:3, Kesef Mishneh ibid.
9.3b.
10.The Gemara concludes that the case referred to is where he swore that he ate, although in reality he had not. As mentioned previously, although this oath deals with the past, the Gemara concludes that this too is a sh'vuas sheker.
In any case, the point of this quote is to prove that the term, sh'vuas sheker , refers to violating a sh'vuas bitui.
11.21a.
12.81b.
13.Therefore, when no sacrifice is involved, the Rambam does not need to mention that lashes, etc. is for an intentional violation.
-----------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Beit Habechirah Beit Habechirah - Chapter 4 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Beit Habechirah - Chapter 4
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Beit Habechirah - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
The Ark was placed on a stone1 in the western portion of the Holy of Holies.2The vial of manna3 and Aharon's staff4 were placed before it.
When Solomon built the Temple, he was aware that it would ultimately be destroyed. [Therefore,]5 he constructed a chamber, in which the ark could be entombed below [the Temple building] in deep, maze-like vaults.
King Josiah6 commanded that [the Ark] be entombed in the chamber built by Solomon, as it is said (II Chronicles 35:3): "And he said to the Levites who would teach wisdom to all of Israel: 'Place the Holy Ark in the chamber built by Solomon, the son of David, King of Israel. You will no [longer] carry it on your shoulders. Now, serve the Lord, your God.'7
When it was entombed, Aharon's staff, the vial of manna, and the oil used for anointing were entombed with it. All these [sacred articles] did not return in the Second Temple.
Similarly, the Urim V'Tumim that existed in the Second Temple did not answer with Ruach HaKodesh (Divine inspiration)8 and questions were not asked of them, as stated [in Ezra 2:63]: "until a priest will arise with the Urim V'Tumim."9 [In the Second Temple,] they only made them to fulfill the requirement of eight garments for the High Priest.10 Thus, the High Priest would not lack one of the required garments.11
Halacha 2
The First Temple had a one-cubit thick wall which separated the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.12 When the Second Temple was constructed, they were unsure whether the width of that wall was included in the measure of the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies.13 Therefore, the Holy of Holies was made a full twenty cubits long, and the Sanctuary a full forty cubits long, and one additional cubit was left between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.14
They did not build a wall in the Second Temple.15 Rather, they hung two curtains, one from the side of the Sanctuary and one from the side of the Holy of Holies, with a cubit between them16 in place of the width of the wall of the First [Temple].17 However, in the First Temple, there was only one curtain,18as [Exodus 26:33] states: "The curtain will divide for you [between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.]"
Halacha 3
The Temple building constructed by the exiles [returning from Babylon] was one hundred cubits long, one hundred cubits wide, and one hundred cubits high. The measurement of its height can be described as follows:19
They built a solid base six cubits high resembling a foundation for it;20the Sanctuary, 40 cubits high;21an ornate ceiling, one cubit high;22above that, two cubits were left empty to allow dripping [water] to collect [and to be drained off];23 this was called the Beit Dilpa;24the roof above the Beit Dilpa was a cubit thick;the plaster, a cubit high;an upper storey was built on it; its walls were 40 cubits high;its roof included an ornate ceiling one cubit high;a Beit Dilpa, two cubits high;a roof, one cubit high;plaster, one cubit high;a guard rail, three cubits high;25a sheet of iron resembling a blade, a cubit high, was placed all around the guard rail so that birds will not rest upon it. It was called the Kaleh Orev.26
The total of the above is 100 cubits.27
Halacha 4
There were four walls, one within the other, with three vacant spaces between them:Between the western wall and the wall inside of it, five cubits,Between the second and third walls, six cubits,Between the third and fourth walls, six cubits.These measurements include the width of the wall and the space between it and the following wall.30The length of the Holy of Holies was 20 cubits.31Between the two curtains separating the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary, one cubit.32The length of the Sanctuary was 40 cubits.The width of the eastern wall in which the entrance was positioned was six cubits.33The Entrance Hall was eleven cubits [long].The wall of the Entrance Hall was five cubits thick.34
Thus, the total is 100 cubits.35
Halacha 5
From north to south, there were 100 cubits:36
The width of the wall of the Entrance Hall was five cubits.37There were ten cubits from the wall of the Entrance Hall until the wall of the Sanctuary.38The Sanctuary had six walls, one within the other, with five vacant places between them:39Between the outer wall and the second [wall], there were five cubits;40Between the second and the third, three cubits;41Between the third and the fourth, five;42Between the fourth and the fifth, six;43 andBetween the fifth and the sixth, six.44
Thus, these [walls and chambers encompassed] a total of forty cubits on both sides [of the Temple building.] The width of the Temple inside was 20 cubits.45
The total was 100 cubits.
Halacha 6
A wicket is a small gateway. The Sanctuary had two wickets on the sides of the great gate in the middle, one on the north and one on the south.46
No one ever entered through the southern [wicket]. Explicit [reference] to this [is made] by [in the Book of] Ezekiel [44:2]: "This gate will be closed. It will not be opened."47
[Every morning, the priests] would enter [through the wicket] on the north and proceed between the two walls until reaching an opening to the Sanctuary on the left. [From there], they would enter the Temple, proceed to the great gate, and open it.48
Halacha 7
The great gate49 was ten cubits wide and twenty cubits high.50 It had four doors: two to the inner [chamber,] and two to the outside.51 The outer gates opened into the doorway, covering the breadth of the walls.52 The inner [gates] opened into the Sanctuary, covering the [wall space] behind the doors.53
Halacha 8
The opening to the Entrance Hall was forty cubits high and twenty [cubits] wide.54 It did not have gates.55
Five oak beams56 were [positioned] above this entrance.57 The bottom [beam] extended beyond the entrance, one cubit on either side. Each of the five [beams] extended one cubit on either side of the [beam] below it. Thus, the uppermost beam was thirty cubits [long].58 There was a tier of stones between each beam.59
Halacha 9
The structure of the Temple was wide in its front and narrow in its rear, like a lion. 60
Balconies61 [extended] from the wall of the winding stairwell and surrounded the Temple on all sides.62 The lowest balcony was five [cubits long.] The pavement above it was six cubits long. The middle projection was six cubits, and the pavement above it seven cubits. The upper balcony was seven cubits, as it is said (I Kings 6:6): "The lowest balcony...."63 Thus, three balconies surrounded the Temple from three sides.64
Similarly, [there were projections] from bottom to top, around the wall of the Entrance Hall. The [pattern] was as follows:65
one vacant cubit,
a projection of three cubits,
one vacant cubit, and then,
a projection of three cubits.
Halacha 10
All the vacant spaces between the walls are called cells.69 Thus, five cells surrounded the Sanctuary on the north, five on the south, and three on the west.
There were three levels [of cells,] one level above the other.70 Thus, there were fifteen cells on the south; five above five, with five above them. Similarly, in the north, there were fifteen cells.
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
The winding stairwell with which one would ascend to the roofs of the cells81began its rise from the northeast corner towards the northwest corner [of the Temple]. One ascended on the winding stairwell facing the west and traversed the entire length of [the Temple's] northern side82 until reaching the west.83
When he reached the west, he would turn towards the south. He walked across the entire length of the western side84 until he reached the south.85When he reached the south, he turned to the east. He walked eastward86 until reaching the entrance to the Temple's upper storey, since the entrance to the upper storey87 was on the south.88
Halacha 13
At the entrance to the Temple's upper storey, there were two cedar beams upon which one could climb to the roof of the upper storey.89 Marking posts in the upper storey differentiated between the roof of the Sanctuary and the roof of the Holy of Holies.90
Apertures in the upper storey [led to] the Holy of Holies,91 through which craftsmen92 would be lowered in boxes,93 so that they would not satiate their eyes [gazing at] the chamber of the Holy of Holies.94
Once a year, from Passover to Passover, they coated the Temple building with cement.95
FOOTNOTES
1.
Yoma 53b refers to that stone as the even hashtiah, "the foundation stone", and explains that it was given that name because it was the foundation upon which God fashioned the world. According to certain views, the Dome of the Rock Mosque is located on the Temple site and the stone around which it is built is the sameeven hashtiah. Other Rabbinical sources, however, do not accept this claim.
2.
There is a slight difficulty in the Rambam's statements. The Jerusalem Talmud (Bava Batra 6:2) states that the Ark was placed in the center of the Holy of Holies. A similar statement is also found in the Midrash Tanchuma (Parshat Kedoshim, sec. 10). However, the latter source states that theEven HaShtiah was placed behind the Ark. Perhaps the resolution is that stone was large. It began in the center of the Holy of Holies, while the ark was placed in its western portion.
3.
Exodus 16:33 commands: "Take a vial and fill it with an omer of manna. Place it before the Lord as a testimonial for your descendants. "
Commenting on that verse, Rashi relates that in the time of Jeremiah, the people rationalized the fact that they did not study Torah, because of the pressures they faced in earning a livelihood. Jeremiah took the vial of manna from before the Ark and exclaimed: "See how God sustained your ancestors for forty years! Do you doubt whether He can sustain you today?"
4.
After Korach's revolt, God commanded all the princes of the tribes to place their staffs in the Sanctuary. Aharon's staff blossomed, and produced leaves and almonds. Then, He commanded that Aharon's staff be placed before the Ark "as a testimonial" (Numbers 17:21-25).
5.
I.e., to preserve the Ark fashioned under the direction of Moses,
6.
The last of Judah's righteous kings. He witnessed the spiritual decline of the Jewish people and foresaw the inevitable destruction of the Temple.
7.
The entombment of the Ark is the subject of a debate among the Sages in the Talmud (Yoma 53b) and the Tosafta (Sotah 13:2). Although some Sages agree that the Ark was entombed as explained above, others maintain that it was one of the sacred articles plundered by the Babylonian conquerors. A third opinion agrees that it was entombed, but argues that it was entombed under the Chamber of Wood in the Woman's Courtyard and not under the Holy of Holies.
8.
Yoma 73b and the commentaries (Nachmanides and Rabbenu Bachai onNumbers 28:21) explain that the Urim V'Tumim were consulted as oracles by the High Priest. They provided guidance on all important questions involving the people as a whole. See the conclusion of Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash for a discussion of this issue.
9.
Yoma 21b mentions the Urim V'Tumim as one of the five miraculous aspects of the First Temple service, which were lacking in the Second Temple. The Rambam quotes that statement in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash10:10.
Nevertheless, they were not completely lacking. Exodus 28:43 commands the priests to wear all of the garments prescribed for them during their service in the Sanctuary. If even one garment was lacking, they would be punished by death. Thus, the High Priest had to wear the breastplate with the stones, the Urim V'Tumim. Otherwise, he would lack one of the eight garments he was required to wear. The Rambam explains that although the stones were embedded in the breastplate in the Second Temple as well, they lacked the spiritual dimension that they had possessed in the First Temple.
10.
These garments are described in Exodus, Chapter 28, and in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, ch. 8.
11.
The Ra'avad does not accept the Rambam's statements concerning the Urim V'Tumim. He interprets the Urim V'Tumim as being mystical names of God engraved on the breastplate, rather than the stones themselves.
In his Chiddushim, Rav Yaakov Emden questions the reason for including this Halachah: "On the surface, there is apparently no practical relevance to these matters in our behavior....The Rambam generally does not include aspects which have neither Halachic nor ethical significance in this text." Why then is it important for us to know whether or not the ark was entombed and where it was entombed?
Rav Emden then explains the question he posed, based on the Rambam's statements in Chapter 6. There, the Rambam stated that after the exile, the sanctity of Eretz Yisraelwas nullified regarding the laws of the Sabbatical year, the tithes, and certain other agricultural rulings. However, the holiness of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount always remained intact because:
The holiness of the Temple and Jerusalem comes about because of the Shechinah, and the Shechinah can never be nullified. Behold, God declared (Leviticus 27:31): "I shall destroy your Sanctuaries." and the Sages commented (Megillah 28a): "Even though they are destroyed, their holiness remains intact. "
The Shechinah's resting place was the Ark. Therefore, had the Ark not been "entombed...in deep, maze-like vaults," on the Temple Mount, the sanctity of that site would also have been nullified. See alsoChatam Sofer, Chullin 7a.
Likkutei Sichot (Vol. 21, p. 156-160) also discusses the same question. It explains that the Ark is a fundamental element of the Temple and the Temple building cannot be complete without it.
Therefore, from the very beginning of the Temple's construction, the Ark had two locations:
a) the place for the ark in the Holy of Holies,
b) the hidden vault where the Ark would be kept in the event of the Temple's destruction.
On this basis, we can see the Sanctuary built by Moses, the two Temples in Jerusalem, and the Messianic Temple, as unified by one essential bond. Since the same Ark was present in all previous structures and they will be revealed again in the Messianic age, all four buildings share the same essence.
12.
As the Rambam states in the conclusion of the halachah, a divider was necessary between the sanctity of the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary. In the Tabernacle in the desert, a curtain, the parochet, alone served this function. In the First Temple, a wall was also built in addition to the curtain.
13.
I Kings 6:2 states: "And the length of the Temple Solomon built was 60 cubits." The narrative continues (ibid.:17, 20): "The Sanctuary was 40 cubits long...and the space for the ark was 20 cubits long." Since the combined length of both chambers was only 60 cubits, the width of the wall had to be included in the measure of one of the chambers. However, it was not clear from which chamber it should be built (Jerusalem Talmud, Kelayim 8:4; see also Yoma 52a for a slightly different explanation).
14.
The Marginita D'Rabbi Meir asks why the builders of the Second Temple were willing to add an extra cubit between the two chambers, when they hesitated to increase the width of the dividing wall. In resolution, it is explained that originally the eastern wall built by Solomon was seven cubits thick, while in the Second Temple, it was only six cubits thick. Thus, there was no change in the total length of the Temple building.
15.
Bava Batra 3a,b explains that they did not build a wall because the Second Temple was higher than the First. The First Temple was only 30 cubits high. The Second Temple was 100 cubits high. A wall only a cubit thick would not be sturdy if built to such a height. Nevertheless, the width of the wall was not increased, because its original width was established by Ruach HaKodesh, Divine revelation. Thus, they returned to the pattern established in the Sanctuary of Moses and utilized curtains as dividers.
16.
Yoma 52b relates that the external curtain had an opening on the south and the inner curtain had an opening on the north. Thus, to enter the Holy of Holies, the High Priest had to go through the entire width of the Temple between the two curtains.
17.
Tosafot (Yoma, ibid.) asks why they were not able to resolve their dilemma by hanging one curtain, a cubit in width.
In response, the commentary states that both curtains were necessary because the verse quoted above, "the curtain shall divide..." clearly implies that the sanctity of the Holy of Holies begins with the outer surface of the curtain. Thus, based on the possibility that the wall of the First Temple was included within the 20 cubits of the Holy of Holies, an additional cubit would have been included in this sacred area if only one curtain was used. From this perspective, the inner curtain had to be a distinct entity, marking the beginning of the most sacred chamber.
Conversely, based on the view that the wall had been included in the measure of the Sanctuary and that the wall and the Holy of Holies encompassed 21 cubits, a thick curtain would have been unnecessary, since the outer curtain was located where the division was required to be made.
18.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the expression "First Temple" refers to the Sanctuary, for the First Temple itself had a wall rather than a curtain. However, Rav Yaakov Emden disputes this issue, quotingYoma 54a which brings a number ofAggadot concerning the Ark and the curtain in the First Temple. The Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot 4:7) specifically states that there was a curtain in addition to the wall in the First Temple.
19.
The source for the Rambam's statements isMiddot 4:6.
20.
The Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah states that this base was embedded in the ground. In contrast, Rabbenu Shemaya explains that the base actually stood above the ground.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the addition of the word "resembling" in this halachah might imply that the Rambam changed his mind and adopted an interpretation similar to that of Rabbenu Shemaya.
Tosafot Yom Tov objects to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, explaining that it would be inappropriate to include the measure of this base in the height of the Temple. He also explains that in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam adopted a different perspective. He thus, defines the base as an extension of the steps leading to the Entrance Hall. These steps were six cubits high, the height of the base.
Tzurat HaBayit relates that there was a functional aspect to the base, and explains that it contained the lowest floor of the cells mentioned in Halachah 10.
21.
Although the total height of Solomon's Sanctuary was 30 cubits, the returning exiles built the Second Temple higher, basing their decision on Haggai 2:9: "The glory of this later house will be greater than that of the former."
22.
The Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah indicates that builders made designs of cement and stone in the ceiling. Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura explains that the ceiling was coated with gold and that designs were engraved inside.
23.
Rather than seep through to the ornate ceiling.
24.
In this text and in the commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam merely writes that the empty space was left for water to collect. The Ra'avad mentions the concept of drainage, implying that the Rambam had not conceived of it. However, it may be assumed that this was the Rambam's intention, since it is difficult to conceive why one would leave a space for water to collect without installing a drainage system.
Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura and other commentaries on the Mishnah render the term "Beit Dilpa" differently, explaining that it refers to a solid wooden base which supported the roof.
25.
Deuteronomy 22:8 commands: "When you build a new house, you shall construct a guard rail for the roof." Though, in general, synagogues are not required to have a guardrail, because they are not owned by one individual and are not used as a dwelling (Chullin 136a), a guard rail was constructed for the Sanctuary.
26.
The Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah translates that term as "the raven decimator" and explains that the sharp blade would cut off the birds' feet.
27.
Note the accompanying diagram, copied from the Rambam's commentary to the Mishnah published by Rav Kapach.
28.
I.e., from the far end of the Temple to its entrance.
29.
The Rambam's statements are based on the Mishnah, Middot 4:7. However, his interpretation of the Mishnah varies from the literal meaning.
The Mishnah relates all the measurements from the wall of the Entrance Hall, the easternmost point of the Temple building, until the end of the Holy of Holies. Afterwards, it continues: "The wall of the Temple was six [cubits], the cell was six [cubits], and the wall of the cell was five [cubits]."
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot4:3), the Rambam explains that unlike the northern, southern, and eastern external walls of the Temple, the two walls mentioned in the above Mishnah were not solid. Rather, each wall mentioned by the Mishnah refers to two walls, each a cubit thick, with a vacant space in between. Thus, there were really four walls, with three vacant spaces between. The vacant spaces are called cells, ta'im, in Hebrew and discussed in Halachah 10. In particular, the measurements of these vacant spaces are slightly different, as the Rambam explains.
30.
As mentioned above, the width of all these walls was one cubit.
31.
The length of the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary was the same in the Second Temple and in the First. The length of the Tabernacle built by Moses was one half the combined length of both chambers. However, the same 2:1 ratio was followed regarding the chambers' length.
32.
As explained in Halachah 2.
33.
The intent is actually two walls, each a cubit wide, with empty space between them.
34.
Unlike the other walls mentioned previously, this wall was solid.
35.
See the accompanying diagram taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah.
36.
This Halachah is based on the continuation of the Mishnah (Middot 4:7) cited in the previous Halachah. In this Halachah as well, the Rambam does not follow a perfectly literal rendition of the Mishnah.
37.
This was a solid wall with no vacant space in between, extending the entire length of the northern and southern sides of the Temple.
38.
This and the previous line reflect one of the major differences between the Rambam's concept of the Temple building and that of Rashi, the Ra'avad, and other commentaries.
The abovementioned Mishnah concludes: "The rear of the Temple was narrow and its front wide, resembling a lion as it is said (Isaiah 29:1): 'Oh Ariel, Ariel (lit. Lion of God), the city where David encamped... '
Rabbenu Shimshon, the Ra'avad and others explain that the Temple building had a T shape. The Entrance Hall and its adjoining chambers were 100 cubits wide. However, the Entrance Hall was only eleven cubits long. The remaining 89 cubits of the Temple's length were only 70 cubits in width. The Mishnah states, "from north to south there were 70 cubits" and lists the division of that area. Afterwards, it concludes: "The Entrance Hall extended fifteen cubits to the north and fifteen cubits to the south..." implying, according to these authorities, that there were two measurements of the Temple's width, one including the Entrance Hall and one without it.
In contrast, the Rambam conceived of the Temple as being shaped like a trapezoid. See the accompanying drawing taken from his Commentary to the Mishnah. See also Halachah 9.
At its easternmost point, the Entrance Hall, it was 100 cubits wide. However, that width was slightly diminished as one proceeded westward, so that it would be "lion-shaped." His opinion is reinforced by the opening statement of Mishnah 4:6, which declares: "The Temple was 100 cubits by 100 cubits and 100 cubits tall," implying that it was shaped like a cube, except for the slight reduction of its width towards the rear.
39.
The abovementioned Mishnah reads:
The wall of the winding stairwell, five; the winding stairwell, three; the wall of the cell, five; the cell, six; the wall of the Sanctuary, six; the [Sanctuary's] enclosed area, twenty; the wall of the Sanctuary, six; the cell, six; the wall of the cell, six; the drainage chamber, three; and the [outer] wall, five.
Again, the Rambam explains that the walls mentioned by the Mishnah were not solid, but rather, each was a cubit thick, with a hollow space in between. The Mishnah can be understood in terms of the Rambam's words according to the clauses that follow:
40.
This refers to the "winding stairwell" mentioned by the Mishnah on the north side and the "drainage chamber" on the south side.
41.
This clause explains why the Rambam does not define "the walls" as solid structures. It is difficult to conceive that a three cubit chamber would be surrounded by two walls, each five cubits in thickness (Tzurat HaBayit).
42.
This refers to "the wall of the cell."
43.
This refers to "the cell."
44.
This refers to "the wall of the Sanctuary."
According to the Rambam, the names for the cells mentioned above refer only to the lowest floor. The equivalent cells in the upper storeys were not called by these names.
45.
In Solomon's Temple as well, the Sanctuary was 20 cubits wide. In the desert, Moses' Tabernacle was only 10 cubits wide. However, its length was also only half that of the Temple's inner chambers.
46.
According to the Rambam's diagrams and Rav Kapach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, the two wickets are placed at the entrance to the spaces between the fourth and fifth walls (counting from the outside) on the north and south sides respectively (see the diagram accompanying Halachah 4). This area is referred to as "the cell" in the abovementioned Mishnah.
47.
The verse continues: "because the Lord, God of Israel enters through it." The Midrash Tanchumah explains that this is an expression of God's humility. Rather than enter through the "great gate," God chooses to approach the Sanctuary through the modest wicket.
48.
This halachah quotes Middot 4:2 and explains the manner in which the gates to the Sanctuary were opened each morning. Rather than open them from the front, the priests came in through the Entrance Hall, turned to the right, and entered through the wicket. They continued walking between the walls until reaching an opening from which they could enter the Sanctuary.
According to a diagram that accompanies Rav Kapach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, the entrance to the Sanctuary was approximately in the center of the Sanctuary.
49.
The term "great gate" is used because of the importance of its position, leading into the Sanctuary, and not because of the gate's size. We find a similar example inDeuteronomy 1:7 which describes the Euphrates as "the great river," though it is not physically large compared to other major rivers. The commentaries explain that this appellation was used because of its unique importance in marking the eastern boundary of Eretz Yisrael (Tosafot Yom Tov).
50.
This was the standard size of the gates in the Temple (Middot 2:3).
51.
Ezekiel's vision of the Temple (41:23-24) explicitly describes "two doors to the Temple and to the Sanctuary... two doors for each [set of] doors."
52.
Since this passage was six cubits long, the doors, each only five cubits wide, could not cover the walls entirely. Therefore, they were positioned one cubit inside the passageway (Kessef Mishneh). See the accompanying drawing.
53.
Middot 4:1, which is the source for this halachah, continues: "The entire Temple was plated with gold except for the space behind the doors." Thus, when the doors were opened, they were folded against the wall and they covered that space with gold as well.
54.
This was the largest gateway of the entire Temple complex.
55.
The commentaries explain that this gateway, the entrance to the Temple, was always open. In the same way, each Jew has an open pathway of prayer through which he can approach God at any time. Nevertheless, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 7:17, there was a curtain covering this entrance.
56.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot3:7), the Rambam notes that attractive designs and forms were carved into these beams.
57.
Chapter 1, Halachah 9, states that we are forbidden to build the Temple with wood that protrudes. The Tosafot Yom Tov notes this apparent contradiction and explains that these beams were embedded into the wall and were thus, not "protruding."
58.
The entrance was twenty cubits wide and the five beams each extended one cubit on each side. Thus, the total length of the uppermost beam was thirty cubits.
59.
To further enhance the appearance of the entrance.
Note the drawing accompanying the following halachah for a depiction of these beams and their position.
60.
See the commentary to Halachah 5.
61.
These balconies are explicitly mentioned in I Kings 6:5-6 and in Middot 4:4. However, the Rambam's conception of these structures differs from that of other commentaries and has been the subject of much debate.
62.
According to the Rambam, these balconies extended outward from the outermost wall of the Temple on every side except the east (the Temple's facade, when approaching from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard).
On the surface, there is some difficulty with the Rambam's statements. As stated above, the Rambam conceived of the Temple building as a trapezoid. The wings of the Entrance Hall continued to the rear of the building, and the wall surrounding them was the Temple's most external wall. If so, it would seem that the balconies mentioned here should have extended out from that wall and not from the wall of the winding stairwell.
63.
A projection served as a roof for the lower balcony, and above it was another balcony having the same length as the projection. See the accompanying diagram which was copied from Rav Kapach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah.
64.
From the north, south, and west; corresponding to the right, left, and rear of the Temple when facing it from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard.
As mentioned above, the Rambam's conception of these balconies differs from that of the other commentaries. Rashi and the Ra'avad explain that the verses and the Mishnah mentioned above refer to the cells mentioned in Halachot 4, 5, and 10. According to those commentaries, there were no balconies at all. The Tosafot Yom Tov mentions the Rambam's opinion. However, the diagrams drawn by the Rambam himself and accompanying his Commentary to the Mishnah (as published in Rav Kapach's edition) were not at his disposal. Hence, there may be some imprecision in his interpretation of the Rambam's words.
To understand the Rambam, we must return to the original sources. However, even that is not easy, since most available translations and even most commentaries in Hebrew follow Rashi's view.
The following is a rendition of the verses in Kings, according to the Rambam:
And on the walls of the House, he constructed a side-structure surrounding the walls of the House, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies. He made projections around [the House]. The lowest structure was five cubits wide; the middle one, six cubits wide, and the third, seven cubits wide. He placed structures diminishing in size for the House, surrounding it on its exterior, so that [the people] will not take hold of the House.
The Mishnah interprets those verses as follows:
The lowest [balcony] was five [cubits wide - as mentioned in the verse]. There was a projection of six cubits [the projection mentioned in the verse.] The middle one was six cubits, and there was an additional projection of seven cubits. The upper one was seven cubits wide.
The Rambam's diagrams show a straight outer wall of the Temple, and balconies which diminish in length on their outer side (in contrast to the explanation offered by theTosafot Yom Tov).
The balconies in the Rambam's drawings were built as a protective measure, to insure that the priests show proper respect for the Temple and do not lean against its walls.
65.
These projections also are the subject of a difference in opinion between Rashi and the Rambam. The source for the debate is the interpretation of Middot 3:6 which states:
There were 22 cubits between the Entrance Hall and the Altar. There were twelve steps there. Each step was half a cubit high and one cubit wide.A cubit, a cubit; and a protrusion of three; a cubit, a cubit, and a protrusion of three; on the highest level, a cubit, a cubit, and a protrusion of four.
Rashi interprets the entire mishnah as referring to the steps leading to the Entrance Hall. In order to fill the space between the Altar and the Entrance Hall, platforms were inserted into the steps. Thus, there were three empty cubits before the first step, a step, a step, and a platform of three, etc. until one reached the Entrance Hall.
Rav Kapach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah sees the mishnah as referring to two separate subjects, the steps which had been mentioned previously and protrusions which he describes as follows:
Afterwards, [the mishnah] states that the wall of the Entrance Hall was built in the following pattern. A cubit long portion of the wall was left vacant as all the other walls...Above it there was a structure protruding from the wall, three cubits high... called a projection. Similarly, the entire height [of the wall] ...had one cubit of [vacant] wall space, a projection of three cubits... until the uppermost projection, which was four cubits high.
Note the accompanying drawing copied from Rav Kapach's edition of the Commentary to the Mishnah. Rather than picture the front wall of the Temple as a flat structure, the Rambam depicts it as being covered with these projections.
66.
All four walls of the Temple were covered with projections to prevent the priests from leaning against them.
67.
Extending out from the front facade.
68.
See the accompanying diagram for an artist's conception of the Temple's front facade.
69.
As mentioned in the commentary on Halachot 4 and 5, the Rambam has a different conception of the cells than the other commentaries.
Middot 4:3 states:
There were 38 cells: five in the north, five in the south, and eight in the west. In the north and in the south, there were five above five, with five above them. In the west, there were three above three, with two above them.
Middot 4:7 states:
The wall of the winding stairwell, five; the winding stairwell, three; the wall of the cell, five; the cell, six; the wall of the Sanctuary, six; the [Sanctuary's] enclosed area, twenty; the wall of the Sanctuary, six; the cell, six; the wall of the cell, six; the drainage chamber, three; and the [outer] wall, five.
Rashi and the Ra'avad explain the two mishnayot simply: The chamber referred to as "the cell" in mishnah 4:7 was, in fact, divided lengthwise into five cells on the northern and southern sides of the Temple, with three cells on the western side. All the other specific dimensions mentioned by the mishnah can thus be understood without any difficulty.
In contrast, the Rambam explains that the walls mentioned in the mishnah 4:7 were not solid, but rather, double walls, each a cubit in thickness, and with a hollow space in between. The five cells mentioned in 4:3 thus, refer to the five vacant spaces between the walls. These spaces extended the entire length of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies on the northern and southern sides, and the three cells extended to the three vacant spaces between the walls on the western side.
Note the accompanying drawings copied from Rav Kapach's edition of the Commentary to the Mishnah. The three divisions must be seen as being placed one on top of the other.
70.
The lowest level was six cubits high, equal to the height of the Temple's base. The other two levels were each twenty cubits high. As the Rambam states in Halachah 12, the roof of the cells was on the same level as the upper storey of the Sanctuary.
71.
The addition of the words "on one level" is necessary. Since the pattern of cells differed in the west, one might think that rather than have only three levels as in the north and south, the mishnah's words "two above them" could be interpreted as follows: There were four levels of cells, the latter two each possessing one cell. With this addition, the Rambam prevents this misconception from arising.
72.
They were used for storage.
73.
The source for this Halachah is Middot 4:7. The Rambam's interpretation again differs from that of Rashi.
Rashi would interpret right and left as lengthwise in the row of cells. According to the Rambam, the expressions right and left refer, as they have throughout the discussion of the Temple, to these directions as one faces the Holy of Holies, north and south respectively.
74.
This refers to the bottom floor of cells which had openings to the cells above them and the upper floor which had openings to the cells below. The middle floor of cells had four openings, because it has openings both to the cells below and to the cells above.
75.
This clause, a continuation of the abovementioned mishnah, represents one of the major difficulties in regard to the Rambam's interpretation. The Rambam cannot contradict an explicit mishnah, yet his interpretation of the mishnah's text is by no means straightforward.
According to the Rambam, this cell is positioned above the cell called "the winding stairwell." Though it is not the northernmost cell, it is still referred to as "the cell in the northeast corner."
76.
To the northernmost cell, the cell over "the wall of the winding stairwell."
77.
In the third storey of cells.
78.
The cell below it.
79.
"Towards," but not "to." The cell did not possess an entrance to the cell with the wicket, the latter being the second of the cells and the cell in question being the fourth.
80.
Here, the word Temple is being used loosely. It does not refer to the Sanctuary itself, but to the Entrance Hall. Nevertheless, the latter can also be called the Sanctuary as evidenced by the Rambam's statements in Chapter 1, Halachah 5.
Furthermore, there is an additional problem: The mishnah appeared to intend to single out this cell by the fact that it had five entrances. However, according to the Rambam's interpretation, the cell with the wicket also possessed five entrances: One to the Sanctuary, one to the Entrance Hall, one to the cell above it, one to the cell below it, and one to the cell on its right.
81.
According to the Rambam, one must differentiate between the chamber called the winding stairwell and the winding stairwell itself.
The chamber called the winding stairwell refers to the second cell on the right, on the lowest floor. The winding stairwell began at the easternmost point of this cell (the side closest to the Entrance Hall).
82.
Walking within the cells a distance of approximately 66 cubits.
83.
The stairwell ascended approximately 22 cubits across this length.
84.
Proceeding within the cells a distance of approximately 50 cubits.
85.
Ascending approximately 17 cubits along this length.
86.
Ascending the remaining height (approximately 11 cubits).
87.
Which was on the same level as the roof of the cells
88.
Slightly beyond the dividing line between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.
89.
Which is the roof of the Temple building.
90.
Some commentaries explain that these marking posts were placed on the roof of the upper storey. However, the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Middot 4:5), explicitly states that they were placed on the floor of the top level.
In addition to these marking posts, two curtains were hung in the upper storey, resembling the curtains which divided the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 7:17).
91.
Chapter 7, Halachah 23, states that once every seven years, they entered the upper storey so that they could descend from there to inspect the Holy of Holies. Rather than enter the Holy of Holies directly, they used these apertures.
92.
They would try to find craftsmen who were priests for this task. If no qualified priests could be found, they searched for Levites. If they could not find capable Levites, they would assign the task to Israelites (ibid.).
93.
Tosafot Yom Tov writes that the boxes were closed on three sides and open on the fourth.
94.
Pesachim 26a states that one is not required to bring a guilt offering for deriving pleasure by gazing at sacred objects. However, though no offering is required, it was still forbidden to gaze at the Holy of Holies.
95.
The source for the Rambam's statements isMiddot 3:4. However, it is difficult to understand which part of the Temple building was to be covered with cement. As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah, the exterior of the Temple building was made of fine marble, and at times, it was coated with gold. Surely, these attractive surfaces would not be covered with simple cement.
There are sources who suggest that it was the Temple ceiling that was coated with cement each year. It is our prayer that the Temple will be rebuilt in the near future and then, we will understand the Rambam's intent.
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 1, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 2, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 3
English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Shvuot - Chapter 1
English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Shvuot - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
There are four types of oaths [for which one may be liable]: sh'vuat bitui, sh'vuat shav, sh'vuat hapikadon, and sh'vuat ha'edut.1
Sh'vuat bitui2 is referred to in the Torah [by Leviticus 5:4]: "When a soul will take an oath, expressing with his lips, whether he will do harm3 or do good." [This category] subdivides into four groupings: two4 [involving statements made] concerning the future and two [involving statements made] concerning the past. For example, he took an oath concerning a past event that it occurred or did not occur, or concerning a future event, that he will do it or that he will not do it.
Halacha 2
[The concept of] a sh'vuat bitui applies with regard to deeds that a person could perform5 whether in the past or in the future.
What is implied? With regard to the past: "I ate," "I cast a stone into the sea," or "So-and-so spoke with so-and-so"; "I did not eat," "I did not cast a stone into the sea," or "So-and-so did not speak with so-and-so." With regard to the future: "I will eat" or "I will not eat," "I will..." or "I will not cast a stone into the sea."6 Thus there are two groupings7 concerning the past and two groupings concerning the future.
Halacha 3
If a person takes an oath concerning one of these four categories and does the opposite, he has taken a false oath. For example, he took an oath not to eat and he ate, that he would eat and he did not eat, that he ate, when he did not or that he did not eat, when he had eaten. With regard to these matters, [Leviticus 19:12] states: "Do not swear falsely in My name."8 If he willfully swears falsely, he is liable for lashes.9 If he does so inadvertently, he must bring an adjustable guilt offering,10 as [ibid. 5:4] states: "And it became concealed from him and he did not know and became guilty."
Halacha 4
[The prohibition against taking] a sh'vuat shav, an oath taken in vain,11 also subdivides into four categories: the first, a person took an oath concerning a known matter12 that was not true, e.g., he took an oath that a man was a woman, a woman was a man, that a marble pillar was gold, or concerning other similar factors.
Halacha 5
The second: that one takes an oath on a known matter concerning which no one has a doubt, e.g., one took an oath that the sky was the sky, that a stone is a stone, on two [objects] that they are two, and the like. Even though there is no doubt about the matter for a person of sound mind, one takes an oath to strengthen [the appreciation of] the matter.13
Halacha 6
The third is one who takes an oath to nullify a mitzvah.14 What is implied? One took an oath not to wrap himself in tzitzit,15 not to put on tefilin, not to dwell in asukkah throughout the holiday of Sukkot,16 not to eat matzah on Pesach night, that he would fast on the Sabbaths and the festivals,17 or concerning other analogous instances.
Halacha 7
The fourth - that one took an oath concerning a matter that he is unable to perform.18 What is implied? He took an oath that he would not sleep for three consecutive days and nights,19 he would not eat for seven consecutive days or concerning any analogous matter.
Whenever a person takes an oath in vain by taking one of these four types of oaths, he transgresses a negative commandment,20 as [Exodus 20:7] states: "And you shall not take the name of God your Lord in vain." If he [takes the oath] willfully, he is liable for lashes.21 If he does so inadvertently, he is exempt entirely.
Halacha 8
What is meant by a sh'vuat hapikadon, [an oath concerning an entrusted object]?22 [It applies] when a person has money belonging to a colleague in his possession - whether it be an entrusted article or a loan, he stole from him, withheld his wages, he found a loss object belonging to him and did not return it, or any similar situation. If his colleague claims the money that he has in his possession and he denies the claim, he violates a negative commandment,23as [Leviticus 19:11] states: "You shall not deny..."; this is a warning [not to] deny a monetary [claim]. One is not liable for lashes for this transgression.24
Halacha 9
What is a person's liability for taking a false sh'vuat hapikadon? He must pay the principle that he denied plus an additional fifth27 and bring a definite28 guilt offering as a sacrifice. [This applies] whether he [transgressed] intentionally or unintentionally,29 as indicated by Leviticus 5:21-23 which] states: "And he will deny his [obligation to] a colleague concerning an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, a robbery... when he sin and become guilty." [The verse] does not say: "And it will become concealed from him,"30 indicating that one who transgresses willfully is liable just as [one who transgresses] inadvertently.
Halacha 10
The above applies when the person willfully accepted the entrusted object or the money that he was obligated and knew about it at the time of the oath. If, however, he acted unintentionally, forgot that he had the money in his possession, therefore denied it and took an oath, and then discovered the matter, he is considered [to have transgressed because of] factors beyond his control and is not liable at all.31 Similarly, if the person did not know that it was forbidden to take a false oath in denial of a financial claim, he is considered [to have transgressed because of] factors beyond his control and is not liable.32
Halacha 11
If so, what is meant by acting inadvertently with regard to a sh'vuat hapikadon? For example, he forgot that one is liable to bring a sacrifice for [taking such a false oath], but knew that it was forbidden to do so and that he has the other person's money in his possession. This is considered the inadvertent transgression [of this prohibition].33 Willful transgression is when he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice [because of the transgression].
Halacha 12
What is meant by sh'vuat ha'edut?34 Witnesses know testimony associated with a monetary claim35 and the person affected by the testimony demanded that they testify on his behalf. The witnesses deny knowledge of testimony, do not testify, and take an oath36 that they do not know any testimony concerning him. This is referred to as a sh'vuat ha'edut. For taking a [false] oath of this nature, one is liable for an adjustable guilt offering,37 [This applies] whether he [transgressed] intentionally or unintentionally, as [indicated by Leviticus 5:1which] states: "When a person will sin: If he heard a demand for an oath and he had witnessed...." [The verse] does not say: "And it will become concealed from him,"38 indicating that one who transgresses willfully is liable just as [one who transgresses] inadvertently.
Halacha 13
What is meant by acting inadvertently with regard to a sh'vuat ha'edut? For example, he forgot that one is liable to bring a sacrifice for [taking such a false oath], but knew that this oath was forbidden and that he would be swearing falsely. Willful transgression is when he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice [because of the transgression]. If he did not know that [taking such an oath] is forbidden or forgot the testimony and took an oath39 and later it was discovered that he knew testimony and took a false oath, he is considered [to have transgressed because of] forces beyond his control and he is not liable to bring a sacrifice.40
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam proceeds to explain these four types of oath in this chapter.
2.
Bitui literally means "expression." I.e., this oath is taken expressing statements concerning the past or the future. See Chapters 4 and 5 where this subject is discussed in detail.
3.
As evident from Chapter 5, Halachot 16-17, this applies when he takes an oath to harm himself, but not to harm others.
4.
I.e., one positive and one negative. The concept that a sh'vuat bitui has both these forms is derived from the prooftext cited which states: "Whether he will do harm or do good." See Chapter 9, Halachah 18.
5.
But not with regard to something which he cannot perform. As stated in Halachah 7, that is included in the category of an oath taken in vain.
6.
An oath he takes concerning the future that involves another person is not included in this category, because he has no way of controlling that person's conduct. See Chapter 5, Halachot 1-2.
7.
One positive and one negative.
8.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 61) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 227) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
9.
This is somewhat of a new concept, because one does not receive lashes for violating a transgression that does not involve a deed and ordinarily, speech is not considered a deed. Nevertheless, taking a false oath is an exception to this principle, for Exodus 20:7 states: "God will not absolve anyone who takes His name in vain." Sh'vuot 21a interprets that to mean that a person who takes an oath in vain is liable for lashes. See also Chapter 4, Halachot 20-21 for more factors concerning this concept.
10.
In contrast to an ordinary sin-offering, the sacrifice a person liable for such an offering must bring is adjusted according to his financial status as stated in Leviticus, ch. 5. See Chapter 3, Halachot 6-7 for details concerning when one is held liable for such a sacrifice and when he is not.
11.
See Chapter 6 where this subject is discussed in detail.
12.
The Ra'avad explains that the term "a known matter" refers to something known to three people. The Radbaz notes that the Rambam mentions this point in Chapter 5, Halachah 22. See Chapter 3, Halachah 5, and notes from which it is evident that here, the person taking the oath is not speaking facetiously. Although it is known that what he is saying is false, he intends that his words be taken at face value. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 21, and notes.
13.
Thus since no one else but a fool will have any doubt concerning the matter, there is no need to take an oath. Hence, the oath is considered to have been taken in vain (Radbaz).
14.
Since he is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah and the matter is not dependent on his choice or consent, his oath is considered to be in vain. See also Chapter 5, Halachot 14-15.
15.
The Radbaz clarifies that we are not speaking about taking an oath not to wear atallit, for a person is not obligated to wear atallit by Scriptural Law (see Hilchot Tzitzit3:11). Instead, the intent is to take an oath that he will wear a four-cornered garment and not put tzitzit on it.
16.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 18.
17.
For one must take pleasure in food and drink on these days. It is forbidden to fast (Hilchot Shabbat 30:12; Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 6:17).
18.
Since he is unable to perform the matter, the oath he took is obviously in vain.
19.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 20.
20.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 62) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 30) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
21.
See the notes to Halachah 3.
22.
The latter is the literal translation of the termpikadon. Nevertheless, as the Rambam continues to explain, the term has a broader halachic meaning in this context. The Radbaz explains that the mishnah uses the term sh'vuat hapikadon, because it is most common that such a claim will be made with regard to an entrusted object. Alternatively, because the prooftext (Leviticus 5:21)mentions an entrusted object first. See Chapters 7 and 8 where this subject is discussed in detail.
23.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 248) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 225) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
24.
Either because the transgression does not involve a deed, or because financial compensation must be given and a person is not held liable both for financial restitution and lashes (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2).
25.
He also violates the commandment against taking a false oath [Sh'vuot 20b; Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 249)].
26.
Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 226) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
27.
As the Rambam explains in several instances, the intent is one fifth of the new total. For example, if he denied a debt of 20zuz, he must pay 25 in restitution.
28.
This term is used to distinguish this offering from the conditional guilt offering brought by a person who is unsure whether or not he committed a sin.
29.
In contrast, an ordinary sin offering is brought only when one transgresses inadvertently.
30.
As Leviticus 5:4 states with regard to ash'vuat bitui.
31.
Neither for a sacrifice, nor for the payment of an additional fifth of the object's value.
32.
The Radbaz states that although such an individual is not liable for a sacrifice or the additional fifth, he is liable for transgressing the prohibition against denying property.
33.
Since he is unaware of the fact that he must bring a sacrifice and thus does not know the full severity of his act, he is considered to have transgressed inadvertently. Nevertheless, because he is conscious of the transgression and the fact that he has the other person's money in his possession, he is not considered to have transgressed due to forces beyond his control.
34.
The term literally means "an oath [associated with] testimony." See Chapters 9 and 10 where this subject is discussed in detail.
35.
See Chapter 9, Halachot 3-5.
36.
This oath is not required by the court, but rather is demanded by the person affected by their testimony. See Chapter 9, Halachah 6.
37.
See the notes to Halachah 3.
38.
See Chapter 9, Halachot 3-5.
39.
In translation, we have used the singular for continuity. The Rambam, however, uses plural forms, because testimony brings about a monetary obligation only when given by two witnesses.
40.
I.e., they are not considered to have transgressed at all.
Shvuot - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
Whether one takes one of these four oaths [falsely] on his own initiative or he is placed under oath by another person and answers Amen to his statements, he is liable.1 [This applies] even if he is placed under oath by a gentile2 or a minor3 and responds Amen.
[The rationale is that] anyone who responds Amen or makes a statement equivalent to responding Amen, e.g., he says "Yes," "I am obligated in this oath," "I accept this oath upon myself," or the like in any language4 is considered to have taken an oath with regard to all matter,5 whether it be liability for lashes6 or for a sacrifice.7
Halacha 2
[The same laws apply whether] one took an oath - or another person administered an oath to him - with God's ineffable name8 - or with one of the descriptive terms used to refer to Him,9 e.g., he took an oath "on He whose name is Gracious," "on He whose name is Merciful," or "on He whose name is Patient," regardless of the language he used.10 The statement is considered an oath in the full sense of the term.11
Similarly, a statement with the terms eleh or erur12 is considered as an oath,13provided one mentions one of God's names or one of the terms used to describe Him. What is implied? When a person said: "May one who eats this-and-this entity be cursed unto God," or "...cursed unto He whose name is Gracious," "...cursed unto He whose name is Merciful" and then ate that entity, he has taken a false oath.14 Similar concepts apply with regard to the other types of oaths.
Halacha 3
Similarly, one who says: "[I am taking] an oath by God...," or "...by One whose name is Gracious that I will not eat," and he ate, "...that this is a woman," and it was a man, "...that I do not owe you anything," and he does, "that I do not know any testimony involving you," and he does,15 he is liable.
Halacha 4
If a person uses the term eleh or erur or an oath and does not mention God's name or a term describing Him, he is bound by a prohibition with regard to the entity concerning which he [desired to] take the oath. He is not, however, liable for lashes or for a sacrifice if he violated his oath unless it included one of God's names16 or a term describing Him as explained.
Halacha 5
Not only the term sh'vuah, but [the use of] any idiom used to refer to an oath is considered as [taking] an oath. For example, people in a given place were inarticulate and would call an oath shabutah or shakukah, or they were Aramites for whom the term for oath in their language is momata, and the inarticulate idiomatically refer to it is mohah. When a person makes a statement whose intent and meaning is that he is taking an oath, he is liable as if he used the term [in Lashon Hakodesh].17
Halacha 6
Similarly, when a person says: "No, no," repeating the negative twice as if he is taking an oath or "Yes, yes," and mentions God's name or a term used to describe Him, it is considered an oath.18 Similarly, if he says: "[By God's] right hand," it is an oath, or "[By God's] left hand," it is an oath, as [implied by Isaiah 62:5] "God swore by His right hand and by the arm of His strength."19Similarly, when someone says "Mivtah20 that I will not do such-and-such," and mentions God's name or a term used to describe Him, it is considered an oath.
Halacha 7
When one says: "It is forbidden for God's [sake]" or "...for [the sake of] He whose name is Gracious that I will do..." or "...that I will not do [such-and-such]," it is considered an oath, because the wording he used has that implication.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
Similarly, if he took an oath and said: "I will not eat this meat," and then said: "This bread is like this meat," he is not liable for the bread, because he did not explicitly take an oath regarding it. Instead, he appended [the prohibition concerning it to his existing oath]. Although he is exempt from lashes and from a sacrifice, he is forbidden to partake of the bread that he appended to his oath.23
Halacha 10
[Although] a person has the intent to take an oath and resolves in his heart not to eat on that day or not to drink and has the intent for that activity to forbidden for him by oath, [if] he does not actually make such a statement, he is permitted [to eat or drink], as [implied by Leviticus 5:4]: "expressing with his lips." [Implied is that] a person who takes an oath is not liable until he explicitly states the matter the oath concerns with his lips.
Halacha 11
Similarly, if he resolved within his heart to take an oath and erred and uttered a statement that did not fit the intent in his heart, [the activity] is permitted.24
What is implied? A person had the intent that he would not eat in Reuven's [home], but when he actually came to state the oath explicitly, he swore not to eat in [Shimon's] home. [In such a situation,] he is permitted to eat in Reuven's [home] for he did not explicitly [swear not to eat there]. [And he is permitted to eat] in Shimon's [home] for he did not have the intent [to prohibit that].
Halacha 12
Similarly, with regard to the other types of oaths, one is not liable until his mouth and his heart are in concord.25 Therefore [the following law applies if] a person took an oath in our presence that he would not eat and ate. He was given a warning [before he ate] and he responded: "My intent was that I would not depart today. I had a slip of the tongue and mentioned eating although that was not my intent."26 is not liable for lashes unless, before he eats, he admits in the presence of witnesses that [his intent in] taking the oath was [not] to eat. Alternatively, [he is liable for lashes] if he accepted the warning and did not protest that he erred at the time of the warning. Even though he protested afterwards, we do not pay attention to him.27 Similarly, [he is liable] if they warned him and he said: "I never took an oath - or a vow - concerning this matter." Despite the fact that after they give testimony that he took an oath or vow, he says: "Yes, that is true, but my mouth and heart were not in concord," or "In my heart, I had a stipulation in mind concerning the vow,"28 we do not heed him29 and he is liable for lashes.
Halacha 13
Similarly, if [witnesses] told him: "Your wife took a vow," and he said: "My intent was to nullify the vow and I did so,"30 we heed his statements. If he is told, "She took a vow," and he denies it, but when he saw them testify against him, he said: "My intent was to nullify [the vow]," his word is not heeded.
Halacha 14
If he resolved within his heart not to partake of bread made from wheat, but took an oath not to partake of bread without qualifying his statement, he is forbidden to partake of bread from wheat. For when bread [is mentioned without qualification, the meaning] is bread from wheat.31
Halacha 15
When a person takes an oath, saying: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat today and my oath is dependent on your intent,"32 he cannot [later] say: "I had these-and-these thoughts in my heart." [The rationale is] that the person did not take the oath dependent on his own intent, but rather on the intent of others. Since his statements did concur with the intent of those on whose intent he took the oath he is liable. [The intent in] the heart of those individuals takes the place of his own intent. [This concept also applies] with regard to other types of oaths.
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
[The following law applies when a person] took an oath and his statements and his intent concurred at the time he took the oath, but after he becomes forbidden [in the particular activity mentioned in the oath], he changes his mind immediately, directly after he spoke. [The latter term has a specific halachic definition]: the time it takes a student to tell his teacher: Shalom Elecha Rabbi.35 [If, in this interim, the person says:] "This is not an oath," "I changed my mind," "I retract," or the like, i.e., statements that imply that he seeks to release the prohibition he took on [himself], it is permitted.36 The oath is eradicated, for this resembles on who made a statement in error.
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
If a person took an oath and retracted within his heart39 within the above measure of time, it is of no consequence. Similarly, if others told him: "Retract," "It is permitted for you," or "It is absolved for you," and he accepted their words in his heart within the above measure of time, it is of no consequence. He must state his retraction explicitly like his oath.40
FOOTNOTES
1.
The concept that a person is considered to have taken an oath when he respondsAmen to the statements is derived from the Torah's statements with regard to a sotah, a woman suspected of adultery (Numbers 5:22). For she is required to answer Amento the oath administered to her by the priest and yet, it is considered as if she took the oath herself.
2.
Although in most instances, statements made by such gentiles are of no significance according to Jewish Law, this is an acceptance. Here also there is an allusion to this concept in the Torah itself. Ezekiel 17:13and II Chronicles 36:13 speak of Nebuchadnetzar having King Tzidkayahu take an oath. Nedarim 65a states that this oath was binding. Similarly, Sh'vuot 36a speaks of an oath Moses took to Jethro, his gentile father-in-law (Kessef Mishneh).
3.
This is derived through a comparison to gentiles.
4.
I.e., not only in lashon hakodesh, the Hebrew used in the Bible and by the Sages.
5.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 1, Chapter 8, Halachah 7, and Chapter 9, Halachah 1, which mentions instances where a person is considered to have taken an oath even if he does not respond Amen.
6.
If he takes a false sh'vuat bitui or takes an oath in vain.
7.
If he takes a false sh'vuat hapikadon orsh'vuat ha'edut.
8.
I.e., the name Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei. See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:7 which states that this term also refers to the name Adonai. The same law holds true for any other of God's names.
9.
Note, however, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah6:5, which states that even when these descriptions are used to refer to Him, they are not considered to have the same holiness as one of His names.
10.
I.e., not only in lashon hakodesh, the Hebrew used in the Bible and by the Sages.
11.
The Rambam uses the expression "in the full sense of the term" to differentiate between this instance and the law mentioned in Halachah 4. Note the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz who explains that there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim if ash'vuat bitui must contain God's name for one to be liable as appears to be the Rambam's opinion or whether His name need not be mentioned as is the view of the Ramban, Rabbenu Asher, and others. The Ra'avad takes an intermediate view, stating that one transgresses by taking a false oath and is liable to bring a sacrifice, but he is not liable for lashes unless he mentions one of God's names.
All authorities agree that God's name must be mentioned for one to be liable with regard to a sh'vuat haedut or a sh'vuat hapikadon. On that basis, the Radbaz supports the Rambam's position, asking why a differentiation should be made between one type of oath and another. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 237:1) and commentaries.
12.
Both these terms mean "curse."
13.
Sh'vuot 36a derives this concept from the verses cited above with regard to Tzidkayahu's oath, for there he used the term "curse." See also I Samuel 14, 24, 27 which indicate that saying that one will be cursed is equivalent to an oath.
14.
And is liable for taking a false sh'vuat bitui, as indicated by Chapter 1, Halachah 3.
15.
I.e., the Rambam is giving an example of all four types of oaths.
16.
See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:2 for a list of the seven names of God.
17.
For that reason, when called to take an oath in a secular court or the like, one should refuse. Instead of saying "I swear," he should say, "I affirm."
18.
The repetition and the mention of God's name indicate that he is not merely making a statement, but intending that it have the severity of an oath. The Kessef Mishnehstates that since the person mentioned God's name, seemingly, it is not necessary for him to repeat yes or no, the mention of His name alone should be sufficient for his statement to be considered an oath. He explains that we are speaking about an instance when God's name was not mentioned in direct connection with the statement. Nevertheless, the fact that he repeated no, or yes while mentioning God's name, albeit indirectly, is sufficient for his statements to be considered an oath.
19.
2Nazir 3a states that "the arm of His strength" refers to His left arm. Otherwise, the verse would be redundant.
20.
Sh'vuot 20a notes that Numbers 30:7understands this term as referring to an oath.
21.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that the Rambam's choice of wording - "He is not liable" rather than "It is permitted" - implies that although he is not liable, he is forbidden to break the commitment he made. Although otherRishonim differ, he follows this interpretation in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 239:9-10). See the following halachah.
22.
This is one of the distinctions between oaths and vows. One who "appends" - i.e., says "And I will be like him" - to a colleague's vow is liable. See Hilchot Nedarim 3:3-4.
23.
The Radbaz explains that the Rambam elaborates here - in contrast to the previous halachah - for here there is greater reason to think that he will not be obligated. The explanation is based on a fundamental understanding of the difference between ash'vuah - oath - and a neder - vow. When a person takes an oath, he places a prohibition upon his person - he is forbidden to perform the activity concerning which he took the oath. When he takes a vow, the article becomes forbidden for him. Hence, since he spoke about the article and not himself, one might think that his statement has no effect at all.
24.
For as Sh'vuot 26b implies, one's heart and one's lips must be in concord.
25.
In some authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, this sentence is the conclusion of the previous halachah. The present halachah begins: "Therefore..." Compare to Halachot 15-16.
26.
I.e., if he makes this statement when given the warning, we accept his word and do not hold him liable (Tosefta, Taharot 6:9).
27.
As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2, to be liable for lashes, a transgressor must acknowledge the warning. Since, at that time, he did not mention the lack of concurrence between his intent and his statements, we assume that he is fabricating the matter.
28.
And since the stipulation was not met, the vow is not binding.
29.
For he has already lied concerning this oath.
30.
There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries with regard to the interpretation of the Rambam's statements. Some explain that the intent is that the husband used the halachic convention ofhafarah and made the statement nullifying his wife's vow in a hushed tone. If, however, he did not make a statement of hafarah at all, the vow is not nullified, as stated inHilchot Nedarim 13:7). The Tzaphnat Paneach states that the intent is that he used the halachic convention of bittul. In such in instance, a statement need not be made (Hilchot Nedarim 13:4).
31.
Thus the person cannot claim that his statement did not reflect his intent.
32.
I.e., this law applies even if the person takes the oath on his own volition, not only if it is administered by others.
33.
I.e., require an oath of a person who denies a plaintiff's claim. See Chapter 11, Halachah 18.
34.
Thus afterwards the person cannot claim that he had these-and-these thoughts in mind when taking the oath (Radbaz). See also Nedarim 25a.
35.
"Greetings to you, my teacher." We have cited the term in transliteration for we are speaking about the amount of time it takes to say these three Hebrew words.
36.
Nedarim 87a states that this principle applies with the exception of four situations: a blasphemer, one who accepts a false deity, one who consecrates a woman as a wife, and one who divorces her. Rabbenu Nissim explains that when taking an oath, a person has in mind that he might change his mind in this brief amount of time. Hence, his oath is not binding until this time passes.
37.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, saying that the objections of others cannot by connected to his oath. In hisKessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 210:3), Rav Yosef Caro and also the Radbaz explain that since the others protested immediately after his oath and his acceptance also came immediately afterwards, it is as if he never completed taking the oath.
38.
This applies even if the oath has not taken effect as of yet (Radbaz).
39.
I.e., without verbalizing his retraction.
40.
The Radbaz emphasizes that he must also make his statements with intent. Just as his mouth and heart must concur when making an oath, so, too, they must concur when retracting it.
Shvuot - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
Whenever a person takes one of these four types of oaths under compulsion, he is exempt from all liability. This applies to a person who at the outset took a false oath because of factors beyond his control as we explained, one who took an oath and then was subjected to compulsion and was not given the opportunity to fulfill his oath, or he was compelled to take an oath by a man of force. Therefore one may take an oath when compelled to by robbers, potential murders, and tax collectors.
Halacha 2
To which tax collector did we refer? To a tax collector that assumed the position on his own, who takes money without the license of the king or who takes money with the king's license, but takes more for himself than the fixed measure, as explained in Hilchot Gezelah.
Halacha 3
When a person is compelled to take an oath, to be exempt, while taking the oath, he must have the intent in his heart for the oath to apply to something for which he is exempt. Although generally, words in a person's heart are of no consequence, since he cannot express his intent because of the forces beyond his control, he can rely on the intent in his heart.
Halacha 4
What is implied? One took an oath to a man of force that would not eat meat without qualifying his statement, it is permitted if in his heart, he had the intent that he was saying that he would not eat the meat of pigs, or that he would not eat meat that day. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
Similarly, one is not liable for oaths involving exaggerations or unintentional oaths. What is meant by oaths involving exaggerations? A person saw vast armies and tall walls and he took an oath that "I saw the armies of King So-and-So and they are as vast as those who left Egypt," "I saw the wall of this-and-this city and it was as high as the heavens," or the like. He is exempt, because he did not resolve within his heart that this was the measure of the subject in question, no more and no less. His intent was only to describe the height of the wall or the multitude of the people.
Halacha 6
What is meant by an oath taken inadvertently? With regard to a sh'vuat hapikadon or a sh'vuat ha'edut, it refers to a situation where the person forgot about the entrusted article or the testimony. He is entirely exempt, as we explained.
With regard to an oath taken in vain, it refers to a situation where the person took an oath not to wear tefilin, but did not know that tefilin are a mitzvah. With regard to a false oath, it refers to a situation where the person took an oath that he did not eat and then remembered that he did in fact eat, he took an oath that he would not eat and then forgot and ate, he took an oath that he would not give any satisfaction to his wife because she stole his wallet or beat his son and afterwards, he found out that she did not steal it or beat him. Similar concepts apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 7
If so, what is a sh'vuat bitui taken inadvertently for which one is liable to bring an adjustable guilt offering with regard to the past? One took an oath that he did not eat although he knew that he in fact had eaten and he knew that it is forbidden to have taken this false oath, but he did not know that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. This is the inadvertent violation for which one is liable to bring an adjustable guilt offering for taking a sh'vuat bitui with regard to the past.
Halacha 8
What is meant by an inadvertent violation for which one is liable for an adjustable guilt offering for breaking an oath involving the future? For example, one took an oath that he would not eat bread from wheat and forgot and thought that he had taken an oath that he would eat bread from wheat and then ate it. In this instance, he became unaware of the content of the oath although he remembered the article concerning which he took the oath. This is an inadvertent violation of a sh'vuat bitui involving the future which obligates him to bring a sacrifice.
Halacha 9
If, however, he took an oath that he would not eat bread from wheat and he ate bread from wheat thinking that it was made from barley, he is considered to have transgressed due to forces beyond his control and he is exempt. For he did not become unaware of the oath, but instead of the article concerning which he took the oath.
Halacha 10
If he lost awareness of the oath he took and he lost awareness of the article concerning which he took the oath, he is not liable for a sacrifice.
What is implied? For example, one took an oath that he would not eat bread from wheat and thought that he had taken an oath that he would eat bread from wheat and ate bread from wheat thinking it was barley. He is not liable, because he became unaware of both the oath and the article it concerned. It is considered as if he he transgressed due to forces beyond his control.
Halacha 11
The following laws apply if a person took an oath concerning a loaf of bread, swearing that he would not eat it and then suffered discomfort because of it. Should he eat the loaf because of his discomfort, because he thought that it is permitted for him to eat it because of discomfort, he is considered to have transgressed inadvertently. He is exempt from bringing a sacrifice, because he is not repenting because of his new knowledge. Instead, he knew that it was forbidden and ate it in error.
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Wednesday, Adar I 22, 5776 · 02 February 2016
Shabbat 22 Adar I 5703
Haftora: Vayishlach Ach'av
Torah lessons: Chumash: Ki Tissa, Shvi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 106-107.
Tanya: Ch. 31. Even if (p. 139)...rejoicing of the heart. (p. 145).
My father writes in one of his maamarim: "Regarding s'uda shlishit (the third Shabbat meal): The allusion to the verse, today you will not find it (the manna, i.e., Shabbat bread) etc.,1 means only that bread is not required at that meal, but we must partake of some food. R. Yosi did say, may my lot be with those who partake of three Shabbat meals.2
* * *
The Alter Rebbe taught, shortly after he came to Lyozna: One must always (l'olam) be scrupulous (zahir) about the Minchadavening.3
The special quality of Mincha over Shacharit and Maariv is that it comes in the middle of the day, when people are occupied and busy with their personal affairs, yet they interrupt to daven Mincha. Therefore,
l'olam ("always," or more literally: "for the world"), man's avodain This World is...
...y'hei adam (lit. "man must be," but the Hebrew words also imply "be a man" i.e. that) his intellect4 illuminate and affect his emotions.
...zahir (lit. "scrupulous," but also:) "luminous," i.e., that form (the spiritual)5 "illuminate" or have dominance over the material. This becomes evident through the Mincha davening.
FOOTNOTES
1. Sh'mot 16:25.
2. Shabbat 118a.
3. Brachot 6b.
4. See Elul 4.; "Adam" refers to intellectual man.
5. See Kislev 7.
---------------------• Daily Thought:
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Wednesday, Adar I 22, 5776 · 02 February 2016
Shabbat 22 Adar I 5703
Haftora: Vayishlach Ach'av
Torah lessons: Chumash: Ki Tissa, Shvi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 106-107.
Tanya: Ch. 31. Even if (p. 139)...rejoicing of the heart. (p. 145).
My father writes in one of his maamarim: "Regarding s'uda shlishit (the third Shabbat meal): The allusion to the verse, today you will not find it (the manna, i.e., Shabbat bread) etc.,1 means only that bread is not required at that meal, but we must partake of some food. R. Yosi did say, may my lot be with those who partake of three Shabbat meals.2
* * *
The Alter Rebbe taught, shortly after he came to Lyozna: One must always (l'olam) be scrupulous (zahir) about the Minchadavening.3
The special quality of Mincha over Shacharit and Maariv is that it comes in the middle of the day, when people are occupied and busy with their personal affairs, yet they interrupt to daven Mincha. Therefore,
l'olam ("always," or more literally: "for the world"), man's avodain This World is...
...y'hei adam (lit. "man must be," but the Hebrew words also imply "be a man" i.e. that) his intellect4 illuminate and affect his emotions.
...zahir (lit. "scrupulous," but also:) "luminous," i.e., that form (the spiritual)5 "illuminate" or have dominance over the material. This becomes evident through the Mincha davening.
FOOTNOTES
1. Sh'mot 16:25.
2. Shabbat 118a.
3. Brachot 6b.
4. See Elul 4.; "Adam" refers to intellectual man.
5. See Kislev 7.
---------------------• Daily Thought:
Awake at Night
Just as you learn to walk by falling down, so you learn to be awake by groping in the dark.
When there is no support, no light to guide you, when you are all on our own, that is your opportunity to become truly awake.
Truly awake—not because the day is here, but because you are here.
---------------------
CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - Today is: Tuesday, Adar I 21, 5776 · March 1, 2016
Daily Quote
"Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out" (Deuteronomy 28:6) -- May your departure from the world be as free of sin as was your entry into the world[Talmud, Bava Metzia 107a]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayak'hel, 3rd Portion Exodus 35:30-36:7 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 35
30Moses said to the children of Israel: "See, the Lord has called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. לוַיֹּ֤אמֶר משֶׁה֙ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל רְא֛וּ קָרָ֥א יְהֹוָ֖ה בְּשֵׁ֑ם בְּצַלְאֵ֛ל בֶּן־אוּרִ֥י בֶן־ח֖וּר לְמַטֵּ֥ה יְהוּדָֽה:
Hur: He was Miriam’s son. -[from Sotah 11b] חור: בנה של מרים היה:
31He has imbued him with the spirit of God, with wisdom, with insight, and with knowledge, and with [talent for] all manner of craftsmanship לאוַיְמַלֵּ֥א אֹת֖וֹ ר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֑ים בְּחָכְמָ֛ה בִּתְבוּנָ֥ה וּבְדַ֖עַת וּבְכָל־מְלָאכָֽה:
32to do master weaving, to work with gold, silver, and copper, לבוְלַחְשֹׁ֖ב מַֽחֲשָׁבֹ֑ת לַֽעֲשׂ֛ת בַּזָּהָ֥ב וּבַכֶּ֖סֶף וּבַנְּחֽשֶׁת:
33with the craft of stones for setting and with the craft of wood, to work with every [manner of] thoughtful work. לגוּבַֽחֲר֥שֶׁת אֶ֛בֶן לְמַלֹּ֖את וּבַֽחֲר֣שֶׁת עֵ֑ץ לַֽעֲשׂ֖וֹת בְּכָל־מְלֶ֥אכֶת מַֽחֲשָֽׁבֶת:
34And He put into his heart [the ability] to teach, both him and Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. לדוּלְהוֹרֹ֖ת נָתַ֣ן בְּלִבּ֑וֹ ה֕וּא וְאָֽהֳלִיאָ֥ב בֶּן־אֲחִֽיסָמָ֖ךְ לְמַטֵּה־דָֽן:
and Oholiab: of the tribe of Dan, of the lowest of the tribes, of the sons of the handmaidens [Bilhah and Zilpah. Dan was Bilhah’s son]. Yet the Omnipresent compared him [Oholiab] to Bezalel for the work of the Mishkan, and he [Bezalel] was of the greatest of the tribes [Judah], to fulfill what is said: “and a prince was not recognized before a poor man” (Job 34:19). -[from Tanchuma 13] ואהליאב: משבט דן, מן הירודין שבשבטים מבני השפחות, והשוהו המקום לבצלאל למאלכת המשכן, והוא מגדולי השבטים, לקיים מה שנאמר (איוב לד יט) ולא נכר שוע לפני דל:
35He imbued them with wisdom of the heart, to do all sorts of work of a craftsman and a master worker and an embroiderer with blue, purple, and crimson wool, and linen and [of] weavers, those who do every [manner of] work, and master weavers. להמִלֵּ֨א אֹתָ֜ם חָכְמַת־לֵ֗ב לַֽעֲשׂוֹת֘ כָּל־מְלֶ֣אכֶת חָרָ֣שׁ | וְחשֵׁב֒ וְרֹקֵ֞ם בַּתְּכֵ֣לֶת וּבָֽאַרְגָּמָ֗ן בְּתוֹלַ֧עַת הַשָּׁנִ֛י וּבַשֵּׁ֖שׁ וְאֹרֵ֑ג עֹשֵׂי֙ כָּל־מְלָאכָ֔ה וְחֽשְׁבֵ֖י מַֽחֲשָׁבֹֽת:
Exodus Chapter 36
1Bezalel and Oholiab and every wise hearted man into whom God had imbued wisdom and insight to know how to do, shall do all the work of the service of the Holy, according to all that the Lord has commanded." אוְעָשָׂה֩ בְצַלְאֵ֨ל וְאָֽהֳלִיאָ֜ב וְכֹ֣ל | אִ֣ישׁ חֲכַם־לֵ֗ב אֲשֶׁר֩ נָתַ֨ן יְהֹוָ֜ה חָכְמָ֤ה וּתְבוּנָה֙ בָּהֵ֔מָּה לָדַ֣עַת לַֽעֲשׂ֔ת אֶת־כָּל־מְלֶ֖אכֶת עֲבֹדַ֣ת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ לְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֖ה יְהֹוָֽה:
2And Moses called Bezalel and Oholiab and every wise hearted man into whose heart the Lord had given wisdom, everyone whose heart lifted him up to approach the work to do it. בוַיִּקְרָ֣א משֶׁ֗ה אֶל־בְּצַלְאֵל֘ וְאֶל־אָֽהֳלִיאָב֒ וְאֶל֙ כָּל־אִ֣ישׁ חֲכַם־לֵ֔ב אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָתַ֧ן יְהֹוָ֛ה חָכְמָ֖ה בְּלִבּ֑וֹ כֹּ֚ל אֲשֶׁ֣ר נְשָׂא֣וֹ לִבּ֔וֹ לְקָרְבָ֥ה אֶל־הַמְּלָאכָ֖ה לַֽעֲשׂ֥ת אֹתָֽהּ:
3So they took from before Moses all the offering[s] that the children of Israel had brought for the work of the service of the Holy, and they brought him more gifts every morning. גוַיִּקְח֞וּ מִלִּפְנֵ֣י משֶׁ֗ה אֵ֤ת כָּל־הַתְּרוּמָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֵבִ֜יאוּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל לִמְלֶ֛אכֶת עֲבֹדַ֥ת הַקֹּ֖דֶשׁ לַֽעֲשׂ֣ת אֹתָ֑הּ וְ֠הֵ֠ם הֵבִ֨יאוּ אֵלָ֥יו ע֛וֹד נְדָבָ֖ה בַּבֹּ֥קֶר בַּבֹּֽקֶר:
4Then all the wise men who were doing the work of the Holy came, each one from his work, which they had been doing. דוַיָּבֹ֨אוּ֙ כָּל־הַ֣חֲכָמִ֔ים הָֽעֹשִׂ֕ים אֵ֖ת כָּל־מְלֶ֣אכֶת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ אִֽישׁ־אִ֥ישׁ מִמְּלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁר־הֵ֥מָּה עֹשִֽׂים:
5And they spoke to Moses, saying: "The people are bringing very much, more than is enough for the labor of the articles which the Lord had commanded to do." הוַיֹּֽאמְרוּ֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֣ה לֵּאמֹ֔ר מַרְבִּ֥ים הָעָ֖ם לְהָבִ֑יא מִדֵּ֤י הָֽעֲבֹדָה֙ לַמְּלָאכָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה לַֽעֲשׂ֥ת אֹתָֽהּ:
more than is enough for the labor: More than is needed for the labor. מדי העבדה: יותר מכדי צורך העבודה:
6So Moses commanded, and they announced in the camp, saying: "Let no man or woman do any more work for the offering for the Holy." So the people stopped bringing. ווַיְצַ֣ו משֶׁ֗ה וַיַּֽעֲבִ֨ירוּ ק֥וֹל בַּמַּֽחֲנֶה֘ לֵאמֹר֒ אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשָּׁ֗ה אַל־יַֽעֲשׂוּ־ע֛וֹד מְלָאכָ֖ה לִתְרוּמַ֣ת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וַיִּכָּלֵ֥א הָעָ֖ם מֵֽהָבִֽיא:
So the people stopped bringing: Heb. וַיִּכָּלֵא, an expression denoting holding back. ויכלא: לשון מניעה:
7And the work was sufficient for them for all the work, to do it and to leave over. זוְהַמְּלָאכָ֗ה הָֽיְתָ֥ה דַיָּ֛ם לְכָל־הַמְּלָאכָ֖ה לַֽעֲשׂ֣וֹת אֹתָ֑הּ וְהוֹתֵֽר:
And the work was sufficient for them for all the work: And the work of bringing was sufficient for all the makers of the Mishkan, for all the work of the Mishkan -[i.e.,] to make it and to leave over. והמלאכה היתה דים לכל המלאכה: ומלאכת ההבאה היתה דים של עושי המשכן. לכל המלאכה של משכן לעשות אותה ולהותיר:
and to leave over: Heb. וְהוֹתֵר, like “and he hardened (וְהַכְבֵּד) his heart” (Exod. 8:11) [lit., “and hardening his heart”]; “and slew (וְהַכּוֹת) the Moabites” (II Kings 3:24) [lit., “and slaying the Moabites”]. והותר: כמו (שמות ח יא) והכבד את לבו, (מלכים ב' ג כד) והכות את מואב:
Daily Quote
"Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out" (Deuteronomy 28:6) -- May your departure from the world be as free of sin as was your entry into the world[Talmud, Bava Metzia 107a]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayak'hel, 3rd Portion Exodus 35:30-36:7 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 35
30Moses said to the children of Israel: "See, the Lord has called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. לוַיֹּ֤אמֶר משֶׁה֙ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל רְא֛וּ קָרָ֥א יְהֹוָ֖ה בְּשֵׁ֑ם בְּצַלְאֵ֛ל בֶּן־אוּרִ֥י בֶן־ח֖וּר לְמַטֵּ֥ה יְהוּדָֽה:
Hur: He was Miriam’s son. -[from Sotah 11b] חור: בנה של מרים היה:
31He has imbued him with the spirit of God, with wisdom, with insight, and with knowledge, and with [talent for] all manner of craftsmanship לאוַיְמַלֵּ֥א אֹת֖וֹ ר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֑ים בְּחָכְמָ֛ה בִּתְבוּנָ֥ה וּבְדַ֖עַת וּבְכָל־מְלָאכָֽה:
32to do master weaving, to work with gold, silver, and copper, לבוְלַחְשֹׁ֖ב מַֽחֲשָׁבֹ֑ת לַֽעֲשׂ֛ת בַּזָּהָ֥ב וּבַכֶּ֖סֶף וּבַנְּחֽשֶׁת:
33with the craft of stones for setting and with the craft of wood, to work with every [manner of] thoughtful work. לגוּבַֽחֲר֥שֶׁת אֶ֛בֶן לְמַלֹּ֖את וּבַֽחֲר֣שֶׁת עֵ֑ץ לַֽעֲשׂ֖וֹת בְּכָל־מְלֶ֥אכֶת מַֽחֲשָֽׁבֶת:
34And He put into his heart [the ability] to teach, both him and Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. לדוּלְהוֹרֹ֖ת נָתַ֣ן בְּלִבּ֑וֹ ה֕וּא וְאָֽהֳלִיאָ֥ב בֶּן־אֲחִֽיסָמָ֖ךְ לְמַטֵּה־דָֽן:
and Oholiab: of the tribe of Dan, of the lowest of the tribes, of the sons of the handmaidens [Bilhah and Zilpah. Dan was Bilhah’s son]. Yet the Omnipresent compared him [Oholiab] to Bezalel for the work of the Mishkan, and he [Bezalel] was of the greatest of the tribes [Judah], to fulfill what is said: “and a prince was not recognized before a poor man” (Job 34:19). -[from Tanchuma 13] ואהליאב: משבט דן, מן הירודין שבשבטים מבני השפחות, והשוהו המקום לבצלאל למאלכת המשכן, והוא מגדולי השבטים, לקיים מה שנאמר (איוב לד יט) ולא נכר שוע לפני דל:
35He imbued them with wisdom of the heart, to do all sorts of work of a craftsman and a master worker and an embroiderer with blue, purple, and crimson wool, and linen and [of] weavers, those who do every [manner of] work, and master weavers. להמִלֵּ֨א אֹתָ֜ם חָכְמַת־לֵ֗ב לַֽעֲשׂוֹת֘ כָּל־מְלֶ֣אכֶת חָרָ֣שׁ | וְחשֵׁב֒ וְרֹקֵ֞ם בַּתְּכֵ֣לֶת וּבָֽאַרְגָּמָ֗ן בְּתוֹלַ֧עַת הַשָּׁנִ֛י וּבַשֵּׁ֖שׁ וְאֹרֵ֑ג עֹשֵׂי֙ כָּל־מְלָאכָ֔ה וְחֽשְׁבֵ֖י מַֽחֲשָׁבֹֽת:
Exodus Chapter 36
1Bezalel and Oholiab and every wise hearted man into whom God had imbued wisdom and insight to know how to do, shall do all the work of the service of the Holy, according to all that the Lord has commanded." אוְעָשָׂה֩ בְצַלְאֵ֨ל וְאָֽהֳלִיאָ֜ב וְכֹ֣ל | אִ֣ישׁ חֲכַם־לֵ֗ב אֲשֶׁר֩ נָתַ֨ן יְהֹוָ֜ה חָכְמָ֤ה וּתְבוּנָה֙ בָּהֵ֔מָּה לָדַ֣עַת לַֽעֲשׂ֔ת אֶת־כָּל־מְלֶ֖אכֶת עֲבֹדַ֣ת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ לְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֖ה יְהֹוָֽה:
2And Moses called Bezalel and Oholiab and every wise hearted man into whose heart the Lord had given wisdom, everyone whose heart lifted him up to approach the work to do it. בוַיִּקְרָ֣א משֶׁ֗ה אֶל־בְּצַלְאֵל֘ וְאֶל־אָֽהֳלִיאָב֒ וְאֶל֙ כָּל־אִ֣ישׁ חֲכַם־לֵ֔ב אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָתַ֧ן יְהֹוָ֛ה חָכְמָ֖ה בְּלִבּ֑וֹ כֹּ֚ל אֲשֶׁ֣ר נְשָׂא֣וֹ לִבּ֔וֹ לְקָרְבָ֥ה אֶל־הַמְּלָאכָ֖ה לַֽעֲשׂ֥ת אֹתָֽהּ:
3So they took from before Moses all the offering[s] that the children of Israel had brought for the work of the service of the Holy, and they brought him more gifts every morning. גוַיִּקְח֞וּ מִלִּפְנֵ֣י משֶׁ֗ה אֵ֤ת כָּל־הַתְּרוּמָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֵבִ֜יאוּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל לִמְלֶ֛אכֶת עֲבֹדַ֥ת הַקֹּ֖דֶשׁ לַֽעֲשׂ֣ת אֹתָ֑הּ וְ֠הֵ֠ם הֵבִ֨יאוּ אֵלָ֥יו ע֛וֹד נְדָבָ֖ה בַּבֹּ֥קֶר בַּבֹּֽקֶר:
4Then all the wise men who were doing the work of the Holy came, each one from his work, which they had been doing. דוַיָּבֹ֨אוּ֙ כָּל־הַ֣חֲכָמִ֔ים הָֽעֹשִׂ֕ים אֵ֖ת כָּל־מְלֶ֣אכֶת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ אִֽישׁ־אִ֥ישׁ מִמְּלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁר־הֵ֥מָּה עֹשִֽׂים:
5And they spoke to Moses, saying: "The people are bringing very much, more than is enough for the labor of the articles which the Lord had commanded to do." הוַיֹּֽאמְרוּ֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֣ה לֵּאמֹ֔ר מַרְבִּ֥ים הָעָ֖ם לְהָבִ֑יא מִדֵּ֤י הָֽעֲבֹדָה֙ לַמְּלָאכָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה לַֽעֲשׂ֥ת אֹתָֽהּ:
more than is enough for the labor: More than is needed for the labor. מדי העבדה: יותר מכדי צורך העבודה:
6So Moses commanded, and they announced in the camp, saying: "Let no man or woman do any more work for the offering for the Holy." So the people stopped bringing. ווַיְצַ֣ו משֶׁ֗ה וַיַּֽעֲבִ֨ירוּ ק֥וֹל בַּמַּֽחֲנֶה֘ לֵאמֹר֒ אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשָּׁ֗ה אַל־יַֽעֲשׂוּ־ע֛וֹד מְלָאכָ֖ה לִתְרוּמַ֣ת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וַיִּכָּלֵ֥א הָעָ֖ם מֵֽהָבִֽיא:
So the people stopped bringing: Heb. וַיִּכָּלֵא, an expression denoting holding back. ויכלא: לשון מניעה:
7And the work was sufficient for them for all the work, to do it and to leave over. זוְהַמְּלָאכָ֗ה הָֽיְתָ֥ה דַיָּ֛ם לְכָל־הַמְּלָאכָ֖ה לַֽעֲשׂ֣וֹת אֹתָ֑הּ וְהוֹתֵֽר:
And the work was sufficient for them for all the work: And the work of bringing was sufficient for all the makers of the Mishkan, for all the work of the Mishkan -[i.e.,] to make it and to leave over. והמלאכה היתה דים לכל המלאכה: ומלאכת ההבאה היתה דים של עושי המשכן. לכל המלאכה של משכן לעשות אותה ולהותיר:
and to leave over: Heb. וְהוֹתֵר, like “and he hardened (וְהַכְבֵּד) his heart” (Exod. 8:11) [lit., “and hardening his heart”]; “and slew (וְהַכּוֹת) the Moabites” (II Kings 3:24) [lit., “and slaying the Moabites”]. והותר: כמו (שמות ח יא) והכבד את לבו, (מלכים ב' ג כד) והכות את מואב:
This psalm tells of the beauty of creation, describing that which was created on each of the six days of creation. It proclaims the awesomeness of God Who sustains it all-from the horns of the wild ox to the eggs of the louse.
1. My soul, bless the Lord! Lord my God, You are greatly exalted; You have garbed Yourself with majesty and splendor.
2. You enwrap [Yourself] with light as with a garment; You spread the heavens as a curtain.
3. He roofs His heavens with water; He makes the clouds His chariot, He moves [them] on the wings of the wind.
4. He makes the winds His messengers, the blazing fire His servants.
5. He established the earth on its foundations, that it shall never falter.
6. The depths covered it as a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.
7. At Your exhortation they fled; at the sound of Your thunder they rushed away.
8. They ascended mountains, they flowed down valleys, to the place which You have assigned for them.
9. You set a boundary which they may not cross, so that they should not return to engulf the earth.
10. He sends forth springs into streams; they flow between the mountains.
11. They give drink to all the beasts of the field; the wild animals quench their thirst.
12. The birds of the heavens dwell beside them; they raise their voice from among the foliage.
13. He irrigates the mountains from His clouds above; the earth is satiated from the fruit of Your works.
14. He makes grass grow for the cattle, and vegetation requiring the labor of man to bring forth food from the earth;
15. and wine that gladdens man's heart, oil that makes the face shine, and bread that sustains man's heart.
16. The trees of the Lord drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon which He planted,
17. wherein birds build their nests; the stork has her home in the cypress.
18. The high mountains are for the wild goats; the rocks are a refuge for the rabbits.
19. He made the moon to calculate the festivals; the sun knows its time of setting.
20. You bring on darkness and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep forth.
21. The young lions roar for prey, and seek their food from God.
22. When the sun rises, they return and lie down in their dens.
23. Then man goes out to his work, to his labor until evening.
24. How manifold are Your works, O Lord! You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions.
25. This sea, vast and wide, where there are countless creeping creatures, living things small and great;
26. there ships travel, there is the Leviathan that You created to frolic therein.
27. They all look expectantly to You to give them their food at the proper time.
28. When You give it to them, they gather it; when You open Your hand, they are satiated with goodness.
29. When You conceal Your countenance, they are terrified; when You take back their spirit, they perish and return to their dust.
30. When You will send forth Your spirit they will be created anew, and You will renew the face of the earth.
31. May the glory of the Lord be forever; may the Lord find delight in His works.
32. He looks at the earth, and it trembles; He touches the mountains, and they smoke.
33. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praise to my God with my [entire] being.
34. May my prayer be pleasant to Him; I will rejoice in the Lord.
35. May sinners cease from the earth, and the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!
Chapter 105
When David brought the Holy Ark up to the City of David, he composed this psalm and sang it before the Ark. He recounts all the miracles that God performed for the Jews in Egypt: sending before them Joseph, who was imprisoned, only to be liberated by God, eventually attaining the status of one who could imprison the princes of Egypt without consulting Pharaoh.
1. Offer praise to the Lord, proclaim His Name; make His deeds known among the nations.
2. Sing to Him, chant praises to Him, speak of all His wonders.
3. Glory in His holy Name; may the heart of those who seek the Lord rejoice.
4. Search for the Lord and His might; seek His countenance always.
5. Remember the wonders that He has wrought, His miracles, and the judgements of His mouth.
6. O descendants of Abraham His servant, children of Jacob, His chosen ones:
7. He is the Lord our God; His judgements extend over the entire earth.
8. He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He has commanded to a thousand generations;
9. the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac.
10. He established it for Jacob as a statute, for Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11. stating, "To you I shall give the land of Canaan"-the portion of your inheritance,
12. when they were but few, very few, and strangers in it.
13. They wandered from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people.
14. He permitted no one to wrong them, and admonished kings for their sake:
15. "Do not touch My anointed ones, and do not harm My prophets.”
16. He called for a famine upon the land; He broke every source of bread.
17. He sent a man before them; Joseph was sold as a slave.
18. They afflicted his foot with chains, his soul was put into iron;
19. until the time that His words came, the decree of the Lord purified him.
20. The king sent [word] and released him, the ruler of nations set him free.
21. He appointed him master of his house and ruler of all his possessions,
22. to imprison his princes at will, and to enlighten his elders.
23. Thus Israel came to Egypt, and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham (Egypt).
24. He multiplied His nation greatly, and made it mightier than its adversaries.
25. He turned their hearts to hate His nation, to conspire against His servants.
26. He sent Moses, His servant; Aaron, whom He had chosen.
27. They placed among them the words of His signs, miracles in the land of Ham.
28. He sent darkness and made it dark, and they did not defy His word.
29. He transformed their waters to blood, and killed their fish.
30. Their land swarmed with frogs in the chambers of their kings.
31. He spoke, and hordes of wild beasts came, and lice throughout their borders.
32. He turned their rains to hail, flaming fire in their land;
33. it struck their vine and fig tree, it broke the trees of their borders.
34. He spoke, and grasshoppers came, locusts without number;
35. and it consumed all grass in their land, it ate the fruit of their soil.
36. Then He smote every firstborn in their land, the first of all their potency.
37. And He took them out with silver and gold, and none among His tribes stumbled.
38. Egypt rejoiced at their leaving, for the fear [of Israel] had fallen upon them.
39. He spread out a cloud for shelter, and a fire to illuminate the night.
40. [Israel] asked, and He brought quail, and with the bread of heaven He satisfied them.
41. He opened a rock and waters flowed; they streamed through dry places like a river,
42. for He remembered His holy word to Abraham His servant.
43. And He brought out His nation with joy, His chosen ones with song.
44. He gave them the lands of nations, they inherited the toil of peoples,
45. so that they might keep His statutes and observe His laws. Praise the Lord!
• Tuesday, Adar I 21, 5776 · March 1, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 30
אבל באמת אם הוא יודע ספר, ומחזיק בתורת ה׳, וקרבת אלקים יחפ׳
In truth, however, if he is a scholar and upholds G‑d’s Torah, and wishes to be close to G‑d,
גדול עונו מנשוא, ואשמתו גדלה בכפלי כפליים במה שאינו נלחם ומתגבר על יצרו בערך ובחינת מלחמה עצומה הנ״ל
his sin is unbearably great and his guilt is increased manifold for his not waging war and not overcoming his impulse in a manner commensurate with the quality and nature of the war mentioned above that the kal shebekalim must face.
מאשמת קל שבקלים מיושבי קרנות הרחוקים מה׳ ותורתו
His guilt is far greater than the guilt of the kal shebekalim, the most worthless of the street-corner squatters, who are remote from G‑d and His Torah.
ואין אשמתם גדולה כל כך במה שאינם כובשים יצרם הבוער כאש להבה מפני פחד ה׳ המבין ומביט אל כל מעשיהם
Their guilt for not summoning up the fear of G‑d Who knows and sees all their actions, in order to restrain their impulse which burns like a fiery flame, is not as heinous
כאשמת כל הקרב הקרב אל ה׳ ואל תורתו ועבודתו
as the guilt of one who draws ever nearer to G‑d, His Torah and His service.
וכמו שאמרו רז״ל גבי אחר: שידע בכבודי וכו׳
As our Sages of blessed memory said of the apostate “Acher”, Elisha ben Avuyah: 1 “Because he knew My glory...,” said G‑d; if despite this he still sinned, his guilt is far greater.
ולכן אמרו רז״ל על עמי האר׳ שזדונות נעשו להם כשגגות
Therefore our Sages declared in regard to the illiterate that2 “Deliberate sins are regarded in their case as inadvertent acts,” since they are unaware of the gravity of their sins.
With a scholar, the reverse is true: an oversight due to lack of study is adjudged as being as grave as a deliberate sin.3Thus, his failure to restrain his evil impulse is indeed worse than the failure of the kal shebekalim.
By contemplating this, the observant scholar will now be able to fulfill the instruction of the Mishnah (quoted at the beginning of this chapter): “Be lowly of spirit before every man.” Thereby he will crush his own spirit and the spirit of thesitra achra in his animal soul, enabling the light of his soul to permeate and irradiate his body, as explained in ch. 29.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Chaghigah 15a (in fourth marginal gloss by the Bach). |
| 2. | Bava Metzia 33b. |
| 3. | Avot 4:13. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Tuesday, Adar I 21, 5776 · March 1, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 148
Sending Away the Mother Bird
"You shall surely send away the mother, and the children you may take for yourself"—Deuteronomy 22:7.
We are commanded to send away the mother bird before taking its young.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Tuesday, Adar I 21, 5776 · March 1, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 148
Sending Away the Mother Bird
"You shall surely send away the mother, and the children you may take for yourself"—Deuteronomy 22:7.
We are commanded to send away the mother bird before taking its young.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Sending Away the Mother Bird
Positive Commandment 148
Translated by Berel Bell
The 148th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding shiluach hakan ("sending away the nest").1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "You must first chase away the mother, and only then may you take the young."
The details of this commandment are fully explained in the last chapter of Chullin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Rather than taking both the mother bird and the chicks (or eggs), we are commanded to chase away the mother and only thereafter take the young.
2.Deut. 22:7.
----------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Beit Habechirah Beit Habechirah - Chapter 3 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Beit Habechirah - Chapter 3
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Beit Habechirah - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
The design of the Menorah is explicitly [stated] in the Torah.1The [central] shaft of the Menorah had four goblets, two bulbs, and two flowers,2 [Exodus 25:34] states: "The Menorah shall have four embossed goblets, together with its bulbs and its flowers."3 A third flower was close to the Menorah's base, as [Numbers 8:4] states: "to its base, to its flower."4
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
This applies when the [Menorah] is made of gold.13 [However, if it is made] of other metals,14 it should not have goblets, bulbs, and flowers.15
Halacha 5
[The Menorah] should never be made of fragments of broken vessels, whether it was made of gold or of other metals.20
Halacha 6
[Though the Menorah's] tongs,21 ash-scoops,22 and oil containers [shall also be made out of pure gold], they are not included in the talent [mentioned above. This decision was made] because, in connection with the Menorah, [Exodus 25:31] states: "pure gold" and afterwards, [ibid.:38) repeats: "Its wick-tongs and ash-scoops shall be made of pure gold."23
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
The goblets resembled Alexandrine chalices. They had wide mouths and narrow bases.31 The bulbs were like the apples of Keros which are slightly elongated, [resembling] eggs with both ends rounded.32 The flowers resemble the flowers of a column. They are shaped like bowls, with the edges bent over outward.33
Halacha 10
The Menorah was eighteen handbreadths high:34
Its feet, [base,] and [bottommost] flower were three handbreadths high,35There were two empty handbreadths,The next handbreadth included a goblet, a bulb, and a flower,Two empty handbreadths [followed],A handbreadth with a bulb and two branches extending outward from it, one to one side and one to the other, extending outward and ascending until reaching the full height of the Menorah,36An empty handbreadth,A handbreadth with a bulb and two branches extending outward from it, one to one side and one to the other, extending outward and ascending until they reached the full height of the Menorah,An empty handbreadth,A handbreadth with a bulb and two branches extending outward from it, one to one side and one to the other, extending outward and ascending, until they reached the full height of the Menorah,and two empty handbreadths
[Thus,] three handbreadths remained, with three goblets, a bulb, and a flower.37
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
The Table [for the Showbread] was twelve handbreadths long and six handbreadths wide.41 Its length was positioned in parallel with the length of the Sanctuary42 and its width was positioned in parallel with the width of the Sanctuary.43
Similarly, the length and width of all the articles in the Sanctuary except for the Ark paralleled the length and width of the Sanctuary. The length of the Ark was placed to the width of the Sanctuary.44
The lamps of the Menorah were also positioned in parallel with the width of the Temple, from north to south.45
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
There were 28 rods of gold. Each resembled half of a hollow reed.51 Fourteen [were used] for one arrangement and fourteen for the other arrangement.52[The Torah]53 calls them "its minakiot."
Halacha 15
The 28 rods mentioned above [were used as follows]: The first loaf was placed on the Table itself.58 Three rods were placed between the first and the second loaves. Similarly, three rods were placed between each [of the following] loaves. Between the fifth and the sixth loaf, there were only two rods, for another loaf is not placed upon the sixth.59 Thus, each row [of loaves] required fourteen rods.60
Halacha 16
There were two tables in the Entrance Hall, near the entrance to the Temple building.61 One was made of marble.62 The Showbread was placed upon it before it was brought in.63 The other was made of gold. The bread was placed upon it when it was brought out.64 [The rationale for the use of different substances is that] with regard to holy matters, one must always ascend, and may not descend.65
Halacha 17
The incense altar66 was one cubit by one cubit square.67 It was placed in the Sanctuary, exactly [midway] between north and south,68 between the Table and the Menorah, towards the outside. These three were all placed beyond the first third of the Temple building, in front of the Parochet, which divided the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies.69
Halacha 18
The washbasin70 had twelve taps,71 so that all the priests who were involved in offering the daily sacrifice72 could sanctify [their hands and feet] at one time.73
A mechanism was made so that it could be filled with water at all times. [The mechanism itself] was not sacred, and thus, the water remaining in it did not become invalidated [for future use] because the night passed. [This was necessary] because the washbasin was a sacred vessel and sanctified [its contents].74 Anything which is sanctified by a sacred vessel becomes invalidated [for future use] after the night passes.75
FOOTNOTES
1.
See Exodus 25:31-40. See also Menachot28b for a description of the Menorah.
2.
See Halachah 9 for a definition of the terms "goblets, bulbs, and flowers." The position of the ornaments in the Menorah's shaft is described in Halachah 10.
3.
Since the Torah refers to the plural form for these ornaments, yet it does not specify a number, two bulbs and two flowers are required.
4.
Although this flower was not mentioned in the description of the Menorah'sconstruction in Exodus, the Menachot, loc. cit. and all the commentaries include it in their design.
5.
The Torah does not mention feet in its description of the Menorah's construction. Their presence is recorded in the Talmud (Menachot, loc. cit.), but no specific number of feet is mentioned. Nevertheless, all major commentaries have described the Menorahas having three feet. It must be noted that Josephus' description of the Menorah and the depiction of the Menorah on the Arch of Titus both lack feet. However, there are other inconsistencies in those sources.
6.
The Rambam implies that the branches of the Menorah extended diagonally from its central shaft. He depicts the Menorah'sbranches in this way in the drawings he added to his commentary on the Mishnah. See Rav Kapach's edition.
Similarly, the Rambam's son, Rav Avraham, writes in his commentary on the Torah (Exodus 25:32): "The six branches of theMenorah extended upward as straight lines, as depicted by my father, of blessed memory, and not as depicted by others."
Other commentaries, including Rashi (Exodus 25:32) agree with the Rambam on this matter. It is thus difficult to comprehend why most popular portrayals of the Menorahshow its branches as semicircles. That form was, indeed, used on the Arch of Titus, but, as mentioned above, there were other imprecisions in that monument. Furthermore, there is no reason to favor the portrayal of the Menorah made by a Gentile to celebrate Jerusalem's downfall over the description offered by our Torah leaders.
7.
In Hebrew, the verse requiring embossment (ibid.:34) reads: "The Menorah had four goblets embossed with bulbs and flowers."Yoma 52a lists five verses in the Torah for which the Sages were unsure of the proper interpretation. This is one of them. The Sages did not know whether the adjective "embossed" described the goblets mentioned before it or the bulbs and flowers mentioned afterwards.
Because of this quandary, the Rambam decided that all three ornaments were to be embossed. Nothing would be lost by employing this technique to fashion certain ornaments, even though the Torah did not require them to be made in this manner. However, if one ornament was not embossed, a direct command of the Torah might not have been fulfilled (Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Corcus).
8.
In his commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot, op. cit.), the Rambam writes: "The word meshukadim ("embossed") means 'a craft of almonds' (shikeidim). This technique is popular among coppersmiths. They beat a sheet with a hammer until its [surface appears to be] covered with almonds."
The accompanying diagram is a copy of the depiction of the Menorah by the Rambam which accompanies his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
9.
Three on each branch, bringing the total to 18, and four on the central shaft. Rabbenu Bachai (Exodus 25:31) notes that the number of goblets equals the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet.
10.
One on each branch and three on the central shaft.
11.
One on each branch, three on the central shaft from which the branches extended outward, and two on the middle portion of the central shaft.
12.
Menachot, ibid., explains that since each ornament is mentioned in the Torah, theMenorah is not considered complete without them.
13.
Menachot 28a explains Exodus 25:31: "You shall make a Menorah of pure gold ...its goblets, its bulbs, and its flowers," as follows: "When you make a Menorah of gold, then you shall make its goblets, bulbs, and flowers."
14.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 19 and the commentary, which explains that if the Jewish people are poor, the Menorah and the other vessels of the Sanctuary need not be made of gold. Indeed, when the Maccabees rededicated the Temple, they made the Menorah of iron, coated with tin.
15.
The Mishneh LiMelech explains that the Rambam writes: "[Should it be made from] other metals, there is no need to be precise about the weight [of the Menorah]." However, regarding the ornaments, the Rambam specifically states that "we should not make goblets, bulbs, or flowers." That statement implies that not only are these ornaments not required if the Menorah is made of other metals, but that it is prohibited to add them.
16.
The Torah (Exodus 25:39) specifically states: "He shall make it have a talent of pure gold with all its vessels."
A talent, kikar in Hebrew, was equal to 3000 shekels, or approximately 68.5 kilograms (153.5 pounds) in modern measure.
The "lamps" mentioned by the Rambam are discussed in Halachah 6, which also explains the meaning of the term "vessels" in this verse.
17.
Exodus 25:36 states: "Their bulbs and branches must be made from it. They shall all be hammered out of one piece of pure gold."
18.
Its weight may equal more or less than a talent, as explained above.
19.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that when theMenorah is made of other metals, it need not be fashioned by beating out one block of metal, as is required when it is made of gold. 16The Mishneh Limelech explains that even if the Menorah is made of other metals, it is preferable that it be beaten out of one solid block of metal. Otherwise, it is only acceptable after the fact.
20.
When the Menorah was made of gold, it was not acceptable if it was fashioned in this manner. However, the Mishneh Limelechindicate that if the Menorah was made of other metals, after the fact, it is acceptable if assembled from fragments even though it is not desirable to do so as an initial preference.
21.
Tweezers to adjust and insert the wicks into the lamps. See Rashi, Exodus 25:38. Nachmanides interprets the Hebrew,Melkachayim (tongs), mentioned in the above verse, as "wick-holders" and explains that they were a permanent fixture of theMenorah.
22.
Small scoops to remove the ashes from the lamps. See Rashi, loc. cit. Nachmanides differs and defines the Hebrew Machtot as ash-catchers, maintaining that they were permanently fixed in the Menorah.
23.
The Rambam feels it necessary to elaborate in this instance, because a superficial reading of the Torah's verses might create a different impression. The Torah states (ibid.:38-39): "Its wick-tongs and ash-scoops shall be made of pure gold. He shall make it with a talent of pure gold; all these vessels."
The Hebrew word keilim, translated as "vessels," may also be translated as "utensils." Thus, one might conclude that theMenorah's utensils must also be fashioned by hammering out the same block of gold and hence, are to be permanent parts of theMenorah. Indeed, Nachmanides appears to have understood the meaning of the verses in that manner. However, Menachot 88b explains that here the term keilim refers only to the lamps, and not to the other utensils.
24.
The receptacles in which the oil and wicks were placed.
25.
Menachot, op. cit. records that this statement was the subject of a debate among the Sages. Some maintained that the lamps were separate fixtures which could be removed from the Menorah when necessary.
26.
Exodus 25:32 states, "Six branches extend from its sides." The Menorah's central shaft became the seventh branch. If one branch was missing, the Menorah is considered to be lacking the essential form prescribed by the Torah. Therefore, it is invalidated.
27.
In contrast with the goblets, bulbs, and flowers in Halachah 4.
28.
The Rambam ruled that the lamps were an integral part of the Menorah. Thus, a unique process was employed in their kindling. It was deemed disrespectful to kindle theMenorah from fire that was not sacred. The lamp of the central shaft was to be lit only from the fire of the Altar. All other lamps would be kindled from it or from each other. Since the lamps themselves were permanently affixed in the Menorah, the priests kindled them by extending their wicks with the tweezers until they reached a lamp that was burning. They would then light the wicks and return them to their own lamps. (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:13-14).
It was necessary that every lamp be on a separate branch. If two lamps were made on the same branch, the Menorah was invalid.
29.
Numbers 8:2 commands: "When you kindle the lamps, the seven lamps shall shine towards the center of the Menorah."
Rav Yehudah HaChassid explained that according to the Rambam, the lamps themselves were fashioned so that the wicks would face in that direction. The side of the lamps facing the center shaft slanted inward. The diagrams drawn by the Rambam published in Rav Kapach's edition verify this opinion.
30.
This lamp was not positioned any further westward than the others. Nevertheless, it was given that name because it faced the Holy of Holies, which was situated in the west. The Rambam's decision follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezar ben Shimon, who maintains that the Menorah's lamps spread across the width of the Sanctuary. Accordingly, there is no one lamp whose position clearly identified it as "the western lamp."
Menachot also mentions that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi did not accept this opinion and maintained that the Menorah was positioned along the length of the Sanctuary, from east to west. Thus, there was one lamp that was "westernmost."
Halachah is usually based on Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's opinion. Nevertheless, the Rambam favored Rabbi Eliezer's opinion, because there is a verse from the Torah that appears to support it. Leviticus 24:3 states: "Aharon shall prepare [the lights] continuously before the Lord," implying that before kindling the Menorah, it was necessary to prepare the wick to point "before the Lord" (Kessef Mishneh). This difference of opinion was preserved over the generations and many later authorities accepted the view that the lamps of theMenorah extended from east to west.
Shabbat 22a relates that the western lamp was "testimony to the entire world that theShechinah rests in Israel." Each day, the western lamp was the first lamp kindled. Exactly the same measure of oil was placed in it as in the other lamps, yet it was always the last to burn out. Nevertheless, after the spiritual level of the Jewish people declined, this miracle did not always occur (Yoma39a).
31.
Rav Kapach's publication of the Rambam's drawing of the Menorah shows the goblets in an inverted position. Note also the drawing accompanying Halachah 2.
Rabbenu Bachai (Exodus 25:31) explains the symbolism of the inverted position. A goblet serves two functions: it enables the collection of liquids, and offers the opportunity of pouring the liquids where desired. Thus, the goblets are symbolic of the Heavenly spheres, which receive influence from Heavenly sources and convey it to our lowly world.
The main purpose of the Menorah was to shed light on the world. This intent was expressed in the design of the Temple itself. Though generally, windows are built slanting inward, King Solomon's Temple windows slanted outwards (I Kings 6:4), so that theMenorah's light would spread to the world at large.
Similarly, the inverted position of the goblets in the Menorah emphasizes that theMenorah was intended to disseminate spiritual influence throughout our world. SeeLikkutei Sichot, Vol. 21, p. 164.
32.
In his commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot, loc. cit.), the Rambam also emphasize that the bulbs were not entirely round.
Rabbenu Bachai explained that the bulbs symbolized boundless spiritual pleasure.
33.
Rabbenu Bachai explains that the flowers represent the world's potential for growth and development.
34.
This entire Halachah is a direct quote fromMenachot 28b.
Eighteen handbreadths equals between 4.5 and six feet depending on the different conversions to modern measurements.
35.
Tosefot, Menachot, op. cit., questions why all three ornaments were crowded into a handbreadth while generally, the bulbs themselves were a handbreadth in length.
36.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that all the bulbs were of equal measure. If so, Tosefot's question mentioned above becomes even more difficult. A possible solution is offered by theTzurat HaBayit, which explains that the branches did not extend from the bulbs themselves, but from the Menorah's central shaft. Thus, the length of the bulb and the branches, and similarly, the bulb, goblet, and flower, could both be one handbreath. However, as mentioned above, the Rambam's diagram of the Menorah depicts the branches as extending out from the bulbs.
See Rashi (Menachot 28b which states that in this handbreadth, the goblet, flower, and bulbs projected from different sides of theMenorah.
37.
One might ask: Why does the Rambam omit mention of the Menorah's lamps? Although his source is the Talmud, it is possible to explain that this Talmudic passage follows the opinion that the lamps could be removed from the Menorah. However, as mentioned in Halachah 6, the Rambam follows the interpretation that the lamps were an integral part of the Menorah's structure. Therefore, they should be mentioned.
38.
The Sifri notes the relationship between the word used in the command to kindle theMenorah (Numbers 8:2), he'alah, and the Hebrew word for steps, ma'aleh, and comments: "Make steps with which to light the Menorah."
In his commentary to Tamid 3:9, Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura explained that three steps were constructed because on three occasions the Torah refers to the kindling of the Menorah in a similar manner: in the verse cited above, in the following verse (ibid.:3), and in Exodus 27:20.
39.
The Menorah was eighteen handbreadths (approximately 5 ft.) high. Thus for an average person to have easy access to the lamps, he would have to stand on a raised platform.
40.
In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:16-17, the Rambam relates that, in the morning, the priest would not light all of the Menorahlamps at once. He entered with a kuz - according to the Har HaMoriah, a large vessel containing the oil containers, the tongs, and the ash scoops. He then lit five candles and left the Sanctuary, placing thekuz on the second step of the stone. Afterwards, he returned to light the two remaining candles and remove the kuz.
41.
The Torah commands (Exodus 25:23): "Make a table... two cubits long and one cubit wide." As mentioned above, in the commentary to Chapter 2, Halachah 6, the Rambam follows Rabbi Meir's opinion, that a cubit was six handbreadths in measure.
42.
I.e., from east to west.
43.
From north to south. See Menachot 96a.
44.
Thus, the staves of the ark bulged out from the curtain dividing the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary (Yoma 54a).
45.
As mentioned in Halachah 8, this matter was a subject of debate among the Sages of the Mishnah. The Ra'avad notes the differing opinions in his commentary.
The Nodah BiYhudah (Orach Chayim, Responsum 122) notes that Menachotderives its knowledge of the position of the Showbread Table from the position of theMenorah, and that they were placed in parallel. On that basis, he questions the Rambam's statements that they were positioned perpendicular to each other. He explained that the Talmud's statement was made only in the preliminary stages of debate, and according to the final opinion, there is no contradiction with the Rambam's decision.
Note the accompanying diagram which was based on the Rambam's drawings in his commentary on the Mishnah, Menachot11:6.
46.
The design of the Table described by the Rambam differs greatly from popularly accepted diagrams, usually based on the text, Ma'aseh Choshev. In order to clarify the Rambam's opinion, this and the following two Halachot will be explained in brief and a more general explanation will be provided later.
47.
This Halachah is quoted from Menachot 11, Mishnah 6. The Hebrew word translated as "Y-shaped" used by the Rambam and the Mishnah is mifutzalim, which means split or forked. Our description is based on the diagrams drawn by the Rambam himself which accompany Rav Kapach's edition of his commentary to the Mishnah. Note the drawing accompanying this Halachah.
48.
The Torah declares (Leviticus 24:5-6): "You shall take fine flour and bake twelve loaves from it.... Place them in two rows, six per row, on the pure Table before the Lord." According to the Rambam, the loaves were arranged on the Table itself. As their name implies, the side frames were placed at its sides for support.
50.
Rashi (Menachot 97a) explains that this name relates to the word kesheh, meaning hard, or firm. The sideframes supported the showbreads, prevented them from crumbling, and allowed them to become firm.
51.
Like half of a bamboo shoot.
52.
As explained in the following Halachah.
53.
Exodus, loc. cit.
54.
This command to bring the Showbread continues (Leviticus 24:7): "Place pure frankincense near each arrangement."
In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:9, the Rambam explains that two handbreadths remained between the two arrangements of showbread for the two incense bowls. Other opinions state that the incense bowls were placed on top of the bread, one in each row.
55.
This command to bring the Showbread continues (Leviticus 24:7): "Place pure frankincense near each arrangement."
In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:9, the Rambam explains that two handbreadths remained between the two arrangements of showbread for the two incense bowls. Other opinions state that the incense bowls were placed on top of the bread, one in each row.
56.
Note Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:8 which relates that there were three molds. One was used to prepare the dough, one to bake the loaves, and one in which they were left to cool. According to the Rambam, all three were made of gold. Other opinions, including Rashi, disagree, and maintain that the loaves were baked in an iron mold.
57.
This command to bring the Showbread continues (Leviticus 24:7): "Place pure frankincense near each arrangement."
In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:9, the Rambam explains that two handbreadths remained between the two arrangements of showbread for the two incense bowls. Other opinions state that the incense bowls were placed on top of the bread, one in each row.
58.
As explained above, the purpose of the rods was to allow air to pass between the loaves and to preserve their freshness. Thus, one might suggest that rods be placed under the bottom most loaves for that same reason. However, the surface of the Table itself was gold, and thus remained cool. Hence, no other measures were necessary.
59.
Since these rods had to support a lesser weight, their number could be reduced.
60.
As indicated above, the Rambam's concept of the Table differs from that of the other commentaries. The major differences refer to the definition of the Kasot, the side frames. Rashi, Tosafot and the Rashbam each have slightly different concept of the sideframes. However, all three explanations depict the sideframes as sturdy structures which supported the rods. The latter, in turn, supported the weight of the loaves. Thus, these commentaries interpret the wordmifutzalin used by the Mishnah to mean that they possess grooves or holes. The rods were inserted through these grooves or holes, and were able to support the loaves.
As explained in brief in the above Halachot, and at length in Chapter 5 of Rambam'sHilchot Temidim U'Musafim, the twelve Showbreads were stacked on top of each other, their weight being supported only by the Table itself and the rods. According to his conception, the side frames were thin Y-shaped rods which were intended to keep the arrangements straight and to support them from the sides. However, they did not bear any of the weight of the loaves.
There are two advantages to the explanation offered by the Rambam:
a) According to the Rambam, the termmifultzalin used by the Mishnah is interpreted more precisely.
b) According to the other explanations, it is difficult to comprehend why only two rods were used for the uppermost row. Since the loaves did not rest upon each other and their weight was borne by the side frames as well, there is no difference between the top row and the others?
In contrast, according to the Rambam, there is no difficulty. Since the rods bore the weight of the loaves themselves, and the uppermost rods had to support a lesser weight, their number could be reduced.
See the accompanying diagram which depicts the Table according to the Rambam's description.
61.
Generally, these tables are depicted as being positioned apart from each other, one at either side of the entrance.
62.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 6:3) asks why this table was not made of silver. It explains that since the loaves were placed on the Table while they were hot, their heat would raise the temperature of the silver. This could cause mold to grow on the loaves.
63.
The Showbread had to be baked before the Sabbath. However, it was not placed on the Table in the Sanctuary until the Sabbath morning sacrifices were offered. In the interim, the loaves were placed on this marble table (Tosefta, Menachot, Chap. 11).
64.
The loaves from the previous week were removed from the Table in the Sanctuary and placed on this table while the new loaves were being placed on the Table and the frankincense was being offered. Afterwards, the loaves were divided among the priests. If Yom Kippur fell on a Sabbath, the loaves remained on this table for the entire day (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:4-5).
65.
Since the Table upon which the Showbread had been placed was covered with gold, it was not proper to place them on a less precious surface afterwards.
This principle applies to other matters as well. For example, on the basis of this principle, the School of Hillel explains that each night, a new candle should be added to the Chanukah lamps to increase the light connected with the festival.
66.
This altar was also referred to as the "golden altar," because it was coated with an outer surface of gold. It was also called "the inner altar," because it was placed inside the Temple building. This contrasted with the Altar for the sacrifices, which was placed in the Temple Courtyard.
67.
Exodus 30:1-3 commands: "Make an altar out of acacia wood to burn incense. It shall be square, a cubit long and a cubit wide, including its horns. Cover it with a layer of pure gold."
68.
Rav Kapach's edition of the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah (Menachot11:6) indicates that the Rambam originally wrote that the incense altar was positioned slightly to the north. He later amended his text to read as above.
69.
See Exodus 26:33, and Halachah 2 of the following chapter.
70.
The command to construct a washbasin and for the priests to sanctify their hands and feet before participating in the Temple services is found in Exodus 30:18-9.
71.
Originally, the washbasin had only two taps. Afterwards, one of the High Priests, ben Katin, fashioned twelve taps for it. He also constructed the mechanism described later in this Halachah (Yoma 37a).
72.
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:6.
73.
As mentioned above, before participating in any element of the Temple service, the priests had to sanctify their hands and feet. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 5:1.
74.
Once a substance was placed in a sacred vessel, it could no longer be used for mundane purposes.
75.
Once an article is placed in a sacred vessel, it must be used in the Temple service on that day. If the night passes, it becomes invalid for future use and must be disposed of.
Since the washbasin was sacred, all its water became sanctified and could only be used for holy purposes. Were the water to remain in the washbasin overnight, it would become invalid for future use. The Sages felt that it was not fitting to discard a large amount of water every day after it had become sacred, and they tried to devise means of avoiding that difficulty.
Yoma 37a and Zevachim 20a explain that each night the washbasin was lowered into a natural reservoir of water by a pulley-operated crane. Tamid 3:8, explains that the crane was very noisy and it was possible to hear the cranking of its gears as far away as Jericho. Its water was not invalid overnight, and the water it contained when it was lifted up again in the morning, could be used for the Temple service.
Based on the sections of the Talmud mentioned above, the Ra'avad questions the Rambam's description of the washbasin and its mechanism. With the statement, "[The mechanism] was not sacred and thus, the water remaining in it did not become invalid," the Rambam seems to imply that the mechanism itself contained water, but the water did not become disqualified, because the mechanism, unlike the washbasin itself, was not a sacred vessel. This would seem to contradict the Talmudic passages which describe the mechanism as a crane.
This difficulty is further magnified by the fact that in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 5:14, the Rambam himself writes that each night, the washbasin was submerged in a natural reservoir of water and raised again the next morning.
The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam's statements as follows: These Talmudic passages use the expression muchani to refer to the mechanism. Though that expression can be rendered as a pulley-operated crane, as above, it can also be explained as a circular reservoir for water, into which the washbasin was placed. This explanation resolves the contradiction between the Rambam and the Talmud. However, the Kessef Mishneh is also puzzled by the seeming contradiction in the Rambam's own words.
The Tosefot Yom Tov (Tamid 1:4) quotes the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah (Tamid 3:8). It explains that the "mechanism" was a vessel of water which would be raised each morning and submerged each evening by a pulley-operated crane. It would be placed over the washbasin to keep it filled with water.
The Tzurat Habayit maintains that throughout the ages, various techniques were devised to solve the problem of the water which remained overnight in the washbasin. The Mishnah (Eruvin 10:14) relates that pulley-operated cranes were used to draw water during the days of the prophets. Thus, it was likely that a similar technique was employed for the washbasin. Since ben Katin lived in the later years of the Second Temple, it is likely to suppose that his mechanism was more sophisticated.
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 12, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 13, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 14 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Shechitah - Chapter 12
Audio: Listen | Download• Shechitah - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
When a person slaughters an animal and its offspring on the same day, the meat is permitted to be eaten.1 The slaughterer, however, is punished by lashes,2as [Leviticus 22:28] states: "Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep]3 and its offspring on one day." He receives lashes only for slaughtering the second animal. Accordingly, if one person slaughtered one of such a pair and another person slaughtered the second, [the one who slaughtered the second alone] receives lashes.
Halacha 2
The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies in all times and in all places, with regard to ordinary animals and sacrificial animals. [With regard to the latter category, it applies] with regard to sacrifices of which we partake and with regard to sacrifices of which we do not partake.4Therefore if one slaughtered the first animal in the Temple courtyard and the second outside of it or the first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside, the one who slaughtered the second animal receives lashes [for violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring. [This applies] whether they were both ordinary animals,5 they were both sacrificial animals,6 or one7 was an ordinary animal and one, a sacrificial one.
Halacha 3
The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies only with regard to ritual slaughter, as the verse states: "Do not slaughter." [Implied] is that the prohibition involves the slaughter of both animals. If, however, one chopped off the head of one of them or it became a nevelah in his hand,8 it is permitted to slaughter [the other]. Similarly, if he slaughtered the first and chopped off the head of the second or it became a nevelah in his hand, he is not liable.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
Slaughter from which it is not fit to eat is, nevertheless, considered slaughter. Therefore if the first person slaughtered an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard,13 one which is trefe, an ox condemned to be stoned, a calf whose neck is to be broken, a red heifer, or slaughtered for the sake of a false deity,14a person who slaughters the second animal is liable. Similarly, if one slaughtered the first animal and another slaughtered the second though it is an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard, an ox condemned to be stoned, a calf whose neck is to be broken, or a red heifer, [the second person] is liable for lashes.
Halacha 7
When [the second animal] is slaughtered for the sake of a false deity,15[the slaughterer] is not liable because of [the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring, for he is liable for capital punishment.16If, however, he was given a warning for [the prohibition against slaughtering an animal] and its offspring and was not given a warning for the worship of false deities,17 he receives lashes.18
Halacha 8
The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies only with regard to a kosher domesticated animal. [This is derived from the exegesis of Leviticus, loc. cit.]:19 "Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep] and its offspring on one day."
[This prohibition] does apply with regard to hybrid species. What is implied? When a [male] deer mates with a [female] goat and one slaughters the goat and its offspring, one is liable. When, however, a [male] goat mates with a [female] deer and one slaughters the deer and its offspring, it is forbidden to slaughter [the deer and its offspring], if one slaughters them, however, one is not liable for lashes.20 The Torah forbade slaughtering a cow21 and its offspring and not a deer and its offspring.
Halacha 9
If the offspring of this deer was female and it gave birth to offspring, one is liable for lashes should he slaughter the female offspring of this deer and its offspring [on the same day].22 Similarly, if a hybrid species is produced by mating a sheep and a goat - regardless of which is male and which is female - [the slaughterer can be held liable for] lashes for [violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring.
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies with regard to a mother, for the offspring is certainly its own. If one knows with certainty that a male fathered offspring, the two should not be slaughtered on the same day. If one slaughtered [them together, however,] he is not liable for lashes, for there is a doubt whether or not the prohibition applies with regard to males.26
Halacha 12
When a person slaughters a cow and afterwards slaughters two of its offspring, he is liable for two sets of lashes.27 If he slaughters [several of] its offspring and then it, he is liable for [only] one set of lashes.28 If he slaughtered it, its female offspring and the offspring of its offspring, he is liable for two sets of lashes.29 If he slaughtered it, the offspring of its offspring and its female offspring, he is liable for [only] one set of lashes.30
Halacha 13
When two people [each] purchased an animal: one the mother and one the offspring and they brought the matter for judgment,31 the one who purchased [the animal] first is allowed to slaughter it first,32 the other one should wait until the next day. If the second purchaser slaughtered [his animal] first, he gains and the first must wait until the next day.
Halacha 14
Four times a year, it is necessary for a person who sells an animal to a colleague to inform him that he already sold the mother or the daughter of the animal to another person for the sake of slaughtering it so that the latter purchaser will wait and not slaughter until the next day.33 They are: the day preceding the final holiday of Sukkot,34 the day preceding the first holiday of Pesach,35 the day preceding Shavuot,36 and the day preceding Rosh HaShanah.37
Halacha 15
When does the above apply? When he saw that the person who purchased it last was anxious to buy and it was at the end of the day, [in which instance,] it can be presumed that he will slaughter it immediately. If, however, there was ample time during the day, he is not required to inform him, for perhaps he will not slaughter until the following day.38
Halacha 16
When one sells the mother to a groom and the daughter to the bride, he must notify them.39 For certainly, they will slaughter them both on the same day. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 17
[With regard to the term] one day mentioned in the context of [the prohibition against slaughtering an animal] and its offspring, the day follows the night.40what is implied? He slaughtered the first animal at the beginning of Tuesday night, he may not slaughter the other one until the beginning of Wednesday night. Similarly, if he slaughtered one at the close of Wednesday, before bein hashemashot,41 he may slaughter the other one at the beginning of Wednesday night. If he slaughtered the first during bein hashemashotWednesday evening, he may not slaughter the second until after nightfall on Thursday.42 If he slaughtered it during the day on Thursday, he does not receive lashes.43
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:3) mentions a difference of opinion concerning this matter, for some authorities forbid partaking of the meat. The Rama clarifies that the difference of opinion applies only with regard to the second animal. The first animal is permitted. Moreover, even the more stringent authorities maintain that the prohibition applies:
a) only that day, and
b) only for the transgressor himself. It is a penalty imposed upon him by the Sages and not a prohibition of Scriptural Law. SeeMaggid Mishneh; Turei Zahav 16:23.
2.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 101) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 294) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
See Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 48, that states that this prohibition was given to us to prevent cruelty. For an animal will be severely aggrieved if its offspring or its mother is slaughtered before its eyes. Note, however, Hilchot Tefilah 9:7 where the Rambam emphasizes that the Torah's mitzvot were not given to us for the sake of any particular rationale. Note, however, the conclusion of Hilchot Temurah which explains that there are two dimensions to every mitzvah: that it is God's decree and that He issued that decree for a particular rationale. (See also Halachah 3 which indicates that the prohibition is a Divine decree, not limited to that rationale.)
3.
The Torah (and the Rambam) use the masculine although the prohibition applies primarily to a mother and its offspring. See Halachah 11.
4.
For the prohibition concerns slaughter.
5.
And it is forbidden to slaughter an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard.
6.
And thus may not be sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard.
7.
I.e., either the one that was sacrificed inside the Temple or the one sacrificed outside. The point of these statements is, as stated in Halachah 6, even though the slaughter is not befitting, within the context of this prohibition, it is considered as ritual slaughter.
8.
I.e., the slaughter was unacceptable. If, however, it was discovered that the animal was trefe, it is considered to have been slaughtered and it is forbidden to slaughter the second animal (Halachah 6, Siftei Cohen16:18).
9.
If, however, they slaughtered under the supervision of a knowledgeable adult, their slaughter is acceptable (Chapter 4, Halachah 5). Hence, this prohibition applies. See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 16:9).
10.
Hence it is equivalent to cutting off the head of the animal and the previous halachah applies.
11.
For perhaps the animal was kosher and one would be violating the prohibition.
12.
Because there is a doubt involved.
13.
Rambam LeAm questions why this concept is mentioned. It was already stated in Halachah 2.
14.
In all these instances, it is forbidden to benefit from the slaughtered animal. (SeeHilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:9; Hilchot Rotzeach 10:6, Hilchot Parah Adumah 1:7;Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2.)
15.
Seemingly, the same principles stated in the previous halachah would apply in this instance. Nevertheless, in this case, there is another factor involved as the Rambam continues to explain.
16.
As befits one who sacrifices to a false deity. One is not liable for both capital punishment and lashes for the same act. Since he is liable for capital punishment, he is not held liable for lashes. (See Ketubot 33b; Chullin81b.)
17.
I.e., when the witnesses administered the warning, they mentioned the lesser transgression and not the more severe one.
18.
For in this instance, he is not liable for the more severe punishment. There is a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud concerning whether one is absolved from liability for lashes in such a situation or not and the halachah follows the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan who maintains that one is liable. See Ketubot 34b-35a, Chullin, loc. cit.
19.
See the Sifra to the verse which states that the first excludes wild beasts and fowl.
20.
See the Turei Zahav 16:11 and the Siftei Cohen 16:16 who debate the rulings of the Rashba and the Maharshal who permit one to slaughter the deer and its offspring even as an initial and preferred option.
21.
I.e., a kosher domesticated animal.
22.
Since ultimately, the ancestor of the hybrid deer was a domesticated animal, we hold the slaughterer liable (see Chullin 80a). Although in his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes the opinion of the Rashba who does not hold the slaughtered liable for lashes, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah16:8), he cites the Rambam's view. TheTurei Zahav 16:12 and the Siftei Cohen16:17 debate this issue and side with the more lenient views, questioning the Rambam's ruling in light of his position in Halachah 11.
23.
And not a separate entity for whose slaughter one is held liable.
24.
If the fetus does not step on the ground, it need not be slaughtered (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:14). Hence, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring would not apply.
25.
The Tosefta states: Since it is not required to slaughter such an animal, one is not liable for slaughtering it together with its mother.
26.
This issue was apparently a matter of uncertainty for the Rambam, for in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 5:6) he revised his interpretation several times. His final text (see Rav Kapach's version which differs from the standard published text) parallels the text here. Note, however,Bechorot 7:7 which appears to refer to this prohibition with regard to males.
27.
For he violated the prohibition twice.
28.
For he performed one forbidden act.
29.
For in this instance as well, he violated the prohibition twice.
30.
Although the same act caused two violations of the prohibition, since it was only one deed, the majority opinion in Chullin 82a only holds the person liable for set of lashes. As Rashi explains: There is one prohibition, one deed, and one warning.
31.
I.e., they both desired to slaughter their animal that day.
32.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6) states that this law applies only when the two purchased the animals from the same person. If they purchased them from different individuals, neither has precedence over the other.
33.
In other situations, it is not necessary to notify him, for it is not certain that either purchaser will slaughter the animal on that day.
34.
This is the holiday of Shemini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, a day of great rejoicing. Hence it is appropriate that meat be part of the festive meals. On the first day of Sukkot, by contrast, because the people are involved in preparing a sukkah and a lulav, they do not have the energy for excessive celebration.
35.
For the Seder is a time of great rejoicing and celebration. The seventh day of Pesach, by contrast, is not considered that important a festival.
36.
Rashi explains that the animals were necessary for sacrifices to be brought for the holiday. Tosafot states that Shavuos is customarily marked by great celebration in commemoration of the Giving of the Torah.
37.
For it is customary to begin the new year with celebratory feasts.
38.
The fact that he shows repose indicates that he may be purchasing the animal for a later date. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the person's repose is taken into consideration only when he purchases the animal on the day before the day preceding the festival. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6) quotes the Raa'vad's ruling.
39.
That the other animal was also sold. This applies even if he did not sell them both on the same day [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah16:6)].
40.
I.e., it is a calendar day according to the Jewish calendar, not a day from sunrise to sunset or a 24-hour period beginning from the time one animal is slaughtered.
41.
This term literally means "between the suns." It refers to the time between the setting of the sun and the appearance of the stars. There is an unresolved doubt whether the day ends at sunset or at the appearance of the stars. Hence, the halachic status of this period of time is one of question.
42.
Lest the period until the appearance of the stars be considered as part of the previous day.
43.
For punishment may not be given in a situation where doubt exists.
Shechitah - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
When a person takes a mother together with its young and slaughters it, the meat is permitted to be eaten.1 He is, however, liable for lashes for slaughtering the mother,2 as [Deuteronomy 22:6] states: "Do not take the mother together with its offspring." Similarly, if it died before he sent it away, he is liable for lashes.3 If he sent it away after he took it, he is not liable.4
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
If another person comes and seizes the mother bird from his hands and sends it away or it took flight from his possession without his knowledge, he is liable for lashes. [This is implied by ibid.:7]: "You shall certainly send away [the mother]," i.e., he must send away [the mother bird] himself. [If not,] he did not fulfill the related positive commandment.7
Halacha 4
If he took a mother bird together with its young, cut off its wings so that it cannot fly and sent it away,8 he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.9 [He must] keep [the mother bird] in his possession until her wings grow back and then send her away. If [the mother] died before this or fled and was lost, he is liable for lashes, for he did not fulfill the related positive commandment.
Halacha 5
How must one send away the mother? He holds her by her wings and has her fly away. If he sent her away and she returned, he sent her away and she returned10 - even if this happens - four or five times, he is obligated to send her away, as [implied by the repetition of the verb in the] phrase: "You shall certainly send away."11
Halacha 6
Although a person says "I will take the mother bird and send away the young,"12 he is obligated to send away the mother bird, as the verse states: "You shall certainly send away the mother."
Halacha 7
If he [sent away the mother,]13 took the offspring and [then] returned them to the nest and the mother came back to them, he is not obligated to send [her] away.14
It is permitted to send away the mother and then snare her again. The Torah forbade snaring only when she cannot fly away because of her offspring over which she is hovering so that they not be taken,15 as [ibid.:6] states: "And the mother is resting on the chicks." If, however, he removed her from his grasp and then snared her again, it is permitted.
Halacha 8
[The mitzvah to] send away the mother bird applies only with regard to a kosher species of fowl16 that are not at hand, e.g., doves that rested in a dovecote or on a loft,17 wild fowl that nested in an orchard. [This is derived from the phrase (ibid.)]: "When you will chance upon." When, however, [fowl is] at hand, e.g., ducks, chicken, and doves that nested in a building, one is not liable to send away the mother.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
When a male fowl is resting on a nest, one is not obligated to send him away [before taking the young].20 When a non-kosher bird is resting on the nest of the eggs of a kosher fowl or a kosher fowl is resting on the eggs of a non-kosher fowl, one is not obligated to send away [the fowl that is resting].21
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
[The following laws apply if the mother bird] was hovering [over the nest]: If her wings were touching the nest, one is obligated to send her away.27 If not, he is not obligated. If there was a cloth or feathers intervening between her wings and the nest, he must send her away. If he did not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.28
Halacha 14
If there were two rows of eggs and [the mother bird's] wings were touching [only] the top row, [the mother bird] was sitting on unfertilized eggs, but there were good eggs below them, one female was sitting on another female, a male was sitting on the nest and the female was sitting on the male - [in all these situations,] one should not take [the mother bird with the offspring]. If he takes [her], he should send her away. But if he does not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.29
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
When [the mother bird was perched] on two branches of a tree and the nest was positioned between them, we make an evaluation. In all instances where the mother would fall on the nest if the branches were removed, one is obligated to send her away.32
Halacha 17
When the mother is resting on one chick or on one egg, one is obligated to send her away.33 When a person finds a nest floating on the water or positioned on the back of an animal, he is obligated to send the mother away. [The verse] mentions "chicks or eggs"34 and "on any tree or on the ground" [not as exclusions], but because the Torah speaks about the commonplace situations.35
Halacha 18
It is forbidden to acquire the eggs as long as the mother is resting upon them. Therefore even if a mother bird was resting on eggs or chicks in one's loft or dovecote, they are not considered as "at hand" and his courtyard does not acquire them for him.36 Just as he cannot acquire them on behalf of others [until he sends away the mother], so, too, his courtyard cannot acquire them on his behalf.37 Therefore, he must send [her] away.38
Halacha 19
It is forbidden to take a mother bird together with her offspring, even to purify a person with tzara'at.39 If he took [the mother], he is obligated to send her away. If he did not, he is liable for lashes.40 [The rationale is that] a positive commandment41 does not supersede the observance of a negative commandment [that is reinforced] by a positive commandment.42 And a positive commandment does not supersede another positive commandment.43
Halacha 20
[The following rule applies when] a person consecrates a wild fowl to the Temple treasury, it flies away from his hand, but he recognizes it and finds it resting on chicks or on eggs. He should take the entire [nest]44 and bring it to the Temple treasurer. [The rationale is that the mitzvah of] sending away the mother bird does not apply with regard to consecrated [fowl], as [implied byDeuteronomy 22:7]: "And you may take the offspring for yourself." These may not [be taken] for yourself.45
Halacha 21
When a fowl killed a human being, one is not obligated to send it away. [The rationale is that] one is commanded to bring it to court so that it will be judged.46
FOOTNOTES
1.
The fact that he violated a transgression in taking the mother does not cause the meat to be prohibited.
2.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 306) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 544) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The person transgresses the prohibition when he takes the mother and the offspring. Nevertheless, as long as the mother is alive and he can correct his deed by sending her away, he is not liable for lashes. This follows the principle of lav hanitak li'asai, a prohibition that can be corrected by a positive commandment, as stated in the following halachah.
3.
For he can no longer fulfill the positive commandment.
4.
For he corrected his actions through the positive commandment. Nevertheless, at the outset, it is forbidden for him to take the mother. He must send it away first, as is the simple meaning of the Torah's commandment. See Siftei Cohen 292:11.
5.
The positive commandment to send away the mother bird is also considered as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah [Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 148);Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 545)].
See the Kessef Mishneh (to Halachah 19) which explains that Chullin 141a mentions a difference of opinion concerning this mitzvah between Rabbi Yehudah and the Sages. Rabbi Yehudah maintains - and this is the simple meaning of the verse - that the positive commandment requires one to send away the mother bird only before taking it. Thus according to his view, sending away the mother after it was taken does not fulfill a mitzvah and hence, does not correct the transgression. The Sages differ and maintain that the halachic definition of the mitzvah also includes sending away the bird after it was taken. Therefore, if one took the mother together with its young, he can correct his transgression by sending away the mother. The Rambam's decision reflects the Sages' position.
6.
See Makkot 16b which mentions a difference of opinion concerning the matter. One view maintains that as long as the person does not prevent himself from correcting the transgression through his own conduct, e.g., with regard to the matter at hand, he did not kill the mother bird, he is not lible for lashes. The other view, which as above is accepted as halachah by the Rambam, is that the person becomes liable for lashes when he violates the transgression. It is just that the punishment is suspended as long as he has the opportunity to correct the matter. Once, however, that opportunity no longer exists, even if it is not his fault - e.g., in the matter at hand, the bird dies - that punishment is meted out.
7.
And is therefore held liable for the violation of the negative commandment.
8.
I.e., he is trying to perform the mitzvah by sending the mother bird away on its feet so that he will not be held liable and yet will be able to take it again shortly afterwards. SeeShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:4).
9.
I.e., he is punished for his defiance of the spirit of the Torah's commandments even though it is possible that he will not actually be held liable for lashes.
10.
I.e., as long as the mother returns before he takes the young so that the mitzvah is still relevant (Siftei Cohen 292:8).
11.
See Bava Metzia 31a which gives several examples of how the repetition of a verb in the Torah implies that a commandment must be fulfilled even 100 times.
12.
And thus seemingly, he will be fulfilling the intent of the Torah's commandment, for he will not be taking the mother and the young together.
13.
This addition is made on the basis ofShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:5).
14.
Once he has taken the offspring, they are considered as "at hand," and this mitzvah no longer applies as stated in the following halachah and notes (Siftei Cohen 292:10).
15.
For, as emphasized in Moreh Nevuchim,Vol. III, ch. 48, which explains that this is the motivating rationale for this mitzvah: to prevent the cruel act of taking the young in front of the mother. Note, however, Hilchot Tefilah 9:7 and the resolution of the apparent contradiction in the previous chapter.
16.
Chullin 139b derives this concept from the exegesis of the prooftext from Deuteronomy.
17.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 292:2 and commentaries) emphasizes that if the nest is within the person's property and the mother bird lifts itself up, the person automatically acquires the offspring. From that time on, they are considered as "at hand" and the mitzvah does not apply. See Halachah 18 and notes.
18.
Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary to Chullin 64b.
19.
Chullin, loc. cit., notes that the verse mentions both eggs and chicks and derives both of these concepts from an equation it establishes between the two: Just as the chicks are entities that will continue to exist, so too, the eggs must be entities that will continue to exist [in contrast to unfertilized eggs that will spoil after a certain time]. Just as the eggs require their mother, so too, the chicks must require their mother.
20.
Chullin 140a emphasizes that the verse mentions a mother, implying "and not a father."
21.
For Chullin 138b states that the verse forbids taking the bird and its offspring "for yourself." Implied is that there is no prohibition when taking it for your dogs, i.e., taking a non-kosher species which is fit only to be fed to the dogs.
22.
There is an unresolved question concerning this issue in Chullin 140b. Hence, it is forbidden to take the birds, but one is not liable for lashes because of the doubt.
23.
Even though it is forbidden to eat the mother, there is a difference between it and a fowl from a non-kosher species. A mother from a non-kosher species is excluded because the prooftext uses the term tzipor which indicates a kosher species. A bird which istrefe, though forbidden, is still a tzipor (Siftei Cohen 292:1).
24.
The literal meaning of the Rambam's words is "If he cut a portion of the signs." We have translated the Rambam's words as above because as obvious from the conclusion of his ruling, there is a doubt whether he is obligated to send away the mother bird. And with regard to the windpipe there is no doubt that he is obligated to send away the mother.
To explain: Chullin 140b questions: "Do we say that since after slitting a portion of the signs the animal will be trefe, is there a need to send it away?" Now, if a person slits less than half the windpipe, the fowl is not trefeand if he slits more than half of it, its slaughter is completed. Hence, we are forced to say that he is speaking about cutting a portion - but less than half - of the gullet. If he does not complete the slaughter, making such a slit will render the fowl trefe.
25.
The fact the Rambam uses the termsheyikachenah, "before he takes her," implies that he is speaking about the mother bird. This understanding is also acknowledged by the Tur and Rabbenu Nissim. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions that interpretation, noting that even if the mother bird was made trefeby slitting its gullet, it would have to be sent away as stated in the previous halachah. Therefore, he suggests amending the text of the Mishneh Torah to imply that the signs of the chicks were slit and the question is, since he is involved in the slaughter of the chicks and stopping to send away the mother would render them trefe, must he stop and send her away or not. He follows this interpretation in his Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 292:10).
26.
Since the Talmud does not resolve the question it raises, one cannot be held liable for lashes because of the doubt.
27.
The Torah uses the expression "resting on the nest." Chullin 40b infers that if the mother is hovering over the nest, the mitzvah does not imply. Since the verse does not use the term "sitting," however, we learn that the obligation exists even when the mother is not sitting in the nest but lingering close by in a manner that its wings are touching.
28.
This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit. Hence, the Rambam rules that one must be stringent and send away the mother, but because of the doubt, cannot be held liable for lashes if he did not.
29.
All of these situations are questions left unresolved by Chullin 140b. Hence, as above, one must be stringent and send away the mother, but because of the doubt, cannot be held liable for lashes if he did not.
30.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions a question raised by Rabbenu Nissim: Since touching the nest from the side is not sufficient as indicated by the concluding clause in the halachah, what does it matter if the mother bird touches its young from the side when it sits among them? Based on that objection, in hisShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:12), he incorporates Rabbenu Nissim's understanding when quoting this law.
31.
For the Torah speaks about the mother "resting on the eggs or the chicks" and not sitting at their side.
32.
Rashi, Chullin 140b, states that this applies even if the mother's wings are not touching the nest. As long as she is resting directly above the nest, it is considered as if she was resting on it. The Siftei Cohen 292:17 quotes this point as halachah.
33.
As evident from Chullin 12:3, the Biblical command speaks about "a nest." As long as a nest contains one egg or chick, it is still considered a nest.
34.
Using a plural form.
35.
This is a general principle applying with regard to many Biblical commandments. SeeYevamot 15:2, Shabbat 65a, Nedarim 48a.
36.
The Rambam is referring to a principle in Jewish business law which maintains that a person can acquire property by virtue of its presence in his domain. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah 17:8-11:
A person's courtyard can acquire property for him without him being aware of it. Thus, if a lost object falls into a person's courtyard, he acquires it.When does the above apply? When the courtyard is protected. [When, by contrast, a lost article enters a person's] field or garden [different rules apply]. If he is standing at the side of his field and says, "May my field acquire it for me," he acquires it. If, however, he is not standing there, or he is standing there but does not make such a statement [he does not acquire it.]...The [potential for] a man [to acquire property by virtue of its presence in his] courtyard is derived, by contrast, from [the fact that] he is able to acquire an article via an agent. Just as an agent can acquire [an article] for him, so too, can he acquire [an article by virtue of its presence in his] courtyard....[The following rules apply when a person] sees... young doves that cannot fly [in his property]: [When the following conditions are met:] he was standing at the side of his field, [the animals] were on his property, and he could catch them if he ran, he can acquire them [by virtue of their presence in] his field if he states: "May my field acquire them for me."Thus in the case at hand, since the person cannot acquire the eggs himself until he sends away the mother, his courtyard cannot acquire them on his behalf (Chullin141b).
37.
For as stated in the quoted portion, the potential for a person's property to acquire an article on his behalf is derived from the laws of agency.
38.
As mentioned above, the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 292:2) states that if the mother bird lifted itself up, the person can acquire the chicks by virtue of their presence in his property even if he does not remove them from their nest. From that time on, they are considered as "at hand" and this mitzvah does not apply. Indeed, he can tap the nest so that the mother will rise up and then acquire the young (Kessef Mishneh).
39.
A skin condition, resembling leprosy, that is visited upon a person as retribution for speaking gossip and slander. The purification process for such a person is described in Leviticus, ch. 14, and Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 11:1.
40.
As stated in Halachah 2. Even if he used the mother bird for a mitzvah, he still receives lashes for violating the transgression.
41.
The purification of the person with tzara'at.
42.
The prohibition of taking the mother which is reinforced by the mitzvah to send her away. Note the Kessef Mishneh who questions whether the two mitzvot should be placed in this category, for according to the Sages (whose opinion is accepted as halachah), the two mitzvot do not apply at the same time.
43.
I.e., once he has taken the mother bird, he is obligated to send her away and the observance of another positive commandment, e.g., the purification rite mentioned above, does not supplant it.
44.
For not only the mother, but also the offspring, belong to the Temple treasury. For the mother gave birth to them after she had been consecrated.
45.
For as above the offspring are also the property of the Temple treasury.
Significantly, although the Rambam's ruling is based on Chullin 138b, he does not quote the wording of the Talmud, but instead, explains the derivation of the ruling in a different manner. The Lechem Mishnehexplains that this reflects a pattern found frequently in the Mishneh Torah: The Rambam will explain the derivation of a law differently than the Talmud if it appears to him that his derivation is simpler and more direct.
46.
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:2 which states that an animal that kills a human must be judged by a court of 23 judges.
Shechitah - Chapter 14
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment1 to cover the blood of a kosher wild beast or fowl2 that was slaughtered, as [Leviticus 17:13] states: "If you will snare a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, you shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth." Therefore, before covering it, he is obligated to recite the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the earth who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to cover the blood.
Halacha 2
[The mitzvah] to cover the blood applies to animals that are at hand and those that are not at hand. [The verse mentions:] "If you will snare" only because it speaks about the commonplace situation. It applies with regard to ordinary animals, but not to those consecrated: whether they were consecrated [to be offered on] the altar or consecrated to the Temple treasury. If a person transgresses3 and slaughters [such an animal], he is not obligated to cover its blood.
Halacha 3
If a person slaughters a wild beast or a fowl and afterwards, consecrates them - or consecrates the blood - he is obligated to cover the blood.4
Halacha 4
It is necessary to cover the blood of a hybrid that comes from the mating of an animal and a wild beast or an animal that we do not know whether to classify as a domesticated animal or a wild beast,5 but one does not recite the blessing.6 When a person slaughters for the sake of a sick person on the Sabbath, he is obligated to cover the blood after the Sabbath.7 Similarly, when a person slaughters an animal whose status is doubtful or is a hybrid on a festival, he should cover its blood after the festival.8
Halacha 5
When a person slaughters many fowl and several types of wild beasts in one place, he should recite one blessing and cover the blood of all of them together at one time.9
Halacha 6
When blood becomes mixed with water, one is obligated to cover it if it has the appearance of blood. If not, one is not liable. If it became mixed with wine or the blood of a domesticated animal, one considers it as if they were water. If were [the wine or blood] to have been water, [the mixture] would have appeared to be blood, he is obligated to cover the entire mixture. If not, he is not obligated.
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply if] one slaughters and the blood is absorbed in the ground. If a mark remains, he is obligated to cover it. If not, it is as if it was covered by the wind15 and he is not obligated to cover it.
Halacha 10
The only blood that must be covered is the blood of slaughter [that produces meat] that is fit to be eaten, as [the prooftext cited] states: "that may be eaten."16 Therefore, if a person slaughters and the animal is discovered to betrefe, one slaughters ordinary [fowl or beasts] in the Temple Courtyard,17 one slaughters fowl or beasts that were condemned to be stoned to death,18 one slaughters an animal and causes it to become a nevelah, one is not obligated to cover the blood. Similarly when a deaf-mute, a mentally or emotional incompetent person or a minor slaughters in private, there is no obligation19 to cover the blood [of the animal] they slaughtered.20
Halacha 11
With what should [the blood] be covered? With earth,21 lime, gypsum, fine fertilizer, fine sand that need not be crushed by a potter, crushed rocks and earthen-ware, fine flax chips, fine saw dust, bricks, burnt mud,22 and sealing clay that are crushed, for all of these are types of "earth." If, however, one covered it with a utensil or with stones, it is not considered as "covered," for the verse states "with earth."
Halacha 12
For this reason, we do not cover [blood] with coarse fertilizer, coarse sand, flour, bran, grain fiber, or filings from metal utensils, for these are not types of "earth." There is one exception: filings of gold alone may be used to cover [blood], for they are called "dust,"23 as [Job 28:6] states: "And it possesses the dust of gold" and [Deuteronomy 9:21] speaks [of grinding the Gold Calf] "until it was thin, into dust."
Halacha 13
We may cover [blood] with oven soot, stibium,24 powder from mills, and ashes. [This includes] ashes from trees and ashes from clothes, even ashes from meat that was burnt, for [Numbers 19:17] speaks of "the ashes of the burnt sin-offering."25 It is permitted to cover [blood] with the ashes of a city that went astray [and was therefore destroyed].26
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
The person who slaughters [the animal] should cover its blood,29 as [the above prooftext ] states: "[You shall pour out its blood and] cover it with earth."30 If he did not cover the blood and another person sees it, he is obligated to cover it, for this is an independent mitzvah and is not dependent on the slaughterer alone.31
16When a person covers the blood, he should not cover it with his feet,32 but instead with his hands, a knife, or a utensil, so that he will not treat it with disdain and regard the mitzvoth with scorn. For the mitzvot in and of themselves are not worthy of honor. Instead, [the honor is] due He, blessed be He, who commanded us to observe them and [thus] saved us from groping in darkness and thus granted us a lamp to straighten crooked paths and a light to illumine the upright ways.33 And so [Psalms 119:105] states: "Your words are a lamp to my feet and a light for my ways."
Blessed be G‑d who grants assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 147) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 187) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.
Both a wild fowl and a domesticated one. One need not, by contrast, cover the blood of a domesticated animal that was slaughtered.
3.
For it is forbidden to slaughter animals consecrated to the Temple treasury until they have been redeemed.
4.
Because when the blood was poured out, it did not have a connection to the Temple treasury, and at that time, the person became obligated to cover it.
5.
The commentaries to Chullin 83a employ this interpretation with regard to a kevi, an animal which one opinion in Chullin 80a understands as referring to an animal whose species could not be identified as a domesticated animal or a wild beast. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 28:4) employs this concept with regard to a buffalo.
6.
We are unsure of the status of this animal and do not know whether there is an obligation to cover its blood or not. Hence, we cover it, but do not recite a blessing, lest the blessing be recited in vain.
7.
For covering it on the Sabbath would be a violation of the prohibition against performing labor.
8.
He is required to cover the animal's blood because of the doubt as stated in the first clause. Nevertheless, he may not cover it on the festival, for perhaps he is not obligated to do so, and hence, will be performing a forbidden labor on the festival for no valid reason. For this reason, theShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:3) rules that, as an initial and preferred option, one should not slaughter such an animal on a festival. See also Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 498:18) which states that even if one has earth prepared before the festival so that covering the blood will not involve the transgression of a prohibition, one should not cover it on a festival because of the impression that will be created. People might think that it was definitely determined that it is a wild beast and may therefore partake of its fat [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 6:1) based on Beitzah 8b].
See also the Siftei Cohen 28:10 which states that the blood must be poured out on the ground on the festival. It cannot be saved in a utensil (because of the prohibition mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 5) and spilled out after the festival.
9.
I.e., it is not necessary to cover the blood immediately. Instead, one may wait until he has slaughtered all the animals he desires and then cover the blood.
10.
For he has already fulfilled the mitzvah involved.
11.
For the Torah's commandment obligates one to cover only blood that is apparent. If it is covered, there is no mitzvah involved.
12.
Since the person never covered the blood himself, it is as if it was never covered. SeePitchei Teshuvah 28:4; Magen Avraham586:6 which discuss whether there is a definite obligation to cover the blood in such a situation or there is an unresolved question and one does so because of the doubt involved. The question of whether or not to recite a blessing in this situation depends on the clarification of this issue.
13.
Usually, a certain quantity of blood is poured out directly after the slaughter as well.
14.
According to the Rambam's interpretation of the mishnah (Chullin 6:6), if there is other blood aside from this, it is sufficient to cover that other blood. It is not necessary to cover all the blood. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that all the blood must be covered. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:15 follows the Rambam's view.
15.
See Halachah 7.
16.
This prooftext causes the ruling to be different from that applying to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day. See Chullin 85a.
17.
Which are forbidden to be eaten (Chapter 2, Halachah 2).
18.
I.e., an animal or fowl that killed a human.
19.
We have used a non-literal translation, for these individuals are not obligated in the performance of any mitzvot. See Siftei Cohen 28:24 which states that we are forbidden to cover this blood.
20.
As stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 5, if these individuals slaughter privately, the slaughter is unacceptable. If, however, they slaughter in the presence of an expert and he states that they slaughtered correctly, the slaughter is acceptable and the blood must be covered.
21.
Though this term is not found in the standard printed texts. It is found in authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The version of the standard printed text can be interpreted to mean that in this halachah, the Rambam is clarifying which other substances can be considered as "earth."
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 28:23) gives the following introduction: "Any substance in which seeds will grow is called סearth'.... If [seeds] will not grow in it, but it is called סearth,' we may cover [blood] with it."
22.
This translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni5:1). In his commentary to 3:7, 10:2, he interprets the term as "crushed earthenware." We, however, used the former translation to avoid redundancy. Others cite the interpretation of the Aruchwho explains that the term refers to a type of lime.
23.
The Hebrew term afar has both the meaning "earth" and "dust."
24.
A blue-powder uses for makeup and medicinal purposes in Talmudic times.
25.
I.e., the red heifer.
26.
See Deuteronomy ch. 13 and Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, ch. , which explain that if an entire city is led astray and worships false deities, the city is condemned, the transgressors executed, and the city burnt. With the ruling in this halachah, the Rambam is explaining that although it is forbidden to benefit from the property - and even the ashes - of such a condemned city, its ashes may be used for this purpose. The rationale is that using the ashes for the mitzvah is not considered as benefiting from them, because the mitzvoth were not given for our benefit (Chullin 89a).
27.
Moreover, this earth must be loose. One should not slaughter over a place where the earth is hard [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:5)].
28.
Even if the utensil contains murky water and thus the prohibition mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 5, does not apply.
29.
One may, however, give another person the privilege of fulfilling the mitzvah. For that reason, there are many who ask the ritual slaughterer for the privilege of fulfilling the mitzvah of covering the blood after fulfilling the custom of kapporot. Nevertheless, one must ask the slaughterer for the privilege, one who takes it without asking is liable to pay the slaughterer a fine for "stealing" his mitzvah. See Turei Zahav 28:8.
30.
Chullin 87a states: "The one who סpours out its blood' should סcover it.'"
31.
Chullin, loc. cit., notes that the passage states: "And you shall say to the children of Israel," implying that the mitzvah is the concern of the entire people.
32.
I.e., by kicking the earth over the blood.
33.
As Bereishis Rabbah 44:1 states: "The mitzvoth were given to the Jewish people solely to refine the created beings with them." See also Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 26.
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Tuesday, Adar I 21, 5776 · 01 March 2016
Friday 21 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Ki Tissa, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 104-105.
Tanya: In truth, however, (p. 137)...as inadvertent acts. (p. 137).
The term "chassid" is an ancient one that the Sages had even applied to Adam.1 It describes perfection and excellence in intellect or in emotive character-traits, or in both. However, in Chabad Chassidic doctrine the appelation "Chassid" refers to one who recognizes his own essence-character and his standing in the knowledge and study of Torah, as well as his situation in observing mitzvot. He knows what he lacks and he is concerned and takes pains to fill that void. He is diligent in obedience in the manner of "accepting the yoke."2
FOOTNOTES
1. Eiruvin 18b.
2. See Supplementary Footnotes, p. 125 in the printed version.---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Tuesday, Adar I 21, 5776 · 01 March 2016
Friday 21 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Ki Tissa, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 104-105.
Tanya: In truth, however, (p. 137)...as inadvertent acts. (p. 137).
The term "chassid" is an ancient one that the Sages had even applied to Adam.1 It describes perfection and excellence in intellect or in emotive character-traits, or in both. However, in Chabad Chassidic doctrine the appelation "Chassid" refers to one who recognizes his own essence-character and his standing in the knowledge and study of Torah, as well as his situation in observing mitzvot. He knows what he lacks and he is concerned and takes pains to fill that void. He is diligent in obedience in the manner of "accepting the yoke."2
FOOTNOTES
1. Eiruvin 18b.
2. See Supplementary Footnotes, p. 125 in the printed version.---------------------
• Daily Thought:
Wake Your Day
“I will awake the morning!” (Psalms 57:9)
If you are awake just because the sun told you to rise, then you are still asleep. The morning is suspending you above your bed, but the “you” inside still slumbers.
Wake up the morning and tell the sun to rise! Grab the world and shake it until it awakens to your dreams!
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment