Candle Lighting
Light Holiday Candles before sunset ––:––
Torah Reading
Chol Hamoed Day 4 (E"Y 5): Numbers 9: (iii) Adonai spoke to Moshe in the Sinai Desert in the first month of the second year after they had left the land of Egypt; he said, 2 “Let the people of Isra’el observe Pesach at its designated time. 3 On the fourteenth day of this month, at dusk, you are to observe it — at its designated time. You are to observe it according to all its regulations and rules.” 4 Moshe told the people of Isra’el to observe Pesach. 5 So they observed Pesach at dusk on the fourteenth day of the month in the Sinai Desert; the people of Isra’el acted in accordance with all that Adonai had ordered Moshe.
6 But there were certain people who had become unclean because of someone’s corpse, so that they could not observe Pesach on that day. So they came before Moshe and Aharon that day 7 and said to him, “We are unclean because of someone’s corpse; but why must we be kept from bringing the offering for Adonai at the time designated for the people of Isra’el?” 8 Moshe answered them, “Wait, so that I can hear what Adonai will order concerning you.” 9 Adonai said to Moshe, 10 “Tell the people of Isra’el, ‘If any of you now or in future generations is unclean because of a corpse, or if he is on a trip abroad, nevertheless he is to observe Pesach. 11 But he will observe it in the second month on the fourteenth day at dusk. They are to eat it with matzah and maror, 12 they are to leave none of it until morning, and they are not to break any of its bones — they are to observe it according to all the regulations of Pesach. 13 But the person who is clean and not on a trip who fails to observe Pesach will be cut off from his people; because he did not bring the offering for Adonai at its designated time, that person will bear the consequences of his sin. 14 If a foreigner is staying with you and wants to observe Pesach for Adonai, he is to do it according to the regulations and rules of Pesach — you are to have the same law for the foreigner as for the citizen of the land.’”
Chol Hamoed Day 4 (E"Y 5): Numbers 28:19 but present an offering made by fire, a burnt offering, to Adonai, consisting of two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs in their first year (they are to be without defect for you) 20 with their grain offering, fine flour mixed with olive oil. Offer six quarts for a bull, four quarts for the ram, 21 and two quarts for each of the seven lambs; 22 also a male goat as a sin offering, to make atonement for you. 23 You are to offer these in addition to the morning burnt offering, which is the regular burnt offering. 24 In this fashion you are to offer daily, for seven days, the food of the offering made by fire, making a fragrant aroma for Adonai ; it is to be offered in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering. 25 On the seventh day you are to have a holy convocation; do not do any kind of ordinary work.
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Torah Reading Today's Laws & Customs:
On the Eighth Day of Passover we read Deuteronomy 15:19-16:17. Like the reading for the second day, it catalogs the annual cycle of festivals, their special observances, and the offerings brought on these occasions to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.
The Eighth Day's special connection with the Future Redemption is reflected in the Haftorah (reading from the Prophets) for this day--Isaiah 10:32-12:6.
• Yizkor
Yizkor, the remembrance prayer for departed parents, is recited today after the morning reading of the Torah.
Links:
The Yizkor Prayer
Honor Due to Parents
On Breavement and Mourning
• Moshiach's Meal
The last day of Passover ("Acharon Shel Pesach") is particularly associated with Moshiachand the future redemption. The Haftarah (reading from the Prophets) for this day is from Isaiah 11, which describes the promised future era of universal peace and divine perfection. RabbiIsrael Baal Shem Tov instituted the custom of partaking of a "Moshiach's meal" on the afternoon of the last day of Passover; in addition to the matzah eaten at "Moshiach's meal", the Rebbes of Chabad added the custom of drinking four cups of wine, as in the seder held on Passover's first days.
Links:
Haftarah for 8th of Passover
The Third Seder
Moshiach: an Anthology
• Count "Eight Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the eighth day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer for tomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is eight days, which are one week and one day, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day is Shavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Chessed sheb'Gevurah -- "Kindness in Restraint"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" -- Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed, Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod,Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Today in Jewish History:
• Isaac Circumcised (1713 BCE)
Eight days following his birth on the 15th of Nissan (see Jewish history for that day), Isaac was circumcised; becoming the very first child to enter the covenant with G-d on the eighth day following his birth.
Links:
Why do we have a Circumcision?
The Commandment of Circumcision, the Brit Milah
• Encirclement of Jericho Begun (1273 BCE)
Shortly after crossing the Jordan River and entering the Land of Canaan, the Jews set their sights on conquering the walled and heavily fortified city of Jericho. Following Joshua's instructions, on the 22nd of Nissan the Israelites encircled Jericho. The Israelites marched around the city walls, led by the priests who carried the Holy Ark, and sounded the shofar(ram's horn).
This performance was repeated for seven days. On the seventh day, the walls of the city collapsed. (see Jewish History for the 28th of Nissan).
Links:
Crossing the Jordan
Joshua 6
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Acharei, 7th Portion Leviticus 18:22-18:30 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 18
22You shall not lie down with a male, as with a woman: this is an abomination. כב וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּֽוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא:
23And with no animal shall you cohabit, to become defiled by it. And a woman shall not stand in front of an animal to cohabit with it; this is depravity. כגוּבְכָל־בְּהֵמָ֛ה לֹֽא־תִתֵּ֥ן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ֖ לְטָמְאָה־בָ֑הּ וְאִשָּׁ֗ה לֹא־תַֽעֲמֹ֞ד לִפְנֵ֧י בְהֵמָ֛ה לְרִבְעָ֖הּ תֶּ֥בֶל הֽוּא:
this is depravity: Heb. תֶּבֶל, an expression denoting prostitution, sexual immorality, and adultery. Similarly, “and My wrath, because of their depravity (תַּבְלִיתָם).” (Isa. 10:25) Another explanation of תֶּבֶל הוּא : An expression which denotes mingling (בּלל) and mixing up; [here, it refers to the perverted mingling of] human seed and animal seed.
תבל הוא: לשון קדש וערוה וניאוף, וכן ואפי על תבליתם (ישעיה י כה). דבר אחר תבל הוא לשון בלילה וערבוב, זרע אדם וזרע בהמה:
24You shall not defile yourselves by any of these things, for the nations, whom I am sending away from before you, have defiled themselves with all these things. כדאַל־תִּטַּמְּא֖וּ בְּכָל־אֵ֑לֶּה כִּ֤י בְכָל־אֵ֨לֶּה֙ נִטְמְא֣וּ הַגּוֹיִ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִ֥י מְשַׁלֵּ֖חַ מִפְּנֵיכֶֽם:
25And the land became defiled, and I visited its sin upon it, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. כהוַתִּטְמָ֣א הָאָ֔רֶץ וָֽאֶפְקֹ֥ד עֲוֹנָ֖הּ עָלֶ֑יהָ וַתָּקִ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֶת־יֽשְׁבֶֽיהָ:
26But as for you, you shall observe My statutes and My ordinances, and you shall not do like any of these abominations neither the native, nor the stranger who sojourns among you. כווּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֣ם אַתֶּ֗ם אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי֙ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַ֔י וְלֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֔וּ מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּֽוֹעֵבֹ֖ת הָאֵ֑לֶּה הָֽאֶזְרָ֔ח וְהַגֵּ֖ר הַגָּ֥ר בְּתֽוֹכְכֶֽם:
27For the people of the land who preceded you, did all of these abominations, and the land became defiled. כזכִּ֚י אֶת־כָּל־הַתּֽוֹעֵבֹ֣ת הָאֵ֔ל עָשׂ֥וּ אַנְשֵֽׁי־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לִפְנֵיכֶ֑ם וַתִּטְמָ֖א הָאָֽרֶץ:
28And let the land not vomit you out for having defiled it, as it vomited out the nation that preceded you. כחוְלֹֽא־תָקִ֤יא הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם בְּטַמַּֽאֲכֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑הּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר קָאָ֛ה אֶת־הַגּ֖וֹי אֲשֶׁ֥ר לִפְנֵיכֶֽם:
And let the land not vomit you out: This can be compared to a prince who was fed obnoxious food, which could not stay in his intestines; so he vomited it out. Likewise, the Land of Israel cannot retain transgressors [and thus, it vomits them out]. — [Torath Kohanim 20:123] The Targum rendersוְלֹאתָקִיא, as: וְלֹא תְרוֹקֵן as:, denoting “emptying out” (רִקּוּן), i.e., the Land empties itself of the transgressors.
ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם: משל לבן מלך שהאכילוהו דבר מאוס, שאין עומד במעיו אלא מקיאו, כך ארץ ישראל אינה מקיימת עוברי עבירה. ותרגומו ולא תרוקין, לשון ריקון, מריקה עצמה מהם:
29For anyone who commits any of these abominations, the persons doing so shall be cut off from the midst of their people. כטכִּ֚י כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּֽוֹעֵבֹ֖ת הָאֵ֑לֶּה וְנִכְרְת֛וּ הַנְּפָשׁ֥וֹת הָֽעֹשׂ֖ת מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמָּֽם:
the people doing so: הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשׂת. [Since the verse begins, “anyone who does,” it should have used the singular form here. By using the plural, “the people doing so,”] it means both the male and female [involved in the act]. — [B.K. 32a]
הנפשות העשת: הזכר והנקבה במשמע:
30And you shall observe My charge, not to commit any of the abominable practices that were done before you, and you shall not become defiled by them. I am the Lord your God. לוּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֣ם אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּ֗י לְבִלְתִּ֨י עֲשׂ֜וֹת מֵֽחֻקּ֤וֹת הַתּֽוֹעֵבֹת֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נַֽעֲשׂ֣וּ לִפְנֵיכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִטַּמְּא֖וּ בָּהֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
And you shall observe My charge: This [clause come] to admonish the courts regarding the matter. — [Torath Kohanim 18:151]
ושמרתם את משמרתי: להזהיר בית דין על כך:
and you shall not become defiled by them. I am the Lord, your God: But if you do become defiled,“ [says God,] ”I am not your God, and you will be cut off from Me. What benefit will I have from you? Moreover, you will deserve annihilation.“ Therefore, it says, ”I am the Lord, your God." - [Torath Kohanim 18:151]
ולא תטמאו בהם אני ה' אלהיכם: הא אם תטמאו, איני אלהיכם, ואתם נפסלים מאחרי, ומה הנאה יש לי בכם, ואתם מתחייבים כלייה, לכך נאמר אני ה' אלהיכם:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 106 - 107• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 106
The psalmist continues the theme of the previous psalm, praising God for performing other miracles not mentioned previously, for "who can recount the mighty acts of God?" Were we to try, we could not mention them all!
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. Who can recount the mighty acts of the Lord, or proclaim all His praises?
3. Fortunate are those who preserve justice, who perform deeds of righteousness all the time.
4. Remember me, Lord, when You find favor with Your people; be mindful of me with Your deliverance;
5. to behold the prosperity of Your chosen, to rejoice in the joy of Your nation, to glory with Your inheritance.
6. We have sinned as did our fathers, we have acted perversely and wickedly.
7. Our fathers in Egypt did not contemplate Your wonders, they did not remember Your abundant kindnesses, and they rebelled by the sea, at the Sea of Reeds.
8. Yet He delivered them for the sake of His Name, to make His strength known.
9. He roared at the Sea of Reeds and it dried up; He led them through the depths, as through a desert.
10. He saved them from the hand of the enemy, and redeemed them from the hand of the foe.
11. The waters engulfed their adversaries; not one of them remained.
12. Then they believed in His words, they sang His praise.
13. They quickly forgot His deeds, they did not wait for His counsel;
14. and they lusted a craving in the desert, they tested God in the wilderness.
15. And He gave them their request, but sent emaciation into their souls.
16. They angered Moses in the camp, and Aaron, the Lord's holy one.
17. The earth opened and swallowed Dathan, and engulfed the company of Abiram;
18. and a fire burned in their assembly, a flame set the wicked ablaze.
19. They made a calf in Horeb, and bowed down to a molten image.
20. They exchanged their Glory for the likeness of a grass-eating ox.
21. They forgot God, their savior, Who had performed great deeds in Egypt,
22. wonders in the land of Ham, awesome things at the Sea of Reeds.
23. He said that He would destroy them-had not Moses His chosen one stood in the breach before Him, to turn away His wrath from destroying.
24. They despised the desirable land, they did not believe His word.
25. And they murmured in their tents, they did not heed the voice of the Lord.
26. So He raised His hand [in oath] against them, to cast them down in the wilderness,
27. to throw down their progeny among the nations, and to scatter them among the lands.
28. They joined themselves to [the idol] Baal Peor, and ate of the sacrifices to the dead;
29. they provoked Him with their doings, and a plague broke out in their midst.
30. Then Phineas arose and executed judgement, and the plague was stayed;
31. it was accounted for him as a righteous deed, through all generations, forever.
32. They angered Him at the waters of Merivah, and Moses suffered on their account;
33. for they defied His spirit, and He pronounced [an oath] with His lips.
34. They did not destroy the nations as the Lord had instructed them;
35. rather, they mingled with the nations and learned their deeds.
36. They worshipped their idols, and they became a snare for them.
37. They sacrificed their sons and daughters to demons.
38. They spilled innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land became guilty with blood.
39. They were defiled by their deeds, and went astray by their actions.
40. And the Lord's wrath blazed against His people, and He abhorred His inheritance;
41. so He delivered them into the hands of nations, and their enemies ruled them.
42. Their enemies oppressed them, and they were subdued under their hand.
43. Many times did He save them, yet they were rebellious in their counsel and were impoverished by their sins.
44. But He saw their distress, when He heard their prayer;
45. and He remembered for them His covenant and He relented, in keeping with His abounding kindness,
46. and He caused them to be treated mercifully by all their captors.
47. Deliver us, Lord our God; gather us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to Your Holy Name and glory in Your praise.
48. Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, forever and ever. And let all the people say, "Amen! Praise the Lord!"
Chapter 107
This psalm speaks of those who are saved from four specific perilous situations(imprisonment, sickness, desert travel, and sea travel) and must thank God, for their sins caused their troubles, and only by the kindness of God were they saved. It is therefore appropriate that they praise God and tell of their salvation to all.
1. Give thanks to the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. So shall say those redeemed by the Lord, those whom He redeemed from the hand of the oppressor.
3. He gathered them from the lands-from east and from west, from north and from the sea.
4. They lost their way in the wilderness, in the wasteland; they found no inhabited city.
5. Both hungry and thirsty, their soul languished within them.
6. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He delivered them from their afflictions.
7. He guided them in the right path to reach an inhabited city.
8. Let them give thanks to the Lord, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man,
9. for He has satiated a thirsting soul, and filled a hungry soul with goodness.
10. Those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, bound in misery and chains of iron,
11. for they defied the words of God and spurned the counsel of the Most High-
12. He humbled their heart through suffering; they stumbled and there was none to help.
13. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He saved them from their afflictions.
14. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and sundered their bonds.
15. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man,
16. for He broke the brass gates and smashed the iron bars.
17. Foolish sinners are afflicted because of their sinful ways and their wrongdoings.
18. Their soul loathes all food, and they reach the gates of death.
19. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He saved them from their afflictions.
20. He sent forth His command and healed them; He delivered them from their graves.
21. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man.
22. Let them offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, and joyfully recount His deeds.
23. Those who go down to the sea in ships, who perform tasks in mighty waters;
24. they saw the works of the Lord and His wonders in the deep.
25. He spoke and caused the stormy wind to rise, and it lifted up the waves.
26. They rise to the sky, plunge to the depths; their soul melts in distress.
27. They reel and stagger like a drunkard, all their skill is to no avail.
28. They cried out to the Lord in their distress, and He brought them out from their calamity.
29. He transformed the storm into stillness, and the waves were quieted.
30. They rejoiced when they were silenced, and He led them to their destination.
31. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man.
32. Let them exalt Him in the congregation of the people, and praise Him in the assembly of the elders.
33. He turns rivers into desert, springs of water into parched land,
34. a fruitful land into a salt-marsh, because of the wickedness of those who inhabit it.
35. He turns a desert into a lake, and parched land into springs of water.
36. He settles the hungry there, and they establish a city of habitation.
37. They sow fields and plant vineyards which yield fruit and wheat.
38. He blesses them and they multiply greatly, and He does not decrease their cattle.
39. [If they sin,] they are diminished and cast down through oppression, misery, and sorrow.
40. He pours contempt upon distinguished men, and causes them to stray in a pathless wilderness.
41. He raises the needy from distress, and makes their families [as numerous] as flocks.
42. The upright observe this and rejoice, and all the wicked close their mouth.
43. Let him who is wise bear these in mind, and then the benevolent acts of the Lord will be understood.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 42• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Shabbat, Nissan 22, 5776 · April 30, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 42
• וגם כי אין לו דמות הגוף
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Shabbat, Nissan 22, 5776 · April 30, 2016
And although He has no bodily likeness,
How, then, can we possibly say that G‑d possesses an “eye” and “ear”, organs that are part of a physical body?
הרי אדרבה, הכל גלוי וידוע לפניו ביתר שאת לאין ק׳ מראיית העין ושמיעת האזן, על דרך משל
yet, on the contrary: i.e., this is the very reason that everything is revealed and known to Him infinitely more than, for example, through the physical medium of sight and hearing.
When we say that G‑d does not possess any bodily likeness, we mean that He is not bounded by the frailties of a physical body. A physical eye can observe corporeality, but not spirituality; it can see only when there is adequate light, and only up to a given distance, and so on. Physical hearing is likewise limited. G‑d’s “seeing” and “hearing”, however, possess only the merits of these faculties, but none of their physical limitations. For it goes without saying that any quality possessed by created beings is surely possessed by their Creator.
על דרך משל, כמו אדם היודע ומרגיש בעצמו כל מה שנעשה ונפעל באחד מכל רמ״ח איבריו, כמו קור או חום
By way of illustration, G‑d’s “seeing” and “hearing”, and the fact that everything is revealed to Him and known by Him, are like a man who knows and feels within himself all that is happening to and being experienced by each of his 248 organs, such as cold and heat,
ואפילו חום שבצפרני רגליו, על דרך משל, אם נכוה באור
feeling even the heat in his toenails, for example, as when he is scorched by fire;
וכן מהותם ועצמותם
so also their essence and substance,
I.e., not only is a person aware of all that is happening to his organs; he also feels the organs themselves.
וכל מה שמתפעל בהם יודע ומרגיש במוחו
and all that is affected1 in [ or: by] them, is known to the person and sensed in his brain.
One need not use his eyes or ears to see or hear what has happened to a limb of his body, such as the pain of a burned hand or foot, for he knows and senses it in his mind.
וכעין ידיעה זו, על דרך משל, יודע הקב״ה כל הנפעל בכל הנבראים עליונים ותחתונים, להיות כולם מושפעים ממנו יתברך, כמו שכתוב: כי ממך הכל
In a similar manner of knowledge, by way of analogy, G‑d knows all that befalls all created beings of both higher and lower worlds, because they all receive their flow of life from Him, as it is written:2 “For from You come all things.”
Just as the brain, which is the source of life for the whole body, knows what transpires within it, so too does G‑d, the Source of all life, know what is happening with all of creation.
וזה שנאמר: וגם כל היצור לא נכחד ממך
And this is the meaning of what we say:3 “...and no creature is hidden from You,” inasmuch as all created beings emanate from Him.
וכמו שכתב הרמב״ם והסכימו לזה חכמי הקבלה, כמו שכתב הרמ״ק בפרדס
And as Maimonides speaking as a philosopher has said (4and this has been agreed to by the scholars of the Kabbalah, as Rabbi Moses Cordovero writes in Pardess),
שבידיעת עצמו, כביכול, יודע כל הנבראים הנמצאים מאמיתת המצאו וכו׳
that by knowing Himself, as it were, He knows all created things, whose source of existence is His true existence.
However, G‑d provides creation with life in a different manner than the manner in which the soul provides life to the body. The soul must garb itself in the body in order to provide it with life. By doing so it is affected by the body (for “enclothing” implies that the clothed object undergoes a change). G‑d, however, is of course not subject to change when He provides life to creation. Hence:
רק שמשל זה אינו אלא לשכך את האזן, אבל באמת אין המשל דומה לנמשל כלל
This analogy of soul and body, however, is only to “calm the ear” — to make it possible for man’s ear and intellect to perceive how one may know about something without having to actually see or hear it. In truth, however, the analogy of soul and body bears no similarity at all to the analogue of G‑dliness and creation.
כי נפש האדם, אפילו השכלית והאלקית, היא מתפעלת ממאורעי הגוף וצערו מחמת התלבשותה ממש בנפש החיונית המלובשת בגוף ממש
For the human soul, even the rational and the divine soul, is affected by the events which transpire with the body and its pain, by reason of its (the rational and divine soul’s) being actually clothed within the vivifying soul (i.e., the soul which provides the body with physical life) which in turn is clothed in the body itself.
אבל הקב״ה אינו מתפעל, חס ושלום, ממאורעי העולם ושינוייו, ולא מהעולם עצמו
G‑d, however, is not (heaven forbid) affected by the events of the world and its changes, nor by the world itself,
He is not affected by the existence (the essence and being5) of the world;
שכולם אינן פועלים בו שום שינוי, חס ושלום
none of them effect any change in Him, G‑d forbid, nor in His absolute unity; just as He was One and Unified before He created them, so, too, does He remain One and Unified after their creation.
והנה כדי להשכיל זה היטב בשכלנו, כבר האריכו חכמי האמת בספריהם
In order to help us understand this well with our intelligence, the Scholars of Truth (i.e., the Kabbalists) have already treated it at length in their books, and an explanation will be found there.
אך כל ישראל מאמינים בני מאמינים, בלי שום חקירת שכל אנושי, ואומרים: אתה הוא עד שלא נברא העולם וכו׳
However, all Jews as descendants of the Patriarchs who believed in G‑d, are “believers, descendants of believers,” without any speculation of mortal intellect whatever, and they declare:6 “You were [the same] before the world was created,” and so forth,
The passage concludes: “You are [the same] since the world has been created”; thus, all Jews firmly believe that the world’s creation causes no change in G‑d,
כנ״ל פרק כ׳
as has been explained above in ch. 20.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | The Rebbe indicates in a footnote that it is incorrect to translate “all that is done to them,” namely, the effect of heat or cold on the organs. For were that to be so: (a) this has already been mentioned earlier; why repeat it again; (b) the Hebrew should have read, “nif‘al bahem,” which would translate to “done to them,” and not, “mitpa’el bahem,” which translates literally, “what is affected in them.” For this reason the phrase has been translated, “and all that is affected in them.” Furthermore, says the Rebbe, it is possible that there is a typographical error, and that the phrase should read, מהם... — “and all that is affected by them,” i.e., all that which man as a whole is affected by the organs. For this reason the translation has alternatively been given as, “and all that is affected by them.” This emendation parallels that which is stated a little later on, that the analogy of man’s knowledge of his organs is not at all similar to the analogue, for a person is affected by his body; G‑d, however, is in no way affected by changes in the world. It therefore is reasonable to assume that the analogy given here is that of the person being affected by his bodily organs, for it is in this regard that the analogue is not at all similar to the analogy. |
| 2. | I Divrei HaYamim 29:14. |
| 3. | In the Mussaf prayer of Rosh HaShanah. |
| 4. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 5. | Note of the Rebbe: “In line with the analogy (end of side (a) in the Hebrew text). ‘The creation’ is not part of the analogy at all, for the soul does not create the body. The Alter Rebbe therefore does not speak of it or negate it in the analogue.” |
| 6. | In the morning prayers. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Shabbat, Nissan 22, 5776 · April 30, 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 84
Offering Sacrifices in the Chosen Sanctuary
"And there, you shall do all that I command you..."—Deuteronomy 12:14.
We are commanded to only offer sacrifices in the Holy Temple.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Offering Sacrifices in the Chosen Sanctuary
Bringing Pledged Sacrifices from Outside Israel
"Only the holy things which you have, and your vows, you shall take and go to the place"—Deuteronomy 12:26.
We are commanded to bring all sacrifices – Sin, Burnt, Guilt and Peace Offerings – to the Holy Temple, though the person and the animal are outside of Israel, and despite the long journey involved.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Bringing Pledged Sacrifices from Outside Israel
Slaughtering Sacrifices outside the Holy Temple
"...who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat inside the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp, but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer up as a sacrifice to G‑d . . . this shall be counted for that man as blood; he has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off"—Leviticus 17:3.
It is forbidden to slaughter outside the Holy Temple any animal designated for sacrifice.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 84
Offering Sacrifices in the Chosen Sanctuary
"And there, you shall do all that I command you..."—Deuteronomy 12:14.
We are commanded to only offer sacrifices in the Holy Temple.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Offering Sacrifices in the Chosen Sanctuary
Positive Commandment 84
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 84th mitzvah is that we are commanded to offer all sacrifices only in the Bais HaBechirah [the Temple].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Only there shall you prepare all [the offerings] I have commanded you."
When [the Sages] wanted to prove that the prohibition against bringing sacrifices outside the Temple applies to all categories of offerings, they brought a proof from G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Be careful not to offer your burnt-offerings in just any place." The Sifri3 says, "This verse only speaks of burnt-offerings. What is the source to apply this law to all sacrifices? It is the verse,4 'Only there shall you prepare all [the offerings] I have commanded you.' But one could still think that for a burnt-offering there is both a positive commandment and a prohibition, whereas for other sacrifices there is only a positive commandment! The Torah therefore says,5 'Only there shall you prepare ...' " as I will explain in the proper place6 when discussing the prohibition.
The meaning of [the Sifri's statement], "for a burnt-offering there is both a positive commandment and a prohibition," is that one who brings a burnt-offering outside the Temple breaks both a positive commandment and a prohibition. The prohibition is from the verse,7 "Be careful not to offer your burnt-offerings [in just any place]." And the positive commandment is from the verse,8 "Only there shall you prepare all [the offerings] I have commanded you," whereas he did not prepare his offering "there."
The meaning of[the Sifri's statement,] "Whereas for other sacrifices there is only a positive commandment," is that the person would transgress only the commandment, "Only there shall you prepare all [the offerings] I have commanded you." There [in the Sifri] it is explained that even other sacrifices come under the prohibition in addition to the positive commandment.
It is explained in the end of tractate Zevachim9 that all sacrifices which are offered outside [the Temple courtyard10] are covered by both the positive commandment and the prohibition and are punishable by kares.
Everything I have told you has therefore been explained, i.e. that the verse, "Only there shall you prepare all [the offerings] I have commanded you," is definitely a positive commandment.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 12:14.
2.Ibid., 12:13.
3.Parshas Re'eh.
4.Ibid., 12:14.
5.Ibid.
6.N89.
7.Deut. 12:13.
8.Ibid., 12:14.
9.119b.
10.Hilchos Ma'aseh HaKorbanos 18:2.
Positive Commandment 85Bringing Pledged Sacrifices from Outside Israel
"Only the holy things which you have, and your vows, you shall take and go to the place"—Deuteronomy 12:26.
We are commanded to bring all sacrifices – Sin, Burnt, Guilt and Peace Offerings – to the Holy Temple, though the person and the animal are outside of Israel, and despite the long journey involved.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Bringing Pledged Sacrifices from Outside Israel
Positive Commandment 85
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 85th mitzvah is that we are commanded to bring all [sacrifices] that we are obligated in — sin-offering, burnt-offering, guilt-offering and peace-offering — to the Temple, even from outside Eretz Yisrael. This means that even if we became obligated to bring them when we were outside Eretz Yisrael, we are commanded to bring them to the Temple and are obligated to offer them despite the lengthy distance.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "However, your offerings and pledges you must take and bring to the place [that G‑d shall choose]."
In the words of the Sifri: "The phrase, 'However, your offerings,' refers to offerings from outside Eretz Yisrael; 'you must take and bring,' teaches that one is obligated to take care of their being brought to the Temple." The conclusion there is that this applies to a person's obligatory sin-offering, guilt-offering, burnt-offering or peace-offering.3
FOOTNOTES
1.If not for this mitzvah, one might think that the sacrifice could be redeemed for money, and the money brought to Jerusalem, as is the case with ma'aser sheni. See P128.
2.Ibid., 12:26.
3.This excludes the b'chor (P89) and ma'aser (P88). See Kapach, note 90.
Negative Commandment 90Slaughtering Sacrifices outside the Holy Temple
"...who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat inside the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp, but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer up as a sacrifice to G‑d . . . this shall be counted for that man as blood; he has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off"—Leviticus 17:3.
It is forbidden to slaughter outside the Holy Temple any animal designated for sacrifice.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Slaughtering Sacrifices outside the Holy Temple
Negative Commandment 90
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 90th prohibition is that we are forbidden from slaughtering any sacrifice outside [the courtyard of the Temple]. This prohibited action is called shochet bachutz.
In the beginning1 of tractate Kerisus, where all those who are punishable by kares are listed, the one who does the slaughtering and the one who does the offering2 [on the altar] are listed separately as two [commandments].
The3 punishment of kares for one who just slaughters an animal outside, even if he didn't bring it as an offering, is stated by Torah itself in G‑d's statement4 (exalted be He), "[Any member of the family of Israel] who slaughters an ox, sheep or goat, whether in the camp or outside the camp, and does not bring it into the Communion Tent to be offered as a sacrifice to G‑d, blood shall be counted for that man; he has spilled blood and shall be cut off (spiritually)." The actual prohibition for one who slaughters a sacrifice outside, however, is not written explicitly. It is derived from the principle,5 "Scripture gives a punishment only when there is a prohibition," in accordance with the principles we established in the Introduction to these commandments.6
In the words of the Talmud in tractate Zevachim,7 "One who does the slaughtering and the offering outside is guilty both for the slaughtering and the offering. The case of the offering is clear because both the punishment and the prohibition are written. The punishment is written in the verse,8 'If he does not bring it into the Communion Tent ... he shall be cut off,' and the prohibition is written in the verse9 "Be careful [hishomer] not to bring your burnt-offerings [in just any place that you may see fit]." This is in accordance with Rav Avin, as Rav Avin said in the name of Rav Laya,10 'Every case where the Torah writes hishomer (be careful), pen (lest) or al (do not) indicates a prohibition.' For slaughtering, however, the punishment is clearly written in the verse, 'If he does not bring it into the Communion Tent ... he shall be cut off.' But what is the source for the prohibition?"
After lengthy and wide-ranging discussion, the conclusion is given as follows: "It is written,11 'There shall you offer ... and there shall you prepare.' This creates a comparison between offering and preparing: just as offering has both a punishment and a prohibition, so too preparing has both a punishment and a prohibition." Their reference to, "There shall you offer ... and there shall you prepare," is to G‑d's statement12 (exalted be He), "There shall you offer your burnt-offerings," which refers to burning them on the fire [of the altar]. "There shall you prepare all [the offerings] I have commanded you," includes both the offering and the slaughtering, since He also commanded the slaughtering.
You should be aware that one who slaughters outside unintentionally is also required to bring a sin-offering. You should also be aware that one who offers sacrifices outside the place of the Temple courtyard even now [when there is no Temple] is punishable by kares. Our Sages say explicitly,13 "Rabbi Yochanan says, 'One who brings an offering even now is guilty.'" This is the final ruling, since the animal is actually fit to sacrifice, in accordance with our accepted principle,14 "Sacrifices may be brought even if the Temple is not built."
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the 13th chapter of tractate Zevachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Chapter 1, Mishneh 1.
2.See N89.
3.The following discussion is based on the well-known principle that each prohibition must have two components stated: a) the actual prohibition, and b) the punishment for its violation.
4.Lev. 17:3-4.
5.See Yoma 81a; Sanhedrin 56b.
6.See immediately after the 14th Principle.
7.106a.
8.Lev. 17:3-4.
9.Deut. 12:13.
10.Kapach, 5731, note 54, suggests that this is short for "Ilai".
11.Deut. 12:14.
12.Ibid.
13.Zevachim 107b.
14.See Hilchos Ma'aseh HaKorbanos 19:15.
• 1 Chapter: Temidin uMusafim Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 10 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 10
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
On the first day of the Sukkot festival, the following are brought as the additional offering of the day: thirteen bulls, two rams, and fourteen sheep. All are burnt offerings. And a goat which is eaten [is brought as] a sin-offering.6Similarly, on all the seven days of [the Sukkot] festival, two rams, fourteen sheep, and a sin-offering of a goat are offered.
Halacha 4
The number of bulls [offered], however, is decreased each day.7 On the second day, twelve bulls are offered, on the third eleven,... until on the seventh day, seven bulls, two rams, and fourteen sheep are all brought as burnt-offerings and a goat is brought as a sin-offering.
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
If one poured the water into the wine or the wine into the water and then poured the two of them as a libation from a single utensil, the obligation is fulfilled.14 If the water libation was offered before the [daily] sacrifice - indeed, even if it was offered at night - the obligation is fulfilled.15
The libation was poured at the southwest corner, above the mid-point of the altar, and then it would all descend to the shittin,16 as we explained.17 How was it offered? He would fill a golden vessel that contains three lugin18 from the Shiloach stream.19When they reached the Water Gate,20 tekiah, teruah,, and tekiah blasts are sounded.21 [The priest] would ascend the ramp and turn to his left22 and pour the water into a cup that was positioned there. For there were two silver cups there.23 The water [was poured] into the western one and the wine libation [was poured] into the eastern one. They were pierced with two small holes like two small nostrils. The hole for [the cup] of water was thinner than that for the wine so that the water would conclude flowing together with the wine.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
[The water libation] was performed on the Sabbath in the same manner in which it was performed during the week, except that on Friday, a golden jug that was not a sacrificial vessel27 was filled28 [with water] and left in the chamber. On the morrow, [the pitcher used for the libation] was filled from it.29
Halacha 10
If the water was spilled or was uncovered,30 one should fill [the pitcher] from the basin and pour the libation.
Halacha 11
On every day of the Sukkot festival, a separate song31 was recited for theMusaf offering. On the first day of Chol HaMoed, they would say: "Render to God, children of the mighty..." (Psalm 29).32 On the second [day of Chol HaMoed], they would say "And to the wicked, God said..." (Psalm 50).33 On the third, they would say: "Who will stand up for me against the wicked?..." (ibid. 94:16).34 On the fourth, they would say: "Understand, you senseless among the people..." (ibid.:5).35 On the fifth, they would say: "I removed his shoulder from the burden" (ibid. 81:7).36 On the sixth, they would say: "All the foundations of the earth tremble" (ibid. 82:5).37 If the Sabbath falls on one of [the days of Chol HaMoed, the verses beginning] "All the foundations tremble" are superseded [by the song for the additional offering of the Sabbath].38
Halacha 12
We have already explained39 that there are a total of 24 priestly watches and they all serve with equal rights during the festivals. On the holiday of Sukkot, each watch would offer [only] one bull, one ram, or a goat as a sin-offering. With regard to the sheep, however, [there was a difference]. There were watches which would offer two sheep and there were watches that would offer one.
What is implied? On the first day of the festival of Sukkot, there are thirteen bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for eight watches. Six watches offer two sheep and two watches offer one.
On the second day, there are twelve bulls,40 two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for nine watches. Five watches offer two sheep and four watches offer one.
On the third day, there are eleven bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for ten watches. Four watches offer two sheep and six watches offer one.
On the fourth day, there are ten bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for eleven watches. Three watches offer two sheep and eight watches offer one.
On the fifth day, there are nine bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for twelve watches. Two watches offer two sheep and ten watches offer one.
On the sixth day, there are eight bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for thirteen watches. One watch offers two sheep and twelve watches offer one.
On the seventh day, there are seven bulls, two rams, a goat, and fourteen sheep, [an amount of animals] equivalent to the number of watches. Each watch offers one animal.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
When the first day of the festival of Sukkot fell on the Sabbath, there would be 61 esronim of accompanying meal-offerings from the additional offerings and the continuous offerings.45 They would not be mixed together.
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
All of the fats of the sacrifices [that are to be offered on the altar] - whether from communal sacrifices or from individual sacrifices - should not be mixed with each other.49 Instead, the fats and the organs of each sacrifice are offered on the altar's pyre separately. If, however, they become mixed together, they may be offered all as one.
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
Since the meal-offerings were mixed together and their oil and meal have become intermingled, it is permissible to mix their wine [libations] together as an initial preference. Similarly, if the meal-offerings of the accompanying offerings were already offered, each one separately, it is permissible to mix their wine [libations] together.52
Halacha 19
When the wine-libations of the accompanying offerings are mixed together, it is permissible to mix a wine libation of a sacrificed offered on the previous day with one offered on the present day53 or those of an individual offering with those of a communal offering.
When one mixes together [wine libations], he may mix the wine libations of the accompanying offerings of bulls with those of the accompanying offerings of rams, or those of the accompanying offerings of sheep with others of the accompanying offerings of sheep. One should not, however, mix the wine libations of the accompanying offerings of sheep with those of bulls or rams.
Halacha 20
As an initial preference, one should not mix wine [libations] unless the meal-offerings have been mixed together or they have been offered, as we explained.54
Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 48) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 314) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:7-8.
2.
In the Mishnah (Yoma 7:3). This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi (Yoma70b) who maintains that the ram mentioned in Leviticus 16:5 is the same mentioned in Numbers. See also Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1.
3.
After the conclusion of the fast.
4.
See Leviticus 16:27; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:16.
5.
As mentioned in Leviticus 16:5-9. SeeHilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim, ch. 3, for a description of the service performed with these goats.
6.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 50) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 320) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:12-34.
7.
The fact that the sacrifices of each day of Sukkot differ from each other endow the days of the holiday with an advantage over the days of the holiday of Pesach. For that reason, the full Hallel is recited on each of the days of Sukkot, while this is not true with regard to Pesach. Nevertheless, the fact that the sacrifices differ is not sufficient for each day to be considered a separate mitzvah.
8.
Literally, "the eighth day of assembly."
9.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 51) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 322) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:35-38.
10.
I.e., it is not a continuation of the Sukkot offerings. As Rosh HaShanah 4b, et al, state there are six aspects in which Shemini Atzeret is considered as an independent festival. One of them is that it has its own sacrifice.
11.
In connection with the water libation, a special celebration, Simchat Beit HaShoevahwas held in the Temple Courtyard. The Rambam describes that celebration and the immensity of the joy expressed at that time at the conclusion of Hilchot Shofar Sukkah VeLulav. Interestingly, however, in that source, he does not associate the celebration with the water libation and here, he does not mention the celebration.
12.
A practice that is part of the Oral Law, but is not specifically mentioned in the Written Law. As the Rambam mentions in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:8), there are allusions to this practice in the Written Law.
13.
I.e., initially, this is the preferred manner of observing the mitzvah.
14.
I.e., after the fact; the initial preference is that each be poured separately as the Rambam proceeds to explain. The Radbaz explains that since ultimately, when the wine and the water reach the shittin, they will be mixed together, after the fact, it is acceptable if they were mixed together initially.
15.
As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot4:5, libations offered in connection with a sacrifice must be offered by day, but those offered independently may be offered at night.
16.
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11 which explains that these were two cavities in the southwest corner of the Altar, through which the blood would run off and flow through the drainage canal and from there, to the Kidron River.
17.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1 and the discussion of the Rambam's ruling by the other commentaries.
18.
A log is 346 cc according to Shiurei Torahand 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.
19.
A stream that is located on the southern side of the Temple Mount.
20.
One of the gates located on the south side of the Temple Courtyard. It was given its name, because the water for the libation was brought in through it.
21.
See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 7:6.
22.
Usually, the priests would circle the altar, turning first to the right. In this instance, they would turn to the left lest the smoke affect the water and the wine (Sukkah 48b; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:11).
23.
In his gloss to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot2:1, the Kessef Mishneh states that these cups were not a permanent part of the altar, but placed there only during the Sukkot holiday.
24.
So that it would be obvious that he is pouring the water in the altar's cups (Rav Yosef Corcus).
25.
Rather than on the altar.
26.
Lit., "a follower of Tzadok." The Sadducees represented a splinter group within Judaism. They accepted the Written Law, but not the Oral Law. [In truth, they wanted to abandon Jewish practice entirely, but realized that they could never attract a large number of followers with such an approach and hence, adopted this ruse (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 1:3)]. Since the water libation is not explicitly stated in the Written Law, the Sadducees did not accept its validity.
27.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah4:9), the Rambam gives an original interpretation for the reason the water should not be held in a sacred vessel. Were it to be held in a sacred vessel, it would be possible that the priests would sanctify their hands with it. Thus they would perform that rite with water that was not consecrated or would use up the water and prevent it from being used for the libation (Rav Kappach's notes to that mishnah). This represents a different approach than that of the other commentaries.
28.
With water from the Shiloach Stream.
29.
This change was necessary, for going down to fill the pitcher with water from the stream was forbidden on the Sabbath, because one would be carrying from a public domain to a private domain.
30.
Water that was uncovered is unacceptable as a libation, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:10.
31.
I.e., in addition to the song recited for the daily sacrifice. See also Chapter 6, Halachot 8-9 which describe the Levites' songs.
32.
This psalm contains the verse "The voice of God is upon the water" and thus is appropriate to mark the beginning of the offering of the water libation (see Sukkah55a).
33.
This psalm warns of coming to the Temple to celebrate and offer sacrifices without first repenting (Rashi, Sukkah, op. cit.).
34.
From this verse until the end of the psalm. These verses were chosen, because they speak of confronting wicked powers. Our Sages ordained that it be recited in the Second Temple period when the Temple was under the authority of Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers (ibid.).
35.
I.e., from verse 5 until verse 16. These verses speak about God's watchful eye that surveys man's actions. These verses were chosen, because Sukkot marks the end of the harvest season when the agricultural gifts must be given to the poor. These verses serve as a warning, impressing the people with the awareness that God is observing them at all times and seeing whether they give these gifts or not.
36.
Until the end of the psalm. These verses contain words of comfort and the reassurance of Divine blessings.
37.
These verses speak of Divine judgement and Hoshaana Rabbah, the day on which these verses are recited marks the conclusion of the judgment begun on Rosh HaShanah.
38.
The song for the additional offering of the Sabbath (a portion of the song Ha'azinu, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 9) is recited on that day and the songs for the remaining days are pushed back a day (Kessef Mishneh).
39.
Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3-4.
40.
Because the number of bulls are being reduced by one each day. See Halachot 3-4 above.
41.
When there are far fewer sacrifices, as stated in Halachah 5.
42.
The Radbaz infers from this that no lotteries were conducted during the prior seven days. Although there were some days when one watch received more sheep to offer than another, they would balance that matter by allowing the other watches to receive more the following days.
43.
There were two watches that did not offer three bulls throughout the Sukkot holiday. One opinion in Sukkot 55b maintains that on Shemini Atzeret, the lottery to offer the bull should be held only between these two watches. The Rambam accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi which maintains that all the watches are included in this lottery.
44.
Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3-4.
45.
According to the guidelines established inHilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:4, for the additional offerings of Sukkot, the thirteen bulls required a total of 39 esronim, the two rams, a total of 4 esronim, and the fourteen sheep, a total of 14 esronim, a total of 57esronim. In addition, two esronim were brought for the additional offering of the Sabbath, and two esronim for the continuous offerings.
46.
This includes the wine and the oil as well as the meal, as indicated by the concluding halachot of the chapter.
47.
Indeed, if the meal-offerings for two types of animals become intermingled before they are mixed together with their oil, they are disqualified [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:4)].
48.
The rationale for the separation is that the ratio of oil to meal is different for the offerings of sheep and bulls.
49.
The Sifra derives this concept from Leviticus 3:11 which states "And he shall offer it on the pyre," using a singular form.
50.
I.e., those of bulls, those of sheep, and those of rams.
51.
As required by Halachah 15.
52.
For the rationale for the restriction against mixing their wine libations is only to prevent their meal-offerings from being intermingled. Once the meal-offerings have been offered, there is no longer any need for that constraint (Menachot 89b). They may be mixed as an initial preference [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. See Halachah 20.
53.
For as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:12, the wine libations may be brought several days after the sacrifice was offered.
54.
In Halachah 18.
• 3 Chapters: Maaseh Hakorbanot Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 16, Maaseh Hakorbanot Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 17, Maaseh Hakorbanot Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 18 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 16
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Shabbat, Nissan 22, 5776 · April 30, 2016• "Today's Day"
Audio: Listen | Download• Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 16
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
If he vows to bring a burnt-offering9 either from lambs or from rams and brings a pilgas,10 there is an unresolved doubt whether or not he fulfilled his obligation.11 Similarly, if one vowed to bring a burnt-offering12of fowl from either turtle-doves or ordinary doves13 and brought a fowl that began to sprout yellow feathers14 of both species, there is an unresolved doubt [whether or not he fulfilled his obligation].15
If one vowed to bring a black[-colored animal] and brought one that was white, [vowed to bring] a white one and brought a black one, [vowed] a male and brought a female or vowed a female and brought a male, he did not fulfill his obligation.16
Halacha 3
When one takes a vow without specifying [the type of animal he is bringing], he should bring from the developed animals in the species he vowed to bring. If in his place [of residence], people commonly identify one of [the type of sacrifices] with a specific species [of animals], he should bring [the type of animal brought by] the people of that locale.17
What is implied? If a person vowed to bring a burnt-offering from cattle," he should bring an ox.18 Should he say: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering," if the practice of the people of that locale is to use the term "burnt-offering" without any description to refer even to a fowl offered as a burnt-offering, he may bring even one fowl, a turtle dove or an ordinary dove. If their practice is to use that term only when referring to a burnt-offering of cattle, he should bring an ox. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
A person who vowed to bring an ox, a ram, a lamb, a calf, or the like should not bring the frailest specimen of that species, because their value is minimal.19 Nor is he obligated to bring the nicest, stockiest specimen of which there is no better.20Instead, he should bring an average animal.21 If he brought a frail animal, he fulfilled his vow.22
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] a person says: "This ox is a burnt-offering" and it becomes blemished. If he desires to bring two for the price he receives for it.25If he brings even one ram26 for the price it receives, he fulfills his vow.
If he says: "These two oxen are burnt-offerings," and they become blemished, should he desire, he may bring one with the money he receives for their sale.27 "This ram is a burnt-offering" and it becomes blemished, if he desires he may bring a lamb with the money he receives for its sale. Similarly, if he vows a lamb and it becomes disqualified, he may bring a ram with the money he receives for its sale.
Halacha 7
If he says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering" and he set aside an ox and it was stolen, he may fulfill his obligation with a sheep.28 If he says: "I promise to bring this ox or its value as a burnt-offering," [his commitment] is established as binding.29 If [the ox] is disqualified, he may bring only an ox with the money he receives for its sale.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
If he designated one of [three animals as a sacrifice] and forgot [which one he designated] or his father told him "One of these animals was consecrated,"34he should designate the largest one as consecrated35 and, afterwards, he fulfills his obligation [with its sacrifice]. Similarly, if one vowed to bring a burnt-offering from cattle and designated [an animal as a sacrifice to fulfill] his vow and [later] forgot whether he had designated an ox or a calf, he should bring an ox.36 Similarly, if he designated a sheep and forgot what he designated,37he should bring a ram. If he designated a goat and forgot what he designated,38 he should bring a grown goat. If he forgot the species from which he designated the burnt-offering, he should bring an ox, a ram, and a grown goat.39 If he was in doubt that perhaps he designated the burnt-offering from fowl, he should also add a turtle-dove and an ordinary dove.40
Halacha 10
When a person vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering or a peace offering, specifying that it would be brought from cattle, but forgot what he designated to bring, he should bring an ox and a cow.41 Similarly, if he is unsure with regard to sheep, he should bring a ram and a ewe. If he is unsure with regard to goats, he must bring a he-goat and a she-goat.
If he forgot the species from which he designated the sacrifice, he should bring an ox, a cow, a ram, a ewe, a he-goat, and a she-goat.42 If he said: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering of fowl," he should bring a turtle-dove or an ordinary dove.43 If he designated one particular species in his vow and forgot which one, he should bring both a turtle-dove and an ordinary dove.
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When a person says: "I promise to bring [an offering] worth a sela48to the altar," he should bring a sheep,49 for there is nothing offered on the altar worth [exactly] a sela except a sheep. If he specified [a particular entity], but forgot what he specified, he should bring a sela's worth of everything that is offered on the altar.50
Halacha 13
When a person says: "I promise to bring frankincense," he should not bring less than a handful.51 If one says: "I promise to bring wood," he should not bring less than two52 logs as thick as a leveling rod that are a cubit long.53 "I promise to bring a piece of wood," he should bring one long a cubit long. If he desires to bring the worth of the logs, he may.54
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
If a person states: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving-offering from ordinary funds and its bread from the [second] tithe," he should bring its bread only from ordinary funds. [The rationale is that] he vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering and that offering comes only when accompanied by bread which is from ordinary property.65
Halacha 17
If he explicitly said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving offering from money from the second tithes and its bread from ordinary property," he may bring [the sacrifice] as he vowed.66 If he brought it all from ordinary property, he fulfilled his obligation.67 Similarly, if he explicitly said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving-offering and its bread from the second tithe," he may bring it [as vowed].68 He should not bring the bread from wheat that is the second tithe, but from [flour purchased with] money [for which] the second tithe was redeemed like the animal which was [purchased with] such money.
Even though he explicitly stated that he would bring the bread from [the money of] the second] tithe, he should not bring its libations from the money of the second tithe, for at all times, libations must be brought solely from ordinary funds, as explained.69 [The rationale is] that concerning [the libations],70[Numbers 15:4] states: "The one who offers them shall offer his sacrifice." Implied is that the sacrifice must be his without having any dimension that belongs to the Most High.
FOOTNOTES
1.
For he has not fulfilled his vow.
2.
For it is as if the promise to bring the smaller animal included the possibility of bringing the larger one.
3.
An animal in the first year of its life (Chapter 1, Halachah 14).
4.
One that is more than one year and one month old (ibid.).
5.
An animal in the first year of its life (Chapter 1, Halachah 14).
6.
An animal in the second year of its life (ibid.).
7.
An animal in the first year of its life (Chapter 1, Halachah 14).
8.
An animal in the second year of its life (ibid.).
9.
The laws to follow also apply with regard to a peace-offering. They do not apply with regard to a guilt-offering or a sin-offering, for those sacrifices may not be brought voluntarily.
10.
A sheep that is between the age of one year and one year and one month. Thus it is no longer a lamb, but it is not yet considered as a ram (ibid.).
11.
There is an unresolved doubt regarding the status of a pilgas. Hence, the person cannot be considered as having fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless, since its status is unresolved, we are not definitely certain that he did not fulfill his obligation.
The Kessef Mishneh questions why is he not considered to have fulfilled his obligation if he vowed to bring a lamb. As stated in the previous halachah, if one vows to bring a small animal and instead, brings a large animal, he is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Thus in the case at hand, if apilgas is considered a lamb, he will have fulfilled his obligation and if it is considered as a ram, he would have fulfilled his obligation, based on the principle stated in Halachah 1. The Kessef Mishneh answers that the animal's status is considered one of doubt, an intermediate state between the two. Hence it is not considered as acceptable as either type.
12.
This law applies only with regard to burnt-offerings, for peace-offerings may not be brought from fowl.
13.
Turtle doves may only be brought as sacrifices when they are small and under-developed. Ordinary doves, by contrast, may be brought as sacrifices only when they have developed and reached a mature state (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2).
14.
An intermediate stage in which the fowl is unacceptable, because it is too mature for a turtle-dove and not mature enough for an ordinary dove (ibid.).
15.
Since there is an unresolved doubt concerning a fowl that reached this state of development, a person who brings one such dove would certainly not fulfill his obligation. In this instance, however, since he brought one for each species, one might think that it is considered as if he fulfilled his vow. For if this is considered as a stage of development, he will have fulfilled the vow for he brought an acceptable ordinary dove. And if it is not considered acceptable, he would have fulfilled the vow for he brought an acceptable turtle dove. Nevertheless, since a priest is not permitted to offer such a fowl as an initial preference, he is not considered to have fulfilled his vow.
16.
For he did not bring the animal that he vowed to bring as a sacrifice.
17.
This follows a general principle stated by the Rambam, that with regard to the interpretation of the wording used in vows, everything is determined by local custom.
18.
I.e., and not a calf.
19.
As Malachi 1:14 asks rhetorically: "You bring the stolen and the lame and the sick and offer it as a sacrifice. Shall I accept it from you." See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:1.
20.
Although ibid.:11 states: "One who desires to gain merit for himself, subjugate his evil inclination, and amplify his generosity should bring his sacrifice from the most desirable and superior type of the item he is bringing," this is a desirable ethical standard, but not a halachic imperative.
21.
Menachot 13:8 mentions prices to be paid for animals offered as sacrifices. In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, he explains that the prices mentioned were the average prices for animals at that time.
22.
As long as the animal is unblemished.
23.
100 silver pieces.
24.
The wine, meal, and oil brought together with the offering, as stated in Chapter 2.
25.
In this instance, since the ox was consecrated as a burnt-offering and was no longer fit to be offered as such, the proceeds of its sale must be used for that purpose. It does not matter, however, which animal(s) is purchased for that purpose.
In the previous halachah, it was not acceptable for him to bring two oxen that have a combined worth of 100, for he made an explicit vow to bring one ox worth 100 and until he does so, he does not fulfill his obligation. In this halachah, once the consecrated animal is disqualified, there are no qualifications regarding which animals may be brought as burnt-offerings. SeeMenachot 108a.
26.
I.e., the sacrifice he brings need not even be of the same species as the animal he originally designated for sacrifice.
27.
The new point this clause is teaching is that even if two animals were originally consecrated, one may be brought with the proceeds of their sale.
28.
For when taking the vow, he did not specify what animal he would bring. This applies provided people of this locale also refer to a sheep as a burnt-offering (see Halachah 3). Moreover, if he had pledged to bring that particular ox as a burnt-offering, he is not obligated to bring any sacrifice at all (Radbaz).
29.
Even if the animal is disqualified, he is obligated to bring another one like it as a sacrifice.
30.
For we assume that anyone who consecrates his property does so generously (Menachot 108b).
31.
For it is also possible that this was his intent, since consecrating the middle one is still acting generously, because there is a smaller one.
32.
The Kessef Mishneh interprets the Rambam's words as implying that once the second one becomes blemished, the holiness automatically falls on the third. This runs contrary to Rashi's approach (Menachot, loc. cit.) which requires the person to make a stipulation conditionally transferring the holiness that might have fallen on the middle ox.
33.
For by saying "An ox," we assume he meant the choicest one (Menachot, loc. cit.). The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Meilah 7:7 appears to run contrary to this explanation.
34.
And then his father died without informing him which one was consecrated (Rashi,Menachot, loc. cit.).
35.
For we assume that he intended to offer the most choice one as a sacrifice. The Radbaz explains that this case is different from the one in the previous halachah where concern is also given to the middle one, because since he already designated the animal, we assume that he chose the best one.
36.
For even if he originally designated a small animal as a sacrifice, we follow the principle stated in Halachah 1 that a person who vows to bring a small animal, but instead brings a large one fulfills his obligation [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 13:6); see also Ra'avad].
37.
Whether a ram or a lamb.
38.
Whether a grown goat or a kid.
39.
I.e., he must allow for the possibility that he designated any of the three types of animals that could be offered as burnt-offerings and he must offer a large animal from each species for the reason mentioned above.
40.
He must bring both, because they are considered as two separate species and not as developed and underdeveloped specimens of the same species.
41.
As stated above with regard to burnt-offerings, he is obligated to bring a developed specimen. Unlike a burnt-offering, these sacrifices may be brought from females as well as males. Hence, although bringing a large animal fulfills his obligation even if he originally vowed to bring a small one, he is still required to bring both a male or a female, for he is unsure of the gender of the animal he originally designated.
42.
Peace-offerings may not be brought from fowl, so there is no need to bring doves.
43.
Bringing either will enable him to fulfill his vow.
44.
As stated in Halachah 13, when one brings frankincense, he must bring at least a handful.
45.
Since he said: "For the altar," we assume he meant something that is only for the altar. As mentioned below, there are other entities which are also offered on the altar, but unlike frankincense, they are not offered on the altar in their entirety. (The hide of an animal offered as a burnt-offering and the feathers of a fowl offered as a burnt-offering are withheld. With regard to the wine, it is not consumed by the altar's pyre, put poured upon it. And with regard to an offering of flour, since there are types of meal-offerings which are given to the priests to eat, we assume that his intent was not to bring such an offering.)
46.
Since the primary elements of the burnt-offering are burnt on the altar and the wine is poured over the altar, it is possible that this was his intent.
47.
I.e., aside from the wine brought as part of the accompanying offering of flour (Kessef Mishneh).
48.
A large silver coin used in the Talmudic era.
49.
As a burnt-offering. The Radbaz states that this word should be included in the statement of the person's promise.
50.
In addition to the burnt-offering, this could include wine, frankincense, and flour.
51.
Menachot 106b derives this concept from a comparison to the flour offered from a meal offering, just as there a handful is offered, so too, a handful of frankincense should be offered.
52.
The Hebrew term is written in the plural. Hence at least two logs are required.
53.
See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:3.
54.
He would place the money in a container designated for that purpose and the priests would take the money and purchase the wood (Tosefta, Shekalim 3:3).
55.
Kin'at Eliyahu questions how one takes a handful of oil.
56.
As required of all the sacrifices (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11).
57.
See Chapter 12, Halachah 9.
58.
Although Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit., states that salt is not required for wine that is offered on the altar, that refers to wine offered as a libation accompanying other sacrifices. When, however, wine is offered alone, salt is required (Kessef Mishneh).
59.
None is given to the priests to partake of.
60.
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11 which states: "There were two cavities in the southwest corner [of the Altar], resembling two thin nostrils.... The blood [which was poured onto the Altar] would run off through them and... [ultimately,] go out to the Kidron River."
61.
It is not poured over the fire, because it would - at least partially - quench the fire and that is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
62.
As mentioned in Hilchot Ma'asaer Sheni, ch. 4, when a person lives far from Jerusalem and cannot easily take produce from the second tithe to the holy city, he should redeem it for money. That money must be used to purchase food which must be eaten in Jerusalem according to the strictures that apply to the second tithe.
63.
Because of his vow.
64.
And the second tithe is considered as holy, "consecrated unto God."
This is a general principle. The rationale is that since the person is obligated to bring the offering, it must be brought from resources that belong to him entirely (see the conclusion of Halachah 17).
65.
I.e., the bread is considered as an integral part of that offering and not an additional element. Thus when he vows to bring a thanks-giving offering, that vow also requires him to bring bread. Hence the bread must come from ordinary property (Radbaz).
66.
As stated below, if he specifies, he is allowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering using the money from the second tithes, for he will partake of the meat of that sacrifice in Jerusalem. What is unique here is the fact that the sacrifice will be from the second tithes and the bread from ordinary funds. Even so, the sacrifice is acceptable.
67.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:5; based on Menachot 81b), the Rambam writes that it is indeed more desirable for him to bring the sacrifice from ordinary funds.
68.
In this instance as well, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that it is desirable for him to bring everything from ordinary property.
69.
Chapter 3, Halachah 13.
70.
This refers not only to the wine libations, but to all vows for sacrifices.
Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 17
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
When one says: "I promise to bring a meal offering [baked] on a flat frying-pan," and he brings one [baked] in a deep frying-pan4 or he promised to bring one [baked] in a deep frying-pan and brought one [baked] on a flat frying-pan, [the sacrifice] he brought is acceptable, but he did not fulfill his obligation.5
If he said: "I will bring these6 [baked] in a deep frying-pan and brings them [baked] on a flat frying-pan or promised to bring it [baked] on a flat frying-pan and brought it [baked] in a deep frying-pan," [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.7Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, if a person says: "I promise to bring two esronim in one vessel and he brings them in two vessels" or "...in two vessels" and he brings them in one vessel, [the sacrifice] he brought is acceptable, but he did not fulfill his obligation. [The rationale8is that Deuteronomy 23:24] states: "As you vowed to G‑d."9
Halacha 3
If he said: "I will bring these cakes in one vessel" and he brought them in two or [promised] to bring them in two and brought them in one, they are unacceptable.10If he did not specify what he would bring when he took the vow, but [merely] said: "I promise to bring two esronim and when he designated [the meal for the offering], he set [the flour] aside in two vessels and afterwards, brought it in one vessel, it is acceptable. For the verse states "as you vowed" and not "as you set aside."
Halacha 4
When he said: "I promise to bring two esronim in two vessels," but he brought them in one, if after being told that he vowed to bring them in two vessel, he offered them in two, they are acceptable. If he brought them in one vessel, they are like two meal-offerings that became mixed together.13
Halacha 5
If one says: "I promise to bring a meal-offering," he should bring one of the five types of meal-offerings that can be either vowed or pledged.14 If he says: "I promise to bring meal-offerings," he should bring two15 of the five types of meal-offerings.16 If he says: "I promise to bring a type of meal-offerings," he should bring two17 meal-offerings of one type.18 If he says: "I promise to bring types of meal-offerings," he should bring two meal-offerings [coming] from two types.19 Similarly if he says: "...types of a meal-offering," he should bring two types of meal-offerings.20 If he specified that he would bring one type [of meal-offering] and forgot [which type he specified], he should bring all five types.21
Halacha 6
A private individual22 should not bring more than sixty esronim [of flour] in one vessel as a meal offering. If he vowed more than sixty, he should bring sixty in one vessel and the remainder in a second vessel.23
[The rationale is that] no more than sixty [esronim of flour] can be mixed together [with oil as one].24 It is not an absolute requirement for [the flour and the oil] to be mixed together as we explained.25 Nevertheless, our Sages said:26 "Whenever a [meal-offering] is fit to be mixed [with oil], it is not an absolute requirement for it to be mixed. Whenever it is not fit to be mixed [with oil],27 mixing it is an absolute requirement."28
Halacha 7
If one says: "I promise to bring 121 esronim [as a meal offering]." He should bring 120 [esronim] in two vessels - 60 in each vessel - and one isaron in a third vessel.29
If he said: "I promise to bring an isaron," he should bring one isaron. "I promise to bring isaronim," he should bring two. If he specified [the number of esronim] he vowed and then forgot how many he specified, he should bring 60 esronimin one vessel.30 If he forgot how many esronim he specified and which type [of meal-offering] he specified, he should bring 60 esronim of each of the five types [of meal-offerings].
Halacha 8
If he specified his vow and forgot both how many esronim he vowed and the number of vessels in which he vowed to bring them, he should bring [the full range of] one to sixty esronim in sixty different vessels.31
What is implied? He should bring one isaron in the first vessel, two esronim in the second vessel, three in the third, until he brings 60 esronim in the last vessel. If he also forgot what type [of meal-offering] he designated, he should also brings [60 offerings] according to this pattern in 60 vessels of each type. Thus he will be bringing 1830 esronim from each type.
Halacha 9
When a person says: "I promise to bring a meal-offering of barley,"32"...a meal-offering of a half an isaron,"33 or "...a meal-offering without oil or frankincense,"34 he is exempt, because he did not vow an entity that is sacrificed.
If he said: "I promise to bring a meal-offering35 of barley," "...of lentils,"36 "...a meal-offering without oil or frankincense," or "...a meal-offering of a half anisaron," we ask him [what his intent was]. If he says: "I only took the vow because I thought it was permissible to offer such [sacrifices]. Had I known that one could only offer a complete isaron of fine [wheat] flour together with oil and frankincense, I would not have taken a vow," he is exempt. If, [however,] he said: "Had I known [that such offerings were unacceptable], I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he is obligated to bring an offering like those that are offered.
Halacha 10
If he vowed to bring an isaron and a half37 and he said: "Had I known [that such offerings were unacceptable], I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he must bring two [esronim].38 If he said: "I promise to bring coarse flour"39 or "I promise to bring a half an isaron" without mentioning the term "meal-offering," he is exempt.40 It as if he never took a vow at all.
Similarly, if one said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread,"41or "...a sacrifice without its accompanying offerings,"42 he is exempt. If he said:43 "Were I to have known that such offerings are not sacrificed, I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he is obligated to bring [an offering] like those that are offered.
Halacha 11
When a person says: "I promise to bring the bread of a thanksgiving-offering," He must bring a thanksgiving offering and its bread. [The rationale is that] it is known that the bread is never offered without the thanksgiving-offering and he mentioned merely the conclusion of the sacrifice.44 If he said: 'I promise to bring the bread to fulfill the obligation for so-and-so's thanksgiving offering," he should bring the bread for a thanksgiving offering together with the offering of his friend.
Halacha 12
A person may vow or pledge to bring wine independently.45 One should not vow to bring a log of wine or two lugim,46 for there are no libations that are [only] a log or two lugim.47 Nor should one vow five lugim, for five lugim are not fit for the libations of one animal or for those of two animals.48 One may, however, vow three, four, six, or more lugim,49 because they are fit for the wine libations for sacrificial animals.
Halacha 13
What is implied? If a person vows seven [lugim], they are considered as the libations for a sheep and for a ram.50 If he vowed eight, they are the libations for two rams; nine are the libations for an ox51 and a sheep or those of three sheep. If he vowed ten, they are the libations for an ox and a ram or two sheep and a ram. Similarly, all numbers [can be seen as such combinations].
Halacha 14
If he vowed to bring five lugim, we tell him: "Make it a complete six."52 [The rationale is that] he already established it as fit for a sacrifice.53If, by contrast, he vowed one log or two, he is exempt, for this amount or their components are not fit to be used as a libation.54
Less than a log of oil should not be vowed or pledged, for there is no meal-offering smaller than an isaron and it requires a log of oil.55
Halacha 15
When a person says: "I promise to bring wine," he should not bring less than three lugim.56 "I promise to bring oil," he should not bring less than a log.57 If he specified a given amount in his vow and forgot how many lugim of wine or oil he specified, he should bring 140 lugim. For there is no day on which there are more communal offerings sacrificed than on the first day of Sukkot that falls on the Sabbath. On that day, the accompanying offerings included 140lugim of oil and an equal amount of wine as will be explained in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim.58
FOOTNOTES
1.
A range with an opening for one pot [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:9)].
2.
I.e., one of the common ways to bake in the Talmudic period was to heat rafters and stones until they were glowing hot and place dough upon them. Afterwards, the stones and rafters were covered and thus the dough would bake (ibid.).
3.
A pit covered with mud into which wood was placed and kindled. The dough was placed within and it was covered so that it would bake like an oven (ibid.). These are not acceptable, because the person took a vow that he would bring a meal offering cooked in an oven and these devices do not fit that description.
4.
See Chapter 13, Halachah 6, with regard to the difference between the two.
5.
Because he did not bring the sacrifice he vowed to bring.
6.
Pointing to cakes that he prepared to bake.
7.
For he specified that the cakes be prepared in one way and they were not.
8.
For all the above.
9.
Implying that the vow must be fulfilled in all its particulars.
10.
If he can take a handful from each one separately, they are acceptable as indicated by the conclusion of Halachah 4.
11.
Because he did not fulfill his vow. It is, however, necessary to ask him and have him respond as the Rambam states. Otherwise, we assume that he is not bringing this offering in fulfillment of his vow, but rather as a separate sacrifice. In that instance, although he would not have fulfilled his vow, the sacrifice would be acceptable.
12.
Since he offered them as he vowed, the fact that he originally brought them in two vessels is not significant.
13.
In that instance, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:29, the law is that if one can take handfuls of each individually, they are acceptable. If not, they are not.
14.
See Chapter 12, Halachah 4, for a description of these meal-offerings.
15.
Since he used the plural, at least two offerings are required.
16.
The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the word "types" is a printing error, because even if he brought two of the same type of meal-offering, he fulfilled his obligation. The Radbaz, however, initially explains that the Rambam's wording could be interpreted as being precise. Since the person said two meal-offerings, we can assume that he meant of two different types. Otherwise, he would have just vowed to bring one large meal-offering. Nevertheless, ultimately, the Radbaz rejects this interpretation and states that the Rambam's intent is "even of two types," i.e., he may bring two offerings either of one type or of two types.
17.
Here also, since he spoke of "meal-offerings," using the plural, he is required to bring two.
18.
For he said "a type," limiting him to only one type.
19.
Since he used the plural for both offerings and types, he should bring two offerings and they should be of two different types.
20.
One offering from each type, as in the previous clause. Hebrew grammar occasionally allows for a singular term to be used in a plural sense. The Kessef Mishnehnotes that this matter is debated byMenachot 105a and a ruling is not reached. Hence he questions how the Rambam can require him to bring a second offering: If it is not required, he will be bringing ordinary flour into the Temple Courtyard (which is forbidden). Hence he maintains that the person must make a stipulation when bringing this offering: "If I am obligated to bring it, this is to fulfill my vow. And if I am not obligated, it is a freewill offering."
21.
For in this way, he will certainly fulfill his vow.
22.
I.e., in contrast to the community at large. For there is no concept of a voluntary communal meal-offering and all the required communal meal-offerings have specific measures.
23.
As indicated by the following halachah, it appears to be preferable that he bring sixty in one vessel and the remainder in the other, rather than dividing the sum evenly between the two.
24.
Even though oil is always mixed with the flour at a ratio of one log to every isaron(Chapter 12, Halachah 7), nevertheless, if there is a very large quantity of flour, it will be difficult to get a proper mixture.
25.
Chapter 13, Halachah 11.
26.
Menachot 18b; 103b.
27.
Because there is too large a quantity of flour.
28.
As long as the meal and the oil could be mixed together, the fact that they were not mixed together is not significant, because there is nothing inherently lacking in the mixture. If, however, they could not be mixed together, there is an inherent difficulty with the mixture, therefore it is disqualified. Note the parallels to the declaration made with regard to the firsts fruits mentioned inBava Batra 82a.
29.
I.e., he does not divide them into three equal portions.
30.
For an individual meal-offering is never more than 60 esronim and if he had promised a lesser amount, bringing more will not disqualify his offering (Radbaz).
31.
This is necessary, because as stated in Halachah 3, if a person vowed to bring twoesronim in two vessels and he brought them in one, the offering is unacceptable. By bringing the full range of vessels from one to sixty, the person will certainly have included the entire number he vowed to bring. Any extra are considered as voluntary offerings.
The Radbaz notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter inMenachot 13:2 and the opinion the Rambam quotes here is that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. The Sages, however, differ and maintain that it is sufficient to bring one meal offering of 60 esronim. The Radbaz questions why the Rambam chooses to follow Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's view, for it is a minority opinion. Moreover, he notes that in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, he explicitly states that the halachah does not follow this view. The Radbaz explains that since the Talmud (Menachot 106a) tries to justify other teachings according to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's view, we can assume that it is accepted as halachah.
32.
Which is unacceptable, because as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 2, all the meal-offerings are brought from wheat except the meal-offering of a sotah and the omeroffering. Those are obligatory offerings and cannot be vowed by a person.
33.
Which is also unacceptable, because a meal-offering may not be less than an isaron(Chapter 12, Halachah 5).
34.
Such an offering is also unacceptable, for oil and frankincense are absolute requirements (Chapter 12, Halachah 7).
35.
The difference between this and the previous clause depends on the precise Hebrew term used. If he said minchat("meal-offering of"), as in the first clause he is not obligated at all, for the grammatical structure of the term is that of an adjective and the emphasis is on the words that follow. If, however, he used the termminchah ("meal-offering"), we assume that the fundamental intent of his vow was to bring a meal-offering. Since the specifics he mentioned were unacceptable, we ask him to clarify his intent. The Ra'avad does not accept this distinction, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's position.
36.
Which is also unacceptable. AlthoughMenachot103a debates whether a person could possibly err and think that a meal-offering from lentils is acceptable, from the resolution of that passage, it appears that such an error is plausible.
37.
Based on the conclusion of the clause and the explanations in the previous halachah, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehmaintain that this law applies only when the person said: "a meal-offering (minchah) of an isaron and a half."
38.
For he obviously desired to bring more than one isaron.
39.
As stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 2, all of the meal-offerings are brought from solet, "fine flour," and not kemach, "coarse flour." This he is vowing to bring an entity that is never offered.
40.
The Ra'avad differs concerning this point and states that in this instance as well, he should be asked to clarify his intent, as mentioned in the previous halachah.
41.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 5, which includes the bread as an integral part of the thanksgiving-offering.
42.
See Chapter 2 which explains that every sacrifice is offered together with wine, meal, and oil.
43.
I.e., as in the previous halachah, he is asked about his intent (Kessef Mishneh).
44.
We assume that this was intent when making the vow. The Radbaz explains that it is not even necessary to ask him to clarify his intent, since he mentioned the thanksgiving-offering when making his vow, we take for granted that this was what he meant to say.
45.
See Chapter 14, Halachah 1; Chapter 16, Halachah 14.
46.
See Halachah 14.
47.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 4, the wine libations are 3, 4, or 6 log, depending on the animal offered.
48.
For no two offerings will reach a total of five. See also Halachah 14.
49.
For any number over six will be able to be broken up into multiples of 3,4, or 5, as stated in the following halachah [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 12:4)].
50.
The libations for a sheep are three lugim and those for a ram are four. We assume that the person that the person desired to bring them both.
51.
Six lugim.
52.
Which are the libations for an ox.
53.
Since libations of three and four lugim are brought, we assume that he did not want to make an empty statement. Hence, we ask him to increase the amount so that he will also be able to bring a valid offering. We do not reduce the amount, because there is an unresolved discussion in Menachot 104a if that is acceptable.
54.
Based on the ruling in Halachah 9 with regard to a meal-offering of a half an isaron, the Radbaz states that if one says: "a wine libation of one log," he should be asked to clarify his intent.
55.
See Chapter 12, Halachot 5 and 7.
56.
See Halachah 12.
57.
See the previous halachah.
58.
See Chapter 10, Halachot 3, 14, for the details of the number and types of animals sacrificed on that day. The wine and oil brought as accompanying offerings for these sacrifices totaled 140 lugim. We assume that a person would not vow or pledge a larger amount. The Radbaz clarifies that this ruling applies to a very wealthy person who can be assumed to have made a generous vow. A person of ordinary means, by contrast, should be required to pay the largest amount he could conceive of having pledged (see Hilchot Arachin 2:8-10).
Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 18
Halacha 1
There is a positive commandment to offer all of the sacrifices - whether sacrifices of animals or fowl or meal-offerings - in [God's] chosen house,1 as [Deuteronomy 12:14] states: "There you will perform everything that I command you." Similarly, it is a positive commandment for a person to take the effort to bring animal sacrifices2 that he is obligated to bring3 [and transport them] from the Diaspora to [God's] chosen house,4 as [ibid.:26] states: "[Only] your sacraments that you possess and your vows shall you bear... [to the place that God will choose]." According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that [the verse] is speaking only about sacrificial animals from the Diaspora which he takes the effort to deal with until he brings them to [God's] chosen house.
Halacha 2
One who offers a sacrifice outside the Temple Courtyard negates a positive commandment5 and violates a negative commandment,6 as [ibid. :13] states: "Take heed lest you offer your burnt-offerings in any place that you see." If he offered a sacrifice [in such a place] willfully, he is liable for karet,7 as [Leviticus 17:8-9]: "[Any man]...who will offer a burnt-offering or a sacrifice, but did not bring it to the Tent of Meeting... he will be cut off from his people." [If he transgressed] unknowingly, he must bring a fixed8 sin-offering.
Halacha 3
Similarly, one who slaughters sacrificial animals outside [the Temple Courtyard], even though he does not offer them as a sacrifice, [is liable].9 If he acted willfully, he is liable for karet, as [ibid:3-4]: "[Any man]...who will slaughter an ox, a sheep, or a goat... it will be considered as [the shedding of] blood for that person. He has shed blood... He will be cut off." [If he transgressed] unknowingly, he must bring a fixed sin-offering.
Halacha 4
Which source serves as a warning not to sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard]? [It is derived through] an association of verses. [Deuteronomy 12:14] states: "There will you offer your burnt-offerings" and it continues: "There you will perform everything that I command you." [We can conclude:] Just as [the Torah] warns explicitly against offering a sacrifice outside the Temple and one incurs punishment for this, as it is written: "Take heed lest you offer your burnt-offerings...," so too, it has warned with regard to the "performance" that is involved in slaughtering for which it is explicitly stated that one receives punishment. For the Torah does not prescribe punishment unless it has issued a warning.
Halacha 5
A person who slaughters sacrificial animals outside [the Temple Courtyard] and offers them [in such a place] is liable twice: once for slaughtering and once for offering.10
If he slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] in the Temple Courtyard and offered it outside, he is liable for offering it. If he slaughtered [such an animal] outside, but offered it inside, he is liable for slaughtering it.
Halacha 6
He is not liable unless he slaughtered sacrificial animals that are fit to be offered on the altar. If, however, he slaughtered an animal that was forbidden [to be offered on] the altar11 or one of the sin-offerings that was consigned to death12 outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt.13 [The rationale is thatLeviticus 17:414] mentions "before the Sanctuary of God." Whenever [an animal] is not fit to be come to the Sanctuary of God, one is not liable [for its slaughter].
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
What is meant by a disqualifying time factor involving its body? An animal in the seven days following its birth,19 turtle-doves which have not reached the stage of development at which time [they are fit to be sacrificed],20 and an animal and its offspring; for if one slaughters one on a particular day, the other is not fit to be slaughtered until the morrow.21
Halacha 9
What is meant by a disqualifying time factor involving the status of its owners? A sacrifice whose owners have not reached the appropriate stage of time to offer it.
What is implied? If a zav,22 a zavah,23 and a woman who gave birth24slaughtered [the animal designated for] their sin-offerings outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of their counting,25 they are exempt. Similarly, if a person afflicted with tzara'at26 slaughtered his sin-offering and[/or] his guilt-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of his counting,27 he is exempt, for the owners of these sacrifices are not yet fit for their atonement. Nevertheless, if these individuals slaughtered their burnt-offerings28outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of their counting, they are liable. [The rationale is that] a burnt-offering is a present29 and it is the sin-offering and the guilt-offering which are the fundamental [factors leading to] atonement.
Similarly, when a nazirite slaughters his sin-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of his nazirite vow, he is exempt.30 If he offered his burnt-offering or his peace-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable. For the sin-offering is what prevents him [from completing his nazirite vow] and it is the fundamental dimension [of the conclusion of] his nazirite vow.
Halacha 10
When a person offers a conditional guilt-offering31 or sin-offering of fowl that is brought because of a doubt32 outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt. [The rationale is that] it was not definitely established that a prohibition [was violated].33 When a guilt-offering for one afflicted by tzara'at was slaughtered outside [the Temple Courtyard], but not for the desired intent, [the one who slaughters it] is liable. [The rationale is that] since [when such a sacrifice is] not [slaughtered] for the desired intent in [the Temple Courtyard], it is deemed appropriate and acceptable, as will be explained.34
Whenever one is exempt for slaughtering a sacrificial [animal] outside the [Temple Courtyard], one is also exempt for offering it there.
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply if] one slaughters the two goats offered on Yom Kippur35 outside [the Temple Courtyard]. Before [the High Priest] recites the confessional over them,36 he is liable for both of them,37 since [they are both] fit to come before God for the confessional. After [the High Prist] recited the confessional, one is exempt for slaughtering [the goat] that is sent [to Azazel], because it is no longer fit to come before God [as a sacrifice].
Halacha 12
When one slaughters [animals designated as] peace-offerings outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the gates of the Temple building are opened, he is exempt, for a [necessary] deed is lacking. [Only] afterwards are they fit to be offered before God, as we explained.38
One who slaughters a Paschal sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard] - even during the other days of the year, whether for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice or for another purpose39 - is liable. [The rationale is that] during the remainder of the year, a Paschal sacrifice [that is offered] is considered as a peace-offering.40
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
When one stole [an animal] and consecrated it and afterwards, slaughtered it outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable.43 From which time was it considered in his property with regard to his being liable for karet for it? From the time he consecrated it.
[The above applies] provided he slaughtered it after [the owner] despaired of its return. [If he slaughtered it] before then, by contrast, the consecration is not effective.44
Halacha 15
If the entire body of the animal was outside [the Temple Courtyard] and its neck was inside and one slaughtered it, he is liable,45 as [Leviticus 17:3] states: "[Any man]...who will slaughter an ox, a sheep, or a goat in the camp or who will slaughter outside the camp... [and he has not brought it as an offering]." This applies whether the one who slaughters is standing in the Temple [Courtyard] and the animal's neck was inside, but the remainder of its body was outside or its body was inside and its neck was outside. He is liable unless the animal was entirely within the Temple [Courtyard], as [implied byibid.:9]: "And he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting."46 If, however, one slaughters on the roof the Temple Building, even though it is not fit for sacrifice at all,47 he is exempt.48
Halacha 16
Two people who held a knife and slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] outside [the Temple Courtyard] are exempt,49 for [the prooftexts] say "who will slaughter" "or who will slaughter"50 [implying] one and not two.51
When one slaughters a sacrificial animal outside [the Temple Courtyard] even though he had no intention of sacrificing this animal to God,52 he is liable.53This is [implied by the prooftext]: "It will be considered as [the shedding of] blood for that person. He has shed blood."54 [One can infer that] even if [the person slaughtering] thinks of the blood [from the sacrificial animal] as blood that was shed55 and not as a sacrifice, he is liable.
Halacha 17
A person who slaughters [a sacrificial animal] outside [the Temple Courtyard] at night is liable, since slaughtering an animal56 is acceptable at night. Similarly, if, at night, one offered as a sacrifice [an animal] he slaughtered at night outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable for offering it as a sacrifice.57
If, however, one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] inside [the Temple Courtyard] at night and offered it as a sacrifice outside,58 he is exempt. [The rationale is that] he offered merely an unacceptable article,59 for there is no conception of acceptable slaughter in the Temple at night.60 Similarly, if one received [the blood of a sacrificial animal] with an ordinary vessel61 inside [the Temple Courtyard], but poured it [on an altar] outside, he is exempt.62
Halacha 18
Similarly, when a person performs melikah on a fowl outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt.63 If he offered it [as a sacrifice there], he is exempt. If he performs melikah on a fowl inside [the Temple Courtyard], but offered it outside, he is liable for offering it.64
If one slaughtered [a fowl] in [the Temple Courtyard]65 and offered it outside, he is exempt, for he offered something that is not fit to be offered. If he slaughtered the fowl outside [the Temple Courtyard] and offered it outside, he is liable twice,66 because slaughtering a fowl outside [the Temple Courtyard] is acceptable. It is comparable to performing melikah inside.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 84) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 440) include this commandment as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
2.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that this excludes sacrifices from fowl, but this understanding is not accepted by all authorities.
3.
Temurah 21a states that the firstborn offering is not included in this commandment.
4.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 85) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 453) include this commandment as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. The Ramban differs and maintains that this should not be considered as an independent mitzvah.
5.
The one stated in the previous halachah.
6.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 90) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 186) include this prohibition as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. There are several historical dimensions to this prohibition. First of all, in the era between the destruction of the Sanctuary of Shiloh and the construction of the Temple, it was permitted to offer sacrifices on bemot (literally, "high-places"), i.e., individual altars. See the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:3 which explain the transition between these periods. It is also relevant with regard to the sanctuary constructed by Chonio, the son of Shimon the just described in the notes to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:14.
7.
Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).
8.
This term is used to distinguish this sacrifice from the adjustable guilt offering. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:4.
9.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 89) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 439) include this prohibition as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
10.
This applies even if he performed both transgressions without realizing the prohibitions involved in the interim, for they are two separate transgressions that are not dependent on each other (Radbaz).
11.
I.e., the animals mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach.
12.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1 for a definition of this term.
13.
It is, however, forbidden to do so.
14.
The source for this prohibition, as stated in Halachah 3.
15.
See the following halachah.
16.
See Halachah 9.
17.
It is, however, forbidden to do so.
18.
The prohibition involves slaughtering sacrificial animals and since these animals are not fit to be sacrificed or their owners are not fit to sacrifice them, they are not considered sacrificial animals in the full sense.
19.
See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:8 which states that it is a positive commandment to offer sacrificial animals after eight days of life, but not before.
20.
See ibid.:2 which states that "Turtledoves are acceptable when [their feathers all] are of a golden hue." Before this stage, they are not acceptable (ibid.:9).
21.
See Hilchot Shechitah 12:1-2 which states that it is forbidden to sacrifice an animal and its offspring on the same day. No matter which is slaughtered first, one must wait until the following day to sacrifice the other.
22.
A person with a physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure and obligates him to bring a set of sacrifices (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah1:1, 3-4; 2:1).
23.
A woman who bleeds for three consecutive days after the seven days associated with her menstrual period. This renders her ritually impure and obligates her to bring a set of sacrifices (see ibid. 1:1, 3-4,6)
24.
Who is ritually impure after giving birth and must bring a set of sacrifices (see ibid. 1:1, 3, 5).
25.
As explained in the above sources, a zavand a zavah must wait seven "spotless days" after their condition ceases before bringing their sacrifices. A woman must wait 40 days after giving birth to a male and 80 days after giving birth to a female before bringing her sacrifices.
26.
A skin affliction similar to, but not identical with leprosy that is a spiritual manifestation of the impurity resulting from improper speech (the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at). Such a person must bring a set of sacrifices when emerging from ritual impurity (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1, 3-4).
27.
Such a person must also wait seven days after his condition ceases before bringing his sacrifices.
28.
The sacrifices of all of these individuals include a burnt-offering and a sin-offering and the sacrifice of a person emerging fromtzara'at also includes a guilt-offring.
29.
To appease God and restore His favor.
30.
See Hilchot Nizirut, ch. 8, for the details regarding the sacrifices a nazirite must bring upon completion of his nazirite vow. He may not bring these sacrifices beforehand.
31.
See Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 8, for a description of the situations which warrant bringing these sacrifices.
32.
See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:7 which describes the situations under which such sacrifices should be brought.
33.
With regard to these sacrifices, it is possible that it will be discovered that the person definitely did sin. In such an instance, the sacrifice is not offered. If the sacrificial animal has not been slaughtered, it is left to pasture until it contracts a blemish. If it was slaughtered, its blood is poured down the drainage channel. Since there is a possibility of this taking place, the animal is not deemed a sacrificial animal in the full sense and one is not liable for slaughtering it or offering it.
The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's ruling with regard to a sin-offering of fowl brought because of a doubt since only its blood is offered on the altar, but not its body. Hence, there is room to free one from the obligations involved with a sacrificial animal. Nevertheless, he argues, a conditional guilt-offering is offered on the altar. Hence one should be liable for slaughtering and offering it outside the Temple. The Radbaz and theKessef Mishneh question the Ra'avad's objection, noting that the Rambam's ruling has its basis in Keritot 18a.
34.
As stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim15:1, with the exception of a sin-offering or a Paschal sacrifice, whenever a sacrificial animal was slaughtered for the sake of an offering other the one for which it was intended, it is acceptable, but it does not fulfill the obligation of the owner (see alsoibid.:20). Since the sacrifice would be acceptable if it was offered in the Temple, the person is liable for slaughtering it outside.
35.
The goat sent to Azazel and its pair whose blood is taken into the Holy of Holies. SeeHilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1.
36.
More precisely, the confessional is recited only over the one sent to Azazel (ibid. 4:2).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the matter is dependent not only the confessional, but on the lottery in which the goats are designated for their respective purposes. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the Rambam's ruling is based on Zevachim113a. Although there are other interpretations of that passage, the Rambam has a foundation for his decision.
37.
Or for either of them, were he to slaughter only one.
38.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 5, which states that the gates to the Temple building must be open for the slaughter of peace offerings to be acceptable.
39.
The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this applies only during the remainder of the year. The rationale is that as explained below, during the remainder of the year, an animal designated as a Paschal sacrifice is considered as a peace-offering and a peace-offering is not disqualified if it is not offered for the desired intent. On the day preceding Pesach, when the Paschal sacrifice is offered, it is unacceptable if it is not offered for the desired intent. Hence on that date, were someone to slaughter an animal designated for this purpose for the sake of another sacrifice outside the Temple Courtyard, he would not be liable.
40.
See Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:7. Since it is considered as a peace-offering, just as one is liable for slaughtering an animal designated as a peace-offering outside the Temple Courtyard, so too, he is liable for slaughtering such an animal.
41.
Since the fetus it is carrying will later be offered as a sacrifice, it is forbidden to cause that sacrifice to be disqualified.
42.
Neither the mother nor the fetus.
43.
Even though the animal did not belong to him and hence, he had no right to consecrate it, our Sages considered it as his own so that he would be liable for karet. See Gittin 55b. The Kessef Mishneh raises questions on the Rambam's ruling based on that passage, but Rav Yosef Corcus resolves the Rambam's decision.
44.
For then it is still considered as belonging to the owner. Hence, the thief's consecration is not effective. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach5:7 which speaks of the disqualification of a thief's offering. From Hilchot Geneivah 2:6, it appears that the thief must have also consecrated the animal after the owner's despair and not before. Otherwise, the consecration would not be effective.
45.
Karet or lashes for slaughtering the animal outside the Temple Courtyard.
46.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that Zevachim107b uses this prooftext to teach the following concept: that one who slaughters on the roof of the Temple Building is exempt. Hence he suggests that a printing error crept into the Mishneh Torah and that the text should be amended to fit the Talmud's teaching. This conception is not, however, shared by all authorities.
47.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 4.
48.
For he did not slaughter the animal outside the Temple Courtyard.
49.
Note the contrast to Chapter 19, Halachah 12, with regard to offering an animal as a sacrifice.
50.
The verses use a singular form.
51.
The commentaries note that although the Rambam's ruling has a source in Zevachim108a and in the Sifri, his process of exegesis is different than that used in those sources.
52.
But instead was slaughtering it for mundane purposes.
53.
In this as well, there is a contrast to offering an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Chapter 19, Halachah 1.
54.
Here also, the Rambam's method of exegesis is different from that of his apparent source, Zevachim 108b. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:3), he cites the method of exegesis used by the Talmud.
55.
Literally, "poured out."
56.
I.e., an ordinary animal, not one designated as a sacrifice.
57.
The Ra'avad maintains that the person is exempt in such a situation. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that there is a fundamental difference between slaughtering an animal inside the Temple Courtyard and slaughtering it outside. When it is slaughtered inside the Temple Courtyard at night, it is disqualified as a sacrifice, because of it having been slaughtered at night and hence, it is not acceptable wherever it was offered. If, by contrast, it was slaughtered outside the Temple Courtyard, it becomes placed in the category of animals slaughtered in such a place. Hence the time when it is offered is not significant. The Kessef Mishneh also justifies the Rambam's approach.
58.
Even during the following day (Kessef Mishneh).
59.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:6.
60.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
61.
This disqualifies the sacrifice, for as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, the blood of a sacrificial animal must be received in a sacred vessel.
62.
For the animal was no longer acceptable as a sacrifice.
63.
For the prooftext defining the prohibition (Leviticus 17:3) mentions slaughter, but notmelikah (Zevachim 107a).
64.
This is equivalent to slaughtering an animal inside the Temple Courtyard and offering it outside.
65.
Thus disqualifying it, for in the Temple Courtyard, a fowl should be killed throughmelikah not ritual slaughter.
66.
Both for slaughtering and for offering.
• English Text | Video Class• Shabbat, Nissan 22, 5776 · April 30, 2016• "Today's Day"
Tuesday Nissan 22, Acharon Shel Pesach, 7th day of the omer 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Acharei mot, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 106-107.
Tanya: And although He (p. 221)...above in ch. 20. (p. 223).
By day we take care to follow this order: Make Kiddush, then daven Mincha, and after that eat the festive yom tov meal.1
The Baal Shem Tov used to eat three festival meals on Acharon Shel Pesach.
The Baal Shem Tov called the (third) meal of this day Mashiach's s'uda (the "festival meal of Mashiach"). Acharon Shel Pesach is the day for Mashiach's s'uda because on this day the radiance of the light of Mashiach shines openly.
In 5666 (1906) a new procedure was adopted for Pesach in the Yeshiva Tomchei T'mimim in Lubavitch: The students ate the Pesach meals all together, in the study hall. There were 3102 students present seated at eighteen tables. My father the Rebbe ate the festive meal of Acharon Shel Pesach with the yeshiva students. He ordered that four cups of wine3 be given each student, and then declared, "this is Mashiach's s'uda."
FOOTNOTES
1.A parallel to the three Shabbat meals, in contrast to the two festival meals.
2.The number 310, shai, has a significance, the number of "worlds" awaiting each tzadik. 18 or chai represents life.
3.The Rebbe, of righteous memory, stated that "it is obvious that this practice was not to be limited to that particular year, but is for all years."
• Daily Thought:
Future Miracles
The miracles of Egypt were an Infinite Light breaking into our world.
The miracles of the future will be our world shining an Infinite Light outward.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment