Mishnah Torah [1-18] 9780940118188

Citation preview

The Rambam's Mishneh Torah - Texts & Writings

1 of 4

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682956/jewish/Mishneh...



The Rambam's Mishneh Torah Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Introduction to Mishneh Torah Positive Commandments Negative Commandments Listing of Mitzvos Sefer Madda The Book of Knowledge Yesodei haTorah

Teshuvah

De'ot Talmud Torah Avodat Kochavim

Sefer Ahavah The Book of the Love of G-d Kri'at Shema

Berachot

Tefilah and Birkat Kohanim

Milah

Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah

Order of Prayers

Tzitzit

Sefer Zemanim The Book of Times Shabbat

Chametz U'Matzah

Eruvin

Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav

Shevitat Asor

Shekalim

Shevitat Yom Tov

View All 10

Sefer Nashim The Book of Women Ishut

Sotah

Gerushin Yibbum vChalitzah Naarah Betulah

9/1/2019 3:00 AM

The Rambam's Mishneh Torah - Texts & Writings

2 of 4

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682956/jewish/Mishneh...

Sefer Kedushah The Book of Holiness Issurei Biah Ma'achalot Assurot Shechitah

Sefer Hafla'ah The Book of Promises. Shvuot Nedarim Nezirut Arachim Vacharamim

Sefer Zeraim The Book of Seeds Kilaayim

Maaser Sheini

Matnot Aniyim

Bikkurim

Terumot

Shemita

Maaser

Sefer Avodah The Book of Service Beit Habechirah

Maaseh Hakorbanot

Klei Hamikdash

Temidin uMusafim

Biat Hamikdash

Pesulei Hamukdashim

Issurei Mizbeiach

View All 9

Sefer Korbanot The Book of Sacrifices Korban Pesach

Mechussarey Kapparah

Chagigah

Temurah

Bechorot Shegagot

Sefer Taharah The Book of Ritual Purity Tum'at Met

She'ar Avot haTum'ah

Parah Adumah

Tum'at Okhalin

Tum'at Tsara'at

Kelim

Metamme'ey Mishkav uMoshav

Mikvaot

9/1/2019 3:00 AM

The Rambam's Mishneh Torah - Texts & Writings

3 of 4

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682956/jewish/Mishneh...

Sefer Nezikim The Book of Injuries Hilchot Nizkei Mamon

Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh

Genevah Gezelah va'Avedah Chovel uMazzik

Sefer Kinyan The Book of Acquisition Mechirah

Avadim

Zechiyah uMattanah Shechenim Sheluchin veShuttafin

Sefer Mishpatim The Book of Judgments Sechirut

Nachalot

She'elah uFikkadon Malveh veLoveh To`en veNit`an

Sefer Shoftim The Book of Judges Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem

Melachim uMilchamot

Edut Mamrim Avel

9/1/2019 3:00 AM

The Rambam's Mishneh Torah - Texts & Writings

4 of 4

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682956/jewish/Mishneh...

9/1/2019 3:00 AM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

1 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...



Positive Commandments Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Introduction to Mishneh Torah

The first of the positive commandments is the mitzvah to know that there is a God, as [Exodus 20:2] states: "I am God, your Lord."

English

Hebrew

Next » Negative Commandments

‫ לידע‬,‫מצוה ראשונה ממצוות עשה‬ '‫ שנאמר "אנוכי ה‬,‫שיש שם אלוה‬ .(‫ו‬,‫ב; דברים ה‬,‫אלוהיך" )שמות כ‬

To unify Him, as [Deuteronomy 6:4] states: "God is our Lord, God is one."

'‫ ה‬,‫ שנאמר "ה' אלוהינו‬,‫לייחדו‬ .(‫ד‬,‫אחד" )דברים ו‬

To love Him, as [Deuteronomy 6:5] states: "And you shall love God, your Lord."

'‫ את ה‬,‫ שנאמר "ואהבת‬,‫לאוהבו‬ .(‫א‬,‫ה; דברים יא‬,‫אלוהיך" )דברים ו‬

To fear Him, as [Deuteronomy 6:13] states: "Fear God, your Lord."

‫ שנאמר "את ה' אלוהיך‬,‫ליראה ממנו‬ .(‫כ‬,‫יג; דברים י‬,‫תירא" )דברים ו‬

To pray, as [Exodus 23:25] states: "And you shall serve God, your Lord." This service is prayer.a

'‫ את ה‬,‫ שנאמר "ועבדתם‬,‫להתפלל‬ ‫כה(; עבודה זו‬,‫אלוהיכם" )שמות כג‬ .‫תפילה‬

To cling to Him, as [Deuteronomy 10:2] states: "And you shall cling to Him."

"‫ שנאמר "ובו תדבק‬,‫לדובקה בו‬ .(‫כ‬,‫)דברים י‬

To swear in His name, as [Deuteronomy 10:20]

,‫ שנאמר "ובשמו‬,‫להישבע בשמו‬ .(‫כ‬,‫יג; דברים י‬,‫תישבע" )דברים ו‬

states: "And you shall swear in His name."a,b To emulate His good and just ways, as [Deuteronomy 28:9] states: "And you shall walk in His ways."

,‫להידמות בדרכיו הטובים והישרים‬ ‫ בדרכיו" )דברים‬,‫שנאמר "והלכת‬ .(‫ט‬,‫כח‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

2 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To sanctify His name, as [Leviticus 22:32] states: "And I shall be sanctified amidst the children of Israel."

,‫ שנאמר "ונקדשתי‬,‫לקדש את שמו‬ .(‫לב‬,‫בתוך בני ישראל" )ויקרא כב‬

To recite the Shema twice daily, as [Deuteronomy 6:2] states: "And you shall speak of them when you lie down and when you arise."

,‫לקרות קרית שמע פעמיים בכל יום‬ ‫ בשוכבך‬. . . ‫שנאמר "ודיברת בם‬ .(‫ז‬,‫ובקומך" )דברים ו‬

To study Torah and to teach it [to others], as [Deuteronomy 6:2] states: "And you shall teach them to your children."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫ללמוד תורה וללמדה‬ .(‫ז‬,‫"ושיננתם לבניך" )דברים ו‬

To tie tefillin upon our heads, as [Deuteronomy

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לקשור תפילין בראש‬ ‫ בין עיניך" )דברים‬,‫"והיו לטוטפות‬

6:8] states: "And they shall be an emblem between your eyes." To tie tefillin upon our arms, as [Deuteronomy 6:8] states: "And you shall tie them for a sign upon your arms." To make tzitzit, as [Numbers 15:38] states: "And you shall make tzitzit for them."

.(‫ח‬,‫ו‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫לקשור תפילין ביד‬ ‫ על ידך" )דברים‬,‫"וקשרתם לאות‬ .(‫ח‬,‫ו‬ ‫ שנאמר "ועשו להם‬,‫לעשות ציצית‬ .(‫לח‬,‫ציצית" )במדבר טו‬

To affix a mezuzah, as [Deuteronomy 6:9] states: "And you shall write them on the doorposts of your home."

‫ שנאמר "וכתבתם‬,‫לקבוע מזוזה‬ ;‫ט‬,‫על מזוזות ביתך" )דברים ו‬ .(‫כ‬,‫דברים יא‬

To collect the people to hear the Torah [being read] in the year following the shemitah year, as [Deuteronomy 31:12] states: "Gather together the people."

‫להקהיל את העם לשמוע התורה‬ ‫ שנאמר "הקהל‬,‫במוצאי שביעית‬ .(‫יב‬,‫את העם" )דברים לא‬

For each man to write a Torah scroll for himself, as [Deuteronomy 31:19] states: "Write down this

,‫לכתוב כל איש ספר תורה לעצמו‬ ‫שנאמר "כתבו לכם את השירה‬ .(‫יט‬,‫הזאת" )דברים לא‬

song."

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

3 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

For the king to write a second Torah scroll for himself in addition to the one which [he is required to write to fulfill the mitzvah incumbent upon] every man. Thus, he will have two Torah scrolls, as [Deuteronomy 17:19] states: "And he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah."

,‫לכתוב המלך ספר תורה לעצמו‬ ‫ עד‬,‫יתר על האחד של כל אדם‬ ‫ שנאמר "וכתב לו‬,‫שיהיה לו שתי תורות‬ .(‫יח‬,‫את משנה התורה הזאת" )דברים יז‬

To bless [God] after eating, as [Deuteronomy 8:10] states: "[After] you eat and are satisfied, you shall bless God, your Lord."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לברך אחר המזון‬ '‫ ושבעת—ובירכת את ה‬,‫"ואכלת‬ .(‫י‬,‫אלוהיך" )דברים ח‬

To build [God's] chosen house, [the Temple,] as [Exodus 25:8] states: "And you shall make a

‫ שנאמר "ועשו‬,‫לבנות בית הבחירה‬ .(‫ח‬,‫ מקדש" )שמות כה‬,‫לי‬

sanctuary for Me."b To revere this house, as [Leviticus 19:30] states: "And revere My sanctuary."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫ליראה מבית זה‬ ;‫ל‬,‫"ומקדשי תיראו" )ויקרא יט‬ .(‫ב‬,‫ויקרא כו‬

To keep watch over this house continuously, as [Numbers 18:2,4] states: "And you and- your descendants before the Tent of Testimony.... [And they shall keep the watch....]"

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לשמור בית זה תמיד‬ ‫ לפני אוהל‬,‫"ואתה ובניך איתך‬ .(‫ב‬,‫העדות" )במדבר יח‬

For the Levites to serve in the sanctuary, as [Numbers 18:23] states: "And the Levite shall serve...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להיות הלוי עובד במקדש‬ .(‫כג‬,‫"ועבד הלוי הוא" )במדבר יח‬

For a priest to sanctify his hands and feet at the time of service [in the Temple], as [Exodus 30:19] states: "And Aaron and his sons will wash...."

‫לקדש הכוהן ידיו ורגליו בשעת‬ ‫ שנאמר "ורחצו אהרון‬,‫העבודה‬ .(‫יט‬,‫ובניו" )שמות ל‬

To prepare the candles of the Sanctuary, as [Exodus 27:21] states: "Aaron and his sons shall prepare it."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לערוך נרות במקדש‬ ‫"יערוך אותו אהרון ובניו" )שמות‬

For the priests to bless the Jews, as [Numbers 6:23] states: "In this manner, you shall bless the children of Israel."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לברך הכוהנים את ישראל‬ "‫"כה תברכו את בני ישראל‬ .(‫כג‬,‫)במדבר ו‬

.(‫כא‬,‫כז‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

4 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To arrange bread and frankincense before God [in the Temple] on every Sabbath, as [Exodus 25:30] states: "And you shall place the showbread on the table."b

‫להסדיר לחם ולבונה לפני ה' בכל‬ ‫ שנאמר "ונתת על השולחן‬,‫שבת‬ .(‫ל‬,‫לחם פנים" )שמות כה‬

To burn a spice offering twice [each] day, as [Exodus 30:7] states: "And Aaron shall burn incense upon it...."

,‫להקטיר קטורת פעמיים ביום‬ ,‫שנאמר "והקטיר עליו אהרון‬ .(‫ז‬,‫קטורת סמים" )שמות ל‬

To keep a fire burning on the altar for burnt offerings continually, as [Leviticus 6:6] states: "And you shall keep a fire burning continuously on the altar."

,‫להבעיר אש במזבח העולה תמיד‬ ‫ תמיד תוקד על‬,‫שנאמר "אש‬ .(‫ו‬,‫המזבח" )ויקרא ו‬

To remove the ashes from the altar, as [Leviticus 6:3] states: "And he shall remove the ashes...."

,‫להרים את הדשן מעל המזבח‬ ‫שנאמר "והרים את הדשן" )ויקרא‬ .(‫ג‬,‫ו‬

To send impure people out from the camp of the Divine Presence - i.e., the sanctuary - as [Numbers 5:2] states: "And you shall send from the camp all the leprous, any zav, and anyone who has contracted impurity because of a corpse."

‫לשלח טמאים ממחנה שכינה‬ ‫ שנאמר "וישלחו‬,‫שהוא המקדש‬ ‫ טמא‬,‫ כל צרוע וכל זב; וכול‬,‫מן המחנה‬ .(‫ב‬,‫לנפש" )במדבר ה‬

To show honor to Aaron's descendants and to give them priority regarding all holy matters, as [Leviticus 21:8] states: "And you shall sanctify him."

‫לחלוק כבוד לזרעו של אהרון‬ ,‫ולהקדימו לכל דבר שבקדושה‬ .(‫ח‬,‫שנאמר "וקידשתו" )ויקרא כא‬

To clothe the priests with the priestly garments for service [in the Temple], as [Exodus 28:2] states: "And you shall make holy garments...."a

‫להלביש הכוהנים לעבודה בגדי‬ ‫ שנאמר "ועשית בגדי‬,‫כהונה‬ .(‫ב‬,‫קודש" )שמות כח‬

To carry the ark upon our shoulders when it is to be carried, as [Numbers 7:9] states: "And they shall carry it on their shoulders."

‫לשאת את הארון על הכתף‬ ‫ שנאמר "בכתף‬,‫כשנושאים אותו‬ .(‫ט‬,‫יישאו" )במדבר ז‬

To anoint the High Priests and kings with the anointing oil, as [Exodus 30:30-31] states: "[Anoint Aaron....] This shall be sacred anointing oil."

‫למשוח כוהנים גדולים ומלכים‬ ‫ שנאמר "שמן‬,‫בשמן המשחה‬ .(‫לא‬,‫משחת קודש יהיה זה" )שמות ל‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

5 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

For the priests to serve in the sanctuary in individual watches; and for them to all serve as one on the festivals, as [Deuteronomy 18:6-8] states: "When the Levite shall come... [he can serve]...with the exception of that which is theirs by ancestral right."a

‫להיות הכוהנים עובדים במקדש‬ ‫ ובמועדים‬,‫משמרות משמרות‬ "‫ שנאמר "וכי יבוא הלוי‬,‫עובדים כאחד‬ "‫ על האבות‬,‫ו( "לבד ממכריו‬,‫)דברים יח‬ .(‫ח‬,‫)דברים יח‬

For the priests to become ritually impure and mourn for their relatives in the same manner as other Jews who are commanded to mourn, as [Leviticus 21:3] states: "He shall become impure for her."

‫להיות הכוהנים מיטמאים לקרוביהן‬ ‫ומתאבלין עליהן כשאר ישראל‬ ,‫ שנאמר "לה‬,‫שהן מצווין להתאבל‬ .(‫ג‬,‫ייטמא" )ויקרא כא‬

For a High Priest to marry a virgin, as [Leviti-cus 21:13] states: "And he shall marry a woman who is a virgin."

,‫להיות כוהן גדול נושא בתולה‬ ‫ אישה בבתוליה‬,‫שנאמר "והוא‬ .(‫יג‬,‫ייקח" )ויקרא כא‬

To offer the tamid offerings each day, as [Numbers 28:3] states: "[This is the fire offering...] two each day continuously."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להקריב תמידין בכל יום‬ "‫ עולה תמיד‬,‫"שניים ליום‬ .(‫ג‬,‫)במדבר כח‬

For the High Priest to offer a meal offering each day, as [Leviticus 6:13] states: "This is the sacrifice of Aaron and his descendants."

,‫להקריב כוהן גדול מנחה בכל יום‬ "‫שנאמר "זה קרבן אהרון ובניו‬ .(‫יג‬,‫)ויקרא ו‬

To offer an additional sacrifice every Sabbath, as [Numbers 28:9] states: "On the Sabbath day, two lambs...."

,‫להוסיף קרבן אחר בכל שבת‬ ‫ השבת—שני‬,‫שנאמר "וביום‬ .(‫ט‬,‫כבשים" )במדבר כח‬

To offer an additional sacrifice every Rosh Chodesh, as [Numbers 28:11] states: "On your Rashei Chodashim...."

‫להוסיף קרבן בכל ראש חודש‬ ,‫"ובראשי‬ ‫שנאמר‬ ,‫וחודש‬ .(‫יא‬,‫חודשיכם" )במדבר כח‬

To offer an additional sacrifice on Pesach, as [Leviticus 23:36] states: "For seven days, you will bring a fire offering unto God...."1

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להוסיף קרבן בחג הפסח‬ "'‫ תקריבו אישה לה‬,‫"שבעת ימים‬ .(‫לו‬,‫)ויקרא כג‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

6 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To bring the meal offering of the omer on the day after the first day of Pesach together with a single lamb, as [Leviticus 23:10] states: "And you shall bring the omer...."

‫להקריב מנחת העומר ממוחרת‬ ‫יום ראשון של פסח עם כבש‬ ‫ שנאמר "והבאתם את עומר ראשית‬,‫אחד‬ .(‫י‬,‫ אל הכהן" )ויקרא כג‬,‫קצירכם‬

To offer an additional sacrifice on Shavuot, as [Numbers 28:26] states: "On the day of the first fruits [Bikkurim]...."

,‫להוסיף קרבן ביום עצרת‬ ". . . ‫שנאמר "וביום הביכורים‬ .(‫כו‬,‫)במדבר כח‬

To bring two loaves and the sacrifices which accompany the loaves on Shavuot, as [Leviticus 23:17] states: "From your dwellings, bring bread as a wave offering. And you shall offer upon the bread...."

‫להביא שתי הלחם עם הקרבנות‬ ,‫הקרבים בגלל הלחם ביום עצרת‬ ‫שנאמר "ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם‬ ‫יז( "והקרבתם על‬,‫תנופה" )ויקרא כג‬ .(‫יח‬,‫הלחם" )ויקרא כג‬

To offer an additional sacrifice on Rosh HaShanah, as [Numbers 29:1] states: "And in the seventh month, on the first of the month...."

,‫להוסיף קרבן בראש השנה‬ ‫שנאמר "ובחודש השביעי באחד‬ .(‫א‬,‫לחודש" )במדבר כט‬

To offer an additional sacrifice on the fast [of Yom Kippur], as [Numbers 29:7] states: "On the tenth of the seventh month...."

,‫להוסיף קרבן ביום הצום‬ ‫לחודש‬ ‫"ובעשור‬ ‫שנאמר‬ .(‫ז‬,‫השביעי" )במדבר כט‬

To carry out the service of the fast [of Yom Kippur], as [Leviticus 16:3] states: "In this manner, Aaron will enter the [inner] sanctuary, with a young bull...." All the [particulars of] this service are stated in the parashah of Acharei Mot.

,‫לעשות עבודת היום ביום הצום‬ ‫ אל‬,‫שנאמר "בזאת יבוא אהרון‬ ‫ וכל‬,(‫ג‬,‫ בפר בן בקר" )ויקרא טז‬.:‫הקודש‬ .‫העבודה הכתובה בפרשת אחרי מות‬

To offer an additional sacrifice on the holiday of Sukkot, as [Numbers 29:13] states: "And you shall present a burnt offering as a pleasing fragrance...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להוסיף קרבן בחג הסוכות‬ "‫"והקרבתם עולה אישה ריח ניחוח‬ .(‫יג‬,‫)במדבר כט‬

To offer an additional sacrifice on Shemini Atzeret, for it is a festival in its own right, as [Numbers 29:35] states: "And on the eighth day....

,‫להוסיף קרבן ביום שמיני עצרת‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫כי רגל בפני עצמו הוא‬ .(‫לה‬,‫ השמיני" )במדבר כט‬,‫"ביום‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

7 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To celebrate on the festivals, as [Exodus 23:14] states: "And you shall celebrate three festivals for Me."

‫ שנאמר "שלוש‬,‫לחוג ברגלים‬ .(‫יד‬,‫ תחוג לי" )שמות כג‬,‫רגלים‬

To appear [before God in the Temple] on the festivals, as [Deuteronomy 16:16] states: "On three occasions during the year, all your males shall appear...."

‫ שנאמר "שלוש‬,‫להיראות ברגלים‬ "‫ כל זכורך‬,‫ בשנה—ייראה‬,‫פעמים‬ .(‫טז‬,‫כג; דברים טז‬,‫יז; שמות לד‬,‫)שמות כג‬

To rejoice on the festivals, as [Deuteronomy 16:14] states: "And you shall rejoice on your festivals."

,‫ שנאמר "ושמחת‬,‫לשמוח ברגלים‬ .(‫יד‬,‫בחגך" )דברים טז‬

To slaughter the Paschal lamb, as [Exodus 12:6] states: "And the entire congregation shall slaughter it...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לשחוט כבש הפסח‬ ". . . ‫ כול קהל‬,‫"ושחטו אותו‬ .(‫ו‬,‫)שמות יב‬

To eat the meat of the Paschal sacrifice roasted on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, as [Exodus 12:8] states: "And they shall eat the meat...."

‫לאכול בשר הפסח צלי בלילי‬ ‫ שנאמר "ואכלו‬,‫חמישה עשר מניסן‬ .(‫ח‬,‫את הבשר" )שמות יב‬

To offer the second Paschal sacrifice, as [Numbers 9:11] states: "In the second month, on the fourteenth of the month...."

‫ שנאמר "בחודש‬,‫לעשות פסח שני‬ ‫השני בארבעה עשר" )במדבר‬ .(‫יא‬,‫ט‬

To eat the meat of the second Paschal offering together with matzot and bitter herbs, as [Numbers 9:11] states: "And you shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs."

‫לאכול את בשר פסח שני על‬ ‫ שנאמר "על מצות‬,‫מצה ומרור‬ .(‫יא‬,‫ יאכלוהו" )במדבר ט‬,‫ומרורים‬

To sound the trumpets when the sacrifices [are offered] and in times of difficulty, as [Numbers 10:10] states: "And you shall sound the trumpets...."

‫לתקוע בחצוצרות על הקרבנות‬ ‫ שנאמר "ותקעתם‬,‫ובשעת הצרות‬ .(‫י‬,‫בחצוצרות" )במדבר י‬

For all animals to be sacrificed after their eighth day [of life], as [Leviticus 22:27] states: "And on

‫להיות כל קרבנות בהמה מיום שמיני‬ ,‫ שנאמר "מיום השמיני‬,‫והלאה‬ .(‫כז‬,‫והלאה" )ויקרא כב‬

the eighth day and afterwards...."b

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

8 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

For all animal offerings to be unblemished, as [Leviticus 22:21] states: "[When it is] unblemished, it will be desirable...." To salt all the sacrifices, as [Leviticus 2:13] states: "Offer salt on all your sacrifices."

,‫להיות כל קרבן בהמה תמים‬ "‫שנאמר "תמים יהיה לרצון‬ .(‫כא‬,‫)ויקרא כב‬ ‫ שנאמר "על כל‬,‫למלוח כל קרבן‬ ‫ תקריב מלח" )ויקרא‬,‫קרבנך‬ .(‫יג‬,‫ב‬

The burnt offering, as [Leviticus 1:3] states:"If his is a burnt offering...."

‫ שנאמר "אם עולה‬,‫מעשה העולה‬ .(‫ג‬,‫קרבנו" )ויקרא א‬

The sin offering, as [Leviticus 6:18] states: "These are the laws of the sin offering...."

‫ שנאמר "זאת‬,‫מעשה חטאת‬ .(‫יח‬,‫תורת החטאת" )ויקרא ו‬

The guilt offering, as [Leviticus 7:1] states: "These are the laws of the guilt offering...."

‫ שנאמר "זאת‬,‫מעשה האשם‬ .(‫א‬,‫ האשם" )ויקרא ז‬,‫תורת‬

The peace offering, as [Leviticus 7:11] states: "These are the laws of the peace offering...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫מעשה זבח השלמים‬ "‫ זבח השלמים‬,‫"וזאת תורת‬ .(‫יא‬,‫)ויקרא ז‬

The meal offering, as [Leviticus 2:1] states: "When a person presents a meal offering...."

‫ כי‬,‫ שנאמר "ונפש‬,‫מעשה המנחה‬ .(‫א‬,‫תקריב קרבן מנחה" )ויקרא ב‬

For the [High] Court to offer a sacrifice if it renders an erroneous decision, as [Leviticus 4:13] states: "If the entire congregation of Israel shall err...."

‫להקריב בית דין קרבן אם טעו‬ ‫ שנאמר "ואם כל עדת‬,‫בהוראה‬ .(‫יג‬,‫ ישגו" )ויקרא ד‬,‫ישראל‬

For each individual to offer a sin offering if he unintentionally violates a negative 2 commandment punishable by karet , as [Leviticus 5:1] states: "When a person sins...."3

‫להקריב היחיד קרבן חטאת אם‬ ‫שגג במצות לא תעשה שחייבים‬ "‫ שנאמר "ונפש כי תחטא‬,‫עליה כרת‬ .(‫א‬,‫)ויקרא ה‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

9 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

For an individual to offer a sacrifice if he is in doubt whether or not he transgressed a prohibition for which he would be liable for a sin offering, as [Leviticus 5:17-18] states: "If he does not know, he still bears responsibility...and he shall bring his guilt offering." This is referred to as "the conditional guilt offering."

‫להקריב היחיד קרבן אם נסתפק לו‬ ‫אם חטא חטא שחייבים עליו חטאת‬ . . . ‫ שנאמר "ולא ידע ואשם‬,‫או לא חטא‬ ;(‫יח‬-‫יז‬,‫והביא את אשמו" )ראה ויקרא ה‬ .‫וזה הוא נקרא אשם תלוי‬

For [the following individuals:] a person who unknowingly used sacred property, a person who sinned by stealing, one [who had relations with] a maidservant designated for another person, or one who denied possession of an entrusted object and took a [false] oath, to bring a guilt offering. This is referred to as "the unconditional guilt offering."4

‫ או‬,‫להקריב השוגג במעילה‬ ‫ או בשפחה‬,‫החוטא בגזילה‬ ‫ או שכפר בפיקדון ונשבע; מביא‬,‫חרופה‬ .‫ וזה הוא הנקרא אשם ודאי‬,‫קרבן אשם‬

To offer "the adjustable guilt offering" [as atonement for the violation of certain transgressions], as [Leviticus 5:1,11] states: "If his means are not sufficient.... If his means do not suffice...."

,‫להקריב קרבן עולה ויורד‬ "‫שנאמר "ואם לא תגיע ידו‬ ‫ "ואם לא תשיג ידו" )ויקרא‬,(‫ז‬,‫)ויקרא ה‬ .(‫יא‬,‫ה‬

For a person to confess before God for any sin which he has committed. [This applies] when he brings a sacrifice [for atonement] and when he does not bring a sacrifice, as [Numbers 5:6] states: "And they shall confess the sins that they committed."5

‫להתוודות לפני ה' מכל חטא‬ ‫ בשעת הקרבן‬,‫שיעשה האדם‬ ,‫ שנאמר "והתוודו‬,‫ושלא בשעת הקרבן‬ .(‫ז‬,‫את חטאתם אשר עשו" )במדבר ה‬

For a zav to offer a sacrifice when he becomes purified [after his affliction], as [Leviticus 15:13] states: "When a zav will become pure...."

,‫להקריב הזב קרבן אחר שיטהר‬ "‫ מזובו‬,‫שנאמר "וכי יטהר הזב‬ .(‫יג‬,‫)ויקרא טו‬

For a zavah to offer a sacrifice when she be-comes purified [after her affliction], as [Leviticus 15:28] states: "When she becomes pure from [the condition] of zavah...."

‫להקריב הזבה קרבן אחר‬ ,‫ שנאמר "ואם טהרה‬,‫שתטהר‬ .(‫כח‬,‫מזובה" )ויקרא טו‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

10 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

For a woman who gave birth to offer a sacrifice after she becomes purified, as [Leviticus 12:6] states: "And after the conclusion of her pure days...."

‫להקריב היולדת קרבן אחר‬ ‫ שנאמר "ובמלאות ימי‬,‫שתטהר‬ .(‫ו‬,‫טוהרה" )ויקרא יב‬

For a person afflicted with tzara’at to offer a sacrifice after he becomes purified, as [Leviticus 14:1] states: "On the eighth day, he shall take...."

‫להקריב המצורע קרבן אחר‬ ‫ שנאמר "וביום השמיני‬,‫שיטהר‬ .(‫י‬,‫ייקח" )ויקרא יד‬

To tithe one's herds, as [Leviticus 27:32] states: "And all the tithes of your cattle and sheep...."

‫ שנאמר "וכל‬,‫לעשר הבהמה‬ ‫מעשר בקר וצאן" )ויקרא‬ .(‫לב‬,‫כז‬

To sanctify the firstborn of a kosher animal and offer it as a sacrifice, as [Deuteronomy 15:19] states: "Every firstling which shall be born...."

‫לקדש בכור הבהמה הטהורה‬ ‫ שנאמר "כל הבכור‬,‫ולהקריבו‬ .(‫יט‬,‫אשר ייוולד" )דברים טו‬

To redeem firstborn sons, as [Numbers 18:15] states: "However, you must surely redeem first-born humans."

‫ שנאמר "אך פדה‬,‫לפדות בכור אדם‬ ‫ את בכור האדם" )במדבר‬,‫תפדה‬ .(‫טו‬,‫יח‬

To redeem a firstling donkey, as [Exodus 34:20] states: "Redeem a firstling donkey with a sheep."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫פטר חמור‬ "‫חמור תפדה בשה‬

To decapitate a firstling donkey [which is not redeemed], as [Exodus 34:20] states: "If you do not redeem it, you must decapitate it."

‫ שנאמר "ואם‬,‫לערוף פטר חמור‬ ;‫יג‬,‫לא תפדה וערפתו" )שמות יג‬ .(‫כ‬,‫שמות לד‬

For a person to bring all the sacrifices for which he is liable, be they obligatory or voluntary offerings, on the first pilgrimage festival that occurs, as [Deuteronomy 12:5-6] states: "And you shall come there... and you shall bring there...."

‫להביא כל הקרבנות שיש על‬ ‫האדם בחובה או בנדבה ברגל‬ "‫ שנאמר "ובאת שמה‬,‫ראשון שפגע בו‬ ‫ "והבאתם שמה" )דברים‬,(‫ה‬,‫)דברים יב‬ .(‫ו‬,‫יב‬

‫לפדות‬ ‫"ופטר‬ .(‫כ‬,‫)שמות לד‬

Note: We have marked with the letter “a” those mitzvot concerning which the Ramban (Nachmanides) differs with the Rambam in his Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, and with the letter “b,” those mitzvot concerning which the Ra'avad, in his gloss to the Mishneh Torah, differs with the Rambam.

To sacrifice all the offerings in [God's] chosen house, [i.e., the Temple,], as [Deuteronomy 12:14] states: "There, you will perform all that I command you."

‫להקריב כל הקרבנות בבית‬ ,‫ שנאמר "ושם תעשה‬,‫הבחירה‬ .(‫יד‬,‫כול אשר אנוכי מצווך" )דברים יב‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

11 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To tend to all the offerings from the Diaspora and bring them to Eretz [Yisrael], to [God's] chosen house, [i.e., the Temple,] as [Deuteronomy 12:26] states: "Take the sacred offerings which you possess, and your pledges, and come [to the place that God will choose]." Based on the oral tradition, we have learned that this applies to sacred offerings from the Diaspora.

‫להיטפל בהבאת הקרבנות‬ ,‫מחוצה לארץ לבית הבחירה‬ ,‫שנאמר "רק קודשיך אשר יהיו לך‬ ‫כו(; מפי‬,‫ תישא ובאת" )דברים יב‬,‫ונדריך‬ ‫השמועה למדו שאינו מדבר אלא בקודשי‬ .‫חוצה לארץ‬

To redeem sacred offerings that have becoming blemished, and thus have them to be permitted [for mundane use], as [Deuteronomy 12:15] states: "But whenever you desire, you may slaughter...." Based on the oral tradition, we have learned that this refers only to sacred offerings which have become disqualified and have been redeemed.

‫לפדות קודשים בעלי מומים ויהיו‬ ‫ שנאמר "רק בכל‬,‫מותרים באכילה‬ ‫אוות נפשך תזבח ואכלת בשר" )דברים‬ ‫טו(; מפי השמועה למדו שאינו מדבר‬,‫יב‬ .‫אלא בפסולי המוקדשין שייפדו‬

That an animal substituted for a sacred offering be regarded as sacred, as [Leviticus 27:33] states: "Both [the original animal] and the one substituted for it shall be consecrated."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להיות התמורה קודש‬ "‫"והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קודש‬ .(‫לג‬,‫י; ויקרא כז‬,‫)ויקרא כז‬

To eat the remains of the meal offerings, as [Leviticus 6:9] states: "Aaron and his sons will eat the remainder of it."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לאכול שיירי מנחות‬ ‫ יאכלו אהרון‬,‫"והנותרת ממנה‬ .(‫ט‬,‫ובניו" )ויקרא ו‬

To eat the flesh of the sin and guilt offerings,6 as [Exodus 29:33] states: "And they shall eat [the sacrifices] with which atonement was made for them."

,‫לאכול בשר חטאת ואשם‬ ‫שנאמר "ואכלו אותם אשר כופר‬ .(‫לג‬,‫בהם" )שמות כט‬

To burn sacred meat which became impure, as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "And the flesh which touches anything impure... [shall be burnt]."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לשרוף בשר קודש שנטמא‬ "‫"והבשר אשר ייגע בכל טמא‬ .(‫יט‬,‫)ויקרא ז‬

To burn the leftovers [from the sacrifices], as [Leviticus 7:17] states: "The leftovers from the flesh of the sacrifice shall be burnt with fire on the third day."

,‫ שנאמר "והנותר‬,‫לשרוף הנותר‬ ,‫ השלישי‬,‫מבשר הזבח—ביום‬ .(‫יז‬,‫ יישרף" )ויקרא ז‬,‫באש‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

12 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

For a Nazirite to grow his hair long, as [Numbers 6:5] states: "He shall let the hair of his head grow without cutting it."

‫ שנאמר "גדל‬,‫לגדל הנזיר שיערו‬ .(‫ה‬,‫ שיער ראשו" )במדבר ו‬,‫פרע‬

For a Nazarite to shave his hair when bringing his sacrifices at the conclusion of his term as a Nazirite, or during his Nazirite term if he becomes impure, as [Numbers 6:9] states: "Should a person die in his presence,... [he must shave....]"

‫לגלח הנזיר שיערו על קרבנותיו‬ ‫ או בתוך ימי‬,‫במלאות ימי נזרו‬ ‫ שנאמר "וכי ימות מת‬,‫נזרו אם נטמא‬ .(‫ט‬,‫עליו" )במדבר ו‬

For a person to fulfill any [promise] which he utters, be it a sacrifice, [a gift to] charity, or the like, as [Deuteronomy 23:24] states: "What you have

‫לקיים אדם כל מה שהוציא‬ ‫ מקרבן או צדקה וכיוצא‬,‫בשפתיו‬ ‫ תשמור‬,‫ שנאמר "מוצא שפתיך‬,‫בהם‬ .(‫כד‬,‫ועשית" )דברים כג‬

spoken, take heed to fulfill...."a To carry out the laws regarding the nullification of vows, as mentioned in the Torah.

‫לדון בהפרת נדרים בכל הדינים‬ .‫האמורין בפרשה‬

For everyone who comes in contact with the corpse of an animal to become impure, as [Leviticus 11:39] states: "Should an animal die...."

,‫להיות כל נוגע בנבילה טמא‬ "‫שנאמר "וכי ימות מן הבהמה‬ .(‫לט‬,‫)ויקרא יא‬

For the [dead bodies of] the eight species of crawling animals [mentioned in the Torah] to impart ritual impurity, as [Leviticus 11:19] states: "These shall be impure for you...."

,‫להיות שמונה שרצים מטמאין‬ ‫שנאמר "וזה לכם הטמא" )ויקרא‬ .(‫כט‬,‫יא‬

For [certain] foods to impart impurity, as [Leviticus 11:34] states: "From all the food which you will eat...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להיות האוכלין מיטמאין‬ "‫"מכל האוכל אשר ייאכל‬ .(‫לד‬,‫)ויקרא יא‬

For [a woman in the] niddah state to be impure and to impart impurity to others. For [a woman] who gives birth to be impure [like a woman] in the niddah state. For a person afflicted with tzara’at to be impure and to impart impurity.

‫להיות הנידה טמאה ומטמאה‬ .‫לאחרים‬ .‫להיות היולדת טמאה כנידה‬

.‫להיות המצורע טמא ומטמא‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

13 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

For a garment afflicted with tzara’at to be impure and to impart impurity. For a house afflicted with tzara’at to impart

.‫להיות בגד מנוגע טמא ומטמא‬

.‫להיות בית מנוגע מטמא‬

impurity. For a zav to impart impurity. For semen to impart impurity.

.‫להיות הזב מטמא‬ .‫להיות שכבת זרע מטמאה‬

For a zavah to impart impurity.

.‫להיות זבה מטמאה‬

For a corpse to impart impurity.

.‫להיות המת מטמא‬

For the sprinkling water [used for the purification process involving the red heifer] to impart impurity to a person who is ritually pure, and to impart ritual purity to a person who is ritually impure solely because of contact with a human corpse.b All the laws dealing with these different types of impurity and the majority of the judgments regarding all types of ritual purity and impurity are explained explicitly in the Written Law.7

‫להיות מי נידה מטמאין לאדם‬ ‫ ומטהרין מטומאת מת‬,‫טהור‬ ,‫ וכל אלו הדינין של טומאות אלו‬..‫בלבד‬ ‫רוב משפט כל טומאה וטומאה מהן‬ .‫מבואר בתורה שבכתב‬

For the process of purification from all types of ritual impurity to involve immersion in the waters of a mikveh, as [Leviticus 15:16] states: "And he shall wash all his flesh in water." Based on the oral tradition, we have learned that this washing [involves immersion in a body of] water in which one's entire body can immerse at one time.

‫להיות הטהרה מכל הטמאות‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫בטבילה במי מקוה‬ ;(‫טז‬,‫"ורחץ במים את כל בשרו" )ויקרא טו‬ ‫למדו מפי השמועה שרחיצה זו במים שכל‬ .‫גופו עולה בהן בבת אחת‬

For the process of purification from tzara’at, be it a person afflicted with tzara’at or a house afflicted with tzara’at, [to involve] a staff of cedar, a hyssop, the crimson wool, two birds, and spring water, as [Leviticus 14:2] states: "This shall be the purification process for the person afflicted with tzara’at...."

‫להיות הטהרה מן הצרעת בין‬ ‫צרעת אדם בין צרעת בית בעץ ארז‬ ‫ואיזוב ושני תולעת ושתי ציפורים ומים‬ "‫ שנאמר "זאת תהיה תורת המצורע‬,‫חיים‬ .(‫ב‬,‫)ויקרא יד‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

14 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

For a person afflicted with tzara’at to shave all of his hair, as [Leviticus 14:9] states: "And it shall be on the seventh day, he shall shave all his hair."

‫להיות המצורע מגלח כל‬ ‫ שנאמר "והיה ביום‬,‫שיערו‬ ‫השביעי יגלח את כל שיערו" )ויקרא‬ .(‫ט‬,‫יד‬

For a person afflicted with tzara’at to make known his condition to all others, according to the instructions mentioned in [Leviticus 13:45]: "His garments shall be torn, his hair shall grow uncut, he shall cover his face to the lip, and he shall cry out: `Impure! Impure!"' Similarly, all others who are ritually impure must make known their condition.

‫להיות המצורע ידוע לכול‬ ‫ "בגדיו‬,‫בדברים האמורים בו‬ ,‫ ועל שפם‬,‫יהיו פרומים וראשו יהיה פרוע‬ ..(‫מה‬,‫ יקרא" )ויקרא יג‬,‫יעטה; וטמא טמא‬ ‫וכן כל שאר הטמאים צריכין להודיע את‬ .‫עצמן‬

To prepare the red heifer so that its ashes will be ready, as [Numbers 19:9] states: "And it will be a keepsake for the congregation of Israel."

‫לעשות פרה אדומה להיות‬ ‫ שנאמר "והייתה‬,‫אפרה מוכן‬ .(‫ט‬,‫לעדת בני ישראל" )במדבר יט‬

For a person who makes an endowment valuation to give the specific amount of money stated in the [Torah] portion, as [Leviticus 27:2] states: "When a person expresses a vow...."

‫להיות מעריך אדם נותן דמים‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫הקצובין בפרשה‬ .(‫ב‬,‫ כי יפליא נדר" )ויקרא כז‬,‫"איש‬

For a person who makes an endowment valuation concerning a non-kosher animal to give [the required amount of] money, as [Leviticus 27:11] states: "And he shall cause the animal to stand...."

‫להיות מעריך בהמה טמאה‬ ‫ שנאמר "והעמיד‬,‫נותן דמיה‬ .(‫יא‬,‫את הבהמה" )ויקרא כז‬

For a person who makes an endowment valuation concerning his home to give the value determined by the priest, as [Leviticus 27:14] states: "And the priest shall determine its value."

‫להיות מעריך ביתו נותן כערך‬ ‫ כי‬,‫ שנאמר "ואיש‬,‫הכוהן‬ .(‫יד‬,‫יקדיש" )ויקרא כז‬

For a person who consecrates his field to give the fixed amount determined by the [Torah], as [Leviticus 27:16] states: "And the value you attach to it shall be according to the amount of seed."

‫להיות מקדיש שדהו נותן בערך‬ ‫ שנאמר "והיה‬,‫הקצוב בפרשה‬ .(‫טז‬,‫ כפי זרעו" )ראה ויקרא כז‬,‫ערכך‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

15 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

For a person who unintentionally makes use of a sacred object to make restitution for what he misused [when] sinning against God, and for him to add one fifth of its value, as [Leviticus 5:17] states: "For that which he sinned, [using something] sacred, he shall pay...."

‫לשלם השוגג במעילה מה‬ ,‫שמעל לה' ולהוסיף חומש‬ ‫שנאמר "ואת אשר חטא מן הקודש‬ .(‫טז‬,‫ישלם" )ויקרא ה‬

For the produce of the fourth year to be sacred, as [Leviticus 19:24] states: "Its produce shall be sacred, [an object of] praise to God...."

,‫להיות נטע רבעי קודש‬ ‫כל‬ ,‫"יהיה‬ ‫שנאמר‬ .(‫כד‬,‫פרייו—קודש הילולים" )ויקרא יט‬

To leave pe'ah. To leave leket. To leave a forgotten sheaf. To leave the incompletely formed grape clusters.

.‫להניח פיאה‬ .‫להניח לקט‬ .‫להניח עומר השכחה‬ .‫להניח עוללות בכרם‬

To leave the individual fallen grapes. With regard to all these [five mitzvot], [Leviticus 19:10] states: "Leave them for the poor and the stranger." This [verse states] the positive commandment for all these.8

‫ לפי‬..‫להניח פרט הכרם‬ ‫שבכל אלו נאמר "לעני ולגר‬ ;(‫כב‬,‫י; ויקרא כג‬,‫תעזוב אותם" )ויקרא יט‬ .‫וזו היא מצות עשה שלהם‬

To bring the first fruits to God's chosen house, [the Temple,], as [Exodus 23:19] states: "The first fruits of your land...."

‫לבית‬ ‫ביכורים‬ ‫להביא‬ ,‫ שנאמר "ראשית‬,‫הבחירה‬ ‫יט; שמות‬,‫ביכורי אדמתך" )שמות כג‬ .(‫כו‬,‫לד‬

To separate the greater terumah [and give it] to the priest, as [Deuteronomy 18:4] states: "Give him the first of your grain."

,‫להפריש תרומה גדולה לכוהן‬ . . . ‫שנאמר "ראשית דגנך‬ .(‫ד‬,‫תיתן לו" )דברים יח‬

To separate a tithe of grain [and give it] to the Levites, as [Leviticus 27:30] states: "All the land's tithes...."

,‫להפריש מעשר דגן ללויים‬ . . ‫שנאמר "כל מעשר הארץ‬ .(‫ל‬,‫" )ויקרא כז‬.

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

16 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To separate the second tithe so that it can be eaten by its owners in Jerusalem, as [Deuteronomy 14:22] states: "You shall surely tithe...." According to the oral tradition, we learn that this refers to the second tithe.

‫להפריש מעשר שני להיאכל‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫לבעליו בירושלים‬ ‫כב(; מפי‬,‫"עשר תעשר" )דברים יד‬ .‫השמועה למדו שזה הוא מעשר שני‬

For the Levites to separate a tenth from the tenth which they took from the Israelites and give it to the priests, as [Numbers 18:27] states: "Speak to the Levites:...."

‫להיות הלויים מפרישין‬ ‫מעשר מן המעשר שלקחו‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫מישראל ונותנין אותו לכוהנים‬ .(‫כו‬,‫"ואל הלויים תדבר" )במדבר יח‬

To separate the tithe for the poor instead of the second tithe in the third and sixth years of the seven-year [agricultural cycle], as [Deuteronomy 14:28] states: "At the end of three years, remove a tithe of all your crops...."

‫להפריש מעשר עני תחת מעשר‬ ,‫שני בשלישית ובשישית בשבוע‬ ‫ תוציא את‬,‫שנאמר "מקצה שלוש שנים‬ .(‫כח‬,‫כל מעשר תבואתך" )דברים יד‬

To give thanks, [reciting] the declaration concerning the tithes, as [Deuteronomy 26:13] states: "And you shall declare before God, your Lord, `I have removed the sacred [foods]...."'

,‫וידוי מעשר‬ ‫להתוודות‬ '‫שנאמר "ואמרת לפני ה‬ .(‫יג‬,‫אלוהיך ביערתי הקודש" )דברים כו‬

To read the statement [acknowledging thanks] for the first fruits, as [Deuteronomy 26:5] states: "And you shall respond and say before God, your Lord:...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לקרות על הביכורים‬ '‫"וענית ואמרת לפני ה‬ .(‫ה‬,‫אלוהיך" )דברים כו‬

To separate challah [and give it] to the priest, as [Numbers 15:20] states: "The first of your dough, the challah, you shall separate as an offering...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להפריש חלה לכוהן‬ ,‫ עריסותיכם—חלה‬,‫"ראשית‬ .(‫כ‬,‫תרימו תרומה" )במדבר טו‬

To let the land lie fallow [in the seventh year], as [Exodus 23:11] states: "In the seventh year, you shall let it lie fallow and withdraw from it."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להשמיט קרקע‬ ‫תשמטנה‬ ‫"והשביעית‬ .(‫יא‬,‫ונטשתה" )שמות כג‬

To refrain from agricultural work [in the seventh year], as [Exodus 34:21] states: "From plowing and harvesting, you shall rest."

,‫הארץ‬ ,‫ובקציר‬

‫לשבות מעבודת‬ ‫שנאמר "בחריש‬ .(‫כא‬,‫תשבות" )שמות לד‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

17 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To sanctify the Jubilee year by refraining [from agricultural work], as is done in the shemitah, as [Leviticus 25:10] states: "And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year...."

‫לקדש שנת יובל בשביתה‬ ,‫ שנאמר "וקידשתם‬,‫כשמיטה‬ .(‫י‬,‫את שנת החמישים" )ויקרא כה‬

To sound the shofar in the Jubilee year, as [Leviticus 25:9] states: "And you shall sound the shofar blasts."

,‫לתקוע בשופר בשנת היובל‬ ‫שופר‬ ‫"והעברת‬ ‫שנאמר‬ .(‫ט‬,‫תרועה" )ויקרא כה‬

To free all land in the Jubilee year, as [Leviticus 25:24] states: "For all your ancestral lands, there will be redemption for the land."

‫ליתן גאולה לארץ בשנת‬ ‫ ארץ‬,‫ שנאמר "ובכול‬,‫היובל‬ ‫ תיתנו לארץ" )ויקרא‬,‫ גאולה‬,‫אחוזתכם‬ .(‫כד‬,‫כה‬

To allow houses in a walled city to be redeemed within a year, as [Leviticus 25:29] states: "If a person shall sell a residential house in a walled city...."

‫להיות גאולה בבתי ערי חומה‬ ‫ כי‬,‫ שנאמר "ואיש‬,‫עד שנה‬ .(‫כט‬,‫ימכור בית מושב" )ויקרא כה‬

To count the years of the Jubilee year and the shemitah years within it, as [Leviticus 25:8] states: "And you shall count seven shemitah years."

,‫למנות שני יובל שנים ושמיטים‬ ". . . ‫ שבע‬,‫שנאמר "וספרת לך‬ .(‫ח‬,‫)ויקרא כה‬

To remit all financial [obligations] in the seventh year, as [Deuteronomy 15:2] states: "Every creditor must remit...."

,‫להשמיט כספים בשביעית‬ ‫שנאמר "שמוט כל בעל‬ .(‫ב‬,‫משה ידו" )דברים טו‬

To seek to collect [a debt] from a gentile [in the seventh year], as [Deuteronomy 15:3] states: "Seek to collect [a debt] from a gentile. However, what your brother owes you must remit...."

‫ שנאמר "את‬,‫לנגוש לנוכרי‬ ‫ תיגוש; ואשר יהיה‬,‫הנוכרי‬ .(‫ג‬,‫לך" )דברים טו‬

To give a priest the shankbone, the jaw, and the maw from an animal [which is slaughtered], as [Deuteronomy 18:3] states: "And you shall give the priest the shankbone...."

‫ליתן מן הבהמה לכוהן הזרוע‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫והלחיים והקיבה‬ .(‫ג‬,‫ הזרוע" )דברים יח‬,‫ לכוהן‬,‫"ונתן‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

18 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To give the first portion of the fleece to a priest, as [Deuteronomy 18:4] states: "Give him the first portion of the shearing of your sheep."

,‫ליתן ראשית הגז לכוהן‬ ‫גז‬ ‫"וראשית‬ ‫שנאמר‬ .(‫ד‬,‫צאנך—תיתן לו" )דברים יח‬

To render judgment with regard to property which is dedicated, whether dedicated to God or dedicated to the priests, as [Leviticus 27:28] states: "However, any dedication that will be made...."

'‫ מהם לה‬,‫לדון בדיני חרמים‬ ‫ שנאמר "אך‬,‫ומהם לכוהן‬ .(‫כח‬,‫כל חרם אשר יחרים" )ויקרא כז‬

To slaughter an animal, beast, or fowl and afterwards to eat their meat, as [Deuteronomy 12:21] states: "And you shall slaughter your cattle and

‫לשחוט בהמה חיה ועוף ואחר‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫כך יאכל בשרם‬ .(‫כא‬,‫"וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך" )דברים יב‬

your sheep."b To cover the blood of beasts and fowl [which are slaughtered], as [Leviticus 17:13] states: "And you shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לכסות דם חיה ועוף‬ ,‫ וכיסהו‬,‫ את דמו‬,‫"ושפך‬ .(‫יג‬,‫בעפר" )ויקרא יז‬

To send away the mother bird from the nest [when taking the young], as [Deuteronomy 22:7] states: "You shall surely send away the mother."

‫ שנאמר "שלח‬,‫לשלח הקן‬ ‫תשלח את האם ואת הבנים‬ .(‫ז‬,‫תיקח לך" )דברים כב‬

To check the signs [with which] animals [are identified], as kosher, as [Leviticus 11:2] states: "These are the animals which you may eat...."

,‫בהמה‬ ‫בסימני‬ ‫לבדוק‬ ‫שנאמר "זאת החיה אשר‬ .(‫ב‬,‫תאכלו" )ויקרא יא‬

To check the signs of fowl in order to differentiate between one which is kosher and one which is not kosher, as [Deuteronomy 14:11] states: "All birds which...."

‫לבדוק בסימני העוף עד שיבדיל‬ ‫ שנאמר "כל‬,‫בין טמא לטהור‬ .(‫יא‬,‫ תאכלו" )דברים יד‬,‫ציפור טהורה‬

To check the signs of grasshoppers in order to know which is kosher and which is not kosher, as [Leviticus 11:21] states: "Those which possess walking legs...."

‫לבדוק בסימני חגבים לידע‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫טהור מן הטמא‬ .(‫כא‬,‫"אשר לו כרעיים" )ויקרא יא‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

19 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To check the signs [with which] fish [are identified as kosher], as [Leviticus 11:9] states: "These are the animals which you may eat from all that is found in water...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לבדוק בסימני דגים‬ ‫ אשר‬,‫ מכול‬,‫ תאכלו‬,‫"את זה‬ .(‫ט‬,‫ט; דברים יד‬,‫במים" )ויקרא יא‬

To sanctify the months and to calculate the years and months. [This mitzvah is incumbent on] the court alone, as [Exodus 12:2] states: "This month will be for you the first of the months."

‫לקדש חודשים ולחשב שנים‬ ,‫וחודשים בבית דין בלבד‬ "‫ ראש חודשים‬,‫שנאמר "החודש הזה לכם‬ .(‫ב‬,‫)שמות יב‬

To rest on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 23:12] states: "Rest on the seventh day...."

‫ שנאמר "וביום‬,‫לשבות בשבת‬ ‫השביעי תשבות" )שמות‬ .(‫כא‬,‫יב; שמות לד‬,‫כג‬

To sanctify the Sabbath, as [Exodus 20:8] states: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."

‫ שנאמר "זכור‬,‫לקדש שבת‬ "‫ לקדשו‬,‫את יום השבת‬ .(‫ז‬,‫)שמות כ‬

To destroy chametz [before Pesach], as [Exodus 12:15] states: "On the day before [the holiday], obliterate chametz from your homes."

‫ שנאמר "ביום‬,‫לבער חמץ‬ ‫שאור‬ ‫תשביתו‬ ,‫הראשון‬ .(‫טו‬,‫מבתיכם" )שמות יב‬

To relate the narrative of the exodus of Egypt on the first night of the Feast of Matzot, as [Exodus 13:8] states: "And you shall tell your son on that day,...."

‫לספר ביציאת מצריים בלילה‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫הראשון של חג המצות‬ .(‫ח‬,‫"והגדת לבנך" )שמות יג‬

To eat matzah on this night, as [Exodus 12:18] states: "In the evening, you shall eat matzot."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לאכול מצה בליל זה‬ "‫מצות‬ ,‫תאכלו‬ ,‫"בערב‬ .(‫יח‬,‫)שמות יב‬

To rest on the first day of Pesach, as [Exodus 12:16] states: "And on the first day, it shall be a sacred holiday."

,‫לשבות בראשון של פסח‬ ,‫שנאמר "וביום הראשון‬ .(‫טז‬,‫מקרא קודש" )שמות יב‬

To rest on the seventh day [of the festival], as [Exodus 12:16] states: "On the seventh day, there will be a sacred holiday."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לשבות בשביעי בו‬ "‫ מקרא קודש‬,‫"וביום השביעי‬ .(‫כה‬,‫טז; במדבר כח‬,‫)שמות יב‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

20 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To count 49 days from the harvesting of the omer, as [Leviticus 23:15] states: "And you shall count from the day following the day of rest...."

‫לספור מקצירת העומר‬ ,‫יום‬ ‫וארבעים‬ ‫תשעה‬ "‫ ממוחרת השבת‬,‫שנאמר "וספרתם לכם‬ .(‫טו‬,‫)ויקרא כג‬

To rest on the fiftieth day [after Pesach], as [Leviticus 23:21] states: "And you shall proclaim a sacred holiday on that selfsame day."

,‫חמישים‬ ‫ביום‬ ‫לשבות‬ ‫שנאמר "וקראתם בעצם‬ .(‫כא‬,‫ מקרא קודש" )ויקרא כג‬,‫היום הזה‬

To rest on the first day of the seventh month, as [Leviticus 23:24] states: "On the first day of [this] month, you shall have a day of rest."

‫לשבות בראשון של חודש‬ ‫ שנאמר "באחד‬,‫השביעי‬ .(‫כד‬,‫ יהיה לכם שבתון" )ויקרא כג‬,‫לחודש‬

To fast on the tenth [of this month, Yom Kippur,] as [Leviticus 15:29] states: "On the tenth of the month, you shall afflict your souls."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להתענות בעשירי בו‬ ‫"ובעשור לחודש תענו את‬ ‫כט; במדבר‬,‫נפשותיכם" )ראה ויקרא טז‬ .(‫ז‬,‫כט‬

To rest on [this] fast day, as [Leviticus 16:31] states: "It shall be a Sabbath of Sabbaths...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לשבות ביום הצום‬ ‫"שבת שבתון" )ויקרא‬ .(‫לב‬,‫לא; ויקרא כג‬,‫טז‬

To rest on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, as [Leviticus 23:35] states: "On the first day, there shall be a sacred holiday."

‫לשבות בראשון של חג‬ ‫"ביום‬ ‫שנאמר‬ ,‫הסוכות‬ .(‫לה‬,‫ מקרא קודש" )ויקרא כג‬,‫הראשון‬

To rest on the eighth day of the festival of Sukkot, as [Leviticus 23:36] states: "On the eighth day, there shall be a sacred holiday."

,‫לשבות בשמיני של חג‬ ‫שנאמר "וביום השמיני מקרא‬ .(‫לו‬,‫קודש" )ראה ויקרא כג‬

To dwell in a sukkah for seven days, as [Leviticus 23:42] states: "And you shall dwell in sukkot for seven days."

,‫לישב בסוכה שבעת ימים‬ ,‫שנאמר "בסוכות תשבו‬ .(‫מב‬,‫שבעת ימים" )ויקרא כג‬

To take the lulav [and the other three species on Sukkot], as [Leviticus 23:40] states: "And you shall take for yourselves on the first day, the fruit of a beautiful tree, a palm branch,...."

‫שנאמר‬ ,‫לולב‬ ‫ליטול‬ ‫ביום‬ ‫לכם‬ ‫"ולקחתם‬ "‫ פרי עץ הדר כפות תמרים‬,‫הראשון‬ .(‫מ‬,‫)ויקרא כג‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

21 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To hear the sound of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah, as [Numbers 29:1] states: "It will be a day of [shofar] blasts for you."

,‫לשמוע קול שופר בראש השנה‬ "‫ יהיה לכם‬,‫שנאמר "יום תרועה‬ .(‫א‬,‫)במדבר כט‬

To give a half-shekel each year, as [Exodus 30:13] states: "This shall be given by all those included in the census...."

‫ליתן מחצית השקל בכל‬ ‫ שנאמר "זה‬,‫שנה ושנה‬ ‫ כל העובר על הפקודים" )שמות‬,‫ייתנו‬ .(‫יג‬,‫ל‬

To listen to any prophet who will arise in any era, provided he does not add or detract [from the Torah's commandments], as [Deuteronomy 18:15] states: "You shall listen to him."

‫לשמוע מכל נביא שיהיה‬ ‫בכל דור ודור אם לא יוסיף‬ "‫ תשמעון‬,‫ שנאמר "אליו‬,‫ולא יגרע‬ .(‫טו‬,‫)דברים יח‬

To appoint a king, as [Deuteronomy 17:15] states: "You shall surely set a king upon yourselves."

‫ שנאמר "שום‬,‫למנות מלך‬ ‫תשים עליך מלך" )דברים‬

To obey the High Court regarding all [the ordinances] they establish for Israel, as [Deuteronomy 17:11] states: "Carry out the judgment which they render for you."

‫לשמוע מכל בית דין הגדול‬ ,‫לישראל‬ ‫להם‬ ‫שיעמדו‬ ‫שנאמר "ועל המשפט אשר יאמרו‬ .(‫יא‬,‫לך—תעשה" )דברים יז‬

To follow the majority if there is a difference of opinion in the Sanhedrin concerning a law, as [Exodus 23:2] states: "Follow after the majority."

‫לנטות אחרי רבים אם תהיה‬ ‫מחלוקת בין הסנהדרין‬ "‫ שנאמר "אחרי רבים—להטות‬,‫בדינין‬ .(‫ב‬,‫)שמות כג‬

To appoint judges and court officers in each and every Jewish community, as [Deuteronomy 16:18] states: "Appoint judges and court officers...."

‫למנות שופטים ושוטרים בכל‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫קהל וקהל מישראל‬ ‫ תיתן לך" )דברים‬,‫"שופטים ושוטרים‬ .(‫יח‬,‫טז‬

To treat litigants equally when they appear [in court] to be judged, as [Leviticus 19:15] states: "Judge your fellow man with righteousness."

‫להשוות בין בעלי דינין בשעה‬ ,‫ שנאמר "בצדק‬,‫שעומדין בדין‬ .(‫טו‬,‫תשפוט עמיתך" )ויקרא יט‬

.(‫טו‬,‫יז‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

22 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

For anyone who has evidence to testify in court, as [Leviticus 5:1] states: "If he was a witness, saw, or knew...."

‫להעיד בבית דין למי שיש לו‬ ‫ או‬,‫ שנאמר "והוא עד‬,‫עדות‬ .(‫א‬,‫ראה או ידע" )ויקרא ה‬

To cross-examine the witnesses thoroughly, as [Deuteronomy 13:15] states: "You must investigate and probe, making careful enquiry."

,‫הרבה‬ ‫וחקרת‬

To [punish] false witnesses [by] giving them the same penalty that they wish to have imposed [on the defendant], as [Deuteronomy 19:19] states: "And you shall do to him what he plotted to do to his brother."

‫לעשות לעדים זוממין כמו שזמו‬ ,‫ שנאמר "ועשיתם לו‬,‫לעשות‬ .(‫יט‬,‫כאשר זמם" )דברים יט‬

To decapitate the calf [brought as atonement for an unsolved murder] as required, as [Deuteronomy 21:4] states: "You shall decapitate the calf there in the river."

,‫לערוף את העגלה כמצותה‬ ‫שנאמר "וערפו שם את‬ .(‫ד‬,‫ בנחל" )דברים כא‬,‫העגלה‬

To prepare six refuge cities, as [Deuteronomy 19:3] states: "Prepare the way and divide into three [the boundary]...."

,‫להכין שש ערי מקלט‬ ,‫ הדרך‬,‫שנאמר "תכין לך‬ .(‫ג‬,‫ושילשת" )דברים יט‬

To give the Levites cities in which to dwell they also serve as refuge centers - as [Numbers 35:2] states: "And you shall give cities to the Levites...."

‫ וגם‬,‫לתת ללויים ערים לשבת‬ ‫ שנאמר "ונתנו‬,‫הן קולטות‬ .(‫ב‬,‫ ערים" )במדבר לה‬. . . ‫ללויים‬

To construct a guard rail, as [Deuteronomy 22:8] states: "And you shall construct a guard rail for your roof."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לעשות מעקה‬ ‫"ועשית מעקה לגגך" )דברים‬

To destroy false gods and all their objects of worship, as [Deuteronomy 12:2] states: "You shall surely destroy...."

‫לאבד עבודה זרה וכל‬ ‫ שנאמר "אבד‬,‫משמשיה‬ .(‫ב‬,‫תאבדון את כל המקומות" )דברים יב‬

‫העדים‬ ‫לחקור‬ ‫שנאמר "ודרשת‬ .(‫טו‬,‫ היטב" )דברים יג‬,‫ושאלת‬

.(‫ח‬,‫כב‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

23 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To slay the inhabitants of an apostate city and burn the city, as [Deuteronomy 13:17] states: "And you shall burn the city and all its spoil with fire."

‫להרוג אנשי עיר הנידחת‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫ולשרוף את העיר‬ ‫ כל שללה" )דברים‬. . . ‫"ושרפת באש את‬ .(‫יז‬,‫יג‬

To destroy the seven nations [that dwelled in] Eretz Yisrael, as [Deuteronomy 20:17] states: "You shall utterly destroy them."

‫לאבד שבעה עממים מארץ‬ ‫"החרם‬ ‫שנאמר‬ ,‫ישראל‬ .(‫יז‬,‫תחרימם" )דברים כ‬

To exterminate the seed of Amalek, as [Deuteronomy 25:19] states: "Blot out the memory of Amalek."

,‫להכרית זרעו של עמלק‬ ‫שנאמר "תמחה את זכר‬ .(‫יט‬,‫עמלק" )דברים כה‬

To constantly remember what Amalek did to states: us, as [Deuteronomy 25:17] "Remember what Amalek did to you."

‫לזכור מה שעשה לנו עמלק‬ ‫ את‬,‫ שנאמר "זכור‬,‫תדיר‬ .(‫יז‬,‫אשר עשה לך עמלק" )דברים כה‬

To wage a voluntary war according to the laws prescribed by the Torah, as [Deuteronomy 20:10] states: "When you approach the city...."

‫הרשות‬ ‫במלחמת‬ ‫לעשות‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫כמשפט הכתוב בתורה‬ .(‫י‬,‫"כי תקרב אל עיר" )דברים כ‬

To anoint a priest [who will address the people before] battle, as [Deuteronomy 20:2] states: "And it shall come to pass, when you approach the battle, the priest will come forward and speak to the people...."

,‫למשוח כוהן למלחמה‬ ‫ כקורבכם אל‬,‫שנאמר "והיה‬ .(‫ב‬,‫המלחמה; וניגש הכוהן" )דברים כ‬

To prepare a place [outside] the [army] camp [for use as a latrine], as [Deuteronomy 23:13] states: "Prepare a place for yourselves outside the camp."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להתקין יד במחנה‬ "‫ מחוץ למחנה‬,‫"ויד תהיה לך‬ .(‫יג‬,‫)דברים כג‬

To prepare a shovel [to cover one's excrement], as [Deuteronomy 23:14] states: "You shall have a shovel in addition to your weapons."

‫ שנאמר "ויתד‬,‫להתקין יתד‬ ‫ על אזנך" )דברים‬,‫תהיה לך‬ .(‫יד‬,‫כג‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

24 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To return a stolen object, as [Leviticus 5:23] states: "And he shall return the object which

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להשיב את הגזל‬ "‫"והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל‬ .(‫כג‬,‫)ויקרא ה‬

To give charity, as [Deuteronomy 15:8] states: "You shall surely open your hand [to your poor

‫ שנאמר "פתוח‬,‫ליתן צדקה‬ ‫תפתח את ידך" )דברים‬ .(‫יא‬,‫ח; דברים טו‬,‫טו‬

To give a severance gift to a Hebrew servant, as [Deuteronomy 15:14] states: "You shall surely give him gifts...." Similarly, [this gift is given] to a Hebrew maidservant.

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להעניק לעבד עברי‬ ‫ לו" )דברים‬,‫"הענק תעניק‬ .‫יד(; וכן אמה עברייה‬,‫טו‬

To lend to the poor, as [Exodus 22:24] states: "If you will lend money to my people...." In this instance, the word "if" does not refer to a matter left to one's volition, but to a commandment, as [Deuteronomy 15:8] states: "You shall surely lend him."

‫ שנאמר "אם כסף‬,‫להלוות לעני‬ ‫תלווה את עמי" )שמות‬ ,‫כד(; "אם" זה אינו רשות אלא מצוה‬,‫כב‬ .(‫ח‬,‫ תעביטנו" )דברים טו‬,‫שנאמר "והעבט‬

To lend to a gentile at interest, as [Deuteronomy 23:21] states: "Take interest from a gentile." Based on the oral tradition, we have learned that this is a positive commandment.b

,‫להלוות לנוכרי בריבית‬ "‫שנאמר "לנוכרי תשיך‬ ‫כא(; מפי השמועה למדו שזו‬,‫)דברים כג‬ .‫מצות עשה‬

To return security to its owner, as [Deuteronomy 24:13] states: "You shall surely return the security to him."

,‫להשיב המשכון לבעליו‬ ‫שנאמר "השב תשיב לו את‬ .(‫יג‬,‫העבוט" )דברים כד‬

To pay a worker his wage on time, as [Deuteronomy 24:15] states: "Pay him his wage on the day it is due."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫ליתן שכר שכיר בזמנו‬ .(‫טו‬,‫"ביומו תיתן שכרו" )דברים כד‬

For a hired worker to be allowed to eat [from produce] while he is working with it, as [Deuteronomy 23:25-26] states: "When you enter your neighbor's vineyard... When you enter your neighbor's standing grain...."

‫להיות השכיר אוכל בזמן‬ ‫ שנאמר "כי תבוא‬,‫שכירותו‬ ‫ "כי תבוא‬,(‫כה‬,‫בכרם ריעך" )דברים כג‬ .(‫כו‬,‫בקמת ריעך" )דברים כג‬

he stole."

brother]."

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

25 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To assist a colleague in unloading a burden which he or his beast [is carrying], as [Exodus 23:5] states: "You shall surely help him."b

,‫לעזוב מעל חברו או מעל בהמתו‬ "‫ עימו‬,‫שנאמר "עזוב תעזוב‬ .(‫ה‬,‫)שמות כג‬

To [help a colleague] load a burden unto a beast, as [Deuteronomy 22:4] states: " You shall lift it up with him."

,‫על הבהמה‬ "‫ עימו‬,‫תקים‬

‫להקים המשא‬ ‫שנאמר "הקם‬ .(‫ד‬,‫)דברים כב‬

To return a lost object, as [Deuteronomy 22:1] states: "You shall surely return them to your

‫ שנאמר "השב‬,‫להשיב האבידה‬ .(‫א‬,‫ לאחיך" )דברים כב‬,‫תשיבם‬

To rebuke a person who sins, as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "You shall surely rebuke your fellow men."

‫ שנאמר "הוכח‬,‫להוכיח החוטא‬ ‫תוכיח את עמיתך" )ויקרא‬

To love every member of our people, as [Leviticus 19:18] states: "And you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

,‫לאהוב כל בני אדם מבני ברית‬ "‫שנאמר "ואהבת לריעך כמוך‬ .(‫יח‬,‫)ויקרא יט‬

brother."

To love a convert, as [Deuteronomy 10:19] states: "And you shall love a convert." To balance scales with correct weights, as [Leviticus 19:36] states: "You shall have correct scales, with correct weights."

.(‫יז‬,‫יט‬

,‫ שנאמר "ואהבתם‬,‫לאהוב את הגר‬ .(‫יט‬,‫את הגר" )דברים י‬ ,‫לצדק מאזניים עם המשקלות‬ "‫שנאמר "מאזני צדק אבני צדק‬ .(‫לו‬,‫)ויקרא יט‬

To honor the Sages, as [Leviticus 19:32] states: "Rise before an elder."

‫ שנאמר "מפני‬,‫לכבד החכמים‬ .(‫לב‬,‫שיבה תקום" )ויקרא יט‬

To honor one's father and mother, as [Exodus 20:12] states: "Honor your father and mother."

‫ שנאמר "כבד את‬,‫לכבד אב ואם‬ ;‫יא‬,‫ ואת אימך" )שמות כ‬,‫אביך‬ .(‫טו‬,‫דברים ה‬

To fear one's father and mother, as [Leviticus 19:3] states: "A person must fear his mother and his father."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫ליראה מאב ואם‬ "‫"איש אימו ואביו תיראו‬ .(‫ג‬,‫)ויקרא יט‬

To be fruitful and multiply, as [Genesis 9:7] states: "Be fruitful and multiply."

‫ שנאמר "פרו‬,‫לפרות ולרבות‬ .(‫ז‬,‫ורבו" )בראשית ט‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

26 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To have sexual relations [only within] marriage, as [Deuteronomy 24:1] states: "If a man takes a woman [as a wife]...."

‫ שנאמר "כי‬,‫לבעול בקידושין‬ "‫ אישה; ובא אליה‬,‫ייקח איש‬ .(‫א‬,‫יג; וראה דברים כד‬,‫)דברים כב‬

For a groom to rejoice together with his wife for a year, as [Deuteronomy 24:5] states: "He shall be free for his home for one year."

,‫לשמח חתן את אשתו שנה‬ ‫ שנה‬,‫שנאמר "נקי יהיה לביתו‬ .(‫ה‬,‫" )דברים כד‬. . . ‫אחת‬

To circumcise a son, as [Leviticus 12:3] states: "On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised."9

,‫ שנאמר "וביום‬,‫למול את הבן‬ "‫ בשר עורלתו‬,‫ יימול‬,‫השמיני‬ .(‫ג‬,‫)ויקרא יב‬

To marry the widow of one's brother who died childless, as [Deuteronomy 25:5] states: "Her yavam shall come unto her."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לייבם אשת אח‬ ‫"יבמה יבוא עליה" )דברים‬

To remove the yavam's shoe [if he does not marry his brother's widow], as [Deuteronomy 25:9] states: "And she shall remove his shoe from his foot."

‫ שנאמר "וחלצה‬,‫לחלוץ ליבם‬ .(‫ט‬,‫נעלו מעל רגלו" )דברים כה‬

For a rapist to marry the woman he raped, as [Deuteronomy 22:29] states: "She shall become his wife."

,‫לישא אונס את אנוסתו‬ "‫שנאמר "ולו תהיה לאישה‬ .(‫כט‬,‫)דברים כב‬

For a person who made defamatory remarks about his wife to remain married to her for his entire life, as [Deuteronomy 22:19] states: "She shall become his wife. He may not send her away for his entire life."

‫לישב מוציא שם רע עם אשתו‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולו תהיה‬,‫כל ימיו‬ .(‫יט‬,‫לאישה" )דברים כב‬

To carry out the judgment concerning a seducer, fining him fifty shekels and carrying out the other laws regarding this matter, as [Exodus 22:15] states: "If a person will seduce...."

‫לדון במפתה בחמישים שקל עם‬ ‫ שנאמר "כי יפתה‬,‫שאר דינין‬ .(‫טו‬,‫איש" )שמות כב‬

.(‫ה‬,‫כה‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

27 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To carry out the procedure [the Torah] prescribes for a yefat to'ar, as [Deuteronomy 21:11] states: "And if you see a beautiful woman among the captives...."

,‫לעשות ליפת תואר ככתוב‬ ,‫ בשביה‬,‫שנאמר "וראית‬ .(‫יא‬,‫ יפת תואר" )דברים כא‬,‫אשת‬

To divorce with a get, as [Deuteronomy 24:1] states: "And he shall write a bill of divorce for her and place it in her hand."

‫ שנאמר "וכתב‬,‫לגרש בשטר‬ "‫לה ספר כריתות ונתן בידה‬ .(‫ג‬,‫א; דברים כד‬,‫)דברים כד‬

To carry out the [procedure] prescribed for a sotah, as [Numbers 8:30] states: "And the priests will carry out all these laws for her."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לעשות לסוטה כתורה‬ ‫ את כל‬,‫"ועשה לה הכוהן‬ .(‫ל‬,‫התורה הזאת" )במדבר ה‬

To whip the wicked, as [Deuteronomy 25:2] states: "The judge will cast him down and beat him."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫להלקות הרשעים‬ "‫"והפילו השופט והכהו‬ .(‫ב‬,‫)דברים כה‬

To exile a person who accidentally kills a person, as [Numbers 35:25] states: "And he shall dwell there until the High Priest dies...."

,‫בשגגה‬ ‫רוצח‬ ‫להגלות‬ ‫ עד מות‬,‫שנאמר "וישב בה‬ .(‫כה‬,‫הכוהן" )במדבר לה‬

For a court to execute by decapitation, as [Exodus 21:20] states: "Revenge shall surely be taken."

,‫להיות בית דין הורגין בסיף‬ ‫ יינקם" )שמות‬,‫שנאמר "נקום‬

For a court to execute by strangulation, as [Leviticus 20:10] states: "The adulterer and the adulteress shall die."

,‫להיות בית דין הורגין בחנק‬ ,‫שנאמר "מות יומת הנואף‬ .(‫י‬,‫והנואפת" )ויקרא כ‬

For a court to execute by burning [the condemned] with fire, as [Leviticus 20:14] states: "They shall burn him and them with fire."

,‫להיות בית דין שורפין באש‬ ,‫שנאמר "באש ישרפו אותו‬ .(‫יד‬,‫ואתהן" )ויקרא כ‬

For a court to execute by stoning [the condemned] with stones, as [Deuteronomy 22:24] states: "And you shall stone them."

‫להיות בית דין סוקלין‬ ‫ שנאמר "וסקלתם‬,‫באבנים‬ .(‫כד‬,‫אותם" )דברים כב‬

.(‫כ‬,‫כא‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

28 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To hang [the corpses] of those liable for hanging, as [Deuteronomy 21:22] states: "And you shall hang them on a gallows."

,‫לתלות מי שנתחייב תלייה‬ "‫ על עץ‬,‫שנאמר "ותלית אותו‬ .(‫כב‬,‫)דברים כא‬

To bury [the body of] an executed person on the day of his execution, as [Deuteronomy 21:22] states: "For you shall surely bury him on that day."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לקבור הנהרג ביומו‬ ‫"כי קבור תקברנו ביום‬ .(‫כג‬,‫ההוא" )דברים כא‬

To carry out the laws concerning a Hebrew servant, as [Exodus 21:2] states: "When you purchase a Hebrew servant...."

,‫לדון בעבד עברי כהלכותיו‬ "‫שנאמר "כי תקנה עבד עברי‬ .(‫ב‬,‫)שמות כא‬

To marry a Hebrew maidservant, as [Exodus 21:8] states: "Who has designated her for himself... and she will be redeemed."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לייעד אמה עברייה‬ ,(‫ח‬,‫"אשר לו יעדה" )שמות כא‬ .(‫ט‬,‫ ייעדנה" )שמות כא‬,‫"ואם לבנו‬

To redeem a Hebrew maidservant, as [Exodus, ibid.] states: "And she will be redeemed."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לפדות אמה עברייה‬ .(‫ח‬,‫"והפדה" )שמות כא‬

To have a Canaanite servant serve forever, as [Leviticus 25:46] states: "You shall have them serve you forever."a

,‫לעבוד בעבד כנעני לעולם‬ ‫בהם‬ ,‫"לעולם‬ ‫שנאמר‬ .(‫מו‬,‫תעבודו" )ויקרא כה‬

For a person who injures [a colleague] to pay him damages, as [Exodus 21:18] states: "If men will quarrel and one man will strike [his colleague]...."

,‫להיות החובל משלם ממון‬ ‫יריבון‬ ‫"וכי‬ ‫שנאמר‬ .(‫יח‬,‫אנשים—והכה איש" )שמות כא‬

To judge regarding the damages caused by an ox, as [Exodus 21:33] states: "If an ox belonging to one person gores an ox belonging to a colleague...."

‫ שנאמר "וכי‬,‫לדון בנזקי בהמה‬ "‫ייגוף שור איש את שור ריעהו‬ .(‫לה‬,‫)שמות כא‬

To judge regarding the damages caused by a pit, as [Exodus 21:33] states: If a person will open a pit...."

‫ שנאמר "כי‬,‫לדון בנזקי הבור‬ ‫יפתח איש בור" )שמות‬ .(‫לג‬,‫כא‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

29 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To judge a thief, obligating him for payment or execution, as [Exodus 21:37] states: "Should a theft be perpetrated," as [Exodus 22:1] states: "If when breaking in," and, as [Exodus 21:16] states: "If one kidnaps a person and sells him,J. "10

‫לדון לגנב בתשלומין או‬ "‫ שנאמר "וכי יגנוב‬,‫במיתה‬ "‫ "אם במחתרת‬,(‫לז‬,‫)ראה שמות כא‬ ‫ "וגונב איש ומכרו" )שמות‬,(‫א‬,‫)שמות כב‬ .(‫טז‬,‫כא‬

To judge regarding the damages caused by grazing, as [Exodus 22:4] states: "If a person will graze [his animals] in a field or vineyard...."

‫ שנאמר "כי‬,‫לדון בנזקי הבער‬ "‫ שדה או כרם‬,‫יבער איש‬ .(‫ד‬,‫)שמות כב‬

To judge regarding the damages caused by fire, as [Exodus 22:5] states: "If fire will break out and catch in thorns...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לדון בנזקי האש‬ "‫"כי תצא אש ומצאה קוצים‬ .(‫ה‬,‫)שמות כב‬

To render judgment [in questions] regarding an unpaid watchman, as [Exodus 22:6] states: "If a person will give a colleague money or utensils [to watch]...."

,‫לדון בדין שומר חינם‬ ‫שנאמר "כי ייתן איש אל‬ .(‫ו‬,‫ריעהו כסף או כלים" )שמות כב‬

To render judgment [in questions] regarding a paid watchman, as [Exodus 22:9] states: "Should a person give a donkey or an ox...."

,‫לדון בדין נושא שכר ושוכר‬ ‫שנאמר "כי ייתן איש אל‬ .(‫ט‬,‫ריעהו חמור או שור" )שמות כב‬

To render judgment [in questions] regarding a borrower, as [Exodus 22:13] states: "If a person will borrow from a colleague...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לדון בדין השואל‬ "‫"וכי ישאל איש מעם ריעהו‬ .(‫יג‬,‫)שמות כב‬

To render judgment [in questions] regarding business transactions, as [Leviticus 22:14] states: "If you sell merchandise to your colleague...."

,‫לדון בדין מקח וממכר‬ ‫שנאמר "וכי תמכרו ממכר‬ .(‫יד‬,‫לעמיתך" )ויקרא כה‬

To render judgment [in questions] regarding claims made by one person against another, as [Exodus 22:8] states: "For every matter of trespass, concerning an ox, concerning a donkey, or concerning a sheep...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לדון בדין טוען וכופר‬ ‫"על כל דבר פשע" )שמות‬ .(‫ח‬,‫כב‬

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

30 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

To save a person who is being pursued even if it is necessary to kill the pursuer, as [Deuteronomy 25:12] states: "And you shall cut off her hand...."

‫להציל הנרדף ואפילו בנפש‬ ‫ את‬,‫ שנאמר "וקצותה‬,‫הרודף‬ .(‫יב‬,‫כפה" )דברים כה‬

To render judgment [in questions] regarding inheritances as [Numbers 27:8] states: "If a person dies without having a son...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫לדון בדיני נחלות‬ "‫ ובן אין לו‬,‫"איש כי ימות‬ .(‫ח‬,‫)במדבר כז‬

« Previous

Next » Negative Commandments

Introduction to Mishneh Torah FOOTNOTES 1. There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements: The verse cited refers to the sacrifices offered on Sukkot,

6. . In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam includes eating other

and not those offered on Pesach. Perhaps the intended prooftext is Leviticus 23:8: "And you shall offer a burnt

7. . It is somewhat curious that although the Rambam makes

offering for God for seven days." 2. Karet refers to premature death at the hand of God, the death of one's children, and a severe spiritual punishment for the soul. (See Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1.)

sacrifices and sacred foods in the scope of this mitzvah. this statement, he does not cite prooftexts for these mitzvot. 8. . In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam notes that the command to leave a forgotten sheaf in the field is derived, not from this verse, but from Deuteronomy 24:19, which states: "When

3. . Though this prooftext is quoted in the printed editions of the

you reap your harvest... and forget a sheaf in the field..., it shall be for the stranger..."

Mishneh Torah, it appears to be an error, for the passage it

9. The Rambam cites this verse, rather than a verse from

introduces deals with the adjustable guilt offering (Positive

Genesis, Chapter 17, which describes the circumcision of Abraham, because he prefers to cite a prooftext that was

Mitzvah 72). The verse which introduces the laws of the sin offerings is Leviticus 4:27: "If one person sins...." 4. . Perhaps the Rambam does not cite a specific prooftext for this mitzvah because there is a different passage in the Torah which deals with each of the guilt offerings which he mentions. 5. . Note that in Hilchot Teshuvah, the Rambam defines this mitzvah as return to God and repentance, a more encompassing service, of which confession is only one

given after the giving of the Torah. Nevertheless, we also learn some particulars regarding this mitzvah from the passage from Genesis. (See also Commentary on the Mishnah, Chulin 7:6.)

the

Rambam's

10. . The Rambam cites these different verses because each involves a different punishment. (See also Negative Mitzvot 243 and 244.)

facet.(See Hilchot Teshuvah 2:2.)

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Positive Commandments - Texts & Writings

31 of 31

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901695/jewish/Positive...

8/31/2019 6:48 PM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

1 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...



Negative Commandments Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Positive Commandments

English

Hebrew

Next » Listing of Mitzvos

The first mitzvah of the negative commandments is not to consider the thought that there is another divinity aside from God, as [Exodus 20:13] states: "You shall have no other gods before Me."

,‫מצוה ראשונה ממצוות לא תעשה‬ ‫שלא לעלות במחשבה שיש שם‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא יהיה לך‬,'‫אלוה זולתי ה‬ ;‫ב‬,‫ על פניי" )שמות כ‬,‫אלוהים אחרים‬ .(‫ו‬,‫דברים ה‬

Not to make an idol - not to make one oneself or have one made for oneself by others - as [Exodus 20:4] states: "Do not make an idol for yourselves."

‫ לא יעשה בידו‬,‫שלא לעשות פסל‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫ולא יעשו לו אחרים‬ .(‫ז‬,‫ג; דברים ה‬,‫תעשה לך פסל" )שמות כ‬

Not to make false gods even for others, as [Leviticus 19:4] states: "Do not make molten gods for yourselves."

‫שלא לעשות עבודה זרה ואפילו‬ ‫ לא‬,‫ שנאמר "ואלוהי מסכה‬,‫לאחרים‬ .(‫ד‬,‫תעשו לכם" )ויקרא יט‬

Not to make images for decoration, even when one does not worship them, as [Exodus 20:20] states: "Do not make a representation of anything that is with Me."

‫ ואף על פי‬,‫שלא לעשות צורות לנואי‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שאין עובדין אותן‬ .(‫יט‬,‫ איתי" )שמות כ‬,‫תעשון‬

Not to bow down to any false gods, even though they are not generally worshiped by bowing down before them, as [Exodus 20:13] states: "Do not bow down to them."

‫ ואף‬,‫שלא להשתחוות לעבודה זרה‬ ‫על פי שאין דרך עבודתה‬ "‫ שנאמר "לא תשתחווה להם‬,‫בהשתחוויה‬ .(‫ח‬,‫ד; דברים ה‬,‫)שמות כ‬

Not to worship false gods with the types of service with which it is customary to worship them, as [Exodus 20:3] states: "Do not serve them."

‫שלא לעבוד עבודה זרה בדברים‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולא‬,‫שדרכה להיעבד בהם‬ ;‫כד‬,‫ד; שמות כג‬,‫תועבדם" )שמות כ‬ .(‫ח‬,‫דברים ה‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

2 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to offer one's son to Molech, as [Leviticus 18:21] states: "Do not give [any] of your children to offer to Molech."

‫ שנאמר "ומזרעך‬,‫שלא להעביר למולך‬ ‫ להעביר למולך" )ויקרא‬,‫לא תיתן‬ .(‫כא‬,‫יח‬

Not to perform the deeds associated with an ov, as [Leviticus 19:31] states: "Do not turn to the ovot."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לעשות מעשה אוב‬ ‫"אל תפנו אל האובות" )ויקרא‬ .(‫לא‬,‫יט‬

Not to perform the deeds associated with a yid'oni, as [Leviticus 19:31] states: "Do not turn to... the yid'onim." Not to take interest in the worship of false gods, as [Leviticus 19:4] states: "Do not turn to false gods."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לעשות מעשה יידעוני‬ .(‫לא‬,‫"ואל היידעונים" )ויקרא יט‬

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לפנות אחר עבודה זרה‬ ‫ אל האלילים" )ויקרא‬,‫"אל תפנו‬ .(‫ד‬,‫יט‬

Not to erect a pillar [for purposes of worship], as [Deuteronomy 16:22] states: "Do not erect a pillar for yourselves."

‫ שנאמר "ולא‬,‫שלא להקים מצבה‬ .(‫כב‬,‫ מצבה" )דברים טז‬,‫תקים לך‬

Not to make hewn stones [upon which to prostrate oneself], as [Leviticus 26:1] states: "You shall not place hewn stones..."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ליתן אבן משכית‬ "‫"ואבן משכית לא תיתנו בארצכם‬ .(‫א‬,‫)ויקרא כו‬

Not to plant a tree on the Temple [premises], as [Deuteronomy 16:21] states: "Do not plant an asherah or any other tree...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ליטע אילן במקדש‬ "‫ כל עץ‬,‫"לא תיטע לך אשרה‬ .(‫כא‬,‫)דברים טז‬

Not to take an oath on a false god [as requested by] one of its worshipers, nor to have one of them take an oath on [their false god], as [Exodus 23:13] states: "And the name of other gods you shall not mention, nor should it be heard from your mouth."

‫שלא לישבע בעבודה זרה‬ ,‫ ולא משביעין אותן בה‬,‫לעובדיה‬ ,‫שנאמר "ושם אלוהים אחרים לא תזכירו‬ .(‫יג‬,‫לא יישמע על פיך" )שמות כג‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

3 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to act as a missionary [madiach] to persuade the Jews to worship false gods], as [Exodus 23:13] states: "And the name of other gods... shall not be heard from your mouth." [Our Sages taught that] this is a prohibition against acting as a missionary for the worship of false gods.

‫שלא להדיח בני ישראל אחר‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא יישמע‬,‫עבודה זרה‬ .‫יג(; זו אזהרה למדיח‬,‫על פיך" )שמות כג‬

Not to act as a missionary [mesit] to persuade an individual Jew to worship false gods, as [Deuteronomy 13:12] states with regard to such missionaries: "And they shall not continue to do so."

‫שלא להסית אדם מישראל אחר‬ ‫ שנאמר במסית "ולא‬,‫עבודה זרה‬ .(‫יב‬,‫יוסיפו לעשות" )דברים יג‬

Not to show affection for a mesit, as [Deuteronomy 13:9] states: "Do not show appreciation for

‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שלא לאהוב המסית‬ .(‫ט‬,‫תאבה לו" )דברים יג‬

Not to reduce one's hatred for a mesit, as [Deuteronomy 13:9] states: "Do not listen to

,‫שלא לעזוב השנאה למסית‬ ‫שנאמר "ולא תשמע אליו" )דברים‬

him."

him."

.(‫ט‬,‫יג‬

Not to [try to] save a mesit, but rather to see to it that he is executed, as [Deuteronomy 13:9] states: "Do not have mercy upon him."

‫שלא להציל המסית אלא עומד על‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תחוס עינך‬,‫דמו‬ .(‫ט‬,‫עליו" )דברים יג‬

For the person whom a mesit tried to convince not to advance any arguments on behalf of the mesit, as [Deuteronomy 13:9] states: "Do not have pity... [upon him]."

,‫שלא ילמד המוסת זכות על המסית‬ .(‫ט‬,‫שנאמר "לא תחמול" )דברים יג‬

For the person whom a mesit tried to convince not to withhold any evidence he is aware of that would incriminate the mesit, as [Deuteronomy 13:9] states: "And do not try to cover up for him."

‫שלא ישתוק המוסת מללמד‬ ‫ אם ידע לו‬,‫חובה על המסית‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולא תכסה עליו" )דברים‬,‫חובה‬ .(‫ט‬,‫יג‬

Not to benefit from ornaments that have adorned false gods, as [Deuteronomy 7:25] states: "Do not covet the gold or silver which is upon them...."

,‫שלא ליהנות בציפויי נעבד‬ ‫שנאמר "לא תחמוד כסף וזהב‬ .(‫כה‬,‫עליהם" )דברים ז‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

4 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to rebuild an apostate city to its former stature, as [Deuteronomy 13:17] states: "It shall never be rebuilt."

‫שלא לבנות עיר הנידחת לכמות‬ "‫ שנאמר "לא תיבנה עוד‬,‫שהייתה‬ .(‫יז‬,‫)דברים יג‬

Not to benefit from the property of an apostate city, as [Deuteronomy 13:18] states: "Let nothing that has been condemned cling to your hand."

,‫שלא ליהנות בממון עיר הנידחת‬ ,‫שנאמר "ולא ידבק בידך מאומה‬ .(‫יח‬,‫מן החרם" )דברים יג‬

Not to benefit from false gods, from any of their accessories, anything offered to them, or any wine brought as a libation for them, as [Deuteronomy 7:26] states: "Do not bring an abomination into your house."

‫ ובכל‬,‫שלא ליהנות בעבודה זרה‬ ‫משמשיה ובתקרובת שלה וביין‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולא תביא תועבה‬,‫שנתנסך לה‬ .(‫כו‬,‫אל ביתך" )דברים ז‬

Not to prophesy in the name of false gods, as [Deuteronomy 18:20] states: "[The prophet]... who speaks in the name of other gods [shall die]."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא להתנבא בשמה‬ ‫ בשם אלוהים‬,‫"ואשר ידבר‬ .(‫כ‬,‫אחרים" )דברים יח‬

Not to relate false prophecies, as [Deuteronomy 18:20] states: "When a prophet presumptuously makes a declaration in My name which I have not commanded him...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא להתנבא בשקר‬ ‫ את‬,‫"אשר יזיד לדבר דבר בשמי‬ .(‫כ‬,‫אשר לא ציוויתיו" )דברים יח‬

Not to listen to someone who prophesies in the name of false gods, as [Deuteronomy 13:4] states: "Do not listen to the words of that prophet."

‫שלא לשמוע למתנבא בשם‬ ,‫ שנאמר "לא תשמע‬,‫עבודה זרה‬ .(‫ד‬,‫אל דברי הנביא" )דברים יג‬

Not to refrain from executing a false prophet, nor to fear him, as [Deuteronomy 18:22] states: "Do not fear him."

‫שלא נימנע מהריגת נביא השקר‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫ולא נירא ממנו‬ .(‫כב‬,‫תגור ממנו" )דברים יח‬

Not to follow the laws or customs of the worshipers of false gods, as [Leviticus 20:23] states: "Do not follow the practices of the nation [that I am driving out before you]...."

‫שלא ללכת בחוקות עובדי עבודה‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולא‬,‫זרה ולא במנהגותם‬ .(‫כג‬,‫תלכו בחוקות הגוי" )ויקרא כ‬

Not to practice black magic, as [Deuteronomy 18:10] states: "There shall not be found among you... a magician."

‫ שנאמר "לא יימצא‬,‫שלא לקסום‬ ‫ קוסם קסמים" )דברים‬. . . ‫בך‬ .(‫י‬,‫יח‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

5 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to practice divination, as [Leviticus 19:26] states: "Do not practice divination."

"‫ שנאמר "לא תעוננו‬,‫שלא לעונן‬ .(‫כו‬,‫)ויקרא יט‬

Not to act as a soothsayer, as [Leviticus, ibid.]

"‫ שנאמר "לא תנחשו‬,‫שלא לנחש‬ .(‫כו‬,‫)ויקרא יט‬

states: "Do not act as a soothsayer." Not to practice sorcery, as [Deuteronomy 18:10] states: "There shall not be found among you... a sorcerer."

‫ שנאמר "לא יימצא‬,‫שלא לכשף‬ .(‫י‬,‫ ומכשף" )דברים יח‬. . . ‫בך‬

Not to cast spells, as [Deuteronomy 18:11] states: "[There shall not be found among you...] one who casts spells."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לחבור חבר‬ .(‫יא‬,‫ חבר" )דברים יח‬,‫"וחובר‬

Not to consult an ov, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states: "[There shall not be found among you...] one who consults an ov."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לשאול באוב‬ .(‫יא‬,‫"ושואל אוב" )דברים יח‬

Not to consult a yid'oni, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states: "[There shall not be found among you...] one who consults an ov or a yid'oni."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לשאול ביידעוני‬ ‫"ושואל אוב ויידעוני" )דברים‬ .(‫יא‬,‫יח‬

Not to seek information from the dead in dreams, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states: "[There shall not be found among you...] one who attempts to communicate with the dead."

,‫שלא לשאול בחלום מן המתים‬ "‫שנאמר "ודורש אל המתים‬ .(‫יא‬,‫)דברים יח‬

For a woman not to wear articles appropriate for men, as [Deuteronomy 22:5] states: "A woman should not wear a man's clothing."

,‫שלא תעדה אישה עדי איש‬ ‫שנאמר "לא יהיה כלי גבר על‬ .(‫ה‬,‫אישה" )דברים כב‬

For a man not to wear articles appropriate for women, as [Deuteronomy 22:5] states: "A man should not wear a woman's clothing." [This prohibition was instituted] because this is an idolatrous custom. Explicit statements to this effect are found in the texts describing their worship.

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא יעדה איש עדי אישה‬ "‫"ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אישה‬ ‫ מפני שזה היה מנהג עובדי‬,(‫ה‬,‫)דברים כב‬ .‫עבודה זרה וכן מפורש בספרי עבודתה‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

6 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to tattoo our bodies like the worshipers of false gods, as [Leviticus 19:28] states: "Do not tattoo your flesh."

‫שלא לכתוב בגוף כעובדי עבודה‬ ,‫ שנאמר "וכתובת קעקע‬,‫זרה‬ .(‫כח‬,‫לא תיתנו בכם" )ויקרא יט‬

Not to wear sha'atnez, as do the priests of false gods, as [Deuteronomy 22:11] states: "Do not wear sha'atnez."

‫שלא ללבוש שעטנז כמו‬ ,‫שלובשין כומרי עבודה זרה‬ ‫שנאמר "לא תלבש שעטנז" )דברים‬ .(‫יא‬,‫כב‬

Not to shave the temples of our heads, as do the worshipers of false gods, as [Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not shave your temples."

‫שלא להקיף פיאת ראש ככומרי‬ ,‫ שנאמר "ולא תקיפו‬,‫עבודה זרה‬ .(‫כז‬,‫פאת ראשכם" )ראה ויקרא יט‬

Not to shave off our beards entirely, as do the priests of false gods, as [Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not shave the corners of your beard."

‫שלא להשחית כל הזקן כעובדי‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולא‬,‫עבודה זרה‬ .(‫כז‬,‫ את פאת זקנך" )ויקרא יט‬,‫תשחית‬

Not to make cuts in our flesh, as the worshipers of false gods do, as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not cut yourselves." Gedidah is another term for cutting.

‫שלא להתגודד כעובדי עבודה‬ "‫ שנאמר "לא תתגודדו‬,‫זרה‬ .‫א(; וגדידה ושריטה אחת היא‬,‫)דברים יד‬

Not to ever dwell in the land of Egypt, as [Deuteronomy 17:16] states: "Do not ever return on this path again."

,‫שלא לשכון בארץ מצריים לעולם‬ ‫שנאמר "לא תוסיפון לשוב בדרך‬ .(‫טז‬,‫ עוד" )דברים יז‬,‫הזה‬

Not to stray after the thoughts of one's heart or the sights one's eyes behold, as [Numbers 15:39] states: "Do not stray after your heart and eyes."

‫שלא לתור אחר מחשבות הלב‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולא‬,‫וראיית העיניים‬ .(‫לט‬,‫" )במדבר טו‬. . . ‫תתורו‬

Not to establish a covenant with the seven [Canaanite] nations, as [Deuteronomy 7:2] states: "Do not establish a covenant with them."

‫שלא לכרות ברית לשבעה‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תכרות‬,‫עממין‬ .(‫ב‬,‫להם ברית" )דברים ז‬

Not to allow a single member of the seven [Canaanite] nations to live, as [Deuteronomy 20:16] states: "Do not allow a soul to live."

‫שלא להחיות אדם משבעה‬ ‫ כל‬,‫ שנאמר "לא תחייה‬,‫עממים‬ .(‫טז‬,‫נשמה" )דברים כ‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

7 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to show favor to the worshipers of false gods, as [Deuteronomy 7:2] states: "Do not show them favor."

,‫שלא לחון על עובדי עבודה זרה‬ .(‫ב‬,‫שנאמר "ולא תחונם" )דברים ז‬

Not to allow the worshipers of false gods to settle in our land, as [Exodus 23:33] states: "They shall not settle in your land."

‫שלא להושיב עובדי עבודה זרה‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא יישבו‬,‫בארצנו‬ .(‫לג‬,‫בארצך" )שמות כג‬

Not to marry gentiles, as [Deuteronomy 7:3] states: "Do not marry among them."

,‫שלא להתחתן בעובדי עבודה זרה‬ ‫ בם" )דברים‬,‫שנאמר "ולא תתחתן‬ .(‫ג‬,‫ז‬

For a Jewish woman never to marry an Ammonite or Moabite [even after conversion], as [Deuteronomy 23:4] states: "An Ammonite or a Moabite shall never enter the congregation of God."

‫שלא יישא עמוני ומואבי בת‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא יבוא‬,‫ישראל לעולם‬ .(‫ד‬,‫ בקהל ה'" )דברים כג‬,‫עמוני ומואבי‬

Not to prevent the third generation of [converts from] the descendants of Esau from marrying among [the Jewish people], as [Deuteronomy 23:8] states: "Do not [utterly] despise an Edomite."

‫שלא להרחיק זרע עשיו מן הקהל‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫אלא עד שלושה דורות‬ .(‫ח‬,‫"לא תתעב אדומי" )דברים כג‬

Not to prevent the third generation of Egyptian [converts] from marrying among [the Jewish people], as [Deuteronomy 23:8] states: "Do not [utterly] despise an Egyptian."

‫שלא להרחיק מצרי מלבוא בקהל‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫אלא עד שלושה דורות‬ .(‫ח‬,‫"לא תתעב מצרי" )דברים כג‬

Not to make an offer of peace to Ammon and Moav at the outbreak of war, as is done for other nations, as [Deuteronomy 23:7] states: "Do not seek their peace and welfare...."

‫שלא לקרוא שלום לעמון ומואב‬ ‫בתחילה בשעת מלחמה כשאר‬ ,‫ שנאמר "לא תדרוש שלומם‬,‫גויים‬ .(‫ז‬,‫וטובתם" )דברים כג‬

Not to destroy fruit trees nor to destroy any-thing else of value, as [Deuteronomy 20:19] states: "Do not destroy its trees."

‫ וכן כל‬,‫שלא להשחית אילני מאכל‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שיש בו השחתה אסור‬ .(‫יט‬,‫תשחית את עצה" )דברים כ‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

8 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

For soldiers not to fear or become frightened of the enemy during war, as [Deuteronomy 7:21] states: "Do not panic before them," and [Deuteronomy 3:22] states: "Do not fear them."

‫שלא ייראו אנשי המלחמה ולא‬ ,‫יפחדו מאויביהם בשעת מלחמה‬ ‫ מפניהם" )דברים‬,‫שנאמר "לא תערוץ‬ .(‫כב‬,‫ תיראום" )דברים ג‬,‫ "לא‬,(‫כא‬,‫ז‬

Not to forget the wicked deeds which Amalek perpetrated against us, as [Deuteronomy 25:19] states: "Do not forget."

‫שלא יסור מליבנו מעשה עמלק‬ ,‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫הרע שעשה לנו‬ .(‫יט‬,‫תשכח" )דברים כה‬

The prohibition against blessing [i.e., cursing] God's name, as [Exodus 22:27] states: "Do not curse God." [Leviticus 27:16] mentions the punishment: "One who curses the name of God shall surely die." This is a general principle: A negative commandment is involved whenever the Torah mentions the punishments of karet or execution - with the exception of circumcision and the Paschal sacrifice which are positive commandments punishable by karet.

,‫שאנו מוזהרין על ברכת השם‬ ‫ לא תקלל" )שמות‬,‫שנאמר "אלוהים‬ ‫ ונאמר בעונש "ונוקב שם ה' מות‬,(‫כז‬,‫כב‬ ‫כל‬. :‫וזה הכלל‬. .(‫טז‬,‫יומת" )ויקרא כד‬ ,‫שענש עליו הכתוב כרת או מיתת בית דין‬ ‫הרי זו מצות לא תעשה—חוץ ממילה‬ .‫ שהן בכרת והן מצוות עשה‬,‫ופסח‬

Not to violate an oath, as [Leviticus 19:12] states: "Do not swear falsely in My name."

,‫שלא לעבור על שבועת ביטוי‬ ,‫שנאמר "ולא תישבעו בשמי‬ .(‫יב‬,‫לשקר" )ויקרא יט‬

Not to take an oath in vain, as [Exodus 20:7] states: "Do not take the name of God, your Lord, in vain."

‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שלא יישבע לשוא‬ "‫ לשוא‬,‫תישא את שם ה' אלוהיך‬ .(‫י‬,‫ו; דברים ה‬,‫)שמות כ‬

Not to profane the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as [Leviticus 22:32] states: "Do not profane My holy name."

‫שלא לחלל את שם הקדוש ברוך‬ ‫ את‬,‫ שנאמר "ולא תחללו‬,‫הוא‬ .(‫לב‬,‫שם קודשי" )ויקרא כב‬

Not to test the promises of God, as [Deuteronomy 6:15] states: "Do not test God, your Lord."

‫ שנאמר‬,'‫שלא לנסות את דבר ה‬ "‫ את ה' אלוהיכם‬,‫"לא תנסו‬ .(‫טז‬,‫)דברים ו‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

9 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to destroy the Temple, synagogues, or houses of study; and similarly, not to erase any of [God’s] sacred names, nor to destroy any sacred texts, as [Deuteronomy 12:3-4] states: "You shall surely destroy them. Do not do this to God, your Lord."1

‫ או‬,‫שלא לאבד בית המקדש‬ ;‫ או בתי מדרשות‬,‫בתי כנסייות‬ ‫ ואין‬,‫וכן אין מוחקין את השמות המוקדשין‬ ‫ שנאמר "אבד‬,‫מאבדין כתבי הקודש‬ ,‫ "לא תעשון כן‬,(‫ב‬,‫תאבדון" )דברים יב‬ .(‫ד‬,‫לה' אלוהיכם" )דברים יב‬

Not to leave a corpse that was hung on the gallows, as [Deuteronomy 21:23] states: "Do not leave his body on the gallows."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ילין הצלוב על העץ‬ ‫"לא תלין נבלתו על העץ" )דברים‬ .(‫כג‬,‫כא‬

Not to interrupt the watch held around the Temple, as [Leviticus 18:30] states: "And you shall keep My watch."2

‫שלא להשבית שמירה סביב‬ ‫ שנאמר "ושמרתם את‬,‫למקדש‬ .(‫ל‬,‫משמרתי" )ויקרא יח‬

For a priest not to enter the Temple building at all times, as [Leviticus 16:2] states: "And he shall not enter the sanctuary at all times."

,‫שלא ייכנס כוהן להיכל בכל עת‬ ‫שנאמר "ואל יבוא בכל עת אל‬ .(‫ב‬,‫הקודש" )ויקרא טז‬

For a priest with a disqualifying physical deformity not to proceed beyond [the beginning of] the altar, as [Leviticus 21:23] states: "However, to the parochet3 he shall not approach."

‫שלא ייכנס בעל מום מן המזבח‬ ‫ שנאמר "אך אל‬,‫ולפנים‬ .(‫כג‬,‫הפרוכת לא יבוא" )ויקרא כא‬

For a priest with a disqualifying physical deformity not to serve [in the Temple], as [Leviticus 21:17] states: "[Anyone...] who has a blemish [may not approach to present]...."

‫ שנאמר "אשר‬,‫שלא יעבוד בעל מום‬ .(‫יז‬,‫יהיה בו מום" )ויקרא כא‬

For a priest with a disqualifying physical deformity of a temporary nature not to serve [in the Temple], as [Leviticus 21:18] states: "Anyone who has a blemish may not approach [to offer a sacrifice].

,‫שלא יעבוד בעל מום עובר‬ ,‫שנאמר "כל איש אשר בו מום‬ .(‫יח‬,‫לא יקרב" )ויקרא כא‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

10 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

For the Levites not to perform the services of the priests, and for the priests not to perform the services of the Levites, as [Numbers 18:3] states with regard to the Levites: "Neither to the sacred vessels nor to the altar shall they approach, so that they do not die, neither they nor you."

‫שלא יתעסקו הלויים בעבודת‬ ‫הכוהנים ולא הכוהנים בעבודת‬ ‫ שנאמר "אל כלי הקודש ואל‬,‫הלויים‬ "‫ גם הם גם אתם‬. . . ‫ לא יקרבו‬,‫המזבח‬ .(‫ג‬,‫)במדבר יח‬

For a person who is intoxicated not to enter the Temple nor to render a halachic decision, as [Leviticus 10:9] states: "Do not drink wine or strong drink when you enter the Tent of Testimony," and [ibid., 10:11] states: "or when you render a decision for the children of Israel."

‫שלא ייכנס למקדש ולא יורה‬ ‫ שנאמר "יין‬,‫בתורה שתוי יין‬ ‫ בבואכם אל אוהל‬. . . ‫ושיכר אל תשת‬ ‫ את‬,‫ ונאמר "ולהורות‬,(‫ט‬,‫מועד" )ויקרא י‬ .(‫יא‬,‫בני ישראל" )ויקרא י‬

For a non-priest not to serve in the Temple, as [Numbers 18:4] states: "An unauthorized person shall not approach them."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא יעבוד הזר במקדש‬ ‫ לא יקרב אליכם" )במדבר‬,‫"וזר‬

For a priest who is ritually impure not to serve [in the Temple], as [Leviticus 22:2] states: "And they shall separate themselves from the sacred offerings of the children of Israel."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא יעבוד כוהן טמא‬ "‫"ויינזרו מקודשי בני ישראל‬ .(‫ב‬,‫)ויקרא כב‬

For a priest who has immersed himself in a mikveh in order to purify himself from ritual impurity not to serve [in the Temple] until the conclusion, of that day, as [Leviticus 21:6] states: "And they shall not profane...."

‫שלא יעבוד כוהן טבול יום עד‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולא‬,‫שיעריב שמשו‬ .(‫ו‬,‫יחללו" )ויקרא כא‬

For a priest who is ritually impure not to enter the Temple courtyard, as [Numbers 5:3] states: "And they shall not make your camp impure." This refers to the camp of the Divine Presence.

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ייכנס טמא לעזרה‬ ‫"ולא יטמאו את מחניהם" )במדבר‬ .‫ג(; זה מחנה שכינה‬,‫ה‬

.(‫ד‬,‫יח‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

11 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

For a person who is impure not to enter the camp of the Levites, the parallel for all time being the Temple Mount, as [Deuteronomy 23:11] states: "Do not enter the camp." This refers to the camp of the Levites.

,‫שלא ייכנס טמא למחנה לוייה‬ ,‫שכנגדו לדורות הר הבית‬ "‫שנאמר "לא יבוא אל תוך המחנה‬ .‫יא(; זה מחנה לוייה‬,‫)דברים כג‬

Not to build the altar with hewn stones, as [Exodus 20:22] states: "Do not make them hewn."

,‫שלא לבנות אבני מזבח גזית‬ "‫שנאמר "לא תבנה אתהן גזית‬ .(‫כב‬,‫)שמות כ‬

Not to ascend to the altar using steps, as [Exodus 20:23] states: "Do not ascend My altar with steps."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לפסוע על המזבח‬ "‫ על מזבחי‬,‫"ולא תעלה במעלות‬ .(‫כג‬,‫)שמות כ‬

Not to offer any [undesired] incense offering or any sacrifices on the golden altar, as [Exodus 30:9] states: "Do not offer any unauthorized incense upon it."

‫שלא להקטיר ולהקריב במזבח‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תעלו עליו‬,‫הזהב‬ .(‫ט‬,‫קטורת זרה" )שמות ל‬

Not to extinguish the fire of the altar, as [Leviticus 6:6] states: "Burn a continuous fire on the altar. Do not extinguish it."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לכבות אש המזבח‬ ‫על‬ ‫תוקד‬ ‫תמיד‬ ,‫"אש‬ .(‫ו‬,‫המזבח—לא תכבה" )ויקרא ו‬

Not to duplicate the composition of the anointing oil, as [Exodus 30:32] states: "And do not duplicate its formula."

‫שלא לעשות במתכונת שמן‬ ‫ לא‬,‫ שנאמר "ובמתכונתו‬,‫המשחה‬ .(‫לב‬,‫תעשו" )שמות ל‬

Not to anoint an unauthorized person with the anointing oil, as [Exodus 30:32] states: "Do not anoint the flesh of a person with it."

,‫שלא לסוך בשמן המשחה זר‬ "‫ לא ייסך‬,‫שנאמר "על בשר אדם‬ .(‫לב‬,‫)שמות ל‬

Not to duplicate the composition of the incense offering, as [Exodus 30:37] states: "Do not duplicate its formula."

,‫שלא לעשות במתכונת הקטורת‬ "‫ לא תעשו‬,‫שנאמר "ובמתכונתה‬ .(‫לז‬,‫)ראה שמות ל‬

Not to remove the staves of the ark, as [Exodus 25:16] states: "They shall not be removed from

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא להוציא בדי הארון‬ .(‫טו‬,‫ ממנו" )שמות כה‬,‫"לא יסורו‬

it."

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

12 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

For the [High Priest's] breastplate not to come loose from the ephod, as [Exodus 28:28] states: "The breastplate shall not come loose from the ephod."

,‫שלא ייזח החושן מעל האיפוד‬ ‫ מעל‬,‫שנאמר "ולא ייזח החושן‬ .(‫כא‬,‫כח; שמות לט‬,‫האיפוד" )שמות כח‬

For the [High Priest's] cloak not to tear, as [Exodus 28:32] states: "It shall have a woven border around it. It shall not tear."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ייקרע המעיל‬ ‫"כפי תחרא יהיה לו—לא‬ .(‫לב‬,‫ייקרע" )שמות כח‬

Not to offer sacred offerings outside [the Temple], as [Deuteronomy 12:13] states: "Be careful, lest you offer your burnt offerings...."

,‫שלא להעלות קודשים בחוץ‬ ‫ פן תעלה‬,‫שנאמר "הישמר לך‬ .(‫יג‬,‫עולותיך" )דברים יב‬

Not to slaughter sacred offerings outside [the Temple], as [Leviticus 17:3-4] states: "A person who slaughters an ox or a sheep without bringing it to the Tent of Testimony. He shall be punished by karet."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לשחוט קודשים בחוץ‬ "‫ אשר ישחט שור או כשב‬. . . ‫"איש‬ ‫ לא‬,‫ג( "ואל פתח אוהל מועד‬,‫)ויקרא יז‬ .(‫ד‬,‫ ונכרת" )ויקרא יז‬. . . ‫הביאו‬

Not to consecrate animals with disqualifying physical blemishes [as sacrifices to be offered on] the altar, as [Leviticus 22:20] states: "Any [animal] which has a blemish shall not be sacrificed." This prohibition involves [the animal's] consecration.

‫שלא להקדיש בעלי מומין‬ ‫ שנאמר "כול אשר בו‬,‫למזבח‬ ‫כ(; זה הוא‬,‫ לא תקריבו" )ויקרא כב‬,‫מום‬ .‫איסור הקדשו‬

Not to slaughter animals with disqualifying physical blemishes as sacrifices, as [Leviticus 22:22] states: "Do not sacrifice these to God."

‫שלא לשחוט בעלי מומין לשם‬ ,‫ שנאמר "לא תקריבו אלה‬,‫קרבן‬ .(‫כב‬,‫לה'" )ויקרא כב‬

Not to sprinkle the blood of animals with disqualifying physical blemishes on the altar, as [Leviticus 22:24] states: "Do not sacrifice to God...." This prohibition involves sprinkling [the animal's] blood."

‫שלא לזרוק דם בעלי מומין לגבי‬ ‫ שנאמר בבעלי מומין "לא‬,‫המזבח‬ ‫כד(; וזה הוא‬,‫תקריבו לה'" )ויקרא כב‬ .‫איסור זריקת דמו‬

Not to burn the sacrificial portions of animals with disqualifying physical blemishes [as sacrifices on the altar], as [Leviticus 22:22] states: "Do not make a fire offering of them."

,‫שלא להקטיר אימורי בעלי מומין‬ "‫ לא תיתנו מהם‬,‫שנאמר "ואישה‬ .(‫כב‬,‫)ויקרא כב‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

13 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to offer a animals with disqualifying physical blemishes of a temporary nature as sacrifices, as [Deuteronomy 17:1] states: "Do not sacrifice to God, your Lord, an ox or a sheep that has a blemish." This refers to a blemish of a temporary nature.

,‫שלא להקריב בעל מום עובר‬ ‫שנאמר "לא תזבח לה' אלוהיך‬ ‫ אשר יהיה בו מום" )דברים‬,‫שור ושה‬ .‫א(; זה הוא מום עובר‬,‫יז‬

Not to offer an animal with a disqualifying physical blemish as a sacrifice when it was brought by gentiles, as [Leviticus 22:25] states: "Do not offer sacrifices [from these animals] when they are given by gentiles."

,‫שלא להקריב בעל מום מיד הגויים‬ "‫ לא תקריבו‬,‫שנאמר "ומיד בן נכר‬ .(‫כה‬,‫)ויקרא כב‬

Not to inflict a disqualifying physical blemish upon a consecrated animal, as [Leviticus 22:21] states: "It shall not have a blemish."This can be interpreted to mean: Do not inflict a blemish upon it.

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ייתן מום בקודשים‬ ;(‫כא‬,‫"מום לא יהיה בו" )ויקרא כב‬ .‫ לא תיתן בו מום‬,‫כלומר‬

Not to burn as an offering anything which is sweetened or leavened, as [Leviticus 2:11] states: "You may not burn anything leavened or sweet [as a fire offering]."

,‫שלא להקריב שאור או דבש‬ ,‫שנאמר "כי כל שאור וכל דבש‬ .(‫יא‬,‫לא תקטירו" )ויקרא ב‬

Not to offer a sacrifice which is unsalted, as [Leviticus 2:13] states: "Do not omit the salt of God's covenant."

‫ שנאמר "ולא‬,‫שלא להקריב תפל‬ "‫תשבית מלח ברית אלוהיך‬ .(‫יג‬,‫)ויקרא ב‬

Not to offer as a sacrifice an animal received by a prostitute as her fee, or an animal received in exchange for a dog, as [Deuteronomy 23:19] states: "Do not bring a prostitute's fee or the price of a dog...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא להקריב אתנן ומחיר‬ "‫"לא תביא אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב‬ .(‫יט‬,‫)דברים כג‬

Not to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day, as [Leviticus 22:25] states: "Do not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day."

,‫שלא לשחוט אותו ואת בנו‬ ‫ לא‬,‫שנאמר "אותו ואת בנו‬ .(‫כח‬,‫תשחטו ביום אחד" )ויקרא כב‬

Not to place olive oil on the meal offering brought by a sinner, as [Leviticus 5:11] states: "Do not place oil upon it."

‫שלא ליתן שמן זית במנחת‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא ישים עליה‬,‫חוטא‬ .(‫יא‬,‫שמן" )ויקרא ה‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

14 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to place frankincense on such a sacrifice, as [Leviticus, ibid.] continues: "...and do not place frankincense upon it."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ליתן עליה לבונה‬ ‫"ולא ייתן עליה לבונה" )ויקרא‬

Not to place oil on the meal offering brought by a sotah, as [Numbers 5:15] states: "Do not pour oil upon it."

,‫שלא ייתן שמן במנחת סוטה‬ "‫שנאמר "לא ייצוק עליו שמן‬ .(‫טו‬,‫)במדבר ה‬

Not to place frankincense on such a sacrifice, as [Numbers, ibid.] continues: "...and do not place frankincense upon it."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ייתן עליו לבונה‬ ‫"ולא ייתן עליו לבונה" )במדבר‬

Not to substitute [another animal] for [one selected as] a sacred offering, as [Leviticus 27:10] states: "Do not exchange it or substitute another for it."

,‫שלא להמיר את הקודשים‬ ‫ ולא ימיר‬,‫שנאמר "לא יחליפנו‬ .(‫י‬,‫אותו" )ויקרא כז‬

Not to change the designation of a consecrated animal from one sacrifice to another, as [Leviticus 27:26] states regarding a firstling animal:

‫שלא לשנות את הקודשים מקרבן‬ ‫ שנאמר בבכור "לא יקדיש‬,‫לקרבן‬ ‫ לא‬,‫כו(; כלומר‬,‫ אותו" )ויקרא כז‬,‫איש‬ .‫יקדישנו לקרבן אחר‬

"A person should not consecrate it" - i.e., he should not consecrate it as another sacrifice. Not to redeem a firstling kosher animal, as [Numbers 18:17] states: "Nevertheless, a firstling ox... do not redeem." Not to sell the tithe of cattle, as [Leviticus 27:33] states: "It shall not be redeemed."

.(‫יא‬,‫ה‬

.(‫טו‬,‫ה‬

‫שלא לפדות בכור בהמה‬ ‫ שנאמר "אך בכור שור‬,‫טהורה‬ .(‫יז‬,‫ לא תפדה" )במדבר יח‬. . . ,‫שלא למכור מעשר בהמה‬ ‫שנאמר "לא ייגאל" )ויקרא‬ .(‫לג‬,‫כז‬

Not to sell a field that has been dedicated, as [Leviticus 27:28] states: "It shall not be sold." Not to redeem a field that has been dedicated, as [Leviticus, ibid.] states: "It shall not be redeemed."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא למכור שדה החרם‬ .(‫כח‬,‫"לא יימכר" )ויקרא כז‬ ,‫שלא לפדות שדה החרם‬ ‫שנאמר "לא ייגאל" )ויקרא‬ .(‫כח‬,‫כז‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

15 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to sever the head of a bird [brought as] a sin offering, as [Leviticus 5:8] states: "He shall pinch off its head...[without separating it]."

,‫שלא יבדיל ראש חטאת העוף‬ ‫שנאמר "ומלק את ראשו ממול‬ .(‫ח‬,‫עורפו" )ויקרא ה‬

Not to work with consecrated animals, as [Deuteronomy 15:19] states: "Do not work with your firstling ox."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לעבוד בקודשים‬ "‫"לא תעבוד בבכור שורך‬ .(‫יט‬,‫)דברים טו‬

Not to shear consecrated animals, as [Deuteronomy 15:19] states: "Do not shear your firstling sheep."

,‫שלא לגזוז את הקודשים‬ "‫שנאמר "ולא תגוז בכור צאנך‬ .(‫יט‬,‫)דברים טו‬

Not to slaughter the Paschal sacrifice while one possesses chametz, as [Exodus 23:18] states: "Do not sacrifice the blood of My offering in the presence of chametz."

‫שלא ישחוט הפסח והחמץ‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תשחט על‬,‫קיים‬ .(‫כה‬,‫ דם זבחי" )שמות לד‬,‫חמץ‬

Not to allow the sacrificial portions of the Paschal sacrifice to become disqualified by remaining overnight, as [Exodus 23:18] states: "Do not allow the fat of My festive offering to remain until the morning."

‫שלא להניח אימורי הפסח עד‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולא‬,‫שיפסלו בלינה‬ .(‫יח‬,‫ עד בוקר" )שמות כג‬,‫ילין חלב חגי‬

Not to allow the meat of the Paschal sacrifice to remain [overnight], as [Exodus 12:10] states: "Do not leave over any of it until the morning."

,‫שלא להותיר מבשר הפסח‬ ‫ עד‬,‫שנאמר "ולא תותירו ממנו‬ .(‫י‬,‫בוקר" )שמות יב‬

Not to allow the meat of the Chaggigah sacrifice to remain until the third day, as [Deuteronomy 16:14] states: "Do not leave over any of the meat...." According to the oral tradition, we have learned that the verse refers to the Chaggigah sacrifice

‫שלא להותיר מחגיגת ארבעה‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫עשר ליום השלישי‬ ‫ד(; מפי‬,‫"ולא ילין מן הבשר" )דברים טז‬ ‫השמועה למדו שבבשר חגיגת ארבעה‬ "‫ וזה שנאמר "לבוקר‬,‫עשר הכתוב מדבר‬ ‫ שהוא‬,‫)שם( לבוקרו של יום שני של פסח‬ .‫שלישי לשחיטה‬

offered on the fourteenth of Nisan. The phrase "until the morning" [in that verse] refers to the morning of the second day of Pesach, the third day after [the sacrifice] was offered.

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

16 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to allow the meat of the second Paschal sacrifice to remain until the morning, as [Numbers 9:12] states: "Do not leave over any of it until the morning."

‫שלא להותיר מבשר פסח שני‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולא‬,‫עד בוקר‬ ‫ישאירו ממנו עד בוקר" )ראה במדבר‬ .(‫יב‬,‫ט‬

Not to allow the meat of the thanksgiving offering to remain until the morning, as [Leviticus 22:30] states: "Do not leave over any of it until the morning." The same law applies to all other sacrifices. They should not be left over beyond the time allotted for their consumption.

‫שלא להותיר מבשר התודה עד‬ ,‫ שנאמר "ולא תותירו ממנו‬,‫בוקר‬ ‫ל(; והוא הדין‬,‫עד בוקר" )ראה ויקרא כב‬ ‫ שאין מניחין אותן לאחר‬,‫לשאר הקודשים‬ .‫זמן אכילתן‬

Not to break any of the bones of the Paschal sacrifice, as [Exodus 12:46] states: "Neither shall you break a bone of it."

,‫שלא לשבור עצם בפסח‬ ‫ לא תשברו‬,‫שנאמר "ועצם‬ .(‫מו‬,‫בו" )שמות יב‬

Not to break any of the bones of the Second Paschal sacrifice, as [Numbers 9:12] states: "Neither shall you break a bone of it."

,‫שלא לשבור עצם בפסח שני‬ ‫ לא תשברו‬,‫שנאמר "ועצם‬ .(‫יב‬,‫מו; וראה במדבר ט‬,‫בו" )שמות יב‬

Note: We have marked with the letter “a” those mitzvot concerning which the Ramban (Nachmanides) differs with the Rambam in his Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, and with the letter “b,” those mitzvot concerning which the Ra'avad, in his gloss to the Mishneh Torah, differs with the Rambam.

Not to remove the meat of the Paschal sacrifice from the company [in which it is being eaten], as [Exodus 12:46] states: "Do not remove [any of the meat] from the house...."

‫שלא להוציא מבשר הפסח מן‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תוציא‬,‫החבורה‬ .(‫מו‬,‫מן הבית" )שמות יב‬

Not to allow any of the remaining portions of the meal offerings to leaven, as [Leviticus 6:10] states: "It shall not be baked as leaven. Their portion...."

‫שלא לעשות שיירי מנחות‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תיאפה‬,‫חמץ‬ .(‫י‬,‫ חלקם" )ויקרא ו‬,‫חמץ‬

Not to eat the meat of the Paschal sacrifice raw or boiled in water, as [Exodus 12:9] states: "Do not eat from it raw or boiled in water."

‫שלא לאכול בשר הפסח נא‬ ‫ שנאמר "אל תאכלו‬,‫ומבושל‬ .(‫ט‬,‫ ובשל" )שמות יב‬,‫ממנו נא‬

Not to feed the meat of the Paschal sacrifice to a resident alien, as [Exodus 12:45] states: "No temporary resident or hired worker may eat from it."

‫שלא להאכיל בשר הפסח לגר‬ ,‫ שנאמר "תושב ושכיר‬,‫תושב‬ .(‫מה‬,‫לא יאכל בו" )שמות יב‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

17 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to feed the meat of the Paschal sacrifice to an uncircumcised male, as [Exodus 12:48] states: "No uncircumcised person may eat of it."

,‫שלא יאכל הערל בשר הפסח‬ "‫ לא יאכל בו‬,‫שנאמר "כל ערל‬ .(‫מח‬,‫)שמות יב‬

Not to feed the meat of the Paschal sacrifice to an apostate Jew, as [Exodus 12:43] states: "No outsider may eat from it." This refers to a Jew who has become assimilated among the gentiles and serves false gods, as they do. He must not partake [of the Paschal sacrifice].

‫שלא להאכיל בשר הפסח‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫לישראל שנשתמד‬ ;(‫מג‬,‫ לא יאכל בו" )שמות יב‬,‫"כל בן נכר‬ ‫ ישראל שנלווה לבני נכר ועבד‬,‫כלומר‬ .‫עבודה זרה כמותם לא יאכל בו‬

For a person who became ritually impure not to partake of consecrated foods, as [Leviticus 6:20] states: "And a soul who partakes of the meat of the peace sacrifice while he is impure...."

‫שלא יאכל אדם שנטמא‬ ‫ שנאמר "והנפש‬,‫קודשים‬ ‫ מזבח השלמים אשר‬,‫אשר תאכל בשר‬ .(‫כ‬,‫ עליו" )ויקרא ז‬,‫ וטומאתו‬,'‫לה‬

Not to partake of consecrated foods that have contracted ritual impurity, as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "Meat that has touched any impurity shall not be eaten."

‫שלא לאכול מן הקודשים‬ ‫ שנאמר "והבשר אשר‬,‫שנטמאו‬ .(‫יט‬,‫ לא ייאכל" )ויקרא ז‬,‫ייגע בכל טמא‬

Not to eat sacrificial meat that has remained past the limits allotted for its consumption, as [Leviticus 19:8] states: "One who eats it shall bear his guilt,... his soul will be punished by karet."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לאכול נותר‬ . . . ‫"ואוכליו עוונו יישא‬ ‫ מעמיה" )ויקרא‬,‫ונכרתה הנפש ההיא‬ .(‫ח‬,‫יט‬

Not to eat piggul, as [Leviticus 7:18] states: "It

his guilt." This sin is punishable by karet.

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לאכול פיגול‬ ,‫"המקריב אותו לא ייחשב לו‬ ‫ עוונה‬,‫פיגול יהיה; והנפש האוכלת ממנו‬ .‫יח(; והוא בכרת‬,‫תישא" )ויקרא ז‬

For an unauthorized person not to partake of the terumot,4as [Leviticus 22:10] states: "No unauthorized person shall eat it."

,‫שלא יאכל זר תרומות‬ ‫ לא יאכל‬,‫שנאמר "וכל זר‬ .(‫י‬,‫קודש" )ויקרא כב‬

For even a tenant or a hired worker employed by a priest not to partake of terumah, as [Leviticus 22:10] states: "A tenant of a priest or [his] hired worker shall not eat the holy [food]."

‫שלא יאכל אפילו תושב כוהן‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫ושכירו תרומה‬ "‫ לא יאכל קודש‬,‫"תושב כוהן ושכיר‬ .(‫י‬,‫)ויקרא כב‬

will not be accepted for him. Instead, it will be considered as piggul. Any person who eats it will bear

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

18 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

For an uncircumcised person not to partake of terumah or other consecrated foods. This concept was derived from a gezerah shavah and is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. [Nevertheless,] based on the oral tradition, the prohibition against an uncircumcised person partaking of consecrated foods is considered as a [prohibition of] the Torah itself and not a decree of the Sages.5

‫ והוא‬,‫שלא יאכל ערל תרומה‬ ‫ודבר‬. .‫הדין לשאר קודשים‬ ,‫זה לימדו הכתוב מן הפסח בגזירה שווה‬ ‫ואינו בפירוש מן התורה; ומפי השמועה‬ ,‫למדו שאיסור ערל בקודשים מגופי תורה‬ .‫ואינו מדברי סופרים‬

For a priest who is impure not to partake of terumah, as [Leviticus 22:4] states: "Any of your descendants... shall not eat from the consecrated foods."6

,‫שלא יאכל כוהן טמא תרומה‬ . . . ‫שנאמר "איש מזרעך‬ ;‫יז‬,‫בקודשים לא יאכל" )ראה ויקרא כא‬ .(‫ד‬,‫ויקרא כב‬

For a chalalah not to partake of consecrated foods, neither terumah, nor the breast and the shankbone [given to the priest], as [Leviticus 22:12] states: "When a priest's daughter marries an unauthorized person, she shall not eat [from the sacred, elevated gifts]."

‫ לא‬,‫שלא תאכל חללה קודש‬ ,‫תרומות ולא חזה ושוק‬ "‫ לאיש זר‬,‫שנאמר "ובת כוהן—כי תהיה‬ .(‫יב‬,‫)ויקרא כב‬

For a meal offering brought by a priest not to be eaten, as [Leviticus 6:15] states: "Any meal offering brought by a priest shall be consumed entirely [by fire]; it shall not be eaten."

,‫שלא תיאכל מנחת כוהן‬ ‫שנאמר "וכל מנחת כוהן‬ .(‫טז‬,‫ לא תיאכל" )ויקרא ו‬,‫כליל תהיה‬

Not to partake of the meat of the sin offerings [whose blood is sprinkled] within [the Temple sanctuary], as [Leviticus 6:23] states: "Any sin offering whose blood has been brought...."

‫שלא לאכול בשר חטאות‬ ‫ שנאמר "וכל‬,‫הנעשות בפנים‬ .(‫כג‬,‫חטאת אשר יובא מדמה" )ויקרא ו‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

19 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to partake of consecrated animals that were disqualified [for use as sacrifices because] a blemish was intentionally inflicted upon them, as [Deuteronomy 14:3] states: "Do not eat of any abomination." According to the oral tradition, we have learned that the verse refers to consecrated animals that were disqualified for use because of a blemish inflicted upon them.

‫שלא לאכול פסולי המוקדשין‬ ,‫שהוטל בהם מום בכוונה‬ ‫ כל תועבה" )דברים‬,‫שנאמר "לא תאכל‬ ‫ג(; מפי השמועה למדנו שבפסולי‬,‫יד‬ .‫המוקדשין שהוטל בהם מום הכתוב מדבר‬

Not to eat grain [separated as] the second tithe outside of Jerusalem, as [Deuteronomy 12:17] states: "You may not eat within your gates the tithe from your grain."

‫שלא לאכול מעשר שני של‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫דגן חוץ לירושלים‬ "‫ מעשר דגנך‬,‫"לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך‬ .(‫יז‬,‫)דברים יב‬

Not to consume wine [separated as] the second tithe outside of Jerusalem, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] continues: "...your wine...."

‫שלא לאכול מעשר שני של‬ ,‫לירושלים‬ ‫תירוש חוץ‬ .(‫יז‬,‫שנאמר "תירושך" )דברים יב‬

Not to consume oil [separated as] the second tithe outside of Jerusalem, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] continues: "...and your oil...."

‫שלא לאכול מעשר שני של‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫יצהר חוץ לירושלים‬ .(‫יז‬,‫"ויצהרך" )דברים יב‬

Not to eat an unblemished firstling animal outside of Jerusalem, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states: "You may not eat [within your gates]... and the firstlings [of your cattle and flocks]...."

‫שלא לאכול בכור תמים חוץ‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫לירושלים‬ .(‫יז‬,‫ ובכורות" )דברים יב‬. . . ‫תוכל‬

For the priests not to eat a sin offering or a guilt offering outside the Temple courtyard, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] continues: "...your cattle and your flocks." According to the oral tradition, the purpose of this phrase is only to forbid the consumption of the sin offerings and the guilt offerings outside the Temple courtyard. Anything that is eaten outside the place intended for it is covered by the [prohibition]: "You may not eat within your gates...."

‫שלא יאכלו הכוהנים חטאת‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫ואשם חוץ לעזרה‬ ‫ וצאנך" )דברים‬,‫ בקרך‬. . . ‫"לא תוכל‬ ‫יז(; מפי השמועה למדו שלא בא‬,‫יב‬ ‫הכתוב אלא לאסור בשר חטאות ואשמות‬ ‫ לפי שכל דבר שייאכל חוץ‬,‫חוץ לעזרה‬ "‫למקום אכילתו "לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך‬ .‫)שם( אקרא בו‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

20 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to eat the meat of a burnt offering, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states: "You may not [eat]...[the sacrifices] you have vowed [to bring]...," meaning to say: You may not eat [the sacrifices] you have vowed to give. This is a warning against a person's benefiting from the [unauthorized use] of consecrated articles which he is forbidden to use. If he derives such benefit, he transgresses.

,‫שלא לאכול בשר העולה‬ ‫ נדריך‬. . . ‫שנאמר "לא תוכל‬ ‫ לא‬,‫יז(; כלומר‬,‫אשר תידור" )דברים יב‬ ‫וזו היא‬. .‫תוכל לאכול נדריך אשר תידור‬ ‫ שלא ייהנה מן‬,‫אזהרה של כל מועל‬ ‫הקודשים האסורים ליהנות מהם; ואם‬ .‫ מעל‬,‫נהנה‬

Not to eat the meat of sacrifices of a lesser order of holiness before the sprinkling of their blood, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states: "You may not

‫שלא לאכול בשר קודשים‬ ,‫קלים קודם זריקת דמים‬ ‫ ונדבותיך" )דברים‬. . . ‫שנאמר "לא תוכל‬ ‫ לא תוכל לאכול נדבותיך עד‬,‫יז(; כלומר‬,‫יב‬ .‫שייזרק דמם‬

[eat]... the [animals] you have pledged [to bring as sacrifices]..." - i.e., you are not allowed to eat from the sacrifices you have pledged until their blood has been sprinkled. For an unauthorized person not to eat the meat of the sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity, as [Exodus 29:33] states: "An unauthorized person shall not partake of them, for they are holy."

‫שלא יאכל זר בשר קודשי‬ ‫ שנאמר "וזר לא‬,‫קודשים‬ .(‫לג‬,‫ כי קודש הם" )שמות כט‬,‫יאכל‬

For a priest not to partake of the first fruits [Bikkurim] before they are placed down in the Temple courtyard, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states: "You

‫שלא יאכל כוהן ביכורים‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫קודם הנחה בעזרה‬ ‫ ותרומת ידך" )דברים‬. . . ‫"לא תוכל‬ .‫יז(; אלו הביכורים‬,‫יב‬

may not [eat]... the elevated gifts [delivered by] hand." The [latter phrase] refers to the first fruits. Not to eat the second tithe which has become impure, even within Jerusalem, until it has been redeemed, as [Deuteronomy 26:14] states: "I have not consumed it while it is impure."

‫שלא לאכול מעשר שני בטומאה‬ ,‫ואפילו בירושלים עד שייפדה‬ ‫שנאמר "לא ביערתי ממנו בטמא" )דברים‬ .(‫יד‬,‫כו‬

Not to eat the second tithe while in mourning, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states: "I have not eaten from it while in mourning."

‫שלא לאכול מעשר שני‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא אכלתי‬,‫באנינות‬ .(‫יד‬,‫באוני ממנו" )דברים כו‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

21 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to use the proceeds [from the redemption of] the second tithe for anything aside from food and drink, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states: "I have not used it for the dead." Anything that is not associated with the needs of a living body is referred to as "used for the dead."7

‫שלא להוציא דמי מעשר שני‬ ‫בשאר דברים שאין בהם‬ ,‫ שנאמר "ולא נתתי ממנו‬,‫אכילה ושתייה‬ ‫יד(; וכל שהוא חוץ‬,‫למת" )דברים כו‬ "‫ למת‬,‫ "נתתי ממנו‬,‫לצורכי הגוף החי‬ .‫אקרא בו‬

Not to eat tevel. Tevel refers to produce from which one is obligated to separate terumah and tithes from which God's terumah has not been separated, as [Leviticus 22:15] states: "And they shall not profane the sacred gifts which the children of Israel will separate for God." This implies that the produce which [the Jews] will ultimately separate for God should not be treated in a mundane manner and eaten while tevel.

‫שלא לאכול הטבל; והטבל הוא‬ ‫הדבר שגידוליו מן הארץ החייב‬ ‫ שלא הוציאו ממנו‬,‫בתרומות ומעשרות‬ ‫ את‬,‫שנאמר "ולא יחללו‬. :'‫תרומת ה‬ "'‫ לה‬,‫קודשי בני ישראל—את אשר ירימו‬ ‫ דברים שהם‬,‫טו(; כלומר‬,‫)ויקרא כב‬ ‫ לא יעשו אותם‬,'‫עתידין להרים אותם לה‬ .‫חול ויאכלו אותם בטבלם‬

Not to separate terumah before the first fruits, nor the first tithe before terumah, nor the second tithe before the first. Rather, [the agricultural gifts] must be given in order - first, the first fruits; afterwards, terumah; afterwards, the first tithe; and, afterwards, the second tithe - as [implied by Exodus 22:28]: "Do not delay your offerings of newly ripened produce and your agricultural offerings." [This means:] Do not delay bringing an offering that should be brought first.

‫תרומה‬ ‫להקדים‬ ‫שלא‬ ‫ ולא מעשר ראשון‬,‫לביכורים‬ ‫ אלא‬,‫ ולא מעשר שני לראשון‬,‫לתרומה‬ ‫ ואחר‬,‫ביכורים תחילה‬. :‫מוציאין על הסדר‬ ,‫ ואחר כך מעשר ראשון‬,‫כך תרומה גדולה‬ ‫ואחר כך מעשר שני; שנאמר "מלאתך‬ ,(‫כח‬,‫ לא תאחר" )שמות כב‬,‫ודמעך‬ .‫כלומר לא תאחר דבר הראוי להקדימו‬

Not to delay bringing sacrifices you have vowed to offer, or animals which you have pledged to bring as sacrifices, as [Deuteronomy 23:22] states: "[When you make a pledge to God,] do not delay paying it."

‫שלא לאחר הנדרים והנדבות‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שנדר ושנדב‬ .(‫כב‬,‫תאחר לשלמו" )דברים כג‬

Not to make a festive pilgrimage without [bringing] a sacrifice, as [Exodus 23:15] states: "Do not appear before Me empty-handed."

,‫שלא לעלות לחג בלא קרבן‬ "‫ ריקם‬,‫שנאמר "ולא ייראו פניי‬ .(‫טו‬,‫)שמות כג‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

22 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to violate a vow which a person makes forbidding his use of anything, as [Numbers 30:3] states: "He shall not violate his word."

‫שלא לעבור על דברים שאסר‬ ,‫ שנאמר "לא יחל‬,‫אדם על נפשו‬ .(‫ג‬,‫דברו" )במדבר ל‬

For a priest not to marry an immoral woman [zonah], as [Leviticus 21:7] states: "They shall not marry an immoral woman or a chalalah."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ייקח כוהן זונה‬ "‫"אישה זונה וחללה לא ייקחו‬ .(‫ז‬,‫)ויקרא כא‬

For a priest not to marry a chalalah,8 as [Leviticus 21:7] states: "They shall not marry... a chalalah."

,‫שלא ייקח כוהן חללה‬ "‫שנאמר "וחללה לא ייקחו‬ .(‫ז‬,‫)ויקרא כא‬

For a priest not to marry a divorcee, as [Leviticus 21:7] states: "...nor may they marry a woman divorced from her husband."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ייקח כוהן גרושה‬ ‫"ואישה גרושה מאישה לא‬ .(‫ז‬,‫ייקחו" )ויקרא כא‬

For a High Priest not to marry a widow, as [Leviticus 21:14] states: "A widow, a divorcee, a chalalah, or an immoral woman - these he must not marry."

‫שלא ייקח כוהן גדול‬ ‫ שנאמר "אלמנה‬,‫אלמנה‬ "‫ את אלה לא ייקח‬,‫וגרושה וחללה זונה‬ .(‫יד‬,‫)ויקרא כא‬

For a High Priest not to have sexual relations with a widow even outside the context of marriage, because by doing so he profanes her, as [Leviticus 21:15] states: "He shall not profane his progeny...." This [also] implies that he must not cause a woman eligible to marry a priest to become ineligible [as happens through the relations described above].

‫שלא יבעול כוהן גדול‬ ‫בלא‬ ‫ואפילו‬ ,‫אלמנה‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫ מפני שמחללה‬,‫קידושים‬ ‫טו(; הרי‬,‫ בעמיו" )ויקרא כא‬,‫יחלל זרעו‬ .‫הוא מוזהר שלא לחלל כשרה‬

For a priest not to enter the Temple with hair that has grown unseemingly long, as [implied by Leviticus 10:6]: "Do not let your hair grow long."

‫שלא ייכנס כוהן למקדש‬ ‫ שנאמר "ראשיכם‬,‫פרוע ראש‬ .(‫ו‬,‫אל תפרעו" )ויקרא י‬

For a priest not to enter the Temple with torn garments, as [implied by Leviticus, ibid.]: "Do not rend your garments."

‫שלא ייכנס כוהן למקדש‬ ‫שנאמר‬ ,‫בגדים‬ ‫קרוע‬ .(‫ו‬,‫"ובגדיכם לא תפרומו" )ויקרא י‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

23 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

For a priest not to leave the Temple courtyard in the midst of service, as [implied by Leviticus 10:7]: "Do not depart from before the entrance to the Tent of Testimony."

‫שלא ייצא כוהן מן העזרה‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫בשעת עבודה‬ ‫"ומפתח אוהל מועד לא תצאו" )ויקרא‬ .(‫ז‬,‫י‬

For a common priest not to become impure through contact with a corpse [with the exception of the specific instances permitted by the Torah], as [Leviticus 21:1] states: "He shall not become impure [through contact with] the dead."

‫שלא ייטמא כוהן הדיוט‬ ‫ שנאמר "לנפש‬,‫לשאר מתים‬ .(‫א‬,‫לא ייטמא בעמיו" )ויקרא כא‬

For a High Priest not to become impure [through contact with any corpse], even [those of] his relatives, as [Leviticus 21:11] states: "He shall not become impure, [even] for his father and mother."

‫שלא ייטמא כוהן גדול ואפילו‬ ‫ שנאמר "לאביו‬,‫לקרוביו‬ .(‫יא‬,‫ לא ייטמא" )ויקרא כא‬,‫ולאימו‬

For a High Priest not to enter the place where a corpse is found, as [Leviticus 21:11] states: "He should not come in contact with any dead body." According to the oral tradition, we have learned that he is obligated [for violating both the prohibitions:] not to become impure and not to enter [the place of a corpse].

‫שלא ייכנס כוהן גדול עם‬ ‫ שנאמר "ועל כל נפשות‬,‫מת‬ ‫יא(; כך למדו‬,‫ לא יבוא" )ויקרא כא‬,‫מת‬ ‫ שהוא חייב בבל יבוא וחייב‬,‫מפי השמועה‬ .‫בבל ייטמא‬

For the tribe of Levi not to take a portion of Eretz Yisrael, as [Deuteronomy 18:2] states: "He shall not receive an inheritance."

‫שלא ייקח כל שבט לוי חלק‬ ‫ שנאמר "ונחלה לא‬,‫בארץ‬ .(‫ב‬,‫יהיה לו" )דברים יח‬

For the tribe of Levi not to take a portion of the spoils in the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, as [Deuteronomy 18:1] states: "The priests and the Levites shall not receive a portion or an inheritance."

‫שלא ייקח כל שבט לוי חלק‬ ,‫בביזה בשעת כיבוש הארץ‬ . . . ‫שנאמר "לא יהיה לכוהנים הלויים‬ .(‫א‬,‫חלק ונחלה" )דברים יח‬

Not to tear out hair [in mourning] for the dead, as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not make a bald spot upon your heads."

,‫שלא לעשות קורחה על מת‬ ‫שנאמר "לא תשימו קורחה‬ .(‫א‬,‫בין עיניכם—למת" )דברים יד‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

24 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to eat non-kosher animals, as [Deuteronomy 14:7] states: "Nevertheless, among those who chew the cud, these you may not eat...."

,‫שלא לאכול בהמה טמאה‬ ‫ לא‬,‫שנאמר "אך את זה‬ ;‫ד‬,‫ ממעלי הגרה" )ויקרא יא‬,‫תאכלו‬ .(‫ז‬,‫דברים יד‬

Not to eat non-kosher fish, as [Leviticus 11:11] states: "They shall be [regarded as] a detestable thing for you. Do not eat of their flesh."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לאכול דג טמא‬ ‫ יהיו לכם; מבשרם לא‬,‫"ושקץ‬ .(‫יא‬,‫תאכלו" )ויקרא יא‬

Not to eat non-kosher birds, as [Leviticus 11:13] states: "These birds you must regard as detestable. Do not eat them."

,‫שלא לאכול עוף טמא‬ ‫שנאמר "ואת אלה תשקצו מן‬ .(‫יג‬,‫ לא ייאכלו" )ויקרא יא‬,‫העוף‬

Not to eat flying insects, as [Deuteronomy 14:19] states: "Every flying insect [that is] not-kosher for you shall not be eaten."

,‫שלא לאכול שרץ העוף‬ ,‫שנאמר "כול שרץ העוף‬ .(‫יט‬,‫טמא הוא לכם" )דברים יד‬

Not to eat insects that breed on land, as [Leviticus 11:41] states: "Every insect that creeps upon the earth must be regarded as detestable. It may not be eaten."

,‫שלא לאכול שרץ הארץ‬ ‫ השורץ‬,‫שנאמר "וכל השרץ‬ ‫ לא ייאכל" )ויקרא‬,‫על הארץ—שקץ הוא‬ .(‫מא‬,‫יא‬

Not to eat anything that creeps on the earth, as [Leviticus 11:44] states: "Do not make your souls impure with any insect that creeps upon the earth."

,‫שלא לאכול רמש הארץ‬ ‫שנאמר "ולא תטמאו את‬ "‫ בכל השרץ הרומש על הארץ‬,‫נפשותיכם‬ .(‫מד‬,‫)ויקרא יא‬

Not to eat worms that breed in produce after they become exposed to the air, as [Leviticus 11:42] states: "...for any swarming creature which breeds upon the land, you shall not eat them."

‫שלא לאכול תולעת הפירות‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫כשתצא לאוויר‬ ‫ השורץ על הארץ—לא‬,‫"לכל השרץ‬ .(‫מב‬,‫תאכלום" )ויקרא יא‬

Not to eat swarming creatures that breed in the water, as [Leviticus 11:43] states: "Do not make yourselves detestable [by eating] any swarming creature."

,‫שלא לאכול שרץ המים‬ ‫ את‬,‫שנאמר "אל תשקצו‬ .(‫מג‬,‫ בכל השרץ" )ויקרא יא‬,‫נפשותיכם‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

25 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to eat carrion, as [Deuteronomy 14:21] states: "Do not eat carrion."

‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שלא לאכול מתה‬ ‫תאכלו כל נבילה" )דברים‬ .(‫כא‬,‫יד‬

Not to eat an animal with a mortal infliction (trefah), as [Exodus 22:30] states: "Do not eat flesh torn off [by a predator]."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לאכול טריפה‬ ‫"ובשר בשדה טריפה לא‬ .(‫ל‬,‫תאכלו" )שמות כב‬

Not to eat a limb from a living animal, as [Deuteronomy 12:23] states: "Do not eat the life [of an animal] with its flesh."

,‫שלא לאכול אבר מן החי‬ ,‫שנאמר "לא תאכל הנפש‬ .(‫כג‬,‫עם הבשר" )דברים יב‬

Not to eat the displaced [sciatic] nerve as [Genesis 32:33] states: "Therefore, the children of Israel do not eat the displaced nerve."

,‫שלא לאכול גיד הנשה‬ ‫שנאמר "על כן לא יאכלו בני‬ .(‫לג‬,‫ישראל את גיד הנשה" )בראשית לב‬

Not to consume blood, as [Leviticus 7:26] states: "Do not consume any blood."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לאכול דם‬ ‫ לא תאכלו" )ויקרא‬,‫"וכל דם‬ .(‫כו‬,‫יז; ויקרא ז‬,‫ג‬

Not to partake of [hard] fat, as [Leviticus 7:23] states: "Do not eat any of the fat in an ox, sheep, or goat."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לאכול חלב‬ ,‫"כל חלב שור וכשב‬ .(‫כג‬,‫ועז—לא תאכלו" )ויקרא ז‬

Not to cook meat and milk [together], as [Exodus 23:19] states: "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk."

,‫שלא לבשל בשר בחלב‬ ‫ בחלב‬,‫שנאמר "לא תבשל גדי‬ ‫כו; דברים‬,‫יט; שמות לד‬,‫אימו" )שמות כג‬ .(‫כא‬,‫יד‬

Not to eat meat and milk [together], as [Exodus 34:26] states: "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Based on the oral tradition, we have learned that one [of these verses] implies a prohibition against cooking [the two together], and the other, a prohibition against eating [from the combination].

,‫שלא לאכול בשר בחלב‬ ‫ בחלב‬,‫שנאמר "לא תבשל גדי‬ ‫כו(; כך למדו‬,‫אימו" פעם שנייה )שמות לד‬ ‫ שאחד לאיסור בישול ואחד‬,‫מפי השמועה‬ .‫לאיסור אכילה‬

Not to partake of the meat of an ox that was stoned to death, as [Exodus 21:28] states: "And do not eat its flesh."

‫שלא לאכול בשר שור‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולא ייאכל‬,‫הנסקל‬ .(‫כח‬,‫את בשרו" )שמות כא‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

26 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to eat bread made from newly grown produce before Pesach, as [Leviticus 23:14] states: "[Until that day,...] you may not eat bread..."

‫שלא לאכול פת תבואה‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫חדשה קודם הפסח‬ .(‫יד‬,‫ לא תאכלו" )ויקרא כג‬. . . ‫"ולחם‬

Not to eat roasted grain from newly grown produce before Pesach, as [Leviticus, ibid.] continues: "[Until that day,...] you may not eat... roasted grain..."

,‫שלא לאכול קלי מן החדש‬ "‫ לא תאכלו‬. . . ‫שנאמר "וקלי‬ .(‫יד‬,‫)ויקרא כג‬

Not to eat fresh grain from newly grown produce before Pesach, as [Leviticus, ibid.] continues: "[Until that day,...] you may not eat... fresh grain."

‫שלא לאכול כרמל מתבואה‬ ‫ שנאמר "וכרמל לא‬,‫חדשה‬ .(‫יד‬,‫תאכלו" )ויקרא כג‬

Not to eat orlah for three years, as [Leviticus

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לאכול עורלה‬ ‫ יהיה לכם‬,‫"שלוש שנים‬ .(‫כג‬,‫ערלים—לא ייאכל" )ויקרא יט‬

19:23] states: "For three years, you must regard its fruit as a forbidden growth. It may not be eaten." Not to eat mixed species planted in a vineyard, as [Deuteronomy 22:9] states: "...lest the yield of the crops you planted and the fruit of the vineyard shall become forfeit." This refers to a prohibition against eating [such produce].

,‫שלא לאכול כלאי הכרם‬ ‫ המלאה‬,‫שנאמר "פן תקדש‬ ‫ הכרם" )דברים‬,‫ ותבואת‬,‫הזרע אשר תזרע‬ .‫ט(; זה הוא איסור אכילה‬,‫כב‬

Not to drink wine used for idolatrous libations, as [Deuteronomy 32:38] states: "...who ate the fat of their sacrifices and drank the wine of their libations."a

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לשתות יין נסך‬ ,‫"אשר חלב זבחימו יאכלו‬ .(‫לח‬,‫ישתו יין נסיכם" )דברים לב‬

Not to eat or drink like a glutton and a drunkard, as [Deuteronomy 21:20] states: "This son of ours is a glutton and a drunkard."9

‫שלא לאכול ולשתות דרך‬ ‫ שנאמר "בננו זה‬,‫זולל וסובא‬ .(‫כ‬,‫ וסובא" )דברים כא‬,‫ זולל‬. . .

Not to eat on the day of the fast [of Yom Kippur], as [Leviticus 23:29] states: "For any person who does not afflict himself [on that day]...."

,‫שלא לאכול ביום הצום‬ ‫שנאמר "כי כל הנפש אשר לא‬ .(‫כט‬,‫תעונה" )ויקרא כג‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

27 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to partake of chametz on Pesach, as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat chametz."

,‫שלא לאכול חמץ בפסח‬ "‫ חמץ‬,‫שנאמר "לא ייאכל‬ .(‫ג‬,‫)שמות יג‬

Not to eat a mixture of chametz, as [Exodus 12:20] states: "Do not eat any leavened matter."a

,‫שלא לאכול תערובת חמץ‬ ‫ לא‬,‫שנאמר "כל מחמצת‬ .(‫כ‬,‫תאכלו" )שמות יב‬

Not to eat chametz after noontime on the fourteenth [of Nisan], as [Deuteronomy 16:3] states: "Do not eat chametz with it."a

‫שלא לאכול חמץ אחר חצות‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫יום ארבעה עשר‬ .(‫ג‬,‫"לא תאכל עליו חמץ" )דברים טז‬

Not to have chametz seen [in one's possession during Pesach], as [Exodus 13:7] states: "No chametz and no leaven may be seen in your territories."

‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שלא ייראה חמץ‬ .(‫ז‬,‫ייראה לך חמץ" )שמות יג‬

Not to have chametz found [in one's possession during Pesach], as [Exodus 13:7] states: "No chametz may be found in your homes."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא יימצא חמץ‬ "‫ לא יימצא בבתיכם‬,‫"שאור‬ .(‫יט‬,‫)שמות יב‬

For a Nazarite not to drink wine or partake of anything in which wine was mixed and has the taste of wine, as [Numbers 6:3] states: "He shall not drink any grape beverage." [This prohibition applies] even if the wine or other beverage with which the wine was mixed has become sour, as the above verse states: "He may not drink vinegar from wine or wine-brandy."

‫ ולא דבר‬,‫שלא ישתה הנזיר יין‬ ,‫שנתערב בו יין וטעמו כטעם יין‬ ;(‫ג‬,‫שנאמר "וכל משרת ענבים" )במדבר ו‬ ‫ואפילו החמיץ היין או דבר שנתערב בו‬ ‫ שנאמר "חומץ יין‬,‫ הרי זה אסור עליו‬,‫היין‬ .(‫וחומץ שיכר לא ישתה" )שם‬

[For a Nazarite] not to eat fresh grapes, as [Numbers, ibid.] states: "[He shall not eat] fresh... grapes."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא יאכל ענבים לחים‬ "‫ לא יאכל‬. . . ‫"וענבים לחים‬ .(‫ג‬,‫)במדבר ו‬

[For a Nazarite] not to eat raisins, as [Numbers, ibid.] states: "[He shall not eat]... dried

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא יאכל ענבים יבשים‬ .(‫ג‬,‫"ויבשים לא יאכל" )במדבר ו‬

grapes."

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

28 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

[For a Nazarite] not to eat grape seeds, as [Numbers 6:4] states: "He shall not eat [anything from wine grapes] from its seeds...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא יאכל חרצנים‬ "‫ לא יאכל‬. . . ‫"מחרצנים‬ .(‫ד‬,‫)במדבר ו‬

[For a Nazarite] not to eat grape peels, as [Numbers, ibid.] continues: "He shall not eat [anything from wine grapes,...] to its peels."

‫ שנאמר "ועד‬,‫שלא יאכל זוגין‬ .(‫ד‬,‫זג—לא יאכל" )במדבר ו‬

For a Nazarite not to become impure through contact with a dead body, as [Numbers 6:7] states: "He may not become impure even for his father, his mother,...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ייטמא הנזיר למת‬ ‫ לא ייטמא‬. . . ‫"לאביו ולאימו‬ .(‫ז‬,‫ במותם" )במדבר ו‬,‫להם‬

[For a Nazarite] not to enter below any roof beneath which a corpse is found, as [Leviticus 21:11] states: "He shall not come into contact with any dead body."10

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ייכנס באוהל המת‬ ‫ לא יבוא" )במדבר‬,‫"על נפש מת‬

[For a Nazarite] not to shave, as [Numbers 6:5] states: "A razor shall not pass upon his

‫ שנאמר "תער‬,‫שלא יגלח הנזיר‬ ‫לא יעבור על ראשו" )במדבר‬

head."

.(‫ו‬,‫ו‬

.(‫ה‬,‫ו‬

Not to harvest one's entire field, as [Leviticus 23:22] states: "Do not completely harvest the ends of your fields."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לקצור כל השדה‬ "‫"לא תכלה פאת שדך בקוצרך‬ .(‫כב‬,‫)ויקרא כג‬

Not to gather the [individual] stalks that fall in the harvest, as [Leviticus, ibid.] states: "Do not gather the leket of your harvest."

‫השיבולים‬ ‫ללקוט‬ ‫שלא‬ ,‫קצירה‬ ‫בשעת‬ ‫הנופלות‬ ‫ לא תלקט" )ויקרא‬,‫שנאמר "ולקט קצירך‬ .(‫כב‬,‫ט; ויקרא כג‬,‫יט‬

Not to harvest underdeveloped grape clusters, as [Leviticus 19:10] states: "Do not pick the incompletely formed grape clusters in your vine-yard."

,‫שלא לבצור עוללות הכרם‬ "‫שנאמר "וכרמך לא תעולל‬ .(‫י‬,‫)ויקרא יט‬

Not to gather individual [fallen grapes], as [Leviticus, ibid.] states: "Do not gather the individual [fallen grapes] in your vineyard."

,‫שלא ללקוט פרט הכרם‬ "‫שנאמר "ופרט כרמך לא תלקט‬ .(‫י‬,‫)ויקרא יט‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

29 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to take a sheaf which has been forgotten, as [Deuteronomy 24:19] states: "Do not go back to take it." [This prohibition also applies to] all trees, as [ibid. 24:20] states: "Do not carefully re-harvest it."

,‫שלא ליקח עומר השכחה‬ "‫שנאמר "לא תשוב לקחתו‬ ‫יט(; וכן לכל האילנות יש‬,‫)דברים כד‬ "‫ שנאמר "לא תפאר אחריך‬,‫שכחה‬ .(‫כ‬,‫)דברים כד‬

Not to sow mixed species of seeds together, as [Leviticus 19:19] states: "Do not sow different species of seed in your field."

,‫שלא לזרוע כלאי זרעים‬ ‫שנאמר "שדך לא תזרע‬ .(‫יט‬,‫כלאיים" )ויקרא יט‬

Not to sow grain or vegetables in a vineyard, as [Deuteronomy 22:9] states: "Do not plant different species in your vineyard."

‫שלא לזרוע תבואה או ירק‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תזרע‬,‫בכרם‬ .(‫ט‬,‫ כלאיים" )דברים כב‬,‫כרמך‬

Not to crossbreed different species of animals, as [Leviticus 19:19] states: "Do not crossbreed your livestock with other species."

‫שלא להרביע בהמה מין בשאינו‬ ‫ שנאמר "בהמתך לא תרביע‬,‫מינו‬ .(‫יט‬,‫כלאיים" )ויקרא יט‬

Not to work with two different species of animals together, as [Deuteronomy 22:10] states: "Do not plow with an ox and a donkey together."

‫שלא יעשה מלאכה בשני מיני‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫בהמה כאחד‬ ‫ יחדיו" )דברים‬,‫תחרוש בשור ובחמור‬ .(‫י‬,‫כב‬

Not to muzzle an ox while it is working with produce from which it would eat and derive benefit, as [Deuteronomy 25:4] states: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading grain."

‫שלא לחסום בהמה בשעת‬ ‫מלאכה בדבר שאוכלת ממנו‬ "‫ בדישו‬,‫ שנאמר "לא תחסום שור‬,‫ונהנית‬ .(‫ד‬,‫)דברים כה‬

Not to cultivate the land in the seventh year, as [Leviticus 25:4] states: "Do not sow your field." Not to cultivate trees in the seventh year, as [Leviticus, ibid.] continues: "Do not prune your vineyard."

,‫שלא לעבוד אדמה בשביעית‬ ‫שנאמר "שדך לא תזרע" )ויקרא‬ .(‫ד‬,‫כה‬ ,‫שלא לעבוד אילן בשביעית‬ "‫שנאמר "וכרמך לא תזמור‬ .(‫ד‬,‫)ויקרא כה‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

30 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to reap crops that grow on their own in the seventh year in the same manner as in an ordinary year, as [Leviticus 25:5] states: "Do not reap the crops of your harvest that grow on their own."

‫שלא לקצור ספיחי שביעית‬ ,‫כדרך שקוצרין בשאר השנים‬ "‫שנאמר "את ספיח קצירך לא תקצור‬ .(‫ה‬,‫)ויקרא כה‬

Not to reap fruit that grows on trees in the seventh year in the same manner as in an ordinary year, as [Leviticus, ibid.] continues: "...and do not gather the grapes of your vines from which you must abstain."

‫שלא לאסוף פירות האילן‬ ‫בשביעית כדרך שאוספין בכל‬ ‫ שנאמר "ואת עינבי נזיריך לא‬,‫שנה ושנה‬ .(‫ה‬,‫תבצור" )ויקרא כה‬

Not to do [agricultural] work - whether with land or trees - in the Jubilee year, as [Leviticus 25:11] states: "Do not sow...."

‫שלא לעבוד בשנת יובל בין‬ ‫ שנאמר בה‬,‫אדמה בין אילן‬ .(‫יא‬,‫"לא תזרעו" )ויקרא כה‬

Not to reap crops that grow on their own in the Jubilee year in the same manner as in an ordinary year, as [Leviticus, ibid.] states: "Do not harvest the crops which grow on their own."

‫שלא לקצור ספיחי יובל‬ ‫ שנאמר בו‬,‫כשאר השנים‬ .(‫יא‬,‫"לא תקצרו את ספיחיה" )ויקרא כה‬

Not to reap the fruit of the Jubilee year in the same manner as in an ordinary year, as [Leviticus, ibid.] continues: "...and do not gather the

‫שלא לאסוף פירות יובל‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫כאסיפת שאר השנים‬ ‫בו "ולא תבצרו את נזיריה" )ויקרא‬ .(‫יא‬,‫כה‬

grapes of your vines from which you must abstain." Not to sell a field in Eretz Yisrael in perpetuity, as [Leviticus 25:23] states: "Do not make a permanent sale of the land."a

‫שלא למכור שדה בארץ‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫ישראל לצמיתות‬ ‫ לא תימכר לצמיתות" )ויקרא‬,‫"והארץ‬ .(‫כג‬,‫כה‬

Not to change [the purpose of] the open areas and fields [granted to] the Levites, as [Leviticus 25:34] states: "The fields of the open areas [surrounding] their cities shall not be sold." According to the oral tradition, we have learned that this verse is a prohibition against changing [the purpose for which these lands are used].

‫שלא לשנות מגרשי הלויים‬ ‫ שנאמר "ושדה‬,‫ושדותיהם‬ ;(‫לד‬,‫ לא יימכר" )ויקרא כה‬,‫מגרש עריהם‬ ‫מפי השמועה למדו שזו אזהרה שלא‬ .‫ישתנה‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

31 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to forsake the Levites, as [Deuteronomy 12:191 states: "Be very careful not to abandon the Levite." Rather, we must give them the portions they are due and rejoice with them on each of the festivals.

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לעזוב הלויים‬ ‫ פן תעזוב את‬,‫"הישמר לך‬ ‫ אלא נותנין להם‬,(‫יט‬,‫הלוי" )דברים יב‬ ‫מתנותיהם ומשמחים אותם בהן בכל רגל‬ .‫ורגל‬

Not to demand the repayment of a loan after the seventh year has passed, as [Deuteronomy 15:2] states: "Do not demand payment from your fellow man."

‫שלא יתבע הלוואה שעברה עליה‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא ייגוש את‬,‫שביעית‬ .(‫ב‬,‫ריעהו ואת אחיו" )דברים טו‬

Not to withhold lending money to a poor person because of the advent of the shemitah year, as [Deuteronomy 15:9] states "Be careful, lest an idea...[occur to you....]" This is an accepted general principle: Whenever [the Torah] uses the expressions "Be careful," "Lest," or "Do not," a negative commandment is involved.

‫שלא יימנע מלהלוות לעני‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫מפני השמיטה‬ .(‫ט‬,‫"הישמר לך פן יהיה דבר" )דברים טו‬ ‫זה הכלל—כל מקום שנאמר הישמר או‬. .‫ אינו אלא מצות לא תעשה‬,‫פן או אל‬

Not to withhold lending money to a poor person or providing him with his needs, as [Deuteronomy 15:7] states: "Do not harden your heart." Thus, a person who gives charity fulfills a positive commandment, while one who spurns the opportunity to give not only fails to perform a positive commandment, but also transgresses a negative commandment.

‫שלא יימנע מלהחיות לעני‬ ,‫ומליתן לו מה שהוא צריך‬ ‫שנאמר "לא תאמץ את לבבך" )דברים‬ ‫ז(; נמצא הנותן צדקה עושה מצות‬,‫טו‬ ‫ והמעלים עיניו מן הצדקה יתר על‬,‫עשה‬ .‫שביטל עשה עבר על לא תעשה‬

Not to send away a Hebrew servant emptyhanded when he goes free, as [Deuteronomy 15:13] states: "Do not send him away empty-handed."

‫שלא לשלח עבד עברי ריקם‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫כשייצא חופשי‬ .(‫יג‬,‫ ריקם" )דברים טו‬,‫תשלחנו‬

Not to demand payment of a debt from a poor person when one knows that he is impoverished, nor to cause him grief, as [Exodus 22:24] states: "Do not behave like a creditor towards him."

‫שלא יתבע העני בחובו‬ ‫ ולא יצר‬,‫כשיידע שהוא עני‬ ‫ כנושה" )שמות‬,‫ שנאמר "לא תהיה לו‬,‫לו‬ .(‫כד‬,‫כב‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

32 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to lend at interest to a Jew, as [Leviticus 25:37] states: "Do not lend him your money at

‫בריבית‬ ‫להלוות‬ ‫שלא‬ ‫"את‬ ‫שנאמר‬ ,‫לישראל‬ ‫ בנשך" )ויקרא‬,‫כספך—לא תיתן לו‬ .(‫לז‬,‫כה‬

Not to borrow with interest, as [inferred from Deuteronomy 23:20, which] states: "Do not take interest from your brother." According to the oral tradition, this verse is interpreted as a prohibition, forbidding a borrower from paying interest to a lender.

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ללוות בריבית‬ ‫"לא תשיך לאחיך" )דברים‬ ‫ שזו אזהרה‬,‫כ(; כך למדו מפי השמועה‬,‫כג‬ .‫ללווה שלא יינשך למלווה‬

Not to intermediate between the borrower and lender when interest is involved, not to act as a guarantor or a witness [to such a loan], nor to draw up a contract for it, as [Exodus 22:24] states: "Do not charge him interest."

‫שלא להשית יד בין לווה ומלווה‬ ‫ ולא‬,‫ ולא להיות ערב‬,‫בריבית‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫ ולא לכתוב שטר ביניהם‬,‫עד‬ .(‫כד‬,‫ נשך" )שמות כב‬,‫תשימון עליו‬

Not to delay payment of a worker, as [Leviticus 19:13] states: "Do not hold back a worker's wages overnight."

,‫שלא לאחר פעולת שכיר‬ ‫שנאמר "לא תלין פעולת‬ .(‫יג‬,‫ איתך" )ויקרא יט‬,‫שכיר‬

Not to take security from a debtor by force, as [Deuteronomy 24:10] states: "Do not enter his home to take security."

,‫שלא ימשכן בעל חוב בזרוע‬ ,‫שנאמר "לא תבוא אל ביתו‬ .(‫י‬,‫לעבוט עבוטו" )דברים כד‬

Not to withhold the return of security to its owner when he needs it, as [Deuteronomy 24:12] states: "Do not lie down [to sleep] with his security" - i.e., do not lie down while holding his security. Instead, return it to him at night when he needs it at night.

‫שלא למנוע העבוט מבעליו העני‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫בעת שהוא צריך לו‬ ;(‫יב‬,‫ בעבוטו" )דברים כד‬,‫"לא תשכב‬ ‫ אלא‬,‫ לא תשכב ועבוטו עימך‬,‫כלומר‬ ‫ הואיל והוא צריך לו‬,‫תשיבנו לו בלילה‬ .‫בלילה‬

Not to take security from a widow, as [Deuteronomy 24:17] states: "Do not take a widow's garment as security."

,‫שלא למשכן האלמנה‬ ‫ בגד‬,‫שנאמר "ולא תחבול‬ .(‫יז‬,‫אלמנה" )דברים כד‬

Not to take utensils used in the preparation of food, as [Deuteronomy 24:6] states: "Do not take either the upper or lower millstone as a pledge."

‫שלא לחבול כלים שעושין‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫בהם אוכל נפש‬ .(‫ו‬,‫ ורכב" )דברים כד‬,‫יחבול ריחיים‬

interest."

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

33 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to kidnap a Jewish person, as [Exodus 20:15] states: "Do not steal." This refers to kidnapping.

,‫שלא לגנוב נפש מישראל‬ ‫שנאמר "לא תגנוב" )שמות‬ .‫טז(; זה גונב נפש‬,‫יב; דברים ה‬,‫כ‬

Not to steal, as [Leviticus 19:11] states: "Do not steal." This refers to stealing money.

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לגנוב ממון‬ ;(‫יא‬,‫ תגנובו" )ויקרא יט‬,‫"לא‬ .‫זו היא גניבת ממון‬

Not to rob, as [Leviticus 19:13] states: "Do not rob."

‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שלא לגזול‬ .(‫יג‬,‫תגזול" )ויקרא יט‬

Not to alter land boundaries, as [Deuteronomy 19:14] states: "Do not remove your neighbor's landmark."

‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שלא להסיג גבול‬ ‫תסיג גבול ריעך" )דברים‬

Not to wrong [a colleague by withholding his due], as [Leviticus 19:13] states: "Do not wrong your neighbor."

‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שלא לעשוק‬ ‫תעשוק את ריעך" )ויקרא‬

.(‫יד‬,‫יט‬

.(‫יג‬,‫יט‬

Not to deny [a just claim], as [Leviticus 19:11] states: "Do not deny your neighbor's [claim]."

,‫שלא לכחש בממון חברו‬ "‫תכחשו‬ ‫"לא‬ ‫שנאמר‬ .(‫יא‬,‫)ויקרא יט‬

Not to swear falsely in denying a monetary [obligation to] a colleague, as [Leviticus, ibid.] states: "Do not swear [falsely]" - i.e., do not swear falsely about money owed to a colleague.

‫שלא לישבע על כפירת ממון‬ "‫ שנאמר "לא תשקרו‬,‫חברו‬ ‫ לא תישבע על‬,‫יא(; כלומר‬,‫)ויקרא יט‬ .‫שקר בממון שיש לחברך בידך‬

Not to cheat in business, as [Leviticus 25:14] states: "One man should not cheat his brother." Not to hurt someone with words, as [Leviticus 25:17] states: "And one man shall not wrong another." This [prohibition refers to] hurting someone with words.

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא יונה במקח וממכר‬ ‫ איש את אחיו" )ויקרא‬,‫"אל תונו‬ .(‫יד‬,‫כה‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא יונה בדברים‬ "‫"ולא תונו איש את עמיתו‬ .‫יז(; זו אונאת דברים‬,‫)ויקרא כה‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

34 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to hurt a convert with words, as [Exodus 22:20] states: "And do not wrong a convert...."

,‫שלא להונות את הגר בדברים‬ ‫שנאמר "וגר לא תונה" )שמות‬ .(‫כ‬,‫כב‬

Not to cheat a convert in business, as [Exodus, ibid.] continues: "...nor oppress him."

‫שלא להונות את הגר במקח‬ "‫ שנאמר "ולא תלחצנו‬,‫וממכר‬ .(‫כ‬,‫)שמות כב‬

Not to return a slave who fled to Eretz Yisrael to his master [who lives] in the Diaspora, as [Deuteronomy 23:16] states: "Do not deliver a servant to his master."

‫שלא להחזיר עבד שברח לארץ‬ ‫שבחוצה‬ ‫לאדוניו‬ ‫ישראל‬ ‫ אל‬,‫ שנאמר "לא תסגיר עבד‬,‫לארץ‬ .(‫טז‬,‫אדוניו" )דברים כג‬

Not to wrong such a servant, as [Deuteronomy 23:17] states: "He shall dwell in your midst, in the place which he selects... as he sees fit. Do not wrong him."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא להונות עבד זה‬ ‫ בטוב‬. . . ‫"עימך יישב בקרבך‬ .(‫יז‬,‫ תוננו" )דברים כג‬,‫לו; לא‬

Not to oppress any widow or orphan, as [Exodus 22:21] states: "Do not oppress any widow or orphan."a

,‫שלא לענות יתום ואלמנה‬ ‫ לא‬,‫שנאמר "כל אלמנה ויתום‬ .(‫כא‬,‫תענון" )שמות כב‬

Not to have a Hebrew servant perform servile tasks, as [Leviticus 25:39] states: "Do not work him like a slave."

‫שלא לעבוד בעבד עברי כעבודת‬ ,‫ שנאמר "לא תעבוד בו‬,‫עבד‬ .(‫לט‬,‫עבודת עבד" )ויקרא כה‬

Not to sell [a Hebrew servant] as slaves are sold, as [Leviticus 25:42] states: "Do not sell him as slaves are sold."

‫שלא למכור אותו ממכרת‬ ,‫ שנאמר "לא יימכרו‬,‫עבד‬ .(‫מב‬,‫ממכרת עבד" )ויקרא כה‬

Not to make a Hebrew servant perform rigorous work, as [Leviticus 25:43] states: "Do not rule over him with rigor."

,‫שלא לעבוד בעבד עברי בפרך‬ "‫ בפרך‬,‫שנאמר "לא תרדה בו‬ .(‫מו‬,‫מג; ויקרא כה‬,‫)ויקרא כה‬

Not to allow a gentile [who purchased a Hebrew servant] to make him work rigorously, as [Leviticus 25:53] states: "He shall not rule over him with rigor."

‫שלא להניח הגוי לעבוד בעבד‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫עברי הנמכר לו בפרך‬ .(‫נג‬,‫ לעיניך" )ויקרא כה‬,‫"לא ירדנו בפרך‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

35 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to sell a Hebrew maidservant to another person, as [Exodus 21:8] states: "He shall have no power to sell her."

‫שלא למכור אמה עברייה‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא ימשול‬,‫לאחר‬ .(‫ח‬,‫ בבגדו בה" )שמות כא‬,‫למוכרה‬

Not to withhold from a Hebrew maidservant who has been designated as a bride living expenses, clothing, or conjugal rights, as [Exodus 21:10] states: "He may not diminish her living expenses, clothing, or conjugal rights." The above applies also to other wives.

‫שלא למנוע מאמה עברייה‬ ,‫היעודה שאר כסות ועונה‬ "‫ לא יגרע‬,‫שנאמר "שארה כסותה ועונתה‬ .‫י(; והוא הדין לשאר הנשים‬,‫)שמות כא‬

Not to sell a yefat to'ar, as a maidservant as [Deuteronomy 21:14] states: "Do not sell her."

,‫שלא למכור אשת יפת תואר‬ "‫שנאמר "ומכור לא תמכרנה‬ .(‫יד‬,‫)דברים כא‬

Not to force a yefat to'ar to serve as a maidservant, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] continues: "Do not rule over her."

‫שלא לכבוש אשת יפת תואר‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תתעמר‬,‫שפחה‬ .(‫יד‬,‫בה" )דברים כא‬

Not to covet, as [Exodus 20:14] states: "Do not be envious of your neighbor's wife."

‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שלא לחמוד‬ ‫ אשת ריעך" )שמות‬,‫תחמוד‬ .(‫יז‬,‫יג; דברים ה‬,‫כ‬

Not to desire, as [Deuteronomy 5:18] states:

‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שלא להתאוות‬ ‫תתאווה בית ריעך" )דברים‬

"Do not desire your neighbor's house."

.(‫יז‬,‫ה‬ For a worker who is harvesting crops not to eat from the unpicked produce before he has finished work, as [Deuteronomy 23:26] states: "Do not lift a sickle...."

‫שלא יאכל השכיר שלא בשעת‬ ‫גמר מלאכה מן המחובר שהוא‬ "‫ שנאמר "וחרמש לא תניף‬,‫עושה בו‬ .(‫כו‬,‫)דברים כג‬

For a worker not to take more than what he eats [from the produce he harvests], as [Deuteronomy 23:25] states: "Do not put any into your receptacles."

‫שלא ייקח השכיר יתר על‬ ‫ שנאמר "ואכלת‬,‫אכילתו‬ .(‫כה‬,‫ענבים כנפשך שובעך" )דברים כג‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

36 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to ignore a lost object, as [Deuteronomy 22:3] states: "You may not ignore it."

,‫שלא יתעלם מן האבידה‬ "‫ להתעלם‬,‫שנאמר "לא תוכל‬ .(‫ג‬,‫)דברים כב‬

Not to leave an animal fallen under its load on the road, as [Deuteronomy 22:4] states: "You may not watch your neighbor's donkey...."

‫שלא להניח הבהמה רובצת תחת‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תראה‬,‫משאה בדרך‬ .(‫ד‬,‫חמור אחיך" )ראה דברים כב‬

Not to falsify measurements, as [Leviticus 19:35] states: "Do not act deceitfully in judgment...." According to the oral tradition, we have learned that this verse prohibits acting deceitfully regarding measurements.

,‫שלא לעשות עוול במידה‬ ,‫שנאמר "לא תעשו עוול‬ ‫לה(; מפי‬,‫ במידה" )ויקרא יט‬,‫במשפט‬ ‫השמועה למדו שהכתוב מזהיר לא תעשו‬ .‫עוול במשפט המידה‬

Not to possess two sets of weights and measures, as [Deuteronomy 25:13] states: "You may not have in your home...."

‫שלא להיות אצלנו איפה‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫ואיפה אבן ואבן‬ ‫ איפה ואיפה" )דברים‬,‫יהיה לך בביתך‬ .(‫יד‬,‫כה‬

Not to act deceitfully in judgment, as [Leviticus 19:15] states: "Do not pervert justice."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לעוול המשפט‬ "‫"לא תעשו עוול במשפט‬ .(‫טו‬,‫)ויקרא יט‬

Not to accept bribes, as [Exodus 23:8] states: "Do not take a bribe."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ליקח שוחד‬ ‫ לא תיקח" )שמות‬,‫"ושוחד‬ .(‫ח‬,‫כג‬

Not to honor a man of stature in judgment, as [Leviticus 19:15] states: "Do not show respect to a great man."

,‫שלא לכבד גדול בדין‬ ‫שנאמר "ולא תהדר פני‬ .(‫טו‬,‫גדול" )ויקרא יט‬

For a judge not to fear rendering [a just] judgment because of a wicked man, as [Deuteronomy 1:17] states: "Do not fear anyone."

‫שלא יירא הדיין בדין מאדם‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תגורו מפני‬,‫רע‬ .(‫יז‬,‫איש" )דברים א‬

Not to have mercy on a poor person in judgment, as [Exodus 23:3] states: "And do not favor a poor man in his cause."

,‫שלא לרחם על עני בדין‬ "‫ לא תהדר בריבו‬,‫שנאמר "ודל‬ .(‫ג‬,‫)שמות כג‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

37 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to pervert judgment against a sinner, as [implied by Exodus 23:6, which] states: "Do not pervert the judgment of a poor person." This refers to someone who is poor with regard to [the observance of] the mitzvot.

‫שלא להטות משפט אדם‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תטה‬,‫חוטא‬ ‫ו(; למדו מפי‬,‫משפט אביונך" )שמות כג‬ .‫ שזה אביון במצוות‬,‫השמועה‬

Not to have pity on a person who has caused damages in judgments concerning fines, as [Deuteronomy 25:12] states: "Let your eye not pity."

‫שלא לרחם על המזיק בדיני‬ ,‫ שנאמר "לא תחוס‬,‫קנסות‬ .(‫כא‬,‫עינך" )דברים יט‬

Not to pervert the justice due converts or orphans, as [Deuteronomy 24:17] states: "Do not pervert the judgment of a convert or an orphan."

‫שלא להטות משפט גרים‬ ,‫ שנאמר "לא תטה‬,‫ויתומים‬ .(‫יז‬,‫משפט גר יתום" )דברים כד‬

Not to listen to one litigant in the absence of the other, as [Exodus 23:1] states: "Do not hear a false report."

‫שלא לשמוע מאחד מבעלי‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫דינין ואין חברו עימו‬ .(‫א‬,‫ שמע שוא" )שמות כג‬,‫"לא תישא‬

Not to render a conviction in a capital case when there is only a majority of one, as [Exodus 23:2] states: "Do not follow the majority to do evil."

‫שלא לנטות אחרי רבים בדיני‬ ‫ אם היו המחייבין יתר‬,‫נפשות‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תהיה אחרי‬,‫על המזכין אחד‬ .(‫ב‬,‫ לרעות" )שמות כג‬,‫רבים‬

For a person who argued in favor of acquittal in a capital case not to argue for a conviction, as [Exodus, ibid.] states: "Do not speak up in a trial to

‫שלא ילמד חובה מי שלימד‬ ,‫זכות תחילה בדיני נפשות‬ "‫ לנטות‬,‫שנאמר "לא תענה על ריב‬ .(‫ב‬,‫)שמות כג‬

influence...."b Not to appoint as a judge a man who is unlearned in the Torah, even if he is learned in other disciplines, as [Deuteronomy 1:17] states: "Do not show favoritism regarding judgment."

‫שלא למנות בדיינין אדם‬ ‫ אף‬,‫שאינו חכם בדברי תורה‬ ,‫על פי שהוא חכם בחכמות אחרות‬ ‫שנאמר "לא תכירו פנים במשפט" )דברים‬ .(‫יז‬,‫א‬

Not to give false testimony, as [Exodus 20:13] states: "Do not give false testimony against your neighbor."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא להעיד בשקר‬ "‫"לא תענה בריעך עד שקר‬ .(‫יב‬,‫)שמות כ‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

38 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

For a sinner not to act as a witness, as [Exodus 23:1] states: "Do not conspire with a wicked person to be a corrupt witness."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא יעיד בעל עבירה‬ ‫ להיות‬,‫"אל תשת ידך עם רשע‬ .(‫א‬,‫עד חמס" )שמות כג‬

For a relative not to act as a witness, as [Deuteronomy 24:16] states: "Fathers shall not die because of children." According to the oral tradition, we have learned [that the verse teaches that] fathers should not die through the testimony of [their] sons. The same law applies regarding other relatives.

‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שלא יעיד קרוב‬ ‫יומתו אבות על בנים" )דברים‬ ‫טז(; מפי השמועה למדו שלא יומתו‬,‫כד‬ ‫ והוא הדין לשאר‬,‫אבות בעדות בנים‬ .‫הקרובים‬

Not to render a decision based on the testimony of a single witness, as [Deuteronomy 19:15] states: "A single witness shall not rise up against a person."

‫שלא לכרות הדין על פי עד‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא יקום עד‬,‫אחד‬ .(‫טו‬,‫אחד באיש" )דברים יט‬

Not to kill an innocent person, as [Exodus 20:13] states: "Do not murder."

‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שלא להרוג נקי‬ ‫יב; דברים‬,‫תרצח" )שמות כ‬ .(‫טז‬,‫ה‬

Not to render a decision on the basis of a presumption, unless two witnesses observe the actual matter, as [Exodus 23:7] states: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."a

,‫שלא לחתוך הדין באומד הדעת‬ ‫עד שיראו שני עדים גופו של‬ "‫ שנאמר "ונקי וצדיק אל תהרוג‬,‫דבר‬ .(‫ז‬,‫)שמות כג‬

For a witness not to render a decision in a capital case in which he testified, as [Numbers 35:30] states: "One witness shall not testify in a capital case..."

‫שלא יורה העד בדין שהעיד‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫בו בדיני נפשות‬ ‫ לא יענה בנפש" )במדבר‬,‫"ועד אחד‬ .(‫ל‬,‫לה‬

Not to execute a person liable for execution before he stands trial, as [Numbers 35:12] states: "The murderer shall not die [until he stands before the congregation]."

‫שלא להרוג מחוייב הריגה‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫קודם שיעמוד בדין‬ "‫ עד עומדו לפני העדה‬,‫"ולא ימות הרוצח‬ .(‫יב‬,‫)במדבר לה‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

39 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to have pity on a pursuer. Rather, he should be killed before he kills or rapes the person he is pursuing, as [Deuteronomy 25:12] states: "And you shall cut off her hand. Show no pity."

‫ אלא‬,‫שלא לחוס על הרודף‬ ‫הורגין אותו קודם שיגיע לנרדף‬ ,‫ שנאמר "וקצותה‬,‫ויהרגנו או יגלה ערוותו‬ ‫ עינך" )דברים‬,‫לא תחוס‬. :‫את כפה‬ .(‫יב‬,‫כה‬

Not to punish a person forced [to commit a sin], as [Deuteronomy 22:26] states: "Do not do anything to the maiden."a

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לענוש האנוס‬ "‫"ולנערה לא תעשה דבר‬ .(‫כו‬,‫)דברים כב‬

Not to take a ransom from a murderer, as [Numbers 35:31] states: "Do not take a ransom for the life of a murderer."

,‫שלא ליקח כופר מן הרוצח‬ ‫שנאמר "ולא תקחו כופר‬ .(‫לא‬,‫לנפש רוצח" )במדבר לה‬

Not to take a ransom in return for exile for a person who kills accidentally, as [Numbers 35:32] states: "And do not take a ransom [for having] to flee to his refuge city."

‫שלא ליקח כופר בגלות רוצח‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולא תקחו‬,‫בשגגה‬ ‫ לנוס אל עיר מקלטו" )במדבר‬,‫כופר‬ .(‫לב‬,‫לה‬

Not to neglect [a person] in mortal danger, as [Leviticus 19:16] states: "Do not stand still in the face of mortal danger."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לעמוד על הדם‬ "‫"לא תעמוד על דם ריעך‬ .(‫טז‬,‫)ויקרא יט‬

Not to leave obstacles, as [Deuteronomy 22:8] states: "...lest you bring blood upon your house."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא להניח מכשול‬ "‫"ולא תשים דמים בביתך‬ .(‫ח‬,‫)דברים כב‬

Not to mislead an unsuspecting person, as [Leviticus 19:14] states: "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind."

,‫שלא להכשיל תם בדרך‬ ‫ לא‬,‫שנאמר "ולפני עיוור‬ .(‫יד‬,‫תיתן מכשול" )ויקרא יט‬

Not to add lashes when whipping a person liable for such punishment, as [Deuteronomy 25:3] states: "Do not add [lashes], lest by [giving him] this additional [punishment]...."

‫שלא להוסיף במלקות המחוייב‬ ‫פן‬. :‫ שנאמר "לא יוסיף‬,‫מלקות‬ .(‫ג‬,‫יוסיף" )דברים כה‬

Not to gossip, as [Leviticus 19:16] states: "Do not go around as a gossiper among your

‫ שנאמר "לא תלך‬,‫שלא לרגל‬ .(‫טז‬,‫רכיל בעמיך" )ויקרא יט‬

people."

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

40 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to bear hatred in one's heart, as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "Do not hate your brother in your heart."

‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫שלא לשנוא בלב‬ "‫ בלבבך‬,‫תשנא את אחיך‬ .(‫יז‬,‫)ויקרא יט‬

Not to embarrass any Jewish person, as [Leviticus, ibid.] states: "You shall surely rebuke your neighbor and not bear a sin because of him."

,‫שלא להלבין פני אדם מישראל‬ ,‫שנאמר "הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך‬ .(‫יז‬,‫ולא תישא עליו חטא" )ויקרא יט‬

Not to take revenge, as [Leviticus 19:18] states: "Do not take revenge."

‫"לא‬

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לנקום‬ .(‫יח‬,‫תיקום" )ויקרא יט‬

Not to bear a grudge, as [Leviticus, ibid.]

‫"לא‬

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לנטור‬ .(‫יח‬,‫תיטור" )ויקרא יט‬

states: "Do not bear a grudge." Not to take a mother bird together with the young, as [Deuteronomy 22:6] states: "Do not take the mother bird together with the young." Not to shave the hair around a bald spot brought about by tzara’at], as [Leviticus

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא ליקח אם על הבנים‬ "‫ על הבנים‬,‫"לא תיקח האם‬ .(‫ו‬,‫)דברים כב‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לגלח שיער הנתק‬ ‫ לא יגלח" )ויקרא‬,‫"ואת הנתק‬

13:33] states: "And he shall not shave the bald spot."a

.(‫לג‬,‫יג‬

Not to remove the signs of tzara’at, as [Deuteronomy 24:8] states: "Be very careful concerning signs of tzara’at."

,‫שלא לתלוש סימני צרעת‬ "‫שנאמר "הישמר בנגע הצרעת‬ .(‫ח‬,‫)דברים כד‬

Not to till or sow the land [around] a powerful river [at which atonement was made for an unsolved murder], as [Deuteronomy 21:4] states: "...which must never be tilled and never be sown."

,‫שלא לעבוד ולזרוע בנחל איתן‬ ,‫שנאמר "אשר לא ייעבד בו‬ .(‫ד‬,‫ולא ייזרע" )דברים כא‬

Not to allow a sorcerer to live, as [Exodus 22:17] states: "Do not allow a witch to live."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא להחיות מכשף‬ ‫ לא תחייה" )שמות‬,‫"מכשפה‬ .(‫יז‬,‫כב‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

41 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

with any duties."a

‫שלא יתחייב חתן בדבר מצורכי‬ ‫ כגון צבא ושמירת‬,‫רבים כל שנתו‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא ייצא‬,‫החומה וכיוצא בהן‬ ‫ ולא יעבור עליו לכל דבר" )דברים‬,‫בצבא‬ .(‫ה‬,‫כד‬

Not to reject the authority of the court, as [Deuteronomy 17:11] states: "Do not swerve from the word which they tell you."

,‫שלא להמרות על פי בית דין‬ ‫ מכל‬,‫שנאמר "לא תסור‬ .(‫יא‬,‫הדבר" )ראה דברים יז‬

Not to add to the mitzvot of the Torah. [This applies] both to the Written Law and to its explanation conveyed by the oral tradition, as [Deuteronomy 13:1] states: "Carefully observe everything which I command you to do. Do not add to it."

‫שלא להוסיף על מצוות‬ ‫ בין תורה שבכתב בין‬,‫התורה‬ ‫ שנאמר "את כל‬,‫בפירושה שקיבלו על פה‬ ‫ אשר אנוכי מצווה אתכם—אותו‬,‫הדבר‬ ‫לא תוסף עליו" )דברים‬. :‫ לעשות‬,‫תשמרו‬ .(‫א‬,‫יג‬

Not to diminish from any of the mitzvot of the Torah, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] continues: "...and do not diminish from it."

‫שלא לגרוע מכל מצוות‬ ‫ שנאמר "ולא תגרע‬,‫התורה‬ .(‫א‬,‫ממנו" )דברים יג‬

For a groom not to be held liable for any type of public service - e.g., army, guarding the walls [of a city], and the like - as [Deuteronomy 24:5] states: "He shall not go out to the army, nor be charged

Not to curse a judge, as [Exodus 22:27] states: "Do not curse judges."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לקלל הדיין‬ ‫ לא תקלל" )שמות‬,‫"אלוהים‬ .(‫כז‬,‫כב‬

Not to curse a nasi - i.e., the king or the head of the academy in Eretz Yisrael - as [Exodus, ibid.] continues: "...and do not curse the nasi of your people."

‫ והוא‬,‫שלא לקלל הנשיא‬ ‫המלך או ראש ישיבת ארץ‬ "‫ לא תאור‬,‫ שנאמר "ונשיא בעמך‬,‫ישראל‬ .(‫כז‬,‫)שמות כב‬

Not to curse any other Jew, as [Leviticus 19:14] states: "Do not curse [even] a deaf-mute."

‫שלא לקלל אחד משאר‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תקלל‬,‫ישראל‬ .(‫יד‬,‫חירש" )ויקרא יט‬

Not to curse one's father or mother, as [Exodus 21:17] states: "One who curses his father or mother shall surely die."a

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לקלל אב ואם‬ ‫ מות‬,‫"ומקלל אביו ואימו‬ .(‫יז‬,‫יומת" )שמות כא‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

42 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to strike one's father or mother, as [Exodus 21:15] states: "One who strikes his father or mother shall surely die."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא להכות אב ואם‬ "‫ מות יומת‬,‫"ומכה אביו ואימו‬ .(‫טו‬,‫)שמות כא‬

Not to work on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 20:10] states: "Do not do any work."

,‫שלא לעשות מלאכה בשבת‬ "‫שנאמר "לא תעשה כל מלאכה‬ .(‫יג‬,‫ט; דברים ה‬,‫)שמות כ‬

Not to travel beyond the boundaries of a city on the Sabbath as travelers do, as [Exodus 16:29] states: "A person should not leave his place [on the Sabbath day]."a

‫שלא להלך חוץ לתחום‬ ‫מדינה כהולכי דרכים‬ "‫ שנאמר "אל ייצא איש ממקומו‬,‫בשבת‬ .(‫כט‬,‫)שמות טז‬

[For a court] not to inflict punishment on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 35:3] states: "Do not kindle a fire on the Sabbath day."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לענוש בשבת‬ ‫ בכול‬,‫"לא תבערו אש‬ .(‫ג‬,‫מושבותיכם" )שמות לה‬

Not to work on the first day of Pesach, as [Leviticus 23:7] states concerning it: "Do not do any servile11 work on these [days]."

‫שלא לעשות מלאכה בראשון‬ ‫ שנאמר "כל‬,‫של פסח‬ .(‫טז‬,‫ לא ייעשה בהם" )שמות יב‬,‫מלאכה‬

Not to work on the seventh day of Pesach, as [Leviticus 23:8] states concerning it: "Do not do any servile work on these [days]."

‫מלאכה‬ ‫לעשות‬ ‫שלא‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫בשביעי של פסח‬ ‫ לא ייעשה בהם" )שמות‬,‫"כל מלאכה‬ .(‫טז‬,‫יב‬

Not to work on the holiday of Shavuot, as [Leviticus 23:21] states concerning it: "Do not do any servile work."

‫שלא לעשות מלאכה בחג‬ ‫ שנאמר בו "כל‬,‫השבועות‬ ;‫כא‬,‫ לא תעשו" )ויקרא כג‬,‫מלאכת עבודה‬ .(‫כו‬,‫במדבר כח‬

Not to work on the first day of the seventh month [the day of Rosh HaShanah], as [Leviticus 23:25] states concerning it: "Do not do any servile work."

‫שלא לעשות מלאכה באחד‬ ‫ שנאמר בו‬,‫לחודש השביעי‬ ‫ לא תעשו" )ויקרא‬,‫"כל מלאכת עבודה‬ .(‫א‬,‫כה; במדבר כט‬,‫כג‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

43 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to work on Yom Kippur, as [Leviticus 23:28] states concerning it: "Do not do any servile12 work."

‫שלא לעשות מלאכה ביום‬ ‫ שנאמר בו "כל‬,‫הכיפורים‬ ‫כט; ויקרא‬,‫ לא תעשו" )ויקרא טז‬,‫מלאכה‬ .(‫ז‬,‫לא; במדבר כט‬,‫כח; ויקרא כג‬,‫כג‬

Not to work on the first day of the festival [of Sukkot], as [Leviticus 23:35] states concerning it: "Do not do any servile work."

‫מלאכה‬ ‫לעשות‬ ‫שלא‬ ‫ שנאמר בו‬,‫בראשון של חג‬ ‫ לא תעשו" )ויקרא‬,‫"כל מלאכת עבודה‬ .(‫יב‬,‫לו; במדבר כט‬,‫לה; ויקרא כג‬,‫כג‬

Not to work on the eighth day of the festival [of Sukkot], as [Leviticus 23:36] states concerning it: "Do not do any servile work."

‫שלא לעשות מלאכה ביום‬ ‫ שנאמר בו‬,‫שמיני של חג‬ ‫ לא תעשו" )ויקרא‬,‫"כל מלאכת עבודה‬ .(‫לה‬,‫לו; במדבר כט‬,‫כג‬

Not to have intimate relations with one's mother, as [Leviticus 18:7] states: "She is your mother, do not commit incest with her."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לגלות ערוות אם‬ "‫ לא תגלה ערוותה‬,‫"אימך היא‬ .(‫ז‬,‫)ויקרא יח‬

Not to have intimate relations with one's sister, as [Leviticus 18:9] states: "Do not commit incest with your sister, your father's daughter."

‫שלא לגלות ערוות אשת‬ ‫ שנאמר "ערוות אשת‬,‫אב‬ .(‫ח‬,‫ לא תגלה" )ויקרא יח‬,‫אביך‬

Not to have intimate relations with one's father's wife, as [Leviticus 18:8] states: "Do not commit incest with your father's wife."

,‫שלא לגלות ערוות אחות‬ . . . ‫שנאמר "ערוות אחותך‬ .(‫ט‬,‫לא תגלה" )ויקרא יח‬

Not to have intimate relations with a sister,13 [the daughter of] either your father or your mother, as [Leviticus 18:11] states: "She is the daughter of your father, your father's progeny, do not commit incest with her."

‫שלא לגלות ערוות אחות מן‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫האב ומן האם‬ ,‫"ערוות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך‬ ‫ ערוותה" )ויקרא‬,‫אחותך היא—לא תגלה‬ .(‫יא‬,‫יח‬

Not to have intimate relations with one's son's daughter, as [Leviticus 18:10] states: "[Do not commit] incest with your son's daughter."

,‫שלא לגלות ערוות בת הבן‬ "‫שנאמר "ערוות בת בנך‬ .(‫י‬,‫)ויקרא יח‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

44 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to have intimate relations with one's daughter's daughter, as [Leviticus, ibid.] continues: "...and do not commit incest with your daughter's daughter."

,‫שלא לגלות ערוות בת הבת‬ ‫ לא‬,‫שנאמר "או בת בתך‬ .(‫י‬,‫תגלה ערוותן" )ויקרא יח‬

Not to have intimate relations with one's daughter. Why was this prohibition not explicitly stated in the Torah? Since the Torah forbade [relations with] one's daughter's daughter, it did not mention [the prohibition against relations with] one's daughter. [Nevertheless, according to the oral tradition, the prohibition against [relations with] one's daughter has the status of a Torah law like the other sexual offences [and is not considered as Rabbinic in origin].14

‫שלא לגלות ערוות הבת; ולמה‬ ‫ מפני‬,‫לא נתפרשה בתורה‬ ‫ ומפי‬,‫שאסר בת הבת שתק מן הבת‬ ,‫השמועה למדו שאיסור הבת מגופי תורה‬ .‫כשאר עריות‬

Not to have intimate relations with a woman and her daughter, as [Leviticus 18:17] states: "Do not commit incest [by marrying] a woman and her daughter."

‫שלא לגלות ערוות אישה‬ ‫ שנאמר "ערוות אישה‬,‫ובתה‬ .(‫יז‬,‫ לא תגלה" )ויקרא יח‬,‫ובתה‬

Not to have intimate relations with a woman and her son's daughter, as [Leviticus, ibid.] continues: "...her son's daughter...."

‫שלא לגלות ערוות אישה‬ ‫ שנאמר "את בת‬,‫ובת בנה‬ .(‫יז‬,‫בנה" )ויקרא יח‬

Not to have intimate relations with a woman and her daughter's daughter, as [Leviticus, ibid.] continues: "...her daughter's daughter,... you shall not take."

‫שלא לגלות ערוות אישה‬ ‫ שנאמר "ואת בת‬,‫ובת בתה‬ .(‫יז‬,‫ לא תיקח" )ויקרא יח‬,‫בתה‬

Not to have intimate relations with one's mother's sister, as [Leviticus 18:13] states: "Do not commit incest with your mother's sister."

,‫שלא לגלות ערוות אחות האב‬ ‫ לא‬,‫שנאמר "ערוות אחות אביך‬ .(‫יב‬,‫תגלה" )ויקרא יח‬

Not to have intimate relations with one's father's sister, as [Leviticus 18:12] states: "Do not commit incest with your father's sister."

‫שלא לגלות ערוות אחות‬ ‫ שנאמר "ערוות‬,‫האם‬ .(‫יג‬,‫ לא תגלה" )ויקרא יח‬,‫אחות אימך‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

45 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to have intimate relations with the wife of one's father's brother, as [Leviticus 18:14] states: "Do not commit incest with his wife. [She is your aunt.]"

‫שלא לגלות ערוות אשת‬ ‫ שנאמר "אל‬,‫אחי האב‬ ‫ דודתך היא" )ויקרא‬,‫אשתו לא תקרב‬ .(‫יד‬,‫יח‬

Not to have intimate relations with one's son's wife, as [Leviticus 18:15] states: "Do not commit incest with your daughter-in-law."

‫שלא לגלות ערוות אשת‬ ,‫ שנאמר "ערוות כלתך‬,‫הבן‬ .(‫טו‬,‫לא תגלה" )ויקרא יח‬

Not to have intimate relations with one's brother's wife, as [Leviticus 18:16] states: "Do not commit incest with your brother's wife."

‫שלא לגלות ערוות אשת‬ ‫ שנאמר "ערוות אשת‬,‫אח‬ .(‫טז‬,‫ לא תגלה" )ויקרא יח‬,‫אחיך‬

Not to have intimate relations with one's wife's sister, as [Leviticus 18:18] states: "Do not take a woman as a wife together with her sister."

‫שלא לגלות ערוות אחות‬ ‫ שנאמר "ואישה אל‬,‫אישה‬ .(‫יח‬,‫ לא תיקח" )ויקרא יח‬,‫אחותה‬

Not to have intimate relations with a woman in the niddah state, as [Leviticus 18:19] states: "Do not come close to a woman in the niddah state of impurity."

,‫שלא לגלות ערוות נידה‬ ‫ בנידת‬,‫שנאמר "ואל אישה‬ .(‫יט‬,‫טומאתה—לא תקרב" )ויקרא יח‬

Not to have intimate relations with a married woman, as [Leviticus 18:20] states: "Do not

‫שלא לגלות ערוות אשת‬ ,‫ שנאמר "ואל אשת‬,‫איש‬ .(‫כ‬,‫עמיתך—לא תיתן שכובתך" )ויקרא יח‬

lie carnally with your neighbor's wife." Not to perform a sexual act with an animal, as [Leviticus 18:23] states: "And do not lie carnally with any animal."

,‫שלא לשכב עם בהמה‬ ‫שנאמר "ובכל בהמה לא‬ ;‫כ‬,‫ לזרע" )ראה ויקרא יח‬,‫תיתן שכובתך‬ .(‫כג‬,‫ויקרא יח‬

For a woman not to perform a sexual act with an animal, as [Leviticus 18:23] continues: "...and a woman should not present herself to an animal for sexual purposes."

‫שלא תביא אישה בהמה‬ ‫ לא‬,‫ שנאמר "ואישה‬,‫עליה‬ ‫תעמוד לפני בהמה לרבעה" )ויקרא‬ .(‫כג‬,‫יח‬

Not to commit sodomy, as [Leviticus 18:22] states: "And do not lie with a male...."

‫ שנאמר‬,‫שלא לשכב עם זכר‬ ‫"ואת זכר—לא תשכב" )ויקרא‬ .(‫כב‬,‫יח‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

46 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Not to commit sodomy with one's father, as [Leviticus 18:7] states: "Do not commit a sexual offense with your father."

‫שלא לגלות ערוות האב‬ ‫ שנאמר "ערוות אביך‬,‫עצמו‬ .(‫ז‬,‫ לא תגלה" )ויקרא יח‬. . .

Not to commit sodomy with one's father's brother, as [Leviticus 18:14] states: "Do not commit a sexual offense with your father's brother."

‫שלא לגלות ערוות אחי האב‬ ‫ שנאמר "ערוות אחי‬,‫עצמו‬ .(‫יד‬,‫ לא תגלה" )ויקרא יח‬,‫אביך‬

Not to be intimate with a woman with whom sexual relations are forbidden in matters that might lead to intercourse - e.g., embracing, kissing, winks, or signs - as [Leviticus 18:6] states: "No person shall approach a close relative to commit a sexual offense.” Based on the oral tradition, we have learned that this prohibits intimacy that might lead to sexual

‫שלא ליקרב לעריות בדברים‬ ‫ כגון‬,‫המביאין לידי גילוי ערווה‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫חיבוק ונישוק ורמיזה וקפיצה‬ ‫ לא תקרבו לגלות‬,‫"אל כל שאר בשרו‬ ‫ו(; מפי השמועה למדו‬,‫ערווה" )ויקרא יח‬ ‫שזו אזהרה לקריבה המביאה לידי גילוי‬ .‫ערווה‬

relations .a For a mamzer not to marry a natural born Jewess, as [Deuteronomy 23:31 states: "A mamzer may not enter God's congregation."

,‫שלא יישא ממזר בת ישראל‬ ,‫שנאמר "לא יבוא ממזר‬ .(‫ג‬,‫בקהל ה'" )דברים כג‬

For there not to be a kedeishah - i.e., a woman who engages in intimate relations without a marriage contract and a marriage ceremony [among the Jewish people], as [Deuteronomy 23:18]

‫ והיא‬,‫שלא תהיה קדשה‬ ‫כתובה‬ ‫בלא‬ ‫הנבעלת‬ "‫ שנאמר "לא תהיה קדשה‬,‫וקידושין‬ .(‫יח‬,‫)דברים כג‬

states: "There shall not be akedeishah...."a For a man who is divorced not to remarry his divorcee after she marries anyone else, as [Deuteronomy 24:4] states: "Her first husband who divorced her may not take her as a wife again."

‫שלא יחזיר המגרש גרושתו‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫אחר שנישאת לאחר‬ ‫"לא יוכל בעלה הראשון אשר שילחה‬ .(‫ד‬,‫לשוב לקחתה" )דברים כד‬

For a yevamah not to marry anyone other than her yavam, as [Deuteronomy 25:5] states: "The wife of the deceased shall not...."

‫שלא תינשא היבמה לאחר חוץ‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא תהיה‬,‫מיבמה‬ .(‫ה‬,‫אשת המת" )דברים כה‬

For a rapist not to divorce the woman he raped, as [Deuteronomy 22:29] states: "He may not send her away for his entire life."

,‫שלא יגרש האונס אנוסתו‬ ‫ כל‬,‫שנאמר "לא יוכל שלחה‬ .(‫כט‬,‫ימיו" )דברים כב‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

47 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

For a person who defamed his wife's character not to divorce her, as [Deuteronomy 22:19] states: "He may not send her away for his entire life."

‫שלא יגרש מוציא שם רע את‬ ‫ שנאמר בו "לא יוכל‬,‫אשתו‬ .(‫יט‬,‫לשלחה כל ימיו" )דברים כב‬

For a man incapable of procreation not to marry a natural born Jewess, as [Deuteronomy 23:2] states: "A man with crushed testicles... may not enter [God's congregation]."

,‫שלא ייקח סריס בת ישראל‬ "‫שנאמר "לא יבוא פצוע דכא‬ .(‫ב‬,‫)דברים כג‬

Not to castrate a male from any species neither a human, a domestic animal, a wild beast, nor a bird, as [Leviticus 22:24] states: "You shall not do this in your land."

‫שלא לסרס זכר מכל‬ ‫ לא אדם ולא בהמה‬,‫המינין‬ "‫ לא תעשו‬,‫ שנאמר "ובארצכם‬,‫חיה ועוף‬ .(‫כד‬,‫)ויקרא כב‬

Not to appoint a convert [to a position of authority] over the Jewish people, as [Deuteronomy 17:15] states: "You may not appoint a foreigner over you."

‫שלא למנות על ישראל איש‬ ‫ שנאמר "לא‬,‫מקהל גרים‬ ‫תוכל לתת עליך איש נוכרי" )דברים‬ .(‫טו‬,‫יז‬

For a king not to accumulate many horses, as [Deuteronomy 17:16] states: "And he may not accumulate many horses."

,‫שלא ירבה המלך סוסים‬ "‫שנאמר "לא ירבה לו סוסים‬ .(‫טז‬,‫)דברים יז‬

For a king not to accumulate many wives, as [Deuteronomy 17:17] states: "And he may not accumulate many wives."

,‫שלא ירבה המלך נשים‬ "‫שנאמר "לא ירבה לו נשים‬

For a king not to accumulate much silver and gold, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] continues: "And he may not accumulate very much silver and gold."

‫שלא ירבה לו המלך כסף‬ ,‫ שנאמר "וכסף וזהב‬,‫וזהב‬ .(‫יז‬,‫לא ירבה לו מאוד" )דברים יז‬

These 613 mitzvot were given to Moses on Mount Sinai together with their general principles, particular points, and details. These general principles, particular points, and details represent the Oral Law, which each court received from the previous court.

‫אלו הם שש מאות ושלוש עשרה מצוות‬ ‫ הן וכללותיהן‬,‫שנאמרו לו למשה בסיניי‬ ‫ופרטותיהן ודקדוקיהן; וכל אותן הכללות‬ ‫והפרטות והדקדוקין והביאורין של כל‬ ‫ היא תורה שבעל פה שקיבלו‬,‫מצוה ומצוה‬ .‫בית דין מפי בית דין‬

.(‫יז‬,‫)דברים יז‬

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

48 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

There are [also] other commandments that were instituted after the giving of the Torah. They were established by the Prophets and Sages and spread throughout Israel, for example, the reading of the Megillah, [lighting] a Chanukah candle, fasting on Tish'ah b'Av, [setting up] eruvim, and [washing one's] hands [in preparation for prayer and eating]. Each of these commandments also possesses explanatory aspects and details. All of this will be explained in this text. We are obligated to accept and observe all these commandments which [the Rabbis] instituted, as [implied by Deuteronomy 17:11]: "Do not deviate from the instructions that they will give you, left or right." They are not considered to be additions to the commandments of the Torah. [If so,] what was the intention of the Torah's warning (Deuteronomy 13:11): "Do not add to it and do not detract from it"? That a prophet is not permitted to introduce a new measure and say that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded this mitzvah to us and that it should be added to the Torah's mitzvot, or [say that He commanded that we] eliminate one of the 613 mitzvot mentioned above. However, if a court, together with the prophet of that age, adds a commandment as an ordinance, a lesson, or as a decree, this is not considered as an addition. He is not saying that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us to make an eruv or read the Megillah at its [appointed] time. Were he to say so, he would be adding to the Torah.

‫ויש מצוות אחרות שנתחדשו אחר מתן‬ ‫ וקבעו אותן נביאים וחכמים ופשטו‬,‫תורה‬ ‫ ונר‬,‫בכל ישראל—כגון מקרא מגילה‬ ,‫ וידיים‬,‫ ותענית תשעה באב‬,‫חנוכה‬ ‫ויש לכל מצוה ומצוה מאלו‬. .‫ועירובין‬ ‫פירושין ודקדוקין; והכול יתבאר בחיבור‬ .‫זה‬

‫כל אלו המצוות שנתחדשו—חייבין אנו‬ ‫ מכל‬,‫ שנאמר "לא תסור‬,‫לקבלם ולשומרם‬ ‫יא(; ואינם‬,‫" )ראה דברים יז‬. . . ‫הדבר‬ ‫ועל מה‬. .‫תוספת על מצוות התורה‬ ‫ ולא תגרע‬,‫הזהירה תורה "לא תוסף עליו‬ ‫שלא יהיה נביא‬--(‫א‬,‫ממנו" )דברים יג‬ ‫רשאי לחדש דבר ולומר שהקדוש ברוך‬ ‫הוא ציווהו במצוה זו להוסיפה למצוות‬ ‫ או לחסר אחת מאלו השש מאות‬,‫התורה‬ .‫ושלוש עשרה מצוות‬

‫אבל אם הוסיפו בית דין עם נביא שיהיה‬ ‫ או דרך‬,‫באותו הזמן מצוה דרך תקנה‬ :‫ או דרך גזירה—אין זו תוספת‬,‫הוראה‬ ‫שהרי לא אמרו שהקדוש ברוך הוא ציווה‬. .‫לעשות עירוב או לקרות מגילה בעונתה‬ .‫ היו מוסיפין על התורה‬,‫ואלו אמרו כן‬.

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

49 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

Instead, we are saying that the prophets and the courts ordained and commanded that the Megillah be read at its [appointed] time in order to recall the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, the salvation He wrought for us, and His response to our cries, so that we will bless Him, extol Him, and inform the future generations of the truth of the Torah's promise (Deuteronomy 4:7): "What nation is so great that it has God [close to it....]" Similar principles apply with regard to all the other Rabbinic commandments, be they positive commandments or negative commandments.

‫ שהנביאים עם בית‬,‫אלא כך אנו אומרים‬ ‫דין תיקנו וציוו לקרות המגילה בעונתה‬ ‫כדי להזכיר שבחיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא‬ ‫ והיה קרוב לשווענו‬,‫ותשועות שעשה לנו‬ ‫ וכדי להודיע לדורות‬,‫כדי לברכו ולהללו‬ ‫ "ומי‬,‫הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה‬ "‫ אשר לו אלוהים קרובים אליו‬,‫גוי גדול‬ ‫ועל דרך זו‬. .(‫ח‬,‫ז; דברים ד‬,‫)ראה דברים ד‬ ‫היא כל מצוה ומצוה שהיא מדברי‬ .‫ בין עשה ובין לא תעשה‬,‫סופרים‬

« Previous

Next » Listing of Mitzvos

Positive Commandments FOOTNOTES 1. . Note the comments of the Kessef Mishneh,

who

6. . Though this prooftext is quoted in the printed editions of the

differentiates between sacred texts whose destruction Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:8 considers a rabbinic offense,

Mishneh Torah, it represents a misquotation of the verse, borrowing a phrase from Leviticus 21:17 and inserting it into

and the destruction of the other objects which are forbidden by the Torah itself.

Leviticus 22:4. 7. . Though the Rambam's statements are based on the Sifre,

2. . Though this prooftext is quoted in the printed editions of the

his interpretation of the verse appears to be original and not

Mishneh Torah, it appears to be an error, because the

quoted from other sources.

passage it introduces deals with sexual offenses. In Sefer

8. A chalalah is a woman who engaged in sexual relations with

HaMitzvot, the Rambam quotes as a prooftext Numbers

a priest when she was forbidden to do so, or a woman who was conceived from such relations (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah

18:5, "And you shall keep the watch over the holy articles." 3. The parochet was the curtain separating the Temple sanctuary from the Holy of Holies. 4. The plural terumot includes bikkurim (the first fruits), challah (the dough offering), and terumat ma'aser (the tenth of the tithe separated by the Levites), as well as the terumah gedolah. 5. . A gezerah shavah is one of the thirteen principles of Biblical exegesis in which an association is drawn between two verses based on a common word. In Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 2), the Rambam states that all of the 613 mitzvot are explicitly mentioned in the Torah and are not dependent on the exegesis of a verse according to the oral tradition. Therefore, he finds it necessary to explain that there is a specific oral tradition that this mitzvah is an exception to that rule.

19:1). 9. Note that in Hilchot Mamrim 7:1, where the Rambam discusses this prohibition, he quotes a different prooftext. 10. Though this prooftext is quoted in the printed editions of the Mishneh Torah, it appears to be an error, because the passage it introduces deals with the prohibition against a High Priest's coming into contact with a corpse. Perhaps the intended prooftext is Numbers 6:6, "he may not have contact with the dead." 11. . The term "servile work" refers to any of the labors forbidden on the Sabbath which are not associated with the preparation of food. 12. . The verse is quoted in the above manner in the published texts of the Mishneh Torah. There is, however, a printing error, for on Yom Kippur the Torah forbids all work, even those labors involved in the preparation of food.

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Negative Commandments - Texts & Writings

50 of 50

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901723/jewish/Negative...

13. . Sefer HaMitzvot notes that this prohibition is almost

14. . As mentioned in note 15, in Sefer HaMitzvot (General

identical with Negative Mitzvah 331, and explains that the

Principle 2), the Rambam states that all of the 613 mitzvot

Torah forbids such relations with two separate commands so that a person who commits such a sin will be held liable on

are explicitly mentioned in the Torah and are not dependent on the exegesis of a verse according to the oral tradition.

two counts.

Therefore, in Sefer HaMitzvot, he elaborates in the explanation why this prohibition can be considered a negative commandment of the Torah even though the Torah does not explicitly mention it.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

9/1/2019 3:02 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

1 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...



Listing of Mitzvos Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Negative Commandments

The Division of the Mitzvot According to the Halachot of the Mishneh Torah

English

Hebrew

Next » Sefer Madda

‫וראיתי לחלק חיבור זה לארבעה עשר‬ :‫ספרים‬

I saw fit to divide this text into fourteen books. The first book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that are the foundations of the faith [taught by] Moses, our teacher, of blessed memory, those which a person must know before everything - e.g., the unity of God, blessed be He, and the prohibition against worshipping false gods. I have called this book The Book of Knowledge. The second book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that are constant and which were commanded to us so that we will love God and constantly remember Him e.g., the recitation of the Shema, prayer, tefillin, and the priestly blessing. Circumcision is included in this category because it is a sign in our flesh to recall [God] constantly, during the times when we are not wearing tefillin, tzitzit, or the like. I have called this book The Book of Love.

‫ אכלול בו כל המצוות שהן‬.‫ספר ראשון‬ ‫ וצריך אדם לידע‬,‫עיקר דת משה רבנו‬ ‫אותם תחילת הכול—כגון ייחוד שמו ברוך‬ ‫ וקראתי שם ספר‬.‫ ואיסור עבודה זרה‬,‫הוא‬ .‫זה ספר המדע‬

,‫ אכלול בו המצוות שהן תדירות‬.‫ספר שני‬ ‫שנצטווינו בהם כדי לאהוב את המקום‬ ,‫ ותפילה‬,‫ולזוכרו תמיד—כגון קרית שמע‬ ‫ לפי שהיא‬,‫ וברכות; ומילה בכלל‬,‫ותפילין‬ ‫אות בבשרנו להזכיר תמיד בשעה שאין‬ .‫שם לא תפילין ולא ציצית וכיוצא בהן‬ .‫וקראתי שם ספר זה ספר אהבה‬

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

2 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

The third book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that are associated with specific times - e.g., the Sabbath and the festivals. I have called this book The

‫ אכלול בו כל המצוות שהן‬.‫ספר שלישי‬ .‫ ומועדות‬,‫בזמנים ידועים—כגון שבת‬ .‫וקראתי שם ספר זה ספר זמנים‬

Book of the Seasons. The fourth book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that involve intimate relations - e.g., marriage, divorce, yibbum, and chalitzah. I have called this book The Book of Women. The fifth book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that involve forbidden intimate relations and those that involve forbidden foods. [I have grouped the two (forbidden intimate relations and forbidden foods) together] because it is in these two matters that God has sanctified us and separated us from the [other] nations. [The Torah mentions the concept of holiness] with regard to both these matters, stating [Leviticus 20:24, 27]: "[I am God, your Lord,] who has separated you from among the nations... and I have set you apart among the nations." [Accordingly,] I have called this book The Book of Holiness.

‫ אכלול בו המצוות של‬.‫ספר רביעי‬ ‫ וייבום‬,‫בעילה—כגון קידושין וגירושין‬ .‫ וקראתי שם ספר זה ספר נשים‬.‫וחליצה‬

‫ אכלול בו מצוות של ביאות‬.‫ספר חמישי‬ ‫מאכלות‬ ‫של‬ ‫ומצוות‬ ,‫אסורות‬ ‫אסורות—לפי שבשני עניינים האלו‬ ‫קידשנו המקום והבדילנו מן האומות‬ ‫ ובשניהם‬,‫בעריות ובמאכלות אסורות‬ ‫נאמר "ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים" )ויקרא‬ "‫ "אשר הבדלתי אתכם מן העמים‬,(‫כו‬,‫כ‬ ‫ וקראתי שם ספר זה ספר‬.(‫כד‬,‫)ויקרא כ‬ .‫קדושה‬

The sixth book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that one is obligated in when he forbids himself [certain things] by his statements - e.g., vows and oaths. I have called this book The Book of Utterances.

‫ אכלול בו מצוות שיתחייב‬.‫ספר שישי‬ ‫אדם בהן מי שאסר עצמו בדברים—כגון‬ ‫ וקראתי שם ספר זה ספר‬.‫שבועות ונדרים‬ .‫הפלאה‬

The seventh book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that deal with the produce of the earth - e.g., the Sabbatical and Jubilee years, the tithes, the terumot, and the other mitzvot which are relevant to this subject. I have called this book The Book of Agricultural [Laws].

‫ אכלול בו מצוות שהם בזרע‬.‫ספר שביעי‬ ‫ ומעשרות‬,‫הארץ—כגון שמיטין ויובלות‬ ‫ ושאר מצוות הנכללים עימהן‬,‫ותרומות‬ .‫ וקראתי שם ספר זה ספר זרעים‬.‫מעניינם‬

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

3 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

The eighth book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that involve the construction of the Temple and the communal offerings that are brought regularly. I have called this book The Book of [the Temple and its]

‫ אכלול בו מצוות שהן בבניין‬.‫ספר שמיני‬ ‫ וקראתי‬.‫מקדש וקרבנות ציבור התמידין‬ .‫שם ספר זה ספר עבודה‬

Service. The ninth book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that involve the sacrifices [brought by] individuals. I have called this book The Book of Sacrifices.

‫ אכלול בו מצוות שהן‬.‫ספר תשיעי‬ ‫ וקראתי שם ספר זה ספר‬.‫בקרבנות היחיד‬ .‫קרבנות‬

The tenth book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that involve ritual purity and impurity. I have called this book The Book of Ritual Purity.

‫ אכלול בו מצוות שהן‬.‫ספר עשירי‬ ‫ וקראתי שם ספר זה‬.‫בטהרות וטמאות‬ .‫ספר טהרה‬

The eleventh book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that [govern relations] between an individual and his colleague that involve damage to property or personal injury. I have called this book The Book of Damages.

‫ אכלול בו מצוות שבין‬.‫ספר אחד עשר‬ ‫ ויש בהם היזק תחילה בממון‬,‫אדם לחברו‬ .‫ וקראתי שם ספר זה ספר נזקים‬.‫או בגוף‬

The twelfth book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that govern sales and the acquisition [of property]. I have called this book The Book of Acquisition [of Property].

‫ אכלול בו מצוות מכירה‬.‫ספר שנים עשר‬ .‫ וקראתי שם ספר זה ספר קניין‬.‫וקנייה‬

The thirteenth book - I will include within it all the

‫ אכלול בו מצוות שבין‬.‫ספר שלושה עשר‬ ‫ בשאר דינין שאין בתחילתן‬,‫אדם לחברו‬ ‫ וטענות‬,‫ ובעלי חובות‬,‫היזק—כגון שומרין‬ ‫ וקראתי שם ספר זה ספר‬.‫וכפירות‬ .‫משפטים‬

mitzvot that [govern relations] between an individual and his colleague and do not involve damage at the outset - e.g., the laws of watchmen, debtors, claims lodged [against one another], and [their] denial. I have called this book The Book of Judgments. The fourteenth book - I will include within it all the mitzvot that are delegated to the Sanhedrin - e.g., execution [when convicted by] the court, the acceptance of testimony, and the laws pertaining to a king and the wars he [wages]. I have called this book The Book of Judges.

‫ אכלול בו מצוות שהן‬.‫ספר ארבעה עשר‬ ,‫מסורין לסנהדרין—כגון מיתות בית דין‬ .‫ ודין המלך ומלחמותיו‬,‫וקבלת עדות‬ .‫וקראתי שם ספר זה ספר שופטים‬

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

4 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

These are [the governing principles for] the division of the Halachot of this text according to the subjects [treated in] the [different] books and the division of the mitzvot according to the subjects [treated in] the halachot.

‫וזה הוא חילוק הלכות של חיבור זה לפי‬ ‫ וחילוק המצוות לפי ענייני‬,‫ענייני הספרים‬ .‫ההלכות‬

The Listing of the Mitzvot According to the Halachot of the Mishneh Torah Sefer HaMada- The Book of Knowledge

‫ספר המדע‬

It contains five halachot. They are, in order:

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו חמש‬ ‫ הלכות תלמוד‬,‫ הלכות דעות‬,‫יסודי התורה‬ ,‫ הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים‬,‫תורה‬ .‫הלכות תשובה‬

Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah - The Laws [which are] the Foundations of the Torah Hilchot De'ot - The Laws of Personal Development Hilchot Talmud Torah - The Laws of Torah Study Hilchot Avodat Kochavim UMazalot V'Chukkot HaAkum - The Laws [Governing the Prohibition against] the Worship of Stars and Spiritual Forces,and the Statutes of the Idolaters Hilchot Teshuvah - The Laws of Teshuvah

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

5 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah - The Laws [which are] the Foundations of the Torah They contain ten mitzvot: Six positive commandments commandments.

and

four

negative

They are:

‫ יש בכללן עשר‬.‫הלכות יסודי התורה‬ ‫ וארבע מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שש מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( לידע שיש‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫שם אלוה; )ב( שלא יעלה במחשבה שיש‬ (‫שם אלוה זולתי ה'; )ג( לייחדו; )ד‬ ;‫לאוהבו; )ה( ליראה ממנו; )ו( לקדש שמו‬ ‫)ז( שלא לחלל את שמו; )ח( שלא לאבד‬ ‫דברים שנקרא שמו עליהם; )ט( לשמוע‬ .‫מן הנביא המדבר בשמו; )י( שלא לנסותו‬

1. To know that there is a God 2. Not to consider the thought that there is another divinity aside from God 3. To unify Him 4. To love Him 5. To fear Him 6. To sanctify His name 7. Not to profane God's name 8. Not to destroy those things associated with His name 9. To listen to a prophet who speaks in [God's] name 10. Not to test God.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

6 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot De'ot The Laws of Personal Development They contain eleven mitzvot: Five positive commandments and six negative commandments. They are:

‫ יש בכללן אחת עשרה‬.‫הלכות דעות‬ ‫ ושש מצוות‬,‫מצוות—חמש מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( להידמות‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫בדרכיו; )ב( להידבק ביודעיו; )ג( לאהוב‬ (‫את הריעים; )ד( לאהוב את הגרים; )ה‬ ‫שלא לשנוא אחים; )ו( להוכיח; )ז( שלא‬ ;‫להלבין פנים; )ח( שלא לענות אמיללין‬ ;‫)ט( שלא לילך רכיל; )י( שלא לנקום‬ .‫)יא( שלא לנטור‬

1. To emulate His ways 2. To cling to those who know Him 3. To love one's fellow Jews 4. To love the converts 5. Not to hate one's [Jewish] brethren 6. To rebuke 7. Not to embarrass 8. Not to oppress the unfortunate 9. Not to gossip 10. Not to take vengeance 11. Not to bear a grudge. Hilchot Talmud Torah The Laws of Torah Study

‫ יש בכללן שתי‬.‫הלכות תלמוד תורה‬ ‫ )א( ללמוד תורה; )ב( לכבד‬:‫מצוות עשה‬ .‫מלמדיה ויודעיה‬

They contain two mitzvot: 1. To study Torah 2. To honor those who study it and know it.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

‫‪https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...‬‬

‫הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים‪ .‬יש‬ ‫בכללן אחת וחמישים מצוות—שתי מצוות‬ ‫עשה‪ ,‬ותשע וארבעים מצוות לא תעשה;‬ ‫וזה הוא פרטן‪) :‬א( שלא לפנות אחר‬ ‫עבודה זרה; )ב( שלא לתור אחר הרהור‬ ‫הלב וראיית העיניים; )ג( שלא לגדף; )ד(‬ ‫שלא יעבוד אותה כדרך עבודתה; )ה(‬ ‫שלא ישתחווה לה; )ו( שלא לעשות פסל‬ ‫לעצמו; )ז( שלא לעשות פסל אפילו‬ ‫לאחרים; )ח( שלא לעשות צורות ואפילו‬ ‫לנואי; )ט( שלא להדיח אחרים אחריה;‬ ‫)י( לשרוף עיר הנידחת; )יא( שלא‬ ‫לבנותה; )יב( שלא ליהנות מכל ממונה;‬ ‫)יג( שלא להסית יחיד לעובדה; )יד( שלא‬ ‫לאהוב המסית; )טו( שלא לעזוב שנאתו;‬ ‫)טז( שלא להצילו; )יז( שלא ללמד עליו‬ ‫זכות; )יח( שלא יימנע מללמד עליו חובה;‬ ‫)יט( שלא להתנבא בשמה; )כ( שלא‬ ‫לשמוע מן המתנבא בשמה; )כא( שלא‬ ‫להתנבא בשקר‪ ,‬ואפילו בשם ה'; )כב(‬ ‫שלא לגור מהריגת נביא שקר; )כג( שלא‬ ‫לישבע בשם עבודה זרה; )כד( שלא‬ ‫לעשות אוב; )כה( שלא לעשות יידעוני;‬ ‫)כו( שלא להעביר למולך; )כז( שלא‬ ‫להקים מצבה; )כח( שלא להשתחוות על‬ ‫אבן משכית; )כט( שלא ליטע אשרה; )ל(‬ ‫לאבד עבודה זרה וכל הנעשה בשבילה;‬ ‫)לא( שלא ליהנות בעבודה זרה ובכל‬ ‫משמשיה; )לב( שלא ליהנות בציפויי‬ ‫נעבד; )לג( שלא לכרות ברית לעובדי‬ ‫עבודה זרה; )לד( שלא לחון עליהם; )לה(‬ ‫שלא יישבו בארצנו; )לו( שלא לנהוג‬ ‫כמנהגותיהם וכמלבושיהם; )לז( שלא‬ ‫לנחש; )לח( שלא לקסום; )לט( שלא‬ ‫לעונן; )מ( שלא לחבור חבר; )מא( שלא‬ ‫לדרוש אל המתים; )מב( שלא לשאול‬ ‫באוב; )מג( שלא לשאול ביידעוני; )מד(‬ ‫שלא לכשף; )מה( שלא להקיף פיאת‬

‫‪9/1/2019 3:03 AM‬‬

‫‪Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings‬‬

‫‪Hilchot Avodat Kochavim V'Chukkot HaAkum‬‬ ‫]‪The Laws of [Governing the Prohibition against‬‬ ‫‪the Worship of Stars and the Statutes of the‬‬ ‫‪Idolaters‬‬ ‫‪They contain 51 mitzvot:‬‬ ‫‪Two positive commandments and forty nine negative‬‬ ‫‪commandments.‬‬ ‫‪They are:‬‬ ‫‪1. Not to show interest in the worship of false gods‬‬ ‫‪2. Not to stray after the thoughts of one's heart or the‬‬ ‫‪sights one's eyes behold‬‬ ‫]‪3. Not to curse [God‬‬ ‫‪4. Not to worship [false gods] with the types of service‬‬ ‫‪with which they are customarily served‬‬ ‫]‪5. Not to bow down to [false gods‬‬ ‫‪6. Not to make an idol for oneself‬‬ ‫‪7. Not to make an idol even for others‬‬ ‫‪8. Not to make images even for decoration‬‬ ‫]‪9. Not to entice others to [worship false gods‬‬ ‫‪10. To burn an apostate city‬‬ ‫‪11. Never to rebuild it‬‬ ‫‪12. Not to receive benefit from any of its property‬‬ ‫‪13. Not to persuade a single individual to worship [false‬‬ ‫]‪gods‬‬ ‫‪14. Not to love a mesit‬‬

‫‪7 of 69‬‬

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

8 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Teshuvah

‫ והוא‬,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות תשובה‬ .‫ ויתוודה‬,'‫שישוב החוטא מחטאו לפני ה‬

The Laws of Teshuvah [They contain] one mitzvah, that a sinner should repent before God from his sin and confess. Thus, this book contains a total of 75 mitzvot: 16 positive commandments and 59 negative commandments. Sefer Ahavah

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ‫חמש ושבעים—שש עשרה מהן מצוות‬ .‫ ותשע וחמישים מצוות לא תעשה‬,‫עשה‬ ‫ספר אהבה‬

The Book of Love It contains six halachot. They are, in order: Hilchot Kri'at Shema - The Laws of the Recitation of the Shema

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו שש‬ ,‫ הלכות תפילה וברכת כוהנים‬,‫קרית שמע‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫הלכות תפילין ומזוזה וספר תורה‬ .‫ הלכות מילה‬,‫ הלכות ברכות‬,‫ציצית‬

Hilchot Tefillah U'Virkat Kohanim - The Laws of Prayer and the Priestly Blessing Hilchot Tefillin UM'zuzah V'Sefer Torah - The Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzot, and Torah Scrolls Hilchot Tzitzit - The Laws of Tzitzit Hilchot Berachot - The Laws of Blessings Hilchot Milah - The Laws of Circumcision Hilchot Kri'at Shema

‫ והיא‬,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות קרית שמע‬ .‫לקרות קרית שמע פעמיים ביום‬

The Laws of the Recitation of the Shema [They contain] one positive commandment, to recite the Shema twice daily.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

9 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Tefillah U'Virkat Kohanim The Laws of Prayer and the Priestly Blessing They contain two positive commandments:

‫ יש בכללן‬.‫הלכות תפילה וברכת כוהנים‬ '‫ )א( לעבוד את ה‬:‫שתי מצוות עשה‬ ‫בתפילה בכל יום; )ב( לברך כוהנים את‬ .‫ישראל בכל יום‬

1. To serve God in prayer each day 2. For the priests to bless the Jews each day. Hilchot Tefillin UM'zuzah V'Sefer Torah The Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzot, and Torah Scrolls They contain five positive commandments. They are: 1. To [place] tefillin on the head 2. To tie them on the arm

‫ יש‬.‫הלכות תפילין ומזוזה וספר תורה‬ :‫בכללן חמש מצוות עשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫)א( להיות תפילין על הראש; )ב( לקושרם‬ ;‫על היד; )ג( לקבוע מזוזה בפתחי השערים‬ (‫)ד( לכתוב כל איש ספר תורה לעצמו; )ה‬ ‫לכתוב המלך ספר שני לעצמו כדי שיהיה‬ .‫לו שני ספרי תורה‬

3. To affix a mezuzah at the entrance of our gateways 4. For a man to write a Torah scroll for himself 5. For a king to write a second Torah scroll for himself, so that he will have two Torah scrolls. Hilchot Tzitzit

‫ והיא‬,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות ציצית‬ .‫לעשות ציצית על כנפי הכסות‬

The Laws of Tzitzit [They contain] one positive commandment, to tie tzitzit to the fringes of our garments. Hilchot Berachot

‫ והיא‬,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות ברכות‬ .‫לברך את שמו אחר אכילה‬

The Laws of Blessings [They contain] one positive commandment, to bless His name after eating.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

10 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

‫ והיא למול‬,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות מילה‬ .‫את הזכרים ביום השמיני‬

Hilchot Milah The Laws of Circumcision [They contain] one positive commandment, circumcise males on the eighth day.

to

Thus, this book contains a total of eleven positive commandments. Sefer Zemanim The Book of Seasons It contains ten halachot. They are, in order: Hilchot Shabbat - The Laws of the Sabbath Hilchot Eruvin - The Laws of Eruvin Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor - The Laws of Resting on the Tenth Day [Yom Kippur]

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ .‫אחת עשרה מצוות עשה‬ ‫ספר זמנים‬

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו עשר‬ ‫ הלכות שביתת‬,‫ הלכות עירובין‬,‫שבת‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫ הלכות שביתת יום טוב‬,‫עשור‬ ,‫ הלכות שופר וסוכה ולולב‬,‫חמץ ומצה‬ ,‫ הלכות קידוש החודש‬,‫הלכות שקלים‬ .‫ הלכות מגילה וחנוכה‬,‫הלכות תענייות‬

Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov - The Laws of Resting on Holidays Hilchot Chametz UMatzah - The Laws of Chametz and Matzah Hilchot Shofar V'Sukkah V'Lulav - The Laws of Shofar, Sukkah, and Lulav Hilchot Shekalim - The Laws of the [Half-] Shekel Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh - The Laws of the Sanctification of the New Month Hilchot Ta'aniot - The Laws of Fasts Hilchot Megillah V'Chanukah - The Laws of the Megillah and of Chanukah

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

11 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Shabbat The Laws of the Sabbath They contain five mitzvot: Two positive commandments and three negative commandments.

‫יש בכללן חמש‬ .‫הלכות שבת‬ ‫ ושלוש מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שתי מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( לשבות‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫בשביעי; )ב( שלא לעשות בו מלאכה; )ג‬ ‫שלא לענוש בשבת; )ד( שלא לצאת חוץ‬ .‫לגבול בשבת; )ה( לקדש היום בזכירה‬

They are: 1. To rest on the seventh [day] 2. Not to do work on it 3. [For the court] not to inflict punishment on the Sabbath 4. Not to travel beyond the limits [of one's place] on the Sabbath 5. To sanctify the day by remembering it. Hilchot Eruvin

‫ והיא‬,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות עירובין‬ .‫מדברי סופרים ואינה מן המניין‬

The Laws of Eruvin [They contain] one positive commandment, which is Rabbinic in origin and is not included among [the 613 commandments of the Torah].

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

12 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor The Laws of Resting on the Tenth Day [Yom Kippur] They contain four mitzvot: Two positive commandments and two negative commandments:

‫ יש בכללן ארבע‬.‫הלכות שביתת עשור‬ ‫ ושתי מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שתי מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( לשבות בו‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ;‫ממלאכה; )ב( שלא לעשות בו מלאכה‬ ‫)ג( להתענות בו; )ד( שלא לאכול ולשתות‬ .‫בו‬

1. To rest on this day 2. Not to do work on it 3. To fast on this day 4. Not to eat or drink on it.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

13 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov The Laws of Resting on Holidays They contain twelve mitzvot: Six positive commandments and six negative commandments. They are: 1. To rest on the first day of Pesach 2. Not to work on that day

‫ יש בכללן שתים‬.‫הלכות שביתת יום טוב‬ ‫ ושש‬,‫עשרה מצוות—שש מצוות עשה‬ (‫ )א‬:‫מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫לשבות בראשון של פסח; )ב( שלא‬ ‫לעשות בו מלאכה; )ג( לשבות בשביעי‬ ;‫של פסח; )ד( שלא לעשות בו מלאכה‬ ‫)ה( לשבות ביום חג השבועות; )ו( שלא‬ ‫לעשות בו מלאכה; )ז( לשבות בראש‬ (‫השנה; )ח( שלא לעשות בו מלאכה; )ט‬ ‫לשבות בראשון של חג הסוכות; )י( שלא‬ ‫לעשות בו מלאכה; )יא( לשבות בשמיני‬ .‫של חג; )יב( שלא לעשות בו מלאכה‬

3. To rest on the seventh day of Pesach 4. Not to work on that day 5. To rest on the holiday of Shavuot 6. Not to work on that day 7. To rest on the first day of Rosh HaShanah 8. Not to work on that day 9. To rest on the first day of the festival of Sukkot 10. Not to work on that day 11. To rest on the eighth day of the festival [of Sukkot] 12. Not to work on that day.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

14 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Chametz UMatzah The Laws of Chametz and Matzah They contain eight mitzvot: Three positive commandments and five negative commandments. They are: 1. Not to eat chametz on the fourteenth [of Nisan] from noontime onwards

‫ יש בכללן שמונה‬.‫הלכות חמץ ומצה‬ ‫ וחמש מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שלוש מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( שלא‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫לאכול חמץ ביום ארבעה עשר מחצות‬ ‫היום ולמעלה; )ב( להשבית שאור‬ ‫מארבעה עשר; )ג( שלא לאכול חמץ כל‬ ‫שבעה; )ד( שלא לאכול תערובת חמץ כל‬ ;‫שבעה; )ה( שלא ייראה חמץ כל שבעה‬ ‫)ו( שלא יימצא חמץ כל שבעה; )ז( לאכול‬ ‫מצה בלילי הפסח; )ח( לספר ביציאת‬ .‫מצריים באותו הלילה‬

2. To destroy leaven on the fourteenth [of Nisan] 3. Not to eat chametz for all seven days [of Pesach] 4. Not to eat a mixture containing chametz for all [these] seven days 5. For chametz not to be seen [in one's possession] for all [these] seven days 6. For chametz not to be found [in one's possession] for all [these] seven days 7. To eat matzah on the night of Pesach 8. To tell the story of the exodus from Egypt on that night.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

15 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Shofar V'Sukkah V'Lulav The Laws of Shofar, Sukkah, and Lulav They contain three positive commandments: They are:

‫ יש בכללן‬.‫הלכות שופר וסוכה ולולב‬ (‫ )א‬:‫שלוש מצוות עשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫לשמוע קול שופר באחד בתשרי; )ב‬ ‫לישב בסוכה שבעת ימי החג; )ג( ליטול‬ .‫לולב במקדש כל שבעת ימי החג‬

1. To hear the sounding of the shofar on the first of Tishrei 2. To dwell in a sukkah for the seven days of that festival 3. To take the lulav in the Temple on all the seven days of the festival. Hilchot Shekalim

‫ והיא‬,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות שקלים‬ .‫ליתן כל איש מחצית השקל בכל שנה‬

The Laws of the [Half-] Shekel [They contain] one positive commandment, for each man to give a half-shekel each year. Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh The Laws of the Sanctification of the New Month

,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות קידוש החודש‬ ‫והיא לחשוב ולידע ולקבוע באיזה יום הוא‬ .‫תחילת כל חודש וחודש מחודשי השנה‬

[They contain] one positive commandment, to calculate, know, and appoint the day on which each of the months of the year begin. Hilchot Ta'aniot The Laws of Fasts

‫ והיא‬,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות תענייות‬ ‫להתענות ולזעוק לפני ה' בעת כל צרה‬ .‫גדולה שתבוא על הציבור‬

[They contain] one positive commandment, to fast and call out before God at times of great communal distress.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

16 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Megillah V'Chanukah The Laws of the Megillah and of Chanukah

‫ יש בכללן שתי‬.‫הלכות מגילה וחנוכה‬ ‫ ואינם מן‬,‫מצוות עשה מדברי סופרים‬ .‫המניין‬

They contain two positive commandments, which are Rabbinic in origin and are not included among [the 613 commandments of the Torah]. Thus, this book contains a total of 35 of the Torah's commandments: 19 positive commandments and 16 negative commandments. It also contains three commandments which are Rabbinic in origin.

Sefer Nashim

‫נמצאו כל המצוות של תורה הנכללות‬ ‫ חמש ושלושים—תשע עשרה‬,‫בספר זה‬ ‫ ושש עשרה מצוות לא‬,‫מהן מצוות עשה‬ ‫תעשה; ויש בו שלוש מצוות מדברי‬ .‫סופרים‬ ‫ספר נשים‬

The Book of Women It contains five halachot. They are, in order: Hilchot Ishut - The Laws of Marriage Hilchot Gerushin - The Laws of Divorce

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו חמש‬ ‫ הלכות ייבום‬,‫ הלכות גירושין‬,‫אישות‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫ הלכות נערה בתולה‬,‫וחליצה‬ .‫סוטה‬

Hilchot Yibbum Va'Chalitzah - The Laws of Yibbum and Chalitzah Hilchot Na'arah Betulah - The Laws Pertaining to a Virgin Maiden Hilchot Sotah - The Laws Pertaining to a Sotah

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

17 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Ishut The Laws of Marriage They contain four mitzvot: Two positive commandments and two negative commandments.

‫ יש בכללן ארבע‬.‫הלכות אישות‬ ‫ ושתי מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שתי מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( לישא‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫אישה בכתובה וקידושין; )ב( שלא תיבעל‬ ‫אישה בלא כתובה וקידושין; )ג( שלא‬ ‫ימנע שאר כסות ועונה; )ד( לפרות ולרבות‬ .‫ממנה‬

They are: 1. To marry a woman with a marriage contract and a marriage ceremony 2. Not to engage in sexual relations with a woman without a marriage contract and a marriage ceremony 3. Not to withhold living expenses, clothing, and conjugal rights [from one's wife] 4. To be fruitful and multiply with her. Hilchot Gerushin The Laws of Divorce

(‫ )א‬:‫ יש בכללן שתי מצוות‬.‫הלכות גירושין‬ ;‫ והוא שיגרש המגרש בספר‬,‫מצות עשה‬ .‫)ב( שלא יחזיר גרושתו משנישאת‬

They contain two mitzvot: 1. A positive commandment, for a man to divorce [his wife] with a get 2. For a man who divorces his wife not to remarry her after she has married another person.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

18 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Yibbum Va'Chalitzah The Laws of Yibbum andChalitzah They contain three mitzvot: Two positive commandments commandment.

and

one negative

‫ יש בכללן שלוש‬.‫הלכות ייבום וחליצה‬ ‫ ואחת מצות‬,‫מצוות—שתי מצוות עשה‬ (‫ )א( לייבם; )ב‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫לחלוץ; )ג( שלא תינשא יבמה לאיש זר עד‬ .‫שתסור רשות היבם מעליה‬

They are: 1. To perform yibbum 2. To perform chalitzah 3. For a yevamah not to marry another person until she is absolved of her obligation to the yavam. Hilchot Na'arah Betulah The Laws Pertaining to a Virgin Maiden They contain five mitzvot: Three positive commandments and two negative commandments.

‫ יש בכללן חמש‬.‫הלכות נערה בתולה‬ ‫ ושתי מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שלוש מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( לקנוס‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫המפתה; )ב( שיישא האונס אנוסתו; )ג‬ ‫שלא יגרש האונס; )ד( שתשב אשת‬ (‫מוציא שם רע תחת בעלה לעולם; )ה‬ .‫שלא יגרש מוציא שם רע את אשתו‬

They are: 1. To fine one who seduces a woman 2. For a rapist to marry the woman he rapes 3. For a rapist never to divorce [his wife] 4. For a woman whose husband made defamatory remarks about her to remain married to him forever 5. For a husband who made defamatory remarks about his wife never to divorce her.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

19 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Sotah The Laws Pertaining to a Sotah They contain three mitzvot: One positive commandment and two negative commandments.

‫ יש בכללן שלוש‬.‫הלכות סוטה‬ ‫ ושתיים מצוות‬,‫מצוות—אחת מצות עשה‬ ‫ )א( לעשות‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ;‫לסוטה כתורת הקנאות הסדורה בתורה‬ ‫)ב( שלא ליתן שמן על קרבנה; )ג( שלא‬ .‫ליתן עליו לבונה‬

They are: 1. To perform the ritual associated with [the testing of] a Sotah, [a woman who aroused her husband's] jealousy, as prescribed by the Torah 2. Not to place oil on her sacrifice 3. Not to place frankincense on her sacrifice. Thus, this book contains a total of 17 of the Torah's commandments: nine positive commandments and eight negative commandments. Sefer Kedushah

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ,‫שבע עשרה—מהן תשע מצוות עשה‬ .‫ושמונה מצוות לא תעשה‬ ‫ספר קדושה‬

The Book of Holiness It contains three halachot. They are, in order: Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah - The Laws of Forbidden Intimate Relations

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו שלוש‬ ,‫ הלכות מאכלות אסורות‬,‫איסורי ביאה‬ .‫הלכות שחיטה‬

Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot - The Laws of Forbidden Foods Hilchot Shechitah - The Laws of Ritual Slaughter.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

20 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah The Laws of Forbidden Intimate Relations They contain 37 mitzvot: One positive commandment, the remainder being negative commandments. They are: 1. Not to have intimate relations with one's mother 2. Not to have relations with one's father's wife 3. Not to have relations with one's sister 4. Not to have relations with one's father's wife's daughter 5. Not to have relations with one's son's daughter 6. Not to have relations with one's daughter 7. Not to have relations with one's daughter's daughter 8. Not to marry a woman and her daughter 9. Not to marry a woman and her son's daughter 10. Not to marry a woman and her daughter's daughter 11. Not to have relations with one's father's sister 12. Not to have relations with one's mother's sister 13. Not to have relations with one's father's brother's wife 14. Not to have relations with one's son's wife

‫ יש בכללן שבע‬.‫הלכות איסורי ביאה‬ ‫ ושש‬,‫ושלושים מצוות—אחת מצות עשה‬ :‫ושלושים מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫)א( שלא לבוא על האם; )ב( שלא לבוא‬ (‫על אשת אב; )ג( שלא לבעול אחות; )ד‬ ‫שלא לבעול בת אשת אב; )ה( שלא לבעול‬ ‫בת הבן; )ו( שלא לבעול בת; )ז( שלא‬ ‫לבעול בת הבת; )ח( שלא לישא אישה‬ (‫ובתה; )ט( שלא לישא אישה ובת בנה; )י‬ ‫שלא לישא אישה ובת בתה; )יא( שלא‬ ‫לבעול אחות אב; )יב( שלא לבעול אחות‬ (‫אם; )יג( שלא לבעול אשת אחי האב; )יד‬ ‫שלא לבעול אשת הבן; )טו( שלא לבעול‬ ;‫אשת אח; )טז( שלא לבעול אחות אשתו‬ ‫)יז( שלא לשכב עם בהמה; )יח( שלא‬ ‫תביא אישה בהמה עליה; )יט( שלא‬ ;‫לשכב עם זכר; )כ( שלא לגלות ערוות אב‬ (‫)כא( שלא לגלות ערוות אחי האב; )כב‬ ‫שלא לבעול אשת איש; )כג( שלא לבעול‬ (‫נידה; )כד( שלא להתחתן בגויים; )כה‬ ‫שלא יבוא עמוני ומואבי בקהל; )כו( שלא‬ ;‫להרחיק דור שלישי מצרי מלבוא בקהל‬ ‫)כז( שלא להרחיק דור שלישי אדומי‬ ‫מלבוא בקהל; )כח( שלא יבוא ממזר‬ (‫בקהל; )כט( שלא יבוא סריס בקהל; )ל‬ ;‫ ואפילו בהמה חיה ועוף‬,‫שלא לסרס זכר‬ (‫)לא( שלא יישא כוהן גדול אלמנה; )לב‬ ‫ אפילו בלא‬,‫שלא יבעול כוהן גדול אלמנה‬ ‫נישואין; )לג( שיישא כוהן גדול בתולה‬ ;‫בנערותה; )לד( שלא יישא כוהן גרושה‬ ‫)לה( שלא יישא זונה; )לו( שלא יישא‬ ‫חללה; )לז( שלא יקרב אדם לאחת מכל‬ .‫ ואפילו שלא בעל‬,‫העריות‬

15. Not to have relations with one's brother's wife 16. Not to have relations with one's wife's sister 17. Not to have relations with an animal

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

21 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot The Laws of Forbidden Foods They contain 28 mitzvot: Four positive commandments and 24 negative commandments. They are: 1. To check the signs [which] differentiate kosher animals and beasts from those which are not kosher 2. To check the signs [which] differentiate kosher fowl from those which are not kosher 3. To check the signs [which] differentiate kosher fish from those which are not kosher 4. To check the signs [which] differentiate kosher locusts from those which are not kosher 5. Not to eat non-kosher animals and beasts 6. Not to eat non-kosher fowl 7. Not to eat non-kosher fish 8. Not to eat flying insects

‫ יש בכללן שמונה‬.‫הלכות מאכלות אסורות‬ ,‫ועשרים מצוות—ארבע מצוות עשה‬ ‫וארבע ועשרים מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא‬ ‫ )א( לבדוק בסימני בהמה וחיה‬:‫פרטן‬ ‫להבדיל בין טמאה לטהורה; )ב( לבדוק‬ (‫בסימני העוף להבדיל בין טמא לטהור; )ג‬ ‫לבדוק בסימני חגבים להבדיל בין טמא‬ ‫לטהור; )ד( לבדוק בסימני דגים להבדיל‬ ‫בין טמא לטהור; )ה( שלא לאכול בהמה‬ ;‫וחיה טמאה; )ו( שלא לאכול עוף טמא‬ ‫)ז( שלא לאכול דגים טמאים; )ח( שלא‬ ‫לאכול שרץ העוף; )ט( שלא לאכול שרץ‬ (‫הארץ; )י( שלא לאכול רמש הארץ; )יא‬ ‫שלא לאכול תולעת הפירות כשתצא‬ (‫לארץ; )יב( שלא לאכול שרץ המים; )יג‬ ‫שלא לאכול נבילה; )יד( שלא ליהנות‬ ;‫בשור הנסקל; )טו( שלא לאכול טריפה‬ ‫)טז( שלא לאכול אבר מן החי; )יז( שלא‬ ‫לאכול דם; )יח( שלא לאכול חלב בהמה‬ (‫טהורה; )יט( שלא לאכול גיד הנשה; )כ‬ ‫שלא לאכול בשר בחלב; )כא( שלא‬ ‫לבשלו; )כב( שלא לאכול לחם תבואה‬ ;‫חדשה; )כג( שלא לאכול קלי מן החדש‬ (‫)כד( שלא לאכול כרמל מן החדש; )כה‬ ‫שלא לאכול עורלה; )כו( שלא לאכול‬ (‫כלאי הכרם; )כז( שלא לאכול טבל; )כח‬ .‫שלא לשתות יין נסך‬

9. Not to eat insects that breed on land 10. Not to eat anything that creeps on the earth 11. Not to eat worms that breed in produce after they emerge on land 12. Not to eat swarming creatures that breed in water 13. Not to eat carrion 14. Not to derive benefit from an ox that was executed by stoning

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

22 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Shechitah The Laws of Ritual Slaughter They contain five mitzvot: Three positive commandments and two negative commandments.

‫ יש בכללן חמש‬.‫הלכות שחיטה‬ ‫ ושתיים‬,‫מצוות—שלוש מצוות עשה‬ (‫ )א‬:‫מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫לשחוט ואחר כך יאכל; )ב( שלא לשחוט‬ ‫אותו ואת בנו ביום אחד; )ג( לכסות דם‬ ;‫חיה ועוף; )ד( שלא ליקח האם על הבנים‬ .‫ אם לקחה על הבנים‬,‫)ה( לשלח האם‬

They are: 1. To slaughter an animal, and then to eat it 2. Not to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day 3. To cover the blood of [slaughtered] beasts and fowl 4. Not to take a mother [bird] together with its young 5. To send away the mother when taking her together with her young. Thus, this book contains a total of 70 mitzvot: eight positive commandments and 62 negative commandments. Sefer Hafla'ah

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ,‫שבעים—מהם שמונה מצוות עשה‬ .‫ושתיים ושישים מצוות לא תעשה‬ ‫ספר הפלאה‬

The Book of Utterances It contains four halachot. They are, in order: Hilchot Sh'vuot - The Laws of Oaths

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו ארבע‬ ,‫ הלכות נזירות‬,‫ הלכות נדרים‬,‫שבועות‬ .‫הלכות ערכין וחרמים‬

Hilchot Nedarim - The Laws of Vows Hilchot Nazirut - The Laws of Nazarites Hilchot Arachin V'Charamim - The Laws of Endowment Evaluations and Devotion Offerings.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

23 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Sh'vuot The Laws of Oaths They contain five mitzvot: One positive commandment commandments.

and

four

negative

‫ יש בכללן חמש‬.‫הלכות שבועות‬ ‫ וארבע מצוות‬,‫מצוות—אחת מצות עשה‬ ‫ )א( שלא‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫לישבע בשמו לשקר; )ב( שלא לישא את‬ (‫שמו לשוא; )ג( שלא לכפור בפיקדון; )ד‬ ‫שלא לישבע על כפירת ממון; )ה( לישבע‬ .‫בשמו באמת‬

They are: 1. Not to swear in [God's] name falsely 2. Not to take [God's] name in vain 3. Not to deny [having received] an entrusted object 4. Not to swear [falsely] when denying financial obligations 5. To swear truly in [God's] name. Hilchot Nedarim The Laws of Vows They contain three mitzvot: Two positive commandments and one negative commandment.

‫ יש בכללן שלוש‬.‫הלכות נדרים‬ ‫ ואחת מצות‬,‫מצוות—שתיים מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( שישמור‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫מוצא שפתיו ויעשה כמו שנדר; )ב( שלא‬ ,‫יחל דברו; )ג( שיופר הנדר או השבועה‬ ‫וזה הוא דין הפר נדרים המפורש בתורה‬ .‫שבכתב‬

They are: 1. To fulfill one's word and observe a vow which one takes 2. Not to violate one's word 3. To nullify a vow or an oath. This is the law of nullifications of vows, as explicitly stated in the Torah.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

24 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Nazir The Laws of Nazarites They contain ten mitzvot: Two positive commandments and eight negative commandments. They are: 1. For a nazir to let his hair grow long 2. For a nazir not cut his hair throughout the duration of

‫ יש בכללן עשר‬.‫הלכות נזירות‬ ‫ ושמונה‬,‫מצוות—שתיים מצוות עשה‬ (‫ )א‬:‫מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫שיגדל הנזיר פרע; )ב( שלא יגלח שיערו‬ ‫כל ימי נזרו; )ג( שלא ישתה הנזיר יין ולא‬ ‫ ואפילו חומץ שלהן; )ד( שלא‬,‫תערובת יין‬ ‫יאכל ענבים לחים; )ה( שלא יאכל‬ ‫צימוקין; )ו( שלא יאכל חרצנים; )ז( שלא‬ ;‫יאכל זוגים; )ח( שלא ייכנס לאוהל המת‬ ‫)ט( שלא ייטמא למתים; )י( שיגלח על‬ .‫ כשישלים נזירותו או כשייטמא‬,‫הקרבנות‬

his vow 3. [For a nazir] not to drink wine or a mixture of wine even after it has become vinegar 4. [For a nazir] not to eat fresh grapes 5. [For a nazir] not to eat raisins 6. [For a nazir] not to eat grape seeds 7. [For a nazir] not to eat grape peels 8. [For a nazir] not to enter the place of a corpse 9. [For a nazir] not to become impure because of a corpse 10. [For a nazir] to shave [his hair] over his sacrifices when he completes his nazirite [vow] or if he becomes impure.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

25 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Arachin V'Charamim The Laws of Endowment Valuations and Devotion Offerings They contain seven mitzvot: Five positive commandments and two negative commandments.

‫ יש בכללן שבע‬.‫הלכות ערכין וחרמים‬ ‫ ושתיים מצוות‬,‫מצוות—חמש מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( לדון בערכי‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫ וזה הוא דין‬,‫אדם כאשר מפורש בתורה‬ ‫ערכי אדם; )ב( דין ערכי בהמה; )ג( דין‬ ‫ערכי בתים; )ד( דין ערכי שדות; )ה( דין‬ (‫מחרים נכסיו; )ו( שלא יימכר חרם; )ז‬ .‫שלא ייגאל חרם‬

They are: 1. To carry out the judgment concerning the endowment valuation of a person, as prescribed by the Torah. These are the laws of the endowment valuations of humans. 2. The laws of the endowment valuations of animals 3. The laws of the endowment valuations of houses 4. The laws of the endowment valuations of fields 5. The laws governing a person who makes a devoted offering of his property 6. For property [given as] a devotion offering not to be sold 7. For property [given as] a devotion offering not to be redeemed. Thus, this book contains a total of 25 mitzvot: 10 positive commandments and 15 negative commandments. Sefer Zera'im

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ,‫חמש ועשרים—עשר מהן מצוות עשה‬ .‫וחמש עשרה מצוות לא תעשה‬ ‫ספר זרעים‬

The Book of Agricultural [Laws]

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

26 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

It contains seven halachot. They are, in order: Hilchot Kilayim - The Laws of Mixing Forbidden Species Hilchot Matnot Ani'im - The Laws of the Gifts to be Given to the Poor Hilchot Terumot - The Laws of Terumah

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו שבע‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫ הלכות מתנות עניים‬,‫כלאיים‬ ‫ הלכות מעשר‬,‫ הלכות מעשרות‬,‫תרומות‬ ‫ הלכות ביכורים ושאר‬,‫שני ונטע רבעי‬ ‫ הלכות שמיטה‬,‫מתנות כהונה שבגבולין‬ .‫ויובל‬

Hilchot Ma'asrot - The Laws of Tithes Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni V'Neta Reva'i - The Laws of the Second Tithe and the Produce of the Fourth Year Hilchot Bikkurim - The Laws of the First Fruits Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel - The Laws of the Sabbatical and Jubilee Years. Hilchot Kilayim The Laws of Mixing Forbidden Species They contain five negative commandments. They are:

‫ יש בכללן חמש מצוות לא‬.‫הלכות כלאיים‬ ‫ )א( שלא לזרוע‬:‫תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫זרעים כלאיים; )ב( שלא לזרוע תבואה או‬ ‫ירק בכרם; )ג( שלא להרביע בהמה‬ ‫כלאיים; )ד( שלא לעשות מלאכה בכלאי‬ .‫בהמה כאחד; )ה( שלא ללבוש כלאיים‬

1. Not to sow different species of produce 2. Not to sow grain or vegetables in a vineyard 3. Not to crossbreed different species of animals 4. Not to work with two different species of animals together 5. Not to wear [a garment made] from a forbidden mixture of fabrics.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

27 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Matnot Ani'im The Laws of the Gifts to be Given to the Poor They contain thirteen mitzvot: Seven positive commandments and six negative commandments. They are: 1. To leave pe'ah [for the poor] 2. Not to gather the pe'ah

‫ יש בכללן שלוש‬.‫הלכות מתנות עניים‬ ‫ ושש‬,‫עשרה מצוות—שבע מצוות עשה‬ (‫ )א‬:‫מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫להניח פיאה; )ב( שלא יכלה הפיאה; )ג‬ (‫להניח לקט; )ד( שלא ילקט הלקט; )ה‬ ‫לעזוב עוללות בכרם; )ו( שלא יעולל‬ ‫הכרם; )ז( לעזוב פרט הכרם; )ח( שלא‬ (‫ילקט פרט הכרם; )ט( להניח השכחה; )י‬ ‫שלא ישוב לקחת השכחה; )יא( להפריש‬ ;‫מעשר לעניים; )יב( ליתן צדקה כמיסת יד‬ .‫)יג( שלא יאמץ לבבו על העני‬

3. To leave leket [for the poor] 4. Not to gather the leket 5. To leave the incompletely formed grape clusters [for the poor] 6. Not to gather the incompletely formed grape clusters 7. To leave individual fallen grapes [for the poor] 8. Not to gather the individual fallen grapes 9. To leave a forgotten sheaf [for the poor] 10. Not to return to take a forgotten sheaf 11. To separate the tithe for the poor 12. To give charity according to one's ability 13. Not to harden one's heart [against giving] to the poor.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

28 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Terumot The Laws of Terumah They contain eight mitzvot: Two positive commandments and six negative commandments. They are: 1. To separate the Great Terumah

‫ יש בכללן שמונה‬.‫הלכות תרומות‬ ‫ ושש מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שתיים מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( להפריש‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫תרומה גדולה; )ב( להפריש תרומת‬ ‫מעשר; )ג( שלא יקדים תרומות ומעשרות‬ ‫ אלא יפריש על הסדר; )ד( שלא‬,‫זה לזה‬ ‫יאכל זר תרומה; )ה( שלא יאכל אפילו‬ ‫תושב כוהן או שכירו תרומה; )ו( שלא‬ ‫יאכל ערל תרומה; )ז( שלא יאכל כוהן‬ ‫טמא תרומה; )ח( שלא תאכל חללה‬ .‫ ולא מורם מן הקודשים‬,‫תרומה‬

2. To separate terumah from the tithes 3. Not to separate one of the terumot or tithes before the proper one, but rather to separate all the obligations in order 4. For an unauthorized person not to eat terumah 5. For even a priest's tenant or hired worker not to eat terumah 6. For an uncircumcised person not to eat terumah 7. For a priest who is ritually impure not to eat terumah 8. For a chalalah not to eat terumah or partake of the sacred offerings. Hilchot Ma'asrot The Laws of Tithes

‫ והיא‬,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות מעשר‬ ‫להפריש מעשר ראשון בכל שנה ושנה‬ .‫משני הזריעה וייתנו ללויים‬

[They contain] one mitzvah, to separate the first tithe each year the land is tilled and give it to the Levites.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

29 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni V'Neta Reva'i The Laws of the Second Tithe and the Produce of the Fourth Year They contain nine mitzvot: Three positive commandments and six negative commandments. They are: 1. To separate the second tithe 2. Not to use the proceeds of the second tithe for any human need other than food, drink, or anointing oneself

‫ יש בכללן‬.‫הלכות מעשר שני ונטע רבעי‬ ‫ ושש‬,‫תשע מצוות—שלוש מצוות עשה‬ (‫ )א‬:‫מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫להפריש מעשר שני; )ב( שלא להוציא‬ ‫ חוץ מאכילה‬,‫דמיו בשאר צורכי האדם‬ ;‫ושתייה וסיכה; )ג( שלא לאוכלו בטומאה‬ ‫)ד( שלא לאוכלו באנינות; )ה( שלא‬ ;‫לאכול מעשר שני של דגן חוץ לירושלים‬ ‫)ו( שלא לאכול מעשר תירוש חוץ‬ ‫לירושלים; )ז( שלא לאכול מעשר יצהר‬ ‫חוץ לירושלים; )ח( להיות נטע רבעי כולו‬ ‫ ודינו להיאכל בירושלים לבעליו‬,‫קודש‬ ‫כמעשר שני לכל דבר; )ט( להתוודות וידוי‬ .‫מעשר‬

3. Not to partake of [the second tithe] while ritually impure 4. Not to partake of [the second tithe] while in mourning 5. Not to partake of the second tithe of grain outside of Jerusalem 6. Not to partake of the second tithe of wine outside of Jerusalem 7. Not to partake of the second tithe of olive oil outside of Jerusalem 8. For the entire produce of the fourth year to be consecrated, for it to be eaten in Jerusalem by its owners, conforming in all matters to the laws governing the second tithe 9. To make the declaration associated with the giving of tithes.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

30 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Bikkurim The Laws of the First Fruits (and also the Laws Governing the other Presents Given to the Priests) They contain nine mitzvot: Eight positive commandments and one negative commandment. They are: 1. To separate the first fruits and bring them to the Temple

‫הלכות ביכורים עם שאר מתנות כהונה‬ ‫ יש בכללן תשע מצוות—שמונה‬.‫שבגבולין‬ ‫ ואחת מצות לא תעשה; וזה‬,‫מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( להפריש ביכורים‬:‫הוא פרטן‬ ‫ולהעלותן למקדש; )ב( שלא יאכל הכוהן‬ ;‫ביכורים חוץ לירושלים; )ג( לקרות עליהן‬ ‫)ד( להפריש חלה לכוהן; )ה( לתת זרוע‬ ‫ולחיים וקיבה לכוהן; )ו( ליתן לו ראשית‬ ‫הגז; )ז( לפדות בכור הבן וליתן פדיונו‬ ‫לכוהן; )ח( לפדות פטר חמור וליתן פדיונו‬ ‫ אם לא רצה‬,‫לכוהן; )ט( לערוף פטר חמור‬ .‫לפדותו‬

2. For a priest not to partake of the first fruits outside of Jerusalem 3. To recite the declaration (associated with the first fruits) 4. To separate challah [and give it] to a priest 5. To give the shankbone, jaw, and maw to a priest 6. To give him the first shearings [of our flocks] 7. To redeem a first-born son and give the redemption to the priest 8. To redeem a firstling donkey and give the animal [with which it is] redeemed to the priest 9. To decapitate a firstling donkey if one does not want to redeem it.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

31 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel The Laws of the Sabbatical and Jubilee Years They contain 22 mitzvot: Nine positive commandments and 13 negative commandments. They are: 1. To allow the land to rest from all [agricultural] work in the seventh year 2. Not to do any [agricultural] work on the land during this year 3. Not to do any [agricultural] work with trees during this year 4. Not to harvest produce that grows on its own in the normal manner 5. Not to harvest the vines in the normal manner 6. To renounce ownership over all of the earth's produce 7. To renounce all debts [owed one] 8. Not to demand payment or seek to collect a debt 9. Not to withhold lending money before the shemitah year, lest one's money be lost

‫ יש בכללן שתיים‬.‫הלכות שמיטה ויובל‬ ,‫ועשרים מצוות—תשע מצוות עשה‬ ‫ושלוש עשרה מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא‬ ‫ )א( שתשבות הארץ ממלאכתה‬:‫פרטן‬ ‫בשביעית; )ב( שלא יעבוד עבודת הארץ‬ ‫בשנה זו; )ג( שלא יעבוד עבודת האילן‬ ‫בשנה זו; )ד( שלא יקצור הספיח כנגד‬ ‫הקוצרים; )ה( שלא יבצור הנזירים כנגד‬ ;‫הבוצרים; )ו( שישמיט מה שתוציא הארץ‬ ‫)ז( שישמיט כל הלוואתו; )ח( שלא ייגוש‬ ‫ולא יתבע הלוואה; )ט( שלא יימנע‬ ‫מלהלוות קודם השמיטה כדי שלא יאבד‬ (‫ממונו; )י( לספור שנים שבע שבע; )יא‬ ‫לקדש שנת החמישים; )יב( לתקוע בשופר‬ ‫בעשירי לתשרי כדי לצאת עבדים‬ ‫חופשיים; )יג( שלא תעבוד אדמה בשנה‬ ‫זו; )יד( שלא יקצור ספיחיה כנגד‬ ‫הקוצרים; )טו( שלא יבצור נזיריה כנגד‬ ,‫הבוצרים; )טז( ליתן גאולה לארץ בשנה זו‬ (‫והוא דין שדה אחוזה ושדה מקנה; )יז‬ ‫שלא תימכר הארץ לצמיתות; )יח( דין בתי‬ ‫ערי חומה; )יט( שלא ינחל כל שבט לוי‬ ‫ אלא נותנים להם ערים‬,‫בארץ ישראל‬ ‫מתנה לשבת בהם; )כ( שלא ייקח שבט‬ ‫לוי חלק בביזה; )כא( ליתן ללויים ערים‬ ‫לשבת ומגרשיהם; )כב( שלא יימכר‬ ‫ אלא גואלים לעולם בין לפני‬,‫מגרש עריהם‬ .‫היובל בין לאחר היובל‬

10. To count the years [in cycles of] seven 11. To sanctify the fiftieth [Jubilee] year 12. To blow the shofar on the tenth of Tishrei [of the Jubilee], so that the [Hebrew] servants will be released 13. Not to work the land in this year 14. Not to harvest produce that grows on its own in the

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

32 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Thus, this book contains a total of 67 mitzvot: 30 positive commandments and 37 negative commandments.

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ,‫שבע ושישים—מהן שלושים מצוות עשה‬ .‫ושבע ושלושים מצוות לא תעשה‬

Sefer Avodah The Book of [the Temple and its] Service

‫ספר עבודה‬

It contains nine halachot. They are, in order:

‫ הלכות בית‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו תשע‬ ‫ הלכות כלי המקדש והעובדים‬,‫הבחירה‬ ‫ הלכות איסורי‬,‫ הלכות ביאת המקדש‬,‫בו‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫ הלכות מעשה הקרבנות‬,‫המזבח‬ ,‫ הלכות פסולי המוקדשין‬,‫תמידין ומוספין‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫הלכות עבודת יום הכיפורים‬ .‫מעילה‬

Hilchot Beit HaBechirah - The Laws of [God's] Chosen House Hilchot Klei HaMikdash V'HaOvdim Bo - The Laws [Governing] the Temple Utensils and Those who Serve Within Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash - The Laws [Governing] Entrance to the Temple Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach - The Laws [Governing Animals] Forbidden [to be Sacrificed on] the Altar Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot - The Laws of the Sacrificial Procedures Hilchot Temidim UMusafim - The Laws of Daily and Special Offerings Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim - The Laws of Offerings that have become Unacceptable [for Sacrifice] Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim - The Laws of the Yom Kippur Service Hilchot Me'ilah - The Laws of Misuse of Sacred Property.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

33 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Beit HaBechirah The Laws of [God's] Chosen House They contain six mitzvot: Three positive commandments and three negative commandments.

‫ יש בכללן שש‬.‫הלכות בית הבחירה‬ ‫ ושלוש מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שלוש מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( לבנות‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫מקדש; )ב( שלא לבנות המזבח גזית; )ג‬ ‫שלא לעלות במעלות עליו; )ד( ליראה מן‬ ;‫המקדש; )ה( לשמור את המקדש סביב‬ .‫)ו( שלא להשבית שמירת המקדש‬

They are: 1. To build a Temple 2. Not to build the altar with hewn stone 3. Not to ascend [the altar] with steps 4. To fear the Temple 5. To keep watch around the Temple 6. Not to nullify the watch around the Temple.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

34 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Klei HaMikdash V'HaOvdim Bo The Laws [Governing] the Temple Utensils and Those who Serve Within They contain 14 mitzvot: Six positive commandments and eight negative commandments. They are: 1. To make the anointing oil 2. Not to make [other oil] which resembles it 3. Not to pour it on the skin [of an unauthorized person]

‫ יש‬.‫הלכות כלי המקדש והעובדים בו‬ ‫בכללן ארבע עשרה מצוות—שש מצוות‬ ‫ ושמונה מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא‬,‫עשה‬ ‫ )א( לעשות שמן המשחה; )ב( שלא‬:‫פרטן‬ (‫לעשות כמוהו; )ג( שלא לסוך ממנו; )ד‬ ‫שלא לעשות כמתכונת הקטורת; )ה( שלא‬ ;‫להקטיר על מזבח הזהב חוץ מן הקטורת‬ ‫)ו( לשאת הארון על הכתף; )ז( שלא יסורו‬ ;‫הבדים ממנו; )ח( שיעבוד הלוי במקדש‬ ‫)ט( שלא יעשה אחד במלאכת חברו‬ (‫במקדש; )י( לקדש הכוהן לעבודה; )יא‬ (‫שיהיו כל המשמרות שוות ברגלים; )יב‬ ‫ללבוש בגדי כהונה לעבודה; )יג( שלא‬ ‫ייקרע המעיל; )יד( שלא ייזח החושן מעל‬ .‫האיפוד‬

4. Not to [mix incense] using the same formula as the incense offering 5. Not to offer anything on the golden altar with the exception of the incense offering 6. To carry the ark on one's shoulders 7. That the ark's staves not be removed from it 8. For the Levites to serve in the Temple 9. That a person appointed to one function in the Temple should not perform a task that was assigned to a different individual 10. To sanctify the priests [in preparation] for [Temple] service 11. For [the members of] all the priestly watches to be given equal opportunity during the festivals 12. To wear the priestly garments when serving [in the Temple] 13. For the [High Priest's] cloak not to be torn

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

35 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash The Laws [Governing] Entrance to the Temple They contain 15 mitzvot: Two positive commandments and thirteen negative commandments. They are: 1. For a drunken person not to enter the Temple 2. For a person with overly long hair not to enter [the Temple] 3. For a person with torn garments not to enter [the Temple]

‫ יש בכללן חמש‬.‫הלכות ביאת המקדש‬ ‫ ושלוש‬,‫עשרה מצוות—שתי מצוות עשה‬ :‫עשרה מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫)א( שלא ייכנס כוהן שיכור למקדש; )ב‬ ‫שלא ייכנס לו כוהן פרוע ראש; )ג( שלא‬ ‫ייכנס לו כוהן קרוע בגדים; )ד( שלא ייכנס‬ ‫כוהן בכל עת אל ההיכל; )ה( שלא ייצא‬ (‫כוהן מן המקדש בשעת העבודה; )ו‬ ‫לשלח טמאים מן המקדש; )ז( שלא ייכנס‬ ‫טמא למקדש; )ח( שלא ייכנס טמא להר‬ ‫הבית; )ט( שלא ישמש טמא; )י( שלא‬ ‫ישמש טבול יום; )יא( לקדש העובד ידיו‬ ‫ורגליו; )יב( שלא ייכנס בעל מום להיכל‬ (‫ולמזבח; )יג( שלא יעבוד בעל מום; )יד‬ ‫שלא יעבוד בעל מום עובר; )טו( שלא‬ .‫יעבוד זר‬

4. For a priest not to enter the Temple building at all times 5. For a priest not to leave the Temple in the midst of service 6. To send away the ritually impure from the Temple 7. For [certain categories of] the ritually impure not to enter the Temple 8. For [certain categories of] the ritually impure not to enter the Temple Mount 9. For one who is ritually impure not to serve [in the Temple] 10. For one who is ritually impure and immersed himself in a mikveh not to serve [in the Temple on the day of his immersion] 11. For a priest serving [in the Temple] to sanctify his hands and feet 12. For a priest with a disqualifying physical blemish

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

36 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach The Laws [Governing Animals] Forbidden [to be Sacrificed on] the Altar They contain 14 mitzvot: Four positive commandments and ten negative commandments. They are: 1. To offer all the sacrifices in an unblemished state 2. Not to dedicate an animal with a disqualifying physical blemish for sacrifice 3. Not to slaughter [an animal with a disqualifying physical blemish as a sacrifice]

‫ יש בכללן ארבע‬.‫הלכות איסורי מזבח‬ ‫ ועשר‬,‫עשרה מצוות—ארבע מצוות עשה‬ (‫ )א‬:‫מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫להקריב כל הקרבנות תמימין; )ב( שלא‬ ‫להקדיש בעל מום למזבח; )ג( שלא‬ ‫ישחוט; )ד( שלא יזרוק דמו; )ה( שלא‬ ‫יקטיר חלבו; )ו( שלא יקריב בעל מום‬ ‫ אפילו‬,‫עובר; )ז( שלא יקריב בעל מום‬ ‫בקרבנות הגויים; )ח( שלא יטיל מום‬ ;‫בקודשים; )ט( לפדות פסולי המוקדשים‬ ‫ וקודם‬,‫)י( להקריב מיום השמיני והלאה‬ ‫זמן זה הוא הנקרא מחוסר זמן ואין‬ ‫מקריבין אותו; )יא( שלא להקריב אתנן‬ ;‫ומחיר; )יב( שלא להקטיר שאור ודבש‬ ‫)יג( למלוח כל הקרבנות; )יד( שלא‬ .‫להשבית מלח מעל הקרבנות‬

4. Not to sprinkle the blood of [an animal with a disqualifying physical blemish] 5. Not to burn the fats of [an animal with a disqualifying physical blemish] 6. Not to sacrifice an animal with a disqualifying physical blemish of a temporary nature 7. Not to sacrifice an animal with a disqualifying physical blemish even when offered by gentiles 8. Not to cause a disqualifying physical blemish in an animal that was consecrated for sacrificial use 9. To redeem an animal [that was set aside for sacrificial use] which possesses a disqualifying physical blemish 10. To sacrifice an animal only after the eighth day. Before that time, it is considered as "lacking [sufficient] time" and cannot be sacrificed. 11. Not to offer as a sacrifice [an animal] given as a

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

37 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot The Laws of the Sacrificial Procedures They contain 23 mitzvot: Ten positive commandments and thirteen negative commandments. They are: 1. To offer the burnt offerings in accordance with the procedure stated in the Torah 2. Not to eat the meat of the burnt offerings 3. The procedure for a sin offering 4. Not to eat the meat of those sin offerings [whose blood was brought] inside [the Temple building] 5. Not to cut off the head entirely when slaying a bird brought as a sin offering 6. The procedure for a guilt offering 7. That the priests should eat the meat of the sacrifices of the most sacred order within the Temple 8. That [the meat of these sacrifices] should not be eaten outside the Temple Courtyard

‫ יש בכללן שלוש‬.‫הלכות מעשה הקרבנות‬ ,‫ועשרים מצוות—עשר מצוות עשה‬ ‫ושלוש עשרה מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא‬ ‫ )א( לעשות העולה כמעשיה‬:‫פרטן‬ ‫הכתובים על הסדר; )ב( שלא לאכול בשר‬ ‫העולה; )ג( סדר החטאת; )ד( שלא לאכול‬ ‫מבשר חטאת הפנימית; )ה( שלא יבדיל‬ (‫בחטאת העוף; )ו( סדר האשם; )ז‬ ‫שיאכלו הכוהנים בשר קודשי קודשים‬ ;‫במקדש; )ח( שלא יאכלום חוץ לעזרה‬ (‫)ט( שלא יאכל זר מקודשי קודשים; )י‬ ‫סדר השלמים; )יא( שלא לאכול בשר‬ (‫קודשים קלים קודם זריקת דמים; )יב‬ ‫לעשות כל מנחה כסדר מעשיה הכתובים‬ ‫בתורה; )יג( שלא ישים שמן על מנחת‬ (‫חוטא; )יד( שלא ייתן עליה לבונה; )טו‬ ‫שלא תיאכל מנחת כוהן; )טז( שלא‬ ‫תיאפה מנחת חמץ; )יז( שיאכלו הכוהנים‬ ‫שיירי מנחות; )יח( שיביא כל נדריו‬ ‫ונדבותיו ברגל שפגע בו ראשון; )יט( שלא‬ ‫יאחר נדרו ונדבתו ושאר דברים שהוא‬ ‫חייב בהן; )כ( להקריב כל הקרבנות בבית‬ ‫הבחירה; )כא( להביא קודשי חוצה לארץ‬ ‫לבית הבחירה; )כב( שלא לשחוט קרבנות‬ ‫חוץ לעזרה; )כג( שלא להקריב קרבן חוץ‬ .‫לעזרה‬

9. That an unauthorized person should not partake of the sacrifices of the most sacred order 10. The procedure for a peace offering 11. Not to eat from the sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness before the sprinkling of their blood 12. To offer the meal offerings in accordance with the procedure stated in the Torah 13. Not to put oil on a meal offering brought by a sinner

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

38 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Temidim UMusafim The Laws of Daily and Special Offerings They contain 19 mitzvot: Eighteen positive commandments and one negative commandment. They are: 1. Two offer two Iambs every day 2. To kindle the fire of the altar every day 3. Not to extinguish [the fire of the altar] 4. To remove the ashes [from the altar] every day 5. To offer the incense offering every day 6. To light the candles [of the Menorah] every day

‫ יש בכללן תשע‬.‫הלכות תמידין ומוספין‬ ‫עשרה מצוות—שמונה עשרה מצוות‬ ‫ ואחת מצות לא תעשה; וזה הוא‬,‫עשה‬ ‫ )א( להקריב שני כבשים בכל יום‬:‫פרטן‬ ‫עולות; )ב( להדליק אש על המזבח בכל‬ ‫יום; )ג( שלא לכבותה; )ד( להרים את‬ ‫הדשן בכל יום; )ה( להקטיר קטורת בכל‬ ‫יום; )ו( להדליק נרות בכל יום; )ז( שיקריב‬ ‫ והיא הנקראת‬,‫כוהן גדול מנחה בכל יום‬ ‫חביתין; )ח( להוסיף שני כבשים עולות‬ ‫בשבת; )ט( לעשות לחם הפנים; )י( מוסף‬ (‫ראשי חודשים; )יא( מוסף הפסח; )יב‬ ‫להקריב עומר התנופה; )יג( לספור כל‬ ‫איש ואיש שבעה שבועות מיום הקרבת‬ ‫העומר; )יד( מוסף עצרת; )טו( להביא‬ ‫שתי הלחם עם הקרבנות הבאות בגלל‬ ;‫הלחם ביום עצרת; )טז( מוסף ראש השנה‬ (‫)יז( מוסף יום צום; )יח( מוסף החג; )יט‬ .‫מוסף שמיני עצרת‬

7. For the High Priest to offer a meal offering every day. It is called Minchat Chavitin. 8. To sacrifice an additional two lambs [as a musaf offering] on the Sabbath 9. To offer the showbread 10. To bring a musaf offering on Rosh Chodesh 11. To bring a musaf offering on Pesach 12. To bring the omer offering which is waved] 13. For every individual to count seven weeks from the day the omer was offered 14. To bring a musaf offering on Shavuot 15. To bring the two loaves [of bread] and the sacrifices which accompany the loaves on Shavuot

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

39 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim The Laws of Offerings that have become Unacceptable [for Sacrifice] They contain eight mitzvot: Two positive commandments and six negative commandments.

‫ יש בכללן שמונה‬.‫הלכות פסולי המוקדשין‬ ‫ ושש מצוות לא‬,‫מצוות—שתי מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( שלא לאכול‬:‫תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫קודשים שנפסלו ושהוטל בהם מום; )ב‬ ‫שלא לאכול פיגול; )ג( שלא יותיר‬ ;‫קודשים לאחר זמנן; )ד( שלא יאכל נותר‬ ‫)ה( שלא יאכל קודשים שנטמאו; )ו( שלא‬ (‫יאכל אדם שנטמא את הקודשים; )ז‬ .‫לשרוף את הנותר; )ח( לשרוף את הטמא‬

They are: 1. Not to partake of sacred foods that have become disqualified because of blemishes or due to other reasons 2. Not to eat piggul 3. Not to partake of sacred foods after the time prescribed for their consumption 4. Not to partake of notar [meat from the sacrifices which remains after the time prescribed for their consumption] 5. Not to partake of sacred foods that have become impure 6. For a person who becomes impure not to partake of sacred foods 7. To burn notar 8. To burn sacrificial offerings that have become impure.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

40 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim The Laws of the Yom Kippur Service [They contain] one mitzvah, to perform the service of Yom Kippur, the sacrifices, the confessions, the sending away of the goat, and the other aspects of the service, in accordance with the order prescribed in the parashah of Acharei Mot. Hilchot Me'ilah The Laws of Misuse of Sacred Property. They contain three mitzvot: One positive commandment commandments.

and

two

negative

‫ מצות עשה‬.‫הלכות עבודת יום הכיפורים‬ ‫אחת—והיא שיעשה מעשה יום הכיפורים‬ ‫כולו על הסדר כמו שכתוב בפרשת אחרי‬ ‫ הקרבנות והווידויין ושילוח השעיר‬,‫מות‬ .‫ושאר העבודה‬

‫שלוש‬ ‫מצוות‬ ‫לשלם‬ ,‫וקרבן‬ ‫לעבוד‬

‫ יש בכללן‬.‫הלכות מעילה‬ ‫ ושתיים‬,‫מצוות—אחת מצות עשה‬ (‫ )א‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫המועל אשר חטא בתוספת חומש‬ ‫וזה הוא דין המועל; )ב( שלא‬ .‫בקודשים; )ג( שלא לגוז קודשים‬

They are: 1. For a person who sins by misusing sacred property to make recompense, adding a fifth [of the article's value] and offering a sacrifice. This is the law pertaining to a mo'il. 2. Not to work with animals which were consecrated 3. Not to shear animals which were consecrated. Thus, this book contains a total of 103 mitzvot: 47 positive commandments and 56 negative commandments. Sefer Korbanot

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ‫מאה ושלוש—מהם שבע וארבעים מצוות‬ .‫ ושש וחמישים מצוות לא תעשה‬,‫עשה‬ ‫ספר קרבנות‬

The Book of Sacrifices

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

41 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

It contains six halachot. They are, in order: Hilchot Korban Pesach - The Laws of the Paschal Offering Hilchot Chaggigah - The Laws of the Festive Offering

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו שש‬ ,‫ הלכות בכורות‬,‫ הלכות חגיגה‬,‫קרבן פסח‬ ,‫ הלכות מחוסרי כפרה‬,‫הלכות שגגות‬ .‫הלכות תמורה‬

Hilchot Bechorot - The Laws of the Firstling Animals Hilchot Shegagot - The Laws of the Offerings [to Atone for] Unintentional Transgression Hilchot Mechusarei Kapparah - The Laws of [the Offerings brought by] those whose Process of Atonement is Incomplete Hilchot Temurah - The Laws of [Offerings which were] Substituted [One for Another]

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

42 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Korban Pesach The Laws of the Paschal Offering They contain 16 mitzvot: Four positive commandments and twelve negative commandments. They are: 1. To slaughter the Paschal sacrifice at its appropriate time 2. Not to slaughter it while in possession of chametz 3. Not to allow the portions burned on the altar to remain overnight 4. To slaughter the second Paschal sacrifice 5. To eat the meat of the Paschal sacrifice together with matzot and bitter herbs on the night of the fifteenth [of

‫ יש בכללן שש עשרה‬.‫הלכות קרבן פסח‬ ‫ ושתים עשרה‬,‫מצוות—ארבע מצוות עשה‬ (‫ )א‬:‫מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫לשחוט הפסח בזמנו; )ב( שלא לזבוח‬ ;‫אותו על החמץ; )ג( שלא תלין אימוריו‬ ‫)ד( לשחוט פסח שני; )ה( לאכול בשר‬ ;‫הפסח על מצה ומרור בלילי חמישה עשר‬ ‫)ו( לאכול בשר פסח שני על מצה ומרור‬ ‫בלילי חמישה עשר לחודש השני; )ז( שלא‬ ‫יאכל נא ומבושל; )ח( שלא יוציא מבשר‬ ‫הפסח חוץ לחבורה; )ט( שלא יאכל ממנו‬ ‫משומד; )י( שלא יאכיל ממנו לתושב או‬ (‫שכיר; )יא( שלא יאכל ממנו ערל; )יב‬ ‫שלא ישבור בו עצם; )יג( שלא ישבור‬ ‫עצם בפסח שני; )יד( שלא ישאיר ממנו‬ ‫לבוקר; )טו( שלא ישאיר מפסח שני‬ ‫לבוקר; )טז( שלא ישאיר מבשר חגיגת‬ .‫ארבעה עשר עד יום שלישי‬

Nisan] 6. To eat the meat of the second Paschal sacrifice on the night of the fifteenth of the second month 7. Not to partake [of the Paschal sacrifice] is raw or boiled 8. Not to take the meat of the Paschal sacrifice out of the group [in which it is eaten] 9. Not to allow an apostate to eat from it 10. For a resident alien or a [Jew's] hired worker not to partake of it 11. For an uncircumcised person not to partake of it 12. Not to break a bone of it 13. Not to break a bone in the second Paschal sacrifice

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

43 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Chaggigah The Laws of the Festive Offering They contain six mitzvot: Four positive commandments and two negative commandments.

‫שש‬ ‫בכללן‬ ‫יש‬ .‫חגיגה‬ ‫הלכות‬ ‫ ושתי מצוות‬,‫מצוות—ארבע מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( להיראות‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫פני ה'; )ב( לחוג בשלושה רגלים; )ג‬ ;‫לשמוח ברגלים; )ד( שלא ייראה ריקם‬ ‫)ה( שלא יעזוב לוי מלשמחו וליתן לו‬ ‫מתנותיו ברגלים; )ו( להקהיל את העם‬ .‫בחג הסוכות במוצאי שמיטה‬

They are: 1. To present oneself before God 2. To celebrate on the three pilgrimage festivals 3. To rejoice on the festivals 4. Not to appear [before God] empty-handed 5. Not to abandon the Levi, but rather to have him rejoice and give him the presents due him on the festivals 6. To gather together the people during the Sukkot festival during the year following the shemitah year.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

44 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Bechorot The Laws of the Firstling Animals They contain five mitzvot: Two positive commandments and three negative commandments. They are: 1. To separate the firstling animals [as a sacrifice]

‫ יש בכללן חמש‬.‫הלכות בכורות‬ ‫ ושלוש מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שתי מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( להפריש‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫בכורות; )ב( שלא ייאכל בכור תמים חוץ‬ (‫לירושלים; )ג( שלא ייפדה הבכור; )ד‬ ‫להפריש מעשר בהמה; )ה( שלא ייגאל‬ ‫ וכללתי המעשר עם‬.‫מעשר בהמה‬ ,‫הבכור—לפי שמעשה שניהם אחד‬ ‫ שנאמר "ואת דמם‬:‫והכתוב כללו עימו‬ ‫כך למדו מפי‬--(‫יז‬,‫תזרוק" )ראה במדבר יח‬ .‫ שזה דם מעשר ודם בכור‬,‫השמועה‬

2. Not to partake of an unblemished firstling animal outside of Jerusalem 3. Not to redeem a firstling animal 4. To separate the tithes of one's herds 5. Not to redeem the tithes of one's herds I have included the laws of the tithes of one's herds together with the laws of the firstling animals, because the same procedure is followed with regard to both of them. The Torah also groups the two together in the verse (Numbers 18:17): "And you shall dash their blood...." According to the oral tradition, we learn that this refers to the blood of the tithes and the blood of the firstling animals.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

45 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Shegagot The Laws of the Offerings [to Atone for] Unintentional Transgression They contain five positive commandments. They are: 1. That a person who inadvertently violates a transgression should bring a fixed sin offering 2. That a person who does not know whether or not he violated a transgression should bring a guilt offering unless he discovers that he definitely transgressed, at which time he must bring a sin offering. This [guilt offering] is referred to as "the conditional guilt offering."

‫ יש בכללן חמש מצוות‬.‫הלכות שגגות‬ ‫ )א( שיקריב היחיד‬:‫עשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫קרבן חטאת קבוע על שגגתו; )ב( שיקריב‬ ‫אשם מי שלא נודע לו אם חטא אם לא‬ ‫ וזה‬,‫חטא עד שייוודע לו ויביא חטאתו‬ ‫הוא הנקרא אשם תלוי; )ג( שיקריב‬ ‫ וזה הוא‬,‫החוטא אשם על עבירות ידועות‬ ‫הנקרא אשם ודאי; )ד( שיקריב החוטא‬ ‫ אם היה עשיר‬,‫קרבן על עבירות ידועות‬ ‫בהמה ואם היה עני עוף או עשירית‬ ;‫ וזה הוא הנקרא קרבן עולה ויורד‬,‫האיפה‬ ‫ אם טעו‬,‫)ה( שיקריבו הסנהדרין קרבן‬ .‫והורו שלא כהלכה באחת מן החמורות‬

3. That a person who commits certain sins should bring a guilt offering [to atone] for their violation. This is referred to as "the definite guilt offering." 4. For a person who commits certain sins to offer [a sacrifice in] atonement. If he is rich, he should offer an animal, if he is poor, a fowl or the tenth of an ephah [of meal]. This is referred to as "the adjustable guilt offering." 5. For the Sanhedrin to offer a sacrifice if they render an erroneous decision regarding one of the serious matters [of Torah law].

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

46 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Mechusarei Kapparah The Laws of [the Offerings brought by] those whose Process of Atonement is Incomplete They contain four positive commandments. They are:

‫ יש בכללן ארבע‬.‫הלכות מחוסרי כפרה‬ ‫ )א( שתקריב‬:‫מצוות עשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫הזבה כשתטהר קרבן; )ב( שתקריב‬ ‫היולדת כשתטהר קרבן; )ג( שיקריב הזב‬ ‫כשיטהר קרבן; )ד( שיקריב המצורע‬ ,‫ ואחר שיקריבו קרבנותיהן‬.‫כשיטהר קרבן‬ .‫תיגמר טהרתן‬

1. For a zavah to offer a sacrifice when she becomes ritually pure 2. For a woman who gives birth to offer a sacrifice when she becomes ritually pure 3. For a zav to offer a sacrifice when he becomes ritually pure 4. For a person afflicted by tzara’at to offer a sacrifice when he becomes ritually pure. : After the offering of these sacrifices, the process of purification of these individuals is completed.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

47 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Temurah The Laws of [Offerings which were] Substituted [One for Another] They contain three mitzvot:

‫ יש בכללן שלוש‬.‫הלכות תמורה‬ ‫ ושתיים מצוות‬,‫מצוות—אחת מצות עשה‬ ;‫ )א( שלא ימיר‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫ אם המיר; )ג‬,‫)ב( שתהיה התמורה קודש‬ .‫שלא ישנה הקודשים מקדושה לקדושה‬

One positive commandment and two negative commandments. They are: 1. Not to substitute [another animal for one designated as a sacrifice] 2. For an animal that was substituted [for one designated as a sacrifice] to be considered consecrated 3. Not to change animals that were consecrated from one category of holiness to another. Thus, this book contains a total of 39 mitzvot: 20 positive commandments and 19 negative commandments.

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ,‫תשע ושלושים—מהן עשרים מצוות עשה‬ .‫ותשע עשרה מצוות לא תעשה‬

‫ספר טהרה‬ ,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ,‫תשע ושלושים—מהן עשרים מצוות עשה‬ .‫ותשע עשרה מצוות לא תעשה‬

Sefer Taharah The Book of Ritual Purity ‫ספר טהרה‬

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

48 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

It consists of eight halachot. They are, in order: Hilchot Tum'at Meit - The Laws of the Ritual Impurity Imparted by a Human Corpse Hilchot Parah Adumah - The Laws of [the Purification Process Involving] the Red Heifer

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו שמונה‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫ הלכות פרה אדומה‬,‫טומאת מת‬ ‫ הלכות מטמאי משכב‬,‫טומאת צרעת‬ ,‫ הלכות שאר אבות הטמאות‬,‫ומושב‬ ,‫ הלכות כלים‬,‫הלכות טומאת אוכלין‬ .‫הלכות מקוות‬

Hilchot Tum'at Tzara'at - The Laws of the Ritual Impurity Imparted by Tzara’at Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav - The Laws of the [Sources of Ritual Impurity] which Impart Impurity to the Places where One Sits and the Places where One Lies Hilchot Sh'ar Avot HaTum'ah - The Laws of the Other Categories of Sources of Ritual Impurity Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin - The Laws of the Ritual Impurity Contracted by Foods Hilchot Kelim - The Laws of [the Ritual Impurity] Contracted by Vessels Hilchot Mikvaot - The Laws of Mikvaot Hilchot Tum'at Meit

,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות טומאת מת‬ .‫והוא דין טומאת מת‬

The Laws of the Ritual Impurity Imparted by a Human Corpse They contain one positive commandment, the laws governing the ritual impurity imparted by a human corpse.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

49 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Parah Adumah The Laws of [the Purification Process Involving] the Red Heifer

‫ יש בכללן שתי מצוות‬.‫הלכות פרה אדומה‬ ;‫ )א( דין פרה אדומה‬:‫עשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ .‫)ב( דין טומאת מי נידה וטהרתן‬

They contain two positive commandments. They are: 1. The law of the red heifer 2. The laws involving the ritual purity and impurity imparted by the water that is sprinkled [together with the ashes of the red heifer].

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

50 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Tum'at Tzara'at The Laws of the Ritual Impurity Imparted by Tzara’at They contain eight mitzvot: Six positive commandments and two negative commandments. They are:

‫ יש בכללן שמונה‬.‫הלכות טומאת צרעת‬ ‫ ושתי מצוות לא‬,‫מצוות—שש מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( להורות‬:‫תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫בצרעת אדם כדינה הכתוב בתורה; )ב‬ ‫שלא יקוץ סימני טומאה; )ג( שלא יגלח‬ ‫הנתק; )ד( שיהא המצורע מפורסם‬ ‫בקריעת בגדיו ופריעת ראשו ועטייה על‬ ‫שפם; )ה( טהרת צרעת; )ו( שיגלח‬ ‫המצורע את כל שיערו כשיטהר; )ז( דין‬ .‫צרעת הבגד; )ח( דין צרעת הבית‬

1. To render judgments concerning tzara’at in humans as prescribed by the Torah 2. Not to cut off the signs of tzara’at 3. Not to shave a bald spot 4. That a person afflicted by tzara’at should make known his state of impurity by wearing torn clothing, letting his hair grow long, and covering his head 5. The purification process of a person afflicted by tzara’at 6. That a person afflicted by tzara’at should shave off all his hair as part of his purification process 7. The laws of tzara’at in clothing 8. The laws of tzara’at in houses.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

51 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav The Laws of the [Sources of Ritual Impurity] which Impart Impurity to the Places where One Sits and the Places where One Lies

‫ יש בכללן‬.‫הלכות מטמאי משכב ומושב‬ ‫ )א( דין‬:‫ארבע מצוות עשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫טומאת נידה; )ב( דין טומאת יולדת; )ג‬ .‫דין טומאת זבה; )ד( דין טומאת זב‬

They contain four positive commandments. They are: 1. The laws of the impurity of the niddah state 2. The laws of the impurity of a woman after childbirth 3. The laws of the impurity of a zavah 4. The laws of the impurity of a zav Hilchot Sh'ar Avot HaTum'ah The Laws of the Other Categories of Sources of Ritual Impurity They contain three positive commandments. They are:

‫ יש בכללן‬.‫הלכות שאר אבות הטמאות‬ ‫ )א( דין‬:‫שלוש מצוות עשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫טומאת נבילה; )ב( דין טומאת שרץ; )ג‬ ‫ ועבודה זרה‬.‫דין טומאת שכבת זרע‬ .‫ וטומאתה מדברי סופרים‬,‫מטמאה כשרץ‬

1. The laws of the impurity imparted by an animal carcass 2. The laws of the impurity imparted by a the carcass of a crawling animal 3. The laws of the impurity imparted by human semen. [These halachot also deal with] the ritual impurity imparted by false gods and their accessories. This ritual impurity is equivalent to that imparted by the carcass of a crawling animal; it is a Rabbinic injunction. Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin The Laws of the Ritual Impurity Contracted by Foods

,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות טומאת אוכלין‬ .‫והיא דין טומאת משקין ואוכלין והכשרן‬

They contain one positive commandment, the laws of the impurity contracted by liquids and foods and how it is possible for them to regain ritual purity.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

52 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Kelim The Laws of [the Ritual Impurity] Contracted by Vessels

‫ עניין אלו ההלכות לידע כלים‬.‫הלכות כלים‬ ,‫שמקבלין טומאה מכל אלו הטמאות‬ ‫ וכיצד מיטמאין‬,‫וכלים שאינם מיטמאין‬ .‫הכלים ומטמאין‬

The intent of these laws is to know which vessels can contract the above-mentioned impurities and which do not, and how the vessels contract and impart ritual impurity. Hilchot Mikvaot The Laws of Mikvaot

‫ והיא‬,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות מקוות‬ ‫שיטבול כל טמא במי מקוה ואחר כך‬ .‫יטהר‬

[They contain] one positive commandment, that all those who are impure should immerse themselves in the waters of a mikveh [to] regain purity afterwards. Thus, this book contains a total of 20 mitzvot: 18 positive commandments and two negative commandments. Sefer Nezikin

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ,‫עשרים—מהן שמונה עשרה מצוות עשה‬ .‫ושתי מצוות לא תעשה‬ ‫ספר נזקים‬

The Book of Damages It consists of five halachot. They are, in order: Hilchot Nizkei Mammon - The Laws of Damage to Property Hilchot Geneivah - The Laws of Theft

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו חמש‬ ‫ הלכות גזילה‬,‫ הלכות גניבה‬,‫נזקי ממון‬ ‫ הלכות רוצח‬,‫ הלכות חובל ומזיק‬,‫ואבידה‬ .‫ושמירת נפש‬

Hilchot Gezeilah Va'Avedah -The Laws of Robbery and [the Return of] Lost Object Hilchot Chovel UMazik - The Laws of [Personal] Injury and Damages [Caused Directly by Human Action] Hilchot Rotzeach USh'mirat Nefesh - The Laws of Murder and the Protection of Life

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

53 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Nizkei Mammon The Laws of Damage to Property

‫ יש בכללן ארבע מצוות‬.‫הלכות נזקי ממון‬ (‫ )א( דין השור; )ב‬:‫עשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ .‫דין ההבער; )ג( דין הבור; )ד( דין הבעירה‬

They contain four positive commandments. They are: 1. The laws governing [the damages caused by the goring of] an ox 2. The laws governing [the damages caused by] the grazing of animals 3. The laws governing [the damages caused by] an obstruction [in public property] 4. The laws governing [the damages caused by] fire. Hilchot Geneivah The Laws of Theft They contain seven mitzvot: Two positive commandments and five negative commandments. They are: 1. Not to steal money

‫ יש בכללן שבע‬.‫הלכות גניבה‬ ‫ וחמש מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שתי מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( שלא לגנוב‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫ממון; )ב( דין הגנב; )ג( לצדק המאזניים‬ ‫עם המשקלות; )ד( שלא יעשה עוול‬ ‫במידות ובמשקלות; )ה( שלא יהיה לאדם‬ ‫ אף על פי שאינו‬,‫אבן ואבן איפה ואיפה‬ (‫לוקח ונותן בהם; )ו( שלא יסיג גבול; )ז‬ .‫שלא לגנוב נפשות‬

2. The laws governing [punishment of] a thief 3. To have proper scales and weights 4. Not to deal unjustly with weights and measures 5. For a person not to possess incorrect weights and measures, even if he does not use them for purchase or sale 6. Not to alter a [colleague's] property marker 7. Not to kidnap.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

54 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Gezeilah Va'Avedah The Laws of Robbery and [the Return> of] >Lost Objects They contain seven mitzvot Two positive commandments and five negative commandments.

‫ יש בכללן שבע‬.‫הלכות גזילה ואבידה‬ ‫ וחמש מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שתי מצוות עשה‬ ;‫ )א( שלא לגזול‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫)ב( שלא לעשוק; )ג( שלא לחמוד; )ד‬ ;‫שלא להתאוות; )ה( להשיב את הגזילה‬ ‫)ו( שלא יתעלם מן האבידה; )ז( להשיב‬ .‫האבידה‬

They are: 1. Not to commit robbery 2. Not to wrong [a colleague by withholding his due] 3. Not to covet 4. Not to desire 5. To return a stolen object 6. Not to ignore a lost object 7. To return a lost object. Hilchot Chovel UMazik

,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות חובל ומזיק‬ .‫והוא דין חובל בחברו או מזיק ממון חברו‬

The Laws of [Personal] Injury and Damages [Caused Directly by Human Action] [They contain] one positive commandment, the laws governing injury which one person causes another, and damages which one person causes to a colleague's property.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

55 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Rotzeach USh'mirat Nefesh The Laws of Murder and the Protection of Life They contain 17 mitzvot: Seven positive commandments and ten negative commandments. They are: 1. Not to murder 2. Not to take a ransom for the life of the murderer 3. To exile one who inadvertently kills another person 4. Not to take a ransom for the person sentenced to exile

‫ יש בכללן‬.‫הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש‬ ,‫שבע עשרה מצוות—שבע מצוות עשה‬ :‫ועשר מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫)א( שלא לרצוח; )ב( שלא ליקח כופר‬ ‫ אלא יומת; )ג( להגלות‬,‫לנפש רוצח‬ ‫הרוצח בשגגה; )ד( שלא ליקח כופר‬ ‫למחוייב גלות; )ה( שלא יומת הרוצח‬ ‫ קודם עמידה בדין; )ו( להציל‬,‫כשירצח‬ ‫הנרדף בנפשו של רודף; )ז( שלא לחוס‬ (‫על הרודף; )ח( שלא לעמוד על דם; )ט‬ (‫להפריש ערי מקלט ולהכין להם הדרך; )י‬ ‫לערוף את העגלה בנחל; )יא( שלא יעבוד‬ ‫באותה קרקע ולא תיזרע; )יב( שלא לשים‬ ‫דמים; )יג( לעשות מעקה; )יד( שלא‬ ‫יכשיל תמים בדבר; )טו( לפרוק עם מי‬ ‫שנכשל בדרך; )טז( לטעון עימו; )יז( שלא‬ .‫יניחנו בדרך נבהל במשאו וילך לו‬

5. That the murderer should not be killed before having been given a trial 6. To save a person who is being pursued [even at the expense of] the pursuer's life 7. Not to show any mercy to a pursuer 8. Not to neglect [a person] in mortal danger 9. To set aside cities of refuge and to prepare the road to them 10. To decapitate a calf in a river [in atonement for an unsolved murder] 11. Not to till or sow the land [where this atonement was made] 12. Not to create a dangerous situation 13. To put up a guard rail 14. Not to cause an innocent person to err

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

56 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Thus, this book contains a total of 36 mitzvot: 16 positive commandments and 20 negative commandments. Sefer Kinyan The Book of Acquisition [of Property] It consists of five halachot. They are, in order: Hilchot Mechirah - The Laws Governing Sales Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah - The Laws Governing the Acquisition of Property and Presents

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ‫שש ושלושים—מהן שש עשרה מצוות‬ .‫ ועשרים מצוות לא תעשה‬,‫עשה‬ ‫ספר קניין‬

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו חמש‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫ הלכות זכייה ומתנה‬,‫מכירה‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫ הלכות שלוחין ושותפין‬,‫שכנים‬ .‫עבדים‬

Hilchot Sh'chenim - The Laws Governing [Relations] with Neighbors Hilchot Shluchin VShutafin - The Laws of Agents and Partners Hilchot Avadim - The Laws of Slaves. Hilchot Mechirah The Laws Governing Sales They contain four mitzvot: One positive commandment and three negative commandments.

‫ יש בכללן חמש‬.‫הלכות מכירה‬ ‫ וארבע מצוות‬,‫מצוות—אחת מצות עשה‬ ‫ )א( דין מקח‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫וממכר; )ב( שלא יונה במקח וממכר; )ג‬ ‫שלא יונה בדברים; )ד( שלא יונה גר צדק‬ .‫בממונו; )ה( שלא יונהו בדברים‬

They are: 1. The laws of sales and purchases 2. Not to cheat a colleague in a business transaction 3. Not to wrong a person with words 4. Not to wrong a convert financially. 5. Not to wrong him with words.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

57 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah The Laws Governing the Acquisition of Property and Presents

‫ עניין אלו ההלכות‬.‫הלכות זכייה ומתנה‬ ‫לידע דין זוכה מן ההפקר היאך יקנה ובמה‬ ‫ ודין נותן מתנה ומקבל ואיזו מתנה‬,‫יקנה‬ .‫חוזרת ואיזו אינה חוזרת‬

The intent of] these laws is to know how one acquires ownerless property and what [legal] acts are involved, the laws governing the giving and receiving of a present; which present [does not represent a binding commitment and, therefore,] must be returned to its owner, and which [is binding] and need not be returned. Hilchot Sh'chenim The Laws Governing [Relations] with Neighbors The intent of these laws is to know how land is divided between partners, the measures each must take to prevent damage to the other and their neighbors, and the laws governing a person's right to purchase property sold by his neighbor Hilchot Shluchin V'Shutafin The Laws of Agents and Partners The intent of these laws is to know the laws governing the activities of a person's agent, the laws governing partners, and their application with regard to purchases, sales, losses, and profits.

‫ עניין אלו ההלכות לידע דין‬.‫הלכות שכנים‬ ‫ והרחקת‬,‫חילוק הקרקעות בין השותפין‬ ‫נזקי כל אחד מהן משכנו ומבעל המצר‬ .‫ ודין בעל המצר‬,‫שלו‬

‫ עניין אלו ההלכות‬.‫הלכות שלוחין ושותפין‬ ,‫לידע דין שלוחו של אדם ושותפו‬ ‫ומשפטיהן במקחן וממכרן ובהפסדן‬ .‫ושכרן‬

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

58 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Avadim The Laws of Slaves They contain 13 mitzvot: Five positive commandments and eight negative commandments. They are: 1. The laws governing the purchase of a Hebrew servant 2. That he not be sold in the way a slave is sold

‫ יש בכללן שלוש עשרה‬.‫הלכות עבדים‬ ‫ ושמונה‬,‫מצוות—חמש מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( דין‬:‫מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫קניין עבד עברי; )ב( שלא יימכר ממכרת‬ ‫עבד; )ג( שלא יעבידנו בפרך; )ד( שלא‬ ‫נניח גר תושב לרדות בו בפרך; )ה( שלא‬ ‫נעבוד בו עבודת עבד; )ו( להעניק לו‬ (‫בצאתו חופשי; )ז( שלא ייצא ריקם; )ח‬ (‫לפדות אמה עברייה; )ט( לייעדה; )י‬ ‫שלא תימכר; )יא( לעבוד בעבד כנעני‬ ‫ אלא אם הפיל לו אדוניו אחד‬,‫לעולם‬ ‫מראשי אבריו; )יב( שלא להסגיר עבד‬ (‫שברח מחוצה לארץ לארץ ישראל; )יג‬ .‫שלא להונות עבד זה הניצול אלינו‬

3. That he may not be made to perform rigorous work 4. Not to allow a resident alien to make him perform rigorous work 5. Not to make him perform servile tasks 6. To give him a separation gift when he is released 7. That he should not be released empty-handed 8. To redeem a Hebrew maidservant 9. To designate her as a bride 10. Not to sell her 11. To work with a Canaanite slave forever unless his master destroys one of his primary limbs 12. Not to return a slave who fled from the Diaspora to Eretz Yisrael 13. Not to oppress this slave who has fled to us.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

59 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Thus, this book contains a total of 18 mitzvot: six positive commandments and 12 negative commandments. Sefer Mishpatim The Book of Judgments It consists of five halachot. They are, in order: Hilchot Sechirut - The Laws of Employer-Employee Relations

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ,‫שמונה עשרה—שש מהן מצוות עשה‬ .‫ושתים עשרה מצוות לא תעשה‬ ‫ספר משפטים‬

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו חמש‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫ הלכות שאלה ופיקדון‬,‫שכירות‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫ הלכות טוען ונטען‬,‫מלווה ולווה‬ .‫נחלות‬

Hilcho She'lah UPikadon - The Laws of Borrowed and Entrusted Objects Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh - The Laws of Lenders and Borrowers Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an - The Laws Governing [Disputes between] Plaintiffs and Defendants Hilchot Nachalot - The Laws Governing Inheritances.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

60 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Sechirut The Laws of Employer-Employee Relations They contain seven mitzvot: three positive commandments and four negative commandments. They are: 1. The laws governing a hired worker and a paid watchman

‫ יש בכללן שבע‬.‫הלכות שכירות‬ ‫ וארבע מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שלוש מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( דין שכיר‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ;‫ושומר שכר; )ב( ליתן שכר שכיר ביומו‬ (‫)ג( שלא יאחר שכר שכיר אחר זמנו; )ד‬ ;‫שיאכל השכיר מן המחובר שיעשה בו‬ ‫)ה( שלא יאכל השכיר מן המחובר שלא‬ ‫בשעת גמר מלאכה; )ו( שלא יוליך‬ ‫השכיר בידו יתר על מה שאכל; )ז( שלא‬ .‫ וכן שאר הבהמה‬,‫יחסום שור בדישו‬

2. To pay a worker his wage when due 3. Not to delay payment of a worker's wage after it falls due 4. That a worker be allowed to eat from the produce with which he is working 5. That a worker not eat from this during the time he should be working 6. That a worker should not take more than what he eats 7. Not to muzzle an ox or any other animal while it is treading [grain]. Hilchot She'ilah UPikadon The Laws of Borrowed and Entrusted Objects They contain two positive commandments. They are:

‫ יש בכללן שתי‬.‫הלכות שאלה ופיקדון‬ ‫ )א( דין השואל; )ב( דין‬:‫מצוות עשה‬ .‫שומר חינם‬

1. The laws pertaining to a borrower 2. The laws pertaining to an unpaid watchman.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

61 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh The Laws of Lenders and Borrowers They contain twelve mitzvot: Four positive commandments and eight negative commandments. They are: 1. To lend money to a poor and unfortunate person 2. Not to demand repayment of his debt 3. To demand repayment of a gentile's debt 4. Not to forcefully take security from a debtor

‫ יש בכללן שתים‬.‫הלכות מלווה ולווה‬ ,‫עשרה מצוות—ארבע מצוות עשה‬ :‫ושמונה מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫)א( להלוות לעני ומך; )ב( שלא ייגוש‬ ‫אותו; )ג( לנגוש את הנוכרי; )ד( שלא‬ ‫ימשכן בעל חוב בזרוע; )ה( להחזיר‬ (‫ בזמן שהוא צריך לו; )ו‬,‫המשכון לבעליו‬ ‫ בעת‬,‫שלא יאחר המשכון מבעליו העני‬ ;‫שהוא צריך לו; )ז( שלא יחבול אלמנה‬ ‫)ח( שלא יחבול כלים שעושים בהן אוכל‬ (‫נפש; )ט( שלא ייתן המלווה בריבית; )י‬ ‫שלא ילווה הלווה בריבית; )יא( שלא‬ ‫ ולא‬,‫יתעסק אדם בין מלווה ולווה בריבית‬ ;‫יעיד ביניהן ולא יכתוב שטר ולא יערוב‬ .‫)יב( ללוות מן הנוכרי ולהלוותו בריבית‬

5. To return security to a debtor when he needs it 6. Not to delay returning security to a poor debtor when he needs it 7. Not to take security from a widow 8. Not to take utensils used to prepare food as security 9. Not to give a loan at interest 10. For a borrower not to accept a loan at interest 11. For a person not to render assistance to a lender or a borrower with regard to a loan at interest, for him not to act as a witness or a guarantor, nor to compose a contract of loan 12. To borrow from a gentile and lend to him at interest.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

62 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an

‫ והיא‬,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות טוען ונטען‬ .‫דין טוען ומודה או כופר‬

The Laws Governing [Disputes between] Plaintiffs and Defendants [They contain] one positive commandment, the laws governing claims [issued by a plaintiff when the defendant] either admits to them or denies them. Hilchot Nachalot

‫ והוא דין‬,‫ מצות עשה אחת‬.‫הלכות נחלות‬ .‫סדר נחלות‬

The Laws Governing Inheritances [They contain] one positive commandment, the laws governing the order of inheritance. Thus, this book contains a total of 23 mitzvot: 11 positive commandments and 12 negative commandments. Sefer Shoftim

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ‫שלוש ועשרים—מהן אחת עשרה מצוות‬ .‫ ושתים עשרה מצוות לא תעשה‬,‫עשה‬ ‫ספר שופטים‬

The Book of Judges It consists of five halachot. They are, in order: Hilchot Sanhedrin V'HaOnshin HaMesurim Lahem The Laws of the Courts and the Punishments Over which They Have Jurisdiction

‫ הלכות‬:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו חמש‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫סנהדרין והעונשין המסורין להם‬ ‫ הלכות‬,‫ הלכות אבל‬,‫ הלכות ממרים‬,‫עדות‬ .‫מלכים ומלחמות‬

Hilchot Edut - The Laws of Witnesses Hilchot Mamrim - The Laws of the Rebellious Ones Hilchot Eivel - The Laws of Mourning Hilchot Melachim UMilchamotehem - The Laws of Kings and Their Wars.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

63 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Sanhedrin V'HaOnshin HaMesurim Lahem The Laws of the Courts and the Punishments Over which They Have Jurisdiction They contain 30 mitzvot: Ten positive commandments and twenty negative commandments. They are: 1. To appoint judges 2. Not to appoint a judge who does not know the [proper] manner of judgment 3. To follow the majority if there is a difference of opinion among the judges 4. Not to issue a death sentence if there is a majority of only one condemning the defendant. Rather, a majority of at least two is necessary 5. For a person who argued in favor of acquittal in a capital case not to argue for a conviction 6. To execute by stoning [the condemned to death] 7. To execute by burning [the condemned to death]

.‫הלכות סנהדרין והעונשין המסורין להם‬ ‫יש בכללן שלושים מצוות—עשר מצוות‬ ‫ ועשרים מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא‬,‫עשה‬ ‫ )א( למנות שופטים; )ב( שלא‬:‫פרטן‬ (‫למנות דיין שאינו יודע דרך המשפט; )ג‬ ;‫ אם נחלקו השופטים‬,‫לנטות אחרי רבים‬ ‫)ד( שלא להרוג אם רבו המחייבין באיש‬ ‫ עד שיהיו יתר שניים; )ה( שלא ילמד‬,‫אחד‬ (‫חובה מי שלימד זכות בדיני נפשות; )ו‬ (‫להרוג בסקילה; )ז( להרוג בשריפה; )ח‬ ;‫להרוג בסיף; )ט( להרוג בחנק; )י( לתלות‬ (‫)יא( לקבור הנהרג ביום הריגתו; )יב‬ ‫שלא תלין נבלתו; )יג( שלא להחיות‬ ‫מכשף; )יד( להלקות לרשע; )טו( שלא‬ ‫יוסיף בהכית הלוקה; )טז( שלא להרוג נקי‬ ;‫באומדן הדעת; )יז( שלא לענוש אנוס‬ ‫)יח( שלא לחוס על הורג חברו או חובל‬ (‫בו; )יט( שלא לרחם על הדל בדין; )כ‬ ‫שלא להדר גדול בדין; )כא( שלא להטות‬ ‫ אף על פי שהוא‬,‫הדין על בעל עבירות‬ (‫חוטא; )כב( שלא לעוול משפט; )כג‬ ‫שלא להטות משפט גר יתום; )כד( לשפוט‬ ;‫בצדק; )כה( שלא ליראה בדין מאיש זרוע‬ ‫)כו( שלא ליקח שוחד; )כז( שלא לישא‬ (‫שמע שוא; )כח( שלא לקלל הדיינין; )כט‬ ‫שלא לקלל הנשיא; )ל( שלא לקלל אדם‬ .‫משאר בני ישראל הכשרים‬

8. To execute by decapitation 9. To execute by strangulation 10. To hang [the corpses of certain sinners who were executed] 11. To bury the executed person on the day of his execution 12. Not to allow his corpse to remain unburied overnight

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

64 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Edut The Laws of Witnesses They contain eight mitzvot: Three positive commandments and five negative commandments. They are: 1. For a person who knows [relevant] testimony to testify in court

‫ יש בכללן שמונה‬.‫הלכות עדות‬ ‫ וחמש מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שלוש מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( להעיד‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫בבית דין למי שיודע לו עדות; )ב( לדרוש‬ ‫ולחקור העדים; )ג( שלא יורה העד בדין‬ ‫ בדיני נפשות; )ד( שלא‬,‫זה שהעיד עליו‬ ‫יקום דבר בעדות אחד; )ה( שלא יעיד‬ ‫בעל עבירה; )ו( שלא יעיד קרוב; )ז( שלא‬ ‫להעיד בשקר; )ח( לעשות לעד זומם‬ .‫כאשר זמם‬

2. To question and cross-examine witnesses 3. For a witness not to render a decision in a capital case in which he has testified 4. Not to render a decision based on the testimony of a single witness 5. For a sinner not to act as a witness 6. For a relative not to act as a witness 7. Not to give false testimony 8. To punish a false witness with [the punishment] he plotted [to have the defendant receive]

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

65 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Mamrim The Laws of the Rebellious Ones They contain nine mitzvot: Three positive commandments and six negative commandments. They are: 1. To follow the instructions given by the High Court

‫ יש בכללן תשע‬.‫הלכות ממרים‬ ‫ ושש מצוות‬,‫מצוות—שלוש מצוות עשה‬ ‫ )א( לעשות על‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ (‫פי התורה שיאמרו בית דין הגדול; )ב‬ ‫שלא לסור מדבריהם; )ג( שלא להוסיף על‬ ‫ לא במצוות שבכתב ולא בפירושן‬,‫התורה‬ ‫שלמדנו מפי השמועה; )ד( שלא לגרוע מן‬ ‫הכול; )ה( שלא לקלל אב ואם; )ו( שלא‬ (‫להכות אב ואם; )ז( לכבד אב ואם; )ח‬ ‫ליראה מאב ואם; )ט( שלא יהיה הבן‬ .‫סורר ומורה על קול אביו ואימו‬

2. Not to deviate from their words 3. Not to add to the Torah, neither to the mitzvot of the Written Law nor to their explanation which was transmitted by the oral tradition 4. Not to detract from the mitzvot 5. Not to curse one's father or mother 6. Not to strike one's father or mother 7. To honor one's father and mother 8. To fear one's father and mother 9. For a son not to rebel against his father's and mother's commands.

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

66 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Eivel The Laws of Mourning They contain four mitzvot: One positive commandment and three negative commandments. They are: 1. To mourn for our relatives. Even a priest must become impure and mourn for his relatives. A person may not mourn for those executed by the court. Therefore, I have included these laws in this book because they are connected with the burial of a person on the day of his death, which is a positive commandment.

‫ארבע‬ ‫יש בכללן‬ .‫הלכות אבל‬ ‫ ושלוש מצוות‬,‫מצוות—אחת מצות עשה‬ ‫ )א( להתאבל‬:‫לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫ ואפילו כוהן מיטמא ומתאבל‬,‫על הקרובים‬ ‫ ואין אדם מתאבל על הרוגי‬.‫על הקרובים‬ ‫בית דין; ולפי זה כללתי הלכות אלו בספר‬ ‫ שהם מעין קבורה ביום מיתה שהיא‬,‫זה‬ ‫ )ב( שלא ייטמא כוהן גדול‬.‫מצות עשה‬ ;‫לקרובים; )ג( שלא ייכנס עם המת באוהל‬ ‫)ד( שלא ייטמא כוהן הדיוט לנפש אדם‬ .‫אלא לקרובים בלבד‬

2. For a High Priest not to become impure because of his relatives 3. For him not to enter a place where a corpse is lying 4. For a common priest not to contract impurity from contact with a human corpse, with the exception of his relatives

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

67 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Hilchot Melachim UMilchamotehem The Laws of Kings and Their Wars. They contain 23 mitzvot: Ten positive commandments and thirteen negative commandments. They are: 1. To appoint a king over Israel 2. Not to appoint a convert [as a king] 3. [That the king] should not accumulate many wives 4. [That the king] should not accumulate many horses 5. [That the king] should not accumulate much silver and gold 6. To annihilate the seven nations 7. Not to allow any of them to remain alive 8. To wipe out the descendants of Amalek 9. To remember what Amalek did to us 10. Not to forget [Amalek's] wicked deeds and their ambushing [our people] on the journey [to Eretz Yisrael] 11. Not to dwell in Egypt

‫ יש בכללן שלוש‬.‫הלכות מלכים ומלחמות‬ ,‫ועשרים מצוות—עשר מצוות עשה‬ ‫ושלוש עשרה מצוות לא תעשה; וזה הוא‬ ‫ )א( למנות מלך מישראל; )ב( שלא‬:‫פרטן‬ ‫יימנה מקהל גרים; )ג( שלא ירבה לו‬ ‫נשים; )ד( שלא ירבה לו סוסים; )ה( שלא‬ ‫ירבה לו כסף וזהב; )ו( להחרים שבעה‬ (‫עממים; )ז( שלא להחיות מהן נשמה; )ח‬ ‫למחות זרעו של עמלק; )ט( לזכור מה‬ ‫שעשה עמלק; )י( שלא לשכוח מעשיו‬ ‫הרעים ואריבתו בדרך; )יא( שלא לשכון‬ ‫בארץ מצריים; )יב( לשלוח שלום ליושבי‬ ‫ ולדון בה כאשר‬,‫העיר כשצרים עליה‬ ‫ אם תשלים ואם לא‬,‫מפורש בתורה‬ ‫תשלים; )יג( שלא לדרוש שלום מעמון‬ ‫ כשצרים עליהן; )יד( שלא‬,‫ומואב בלבד‬ ‫להשחית אילני מאכל במצור; )טו( להתקין‬ ;‫יד שייצאו בו בעלי המחנה להיפנות בו‬ ‫)טז( להתקין יתד לחפור בו; )יז( למשוח‬ ‫כוהן לדבר באוזני אנשי הצבא בשעת‬ ‫המלחמה; )יח( להיות מארס ובונה בניין‬ ,‫ונוטע כרם שמחים בקניינם שנה תמימה‬ ‫ומחזירין אותן מן המלחמה; )יט( שלא‬ ‫ ולא ייצאו אפילו לצורכי‬,‫יעבור עליהן דבר‬ ‫העיר וצורכי הגדוד והדומה להן; )כ( שלא‬ ;‫לערוץ ולחזור לאחור בשעת מלחמה‬ ‫)כא( דין יפת תואר; )כב( שלא תימכר‬ ‫יפת תואר; )כג( שלא יכבשנה לעבדות‬ .‫אחר שנבעלה‬

12. To make an offer of peace to the inhabitants of a city to which we lay siege, and to carry out the Torah's instructions should they sue for peace or not 13. Not to make an offer of peace to Ammon and Moav when we lay siege [to their land] 14. Not to destroy fruit producing trees in the process of a siege

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

68 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

Thus, this book contains a total of 74 mitzvot: 27 positive commandments and 47 negative commandments.

,‫נמצאו כל המצוות הנכללות בספר זה‬ ‫ארבע ושבעים—מהן שבע ועשרים מצוות‬ .‫ ושבע וארבעים מצוות לא תעשה‬,‫עשה‬

There are a total of 83 halachot in these fourteen books.

,‫ונמצאו כל ההלכות של ארבעה עשר ספר‬ .‫שלוש ושמונים הלכות‬

Now, I will begin to explain the rules governing each mitzvah and the relevant laws that are included with them, according to the order of [these] halachot, with the help of the Almighty.

‫ועתה אתחיל לבאר משפטי כל מצוה‬ ‫ומצוה וכל הדינין הנגללין עימה מעניינה‬ .‫ בעזרת שדיי‬,‫על סדר ההלכות‬

« Previous

Next » Sefer Madda

Negative Commandments Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

Listing of Mitzvos - Texts & Writings

69 of 69

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901797/jewish/Listing-o...

9/1/2019 3:03 AM

1



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight

It is forbidden to purchase or sell any durable entity to an idolater within three days of one of their holidays. [Similarly, within this period, it is forbidden] to borrow from them, to lend to them, to accept payment from them or to repay them for a loan that is supported by a promissory note or collateral. It is, however, permitted to collect a loan which is supported by a verbal commitment alone, because one is saving one's property from being lost to them. It is permitted to sell them an entity which will not endure - e.g., vegetables, or a cooked dish - until the day of their festival. When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael. In other lands, however, it is forbidden [to engage in such activities] only on the day of their festival itself. If one transgressed and did business with them during these three days, one may derive benefit from the results of these transactions. When, however, one does business with them on the day of their festival itself, it is forbidden to benefit from the results of these transactions.

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten

‫שלשה ימים לפני חגם של עובדי‬ ‫כוכבים אסור ליקח מהם ולמכור‬ ‫להם דבר המתקיים ללוות מהן ולהלוותם‬ ‫ליפרע מהן ולפרוע להם מלוה בשטר או‬ ‫על המשכון אבל מלוה על פה נפרעין מהן‬ ‫מפני שהוא כמציל מידם ומותר למכור‬ ‫להן דבר שאינו מתקיים כגון ירקות‬ ‫ותבשיל עד יום חגם במה דברים אמורים‬ ‫בארץ ישראל אבל בשאר ארצות אינו‬ ‫אסור אלא יום חגם בלבד עבר ונשא ונתן‬ ‫עמהן באותן השלשה ימים הרי זה מותר‬ ‫בהנאה והנושא ונותן ביום חגם עמהן הרי‬ :‫זה אסור בהנאה‬

2

It is forbidden to send a present to a gentile on one of his holidays, unless one knows that he does not acknowledge or worship idols. Similarly, if a gentile sends a present to a Jew on one of [the gentile's] holidays, the Jew should not accept it. If, however, there is the possibility of ill-feeling arising, he should take it from him. Nevertheless, he should not derive any benefit from it until he finds out that the gentile does not acknowledge or worship idols.

‫ואסור לשלוח דורון לכותי ביום אידו‬ ‫אא"כ נודע לו שאינו מודה בעבודת‬ ‫כוכבים ואינו עובדה וכן כותי ששלח דורון‬ ‫לישראל ביום חגו לא יקבלנו ממנו ואם‬ ‫חשש לאיבה נוטלו בפניו ואינו נהנה בו‬ ‫עד שיודע לו שזה הכותי אינו עובד‬ :‫כוכבים ואינו מודה בה‬

If the idolaters' festival lasts several days - whether three, four, or ten - all the days [of the festival] are considered as a single day. [Carrying out transactions] on any of these days, or on the three days preceding them, is forbidden.

‫היה אידן של אותן עכו"ם ימים הרבה‬ ‫שלשה או ארבעה או עשרה כל אותן‬ '‫הימים כיום אחד הן וכולן אסורין עם ג‬ :‫ימים לפניהן‬

The Canaanites are idol worshipers, and Sunday is their festival. Accordingly, in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to conduct transactions with them on Thursday and Friday each and every week, and, needless to say, on Sunday itself, when transactions with them are forbidden everywhere.

‫כנענים עובדי כו"ם הם ויום ראשון‬ ‫הוא יום אידם לפיכך אסור לתת‬ ‫ולשאת עמהם בארץ ישראל יום חמישי‬ ‫ויום ששי שבכל שבת ושבת ואין צריך‬ ‫לומר יום ראשון עצמו שהוא אסור בכ"מ‬ :‫וכן נוהגין עמהם בכל אידיהם‬

3

The day on which the idolaters gather together to crown a king and offer sacrifice and praise to their false deities is considered to be one of their holidays, since it is comparable to their other holidays. In contrast, on a day which is celebrated by an individual idolater as a festival on which he gives thanks and praise to the star he [worships] - for example, his birthday, the day on which he shaves his beard or hair, the day on which he returns from a sea-voyage, the day on which he leaves prison, the day on which he makes a [wedding] feast for his son, and the like - it is forbidden [to do business] on that particular day only with that individual man. Similarly, when [it is customary] that the day on which one of them dies is marked with festivities, it is forbidden [to do business] with those individuals on that day. Whenever [a person's] death is marked by the burning of his utensils and the offering of incense, we can assume that idol worship is [involved in the ritual]. The [above] prohibition applies only to those who worship [the false deity]. In contrast, it is permitted to do business with those who join in the celebrations by eating, drinking, and observing it as a matter of custom or in deference to the king.

‫יום שמתכנסין בו עובדי כוכבים‬ ‫להעמיד להן מלך ומקריבין ומקלסים‬ ‫לאלהיהם יום חגם הוא והרי הוא כשאר‬ ‫חגיהם אבל עובד כוכבים שעושה הוא חג‬ ‫לעצמו ומודה לכוכב שלו ומקלסו ביום‬ ‫שנולד בו ויום תגלחת זקנו או בלוריתו‬ ‫ויום שעלה בו מן הים ושיצא מבית‬ ‫האסורים ויום שעשה בו משתה לבנו‬ ‫וכיוצא באלו אינו אסור אלא אותו היום‬ ‫ואותו האיש בלבד וכן יום שימות להן בו‬ ‫מת ויעשוהו חג אותם העושים אסורין‬ ‫אותו היום וכל מיתה ששורפין בה כלים‬ ‫ומקטרים קטורת בידוע שיש בה עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים אין יום החג אסור אלא לעובדיה‬ ‫בלבד אבל אותם ששמחים בו ואוכלין‬ ‫ושותין ומשמרין אותו מפני מנהג או מפני‬ ‫כבוד המלך אבל הם אין מודין בו הרי אלו‬ :‫מותרין לשאת ולתת עמהן‬

4

Articles which are distinguished by their use [in the worship] of one of the false deities in a particular locale may never be sold to the worshipers of that deity in that locale. Articles which are not characterized by such uniqueness may be sold to them without enquiring [about the purpose for which they will be used]. If, however, an idolater specifically states that he is purchasing the article for the sake of idol worship, it is forbidden to sell it to him unless one blemishes it in a manner which disqualifies it for use as an offering to the idol. An animal lacking a limb is not offered as a sacrifice to an idol.

‫דברים שהן מיוחדין למין ממיני עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים שבאותו מקום אסור למכור‬ ‫לעובדי אותה עבודת כוכבים שבאותו‬ ‫המקום לעולם ודברים שאינן מיוחדין לה‬ ‫מוכרין אותם סתם ואם פירש העובד‬ ‫כוכבים שהוא קונה אותם לעבודת כוכבים‬ ‫אסור למכור לו אלא אם כן פסלו‬ ‫מלהקריבו לעבודת כוכבים לפי שאין‬ :‫מקריבין חסד לעבודת כוכבים‬

It is permitted to sell articles which are distinguished [by their use in the worship of a false deity] that are mixed together with articles that are not used for such purposes - e.g., pure frankincense with black frankincense - without enquiring [about the purpose for which they will be used]. We do not suspect that [the purchaser] will separate the pure frankincense to use for idol worship. The same applies in other similar situations.

‫היו מעורבין דברים המיוחדין עם‬ ‫דברים שאין מיוחדין כגון לבונה זכה‬ ‫בכלל לבונה שחורה מוכר הכל סתם ואין‬ ‫חוששין שמא ילקט הזכה לבדה לעבודת‬ :‫כוכבים וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

Just as it is forbidden to sell idolaters articles that assist them in idol worship, it is forbidden to sell them articles that can cause harm to many people - for example, bears, lions, weapons, fetters, and chains. [Similarly,] it is forbidden to sharpen their weapons.

‫כשם שאין מוכרין לעובד כוכבים‬ ‫דברים שמחזיקין בהן ידיהן לעבודת‬ ‫כוכבים כך אין מוכרין להם דבר שיש בו‬ ‫נזק לרבים כגון דובים ואריות וכלי זיין‬ ‫וכבלים ושלשלאות ואין משחיזין להם את‬ ‫הזיין וכל שאסור למוכרו לעובד כוכבים‬ ‫אסור למוכרו לישראל החשוד למכור‬ ‫לעובד כוכבים וכן אסור למכור כלי נזק‬ :‫לישראל ליסטם‬

Everything that is forbidden to be sold to idolaters is also forbidden to be sold to a Jew who is suspect that he will sell to idolaters. Similarly, it is forbidden to sell dangerous objects to a Jewish thief.

When the Jews dwell among the idolaters and have established a covenant with them, it is permissible to sell weapons to the servants of the king and his to his soldiers, because they use them to wage war against the enemies of the country and to protect it. Thus, they also protect us, for we dwell among them. It is permitted to walk around a city in which an idol is located. It is, however, forbidden to enter [the city]. If the idol is located outside the city, it is permitted to walk within it. A person who is journeying from one place to another may not pass through a city in which a false deity is located. When does this apply? When this is the only way to his destination. If, however, there is an alternate route to his destination and, by chance, he took [the route which passed through this city], it is permissible.

‫ההולך ממקום למקום אסור לו לעבור‬ ‫בעיר שיש בה עבודת כוכבים במה‬ ‫דברים אמורים בזמן שהדרך מיוחדת‬ ‫לאותו מקום אבל אם יש שם דרך אחרת‬ :‫ונקרה והלך בזו מותר‬

It is forbidden to build - [even] together with an idolater - a dome under which an idol is placed. If one transgressed and built such a structure, however, one's wage is permitted. A priori, one may construct the palace or the courtyard where that dome is located.

‫אסור לבנות עם העובדי כוכבים‬ ‫כיפה שמעמידים בה עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים ואם עבר ובנה שכרו מותר אבל‬ ‫בונה הוא לכתחילה הטרקלין או החצר‬ :‫שיש בה אותה הכיפה‬

[The following laws apply] when an idol is located within a city and there some shops which are adorned and some which are not: It is forbidden to benefit from those which are adorned or [to use] anything they contain, since we can assume that they were adorned for the sake of idol worship. It is permitted to benefit from those which are not adorned.

‫עיר שיש בה עבודת כוכבים והיו‬ ‫בה חנויות מעוטרות ושאינן‬ ‫מעוטרות המעוטרות אסור ליהנות בהן‬ ‫בכל מה שבתוכן מפני שחזקתן שבגלל‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים נתעטרו ושאינן מעוטרות‬ ‫מותרות בהנאה חנויות של עבודת כוכבים‬ :‫אסור לשכרן מפני שמהנה עבודת כוכבים‬

It is forbidden to do business with a store owned by a false deity, because one offers benefit to the false deity.

5

‫היו ישראל שוכנים בין העובדי‬ ‫כוכבים וכרתו להם ברית מותר‬ ‫למכור כלי זיין לעבדי המלך וגייסותיו מפני‬ ‫שעושים בהם מלחמה עם צרי המדינה‬ ‫להצילה ונמצאו מגינים עלינו שהרי אנו‬ ‫שרויין בתוכם עיר שיש בה עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫מותר להלך חוצה לה ואסור להכנס‬ ‫בתוכה היה חוצה לה עבודת כוכבים מותר‬ :‫להלך בתוכה‬

When a person sells his house to an idol, it is forbidden to benefit from the proceeds of the sale. Rather, they must be taken to the Dead Sea. If, however, an idolater steals a Jew's house against his will and places an idol within, it is permitted [to accept whatever] money [he offers]. [The Jew] may compose [a bill of sale] and formalize it in accordance with the civil law procedures.

‫המוכר בית לעבודת כוכבים דמיו‬ ‫אסורים בהנאה ויוליכם לים המלח‬ ‫אבל עובדי כוכבים שאנסו ישראל וגזלו‬ ‫ביתו והעמידו בו עבודת כוכבים דמיו‬ :‫מותרין וכותב ומעלה בערכאות שלהם‬

Flutes belonging to idolaters should not be used in a funeral dirge.

‫וחלילין של עובדי כוכבים אסור‬ ‫לספוד בהן הולכין ליריד של‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים ולוקחין מהן בהמה עבדים‬ ‫ושפחות בגיותן ובתים ושדות וכרמים‬ ‫וכותב ומעלה בערכאות שלהן מפני שהוא‬ ‫כמציל מידם בד"א בלוקח מבעל הבית‬ ‫שאינו נותן מכם אבל הלוקח שם מן התגר‬ ‫אסור מפני שהוא נותן מכס והמכס‬ ‫לעבודת כוכבים ונמצא זה מהנה עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים עבר ולקח מן התגר אם בהמה‬ ‫לקח מנשר פרסותיה מן הארכובה ולמטה‬ ‫ואם כסות וכלים לקח ירקבו לקח מעות‬ ‫וכלי מתכות יוליכם לים המלח לקח עבד‬ :‫לא מעלים ולא מורידין‬

One may attend a pagan commercial fair and purchase livestock, gentile servants and maidservants before they convert, houses, fields, and vineyards. One may compose a bill of sale and formalize it in accordance with the civil law procedures, since by doing so one saves [one's property] from them. When does the above apply? When one buys from a private individual who does not have to pay a tax [to the false deity]. If, however, one buys from a merchant, it is forbidden, for a merchant must pay a tax which must be given to the false deity. Hence, [by making such a purchase], one is giving benefit to a false deity. [The following laws apply] if one transgressed and purchased [merchandise] from a merchant: If one purchased livestock, one should cut off the animal's hooves from below the anklebone. If one purchased garments or other objects, one should let them rot. If one purchased money or metal utensils, one should bring them to the Dead Sea. If one purchased a servant, one may not help him up [from a pit], nor should one push him into one.

6

When an idolater makes a [wedding] party for his son or daughter, it is forbidden to benefit from the feast. It is even forbidden for a Jew to eat and drink his own food there, since it is being consumed at a celebration of idolaters. When is it forbidden to eat such an idolater's food? From when he began to prepare for the wedding feast, the entire duration of the wedding feast, and for thirty days afterwards. [Furthermore,] if he makes another celebration because of the wedding even after thirty days have passed, it is forbidden [to participate] until twelve months [have passed].

‫עובד כוכבים שעשה לבנו או לבתו‬ ‫משתה אסור ליהנות מסעודתו‬ ‫ואפילו לאכול ולשתות הישראל משלו שם‬ ‫אסור הואיל ובמסיבת עובדי כוכבים אכלו‬ ‫ומאימתי אסור לאכול אצלו משיתחיל‬ ‫לעסוק ולהכין צרכי סעודה וכל ימי‬ ‫המשתה ולאחר ימי המשתה שלשים יום‬ ‫ואם עשה סעודה אחרת מחמת הנישואין‬ ‫אפילו לאחר שלשים יום אסור עד שנים‬ ‫עשר חדש וכל ההרחקה הזאת מפני‬ ‫עבודה של כוכבים הוא שנאמר וקרא לך‬ ‫ואכלת מזבחו ולקחת מבנותיו לבניך וזנו‬ :'‫וגו‬

This stringency was imposed because of idol worship, as [implied by Exodus 34:15-16]: "And he shall call to you and you shall eat from his slaughter, and you shall choose from his daughters for your sons. His daughters will stray after their gods, and they will lead your sons astray after these gods." A Jewish woman should not nurse the child of an idolater, since, by doing so, she raises a son who will be an idolater. She should not serve as a midwife for an idolatrous woman [without charge]. She may, however, do so for a fee, lest strife arise. An idolatrous woman may serve as a midwife for a Jewess and nurse her child. [This must be done] in premises belonging to a Jew, lest the idolatrous woman kill the child.

7

‫בת ישראל לא תיניק את בנה של‬ ‫עובדת כוכבים מפני שמגדלת בן‬ ‫לעבודת כוכבים ולא תיילד את הנכרית‬ ‫עכו"ם אבל מילדת היא בשכר משום איבה‬ ‫והנכרית עכו"ם מילדת את בת ישראל‬ ‫ומניקה את בנה ברשותה כדי שלא‬ :‫תהרגנו‬

8

It is forbidden to trade with [gentiles] on their way to reproachful places of idol worship, but it is permitted to trade with them when they return. This applies when they do not journey in a caravan. If, however, they are traveling in a caravan, they may change their mind and return.

‫ההולכין לתרפות עכו"ם אסור לשאת‬ ‫ולתת עמהן והבאים מותרין והוא‬ ‫שלא יהיו קשורין זה בזה שאם היו קשורין‬ ‫שמא דעתן לחזור ישראל ההולך לתרפות‬ ‫עכו"ם בהליכה מותר לשאת ולתת עמו‬ ‫שמא יחזור בו ובחזירה אסור ישראל‬ :‫מומר בין בהליכה בין בחזירה אסור‬

If a Jew journeys to a reproachful place of idol worship, one may trade with him on his way, since he may change his mind. On his way back, it is forbidden. [It is forbidden to trade with] an apostate Jew on his way there and on his way back. When a Jew attends a fair of idol worshipers it is forbidden to trade with him when he returns. Perhaps he sold an idol to them, and it is forbidden to benefit from the proceeds of the sale of idol worship possessed by a Jew. It is, however, permitted to benefit from [the proceeds of the sale of an idol] possessed by an idolater. Therefore, it is permitted to trade with an idolater coming from such a fair, but not with a Jew. It is forbidden to trade with an apostate Jew on his way to and on his way from such a fair.

« Previous

‫ישראל שהלך ליריד של עכו"ם‬ ‫בחזירה אסור לשאת ולתת עמו‬ ‫שמא עכו"ם מכר להן שם ודמי עכו"ם ביד‬ ‫ישראל אסורים בהנאה וביד עכו"ם מותרין‬ ‫בהנאה ומפני זה נושאין ונותנין עם עכו"ם‬ ‫הבא מן התרפות של עכו"ם ואין נושאין‬ ‫ונותנין עם ישראל הבא מן התרפות ההוא‬ ‫ולא עם ישראל מומר לא בהליכתו ולא‬ :‫בחזירתו‬

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

9

Avodat Kochavim - The Laws of The Worship Of Stars And Their Statutes...

1 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912348/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim The Laws of The Worship Of Stars And Their Statutes Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve

8/19/2019 11:43 PM

Avodat Kochavim - The Laws of The Worship Of Stars And Their Statutes...

2 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912348/jewish/Avodat-...

8/19/2019 11:43 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

1 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

2 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...

Introduction to Hilchos Avodat Kochavim They contain 51 mitzvot: two positive commandments and 49 negative commandments. They are: 1. Not to show interest in the worship of false gods 2. Not to stray after the thoughts of one's heart or the sights one's eyes behold 3. Not to curse [God] 4. Not to worship [false gods] with the types of service with which they are customarily served

-

‫כוכבים‬

‫עבודת‬

‫הלכות‬

‫רמב"ם‬ ‫הקדמה‬

‫ יש‬.‫הלכות עבודת כוכבים וחקותיהם‬ ‫ ומ"ט‬,‫ שתי מצות עשה‬,‫בכללן נ"א מצות‬ :‫ וזהו פרטן‬.‫מצות לא תעשה‬ .‫)א( שלא לפנות אחר עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫)ב( שלא לתור אחר הרהור הלב וראית‬ .‫העינים‬ .‫)ג( שלא לגדף‬ .‫)ד( שלא יעבוד אותה כדרך עבודתה‬

5. Not to bow down to [false gods] .‫)ה( שלא ישתחוה לה‬ 6. Not to make an idol for oneself .‫)ו( שלא לעשות פסל לעצמו‬ 7. Not to make an idol even for others .‫)ז( שלא לעשות פסל אפילו לאחרים‬ 8. Not to make images even for decoration .‫)ה( שלא לעשות צורות אפילו לנוי‬ 9. Not to persuade others to [worship false gods] .‫)ט( שלא להדיח אחרים אחריה‬ 10. To burn an apostate city .‫)י( לשרוף עיר הנדחת‬ 11. Never to rebuild it .‫)יא( שלא לבנותה‬ 12. Not to derive benefit from any of its property .‫)יב( שלא ליהנות מכל ממונה‬ 13. Not to persuade a single individual to worship [false gods]

‫)יג( שלא להסית יחיד לעבודת כוכבים‬ .‫לעובדה‬

14. Not to love a mesit .‫)יד( שלא לאהוב המסית‬ 15. Not to reduce one's hatred for him .‫)טו( שלא לעזוב שנאתו‬ 16. Not to save his life .‫)טז( שלא להצילו‬ 17. Not to advance any arguments on his behalf .‫)יז( שלא ללמד עליו זכות‬ 18. Not to withhold information that will lead to his conviction

.‫)יח( שלא ימנע מללמד עליו חובה‬

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

3 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...

During the times of Enosh, mankind made a great mistake, and the wise men of that generation gave thoughtless counsel. Enosh himself was one of those who erred. Their mistake was as follows: They said God created stars and spheres with which to control the world. He placed them on high and treated them with honor, making them servants who minister before Him. Accordingly, it is fitting to praise and glorify them and to treat them with honor. [They perceived] this to be the will of God, blessed be He, that they magnify and honor those whom He magnified and honored, just as a king desires that the servants who stand before him be honored. Indeed, doing so is an expression of honor to the king. After conceiving of this notion, they began to construct temples to the stars and offer sacrifices to them. They would praise and glorify them with words, and prostrate themselves before them, because by doing so, they would - according to their false conception - be fulfilling the will of God. This was the essence of the worship of false gods, and this was the rationale of those who worshiped them. They would not say that there is no other god except for this star.

‫בימי אנוש טעו בני האדם טעות‬ ‫גדול ונבערה עצת חכמי אותו הדור‬ ‫ואנוש עצמו מן הטועים היה וזו היתה‬ ‫טעותם אמרו הואיל והאלהים ברא כוכבים‬ ‫אלו וגלגלים להנהיג את העולם ונתנם‬ ‫במרום וחלק להם כבוד והם שמשים‬ ‫המשמשים לפניו ראויין הם לשבחם‬ ‫ולפארם ולחלוק להם כבוד וזהו רצון האל‬ ‫ברוך הוא לגדל ולכבד מי שגדלו וכבדו‬ ‫כמו שהמלך רוצה לכבד העומדים לפניו‬ ‫וזהו כבודו של מלך כיון שעלה דבר זה על‬ ‫לבם התחילו לבנות לכוכבים היכלות‬ ‫ולהקריב להן קרבנות ולשבחם ולפארם‬ ‫בדברים ולהשתחוות למולם כדי להשיג‬ ‫רצון הבורא בדעתם הרעה וזה היה עיקר‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים וכך היו אומרים עובדיה‬ ‫היודעים עיקרה לא שהן אומרים שאין שם‬ ‫אלוה אלא כוכב זה הוא שירמיהו אומר מי‬ ‫לא ייראך מלך הגוים כי לך יאתה כי בכל‬ ‫חכמי הגוים ובכל מלכותם מאין כמוך‬ ‫ובאחת יבערו ויכסלו מוסר הבלים עץ הוא‬ ‫כלומר הכל יודעים שאתה הוא לבדך אבל‬ ‫טעותם וכסילותם שמדמים שזה ההבל‬ :‫רצונך הוא‬

This message was conveyed by Jeremiah, who declared (10:7-8): "Who will not fear You, King of the nations, for to You it is fitting. Among all the wise men of the nations and in all their kingdoms, there is none like You. They have one foolish and senseless [notion. They conceive of their] empty teachings as wood;" i.e., all know that You alone are God. Their foolish error consists of conceiving of this emptiness as Your will.

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

4 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...

Commentary on Halachah 1 During the times of Enosh - the grandson of Adam. See Genesis 4:26, 5:6-11. Enosh lived from the year 235 after creation to the year 1140 (3525 to 2620 B.C.E.). mankind made a great mistake and the wise men of that generation gave thoughtless counsel. - Interestingly, the Rambam does not attribute the rise of paganism to simple commoners, but to the "wise" of the generation. Enosh, himself, was one of those who erred. - Our text of Shabbat 118b mentions that "the generation of Enosh" were idol worshipers. However, certain versions of that text omit the words "generation of." (See She'iltot D'Rabbi Achai Gaon, Bereshit.) Their mistake was as follows: They said God created stars and spheres - See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 3, for a description of the stars and the spheres, and their place within the Rambam's conception of the cosmos. with which to control the world. He placed them on high and treated them with honor, making them servants who minister before Him. - i.e., mediums of Divine influence Accordingly, it is fitting to praise and glorify them and to treat them with honor. - Rashi finds an allusion to the worship of false gods in Enosh's times in Genesis 4:26: which he renders, "It was then that they called profanely upon the name of God." [They perceived] this to be the will of God, blessed be He, that they magnify and honor those whom He magnified and honored, just as a king desires that the servants who stand before him be honored. Indeed, doing so is an expression of honor to the king. - In Hilchot Yesodei Torah, ibid., and in several places in the Guide for the Perplexed, the Rambam explains that the stars and the spheres are on a higher plane than the creations of our world. Though they influence our world, they are also God's creations and have no free will of their own. Thus, they are no more than an axe in the hands of a wood-chopper, and should not worshiped or served. After conceiving of this notion, they began to construct temples to the stars - Note the Rambam's comments on astrology in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:7), which are quoted in the commentary on Chapter 11, Halachah 16. and offer sacrifices to them. They would praise and glorify them with words, and prostrate themselves before them, because by doing so, they would - according to their false conception - It is questionable if such worship is forbidden to gentiles or not. Based on Deuteronomy 4:19, certain authorities maintain that the gentiles may worship other gods, provided they have the awareness that God is the ultimate power (‫)שיתוף‬. The Rambam, however, does not mention this perspective in these halachot, nor in Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 9, where he discusses the prohibition against the worship of false gods as it affects gentiles. [In Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 2), however, he states "Israel is commanded regarding the unification of God"; from which it could be inferred that gentiles need not believe in this concept and can combine their worship of God with other powers.] All authorities agree that such worship is forbidden for Jews. be fulfilling the will of God. - It is unclear from the Rambam's statements here whether, originally, they would worship the stars without any self-interest - merely with the intent of honoring those whom God honors - or whether their service was self-oriented - i.e., they worshiped the stars because they considered them as mediums of Divine influence and hoped to derive benefit from of their service. In the following halachah and in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:7), the Rambam mentions the second view. It is, however, unclear if this was the original intent of the star-worshipers or whether this was a later development. This was the essence of the worship of false gods - See Chapter 2, Halachah 1. and this was the rationale of those who worshiped them - at the outset. They would never say that there is no other god except for this star - as the pagans mentioned in Halachah 2 later did. The first generations of star worshipers were aware of God's existence and conceived of the stars as no more than intermediaries between ourselves and Him. This message was conveyed by Jeremiah, who declared (10:7-8): - See also the Guide for the Perplexed (Vol. I, Chapter 36) where the Rambam explains a similar idea using the same Biblical proof-text. "Who will not fear You, King of the nations, for to You it is fitting. Among all the wise men of the nations and in all their kingdoms, there is none like You. They have one foolish and senseless [notion. They conceive of their] empty teachings as wood;" - i.e., as an entity of substance i.e., all know that You alone are God. Their foolish error consists of conceiving of this emptiness - the worship of the

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

5 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...

stars as Your will. - This and the following two halachot are somewhat problematic. The Rambam conceived of the Mishneh Torah as a book of law. He included philosophical and historical points only when they are halachot, directives for our behavior. In this light, this entire chapter seems unnecessary. This difficulty can be resolved based on Chapter 2, Halachah 3, which states that it is forbidden to entertain thoughts of idol worship. Hence, in order to know which thoughts are forbidden, the Rambam feels it necessary to describe the entire thought process which led people to worship idols (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 20). The phenomenon described by the Rambam does not belong entirely to the past. Although, at present, bowing down to the "stars and spheres" is not very common - although it has been renewed by some cultists - the theoretical premise that motivated the ancients to serve the stars is still followed by many. Is it all that uncommon to find people who compromise their service of God in expectation of receiving benefits by following what they perceive as the natural order?

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

6 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...

After many years passed, there arose people false prophets - who told [their nations] that God had commanded them to say: Serve this star - or all the stars - sacrifice to it, offer libations to it, build a temple for it and make an image of it so that all people including the women, the children, and the common people - could bow to it. He would inform them of a form that he had conceived, and tell them that this is the image of the particular star, claiming that this was revealed to him in a prophetic vision. In this manner, the people began to make images in temples, under trees, and on the tops of mountains and hills. People would gather together and bow down to them and the [false prophets] would say: This image is the source of benefit or harm. It is appropriate to serve it and fear it. Their priests would tell them: This service will enable you to multiply and be successful. Do this and this, or do not do this or this. Subsequently, other deceivers arose and declared that a specific star, sphere, or angel had spoken to them and commanded them: Serve me in this manner. He would then relate a mode of service [telling them:] Do this, do not do this. Thus, these practices spread throughout the world. People would serve images with strange practices one more distorted than the other - offer sacrifices to them, and bow down to them. As the years passed, [God's] glorious and awesome name was forgotten by the entire population. [It was no longer part of] their speech or thought, and they no longer knew Him. Thus, all the common people, the women, and the children would know only the image of wood or stone and the temples of stone to which they were trained from their childhood to bow down and serve, and in whose name

‫ואחר שארכו הימים עמדו בבני‬ ‫האדם נביאי שקר ואמרו שהאל צוה‬ ‫ואמר להם עבדו כוכב פלוני או כל‬ ‫הכוכבים והקריבו לו ונסכו לו כך וכך ובנו‬ ‫לו היכל ועשו צורתו כדי להשתחוות לו כל‬ ‫העם הנשים והקטנים ושאר עמי הארץ‬ ‫ומודיע להם צורה שבדה מלבו ואומר זו‬ ‫היא צורת הכוכב פלוני שהודיעוהו‬ ‫בנבואתו והתחילו על דרך זו לעשות‬ ‫צורות בהיכלות ותחת האילנות ובראשי‬ ‫ההרים ועל הגבעות ומתקבצין ומשתחוים‬ ‫להם ואומרים לכל העם שזו הצורה מטיבה‬ ‫ומריעה וראוי לעובדה וליראה ממנה‬ ‫וכהניהם אומרים להם שבעבודה זו תרבו‬ ‫ותצליחו ועשו כך כך ואל תעשו כך וכך‬ ‫והתחילו כוזבים אחרים לעמוד ולומר‬ ‫שהכוכב עצמו או הגלגל או המלאך דבר‬ ‫עמהם ואמר להם עבדוני בכך וכך והודיע‬ ‫להם דרך עבודתו ועשו כך ואל תעשו כך‬ ‫ופשט דבר זה בכל העולם לעבוד את‬ ‫הצורות בעבודות משונות זו מזו ולהקריב‬ ‫להם ולהשתחוות וכיון שארכו הימים‬ ‫נשתכח השם הנכבד והנורא מפי כל‬ ‫היקום ומדעתם ולא הכירוהו ונמצאו כל‬ ‫עם הארץ הנשים והקטנים אינם יודעים‬ ‫אלא הצורה של עץ ושל אבן וההיכל של‬ ‫אבנים שנתחנכו מקטנותם להשתחוות לה‬ ‫ולעבדה ולהשבע בשמה והחכמים שהיו‬ ‫בהם כגון כהניהם וכיוצא בהן מדמין שאין‬ ‫שם אלוה אלא הכוכבים והגלגלים שנעשו‬ ‫הצורות האלו בגללם ולדמותן אבל צור‬ ‫העולמים לא היה שום אדם שהיה מכירו‬ ‫ולא יודעו אלא יחידים בעולם כגון חנוך‬ ‫ומתושלח נח שם ועבר ועל דרך זה היה‬ ‫העולם הולך ומתגלגל עד שנולד עמודו‬ :‫של עולם והוא אברהם אבינו‬

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

7 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...

Commentary on Halachah 2 After many years passed, there arose people - false prophets - Note Hilchot Yesodei Torah 9:5, which states that anyone who states that God told him in a prophetic vision to worship idols should automatically be considered a false prophet. See also the Guide for the Perplexed (Vol. II, Chapter 36) where the Rambam describes how people can be overcome by their powers of imagination to the extent that they - as do others who see them in such a trance - think of themselves as prophets, although, in fact, they received no Divine influence. who told [the people] that God had commanded them to say: - Thus, this represents a second stage in the spread of idol worship. At first - as explained in Halachah 1 - star worship was not institutionalized, but was practiced by individuals because of their mistaken conceptions. The second phase involved the development of religious institutions and set modes of worship. The leaders, however, still recognized God and attributed the instructions to worship the stars to Him. In the third stage - as the latter portion of this halachah states - people would worship the stars and idols without any awareness of God. Serve this star - or all the stars - sacrifice to it, offer libations to it, build a temple for it and make an image of it so that all people - including the women, the children, and the common people - could bow to it. - See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:7) and his statements in Chapter 11, Halachah 16, where he explains that idol worship was instituted by the leaders of the nations to unite the people of a particular land, give them a sense of national identity, and establish a hierarchy of leaders. He would inform them of a form that he had conceived, and tell them that this is the image of the particular star, claiming that this was revealed to him in a prophetic vision. - With these statements, the Rambam explains how people began to worship statues and idols. Since the star was far away and could not be perceived as more than a twinkling dot in the sky, the people wanted a more tangible image which they could relate to. The "prophets" obliged and devised forms for statues to serve as talismans to bring down influence from these stars. In this manner, the people began to make images in temples, under trees, and on the tops of mountains and hills. Note Deuteronomy 12:2, which commands the Jews to destroy "all the places where the nations... would worship their gods, on the high mountains, on the hills, or under any luxuriant tree." Note the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 45, where the Rambam mentions the gentile practice of building temples on hills and mountaintops. People would gather together and bow down to them - the images and the [false prophets] would say: This image is the source of benefit or harm. It is appropriate to serve it and fear it. Their priests would tell them: This service will enable you to multiply and be successful. Do this and this, or do not do this or this. - At this stage, their service was clearly self-oriented. They wanted to derive benefit or prevent harm to themselves through this service. Subsequently, other deceivers arose and declared that a specific star, sphere, or angel - See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 2, for a description of the angels. had spoken to them and commanded them: Serve me in this manner. He would then relate a mode of service [telling them:] Do this, do not do this. - This represented a further descent. Rather than prophesy in the name of God, these imposters would speak in the names of the idols themselves. (See also Chapter 5, Halachot 6-7.) Thus, these practices spread throughout the world. People would serve images with strange practices - one more distorted than the other - Note Chapter 3, Halachah 2, which describes the service of Ba'al Pe'or. The people would defecate before the idol as an act of worship. offer sacrifices to them, and bow down to them. As the years passed, [God's] glorious and awesome name was forgotten by the entire population. [It was no longer part of] their speech or thought, and they no longer knew Him. - It is not clear at which point in the history of the world this change took place. The period between Enosh's birth and Abraham's lasted slightly more than one thousand years, with the flood taking place approximately 750 years after Enosh's birth. Thus, all the common people, the women, and the children would know - Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Chulin 1:1), where he also differentiates between the people who believe in the spiritual service intended to draw down spiritual energy from these celestial bodies and practice it, and the common people who worship the idols blindly, on faith. only the image of wood or stone and the temples of stone to which they were trained from their childhood to bow

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

8 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...

down and serve, and in whose name they swore - i.e., they conceived of the images as gods. Such worship represented more than a mere conceptual error. Six of the seven mitzvot commanded to Noach and his descendants were also given to Adam, the first man. Among them was the prohibition against serving other gods (Hilchot Melachim 9:1). Thus, by worshiping these images, they were breaking an explicit Divine commandment. The wise men among them would - not worship the images as gods in their own right, but they would think that there is no God other than the stars and spheres for whose sake, and in resemblance of which, they had made these images. The Eternal Rock - the true God was not recognized or known by anyone in the world, with the exception of a [few] individuals - Our Sages speak critically of these individuals, who were themselves righteous, but did nothing to influence the people around them. for example - See also the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 39, where the Rambam cites these individuals as prophets. Chanoch - Note Genesis 5:22: "And Chanoch walked with God." Metushelach - Though his righteousness is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, it is mentioned by our Sages in a number of places - e.g., Yalkut Shimeoni, Bereshit 42, which states: "Metushelach was a completely righteous man." Noach - See Genesis 6:9: "And Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generation." Shem - Noach's second son. and Ever. - Shem and Ever are frequently mentioned by our Rabbis as righteous sages. See Bereishit Rabbah 63:6, which explains that when Rivkah went "to seek out God" (Genesis 25:22), she went to the house of study of Shem and Ever. The world continued in this fashion until the pillar of the world - the Patriarch Abraham - was born. - Abraham was born in the year 1948 (1812 B.C.E.).

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

9 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...

After this mighty man was weaned, he began to explore and think. Though he was a child, he began to think [incessantly] throughout the day and night, wondering: How is it possible for the sphere to continue to revolve without having anyone controlling it? Who is causing it to revolve? Surely, it does not cause itself to revolve. He had no teacher, nor was there anyone to inform him. Rather, he was mired in Ur Kasdim among the foolish idolaters. His father, mother, and all the people [around him] were idol worshipers, and he would worship with them. [However,] his heart was exploring and [gaining] understanding. Ultimately, he appreciated the way of truth and understood the path of righteousness through his accurate comprehension. He realized that there was one God who controlled the sphere, that He created everything, and that there is no other God among all the other entities. He knew that the entire world was making a mistake. What caused them to err was their service of the stars and images, which made them lose awareness of the truth. Abraham was forty years old when he became aware of his Creator. When he recognized and knew Him, he began to formulate replies to the inhabitants of Ur Kasdim and debate with them, telling them that they were not following a proper path. He broke their idols and began to teach the people that it is fitting to serve only the God of the world. To Him [alone] is it fitting to bow down, sacrifice, and offer libations, so that the people of future [generations] would recognize Him. [Conversely,] it is fitting to destroy and break all the images, lest all the people err concerning them, like those people who thought that there are no other gods besides these [images].

‫כיון שנגמל איתן זה התחיל לשוטט‬ ‫בדעתו והוא קטן והתחיל לחשוב ביום‬ ‫ובלילה והיה תמיה היאך אפשר שיהיה‬ ‫הגלגל הזה נוהג תמיד ולא יהיה לו מנהיג‬ ‫ומי יסבב אותו כי אי אפשר שיסבב את‬ ‫עצמו ולא היה לו מלמד ולא מודיע דבר‬ ‫אלא מושקע באור כשדים בין עובדי‬ ‫כוכבים הטפשים ואביו ואמו וכל העם‬ ‫עובדי כוכבים והוא עובד עמהם ולבו‬ ‫משוטט ומבין עד שהשיג דרך האמת‬ ‫והבין קו הצדק מתבונתו הנכונה וידע שיש‬ ‫שם אלוה אחד והוא מנהיג הגלגל והוא‬ ‫ברא הכל ואין בכל הנמצא אלוה חוץ ממנו‬ ‫וידע שכל העולם טועים ודבר שגרם להם‬ ‫לטעות זה שעובדים את הכוכבים ואת‬ ‫הצורות עד שאבד האמת מדעתם ובן‬ ‫ארבעים שנה הכיר אברהם את בוראו כיון‬ ‫שהכיר וידע התחיל להשיב תשובות על‬ ‫בני אור כשדים ולערוך דין עמהם ולומר‬ ‫שאין זו דרך האמת שאתם הולכים בה‬ ‫ושיבר הצלמים והתחיל להודיע לעם שאין‬ ‫ראוי לעבוד אלא לאלוה העולם ולו ראוי‬ ‫להשתחוות ולהקריב ולנסך כדי שיכירוהו‬ ‫כל הברואים הבאים וראוי לאבד ולשבר‬ ‫כל הצורות כדי שלא יטעו בהן כל העם‬ ‫כמו אלו שהם מדמים שאין שם אלוה אלא‬ :‫אלו‬ ‫כיון שגבר עליהם בראיותיו בקש המלך‬ ‫להורגו ונעשה לו נס ויצא לחרן והתחיל‬ ‫לעמוד ולקרוא בקול גדול לכל העולם‬ ‫ולהודיעם שיש שם אלוה אחד לכל העולם‬ ‫ולו ראוי לעבוד והיה מהלך וקורא ומקבץ‬ ‫העם מעיר לעיר ומממלכה לממלכה עד‬ ‫שהגיע לארץ כנען והוא קורא שנאמר‬ ‫ויקרא שם בשם ה' אל עולם וכיון שהיו‬ ‫העם מתקבצין אליו ושואלין לו על דבריו‬ ‫היה מודיע לכל אחד ואחד כפי דעתו עד‬

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

10 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...

Commentary on Halachah 3 After this mighty man - In several places - e.g., Bava Batra 15a and Rosh HaShanah 11a - our Sages referred to Abraham with this expression. was weaned - Nedarim 32a states: "Abraham was three when he recognized his Creator." Although the Rambam states that it was not until Abraham was forty that he gained true awareness of God, his process of search began at age three. he began to explore and think. Though he was a child, he began to think [incessantly] throughout the day and night, wondering: How is it possible for the sphere to continue to revolve without having anyone controlling it? - Note the Midrash HaGadol (Parashat Lech Lecha), which explains that Abraham questioned: Why should we bow down to idols, gods that we ourselves make? We should bow to the earth, for it produces crops that sustain us. Therefore, he began to worship the earth. Then he saw that the earth needs rain, and began to worship the sky. Later, he saw that the most brilliant creation in the sky was the sun, and began to worship it. Afterwards, when the sun set and the moon rose, he began to worship the moon. When the sun rose the next morning, he did not know what to do. He did not see which was stronger: the sun or the moon. So Abraham continued in a quandary, questioning who was the true God. Who is causing it to revolve? Surely, it does not cause itself to revolve. - Interestingly, in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:5, the Rambam uses the same concept as a proof for the existence of God. He had no teacher, nor was there anyone to inform him. -Bereshit Rabbah 61:1 elaborates on the lack of instruction that was available to Abraham. Note the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh, who question why Noach, Shem, and Ever (all of whom were alive at this time) did not try to nullify the worship of idols and why they did not instruct Abraham. They offer two explanations. The first is that they were afraid and hid from the idolaters. (See Midrash Tehillim 118. Note, however, teachings which state that these righteous men also protested the worship of false gods, Tanna Devei Eliyahu Rabba, Chapters 20 and 25.) Alternatively, Shem and Ever lived in the land of Canaan, while Abraham lived in Babylon. The question remains, however, why did Abraham not seek out these righteous men (Kinat Eliyahu). Rather, he was mired in Ur Kasdim among the foolish idolaters. His father, mother, and all the people [around him] were idol worshipers - Indeed, our Sages relate that his father had a shop where idols were sold. and he would worship with them. - See Bereshit Rabbah 39:8, which states that Abraham was always worried that God would not absolve him from his sin of worshiping idols. [However,] his heart was exploring and [gaining] understanding. Ultimately, he appreciated the way of truth - an awareness of God and understood the path of righteousness - an ethical approach to behavior, which reflected his spiritual awareness through his accurate comprehension. He realized that there was one God who controlled the sphere, that He created everything, and that there is no other God among all the other entities. - These are the fundamental principles of the Jewish faith, as explained in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:1-6. He knew that the entire world was making a mistake. What caused them to err was their service of the stars and images, which made them lose awareness of the truth. - Their worship of idols dulled their sensitivity to spirituality to the point where they lost all awareness of God. Abraham was forty years old when he became aware of his Creator. - Note Bereshit Rabbah 64:4, which mentions two opinions regarding when Abraham became aware of God: one when he was three and one when he was forty eight. It is possible that the Rambam's text of the Midrash read "forty" instead of "forty eight." As explained above, the opinions are not necessarily contradictory. Abraham's process of inquiry could have begun at age three, while at forty he gained greater understanding, and at forty eight, he achieved an even higher level of awareness. Avot 5:21 states: "At forty, one achieves understanding." By associating Abraham's apreciation of the Creator with this age, the Rambam implies that this awareness can come as a product of our own thought and meditation. When he recognized and knew Him - Bereshit Rabbah 39:1 explains Abraham's process of thought with a parable. A person saw a brightly lit palace. He wondered: Could this palace exist without an owner? Immediately, the owner revealed himself to

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

11 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...

him. Similarly, Abraham wondered: Is it possible for the world to exist without one who controls? Immediately, God revealed himself to him. he began to formulate replies to the inhabitants of Ur Kasdim and debate with them, telling them that they were not following a proper path - by serving the stars and idols. He broke their idols and began to teach the people that it is fitting to serve only the God of the world. - Our Sages relate that after breaking his father's idols, he put a stick in the hands of the largest idol. When his father asked him why he destroyed the idols, he replied that he didn't do it; the idol holding the stick did. His father curtly dismissed his reply: "That idol is only metal. It cannot do anything," he roared at his son. "If so, why do you worship it?" Abraham replied. To Him [alone] is it fitting to bow down, sacrifice, and offer libations, so that the people of future [generations] would recognize Him. - The Rambam's words imply that the value of offering sacrifices at this time (before the Torah commanded that they be offered) was not as the acts of service of God, but in the educational effect they had on the people and the awareness of God they inspired. [Conversely,] it is fitting to destroy and break all the images, lest all the people err concerning them, like those people who thought that there are no other gods besides these [images]. When he overcame them through the strength of his arguments, the king - Nimrod (Pesachim 118a) desired to kill him - by tossing him into a burning furnace. He was [saved through] a miracle - Interestingly, when the Rambam lists the ten trials that Abraham endured in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Avot 5:3, he does not mention this episode at all. and left for Charan. - See Genesis 11:31. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam mentions Abraham's exile from his native land as the first of his ten trials. [There,] - he did not encounter any of the formal opposition he had faced in Babylonia and he began to call in a loud voice to all people and inform them that there is one God in the entire world. He would go out and call to the people, gathering them in city after city and country after country - On the phrase, Genesis 12:5, "the people they had gathered in Charan," Bereshit Rabbah 39:21 comments, "These are the converts they made. Abraham would convert the men and Sarah would convert the women." until he came to the land of Canaan - See Genesis, Chapter 12, which describes Abraham's journeys within the land of Canaan. proclaiming [God's existence the entire time] - as [Genesis 21:33] states: "And He called there in the name of the Lord, the eternal God." - Sotah 10a states: "Do not read 'And he called.' Read 'And he had others call' - i.e., Abraham motivated others to become aware of God and call out to Him. When the people would gather around him and ask him about his statements, he would explain [them] to each one of them according to their understanding, until they turned to the path of truth. Ultimately, thousands and myriads gathered around him. These are the men of the house of Abraham. - The Rabbis question the fate of all these people. We do not find any mention of the perpetuation of their faith in God. Perhaps the cultural influences of the surrounding environment were too powerful. If the children of Israel themselves turned to idol worship after two generations in Egypt, could any more be expected from these individuals? He planted in their hearts this great fundamental principle, composed texts about it - Most commentaries point to Avodah Zarah 14b, which relates that Abraham composed a four-hundred-chapter text against the worship of false gods. Kinat Eliyahu notes that here, the Rambam is not referring to the negation of idol worship, but to the propagation of the faith in one God. Therefore, he suggests that the reference is to the Kabbalistic tradition (Zohar, Vol. II, 275b) that Sefer Yetzirah was composed by Abraham. (See also Kiryat Melech.) and taught it to Isaac, his son. - Note Genesis 18:19: "I have known him that he will command his children and household after him, and they will keep the way of God...." Isaac also taught others and turned [their hearts to God]. He also taught Jacob - Jacob also studied under Shem and Ever (See Rashi, Genesis 25:27, Bereishit Rabbah 25:16).

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

12 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...

and appointed him as a teacher - i.e., he and not Esau would convey the spiritual heritage of Abraham. [Jacob] taught others and turned [the hearts] of all those who gathered around him [to God]. He also taught all of his children. - In contrast to Abraham and Isaac, all of Jacob's children were righteous. (See Hilchot Kri'at Shema 1:4.) He selected Levi and appointed him as the leader. - The Torah itself does not mention Jacob's selection of Levi as a leader. A number of sources in the oral tradition (Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 39; Shemot Rabbah 15:27), however, reveal this concept. He established him [as the head of] the academy - The Midrash Tanchuma (Vayigash) interprets Genesis 46:28: "And Jacob sent Judah before him," to mean that he charged him with founding a yeshiva. Similarly, Yoma 28b states that this Talmudic academy continued throughout the Egyptian exile. to teach them the way of God - Note Hilchot De'ot 1:7, which explains that the expression, "the way of God," refers to ethics, emulating the qualities of spirit which God has revealed. and observe the mitzvot of Abraham. - In this context, note the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Melachim 9:1. After relating the seven universal laws given to Noach and his descendants, the Rambam states: In addition to these, Abraham was commanded regarding circumcision. He instituted the morning prayer. Isaac separated tithes and added another prayer service towards evening. Jacob added the prohibition against eating the gid hanasheh, the "displaced nerve," and instituted the evening prayers. [Jacob] commanded his sons that the leadership should not depart from the descendants of Levi - Thus, the mantle of leadership passed to Kehat and then to Amram, Moses' father. so that the teachings would not be forgotten. This concept proceeded and gathered strength among the descendants of Jacob and those who collected around them, until there became a nation within the world which knew God. - This describes the initial period of the Jews' stay in Egypt, when they prospered both spiritually and materially. When the Jews extended their stay in Egypt - The entire period of the Egyptian exile lasted 210 years. As long as Jacob's sons were living, the Jews preserved the heritage of their fathers and were treated with honor by the Egyptians. The last of Jacob's sons to die was Levi. After his death, the spiritual level of the Jews descended. Levi lived 127 years. He was 44 when he entered Egypt. Thus, this spiritual descent occurred 83 years after the Jews entered Egypt. however, they learned from the [Egyptians'] deeds and began worshiping the stars as they did - When the Jews adopted Egyptian values - as a reflection of their spiritual state - they were enslaved by the Egyptians. with the exception of the tribe of Levi, who clung to the mitzvot of the patriarchs - the tribe of Levi never served false gods. - The tribe of Levi was also the only tribe which perpetuated the mitzvah of circumcision (Sifre, Berachah). As a result of their spiritual fortitude, the tribe of Levi was never enslaved. Within a short time, the fundamental principle that Abraham had planted would have been uprooted and the descendants of Jacob would have returned to the errors of the world and their crookedness. - Our Sages relate that, in the Egyptian exile, the Jews had descended to the forty-ninth degree of impurity. Had they descended another level, it would have been impossible for us ever to be redeemed. Because of God's love for us, and to uphold the oath He made to Abraham, our patriarch - This is a reference to Deuteronomy 7:7-8: "It is not because of your greatness over all the other nations that God desired you and chose you..., but it was because of God's love for you and because He kept the oath He swore to your fathers." He brought forth Moses, our teacher - Rav David Arameah notes that the word ‫עשה‬, rendered as "brought forth," literally means "made." He explains that from Moses' birth, God granted him the potential to develop unique spiritual awareness. Although the Rambam also accepts this concept (see the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 32), it is more likely that he chose this expression as a reference to I Samuel 12:6 (Rav Kapach). the master of all prophets - See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 7:6, where the Rambam elaborates on the advantages Moses had over all the other prophets. Indeed, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Introduction to Chapter 10 of Sanhedrin), he includes belief in the supremacy of Moses' prophecy as the seventh of his Thirteen Principles of Faith. and sent him [to redeem the Jews] - after 117 years of idol worship and slavery. After Moses, our teacher, prophesied, and God chose Israel as His inheritance, He crowned them with mitzvot and

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

13 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-...

informed them of the path to serve Him - by [teaching them] - the Torah which reveals the judgement prescribed for idol-worship and all those who stray after it - as will be explained in the subsequent chapters. The Rambam's elaboration on the negative experience of our people in Egypt and the giving of the Torah has the following implication. Although man can appreciate the futile nature of idol worship and the greatness of God with his own intellect, because man is fallable, it is necessary to have these principles institutionalized in an objective, unchanging religious code (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 20).

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/19/2019 11:49 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

1 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

2 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

The essence of the commandment [forbidding] the worship of false gods is not to serve any of the creations, not an angel, a sphere, or a star, none of the four fundamental elements, nor any entity created from them. Even if the person worshiping knows that ‘‫ ה‬is the [true] God and serves the creation in the manner in which Enosh and the people of his generation worshiped [the stars] originally, he is considered to be an idol worshiper. The Torah warns us about this, saying [Deuteronomy 4:19]: "Lest you lift your eyes heavenward and see the sun, the moon, and the stars... [and bow down and worship them], the entities which God apportioned to all the nations." This implies that you might inquire with "the eye of the heart" and it might appear to you that these entities control the world, having been apportioned by God to all the nations to be alive, to exist, and not to cease existence, as is the pattern of [the other creations with] the world. Therefore, you might say that it is worthy to bow down to them and worship them.

‫עיקר הצווי בעבודת כוכבים שלא‬ ‫לעבוד אחד מכל הברואים לא מלאך‬ ‫ולא גלגל ולא כוכב ולא אחד מארבעה‬ ‫היסודות ולא אחד מכל הנבראים מהן‬ ‫ואע"פ שהעובד יודע שה' הוא האלהים‬ ‫והוא עובד הנברא הזה על דרך שעבד‬ ‫אנוש ואנשי דורו תחלה הרי זה עובד‬ ‫כוכבים וענין זה הוא שהזהירה תורה עליו‬ ‫ואמרה ופן תשא עיניך השמימה וראית‬ ‫את השמש וגו' אשר חלק ה' אלהיך אותם‬ ‫לכל העמים כלומר שמא תשוט בעין לבך‬ ‫תראה שאלו הן המנהיגים את העולם והם‬ ‫שחלק ה' אותם לכל העולם להיות חיים‬ ‫והווים ואינם נפסדים כמנהגו של עולם‬ ‫ותאמר שראוי להשתחוות להם ולעובדן‬ ‫ובענין הזה צוה ואמר השמרו לכם פן‬ ‫יפתה לבבכם כלומר שלא תטעו בהרהור‬ ‫הלב לעבוד אלו להיות סרסור ביניכם ובין‬ :‫הבורא‬

For this reason, [Deuteronomy 11:16] commands: "Be very careful that your heart not be tempted [to go astray and worship other gods]." This implies that the thoughts of your heart should not lead you astray to worship these and make them an intermediary between you and the Creator. Commentary on Halachah 1 The essence of the commandment [forbidding] the worship of false gods is not to serve any of the creations - The Rambam counts the prohibition against worshiping false gods as the first of the 365 negative commandments. In these halachot, he does not mention this prohibition in the manner in which he usually introduces one of the 613 mitzvot in this text, because he introduced this prohibition previously in the Mishneh Torah, mentioning it in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:6. The inclusion of this mitzvah in those halachot is appropriate, because it is one of the foundations of our faith. not an angel, a sphere, or a star - See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapters 2 and 3, for a description of these creations. none of the four fundamental elements - fire, wind, water, and earth. The Rambam describes the existence and function of these four fundamental elements in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapters 3 and 4.

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

3 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

nor any entity created from them. - All the creations of our physical world are created from a combination of these four elements. Even if the person worshiping knows that ‘‫ ה‬is the [true] God and serves the creation in the manner in which Enosh and the people of his generation worshiped [the stars] originally - as the Rambam mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 1. he is considered to be an idol worshiper - and is subject to the punishments mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 1. The Torah warns us about this, saying [Deuteronomy 4:19]: "Lest you lift your eyes heavenward and see the sun, the moon, and the stars... [and bow down and worship them], the entities which God apportioned to all the nations." - As mentioned in the previous chapter, there are some authorities who, using this verse as a proof-text, do not prohibit gentiles from worshiping false gods with this intent. However, all authorities agree that Jews may not worship in this manner. This - should not be interpreted simply as forbidding us to gaze at the celestial beings (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 10), but rather implies that you might inquire with "the eye of the heart" and it might appear to you that these entities control the world - because they do perform essential functions within the natural order having been apportioned by God to all the nations to be alive - See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 3:9, which states that the stars and the spheres are alive and are conscious of God's existence. to exist, and not to cease existence as is the pattern of [the other creations with] the world. - In the first chapters of the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, and briefly in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 4:3, the Rambam explains that all the creations of this world are combinations of different elements and will therefore ultimately return to their initial elemental state. In contrast, the existence of the stars and the spheres remains constant. Therefore, you might say that it is worthy to bow down to them and worship them - to "honor those who God honors," as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, or to derive benefit from serving them, as mentioned in Halachah 2 of that chapter. For this reason, [Deuteronomy 11:16] commands: "Be very careful - The words "Be very careful" imply a prohibition stemming from the Torah. In Halachah 3, the Rambam describes the prohibition involved in harboring such thoughts. that your heart not be tempted [to go astray and worship other gods]." This implies that the thoughts of your heart should not lead you astray to worship these and make them an intermediary between you and the Creator. - Note the fifth of the Rambam's Thirteen Principles of Faith (Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, Chapter 10): The fifth fundamental principle is that it is fit to serve God alone... and not the entities who are below Him: the angels, the stars, the spheres, or the fundamental elements. This is because they all perform their functions because of their inherent nature. They have no control or choice, but merely [fulfill] God's will. We should not make them intermediaries to reach Him through them, but rather direct all our thoughts to Him, paying no attention to anything else. This is the... prohibition against worshiping false gods.

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

4 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

The worshipers of false gods have composed many texts concerning their service, [describing] what is the essence of their service, what practices are involved, and what are its statutes. The Holy One, blessed be He, has commanded us not to read those books at all, nor to think about them or any matters involved with them. It is even forbidden to look at the image of an idol, as [Leviticus 19:4] states: "Do not turn to the idols." In this regard, [Deuteronomy 12:30] states: "[Be careful]... lest you seek to find out about their gods, saying, 'How did they serve them.' This prohibits inquiring about the nature of their service even if you, yourself, do not serve them. This matter will ultimately cause you to turn to [the false god] and worship it as they do, as [the above verse continues]: "so that I will do the same."

‫ספרים רבים חברו עובדי כוכבים‬ ‫בעבודתה היאך עיקר עבודתה ומה‬ ‫מעשיה ומשפטיה צונו הקדוש ברוך הוא‬ ‫שלא לקרות באותן הספרים כלל ולא‬ ‫נהרהר בה ולא בדבר מדבריה ואפילו‬ ‫להסתכל בדמות הצורה אסור שנאמר אל‬ ‫תפנו אל האלילים ובענין הזה נאמר ופן‬ ‫תדרוש לאלהיהם לאמר איכה יעבדו שלא‬ ‫תשאל על דרך עבודתה היאך היא אף על‬ ‫פי שאין אתה עובדה שדבר זה גורם‬ ‫להפנות אחריה ולעשות כמה שהן עושין‬ :‫שנאמר ואעשה כן גם אני‬

Commentary on Halachah 2 This halachah continues the description of the prohibition begun in the previous halachah and completed in the following halachah. The worshipers of false gods have composed many texts concerning their service, [describing] what is the essence of their service, what practices are involved, and what are its statutes. - The commentaries have also included studying other books by pagans and nonbelievers in this prohibition. The Holy One, blessed be He, has commanded us not to read those books at all - See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avot 2:17), which states that one may study "the ideas of the gentiles in order to reply to them." Indeed, from the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapters 29 and 30, it appears that the Rambam himself undertook such study. (The Rabbis have, nevertheless, suggested that such study be limited only to certain individuals who have received permission from a rabbinic authority to concern themselves with these issues.) Note also Chapter 3, Halachah 2, and Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:1, which state that judges must be somewhat familiar with the rites of the pagans in order to judge cases dealing with such questions. There is no source, however, where the Rambam explicitly mentions that one may study about idol worship for this reason. (See Shabbat 75a and Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 179:29.) nor to think about them or any matters involved with them. - The Zohar, Vol. I, 100a, mentions this prohibition together with its rationale, "lest your heart be tempted to this service." It is even forbidden to look at the image of an idol - Note Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 10) and Tosafot (Shabbat 149a), which explain that this prohibition applies only to statues worshiped as idols, in contrast to Rashi (Shabbat, ibid.), who explains that it refers even to statues erected for decorative purposes. as [Leviticus 19:4] states: "Do not turn to the idols." - Note the comments of the Sifra on this verse, "If you turn to them, you will make them gods." In this regard, [Deuteronomy 12:30] states - speaking to the Jews as they prepare to enter Eretz Yisrael: "[Be careful]... lest you seek to find out about their gods, saying, 'How did they serve them.' - See Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 10), which defines this prohibition as "analytical thought and study concerning the fantasies and empty

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

5 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

thoughts of the founders [of idol worship] - i.e., that spiritual nurture can be drawn down from this star in this manner, it is proper to burn incense to this star in this manner...." This prohibits inquiring about the nature of their service even if you, yourself, do not - have an intent to serve them. - These enquiries are prohibited because This matter will ultimately cause you to turn to [the false god] and worship it as they do, as [the above verse continues]: "so that I will do the same." - Here, abstract intellectual curiosity is forbidden. The Rambam operates under the premise that there is nothing positive that can be learned from idol worshipers, and there is a danger that one will be attracted to their lifestyle. Therefore, since there is "nothing to gain and everything to lose," inquiry about such subjects is forbidden.

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

6 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

All these prohibitions have one common thrust: that one should not pay attention to idol worship. Whoever performs a deed that reflects his concern with [idol worship] receives lashes [as punishment]. The worship of false gods is not the only subject to which we are forbidden to pay attention; rather, we are warned not to consider any thought which will cause us to uproot one of the fundamentals of the Torah. We should not turn our minds to these matters, think about them, or be drawn after the thoughts of our hearts. In general, people have limited powers of understanding, and not all minds are capable of appreciating the truth in its fullness. [Accordingly,] were a person to follow the thoughts of his heart, it is possible that he would destroy the world because of his limited understanding. What is implied? There are times when a person will stray after star worship, and times when he will wonder about God's oneness: Perhaps He is one, perhaps He is not? [He might also wonder:] What exists above, [in the heavenly realms]? What exists below [them]? What was before time? What will be after time? Similarly, [one might wonder about] prophecy: Perhaps it is true, perhaps it is not? And [one may also wonder] about the Torah: Perhaps it emanates from God, perhaps it does not?

‫וכל הלאוין האלו בענין אחד הן והוא‬ ‫שלא יפנה אחר עבודת כוכבים וכל‬ ‫הנפנה אחריה בדרך שהוא עושה בו‬ ‫מעשה הרי זה לוקה ולא עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫בלבד הוא שאסור להפנות אחריה‬ ‫במחשבה אלא כל מחשבה שהוא גורם לו‬ ‫לאדם לעקור עיקר מעיקרי התורה‬ ‫מוזהרין אנו שלא להעלותה על לבנו ולא‬ ‫נסיח דעתנו לכך ונחשוב ונמשך אחר‬ ‫הרהורי הלב מפני שדעתו של אדם קצרה‬ ‫ולא כל הדעות יכולין להשיג האמת על‬ ‫בוריו ואם ימשך כל אדם אחר מחשבות‬ ‫לבו נמצא מחריב את העולם לפי קוצר‬ ‫דעתו כיצד פעמים יתור אחר עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים ופעמים יחשוב ביחוד הבורא שמא‬ ‫הוא שמא אינו מה למעלה ומה למטה מה‬ ‫לפנים ומה לאחור ופעמים בנבואה שמא‬ ‫היא אמת שמא היא אינה ופעמים בתורה‬ ‫שמא היא מן השמים שמא אינה ואינו‬ ‫יודע המדות שידין בהן עד שידע האמת‬ ‫על בוריו ונמצא יוצא לידי מינות ועל ענין‬ ‫זה הזהירה תורה ונאמר בה ולא תתורו‬ ‫אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם‬ ‫זונים כלומר לא ימשך כל אחד מכם אחר‬ ‫דעתו הקצרה וידמה שמחשבתו משגת‬ ‫האמת כך אמרו חכמים אחרי לבבכם זו‬ ‫מינות ואחרי עיניכם זו זנות ולאו זה אע"פ‬ ‫שהוא גורם לאדם לטרדו מן העולם הבא‬ :‫אין בו מלקות‬

Since he may not know the guidelines with which to evaluate [ideas that will lead him] to the truth in its fullness, he may come to heresy. The Torah has warned about this matter, saying [Numbers 15:39]: "Do not stray after your hearts and eyes, which have led you to immorality" - i.e., each one of you should not follow his limited powers of understanding and think that he has comprehended the truth. Our Sages [interpreted this warning]: "After your

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

7 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

Commentary on Halachah 3 All these prohibitions - mentioned in this and the above two halachot. have one common thrust: that one should not pay attention to idol worship. - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 10) andSefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 213) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Whoever performs a deed - e.g., in his curiosity, uncovers an image to see what it looks like (Maharshal) or performs a ceremonial act of idol worship merely as practice (Mishneh Kessef). The Rambam's statements here are used as support to negate the opinion of the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 345), which states that lashes are never given for the violation of a prohibition that can be transgressed without performing a deed, even when one violates it by committing a deed. that reflects his concern with [idol worship] receives lashes [as punishment]. - Punishment is administered only for the violation of prohibitions by actual deeds. In this instance, the prohibition can be violated by thought alone - in which case no punishment is administered. There are, however, also instances when deed - and thus punishment - is also involved. Eruvin 17b notes that even though the proof-text for this prohibition mentions the word ‫ אל‬rather than ‫לא‬, it is no different from other Torah prohibitions, and its violation is also punished by lashes. The worship of false gods is not the only subject to which we are forbidden to pay attention - Note the Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot (Shoresh 9), which states that there are mitzvot of thought, of feeling, of speech, and of deed. rather, we are warned not to consider any thought which will cause us to uproot one of the fundamentals of the Torah. We should not turn our minds to these matters, think about them, or be drawn after the thoughts of our hearts. - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 47) defines this mitzvah as follows: We are forbidden to be freethinking [to the extent that] we accept principles which run contrary to those of the Torah. Rather, we should structure our thoughts, setting for them guidelines, those being the mitzvot of the Torah. The Rambam explains the reason for these prohibitions: In general, people have limited powers of understanding, and not all minds are capable of appreciating the truth in its fullness. See also Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2:12, 4:11,13, where the Rambam mentions the restrictions placed on the study of deeper spiritual concepts lest one err in his conception. [Accordingly,] were a person to follow the thoughts of his heart, it is possible that he would destroy the world because of his limited understanding. - There are several ways to understand the expression used by the Rambam: "destroy the world." On the most obvious level, it is a figurative expression, not to be interpreted literally. On a deeper level, it can be seen as a reference to his statements in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4 that a person should always "see himself and the entire world as equally balanced between merit and sin. If he commits one sin, he tips his balance and that of the entire world to guilt and brings on destruction." Today, we can appreciate the Rambam's words in a very literal sense. Society as a whole is plagued by irrational acts of violence. and on a global level it is possible for utter destruction to be brought about if a few individuals act irresponsibly. What is implied? There are times when a person will stray after star worship - and consider it beneficial and - there are times when he will wonder about God's oneness: Perhaps He is one, perhaps He is not? - In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Introduction to the Tenth Chapter of Sanhedrin), the Rambam lists the oneness of God as the second of his Thirteen Principles of Faith. See also Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:7, 2:10. [He may also wonder:] - Chaggigah 11b states: "It would have been better for someone who considers the [following] four matters never to have been created." The passage continues by mentioning the four questions quoted by the Rambam here. What exists above the heavenly realms? What exists below them? What was before time? What will be after time? Our translation is based on Rashi's interpretation of Chaggigah, ibid. Similarly, [one may wonder about] prophecy: Perhaps it is true, perhaps it is not? - In Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 7:1, the Rambam states: "It is [one] of the foundations of [our] faith that God communicates by prophecy with man." Similarly, the

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

8 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

Rambam lists the concept of prophecy as the sixth of his Thirteen Principles of Faith. And [one may also wonder] about the Torah: Perhaps it emanates from God, perhaps it does not? - As the eighth of his Thirteen Principles of Faith, the Rambam states: "The Torah which we have was given by Moses our teacher... and emanates in its entirety - from the Almighty." He explains that this also applies to the oral law. He reiterates this concept in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah. Since he might not know the guidelines with which to evaluate [ideas that will lead him] to the truth in its fullness, he might come to heresy. - The Rambam's statements should be interpreted, not as a restriction of one's thinking processes, but rather a call to structure our thoughts according to the guidelines provided for us by the Torah. In this context, it is worthy to refer to Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 4:13: I maintain that it is not proper for a person to stroll in the Pardes (study Torah's mystic secrets) unless he has filled his belly with bread and meat. "Bread and meat" refer to the knowledge of what is permitted and what is forbidden, and similar matters concerning other mitzvot. Even though the Sages referred to these as "a small matter" - since our Sages said: "'A great matter,' this is Ma'aseh Merkavah. 'A small matter,' this is the debates of Abbaye and Ravva" - nevertheless, it is fitting for them to be given precedence, because they settle a person's mind. Thus, the Rambam teaches that a person should not embark on the study of deep spiritual questions until he has gained the intellectual maturity which comes from Torah study. Even after a person gains such maturity, there is no need for him to concern himself with the study of idol worship because there is no value which he can derive from such study. The Torah has warned about this matter, saying [Numbers 15:39]: "Do not stray after your hearts and eyes, which have led you to immorality" - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 47) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 387) counts this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. i.e., each one of you should not follow his limited powers of understanding and think that he has comprehended the truth. - Instead, he should follow a structured pattern for intellectual growth and development prescribed by a Torah master. Our Sages - Sifre, Sh'lach. (See also Berachot 12b.) [interpreted this warning]: "After your hearts," this refers to heresy - For a more precise definition of the term minut, see Halachah 5 and the commentary. "after your eyes," this refers to immorality. - In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam explains: Their intent in mentioning "immorality" was the pursuit of pleasure and physical desire, [to the extent that] one's mind is constantly preoccupied with such thoughts. This prohibition - though [severe,] causing a person to be prevented [from attaining a portion] in the world to come In Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8, the Rambam includes among the categories of those who have no portion in the world to come: "nonbelievers, heretics, those who deny the Torah,... those who cause the many to sin, and those who depart from the ways of the community." Following the whims of one's heart can lead to the transgression of these prohibitions. is not punishable by lashes - because it does not involve a deed. There is some difficulty with the Rambam's statements. The transgression of both of the prohibitions mentioned in this halachah involves thought and can also involve deed. Just as the commentaries suggested several deeds which violate the first prohibition, similar acts could be performed which violate the latter prohibition. The Rambam, however, appears to imply that there is no way that the latter prohibition could be transgressed in a manner warranting punishment.

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

9 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

The commandment [forbidding] the worship of false gods is equivalent to all the mitzvot, as [implied by Numbers 15:22]: "Lest you err and not perform all the mitzvot...." The oral tradition teaches that the verse refers to the worship of false gods. Thus, we learn that anyone who acknowledges a false god denies the entire Torah in its totality, all the works of the prophets, and everything that has been commanded to the prophets from Adam, [the first man,] until eternity, as [Numbers 15:23] continues: "...from the day God issued His commandments and afterwards, for your future generations."

‫מצות עבודת כוכבים כנגד המצות‬ ‫כולן היא שנאמר וכי תשגו ולא‬ ‫תעשו את כל המצות וגו' ומפי השמועה‬ ‫למדו שבעבודת כוכבים הכתוב מדבר הא‬ ‫למדת שכל המודה בעבודת כוכבים כופר‬ ‫בכל התורה כולה ובכל הנביאים ובכל מה‬ ‫שנצטוו הנביאים מאדם ועד סוף העולם‬ ‫שנאמר מן היום אשר צוה ה' והלאה‬ ‫לדורותיכם וכל הכופר בעבודת כוכבים‬ ‫מודה בכל התורה כולה ובכל הנביאים‬ ‫ובכל מה שנצטוו הנביאים מאדם ועד סוף‬ :‫העולם והוא עיקר כל המצות כולן‬

[Conversely,] anyone who denies the worship of false gods acknowledges the entire Torah in its totality, all the works of the prophets, and everything that has been commanded to the prophets from Adam, [the first man,] until eternity. [This acknowledgement] is fundamental to all of the mitzvot. Commentary on Halachah 4 The commandment [forbidding] the worship of false gods is equivalent to all the mitzvot, as [implied by Numbers 15:22]: "Lest you err and not perform all the mitzvot...." - The passage implies that it is speaking about a single sin; nevertheless, the verse specifically mentions "all the mitzvot." The oral tradition - Sifre, Sh'lach and Horayot 8a, resolves this seeming contradiction and teaches that the verse refers to - a single prohibition which is equivalent to the violation of the entire Torah. Which prohibition is that? the worship of false gods. Thus, we learn that anyone who acknowledges a false god denies the entire Torah in its totality, all the works of the prophets, and everything that has been commanded to the prophets - Note the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 8:1-2, which explain that the essence of the prophetic tradition is linked to the revelation of God on Mount Sinai. from Adam, [the first man,] - Note Hilchot Melachim 9:1, which states that God commanded Adam concerning the worship of false gods. This statement is based on Bereshit Rabbah 16:6. until eternity, as [Numbers 15:23] continues - The verse states that performance of such an act is a denial of "all that God commanded you through Moses..." "...from the day God issued His commandments and afterwards, for your future generations" - for the Torah is unchanging spiritual truth. [Conversely,] anyone who denies the worship of false gods acknowledges the entire Torah in its totality, all the works of the prophets, and everything that has been commanded to the prophets from Adam, [the first man,] until eternity. - Just as the acceptance of false gods removes one from the entire sphere of Torah practice, denying their existence gives one a point of connection to the revelation of God's truth.

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

10 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

[This acknowledgement] is fundamental to all of the mitzvot - because the foundation for all the mitzvot is that they were commanded by the One God who desires that we serve Him alone. Note the Tanya, Chapter 20, which explains that the two mitzvot, the acknowledgement of God and the negation of idol worship, are the foundation of all Torah practice. Therefore, the entire Jewish people heard God proclaim these two mitzvot on Mount Sinai. Every act a person performs can be seen as either the acknowledgement of God or the acknowledgement of a set of values aside from His, equivalent figuratively to the acceptance of another god.

A Jew who serves false gods is considered like a gentile in all regards and is not comparable to a Jew who violated another transgression punishable by being stoned to death. An apostate who worships false gods is considered to be an apostate with regard to the entire Torah. Similarly, Jewish minnim are not considered to be Jews with regard to any matter. Their repentance should never be accepted, as [implied by Proverbs 2:19]: "None that go to her repent, nor will they regain the paths of life." The minnim are those who stray after the thoughts of their hearts, concerning themselves with the foolish matters mentioned above, until they ultimately transgress against the body of Torah [law] arrogantly, with scorn, with the intent of provoking God's anger, and yet say that there is no sin involved.

‫ישראל שעבד עבודת כוכבים הרי‬ ‫הוא כעובד כוכבים לכל דבריו ואינו‬ ‫כישראל שעובר עבירה שיש בה סקילה‬ ‫מומר לעבודת כוכבים הרי הוא מומר לכל‬ ‫התורה כולה וכן האפיקורסים מישראל‬ ‫אינן כישראל לדבר מן הדברים ואין‬ ‫מקבלים אותם בתשובה לעולם שנאמר כל‬ ‫באיה לא ישובון ולא ישיגו ארחות חיים‬ ‫והאפיקורסים הם התרים אחר מחשבות‬ ‫לבם בסכלות דברים שאמרנו עד שנמצאו‬ ‫עוברים על גופי תורה להכעיס בשאט‬ ‫בנפש ביד רמה ואומרים שאין בזה עון‬ ‫ואסור לספר עמהן ולהשיב עליהן תשובה‬ ‫כלל שנאמר ואל תקרב אל פתח ביתה‬ :‫ומחשבה של אפיקורוס לעבודת כוכבים‬

It is forbidden to talk to them or to reply to them at all, as [Proverbs 5:8] states: "Do not come close to her door." [It can be assumed that] a min's thoughts are concerned with false gods.

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

11 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

Whoever accepts a false god as true, even when he does not actually worship it, disgraces and blasphemes [God's] glorious and awesome name. This applies both to one who worships false gods and to one who curses God's name [as is obvious from Numbers 15:30]: "If a person commits [an act of idolatry] highhandedly, whether he be a native born [Jew] or a convert, he is blaspheming God." Therefore, a person who worships false gods is to be hanged, just as one who blasphemes against God is hanged. Both are executed by being stoned to death. Therefore, I have included the laws applying to a blasphemer in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim. Both deny the fundamental principle [of Jewish faith]. These are the laws which govern a blasphemer: A blasphemer is not liable to be stoned to death until he states God's unique name, which possesses four letters: ‫י‬-‫נ‬-‫ד‬-‫א‬, and curses that name with one of the names of God which are forbidden to be erased, as [Leviticus 24:16] states: "One who blasphemes God's name...." One is obligated to be stoned to death for blaspheming God's unique name. [Should he blaspheme] the other names for God, he [transgresses] a prohibition.

‫כל המודה בעבודת כוכבים שהיא‬ ‫אמת אף על פי שלא עבדה הרי זה‬ ‫מחרף ומגדף את השם הנכבד והנורא‬ ‫ואחד העובד עבודת כוכבים ואחד המגדף‬ ‫את ה' שנאמר והנפש אשר תעשה ביד‬ ‫רמה מן האזרח ומן הגר את ה' הוא מגדף‬ ‫לפיכך תולין עובד עבודת כוכבים כמו‬ ‫שתולין את המגדף ושניהם נסקלין ומפני‬ ‫זה כללתי דין המגדף בהלכות עבודת‬ :‫כוכבים ששניהם כופרים בעיקר הם‬

‫ואלו הן דיני המגדף אין המגדף חייב‬ ‫סקילה עד שיפרש את השם המיוחד‬ ‫של ארבע אותיות שהוא אל"ף דל"ת נו"ן‬ ‫יו"ד ויברך אותו בשם מן השמות שאינם‬ ‫נמחקים שנאמר ונוקב שם ה' על השם‬ ‫המיוחד חייב סקילה ועל שאר הכינוים‬ ‫באזהרה ויש מי שמפרש שאינו חייב אלא‬ ‫על שם יו"ד ה"א וא"ו ה"א ואני אומר‬ :‫שעל שניהם הוא נסקל‬

There are those who state that one is liable [for execution] only when one blasphemes the name ‫ה‬-‫ו‬-‫ה‬-‫י‬. I, however, maintain that one should be stoned to death in both instances.

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

12 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

Which verse serves as the warning prohibiting blasphemy? [Exodus 22:27]: "Do not curse God." [The procedure for the trial of a blasphemer is as follows:] Each day [when] the witnesses are questioned, [they use] other terms for God's name, [stating,] "May Yosse strike Yosse." At the conclusion of the judgment, all bystanders are removed [from the courtroom]. The judges question the witness of greatest stature and tell him, "Tell us what you heard explicitly." He relates [the curse]. The judges stand upright and rend their garments. They may not mend them [afterwards].

‫אזהרה של מגדף מנין שנאמר‬ ‫אלהים לא תקלל בכל יום ויום‬ ‫בודקין את העדים בכינוים יכה יוסי את‬ ‫יוסי נגמר הדין מוציאין את כל אדם לחוץ‬ ‫ושואלים את הגדול שבעדים ואומרים לו‬ ‫אמור מה ששמעת בפירוש והוא אומר‬ ‫והדיינים עומדים על רגליהם וקורעין ולא‬ ‫מאחין והעד השני אומר אף אני כמותו‬ ‫שמעתי ואם היו עדים רבים צריך כל אחד‬ :‫ואחד מהן לומר כזה שמעתי‬

The second witness states: "I also heard as he did." If there are many witnesses, they must all say, "I heard the same." [The fact that] a blasphemer retracts his statements in the midst of speaking is of no consequence. Rather, once he utters blasphemy in the presence of witnesses, he is [liable for execution by] stoning. Should a person curse God's name with the name of a false god, the zealous may strike him and slay him. If the zealous do not slay him and he is brought to court, he is not [condemned to] be stoned. [That punishment is administered] only when one curses God's name with another one of His unique names.

‫מגדף שחזר בו בתוך כדי דיבור אינו‬ ‫כלום אלא כיון שגידף בעדים נסקל‬ ‫מי שגידף את השם בשם עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫קנאים פוגעים בו והורגים אותו ואם לא‬ ‫הרגוהו קנאים ובא לבית דין אינו נסקל עד‬ :‫שיברך בשם מן השמות המיוחדים‬

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

13 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

Whoever hears the blasphemy of God's name is obligated to rend his garments. Even [when one hears] the blasphemy of other terms used to describe God, one is obligated to rend his garments. The above applies when one hears [the blasphemy] from a fellow Jew. [In that instance,] both one who hears the actual blasphemy and one who hears it from the witnesses is obligated to rend his garments. In contrast, one who hears a gentile [blaspheme God's name] is not obligated to rend his garments. Elyakim and Shevna rent their garments [as described in Isaiah 36:22] only because Ravshakeh was an apostate Jew.

‫כל השומע ברכת השם חייב לקרוע‬ ‫ואפילו על ברכת הכינויין חייב לקרוע‬ ‫והוא שישמענה מישראל אחד השומע‬ ‫ואחד השומע מפי השומע חייב לקרוע‬ ‫אבל השומע מפי העובד כוכבים אינו חייב‬ ‫לקרוע ולא קרעו אליקים ושבנא אלא‬ ‫מפני שרבשקה היה ישראל מומר כל‬ ‫העדים והדיינים סומכים את ידיהם אחד‬ ‫אחד על ראש המגדף ואומר לו דמך‬ ‫בראשך שאתה גרמת לך ואין בכל הרוגי‬ ‫בית דין מי שסומכים עליו אלא מגדף‬ ‫בלבד שנאמר וסמכו כל השומעים את‬ :‫ידיהם‬

[Before his execution,] all the witnesses and the judges place their hands on the head of the blasphemer and tell him: "You are responsible for your death. You brought it upon yourself." Only a blasphemer - and none of the other offenders executed by the court - has [the judges and witnesses] place their hands upon his head, as [Leviticus 24:14] states: "And all those who hear shall place their hands on his head."

« Previous

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter One Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

14 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912360/jewish/Avodat-...

8/19/2019 11:48 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

1 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two

Whoever serves false gods willingly, as a conscious act of defiance, is liable for ‫כרת‬. If witnesses who warned him were present, he is [punished by being] stoned to death. If he served [such gods] inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin offering.

‫כל העובד כוכבים ברצונו בזדון חייב‬ ‫כרת ואם היו שם עדים והתראה‬ ‫נסקל ואם עבד בשגגה מביא קרבן חטאת‬ :‫קבועה‬

Commentary on Halachah 1 Whoever serves false gods willingly - i.e., if he is forced to worship false gods by another person, he is not held responsible for his act. It is nevertheless forbidden to consent to such pressure. One is obligated to sacrifice one's life rather than consent to such worship (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:2,4). as a conscious act of defiance - as opposed to someone who worships inadvertently. [The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1510) notes that the Rambam uses the expression "willingly, as a conscious act of defiance" with regard to the violation of the prohibitions against idolatry, the Sabbath laws (Hilchot Shabbat 1:1), and the laws of Yom Kippur (Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 1:1). With regard to all other transgressions punishable by ‫כרת‬, he states merely: "as a conscious act of defiance." The Radbaz explains that it is possible that the Rambam mentioned the concept of "willingly" with regard to these three transgressions because they are the first cases of ‫ כרת‬mentioned in the Mishneh Torah. Furthermre, they are transgressions which people at large would consider most severe. After mentioning the concept on these three occasions, the Rambam does not think further repetition is necessary.] is liable for ‫כרת‬. - Mo'ed Katan 28a relates that a person liable for ‫ כרת‬would die before reaching the age of fifty. The Rambam (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1) emphasizes that being "cut off in this world" is not the sum total of Divine retribution for such a transgression. Rather, the person's soul is also cut off and prevented from reaching the world to come. If witnesses who warned him - See Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:1-2. were present - when he committed the offense and later testified in court, he is [punished by being] stoned to death - as mentioned above, Chapter 2, Halachah 6. If he served [such gods] inadvertently - He performed an act of idol worship without realizing that it was forbidden, or was not aware of the punishment involved (Hilchot Shegagot 2:2). he must bring a fixed sin offering. - Though the sin offering brought to atone for idol worship differs from that brought to

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

2 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

atone for other sins - see Numbers 15:27-31; Hilchot Shegagot 1:4 - the Rambam uses this term to differentiate it from a 18‫הלוע‬á‫ ןברק דרויו‬- a guilt offering which differs depending on the financial status of the person bringing it.

The gentiles established various different services for each particular idol and image. These services do not [necessarily] resemble each other. For example, Pe'or is served by defecating before it. Marculis is served by throwing stones at it or clearing stones away from it. Similarly, other services were instituted for other idols. One who defecates before Marculis or throws a stone at Pe'or is free of liability until he serves it according to the accepted modes of service, as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:30]: "[Lest one inquire about their gods, saying,] 'How did these nations serve their gods? I will do the same.'"

‫עבודות הרבה קבעו עובדי כוכבים‬ ‫לכל צלם וצלם ולכל צורה וצורה‬ ‫ועבודת זה אינה כעבודת זה כגון פעור‬ ‫שעבודתו שפוער אדם עצמו לו ומרקוליס‬ ‫שעבודתו שיזרוק לו אבנים או יסקל‬ ‫מלפניו אבנים והרבה עבודות כגון אלו‬ ‫תקנו לשאר צלמים לפיכך הפוער עצמו‬ ‫למרקוליס או שזרק אבן לפעור פטור עד‬ ‫שיעבוד אותו דרך עבודתו שנאמר איכה‬ ‫יעבדו הגוים האלה את אלהיהם ואעשה כן‬ ‫גם אני ומפני זה הענין צריכין בית דין לידע‬ ‫דרכי העבודות שאין סוקלין עובד כוכבים‬ :‫עד שידעו שזו היא דרך עבודתו‬

For this reason, a court must know the types of worship [practiced by gentiles], because an idolater is stoned to death only when we know that [he has worshiped a false god] in the mode in which it is traditionally worshiped. Commentary on Halachah 2 The gentiles established various different services for each particular idol and image. These services do not [necessarily] resemble each other. For example, Pe'or - See Numbers, Chapter 25, which describes the Jews' worship of this image. See also Sanhedrin 61a. is served by defecating before it. Marculis - The Aruch identifies the Hebrew Marculis with the Greek god, Mercury. He notes that the form used to represent the deity and its manner of service resemble that found in Roman and Greek sources. See Tosafot, Sanhedrin 64a for a different interpretation. is served by throwing stones at it - Note Halachah 5. or clearing stones away from it. - Clearing away these stones leaves more room for others to throw. Hence, such an act is also considered to be service of the deity (Sanhedrin 64a). Similarly, other services were instituted for other idols. One who defecates before Marculis or throws a stone at Pe'or is free of liability - for he did not serve the god in the service required for it, or through one of the four services which were accepted as modes of worship for all gods, as explained in the following halachah. One might think that a person would be held liable for serving one of these gods in the manner used to serve the other, since they are both served in an unbecoming manner. Sanhedrin 61a teaches us that, nevertheless, one is not liable. until he serves it according to the accepted mode of service, as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:30]: "[Lest one inquire about their gods, saying,] 'How did these nations serve their gods? I will do the same.' - The Torah's inclusion of such a question implies that this knowledge is significant. A person who does not worship an idol in the accepted mode of service is not

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

3 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

liable (Sanhedrin, ibid.). For this reason, a court must know the types of worship [practiced by gentiles] - Note Chapter 2, Halachah 2, which forbids the study of idolatrous practices. Apparently, license to do so is granted the sages to allow them to gain the knowledge mentioned in this halachah. (See Sanhedrin 68a.) because an idolater is stoned to death only when we know that [he has worshiped a false god] in the mode in which it is traditionally worshiped. - Thus, were the court not cognizant of the different modes of idol worship, they could not administer the appropriate punishment.

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

4 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

The warning [forbidding] such worship and the like is the verse [Exodus 20:5] which states: "Do not serve them." When does the above apply? with regard to services other than bowing, slaughtering [an animal], bringing a burnt offering, and offering a libation. A person who performs one of these four services to any one of the types of false gods is liable, even though this is not its accepted mode of service. How is this exemplified? A person who offers a libation to Pe'or or slaughters [an animal] to Marculis is liable, as [implied by Exodus 22:19]: "Whoever slaughters [an animal] to any deity other than God alone must be condemned to death." [Liability for performing the other services can be derived as follows:] Slaughter was included in the general category of services [forbidden to be performed to false gods]. Why was it mentioned explicitly? To teach [the following]: Slaughter is distinct as one of the services of God, and one who slaughters to false gods is liable to be executed by stoning. Similarly, with regard to any service which is distinct as one of the services of God, if a person performs it in worship of other gods, he is liable.

‫ואזהרה של עבודות אלו וכיוצא בהן‬ ‫הוא מה שכתוב ולא תעבדם בד"א‬ ‫בשאר עבודות חוץ ממשתחוה וזובח‬ ‫ומקטיר ומנסך אבל העובד באחת‬ ‫מעבודות אלו לאחד מכל מיני עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים חייב ואע"פ שאין דרך עבודתו‬ ‫בכך כיצד הרי שניסך לפעור או שזבח‬ ‫למרקוליס חייב שנאמר זובח לאלהים‬ ‫יחרם בלתי לה' לבדו זביחה בכלל עבודה‬ ‫היתה ולמה יצאת לומר לך מה זביחה‬ ‫מיוחדת שעובדין בה לשם וחייב הזובח‬ ‫לאל אחר סקילה עליה בין היתה דרך‬ ‫עבודתו בזביחה או אינה בזביחה אף כל‬ ‫עבודה שהיא מיוחדת לשם אם עבד בה‬ ‫לאל אחר בין שהיתה דרך עבודתו בכך‬ ‫בין שאינה בכך חייב עליה לכך נאמר לא‬ ‫תשתחוה לאל אחר לחייב על ההשתחויה‬ ‫אפילו אין דרך עבודתו בכך והוא הדין‬ :‫למקטר ומנסך וזורק ומנסך אחד הוא‬

For [a similar reason, Exodus 34:14] states: "Do not bow down to another god," to teach that one is liable for bowing down [to another god] even when this is not its accepted mode of service. The same applies to one who brings a burnt offering or pours a libation. Sprinkling [blood] is considered the same as pouring a libation. Commentary on Halachah 3 The warning [forbidding] such worship and the like is the verse [Exodus 20:5] which states: "Do not serve them." Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 6) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 29) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

5 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

Torah. It, to be distinguished from the prohibition against the belief in false gods (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 1), involves the performance of deeds of worship in service of false gods. The Ramban (Hasagot L'Sefer HaMitzvot) considers the two prohibitions as one negative mitzvah. The Rambam's view, however, is justified by other authorities. When does the above - that one is liable only when performing services with which a deity is worshiped apply? with regard to services other than bowing - See Chapter 6, Halachah 8, which states that this means bowing one's face to the ground, whether bending, kneeling, or totally prostrate on the ground. slaughtering [an animal], bringing a burnt offering, and offering a libation. - Since these four modes of worship are accepted services of the true God, using them to serve false gods is absolutely forbidden (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 6). Therefore, A person who performs one of these four services to any one of the types of false gods is liable, even though this is not its accepted mode of service. - In Halachah 6, the Rambam discusses paying reverence or showing affection to false gods through services with which the true God is not worshiped. How is this exemplified? A person who offers a libation to Pe'or or slaughters [an animal] to Marculis - despite the fact that they are served in other ways, as explained in the previous halachah is liable, as [implied by Exodus 22:19]: "Whoever slaughters [an animal] to any deity - Note Rashi, Sanhedrin 60b, who explains that since the verse does not state, "Whoever worships a deity through sacrifice," we can conclude that the sacrifice of an animal is sufficient for one to be held liable, even when this is not the accepted mode of service. other than God alone must be condemned to death." - He is stoned to death. [Liability for performing the other services - pouring a libation and bringing a burnt offering, which are not explicitly forbidden by the Torah. can be derived as follows:] Slaughter was included in the general category of services [forbidden to be performed to false gods]. Why was it mentioned explicitly? To teach [the following]: - This represents an example of the eighth of Rabbi Yishmael's thirteen principles of Biblical exegesis: When a specific case is first included in a general category and then, singled out to instruct us regarding a new concept, we assume that it has been singled out not only to teach us concerning its own case, but rather for that new idea to be applied with regard to the totality of the general category. Slaughter is distinct as one of the services of God - i.e., it is a particular case included in a general category and one who slaughters to false gods is liable to be executed by stoning. - This is the new concept for which the Torah singled out this service to teach us. Following the above rule, we conclude Similarly, with regard to any service which is distinct as one of the services of God, if a person performs it in worship of other gods, he is liable - for execution. For [a similar reason, Exodus 34:14] states: "Do not bow down to another god" - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 5) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 28) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This prohibition also includes performing the other three services mentioned above. In this instance as well, the Ramban (Hasagot L'Sefer HaMitzvot) considers this prohibition to be included within the first negative mitzvah, the prohibition against believing in false gods. The Rambam's view, however, is justified by other authorities. to teach that one is liable for bowing down [to another god] even when this is not its accepted mode of service. Bowing down is not considered to be one of the Temple services. Hence, it - as opposed to bringing a burnt offering or pouring a libation - cannot be derived from the prohibition against sacrificing, and requires a unique verse of its own. The same applies to one who brings a burnt offering - be it an animal, incense, or any other substance or pours a libation. Sprinkling [blood] - before an idol or on its altar is considered the same as pouring a libation - and is forbidden even if this is not the accepted mode of service.Sanhedrin (ibid.) equates sprinkling blood with offering a libation, based on Psalms 16:4: "Do not pour their libations of blood."

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

6 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

[Even if] one pours feces before it or pours a libation of urine from a chamber pot before it, one is liable. If one slaughters a locust before it, one is not liable, unless this is the mode of service of that deity. Similarly, if one slaughters an animal lacking a limb for it, one is not liable, unless this is the manner of service of this deity. [The following rules apply when] a false god is worshiped by [beating with] a staff [before it]: If one breaks a staff before it, one is liable [for the worship of false gods], and [the deity] is forbidden. If one threw a staff before it, one is held liable, but [the deity] is not forbidden, because throwing a staff is not considered equivalent to sprinkling blood. The staff remains as it was, while the blood spatters [in different directions].

‫ספת לה צואה או שניסך לה עביט‬ ‫של מי רגלים חייב שחט לה חגב‬ ‫פטור אלא א"כ היתה עבודתה בכך וכן‬ ‫אם שחט לה בהמה מחוסרת אבר פטור‬ ‫אלא אם כן היתה דרך עבודתה בכך‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים שעובדין אותה במקל שבר‬ ‫מקל בפניה חייב ונאסרת זרק מקל בפניה‬ ‫חייב ואינה נאסרת שאין זריקת המקל‬ ‫כעין זריקת הדם שהרי המקל כמו שהוא‬ ‫והדם מתפזר המקבל עליו אחד מכל מיני‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים באלוה חייב סקילה ואפילו‬ ‫הגביה לבנה ואמר לה אלי אתה וכן כל‬ ‫כיוצא בדבור זה חייב ואפילו חזר בו בתוך‬ ‫כדי דיבור ואמר אין זה אלי אין חזרתו‬ :‫כלום אלא נסקל‬

A person who accepts any one of the various false gods as a deity is liable for [execution by] stoning. Even one who lifted up a brick and said, "You are my god," or the like, is liable. Even if he retracted his statements in the midst of speaking and said, "This is not my God," his retraction is not significant and he should be stoned [to death]. Commentary on Halachah 4 [Even if] one pours feces before it or pours a libation of urine from a chamber pot before it, one is liable. - These are considered as libations (Avodah Zarah 50b), for which one is held liable even if this is not the mode in which the deity is worshiped. If one slaughters a locust before it, one is not liable - for there is no concept of ritual slaughter with regard to locusts. TheOr Sameach holds one liable when one sacrifices a locust on an altar before a false deity. unless this is the mode of service of that deity - in which instance one would be held liable, based on the principles stated in Halachah 2. Similarly, if one slaughters an animal lacking a limb for it - Note Avodah Zarah 51a which states that this leniency only applies to the slaughter of any animal lacking a limb. In contrast, one is held liable for the slaughter of an animal with a disqualifying physical blemish. one is not liable - because even the gentiles do not offer sacrifices of such animals The Ra'avad holds one liable even for the slaughter of such an animal or of a locust, explaining that although the Rambam's decision reflects certain opinions mentioned in the Talmud, the final decision is that one is held liable. He explains that such forms of slaughter are much closer to the concept of the slaughter for sacrifice than the offering of feces or urine are to the service of libation.

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

7 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

unless this is the manner of service of this deity - as explained above. [The following rules apply when] a false god is worshiped by [beating with] a staff - Note the Ra'avad, who emphasizes that the following rules apply although the service of this deity does not involve breaking or throwing a staff [before it]: - This interpretation is also followed by theShulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 139:3. If one breaks a staff before it - since this activity resembles the slaughter of an animal one is liable [for the worship of false gods] - To justify the seeming difficulty in the Rambam's decisions mentioned by the Ra'avad (see above), the Lechem Mishneh explains that since staffs figure in the worship of this deity, an act that resembles slaughter that is performed with a staff is significant. In contrast, animals lacking limbs and locusts are never used in the service of such deities; hence, their slaughter is of no consequence. [Note, however, the Ramah, who explains that one is liable only when the deity is worshiped by breaking the stick.] and [the deity] is forbidden. - to be used, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 4. This interpretation depends on the female construction of the word ‫נאסרת‬. Other authorities quote the word in a masculine form and interpret it as a reference to the staff. Since it was used in the worship of a false god, it is forbidden, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2. If one threw a staff before it - since this activity resembles pouring a libation before an idol one is held liable, but [the deity] - or the staff is not forbidden - This decision makes the Rambam's line of reasoning difficult to follow. If throwing the staff is not comparable to sprinkling blood, why is one held liable for it? Accordingly, some commentaries have explained that this decision applies only when the deity is worshiped by throwing staffs. The Pri Chadash, however, differentiates between the liability of the worshiper (for which a sprinkling that spatters is not required) and the prohibition of the worship of the deity (for which it is). because throwing a staff is not considered equivalent to sprinkling blood. The staff remains as it was - a single whole entity while the blood spatters [in different directions]. - Since the reason that these services are considered significant even though the deity is not normally worshiped in this manner is that these services were performed in the Temple, the analogy must be complete. Thus, the entity poured or thrown before the deity must spatter, as blood spatters when sprinkled on the altar (Avodah Zarah, ibid.). A person who accepts any one of the various false gods - which already exist as a deity - even though he does not perform a deed of worship is liable for [execution by] stoning. - The Rambam mentions that one is liable for stoning specifically. Generally, the term "liable" means "liable to bring a sacrifice." In this instance, however, a person who makes such a statement inadvertently is not obligated to bring a sacrifice. A sacrifice is only brought when one performs a deed in violation of the Torah's command (Hilchot Shegagot 1:2). Even one who - creates a new false god for himself (Lechem Mishneh) lifted up a brick - The Lechem Mishneh explains that this expression is merely a figure of speech. There is no need to perform a deed - lifting up the brick - for one to be held liable. and said, "You are my god," or the like, is liable. - When two people do not witness this declaration, the death penalty may not be administered by the court. The person is, however, liable for karet (premature death at the hand of God) if he made his statements intentionally. Even if he retracted his statements in the midst of speaking - As explained above (Chapter 2, Halachah 9), this term has a specific meaning, the amount of time it takes to say 18‫ךילע‬á‫םולש יבר‬. and said, "This is not my God," his retraction is not significant - Although a retraction made in this amount of time is normally considered significant, different rules apply with regard to the acceptance of false gods. It is assumed that a person would never make such a statement unless he were fully aware of its ramifications. and he should be stoned [to death].

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

8 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

Anyone who serves a false god through its accepted mode of service - even if he does so in a derisive manner - is liable. What is implied? When a person defecates before Pe'or to repudiate it, or throws a stone at Marculis to repudiate it - since this is the manner of serving them - the person is liable and must bring a sacrifice [to atone for] his inadvertent transgression.

‫העובד עבודת כוכבים כדרכה ואפילו‬ ‫עשה דרך בזיון חייב כיצד הפוער‬ ‫עצמו לפעור כדי לבזותו או זרק אבן‬ ‫למרקוליס כדי לבזותו הואיל ועבודתו בכך‬ :‫חייב ומביא קרבן על ששגתו‬

Commentary on Halachah 5 Anyone who serves a false god through its accepted mode of service - Regardless of the nature of that service even if he does so in a derisive manner - i.e., both the act he performs and his intent in performing it is to abuse the false deity is liable - for a sacrifice, as will be explained. This is an extension of the principle stated in Halachah 2. What is implied? When a person defecates before Pe'or to repudiate it, or throws a stone at Marculis to repudiate it -Sanhedrin 64a relates that one of the Sages of the Talmud actually made such an error and threw a rock at a shrine of Marculis, with the intent of destroying it. When the matter was brought before his colleagues, they informed him of his mistake. since this is the manner of serving them - the person is liable and must bring a sacrifice [to atone for] his inadvertent transgression. - Although he consciously performed an act which is considered to be worship of these gods, since his intent was not to serve them, he is not considered to be one who willfully serves idols. Hence, he is not punished by the court for his deed, nor is he obligated for karet by God. Since he, nevertheless, did perform an act of worship to these gods, he must bring a sacrifice for atonement. The above represents the Kessef Mishneh's interpretation of this halachah. Many other authorities (see Tosafot, Sanhedrin 64a) disagree, and maintain that even in such circumstances, one could be held liable for capital punishment. For example, two witnesses who knew the law were present and warned the person against repudiating the idol in this fashion. He ignored their warning and performed the derisive act of worship. Although his intent was not to serve the deity, since he performed an act of worship despite the warning he was given, he is liable for execution. Rav Kapach brings support for the Kessef Mishneh's view from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:6. There, the Rambam discusses a similar situation and states that a person who performs such service "is liable for a sin offering." In the original texts of that commentary, the Rambam stated that the person "is liable." The addition of the words "for a sin offering" appear to indicate that he is liable only for an offering, but not for punishment by the court. Note also Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:4, where the Rambam states that a person who unknowingly worships a false god is not liable for his deeds.

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

9 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

[The following rules apply when] a person serves a false deity out of love - i.e., he desires an image because its service is very attractive - or when one serves it out of his fear of it - i.e., he fears that it will harm him - as the [idol] worshipers fear [their deities as sources of] benefit and harm: If he accepts it as a god, he is liable to be stoned to death. If he serves it out of love or fear through its accepted mode of service or through one of the four services [mentioned above], he is not held liable. One who embraces a false deity, kisses it, sweeps before it, mops before it, washes it, anoints it, dresses it, places shoes upon it, or performs any similar act of deference violates a negative commandment, as [implied by Exodus 20:5]: "Do not serve them." Such acts are also "service." The offender is, nevertheless, not liable for lashes, because [these services] are not [mentioned] explicitly [by the Torah].

‫העובד עבודת כוכבים מאהבה כגון‬ ‫שחשק בצורה זו מפני מלאכתה‬ ‫שהיתה נאה ביותר או שעבדה מיראתו לה‬ ‫שמא תריע לו כמו שהן מדמים עובדיה‬ ‫שהיא מטיבה ומריעה אם קבלה עליו‬ ‫באלוה חייב סקילה ואם עבדה דרך‬ ‫עבודתה או באחת מארבע עבודות‬ ‫מאהבה או מיראה פטור המגפף עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים והמנשק לה והמכבד והמרבץ‬ ‫לפניה והמרחיץ לה והסך והמלביש‬ ‫והמנעיל וכל כיוצא בדברי כבוד האלו‬ ‫עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר ולא תעבדם‬ ‫ודברים אלו בכלל עבודה הן ואע"פכן אינו‬ ‫לוקה על אחת מהן לפי שאינן בפירוש‬ ‫ואם היתה דרך עבודתה באחד מכל‬ :‫הדברים האלו ועשהו לעבדה חייב‬

If one of the above services was the accepted mode of worship [of a particular deity] and a person performed this service as an act of worship, he is liable [for execution]. Commentary on Halachah 6 [The following rules apply when] a person serves a false deity out of love - i.e., he desires an image because its service is very attractive - The commentaries note that the Rambam interprets "out of love" differently from "out of fear." "Out of love" refers to a love for the image and its service, while "out of fear" means fear of what the deity can do to the person. Rav Kapach explains the Rambam's position, justifying the need for such a difference in interpretation. Most idolaters do not worship their images out of a genuine conviction that they are the true god, but rather for the benefit they feel this service will bring them. Therefore, were a person to serve an idol with this intent in mind, the Rambam would hold him liable. In contrast, were he to serve out of fear, he is not considered to be acting on his own volition, and hence is not held responsible. or when one serves it out of his fear of it - i.e., he fears that it will harm him - as the [idol] worshipers fear [their deities as sources of] benefit and harm: - See Chapter 1, Halachot 1-2. If he accepts it as a god - and serves it as an act of worship he is liable to be stoned to death - as stated in Halachah 1. If he serves it out of love or fear - without accepting it as a god - even though he served it through its accepted mode of service - as mentioned in Halachah 2 or through one of the four services [mentioned above] - in Halachah 3,

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

10 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

he is not held liable - since he did not accept the deity as a god. Although the Rambam's opinion is questioned by many other authorities, it is based on an established tradition of Talmudic interpretation. This halachah is based on Sanhedrin 61b. That passage is also quoted in Shabbat 72b. Rabbenu Chanan'el, one of the foremost commentators in the generations between the Geonim and the Rambam, interprets the latter passage using the same concepts _ and almost the same phraseology _ as employed by the Rambam here. The Ra'avad and others challenge the Rambam's interpretation and explain that "out of love" and "out of fear" mean: motivated by the love or fear of the person who tries to influence one to worship the false deity. The Rambam cannot accept this interpretation, because in Hilchot Yesodei Torah 5:4, he states that a person who is forced to serve false gods is not held liable for his deeds (Kessef Mishneh). The fact that a person is not held liable for such service does not at all minimize the seriousness of the prohibition involved. In no way is one allowed to serve false gods for such reasons. Even with regard to the Ra'avad's interpretation "out of fear" - i.e., out of fear of a person - the Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 150:3) prohibits performing any act that might be interpreted as idol worship - e.g., bowing to a ruler who is wearing an image. One who embraces a false deity, kisses it, sweeps before it, mops before it, washes it, anoints it, dresses it, places shoes upon it, or performs any similar act of deference violates a negative commandment, as [implied by Exodus 20:5]: "Do not serve them." - This commandment is described in Halachot 2 and 3. Such acts are also "service." The offender is, nevertheless, not - executed, as is one who worships a false deity, nor is he punished by lashes, because [these services] are not [mentioned] explicitly [by the Torah]. - The Kessef Mishneh explains that punishment is not given because this prohibition is a 18‫ ואל תוללכבש‬- i.e., it includes many different forbidden acts. Lashes are not given for the violation of such a prohibition, as stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3. To explain: The prohibition, "Do not serve them," is twofold in nature. It prohibits the worship of a false deity through its accepted modes of service, as stated in Halachah 2. This is a sin punishable by death. The same prohibition also forbids these expressions of affection or reverence. These deeds are not, however, punishable by death because they are not acts of worship. Since violation of this prohibition incurs a penalty of execution, it is not associated with the punishment of lashes. Since, in essence, this prohibition is not associated with lashes, even the many transgressions of a lesser nature which are also included within this prohibition are also not punishable in this manner (Rav Kapach). If one of the above services - kissing, and the like was the accepted mode of worship [of a particular deity] and a person performed this service as an act of worship and not merely as an expression of emotion. The Lechem Mishneh questions the addition of the words "as an act of worship," noting that in Halachah 5, the Rambam holds one liable for performing the service with which Pe'or or Marculis was worshiped, even though one's intent was to repudiate the idols. Thus, it appears that once a person performs a service which is the accepted mode of worship, his intent is no longer significant. The Pri Chadash resolves this difficulty, explaining that the extent of liability is different. In the previous halachah, the offender was liable for a sin offering alone, while here, he is liable [for execution] - as stated in Halachah 2.

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

11 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

If a splinter becomes stuck in a person's foot before an idol, he should not bend down to remove it, because it appears that he is bowing down to the idol.

‫ישב לו קוץ ברגלו לפני עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫לא ישוח ויטלנו מפני שנראה‬ ‫כמשתחוה לה נתפזרו לו מעות בפניה לא‬ ‫ישוח ויטלם מפני שנראה כמשתחוה לה‬ :‫אלא ישב ואחר כך יטול‬

If money belonging to a person becomes scattered before an idol, he should not bow down and pick it up, because it appears that he is bowing down to the idol. Instead, he should sit down, and then pick it up. Commentary on Halachah 7 If a splinter becomes stuck in a person's foot before an idol, he should not bend down to remove it, because it appears that he is bowing down to the idol. - Avodah Zarah 12a states that if the person turns his back or side to the idol, his bowing would not be considered to be an act of deference, and no prohibition is involved. Even if no other people are present, this and the following prohibitions apply. Any prohibition that was instituted because of the impression which might be created (18‫ןיע‬á‫ )תיארמ‬is forbidden even in a person's most private chambers. If money belonging to a person becomes scattered before an idol, he should not bow down and pick it up, because it appears that he is bowing down to the idol. - From the commentaries' discussion of this law, it appears that if the person does bow down, he is not held liable for his actions. Kin'at Eliyahu questions the difference between this decision and Halachah 5, which holds a person who throws a stone to Marculis with the intent to repudiate it liable for a sin offering. He resolves that difficulty, explaining that in Halachah 5, the person intended to throw the stone at the idol. Since that act constitutes worship of this deity, he is held liable. In contrast, in our halachah the person did not bow down to the idol at all. The only reason the bowing is prohibited is that a mistaken impression might be created. Instead, he should sit down, and then pick it up. - Avodah Zarah (ibid.) mentions a third prohibition, that a person should not bow down to drink from a spring that flows in front of an idol. The Kessef Mishneh notes that Rav Yitzchak Alfasi also omits this law, and explains that it was not contained in their text of the Talmud. (This is somewhat unlikely, since it is found in Rabbenu Chanan'el's text of Avodah Zarah.) The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1389) states that this law is included in the law mentioned in the following halachah. Hence, it is not mentioned explicitly by the Rambam.

A person should not place his mouth over the mouths of statues which serve as fountains that are located before false deities in order to drink, because it appears that he is kissing the false deity.

‫פרצופות המקלחות מים בפני‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים לא יניח פיו על פיהם‬ ‫וישתה מפני שנראה כמנשק לעבודת‬ :‫כוכבים‬

Commentary on Halachah 8 A person should not place his mouth over the mouths of statues which serve as fountains that are located before false deities in order to drink, because it appears - In the context of the discussion of this law, the Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 150:3) states an important general principle. Prohibitions which were instituted because of the impression which might be created (‫)מראית עין‬ need not be upheld whenever there is a threat to human life. that he is kissing the false deity. - This prohibition is also mentioned in Avodah Zarah (ibid.). The commentaries have noted a slight difficulty in the Talmud's (and thus, the Rambam's) phraseology. The opening clause describes the statues as merely "located before false deities," while from the latter clause it appears that the statue itself is the

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

12 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

false deity.

A person who has a false god made for himself even though he, himself, did not actually fashion it, nor worship it - is [punished by] lashing, as [Exodus 20:5] states: "Do not make for yourself an idol or any representation." Similarly, a person who actually fashions a false god for others, even for idolaters, is [punished by] lashing, as [Leviticus 19:4] states: "Do not make molten gods for yourselves." Accordingly, a person who actually fashions a false god for himself receives two measures of lashes.

‫העושה עבודת כוכבים לעצמו אף על‬ ‫פי שלא עשאה בידו ולא עבדה‬ ‫לוקה שנא' לא תעשה לך פסל וכל תמונה‬ ‫וכן העושה עבודת כוכבים בידו לאחרים‬ ‫אפילו עשאה לעובד כוכבים לוקה שנאמר‬ ‫ואלהי מסכה לא תעשו לכם לפיכך העושה‬ :‫עבודת כוכבים בידו לעצמו לוקה שתים‬

Commentary on Halachah 9 A person who has a false god made for himself - even though he, himself, did not actually fashion it - i.e., he commissioned another person to make the idol for him. nor worship it - i.e., although he commissioned the fashioning of the idol, he did not worship it or explicitly accept it as a god. Accordingly, he is not punished by execution as above. He is, nevertheless, considered to have violated a prohibition, and is [liable for] lashes - The Lechem Mishneh questions this statement, noting that lashes are not given for a transgression which does not involve a deed, and that speech is not ordinarily considered to be a deed. He explains that since the craftsman fashions the idol on behalf of the person who commissioned him, he is considered to be the latter's agent. Therefore, the one who commissioned him is held responsible for his deed. The commentaries question this explanation, noting that - with the exception of a few specific instances - the Torah never holds a person who commissions another individual to commit a sin liable, since the person who actually committed the sin is responsible for his actions. Also, the Rambam's phraseology here implies that one is held liable regardless whether the craftsman is a Jew or gentile, and a gentile is never given the halachic status of an agent. The following are among the resolutions offered to this difficulty: a) A hired worker's actions - whether positive or negative - are always attributed to his employer (Machaneh Efrayim, Hilchot Shutafim 8). b) The verse prohibiting this act reveals that this is one of the few exceptions to the general rule mentioned above, and in this case, the person who commissioned the agent is held liable (Darchei HaMelech). c) Commenting on Hilchot Sechirut 13:2, the Mishneh LaMelech explains that if it is possible to violate a particular prohibition by committing a deed, one is punished by lashes even when one violates it without committing a deed. The same concept can be applied here (S'deh Chemed). d) The deed for which one is punished is not the command to make the idol, but rather its purchase or acquisition (Merchevat HaMishneh, Alfandari). as [Exodus 20:5] states: "Do not make for yourself an idol or any representation." - The grammatical structure of this verse allows it to be interpreted, "Do not have an idol... made for you." Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 2) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 27) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Similarly, a person who actually fashions a false god for others, even for - gentile idolaters - even when he merely acts as a craftsman and does not worship or believe in the idol himself. is [liable for] lashes, as [Leviticus 19:4] states: "Do not make molten gods for yourselves." - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

13 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

Commandment 3) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 214) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Accordingly, a person who actually fashions a false god for himself - violates both of the above prohibitions. Therefore, he receives two measures of lashes. - See Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:4 for a description of how punishment is administered when a person is liable for more than one measure of lashes.

It is prohibited to make images for decorative purposes, even though they do not represent false deities, as [implied by Exodus 20:23]: "Do not make with Me [gods of silver and gods of gold]." This refers even to images of gold and silver which are intended only for decorative purposes, lest others err and view them as deities. It is forbidden to make decorative images of the human form alone. Therefore, it is forbidden to make human images with wood, cement, or stone. This [prohibition] applies when the image is protruding - for example, images and sculptures made in a hallway and the like. A person who makes such an image is [liable for] lashes.

‫אסור לעשות צורות לנוי ואע"פ שאינה‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים שנאמר לא תעשון אתי‬ ‫כלומר צורות של כסף וזהב שאינם אלא‬ ‫לנוי כדי שלא יטעו בהן הטועים וידמו‬ ‫שהם לעבודת כוכבים ואין אסור לצור לנוי‬ ‫אלא צורת האדם בלבד לפיכך אין‬ ‫מציירים לא בעץ ולא בסיד ולא באבן‬ ‫צורת האדם והוא שתהיה הצורה בולטת‬ ‫כגון הציור והכיור שבטרקלין וכיוצא בהן‬ ‫ואם צר לוקה אבל אם היתה הצורה‬ ‫מושקעת או צורה של סמנין כגון הצורות‬ ‫שעל גבי הלוחות והטבליות או צורות‬ :‫שרוקמין באריג הרי אלו מותרות‬

In contrast, it is permitted to make human images that are engraved or painted - e.g., portraits, whether on wood or on stone - or that are part of a tapestry. Commentary on Halachah 10 It is prohibited to make images for decorative purposes, even though they do not represent false deities - i.e., they were made as decorations and works of art, without any intent that they be worshiped. as [implied by Exodus 20:23]: "Do not make with Me [gods of silver and gods of gold]." - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 4) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 39) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This refers even to images of gold and silver which are intended only for decorative purposes, lest others err and view them as deities. - The Rambam's statement sheds light on an interesting Rabbinic debate. The Sages of the Talmud often established "fences around the Torah" - i.e., safeguards to prevent the violation of Torah law. (See Avot 1:1.) There is a question whether the Torah itself instituted prohibitions for such a purpose - i.e., are there mitzvot that are instituted without a self-contained goal of their own, but merely to prevent the violation of other prohibitions? (See Lekach Tov 8.) From the Rambam's statements here (see also Hilchot De'ot 7:8), it appears that he accepts such a premise. It appears that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in making statues per se. Nevertheless, since if such statues are made, the possibility exists that they may be worshiped, the Torah forbids us to make them. It is forbidden to make decorative images of the human form alone. - As explained in the following halachah, this prohibition also applies to the sun, the moon, and other celestial beings. It is permitted to make an image of all creations of our world aside from man.

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

14 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

Avodah Zarah 43b derives this from the above verse. The Hebrew words translated as "Do not make with Me..." can also be rendered, "Do not make Me..." - i.e., do not make images in the human form, the form in which God has revealed himself (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 141:21). Therefore, it is forbidden to make human images with wood, cement, or stone - or any other material. The Rambam mentioned these materials because they were commonly used in his time. This [prohibition] applies when the image is protruding - for example, images and sculptures made in a hallway and the like. - The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 141) states that we are forbidden to make only a complete human statue. A bust of a head alone or a statue which is lacking any one of the body's limbs is not forbidden. Though the Shulchan Aruch (141:7) does not accept this view, it is shared by the Ramah. A person who makes such an image is [liable for] lashes - but not by execution, since these statues were not worshiped as idols. In contrast, it is permitted to make human images that are engraved or painted - e.g., portraits, whether on wood or on stone - or that are part of a tapestry. - Though the images on a tapestry protrude slightly, since they are not are a fully formed statue, there is no prohibition involved in making them. Note the contrast to the prohibition against making images of the celestial beings mentioned in the following halachah and commentary.

[The following rules apply regarding] a signet ring which bears a human image: If the image is protruding, it is forbidden to wear it, but it is permitted to use it as a seal. If the image is an impression, it is permitted to wear it, but it is forbidden to use it as a seal, because it will create an image which protrudes. Similarly, it is forbidden to make an image of the sun, the moon, the stars, the constellations, or the angels, as [implied by Exodus, ibid.]: "Do not make with Me [gods of silver...]" - i.e., do not make images of My servants, those who serve before Me on high. This [prohibition] applies even [to pictures] on tablets.

‫טבעת שיש עליה חותם שהוא‬ ‫צורת אדם אם היתה הצורה‬ ‫בולטת אסור להניחה ומותר לחתום בה‬ ‫ואם היתה הצורה שוקעת מותר להניחה‬ ‫ואסור לחתום בה מפני שהנחתם תעשה‬ ‫בו הצורה בולטת וכן אסור לצור דמות‬ ‫חמה ולבנה כוכבים מזלות ומלאכים‬ ‫שנאמר לא תעשון אתי לא תעשון כדמות‬ ‫שמשיי המשמשין לפני במרום ואפילו על‬ ‫הלוח צורות הבהמות ושאר נפש חיה חוץ‬ ‫מן האדם וצורות האילנות ודשאים וכיוצא‬ ‫בהן מותר לצור אותם ואפילו היתה הצורה‬ :‫בולטת‬

The images of animals and other living beings - with the exception of men - and similarly, the images of trees, grasses, and the like may be fashioned. This applies even to images which protrude. Commentary on Halachah 11

« Previous Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Two

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

15 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912361/jewish/Avodat-...

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/19/2019 11:46 PM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four - Texts & Writings

1 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912362/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five

Translator's Introduction Deuteronomy 13:13-19 relates: Should you hear [a report about] one of your cities which God, your Lord, is giving you to dwell within, stating: "Unfaithful people have emerged from your midst and they have led astray the inhabitants of their city, saying: 'Let us worship other gods about whom you are not aware,' you must investigate and probe, making careful inquiry. If it is true and correct that such a revolting thing has occurred in your midst, you must surely kill all the inhabitants of the city by the sword. Destroy it and everything in it. [Kill] all its animals by the sword. Gather all its goods in the midst of its main street. Burn the city and all its goods entirely for the sake of God, your Lord. [The city] shall remain an eternal ruin, never to be rebuilt. Let nothing that has been condemned remain in your possession, so that God's fierce anger will be allayed and He will grant you mercy. He will deal mercifully with you and will make you flourish as He promised your fathers. Our Sages refer to a city condemned for these reasons as an ‫ עיר הנדחת‬- literally, "a city that has been led astray." In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam derives four of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah from the above passage: Negative Commandment 15: Not to proselytize among the masses on behalf of false deities; Positive Commandment 186: To burn an ‫;עיר הנדחת‬ Negative Commandment 23: Never to rebuild an ‫;עיר הנדחת‬ Negative Commandment 24: Not to benefit from its spoil. There is a unique dimension to the laws of an ‫ עיר הנדחת‬that is not found in regard to any of the other prohibitions of the Torah. In this context, the city is considered as a single entity and the

8/20/2019 12:15 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four - Texts & Writings

2 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912362/jewish/Avodat-...

inhabitants and their property are not considered as individuals but as memers of this wicked collective (Tzaphnat Pane'ach, Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 9). Sanhedrin 71a mentions a debate among the Sages. One maintained that the mitzvot concerning an ‫ עיר הנדחת‬were never actually fulfilled, and that the passage was instituted in the Torah only for the purpose of theoretical discussion. Another states explicitly: "I saw such a city and sat among its ruins." From Halachah 11 (see Note 50; see also Hilchot Melachim 11:2), it appears that the Rambam subscribes to the latter view. This chapter deals only with the prohibition against proselytizing on behalf of a false deity to the majority of the members of a city. The prohibition against proselytizing to individuals for these purposes is mentioned in the following chapter. Those who lead [the inhabitants of] a Jewish city astray are executed by stoning, even though they themselves did not worship a false deity, but [merely] proselytized to the inhabitants of their city until they worshiped it. The inhabitants of the city that has been led astray (‫עיר‬ ‫ )הנדחת‬are executed by decapitation if they worshiped a false deity or accepted it as a god.

‫מדיחי עיר מישראל הרי אלו נסקלין‬ ‫אף על פי שלא עבדו עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫אלא הדיחו את יושבי עירם עד שעבדו‬ ‫אותה ואנשי העיר המודחין נהרגין בסייף‬ ‫והוא שעבדו עבודת כוכבים או שקבלוה‬ ‫עליהם באלוה ואזהרה למדיח מנין שנאמר‬ :‫לא ישמע על פיך‬

What is the source that serves as a warning against proselytizing on behalf of a false deity? "Let not [the name of another deity] be heard through your mouth."

8/20/2019 12:15 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four - Texts & Writings

3 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912362/jewish/Avodat-...

A city is not condemned as an ‫ עיר הנדחת‬until two or more individuals attempt to lead its inhabitants astray, as [Deuteronomy 13:14] states: "Unfaithful people have emerged...." The people who lead them astray must be from that tribe and from that city, as [the verse continues]: "from your midst." Those led astray must be the majority [of the city's inhabitants]. They must number from [at least] 100 to the majority of the tribe. If, however, the majority of the tribe is led astray, they are judged as individuals, as implied by [the phrase in the following verse]: "the inhabitants of the city;" neither a small village nor a large metropolis. If there are fewer than 100, it is considered a small village. If the majority of the tribe is involved, it is considered to be a large metropolis. Similarly, the laws applying to an ‫ עיר הנדחת‬are not enforced if: the people who led them astray were women or minors, they were led astray by a single individual, a minority of the city were led astray, they turned to idols on their own initiative, or if those who led them astray came from outside the city.

‫אין העיר נעשית עיר הנדחת עד‬ ‫שיהיו מדיחיה מתוכה ומאותו השבט‬ ‫שנאמר מקרבך וידיחו את יושבי עירם‬ ‫ועד שיהיו מדיחיה שנים או יתר על שנים‬ ‫שנאמר יצאו אנשים בני בליעל וידיחו את‬ ‫יושבי עירם ועד שידיחו רובה ויהיו‬ ‫המודחין ממאה ועד רובו של שבט אבל‬ ‫אם הודח רובו של שבט דנין אותם‬ ‫כיחידים שנאמר יושבי העיר לא כפר קטן‬ ‫ולא כרך גדול וכל פחות ממאה כפר קטן‬ ‫ורובו של שבט כרך גדול וכן אם הדיחוה‬ ‫נשים או קטנים או שהדיחה יחיד או‬ ‫שהודחה מיעוטה או שהודחו מאליהן או‬ ‫שהיו מדיחיה מחוצה לה אין דנין בה דין‬ ‫עיר הנדחת אלא הרי הן כיחידים שעבדו‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים וסוקלין כל מי שעבר‬ :‫וממונן ליורשיהן כשאר הרוגי בית דין‬

Instead, [the violators] are considered to be individuals who worshiped false deities. All those who worshiped are executed by stoning, and their estate is given to their heirs like all others executed by a court. The laws of an ‫ עיר הנדחת‬are enforced only by a court of 71 judges, as [implied by Deuteronomy 17:5]: "And you shall take the man or woman who did that wicked thing to your gates." [This can be interpreted to mean:] Individuals are executed by the courts which are found at the gates [of every city]. A multitude are only executed by the supreme court.

‫אין דנין עיר הנדחת אלא בבית דין של‬ ‫אחד ושבעים שנאמר והוצאת את‬ ‫האיש ההוא או את האשה ההיא אשר‬ ‫עשו את הדבר הרע הזה אל שעריך‬ ‫יחידים נהרגים בבית דין של כל שער‬ ‫ושער ואין המרובים נהרגין אלא בבית דין‬ :‫הגדול‬

8/20/2019 12:15 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four - Texts & Writings

4 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912362/jewish/Avodat-...

None of the cities of refuge can ever be condemned as an ‫עיר הנדחת‬, as [implied by Deuteronomy 13:13]: "one of your cities." [Similarly,] Jerusalem can never be condemned as an ‫עיר הנדחת‬, because it was not divided among the tribes. A border city is never condemned as an ‫עיר הנדחת‬, so that gentiles will not enter and destroy Eretz Yisrael. One court should not condemn three cities located next to each other as an ‫עיר הנדחת‬. If [the cities] are separated from each other, they may condemn them. [A city] is not condemned as an ‫ עיר הנדחת‬unless those who proselytize [the inhabitants] address them in the plural, telling them, "Let us go and worship," "Let us go and sacrifice," "Let us go and bring a burnt offering," "Let us go and offer a libation," "Let us go and bow down," or "Let us go and accept [the deity] as a god." [The inhabitants] must listen and then worship [the deity] with its accepted mode of worship, or through one of the four modes of worship [mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 3], or accept it as a god.

‫אין אחת מערי מקלט נעשית עיר‬ ‫הנדחת שנאמר באחד שעריך ולא‬ ‫ירושלים נעשית עיר הנדחת לפי שלא‬ ‫נתחלקה לשבטים ואין עושין עיר הנדחת‬ ‫בספר כדי שלא יכנסו עובדי כוכבים‬ ‫ויחריבו את ארץ ישראל ואין בית דין אחד‬ ‫עושה שלש עיירות הנדחות זו בצד זו אבל‬ :‫אם היו מרוחקות עושה‬

‫אין עושין עיר הנדחת עד שידיחוה‬ ‫מדיחיה בלשון רבים ויאמרו להן נלך‬ ‫ונעבוד או נלך ונזבח או נלך ונקטיר או‬ ‫נלך וננסך או נלך ונשתחוה או נלך ונקבל‬ ‫באלוה והם שומעים ועבדו אותה דרך‬ ‫עבודתה או באחת מארבע עבודות או‬ ‫שקבלוה באלוה עיר הנדחת שלא נתקיימו‬ ‫בה ובמדיחיה כל התנאים האלו היאך‬ ‫עושים להם מתרין ומעידין בכל אחד‬ ‫ואחד מהן שעבד עבודת כוכבים וסוקלין‬ :‫אותם כיחידים שעבדו וממונם ליורשיהם‬

What happens if all these conditions are not fulfilled with regard to a city or those who proselytize [its inhabitants]? Warnings are given to each person who worships false gods, and testimony [is delivered against them]. They are executed by stoning as individuals who worshiped false gods, and their estate is given to their heirs.

8/20/2019 12:15 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four - Texts & Writings

5 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912362/jewish/Avodat-...

What is the judgment rendered against an ‫עיר‬ ‫ הנדחת‬when all the criteria for that judgment have been met? The supreme Sanhedrin sends [emissaries] who investigate and probe until they have established clear proof that the entire city - or the majority of its inhabitants - have turned to the worship of false gods. Afterwards, they send two Torah sages to warn them and to motivate them to repentance. If they repent, it is good. If they continue their wicked ways, the court commands the entire Jewish people to take up arms against them. They lay siege to the city and wage war against it until the city falls. When the city falls, very many courts are set up, and [the inhabitants] are judged. All those people against whom two witnesses testify that they worshiped a false deity after receiving a warning are separated. If those who worshiped [the false deity] constitute only a minority [of the city's inhabitants], they are stoned to death, but the rest of the city is saved. If they constitute a majority, they are brought to the supreme Sanhedrin and their judgment is concluded there. All those who worshiped [the false deity] are executed by decapitation. If the entire city was led astray, all of the inhabitants including the women and the children are slain by the sword. If a majority of the inhabitants were led astray, the transgressors' wives and children are slain by the sword. Whether the entire city or only a majority of its inhabitants were led astray, those who proselytized [on behalf of the false deity] are stoned to death.

‫והיאך דין עיר הנדחת בזמן שתהיה‬ ‫ראויה להעשות עיר הנדחת בית דין‬ ‫הגדול שולחין ודורשין וחוקרין עד שידעו‬ ‫בראיה ברורה שהודחה כל העיר או רובה‬ ‫וחזרו לעבודת כוכבים אח"כ שולחים להם‬ ‫שני תלמידי חכמים להזהירם ולהחזירם‬ ‫אם חזרו ועשו תשובה מוטב ואם יעמדו‬ ‫באולתן בית דין מצוין לכל ישראל לעלות‬ ‫עליהן לצבא והן צרין עליהם ועורכין עמהן‬ ‫מלחמה עד שתבקע העיר כשתבקע מיד‬ ‫מרבין להם בתי דינין ודנים אותם כל מי‬ ‫שבאו עליו שני עדים שעבד כוכבים אחר‬ ‫שהתרו אותו מפרישין אותו נמצאו כל‬ ‫העובדים מיעוטה סוקלין אותן ושאר העיר‬ ‫ניצול נמצאו רובה מעלין אותן לבית דין‬ ‫הגדול וגומרין שם דינם והורגין כל אלו‬ ‫שעבדו בסייף ומכין את כל נפש אדם אשר‬ ‫בה לפי חרב טף ונשים אם הודחה כולה‬ ‫ואם נמצאו העובדים רובה מכים את כל‬ ‫הטף ונשים של עובדים לפי חרב ובין‬ ‫שהודחה כולה בין שהודחה רובה סוקלין‬ ‫את מדיחיה ומקבצין כל שללה אל תוך‬ ‫רחובה אין לה רחוב עושין לה רחוב היה‬ ‫רחובה חוצה לה בונין חומה חוץ ממנו עד‬ ‫שיכנס לתוכה שנאמר אל תוך רחובה‬ ‫והורגין כל נפש חיה אשר בה ושורפין את‬ ‫כל שללה עם המדינה באש ושריפתה‬ ‫מצות עשה שנאמר ושרפת באש את כל‬ :‫העיר ואת כל שללה‬

All the property within it is collected within its main street. If it does not have a main street, a main street is made for it. If its main street is located outside its confines, its wall is extended until its [main street] is

8/20/2019 12:15 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four - Texts & Writings

6 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912362/jewish/Avodat-...

The property of the righteous men - i.e., the remainder of the city's inhabitants who were not led astray with the majority - that is located within the city should be burned together with all its property. Since they resided there, their fortunes are destroyed.

‫נכסי הצדיקים שבתוכה והם שאר‬ ‫יושבי העיר שלא הודחו עם רובה‬ ‫נשרפין בכלל שללה הואיל וישבו שם‬ ‫ממונן אבד וכל הנהנה ממנה בכל שהוא‬ ‫לוקה אחת שנאמר ולא ידבק בידך‬ :‫מאומה מן החרם‬

Whoever derives even the slightest benefit from [the city's property] receives a single measure of lashes, as [Deuteronomy 13:18] states: "Let nothing that has been condemned remain in your possession." [The following rules apply when] the witnesses who testified against an ‫ עיר הנדחת‬were disqualified as zomemim: Whoever takes possession of any property is considered to have acquired it and may derive benefit from it, since the [incriminating testimony - and thus, the judgment based upon it -] has been nullified. Why do they acquire it? Because each of the city's inhabitants gave up ownership of his property after the judgment was rendered.

‫ועיר הנדחת שהוזמו עדיה כל‬ ‫המחזיק בנכסיה זכה ומותר ליהנות‬ ‫בו שהרי הוזמו ולמה זכה בה שכל אחד‬ ‫ואחד כבר הפקיר ממונו משעה שנגמר‬ ‫דינו ואינה נבנית לעולם וכל הבונה אותה‬ ‫לוקה שנאמר לא תבנה עוד ומותר‬ ‫לעשותה גנות ופרדסים שנאמר לא תבנה‬ :‫עוד לא תבנה מדינה כמו שהיתה‬

[An ‫ ]עיר הנדחת‬may never be rebuilt, and a person who rebuilds it is [liable for] lashes, as [Deuteronomy 13:17] states: "...never to be rebuilt." It is permitted to use it for gardens and orchards. "Never to be rebuilt" implies only that it should not be rebuilt as a city, as it was previously. [The following laws apply to] a caravan which journeys from one place to another, passes through an ‫עיר הנדחת‬, and is led astray with it: If they had remained [in the city] thirty days, they are executed by decapitation and their property is condemned. If they were there for a lesser period, they are executed by stoning, but their property is given to their heirs.

‫שיירא העוברת ממקום למקום אם‬ ‫עברה בעיר הנדחת והודחה עמה אם‬ ‫שהתה שם שלשים יום נהרגין בסייף‬ ‫וממונם אבד ואם לאו הן בסקילה וממונם‬ :‫ליורשיהן‬

8/20/2019 12:15 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four - Texts & Writings

7 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912362/jewish/Avodat-...

Property belonging to people of other cities which is kept within [an ‫ ]עיר הנדחת‬is not burned, but rather is returned to its owners. [This applies] even when [the inhabitants of the ‫ ]עיר הנדחת‬accepted responsibility for it, as implied by [Deuteronomy 13:17]: "its goods" - i.e., its goods, and not those belonging to others.

‫נכסי אנשי מדינה אחרת שהיו‬ ‫מופקדין בתוכה אע"פ שקבלו עליהן‬ ‫אחריות אין נשרפין אלא יחזרו לבעליהן‬ ‫שנאמר שללה ולא שלל חבירתה נכסי‬ ‫הרשעים שהודחו שהיו מופקדין במדינה‬ ‫אחרת אם נקבצו עמה נשרפין בכללה ואם‬ ‫לאו אין מאבדים אותם אלא ינתנו‬ :‫ליורשיהם‬

[The following rules apply to] property belonging to the wicked - i.e., those who were swayed [to idol worship] which was kept in other cities. If [that property] was gathered together with the property of the ‫עיר הנדחת‬, they are burned together. If not, it is not destroyed, but rather is given to the heirs. If an animal which partially belongs to [an inhabitant of] an ‫ עיר הנדחת‬and partially belongs to [a person living in] another city is found within [the ‫]עיר הנדחת‬, it must be destroyed. [In contrast,] a loaf of bread which is owned by such [partners] is permitted, because it can be divided.

‫בהמה חציה של עיר הנדחת‬ ‫וחציה של עיר אחרת שהיתה‬ ‫בתוכה הרי זו אסורה ועיסה שהיא כן‬ :‫מותרת לפי שאפשר לחלקה‬

It is forbidden to benefit from an animal which belongs to [an inhabitant of] an ‫ עיר הנדחת‬and which was slaughtered, just as it is forbidden to derive benefit from an ox which was condemned to be stoned and was slaughtered.

‫בהמה של עיר הנדחת שנשחטה‬ ‫אסורה בהנאה כשור הנסקל‬ ‫שנשחט שער הראש בין של אנשים בין‬ ‫של נשים שבה מותר בהנאה אבל של‬ :‫פאה נכרית הרי הוא מכלל שללה ואסור‬

We are permitted to benefit from the hair of both men and women of [the condemned city]. A wig, however, is considered part of "its goods," and is therefore forbidden.

8/20/2019 12:15 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four - Texts & Writings

8 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912362/jewish/Avodat-...

Produce which is connected [to its source of nurture] is permitted, as [implied by Deuteronomy 13:17]: "Gather [all its goods...] Burn..." i.e., this includes only those articles which must merely be gathered and burned, and thus excludes produce which is still connected [to its source of nurture], and would have to be severed and gathered in order to be burned. The same principle applies to [the inhabitants'] hair. Needless to say, the trees themselves are permitted and are bequeathed to the heirs.

‫פירות המחוברין שבתוכה מותרין‬ ‫שנאמר תקבוץ ושרפת מי שאינו‬ ‫מחוסר אלא קבוץ ושריפה יצאו פירות‬ ‫המחוברין שהן מחוסרין תלישה וקבוץ‬ ‫ושריפה והוא הדין לשער הראש ואין‬ ‫צריך לומר האילנות עצמן שהן מותרים‬ ‫והרי הן של יורשיהם ההקדשות שבתוכה‬ ‫קדשי מזבח ימותו זבח רשעים תועבה‬ ‫קדשי בדק הבית יפדו ואח"כ שורפין אותן‬ :‫שנאמר שללה ולא שלל שמים‬

[The following rules apply to] the consecrated property within it: Those animals which were consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar themselves must die, since "the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination" [Proverbs 21:27]. Property which is consecrated for the purposes of the Temple must be redeemed, and afterwards is burned, [as implied by the word] "its goods" - its goods and not those which are consecrated. [The following rules apply to] firstborn animals and the animal tithes that are found within [the ‫]עיר הנדחת‬: Those that are unblemished are considered to be animals consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and must die. Those that are blemished are considered to be "its animals," and are slain [with them].

‫הבכור והמעשר שבתוכה תמימים‬ ‫הרי הן קדשי מזבח וימותו ובעלי‬ ‫מומים הרי הן בכלל בהמתה ונהרגין‬ ‫התרומות שבתוכה אם הגיעו ליד כהן‬ ‫ירקבו מפני שהם נכסיו ואם עדיין הן ביד‬ ‫ישראל ינתנו לכהן של מדינה אחרת מפני‬ :‫שהן נכסי שמים וקדושתן קדושת הגוף‬

[The following rules apply to] terumah which is contained within the city: If it has already been given to a priest, it should be allowed to rot, because it is considered his private property. If it is still in the possession of an Israelite, it should be given to a priest in another city, because it is considered to be "the property of heaven," and its consecrated nature extends to its actual substance.

8/20/2019 12:15 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four - Texts & Writings

9 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912362/jewish/Avodat-...

The second tithe, money used to redeem the second tithe, and sacred writings in it must be entombed.

‫מעשר שני וכסף מעשר שני וכתבי‬ :‫הקודש שבתוכה הרי אלו יגנזו‬

Anyone who administers the judgment of an ‫עיר‬ ‫ הנדחת‬is considered as if he offered a burnt offering consumed entirely by fire, as [Deuteronomy 13:17] states: "...entirely for the sake of God, your Lord." Furthermore, such action diverts [Divine] wrath from the Jews, as [the following verse continues]: "so that God's fierce anger will be allayed," and it brings them blessing and mercy [as the verse] states: "And He will grant you mercy. He will deal mercifully with you and will make you flourish."

‫ט‬

« Previous

‫כל העושה דין בעיר הנדחת הרי‬ '‫זה כמקריב עולה כליל שנאמר כליל לה‬ ‫אלהיך ולא עוד אלא שמסלק חרון אף‬ ‫מישראל שנאמר למען ישוב ה' מחרון אפו‬ ‫ומביא עליהם ברכה ורחמים שנאמר ונתן‬ :‫לך רחמים ורחמך והרבך‬

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Three Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/20/2019 12:15 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four - Texts & Writings

10 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912362/jewish/Avodat-...

8/20/2019 12:15 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five - Texts & Writings

1 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912363/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six

Translator's Introduction This chapter also deals with a number of mitzvot that share a common theme and are derived from a single Biblical passage. Deuteronomy 13:2-12 relates: [This is what you must do] when a prophet... arises and presents you with a sign or miracle... and says to you, "Let us follow after other gods whom you do not know and worship them." Do not listen to the words of that prophet.... That prophet... shall die, because he spoke rebelliously against God, your Lord.... [This is what you must do] if your brother..., your son, your daughter, your bosom wife, or your closest friend secretly proselytizes among you, and says, "Let us go and worship other gods whom neither you or your ancestors know."... Do not be attracted to him or listen to him. Do not let your eyes pity him. Do not show him any compassion. Do not try to cover up for him. Rather, you must surely put him to death. Your hand must be the first against him to kill him.... Stone him to death... because he tried to sway you away from God, your Lord.... And all Israel will hear and they will become afraid and they will not continue to do such evil things. In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam cites six mitzvot which are derived from this passage: Negative Commandment 16: Not to persuade a single individual to worship [a false deity]; Negative Commandment 17: Not to love a mesit (one who proselytizes on behalf of a false deity); Negative Commandment 18: Not to reduce one's hatred for him; Negative Commandment 19: Not to save his life; Negative Commandment 20: Not to advance any arguments on his behalf; Negative Commandment 21: Not to withhold information that will lead to his conviction;

8/20/2019 12:16 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five - Texts & Writings

2 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912363/jewish/Avodat-...

A person who proselytizes [a mesit] to any single Jew [a musat] - whether man or woman - on behalf of false deities should be stoned to death. [This applies] even if neither the mesit or the musat actually worshiped the false deity. As long as he instructed him to worship [the false deity], he should be executed by stoning, regardless of whether the mesit was a prophet or an ordinary person,

‫המסית אחד מישראל בין איש בין‬ ‫אשה הרי זה נסקל אף על פי שלא‬ ‫עבד המסית ולא המוסת עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫אלא מפני שהורהו לעבוד בין שהיה‬ ‫המסית הדיוט בין שהיה נביא בין שהיה‬ ‫המוסת יחיד איש או אשה או יחידים‬ :‫מיתתו בסקילה‬

or whether the musat was a single individual - man or woman - or whether several people were proselytized.

8/20/2019 12:16 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five - Texts & Writings

3 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912363/jewish/Avodat-...

A person who proselytizes the majority of the inhabitants of a city is called a madiach rather than a mesit. If the person who leads the majority of a city astray is a prophet, he is executed by stoning, and the people who were led astray are judged as individuals, and are not considered to be inhabitants of an ‫עיר‬ ‫הנדחת‬. [For the latter laws to be applied,] two people must proselytize them. If a person says: "A false deity told me: 'Serve me,'" or "The Holy One, blessed be He, told me: 'Serve a false deity'" - he is considered a prophet who leads others astray. If the majority of the city's inhabitants are swayed by his words, he should be stoned to death. A mesit should be stoned to death whether he proselytizes in plural terms or in singular. What is implied? He is considered a mesit if he tells a colleague, "I will worship a false deity. [Follow me.] I will go and worship..." or "Let us go and worship following the particular rite with which that deity is served," "I will slaughter. [Follow me.] I will go and slaughter..." or "Let us go and slaughter," "I will bring a burnt offering. [Follow me.] I will go and bring a burnt offering..." or "Let us go and bring a burnt offering," "I will offer a libation. [Follow me.] I will go and offer a libation..." or "Let us go and offer a libation," or "I will bow down. [Follow me.] I will go and bow down..." or "Let us go and bow down."

‫המסית את רוב אנשי העיר הרי זה‬ ‫מדיח ואינו נקרא מסית היה זה‬ ‫שהדיח רוב העיר נביא מיתתו בסקילה‬ ‫והנדחים הרי הן כיחידים ואינם כאנשי‬ ‫עיר הנדחת עד שיהיו המדיחים שנים‬ ‫ואחד האומר אמרה לי עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫עבדוה או שאמר אמר לי הקב"ה עבדו‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים הרי זה נביא שהדיח ואם‬ ‫הודחו אחריו רוב העיר נסקל המסית‬ ‫שהסית בין בלשון רבים בין בלשון יחיד‬ ‫הרי זה נסקל כיצד האומר לחבירו אעבוד‬ ‫כוכבים אלך ואעבוד נלך ונעבוד בעבודה‬ ‫פלונית שדרך אותה עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫להעבד בה אזבח אלך ואזבח נלך ונזבח‬ ‫אקטר אלך ואקטר נלך ונקטר אנסך אלך‬ ‫ואנסך נלך וננסך אשתחוה אלך ואשתחוה‬ ‫נלך ונשתחוה הרי זה מסית הסית לשנים‬ ‫הרי הן עדיו והן מביאין אותו לבית דין‬ :‫ומעידין עליו שכך אמר להן וסוקלין אותו‬

When a person proselytizes two individuals, they may serve as witnesses against him. They should summon him to court and testify against him, relating what he told them, and the mesit is stoned.

8/20/2019 12:16 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five - Texts & Writings

4 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912363/jewish/Avodat-...

A mesit does not need a warning. If one proselytizes a single individual, the latter should tell him, "I have friends who would also be interested in this," and thus he should lure him into proselytizing before two people, so that the mesit can be executed. If the mesit refuses to proselytize before two people, it is a mitzvah to set a trap for him. A trap is never set for a person who violates any of the Torah's other prohibitions. This is the only exception. How is the trap set for him? The musat should bring two people and place them in a dark place where they can see the mesit and hear what he is saying without his seeing them. He tells the mesit: "Repeat what you told me privately."

‫ואין המסיח צריך התראה אמר לאחד‬ ‫הוא אומר יש לי חברים רוצים בכך‬ ‫ומערים עליו עד שיסית בפני שנים כדי‬ ‫להרגו אם לא רצה המסית להסית לשנים‬ ‫מצוה להכמין לו כל חייבי מיתות שבתורה‬ ‫אין מכמינין עליהן חוץ מזה כיצד מכמינין‬ ‫לו המוסת מביא שנים ומעמידן במקום‬ ‫אפל כדי שיראו המסית וישמעו דבריו ולא‬ ‫יראה אותם והוא אומר למסית אמור מה‬ ‫שאמרת לי ביחוד והוא אומר לו והמוסת‬ ‫משיבו היאך נניח את אלהינו שבשמים‬ ‫ונלך ונעבוד את העצים ואת האבנים אם‬ ‫חזר בו או שתק פטור ואם אמר לו כך‬ ‫היא חובתנו וכך יפה לנו העומדים שם‬ ‫ברחוק מביאין אותו לבית דין וסוקלים‬ :‫אותו‬

[When] he does so, the musat should reply: "How can we forsake our God in heaven and serve wood and stone?" If [the mesit] retracts or remains silent, he is not held liable. If he tells him, "This is our obligation and this is beneficial to us," those who stand far off have him summoned to court and stoned.

8/20/2019 12:16 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five - Texts & Writings

5 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912363/jewish/Avodat-...

It is a mitzvah for the musat to kill [the mesit], as [Deuteronomy 13:10] states: "Your hand must be the first against him to kill him." It is forbidden for the musat to love the mesit, as [the previous verse states]: "Do not be attracted to him." Since [Exodus 23:5] states with regard to an enemy: "You must surely help him," [the question arises:] Perhaps you should help a mesit? The Torah [Deuteronomy, ibid.] teaches, "Do not... listen to him." Since [Leviticus 19:16] teaches: "Do not stand idly over your brother's blood," [the question arises:] Perhaps you should not stand idly over a mesit's blood? The

‫מצוה ביד המוסת להורגו שנאמר‬ '‫ידך תהיה בו בראשונה להמיתו וגו‬ ‫ואסור למוסת לאהוב את המסית שנאמר‬ ‫לא תאבה לו ולפי שנאמר בשונא עזוב‬ ‫תעזוב עמו יכול אתה עוזב לזה תלמוד‬ ‫לומר ולא תשמע אליו ולפי שנאמר ולא‬ ‫תעמוד על דם רעך יכול אי אתה עומד על‬ ‫דמו של זה תלמוד לומר ולא תחוס עינך‬ ‫ואסור למוסת ללמד עליו זכות שנאמר‬ ‫ולא תחמול ואם ידע לו חובה אינו רשאי‬ ‫לשתוק ממנה שנאמר ולא תכסה עליו‬ ‫ואזהרה להדיוט המסית מנין שנאמר וכל‬ :‫ישראל ישמעו וייראו‬

Torah teaches, [Deuteronomy, ibid.] "Do not let your eyes pity him." The musat is forbidden to advance any arguments on his behalf, as [the verse continues,] "Do not show him any compassion." If he knows incriminating evidence, he is not permitted to remain silent, as [the verse continues,] "Do not try to cover up for him." What is the verse which serves as a warning against a common person proselytizing as a mesit? "And all Israel will hear and they will become afraid [and they will not continue to do such evil things]" (Deuteronomy 13:12).

8/20/2019 12:16 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five - Texts & Writings

6 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912363/jewish/Avodat-...

[The following rules apply to] a person who proselytizes others by telling them to worship him: Should he tell them: "Worship me," and they worship him, he should be stoned. If they did not worship him, even though they accepted and agreed to his statements, he is not liable for stoning. In contrast, if he proselytizes by telling them to worship another man or another false deity, [different rules apply:] If they accept his statements and say, "We will go and worship," even if they have not actually worshiped, both of them - the mesit and the musat should be stoned. [Deuteronomy 13:9] states: "Do not be attracted to him or listen to him." Thus, if one was attracted and listened, one is held liable. What is meant by [the expression,] a prophet who prophesies in the name of false gods? A person who says: "This false deity or this star told me that we are commanded to do such and such or to refrain from doing so." [This applies] even when he stated the law accurately, labeling the impure as impure and the pure as pure. If a warning was given to him [beforehand], he is executed by strangulation, as [Deuteronomy 18:20] states: "And one who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die." The warning against this [transgression] is included in the statement, [Exodus 23:13:] "And you shall not mention the name of other gods."

‫המסית אחרים לעבדו ואמר להם‬ ‫עבדוני אם עבדוהו נסקל ואם לא‬ ‫עבדוהו אע"פ שקיבלו ממנו ואמרו הן אינו‬ ‫נסקל אבל אם הסית לעבודת איש אחר או‬ ‫לשאר מיני עבודת כוכבים אם קבל ממנו‬ ‫ואמר הן נלך ונעבוד אף על פי שעדין לא‬ ‫עבד שניהן נסקלין המסית והמוסת שנאמר‬ ‫לא תאבה לו ולא תשמע אליו הא אם‬ :‫שמע ואבה חייב‬

‫נביא המתנבא בשם עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫כיצד זה האומר אמרה לי עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים פלונית או כוכב פלוני שמצוה‬ ‫לעשות כך וכך או שלא לעשות אפילו כיון‬ ‫את ההלכה לטמא את הטמא ולטהר את‬ ‫הטהור אם התרו בו בפני שנים הרי זה‬ ‫נחנק שנאמר ואשר ידבר בשם אלהים‬ ‫אחרים ומת הנביא ההוא ואזהרה שלו‬ ‫מכלל שנאמר ושם אלהים אחרים לא‬ :‫תזכירו‬

8/20/2019 12:16 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five - Texts & Writings

7 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912363/jewish/Avodat-...

It is forbidden to enter into a discussion or a debate with one who prophesies in the name of a false deity. We may not ask him to perform a sign or wonder, and if he does so on his own accord, we should pay no attention to it nor think about it.Whoever contemplates about the wonders [he performed, thinking], "Perhaps they are true," violates a negative commandment, as [Deuteronomy 13:4] states: "Do not listen to the words of that prophet." Similarly, a false prophet should be executed by strangulation. [He is to be executed] although he speaks in the name of God and neither adds to nor diminishes [the mitzvot], as [Deuteronomy 18:20] states: "However, the prophet who dares to speak a matter in My name which I did not command - that prophet shall die." [The category of] a false prophet includes: a) one who "prophesies" regarding something that was never heard through prophetic vision; b) one who "prophesies" about a subject which he heard from another prophet, saying that this prophecy was given to him.

‫ואסור לערוך דין ותשובה עם המתנבא‬ ‫בשם עבודת כוכבים ואין שואלין ממנו‬ ‫אות ומופת ואם עשה מעצמו אין משגיחין‬ ‫עליו ואין מהרהרין בו וכל המחשב‬ ‫באותות שלו שמא אמת הן עובר בלא‬ ‫תעשה שנאמר לא תשמע אל דברי הנביא‬ ‫ההוא וכן נביא השקר מיתתו בחנק אף על‬ ‫פי שנתנבא בשם ה' ולא הוסיף ולא גרע‬ ‫שנאמר אך הנביא אשר יזיד לדבר דבר‬ ‫בשמי את אשר לא צויתי ומת הנביא‬ :‫ההוא‬

‫אחד המתנבא מה שלא שמע‬ ‫במראה הנבואה או מי ששמע דברי‬ ‫נביא חבירו ואמר שדבר זה לו נאמר והוא‬ ‫נתנבא בו הרי זה נביא שקר ומיתתו‬ :‫בחנק‬

[Both of these individuals] are to be executed by strangulation.

8/20/2019 12:16 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five - Texts & Writings

8 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912363/jewish/Avodat-...

Anyone who refrains from executing a false prophet because of the latter's [spiritual] level, [as expressed by] his adherence to the paths of prophecy, violates a negative commandment, as [Deuteronomy 18:22] states: "Do not fear him." Similarly, included within [the scope of the prohibition:] "Do not fear him" are one who withholds incriminating testimony against [a false prophet] and one who is afraid or in awe of his words.

‫כל המונע עצמו מהריגת נביא‬ ‫השקר מפני מעלתו שהרי הולך‬ ‫בדרכי הנבואה הרי זה עובר בלא תעשה‬ ‫שנאמר לא תגור ממנו וכן המונע עצמו‬ ‫מללמד עליו חובה או הפוחד וירא מדבריו‬ ‫הרי הוא בכלל לא תגור ממנו ואין דנין‬ ‫נביא השקר אלא בבית דין של שבעים‬ :‫ואחד‬

A false prophet may be tried only by the [supreme] court of 71 judges. A person who makes a vow or takes an oath in the name of a false deity is [liable for] lashes, as [Exodus 23:13] states: "And you shall not mention the name of other gods." [This applies] both to one who takes such an oath for his own reasons and to one who takes such an oath because of a gentile. It is forbidden to have a gentile take an oath on his deity. It is even forbidden to mention the name of a gentile deity without any connection to an oath, as [implied by the expression], "You shall not mention." A person should not tell a colleague: "Wait for me near a particular false deity," or the like. It is permitted to mention the name of any false deity that is mentioned in the Bible - e.g., Peor, Ba'al, Nevo, Gad, and the like. It is forbidden to cause others to take oaths or vows in the name of false deities. [In regard to all these prohibitions,] the only [transgressor] liable for lashes is one who [himself] makes a vow or an oath in the name [of a false deity].

« Previous

‫הנודר בשם עבודת כוכבים והנשבע‬ ‫בה לוקה שנאמר ושם אלהים אחרים‬ ‫לא תזכירו אחד הנשבע בה לעצמו ואחד‬ ‫הנשבע בה לעבודת כוכבים ואסור‬ ‫להשביע העובד כוכבים ביראתו אפילו‬ ‫להזכיר שם עבודת כוכבים שלא דרך‬ :‫שבועה אסור שנאמר לא תזכירו‬

‫לא יאמר אדם לחבירו שמור לי‬ ‫בצד עבודת כוכבים פלונית וכיוצא‬ ‫בה וכל עבודת כוכבים הכתובה בכתבי‬ ‫הקדש מותר להזכיר שמה כגון פעור ובל‬ ‫ונבו וגד וכיוצא בהן ואסור לגרום לאחרים‬ ‫שידרו ושיקיימו בשם עבודת כוכבים ואינו‬ ‫לוקה אלא הנודר בשמה והמקיים בשמה‬ :‫והוא הנשבע בשמה‬

Next »

8/20/2019 12:16 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five - Texts & Writings

9 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912363/jewish/Avodat-...

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Four

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/20/2019 12:16 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six - Texts & Writings

1 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912364/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five

Anyone who willingly, as a conscious act of defiance, performs the deeds associated with an ov or a yid'oni is liable for karet. If witnesses were present and warned him, he should be stoned to death. If he performed these actions inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin offering. What do the deeds associated with an ov involve? A person stands up and offers an incense offering of known content. He holds a wand of myrtle in his hand and waves it while whispering a known incantation in a hushed tone. [This continues] until the person making the inquiry hears a voice, as if another person is speaking to him and replying to his questions. It appears as if the words are coming from below the earth in a very low tone, to the extent that it cannot be perceived by the ear, but only sensed by thought.

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven

‫העושה אוב או ידעוני ברצונו בזדון‬ ‫חייב כרת ואם היו שם עדים‬ ‫והתראה נסקל היה שוגג מביא חטאת‬ ‫קבועה כיצד הוא מעשה האוב זה שהוא‬ ‫עומד ומקטיר קטרת ידועה ואוחז שרביט‬ ‫של הדס בידו ומניפו והוא מדבר בלאט‬ ‫בדברים ידועים אצלם עד שישמע השואל‬ ‫כאלו אחד מדבר עמו ומשיבו על מה‬ ‫שהוא שואל בדברים מתחת הארץ בקול‬ ‫נמוך עד מאד וכאלו אינו ניכר לאוזן אלא‬ ‫במחשבה מרגיש בו וכן הלוקח גולגולת‬ ‫המת ומקטיר לה ומנחש בה עד שישמע‬ ‫כאילו קול יוצא מתחת שחיו שפל עד‬ ‫מאד ומשיבו כל אלו מעשה אוב הן‬ :‫והעושה אחד מהן נסקל‬

Similarly, among the deeds associated with an ov is taking the skull of a corpse, offering incense, and chanting incantations until one hears a voice in a very low tone emanating from his armpits and replying [to his questions]. Anyone who performs one of these acts should be stoned to death.

8/20/2019 12:17 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six - Texts & Writings

2 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912364/jewish/Avodat-...

What do the deeds associated with a yid'oni involve? A person places a bone from a bird whose name is yidua in his mouth, offers incense, and performs other deeds until he falls into a trance, [losing self-control] like an epileptic, and relates events which will occur in the future.

‫כיצד מעשה הידעוני מניח עצם עוף‬ ‫ששמו ידוע בפיו ומקטיר ועושה‬ ‫מעשים אחרים עד שיפול כנכפה וידבר‬ ‫בפיו דברים שעתידים להיות וכל אלו מיני‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים הן ואזהרה שלהן מנין‬ :'‫שנאמר אל תפנו אל האובות וגו‬

All of these are types of idol worship. What is the source for the warning against them? [Leviticus 19:31]: "Do not turn to the ovot or the yid'onim."

8/20/2019 12:17 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six - Texts & Writings

3 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912364/jewish/Avodat-...

Anyone who willingly, as a conscious act of defiance, gives of his progeny to Molech is liable for karet. If he did so inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin offering. If witnesses were present and warned him, he should be stoned to death, as [Leviticus 20:2] states: "Whoever gives of his progeny to Molech will surely die. The people will stone him." Which verse serves as a warning for this [prohibition]? "Do not give of your progeny to Molech" [Leviticus 18:20]. Also, further on [Deuteronomy 18:10] states: "There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire." What was done? A person would kindle a great fire and then take some of his progeny and give them to the priests who serve the fire. After the child was given to them, the priests return the son to his father to pass him through the fire at his will. The father of the child is the one who passes his child through the fire with the priests' permission. He passes him through the fire from one side to the other [while carrying him, the father walking on] his feet in the midst of the flames.

‫הנותן מזרעו למולך ברצונו ובזדון‬ ‫חייב כרת בשוגג מביא חטאת קבועה‬ ‫ואם עשה בעדים והתראה נסקל שנאמר‬ '‫אשר יתן מזרעו למולך מות יומת וגו‬ ‫ואזהרה שלו מנין שנאמר ומזרעך לא תתן‬ ‫להעביר למולך ולהלן הוא אומר לא ימצא‬ ‫בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש כיצד היו עושים‬ ‫מדליק אש גדולה ולוקח מקצת זרעו‬ ‫ומוסרו לכהניהם עובדי האש ואותן‬ ‫הכהנים נותנין הבן לאביו אחר שנמסר‬ ‫בידן להעבירו באש ברשותו ואבי הבן הוא‬ ‫שמעביר בנו על האש ברשות הכהנים‬ ‫ומעבירו ברגליו מצד זה לצד אחר בתוך‬ ‫השלהבת לא שהוא שורפו למולך כדרך‬ ‫ששורפין בניהם ובנותיהם לעבודת כוכבים‬ ‫אחרת אלא בהעברה בלבד היתה עבודה זו‬ ‫ששמה מולך לפיכך העושה עבודה זו‬ :‫לעבודת כוכבים אחרת חוץ ממולך פטור‬

Thus, [the father] does not cremate his son to Molech, as sons and daughters are cremated in the worship of other deities. Rather, this form of worship called Molech involved merely passing [the child through the fire]. Therefore, if one performed this service to a deity other than Molech, one is not liable.

8/20/2019 12:17 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six - Texts & Writings

4 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912364/jewish/Avodat-...

One is not liable for karet or stoning until one gives over his son to Molech, passing him through the fire as he carries him. If he gives him over, but does not pass him through the flames, or passes him through the flames without giving him over, or gives him over and passes him through the flames, but does not carry him, he is not held liable.

‫אינו חייב כרת או סקילה עד שימסור‬ ‫בנו למולך ויעבירו ברגליו באש דרך‬ ‫העברה מסר ולא העביר העביר ולא מסר‬ ‫או שמסר והעביר שלא בדרך העברה‬ ‫פטור ואינו חייב עד שימסור מקצת זרעו‬ ‫ויניח מקצת שנאמר כי מזרעו נתן למולך‬ :‫מקצתו ולא כולו‬

He is not held liable until he gives over some of his progeny and leaves some of his progeny, as [implied by Leviticus 20:3]: "For he gave of his progeny to Molech" - i.e., some [of his progeny] and not his entire [progeny]. [The prohibition against giving one's progeny to Molech includes:] both progeny of legitimate pedigree and illegitimate pedigree, sons and daughters, children and grandchildren. One is liable for giving over any of one's descendants, because they are all included in the term "progeny."

‫אחד זרע כשר ואחד זרע פסול אחד‬ ‫בניו ובנותיו בניהם ובני בניהם על כל‬ ‫יוצאי ירכו הוא חייב מפני שהן זרעו אבל‬ ‫אם העביר אחיו או אחיותיו או אבותיו או‬ ‫שהעביר עצמו פטור העביר אחד מזרעו‬ :‫והוא ישן או שהיה סומא פטור‬

In contrast, if one passed one's brothers, sisters, or ancestors [through the fire] or if one caused oneself to be passed through the fires, one is not held liable. A person who passes one of his progeny [through the fire] while he is sleeping or blind is not liable.

8/20/2019 12:17 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six - Texts & Writings

5 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912364/jewish/Avodat-...

A monument which the Torah has forbidden is a structure around which people gather. [This prohibition applies] even [when it was constructed] for the service of God, because this is a pagan practice, as [Deuteronomy 16:22] states: "Do not erect a monument which God hates." Whoever erects a monument is [liable for] lashes. Similarly, [a person who bows down on] the kneeling stone mentioned in the Torah receives lashes - even if he prostrates oneself upon it to God - as [Leviticus 26:1] states: "Do not place a kneeling stone in your land to prostrate yourself upon it." The pagans would customarily place a stone before a false deity so that they could prostrate themselves upon it. Therefore, this practice is not followed in the worship of God.

‫מצבה שאסרה תורה היא בנין שהכל‬ '‫מתקבצין אצלה ואפילו לעבוד את ה‬ ‫שכן היה דרך עובדי כוכבים שנאמר ולא‬ ‫תקים לך מצבה וכל המקים מצבה לוקה‬ ‫וכן אבן משכית האמורה בתורה אע"פ‬ ‫שהוא משתחוה עליה לשם לוקה שנאמר‬ ‫ואבן משכית לא תתנו בארצכם להשתחות‬ ‫עליה מפני שהיה דרך עובדי כוכבים‬ ‫להניח אבן לפניה להשתחות עליה לפיכך‬ ‫אין עושין כן לה' ואינו לוקה עד שיפשוט‬ ‫ידיו ורגליו על האבן ונמצא כולו מוטל‬ :‫עליה שזו היא השתחויה האמורה בתורה‬

A person is not [liable for] lashes until he spreads out his hands and feet on the stone, thus prostrating himself on it entirely. This is what the Torah means by bowing.

8/20/2019 12:17 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six - Texts & Writings

6 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912364/jewish/Avodat-...

Where does the [prohibition mentioned above] apply? Every place outside the Temple. In the Temple, however, it is permitted to bow dow to God on stone. This concept is derived as follows: [Leviticus, ibid.] states: "Do not place... in your land." "In your land," it is forbidden to prostrate oneself on stones. You may, however, prostrate yourself on hewn stones in the Temple. For this reason, it is a universally accepted custom among the Jewish people to place mats, straw, or hay in synagogues that are paved with stones, to separate between their faces and the stones. If it is impossible to find anything to separate between them and the stones, the person should go to another place to prostrate himself, or lie on his side, so that he will not press his face to the stone. A person who prostrates himself to God upon paved stones without spreading out his hands and feet is not [liable for] lashes. He is, however, punished by "blows for rebelliousness." In contrast, one who prostrates himself to a false deity should be stoned to death, whether or not he spreads out his hands and feet. As soon as he buries his face in the ground [he is liable].

(‫במה דברים אמורים בשאר )הארצות‬ ‫אבל במקדש מותר להשתחות על‬ ‫האבנים שנאמר בארצכם בארצכם אי‬ ‫אתם משתחוים על האבנים אבל אתם‬ ‫משתחוים על האבנים המפוצלות במקדש‬ ‫ומפני זה נהגו כל ישראל להציע מחצלאות‬ ‫בבתי כנסיות הרצופות באבנים או מיני‬ ‫קש ותבן להבדיל בין פניהם ובין האבנים‬ ‫ואם לא מצא דבר מבדיל בינו ובין האבן‬ ‫הולך למקום אחר ומשתחוה או שוחה על‬ :‫צדו ומטה כדי שלא ידביק פניו באבן‬

‫כל המשתחוה לה' על האבנים‬ ‫המפוצלות בלא פישוט ידים ורגלים‬ ‫אינו לוקה אלא מכין אותו מכת מרדות‬ ‫אבל לעבודת כוכבים אחד השתחויה‬ ‫בפישוט ידים ורגלים או בלא פישוט ידים‬ :‫ורגלים משעה שיכבוש פניו בקרקע נסקל‬

8/20/2019 12:17 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six - Texts & Writings

7 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912364/jewish/Avodat-...

A person who plants a tree near the altar or anywhere in the Temple courtyard - regardless of whether it is a fruit-bearing tree or not - is [liable for] lashes, as [Deuteronomy 16:21] states: "Do not plant an asherah or any other tree near the altar of God, your Lord." [This prohibition applies] even when he did so to beautify the Temple and make it more attractive.

‫הנוטע אילן אצל המזבח או בכל‬ ‫העזרה בין אילן סרק בין אילן מאכל‬ ‫אף על פי שעשאו לנוי למקדש ויופי לו‬ ‫הרי זה לוקה שנאמר לא תטע לך אשרה‬ ‫כל עץ אצל מזבח ה' אלהיך מפני שהיה זה‬ ‫דרך עובדי כוכבים נוטעין אילנות בצד‬ :‫מזבח שלה כדי שיתקבצו שם העם‬

[The reason for this prohibition is] that this was a pagan practice. They would plant trees near their altars so that people would gather there. It is forbidden to construct a porch made of wood in the Temple as one would do in one's courtyard. Even though [the wood would be affixed] within the structure and not planted within the ground. This is an extra restriction, as [implied by the words:] "any other tree" [in the verse cited above]. Instead, all the porches and structures which protruded from the walls within the sanctuary were of stone and not of wood.

« Previous

‫אסור לעשות אכסדראות של עץ‬ ‫במקדש כדרך שעושין בחצרות אע"פ‬ ‫שהוא בבנין ואינו עץ נטוע הרחקה יתירה‬ ‫היא שנאמר כל עץ אלא כל האכסדראות‬ ‫והסבכות היוצאות מן הכותלים שהיו‬ :‫במקדש של אבן היו לא של עץ‬

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Five Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/20/2019 12:17 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six - Texts & Writings

8 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912364/jewish/Avodat-...

8/20/2019 12:17 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

1 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six

It is a positive commandment to destroy false deities, all their accessories, and everything that is made for their purposes, as [Deuteronomy 12:2] states: "You shall surely destroy all the places [where the gentiles... served their gods]" and, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:5]: "Rather, what you should do to them is tear down their altars." In Eretz Yisrael, the mitzvah requires us to hunt after idol worship until it is eradicated from our entire land. In the diaspora, however, we are not required to hunt after it. Rather, whenever we conquer a place, we must destroy all the false deities contained within.

‫מצות עשה היא לאבד עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים ומשמשיה וכל הנעשה‬ ‫בשבילה שנאמר אבד תאבדון את כל‬ '‫המקומות ונאמר כי אם כה תעשו להם וגו‬ ‫ובארץ ישראל מצוה לרדוף אחריה עד‬ ‫שנאבד אותה מכל ארצנו אבל בחוץ‬ ‫לארץ אין אנו מצווין לרדוף אחריה אלא‬ ‫כל מקום שנכבוש אותו נאבד כל עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים שבו שנאמר ואבדתם את שמם מן‬ ‫המקום ההוא בארץ ישראל אתה מצווה‬ ‫לרדוף אחריהן ואי אתה מצווה לרדוף‬ :‫אחריהן בחוץ לארץ‬

[The source for this distinction is Deuteronomy 12:3, which] states: "And you shall destroy their name from this place," [implying that] you are obligated to hunt false deities in Eretz Yisrael, but you are not obligated to do so in the diaspora. Commentary on Halachah 1 It is a positive commandment - Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 185) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 436) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. to destroy false deities - The process of destruction is described in Chapter 8, Halachah 6. all their accessories, and everything that is made for their purposes - Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) states that the mitzvah is to destroy "every entity which is worshiped and their temples," from which one might conclude that the destruction of the accessories of idol

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

2 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

worship is a Rabbinic injunction. Avodat HaMelech, however, cites Avodah Zarah 51b, which also derives the injunction to destroy the accessories of idol worship from a Biblical proof-text. as [Deuteronomy 12:2] states: "You shall surely destroy all the places [where the gentiles... served their gods]" Note the Bnei Binyamin, which states that when fulfilling this commandment, we should recite a blessing: "Blessed... who commanded us to eradicate idol worship from our land." Other commentaries explain that reciting a blessing is inappropriate, based on the principle (Rashba, Vol. I, Responsum 18) that a blessing is not recited for a mitzvah that comes to correct a sin. The Bnei Binyamin, however, maintains that this principle does not apply here, since the transgression was committed by gentiles. and, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:5]: "Rather, what you should do to them is tear down their altars." - Kinat Eliyahu questions the purpose of the second proof-text. In Eretz Yisrael, the mitzvah requires us to hunt after idol worship until it is eradicated from our entire land. - Kinat Eliyahu explains that this obligation has its source in the uniqueness of Eretz Yisrael. Because it is God's holy land, we must rid it of idol worship. In contrast, In the diaspora, however - The obligation to destroy false deities is of a different nature. we are not required to hunt after it. - Since these lands are not holy, we are not obligated to eradicate idol worship from them. Rather, whenever we conquer a place, we must destroy all the false deities contained within - because a false deity may not exist under a Jew's authority. In his notes on the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:20), the Vilna Gaon explains that the Rambam's statements appear to mean that whenever the Jews conquer a land, they are obligated to destroy all false deities and their places of worship. These statements may, however, also be interpreted as meaning that whenever an individual finds or takes possession of a false deity, it must be destroyed. [The source for this distinction is Deuteronomy 12:3, which] states: "And you shall destroy their name from this place," - i.e., Eretz Yisrael. The opening verse of the Biblical passage cited states: "These are the statutes... you must heed... in the land that God... is giving you." [implying that] you are obligated to hunt false deities in Eretz Yisrael, but you are not obligated to do so in the diaspora. - The Bnei Binyamin writes that even according to the opinions which permit gentiles to believe in Christianity, Jews are obligated to destroy their objects of worship and churches. This raises a question regarding the churches that exist in Eretz Yisrael today. Should their existence be tolerated, or are we, as a people and as individuals, obligated to destroy them?

It is forbidden to benefit from false deities, their accessories, offerings for them, and anything made for them, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:26]: "Do not bring an abomination to your home." Anyone who derives benefit from any of the above receives two measures of lashes: one because of the prohibition, "Do not bring an abomination...," and one because of the prohibition, "Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand."

‫עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה ותקרובת‬ ‫שלה וכל הנעשה בשבילה אסור‬ ‫בהנאה שנאמר ולא תביא תועבה אל‬ ‫ביתך וכל הנהנה באחד מכל אלו לוקה‬ ‫שתים אחת משום ולא תביא ואחת משום‬ :‫ולא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם‬

Commentary on Halachah 2 It is forbidden to benefit from false deities - i.e., statues, trees, or other entities which are worshiped. their accessories, offerings for them - The Rambam considers the prohibition against benefiting from wine offered as a libation for false deities as a mitzvah in its own right (Negative Commandment 194). Therefore, he does not mention the laws

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

3 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

governing this prohibition here, but in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, where he devotes three chapters to the subject. [The fact that the Rambam associates the prohibition against benefitting from objects offered to idols with a Biblical proof-text appears to indicate that he considers this prohibition as having its roots in the Torah itself. Note Tosafot, Bava Kama 72a which states that the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.] and anything made for them, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:26]: "Do not bring an abomination to your home." - Note the Pri Chadash,who questions whether a person who brings a false deity home without benefiting from it also receives lashes. Anyone who derives benefit - Yad HaMelech contrasts the prohibition against benefiting from false gods with other Torah prohibitions where benefit is forbidden: e.g., non-kosher species of animals. In the latter case, though all types of benefit are forbidden, the Torah requires that punishment be administered only for eating the forbidden substances, and not for deriving other types of benefit (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:16), while with regard to false deities, punishment is administered for deriving any type of benefit. The source for this difference is that the Torah uses the expression "Do not eat" or the like when forbidding the other prohibitions. Accordingly, punishment is administered only for eating. In contrast, the verses prohibiting false deities are more inclusive in nature. from any of the above receives two measures of lashes: one because of the prohibition, "Do not bring an abomination..." -Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 25) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 429) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. and one because of the prohibition, "Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand." - As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 7, the latter prohibition primarily concerns the property of a condemned city (‫)עיר הנדחת‬. Nevertheless, since false deities are also described as "condemned," benefiting from them is also included in the scope of the above prohibition (Megillat Esther, Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 194). Though the Ramban (Hasagot L'Sefer HaMitzvot) disputes the Rambam's decision, support for the Rambam's opinion can be found in several Talmudic sources - e.g., Avodah Zarah 34b, 51b. The prohibition stated in this halachah and the positive commandment mentioned in the previous one serve as the foundation for all the laws discussed in this and the following chapter.

It is forbidden to benefit from an animal which was sacrificed to false deities in its entirety - even its excrement, its bones, its horns, its hooves, and its hide. It is forbidden to benefit from it at all. To cite an example, the hide of an animal which is marked by a sign that indicates that it was offered as a sacrifice to false deities - e.g., it has a round hole in the place of the heart through which the heart is extracted, which was a common practice [of idolaters] - It is forbidden to benefit from all of these hides and others of the like.

‫בהמה שהקריבוה כולה לעבודת‬ ‫כוכבים אסורה בהנאה אפילו פרשה‬ ‫ועצמותיה וקרניה וטלפיה ועורה הכל‬ ‫אסור בהנאה לפיכך אם היה בעור סימן‬ ‫שיודע בו שזה העור תקרובת עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים הוא כגון שהיו עושים שקורעים‬ ‫קרע עגול כנגד הלב ומוציאין הלב הרי כל‬ ‫אותן העורות שהן כך אסורין בהנאה וכן‬ :‫כל כיוצא בזה‬

Commentary on Halachah 3 It is forbidden - because of the prohibition mentioned in the previous halachah. (See also Deuteronomy 32:38.) to benefit from an animal which was sacrificed to false deities in its entirety - The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah states ‫שהקריבוה כולה לעכו‬ó‫ ם‬- i.e., the phrase "in its entirety" modifies the verb "sacrifices," leading to the

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

4 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

conclusion that were an animal to be consecrated only partially to a false deity different rules would apply. Note the Kessef Mishneh, Avodat HaMelech, and Or Sameach, which discuss this concept. Authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah, however, read ‫ אסורה כולה‬- i.e., "in its entirety" modifies "forbidden." According to this version, the explanation is straightforward, when an animal is sacrificed to a false deity the prohibition includes even its excrement, its bones, its horns, its hooves, and its hide - i.e., the prohibition involves not only the animal's meat, but even these less important elements of its being. It is forbidden to benefit from it at all. To cite an example, the hide of an animal which is marked by a sign that indicates that it was offered as a sacrifice to false deities - e.g., it has a round hole - if the hole is oblong, there is no prohibition (Avodah Zarah 2:3). in the place of the heart through which the heart is extracted - They would slit open the animal's hide and kill it by cutting out the heart (Keter HaMelech) which was a common practice [of idolaters] - when offering sacrifices (Avodah Zarah, ibid.): It is forbidden to benefit from all of these hides and others of the like - because we assume that the animal was used as a sacrifice to idols and is therefore forbidden.

What is the difference between an idol belonging to a gentile and one belonging to a Jew? It is forbidden to benefit from an idol belonging to a gentile immediately [after it is fashioned], as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:25]: "You shall burn the sculptures of their gods with fire" - i.e., they are considered gods as soon as they have been sculpted. [In contrast,] it is not forbidden to benefit from a Jew's [idol] until he worships it, as [implied by Deuteronomy 27:15]: "[Cursed is the person who makes an idol...] and places it in a hidden place" - i.e., it is not forbidden until he does private acts - i.e., worship - on its behalf.

‫מה בין עבודת כוכבים של עובד‬ ‫כוכבים לעבודת כוכבים של ישראל‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים אסורה‬ ‫בהנאה מיד שנאמר פסילי אלהיהם‬ ‫תשרפון באש משפסלו נעשה לו אלוה‬ ‫ושל ישראל אינה אסורה בהנאה עד‬ ‫שתעבד שנאמר ושם בסתר עד שיעשה‬ ‫לה דברים שבסתר שהן עבודתה ומשמשי‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים בין של עובד כוכבים בין‬ ‫של ישראל אינן אסורין עד שישתמשו בהן‬ :‫לעבודת כוכבים‬

The accessories of idol worship, whether belonging to a Jew or to a gentile, are not forbidden until they were actually used for the purpose of idol worship. Commentary on Halachah 4

What is the difference - with regard to the prohibition mentioned in the previous law between an idol belonging to a gentile and one belonging to a Jew? It is forbidden to benefit from an idol belonging to a gentile immediately [after it is fashioned], as [implied by - the Torah's command to destroy idols Deuteronomy 7:25]: "You shall burn the sculptures of their gods with fire;" i.e. - the mention of the word "sculptures" is an addition, teaching that they are considered gods as soon as they have been sculpted - whether they have been worshiped or not. Therefore,

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

5 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

they are forbidden from that time onward. Note the comments of the Lechem Mishneh, which mentions an apparent contradiction between these statements and Chapter 8, Halachah 8. (See our commentary on that halachah.) [In contrast,] it is not forbidden to benefit from a Jew's [idol] until he worships it, as [implied by Deuteronomy 27:15]: "[Cursed is the person who makes an idol...] and places it in a hidden place," - When does the curse fall? Not when the idol is made, but when it is placed in a hidden place. i.e., it is not forbidden until he does private acts - i.e., worship - for it is unlikely that a Jew would worship a false deity openly. on its behalf. The accessories of idol worship, whether belonging to a Jew or to a gentile, are not forbidden until they were actually used for the purpose of idol worship. - Avodah Zarah 51b derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 12:2, which states "You shall surely destroy all the places where the gentiles... served their gods." The gentiles' places of worship and the other accessories to idol worship are not forbidden until the false deities are "served."

[When] a person makes an idol for another person - although he receives lashes - his wage is permitted. [This applies] even when he made [the idol] for a gentile, and it is therefore forbidden immediately. [What is the rationale for the latter decision? The idol] is not forbidden until it is completed and the hammerstroke which completes it is not worth a penny. [The following rules apply when] a person buys scrap metal from a gentile and finds idols within it: If he has already paid the money, but has not taken possession of it, he should return it to the gentile. The same [rules] apply if he took possession of it, but did not pay the money. Though taking possession represents a formal transfer of ownership in dealings with a gentile, the transaction was made in error. If he paid the money and took possession [of the scrap], he must take [the idols] to the Dead Sea.

‫העושה עבודת כוכבים לאחרים‬ ‫אע"פ שהוא לוקה שכרו מותר‬ ‫ואפילו עשאה לעובד כוכבים שהיא‬ ‫אסורה מיד מפני שאינה נאסרת עד‬ ‫שתגמר ומכוש אחרון שגומרה אין בו שוה‬ ‫פרוטה הלוקח גרוטאות מן העובד כוכבים‬ ‫ומצא בהן עבודת כוכבים אם נתן מעות‬ ‫ולא משך יחזירם לעובד כוכבים וכן אם‬ ‫משך ולא נתן מעות אף על פי שמשיכה‬ ‫בעובד כוכבים קונה כמקח טעות הוא נתן‬ ‫מעות ומשך יוליכם לים המלח וכן עובד‬ ‫כוכבים וגר שירשו את אביהן עובד‬ ‫כוכבים יכול הגר לומר לעובד כוכבים טול‬ ‫אתה עבודת כוכבים ואני מעות טול אתה‬ ‫יין נסך ואני פירות ואם משבאו לרשות‬ :‫הגר אסור‬

Similarly, when a gentile and a convert [divide] the estate of their father - a gentile - the convert may tell the gentile, "Take the idols and I will take the money," "Take the forbidden wine and I will take the produce." Once [idols] come into the possession of the convert, however, they are forbidden.

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

6 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

Commentary on Halachah 5 [When] a person makes an idol for another person - although he receives lashes - as stated above, Chapter 3, Halachah 9 his wage is permitted. - We do not say that the wage is benefit derived from false deities, and is therefore forbidden. [This applies] even when he made [the idol] for a gentile, and it is therefore forbidden immediately - as explained in the previous halachah. [What is the rationale for the latter decision? The idol] is not forbidden until it is completed and the hammer-stroke which completes it - See Shabbat 73a, 75b and commentaries regarding the final hammer-stroke which completes a project. is not worth a penny. - Avodah Zarah 19b explains that this law is dependent on the following principle of business law: Every moment an artisan works on a project is considered as a separate entity. When he finishes the project, it is considered as if the entire sum of money - with the exception of the value of the final hammer-stroke - is owed him from beforehand. Since benefit from the idol is not forbidden until it is completed, the money which is owed him previously is permitted. [The following rules apply when] a person buys scrap metal from a gentile - There is an apparent contradiction between the laws which follow and Halachah 7, which states that idols found in a scrap metal heap are permitted. Two possible resolutions are offered: a) According to the version (see our commentary on that halachah) which reads "statues" and not "statues of idols," there is no contradiction. b) The prohibitions mentioned in this halachah were instituted because of the appearance that might be created if the Jew were to keep the idols he purchased. Accordingly, stricter laws were instituted. and finds idols within it: - Once the Jew becomes the full legal owner of the idols, he is obligated to destroy them, and cannot nullify the transaction and return them. The question in the following instances is whether the transaction has been completed or not. If he has already paid the money, but has not taken possession - We have taken some liberty in translating the word, ‫ומשך‬. Literally, it means "and drew it after him." Performing this activity, however, is one of the means of formalizing a business transaction (see Hilchot Mechirah 3:1) and, therefore, the word was translated as above. of it, he should return it to the gentile. - Though paying money represents the finalization of a transaction (kinyan) between a Jew and gentile (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14), the transaction was made in error, as explained below. Since, in transactions carried out between two Jews, the transaction would not be completed until the recipient takes possession of the article, a Jew can return the idols to the gentile in this instance. The same [rules] apply if he took possession of it, but did not pay the money. Although taking possession represents a formal transfer of ownership in dealings with a gentile - See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, ibid. the transaction was made in error - Since, in transactions carried out between two gentiles, the transaction would not be completed until the money was paid, it can be nullified in this instance. If he paid the money and took possession [of the scrap] - even though the transaction was carried out in error, since it appears to have been completed, it is forbidden to benefit from the idols because of the impression it may create. Therefore, they must be destroyed (Avodah Zarah 53a, 71b). (See also Siftei Cohen 1464.) Our commentary follows the interpretation of Rav Kapach. It must be noted that many of the classic commentaries on the Mishneh Torah have questioned why the Rambam mentions the concept of a transaction made in error only in the case when the Jew took possession and did not pay, but not when he paid and did not take possession. They have offered several possible resolutions, including a sweeping statement by Avodat HaMelech that our Sages nullified the effectiveness of monetary payment as an effective means of finalizing the transfer of property (kinyan), not only with regard to transactions between two Jews (see Hilchot Mechirah 3:1,4-5), but also with regard to transactions between a Jew and a gentile. (Interestingly, though the Rambam's phraseology has raised such problems, it is quoted verbatim by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 146:3.) When stating that a forbidden object must be destroyed, our Sages frequently used the expression: he must take [the idols] to the Dead Sea. -Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 43b, explain that one need not literally take the idols

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

7 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

to the Dead Sea. By using that term, our Sages implied a place where the idols will never benefit man. Similarly, the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 146) explains that the Dead Sea is mentioned because it is a desolate area, not frequented by ships. If an article is cast into that sea, we can assume that it will not be recovered. Tosafot also relates that, in practice, one need not take the idols to the Dead Sea. All that is necessary is to destroy the article in a manner in which neither it, nor its ashes or dust, will benefit man. See also Chapter 8, Halachah 6. [It must be noted that though the Rambam occasionally uses the term 18‫חלמה‬á‫ םי‬to refer to the Mediterranean Sea (see the conclusion to his Commentary to the Mishnah), in this context, it is clear that his intent is the Dead Sea.] Similarly, when a gentile and a convert [divide] the estate of their father - a gentile - The problem in this instance is that it is forbidden to exchange an idol for other property. Hence, before taking possession of the inheritance, the convert may tell the gentile, "Take the idols and I will take the money" or "Take the forbidden wine and I will take the produce." - In which case, the idols have never come into the convert's possession and, hence, he is not considered to have benefited from their exchange. Once [idols] come into the possession of the convert, however - they are considered to be idols belonging to a Jew, and they are forbidden - and must be destroyed. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (D'mai 6:10), the Rambam writes that were a similar situation - an inheritance containing property from which one heir would be allowed to benefit from and one would be forbidden - to occur among Jews, the leniencies mentioned above would not be permitted. The difference between the two cases is that when a Jew inherits property from his father, the transfer of ownership is immediate, and from the moment of his father's death, the forbidden property belongs to the heir, who must take responsibility for it. In contrast, a convert's inheritance of his gentile father's estate is a Rabbinic decree, instituted in consideration of the convert. According to the Torah, once he converts, he has no connection to his natural parents. The Sages extended the leniency they granted in allowing him to acquire the inheritance to include the right to barter these forbidden articles before they actually become his property. (See also Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 146:5.

We are allowed to benefit from images which gentiles made for aesthetic purposes. It is forbidden, however, to benefit from images that are made for the purpose of idol worship. What is implied? It is forbidden to benefit from any images found in villages, for one may assume that they were made for the sake of idol worship. When images are found in a city, they are forbidden only when they are found at the entrance to the city and hold a staff, bird, globe, sword, crown, or ring in their hands. Otherwise, we may assume that they were made for aesthetic purposes, and benefit from them is permitted.

‫צורות שעשאום עובדי כוכבים לנוי‬ ‫מותרין בהנאה וצורות שעשאום‬ ‫לעבודת כוכבים אסורין כיצד כל הצורות‬ ‫הנמצאים בכפרים אסורים בהנאה מפני‬ ‫שחזקתן שלעבודת כוכבים הן עשויין‬ ‫והנמצאות במדינה אם היו עומדין על פתח‬ ‫המדינה והיה ביד הצורה צורת מקל או‬ ‫צפור או כדור או סייף או עטרה וטבעת‬ ‫חזקתו שהוא לעבודת כוכבים ואסור‬ ‫בהנאה ואם לאו הרי הוא בחזקת לנוי‬ :‫ומותר‬

Commentary on Halachah 6 We are allowed to benefit - i.e., enjoy the artistic talent and/or sell or use as scrap metal from images - The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 141) states that these laws apply only to human images. Other authorities (and indeed certain interpretations of the Tur) disagree, and consider the statements as referring to all images. From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:1), it appears that the latter opinion reflects his view.

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

8 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

which gentiles made for aesthetic purposes. - Note Chapter 3, Halachah 10, with regard to the prohibition against Jews making human images even for these purposes. See our commentary on that halachah, with regard to the place of art in Jewish life. It is forbidden, however, to benefit from images that are made for the purpose of idol worship - even if they are artistic masterpieces. Thus, the entire realm of the gentile's sacramental art is forbidden to us. What is implied? - The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 141:4) explains that the statements that follow (which are based on Avodah Zarah 41a) reflect the socio-cultural environment in which the Rambam lived. The criteria he mentions are thus not hard and fast rules, and will vary if different conditions prevail in other societies. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah, ibid., based on Avodah Zarah 40-41), the Rambam explains that although Rabbi Meir maintained that all gentile images were forbidden because they would be used for different pagan rites, the Sages disagreed and laid down the following general rules. It is forbidden to benefit from any images found in villages for - Simple villagers are not expected to have artistic tastes. Therefore, one may assume that they were made for the sake of idol worship. - Even if we have no proof to that effect, we follow the general rule that it is forbidden to benefit from an image which is merely suspected of being worshiped as an idol. When images are found - even when the circumstances mentioned in the following halachah do not apply in a city - Since the inhabitants of a metropolis are expected to be cultured and sophisticated, the images found there are not necessarily idols. Hence, they are forbidden only when they are found at the entrance to the city - a position which implies their authority over the entire city. and hold a staff, bird, globe, sword, crown, or ring in their hands. - All of these are also symbols of authority or sovereignty. Otherwise, we may assume - The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:1, which frequently quotes the Rambam verbatim, changes the phraseology used in this clause from "we may assume" to "surely." The Siftei Cohen (141:1) explains that this change clarifies that even though it is forbidden to benefit from an image which is merely suspected to have been worshiped as an idol (see Halachah 10), our assumption that they were made for aesthetic purposes - is so strong that this is not considered as a case of doubt and benefit from them is permitted.

Statues of false deities which are found discarded in the marketplace or in a scrap metal heap are permitted. Needless to say, this applies to pieces of statues. In contrast, should one find a hand, a foot, or another limb from the form of one of the constellations or celestial signs, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Since one knows that this limb is one of the images that is worshiped, the prohibition against [benefiting from it] remains until one knows that the gentiles who worshiped it, nullified it.

‫צלמי עבודת כוכבים הנמצאים‬ ‫מושלכים בשוקים או בתוך הגרוטאות‬ ‫הרי אלו מותרין ואין צריך לומר שברי‬ ‫צלמיהן אבל המוצא יד מצורת כוכב או‬ ‫מזל או רגלה או אבר מאיבריה מושלך‬ ‫הרי זה אסור בהנאה הואיל וידע בודאי‬ ‫שזה האבר מן צורת עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫הנכבדת הרי היא באיסורה עד שיודע לו‬ :‫שהעובדי כוכבים עובדיה בטלוה‬

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

9 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

Commentary on Halachah 7 Statues of false deities - Our text follows the published texts of the Mishneh Torah. The words "of false deities" and several of the other points in this halachah appear to be printer's additions, which are not found in the authoritative manuscripts and run contrary to the explanation of these concepts in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:2). Note also the apparent contradiction mentioned in our commentary on Halachah 5. Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:2 does not mention "idols," but "statues." which are found discarded in the marketplace or in a scrap metal heap are permitted. - Avodah Zarah 41a-b explains this law as follows. The Mishnah uses the expression "statues" - i.e., a statue which we do not know that it has been worshiped. Shmuel, one of the Talmudic sages, adds, however, that the leniency also applies to idols which we know were worshiped. His decision is based on the principle (Chapter 8, Halachah 8) that if the gentiles who worship an idol no longer consider it a god, the prohibition against benefiting from it is nullified. In this instance, the fact that these statues were found discarded is the clearest proof that their worshipers forsook them. Afterwards, the Talmud quotes a difference of opinion between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, concerning idols which are broken accidentally. In the context of the explanation of that difference of opinion, the Talmud mentions the explanation of the Mishnah in question by Rabbi Yochanan (whom the halachah follows, see Chapter 8, Halachah 11). He explains that the pieces of the statues (not idols) are permitted because we are not sure that they were ever worshiped. Even if they have been worshiped, it is possible that they were nullified. Thus, according to the Talmud, the interpretation of these laws is as follows: If one finds an idol that was obviously purposefully broken (Shmuel's law), it is permitted to benefit from it. If, however, the idol was not destroyed with an obvious destructive intent, it is forbidden to benefit from it, as Rabbi Yochanan states. Needless to say, this applies to pieces of statues. - The fact that they were broken would appear to indicate that their worshipers nullified them. In contrast, should one find a hand, a foot, or another limb from the form of one of the constellations or celestial signs - The phrase, "from the form of one of the constellations or celestial signs," is a printer's addition, which runs contrary to the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, ibid. This phrase implies that this clause refers to a limb broken from an idol. The authoritative manuscripts state "should one find a hand... which is the form of a deity." In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that this clause (found both in the mishnah and in this halachah) does not refer to a limb that is broken from an idol, but rather to an instance where the limb itself is worshiped. The Rambam explains that since the previous clause states that broken limbs of statues are permitted, this clause must be speaking about a different concept. it is forbidden to benefit from it. - Though the fact that it was abandoned in a scrap heap could be considered as an indication that it was nullified, Since one knows that this limb is one of the images that is worshiped - i.e., the prohibition against its use is firmly established, the prohibition against [benefiting from it] remains until one knows - i.e., it is established with equal certainty that the gentiles who worshiped it, nullified it - at which point its use is no longer prohibited, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 8.

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

10 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

[The following laws apply when] a person finds articles which have the form of the sun, the moon, or a d'rakon upon them: If they are golden or silver objects, or silk garments, or if these forms were engraved on a nose-ring or finger-ring, they are forbidden. If these forms are found on other articles, they are permitted, since we may assume that they were made for aesthetic purposes. Similarly, we may assume that any other form which is found on an article was intended for aesthetic purposes. Therefore, [the articles] are permitted.

‫המוצא כלים ועליהן צורת חמה‬ ‫ולבנה ודרקון אם היו כלי כסף וזהב‬ ‫או בגדי שני או שהיו חקוקים על הנזמים‬ ‫ועל הטבעות הרי אלו אסורין ועל שאר‬ ‫הכלים מותרין מפני שחזקתן לנוי וכן שאר‬ ‫הצורות הנמצאות על כל הכלים חזקתן‬ :‫לנוי ומותרין‬

Commentary on Halachah 8 [The following laws apply when] a person finds articles which have the form of the sun, the moon - As mentioned in the commentary on Chapter 3, Halachah 11, the Rambam writes in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:3: This does not mean a sphere which represents the sun, or a hemisphere which represents the moon, but rather the images which the astrologers [i.e., those following Greek mythology] attribute to the stars... - e.g., Saturn is represented as a dark old man of venerable age, Venus is represented as a beautiful maiden adorned with gold, and the sun is represented as a king with a diadem sitting in a chariot. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 141:3) quotes this explanation as halachah. or a d'rakon - In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam describes this image as a fishlike man with fins and many scales, probably referring to the Greek god Neptune. Rashi, Avodah Zarah 42b, and others interpret the form as that of an animal similar to a serpent. Perhaps this term is the source for the word "dragon." upon them: - The question is whether these forms should be considered to be representations of deities (and hence, forbidden). If they are golden or silver objects, or silk garments - i.e., objects of great value. or if these forms were engraved on a nose-ring or finger-ring - Rings, in addition to their value, also are a symbol of subservience: a slave wears his master's ring. they are forbidden. - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 141:3) mentions that even valuable objects are permitted if one is certain that they have never been used as articles of worship. If these forms are found on other articles, they are permitted - The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah, ibid.) states the general rule: "If these articles are found on objects of value, they are forbidden. If they are found on articles of little worth, they are permitted." The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) mentions pots or kettles as examples of objects of little worth. since we may assume that they were made for aesthetic purposes. - The Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:3) states that if we are certain that these images were made for the purposes of worship, the article is forbidden even if it is of little value. TheShulchan Aruch (ibid.) quotes this principle. The Ramah states that since paganism is not common at present, we assume that these forms were made for artistic purposes. Hence, it is not forbidden to benefit from an article even if it contains pagan images. One may not, however, keep such an article in one's possession. He adds that even at present, certain individuals are stringent with themselves and do not benefit from an article containing the three forms mentioned above. Similarly, we may assume that any other form which is found on an article was intended for aesthetic purposes. Avodah Zarah 42b asks rhetorically: "Are these the only forms that are worshiped?" and explains that it is possible that the other forms would also be worshiped, but they are generally not made for that purpose. In contrast, the three

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

11 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

forms mentioned above are generally made for the purpose of worship. Therefore, [the articles] are permitted.

A false deity, its accessories, and the objects offered to it are always forbidden, regardless of the proportion [of a mixture they make up]. What is implied? If an idol becomes mixed together with statues made for aesthetic purposes - even if the proportion is merely one in several thousand - the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea. Similarly, if a goblet [used for] idol worship becomes mixed together with many other goblets, or a piece of meat [coming from a sacrifice to a false deity] becomes mixed with other meat, the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea. Similarly, if a hide with a hole through which the heart was removed becomes mixed with other hides, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture.

‫עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה וכל‬ ‫התקרובת שלה אוסרים בכל שהן‬ ‫כיצד עבודת כוכבים שנתערבה בצורות‬ ‫של נוי אפילו אחת בכמה אלפים יוליך‬ ‫הכל לים המלח וכן אם נתערב כוס של‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים בכמה כוסות או חתיכה מן‬ ‫הבשר )שנתערבה( בכמה חתיכות יוליך‬ ‫הכל לים המלח וכן עור לבוב שנתערב‬ ‫בכמה עורות הכל אסור בהנאה עבר ומכר‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים או אחד ממשמשיה או‬ ‫תקרובת שלה הרי הדמים אסורין בהנאה‬ ‫ואוסרין בכל שהן כעבודת כוכבים שנאמר‬ ‫והיית חרם כמוהו כל מה שאתה מביא‬ ‫משמשיה‬ ‫ומכל‬ ‫כוכבים‬ ‫מעבודת‬ :‫ותקרובתה הרי היא כמוה‬

[When] a person transgresses and sells a false deity, one of its accessories, or an object that was offered to it, it is forbidden to benefit from the money received, and that prohibition [remains if these funds become mixed with others], regardless of the proportion [of the mixture] they make up. [Deuteronomy 7:26] states: "Lest you become condemned like it." [From this we infer,] that anything that comes from a false deity, from any of its accessories, or from [anything] offered to it is [governed by the same prohibitions] as it is. Commentary on Halachah 9 A false deity, its accessories, and the objects offered to it - Avodah Zarah 29b derives the prohibition against benefiting from wine used by pagans as a libation (yayin nesech) from the prohibition against benefiting from animals sacrificed to idols. Since the mishnah (Avodah Zarah 74a) specifically mentions yayin nesech as forbidden, regardless of the proportion of the mixture involved, the same principle applies to all objects offered to an idol. are always forbidden, regardless of the proportion [of a mixture they make up]. - As mentioned in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, Chapter 16, the prohibition against benefiting from different substances can be negated when the substance is accidentally mixed with other substances. For example, the prohibition against eating certain forbidden foods (e.g., non-kosher meat, fats, mixtures of meat and milk) is lifted when these substances become mixed with 60 times their amount of other substances. The

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

12 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

prohibitions against terumah (and any other substances which are also called terumah) are lifted when it becomes mixed with 100 times their amount of other substances and similarly, the prohibitions against orlah andkilai hakerem are lifted when these substances are mixed with 200 times their amount of other substances. Because of the serious nature of the prohibition against idol worship, these principles do not apply and anything connected with it is forbidden, regardless of the proportion of the mixture the forbidden substances make up. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 5:8.) What is implied? If an idol becomes mixed together with statues made for aesthetic purposes - which are permitted even if the proportion is merely one in several thousand - the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea - i.e., it is forbidden to benefit from them and they must be destroyed. Similarly, if a goblet [used for] idol worship - i.e., an accessory of idol worship becomes mixed together with many other - identical goblets - Needless to say, if one can distinguish between the forbidden goblet and the permitted ones, there is no reason to forbid the use of the permitted ones. or a piece of meat [coming from a sacrifice to a false deity] becomes mixed with other meat - See the following halachah. the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea. - TheLechem Mishneh (noting the Rambam's statements, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:29) questions why in this instance, the Rambam does not suggest that the entire mixture be sold to a gentile, and then, the value of the forbidden article destroyed. This question is discussed by many commentaries; their consensus is that, although such a provision is made regarding closed barrels of yayin nesech, it applies in that specific case alone, but not with regard to other instances. Similarly, if a hide with a hole through which the heart was removed - i.e., a round hole, as mentioned in Halachah 3. This was one of the common practices of idol worship. becomes mixed with other hides, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture - and it must be destroyed. [When] a person - i.e., a Jew. Different laws apply regarding a gentile. (See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 132:7, 144:1.) transgresses and sells a false deity, one of its accessories, or an object that was offered to it - The sale is forbidden, because it is forbidden to derive any benefit from a false deity. This prohibition is unique; whenever one sells other forbidden substances (with the exception of the fruits of the seventh year), the fact that their sale was forbidden does not affect the status of the money received for them. In contrast, when selling anything forbidden because of idol worship it is forbidden to benefit from the money received - Rather, the money must be destroyed, like the idols themselves. If the proceeds from the sale or exchange of an idol are used to acquire another object, that object is also forbidden. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1. and that prohibition [remains if these funds become mixed with others] regardless of the proportion [of the mixture] they make up. - i.e., the same severe restrictions that would apply to an idol itself, apply to the money received from its sale. This principle is derived as follows: [Deuteronomy 7:26] states: - "Do not bring an abomination (an idol) into your house... "Lest you become condemned like it." [From this - The Hebrew word ‫והיה‬ we - Avodah Zarah 54b infer] that anything that comes - into your possession from a false deity, from any of its accessories, or from [anything] offered to it - See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 132:5-7, which elaborates on this concept with regard to the laws pertaining to yayin nesech. is [governed by the same prohibitions] as it is. - Note the commentary of Mishneh LaMelech, which questions whether the same ruling would be rendered if the purchaser did not know that the article which he acquired is connected with a false deity. Mishneh LaMelech maintains that the transaction is nullified, and the money the seller receives must be returned to the purchaser.

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

13 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

When a false deity or an asherah is burned, it is forbidden to benefit from its ashes. A coal taken from an idol is forbidden; a flame [from an idol] is permitted, for it is not an entity with substance. When there is a doubt whether an object is connected to idol worship or not, it is forbidden. If, however, that doubt is questionable, it is permitted. What is implied? Should a goblet used for idol worship fall into a storage room of goblets, they are all forbidden, because a false deity and all its accessories are always forbidden, regardless of the proportion [of a mixture they make up]. If one of the cups from this mixture falls together with two other cups, the the [entire second mixture] is permitted. Should a ring [used to adorn] an idol become mixed together with one hundred other rings, and then two of them fall into the Mediterranean Sea, it is permissible to use all of them. We presume that the [forbidden] ring was among the two [which fell].

‫עבודת כוכבים או אשרה שנשרפה‬ ‫אפרה אסור בהנאה וגחלת של עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים אסורה והשלהבת מותרת מפני‬ ‫שאין בה ממש ספק עבודת כוכבים אסור‬ ‫ספק ספיקה מותר כיצד כוס של עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים שנפל באוצר מלא כוסות כולן‬ ‫אסורים מפני שעבודת כוכבים וכל‬ ‫משמשיה אוסרין בכל שהן פירש כוס אחד‬ ‫מן התערובת ונפל לכוסות שנים הרי אלו‬ ‫מותרין טבעת של עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫שנתערבה בכמה טבעות ונפלו שתים מהן‬ ‫לים הגדול הותרו כולן שאני אומר אותה‬ ‫הטבעת היתה בכלל השתים נתערבה‬ ‫במאה ונתחלקו ארבעים למקום אחד‬ ‫וששים למקום אחר ונפלו הארבעים כולן‬ ‫לטבעות אחרות כלן מותרות שאני אומר‬ ‫אותה הטבעת האסורה ברוב היא נפלו‬ :‫הששים לטבעות אחרות כולן אסורות‬

Should [a forbidden ring] become mixed together with a hundred others and then [the group] becomes divided, forty being separated in one group and sixty in another, and then the entire [group of] forty fall into another group of rings, it is permissible to use all of them. We presume that the forbidden ring remained among the majority. If the [group of] sixty fall into another group of rings, they are all forbidden. Commentary on Halachah 10 When a false deity or an asherah - For a definition of the term asherah, see Chapter 6, Halachah 9, and see the following halachah. is burned, it is forbidden to benefit from its ashes. - Ash was used for certain purposes - e.g., the manufacture of soap. Although the idol was destroyed, the prohibition that applied to it applies to its ashes as well. (For this reason, our Sages suggested taking idols to the Dead Sea. Since this is a desolate area, there is little likelihood that anyone will ever benefit from the idols.)

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

14 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

Temurah 34a notes that this prohibition differentiates substances associated with idols from other forbidden substances that must be burned. A coal taken from - a fire which is lit as an act of service to an idol - is considered to be an accessory of the idol. It is forbidden - to be used for any other purpose. a flame [from an idol] is permitted, - to be used - e.g., to light another flame for it is not an entity with substance - i.e., there is no entity to which the prohibition can be attached. Although as a safeguard, the Rabbis forbade the use of certain flames, they did not pass such a decree against flames from idol worship. In general, Jews were repelled by any association with idol worship. Hence, the Rabbis did not feel that it was necessary to institute a prohibition (Beitzah 39a). When there is a doubt whether an object is connected to idol worship or not, it is forbidden. - When there is a doubt regarding whether a substance is prohibited or not, we follow the principle that ‫( מדאורייתא‬according to Torah law), it is permitted. ‫( מדרבנן‬according to Rabbinic decree), it is forbidden. If, however, that doubt is questionable - The Hebrew, 18‫קפס אקיפס‬, implies that there is a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply, as illustrated by the examples mentioned in the latter clauses of the halachah. The prohibition against benefiting from an object whose prohibited status is in question is only Rabbinic in nature. Whenever there is a doubt regarding whether a Rabbinic prohibition applies or not, a lenient approach is permitted (‫)ספק דרבנן לקולא‬. it is permitted. - For the Rabbis did not feel it necessary to institute a decree in such an instance. What is implied? Should a goblet used for idol worship - i.e., an accessory of idol worship, which is forbidden, as mentioned in the previous halachah. fall into a storage room of - identical goblets, they are all forbidden, because a false deity and all its accessories are always forbidden, regardless of the proportion [of a mixture they make up]. - Since there is a doubt whether each of the goblets is the forbidden one or not, none of them may be used. If one of the cups from this mixture falls together with two - This translation follows the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah, which reads ‫כוסות שנים‬. The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1406) suggests (and indeed, many manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah support this contention) that the text read ‫כוסות שניים‬, which would be rendered as "other cups." This version is closer to the text of Zevachim 74a, the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for this law. other cups - Here, there is a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply. Perhaps the cup one chooses from the new mixture did not come from the original mixture. Even if it did come from the original mixture, perhaps it is not the cup that was used for idol worship. the [entire second mixture] is permitted. - The Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries question the Rambam's decision, noting that the text of Zevachim, ibid., appears to indicate that it is necessary for there to be three mixtures. Indeed, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:10, when discussing the prohibitions of a ‫( דבר חשוב‬a forbidden substance whose importance prevents it from ever being nullified in a mixture), the Rambam himself appears to follow this view, stating: If one pomegranate from a mixture [containing a forbidden pomegranate] falls together with two other pomegranates... and from these three, one pomegranate falls together with other pomegranates, the latter [mixture] is permitted. Indeed, on the basis of the statements in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) deviates from the Rambam's opinion and requires three mixtures. This approach, however, is not followed by all commentaries. Rashi and Tosafot (Zevachim, ibid.) explain that even with regard to a ‫דבר חשוב‬, only two mixtures are necessary. These views are quoted as halachah by the Turei Zahav and the Siftei Cohen in their glosses on the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 110:8). Among the suggestions made by the commentaries to resolve the difference between the Rambam's statements here and those in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot are the following: a) Most people are careful regarding the prohibition against benefiting from any object connected with idol worship. Therefore,

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

15 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

there is no need to reinforce the prohibition. In contrast, the prohibition against benefiting from a ‫ דבר חשוב‬is far less known. Hence, the Rabbis added severe safeguards to make sure that it be observed (Kessef Mishneh). b) Here, the Rambam is speaking about a prohibition against benefiting from a forbidden object (‫)איסור הנאה‬. In contrast, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot is concerned with partaking of forbidden foods, where the prohibition is more severe (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 110:52). Even the authorities who permit the second mixture to be used do not allow a single individual to partake of the entire mixture at one time. In such an instance, there would be only a single doubt whether he used the forbidden object or not. The Rabbis (Zevachim, 74b) mentioned another example of a mixture which is permitted because of circumstances which create a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply: Should a ring [used to adorn] an idol become mixed together with one hundred other rings, and - they would thus all be forbidden according to the above principles. However, if then two of them fall - accidentally. If one intentionally throws one into the sea, the leniency does not apply (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 110:7). into the Mediterranean Sea - and are thus lost. If two merely become separated from the group, the others remain prohibited (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.). (Note the Kessef Mishneh's comments that here, the Dead Sea is intended.) it is permissible to use all of them. - i.e., all the rings that remain. The prohibition does not continue to apply, because We presume that the [forbidden] ring was among the two - The Kessef Mishneh notes that when stating a similar law in Hilchot Terumah 15:2, the Rambam required only a single barrel of wine to be lost. The difference between these two laws can be resolved by taking into account the nature of the prohibited substances: Rings are small, and the loss of a single ring does not make a substantial difference to the entire group. In contrast, barrels of wine are large, and the loss of even one will attract attention. [which fell]. - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) limits this leniency, stating that it is forbidden to use a single ring alone, nor may one person benefit from the entire group of rings at once. The Rabbis (Zevachim, ibid.) mentioned a third example of a mixture which is permitted because of circumstances which create a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply: Should [a forbidden ring] become mixed together with a hundred others and - they would thus be forbidden according to the above principles. However, if then [the group] becomes divided, forty - i.e., the minority being separated in one group, and sixty - i.e., the majority in another, and then the entire [group of] forty fall into another group of rings, it is permissible to use all of them - the second mixture. We presume that the forbidden ring remained among the majority. - There is a doubt whether the forbidden ring was among the forty. Even if it had been included within that forty, perhaps the ring one chooses from the second mixture is not the forbidden one. In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) does not accept the Rambam's view, and forbids the second mixture. Even according to the Rambam, it is not permissible to eat the entire second mixture at one time, for then there would be only a single doubt. If the - entire [group of] sixty fall into another group of rings, they are all forbidden. - Should, however, only a portion of the sixty fall into another mixture, the Rambam (but not the Shulchan Aruch) would permit their use. In such an instance, their status would parallel that of the second mixture of goblets mentioned above.

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

16 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

Sitting under the shade of the trunk of an asherah - whether it is worshiped itself or whether an idol was placed under it - is forbidden. It is, however, permissible to sit under the shade of its branches and its leaves. If a person has another route, it is forbidden for him to pass under it. If he has no other route, he may pass under it, provided he runs.

‫האשרה בין שהיתה נעבדת בין‬ ‫שהיתה עבודת כוכבים ומונחת‬ ‫תחתיה אסור לישב בצל קומתה ומותר‬ ‫לישב בצל השריגים והעלים שלה ואם יש‬ ‫לו דרך אחרת אסור לו לעבור תחתיה ואם‬ ‫אין שם דרך אחרת עובר תחתיה כשהוא‬ :‫רץ‬

Commentary on Halachah 11 Sitting under the shade of the trunk of an asherah - a tree associated with the worship of false deities whether it is worshiped itself - as mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 3. or whether an idol was placed under it - as mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 9, and Chapter 8, Halachah 4. In such instances, the tree was intended for aesthetic purposes and for offering shade to the worshipers. is forbidden - because one will be deriving benefit from a false deity or its accessories. It is, however, permissible to sit under the shade of its branches and its leaves. - This decision has been questioned by other authorities, who wonder why the Rambam distinguished between the tree's trunk and branches. On the surface, the same prohibition should apply to both of them. The Rambam's decision is based on his interpretation of Avodah Zarah 48b, which is derived from the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:8). The Talmud explains that even though the shade of an asherah is forbidden, ‫צל הצל‬, literally, "the shade of its shade," is permitted. The Jerusalem Talmud interprets 18‫ לצ לצה‬as shade produced by the parts of the tree which would not touch the trunk if they fell. [Rashi offers a different interpretation of Avodah Zarah, ibid. His view is accepted by most commentaries. When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 142:9) does not differentiate between the shade produced by the trunk and that of its leaves. If a person has another route - to reach his desired destination, which is no longer than the one which passes under the asherah. If the alternate route is longer, the person is not required to deviate from the path leading under the asherah (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.). it is forbidden for him to pass under it. - This prohibition appears to have been instituted lest one benefit from the tree's shade. Note, however, the Ramah's statements (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.), which permit one to pass under the asherah's shade, though not under the tree itself. According to his opinion, the prohibition stems from the impurity of idol worship. If he has no other route, he may pass under it, provided he runs - Avodah Zarah (ibid.) relates that Rav Sheshet would run when he passed under an asherah. This Talmudic passage mentions the requirement to run only with regard to a person of distinction. Nevertheless, since there is no great difficulty in running for this short distance, the Rambam imposes this stringency on all people (Kessef Mishneh).

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

17 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

Chicks which do not need their mother and nest in [an asherah] are permitted. In contrast, the chicks and eggs which need their mother are forbidden for the asherah is considered as if it is a base for them. The nest itself - [even though it is] in the top of the tree is permitted, for the birds bring the wood for it from other places.

‫אפרוחים שקננו בה ואין צריכין‬ ‫לאמן מותרין והאפרוחים והביצים‬ ‫שצריכין לאמן אסורין שהרי האשרה כמו‬ ‫בסיס להן והקן עצמה שבראשה מותר‬ :‫מפני שהעוף מביא עציו ממקום אחר‬

Commentary on Halachah 12 Chicks which do not need their mother - i.e., which can fly on their own and nest in [an asherah] are permitted. - Even though these chicks are permitted, Me'ilah 14a does not allow one to climb up the tree and take them in a normal manner. Rather, one must knock the chicks down with a stave, and then collect them. The Hagahot Maimoniot (and the Turei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah 142:12) explain that climbing on the tree or using it as support for a ladder would involve deriving benefit from the forbidden tree. The Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Me'ilah 3:9, suggests a different interpretation. There, the Rambam specifically writes that when taking the nest - as stated in the final clause of this halachah - it permissible to climb up the tree in the normal manner. Therefore, it appears that one should knock down the chicks to see if they are capable of flying on their own or not. This explanation also clarifies why the Rambam does not mention in this halachah the need to knock down the chicks. By stating that only those which do not need their mother are permitted, he implies that one must determine whether or not the chicks need their mother (Rav Kapach). In contrast, the chicks and eggs which need their mother are forbidden, for the asherah is considered as if it is a base for them. - Avodah Zarah 42b explains that this is a Rabbinic decree imposed lest the people desire to benefit from the asherah itself. Since these chicks and eggs require the asherah, they are prohibited as the asherah is. The nest itself - [even though it is] in the top of the tree - is permitted, - and the wood from which it is composed may be used for other purposes for the birds bring the wood for it from other places. - Were the wood, however, to come from the asherah itself, it would be forbidden even though it had been separated from it already, as is obvious from Chapter 8, Halachah 3. The Ra'avad states that one must explicitly know that the birds built their nest from other wood. Avodat HaMelech explains that the Rambam does not require such knowledge, because of the following Talmud principle: When there is a question whether a substance came from the most probable source (‫ )רוב‬or the closest source (‫)קרוב‬, we presume it came from the most probable source.

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

18 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

It is forbidden to benefit from wood which one takes from it. Should a person have heated the oven with such wood, he must cool it off. Afterwards, he should kindle it with other, permitted, wood and then bake within. Should he bake bread in [an oven heated in this manner] without cooling it, he is forbidden to benefit from the bread. If [such a loaf] became mixed together with others, he must bring the value of that loaf to the Dead Sea so that he will never benefit from it. The other loaves, however, are permitted.

‫נטל ממנה עצים אסורים בהנאה‬ ‫הסיק בהן את התנור יוצן ואחר כך‬ ‫יסיק בעצים אחרים של היתר ויאפה בו‬ ‫אפה בו את הפת ולא צננו הפת אסורה‬ ‫בהנאה נתערבה באחרות יוליך דמי אותה‬ ‫הפת לים המלח כדי שלא יהנה בה ושאר‬ :‫הככרות מותרין‬

Commentary on Halachah 13

It is forbidden to benefit from wood which one takes from it. - i.e., from an asherah. Even though the wood has been separated from the tree itself, it is forbidden to benefit from the wood. (See Chapter 8, Halachot 1,3, and 4 for additional explanations regarding the nature of this prohibition.) This prohibition applies not merely ‫( לכתחילה‬a priori), but even in the following instance. Should a person have heated an oven with such wood - and thus seek to benefit from the forbidden wood, he is not permitted to use the oven. Rather, he must cool it off. - Note the contrast between the Rambam's statements here and those in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:22, where the Rambam states that if an oven is heated with the shells or peels of fruit which is forbidden (because it is either orlah or kil'ei hakerem), it is sufficient to remove the wood which is burning. The coals and the heat produced by the initial fire, however, are not forbidden and one may bake with them. He does not make such statements here, because, as stated in Halachah 10, even the coals and ashes of an asherah are forbidden. [Curiously, when mentioning these laws in the Shulchan Aruch (142:4), Rav Yosef Karo quotes the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, substituting forbidden wood for orlah, without distinguishing between the different prohibitions. Accordingly the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch (Turei Zahav 145:5, Siftei Cohen 145:10) object to his decision.] Afterwards, he should - remove the forbidden wood and kindle it with other, permitted wood and then bake within. - In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:9), the Rambam explains that the above decision applies whether the oven is new or old. The Mishnah states that if such wood is used in a new oven, the oven may never be used again. In Talmudic times, the ovens were made of clay and the clay would not harden sufficiently until the oven was kindled once. Thus, since kindling the oven for the first time prepared it to be used on all subsequent occasions, some Rabbis forbade its use when this first kindling was made with a forbidden substance. This opinion is, nevertheless, not accepted as halachah. The Rambam's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, ibid. (See the explanation of ‫ זה וזה גורם‬in the following halachah.) Furthermore, this prohibition is extended beyond the oven: Should he bake bread in [an oven heated in this manner] without cooling it - even if, afterwards, he added permitted wood he is forbidden to benefit from the bread - because the beneficial effect of the forbidden wood preceded the influence of the permitted wood. If [such a loaf] became mixed together with others - the entire mixture is forbidden. He can, however, cause that prohibition

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

19 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

to be lifted if he carries out the following instructions. [This mixture of bread can be differentiated from the mixtures mentioned in Halachah 10. Those mixtures involved objects which were themselves used as accessories for idol worship, while here the loaf itself was never used for such purposes. Hence, the severe laws mentioned there do not apply in this instance.] he must bring the value of that loaf - even if it is more valuable than the wood (Siftei Cohen 142:9). to the Dead Sea - or destroy it in another way (see the notes on Halachah 5) so that he will never benefit from it. - The Siftei Cohen 142:8 states that the Rambam's [and, thus, the Shulchan Aruch's (Yoreh De'ah 142:3)] phraseology implies that it is not sufficient to destroy the value of the wood (regardless of whether the forbidden loaf becomes mixed with others or not). He does, however, suggest selling the loaf to a gentile (less the value of the forbidden wood) in a manner in which one could be sure that it would not be resold to a Jew. The other loaves, however, are permitted - even to be eaten. In other similar situations, one is permitted to benefit from a forbidden mixture (e.g., sell it to a gentile), but partaking of it oneself is prohibited. (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:29.) Here, one is allowed to partake of the bread itself (Siftei Cohen 142:10).

If one took [a piece of wood from an asherah to use as] a shuttle, and wove a garment with it, it is forbidden to benefit from [the garment]. Should the garment become mixed together with other garments, he must bring the value of that garment to the Dead Sea. All the other garments, however, are permitted. It is permissible to plant vegetables under [an asherah] - whether in the summer - when they need the shade or in the winter. [This leniency is granted] because the vegetables' growth is produced by two factors: the shade of the asherah, which is forbidden, and the earth, which is permitted. Whenever an effect is produced by the combination of a forbidden factor and a permitted factor, it is permitted. Therefore, if a field was fertilized with fertilizer [that was forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, one may sow it. Similarly, [the meat of] a cow that was fed with beans [that were forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, may be eaten. The same principle applies in other similar situations.

‫נטל ממנה כרכר וארג בו את הבגד‬ ‫אסור בהנאה נתערב בבגדים‬ ‫אחרים יוליך דמי אותו הבגד לים המלח‬ ‫ושאר כל הבגדים מותרין ומותר ליטע‬ ‫תחתיה ירקות בין בימות החמה שהן‬ ‫צריכין לצל בין בימות הגשמים מפני שצל‬ ‫האשרה שהוא אסור עם הקרקע שאינה‬ ‫נאסרת גורמין לירקות אלו לצמוח וכל‬ ‫שדבר אסור ודבר מותר גורמין לו הרי זה‬ ‫מותר בכל מקום לפיכך שדה שזבלה בזבל‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים מותר לזרוע אותה ופרה‬ ‫שפטמה בכרשיני עבודת כוכבים תיאכל‬ :‫וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

Commentary on Halachah 14 If one took [a piece of wood from an asherah to use as] a shuttle - the piece of the loom which passes the woof through the threads of the warp. and wove a garment with it, it is forbidden to benefit from [the garment] - because it is prohibited to use anything made

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

20 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

from idol worship. Should the garment become mixed together with other garments, he must bring the value of that garment to the Dead Sea. - Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:9), where he explains why it is necessary to state both cases (the bread and the garment). All the other garments, however, are permitted - as explained in the previous halachah. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 142:3.) It is permissible - 18‫( הליחתכל‬a priori) to plant vegetables under [an asherah], whether in the summer - when they need the shade - and thus, one will receive direct benefit from the asherah or in the winter - when the influence of the asherah is less felt. [This leniency is granted] because the vegetables' growth is produced by two factors: the shade of the asherah, which is forbidden, and the earth, which is permitted. - We follow a principle that is employed in many other areas of Torah law: Whenever an effect is produced by the combination of a forbidden factor and a permitted factor, it is permitted. - In such instances, the leniency is generally granted only ‫( בדיעבד‬after the fact). In this situation, however, the leniency is granted a priori, because the person does not receive any benefit when he sows the field and, afterwards, the benefit comes in and of itself (Rabbenu Nissim). Therefore, if a field was fertilized with fertilizer [that was forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, one may sow it - because the crop growth also depends on the earth, which is not forbidden. At the outset, however, it is forbidden to use such fertilizer (Siftei Cohen 142:11). Similarly, [the meat of] a cow that was fed with beans - The Hebrew term ‫ כרשינים‬refers to "vetch," a species of bean commonly used for animal fodder. [that were forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, it may be eaten - because its growth was also influenced by the permitted food it ate. If, however, it was raised solely on forbidden food, different rules apply (Turei Zahav 142:17). [Significantly, in Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 3:9, the Rambam feels it necessary to give a different reason why a cow that was given such a diet might be used as a sacrifice. The Sages, however, always ruled more stringently with regard to sacrifices than with regard to food consumed by private individuals.] The same principle applies in other similar situations.

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

21 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

It is not forbidden to benefit from meat, wine, and fruits that were prepared as offerings for idols. Although they were brought into the temple of a false deity, [they are not prohibited] until they are actually brought as offerings. Once they are brought as offerings, [their status changes] and they remain forbidden forever, even if they were later removed [from the temple].

‫בשר או יין או פירות שהכינום‬ ‫להקריבם לעבודת כוכבים לא‬ ‫נאסרו בהנאה אף על פי שהכניסום לבית‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים עד שיקריבום לפניה‬ ‫הקריבום לפניה נעשו תקרובת ואע"פ‬ ‫שחזרו והוציאום הרי אלו אסורין לעולם‬ ‫וכל הנמצא בבית עבודת כוכבים אפילו‬ ‫מים ומלח אסור בהנאה מן התורה והאוכל‬ :‫ממנו כל שהוא לוקה‬

Torah law forbids benefiting from anything that is found in a temple of a false deity, even water or salt. If a person eats even the slightest amount from such substances, he is [punished by] lashing. Commentary on Halachah 15 It is not forbidden to benefit from meat, wine, and fruits that were prepared as offerings for idols. - This law reflects a contrast to the Temple offerings. Once a person dedicated an animal to be offered as a sacrifice, or an article to be donated to the Temple treasury, it became consecrated (‫ )הקדש‬and could no longer be used for mundane purposes. This principle does not apply with regard to articles designated to be used as offerings for idols, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 1. Although they were brought into the temple of a false deity, [they are not prohibited] until they are actually brought as offerings. - However, as is obvious from the latter clause of this halachah, an object found in a temple of a false deity is forbidden, unless we have explicit knowledge that it was not brought as an offering. We assume that it was used for this forbidden purpose. Once they are brought as offerings, [their status changes] and they remain forbidden - as stated in Halachah 2 forever, - Avodat HaMelech interprets this as a reference to Chapter 8, Halachah 9, where the Rambam states that the prohibition against using an offering brought to an idol can never be nullified. Although the prohibition against using an idol itself can be nullified, more stringent rules apply with regard to an offering. even if they were later removed [from the temple]. - The change in their location does not effect a change in status. Torah law - not merely Rabbinic decree forbids benefiting from anything that is found in a temple of a false deity, even water or salt. - See the following halachah. (Also note Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 139:3.) If a person eats even the slightest amount from such substances, he is [punished by] lashing. - Note Halachah 2, where the Rambam states that a person who benefits from offerings brought to a false deity receives a double measure of lashes. Apparently, the Rambam is not explicit here because he is relying on this previous statement.

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

22 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

[The following laws apply when] a person finds garments, utensils, or money [placed] on the head of an idol. If he finds them [placed] in a derisive manner, they are permitted. If he finds them [placed] in a deferential manner, they are forbidden. What is implied? If one finds a purse hanging around its neck, folded garments placed on its head, or a utensil overturned on its head, they are permitted, because [they were placed] in a derisive manner. The same applies to other similar situations. [In contrast,] if one finds an object of a type which is used as an offering for the [Temple] altar on the head [of an idol], it is forbidden. When does the above apply? When one finds such articles outside its [usual] place of worship. When, however, one finds such articles within the [idol's place of worship], regardless of whether it was placed in a derisive manner or in a deferential manner, or whether it is of the type of objects used as sacrifices for the [Temple] altar, any article found within [such a structure] - even water or salt - becomes forbidden.

‫המוצא כסות וכלים ומעות בראש‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים אם מצאן דרך בזיון‬ ‫הרי אלו מותרין ואם מצאן דרך כבוד הרי‬ ‫אלו אסורין כיצד מצא כיס תלוי בצוארו‬ ‫כסות מקופלת ומונחת על ראשו כלי כפוי‬ ‫על ראשו הרי זה מותר מפני שהוא דרך‬ ‫בזיון וכן כל כיוצא בזה מצא בראשו דבר‬ ‫שכיוצא בו קרב לגבי המזבח הרי זה אסור‬ ‫בד"א בזמן שמצאן חוץ למקום עבודתו‬ ‫אבל אם מצאו בפנים בין דרך כבוד בין‬ ‫דרך בזיון בין דבר הראוי למזבח בין דבר‬ ‫שאינו ראוי כל הנמצא בפנים אסור אפילו‬ ‫מים ומלח ופעור ומרקוליס כל הנמצא‬ ‫עמהן בין בפנים בין בחוץ אסור בהנאה וכן‬ ‫אבני מרקוליס אבן הנראית שהיא עמו‬ :‫אסור בהנאה‬

[Different laws apply regarding] Pe'or and Marculis. It is forbidden to benefit from anything that is found together with them, whether [it is found] in their [temple] or outside of it. Similarly, with regard to the stones [found near a symbol of] Marculis: If a stone appears to be together with it, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Commentary on Halachah 16 [The following laws apply when] a person finds garments, utensils, or money [placed] on the head of an idol. Avodah Zarah 51b states that the prohibition applies only when the articles are placed on the idol itself. The fact that they are positioned near the idol is not sufficient to have them forbidden. If he finds them [placed] in a derisive manner, they are permitted - because the manner in which they are placed indicates that they were not intended as adornment or service for the idol. If he finds them [placed] in a deferential manner, they are forbidden. - Avodah Zarah, ibid., derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 29:16: "You saw their putridities (their idols)... the gold and silver which is with them," explaining that "anything which is 'with them' is 'putrid,' forbidden as the idols are. Since these are articles that are

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

23 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

used to adorn an idol, they are prohibited. What is implied? If one finds a purse hanging around its neck, folded garments placed on its head, or a utensil overturned on its head, they are permitted, because [they were placed] in a derisive manner. - The position of the article indicates that it was not placed there with the intent of adorning the idol. On the contrary, placing these articles on an idol in such a fashion reflects one's contempt for it. Therefore, there is no reason for the article to be forbidden. The same applies to other similar situations. [In contrast,] if one finds an object of a type which is used as an offering for the [Temple] altar - This includes the animals used as sacrifices, wine, flour, or oil. Avodah Zarah 51b notes that this prohibition includes even water, which is used for the water libation on Sukkot, and salt, which is added to all the sacrifices offered on the altar. on the head [of an idol], it is forbidden. - The fact that these articles are used as offerings in the Temple leads to the conclusion that they were presented to the idol for a similar purpose. When does the above - distinction between a deferential and a derisive position apply? When one finds such articles outside its - the idol's [usual] place of worship. When, however, one finds such articles within the [idol's place of worship] - The fact that the article was brought into the idol's temple indicates that it was used in its service. Accordingly, regardless of whether it was placed in a derisive manner or in a deferential manner, or whether it is of the type of objects used as sacrifices for the [Temple] altar, any article found within [such a structure] - even if it is not placed upon the idol itself even water or salt - The Rambam's mention of these articles is somewhat problematic. Since they were offered on the Temple altar, as explained above, they are forbidden even if they are not found within the temple of an idol. The commentaries explain that since these articles are of little consequence and are not generally themselves brought as offerings to an idol, we would not think that they were forbidden. Therefore, it is necessary to mention them explicitly. becomes forbidden. - Note Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ot 6:7, where the Rambam states that the forbidden nature of foods offered to idols can never be negated. When, however, utensils are offered, the prohibition against using them can be negated, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 8. [Different laws apply regarding] Pe'or and Marculis. - See the description of the service of these deities in Chapter 3, Halachah 2. It is forbidden to benefit from anything that is found together with them, whether [it is found] in their [temple] or outside of it. - Since these deities are served in a derisive manner, no distinction is made between the manner in which articles placed upon them are found. Even when an article is found in a derisive position, it is forbidden. Similarly, with regard to the stones [found near a symbol of] Marculis: If a stone appears to be together with it - Since a shrine to this deity consists of stones piled on each other, we assume that any stone found in proximity to it was once part of such a pile. Hence, it is forbidden to benefit from it. - Rashi, Avodah Zarah 50a states that all stones within a cubit of the deity are forbidden. Stones which are further removed are permitted. Tosafot maintains that any stones found within a radius of four cubits are forbidden.

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

24 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

When [the shrine of] a false deity possesses a bathhouse or a garden, benefit may be derived from it, provided one does not offer appreciation [in return]. [If] one must offer appreciation, it is forbidden.

‫עבודת כוכבים שהיה לה מרחץ או‬ ‫גינה נהנים בהם שלא בטובה ואין‬ ‫נהנים בהם בטובה היה לה ולאחרים נהנין‬ ‫בהן אפי' בטובת כהניה ובלבד שלא יתן‬ :‫שכר‬

[If the garden or bathhouse] is mutually owned by [the shrine] and another entity, one may derive benefit from it even if one provides its priests with appreciation. One may not, however, pay a fee. Commentary on Halachah 17

When [the shrine of] a false deity possesses a bathhouse or a garden, benefit may be derived from it, provided one does not offer appreciation - We have rendered ‫ טובה‬as "appreciation" because, as evident from the final clause of the halachah, the benefit mentioned by the Rambam is not monetary or even goods that can be exchanged for money (Kessef Mishneh). [Thus, the Rambam's interpretation differs from that of Rashi, who, in his commentary on Avodah Zarah 51b, understands ‫טובה‬ as referring to monetary payment.] [in return]. - Our translation follows the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah. The manuscript versions read: "provided one does not offer benefit to its priests." This version is supported by the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:3). If the benefit is offered to the idol's worshipers and not to its priests, one may make use of the bathhouse or garden even if it is necessary to pay a fee (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 143:3). [If] one must offer appreciation, it is forbidden. - The Kessef Mishneh explains that this prohibition was instituted lest a person develop close feelings towards the priests who serve a false deity. [If the garden or bathhouse] is mutually owned by [the shrine] and another entity, one may derive benefit from it - and one is not considered to have benefited from a false deity,since the bathhouse or garden is not itself a shrine even if one provides its priests with appreciation. - The commentaries explain that since the prohibition is Rabbinic in nature (because it is appreciation and not a fee which is being offered), if the appreciation is not being given solely to the priests, the Rabbis did not feel it necessary to impose a prohibition. One may not, however, pay a fee - because doing so provides direct benefit to the false deity. This prohibition caused severe problems in Europe, where frequently many of the community services necessary for everyday life - e.g., flour mills, ovens, and the like - were owned by the Catholic Church. The rabbinic authorities of these areas interpreted these laws more leniently, offering different explanations of how one could benefit from church-owned property. (See Ramah and the Turei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) All authorities, however, agree that if a fee must be paid to the false deity itself and not to its attendants, no benefit is permitted.

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

25 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

It is permitted to bathe in a bathhouse even though an idol is located within, because it is placed there for aesthetic purposes and not to be served. [This leniency can be inferred from the use by Deuteronomy 12:2 of the term:] "their gods" - i.e., the prohibition applies when they treat them as gods, and not when they humiliate them, such as in an instance where [the idol] stands over the sewage pipe and they urinate before it.

‫מרחץ שיש בה עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫מותר לרחוץ בה מפני שהיא‬ ‫נעשית שם לנוי ולא לעבדה שנאמר‬ ‫אלהיהם בזמן שנוהגים בה מנהג אלהות‬ ‫ולא בזמן שמבזין אותן כגון זו שהיא‬ ‫עומדת על הביב והכל משתינין בפניה ואם‬ :‫היתה דרך עבודתה בכך אסור ליכנס בו‬

Should [the idol's] worship involve such activities, it is forbidden to enter [the bathhouse]. Commentary on Halachah 18 It is permitted to bathe in a bathhouse even though an idol is located within - This halachah is based on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:4, which relates: Rabban Gamliel was bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite (the Greek goddess of beauty) in Akko, and Praclus ben Paluslus asked him: "Why are you bathing in Aphrodite's bathhouse? Does your Torah not command: 'Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand'? He responded: "One does not reply in a bathhouse." After he had departed, he told him, "I did not come into her territory, she came into mine. One does not say, 'This bathhouse is becoming to Aphrodite.' One says, 'Aphrodite is becoming to the bathhouse.' Furthermore, no matter how much money you were offered, you would not enter your idol's temple naked... and urinate before it." (The mishnah continues, mentioning the interpretation of Deuteronomy 12:2 quoted by the Rambam.) [Significantly, Rashi (Avodah Zarah 44b) interprets the mishnah differently from the Rambam. They explain that rather than the idol being located within the bathhouse, the bathhouse was located within premises belonging to the idol.] because it is placed there for aesthetic purposes and not to be served. - This is the Rambam's interpretation of Rabban Gamliel's first point. He did not enter a place where the statue was served (Aphrodite's territory). Rather, he entered a bathhouse (his territory) where a statue had been placed as an adornment. [The Rambam's interpretation is also found in the Tosafot Rid and the Eshkol. Rashi and others interpret Rabban Gamliel's statements differently.] [This leniency can be inferred from the use by Deuteronomy 12:2 of the term:] "their gods" - when describing the commandment to nullify idol worship i.e., the prohibition applies when they - the gentiles treat them - their statues as gods, and not when they humiliate them, such as in an instance where [the idol] stands over the sewage pipe and they urinate before it. - Avodah Zarah 44b clarifies that the performance of a humiliating act before an idol does not necessarily nullify its forbidden character. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 10.) Nevertheless, since an idol placed in a bathhouse is constantly subjected to deprecating situations, we can assume that the gentiles do not regard it as a god. Should [the idol's] worship involve such activities - As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 2, there are some idols which are worshiped in a deprecatory manner - e.g., Pe'or, whose worshipers would defecate before it. it is forbidden to enter [the bathhouse]. - As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 5, even when a person performs these activities with the intent of humiliating the idol, since this is its mode of worship, he is considered to have inadvertently violated

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

26 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

the commandment against idol worship, and is obligated to bring a sin offering for atonement.

It is permitted to benefit from [an animal] slaughtered using a knife [forbidden because of its connection to] idol worship, because one is detracting from [the animal's] value. If the animal is in danger [of dying], it is forbidden, because one is enhancing its value, and this improvement involves benefit from an accessory of idol worship.

‫סכין של עבודת כוכבים ששחט‬ ‫בה הרי זה מותר מפני שהוא‬ ‫מקלקל ואם היתה בהמה מסוכנת הרי זו‬ ‫אסורה מפני שהוא מתקן והרי זה התיקון‬ ‫מהנאת משמשי עבודת כוכבים וכן אסור‬ ‫לחתוך בה בשר מפני שהוא מתקן ואם‬ :‫חתך דרך הפסד והשחתה מותר‬

Similarly, it is forbidden to cut meat with [such a knife], because one is enhancing its value. Should one cut with a destructive intent, causing a loss, the meat is permitted. Commentary on Halachah 19 It is permitted to benefit - The Kessef Mishneh interprets the Rambam's phraseology as implying that although, after the fact, the meat is not forbidden, at the outset (‫)לכתחילה‬, it is forbidden to slaughter an animal with such a knife. Other authorities, however, do not share this opinion, and maintain that there is no prohibition against using such a knife. (See Ramah, Yoreh De'ah 142:2 and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, 10:1, which accept the latter view as halachah.) from [an animal] slaughtered using a knife [forbidden because of its connection to] idol worship] - Chulin 8b clarifies that we are speaking about an instance where the knife has already been kashered, and thus, the only question involves benefiting from an accessory of idol worship. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:7, the Rambam discusses the process of kashering the knife and what must be done if the knife was used without being kashered. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) because one is detracting from [the animal's] value. - While an animal is alive, it can be used for work and for breeding, and is therefore of greater value. If the animal is in danger [of dying], it is forbidden, because one is enhancing its value - If the animal dies naturally, a Jew will not be permitted to eat its meat. Thus, the animal's slaughter enhances its value. and this improvement involves benefit from an accessory of idol worship. - Hence, it is forbidden, as stated in Halachah 2. The Kessef Mishneh states that, based on Halachot 12 and 13, it would appear that the Rambam maintains that all the meat from the animal is forbidden, and there is no way one may benefit from it. The Kessef Mishneh does not accept that view, and argues that it is sufficient to destroy an amount of meat equivalent to the value of the knife. Similarly, it is forbidden to cut meat - i.e., cut large pieces of meat into smaller ones with [such a knife], because one is enhancing its value - making it fit to be sold or cooked. The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 142:6) relates that if one cut pieces of meat with such a knife, even the Rambam would not forbid use of the meat entirely. It would be necessary, however, to destroy an amount of meat equivalent to the value of the knife. Should one cut with a destructive intent, causing a loss - e.g., cut pieces which are of a size fit for cooking into smaller ones, which would be less attractive. See Chulin 8b. the meat is permitted - because no benefit was derived from an accessory of an idol. On the contrary, a loss was caused.

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven - Texts & Writings

27 of 27

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912365/jewish/Avodat-...

« Previous

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Six Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/20/2019 12:19 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

1 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

2 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

It is permitted to derive benefit from anything that has not been manipulated by man or that was not made by man, even though it was worshiped [as a deity]. Therefore, it is permitted to benefit from mountains, hills, trees - provided they were planted originally with the intent of harvesting their fruit springs which provide water for many people, and animals, despite their having been worshiped by pagans. It is permitted to partake of fruits that were worshiped in the place where they grow and to partake of such an animal. Needless to say, it is permitted to partake of an animal that was set aside for the purpose of idol worship. It is permitted regardless of whether it was set aside to be worshiped or to be sacrificed [to another deity]. When do the above statements permitting the use of an animal apply? When a deed involving it was not committed for the sake of idol worship. If, however, any deed whatsoever was committed involving it, it is forbidden; for example, one cut one of its signs for the sake of an idol. Should one exchange it for an idol, it is forbidden. Similarly, it is forbidden if it was exchanged for an article that was itself exchanged for an idol, since the latter article is considered to be "payment for an idol."

‫כל שאין בו תפיסת יד אדם ולא‬ ‫עשהו אדם אף על פי שנעבד הרי זה‬ ‫מותר בהנאה לפיכך עובדי כוכבים‬ ‫העובדים את ההרים ואת הגבעות ואת‬ ‫האילנות הנטועין מתחלתן לפירות ואת‬ ‫המעיינות הנובעין לרבים ואת הבהמה הרי‬ ‫אלו מותרין בהנאה ומותר לאכול אותן‬ ‫הפירות שנעבדו במקום גדילתן ואותה‬ ‫הבהמה ואין צריך לומר הבהמה שהוקצת‬ ‫לעבודת כוכבים שהיא מותרת באכילה בין‬ ‫שהקצוה לעובדה בין שהקצוה להקריבה‬ ‫הרי זו מותרת במה דברים אמורים שאין‬ ‫הבהמה נאסרת בשלא עשה בה מעשה‬ ‫לשם עבודת כוכבים אבל עשה בה מעשה‬ ‫כל שהוא אסרה כיצד כגון ששחט בה‬ ‫סימן לעבודת כוכבים עשאה חליפין‬ ‫לעבודת כוכבים אסרה וכן חליפי חליפין‬ ‫מפני שנעשים דמי עבודת כוכבים בד"א‬ ‫בבהמת עצמו אבל אם שחט בהמת חבירו‬ ‫לעבודת כוכבים או החליפה לא נאסרה‬ ‫שאין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו‬ ‫המשתחוה לקרקע עולם לא אסרה חפר‬ ‫בה בורות שיחין ומערות לשם עבודת‬ :‫כוכבים אסרה‬

When does the above apply? Regarding one's own animal. If, however, one slaughtered a colleague's animal for the sake of a false deity, or exchanged it for an idol, it does not become forbidden, because a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden. When a person bows down to virgin earth, he does not cause it to become forbidden. If he digs pits, channels, and caverns in it for the sake of a false deity, it becomes forbidden.

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

3 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

Commentary on Halachah 1 It is permitted to derive benefit from anything that has not been manipulated by man or that was not made by man Idol worship is a human error. Hence, an object whose existence is not dependent on man cannot become forbidden because of it. even though it was worshiped [as a deity]. - Although generally, it is forbidden to benefit from any entity worshiped as a false deity, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, this law does not apply in such instances. Therefore, it is permitted to benefit from mountains, hills, trees - Avodah Zarah 45a derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 12:2: "You shall surely destroy all the places where the gentiles... served their gods: on the mountains, on the hills, and under any luxuriant tree." The Sages explained that the verse indicates that shrines which are "on" the mountains and the hills and "under" the trees must be destroyed, but not the mountains, hills, and trees themselves. Our Sages exclaim: "Must God cause His world to be destroyed because of the fools?" provided they were planted originally with the intent of harvesting their fruit - If, however, the trees were planted with the intent that they be worshiped, they are considered to be an asherah and forbidden, as explained in Halachah 3. springs which provide water for many people - The Rambam's phraseology leads to the conclusion that a spring which provides water for only one person is forbidden if it is worshiped. The Prisha (Yoreh De'ah 145, based on Avodah Zarah 47a), explains that were an individual to quarry out a spring to worship as a deity, it would be forbidden to benefit from it. Accordingly, when a spring that is worshiped provides water for only one person, we fear that it was quarried out for these purposes. In contrast, when many people benefit from a spring, we do not harbor such suspicions, even when the spring is worshiped. [In their commentaries on Yoreh De'ah 145:1, the Turei Zahav and the Siftei Cohen reject this premise and maintain that as long as the water is attached to the spring, it is not forbidden, despite its being worshiped. Indeed, the Turei Zahav explains that even the Rambam would accept such a decision. See the commentary on the following halachah.] and animals - Temurah 29a derives this concept as follows: Our Sages required a special verse from the T'nach to teach us that an animal that was worshiped as a deity may not be offered as a sacrifice. Were such an animal to be forbidden for use by a common person, no verse would be necessary to teach us that it is not fit for sacrificial purposes. despite their having been worshiped by pagans. It is permitted to partake of fruits that were worshiped in the place where they grow - Nevertheless, after the tree has been worshiped, all the fruits which grow on it during the time it is worshiped are forbidden, as explained in Halachah 3. and to partake of such an animal. - The Paschal sacrifice offered by our ancestors in Egypt serves as an example of this principle. Though the Egyptians worshiped the lamb, our ancestors offered it as a sacrifice to God. Needless to say, it is permitted to partake of an animal that was set aside - but not yet used for the purpose of idol worship. It - such an animal is permitted regardless of whether it was set aside to be worshiped - as a deity itself. or to be sacrificed [to another deity]. - See Chapter 7, Halachah 15, which explains that anything set aside to be offered to an idol is not forbidden until it has actually been offered. Temurah 28b cites a striking example of this principle. Judges (Chapter 6) relates that Gideon offered as a sacrifice to God a bull which his father had been fattening for seven years to offer as a sacrifice to Baal. When do the above statements permitting the use of an animal - dedicated to an idol apply? When a deed involving it was not committed for the sake of idol worship. If, however, any deed whatsoever was committed involving it, it is forbidden - Temurah 29a gives two examples: One shears the animal for the sake of idol worship or uses it to perform work for an idol. See also Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 4:4. for example, one cut one of its signs - The term "signs" refers to the windpipe and esophagus, which must both be slit open for ritual slaughter to be acceptable. (See Hilchot Shechitah 1:9.) for the sake of an idol - as are all sacrifices offered to idols (Chapter 7, Halachah 2). Should one exchange it for an idol, it is forbidden - as explained in Chapter 7, Halachah 9. The Or Sameach explains that

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

4 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

this prohibition applies only with regard to an idol worsiped by a Jew. We are permitted to benefit from anything which a gentile exchanged for an idol. Similarly, it is forbidden if it was exchanged for an article that was itself exchanged for an idol, since the latter article is considered to be "payment for an idol." - The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 145:9) do not accept this prohibition and permit the use of an article exchanged for an article that was exchanged for an idol. When does the above apply? Regarding one's own animal. If, however, one - According to the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 145), this leniency does not apply when such actions are performed by a gentile. [In this regard, an apostate Jew is considered like a gentile.] Though the halachah follows the Beit Yosef's opinion, theOr Sameach offers a different interpretation of the Rambam's words, explaining that his statements are explicit, and neither Jew nor gentile can cause his colleague's property to become forbidden. slaughtered a colleague's animal for the sake of a false deity, or exchanged it for an idol, it does not become forbidden, because a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden. - According to the Or Sameach, this is a blanket statement, applying under all circumstances. The Kessef Mishneh, however, cites Hilchot Shechitah 2:21 (which is based on Chulin 41a), where the Rambam clarifies the rationale for this decision, explaining that the person presenting the offering is only performing the act to "cause his colleague discomfort." The phrasing of the present halachah appears to indicate that a person has no potential to cause his colleague's property to become forbidden. From Hilchot Shechitah, however, it appears that were he to, in fact, desire to sacrifice an animal to a idol, he would cause it to become forbidden. Leniency is granted only because his intent is not to do so, and he appears to do so merely to cause his colleague suffering. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch 145:8 (based on the passage from Chulin) rule that if a person was warned against offering the sacrifice to an idol and acknowledged the warning, it is forbidden to benefit from the animal. See also Halachah 3 and the commentary. When a person bows down to virgin earth, he does not cause it to become forbidden - because the earth cannot be manipulated, nor was it made by man, as above. If he digs pits, channels, and caverns in it for the sake of a false deity, it becomes forbidden. - From the Rambam's statements, it appears that if these diggings were carried out for the sake of an idol, they are automatically forbidden. The Tur (ibid.) differs and maintains that one must worship the land after the digging is completed. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid., 145:7) quotes the Rambam's statement.

When a person bows down to water which was lifted up by a wave, he does not cause [the water] to become forbidden. If, however, he picked [water] up with his hands and bowed down to it, it becomes forbidden.

‫מים שעקרן הגל והשתחוה להן לא‬ ‫אסרן נטלן בידו והשתחוה להן אסרן‬ ‫אבני הר שנדלדלו ועבדן במקומם מותרות‬ :‫שהרי אין בהן תפיסת יד אדם‬

If rocks which had slid down from a mountain were worshiped in the place where they [landed], they are permitted, since they were not manipulated by man. Commentary on Halachah 2 When a person bows down to water which was lifted up by a wave, he does not cause [the water] to become forbidden. - Avodah Zarah 59a states that since the water was not separated by human activity, it is considered to be attached to its source. Hence, it is governed by the principles mentioned in the beginning of the previous halachah. If, however, he picked [water] up with his hands - it is "manipulated by man"

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

5 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

and - is no longer governed by the same rules. Therefore, if a person bowed down to it, it becomes forbidden - as an idol would. The Ra'avad disputes the Rambam's decision, basing his opinion on Avodah Zarah 47a, which states: "Water that belongs to the many is never prohibited." Accordingly, he explains that the water can become prohibited only if it is the private property of a single individual. If it belongs to the public at large, it remains permitted even if it was picked up by human hands and worshiped. The Rambam interprets the passage from Avodah Zarah differently, and maintains that once water is picked up by an individual, it is considered to be his property, and hence can become prohibited. The Shulchan Aruch does not mention this law, leading to the conclusion that it accepts the Ra'avad's view. The later authorities (e.g., Siftei Cohen 145:2), however, follow the Rambam's view. [Note the comments of the Turei Zahav 145:3, who explains that the Rambam mentions "Springs which provide water for many people" in the previous halachah only to negate the Ra'avad's opinion. By making such a statement, the Rambam clarifies that water belonging to many people remains permitted at all times when it is a "spring." If separated from its source by human activity, it can become forbidden.] If rocks which had slid down from a mountain - The Turei Zahav 145:2 explains that this decision applies even when they slid far from the mountain. This decision, however, is not accepted by all authorities. were worshiped in the place where they [landed], they are permitted, since they were not manipulated by man. Hence, the leniencies mentioned in the previous halachah apply. The Ra'avad objects to this decision as well, noting that the matter is debated by the Sages in Avodah Zarah 46a, and no decision is reached. Since this is a question of Torah law, it would seem appropriate to follow the more stringent view. The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 145:1) explains that the Rambam's decision is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:6), which rules that these rocks are permitted.

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

6 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

When a Jew stands a brick up with the intention of bowing down to it, but does not bow down to it, and then a gentile comes and bows down to it, benefit from [the brick] becomes forbidden, because standing it up is considered to be a deed. Similarly, if he stands an egg up and a gentile comes and bows down to it, it becomes forbidden. If one cuts off a gourd or the like and bows down to it, it is forbidden. Even when one bows down to only half the gourd, and the other half is still attached to it, it is forbidden because of the doubt involved: perhaps the second half is considered to be a handle for the half which was worshiped. It is forbidden to benefit from a tree which was planted for the purpose of being worshiped. This is the asherah that the Torah mentions. When a tree which had been planted previously was pruned and carved for the sake of idol worship - even if it was extended or a growth was grafted onto the trunk of the tree - and branches grew, one must cut off [these] branches, and benefit from them is forbidden. The remainder of the tree, however, is permitted.

‫ישראל שזקף לבינה להשתחות לה‬ ‫ולא השתחוה לה ובא עובד כוכבים‬ ‫והשתחוה לה אסרה בהנאה שזקיפתה‬ ‫מעשה וכן אם זקף ביצה ובא עובד כוכבים‬ ‫והשתחוה לה אסרה חתך דלעת וכיוצא‬ ‫בה והשתחוה לה אסרה השתחוה לחצי‬ ‫דלעת וחצי האחר מעורה בו הרי זה אסור‬ ‫מספק שמא זה החצי כמו יד לחצי הנעבד‬ ‫אילן שנטעו מתחלה שיהיה נעבד אסור‬ ‫בהנאה וזו היא אשרה האמורה בתורה‬ ‫היה אילן נטוע וגדעו ופסלו לשם עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים אפילו הבריך והרכיב בגופו של‬ ‫אילן והוציא שריגים כורת את השריגים‬ ‫והם אסורים בהנאה ושאר האילן מותר וכן‬ ‫המשתחוה לאילן אע"פ שלא נאסר גופו‬ ‫כל השריגים והעלים והלולבין והפירות‬ ‫שיוציא כל זמן שהוא נעבד הרי אלו‬ ‫אסורין בהנאה אילן שהיו העובדי כוכבים‬ ‫משמרין את פירותיו ואומרים שהם‬ ‫מוכנים לעשות שכר לבית עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫פלוני ועושין מהן שכר ושותים אותו ביום‬ ‫חגם הרי זה האילן אסור בהנאה מפני‬ ‫שסתמו שהוא אשרה ולפיכך עושין‬ :‫בפירותיו כך שזו היא חוקה של אשרה‬

Similarly, when a person bows down to a tree, even though the tree itself is not forbidden, it is forbidden to benefit from all the branches, leaves, sprouts, and fruits which it produces during the time it is worshiped. When gentiles guard the fruits of a tree and say that they are designated to be used to make alcoholic beverages for a particular pagan temple, and [the fruits] are used for alcoholic beverages which are drunken on their pagan holidays, it is forbidden to benefit from this tree. This is the ritual associated with an asherah. Accordingly, we can assume that [the tree] is an asherah, and therefore its fruits will be used for such purposes.

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

7 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

Commentary on Halachah 3 When a Jew stands a brick up with the intention of bowing down to it, but does not bow down to it - Were the scenario to be completed at this point, the brick would not be forbidden, because an object of worship does not become forbidden until it is actually worshiped. and then a gentile comes and bows down to it - serving it as a false deity benefit from [the brick] becomes forbidden, because standing it up is considered to be a deed. - The explanation of this law (quoted from Avodah Zarah 46a) depends on the difference of interpretation between the Beit Yosef and the Or Sameach mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1. According to the Or Sameach, who maintains that a gentile cannot cause property belonging to a Jew to become forbidden, this law can be explained as follows: Although the gentile's actions would not generally cause the brick to become forbidden, since the Jew indicated his desire to worship the brick, we assume that he is pleased with the gentile's act. Therefore, it becomes forbidden. According to the Beit Yosef's opinion (see Yoreh De'ah 145), which maintains that a gentile can cause a Jew's property to become forbidden, this passage teaches us that the Jew's act is considered sufficient to cause the brick to become forbidden. Similarly, if he - a Jew stands an egg up and a gentile comes and bows down to it, it becomes forbidden. - This situation is left as an unresolved question in Avodah Zarah (ibid.). Rashi explains that the question is whether standing up an egg is, like standing up a brick, a significant act, or whether, because an egg is much smaller than a brick, standing it up is of no significance. Because the question is left unresolved, the Rambam follows the more severe view. This and the previous law indicate that for a Jew's acceptance of idol worship to be significant in this context, it is necessary for him to perform a deed; a verbal statement or thought is of no consequence. If one cuts off a gourd or the like and bows down to it, it is forbidden. - As long as a plant is attached to its source, the fact that it is worshiped does not cause it to be forbidden, as explained in Halachah 1. When, however, it is cut off and worshiped, it becomes forbidden. Even when one bows down to only half the gourd and the other half is still attached to it, it is forbidden because of the doubt involved. Perhaps the second half is considered to be a handle for the half which was worshiped. - The Ra'avad objects to this decision, stating that the principle of considering one object as a "handle" of another applies only with regard to questions of ritual purity, and not regarding the prohibition of articles because of their connection with idol worship. Though Rashi's interpretation of Chulin 128a appears to support the Ra'avad's view, the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz explain that the passage can also be interpreted according to the Rambam's perspective. It is forbidden to benefit from a tree which was planted for the purpose of being worshiped. - Although, as stated in Halachah 1, worshiping a tree does not cause it to become forbidden, since at the time the tree was planted it could be "manipulated by man," idol worship could cause it to become forbidden. This is the asherah that the Torah mentions - in Exodus 34:13 and in Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3. There are many more references in the works of the prophets. See Chapter 6, note 28, which describes the worship of asherot. Note also the statements of the Zohar (Vol. I, 49a), which associate the rites of an asherah with the worship of the moon. When a tree which had been planted previously - not for the pupose of idol worship was pruned and carved for the sake of idol worship - even if it was extended - 18‫ הכרבה‬refers to a technique quite popular as a means of extending vines. A large branch of the original vine is implanted into the ground. It becomes the base from which a new vine sprouts. or a growth was grafted onto the trunk of the tree - and branches grew, one must cut off [these] branches, and benefit from them is forbidden. - Since these branches come about as a result of a human activity carried out for the sake of idol worship, they are forbidden. The remainder of the tree, however, is permitted. - Although a deed was carried out with the tree itself, the tree - unlike the animals mentioned in Halachah 1 - does not become forbidden (Avodah Zarah 48a).

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

8 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

Similarly, when a person bows down to a tree, even though the tree itself is not forbidden, it is forbidden to benefit from all the branches, leaves, sprouts, and fruits which it produces during the time it is worshiped. - All the fruits and branches that are growing on the tree when it is first worshiped are permitted. The prohibition only applies to those which begin growing from the time the tree was worshiped (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 145:5). When gentiles guard the fruits of a tree and say that they are designated to be used to make alchoholic beverages for a particular pagan temple, and [the fruits] are - known to be used for alchoholic beverages which are - customarily drunken on their pagan holidays, it is forbidden to benefit from this tree. - Avodah Zarah (ibid.) mentions this law with regard to date palms in Babylon that were set aside for the purpose of making beer for pagan celebrations. This is the ritual associated with an asherah. - Thus, we see that its worship also involved Bacchanalian rites. Accordingly, we can assume that [the tree] is an asherah, and therefore its fruits will be used for such purposes. Although we generally do not accept a gentile's word, we accept his statements in this instance, since the circumstances attest to their genuineness.

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

9 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

[The following rules apply to] a tree under which a false deity was placed: It is forbidden to benefit from it as long as the deity is located under it. When it is removed, we are permitted [to benefit] from it, since the tree itself is not the entity which was worshiped. When a gentile constructs a building with the intention that the building itself be worshiped, and, similarly, when a person bows down to a building that has already been constructed, they become forbidden. When a [building] which had already been constructed, was plastered and embellished for the sake of worship to the extent that it is considered to be a new entity, one must remove all the new additions, and it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with the intention of being worshiped. It is, however, permitted to benefit from the remainder of the building.

‫אילן שמעמידין תחתיו עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים כל זמן שהיא תחתיו אסור‬ ‫בהנאה נטלה מתחתיו הרי זה מותר מפני‬ ‫שאין האילן עצמו הוא הנעבד בית שבנאו‬ ‫העובד כוכבים מתחלה שיהא הבית עצמו‬ ‫נעבד וכן המשתחוה לבית בנוי הרי זה‬ ‫אסור בהנאה היה בנוי וסיידו וכיירו לשם‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים עד שנתחדש נוטל מה‬ ‫שחידש והחידוש אסור בהנאה מפני‬ ‫שעשאהו לעובדו ושאר הבית מותר הכניס‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים לתוך הבית כל זמן שהיא‬ ‫שם הבית אסור בהנאה הוציאה הותר‬ ‫הבית וכן אבן שחצבה מתחילה לעובדה‬ ‫אסורה בהנאה היתה חצובה וציירה‬ ‫וכיירה שתעבד אפילו צייר וכייר בגוף‬ ‫האבן ואין צריך לומר אם כייר עליה נוטל‬ ‫מה שחידש והוא אסור בהנאה הואיל‬ :‫ונעשה שיעבד ושאר האבן מותר‬

If one placed an idol within a house, it is forbidden to benefit from the house while the idol is located within. When it is removed, the house becomes permitted. Similarly, it is forbidden to benefit from a stone which was hewn from a mountain with the intention that it be worshiped. If it had already been hewn out, but was adorned and embellished with the intention that it be worshiped - even if the stone itself was adorned and embellished and, needless to say, if the adornment was added to it - one must remove all the new additions, and it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with the intention of being worshiped. It is, however, permitted to benefit from the remainder of the stone. Commentary on Halachah 4 [The following rules apply to] a tree under which a false deity was placed: - See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11, which explains (based on Avodah Zarah 48a) that such a tree is also considered to be an asherah. It is forbidden to benefit from it as long as the deity is located under it. - Rabbenu Nissim explains that this prohibition

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

10 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

applies only when the tree was originally planted for this purpose. Otherwise, as in an instance when the tree itself is worshiped (see Halachah 1), it is not forbidden. Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 47b) do not accept this view. They explain that, although according to Torah law (‫)מדאורייתא‬, the tree is permitted, the Rabbis forbade deriving benefit from it as long as the false deity is located under it. From the Rambam's inclusion of this law in this halachah, it would appear that he subscribes to the latter view. Though the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 145:6) quotes this law without specifying that the tree must be planted for this intent, the Siftei Cohen (145:19) mentions this factor. When it is removed - The Rambam's phraseology differs slightly from his source, Avodah Zarah (ibid.), which states, "when it (the deity) is negated." we are permitted [to benefit] from it - The Kessef Mishneh explains that, in contrast to the previous halachah, in this instance even the branches of the tree which grew while the deity was located under the tree are permitted since the tree itself is not the entity which was worshiped. When a gentile - The Rambam mentions a gentile in this instance because, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 4, a false deity made by a gentile is prohibited immediately. In contrast, if it was made by a Jew, it is not forbidden until it was worshiped. constructs a building with the intention that the building itself be worshiped, and, similarly, when a person bows down to a building that has already been constructed, they become forbidden. - Although a building that has already been constructed is connected to the earth, and thus cannot be "manipulated by man," it can still become forbidden. Avodah Zarah 47b explains that since the building materials were originally separate from the earth, the fact that they were later attached to the earth is of no significance. The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1492) and other authorities note that in other places in the Mishneh Torah - e.g., Hilchot Me'ilah 5:5 - the Rambam considers a house, like a mountain or a tree, to be an article which is attached to the earth and beyond man's control. The Radbaz explains that the more stringent position was adopted in our particular instance because of the serious nature of the prohibition against the worship of false deities. When a [building] which had already been constructed, was plastered and embellished - with artistic forms (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:7) for the sake of worship - This also refers to an instance where the building itself is worshiped, and not where it is merely serving as a shrine for the worship of other deities. to the extent that it is considered to be a new entity, one must remove all the new additions - If the house belonged to a gentile, it is unnecessary for all the additions to be removed. After making minor changes to nullify the house's connection with worship, benefiting from it is permissible (Turei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah 145:8). and it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with the intention of being worshiped. - If these "improvements" were made by a Jew, his intent is not taken into consideration and the prohibition takes effect only if the building is actually worshiped. It is, however, permitted to benefit from the remainder of the building - since it was not constructed with a forbidden intent. If one placed an idol within a house, it is forbidden to benefit from the house while the idol is located within. - Although the house was not originally constructed to be a shrine, as long as it serves this purpose, it is forbidden to benefit from it. When it is removed, the house becomes permitted. - The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 145:3) relates that if the house was originally constructed to be a shrine for a false deity, the removal of the idol is not sufficient to cause it to become permitted. Rather, the connection it shares with idol worship must be nullified. Furthermore, such nullification is effective only when the house is owned by a gentile. If it is owned by a Jew, the nullification is of no consequence. Similarly, it is forbidden to benefit from a stone which was hewn from a mountain with the intention that it be worshiped. - Note the differences in the laws involving Jews and gentiles mentioned above. If it had already been hewn out, but was adorned and embellished with the intention that it be worshiped - even if the stone itself was adorned and embellished - i.e.,the substance of the stone was itself carved and and, needless to say, if the adornment was - from other substances that were

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

11 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

added to it - one - a Jew, see above regarding a gentile must remove all the new additions, and it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with the intention of being worshiped. It is, however, permitted to benefit from the remainder of the stone - since it was hewn from the ground without a forbidden intent.

A stone on which an idol is placed is forbidden as long as the idol is upon it. Once [the idol] is removed, it is permitted. When a person's house which is located next to [a shrine of] an idol falls, it is forbidden for him to rebuild it. What must he do? He must move [the wall] within his own four cubits, and then rebuild it. The empty space must not be left free for the sake of the shrine of the idol. Rather, he should fill it with thorns or feces. If the wall belonged jointly to both a private individual and an idol, it should be considered to belong to them equally. It is permitted to benefit from his half; the [half] belonging to the idol, however, is forbidden. [Similarly,] it is forbidden to benefit from all [the wall's] stones, beams, and earth.

‫אבן שהעמיד עליה עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫הרי זו אסורה כל זמן שהיא עליה‬ ‫סלקה האבן מותרת מי שהיה ביתו סמוך‬ ‫לעבודת כוכבים ונפל אסור לבנותו כיצד‬ ‫יעשה כונס לתוך שלו ובונה ואותו הריוח‬ ‫ממלאהו קוצים או צואה כדי שלא ירחיב‬ ‫לבית עבודת כוכבים היה הכותל שלו ושל‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים ידון מחצה למחצה מחצה‬ ‫שלו מותר בהנאה ושל עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫הכל אסור בהנאה אבניו עציו ועפרו הכל‬ :‫אסור בהנאה‬

Commentary on Halachah 5 A stone on which an idol is placed is forbidden as long as the idol is upon it - even though it was not originally hewn out for this intention. Once [the idol] is removed, it is permitted. - In this case as well, we must assume that the stone was not originally hewn out for this intention. Otherwise, the prohibition would continue even after the idol was removed. When a person's house which is located next to [a shrine of] - Rashi, Avodah Zarah 47a, states that this refers to a house which is itself worshiped. an idol - The commentaries explain that the person's house and the shrine share a single wall. The wall is located, however, on property belonging to the shrine. falls, it is forbidden for him to rebuild it - to its former boundaries. By rebuilding the wall, the person completes the construction of the idol's shrine. What must he do? He must move [the wall] within his own four cubits - The Rambam's text of the source of this halachah, the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:6, does not mention "four cubits," nor is this phrase included in many manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The intent appears to be that he should move the wall entirely onto his own property. Other authorities, however, include this phrase in the Mishnah. According to their view (which is accepted by the Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 143:2), one must leave open a space of four cubits. and then rebuild it. The empty space must not be left free for the sake of the shrine of the idol - lest the shrine be expanded. Rather, he should fill it with thorns or feces. - Avodah Zarah 47b states that the space should be used "as an outhouse for

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

12 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

children." If the wall belonged jointly to both a private individual and an idol - i.e., the space upon which the wall originally stood belonged to both. Therefore, when the property lines are drawn again, it should be considered to belong to them equally. - This is the common practice when a wall falls. (See Bava Batra 1:1.) It is permitted to benefit from his half - Though he must leave an open space between the wall he builds and the wall of the shrine, he may include his portion of the area from the fallen wall as part of this space (Beit Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 143). the [half] belonging to the idol, however, is forbidden - and cannot be included in the open space. [Similarly,] it is forbidden to benefit from all [the wall's] stones, beams, and earth. - Our translation follows Rashi's commentary. Rabbenu Nissim maintains that if the wall was built jointly by the two parties, the Jew is entitled to half of the building materials. Nevertheless, even though he follows this view in principle, in practice, he forbids the Jew from using any of the building materials which he does not recognize as his own. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) quotes Rabbenu Nissim's view.

How must one destroy a false deity and the other entities which are forbidden on its account - e.g., its accessories and offerings? One must grind them and scatter [the dust] in the wind, or burn them and deposit the ashes in the Dead Sea.

‫כיצד מאבד עבודת כוכבים ושאר‬ ‫דברים האסורים בגללה כגון משמשיה‬ ‫ותקרובת שלה שוחק וזורה לרוח או שורף‬ :‫ומטיל לים המלח‬

Commentary on Halachah 6 How must one destroy a false deity - The placement of this halachah appears problematic. On the surface, it would have been more appropriate to relate it after Chapter 7, Halachah 1, which mentions the commandment to destroy idol worship, or after the following halachah, which completes the description of the types of articles that are forbidden because of their association with idol worship. Perhaps, since the prohibition against benefiting from the coating of an idol is considered to be a mitzvah in its own right, the Rambam concludes his discussion of the mitzvah to destroy prohibited articles before entering that subject (Kinat Eliyahu). and the other entities which are forbidden on its account - e.g., its accessories and offerings? - See Chapter 7, Halachot 2 and 9. One must grind them and scatter [the dust] in the wind - The Sages objected to this opinion, maintaining that the dust will serve as fertilizer, and thus benefit man. This objection is not accepted, since the fertilizer is not the only factor causing the crops to grow (see the commentary on Chapter 7, Halachah 14, which describes the concept of 18‫הז םרוג‬á‫)הזו‬, and it was not intentionally used for this purpose (Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 43a). or burn them and deposit the ashes in the Dead Sea. - See the commentary on Chapter 7, Halachah 5, which explains why the Dead Sea is mentioned. The Merchevat HaMishneh cites Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 11:3, which states: How must chametz be destroyed? It may be burned, crumbled and tossed to the wind, or thrown to the sea. On this basis, he explains that there are three options to destroy a false deity: grinding and tossing it to the wind, burning (where the article must be destroyed), and throwing it into the Dead Sea. Since the Dead Sea is a barren place, which is not frequented by ships, the article need not be destroyed. Even if it is left whole, we assume that no benefit will come from it to man. This interpretation is not accepted by all authorities. Tosafot (ibid.) maintains that even an idol tossed into the Dead Sea must be destroyed first. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:15) mentions letting an idol sink "in the sea" (not "the Dead Sea"), without requiring that it be destroyed first. The Siftei Cohen (145:13) and the Turei Zahav (145:11), however, require an idol to be destroyed before it is deposited in any sea other than the Dead Sea.

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

13 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

Although [as mentioned above,] an entity which cannot be manipulated by man - e.g., a mountain, animal, or tree - even when worshiped remains permitted, it is forbidden to benefit from its coatings. A person who derives any benefit from them whatsoever is [liable for] lashes, as [Deuteronomy 7:25] states: "Do not desire the silver and gold which are upon them."

‫דבר שאין בו תפיסת יד אדם שנעבד‬ ‫כגון הרים ובהמה ואילן אף על פי‬ ‫שהנעבד עצמו מותר בהנאה ציפויו אסור‬ ‫בהנאה והנהנה בכל שהוא מהן לוקה‬ ‫שנאמר לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם וכל‬ ‫ציפויי עבודת כוכבים הרי הן בכלל‬ :‫משמשיה‬

Any coating of a false deity is considered to be one of its accessories. Commentary on Halachah 7 Although [as mentioned above,] an entity which cannot be manipulated by man - e.g., a mountain, animal, or tree even when worshiped remains permitted - Though, as mentioned in Halachah 1, benefit from these entities is not forbidden, their worship is still considered to be idol worship. Therefore, it is forbidden to benefit from its coatings - since they are considered to be an accessory of idol worship. Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 22) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 428) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. A person who derives any benefit from them whatsoever is [liable for] lashes - The commentaries note that in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, the Rambam states that a person who benefits from an idol or its accessories receives two measures of lashes. Thus, one might assume that for this transgression, one should receive two or three measures of lashes. (See the Ramban, Hasagot l'Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 194.) Avodat HaMelech explains that since the deity itself is not forbidden, this prohibition is considered to be a separate commandment. Accordingly, its transgression is not related to any other prohibitions. as [Deuteronomy 7:25] states: "Do not desire the silver and gold which are upon them." - Although, literally, the subject of the Biblical proof-text is "the statues of their gods," the interpretation quoted by the Rambam has its source in Avodah Zarah 45a. Any coating of - Though the verse mentions only silver and gold, any substance which was intended to adorn an entity worshiped as a false deity is considered to be one of its accessories - and forbidden.

It is permitted to benefit from a false deity belonging to a gentile whose deification was nullified [by gentiles] before it entered the possession of a Jew, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states, "You must burn the statues of their gods with fire." [This command applies] only if they are treated as gods when they enter our possession. If, however, their deification was nullified, they are permitted.

‫עבודת כוכבים של עובדי כוכבים‬ ‫שבטלוה קודם שתבא לידי ישראל‬ ‫הרי זו מותרת בהנאה שנאמר פסילי‬ ‫אלהיהם תשרפון באש כשבאו לידינו והן‬ ‫נוהגין בהם אלהות אבל אם בטלום הרי‬ :‫אלו מותרין‬

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

14 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

Commentary on Halachah 8 It is permitted to benefit from a false deity belonging to a gentile - but not one belonging to a Jew, as explained in the following halachah. That halachah also states that the gentile must be an idolater. If he does not worship idols, different rules apply. whose deification was nullified - by performing one of the deeds mentioned in Halachah 10 by gentiles - but not by Jews (see the following halachah) before - but not after, (see the following halachah.) it entered the possession of a Jew, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states, "You must burn the statues of their gods with fire." - Avodah Zarah 52a notes that the root ‫ לספ‬can mean both "statue" and "nullify." Thus, it comments, "Which is the source from where we learn that a gentile can nullify his deity? 'You must burn the statues of their gods.'" K'nesset HaGedolah notes a difficulty in this halachah, based on the principle that two new concepts cannot be derived from the same verse. Avodah Zarah, ibid., mentions that the same phrase is quoted as the source for both this concept and the law stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 4. It therefore seeks to derive one of these laws from a different source. The Rambam, however, quotes the same phrase as the proof-text for both laws. K'nesset HaGedolah and the Lechem Mishneh explain - using this as an example for a principle that applies throughout the Mishneh Torah - that the Rambam's goal was to present the laws in the manner which it could be most easily appreciated by a reader, even if in doing so he did not follow all the principles of Biblical exegesis accepted by the Talmud. [This command applies] only if they are treated as gods when they enter our possession. If, however, their deification was nullified, they are permitted - and may be used for whatever purposes a Jew desires. It appears, however, that they are forbidden to be used for the Temple's purposes, even after they were nullified.

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

15 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

A false deity belonging to a Jew can never be nullified. Even if he owns it in partnership with a gentile, its nullification is of no consequence. Rather, it is forbidden to benefit from it forever, and it must be entombed. Similarly, when a false deity belonging to a gentile enters the possession of a Jew, and then is nullified by a gentile, the nullification is of no consequence, and it is forbidden to benefit from it forever. A Jew cannot nullify a false deity even when it is in the possession of a gentile. A gentile who is a minor or a fool cannot nullify a false deity. When a gentile is forced to nullify a false deity - whether it belongs to him or to other gentiles, even when he is forced to do so by Jews - the nullification is of consequence. The gentile who nullifies idol worship must himself be an idolater. If he is not an idolater, his nullification is of no consequence.

‫עבודת כוכבים של ישראל אינה‬ ‫בטלה לעולם אפילו היה לעובד‬ ‫כוכבים בה שותפות אין ביטולו מועיל‬ ‫כלום אלא אסורה בהנאה לעולם וטעונה‬ ‫גניזה וכן עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים‬ ‫שבאת ליד ישראל ואח"כ בטלה העובד‬ ‫כוכבים אין ביטולו מועיל כלום אלא‬ ‫אסורה בהנאה לעולם ואין ישראל מבטל‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים ואפילו ברשות עובד‬ ‫כוכבים עובד כוכבים קטן או שוטה אינו‬ ‫מבטל עבודת כוכבים ועובד כוכבים שבטל‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים בין שלו בין של עובדי‬ ‫כוכבים אחרים בעל כרחו אע"פ שאנסו‬ ‫ישראל על כך הרי זו בטילה ובלבד שיהא‬ ‫העובד כוכבים המבטל עובד עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים אבל מי שאינו עובד עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים אין ביטולו ביטול המבטל עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים ביטל משמשיה ביטל משמשיה‬ ‫משמשיה מותרים והיא אסורה בהנאה‬ ‫כמו שהיתה עד שיבטלנה ותקרובת עבודת‬ :‫כוכבים אינה בטילה לעולם‬

When [a gentile] nullifies a false deity, he also nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories. When he nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories, it is permitted to benefit from the accessories. [The deity] itself, however, remains forbidden until it is nullified. [The connection to idol worship of] an object that was brought to an idol as an offering can never be nullified. Commentary on Halachah 9 A false deity belonging to a Jew can never be nullified. - Since a Jew's sin of idol worship is more severe than a gentile's, it is forbidden to derive benefit from the object of that worship forever. Even if he owns it in partnership with a gentile, its nullification is of no consequence. - Avodah Zarah 53a explains that we consider the Jew to have worshiped the idol through his own process of choice, and not merely as a result of the gentile's influence. Therefore, even though the gentile nullifies his portion, the idol is still forbidden because of the Jew. Rather, it is forbidden to benefit from it forever, and it must be entombed. - Avodah Zarah 52a derives this from Deuteronomy 27:15: "Cursed be the man who makes an idol... and places it in a secret place." We can infer: What must be done with an idol made by a Jew? It must be placed in a "secret place" - i.e., entombed.

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

16 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

The Kessef Mishneh and others question why a Jew's idol should be entombed instead of destroyed, as required in Halachah 6. [Note that Tosafot, Avodah Zarah, ibid., interpret the Hebrew genizah to mean "destruction," rather than entombment, in this instance.] Avodat HaMelech explains that since the concept is derived from a Biblical proof-text, there is no difficulty. It is all a matter of Divine decree. In one instance, God desires that the false deities be destroyed, while in another instance He desires that they be entombed. Similarly, when a false deity - Note that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:2) distinguishes between a false deity itself and its accessories and adornments, stating that the latter may be nullified by a gentile even after they have been acquired by a Jew. belonging to a gentile enters the possession of a Jew, and then is nullified by a gentile, the nullification is of no consequence - The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 146) explains that this is a Rabbinic decree. and it is forbidden to benefit from it forever. - Therefore, whenever a Jew wants to take possession of a false deity, he must have it nullified by a gentile before he assumes ownership of it. A Jew cannot nullify a false deity - An idol can be nullified as a divinity only by a person who once attached importance to it. Since a Jew is, in essence, a believer in the true God, his attachment to idols is merely superficial. Hence, his acts can have no effect upon them. even when it is in the possession of a gentile. - The Kessef Mishneh explains that this decision applies even when the gentile gives the Jew permission to nullify it. A gentile who is a minor or a fool cannot nullify a false deity. - Avodah Zarah 43a relates the following narrative: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi related: Once I was following Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great on a road. He found a ring with the imprint of a d'rakon (see Chapter 7, Halachah 8) on it. He passed a gentile child without saying anything to him. Afterwards, he met a gentile adult and asked him to nullify it. He refused. Rabbi Elazar struck him and he nullified it. We learn from this three things: a) a gentile can nullify an idol whether it belongs to him or to his colleague; b) a gentile who is knowledgeable about idol worship can nullify it, while one who is not knowledgeable cannot nullify it; c) a gentile's nullification of idol worship is effective even if he is compelled to do so. Neither a minor nor a fool is considered "knowledgeable about idol worship." hence, their nullification is not acceptable. When a gentile is forced to nullify a false deity - whether it belongs to him or to other gentiles - even when he is forced to do so by Jews, the nullification is of consequence. The gentile who nullifies idol worship must himself be an idolater. - It does not, however, matter whether the idolater worships the particular idol he nullifies or not. For example, a worshiper of Pe'or can nullify a shrine of Marculis (Avodah Zarah 64b). If he is not an idolater, his nullification is of no consequence. - Avodah Zarah (ibid.) states that a ger toshav - a gentile who accepts the observance of the seven universal laws given to Noach and his descendants - cannot nullify an idol. As stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 6, a ger toshav must formalize his acceptance of these laws before a Rabbinic court. Also, the laws of a ger toshav apply only during the era when the Jubilee year is observed. Nevertheless, from Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 11:7 and 13:11, it appears that even a gentile who observes the seven Noachide laws cannot nullify an idol in the present era. There, the Rambam explains that the Moslems are not considered to be idolaters regarding the laws of yayin nesech. Thus, it can be assumed that their nullification of idol worship would not be of consequence. See also the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:2) and the Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 124:5), which appear to accept this decision. When [a gentile] nullifies a false deity, he also nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories - and it becomes permitted to benefit from them. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 146:13) states that this law applies even if a Jew had already taken possession of the accessories, so long as the false deity remained in the possession of the gentile. When he nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories, it is permitted to benefit from the accessories. [The deity] itself, however, remains forbidden until it is nullified. - On the contrary, the fact that the gentile did not nullify the false deity itself indicates that he still has some reverence for it. [The connection to idol worship of] an object that was brought to an idol as an offering - whether it was brought by a Jew or gentile

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

17 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

can never be nullified. - From Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 6:7, it appears that this decision applies only to foods which were offered to a false deity. If other articles were brought as offerings, different laws apply.

How is [an idol] nullified? When one cuts off the tip of its nose, the tip of its ear, or the tip of its finger, smoothes out its face - even though none of its substance was destroyed - or sells it to a Jewish jeweler, it is nullified. If, however, one gave it as security for a loan, sold it to a gentile, [sold it] to a Jew who is not a jeweler, [left it] after it was covered by fallen articles without removing them, did not demand its return after it was stolen by thieves, spat in its face, urinated upon it, dragged it [in mud], or threw feces upon it, it is not nullified.

‫כיצד מבטלה קטע ראש חוטמה ראש‬ ‫אזנה ראש אצבעה פחסה בפניה אף‬ ‫על פי שלא חסרה או שמכרה לצורף‬ ‫ישראל הרי זו בטילה אבל אם משכנה או‬ ‫מכרה לעובד כוכבים או לישראל שאינו‬ ‫צורף או שנפלה עליה מפולת ולא פינה‬ ‫גנבוה לסטים ולא תבעוה רקק בפניה‬ ‫השתין בפניה גררה זרק בה את הצואה‬ :‫הרי זו אינה בטילה‬

Commentary on Halachah 10

How is [an idol] nullified - by a gentile, as mentioned in Halachah 8? When one cuts off the tip of its nose, the tip of its ear, or the tip of its finger - By doing so, one mars its appearance and thus reveals that one no longer regards it with reverence. smooths out its face - Our translation follows the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:4). Others (see Rashi, Avodah Zarah 53a) render it as "smashes its face." even though none of its substance was destroyed - Once the face of an idol is no longer recognizable, the idol is obviously not considered to be a deity. The Rambam emphasizes that it is only when the face of the idol is smoothed out that it is nullified. Smoothing out any other portion of the idol is not effective. or sells it to a Jewish jeweler - By doing so, the gentile implies his willingness to have the Jew smelt down the idol to its precious metal value. Thus, he obviously no longer considers it to be a god. This point is debated in Avodah Zarah 53a, and no explicit conclusion is reached. Most other authorities (and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 146:8) maintain that selling it to a Jewish jeweler is insufficient to nullify it. it is nullified. - Note the Ramah's decision (Yoreh De'ah 146:7) that making a verbal statement is sufficient to nullify it as an idol in most cases. A deed such as those mentioned above is necessary only when a gentile is compelled to nullify it. If, however, one gave it as security for a loan, sold it to a gentile - even a jeweler [sold it] to a Jew who is not a jeweler - In these instances, although the gentile used the idol for business purposes, it is still possible that he sold it with the intent that the purchaser use the idol as a god. Hence, we cannot be certain that it was nullified by the seller. [left it] after it was covered by fallen articles without removing them, did not demand its return after it was stolen by thieves - Such acts appear to indicate that the gentile has little reverence for his idol. (Why should he? Once he sees that the idol cannot save itself, why should he think that it will benefit him?) Nevertheless, as long as he does not do anything that explicitly clarifies that he no longer reveres it, it is not nullified. spat in its face, urinated upon it, dragged it [in mud] - The bracketed additions are based on Rashi's commentary (Avodah Zarah, ibid.).

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

18 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

or threw feces upon it - Although these acts are irreverent in nature, they could be interpreted as temporary expressions of anger rather than a sincere nullification of the idol's divinity. it is not nullified. - Avodah Zarah 53a derives this from the exegesis of Isaiah 8:21-22, which implies that though temporarily the people may "curse their king and god (idol) and look upward (to the true God)," shortly afterwards they will return and "look to the earth" (worship their idol again).

When a false deity was abandoned by its worshipers in a time of peace, it is apparent that they nullified it. Hence, benefit may be derived from it. [If it was abandoned] in a time of war, it is forbidden. The only reason they abandoned it was the war. When a false deity becomes broken in the course of nature, it is forbidden to benefit from its broken pieces until they have been nullified. Accordingly, when a person finds broken pieces of an idol, [he must regard them] as forbidden, lest the gentiles have not nullified them.

‫עבודת כוכבים שהניחוה עובדיה‬ ‫בשעת שלום מותרת בהנאה שהרי‬ ‫בטלוה בשעת מלחמה אסורה מפני שלא‬ ‫הניחוה אלא מפני המלחמה עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים שנשברה מאליה שבריה אסורים‬ ‫בהנאה עד שיבטלוה לפיכך המוצא שברי‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים הרי אלו אסורין בהנאה‬ ‫שמא לא בטלוה העובדי כוכבים ואם‬ ‫היתה של פרקים והדיוט יכול להחזירם‬ ‫צריך לבטל כל פרק ופרק מפרקיה ואם‬ ‫אינו יכול להחזיר כיון שביטל אבר אחד‬ :‫ממנה בטלו כל השברים‬

[The following principles apply to an idol] which comes in pieces: If it could be reassembled by an ordinary person, each piece must be nullified individually. If [an ordinary person] could not reassemble it, once one has nullified one of its limbs, all of them are nullified. Commentary on Halachah 11 When a false deity was abandoned by its worshipers in a time of peace, it is apparent that they nullified it. - Were they still to worship it, they would not have abandoned it. Note Avodah Zarah 53b, which applies these principles to the Tower of Babel. Hence, benefit may be derived from it. [If it was abandoned] in a time of war, it is forbidden. The only reason they abandoned it was the war. - Note the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:10) which states that if the gentiles could return to the idol but do not, it is considered to have been nullified. When a false deity becomes broken in the course of nature, it is forbidden to benefit from its broken pieces until they have been nullified. - Avodah Zarah 41b quotes a difference of opinion on this matter between Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan. Resh Lakish maintains that we can assume that the gentiles nullified their worship of the idol. If it could not save itself, surely it cannot save them. Rabbi Yochanan does not accept this opinion and maintains that even when an idol is broken it is revered. Avodah Zarah 49b states that the gentiles would even worship the broken pieces of an idol. (See also the Jerusalem Talmud, Avodah Zarah 3:3.) Accordingly, when a person finds broken pieces of an idol, [he must regard them] as forbidden, lest the gentiles have not nullified them. - Avodah Zarah 41b explains that although the possibility exists that the idol was nullified, we must still regard it as forbidden. Since it is recognized as an idol, the prohibition against using it becomes an established fact, which cannot be changed until we are certain that it has been nullified as an object of worship. (Note also our commentary on Chapter 7, Halachah 7.)

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

19 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

[The following principles apply to an idol] which comes in pieces: If it could be reassembled by an ordinary person the fact that it is broken is not of consequence. Indeed, the laws which govern it are more stringent than if it remained whole. each piece must be nullified individually - for each is considered to be a separate entity. If [an ordinary person] could not reassemble it, once one has nullified one of its limbs, all of them are nullified. - Since the idol is broken and cannot be reassembled by an ordinary person, it is treated more leniently, and if one part of it is nullified, the entire idol becomes permitted. In contrast to the Ra'avad and some other authorities, the Rambam does require that at least this minimal nullification be carried out. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:11) follows the Rambam's view.

Though an altar for idol worship has been damaged, it is still forbidden to benefit from it until the majority of it has been destroyed by gentiles. A platform which has been damaged is permitted. What is considered a platform, and what, an altar? A platform consists of a single stone; an altar, of many stones. How are the stones of Marculis nullified? When one constructs a building from them or uses them to pave the roads or the like, it is permitted to benefit from them. How is an asherah nullified? When one pulls off a leaf, cuts off a branch, takes a staff or scepter from it, or planes off its sides in a manner which does not benefit it, it is nullified. When one planes its sides in a manner which benefits it, it is forbidden, but its shavings are permitted.

‫מזבח עבודת כוכבים שנפגם עדין‬ ‫הוא אסור בהנאה עד שינתץ רובו‬ ‫ביד עובד כוכבים ובימוס שנפגם מותר אי‬ ‫זהו בימוס ואי זהו מזבח בימוס אבן אחת‬ ‫מזבח אבנים הרבה וכיצד מבטלין אבני‬ ‫מרקוליס כיון שבנה מהם בנין או חיפה‬ ‫בהן את הדרכים וכיוצא באלו הרי הן‬ ‫מותרים בהנאה כיצד מבטלים את‬ ‫האשרה קרסם ממנה עלה או זרק ממנה‬ ‫יונק נטל ממנה מקל או שרביט או‬ ‫ששפאה שלא לצרכה הרי זו בטלה שפאה‬ ‫לצרכה היא אסורה ושפאיה מותרים ואם‬ ‫היתה של ישראל בין לצרכה בין שלא‬ ‫לצרכה בין היא ובין שפאיה אסורה לעולם‬ ‫שעבודת כוכבים של ישראל אין לה ביטול‬ :‫לעולם‬

If [the sides of] an asherah which belongs to a Jew [are planed off], both it and its shavings are forbidden forever, regardless of whether [it was planed] for its benefit or not, because a false deity belonging to a Jew can never be nullified. Commentary on Halachah 12 Though an altar for idol worship has been damaged, it is still forbidden to benefit from it until the majority of it has been destroyed - Avodah Zarah 54a cites an allusion to this law in Isaiah 27:9: "All the stones of the altar will be as chalkstones that are cracked open." by gentiles. - As stated in Halachah 9, the nullification of false deities must be performed by gentiles.

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

20 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

A platform which has been damaged is permitted. - Avodah Zarah 53b relates that since a platform consists of only a single stone, if it is damaged another one will be brought to replace it. Halachah 5 states that once an idol is removed from a stone, one is permitted to benefit from it. Thus, we are forced to say that this law is speaking about an instance where the stone is presently being used as a platform. It can be interpreted as applying when the damage happens as a matter of course. The Rambam is teaching us that even though the stone is being used as a platform at present, since it will soon be replaced, it is permitted. Alternatively, it is speaking about a stone which was originally hewn out to be used as a platform. In such an instance, the damage must be purposely caused by a gentile with the intention of nullifying the platform. What is considered a platform, and what, an altar? A platform consists of a single stone; an altar, of many stones. Rather than differentiate between them because of the functions they serve, explaining that a platform is used to place idols upon, and an altar, to bring sacrifices, the Rambam (based on Avodah Zarah, ibid.,) considers size the determinant. How are the stones of Marculis nullified? - As mentioned, a shrine to Marculis consists of three stones placed one on top of the other. When one constructs a building from them or uses them to pave the roads or the like, it is permitted to benefit from them. - Avodah Zarah 50a relates that even Rabbi Menachem b'Rabbi Simai, who was called the son of the holy because he would not look at the image of a coin, lest it carry the form of an idol, would walk on such roads. How is an asherah - A tree which is worshiped or one which offers shade for an idol nullified? When one pulls off a leaf, cuts off a branch - Our translation is based on the text of the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:10) and the Rambam's commentary. A printing error appears has crept into the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah, which read ‫ זרק‬rather than ‫זרד‬. takes a staff or scepter from it, or planes off its sides in a manner which does not benefit it, it is nullified. - These actions indicate a lack of reverence for the tree. Hence, they are sufficient to nullify it. When one planes its sides in a manner which benefits it - to improve its appearance or to prune it so that it will grow better it is forbidden - Since these actions are no indication of a lack of reverence, but its shavings are permitted - since they are not worshiped. If [the sides of] an asherah which belongs to a Jew - or if a Jew does this to an asherah of a gentile [are planed off] - even by a gentile both it and its shavings - Even though the shavings will not be worshiped, since they come from a false deity which was not nullified, they also are forbidden forever, regardless of whether [it was planed] for its benefit or not, because a false deity belonging to a Jew can never be nullified - as stated in Halachah 10.

« Previous

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight - Texts & Writings

21 of 21

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912367/jewish/Avodat-...

8/20/2019 12:21 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine - Texts & Writings

1 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912368/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight

It is forbidden to purchase or sell any durable entity to an idolater within three days of one of their holidays. [Similarly, within this period, it is forbidden] to borrow from them, to lend to them, to accept payment from them or to repay them for a loan that is supported by a promissory note or collateral. It is, however, permitted to collect a loan which is supported by a verbal commitment alone, because one is saving one's property from being lost to them. It is permitted to sell them an entity which will not endure - e.g., vegetables, or a cooked dish - until the day of their festival.

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten

‫שלשה ימים לפני חגם של עובדי‬ ‫כוכבים אסור ליקח מהם ולמכור‬ ‫להם דבר המתקיים ללוות מהן ולהלוותם‬ ‫ליפרע מהן ולפרוע להם מלוה בשטר או‬ ‫על המשכון אבל מלוה על פה נפרעין מהן‬ ‫מפני שהוא כמציל מידם ומותר למכור‬ ‫להן דבר שאינו מתקיים כגון ירקות‬ ‫ותבשיל עד יום חגם במה דברים אמורים‬ ‫בארץ ישראל אבל בשאר ארצות אינו‬ ‫אסור אלא יום חגם בלבד עבר ונשא ונתן‬ ‫עמהן באותן השלשה ימים הרי זה מותר‬ ‫בהנאה והנושא ונותן ביום חגם עמהן הרי‬ :‫זה אסור בהנאה‬

When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael. In other lands, however, it is forbidden [to engage in such activities] only on the day of their festival itself. If one transgressed and did business with them during these three days, one may derive benefit from the results of these transactions. When, however, one does business with them on the day of their festival itself, it is forbidden to benefit from the results of these transactions.

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine - Texts & Writings

2 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912368/jewish/Avodat-...

It is forbidden to send a present to a gentile on one of his holidays, unless one knows that he does not acknowledge or worship idols. Similarly, if a gentile sends a present to a Jew on one of [the gentile's] holidays, the Jew should not accept it. If, however, there is the possibility of ill-feeling arising, he should take it from him. Nevertheless, he should not derive any benefit from it until he finds out that the gentile does not acknowledge or worship idols.

‫ואסור לשלוח דורון לכותי ביום אידו‬ ‫אא"כ נודע לו שאינו מודה בעבודת‬ ‫כוכבים ואינו עובדה וכן כותי ששלח דורון‬ ‫לישראל ביום חגו לא יקבלנו ממנו ואם‬ ‫חשש לאיבה נוטלו בפניו ואינו נהנה בו‬ ‫עד שיודע לו שזה הכותי אינו עובד‬ :‫כוכבים ואינו מודה בה‬

If the idolaters' festival lasts several days - whether three, four, or ten - all the days [of the festival] are considered as a single day. [Carrying out transactions] on any of these days, or on the three days preceding them, is forbidden.

‫היה אידן של אותן עכו"ם ימים הרבה‬ ‫שלשה או ארבעה או עשרה כל אותן‬ '‫הימים כיום אחד הן וכולן אסורין עם ג‬ :‫ימים לפניהן‬

The Canaanites are idol worshipers, and Sunday is their festival. Accordingly, in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to conduct transactions with them on Thursday and Friday each and every week, and, needless to say, on Sunday itself, when transactions with them are forbidden everywhere.

‫כנענים עובדי כו"ם הם ויום ראשון‬ ‫הוא יום אידם לפיכך אסור לתת‬ ‫ולשאת עמהם בארץ ישראל יום חמישי‬ ‫ויום ששי שבכל שבת ושבת ואין צריך‬ ‫לומר יום ראשון עצמו שהוא אסור בכ"מ‬ :‫וכן נוהגין עמהם בכל אידיהם‬

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine - Texts & Writings

3 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912368/jewish/Avodat-...

The day on which the idolaters gather together to crown a king and offer sacrifice and praise to their false deities is considered to be one of their holidays, since it is comparable to their other holidays. In contrast, on a day which is celebrated by an individual idolater as a festival on which he gives thanks and praise to the star he [worships] - for example, his birthday, the day on which he shaves his beard or hair, the day on which he returns from a sea-voyage, the day on which he leaves prison, the day on which he makes a [wedding] feast for his son, and the like - it is forbidden [to do business] on that particular day only with that individual man. Similarly, when [it is customary] that the day on which one of them dies is marked with festivities, it is forbidden [to do business] with those individuals on that day. Whenever [a person's] death is marked by the burning of his utensils and the offering of incense, we can assume that idol worship is [involved in the ritual].

‫יום שמתכנסין בו עובדי כוכבים‬ ‫להעמיד להן מלך ומקריבין ומקלסים‬ ‫לאלהיהם יום חגם הוא והרי הוא כשאר‬ ‫חגיהם אבל עובד כוכבים שעושה הוא חג‬ ‫לעצמו ומודה לכוכב שלו ומקלסו ביום‬ ‫שנולד בו ויום תגלחת זקנו או בלוריתו‬ ‫ויום שעלה בו מן הים ושיצא מבית‬ ‫האסורים ויום שעשה בו משתה לבנו‬ ‫וכיוצא באלו אינו אסור אלא אותו היום‬ ‫ואותו האיש בלבד וכן יום שימות להן בו‬ ‫מת ויעשוהו חג אותם העושים אסורין‬ ‫אותו היום וכל מיתה ששורפין בה כלים‬ ‫ומקטרים קטורת בידוע שיש בה עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים אין יום החג אסור אלא לעובדיה‬ ‫בלבד אבל אותם ששמחים בו ואוכלין‬ ‫ושותין ומשמרין אותו מפני מנהג או מפני‬ ‫כבוד המלך אבל הם אין מודין בו הרי אלו‬ :‫מותרין לשאת ולתת עמהן‬

The [above] prohibition applies only to those who worship [the false deity]. In contrast, it is permitted to do business with those who join in the celebrations by eating, drinking, and observing it as a matter of custom or in deference to the king.

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine - Texts & Writings

4 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912368/jewish/Avodat-...

Articles which are distinguished by their use [in the worship] of one of the false deities in a particular locale may never be sold to the worshipers of that deity in that locale. Articles which are not characterized by such uniqueness may be sold to them without enquiring [about the purpose for which they will be used]. If, however, an idolater specifically states that he is purchasing the article for the sake of idol worship, it is forbidden to sell it to him unless one blemishes it in a manner which disqualifies it for use as an offering to the idol. An animal lacking a limb is not offered as a sacrifice to an idol.

‫דברים שהן מיוחדין למין ממיני עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים שבאותו מקום אסור למכור‬ ‫לעובדי אותה עבודת כוכבים שבאותו‬ ‫המקום לעולם ודברים שאינן מיוחדין לה‬ ‫מוכרין אותם סתם ואם פירש העובד‬ ‫כוכבים שהוא קונה אותם לעבודת כוכבים‬ ‫אסור למכור לו אלא אם כן פסלו‬ ‫מלהקריבו לעבודת כוכבים לפי שאין‬ :‫מקריבין חסד לעבודת כוכבים‬

It is permitted to sell articles which are distinguished [by their use in the worship of a false deity] that are mixed together with articles that are not used for such purposes - e.g., pure frankincense with black frankincense - without enquiring [about the purpose for which they will be used]. We do not suspect that [the purchaser] will separate the pure frankincense to use for idol worship. The same applies in other similar situations.

‫היו מעורבין דברים המיוחדין עם‬ ‫דברים שאין מיוחדין כגון לבונה זכה‬ ‫בכלל לבונה שחורה מוכר הכל סתם ואין‬ ‫חוששין שמא ילקט הזכה לבדה לעבודת‬ :‫כוכבים וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

Just as it is forbidden to sell idolaters articles that assist them in idol worship, it is forbidden to sell them articles that can cause harm to many people - for example, bears, lions, weapons, fetters, and chains. [Similarly,] it is forbidden to sharpen their weapons.

‫כשם שאין מוכרין לעובד כוכבים‬ ‫דברים שמחזיקין בהן ידיהן לעבודת‬ ‫כוכבים כך אין מוכרין להם דבר שיש בו‬ ‫נזק לרבים כגון דובים ואריות וכלי זיין‬ ‫וכבלים ושלשלאות ואין משחיזין להם את‬ ‫הזיין וכל שאסור למוכרו לעובד כוכבים‬ ‫אסור למוכרו לישראל החשוד למכור‬ ‫לעובד כוכבים וכן אסור למכור כלי נזק‬ :‫לישראל ליסטם‬

Everything that is forbidden to be sold to idolaters is also forbidden to be sold to a Jew who is suspect that he will sell to idolaters. Similarly, it is forbidden to sell dangerous objects to a Jewish thief.

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine - Texts & Writings

5 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912368/jewish/Avodat-...

When the Jews dwell among the idolaters and have established a covenant with them, it is permissible to sell weapons to the servants of the king and his to his soldiers, because they use them to wage war against the enemies of the country and to protect it. Thus, they also protect us, for we dwell among them. It is permitted to walk around a city in which an idol is located. It is, however, forbidden to enter [the city]. If the idol is located outside the city, it is permitted to walk within it. A person who is journeying from one place to another may not pass through a city in which a false deity is located. When does this apply? When this is the only way to his destination. If, however, there is an alternate route to his destination and, by chance, he took [the route which passed through this city], it is permissible.

‫היו ישראל שוכנים בין העובדי‬ ‫כוכבים וכרתו להם ברית מותר‬ ‫למכור כלי זיין לעבדי המלך וגייסותיו מפני‬ ‫שעושים בהם מלחמה עם צרי המדינה‬ ‫להצילה ונמצאו מגינים עלינו שהרי אנו‬ ‫שרויין בתוכם עיר שיש בה עבודת כוכבים‬ ‫מותר להלך חוצה לה ואסור להכנס‬ ‫בתוכה היה חוצה לה עבודת כוכבים מותר‬ :‫להלך בתוכה‬

‫ההולך ממקום למקום אסור לו לעבור‬ ‫בעיר שיש בה עבודת כוכבים במה‬ ‫דברים אמורים בזמן שהדרך מיוחדת‬ ‫לאותו מקום אבל אם יש שם דרך אחרת‬ :‫ונקרה והלך בזו מותר‬

It is forbidden to build - [even] together with an idolater - a dome under which an idol is placed. If one transgressed and built such a structure, however, one's wage is permitted. A priori, one may construct the palace or the courtyard where that dome is located.

‫אסור לבנות עם העובדי כוכבים‬ ‫כיפה שמעמידים בה עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים ואם עבר ובנה שכרו מותר אבל‬ ‫בונה הוא לכתחילה הטרקלין או החצר‬ :‫שיש בה אותה הכיפה‬

[The following laws apply] when an idol is located within a city and there some shops which are adorned and some which are not: It is forbidden to benefit from those which are adorned or [to use] anything they contain, since we can assume that they were adorned for the sake of idol worship. It is permitted to benefit from those which are not adorned.

‫עיר שיש בה עבודת כוכבים והיו‬ ‫בה חנויות מעוטרות ושאינן‬ ‫מעוטרות המעוטרות אסור ליהנות בהן‬ ‫בכל מה שבתוכן מפני שחזקתן שבגלל‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים נתעטרו ושאינן מעוטרות‬ ‫מותרות בהנאה חנויות של עבודת כוכבים‬ :‫אסור לשכרן מפני שמהנה עבודת כוכבים‬

It is forbidden to do business with a store owned by a false deity, because one offers benefit to the false deity.

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine - Texts & Writings

6 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912368/jewish/Avodat-...

When a person sells his house to an idol, it is forbidden to benefit from the proceeds of the sale. Rather, they must be taken to the Dead Sea. If, however, an idolater steals a Jew's house against his will and places an idol within, it is permitted [to accept whatever] money [he offers]. [The Jew] may compose [a bill of sale] and formalize it in accordance with the civil law procedures.

‫המוכר בית לעבודת כוכבים דמיו‬ ‫אסורים בהנאה ויוליכם לים המלח‬ ‫אבל עובדי כוכבים שאנסו ישראל וגזלו‬ ‫ביתו והעמידו בו עבודת כוכבים דמיו‬ :‫מותרין וכותב ומעלה בערכאות שלהם‬

Flutes belonging to idolaters should not be used in a funeral dirge.

‫וחלילין של עובדי כוכבים אסור‬ ‫לספוד בהן הולכין ליריד של‬ ‫עבודת כוכבים ולוקחין מהן בהמה עבדים‬ ‫ושפחות בגיותן ובתים ושדות וכרמים‬ ‫וכותב ומעלה בערכאות שלהן מפני שהוא‬ ‫כמציל מידם בד"א בלוקח מבעל הבית‬ ‫שאינו נותן מכם אבל הלוקח שם מן התגר‬ ‫אסור מפני שהוא נותן מכס והמכס‬ ‫לעבודת כוכבים ונמצא זה מהנה עבודת‬ ‫כוכבים עבר ולקח מן התגר אם בהמה‬ ‫לקח מנשר פרסותיה מן הארכובה ולמטה‬ ‫ואם כסות וכלים לקח ירקבו לקח מעות‬ ‫וכלי מתכות יוליכם לים המלח לקח עבד‬ :‫לא מעלים ולא מורידין‬

One may attend a pagan commercial fair and purchase livestock, gentile servants and maidservants before they convert, houses, fields, and vineyards. One may compose a bill of sale and formalize it in accordance with the civil law procedures, since by doing so one saves [one's property] from them. When does the above apply? When one buys from a private individual who does not have to pay a tax [to the false deity]. If, however, one buys from a merchant, it is forbidden, for a merchant must pay a tax which must be given to the false deity. Hence, [by making such a purchase], one is giving benefit to a false deity. [The following laws apply] if one transgressed and purchased [merchandise] from a merchant: If one purchased livestock, one should cut off the animal's hooves from below the anklebone. If one purchased garments or other objects, one should let them rot. If one purchased money or metal utensils, one should bring them to the Dead Sea. If one purchased a servant, one may not help him up [from a pit], nor should one push him into one.

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine - Texts & Writings

7 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912368/jewish/Avodat-...

When an idolater makes a [wedding] party for his son or daughter, it is forbidden to benefit from the feast. It is even forbidden for a Jew to eat and drink his own food there, since it is being consumed at a celebration of idolaters. When is it forbidden to eat such an idolater's food? From when he began to prepare for the wedding feast, the entire duration of the wedding feast, and for thirty days afterwards. [Furthermore,] if he makes another celebration because of the wedding even after thirty days have passed, it is forbidden [to participate] until twelve months [have passed].

‫עובד כוכבים שעשה לבנו או לבתו‬ ‫משתה אסור ליהנות מסעודתו‬ ‫ואפילו לאכול ולשתות הישראל משלו שם‬ ‫אסור הואיל ובמסיבת עובדי כוכבים אכלו‬ ‫ומאימתי אסור לאכול אצלו משיתחיל‬ ‫לעסוק ולהכין צרכי סעודה וכל ימי‬ ‫המשתה ולאחר ימי המשתה שלשים יום‬ ‫ואם עשה סעודה אחרת מחמת הנישואין‬ ‫אפילו לאחר שלשים יום אסור עד שנים‬ ‫עשר חדש וכל ההרחקה הזאת מפני‬ ‫עבודה של כוכבים הוא שנאמר וקרא לך‬ ‫ואכלת מזבחו ולקחת מבנותיו לבניך וזנו‬ :'‫וגו‬

This stringency was imposed because of idol worship, as [implied by Exodus 34:15-16]: "And he shall call to you and you shall eat from his slaughter, and you shall choose from his daughters for your sons. His daughters will stray after their gods, and they will lead your sons astray after these gods." A Jewish woman should not nurse the child of an idolater, since, by doing so, she raises a son who will be an idolater. She should not serve as a midwife for an idolatrous woman [without charge]. She may, however, do so for a fee, lest strife arise. An idolatrous woman may serve as a midwife for a Jewess and nurse her child. [This must be done] in premises belonging to a Jew, lest the idolatrous woman kill the child.

‫בת ישראל לא תיניק את בנה של‬ ‫עובדת כוכבים מפני שמגדלת בן‬ ‫לעבודת כוכבים ולא תיילד את הנכרית‬ ‫עכו"ם אבל מילדת היא בשכר משום איבה‬ ‫והנכרית עכו"ם מילדת את בת ישראל‬ ‫ומניקה את בנה ברשותה כדי שלא‬ :‫תהרגנו‬

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine - Texts & Writings

8 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912368/jewish/Avodat-...

It is forbidden to trade with [gentiles] on their way to reproachful places of idol worship, but it is permitted to trade with them when they return. This applies when they do not journey in a caravan. If, however, they are traveling in a caravan, they may change their mind and return.

‫ההולכין לתרפות עכו"ם אסור לשאת‬ ‫ולתת עמהן והבאים מותרין והוא‬ ‫שלא יהיו קשורין זה בזה שאם היו קשורין‬ ‫שמא דעתן לחזור ישראל ההולך לתרפות‬ ‫עכו"ם בהליכה מותר לשאת ולתת עמו‬ ‫שמא יחזור בו ובחזירה אסור ישראל‬ :‫מומר בין בהליכה בין בחזירה אסור‬

If a Jew journeys to a reproachful place of idol worship, one may trade with him on his way, since he may change his mind. On his way back, it is forbidden. [It is forbidden to trade with] an apostate Jew on his way there and on his way back. When a Jew attends a fair of idol worshipers it is forbidden to trade with him when he returns. Perhaps he sold an idol to them, and it is forbidden to benefit from the proceeds of the sale of idol worship possessed by a Jew. It is, however, permitted to benefit from [the proceeds of the sale of an idol] possessed by an idolater. Therefore, it is permitted to trade with an idolater coming from such a fair, but not with a Jew. It is forbidden to trade with an apostate Jew on his way to and on his way from such a fair.

« Previous

‫ישראל שהלך ליריד של עכו"ם‬ ‫בחזירה אסור לשאת ולתת עמו‬ ‫שמא עכו"ם מכר להן שם ודמי עכו"ם ביד‬ ‫ישראל אסורים בהנאה וביד עכו"ם מותרין‬ ‫בהנאה ומפני זה נושאין ונותנין עם עכו"ם‬ ‫הבא מן התרפות של עכו"ם ואין נושאין‬ ‫ונותנין עם ישראל הבא מן התרפות ההוא‬ ‫ולא עם ישראל מומר לא בהליכתו ולא‬ :‫בחזירתו‬

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine - Texts & Writings

9 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912368/jewish/Avodat-...

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten - Texts & Writings

1 of 5

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912369/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine

We may not draw up a covenant with idolaters which will establish peace between them [and us] and yet allow them to worship idols, as [Deuteronomy 7:2] states: "Do not establish a covenant with them." Rather, they must renounce their [idol] worship or be slain. It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states: "Do not be gracious to them." Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him. It is, however, forbidden to cause one of them to sink or push him into a pit or the like, since he is not waging war against us.

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven

‫אין כורתין ברית לשבעה עממין כדי‬ ‫שנעשה עמהן שלום ונניח אותם‬ ‫לעבוד עכו"ם שנאמר לא תכרות להם‬ ‫ברית אלא יחזרו מעבודתם או יהרגו‬ ‫ואסור לרחם עליהם שנאמר ולא תחנם‬ ‫לפיכך אם ראה מהם אובד או טובע בנהר‬ ‫לא יעלנו ראהו נטוי למות לא יצילנו אבל‬ ‫לאבדו בידו או לדחפו לבור וכיוצא בזה‬ ‫אסור מפני שאינו עושה עמנו מלחמה‬ ‫במה דברים אמורים בשבעה עממין אבל‬ ‫המוסרים והאפיקורסין מישראל היה דין‬ ‫לאבדן ביד ולהורידן עד באר שחת מפני‬ ‫שהיו מצירים לישראל ומסירין את העם‬ :'‫מאחרי ה‬

To whom do the above apply? To gentiles. It is a mitzvah, however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God.

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten - Texts & Writings

2 of 5

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912369/jewish/Avodat-...

From the above, we can infer that it is forbidden to offer medical treatment to an idolater even when offered a wage. If, however, one is afraid of the consequences or fears that ill feeling will be aroused, one may treat them for a wage, but to treat them free is forbidden.

‫מכאן אתה למד שאסור לרפאות‬ ‫עכו"ם אפילו בשכר ואם היה‬ ‫מתיירא מהן או שהיה חושש משום איבה‬ ‫מרפא בשכר אבל בחנם אסור וגר תושב‬ ‫הואיל ואתה מצווה להחיותו מרפאים אותו‬ :‫בחנם‬

[With regard to] a ger toshav, since we are commanded to secure his well-being, he may be given medical treatment at no cost. It is forbidden to sell them homes and fields in Eretz Yisrael. In Syria, one may sell them homes, but not fields. One may rent them homes in Eretz Yisrael, provided that a neighborhood [of idolaters] is not established. Fewer than three [homes] does not constitute a neighborhood. It is, however, forbidden to rent them fields. In Syria, one may rent them fields. Why did [the Rabbis issue] more stringent laws regarding fields? Because two difficulties are involved: One removes the obligation of tithes [from these fields], and one gives them a resting place in our land.

‫אין מוכרין להם בתים ושדות בארץ‬ ‫ישראל ובסוריא מוכרין להם בתים‬ ‫אבל לא שדות ומשכירין להם בתים בארץ‬ ‫ישראל ובלבד שלא יעשו שכונה ואין‬ ‫שכונה פחות משלשה ואין משכירין להם‬ ‫שדות ובסוריא משכירין להם שדות ומפני‬ ‫מה החמירו בשדה מפני שיש בה שתים‬ ‫מפקיעה מן המעשרות ונותן להם חנייה‬ ‫בקרקע ומותר למכור להם בתים ושדות‬ :‫בחוצה לארץ מפני שאינה ארצנו‬

It is permitted to sell them houses and fields in the Diaspora, because it is not our land.

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten - Texts & Writings

3 of 5

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912369/jewish/Avodat-...

Even when it is permitted to rent [homes to idolaters], it is not permitted to rent to them for use as a dwelling, because they will bring idols into them, as [Deuteronomy 7:26] states: "Do not bring an abomination into your home." It is, however, permitted to rent them homes to use as storehouses. It is forbidden to sell them fruit, grain, or other produce while it is attached to the earth. One may sell [these products] after they have been harvested or [before they have been harvested], on the condition that they will be harvested, and he must harvest them. Why is it forbidden to sell them [land or anything attached to the land]? Because [Deuteronomy 7:2] states: "Do not be gracious with them." [This phrase can also be interpreted:] "Do not give them a resting place in the land." As long as they do not have a resting place in the land, their stay will be a temporary one. [This prohibition also] forbids speaking about [idolaters] in a praiseworthy manner. It is even forbidden to say, "Look how beautiful that idolater's body is." How much more so is it forbidden to praise their deeds or to hold their words dear, as [the phrase states]: "Do not be gracious with them." [This phrase can also be interpreted:] "Do not look at them graciously," for doing so will cause you to draw close to them and learn from their wicked behavior.

‫אף במקום שהתירו להשכיר לא‬ ‫לבית דירה התירו מפני שהוא מכניס‬ ‫לתוכה עבודת כוכבים ונאמר לא תביא‬ ‫תועבה אל ביתך אבל משכיר להן בתים‬ ‫לעשותן אוצר ואין מוכרין להן פירות‬ ‫ותבואה וכיוצא בהן במחובר לקרקע אבל‬ ‫מוכר הוא משיקוץ או מוכר לו על מנת‬ ‫לקוץ וקוצץ ומפני מה אין מוכרין להן‬ ‫שנאמר ולא תחנם לא תתן להם חנייה‬ ‫בקרקע שאם לא יהיה להם קרקע ישיבתן‬ ‫ישיבת עראי היא וכן אסור לספר בשבחן‬ ‫ואפילו לומר כמה נאה עובד כוכבים זה‬ ‫בצורתו קל וחומר שיספר בשבח מעשיו‬ ‫או שיחבב דבר מדבריהם שנאמר ולא‬ ‫תחנם לא יהיה להם חן בעיניך מפני‬ ‫שגורם להדבק עמו וללמוד ממעשיו‬ ‫הרעים ואסור ליתן להם מתנת חנם אבל‬ ‫נותן הוא לגר תושב שנאמר לגר אשר‬ ‫בשעריך תתננה ואכלה או מכור לנכרי‬ :‫במכירה ולא בנתינה‬

[Also implicit in the above phrase is that] it is forbidden to give them a present. A present may, however, be given to a ger toshav, [as implied by Deuteronomy 14:21:] "You may give it to the stranger in your gates so that he may eat it; or sell it to a gentile," [i.e., to an idolater]; it should be sold, not given.

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten - Texts & Writings

4 of 5

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912369/jewish/Avodat-...

We should provide for poor idolaters together with poor Jews for the sake of peace. One should not rebuke idolaters [from taking] leket, shich'chah, and pe'ah, for the sake of peace. One may inquire about their well-being - even on their festivals - for the sake of peace. One may never repeat good wishes to them. Also, one should not enter the house of a gentile on one of his festivals to wish him well. If one encounters him in the marketplace, one may greet him meekly with a serious countenance. All the above matters apply only in an era when Israel is in exile among the idolaters or in an era when the idolaters are in power. When, however, Israel is in power over them, it is forbidden for us to allow an idolater among us. Even a temporary resident or a merchant who travels from place to place should not be allowed to pass through our land until he accepts the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants, as [Exodus 23:33] states: "They shall not dwell in your land" - i.e., even temporarily. A person who accepts these seven mitzvot is a ger toshav. A ger toshav may be accepted only in the era when the [laws of the] Jubilee Year are observed. In an era when the [laws of the] Jubilee Year are not observed, however, we may accept only full converts [to Judaism].

« Previous Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine

‫מפרנסים עניי עובדי כוכבים עם עניי‬ ‫ישראל מפני דרכי שלום ואין ממחין‬ ‫בידי עניי עובדי כוכבים בלקט שכחה‬ ‫ופאה מפני דרכי שלום ושואלים בשלומם‬ ‫ואפילו ביום חגם מפני דרכי שלום ואין‬ ‫כופלין להן שלום לעולם ולא יכנס לביתו‬ ‫של עובד כוכבים ביום חגו לתת לו שלום‬ ‫מצאו בשוק נותן לו שלום בשפה רפה‬ :‫ובכובד ראש‬

‫אין כל הדברים האלו אמורים אלא‬ ‫בזמן שגלו ישראל לבין העובדי כוכבים‬ ‫או שיד עכו"ם תקיפה על ישראל אבל‬ ‫בזמן שיד ישראל תקיפה עליהם אסור לנו‬ ‫להניח עובדי כוכבים בינינו ואפילו יושב‬ ‫ישיבת עראי או עובר ממקום למקום‬ ‫בסחורה לא יעבור בארצנו אלא עד‬ ‫שיקבל עליו שבע מצות שנצטוו בני נח‬ ‫שנאמר לא ישבו בארצך אפילו לפי שעה‬ ‫ואם קבל עליו שבע מצות הרי זה גר תושב‬ ‫ואין מקבלין גר תושב אלא בזמן שהיובל‬ ‫נוהג אבל שלא בזמן היובל אין מקבלין‬ :‫אלא גר צדק בלבד‬

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten - Texts & Writings

5 of 5

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912369/jewish/Avodat-...

To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/20/2019 12:22 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven - Texts & Writings

1 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912370/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten

We may not follow the statutes of the idolaters or resemble them in their [style] of dress, coiffure, or the like, as [Leviticus 20:23] states: "Do not follow the statutes of the nation [that I am driving out before you]," as [Leviticus 18:3] states: "Do not follow their statutes," and as [Deuteronomy 12:30] states: "Be careful, lest you inquire after them." [All these verses] share a single theme: they warn us not to try to resemble [the gentiles]. Instead, the Jews should be separate from them and distinct in their dress and in their deeds, as they are in their ideals and character traits. In this context, [Leviticus 20:26] states: "I have separated you from the nations [to be Mine]." [Thus,] one may not wear a garment which is unique to them or grow the tresses of our hair as they do. We may not shave our heads from the sides and leave hair in the center as they do. This is called a blorit. We may not shave the hair on the front of our faces from ear to ear and leave a growth at the back of our heads as they do. We may not build Temples in order that many people may enter as they do. Whoever performs one of the above or a deed of this nature is [liable for] lashes.

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve

‫אין הולכין בחקות העובדי כוכבים‬ ‫ולא מדמין להן לא במלבוש ולא‬ ‫בשער וכיוצא בהן שנאמר ולא תלכו‬ ‫בחקות הגוים ונאמר ובחקותיהם לא תלכו‬ ‫ונאמר השמר לך פן תנקש אחריהם הכל‬ ‫בענין אחד הוא מזהיר שלא ידמה להן‬ ‫אלא יהיה הישראל מובדל מהן וידוע‬ ‫במלבושו ובשאר מעשיו כמו שהוא מובדל‬ ‫מהן במדעו ובדעותיו וכן הוא אומר‬ ‫ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים לא ילבש‬ ‫במלבוש המיוחד להן ולא יגדל ציצית‬ ‫ראשו כמו ציצית ראשם ולא יגלח מן‬ ‫הצדדין ויניח השער באמצע כמו שהן‬ ‫עושין וזה הנקרא בלורית ולא יגלח השער‬ ‫מכנגד פניו מאזן לאזן ויניח הפרע‬ ‫מלאחריו כדרך שעושין הן ולא יבנה‬ ‫מקומות כבנין היכלות של עכו"ם כדי‬ ‫שיכנסו בהן רבים כמו שהן עושין וכל‬ :‫העושה אחת מאלו וכיוצא בהן לוקה‬

8/20/2019 12:23 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven - Texts & Writings

2 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912370/jewish/Avodat-...

When a Jew is cutting a idolater's hair, he must stop when he approaches within three fingerbreadths of his blorit on all sides.

‫עכו"ם שהיה מסתפר מישראל כיון‬ ‫שהגיע לבלוריתו קרוב שלש אצבעות‬ :‫לכל רוח שומט את ידו‬

A Jew who has an important position in a gentile kingdom and must sit before their kings, and would be embarrassed if he did not resemble them, is granted permission to wear clothes which resemble theirs and shave the hair on his face as they do.

‫ישראל שהיה קרוב למלכות וצריך‬ ‫לישב לפני מלכיהם והיה לו גנאי לפי‬ ‫שלא ידמה להן הרי זה מותר ללבוש‬ ‫במלבושיהן ולגלח כנגד פניו כדרך שהן‬ :‫עושין‬

It is forbidden to practice soothsaying as idolaters do, as [Leviticus 19:26] states: "Do not act as a soothsayer."

‫אין מנחשין כעכו"ם שנאמר לא‬ ‫תנחשו כיצד הוא הנחש כגון אלו‬ ‫שאומרים הואיל ונפלה פתי מפי או נפל‬ ‫מקלי מידי איני הולך למקום פלוני היום‬ ‫שאם אלך אין חפציי נעשים הואיל ועבר‬ ‫שועל מימיני איני יוצא מפתח ביתי היום‬ ‫שאם אצא יפגעני אדם רמאי וכן אלו‬ ‫ששומעים צפצוף העוף ואומרים יהיה כך‬ ‫ולא יהיה כך טוב לעשות דבר פלוני ורע‬ ‫לעשות דבר פלוני וכן אלו שאומרים‬ ‫שחוט תרנגול זה שקרא ערבית שחוט‬ ‫תרנגולת זו שקראה כמו תרנגול וכן‬ ‫המשים סימנים לעצמו אם יארע לי כך וכך‬ ‫אעשה דבר פלוני ואם לא יארע לי לא‬ ‫אעשה כאליעזר עבד אברהם וכן כל כיוצא‬ ‫בדברים האלו הכל אסור וכל העושה‬ :‫מעשה מפני דבר מדברים אלו לוקה‬

What is meant by a soothsayer? For example, those who say: Since my piece of bread fell out of my mouth, or my staff fell from my hand, I will not travel to this place today, since if I were to go I would not be able to accomplish my desires. Since a fox passed on my right side, I will not go out of my door today, since if I were to go out I would meet a deceiver. Similarly, [this category includes] those who hear the chirping of a bird and say: This will happen or this will not happen; it is beneficial to do this or it is detrimental to do this. [Also, it includes] those who say: Slaughter this rooster that crowed like a raven; slaughter this hen that crowed like a rooster. Similarly, a person who sets up omens for himself; e.g., if this and this happens, I will do this. If it will not happen, I will not do it, as Eliezer, the servant of Abraham did, and the things of the like - all this is forbidden. Anyone who does one of these things because of such omens is [liable for] lashes.

8/20/2019 12:23 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven - Texts & Writings

3 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912370/jewish/Avodat-...

[A different ruling applies when] a person says, "This dwelling which I built will be a good omen for me"; "This woman whom I married or this animal that I purchased was blessed. From the time I purchased it onward, I have become rich." The same applies to a person who rejoices and exclaims, "This is a good omen" when he asks a child, "Which verse are you studying?" and the child reads him a verse of blessing. This and the like are permitted, since the person did not perform an act or hold himself back from performing an act [because of the omen]. All he did was consider something that had already happened as a sign. What is meant by a diviner? This refers to a person who performs certain deeds to cause him to fall into a trance and have his mind cleared of all thoughts until he can predict the future, saying, "This will happen" or "This will not happen;" or saying, "it is proper to do such and such. Be careful to do so." There are some diviners who use sand or stones [to obtain their answers]. Others prostrate themselves on the ground, make strange motions and scream. Others look at a metal or crystal mirror, fantasize, and speak. Still others carry a staff and lean on it and tap with it until they fall into a trance and speak. This is what the prophet [Hoshea (4:12) meant by] saying, "My people will inquire of their rods. Their staffs will tell them." It is forbidden to divine or to inquire of a diviner. A person who inquires of a diviner is given "stripes for rebelliousness." In contrast, the diviner himself is [punished by] lashes if he performs one of the above or other similar acts, as [Deuteronomy 18:10] states: "There shall not be found among you one who passes..., one who practices divination."

‫מי שאמר דירה זו שבניתי סימן טוב‬ ‫היתה עלי אשה זו שנשאתי ובהמה זו‬ ‫שקניתי מבורכת היתה מעת שקניתיה‬ ‫עשרתי וכן השואל לתינוק אי זה פסוק‬ ‫אתה לומד אם אמר לו פסוק מן הברכות‬ ‫ישמח ויאמר זה סימן טוב כל אלו וכיוצא‬ ‫בהן מותר הואיל ולא כיון מעשיו ולא נמנע‬ ‫מלעשות אלא עשה זה סימן לעצמו לדבר‬ :‫שכבר היה הרי זה מותר‬

‫איזהו קוסם זה העושה מעשה משאר‬ ‫המעשיות כדי שישום ותפנה מחשבתו‬ ‫מכל הדברים עד שיאמר דברים שעתידים‬ ‫להיות ויאמר דבר פלוני עתיד להיות או‬ ‫אינו הווה או שיאמר שראוי לעשות כן‬ ‫והזהרו מכך יש מן הקוסמין שמשמשים‬ ‫בחול או באבנים ויש מי שגוהר לארץ‬ ‫וינוע וצועק ויש מי שמסתכל במראה של‬ ‫ברזל או בעששית ומדמין ואומרים ויש מי‬ ‫שנושא מקל בידו ונשען עליו ומכה בו עד‬ ‫שתפנה מחשבתו ומדבר הוא שהנביא‬ :‫אומר עמי בעצו ישאל ומקלו יגיד לו‬

‫אסור לקסום ולשאול לקוסם אלא‬ ‫שהשואל לקוסם מכין אותו מכת‬ ‫מרדות אבל הקוסם עצמו אם עשה מעשה‬ ‫מכל אלו וכיוצא בהן לוקה שנאמר לא‬ :‫ימצא בך מעביר בנו וגו' קוסם קסמים‬

8/20/2019 12:23 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven - Texts & Writings

4 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912370/jewish/Avodat-...

Who is a fortuneteller? A person who tries to predict auspicious times, using astrology and saying, "This day will be a good day," "This day will be a bad day," "It is appropriate to perform a particular task on a certain day"; or "This year" or "This month will not be opportune for this particular matter."

‫איזהו מעונן אלו נותני עתים‬ ‫שאומרים באצטגנינות יום פלוני טוב‬ ‫יום פלוני רע יום פלוני ראוי לעשות בו‬ ‫מלאכה פלונית שנה פלונית או חדש פלוני‬ :‫רע לדבר פלוני‬

It is forbidden to tell fortunes. [This applies] even though one does not perform a deed, but merely relates the falsehoods which the fools consider to be words of truth and wisdom. Anyone who performs a deed because of an astrological calculation or arranges his work or his journeys to fit a time that was suggested by the astrologers is [liable for] lashes, as [Leviticus 19:26] states: "Do not tell fortunes."

‫אסור לעונן אע"פ שלא עשה מעשה‬ ‫אלא הודיע אותן הכזבים שהכסילים‬ ‫מדמין שהן דברי אמת ודברי חכמים וכל‬ ‫העושה מפני האצטגנינות וכיון מלאכתו‬ ‫או הליכתו באותו העת שקבעו הוברי‬ ‫שמים הרי זה לוקה שנאמר לא תעוננו וכן‬ ‫האוחז את העינים ומדמה בפני הרואים‬ ‫שעושה מעשה תמהון והוא לא עשה הרי‬ :‫זה בכלל מעונן ולוקה‬

Also included in the scope of this prohibition is one who performs magic tricks and deludes those who observe him into thinking that he performs wonders although he is not doing so. He is [liable for] lashes.

8/20/2019 12:23 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven - Texts & Writings

5 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912370/jewish/Avodat-...

Who is a person who casts spells? A person who chants incantations that have no meaning in people's speech or any connotation and imagines in his foolish perception that his words have an effect. Such people will say: If you cast a particular spell on a snake or a scorpion, they will do no harm. If you cast a particular spell on a person, he will never be harmed. Some of them will hold a key or a rock in their hands while they are talking, or perform other similar deeds. All of these are forbidden. A person who casts spells is [punished by lashes] if he holds anything in his hand or performs an act while speaking, even if he merely gestures with his finger, as [Deuteronomy 18:10-11] states: "There shall not be found among you... one who casts spells." If, however, the person merely spoke without moving his finger or his head and without holding anything in his hand, and similarly, a person who has a spell cast upon him through the utterance of such incantations, thinking that this will help him, he is given "stripes for rebelliousness" because he participated in the foolish activities of a spell-caster.

‫איזהו חובר זה שמדבר בדברים שאינן‬ ‫לשון עם ואין להן ענין ומעלה על דעתו‬ ‫בסכלותו שאותן הדברים מועילין עד שהן‬ ‫אומרים שהאומר כך וכך על הנחש או על‬ ‫העקרב אינו מזיק והאומר כך וכך על‬ ‫האיש אינו ניזוק ומהן אוחז בידו בעת‬ ‫שמדבר מפתח או סלע וכיוצא בדברים‬ ‫האלו הכל אסור והחובר עצמו שאחז בידו‬ ‫כלום או שעשה מעשה עם דבורו אפילו‬ ‫הראה באצבעו הרי זה לוקה שנאמר לא‬ ‫ימצא בך וגו' וחובר חבר אבל אם אמר‬ ‫דברים בלבד ולא הגיד לא אצבע ולא ראש‬ ‫ולא היה בידו כלום וכן אדם שאמר עליו‬ ‫החבר אותן הקולות והוא יושב לפניו‬ ‫ומדמה שיש לו בזה הנאה מכין אותו מכת‬ ‫מרדות מפני שנשתתף בסכלות החבר וכל‬ ‫אותן הקולות והשמות המשונים המכוערים‬ :‫לא ירעו וגם היטב אין אותם‬

All these deplorable incantations and strange names will not do harm, nor will they bring any benefit. When a person has been bitten by a scorpion or a snake, it is permitted to recite incantations over the bite. [This is permitted] - even on the Sabbath - in order to settle his mind and strengthen his feelings. Even though [the incantations] are of no avail, since the victim's life is in danger, permission was granted lest he become overly disturbed.

‫מי שנשכו עקרב או נחש מותר‬ ‫ללחוש על מקום הנשיכה ואפילו‬ ‫בשבת כדי ליישב דעתו ולחזק לבו‬ ‫אע"פשאין הדבר מועיל כלום הואיל‬ ‫ומסוכן הוא התירו לו כדי שלא תטרף‬ :‫דעתו עליו‬

8/20/2019 12:23 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven - Texts & Writings

6 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912370/jewish/Avodat-...

A person who whispers an incantation over a wound and then recites a verse from the Torah, who recites a verse over a child so that he will not become scared, or who places a Torah scroll or tefillin over a baby so that it will sleep, is considered to be a soothsayer or one who cast spells. Furthermore, such people are included among those who deny the Torah, because they relate to the words of Torah as if they are cures for the body, when, in fact, they are cures for the soul, as [Proverbs 3:22] states: "And they shall be life for your soul."

‫הלוחש על המכה וקורא פסוק מן‬ ‫התורה וכן הקורא על התינוק שלא‬ ‫יבעת והמניח ספר תורה או תפילין על‬ ‫הקטן בשביל שיישן לא די להם שהם‬ ‫בכלל מנחשים וחוברים אלא שהן בכלל‬ ‫הכופרים בתורה שהן עושין דברי תורה‬ ‫רפואת גוף ואינן אלא רפואת נפשות‬ ‫שנאמר ויהיו חיים לנפשך אבל הבריא‬ ‫שקרא פסוקין ומזמור מתהילים כדי שתגן‬ ‫עליו זכות קריאתן וינצל מצרות ומנזקים‬ :‫הרי זה מותר‬

It is, however, permitted for a healthy person to read verses [from the Bible] or chapters from Psalms so that the merit of reading them will protect him and save him from difficulties and injury. Who is one who seeks [information] from the dead? A person who starves himself and goes to sleep in a cemetery so that a deceased person will come to him in a dream and reply to his questions. There are others who wear special clothes, recite incantations, burn a particular type of incense, and sleep alone so that a deceased person will come to them and speak to them in a dream. To summarize: Anyone who performs a deed in order that a deceased person should come to him and give him information is [liable for] lashes, as [Deuteronomy 18:10] states: "There shall not be found among you one who passes..., one who seeks [information] from the dead."

‫איזהו דורש אל המתים זה המרעיב‬ ‫את עצמו והולך ולן בבית הקברות‬ ‫כדי שיבא מת בחלום ויודיעו מה ששאל‬ ‫עליו ויש אחרים שהם לובשים מלבושים‬ ‫ידועים ואומרים דברים ומקטירין קטרת‬ ‫ידועה וישנים לבדן כדי שיבא מת פלוני‬ ‫ויספר עמו בחלום כללו של דבר כל‬ ‫העושה כדי שיבא המת ויודיעו לוקה‬ ‫שנאמר לא ימצא בך מעביר וגו' ודורש‬ :‫אל המתים‬

8/20/2019 12:23 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven - Texts & Writings

7 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912370/jewish/Avodat-...

It is forbidden to inquire of a person who practices [divination with an] ov or a yid'oni, as [Deuteronomy 18:10-11] states: "There shall not be found among you one who passes..., one who seeks [information] from an ov or a yid'oni."

‫אסור לשאול בעל אוב או בעל‬ ‫ידעוני שנאמר לא ימצא בך מעביר‬ ‫וגו' ושואל אוב וידעוני נמצאת למד שבעל‬ ‫אוב וידעוני עצמן בסקילה והנשאל בהן‬ ‫באזהרה ומכין אותו מכת מרדות ואם כיון‬ :‫מעשיו ועשה כפי מאמרן לוקה‬

Thus, a person who practices [divination with an] ov or a yid'oni himself is stoned to death, and a person who inquires of them violates a negative commandment and receives stripes for rebelliousness. One who plans his deeds and acts according to their instructions is [liable for] lashes. A sorcerer must be condemned to execution by stoning. This applies when he commits a deed of sorcery. If, however, he merely deludes those who observe him into thinking that he is performing an act although he actually does not, he is given stripes for rebelliousness.

‫המכשף חייב סקילה והוא שעשה‬ ‫מעשה כשפים אבל האוחז את‬ ‫העינים והוא שיראה שעשה והוא לא עשה‬ ‫לוקה מכת מרדות מפני שלאו זה שנאמר‬ ‫במכשף בכלל לא ימצא בך הוא ולאו‬ ‫שניתן לאזהרת מיתת בית דין הוא ואין‬ :‫לוקין עליו שנאמר מכשפה לא תחיה‬

[The reason is] that the prohibition against sorcery is stated in the prohibition [Deuteronomy 18:10-11]: "There shall not be found among you one who... [practices sorcery]." It is, however, a prohibition which is punishable by execution by the court, as [Exodus 22:17] states: "Do not allow a witch to live." [Therefore,] lashes are not administered for its violation.

8/20/2019 12:23 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven - Texts & Writings

8 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912370/jewish/Avodat-...

All the above matters are falsehood and lies with which the original idolaters deceived the gentile nations in order to lead them after them. It is not fitting for the Jews who are wise sages to be drawn into such emptiness, nor to consider that they have any value as [implied by Numbers 23:23]: "No black magic can be found among Jacob, or occult arts within Israel." Similarly, [Deuteronomy 18:14] states: "These nations which you are driving out listen to astrologers and diviners. This is not [what God... has granted] you." Whoever believes in [occult arts] of this nature and, in his heart, thinks that they are true and words of wisdom, but are forbidden by the Torah, is foolish and feebleminded. He is considered like women and children who have underdeveloped intellects. The masters of wisdom and those of perfect knowledge know with clear proof that all these crafts which the Torah forbade are not reflections of wisdom, but rather, emptiness and vanity which attracted the feebleminded and caused them to abandon all the paths of truth. For these reasons, when the Torah warned against all these empty matters, it advised [Deuteronomy 18:13]: "Be of perfect faith with God, your Lord."

« Previous

‫ודברים האלו כולן דברי שקר וכזב‬ ‫הן והם שהטעו בהן עובדי כוכבים‬ ‫הקדמונים לגויי הארצות כדי שינהגו‬ ‫אחריהן ואין ראוי לישראל שהם חכמים‬ ‫מחוכמים להמשך בהבלים אלו ולא‬ ‫להעלות על לב שיש תועלת בהן שנאמר‬ ‫כי לא נחש ביעקב ולא קסם בישראל‬ ‫ונאמר כי הגוים האלה אשר אתה יורש‬ ‫אותם אל מעוננים ואל קוסמים ישמעו‬ ‫ואתה לא כן וגו' כל המאמין בדברים האלו‬ ‫וכיוצא בהן ומחשב בלבו שהן אמת ודבר‬ ‫חכמה אבל התורה אסרתן אינן אלא מן‬ ‫הסכלים ומחסרי הדעת ובכלל הנשים‬ ‫והקטנים שאין דעתן שלימה אבל בעלי‬ ‫החכמה ותמימי הדעת ידעו בראיות‬ ‫ברורות שכל אלו הדברים שאסרה תורה‬ ‫אינם דברי חכמה אלא תהו והבל שנמשכו‬ ‫בהן חסרי הדעת ונטשו כל דרכי האמת‬ ‫בגללן ומפני זה אמרה תורה כשהזהירה‬ '‫על כל אלו ההבלים תמים תהיה עם ה‬ :‫אלהיך‬

Next » Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/20/2019 12:23 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven - Texts & Writings

9 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912370/jewish/Avodat-...

8/20/2019 12:23 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

1 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...



Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous

English

Hebrew

Next » Teshuvah

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven

We may not shave the corners of our heads as the idolaters and their priests do, as [Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not cut off the corners of your heads." One is liable for each corner. Therefore, a person who shaves both his temples - even if he were to do so simultaneously and had received only a single warning – is [liable for] two measures of lashes. [This prohibition applies equally to] one who shaves off only the corners of his head and leaves the remainder of his hair, and to one who shaves his entire head at once. Since he has shaved the corners, he is [liable for] lashes.

‫אין מגלחין פאתי הראש כמו שהיו‬ ‫עושין עובדי כוכבים שנאמר לא‬ ‫תקיפו פאת ראשכם וחייב על כל פאה‬ ‫ופאה לפיכך המגלח שני צדעיו אפילו בבת‬ ‫אחת והתראה אחת לוקה שתים אחד‬ ‫המגלח הפאות בלבד ומניח שיער כל‬ ‫הראש ואחד המגלח כל הראש כאחד‬ ‫לוקה הואיל וגילח הפאות בד"א באיש‬ ‫המגלח אבל איש המתגלח אינו לוקה‬ ‫אא"כ סייע למגלח והמגלח את הקטן‬ :‫לוקה‬

To whom does the above apply? To the person who shaves. The person [whose head] is shaven is not lashed unless he assists the one who is shaving him. One who shaves [the corners of] a child's [head] should be [liable for] lashes. Commentary on Halachah 1 In this chapter, the Rambam describes several prohibitions which comprise rites that do not involve the actual worship of idols. The Torah forbids them, however, because they are connected with ceremonial practices performed by idolaters. Note also the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 37, where the Rambam mentions this concept. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 181) takes issue with the Rambam's statements, noting that there is no statement in the Bible, the Mishnah, or the Talmud, which mentions this point. He objects to the association of the mitzvot with any particular rationale.

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

2 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

From a halachic perspective, the mitzvot should be fulfilled because they are God's decrees, independent of any rational explanation. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) defends the Rambam's statements, based on the ending of Hilchot Me'ilah, where the Rambam states: It is proper for a person to meditate on the judgments of the holy Torah and know their ultimate rationale to the extent of his capacity. There are other authorities who draw out halachic concepts from the association of these prohibitions with idol worship. For example, based on this connection, the Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 251) and Sefer HaKovetz forbid the removal of facial hair even when the prohibition against shaving is not violated, as mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 7. We may not shave - The Torah's prohibition applies only to shaving. One may cut this hair with scissors, as explained in Halachah 6. the corners of our heads - The definition of this term is found in Halachah 6. as the idolaters and their priests do - Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 251) explains that this is a particularly severe prohibition, since its violation involves making a sign for idolatry on our own bodies. as [Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not cut off the corners of your heads." - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 43) and Sefer HaChinuch (ibid.) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. One is liable for each corner. Therefore, a person who shaves both his temples - even if he were to do so simultaneously and had received only a single warning - is [liable for] two measures of lashes. - In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam explains that although this prohibition involves two different activities (shaving the right corner and shaving the left corner), it is not considered to be two mitzvot, because the Torah's expression forbidding such shaving includes both sides in the same phrase. Had the Torah mentioned both the right and left sides, it would be considered to be two mitzvot. [This prohibition applies equally to] one who shaves off only the corners of his head and leaves the remainder of his hair - As mentioned in Chapter 11, Halachah 1, this style of cutting hair is referred to as a blorit and was practiced by the gentiles. and to one who shaves his entire head at once - in which case, he does not resemble the gentiles (Sefer HaMitzvot, ibid.). Since he has shaved the corners, he is [liable for] lashes. - From this, we see that the mitzvah is not dependent on the rationale mentioned above. To whom does the above apply? To the person who shaves - either his own head or a colleague's head. When, however, a person shaves a colleague's head, The person [whose head] is shaven is not lashed - The Ra'avad maintains that this person is not punished because he did not perform a deed. He is, however, considered to have transgressed the Torah's prohibition. The Kessef Mishneh disagrees and maintains that since he did not perform the deed of shaving, he is not considered to have violated the prohibition at all. This applies even when he specifically ordered the person who shaved him to do so. The Ra'avad's opinion is, however, supported by the Lechem Mishneh and other authorities. unless he assists the one who is shaving him - by moving his head so that it is easier to shave. One who shaves [the corners of] a child's - a minor below the age of 13 [head] should be [liable for] lashes. - A child would not be held responsible if he shaved himself, because a child is not held liable for the violation of any of the Torah's prohibitions until he reaches majority. Nevertheless, an adult is responsible for shaving the child's head (Nazir 57b). This point is not, however, accepted by all authorities. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) mentions other opinions which do not hold a person liable for shaving a child's head.

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

3 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

A woman is exempt if she shaves the head of a man or has her own head shaven. [Since Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not cut off the corners of your heads and do not destroy the corners of your beards," [an association between the two prohibitions is established]. Whoever is liable for shaving is liable for cutting off the corners. Therefore, because women are not liable for shaving - since they do not have beards they are not liable for cutting off the corners [of their heads]. Accordingly, slaves are forbidden to cut off the corners of their heads, since they do possess beards.

‫האשה שגלחה פאת ראש האיש או‬ ‫שנתגלחה פטורה שנאמר לא תקיפו‬ ‫פאת ראשכם ולא תשחית פאת זקנך כל‬ ‫שישנו בבל תשחית ישנו בבל תקיף ואשה‬ ‫שאינה בבל תשחית לפי שאין לה זקן אינה‬ ‫בבל תקיף לפיכך העבדים הואיל ויש להם‬ :‫זקן אסורין בהקפה‬

Commentary on Halachah 2 A woman is exempt if she shaves the head of a man - who would be liable if he shaved his own head or - assists the shaver while she has her own head shaven. - The Kessef Mishneh differentiates between these two instances. With regard to shaving a man's head, he explains that although a woman is exempt, she is, nevertheless, forbidden to do so (Halachah 5). With regard to shaving her own head, there is no prohibition whatsoever. [Since Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not cut off the corners of your heads and do not destroy the corners of your beards," [an association between the two prohibitions is established]. - This association also teaches other concepts among them, that one is liable only when one removes the hair with a razor. Whoever is liable for shaving is liable for cutting off the corners. Therefore, because women are not liable for shaving - since they - generally do not have beards - Although Kiddushin 35b mentions several ways to derive this concept through Biblical exegesis, the Rambam chooses to rely on the simple fact of the matter. they are not liable for cutting off the corners [of their heads]. Accordingly, slaves - whose performance of mitzvot is generally equated with that of women (Chaggigah 4a) are forbidden to cut off the corners of their heads, since they do possess beards. - Had the Rambam derived the above point from the exegesis of a Biblical verse, this conclusion would not be acceptable. Since, however, he derives the concept from logic, the same logic leads to the conclusion that slaves be held liable for this act (Kessef Mishneh).

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

4 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

All the Torah's prohibitions apply equally to men and women, with the exception of the prohibition against shaving, cutting off the corners of one's head, and the prohibition against priests contracting impurity through contact with a dead body. Women are not obligated with regard to all positive commandments which apply from time to time and are not constant obligations, with the exception of the sanctification of [the Sabbath] day, eating matzah on Pesach night, eating and offering the Paschal sacrifice, hakhel, and the festive peace-offering for which they

‫כל מצות לא תעשה שבתורה אחד‬ ‫אנשים ואחד נשים חייבים חוץ מבל‬ ‫תשחית ובל תקיף ובל יטמא כהן למתים‬ ‫וכל מצות עשה שהיא מזמן לזמן ואינה‬ ‫תדירה נשים פטורות חוץ מקידוש היום‬ ‫ואכילת מצה בלילי הפסח ואכילת הפסח‬ :‫ושחיטתו והקהל ושמחה שהנשים חייבות‬

are obligated. Commentary on Halachah 3 This halachah can be understood within the context of the Rambam's conception of the Mishneh Torah as a guide to the Oral Law in its entirety, as he states in his introduction to that text: Directly after reading the Written Law, one will read this text and understand from it the entire Oral Law, without requiring to read any other text. Thus, although the subject matter of this and the following halachah are of a far greater scope than the particular prohibition discussed previously, the Rambam mentions these principles for the sake of the text's more encompassing goal. All the Torah's prohibitions apply equally to men and women - Kiddushin 35a derives this concept from Numbers 5:6, "When a man or a woman commits any of the transgressions that men commit...." with the exception of the prohibition against shaving, cutting off the corners of one's head - as mentioned in the previous halachah, and the prohibition against priests contracting impurity through contact with a dead body. - The verse prohibiting such contact, Leviticus 21:1, begins, "Speak unto the sons of Aharon...."Kiddushin 35b explains that this expression excludes women. Women are not obligated with regard to all positive commandments which apply from time to time and are not constant obligations - This refers to mitzvot which are applicable only on certain days - e.g., the blowing of the shofar and the taking of the lulav and etrog - and also mitzvot that are applicable during the day and not the night - e.g., Tefillin. with the exception of the sanctification of [the Sabbath] day - through the recitation of kiddush. Since women are obligated by the prohibition against working on the Sabbath, they are also obligated by the positive commandment of sanctifying its holiness (Berachot 20b). The restriction of this mitzvah to the Sabbath follows the opinion of the Lechem Mishnah, who maintains that the sanctification of the festivals is a Rabbinic injunction. There are, however, other opinions, which consider the mitzvah as applying to the festivals as well. eating matzah on Pesach night - Since women are obligated by the prohibition against eating chametz, they are also obligated by the positive commandment of eating matzah (Pesachim 43b). eating and offering the Paschal sacrifice - Pesachim 91b explains that the Torah uses the expression (Exodus 12:4): "According to the number of souls [in a household]... individuals should be designated for the lamb," to include women in the observance of this mitzvah. hakhel - The gathering of the entire Jewish people to hear the reading of the Torah by the king which is held every seven years.

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

5 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

(See Deuteronomy 31:10-13.) Here, the Torah explicitly mentions that women should attend. and celebration of the festivals - Though in a larger sense this refers to all forms of celebration, in particular it refers to the offering of peace sacrifices in connection with the festival. (See Hilchot Chaggigah 1:1.) In this instance as well, the Torah specifically mentions the obligation of women to participate in the celebrations, as Deuteronomy 16:14 states: "And you shall rejoice, you, your son, your daughter, your male and female servants...." for which they are obligated. - Similarly, women are obligated to fulfill most positive commandments whose observance is not associated with a specific time - e.g., the belief in God, mezuzah, and Tzedakah. There are, however, several positive commandments whose observance is not associated with a specific time which women are not obligated to fulfill - e.g., Torah study, the redemption of the first born, and the remembrance of Amalek. (See also the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Kiddushin 1:7.)

The status of a tumtum and an androgynous is doubtful. Therefore, the stringencies applying to both a man and a woman are applied to them, and they are obligated by all [the mitzvot]. If, however, they transgress, they are not [liable for] lashes.

‫טומטום ואנדרוגינוס הרי הן ספק‬ ‫נותנין עליהן חומרי האיש וחומרי‬ ‫האשה בכל מקום וחייבים בכל ואם עברו‬ :‫אינם לוקין‬

Commentary on Halachah 4 The status of a tumtum - The word tumtum has its roots in the word atum, which means "a solid block." It refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by skin, and it is impossible to determine whether he is male or female. (See also Hilchot Ishut 2:25.) Should a tumtum undergo an operation and it be revealed that he is either male or female, he is bound by the laws which apply to that gender. and an androgynous - Androgynous is a combination of the Greek words meaning "man" and "woman." It refers to a person who possesses the sexual organs of both genders. (See also Hilchot Ishut 2:24.) is doubtful - i.e., it is doubtful whether they are governed by the laws applying to a man or those applying to a woman. The doubts are, however, different in nature. With regard to a tumtum, we are doubtful what is his true gender. With regard to an androgynous, however, the question revolves around the Sages' failure to define his status. Therefore, the stringencies applying to both a man - The obligation to perform all the positive commandments that are associated with time, and the various other commandments which men are obligated to perform, but women are not. and a woman - Bikkurim 4:3 explains that this refers to the prohibition against being alone with men (yichud), and the laws of ritual impurity that apply to women. are applied to them, and they are obligated by all [the mitzvot]. If, however, they transgress - any of the three commandments for which men are held liable and women are not they are not [liable for] lashes. - Punishment is not administered when we are in doubt of the person's obligation.

Although a woman is permitted to shave the corners of her own head, she is forbidden to shave the corners of a man's head. She is even forbidden to shave the corners of a child's [head].

‫אע"פ שהאשה מותרת לגלח פאת‬ ‫ראשה הרי היא אסורה לגלח פאת‬ ‫ראש האיש ואפילו קטן אסור לה לגלח לו‬ :‫פאה‬

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

6 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

Commentary on Halachah 5 Although a woman is permitted to shave the corners of her own head - as mentioned in Halachah 2 she is forbidden to shave the corners of a man's head. - As stated in that halachah, she is not punished for doing so. The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh maintain that this prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. Other authorities, however, state that the prohibition stems from the Torah itself. She is even forbidden to shave the corners of a child's [head]. - Though the child himself would not be held liable, an adult is liable for shaving the corners of his head, as stated in Halachah 1. Therefore, even a woman is forbidden to shave the corners of his head. Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, based on Nazir 57b, does not accept the Rambam's view, and maintains that a woman may shave a child's head.

The Sages did not determine the amount [of hair] which must be left in the corners of our temples. We have, however, heard from our elders that one must leave at least forty hairs.

‫ופאה זו שמניחים בצדעים לא נתנו בו‬ ‫חכמים שיעור ושמענו מזקנינו שאינו‬ ‫מניח פחות מארבעים שערות ומותר‬ ‫ללקט הפאות במספריים לא נאסר אלא‬ :‫השחתה בתער‬

One may remove the [hairs from] the corners [of our heads] with scissors. The prohibition applies only to total removal with a razor. Commentary on Halachah 6 The Sages did not determine the amount [of hair] which must be left in the corners of our temples. - The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 181:1, defines "corners" as referring to the place where the skull is joined to the jaw. The Beit Lechem Yehudah writes that the area which the Ari zal would leave uncut extended slightly above his ears. We have, however, heard from our elders that one must leave at least forty - The Tur's text of the Rambam stated "four" instead of "forty." hairs. - In one of his responsa, the Rambam writes that the forbidden area is about the size of a thumb. One may remove the [hairs from] the corners [of our heads] with scissors. - In one of his responsa, the Rambam writes that he would trim the corners of his head. He explains that - in contrast to the law applying to a Nazarite's hair - there is no positive commandment to allow this hair to grow and no need to do so. In many Jewish communities, however, it is customary to allow this hair to grow. Since its removal involves the violation of a Torah prohibition, they consider the growth of this hair as a sign of Jewish identity. The prohibition applies only to total removal with a razor. - As is explained in the commentary on the following halachah, there is a debate among the Rabbinic authorities if it is permissible to remove this hair using scissors or even using implements whose effectiveness is equivalent to that of a razor.

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

7 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

It is customary for pagan priests to remove their beards. Therefore, the Torah forbade the removal of one's beard. The beard has five "corners": the upper and lower cheek on both the right and left sides, and the hair on the chin. One is [liable for] lashes for the removal of each "corner." A person who removes them all at the same time is [liable for] five measures of lashes. One is liable only when one shaves with a razor, as [implied by Leviticus 19:27]: "Do not destroy the corners of your beard." [We can infer that this applies only] to shaving which utterly destroys [one's facial hair]. Therefore, a person who removes his beard with scissors is exempt.

‫דרך כהני עובדי כוכבים היה להשחית‬ ‫זקנם לפיכך אסרה תורה להשחית‬ ‫הזקן וחמש פאות יש בו לחי העליון ולחי‬ ‫התחתון מימין וכן משמאל ושבולת הזקן‬ ‫ולוקה על כל פאה ופאה ואם נטלן כולן‬ ‫כאחת לוקה חמש ואינו חייב עד שיגלחנו‬ ‫בתער שנאמר ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך‬ ‫גילוח שיש בו השחתה לפיכך אם גלח‬ ‫זקנו במספריים פטור ואין המתגלח לוקה‬ ‫עד שיסייע ואשה מותרת להשחית זקנה‬ ‫אם יש לה שיער בזקן ואם השחיתה זקן‬ :‫האיש פטורה‬

A person who allows himself to be shaved is not [liable for] lashes unless he provides assistance. A woman who has facial hair is allowed to shave it. If she shaves a man's beard, she is exempt. Commentary on Halachah 7 It is customary for pagan priests to remove their beards. - Note our commentary on Halachah 1. In Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 44), the Rambam notes that even in his time, it was customary for Christian monks to shave their faces. Therefore, the Torah forbade the removal of one's beard. - Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 252) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The beard has five "corners": the upper and lower cheek on both the right and left sides, and the hair on the chin. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 181:11) writes that there are many opinions with regard to the definition of these five "corners." There, "anyone who fears heaven should fulfill all the opinions and not shave any portion of his beard with a razor." One is [liable for] lashes for the removal of each "corner." - As implied by the verse's mention of "the corners of your beard," and not merely "your beard" (Sefer HaMitzvot, ibid.). A person who removes them all at the same time is [liable for] five measures of lashes. - Nevertheless, as explained in the commentary on Halachah 1, the prohibition is considered to be a single mitzvah, and not five. One is liable only when one shaves with a razor, as [implied by Leviticus 19:27]: "Do not destroy the corners of your beard." [We can infer that this applies only] to shaving which utterly destroys [one's facial hair]. Therefore, a person who removes his beard with scissors is exempt. - From the Rambam's expression, it appears that the removal of facial hair with scissors is forbidden. One is not, however, punished for such an act (Sefer HaChinuch, ibid.; Ma'aseh Rokeach). The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 181) differs, and maintains that it is permitted to remove one's facial hair as long as one does not use a razor. In addition, as mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1, the Minchat Chinuch and Sefer HaKovetz explain that by mentioning the fact that gentile priests remove their facial hair, the Rambam implies that removing such hair violates the

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

8 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

prohibition of following "the paths of the gentiles." (See Chapter 11, Halachah 1.) In the context of this prohibition, the means used to remove the facial hair are of no consequence. Other authorities (Rashba, Vol. IV, Responsum 90; Shibbolei Leket; Tzemach Tzedek, Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 93) forbid the removal of one's facial hair within the context of the prohibition against a man's adorning himself in the same manner as a woman. (See Halachot 9 and 10.) In this context as well, it makes no difference how one removes the hair. Many contemporary authorities have explained that in addition to all these points, growing a beard has been accepted as a sign that a person is God-fearing and precise in his observance of the mitzvot. Accordingly, anyone who desires to be viewed as such should not remove his beard even if he does not use a razor. A person who allows himself to be shaved is not [liable for] lashes unless he provides assistance. - Note our commentary on Halachah 1. A woman who has facial hair is allowed to shave it - since this is not the norm. Kiddushin 35b derives this concept from the exegesis of the verse from Leviticus quoted above. If she shaves a man's beard, she is exempt. - It is, however, forbidden for her to do so, as explained in Halachah 1.

It is permitted to shave one's mustache - i.e., the hair on the upper lip, and, similarly, the hair which hangs from the lower lip. Even though the removal [of this hair] is permitted, it is customary for the Jews not to destroy it entirely. Rather, its ends may be removed so that it will not interfere with eating or drinking.

‫השפה מותר לגלחו בתער והוא‬ ‫השיער שעל גב השפה העליונה וכן‬ ‫השיער המדולדל מן השפה התחתונה‬ ‫ואע"פ שהוא מותר לא נהגו ישראל‬ ‫להשחיתו אלא יגלח קצתו עד שלא יעכב‬ :‫אכילה ושתייה‬

Commentary on Halachah 8 It is permitted to shave one's mustache - i.e., the hair on the upper lip, and, similarly, the hair which hangs from the lower lip. - Mo'ed Katan 18a allows the shaving of this hair because it is not one of the five "corners" of the beard. Even though the removal [of this hair] is permitted, it is customary for the Jews not to destroy it entirely. - This statement reinforces the interpretation mentioned in the previous halachah, that maintains which the Rambam did not allow one's facial hair to be removed by means other than shaving. It must be noted that there are authorities who object to the shaving of the mustache. Rabbenu Chanan'el explained that the corners of the mustache are the two lower "corners" of the beard. Others (among them Rabbenu Yonah and the Bayit Chadash) associate its removal with the prohibitions against following the "ways of gentiles" and adorning oneself as does a woman. Rather, its ends may be removed so that it will not interfere with eating or drinking. - The Rabbis have explained that it is proper manners to remove the hair which interferes with eating. Even the Kabbalists who would not touch their beards at all would trim their mustaches (Ben Ish Chai).

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

9 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

The Torah does not forbid the removal of hair from other portions of the body - e.g., the armpits or the genitalia. This is, however, prohibited by the Rabbis. A man who removes [such hair] is given stripes for rebelliousness. Where does the above apply? In places where it is customary only for women to remove such hair, so that one will not beautify himself as women do. In places where it is customary for both men and women to remove such hair, one is not given stripes. It is permitted to remove hair from our other limbs with scissors in all communities.

‫העברת השיער משאר הגוף כגון בית‬ ‫השחי ובית הערוה אינו אסור מן‬ ‫התורה אלא מדברי סופרים והמעבירו‬ ‫מכין אותו מכת מרדות במה דברים‬ ‫אמורים במקום שאין מעבירין אותו אלא‬ ‫נשים כדי שלא יתקן עצמו תיקון נשים‬ ‫אבל במקום שמעבירין השיער הנשים‬ ‫ואנשים אם העביר אין מכין אותו ומותר‬ ‫להעביר שיער שאר איברים במספריים‬ :‫בכ"מ‬

Commentary on Halachah 9 The Torah does not forbid the removal of hair from other portions of the body - e.g., the armpits or the genitalia which are often shaved by women. This is, however, prohibited by the Rabbis - as an extension of the prohibition against a man beautifying himself in the same manner as a woman does. The classification of the removal of such hair as a Rabbinic prohibition is not agreed upon by all authorities. The Tzemach Tzedek (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 93) brings opinions which maintain that shaving this hair is within the scope of the Torah prohibition. The Kessef Mishneh explains the distinction between the Torah prohibition and the Rabbis' decree as follows: The Torah prohibition involves any adornment which is openly detectable. The Rabbis extended the scope of the prohibition and included even acts of beautification which are private. A man who removes [such hair] is given stripes for rebelliousness. - The punishment given for violating any Rabbinic ordinance. Where does the above apply? In places where it is customary only for women to remove such hair, so that one will not beautify himself as women do. - Which is prohibited, as mentioned in the following halachah. In places where it is customary for both men - The Prisha (Yoreh De'ah 182) states that the word "men" refers even to gentiles. Even if gentile men follow this practice, a Jew is not punished for doing so. and women to remove such hair, one is not given stripes. It is permitted - The expression, "one is not given stripes," and the contrasting statement, "It is permitted," lead to the conclusion that, even in these communities, it is forbidden for men to remove this hair. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 182:1) differs, and grants permission for men to remove such hair in these communities. When there are medical reasons requiring the removal of such hair, even the more stringent views allow it to be shaved off (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 182:4). to remove hair from our other limbs with scissors - but not with a razor (Siftei Cohen 182:3). in all communities.

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

10 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

A woman should not adorn herself as a man does - e.g., she may not place a turban or a hat on her head or wear armor or the like. She may not cut [the hair of] her head as men do. A man should not adorn himself as a woman does e.g., he should not wear colored garments or golden bracelets in a place where such garments and such bracelets are worn only by women. Everything follows local custom. A man who adorns himself as a woman does, and a woman who adorns herself as a man does, are [liable for] lashes. When a man removes white hairs from among the dark hairs of his head or beard, he should be lashed as soon as he removes a single hair, because he has beautified himself as a woman does. Similarly, if he dyes his hair dark, he is given lashes after dyeing a single hair.

‫לא תעדה אשה עדי האיש כגון‬ ‫שתשים בראשה מצנפת או כובע או‬ ‫תלבש שריון וכיוצא בו או שתגלח ראשה‬ ‫כאיש ולא יעדה איש עדי אשה כגון‬ ‫שילבש בגדי צבעונין וחלי זהב במקום‬ ‫שאין לובשין אותן הכלים ואין משימים‬ ‫אותו החלי אלא נשים הכל כמנהג המדינה‬ ‫איש שעדה עדי אשה ואשה שעדתה עדי‬ ‫איש לוקין המלקט שערות לבנות מתוך‬ ‫השחורות מראשו או מזקנו משילקט‬ ‫שערה אחת לוקה מפני שעדה עדי אשה‬ ‫וכן אם צבע שערו שחור משיצבע שיער‬ ‫לבנה אחת לוקה טומטום ואנדרוגינוס אינו‬ ‫עוטף כאשה ולא מגלח ראשו כאיש ואם‬ :‫עשה כן אינו לוקה‬

A tumtum and an androgynous may not wrap their heads [in a veil] as women do, or cut [the hair of] their head as men do. If they do [either of the above], they are not [liable for] lashes. Commentary on Halachah 10 A woman should not adorn herself as a man does - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 39) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 542) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Curiously, with regard to this and the following prohibition, the Rambam departs from his usual custom and does not mention the Biblical proof-text, Deuteronomy 22:5, for these prohibitions. e.g., she may not place a turban or a hat on her head - Needless to say, a hat that was styled for women is permitted. As the Rambam states later in the halachah, everything depends on local custom. or wear armor - Many sources (e.g., Nazir 59a; Targum Onkelos on Deuteronomy, ibid.) directly associate this prohibition with a woman's donning armor or carrying weapons. Significantly, in the listing of mitzvot which precedes these halachot, the Rambam defines the mitzvah as prohibiting a woman from wearing "armament or a man's apparel." or the like. She may not cut [the hair of] her head as men do - i.e., a woman's coiffure may not resemble a man's. The Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah read ‫יגלה‬, "reveal," instead of ‫יגלח‬, "cut." According to that version, the Rambam is saying that when a woman goes out without covering her head, in addition to violating the basic laws of modesty (see Hilchot Ishut 24:11-12; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 21:17), she is also transgressing this Torah prohibition. A man should not adorn himself as a woman does - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 40) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 543) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

11 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam mentions two rationales for this and the previous prohibition: a) Such behavior would lead to licentiousness; b) The pagans would often dress in this manner for their rituals. e.g., he should not wear colored garments or golden bracelets in a place where such garments and such bracelets are worn only by women. Everything follows local custom. - Accordingly, the definition of the pertinent rulings changes according to the norms of the society. Garments which might have been forbidden for men or women in one era may be permitted in another, depending on the standards set by the particular society. A man who adorns himself as a woman does, and a woman who adorns herself as a man does, are [liable for] lashes. - Note the Ramah's statements, Orach Chayim 696:8, which state that on Purim or at a wedding, this prohibition may be waived for the sake of adding to the festive mood of the celebration. The Bayit Chadash and others, however, do not accept this leniency. When a man removes white hairs from among the dark hairs of his head or beard - to prevent the process of aging from being detected he should be lashed - for violating this prohibition. The Ra'avad (see also Sho'el UMeshiv, Vol. I, Responsum 210) differs, and maintains that such an act violates only a Rabbinic prohibition. His opinion, however, is not accepted by the later authorities (Darchei Teshuvah 182:15). as soon as he removes a single hair, because he has beautified himself as a woman does. - Women are accustomed and therefore, allowed - to hide their age, but not men. Similarly, if he dyes his hair dark, he is given lashes after dyeing a single hair. - The prohibition applies only when one attempts to look younger. Dyeing one's hair grey is not forbidden (Turei Zahav 182:7). A tumtum and an androgynous - whose status with regard to gender is doubtful, as explained in Halachah 4. may not wrap their heads [in a veil] as women do, or cut [the hair of] their head as men do. - As the Rambam states in that halachah, "the stringencies of both a man and a woman are applied to them." Hence, they are not allowed to clothe themselves in a manner which is distinct to either a man or a woman. According to the Yemenite manuscripts mentioned above which substitute ‫יגלה‬, "reveal," for ‫יגלח‬, "cut," this clause also must be amended accordingly. If they do [either of the above],they are not [liable for] lashes - because we are unsure of their gender. Accordingly, it cannot be definitely said that a prohibition has been violated.

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

12 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

The tattooing which the Torah forbids involves making a cut in one's flesh and filling the slit with eye-color, ink, or with any other dye that leaves an imprint. This was the custom of the idolaters, who would make marks on their bodies for the sake of their idols, as if to say that they are like servants sold to the idol and designated for its service. When a person makes a mark with one of the substances that leave an imprint after making a slit in any place on his body, he is [liable for] lashes. [This prohibition is binding on] both men and women. If a person wrote and did not dye, or dyed without writing by cutting [into his flesh], he is not liable. [Punishment is administered] only when he writes and dyes, as [Leviticus 19:28] states: "[Do not make] a dyed inscription [on yourselves]."

‫כתובת קעקע האמורה בתורה הוא‬ ‫שישרט על בשרו וימלא מקום‬ ‫השריטה כחול או דיו או שאר צבעונים‬ ‫הרושמים וזה היה מנהג העכו"ם שרושמין‬ ‫עצמן לעבודת כוכבים כלומר שהוא עבד‬ ‫מכור לה ומורשם לעבודתה ומעת‬ ‫שירשום באחד מדברים הרושמין אחר‬ ‫שישרוט באי זה מקום מן הגוף בין איש בין‬ ‫אשה לוקה כתב ולא רשם בצבע או‬ ‫שרשם בצבע ולא כתב בשריטה פטור עד‬ ‫שיכתוב ויקעקע שנאמר וכתובת קעקע‬ ‫בד"א בכותב אבל זה שכתבו בבשרו‬ ‫וקעקעו בו אינו חייב אלא אם כן סייע כדי‬ ‫שיעשה מעשה אבל אם לא עשה כלום‬ :‫אינו לוקה‬

To whom does this apply? To the person doing the tattooing. A person who is tattooed [by others], however, is not liable unless he assisted the tattooer to the extent that it is considered that he performed a deed. If he did not perform a deed, he is not lashed. Commentary on Halachah 11 The tattooing which the Torah forbids - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 41) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 253) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. involves making a cut in one's flesh and filling the slit with eye-color, ink, or with any other dye that leaves an imprint. - The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 253) states that the order mentioned by the Rambam is significant. If it is reversed and the ink is placed on the skin before an incision is made, one is exempt. TheSiftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 180:1), however, does not accept this view. This was the custom of the idolaters, who would make marks on their bodies for the sake of their idols - branding themselves as if to say that they are like servants sold to the idol and designated for its service. - In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam states that certain sects in Egypt followed these practices in his time as well. When a person makes a mark with one of the substances that leave an imprint after making a slit in any place on his body, he is [liable for] lashes. - The Tosefta (Makkot 3:9) adds that one must have the intent that the inscription is made for the sake of idol worship. This point, however, is not accepted by the halachic authorities. [This prohibition is binding on] both men and women. - The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 180:4, states that one is exempt for branding a servant. The Ramah, however, explains that it is, nevertheless, forbidden to do so.

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

13 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

If a person wrote - by cutting into his flesh and did not dye, or dyed without writing by cutting [into his flesh], he is not liable - for punishment. The Rambam's expression implies that although the person is not lashed, both of these acts are forbidden. The Minchat Chinuch (ibid.) explains that the prohibition against writing on one's flesh applies only when the imprint left by the ink or dye is permanent. If it is removable, it is not forbidden. In this manner, he justifies the acts of people who jot down notes on their flesh when they have no paper available. [Punishment is administered] only when he writes and dyes, as [Leviticus 19:28] states: "[Do not make] a dyed inscription [on yourselves]." - The two words "dyed inscription" imply that both activities must be performed for the person to be held liable. To whom does this apply? To the person doing the tattooing - on himself or on a colleague. A person who is tattooed [by others], however, is not liable unless he assisted the tattooer to the extent that it is considered that he performed a deed. If he did not perform a deed, he is not lashed. - The Kessef Mishneh compares this to the prohibition against shaving the corners of one's head (Halachah 1). Based on this comparison, there are authorities who maintain that although punishment is not administered - because punishment is administered only when a person commits a deed which violates a prohibition - the person who is tattooed is still considered to have transgressed this Torah prohibition.

A person who gouges himself for the dead is lashed, as [Leviticus 19:28] states: "Do not gouge your flesh for the dead." This [prohibition] applies both to priests and to Israelites. A person who makes a single gouge for five dead people or five gouges for a single dead person is [liable for] five measures of lashes, provided he is given a warning for each individual matter.

‫השורט שריטה אחת על המת‬ ‫לוקה שנאמר ושרט לנפש לא‬ ‫תתנו בבשרכם אחד כהן ואחד ישראל‬ ‫שרט שריטה אחת על חמש מתים או‬ ‫חמש שריטות על מת אחד לוקה חמש‬ :‫והוא שהתרו בו על כל אחת ואחת‬

Commentary on Halachah 12 A person who gouges himself for the dead - The prohibition applies only when a person makes such gouges as a sign of bereavement over the dead. Even when he gouges himself as an expression of grief for other matters, he is not liable, as stated in Halachah 16. Nevertheless, as stated in the following halachah, one is also liable for gashing or gouging oneself for idols. is lashed, as [Leviticus 19:28] states: "Do not gouge your flesh for the dead." - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 45) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 467) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This [prohibition] applies both to priests and to Israelites. - Though Leviticus 21:5 specifically forbids the priests from expressing their grief in this manner, that injunction is not considered to be a separate commandment. This prohibition applies to both men and women. A person who makes a single gouge for five dead people -Makkot 20b and the Sifra derive this concept through the exegesis of the verse from Leviticus cited above. Although he performs only a single activity, the verse teaches us that he is held responsible for each person he has in mind. or five gouges for a single dead person is [liable for] five measures of lashes - Each separate act warrants retribution. provided he is given a warning for each individual matter. - Note Halachah 15, which explains an instance where one is liable for five measures of lashes even though only a single warning is given, Seemingly, the same law would apply in this instance (Turei Even).

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

14 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

Gashing and gouging oneself are [governed by] a single [prohibition]. Just as the pagans would gouge their flesh in grief over their dead, they would mutilate themselves for their idols, as [I Kings 18:28] states: "And they mutilated themselves according to their custom." This is also forbidden by the Torah, as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not mutilate yourselves." [The difference between the two is that if one gouges himself in grief over] the dead, whether he did so with his bare hands or with an instrument, he is [liable for] lashes; for the sake of idols, if one uses an instrument, one is liable for lashes. If one does so with one's bare hands, one is exempt.

‫גדידה ושריטה אחת היא וכשם‬ ‫שהיו העכו"ם שורטים בבשרם על‬ ‫מתיהם מפני הצער כך היו חובלין בעצמם‬ ‫לעבודת כוכבים שנאמר ויתגודדו‬ ‫כמשפטם גם זה אסרה תורה שנאמר לא‬ ‫תתגודדו אלא שעל מת בין שרט בידו בין‬ ‫שרט בכלי לוקה לעבודת כוכבים בכלי‬ :‫חייב מלקות בידו פטור‬

Commentary on Halachah 13 Gashing and gouging oneself - Based on Makkot 21a, it appears that gashing is done with an instrument, and gouging with one's bare hands. Nevertheless, they are [governed by] a single [prohibition]. - Thus, regardless of how one performs the act, if one mutilates oneself in grief over the dead, one is held liable. There are opinions (see Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 180:7), however, which allow one to beat one's flesh in grief until blood flows. Just as the pagans would gouge their flesh in grief over their dead, they would mutilate themselves for their idols TheKessef Mishneh explains that this mutilation was not part of the rites used to worship the false deity - for if so, a violator would be executed - but rather a voluntary act, intended to attract the deity's attention. as [I Kings 18:28] states - regarding the prophets of the Baal who engaged in the confrontation with the prophet Elijah at Mount Carmel: "And they mutilated themselves according to their custom." - This implies that this was not an isolated occurrence, but rather the routine followed by the Baal's priests. This is also forbidden by the Torah, as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not mutilate yourselves." - This injunction is not considered to be a separate commandment, but rather a further explanation of the mitzvah stated previously. [The difference between the two is that if one gouges himself in grief over] the dead, whether he did so with his bare hands or with an instrument, he is [liable for] lashes; - Since the verse from Deuteronomy also concludes "for the dead," it appears that both gashing and gouging are forbidden essentially as mourning rites. There is, however, an added dimension to the prohibition against gashing; doing so for the sake of idols - In such an instance if one uses an instrument, one is liable for lashes. - Since that is the normal practice, as the verse from Kings continues: "With their swords and lances." If one does so with one's bare hands, one is exempt. - Doing so is, nevertheless, forbidden (Tzemach Tzedek).

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

15 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

This commandment also includes [a prohibition] against there being two courts which follow different customs in a single city, since this can cause great strife. [Because of the similarity in the Hebrew roots,] the prohibition against gashing ourselves [can be interpreted] to mean: "Do not separate into various different groupings."

‫ובכלל אזהרה זה שלא יהיו שני‬ ‫בתי דינין בעיר אחת זה נוהג‬ ‫כמנהג זה וזה נוהג כמנהג אחר שדבר זה‬ ‫גורם למחלוקות גדולות שנאמר לא‬ :‫תתגודדו לא תעשו אגודות אגודות‬

Commentary on Halachah 14 This commandment also includes [a prohibition] - In Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 45), the Rambam explains that the interpretation which follows is an allegory, and the simple meaning of the verse is to prohibit gashing oneself in grief. Nevertheless, it is significant that the Rambam includes this "allegory" in a text which is, as he states in his introduction, "halachot, halachot." Thus, he emphasizes how important unity is to the Jewish people. There is an important halachic dimension to the Rambam's explanation in Sefer HaMitzvot. One of the principles of Torah law is that punishment is never administered for the violation of a ‫"( לאו שבכללות‬a prohibition which includes within it several different injunctions;" see Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3). If this allegorical interpretation of the mitzvah were considered to be included in the simple meaning of the mitzvah, this principle would also apply regarding this mitzvah, and lashes might not be administered when one gashed oneself in mourning (Kessef Mishneh). against there being two courts which follow different customs in a single city, since this can cause great strife. - This decision has been the subject of much discussion among the Rabbis, because it appears to run contrary to one of the accepted principles of halachah. The Rabbis concluded that whenever there is a difference in opinion between Abbaye and Ravva, the halachah follows Ravva, with the exception of six specific instances (‫)יעל קגם‬. In the present case, the Rambam quotes Abbaye's opinion even though Ravva differs, stating that the prohibition applies only when one follows a divergent opinion without the support of a formal Rabbinical court (Yevamot 14a). When, however, there is a Rabbinical court which advocates each of the differing opinions e.g., the differences of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel - there is no prohibition against following either view until the halachah is determined by the supreme Sanhedrin. Many authorities have advanced different explanations for the Rambam's decision. The most straightforward is that of the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1384), who explains that the Rambam favored Abbaye's view because of the emphasis on unity. Furthermore, selecting it over Ravva's in this instance does not represent a break with the accepted tradition, since the difference of opinion here does not center on positions adopted by Abbaye and Ravva independently, but rather on their interpretation of Resh Lakish's statements. [Because of the similarity in the Hebrew roots,] - The Hebrew ‫ גדד‬means both "gash" and "group." the prohibition against gashing ourselves [can be interpreted] to mean: "Do not separate into various different groupings." - It must be noted that the Shulchan Aruch does not quote this halachah as law. It would appear that while many of the subsequent Rabbis appreciate the ideal of unity this halachah espouses, they felt that compelling people to conform to a uniform standard would create more strife than would result from the existence of different views. One of the practical applications of the issues under discussion is the issue of differences between Sephardic and Ashkenazic religious practices (and similarly, the variety of different approaches that exist within these two major groupings). All of the contemporary authorities agree that it is desirable for each group to adhere to its native customs without change. This plurality of halachic perspectives is an expression - and not a negation - of the all-encompassing unity that permeates Torah Judaism. (See Ezrat Cohen, Responsum 103.)

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

16 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

A person who creates a bald spot [on his head] for a dead person is [liable for] lashes, as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not make a bald spot between your eyes for a dead person." When either a priest or an Israelite makes a bald spot [on his head] for a dead person, he is [liable for] only a single measure of lashes. A person who makes four or five bald spots for a single dead person is [liable for] a measure of lashes equivalent to the number of bald spots he made, provided he received a separate warning for each bald spot. There is no difference whether one created the bald spot with his hands or with a potion. If a person dipped his fingers into a potion and positioned them in five places on his head at the same time, since he created five bald spots, he is [liable for] five measures of lashes even though only a single warning was given, for they were all created at the same time.

‫הקורח קרחה על המת לוקה‬ ‫שנאמר ולא תשימו קרחה בין‬ ‫עיניכם למת אחד ישראל ואחד כהן‬ ‫ששרט על המת אינו לוקה אלא אחת‬ ‫הקורח ארבע או חמש קרחות על מת‬ ‫אחד לוקה כמנין הקרחות והוא שהתרו בו‬ ‫על כל קרחה וקרחה אחד הקורח בידו או‬ ‫בסם או הטביל אצבעותיו בסם והניחם‬ ‫בחמשה מקומות בראשו בבת אחת הואיל‬ ‫וקרח חמש קרחות אף על פי שהיא‬ ‫התראה אחת לוקה חמש שהרי כולן באין‬ ‫כאחת וחייב על כל הראש כבין העינים‬ ‫שנאמר לא יקרחו קרחה בראשם וכמה‬ ‫שיעור הקרחה כדי שיראה מראשו כגריס‬ :‫פנוי בלי שיער‬

One is liable [for creating a bald spot] on any part of the head, [not only] "between the eyes" [as is inferred from Leviticus 21:5]: "Do not make a bald spot on your heads." What is the measure of a bald spot? An area on one's head the size of a gris which is free of hair. Commentary on Halachah 15 A person who creates a bald spot [on his head] for a dead person - Even today, we find the colloquialism, "tear out his hair in grief." is [liable for] lashes - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 171) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 468) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. It is significant that the Rambam did not list this prohibition together with the previous ones in Sefer HaMitzvot. as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not make a bald spot between your eyes - Menachot 37b explains that here the intent is not the area which is literally "between the eyes," but rather the center of the head. for a dead person." When either a priest or an Israelite makes a bald spot [on his head] for a dead person, he is [liable for] only a single measure of lashes. - Although, as the Rambam quotes below, Leviticus 21:5 states specifically that a priest may not create a bald spot on his head, that verse should not be understood to be a separate commandment, but rather a further elaboration of this prohibition.

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

17 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

In Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 171), the Rambam elaborates on this subject, explaining that since the mitzvah cannot be derived in its entirety from the verse in Deuteronomy, the verse in Leviticus is not considered to be a second mitzvah applying to priests alone, but rather a further definition of that same command. A person who makes four or five bald spots for a single dead person is [liable for] a measure of lashes equivalent to the number of bald spots he made, provided he received a separate warning for each bald spot - as explained in Halachah 12. If, however, he creates a single bald spot for five individuals, he is [liable for] only a single measure of lashes. In contrast, were he to gouge himself once for each of these individuals he would receive a commensurate number of measures of lashes. There is no difference whether one created the bald spot with his hands - pulling his hair out or with a potion - that removes the hair chemically. If a person dipped his fingers into a potion and positioned them in five places on his head at the same time, since he created five bald spots, he is [liable for] five measures of lashes - because it is considered as if he performed five different activities. even though only a single warning was given - That warning can be applied to each of the bald spots he created for they were all created at the same time. One is liable [for creating a bald spot] on any part of the head, [not only] "between the eyes" - as mentioned in the verse from Deuteronomy quoted above. [as is inferred from Leviticus 21:5]: "Do not make a bald spot on your heads." - Makkot 20b explains that this verse is used to define the scope of the prohibition for everyone, both priests and Israelites. What is the measure of a bald spot? An area on one's head the size of a gris - Nega'im 6:1 defines a gris as an area which encompasses 36 hairs as they stand naturally on one's head. Contemporary authorities explain that this is approximately the size of an American dime or slightly smaller than an Israeli telephone token. which is free of hair. - Rabbenu Asher disagrees and maintains that one is liable even if he removes two hairs. Furthermore, even the removal of a single hair is forbidden. (See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 180:9; Gilyon HaMaharsha.)

16. A person who makes a bald spot on his head or gouges his flesh because his house falls or because his ship sinks at sea is exempt. One is lashed only [if he carries out these acts] for the sake of a deceased person or if he gashes his flesh for the sake of an idol. [The following laws apply] when a person creates a bald spot on a colleague's head, makes a gash on a colleague's flesh, or tattoos his colleague's flesh while his colleague assists him. If they both intended to violate the prohibition, both receive lashes. If one violated the prohibition inadvertently and the other did so intentionally, the one who performed the act intentionally is [liable for] lashes, and his colleague is exempt.

‫הקורח ראשו או השורט בבשרו‬ ‫על ביתו שנפל ועל ספינתו‬ ‫שנטבעה בים פטור ואינו לוקה אלא על‬ ‫המת בלבד או השורט לעבודת כוכבים‬ ‫הקורח קרחה בראשו של חבירו והשורט‬ ‫שריטה בבשר חבירו והכותב כתובת‬ ‫קעקע בבשרו של חבירו והיה חבירו‬ ‫מסייע בזמן ששניהן מזידין שניהן לוקין‬ ‫אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד המזיד משניהם‬ :‫לוקה והשוגג פטור‬

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

18 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

Commentary on Halachah 16

A person who makes a bald spot on his head or gouges his flesh - for sources of grief other than a person's death - e.g., because his house falls or because his ship sinks at sea is exempt. - Though it is forbidden to do, punishment is not administered. One is lashed only [if he carries out these acts] for the sake of a deceased person - as mentioned in the Biblical proof-texts or if he gashes his flesh - with a utensil for the sake of an idol - as explained in Halachah 13. [The following laws apply] when a person creates a bald spot on a colleague's head, makes a gash on a colleague's flesh, or tattoos his colleague's flesh while his colleague assists him. - As explained above, the person who performs these activities is held liable. In contrast, the person to whom these acts are done is held liable only if he assists in the performance of the deed. If they both intended to violate the prohibition, both receive lashes. - Each is held liable as if he performed the prohibition himself in its entirety. If one violated the prohibition inadvertently and one did so intentionally, the one who performed the act intentionally is [liable for] lashes, and his colleague is exempt. - Apparently, he is not required even to bring a sacrifice. The obligation to bring a sacrifice is a sign of Divine mercy, intended to allow a person to gain atonement. Since his colleague is [liable for] lashes for the transgression, he is not given the opportunity to atone for his part in the sin merely through offering a sacrifice.

« Previous

Next » Teshuvah

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eleven Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Twelve - Texts & Writings

19 of 19

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912371/jewish/Avodat-...

8/20/2019 12:25 AM

1



Sefer Avodah The Book of Service Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Beit Habechirah Beit Habechirah - Chapter 1

Beit Habechirah - Chapter 5

Beit Habechirah - Chapter 2

Beit Habechirah - Chapter 6

Beit Habechirah - Chapter 3

Beit Habechirah - Chapter 7

Beit Habechirah - Chapter 4

Beit Habechirah - Chapter 8

Klei Hamikdash Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 1

Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 5

Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 2

Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 6

Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 3

Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 7

Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 4

View All 10

Biat Hamikdash Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 1

Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 5

Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 2

Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 6

Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 3

Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 7

Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4

View All 9

Issurei Mizbeiach Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 1

Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 5

Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2

Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 6

Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3

Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 7

Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4

Maaseh Hakorbanot Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 1

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 5

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 2

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 6

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 3

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 7

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 4

View All 19

2

Temidin uMusafim Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 1

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 5

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 2

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 6

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 3

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 7

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 4

View All 10

Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 1

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 6

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 7

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4

View All 19

Avodat Yom haKippurim Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 1

Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 5

Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 2 Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 3 Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 4

Me`ilah Me`ilah - Perek 1

Me`ilah - Perek 5

Me`ilah - Perek 2

Me`ilah - Perek 6

Me`ilah - Perek 3

Me`ilah - Perek 7

Me`ilah - Perek 4

Me`ilah - Perek 8

3

1



Beit Habechirah Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Beit Habechirah - Chapter 1 Beit Habechirah - Chapter 2 Beit Habechirah - Chapter 3 Beit Habechirah - Chapter 4 Beit Habechirah - Chapter 5 Beit Habechirah - Chapter 6 Beit Habechirah - Chapter 7 Beit Habechirah - Chapter 8

2

1



Beit Habechirah - Chapter 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 2

2

In the name of the Lord, the God of the world. Request the welfare of Jerusalem; may those who love you enjoy tranquility.

(‫עוֹלם )בראשית כא לג‬ ָ ‫ְבּ ֵשׁם יי ֵאל‬ ִ‫ יִ ְשׁ ָליוּ א ֲֹה ָבי‬, ‫רוּשׁ ָל‬ ָ ְ‫ַשׁ ֲאלוּ ְשׁלוֹם י‬ (‫)תהלים קכב ו‬

The Eighth book which is The Book of Service

‫ספר שמיני והוא ספר עבודה‬

It contains nine sets of Halachot and this is their order:

:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו תשע‬

The Laws of Beit Habechirah The Laws of Klei Hamikdash The Laws of Biat Hamikdash The Laws of Issurei Mizbeiach The Laws of Maaseh Hakorbanot The Laws of Temidin uMusafim The Laws of Pesulei Hamukdashim The Laws of Avodat Yom haKippurim The Laws of Me`ilah

‫הלכות בית הבחירה‬ ‫הלכות כלי המקדש והעובדין בו‬ ‫הלכות ביאת מקדש‬ ‫הלכות איסורי המזבח‬ ‫הלכות מעשה הקרבנות‬ ‫הלכות תמידים ומוספין‬ ‫הלכות פסולי המוקדשין‬ ‫הלכות עבודת יום הכפורים‬ ‫הלכות מעילה‬

Introduction to Hilchot Beit Habechirah

‫ הקדמה‬- ‫הלכות בית הבחירה‬

They contain six mitzvot: three positive commandments and three negative commandments. They are: 1) To erect a Sanctuary; 2) Not to build the altar of hewn stones; 3) Not to go up by steps unto the altar; 4) To revere the Sanctuary; 5) To keep a guard about the Sanctuary; 6) Not to leave the Sanctuary unguarded These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.

,‫ שלוש מצות עשה‬:‫יש בכללן שש מצוות‬ :‫ וזה הוא פרטן‬.‫ושלוש מצוות לא תעשה‬ .‫)א( לבנות מקדש‬ .‫)ב( שלא לבנות המזבח גזית‬ .‫)ג( שלא לעלות במעלות עליו‬ .‫)ד( ליראה מן המקדש‬ .‫)ה( לשמור את המקדש סביב‬ .‫)ו( שלא להשבית שמירת המקדש‬ :‫וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו‬

3

1

It is a positive commandment2 to construct a House for God,3 prepared for sacrifices to be offered within.4 We [must] celebrate there three times a year,5 as [Exodus 25:8] states: "And you shall make Me a sanctuary.6"

‫מצות עשה לעשות בית ליי' מוכן‬ ‫להיות מקריבים בו הקרבנות וחוגגין‬ ‫אליו שלש פעמים בשנה שנאמר ועשו לי‬ ‫מקדש וכבר נתפרש בתורה משכן שעשה‬ ‫משה רבינו והיה לפי שעה שנאמר כי לא‬ :'‫באתם עד עתה וגו‬

The sanctuary constructed by Moses is already described in the Torah.7 It was only temporary,8 as [Deuteronomy 12:9] states: "For at present, you have not come unto [the resting place and the inheritance]."9 After [the Jews] entered The Land [of Israel],10 they erected the Sanctuary in Gilgal during the fourteen years in which they conquered and divided [the land].11From there, they came to Shiloh,12 built a house of stone, and spread the curtains of the Sanctuary over it. It did not have a roof. The sanctuary of Shiloh stood for 369 years. When Eli died, it was destroyed.13 [Afterwards,] they came to Nov14 and built a sanctuary.15 When Samuel died, it was destroyed.16 And they came to Givon17 and built a sanctuary. From Givon, they came to the eternal structure [in Jerusalem].18 The days [the sanctuary stood] in Nov and Givon were 57 years. Once the Temple was built in Jerusalem, it became forbidden to build a sanctuary for God or to offer sacrifices in any other place.19 There is no Sanctuary for all generations20 except in Jerusalem and [specifically,] on Mt. Moriah,21 as [I Chronicles 22:1] states: "And David declared: 'This is the House of the Lord, God, and this is the altar for the burnt offerings of Israel.'22 and [Psalms 132:14] states: "This is My resting place forever."23

‫כיון שנכנסו לארץ העמידו המשכן‬ ‫בגלגל ארבע עשרה שנה שכבשו‬ ‫ושחלקו ומשם באו לשילה ובנו שם בית‬ ‫של אבנים ופרשו יריעות המשכן עליו ולא‬ ‫היתה שם תקרה ושס"ט שנה עמד משכן‬ ‫שילה וכשמת עלי חרב ובאו לנוב ובנו שם‬ ‫מקדש וכשמת שמואל חרב ובאו לגבעון‬ ‫ובנו שם מקדש ומגבעון באו לבית‬ ‫העולמים וימי נוב וגבעון שבע וחמשים‬ :‫שנה‬

‫כיון שנבנה המקדש בירושלים נאסרו‬ '‫כל המקומות כולן לבנות בהן בית ליי‬ ‫ולהקריב בהן קרבן ואין שם בית לדורי‬ ‫הדורות אלא בירושלים בלבד ובהר‬ ‫המוריה שבה נאמר ויאמר דויד זה הוא‬ ‫בית יי' האלהים וזה מזבח לעולה לישראל‬ :‫ואומר זאת מנוחתי עדי עד‬

4

The [design of the] structure built by [King] Solomon is described explicitly in [the Book of] Kings.24 [In contrast, the design of] the Messianic Temple, though mentioned in [the Book of] Ezekiel, is not explicit or explained. Thus, the people [in the time] of Ezra built the Second Temple according to the structure of Solomon, [including] certain aspects which are explicitly stated in Ezekiel.25

‫בנין שבנה שלמה כבר מפורש‬ ‫במלכים וכן בנין העתיד להבנות‬ ‫אע"פ שהוא כתוב ביחזקאל אינו מפורש‬ ‫ומבואר ואנשי בית שני כשבנו בימי עזרא‬ ‫בנוהו כבנין שלמה ומעין דברים‬ :‫המפורשים ביחזקאל‬

The followings elements are essential when constructing this House:26

‫ואלו הן הדברים שהן עיקר בבנין‬ ‫הבית עושין בו קדש וקדש הקדשים‬ ‫ויהיה לפני הקדש מקום אחד והוא הנקרא‬ ‫אולם ושלשתן נקראין היכל ועושין מחיצה‬ ‫אחרת סביב להיכל רחוקה ממנו כעין‬ ‫קלעי החצר שהיו במדבר וכל המוקף‬ ‫במחיצה זו שהוא כעין חצר אהל מועד‬ :‫הוא הנקרא עזרה והכל נקרא מקדש‬

a) the Sanctuary,27 b) the Holy of Holies,28 c) preceding the Sanctuary, there should be a place called the Entrance Hall.29 The three [together] are called the Temple.30 [In addition,] we must make another partition around the Temple, set off from it [slightly], resembling the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the [sanctuary in the] desert.31 Everything encompassed by this partition is similar to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting and is called the Courtyard.32 The entire area is referred to as the Mikdash.

5

The following Sanctuary:33

utensils are required

for

the

a) an altar for the burnt offering and other sacrifices;34 b) a ramp to ascend to the altar. It was positioned before the Entrance Hall to the south.35 c) a wash basin36 with a pedestal where the priests would sanctify their hands and feet for the (Temple) service.37 It was positioned between the Entrance Hall and the altar, to the left when entering the Sanctuary.38

‫ועושין במקדש כלים מזבח לעולה‬ ‫ולשאר הקרבנות וכבש שעולים בו‬ ‫למזבח ומקומו לפני האולם משוך לדרום‬ ‫וכיור וכנו לקדש ממנו הכהנים ידיהם‬ ‫ורגליהם לעבודה ומקומו בין האולם‬ ‫ולמזבח משוך לדרום שהוא שמאל הנכנס‬ ‫למקדש ומזבח לקטורת ומנורה ושולחן‬ :‫ושלשתן בתוך הקדש לפני קדש הקדשים‬

d) the altar for the incense offering, e) the Menorah, and f) the table [for the showbread].39 The [latter] three were placed within the Sanctuary, before the Holy of Holies.40 The Menorah was in the south, to the left as one entered. The Table was to the right.41 The Showbread was placed upon it. Both of them were close to the Holy of Holies on the outside. The incense altar was positioned between these two, towards the outside. Divisions are to be made within the Temple Courtyard to [indicate] the point to which the Israelites may proceed;42 the point to which the priests, [who were not able to participate in the Temple service,] may proceed.43 [Also,] within it, we must build structures for the various necessities of the Sanctuary. These structures were called chambers.44

‫המנורה בדרום משמאל הנכנס ושולחן‬ ‫מימין שעליו לחם הפנים ושניהם בצד‬ ‫קדש הקדשים מבחוץ ומזבח הקטורת‬ ‫משוך מבין שניהם לחוץ ועושין בתוך‬ ‫העזרה גבולין עד כאן לישראל עד כאן‬ ‫לכהנים ובונים בה בתים לשאר צרכי‬ :‫המקדש כל בית מהם נקרא לשכה‬

6

When we build the Temple and the courtyard, we must use large stones. If stones cannot be found, we may build with bricks.45 We may not split the stones used for the building on the Temple Mount.46 Rather, we must split and chisel them outside, and [afterwards,] bring them in,47 as it is said (I Kings 5:31): "And they brought great stones, costly stones, to lay the foundation of the House with hewn stone." Furthermore, it is said (ibid. 6:7): "Neither hammer, nor axe, nor any tool of iron was heard in the House while it was being built." We must not build with any wood protruding at all,48 only stone, bricks, or cement. [Similarly,] we must not make wooden chambers in the courtyard. Rather, [they were made] of stone or of brick.

‫כשבונין ההיכל והעזרה בונין באבנים‬ ‫גדולות ואם לא מצאו אבנים בונין‬ ‫בלבנים ואין מפצלין את אבני הבנין בהר‬ ‫הבית אלא מפצלין אותן ומסתתין אותן‬ ‫מבחוץ ואחר כך מכניסין אותן לבנין‬ ‫שנאמר אבנים גדולות אבנים יקרות ליסד‬ ‫הבית אבני גזית ואומר ומקבות והגרזן כל‬ :‫כלי ברזל לא נשמע בבית בהבנותו‬

‫ואין בונין בו עץ בולט כלל אלא או‬ ‫באבנים או בלבנים וסיד ואין עושין‬ ‫אכסדרות של עץ בכל העזרה אלא של‬ :‫אבנים או לבנים‬

49

Costly stones were laid on the floor of the entire courtyard.50 Stones which were uprooted [from their fixture] are invalidated, even though they remained in place, since they were impaired. [Thus,] a priest is forbidden to stand upon them during the [Temple] service until they become fixed in the ground [again.]51 The most preferable way to fulfill the mitzvah is by strengthening the building and raising it [to the utmost degree] within the potential of the community, as [implied by Ezra 9:9]: "to exalt the House of our Lord."52 They must make it beautiful and attractive according to their potential.53 If possible, it is a mitzvah to plate it with gold and to magnify all of its aspects.54

‫ומרצפין את כל העזרה באבנים יקרות‬ ‫ואם נעקרה אבן אף על פי שהיא‬ ‫עומדת במקומה הואיל ונתקלקלה פסולה‬ ‫ואסור לכהן העובד לעמוד עליה בשעת‬ :‫העבודה עד שתקבע בארץ‬

‫ומצוה מן המובחר לחזק את הבנין‬ ‫ולהגביהו כפי כח הציבור שנאמר‬ ‫ולרומם את בית אלהינו ומפארין אותו‬ ‫ומייפין כפי כחן אם יכולין לטוח אותו‬ :‫בזהב ולהגדיל במעשיו ה"ז מצוה‬

We must not build the Temple at night, as [Numbers 9:15] states: "on the day in which the Sanctuary was raised up." [Our Sages55 interpret this phrase as implying:] We may raise it up by day and not by night. We must be involved with its building from dawn until the appearance of the stars.56

‫אין בונין את המקדש בלילה‬ ‫שנאמר וביום הקים את המשכן‬ ‫ביום מקימין לא בלילה ועוסקין בבנין‬ ‫מעלות השחר עד צאת הכוכבים והכל‬ ‫חייבין לבנות ולסעד בעצמן ובממונם‬ ‫אנשים ונשים כמקדש המדבר ואין מבטלין‬ ‫תינוקות של בית רבן לבנין ואין בנין ב"ה‬ :‫דוחה יום טוב‬

Everyone is obligated to build and to assist both personally and financially;57[both] men and women,58 as in the [construction of the] Sanctuary in the desert.59 [Nevertheless,] children are not to be interrupted from their [Torah] studies.60 The construction of the Temple does not supersede the [observance of the] festivals.61 The Altar should only be made as a structure of stone.62 Though the Torah states, [Exodus 20:24]: "You shall make Me an altar of earth," [that verse is interpreted63 to mean that] the altar must be in contact with the earth and not built on an arch or on a cave.64 Though [ibid.:22] states: "If you shall make an Altar of stone...," the Oral Tradition explains that the matter is not left to [our] decision, but is an obligation [incumbent upon us].65

7

‫המזבח אין עושין אותו אלא בנין‬ ‫אבנים )גזית( וזה שנאמר בתורה‬ ‫מזבח אדמה תעשה לי שיהיה מחובר‬ ‫באדמה שלא יבנוהו לא על גבי כיפין ולא‬ ‫על גבי מחילות וזה שנאמר ואם מזבח‬ ‫אבנים מפי השמועה למדו שאינו רשות‬ :‫אלא חובה‬

8

Any stone which is damaged66 to the extent that a nail will become caught in it [when passing over it], as is the case regarding a slaughtering knife,67is disqualified for [use in the] Altar or the ramp, as [Deuteronomy 27:6] states: "You shall build the Altar of the Lord with whole stones."68 From where would they bring the stones of the Altar? From virgin earth. They would dig until they reach a point which was obviously never used for tilling or for building, and they would take the stones from there.69 Alternatively, [they would take them] from the Mediterranean Sea70 and build with them.

‫כל אבן שנפגמה כדי שתחגור בה‬ ‫הציפורן כסכין של שחיטה הרי זו‬ ‫פסולה לכבש ולמזבח שנאמר אבנים‬ ‫שלמות תבנה את מזבח יי' ומהיכן היו‬ ‫מביאין אבני מזבח מן בתולת הקרקע‬ ‫חופרין עד שמגיעין למקום הניכר שאינו‬ ‫מקום עבודה ובנין ומוציאין ממנו האבנים‬ ‫או מן הים הגדול ובונין מהן וכן אבני‬ :‫ההיכל והעזרות שלמות היו‬

Similarly, the stones of the Temple and the Courtyard were whole.71 Damaged or split stones from the Temple and the Courtyard are invalid.72 They can not be redeemed [and used for mundane purposes].73Rather, they must be entombed.74 Every stone which was touched by iron,75 even though it was not damaged, is disqualified [for use] in building the Altar or the ramp, as it is said (Exodus 20:25): "By lifting your sword against it, you will have profaned it."76 Anyone who builds the altar or the ramp with a stone that has been touched by iron [violates a negative command and] is [given] lashes,77 as it is said (ibid.): "Do not build them with hewn stone." One who builds with a damaged stone violates a positive command.78

‫אבני היכל ועזרות שנפגמו או‬ ‫שנגממו פסולין ואין להן פדיון‬ ‫אלא נגנזים כל אבן שנגע בה הברזל אע"פ‬ ‫שלא נפגמה פסולה לבנין המזבח ובנין‬ ‫הכבש שנאמר כי חרבך הנפת עליה‬ ‫ותחללה והבונה אבן שנגע בה ברזל‬ ‫במזבח או בכבש לוקה שנאמר לא תבנה‬ :‫אתהן גזית והבונה אבן פגום עובר בעשה‬

9

[If] a stone was damaged or touched by iron once it had been built into the Altar or the ramp, that stone [alone] is invalidated, but the others are still fit for use. They coated the altar [with cement] twice a year, [before] Pesach and [before] Sukkot.79 When they coated it, they used a cloth, rather than an iron lathe,80 lest it touch a stone and invalidate [it.] We must not make steps for the Altar, as [Exodus 22:26] states: "Do not ascend on My Altar with steps."81 Rather, we must build an incline on the southern side of the Altar,82 diminishing [in height] as it declines from the top of the Altar until the earth.83 It was called the ramp. Anyone who ascends the Altar with steps [violates a negative command and] is [given] lashes.

‫אבן שנפגמה או שנגע בה ברזל‬ ‫אחר שנבנית במזבח או בכבש‬ ‫אותה האבן פסולה והשאר כשירו' ומלבנין‬ ‫את המזבח פעמים בשנה בפסח ובחג‬ ‫וכשמלבנין אותן מלבנין במפה אבל לא‬ :‫בכפיס של ברזל שמא יגע באבן ויפסול‬

‫אין עושין מדרגות למזבח שנאמר‬ ‫לא תעלה במעלות על מזבחי אלא‬ ‫בונין כמו תל בדרומו של מזבח מתמעט‬ ‫ויורד מראש המזבח עד הארץ והוא‬ ‫הנקרא כבש והעולה במעלות על המזבח‬ ‫לוקה וכן נותץ אבן אחת מן המזבח או‬ ‫מכל ההיכל או מבין האולם ולמזבח דרך‬ ‫השחתה לוקה שנאמר ונתצתם את‬ :‫מזבחותם וגו' לא תעשון כן ליי' אלהיכם‬

Similarly, anyone who demolishes84 a single stone from the Altar, any part of the Temple building, or [the floor of the Temple Courtyard] between the Entrance Hall and the Altar85 with a destructive intent is worthy of lashes, as [Deuteronomy 12:3-4] states: "And you shall destroy their altars.... Do not do so to God, your Lord."86 The Menorah and its utensils,87 the Table and its utensils,88 the Incense Altar, and all the sacred utensils may be made only from metal. If they are made from wood, bone, stone, or glass, they are unacceptable.89

‫המנורה וכליה והשולחן וכליו‬ ‫ומזבח הקטורת וכל כלי שרת אין‬ ‫עושין אותן אלא מן המתכת בלבד ואם‬ ‫עשאום של עץ או עצם או אבן או של‬ :‫זכוכית פסולין‬

10

If the nation is poor, it is permissible to make them of tin.90 If they [later] become wealthy, they should be made of gold. If the nation possesses the means, they should even make the basins, the spits, and the rakes of the altar of the burnt offering and, [similarly,] the [Temple's] measuring vessels, out of gold.91 They should even coat the gates of the Courtyard with gold, if it is within their potential.92 All the [Temple's] utensils must initially be made for sacred purposes.93If they were initially made for mundane uses,94 they may not be used for [the Temple's] sake.95 A vessel [intended to be used for the Temple], but which was never used for [the Temple] may be used for mundane purposes. Once it has been used for [the Temple], it may not be used for mundane purposes.96

‫היו הקהל עניים עושין אותן אפילו‬ ‫של בדיל ואם העשירו עושין אותן‬ ‫זהב אפילו המזרקות והשפודין והמגרפות‬ ‫של מזבח העולה והמדות אם יש כח‬ ‫בציבור עושין אותן של זהב אפילו שערי‬ :‫העזרה מחפין אותן זהב אם מצאה ידם‬

‫אין עושין כל הכלים מתחילתן אלא‬ ‫לשם הקודש ואם נעשו מתחילתן‬ ‫להדיוט אין עושין אותן לגבוה וכלי גבוה‬ ‫עד שלא נשתמש בהן גבוה רשאי‬ ‫להשתמש בהן הדיוט ומשנשתמש בהן‬ ‫גבוה אסורין להדיוט אבנים וקורות שחצבן‬ ‫מתחלה לבית הכנסת אין בונין אותן להר‬ :‫הבית‬

Stones or boards which were originally hewn for use in a synagogue should not be used in the Temple Mount construction.97

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. The Rambam introduces each book of the Mishneh Torah by

2. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 20) and Sefer

quoting a verse from the Bible. In this case, the verse chosen does more than introduce the text to follow. It also

HaChinuch (mitzvah 95) include this as one of 613 mitzvot.

emphasizes that we are commanded to "seek out the welfare of Jerusalem" and study the laws of the Temple's

whole and must be undertaken by the nation as a collective entity. See Hilchot Melachim 1:1 which speaks of "Israel

construction.

being commanded to fulfill three mitzvot upon entering [the

The mitzvah is incumbent on the Jewish community as a

Promised] Land."

11

3. There are two ways to understand this mitzvah: a) to build the Temple,

4. This phrase is the subject of much commentary. In Sefer HaMitzvot(loc. cit.) the Rambam describes the mitzvah to

b) to ensure that the Temple be built; the mitzvah is not fulfilled until that objective is accomplished.

build a Sanctuary as : "the command... to make a house for service where sacrifices will be offered."

The question is whether the command is to perform an activity or to see that an objective is completed. In his

In contrast, the Ramban (Nachmanides) views the construction of the Temple as a command with a

commentary on the Torah (Exodus 35:10), the Rogachover Gaon favors the latter explanation and explains a number of

self-contained objective. Thus, he writes in his commentary to the Torah (Exodus 25:2): "[God's] essential desire in the

possible practical differences between these abstract concepts. Among them:

Sanctuary was the [construction of] a resting place for the Shechinah."

a) Must a blessing be recited before taking part in the construction of the Temple? If the mitzvah is the actual

Some commentaries explain the disagreement between

building, a blessing would be required. However, if the mitzvah is to ensure that the Temple be completed, no blessing is necessary. b) Can a gentile participate in the building of the Temple? If the actual construction is the mitzvah, it would be improper for a gentile to participate. However, if the mitzvah is dependent on the completion of the objective, the construction of the Temple, there is no difference if a gentile's efforts also aided in the fulfillment of this goal. c) If the Temple descends from heaven - as some maintain the Third Temple will - will it be considered as if the mitzvah has been fulfilled (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 18, p. 418). From the Rambam' wording (Halachah 12 and elsewhere), it appears that he views the mitzvah as the activity of building.

these giants simply: According to the Rambam, the Temple was built to allow for sacrifices to be offered, while the Ramban views the revelation of the Shechinah as the Temple's purpose. However, this interpretation can not be accepted because: a) the Torah itself specifically refers to the Temple as (Deuteronomy 12:5): "The place which God has chosen to cause His Name to dwell there," emphasizing the revelation of Godliness. b) when describing the mitzvah to build a Sanctuary, the Rambam himself writes that we are commanded "to construct a house for God," stressing that the main element of the Temple was the revelation of Godliness. It is after that statement, that he declares that the House must be "prepared for sacrifices to be offered within." Therefore, it must be assumed that both sages recognized the two differing elements, and the debate between them involves the question of determining which aspect is more important. The Ramban considered the fundamental goal the revelation of Godliness and viewed man's service as a means toward that end. On the other hand, the Rambam saw man's service as the ultimate objective. However, that service could only be complete when carried out in a place where Godliness is revealed (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 4, p. 1346, Vol. 11, p. 116, Vol. 24, p. 84). 5. The pilgrimage festivals; Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot. On these festivals, each Jew was obligated to come to the Temple and present himself before God. In particular, the term "celebrate" refers to bringing the festive peace-offerings (see Hilchot Chagigah 1:1). 6. Even though this verse specifically refers to the construction of the sanctuary in the desert, the construction of the later sanctuaries and the building of the Temple were also implicit in that command (Kessef Mishneh). In Hilchot Melachim (1:1), the Rambam writes "Israel was commanded to fulfill three mitzvot upon its entry into Eretz [Yisrael]: to appoint a king..., to annihilate the seed of Amalek.., and to build [God's] Chosen House as it is said: "You shall seek out His dwelling and come there." The commentaries offer different explanations why the Rambam quotes a different verse in either place.

7. In the Book of Exodus, Chapters 25-40. 8. And was replaced by other structures, as described in the following Halachah. 9. Commenting on this verse, Zevachim 119a declares: "'the resting place' - this is Shiloh, [for Shiloh was also merely a temporary resting place for the Divine Presence]; 'the inheritance' - this is Jerusalem." (Just as an inheritance reflects an everlasting chain, so too, the Divine Presence will always remain in Jerusalem.) 10. In the year 2488 after creation. 11. The conquest of the Land took seven years, and the division took another seven years (Zevachim 118b). 12. In the year 2502, built a house of stone and spread the curtains of the Sanctuary over it. It did not have a roof. The Talmud (ibid.) explains: I Samuel 1:24 declares: "And she brought him to the House of God, Shiloh" implying that the Ark was enclosed with a permanent structure. Another verse (Psalms 78:60) states: "He has forsaken the tabernacle of Shiloh" from which it can be inferred that it was a tent-like structure resembling the Sanctuary in the desert. How can the two verses be reconciled? There was no roof. Though there was a structure of stone, the curtains [of the Sanctuary] were spread over it. 13. In the year 2871, when the Philistines captured the Holy Ark and slew Eli's two sons. The Sanctuary of Shiloh had a greater degree of holiness than the structure which preceded it and those that followed immediately thereafter. The Sifri states that the verse (Deuteronomy 12:5): "The place which God has chosen to cause His name to dwell there" refers to "Shiloh and the Temple." The uniqueness of Shiloh is further emphasized by the fact that while it stood, the Jews were forbidden to offer sacrifices in any other place. While the Ark was in Gilgal, and similarly, in Nov and Givon, the Jews were allowed to bring their individual sacrifices wherever they desired. However, during all the years the Sanctuary was in Shiloh, no sacrifices could be offered in any other location. 14. When the Philistines returned the ark after the seven months of its captivity, they brought it to Kiryat Yearim (I Samuel, Chapters 6-7). During this time, a Sanctuary was constructed in Nov and afterwards, in Givon, to provide the Jews with a place for centralized worship. However, the ark was not kept there out of fear that it might again be captured by the Philistines (Meiri, Megillah, 9b).

12

15. Of stone. Though the Rambam in his commentary on the Mishnah (Zevachim, ibid.) states that the Jews erected the Sanctuary that had stood in the desert in Nov, here he appears to follow the view mentioned by Rashi (Pesachim 38 a,b) which states that a stone structure was erected there. Similarly, Sotah 9a states that the sanctuary's structure was entombed when the Jews entered Eretz Yisrael. The Sanctuary of Nov stood for 44 years (Seder HaDorot). 16. By King Saul. 17. On the outskirts of Jerusalem (see II Samuel, ch. 6). The Sanctuary stood there for approximately 13 years. 18. In the year 2928, as described in the beginning of I Kings.

13

prohibition. Zevachim 112b states: "When they came to

22. As the Rambam explains in Chapter 2, in addition to God's choice of the site for the Temple at large, He also specifically

Jerusalem [and erected the Temple], it became forbidden [to sacrifice in] the High Places and permission [to sacrifice]

chose the site of the Altar. To emphasize this concept, the verse quoted by the Rambam

there was never granted [again]." That prohibition was derived from the following verses

contains two clauses. The first clause describes the choice of the Temple's site and the second, the choice of the site of

(Deuteronomy 12:5-6):

the Altar.

19. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot 18:3 which describes this

Only at the place where the Lord, your God, shall choose to cause His Name to dwell, may you seek Him at his dwelling...There, you shall bring your burnt offerings and

23. The Rambam views these verses as more than a statement of Jerusalem's uniqueness. They also exclude the possibility of constructing other sanctuaries. 24. I Kings, chapter 6.

your sacrifices. The preceding verses described how the pagans had sacrificed "upon the high mountains, upon the hills, under every lofty tree." In contrast, the service of God had to be

25. The commentaries on the tractate of Middot

contrast

Ezekiel's vision and the structure of the Second Temple in mishnayot 2:5, 3:1, 4:2.

centralized in one place alone, "the place which the Lord, your God shall choose to cause His Name to dwell."

26. i.e. if they are lacking, we have not fulfilled the mitzvah of constructing a Sanctuary.

Nevertheless, until an abode for the Shechinah

27. The holy chamber containing the Golden Altar, the Menorah,

was

constructed, there was no prohibition against sacrificing anywhere in Eretz Yisrael. As mentioned above, this prohibition was in effect during the time of the Sanctuary of Shiloh. After Shiloh was destroyed, there were no restrictions until the Temple was built. However, once the Shechinah was revealed on Mount Moriah, the Jews were never allowed to offer their sacrifices at any other place. Although Shiloh and the Temple were both considered "the place God chose...," there is a difference between the two. God's choice of Shiloh was for the benefit of the Jewish people. He wanted to offer them a centralized place of worship. However, the physical place of the Sanctuary did not itself become holy for all time. In contrast, God chose Jerusalem as an eternal resting place for the Shechinah. The Divine Presence united with the place itself. After Shiloh was destroyed, no vestige of its former holiness remained. However, Mount Moriah remains "the gate to heaven" even after the Temple has been destroyed. Hence, permission was never granted to sacrifice in other places. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 24, p. 80-85. 20. The above prohibition extends beyond the offering of sacrifices and includes the actual construction of a sanctuary. Megillah 10a records the construction of such a sanctuary in Alexandria by Ono, the son of Shimon HaTzaddik. 21. The root of the name Moriah is the word hora'ah, meaning instruction. The Temple was the seat of the Sanhedrin, Israel's highest court and the source of instruction for the entire Jewish nation. Others associate it with the word yirah, meaning "fear," for from this mountain, the fear of God radiated forth.

and the table for the Showbread. 28. The inner chamber containing the Holy Ark. 29. This refers to a structure positioned before the Sanctuary. The commentaries note that, in general, an equivalent to each of the structures of the Temple existed in the Sanctuary of the desert. Based on this principle, they question which structure in the Sanctuary corresponded to the Entrance Hall. 30. Though the three represent various levels of holiness, they are on one rung of sanctity when compared to other areas (Zevachim 2a). The commentaries note that Jeremiah (7:4) states: "Trust not in lying words which say: 'The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord... ' The threefold repetition alludes to the fact that the three chambers mentioned above share an equal measure of holiness. 31. As described in Exodus, chapter 27. 32. The commentaries explain that the root of the Hebrew term azarah is the word ezra meaning "help." In the Temple Courtyard, the Jewish people call to God and He responds, granting them assistance.

14

33. As mentioned in the explanation to Halachah 1, the Rambam considers the purpose of the construction of the Temple the

42. See Middot 2:6. There were steps dividing between the area

erection of "a house ...to offer sacrifices within." In this context, he views the fashioning of the Temple's utensils as

Israelite was not permitted to proceed beyond these steps, except:

an integral part of the mitzvah of building a sanctuary - for without them the sacrifices could not be offered. Thus, when

a) to perform semichah, the placing of hands on an animal

enumerating the mitzvot, he considers the fashioning of the Sanctuary's utensils as part of the mitzvah to construct the

3.

Sanctuary and not as separate mitzvot in their own right. As mentioned above, the Ramban, Nachmanides, disputes

c) to slaughter an animal brought as a sacrifice,

the Rambam's view and considers the revelation of Godliness as the primary intent of the Sanctuary's

(Kellim 1:8. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 19, Tifferet

set aside for Israelites and the area set aside for priests. An

brought as a sacrifice. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. b) to recite confessional prayers, Vidui. d) to perform Tenufah, the waving of the peace offerings Yisrael, Middot 2:6.)

construction. He also disagrees with the Rambam in regard to the fashioning of the utensils and considers them as

43. See Chapter 7, Halachah 20.

separate independent commands. See Hasagot

44. Chapter 5, Halachah 17.

Sefer

HaMitzvot, Positive command 33.

45. On the verse (Exodus 20:22): "If you shall build an altar of

There is a practicable application of the above concept. The Sanctuary could only be constructed during the daytime,

stone...," the Mechilta comments: "If you desire [to build it

(see Halachah 17). If the fashioning of the Sanctuary's utensils is to be considered as part of the mitzvah of

46. Regarding the altar, the Torah declares (ibid.): "Do not build it out of hewn stone. By lifting your sword against it, you will

constructing the Temple, that ruling may apply to them as well (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 21, p. 255).

have profaned it." The Sages (Middot 3:4) explained that

from] stone, you may. If you desire from bricks, you may."

34. The Torah also refers to the outer altar as "the altar of the

iron shortens man's life, and the altar prolongs it. Therefore, iron should not be used to build the Temple. As above, the

burnt offering" (Exodus 30:28, 35:16) for that was the most frequent sacrifice, offered twice daily.

Rambam draws a parallel between the altar and the entire sanctuary.

35. See Halachah 17. 36. A large basin, with 12 taps. (Yoma 37a) 37. Before taking part in any aspect of the Temple service, the priests had to wash their hands and feet. See Hilchot Biat HaMikdash 5:1. 38. The entrance to the Sanctuary was from the east, facing the Holy of Holies which was in the west. 39. These sacred objects are discussed in detail in Chapter Two. 40. See Exodus 26:35.

Sotah"b quotes the two abovementioned verses and records a debate among the Sages how to resolve the apparent contradiction between them. The Rambam quotes the opinion of Rabbi Nechemiah who resolves the discrepancy by explaining that the stones were hewn outside the Temple premises and then, brought in. In contrast, Rabbi Yehudah explained that King Solomon employed a unique wormlike creature, the Shamir, which had the power to eat through stone. The Temple's builders drew lines on the stone and then placed the Shamir upon them. The tiny creature ate through the rock, leaving the stones finely hewn without using iron.

The commentaries have asked why the Rambam does not consider the ark as one of the essential vessels of the

According to most opinions, when the First Temple was destroyed, this unique species was lost, and it was

Sanctuary. The commentary to Chapter 4, Halachah 1, addresses that issue.

impossible to build the Second Temple in this miraculous manner. Nevertheless, the stones were not hewn on the

41. The Menorah was the source of spiritual inspiration, the Table of material wealth. Because of the position of these objects, our Sages declared (Bava Batra 25b): He who desires to become wise should face south (while praying). He who desires to become wealthy should face north.

Temple Mount itself. 47. Thus, at least, "in the House," on the Temple premises, no iron tool was used.

48. Tamid 28b relates that this prohibition was enacted as a

53. Herod slaughtered many Sages. Bava Batra 4a explains that

safeguard for the Scriptural commandment (Deuteronomy

the Sages advised him to expiate a certain measure of his

16:21): "Do not plant an Asherah or any other tree near the

sin by rebuilding the Temple and making it attractive. The Talmud declares: "Whoever has not seen Herod's building

altar that you shall make for the Lord." Though that prohibition only refers to a tree that grows in the ground and not to wood used for building purposes, the Sages instituted this measure as a "fence around the Torah." Wood could be used for the substructure of the building. Indeed, I Kings 6:10 relates how Solomon used cedar trees for that purpose. However, they could not be used for the exterior surface of the building. 49. The Ra'avad objects to this Halachah, noting that there were wooden structures on the Temple Mount. The High Priest's

54. Thus, Pesachim 57a relates that the Temple was covered with gold plates the thickness of a golden coin. 55. Sh'vuot 15b. 56. Generally, employees are not obligated to begin their work until the sun appears. However, in this case, due to the importance of their task, the workers were obligated to begin earlier. See Nechemiah 4:15; Berachot 2b.

chamber was lined with wood. In addition, wooden balconies were built in the Women Courtyard on Sukkot to allow the

57. Thus there are two obligations: a) the actual building of the

women

58. In particular, there is a difference in the obligations

to

observe

the

Simchat

Beit

Hashoevah

celebrations. Thus, he concludes that the prohibition against building with any protruding wood applies only within within the Temple courtyard, from the area set off for the priests and beyond, and not elsewhere on the Temple Mount. Only that region could be described as "near the altar [of God]." Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the wooden balconies were not permanent structures. Hence, they were permitted. 50. See the verse from I Kings quoted in Halachah 8. The Torah (Leviticus 26:1), commands, "Do not make a stone pavement in your land to bow down upon it." The commentaries explain that this prohibition was ordained so that the Jews would refrain from making a copy of the Temple services outside of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, according to strict Torah law, it was not necessary to lay a stone floor for the Temple courtyard. Zevachim 24a relates that in preparation for the construction of the Temple, King David sanctified the very ground of the Temple Courtyard. 51. The Sages explained that it was not respectful to take part in the Temple services while standing on such a stone. Nevertheless, if a priest disobeyed this prohibition and did stand on such a stone, his service was not invalidated. The logic of that decision can be explained as follows: There is a principle in Jewish law that a particular substance is not considered as interposing between one object and another if it and the object beneath it are of the same type. Thus, since the stone and the earth below it are considered to be of the same substance, the stone is not considered an interruption. Since, as mentioned above, the ground itself was sanctified by King David, the priest's service is not invalidated. 52. Shabbat 11a interprets this verse in a very literal sense, explaining that a synagogue must be the tallest building in a city.

15

has not seen an attractive building in his life."

Temple, b) assisting in the work and supporting it financially. incumbent on men and women. Women are not obligated to fulfill most mitzvot which have a specific time limitation. The construction of the Temple also possesses a specific time restriction. As mentioned above, it may only by built by day and not by night. Therefore, women are not obligated to carry out the actual construction. However, in regard to the second aspect mentioned above, rendering personal and financial assistance, women are obligated as well as men. 59. Note Exodus 35:22 and 25, which relate the role played by women in constructing the Sanctuary. Commenting on the first of those verses, Rashi states that the women displayed greater generosity than the men. 60. Commenting on this law, Shabbat 119b declares: "The world is only maintained [through the merit] of the voice of school children [studying Torah]." 61. Yevamot 6a states: "The construction of the Sanctuary does not supersede the observance of the Sabbath, as it is written (Leviticus 19:30): 53Observe My Sabbaths and revere My Sanctuaries, 54 i.e., the Sabbath is of primary importance, even in regard to the Sanctuary. The festivals are also called Sabbaths by the Torah, cf. Leviticus 23:24 and 39. Hence, the same ruling applies to them. Though the construction of the Temple is forbidden on the Sabbaths and festivals, sacrifices may be offered on these days even though prohibited labors are involved in this service. This apparent discrepancy can be explained as follows: Once the Temple is constructed and complete, the holiness of its service supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions. Nevertheless, while the Temple is being constructed, those prohibitions must be observed in order to establish the sacred nature of the place.

62. Our text is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text

72. The Rambam stated a measure: "to the extent that a nail passing over it will become caught in it" for disqualifying

states "hewn stone." That is obviously an error. Note Halachah 8 which describes the manner of cutting the stones

stones to be used in the Altar. However, in the present Halachah, he does not mention a measure for the cracks or

used for the Temple. Even such measures were insufficient for the stones used for the Altar, as explained in the following

splits which may disqualify a stone after it has been used for the Temple. Thus, a question arises: Does the previous

halachot.

measure apply in this case as well, or was no measure mentioned, because even the slightest crack would

63. By the Mechilta, commenting on that verse. 64. In his commentary on this Halachah, the Mishneh LiMelech notes that it appears that this directive was violated in the construction of the Temple. In Hilchot Parah Adumah 2:7 (see also Chapter 5, Halachah 1), the Rambam explains that the entire area beneath the Temple and its courtyard had been hollowed out to protect against the possibility of ritual impurity being contracted because of a grave which was buried there without anyone's knowledge. To resolve this difficulty, the Mishneh LiMelech explains that the ground had indeed been hollowed out. However, there was a certain measure of earth that was left for support. The Altar was, therefore, considered to be in contact with the earth.

disqualify the stone? This question can be resolved as follows: In Halachah 17, the Rambam states that a person "who destroys a single stone from the Altar, any part of the Temple building, or [the floor of the Temple Courtyard]," violates a negative command, "as it is said (Deuteronomy 12:3-4): 'And you shall destroy their altars...Do not do so to the Lord, your God. ' By mentioning the prohibition against the destruction or damage to the Altar's stones in the context of "their altars," the prohibition against idol worship, the Torah creates an association between the two. Even the slightest measure of property consecrated unto a false god is prohibited. So, too, even the smallest crack may disqualify one of the Temple's stones. 73. Since they were used for the building of the Temple, it is not

65. Commenting on this verse, the Mechilta states that on three occasions the Torah expresses a command using terminology which appears conditional: our verse, the verse (Exodus 22:24), "If you will lend money...," and the verse (Leviticus 2:14), "If you shall offer a meal offering of the first

fitting for them to be used for mundane matters afterwards (Mishneh Limelech). The Tosefta (Megillah, Chapter 2) discusses whether this principle applies to other sacred structures, such as a synagogue.

fruits." 74. Middot 1:6 describes that a special chamber just outside the 66. I.e., cracked, split, or broken in any way. Even if the breach in the stone was not made by iron, the stone is disqualified. See Middot 3:4 and Halachah 16. 67. See Hilchot Shechitah 1:23. 68. Even though this verse describes the altar to be built by the Jews when they cross the Jordan, it teaches us fundamental principles regarding the Temple's altar. 69. These lines are also taken from Middot, loc. cit. The Rambam quotes the mishnah here, rather than in the following halachah, to emphasize that even a breach which was not caused by contact with iron could disqualify a stone for use. To find stones of this nature, it was necessary to dig in the manner described. 70. Zevachim 54a notes that whole stones could be found on the seashore. See also Tosefot, Sukkah 49a.

the Courtyard which were defiled by the Greeks before the Hasmoneans reconquered the Temple. 75. As mentioned above, iron is often used for death and destruction. This stands in direct contradiction to the purpose of the Altar. Therefore, the Torah insisted that stones which had been prepared for building the Altar were forbidden to have any contact with that metal. 76. The source for the Rambam's statements is Middot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4. However, the terminology used by the Mishnah and quoted by the Rambam is subject to debate. The Rosh interprets the Mishnah strictly and maintains that contact with iron disqualifies a stone even though no blemish was made in the stone.

71. As I Kings 6:7 states, "And the House...was built with whole

77. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 79) and Sefer

stones as they were brought in." However, as explained in Halachah 8, the laws governing the stones of the Temple

HaChinuch (mitzvah 40) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of

and the Courtyard were more lenient. They could be smoothed with iron tools outside the Temple Mount.

16

Temple courtyard was set aside for entombing the stones of

the Torah.

17

78. As it is written (Deuteronomy 27:6): "You shall build the Altar of the Lord with whole stones." It is interesting to note that

88. I.e., the bread molds, incense bowls, frames, and dividers (ibid.:29).

though the Rambam uses this expression, he does not consider this command as one of the 613 mitzvot of the

89. Menachot 28b derives this Halachah as follows: One of the

Torah. 79. To clean it from the blood of the sacrifices. 80. To apply and smooth the cement. The Ra'avad suggests that a wooden tool was employed for this purpose. 81. The verse continues, explaining the reason for the command: "so that your nakedness not be revealed upon it." The commentaries explain that spreading one's legs as when walking up steps does not show fitting deference to God's altar. This command raises an obvious question: If walking up steps is not considered respectful, why were any steps allowed on the Temple Mount? It was necessary to ascend steps to enter the Temple building itself! Among the answers given to this question is: The ramp

thirteen principles of Biblical analysis expounded by Rabbi Yishmael (in the introduction to the Sifra, and included in our morning prayers) is as follows: "When a generalization is followed by a specific example and then, by a second generalization, the law is applicable to other cases similar to the specific example mentioned." The command to fashion the Menorah was expressed as follows (Exodus 25:31): "You shall make a Menorah out of pure gold. You shall fashion it by hammering it out." The Sages commented, "You shall make a Menorah" is a generalization, "out of pure gold" is a specific example, and "You shall fashion it," a second generalization. Thus, the Menorah may be made from other substances similar to gold, i.e., any metal. The same principle is then expanded to include other utensils.

possessed a degree of holiness comparable to that of the Altar itself (as obvious from Halachot 15 and 16). Thus, one's

90. Menachot 28b relates that when the Greeks controlled the

manner of ascent could be considered a sign of respect or disrespect to the Altar. In contrast, the steps leading to the

reconquered Jerusalem, they were very poor and constructed the Menorah of iron staves coated with tin.

Temple building have a lower level of sanctity (as obvious from Halachah 5). Thus, the way in which one approached is

Afterwards, they acquired more means and made a Menorah

not as significant. (See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 21, p. 119). 82. To the left when facing the Temple. Zevachim 62b expounds this concept as follows: Leviticus 1:11 declares that "He shall slaughter it at the foot of the Altar, on its north side." If the north side was to be the Altar's foot, its head, i.e. the side from which we approach, would be at the south. 83. The ramp began at a height of 8.83 cubits and was inclined over 32 cubits. 84. One is only liable if his intent was to destroy. If he had intended to improve upon the building, there is no prohibition. Therefore, when King Herod desired to beautify the Temple, as mentioned in (Halachah 11), he was allowed to tear down the previous structure. See also Bava Batra 3b. 85. The Rambam also mentions this prohibition in Hilchot Yesodai HaTorah (6:7). There, he does not restrict the scope of the prohibition, and states that it applies throughout the Temple Courtyard including the area outside the region specified here. Most commentaries view that opinion as more precise. 86. Even though the command is stated in the positive, it is considered one of the 365 negative commands of the Torah. See Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 65) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 437). 87. I.e., the tongs and scoops used to clean out its wicks and ashes. See Exodus 25:38.

Temple, they defiled all its utensils. When the Hasmoneans

of silver. Ultimately, they were able to make one of gold. 91. Bereishit Rabbah declares: "Gold was created only for the sake of the Temple." This metal is really too precious for our world, and was only given to us to be used for these sacred purposes. Therefore, fashioning even the Temple's most insignificant utensils from this metal is not an unnecessary extravagance, but rather the fulfillment of God's intent when He created gold. 92. Middot 2:3 relates that the Second Temple's gates were originally built of other metals. Generations later, the people prospered, and plated them with gold. 93. Before fashioning the utensil, the craftsman must have the intention that they be used for the Temple. 94. Even if they were never used for those reasons 95. The term translated as "the Temple," gavohah, literally means "the Most High." Because of the departure from the literal meaning, it is set off with brackets. 96. The sanctity of the Temple's utensils has two dimensions: a) that conveyed by one's intention when fashioning the utensil, b) that brought about by its use in the Temple services. Without the proper intention, an object may never be used in Temple services. However, the intention alone is not sufficient to distinguish that object as holy and prevent its use for mundane purposes.

97. Since the sanctity of a synagogue is not as great as that of the Temple, the building materials are not considered as prepared for that holy purpose.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

18

policy .

1



Beit Habechirah - Chapter 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Beit Habechirah - Chapter 1

The Altar is [to be constructed] in a very precise location,1 which may never be changed,2 as it is said (II Chronicles 22:1): "This is the Altar for the burnt offerings of Israel." Isaac was prepared as a sacrifice on the Temple's [future] site, as it is said (Genesis 22:2): "Go to the land of Moriah,"3 and in Chronicles (II 3:1), it is said: "Then, Solomon began to build the House of the Lord in Jerusalem, on Mt. Moriah, where [the Lord] appeared to David, his father, in the place that David had prepared,4 in the threshing floor of Ornan, the Jebusite." It is universally accepted5 that the place on which David and Solomon built the Altar,6 the threshing floor of Ornan, is the location where Abraham built the Altar on which he prepared Isaac for sacrifice. Noah built [an altar] on that location when he left the ark.7 It was also [the place] of the Altar on which Cain and Abel brought sacrifices.8 [Similarly,] Adam, the first man, offered a sacrifice there and was created at that very spot,9 as our Sages said: "Man was created from the place where he [would find] atonement."10

English

Hebrew

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 3

‫המזבח מקומו מכוון ביותר ואין‬ ‫משנין אותו ממקומו לעולם שנאמר‬ ‫זה מזבח לעולה לישראל ובמקדש נעקד‬ ‫יצחק אבינו שנאמר ולך לך אל ארץ‬ ‫המוריה ונאמר בדברי הימים ויחל שלמה‬ ‫לבנות את בית יי' בירושלים בהר המוריה‬ ‫אשר נראה לדויד אביהו אשר הכין‬ :‫במקום דויד בגרן ארנן היבוסי‬

‫ומסורת ביד הכל שהמקום שבנה בו‬ ‫דוד ושלמה המזבח בגורן ארונה הוא‬ ‫המקום שבנה בו אברהם המזבח ועקד‬ ‫עליו יצחק והוא המקום שבנה בו נח‬ ‫כשיצא מן התיבה והוא המזבח שהקריב‬ ‫עליו קין והבל ובו הקריב אדם הראשון‬ ‫קרבן כשנברא ומשם נברא אמרו חכמים‬ :‫אדם ממקום כפרתו נברא‬

2

The dimensions of the Altar must be very precise. Its design has been passed down from one to another [over the course of the generations].

‫מדות המזבח מכוונות הרבה וצורתו‬ ‫ידועה איש מאיש ומזבח שבנו בני‬ ‫הגולה כעין מזבח שעתיד להבנות עשוהו‬ :‫ואין להוסיף על מדתו ולא לגרוע ממנה‬

The altar built by the exiles [returning from Babylon] was constructed according to the design of the Altar to be built in the Messianic age.11 We may not increase or reduce its dimensions.12 Three prophets returned to [Eretz Yisrael] with the people:13 one attested to the site of the Altar;14 the second, to its dimensions;15 and the third attested to [the Halachah permitting] all sacrifices to be offered on that Altar, even though the Temple itself was not [built] there [yet].16 The Altar constructed by Moses, and, [similarly,] that built by Solomon, and that erected by the [returning] exiles, and that to be built [in the Messianic age] are all ten cubits high.17 Though the Torah states [Exodus 27:1]: "Its height will be three cubits," [that refers to] the surface on which the wood for the sacrifices was arranged.18

‫ושלשה נביאים עלו עמהם מן הגולה‬ ‫אחד העיד להן על מקום המזבח‬ ‫ואחד העיד להן על מדותיו ואחד העיד‬ ‫להן שמקריבין על המזבח הזה כל‬ :‫הקרבנות אף על פי שאין שם בית‬

‫מזבח שעשה משה ושעשה שלמה‬ ‫ושעשו בני הגולה ושעתיד להעשות‬ ‫כולן עשר אמות גובה כל אחד מהן וזה‬ ‫הכתוב בתורה ושלש אמות קומתו מקום‬ ‫המערכה בלבד ומזבח שעשו בני הגולה וכן‬ ‫העתיד להבנות מדת ארכו ורחבו ל"ב‬ :‫אמות על ל"ב אמות‬

The length and breadth of the Altar built by the [returning] exiles and, similarly, the one to be built in the Messianic Age, is 32 cubits by 32 cubits.19 The 10 cubits of the Altar's height [were not measured in a consistent manner.]20 Sometimes the measure of a "cubit" was six handbreadths, while in other cases, the cubit's measure was five handbreadths.21 In all other cases, the cubits mentioned in the dimensions of the Temple are six handbreadths. The height of the entire Altar22 was 58 handbreadths.23

‫י' אמות של גובה המזבח מהן באמה‬ ‫בת ה' טפחים ומהן באמה בת ששה‬ ‫טפחים ושאר כל אמות הבנין באמה בת‬ ‫ששה טפחים וגובה כל המזבח נ"ח‬ :‫טפחים‬

The [Altar's] dimensions and design were as follows:24 Five handbreadths up and five handbreadths in25 [form a step called] the base. Thus, the [remaining area of the Altar] was 30 cubits and two handbreadths by 30 cubits and two handbreadths.26 Thirty handbreadths [further] up and 5 handbreadths [further] in is [called] the surrounding ledge.27 Thus, its area was 28 cubits and four handbreadths by 28 cubits and four handbreadths.28 Go up eighteen handbreadths, place a hollow, rectangular structure in each corner of this surface [thus, creating the Altar's] four horns.

‫וכך היתה מדתו וצורתו עלה ה' טפחים‬ ‫וכנס חמשה טפחים זהו יסוד נמצא‬ ‫רוחב שלשים אמה ושני טפחים על רוחב‬ ‫שלשים אמה ושני טפחים עלה שלשים‬ ‫טפחים וכנס חמשה טפחים זהו סובב‬ [‫]עלה י"ח טפחים זהו מקום המערכה‬ ‫נמצא רוחבו שמונה ועשרים אמה‬ ‫וארבעה טפחים על כ"ח אמה וד' טפחים‬ ‫]עלה י"ח טפחים וכונס לקרן זוית של‬ [‫הי"ח בנין חלול מרובע לכל ארבע קרנות‬ ‫ומקום הקרנות אמה מזה ואמה מזה סביב‬ ‫וכן מקום רגלי הכהנים אמה סביב נמצא‬ ‫מקום המערכה רוחבו עשרים וארבע‬ ‫אמות וארבעה טפחים על עשרים וארבע‬ :‫אמות וארבעה טפחים‬

The area encompassed by the horns was one cubit by one cubit on all sides.29 Similarly, the space for the priests to walk was a cubit on all sides.30 [Thus,] the surface on which [the wood for the sacrifices] was arranged31 was 24 cubits and four handbreadths by 24 cubits and four handbreadths.32 Each horn was five handbreadths high.33 The area of each horn was a cubit by a cubit. [All] four horns were hollow.34 Thus, the surface on which [the wood for the sacrifices] was arranged was 18 handbreadths above [the surrounding ledge.] Half of the Altar's height [began] 6 handbreadths below the end of the surrounding ledge.35

3

‫גובה כל קרן וקרן חמשה טפחים‬ ‫ורבוע כל קרן אמה על אמה וארבע‬ ‫הקרנות חלולות היו מתוכן וגובה מקום‬ ‫המערכה י"ח טפחים נמצא חצי גובה‬ :‫המזבח כ"ט טפחים מסוף הסובב ולמטה‬

A scarlet band36 is girded around the middle of the Altar six handbreadths below the surrounding ledge to separate between the blood [to be cast on] the upper [portion of the Altar]37 and the blood [to be sprinkled on] the lower [portion of the Altar].38

‫וחוט של סקרה היה חוגר באמצע‬ ‫המזבח ]כששה טפחים מסוף הסובב‬ ‫ולמטה[ להבדיל בין דמים העליונים לדמים‬ ‫התחתונים ונמצא גובהו מן הארץ עד‬ :‫מקום המערכה תשע אמות פחות טפח‬

Thus, the distance from the earth to the surface on which [the wood for the sacrifices] was arranged was a handbreadth less than nine cubits.39

4

The ledge encircled the Altar on all four sides. The base did not.40 The base encompassed the entire northern41 and western42 sides [of the Altar], and consumed one cubit on the South side and one cubit on the east side.43[Thus,] the southeast corner [of the Altar] did not have a base.

‫יסוד המזבח לא היה מקיף מארבע‬ ‫רוחותיו כמו הסובב אלא היה היסוד‬ ‫משוך כנגד כל רוח צפון ומערבי ואוכל‬ ‫בדרום אמה אחת ובמזרח אמה אחת וקרן‬ :‫דרומית מזרחית לא היה לה יסוד‬

There were two holes in the southwest corner [of the Altar's base],44 resembling two thin nostrils. They were called Shittin.45 The blood46 [which was poured onto the Altar] would run off through them and be mixed together in the drainage canal in that corner.47 From there, it would flow out to the Kidron River.48

‫ובקרן מערבית דרומית היו שני‬ ‫נקבים כמין שני חוטמין דקין והן‬ ‫הנקראין שיתין שהדמים יורדין בהן‬ ‫ומתערבין באותה הקרן באמה ויוצאין‬ :‫לנחל קדרון‬

Below, in the floor of that corner of the Altar, was a place, a cubit by a cubit, [covered by] a block of marble, with a ring affixed to it.49 They would descend there to the Shittin and clean them.50

‫ולמטה ברצפה באותו הקרן היה‬ ‫מקום אמה על אמה וטבלא של‬ ‫שיש וטבעת קבועה בה שבו יורדין לשיתין‬ :‫ומנקין אותו‬

The ramp51 was constructed to the south of the Altar.52 Its length was 32 cubits, and its width, sixteen cubits. It consumed 30 cubits on the ground adjacent to the Altar, and extended [further, covering] one cubit of the base and one cubit of the surrounding ledge.53 There was a small space54 between the ramp and the Altar so that the limbs [of the sacrifices] would have to be tossed to reach the Altar.55

‫וכבש היה בנוי לדרומו של מזבח‬ ‫ארכו שלשים ושתים אמה על רוחב‬ ‫ט"ז אמה והיה אוכל בארץ שלשים אמה‬ ‫מצד המזבח ופורח ממנה אמה על היסוד‬ ‫ואמה על הסובב ואויר מעט היה מפסיק‬ ‫בין הכבש למזבח כדי ליתן האיברים‬ ‫למזבח בזריקה וגובה הכבש תשע אמות‬ :‫פחות שתות עד כנגד המערכה‬

The height of the ramp was nine cubits minus a sixth of a cubit. It equaled that of [the surface on which the wood for the sacrifices] was arranged.56 Two small ramps extended from it. One led to the base,57 and the other to the surrounding ledge.58 They were set off from the Altar by a hair's breadth. There was an aperture on the west side59 of the ramp, a cubit by a cubit. It was called the Rivuvah.60 There, fowl that had been disqualified for use as sin offerings would be placed until their form decomposed, at which time they could be taken out to be burnt.61 Two tables were [placed] on the left side of the ramp: One of marble, on which the limbs [of the sacrifices to be offered on the Altar] were placed,62 and One of silver, on which sacrificial vessels were placed.

5

‫ושני כבשים קטנים יוצאים ממנו‬ ‫שבהם פונים ליסוד ולסובב‬ ‫ומובדלין מן המזבח כמלא נימא וחלון‬ ‫היתה במערבו של כבש אמה על אמה‬ ‫ורבובה היתה נקראת שבה נותנין פסולי‬ ‫חטאת העוף עד שתעבור צורתה ותצא‬ :‫לבית השריפה‬

‫ושני שולחנות היו במערב הכבש‬ ‫אחד של שיש שנותנין עליו את‬ ‫האיברים ואחד של כסף שנותנין עליו כלי‬ :‫השרת‬

6

When we build the Altar, it must be made as one solid block, resembling a pillar. No empty cavity may be left at all.63 We must bring whole stones, both large and small.64 Then we must create a liquid with lime, pitch, and molten lead, and pour it [over the stones] into a large mold of its dimensions.65 We must build it in this manner, ascending [level by level].66 We must place a block of wood or stone in the southeast corner of the structure, equal to the measure of [the missing portion of the Altar's] base.67 Similarly, [blocks] must be placed in each horn until the building is completed.68 Then, the blocks may be removed from the structure, thus leaving the southeast corner without a base, and the horns, hollow. The four horns, the base, and a square shape are absolute requirements for the Altar. Any Altar which lacks [either] a horn, a base, a ramp, or a square shape, is unfit for use, for these four are absolute requirements.69 However, the measures of length, width, and height, are not absolute requirements,70 provided they are not less than a cubit by a cubit [in area,] and three cubits high. [The latter were] the dimensions of the surface [on which the wood for the sacrifices] was arranged for the altar [in the Sanctuary that accompanied the Jews] in the desert.71 [The following laws apply when] the structure of the Altar is damaged. If a handbreadth of its structure is damaged, it is unfit for use.72 If less than a handbreadth [is damaged], it is acceptable,73 provided none of the remaining stones are damaged.74

‫כשבונין המזבח בונין אותו כולו‬ ‫אטום כמין עמוד ואין עושין בו‬ ‫חלל כלל אלא מביא אבנים שלמות גדולות‬ ‫וקטנות ומביא סיד וזפת וקונייא וממחה‬ ‫ושופך לתוך מלבן גדול כמדתו ובונה‬ ‫ועולה ונותן בתוך הבנין גוף של עץ או אבן‬ ‫בקרן דרומית מזרחית כמדת היסוד וכן‬ ‫נותן בתוך כל קרן וקרן עד שישלים הבנין‬ ‫ויסיר הגופים שבתוך הבנין כדי שתשאר‬ ‫קרן דרומית מזרחית בלא יסוד וישארו‬ :‫הקרנות חלולין‬

‫ארבע קרנות של מזבח ויסודו ורבועו‬ ‫מעכבין וכל מזבח שאין לו קרן יסוד‬ ‫וכבש וריבוע הרי הוא פסול שארבעתן‬ ‫מעכבין אבל מדת ארכו ומדת רחבו ומדת‬ ‫קומתו אינן מעכבין והוא שלא יפחות‬ ‫מאמה על אמה ברום שלש אמות כשיעור‬ :‫מקום המערכה של מזבח מדבר‬

‫מזבח שנפגם מבניינו אם נפגם‬ ‫מבניינו טפח פסול פחות מטפח‬ :‫כשר והוא שלא יהיה בנשאר אבן פגומה‬

7

« Previous

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 3

Beit Habechirah - Chapter 1 FOOTNOTES 1. As emphasized by the various events mentioned in this and the following halachot.

5. The commentaries explain that this phrase refers to the Gentiles. Even they recognized the holiness of the Altar's

The location of the Altar within the Temple Courtyard is discussed in Chapter 5, Halachot 12-16.

site. The fact that the Gentiles were aware that the site of the

2. In this context, we can understand the Rambam's choice of words, when describing the achievements of the Mashiach

Altar is holy is Halachically relevant. The pagans living in Eretz Yisrael before its conquest by the Jewish people were

(Hilchot Melachim 11:1): "He will build the Sanctuary in its place." There, he does not state "its precise location," for

so idolatrous that our Sages declared: "Wherever you see a lofty mountain ...or a leafy tree, know that idols were

although the Messianic Temple in its entirety will also be built on Mt. Moriah, certain aspects of it will not correspond

worshipped there." Since the Temple Mount was also a high mountain, surely it would have been considered an

exactly to the Temples. Nevertheless, even then, the Altar in particular will be positioned in precisely the same location as

appropriate place for pagan rites. However, since the holiness of the Altar's site was

before.

universally accepted, even the Gentiles did not profane its sanctity with idol worship.

3. Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer relates that the altar which Abraham constructed on Mt. Moriah had twelve stones. Later, when Jacob journeyed to Charan (Genesis, ch. 28), he slept on Mt. Moriah and "took from the stones of the place and put them at his head." The stones he collected were the twelve used by Abraham. God fused them all into a single stone and the unified rock was embedded in the very foundation of the earth. That stone was referred to as Even HaShtiah, (see also Chapter 4, Halachah 1) "the foundation stone." It was located in the Holy of Holies. Thus, Abraham's altar was apparently not built on the site of the altar to be built by his descendants, but rather, at the ultimate location of the Holy of Holies. However, this difficulty can be resolved. Jacob "took from the stones," and moved them from their original place, the Altar's future site, to a different location, that of the Holy of Holies. 4. Though David was not allowed to build the Temple, he purchased the site, constructed an altar, and offered sacrifices there. Zevachim 62a relates that David used prophetic vision in choosing the site of the altar. According to one opinion, he saw the Heavenly Altar on which the angel Michael offers sacrifices. According to a second view, he saw the ashes of Isaac.

6. David and Solomon did not build the same Altar. Rather, David chose the site as the future location of the Temple, and constructed an Altar and offered sacrifices. Later, when Solomon built the Temple, he erected a new Altar at the same site. 7. See Genesis 8:20. 8. See ibid. 4:3-5.

8

HaBechirah, the Laws of God's Chosen House, implying that

11. Its dimensions differed from the altar built by King Solomon in the First Temple. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4, the

God did not select Mount Moriah as the Temple site because of its inherent holiness, but because of His own choice and

fundamental design of the Second Temple resembled that of Solomon's Temple. However, certain aspects were altered to

desire. That choice was clearly expressed in the previous Halachah which states: "the place of the Altar is extremely

conform with Ezekiel's vision of the Messianic Temple. The dimensions and design of the altar are mentioned in Ezekiel

exact... as it is said: 'This is the altar for the burnt offerings of Israel.'

43:13-17 and were followed by the exiles when they returned to Jerusalem.

As such, it can be explained that the Rambam does not recount the various historical events mentioned in this

12. As explained in Halachah 17, the Altar is acceptable even if

9. The Rambam entitled this collection of Halachot, Hilchot Beit

Halachah just to bring further proof of the holiness of the Altar's site. That is unnecessary. Rather, he wanted to demonstrate that many righteous men were aware of the uniqueness of the Altar's site through prophetic vision, and

its dimensions are not exact. Nevertheless, as an initial preference, an attempt must be made to conform exactly to the plan mentioned below. 13. Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

for this reason, they made efforts to offer their sacrifices there.

14. For, as mentioned in Halachah 1, the Altar's site must be

Why does the Rambam relate all these historical events? As he clearly states in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, his

15. Note the previous halachah.

goal is not to summarize the Talmud's teachings regarding a particular subject, but to describe how to carry out the various mitzvot. These historical facts do not seem to facilitate his objective. The need for these additions may be explained by comparison to the Rambam's decisions regarding the right to the monarchy. In that context, the Rambam writes that although God chose David and his descendants as kings and endowed them with the monarchy forever, there was a

precise.

16. The Rambam's statements are taken from Zevachim 62a. However, the terminology in that source regarding Malachi's testimony is different. According to the Talmud, the prophet stated that "all the sacrifices may be offered, even though the Temple was not [built];" and the Rambam adds the phrase "on that Altar." Later commentaries have explained the significance of that addition, based on the following episode. In the Middle Ages, the Sage, Rabbi Chayim (according to other sources, Rabbi Yechiel) of Paris made Aliyah and settled in Jerusalem. He

Halachic legitimacy to the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel (the ten tribes). Since the first king, Jereboam, was

wanted to offer sacrifices on the Temple Mount. In analyzing

appointed by a prophet, his regal power must be recognized. (Hilchot Melachim 1:7,8).

336) explained that this must have referred to the Pascal

It could be inferred that a similar ruling might apply in regard to the altar: i.e. the Altar on Mount Moriah would remain holy forever, however, another altar of similar status could also be established. In order to eliminate that presumption, the Rambam presents a number of examples, illustrating that throughout the generations, from the time of Adam, the

this account, the Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum sacrifice, which could be offered in a state of ritual impurity and yet, did not have to be purchased with communal funds. Among the reasons the commentaries have given why such a sacrifice could not be offered is that we are lacking an Altar with its proper size and dimensions. In contrast, the exiles who returned from Babylon were allowed to offer sacrifices on the altar built according to the prophets' directives.

prophets had tried to bring sacrifices on this site alone. These efforts clearly imply that there is not, nor will there be,

17. See Ezekiel 43:13 and commentaries.

another place with a similar degree of holiness (Likkutei

18. See Zevachim 59b, which records a dispute among the

Sichot, Vol. 19, p.140-7). 10. This statement is somewhat problematic. Though the Rambam's statements have a basis in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 14:8), according to Sanhedrin 38b, Adam appears to have been created in the Garden of Eden, a considerable distance from this location. Generally, when a conflict arises between sources, the decision is based upon the Babylonian Talmud. Hence, one might ask why the Rambam favored the other sources in this case.

Sages concerning the height of Moses' (and hence, all subsequent) Altar(s). Among the proofs brought for the opinion accepted by the Rambam are the following: a) an analogy drawn between the sacrificial altar and the incense altar. Just as the latter's height was twice its length, so, too, the height of the sacrificial altar (10 cubits) was twice its length (5 cubits). b) The height of Moses' Altar had to equal that of the Sanctuary that accompanied the Jews in the desert, which was 10 cubits high.

19. This measurement refers to the dimensions of the Altar's base and not to its upper surface, as explained in the following Halachah. 20. Kellim 17:10 relates that a cubit used in building was generally six handbreadths long. In contrast, the cubit used to measure utensils was five handbreadths long. An exception to this principle was made in regard to the Altar.

32. The Ra'avad explains that the Altar's horns were slanted inward, thus, consuming an additional four handbreadths of space and reducing the surface to exactly 24 cubits. It must be noted that both Rashi and Tosefot (Sukkah 45a) concur with the Rambam's opinion that the horns stood directly perpendicular to the Altar. 33. The horns were a cubit high when using the measure of five handbreadths to the cubit.

21. A handbreadth is the width of the four fingers of the hand when they are closed loosely. There is a debate among the

34. Zevachim 54b derives this concept as follows: The prophet

Rabbis regarding the equivalent of this amount in modern measurements. Some authorities consider a handbreadth as

Zechariah declared: "And they shall be filled like bowls, like the corners of the Altar." Thus, that vision implies that the

8 centimeters and others, as large as 9.6 centimeters.

horns located on the Altar's corners can serve as receptacles.

22. Including its horns. 23. I.e., two cubits were five handbreadths long, while the

35. The height of the altar can be summarized as follows:

remaining eight were six handbreadths long, as explained in the following halachot.

a) the base - 1 cubit - 5 handbreadths b) the surrounding ledge - 5 cubits - 30 handbreadths

24. The Rambam actually included a diagram in his text of the Mishneh Torah. The accompanying diagram is based on the Rambam's original. This entire Halachah is based on the Rambam's interpretation of Ezekiel's vision. Rashi interprets that prophecy differently, and many Rabbinic opinions follow his view. See the Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries. 25. In this instance, five handbreadths were considered as a cubit. 26. As mentioned above, the Altar was 32 cubits long and 32 cubits wide. Each cubit was six handbreadths long. When the five handbreadths of the base were subtracted from each

c) the Altar's surface - 3 cubits - 18 handbreadths d) the horns - 1 cubit - 5 handbreadths, a total of 58 handbreadths. Thus half of its height was 29 handbreadths. The surrounding ledge was 30 cubits high and the base, five. Thirty plus five minus six equals 29. 36. The altar in the Sanctuary in the desert had a copper net screen which served this function. See Exodus 27:4-5 and Zevachim 53a. 37. The blood of a fowl brought as a burnt offering had to be cast on the upper portion of the Altar (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:20). 38. The blood of a bird brought as a sin offering was sprinkled

side, the following equation determines the remaining length and width: 32 cubits minus 10 (i.e., 5 on either side)

on the lower portion of the Altar (ibid. 7:6). Similarly, the

handbreadths, equals 30 cubits and two handbreadths.

was sprinkled in the same place (ibid. 5:6).

blood of animals brought as burnt, guilt, or peace offerings

27. This name was chosen because, in contrast to the base, the ledge surrounded the altar on all four sides (Tifferet Yisrael).

39. As mentioned above, the Altar's horns were 1 cubit high. Thus, one cubit may be subtracted from the ten cubit height

The height of thirty handbreadths is considered as five cubits, for this cubit is measured by six handbreadths.

mentioned previously. Since the Altar's base measured five handbreadths and not six, an additional handbreadth is subtracted, leaving the figure mentioned in this Halachah.

28. This figure is reached when 10 handbreadths (5 on either side) are subtracted from 30 cubits and 2 handbreadths.

40. Zevachim 53b explains that although a major portion of the

29. In this case, the cubits contained six handbreadths. Each of

Temple Mount was in Judah's inheritance, the Altar was to be positioned in the tribal inheritance of Benjamin. (Note the

the horns was a cubit long and a cubit wide. The space in between them was left hollow, thus, reducing both the length and the width of the upper surface of the altar by two cubits.

Targum on Genesis 49:27.) A small stretch of land extended out of the inheritance of

30. Here too, the cubit had six handbreadths, thus reducing both

Judah into that of Benjamin, and occupied a portion of the space that should have been taken by the Altar's base. That

the length and the width of the upper surface of the altar by two cubits.

space was left empty to insure that the entire structure of the Altar was in the inheritance of Benjamin. Note the

31. I.e., the upper surface of the altar.

commentary to Chapter 7, Halachah 14. 41. The side to one's right as one faced the Holy of Holies. 42. The side of the Altar closest to the Temple building.

9

43. Thus the Altar's base only extended one cubit on each of its southern and eastern sides.

55. The wood piles upon which the Altar's fire were to be kindled were arranged on the south side of the Altar, so that the

This interpretation of the Rambam's text is based on the diagrams accompanying his commentary on the Mishnah

priests would be able to ascend the ramp and place the sacrificial limbs directly on those pyres. However, the ramp

published by Rav Kapach. Rashi's commentary (Zevachim,

did not reach the edge of the Altar. The priests were thus prevented from placing the limbs directly on the fire and were

ibid. ) expresses the same concept. See the accompanying diagram. 44. The blood from the sacrifices was either poured on the south or the west side of the Altar, depending on the nature of the offering. These holes were positioned in the southwest corner to facilitate drainage. (See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Middot 3:2.) 45. That name was derived from the word shotet meaning "flow." The blood from the Altar flowed away through these holes. 46. And also the wine and water libations (see Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:7). 47. The drainage canal passed through the entire Temple courtyard and was used when the priests wanted to clean the courtyard floor. They would plug the drain, flooding the entire courtyard with water, and then unplug the drain and let the water flow out through the canal.

required to toss them. Zevachim 62b explains the necessity to toss the limbs, as follows: The Torah draws an analogy between the flesh of an offering and its blood, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:27): "You shall sacrifice your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood." The blood must be tossed on the Altar, as it is written (Leviticus 1:5): "And they shall toss the blood on the Altar." Hence, the limbs must also reach the pyre in that fashion. See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:4. 56. As mentioned in Halachah 7, the cubit measurement for the base had only five handbreadths. Thus, the Altar's - and consequently, the ramp's - height was eight and five-sixths cubits, when calculated in cubits of six handbreadths. The Rambam's phrasing at the beginning of the Halachah, "[covering] one cubit of the base and one cubit of the

48. Because of the large amount of blood that would flow into

surrounding ledge" requires clarification, because the base itself did not run under the ramp. However, the space for it

that river, its water was sold as fertilizer (Commentary of the Rosh to Middot, ibid.).

was left vacant. See the accompanying diagram for a depiction of the

49. The ring facilitated the lifting of the marble block. 50. Lest the blood coagulate and cause them to become clogged. 51. See Chapter 1, Halachah 17. 52. I.e., on one's left when facing the Holy of Holies.

concepts mentioned in this Halachah. 57. This small ramp was placed on the west side of the altar, the side closest to the Temple building. After the blood of the sin offerings were sprinkled as required, the rest of the blood was poured on the west side of the Altar's base. This ramp allowed the priests to reach that position.

53. The ramp was not built as a right triangle. Rather, the wall on

58. The ramp leading to the surrounding ledge was on the east

the right side was slanted slightly, so that the ramp would cover the base and the surrounding ledge, which together

side of the Altar. When the priests circled the Altar to sprinkle the blood of the sin offering on the Altar's horns, they

protruded two cubits beyond the edge of the Altar itself. The phrase "its length" does not refer to the length of the

ascended using this ramp. The above follows the opinion expressed by Rashi

ramp's surface, (the hypotenuse of the triangle), but the space it occupied on the ground, as well as the two

(Zevachim, loc. cit.). Some other authorities maintain that

additional cubits with which it overlapped the base and the surrounding ledge. The actual length of the ramp's surface

Altar. Though the Rambam does not state his opinion explicitly, from his description of the sacrificial proceedings

was slightly longer.

(Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot: 6:20, 7:10), it appears that he

54. Larger than the hair's breadth mentioned in the following halachah.

both smaller ramps were situated on the west side of the

accepts the first opinion. 59. The aperture was placed there because sin-offerings were offered on the southwest corner of the Altar (Rashi, Pesachim 34a). It appears that this aperture was located on the wall of the ramp, and not on its upper surface (Tifferet Yisrael).

10

60. 13Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura explains that this word means "hollow place."

66. Zevachim 54a describes the Altar's construction in detail:

The Ra'avad explains that there were two openings: one called the aperture, and the second, the Rivuvah. His

brought to create the base. The mixture of stones, lime, pitch, and molten lead was poured into it. Then, the mold for

opinion is not accepted by most authorities, as explained in the Kessef Mishneh.

the second level, the surrounding ledge, was placed down. This mold was 30 cubits by 30 cubits and five cubits high.

61. Generally, a sin-offering that is disqualified for use must be

After the mixture was poured into it, the mold for the Altar's upper surface was brought. That mold, 28 cubits by 28

removed from the Altar and burned immediately. However, if there are no severe factors to invalidate the sacrifice, it would appear disrespectful to dispose of the sacrifice in that manner. Rather, the sacrifice is left overnight - an act which obligates a sacrifice to be removed and burnt - and disposed of the next morning (Rashi, loc. cit..).

First, a mold 32 cubits by 32 cubits, and one cubit high, was

cubits, was three cubits high. Once it was filled, four molds, each a cubit by a cubit and one cubit high, were placed in each corner for the horns. The measures mentioned above were all rounded off. As mentioned in Halachot 6-7, additional handbreadths must be added or subtracted for all these measures.

A woman who gave birth was obligated to bring a bird as a sin offering. Hence, it was a very common sacrifice. The

67. See Halachah 10.

Rivuvah was constructed to store the birds which had

68. For the horns must be hollow, as mentioned in Halachah 8.

become disqualified. It thus prevented confusion between those birds which were disqualified, and those which were fit to be sacrificed (Tifferet Yisrael).

69. Regarding these four elements, the Torah uses the expression hamizbeiach, the Altar, implying that the Altar can

62. The communal sacrifices were brought directly from the

only be called an Altar if it possesses these elements. If even one is lacking, the Altar is incomplete (Rashi, Zevachim,

slaughtering area to the top of the Altar by a number of priests. Thus, there was no need to set aside a place for the

62a): In regard to the horns, it is written (Leviticus 4:18): "the horns

limbs to be placed. However, sometimes private sacrifices were offered by only one priest, who could not possibly carry

of the Altar." In regard to the base, it is written (ibid.:34): "to the base of

all the limbs at one time. This table was useful on such occasions.

the Altar." In regard to the ramp, it is written (ibid. 6:7): "to the face of

Though generally an effort was made to use precious metals in the Temple, this table was made of marble. The sages

the Altar." This phrase refers to the ramp, for it faces the Altar and allows access to it.

feared that a metal table would conduct heat and cause the sacrificial meat to spoil. Marble is better for this purpose,

In regard to the Altar's square shape, it is written (Exodus 27:1): "The Altar shall be square."

since it is a very poor conductor of heat. See Shekalim 6:4, and Tamid 31b. 63. In the sanctuary of the desert, the Altar was a hollow structure filled with earth (Exodus 27:8, Mechilta). However, such a structure was not acceptable for the Temple.

70. See Halachah 3. 71. See Halachah 5. 72. In Chapter 1, Halachah, the Rambam writes: "Any stone which is damaged to the extent that a nail will become

64. See Chapter 1, Halachot 14-16.

caught in it [when passing over it], as is the case regarding a slaughtering knife, is disqualified for [use in the] Altar or the

65. As mentioned in the following halachah, the Altar must be entirely square, yet we were forbidden to cut or file it to size.

ramp, as it is written (Deuteronomy 27:6): 'You shall build the Altar of the Lord with whole stones.'

Wooden molds were employed in order to create such a shape.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the Torah requires whole stones to be used for the Altar, even the slightest damage renders them unfit for use. In contrast, the Torah does not make such a specification regarding the Altar itself. Hence, as long as the damage is not extensive, the Altar is not disqualified.

11

73. Chullin 18a records a debate on this subject, between Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and Rabbi Elazer ben Yaakov. Rabbi

74. As mentioned above, the Altar is rendered unfit if there is the slightest damage to its stones.

Shimon mentions the measure quoted by the Rambam, while Rabbi Elazer maintains that even smaller damage, the size of an olive, can render the Altar unfit for use. Though generally, halachah is usually decided according to Rabbi Elazer's opinion, the Rambam chose that of Rabbi Shimon.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

12

policy .

1



Beit Habechirah - Chapter 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Beit Habechirah - Chapter 2

The design of the Menorah is explicitly [stated] in the Torah.1The [central] shaft of the Menorah had four goblets, two bulbs, and two flowers,2 [Exodus 25:34] states: "The Menorah shall have four embossed goblets, together with its bulbs and its flowers."3 A third flower was close to the Menorah's base, as [Numbers 8:4] states: "to its base, to its flower."4 The [Menorah] had three feet.5 Six [diagonal]6 branches extended from three other bulbs in the [central] shaft of the Menorah, three [branches] on one side and three on the other. Each branch had three goblets, a bulb, and a flower. They were all embossed7 by beating them [in a manner that their surface] resembled [tiny] almonds.8 Thus, the total number of goblets was 22;9 of flowers, nine;10 of bulbs, eleven.11 [The absence of] any of these ornaments could render the others invalid.12 Even if one of the 42 [ornaments] was lacking, all [the others] would not be valid.

English

Hebrew

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 4

‫המנורה מפורשת צורתה בתורה‬ ‫וארבעה גביעים ושני כפתורים ושני‬ ‫פרחים היו בקנה המנורה שנאמר ובמנורה‬ ‫ארבעה גביעים משוקדים כפתוריה‬ ‫ופרחיה ועוד פרח שלישי היה סמוך‬ ‫ליריכה של מנורה שנאמר עד ירכה עד‬ :‫פרחה‬ ‫ושלש רגלים היו לה ושלשה‬ ‫כפתורים אחרים היו בקנה המנורה‬ ‫שמהן יוצאים ששת הקנים שלשה מצד זה‬ ‫ושלשה מצד זה ובכל קנה וקנה מהן‬ ‫שלשה גביעים וכפתור ופרח והכל‬ :‫משוקדים כמו שקדים בעשייתן‬

‫נמצאת כל הגביעים שנים ועשרים‬ ‫והפרחים תשעה והכפתורים אחד‬ ‫עשר וכולן מעכבין זה את זה ואפילו חסר‬ :‫אחד מן השנים וארבעים מעכב את כולן‬

2

This applies when the [Menorah] is made of gold.13 [However, if it is made] of other metals,14 it should not have goblets, bulbs, and flowers.15 Also, when the Menorah is made out of gold, its total [weight] including its lamps shall be one talent.16 It must be fashioned entirely by hammering out one block [of gold].17

‫במה דברים אמורים בשעשאוה זהב‬ ‫אבל שאר מיני מתכות אין עושין בה‬ ‫גביעים כפתורים ופרחי' וכן מנורה הבאה‬ ‫זהב תהיה כולה ככר עם נרותיה ותהיה‬ ‫כולה מקשה מן העשתות ושל שאר מיני‬ ‫מתכות אין מקפידין על משקלה ואם היתה‬ :‫חלולה כשירה‬

[In contrast, should it be made from] other metals, there is no need to be precise about its weight.18 Also, it may be hollow.19 [The Menorah] should never be made of fragments of broken vessels, whether it was made of gold or of other metals.20

‫ואין עושין אותה לעולם מן‬ ‫הגרוטאות בין שהיתה של זהב בין‬ :‫שהיתה של שאר מיני מתכות‬

[Though the Menorah's] tongs,21 ash-scoops,22 and

‫המלקחים והמחתות וכלי השמן אינן‬ ‫מכלל הככר שהרי נאמר במנורה זהב‬ ‫טהור וחזר ואמר ומלקחיה ומחתותיה זהב‬ ‫טהור ולא נאמר נרותיה זהב טהור מפני‬ :‫שהנרות קבועין במנורה והם מכלל הככר‬

oil containers [shall also be made out of pure gold], they are not included in the talent [mentioned above. This decision was made] because, in connection with the Menorah, [Exodus 25:31] states: "pure gold" and afterwards, [ibid.:38) repeats: "Its wick-tongs and ash-scoops shall be made of pure gold."23 The verse does not state: "its lamps shall be of pure gold," for the lamps24 were permanently fixed in the Menorah, and were included in the talent [of gold from which the Menorah was fashioned].25 The [absence of one of the] seven branches of the Menorah invalidates the others.26 The [absence of one of the] seven lamps invalidates the others. This applies whether [the Menorah was made] of gold or of other metals.27 All the lamps were [permanently] affixed to the branches.28

‫שבעת קני המנורה מעכבין זה את זה‬ ‫ושבעת נרותיה מעכבין זה את זה בין‬ ‫שהיתה של זהב בין שהיתה של שאר מיני‬ :‫מתכות וכל הנרות קבועים בקנים‬

3

The six lamps affixed in the six branches extending out from the Menorah all faced the central lamp which was above the [central] shaft of the Menorah.29 The central lamp faced the Holy of Holies and was called the western lamp.30

‫ששת הנרות הקבועים בששת הקנים‬ ‫היוצאים מן המנורה כולן פניהם לנר‬ ‫האמצעי שעל קני המנורה וזה הנר‬ ‫האמצעי פניו כנגד קדש הקדשים והוא‬ :‫הנקרא נר מערבי‬

The goblets resembled Alexandrine chalices. They had wide mouths and narrow bases.31 The bulbs were like the apples of Keros which are slightly elongated, [resembling] eggs with both ends rounded.32 The flowers resemble the flowers of a column. They are shaped like bowls, with the edges bent over outward.33

‫הגביעים דומין לכוסות אלכסנדריאה‬ ‫קצר‬ ‫ושוליהן‬ ‫רחב‬ ‫שפיהן‬ ‫והכפתורים כמין תפוחים כרותיים שהן‬ ‫ארוכין מעט כביצה ששני ראשיה כדין‬ ‫והפרחים כמו פרחי העמודים שהן כמין‬ :‫קערה ושפתה כפולה לחוץ‬

4

The Menorah

was

eighteen

handbreadths

high:34 Its feet, [base,] and [bottommost] flower were three handbreadths high,35 There were two empty handbreadths, The next handbreadth included a goblet, a bulb, and a flower, Two empty handbreadths [followed], A handbreadth with a bulb and two branches extending outward from it, one to one side and one to the other, extending outward and ascending until reaching the full height of the Menorah,36 An empty handbreadth, A handbreadth with a bulb and two branches extending outward from it, one to one side and one to the other, extending outward and ascending until they reached the full height of the Menorah, An empty handbreadth, A handbreadth with a bulb and two branches extending outward from it, one to one side and one to the other, extending outward and ascending, until they reached the full height of the Menorah, and two empty handbreadths [Thus,] three handbreadths remained, with three goblets, a bulb, and a flower.37

‫גובה המנורה היה שמונה עשר טפח‬ ‫הרגלים והפרח שלשה טפחים ושני‬ ‫טפחים חלק וטפח שבו גביע כפתור ופרח‬ ‫וטפחיים חלק וטפח כפתור ושני קנים‬ ‫יוצאין ממנו אחד הילך ואחד הילך‬ ‫ונמשכים ועולין כנגד גובה המנורה וטפח‬ ‫חלק וטפח כפתור ושני קנים יוצאים ממנו‬ ‫אחד הילך ואחד הילך ונמשכין ועולין‬ ‫כנגד גובה המנורה וטפח חלק וטפח‬ ‫כפתור ושני קנים יוצאים ממנו אחד הילך‬ ‫ואחד הילך ונמשכין ועולין כנגד גובה‬ ‫המנורה וטפחיים חלק נשתיירו שלשה‬ :‫טפחים שבהן שלשה גביעים כפתור ופרח‬

5

A stone with three steps was [placed] before the Menorah.38 The priest stood on it39 and kindled the lamps.40 [Also,] he placed the containers of oil, the tongs, and the ash-scoops upon it while kindling it.

‫ואבן היתה לפני המנורה ובה שלש‬ ‫מעלות שעליה כהן עומד ומטיב‬ ‫את הנרות ומניח עליה כלי שמנה‬ :‫ומלקחיה ומחתותיה בשעת הטבה‬

The Table [for the Showbread] was twelve handbreadths long and six handbreadths wide.41 Its length was positioned in parallel with the length of the Sanctuary42 and its width was positioned in parallel with the width of the Sanctuary.43

‫השלחן היה ארכו שנים עשר טפח‬ ‫ורחבו ששה טפחים והיה מונח‬ ‫ארכו לאורך הבית ורוחבו לרוחב הבית‬ ‫וכן שאר כל הכלים שבמקדש אורכן‬ ‫לאורכו של בית ורחבן לרוחב הבית חוץ‬ ‫מן הארון שהיה אורכו לרוחב הבית וכן‬ ‫נרות המנורה כנגד רוחב הבית בין הצפון‬ :‫ובין הדרום‬

Similarly, the length and width of all the articles in the Sanctuary except for the Ark paralleled the length and width of the Sanctuary. The length of the Ark was placed to the width of the Sanctuary.44 The lamps of the Menorah were also positioned in parallel with the width of the Temple, from north to south.45 The Table46 had four side frames of gold which were Y-shaped at their heads.47 They supported the two arrangements of the showbread,48 two for each arrangement. The Torah49 calls them "its kesot."50

‫ארבעה סניפין של זהב היו לשלחן‬ ‫מפוצלין בראשיהן שהיו סומכין בהן‬ ‫שתי המערכות של לחם הפנים שנים‬ ‫מסדר זה ושנים מסדר זה והם הנאמרים‬ :‫בתורה וקשותיו‬

There were 28 rods of gold. Each resembled half of a hollow reed.51 Fourteen [were used] for one arrangement and fourteen for the other arrangement.52 [The Torah]53 calls them "its minakiot."

‫וכ"ח קנים של זהב כל אחד מהן‬ ‫כחצי קנה חלול היו לו ארבעה‬ ‫עשר לסדר זה וארבעה עשר לסדר זה והם‬ ‫הנקראים מנקיותיו ושני הבזיכין שמניחין‬ ‫בהן הלבונה על השולחן בצד המערכות הן‬ ‫הנקראין כפותיו והדפוסין שעושין בהם‬ :‫לחם הפנים הם הנקראים קערותיו‬

There were two incense bowls. The frankincense was placed inside them on the Table, on the side of the arrangements [of Showbread].54 [The Torah]55 calls them "its kapot." The molds used to make the Showbread56 are called57 "its ke'arot."

6

The 28 rods mentioned above [were used as follows]: The first loaf was placed on the Table itself.58 Three rods were placed between the first and the second loaves. Similarly, three rods were placed between each [of the following] loaves. Between the fifth and the sixth loaf, there were only two rods, for another loaf is not placed upon the sixth.59 Thus, each row [of loaves] required fourteen rods.60

‫אלו הארבעה עשר קנים נותן‬ ‫החלה הראשונה על עצמו של‬ ‫שולחן ונותן בין ראשונה ושנייה שלשה‬ ‫קנים וכן בין כל חלה וחלה שלשה קנים‬ ‫ובין ששית וחמישית שני קנים בלבד לפי‬ ‫שאין על הששית אחרת נמצאו ארבעה‬ :‫עשר בכל מערכה ומערכה‬

There were two tables in the Entrance Hall, near the entrance to the Temple building.61 One was made of marble.62 The Showbread was placed upon it before it was brought in.63 The other was made of gold. The bread was placed upon it when it was brought out.64 [The rationale for the use of different substances is that] with regard to holy matters, one must always ascend, and may not descend.65

‫ושני שולחנות היו באולם מבפנים‬ ‫על פתח הבית אחד של שיש‬ ‫נותנין עליו לחם הפנים בכניסתו ואחד של‬ ‫זהב נותנין עליו לחם ביציאתו שמעלין‬ :‫בקדש ולא מורידין‬

The incense altar66 was one cubit by one cubit square.67 It was placed in the Sanctuary, exactly [midway] between north and south,68 between the Table and the Menorah, towards the outside. These three were all placed beyond the first third of the Temple building, in front of the Parochet, which divided the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies.69

‫מזבח הקטרת היה מרובע אמה על‬ ‫אמה והוא נתון בהיכל מכוון בין‬ ‫הצפון לדרום משוך בין השלחן והמנורה‬ ‫לחוץ ושלשתן היו מונחין משליש ההיכל‬ ‫ולפנים כנגד הפרוכת המבדיל בין הקדש‬ :‫ובין קדש הקדשים‬

7

The washbasin70 had twelve taps,71 so that all the priests who were involved in offering the daily sacrifice72 could sanctify [their hands and feet] at one time.73 A mechanism was made so that it could be filled with water at all times. [The mechanism itself] was not sacred, and thus, the water remaining in it did not become invalidated [for future use] because the night passed. [This was necessary] because the washbasin was a sacred vessel and sanctified [its contents].74 Anything which is sanctified by a sacred vessel becomes invalidated [for future use] after the night passes.75

« Previous Beit Habechirah - Chapter 2

‫הכיור היו לו שנים עשר דד כדי‬ ‫שיהיו כל הכהנים העוסקים בתמיד‬ ‫מקדשים ממנו כאחד ומוכני עשו לו שיהיו‬ ‫בה המים תמיד והיא חול כדי שלא יהיו‬ ‫המים שבה נפסלין בלינה שהכיור מכלי‬ ‫הקדש ומקדש וכל דבר שיתקדש בכלי‬ :‫קדש אם לן נפסל‬

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 4

FOOTNOTES 1. See Exodus 25:31-40. See also Menachot 28b for a description of the Menorah. 2. See Halachah 9 for a definition of the terms "goblets, bulbs, and flowers." The position of the ornaments in the Menorah's shaft is described in Halachah 10. 3. Since the Torah refers to the plural form for these ornaments, yet it does not specify a number, two bulbs and two flowers are required. 4. Although this flower was not mentioned in the description of the Menorah's construction in Exodus, the Menachot, loc. cit. and all the commentaries include it in their design. 5. The Torah does not mention feet in its description of the Menorah's construction. Their presence is recorded in the Talmud (Menachot, loc. cit.), but no specific number of feet

6. The Rambam implies that the branches of the Menorah extended diagonally from its central shaft. He depicts the Menorah's branches in this way in the drawings he added to his commentary on the Mishnah. See Rav Kapach's edition. Similarly, the Rambam's son, Rav Avraham, writes in his commentary on the Torah (Exodus 25:32): "The six branches of the Menorah extended upward as straight lines, as depicted by my father, of blessed memory, and not as depicted by others." Other commentaries, including Rashi (Exodus 25:32) agree with the Rambam on this matter. It is thus difficult to comprehend why most popular portrayals of the Menorah show its branches as semicircles. That form was, indeed, used on the Arch of Titus, but, as mentioned above, there were other imprecisions in that monument. Furthermore,

is mentioned. Nevertheless, all major commentaries have described the Menorah as having three feet. It must be noted

there is no reason to favor the portrayal of the Menorah

that Josephus' description of the Menorah and the depiction

description offered by our Torah leaders.

of the Menorah on the Arch of Titus both lack feet. However, there are other inconsistencies in those sources.

made by a Gentile to celebrate Jerusalem's downfall over the

7. In Hebrew, the verse requiring embossment (ibid.:34) reads: "The Menorah had four goblets embossed with bulbs and

"[Should it be made from] other metals, there is no need to

flowers." Yoma 52a lists five verses in the Torah for which

be precise about the weight [of the Menorah]." However,

the Sages were unsure of the proper interpretation. This is one of them. The Sages did not know whether the adjective

regarding the ornaments, the Rambam specifically states

"embossed" described the goblets mentioned before it or the bulbs and flowers mentioned afterwards.

that "we should not make goblets, bulbs, or flowers." That statement implies that not only are these ornaments not required if the Menorah is made of other metals, but that it is

Because of this quandary, the Rambam decided that all three ornaments were to be embossed. Nothing would be lost by

16. The Torah (Exodus 25:39) specifically states: "He shall make

employing this technique to fashion certain ornaments, even though the Torah did not require them to be made in this

it have a talent of pure gold with all its vessels." A talent, kikar in Hebrew, was equal to 3000 shekels, or

manner. However, if one ornament was not embossed, a direct command of the Torah might not have been fulfilled

approximately 68.5 kilograms (153.5 pounds) in modern measure.

(Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Corcus).

The "lamps" mentioned by the Rambam are discussed in Halachah 6, which also explains the meaning of the term

8. In his commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot, op. cit.), the Rambam writes: "The word meshukadim

("embossed")

means 'a craft of almonds' (shikeidim). This technique is popular among coppersmiths. They beat a sheet with a hammer until its [surface appears to be] covered with almonds." The accompanying diagram is a copy of the depiction of the Menorah by the Rambam which accompanies his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). 9. Three on each branch, bringing the total to 18, and four on the central shaft. Rabbenu Bachai (Exodus 25:31) notes that the number of goblets equals the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. 10. One on each branch and three on the central shaft. 11. One on each branch, three on the central shaft from which the branches extended outward, and two on the middle portion of the central shaft.

prohibited to add them.

"vessels" in this verse. 17. Exodus 25:36 states: "Their bulbs and branches must be made from it. They shall all be hammered out of one piece of pure gold." 18. Its weight may equal more or less than a talent, as explained above. 19. The Kessef Mishneh explains that when the Menorah is made of other metals, it need not be fashioned by beating out one block of metal, as is required when it is made of gold. 16The Mishneh Limelech explains that even if the Menorah is made of other metals, it is preferable that it be beaten out of one solid block of metal. Otherwise, it is only acceptable after the fact. 20. When the Menorah was made of gold, it was not acceptable if it was fashioned in this manner. However, the Mishneh Limelech indicate that if the Menorah was made of other

12. Menachot, ibid., explains that since each ornament is

metals, after the fact, it is acceptable if assembled from

mentioned in the Torah, the Menorah is not considered

fragments even though it is not desirable to do so as an initial preference.

complete without them. 13. Menachot 28a explains Exodus 25:31: "You shall make a

21. Tweezers to adjust and insert the wicks into the lamps. See

Menorah of pure gold ...its goblets, its bulbs, and its flowers,"

Rashi, Exodus 25:38. Nachmanides interprets the Hebrew, Melkachayim (tongs), mentioned in the above verse, as

as follows: "When you make a Menorah of gold, then you shall make its goblets, bulbs, and flowers." 14. See Chapter 1, Halachah 19 and the commentary, which explains that if the Jewish people are poor, the Menorah and

8

15. The Mishneh LiMelech explains that the Rambam writes:

"wick-holders" and explains that they were a permanent fixture of the Menorah. 22. Small scoops to remove the ashes from the lamps. See

the other vessels of the Sanctuary need not be made of gold. Indeed, when the Maccabees rededicated the Temple, they

Rashi, loc. cit. Nachmanides differs and defines the Hebrew

made the Menorah of iron, coated with tin.

permanently fixed in the Menorah.

Machtot as ash-catchers, maintaining that they were

9

23. The Rambam feels it necessary to elaborate in this instance, because a superficial reading of the Torah's verses might

30. This lamp was not positioned any further westward than the others. Nevertheless, it was given that name because it

create a different impression. The Torah states (ibid.:38-39): "Its wick-tongs and ash-scoops shall be made of pure gold.

faced the Holy of Holies, which was situated in the west. The Rambam's decision follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezar ben

He shall make it with a talent of pure gold; all these vessels." The Hebrew word keilim, translated as "vessels," may also

across the width of the Sanctuary. Accordingly, there is no

be translated as "utensils." Thus, one might conclude that the Menorah's utensils must also be fashioned by

one lamp whose position clearly identified it as "the western lamp."

hammering out the same block of gold and hence, are to be

Menachot also mentions that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi did not

Shimon, who maintains that the Menorah's lamps spread

permanent parts of the Menorah. Indeed, Nachmanides

accept this opinion and maintained that the Menorah was

appears to have understood the meaning of the verses in

positioned along the length of the Sanctuary, from east to

that manner. However, Menachot 88b explains that here the

west. Thus, there was one lamp that was "westernmost." Halachah is usually based on Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's

term keilim refers only to the lamps, and not to the other utensils. 24. The receptacles in which the oil and wicks were placed.

opinion. Nevertheless, the Rambam favored Rabbi Eliezer's opinion, because there is a verse from the Torah that

25. Menachot, op. cit. records that this statement was the

appears to support it. Leviticus 24:3 states: "Aharon shall prepare [the lights] continuously before the Lord," implying

subject of a debate among the Sages. Some maintained that the lamps were separate fixtures which could be removed

that before kindling the Menorah, it was necessary to

from the Menorah when necessary.

prepare the wick to point "before the Lord" (Kessef Mishneh). This difference of opinion was preserved over the

26. Exodus 25:32 states, "Six branches extend from its sides." The Menorah's central shaft became the seventh branch. If

generations and many later authorities accepted the view

one branch was missing, the Menorah is considered to be

Shabbat 22a relates that the western lamp was "testimony to

lacking the essential form prescribed by the Torah.

the entire world that the Shechinah rests in Israel." Each day,

Therefore, it is invalidated.

the western lamp was the first lamp kindled. Exactly the same measure of oil was placed in it as in the other lamps,

27. In contrast with the goblets, bulbs, and flowers in Halachah 4. 28. The Rambam ruled that the lamps were an integral part of the Menorah. Thus, a unique process was employed in their

that the lamps of the Menorah extended from east to west.

yet it was always the last to burn out. Nevertheless, after the spiritual level of the Jewish people declined, this miracle did not always occur (Yoma 39a).

kindling. It was deemed disrespectful to kindle the Menorah

31. Rav Kapach's publication of the Rambam's drawing of the

from fire that was not sacred. The lamp of the central shaft was to be lit only from the fire of the Altar. All other lamps

Menorah shows the goblets in an inverted position. Note

would be kindled from it or from each other. Since the lamps themselves were permanently affixed in the Menorah, the

Rabbenu Bachai (Exodus 25:31) explains the symbolism of the inverted position. A goblet serves two functions: it

priests kindled them by extending their wicks with the tweezers until they reached a lamp that was burning. They

enables the collection of liquids, and offers the opportunity of pouring the liquids where desired. Thus, the goblets are

would then light the wicks and return them to their own lamps. (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:13-14).

symbolic of the Heavenly spheres, which receive influence from Heavenly sources and convey it to our lowly world.

It was necessary that every lamp be on a separate branch. If two lamps were made on the same branch, the Menorah was

The main purpose of the Menorah was to shed light on the

invalid. 29. Numbers 8:2 commands: "When you kindle the lamps, the seven lamps shall shine towards the center of the Menorah." Rav Yehudah HaChassid explained that according to the Rambam, the lamps themselves were fashioned so that the wicks would face in that direction. The side of the lamps facing the center shaft slanted inward. The diagrams drawn by the Rambam published in Rav Kapach's edition verify this opinion.

also the drawing accompanying Halachah 2.

world. This intent was expressed in the design of the Temple itself. Though generally, windows are built slanting inward, King Solomon's Temple windows slanted outwards (I Kings 6:4), so that the Menorah's light would spread to the world at large. Similarly, the inverted position of the goblets in the Menorah emphasizes that the Menorah was intended to disseminate spiritual influence throughout our world. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 21, p. 164.

10

32. In his commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot, loc. cit.), the

40. In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:16-17, the Rambam relates

Rambam also emphasize that the bulbs were not entirely

that, in the morning, the priest would not light all of the

round. Rabbenu Bachai explained that the bulbs symbolized

Menorah lamps at once. He entered with a kuz - according to

boundless spiritual pleasure.

containers, the tongs, and the ash scoops. He then lit five candles and left the Sanctuary, placing the kuz on the

33. Rabbenu Bachai explains that the flowers represent the world's potential for growth and development. 34. This entire Halachah is a direct quote from Menachot 28b. Eighteen handbreadths equals between 4.5 and six feet

the Har HaMoriah, a large vessel containing the oil

second step of the stone. Afterwards, he returned to light the two remaining candles and remove the kuz. 41. The Torah commands (Exodus 25:23): "Make a table... two

modern

cubits long and one cubit wide." As mentioned above, in the commentary to Chapter 2, Halachah 6, the Rambam follows

35. Tosefot, Menachot, op. cit., questions why all three

Rabbi Meir's opinion, that a cubit was six handbreadths in measure.

depending on measurements.

the

different

conversions

to

ornaments were crowded into a handbreadth while generally, the bulbs themselves were a handbreadth in length. 36. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that all the bulbs were of equal measure. If so, Tosefot's question

42. I.e., from east to west. 43. From north to south. See Menachot 96a.

mentioned above becomes even more difficult. A possible

44. Thus, the staves of the ark bulged out from the curtain dividing the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary (Yoma 54a).

solution is offered by the Tzurat HaBayit, which explains that

45. As mentioned in Halachah 8, this matter was a subject of

the branches did not extend from the bulbs themselves, but from the Menorah's central shaft. Thus, the length of the

debate among the Sages of the Mishnah. The Ra'avad notes the differing opinions in his commentary.

bulb and the branches, and similarly, the bulb, goblet, and

The Nodah BiYhudah (Orach Chayim, Responsum 122)

flower, could both be one handbreath. However, as mentioned above, the Rambam's diagram of the Menorah

notes that Menachot derives its knowledge of the position of

depicts the branches as extending out from the bulbs. See Rashi (Menachot 28b which states that in this

that they were placed in parallel. On that basis, he questions

handbreadth, the goblet, flower, and bulbs projected from different sides of the Menorah. 37. One might ask: Why does the Rambam omit mention of the Menorah's lamps? Although his source is the Talmud, it is possible to explain that this Talmudic passage follows the opinion that the lamps could be removed from the Menorah. However, as mentioned in Halachah 6, the Rambam follows the interpretation that the lamps were an integral part of the Menorah's structure. Therefore, they should be mentioned. 38. The Sifri notes the relationship between the word used in the command to kindle the Menorah (Numbers 8:2), he'alah, and the Hebrew word for steps, ma'aleh, and comments: "Make steps with which to light the Menorah." In his commentary to Tamid 3:9, Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura

the Showbread Table from the position of the Menorah, and the Rambam's statements that they were positioned perpendicular to each other. He explained that the Talmud's statement was made only in the preliminary stages of debate, and according to the final opinion, there is no contradiction with the Rambam's decision. Note the accompanying diagram which was based on the Rambam's drawings in his commentary on the Mishnah, Menachot 11:6. 46. The design of the Table described by the Rambam differs greatly from popularly accepted diagrams, usually based on the text, Ma'aseh Choshev. In order to clarify the Rambam's opinion, this and the following two Halachot will be explained in brief and a more general explanation will be provided later. 47. This Halachah is quoted from Menachot 11, Mishnah 6. The

explained that three steps were constructed because on

Hebrew word translated as "Y-shaped" used by the Rambam and the Mishnah is mifutzalim, which means split or forked.

three occasions the Torah refers to the kindling of the Menorah in a similar manner: in the verse cited above, in the

Our description is based on the diagrams drawn by the Rambam himself which accompany Rav Kapach's edition of

following verse (ibid.:3), and in Exodus 27:20.

his commentary to the Mishnah. accompanying this Halachah.

39. The Menorah was eighteen handbreadths (approximately 5 ft.) high. Thus for an average person to have easy access to the lamps, he would have to stand on a raised platform.

Note

the

drawing

48. The Torah declares (Leviticus 24:5-6): "You shall take fine flour and bake twelve loaves from it.... Place them in two rows, six per row, on the pure Table before the Lord." According to the Rambam, the loaves were arranged on the Table itself. As their name implies, the side frames were placed at its sides for support.

11

50. Rashi (Menachot 97a) explains that this name relates to the

60. As indicated above, the Rambam's concept of the Table differs from that of the other commentaries. The major

word kesheh, meaning hard, or firm. The sideframes

differences refer to the definition of the Kasot, the side

49. Exodus 25:29.

supported the showbreads, prevented them from crumbling, and allowed them to become firm. 51. Like half of a bamboo shoot.

frames. Rashi, Tosafot and the Rashbam each have slightly different concept of the sideframes. However, all three explanations depict the sideframes as sturdy structures

52. As explained in the following Halachah.

which supported the rods. The latter, in turn, supported the weight of the loaves. Thus, these commentaries interpret the

53. Exodus, loc. cit.

word mifutzalin used by the Mishnah to mean that they

54. This command to bring the Showbread continues (Leviticus

possess grooves or holes. The rods were inserted through these grooves or holes, and were able to support the loaves.

24:7): "Place pure frankincense near each arrangement." In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:9, the Rambam explains that two handbreadths remained between the two arrangements of showbread for the two incense bowls. Other opinions state that the incense bowls were placed on top of the bread, one in each row. 55. This command to bring the Showbread continues (Leviticus 24:7): "Place pure frankincense near each arrangement." In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:9, the Rambam explains that two handbreadths remained between the two arrangements of showbread for the two incense bowls. Other opinions state that the incense bowls were placed on top of the bread, one in each row.

As explained in brief in the above Halachot, and at length in Chapter 5 of Rambam's Hilchot Temidim U'Musafim, the twelve Showbreads were stacked on top of each other, their weight being supported only by the Table itself and the rods. According to his conception, the side frames were thin Y-shaped rods which were intended to keep the arrangements straight and to support them from the sides. However, they did not bear any of the weight of the loaves. There are two advantages to the explanation offered by the Rambam: a) According to the Rambam, the term mifultzalin used by the Mishnah is interpreted more precisely.

56. Note Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:8 which relates that there

b) According to the other explanations, it is difficult to comprehend why only two rods were used for the uppermost

were three molds. One was used to prepare the dough, one to bake the loaves, and one in which they were left to cool.

row. Since the loaves did not rest upon each other and their weight was borne by the side frames as well, there is no

According to the Rambam, all three were made of gold. Other opinions, including Rashi, disagree, and maintain that

difference between the top row and the others? In contrast, according to the Rambam, there is no difficulty.

the loaves were baked in an iron mold. 57. This command to bring the Showbread continues (Leviticus

Since the rods bore the weight of the loaves themselves, and the uppermost rods had to support a lesser weight, their

24:7): "Place pure frankincense near each arrangement." In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:9, the Rambam explains that

number could be reduced. See the accompanying diagram which depicts the Table

two handbreadths remained between the two arrangements of showbread for the two incense bowls. Other opinions

according to the Rambam's description. 61. Generally, these tables are depicted as being positioned

state that the incense bowls were placed on top of the bread, one in each row.

62. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 6:3) asks why this table

58. As explained above, the purpose of the rods was to allow air

was not made of silver. It explains that since the loaves were

to pass between the loaves and to preserve their freshness. Thus, one might suggest that rods be placed under the

placed on the Table while they were hot, their heat would raise the temperature of the silver. This could cause mold to

bottom most loaves for that same reason. However, the surface of the Table itself was gold, and thus remained cool.

grow on the loaves.

Hence, no other measures were necessary. 59. Since these rods had to support a lesser weight, their number could be reduced.

apart from each other, one at either side of the entrance.

63. The Showbread had to be baked before the Sabbath. However, it was not placed on the Table in the Sanctuary until the Sabbath morning sacrifices were offered. In the interim, the loaves were placed on this marble table (Tosefta, Menachot, Chap. 11).

12

64. The loaves from the previous week were removed from the Table in the Sanctuary and placed on this table while the

75. Once an article is placed in a sacred vessel, it must be used in the Temple service on that day. If the night passes, it

new loaves were being placed on the Table and the frankincense was being offered. Afterwards, the loaves were

becomes invalid for future use and must be disposed of. Since the washbasin was sacred, all its water became

divided among the priests. If Yom Kippur fell on a Sabbath, the loaves remained on this table for the entire day (Hilchot

sanctified and could only be used for holy purposes. Were the water to remain in the washbasin overnight, it would

Temidim UMusafim 5:4-5).

become invalid for future use. The Sages felt that it was not fitting to discard a large amount of water every day after it

65. Since the Table upon which the Showbread had been placed was covered with gold, it was not proper to place them on a less precious surface afterwards. This principle applies to other matters as well. For example,

had become sacred, and they tried to devise means of avoiding that difficulty. Yoma 37a and Zevachim 20a explain that each night the

on the basis of this principle, the School of Hillel explains that each night, a new candle should be added to the

washbasin was lowered into a natural reservoir of water by a

Chanukah lamps to increase the light connected with the festival.

was very noisy and it was possible to hear the cranking of its

66. This altar was also referred to as the "golden altar," because it was coated with an outer surface of gold. It was also called "the inner altar," because it was placed inside the Temple building. This contrasted with the Altar for the sacrifices, which was placed in the Temple Courtyard. 67. Exodus 30:1-3 commands: "Make an altar out of acacia wood to burn incense. It shall be square, a cubit long and a cubit wide, including its horns. Cover it with a layer of pure gold." 68. Rav Kapach's edition of the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah (Menachot 11:6) indicates that the Rambam

pulley-operated crane. Tamid 3:8, explains that the crane gears as far away as Jericho. Its water was not invalid overnight, and the water it contained when it was lifted up again in the morning, could be used for the Temple service. Based on the sections of the Talmud mentioned above, the Ra'avad questions the Rambam's description of the washbasin and its mechanism. With the statement, "[The mechanism] was not sacred and thus, the water remaining in it did not become invalid," the Rambam seems to imply that the mechanism itself contained water, but the water did not become disqualified, because the mechanism, unlike the washbasin itself, was not a sacred vessel. This would seem to contradict the Talmudic passages which describe the

originally wrote that the incense altar was positioned slightly

mechanism as a crane. This difficulty is further magnified by the fact that in Hilchot

to the north. He later amended his text to read as above.

Bi'at HaMikdash 5:14, the Rambam himself writes that each

69. See Exodus 26:33, and Halachah 2 of the following chapter.

night, the washbasin was submerged in a natural reservoir of water and raised again the next morning.

70. The command to construct a washbasin and for the priests to sanctify their hands and feet before participating in the Temple services is found in Exodus 30:18-9. 71. Originally, the washbasin had only two taps. Afterwards, one of the High Priests, ben Katin, fashioned twelve taps for it. He also constructed the mechanism described later in this Halachah (Yoma 37a). 72. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:6. 73. As mentioned above, before participating in any element of the Temple service, the priests had to sanctify their hands and feet. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 5:1. 74. Once a substance was placed in a sacred vessel, it could no longer be used for mundane purposes.

The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam's statements as follows: These Talmudic passages use the expression muchani to refer to the mechanism. Though that expression can be rendered as a pulley-operated crane, as above, it can also be explained as a circular reservoir for water, into which the washbasin was placed. This explanation resolves the contradiction between the Rambam and the Talmud. However, the Kessef Mishneh is also puzzled by the seeming contradiction in the Rambam's own words. The Tosefot Yom Tov (Tamid 1:4) quotes the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah (Tamid 3:8). It explains that the "mechanism" was a vessel of water which would be raised each morning and submerged each evening by a pulleyoperated crane. It would be placed over the washbasin to keep it filled with water. The Tzurat Habayit maintains that throughout the ages, various techniques were devised to solve the problem of the water which remained overnight in the washbasin. The Mishnah (Eruvin 10:14) relates that pulley-operated cranes were used to draw water during the days of the prophets. Thus, it was likely that a similar technique was employed for the washbasin. Since ben Katin lived in the later years of the

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

13

policy .

1



Beit Habechirah - Chapter 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Beit Habechirah - Chapter 3

English

Hebrew

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 5

The Ark was placed on a stone1 in the western portion of the Holy of Holies.2 The vial of manna3 and Aharon's staff4 were placed before it. When Solomon built the Temple, he was aware that it would ultimately be destroyed. [Therefore,]5 he constructed a chamber, in which the ark could be entombed below [the Temple building] in deep, maze-like vaults. King Josiah6 commanded that [the Ark] be entombed in the chamber built by Solomon, as it is said (II Chronicles 35:3): "And he said to the Levites who would teach wisdom to all of Israel: 'Place the Holy Ark in the chamber built by Solomon, the son of David, King of Israel. You will no [longer] carry it on your shoulders. Now, serve the Lord, your God.'7 When it was entombed, Aharon's staff, the vial of manna, and the oil used for anointing were entombed with it. All these [sacred articles] did not return in the Second Temple. Similarly, the Urim V'Tumim that existed in the Second Temple did not answer with Ruach HaKodesh (Divine inspiration)8 and questions were not asked of them, as stated [in Ezra 2:63]: "until a priest will arise with the Urim V'Tumim."9 [In the Second Temple,] they only made them to fulfill the requirement of eight garments for the High Priest.10 Thus, the High Priest would not lack one of the required garments.11

2

‫אבן היתה בקדש הקדשים במערבו‬ ‫שעליה היה הארון מונח ולפניו‬ ‫צנצנת המן ומטה אהרן ובעת שבנה שלמה‬ ‫את הבית וידע שסופו ליחרב בנה בו מקום‬ ‫לגנוז בו הארון למטה במטמוניות עמוקות‬ ‫ועקלקלות ויאשיהו המלך צוה וגנזו במקום‬ ‫שבנה שלמה שנאמר ויאמר ללוים‬ ‫המבינים לכל ישראל הקדושים ליי' תנו‬ ‫את ארון הקדש בבית אשר בנה שלמה בן‬ ‫דויד מלך ישראל אין לכם משא בכתף‬ ‫עתה עבדו את י"י אלהיכם וגו' ונגנז עמו‬ ‫מטה אהרן והצנצנת ושמן המשחה וכל‬ ‫אלו לא חזרו בבית שני ואף אורים ותומים‬ ‫שהיו בבית שני לא היו משיבין ברוח‬ ‫הקדש ולא היו נשאלין בהן שנאמר עד‬ ‫עמוד כהן לאורים ותומים ולא היו עושין‬ ‫אותן אלא להשלים שמנה בגדים לכהן‬ :‫גדול כדי שלא יהא מחוסר בגדים‬

The First Temple had a one-cubit thick wall which separated the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.12 When the Second Temple was constructed, they were unsure whether the width of that wall was included in the measure of the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies.13 Therefore, the Holy of Holies was made a full twenty cubits long, and the Sanctuary a full forty cubits long, and one additional cubit was left between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.14 They did not build a wall in the Second Temple.15 Rather, they hung two curtains, one from the side of the Sanctuary and one from the side of the Holy of Holies, with a cubit between them16 in place of the width of the wall of the First [Temple].17 However, in the First Temple, there was only one curtain,18 as [Exodus 26:33] states: "The curtain will divide for you [between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.]"

3

‫בבית ראשון היה כותל מבדיל בין‬ ‫הקדש ובין קדש הקדשים עביו אמה‬ ‫וכיון שבנו הבית שני נסתפק להם אם עובי‬ ‫הכותל היה ממדת הקדש או ממדת קדש‬ ‫הקדשים לפיכך עשו קדש הקדשים עביו‬ ‫עשרים אמה תמימות ועשו הקדש‬ ‫ארבעים אמה תמימות והניחו אמה יתירה‬ ‫בין הקדש ובין קדש הקדשים ולא בנו‬ ‫כותל בבית שני אלא עשו שתי פרוכות‬ ‫אחת מצד קדש הקדשים ואחת מצד‬ ‫הקדש וביניהן אמה כנגד עובי הכותל‬ ‫שהיה בראשון אבל במקדש ראשון לא‬ ‫היתה שם אלא פרכת אחת בלבד שנאמר‬ :'‫והבדילה הפרכת לכם וגו‬

The Temple building constructed by the exiles [returning from Babylon] was one hundred cubits long, one hundred cubits wide, and one hundred cubits high. The measurement of its height can be described as follows:19 They built a solid base six cubits high resembling a foundation for it;20 the Sanctuary, 40 cubits high;21 an ornate ceiling, one cubit high;22 above that, two cubits were left empty to allow dripping [water] to collect [and to be drained off];23 this was called the Beit Dilpa;24 the roof above the Beit Dilpa was a cubit thick; the plaster, a cubit high; an upper storey was built on it; its walls were 40 cubits high; its roof included an ornate ceiling one cubit high; a Beit Dilpa, two cubits high; a roof, one cubit high; plaster, one cubit high; a guard rail, three cubits high;25 a sheet of iron resembling a blade, a cubit high, was placed all around the guard rail so that birds will not rest upon it. It was called the Kaleh Orev.26 The total of the above is 100 cubits.27

4

‫ההיכל שבנו בני גולה היה מאה אמה‬ ‫על מאה אמה על רום מאה וכן היתה‬ ‫מדת רומו בנו גובה שש אמות אטום סתום‬ ‫כמו יסוד לו ורום כותלי הבית ארבעים‬ ‫אמה ורום הכיור שבתקרה אמה ועל גביו‬ ‫גובה שתי אמות פנוי שיכנס בו הדלף והוא‬ ‫הנקרא בית דילפא ועובי התקרה שעל גבי‬ ‫בית דילפא אמה ומעזיבה גובה אמה‬ ‫ועלייה בנויה על גביו גובה כותליה‬ ‫ארבעים אמה ובגגה גובה אמה כיור‬ ‫ואמתים גובה בית דילפא ואמה תקרה‬ ‫ואמה מעזיבה וגובה המעקה שלש אמות‬ ‫וטס של ברזל כמו סייף גובהו אמה על גבי‬ ‫המעקה סביב כדי שלא ינוחו עליו העופות‬ ‫והוא הנקרא כלה עורב הרי הכל מאה‬ :‫אמה‬

From the west to the east,28 there were 100 cubits as follows:29 There were four walls, one within the other, with three vacant spaces between them: Between the western wall and the wall inside of it, five cubits, Between the second and third walls, six cubits, Between the third and fourth walls, six cubits. These measurements include the width of the wall and the space between it and the following wall.30 The length of the Holy of Holies was 20 cubits.31 Between the two curtains separating the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary, one cubit.32 The length of the Sanctuary was 40 cubits. The width of the eastern wall in which the entrance was positioned was six cubits.33 The Entrance Hall was eleven cubits [long]. The wall of the Entrance Hall was five cubits thick.34 Thus, the total is 100 cubits.35

5

‫מן המערב למזרח מאה אמה וזהו‬ ‫ ארבעה כתלים זה לפנים‬:‫חשבונן‬ ‫מזה וביניהן שלשה מקומות פנויין בין‬ ‫הכותל המערבי ובין הכותל שלפנים ממנו‬ ‫חמש אמות ובין כותל שני ושלישי שש‬ ‫אמות ובין כותל שלישי ורביעי שש אמות‬ ‫ואלו המדות הן של עובי הכותל עם המקום‬ ‫הפנוי שבין שני כותלים ואורך קדש‬ ‫הקדשים עשרים אמה ובין שתי הפרוכות‬ ‫המבדילות בינו ובין הקדש אמה ואורך‬ ‫הקדש ארבעים אמה ועובי הכותל המזרחי‬ ‫שבו השער שש אמות והאולם אחת‬ ‫עשרה אמה ועובי כותל האולם חמש‬ :‫אמות נמצא הכל מאה אמה‬

From north to south, there were 100 cubits:36 The width of the wall of the Entrance Hall was five cubits.37 There were ten cubits from the wall of the Entrance Hall until the wall of the Sanctuary.38 The Sanctuary had six walls, one within the other, with five vacant places between them:39 Between the outer wall and the second [wall], there were five cubits;40 Between the second and the third, three cubits;41 Between the third and the fourth, five;42 Between the fourth and the fifth, six;43 and Between the fifth and the sixth, six.44 Thus, these [walls and chambers encompassed] a total of forty cubits on both sides [of the Temple building.] The width of the Temple inside was 20 cubits.45 The total was 100 cubits.

6

‫מן הצפון לדרום מאה אמה עובי‬ ‫כותל האולם חמש אמות ומכותל‬ ‫אולם עד כותל הקדש עשר אמות וכותלי‬ ‫הקדש ששה כתלים זה לפנים מזה וביניהן‬ ‫חמשה מקומות פנויין בין כותל חיצון ובין‬ ‫השני חמש אמות ובין שני ושלישי שלש‬ ‫אמות וחמש בין שלישי ורביעי ובין רביעי‬ ‫וחמישי שש ובין חמישי וכותל הפנימי שש‬ ‫נמצא הכל ארבעים אמה מצד זה וארבעים‬ ‫אמה מצד שכנגדו ורוחב הבית מבפנים‬ :‫עשרים הרי מאה אמה‬

7

A wicket is a small gateway. The Sanctuary had two wickets on the sides of the great gate in the middle, one on the north and one on the south.46 No one ever entered through the southern [wicket]. Explicit [reference] to this [is made] by [in the Book of] Ezekiel [44:2]: "This gate will be closed. It will not be opened."47 [Every morning, the priests] would enter [through the wicket] on the north and proceed between the two walls until reaching an opening to the Sanctuary on the left. [From there], they would enter the Temple, proceed to the great gate, and open it.48

‫הפשפש והוא שער הקטן ושני‬ ‫פישפשין היו להיכל מצדי השער‬ ‫הגדול שבאמצע אחד בצפון ואחד בדרום‬ ‫שבדרום לא נכנס בו אדם מעולם ועליו‬ ‫הוא מפורש על ידי יחזקאל השער הזה‬ ‫סגור יהיה לא יפתח ושבצפון בו נכנסין‬ ‫ומהלך בין שני הכתלים עד שמגיע למקום‬ ‫פתוח לקדש משמאלו ונכנס לתוך ההיכל‬ :‫ומהלך עד שער הגדול ופותחו‬

The great gate49 was ten cubits wide and twenty cubits high.50 It had four doors: two to the inner [chamber,] and two to the outside.51 The outer gates opened into the doorway, covering the breadth of the walls.52 The inner [gates] opened into the Sanctuary, covering the [wall space] behind the doors.53

‫השער הגדול היה רחבו עשר אמות‬ ‫וגובהו עשרים אמה וארבע דלתות היו‬ ‫לו שתים בפנים ושתים בחוץ החיצונות‬ ‫נפתחות לתוך הפתח לכסות עוביו של‬ ‫כותל והפנימיות נפתחות לתוך הבית‬ :‫לכסות אחורי הדלתות‬

The opening to the Entrance Hall was forty cubits high and twenty [cubits] wide.54 It did not have gates.55

‫פתחו של אולם היה גבוה ארבעים‬ ‫אמה ורוחב עשרים ולא היה לו‬ ‫שערים וחמש מלתריות של מילא היו על‬ ‫גבי פתחו מלמעלה התחתונה עודפת על‬ ‫הפתח אמה מזה ואמה מזה וכל אחת‬ ‫מחמשתן עודפת על שלמטה ממנה אמה‬ ‫מזה ואמה מזה נמצאת העליונה שלשים‬ ‫אמה ונדבך של אבנים היה בין כל אחת‬ :‫ואחת‬

Five oak beams56 were [positioned] above this entrance.57 The bottom [beam] extended beyond the entrance, one cubit on either side. Each of the five [beams] extended one cubit on either side of the [beam] below it. Thus, the uppermost beam was thirty cubits [long].58 There was a tier of stones between each beam.59

8

The structure of the Temple was wide in its front and narrow in its rear, like a lion. 60 Balconies61 [extended] from the wall of the winding stairwell and surrounded the Temple on all sides.62 The lowest balcony was five [cubits long.] The pavement above it was six cubits long. The middle projection was six cubits, and the pavement above it seven cubits. The upper balcony was seven cubits, as it is said (I Kings 6:6): "The lowest balcony...."63 Thus, three balconies surrounded the Temple from three sides.64 Similarly, [there were projections] from bottom to top, around the wall of the Entrance Hall. The [pattern] was as follows:65 one vacant cubit, a projection of three cubits, one vacant cubit, and then, a projection of three cubits. This pattern was followed until the top [of the wall.] Thus, the projections surrounded the walls.66 Each projection67 was three cubits wide until the top [of the wall], and between each projection was a [vacant] cubit. The uppermost projection was four cubits wide.68

‫ההיכל היה בניינו רחב מלפניו וצר‬ ‫מאחוריו כמו ארי ויציעים היו‬ ‫מקיפין לבית כולו מסביב חוץ לכותל‬ ‫המסיבה ויציע התחתונה חמש ורובד על‬ ‫גבה שש ויציע אמצעית שש ורובד על‬ ‫גבה ז' והעליונה ז' שנאמר היציע‬ ‫התחתונה וגו' וכן היו השלש יציעים‬ ‫מקיפים לבית משלשה רוחותיו וכן סביב‬ ‫לכתלי האולם מלמטה עד למעלה כך היו‬ ‫אמה אחת חלק ורובד שלש אמות ואמה‬ ‫חלק ורובד שלש אמות עד למעלה ונמצאו‬ ‫הרובדין מוקפין לכתלים רוחב כל רובד‬ ‫שלש אמות עד למעלה ובין כל רובד ורובד‬ ‫אמה ורובד העליון היה רוחבו ארבע‬ :‫אמות‬

9

All the vacant spaces between the walls are called cells.69 Thus, five cells surrounded the Sanctuary on the north, five on the south, and three on the west. There were three levels [of cells,] one level above the other.70 Thus, there were fifteen cells on the south; five above five, with five above them. Similarly, in the north, there were fifteen cells. There were eight cells in the west; three above three, with two above them on one level.71 Thus, there were a total of 38 cells.72 Each cell had three entrances: one to the cell on the right, another to the cell on the left,73 and one to the cell above it.74 The cell in the northeast corner of the second storey had five entrances:75 one to the cell on its right,76 one to the cell above it,77 one to the winding stairwell,78 one towards the cell with the wicket,79 and one to the Temple.80 The winding stairwell with which one would ascend to the roofs of the cells81 began its rise from the northeast corner towards the northwest corner [of the Temple]. One ascended on the winding stairwell facing the west and traversed the entire length of [the Temple's] northern side82 until reaching the west.83 When he reached the west, he would turn towards the south. He walked across the entire length of the western side84 until he reached the south.85 When he reached the south, he turned to the east. He walked eastward86 until reaching the entrance to the Temple's upper storey, since the entrance to the upper storey87 was on the south.88

‫כל אלו המקומות הפנויים שבין‬ ‫הכתלים הם הנקראים תאים נמצאו‬ ‫התאים המוקפין למקדש חמשה מן הצפון‬ ‫וחמשה מן הדרום ושלשה מן המערב‬ ‫ושלש דיוטות היו דיוטא על גבי דיוטא‬ ‫נמצאו ט"ו תאים בדרום חמשה ע"ג‬ ‫חמשה וחמשה על גביהן וכן בצפון חמשה‬ ‫עשר ושמונה תאים היו במערב שלשה על‬ ‫גבי שלשה ושנים על גביהן בדיוטא אחת‬ :‫הכל ל"ח תאים‬

‫ג' פתחים היו לכל אחד ואחד מן‬ ‫התאים אחד לתא מן הימין ואחד‬ ‫לתא מן השמאל ואחד לתא שעל גביו‬ ‫ובקרן מזרחית צפונית בתא שבדיוטא‬ ‫האמצעית היו חמשה פתחים אחד לתא‬ ‫מימין ואחד לתא שעל גביו ואחד למסיבה‬ :‫ואחד לתא שיש בו הפשפש ואחד להיכל‬

‫ומסיבה היתה עולה מקרן מזרחית‬ ‫צפונית לקרן צפונית מערבית שבה‬ ‫היו עולין לגגות התאים היה עולה במסיבה‬ ‫ופניו למערב הלך את כל פני הצפון עד‬ ‫שהוא מגיע למערב הגיע למערב הפך פניו‬ ‫לדרום הלך את כל פני המערב עד שהוא‬ ‫מגיע לדרום הגיע לדרום הפך פניו למזרח‬ ‫והיה מהלך לדרום עד שהוא מגיע לפתחה‬ ‫של עלייה שפתחה של עלייה היה פתוח‬ :‫לדרום‬

10

At the entrance to the Temple's upper storey, there were two cedar beams upon which one could climb to the roof of the upper storey.89 Marking posts in the upper storey differentiated between the roof of the Sanctuary and the roof of the Holy of Holies.90 Apertures in the upper storey [led to] the Holy of Holies,91 through which craftsmen92 would be lowered in boxes,93 so that they would not satiate their eyes [gazing at] the chamber of the Holy of Holies.94

‫ובפתחה של עלייה היו שתי‬ ‫כלונסות של ארז שבהן עולין לגגה‬ ‫של עלייה וראשי פספסין היו מבדילין‬ ‫בעלייה בין גג הקדש לגג קדש הקדשים‬ ‫ולולין היו פתוחין בעלייה לבית קדש‬ ‫הקדשים שבהן משלשלין את האומנין‬ ‫בתיבות כדי שלא יזונו עיניהם מבית קדש‬ ‫הקדשים ופעם אחת בשנה מפסח לפסח‬ :‫מלבנין את ההיכל‬

Once a year, from Passover to Passover, they coated the Temple building with cement.95

« Previous Beit Habechirah - Chapter 3

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 5

FOOTNOTES 1. Yoma 53b refers to that stone as the even hashtiah, "the foundation stone", and explains that it was given that name

4. After Korach's revolt, God commanded all the princes of the tribes to place their staffs in the Sanctuary. Aharon's staff

because it was the foundation upon which God fashioned the world. According to certain views, the Dome of the Rock

blossomed, and produced leaves and almonds. Then, He commanded that Aharon's staff be placed before the Ark "as

Mosque is located on the Temple site and the stone around which it is built is the same even hashtiah. Other Rabbinical

a testimonial" (Numbers 17:21-25).

sources, however, do not accept this claim. 2. There is a slight difficulty in the Rambam's statements. The Jerusalem Talmud (Bava Batra 6:2) states that the Ark was placed in the center of the Holy of Holies. A similar statement is also found in the Midrash Tanchuma (Parshat Kedoshim, sec. 10). However, the latter source states that the Even HaShtiah was placed behind the Ark. Perhaps the resolution is that stone was large. It began in the center of the Holy of Holies, while the ark was placed in its western portion.

5. I.e., to preserve the Ark fashioned under the direction of Moses, 6. The last of Judah's righteous kings. He witnessed the spiritual decline of the Jewish people and foresaw the inevitable destruction of the Temple. 7. The entombment of the Ark is the subject of a debate among the Sages in the Talmud (Yoma 53b) and the Tosafta (Sotah 13:2). Although some Sages agree that the Ark was entombed as explained above, others maintain that it was

3. Exodus 16:33 commands: "Take a vial and fill it with an omer

one of the sacred articles plundered by the Babylonian conquerors. A third opinion agrees that it was entombed, but

of manna. Place it before the Lord as a testimonial for your descendants. "

argues that it was entombed under the Chamber of Wood in the Woman's Courtyard and not under the Holy of Holies.

Commenting on that verse, Rashi relates that in the time of Jeremiah, the people rationalized the fact that they did not

8. Yoma 73b and the commentaries (Nachmanides and

study Torah, because of the pressures they faced in earning a livelihood. Jeremiah took the vial of manna from before the

V'Tumim were consulted as oracles by the High Priest. They

Ark and exclaimed: "See how God sustained your ancestors for forty years! Do you doubt whether He can sustain you today?"

Rabbenu Bachai on Numbers 28:21) explain that the Urim provided guidance on all important questions involving the people as a whole. See the conclusion of Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash for a discussion of this issue.

9. Yoma 21b mentions the Urim V'Tumim as one of the five miraculous aspects of the First Temple service, which were

11. The Ra'avad does not accept the Rambam's statements concerning the Urim V'Tumim. He interprets the Urim

lacking in the Second Temple. The Rambam quotes that statement in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 10:10.

V'Tumim as being mystical names of God engraved on the

Nevertheless, they were not completely lacking. Exodus 28:43 commands the priests to wear all of the garments

In his Chiddushim, Rav Yaakov Emden questions the reason

prescribed for them during their service in the Sanctuary. If even one garment was lacking, they would be punished by death. Thus, the High Priest had to wear the breastplate with the stones, the Urim V'Tumim. Otherwise, he would lack one

breastplate, rather than the stones themselves. for including this Halachah: "On the surface, there is apparently no practical relevance to these matters in our behavior....The Rambam generally does not include aspects which have neither Halachic nor ethical significance in this

of the eight garments he was required to wear. The Rambam

text." Why then is it important for us to know whether or not the ark was entombed and where it was entombed?

explains that although the stones were embedded in the breastplate in the Second Temple as well, they lacked the

Rav Emden then explains the question he posed, based on the Rambam's statements in Chapter 6. There, the Rambam

spiritual dimension that they had possessed in the First Temple.

stated that after the exile, the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael was

10. These garments are described in Exodus, Chapter 28, and in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, ch. 8.

and certain other agricultural rulings. However, the holiness of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount always remained intact

nullified regarding the laws of the Sabbatical year, the tithes,

because: The holiness of the Temple and Jerusalem comes about because of the Shechinah, and the Shechinah can never be nullified. Behold, God declared (Leviticus 27:31): "I shall destroy your Sanctuaries." and the Sages commented (Megillah 28a): "Even though they are destroyed, their holiness remains intact. " The Shechinah's resting place was the Ark. Therefore, had the Ark not been "entombed...in deep, maze-like vaults," on the Temple Mount, the sanctity of that site would also have been nullified. See also Chatam Sofer, Chullin 7a. Likkutei Sichot (Vol. 21, p. 156-160) also discusses the same question. It explains that the Ark is a fundamental element of the Temple and the Temple building cannot be complete without it. Therefore, from the very beginning of the Temple's construction, the Ark had two locations: a) the place for the ark in the Holy of Holies, b) the hidden vault where the Ark would be kept in the event of the Temple's destruction. On this basis, we can see the Sanctuary built by Moses, the two Temples in Jerusalem, and the Messianic Temple, as unified by one essential bond. Since the same Ark was present in all previous structures and they will be revealed again in the Messianic age, all four buildings share the same essence. 12. As the Rambam states in the conclusion of the halachah, a divider was necessary between the sanctity of the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary. In the Tabernacle in the desert, a curtain, the parochet, alone served this function. In the First Temple, a wall was also built in addition to the curtain.

11

12

13. I Kings 6:2 states: "And the length of the Temple Solomon built was 60 cubits." The narrative continues (ibid.:17, 20):

18. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the expression "First

"The Sanctuary was 40 cubits long...and the space for the ark was 20 cubits long." Since the combined length of both

had a wall rather than a curtain. However, Rav Yaakov Emden disputes this issue, quoting Yoma 54a which brings a

chambers was only 60 cubits, the width of the wall had to be included in the measure of one of the chambers. However, it

number of Aggadot concerning the Ark and the curtain in the

was not clear from which chamber it should be built (Jerusalem Talmud, Kelayim 8:4; see also Yoma 52a for a slightly different explanation).

Temple" refers to the Sanctuary, for the First Temple itself

First Temple. The Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot 4:7) specifically states that there was a curtain in addition to the wall in the First Temple. 19. The source for the Rambam's statements is Middot 4:6.

14. The Marginita D'Rabbi Meir asks why the builders of the

20. The Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah states that this

Second Temple were willing to add an extra cubit between

base was embedded in the ground. In contrast, Rabbenu Shemaya explains that the base actually stood above the

the two chambers, when they hesitated to increase the width of the dividing wall. In resolution, it is explained that originally the eastern wall built by Solomon was seven cubits thick, while in the Second Temple, it was only six cubits thick. Thus, there was no change in the total length of the Temple building.

ground. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the addition of the word "resembling" in this halachah might imply that the Rambam changed his mind and adopted an interpretation similar to

15. Bava Batra 3a,b explains that they did not build a wall

that of Rabbenu Shemaya. Tosafot Yom Tov objects to the Rambam's commentary on

because the Second Temple was higher than the First. The First Temple was only 30 cubits high. The Second Temple

the Mishnah, explaining that it would be inappropriate to include the measure of this base in the height of the Temple.

was 100 cubits high. A wall only a cubit thick would not be sturdy if built to such a height. Nevertheless, the width of the

He also explains that in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam adopted a different perspective. He thus, defines the base as

wall was not increased, because its original width was established by Ruach HaKodesh, Divine revelation. Thus,

an extension of the steps leading to the Entrance Hall. These steps were six cubits high, the height of the base.

they returned to the pattern established in the Sanctuary of Moses and utilized curtains as dividers.

Tzurat HaBayit relates that there was a functional aspect to

16. Yoma 52b relates that the external curtain had an opening

the base, and explains that it contained the lowest floor of the cells mentioned in Halachah 10.

on the south and the inner curtain had an opening on the north. Thus, to enter the Holy of Holies, the High Priest had

21. Although the total height of Solomon's Sanctuary was 30 cubits, the returning exiles built the Second Temple higher,

to go through the entire width of the Temple between the two curtains.

basing their decision on Haggai 2:9: "The glory of this later house will be greater than that of the former."

17. Tosafot (Yoma, ibid.) asks why they were not able to resolve

22. The Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah indicates that

their dilemma by hanging one curtain, a cubit in width. In response, the commentary states that both curtains were necessary because the verse quoted above, "the curtain shall divide..." clearly implies that the sanctity of the Holy of Holies begins with the outer surface of the curtain. Thus, based on the possibility that the wall of the First Temple was included within the 20 cubits of the Holy of Holies, an additional cubit would have been included in this sacred area if only one curtain was used. From this perspective, the inner curtain had to be a distinct entity, marking the beginning of the most sacred chamber. Conversely, based on the view that the wall had been included in the measure of the Sanctuary and that the wall and the Holy of Holies encompassed 21 cubits, a thick curtain would have been unnecessary, since the outer curtain was located where the division was required to be made.

builders made designs of cement and stone in the ceiling. Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura explains that the ceiling was coated with gold and that designs were engraved inside. 23. Rather than seep through to the ornate ceiling. 24. In this text and in the commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam merely writes that the empty space was left for water to collect. The Ra'avad mentions the concept of drainage, implying that the Rambam had not conceived of it. However, it may be assumed that this was the Rambam's intention, since it is difficult to conceive why one would leave a space for water to collect without installing a drainage system. Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura and other commentaries on the Mishnah render the term "Beit Dilpa" differently, explaining that it refers to a solid wooden base which supported the roof.

25. Deuteronomy 22:8 commands: "When you build a new house, you shall construct a guard rail for the roof." Though, in general, synagogues are not required to have a guardrail, because they are not owned by one individual and are not used as a dwelling (Chullin 136a), a guard rail was constructed for the Sanctuary.

sides of the Temple. 38. This and the previous line reflect one of the major differences between the Rambam's concept of the Temple

26. The Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah translates that

building and that of Rashi, the Ra'avad, and other commentaries.

term as "the raven decimator" and explains that the sharp blade would cut off the birds' feet.

The abovementioned Mishnah concludes: "The rear of the Temple was narrow and its front wide, resembling a lion as it

27. Note the accompanying diagram, copied from the Rambam's commentary to the Mishnah published by Rav Kapach.

is said (Isaiah 29:1): 'Oh Ariel, Ariel (lit. Lion of God), the city where David encamped... '

28. I.e., from the far end of the Temple to its entrance.

Rabbenu Shimshon, the Ra'avad and others explain that the Temple building had a T shape. The Entrance Hall and its

29. The Rambam's statements are based on the Mishnah, Middot 4:7. However, his interpretation of the Mishnah varies

adjoining chambers were 100 cubits wide. However, the Entrance Hall was only eleven cubits long. The remaining 89

from the literal meaning. The Mishnah relates all the measurements from the wall of

cubits of the Temple's length were only 70 cubits in width. The Mishnah states, "from north to south there were 70

the Entrance Hall, the easternmost point of the Temple building, until the end of the Holy of Holies. Afterwards, it

cubits" and lists the division of that area. Afterwards, it concludes: "The Entrance Hall extended fifteen cubits to the

continues: "The wall of the Temple was six [cubits], the cell was six [cubits], and the wall of the cell was five [cubits]."

north and fifteen cubits to the south..." implying, according to these authorities, that there were two measurements of the

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot 4:3), the Rambam

Temple's width, one including the Entrance Hall and one without it.

explains that unlike the northern, southern, and eastern external walls of the Temple, the two walls mentioned in the above Mishnah were not solid. Rather, each wall mentioned by the Mishnah refers to two walls, each a cubit thick, with a vacant space in between. Thus, there were really four walls, with three vacant spaces between. The vacant spaces are called cells, ta'im, in Hebrew and discussed in Halachah 10. In particular, the measurements of these vacant spaces are slightly different, as the Rambam explains. 30. As mentioned above, the width of all these walls was one cubit. 31. The length of the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary was the same in the Second Temple and in the First. The length of the Tabernacle built by Moses was one half the combined length of both chambers. However, the same 2:1 ratio was followed regarding the chambers' length. 32. As explained in Halachah 2. 33. The intent is actually two walls, each a cubit wide, with empty space between them. 34. Unlike the other walls mentioned previously, this wall was solid.

In contrast, the Rambam conceived of the Temple as being shaped like a trapezoid. See the accompanying drawing taken from his Commentary to the Mishnah. See also Halachah 9. At its easternmost point, the Entrance Hall, it was 100 cubits wide. However, that width was slightly diminished as one proceeded westward, so that it would be "lion-shaped." His opinion is reinforced by the opening statement of Mishnah 4:6, which declares: "The Temple was 100 cubits by 100 cubits and 100 cubits tall," implying that it was shaped like a cube, except for the slight reduction of its width towards the rear. 39. The abovementioned Mishnah reads: The wall of the winding stairwell, five; the winding stairwell, three; the wall of the cell, five; the cell, six; the wall of the Sanctuary, six; the [Sanctuary's] enclosed area, twenty; the wall of the Sanctuary, six; the cell, six; the wall of the cell, six; the drainage chamber, three; and the [outer] wall, five. Again, the Rambam explains that the walls mentioned by the Mishnah were not solid, but rather, each was a cubit thick,

35. See the accompanying diagram taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah.

with a hollow space in between. The Mishnah can be understood in terms of the Rambam's words according to the

36. This Halachah is based on the continuation of the Mishnah (Middot 4:7) cited in the previous Halachah. In this Halachah

clauses that follow:

as well, the Rambam does not follow a perfectly literal rendition of the Mishnah.

13

37. This was a solid wall with no vacant space in between, extending the entire length of the northern and southern

40. This refers to the "winding stairwell" mentioned by the Mishnah on the north side and the "drainage chamber" on the south side.

14

41. This clause explains why the Rambam does not define "the walls" as solid structures. It is difficult to conceive that a

52. Since this passage was six cubits long, the doors, each only five cubits wide, could not cover the walls entirely. Therefore,

three cubit chamber would be surrounded by two walls, each five cubits in thickness (Tzurat HaBayit).

they were positioned one cubit inside the passageway (Kessef Mishneh). See the accompanying drawing.

42. This refers to "the wall of the cell." 43. This refers to "the cell." 44. This refers to "the wall of the Sanctuary." According to the Rambam, the names for the cells mentioned above refer only to the lowest floor. The equivalent cells in the upper storeys were not called by these names.

53. Middot 4:1, which is the source for this halachah, continues: "The entire Temple was plated with gold except for the space behind the doors." Thus, when the doors were opened, they were folded against the wall and they covered that space with gold as well. 54. This was the largest gateway of the entire Temple complex.

45. In Solomon's Temple as well, the Sanctuary was 20 cubits wide. In the desert, Moses' Tabernacle was only 10 cubits

55. The commentaries explain that this gateway, the entrance to the Temple, was always open. In the same way, each Jew

wide. However, its length was also only half that of the Temple's inner chambers.

has an open pathway of prayer through which he can approach God at any time. Nevertheless, as stated in Hilchot

46. According to the Rambam's diagrams and Rav Kapach's

K'lei HaMikdash 7:17, there was a curtain covering this entrance.

notes to the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, the two wickets are placed at the entrance to the spaces between

56. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot 3:7), the Rambam

the fourth and fifth walls (counting from the outside) on the north and south sides respectively (see the diagram

notes that attractive designs and forms were carved into these beams.

accompanying Halachah 4). This area is referred to as "the cell" in the abovementioned Mishnah.

57. Chapter 1, Halachah 9, states that we are forbidden to build the Temple with wood that protrudes. The Tosafot Yom Tov

47. The verse continues: "because the Lord, God of Israel enters through it." The Midrash Tanchumah explains that this is an

notes this apparent contradiction and explains that these

expression of God's humility. Rather than enter through the "great gate," God chooses to approach the Sanctuary through the modest wicket. 48. This halachah quotes Middot 4:2 and explains the manner in which the gates to the Sanctuary were opened each morning. Rather than open them from the front, the priests came in through the Entrance Hall, turned to the right, and entered through the wicket. They continued walking between the walls until reaching an opening from which they could enter the Sanctuary. According to a diagram that accompanies Rav Kapach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, the entrance to the Sanctuary was approximately in the center of the Sanctuary. 49. The term "great gate" is used because of the importance of its position, leading into the Sanctuary, and not because of the gate's size. We find a similar example in Deuteronomy 1:7 which describes the Euphrates as "the great river," though it is not physically large compared to other major rivers. The commentaries explain that this appellation was used because of its unique importance in marking the eastern boundary of Eretz Yisrael (Tosafot Yom Tov). 50. This was the standard size of the gates in the Temple (Middot 2:3). 51. Ezekiel's vision of the Temple (41:23-24) explicitly describes "two doors to the Temple and to the Sanctuary... two doors for each [set of] doors."

beams were embedded into the wall and were thus, not "protruding." 58. The entrance was twenty cubits wide and the five beams each extended one cubit on each side. Thus, the total length of the uppermost beam was thirty cubits. 59. To further enhance the appearance of the entrance. Note the drawing accompanying the following halachah for a depiction of these beams and their position. 60. See the commentary to Halachah 5. 61. These balconies are explicitly mentioned in I Kings 6:5-6 and in Middot 4:4. However, the Rambam's conception of these structures differs from that of other commentaries and has been the subject of much debate. 62. According to the Rambam, these balconies extended outward from the outermost wall of the Temple on every side except the east (the Temple's facade, when approaching from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard). On the surface, there is some difficulty with the Rambam's statements. As stated above, the Rambam conceived of the Temple building as a trapezoid. The wings of the Entrance Hall continued to the rear of the building, and the wall surrounding them was the Temple's most external wall. If so, it would seem that the balconies mentioned here should have extended out from that wall and not from the wall of the winding stairwell.

15

63. A projection served as a roof for the lower balcony, and above it was another balcony having the same length as the projection. See the accompanying diagram which was copied from Rav Kapach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. 64. From the north, south, and west; corresponding to the right, left, and rear of the Temple when facing it from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard. As mentioned above, the Rambam's conception of these

65. These projections also are the subject of a difference in opinion between Rashi and the Rambam. The source for the debate is the interpretation of Middot 3:6 which states: There were 22 cubits between the Entrance Hall and the Altar. There were twelve steps there. Each step was half a cubit high and one cubit wide. A cubit, a cubit; and a protrusion of three; a cubit, a cubit, and a protrusion of three; on the highest level, a cubit, a cubit, and a protrusion of four.

balconies differs from that of the other commentaries. Rashi and the Ra'avad explain that the verses and the Mishnah

Rashi interprets the entire mishnah as referring to the steps

mentioned above refer to the cells mentioned in Halachot 4, 5, and 10. According to those commentaries, there were no

leading to the Entrance Hall. In order to fill the space between the Altar and the Entrance Hall, platforms were

balconies at all. The Tosafot Yom Tov mentions the Rambam's opinion. However, the diagrams drawn by the

inserted into the steps. Thus, there were three empty cubits before the first step, a step, a step, and a platform of three,

Rambam himself and accompanying his Commentary to the Mishnah (as published in Rav Kapach's edition) were not at

etc. until one reached the Entrance Hall. Rav Kapach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to

his disposal. Hence, there may be some imprecision in his interpretation of the Rambam's words.

the Mishnah sees the mishnah as referring to two separate subjects, the steps which had been mentioned previously

To understand the Rambam, we must return to the original sources. However, even that is not easy, since most

and protrusions which he describes as follows:

available translations and even most commentaries in Hebrew follow Rashi's view. The following is a rendition of the verses in Kings, according to the Rambam:

Afterwards, [the mishnah] states that the wall of the Entrance Hall was built in the following pattern. A cubit long portion of the wall was left vacant as all the other walls...Above it there was a structure protruding from the wall, three cubits high... called a projection. Similarly, the

And on the walls of the House, he constructed a side-structure surrounding the walls of the House, the

entire height [of the wall] ...had one cubit of [vacant] wall space, a projection of three cubits... until the uppermost

Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies. He made projections around [the House]. The lowest structure was five cubits

projection, which was four cubits high.

wide; the middle one, six cubits wide, and the third, seven cubits wide. He placed structures diminishing in size for the House, surrounding it on its exterior, so that [the people] will not take hold of the House. The Mishnah interprets those verses as follows:

Note the accompanying drawing copied from Rav Kapach's edition of the Commentary to the Mishnah. Rather than picture the front wall of the Temple as a flat structure, the Rambam depicts it as being covered with these projections. 66. All four walls of the Temple were covered with projections to prevent the priests from leaning against them.

The lowest [balcony] was five [cubits wide - as mentioned

67. Extending out from the front facade.

in the verse]. There was a projection of six cubits [the projection mentioned in the verse.] The middle one was six

68. See the accompanying diagram for an artist's conception of the Temple's front facade.

cubits, and there was an additional projection of seven cubits. The upper one was seven cubits wide. The Rambam's diagrams show a straight outer wall of the Temple, and balconies which diminish in length on their outer side (in contrast to the explanation offered by the Tosafot Yom Tov). The balconies in the Rambam's drawings were built as a protective measure, to insure that the priests show proper respect for the Temple and do not lean against its walls.

16

69. As mentioned in the commentary on Halachot 4 and 5, the Rambam has a different conception of the cells than the other commentaries. Middot 4:3 states: There were 38 cells: five in the north, five in the south, and eight in the west. In the north and in the south, there were five above five, with five above them. In the west, there were three above three, with two above them. Middot 4:7 states: The wall of the winding stairwell, five; the winding stairwell,

73. The source for this Halachah is Middot 4:7. The Rambam's interpretation again differs from that of Rashi. Rashi would interpret right and left as lengthwise in the row of cells. According to the Rambam, the expressions right and left refer, as they have throughout the discussion of the Temple, to these directions as one faces the Holy of Holies, north and south respectively. 74. This refers to the bottom floor of cells which had openings to the cells above them and the upper floor which had openings to the cells below. The middle floor of cells had four openings, because it has openings both to the cells below and to the cells above.

three; the wall of the cell, five; the cell, six; the wall of the Sanctuary, six; the [Sanctuary's] enclosed area, twenty; the

75. This clause, a continuation of the abovementioned mishnah,

wall of the Sanctuary, six; the cell, six; the wall of the cell, six; the drainage chamber, three; and the [outer] wall, five.

represents one of the major difficulties in regard to the Rambam's interpretation. The Rambam cannot contradict an

Rashi and the Ra'avad explain the two mishnayot simply: The chamber referred to as "the cell" in mishnah 4:7 was, in

explicit mishnah, yet his interpretation of the mishnah's text is by no means straightforward.

fact, divided lengthwise into five cells on the northern and southern sides of the Temple, with three cells on the western

According to the Rambam, this cell is positioned above the cell called "the winding stairwell." Though it is not the

side. All the other specific dimensions mentioned by the mishnah can thus be understood without any difficulty.

northernmost cell, it is still referred to as "the cell in the northeast corner."

In contrast, the Rambam explains that the walls mentioned in the mishnah 4:7 were not solid, but rather, double walls,

76. To the northernmost cell, the cell over "the wall of the

each a cubit in thickness, and with a hollow space in between. The five cells mentioned in 4:3 thus, refer to the

77. In the third storey of cells.

five vacant spaces between the walls. These spaces extended the entire length of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies on the northern and southern sides, and the three cells extended to the three vacant spaces between the walls on the western side. Note the accompanying drawings copied from Rav Kapach's edition of the Commentary to the Mishnah. The three divisions must be seen as being placed one on top of the other. 70. The lowest level was six cubits high, equal to the height of the Temple's base. The other two levels were each twenty cubits high. As the Rambam states in Halachah 12, the roof of the cells was on the same level as the upper storey of the Sanctuary. 71. The addition of the words "on one level" is necessary. Since the pattern of cells differed in the west, one might think that rather than have only three levels as in the north and south, the mishnah's words "two above them" could be interpreted as follows: There were four levels of cells, the latter two each possessing one cell. With this addition, the Rambam prevents this misconception from arising. 72. They were used for storage.

winding stairwell."

78. The cell below it. 79. "Towards," but not "to." The cell did not possess an entrance to the cell with the wicket, the latter being the second of the cells and the cell in question being the fourth. 80. Here, the word Temple is being used loosely. It does not refer to the Sanctuary itself, but to the Entrance Hall. Nevertheless, the latter can also be called the Sanctuary as evidenced by the Rambam's statements in Chapter 1, Halachah 5. Furthermore, there is an additional problem: The mishnah appeared to intend to single out this cell by the fact that it had five entrances. However, according to the Rambam's interpretation, the cell with the wicket also possessed five entrances: One to the Sanctuary, one to the Entrance Hall, one to the cell above it, one to the cell below it, and one to the cell on its right. 81. According to the Rambam, one must differentiate between the chamber called the winding stairwell and the winding stairwell itself. The chamber called the winding stairwell refers to the second cell on the right, on the lowest floor. The winding stairwell began at the easternmost point of this cell (the side closest to the Entrance Hall). 82. Walking within the cells a distance of approximately 66 cubits.

83. The stairwell ascended approximately 22 cubits across this length.

92. They would try to find craftsmen who were priests for this task. If no qualified priests could be found, they searched for

84. Proceeding within the cells a distance of approximately 50

Levites. If they could not find capable Levites, they would assign the task to Israelites (ibid.).

cubits.

93. Tosafot Yom Tov writes that the boxes were closed on three

85. Ascending approximately 17 cubits along this length. 86. Ascending the remaining height (approximately 11 cubits).

94. Pesachim 26a states that one is not required to bring a guilt

87. Which was on the same level as the roof of the cells

offering for deriving pleasure by gazing at sacred objects.

88. Slightly beyond the dividing line between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. 89. Which is the roof of the Temple building.

However, though no offering is required, it was still forbidden to gaze at the Holy of Holies. 95. The source for the Rambam's statements is Middot 3:4.

90. Some commentaries explain that these marking posts were placed on the roof of the upper storey. However, the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Middot

sides and open on the fourth.

4:5),

explicitly states that they were placed on the floor of the top level. In addition to these marking posts, two curtains were hung in the upper storey, resembling the curtains which divided the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 7:17). 91. Chapter 7, Halachah 23, states that once every seven years,

However, it is difficult to understand which part of the Temple building was to be covered with cement. As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah, the exterior of the Temple building was made of fine marble, and at times, it was coated with gold. Surely, these attractive surfaces would not be covered with simple cement. There are sources who suggest that it was the Temple ceiling that was coated with cement each year. It is our prayer that the Temple will be rebuilt in the near future and then, we will understand the Rambam's intent.

they entered the upper storey so that they could descend from there to inspect the Holy of Holies. Rather than enter the Holy of Holies directly, they used these apertures.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

17

policy .

18

1



Beit Habechirah - Chapter 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Beit Habechirah - Chapter 4

Mount Moriah, the Temple Mount, measured 500 cubits by 500 cubits.1 It was surrounded by a wall.2 [The earth beneath it was hollowed out to prevent contracting ritual impurity] due to Tumat Ohel.3 Arches above arches were built underneath [for support].4 It was entirely covered,5 one colonnade inside another.6 Five gates led to the [Temple Mount]: One from the west,7 one from the east,8 one from the north,9 and two from the south.10 Each gate was 10 cubits [wide] and twenty cubits high.11 [Each gate] had doors.12

Further within, a latticework partition,13 10 handbreadths high, surrounded it on all sides.14 The Chayl [a rampart] ten cubits high, was located further inside this partition.15 It is referred to in the [Book of] Lamentations [2:6]: 'The wall and the rampart mourned.' [This wall] refers to the wall surrounding the Temple Courtyard.

English

Hebrew

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 6

‫הר הבית והוא הר המוריה היה‬ ‫חמש מאות אמה על חמש מאות‬ ‫אמה והיה מוקף חומה וכיפין על גבי כיפין‬ ‫היו בנויות מתחתיו מפני אהל הטומאה‬ :‫וכולו היה מקורה סטיו לפנים מסטיו‬

‫שערים היו לו אחד מן‬ ‫ואחד מן המזרח ואחד מן‬ ‫מן הדרום רוחב כל שער‬ ‫וגובהו עשרים ויש להם‬

‫וחמשה‬ ‫המערב‬ ‫הצפון ושנים‬ ‫עשר אמות‬ :‫דלתות‬

'‫לפנים ממנו סורג מקיף סביב גובהו י‬ ‫טפחים ולפנים מן הסורג החיל‬ ‫]גובהו[ עשר אמות ועליו הוא אומר‬ :‫בקינות ויאבל חל וחומה זו חומת העזרה‬

2

Further inward, beyond the chayl, was the Temple Courtyard.16 The Temple Courtyard was 187 [cubits] long and 135 [cubits] wide.17 It had seven gates.18 Three were on its north side, close to the west,19 and three were on the south side, close to the west. One [gate] in the east was positioned in the center, [directly] opposite the Holy of Holies.20

‫לפנים מן החיל העזרה וכל העזרה‬ ‫היתה אורך קפ"ז על רוחב קל"ה‬ ‫ושבעה שערים היו לה ג' מן הצפון‬ ‫הסמוכין למערב וג' מן הדרום סמוכין‬ ‫למערב ואחד במזרח מכוון כנגד בית קדש‬ :‫הקדשים באמצע‬

Each gate was ten cubits wide and twenty cubits high.21 Each one had gold-plated doors,22 except for the eastern gate which was plated with bronze that resembled gold. This was called the Upper Gate.23 It was [also called] the gate of Nicanor.24

‫כל שער מהן היה רוחבו עשר אמות‬ ‫וגובהו כ' אמה והיו לו דלתות‬ ‫מחופות זהב חוץ משער מזרחי שהיה‬ ‫מצופה נחושת דומה לזהב ושער זה הוא‬ :‫הנקרא שער העליון והוא שער ניקנור‬

The Temple Courtyard was not situated directly in the center of the Temple Mount. Rather, it was set off further from the southern [wall] of the Temple Mount than from [the wall of] any other direction.25 It was closer to the western [wall] than to [the wall of] any other direction.26 There was a greater distance between it and the northern [wall] than between it and the western [wall]. [Similarly,] there was a greater distance between it and the eastern [wall] than between it and the northern [wall].27

‫העזרה לא היתה מכוונת באמצע הר‬ ‫הבית אלא רחוקה מדרום הר הבית‬ ‫יתר מכל הרוחות וקרובה למערב יתר מכל‬ ‫הרוחות ובינה ובין הצפון יתר ממה שבינה‬ ‫ובין המערב ובינה ובין המזרח יתר ממה‬ :‫שבינה ובין הצפון‬

The Women's Courtyard28 was in front of the Temple Courtyard on the East29 and was 135 cubits long and 135 cubits wide. It had four chambers, each forty cubits [by forty cubits, one] in [each of] its four corners.30 They did not have roofs, nor will they in the Messianic Age.31

‫ולפני העזרה במזרח היתה עזרת‬ ‫הנשים והיא היתה אורך ק' אמה ול"ה‬ ‫על רוחב קל"ה וארבע לשכות היו בארבע‬ ‫מקצעותיה של ארבעים ארבעים אמה ולא‬ :‫היו מקורות וכן עתידין להיות‬

3

For what purpose were they used? The southeastern chamber32 was [called] the Chamber of the Nazirites.33 There, they cooked peace offerings and shaved their hair. The northeastern chamber34 was [called] the Chamber of the Woodshed. There, the priests who [were disqualified from the Temple service] because of physical deformities35 checked the wood [brought for the Altar] for worms. If a worm was found, it was unfit for use.36

‫ומה הם משמשות דרומית מזרחית‬ ‫לשכת הנזירים ששם מבשלין את‬ ‫שלמיהם ומגלחין את שערם מזרחית‬ ‫צפונית לשכת דיר העצים ששם כהנים‬ ‫בעלי מומין מתליעים בעצים שכל עץ‬ ‫שנמצא בו תולעת פסול צפונית מערבית‬ ‫לשכת המצורעים מערבית דרומית בה היו‬ ‫נותנין יין ושמן והיא היתה נקראה לשכת‬ :‫בית שמניא‬

The northwestern chamber37 was [called] the Chamber of Those Afflicted with Tzara'at.38 The southwestern chamber39 was used to store wine and oil. It was called "The Chamber of the Oils."40 The Women's Courtyard41 was surrounded by balconies so that women could look on from above and the men from below without intermingling.42

‫עזרת הנשים היתה מוקפת גזוזטרא‬ ‫כדי שיהיו הנשים רואות מלמעלן‬ ‫והאנשים מלמטן כדי שלא יהיו מעורבבין‬ ‫ובית גדול היה בצד העזרה בצפונה מבחוץ‬ ‫בין העזרה והחיל והיה בנוי כיפה ומוקף‬ ‫רובדין של אבן והוא היה נקרא בית‬ ‫המוקד ושני פתחים היו לו אחד פתוח‬ :‫לעזרה ואחד פתוח לחיל‬

Outside the Temple Courtyard,43 on its northern side,44 was a large structure between the Courtyard and the chayl. It was built with a dome45 and [its inner walls] were surrounded with stone protrusions.46 It was called the Chamber of the Hearth.47 It contained two entrances: one to the Temple Courtyard48 and one to the chayl.49 There were four chambers inside it.50 Two were consecrated51 and two were not.52 Marking posts53 separated the consecrated [chambers] from those which were not consecrated.54 For what purpose were they used? The southwestern [chamber]55 was the Chamber of the Lambs.56 The southeastern [chamber]57 was the Chamber of the Bakers of the Showbread.58 [In] the northeastern [chamber], the Hasmoneans entombed the stones of the Altar59 which were defiled by the Greek kings.60 [In] the northwestern chamber, [a stairwell] descended to the mikveh.61

4

‫וארבע לשכות היו בו שתים קודש‬ ‫ושתים חול וראשי פספסין מבדילין בין‬ ‫הקדש והחול ומה היו משמשות מערבית‬ ‫דרומית לשכת הטלאים ודרומית מזרחית‬ ‫לשכת עושי לחם הפנים מזרחית צפונית‬ ‫בה גנזו בית חשמוני אבני מזבח ששקצום‬ ‫מלכי יון צפונית מערבית בה יורדין לבית‬ :‫הטבילה‬

One who descended from this chamber to the mikveh62 proceeded along a winding stairway located under the entire Temple complex.63 Candles were kindled on both sides [of the passageway, to illuminate the way] until reaching the mikveh.

‫היורד לבית הטבילה מלשכה זו‬ ‫היה הולך במסיבה ההולכת תחת‬ ‫המקדש כולו והנרות דולקות מכאן ומכאן‬ ‫עד שמגיע לבית הטבילה ומדורה היתה‬ ‫שם ובית הכסא של כבוד וזהו כבודו מצאו‬ :‫נעול בידוע שיש שם אדם‬

This [chamber] also contained the hearth64 and the seat of dignity.65 This was the dignity associated with it. If one found it locked, he knew it was occupied by another person [and did not enter].66 The Temple Courtyard was 187 cubits long from east to west.67 The measurement can be broken down as follows: Eleven cubits from the western wall of the Courtyard to the wall of the Temple building. 100 cubits, the length of the Temple building.68 22 cubits between the Entrance Hall and the Altar.69 22 cubits, [the length of] the Altar.70 Eleven cubits, the area where the priests could walk.71 This was called the Priestly courtyard.72 Eleven cubits, the area where Israelites could walk.73 This was called the Courtyard of Israel.

5

‫אורך העזרה מן המזרח למערב‬ ‫ מכותל מערבי‬:‫קפ"ז וזהו חשבונן‬ ‫של עזרה עד כותל ההיכל אחת עשרה‬ ‫אמה ואורך ההיכל כולו מאה אמה בין‬ ‫האולם ולמזבח שתים ועשרים המזבח‬ ‫שתים ושלשים מקום דריסת רגלי הכהנים‬ ‫והוא הנקרא עזרת כהנים אחת עשרה‬ ‫אמה מקום דריסת רגלי ישראל והוא‬ :‫הנקרא עזרת ישראל אחת עשרה אמה‬

The Courtyard was 135 cubits wide, from north to south.74 The measurement can be broken down as follows: Eight cubits from the northern wall75 until the butchering area.

‫ורוחב העזרה מן הצפון לדרום מאה‬ ‫ מכותל‬:‫ושלשים וחמש וזהו חשבונן‬ ‫צפוני עד בית המטבחים שמונה אמות בית‬ ‫המטבחים י"ב אמות ומחצה ושם תולין‬ :‫ומפשיטין את הקדשים בצדו‬

Twelve and one half cubits, the width of the butchering area.76 There, they would suspend the sacrificed animals [on posts] and remove their hides.77 At its side was the place for the tables; it was eight cubits wide.78 It had marble tables79 on which the severed limbs were placed. The meat was washed [there]80 before it was cooked.81 There were eight tables.82

‫מקום השולחנות שמונה אמות ובו‬ ‫שולחנות של שיש שמניחין עליהן‬ ‫הנתחים ומדיחין את הבשר לבשלו ושמנה‬ ‫שלחנות היו ובצד מקום השלחנות מקום‬ ‫הטבעות כ"ד אמה ושם שוחטין את‬ :‫הקדשים‬

The area of the rings83 [was positioned] next to the location of the tables. It was 24 cubits [wide].84 There, they slaughtered the sacrifices.85 There were eight cubits between the Altar and the area of the rings.86 The Altar was 32 cubits wide.87 The ramp was 30 cubits [long].88 There were twelve and a half cubits between the ramp and the southern wall.89 [The area] from the northern wall of the Temple Courtyard90 until the wall91 of the Altar, was sixty and a half [cubits] wide.92 The length of this area, from the wall of the Entrance Hall until the eastern wall of the Courtyard, was 76 [cubits].93 The entire rectangle [described above] is called "the northern portion." The sacrifices of the most sacred order of holiness were slaughtered there.94

6

‫ובין מקום הטבעות והמזבח שמונה‬ ‫אמות והמזבח ל"ב והכבש שלשים‬ ‫ובין הכבש ולכותל דרומי י"ב אמה ומחצה‬ ‫מכותל צפוני של עזרה עד כותל המזבח‬ ‫שהוא רוחב ששים ומחצה וכנגדו מכותל‬ ‫האולם עד כותל מזרחי של עזרה שהוא‬ :‫אורך שש ושבעים‬

‫כל המרובע הזה הוא הנקרא צפון‬ ‫הוא המקום ששוחטין בו קדשי‬ :‫קדשים‬

7

The Courtyard of the Israelites had eight chambers:95 three in the north and three in the south.96 In the south,97 were the Chamber of Salt, Parve's Chamber,98 and the Washing Chamber. The salt for the sacrifices was stored in the Chamber of the Salt.99 The hides of the sacrifices were salted in Parve's chamber.100 Its roof had a mikveh, used by the High Priest on Yom Kippur.101 The internal organs of the sacrifices were washed in the Washing Chamber.102 It had a winding ramp way leading to the roof of Parve's chamber.103 The three [chambers] in the north were the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the Chamber of the Bowl, and the Chamber of Wood.104 The Supreme Sanhedrin sat105 [in judgment] in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.106 Half was consecrated107 and half was not.108 The Sanhedrin sat in the half that was not consecrated. The Chamber of the Bowl had a well from which water was drawn with a bowl. This [well] supplied water to the entire Temple Courtyard.

'‫שמונה לשכות היו בעזרת ישראל ג‬ ‫בצפון וג' בדרום שבדרום לשכת‬ ‫המלח לשכת הפרוה לשכת המדיחין‬ ‫לשכת המלח שם נותנין מלח לקרבן‬ ‫לשכת הפרוה שם מולחין עורות הקדשים‬ ‫ועל גגה היתה בית טבילה לכהן גדול‬ ‫ביוה"כ לשכת המדיחין שם היו מדיחין‬ ‫קרבי הקדשים ומשם מסיבה עולה לגג בית‬ ‫הפרוה והשלש שבצפון לשכת הגזית‬ ‫לשכת הגולה לשכת העץ לשכת הגזית‬ ‫שבה סנהדרי גדולה יושבת וחציה היה‬ ‫קדש וחציה היה חול ולה שני פתחים אחד‬ ‫לקדש ואחד לחול ובחצי של חול היו‬ ‫הסנהדרין יושבין לשכת הגולה שם היתה‬ ‫בור שממלאין ממנו בגולה ומשם מספקין‬ ‫מים לכל העזרה ולשכת העץ היתה אחורי‬ ‫שתיהן והיא היתה לשכת כ"ג והיא‬ ‫הנקראת לשכת פרהדרין וגג שלשתן שוה‬ ‫ושתי לשכות אחרות היו שם בעזרת‬ ‫ישראל אחת מימין שער מזרחי והוא‬ ‫לשכת פנחס המלביש ואחד משמאלו‬ :‫והוא לשכת עושה חביתין‬

The Chamber of Wood was situated behind these two. It was the Chamber of the High Priest and [also] called "the Chamber of Parhedrin."109 The roofs of these three chambers were on the same level.110 The Courtyard of the Israelites had two other chambers:111 one to the right of the eastern gate, [called] the Chamber of Pinchas, the clothes-butler;112 and one to the left. It was [called] the Chamber of the Bakers of the chavitin.113

« Previous Beit Habechirah - Chapter 4

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 6

FOOTNOTES 1. The commentaries, basing themselves on the Jerusalem

9. It was called the Tadi gate, meaning 'hiddenness.' This gate

Talmud (Eruvin 2:5), explain that this figure was derived as follows:

was used when someone was forced to leave the Temple, but he did not want to publicize the circumstances (Middot

Exodus 27:18 states: 'The length of the courtyard shall be 100 cubits and its width, 50 by 50.' This verse can obviously

1:9, 2:2). Its construction differed from that of the other gates. Rather than have an ordinary lintel, it had two stones

not be understood literally, for area has only two coordinates. Hence, the Sages explained that rather than refer to the

leaning against each other (ibid.:3).

courtyard of the Tabernacle, the verse describes a measure related to the future Sanctuaries. The Temple Tabernacle, the verse describes a measure related to the future Sanctuaries. The Temple Mount measured a total of 50 x 100 x 50 cubits in area, i.e., a total of 250,000 sq. cubits. The Piskei Tosafot (Middot 5) relate that the total area of the Temple Mount was greater than 250,000 sq. cubits. However, only the latter figure was consecrated. 2. With the exception of the wall on the eastern side, the walls on all sides were very high. We know that their gates were 20 cubits high and the walls themselves were even higher. In modern terms, that would mean at least 10 meters (32.5 feet high). 3. Tumat Ohel refers to ritual impurity contracted by being under the same tent or structure as a corpse. Even thought

Chuldah. In the time of the First Temple, she stood before these gates and urged the people to repent. The tractate Sofrim 19:12 relates that there were two additional gates to the Temple Mount: one for mourners and one for grooms. The Jewish people would sit between these two gates waiting to console the mourners and join in the celebration of the grooms. The Kaftor ViPerach states that these gates were on the east, to the north of the gate of Shushan. They were called the 'gates of mercy.' Today, the term is used to refer to the two gates on the east side of the Temple Mount, which can be seen from the Mount of Olives and are permanently shut. 11. This was the standard size of the gates in the Temple complex.

the corpse is buried, ritual impurity can be contracted unless there is a vacant space between the corpse and the earth

12. In contrast to the gateway to the Entrance Hall, which had no

above it. To prevent the possibility of impurity from a grave under the Temple courtyard, the entire earth below was

13. Made of wooden shafts arranged in a crisscross pattern.

hollowed out. See Parah 3:3.

14. Rabbenu Asher explains that this structure was constructed

4. Though the Mishnah (Parah, loc. cit.) states that the earth beneath the Temple was hollowed out, it does not mention the construction of arches. However, since the Mishnah (ibid.:6) states that arches supported the ramp leading from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, we may assume that a similar technique was used in the instance (Kessef Mishneh). See also the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 13. 5. With the exception of the Temple Courtyard. 6. Rashi (Pesachim 13a) explains that this roof was built to protect the visitors to the Temple fom rain.

doors.

to allow the articles to be carried on the Sabbath. Therefore, it was made 10 handbreadths high. The Temple Mount was surrounded by a wall and, therefore, could not be considered a public domain. Nonetheless, its size exceeded the limits placed by the Sages, and without this partition, there would have been a Rabbinic against carrying on the Sabbath. The Tosafot Yom TOv (Middot 2:3) objects to this reasoning, explaining that the Rabbinic prohibitions regarding the Sabbath were generally relaxed within the Temple premises. Instead, he offers the hypothesis that this partition served to delineate the point beyond which gentiles were not allowed to proceed.

7. Middot 1:3 relates that this gate was called Kaiphonus. The

15. Middot 2:3 states: 'The Chayl, ten cubits.' In his Commentary

Shiltei Giborim explains that this means 'garden' in Greek.

to the Mishnah (Middot 1:4), the Rambam describes the

The name was given because a rose was planted outside

Chayl as a rampart. He, therefore, interprets this statement

this gate.

as referring to its height. In contrast, Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura does not define the Chayl as a wall. Rather, he

8. This gate was called the Gate of Shushan, and the image of the city of Shushan was engraved upon it. This was done at the command of King Cyrus of Persia, who gave permission for the Temple to be rebuilt.

8

10. These were the gates most frequently used to enter the Temple Mount. They were named after the prophetess

refers to it as an empty space, 10 cubits wide.

9

16. In this halachah, the Rambam does not mention the Women's Courtyard (See Halachah 7), because he intends

23. As mentioned in the beginning of Chapter 6, the Temple was built on an incline and had steps leading from the Women's

to list the dividers which circumscribe an area of the Temple Mount on all four sides. The Women's Courtyard had the

Courtyard to the gate of Nicanor. Hence, the gate leading to the Women's Courtyard was referred to as the lower gate,

same dimensions as the Temple Courtyard on the north and south. Hence, it was not mentioned in this place.

and the gate of Nicanor, the Upper Gate. See Hilchot Klei

17. See Halachot 12 and where the Rambam details the space allocation of the Temple Courtyard.

HaMikdash, Chapter 7, Mishnah 6. 24. In honor of the noble person who donated its doors. Yoma 38a relates that Nicanor journeyed to Alexandria to

18. This statement raises a number of problems: Three

ask the skilled bronzeworkers there to fashion these gates.

mishnayot in the tractate of Middot mention the number of

When the gates were finished, he set sail with them to return to Eretz Yisrael.

gates to the Temple Courtyard: Mishnah 1:1 states: "The Levites [stood guard] in twenty one places: five at the five gates of the Temple Courtyard...." Mishnah 1:4 states: "There were seven gates to the Temple Courtyard...." Mishnah 2:6 states: "Thirteen prostrations were carried out there. Abba Yossi ben Chanan declared: 53[These were instituted] because of the thirteen gates... 54 It is difficult to conceive that the Mishnah would contradict itself within the same tractate. The apparent discrepancies can be explained as follows: The Sages do not disagree about the number of entrances to the Temple Courtyard. They did, however, debate the question of which entrance met the legal criteria for a gate. Guards were required to stand watch over every entrance that was considered a gate. Similarly, although a person who is ritually impure may not enter the Temple premises, it is not clear whether he would be obligated to bring a sin offering if he came in through an entrance which is not considered a gate. See Chapter 8, Halachah 8, and Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 18, p.212-217. 19. These gates were: a) the gate of the spark. A two-floor structure with an entrance to the chayl. b) the gate of the offerings. The most sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity, were slaughtered on the north side of the courtyard, and were brought in through this gate. c) the gate to the Chamber of the Hearth. See Halachah 10. 20. The Gate of Nicanor. It was most commonally used to enter the Temple Courtyard. The notes to the following halachah offers an explanation of that name. 21. This was the standard size of the gates on the Temple Mount. 22. See Chapter 1, Halachot 11 and 19.

At sea, a violent storm almost capsized the vessel. After other measures failed, the crew members decided to jettison some of the ship's cargo to reduce its weight. Immediately, they tossed one of the heavy bronzed gates to the waves. The danger did not cease, and the crew wanted to cast the second gate overboard as well. Hearing this, Nicanor protested and declared that he would have to be thrown into the sea before the gate. Directly after he made that statement, the storm subsided and the ship was able to proceed. Throughout the remainder of the journey, Nicanor was overcome with remorse. Why, he thought, hadn't he defended the first gate as well? How great was his joy when the ship docked at Acre and the gate emerged from under its hull. When the financial situation of the Jewish people improved, they replaced all the Temple's bronze gates with gold-covered gates. Nevertheless, they allowed Nicanor's gates to remain in memory of the miracles which occurred. The Sages declared: "Their bronze shined like gold." 25. As mentioned above (Halachah 2), the main entrance to the Temple Mount was on the South. Therefore, more space was left in this direction, and more Temple functions were carried out on that side. 26. In deference to the Holy of Holies, no mundane business was carried on behind it. Hence, less space was left there than in the other directions. According to most opinions, the Wailing Wall at which we worship today, is the western wall which surrounded the Temple Mount (Kaftor Viperach). 27. The Tosafot Yom Tov calculated the distances between the Temple Courtyard and the walls as follows: Between the Courtyard and the southern wall, 250 cubits, Between the Courtyard and the eastern wall, 213 cubits, Between the Courtyard and the northern wall, 115 cubits, Between the Courtyard and the western wall, 100 cubits. 28. The reason for this name is explained in Halachah 9 and notes. 29. Except for certain unique circumstances, people entered the Temple through this area.

10

30. The chambers were inside the walls of the Courtyard, and not on the outside.

42. The Mishnah (Middot 2:5) relates that these balconies were

31. The Mishnah (Middot 2:5) bases the latter statement on the

On the festival of Sukkot, the entire Jewish nation would gather in this courtyard to watch the Simchat Beit

prophecy of Ezekiel (46:21-22): "Then he took me out into the outer courtyard.... Behold, there was a chamber in each corner of the courtyard. At the four corners, there were roofless chambers...." 32. The chamber to the left upon entering the Women's Courtyard. 33. Numbers 6:18 commands: "The Nazirite shall shave off the crown of hair on his head before the Tent of Meeting. He shall take the hair... and place it in the fire under the peace offering." Nazir 45a explains that, in deference to the presence of the Shechinah, the shaving was not carried out

a later addition to the Temple structure.

HaShoevah celebrations (the festivities associated with the water libation). Though the men and the women were seated in separate sections, the closeness between them aroused a certain dimension of frivolity which was not appropriate to the holiness of the occasion. To avoid such circumstances, these balconies were constructed. See also Sukkot 51b. 43. Although the Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries explain that half of the Chamber of the Hearth was positioned within the Temple Courtyard, and half on the outside, the diagrams drawn by the Rambam depict it as being positioned entirely outside the Courtyard's walls.

before the Sanctuary itself, but rather in this chamber, while the door to the Sanctuary was open. See also Hilchot Nizirut

44. To the right upon entering the Temple Courtyard.

8:2-3.

45. As a roof.

34. The chamber to the right upon entering.

46. On which the priests slept at night (Tamid 1:1).

35. Leviticus 21:16-24 lists the physical deformities which

47. Because the priests kindled a fire there to keep warm.

disqualified a priest for Temple service and the relevant regulations. See also Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, Chapter 6.

48. Each morning, the priests entered the Courtyard through this

36. Just as the choicest animals should be chosen for the

49. A priest who became impure at night and therefore, could not participate in the Temple services would leave through this

sacrifices, so too, the wood used to burn them should be of the highest quality (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, 6:1-2). 37. The chamber on the right side before the entrance to the Temple Courtyard. 38. It contained a mikveh in which those seeking purification from tzara'at immersed themselves as part of their process of regaining ritual purity. See Hilchot Michusrei Kapporah, Chapter 4.

entrance to prepare it for the morning sacrifices.

exit. 50. Middot

1:5

describes

the

chambers

as

resembling

"bedrooms opening out to a large hallway." Note the accompanying diagram which was copied from the Rambam's drawings in his Commentary to the Mishnah. 51. Thus they were considered extensions of the Temple Courtyard. This distinction is significant in regard to the

39. The chamber on the left side before the entrance to the Temple Courtyard.

prohibition against eating the sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity outside the Temple Courtyard.

40. Its name mentioned oil rather than wine, because a sacrifice

52. According to the interpretation of the Kessef Mishneh

is acceptable if a wine libation is lacking. In contrast, all meal offerings are invalidated if they lack oil (Yeriat Shlomo).

mentioned above, this statement is quite clear. Two

41. Women were not allowed to enter the Temple Courtyard except to perform certain rituals in connection with sacrifices which they had brought. However, they were permitted to enter this outer courtyard and therefore, it was named accordingly.

chambers were situated inside the Temple Courtyard, and two were on the outside. However, according to the Rambam, the entire structure was situated outside the Temple Courtyard. If so, how could two structures be consecrated? This difficulty can be resolved as follows: The Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 3:4) states that chambers which are built on ground that was not consecrated, but which open up to the Temple Courtyard, are considered as consecrated. Should they open up to the outside, they are not sacred. According to the Rambam's diagram, the two southern chambers of the Chamber of the Hearth faced the Temple Courtyard, while the two northern chambers faced the chayl. Hence, the southern chambers alone were consecrated. See also Chapter 6, Halachah 8.

53. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam defines "marking posts" as "a lattice divider, sometimes made of

63. An intricate chain of underground passageways was located under the Temple Mount, including this stairwell leading to a

reeds, sometimes made of wood, and at other times, made of other building materials." They were placed on the ceiling of

natural reservoir of water where a mikveh was constructed.

this structure.

condition, the priests were not able to enter the Temple premises. If so, how could they enter these passageways

54. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid, loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that the priests only slept in the part of the chamber which was not consecrated. Hence, these marking posts were useful in clarifying this matter to them. 55. The chamber to the right when facing the Temple Courtyard. 56. Here the lambs to be offered as daily sacrifices were inspected to see if they had any disqualifying blemishes. The lambs were kept in this chamber before they were sacrificed. In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:9, the Rambam writes that at least six lambs were always kept in this chamber. 57. The chamber to the left when facing the Temple Courtyard. 16The southeastern [chamber] - The chamber to the left when facing the Temple Courtyard. 58. Here, the Showbread offered each Sabbath on the Golden Table was baked. 59. See Chapter 1, Halachah 15. 60. The Greeks who occupied Jerusalem before the Maccabean

This halachah raises a question. As mentioned above, in this

which passed under consecrated ground? The commentaries answer (see Chapter 8, Halachah 7) that since these underground passageways did not open to the Temple Courtyard itself, they were not consecrated. See Pesachim 86a. 64. The fire that the priests kindled at night, from which the entire chamber derived its name. See Tamid 3:3. 65. I.e., a toilet. 66. Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura wrote that no one ever entered this toilet while it was occupied by another person. There are additional references to the Chamber of the Hearth and to the stairwell leading to the mikveh in Chapter 8, Halachot 5-7. 67. This measure did not include the width of the courtyard's walls. 68. As explained above, Chapter 3, Halachah 4.

revolt defiled the altar by offering sacrifices to idols upon it. Tamid 3:3 mentions that there was a Chamber of Seals

69. The washbasin and the steps leading to the Entrance Hall (See Chapter 6, Halachah 4) were located here.

within the Chamber of the Hearth. There, the priests would authorize the sale of the wine and meal offerings. In his

70. See Chapter 2, Halachah 7.

Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot 1:5), the Rambam explains that this chamber was used for that purpose in addition to the entombment of the altar's stones. 61. As explained in the following halachah.

71. When they were not directly involved with the Temple services. 72. See Chapter 1, Halachah 7. 73. As explained in Chapter 7, Halachah 19, an Israelite was only allowed beyond this region for four reasons:

62. Tamid 1:1 relates that the priests slept in the Chamber of the Hearth. "If one of them had a seminal emission [in his sleep,] he would descend to the mikveh."

a) to perform semichah on an animal he had brought as a

The emission of semen renders a man ritually impure (Leviticus 15:16). Thus, a priest who had a nocturnal

b) to offer the confessional prayers that accompany the sacrifices;

emission may not enter the Temple premises or take part in its services. The process of ritual purification involves

c) to slaughter a sacrificial animal; d) to wave the peace offerings.

immersion in a mikveh and waiting until nightfall. In the morning, the priest left the Temple premises through the gate leading to the chayl (Tamid, loc. cit.).

sacrifice;

The source for this halachah and those following is the fifth chapter of the tractate of Middot. It must be noted that the Rambam's text of the Mishnah does not have a fifth chapter. Rather, all these mishnayot are included as mishnah 8 of Chapter 3. See the diagram of the Temple Courtyard at the conclusion of this chapter. 74. The Rambam describes the breakdown of this figure in this and the following three halachot. 75. In this instance as well, the width of the courtyard's walls are not included in the total measure.

11

76. This area included eight posts permanently affixed to the floor of the Courtyard. The posts were made of a short stone

82. See Shekalim 3:4. Tosafot (Yoma 16b) notes that Yoma 30b describes the

pillar in which was embedded a post of cedar wood. Each post had three iron hooks from which the sacrifices were

tables as being placed between the pillars. Two possible explanations are offered:

suspended (Middot 3:5).

a) there were two sets of tables: one between the pillars, and one to their left;

77. Also, at this time, the limbs of the animal which was suspended on these hooks were cut off, and given to the priests to bring to the altar. 78. Middot 5:2 states as follows: The ramp and the altar took up 62 cubits. From the altar to the rings, there were eight cubits. The area of the rings was 24 cubits wide. There were four cubits between the rings and the tables, and four cubits from the tables to the short pillars. From the short pillars to the wall of the Courtyard were eight cubits. The remainder [of the 5

b) even though there was a small gap between the pillars and the tables, the expression "between the tables" could be used. 83. These rings were permanently affixed to the floor of the Temple Courtyard, at the request of Yochanan, the High Priest. The feet of an animal brought as a sacrifice were placed inside the rings to hold the animal in place while it was being slaughtered. (See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah 5:2. Note Rashi, Sukkah 56a for a different interpretation of the rings' use.)

cubits] was taken up by the short pillars and by the space between the ramp and [the Courtyard's northern] wall.

84. There were 24 rings. There is a debate in Middot 3:5

The Rambam's interpretation of the mishnah divides the 25 remaining cubits equally between the area of the pillars, the

Though the Rambam does not specify which opinion he follows, his diagrams which accompany his Commentary to

butchering area mentioned in the previous halachah, and the space between the ramp and the southern wall. The

the Mishnah apparently tend toward the former opinion. 85. As mentioned in Halachah 16, the sacrifices of the most

Rambam also combined the two measurements given for the space of the tables into one figure (Kessef Mishneh).

sacred order had to be slaughtered in the northern portion of the courtyard. The rings included in that region were

79. As mentioned on several occasions above, an effort was

therefore used for this purpose. The sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness could be slaughtered any place within the

made to use gold for all utensils in the Temple. However, marble was sometimes used, because it is a poorer conductor of heat. In this case as well, marble tables were used lest the heat cause the meat to spoil. 80. This statement is somewhat difficult. Tamid 4:2 states that a sacrificial animal's internal organs, except for its stomach, were washed on these tables. It does not mention the

whether there were six rows of four rings, or four rows of six.

Temple courtyard. When many people brought their sacrifices at the same time, for example on the festivals, the priests took advantage of this leniency. Note the accompanying diagram. 86. See Middot 3:5. 87. See Chapter 2, Halachah 7.

washing of the meat at all. The Rambam states that the internal organs were washed in the Washing Chamber (see

88. See Chapter 2, Halachah 13.

Halachah 17) and that these tables were used for washing the meat. The commentaries question the source for the

90. The wall on the right upon entering.

Rambam's statements (Ra'avad). Kin'at Eliyahu emphasizes that the Rambam's wording indicates that here we are not speaking about meat offered on the altar, but meat cooked and eaten by the priests. 81. As a preliminary stage in the process of salting meat, the meat must be washed to remove all surface blood.

89. See the notes to Halachah 14 of this chapter.

91. More specifically, the base of the altar. 92. That measurement can be broken down as follows: the space between the pillars and the northern wall 8 cubits, the area of the pillars 12.5 cubits, the area of the tables 8 cubits, the area of the rings 24 cubits, the space between the rings and the altar 8 cubits. 93. See Halachah 12.

12

13

94. Leviticus 1:11 declares that the burnt offerings are to be slaughtered "on the north side of the altar." Similar

104.The name "Chamber of Wood" is somewhat problematic. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 9, it is forbidden to build

instructions were given in regard to sin offerings, guilt offerings, and communal peace offerings.

a chamber of wood in the Temple Courtyard. The commentaries explain that the chamber itself was not made

This definition of "the northern portion" of the Temple Courtyard follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah HaNasi

of wood. However, it was given that name either because it was used to store wood or because it had wooden paneling.

(Zevachim 20a). 95. See Middot 5:3, 4 and 1:4. 96. These chambers were not situated parallel to each other. 97. The side of the Temple Courtyard to the left when facing the Temple building. 98. This chamber was named after a Gentile magician who dug an tunnel under the Temple Courtyard to observe the services. He was discovered and killed on the spot (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Middot 5:3). 99. The Rambam writes in Hilchot Issurei HaMizbayach 5:11: It is a positive commandment to salt all sacrifices before they are brought up to the altar, as in Leviticus 2:13: "You shall offer salt on all your sacrifices." In Halachah 13 there, he continues: They placed salt [on the sacrifices] in three places: in the Chamber of Salt, on the ramp [leading to the altar,] and on the top of the altar. The Lechem Mishneh explains that salt for all the Temple's needs was stored in this chamber. 100.The hides of the sacrifices were given to the priests for their private use. They were treated with salt to preserve them. 16There is a difficulty with this halachah. In Hilchot Issurei

105.Only kings from the House of David were allowed to sit in the Temple Courtyard (Yoma 25a). 106.This name was given because of the seats of hewn stone upon which the Sanhedrin were seated. Two reasons are given for the placement of Israel's highest court in the Temple Courtyard. Firstly, to a large extent, they were involved with judging cases related to the priesthood (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:11). Secondly, the holiness of the Temple inspired their decisions and provided them with additional insight. Once the Sanhedrin was forced to leave this site, it was not granted the authority to judge capital cases. 107.Considered as part of the Temple Courtyard. 108.Commenting on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the chamber was situated entirely within the Courtyard. Nevertheless, half is considered unconsecrated because one entrance opened to the outside. In Chapter 6, Halachah 7, the Rambam states that even if a chamber is built within the Courtyard, if it opens to the outside, it is not considered consecrated. The Chamber of Hewn Stone had two entrances, one leading into the Temple Courtyard and one leading outside. Therefore, half was consecrated and half was not. Nevertheless, there are unresolved difficulties concerning

Mizbeiach (loc. cit.), the Rambam states that the hides were

this Halachah. Among them: a) How was it possible for all the judges and the students

salted in the Chamber of Salt. The Lechem Mishneh

who would attend the sessions of the Sanhedrin to sit in so

resolves that difficulty by explaining that although the salt was stored in the Chamber of Salt, the actual salting of the

small an area? b) Which entrance leading from the Courtyard is referred to?

hides was carried out in Parve's Chamber.

It was not mentioned among the seven gates mentioned in Halachah 5:4 or even among the 13 gates listed in Middot

101.On Yom Kippur, the High Priest immersed himself in the mikveh five times. Except for the first immersion, all were carried out in this mikveh (Yoma 3:3). 102.As mentioned previously in Halachah 14, there is a slight difficulty with this statement. Tamid 4:2 states that the internal organs were washed on the tables, except for the lower digestive organs. They were not washed in the open since it was not proper to spill out their contents before the Temple building. However, the Rambam goes beyond that source and states that all internal organs were washed in this chamber. 103.Allowing access to the mikveh located there.

2:6.

109.Seven days before Yom Kippur, the High Priest left his own home and adjourned to this chamber, where he busied himself, preparing for the service of that holy day (Yoma 2a). Yoma 8b (note Rashi's commentary) explains that the name Parhedrin meant "officer of the king." This name was given to this chamber in the days of the Second Temple when the High Priests would purchase this office from the king at a high price. These "High Priests" were not righteous and as a sign of Divine retribution, they would die within a year of assuming office. Upon their death, the position would be sold again. To emphasize that these "High Priests" received the position through bribery and not through merit, they were referred to as "the officers of the king."

110.Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura explains that one roof was placed over all three buildings. However, the Rambam's diagrams do not appear to subscribe to this idea. 111.See Middot 1:4. 112.The clothes-butler was responsible for weaving and knitting the priestly garments (Hilchot Klai HaMikdash 7:20). According to the commentaries (Shekalim 5:1), the first person entrusted with this task in the second Temple was named Pinchas. Hence, all his successors were called by that name. 113.This term refers to a meal offering, prepared in a frying pan. The product resembled pancakes. This offering was prepared every day in this chamber and brought by the High Priest, as commanded in Leviticus 6:13-15.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

14

policy .

1



Beit Habechirah - Chapter 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Beit Habechirah - Chapter 5

The entire Temple complex was not built on flat ground, but rather on the incline1 of Mount [Moriah.] Thus, a person who entered from the Eastern Gate of the Temple Mount would proceed to the end of the chayl on one level.2

English

Hebrew

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 7

‫המקדש כולו לא היה במישור אלא‬ ‫במעלה ההר כשאדם נכנס משער‬ ‫מזרחי של הר הבית מהלך עד סוף החיל‬ ‫בשוה ועולה מן החיל לעזרת הנשים‬ ‫בשתים עשרה מעלות רום כל מעלה חצי‬ :‫אמה ושלחה חצי אמה‬

He would ascend from the chayl to the Woman's Courtyard on twelve steps. Each step was half a cubit high and half a cubit wide.3 One proceeded through the entire Women's Courtyard4 on one level.5 From it, one ascended6 to the Courtyard of the Israelites, which is the beginning of the Temple Courtyard, using fifteen steps.7 Each step was half a cubit high and half a cubit wide.

‫ומהלך כל עזרת הנשים בשוה ועולה‬ ‫ממנה לעזרת ישראל שהוא תחלת‬ ‫העזרה בחמש עשרה מעלות רום כל‬ :‫מעלה חצי אמה ושלחה חצי אמה‬

One would proceed through the entire Israelites' Courtyard on one level8 and ascend from it to the Priestly Courtyard [using] one step, one cubit high.9

‫ומהלך כל עזרת ישראל בשוה ועולה‬ ‫ממנו לעזרת הכהנים במעלה גבוהה‬ ‫אמה ועליה דוכן יש בו שלש מעלות רום‬ ‫כל מעלה חצי אמה ושלחה חצי אמה‬ ‫נמצאת עזרת הכהנים גבוהה על של‬ :‫ישראל שתי אמות ומחצה‬

Above [that step] was a platform of three steps.10 Each step was half a cubit high and half a cubit wide.11 Thus, the Priestly Courtyard was two and a half cubits higher than the Courtyard of the Israelites.

2

One would proceed through the entire Priestly Courtyard,12 [the area of] the Altar,13 and the space between the Entrance Hall and the Altar14 on one level. From there, one would ascend to the Entrance Hall using twelve steps.15 Each step was half a cubit high and half a cubit wide.16

‫ומהלך כל עזרת הכהנים והמזבח ובין‬ ‫האולם ולמזבח בשוה ועולה משם‬ ‫לאולם בשתים עשרה מעלות רום כל‬ ‫מעלה חצי אמה ושלחה חצי אמה והאולם‬ :‫וההיכל כולו בשוה‬

The Entrance Hall and [the remainder of] the Temple building were both on the same level.17 Thus, the ground [on which] the Temple building [was located] was 22 cubits higher than the ground [on which] the Eastern Gate [was located].18 The Eastern Gate was twenty cubits high.19 Accordingly, a person standing opposite the Eastern Gate could not see the Temple building.20 For this reason, the wall above this gate was low.21 Thus, the priest [who offered the Parah Adumah] could see the opening of the Temple when he sprinkled its blood,22 while standing on the Mount of Olives.23 There were chambers under the Courtyard of the Israelites opening up to the Women's Courtyard.24 There, the Levites stored their harps, lyres,25 cymbals, and other musical instruments.26 The Levites stood on the platform which ascends from the Courtyard of the Israelites to the Courtyard of the Priests, when they chanted songs over the sacrifices.27

‫נמצא גובה קרקע ההיכל על קרקע‬ ‫שער המזרח של הר הבית שתים‬ ‫ועשרים אמות וגובה שער הר הבית‬ ‫עשרים אמה לפיכך העומד כנגד שער‬ ‫המזרח אינו רואה פתח ההיכל ומפני זה‬ ‫עשו כותל שעל גבי שער זה נמוך כדי‬ ‫שיהא כהן העומד בהר המשחה רואה‬ ‫פתח ההיכל בשעה שמזה מדם הפרה‬ :‫נוכח ההיכל‬

‫ולשכות היו שם תחת עזרת ישראל‬ ‫פתוחות לעזרת הנשים ששם הלוים‬ ‫נותנין הכנורות והנבלים והמצלתים וכל‬ ‫כלי השיר ועל הדוכן העולה מעזרת‬ ‫ישראל לעזרת הכהנים היו הלוים עומדים‬ :‫בשעה שאומרים שירה על הקרבן‬

[Regarding] the chambers that were built on consecrated ground, but which opened up to an area that was not consecrated:28 If [their roofs] were on the same level as the earth of the Courtyard, their inner space is not consecrated,29 but their roofs are consecrated.30

‫הלשכות הבנויות בקדש ופתוחות‬ ‫לחול אם היו גגותיהן שוין עם קרקע‬ ‫העזרה תוכן חול וגגותיהן קדש ואם אינן‬ ‫שוין אף גגותיהן חול שהגגות והעליות לא‬ ‫נתקדשו לפיכך גגים אלו אין אוכלין שם‬ :‫קדשי קדשים ולא שוחטין קדשים קלים‬

If they are not on the same level [as the Courtyard], their roofs are also not consecrated, for the roofs and the upper floors [of the structures in the Temple Courtyard] were not consecrated.31 Therefore, sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity32 may not be eaten on these roofs,33 nor may sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity34 be slaughtered there.35 [Regarding the chambers] which were built on unconsecrated ground, but were open to consecrated ground:36 Their inner space was considered consecrated when eating sacrifices of the most holy order.37 However, the sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were not slaughtered there. [Similarly,] a person who enters while ritually impure is not required [to bring a sin offering].38

‫היו בנויות לחול ופתוחות לקדש‬ ‫תוכן קדש לאכילת קדשי קדשים‬ ‫אבל אין שוחטין שם קדשים קלים והנכנס‬ ‫לשם בטומאה פטור וגגותיהן חול לכל‬ :‫דבר‬

The roofs [of these chambers] are considered as unconsecrated ground in all respects.39 The underground passageways which open to the Temple Courtyard40 are consecrated.41 Those that open to the Temple Mount [outside the Courtyard] are not consecrated.42 The windows43 and the width44 of the wall are considered within [the Courtyard] in regard to partaking of the sacrifices of the most holy order and [entering while] ritually impure.45

3

‫המחילות הפתוחות לעזרה קודש‬ ‫והפתוחות להר הבית חול החלונות‬ ‫ועובי החומה כלפנים בין לאכילת קדשי‬ :‫קדשים בין לטומאה‬

If the Sanhedrin46 desires to add to [the city limits of] Jerusalem47 or the Temple Courtyard,48 they may.49 They may extend the Temple Courtyard to any place they desire on the Temple Mount.50 [Similarly, they may] extend the walls of Jerusalem to any place they desire.51

‫בית דין שרצו להוסיף על ירושלים או‬ ‫להוסיף על העזרה מוסיפין ויש להם‬ ‫למשוך העזרה עד המקום שירצו מהר‬ ‫הבית ולמשוך חומת ירושלים עד מקום‬ :‫שירצו‬

We may not expand [the limits] of the city [of Jerusalem] or of the Temple Courtyard52 unless receiving the consent of the king, a prophet,53 the Urim V'Tumim,54 and the Sanhedrin of 71 judges,55 as [Exodus 25:9] states: "According to all that I show you, [the design of the Sanctuary]...so shall you make it." [The latter phrase was interpreted by our sages to mean that the same conditions should apply in] future generations.

‫אין מוסיפין על העיר או על‬ ‫העזרות אלא על פי המלך וע"פ‬ ‫נביא ובאורים ותומים ועל פי סנהדרין של‬ ‫שבעים ואחד זקנים שנאמר ככל אשר אני‬ ‫מראה אותך וכן תעשו לדורות ומשה‬ :‫רבינו מלך היה‬

[The presence of a king is required] because Moses, our teacher, was a king.56 How do we extend [the limits of] the city?57 The Sanhedrin must offer two thanksgiving offerings.58 [Then, two priests]59 take the leavened breads from these offerings [and proceed]. The Sanhedrin would follow the thanksgiving offerings.60 The thanksgiving offerings [would not proceed together, but] one would follow the other.61 They would stand on each and every corner and every single stone in Jerusalem, [playing] harps, lyres, and cymbals, and reciting [Psalms 30]: "I exalt you, Lord, for You have uplifted me...."62 [They would proceed] until reaching the end of the place [which they desired to] consecrate. There, they would stand and eat one of the two thanksgiving offerings. The other was burnt. A prophet would determine which was eaten and which was burnt.63

4

‫וכיצד מוסיפין על העיר עושין בית‬ ‫דין שתי תודות ולוקחין לחם חמץ‬ ‫שבהם והולכים בית דין אחר שתי התודות‬ ‫ושתי התודות זו אחר זו ועומדין בכנורות‬ ‫ובנבלים ובצלצל על כל פנה ופנה ועל כל‬ ‫אבן )ואבן( שבירושלים ואומר ארוממך י"י‬ ‫כי דליתני וגו' עד שמגיעין לסוף המקום‬ ‫שמקדשין אותו ועומדין שם ואוכלים שם‬ ‫לחם תודה אחת משתי התודות והשנייה‬ ‫נשרפת וע"פ הנביא שורפין את זו ואוכלין‬ :‫את זו‬

Similarly, [if the Sages desire] to extend the [limits of the] courtyard,64 they must consecrate it with the remaining portion of the meal offering. Just as the thanksgiving offering, which must be eaten inside Jerusalem consecrates it, so, too, the remaining portion of the meal offering, which may only be eaten inside the Temple Courtyard,65 consecrates it. It is to be eaten at the end of the space which they desire to consecrate.66

‫וכן אם הוסיפו על העזרה מקדשין‬ ‫אותה בשיירי המנחה מה ירושלים‬ ‫התודה שנאכלת בה מקדשתה אף העזרה‬ ‫שיירי המנחות שאין נאכלין אלא בה הן‬ ‫שמקדשין אותה בהן ואוכלין אותן בסוף‬ :‫המקום שקדשו‬

Any place which was not [consecrated] with all the above [elements] and according to the above procedure is not thoroughly consecrated.67 Though Ezra offered two thanksgiving offerings68 [to dedicate the city,] he merely carried out a testimonial act. The Sanctuary was not consecrated through his deeds, for neither a King nor the Urim V'Tumim69 were present there.70

‫כל מקום שלא נעשה בכל אלו‬ ‫וכסדר הזה אין קדוש גמור וזה‬ ‫שעשה עזרא שתי תודות זכרון הוא‬ ‫שעשה לא במעשיו נתקדש המקום שלא‬ ‫היה שם לא מלך ולא אורים ותומים ובמה‬ ‫נתקדשה בקדושה ראשונה שקדשה‬ ‫שלמה שהוא קידש העזרה וירושלים‬ :‫לשעתן וקידשן לעתיד לבא‬

[If so,] how was [the Second Temple] consecrated?71 With the first consecration performed by Solomon, for he consecrated the Temple Courtyard and Jerusalem for that time and for eternity.72 Therefore, we may offer all the sacrifices [on the Temple site], even though the Temple itself is not built.73 Similarly, sacrifices of the most holy order can be eaten in the entire [area of the] Courtyard, even though it is in ruin and not surrounded by a divider.74 We may also eat sacrifices of lesser sanctity and Ma'aser Sheni75 throughout Jerusalem,76 even though [it is not surrounded by] a wall, for through its original consecration, it was consecrated for that time and for eternity.

5

‫לפיכך מקריבין הקרבנות כולן‬ ‫אע"פ שאין שם בית בנוי ואוכלין‬ ‫קדשי קדשים בכל העזרה אף על פי שהיא‬ ‫חריבה ואינה מוקפת במחיצה ואוכלין‬ ‫קדשים קלים ומעשר שני בכל ירושלים‬ ‫אף על פי שאין שם חומות שהקדושה‬ ‫ראשונה קדשה לשעתה וקדשה לעתיד‬ :‫לבא‬

6

77

Why do I say that the original consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem for eternity,78 while in regard to the consecration of the remainder of Eretz Yisrael, in the context of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and other similar [agricultural] laws, [the original consecration] did not sanctify it for eternity?79 Because the sanctity of the Temple and Jerusalem stems from the Shechinah, and the Shechinah can never be nullified.80 Therefore, [Leviticus 26:31] states: "I will lay waste to your Sanctuaries." The Sages declared:81 "Even though they have been devastated, their sanctity remains."82 In contrast, the [original] obligation to keep the laws of the Sabbatical year and tithes on the Land stemmed from the fact that it was conquered by the [Jewish people, as a] community.83 Therefore, when the land was taken from their hands [by the Babylonians,] their [original] conquest was nullified. Thus, according to Torah law, the land was freed from the obligations of the Sabbatical year and of tithes because it was no longer Eretz Yisrael.84

‫ולמה אני אומר במקדש וירושלים‬ ‫קדושה ראשונה קדשה לעתיד‬ ‫לבוא ובקדושת שאר א"י לענין שביעית‬ ‫ומעשרות וכיוצא בהן לא קדשה לעתיד‬ ‫לבוא לפי שקדושת המקדש וירושלים‬ ‫מפני השכינה ושכינה אינה בטלה והרי‬ ‫הוא אומר והשמותי את מקדשיכם ואמרו‬ ‫חכמים אע"פ ששמומין בקדושתן הן‬ ‫עומדים אבל חיוב הארץ בשביעית‬ ‫ובמעשרות אינו אלא מפני שהוא כבוש‬ ‫רבים וכיון שנלקחה הארץ מידיהם בטל‬ ‫הכבוש ונפטרה מן התורה ממעשרות‬ ‫ומשביעית שהרי אינה מן ארץ ישראל‬ ‫וכיון שעלה עזרא וקדשה לא קדשה‬ ‫בכיבוש אלא בחזקה שהחזיקו בה ולפיכך‬ ‫כל מקום שהחזיקו בה עולי בבל ונתקדש‬ ‫בקדושת עזרא השנייה הוא מקודש היום‬ ‫ואף על פי שנלקח הארץ ממנו וחייב‬ ‫בשביעית ובמעשרות על הדרך שביארנו‬ :‫בהלכות תרומה‬

When Ezra returned [to Eretz Yisrael] and consecrated it, it was not sanctified by means of through conquest, but rather through Chazzakah.85 Therefore, every place which was repossessed by the [exiles returning from] Babylon and consecrated when Ezra consecrated [the land] the second time, is sacred today. Thus, as explained in Hilchot Terumah, it is necessary to keep the laws of the Sabbatical years and the tithes [on this land] even though it was taken from [the Jewish people in later years].86

« Previous

Next »

Beit Habechirah - Chapter 5

Beit Habechirah - Chapter 7

FOOTNOTES 1. This concept is explained in this and the following four halachot. Note the accompanying diagram. There is a homiletic aspect to the placement of the Temple on the incline of a mountain. A Jew must realize that his advance in holy matters resembles the climbing of a mountain.

13. 32 cubits in length. See Chapter 5, Halachah 12. 14. 22 cubits in length, 15. See the commentary to Chapter 4, Halachah 9.

When ascending a mountain it is difficult to remain in one position. One must either climb further upward or descend.

16. The Kessef Mishneh questions this statement. It appears to

Similarly, a Jew must always strive to advance in his spiritual service. Otherwise, he is likely to fall to a lower level.

states: "All the steps there [in the Temple complex] were half a cubit high and half a cubit wide, except for the steps of the

2. As explained in the commentary to Chapter 5, Halachah 6, a

Entrance Hall." Similarly, Middot 2:6 states: "Twelve steps [led to the

distance of approximately 213 cubits separated between the exterior wall surrounding the Temple Mount and the Eastern Wall of the Temple Courtyard. The Women's Courtyard was 135 cubits long. A thick wall surrounded it, leaving approximately 68 cubits between that wall and the exterior wall. According to the Rambam's diagrams, see Chapter 5, Halachah 6, the ratio of space between the chayl and the exterior wall, and the space between the chayl and the Women's Courtyard, was approximately 3:1. Thus, the distance mentioned here was approximately 51 cubits. 3. Thus, he ascended six cubits when climbing these steps. This was the size of all the steps in the Temple complex, except for the step dividing the Courtyard of the Israelites from the Priestly Courtyard. 4. 135 cubits. 5. The steps leading to the Temple Courtyard did not take up the entire width of the Courtyard, and the area on both sides was on the same level as the remainder of the Courtyard. 6. Seven and a half cubits. 7. Middot 2:5 relates that the steps were semicircular in shape. In the Simchat Beit HaShoevah celebrations, during the holiday of Sukkot, the Levites stood on these steps, sang, and played music. 8. A distance of eleven cubits.

contradict two explicit statements of the Mishnah. Middot 2:3

Entrance Hall]. They were half a cubit high and a cubit wide." However, Yoma 16a quotes the latter mishnah, using the same text as the Rambam uses in this halachah. 17. The commentaries explain that the differing heights of the various sections of the Temple Mount reflected their levels of holiness. Each level which was more sacred was actually physically higher than the preceding level. Since, as stated in the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 5, the Entrance Hall and the two inner chambers of the Sanctuary were considered one integral unit, there was no difference in altitude between them. 18. The 22 cubits can be broken down as follows: The steps leading to the Woman's Courtyard, 6 cubits The steps leading to the Temple Courtyard, 7.5 cubits The steps leading to the Priestly Courtyard, 2.5 cubits The steps leading to the Entrance Hall, 6 cubits 19. The standard height of the gates in the Temple complex. 20. Five gates were placed in a straight line: the Eastern Gate, the gate to the chayl, the gate to the Women's Courtyard, the gate of Nicanor, and the gate of the Entrance Hall. Thus, had the Temple been built on flat ground, one would

9. This step departed from the standard height of half a cubit. It

have been able to see through all the gates at once. However, because the person would be looking through the

served as a clear line of demarcation between the two regions.

gates on an upward incline, he would only be able to see the steps leading to the Entrance Hall.

10. On which the Levites would stand and chant while sacrifices were being offered, as described in Halachah 6.

21. All the other walls to the Temple Mount were very high.

11. Thus, the height of the platform was 3 x 1/2, for a total height of one and a half cubits.

7

12. The Priestly Courtyard was eleven cubits long. However, one and a half cubits were taken up by the Levites' platform.

However, the eastern wall was only six cubits higher than the gate (Tifferet Yisrael, Middot 2:4).

8

22. The Parah Adumah [Red Heifer] was necessary to purify

31. Pesachim 86a explains that an exception to the latter

those who had come in contact with a human corpse.

principle was made regarding the upper storey of the Temple

Regarding its slaughter, Numbers 19:3-4 commands: "He shall take it outside the camp and ... take from the blood of

building itself. I Chronicles 28:11 states: "Then David gave Solomon his

the heifer and sprinkle it opposite the front of the Tent of Meeting." Similarly, in later generations, the Parah Adumah

son the design of the Entrance Hall, its houses, its treasure stores, its upper storeys, its inner chambers, and the place

had to be sacrificed outside the Temple premises, but in view of the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was slaughtered on the Mount

for the ark," implying that the upper storey shared the same level of holiness as the remainder of the Temple building.

of Olives. 23. The Mount of Olives is situated directly behind the Temple Mount, with the Kidron Valley in between. The priest stood on the Mount of Olives looking toward the Temple. 24. As mentioned above, the mountain rose seven and a half cubits at this point. Thus, there was ample room to create storage chambers in the wall. 25. The Sages explain that a harp and a lyre were similar in appearance, but the lyre had more strings. 26. The Levites chanted Psalms while the daily communal sacrifices were offered and accompanied these songs with music. Also, on special occasions like the Simchat Beit

32. Sin offerings, guilt offerings, and communal peace offerings. 33. Leviticus 6:6 requires the guilt offering to be eaten "in a sacred place," i.e. within the Temple courtyard. The same ruling applies to the other sacrifices of similar status. 34. 13for example, individual peace offerings, thanksgiving offerings, or the Passover sacrifice. 35. Leviticus 3:8 states that individual peace offerings must be slaughtered "before the tent of meeting." In the Temple, that phrase refers to the Temple Courtyard. The same ruling applies to other sacrifices of similar status (Zevachim 55a). 36. Among the chambers included in this category were those on

HaShoevah celebrations, they played music for the people.

the southern side of the Chamber of the Hearth. Though the latter was positioned outside the Temple Courtyard, these

See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 3:2.

chambers were open to it. See Chapter 5, Halachah 10.

27. The Har HaMoriah noted that in a number of places the

37. Zevachim 56a explains that these chambers are by nature

Talmud states that this platform was used by the Levites in

unconsecrated. However, the Torah made an exception in

the manner described above (e.g., Yoma 20a and 53a,

regard to the consumption of these sacrifices.

Arichin 13b). Nevertheless, the platform was also used for other purposes. Chagigah 16a and Rosh Hashanah 31b relate that the priests stood on this platform when they blessed the people. Indeed, the Hebrew name for the platform, Duchan, has become synonymous with the priestly blessing. (It must be noted that in Hilchot Nesiat Kapaim 14:14, the Rambam writes that the priests would stand on the steps before the Entrance Hall when they blessed the people.) 28. In this and the following two Halachot, the Rambam defines which structures of the Temple Courtyard share the sanctity of the area. This determination is significant in regard to three matters: a) Sacrifices of the highest holy order of sanctity must be eaten within the Temple Courtyard. b) Sacrifices of lesser degree of sanctity must be slaughtered within the Temple Courtyard. c) Entry to the Temple Courtyard is forbidden when ritually impure. See the Rambam's Commentary to Ma'aser Sheni 3:8. 29. And does not share the sanctity of the Courtyard. 30. And shares that level of holiness.

38. Though there is no Scriptural prohibition against entering these chambers while ritually impure, the Sages forbade such an act. 39. There is not even a Rabbinic prohibition against one who is ritually impure ascending to them. 40. As mentioned above, many underground passageways were constructed on the Temple Mount. 41. And all the laws applying to the Courtyard apply to them. 42. Therefore, a ritually impure individual may enter them, as described in Chapter 5, Halachah 11. 43. I.e., the apertures in the wall. 44. I.e., the upper surface.

9

45. The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh question these

50. The Or Sameiach cites allusions from the Tanach which

statements. Pesachim 86a states that the wall's upper

appear to limit the size of the Courtyard to the Temple Mount.

surface is only considered an extension of the Courtyard when it is on the same level as the Courtyard (as the roofs of

Isaiah 2:3, Zechariah 8:3, and other prophets frequently referred to "the mountain of God," implying that the Temple

the chambers mentioned in Halachah 7.) If the wall is higher than the Courtyard, it is not considered consecrated.

could only be situated on that peak.

The following explanation may be offered for the decision rendered by the Rambam: Rashi (Pesachim, loc. cit.) relates that the chayl was the major wall around the inner Temple complex and the wall of the Courtyard itself was not high. Since the Temple was built on an incline, it was possible that the latter wall would be on the same level as the floor of the Courtyard, even though the Courtyard wall was raised above the ground in front of it. However, the Rambam himself definitely cannot accept such an interpretation. He already stated (Chapter 5, Halachah3) that the chayl was only 10 cubits high. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that it would be the major wall surrounding the inner Temple complex. That likelihood is further reduced by the fact that the chayl was set off from the Temple Courtyard by

51. Here, no restrictions are placed. Indeed, the Midrash relates that in the Messianic age, Jerusalem will encompass all of Eretz Yisrael, extending until Damascus. 52. As the Rambam explains, the construction of the Temple and the establishment of its limits must conform to the pattern followed in the construction of the Shechinah's first resting place, the Sanctuary in the desert. See Sh'vuot 14a,b. Therefore, the expansion cannot take place unless the conditions mentioned by the Rambam are met. 53. Moses was the master of all prophets. 54. The stones of the breastplate of the High Priest. They served as oracles, and were consulted on all matters of national importance. See the commentary to Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

a considerable distance, especially on the northern and

Tosafot (Sh'vuot 15a) questions the necessity for the Urim

southern sides. See also Tosefot Yom Tov, Middot 2:3.

V'Tumim to be used in the establishment of the Courtyard's

The above three halachot also apply to the city of Jerusalem

limits. Aharon, the High Priest, did not don the Urim V'Tumim

as a whole. As stated above, the sacrifices of the most holy order could only be eaten within the Temple Courtyard.

until after the Sanctuary was constructed and its limits

Similarly, a limitation was placed on where the sacrifices of lesser sanctity could be eaten. One could only partake of

established. Since these requirements were set on the basis of the pattern followed when dedicating the Sanctuary, the Urim V'Tumim should not be required for dedicating future

those offerings within the confines of the city of Jerusalem, and the definition of the city's limits were therefore of

Sanctuaries. Among the answers given to that question are that until

consequence. The particular decisions regarding the Courtyard's chambers, underground passageways, and

Aharon's installation as High Priest, Moses served in that capacity and wore al the priestly garments (Ritbah).

upper surfaces of the wall, refer to the counterparts of these structures at the city's outer wall.

55. Some

authorities

maintain

that

the

Sanhedrin

was

established before the Sanctuary was built. Other opinions

46. This decision can only be made by the Supreme Sanhedrin,

maintain that the Sanhedrin was only established later.

the court of 71 judges who were seated in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.

Nevertheless, Moses' participation is considered equivalent

47. And thus, extend the area in which sacrifices of lesser sanctity may be eaten.

56. The commentaries explain that Deuteronomy 33:5: "And he was a king in Yeshurun," refers to Moses.

48. And thus, extend the area to which the three mitzvot mentioned in the notes to Halachah 7 apply. 49. Tosafot (Zevachim 33a) explains that since the design for the Temple was conveyed by Ruach HaKodesh, Divine inspiration, even the Sanhedrin could not add to the limits of the Courtyard unless they could find a verse in the Tanach to support their decision. The passage cited in Zevachim and similarly, Sukkot 51b, reinforce the position of the Tosafot. However, the Yeriot Shlomo and other commentaries question whether the Rambam accepts that principle

to that of the Sanhedrin.

10

57. 13The entire procession described by the Rambam is described in detail in Sh'vuot 15a-16a.

65. Leviticus 2:1-3 states: "When a man offers a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour....the priest shall

The source for these practices is the description of the dedication of Jerusalem in Nechemiah 12:27-44. There, it is

burn the memorial part of it on the Altar....and the remnant of the meal offering shall be Aharon's and his sons. It is of the

related that:

sacrifices of the highest order of holiness." Hence it must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard.

At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, they sought Levites...to bring them to Jerusalem to carry out the dedication with joy and thanksgiving, with songs, with cymbals, with harps, and with lyres....Then, I asked the princes of Judah to ascend the wall, and I brought up the greater portion of two thanksgiving offerings....They ascended to the wall by the stairs of the city of David....They offered great sacrifices that day, for God had made them rejoice with great joy....and the joy of Jerusalem was heard from far away.

66. Ri Migash, the Rambam's teacher, commenting on Sh'vuot, loc. cit., emphasizes that eating the offerings are not merely signs that the consecration of the city or the Courtyard had been carried out, but rather, the consecration becomes effective by eating of these offerings. The Rambam's statements here appear to be based on that principle. 67. The expression used "not thoroughly consecrated" is somewhat problematic. The Maharit explains that this expression can be understood within the context of the Mishnah's statements (Sh'vuot, loc. cit.): "[In regard to] any

58. A thanksgiving offering includes three elements: the leavened breads, an animal which is sacrificed and loaves of

place [in the Temple Courtyard] which was not consecrated with all of these [i.e., a king, a prophet, etc.], one who enters

unleavened bread. Sh'vuot, loc. cit., explains that the leavened breads were

[while ritually impure] is not liable [for a sin offering]." Generally, throughout the Talmud, such an expression

chosen because Nechemiah's description of Jerusalem's dedication relates that he "brought up the greater portion of

implies that though a sin offering is not required, the act is forbidden. Similarly, in this context, a consecration which

two thanksgiving offerings." That phrase alludes to the leavened breads of the thanksgiving offerings which rose,

lacks all the elements listed previously in the Mishnah is not totally effective. Therefore, entering the portion of the

and thus, were more substantial than the unleavened breads.

Courtyard consecrated in this manner does not obligate an impure individual to bring a sacrifice. Nevertheless, there is a Rabbinic prohibition against entering that area.

59. The bracketed addition was made on the basis of Rashi's commentary, Sh'vuot 16b.

68. As described in the passage from Nechemiah quoted above

60. Sh'vuot, loc. cit. relates that the leaders of the people, the

69. See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

Sanhedrin, followed the thanksgiving offerings when Ezra and Nechemiah dedicated the city of Jerusalem. This halachah is taken from the Mishnah, Sh'vuot 2:2. Many versions of that mishnah, including the one quoted in the Talmud, add the phrase: "And all of Israel followed after them." However, the Rambam's version of the text omits that phrase. Hence, it is also not included in this halachah.

70. Although the dedication procedure carried out by Ezra and Nechemiah was merely a testimonial act, having no Halachic significance, we are forced to say that the testimonial was carried out in precise detail as if the city was actually being consecrated. Therefore, the description of their procedure can demonstrate the process necessary to actually dedicate the city.

61. Similarly, in Nechemiah's narrative, the two offerings were separated.

71. Since all sacrifices were offered there, we must conclude that it was indeed consecrated.

62. Psalm 30 is called "the song of the dedication of the House."

72. 13This concept is the subject of a debate in the Talmud (Sh'vuot 16a, Makkot 19a, Megillah 10a) and is discussed

Hence, it is appropriate for this occasion. Sh'vuot, loc. cit., also relates that other Psalms, including 3, 91, and 100, were recited. 63. This procedure was carried out at Nechemiah's dedication of Jerusalem. The prophets Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi participated in that dedication, and advised Nechemiah of the procedure to follow. 64. There is no record of this practice ever being carried out. Rather, the Temple Courtyard remained the same size from the time it was dedicated by Ezra.

by the Rambam in the following two halachot.

73. See the commentary to Chapter 2, Halachah 4 which explains that the exiles who returned from Babylon built an

77. In the previous halachot, the Rambam stated that the sanctity of the Temple Mount and Jerusalem would

Altar before they completed the construction of the Second Temple. The prophets assured them that "all sacrifices could

remain for eternity, because of the initial consecration by David and Solomon. Thus, when Ezra rededicated

be offered on that Altar, even though the Temple itself was not [built] there [yet.]" The construction of the Temple took

Jerusalem, as described in the Book of Nechemiah, his act was merely testimonial in nature. There was no

another twenty two years to complete. Even in later generations, our spiritual leaders have desired

need to reconsecrate the Temple, because its original holiness had never been nullified.

to offer sacrifices on the Temple Mount. In the Middle Ages, the Sage, Rabbi Chayim (according to other sources, Rabbi

This seemingly contradicts the Rambam's statements in Sefer Zeraim, the portion of the Mishneh Torah which deals

Yechiel) of Paris made Aliyah and settled in Jerusalem. He

with the agricultural laws to be observed in Eretz Yisrael.

was prepared to offer sacrifices on the Temple site and

There, the Rambam states that the original consecration of

refrained from doing so only after his colleagues explained that sacrifices could not be offered because they were

Eretz Yisrael was nullified after the Babylonian conquest.

unaware of the proper location, size, and dimensions of the Altar. 74. Twenty two years passed between the time that the exiles

When Ezra returned from Babylon, he reconsecrated the Land, causing the various agricultural laws to be in effect again, though only M'd'Rabbanen, according to Rabbinic decree.

return to Jerusalem and the completion of the Second Temple. During that time, all the sacrifices were offered and

The portion he consecrated was considerably smaller than the original boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, his

eaten even though the walls of the Temple and the Courtyard were not built.

consecration remained in effect even after the Gentiles' subsequent conquests. Indeed, on the basis of that

75. The second tithe. After the first tithe was separated, a second tithe also had to be set aside. In four years out of the seven year agricultural cycle, Ma'aser Sheni was brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. See Deuteronomy:22-26, Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni.

consecration, these agricultural laws must be observed in Eretz Yisrael today. To resolve that contradiction, the Rambam explains that the "consecration" of Jerusalem and of the Temple differs from the "consecration" of Eretz Yisrael as a whole. Jerusalem and the Temple were consecrated by the revelation of the

76. This statement is extremely problematic. In Hilchot Ma'aser

Shechinah in the Temple. That Divine act can never be

Sheni 2:1, the Rambam himself writes that "Ma'aser Sheni is

nullified by man's deeds. In contrast, the consecration of

only eaten in Jerusalem while the Temple is standing." Though some authorities have explained that the statement

Eretz Yisrael as a whole was brought about by the Jewish

in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah refers to the time when the Altar is standing, there is no indication in the Rambam's words to that effect. Furthermore, there are other inconsistencies between the Rambam's statements here and in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni. Even according to the Rambam's statements here, we are now prohibited from eating Ma'aser Sheni in Jerusalem. We are all ritually impure, and Ma'aser Sheni must be eaten in a state of ritual purity.

people. It can thus be nullified by the Gentiles. 78. As stated above in Halachot 14 and 15. 79. In Hilchot Terumah (1:5), the Rambam states: Every [place] which those ascending from Egypt took possession of was consecrated in the initial consecration. When [the Jewish people] were exiled, that sanctity was nullified. The first consecration... sanctified the land for that time, but not for eternity. 80. See the commentary to Chapter 4, Halachah 1. 81. Megillah 28a.

11

82. Support for this statement can be brought from God's response to King Solomon, II Chronicles 7:15: "For now, I

85. Chazzakah is a manifestation of ownership. It is accepted by

have chosen and sanctified this house, that My Name be there for eternity, and My eyes and My heart will be there

acknowledge the transfer of property from one person to another.

forever." Similarly,

Torah law as one of the certain formal acts of contract which

86. The Kessef Mishnah finds these statements difficult to Sh'vuot

16b

states

that

the

Temple

was

consecrated forever. Nevertheless, that statement is not accepted by all Halachic authorities. Both Rashi and the Tosafot interpret the Talmud's statements in Sh'vuot in a manner which indicates that they do not accept its simple meaning. Similarly, commenting on this and the above halachot, the Ra'avad writes: This is [the Rambam's] opinion. I am not aware of his source... According to the opinion in the Talmud which states that it was not originally consecrated for eternity, no differentiation was made between the Temple, Jerusalem, and the remainder of Eretz Yisrael... Even R. Yossi who maintains that the second consecration consecrated the land for eternity made that statement only in regard to the remainder of Eretz Yisrael and not in regard to the Temple and Jerusalem. Ezra knew that ultimately [the status] of the Temple and Jerusalem would ultimately change and that they would be eternally consecrated by God's glory [in the Messianic age]. Hence, he did not consecrate it when consecrating the remainder of Eretz Yisrael. The above was revealed to me, [as it is said:] "The secrets of God [are conveyed] to those who fear Him."

accept because of the following questions: a) On what basis is Chazzakah considered a more effective means of acquisition than conquest? b) After the initial conquest of Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people manifested their ownership over it and thus, effected a Chazzakah. If so, why is Ezra's Chazzakah, which was not preceded by conquest, more effective than the Chazzakah which followed the original conquest? Why should the conquest detract from the consecration of the land? These questions can be explained as follows: The Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 5:1) interprets Genesis 15:18: "I have given this land to your seed 48 to mean that from Abraham's time onward Eretz Yisrael became the property of the Jewish people. Though the land was still possessed by the Canaanites, the Jews were already its legal owners. See Bava Batra 119b. Despite this claim of ownership, the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael came about only after the Jewish people entered the land, after the redemption from Egypt. At that time, they were commanded to conquer the land and take it forcefully from the Gentiles (See Numbers 32:29, Deuteronomy 3:21, etc.) Since God made the consecration of the land dependent on its conquest by Israel, it follows that conquest by a Gentile nation can nullify that holiness. In contrast, Ezra was not commanded to reconquer Eretz

83. In contrast, lands that were conquered by only a certain

Yisrael, but to settle it. In this instance, God made the

portion of the Jewish community, for example, Syria, were not bound by these laws.

sanctity of the land dependent on the Jewish people manifesting their ownership over the land which had been

84. After the Babylonians conquered Eretz Yisrael and exiled the people, the sanctity of the land was nullified. There was no obligation to keep any of the agricultural laws that apply in Eretz Yisrael during the seventy years of the Babylonian exile.

given to them as an eternal inheritance. Since Eretz Yisrael remains our land, regardless of how many times it has been conquered by Gentiles, the sanctity effected by that manifestation of ownership is also eternal. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 15, 102-109.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

12

policy .

13



Beit Habechirah - Chapter 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Beit Habechirah - Chapter 6

Hebrew

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 8

There is a positive commandment to hold the Temple in awe,1 as [Leviticus 19:30] states: "And you shall revere my Sanctuary."2 Nevertheless, it is not the [physical building of] the Temple which must be held in awe, but rather, He who commanded that it be revered.3

‫מצות עשה ליראה מן המקדש‬ ‫שנאמר ומקדשי תיראו ולא מן‬ ‫המקדש אתה ירא אלא ממי שצוה על‬ :‫יראתו‬

How is reverence for it manifest? A person should not enter the Temple Mount holding a staff,4 or with sandals on his feet,5 or wearing only underwear,6 with dust on his feet, or with money wrapped in his kerchief.7

‫ואי זו היא יראתו לא יכנס אדם להר‬ ‫הבית במקלו או במנעל שברגליו או‬ ‫באפונדתו או באבק שעל רגליו או במעות‬ ‫הצרורין לו בסדינו ואין צ"ל שאסור לרוק‬ ‫בכל הר הבית אלא אם נזדמן לו רוק‬ ‫מבליעו בכסותו ולא יעשה הר הבית דרך‬ ‫שיכנס מפתח זו ויצא מפתח שכנגדה כדי‬ ‫לקצר הדרך אלא יקיפו מבחוץ ולא יכנס‬ :‫לו אלא לדבר מצוה‬

It is superfluous to say that it is forbidden to spit on the entire Temple Mount.8 If one must spit, he should let it be absorbed in his clothing.9 One should not take a shortcut through the Temple Mount, by entering from one gate, and leaving from the opposite one, in order to shorten the way.10 Rather, one should walk around from the outside, entering only for the purpose of a mitzvah.11

1

English

2

All who enter the Temple Mount12 should [face] the right side, walk around [in that direction],13 and leave on the left side.14 [This applies to everyone] except to one to whom [a grievous] event occurred. He would circle around towards the left side.15 Therefore, [those who met him] would ask him: "Why are you circling towards the left?"16

‫וכל הנכנסין להר הבית נכנסין דרך‬ ‫ימין ומקיפין ויוצאין דרך שמאל חוץ‬ ‫ממי שארעו דבר שהוא מקיף על השמאל‬ ‫לפיכך היו שואלין לו מה לך מקיף על‬ ‫השמאל שאני אבל השוכן בבית הזה‬ ‫ינחמך שאני מנודה השוכן בבית הזה יתן‬ :‫בלבבך ותשמע לדברי חבריך ויקרבוך‬

"Because I have become a mourner," [he would answer]. "May the One Who rests in this House comfort you," [they would reply]. [Or he might answer:] "Because I have been ostracized."17 [In which case, they would reply:] "May the One Who rests in this House bring about a change in your heart and thus, you will follow the words of your colleagues. Then, they will draw you near."18 Anyone who has completed his service [in the Temple and desires] to leave, should not [turn around and] leave with his back to the Temple. Rather, he should walk backwards slightly19 and [then], walk slowly, and [turn] to his side20 until leaving the Temple Courtyard.21 Similarly, the members of the priestly watch,22 the representatives of the Jewish people,23 and the Levites [when they descend] from their platform,24 should leave the Temple in this manner, similar to one who steps backwards after his prayers.25 All these [are expressions of] reverence for the Temple.

‫כל שהשלים עבודה ונסתלק לו אינו‬ ‫יוצא ואחוריו להיכל אלא מהלך‬ ‫אחורנית מעט מעט ומהלך בנחת על צדו‬ ‫עד שיצא מן העזרה וכן אנשי משמר‬ ‫ואנשי מעמד ולוים מדוכנן כך הם יוצאין‬ ‫מן המקדש כמי שפוסע אחר תפלה‬ :‫לאחוריו כל זה ליראה מן המקדש‬

A person should not act frivolously before the gate of Nicanor, the eastern gate of the Temple Courtyard,26 for it is positioned opposite the chamber of the Holy of Holies. Everyone who enters the Temple Courtyard should walk in a dignified manner,27in the region where he is permitted to enter.28 He should conceive of himself as standing before God, as [I Kings 9:3] states: "My eyes and My heart will be there forever."

‫לא יקל אדם את ראשו כנגד שער‬ ‫מזרחי של עזרה שהוא שער ניקנור‬ ‫מפני שהוא מכוון כנגד בית קדש הקדשים‬ ‫וכל הנכנס לעזרה יהלך בנחת במקום‬ ‫שמותר לו להכנס לשם ויראה עצמו שהוא‬ ‫עומד לפני י"י כמו שנאמר והיו עיני ולבי‬ ‫שם כל הימים ומהלך באימה וביראה‬ :‫ורעדה שנאמר בבית אלהים נהלך ברגש‬

One should walk with awe, fear, and trembling,29 as [Psalms 55:15] states: "We would walk in the House of the Lord with fervor."30 It is forbidden for anyone to sit in the Temple Courtyard,31 [for] sitting in the Temple Courtyard is prohibited32 except for the Kings of the House of David, as [II Samuel 7:18] states: "And King David entered and sat before the Lord."33 The Sanhedrin34 met in the half of the Chamber of Hewn Stone which was not consecrated.35

3

‫ואסור לכל אדם לישב בכל העזרה ואין‬ ‫ישיבה בעזרה אלא למלכי בית דוד‬ ‫בלבד שנאמר ויבא המלך דוד וישב לפני‬ ‫ה' והסנהדרין שהיו יושבין בלשכת הגזית‬ :‫לא היו יושבין אלא בחציה של חול‬

Even though, the Temple is now in ruin because of our sins,36 a person must hold its [site] in awe, as one would regard it when it was standing. [Therefore,] one should only enter a region which he is permitted to enter. He should not sit in [the area of] the Temple Courtyard, nor should he act frivolously when standing before [the place of] the eastern gate, as [implied by Leviticus 19:30]: "You shall observe My Sabbaths and you shall revere My Sanctuary." [Explaining the analogy between the two commands, the Sages comment:]37 "Just as the observance of the Sabbath [applies] for eternity, so too, the reverence for the Temple must be eternal. Even though it is in ruin, it remains holy." When the Temple is standing, a person may not act frivolously in the area from Mt. Scopus,38 which is outside of Jerusalem, and inwards [towards the city.39 This prohibition only applies] when he can see the Temple, and there is no fence between him and the Temple.

‫בזמן שהמקדש בנוי אסור לו לאדם‬ ‫להקל את ראשו מן הצופים שהוא‬ ‫חוץ לירושלים ולפנים והוא שיהיה רואה‬ ‫את המקדש ולא יהיה גדר מפסיק בינו ובין‬ :‫המקדש‬

At all times,40 a person may not defecate41 or sleep42 [with his body positioned] between the east and the west.43 It is superfluous to state that one should not place a toilet between the east and the west in any place [throughout the world,] for the Temple is in the west. Therefore, one should not defecate to the west nor to the east, for it is opposite the west. Rather, we should always defecate and sleep [with our bodies] to the north and south.44

‫אסור לאדם לעולם שיפנה או שיישן‬ ‫בין מזרח למערב ואין צריך לומר‬ ‫שאין קובעין בית הכסא בין מזרח למערב‬ ‫בכל מקום מפני שההיכל במערב לפיכך‬ ‫לא יפנה למערב ולא למזרח מפני שהוא‬ ‫כנגד המערב אלא בין צפון לדרום נפנים‬ ‫וישנים וכל המטיל מים מן הצופים ולפנים‬ ‫לא ישב ופניו כלפי הקדש אלא לצפון או‬ :‫לדרום או יסלק הקדש לצדדין‬

Whoever urinates from Mt. Scopus inward to the city should not sit facing the Temple. Rather, [he should position himself] to the north or to the south, or have the Temple at his side.45

4

‫אע"פ שהמקדש היום חרב בעונותינו‬ ‫חייב אדם במוראו כמו שהיה נוהג בו‬ ‫בבניינו לא יכנס אלא למקום שמותר‬ ‫להכנס לשם ולא ישב בעזרה ולא יקל‬ ‫ראשו כנגד שער המזרח שנאמר את‬ ‫שבתותי תשמורו ומקדשי תיראו מה‬ ‫שמירת שבת לעולם אף מורא מקדש‬ :‫לעולם שאף על פי שחרב בקדושתו עומד‬

5

A person may not make46 a house47 according to the Temple's design,48 a porch with the design of the Entrance Hall,49 a courtyard resembling the Temple Courtyard,50 a table according to the design of the Table for the Showbread, or a lamp in the design of the Menorah.51 However, one may make a lamp [resembling the Menorah] with five branches or with eight branches52 [even] with seven branches if it is not made of metal.53

‫ואסור לאדם שיעשה בית תבנית היכל‬ ‫אכסדרא תבנית אולם חצר כנגד‬ ‫העזרה שולחן בצורת שולחן ומנורה‬ ‫בצורת מנורה אבל עושה הוא מנורה של‬ ‫חמשה קנים או של שמונה קנים או מנורה‬ ‫שאינה של מתכת אע"פ שיש לה שבעה‬ :‫קנים‬

6

The [encampment of the Jewish people] in the desert[ was divided into] three areas:54 the camp of Israel, which subdivided into four camps;55

was

itself

the camp of the Levites about which [Numbers 1:50] states: "They shall camp around the Sanctuary;"56 and the camp of the Shechinah [which included the area] beginning at the entrance to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting inwards.57 Correspondingly, for [future] generations: [The area] from the entrance to Jerusalem to the Temple Mount is comparable to the camp of Israel.58 [The area] from the entrance to the Temple Mount until the entrance to the Temple Courtyard, the gate of Nicanor, is comparable to the camp of the Levites.59 [The area] from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard inward, is comparable to the camp of the Shechinah.60 The chayl61 and the Women's Courtyard62 were regions of increased sanctity which were first instituted in the Temple.63

‫שלש מחנות היו במדבר מחנה‬ ‫ישראל והוא ארבע מחנות ומחנה‬ ‫לויה שנאמר בה וסביב למשכן יחנו ומחנה‬ ‫שכינה והוא מפתח חצר אהל מועד‬ ‫ולפנים וכנגדן לדורות מפתח ירושלים עד‬ ‫הר הבית כמחנה ישראל ומפתח הר הבית‬ ‫עד פתח העזרה שהוא שער ניקנור‬ ‫כמחנה לויה ומפתח העזרה ולפנים מחנה‬ ‫שכינה והחיל ועזרת הנשים מעלה יתירה‬ :‫בבית עולמים‬

The entire land of Eretz Yisrael is more sanctified than all other lands. How is its holiness expressed? The Omer offering, the two loaves (offered on Shavuot), and the first fruits must be brought from its [territory] and cannot be brought from other lands.

7

‫כל ארץ ישראל מקודשת מכל‬ ‫הארצות ומה היא קדושתה‬ ‫שמביאין ממנה העומר ושתי הלחם‬ ‫והביכורים מה שאין מביאין כן משאר‬ :‫ארצות‬

8

Eretz Yisrael has ten gradations of holiness, each higher than the preceding level. The cities which are surrounded by a wall are holier than the rest of the Land. [How is this holiness expressed?] Those afflicted by tzara'at are sent out of [these cities]. A corpse cannot be buried inside them until the entire city or its seven chosen representatives agree. If a corpse has been taken outside a city, it should not be returned, even though all of the inhabitants are willing. If the inhabitants of a city desire to disinter [a corpse] and remove it from the country, they may. The graves [of any individual] may be disinterred except for those of a king or of a prophet. [The following rules apply in the case of a grave which was originally placed outside a city. Afterwards, the city grew in size to the point where] it surrounded the grave on all four sides, or merely on two sides which faced each other. If [originally,] there was more than 50 cubits between the grave and the city on either side, [the corpse] cannot be disinterred from the grave until every inhabitant of the city agrees. If a smaller distance [had originally been left,] it may be removed.

‫עשר קדושות הן בארץ ישראל וזו‬ ‫למעלה מזו עיירות המוקפות חומה‬ ‫מקודשות משאר הארץ שמשלחין מתוכן‬ ‫את המצורעים ואין קוברין בתוכן מת עד‬ ‫שירצו שבעה טובי העיר או כל אנשי‬ ‫העיר ואם יצא המת חוץ לעיר אין מחזירין‬ ‫אותו לתוכה אף על פי שרצו כולן להחזירו‬ ‫רצו בני העיר להוציא הקבר מן המדינה‬ ‫מפנין אותו וכל הקברות מפנין חוץ מקבר‬ '‫נביא או מלך קבר שהקיפתו העיר בין מד‬ ‫רוחותיו בין משתי רוחות זו כנגד זו אם‬ ‫היתה בינו ובין העיר יתר מחמשים אמה‬ ‫לכאן וחמשים לכאן אין מפנין אותו עד‬ :‫שירצו כולן פחות מכאן מפנין אותו‬

Jerusalem is holier than other walled cities. We must eat the sacrifices of lesser sanctity and the second tithes within its walls. [Because of this holiness], the following [restrictions] were enacted in regard to Jerusalem: No corpse is left within [its boundaries] overnight. Human bones may not be transported within it. Homes cannot be rented within it. A resident alien may not be given the opportunity to settle in the city. No graves may remain within [its boundaries] except for the graves of the House of David and the grave of Chuldah, the prophetess, which were there from the days of the first prophets. We should not plant gardens or orchards within the city. It cannot be sowed or plowed [as a field], so that it will not smell foul. No trees may be maintained within it, except for a rose garden which was there from the days of the first prophets. We may not maintain a garbage dump there, because of creeping animals. We may not [build] balconies or protrusions extending into the public domain because of Tumat Ohel. We may not create furnaces within it because of the smoke. We may not raise chickens within it, because 9

‫ירושלים מקודשת משאר העיירות‬ ‫המוקפות חומה שאוכלין קדשים‬ ‫קלים ומעשר שני לפנים מחומתה ואלו‬ :‫דברים שנאמרו בירושלים‬ ‫אין מלינין בה את המת ואין מעבירין‬ ‫בתוכה עצמות אדם ואין משכירין בתוכה‬ ‫בתים ואין נותנין בתוכה מקום לגר תושב‬ ‫ואין מקיימין בה קברות חוץ מקברי בית‬ ‫דוד וקבר חולדה שהיו בה מימות נביאים‬ ‫הראשונים ואין נוטעין בה גנות ופרדסים‬ ‫ואינה נזרעת ואינה נחרשת שמא תסרח‬ ‫ואין מקיימין בה אילנות חוץ מגינת ורדים‬ ‫שהיתה שם מימות נביאים הראשונים ואין‬ ‫מקיימין בה אשפה מפני השרצים ואין‬ ‫מוציאין הימנה זיזין וגזוזטראות לר"ה מפני‬ ‫אהל הטומאה ואין עושין בה כבשונות‬ ‫מפני העשן ואין מגדלין בה תרנגולות מפני‬ ‫הקדשים וכן לא יגדלו הכהנים תרנגולים‬ ‫בכל א"י מפני הטהרות ואין הבית נחלט‬ ‫בה ואינו מטמא בנגעים ואינה נעשית עיר‬ ‫הנדחת ואינה מביאה עגלה ערופה לפי‬ :‫שלא נתחלקה לשבטים‬

10

The Temple Mount is holier than [the city of Jerusalem]. Zavim, Zavot, Niddot, and women who have given birth may not enter there. [However,] a corpse may be brought into the Temple Mount and one has contracted ritual impurity from a corpse may definitely enter there.

‫הר הבית מקודש ממנה שאין זבין‬ ‫וזבות נדות ויולדות נכנסין לשם‬ ‫ומותר להכניס המת עצמו להר הבית ואין‬ :‫צריך לומר טמא מת שהוא נכנס לשם‬

The chayl is holier than the Temple Mount. Gentiles and those who contracted impurity through contact with a corpse or engaging in sexual relations with a Niddah may not enter there.

‫החיל מקודש ממנו שאין עכו"ם‬ :‫וטמא מת ובועל נדה נכנסים לשם‬

The Women's Courtyard is holier than the chayl. A person who has immersed himself in a mikveh, but must wait until the sun sets to become ritually pure, may not enter there.

‫עזרת הנשים מקודשת מן החיל שאין‬ ‫טבול יום נכנס לשם ואיסור זה‬ ‫מדבריהם אבל מן התורה מותר לטבול יום‬ ‫להכנס למחנה לויה וטמא מת שנכנס‬ :‫לעזרת הנשים אינו חייב חטאת‬

This prohibition was instituted by the Sages. According to Torah law, such a person may enter the camp of the Levites. [Similarly,] a person who contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse and who entered the Women's Courtyard, is not liable for a sin offering. The Courtyard of the Israelites is holier than the Women's Courtyard.64 A person who has purified himself, but has not brought the required sacrifices,65 may not enter there.66 Similarly, an impure person who enters there is liable for karet.67

‫עזרת ישראל מקודשת מעזרת‬ ‫נשים שאין מחוסר כפורים נכנס‬ :‫לשם וטמא שנכנס לשם חייב כרת‬

The Priestly Courtyard is holier than [the Courtyard of the Israelites].68 An Israelite may only enter there when required for:

‫עזרת הכהנים מקודשת ממנה‬ ‫שאין ישראל נכנסין לשם אלא‬ ‫צרכיהם לסמיכה ולכפרה‬ ‫בשעת‬ :‫ולשחיטה ולתנופה‬

a) Semichah,69 c) slaughtering,70 b) confession,71 tenufah.72

11

[The area] between the Altar and the Entrance Hall is holier than the area mentioned above. Priests who have physical deformities,73 have grown long hair,74 or whose [priestly] garments are torn may not enter there.75

‫בין האולם ולמזבח מקודש ממנה‬ ‫שאין בעלי מומין ופרועי ראש וקרועי‬ :‫בגדים נכנסין לשם‬

The Temple building is holier than [the area] between the Altar and the Entrance Hall. Only a priest who has sanctified his hands and feet may enter there.76

‫ההיכל מקודש מבין האולם‬ ‫ולמזבח שאין נכנס לשם אלא‬ :‫רחוץ ידים ורגלים‬

The chamber of the Holy of Holies is holier than it. Only the High Priest may enter there, on Yom Kippur, while he is involved in the Temple service.77

‫בית קדש הקדשים מקודש ממנו‬ ‫שאין נכנס לשם אלא כהן גדול‬ :‫ביום הכפורים בשעת העבודה‬

12

There was a place in the upper storey [of the Temple]78which was located directly opposite the Holy of Holies.79 It was entered only once in seven years, to [inspect it] and find out what is necessary for its repair.80 When builders [are required] to enter the Temple building to construct or repair it, or to remove an impure object,81 it is a mitzvah for the [craftsmen] who enter to be priests who do not possess any disqualifying physical deformities.82 If no [capable craftsmen meeting those criteria] can be found, priests with disqualifying deformities should enter.83

‫מקום שהיה בעלייה מכוון על‬ ‫קדש הקדשים אין נכנסין לו אלא‬ ‫פעם אחת בשבוע לידע מה הוא צריך‬ ‫לחזק בדקו בשעה שנכנסין הבנאים לבנות‬ ‫ולתקן בהיכל או להוציא משם את‬ ‫הטומאה מצוה שיהיו הנכנסין כהנים‬ ‫תמימים לא מצאו תמימים יכנסו בעלי‬ ‫מומין ואם אין שם כהנים יכנסו לוים לא‬ ‫מצאו לוים יכנסו ישראל מצוה בטהורים‬ ‫לא מצאו טהורים יכנסו טמאים טמא ובעל‬ ‫מום יכנס בעל מום ואל יכנס טמא‬ ‫שהטומאה דחויה בציבור וכל הנכנסין‬ ‫להיכל לתקן יכנסו בתיבות אם אין שם‬ ‫תיבות או א"א להם שיעשו בתיבות יכנסו‬ :‫דרך פתחים‬

If none are found, Levites should enter.84 If none are found, Israelites should enter. It is a mitzvah for [those who enter] to be ritually pure. If no [capable craftsman] who are ritually pure can be found, impure [craftsmen] may enter.85 [If there is a choice between a craftsman] who is impure and a priest with a disqualifying deformity, the priest with the deformity should enter, for [although the prohibitions against] ritual impurity are put aside in regard to matters which concern the entire people, [they are not relaxed completely].86 All those who enter to repair the Temple87 should be lowered down inside crates [from the upper floor].88 If no crates are available or if it is impossible [to make arrangements for them to enter] using crates, they may enter through the [usual] entrances.

« Previous Beit Habechirah - Chapter 6

Next » Beit Habechirah - Chapter 8

13

FOOTNOTES 1. Sefer HaMitzvot(Positive Commandment 21) and Sefer

14. Tosafot Yom Tov explains that this does not necessarily

HaChinuch (mitzvah 254) consider this as one of the 613

mean that one would exit from the gate in the opposite direction. Rather, one would continue circling towards the

mitzvot, incumbent on both men and women. 2. As explained in Halachot 7-9, the fulfillment of this Mitzvah is not limited to the time when the Temple stood, but is applicable even at present. 3. This clause is quoted from Yevamot 6a,b. Tosefot explain that such a clarification is necessary, lest the Jewish people

right, even though it would be shorter to leave by turning towards the left. 15. Tifferet Yisrael (Middot, loc. cit.) explains that this distinction was made so that all who see him would be aroused to pray for his welfare. See also Shabbat 67a.

worship the Temple per se, bowing down to the physical building or showing it other signs of reverence.

16. Magen Avraham 651:21 states that from these statements, it

4. The source for these statements is the Mishnah (Berachot

listed would circle to the left. Generally, a left-handed person must give his left hand prominence, as others do the right. In

9:6). The Talmud accepts these as signs of reverence without even questioning the source for these practices.

appears that only a person who suffered one of the fates

this instance, however, he would circle to the right even though it is his weaker side.

5. When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, He told him (Exodus 3:5): "Remove your shoes from your feet, for the

17. Under certain circumstances, the court would place a person

place on which you are standing is holy." Similarly, on the Temple Mount, shoes had to be removed.

who did not follow its directives under a ban of ostracism, restricting the business and social relations he could have

The Minchat Chinuch states that one may wear shoes on

with other Jews. See Hilchot Talmud Torah, chs. 6-7.

the Temple Mount if they are not made of leather.

18. The Mishnah (Middot, loc. cit.) relates that Rabbi Meir

6. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot, loc. cit.), the

maintained that the people would answer: "May the One

Rambam defines the word, afundaso, as "a garment which

Who dwells in this House cause them to have a change of heart and accept you." Rabbi Yossi explained that such an

one will wear against his flesh to collect sweat, so that his sweat will not spoil his dress clothing." 7. Tosafot, in Bava Metzia 26a, explain that only the public display of money is prohibited. One may carry money discreetly in his pockets. 8. Berachot 62b explains that this concept may be inferred from

expression makes it appear that the court was unfair in its judgment and suggests the phrase quoted by the Rambam. 19. Yoma 53a explains that one must leave the Temple service facing in the same direction as when he entered. 20. One need not walk backwards the entire way. However, it is

the prohibition against wearing shoes. If wearing shoes

also improper to turn one's back to the Temple.

which generally is not considered an act of disrespect is forbidden, then surely spitting is not allowed.

21. At which point he may walk in an ordinary manner.

9. The Har HaMoriah explains that this law was derived from Berachot 24b, which recommended this course of action to someone who has to spit in the midst of the Amidah prayers. 10. Berachot, loc. cit., also considers this as a lack of respect. 11. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the latter concept is derived from Megillah 28b, where a similar statement is made in reference to a person's entering a synagogue. 12. The Rambam's statements are based on Middot 2:2. By quoting that mishnah here, he implies that these practices are also an expression of deference to the Temple (Rambam LeAm). 13. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes: "For example, one who enters through the gate of Shushan, [the eastern gate,] should not turn toward the Chuldah gates, [the southern gates,] but rather toward the Tadi gate, [the northern gate]."

22. In order to allow the priests to serve in the Temple throughout the year in an organized manner, the prophets organized a rotation system, dividing the entire priestly family into 24 watches. Each watch would serve for a week and perform all the sacrificial functions required. The following week they would be replaced by a new watch according to the order of rotation. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, Chapter 4, Halachah 3.

14

23. This refers to the Anshei Ma'amaad, who represented the entire Jewish people. In Hilchot Klei HaMikdash, Chapter 6, Halachah 1, the Rambam describes their function as follows: It is impossible for a person's offering to be sacrificed unless he is present. The communal offerings are the sacrifices of the entire Jewish people, [and hence, their

33. The narrative in II Samuel relates that after sitting, David stated: "Who am I, O Lord, God, and what is my house that You have brought me this far." At the moment when he was granted this great honor, he displayed humility. 34. Who sat. 35. See Chapter 5, Halachah 17, and Chapter 6, Halachah 7.

presence should be required. Nevertheless,] since it is impossible for the entire Jewish people to be present in the

36. The Rambam uses the expressions "our sins," rather than "the sins of our ancestors," for all Israel, in every generation

Temple Courtyard while sacrifices are being offered, the first prophets established a practice of choosing worthy

and every place, is one communal body. The usage of the term "our" also implies a deeper concept.

and God-fearing men....to serve as the representatives of all of Israel, and to be present at the sacrifices...They were

Our Sages declared: "Whoever does not witness the rebuilding of the Temple in his days must consider as if it

divided into 24 watches.

was destroyed in his days." The exile and the Temple's destruction were caused by the

See also Ta'anit 4:2. 24. After accompanying the sacrifices with songs and music. 25. After the conclusion of the Amidah prayer, one retreats backwards three steps as "a servant departs from his master's presence." (Yoma 53b. See also Hilchot Tefillah 5:10. The commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 123:1) explain that since the prayers were instituted to replace the sacrifices, one should conclude his prayers in the same manner as the priests departed from their service. 26. Rashi, commenting on Berachot 54a, explains that this also applies to someone standing outside the Temple Mount. See also Halachah 8. 27. On this statement, the Ra'avad comments: "And not as common people conduct themselves." 28. As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and in Chapter 5, Halachah 12, there were divisions in the Temple Courtyard for the priests and for the Israelites.

sins of the Jewish people. As soon as sin, the cause for the exile, is eradicated, the effect, the exile, will cease. Similarly, our Sages declared: "If Israel repents, she will immediately be redeemed." 37. Midrash Tanchuma, Vayikra 6. 38. As stated above, even when the Temple is destroyed, one may not act frivolously directly opposite the gate to the Courtyard. However, when the Temple was standing, that prohibition was extended, and included any place within sight of Jerusalem. (Meiri, Berachot 61b.) 39. Berachot, loc. cit., explains that Mt. Scopus is the most distant point from which one can see the Temple site. 40. I.e., even at present, when the Temple is destroyed. It must be noted that with slight emendations, the following laws are all quoted as Halachah by the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, sec. 3. 41. Most of the Rabbis explain that there is no prohibition if the

29. The Targum Yonatan renders Leviticus 19:30: "And you shall

toilet is surrounded by a wall. However, the Rambam's phraseology does not imply such license. Therefore, some

revere My Sanctuary" as "Walk to My Sanctuary with fear." See also Ecclesiastics 4:17: "Guard your feet when you walk

authorities recommend that, if possible, one should construct his home with the toilet facing the north or south.

to the House of God." 30. See Rashi, Avot 6:3. 31. The Mishneh LiMelech states that this prohibition appears

42. Most authorities follow the opinion of the Tosafot (Berachot 5b) who explain that this prohibition only applies when sleeping with one's wife. However, Rav Yosef Caro

Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 21, the Rambam

emphasizes that according to the Rambam, the prohibition applies even when sleeping alone and strongly urges that

includes this prohibition as one expression of reverence for

this ruling be accepted.

to have its source in the Torah itself.

the Temple. 32. Rashi (Yoma 25a) explains that this prohibition is derived from Deuteronomy 18:5: "For the Lord has chosen him...to

43. The Halachic authorities question whether the Rambam's intention is to stress the directions of east and west or the direction of the Temple itself. The Jerusalem Talmud

stand and to serve in the name of the Lord." Tosafot (Yoma, ibid.) question whether the priests are

(Berachot 9:5) states that, regardless of where one is

permitted to sit in the courtyard when they partake of the sacrifices of the most holy order. From the Rambam's

Shechinah is in the west." On the other hand, certain

statements, it appears that he does not permit such leniency.

Talmud (Berachot 61b), the location of Jerusalem is the

located, one should not face the west, because "the authorities emphasize that according to the Babylonian determining factor.

44. The Rabbis explain that although it is preferable to follow the Rambam's view, one may position his bed between the east and the west if there is no other alternative.

50. The Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) states that this prohibition does not extend beyond the Temple Courtyard. One may make a copy of the chayl, the rampart surrounding the Courtyard, or another similar structure.

45. Less severe restrictions are placed on urinating than on defecating. However, from the point where one can see the

51. The Minchat Chinuch questions if these two utensils were

Temple site, Mt. Scopus, one should also control oneself in this regard.

mentioned only as examples, and the same prohibition applies to the other sacred utensils, or if the Rambam meant

46. The Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 254), explains that this prohibition also stems from the command to revere the

them exclusively. He concludes that we may not make a replica of any utensil whose exact dimensions are known to

Sanctuary. A building or utensil that cannot be copied is obviously unique and special, and emphasis on its

us. He also emphasizes that the prohibition against making a

uniqueness will lead to reverence.

replica of the Menorah applies even if the goblets, bulbs, and flowers are omitted, since the Menorah is acceptable without

47. Based on Avodah Zarah 43a, it would appear that the prohibition forbids constructing a building following the

them when made from other metals (Chapter 3, Halachah 4).

Temple's measurements exactly, but making a model in miniature would be permitted.

52. Indeed, it is customary to make Chanukah lamps in the shape of the Menorah.

48. The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 254) analyzes this prohibition

53. As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 18, the sacred utensils must be made of metal. Hence, there is no prohibition

in depth and raises a number of issues, including the following:

against making a replica from other substances.

a) The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 43a) explains that the

54. With these statements, the Rambam introduces the following twelve Halachot, which discuss various gradations of

source for this prohibition is the command against making

holiness. These statements are based on the Tosafta, Kelim

images, as the Torah commands (Exodus 20:20): "Do not make with Me gods of silver..." If so, on the surface, it

1:10 and Zevachim 116b.

would have been more appropriate for the Rambam to mention this concept within the laws of Avodah Zarah (worship of false gods) rather than in Hilchot

Beit

HaBechirah. Indeed, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:8, discuss these prohibitions in that context. b) As explained above, the structure of the Second Temple differed from the First and the dimensions of the Third Temple will not resemble those of the Second in their entirety. Thus, we must understand: Which structure are we forbidden to copy, that of the First or the Second Temple? Does the prohibition apply only when the Temple is standing, or does it apply to all three structures?

55. See Numbers 2:1-31, which describes the division of the twelve tribes into the camps of Judah, Reuven, Ephraim, and Dan. 56. The Levites would dwell in a separate encampment, between the camp of Israel and the Courtyard of the Sanctuary. The particular encampment of each Levite family is described in Numbers, Chapter 3. 57. No one was permitted to dwell in this region. People would enter only to participate in the service of the Sanctuary. 58. The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 14. 59. The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 15.

The Minchat Chinuch himself, tends towards the opinion that at present there is no prohibition to duplicate the previous structures of the Temple. Only in the Third Temple, may it be built speedily in our days, will this prohibition apply. The text, Ma'asai LiMelech, explains that the Rambam's source for this prohibition is not the abovementioned

61. The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 16. 62. The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 17.

Talmudic portion, but rather the obligation of awe and reverence referred to previously. It is not respectful to

63. Parrallels to these divisions did not exist in the encampment

duplicate the Temple or its structures and use them for mundane purposes.

in the desert. They were instituted when the First Temple was constructed.

49. Despite the fact that the Entrance Hall had walls on all four sides. Nevertheless, since its gate was large, 40 cubits high and 20 cubits wide, and open at all times, it resembled a porch.

15

60. The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 18.

16

64. As mentioned in the commentary to Chapter 6, Halachah 4, the physical height of the different regions of the Temple

71. In Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:14-15, the Rambam

Mount corresponded to the difference in spiritual level. There was a marked distinction between the Temple Courtyard and

confess his sins while laying his hands on his sacrifice. It must be noted that the source for this Halachah, Kelim 1:8,

the preceding regions. Until this point, there was no Scriptural prohibition against entering when ritually impure.

does not mention these confessional prayers. Note the commentary of the Har HaMoriah.

Correspondingly, the greatest rise in height between the different levels occurred at this point.

72. With regard to the peace offerings, Leviticus 7:30-31 states:

65. In Hilchot Michusrei Kapporah (1:1), the Rambam writes:

relates that a person offering a sacrifice is required to

"With his own hands, he must bring the choice parts.... He shall wave the chest with the prescribed motions...." The

There are four who are considered "lacking in purification:" a) a zavah,

waving of these offerings had to be performed by the person bringing the sacrifice himself. See Hilchot Ma'aseh

b) a woman who has just given birth, c) a zav,

HaKorbanot 9:6-10.

d) one afflicted with tzara'at. Why are they called "lacking in purification?" Because in each of these cases, even though the individual has: a) been purified from [the cause of] his impurity, b) immersed [in a Mikveh,] and c) waited until the day has passed, he is still lacking. His purification process is not complete enough to entitle him to partake of the sacrifices until he brings the offering [required of] him. 66. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kelim 1:8), the Rambam

73. Leviticus 21:16-23 describes the various physical deformities which disqualify a priest from service in the Temple. The concluding verse of that passage reads: "He shall not come near the Parochet or approach the Altar." In Hilchot Biat HaMikdash (6:1) and in Sefer HaMitzvot (neg. command 69), the Rambam explains that entering this area constitutes a violation of a Torah prohibition. It must be noted that Nachmanides does not accept the Rambam' opinion and views this prohibition as Rabbinic in origin (Hasagot L'Sefer HaMitzvot). 74. In Hilchot Biat HaMikdash (1:8), the Rambam writes:

writes: We have prevented a person from entering the Women's Courtyard though he has immersed himself in a mikveh, because he must wait until the sun sets to become ritually pure. However, we need not force away a person who has purified himself, but who has not brought the required sacrifices. [Why is there a distinction between the two?] Because the former is prohibited from eating Terumah, while the latter is permitted to partake of Terumah. The above is based on the principle mentioned above: "All those whose state of impurity is more severe will be banished in a more severe manner." 67. Premature death by the hand of God. 68. To clarify this distinction, the step between the two was a cubit high (See Chapter 6, Halachah 3) and marking posts were placed at either side. 69. In connection with the peace-offerings, Leviticus 3:2 declares: "He shall lay his hands on the head of his offering." See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:6-13. 70. A person who brings a sacrifice is not required to slaughter it. However, the slaughtering of a sacrifice need not be performed by a priest. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:1.

A priest who has grown long hair is forbidden to enter [the area] beyond the Altar. If he transgresses [this command] and enters, he is liable to die by the hand of God, as a drunkard who participates in the Temple service, as it is said (Ezekiel 44:20-21): "All the priests shall not drink wine...nor shall they grow long hair." 75. In Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 1:14, the Rambam explains that the Torah established an analogy between priests who have long hair and those whose priestly garments are torn, as Leviticus 10:6 states: "Do not let the hair of your heads grow long, nor rend your clothes." Therefore, the same prohibitions apply in both cases. Kelim 1:9, which is the source for this Halachah, does not mention the prohibition against entering this region with torn garments. Also, it is significant to mention that in Hilchot Biat HaMikdash (1:1), the Rambam explains that a priest who has drunk wine is bound by the same prohibitions.

17

76. The priests were obligated to sanctify their hands and feet before taking part in the Temple service. Thus, with this

80. Pesachim 86a mentions three opinions concerning the

terminology, the Mishnah (Kelim, loc. cit., and the Rambam

years, once in fifty years, and once every seven years as quoted above. See Tosafot Yom Tov, Middot 4:5.

are referring to a priest involved in the Temple service. The above statement can be compared with Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:2, where the Rambam writes: All the priests were warned not to enter the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies except when involved in the Temple service as [Leviticus 16:2] states: "Let him not enter the Sanctuary at all times, [to] the chamber of the Parochet." ["The Sanctuary"] refers to the Holy of Holies, "the chamber of the Parochet," to the entire Temple building. 77. The above-mentioned verse in Leviticus continues: "In this

frequency in which this chamber was entered: twice in seven

81. Eruvin 104b and 105a explain that this impurity could be either the body of one of the eight crawling species (sheratzim) which convey ritual impurity, or alternatively, sacraments belonging to idol worship that were placed in the Temple. II Chronicles (Chapter 29) explains that the Temple was cleansed of idol worship by King Chezekiah, and that narrative serves as a source from which these laws were derived. 82. As mentioned in Halachah 20, priests with disqualifying physical deformities were generally forbidden to proceed beyond the Priestly Courtyard.

manner, shall Aaron enter the Holy place" and proceeds to describe the details of the Yom Kippur service.

83. Eruvin, loc. cit., explains that the prohibition against these

The High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies four times on Yom Kippur:

priests entering the more sanctified portions of the Temple implies the permission to enter should they be required for

a) to bring the incense offering; b) to sprinkle the blood of the bull offered as atonement for himself; c) to sprinkle the blood of the goat sacrificed as atonement for the Jewish people; d) to remove the incense holder.

within the Priestly Courtyard. from the laws of ritual purity do not apply to cases involving communal offerings for the entire Jewish people. 86. This statement has stirred much controversy among the commentaries. See the Kessef Mishneh and the Mishneh

Kippur. See also Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim.

LiMelech.

78. See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.

Although the Sages all agreed that the restrictions stemming from ritual impurity did not apply to cases involving

79. The Tosefta (Kelim 1:7) states: Abba Saul declares: "[The status of] the upper storey of the Holy of Holies is more strict [than that of] the Holy of Holies. In regard to the Holy of Holies, the High Priest enters four times each year, on Yom Kippur...[In contrast,] they would only enter the upper storey of the Holy of Holies "That

84. The Levites are granted precedence, since they are allowed to proceed beyond the Israelites and to stand on the steps 85. This leniency is allowed because the restrictions stemming

We recite a description of the High Priest's service on Yom Kippur in the Avodah portion of the Musaf prayers on Yom

once in seven years..." They replied to him:

their craftmanship.

is

not

considered

a

distinguishing quality." Certain commentaries explain that the Rambam placed this Halachah here to indicate his acceptance of Abba Saul's view. Although there are other reasons to support this argument, it would appear that the Rambam subscribes to the other view mentioned in the Tosefta. In Halachah 13, he stated that there are ten levels of holiness and proceeded to enumerate them, concluding with the highest level in Halachah 22. Furthermore, the opening phrase of each of those halachot, states: "... is holier than it..." and this halachah does not begin in that fashion.

communal offerings for the entire Jewish people, they debated (Yoma 6b) the nature of the leniency. Rav Nachman maintains that once a need arises, all the restrictions governing ritual impurity are relaxed entirely. Rav Sheshet argues that these restrictions are only "put aside" when there is no alternative, and wherever possible, the restrictions should be maintained. In Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:15, the Rambam rules according to Rav Sheshet's opinion. In our mishnah, both a craftsman who is impure, and a priest with a disqualifying physical deformity, are prohibited from entering the Temple. The prohibition against entering while impure is more severe. Thus, Rav Sheshet's opinion would explain that although the restrictions against entering while impure are "put aside" to repair the Temple, total license is not granted. Hence, in this instance, since an alternative exists, it should be employed, and the priests with the deformities should be allowed to enter. 87. Middot 4:5 mentions this practice only in regard to the Holy of Holies. However, Eruvin (loc. cit.) and the Tosefta (loc. cit.) apply the concept to the entire Temple building.

88. Middot 4:5, and Rambam (Chapter 4, Halachah 13) explain that this practice was instituted "so that they would not satiate their eyes, [gazing at] the chamber of the Holy of Holies."

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

18

policy .

1



Beit Habechirah - Chapter 8 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Beit Habechirah - Chapter 7

English

Hebrew

Next » Klei Hamikdash

There is a positive mitzvah to guard the Temple.1 [This mitzvah applies] even though there is no fear of enemies or thieves, for the guarding [of the Temple] is an expression of respect for it. A palace with guards is [much more impressive] than a palace without guards.2

‫שמירת המקדש מצות עשה ואע"פ‬ ‫שאין שם פחד מאויבים ולא‬ ‫מלסטים שאין שמירתו אלא כבוד לו אינו‬ ‫דומה פלטרין שיש עליו שומרין לפלטרין‬ :‫שאין עליו שומרין‬

The mitzvah of guarding [the Temple] applies throughout the night.3

‫ושמירה זו מצותה כל הלילה‬ ‫והשומרים הם הכהנים והלוים‬ ‫שנאמר ואתה ובניך אתך לפני אהל‬ ‫העדות כלומר אתם תהיו שומרים לו והרי‬ ‫נאמר ושמרו את משמרת אהל מועד‬ ‫ונאמר והחונים קדמה לפני אהל מועד‬ ‫מזרחה משה ואהרן ובניו שומרי משמרת‬ :‫הקדש‬

The priests and Levites shall serve as guards,4 as [Numbers 18:2] states: "And you and your sons [shall be] before the tent of the testimony,"5 i.e., you shall keep watch over it. Also, [ibid. 18:4] states: "And they [the Levites] shall watch over the Tent of Meeting,"6 and [ibid. 3:38] states: "And Moses,7 Aharon, and his sons8 shall camp before the Sanctuary towards the east, and they will be the guardians of the holy watch."9

2

Anyone who nullifies this watch transgress a negative commandment,10 as [Numbers 18:5] states: "And you shall take care to keep the Holy Watch." Any form of the verb, shemar, "take care," implies a warning against transgressing a negative command.11

‫ואם בטלו שמירה עברו בלא תעשה‬ ‫שנאמר ושמרו את משמרת הקדש‬ ‫ולשון שמירה אזהרה היא הא למדת‬ ‫ששמירתו מצות עשה וביטול שמירתו‬ :‫מצות לא תעשה‬

Thus, guarding [the Temple fulfills] a positive command and nullifying its watch [represents the violation of] a negative command. The mitzvah of guarding [the Temple] is [as follows:] The priests stood guard from the inside and the Levites from the outside.12 24 groups of guards stood watch over it continuously, each night, in 24 [different] places.13 The priests stood guard in three places14 and the Levites, in 21 places.15

‫מצות שמירתו שיהיו הכהנים‬ ‫שומרים מבפנים והלוים מבחוץ וכ"ד‬ ‫עדה שומרין אותו בכל לילה תמיד בכ"ד‬ ‫מקום הכהנים בג' מקומות והלוים בכ"א‬ :‫מקום‬

Where did they keep watch? The priests kept watch in the Chamber of Avtinas, the Chamber of the Spark, and the Chamber of the Hearth.16

‫והיכן היו שומרים כהנים היו שומרים‬ ‫בבית אבטינס ובבית הניצוץ ובבית‬ ‫המוקד בית אבטינס ובית הניצוץ היו‬ ‫עליות בנויות בצד שערי העזרה והרובין‬ ‫היו שומרים שם בית המוקד כיפה ובית‬ ‫גדול היה מוקף רובדין של אבן וזקני בית‬ ‫אב של אותו היום היו ישנים שם ומפתחות‬ :‫העזרה בידם‬

The Chamber of Avtinas17 and the Chamber of the Spark18 were two-storey structures built at the sides of the gates of the Temple Courtyard.19 The young priests kept watch there.20 The Chamber of the Hearth was a large, domed structure,21 surrounded [on the inside] with projections of stone.22 The elders of the priestly watch of that day23 slept there24 with the keys to the Temple Courtyard25 in their hands.26

3

The priests on watch did not sleep27 in the priestly garments.28 Instead, they folded them, placed them at their heads,29 and wore their own clothes. They slept on the ground. It is customary for all those who stand watch over the courtyards of kings not to sleep on beds. If one of them had a seminal emission [in his sleep],30 he would proceed down the winding underground stairwell.31 [There was no prohibition involved], because the underground passageways that opened up to [the portion of] the Temple Mount [outside the Courtyard] were not consecrated.32

‫לא היו הכהנים השומרים ישנים בבגדי‬ ‫כהונה אלא מקפלין אותן ומניחין אותן‬ ‫כנגד ראשיהן ולובשין בגדי עצמן וישנים‬ ‫על הארץ כדרך כל שומרי חצירות‬ :‫המלכים שלא יישנו על המטות‬

‫אירע קרי לאחד מהן הולך במסיבה‬ ‫שתחת הקרקע שהמחילות הפתוחות‬ ‫להר הבית לא נתקדשו וטובל וחוזר ויושב‬ ‫אצל אחיו הכהנים עד שנפתחין השערים‬ :‫בבוקר יוצא והולך לו‬

[There,] he would immerse himself. [He would then] return and sit among his fellow priests33 until the gates were opened in the morning. [At that time,] he would leave and proceed [to his own affairs].34 Where would the Levites stand watch?35 Inside the five gates to the Temple Mount;36 At its four corners [of the wall surrounding the Temple Mount] from the inside; At the outside of four corners of the Temple Courtyard, for it is forbidden to sit in the Temple Courtyard;37

‫והיכן היו הלוים שומרים על חמשה‬ ‫שערי הר הבית ועל ארבע פנותיו‬ ‫מתוכו ועל ארבע פינות העזרה מבחוץ‬ ‫שאסור לישב בעזרה ועל חמשה שערי‬ ‫העזרה חוץ לעזרה שהרי הכהנים שומרים‬ ‫על שער המוקד ועל שער הניצוץ הרי‬ :‫שמנה עשר מקום‬

At the outside of five [of the seven] gates to the Temple Courtyard, for the priests stood watch at [the remaining two gates], the Chamber of the Hearth and the Gate of the Spark;38 a total of eighteen locations. They also stood watch in the Chamber of the Sacrifices,39 the Chamber of the Parochet,40 and behind the Holy of Holies.41

‫ועוד שומרים בלשכת הקרבן‬ ‫ובלשכת הפרוכת ואחורי בית‬ :‫הכפורת‬

4

An overseer was appointed over all the watches of guards. He was called: "The officer of the Temple Mount."42 Throughout the night, he checked on all the watches. Torches were lit before him.43 If a guard did not stand before him and greet him: "Peace be unto you, officer of the Temple Mount," he would assume that he was sleeping, and would strike him with his staff.44 He was even granted permission to burn [a sleeping guard's] clothing.45

‫ומעמידין ממונה אחד על כל משמרות‬ ‫השומרים ואיש הר הבית היה נקרא‬ ‫והיה מחזר על כל משמר ומשמר כל‬ ‫הלילה ואבוקות דלוקות לפניו וכל משמר‬ ‫שאינו עומד ואומר לו איש הר הבית שלום‬ ‫עליך ניכר שהוא ישן חובטו במקלו ורשות‬ ‫היה לו לשרוף את כסותו עד שהיו אומרין‬ ‫בירושלים מה קול בעזרה קול בן לוי לוקה‬ :‫ובגדיו נשרפין שישן על משמרתו‬

Thus, it was commonly said in Jerusalem: "What is the noise in the Temple Courtyard [at night]? It must be the voice of a Levite being beaten and his clothes burned because he slept on his watch."46 In the morning, shortly before dawn,47 the overseer of the Sanctuary48 came49 and tapped50 to awaken the priests sleeping in the Chamber of the Hearth.51 [When] they opened [the gate] for him, he took the keys52 and opened the small gate leading from the Chamber of the Hearth to the Temple Courtyard.53 [Then] he entered the Courtyard, and the priests followed him. They held two torches of fire in their hands and divided into two groups. One proceeded eastward and the other, westward.54 They walked on, checking the entire Temple Courtyard.55 Both groups [met when they] reached the Chamber of the Bakers of the Chavitin.56 When both groups reached [that point], they declared: "Peace be unto you. Everything is at peace."57 [Afterwards,] they prompted the bakers of the Chavitin to begin their work.58

‫בשחר קודם שיעלה עמוד השחר‬ ‫סמוך לו יבוא הממונה של מקדש‬ ‫וידפוק על הכהנים שבבית המוקד והן‬ ‫פותחין לו נטל את המפתח ופתח את‬ ‫השער הקטן שבין בית המוקד ובין העזרה‬ ‫ונכנס מבית המוקד לעזרה ונכנסו אחריו‬ ‫הכהנים ושתי אבוקות של אור בידם‬ ‫ונחלקו לשתי כתות כת הולכת למזרח וכת‬ ‫הולכת למערב והיו בודקין והולכין את כל‬ ‫העזרה עד שיגיעו שתי הכתות למקום בית‬ ‫עושי חביתין הגיעו אלו ואלו אומרין שלום‬ ‫הכל שלום והעמידו עושי חביתין לעשות‬ :‫חביתין‬

5

59

This pattern was followed each night except on Sabbath eve. [Then,] they did not hold torches in their hands.60 Rather, they checked by the light of the candles, which remained burning from the Sabbath eve.61

‫כסדר הזה עושין בכל לילה ולילה‬ ‫חוץ מלילי שבת שאין בידם אור‬ ‫אלא בודקין בנרות הדלוקין שם מערב‬ :‫שבת‬

« Previous

Next » Klei Hamikdash

Beit Habechirah - Chapter 7 FOOTNOTES 1. The Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 22)

3. In his commentary to Tamid, the Ra'avad states that the

and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 388) list this as one of the

priests and Levites also stood watch during the day. The

613 commandments.

Minchat Chinuch mentions that view, explaining that the

2. The Kessef Mishneh mentions another reason for guarding

Rambam explained that the reason for the priestly watch was

the Temple: to prevent those who are forbidden to enter from

to show deference to the Temple during the day as well. Just as a palace of an earthly king is guarded both at day and at

entering. The place where both the Mishnah and the Rambam describe the watch which the priests and the Levites kept over the Temple has aroused the attention of the commentaries: The Mishnah repeats its description of the watch in two places: at the beginning of the tractate of Tamid, which relates the order of the priests' service, and the beginning of the tractate of Middot, which defines the

night, so too, it is proper to keep watch over the Temple in this manner. Nevertheless, the Tifferet Yisrael (Middot 1:1) explains that since the priests were involved in the Temple service throughout the entire day, that in itself is a clear sign of honor and respect to the Temple, and no further measures were necessary. This view is supported by the commentary of the Rabbenu

structure of the Temple. The Rambam describes this mitzvah in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, which describes the construction

Asher at the beginning of the tractate of Tamid. He explains

of the Temple, but not the details of the priests' service. On this basis, the commentaries explain, we can understand

that the reason for keeping watch over the Temple was to have our attention focused on it at all times. That purpose is

two dimensions implicit in this mitzvah: a) The priests' responsibility to prevent those forbidden to

surely accomplished by the Temple service, and hence, watchmen are not required then.

enter from entering; and b) The responsibility incumbent on the entire Jewish people

Accordingly, it appears that the watch would be maintained until the service in the Temple began, with the removal of the

to construct and maintain the Temple in the most fitting manner.

Altar's ashes at dawn. Thus, we can understand the last halachah of this chapter, which deals with the preparation of

Since the presence of guards enhances the glory of the Sanctuary, the mitzvah of guarding the Sanctuary can be

the Sanctuary for the service of the following day, as describing the final aspects of the nightly watch. See

seen as an aspect of its very structure. See Likkutei Sichot,

Likkutei Sichot, loc. cit.

Vol. 13, p. 56-65.

4. The places where the priests and Levites kept watch are described in Halachot 4-9. 5. This verse begins: "And the Lord said to Aaron," thus, indicating the responsibility of Aaron and his sons, the priests, to keep watch over the Sanctuary. 6. Indicating that the Levites were also charged with that responsibility. 7. A Levite. 8. Priests.

9. Thus, this verse indicates that the task was shared by the Priests and Levites together (Tamid 26a).

20. According to Tamid 27a, the term, "young priests," refers to

16It must be noted that, in order to emphasize the concept he wishes to communicate, the Rambam does not quote the

services. According to the Ra'avad, these youth were not even thirteen years of age.

latter verse exactly.

youth who were too young to participate in the Temple

The Mishneh LiMelech rejects that opinion, declaring that

10. T(Sefer HaMitzvot (negattive commandment 67) and the

this Mitzvah would not be entrusted to children that young.

Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 331) list this as one of the 613

He explains that until the age of twenty, priests were not granted the opportunity to take part in the Temple services.

commandments. 11. See Menachot 36b. 12. According to the simple meaning "inside" and "outside" refer to the Temple Courtyard. The Levites stood guard outside the Courtyard and the priests, inside. However, the Minchat Chinuch renders "inside" as within a building, and "outside" as in the open. 13. Tamid 27a explains the derivation of this practice as I

Thus, the "young priests" were youth below that age, but past majority. See also the Minchat Chinuch. 21. 13See Chapter 5, Halachot 10 and 11. 22. As mentioned above, half of the Chamber of the Hearth was considered consecrated, while half was not. According to the principle that one could not lie or sit in the consecrated areas of the Courtyard, it would appear that only half of the chamber was surrounded by these projections.

Chronicles (26:17-18), which states: To the east there were six Levites, to the north, four..., to

23. 13As mentioned in the commentary to Chapter 7, Halachah 4, there were 24 priestly watches. Each served in the Temple

the south, four..., towards Assupin, two and two. At Parber to the west, there were four at the winding stairway and

for a week, and then another watch was given a chance to serve. There was a set pattern of rotation.

two at the Parber.

Within these watches, there were further subdivisions. Each weekly watch was broken down into six daily watches for

Thus, there were a total of twenty-four guard positions. Even though this verse describes the watch over the Sanctuary constructed in David's time, and not the Temple itself, the same basic pattern was followed in the later structure. 14. As described in the following three Halachot. Although the above verse specifically mentions Levites, the priests are sometimes (e.g., Ezekiel 44:15) referred to as Levites (Tamid, loc. cit.). Tamid 26a offers two different explanations why the priests would be placed in three different positions. The first explains that the command to keep watch over the Sanctuary was originally given to Aharon and his sons, a total of three individuals. The second notes that the command to guard the Temple mentions the words "keep watch," three times in the same verse. 15. As described in Halachot 8 and 9. 16. See Tamid 1:1, Middot 1:1. 17. This structure was located on the south side of the Temple Courtyard, adjacent to the Water Gate. 18. This was the westernmost gate on the northern side of the Temple Courtyard. See Chapter 5, Halachah 4.

24. Tamid 26b explains that they slept on these protrusions, because it was disrespectful to bring beds into the Temple complex. 25. The gates to the Temple Courtyard were locked at night. 26. The Vilna Gaon renders this expression as "in their possession." This change is made on the basis of Middot 1:9, which states that the keys to the Temple Courtyard were kept on a special ring in the Chamber of the Hearth. 27. From the Rambam's statements, it appears that the priests would be permitted to sleep while on guard duty. This is difficult to accept, for the following reasons: a) The purpose for posting guards around the Temple was to show respect. That objective is not fulfilled by sleeping. b) Halachah 10, which quotes Middot 1:2, states that the guards would be punished for sleeping while on duty. Although the Rambam and the Mishnah specifically mention "Levites," it is reasonable to assume that term was used because the majority of the guards were Levites. For these reasons, the Mishneh LiMelech explains that all of

19. The reason why these were two-floor structures can be explained in terms of the Rambam's words above, Chapter 6,

the guards were not required to remain awake the entire night. Rather, at any particular time, there would be one or

Halachah 7. There, the Rambam writes that the roofs and upper floors of the structures in the Temple Courtyard were

two guards awake at each station and the others were permitted to sleep.

not consecrated. This is very significant, for were they to have been consecrated, it would have been forbidden for the

28. This refers to the four priestly garments which an ordinary priest was required to wear while serving in the Temple.

priests to sit or lie there, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 6.

6

each day of the week. On the Sabbath, all the priests of that watch served together.

7

29. The priests could not place their priestly garments under their heads to serve as pillows, for they were forbidden to derive benefit from them. See Yoma 69a. In his commentary to Tamid, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1, the Rambam explains that this prohibition was instituted because the priestly garments contained Sha'atnez, a mixture of linen

43. Tifferet Yisrael (Middot 1:2) explains that the torches were not carried before him, but positioned as lights at the guard stations. Although there is no evidence that the Rambam accepts this view, a comparison with the following halachah indicates this possibility.

and wool. Hence, though a priest was permitted to use them

44. Chapter 7, Halachah 2, states that it was forbidden to enter the Temple Mount with a staff. Nevertheless, an exception

during the Temple service, once that service was concluded, he was forbidden to do so. See also the Kessef Mishneh.

was made to allow "the officer of the Temple Mount" to perform his task (Yeriot Shlomo).

30. Leviticus 15:16 explains that a man who has a seminal emission becomes ritually impure. To purify himself, he must

45. Although generally, one may not destroy things of value (bal tashchit), an exception is made in this case to allow the

immerse his entire body in a mikveh and wait until the end of

Temple to be guarded properly.

the day.

The "officer of the Temple Mount" could be authorized to destroy private property on the basis of the principle: Hefker

31. Which lead to a natural mikveh positioned under the Temple

Beit Din, Hefker, i.e., a Jewish court may forfeit a person's

Courtyard. 32. As explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 7. This passageway passed below the Courtyard. However, since it opened up to

ownership over an article (Rabbenu Asher, Commentary to

the portion of the Chamber of the Hearth that was not consecrated, there was no prohibition in entering while

The Ezrat Kohanim does not accept this explanation

ritually impure. 33. There

was

no

prohibition

against

remaining

in

the

non-consecrated portion of the Chamber of the Hearth. As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 17, a person who has already immersed himself in the mikveh, but must wait for the day to pass before becoming ritually pure, may remain on the Temple Mount and proceed until the Women's Courtyard. 34. Though there was no prohibition against him remaining in the Chamber of the Hearth, it was proper for him to leave so that no one would think that he was prepared to participate in the Temple services (Tifferet Yisrael, Tamid 1:1). 35. This halachah is based on Middot 1:1. 36. See Chapter 5, Halachah 2, for a description of the gates to the Temple Mount. 37. See the commentary to Halachah 4. 38. See the commentary to Chapter 5, Halachah 4. 39. Tifferet Yisrael (Middot 1:1) explains that this refers to the Chamber of the Lambs, one of the four smaller chambers in the Chamber of the Hearth. See Chapter 5, Halachah 10. 40. This chamber is not mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 17, as one of the chambers within the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, Tifferet Yisrael (op. cit.) states: "I do not know where it was located."

Middot 1:1). because the prohibition against destroying things of value applies even in regard to ownerless articles. Another possible explanation is that this step is taken for the watchmen's own good. A father or a teacher is allowed to hit a student to shape his character. Similarly, in this instance, "the officer of the Temple Mount" was entitled to burn a watchman's clothing so that he will perform his task more effectively (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 18, p.465). 46. As mentioned in the commentary to Halachah 6, there is a debate among the Rabbis if the priests were allowed to sleep on their watch or not. Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura (Shekalim 5:1) states that both priests and Levites would be beaten for sleeping. However, the Tosafot Yom Tov argues that this punishment was only administered to Levites. It would appear that the Rambam subscribes to the latter view. In Hilchot Klei HaMikdash (7:4), he writes: "The officer of the Temple Mount walked around, [checking on] the Levites..." 47. The Temple services began with the removal of the ashes from the Altar. Generally, this was done at dawn. The term dawn, alot hashachar, refers to the time before sunrise when the first rays of the sun begin to illuminate the horizon. This is more than an hour before sunrise. 48. This does not refer to the "officer of the Temple Mount" mentioned above. In Hilchot Temidim U'Musafim 6:1, the

41. As a sign of respect for the Shechinah.

Rambam describes this entire procedure a second time. There, he ascribes the waking of the priests to the priest

42. He was given the keys to all the gates of the Temple complex.

responsible for delegating different sacrificial functions. See also Tamid 26a. 49. From the chayl. 50. On the external gate of the Chamber of the Hearth, 51. As explained in Halachot 5 and 6.

8

52. Middot 1:7 mentions that the keys to the Courtyard were hung on a ring in the Chamber of the Hearth. See also the notes to Halachah 5. 53. Tamid 28a relates that there was a small wicket next to the large gate leading from the Chamber of the Hearth to the Temple Courtyard. The large gate would not be opened until dawn. Therefore, the priests entered through the wicket to prepare the Courtyard for the service of the coming day.

59. This is the final halachah of Hilchot Beit HaBechirah. There are a total of 7 halachot in the text. The latter figure matches the age of Levi when he passed away. Levi was the ancestor of the priests and the Levites who served in the Temple. 60. Because it is forbidden to carry a flame on the Sabbath. 61. The Kessef Mishnah, Tosafot Yom Tov,

and

other

54. As explained in Chapter 5, the Chamber of the Hearth was

commentaries, question why they were not permitted to carry the torches with them. Although carrying fire is prohibited on

positioned on the north side of the Temple Courtyard, slightly beyond the entrance of the Temple building. From this point,

the Sabbath, the prohibition is only Rabbinic in origin in the category of shvut. The Rambam states (Hilchot Shabbat

one group would proceed westward, towards the western end of the Courtyard. The other group walked towards the

21:27) that all Rabbinic prohibitions of this nature were suspended in the Temple.

east, in the direction of the Gate of Nicanor, the major entrance to the Courtyard. Both groups walked near the

Among the explanations offered are: Since it was possible to use candles which were lit before the Sabbath, there is no

walls, so that they would make a complete circuit around the Courtyard.

need to violate even a Rabbinic prohibition. Alternatively, this inspection was carried out in preparation for the service of

55. To make sure all of the sacred utensils were in their proper

the entire day to follow and, as above, it was an act of deference to the Temple. Therefore, to emphasize the

places. 56. See Chapter 5, Halachah 17, where this chamber is described. The Chamber of the Bakers of the Chavitin was located on the southern side of the Courtyard's eastern wall. Thus, the group of priests who turned westward had a much longer route than those who proceeded to the east. 57. The Ra'avad in his commentary to Tamid 28a explains that each group would greet the other in this manner. 58. The Chavitin was offered each day by the High Priest shortly after the morning sacrifice. A general question may be asked concerning this and the following halachah: Why did the Rambam include them in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah which describes the construction of the Temple? It would appear more appropriate to mention them in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, where the laws governing the daily service in the Temple are described. Indeed, we find that these laws are repeated there. The reason is based on the explanation of Halachah 1. There, the Rambam states that the watch kept over the Temple was an act of deference, enhancing the glory of the Temple. Thus, maintaining that watch is part of the responsibility of the entire Jewish people to construct and maintain the Temple in the most fitting manner. 16A similar principle can be explained in regard to this inspection of the Courtyard. Over and above the need for checking to see that all the sacred utensils were in there appropriate positions, this inspection was an act of deference and honor which enhanced the importance of the Temple (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 18, p. 244-249).

holiness of the Temple, it was proper that it be carried out without violating any prohibition whatsoever. The structure of the final chapter of Hilchot Beit HaBechirah can be explained homiletically: It begins with the obligation to guard the Temple at night, and concludes with the preparations for the Temple services at dawn. As mentioned above (Halachah 2), the commentaries explain that the mitzvah of guarding the Temple was instituted so that the Temple would be prominent in our minds at all times. Thus, during the day, there was no necessity to stand guard, for that purpose was accomplished by the Temple service. However, at night, when there was no service, we were required to keep a watch around the Temple. The period of exile is often described as night and the advent of the Messianic era, as dawn. By guarding the Temple at night, and studying the laws of its construction during the exile, we will merit the coming of the dawn, the coming of Mashiach. A similar idea can be seen in the last halachah, which deals with the priests' procedure on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is described as me'ein olam haba'ah, a microcosm of the world to come, and the time of the coming of the Mashiach. On the Sabbath, in the Messianic age, the preparations for the Temple service will be carried out with the light kindled on the Sabbath eve, representing the present age - and before the coming of the Mashiach. Our service at present generates spiritual light. We will use that light to prepare for the sacrifices to be offered in the Third Temple. May we merit the Messianic redemption and the rebuilding of the Temple speedily, and in our days. 47Then, shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasing to God, as in days of old and former years 48 (Malachi 3:4).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .

1



Klei Hamikdash Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 1 Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 2 Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 3 Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 4 Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 5 Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 6 Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 7 Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 8 Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 9 Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 10

2

1



Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 2

Introduction to Hilchot Klei Hamikdash They contain fourteen mitzvot: six positive commandments and eight negative commandments. They are: 1) To prepare the oil of anointment; 2) Not to make oil like it; 3) Not to anoint oneself with it; 4) Not to prepare a compound of spices after the formula of the incense; 5) Not to offer on the golden altar anything but the incense; 6) To bear the ark on the shoulder; 7) That the staves of the Ark shall not be removed from it; 8) That the Levite shall serve in the Sanctuary; 9) That no one in the Sanctuary shall do the work assigned to another; 10) To consecrate the priest for the service; 11) That, on the festivals, all the divisions shall take part equally in the services; 12) To put on priestly vestments for the service; 13) That the priests' robes shall not be rent; 14) That the breast-plate be not loosed from the Ephod.

- ‫הלכות כלי המקדש והעובדין בו‬ ‫הקדמה‬ ‫ שש מצות‬:‫יש בכללן ארבע עשרה מצוות‬ ‫ וזה הוא‬.‫ ושמונה מצות לא תעשה‬,‫עשה‬ :‫פרטן‬ .‫)א( לעשות שמן המשחה‬ .‫)ב( שלא לעשות כמוהו‬ .‫)ג( שלא לסוך ממנו‬ .‫)ד( שלא לעשות כמתכונת הקטורת‬ ‫)ה( שלא להקטיר על מזבח הזהב חוץ מן‬ .‫הקטורת‬ .‫)ו( לשאת הארון על הכתף‬ .‫)ז( שלא יסורו הבדים ממנו‬ .‫)ח( שיעבוד הלוי במקדש‬ ‫)ט( שלא יעשה אחד במלאכת חברו‬ .‫במקדש‬ .‫)י( לקדש הכהן לעבודה‬ .‫)יא( שיהיו כל המשמרות שוות ברגלים‬ .‫)יב( ללבוש בגדי כהונה לעבודה‬ .‫)יג( שלא יקרע המעיל‬ .‫)יד( שלא יזח החושן מעל האפוד‬ :‫וביאור מצוות אלו בפרקים אלו‬

These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters. It is a positive commandment to prepare1 the anointing oil so that it will be ready [to use] for those articles that require anointing,2 as [Exodus 30:25] states: "And you shall make it3 as the oil of sacred anointment."

2

‫מצות עשה לעשות שמן המשחה‬ ‫שיהיה מוכן לדברים שצריכין‬ ‫משיחה בו שנאמר ועשית אותו שמן‬ :‫משחת קדש‬

3

While in the desert, Moses our teacher [had]4 it prepared. He took the equivalent of 500 shekel5 of the holy shekalim of musk, cinnamon, and costus6 and the equivalent of 250 shekel of fragrant cane. The Torah's statement [ibid.:23]: "And fragrant cinnamon, half its measure, 250," implies that [the entire quantity] should be weighed out in two measures, 250 each time. Each one should be ground separately, mixed together7 and then soaked in pure, sweet water until all of its power was extracted into the water. A hin - which is equivalent to twelve log with each log comprising four revi'iot8 - of oil was placed above the water.9 The entire mixture was then cooked over fire until the water boiled off and only the oil remained.10 It was then set aside for [future] generations.

‫וככה עשהו משה רבינו במדבר לקח‬ ‫מן המור והקנמון והקדה מכל אחד‬ ‫משלשתן חמש מאות שקל בשקל הקודש‬ ‫ומקנה הבושם חמשים ומאתים וזהו‬ ‫שנאמר בתורה וקנמן בשם מחציתו‬ '‫חמשים ומאתים ששוקלים אותו בב‬ ‫פעמים חמשים ומאתים בכל פעם ושוחק‬ ‫כל אחד ואחד לבדו ועירב הכל ושרה‬ ‫אותן במים זכין ומתוקין עד שיצא כל כחן‬ ‫במים ונתן על המים שמן זית הין והוא י"ב‬ ‫לוג כל לוג ד' רביעיות ובישל הכל על‬ ‫האש עד שאבדו המים ונשאר השמן‬ :‫והניחו בכלי לדורות‬

Musk refers to the blood contained with a wild beast from India that is of universal renown which people everywhere use as a fragrance.11 Cinnamon is a tree that comes from the Indian islands which has a pleasant fragrance and which people use as incense. The term kidah refers to costus.12 Fragrant cane, this refers to thin canes13 like red straw that come from the Indian islands and have a pleasant fragrance. They are types of herbs which doctors place in balsam.

‫המור הוא הדם הצרור בחיה שבהודו‬ ‫הידוע לכל שמתבשמין בה בני אדם‬ ‫בכ"מ והקנמון הוא העץ שבא מאיי הודו‬ ‫שריחו טוב ומתגמרים בו בני אדם והקדה‬ ‫היא הקושט וקנה בושם הם הקנים הדקים‬ ‫כתבן האדומים הבאים מאיי הודו וריחן‬ ‫טוב והם ממיני הבשמים שנותנין אותם‬ :‫הרופאים בצרי‬

One who willfully prepares anointing oil in this manner and with these measurements without adding or reducing [the quantity of the herbs] is liable for karet.14 If he prepares it unknowingly, he must bring a fixed sin-offering,15 [as ibid.:34] states: "One who makes such a compound shall be cut off from his nation." [The above applies] provided he prepared it for anointment. If, however, he prepared it for practice or to give to other people,16 he is exempt.17

‫העושה שמן המשחה כמעשה הזה‬ ‫וכמשקל הזה ולא הוסיף ולא גרע‬ ‫במזיד חייב כרת בשוגג מביא חטאת‬ ‫קבועה שנאמר אשר ירקח כמוהו ונכרת‬ ‫מעמיו והוא שיעשה אותו להמשח בו אבל‬ ‫אם עשהו להתלמד או ליתנו לאחרים‬ :‫פטור‬

4

One who anoints himself with an olive-sized portion18 of the oil of anointment willfully is liable for karet. If he [anoints himself] unknowingly, he must bring a fixed sin-offering, [as ibid.] states: "And one who applies it to an unauthorized person,19 shall be cut off from his nation." One is liable only for anointing oneself with the oil of anointment made by Moses,20 as the prooftext states "from it," from [the oil] of which [ibid.:31] states "This will be oil for sacred anointing for Me." No other [anointing] oil was ever made aside from that made by Moses.21

‫הסך משמן המשחה כזית במזיד‬ ‫חייב כרת ובשוגג מביא חטאת‬ ‫קבועה שנאמר ואשר יתן ממנו על זר‬ ‫ונכרת מעמיו ואין חייבין אלא על סיכת‬ ‫שמן המשחה שעשה משה שנאמר ממנו‬ ‫מזה שנאמר בו שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה‬ ‫לי ומעולם לא נעשה שמן אחר חוץ ממה‬ :‫שעשה משה‬

[One is liable] whether he anoints himself or others,22 as [the prooftext] states: "And one who applies it to an unauthorized person." One who spreads it on utensils, an animal, a gentile - who is [halachicly equivalent] to an animal23 - or who spreads it on a corpse, is exempt, as [implied by ibid.:32]: "It should not be spread on the flesh of a man."24

‫אחד הסך את עצמו ואחד הסך את‬ ‫אחרים שנאמר ואשר יתן ממנו על זר‬ ‫הסך כלים ובהמה ועכו"ם שהם כמותה או‬ ‫שסך מתים בו פטור שנאמר על בשר אדם‬ :‫לא ייסך‬

For all time,25 we do not [use this oil] except to anoint the High Priest, the priest who leads the nation in war,26 and kings from the House of David.27 Even a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest should be anointed,28 as [Leviticus 6:15] states: "The priest from his sons anointed in place of him...."

‫אין מושחין ממנו לדורות אלא כהנים‬ ‫גדולים ומשוח מלחמה ומלכי בית דוד‬ ‫בלבד אפילו כהן בן כהן מושחין אותו‬ :'‫שנאמר והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו וגו‬

Since there was no anointing oil [during] the Second Temple [era],29the High Priest was installed in his office by putting on the garments of the High Priest alone.

‫בבית שני שלא היה שם שמן‬ ‫המשחה היה כ"ג מתרבה בלבישת‬ ‫בגדים בלבד שהיה לובש בגדי כהונה‬ :‫גדולה‬

5

How was the High Priest anointed? The oil should be poured on his head and applied between his eyes in the form of the Greek letter chi,30 like this C as [Leviticus 8:12] states: "And he poured the anointing oil on Aaron's head and anointed him to sanctify him." The kings of the Davidic dynasty are anointed [with the oil] spread as a crown on their foreheads.31 They should not be anointed on other places [on their bodies], nor should one use an excessive amount of oil.

‫כיצד מושחין את הכהן צק את‬ ‫השמן על ראשו וסך ממנו על גבי‬ ‫עיניו כמין כי יוונית כזה שנאמר ויצק‬ ‫משמן המשחה על ראש אהרן וימשח‬ ‫אותו לקדשו ומלכי בית דוד מושחין אותן‬ ‫כמין נזר על ראשו ולא ימשח במקומות‬ :‫אחרות ולא ירבה בשמן‬

A person who places the anointing oil on a king or High Priest who had been anointed previously is exempt, for [the prooftext] speaks of "one who applies it to an unauthorized person." And these individuals are not unauthorized with regard to this oil.32

‫הנותן משמן המשחה על גבי מלך או‬ ‫כהן גדול שכבר נמשחו פטור שנאמר‬ ‫ואשר יתן ממנו על זר ואין אלו זרים אצלו‬ ‫אבל הסך ממנו אפילו למלך וכהן גדול‬ ‫חייב שנאמר על בשר אדם לא ייסך כל‬ ‫אדם במשמע וכהן גדול שנטל שמן‬ ‫המשחה מראשו וסך במעיו חייב כרת‬ :‫והוא שיסוך ממנו בכזית‬

If, however, one - even a king or a High Priest spreads it [on his flesh], he is liable, for [the prooftext] states: "It should not be spread on the flesh of a man." This implies all men.33 When a High Priest takes the anointment oil from his head and spreads it on his belly, he is liable for karet,34 provided he spreads an olive-sized portion.35

6

A king should only be anointed next to a spring.36 We do not anoint the king who is the son of a king, for the kingship is a hereditary position for the king for all time,37 as [Deuteronomy 17:20] states: "[Thus] he and his descendants [will prolong their reign] in the midst of Israel." If there is a controversy, he should be anointed to resolve the controversy and to notify to all that he alone is the king, as Solomon was anointed because of the controversy [stirred up by] Adoniyahu.38 Yoash was anointed because of Atal'ya,39 and Yehoachaz was anointed because of his brother Yehoyakim.40 When Elisha had Yehu anointed,41 he did not have him anointed with the anointment oil, but with balsam oil. This is an accepted tradition among the sages.

‫אין מושחין את המלך אלא על גבי‬ ‫המעיין ואין מושחין מלך בן מלך‬ ‫שהמלכות ירושה למלך לעולם שנאמר‬ ‫הוא ובניו בקרב ישראל ואם היתה שם‬ ‫מחלוקת מושחין אותו כדי לסלק‬ ‫המחלוקת ולהודיע לכל שזהו מלך לבדו‬ ‫כמו שמשחו שלמה מפני מחלוקת אדוניהו‬ ‫ויואש מפני עתליה ויהואחז מפני יהויקים‬ ‫אחיו וזה שמשח אלישע ליהוא לא בשמן‬ ‫המשחה משחו אלא בשמן אפרסמון ודבר‬ :‫זה מסורת ביד החכמים‬

All of the vessels of the Sanctuary that were fashioned [at the command] of Moses were sanctified only by being anointed with the anointing oil,42 as [Numbers 7:1] states: "And he anointed them and sanctified them." This practiced was not followed in the coming generations. Instead, all of the utensils became sanctified when they were used for their purpose in the Temple, as [implied by Numbers 4:12] "...that they will serve with them in the Sanctuary," i.e., through service, they are sanctified.

‫כל כלי המקדש שעשה משה‬ ‫במדבר לא נתקדשו אלא במשיחתן‬ ‫בשמן המשחה שנאמר וימשחם ויקדש‬ ‫אותם ודבר זה אינו נוהג לדורות אלא‬ ‫הכלים כולן כיון שנשתמשו בהן במקדש‬ ‫במלאכתן נתקדשו שנאמר אשר ישרתו‬ :‫בם בקודש בשירות הם מתקדשין‬

The spoons and the bowls used to contain the meal offerings and similarly, the basins used to receive the blood, and the other vessels used [in the Sanctuary] were all made of silver and gold. It was permitted to make them from other metals, as we explained.43 They receive their holiness by being used for the [desired] tasks. If they were broken, they should be smelted down and another utensil made from them,44 for their holiness never departs from them.

‫הכפות והקערות שמקבלין בהם‬ ‫המנחות וכן המזרקות שמקבלין בהן‬ ‫הדם ושאר כלי השרת כולן של כסף ושל‬ ‫זהב היו ומותר לעשותן משאר מיני מתכות‬ ‫כמו שביארנו וכולן מתקדשין במלאכתן‬ ‫ואם נשברו מתיך אותם ועושה אותן כלי‬ :‫אחר ואין קדושתן מסתלקת מהן לעולם‬

If the sacred utensils became perforated or cracked, the cracks are not plugged close. Instead, the utensils should be smelted down and new utensils made.45

‫כלי הקדש שנקבו או שנסדקו אין‬ ‫סותמין אותן אלא מתיכין אותן‬ :‫ועושין אותן חדשים‬

When a knife has become dislodged from its shaft or blemished, it is not returned to its shaft, nor is it sharpened. Instead, it should be entombed on the side of the Temple, between the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall on the south46 and new ones should be made. For [conduct bespeaking] poverty is not [appropriate] in a place where wealth [is in place].

‫סכין שנשמט מן הנצב או שנפגם‬ ‫אין מחזירין אותו ואין משחיזין‬ ‫אותו אלא גונזין אותו בצד ההיכל בין‬ ‫הקודש והאולם לדרום ועושין אחרים‬ :‫שאין עניות במקום עשירות‬

There were two containers for dry measure in the Temple: an isaron and a half an isaron.47 The

‫שתי מדות של יבש היו במקדש‬ ‫עשרון וחצי עשרון העשרון‬ ‫למנחות וחצי העשרון לחלק בו מנחת כ"ג‬ :‫שבכל יום‬

isaron was for the meal offering48 and the half isaron to separate the meal offering brought by the High Priest every day.49 There were seven containers of liquid measure: a hin,50 a half a hin, a third of a hin, a fourth of a hin, a log, a half a log, and a fourth of a log. 51 Why were there measures of a half a hin, a third of a hin, a fourth of a hin? To measure out the wine libations for the sacrifices.52 A log was necessary to measure the oil for the meal offerings.53 A half a log was necessary to measure out the oil for every lamp of the lamps of the Menorah.54 And a fourth [of a log] to divide the oil for [the High Priest's] chavitan offering.55

7

‫ הין‬:‫ושבע מדות של לח היו שם‬ ‫וחצי ההין ושלישית ההין ורביעית‬ ‫ההין ולוג וחצי לוג ורביעית ולמה היו חצי‬ ‫ההין ושלישית ההין ורביעית ההין למדידת‬ ‫הנסכים של זבחים ולוג למדידת שמן‬ ‫המנחות וחצי לוג למדידת שמן לכל נר‬ ‫מנרות המנורה ורביעית לחלק בה השמן‬ :‫לחביתין‬

There is nothing that is measured with a hin. Why [then] was it there? [It remained, because] it had been in the Sanctuary from the time of Moses who used it to measure the oil for the anointing oil.56 With the measure of a half a log that was in the Temple, water was measured for the Sotah water57 and oil for the thanksgiving offerings.58 With the measure of a fourth [of a log], oil was measured for the bread brought by a nazirite59 and water for the purification of a metzora.60 It is not that through these deeds the measures became sanctified,61 but rather because of the tasks [performed] in the Sanctuary that were mentioned [in the preceding halachah]. All of these measures are consecrated and are considered as sacred utensils. [There is, however a difference between them.] The liquid measures were anointed on both the inside and the outside, while the dry measures were anointed only on the inside. Therefore the overflow of the liquid measures was consecrated,62 and the overflow of the dry measures was not consecrated.63

‫ואין לנו דבר למדוד בו הין ולמה‬ ‫היה שם הואיל והיה במקדש מימי‬ ‫משה שמדד בו שמן לשמן המשחה ובחצי‬ ‫לוג שיהיה במקדש היו מודדין מים למי‬ ‫סוטה ושמן לתודה וברביעית שהיתה שם‬ ‫היו מודדין שמן לחם הנזיר ומים לטהרת‬ ‫מצורע ולא מפני מעשים אלו נתקדשו‬ :‫אלא מפני המלאכות של מקדש שאמרנו‬

‫כל המדות האלו קודש ומכלי‬ ‫השרת אלא שמדות הלח נמשחו‬ ‫מבפנים ומבחוץ וכלי היבש לא נמשחו‬ ‫אלא בפנים לפיכך בירוצי מדות הלח‬ :‫קודש ובירוצי מדות היבש חול‬

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. The Rambam's wording here represents a change from his wording in Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 35)

4. This addition is necessary, for as indicated by Exodus 37:29,

where he describes the mitzvah in passive terms: "having the

Moses himself did not prepare the anointment oil. It was prepared by Betzalel and the other craftsmen working with

oil made in a unique fashion available for anointing." Perhaps he chose that wording for, as explained in Halachah 5, after the oil was made at Moses' command, no other such oil was ever made and the mitzvah was merely "to have it." 2. Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 107) includes this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains that anointing the kings and the High Priest is not considered one of the mitzvot, for there were times when this anointment was not practiced.

8

3. The mixture of spices mentioned in the previous verses.

him.

5. According to Scriptural Law, based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 8:8), in modern

14. Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a)

measure a shekel of the Torah is equivalent to 16 grams of

and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).

pure silver. Nevertheless, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Shekalim 1:2, in the era of the Second Temple, our Sages

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 83) and Sefer

increased its measure by almost a fourth. Accordingly, the measure of silver required for the redemption of the firstborn

HaChinuch (mitzvah 109) includes the prohibition against

and other obligations were a shekel

making such oil among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

is required is

15. The term "fixed sin-offering" is used to differentiate between this offering and "an adjustable guilt offering" in which

6. The Rambam describes these spices in the following halachah.

instance, the offering the person brings changes according to his financial capacity. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:4.

7. The Kessef Mishneh states that the obligation to grind the

16. Even if those people desire to use it for anointment. As long

herbs is derived from a comparison to the incense offering. The order in which they are ground and then mixed is a

as he personally does not intend to use it for anointment, he is not liable (Radbaz).

significantly larger.

logical deduction. If they are ground first, they will be mixed more thoroughly and more effectively. 8. A common halachic measure equivalent to approximately 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 150 cc according to Chazon Ish. Thus a hin is 48 times this amount. 9. For the oil will float above the water. 10. Otherwise, the amount of oil used would not be sufficient to soak all the herbs (Rashi, in his commentary to Exodus 30:24).

17. I.e., the act is forbidden, but he is not liable. 18. For to be liable, one must benefit from a minimum measure and that minimum measure is, as is true with regard to partaking of forbidden substances, an olive-sized portion. 19. I.e., someone other than a High Priest, a king, and the priest who lead the people in war, as stated in Halachah 7. 20. And not a copy, even if it was made in the exact same manner.

11. The Rambam is referring to a secretion of the abdominal

21. That oil remained throughout the majority of the First Temple period until it was entombed by King Josiah together with the

gland of the male musk deer, a large animal that roams the mountains of Nepal and Tibet. The secretion is reddish-

ark, as the Rambam relates in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:1.

brown, with a honeylike consistency and a strong fragrance. After the gland is cut open, the secretion hardens, assumes a blackish-brown color, and when dry becomes granular. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's definition, stating that it is improper that the blood of a beast - and certainly, a non-kosher beast - be used in the Sanctuary. He interprets the term mor as referring to the fragrant herb, myrrh. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's view, explaining

From that point onward, neither the High Priests or kings were anointed. On the surface, one might ask: Since no other oil was ever made, why is making the oil considered one of the 613 mitzvot? For as the Rambam clarifies several times in Sefer HaMitzvot, if an obligation is not ongoing, it is not appropriate to consider it as a mitzvah. On that basis, a number of commands, for example, the command to wage

that the loathsome quality one would associate with the

war against Midian (Numbers 7:2), were excluded from this reckoning.

blood of a beast departs from it when the secretion dries and becomes granular. See also the Ramban's commentary to

The Minchat Chinuch (positive mitzvah 107) notes that the

Exodus 30:23, where he discusses both positions.

generations," i.e., for all time. The mitzvah was to have the oil made by Moses available at all time. After the oil was

12. It is the root of a tall herb, whose botanical name is Saussurea lappa, which even today grows only in the highlands of Kashmir. 13. In his notes to his translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 1:1), Rav Kapach identifies this as the acorus calamus plant. In his Living Torah, Rav Aryeh Kaplan identifies this as the cymbopogon martini or palmarosa plant.

prooftext quoted by the Rambam concludes "for your

entombed by King Josiah, new oil was not made, because the oil which Moses made is still available. At the coming of Mashiach, that oil will surface and again be used. 22. The Radbaz maintains that if the others willfully allow the oil to be applied to their flesh, they are also liable. The Tosefta, Makkot, ch. 3, also rules in this manner. 23. See Kiddushin 68a; Hilchot Eruvin 2:9. 24. And none of the above are halachicly equivalent to a man.

9

10

25. I.e., in contrast to the era of Moses where this oil was also used to anoint the priestly garments and the vessels of the Sanctuary, as stated in Halachah 12. 26. See Hilchot Melachim, ch. 7, which states that a priest is appointed to speak before the nation and inspire them in war. 27. The kings of the ten tribes, by contrast, were not anointed with this anointing oil, only balsam oil, as stated in Hilchot Melachim 1:10. According to the Rambam (ibid.:7), King Saul was also anointed with this oil. He is not mentioned, because his regal line did not continue for posterity. 28. In contrast, the kings were anointed only when there is a dispute over the inheritance or during a civil war (ibid.:12 and Halachah 11 of this chapter). 29. As mentioned above, the anointing oil was entombed toward the conclusion of the First Temple Era. 30. Our text follows the manuscript versions of the Mishneh Torah and the manuscript versions of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 6:3). Most of the later printings of the Mishneh Torah replace the C with an X,

37. When mentioning this law, Hilchot Melachim 1:7 continues: "Not only the monarchy, but all other positions of authority and appointments in Israel, are transferred to one's children and grand-children as inheritances forever." The order of inheritance of the crown follows the order of inheritance of property as explained in Hilchot Nachalot, ch. 1. The first in line for the monarchy are the deceased king's sons, in order of age. Should none of his sons be alive, the right is passed to his grandchildren. The children of the elder son are granted preference. If the king has no male descendents, the monarchy is given to his brothers. If they are not alive, it is granted to their sons. From them, the right to the throne passes to the deceased king's nephews (his sister's sons), then to his uncles, to his first cousins. 38. 1 Kings, Chapter l, describes Adoniyahu's abortive attempt to declare himself as David's successor. 39. II Kings, Chapter 11, describes Atal'ya's murder of the children of King Achazyahu, her assumption of the throne, and the revolt which established Yoash as king. 40. Yehoachaz was younger than Yehoyakim. Nevertheless, he

for in fact, this is the form of the Greek letter. Kin'at Eliyahu

was given the throne, because he was more capable than his brother, and better suited to serve in his father's position.

suggests that although the Rambam speaks about the Greek

See the commentaries to II Kings, ch. 23.

letter, perhaps his intent was the Roman letter. 31. The translation of rosho as "forehead" rather than "head," is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 1:1). 32. For we are obligated to apply it to them. 33. Including a High Priest or king. 34. Even though the oil was placed on his flesh, since it should not have been applied to this portion of the body, doing so is included in the above prohibition. 35. The Ra'avad objects to this qualification, maintaining that once he places an olive-sized portion of the oil on his skin, he is liable even if he spreads a smaller measure. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that the simple meaning of Keritot 6b appears to support the Ra'avad's position. Nevertheless, they also provide interpretations that support the Rambam's understanding. 36. Horiot 12a explains that the king was anointed there as an sign that his dynasty should be perpetuated, just as a stream continues in a never-ending flow. This symbolism is only appropriate for kings of the Davidic dynasty, whose dynasty will continue for-ever. In contrast, the dynasties of the kings of Israel will eventually be interrupted [see Hilchot Melachim 1:9 (Kessef Mishneh)].

41. See II Kings, ch. 9. 42. The Radbaz uses this concept to reinforce his thesis that the Rambam does not consider applying the anointing oil as a mitzvah, because it did not apply for all time. 43. Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:18-19. There the Rambam explains that it is preferable to make them from precious metals. Nevertheless, if this is beyond the financial capacity of the community, they can be made from base metals. Indeed, when the Hasmoneans conquered Jerusalem, it is said that they first made a Menorah of iron coated with tin. 44. Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 8:21. 45. For patchwork is not becoming to the Temple. 46. This portion of the Temple was called Beit HaChalafot, "the Chamber of the Knives," for this reason (Middot 4:7). 47. An isaron is the size of 43.2 eggs. According to modern measure, the size of an egg is considered to be 57.6 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 99.5 cc according to Chazon Ish. 48. For as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5, the meal offerings were measured out using an isaron as the basic measure. 49. As stated in ibid. 12:4, 13:2, each day the High Priest would

Accordingly, King David ordered that Solomon be anointed at

bring a meal offering and he would divide it in half. Half was

the Gichon Stream (1 Kings 1:33).

offered in the morning, and half in the afternoon. 50. See Halachah 2.

51. As mentioned above, a revi'it, a fourth of a log, is a common

58. As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot 9:20, a log of oil

halachic measure equivalent to approximately 86 cc

was used in the baking processes of the different types of

according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 150 cc

wafers used for this offering. Kin'at Eliyahu asks: Since there

according to Chazon Ish.

were specific measures employed in making each type of

52. As Numbers 28:14 states, the wine libation for a bull was half a hin, for a ram, one third of a hin, and for a ewe, one fourth of a hin. See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot 2:4. 53. As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot 12:7, a log of oil is poured over all the different meal offerings. 54. For as stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:11, this quantity of oil was placed in the lamps every day of the year. 55. For as indicated by Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:3, a fourth of a log of oil is poured on each of the cakes the High Priest brings. 56. As stated in Halachah 2 above. 57. A sotah, a woman accused of adultery, was forced to drink water in which a scroll containing a curse with God's name had been blotted out. See Hilchot Sotah 3:9.

wafer, why weren't smaller measures used to measure out this oil? 59. As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:23, a fourth of a log of oil was used in the preparation of this bread. 60. A person with a physical affliction similar to - but not identical with - leprosy. As related in Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 11:1, as part of such a person's purification process, a bird was slaughtered and its blood poured over water. 61. I.e., receiving the blood of a sacrificial animal is an act of service. Therefore it consecrates the container. Preparing the meal offerings, by contrast, is not an act of service. Therefore it does not sanctify the container. 62. Because it had touched a sacred utensil, the outside of the measure. These liquids were collected and used as libations or sold and the proceeds used to bring sacrifices for the altar. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot 2:9-11. See also Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:20. 63. Because it never touched a sacred utensil.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

11

policy .

12

1



Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 1

English

Hebrew

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 3

The incense offering was prepared every year. Preparing it fulfills a positive commandment,1 as [Exodus 30:34] states: "And you take spices...." Four of the spices are explicitly mentioned in the Torah. They are balsum,2 onycha, storax, and frankincense. The others were communicated as a halachah communicated to Moses at Sinai.

‫הקטרת נעשית בכל שנה ושנה‬ ‫ועשייתו מצות עשה שנאמר ואתה‬ ‫קח לך סמים וגו' ונתפרשו בתורה ארבעה‬ ‫ נטף ושחלת וחלבנה ולבונה‬:‫מסממניה והן‬ :‫ושאר סממניה הלכה למשה מסיני‬

[The requirement for] eleven spices was communicated to Moses at Sinai.3 The would prepare them with an exact weight and add to them without weighing them: Salt of Sodom,4 Jordanian amber,5 and an herb that would produce smoke. Only select people would know its identity and that knowledge was conveyed as halachah from person to person.

‫אחד עשר סממנים נאמרו לו למשה‬ ‫מסיני והם שעושין אותה במשקל‬ ‫מכוון ומוסיפין עמהן בלא משקל מלח‬ ‫סדומית וכפת הירדן ועשב אחד שמעלה‬ ‫עשן ולא היו יודעים אותו אלא אנשים‬ ‫ידועים והוא היה הלכה בידם איש מפי‬ :‫איש‬

2

This is the weight of the eleven spices: balsam, onycha, storax, frankincense, 70 maneh from each one. A maneh is 100 dinarim,6musk, cassia, spikenard, and saffron, 16 maneh, costus, 12 maneh, cinnamon, 9 maneh, Ceylonese cinnamon 3 maneh. The weight of the entire mixture was 368 maneh. The entire mixture was ground very thin. A fourth of a kab7 of the salt of Sodom and a small amount of Jordanian amber and the smoke raising herb were added. A maneh of it was burned every day8 on the golden altar. There were 365 maneh, corresponding to the 365 days of the year. The three remaining maneh were ground again on the day before Yom Kippur very finely for [the High Priest] to take a handful to offer on Yom Kippur.9 The remainder is the remainder of the incense that was mentioned in [Hilchot] Shekalim.10

‫ נטף‬:‫וזהו משקל אחד עשר סמניה‬ ‫ושחלת וחלבנה ולבונה מכל אחד‬ ‫משקל שבעים מנה והמנה מאה דינרין‬ ‫ומור וקציעה ושבולת נרד וכרכום מכל‬ ‫אחד ששה עשר מנה קושט שנים עשר‬ ‫מנה קנמון תשעה מנים קילופה שלש מנים‬ ‫משקל הכל שלש מאות וששים ושמונה‬ ‫מנה שחוקין הכל הדק מוסיפין לה רובע‬ ‫הקב מלח סדומית וכפת הירדן ומעלה עשן‬ ‫כל שהוא ומקטיר ממנה בכל יום על מזבח‬ ‫הזהב מנה שלש מאות וששים וחמשה‬ ‫מנה כנגד ימות החמה והשלשה מנים‬ ‫הנשארים שוחק אותם ערב יום הכפורים‬ ‫דקה מן הדקה עד שמוציא ממנה מלא‬ ‫חפניו להקטיר ביוה"כ והשאר הוא מותר‬ :‫הקטרת שאמרנו בשקלים‬

which people include in incense. Storax is like black honey and it produces a disagreeable odor. It comes from the sap of the trees grown in Greece. These are the names of the spices in Arabic: od balasan, atzpar tiv, miyah,13 lican,14 muski,15 ketziyah,16 sanbali alnaturin,17 saffron, kosht,18 od,19 kesser silica,20 and anber.21

‫נטף האמור בתורה הוא עצי הקטף‬ ‫שיוצא מהן הצרי והשחלת היא‬ ‫הצפורן שנותנין אותה בני האדם‬ ‫במוגמרות והחלבנה כמו דבש שחור וריחו‬ ‫קשה והוא שרף אילנות בערי יון וזהו‬ ‫ עוד בלסאן‬:‫שמות הסמנים בלשון ערבי‬ ‫ואצפאר טיב ומיעה ולכאן ומוסקי וקציעה‬ ‫וסנבלי אלנטורין וזעפרן וקושט ועוד‬ :‫]הירדי[ וקסבר סליכה וענבר‬

How is the incense offering prepared? Nine kabbin of vetch lye are brought and the onycha is rubbed with it.22 Afterwards, the onycha is soaked in 21 kabbin of caper wine23 or a very strong, aged white wine. Afterwards each of the spices is ground very finely alone. While he is grinding, he should say: "Grind thoroughly. Grind thoroughly," for the entire time that he is grinding.24 Then he mixes them all together.

‫כיצד מפטמין את הקטרת מביא‬ ‫תשעה קבין בורית כרשינה ושף בה‬ ‫את הצפורן ואח"כ שורה את הצפורן‬ ‫באחד ועשרים קב של יין קפריסין או יין‬ ‫לבן ישן חזק ביותר ואחר כך שוחק כל‬ ‫אחד מן הסמנים בפני עצמו הדק וכשהוא‬ ‫שוחק אומר הדק היטב הדק היטב כל זמן‬ :‫ששוחק ומערב הכל‬

Nataf mentioned by the Torah are the balsam trees that produce balsam oil.11 Onycha is tziporen12

3

All of the acts involved in its preparation are performed in the Sanctuary, in the Temple Courtyard, [using ingredients that] have been consecrated.25 When one prepares the incense offering from unconsecrated ingredients or in an unconsecrated utensil, it is unacceptable.

‫וכל מעשיה בקדש בתוך העזרה ומשל‬ ‫הקדש והמפטם את הקטרת מן החולין‬ :‫או בכלי של חולין פסולה‬

Twice a year, the incense would be returned to the grinder.26 In the summer, it would be spread out so that it would not become musty. In the rainy season, it is stored away lest its fragrance be weakened.

‫פעמים בשנה היו מחזירין אותו‬ ‫למכתשת בימות החמה היו מפזרים‬ ‫אותה כדי שלא תתעפש ובימות הגשמים‬ :‫צוברין אותה כדי שלא יפוג ריחה‬

If one included any honey in it, it is disqualified.27 If one omits any of its spices, he is liable for death, for it is considered as foreign incense. If one prepared it little by little in appropriate proportions, it is acceptable. Even if one prepared half [a maneh] in the morning and half in the afternoon, [it is acceptable].

‫נתן לתוכה דבש כל שהוא פסלה‬ ‫חיסר אחד מסממניה חייב מיתה‬ ‫שהרי נעשית קטרת זרה פטמה מעט מעט‬ ‫במתכונתה כשרה אפילו פיטם פרס‬ :‫בשחרית ופרס בין הערבים‬

When a person prepares incense from these eleven spices according to these proportions to smell its fragrance, he is liable for karet for its preparation28if he prepared it willfully, even if he did not actually smell its fragrance. If he did so inadvertently, he is liable for a fixed sin offering. Even if he did not prepare the entire quantity [of 368 maneh], but merely a half or a third, since he prepared it according to the above proportions, he is liable for karet, as [Exodus 30:38] states: "You shall not make [incense] for yourselves according to its formula. Anyone who prepares [incense] like this to smell its fragrance shall be cut off from his people."

‫העושה קטרת מאחד עשר סממנין‬ ‫אלו לפי משקלות אלו כדי להריח‬ ‫בה אף על פי שלא הריח חייב כרת על‬ ‫עשייתה אם עשה מזיד ובשוגג מביא‬ ‫חטאת קבועה אע"פ שלא עשה המשקל‬ ‫כולו אלא חציו או שלישו הואיל ועשה‬ ‫לפי משקלות אלו חייב כרת שנאמר‬ ‫במתכונתה לא תעשו לכם איש אשר‬ :‫יעשה כמוה להריח בה ונכרת מעמיו‬

4

If he prepared it to learn or with the intent of giving it to the community, he is not liable. If he smelled its fragrance, but did not prepare it, he is not liable for karet. Instead, he is bound by the laws applying to all of those who derive benefit from consecrated property.29 The Torah obligated a person for karet only when he prepared it according to its formula for the sake of smelling it.

‫עשאה להתלמד בה או למוסרה‬ ‫לציבור פטור הריח בה ולא עשאה‬ ‫אינו חייב כרת אלא דינו כדין כל הנהנה‬ ‫מן ההקדש לא חייבה תורה כרת אלא‬ :‫לעושה במתכונתה להריח בה‬

The incense offering is offered on the Golden Altar in the Temple each day. No other entity is offered on it. If one offered any incense other than this or offered this incense, but it was donated by an individual or a group,30 or one offered a sacrifice on it,31 or poured a libation on it, one is liable for lashes,32 as [ibid.:9] states: "You shall not offer upon it foreign incense, a burnt offering, or a meal offering."

‫מזבח הזהב שבהיכל עליו מקטירין‬ ‫הקטורת בכל יום ואין מקריבין‬ ‫עליו דבר אחר ואם הקטיר עליו קטרת‬ ‫אחרת שאינה כזו או שהקטיר עליו קטרת‬ ‫כזו שהתנדב אותה יחיד או רבים או‬ ‫הקריב עליו קרבן או הסיך נסך לוקה‬ ‫שנאמר לא תעלו עליו קטורת זרה ועולה‬ :'‫ומנחה וגו‬

When the ark is transported from place to place, it should not be transported on an animal or on a wagon. Instead, it is a mitzvah for it to be carried on one's shoulders.33Since David forgot and had it transported on a wagon, there was an outbreak [of Divine anger] at Uzzah.34 Instead, it is a mitzvah to carry it on one's shoulders, as [Numbers 7:9] states: "For the holy task is their obligation. They shall carry it on their shoulders."

‫בעת שמוליכין את הארון ממקום‬ ‫למקום אין מוליכין אותו לא על‬ ‫הבהמה ולא על העגלות אלא מצוה לנוטלו‬ ‫על הכתף ולפי ששכח דוד ונשאו על‬ ‫העגלה נפרץ פרץ בעוזא אלא מצוה‬ ‫לנשאו על הכתף שנאמר כי עבודת הקדש‬ :‫עליהם בכתף ישאו‬

When [the Levites] carry the ark on their shoulders, they should carry it face to face, with their backs pointed outward and their faces inward.35 They must be careful that the staves of the ark are not removed from the rings. Anyone who removes one of the staves36 from the rings is liable for lashes,37 as [Exodus 25:15] states: "The staves shall be in the rings of the ark. They shall not be removed from it."

‫כשנושאים אותו על הכתף נושאין‬ ‫פנים כנגד פנים ואחוריהם לחוץ‬ ‫ופניהם לפנים ונזהרים שלא ישמטו הבדים‬ ‫מן הטבעות שהמסיר אחד מן הבדים מן‬ ‫הטבעות לוקה שנאמר בטבעות הארון יהיו‬ :‫הבדים לא יסורו ממנו‬

5

« Previous

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 3

Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 1 FOOTNOTES 1. As the Radbaz states, the Rambam does not consider the preparation of the incense offering as a separate mitzvah.

13. These terms refer to balsam, onycha, and storax. 14. Frankincense is the gum resin of a tree found growing in

Indeed, in his Sefer HaMitzvos, General Principle 10, he explains that preparing the incense offering should not be

tropical regions, a member of the Burseraceae family. This resin exudes as a milky liquid and hardens into yellowish

considered as a separate mitzvah, for until it is actually offered it is an incomplete act. The mitzvah of bringing the

droplets, known as frankincense tears. It gives off a warm, slightly citrine perfume.

incense offering is mentioned in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:1. 2. The Rambam defines the terms mentioned here in Halachah 4. 3. I.e., through the principles of Biblical exegesis, our Sages (Keritot 8b) derived that the incense offering contained this number of spices. 4. Although a measure of volume was mentioned for Salt of Sodom (see the following halachah), a measure of weight was not. 5. Amber is the fossilized resin from ancient forests. The resin becomes buried and fossilized through a natural polymerization of the original organic compounds. Heating amber will soften it and eventually it will burn, producing a pleasant fragrance. Others identify kipat hayardein with

15. Musk, see Chapter 1, Halachah 3. 16. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 1:1), the Rambam states that this is an herb that he cannot identify. Some have identified it with cassia, an aromatic bark, similar to cinnamon, but differing in strength and quality. 17. Spikenard is obtained from an Indian plant, found in the Himalaya mountains, the Nardostachys jatamansi. 18. Costus, see Chapter 1, Halachah 3. 19. Cinnamon. 20. Ceylonese cinnamon. 21. Jordanian amber. 22. This cleanses it thoroughly and improves its appearance. 23. Alternatively, wine from Cyprus.

roses. Living Torah refers to it as cycla men, an attractive

24. For the chanting improves the spices (Keritot 6b).

flower that grows in the Mediterranean region.

25. Keritot 6b derives this concept from the description of the

6. A dinar is 76.8 grams (81.6 grams according to a more stringent view) in modern measure. 7. A measure of volume equal to 1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.

anointment oil in Exodus 30:32: "It is holy; it shall be holy for you." The repetition of the term "holy" implies that all of the activity to prepare it must be performed with entities that are consecrated. An equation is established between that oil and the incense offering.

8. Half a maneh in the morning and half in the afternoon. 26. To grind it again, lest it have solidified. 9. In the Holy of Holies. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:1. 10. 365 portions of incense were prepared although an ordinary lunar year has 353, 354, or 355 days. Hence, at the end of the year, there was a certain amount left over. In Hilchot Shekalim 4:12, the Rambam writes that on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, the remainder of the incense was redeemed and then given to the craftsmen who prepared it. Afterwards, it was repurchased from them. Thus when a leap year was declared, there was enough incense. 11. Balsalm is an evergreen tree whose sap has a very pleasant fragrance. 12. The claw or nail of the strombus or wing-shell, a shell-fish common in the Red Sea. When burned, they emit a strong fragrance.

27. Although this would greatly improved its fragrance, there is an explicit Biblical prohibition (Leviticus 2:11; Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:2) against burning any such incense. 28. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 85) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 110) consider the prohibition against preparing incense for its fragrance as one of the Torah's 613 commandments. 29. This is speaking about a person who smells the fragrance of the communal incense offering. A person who smells the incense of a private individual who copied the formula of the incense offering is not liable. See Hilchot Meilah 1:2 for the details of one's liability. See also ibid. 5:16 which states that this applies only when the column of smoke from the incense is rising. Once it has already risen, the prohibition no longer applies.

30. But not to the community as a whole. The Radbaz quotes Rashi (Keritot 6a) which states that one

34. As the Bible relates, II Samuel, ch. 6, God vented His anger for the transgression on Uzzah, causing his death.

is liable for death at the hand of heaven for bringing such an incense offering. (The death of Aaron's sons, Nadav and

35. Thus those in the front will be walking backwards. This is

Avihu, are cited as proof for this thesis.) 31. The blood of certain sacrifices is, however, sprinkled on it, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:13; Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:2.

necessary so that they will not be turning their backs to the ark (Bamidbar Rabbah, ch. 5). 36. Although the prooftext quoted by the Rambam speaks of the staves, using the plural term, he understands the prohibition as applying even to one of them. See the Minchat Chinuch

32. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 82) and Sefer

(mitzvah 96) which discusses this issue.

HaChinuch (mitzvah 104) consider the prohibition against

37. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 86) and Sefer

making such offerings on this altar as one of the Torah's 613 commandments.

HaChinuch (mitzvah 96) consider the prohibition against

33. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 34) and Sefer

removing

the

staves

as

commandments.

HaChinuch (mitzvah 379) consider this mitzvah as one of the Torah's 613 commandments. The prooftext cited by the Rambam refers to the ark being carried by the Levites, the descendants of the family of Kehot. In Sefer HaMitzvot, however, the Rambam writes that the mitzvah for all time was to have the ark carried by the priests and not the Levites. Indeed, the narrative of the ark being carried in Joshua 3:6 and II Samuel 15:25 corroborates this thesis. (The Ramban explains that this does not contradict the Biblical command, because the priests are also descendants of Kehot.) The reason the mitzvah was fulfilled by the Levites while the Jews journeyed through the desert is because there were not enough priests to carry the ark at that time.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

6

policy .

one

of

the

Torah's

613

7

1



Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 2

The descendants of Levi were singled out for service in the Sanctuary, as [Deuteronomy 10:8] states: "At that time, God separated the tribe of Levi."1 It is a positive commandment2 for the Levites to be free and prepared for the service of the Sanctuary, whether they desire to do so or not,3 as [Numbers 18:23] states: "And the Levite shall perform the service of the tent of meeting." When a Levite accepts all the mitzvot of the Levites with the exception of one matter, he is not accepted unless he accepts them all.

English

Hebrew

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 4

‫זרע לוי כולו מובדל לעבודת המקדש‬ ‫שנאמר בעת ההיא הבדיל י"י את‬ ‫שבט הלוי ומצות עשה להיות הלוים פנויין‬ ‫ומוכנין לעבודת המקדש בין רצו בין שלא‬ ‫רצו שנאמר ועבד הלוי הוא את עבודת‬ ‫אהל מועד ובן לוי שקבל עליו כל מצות‬ ‫לויה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו עד‬ :‫שיקבל את כולן‬

Their service was to guard the Temple.4 Among [the Levities], there were gate-keepers5 who would open the gates of the Temple and close its doors. And there were singers who would accompany the sacrifices with song each day. [The latter concept is derived from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 18:7]: "And he shall serve in the name of God, his Lord, as all of his Levite brethren." Which service involves [invoking] the name of God? I would say: song. When were songs recited? At the time all the communal burnt offerings,6 the peace offerings brought on Shavuous,7 and the wine libations8 were brought. Song was not recited over the freewill burnt offerings that the community would bring for "the dessert of the altar,"9 nor on the wine libations that are brought independently.10 A Levite who is in an acute state of mourning11 is permitted to perform his service and sing.12 There should never be less than twelve Levites13 standing on the duchan14 each day to recite the songs over the sacrifices and their number could be increased without end. The songs were song vocally without musical instruments, for the fundamental dimension of the song is vocalization. Others would stand on [the duchan] and play melodies with musical instruments: some of them were Levites and some of them were Israelites of distinguished lineage, fit to marry into the priesthood. For only a person of distinguished lineage was allowed to ascend to the duchan.15 The people who play musical instruments are not included in the number of the twelve singers [required].

2

‫עבודה שלהן היא שיהיו שומרין את‬ ‫המקדש ויהיו מהן שוערין לפתוח‬ ‫שערי המקדש ולהגיף דלתותיו ויהיו מהן‬ ‫משוררין לשורר על הקרבן בכל יום‬ ‫שנאמר ושרת בשם י"י אלהיו ככל אחיו‬ ‫הלוים אי זהו שירות שהוא בשם י"י הוי‬ ‫אומר זו שירה ומתי אומר שירה על כל‬ ‫עולות הציבור החובה ועל שלמי עצרת‬ ‫בעת ניסוך היין אבל עולות נדבה‬ ‫שמקריבין הציבור לקיץ למזבח וכן הנסכין‬ :‫הבאין בפני עצמן אין אומרין עליהן שירה‬

‫לוי האונן מותר לעבוד ולשורר ואין‬ ‫פוחתין משנים עשר לוים עומדים על‬ ‫הדוכן בכל יום לומר שירה על הקרבן‬ ‫ומוסיפין עד לעולם ואין אומרין שירה אלא‬ ‫בפה בלא כלי שעיקר השירה שהיא‬ ‫עבודתה בפה ואחרים היו עומדים שם‬ ‫מנגנין בכלי שיר מהן לוים ומהן ישראלים‬ ‫מיוחסין המשיאין לכהונה שאין עולה על‬ ‫הדוכן אלא מיוחס ואין אלו המשוררים על‬ :‫פי הכלים עולין למנין השנים עשר‬

3

On what instruments would they play? On lyres, flutes, harps, trumpets, and a cymbal.16 There should not be less than two lyres, nor more than six. There should not be less than two flutes, nor more than twelve. There should not be less than two trumpets, nor more than one hundred and twenty.17 There should not be more less than nine harps and there is no upper limit. There should only be one cymbal.

‫ובמה הם מנגנין בנבלים וחלילים‬ ‫וכנורות וחצוצרות והצלצל ואין‬ ‫פוחתין משני נבלים ולא מוסיפין על ששה‬ ‫ואין פוחתין משני חלילים ולא מוסיפין על‬ ‫שנים עשר ואין פוחתין משתי חצוצרות‬ ‫ולא מוסיפין על עשרים ומאה ואין פוחתין‬ ‫מתשעה כנורות ומוסיפין עד לעולם‬ :‫והצלצל אחד בלבד‬

On all the days of the festivals and on the Rashei Chadashim, the priests would sound the trumpets while the sacrifice was being offered and the Levites would recite songs, as [Numbers 10:10] states: "On the day of your celebration, on your festivals, and at the beginning of your months, you shall sound the trumpets."18

‫בימי המועדות כולם ובראשי חדשים‬ ‫היו הכהנים תוקעים בחצוצרות‬ ‫בשעת הקרבן והלוים אומרין שירה‬ ‫שנאמר וביום שמחתכם ובמועדיכם‬ ‫ובראשי חדשיכם ותקעתם בחצוצרות‬ ‫החצוצרה היתה נעשית מן עשת של כסף‬ ‫עשה אותה מן הגרוטאות של כסף כשירה‬ ‫משאר מיני מתכות פסולה והחלילין שהיו‬ ‫מנגנין בהן היה אבוב שלהן של קנה מפני‬ ‫שקולו ערב ולא היה מחלק אלא באבוב‬ :‫יחידי מפני שהוא מחלק יפה‬

Each trumpet was made from a block of silver.19 If it was made from scraps of silver, it is acceptable. If it is made from other metals, it is unacceptable. The flutes on which they would play would have cane reeds, because they produce a sweet sound. The melody would always be played by a single flute, because it produces a pleasant sound.20 Twelve days a year, the flute would be sounded before the altar:21 During the slaughter of the first Paschal sacrifice,22 and during the second Paschal sacrifice,23 on the first day of Pesach, on the first day of Shavuot, and on the eight days of Sukkot. [The sounding of] the flute on these occasions24 supersedes the Sabbath [prohibitions],25 because it is associated with a sacrifice and the sounding of a flute associated with a sacrifice is an act of Temple service and supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions.

‫בשנים עשר יום בשנה החליל מכה‬ ‫ בשחיטת פסח ראשון‬:‫לפני המזבח‬ ‫ובשחיטת פסח שני וביום טוב הראשון של‬ ‫פסח וביום הראשון של עצרת ובשמנה ימי‬ ‫החג וחליל זה דוחה שבת מפני שהוא‬ ‫חליל של קרבן וחליל של קרבן עבודה‬ :‫היא ודוחה את השבת‬

4

A Levite may not enter the Temple Courtyard to perform his service until he studied for five years beforehand. [This concept is derived as follows. Numbers 8:24] states: "This is [the edict] with regard to the Levites: From the age of 25..." and [ibid. 4:30] states: "From the age of 30...." How can [this apparent contradiction be resolved]? They study for five years and they do not enter the service until they fully mature and attain manhood [as ibid.:19] states: "Each man to his service."26

‫אין בן לוי נכנס לעזרה לעבודתו עד‬ ‫שילמדוהו חמש שנים תחלה שנאמר‬ ‫זאת אשר ללוים מבן חמש ועשרים שנה‬ ‫וכתוב אחד אומר מבן שלשים שנה הא‬ ‫כיצד חמש ללמוד ואינו נכנס לעבודה עד‬ ‫שיגדיל ויהיה איש שנאמר איש איש על‬ :‫עבודתו‬

The Torah's statement [Numbers 8:25]: "At the age of 50, he will turn back from the ranks of the workers [of the Sanctuary]," applied only in the era when the Sanctuary was carried from place to place. It is not an [ongoing] mitzvah for future generations.27 For future generations, a Levite is not disqualified because of age or because of physical blemishes,28 only due to a change in voice,29 i.e., if his voice spoils because of his advance age, he is disqualified from serving in the Temple. It appears to me that he is disqualified only from serving as a singer, but he could become one of the doorkeepers.30

‫זה שנאמר בתורה בלוים ומבן‬ ‫חמשים שנה ישוב מצבא העבודה‬ ‫אינו אלא בזמן שהיו נושאין המקדש‬ ‫ממקום למקום ואינו מצוה נוהגת לדורות‬ ‫אבל לדורות אין הלוי נפסל בשנים ולא‬ ‫במומין אלא בקול שיתקלקל קולו מרוב‬ ‫הזקנה יפסל לעבודתו במקדש ויראה לי‬ ‫שאינו נפסל אלא לומר שירה אבל יהיה‬ :‫מן השוערים‬

5

Samuel the Seer and King David divided the Levites into 24 watches.31Each week, a different watch would serve [in the Temple]. The head of the watch would divide all the men of the watch into different "clans." On each day of the week, designated men would serve.32 The heads of the clans would assign the workers on the day that they were designated to work, [allotting each] one appropriate tasks. All of the Levites are warned [not to participate in] the service of the altar,33 as [ibid. 18:3] states: "But to the

‫שמואל הרואה ודוד המלך חלקו‬ ‫הלוים לארבעה ועשרים משמרות‬ ‫ועובד משמר בכל שבת וכל אנשי משמר‬ ‫מחלק אותם ראש המשמר לבתי אבות‬ ‫וכל יום מימי השבת עובדים בו אנשים‬ ‫ידועים וראשי האבות מחלקין אלו‬ ‫העובדים ביום שלהן איש איש על עבודתו‬ ‫וכל הלוים מוזהרין על עבודת המזבח‬ ‫שנאמר אך אל כלי הקדש ואל המזבח לא‬ ‫יקרבו ולא ימותו לא יקרבו לעבודה אבל‬ :‫ליגע מותרין‬

holy utensils and to the altar they should not draw close so they do not die." [This prohibition implies] that they should not draw close to the service [of the Sanctuary], but they may touch [the sacred utensils].34 Just as the Levites were warned not to perform the service of the priests,35so too, the priests are warned not to perform the work of the Levites, as [the above verse] states: "Also they,36 also you [shall not die]."37 Similarly, the Levites themselves were warned that each one should not perform the task incumbent on a colleague.38 Thus a singer should not assist39 a door-keeper, nor a door-keeper a singer, as [ibid. 4:49] states: "Every men, according to his service and his burden."

‫וכשם שהלוים מוזהרין שלא לעבוד‬ ‫עבודת הכהנים כך הכהנים מוזהרין‬ ‫שלא לעבוד עבודת הלוים שנאמר גם הם‬ ‫גם אתם וכן הלוים עצמם מוזהרים שלא‬ ‫יעשה אחד מלאכת חבירו שלא יסייע‬ ‫המשורר לשוער ולא השוער למשורר‬ :‫שנאמר איש איש על עבודתו ואל משאו‬

When Levites perform the service of the priests or one Levi assisted in a task that is not his, they are liable for death at the hand of heaven, for [ibid. 18:3] states: "shall not die."40 When, by contrast, a priest performs the service of a Levite, he is not liable for death. Instead, he violates merely a negative commandment.41

‫לוים שעבדו עבודת הכהנים או‬ ‫שסייע לוי במלאכה שאינה‬ ‫מלאכתו חייבין מיתה בידי שמים שנאמר‬ ‫ולא ימותו אבל כהן שעבד עבודת לוי אינו‬ :‫במיתה אלא בלא תעשה‬

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 2

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 4

6

FOOTNOTES 1. See also Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 13:12 which states: Why did the Levites not receive a portion in the inheritance of Eretz Yisrael and in the spoils of war like their brethren? Because they were set aside to serve God and minister unto Him and to instruct people at large in His just paths

14. The platform of three steps that divided between the Courtyard of the Israelites and the Courtyard of the Priests (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:3). 15. Indeed, the fact that a person had served on the duchan is a sign of his lineage.

and righteous judgments, as [Deuteronomy 33:10] states: "They will teach Your judgments to Jacob and Your Torah

16. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 2:3), the

to Israel." Therefore they were set apart from the ways of the world.

17. Indeed, II Chronicles 5:12 speaks of 120 trumpeters.

2. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 23) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 394) include this mitzvah in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 3. The Sifri to the prooftext quoted states that they can be compelled to do so against their will.

guarding of the Temple.

outcry of distress. This mitzvah is described in Hilchot Ta'aniot,

ch.

1.

In

his

Sefer

HaMitzvot

(positive

commandment 59), the Rambam writes that the two soundings of the shofar are considered as a single mitzvah. 19. Numbers 10:2 speaks of beating out the silver and forming 20. Our translation follows the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 2:3). Rashi, Arachin 10a, offers a different

5. See I Chronicles 9:17-26 which lists the Levites who served this function. The guards would serve as watchmen and not perform any physical work. The gatekeepers performed physical activities, opening the gates, closing them, and locking them. 6. I.e., the daily offerings and the special offerings brought on Sabbaths, Rashei Chadashim, and holidays.

interpretation, explaining that all melodies were concluded by a long note from a lone flute. 21. I.e., on these days, the Levites would sing the Hallel and be accompanied by the flutes alone. On the other days of the year, they would be accompanied by the other instruments (ibid.). 22. On the 14th of Nissan.

7. As a prooftext for this concept, Arachin 11b cites Numbers 10:10: "And you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over peace offerings." The plural term implies offerings that are brought for the entire Jewish people. 8. Arachin, loc. cit., associates the wine libations with song, stating: "Song is recited only over wine." See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:5. 9. See Hilchot Shekalim 4:9 for a description of these sacrifices.

23. I.e., on Pesach Sheni, on the 14th of Iyar. Those who did not bring a sacrifice on the first Pesach had the opportunity to compensate by bringing the sacrifice a month later (Hilchot Korban Pesach,, ch. 5). 24. This also applies with regard to the sounding of the other musical instruments. A flute is mentioned, because a flute was also sounded in association with the water libation (see Hilchot Lulav 8:13) and the sounding of the flute at that time did not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions (Rashi, Sukkah

10. With this phrase, Rambam is referring to both wine libations brought by individuals and those brought by the community but were not brought on the same day as the sacrifice with they

18. The preceding verse speaks of sounding the trumpets as an

trumpets in that manner.

4. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, ch. 8, which describes the

which

Rambam describes these instruments at length.

were

associated.

See

Hilchot

Temidim

UMusafim 6:8. 11. I.e., a close relative died that day (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:9). 12. In contrast to a priest who may not offer a sacrifice while in such a state (Ibid.:6). 13. Arachin 13b explains that there were at least twelve musical instruments playing each day. And there was one singer corresponding to every one of these instruments.

50b). 25. For it is forbidden to sound musical instruments on the Sabbath.

26. As evident from Chapter 5, Halachah 15, the attainment of manhood mentioned here apparently refers to reaching the

34. This is derived from the law mentioned in Hilchot Mitamei

age of Bar Mitzvah. Hence the commentaries question the Rambam's statements, for they apparently contradict his

Showbread was displayed to the people, they were warned not to touch it lest it become impure. One can infer that there

statement made previously, that a Levite must be 30 to begin his service. The Radbaz and Rav Yosef Corcus explain that

is no difficulty in touching it per se, only in making it impure (Har HaMoriah).

the obligation to be 30 applied only when the Sanctuary was being transported. (Just as the disqualification at age 50

The

applied only in the era when the Sanctuary was transported [see the following halachah], so too, it is reasonable to postulate that the obligation to be 30 applied only then.) In other eras, all that was necessary was that the Levite study the necessary laws for five years. 27. See Sefer HaMitzvot,, General Principle 3, which mentions this issue.

Mishkav UMoshav 11:11 that when the table for the

commentaries

have

noted

that

Numbers

4:15

specifically mentions that the Levites should not touch the sacred utensils and that doing so was punishable by death. It is, however, possible to explain that this stringency only applied during the time the Sanctuary was transported through the desert and not in subsequent generations. 35. As stated in the previous halachah. 36. The Levites. 37. The priests.

28. As a priest is (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 6).

38. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative mitzvah 72) and Sefer HaChinuch

29. Chullin 24a states that the Levites on the duchan must sing

(mitzvah 389) include the prohibition against performing

in a manner that their voices sound like one voice. If the

service designated for someone else in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

voice of a particular Levite becomes spoiled and he is no longer capable of singing in this manner, he is unfit to perform this service.

39. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, because according to Arichin 11b, the source for the

30. Indeed, even in the era when the Sanctuary was transported, an elderly person was disqualified only from carrying it. He could serve as a watchman or a singer even then (Har

Rambam's ruling, it would appear that someone who merely renders assistance is not liable for violating a Scriptural commandment.

HaMoriah). 31. Ta'anit 27a derives this concept from I Chronicles 9:22.

40. Implying that the violation of this commandment makes one liable to die.

32. The designation of the clans and thus the determination of who would be serving in the Temple on a particular day was

41. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's ruling,

the responsibility of the head of the watch (Kessef Mishneh). 33. This is part of the prohibition mentioned in the following halachah.

maintaining that the priests are also liable for death, noting that this is stated in Arichin, loc. cit. The Or Sameach notes that the Sifri Zuta (which the Rambam quotes in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., also quoted by the Yalkut Shimoni) to the verse rules differently, distinguishing between the priests and the Levites, leaving room for the Rambam's decision.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

8

1



Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 3

English

Hebrew

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 5

The priests were set aside from the Levites as a whole [to perform] the sacrificial service, as [I Chronicles 23:13] states: "And Aaron was set apart to sanctify him as holy of holies." It is a positive commandment1 to distinguish the priests, make them holy, and prepare them for the sacrifices, as [Leviticus 21:8] states: "And you shall sanctify him because he offers the food of your God."

‫הכהנים הובדלו מכלל הלוים‬ ‫לעבודת הקרבנות שנאמר ויבדל‬ ‫אהרן להקדישו קדש קדשים ומצות עשה‬ ‫היא להבדיל הכהנים ולקדשם ולהכינם‬ ‫לקרבן שנאמר וקדשתו כי את לחם אלהיך‬ :‫הוא מקריב‬

It is necessary for every Jewish person to show them much honor and to give them priority for every matter of holiness, to begin [reading] the Torah first,2 to recite the blessings first,3 and to take a desirable portion first.4

‫וצריך כל אדם מישראל לנהוג בהן‬ ‫כבוד הרבה ולהקדים אותם לכל דבר‬ ‫שבקדושה לפתוח בתורה ראשון ולברך‬ :‫ראשון וליטול מנה יפה ראשון‬

Moses divided the priests into eight watches: four from Elazar and four from Itamar. This continued until [the days of] Samuel the prophet. At that time, he and King David divided them into 24 watches.5 For each watch, there was one who served as the leader. A watch would ascend to Jerusalem to serve for the entire week. They would switch on the Sabbath day. The previous watch would depart and the one which follows would enter.6 [This cycle would continue] until its completion and then they would start again.

'‫משה רבינו חלק הכהנים לח‬ ‫משמרות ארבעה מאלעזר וארבעה‬ ‫מאיתמר וכן היו עד שמואל הנביא ובימי‬ ‫שמואל חלקם הוא ודוד המלך לארבעה‬ ‫ועשרים משמר ועל כל משמר ומשמר‬ ‫ראש אחד ממונה ועולין לירושלים‬ ‫לעבודה משמר לכל שבת ומיום השבת‬ ‫ליום השבת הן מתחלפין משמר יוצא‬ ‫והאחר שהוא אחריו נכנס עד שיגמרו‬ :‫וחוזרין חלילה‬

2

It is a positive commandment for all the watches to share equal status7 during the pilgrimage festivals. Any one of the priests who comes during the pilgrimage festivals and desires to serve [in the Temple] may serve and receive a portion [of the sacrifices]. We do not tell him: "Go and [wait] until your watch [receives its turn]," as [Deuteronomy 18:6] states: "When the Levite8 will come from one of your cities... [to the place that God will choose, he shall serve..."].

‫ומצות עשה להיות כל המשמרות‬ ‫שוים ברגלים וכל שיבא מן הכהנים‬ ‫ברגל ורצה לעבוד עובד וחולק עמהם ואין‬ ‫אומרין לו לך עד שיגיע משמרך שנאמר‬ :'‫וכי יבא הלוי מאחד שעריך וגו‬

In which context does the above apply? With regard to the sacrifices of the festivals,9 the division of the showbread,10 and the two loaves [offered on] Shavuot.11 Vowed offerings,12 freewill offerings,13 and the daily offerings are offered only by the watch that serves at that time.14 [This applies] even during the pilgrimage festivals, as [ibid.:8] states: "Portion for portion shall they eat, except for what was transacted by the ancestors." The implication is that they will partake "portion for portion" of the communal offerings, but not of the other sacrifices. For these were already divided by their ancestors and established for each watch in its week.

‫בד"א בקרבנות הרגלים ובחילוק‬ ‫לחם הפנים ובחילוק שתי הלחם של‬ ‫עצרת אבל נדרים ונדבות ותמידין אין‬ ‫מקריבין אותן אלא משמר שזמנו קבוע‬ ‫ואפילו ברגל שנאמר חלק כחלק יאכלו‬ ‫לבד ממכריו על האבות כלומר חלק כחלק‬ ‫יאכלו בקרבנות הצבור ואין חלק כחלק‬ ‫בשאר הדברים שכבר חלקו אותם האבות‬ :‫וקבעום כל משמר ומשמר בשבתו‬

Similarly, the service involved with the showbread is performed by the watch whose turn is established. The service involved with the two breads [of Shavuos] is performed by all the watches.15 How do we know that [the verse cited above] is speaking only about the festivals? Because it states: "from one of your cities among all Israel." [One can infer] that it is speaking about a time when the entire Jewish people enter through one gate.16

‫וכן עבודת לחם הפנים במשמר שזמנו‬ ‫קבוע אבל עבודת שתי הלחם בכל‬ ‫המשמרות ומניין שאינו מדבר אלא‬ ‫ברגלים שנאמר מאחד שעריך מכל‬ ‫ישראל בשעה שכל ישראל באין בשער‬ ‫אחד ומניין שאינו מדבר אלא בכהנים‬ ‫שנאמר חלק כחלק יאכלו ואין שם מתנות‬ :‫במקדש להאכל אלא לכהנים בלבד‬

How do we know that it is speaking about priests?17 For it states: "Portion for portion shall they eat" and there are no presents to be eaten allotted in the Temple except to the priests.

3

Similarly, when a priest has a sacrifice [of his own], he may come to the Temple and offer it on any day that he desires,18 as [that verse] states: "He shall come at any [impulse] of his heart's desires and serve." He may even offer his sin offering and guilt offering and bring about atonement for himself. [In such an instance,] the right to the hide and to partake of the sacrifice belongs to him. If he desires he may give his sacrifice to any priest he desires to sacrifice it. [In such an instance,] the right to the hide and to partake of the sacrifice belongs to the priest to whom he gave it.19

‫וכן כהן שהיה לו קרבן ה"ז בא למקדש‬ ‫ומקריבו בכל יום שירצה שנאמר ובא‬ ‫בכל אות נפשו ושרת ואפילו חטאתו‬ ‫ואשמו הוא מקריב ומכפר ע"י עצמו‬ ‫והעור של קרבנו ואכילתו שלו ואם רצה‬ ‫ליתן את קרבנו לכל כהן שירצה להקריבו‬ ‫נותן ועור הקרבן ועבודתו לאותו הכהן‬ :‫בלבד שנתן לו‬

If the priest who brings the sacrifice is physically blemished,20 he should give his sacrifice to the [priests of] the watch serving that week and the hide belongs to them.21 If he was ill or sick to the extent that he could serve only with difficulty, he may give the sacrifice to any priest he desires,22 the hide and the service23 belong to the [priests of] the watch serving that week. If he cannot serve at all, the sacrifice belongs to the [priests of] the watch serving that week in its entirety.24

‫היה הכהן בעל הקרבן בעל מום נותן‬ ‫קרבנו לאנשי משמר והעור שלהם‬ ‫היה זקן או חולה שיכול לעבוד על ידי‬ ‫הדחק נותן קרבנו לכל כהן שירצה והעור‬ ‫והעבודה לאנשי משמר ואם אינו יכול‬ :‫לעבוד כלל הרי הקרבן כלו לאנשי משמר‬

4

If [all the priests of the watch] are impure and a communal sacrifice is involved and all of the priests25 were impure,26 the sacrifice may be given to the priests of that watch who were ritually pure, but have physical blemishes.27 The hide and the service belong to [the priests of] the watch serving that week [even though they are] impure.28

‫היה טמא בקרבנות הצבור וכל‬ ‫הכהנים טמאים נותנו לבעלי מומין‬ ‫טהורים שבאותו משמר ועורו ועבודתו‬ :‫לאנשי משמר הטמאים‬

If the sacrifice belonged to the High Priest and he was in a state of acute mourning,29 he may give it to any priest he desires. The hide and the service belong to [the priests of] the watch serving that week. [The rationale is that] since a High Priest is fit to perform service in a state of acute mourning,30 as will be explained,31 he may appoint an agent for his sacrifice.

‫היה הקרבן של כ"ג והיה אונן נותנו‬ ‫לכל כהן שירצה ועורו ועבודתו לאנשי‬ ‫משמר כיון שכ"ג האונן ראוי לעבודה כמו‬ :‫שיתבאר ה"ז עושה שליח לקרבנו‬

The head of every watch divides his watch into clans32 so that [the priests] in each clan will serve on one of the days of the week, one on one day, another on the next, and another on the next. Each of the clans had a head who was appointed over it.

‫כל ראש משמר ומשמר מחלק‬ ‫משמרו לבתי אבות עד שיהיה כל‬ ‫בית אב ואנשיו עובד ביום אחד מימות‬ ‫השבת והאחר ביום של אחריו והאחר‬ ‫ביום של אחריו ולכל בית אב ואב ראש‬ :‫אחד ממונה עליו‬

A High Priest is appointed33 [to serve as] the head of all of the priests. He is anointed with the anointing oil34 and clothed in the garments of the High Priest,35 as [Leviticus 21:10] states: "And the priest who was elevated over his brethren, over whose head was poured [the anointment oil]...." If there is no anointment oil,36 he is initiated into office merely by [wearing] the garments of the High Priest,37 as [the above verse] states: "...over whose head was poured [the anointment oil] and who was initiated to wear the garments." [Implied is that] just as he is initiated with the anointment oil, so too, he is initiated with the garments [of the High Priesthood].

‫וממנין כ"ג הוא ראש לכל הכהנים‬ ‫ומושחין אותו בשמן המשחה‬ ‫ומלבישין אותו בגדי כהונה גדולה שנאמר‬ ‫והכהן הגדול מאחיו אשר יוצק וגו' ואם‬ ‫אין שם שמן המשחה מרבין אותו בבגדי‬ ‫כהונה גדולה בלבד שנאמר אשר יוצק על‬ ‫ראשו שמן המשחה ומלא את ידו ללבוש‬ ‫את הבגדים כשם שמתרבה בשמן המשחה‬ :‫כך מתרבה בבגדים‬

5

How is he initiated with the garments? He puts on the eight garments [of the High Priest] and [later] removes them and does so again on the morrow for seven days, as [Exodus 29:30] states: "The priest from his sons who serves in his stead shall put them on for seven days." Just as he puts on the clothes for seven consecutive days, so too, he is anointed with the oil for seven consecutive days.38 If he performed service before he was initiated by wearing the clothes for all seven days or before he was anointed for all seven days, his service is acceptable.39 Since he was initiated or anointed once, he is a High Priest with regard to all matters.

‫כיצד מרבין אותו בבגדים לובש‬ ‫שמנה בגדים ופושטן וחוזר ולובשן‬ ‫למחר שבעת ימים יום אחר יום שנאמר‬ ‫שבעת ימים ילבשם הכהן תחתיו מבניו‬ ‫וכשם שרבוי בגדים ז' כך משיחה בשמן‬ ‫שבעה יום אחר יום ואם עבד קודם‬ ‫שיתרבה בבגדים כל שבעה או קודם‬ ‫שימשח כל שבעה עבודתו כשירה הואיל‬ ‫ונתרבה או נמשח פעם אחת נעשה כ"ג‬ :‫לכל דבר‬

There is no difference in [the laws pertaining to] a High Priest who was anointed with the anointment oil and [those applying to] one who was initiated by wearing the garments of the High Priest except [the obligation] for the High Priest to bring a bull [as a sacrifice] if he inadvertently violated one of the mitzvot for which a sin offering is required, as [Leviticus 4:3] states: "If the anointed priest40 will sin...."41 With regard to other matters, they are identical.

‫אין בין כהן משוח בשמן המשחה‬ ‫למרובה בגדים אלא פר שמביא‬ ‫כהן המשיח אם שגג באחד מן המצות‬ ‫שחייב עליהן חטאת שנאמר אם הכהן‬ ‫המשיח יחטא וגו' אבל לשאר הדברים‬ :‫שוים הם‬

A High Priest should be appointed only by the court of 71 judges.42 He should be anointed only during the day, as [ibid. 6:13] states: "On the day of his anointment...." Similarly, if he was initiated merely by wearing the priestly garments, the initiation should only take place during the day. Two High Priests should not be initiated together.

‫אין מעמידין כ"ג אלא ב"ד של‬ ‫אחד ושבעים ואין מושחין אותו‬ ‫אלא ביום שנאמר ביום המשח אותו וכן‬ ‫אם נתרבה בבגדים בלבד אין מרבין אותו‬ ‫אלא ביום ואין ממנין שני כהנים גדולים‬ :‫כאחת‬

6

We also appoint a priest who will serve the High Priest like a viceroy, he is called the segen and he is also called "the appointed one." He should stand at the right hand of the High Priest at all times.43 This honor is given to him. All of the other priests are under his authority.

‫ממנין כהן אחד יהיה לכ"ג כמו‬ ‫המשנה למלך והוא הנקרא סגן‬ ‫והוא הנקרא ממונה ויהיה עומד לימין כהן‬ ‫גדול תמיד וזה כבוד הוא לו וכל הכהנים‬ :‫מתחת יד הסגן‬

In addition, katikolin44 are appointed to serve the segen as the segen serves the High Priest. There should be no less than two of them.45 No less than seven amerkalin46 should be appointed, The keys to the Temple Courtyard are in their hands.47 If one desires to open [the courtyard], he cannot until all the amerkalin gather and open it.

‫ועוד ממנין קתיקולין להיות לסגן כמו‬ ‫הסגן לכ"ג ואין פוחתין משנים‬ ‫וממנים אמרכלין אין פחות מז' ומפתחות‬ ‫העזרה בידם רצה האחד לפתוח אינו יכול‬ :‫עד שיתכנסו כל האמרכולין ויפתחו‬

Treasurers are appointed under the amerkalin. There should be no less than three. They collect the consecrated articles, redeem those which should be redeemed,48 and use the proceeds for purposes that require these expenses.

‫ידי‬ ‫מתחת‬ ‫גזברין‬ ‫וממנין‬ ‫האמרכולין ואין פוחתין משלשה‬ ‫גזברין והגזברין הם שגובין כל ההקדשות‬ ‫ופודין את הנפדה מהן ומוציאין אותן‬ :‫בדברים הראויין להן להוציאן‬

7

A High Priest who was anointed receives precedence49 over one who was installed by wearing the garments [of the High Priesthood].50 One installed by wearing the garments who is prepared to serve receives precedence over an anointed [High Priest] disqualified because of a seminal emission.51 One disqualified because of a seminal emission receives precedence over one disqualified because of a physical blemish.52 One disqualified because of a physical blemish receives precedence over the priest anointed to lead the nation in war.53 The priest anointed to lead the nation in war receives precedence over the segen.54 The segen receives precedence over a katikol, a katikolover an amerkal, an amerkal over a treasurer,

‫כהן הגדול המשוח קודם למרובה‬ ‫בגדים ומרובה בגדים העומד‬ ‫לשרת קודם למשוח שעבר מחמת קרי‬ ‫והעובר מחמת קרי קודם לעובר מחמת‬ ‫מום והעובר מחמת מום קודם לכהן משוח‬ ‫מלחמה ומשוח מלחמה קודם לסגן וסגן‬ ‫קודם לקתיקול וקתיקול קודם לאמרכל‬ ‫ואמרכל קודם לגזבר וגזבר קודם לראש‬ ‫משמר וראש המשמר קודם לראש בית‬ ‫אב וראש בית אב קודם לכהן הדיוט‬ ‫משאר הכהנים נמצאו הכהנים תמיד‬ :‫שמנה מעלות זו למעלה מזו‬

a treasurer over a head of a watch, a head of a watch over a head of a clan, an a head of a clan over an ordinary priest. Thus there are eight rungs in the priesthood,55 one above the other. When the king, the High Priest, or any other official dies, his son or anyone fit to inherit him56 is appointed in his stead. Those who are higher in the order of inheritance57 receive precedence with regard to receiving the position of the deceased, provided he is equivalent [to the deceased] in wisdom,58 or in the fear of God, even if he is not comparable in wisdom.59 For [Deuteronomy 17:20] states with regard to a king: "He and his descendants in the midst of Israel." This teaches that the kingship is inherited. This applies with regard to any office amidst the Jewish people.60 If one acquires it, he acquires it for himself and for his descendants.

‫כשימות המלך או כהן גדול או אחד‬ ‫משאר הממונים מעמידין תחתיו בנו‬ ‫או הראוי ליורשו וכל הקודם לנחלה קודם‬ ‫לשררות המת והוא שיהיה ממלא מקומו‬ ‫בחכמה או ביראה אף על פי שאינו כמותו‬ ‫בחכמה שנאמר במלך הוא ובניו בקרב‬ ‫ישראל מלמד שהמלכות ירושה והוא הדין‬ ‫לכל שררה שבקרב ישראל שהזוכה לה‬ :‫זוכה לעצמו ולזרעו‬

8

The position of being the priest anointed to lead the nation in war is not transferred to one's son.61 Instead, the son is like all other priests. If he is anointed as the leader in war, he is anointed. If he is not anointed, he is not anointed.62 When the priest who was anointed to lead the nation in war serves in the Temple,63 he serves wearing four garments like the other priests.64 A person should be promoted to a higher position than the one he holds and should not be demoted to a lower position, for one must ascend with regard to holy matters and not descend.65 A person should never be removed from a position of authority within the Jewish people unless he acted in an unsuitable manner.66 When a High Priest violates a transgression that is punishable by lashes, he should be given lashes in a court of three judges as is the law regarding others liable for lashes.67 He then returns to his position of eminence.68

‫משוח מלחמה אין בנו מתמנה‬ ‫תחתיו לעולם אלא הרי הוא‬ ‫כשאר הכהנים אם נמשח למלחמה נמשח‬ ‫ואם לא נמשח לא נמשח וכשכהן משוח‬ ‫מלחמה משמש במקדש משמש בד' כלים‬ ‫כשאר כהנים מעלין משררה לשררה‬ ‫גדולה ממנה ואין מורידין אותו לשררה‬ ‫שהיא למטה ממנה שמעלין בקדש ולא‬ ‫מורידין ואין מורידין לעולם משררה‬ :‫שבקרב ישראל אלא אם סרח‬

‫וכהן גדול שעבר עבירה שחייב‬ ‫עליה מלקות מלקין אותו בב"ד‬ ‫של שלשה כשאר מחוייבי מלקות וחוזר‬ :‫לגדולתו‬

« Previous

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 5

Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 3 FOOTNOTES 1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 32) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 269) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 2. I.e., to receive the first aliyah in the public reading of the Torah. In the Talmudic era (and so is the practice in some communities today), the person receiving the aliyah would himself read from the Torah. 3. I.e., to recite the blessing HaMotzi and to lead the Grace (Rashi, Gittin 59b). 4. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Gittin 5:8), the Rambam emphasizes that this applies only when there are no sages present whose knowledge surpasses that of the priest. If such sages are present, they are given priority.

5. More particularly, Samuel divided them into 16 watches and David, into 24 (Ta'anit 27a). 6. The changing of the watches was marked by the division of the showbread. The entering watch would receive six loaves and the departing watch, six loaves. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:12. 7. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 36) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 509) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There is, however, a difference between the definition of the mitzvah here and that of Sefer HaMitzvot. In that source, the Rambam describes the mitzvah as creating the watches, while here he defines it as allowing all of the watches to serve during the festivals.

8. All the commentaries agree that this verse is referring to a priest, who is a descendant of the tribe of Levi. See the conclusion of Halachah 6. 9. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this refers both to the

25. I.e., all the priests found in Jerusalem at that time, including those of other watches.

communal offerings required to be offered on the festivals

26. In which instance, the communal sacrifices may be offered

and the individual offerings which people would bring as part of their pilgrimage obligations.

by the priests while in a state of impurity, as stated in Hilchot

10. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:12. 11. See ibid. 8:11. 12. A pledge to bring a particular type of sacrifice (see Hilchot Nedarim 1:2). 13. A pledge to bring a designated animal as a sacrifice (ibid.). 14. I.e., although all the priests had license to come and serve in the Temple during the pilgrimage festivals, there was also one watch which was designated to serve at that time, and that watch was entrusted with offering these sacrifices.

Bi'at HaMikdash 4:12. Individual sacrifices may not be offered by impure priests even under these circumstances. 27. In such a situation, the sacrifice should be brought in a state of ritual impurity. Nevertheless, the sacrificial meat itself was ritually pure and it should be eaten by a priest who is ritually impure. Since the priest who is physically blemished is ritually pure and is part of the watch which is serving, he should be given the meat to eat. 28. A blemished priest cannot perform service in the Temple even in such a situation.

15. The difference between the two is that the showbread is not

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and states that the sacrifice should be given to any priest to offer even though

offered because of the festival (but is instead, an ongoing obligation for every Sabbath), while the two loaves are

that priest is impure and the right to partake of the sacrifice and use the hide should be given to the priests of that watch

(Radbaz). 16. We have translated the word sha'arecha figuratively as "your

who have physical blemishes. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's intent is that a priest with physical blemishes

cities," even though it literally means "your gates." The implication is that the verse is speaking about a time when all

should receive the meat. The hide, however, belongs to the priests who offered it.

of Israel come to one city, Jerusalem, for the pilgrimage festivals.

29. His mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, or wife died that day.

17. For it mentions Levites.

30. Hence he can appoint an agent.

18. I.e., even if it is not the time when his watch was designated to serve.

31. Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:6. The High Priest may offer

19. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the priest who brought the sacrifice has the right to partake of it and benefit from its hide, even if he did not offer it. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh debate these two perspectives based on Bava Kama 110a. 20. In which instance, he is forbidden to bring his own sacrifice. 21. This follows the version of Bava Kama 109b cited by Rashi.

sacrifices while in a state of acute mourning, but may not partake of them. Other priests are not allowed to offer sacrifices in this state. 32. The Radbaz implies that the division was a creative one and that each week, the head of the watch would make a division according to his perception of the needs of the Temple service for that week. 33. By the High Court of 71 judges as stated in Halachah 15.

The standard published text follows a different version. Since

34. Described in Chapter 1, in particular, Halchot 7 and 9.

he is unable to offer the sacrifice, he may not appoint an agent to offer it, but instead, must give it to the members of

35. The eight garments described in Chapter 8, Halachot 1-2. An

the watch. Since they offer it, they are entitled to its hide. The owner of the sacrifice may, however, receive a portion of the meat of the sacrifice since he is permitted to partake of sacrificial meat. 22. Since it is possible for him to serve, he may appoint an agent to act as the owner of the sacrifice. 23. According to Rashi (ibid. 110a), it appears that the intent is the priests of the watch are given the right to partake of the sacrifice. Since the owner could not partake of it himself, he cannot appoint an agent to do so.

9

24. Since he cannot serve himself, he cannot appoint an agent to serve in his place.

ordinary priest wears four priestly garments and the High Priest, eight. 36. As was the case in the latter years of the First Temple and throughout the Second Temple period (see Chapter 1, Halachah 8). 37. The term marbeh begadim,

literally,

"increased

[his]

garments," is used to described this initiation, because he is garbed with the eight garments of the High Priest as opposed to the four of an ordinary priest.

10

38. The Radbaz explains that the paradigm for this was set by the initiation of Aaron in the High Priesthood at the time of

50. The Ritba (in his gloss to Makkot 11a) questions the source

the dedication of the Sanctuary. Although Aaron was anointed on the first day, Moses served as a High Priest for

the oil of anointment was entombed, there were only anointed High Priests and there were none initiated by

the first seven days (Radbaz).

wearing the priestly garments. And after it was entombed, there were no longer any anointed High Priests. And yet, the

39. Implied is that the initial preference is for him not to perform service. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the

of the Rambam's ruling, Horiot, loc. cit. For seemingly, until

passage in Horiot appears to imply that they were

obligation to be initiated for seven days before serving applies only with regard to the Yom Kippur service, but not

contemporaries. The Ritba offers a resolution, explaining that, in the era of

with regard to other matters.

the First Temple, if a High Priest that was anointed was forced to be absent from the Temple for an extended period,

40. Thus including only a High Priest who was anointed. 41. See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 15, for a description of the details of this sacrifice. 42. Sanhedrin 16a derives this from the advice Yisro gives to Moses (Exodus 18:22): "Any great matter (hadavar hagadol) will be brought to you." Implied is that matters that involve gadlus (greatness) - including the appointment of the kohen

e.g., he became ill or was taken captive, a substitute was appointed to serve as a High Priest in his place. He was not anointed, because there may never be two anointed High Priests at the same time, but instead, was initiated in his office by wearing the garments of the High Priesthood. 51. A priest who experiences a seminal emission becomes

gadol (the High Priest) - should be judged by a court with

impure and is therefore disqualified from offering sacrifices or performing any other service in the Temple until he regains

authority equal to that of Moses, i.e., the Sanhedrin of 71

ritual purity.

judges. 43. See Chapter 5, Halachot 4-5, 13. 44. A Greek term meaning "general officer." 45. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:2), the Rambam states that there should never be less than two people appointed to take care of communal matters.

52. For the one disqualified because of a seminal is fit for service after he becomes pure, while a blemished priest will never become fit. Even if the blemished can be healed, until it is healed, he is unfit. 53. See Chapter 1, Halachah 7. 54. Nazir 47b states that with regard to providing one with his

46. Horiot 13a interprets this as a composite of two Aramaic

livelihood, the priest appointed to lead the nation in war

terms meaning "appointed over all." See also the Targum to

receives precedence over the segen, because the nation as

Numbers 3:32 which uses this term to translate nasi,

a whole is dependent on him.

"prince." The Radbaz notes that the word emir in Arabic means "officer."

55. The priest appointed to lead the nation in war is not counted, because he is not involved in the Temple service. Nor are

47. I.e., there were seven keys to the Temple Courtyard and each one had one key (Tosefta, Shekalim). In Hilchot Beit

those disqualified because of blemishes or impurity counted, because they do not exist at all times. Similarly, only one

HaBechirah 8:5, the Rambam states that the keys to the

level of High Priest is counted, because generally, there was either an anointed High Priest or one installed through

Sanctuary were entrusted to the elders of the clan. Perhaps the intent is that the elders of the clan were in fact the amerkalin (Ma'aseh Rokeach). Based on the following

wearing the garments. Usually, both did not exist together. See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.

halachah, that would seem unlikely (Kin'at Eliyahu). See

56. I.e., any male. Although females are fit to inherit in certain

also Chapter 7, Halachah 3, which speaks about a priest appointed to lock the gates of the Temple. Perhaps the intent

circumstances, they should not be given any positions of authority among the Jewish people. See Hilchot Melachim

is that the keys belonged to the amerkalin and each night,

1:5.

they would entrust them. 48. I.e., those that could be used for the Temple or its service itself should be used for that purpose and not redeemed. 49. Horiot 13a states that he is given precedence with regard to providing him with his livelihood (and by extension, redeeming him from captivity and returning his lost article). Seemingly, this order also applies - albeit with certain exceptions - with regard to establishing a hierarchy of honor.

57. The order of inheritance is listed in Hilchot Nachalot, ch. 1.

11

58. Hilchot Melachim 1:7 states that he must be equivalent to his predecessor in both wisdom and the fear of God in order

61. The Radbaz maintains that this ruling has to do with the unique function this priest serves. Since he leads the nation

to inherit the position. The commentaries suggest emending the text here to follow that reading, because the fear of God

in war, it is a life or death question and the most capable person is chosen whether he is the heir or not.

is the very foundation of the spiritual heritage of the Jewish people. Anyone who lacks that quality can never be a

the opposite perspective, explaining the distinction between

competent leader, as the Rambam states there: "[However,] under no circumstance should a person who lacks the fear of

this and other positions which are inherited as follows: The kingship and other similar positions are appointments

God be appointed to any position in Israel, even though he possesses much knowledge."

associated with leadership. Hence if the heir is fundamentally capable, he inherits his father's position. The

59. In the above source, the Rambam states: "He should be

priest who leads the nation in war, by contrast, is an appointment based on holiness. That is not transferred by

granted his father's position and given instruction." In that vein, Ketubot 103b describes how Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi instructed that his son Gamliel be given his position, even though his knowledge was not as great as his father's. If, however, a son is not comparable to his father in the fear of heaven, he should not be given his position at all. The Kessef Mishneh cites the interpretation of Leviticus 16:32 which describes the High Priest as one "who was anointed to fill the place of his ancestor." Torat Kohanim (Tzav) comments: "Should he be anointed even though he does not 'fill the place' [i.e., does not equal the level of his] ancestors? No, the Torah states 'fill the place.' If he is not equal to his father, the position should be granted to someone else." 60. See Sifri, Shoftim. This law has been a matter of controversy throughout the years. In regard to positions of communal authority, almost all authorities accept this concept. However, controversies have frequently arisen over the inheritance of Rabbinical positions. Here, the Rambam's decision has frequently been challenged. Maharshdam (Yoreh De'ah, Responsa, n. 85) states that a city must seek out the most capable Rav possible without regard to inheritance. Similarly, the Terumat HaDeshen (Pesakim 128) states "Torah cannot be inherited." However, many prominent authorities (Rivash, Responsa 271, Ramah, Yoreh De'ah 245, Maharit Algazi, Simchat Yom Tov 6) have explained that this law applies even in regard to rabbinical positions. The difficulties in deciding the question may be seen in the Chatam Sofer's lack of certainty regarding it. In his Responsa (Orach Chayim, Responsum 12), he at first espouses the opinion that rabbinical positions should not be handed down from father to son. However, later (Responsum 13), he reversed himself and granted the son his father's position by inheritance. In practice, most Rabbis have reached the opinion that if the son is a capable Rabbi, though less qualified than another who seeks the position, his father's position should be awarded to him. However, if the community sees the son as incapable of filling his father's position at all, it may be given to another person.

In a responsum (Orach Chayim 12), the Chatam Sofer takes

inheritance. Indeed, the High Priesthood would not be transferred by inheritance were there not a specific verse commanding us to do so. 62. There is no obligation either way. 63. While he leads them in war, he wears the eight garments of the High Priest (see Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). 64. Although he was anointed, he is not given the status of a High Priest and wears the garments of an ordinary priest. 65. This is a principle applied in several contexts of Torah law. See Menachot 11:7; Hilchot Tefilah 3:16; Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:16. 66. Once he is removed from his position, he should not be reinstated. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:9. 67. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:4. Although a case involving a question of capital punishment for a High Priest is judged by a court of 71 judges [rather than the usual 23 (ibid.:1)], we do not say that as a measure of respect for his position, he should be judged by a court of 23 judges. For if he is held liable, he will be lashed in their presence and this will be a public dishonor [Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 2:1)]. 68. The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) explains that this comes as a result of the holiness with which the High Priest is endowed. It is a microcosm of God's holiness and hence, like His holiness cannot be nullified.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

12

policy .



Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 4

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 6

The High Priest must surpass all of his priestly brethren in beauty, power, wealth, wisdom, and appearance.1 If he does not have wealth of his own, all of his priestly brethren should give him according to their financial capacity until he is wealthier than all of them.2

‫כהן גדול צריך שיהיה גדול מכל‬ ‫אחיו הכהנים בנוי בכח בעושר‬ ‫בחכמה ובמראה אין לו ממון כל הכהנים‬ ‫נותנין לו משלהן כל אחד לפי עשרו עד‬ :‫שיעשיר יותר מעשיר שבכולן‬

None of the above is an absolute requirement;3 instead, all of this is merely [the optimum way of fulfilling] the mitzvah. If he was, nonetheless, initiated, his initiation is valid.

‫ואין אחד מכל אלו מעכב אלא כל זה‬ ‫למצוה אבל אם נתרבה מכל מקום‬ :‫נתרבה‬

The High Priest must conduct himself with dignity. He should not act frivolously with the people at large. They should not see him naked, nor4 in the bathhouse, nor in the toilet, nor while he is having his hair cut, as [Leviticus 21:6] states: "the priest greater than his brethren." This teaches that he is regarded with great honor. [Nevertheless,] if he desires that others bathe with him, he may [allow them to do so].

‫וחייב כהן גדול לנהוג כבוד בעצמו‬ ‫ולא יקל בעצמו עם שאר העם ולא‬ ‫יראו אותו ערום לא בבית המרחץ ולא‬ ‫בבית הכסא ולא כשמסתפר שנאמר הכהן‬ ‫הגדול מאחיו מלמד שנוהגין בו גדולה‬ ‫יתירה רצה הוא שירחצו אחרים עמו‬ :‫הרשות בידו‬

He should not enter a celebration or a public feast even if they are associated with a mitzvah.5 If he desires,6 however, he may go to a house of mourning. If he goes, he does not go walking together with the other priests. Instead, the priests surround him and display honor to him and the segen arranges the contact between him and the people. The segen and an anointed priest who was removed from his position7 stand at his right and the head of the clan [serving in the Temple], the mourners, and all others are to his left. He tells the mourners: "Be comforted" and they honor him according to their capacity. If one [of the relatives for whom he must mourn] dies, he does not go out to the funeral procession, nor does he depart from the entrance of his home or the Temple. All of the nation come to his home to comfort him. He stands for the line of comforters8 with the segen at his right and the head of the clan to his left. [The people tell him]: "We are atonement for you" and he tells them: "May you be blessed from heaven."

2

‫לא יכנס לבית המשתה ולא לסעודה‬ ‫של רבים אפילו הם של מצוה אבל‬ ‫הולך הוא אם רצה לבית האבל וכשהוא‬ ‫הולך אינו הולך בערבוביא עם שאר‬ ‫הכהנים אלא מסבבין אותו הכהנים‬ ‫וחולקין לו כבוד והסגן ממצעו בינו לבין‬ ‫העם והסגן ומשוח שעבר מימינו וראש‬ ‫בית אב והאבלים וכל העם משמאלו‬ ‫ואומר לאבלים תנוחמו והן מכבדין אותו‬ :‫כפי כחן‬

‫מת לו מת אינו יוצא אחריו ואינו‬ ‫יוצא מפתח ביתו או מן המקדש וכל‬ ‫העם באים לנחמו לביתו והוא עומד‬ ‫בשורה וסגן מימינו וראש בית אב וכל‬ ‫העם משמאלו ואומרים לו אנו כפרתך‬ :‫והוא אומר להם תתברכו מן השמים‬

3

When the meal of comfort is served to him,9 all of the people sit on the ground and he sits on a low bench.10 He does not rend his garments over his dead, as do the other priests,11 as [Leviticus 21:10] states: "He shall not rend his garments."12 If he rends them, he is liable for lashes.13 He may, however, tear them from below towards his feet.14 He may never let his hair grow long,15 as [ibid.] states: "He shall not allow [the hair of] his head to grow long." [This applies] even at times when he does not enter the Sanctuary. Instead, he should have his hair cut every Friday. He should not have his hair cut with a razor, rather with scissors. [He should have] the top of one hair [cut] when it reaches the base of the hair above it so that it appears that they grew as one,16 as [indicated by Ezekiel 44:20]: "They shall not shave their heads, nor should they let their hair grow long. [Instead,] they shall keep their heads trimmed."

‫וכשמברין אותו כל העם מסובין על‬ ‫הארץ והוא מיסב על הספסל ואינו‬ ‫קורע על מתו כשאר הכהנים שנאמר‬ ‫ובגדיו לא יפרום ואם קרע לוקה אבל‬ ‫קורע הוא מלמטה כנגד רגליו ואינו מרבה‬ ‫פרע לעולם שנאמר את ראשו לא יפרע‬ ‫ואפילו בעת שלא יכנס למקדש אלא‬ ‫מספר מערב שבת לע"ש ואינו מספר‬ ‫בתער אלא בזוג ראש שערה זו בעיקר זו‬ ‫עד שיראה כאילו הוא צמח כאחת‬ ‫שנאמר ראשם לא יגלחו ופרע לא ישלחו‬ :‫כסום יכסמו את ראשיהן‬

There was a chamber prepared for him in the Sanctuary which was called: "The Chamber of the High Priest."17 The glory and the honor of [the High Priest] would be to remain in the Sanctuary the entire day18 and to go to his private home only at night or for an hour or two during the day. His home should be in Jerusalem and he should never depart from there.19

‫ובית יהיה לו מוכן במקדש והוא‬ ‫הנקרא לשכת כ"ג ותפארתו וכבודו‬ ‫שיהיה יושב במקדש כל היום ולא יצא‬ ‫אלא לביתו בלבד בלילה או שעה או שתים‬ :‫ביום ויהיה ביתו בירושלים ואינו זז משם‬

A High Priest may act as a judge and he is judged.20 Testimony may be delivered against him. Capital cases against him are judged in the High Court alone, as [implied by Exodus 18:22]: "Any great matter (hadavar hagadol) will be brought to you."21

‫כ"ג דן ודנין אותו ומעידין עליו ואין‬ ‫דנין אותו דיני נפשות אלא בב"ד‬ ‫הגדול בלבד שנאמר כל הדבר הגדול יביאו‬ :‫אליך‬

If he knows testimony, he is not obligated to deliver it, even in the High Court.22 For going to testify does not enhance his honor. If it was testimony involving a King of the Jewish people,23 he should go to the High Court and testify concerning him.24

‫היה יודע עדות אינו חייב להעיד‬ ‫ואפילו בב"ד הגדול שזה אינו כבוד‬ ‫לו שילך ויעיד ואם היתה עדות למלך‬ :‫ישראל ה"ז הולך בב"ד הגדול ומעיד לו‬

We already explained in the fifth book25 that [the High Priest] is forbidden [to marry] a widow and commanded to marry a virgin. He may not have two wives. If he marries two, he may not carry out the service on the fast [of Yom Kippur] until he divorces one.26

‫וכבר ביארנו בספר קדושה שהוא‬ ‫אסור באלמנה ומצווה על הבתולה‬ ‫ואינו נושא שתי נשים ואם נשא שתים‬ ‫אינו יכול לעבוד ביום הצום עד שיגרש‬ ‫לאחת וחולץ וחולצים לאשתו ומייבמין את‬ ‫אשתו ואם גירש אשה מותרת להנשא‬ :‫לשאר העם‬

He may perform chalitzah27 and [either] chalitzah or yibbum are performed with his wife. If he divorces a women, she is permitted to marry another person.28

4

When the High Priest enters the Sanctuary29 to prostrate himself,30 three support him: one on his right side, one on his left side, and one [holding] the jewels on the hind side31 of the ephod. He enters the Sanctuary and prostrates himself. When the segen hears the sound of the feet of the High Priest as he departs,32 he lifts up the curtain.33 After he departs, his priestly brethren enter, prostrate themselves, and depart.

‫להיכל‬ ‫נכנס‬ ‫שכ"ג‬ ‫בזמן‬ ‫להשתחוות ג' אוחזין בו אחד‬ ‫בימינו ואחד בשמאלו ואחד באבנים‬ ‫טובות שבאפוד מאחוריו ויכנס להיכל‬ ‫וישתחוה וכיון שישמע הסגן קול רגליו של‬ ‫כ"ג שהוא יוצא מגביה לו את הפרוכת‬ ‫ואחר שיצא יכנסו אחיו הכהנים וישתחוו‬ :‫ויצאו‬

On any day he desired, he may offer the incense offering.34 He receives the first portion of any sacrifice offered in the Temple.35 What is implied? If he desires, he may say: "This sin offering is mine" or "This guilt offering is mine."36 He does not seek to be chosen for service by lot.37 Instead, whenever he desires to offer a sacrifice, he may offer [any sacrifice] he desires. With regard to consecrated [produce] from Eretz Yisrael,38 he is like all other priests.

‫בכל יום שירצה להקטיר הקטרת‬ ‫מקטיר ונוטל חלק בראש בקדשי‬ ‫המקדש כולן כיצד כשירצה אומר זו‬ ‫החטאת שלי וזה האשם שלי ואינו עובד‬ ‫בפייס אלא כל עת שירצה להקריב מקריב‬ ‫כל מה שירצה והרי הוא בקדשי הגבול‬ :‫כשאר הכהנים‬

When the High Priest desired to offer a sacrifice, he would ascend the ramp with the segen on his right. When he reached the midpoint of the ramp, the segen would hold him by the right hand and help him up. The priest who would carry the head of the burnt offering would extend the limbs [he is carrying]39 to [the High Priest] and [the High Priest] would lean upon them40 and then toss them to the fire.41

‫בזמן שרוצה כ"ג להקריב היה עולה‬ ‫בכבש והסגן מימינו הגיע למחצית‬ ‫הכבש אחז הסגן בימינו והעלהו והושיט לו‬ ‫הכהן שהוא מוליך את ראש העולה‬ :‫האברים שבידו וסומך עליהן וזורקן לאש‬

Similarly, all of the other limbs would be extended to him. All of those carrying the limbs would give the limbs they were carrying to the first priest and he would give them to the High Priest. He would lean upon them and toss them to the fire. If he desired to merely lean upon them and have another priest toss them to the fire, he may.

‫וכך היו מושיטין לו שאר האברים‬ ‫כל אחד ואחד נותן האברים שבידו‬ ‫לראשון והראשון נותן לכ"ג והוא סומך‬ ‫וזורק לאש ואם רצה לסמוך בלבד ויהיה‬ ‫]כהן[ אחר זורק לאש עושה ואין שם‬ ‫סמיכה על האברים אלא לכ"ג בלבד מפני‬ ‫כבודו אבל כל הסמיכות על בעלי חיים‬ :‫הם‬

There is no concept of leaning on individual limbs except when the High Priest [offers a sacrifice]. [This is an expression of] honor to him. All of the [other] leanings, by contrast, are performed on living animals. As soon as a priest matures and attains majority,42 he is fit to serve in the Temple.43 Nevertheless, his priestly brethren would not allow him to serve in the Temple until he reached the age of 20.44 He should not enter the Temple Courtyard to perform service for the first time except during a time when the Levites are chanting songs.45

5

‫כשיגדל הכהן ויעשה איש הרי‬ ‫הוא כשר לעבודה אבל אחיו‬ ‫הכהנים לא היו מניחין אותו לעבוד‬ ‫במקדש עד שיהיה בן עשרים שנה ואינו‬ ‫נכנס לעזרה לעבודה תחלה אלא בשעה‬ :‫שהלוים אומרים שירה‬

A priest does not perform Temple service - nor does a High Priest perform Temple service until he brings [a meal offering of] a tenth of an ephah from his own possessions and offer it himself, as [Leviticus 6:13] states: "This is the sacrifice of Aaron and his descendants46 which they will offer to God on the day that he will be anointed."

‫אין הכהן עובד תחלה וכן כ"ג אינו‬ ‫עובד תחלה עד שיביא עשירית‬ ‫האיפה משלו ועובד בידו שנאמר זה קרבן‬ ‫אהרן ובניו אשר יקריבו ליי' ביום המשח‬ ‫אותו ואם עבד קודם שיביא עשירית‬ ‫האיפה וכן כהן גדול שעבד בכהונה גדולה‬ ‫קודם שיביא עשירית האיפה עבודתו‬ :‫כשירה‬

If one performs any of the Temple service before he brings [this meal offering] or if a High Priest serves as a High Priest before he brings [this meal offering], his service is acceptable. If a priest who had never performed Temple service before is appointed as the High Priest, he should bring [a meal offering of] a tenth of an ephah and offer it himself as is the training for every ordinary priest at the outset. Afterwards, he offers a second [such meal offering] as the training of a High Priest. And then he offers a third [such meal offering] which is the chavitin offering of the High Priest which he offers every day, as will be explained.47 The manner in which all three are offered is identical.

‫כהן שלא עבד עדיין מימיו שמנוהו‬ ‫כ"ג ה"ז מביא עשירית האיפה‬ ‫ועובדה בידו בתחלה כשאר חינוך כל כהן‬ ‫הדיוט ואח"כ מקריב עשירית האיפה‬ ‫שנייה שהיא חינוך כ"ג ואחר כך מקריב‬ ‫עשירית האיפה שלישית שהיא חביתי כ"ג‬ ‫שמקריב בכל יום כמו שיתבאר ומעשה‬ :‫שלשתן שוה הוא‬

« Previous

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 6

Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 4 FOOTNOTES 1. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that "beauty" refers to the attractiveness of his facial features, "appearance," to the comeliness of his physical form. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 1:3), the Rambam adds that the High Priest must surpass his brethren in the fear of God.

2. Leviticus 21:10 describes the High Priest as "the priest greater

than

his

brethren."

Yoma

18a

offers

two

interpretations of that phrase: a) The High Priest must be greater than his brethren in all qualities that are significant to human interaction; b) his greatness must come "from (the prefix mei translated as "than" can also mean "from") his brethren"; they must grant him his wealth. The Rambam does not see the two interpretations as contradictory and combines them both in this halachah.

6

7

3. Har HaMoriah derives this from the fact that, by and large,

15. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 163) and Sefer

the High Priests of the Second Temple period lacked the

HaChinuch (mitzvah 149) include the commandment for the

quality of wisdom which is the most important of all attributes. Nevertheless, they were given all the privileges of High

priests not to enter the Temple with overgrown hair among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Rambam also discusses

Priests.

this mitzvah in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, loc. cit. In his Sefer

4. Our text follows the manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah

HaMitzvot, he explains that there is an additional dimension

and early printings. The standard published text reads

of this mitzvah that applies to a High Priest.

slightly differently.

As the Rambam continues to explain, this mitzvah applies not just when the High Priest is in mourning - although others

5. For participation in a public celebration may compromise his dignity. 6. I.e., the matter is left to his choice.

should let their hair grow as a sign of mourning (Hilchot Evel 5:1-2, 6:2), he should not - but at all times.

7. Rashi (Sanhedrin 19a) explains that this refers to an

16. This is part of the High Priest's obligation to present himself in a beautiful and attractive manner. This was a very difficult

instance where the High Priest was disqualified from

task. Sanhedrin 22b relates that one of the contemporaries

performing the Yom Kippur service and another priest had to be appointed to replace him. Although that priest is removed

of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi (who lived approximately 100 years after the destruction of the Temple) squandered a

from the office after the first returns, he is still treated with an extra dimension of honor.

large amount of money to have his hair cut in this manner. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi praised him for this, for otherwise,

8. See the description of this practice in Hilchot Evel 13:1-2.

the students would have had difficulty picturing it.

9. See Hilchot Evel 4:9 which states that on the first day of

17. In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17, the Rambam notes that this

mourning, a mourner is not allowed to partake of his own

chamber was also called the Chamber of Wood and the Chamber of the Parhedrin. See the notes to that halachah

food. 10. During mourning, one is not permitted to sit on an ordinary chair (see ibid. 5:17-18). Indeed, in the Talmudic era, it was common for the mourners to sit on the ground itself. Nevertheless, out of respect for the High Priest, he is allowed to sit on a low stool and the visitors sit on the ground. He may not, however, sit on an ordinary stool, for he is also obligated to observe the laws of mourning (ibid. 7:6).

for the explanation of these names. 18. As is the simple meaning of the charge (Leviticus 21:12): "From the Sanctuary, he shall not depart." This, however, is not the halachic meaning of the commandment. Instead, as explained in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2, the halachic meaning is that he should not depart in the middle of his service.

11. Rending one's garments is one of the mourning obligations.

19. This could also be understood from the above command, for

People at large, not only the priests, are obligated to rend their upper garments (ibid. 8:1).

according to the Rambam, there are times when the entire city of Jerusalem is referred to as "the Sanctuary."

12. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment164) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 150) include the commandment for the priests not to enter the Temple with torn garments among the

20. I.e., this is not considered as an affront to his honor. 21. This was part of Jethro's advice to Moses with regard to the appointment of judges. Implied is that matters that involve

613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Rambam discusses this mitzvah in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 1. There and in his

gadlus (great importance) - for example, a case involving the

Sefer HaMitzvot, he explains that there are additional

judged by a court with authority equal to that of Moses, i.e., the Sanhedrin of 71 judges. As mentioned in Chapter 4,

dimensions of this prohibition that apply to a High Priest alone, even when he is not in the midst of Temple service. Since he should be in the Temple at all times, he should never rend his garments. Moreover, he is not allowed to rend his garments during mourning even outside the Temple. 13. Even though it is a mitzvah for one to rend his garments over his dead, that does not absolve the High Priest for violating this transgression (Radbaz). 14. This refers to his own personal garments, not the priestly garments.

very life of the kohen gadol (the High Priest) - should be

Halachah 23, cases involving a transgression punishable by lashes are judged by a court of three. 22. In contrast, an ordinary person is obligated to delivery any testimony that he knows (Hilchot Edut 1:1). 23. I.e., the kings of the House of David. The kings of the Kingdom of Israel and the like, by contrast, should not be brought to court (Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:5). Alternatively, it could refer also to the King of Israel and be referring to a case involving the king's son (Radbaz). Since a king is involved delivering testimony will not be deprecatory to the High Priest's honor.

8

24. Note the gloss of Rav Moshe HaCohen to Hilchot Edut who asks why the Rambam does not mention an instance where the High Priest's testimony is necessary to prevent a transgression, for in such an instance, seemingly, even the High Priest should be required to testify.

32. The movement of the High Priest created noise, because there were bells on the bottom of his cloak. 33. This refers to the curtain over the opening to the Entrance Hall. On his way in, the High Priest would open the curtain by himself. This was not, however, easy on his way out,

1 of that chapter mentions the prohibition against marrying a

because he would be backing out, keeping his faced turned to the Temple.

widow and Halachah 13, the mitzvah to marry a virgin. These concepts are also mentioned in Hilchot Ishut 1:7-8.

34. Generally, the task of bringing the incense offering was rotated among the priests and one who offered it once would

26. Yoma 13a derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus

not offer it again (Yoma 26a). Nevertheless, the High Priest

25. Sefer Kedushah, Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, Chapter 1. Halachah

16:5 states: "And he will atone... for his household." "His household" is interpreted as referring to his wife and the term is written in the singular, implying one wife and not two. In his gloss to Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:13, the Ra'avad notes that II Chronicles 24:3 speaks of Yehoyeda the High Priest and the marriage of two women, seemingly contradicting the Rambam's ruling. The Ra'avad interprets the verse as stating that Yehoyeda married the women himself. (Similarly, Rav Moshe HaCohen and others question the Rambam's ruling.) Rambam LeAm, however, advances the interpretation that the verse is stating that Yehoyeda had Yoash marry the women. 27. If a man's brother dies childless, there is a mitzvah for him to marry his brother's widow. This is referred to as yibbum. If he does not desire to marry the widow, he must perform a ritual

had the option of offering it whenever he desired. 35. This applies even if he did not offer the sacrifice himself. 36. Generally, the sacrifices are divided equally into portions for all the priests. The High Priest, however, could claim any sacrifice or portion of a sacrifice (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:18). 37. As the other priests are (see Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, ch. 4). 38. E.g., terumah and challah.. 39. In addition to the head, he would carry the right leg of the animal (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:11). 40. A person bringing a sacrifice would lean on the sacrifice as the Rambam mentions in the following halachah and describes in ibid. 3:6-16. This ritual is called semichah.

act called chalitzah that gives her the right to remarry. The Rambam is emphasizing the contrast between a High Priest and a king. A king does not perform chalitzah because such an act would be a compromise to his honor. And since he does not perform chalitzah, he is also not entitled to perform yibbum. Nor does his wife undergo yibbum for she is not allowed to marry anyone else (Hilchot Melachim 2:3). None of these restrictions apply with regard to a High Priest. 28. The divorcee of a king, by contrast, is not permitted to marry anyone else (ibid.).

41. For the limbs would have to be tossed to the fire (ibid. 6:4). 42. I.e., when he reaches the age of thirteen and manifests signs of physical maturity. 43. For he is obligated - and thus entitled to - perform all the mitzvot including the service in the Temple. 44. At which time, he can be expected to be more mature and less likely to commit an error that would disqualify a sacrifice. 45. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the passage from Arachin 13b which is the Rambam's source is speaking

29. I.e., the outer chamber of the Temple building, not the Holy of Holies. This is evident from the fact that he is wearing the ephod and on Yom Kippur, he enters the Holy of Holies wearing only the four garments of an ordinary priest. 30. Prostrating oneself in the Temple was considered one of the elements of the Temple service. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:4. 31. This refers to the jewels on the High Priest's breastplate. It is necessary to hold these jewels because the Torah

about a Levite and not a priest. The Radbaz agrees that the Ra'avad's view appears more likely from the context, but since the passage speaks about avodah - a term which usually refers to the service of offering the sacrifices - there is room for the Rambam's understanding. 46. By mentioning Aaron, the verse indicates that this offering is brought by a High Priest. By mentioning his descendants, it indicates that it is also brought by an ordinary priest. 47. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:18 and onward.

commanded that the breastplate never move away from the ephod.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.

To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .



Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 5

It is impossible for the sacrifice of a person to be offered without him standing in attendance. [Now,] the communal offerings are the sacrifices of the entire Jewish people, but it is impossible for the entire Jewish people to stand in the Temple Courtyard at the time they are being offered. Therefore, the prophets of the first era1 ordained that there be selective upright and sin-fearing Jews who should serve as the agents of the entire Jewish people2 to stand [and observe the offering of] the sacrifices. They were called "the men of the maamad."3

English

Hebrew

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 7

‫אי אפשר שיהיה קרבנו של אדם‬ ‫קרב והוא אינו עומד על גביו‬ ‫וקרבנות הציבור הן קרבן של כל ישראל‬ ‫ואי אפשר שיהיו ישראל כולן עומדין‬ ‫בעזרה בשעת קרבן לפיכך תקנו נביאים‬ ‫הראשוני' שיבררו מישראל כשרים ויראי‬ ‫חטא ויהיו שלוחי כל ישראל לעמוד על‬ ‫הקרבנות והם הנקראים אנשי מעמד‬ ‫וחלקו אותם כ"ד מעמדות כמנין משמרות‬ ‫כהונה ולויה ועל כל מעמד ומעמד אחד‬ ‫מהן ממונה על כולם והוא נקרא ראש‬ :‫המעמד‬

They divided them into 24 ma'amadot, equaling the number of watches of the priests and Levites. Over each of the watches was one who was appointed as [the supervisor] of them all. He was called the head of the ma'amad. Each week, the members of the ma'amad of that week would gather together. Those [living] in Jerusalem or close to it would enter the Temple with the priestly and Levitical watch of that week. When [the week of] their ma'amad arrived, those members of the ma'amad who [lived] in distant places would gather in the synagogues of their locale.

1

‫בכל שבת ושבת מתקבצין אנשי‬ ‫מעמד של אותה שבת מי שהיה מהן‬ ‫בירושלים או קרוב לה נכנסין למקדש עם‬ ‫משמר כהונה ולויה של אותה שבת‬ ‫והרחוקים שבאותו מעמד כיון שהגיע‬ ‫מעמד שלהן הן מתקבצין לבית הכנסת‬ :‫שבמקומן‬

2

What would those who gather together - both in Jerusalem and in the synagogues - do? They would fast on the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of their week. They would not fast on Friday out of respect for the Sabbath4 and not on Sunday, so they would not make a transition from the pleasure of the Sabbath to a fast.5

‫ומה הן עושין אלו המתקבצין בין‬ ‫בירושלים בין בבתי כנסיות מתענין‬ ‫בשני בשבת שלהן ובשלישי וברביעי‬ ‫ובחמישי אבל בערב שבת לא היו מתענין‬ ‫מפני כבוד שבת ובאחד בשבת אינם‬ :‫מתענים כדי שלא יצאו מעונג שבת לצום‬

On every day of the week that was their ma'amad, they would recite four prayer services: the morning service, the afternoon service, the neilah service,6 and another prayer service between the morning service and the afternoon service which was additional [and unique] for them.7 In the ma'amad, the priests bless the people three times, in the morning service, in this additional service, and in the neilah service.8

‫ובכל יום ויום משבת שהיה מעמדן‬ ‫מתפללין ארבע תפלות שחרית‬ ‫ומנחה ונעילה ועוד מוסיפין תפלה אחרת‬ ‫בין שחרית ומנחה והיא יתירה להן ונושאין‬ ‫כפיהן הכהנים במעמד ג' פעמים בכל יום‬ ‫בשחרית ובתפלה זו היתירה ובנעילה‬ ‫וקורין בספר תורה שלשה אנשים שתי‬ ‫פעמים בכל יום בשחרית ובתפלה השניה‬ ‫שמוסיפין אבל במנחה לא היו קורין בספר‬ ‫תורה אלא על פה כקוראין את שמע ולא‬ ‫היו מתקבצין לתפלת מנחה בע"ש מפני‬ :‫שהן טרודין לשבת‬

They would have three men read from the Torah twice a day: in the morning service and in the second service that they would add.9 In the afternoon service, they would not read the Torah. Instead, they would recite [the passages] by heart as one recites the Shema. They would not gather for the afternoon service on Friday, for they were busy [with their preparations] for the Sabbath. Their gathering together for each of these prayers of these four services and their standing in prayer, supplication, and petition and reading the Torah is called a ma'amad.

‫וקיבוצן לכל תפלה מארבע תפלות‬ ‫אלו ועמידתן שם לתפלה ולתחינה‬ :‫ולבקשה ולקרות בתורה נקרא מעמד‬

What would they read [from the Torah]? The narrative of creation.10 On the first day, they would read: "In the beginning," "Let there be a firmament;"11 On the second day, "Let there be a firmament" and "Let [the waters] be gathered;" on the third day, "Let [the waters] be gathered" and "Let there be luminaries;" on the fourth day, "Let there be luminaries" and "Let the waters teem;" on the fifth day, "Let the waters teem" and "Let the earth produce;" on the sixth day, "Let the earth produce" and "[The heavens and the earth] were completed."

‫ובמה היו קוראין במעשה בראשית‬ ‫ביום הראשון קוראין בראשית ויהי‬ ‫רקיע בשני יהי רקיע ויקוו בשלישי יקוו‬ ‫ויהיה מאורות ברביעית יהי מאורות‬ ‫וישרצו בחמישי ישרצו ותוצא הארץ‬ :‫בששי ותוצא הארץ ויכולו‬

A large passage12 would be read by two men, a small passage, by one. The two passages that were read in the morning would be read during this second service from a scroll. They would then be read again during the afternoon service by heart.

‫פרשה גדולה קוראין אותה בשנים‬ ‫וקטנה קורא אותה אחד ושתי פרשיות‬ ‫שקוראין שחרית הם שחוזרין וקורין אותן‬ ‫בתפלה השניה בספר וחוזרין וקוראין אותן‬ :‫במנחה על פה‬

During the eight days of Chanukah, the men of the ma'amad would not carry out a ma'amad13 in the morning service.14 On any day when there was a Musaf sacrifice,15 there was not a ma'amad during their

‫שמנת ימי חנוכה לא היו אנשי‬ ‫מעמד עושין מעמד בשחרית וכל יום‬ ‫שיש בו קרבן מוסף לא היה בו מעמד לא‬ ‫בתפלה שניה שלהם ולא במנחה אלא‬ ‫בשחרית ובנעילה בלבד וכל יום שהיה בו‬ ‫קרבן העצים לא היה בו מעמד בנעילה‬ :‫אלא בשחרית ובתפלה שניה ובמנחה‬

second service, nor in the afternoon service,16 only during the morning and neilah services. On any day when there was a sacrifice of wood,17 there was not a ma'amad during the neilah service, only during the morning, second, and afternoon services. What was a sacrifice of wood? Certain families had a fixed time on which they would go out to the forests and bring wood for the arrangement [on the altar].18 On the day designated for this family to bring their sacrifices, they would bring voluntary burnt offerings. This was called the sacrifice of the wood. It was like a festival for these families and they were forbidden to have eulogies delivered, fast, and perform work on that day. This was a custom.

3

‫ומהו קרבן העצים זמן קבוע היה‬ ‫למשפחות משפחות לצאת ליערים‬ ‫להביא עצים למערכה ויום שיגיע לבני‬ ‫משפחה זו להביא העצים היו מקריבין‬ ‫עולות נדבה וזהו קרבן העצים והיה להם‬ ‫כמו יו"ט ואסורין בו בהספד ובתענית‬ :‫ובעשיית מלאכה ודבר זה מנהג‬

4

Even a private individual who gave wood or logs for the arrangement [of the altar]19 is forbidden to have eulogies delivered, fast, and perform work on that day. This was a custom.

‫אפילו יחיד שהתנדב עצים או גזרים‬ ‫במערכה אסור באותו היום בהספד‬ :‫ובתענית ובעשיית מלאכה ודבר זה מנהג‬

The men of the ma'amad are forbidden to have their hair cut and to launder [their clothes] throughout the week [they serve in the Temple]. On Thursday,20 they were permitted in honor of the Sabbath. Why were they forbidden to have their hair cut and to launder [their clothes]? So that they would not enter their ma'amad while they were unkept. Instead, they would have their hair cut and launder [their clothes] beforehand.21

‫אנשי מעמד אסורין מלספר‬ ‫ומלכבס כל שבת שלהן ובחמישי‬ ‫מותרין מפני כבוד השבת ומפני מה אסרו‬ ‫עליהם לספר ולכבס כדי שלא יכנסו‬ ‫למעמדם כשהם מנוולין אלא יספרו‬ :‫ויכבסו מקודם‬

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 5

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 7

FOOTNOTES 1. Samuel and David (Ta'anit 27a). 2. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ta'anit 4:2), the Rambam writes: " Their intent and their goal was involvement in Divine service and prayer. They were not occupied with their own concerns. Their minds and their thought were on the sacrifices." 3. Ma'amad literally means "standing," because they would stand over the sacrifice or stand in prayer, as stated in

7. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that there was not an extra service ordained especially for the men of the ma'amad. If the Mishnah spoke of Musaf, the additional service, in this context, the intent was a day like Rosh Chodesh when Musaf would be recited by the entire Jewish people. The Radbaz supports the Rambam's opinion, explaining that during this prayer service they would pray that the sacrifices be accepted and that Jews in situations of danger be saved.

Halachah 5. The term also has the connotation of "status" and "dignified position."

8. They would not bless the people in the afternoon service,

4. So that they would have the energy to make their Sabbath

because generally, it was suspected that a priest might be intoxicated in the afternoon and it is improper to bless the

preparations. 5. This would weaken them exceedingly (ibid.).

people in such a state. Hence, our Sages forbade the recitation of the priestly blessing in the afternoon service at

6. Neilah means "closing." Hilchot Tefilah 1:7 states that the

all times. They allowed it to be recited in the Neilah service,

Men of the Great Assembly ordained "a prayer after the afternoon service [to be recited] close to sunset on fast days

because the neilah service is only recited on a fast day. In

only to increase supplication and pleading due to the fast. This is called the neilah service, as if to say the gates of

later generations, it became customary to recite the priestly blessing (or in the Ashkenazic community, the passage Eloheinu V'Elohei Avoseinu) in the afternoon service,

heaven are being closed." Since the men of the ma'amad

because at present, it is customary to recite the afternoon

were observing an ordained fast, they would recite this

service late on a fast day. Hence, it resembles the neilah

service as well.

service and will not be confused with an ordinary afternoon service. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Taanit 4:1), Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 14:1-2.

9. The Ra'avad differs here as well and states that there is no extra service and, hence, no extra Torah reading, except on a day when Musaf is recited. 10. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:2), the Rambam

15. I.e., on the intermediate days of the festivals and on Rosh Chodesh. 16. For they were occupied with the sacrifice of the Musaf service.

explains that this subject was chosen, because the ultimate

17. See the following halachah.

fulfillment of existence is the service of sacrificial worship, as implied by Ta'anit 27b: "Were it not for the sacrifices, the

18. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:5), the Rambam

heavens and the earth would not be maintained."

refers to Nechemiah 10:35 which speaks of casting lots for the wood offering. Implied is that different families were

11. On each day, they would read the passage associated with that and the following day of creation.

allotted the responsibility for bringing wood for the altar and were given different days to bring that wood. On that day, in

12. I.e., three aliyot were given out for each reading. If the

addition to the wood, they would bring other sacrifices, as the Rambam continues to explain.

passage was large - i.e., it contained eight verses - two aliyot were given in it and the third aliyah was given for the second passage that accompanied it. 13. I.e., read from the Torah or recite the readings by heart [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:4)]. 14. Since they would recite the Hallel prayers that day. As Taanit

19. For bringing wood is considered equivalent to bringing a sacrifice and the day on which a person brings a sacrifice is considered as his private festival. 20. And certainly on Friday (Rambam LeAm). 21. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 1:17,12.

4:4 states: Whenever Hallel was recited [and the Musaf service was not recited (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah)], there was no ma'amad. The rationale is that since the recitation of Hallel took time, no further obligations were imposed on the men of the ma'amad.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

5

policy .

6

1



Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 6

English

Hebrew

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 8

2

There were fifteen officers in the Temple and similarly, an officer would always be appointed over these fifteen matters.1 They are [responsible for]: a) the time [for the offering of the sacrifices],2 b) the locking of the gates,3 c) the guards,4 d) the singers,5 e) the cymbals and the other musical instruments,6 f) the lotteries,7 g) the pairs [of doves],8 h) the seals,9 i) the wine libations,10 j) the sick,11 k) the water,12 l) the preparation of the showbread,13 m) the preparation of the incense offering,14 n) the preparation of the curtains,15 o) the preparation of the priestly garments.16

‫חמשה עשר ממונין היו במקדש וכן‬ ‫ממנים לעולם על כל דבר מט"ו‬ ‫ )א( על‬:‫דברים אלו ממונה אחד ואלו הן‬ ‫הזמנים ג )ב( על נעילת שערים ד )ג( על‬ ‫השומרים ה )ד( על המשוררים ו )ה( על‬ ‫הצלצל עם שאר כלי שיר ז )ו( על‬ ‫הפייסות ח )ז( על הקנים ט )ח( על‬ ‫החותמות י )ט( על הנסכים יא )י( על‬ ‫החולין יב )יא( על המים יג )יב( על מעשה‬ ‫לחם הפנים יד )יג( על מעשה הקטורת טו‬ ‫)יד( על מעשה הפרכת טז )טו( על מעשה‬ :‫בגדי כהונה‬

Each one of these officers has many men under his command in order to arrange the task over which he is appointed. The one [appointed] to supervise the times: He and his men watch the times. When the time comes for a sacrifice to be offered,17 he or one of the men under his charge announce: "Priests arise to the [Temple] service. Levites [go] to the platform,18 Israelites, to the ma'amad." When his voice was heard, everyone would proceed to his task.

3

‫כל אחד ואחד מממונים אלו תחת‬ ‫ידו אנשים הרבה כדי להכין המלאכה‬ ‫שהוא ממונה עליה זה שעל הזמנים הוא‬ ‫ואנשיו משמרים את הזמנים כיון שיגיע עת‬ ‫הקרבן מכריז הוא או אחד מאנשיו‬ ‫ברשותו ואומר עמדו כהנים לעבודה ולוים‬ ‫לדוכן וישראל למעמד וכיון שישמע קולו‬ :‫יבוא כל אחד למלאכתו‬

The one [appointed] to supervise the locking of the gates: At his command, the gates would be locked19 and opened.20 Those who sound [the trumpets] every day for the opening of the gates sound them only by his instruction. Every day, [the trumpets] were sound three times at the opening of the gates [in the following manner]: a tekiah,21 a teruah,22 and a tekiah.

‫זה שעל נעילת שערים על פיו נועלין‬ ‫ועל פיו פותחין ואין התוקעין תוקעין‬ ‫בכל יום לפתיחת השערים אלא ברשותו‬ ‫ובכל יום תוקעין במקדש שלש תקיעות‬ :‫לפתיחת השערים תקיעה תרועה ותקיעה‬

The one [appointed] to supervise the guards: He is "the officer of the Temple Mount" who would walk around [checking] the Levites23 [who would guard the Temple] every night. Whenever anyone would sleep at his post, he would strike him with his staff and burn his garment.24

‫זה שעל השומרים הוא איש הר הבית‬ ‫שמסבב על הלוים בכל לילה וכל מי‬ ‫שישן על משמרו מלקה אותו במקלו‬ :‫ושורף את כסותו‬

4

The one [appointed] to supervise the singers: Each day, he would chose singers to stand on the duchan to sing melodies. At his command, [the trumpets] would be sounded for the sacrifices. There were never less than 21 trumpet blasts sounded each day in the Temple: three at the opening of the gates [of the Temple Courtyard],25 nine for the daily offering of the morning,26 and nine for the daily offering of the afternoon. On a day when a Musaf offering is brought, nine trumpet blasts are added for the Musaf offering. If Rosh Chodesh or a festival falls on the Sabbath27 or Rosh HaShanah falls on the Sabbath - in which instance three Musaf offerings are brought28- we do not sound the trumpets for each Musaf offering individually. Instead, nine trumpet blasts are sounded for all the Musaf offerings.

‫זה שעל המשוררים הוא בורר בכל‬ ‫יום המשוררים שעומדים על הדוכן‬ ‫לומר שירה בפה ועל פיו תוקעין על‬ ‫הקרבנות אין פוחתין במקדש מאחת‬ ‫ועשרים תקיעה בכל יום שלש לפתיחת‬ ‫שערים ותשע לתמיד של שחר ותשע‬ ‫לתמיד של בין הערבים ויום שיש בו קרבן‬ ‫מוסף מוסיפין תשע על קרבן מוסף ואם חל‬ ‫ראש חדש או יו"ט להיות בשבת או שחל‬ ‫ראש השנה להיות בשבת שיש שם שלשה‬ ‫מוספין אין תוקעין לכל מוסף ומוסף בפני‬ ‫עצמו אלא תוקעין תשע בלבד לכל‬ :‫המוספין‬

On Friday, six trumpet blasts are added: three29 to [notify] the people [when] to cease work30 and three to make a distinction between the holy and the mundane. On the pilgrimage festivals, three are added [to announce] the opening of the lower gate, i.e., the gate to the Women's Courtyard,31 and three [to announce] the opening of the upper gate, i.e., the Gate of Nicanor.32 Why is it called the upper gate? Because it is higher than the Women's Courtyard.33 On Sukkot, three trumpet blasts are added [to announce] the filling of [a vessel with] water which is used for a libation on that holiday.34 The trumpets are not sounded for the filling of the water on the Sabbath. Three trumpet blasts are added upon the altar while the water libation is being offered.

‫בערב שבת מוסיפין שש שלש להבטיל‬ ‫את העם מן המלאכה ושלש להבדיל‬ ‫בין קדש לחול וברגל מוסיפין שלש‬ ‫לפתיחת שער התחתון והוא שער עזרת‬ ‫נשים וג' לפתיחת שער העליון הוא שער‬ ‫נקנור ולמה נקרא שער עליון לפי שהוא‬ ‫למעלה מעזרת נשים וכן תוקעין שלש‬ ‫למילוי המים שמנסכין בחג ואין תוקעים‬ ‫למלוי המים בשבת ותוקעין ג' על גבי‬ ‫המזבח בשעה שמנסכין המים וכל‬ ‫התוקעים שתוקעים על הקרבנות מתחת‬ ‫יד זה שעל המשוררים וברשותו וכל אלו‬ :‫התקיעות בחצוצרות הן‬

All of these trumpet blasts were sounded under the direction of the officer in charge of the singers and at his command. All of these blasts were sounded with trumpets.35

5

The one [appointed] to supervise the cymbal: He would arrange all the musicians who would help the Levites together with their instruments, as we explained.36

‫זה שעל הצלצל הוא המעמיד כל‬ ‫המשוררים על פי כלי שיר שסועדין‬ :‫עם הלוים כמו שביארנו‬

The one [appointed] to supervise the lotteries, he would conduct the lotteries between the priests every day until each one would perform the work that he acquired through the lotteries. There were four lotteries conducted every day. In Hilchot Temidim,37 I will explain how these lotteries were conducted.

‫זה שעל הפייסות הוא מפיס בין‬ ‫הכהנים בכל יום עד שיהיה כל איש‬ '‫ואיש עושה מלאכתו שזכה בה בפייס וד‬ ‫פעמים היו מפיסין בכל יום ובהלכות‬ :‫תמידין אבאר כיצד היו מפיסין‬

The one [appointed] to supervise [the sale of] the pairs of doves:38 He is the one with whom a price is determined to sell pairs [of doves] for the sacrifices, so-and-so many doves for a sela. Everyone who was obligated to [bring] turtle doves39 or doves40 [as a sacrifice]41 would bring the money for them to the Temple. This officer would give the pairs [of doves] to the people bringing the sacrifices. He would make a reckoning with the treasurers and they would provide him with [the doves].42

‫הממונה שעל הקינים הוא שפוסקין‬ ‫עמו שימכור הקנים לקרבנות כך וכך‬ ‫בסלע וכל מי שהוא חייב תורים או שני בני‬ ‫יונה יביא דמיהם למקדש וזה הממונה נותן‬ ‫הקינים לבעלי הקרבנות ועושה חשבון עם‬ ‫הגזברין ונותנין לו משלשים יום לשלשים‬ ‫יום פוסקין עמו השער ואם הוזלו הקינים‬ ‫מספיק כשער הזול ואם הוקרו מספיק כמו‬ ‫שפסקו עמו שיד הקדש על העליונה וכן קן‬ ‫שנמצא פסול או שנפסל קודם שיקרב‬ :‫נותן אחר תחתיו‬

Every thirty days, a price was established with him. If the price decreases [during that month], [the Temple treasurers] supply him with them according to the lower price. If it increases, they provide them at the price established [originally], for the Temple is always given the upper hand [in business transactions]. Similarly, if a pair of doves is discovered to be unacceptable or was disqualified before it was offered, [this officer] must provide another in its place.43

6

The one [appointed] to supervise [the sale of] the seals: He would receive the money for the wine libations from those obligation to bring libations and give them seals. The one [appointed] to supervise the wine libations would sell the wine libations.44

‫זה שעל החותמות הוא שמקבל דמי‬ ‫הנסכים ממחוייבי נסכים ונותן להם‬ ‫חותמות וזה שעל הנסכים הוא שמוכר‬ :‫הנסכים‬

What is implied? There where four seals in the Temple, one which had "calf" written on it,45 a second which had "male" written on it,46 a third which had "kid" written on it,47 and a fourth that had "sinner" written on it.48

‫כיצד ארבע חותמות היו במקדש‬ ‫האחד כתוב עליו עגל והשני כתוב‬ ‫עליו זכר והשלישי כתוב עליו גדי והרביעי‬ :‫כתוב עליו חוטא‬

Whoever would bring his sacrifices to the Temple would give the money for the wine libations to the officer in charge of the seals. He would give him seals according to the number of sacrifices he brought. If a person afflicted with tzara'at was wealthy, he should give him one seal with "sinner" written upon it.49 The recipient then takes the seals to the officer in charge of the wine libations and he gives him wine libations according to the number of seals he has and what is written upon them. In the evening, [the two officers] meet and one gives the other seals and receives money in exchange for them. If there is extra money, it is given to the Temple treasury.50 If there is less money, the officer in charge of the seals must pay from his own resources. When a person loses a seal, he should wait until the evening. If there is found an extra amount of money equivalent to the seal that he claims, it is given to him. If not, it is not given to him. The date of each day is written on the seal [to protect against] deceivers [to prevent] one from keeping a seal in his possession until the price of the libations increases.51

7

‫כל מי שיביא קרבנותיו למקדש‬ ‫נותן דמי הנסכים לזה הממונה על‬ ‫החותמות ונותן לו חותמות כמנין הקרבנות‬ ‫שלו ואם היה מצורע עשיר נותן לו חותם‬ ‫אחד שכתוב עליו חוטא והלה הולך‬ ‫בחותמות שבידו לזה הממונה על הנסכים‬ ‫ונותן לו נסכים כמניין החותמות וכמ"ש‬ ‫בהן ולערב באים זה אצל זה מוציא את‬ ‫החותמות ומקבל כנגדן מעות אם הותירו‬ ‫המעות הותירו להקדש ואם פחתו המעות‬ ‫ישלם זה שעל החותמות מביתו מי שאבד‬ ‫חותמו ממתינין לו עד הערב אם מצאו‬ ‫במעות יתר כדי חותם שטוען נותנין לו‬ ‫ואם לאו אין נותנין לו ושם כל היום כתוב‬ ‫על החותם מפני הרמאים שלא ישהא‬ :‫החותם אצלו עד שיוקרו הנסכים‬

Every thirty days, a price for the wine and the flour is established with the officer in charge of the wine libations. If the price of the wine libations increases, he must supply them according to the price established beforehand. If their price decreases, he must supply them according to the lower price.52 The profit the Temple treasury makes on these [fluctuations in] price is called "the windfall of the libations." It is used to purchase burnt offerings as "the desert of the altar."53 Burnt offerings of doves are not used for this purpose, because doves are not used for communal offerings.54 Since the priests stand on the floor at all times,55 eat much meat,56 and during their Temple service, they are not covered by any garments other than one cloak, they [often] suffer digestive ailments.57 Therefore an officer is appointed to check them and heal all their illnesses. He and the people in his charge are involved with them at all times.58

‫הכהנים מפני שהן עומדין על‬ ‫הרצפה תמיד ואוכלין בשר הרבה‬ ‫ואין עליהן בגדים בשעת העבודה אלא‬ ‫חלוק אחד הם חולין במעיהן לפיכך‬ ‫מעמידין ממונה אחד שיהיה מבקר אותן‬ ‫ומרפא כל תחלואיהן ועוסק בהן תמיד הוא‬ :‫ואנשיו שתחת ידו‬

Similarly, an officer is appointed to dig cisterns and reservoirs59 and fix the cisterns for people at large so that there will be water available in Jerusalem for all of its inhabitants and for all those who come on the pilgrimage festivals.60

‫וכן ממנין אחר להיות חופר בורות‬ ‫ושיחין ומתקן הבורות של רבים‬ ‫כדי שיהיו המים מצויין בירושלים לכל‬ ‫אחד מיושביה ולכל עולי הרגלים ואחד‬ ‫ממונה על כל אומני לחם הפנים והוא‬ ‫מתקן כל מלאכתו ואחד ממונה על כל‬ :‫אומני הקטרת והוא מתקן מלאכתה‬

And there was one appointed for all the craftsmen who prepare the showbread and he supervises all their work.61 And there is one appointed over the craftsmen who prepare the incense offering and he supervises all their work.62

8

‫משלשים יום לשלשים יום פוסקין‬ ‫שער היין והסולת עם הממונה על‬ ‫הנסכים אם הוקרו נסכים מספק להן כמו‬ ‫שפסקו עמו ואם הוזלו מספק להן כשער‬ ‫הזול והשכר שמשתכר ההקדש בשערים‬ ‫אלו הוא הנקרא מותר נסכים ולוקחין בו‬ ‫עולות לקיץ המזבח ואין מקיצין את המזבח‬ :‫בעולות עוף שאין בקרבנות הציבור עוף‬

9

The one [appointed] to supervise [the making of] the curtains would be in charge of all those who wove the curtains and embroidered [designs]63 on them so that they would be prepared for the Temple and the gates. Each year, they would make two curtains64 to separate between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.65 The strands of these curtains were all six-fold. They were of four types of fabric: linen, sky-blue dyed wool, purple dyed wool, and crimson dyed wool. Each one was six fold. Thus there were 24 strings.66 The curtains were a hand-breadth67 thick. They were woven with 72 heddles.68 Its length was forty cubits and its width was 20 cubits.69

‫זה שעל הפרוכת ממונה על כל‬ ‫אורגי הפרוכות והרוקמין בהן‬ ‫שיהיו מוכנות להיכל ולשערים ושתי‬ ‫פרוכות היו עושין בכל שנה להבדיל בין‬ ‫הקדש לקדש הקדשים וחיטי הפרוכת‬ ‫כפולין ששה ששה וארבעה מינין היו בה‬ ‫שש ותכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני וכל אחד‬ ‫מהן כפול ששה הרי כ"ד חוטין וטפח היה‬ ‫עביה ועל שנים ושבעים נירין היתה נארגת‬ :‫ארכה ארבעים אמה ורחבה עשרים אמה‬

There were thirteen curtains in the Second Temple: Seven over the seven gates to the Temple Courtyard,70 one over the opening of the Entrance Porch,71 one over the entrance to the Sanctuary, two72 to serve as the d'vir73 between it and the [most] holy chamber, and two corresponding to them in the upper storey.74

‫וי"ג פרוכות היו במקדש שני שבע‬ ‫על שבעה שערי העזרה ואחת על‬ ‫פתח האולם ואחת על פתח ההיכל ושתים‬ ‫לדביר בינו ובין הקודש ושתים כנגדן‬ :‫בעלייה‬

When a curtain becomes impure [due to contact] with a derivative of impurity,75 it should be immersed within [the Temple Courtyard].76 It was brought into [the Temple] immediately, because there is no need to wait until the evening.77 If it became impure because of contact with a substance that is a source of impurity, it should be immersed [in a mikveh] outside [the Temple Courtyard]78 and it is spread out in the chayl,79 because it must wait until sunset [for its impurity] to depart. If it was new, it would be spread over the colonnade80 so that the people could see its embroidery for it was attractive.

‫פרוכת שנטמאת בולד הטומאה‬ ‫מטבילין אותה בפנים ומכניסין‬ ‫אותה מיד לפי שאינה צריכה הערב שמש‬ ‫ושנטמאת באב הטומאה מטבילין אותה‬ ‫מבחוץ ושוטחין אותה בחיל מפני שהיא‬ ‫צריכה הערב שמש ואם היתה חדשה‬ ‫שוטחין אותה על גב האצטבא כדי שיראה‬ :‫העם את מלאכתה שהיא נאה‬

10

All of the utensils in the Temple had copies and copies of the copies so that if the original contracted impurity, the second could be used in its place.

‫וכל הכלים שהיו במקדש היו להם‬ ‫שניים ושלישים שאם יטמאו‬ :‫הראשונים יביאו השניים תחתיהם‬

The one [appointed] to supervise [the making of] the priestly garments: He is occupied with the preparation of the garments of the ordinary priests and the garments of the High Priests and their being woven.81 Everything [necessary for them] is done under his authority. He had a chamber in the Sanctuary.82

‫זה הממונה על מעשה בגדי כהונה‬ ‫עוסק בהכנסת בגדי כהנים הדיוטים‬ ‫ובגדי כ"ג ובאריגתן ומתחת ידו נעשה הכל‬ :‫ולשכה היתה לו במקדש‬

« Previous

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 8

Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 6 FOOTNOTES 1. Shekalim 5:1 mentions officers for these fifteen positions.

14. See Halachah 15.

The Rambam explains that this was not merely the situation

15. See Halachah 16.

at one specific time, but represented the ongoing division of responsibilities in the Temple. The officers

16. See Halachah 15.

2. See Halachah 2. 3. See Halachah 3.

17. Actually, the announcement would be made slightly before the time for the sacrifice. For example, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 1:2; 3:8), the Rambam writes that this announcement was made at (or before) dawn.

4. See Halachah 4. The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation of this officer's function. The Kessef Mishneh explains that

18. Where they would stand to sing. Although they would not

the Ra'avad's view is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1), while the Rambam's opinion is based on the

sing until the wine offering was brought and that was after the limbs of the sacrifice were offered (see Hilchot Temidim

Babylonian Talmud. He questions why the Ra'vad favors the Jerusalem Talmud when generally, if there is a difference of

UMusafim 6:5), they would proceed to their posts at the

opinion between the two, the halachah follows the Babylonian Talmud. 5. See Halachah 5. 6. See Halachah 7. 7. See Halachah 8. 8. See Halachah 9. 9. See Halachah 10. 10. See Halachah 12. The Radbaz notes that the Mishnah (loc. cit.) refers to this person as being appointed over the flour. He explains that since flour would accompany the wine libation, the same person was appointed over both. 11. See Halachah 14. 12. See Halachah 15. 13. See Halachah 15.

same time as the priests. 19. At sunset. 20. At dawn. 21. A prolonged and drawn out blast. 22. A series of staccato blasts. 23. The priests would also stand watch in three places. The commentaries discuss why they are not mentioned. 24. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 8:10 where the function of this officer is also mentioned. 25. As mentioned in Halachah 3. 26. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:5, 7. 27. And thus two different Musaf offerings are brought: one for the Sabbath and one for the festival or for Rosh Chodesh.

11

28. One for the Sabbath, one for Rosh HaShanah, and one for Rosh Chodesh. 29. I.e., a tekiah, teruah, tekiah series. 30. As explained in Hilchot Shabbat 5:18-20, these trumpet blasts were sounded beginning one and a quarter seasonal hours before sunset. The first three were not sounded together. On the contrary, each represented a further stage in the imminent approach of the Sabbath. The second set of three were sounded close to sunset as a unit of three. 31. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:7 for a description of this courtyard. 32. See ibid. 5:5 for a description of this gate.

46. This referred to the wine libations brought when offering a male ram, a third of a hin of wine. Together with the wine were brought two esronim of flour and third of a hin of oil. 47. This referred to the wine libations brought when offering a ewe, a fourth of a hin of wine. Together with the wine were brought one isaron of flour and fourth of a hin of oil. 48. This refers to the wine libations brought by a wealthy person afflicted by tzara'at (a mystic affliction similar to leprosy). He is called a sinner because the affliction was brought about by his sins [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:3), i.e., because tzara'at is brought about by gossip. (See the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at.)

33. 22 ½ cubits higher, as indicated by ibid. 6:2.

Such a person would bring three animals as a sacrifice, accompanied by three revi'ot of wine, together with three

34. The water libation and these trumpet blasts are described in

esronim of flour and three revi'ot of oil (Hilchot Ma'aseh

Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6-7. 35. This represents a reversal in the Rambam's thinking from his earlier views in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 3:8) where he states that it was the shofar that was sounded. 36. See Chapter 3, Halachah 3. 37. Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:1, 3. 38. The Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:1) notes that the most renown figure to fill this post was Mordechai, the hero of the Purim Megilah. The Radbaz, in his gloss to Halachah 13, feels it necessary to emphasize the extent to which our Sages cherished the service in the Temple. For Mordechai abandoned all the wealth and leisure of the of the Persian court to provide doves for pilgrims to the Temple. 39. A smaller, wild variety of the dove family. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2 for more particulars.

HaKorbanot 2:6). 49. If, however, a person afflicted with tzara'at is poor, he is only required to bring a ewe as an offering. Hence, he only purchases a "kid" seal. 50. We do not accept the claim that the officer's own money became mixed together with the money he received. 51. I.e.,

the

prices

of

agricultural

commodities

fluctuate

seasonally. Were it not for this safeguard, a person could purchase a seal in the summer (when the prices are relatively cheap, because it is the time of the harvest) and use it in the winter, when the prices had increased. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:4), the Rambam added another reason. Perhaps, the seal was lost and found by another person. The Radbaz states that the latter is an inferior rationale, because we do not usually take safeguards against such occurrences.

40. Ordinary domesticated doves.

52. For as stated above, the Temple treasury is given the upper hand in all financial transactions.

41. Many different people would have to bring doves as a sacrifice (see examples in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3).

53. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to

Hence, it was necessary that the Temple provide a source for them. 42. Note the explanation given by the Rambam with regard to the wine libations and meal offerings. In a similar manner, the Temple treasury would purchase doves and sell them to this officer. He would then sell them to those people required to

the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4), where he explains that the term kayitz refers to the time of the fig and grape harvest. These fruits are served as desert, after a person has eaten his major meal. Similarly, these offerings do not represent the fundamental "food" of the altar, but instead, are offered only when the altar is free. 54. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:4.

bring them. 43. And suffer the loss from his own funds. 44. And the accompanying flour and oil offerings, as explained in the notes to the following halachah. 45. This referred to the wine libations brought when offering a bull, a half of a hin of wine. Together with the wine were brought three esronim of flour and half a hin of oil.

55. While barefoot, so nothing would separate between their feet and the Temple's floor (Radbaz; see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 5:17). 56. See the Rambam's statements in Hilchot De'ot 4:9, where he lists certain types of meat as unhealthy food.

57. As the Rambam mentions, this officer was in charge of healing all the priests' medical ailments. He singles out their digestive ailments here, because they were the most prevalent (Radbaz). 58. The Radbaz continues explaining that their health situation would have been far more serious except that they were watched over by unique Divine providence. 59. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1) explains that these officers had intimate knowledge of the earth and knew how to determine under which rocks there was a spring of cold water and where a spring of hot water could be found. 60. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah

67. 8 centimeters in contemporary measure thick. 68. For there were 72 strings used to weave it. 69. For the Holy of Holies was 20 cubits wide and 40 cubits high. 70. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:4 for an explanation regarding the gates to the Temple Courtyard. 71. The Entrance Porch did not have a gate (ibid. 4:8). 72. The two mentioned in the previous halachah. 73. See the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:2 for an explanation of this term. 74. For it was necessary to make a distinction between the place

(Shekalim 5:1), this person's activity was not confined to

of the Sanctuary and that of the Holy of Holies on the second storey as well (Rashi, Yoma 54a; see Hilchot Beit

Jerusalem. Instead, he would dig wells throughout Eretz

HaBechirah 4:13, 7:23).

Yisrael so that water would be available to the pilgrims. 61. These were the elders of the House of Garmu. The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) criticizes these priests, because they were unwilling to teach others their unique craft.

75. I.e., an entity that is not inherently impure, but rather contracted impurity because of contact with another impure entity. More specifically, the commentaries explain that the curtain came into contact with liquids that contracted impurity

62. These were the elders of the House of Avtinas. The

which render utensils impure (see Hilchot Sha'ar Avot

Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) explains that they also would not

HaTuma'ah 7:1-2). Also, it is speaking about a time when the

teach their craft to others. At first, the Sages considered this to be undesirable. Later, they discovered that the House of

curtain was not hanging in its place. For if it is hanging in its place, it is considered as part of the structure and it does not

Avtinas refused to do so in order that the information not be used to prepare incense offerings for idols. The Sages then

contract ritual impurity.

deemed their conduct praiseworthy. 63. The Kessef Mishneh understands the Rambam's wording as implying that the embroidery was not part of the original weave of the curtain, but needle work done afterwards. Nevertheless, he quotes other sources that indicate that the designs were made within the pattern of the weave itself. 64. Each year, new curtains were made, because the smoke from the incense offerings would discolor the old ones (Rabbenu Asher to Tamid 29b). See also Hilchot Shekalim 4:2 which describes additional points concerning these curtains. 65. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:2 for an explanation regarding the use of these two curtains. 66. I.e., each string had four strands and each strand had six threads. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the term sheish, the word the Torah uses for linen implies a strand of six threads. See Chapter 8, Halachah 14. From this, we learn that the strings of the other three fabrics were made in a

76. It was immersed in "the Sea of Solomon," a large copper receptacle in the Temple Courtyard. That immersion was acceptable, because that receptacle received its water directly from underground springs. 77. This type of impurity was instituted by Rabbinic decree and they did not imposed the stringency of waiting until sunset (see Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 9:1; 12:6). 78. For an article that is ritually impure may not be brought within the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:17). 79. The rampart surrounding the wall of the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:3). 80. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:1. 81. The Ra'avad maintains that this officer was in charge of dressing the priests (and not necessarily preparing their garments). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:1), the Rambam writes that this officer would perform both functions. 82. In the Temple Courtyard, next to the Gate of Nicanor. See Midot 1:4.

similar manner.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.

12

© Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

13

policy .

1



Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 8 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 7

English

Hebrew

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 9

There are three types of priestly garments: the garments of an ordinary priest, [the High Priest's] golden garments and his white garments. An ordinary priest has four garments: a tunic, leggings, a hat, and a sash. They are all made from white linen with six-fold threads.1The sash2 alone was embroidered with wool.3

‫בגדי כהונה שלשה מינים בגדי כהן‬ ‫הדיוט ובגדי זהב ובגדי לבן בגדי כהן‬ ‫הדיוט הם ארבעה כלים כתנת ומכנסים‬ ‫ומגבעות ואבנט וארבעתן של פשתן לבנים‬ ‫וחוטן כפול ששה והאבנט לבדו רקום‬ :‫בצמר‬

The golden garments are the garments of the High Priest.4 There were eight garments: The four of an ordinary priest, the cloak, the ephod, the breastplate, and the forehead plate. The sash of the High Priest was embroidered5 and was made in a similar manner as that of the ordinary priest. Similarly, the turban [the Torah] mentions with regard to Aaron6 corresponds to the hat mentioned with regard to his sons.7 [The difference is that the] turban of the High Priest is worn like fabric swathed around a hernia. The hat of the ordinary priest, by contrast, is worn like an ordinary hat;8 hence, its name.9

‫בגדי זהב הן בגדי כהן גדול והם‬ ‫ הארבעה של כל כהן‬:‫שמנה כלים‬ ‫ומעיל ואפוד וחושן וציץ ואבנטו של כהן‬ ‫גדול מעשה רוקם הוא והוא דומה במעשיו‬ ‫לאבנט כהן הדיוט ומצנפת האמורה‬ ‫באהרן היא המגבעת האמורה בבניו אלא‬ ‫שכהן גדול צנוף בה כמי שלופף על השבר‬ ‫ובניו צונפין בה ככובע ולפיכך נקראת‬ :‫מגבעת‬

2

The white garments are the four garments that the High Priests would wear on Yom Kippur.10 They are: a tunic, leggings, a sash, and a turban. They are all white, their threads are six-fold, and they are made from linen alone.11 The High Priests had two other tunics for Yom Kippur: one he would wear in the morning12 and one he would wear in the evening.13 Both of them cost 30 maneh.14 They were purchased with communal funds.15 If he wished to add to their value, he must add from his own funds. He would consecrate the additional money and then use it to have the tunic made.

‫בגדי לבן הם ארבעה כלים שמשמש‬ ‫ כתנת ומכנסים‬:‫בהן כ"ג ביוה"כ‬ ‫ואבנט ומצנפת וארבעתן לבנים וחוטן‬ ‫כפול ששה ומן הפשתן לבדו הם ושתי‬ ‫כתנות אחרות היו לו לכהן גדול ביום‬ ‫הכפורים אחת לובשה בשחר ואחת בין‬ ‫הערבים ושתיהם בשלשים מנה משל‬ ‫הקדש ואם רצה להוסיף מוסיף משלו‬ ‫ומקדיש התוספת ואח"כ עושה בה‬ :‫הכתנת‬

It is a mitzvah for the priestly garments to be new, attractive, and to hang low like the garments of the men of stature, as [implied by Exodus 28:2 which states that they must be made]: "for honor and for beauty." If they were soiled,16 torn,17 longer than his appropriate measure,18 shorter than his appropriate measure, hoisted up by the sash,19 and a priest performed service while wearing them, his service is invalid.20 If they were worn-out or they were too long and he hoisted them with the sash so that they would be appropriate to his measure, his service is valid.

‫בגדי כהונה מצוותן שיהיו חדשים‬ ‫נאים ומשולשים כדרך בגדי הגדולים‬ ‫שנאמר לכבוד ולתפארת היו מטושטשין‬ ‫או מקורעין או ארוכין יתר על מדתו או‬ ‫קצרים פחות ממדתו או שסלקן באבנט‬ ‫ועבד עבודתו פסולה היו משוחקין או שהיו‬ ‫ארוכים וסילקן באבנט עד שנעשו כמדתו‬ :‫ועבד עבודתו כשרה‬

Whenever any of the priestly garments become soiled, they are not bleached or laundered. Instead, they are left to be used for wicks and he should wear new ones.21 When the garments of the High Priest22 become worn out, they should be entombed.23 The white garments which the High Priest wears on the day of the fast should not be worn a second time at all. Instead, they are entombed in the place where he removes them, as [Leviticus 16:23] states: "And he shall leave them there." It is forbidden to benefit from them.

‫כל בגד מבגדי כהונה שנעשו צואין‬ ‫אין מלבנין אותן ואין מכבסין אותן‬ ‫אלא מניחן לפתילות ולובש חדשים ובגדי‬ ‫כהן גדול שבלו גונזין אותן ובגדי לבן‬ ‫שעובד בהם ביום הצום אינו עובד בהם‬ ‫פעם שניה לעולם אלא נגנזין במקום‬ ‫שיפשוט אותם שם שנאמר והניחם שם‬ :‫והם אסורין בהנאה‬

3

They would make wicks from the leggings and the sashes of the ordinary priests that wore out.24 They were used to kindle lamps in the Temple for the rejoicing that accompanied the water libation.25 The tunics of the ordinary priests26 that wore out were used to make wicks for the Menorah lit continually.27

‫מכנסי כהנים הדיוטים שבלו ואבנטיהם‬ ‫היו עושין מהן פתילות ומדליקין בהן‬ ‫במקדש בשמחת בית השואבה וכתנות‬ ‫כהנים הדיוטים שבלו היו עושין מהן‬ :‫פתילות למנורת תמיד‬

All of the priestly garments come from communal funds. When one individual donates one of the priestly garments, he may donate it to the community and then it is permitted to be used. Similarly, the sacrificial vessels and the wood for the altar arrangement that an individual donated to the community are acceptable.28 Even all the communal sacrifices which an individual donates from his own resources to the community are acceptable, provided he gives them to the community.

‫כל בגדי הכהנים אינן באים אלא משל‬ ‫ציבור ויחיד שהתנדב בגד מבגדי‬ ‫כהונה מוסרו לציבור ומותר וכן כל כלי‬ ‫השרת ועצי המערכה שמסרן יחיד לציבור‬ ‫הרי הן כשרין אף כל קרבנות הציבור‬ ‫שהתנדב אותן יחיד משלו כשרים ובלבד‬ :‫שימסרם לציבור‬

They would make many sets29 of clothes for ordinary priests. There were 96 lockers in the Temple30 in which to place the clothes, four lockers for each watch. The name of each watch was written on the lockers and they were all closed. When the men of the watch began their priestly service on the Sabbath, they would open their lockers throughout their week and take their garments. When they departed, they would return the clothes to their lockers and close them.

‫בגדי כהנים הדיוטים היו עושין מהן‬ ‫מחלצות רבות וששה ותשעים חלון‬ ‫היו במקדש להניח בהן הבגדים ארבעה‬ ‫חלונות לכל משמר ושם כל משמר כתוב‬ ‫על חלונותיו וכולן סתומות וכשיכנסו אנשי‬ ‫משמר לעבודה בשבת שלהן פותחין‬ ‫חלונותיהן כל ימי שבתן ונוטלין הכלים‬ ‫וכשיצאו מחזירין הבגדים לחלונותיהן‬ :‫וסותמן‬

Why did they make four lockers for each watch? So that the garments would not be intermingled.31 Instead, all of the leggings were [stored] in one locker on which was written: Leggings. Similarly, the sashes were [stored] in one locker on which was written: Sash. Similarly, the hats and the tunics each had their own locker.

‫ולמה עשו ארבעה חלונות לכל‬ ‫משמר לפי שלא יהיו הכלים מעורבין‬ ‫אלא כל המכנסים בחלון אחד וכתוב עליו‬ ‫מכנסים וכן האבנטים בחלון אחד וכתוב‬ ‫עליו אבנט וכן המצנפות כולן בחלון אחד‬ :‫והכתנות כולן בחלון אחד‬

4

The High Priest would leave his golden garments in his chamber32 at night or when he left the Temple.

‫כהן גדול מניח בגדי זהב בלשכה שלו‬ :‫בלילה או בעת שיצא מן המקדש‬

It is permitted to derive benefit from the priestly garments.33 Therefore [the priests] wear them on the day of their Temple service even when they are not performing service with the exception of the sash, because it is shaatnez.34

‫בגדי כהונה מותר ליהנות בהן‬ ‫לפיכך לובשם ביום עבודתו ואפילו‬ ‫שלא בשעת עבודה חוץ מן האבנט מפני‬ :‫שהוא שעטנז‬

It is, however, forbidden for an ordinary priest to wear it except during his service. The [clothes] the priests wear for their service are of wool and linen alone.

‫אסור לכהן הדיוט ללובשו אלא‬ ‫בשעת עבודה אין הכהנים לובשין‬ :‫לעבודה אלא צמר ופשתים בלבד‬

Whenever the Torah uses the word sheish or bad, it is referring to flax, i.e., linen. Whenever the term techeilet is used, it refers to wool which is dyed sky-blue, i.e., lighter35 than dark blue. The term argaman refers to wool that is dyed red.36 And tola'at sheni refers to wool dyed with a gnat.37

‫וכל מקום שנאמר בתורה שש או‬ ‫בד הוא הפשתים והוא הבוץ ותכלת‬ ‫האמורה בכל מקום היא הצמר הצבוע‬ ‫כעצם שמים שהוא פתוך מן הכוחל‬ ‫הארגמן הוא הצמר הצבוע אדום ותולעת‬ :‫השני הוא הצמר הצבוע בתולעת‬

Whenever the Torah uses the term sheish or "spun sheish," it is necessary that the strand be sixfold.38 Where the term bad is used, it is valid, if one strand alone is used. [Even in such situations,] the most desirable manner of performing the mitzvah is that it be sixfold. Whenever the term meshizar39 is used alone, the intent is a thread that is eightfold.

‫כל מקום שנאמר בתורה שש או‬ ‫שש משזר צריך שיהיה החוט כפול‬ ‫ששה ומקום שנאמר בד אם היה חוט‬ ‫אחד לבדו כשר ומצוה מן המובחר שיהיה‬ ‫כפול ששה ומקום שנאמר בו משזר בלבד‬ :‫צריך שיהיה חוטן כפול שמנה‬

Whenever the Torah uses the term "a work of embroidery," the intent is that the design which is woven will be seen on one side of the fabric. When it uses the term "a work of craft," the intent is that the design will be seen on both sides of the fabric, front and back.

‫כל מקום שנאמר בתורה מעשה‬ ‫רוקם הוא שתהיינה הצורות‬ ‫הנעשות באריגה נראות מצד אחד בפני‬ ‫האריג ומעשה חושב הוא שתהיה הצורה‬ :‫נראית משני צדדין פנים ואחור‬

How are the clothes made? The tunic - whether of the High Priest or an ordinary priest - was made with a boxlike knit. The knit had sequences of squares as is the structure of an animal's maw,40 in the manner which weavers make firm garments. Its sleeve was woven separately and then sown to the body of the tunic.

‫וכיצד מעשה הבגדים הכתונת בין‬ ‫של כ"ג בין של כהן הדיוט‬ ‫משבצת היתה שהיא בתים בתים באריגתה‬ ‫כמו בית הכוסות כדרך שעושין האורגין‬ ‫בבגדים הקשים ובית יד שלה נארג בפני‬ ‫עצמו ומחברין אותו עם גוף הכתונת‬ :‫בתפירה‬

The length of the tunic extended until slightly above the heel.41 The length of the sleeve extended until his wrist and its width was the width of his hand.

‫אורך הכתונת עד למעלה מן העקב‬ ‫ואורך בית יד שלה עד פס ידו‬ :‫ורוחבו כרוחב היד‬

The leggings - whether of the High Priest or an ordinary priest - extend from the loins until the thighs, i.e., from above the navel, close to the heart, until the end of the thigh, i.e., until the knee. They had straps.42 They did not have a special feature for the anus, nor for the male organ. Instead, they would surround the body like a pouch.

‫המכנסים בין של כ"ג בין של כהן‬ ‫הדיוט הם ממתנים עד ירכים‬ ‫שהוא למעלה מן הטיבור קרוב מן הלב עד‬ ‫סוף הירך שהוא הארכובה ושנצים יש‬ ‫להם ואין להם לא בית הנקב ולא בית‬ :‫הערוה אלא מוקפין כמין כיס‬

The turban - whether of an ordinary priest or a High Priest - was sixteen cubits long.43 The sash was about three fingerbreadths44 wide and 32 cubits long. [The priest would] wrap it around himself, winding after winding. The priestly garments were not sown, rather they woven, as [Exodus 39:22] states: "weavers' craft."

‫המצנפת של כ"ג או הדיוט ארכו‬ ‫שש עשרה אמות והאבנט רוחב‬ ‫כמו שלש אצבעות ואורכו ל"ב אמה‬ ‫מקיפו ומחזירו כרך ע"ג כרך ובגדי כהונה‬ ‫כולן אין עושין אותן מעשה מחט אלא‬ :‫מעשה אורג שנאמר מעשה אורג‬

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 7

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 9

FOOTNOTES

5

1. As mentioned in the notes to the previous chapter, the Radbaz explains that this is implied by the very Hebrew term

2. The Torah (Exodus 39:29) mentions the use of woolen fabrics only with regard to the sash of the High Priest, but

used for linen sheish, for that term also means "six." See

through the process of Biblical exegesis, our Sages (Yoma

Halachah 14.

12b) also derived that the sash of an ordinary priest also contains these fabrics.

6

3. Although the combination of these fabrics violates the prohibition against shaatnez (see Hilchot Kilayim, ch. 12),

17. The commentaries have drawn attention to an apparent contradiction in the Rambam's words, for in Hilchot Bi'at

the positive commandment of wearing the Priestly Garments overrides the negative commandment of shaatnez.

HaMikdash 1:14, he rules that, after the fact, when a priest

Nevertheless, this applies only when it is a mitzvah to wear them, i.e., when involved in the Temple service. Otherwise, it

at the hand of heaven, his service is acceptable. Among the resolutions offered is that here, the Rambam is speaking

is forbidden to wear them (Hilchot Kilayim 10:3).

about clothes that remain torn. Hence, it is as if he is no longer wearing that garment. In Hilchot Bi'at Hamikdash, by

4. As the Rambam continues to explain, these garments were not all golden. Nevertheless, they are called golden because certain garments were golden. 5. Exodus 28:39.

performs service in torn garments, although he is liable to die

contrast, he is speaking about torn garments that were mended. As the Radbaz explains (in his gloss there), the Rambam is speaking about a tear like the tear made when

6. Exodus 28:4.

one rends his garments in mourning which can be mended. Here, he is speaking about a garment that was torn in many

7. Ibid.:40.

places.

8. The Kessef Mishneh cites the Ramban who states that the

18. I.e., they should reach slightly above the ground, extending

headgear of both the ordinary priests and the High Priests

until above the priest's heel (Halachah 17). If they drag along the ground, they are disqualified. That is the intent of the

were turbans. This is also indicated by Halachah 18 which speaks of their length. The turban of the High Priest, however, was round, while those of the ordinary priests were cone-shaped like hats. Other authorities (Rashi and the Ra'avad) differ and maintain that the ordinary priests wore hats and not turbans. 9. With regard to this point as well, the Kessef Mishneh cites the Ramban who states that the letters kuf and gimmel can be interchanged. Thus migba'at parallels mikva'at that relates to the word kova, hat. 10. More particularly, they are the garments that he would wear when he performed the service unique to Yom Kippur. For he would also wear his golden garments on that day and carry out the service that was also peformed on other days while

phrase "too long" mentioned later (Kessef Mishneh). 19. It is as if the material hoisted up by the sash was cut off (Zevachim 18b). 20. It is as if he performed the service without wearing priestly garments at all. 21. For there should be no expressions of poverty in a place of wealth (Zevachim 88b). 22. I.e., the golden garments. 23. Although this is not stated explicitly, it is deduced from a comparison to the white garments (Yoma 12b). 24. These were not used for the Menorah. The rationale is that since the sash contains wool, it will not serve as an effective

wearing them. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 2:1.

wick (see Shabbat 20b-21a). And it is improper to use the

11. I.e., even the sash was made from linen alone. On this day, it was not of sha'tnez.

leggings for that purpose since the priest wore them on his

12. To perform the sacrificial service of Yom Kippur. 13. To remove from the Holy of Holies the ladle that had carried the incense. 14. A maneh is 100 silver pieces. Thus these were very expensive garments, made of fine fabric. The commentaries note that Yoma 35a states that the garments the High Priest would wear in the morning were more valuable than those he would wear in the evening and question why the Rambam

lower body (Tifferet Yisrael, Sukkah 5:3). 25. See the conclusion of Hilchot Lulav where this rejoicing is described. Significantly, however, there the Rambam does not connect the rejoining with the water libation. 26. The Kessef Mishneh asks why the Rambam does not mention the hats of the ordinary priests. He offers two possible resolutions: a) their fabric was thin and not suitable for wicks at all; b) they were in fact used for the Menorah.

does not mention this point. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 3:7) which states that

27. In contrast to the lamps for the water libation rejoicing which

the only difference between the two was their cut.

28. I.e., generally, we think of the community purchasing these items by using funds from the Temple treasury. If, however,

15. I.e., funds from terumat halishkah, the Temple treasury collected to purchase the communal sacrifices and all their needs. See Halachah 7 and Hilchot Shekalim 4:2. 16. Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary to Zevachim 18b.

took place only during the Sukkot holiday.

an individual donates these substances to the Temple treasury they also become communal property and then can be used for whatever purpose the community desires. 29. I.e., a set with four garments: leggings, a tunic, a sash, and a hat.

30. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 5:6), the

35. See Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 1:4 where the Rambam defines

Rambam speaks of 24 lockers. Rambam LeAm suggests

patuch as a color mixed with white. See also Hilchot Tzitzit

that each watch had one large locker which in turn had four compartments.

2:1.

31. Having the garments sorted individually made it easier for the priests to put on the garments in the proper order: first, the leggings, then, the tunic, the sash, and the hat [see Chapter 10, Halachah 1; see also Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:3)].

the

Rambam's

32. The Chamber of the High Priest. See Chapter 5, Halachah 7. Har Hamoriah writes that since the Talmud does not mention that there was a locker for the High Priest's garments, we

36. There are some who interpret the term as referring to a purplish dye. Others explain that it is mixture of several dyes of thread. See Ra'avad and Kessef Mishneh. 37. See Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:2 where the Rambam writes that this dye is produced from a seed that has a small gnat in it that produces a scarlet color. 38. I.e., one strand made up of six thinner threads. 39. Often translated as twisted.

can assume there was none and that he would leave them in his chamber.

40. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 3:1).

33. Tosafot, Yoma 69a, suggests that as an initial preference, a

41. For as mentioned in Halachah 4, the priests' garments

priest should not benefit from them. In practice, however, that

should be fit to their measure, neither too long or too short. Compare to the description of the clothes of Torah scholars

is not possible, because "the Torah was not given to the ministering angels" and it is impossible for the priests to remove the priestly garments immediately after their Temple service was completed (Kiddushin 54b). Hence they were consecrated with the stipulation that the priests would derive personal benefit from them. 34. A prohibited mixture of fabrics. During the Temple service, however, it may be worn, because then it is a mitzvah to do so and the observance of a positive mitzvah supersedes the

The boxes were indented slightly, like small pockets.

in Hilchot De'ot 5:9. 42. To tighten them around the priest's waist. 43. As explained in Halachah 2, according to the Rambam, the difference was the manner in which they wrapped the turbans. The actual cloth was the same. 44. A fingerbreadth is about 2 cm according to Shiurei Torah.

observance of a prohibition. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the sash may be worn throughout the day, as long as the priest is in the Temple. Rav Yosef Corcus mentions that the ephod and the breastplate of the High Priest also involved a forbidden mixture of fabrics. He explains, however, that according to the Rambam, the prohibition against mixed fabrics does not apply to them, because they are not worn to provide the body with warmth, and if a garment is worn for a purpose other than that, this prohibition does not apply (Hilchot Kilayim 10:19).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

8



Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 9 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 8

Hebrew

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 10

How is the forehead plate made? We make a plate of gold two fingerbreadths1 wide that extends [over the forehead of the High Priest] from one ear to the other. Upon it is written, 2‫ קדש לה'ה‬in two lines, ‫ קדש‬on the lower line and ‫ לה'ה‬on the upper line.3 If [the words] were written on one line it was valid. There were times when they were written on one line.4

‫כיצד מעשה הציץ עושה טס של זהב‬ ‫רחב שתי אצבעות ומקיף מאוזן‬ '‫לאוזן וכותב עליו שני שיטין קדש לה‬ ‫קדש מלמטה לה' מלמעלה ואם כתבו‬ ‫בשיטה אחת כשר ופעמים כתבוהו‬ :‫בשיטה אחת‬

The letters would project outward. How was this done? [A craftsman] would engrave the letters on the back of the plate5 while it was pressed to beeswax6 until they project.

[‫והאותיות בולטות בפניו ]כיצד‬ ‫חופר את האותיות מאחריו והוא‬ ‫מדובק על השעוה עד שבולט והוא נקוב‬ ‫בשתי קצותיו ופתיל תכלת למטה ממנו‬ ‫נכנס מנקב לנקב כדי שיהיה נקשר בפתיל‬ :‫כנגד העורף‬

It had holes on each of its ends. There was a strand of sky-blue wool below it that ran from hole to hole so that it could be tied with this strand at the nape [of the neck].7

1

English

The cloak was made entirely of sky-blue colored wool.8 Its strands were twelve-fold. Its opening was woven, and that is where its weave began.9 It did not have an opening for his arms.10 Instead, it was divided into two flaps from below the throat and downward like all cloaks.11 It is joined only directly below the throat. One who tears the border of the opening of the cloak is liable for lashes, as [Exodus 28:32] states: "It shall not be torn."12 This applies to all the priestly garments. One who tears them with a destructive intent is liable for lashes.13 He should then bring sky-blue wool, red wool, and scarlet wool, the strands of each of these spun eight-fold. [This is necessary,] because [Exodus 39:24] states that [the pomegrantes on the cloak's] hem [should be made from strands that are] "twisted."14Thus there are twenty four threads used for the hem of the cloak.15 They should be fashioned into shapes resembling pomegranates whose mouths are not open16and hung from the cloak. He brings 72 cups with 72 clappers that are made entirely of gold and suspends them from the hems, 36 from the hem of one flap and 36 from the hem of the other flap.17 The cup with the clapper hanging in it are together called a bell. From the hems on both sides of [the flaps of the cloak are suspended series of] bells and pomegranates, bells and pomegranates.

2

‫המעיל כולו תכלת וחוטיו כפולין שנים‬ ‫עשר ופיו ארוג בתחילת אריגתו ואין‬ ‫לו בית יד אלא נחלק לשתי כנפים מסוף‬ ‫הגרון עד למטה כדרך כל המעילים ואינו‬ ‫מחובר אלא כנגד כל הגרון בלבד והקורע‬ ‫פי המעיל לוקה שנאמר לא יקרע והוא‬ ‫הדין לכל בגדי כהונה שהקורען דרך‬ :‫השחתה לוקה‬

‫ומביא תכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני כל‬ ‫מין משלשתן שזור שמונה לפי‬ ‫שנאמר בשוליו משזר נמצאו חוטי‬ ‫השולים ארבעה ועשרים ועושה אותן כמין‬ ‫רמונים שלא פתחו פיהן ותולה אותן‬ ‫במעיל ומביא שנים ושבעים זוגים ובהם‬ ‫שנים ושבעים ענבולים הכל זהב ותולה בו‬ ‫ששה ושלשים בשולי כנף זה וששה‬ ‫ושלשים בשולי כנף זה והזוג עם הענבול‬ ‫התלוי בין שניהם כאחד נקרא פעמון עד‬ ‫שיהיו שוליו משני צדדיו פעמון ורמון‬ :‫פעמון ורמון‬

3

The gold that is woven in the ephod and the breastplate which is mentioned in the Torah18 was made in the following manner. A strand of pure gold was taken and placed together with six strands of sky-blue wool and [then] the seven strands were spun as one. He would do the same with one strand of gold and six of red wool, with one strand [of gold] with six of scarlet wool, and with one strand of gold with six of linen. Thus there would be four strands of gold and there would be a total of 28 strands.19 [This is reflected by Exodus 39:3]: "And they hammered out thin sheets of gold [and cut strands] to fashion into the sky-blue wool, into the red wool, into the scarlet wool, and into the linen." This teaches that there was a strand of gold woven in them. How was the breastplate made? He would weave a garment that was a work of craft20 from gold, sky-blue wool, red wool, scarlet, linen, with 28 strands, as we explained.21 It is a cubit long and zeret22 wide and it should be folded into two.23 Thus it was a square a zeret long and a zeret wide.24In it should be affixed four rows of stones as described by the Torah.25 Each stone should be square and set in a setting of gold that encompasses it from below and from the four directions.26 He should engrave on the stones the names of the tribes according to their order of birth. Thus on the ruby, the name Reuben is engraved and on the jasper,27 Benjamin is engraved. At the outset, above Reuben,28 he should write [the names] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and below Benjamin,29 he should write, ‫שבטי‬ 30 ‫ יה‬so that all the letters are found there.

‫הזהב שבאריגת האפוד והחושן‬ :‫האמור בתורה ככה הוא מעשהו‬ ‫לוקח חוט אחד זהב טהור ונונתו עם ששה‬ ‫חוטין של תכלת וכופל השבעה חוטין‬ ‫כאחת וכן הוא עושה חוט זהב עם ששה‬ ‫של ארגמן וחוט אחד עם ששה של תולעת‬ ‫שני וחוט אחד עם ששה של פשתים‬ ‫נמצאו ארבעה חוטי זהב ונמצאו כל‬ ‫החוטים שמנה ועשרים שנאמר וירקעו‬ ‫את פחי הזהב וגומר לעשות בתוך התכלת‬ ‫ובתוך הארגמן ובתוך תולעת השני ובתוך‬ :‫השש מלמד שחוט הזהב כפול בתוכן‬

‫כיצד מעשה החושן אורג בגד מעשה‬ ‫חושב מן הזהב והתכלת והארגמן‬ ‫ותולעת השני והשש על שמנה ועשרים‬ ‫חוטין כמו שביארנו ארכו אמה ורחבו זרת‬ ‫וכופלו לשנים נמצא זרת על זרת מרובע‬ ‫וקובע בו ארבעה טורים של אבן‬ ‫המפורשים בתורה כל אבן מהן מרובע‬ ‫ומשוקע בבית של זהב שמקיפו מלמטה‬ :‫ומארבע רוחותיו‬

‫ומפתח על האבנים שמות השבטים‬ ‫כתולדותם ונמצא כותב על האודם‬ ‫ראובן ועל ישפה בנימין וכותב בתחלה‬ ‫למעלה מראובן אברהם יצחק ויעקב‬ ‫וכותב למטה מבנימין שבטי יה כדי שיהיו‬ :‫כל האותיות מצויות שם‬

Four golden rings are made on the four corners of the breastplate. In the two upper rings from which the breastplate is suspended, two golden cords are placed.31 They are called chains. In the two lower rings that are opposite [the High Priest's] breast32 are placed two cords of sky-blue wool.33

‫ועושה על ארבע זויות של חושן‬ ‫ארבע טבעות זהב ונותן בשתי‬ ‫הטבעות של מעלה שהחושן נתלה בהן‬ ‫שתי עבותות הזהב והם הנקראים‬ ‫שרשרות ונותן בשתי טבעות של מטה‬ :‫שהן כנגד הדדים שני פתילי תכלת‬

The width of the ephod is the width of a person's back from shoulder to shoulder. Its length extend from one's elbows to his feet. It has two bands extending from it on either side34 with which it is fastened. They are called the belt of the ephod. The entire garment is woven with gold, sky-blue wool, red wool, scarlet wool, and linen with 28 threads as described with regard to the breastplate.35He should sew36 to it two shoulder straps so that it will extend to [High] Priest's shoulder. He should affix to each shoulder a square37 sardonyx stone38 set in a setting of gold. The names of the tribes should be engraved on the two stones, six on one stone and six on the other39 according to the order of their birth.40 Joseph's name would be written as 41.‫ יהוסף‬Thus there would be 25 letters on one stone and 25 letters on the other stone. They would be written in this manner.42

‫האפוד רוחבו כרוחב גבו של אדם‬ ‫מכתף לכתף ואורכו מכנגד אצילי‬ ‫הידים מאחוריו עד הרגלים ויש לו כמו‬ ‫שתי ידות יוצאות ממנו באריג לכאן ולכאן‬ ‫שחוגרין אותו בהם והם הנקראין חשב‬ ‫האפוד והכל ארוג זהב תכלת וארגמן‬ ‫ותולעת שני ושש על שמנה ועשרים חוטין‬ ‫כמעשה החושן ותופר עליו שתי כתיפות‬ ‫כדי שיהיו על כתפות הכהן וקובע על כל‬ ‫כתף וכתף אבן שוהם מרובע מושקע בבית‬ ‫של זהב ומפתח על שתי האבנים שמות‬ ‫השבטים ששה על אבן זו וששה על אבן זו‬ ‫כתולדותם וכותבין שם יוסף יהוסף ונמצאו‬ ‫כ"ה אות באבן זו וכ"ה אות באבן זו וכך‬ ‫היו כתובין והאבן שכתוב בה ראובן על‬ ‫כתיפו הימנית והאבן שכתוב בה שמעון על‬ ‫כתיפו השמאלית ועושה בכל כתף שתי‬ ‫טבעות אחת מלמעלה בראש הכתף ואחת‬ ‫מלמטה לכתף למעלה מן החשב ונותן שתי‬ ‫עבותות זהב בשתי טבעות שלמעלה והם‬ :‫הנקראים שרשרות‬

The stone on which Reuven's name was written was placed on his right shoulder and the stone on which Shimon's name was written was placed on his left shoulder. On each shoulder, he should make two rings: one above, one the top of the shoulder and one below the shoulder above the belt. The two golden cords should be placed in the the two upper rings, they are called chains.43 This is the form of the ephod.44

4

5

Afterwards, he places the ends of the cords of the breastplate in the upper rings that are on the shoulders of the ephod and he should place the two strands of sky-blue wool that are on the hem of the breastplate45 into the rings that are above the belt of the ephod. The chains that are in the rings on the shoulders of the ephod should descend until they reach the upper rings of the breastplate so that they will cleave to each other and thus the breastplate will not be separate from the ephod.46 Anyone who separates the breastplate from the ephod and disrupts their connection47with a destructive intent48 is worthy of lashes.49

‫ואחר כך מכניס קצות העבותות של‬ ‫חושן בטבעות של מעלה בכתפות‬ ‫האפוד ומכניס שני פתילי התכלת שבשולי‬ ‫החושן בשתי הטבעות של מעלה מחשב‬ ‫האפוד ומורידין את השרשרות שבטבעות‬ ‫כתפות האפוד עד טבעות החושן‬ ‫העליונות כדי שידבקו זה בזה ולא יזח‬ ‫החושן מעל האפוד וכל המזיח חושן מעל‬ :‫האפוד ומפרק חיבורן דרך קלקול לוקה‬

Thus when he wears the ephod together with the breastplate, the breastplate will be flat over his heart and the ephod will be behind him. The belt of the ephod is tied over his heart50 below the breastplate. The two shoulders of the ephod lie on his two

‫נמצא כשלובש האפוד עם החושן‬ ‫יהיה החושן על לבו בשוה והאפוד‬ ‫מאחריו וחשב האפוד קשור על לבו תחת‬ ‫החושן ושתי כתפות האפוד על שתי‬ ‫כתיפיו ושתי עבותות זהב יורדות מעל‬ ‫כתיפיו מכאן ומכאן מכתפות האפוד עד‬ ‫טבעות החושן ושני חוטי תכלת מרוכסין‬ ‫מתחת אצילי ידיו משתי טבעות החושן‬ ‫התחתונות עד שתי טבעות כתפות האפוד‬ :‫התחתונות שהם למעלה מן החשב‬

shoulders. The two cords of gold extend down from his shoulders on either side from the shoulders of ephod to the rings of the breastplate. The two strands of sky-blue wool are tied below his elbows from the two lower rings of the breastplate to the two lower rings of the shoulders of the ephod which are above the belt.

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 8

Next » Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 10

FOOTNOTES 1. A fingerbreadth is about 2 cm according to Shiurei Torah.

3. The standard published text of Sukkah 5a states that God's

There is no measure according to Scriptural Law. The

name should be on the upper line and ‫ קדש‬on the lower line.

Rabbis chose a measure of two fingerbreadths, because this is the ordinary width of a High Priest's forehead.

Apparently, the Rambam's text of the Gemara followed a

2. "Sanctified unto God."

different version. Alternatively, the Rambam favored the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 4:1) which follows the version stated. There it is explained that although the wording is opposite that of the verse, it is like a king (God's name) sitting on his throne (the word "sanctified").

6

4. Shabbat 63b and Sukkah 5a quote Rabbi Eliezar bar Yossi as saying: "I saw it in Rome (where it had been taken after

11. It did not surround the High Priest on all sides, but instead hung down over the front and back of his body, with

the Temple's destruction) and the words ‫ קדש לה'ה‬were written in one line."

openings on either side. Here also, the Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's understanding and the Ramban supports it.

Likutei Sichot, Vol. 26, p. 200ff., explains that the fact that

According to the Rambam's conception, the cloak bore somewhat of a resemblance to the garments worn today as a

despite Rabbi Eliezar's testimony, the halachah is that the words should be written in two lines indicates that our Sages had received orally the tradition that this was the acceptable

tallit kattan (except that it was much longer than those

way of preparing the forehead plate. Accordingly, we must say that the reason the second view is accepted is not

there was no obligation to attach tzitzit to it. He explains that since the neck portion of the garment did not extend over the

because of Rabbi Eliezar's testimony, but because there was an oral tradition that it was acceptable.

High Priests' shoulders, it is not four-cornered garment.

garment). Indeed, for that reason, the Radbaz questions why

considered as a

5. Exodus 39:30 states: "They engraved on it writing, [like that

12. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 88) and Sefer

of] a signet ring." Now the letters of a signet ring project outward and so it was required that the letters of the

HaChinuch (mitzvah 101) includes this prohibition among the

forehead plate project outward. On the other hand, since the verse mentions writing, the letters could not be made using a

13. If, however, he tears them with an intent to mend the article,

mold (Kessef Mishneh; this rebuts the Ra'avad's objection). See Gittin 20a. 6. Beeswax was used so that it would be firm enough to support the gold and prevent it from being pierced, but flexible enough to allow it to be shaped. 7. The Ra'avad (following the line of thinking found in Rashi's commentary to the Torah) states that there was a third hole in the center of the forehead plate and a strand extending from it over the High Priest's head. This would prevent the plate from slipping down. The Rambam (and his view is supported by the Ramban in his commentary to the Torah) maintains that only two holes were made. Apparently, the plate was held in place by the pressure generated by tying it tightly. 8. As stated in Exodus 39:22.

613 mitzvot of the Torah. no prohibition is involved (Radbaz). 14. And as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 14, that term implies a strand made up of eight threads. 15. Eight threads from each type of fabric. 16. Pomegranates have a crown-like bud on their top and these spheres would not. 17. See Exodus 28:33-34. 18. Ibid.:5, 15; 39:2, 8. 19. I.e., four times seven. 20. The design embroidered on it could be seen from both sides. 21. In the previous halachah. 22. Half a cubit. 23. Note the comments of the Radbaz who infers that according

9. As ibid. 28:32 states: "Its opening for the head shall be

to the Rambam, the breastplate would be woven while elongated and then folded. Others maintain that it should be

folded over within it. Its opening shall have a border of weaver's work."

sewn folded at the outset. Between the folds of the breastplate were placed the Urim

10. The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's source for this

and Tumim. See Chapter 10, Halachah 10, for a description

statement. In his commentary to the Torah, the Ramban also questions the Rambam's view. The Radbaz explains that were it to have had an opening for the High Priest's arms, there would have been no difference between it and the tunic.

of them. 24. As stated in ibid. 28:15-16. 25. Ibid. 28:17-20: 39:10-13. 26. As will be explained in the notes to Chapter 10, halachah 10, according to the Rambam, the stones of the breastplate were called the Urim and Tumim and, in the First Temple era, served as oracles. 27. Our translation is based on R. Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. There are some other renditions of this term. 28. On the ruby itself (Shmot Rabbah, the conclusion of sec. 38). Rav Avraham, the Rambam's son writes that these inscriptions were made with smaller letters so that all the names would fit on the stone. The Radbaz suggests that they were embroidered into the breastplate.

29. On the jasper itself (ibid.). 30. "The tribes of God." According to Yoma 73b and other sources, the inscription was "the tribes of Jeshuron." The Jerusalem Talmud states that the inscription was "the tribes of Israel." 31. See Exodus 28:22-24. These golden cords extend from the ephod and secure the breastplate from above as explained in the following halachot. 32. For the breastplate is placed above the heart (ibid.:30). 33. To secure the breastplate to the ephod from below, as stated

41. Psalms 81:1 writes Joseph's name in this manner. The Radbaz states that the extra letter was added to Joseph's name, because he was a king, and it was appropriate to include the first three letters of God's name in his name. 42. The accompanying drawing is a copy of one included in the Mishneh Torah by the Rambam himself. 43. These are the same chains described in Halachah 8. 44. The accompanying drawing was copied from drawings by the Rambam that were included in the original manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. 45. See Halachah 8.

in Halachah 11. 34. As Exodus 25:8 states, the belt was made in the same manner as the ephod itself.

46. Since the breastplate is tied firmly from above and from below, it will not be separated from the ephod.

35. See Halachah 5.

47. The Radbaz implies from this wording that even if the two

36. In contrast to the other priestly garments which are woven, these shoulder straps are sewn to the ephod. 37. Kiryat Sefer suggests that the stones were rectangular rather than square, for otherwise it would be difficult to fit six lines on a square stone. 38. A crypto-crystalline quartz, related to agate with alternating red and white bands. Here also, our translation is based on R. Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. There are some other renditions of this term. 39. In this way, he can fulfill the charge (Exodus 28:12): "Aaron shall carry their names on his shoulders before God as a remembrance." 40. The order the Rambam chooses - as reflected in the accompanying drawing [which is also included in his commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 7:5)] - has attracted the attention of the commentaries. Although it follows the simple meaning of the verse, there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Sotah 36a-b and the Rambam's

are not separated entirely, as long as they are moved slightly, the prohibition applies. 48. If, however, his intent is to readjust their connection, there is no prohibition against separating them. 49. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 87) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 100) include the prohibition against separating the breastplate from the ephod among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 50. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the belt of the ephod was tied below the High Priest's waist. The Radbaz explains that the belt is to be positioned below the breastplate on the same level as its top. The breastplate should lie on the High Priest's heart. Nevertheless, he also explains that the Rambam's wording has to be clarified, because as stated in the following chapter (Halachot 1-2), the sash is tied over the High Priest's heart. The Radbaz therefore suggests that the sash was tied over the upper portion of the heart and the belt of the ephod slightly lower.

view does not follow either of the opinions mentioned there. The Kessef Mishneh, however, offers a resolution that enables the Rambam's understanding to conform to the Talmud's text.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

8



Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 10 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 9

Hebrew

Next » Biat Hamikdash

What is the order in which the priestly garments should be put on? [The priest] should put on the leggings first,1 tying them above his navel, over his loins. Afterwards, he puts on the tunic and then puts on the sash at elbow height. He should wind it fold after fold2 until it ends and then tie it.

‫כיצד סדר לבישת הבגדים לובש‬ ‫המכנסים תחלה וחוגר את המכנסים‬ ‫למעלה מטיבורו מעל מתניו ואח"כ לובש‬ ‫הכתונת ואחר כך חוגר את האבנט כנגד‬ ‫אצילי ידיו ומקיפו כרך על כרך עד שגומר‬ :‫וקושר‬

With regard to the sash, [where it should be placed can be understood from] the received tradition. [Ezekiel 44:18] states: "They shall not gird themselves bayeza, [interpreted3 to mean] "in a place where one perspires."4 Yonason, the son of Uziel,5 received the same tradition from the prophets6 and translated the phrase: "They will gird themselves over the heart."7

‫ועל האבנט מפורש בקבלה ולא‬ ‫יחגרו ביזע במקום שמזיעין וכך קיבל‬ ‫יונתן בן עוזיאל מפי הנביאים ותרגם על‬ ‫לבביהון יסרון ואח"כ צונף במצנפת כמין‬ :‫כובע‬

Afterwards, he should arrange the headpiece as a hat.8

1

English

2

After the High Priest girds himself with the sash,9 he puts on the cloak, and on the cloak, the ephod and the breastplate. He girds himself with the belt of the ephod over the cloak, below the breastplate. Therefore [the cloak] is called "the cloak of the ephod,"10 the cloak that is girded closed with the ephod. Afterwards, he winds the headgear like a turban. He ties the forehead plate [behind his head,] above the turban.11 His hair was visible between the forehead plate and the turban and it is in that place that he would wear his tefillin between the forehead plate and the turban.12 It is a positive commandment to make these garments and for the priests to serve in them,13 as [Exodus 28:2] states: "And you shall make holy garments,"14 and [ibid. 29:8] states: "And drew near his sons and dress them in tunics."15 When a High Priest serves with less than these eight garments or an ordinary priest serves with less than these four garments, he is called lacking garments. His service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of Heaven, like a non-priest who serves. [This is indicated by ibid.:9 which states:] "And you shall gird them with a sash... and their priesthood shall be for them...." [Implied is that] when their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them. [Conversely,] if their garments are not upon them, they are like non-priests, concerning whom [Numbers 1:51] states: "A non-priest who draws close [to the service of the Sanctuary] shall die."16

‫כהן גדול אחר שחוגר באבנט לובש‬ ‫המעיל ועל המעיל האפוד והחושן‬ ‫וחוגר בחשב האפוד על המעיל מתחת‬ ‫החושן ולפיכך נקרא מעיל האפוד שחוגרו‬ ‫באפוד ואחר כך צונף במצנפת וקושר‬ ‫הציץ למעלה מן המצנפת ושערו היה‬ ‫נראה בין ציץ למצנפת ושם היה מניח‬ :‫תפילין בין ציץ למצנפת‬

‫מצות עשה לעשות בגדים אלו ולהיות‬ ‫הכהן עובד בהן שנאמר ועשית בגדי‬ ‫קדש ואת בניו תקריב והלבשתם כתנות‬ ‫וכהן גדול ששימש בפחות משמנה בגדים‬ ‫אלו או כהן הדיוט ששימש בפחות‬ ‫מארבעה בגדים אלו הוא הנקרא מחוסר‬ ‫בגדים ועבודתו פסולה וחייב מיתה בידי‬ ‫שמים כזר ששימש שנאמר וחגרת אותם‬ ‫אבנט והיתה להם כהונה בזמן שבגדיהם‬ ‫עליהן כהונתן עליהן אין בגדיהן עליהן אין‬ ‫כהונתם עליהן אלא הרי הם כזרים ונאמר‬ :‫והזר הקרב יומת‬

3

Just like a priest who is lacking garments is liable to die and invalidates the service he performs, so too, one who wears extra garments17 - e.g., he wears two tunics, two sashes, or an ordinary priest who wears the garments of the High Priest and performs service profanes his service and is liable for death at the hand of Heaven.18

‫כשם שהמחוסר בגדים חייב מיתה‬ ‫ופוסל העבודה כך היתר בגדים כגון‬ ‫שלבש שתי כתנות או שני אבנטים או כהן‬ ‫הדיוט שלבש בגדי כהן גדול ועבד ה"ז‬ :‫מחלל העבודה וחייב מיתה בידי שמים‬

It is said with regard to the priestly garments:19 "on his flesh and he shall wear them." [Implied is that] nothing should intervene between his flesh and the garments. Even if there is one thread, earth, or a dead louse between his flesh and the [priestly] garment, it is considered an intervening substance and his service is invalid. Therefore a priest cannot serve [in the Temple wearing] his arm tefillin, because they intervene. The head tefillin, by contrast, do not intervene20 and if he desires to wear them at the time of his Temple service, he may.21

‫נאמר בבגדי כהונה על בשרו ולבשם‬ ‫מלמד שלא יהיה דבר חוצץ בין בשרו‬ ‫לבגדים אפילו נימא אחת או עפר או כינה‬ ‫מתה אם היתה בין בשר לבגד הרי זו‬ ‫חציצה ועבודתו פסולה לפיכך אין הכהן‬ ‫יכול לעבוד בתפילין של יד שהרי חוצצת‬ ‫אבל של ראש אינה חוצצת ואם רצה‬ :‫להניחם בשעת העבודה מניח‬

[A priest] must be careful at the time that he puts on [the priestly garments] that there be no dust, nor a louse - even if it is alive - between his flesh and the garment. Nor should air enter between his flesh and his garment during the time of service so that the garment will become distant from his flesh. He should not place his hand in his bosom under his tunic. He should not remove his hair from the garment, nor should there be a strand hanging loose from the garment. [Although] one these factors occurs, his service is acceptable.22

‫וצריך להזהר בשעה שלובש שלא‬ ‫יהיה אבק בין בגדו לבשרו ולא כינה‬ ‫אף על פי שהיא בחיים ושלא תכנס הרוח‬ ‫בשעת העבודה בין בשרו לבגדו עד‬ ‫שיתרחק הבגד מעליו ולא יכניס ידו תחת‬ ‫חלוקו לחיק ולא יצא שערו מן הבגד ולא‬ ‫יהיה בבגד נימא מדולדלת ואם היה שם‬ :‫אחד מכל אלו עבודתו כשירה‬

[The following rules apply if a priest] wrapped a cloth on his flesh in a place [untouched by the priestly] garments, e.g., he wrapped it on his finger or on his heel. If it is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths,23 it is considered as an intervening substance and it invalidates [the service]. If it is smaller than that, it is not considered as an intervening substance.24

‫כרך על בשרו בגד שלא במקום‬ ‫בגדים כגון שכרכו על אצבעו או על‬ ‫עקבו אם היה בו שלש אצבעות על שלש‬ ‫אצבעות ה"ז חוצץ ופוסל פחות מכאן אינו‬ ‫חוצץ ואם היה צלצול קטן הואיל והוא‬ ‫חשוב בגד בפני עצמו הרי זה פוסל ואע"פ‬ :‫שאין בו שלש על שלש‬

A small belt, since it is considered as an independent garment, invalidates [one's service] even if it is not three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths in area. When the finger of a priest is wounded, he is permitted to tie a reed or a cloth that is not three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths around it on the Sabbath and perform his service.25 If he intends to release blood, it is forbidden.26 [Leniency is granted,] provided the reed or the cloth does not intervene between his flesh and a sacred utensil27 at the time of service.28

‫כהן שלקה באצבעו מותר לכרוך‬ ‫עליה גמי בשבת או בגד שאין בו‬ ‫שלש על שלש ועובד ואם נתכוון להוציא‬ ‫דם אסור והוא שלא יחוץ הגמי או הבגד‬ :‫בין בשרו לכלי בשעת עבודה‬

In the Second Temple,29 they made the Urim and

‫עשו בבית שני אורים ותומים כדי‬ ‫להשלים שמנה בגדים ואף על פי שלא‬ ‫היו נשאלין בהן ומפני מה לא היו שואלין‬ ‫בהן מפני שלא היתה שם רוח הקודש וכל‬ ‫כהן שאינו מדבר ברוח הקודש ואין שכינה‬ :‫שורה עליו אין נשאלין בו‬

the Tumim30 to complete the eight garments [of the High Priest]31 even though inquiry was not made of them. Why was inquiry not made of them? Because the Holy Spirit32 was not vested there.33 And whenever a priest does not speak with the Holy Spirit and the Divine Presence does not rest there, inquiry is not made.

4

How was inquiry made?34 The [High] priest would stand facing the Ark. The person making inquiry was behind him, facing the [High] Priest's back. The inquirer would ask: "Should I go up [to war] or not?" He would not ask in a loud voice, nor would he merely think about the matter in his heart. Instead, [he would speak] in a low voice, like someone praying to himself.35 Immediately, the Holy Spirit will enclothe the [High] Priest. He will look at the breastplate and with the spirit of prophecy see "Go up" or "Do not go up" written in letters emerging from the breastplate toward his face. The [High] Priest would then answer [the inquirer], telling him: "Go up" or "Do not go up."

‫וכיצד שואלין עומד הכהן ופניו‬ ‫לפני הארון והשואל מאחריו פניו‬ ‫לאחרי הכהן ואומר השואל אעלה או לא‬ ‫אעלה ואינו שואל בקול רם ולא מהרהר‬ ‫בלבו אלא בקול נמוך כמי שמתפלל בינו‬ ‫לבין עצמו ומיד רוח הקדש לובש את‬ ‫הכהן ומביט בחושן ורואה בו במראה‬ ‫הנבואה עלה או לא תעלה באותיות‬ ‫שבולטות מן החושן כנגד פניו והכהן‬ :‫משיבו ואומר לו עלה או לא תעלה‬

Two matters should not be asked about at once. If they are, one replies only to the first. Inquiry should not be made [of the Urim and Tumim] by an

‫ואין שואלין על שני דברים כאחד‬ ‫ואם שאל משיבין על הראשון בלבד‬ ‫ואין נשאלין בהן להדיוט אלא או למלך או‬ ‫לבית דין או למי שצורך הציבור בו‬ ‫שנאמר ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמוד וגו' הוא‬ ‫זה המלך וכל בני ישראל זה הוא משוח‬ ‫מלחמה או מי שצורך הציבור בשאילתו‬ :‫וכל העדה אלו ב"ד הגדול‬

ordinary person, only by a king, the court, or one who the community at large requires. [This is derived from Numbers 27:21:] "Before Elazar the priest shall he stand... [he and all the children of Israel with him, and the entire congregation]." "He" refers to the king;36 "all the children of Israel" to the priest anointed to lead the people in war,37 or someone whom the people need to make inquiry for them; and "all the congregation" refers to the High Court.

5

6

The statements found in the words of the prophets38 that the priests would wear an ephod of linen does not mean that they were High Priests. For the High Priest's ephod was not of linen [alone].39 For the Levites would also wear such a garment, for the prophet Samuel was a Levite, and [I Samuel 2:18] describes him as "a youth, girded with a linen ephod." Instead, this ephod was worn by the students of the prophets40 and those who were fit to have the Holy Spirit rest upon them to make it known that such a person reached a rung equivalent to that of the High Priest who speaks with the Holy Spirit via the medium of the ephod and the breastplate.

‫זה שאתה מוצא בדבר נביאים‬ ‫שהכהנים היו חוגרין אפוד בד לא‬ ‫היו כהנים גדולים שאין האפוד של כ"ג‬ ‫אפוד בד ואף הלוים היו חוגרין אותו שהרי‬ ‫שמואל הנביא לוי היה ונאמר בו נער חגור‬ ‫אפוד בד אלא אפוד זה היו חוגרים אותו‬ ‫בני הנביאים ומי שהוא ראוי שתשרה עליו‬ ‫רוח הקדש להודיע כי הגיע זה למעלת כהן‬ ‫גדול שמדבר על פי האפוד והחשן ברוח‬ :‫הקדש‬

Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.

« Previous

Next » Biat Hamikdash

Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 9 FOOTNOTES 1. From Leviticus 6:2, one might presume that the tunic is put on first, because it states: "And the priest shall put his fitted [tunic] and he shall put on linen leggings." Nevertheless, through the process of Biblical exegesis, Yoma 23b derives that nothing should be put on before the leggings.

9. I.e., he puts on the first three garments in the same manner as an ordinary priest does. 10. Exodus 28:31. 11. The bracketed inclusion is necessary, because in front of his head, the turban was above the forehead plate, as the

2. The sash was 32 cubits long, so that it will obviously be wound around him several times.

Rambam proceeds to state. The order in which the High Priest put on his priestly garments is taken from Leviticus

3. By Zevachim 18b.

8:7-9.

4. I.e., a place like the armpits or loins where flesh covers flesh leading to perspiration.

12. See Halachah 6. 13. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 33) and Sefer

5. A renowned student of the Sage Hillel, who translated the Tanach into Aramaic.

HaChinuch (mitzvah 99) includes this commandment among

6. See Megilah 3a which ascribes this translation to the

implies that the fundamental mitzvah is for the priests to wear these garments for their Temple service. Making the

prophets Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi who accompanied the Jews back from the Babylonian exile to Jerusalem.

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The wording in Sefer Hamitzvot

garments is merely a preparatory phase that enables that mitzvah to be fulfilled.

7. At elbow height.

14. This refers to the garments of the High Priest.

8. See Chapter 8, Halachah 2. The order in which the ordinary

15. This refers to the clothes of an ordinary priest.

priests put on the priestly garments is taken from Leviticus 8:13.

16. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:1.

7

2:1), it appears that wearing any extra garment, not only an

26. For this is a transgression of the Sabbath laws and it does not aid the Temple service (Rashi, Eruvin 103b).

extra priestly garment, causes one to be liable.

27. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 5:17.

17. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim

18. We see this concept in several other contexts. When there is an extra entity, it is as if it and the entity that is required to be present is lacking. See Hilchot Shechitah 6:2. 19. The Rambam is not quoting a verse exactly. Similar phrase exist in Leviticus 6:3 and 16:4. 20. See Halachah 3. 21. One can infer that he is not obligated to wear tefillin. We apply the principle: One who is occupied in the observance

28. For in this instance, even if the article is not significant, an interposition invalidates the service. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, claiming that it is a contradiction to his ruling in the previous halachah. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's position, explaining that in the previous halachah, the garment was not considered a garment because of its size. Nevertheless, that does not mean that it is not considered an interposition. As long as it intervenes, it disqualifies service regardless of its size.

of a mitzvah - the priestly service - is exempt from another mitzvah, wearing tefillin.

29. Kiddushin 31a relates that the Sages sought to purchase the

The tefillin are not considered as an extra garment, because

stones for the High Priest's breastplate in the era of the

tefillin are not considered a garment (Kessef Mishneh).

Second Temple.

22. Zevachim 19a questions whether these situations are

30. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:1,

acceptable and does not arrive at a conclusion. Accordingly, the Rambam rules that as an initial preference, one should

the Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam considers the

be concerned with these matters, but the difficulty is not great enough to disqualify the service. For unless the Torah

Priest's breastplate. See also the Rambam's Commentary to

or our Sages explicitly ruled that a sacrifice is unacceptable, one cannot bring another one in its place for it is possible

interpret it as referring to the script of mystic names of God

that one will be committing the transgression of slaughtering an ordinary animal in the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot

31. For the stones were an integral part of the structure of the breastplate.

Shechitah 2:3). The slaughter of the animal might be placed

32. The spirit of prophecy.

in that category, because one is bringing it as a sacrifice under the conception that he is obligated to do so, when in fact that might not be so. The Kessef Mishneh states that one may not bring a

term Urim and Tumim as referring to the stones of the High the Mishnah (Sotah 9:20. The Ra'avad and others differ and that were placed in the folds of breastplate.

33. Yoma 21b explains that this is one of the five differences between the holiness of the First Temple and that of the Second Temple.

sacrifice and make a conditional stipulation: "If the previous

34. I.e., in the era of the First Temple.

sacrifice was unacceptable, may this be considered as my obligation and if the previous sacrifice was acceptable, this is

35. As in the classic example of Chanah's prayer (I Samuel

a freewill offering." There are some sacrifices - e.g., sin offerings, guilt offerings, and communal offerings - where such a stipulation cannot be made. Hence, our Sages enforced uniformity and prevented conditional offerings in

1:13), which is accepted as the paradigm for our Shemoneh Esreh prayers. 36. For the verse is referring to Joshua whose position was that of a king. 37. I.e., a person upon whom the future of the entire Jewish

these instances. 23. The minimum size of a garment (see Hilchot Keilim 22:12;

people depended. 38. See I Samuel 22:18.

23:7; et al). 24. It is too small to be considered as entity of consequence.

39. Instead, it also contained sky-blue wool, scarlet wool, red wool, as related in Chapter 9, Halachah 9.

25. Since he is not tying a permanent not, there is no prohibition against tying. Nor is there a prohibition against performing an act of healing on the Sabbath (as is prohibited in certain instances), because such prohibitions were not applied in

40. See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 7:4-5 with regard to the preparations a person would make for the spirit of prophecy to rest upon him.

the Temple.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on

this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .

1



Biat Hamikdash Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 1 Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 2 Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 3 Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4 Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 5 Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 6 Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 7 Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 8 Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 9

2

1



Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 2

Introduction to Hilchot Biat Hamikdash They contain fifteen mitzvot: two positive commandments and thirteen negative commandments. They are: 1) That an intoxicatd person shall not enter the Sanctuary; 2) That no one, whose hair is dishevelled, shall enter the Sanctuary; 3) That one whose garment is torn, shall not enter it; 4) That a priest shall not go in to the Sanctuary at all times; 5) That a priest shall not go forth from the Sanctuary during service; 6) To send the ritually unclean out of the Sanctuary; 7) That one who is unclean shall not enter the Sanctuary; 8) That one who is unclean shall not enter the area of the Temple-Mount; 9) That one who is unclean shall not take part in the service; 10) That one who has been cleansed by immersion shall not take part in the service on the day (when he has been cleansed); 11) That one who serves in the Sanctuary shall sanctify his hands and feet (by washing at the laver); 12) That a person with a physical blemish shall not enter the Sanctuary nor approach at the altar; 13) That a person with a physical blemish shall not take part in the service; 14) That a person with a temporary physical blemish shall not take part in the service; 15) That a stranger (not descended from Aaron) shall not take part in the service. These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.

2

‫ הקדמה‬- ‫הלכות ביאת מקדש‬ ‫ שתי מצוות‬:‫יש בכללן חמש עשרה מצוות‬ ‫ וזה‬.‫ ושלוש עשרה מצות לא תעשה‬,‫עשה‬ :‫הוא פרטן‬ .‫)א( שלא יכנס כהן שיכור למקדש‬ .‫)ב( שלא יכנס בו כהן פרוע ראש‬ .‫)ג( שלא יכנס בו כהן קרוע בגדים‬ .‫)ד( שלא יכנס כהן בכל עת אל ההיכל‬ ‫)ה( שלא יצא כהן מן המקדש בשעת‬ .‫העבודה‬ .‫)ו( לשלח טמאים מן המקדש‬ .‫)ז( שלא יכנס טמא למקדש‬ .‫)ח( שלא יכנס טמא להר הבית‬ .‫)ט( שלא ישמש טמא‬ .‫)י( שלא ישמש טבול יום‬ .‫)יא( לקדש העובד ידיו ורגליו‬ .‫)יב( שלא יכנס בעל מום להיכל ולמזבח‬ .‫)יג( שלא לעבוד בעל מום‬ .‫)יד( שלא יעבוד בעל מום עובר‬ .‫)טו( שלא יעבוד זר‬ :‫וביאור מצוות אלו בפרקים אלו‬

Whenever a priest who is fit to perform Temple service1 drinks wine, he is forbidden2 to enter the area of the Altar or [proceed] beyond there.3 If he entered [that area]4 and performed service,5 his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [Leviticus 10:9] states: "[Do not drink intoxicating wine...] so that you do not die."6 The above applies provided one drinks a revi'it7 of undiluted wine at one time, provided the wine is over 40 days old.8 If, however, one drank less than a revi'it of wine, one drank a revi'it intermittently,9 one mixed it with water,10 or one drank even more than a revi'it of wine from the vat, i.e., within 40 days of its being brought into being,11 he is exempt and his service is not profaned. If he drank more than a revi'it of wine, even

‫כל כהן הכשר לעבודה אם שתה יין‬ ‫אסור לו להכנס מן המזבח ולפנים‬ ‫ואם נכנס ועבד עבודתו פסולה וחייב‬ ‫מיתה בידי שמים שנאמר ולא תמותו והוא‬ ‫ששתה רביעית יין חי בבת אחת מיין‬ ‫שעברו עליו מ' יום אבל אם שתה פחות‬ ‫מרביעית יין או שתה רביעית והפסיק בה‬ ‫או מזגה במים או ששתה יין מגיתו בתוך‬ ‫מ' אפילו יתר מרביעית פטור ואינו מחלל‬ ‫עבודה שתה יתר מרביעית מן היין אע"פ‬ ‫שהיה מזוג ואף ע"פ שהפסיק ושהה מעט‬ :‫מעט חייב מיתה ופוסל העבודה‬

though it was diluted and even though he drank it intermittently, he is liable for death and his service is invalidated.12 If a person is intoxicated from beverages other than wine, he is forbidden to enter the Temple.13 If he enters and performs service while intoxicated from other beverages - even if he is intoxicated from milk or figs - he is liable for lashes, but his service is valid, for one is liable for death only when drinking wine at the time of service and one does not invalidate service unless he is intoxicated from wine.

3

‫היה שכור משאר משקין המשכרין‬ ‫אסור להכנס למקדש ואם נכנס ועבד‬ ‫והוא שכור משאר משקין המשכרין אפילו‬ ‫מן החלב או מן הדבלה הרי זה לוקה‬ ‫ועבודתו כשרה שאין חייבין מיתה אלא על‬ ‫היין בשעת עבודה ואין מחלל עבודה אלא‬ :‫שכור מן היין‬

4

Just as a priest is forbidden to enter the Temple while intoxicated, so too, it is forbidden for any person, whether priest or Israelite, to render a halachic ruling when he is intoxicated.14 Even if he ate dates or drank milk and his mind became somewhat confused, he should not issue a ruling, as [the above passage (ibid.:11)] continues: "And to give instruction to the children of Israel." If he gave a ruling concerning a matter that is explicitly stated in the Torah to the extent that it is known by the Sadducees, he is permitted. For example, he ruled that a sheretz15 is impure and a frog

‫וכשם שאסור לכהן להכנס למקדש‬ ‫מפני השכרות כך אסור לכל אדם בין‬ ‫כהן בין ישראל להורות כשהוא שתוי‬ ‫אפילו אכל תמרים או שתה חלב‬ ‫ונשתבשה דעתו מעט אל יורה שנאמר‬ ‫ולהורות את בני ישראל ואם הורה בדבר‬ ‫שהוא מפורש בתורה עד שידעוהו‬ ‫הצדוקים מותר כגון שהורה שהשרץ טמא‬ :‫והצפרדע טהור והדם אסור וכיוצא בזה‬

is pure; [he ruled that] blood is forbidden, or the like. It is permitted for a person who is intoxicated to teach Torah, even Torah law and the interpretation of verses, provided he does not deliver a ruling.16 If he was a sage who delivers rulings on a regular basis, he should not teach, for his teaching constitutes the delivery of a ruling.17

'‫ומותר לשכור ללמד תורה ואפי‬ ‫הלכות ומדרשות והוא שלא יורה‬ ‫ואם היה חכם קבוע להוראה לא ילמד‬ :‫שלימודו הוראה היא‬

When a person drank precisely a revi'it and it was diluted with the slightest amount of water, he slept a bit, or he walked a mil,18 the effects of the wine will have worn off and he is permitted to serve [in the Temple]. If, however, he drank more than a revi'it even if it was diluted, sleeping slightly or journeying adds to his drunkenness. Depending on how intoxicated he was, he must wait until there is no trace of his drunkenness whatsoever.

‫שתה כדי רביעית בלבד והיה בה‬ ‫מים כל שהוא או ישן מעט או הלך‬ ‫כדי מיל כבר עבר היין ומותר לעבוד אבל‬ ‫אם שתה יותר מרביעית אפילו מזוג שינת‬ ‫מעט או הדרך מוסיפין בשכרותו אלא‬ ‫ישהא לפי השכרות עד שלא ישאר‬ :‫משכרותו שום דבר שבעולם‬

5

The men of the priestly watch19 are permitted to drink wine at night, but not during the day during the week [they serve in the Temple]. Even the members of the other clans20 who were not scheduled to work on a particular day [are forbidden], lest the Temple service overburden the members of the clan who serve that day and they require other members of the watch to help them.

‫אנשי משמר מותרין לשתות יין בלילות‬ ‫אבל לא בימי שבתן ואפילו שאר בתי‬ ‫אבות של משמר שאין עבודתן היום שמא‬ ‫תכבד העבודה על אנשי בית אב של יום‬ ‫ויצטרכו לאחרים מאנשי משמרתן לסייען‬ ‫ואנשי בית אב של אותו היום אסורים‬ ‫לשתות בין ביום בין בלילה שמא ישתה‬ ‫בלילה וישכים לעבודתו ועדיין לא סר יינו‬ :‫מעליו‬

The members of the clan of a particular day are forbidden to drink both during the day and night of that day, lest they drink at night and arise to their service in the morning without the effects of the wine having worn off.21 Whenever a priest knows the watch from which he descends and the clan from which he descends, and he knows the day on which the members of his clan were scheduled to serve [in the Temple], he is forbidden to drink wine that entire day.22 If one knows from which watch he is descended, but does not know his clan, he is forbidden to drink wine the entire week during which his clan worked. If [a priest] does not know [the identity of] his watch or his clan, the law would dictate that he should never be allowed to drink wine.23 Nevertheless, his difficulty24 leads to his solution and he is permitted to drink wine at all times, for he is not allowed to serve [in the Temple] until his clan and watch are established.

‫כל כהן שיודע מאי זה משמר הוא‬ ‫ומאי זה בית אב הוא ויודע שבתי‬ ‫אבותיו קבועים בעבודה ]היום[ אסור לו‬ ‫לשתות יין כל אותו היום היה יודע מאי זה‬ ‫משמר הוא ואינו מכיר בית אב שלו אסור‬ ‫לו לשתות כל אותה שבת שמשמרתו‬ ‫עובדין בה לא היה מכיר משמרתו ולא‬ ‫בית אבותיו הדין נותן שאסור לשתות יין‬ ‫לעולם אבל תקנתו קלקלתו והרי הוא‬ ‫מותר לשתות תמיד שאינו יכול לעבוד עד‬ :‫שיקבע בבית אב שלו ובמשמרתו‬

6

A priest who lets his hair grow long25 is forbidden to enter the area of the Altar or [proceeds] beyond there.26 If he enters this area and performs service,27 he is liable for death at the hand of Heaven like an intoxicated [priest] who serves,28 as [indicated by Ezekiel 44:20-21]: "None of the priests shall drink wine. They shall not shave their heads, nor allow their hair to grow long."29 Just as [priests who serve] intoxicated from wine are liable to die, so too, those who allow their hair to grow long are liable to die.

‫כהן שגדל שערו אסור לו להכנס מן‬ ‫המזבח ולפנים ואם נכנס ועבד חייב‬ ‫מיתה בידי שמים כשכור שעבד שנאמר‬ ‫ויין לא ישתו כל כהן וראשם לא יגלחו‬ ‫ופרע לא ישלחו מה שתויי יין במיתה אף‬ :‫מגודלי פרע במיתה‬

[Priests who] let their hair grow long do not disqualify their service. Even though they are obligated to die, their service is valid.30

‫ואין פרועי הראש מחללין עבודה אף‬ :‫על פי שהוא במיתה עבודתו כשירה‬

Just as the priests are not warned against drinking wine except at the time they enter the Temple, so too, they are forbidden to grow their hair long only at the time they enter the Temple.31

‫כשם שאין הכהנים מוזהרין על היין‬ ‫אלא בשעת ביאה למקדש כך אין‬ ‫אסורין לגדל פרע אלא בשעת ביאה‬ ‫למקדש במה דברים אמורים בכהן הדיוט‬ ‫אבל כהן גדול אסור לגדל פרע ולקרוע‬ ‫בגדיו לעולם שהרי תמיד הוא במקדש‬ ‫ולכך נאמר בו את ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו‬ :‫לא יפרום‬

To whom does the above apply? To an ordinary priest. A High Priest, by contrast, is forbidden to let his hair grow long and rend his garments forever,32 for he should be in the Temple at all times.33 Therefore with regard to him, [Leviticus 21:10] states: "He should not let [the hair of] his head grow long, nor should he rend his garments." What is meant by growing one's hair long? [Leaving it uncut for] 30 days like a Nazirite, concerning whom [Numbers 6:5] states: "He shall let the mane of the hair of his head grow long" and a nazirite vow is not less than 30 days.34 Therefore an ordinary priest who serves [in the Temple] must cut his hair every 30 days.35

‫כמה הוא גידול פרע שלשים יום‬ ‫כנזיר שנאמר בו גדל פרע שער‬ ‫ראשו ואין נזירות פחותה משלשים יום‬ ‫לפיכך כהן הדיוט העובד מגלח משלשים‬ :‫יום לשלשים יום‬

7

The priests of the watch [serving in the Temple that week] are forbidden to cut their hair and launder their garments during that week,36 so that they will not enter the Temple when they are unkept.37 Instead, they should cut their hair, wash, and do their laundry before coming [to the Temple].

‫ואנשי משמר אסורין לספר ולכבס‬ ‫בשבתן כדי שלא יעלו למשמרתן‬ ‫כשהן מנוולין אלא מגלחין ורוחצין‬ :‫ומכבסין קודם שיעלו‬

When a priest's watch is concluded in the midst of a festival, he is permitted to cut his hair in the midst of the festival.38 If, however, his watch concludes on the day preceding a festival, he should cut his hair only on that day.39

‫מי ששלמה משמרתו בתוך הרגל‬ ‫מותר לגלח ברגל אבל אם שלמה‬ :‫בערב הרגל אינו מגלח אלא בערב הרגל‬

The laws [applying to a priest who enters the Temple with] torn garments are the same as those [applying to one with] long hair, as [Leviticus 10:6] states: "Do not let [the hair on] your heads grow long or rend your garments lest you die."40 Thus if [a priest] served with torn garments, he is liable for death at the hand of Heaven although his service is valid and was not profaned.41

‫דין קרועי בגדים ודין פרועי ראש‬ ‫אחד הוא שנאמר ראשיכם לא‬ ‫תפרעו ובגדיהם לא תפרומו ולא תמותו‬ ‫הא אם עבד והוא קרוע בגדים חייב מיתה‬ ‫בידי שמים אע"פ שעבודתו כשירה ולא‬ :‫חללה‬

It appears to me42 that any priest who is fit to serve who enters the area of the altar or [proceeds] beyond there43 while intoxicated due to wine, drunk due to other alcoholic beverages, with long hair, or with torn garments as one tears because of a person's death, he is liable for lashes, even if he did not perform service. [The rationale is that] he is fit for service and entered [the Temple] at the time of service in such an unkept manner although he was warned not to enter.

‫יראה לי שכל כהן הכשר לעבודה‬ ‫אם נכנס מן המזבח ולפנים והוא‬ ‫שתוי יין או שכור משאר המשכרין או‬ ‫פרוע ראש או קרוע בגדים כדרך שקורעין‬ ‫על המתים אף על פי שלא עבד עבודה‬ ‫הרי זה לוקה הואיל והוא ראוי לעבודה‬ ‫ונכנס בשעת העבודה מנוול ככה והרי הוא‬ :‫מוזהר שלא יכנס‬

The laws that apply to someone who enters beyond the altar and the laws that apply to ones who depart from there are the same. What is implied? One drank44 a revi'it of wine between the Ulam and the altar or tore his garments there and departed, he is liable for lashes.45 Similarly, if he performed service as he departed, he is liable for death.

‫ודין הנכנס ככה מן המזבח ולפנים‬ ‫ודין היוצא משם אחד הוא כיצד‬ ‫כגון ששתה רביעית יין בין האולם ולמזבח‬ ‫או קרע בגדיו שם ויצא לוקה וכן אם עבד‬ :‫ביציאתו חייב מיתה‬

Similarly, it is forbidden for any person, whether a priest or an Israelite, to enter the entire Temple area, from the Courtyard of the Israelites and onward46 when he is intoxicated from wine, drunk [from other beverages], with unkept long hair or with torn garments. Although there is no explicit warning [against this in the Torah], it is not a sign of honor or reverence47 to the great and holy house to enter it unkept. If, however, an Israelite48 lets his hair grow until it is formed into a weave and it was not unkept, he is permitted to enter the Courtyard of the Israelites.49

‫וכן אסור לכל אדם בין כהן בין‬ ‫ישראל להכנס למקדש כולו‬ ‫מתחילת עזרת ישראל ולפנים כשהוא‬ ‫שתוי יין או שכור או פרוע ראש דרך ניוול‬ ‫או קרוע בגדים אע"פ שאינו באזהרה שאין‬ ‫זה כבוד ומורא לבית הגדול והקדוש‬ ‫שיכנס בו מנוול אבל ישראל שגדל שערו‬ ‫עד שנעשה מחלפת ולא היה דרך ניוול‬ :‫הרי זה מותר להכנס לעזרת ישראל‬

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. This excludes a challal, a son born to a priest from a forbidden relationship, and a priest who has a disqualifying

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:2.

physical blemish. They are not liable for this severe punishment.

7. A liquid measure equal to 86 cc. according to Shiurei Torah

2. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 73) and Sefer

and 150 cc. according to Chazon Ish. [It is reputed that the

HaChinuch (mitzvah 152) include this commandment among

wines of the Talmudic era were very strong and drinking even this small amount could cause intoxication.]

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Note also the parallels in Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 15:4. 3. I.e., ascends the steps to the Temple building or enters that structure. See also Halachah 15 and notes. 4. If he entered this area while intoxicated, but did not perform service, he is only liable for lashes, as stated in Halachah 15. Similar concepts apply if he drank intoxicating beverages while in this area (Halachah 16). 5. The services for which he is liable are described in Chapter 9, Halachah 2.

8

6. He may, however, be punished by a mortal court with lashes and thus freed from the more severe spiritual punishment.

8. And thus has had time to ferment and reach an alcoholic content sufficient enough to cause intoxication. 9. Since he paused while drinking it, its intoxicating effect will be less. 10. Even if one drank the entire quantity, since it was diluted, it will have a lesser effect.

9

11. Since its alcoholic content will not be that high, one is not liable. There is, nevertheless, a prohibition against serving in

21. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the intent of Ta'anit 17a (the Rambam's source) is not the night

the Temple even when having drunk such wine (Kessef

before the priests serve in the Temple, but the night afterwards. They are forbidden because it is possible that

Mishneh). 12. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that although serving in the Temple in such a condition is forbidden, the priest is not liable for such severe punishment,

they will have to continue offering the limbs and fat-tails of the animals at night if they were not able to offer them during the day. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's

nor is his service disqualified. The Radbaz and the Kessef

interpretation, explaining that there is no need to prohibit the

Mishneh offer interpretations of Keritot 13b that substantiate

priests from drinking wine the entire night for this reason. It is sufficient that they be restrained until these limbs have been

the Rambam's position. 13. One of the opinions in Keritot 13b derives this concept from the literal meaning of Leviticus 10:9, translated above as: "Do not drink intoxicating wine," i.e., it interprets the term veseicher according to its simple meaning, i.e., an alcoholic

offered. 22. Were it not for the reason mentioned at the conclusion of the halachah, this law would apply even in the present era. This is a decree, enacted lest the Temple be rebuilt and the priests be required to serve at their appointed time.

beverage other than wine. There is another opinion in that source that interprets veseicher as an adjective (which we

23. Lest he be drinking on a day forbidden for him.

have translated as "intoxicating") describing the manner in which one drinks wine. Apparently, the Rambam does not

24. I.e., his lack of knowledge of his watch and clan. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam with regard to the

see the two interpretations as mutually exclusive. See Kessef Mishneh. See also Halachah 15.

reason why there is no decree against the priests drinking wine in the present age. He rejects the Rambam's view,

14. See Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., where the Rambam links the

because with Mashiach's coming, the lineage of the priests will be established according to the spirit of prophecy (see

two prohibitions in the same negative commandment. One is not, however, liable for death for delivering a ruling while intoxicated. Note the discussion of this matter by the Ramban and Megilat Esther in their glosses to Sefer HaMitzvot. 15. One of the eight forbidden teeming animals mentioned in Leviticus 11:29-30. A frog is not one of those animals. 16. I.e., a directive for actual practice. 17. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 7:5) which quotes an opinion stating that it is permitted to rule in cases involving financial law when slightly intoxicated.

Hilchot Melachim 12:3) and the priests will immediately be called upon to begin their service in the Temple. Instead, the rationale is that because of the length of the exile, we do not expect that the Temple will be built instantaneously. [This is also the view of Rashi (Ta'anit 17a)]. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's view, noting that according to the Rambam, we may offer sacrifices even if the Temple is not rebuilt (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15) and furthermore, the establishment of the priest's lineage even through the spirit of prophecy will not take only one day. 25. See Halachah 11 for a definition of this term.

18. A Talmudic measure equivalent to a kilometer. If he rode rather than walked, he must ride three mil (Eruvin 64b).

26. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 163) and Sefer

19. Who serve in the Temple that week. See Hilchot K'lei

among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Note the objections of

HaMikdash 4:3, 11. 20. As stated in that source, on each particular day, there was a clan whose members would perform the Temple service for that day.

HaChinuch (mitzvah 149) includes this commandment the Ramban to the inclusion of this charge as one of the mitzvot and the resolutions offered by Megilat Esther in their glosses to Sefer HaMitzvot. 27. The law that applies if he does not perform service is explained in Halachah 15. 28. As stated in Halachah 1.

29. The prooftext for this prohibition from the Torah (Leviticus 10:6), "Do not let [the hair of] your heads grow long," is not

40. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 164) and Sefer

sufficient, because that could be interpreted as merely granting license for Aaron's sons to conduct themselves in

among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In this instance as well, the Ramban objects to the inclusion of this charge as one of

this manner. Other mourners must rend their garments and let their hair grow and they were not required to. The verse

the 613 mitzvot.

from Ezekiel teaches that the charge applies at all times and is not specific to that situation (Kessef Mishneh; Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit.).

HaChinuch (mitzvah 150) includes this commandment

41. This ruling appears in direct contradiction to Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 8:4 where the Rambam writes: "If [the priestly garments] were muddy, torn, longer than his appropriate measure... and a priest performed service while wearing

30. I.e., the equation of their service to that of intoxicated priests is not complete.

them, his service is invalid." Among the resolutions offered is that in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, the Rambam is speaking

The Rambam's view is not accepted by all authorities. There are some who maintain that such a priest's service is also

about clothes that remain torn (therefore, even after the fact, the service is invalid), while here he was speaking about torn

disqualified. See the Ramban's gloss to Sefer HaMitzvot.

garments that were mended. As the Radbaz explains, here the Rambam is speaking about a tear like the tear made

31. The Ra'avad differs and from the verse in Ezekiel cited above understands that all priests are prohibited against growing their hair long and must take haircuts once in 30 days. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's position. See the following halachah and notes.

when one rends his garments in mourning (which can be mended) as indicated in the following halachah, and there, he is speaking about a garment that was torn in many places.

32. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 5:6 where the Rambam

42. This expression indicates a conclusion which the Rambam

explains the restrictions incumbent on the High Priest in greater detail. As he states there, these prohibitions apply to

reached through the process of deduction and not derived from any specific source.

a High Priest even outside of the Temple and even when he is not in mourning.

43. The Ra'avad agrees that this law applies to a priest that ascends the altar in these unkept states, but differs with

33. See ibid. 5:7. 34. Hilchot Nizirut 3:2. Thus we can assume that growing one's hair long encompasses a 30 day period. 35. Implied is that if a priest does not desire to serve, he is not required to cut his hair (Kessef Mishneh). 36. This does not refer to the priestly garments, for the priestly garments are not washed (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 8:5). Instead, the intent is the priest's personal garments. As a mark of respect, he should ascend to the Temple in freshly laundered clothes (Yeri'ot Shlomo). 37. Note a parallel decree in Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov 7:19. See also Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 6:11. 38. Although doing so is usually forbidden, as stated in Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov, loc. cit. Here leniency was granted, because he is considered to have been held back from cutting his hair before the festival by forces beyond his 39. And not during the festival.

regard to a priest who proceeds further and ascend the steps of the Temple. He maintains that entering that area in these unkept states is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law. The Kessef Mishneh offers an explanation that justifies the Rambam's ruling. 44. I.e., as a conscious transgression. 45. The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation of the Rambam's source, the Sifra to Parshat Shemini. The Kessef Mishneh and others offer support for the Rambam's interpretation. 46. As explained in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, ch. 7, the other areas of the Temple Mount have a lesser degree of holiness. 47. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit., which speaks of the command to fear the Temple. 48. Or a Levite as will be explained. 49. Rambam LeAm gives the example of the prophet Samuel who was a Nazirite and hence, allowed his hair to grow long. Nevertheless, he combed it until it was attractive and hence, he was allowed to remain in the Sanctuary of Shiloh.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further,

10

provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

11

policy .

1



Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 1

English

Hebrew

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 3

The High Priest enters the Holy of Holies each year only on Yom Kippur.1 An ordinary priest may enter the Sanctuary for service every day.2

‫אין כהן גדול נכנס לקדש הקדשים‬ ‫אלא מיוה"כ ליום הכפורים וכהן‬ :‫הדיוט נכנס לקדש לעבודה בכל יום‬

The priests were all3 warned not to enter the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies when they are not in the midst of the service,4 as [Leviticus 16:2] states: "He shall not come to the Holy Chamber at all time" this refers to the Holy of Holies. "...Within the curtain" this warns [the priests against unwarranted entry] into the entire Temple.5

‫והוזהרו כל הכהנים שלא יכנסו‬ ‫לקדש או לקדש הקדשים שלא‬ ‫בשעת עבודה שנאמר ואל יבוא בכל עת‬ ‫אל הקדש זה קדש הקדשים מבית‬ :‫לפרוכת להזהיר על כל הבית‬

A priest - whether an ordinary priest or a High Priest - who enters the Holy of Holies on any of the other days of the year, or a High Priest who enters there on Yom Kippur outside the time of service, he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid.] states: "And he shall not die."

‫כהן שנכנס לקדש הקדשים בשאר‬ ‫ימות השנה בין כהן הדיוט בין כ"ג או‬ ‫כהן גדול שנכנס לו ביוה"כ שלא בשעת‬ ‫העבודה חייב מיתה בידי שמים שנאמר‬ ‫ולא ימות וכמה פעמים הוא נכנס לשם‬ ‫ביום הכפורים ארבע כמו שיתבאר‬ ‫במקומו ואם נכנס חמישית חייב מיתה‬ :‫בידי שמים‬

How many times does he enter on Yom Kippur? Four, as will be explained in the appropriate place.6 If he enters a fifth time, he is liable for death at the hand of heaven.

2

One - whether an ordinary priest of a High priest who enters the Sacred Chamber outside the Holy of Holies not for the sake of service, nor prostrating oneself7 is liable for lashes, but is not liable for death. [This is derived from the above verse which states:] "Before the covering [that is upon the Ark] so that he will not die." [Implied is that] for [unauthorized entry into] the Holy of Holies, he is liable for death, but [entering] the remainder of the Sanctuary is merely the violation of a negative commandment and is punishable by lashes.

‫והנכנס לקדש חוץ לקדש הקדשים‬ ‫שלא לעבודה או להשתחוות בין‬ ‫הדיוט בין גדול לוקה ואינו חייב מיתה‬ ‫שנאמר אל פני הכפורת ולא ימות על‬ ‫קדש הקדשים במיתה ועל שאר הבית‬ :‫בלאו ולוקה‬

A priest - whether an ordinary priest of a High priest - who departs from the Temple is liable for death8 [at the hand of heaven] only in the midst of his service,9 as [ibid 10:7] states: "From the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, you shall not depart, lest you die." Implied is that you should not abandon the service and leave hastily and in panic because of this decree.10 Similarly, the charge [issued to] the High Priest [ibid. 21:12]: "He shall not depart from the Temple," applies only in the midst of his service, i.e., that he should not abandon his service and depart.

‫כהן שיצא מן המקדש בשעת‬ ‫העבודה בלבד חייב מיתה בין כהן‬ ‫גדול בין כהן הדיוט שנאמר ומפתח אהל‬ ‫מועד לא תצאו פן תמותו כלומר לא תניחו‬ ‫עבודה ותצאו מבוהלים ודחופים מפני‬ ‫גזירה זו וכן זה שנאמר בכהן גדול ומן‬ ‫המקדש לא יצא אינו אלא בשעת העבודה‬ :‫בלבד שלא יניח עבודתו ויצא‬

3

If so, why was this warning repeated for the High Priest? [Because there is a difference between the laws that apply to him and those which apply to an ordinary priest]. When an ordinary priest was in the midst of his service in the Temple and he heard that a person for whom he is obligated to mourn has died, he should not perform sacrificial service, even though he does not leave the Temple,11 because he is in an acute state of mourning.12 if he performed service while in an acute state of mourning, he profanes his service, whether he is offering an individual sacrifice or a communal offering. A High Priest, by contrast, performs sacrificial service while he is in a state of acute mourning, as [implied by ibid.]: "From the

‫אם כן מפני מה נשנית אזהרה זו בכהן‬ ‫גדול שכהן הדיוט שהיה במקדש‬ ‫בעבודתו ושמע שמת לו מת שהוא חייב‬ ‫להתאבל עליו אף על פי שאינו יוצא מן‬ ‫המקדש אינו עובד מפני שהוא אונן ואם‬ ‫עבד והוא אונן של תורה חילל עבודתו בין‬ ‫בקרבן יחיד בין בקרבן ציבור אבל כ"ג‬ ‫עובד כשהוא אונן שנאמר ומן המקדש לא‬ ‫יצא ולא יחלל כלומר ישב ויעבוד עבודה‬ :‫שהיה עוסק בה ואינה מתחללת‬

Temple, he should not depart and not profane." Implied is that he should remain [in the Temple] and perform the service with which he was involved and it does not become profaned. What is the source that teaches that the service of one in an acute state of mourning is invalid? [It is derived from] an inference from a less severe situation to a more severe one.13 A priest disqualified because of a physical deformity may partake of sacrificial foods.14 Nevertheless, if he performs service, he profanes it.15 How much more so should one who is in acute mourning and thus forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods16 - as [Deuteronomy 26:14] states: "I did not eat from it in a state of acute morning" - profane his service [if he performs it].

‫האונן פסולה מקל‬ ‫מום שאוכל בקדשים‬ ‫שהוא אסור בקדשים‬ ‫באוני ממנו דין הוא‬

‫ומניין שעבודת‬ ‫וחומר אם בעל‬ ‫אם עבד חילל אונן‬ ‫שנאמר לא אכלתי‬ :‫שיחלל‬

4

Although a High Priest may perform service while he is in a state of acute mourning, he is forbidden to partake of sacrificial food, as [Leviticus 10:19] states: "If I had partaken of the sin-offering today, would it have found favor in God's eyes."17Similarly, he does not participate in the division of the sacrificial foods so that he could partake of the food in the evening.

‫ואף על פי שכהן גדול עובד אונן‬ ‫אסור לאכול בקדשים שנאמר‬ ‫ואכלתי חטאת היום הייטב בעיני י"י וכן‬ ‫אינו חולק לאכול בערב אונן שעבד אינו‬ ‫לוקה ומותר ליגע בקדשים אע"פ שלא‬ ‫טבל שלא עשו מעלה אלא באכילה אבל‬ ‫בנגיעה הרי זה טהור כמו שיתבאר‬ :‫במקומו‬

When a person in an acute state of mourning performs sacrificial service, he is not liable for lashes. He is permitted to touch sacrificial foods even though he did not immerse himself [in a mikveh], for this safeguard was enforced only with regard to eating. With regard to touching [objects], he is considered as pure, as will be explained in the appropriate place.18 What is meant by a person in an acute state of mourning? One who lost one of the relatives19 for whom he is required to mourn. On the day of the person's death, he is considered in acute mourning according to Scriptural Law. And at night, he is in acute mourning according to Rabbinic Law.

‫אי זהו אונן זה שמת לו מת מן‬ ‫הקרובים שהוא חייב להתאבל עליהן‬ ‫ביום המיתה בלבד הוא הנקרא אונן דין‬ :‫תורה ולילה הוא אונן מדברי סופרים‬

5

When [it was necessary] to wait several days and [only] afterwards, a corpse was buried, for all those days after the day of the deceased's passing, [his relative] is considered in an acute state of mourning according to Rabbinic Law. This also [applies] with regard to the day of burial, but not the following night. Therefore if [a close relative of a priest] dies and he buries him after the day of his death, throughout the day of the burial, he may not offer or partake of sacrifices according to Rabbinic Law. He should then immerse himself and partake of sacrifices at night. The day on which a person hears a report that a relative of his died within 30 days20 and the day on which he gathers his bones21 is considered as the day of one's burial, but [the restrictions] do not apply at night. On the day of [a close relative's] death, by contrast, just as it is forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods during the day according to Scriptural Law, so too, it is forbidden for him to partake of them that night according to Rabbinic Law. [The only] exception is the Paschal sacrifice which he may eat at night, as will be explained in the appropriate place.22 Throughout the seven days of mourning, a mourner should not send sacrifices [to be offered in the Temple].23 [Indeed, he should not send] even wine, wood, or frankincense. Similarly, a person afflicted with tzara'at24 should not send his sacrifices [to be offered in the Temple]. For as long as he is not fit to enter the camp [of the Levites],25 he is not fit for his sacrifices to be offered. There is an unresolved question whether a person under a ban of ostracism26 may send his sacrifices [to be offered] or not.27 Hence, if they were offered on his behalf, [his obligation] is satisfied.

‫ומת ששהה ימים ואחר כך נקבר כל‬ ‫אותם הימים שאחר יום המיתה הוא‬ ‫אונן מדבריהם וכן יום הקבורה ואינו תופש‬ ‫לילו לפיכך מי שמת לו מת )וקברו( לאחר‬ ‫יום המיתה כל יום הקבורה אינו מקריב‬ ‫ואינו אוכל בקדשים מדבריהם וטובל‬ ‫ואוכל לערב ויום שמועה קרובה ויום‬ ‫ליקוט עצמות הרי הוא כיום קבורה שאינו‬ ‫תופש לילו ואפילו מדבריהם לפיכך טובל‬ ‫ואוכל בקדשים לערב אבל יום המיתה‬ ‫כשם שאסור לאכול בו קדשים מן התורה‬ ‫כך אסור לאכול בלילו מדבריהם חוץ מן‬ ‫הפסח בלבד שהוא אוכל לערב כמו‬ :‫שיתבאר במקומו‬

‫האבל אינו משלח קרבנותיו כל‬ ‫שבעה אפילו יין או עצים או לבונה‬ ‫וכן מצורע אינו משלח קרבנותיו כל זמן‬ ‫שאינו ראוי לביאה אל המחנה אינו ראוי‬ ‫להקרבה אבל המנודה יש בו ספק אם‬ ‫משלח אם אינו משלח לפיכך אם הקריבו‬ :‫עליו נרצה‬

6

A person who is impure because of contact with a dead lizard or the like and an uncircumcised person may send their sacrifices28 and they are offered with the exception of the Paschal sacrifice. That sacrifice may not be offered for a person who is impure because of contact with a dead lizard.29 Nor may a Paschal sacrifice be offered for an uncircumcised person, as will be explained.30 No sacrifices at all are offered for a person who is impure because of contact with a corpse until he becomes ritually pure.31

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 1

‫טמא שרץ וכיוצא בו והערל‬ ‫משלחין את קרבנותיהם ומקריבין‬ ‫עליהן חוץ מפסח שאין שוחטין אותו על‬ ‫טמא שרץ ואין שוחטין על הערל פסח כמו‬ ‫שיתבאר אבל טמא מת אין מקריבין עליו‬ :‫קרבן כלל עד שיטהר‬

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 3

FOOTNOTES 1. As explained in Halachah 3. 2. I.e., to offer incense, kindle the menorah, or to bow. 3. According to its simple meaning, the prooftext cited below refers only to Aaron. Nevertheless, through the Biblical exegesis, the Sifra interprets it as referring to all priests (Kessef Mishneh). 4. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 68) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 184) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam explains that this mitzvah is an expression of honor and reverence toward the Temple. 5. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's interpretation of the verse, for seemingly, "within the curtain" refers to the Holy of Holies. On the surface, the opposite would be more appropriate: "The Holy Chamber" could be interpreted as referring to the entire Temple and "within the curtain" to the Holy of Holies. He explains the verse as follows: Were the verse to have mentioned "the Holy Chamber" alone, we would have thought that it refers only to the Holy of Holies and not to the Temple at large. Since, however, the verse adds "within the curtain," we understand that it refers to the Holy of Holies" and "the Holy Chamber" refers to the entire Sanctuary. There is, however, a difference in the punishments for which one is liable for the violation of the two aspects of this commandment, as the Rambam states in Halachah 4. 6. Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim, ch. 4.

7. With regard to the priests' prostrating themselves, see Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 5:11. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the priests were not allowed to enter the Sanctuary to prostrate themselves at all times. Instead, they would enter only at a specific time, when the service of the morning was completed. 8. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 165) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 151) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 9. If, however, he is not involved in the Temple service, he is not required to remain in the Temple. 10. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that the prooftext the Rambam cites was directed to Aaron's sons and applied only at the time of the death of Nadav and Avihu at the dedication of the Sanctuary. In other instances, there is no prohibition for an ordinary priest to leave the Temple. The prohibition applies to the High Priest alone. The Kessef Mishneh refers to the Sifra which - as interpreted by the Ramban - serves as support for the Rambam's ruling.

7

11. The Ra'avad amplifies his difference of opinion with the Rambam, maintaining that the ordinary priest should

21. I.e., unearths his grave for the sake of reburying him in another place.

certainly leave the Temple to participate in the funeral of a close relative. Indeed, he is forced to become impure to take

22. Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:9. There it is explained that our

part in the burial. Indeed, since he cannot complete the service, what value is there in him remaining? The Kessef Mishneh

justifies

the

Rambam's

ruling,

explaining that were he to depart from the Temple, it would be demeaning to the service that he had performed. The implication would be that it was not of serious importance to him. Also, there is a practical dimension; if he would depart, there might not be anyone to see that the service is in fact completed. 12. See Halachah 9 for a definition of this term. See also Hilchot Evel 4:6, 9, for particulars with regard to the state of aninut, acute mourning.

Sages did not wish to enforce their decree in a situation that would lead to the violation of a transgression punishable by karet. 23. See Mo'ed Kattan 16b which states that this is derived from the term shelamim ("peace-offerings"). That name implies that these offerings may only be brought when a person is at peace with himself. 24. A physical ailment similar to leprosy which causes one to become ritually impure. 25. I.e., the Temple Mount; see Chapter 3, Halachah 2, which explains these concepts. 26. See Hilchot Talmud Torah, ch. 7, for a definition of this term.

13. The Rambam's statements are taken from Zevachim 17b.

27. Mo'ed Kattan 15b explains this question as follows: During

The Talmud there offers another derivation. Significantly, in

the 40 years between the sin of the spies and the entry of the Jews into Eretz Yisrael, they were considered as if they

his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam uses that derivation and not the one mentioned here. 14. See Chapter 6, Halachah 12. 15. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:17. 16. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 3:7.

were under a ban of ostracism from God. Nevertheless, their sacrifices were offered. Hence one might conclude that even though a person is under a ban of ostracism, his sacrifices may be offered. That conclusion is not accepted

17. Aaron asked this rhetorical question to Moses after serving

unquestionably, however, because it is possible to make a distinction between one who is ostracized by God (as the

in the Sanctuary, but not partaking of the offerings, on the day his sons died.

Jews were in the desert) and one ostracized by man. It is possible that the latter situation is more severe.

18. As explained in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 12:15, since

28. They may not, however, enter the Temple themselves to take

a person who was in a state of acute mourning was forbidden to partake of holy objects, it is possible that he

part in the offering. The Kessef Mishneh raises a question for it is necessary to

diverted his attention from his hands and touched a source of impurity unknowingly. Nevertheless, this is only a

perform semichah (leaning on the sacrificial animal with all

safeguard and applies only with regard to partaking of food and not to touching it.

sacrifices. Since these individuals may not enter the Temple Courtyard, because of their impurity, they cannot perform

[It must be emphasized that there is a difference in the versions of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah

semichah. Hence, seemingly, the sacrifices should not be

(Zevachim 12:1). Some versions of the text follow the ruling

Rambam is speaking only of certain sacrifices where

here, but others state that it is forbidden for a person to

semichah is not required.

touch sacred food.]

one's strength; see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 3) on

offered. The Kessef Mishneh states that perhaps the

29. Unless he has already immersed himself. See Hilchot

19. A person's mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister. One must mourn for his or her spouse according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Evel 2:1). 20. I.e., the person died beforehand and the priest heard the report within 30 days of his death. In that instance, he is required to observe a full week of shivah mourning (Hilchot Evel 7:1).

Korban Pesach 6:1. 30. For as explained in Hilchot Korban Pesach 2:3, 5-6, the Paschal sacrifice should be sacrificed only on behalf of individuals who are fit to partake of it and a person who is ritually impure and an uncircumcised person are forbidden to do so. 31. I.e., he must have the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon him, and he must immerse in the mikveh.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .



Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 2

It is a positive commandment to send all impure persons away from the Temple,1 as [Numbers 5:2] states: "And they shall send away from the camp all those with tzara'at and zav2 [afflictions] and all those who are impure because of contact with a corpse.

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4

‫מצות עשה לשלח כל הטמאים מן‬ ‫המקדש שנאמר וישלחו מן המחנה‬ :‫כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש‬

"The camp" cited refers to "the camp of the Divine presence," i.e., from the entrance to the Courtyard of the Israelites onward.3 Should one infer that a person with tzaraat or zav ailments and one impure due to contact with a corpse are all three sent to the same place? With regard to one inflicted with tzara'at, [Leviticus 13:46] states: "He shall abide alone outside the camp where he dwells." [The camp from which he is sent] refers to the camp of the Israelites which parallels the area from the entrance to Jerusalem and beyond.4 [From this we conclude,]5 just like a person who is afflicted with tzara'at, because his impurity is more severe, is sent away in a more severe manner than others,6 so too, any individuals whose state of impurity is more severe than others should be sent out in a more sever manner.7

‫זה המחנה האמור כאן הוא מחנה‬ ‫שכינה שהוא מפתח עזרת ישראל‬ ‫ולפנים שומע אני שהמצורע והזב וטמא‬ ‫מת שלשתן במקום אחד ת"ל במצורע‬ ‫בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו זה מחנה‬ ‫ישראל שהוא מפתח ירושלים ולפנים מה‬ ‫מצורע שטומאתו חמורה חמור שילוחו‬ ‫משילוח חבירו אף כל שטומאתו חמורה‬ ‫חמור שילוחו משילוח חבירו לפיכך‬ ‫משלחין את המצורע חוץ לג' מחנות‬ ‫שהוא חוץ לירושלים מפני שהוא מטמא‬ :‫בביאה מה שאין הזב מטמא‬

Therefore a person afflicted with tzara'at is sent outside of all three camps, i.e., outside of Jerusalem. [His impurity is considered more severe,] because he causes [a house] to be considered impure when he enters it.8 This does not apply with regard to a zav. Men with a zav condition,9 women with a zavah condition,10 niddot,11 and women who gave birth12 are sent outside two camps, i.e., outside the Temple Mount.13 [The rationale for this severity is that] they cause an entity upon which they are seated or upon which they are lying to become ritually impure,14 even if it is under a stone.15 [This does not apply] with regard to impurity [contracted] from a corpse.16

2

‫ומשלחין זבין וזבות נדות ויולדות חוץ‬ ‫לשתי מחנות שהוא חוץ להר הבית‬ ‫מפני שהן מטמאין המשכב והמושב אפילו‬ :‫מתחת האבן מה שאין המת מטמא‬

3

A person who is impure because of contact with a human corpse - and even a corpse itself - is permitted to enter the Temple Mount. [This is derived from Exodus 13:19]: "And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him."17 "With him" [implies] into the camp of the Levites.18

‫טמא מת אפילו המת עצמו מותר‬ ‫להכנס להר הבית שנאמר ויקח משה‬ :‫את עצמות יוסף עמו עמו במחנה הלויה‬

From the chayl,19 gentiles, those who contracted impurity from a human corpse, and those who had relations with a niddah20 are sent away.21 A person who immersed that day may enter there, for he has already immersed.22

‫החיל משלחין ממנו עכו"ם וטמאי‬ ‫מת ובועלי נדות אבל טבול יום נכנס‬ :‫לשם שכבר טבל‬

From the Women's Courtyard,23 one who immersed himself that day is sent away,24 but not one who has not completed the purification process.25 For [the day on which] a person who has not completed the purification process [immersed himself] has already passed.26 The prohibition against a person who has immersed himself entering [this portion of] the camp of the Levites is Rabbinic in origin.27

‫עזרת הנשים משלחין ממנו טבול יום‬ ‫אבל לא מחוסר כיפורים שמחוסר‬ ‫כיפורים העריב שמשו ואסור טבול יום‬ :‫במחנה לויה מד"ס‬

From the Courtyard of the Israelites28 and onward even one who has not completed his process of purification should not enter, because his process of purification is not yet consummated. [This is evident from Leviticus 12:8 which, with regard to a woman who seeks purification after childbirth,]29 states: "And the priest will bring atonement for her and she will become pure." One can infer that until then, she was not pure.30

‫מעזרת ישראל ולפנים אפי' מחוסר‬ ‫כיפורים לא יכנס לשם שעדיין לא‬ ‫טהר טהרה גמורה שנאמר וכפר עליה‬ ‫הכהן וטהרה מכלל שעדיין לא גמרה‬ :‫טהרתה‬

4

An impure person who [must be] sent away from the Temple Mount, violates a negative commandment31 if he enters there, as [can be inferred from Deuteronomy 23:11 which] states: "And he shall go outside the camp" - this refers to the camp of the Shechinah - "and he shall not enter the midst of the camp" - this refers to the camp of the Levites.32 Similarly, a person afflicted by tzara'at who enters Jerusalem is liable for lashes.33 If, however, he enters any of the other walled cities34 [in Eretz Yisrael], although he is not allowed to,35 as [implied by the verse]: "He shall abide alone, he is not liable for lashes."

‫הטמא המשולח מהר הבית אם נכנס‬ ‫עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר ויצא‬ ‫מחוץ למחנה זה מחנה שכינה ולא יבוא‬ ‫אל תוך המחנה זה מחנה לויה וכן מצורע‬ ‫שנכנס לירושלים לוקה אבל אם נכנס‬ ‫לשאר הערים המוקפות חומה אף על פי‬ ‫שאינו רשאי לפי שנאמר בדד ישב אינו‬ :‫לוקה‬

If one afflicted with tzara'at entered the Temple Mount, he is liable for 80 lashes.36 If, however, one who is impure because of contact with a human corpse or one who immersed himself that day entered the Women's Courtyard,37 or one who has not completed his process of purification entered the Israelites' Courtyard,38 he is not given lashes.39 He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.40

‫נכנס המצורע להר הבית לוקה‬ ‫שמונים אבל טמא מת או טבול יום‬ ‫שנכנס לעזרת נשים או מחוסר כפורים‬ ‫שנכנס לעזרת ישראל אע"פ שאינו לוקה‬ :‫מכין אותו מכת מרדות‬

Just as there is a positive commandment to send impure persons out from the Temple, so too, if they enter, they violate a negative commandment,41 as [Numbers 5:3] states: "They shall not make your camp impure." This refers to the camp of the Shechinah.42

‫וכשם ששילוח טמאים מן המקדש‬ ‫בעשה כך אם נכנסו עוברים בלא‬ ‫תעשה שנאמר ולא יטמאו את מחניהם זה‬ :‫מחנה שכינה‬

What source teaches that one does not violate the prohibition unless he enters [the Temple], but that he is exempt43 if he touches the Temple Courtyard from the outside? [Leviticus 12:4] states with regard to a woman who gives birth: "She shall not enter the Sanctuary."44

‫ומניין שאינו עובר אא"כ נכנס‬ ‫אבל אם נגע בעזרה מאחוריה‬ ‫פטור שנאמר ביולדת ואל המקדש לא‬ :‫תבוא‬

When an impure person willfully enters the Temple, he is punishable by karet,45 as [Leviticus 17:16] states: "If he will not clean [his garments] or wash his flesh, he will bear his iniquity."46 [If he enters] unknowingly, he is liable for an adjustable guilt offering,47 as [ibid. 5:2] states: "Or a soul that will touch any impure entity." One is liable for karet or a sacrifice only when one enters from the Israelites' Courtyard or onward or into an addition to the Courtyard that was sanctified in a consummate manner, as we explained.48

‫טמא שנכנס למקדש במזיד ענוש‬ ‫כרת שנאמר ואם לא יכבס ובשרו‬ ‫לא ירחץ ונשא עונו בשוגג מביא קרבן‬ ‫עולה ויורד שנאמר או נפש אשר תגע בכל‬ ‫דבר טמא ואין חייבין כרת או קרבן אלא‬ ‫מעזרת ישראל ולפנים או על תוספת‬ ‫העזרה שנתקדשה קדושה גמורה כמו‬ :‫שביארנו‬

What are the types of impurity for which one is liable [for entering] the Temple [while impure]?

‫ואי זהו הטמא שחייב כרת על‬ ‫המקדש כל שנטמא בטומאה מן‬ ‫המת שהנזיר מגלח עליה שכבר נתפרש‬ ‫בנזירות או שיגע באדם או בכלים שנטמאו‬ ‫באותן הטומאות שהנזיר מגלח עליהם‬ ‫שהרי הוא שני לראשון שנגע במת או‬ ‫שנטמא בשאר אבות הטומאות של תורה‬ :‫שיתפרשו במקומן‬

a) Anyone who became impure through contact with a human corpse in a manner which would require a nazirite to shave [his head] because of them; these are explained in [Hilchot] Nizirut;49 b) one who touched a person or a utensil impure through those types of impurity nazirite must shave [his head]; for such considered as a second level of impurity object of impurity that touched a corpse;50

that became for which a a person is to a primary

c) one who became impure through contact with another primary source of impurity as mandated by Scriptural Law,51 as will be explained in their appropriate places.52

5

6

The general principle is: Anyone who is required to immerse himself in water53 according to Scriptural Law is liable for karet for entering the Temple [while impure] even after he immersed himself until nightfall [that day].54 If, however, one became impure due to impurity stemming from a human corpse that does not require a nazirite to shave [his head], he is exempt for entering the Temple, even though his impurity lasts for seven days.55

‫כללו של דבר כל הטעון ביאת מים‬ ‫מן התורה חייב כרת על ביאת‬ ‫המקדש ואפילו אחר שטבל עד שיעריב‬ ‫שמשו אבל המתטמא בטומאות מן המת‬ ‫שאין הנזיר מגלח עליהן אף על פי שהוא‬ ‫טמא טומאת שבעה הרי זה פטור על‬ :‫ביאת המקדש‬

Similarly, if one touches utensils that touched a human corpse or touches a person who is touching utensils that touch a corpse, even though he is considered as impure to the first degree with regard to terumah56 and with regard to imparting impurity to sacrificial foods, he is exempt for entering the Temple. For these matters are laws received through the Oral Tradition.57 Although he is exempt, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.58

‫וכן הנוגע בכלים שנגעו באדם‬ ‫שנגע במת או שנגע באדם שנגע‬ ‫בכלים הנוגעים במת אע"פ שהוא טמא‬ ‫ראשון לענין תרומה ולטמא בשר קדשים‬ ‫הרי זה פטור על ביאת המקדש שדברים‬ ‫אלו הלכה מפי הקבלה ואף על פי שהוא‬ :‫פטור מכין אותו מכת מרדות‬

A person who brings a dead teeming animal59 or the like60 into the Temple or when he brings an impure person into the Temple, he is liable for karet,

‫המכניס שרץ וכיוצא בו במקדש‬ ‫או שהכניס אדם טמא למקדש‬ '‫הרי זה חייב כרת שהרי טימא מקדש יי‬ ‫אבל הזורק כלים טמאים למקדש אפילו‬ ‫היו כלים שנגעו במת פטור מן הכרת אבל‬ '‫חייב מלקות שנאמר ואם לא יכבס וגו‬ ‫מפי השמועה למדו על רחיצת גופו ענוש‬ :‫כרת ועל כיבוס בגדיו לוקה ארבעים‬

because he made God's sanctuary impure. If, however, he threw impure utensils into the Temple - even if they were utensils that touched a corpse61 - he is exempt from karet, but liable for lashes, as [implied by the prooftext cited above]: "If he will not clean [his garments]...."62 According to the Oral Tradition, [for entering the Temple without] washing his body, he is liable for karet. [For entering without] cleaning his garments, he receives 40 lashes.

It appears to me63 that he is liable for lashes only for his clothes that are a source of ritual impurity, i.e., clothes that were touched by a person who became impure through contact with a corpse that themselves become a source for ritual impurity, as will be explained.64 If, by contrast, one brings a garment which is of first degree impurity65 into the Temple, he is not liable for lashes.66 He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.

‫יראה לי שאינו לוקה אלא על בגדים‬ ‫שהן אב טומאה כגון בגדים שנגע‬ ‫בהן זה הטמא למת שהן אב הטומאה כמו‬ ‫שיתבאר אבל בגד שהוא ראשון אם‬ ‫הכניסו למקדש אינו לוקה עליו אבל מכין‬ :‫אותו מכת מרדות‬

Similarly, when an impure person inserts his hand [alone] into the Temple,67 he is given stripes for rebellious conduct. Similarly, anyone who purposely enters the Temple before immersing himself68 while he is impure because of contact with objects that are sources of ritual impurity by virtue of Rabbinic decree, because he ate impure foods, or because he drank impure beverages is given stripes for rebellious conduct.

‫וכן טמא שהכניס ידו למקדש מכין‬ ‫אותו מכת מרדות וכן כל טמא‬ ‫באב מאבות הטומאות של דבריהם או‬ ‫שאכל אוכלין טמאים ושתה משקין טמאין‬ ‫ונכנס למקדש במזיד קודם שיטבול מכין‬ :‫אותו מכת מרדות‬

When an impure person enters the Temple through the rooftops, he is exempt.69 [This is derived from the prooftext cited above:] "He shall not enter the Temple." [Implied is that] the Torah held him liable [only when he entered in] the way one usually enters.70 Although he is exempt for karet, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.

‫טמא שנכנס למקדש דרך גגות‬ ‫פטור שנאמר ואל המקדש לא‬ ‫תבוא דרך ביאה חייבה תורה ואע"פ‬ ‫שהוא פטור מכרת מכין אותו מכת מרדות‬ ‫]ואפילו נכנס במגדל הפורח באויר[ בין‬ ‫שנכנס למקדש ]במגדל[ דרך גגות בין‬ :‫שנכנס בו דרך פתחים‬

[This exemption applies] even if he enters in a compartment flying in the air,71 whether he entered the Temple in this compartment through the roofs or through the entrances.

7

In all places where one is liable for karet72 for a willful transgression or a sacrifice for an unknowing transgression, should an impure object be found there on the Sabbath, it should be removed.73 In other places,74 it should be covered with a utensil until after the Sabbath.75 When it is removed, it should be removed only with flat wooden utensil which do not contract ritual impurity,76 so that there should not be an increase in ritual impurity.77 Both an impure person who entered the Temple when it was pure78 and a pure person who entered the Temple when there was impurity within it e.g., a corpse was lying under a shelter in the Temple and he entered under that shelter - are liable for karet. [In the latter situation,] his entrance and his impurity occur at one time.

‫כל מקום שחייבים על זדונו כרת ועל‬ ‫שגגתו קרבן אם נמצאת שם טומאה‬ ‫בשבת מוציאין אותה ושאר המקומות‬ ‫כופין עליו כלי עד אחר שבת וכשהן‬ ‫מוציאין אין מוציאין אותה אלא בפשוטי‬ ‫כלי עץ שאין מקבל טומאה שלא לרבות‬ :‫את הטומאה‬

‫אחד טמא שנכנס למקדש טהור‬ ‫או טהור שנכנס למקדש שיש בו‬ ‫טומאה כגון שהיה מת תחת אהל במקדש‬ ‫ונכנס הוא תחת האהל ה"ז חייב כרת‬ ‫שהרי ביאתו וטומאה באין כאחת נכנס‬ ‫למקדש ונטמא שם אחר שנכנס אפילו‬ ‫טימא עצמו שם במזיד ימהר ויבהל ויצא‬ :‫בדרך קצרה‬

If one enters the Temple and becomes impure there after he enters, even if he purposely made himself impure,79 he should hurry, and depart in the shortest way possible.80 It is forbidden for him to tarry, to bow, or to depart via a longer way. If he tarried or departed via a longer way even though he did not tarry, or he turned his face to the Sanctuary and bowed even if he did not tarry, he is liable for karet. If he acted unknowingly, he must bring a sacrifice.81

8

‫ואסור לו לשהות או להשתחוות‬ ‫או לצאת בדרך ארוכה ואם שהה‬ ‫או שיצא בארוכה אף על פי שלא שהה או‬ ‫שהחזיר פניו להיכל והשתחוה אע"פ שלא‬ :‫שהה חייב כרת ואם היה שוגג מביא קרבן‬

9

If he did not turn his face [toward the Sanctuary], but bowed as he was departing toward the outside area, he is not liable unless he tarrys. How long a delay [creates a liability]? Enough time to read the verse:82 "And they bowed with their faces to the ground on the floor, prostrating themselves and giving thanks to God who is good and whose kindness is everlasting." This is the measure of the delay [for which one is liable]. What is meant by [departing] via longer way? Any way for which it is possible to depart from the Temple via a shorter way. If one departed via a shorter way, even if he did not run, but instead walked [slowly], positioning his heel by his toes,83 although it takes the entire day, he is exempt. If he took a longer path, even though he ran and pressed himself with all of his power and thus the amount of time it took for him to leave in this manner was less than it would take other men via the shorter way, he is liable, because he departed via the longer path. If he departed via the shorter path, but walked some, then stood, tarried some, [and continued this pattern] until all of his delays together amount to the time it takes to bow, he is not liable for lashes if he acted willfully, nor is he liable for a sacrifice if he acted unknowingly, because there is an unresolved question concerning the matter.84 He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.85

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES

‫לא החזיר פניו אלא השתחוה דרך‬ ‫יציאתו כלפי חוץ אינו חייב אלא‬ ‫א"כ שהה כשיעור וכמה שיעור שהייתו‬ ‫כדי לקרות ויכרעו אפים ארצה על הרצפה‬ ‫וישתחוו והודות ליי' כי טוב כי לעולם‬ :‫חסדו וזהו שיעור השתחוויה‬

‫ואי זו היא דרך ארוכה כל‬ ‫שאפשר לו לצאת מן המקדש‬ ‫בדרך קצרה ממנה יצא בקצרה אף על פי‬ ‫שלא רץ אלא הלך עקב בצד גודל אפילו‬ ‫כל היום פטור יצא בארוכה אע"פ שרץ‬ ‫ודחק עצמו בכל כחו ונמצא שיעור זמן‬ ‫שהלך בו הארוכה פחות משיעור הזמן‬ ‫שמהלך כל אדם בקצרה הואיל ויצא‬ ‫בארוכה חייב יצא בקצרה והלך מעט‬ ‫ועמד ושהה מעט עד שנצטרף מכל‬ ‫השהיות כדי השתחוויה במזיד אינו לוקה‬ ‫בשוגג אינו מביא קרבן מפני שהדבר ספק‬ :‫אבל מכין אותו מכת מרדות‬

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4

10

1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 31) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 362) include this commandment among

manner.

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 2. A physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure. 3. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:11 which states:

14. See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:1. 15. See ibid. 6:5, 7:1, which explains that even if there is a stone - which itself never contracts ritual impurity - intervening between the person's body and the entity, the entity

The [encampment of the Jewish people] in the desert [was divided into] three areas: the camp of Israel... the camp of the Levites about which [Numbers 1:50] states: "They shall camp around the Sanctuary;", and the camp of the Shechinah

13. Since there is an added dimension to the severity of their impurity, they must distance themselves in a more sever

[which

included the area] beginning at the entrance to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting inwards. Correspondingly, for [future] generations: [The area] from the entrance to Jerusalem to the Temple Mount is comparable to the camp of Israel. [The area] from the entrance to the Temple Mount until the entrance to the Temple Courtyard, the gate of Nicanor, is comparable to the camp of the Levites. And [the area] from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard inward, is comparable to the camp of the Shechinah. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim

becomes impure. 16. See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:14. 17. Joseph had asked the Jewish people to bring his body from Egypt to be buried in Eretz Yisrael. Moses brought his body with him from Egypt, transporting it on the entire journey through the desert. 18. For that is where Moses had his personal dwelling. 19. The rampart surrounding the walls of the courtyard (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:3). 20. For through that act, the man also becomes ritually impure. 21. This is a Rabbinic restriction. According to Scriptural Law, these places are not on a different rung of holiness than the other portions of the Temple Mount. This and the restrictions mentioned in the next two halachot are also found in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:16-18.

1:8). 4. The verse implies that he must abide in a place where others do not dwell. 5. The Sifra understands this to be an example of the principle of Biblical exegesis: A subject (a person impure because of tzara'at) was included in a general category (impure people) and then was singled out to teach us a new law (that he must dwell separate from all others). This does not only teach us about this instance, but about the entire category (that there are distinctions in the extent people with impurity must distance themselves). 6. For in no other instance is an impure person required to depart from the camp of the Israelites. See also Halachah 8. 7. Thus as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachot, there are differences in the extent people with various types of impurities are forced to distance themselves.

22. When a person must immerse himself to ascend from ritual impurity, according to Scriptural Law, he does not achieve that status until nightfall. Nevertheless, since he has already immersed, our Sages relaxed this and several other of the prohibitions that they had placed upon such individuals. 23. A square courtyard outside the Temple Courtyard, as described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:7-9. 24. For he is still impure, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 4. 25. This term refers to a zav,, a zavah, a woman who gave birth or miscarried, or a convert, who even after immersing themselves in the mikveh, must bring a sacrifice before their purification process is complete. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1. 26. The Sifri brings proof that one who has not yet completed the purification process is in a different category than a

8. Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 10:12.

person who has immersed himself from the fact that the former is permitted to partake of terumah, while the latter is

9. A physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that

not.

renders one ritually impure. 10. I.e., they experience vaginal bleeding at times other than their ordinary monthly cycle. This causes them to be considered ritually impure.

27. Zevachim 32b relates that this restriction was imposed by Yehoshefat, King of Judah. 28. The first eleven cubits of the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:11). This area begins "the camp of the

11. Women who are impure because of menstrual bleeding.

Shechinah" into which all of those who are impure may not

12. This - or a miscarriage - renders a woman as ritually impure.

enter according to Scriptural Law. 29. And from this example, we extrapolate with regard to others in that category.

30. Even though she had already immersed herself. Hence, she and others in the same category may not enter an area

39. For he does not violate a Scriptural prohibition. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that

which is reserved for those who are ritually pure. This is a Scriptural restriction.

since the person is impure, his entry into the Temple Courtyard violates a Scriptural prohibition and is punishable

31. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 78) and Sefer

by karet. The Kessef Mishneh cites a passage from

HaChinuch (mitzvah 565) include this commandment among

Zevachim 17b which appears to support the Ra'avad's

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Its violation is punishable by

objection. To resolve the Rambam's ruling, the Kessef

lashes.

Mishneh, however, quotes Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim

32. Which, as mentioned above, parallels the camp of the Levites. The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's interpretation of the verse reverses the order found in Pesachim 68a and the Sifri. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that text.

person who has immersed and one who has not done so as of yet. He also quotes other opinions in support of the distinction the Rambam makes. 40. A punishment instituted by the Rabbis for the violation of their decrees or positive commandments.

33. Significantly, in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4 where the Rambam

41. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 77) and Sefer

lists those who are punished by lashes, he does not mention this instance.

HaChinuch (mitzvah 363) include this commandment among

34. See Hilchot Megilah 1:4 and Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 12:15 which explain that this term applies only to a city surrounded by a wall at the time when Joshua conquered the land. Even if the wall of such a city is destroyed, the city is still placed in that category. Moreover, if a city was not walled at the time of Joshua's conquest, even if it was walled afterwards, it is not placed in this category. 35. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:13; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 10:7. Based on Tosafot (Berachot 5b), Rabbi Akiva Eiger states that these restrictions apply only during the era when the Jubilee year was observed.

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 42. I.e., the area encompassed by the Temple Courtyard. 43. I.e., the act is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes or a sin-offering for its violation. 44. Implying that entry into the Temple area is what is forbidden. 45. 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). 46. Har HaMoriah explains that the Rambam quotes this verse rather than Numbers 19:13-20 which is more explicit,

36. I.e., he violated two negative commandments: he entered

because the latter passage speaks only about one who became impure due to contact with a human corpse and the

Jerusalem and he entered the Temple Mount. Therefore he is liable for two sets of lashes. Significantly, in his

prohibition applies even when one became impure for other reasons.

Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 1:8, based on the Tosefta to Keilim), the Rambam states these concepts slightly differently. The Kessef Mishneh adds that if the person afflicted with tzara'at enters the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for an addition set of lashes. 37. As mentioned in Halachot 5-6, this constitutes the violation of a Rabbinical commandment. The Kessef Mishneh adds that if the person enters the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for 120 lashes. 38. And thus violates a positive commandment, as indicated by Halachah 1.

11

18:14, where the Rambam distinguishes between an impure

47. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3 and ch. 10, which explains that there are certain transgressions for which the atonement offering required varies according to the transgressor's financial capacity. 48. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:10-14 which describes the manner in which additions are made to the Temple Courtyard.

49. See Hilchot Nizirut 7:1-6 which describes this subject in

57. In ibid.:5, the Rambam continues: "Even though according to

detail. As stated in Hilchot Tumat Meit 3:3: "All ritual impurity

the Oral Tradition [one is rendered impure for such matters],

resulting from a corpse for which a nazirite is not required to shave does not stem from Scriptural Law." Implied is that

this is not Scriptural Law. For it is not explicitly stated in the Torah that one who becomes impure through contact with a

since a nazirite is forbidden to cut his hair according to Scriptural Law, when he contracts ritual impurity stemming

human corpse becomes a source of impurity and one who touches him becomes impure to the first degree." In this

from a human corpse that is only Rabbinic in origin, he should not cut his hair, because then the Rabbinic safeguard

instance, however, the Rambam is probably following his renown approach that any concept that is not explicitly stated

would lead to the violation of Scriptural Law. Note also the commentary to Hilchot Nizirut which explains that the

in the Torah is considered as "from the Oral Tradition" even though it was also conveyed to Moses at Sinai.

Rambam is referring to ritual impurity that is not explicitly

58. For the Rabbis instituted decrees to insure that the

mentioned in the Torah, but could be considered of Scriptural origin, because it was derived through the laws of Biblical

prohibitions established by the Oral Tradition were observed.

exegesis. 50. A person or an object that touches a human corpse becomes

dead teeming animal into the Temple without touching it, since, as stated in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 4:1, a

a source of impurity that can cause other people or objects to become ritually impure (see Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:4-5).

dead teeming animal imparts ritual impurity only when one touches it and not when one carries it. For if the person had

The Ra'avad states however that a nazirite is not obligated to shave his head if he touched a utensil or a person that

touched it, he would become impure and be liable for karet

became impure due to contact with a corpse. Hence, he concludes, one should not be liable for entering the Temple

60. I.e., another source of impurity that imparts impurity through

after having contracted impurity in this manner. The Kessef

entering the Temple in that state. touch, but not when carried.

Mishneh maintains that the simple meaning of the passage

61. And thus serve as a source of impurity.

in

Ra'avad's

62. The verse concludes: "He will bear his iniquity." "Clean[ing]

understanding. Nevertheless, he cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Nazir 7:4) which could be interpreted as

his garments" refers to immersing them to remove their impurity.

Nazir

54a

appears

to

support

the

supporting the Rambam's ruling. 51. There are entities that are considered sources of impurity according to Rabbinic Law. They do not make a person impure to the extent that he is liable for entering the Temple.

63. This expression implies that there is no Talmudic source for this ruling, but instead, it was derived by deduction. 64. Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:2. There the Rambam states that if a

52. See Sefer Taharah.

person touching the corpse touches any other utensil at the same time, that utensil is considered as if it touched the

53. I.e., in a mikveh.

corpse itself.

54. For as stated in Halachah 6, one who has immersed himself to emerge from ritual impurity is still impure until nightfall of

65. I.e., the person touched the garments after he let go of the corpse.

that day. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that such a person is not liable for karet. The Radbaz cites the

66. Since the object brought into the Temple is not a source for ritual impurity, the person is not liable for karet. The Ra'avad

Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14

differs with the Rambam and maintains that even bringing an object that is not a source for ritual impurity into the Temple

which would seem to support the Ra'avad's ruling. It states that a person who was ritually impure, then immersed

causes one to be liable for lashes. The Kessef Mishneh

himself, and then partook of sacrificial foods before nightfall is liable for lashes, but is not liable for karet. Nevertheless,

supports the Rambam's view, explaining that there is a logical basis for his conclusion. Since the Torah was lenient

the Radbaz explains that a distinction can be made between these two situations.

with regard to utensils (and garments), absolving one from karet even when the utensil was a source of impurity, we can

55. Although he is required to observe the strictures of someone who is ritually impure, he is not liable for entering the

conclude that leniency would also be shown with regard to lashes.

Temple. 56. In Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:4, the Rambam describes the impurity caused by such situations.

12

59. This is speaking about a situation where he brought the

67. I.e., he stands outside the Temple Courtyard and inserts only his hand. He is not given lashes, because his entire body has not entered the Temple Courtyard. Even the Rambam would agree that he is forbidden by Rabbinic decree to insert his hand. The Ra'avad is more stringent and rules that inserting part of one's body is equivalent to entering entirely. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's ruling. 68. The Rambam's words imply that once he immersed himself, he is not liable for stripes for rebellious conduct for entering

74. I.e., in the chambers that are considered as being separate entities from the Temple Courtyard. 75. So that it will not be touched. 76. See Hilchot Keilim 1:10. See also Hilchot UMusafim 3:6. 77. I.e., if a priest would carry it out in his garment, he would be causing his garment to become impure. Hence, it was desirable to use a flat wooden utensil even if it takes time to find such a utensil (Eruvin, loc. cit.).

the Temple even if night has not yet fallen. Since his impurity is only Rabbinic in origin and he has immersed himself, he is

78. As stated in Halachah 12.

not given punishment. See Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah

79. There is an unresolved question concerning whether such a

9:1.

person is liable in Sh'vuot 17a. Hence, the Rambam rules

69. Such entry is, nevertheless, forbidden (Kessef Mishneh). 70. I.e., on foot through the gate. The Mishneh LiMelech

leniently (Kessef Mishneh). 80. If he departs in this manner, he is not liable for karet.

emphasizes that if he remains in the Temple for the amount

81. An adjustable guilt offering.

of time for which he is liable (see Halachah 22), he is liable for karet even if he entered through the rooftops.

82. The Rambam is citing Sh'vuot 16b which quotes the

71. For this also is not the usual way of entry. 72. I.e., in the Temple Courtyard. 73. An object for which one has no purpose is muktzeh and

description of the people's bowing in II Chronicles 7:3. 83. I.e., taking very short steps. As long as he does not stop for the amount of time mentioned in the previous halachah, he is not liable.

there is a Rabbinic prohibition against transporting it on the

84. See Sh'vuot 17a. Hence we rule leniently.

Sabbath. Nevertheless, Rabbinic prohibitions of this nature are not applied in the Temple (Rashi, Eruvin 104b).

85. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, and notes for a definition of this punishment and the situations where it is applied.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

13

Temidim

policy .

14



Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 3

When an impure person serves in the Temple,1 he desecrates his service and is liable for death at the hand of heaven for [performing] this service even if he did not tarry there,2 as [indicated by Leviticus 22:2]: "so that they draw back for the sanctified objects of the children of Israel and not desecrate My holy name." This is a warning for a person who serves while ritually impure.3

English

Hebrew

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 5

‫טמא שעבד במקדש חילל עבודתו‬ ‫וחייב מיתה בידי שמים על עבודתו‬ ‫אף על פי שלא שהה שם שנאמר וינזרו‬ ‫מקדשי בני ישראל ולא יחללו את שם‬ ‫קדשי ה"ז אזהרה לעובד בטומאה ולהלן‬ ‫הוא אומר ומתו בו כי יחללוהו מה חילול‬ ‫האמור ]שם[ חייב מיתה בידי שמים אף‬ ‫כאן מיתה בידי שמים וכל לאו שחייבין‬ :‫עליו מיתה בידי שמים לוקין עליו‬

Further on,4 [ibid.:9] states: "They will die because of it, because they desecrated it." Just as in the latter instance, desecration makes one liable for death at the hands of heaven, so too, with regard to [offering sacrifices while impure, desecration] makes one liable for death at the hand of heaven. Lashes are given for [the violation of] all negative commandments punishable by death at the hand of heaven.5 Although one who serves in a state of impurity is liable only for lashes in court, his priestly brethren6 would not bring him to the court. Instead, they would take him outside7 [the Temple]8 and split open his brain. They would not be rebuked for this.9

1

‫אע"פ שאם עבד בטומאה אינו חייב‬ ‫בבית דין אלא מלקות אחיו הכהנים‬ ‫לא היו מביאין אותו לבית דין אלא מוציאין‬ ‫אותו לחוץ ופוצעין את מוחו ואין ממחין‬ :‫עליהן בכך‬

How is it possible for a priest to perform service without tarrying so that he will be liable only for death at the hand of heaven and not karet? For example, he contracted impurity in the Temple Courtyard10 and departed in the shortest way possible,11 but as he was leaving, he used a cylinder in his hand to turn over a limb [from a sacrifice] on the fire of the altar and thus hasten its consumption by the flames.12 [The rationale is that] any contribution to the Temple service13 is considered as equivalent to that service.

‫והיאך אפשר לו לעבוד ולא ישהה עד‬ ‫שלא יתחייב כרת אלא מיתה בידי‬ ‫שמים בלבד כגון שנטמא בעזרה ויצא‬ ‫בקצרה וביציאתו היה צנור בידו והפך בו‬ ‫אבר על האש במזבח וקירב שרפתו שכל‬ :‫קירוב עבודה הרי הוא כעבודה‬

Similarly, if one who was impure immersed in the mikveh and then performed service before nightfall

‫וכן טמא שטבל ועבד קודם שיעריב‬ ‫שמשו עבודתו פסולה וחייב מיתה‬ ‫בידי שמים שנאמר ולא יחללו שם‬ ‫אלהיהם מפי השמועה למדו שזו אזהרה‬ ‫לטבול יום שעבד שעדיין טמא הוא‬ ‫שנאמר ובא השמש וטהר מכלל שעדיין‬ ‫לא טהר אבל מחוסר כיפורים שעבד אף‬ :‫על פי שעבודתו פסולה וחילל ה"ז פטור‬

of that day,14 his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid 21:6] states: "They shall not desecrate the name of their God."15 According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to a person who [was impure, but] immersed himself that day who performs service [in the Temple], for he is still impure. [This is derived from ibid. 22:7]: "And the sun sets and he will become pure." Implied is that until then, he was not pure.16 A person whose atonement process was not completed17 who performs service [in the Temple] is exempt [from punishment]18 even though his service is invalid and it desecrates [the sacrifice]. What is the source that teaches that such service is impure? [With regard to a woman impure due to childbirth, Leviticus 12:8] states: "And the priest shall atone for her and she shall become pure." Implied is that until now, she was not pure. The same applies to all others whose atonement process is not complete.19

2

‫ומניין שעבודתו פסולה שנאמר וכפר‬ ‫עליה הכהן וטהרה מכלל שעדיין לא‬ ‫נגמרה טהרתה והוא הדין לכל מחוסרי‬ :‫כיפורים‬

3

[The following laws apply if] a priest performed service and afterwards, it became known that he was impure. If the source of impurity was known,20 all of the sacrifices that he offered are invalid, for his work is defiled. If, however, he became impure due to the impurity [likened to] the depths,21 the forehead plate brings about appeasement and all the sacrifices he offered are accepted.22 Even if he became aware of the fact that he was impure before the blood was sprinkled on the altar and then he sprinkled the blood, it brings about appeasement. For the forehead plate brings about appeasement for the impurity [likened to] the depths even though he [transgresses] intentionally.23 We have already explained the impurity [likened to] the depths in Hilchot Nizirut.

‫כהן שעבד ואח"כ נודע שהיה טמא אם‬ ‫היא טומאה ידועה כל הקרבנות‬ ‫שהקריב פסולין שהרי עבודתו חולין ואם‬ ‫היא טומאת התהום הציץ מרצה וכל‬ ‫הקרבנות שהקריב נרצו ואפילו נודע לו‬ ‫שהוא טמא קודם שיזרוק הדם וזרק‬ ‫הורצה שהציץ מרצה על טומאת התהום‬ ‫אע"פ שהוא מזיד וכבר ביארנו טומאת‬ :‫התהום בנזירות‬

Similarly, the forehead plate brings atonement if the objects being sacrificed are impure,24 as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron and Aaron will bear the sins of the sacred objects." It does not, however, bring about appeasement if the portions of the sacrifices that are eaten are impure or if the one [offering the sacrifice] is impure when he became impure because of a known source of impurity unless the impurity was superseded by a communal obligation,25 in which instance the forehead plate generates appeasement for it.

‫וכן הציץ מרצה על טומאת דברים‬ ‫הקרבין שנאמר והיה על מצח אהרן‬ ‫ונשא אהרן את עון הקדשים אבל אינו‬ ‫מרצה על טומאת הנאכלין ולא על טומאת‬ ‫האדם שנטמא בטומאה ידועה אלא אם כן‬ ‫היתה הטומאה הדחויה בציבור שהציץ‬ :‫מרצה עליה‬

The forehead plate does not bring about appeasement unless it is on the High Priest's forehead,26 as [the above verse] continues: "It will be on his forehead at all times, for appeasement before God."

‫ואין הציץ מרצה אלא בזמן שהוא‬ ‫על מצחו שנאמר והיה על מצחו‬ :‫תמיד לרצון להם לפני י"י‬

4

[The offering of] any sacrifice that does not have a set time does not supersede [the observance of] the Sabbath27 or [the laws of] ritual impurity. [The rationale is that] if it is not sacrificed today, it will be sacrificed tomorrow or afterwards. [The offering of] any sacrifice that does have a set time, whether it be a communal offering or an individual offering,28 supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath and [the laws of] ritual impurity. It does not supersede all types of ritual impurity, however, only those stemming from contact with a human corpse.29

‫כל קרבן שאין קבוע לו זמן אינו‬ ‫דוחה לא את השבת ולא את‬ ‫הטומאה שאם לא יקריב היום יקרב למחר‬ ‫ולמחרת מחר וכל קרבן שקבוע לו זמן בין‬ ‫קרבן ציבור בין קרבן יחיד דוחה את‬ ‫השבת ודוחה את הטומאה ולא כל‬ ‫הטומאות הוא דוחה אלא טומאת המת‬ :‫לבדה‬

All30 of the communal sacrifices have a fixed time when they must be offered.31 Hence [offering them] supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath and [the laws of] ritual impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse.

‫כל קרבנות הציבור קבוע זמנם לפיכך‬ ‫כולן דוחין את השבת ואת טומאת‬ :‫המת‬

All of the sacrifices that were brought in a state of ritual impurity are not eaten.32 Instead, the elements of the sacrifice that are fit to be consumed by fire are offered on the fire [of the altar].33 The remaining portions that would [ordinarily] be eaten34 are burnt in the same manner35 as are other sacrifices that became impure.36

‫וכל קרבן מהן שקרב בטומאה אינו‬ ‫נאכל אלא מקטירין ממנו דברים‬ ‫הראויין להקטרה והשאר הראוי לאכילה‬ :‫נשרף כשאר קדשים שנטמאו‬

What is meant by saying it supersedes [the laws of] ritual impurity? If the time when that sacrifice is to be offered arrives and the majority37 of the people offering it were impure due to contact with a human corpse,38 or the people at large were pure, but the priests offering it were impure39 due to contact with a human corpse, or both of these were pure, but the Temple utensils were impure due to contact with a human corpse, [the sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity. Both the impure and the pure should be involved in its offering together40 and enter the Temple Courtyard.41 Those who are impure because of other reasons, zavim, zavot, women in their menstrual state, those

‫כיצד דוחה את הטומאה הגיע זמנו‬ ‫של אותו קרבן והיו רוב הקהל‬ ‫שמקריבין אותו טמאין למת או שהיו‬ ‫הקהל טהורים והיו הכהנים המקריבין‬ ‫טמאים למת או שהיו אלו ואלו טהורין‬ ‫והיו כלי השרת טמאים למת ה"ז יעשה‬ ‫בטומאה ויתעסקו בו הטמאים והטהורים‬ ‫כאחד ויכנסו כולן לעזרה אבל הטמאים‬ ‫בטומאה אחרת כגון זבין וזבות ונדות‬ ‫]ויולדות[ וטמאי שרץ ונבלה וכיוצא בהן‬ ‫לא יתעסקו ולא יכנסו לעזרה ואף על פי‬ ‫שנעשה בטומאה ואם עברו ועשו או נכנסו‬ ‫לעזרה חייבין כרת על הביאה ומיתה על‬ ‫העבודה שלא נדחית אלא טומאת המת‬ :‫בלבד‬

after childbirth, those who came in contact with the corpse of a teeming animal or large animal, or the like should not be involved [in the sacrifice] and should not enter the Temple Courtyard even though sacrifices are being offered in a state of impurity. If they transgressed and took part [in the sacrifice] or entered the Temple Courtyard, they are liable for karet for entering [the Courtyard]42 or death [at the hand of Heaven]43 for [carrying out] the service.44 For only the impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse was superseded [by the obligation to offer these sacrifices]. When a Paschal sacrifice45 is offered in a state of impurity and those who were impure due to contact with a human corpse pressed on and entered the Sanctuary, they are exempt even though they were only permitted to enter the Temple Courtyard.46 Since the charge [Numbers 5:3]: "Send them beyond the camp" does not apply to them, they are exempt.47

5

‫ופסח שבא בטומאה ודחקו טמאי‬ ‫מת ונכנסו להיכל פטורין אע"פ‬ ‫שלא הותרו אלא לעזרה הואיל ואין אני‬ ‫קורא בהם אל מחוץ למחנה תשלחום הרי‬ :‫אלו פטורין‬

6

If a portion of the priests of the clan scheduled to serve in the Temple that day48 were impure and a portion were pure, even if the majority were impure due to contact with a human corpse, only those who are pure should offer the sacrifices.49 If all the priests of that clan were impure, the priests of another clan should be brought [to serve].50 If all the priests of that watch were impure due to contact with a human corpse, we look for [those of] another watch. If most of the priests who entered Jerusalem at a given time were impure, [the appropriate sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity.

‫היו מקצת בית אב טמאים ומקצתם‬ ‫טהורים אף על פי שרובן טמאי מת‬ ‫לא יקריבו אלא הטהורים היה כל בית‬ ‫האב טמאי מת יביאו בית אב אחר היתה‬ ‫כל המשמרה טמאי מת מחזירין על‬ ‫משמרה אחרת אם היו רוב הכהנים‬ ‫הנכנסין שם בירושלים בזמן הקבוע טמאין‬ :‫יעשו בטומאה‬

Why do we search for a priest who is pure from another clan?51 Because [the prohibition against serving while] impure was not released entirely [in order to offer] the communal [sacrifices]. Instead, the prohibition is still standing, it is merely superseded temporarily, because of the pressing situation.52 We do not override any prohibitions that may be superseded except in a situation where there is no alternative. For this reason, the forehead plate is required to bring about appeasement.53

‫ומפני מה מחזירין על הטהור‬ ‫מבית אב אחר מפני שהטומאה‬ ‫לא הותרה בציבור אלא באיסורה עומדת‬ ‫ודחויה היא עתה מפני הדחק ואין דוחין‬ ‫כל דבר הנדחה אלא במקום שאי אפשר‬ :‫ומפני זה צריכה ציץ לרצות עליה‬

7

What is the source that teaches that [the prohibitions against] ritual impurity are superseded [to bring] communal [offerings]? [Numbers 9:6] speaks of: "Men who were impure because a [deceased] human soul."54 According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: Particular individuals are deferred to Pesach Sheni if they were impure. If, however, the community at large is impure due to contact with a human corpse, it is not deferred.55 Instead, [the prohibition against] ritual impurity is superseded and the Paschal sacrifice should be offered in a state of impurity. The same applies to every sacrifice that has a fixed time like the Paschal sacrifice:56 [the obligation to offer it] supersedes [the prohibition against] ritual impurity.

‫ומנין שטומאת מת דחויה בציבור‬ ‫שנאמר ויהי אנשים אשר היו‬ ‫טמאים לנפש אדם כך למדו מפי השמועה‬ ‫שאנשים יחידים הם שידחו לפסח שני אם‬ ‫היו טמאים אבל ציבור שהיו טמאי מת‬ ‫אינן נדחין אלא הטומאה תדחה ויעשו‬ ‫פסח בטומאה והוא הדין לכל קרבן שקבוע‬ :‫לו זמן כפסח שהוא דוחה את הטומאה‬

This concept is explicitly stated in Scripture [II Chronicles 30:17-18]: "For a multitude of the congregation had not sanctified themselves and the Levites presided over the slaughter of the Paschal sacrifice for all who were not pure....57 For many of the people, may from Ephraim, Menasheh, Issachar, and Zevulon had not purified themselves."

‫והרי הדבר מפורש בכתובים שנאמר‬ ‫שם כי רבת בקהל אשר לא התקדשו‬ ‫והלוים על שחיטת הפסחים לכל לא טהור‬ ‫]להקדיש לה'[ כי מרבית העם רבת‬ ‫מאפרים ומנשה יששכר וזבלון לא הטהרו‬ ‫ומהו זה שנאמר כי אכלו את הפסח בלא‬ ‫ככתוב מפני שעיברו אותה השנה מפני‬ ‫הטומאה שנאמר ויועץ המלך ושריו וכל‬ ‫הקהל בירושלים לעשות הפסח בחדש‬ ‫השני כי לא יכלו לעשותו בעת ההיא כי‬ ‫הכהנים לא התקדשו למדי וכבר ביארנו‬ ‫בקידוש החודש שאין מעברין את השנה‬ :‫לכתחלה מפני הטומאה‬

What then is meant by the statement (ibid.): "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written"?58 Because they made that year a leap year because of ritual impurity, as [ibid.:2-3] states: "And the king, his officers, and all the congregation in Jerusalem had conferred [and decided] to offer the Pesach... in the second month,59 because they were not able to offer it at its time because there were not enough priests who had sanctified themselves."60 As we explained already in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodeh,61 as an initial preference, we do not declare a leap year because of ritual impurity.62

8

There was another [difficulty] that year. King Chizkiya made the year a leap year on the thirtieth day of Adar which was fit to be Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Instead, he made it the thirtieth of Adar. The Sages did not agree with him, for a leap year should not be declared on this day, as we explained in [Hilchot] Kiddush HaChodesh.63 Because of these two matters which were not done as prescribed by Jewish Law, it was said: "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written."[ Chizkiya] entreated for mercy for himself and for the Sages who concurred with his actions,64 as [ibid.:18] states: "For Yichezkiyahu prayed for them, saying: 'May God Who is good atone for those....' [ibid.:20] states: 'God heeded Yichezkiyahu and healed the people.'[ Implied is that] their sacrifice was accepted.

‫ועוד אחרת היתה שם באותה‬ ‫השנה שעיבר חזקיה המלך את‬ ‫השנה ביום שלשים של אדר שראוי להיות‬ ‫ראש חדש ניסן ועשה אותו החדש אדר‬ ‫שני ולא הודו לו חכמים שאין מעברין ביום‬ ‫זה כמו שביארנו בקידוש החדש ומפני‬ ‫דברים אלו שעשה שלא כהלכה נאמר כי‬ ‫אכלו את הפסח בלא ככתוב וביקש‬ ‫רחמים על עצמו ועל החכמים שהסכימו‬ ‫על מעשיו שנאמר כי התפלל יחזקיהו‬ ‫עליהם לאמר ה' הטוב יכפר בעד ונאמר‬ ‫וישמע ה' אל יחזקיהו וירפא את העם‬ :‫שנרצה קרבנם‬

« Previous

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 5

Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 3 FOOTNOTES 1. The Radbaz states that the words "in the Temple" are not an exclusion. Instead, in the era when offerings were brought on

7. The Radbaz relates that if the priests did not interrupt him in the middle of his service and seize him, but instead, allowed

private altars, this law also applied to a priest bringing an offering on such an altar.

him to complete his service and leave the Temple on his own initiative, they are not allowed to administer this punishment

2. As stated in the conclusion of the last chapter, one is liable for karet for tarrying in the Temple Courtyard even if he does not perform service. Halachah 3 describes how it is possible to perform service without tarrying in the Temple Courtyard. 3. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 75) and Sefer

to him. All they can do is bring him to the court. 8. I.e., beyond the Women's Courtyard and the surrounding rampart, because a corpse is not allowed in these areas according to Rabbinic Law. Alternatively, because it is only a Rabbinic stricture, it was not imposed in such an instance.

613 mitzvot of the Torah.

9. The Radbaz elaborates in explaining why this punishment can be given. He explains that although there is no legal

4. In reference to terumah.

license for it, there are instances (see Hilchot Sanhedrin

HaChinuch (mitzvah 278) include this charge as one of the

5. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:1. If he receives lashes from an earthly court, he is absolved of the punishment from above. 6. In Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:6, the Rambam quotes the wording of Sanhedrin 81b: "The young priests would take him out...."

24:4), where he states that at times punishments are given with no legal basis. By serving in the Temple, the priests offer their tacit acquiescence to such action being taken. 10. For if he contracted impurity outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for karet as soon as he enters, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 12.

11. In which instance, he is not liable for karet, as explained at the conclusion of the previous chapter. 12. See Chapter 9, Halachah 4, for more particulars concerning this act. 13. And offering the limbs on the fire of the altar is part of the Temple service. 14. As explained in the notes to the previous chapter, until nightfall he is still considered as impure. The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that according to the Rambam, a person who entered the Temple on the day he immersed is liable for karet for the entry alone. Thus why is it necessary to speak of a second obligation for karet. He explains that it could be speaking about a person who was standing outside the Temple Courtyard and moved limbs on the Altar using a long pole. The Kessef Mishneh

21. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:7), the Rambam explains that this term is used to refer to "a corpse that is hidden and not known about at all, to the extent that it is in the very depths." See also the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Parah 3:2) which explains the term as follows: Just like mortal wisdom cannot fathom the extent of the depths, so, too, the existence of this corpse is not known to any mortal. Hilchot Nizirut 6:18 describes this impurity as stemming from contact with a human corpse, about which "no one, not even one at the end of the world, knows about." 22. The Mishnah (Pesachim 80b) states this concept with regard to the Paschal sacrifice (see Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:2). The Rambam extrapolates that the law applies to all sacrifices.

resolves the difficulty by distinguishing between karet and

23. The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's words imply

death at the hand of heaven, for karet is a more severe

that as an initial preference, such a priest should not sprinkle the blood. Only after the fact, it is acceptable. In Hilchot

punishment. 15. See Sanhedrin 83b for an explanation for how this prohibition is derived from this prooftext. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 76) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 265) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 16. The Rambam adds this explanation to differentiate between a person who immersed in the mikveh, but must wait until sunset and one who has not completed his atonement process. The latter individuals are considered as pure, even though they may not enter the Temple. 17. I.e., a zav, zavah, or the like who must bring a sacrifice before becoming ritually pure. 18. The Kessef Mishneh questions this ruling, noting that in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:2, the Rambam mentions one who serves despite the fact that his atonement process is not completed as among those who are liable for death at the hand of heaven and whose offence is punishable by lashes. This is also evident from Chapter 9, Halachah 11. The Ra'avad also quotes Talmudic sources that indicate that such a person is liable. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the questions raised by the Ra'avad can be resolved, but the apparent contradiction in the Rambam's own rulings remains difficult. 19. I.e., a zav, zavah, and one afflicted with tzara'at. 20. To even one person.

Korban Pesach 6:11, however, the Rambam rules that a person who becomes impure due to impurity [likened to] the depths may offer a sacrifice as an initial preference. The Kessef Mishneh explains that a distinction can be made between the two instances, because the Paschal sacrifice is an immediate obligation, while other sacrifices may be offered by other people at other times. Moreover, failure to offer the Paschal sacrifice is more severe, as indicated by the fact that it is punishable by karet. 24. I.e., the blood and the other portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:34. 25. I.e., communal sacrifices that are offered at a fixed time should be offered even if there is impurity involved, as explained in the following halachot. 26. There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Yoma 7b and the Rambam accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. The commentaries have noted that this could be understood as a contradiction to his ruling in Halachah 15. Nevertheless, there are other approaches to that passage which allow the two rulings to coexist. 27. I.e., offering a sacrifice involves the violation of certain Sabbath prohibitions. As the Rambam proceeds to state, sacrifices that must be brought at a set time may nevertheless be offered, but not those which do not have a set time. 28. I.e., the chavitin offering of the High Priest, the bull he brings on Yom Kippur, or the Paschal sacrifices. 29. For the fundamental concept was derived from the Biblical story (Numbers, ch. 9) concerning the people who approached Moses to offer the Paschal sacrifice and they were impure because of contact with a human corpse.

9

30. I.e., all of the communal sacrifices that are brought from the money collected for the communal sacrifices. There are

44. They are, however, exempt from punishment if they partake of the Paschal sacrifice in this state of impurity if the majority

certain atonement offerings, the bull offered when the people at large err with regard to a Scriptural prohibition, and the

of the people are ritually impure because of contact with a human corpse (Pesachim 95b).

goat offered when they err with regard to the prohibition against idolatry. These, unlike the other communal sacrifices,

45. Although this law also applies with regard to other communal

are not offered at a specific time.

sacrifices, the Paschal sacrifice is mentioned, because it is the only instance when there would be a large throng of

31. And if they are not offered at this time, they may not be offered afterwards (Kessef Mishneh).

46. Needless to say, they are forbidden to do so (Radbaz), for

32. With the exception of the Paschal offering, as explained in Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:8. For the Pesach sacrifice was

the activities involved in the offering of the Paschal sacrifice are carried out only in the Temple Courtyard and not in the

people in the Temple Courtyard.

Sanctuary itself.

ordained primarily for the purpose of the people partaking of it (Pesachim 7:5).

47. There is a question concerning this issue in Pesachim 95b.

33. For the primary purpose of these sacrifices is for them to be

Hence, an earthly court may not punish them with lashes.

offered on the altar. 34. Pesachim 76a mentions five communal sacrifices that are ordinarily eaten: the omer offering of barley, the two breads offered on Shavuot, the showbread, the communal peace offerings, and the goat offered on Rosh Chodesh. 35. Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks why a communal sacrifice would not be eaten if it was offered by an impure priest who did not touch it and did not cause it to become impure. He notes, however, that the Rambam's wording implies that such a sacrifice should not be eaten.

The question of whether they would be liable for death at the hand of Heaven is also not resolved on this plane. Since the judgments of the heavenly court are dependent on the judgments of the earthly courts, it is possible to say that the judgment is held in abeyance there as well. 48. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11 for a definition of this term. 49. As long as it is possible to offer the sacrifices in a state of purity, we do not offer them while impure. 50. For the reason stated in the following halachah.

36. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 19.

51. And even from another watch (Kessef Mishneh).

37. Half is not sufficient (Pesachim 79a).

52. The Rambam is explaining a difference of opinion between the Sages in Yoma 6b. One Sage maintains that the

38. This applies only with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, for it

prohibition against ritual impurity is hutra, released entirely,

must be eaten by the people at large. With regard to the other communal sacrifices, it does not make any difference

with regard to communal sacrifices. The other opinion is that

whether or not the people at large are impure.

the prohibition is dichuya, i.e., as the Rambam explains, the

39. As indicated by Halachah 14, this refers to the priests who were present in Jerusalem at the time the sacrifices had to be offered. If there were a majority of priests who were ritually pure, but they were not present in Jerusalem at the time when the sacrifice was to be offered, they are not counted in the reckoning. 40. I.e., with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, a person who is pure should not say: "Since I am pure, I should not share my sacrifice with those who are impure." Instead, the sacrifices should be offered and eaten together (see Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).

prohibition continues to exist and must be respected to the fullest degree possible. Similar concepts also apply with regard to the Sabbath prohibitions being overridden by questions of life and death. See the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Shabbat 2:1. 53. As stated in Halachah 7. 54. The passage relates that after Moses communicated the command to offer the Paschal sacrifice, several individuals who were impure because of contact with a corpse came to him and asked for an opportunity to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Moses relayed their question to God Who

41. I.e., if their entry would in some way contribute to the sacrifice being offered properly (Radbaz).

answered that they - and all other individuals who are impure at the time the Paschal sacrifice must be offered may bring

42. See Chapter 3, Halachah 12.

such a sacrifice a month later on Pesach Sheni. Implicit in that command is, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, that

43. As stated in Halachah 1 of this chapter.

the license to offer a sacrifice on Pesach Sheni was granted only to individuals. If the majority of the Jewish people become impure, they must offer the Paschal sacrifice on the first Pesach in a state of impurity.

10

56. Pesachim 77a explains the derivation of this concept as

58. I.e., one should not infer that the error was that they partook of the sacrifice while ritually impure (Kessef Mishneh).

follows: With regard to the Pesach sacrifice, Numbers 9:2

59. I.e., they delayed its offering by a month, by declaring a leap

55. See Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:12.

year.

states that it should be offered "at its appointed time," which our Sages interpret as meaning ...at its appointed time,' even

60. Despite the addition of this month, the majority of the people

on the Sabbath, even in a state of ritual impurity." Now since Numbers 29:39 uses the term "in their appointed time" in

who came to Jerusalem were ritually impure. Hence, the prohibitions against impurity had to be overridden (see Rav

reference to other communal sacrifices, we understand that the same concepts apply to them as well.

Yosef Corcus).

57. King Chizkiya assumed the throne after the rule of Achaz, an idolatrous sinner. After years when the people had been led astray, Chizkiya inspired them to repent. He invited all the people to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Unfortunately, a sufficient number of priests had not purified themselves and also, the people were somewhat slow in responding. To enable the Paschal sacrifice to be offered by as many people as possible, he had a leap year declared, so as to give them

61. Chapter 4, Halachah 6. 62. For the preference is to offer the sacrifices in a state of ritual impurity. 63. Chapter 4, Halachah 14. Instead, the leap year should be declared earlier, indeed, preferably months before. 64. I.e., the minority who did, for the majority did not, as stated above (Kessef Mishneh).

an extra month.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

11

policy .

12



Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 6

It is a positive commandment for a priest1 who serves [in the Temple] to sanctify his hands and feet2 and afterwards perform service,3 as [Exodus 30:19] states: "And Aaron and his sons will wash their hands and their feet from it." A priest who serves4 without having sanctified his hands and feet in the morning5is liable for death at the hand of heaven,6 as [ibid.:20] states: "They shall wash with water and not die." Their service - whether that of a High Priest or an ordinary priest - is invalid.

‫מצות עשה לקדש כהן העובד ידיו‬ ‫ורגליו ואח"כ יעבוד שנאמר ורחצו‬ ‫אהרן ובניו ממנו את ידיהם ואת רגליהם‬ ‫וכהן שעבד ולא קידש ידיו ורגליו שחרית‬ ‫חייב מיתה בידי שמים שנאמר ירחצו מים‬ ‫ולא ימותו ועבודתו פסולה בין כ"ג בין כהן‬ :‫הדיוט‬

Which source teaches that his service is invalid? [Ibid.:21] states: "It will be an eternal statute for him and his generations," and with regard to the Priestly garments [ibid. 25:43] also uses the expression: "An eternal statute."7 Just as [a priest] who is lacking the priestly garments invalidates his service, as we explained,8so, too, one who did not wash his hands invalidates his service.

‫ומניין שעבודתו פסולה שנאמר‬ ‫חוקת עולם לו ולזרעו ובבגדי כהונה‬ ‫הוא אומר חוקת עולם מה מחוסר בגדים‬ ‫מחלל עבודה כמו שביארנו אף מי שלא‬ :‫רחץ ידיו ורגליו מחלל עבודה‬

2

A priest does not have to sanctify [himself] between every service [that he performs]. Instead, he consecrates [his hands and feet] once in the morning and may continue serving throughout the day and [the subsequent] night,9 provided he does not: a) depart from the Temple;10 b) sleep;11 c) urinate;12 or divert his attention [from his hands and feet]. If he does any of the above, he must sanctify his hands and feet again.

‫אין הכהן צריך לקדש בין כל עבודה‬ ‫ועבודה אלא פעם אחת מקדש בבקר‬ ‫ועובד והולך כל היום כולו וכל הלילה והוא‬ ‫שלא יצא מן המקדש ולא יישן ולא יטיל‬ ‫מים ולא יסיח דעתו ואם עשה אחד‬ :‫מארבעתן צריך לחזור ולקדש‬

If a priest departed from the Temple, returned and then performed service without sanctifying [his hands and feet], his service is acceptable13 if he did not divert his attention.14 This general principle was followed in the Temple: No person would enter the Temple Courtyard to perform service15 unless he immersed [in the mikveh] even though he was ritually pure.

‫יצא מן המקדש וחזר ועבד ולא‬ ‫קידש אם לא הסיח דעתו עבודתו‬ ‫כשירה וזה הכלל היה במקדש אין אדם‬ ‫נכנס לעזרה לעבודה אע"פ שהוא טהור‬ :‫עד שהוא טובל‬

Anyone who defecates must immerse himself [in a mikveh].16 Anyone who urinates must sanctify his hands and feet.

‫וכל המסיך את רגליו טעון טבילה‬ ‫וכל המטיל מים טעון קידוש ידים‬ ‫ורגלים יצא חוץ לחומת העזרה אם לשהות‬ ‫בחוץ יצא ]כשחוזר טעון טבילה ואם‬ ‫לחזור מיד יצא[ כשחוזר טעון קידוש ידים‬ ‫ורגלים בלבד ואם לא טבל ולא קידש ועבד‬ ‫הואיל ולא הסיח דעתו ולא הסיך רגליו‬ ‫ולא הטיל מים עבודתו כשירה הוציא ידיו‬ ‫חוץ לחומת העזרה אינו צריך לחזור‬ :‫ולקדש‬

[The following rules apply when] one goes outside the walls of the Temple Courtyard. If he departed [with the intent of] staying outside for an extended time, he must immerse [in a mikveh].17 If [his intent] was to return immediately, when he returns, all that is necessary is that he sanctify his hands and feet. If he did not immerse, nor sanctified his hands and feet and carried out [sacrificial] service, his service is acceptable18 since he did not divert his attention, not did he defecate or urinate. If he merely placed his hands outside the Temple Courtyard, he is not required to sanctify them again.

If [only] a person's hands become ritually impure,19 he may immerse them and they are ritually pure. He need not sanctify them again. If his body became impure because he partook of impure foods or drank impure beverages and immersed himself, even though he does not have to wait until nightfall [to become ritually pure],20 he must sanctify [his hands and feet] after immersing himself, for everyone who immerses himself must sanctify his hands and feet [before] serving. If he did not sanctify [his hands and feet], his service is not desecrated since he did not divert his attention.

3

‫נטמאו ידיו מטבילן והן טהורות ואינו‬ ‫צריך לחזור ולקדש נטמא גופו‬ ‫באכילת אוכלין טמאין או שתיית משקין‬ ‫טמאין וטבל אף ע"פ שאינו צריך הערב‬ ‫שמש חוזר ומקדש אחר טבילה שכל טובל‬ ‫מקדש ידיו ורגליו ואחר כך עובד ואם לא‬ :‫קידש הואיל ולא הסיח דעתו לא חילל‬

When a High Priest does not immerse himself nor sanctify his hands and feet between his changes of clothes and between his different services on Yom Kippur21and [continues] serving, his service is acceptable.22 [The rationale is that] since those immersions and sanctifications are not applicable equally to Aaron and his sons,23 as [Exodus 30:19] states: "And Aaron and his sons will wash from it." Only an obligation that is equally applicable to all the priests is an indispensable obligation, i.e., the first sanctification of one's hands.

‫כהן גדול שלא טבל ולא קידש ידיו‬ ‫ורגליו בין בגדים לבגדים ובין עבודה‬ ‫לעבודה ביום הכפורים ועבד עבודתו‬ ‫כשירה הואיל ואותן הטבילות והקידושין‬ ‫אינן שוים באהרן ובניו ונאמר ורחצו אהרן‬ ‫ובניו ממנו דבר השוה בכל הכהנים מעכב‬ :‫שהוא קידוש ראשון‬

If a person sanctified his hands on one day, he must sanctify them again on the following day even though he did not sleep at all that night, for the hands are disqualified because of the passage of the night. [Even] if he sanctified his hands at night and offered fats on [the altar's pyre] the entire night,24 he must go back and sanctify [his hands] on the next day25 for that day's service.

‫קידש ידיו היום צריך לחזור ולקדש‬ ‫למחר אף על פי שלא ישן כל הלילה‬ ‫שהידים נפסלות בלינה קידש בלילה‬ ‫והקטיר החלבים כל הלילה צריך לחזור‬ :‫ולקדש ביום לעבודת היום‬

4

If a priest sanctified his hands and his feet for the removal of the altar's ashes,26 even though he sanctifies them before sunrise,27 he does not have to sanctify them again after daybreak, because he sanctified them at the beginning of the day's service.

‫קידש ידיו ורגליו לתרומת הדשן אף‬ ‫ע"פ שהוא מקדש קודם שתעלה‬ ‫השמש אינו צריך לחזור ולקדש אחר‬ :‫שהאיר היום שהרי בתחלת עבודה קידש‬

It is a mitzvah to sanctify [one's hands and feet] from the basin.28 If, however, one sanctifies them from a sacred utensil, the sanctification is effective. Sanctification may not, however, be performed with an ordinary utensil.29 If one sanctified [his hands and feet] with a sacred utensil outside the Temple30 or did so with an ordinary utensil within the Temple and then performed service, his service is disqualified. One does not sanctify his hands and feet inside the basin or a sacred utensil, but from them, as [implied by the verse]: "Aaron and his son's will wash from it;" ["from it"] and not "inside of it." If one sanctified [his hands and feet] in such a utensil and performed service, he did not desecrate it.

‫מצוה לקדש ממי הכיור ואם קידש‬ ‫מאחד מכלי השרת ה"ז כשר אבל כלי‬ ‫החול אינם מקדשין קידש בכלי שרת‬ ‫בחוץ או בכלי חול בפנים ועבד עבודתו‬ ‫פסולה ואין מקדשין בתוך הכיור או בתוך‬ ‫כלי השרת אלא מהן שנאמר ורחצו אהרן‬ ‫ובניו ממנו ולא בתוכו ואם קידש בתוכו‬ :‫ועבד לא חילל‬

If one immerses his hands and feet in the waters of a mikveh31 or even a spring, this is not

‫הטביל ידיו ורגליו במי מקוה‬ ‫אפילו במעיין אין זה קידוש כלל‬ ‫עד שירחץ בכלי ובכל כלי הקדש מקדשין‬ ‫בין שיש בהן רביעית בין שאין בהן‬ :‫רביעית‬

considered as sanctification. One must wash them from a utensil. One may sanctify them using any sacred utensil whether or not it contains a revi'it.32 All water is acceptable for the sanctification, whether water from a spring or water from a mikveh, provided its appearance has not changed and it is [thus] acceptable for immersion.33 Mud that can be poured, from which a cow would drink,34 can be used to fill the measure of the basin. This is the general rule: Any water that can be used to make up the measure of a mikveh can be used to make up the measure of the basin.35

‫כל המימות כשרים לקידוש בין‬ ‫מים חיים בין מי מקוה ובלבד שלא‬ ‫ישתנה מראיהן אלא יהיו כמים הכשרים‬ ‫לטבילה טיט הנרוק שהפרה שוחה ושותה‬ ‫ממנו משלים למי כיור זה הכלל כל‬ :‫המשלים למי מקוה משלים למי כיור‬

How much water must there be in the basin? At least enough for four priests to sanctify [their hands and feet] from it, as [indicated by Exodus 30:19 which] mentions "Aaron and his sons." Together with him, there were Elazar, Itamar, and Pinchas, a total of four.36

‫כמה מים צריכין להיות בכיור אין‬ ‫פחות מכדי לקדש ממנו ד' כהנים‬ ‫שנאמר אהרן ובניו והיו אלעזר ואיתמר‬ :‫ופינחס עמהם הרי ארבעה‬

The water in the basin is disqualified if left [in it] overnight, as we explained.37What would be done [to prevent the water from being disqualified]? The basin would be submerged in a mikveh38 or a spring and on the following day, it would be raised or it would be filled each day in the morning.

‫מי כיור נפסלין בלינה כמו‬ ‫שביארנו וכיצד היו עושין משקעים‬ ‫אותו במי מקוה או במעיין ולמחר מעלין‬ :‫אותו או ממלאין אותו בכל יום בבקר‬

The "sea" fashioned by Solomon39 had the status of a mikveh,40 because a channel of water from the Spring of Aitem41 would pass through it.42 Therefore,43 its waters were not disqualified with the passage of night like the water of the basin and [indeed,] the basin was filled from it.

‫הים שעשה שלמה כמקוה היה‬ ‫מפני שאמה של מים היתה עוברת‬ ‫בתוכו מעין עיטם לפיכך לא היו מימיו‬ ‫נפסלין בלינה כמי הכיור וממנו היו‬ :‫ממלאין הכיור‬

How is the mitzvah of sanctification performed? [A priest would] put his right hand on his right foot and his left hand on his left foot and bend over and sanctify them.44 All the substances that are considered as intervening with regard to immersion,45 are intervening with regard to the sanctification of hands.

‫כיצד מצות קידוש מניח ידו‬ ‫הימנית על גבי רגלו הימנית וידו‬ ‫השמאלית על גבי רגלו השמאלית ושוחה‬ ‫ומקדש וכל החוצץ בטבילה חוצץ בקידוש‬ ‫ידים ואינו מקדש כשהוא יושב מפני‬ ‫שהוא כעבודה ואין עבודה אלא מעומד‬ :‫שנאמר לעמוד לשרת‬

One may not sanctify his hands while sitting, because [the sanctification] is comparable to the Temple service and the Temple service may be performed only when standing, as [Deuteronomy 18:5] states: "To stand and to serve."46

5

6

Anyone who performs service while he is seated, desecrates his service and disqualifies it. He does not receive lashes, because the warning against doing so stems from a positive commandment.47 Similarly, anyone involved with one of the Temple services must be standing on the floor.48 If there was anything intervening between himself and the ground,49 e.g., he was standing on a utensil, an animal, or a colleague's foot, [his service] is invalid. Similarly, if there was anything intervening between his hand and the utensil with which he was performing the service, it is invalid.50 The Temple service may be performed only with one's right hand.51 If one performed service with his left hand, it is invalid. He is not liable for lashes.52 [The following laws apply when] one of [a priest's] feet are on a utensil and one is on the floor, one is on a stone [that was not embedded in the floor] and one was on the floor. We evaluate [the situation]. Whenever he would be able to stand on his one foot if the utensil or the stone were taken away, his service is acceptable.53 If not, his service is invalid.54

‫וכל העובד והוא יושב חילל ועבודתו‬ ‫פסולה ואינו לוקה מפני שאזהרה‬ ‫שלו מכלל עשה היא וכן כל העוסק‬ ‫בעבודה מעבודת המקדש צריך שיהיה‬ ‫עומד על הרצפה ואם היה דבר חוצץ בינו‬ ‫ובין הקרקע כגון שעמד על גבי כלים או‬ ‫בהמה או על רגלי חבירו פסל וכן אם היה‬ ‫דבר חוצץ בין ידו ובין הכלי שעובד בו‬ :‫פסל‬

‫ואין עבודה אלא בימין ואם עבד‬ ‫בשמאל פסולה ואינו לוקה רגלו‬ ‫אחת על הכלי ורגלו אחת על הרצפה‬ ‫]רגלו אחת על האבן ורגלו אחת על‬ ‫הרצפה[ רואין כל שאילו ינטל הכלי או‬ ‫האבן יכול לעמוד על רגלו אחת עבודתו‬ ‫כשירה ואם לאו עבודתו פסולה קבל בימין‬ ‫ושמאל מסייעתו עבודתו כשירה שהמסייע‬ :‫אין משגיחין עליו‬

If he received [blood from a sacrifice] with his right hand and his left hand is supporting it, his service is acceptable, because we do not pay attention to [something that is] a [mere] support.55 When one of the stones of the Temple Courtyard has become loosened, one should not stand upon it during one's Temple service until it is affixed in the ground.56 If he performed service, his service is acceptable,57 since it is located in its place.

‫נתנדדה אבן מאבני העזרה לא‬ ‫יעמוד עליה בשעת עבודה עד‬ ‫שתחובר בארץ ואם עבד עבודתו כשרה‬ :‫הואיל ובמקומה עומדת‬

« Previous

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 6

Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4 FOOTNOTES 1. The Rambam emphasizes that this mitzvah applies to a priest, because an animal offered as a sacrifice may be

15. There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries if a ritually pure person who enters the Temple Courtyard without

slaughtered by a non-priest. Such a person need not sanctify his hands and feet. This explanation is reinforced by some of

intending to perform service is obligated to immerse himself or not.

the versions of Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 24) which state "A priest alone is obligated...," i.e., a priest and not a non-priest. 2. Through washing them from the basin in the Temple Courtyard, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. 3. Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 106) consider this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 4. If he does not perform service in the Temple Courtyard, he is not liable even if he enters without sanctifying his hands and feet (Rav Yosef Corcus). 5. With the latter addition, the Rambam excludes the extra sanctifications performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur before and after the changes of his garments. If he does not sanctify his hands and feet at this time, he does not invalidate his service, as stated in Halachah 7. 6. Nevertheless, as explained in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:3, he is not liable for lashes, because he has only violated a positive commandment, not a negative commandment. 7. The text of the Mishneh Torah does not quote the verse exactly. 8. Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 10:4. 9. On the following day, he must sanctify his hands and feet again, even if he did not sleep at night, as stated in Halachah 8. 10. See Halachah 5. 11. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this requirement is derived from the obligation to sanctify one's hands and feet if one diverts attention, for it is likely that while sleeping, one did divert his attention. 12. See Halachah 5 with regard to defecation. 13. There is an unresolved question concerning this point in Zevachim 20b. Hence, the Rambam rules leniently (Kessef Mishneh). 14. In the other three instances mentioned above, if he serves without sanctifying his hands and feet, his service is invalid (Kessef Mishneh).

16. See the conclusion of Halachah 6. 17. Even if he actually remained outside for a short time. 18. There is an unresolved question concerning this point in Zevachim 20b. Hence, the Rambam rules leniently (Kessef Mishneh). 19. This refers, not to ritual impurity prescribed by Scriptural Law, but instead, to certain states of ritual impurity ordained by our Sages that affect the hands alone. See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah, ch. 8. 20. See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 9:9. 21. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 2:2 for a description of these changes of clothing, immersions, and sanctifications. 22. He does, however, violate a positive commandment, because he does not perform the Yom Kippur service as prescribed (Yoma 30b). 23. They are obligations of the High Priest (Aaron), but not an ordinary priest (his sons). 24. I.e., he was continually involved in the Temple service. 25. At daybreak. 26. Which is carried out at dawn (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2:11-12). 27. Halachically, depending on the different opinions, dawn is between 72 minutes and two hours before sunrise. Sunrise is the time when the priest should sanctify his hands. Nevertheless, in this instance, he has no alternative, since he is sanctifying them for that day's service and that service is performed before dawn. 28. See the description of this utensil in the conclusion of ch. 4 of Hilchot Beit HaBechirah. 29. I.e., one that is not consecrated. 30. The sanctification must be performed within the Temple Courtyard, for that is where the basin is located. Even though the sanctification need not be performed with water from the basin, it must be performed in the area where it is located (Zevachim 22a). 31. There were several mikvaot on the Temple Mount.

7

8

32. 86 cc. according to Shiurei Torah; 150 cc. according to

45. As explained in Hilchot Mikvaot, ch. 2, no significant

Chazon Ish. The Ra'avad states - and the Kessef Mishneh

substance may intervene between the flesh of the person

explains that this is also the Rambam's intent - that if one uses a small utensil, he must take the water originally from

immersing and the waters of the mikveh. That chapter

the basin.

and hence, as intervening, and those which are not.

33. As stated in Hilchot Mikvaot 7:1, if the appearance of water

details those substances that are considered as significant 46. In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim,

has changed, e.g., one poured wine or juice into it and

loc. cit.), he offers another rationale: that one is not allowed

changed its color, it is not acceptable for immersion.

to sit in the Temple.

34. Since a cow will drink it, it is considered as water and not as earth. Compare to ibid. 7:3, 8:9. 11:2.

47. And lashes are given only when a negative commandment is violated.

35. A mikveh must be 40 se'ah in volume.

48. Zevachim 24a relates that since both the Temple utensils

36. Zevachim 21b cites Exodus 40:32 which states "And Moses,

and the ground of the Temple Courtyard have been

Aaron, and his sons will wash from it." "His sons" is plural

sanctified, an equation is established between them. Just as there can be no intervening substance between a priest's

indicating at least two, thus reaching a total of four. The Rambam, here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 2) substitutes Pinchas for Moses. The Kessef

hand and a sacred utensil, so too, there may be no intervening substance between his feet and the Temple

Mishneh questions that explanation on two counts: Firstly, at

Courtyard.

the time, the basin was first used, Aaron's older sons, Nadav and Avihu, were still alive. Moreover, the priesthood had not

49. I.e., the stones of the Temple or the Temple Courtyard. 50. This is derived from Leviticus 4:5: "And the priest shall take."

been granted to Pinchas as of yet. Rav Yosef Corcus tries to support the Rambam's understanding, explaining that

Implied is that the taking must be performed by the priest's body without any intermediary (Zevachim, loc. cit.).

according to certain views, Moses did not serve as a priest when Aaron did, only in the seven days of preparation.

51. Indeed, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the

37. Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:18. 38. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 1:4), the Rambam explains that each night the basin would be submerged in a muchani, a large container which held a reservoir of water. This container was not a sacred utensil and hence the water it contained was not disqualified overnight. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit., for a description of this container. 39. See I Kings 7:23-26. This was a circular copper tank, ten cubits in diameter and five cubits deep.

Rambam writes that "Whenever the word "hand" is mentioned [with regard to the Temple service], the intent is the right hand." The above is referring to a right-handed person. A left-handed priest is disqualified from serving in the Temple, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 11. 52. For there is no explicit prohibition that he violates. Instead, it is an extension of a positive commandment (Kessef Mishneh). 53. For then, the support provided by the second foot is not of consequence.

40. As II Chronicles 4:6 states, the priests would use it as a mikveh.

54. For then it is significant.

41. A mountain spring slightly south of Jerusalem. It was 32

55. This is a general principle, applying in other situations as

cubits higher than the Temple Mount. Hence the water would naturally flow through a conduit built from it to the Temple. 42. Usually, water contained in a utensil is not acceptable for immersion. Nevertheless, since water from a flowing spring passed through this tank, its water was acceptable [the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 3:8)]. 43. I.e., because it was connected to a flowing spring. 44. I.e., a colleague would pour water over them; alternatively, he would stand under a tap. See Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 15:5 which states that one would wash until the wrist.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger

well (see Shabbat 93b). 56. As long as it is not fixed in the ground, the stone can be considered as a separate entity and therefore, it could be considered as an intervening substance between the priest and the earth. 57. There is an unresolved question concerning this issue in Zevachim 24a. Hence, the Rambam does not rule stringently. See also the commentaries to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:10.

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .



Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 5

Any priest who has a physical blemish - whether a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish1 should not enter the area of the altar and beyond in the Temple, as [Leviticus 21:21-23] states: "[Any man from among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a blemish...] shall not come near the curtain,2 nor may he approach the altar. If he transgresses and enters [this area],3 he is liable for lashes even if he did not perform any service.

English

Hebrew

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 7

‫כל כהן שיש בו מום בין מום קבוע‬ ‫בין מום עובר לא יכנס למקדש מן‬ ‫המזבח ולפנים שנאמר אל הפרוכת לא‬ ‫יבוא ואל המזבח לא יגש ואם עבר ונכנס‬ ‫לוקה אף ע"פ שלא עבד ואם עבד במקדש‬ ‫פסל וחילל עבודה ולוקה אף על העבודה‬ ‫שנאמר אשר יהיה בו מום לא יקרב מפי‬ ‫השמועה למדו שאזהרה זו שלא יקרב‬ :‫לעבודה‬

If he performs service in the Temple, he invalidates and desecrates his service. He is worthy of lashes for the service as well,4 as [ibid.:17] states: "One who has a blemish shall not draw near [to offer...]."5 According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this warning means that he shall not draw near to the Temple service. Similarly, a person with a temporary blemish who performs service in the Temple invalidates [his service] and is liable for lashes,6 as [ibid.:18] states: "Any man who has a blemish shall not draw close...." According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that this is a warning against [a priest] with a temporary blemish [serving]. [A priest] with a blemish who serves is not liable for death, only for lashes.

1

‫וכן בעל מום עובר שעבד פסל ולוקה‬ ‫שנאמר כל איש אשר בו מום לא‬ ‫יקרב מפי השמועה למדו שזו אזהרה לבעל‬ ‫מום עובר ואין בעלי מומין שעבדו במיתה‬ :‫אלא במלקות בלבד‬

2

All physical blemishes - whether the priest had them from birth or acquired them afterwards, whether they will heal or they will not heal - disqualify [him] until they heal.

‫כל המומין כולן אחד שהיו בו מתחלת‬ ‫ברייתו ואחד שנולדו בו אחר כן בין‬ ‫עוברין בין שאינן עוברין הרי זה פסול עד‬ :‫שיעבורו‬

A permanent blemish is a broken leg or a broken arm.7 A temporary blemish is a dry skin eruption or a moist skin eruption also known as a chazizit.8 Not only the blemishes mentioned in the Torah,9 but any apparent bodily blemish disqualifies the priests, as [ibid.:21] states: "Any man who has a blemish," i.e., any type. Those mentioned by the Torah are merely examples.10

‫מום קבוע כגון שבר רגל או שבר יד‬ ‫ומום עובר כגון גרב או ילפת והיא‬ ‫החזזית ולא המומין הכתובין בתורה בלבד‬ ‫הן שפסולין בכהנים אלא כל המומין‬ ‫הנראין בגוף שנאמר כל אשר בו מום מכל‬ :‫מקום ואלו הכתובים בתורה דוגמא הן‬

There are three types of blemishes [involving humans]:11

‫שלשה מיני מומין הם יש מומין שהן‬ ‫פוסלין הכהן מלעבוד והבהמה‬ ‫מליקרב ]ויש מומין שפוסלין באדם בלבד‬ ‫מלעבוד[ ויש מומין שאין פוסלין אבל‬ ‫מפני מראית העין אמרו שכל כהן שיש בו‬ :‫אחד מהן אינו עובד‬

a) blemishes that disqualify a priest from serving and an animal from being offered [as a sacrifice];12 b) blemishes that only prevent a man from serving;13 c) blemishes that do not disqualify a priest, but because of the impression that would be created,14 [our Sages] stated that every priest who has such a blemish should not serve. Whenever [a priest] who has a blemish that disqualifies both a person and animal serves, whether inadvertently or intentionally, his service is invalid. If he served intentionally, he is liable for lashes. Whenever [a priest] who has a blemish that disqualifies only a person serves, even though he is liable for lashes,15 his service is valid.16 If he has one of the blemishes that disqualify him because of the impression that could be created, he is not liable for lashes and his service is valid.

‫כל מי שיש בו מום שפוסל באדם‬ ‫ובבהמה ועבד בין בשוגג בין במזיד‬ ‫עבודתו פסולה ואם היה מזיד לוקה וכל מי‬ ‫שיש בו מום מן המומין המיוחדין לאדם‬ ‫ועבד אף ע"פ שהוא לוקה לא חילל‬ ‫עבודתו ואם היה בו דבר מדברים שהם‬ ‫מפני מראית העין אינו לוקה ועבודתו‬ :‫כשירה‬

3

Only blemishes that are apparent17 disqualify a person. Blemishes that are within the cavity of the body, e.g., a person's kidney or his spleen was removed or his intestines were perforated, even though he becomes a treifah,18 his service is acceptable. [This is derived from the mention, Leviticus 21:19, of] "a broken leg or a broken arm." Just as these are apparent, all [disqualifying blemishes] must be apparent.

‫אין פוסל באדם אלא מומין שבגלוי‬ ‫אבל מומין שבחלל הגוף כגון שניטל‬ ‫כולייתו של אדם או טחול שלו או שניקבו‬ ‫מעיו אע"פ שנעשה טרפה עבודתו כשירה‬ ‫שנאמר שבר רגל או שבר יד מה אלו‬ :‫בגלוי אף כל בגלוי‬

An uncircumcised person19 is like a foreigner [as Ezekiel 44:9] states: "Any foreigner20 with an uncircumcised heart and uncircumcised flesh." Therefore if an uncircumcised [priest] serves, he disqualifies his service and is liable for lashes21 like a non-priest22 who serves. He is not, however, liable for death.23

‫הערל הרי הוא כבן נכר שנאמר כל‬ ‫בן נכר ערל לב וערל בשר לפיכך‬ ‫ערל שעבד חילל עבודתו ולוקה כזר שעבד‬ :‫אבל אינו חייב מיתה‬

A priest who married women sinfully24 may not serve25 until he is compelled by the court to take a vow dependent on the discretion of other people so that it cannot be nullified26 that he will not continue to sin. He may then perform the service, descend [from the altar], and divorce her. Similarly, if he would become impure due to contact with a human corpse,27 he is disqualified until he makes a resolution in court not to contract such impurity. If he transgressed and performed service before taking such a vow or making such a resolution, he does not disqualify his service even though he remains married in sin.28

‫ אינו‬- ‫כהן שהיה נושא בעבירה‬ ‫ עד שידירוהו בית דין על דעת‬,‫עובד‬ ‫ שלא‬,‫ כדי שלא תהיה לו הפרה‬,‫רבים‬ ‫ וכן אם‬.‫ ויורד ומגרש‬,‫יוסיף לחטוא; ועובד‬ ‫ עד שיקבל עליו‬,‫ פסול‬- ‫היה מטמא למתים‬ ‫ ואם עבר ועבד‬.‫בבית דין שלא יטמא‬ ‫ אף על פי שהוא‬- ‫קודם שידיר או שיקבל‬ :‫ לא חילל עבודה‬,‫נשוי בעברה‬

4

When a priest performed service and afterwards, his [genealogy] was checked and it was discovered that he was a challal,29 his previous service is acceptable, but he may not serve in the future. If, however, he does [continue] to serve, he does not desecrate the service. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 33:11]: "May God bless His legion and find acceptable the work of his hand." [implied is that] He will find acceptable even the desecrated among them.30

- ‫ ונבדק ונמצא חלל‬,‫כוהן שעבד‬ ‫ ואינו עובד‬,‫עבודתו כשרה לשעבר‬ ‫ שנאמר "ברך‬- ‫ לא חילל‬,‫ ואם עבד‬.‫להבא‬ ‫ אפילו חולין‬,"‫ ופועל ידיו תרצה‬,‫ה' חילו‬ :‫שבו תרצה‬

The High Court would sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.31 Their primary ongoing activity was sitting and judging the priests, e.g., examining the lineage of the priests32 and inspecting their blemishes. Whenever a disqualifying factor was found in the lineage of a priest, he would put on black clothes and wrap himself in black and leave the Temple Courtyard. Whoever is found to be bodily sound and of acceptable lineage puts on white garments and enters and serves with his priestly brethren.

‫ היו יושבין בלשכת‬,‫בית דין הגדול‬ ,‫הגזית; ועיקר מעשיהם התדיר‬ ‫שהן יושבין ודנין את הכהונה ובודקין את‬ ‫ כל כוהן‬.‫הכוהנים בייחוסין ובמומין‬ ‫שנמצא פסול בייחוסו—לובש שחורים‬ ‫ ויוצא מן העזרה; וכל מי‬,‫ומתעטף שחורים‬ ‫ ונכנס‬,‫ לובש לבנים‬- ‫שנמצא שלם וכשר‬ :‫ומשמש עם אחיו הכוהנים‬

[A priest] who is discovered to be of acceptable lineage, but was discovered to have a physical blemish should sit in the Chamber of Wood33 and [removes] worm-eaten wood for the [Altar's] pyre.34 He should be included in the division of the sacrifices with the members of his clan and may partake [of the sacrifices],35as [Leviticus 21:22] states: "He may partake of the food of his God from [the sacrifices of] the most holy order and of the sacred foods."

‫ ונמצא בו‬,‫מי שנמצא כשר בייחוסו‬ ‫ מתלע‬,‫ יושב בלשכת העצים‬- ‫מום‬ ‫עצים למערכה; וחולק בקודשים עם אנשי‬ ‫ שנאמר "לחם‬- ‫ ואוכל‬,‫בית אב שלו‬ ,‫ ומן הקודשים‬,‫ מקודשי הקודשים‬,‫אלוהיו‬ :"‫יאכל‬

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 5 FOOTNOTES

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 7

5

1. From the repetition of verses in Leviticus concerning this issue, the Sifra derives that the prohibition encompasses both types of blemishes.

13. These are described in Chapter 8. 14. See the conclusion of ch. 8. 15. If he serves intentionally.

2. The curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. 3. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 69) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 277) consider this as one of the 613

16. The commentaries note that there appears to be a contradiction between this statement and the Torah's explicit statements. The Torah mentions exceptionally long

mitzvot of the Torah. In his gloss to Sefer HaMitzvot, the

eye-brows and crushed testicles as blemishes. These blemishes apply to a human and not to an animal.

Ramban differs. He maintains that although there is a prohibition against a blemished priest serving in the Temple

Nevertheless, it appears that they are also included by the statement (ibid.:23): "He shall not desecrate My sacred

as the Rambam continues to explain, there is no Scriptural prohibition against merely entering this portion of the Temple

offerings."

area. The Megilat Esther supports the Rambam's view. The Kessef Mishneh notes that from Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4, it appears that lashes are given only if the priest enters the building of the Temple, not this portion of the courtyard.

17. Even blemishes that are ordinarily covered by a person's clothes are considered as apparent. 18. A person who will not live more than 12 months. 19. This applies even when there was no transgression in the

HaChinuch (mitzvah 275) consider also this as one of the

priest remaining uncircumcised, e.g., an instance when two of his brothers died because of circumcision (Rashi,

613 mitzvot of the Torah. As indicated by the following

Sanhedrin 83a).

4. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 70) and Sefer

halachah, according to the Rambam, this prohibition refers to a priest with a permanent blemish. 5. Although the prooftext refers specifically to the daily offering, the Sifra explains that the repetition of verses indicates that the prohibition encompasses all sacrifices.

20. This term also has the connotation of an idolater. 21. Rashi (ibid. 84a) states that since the warning is dependent on a verse from the Prophets and not from the Torah itself, the person is not liable for lashes. The Rambam's view is based on Zevachim 18b which maintains that the prohibition

HaChinuch (mitzvah 276) consider also this as one of the

was taught by the Oral Tradition. Ezekiel merely provided a support. The Rambam, however, mentions the verse from

613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Ramban differs and maintains that there is only one negative commandment against a

Ezekiel because of the connection to the non-priest so that there will be a link to an explicit prohibition from the Torah.

6. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 71) and Sefer

priest with a blemish serving in the Temple and it includes both instances, a permanent blemish and a temporary blemish.

22. See Chapter 9, Halachah 1. 23. As a non-priest is (ibid.). 24. E.g., he married a divorcee or another woman forbidden to

7. See Leviticus 21:19.

the priesthood. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, chs. 17-19 where

8. Ibid.:20.

these prohibitions are detailed.

9. Ibid.:18-21.

25. These laws have parallels in the present era as well. Such a

10. In his commentary to the Torah, the Ramban takes a slightly different approach, maintaining that those blemishes mentioned in the Torah outline the general categories of blemishes. 11. There are also blemishes that disqualify an animal, but do not disqualify a human, as stated in Hilchot

Issurei

Mizbeiach, ch. 2. See the gloss of the Radbaz there which

priest may not recite the Priestly Blessing [Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:40)]. 26. Since the vow is not being taken dependent on his own discretion, but on that of other people, it cannot be nullified. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:8. 27. Which is forbidden to a priest, as stated in Hilchot Evel, ch. 1.

explains that it appears that the Rambam's intent is not that if

28. For this prohibition is merely a Rabbinic safeguard.

these conditions are found in men, they do not disqualify a priest. Instead, the intent is that it is extremely uncommon to

29. A challal is a priest conceived in relations forbidden to a

find such a condition in a human. Hence they are "not appropriate to be found in a human." Nevertheless, if a priest does have such a condition, it is considered as a blemish and he is disqualified. 12. These are described in Chapter 7.

priest or the son of a challal. None of the mitzvot of the priesthood apply to him. 30. Challal, "desecrated," and chayl, "legion," share two of the same root letters. Hence the above concept can be derived (Kiddushin 66b).

31. The presence of the Sanhedrin in this chamber is discussed in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17 and Hilchot Sanhedrin 14:11-12.

33. Located in the Women's Courtyard; see Hilchot HaBechirah 5:8.

34. For worm-eaten wood is undesirable. See Hilchot Issurei

32. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 20:2.

Mizbeiach 6:2. 35. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:17.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

6

Beit

policy .

1



Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 6

English

Hebrew

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 8

There are a sum total of 50 physical blemishes that disqualify both humans and animals. In particular, they are:

‫כל המומין הפוסלים באדם ובבהמה‬ :‫חמשים וזהו פרטן‬

Five involving the ear: a) one whose ear lobe has been blemished1 to the extent that one's nail would become held back by the blemish.2 There is, however, no concept of a blemish with regard to the skin which surrounds the lobe of the ear, whether it is perforated, marred, or cracked.

‫חמשה באוזן ואלו הן מי שנפגם‬ ‫סחוס אזנו כדי שתחגור הצפורן‬ ‫בפגם אבל העור המוקף לסחוס האוזן אין‬ :‫בו מום בין ניקב בין נסדק‬

2

b) one whose ear has cracked to the slightest extent even though its substance has not diminished; c) one whose [ear] lobe has been perforated, [leaving a hole] the size of a carshinah bean.3 Whether the whole is round or long, if its area is the size of a carshinah bean, it is considered a blemish. d) one whose ear has dried to the extent that if it was perforated, it would not bleed;

‫מי שנסדק סחוס אזנו בכל שהוא‬ ‫אע"פ שלא חסר מי שניקב סחוס אזנו‬ ‫ככרשינה בין נקב עגול בין נקב ארוך אם‬ ‫מצטרף לכרשינה ה"ז מום מי שיבשה אזנו‬ ‫כדי שתנקב ולא תוציא דם מי שהיתה אזנו‬ ‫כפולה לשתים אפילו הגדי שדרך אזניו‬ ‫להיותן נוטות וכפולות ובלבד שיהיו לו שני‬ ‫סחוסין אבל אם אין לה אלא סחוס אחד‬ :‫והרי הוא כגוף אחד שנכפל כשר‬

e) one whose ear was double.4 [This applies] even to a goat kid whose ears are often extended and appear double, provided it has two lobes. If, however, it has only one lobe and it appears like one entity that is double-sized, it is acceptable.5 There are three involving the eye-lashes: a) one whose eye-lashes are perforated even to the slightest extent; b) one whose eye-lashes are cracked even to the slightest extent; c) one whose eye-lashes are blemished6 even to the slightest extent. These three blemishes are included in the term cherutz mentioned in the Torah.7

‫ מי‬:‫שלשה בריס של עין ואלו הן‬ ‫שניקב ריס מריסי עיניו בכל שהוא‬ ‫מי שנסדק ריס מריסי עיניו בכל שהוא ]מי‬ [‫שנפגם ריס מריסי עיניו בכל שהוא‬ ‫ושלשה מומין אלו בכלל חרוץ האמור‬ :‫בתורה‬

There are eight involving the eye: a) one who is blind,8 whether in one eye or in both eyes; b) one who cannot see from both of his eyes or one of them, even though there is no apparent change in them, because he has water continuously descending into his eyes; c) one who cannot see with both or one of his eyes clearly, because he has continuous nerve deterioration;9 d) one who has a mound like a grape in his eye,10 even though he can still see; e) one who has cataracts11 in his eyes which cover some of the pupil of the eye; f) one who has the white of his eyes extended slightly into the pupil until the pupil is interrupted by the white of the eye. This is the meaning of the term tivlul mentioned in the Torah.12 If, however, the pupil is extended and enters the white of the eye, it is not considered a blemish, for there are no blemishes in the white of the eye; g) one who has a white point in the midst of his pupil. This is the meaning of the term dak mentioned in the Torah.13 [The above applies] provided it appears floating on the pupil. If, however, it is not floating, or if it is submerged in the pupil, it is not a blemish. Similarly, if there was a black mark in the midst of the white, even if it appeared to be floating, it is not considered a blemish, for there are no blemishes in the white. If there was a black mark sunk in the pupil, it is also included in the blemish called dak. If, however, it appears to be floating, since it is black within black, it is not considered as a blemish. 3

‫ העיור בין‬:‫שמונה בעין ואלו הן‬ ‫באחד מעיניו בין משתיהן מי שאינו‬ ‫רואה בשתי עיניו או באחת מהן אף על פי‬ ‫שאין נראה בהן שינוי כלל מחמת שירדו‬ ‫מים קבועים כנגד ראותיו מי שאינו רואה‬ ‫בעיניו או באחת מהן ראייה ברורה מחמת‬ ‫שהיה בה סנורים קבועים מי שבעינו כמו‬ ‫עינב אף ע"פ שהוא רואה מי שיצא בשר‬ ‫יתר בעינו עד שחפה מעט מן השחור של‬ ‫עין מי שנמשך הלובן של עין ונכנס ממנו‬ ‫מעט בשחור עד שנמצא השחור מעורב‬ ‫בלובן והוא תבלול האמור בתורה אבל אם‬ ‫יצא מן השחור לתוך הלבן אינו מום שאין‬ ‫מומין בלבן מי שהיתה נקודה לבנה בתוך‬ ‫השחור וזהו דק האמור בתורה והוא‬ ‫שתהיה צפה על גבי השחור אבל אם לא‬ ‫היתה צפה או שהיתה משוקעת בשחור‬ ‫אינו מום וכן אם היתה נקודה שחורה‬ ‫בתוך הלבן אפילו צפה אינו מום שאין‬ ‫מומים בלבן היתה נקודה שחורה שוקעת‬ ‫בתוך השחור אף זה נקרא דק אבל אם‬ ‫היתה צפה הואיל והיא שחורה בשחור‬ :‫אינו מום‬

4

There are three involving the nose: a) One whose nose is perforated, even from only one side;14

‫ מי שניקב‬:‫שלשה בחוטם ואלו הן‬ ‫חוטמו אפילו מצד אחד מי שנסדק‬ :‫חוטמו מי שנפגם חוטמו‬

b) one whose nose is split; c) one whose nose is blemished. There are six involving the mouth: a) One whose lip is perforated; this applies even if only one is perforated; b) one whose lip is blemished; c) one whose lip is cracked, provided the surface of the lip is split into two sides; d) one whose lower jawbone extends even the slightest measure further than his upper jawbone; e) one whose mouth is swollen congenitally, as part of the structure of his body. If, however, it is swollen because of the wind,15 it is not considered a blemish; f) one from whom the majority of the free portion of the tongue16 was removed.

‫ מי שניקב שפתו‬:‫ששה בפה ואלו הן‬ ‫אפילו אחת מהן מי שנפגמה שפתו מי‬ ‫שנסדקה שפתו והוא שנסדק מזר שלה עד‬ ‫שתחלק לשני ראשים מי שעצם לחיו‬ ‫התחתון עודף על העליון כל שהוא מי‬ ‫שפיו נבלם מחמת גופו וברייתו אבל אם‬ ‫נבלם מחמת הרוח אינו מום מי שניטל רוב‬ :‫המדבר של לשונו‬

5

There are twelve involving the reproductive organs: a-d) one whose member is crushed,17 severed, or cut off;

mashed,

e-h) one whose testicles - or testicle - is crushed, mashed, severed, or cut off; i) one who has only one testicle even though he has two sacs;18

‫ מי‬:‫שנים עשר באיברי הזרע ואלו הן‬ ‫שנמעך הגיד שלו או נכתת או ניתק‬ ‫או נכרת מי שנמעכו הביצים שלו או אחת‬ ‫מהן או נכתתו או אחת מהן או נתקו או‬ ‫אחת מהן או נכרתו או אחת מהן מי שאין‬ ‫לו אלא ביצה אחת אע"פ שיש לו שני‬ ‫כיסין מי ששתי ביציו בכיס אחד הטומטום‬ :‫האנדרוגינוס‬

j) one whose two testicles are in one sac; k) a person whose sexual organ is covered by flesh and his gender cannot be determined; j) a hermaphrodite.19 There are six involving the hands and the feet: a) one who limps;20 b) one whose hip has been displaced. This is the meaning of the term serua used by the Torah;21 c) one who has one hip attached at a higher place than the other; d) one whose arm-bone is broken,22 provided it is apparent; e) one whose leg-bone is broken,23 provided it is apparent. Even if it is not apparent when he stands, if it is apparent when he walks, it is a blemish; f) one whose legs are swollen congenitally, as part of the structure of his body. If, however, they are swollen because of the wind, it is not considered a blemish.

‫ הפסח‬:‫ששה בידים וברגלים ואלו הן‬ ‫ומי שנשמטה יריכו הוא שרוע‬ ‫האמור בתורה מי שאחת מירכותיו גבוהה‬ ‫מחברתה מי שנשבר עצם ידו והוא שיהיה‬ ‫ניכר מי שנשבר עצם רגלו והוא שיהיה‬ ‫ניכר אף ע"פ שאינו ניכר כשעומד אם‬ ‫ניכר כשיהלך ה"ז מום מי שרגליו‬ ‫מבולמות מחמת עצמן וברייתן אבל אם‬ :‫היו מבולמות מחמת הרוח אינו מום‬

6

There are four [types of blemishes] that may occur in any place in the body. They are: a) one who has a dry skin eruption of even the slightest size. This is the meaning of the term gerev mentioned in the Torah;24 b) a growth that has a bone. This is the meaning of the term yabelet mentioned in the Torah;25

‫ארבעה ראויין להיות בכל הגוף ואלו‬ ‫ מי שיש בו גרב יבש כל שהוא וזהו‬:‫הן‬ ‫הגרב האמור בתורה מי שיש בו יבלת‬ ‫שיש בה עצם וזה הוא יבלת האמורה‬ ‫בתורה מי שיש בו חזזית מצרית כל שהיא‬ ‫והיא חזזית קשה וכעורה וזו הוא ילפת‬ :‫האמורה בתורה‬

c) one who has an Egyptian boil26 of the slightest size. It is a type of boil which is firm and of distasteful appearance. This is the meaning of the term yafelet mentioned in the Torah.27 d) Whenever there is a groove made in any bone that is apparent,28 it is considered a blemish. It is included in the category charutz mentioned in the Torah.29 The ribs are not considered as bones that are apparent. There are also three other types of blemishes:30 a) an elderly man who has reached the stage that he quivers and trembles when he stands; b) a person who is sick and trembles because of his illness and the weakening of his strength. A treifah31 is acceptable among humans, but is disqualified among animals.32 Similarly, one born through Caesarian section is acceptable among humans, but is disqualified among animals.33

‫כל עצם שבגלוי שנחרץ בו חריץ‬ ‫הרי זה מום והוא בכלל חרוץ‬ ‫האמורה בתורה ואין הצלעות בכלל‬ :‫עצמות שבגלוי‬

‫ועוד יש שם שלשה מומין אחרים‬ ‫ הזקן שהגיע להיות רותת‬:‫ואלו הן‬ ‫ורועד כשהוא עומד החולה כשהוא רועד‬ ‫מפני חוליו וכשלון כחו אבל הטריפה כשר‬ ‫באדם ופסול בבהמה וכן יוצא דופן כשר‬ :‫באדם ופסול בבהמה‬

7

c) One who is foul-smelling. A priest who has a foul-smelling odor because of sweat may wash and rub perfume on his flesh and serve. If he has a foul odor emanating from his mouth, he may put pepper, ginger, or the like in his mouth and serve. If, however, he serves while his body is foul-smelling due to sweat or he had bad breath, he desecrates his service like one who has any of the other blemishes.

‫המזוהם וכהן שהוא מזוהם בזיעתו‬ ‫רוחץ ושף כל גופו בבושם ועובד‬ ‫היה ריח פיו רע נותן בפיו פלפל או זנגביל‬ ‫וכיוצא בהן ועובד ואם עבד בזיהום זיעתו‬ ‫או בזיהום פיו הרי חילל עבודתו כשאר‬ :‫אלו הבעלי מומין כולם‬

« Previous

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 8

Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 6 FOOTNOTES 1. I.e., its substance has been diminished. 2. I.e., if one would run his nail over the lobe of this person's ear, like one runs his nail over a ritual slaughterer's knife, the progress of his nail would be held back by the blemish. See Rashi, Bechorot 37b. 3. A small bean about the size of a lentil (ibid.).

17. This is the meaning of the term miruach eshef in Leviticus 21:20. 18. This refers to the inner sacs within the larger scrotum. 19. More details regarding the individuals in the latter two categories are found in Hilchot Ishut 2:25-26; Hilchot Nizirut 2:11; et al. See also Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:3.

4. I.e., it appears as if he has two ears, one inside the other.

20. As explicitly mentioned in Leviticus 21:18.

5. Although the Rambam's version of the source for this ruling,

21. Leviticus 21:18; 22:23. The Rambam's interpretation is based on the Sifra. Rashi in his commentary to the Torah

Bechorot 6:9 differs from the standard printed text of the Mishnah, the interpretation of both versions is the same.

explains the term differently.

6. I.e., its substance has been diminished.

22. As explicitly mentioned in Leviticus 21:19.

7. Leviticus 22:22.

23. As explicitly mentioned in Leviticus 21:19.

8. As explicitly mentioned in Leviticus 21:18.

24. Leviticus 21:19; 22:22; Deuteronomy 28:27.

9. Our translation is based on Rav Kapach's version of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3).

25. Leviticus 22:22.

10. Due to a retinal infection (ibid.:2). 11. This refers to the term chilazon nachash mentioned in the Mishnah (ibid.). 12. Leviticus 21:20. 13. Due to a retinal infection (ibid.:2). 14. If, however, the cartilage between the nostrils is perforated and it is not visible externally, it is not considered as a blemish [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:4)]. 15. Because the swelling comes from an external factor. 16. Our translation is taken from Rashi's commentary (Bechorot 40a).

26. A moist skin eruption reminiscent of the boils visited upon the Egyptians in the Ten Plagues. Its external layer is moist, but its internal layer is dry and it is also very distasteful in appearance. 27. Leviticus 21:20. 28. E.g., an arm or a leg (Bechorot 40b). 29. Leviticus 22:22. 30. The laws pertaining to animals with these three blemishes are slightly different than those pertaining to animals with other blemishes. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 2:6. 31. A man or an animal that has a physical infirmity that will cause him to die within twelve months. See Chapter 6, Halachah 7. 32. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:1.

33. See ibid.:4.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .

1



Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 8 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 7

English

Hebrew

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 9

2

There are a total of 90 physical blemishes that [disqualify] humans alone. In particular, they are: There are eight involving the head: a) one who has the center of his forehead depressed below as if it was pushed down with one's hand; b) one who has the center of his forehead raised up above, like an egg;1 c) one who has the sides of his head emerge toward his face like a hammer; d) one whose head projects outward abnormally from his neck; e) one whose head is abnormally large to the extent that it sits on his neck like a turnip on top of its leaves;2 f) one who is bald and has no hair whatsoever on his head. If, however, he has a row of hair extending across the back of his head from ear to ear, it is acceptable.

‫כל המומין המיוחדין באדם תשעים‬ :‫וזהו פרטן‬ ‫ מי שאמצע קדקדו‬:‫שמונה בראש ואלו הן‬ ‫שוקע למטה כמו שדחקו בידו מי שאמצע‬ ‫קדקדו עולה למעלה כמו ביצה מי שפאת‬ ‫ראשו יוצא כנגד פניו כמו מקבת מי‬ ‫שראשו יוצא מאחוריו כנגד ערפו מי‬ ‫שראשו רחב ויוצא מכאן ומכאן עד‬ ‫שתמצא ראשו על צוארו כמו ראש הלפת‬ ‫על העלין שלו הקרח שאין בכל ראשו‬ ‫שער כל עיקר ואם יש בו שיטה של שיער‬ ‫מוקפת מאחוריו מאזן לאזן כשר מי שהיה‬ ‫השער מקיף מאזן לאזן מלפניו בלבד‬ ‫ושאר הראש קרח הוא הרי הוא פסול מי‬ ‫שהיה השער שלו מקיף את כל הראש‬ ‫סביב מלפניו ומאחריו ואין שם שער‬ :‫באמצע גם זה קרח ופסול‬

g) a person's whose hair extends from ear to ear on the front of his head, but he is bald on the remainder of his head, he is unacceptable; h) a person whose hair extends around his entire head from the front and the back, but he has no hair on the top of his head. He also is deemed bald and is unacceptable. There are two involving the neck. They are: a) one whose neck is sunk [into his trunk] so much that it appears to be placed on his shoulders; b) one whose neck is so long that it appears unconnected with his shoulders.

‫ מי שצוארו‬:‫שנים בצואר ואלו הם‬ ‫שוקע הרבה עד שנמצא ראשו כאילו‬ ‫הוא מונח על כתיפיו מי שצוארו ארוך‬ :‫הרבה עד שנראה כשמוט מבין כתיפיו‬

There are four involving the ears. They are: a) one whose two ears are very small; b) one whose two ears are very swollen like sponges;

‫ מי ששתי אזניו‬:‫ארבעה באזן ואלו הן‬ ‫קטנות הרבה מי ששתי אזניו נפוחות‬ ‫דומות לספוג מי שאזניו מדולדלות למטה‬ ‫מי שאחת מאזניו משונה מחברתה‬ :‫במראה‬

c) one whose ears hang down low; d) one who has one ear differ from another in appearance.3 There are five involving the eyebrows. They are: a) one who does not have any hair at all on his eyebrows. This is the meaning of the term gibein mentioned in the Torah; 4 b) one whose eyebrows hang low;5 c) one who has only one eyebrow;6

‫ מי שאין לו‬:‫חמשה בגבינים ואלו הן‬ ‫שיער בגביניו והוא גבן האמור‬ ‫בתורה מי שגביניו שוכבין מי שאין לו אלא‬ ‫גבין אחד מי שיש לו גבינין יתר על שנים‬ ‫מי שאחד מגביניו משונה מחבירו בין‬ ‫ששערו של זה ארוך ושערו של זה קצר‬ ‫בין ששערו של אחד שחור ושערו השני‬ ‫לבן או אדום הואיל ויש ביניהם שינוי זה‬ :‫הרי זה פסול‬

d) one who has more than two eyebrows; e) one who has one eyebrow that is different in appearance than the other, whether the hair on one is long and on the other, short, or the hair on one is black and, on the other, white or red, since there is a difference in appearance, he is unacceptable. There are four involving the eyelids. They are: a) one who does not have any hair at all on his eyelids; b) one who has very thick hair on his eyelids; c) one who has an eyelid whose hair is different from that of the other eyelid, e.g., one is black and the other white, one is thin and the other is thick; d) one whose eyelids are closed slightly and do not open wide like those of other people.

3

‫ מי שאין‬:‫ארבעה בריס העין ואלו הן‬ ‫לו שער כלל בריסי עיניו מי ששער‬ ‫ריסי עיניו מרובה מעובה הרבה מי ששער‬ ‫אחד מריסי עיניו משונה משער ריס אחר‬ ‫כגון שאחד שחור ואחד לבן או שאחד‬ ‫נושר והשני מעובה מי שעפעפיו סגורות‬ ‫מעט ואינן נפתחות הרבה כשאר כל‬ :‫האדם‬

4

There are eleven involving the eyes. They are: a) one whose two eyes are positioned above their appropriate place, close to his forehead; b) one whose two eyes are positioned below their appropriate place; c) one whose two eyes are round and are not extended slightly as other eyes are; d) one whose eyes pop out like the eyes of a tiger and like the eyes of a person who looks at someone when he is very angry; e) one whose eyes are very large, like those of a calf; f) one whose eyes are small, like those of a duck; g) one who is continuously tearing; h) one who has fluid [continuously]7 dripping from the tip of his eyes near his nose or the ends of his eyes near his temples; i) one who contracts his eyelids and squints slightly when he sees light or when he wishes to look at something carefully; j) a person who is cross-eyed to the extent that he sees two storeys of the same building as one.8 This defect can be noticed when such a person is speaking with one person and it appears that he is speaking with another; k) one who has one eye that is different than the other, whether in place, in appearance, e.g., one is black and the other is of mixed color, or one is small and one is large. Since there is a difference between them, he is unacceptable.

‫ מי שהיו‬:‫אחד עשר בעינים ואלו הן‬ ‫שתי עיניו למעלה מן המקום הראוי‬ ‫להם קרובות מפדחתו מי שהיו שתי עיניו‬ ‫למטה ממקום הראוי להם מי שהיו שתי‬ ‫עיניו עגולות ואינם נמשכות באורך מעט‬ ‫משאר העינים מי שעיניו מוזרות והן‬ ‫יוצאות כעיני הנמר וכמי שהוא מסתכל‬ ‫בעת שכועס כעס הרבה מי שעיניו גדולות‬ ‫הרבה כשל עגל מי שעיניו קטנות כשל‬ ‫אווז מי שדמעיו זולפות תמיד מי‬ ‫שלחלוחית נמשכת מראש עינו מכנגד‬ ‫החוטם או מזנב עינו מצד צדעיו מי‬ ‫שמקבץ ריסי עיניו ועוצמן מעט בשעה‬ ‫שרואה אור או בשעה שהוא רוצה לדקדק‬ ‫בראיה מי שראיית עינו מעורבבת עד‬ ‫שרואה את החדר ואת העלייה כאחת‬ ‫ויודע דבר זה בעת שידבר עם חבירו‬ ‫ונראה כאילו הוא מסתכל באיש אחר מי‬ ‫שאחת מעיניו משונה מחברתה בין‬ ‫במקומה בין במראה כגון שהיתה אחת‬ ‫שחורה ואחת פתוכה או אחת קטנה‬ ‫ואחת גדולה הואיל ויש בין שתיהן שינוי‬ :‫מ"מ פסול‬

There are six involving the nose. They are: a) one whose bridge of the nose is sunken, even [if it is not sunken] to the extent that he can apply ointment to both of his eyes at once.9 This is the meaning of the term charum mentioned in the Torah;10 b) one whose middle of the nose projects upward; c) one whose tip of the nose points downward;

‫ מי שעיקר‬:‫ששה בחוטם ואלו הן‬ ‫חוטמו שוקע אף על פי שאינו כוחל‬ ‫שתי עיניו כאחת וזה חרום האמור בתורה‬ ‫מי שאמצע חוטמו בולט למעלה מי שעוקץ‬ ‫חוטמו נוטף למטה מי שחוטמו עקום לצד‬ ‫אחד מי שחוטמו גדול מאיבריו מי‬ ‫שחוטמו קטן מאיבריו וכיצד משערין אותו‬ ‫באצבע קטנה שעל ידו אם היה חוטמו‬ :‫גדול ממנה או קטן ממנה הרי זה מום‬

d) one whose tip of the nose is crooked; e) one whose nose is disproportionately large; f) one whose nose is disproportionately small. How is this measured? With one's pinky. If one's nose is larger or smaller than his pinky, it is considered a blemish. There are three involving the lips. They are: a) one whose upper lip extends beyond his lower lip; b) one whose lower lip extends beyond his upper lip;

‫ מי ששפתו‬:‫שלשה בשפתים ואלו הן‬ ‫העליונה עודפת על התחתונה מי‬ ‫ששפתו התחתונה עודפת על העליונה מי‬ :‫שפיו רפוי ורירו יורד מפיו‬

c) one whose mouth [hangs] loosely and [hence,] spittle is continually descending from his mouth. There are three involving the belly. They are: a) one whose belly is swollen; b) one whose navel projects outward, rather that being concave like that of other people; c) one whose breasts are extended and lie on his stomach like the breasts of a woman.

5

‫ מי שכריסו‬:‫שלשה בבטן ואלו הן‬ ‫צבה מי שטיבורו יוצא ואינו שוקע‬ ‫כשאר בני אדם מי שדדיו שוכבין על בטנו‬ :‫כדדי אשה‬

There are three involving the back. They are: a) one whose spine is crooked; b) one who has a vertebra that slipped out of the spinal column, regardless of whether it projected outward, penetrated inward, or slipped to the side. This is included in the term baal chatoteret11;

‫ מי ששדרתו‬:‫שלשה בגב ואלו הן‬ ‫עקומה מי שיצאתה חוליא משדרתו‬ ‫בין שבלטה לחוץ או נכנסה לפנים או‬ ‫נטתה לצדדין וזהו בעל חטוטרת מי‬ ‫שתפח בשר בגבו ונעשה כחטוטרת אע"פ‬ :‫שלא זזה חוליא ממקומה הרי זה מום‬

c) a person with a hunchback. Even though a vertebra has not slipped from its place, this is still considered a blemish. There are six involving the hands. They are: a) one who has an extra finger on his hands, even if he has six on each hand.12 If he cuts the extra finger off, he is acceptable. If, however, it had a bone, he is unacceptable, even if he cuts it off; b) one who is lacking one of the fingers of his hand; c) one who has two fingers webbed and connected until below the joint.13 If he cut and separated them to the joint, he is acceptable. Which joint is implied? The first joint that is next to the palm of one's hand; d) one whose fingers are bent over each other; e) one who has a projection emerging from his thumb; f) a left-handed person. If he is ambidextrous, he is acceptable.

6

‫ מי שיש בידו‬:‫ששה בידים ואלו הן‬ ‫אצבע יתירה באצבעות ידיו אפילו‬ ‫היו שש ושש ואם חתך את היתירה כשר‬ ‫ואם היה בה עצם אפילו חתכה פסול מי‬ ‫שחסר אצבע מידו מי ששתי אצבעות ידיו‬ ‫קלוטות עד למטה מן הפרק ואם חתכן‬ ‫והפרישן עד הפרק כשר באי זה פרק‬ ‫אמרו בפרק ראשון הסמוך לכף היד מי‬ ‫שאצבעותיו מורכבות זו על גבי זו מי‬ ‫שפיקה יוצאת מגודלו מי שהוא אטר יד‬ :‫ימינו ואם היה שולט בשתי ידיו כשר‬

7

There are four involving the reproductive organs. They are: a) one who has a very large and long scrotum that reaches his knees; b) one whose organ is so long it reaches his knees; c) one whose membranes surrounding his testicles were crushed; d) one whose membranes surrounding his testicles are inflated. This is the meaning of the term miruach ashech mentioned in the Torah;14

‫ מי‬:‫ארבעה באיברי הזרע ואלו הן‬ ‫שכיס הביצים גדול וארוך עד‬ ‫שמגיע לארכובותיו מי שהגיד שלו ארוך‬ ‫עד שמגיע לארכובותיו מי שנמרחו אשכיו‬ [‫והם הכיס של ביצים ]מי שרוח באשכיו‬ :‫והוא מרוח אשך האמור בתורה‬

8

There are fifteen involving the thighs and the legs. They are: a) one who is bow-legged to the extent that even when he stands with his feet together, his knees will not touch each other; b) one whose ankle-bone projects outward. The ankle bone is the round bone that is above the heel, toward the inside of the body. It resembles the weaving needle with which women weave; c) one whose heel juts outward to the extent that his shin appears to be in the center of his foot; d) some whose feet are wide like a duck's even though they are not webbed like a duck's; e) one who has a projection emerging from his large toe;15 f) one who has an extra toe on his feet, even if he has six on each foot. If he cuts the extra toe off, he is acceptable, provided it does not have a bone; g) one who is lacking one of the toes of his foot; h) one whose toes are bent over each other; j) one whose toes are webbed until below the joint. If they were connected and he cut and separated them, he is acceptable; k) one whose foot is entirely straight; i.e., the width of his forefoot and his toes is the same as the width of his heels, and they appear as one straight unit; l) one whose foot is curved so that his forefoot and toes and his heel appears as the two ends of a bow; m) one whose foot is hollow; i.e., his mid-foot is upraised above the earth and it is as if he is standing

‫ מי‬:‫ט"ו בשוקים וברגלים ואלו הן‬ ‫ששוקיו עקומות עד שמחבר רגל‬ ‫לרגל ואין ארכובותיו נוגעות זו בזו מי‬ ‫שפיקתו יוצאת והפיקה היא העצם העגול‬ ‫שלמעלה מן העקב מצד פנים והוא דומה‬ ‫לפיקה שטוות בה הנשים מי שעקבו יוצא‬ ‫לאחוריו עד שנמצא השוק כאילו הוא‬ ‫באמצע רגלו עומד מי שפרסותיו רחבות‬ ‫כשל אווז אף על פי שאינן קלוטות כשל‬ ‫אווז מי שפיקה יוצאה מגודלו מי שיש‬ ‫ברגלו אצבע יתירה אפילו שש ושש ואם‬ ‫חתכה כשר והוא שלא יהיה בה עצם מי‬ ‫שחסר אחת מאצבעות רגליו מי‬ ‫שאצבעותיו מורכבות זו על גבי זו מי שהיו‬ ‫אצבעות רגליו קלוטות עד למטה מן הפרק‬ ‫ואם היו עד הפרק או שחתכן והפרישן‬ ‫כשר מי שרגלו כולה שוה שנמצא רוחב‬ ‫פס אצבעותיו כרוחב עקיבו וכאילו היא‬ ‫חתיכה שוה מי שרגלו עקומה דומה למגל‬ ‫שנמצא פס רגלו שיש בו האצבעות עם‬ ‫עקבו כאילו הם שני ראשי הקשת מי‬ ‫שרגלו חלולה והוא שיהיה אמצעה גבוה‬ ‫מעל הארץ ונמצא כשעומד עומד על‬ ‫עקיבו ועל אצבעות רגליו המקיש‬ ‫בקרסוליו בעת שמהלך מי שמקיש‬ ‫בארכובותיו בעת שמהלך מי שהוא אטר‬ :‫ברגל ימינו‬

There are four that involve the entire body: a) one whose trunk is disproportionately larger than his limbs;

‫ מי‬:‫ארבעה בכל הגוף ואלו הן‬ ‫שגופו גדול מאיבריו מי שגופו קטן‬ ‫מאיבריו הארוך ביותר הננס והוא הקצר‬ :‫ביותר עד שיהיו מופלגין משאר העם‬

b) one whose trunk is disproportionately smaller than his limbs; c) one who is extremely tall;16 d) a dwarf, i.e., one who is extremely short, so that they are distinguished from people at large. There are eight involving the skin. They are: a) a Kushite; b) an albino whose skin is white like cheese; c) one who is red-skinned like scarlet; d) one who has pure blotches on his skin,17 i.e., [the appearance of] the skin changed because of an internal factor, like a bohak;18 e) [the appearance of] the skin changed because of an external factor, like the scarring of a burn; this is also one of the distinguishing marks that are pure [with regard to tzara'at];19 f) one who has a facial mole that has hair, even if it is not the size of an isar,20 but rather of the smallest size;21 g) one who has a facial mole the size of an isar or more;22h) one afflicted with warts, [when] a person's flesh or skin should distend or the fluids in the skin should distend to any part throughout the body, this is a blemish.

9

:‫שמונה בעור הבשר ואלו הן‬ ‫הכושי הלבן ביותר כמו גבינה‬ ‫האדום כשני בעלי נגעים טהורים שנשתנה‬ ‫העור מחמת עצמו כמו הבוהק שנשתנה‬ ‫העור מחמת דבר אחר כגון צרבת המכוה‬ ‫וזה בכלל נגעים טהורין מי שהיתה בעור‬ ‫פניו שומא שיש בה שיער אע"פ שאינה‬ ‫כאיסר אלא כל שהוא מי שהיתה בעור‬ ‫פניו שומא כאיסר או יותר בעלי הדלדולין‬ ‫והוא שידלדל העור והבשר או הלחלוחית‬ ‫שיש בעור שנדלדל באי זה מקום שיהיה‬ :‫מכל הגוף הרי זה מום‬

10

There are four other blemishes possible for a human: a) one who is deaf;

‫ועוד יש שם באדם ארבעה מומין‬ ‫ החרש השוטה‬:‫אחרים ואלו הן‬ ‫והנכפה אפילו לימים רבים מי שרוח רעה‬ :‫מבעתתו תמיד או בעתים ידועים‬

b) one who is intellectually or emotionally unstable; c) an epileptic, even if his seizures come at far intervals; d) one who suffers from severe depression,23 whether on a consistent basis or from time to time. Thus there are a total of 140 blemishes that may disqualify a priest.24 They are: eight involving the head, two involving the neck, nine involving the ears, five involving the eyebrows, seven involving the eyelids, nineteen involving the eyes, nine involving the nose, nine involving the mouth, three involving the belly, three involving the back, seven involving the hands, sixteen involving the reproductive organs, twenty involving the legs, eight involving the entire body, eight involving the skin, seven involving the body's strength and odor. They have all been outlined one by one.

‫נמצאו כל המומין הפוסלין בכהנים‬ ‫ שמונה‬:‫מאה וארבעים וזהו כללם‬ ‫בראש ושנים בצואר ותשעה באזנים‬ ‫וחמשה בגבינים ושבעה בריס העין ותשעה‬ ‫עשר בעינים ותשעה בחוטם ותשעה בפה‬ ‫ושלשה בבטן ושלשה בגב ושבעה בידים‬ ‫וששה עשר באיברי הזרע ועשרים ברגלים‬ ‫ושמונה בכל הגוף ושמונה בעור הבשר‬ ‫ושבעה בכח הגוף וריחו וכבר נפרטו כולן‬ ‫אחד אחד ואלו פסלו מפני מראית העין מי‬ ‫שנשרו ריסי עיניו אף ע"פ שנשאר השיער‬ :‫בעיקרן ומי שניטלו שיניו‬

The following disqualify [a priest] because of the impression they may create:25 a) one who has lost the hair of his eyelids even though the roots remain; b) one whose teeth have been removed.

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 7 FOOTNOTES

Next » Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 9

10. Leviticus 21:18.

1. The Ra'avad (and this is also Rashi's interpretation of Bechorot 43a) differs with the Rambam's interpretation of this

11. This term is used by the Mishnah (Bechorot 7: 1). Although

disqualifying factor. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the

the term is generally interpreted as meaning a hunchback in

Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage.

contemporary Hebrew, the implication above is also included in the Talmudic term.

2. The accompanying drawing is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 7:1). Similarly, all of the disqualifying factors mentioned here are discussed there and in the following mishnah. 3. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 7:3), the

12. And thus the two hands appear the same. 13. I.e., to the end of one's fingers. 14. Leviticus 21:20.

Rambam explains that when a person has a pair of organs, it

15. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point.

is expected that they be identical and a deviation is considered a blemish.

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's

4. Leviticus 21:20. The Rambam chooses the first interpretation of this term offered by Bechorot 7:2. Rashi follows the

16. Bechorot 45b explains that although a tall person is

second interpretation, overly long eyebrows. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the two opinions both agree that these two conditions are blemishes, the difference of opinion between them concerns

view.

considered attractive, if he is exceptionally tall, people consider it objectionable. 17. I.e., blotches that are not associated with the impurity resulting from tzara'at. 18. See Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 1:1 for a definition of this term.

only the definition of the term gibein in the Torah. 19. With regard to the impurity of tzara'at. See ibid. 6:4. 5. Reaching his eyelids [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)]. 6. Some interpret this simply. Others understand it as meaning that the person's two eyebrows are connected above his nose so that they appear as one long eyebrow. 7. The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 7:3). 8. I.e., while focusing on one storey, he will see the other. 9. I.e., for most people, the bridge of the nose interposes between one eye and the other and it is impossible to apply ointment to them both in one motion. There are certain individuals whose bridge of the nose is so sunk that they can do so. Bechorot 7:3 defines charum as having a bridge of the nose sunk to the extent that the above is possible. Nevertheless,

20. An isar is a Roman coin that the Talmud mentions in various halachic contexts (Kiddushin 2a, Bava Metzia 51b, Mikvaot 9:5, et al.). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:2) quotes Rashba as stating that in his (medieval) times the size of an isar was already not known. More recently, Middos VeShiurei Torah, p. 169, gives the diameter of an isar as 23 mm. Thus its area would be slightly more than 3.6 cm. 21. Since it has hair, it is considered objectionable, regardless of its size. 22. If it smaller, it is not that noticeable, and hence, it is not considered a blemish. 23. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 7:5), the Rambam describes this condition as severe melancholia to the extent that the person's physical functioning is impaired.

in the Talmud, another opinion is cited which states that as long as the bridge is sunken more than what is ordinary, it is

24. I.e., the total of those mentioned in this and the previous

considered a blemish even if it does not reach such an extreme state. The Rambam accepts this view, because it

25. See Chapter 6, Halachot 5-6.

chapter.

appears to be favored by the Talmud (Kessef Mishneh).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

11

policy .

12

1



Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 9 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 8

When a non-priest serves in the Temple, his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [Numbers 18:7] states: "A non-priest who draws close will die." According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that one does not become liable unless he draws close to perform service.1 Where is the warning concerning this?2 [Ibid.:4] states: "A non-priest shall not draw close to you."3 What is meant by a non-priest? Anyone who is not a male descendant of Aaron, as [Leviticus 1:8] states: "And the sons of Aaron shall arrange" and [Leviticus 3:8] states: "And the sons of Aaron shall set afire." [These service are performed by] "the sons of Aaron" and not the daughters of Aaron.4

English

Hebrew

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach

‫זר שעבד במקדש עבודתו פסולה‬ ‫וחייב מיתה בידי שמים שנאמר והזר‬ ‫הקרב יומת מפי השמועה למדו שאין חיוב‬ ‫זה אלא לקרב לעבודה והיכן הזהיר עליו‬ ‫וזר לא יקרב אליכם אי זהו זר כל שאינו‬ ‫מזרע אהרן הזכרים שנאמר וערכו בני‬ ‫אהרן והקטירו בני אהרן בני אהרן ולא‬ :‫בנות אהרן‬

2

Although non-priests are warned not to perform any of the services associated with offering sacrifices, they are liable for death [at the hand of Heaven] only for performing "complete service,"5 not on service that is followed by other service.6 [Thus] a non-priest is liable for death only for four services: a) sprinkling;7 b) setting afire [sacrifices on the altar];8 c) pouring water [on the altar] on Sukkot, and d) pouring wine on the altar at all times.

‫אף על פי שהזרים מוזהרין שלא‬ ‫יתעסקו בעבודה מעבודות הקרבנות‬ ‫אין חייבין מיתה אלא על עבודה תמה לא‬ ‫על עבודה שיש אחריה עבודה ואין הזר‬ ‫חייב מיתה אלא על ארבע עבודות בלבד‬ ‫על הזריקה ועל ההקטרה ועל ניסוך המים‬ :‫בחג ועל ניסוך היין תמיד‬

How is one liable for sprinkling? Whether he dashed [blood] inside [the Temple building]9 or outside, [in the Temple Courtyard],10 performed sprinkle one of the sprinklings of blood or performed one of the sprinklings of the sacrifices brought by a person afflicted with tzara'at,11 he is liable for death.

‫כיצד על הזריקה בין שזרק בפנים בין‬ ‫שזרק בחוץ בין שהזה הזאה אחת מכל‬ ‫הזיות הדם בין שהזה הזאה אחת מכל‬ :‫הזיות קרבנות המצורע הרי זה חייב מיתה‬

How is one liable for setting afire [sacrifices on the altar]? Whether he set afire limbs [of animal sacrifices], a handful of flour, or of frankincense12 on the altar - or even if he turned over limbs that had not been consumed by fire and hastened their being burnt,13 he is liable for death, provided he set afire an olive-sized portion of these entities. Similarly, if one sets afire incense on the golden altar, when he sets afire an olive-sized portion,14 he is liable. In contrast, one who sets fire to incense on Yom Kippur in the Holy of Holies is not liable for death for this until he sets fire to a handful, for that is the measure explicitly [required] by the Torah.15

‫כיצד על הקטרה הקטיר איברים או‬ ‫קומץ או לבונה על המזבח אפי' הפך‬ ‫באיברים שלא נתעכלו וקרב שריפתן חייב‬ ‫מיתה והוא שהקטיר כזית וכן אם הקטיר‬ ‫קטרת על מזבח הזהב משיקטר כזית חייב‬ ‫אבל המקטיר קטורת ביוה"כ בקדש‬ ‫הקדשים אינו חייב מיתה עליה עד‬ ‫שיקטיר מלא חפניו שיעור המפורש‬ :‫בתורה‬

3

[A non-priest] who arranges two logs of wood on the altar's pyre is considered comparable to one who set [sacrificial] limbs afire and he is liable for death [at the hand of heaven for doing so]. For the wood is also considered as a sacrifice.16 In contrast, [a non-priest] who pours [oil onto the flour offerings], one who mixes [the flour offerings with oil],17 one who breaks [the wafers of meal offerings] into pieces, one who salts [the sacrifices], one who waves [the sacrifices], one who brings [a meal offering] close to the altar, one who arranges the showbread or the bowls of incense on the [golden] table, one who prepares the lamps [of the Menorah],18 one who kindles light on the altar, one who takes a fistful [of flour or incense], and one who receives the blood [of a sacrifice], even though he disqualifies his service, he is warned against doing so and is liable for lashes for doing so, he is not liable for death at the hand [of Heaven]. [The rationale is that] all of these services are followed by another service and they do not represent the completion of the offering [of a given sacrifice].

‫והמסדר שני גזרי עצים על המערכה‬ ‫הרי הוא כמקטיר איברים וחייב‬ ‫מיתה שהעצים קרבן הוא אבל היוצק‬ ‫והבולל והפותת והמולח והמניף והמגיש‬ ‫ומסדר את לחם הפנים או את הבזיכין על‬ ‫השלחן והמטיב את הנרות והמצית אש‬ ‫במזבח והקומץ והמקבל דמים אע"פ‬ ‫שנפסלו והרי הוא מוזהר על כל אלו ולוקה‬ ‫אינו חייב מיתה מפני שכל אחת מהן‬ :‫עבודה שאחריה עבודה ואינה גמר עבודה‬

The slaughter of sacrificial animals is acceptable if performed by non-priests.19 [This applies even to] sacrifices of the most holy order, both individual sacrifices and communal sacrifices, as [Leviticus 1:5] states: "And he shall slaughter the bull before God and the sons of Aaron shall offer it." Implied is that from receiving [the blood], the mitzvah belongs to the priesthood. Similarly, skinning an animal, cutting it up, and bringing wood to the altar are acceptable when performed by non-priests, for with regard to the limbs, [ibid.:9] states: "And the priest shall set afire everything on the altar," this refers to bringing limbs [from sacrificial animals] to the [altar's] ramp. [We may infer that] bringing such limbs requires a priest, but not bringing wood.

‫שחיטת הקדשים כשירה בזרים אפילו‬ ‫קדשי קדשים בין קדשי יחיד בין קדשי‬ ‫צבור שנאמר ושחט את בן הבקר לפני י"י‬ ‫והקריבו בני אהרן מקבלה ואילך מצות‬ ‫כהונה וכן ההפשט והניתוח והולכת עצים‬ ‫למזבח כשירה בזרים שנאמר באיברים‬ ‫והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה זו הולכת‬ ‫איברים לכבש הולכת איברים היא‬ :‫שצריכה כהונה ולא הולכת עצים‬

Similarly, the kindling of the lamps [of the Menorah] is acceptable20 if performed by a non-priest. Therefore, if a priest cleaned the lamps and brought them outside,21 a non-priest is permitted to kindle them.

‫וכן הדלקת הנרות כשירה בזרים‬ ‫לפיכך אם הטיב הכהן את הנרות‬ :‫והוציאן לחוץ מותר לזר להדליקן‬

The removal of the ashes [from the altar] must be performed by a priest,22as [Leviticus 6:3] states: "And the priest will put on his linen fit tunic...." If an Israelite removes [the ash], he is liable for lashes.

‫הרמת הדשן צריכה כהן שנאמר‬ ‫ולבש הכהן מדו בד וגו' ואם הרים‬ ‫ישראל לוקה ואינו חייב מיתה אף על פי‬ ‫שאין אחריה עבודה שנאמר עבודת מתנה‬ ‫עבודת מתנה הוא שתהיה בכהן לבדו ואם‬ ‫קרב לה הזר חייב מיתה אבל עבודת סלוק‬ ‫אין חייבין עליה מיתה ]וכן אם דישן מזבח‬ :[‫הפנימי והמנורה אינו חייב מיתה‬

He is not liable for death [at the hand of Heaven] even though this is a service that is not followed by another service.23 [This is derived as follows. The verse that speaks of the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, Numbers 18:7,] speaks of "work of giving."24 [Implied is that] the work of giving must be performed by a priest alone. If a non-priest offered [a sacrifice], he is liable for death. The service of removal25 does not make a non-priest liable for death. Similarly, if a non-priest cleaned the inner altar or the Menorah, he is not liable for death.

4

5

[If a non-priest] arranged the wood on the altar, the arrangement should be taken apart and rearranged by a priest, because the [initial] arrangement is unacceptable.26

‫סידר המערכה פורקה וחוזר הכהן‬ :‫וסודרה מפני שסידורה פסול‬

An impure [priest], one with a disqualifying physical blemish, and one who did not wash his hands or feet27 are not liable28 except for services that a non-priest is liable for death.29 For other services, he [violates merely] a warning.

‫הטמא ובעל מום ושלא רחוץ ידים‬ ‫ורגלים ששימש במקדש אינן חייבין‬ ‫אלא על עבודות שהזר חייב עליהן מיתה‬ :‫ועל שאר העבודות באזהרה‬

A priest who immersed that day30 who is lacking atonement,31who became impure,32 who did not wash his hands and feet and yet served [in the Temple] is liable for each transgression.33 If he was a non-priest,34he is liable for lashes only for serving as a non-priest.35

‫כהן טבול יום ומחוסר כפורים‬ ‫שנטמא והרי הוא מחוסר בגדים‬ ‫ושלא רחוץ ידים ורגלים ועבד חייב על כל‬ ‫אחד ואחד ואם היה זר אינו לוקה אלא‬ :‫אחת משום זרות‬

When a non-priest performs [Temple] service on the Sabbath, he is liable for violating the Sabbath laws36 and for serving as a non-priest.37 Similarly, when a priest with a physical blemish serves while ritually impure, he is liable [both] for [serving] while impure and for serving with a blemish.38

‫זר ששימש בשבת חייב משום‬ ‫שבת ומשום זרות וכן בעל מום‬ ‫ששימש בטומאה חייב משום טומאה‬ :‫ומשום בעל מום‬

6

Any priest who served a false deity, whether willingly or inadvertently - even if he repented completely - may never serve in the Temple,39 as [Ezekiel 44:13] states: "They40 shall not draw near to Me, to serve Me." [This prohibition applies] whether [a priest] serves the false deity in its rites, e.g., he became a priest to the false deity, he bowed down to it, or acknowledged its [divinity] and accepted it as god. [In all these instances,] he is disqualified [to serve in the Temple] forever. If [such a priest] transgressed and performed service, his sacrifice is not considered as a pleasing fragrance41 even if he acted inadvertently when he served, bowed down to, or acknowledged [the false deity]. If, by contrast, one slaughtered an animal for a false deity inadvertently and then transgressed and offered a sacrifice [in the Temple], the sacrifice is considered a pleasing fragrance and is accepted, for he did not perform service for the false deity or become its priest; all he did was slaughter an animal for it42 and that was performed inadvertently. Nevertheless, as an initial preference, he should not perform service [in the Temple]. If one transgressed and built a shrine outside the Temple and offered a sacrifice to God there,43 it is not considered as a Temple to a false deity. Nevertheless, any priest who serves in such a shrine should never serve in the Temple. Similarly, utensils that were used there should never be used in the Temple. Instead, they should be entombed. It appears to me44 that if a priest who served in such [a shrine] performs service in the Temple, it does not invalidate it.45

‫כל כהן שעבד ע"ז בין במזיד בין‬ ‫בשוגג אע"פ שחזר בתשובה גמורה‬ ‫ה"ז לא ישמש במקדש לעולם שנאמר ולא‬ ‫יגשו אלי לכהן לי אחד העובד אותה‬ ‫בשירות כגון שנעשה כומר לע"ז או‬ ‫המשתחוה לה או המודה בה וקבלה עליו‬ ‫באלוה הרי זה פסול לעולם עבר והקריב‬ ‫אין קרבנו ריח ניחוח אף על פי שהיה שוגג‬ ‫בעת ששרת או שהשתחוה או שהודה‬ ‫אבל השוחט לע"ז בשוגג אם עבר והקריב‬ ‫קרבנו ריח ניחוח ונתקבל שהרי לא שרת‬ ‫ולא נעשה כומר אלא שחט בלבד והוא‬ :‫שוגג ואע"פ כן לכתחלה לא יעבוד‬

‫מי שעבר ועשה בית חוץ למקדש‬ ‫להקריב בו קרבנו לשם אינו כבית‬ ‫ע"ז ואף על פי כן כל כהן ששימש בבית‬ ‫כזה לא ישמש במקדש לעולם וכן כלים‬ ‫שנשתמשו בהן שם לא ישתמשו בהן‬ ‫במקדש לעולם אלא יגנזו ויראה לי שאם‬ :‫עבד כהן ששימש שם במקדש לא פסל‬

7

Thus there are eighteen factors that disqualify [a person] from serving [in the Temple]. They are: a) one who served a false deity;46 b) a non-priest;47 c) one with a disqualifying physical blemish;48 d) one who is uncircumcised;49e) one who is impure;50 f) one who immersed that day [and must wait until nightfall to become pure];51 g) one who is lacking atonement;52 h) one who is in a state of acute mourning;53 i) one who is intoxicated;54 j) one who is lacking the priestly garments;55 k) one who is wearing extra garments;56 l) one whose garments were torn;57 m) one whose hair has grown long;58 n) one who did not wash his hands and feet;59 o) one who sits;60 p) one who had an entity intervening between his hand and the sacred utensil [he is using];61 q) one who had an entity intervening between his foot and the earth;62 r) one who served with his left hand.63

‫נמצאו כל הפסולין לעבודה שמונה‬ ‫ העובד ע"ז הזר בעל‬:‫עשר ואלו הן‬ ‫מום הערל הטמא טבול יום מחוסר‬ ‫כפורים האונן השכור מחוסר בגדים יתר‬ ‫בגדים פרום בגדים פרוע ראש שלא רחץ‬ ‫ידים ורגלים היושב מי שיש בין ידו ובין‬ ‫הכלי דבר חוצץ מי שיש בין רגלו ובין‬ ‫הארץ דבר חוצץ מי שעבד בשמאלו כל‬ ‫אלו פסולין לעבודה ואם עבדו חללו חוץ‬ ‫מפרוע ראש וקרוע בגדים והשוחט לע"ז‬ :‫בשוגג שאם עבדו עבודתן כשירה‬

All of the above are disqualified from serving and if they serve, they invalidate their service with the exception of those with long hair, those with torn garments, and one who slaughtered for a false deity inadvertently. If these individuals serve, their service is acceptable. Blessed be God who offers assistance.

« Previous Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 8

:‫סליקו להו הלכות ביאת המקדש‬

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach

FOOTNOTES 1. I.e., and it does not forbid merely entering the Temple or ascending the Altar. 2. I.e., where is stated the prohibition for which this punishment is given? (Sifri) 3. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 74) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 390) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

4. Thus restricting the priestly service to males and excluding females. The Radbaz questions why two verses are necessary to exclude the women of the priestly family. He explains that since they are permitted to part of terumah and certain sacrificial foods, they are not entirely similar to Israelites. Hence, a second verse is necessary. 5. Service which is the final stage in a sacrifice being brought to the altar (Yoma 24a).

8

6. E.g., receiving the blood, carrying the blood or the limbs to the altar.

lamps, it is valid, but as an initial preference, he is not allowed to kindle them. The Radbaz brings support for the

7. See Halachah 3. 8. See Halachah 4.

Rambam's position from Yoma 24b which states that kindling

9. As performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and also when offering certain atonement offerings. 10. The sprinkling or dashing of blood on the external altar. 11. See

Hilchot

Mechusrei

20. Even as an initial preference (Radbaz). The Ra'avad differs and maintains that, after the fact, if a non-priest kindled the

Kapparah

4:2

where

these

sprinklings are mentioned. Rav Yosef Corcus questions why the water libations and the wine libations are considered as separate categories and the sprinkling of blood and oil are

the lamps of the Menorah is not an act of service. Since it is not an act of service, asks the Radbaz, why should a non-priest be restricted from performing it? How is it different from the slaughter of an animal? The Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 98) reinforces the Ra'avad's question, asking how is it possible for the Menorah to be lit outside its proper place? The Rambam LeAm explains that

not. He explains that the two different libations stem from entirely different commandments. The sprinkling of the oil, by

the mitzvah is not lighting the lamps, but rather putting the

contrast, is not a commandment in its own right, but an ancillary element to the offering of a sacrifice and that

21. I.e., out from the Temple building to a place in the courtyard

sacrifice also involves sprinkling blood. Hence, the two are included in the mitzvah.

lamps in their place. where a non-priest is allowed to stand. Note the discussion of the meaning of the term hatavah in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:12 and notes.

12. I.e., entities that are usually set afire on the altar.

22. See ibid. 2:10.

13. As Sh'vuot 17b states, this applies even if the entity would

23. See Halachah 2.

have ultimately been consumed by fire without his activity, but his act hastens its consumption. 14. For one to be liable, a portion of this minimum size is necessary, for an incense offering may not be smaller, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:2. Hence, if he sets afire less, he is not performing service. Even though a larger amount of incense is offered each day, that is a Rabbinic enactment and not a Scriptural requirement (Radbaz). 15. Leviticus 16:12; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 5:26. If he sets fire to a lesser amount, he is not performing service. Hence, he is not liable. 16. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:1. Arranging these two logs is the final stage in the arrangement of wood on the altar. Hence a non-priest is liable (Radbaz).

24. I.e., the verse has two connotations: a) that the priestly service is a gift to the priests, b) (and this is the focus here), that the priestly service involves giving: offering sacrificial substances on the altar. 25. I.e., the removal of the ashes. 26. Because arranging the wood is considered sacrificial service (Radbaz). The Kessef Mishneh points out that from Yoma 27-28a, one might conclude that it is permitted for a non-priest to arrange the wood of the altar. Nevertheless, according to the Rambam that passage only absolves a non-priest from the punishment of death. It does not grant him permission to arrange the wood. 27. The commentaries question why the Rambam omits a priest

17. Rabbi Akiva Eiger cites Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23

who does not wear the priestly garments. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that it is not necessary to mention such a person

which states that the preliminary stages of the offering of a

because in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 10:4, the Rambam

meal offering may be performed by a non-priest.

stated that a priest who does not wear the priestly garments

18. See Halachah 7. 19. Se also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:1; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:1.

is considered as a non-priest. 28. I.e., each one is liable according to the punishment appropriate for him. An impure priest and one who did not wash his hands and feet are liable for death and one who is physically blemished is liable for lashes (Kessef Mishneh). 29. I.e., services that are not followed by other services which involve giving. 30. And must wait until the evening before performing service. 31. E.g., a person afflicted with tzara'at who must bring an atonement offering before serving. 32. With another type of impurity.

33. Since he violated many prohibitions with one act of service, he is liable for a sacrifice for each violation.

43. The Rambam is not speaking about a mere hypothetical situation. As he relates in his Commentary to the Mishnah

The Ra'avad cites a Tosefta that does not accept the

(Menachot 13:10), Chonio, the son of Shimon the Just

Rambam's ruling on this point and instead, maintains that he

entered into a power struggle with his brother Shimi to inherit

is liable for only one sacrifice. The Radbaz and the Kessef

his father's position as High Priest. Chonio incurred the people's wrath, because he brought about a very

Mishneh, however, support the Rambam's ruling, explaining that each of the prohibitions expands the scope of the obligation. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 7:2 and Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:6 which discusses the ground rules for these concepts. 34. Even if he also possessed all the other disqualifying factors. 35. For all of the other prohibitions were given only to a priest. They do not apply to a non-priest (Kessef Mishneh). 36. For the Temple services involve performance of forbidden labors. These prohibitions are superseded by the obligation to offer the sacrifices, but since a non-priest's service is not valid, he is considered as liable for these prohibited acts. 37. Here also although a single act is performed, since two different prohibitions are involved, he is liable for both of them. We do not follow the principle: One prohibition does not fall on another prohibition, because the prohibition against performing the Sabbath labors is greater in scope, encompassing other acts besides the Temple service. 38. For the ritual impurity increases the scope of his liability, making him liable also for entering the Temple and partaking of sacrifices. Since it is of a greater scope, we do not follow the principle, one prohibition does not fall on another (Radbaz). 39. A parallel also exists with regard to the recitation of the priestly blessing. See Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 15:3. There the Rambam also excludes a priest who was compelled to serve idols and he cites a different prooftext, II Kings 23:9. 40. The priests who "who distanced themselves from Me during Israel's straying, when they strayed after false deities" (Ezekiel 44:10). 41. I.e., though it is not disqualified, it is not considered as desirable. 42. Note a parallel in Hilchot Shechitah 2:15.

deprecating situation in the Temple. He fled to Alexandria where he established a following, constructed a temple to God resembling the Temple in Jerusalem, and offered sacrifices there just like those offered in Jerusalem. Needless to say, our Sages shunned Chonio's shrine, because its sacrificial worship violated the prohibition against offering sacrifices outside the Temple. Indeed, the majority of those who worshiped there were non-Jewish Egyptians whom Chonio had attracted to God's service. 44. This represents a conclusion reached by the Rambam on the basis of deduction without a prior Rabbinic source. 45. Since they were disqualified by Rabbinic decree, after the fact, their service is acceptable (Kessef Mishneh). 46. Halachah 13. 47. Halachah 1. 48. Chapter 6, Halachot 1-2. 49. Ibid.:8. 50. Chapter 4, Halachah 1. 51. Ibid.:4. 52. Ibid.:5. 53. Chapter 2, Halachah 7. 54. Chapter 1, Halachah 1. 55. Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 10:4. 56. Ibid.:5. 57. Chapter 1, Halachah 14. 58. Ibid.:8-9. 59. Chapter 5, Halachah 1. 60. Ibid.:17. 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid.:18.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .

10

1



Issurei Mizbeiach Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 1 Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2 Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3 Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4 Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 5 Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 6 Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 7

1



Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2

2

Introduction to Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach

‫ הקדמה‬- ‫הלכות איסורי המזבח‬

They contain fourteen mitzvot: four positive commandments and ten negative commandments. They are:

‫ ארבע‬:‫יש בכללן ארבע עשרה מצוות‬ ‫ וזה‬.‫ ועשר מצוות לא תעשה‬,‫מצוות עשה‬ :‫הוא פרטן‬

1) To offer for all sacrifices only unblemished cattle; 2) Not to set apart a blemished beast for the altar; 3) Not to slaughter (such a beast for the altar); 4) Not to sprinkle its blood; 5) Not to burn its fat (on the altar); 6) Not to offer up a beast with a temporary blemish; 7) Not to offer a beast with a blemish, even when presented by gentiles; 8) Not to inflict a blemish in cattle set apart for the altar; 9) To redeem cattle, set apart for the altar, which have become unfit to be offered up; 10) To offer up a beast, only when at least eight days old; before then, it is immature and is not to be offered up; 11) Not to offer up for sacrifice the hire of a harlot or "the price of a dog"; 12) Not to burn on the altar leaven or honey; 13) To salt all sacrifices; 14) Not to omit seasoning all sacrifices with salt.

.‫)א( להקריב כל הקרבנות תמימים‬ .‫)ב( שלא להקדיש בעל מום למזבח‬ .‫)ג( שלא יִ שחט‬ .‫)ד( שלא יזרוק דמו‬ .‫)ה( שלא יקטיר חלבו‬ .‫)ו( שלא יקריב בעל מום עובר‬ ‫)ז( שלא יקריב בעל מום אפילו בקרבנות‬ .‫הגוים‬ .‫)ח( שלא יטיל מום בקדשים‬ .‫)ט( לפדות פסולי המוקדשין‬ ‫ וקודם‬,‫)י( להקריב מיום השמיני והלאה‬ ‫זמן זה הוא נקרא "מחוסר זמן" ואין‬ .‫מקריבין אותו‬ .‫)יא( שלא להקריב אתנן ומחיר‬ .‫)יב( שלא להקטיר שאור ודבש‬ .‫)יג( למלוח כל הקרבנות‬ .‫)יד( שלא להשבית מלח מעל הקרבנות‬ :‫וביאור מצוות אלו בפרקים אלו‬

These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters. It is a positive commandment for all the sacrifices to be unblemished and of choice quality,1 as [Leviticus 22:21] states: "unblemished to arouse favor."2 This is a positive commandment.3

‫מצות עשה להיות כל הקרבנות‬ ‫תמימין ומובחרין שנאמר תמים יהיה‬ :‫לרצון זו מצות עשה‬

3

[Conversely,] anyone who consecrates a blemished animal for the altar violates a negative commandment4 and is liable for lashes5 for consecrating it, as [ibid.:20] states: "Whatever has a blemish should not be sacrificed." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning against consecrating a blemished animal. Even one who consecrates such an animal for the money to pay for libations6 is liable for lashes, for this represents a disgrace to the sacrifices.7

‫וכל המקדיש בהמה שיש בה מום‬ ‫לגבי המזבח עובר בלא תעשה ולוקה‬ ‫על הקדשו שנאמר כל אשר בו מום לא‬ ‫תקריבו מפי השמועה למדו שזו אזהרה‬ ‫למקדיש בעלי מומין אפילו הקדישו לדמי‬ :‫]נסכים[ לוקה שבזיון קדשים הוא‬

[When a person consecrates an animal and] intends to say [that it is consecrated as] a peace offering, but actually says "as a burnt offering," or [intended to consecrate it] as a burnt offering, but said, "a peace offering," his statements are of no consequence unless his mouth and his heart are identical.8 Therefore if one intended to consecrate a blemished animal as a burnt offering, but consecrated it as peace offering or intended to consecrate it as a peace offering, but consecrated it as burnt offering, he is not liable for lashes even though he intended to perform a transgression.

‫המתכוין לומר שלמים ואמר עולה‬ ‫עולה ואמר שלמים לא אמר כלום עד‬ ‫שיהיו פיו ולבו שוים לפיכך המתכוין לומר‬ ‫על בעל מום עולה והקדישו שלמים או‬ ‫שלמים ואמר עולה אע"פ שנתכוון לאיסור‬ ‫אינו לוקה מי שדימה שמותר להקדיש‬ ‫בעל מום למזבח והקדיש ה"ז קדוש ואינו‬ :‫לוקה‬

If someone thought that it was permitted to consecrate a blemished animal for the altar and did so, the consecration is effective and he is not liable for lashes.9

4

One who slaughters a blemished animal for the sake of a sacrifice10 is liable for lashes,11 for [ibid.:22] states: "Do not offer these12 to God." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to one who slaughters. Similarly, one who pours the blood of blemished animals on the altar is liable for lashes,13 for, with regard to them,14 [ibid.:24] states: "Do not offer to God." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to one who pours the blood of blemished animals on the altar.

‫השוחט בעל מום לשם קרבן לוקה‬ ‫שהרי נאמר בבעלי מומין לא תקריבו‬ ‫אלה לה' ומפי השמועה למדו שזה אזהרה‬ ‫לשוחט וכן הזורק דם בעלי מומין על‬ ‫המזבח לוקה שהרי נאמר בהן לא תקריבו‬ ‫)אלה( ליי' מפי השמועה למדו שזה‬ ‫אזהרה לזורק וכן המקטיר אימורי בעלי‬ ‫מומין על המזבח לוקה שנאמר ואשה לא‬ ‫תתנו מהם על המזבח אלו החלבים נמצאת‬ ‫למד שאם הקדיש בעל מום ושחטו וזרק‬ :‫דמו והקטיר אימוריו לוקה ארבע מלקיות‬

And also one who sets afire the selected portions of blemished sacrifices on the altar is liable for lashes,15 for, with regard to them,16 [ibid.:22] states: "Do not place them as a fire offering on the altar." This refers to the fats. Thus we can deduce that one who consecrates a blemished animal, slaughter it, poured its blood [on the altar], and set afire its selected portions is worthy of four sets of lashes. One transgresses the above commandments whether the animal has a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish, he violates all of these commandments, as [Deuteronomy 17:1] states: "Do not sacrifice to God your Lord an ox or a sheep that has a blemish." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning [against offering] an animal with a temporary blemish,17 for example, an animal had a moist skin eruption or a boil.18 If he sacrificed, it, he is liable for lashes.

‫אחד בעל מום קבוע או בעל מום‬ ‫עובר אם הקריבו עובר בכל אלו‬ ‫שנאמר לא תזבח לה' אלהיך שור ושה‬ ‫אשר יהיה בו מום מפי השמועה למדו שזה‬ ‫אזהרה לבעל מום עובר כגון שהיה בבהמה‬ :‫גרב לח או חזזית אם הקריבה לוקה‬

[The above applies], not only to sacrifices of the Jewish people, but also to the sacrifices brought by gentiles.19 If [a priest] offered [such sacrifices] and the animals were blemished, he is liable for lashes,20 as [Leviticus 22:25] states: "From the hands of foreigners, you may not offer the food of your God from all of these."21

‫ולא קרבנות ישראל בלבד אלא אף‬ ‫קרבנות עכו"ם אם הקריבן והן בעלי‬ ‫מומין לוקה שנאמר ומיד בן נכר לא‬ :‫תקריבו את לחם אלהיכם מכל אלה‬

One who brings about a blemish in a sacrificial animal, e.g., he blinded its eye or cut off its hand,22 is liable for lashes.23 For with regard to a sacrifice, [Leviticus 22:21] states: "It shall not have any blemish." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning not to cause a blemish."

‫המטיל מום בקדשים כגון שסימא עינו‬ ‫או קטע ידו לוקה שהרי נאמר בקרבן‬ ‫כל מום לא יהיה בו מפי השמועה למדו‬ ‫שזה אזהרה שלא יתן בו מום ואינו לוקה‬ ‫אלא בזמן שבית המקדש קיים שהרי היה‬ ‫ראוי לקרבן ופסלו אבל בזמן הזה אף על‬ :‫פי שעבר בלא תעשה אינו לוקה‬

Lashes are given [for the violation of this prohibition] only when the Temple was standing, for then [the animal] was fit to be offered a sacrifice and [the person] disqualified it. In the present age, by contrast, even though one transgressed a negative commandment, he is not liable for lashes.24

5

If a person brought about a blemish25 in a sacrificial animal and another person came and brought about a second blemish, the second person is not liable for lashes.26

‫הטיל מום בקדשים ובא אחר והטיל‬ :‫בה מום אחר השני אינו לוקה‬

[This prohibition applies] both with regard to one who causes a blemish in sacrificial animals themselves or in animals to which their holiness was transferred27with the exception of a firstborn or a tithed animal. In those instances, one who causes a blemish in an animal to which their holiness was transferred is not liable for lashes, for they are not fit to be sacrificed, as will be explained in the appropriate place.28 Similarly, one who causes a blemish in the ninth animal which was mistakenly called the tenth,29 is not liable for lashes.

‫אחד המטיל מום בקדשים עצמן או‬ ‫בתמורתן חוץ מן הבכור ומן המעשר‬ ‫שהמטיל מום בתמורתן אינו לוקה לפי‬ ‫שאינן ראויין לקרבן כמו שיתבאר במקומו‬ ‫וכן המטיל מום בתשיעי של טעות עשירי‬ :‫אינו לוקה‬

6

Although one who consecrates a blemished animal30 [for the sacrifices of] the altar is liable for lashes,31 [the animal] becomes consecrated. It must be redeemed [after] evaluation by a priest.32 It then reverts to the status of an ordinary [animal]33 and its money should be used to purchase [an animal for the same type of] sacrifice. This law also applies when a consecrated animal contracts a disqualifying blemish.34 It is a positive commandment to redeem sacrificial animals that contracted disqualifying blemishes and cause them to revert to the status of an ordinary animals so that one may partake of them,35 as [Deuteronomy 12:15] states: "Nevertheless, whenever your heart desires, you may slaughter and partake of meat." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the verse is speaking about consecrated animals that must be redeemed.36We already explained in [Hilchot] Arachin37 that [Leviticus 27:11]: "With regard to any impure animal38 of which a sacrifice should not be brought as an offering to God, [you shall have the animal stand before the priest...]",39 is speaking about blemished animals that have been redeemed.

‫המקדיש בעלת מום למזבח אף ע"פ‬ ‫שלוקה הרי זה נתקדשה ותפדה בערך‬ ‫הכהן ותצא לחולין ויביא בדמיה קרבן וכן‬ ‫הדין בבהמת קדשים שנפל בה מום ומצות‬ ‫עשה הוא לפדות קדשים שנולד בהן מום‬ ‫ויצאו לחולין ויאכלו שנאמר רק בכל אות‬ ‫נפשך תזבח ואכלת בשר מפי השמועה‬ ‫למדו שהכתוב מדבר בפסולי המוקדשין‬ ‫שיפדו וכבר ביארנו בערכין שזה שנאמר‬ ‫ואם כל בהמה טמאה אשר לא יקריבו‬ ‫ממנו קרבן לה' שהוא מדבר בבעלי מומין‬ :‫שנפדו‬

7

What are the differences between [the laws pertaining to an animal] with a permanent blemish and one with a temporary blemish? If an animal with a permanent blemish40 gives birth while it is consecrated,41 the offspring must be redeemed; it then receives the status of an ordinary animal even if it is unblemished.42[The rationale is that] a secondary entity should not be treated with greater severity than the primary entity.43 If it became pregnant before it was redeemed and it gave birth after it was redeemed, the offspring has the status of an ordinary animal.44If [the consecrated animal that was blemished] died before it was redeemed, it should be redeemed after it died.45 [The rationale is that] holiness never encompassed its actual body only on its worth, because it had a permanent blemish.46 If, by contrast, one consecrates an animal that possesses a temporary blemish or he consecrates an unblemished animal and after he consecrated it, it contracted a permanent blemish [different laws apply]. If it died before it was redeemed, it should be buried like other unblemished consecrated animals,47 because it must be stood before the court and evaluated,48 as we explained in [Hilchot] Arachin.49 If it was slaughtered before it was redeemed, it may be redeemed as long as it is making convulsive motions.50 Afterwards, one may partake of it. If it gave birth, its offspring may be sacrificed.51 If it became pregnant before it was redeemed52and it gave birth before it was redeemed, the offspring is forbidden.53 It may not be redeemed. What should be done? Before the mother is redeemed, the offspring should be dedicated to the same [type of] sacrifice as its mother,54 because it may not be offered because of [the sanctification of] its mother, because its [holiness] comes from sanctification that was suspended.55

‫מה בין בעלת מום קבוע לבעלת‬ ‫מום עובר שבעלת מום קבוע אם‬ ‫ילדה והיא קדש יפדה הולד ויצא לחולין‬ ‫אע"פ שהוא תמים כדי שלא יהיה טפל‬ ‫חמור מן העיקר ואם נתעברה קודם‬ ‫שתפדה וילדה אחר פדיון הולד חולין ואם‬ ‫מתה קודם שתפדה נפדית אחר שתמות‬ ‫שהרי לא חלה קדושה גמורה על גופה‬ ‫אלא על דמיה מפני שהיתה בעלת מום‬ ‫קבוע אבל המקדיש בעלת מום עובר או‬ ‫תמימה ואחר שהקדישה נולד לה מום‬ ‫קבוע אם מתה קודם שתפדה תקבר‬ ‫כשאר הקדשים התמימים מפני שהיא‬ ‫צריכה העמדה והערכה כמו שביארנו‬ ‫בערכין ואם נשחטה קודם שתפדה ה"ז‬ ‫נפדית כל זמן שהיא מפרכסת ואח"כ‬ ‫תאכל ואם ילדה יקרב ולדה נתעברה‬ ‫קודם שתפדה וילדה אחר שנפדית הולד‬ ‫אסור ואינו נפדה אלא כיצד יעשה סמוך‬ ‫לפדיון אמו מתפיס זה הולד לשם אותו‬ ‫הזבח לפי שאינו יכול להקריבו ]מכח‬ :‫אמו[ מפני שבא מכח קדושה דחויה‬

8

Whenever a consecrated animal that was disqualified56 is redeemed, it may be slaughtered in a butchers' market and sold there, [after] being weighed with a scale like ordinary meat.57 [The only] exceptions are the firstborn animals and the tithes.58 [The rationale for the distinction is that] selling the animal in the market causes its price to rise. Therefore other sacrifices whose value remains consecrated - for they are sold and the proceeds of the sale are used to bring another animal as a sacrifice - it should be sold in the market like an ordinary animal.59 In contrast, with regard to a first born animal and a tithed animal - since the proceeds of their sale do not remain consecrated, instead, the animals may be eaten [as ordinary meat,] because of the blemish, as will be explained60 - they may not be slaughtered in a butchers' market or sold there.61 Even if [the value of] the firstborn animal was consecrated,62 it should not be weighed in a scale and sold in a market.63 [The rationale is that] one may consecrate only an article that he has acquired in a complete and total manner.64

‫כל פסולי המוקדשין כשיפדו מותר‬ ‫לשוחטן בשוק של טבחים ולמוכרן‬ ‫שם ולשקול בשרם בליטרא כשאר החולין‬ ‫חוץ מן הבכור ומן המעשר מפני‬ ‫שמכירתם בשוק מוסיף בדמיהן שאר‬ ‫הקדשים שדמיהן חוזרין להקדש שהרי‬ ‫מביא בדמיהם בהמה אחרת מוכרין אותן‬ ‫בשוק כחולין אבל הבכור והמעשר שאין‬ ‫דמיהם להקדש אלא נאכלין במומן כמו‬ ‫שיתבאר אין שוחטין אותם בשוק של‬ ‫טבחים ואין מוכרין אותם שם אפילו‬ ‫התפיס בכור לבדק הבית אינו נשקל‬ ‫בליטרא ולא ימכר בשוק שאינו יכול‬ :‫להתפיס אלא דבר הקנוי לו קנין גמור‬

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. See the conclusion of these halachot (Chapter 7, Halachah 11). 2. The Sifra explains that the phrase should be understood, not only as a description. 3. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 61) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 286) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

4. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 285) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. One is liable for merely consecrating such an animal even if it is never actually offered on the altar (Sefer HaChinuch). 5. The Sefer HaChinuch questions why lashes should be given, because the transgression does not involve a deed, but explains that it can be considered comparable to temurah, exchanging an animal for a sacred animal. There too the exchange/consecration of the animal is considered as significant enough to warrant lashes.

6. And thus the animal will be sold, rather than offered on the altar itself.

22. The examples the Rambam gives are permanent blemishes. Generally, temporary blemishes cannot be brought about by

7. For as above, the sacrifices should be associated only with

human acts. Moreover, even if a person does cause a temporary blemish, he does not violate this prohibition.

perfect and unblemished animals. Anything less is an insult to He to Whom they are offered. 8. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:12; Hilchot Nizirut 9:8. This is a general principle: Whenever a person wants to take a vow, consecrate an article, or set it aside as holy, his statements must reflect the will of his heart. 9. Since he did not know of the prohibition involved, his act

disqualified as an offering (Radbaz; Minchat Chinuch, mitzvah 287). 23. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 97) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 287) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

does not minimize the holiness of the sacrifices. Hence the consecration is effective. And since, he did not act

24. The Radbaz explains that this concept can be derived from

intentionally. He is not liable for lashes. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on this point, based on his

the prooftext cited in Halachah 1: "unblemished to arouse favor." Implied is that when a sacrificial animal can arouse

understanding of Temurah 17a. The commentaries elaborate

favor, i.e., when there is a Temple where it can be offered, it must be unblemished. If that is not the case, there is no

on this difference of opinion. 10. The Kessef Mishnehemphasizes that he must slaughter the animal for the sake of a sacrifice to be liable. 11. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 288) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 12. The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes. 13. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 93) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 289) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 14. The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes. 15. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 94) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 290) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 16. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 92) and Sefer

penalty for causing such a blemish. The Kessef Mishnehand other commentaries have noted that the Rambam's ruling appears to be in contradiction with Avodah Zarah 13b which implies that there is no prohibition at all in causing a blemish in the present era, because there is no Temple where the sacrifices can be offered. The Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) and others explain that the difference can be resolved on the basis of the Rambam's ruling (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15) that if the altar is constructed on the Temple Mount, sacrifices may be brought even if the entire Temple has not been rebuilt. 25. From Chapter 2, Halachah 15, it would appear that if the first merely brought about a temporary blemish, the second would be liable. 26. For the animal was already disqualified due to the actions of

HaChinuch (mitzvah 288) include this commandment among

the first person. Although the second person is not liable for lashes, he is still considered to have violated a Scriptural

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

prohibition.

17. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 95) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 494) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In his hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, the Ramban differs and maintains that this should not be considered as a separate commandment, but rather as an element of the above commandments. Even according to the Rambam, this one negative commandment includes all of the three prohibitions mentioned above. 18. See Chapter 2, Halachah 7, where these blemishes are listed. 19. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2-3 for a description of these sacrifices. 20. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 96) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 292) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 21. The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes.

9

There is a logical basis for this conclusion, because as long as the animal is not permanently blemished, it is not

27. Although it is forbidden to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal to another animal, once that act has been performed, the second animal is consecrated and the prohibitions associated with a sacrifice apply to it. 28. Hilchot Temurah 3:1. 29. As explained in Hilchot Bechorot 8:1-2, when a person is tithing his flocks and he mistakenly calls the ninth animal to emerge, the tenth. In such an instance, a certain measure of holiness is conveyed upon that animal and it cannot be eaten until it becomes blemished. It should not, however, be offered on the altar. Since it is not fit to be offered, causing a blemish in it does not make one liable for lashes. 30. This is speaking about an animal with a permanent blemish. The laws that apply if it has merely a temporary blemish are mentioned in the following halachah. 31. As stated in Halachah 1.

32. As indicated by the sources cited by the Rambam at the conclusion of this halachah, the evaluation of the animal's worth must be made by a priest and not by any other person. 33. Once such an animal has been redeemed, it may be shorn or used for labor (Hilchot Me'ilah 1:9).

49. Hilchot Arachin 5:12. 50. For as long as it is making convulsive motions, it is considered alive and the process of evaluation can take

34. I.e., they should be redeemed and a sacrifice brought with the money, as stated in Hilchot Arachin 5:11.

51. See Hilchot Temurah 4:9.

35. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 86) and Sefer

52. But after it contracted a permanent blemish.

HaChinuch (mitzvah 441) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 36. I.e., the new concept taught by the verse is not that one may slaughter ordinary animals and partake of their meat, for there is no need for a verse to teach us that. Instead, the new idea is that consecrated animals can be redeemed and then used as food. It is, however, forbidden to shear them and perform work with them even after they have been redeemed (Hilchot Me'ilah, loc. cit.). 37. Hilchot Arachin, loc. cit. 38. Bechorot 37b explains that the intent is not an animal from

place (ibid.:13).

53. To be used for ordinary purposes by Rabbinic decree. Although according to Scriptural Law, its holiness has departed, our Sages forbade its use, lest many such animals be maintained and flocks of them raised (Bechorot 15b). 54. It then receives holiness on its own accord, independent of its mother. 55. Since the mother was unfit to be sacrificed because of its blemish, its holiness is considered to be suspended. Because the holiness of the mother was suspended, the offspring is not considered to be consecrated to the complete

an impure species, but rather an animal from a kosher

extent. Hence it must be consecrated again. (It must be noted that the commentaries have questioned this

species that became disqualified because of a blemish, for there is a second verse (27:27) that speaks about evaluating

ruling, because in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4, the

non-kosher animals.

never suspended. It can, however, be explained that a suspension stemming from a permanent blemish is different,

39. To be evaluated and then it may be redeemed. 40. It had a permanent blemish before it was consecrated. 41. I.e., before it was redeemed. 42. This represents a departure from the usual practice, because generally, unblemished animals are not redeemed, but are offered as sacrifices; see Teumrah 33b. 43. I.e., it would not be appropriate for the animal that was consecrated not to be offered as a sacrifice and its offspring, which was never directly consecrated, to be used for that purpose. 44. For it was redeemed together with its mother. 45. And then its meat can be used even as food for animals, and certainly for humans. Moreover, a formal process of evaluation by a court is not required before its redemption. 46. The Rambam is explaining why leniency is granted to redeem it after it died although generally we do not redeem a consecrated animal to feed its meat to the dogs (Chapter 2, Halachah 10; based on Temurah 6:5). In this instance, however, because the animal was blemished permanently, the consecration never affected its actual body, only its worth (i.e., it was not destined to be sacrificed itself, but rather to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice). Hence, after it dies, it can still be sold after it is redeemed. 47. Rather than redeemed. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11.

10

48. And this process of evaluation must be performed while the animal is alive.

Rambam writes that the holiness of consecrated animals is

because the animal can never be fit for sacrifice again. See a parallel in Hilchot Temurah 3:4.) 56. Because of a blemish or similar reason. 57. I.e., we do not say that since the animal was originally consecrated, it is disrespectful to treat it in this manner after it was redeemed. The Radbaz adds that the purchaser need not be notified that the meat came from a sacrifice that was disqualified. 58. See Hilchot Bechorot 1:18; 6:5-7 which mentions the restrictions against selling such meat. 59. So that the best price could be received for it. 60. Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:18; Hilchot Bechorot 1:3; 6:4; Hilchot Temurah 3:1-2. 61. For this represents disdain for consecrated property. 62. By the priest who received it after it was blemished. 63. One might think that since its value will be given to the Temple treasury, one would be allowed to sell it like normal meat to increase its price, as explained above. 64. In this instance, the priest cannot sell this animal in the market as private property. Hence he does not have the right to give this privilege to the Temple treasury (Rashi, Zevachim 75b).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

11

policy .



Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 1

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3

There are a total of 50 blemishes that disqualify both a man1 and an animal.2 They have already been listed.3

‫כל המומין הפוסלין באדם ובבהמה‬ :‫חמשים וכבר נמנו‬

There are other blemishes that are unique to animals and are not appropriate to be found in humans at all.4 There are 23 of these; they are: a) the animal's eyeball's are round like humans; b) one eye is large like a calf's and the other is small like a duck's;5 if, however, one ear is large and one ear is small, even if it is small as a bean, it is acceptable; c) if there is an eruption in the white of the eye that has a hair growing from it;6 d) if the cartilage between its two nostrils was perforated in a place which can be seen;7 e) its mouth resembles that of a swine; i.e., its upper jaw overlapped its lower jaw, even though it is not pointed like a spit.

‫ויש מומין אחרים מיוחדין בבהמה‬ ‫ואינן ראויין להיות באדם וכ"ג הם‬ ‫ אם היה גלגל עינה עגול כשל‬:‫ואלו הן‬ ‫אדם עינה אחת גדולה כשל עגל והשניה‬ ‫קטנה כשל אווז אבל אם היתה אוזן גדולה‬ ‫ואוזן קטנה אפילו קטנה עד כפול כשר‬ ‫אם יש בלובן עינה יבלת שיש בה שער אם‬ ‫ניקב העור שבין שני חוטמיה במקום‬ ‫הנראה פיה דומה לשל חזיר פרוס אף על‬ :‫פי שאינו מחודד כשפוד‬

f) If its outer tonsils8 were perforated; g) their substance was reduced, even though a portion of them remained; h) they shriveled; i) its inner tonsils were removed;9 [this is considered a blemish],10 because when it opens its mouths and shriek, it will be seen that they are missing.

‫חטיה החיצונות שניקבו או שנפגמו‬ ‫אע"פ שנשאר מקצתן או שנגממו אם‬ ‫נעקרו חטיה הפנימיות שהרי בעת‬ :‫שפותחת פיה וצווחת הן נראין חסרין‬

2

j) If its horns and their inner fibrous tissue was removed and nothing of it remained;11 a female animal that has horns is acceptable;12 k) if the substance of the skin which covers the male organ of an animal was blemished; l) if the substance of the female organ of an animal was blemished;13 m) if the substance of the tail is blemished from its bone; [if its substance is blemished] from its joint, it is not [a blemish];14 n) if the tip of the tail was split into two with two separate bones; o) if there was a finger's breadth of flesh between every joint on the tail; p) if the tail was [overly] short. To what extent? For a kid, one vertebra is a blemish, but two are not. For a lamb, a length of two vertebrae is a blemish, but three is acceptable. q) if the tail of a kid was soft and hanging loosely like that of a pig; r) if one of the tail bones was broken.15 If, however, one of the ribs are broken, it is acceptable, because [the blemish] is not visible. A five-legged animal; t) a three-legged animal;16 u) the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was round like that of a donkey even if has split hooves; v) if the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was not split like that of a donkey. This is the meaning of the term kalut mentioned in the Torah;17 w) if its hoofs and the fibrous substance inside has shriveled, even though there remains some of that fibrous substance next to the flesh,

‫אם ניטלו קרניה וזכרותן עמהן ולא‬ ‫נשאר מהן כלום אבל נקבה שיש לה‬ ‫קרנים כשירה אם נפגם העור שחופה את‬ ‫גיד הבהמה אם נפגמה הערוה של נקבה‬ ‫אם נפגם הזנב מן העצם אבל לא מן הפרק‬ ‫אם היתה ראש הזנב מפוצל לשנים בשני‬ ‫עצמים אם היה בין חוליא לחוליא מלא‬ ‫אצבע בשר אם היה הזנב קצר ועד כמה‬ ‫בגדי חוליא אחת מום שתים כשר ובטלה‬ ‫אורך שתי חוליות מום היתה שלש כשר‬ ‫זנב הגדי שהיה רך ומדולדל דומה לשל‬ ‫חזיר אם נשבר עצם מן הזנב אבל אם‬ ‫נשבר עצם מצלעותיו כשר מפני שאינו‬ :‫בגלוי‬

‫בעלת חמש רגלים או אין לה אלא‬ ‫שלש רגלים אם היתה אחת מרגליו‬ ‫וידיו פרסתה עגולה כשל חמור אע"פ‬ ‫שהיא סדוקה ופרוסה אם היתה ידו או‬ ‫רגלו קלוטה כשל חמור וזהו קלוט האמור‬ ‫בתורה אם נגממו טלפיה וזכרותן עמהן אף‬ :‫על פי שנשאר מזכרותן מעט קרוב לבשר‬

3

All of the 73 blemishes18 listed disqualify an animal from being offered as a sacrifice. If an animal that is consecrated contracts one of these blemishes, it should be redeemed and it becomes like an ordinary animal with the exception of an animal that is old, sick, or foul-smelling.19 Although such animals are unfit for sacrifice, they may not be redeemed.20 Instead, they should be maintained until they contract another permanent blemish.21 Then it should be redeemed. Similarly, a consecrated animal that contracts a temporary blemish should neither be redeemed,22 nor sacrificed.23

‫כל מום משלשה ושבעים מום המנויין‬ ‫בבהמה פוסלין אותה מן הקרבן ואם‬ ‫נפל אחד מהם בתמימה שהיא קדש‬ ‫תפדה ותצא לחולין חוץ מזקן וחולה‬ ‫ומזוהם שאע"פ שאינו כשר לקרבן אינו‬ ‫נפדה אלא יהי קיים ורועה עד שיולד בו‬ ‫מום אחר קבוע משאר המומין ויפדה וכן‬ ‫בהמת קדשים שנולד בה מום עובר אינה‬ :‫קריבה ולא נפדית‬

There are four temporary blemishes [that disqualify] both a man and an animal:24 a) a moist skin eruption;25 b) a boil that does not resemble those of Egypt;26 c) water that descends in the eyes that is not a permanent condition;27 d) a degeneration of nerves in the eye that is not permanent.28

‫ארבעה מומין עוברים יש באדם‬ ‫ גרב לח חזזית‬:‫ובבהמה ואלו הן‬ ‫שאינה מצרית מים שיורדין בעין ואינן‬ :‫קבועין סנוירין שאינן קבועין‬

4

The are four other ailments that if found in an animal [prevent] it from being sacrificed. [The rationale is that such an animal] is not from the "choice," and Scripture [Deuteronomy 12:11] states [that sacrifices must come] "from the chosen of your vows."29 They are: a) an animal with an eruption in the white of its eye, but it does not have hair growing from it;30 b) the substance of the horns of an animal was reduced, but their inner fibrous tissue remained;31 c) the substance of its inner tonsils were reduced; or d) its inner tonsils shriveled.32

‫יש שם ארבעה חוליים אחרים אם‬ ‫נמצא אחד מהם בבהמה אין‬ ‫מקריבין אותה לפי שאינה מן המובחר‬ ‫ מי‬:‫והכתוב אומר מבחר נדריך ואלו הן‬ ‫שבלובן עינו יבלת שאין בו שער אם נגממו‬ ‫קרניו אף ע"פ שנשאר מזכרותן מעט סמוך‬ ‫לבשר אם נפגמו חיטיו הפנימיות ]אם‬ ‫נגממו חיטיו הפנימיות[ אם היה אחד‬ ‫מאלו בקדשים לא קריבין ולא נפדין אלא‬ ‫ירעו עד שיפול בהן מום ואם הקריבן יראה‬ :‫לי שהורצו‬

If a consecrated animal had one of these blemishes, it is neither sacrificed not redeemed.33 Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a [disqualifying] blemish.34 If it was sacrificed, it appears to me that it is acceptable.35 Similarly, when a transgression was performed with a consecrated animal36or it killed a person, but [was observed] only by one witness or by the owner,37 it is neither sacrificed not redeemed until it contracts a permanent blemish.

‫וכן בהמת קדשים שנעבדה בה‬ ‫עבירה או שהמיתה את האדם בעד‬ ‫אחד או על פי הבעלים לא קריבה ולא‬ :‫נפדית עד שיולד לה מום קבוע‬

When an animal contracts one of the conditions that render it treifah38 and cause it to be forbidden to be eaten, it is forbidden [to be sacrificed on] the altar.39 For behold it is written [Malachi 1:8]: "Present it please to your governor. Would he be pleased with you or show you favor?"40 Although it is not fit to be sacrificed, it is not redeemed.41 [The rationale is that] we do not redeem sacrificial animals to feed [their meat] to the dogs. Instead, it should pasture until it dies and then be buried.42

‫בהמה שנולד בה אחת מן הטרפיות‬ ‫האוסרות אותה באכילה אסורה לגבי‬ ‫המזבח הרי הוא אומר הקריבהו נא‬ ‫לפחתך הירצך או הישא פניך ואף על פי‬ ‫שאינה ראויה לקרבן אין פודין אותה שאין‬ ‫פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים אלא‬ :‫ירעו עד שימותו ויקברו‬

5

If it was slaughtered and discovered to be tereifah, it should be taken out to the place of burning.43 [This law also applies] if it is discovered that one of its internal organs is lacking even if this does not cause it to be deemed a tereifah, for example, it has [only] one kidney or its spleen has been removed.44 Such [an animal] is forbidden [to be offered] on the altar and must be burnt. [The rationale is] not because it is blemished, because an internal flaw is not considered as a disqualifying blemish.45 Instead, the rationale is that an animal that is lacking [an organ] should never be offered [as a sacrifice], as [Numbers 28:31] states: "They shall be perfect for you." [An animal] with an extra [organ] is considered as if it was lacking one.46 Therefore if three kidneys or two spleens are found in [an animal], it is unacceptable.

‫נשחטה ונמצאת טריפה הרי זו‬ ‫תצא לבית השריפה וכן אם נמצא‬ ‫אחד מאיבריה הפנימיין חסר אע"פ שאינה‬ ‫טריפה כגון שנמצאת בכוליא אחת או‬ ‫שניטל הטחול הרי זו אסורה למזבח‬ ‫ותשרף לא מפני שהיא בעלת מום שאין‬ ‫חסרון שבפנים מום אלא מפני שאין‬ ‫מקריבין חסר כלל שנאמר תמימים יהיו‬ ‫לכם וכל היתר כחסר לפיכך אם נמצא שם‬ :‫שלש כוליות או שני טחולים פסולה‬

What is meant by a permanent degeneration of nerves in the eye?47 An animal which [was observed] for eighty days and it did not see. We inspect it three times: on the twenty-seventh day from the time when its difficulty was sensed, on the fiftyfourth day, and on the eightieth day. If its sight [returned and then was lost again],48 we count from the time it stopped seeing.

‫אי זו היא סנוירין קבועים כל‬ ‫ששהה שמונים יום ולא ראה‬ ‫ובודקין אותו שלש פעמים ביום שבעה‬ ‫ועשרים מעת שהרגישו בו וביום ארבעה‬ ‫וחמשים וביום שמונים אם ראה מונים לו‬ :‫שמונים מעת שפסקה הראייה‬

How is it known that the water [in its eyes] are permanent?49 When it ate fresh grass from Rosh Chodesh Adar until the first half of Nisan50 and then51 ate dried grass during Elul and the first half of Tishrei52 and was not healed.53 This indicates that the water is permanent.

‫ובמה יודע שהמים קבועין כשאכלה‬ ‫עשבים לחים מראש אדר עד חצי‬ ‫ניסן ואכלה אחרי כן עשבים יבשים אלול‬ ‫וחצי תשרי ולא נתרפאה הרי אלו מים‬ :‫קבועים‬

6

How much of the fresh grass must be eaten in the season for fresh grass and the dried grass in the season for dried grass? At least54 an amount the size of a fig before its first meal in these three months.55 They must be eaten each day after drinking and it must be free [to roam] in the field while eating. It should not be alone, but with another animal for company. If all of this was done for it and it still was not healed, the water is definitely permanent. If one of these factors was lacking, there is a doubt concerning the matter56 and [the animal] should be neither offered,57 nor redeemed.58

‫וכמה תאכל מעשבים אלו הלחים‬ ‫בזמן הלח והיבשים בזמן היבש‬ ‫כגרוגרת או יותר קודם סעודה ראשונה‬ ‫של כל ימים בשלשה חדשים אלו וצריך‬ ‫שתאכל אותן בכל יום אחר שתייה ותהיה‬ ‫מותרת בשדה בעת אכילה ולא תהיה‬ ‫לבדה אלא היא ובהמה אחרת לצוות עמה‬ ‫אם נעשה לה כל אלו ולא נתרפאת הרי‬ ‫אלו קבועין ודאי ואם חסר אחד מכל אלו‬ :‫הרי זה ספק ואינה קריבה ולא נפדית‬

What is implied? It ate fresh grass as prescribed throughout Adar and during the first half of Nisan. Then it ate dried grass as prescribed during the second half of Nisan and the month of Iyar thus it ate the grasses for three months in the proper order.59 Or it ate a fig-sized amount of grass after eating or before drinking, or it was tied, alone, or located in a garden near a city. If it was not healed after all these treatments, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the blemish is considered] as permanent or temporary. Hence, if one blemished it in another manner, he is not liable for lashes.60 If it partook [of the grasses] in the prescribed manner during the prescribed times for eating and it was not healed, it is considered as permanently blemished.

‫כיצד אכלה הלח כמשפטו באדר‬ ‫כולו וחצי ניסן ואכלה אחריו היבש‬ ‫כמשפטו בחצי ניסן ואייר שנמצא שאכלה‬ ‫בשלשה חדשים על הסדר או שאכלה‬ ‫כגרוגרת אחר אכילה או קודם שתייה או‬ ‫שהיתה קשורה או שהיתה לבדה או‬ ‫שהיתה בגינה הסמוכה לעיר ולא נתרפאת‬ ‫מכל אלו ספק קבועין או עוברים לפיכך‬ ‫אם הטיל בה מום אחר אינו לוקה אכלה‬ ‫כמשפטה בזמני האכילה ולא נתרפאה‬ :‫הרי היא בעלת מום קבוע‬

7

There is an unresolved doubt whether it is considered as permanently blemished from the time it contracted the condition or from the time they despaired of its recovery. Therefore if someone redeems it before they despaired of its recovery and then derived benefit from the object used to redeem the animal61 after they despaired of its recovery,62 there is an unresolved doubt whether he derived unauthorized benefit from consecrated animals. Therefore63 he does not bring a sacrifice to atone for this transgression, as will be explained in the appropriate place.64

‫יש בדבר ספק אם למפרע היא‬ ‫בעלת מום קבוע מעת שבאו לה‬ ‫המומים או מעת שנתייאשו מרפואתה‬ ‫לפיכך הפודה אותה קודם שנתייאשו‬ ‫מרפואתה ונהנה באותו הפדיון אחר‬ ‫שנתייאשו מרפואתה הרי זה ספק מועל‬ ‫ואינו מביא קרבן מעילה כמו שיתבאר‬ :‫במקומו‬

« Previous

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3

Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 1 FOOTNOTES 1. I.e., a priest from serving in the Temple. 2. From being offered as a sacrifice.

12. Similarly, if a male was born without horns, their absence is not considered as a blemish (Ma'aseh Rokeach).

3. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7.

13. I.e., the portion of the female organ that projects outside the

4. See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains that it appears

body [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:5)].

that the Rambam's intent is not that if these conditions are found in men, they do not disqualify a priest. Instead, the

14. Rashi (Bechorot 39b) explains that the tail of an animal is

intent is that it is extremely uncommon to find such a condition in a human. Hence they are "not appropriate."

made up of several vertebrae. If it is severed in the midst of a vertebra, it is considered as a blemish. If, however, if is

Nevertheless, if a priest does have such a condition, it is considered as a blemish and he is disqualified.

severed at the joint between one vertebra and another, it is not considered as a blemish.

5. If, however, both are small or both are large, this is not

15. The commentaries refer to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11

considered a blemish. Note the contrast to the blemishes for humans mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 8:6 (Kessef

which states: "Whenever there is a groove made in any bone that is apparent, it is considered a blemish. It is included in

Mishneh).

the category charutz mentioned in the Torah." The tail is

6. If, however, it does not have a hair, it is not considered as a blemish (Bechorot 40b).

considered such a limb; the ribs are not. 16. See the parallel to Hilchot Shechitah 8:11.

7. Compare to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:6.

17. Leviticus 22:23.

8. Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:4). There he also suggests an

18. The 23 mentioned here and the 50 mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at

alternate meaning, the animal's teeth. 9. If, however, their substance was merely reduced, this is not considered as a disqualifying blemish. See Halachah 8 and notes. 10. I.e., this explanation is necessary because usually, the inner tonsils are not seen. 11. Compare to Halachah 8.

HaMikdash, ch. 7. 19. These blemishes are mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:12-13. 20. Rashi (Bechorot 41b) states: "Because these are not absolute blemishes." 21. Which would disqualify it in its own right. 22. Because as of yet, it is not permanently disqualified as a sacrifice.

8

23. Because in its present state, it is not fit for sacrifice. 24. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 2:2), the Rambam also mentions a dislocated or broken limb that can be healed. 25. See Chapter 1, Halachah 5, and Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:4. 26. Unlike the boils visited upon the Egyptians in the Ten Plagues (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:10), these boils are moist inside and can possibly heal. 27. And thus prevents the animal or the person from seeing. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3), there are times when this blemish will heal

41. For there would be no purpose in its redemption, since it is inappropriate to use it as food for animals as the Rambam continues to explain. 42. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:11. 43. I.e., the place where impure sacrifices are burnt not as offerings. See ibid.:1. If the animal was known to be tereifah and slaughtered, it should be buried rather than burnt (Radbaz). 44. See Hilchot Shechitah 8:25; 6:20 which states that these conditions do not render an animal as tereifah. 45. See Halachah 4; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11. 46. And his hence disqualified as a sacrifice. This is a general

and the water will cease descending. Then the sight of the

principle in Torah Law. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5;

person or animal will return. See Halachot 13-15 which describe the process through which it is determined whether

Hilchot Shechitah 8:4, 11, et al.

the water in an animal's eyes is permanent or not. 28. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). 29. The commentaries note that the Hebrew wording is not

47. Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter. 48. In the midst of the above period.

quoted exactly. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11. 30. If hair is growing from it, it is considered as a permanent blemish, as stated in Halachah 2. 31. Compare to Halachah 4. 32. Compare to Halachah 3. Since its inner tonsils are seen only when it shrieks, as long as something of their substance remains, it is not considered a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, the animal is not sacrificed. 33. For an animal is redeemed only when it has a disqualifying blemish. 34. At which point, it can be redeemed. 35. For its blemish did not disqualify it. 36. It was sodomized, used for relations with a woman, worshiped as a false deity, or consecrated for that purpose, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 6. 37. Were it to have been observed by two witnesses, Torah Law would require it to be executed. This punishment is not given when the murder was observed only by one witness or the owner. See Chapter 4, Halachah 2. 38. An animal that will die within twelve months and is hence, forbidden to be eaten. 39. See the Kessef Mishneh who debates whether the disqualification is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin. 40. The passage in Malachi speaks of bringing blemished animals for sacrifice. The prophet asks whether a mortal governor would appreciate being given such offerings. Certainly, they are inappropriate to be offered to God.

49. Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter. 50. In Eretz Yisrael, these months are directly after the rainy season and the grasses are still fresh. 51. I.e., the grasses were eaten in this order. 52. In these months, rain has not descended for more than half a year and the grasses have dried. 53. Eating these grasses is a natural cure for this malady. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3). 54. Needless to say, eating more increases the therapeutic value. 55. I.e., the two month and a half periods. 56. All of these aspects of the animal's treatment are discussed by our Sages (Bechorot 39a). If the treatment was not administered correctly, it is possible that the blemish is not permanent and could be healed through proper treatment. 57. For even if the blemish is merely temporary, it is, nevertheless, unfit to be sacrificed. 58. For until it is established that the blemish is permanent, the animal cannot be redeemed. 59. But not at the appropriate time of year. 60. It is forbidden to cause a consecrated animal to incur a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, if the animal is already blemished, one who causes such a blemish is not liable for lashes, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 8. Since we are unsure of this animal's status, we cannot hold the one who causes the blemish liable.

61. Thus if the redemption was valid, the article used to redeem the animal is consecrated and the person who benefited from it transgressed. If, however, the redemption was not valid, the article is not given that status and hence, there is no transgression involved. 62. I.e., even if the benefit was derived after they despaired of its recovery in which instance, it was definitely permanently

63. I.e., because the matter is unresolved. 64. See Hilchot Me'ilah 1:5; Hilchot Shegagot 9:11. As will be explained in the notes to those halachot, it is not necessary to bring a transgressed,

sacrifice conditionally, stipulating: "If I this will serve as atonement for my

transgression, and if I did not transgress, it will be considered a free-will offering" (Radbaz).

blemished, since it was redeemed before that time, the situation is still questionable as explained.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .

1



Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2

Blemishes1 do not disqualify a fowl [as a sacrifice]. This applies both with regard to a male and to a female in the instance of a fowl, for the expression [Leviticus 22:18] "a perfect male" was stated only with regard to an animal.2 When does the above apply? With regard to small blemishes. Nevertheless, if the wing of a fowl became dried out, its eye was lost,3 or its foot was cut off, it is forbidden to [be offered on] the altar, for an animal that is lacking a limb is never offered.4 Similarly, if it incurred one of the factors that cause it to be deemed tereifah and forbidden to be eaten, it is disqualified as a sacrifice.5

English

Hebrew

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4

‫אין המומין פוסלין בעוף וכן אחד‬ ‫הזכר ואחד הנקבה בעוף שלא נאמר‬ ‫תמים זכר אלא בבהמה בלבד בד"א‬ ‫במומין קטנים אבל עוף שיבש גפו או‬ ‫נסמית עינו או נקטעה רגלו אסור לגבי‬ ‫המזבח שאין מקריבין חסר כלל וכן אם‬ ‫נולד בו אחת מן הטריפות שאוסרין אותה‬ :‫באכילה הרי זה נפסל לקרבן‬

2

Small6 turtle-doves and large ordinary doves are unacceptable as [can be inferred from Leviticus 1:14]: "from the turtle doves and the children of the doves."7When it begins to sprout yellow feathers,8 it is unacceptable for both species.9

‫תורים קטנים פסולין ובני יונה גדולים‬ ‫פסולין שנאמר מן התורים או מן בני‬ ‫היונה תחלת הציהוב בזה ובזה פסול ועד‬ ‫מתי יהיו בני יונה כשרים כל זמן שעוקר‬ ‫כנף ומתמלא מקום עיקרו דם והתורים‬ :‫כשרים משיזהבו‬

Until when are young ordinary doves acceptable? As long as when one pulls out [a feather from] the wing, the place from which it was pulled out will fill with blood. Turtledoves are acceptable when [their feathers all] are of a golden hue. Although there are no blemishes greater than that of a tumtum10or an androgynus,11 they are not acceptable for the altar for another reason. Since there is an unresolved doubt whether they are males or females, they are considered of another type, and with regard to the sacrifices, it is said: "a perfect male" and "a perfect female." [Implied is that] they must be definitely male or definitely female. Therefore even a fowl12 which is a tumtum or an androgynus is unacceptable for the altar.13

‫הטומטום והאנדרוגינוס אף ע"פ שאין‬ ‫לך מום גדול מהן הרי הן פסולין‬ ‫למזבח מדרך אחרת לפי שהן ספק זכר‬ ‫ספק נקבה הרי הן כמין אחר ובקרבנות‬ ‫נאמר זכר תמים ונקבה תמימה עד שיהיה‬ ‫זכר ודאי או נקבה ודאית לפיכך אף העוף‬ ‫שהוא טומטום או אנדרוגינוס פסול‬ :‫למזבח‬

Similarly, a hybrid animal, one born through Caesarian section, and one that is lacking in age are unacceptable even if they are unblemished. [These are all excluded through the exegesis of Leviticus 22:27]: "An ox, a lamb, and a goat..." - [this implies] each of the species must be separate; an animal should not be a hybrid between a lamb and a goat. "When it gives birth..." - this excludes one born through Caesarian section.14 "It will be seven days..." - This excludes one that it is lacking in age.15 "Together with its mother" - This excludes an "orphan," i.e., an animal born after its mother was slaughtered.16

‫וכן הכלאים ויוצא דופן ומחוסר זמן‬ ‫פסולין אף על פי שאין בהם מום‬ ‫שנאמר שור או כשב או עז עד שיהיה כל‬ ‫מין ומין בפני עצמו לא שיהיה מעורב‬ ‫מכבש ועז כי יולד פרט ליוצא דופן והיה‬ ‫שבעת ימים פרט למחוסר זמן תחת אמו‬ :‫פרט ליתום שנולד אחר שנשחטה אמו‬

3

An animal which looks like a different species is unacceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar even though it is not a hybrid. What is implied? A ewe gave birth to an animal that resembled a goat or a she-goat gave birth to an animal that resembled a lamb. Even though it has some of the signs of its own species, it is unacceptable like an animal that has a permanent blemish. For there is no blemish greater than a change [in appearance].

‫הנדמה אע"פ שאינו כלאים הרי הוא‬ ‫פסול למזבח כיצד רחל שילדה כמין‬ ‫עז ועז שילדה כמין כבש אף על פי שיש בו‬ ‫מקצת סימנין הואיל והוא דומה למין אחר‬ ‫פסול כבעל מום קבוע שאין לך מום קבוע‬ :‫גדול מן השינוי‬

Similarly, an animal that had relations with a person,17 which was sodomized,18 which was set aside for pagan worship,19 or which was worshipped,20 even though it is permitted to be eaten,21 is unacceptable as a sacrifice for the altar. [This is derived as follows: When describing animals unfit for sacrifices, Leviticus 22:25] states: "For their perversion is in them." [Implied is that] any [animal] characterized by perversion is forbidden. With regard to forbidden [sexual behavior, Genesis 6:12] states: "For all flesh has perverted [its path]."22 With regard to pagan worship, [Exodus 32:7] states: "For your nation has perverted itself." Similarly, an animal or fowl which killed a person are considered equivalent to one that had relations with a person or which was sodomized and they are unacceptable for the altar.23

‫וכן הרובע והנרבע והמוקצה לע"ז‬ ‫והנעבד אע"פ שהן מותרין באכילה‬ ‫הרי הן פסולין לגבי המזבח שנאמר כי‬ ‫משחתם בהם כל שיש בו השחתה פסול‬ ‫ובעבירה הוא אומר כי השחית כל בשר‬ ‫ובע"ז כתיב כי שחת עמך וכן בהמה ועוף‬ ‫שהרגו את האדם הרי הן כרובע או נרבע‬ :‫ופסולין למזבח‬

It appears to me that even though all of these types of animals are unfit to be brought as a sacrifice, if one transgressed and offered them as a sacrifice, he is not worthy of lashes according to Scriptural Law, because the prohibition [against using these animals as sacrifices] is not explicitly stated in the Torah. An animal given as a present to a harlot or exchanged for a dog are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. One who offers a sacrifice from either of them or from both together is liable for one set of lashes, 24 as [Deuteronomy 23:19] states: "Do not bring a present to a harlot or the exchange of a dog [to the house of God]." Why is one liable for only one set of lashes for them both? Because they are both mentioned in one prohibition.

‫ויראה לי שאף על פי שאין כל הפסולין‬ ‫האלו ראויין למזבח לקרבן אם עבר‬ ‫והקריבן אינו לוקה מן התורה לפי שלא‬ ‫נתפרשה אזהרתן אבל אתנן זונה ומחיר‬ ‫כלב אסורין לגבי המזבח והמקריב אחד‬ ‫מהן או שניהן כאחד לוקה אחת שנאמר‬ ‫לא תביא אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב ומפני מה‬ ‫לוקה אחת על שניהן מפני שנאמרו בלאו‬ :‫אחד‬

It is a positive commandment25 to offer all of the sacrifices26 from the eighth day [of their lives] and onward, as [Leviticus 22:27] states: "It will be together with its mother for seven days and on the eighth day and onward, it will be desirable." Throughout these seven days, it is called lacking in age.27

‫מצות עשה להקריב כל הקרבנות‬ ‫מיום השמיני והלאה שנאמר והיה‬ ‫שבעת ימים תחת אמו ומיום השמיני‬ ‫והלאה ירצה וכל שבעת הימים נקרא‬ ‫מחוסר זמן ואע"פ שמחוסר זמן פסול אם‬ ‫עבר והקריבו אינו לוקה מפני שהוא לאו‬ :‫הבא מכלל עשה ולא נרצה הקרבן‬

Although an animal that is lacking in age is unacceptable as a sacrifice, if one transgressed and offered, he is not liable for lashes,28 because the negative commandment comes as a result of a positive commandment. The sacrifice, [however,] is not acceptable.29 Turtle-doves that have not reached the stage of development when they are fit for sacrifice30 and young doves that matured beyond the appropriate stage31 are all considered as blemished [animals].32 One who offers them is not liable for lashes,33 even though the sacrifice is invalid and is not acceptable.

4

‫תורים שלא הגיע זמנן שהן כמחוסר‬ ‫זמן בבהמה ובני יונה שעבר זמנן‬ ‫הכל כבעל מום והמקריבן אינו לוקה אף‬ :‫על פי שהקרבן פסול ולא נרצה‬

One who consecrates an animal which is a tumtum, androgynus, tereifah, a hybrid, or born through Caesarian section to the altar is like one who consecrated stones or wood,34 for the holiness does not take effect with regard to its physical substance. It is considered as ordinary property in all contexts. It should be sold35 and the proceeds of the sale used to purchase any sacrifice one desires.36 It is not considered like a blemished animal,37 for a sacrifice may be brought from the species of a blemished animal.38

‫המקדיש טומטום ואנדרוגינוס וטריפה‬ ‫וכלאים ויוצא דופן למזבח ה"ז‬ ‫כמקדיש עצים ואבנים לפי שאין קדושה‬ ‫חלה על גופן והרי הן חולין לכל דבר‬ ‫וימכרו ויביא בדמיהם כל קרבן שירצה‬ ‫ואינן כבעל מום שבעל מום יש במינו קרבן‬ ‫אבל המקדיש רובע ונרבע ומוקצה ונעבד‬ ‫ואתנן ומחיר ה"ז כמקדיש בעל מום עובר‬ ‫וירעו עד שיפול בהן מום קבוע ויפדו עליו‬ ‫וכן המקדיש מחוסר זמן ה"ז כמקדיש בעל‬ :‫מום עובר ואינו לוקה כמו שביארנו‬

When, by contrast, one consecrates an animal that had relations with a person, which was sodomized, which was set aside for pagan worship, which was worshipped, which was given to a harlot, or which was exchanged for a dog,39 it is considered as if he consecrated an animal with a temporary blemish. They should be left to pasture until they contract a permanent blemish for which they could be redeemed. Similarly, one who consecrates an animal that is lacking in age is considered as one who consecrates an animal with a temporary blemish.40 Nevertheless, he is not liable for lashes, as we explained.41 Thus there are fourteen types of animals that are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar: a blemished animal, one that is not choice,42 one that is lacking an internal organ,43 a tereifah, a hybrid, one born from Caesarian section, one that had relations with a person, one that was sodomized, one that killed a person, one that was worshipped, one set aside for pagan worship, one given to a harlot as her fee, one exchanged for a dog, one which is lacking in age.

5

‫נמצאו כל האסורין למזבח הרי הן‬ ‫ בעל מום ושאינו מן‬:‫י"ד ואלו הן‬ ‫המובחר ומחוסר אבר מבפנים וטריפה‬ ‫וכלאים ויוצא דופן ורובע ונרבע ושהמית‬ ‫האדם הנעבד המוקצה האתנן המחיר‬ :‫מחוסר זמן‬

All of the animals which are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar are forbidden regardless of the proportion in which they are intermingled. Even if one of them becomes mixed together with ten thousand,44 they are all disqualified and unacceptable for the altar.45

‫כל האסורין לגבי המזבח אוסרין‬ ‫בכל שהן אפילו נתערב אחד‬ ‫בריבוא נפסד הכל ונפסל למזבח וכולן‬ ‫ולדותיהן מותרין למזבח חוץ מולד נרבעת‬ ‫ונעבד' ומוקצת ושהמיתה את האדם‬ :‫שולדן אסורין למזבח כמותן‬

In all instances, the offspring [of these unacceptable animals] are acceptable [as sacrifices] for the altar, with the exception of the offspring of an animal that was sodomized, worshipped, set aside for worship, or which killed a person. The offspring of these animals are forbidden for the altar as they are.46

6

When does the above47 apply? When the transgression was performed with it or it killed the person while it was pregnant, in which instance, the offspring was together with it when it became disqualified and was considered as one of its limbs.48 If, however, it became pregnant after the transgression was performed with it or it killed the person, its offspring is acceptable for the altar.49 Even if an animal was sodomized while it was consecrated and then it became pregnant, [the offspring is acceptable]. Needless to say, the offspring is acceptable if [the mother] was sodomized while it was of ordinary status and then it was consecrated and became pregnant. Similarly, a chick born from an egg from a tereifah is acceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar.50

‫במה דברים אמורים כשנעבדה בה‬ ‫עבירה או שהמיתה כשהיתה‬ ‫מעוברת שהרי הולד מצוי עמה בעת‬ ‫שנפסלה והיה כאבר מאיבריה אבל אם‬ ‫נתעברה אחר שנעבדה בה עבירה או אחר‬ ‫שהמיתה הרי ולדה כשר למזבח אפילו‬ ‫נרבעה כשהיא מוקדשת ואחר כך‬ ‫נתעברה ואין צ"ל אם נרבעה והיא חולין‬ ‫ואח"כ הקדישה ונתעברה שולדה מותר‬ :‫וכן אפרוח ביצת טריפה מותר למזבח‬

When a person bows down to standing grain, its kernels are permitted to be used for meal offerings, for their [form] has changed. They resemble the offspring of animals forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.51 Similarly, an animal that was fattened with vetch from a false deity is permitted [as a sacrifice] for the altar, for the [form of the vetch] has changed.52

‫המשתחוה לקמה חטיה מותרין‬ ‫למנחות שהרי נשתנו ונדמו לולדות‬ ‫של איסור מזבח שהן מותרין וכן בהמה‬ ‫שפטמה בכרשיני ע"ז מותרת למזבח‬ :‫שהרי נשתנו‬

7

[Animals for] any of the sacrifices may be purchased from gentiles.53 We do not suspect that [the animal] had relations with a person, had been sodomized, set aside for pagan worship, or worshipped unless it is known that it was disqualified. [Support for this concept can be brought from I Samuel 15:16:] "From the Amalekites, they were brought, for the people had mercy on the prime quality sheep and cattle, to sacrifice [them] to God your Lord."54

‫לוקחין כל הקרבנות מן העכו"ם‬ ‫ואין חוששין להם לא משום רובע‬ ‫ונרבע ולא משום מוקצה ונעבד עד שיודע‬ ‫בודאי שזה נפסל הרי הוא אומר מעמלקי‬ ‫הביאום אשר חמל העם על מיטב הצאן‬ :‫והבקר למען זבוח לי"י אלהיך‬

« Previous

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4

Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. I.e., those outlined in the previous chapter. 2. I.e., with regard to an animal, there are sacrifices which require a male and others which require a female. Such distinctions are not made with regard to sacrifices brought from fowl. All sacrifices are acceptable whether one brings a male or a female. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8. 3. The commentaries explain that the fact that the fowl lost its sight is not enough to disqualify it. It must be as if the eye has been removed. 4. See Chapter 2, Halachah 11.

13. Even though it makes no difference if a fowl is male or female, it must be definitely a male or definitely a female. 14. For Caesarian section is not considered as "birth." 15. See Halachah 8. 16. I.e., the mother was pregnant. It was slaughtered and the fetus was removed alive from its womb and then consecrated as a sacrifice. The Radbaz explains that since this animal is also born through Caesarian section, it is not mentioned as a separate category in the first clause of this halachah and in Halachah 11.

5. See ibid.:10.

17. Either a male or a female. See Chapter 4, Halachah 3.

6. I.e., young, underdeveloped birds. They are considered as

18. In Chapter 4, Halachah 2, and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam explains that this is

"lacking in age" (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:8). 7. We have translated the verse literally so that the source for

referring to a situation where the forbidden sexual act was

the concept derived is clear. None of the other animals prescribed for sacrifices are described as b'nai, "the children

observed by only one witness, by the owners, or the animal was consecrated before being brought to court, or the

of." By using that term, the Torah sought to imply that the

forbidden sexual act was performed by a gentile. If, however, the forbidden sexual act was performed by a Jew and

birds must be young and underdeveloped. 8. An intermediate stage of development. 9. It is unacceptable for turtle-doves, because such a fowl is still considered in its preliminary stages of development. It is not mature yet. Yet it is unacceptable for ordinary doves, because such a fowl has developed beyond its initial stages. 10. An animal whose sexual organs were covered by a mass of flesh and thus its gender cannot be determined. 11. An animal with both a male and female sexual organ. 12. Which could be offered if it possessed a blemish.

observed by two witnesses, once the matter was ruled upon by the court, the animal must be executed and is certainly unacceptable as a sacrifice. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 3,5 for more details regarding the disqualification of such an animal. 19. Even if it had not been used for such worship as of yet. See Chapter 4, Halachah 4, which explains when such an animal is disqualified. As the Radbaz explains in his gloss to that halachah, this is speaking about both an animal which is itself going to be worshipped, and also an animal that will be used for the service of a pagan deity.

8

20. See Chapter 4, Halachah 6. 21. This refers even to an animal that was worshipped or set aside for pagan worship, as stated in Hilchot Avodat

34. Since these types of animals are not acceptable as sacrifices as explained in the previous halachot, the consecration is not effective.

22. The commentaries to that verse explain that its intent is that

35. Immediately; there is no need that one wait until the animal is blemished.

even animals were mating with partners from different species. It is, however, unlikely that this is the Rambam's

36. The Ra'avad emphasizes that the person's words are not entirely of no consequence. Instead, the animal must be sold

intent in citing that prooftext. Most probably, the intent is that only animals that shared relations with humans are

and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice. This, he explains, applies only when the person states: "This animal

forbidden.

is consecrated to the altar." If he states: "This animal is a sacrifice," his words are of no consequence and no holiness

Kochavim 8:1.

23. See Chapter 4, Halachah 3, for more particulars concerning this category. 24. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 100) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 571) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Although the prohibition involves two subjects, not one, it is still considered as only one prohibition. See the Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9, for more details on why the two prohibitions are considered as one mitzvah.

is attached to it at all. 37. I.e., if an animal with a blemish is consecrated, the animal itself becomes holy. Also, the one who consecrates it is liable for lashes (Radbaz). See also Hilchot Temurah 1:14, 3:5, when one desires to transfer the holiness of a consecrated animal to a blemished animal, the transfer is effective and the blemished animal is considered as consecrated. This does not apply with regard to these animals.

25. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 60) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 293) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 26. Rabbi Akiva Eiger postulates that this mitzvah applies only with regard to animals. Young doves, by contrast, may be

38. Were it to be unblemished. Therefore even when it is blemished, the holiness of an animal can be transferred to it. 39. Which are all unacceptable, as explained in the previous halachot.

offered even before their eighth day of life. This conclusion can be derived from the Rambam's wording in the following

40. For ultimately, it will come of age, and then be acceptable for

halachah and in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:8. See also

41. In Halachah 8. There the Rambam states that one who offers such a fowl is not liable. From that, we can infer that one

Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 3:10 which allows a chick to be slaughtered for food even on the day of its birth.

who consecrates it is also exempt.

27. See ibid. 1:11-12 for more particulars. There the Rambam states that it is preferable to offer a sacrifice after it is at least one month old. 28. The Rambam adds this explanation, because in contrast to the disqualifying factors mentioned in Halachah 7, this factor

43. As explained ibid.:11. 44. And the forbidden animal cannot be identified. Note the parallels in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:2.

important and therefore are never nullified in a mixture. The Sages then ask: Let us have the herd in which the animal is

29. As can be inferred from the prooftext cited. 30. See Halachah 2 which explains when these doves are fit to be offered. 31. That same halachah explains when these doves become unacceptable. 18:7-9

which

mentions other time factors that render an animal unfit to be sacrificed. 33. There is no specific prohibition forbidding such offerings. Instead, the manner in which the positive commandment is stated in the Torah makes it clear that a younger fowl is prohibited, as stated in the previous halachah.

42. As explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 8.

45. Zevachim 73a,b states that the rationale is that animals are

is mentioned explicitly in the Torah (Radbaz).

32. See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot

sacrifice.

mixed moved and then we will follow the principle: Whenever one is separated, we consider it to have separated from the majority (which in this instance is permitted). They reply that this is not done because of a Rabbinical decree, lest an animal be removed from the mixture while it is at rest. 46. Temurah 30b states that it is disrespectful to offer an animal that has been associated with such a transgression as a sacrifice. From the following halachah, it appears that the rationale is that it is considered to have actually taken part in the transgression. 47. The disqualification of the offspring in those four instances.

48. In keeping with the principle (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:12; Temurah, loc. cit.): "A fetus is considered like the thigh of its

52. In this instance, it is not even remotely connected to the forbidden entity. See Temurah, loc. cit.

mother."

53. Similarly, an animal brought by a gentile to sacrifice as a

49. For in that instance, the animal was brought into being by two factors, one of which is associated with a source forbidden as a sacrifice (the mother) and another (the father) which was not (ibid.). 50. For a chick is an entirely new entity that was not directly associated with the forbidden animal (ibid. 31a).

burnt

offering

is

acceptable

Hilchot

Ma'aseh

54. King Saul gave this explanation to the prophet Samuel after failing to destroy the herds of the Amalekites. Although that excuse was rejected, it was rejected only because God had

51. As mentioned in the previous halachot. I.e., just as the

explicitly stated that the Amalekites' herds must be destroyed. Had there not been such a command, presumably

offspring is the product of the forbidden animal, the flour is the product of the grain. See Avodah Zarah 46b-47a.

they - and by extension, animals belonging to any other gentile nation - would have been acceptable.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

(see

HaKorbanot 3:2).

policy .



Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3

Hebrew

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 5

An animal or a fowl that was sodomized,1 which killed a person, which was set aside for pagan worship, or which was worshipped, are all unacceptable [as sacrifices] for the altar.2

‫אחד הבהמה ואחד העוף שנרבעה‬ ‫או שהמית את האדם או הוקצה או‬ :‫נעבד הכל פסול לגבי המזבח‬

When an animal or a fowl had relations with a person, was sodomized, or killed a person, it should be executed by stoning if [the act was observed] by two witnesses.3 It is forbidden to benefit from their flesh.4 Needless to say, such animals are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.

‫הרובע והנרבע ושהמית את האדם‬ ‫אם היו שם שני עדים הרי הבהמה או‬ ‫העוף נסקלין ובשרן אסור בהנאה ואין‬ ‫צריך לומר באלו שהן אסורין לגבוה ובמה‬ ‫אמרו שהן אסורין למזבח כשהיו מותרין‬ ‫להדיוט כגון שהיה שם עד אחד בלבד‬ ‫והבעלים שותקין או על פי הבעלים אע"פ‬ ‫שאין עד כלל היה שם עד אחד והבעלים‬ :‫מכחישין אותו הרי אלו מותרין אף למזבח‬

With regard to which situations was it said that they are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar? When [the animals] were permitted to ordinary individuals, e.g., there was only one witness [who observed the transgression] and the owner remained silent5 or the owner testified [concerning the transgression] although no witnesses were present.6 If there was one witness who observed the transgression and the owner contradicts him, the animals are permitted, even [as sacrifices] for the altar.

1

English

2

When sport was made with an animal and it was trained to gore until it killed a person, it is acceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar, because it is considered as having been compelled against its will.7 An animal is not disqualified because it had relations with a person or because it was sodomized unless the male who sodomized it was nine years old.8 Whether it was sodomized by a Jew, a gentile,9 or a servant, since it was sodomized by a human, it is disqualified. If a human was the recipient of sex from an animal, [the animal] is not disqualified unless the female with whom it had relations was three years old10 or the male with whom it had relations was nine years old.11 When is an animal or a fowl disqualified because it was set aside for pagan worship?12 When the priests perform a deed with it, e.g., they shear it or work with it for the sake of pagan worship. With words alone, by contrast, it is not considered as set aside for pagan worship, for an entity cannot be consecrated to a false deity.13

‫בהמה ששחקו בה והגיחוה עד‬ ‫שהמיתה את האדם הרי זה כשירה‬ ‫למזבח מפני שהיא כאנוסה אין הבהמה‬ ‫נפסלת משום רובע או נרבע עד שיהיה‬ ‫האדם שרבעה בן תשע שנים ויום אחד בין‬ ‫ישראל בין עכו"ם ]בין[ עבד הואיל ורבעה‬ ‫אדם נפסלה ואם האדם הוא שנרבע מן‬ ‫הבהמה אינה נפסלת עד שתהיה האשה‬ ‫הנרבעת בת שלש שנים ויום אחד או יהא‬ :‫האיש הנרבע בן תשע שנים ויום אחד‬

‫מאימתי תפסל הבהמה או העוף‬ ‫משום מוקצה משיעשו בהן הכומרים‬ ‫מעשה כגון שיגזזו אותה או יעבדו בה‬ ‫לשם עבודה זרה אבל בדברים אינו נעשה‬ :‫מוקצה שאין הקדש לע"ז‬

An animal that had relations with a person or that was sodomized becomes forbidden [as a sacrifice] for the altar whether it belongs to the person with whom it shared relations or it belongs to a colleague14 and regardless of whether those relations were carried out under compulsion or voluntarily, whether they were willful or inadvertent, or whether they were performed before [the animal was] consecrated or afterwards.15

‫הרובע והנרבע בין שהיתה הבהמה‬ ‫שלו בין שהיתה של חבירו בין באונס‬ ‫בין ברצון בין בזדון בין בשגגה בין לפני‬ ‫הקדשה בין לאחר הקדישה הרי זו אסורה‬ ‫למזבח אבל המוקצה אם היא שלו והוקצה‬ ‫קודם שיקדיש נפסל הקצה של חבירו או‬ ‫שהקצה שלו אחר שהקדישו הרי זה מותר‬ :‫שאין אדם מקצה דבר שאינו שלו‬

When, by contrast, an animal is set aside for pagan worship, it becomes disqualified if it belonged to the person who set it aside and he set it aside for pagan worship before he consecrated it as a sacrifice. If, however, one set aside an animal belonging to a colleague16 or [even] his own animal after he consecrated it as a sacrifice,17it is permitted [to be offered as a sacrifice].18 [The rationale is that] a person cannot set aside an entity that does not belong to him [for pagan worship].19 [When an animal] has been worshipped as a false deity, it is forbidden [as a sacrifice] whether one served his own animal or one belonging to a colleague,20 whether he acted under compulsion or voluntarily, willfullly or inadvertently, whether he did so before the animal was consecrated or afterwards. [In the latter instance,] it should be left to pasture until it becomes permanently blemished and then it should be redeemed, as we stated.21 When an animal is worshipped, it and everything upon it22 are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. For it is forbidden to benefit from all coverings of entities worshipped as false deities.23 If, however, [an animal has merely been] set aside for pagan worship, it is forbidden, but the entities on it are permitted [as sacrifices for the altar].24

3

‫הנעבד בין שעבד שלו בין של חבירו‬ ‫בין באונס בין ברצון בין בזדון בין‬ ‫בשגגה בין לפני הקדש בין לאחר הקדש‬ ‫הרי זה אסור וירעה עד שיפול בו מום‬ ‫קבוע ויפדה בו כמו שביארנו והנעבד הוא‬ ‫וכל מה שעליו אסורין למזבח שכל צפוי‬ ‫נעבד אסורין בהנאה אבל המוקצה הוא‬ :‫אסור ומה שעליו מותר למזבח‬

When a person bows down to a mountain, although he may benefit from it,25 its stones are forbidden to [be used as part of] the altar.26 Similarly, when one bows down to a flowing stream in his land,27 its water is invalid28 for use as a libation.29 [Even though] an asherah30 has been nullified,31 one should not bring logs from it for the arrangement of wood on the altar.32 Similarly, when one bows down to an animal, just as it is disqualified [as a sacrifice] for the altar, its wool is disqualified for use in the priestly garments,33 its horns are disqualified for use as trumpets,34 its thighs are disqualified for use as flutes,35 and its intestines as strands [for the lyres].36 Everything is unacceptable.37 Anything that is connected with the name of a false deity should not be employed in the service of the Sanctuary even though it is permitted to benefit from it.38 What is meant by a present given to a harlot?39 When one tells a harlot, "This entity is given to you as your wages."40 This applies to a gentile harlot, a maidservant, a Jewish woman who is forbidden to the man41 as an ervah42or by a negative commandment.43 If, however, a woman is unmarried, the present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even if the man is a priest.44 Similarly, if a person's wife is a niddah,45 a present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even though she is an ervah.46

4

‫המשתחוה להר אף ע"פ שהוא מותר‬ ‫בהנאה הרי אבניו אסורין למזבח וכן‬ ‫המשתחוה למעיין הנובע בארצו הרי מימיו‬ ‫פסולין לנסך אשרה שבטלה אין מביאין‬ ‫ממנה גזרים למערכה וכן המשתחוה‬ ‫לבהמה כשם שנפסלה למזבח כך צמר‬ ‫שלה פסול לבגדי כהונה וקרניה פסולין‬ ‫לחצוצרות ושוקיה לחלילין ובני מעיה‬ :‫לנימין הכל פסול‬

‫כל שיש בו שם לע"ז לא יעשה‬ ‫למלאכת הקודש אף על פי שהוא‬ ‫מותר בהנאה אי זהו אתנן האומר לזונה‬ ‫הא ליך דבר זה בשכריך אחד זונה כותית‬ ‫או שפחה או ישראלית שהיא ערוה עליו‬ ‫או מחייבי לאוין אבל הפנויה אפילו היה‬ ‫כהן אתננה מותר וכן אשתו נדה אתננה‬ :‫מותר אע"פ שהיא ערוה‬

5

If a man married one of the women forbidden to him because of a negative commandment,47 whatever he gives her for the sake of intimate relations is considered as "the present [of a harlot]"48 and is forbidden [to be offered as a sacrifice]. A present given [by a male to] a male [for the purpose of intimacy] is forbidden [as a sacrifice].49 If a woman gives a present to a male for the purpose of intimacy, [it is not considered] "a present [of a harlot]" and is permitted [as a sacrifice].50

‫נשא אחת מחייבי לאוין כל שיתן לה‬ ‫מחמת בעילה הרי זה אתנן ואסור‬ ‫והזכור אתננו אסור נתנה האשה אתנן‬ :‫לבועל הרי זה מותר משום אתנן‬

When a person tells a colleague: "Here is an article for you. In return for it, have your [Canaanite] maidservant spend the night with my Jewish bondsman," it is considered "a present [of a harlot]."51 [The above applies] provided [the Jewish bondsman] does not have a wife and children. If, however, he does have a wife and children, he is permitted [to engage in intimacy] with a Canaanite maidservant, as will be explained.52 This also applies if one tells a harlot:53 "Here is an article for you. In return for it, engage in relations with so-and-so who is Jewish." [The present is considered as] "a present [of a harlot]."

‫האומר לחבירו הא לך דבר זה ותלין‬ ‫שפחתך אצל עבדי העברי הרי זה‬ ‫אתנן והוא שאין לו אשה ובנים אבל אם‬ ‫יש לו אשה ובנים הרי זה מותר בשפחה‬ ‫כנענית כמו שיתבאר והוא הדין באומר‬ ‫לזונה הא ליך דבר זה והבעלי לפלוני‬ :‫הישראלי הרי זה אתנן‬

If a person made an agreement to give a harlot one lamb and [instead,] he gave her many even if he gave her 1000 - they are considered as "presents [to a harlot]"54 and are all forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. If he gave her a present and did not engage in relations with her, but told her: "Let this be in your possession until I engage in relations with you," it becomes forbidden [as a sacrifice] when he engages in relations with her.55 If she had it sacrificed before he engaged in relations with her, it is acceptable56 and if she was obligated to bring a sacrifice, she has discharged her obligation, provided when he gave it to he told her: "When you accept my [proposition], you acquire it from the present time."57 If he did not tell her so, [it is not acceptable] because she cannot bring an article that does not belong to her58 as a sacrifice. If she took the initiative and consecrated it [for a sacrifice] before he entered relations with her and afterwards, he engaged in relations with her [before it was sacrificed], there is an unresolved doubt59 whether it is considered "the present [of a harlot"] because he engaged in relations with her before it was sacrificed - or whether it is not considered as such, since she consecrated it before relations.60 Hence, it should not be sacrificed,61 but if it is sacrificed, it is acceptable.62

6

‫פסק עם הזונה ליתן לה טלה אחד‬ ‫ונתן לה הרבה אפילו נתן אלף כולן‬ ‫אתנן ואסורין למזבח נתן לה אתננה ולא‬ ‫בא עליה אלא אמר לה יהי אצליך עד‬ ‫שאבוא עליך כשיבוא עליה יאסר קדמה‬ ‫והקריבתו קודם שיבוא עליה כשר ]ואם‬ ‫היתה חייבת קרבן יצאה י"ח[ והוא‬ ‫שיאמר לה בעת שנתן אימתי שתרצי לי‬ ‫קני אותו מעכשיו אבל אם לא אמר לה כן‬ :‫אינה יכולה להקריב דבר שאינה שלה‬

‫קדמה והקדישתו קודם שיבוא‬ ‫עליה ואחר כך בא עליה ה"ז ספק‬ ‫אם הוא אתנן הואיל ובא עליה קודם‬ ‫שתקריבנו או אינו אתנן שהרי הקדישתו‬ ‫קודם ביאה לפיכך לא יקרב ואם קרב‬ :‫נרצה‬

If he engaged in relations with her, but did not give her anything, and then afterwards - even many years afterwards - he gave it to her, it is considered "the present [of a harlot"]. When does the above apply?63 With regard to a gentile woman64 whom he told: "Engage in relations with me in exchange for this lamb," for she does not have to draw it into her domain [to acquire it]65 or with regard to a Jewish woman when the lamb was left in her courtyard and he told her: "If I do not give you money on this day, [the lamb] is yours."66 If, however, he told her : "Engage in relations with me in exchange for this lamb" without any further explanation and then engaged in relations and sent her the lamb afterwards, it is permissible [to be sacrificed; it is not considered] "the present [of a harlot]." Only the actual physical substance of [the article given] is forbidden as "the present [of a harlot]" or "the exchange [for a dog]." Therefore [these prohibitions] apply only to articles that are [in essence] fit to be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a kosher animal, turtle doves, small doves, wine, oil, and fine flour. If he gave her money67 and she bought a sacrifice with it, it is acceptable.

7

‫בא עליה ולא נתן לה ולאחר זמן נתן‬ ‫לה אפילו אחר כמה שנים הרי זה‬ ‫אתנן בד"א בכותית שאמר לה הבעלי לי‬ ‫בטלה זה שאינה צריכה משיכה או‬ ‫בישראלית שהיתה הטלה בחצירה ואמר‬ ‫לה אם לא אתן לך מעות ביום פלוני הרי‬ ‫הוא שלך אבל אם אמר לה הבעלי לי‬ ‫בטלה סתם ובא עליה ולאחר זמן שלח לה‬ :‫טלה הרי זה מותר משום אתנן‬

‫אין אסור משום אתנן ומחיר אלא‬ ‫גופן לפיכך אינו חל אלא על דבר‬ ‫הראוי ליקרב על גבי המזבח כגון בהמה‬ ‫טהורה ותורין ובני יונה ויין ושמן וסולת‬ :‫נתן לה מעות ולקחה בהן קרבן ה"ז כשר‬

8

If he gave her grain and she had it made into fine flour; [he gave her] olives and she had oil made from them; [he gave her] grapes, and she had wine made from them, they are acceptable, because their form has changed.68 If he gave her a consecrated animal as her present, it does not become forbidden to the altar.69 Even if he designated her as one of those to eat from his Paschal sacrifice70 or his festive offering71 as a present, the consecrated animals are not disqualified, for the Temple already acquired them at the time they were consecrated.72 Similarly, if he gave her an entity that did not belong to him, he did not disqualify it, for a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to be forbidden unless the owner despairs of its recovery.73

‫נתן לה חטים ועשאתן סולת זיתים‬ ‫ועשאתן שמן ענבים ועשאתן יין‬ ‫הרי אלו כשרים שכבר נשתנו נתן לה‬ ‫בהמת קדשים באתננה לא נאסרה למזבח‬ ‫ואפילו מנה אותה על פסחו ועל חגיגתו‬ ‫באתננה לא נפסלו המוקדשין שכבר זכה‬ ‫בהן גבוה משעה שהקדישן וכן אם נתן לה‬ ‫דבר שאינו שלו לא פסלו שאין אדם אוסר‬ ‫דבר שאינו שלו אא"כ נתייאשו הבעלים‬ ‫אבל אם נתן לה עופות אף על פי שהן‬ ‫מוקדשין אתנן חל עליהם ואסורים ומדברי‬ :‫קבלה הוא דבר זה‬

If, however, he gave her doves, even though they are consecrated, they can be considered as "a present to a harlot." This concept was conveyed as part of the Oral Tradition.74 What is meant by "an exchange for a dog"?75 A person tells a colleague: "Take this lamb in exchange for this dog." Similarly, if he exchanged a dog for several animals or fowl, they are all forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.

‫אי זה הוא מחיר כלב זה האומר‬ ‫לחבירו הא לך טלה זה תחת כלב‬ ‫זה וכן אם החליף כלב בכמה בהמות או‬ :‫עופות וכיוצא בהן כולן אסורות למזבח‬

When two partners divided [their goods], one took ten lambs and one took nine lambs and a dog, [the lambs] that are with the dog are permitted [as sacrifices], but [there are restrictions with regard to] the ten given in exchange for them. If the value of one of them is equivalent to the value of the dog or greater, it should be set aside and it [alone] is considered as "the exchange [for a dog]." The remainder are permitted [as sacrifices]. If the value of each of them is less than the value of the dog, they are all forbidden.76

‫שני שותפין שחלקו זה לקח עשרה‬ ‫טלאים וזה לקח תשעה וכלב אחד‬ ‫שעם הכלב מותרין אבל העשרה שכנגדו‬ ‫אם יש אחד מהם דמו כדמי הכלב או יתר‬ ‫על דמי הכלב מוציאו מן העשרה כנגד‬ ‫הכלב ויהיה מחירו ושארן מותרים ואם כל‬ ‫אחד ואחד מהן דמיו פחותין מדמי הכלב‬ :‫הרי העשרה כולן אסורים‬

If [the entity given in] exchange [for the dog] underwent a change, for example, he exchanged a dog for wheat and ground it into flour, it is permitted.77

‫נשתנה המחיר כגון שהחליף כלב‬ ‫בחיטים ונעשו סולת ה"ז מותר‬ ‫אתנן כלב ומחיר זונה מותרין אתנן זונה‬ ‫ומחיר כלב מותרין לבדק הבית שהרי הן‬ ‫משתנין אבל גופן של אתנן לא יעשה‬ ‫ריקועין לבית שנאמר לכל נדר להביא את‬ :‫הריקועים‬

The present [given] to a dog78 and an exchange given for a harlot79 are permitted. "A present to a harlot" and "the exchange for a dog" are permitted to be given to the Temple, for they undergo a change.80 The actual substance of a present [to a harlot] should not be used as beaten metal for the Temple, as [implied by Deuteronomy 23:19]: "For every vow," [which is interpreted81] as including sheet metal.

« Previous Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 5

FOOTNOTES 1. The Rambam does not mention an animal that had relations with a person, for that is not possible with regard to a fowl.

5. In matters of financial law, the testimony of one witness is of consequence only that it can require an oath to be taken.

2. The Rambam mentioned this concept in the previous chapter. In this chapter, he outlines the details of these

6. Similarly, the testimony of a person regarding his own property is of no consequence.

restrictions. The point of this halachah is that the restrictions apply to a fowl as well as to an animal.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the

3. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:16; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon

applies: the animal was consecrated before being brought to court or the forbidden sexual act was performed by a gentile.

10:1. 4. Even if slaughtered according to Jewish Law (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:22; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:9).

9

Rambam mentions two other instances where this law

7. See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 6:5 which explains that such an animal is not executed, because Exodus 21:28 requires such

13. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that if one designated an animal as a false deity, that is sufficient to

a punishment: "When an ox gores...," i.e., that it does so on its own initiative, and not when it was prompted to gore.

cause the animal to become repugnant and forbidden as a sacrifice, even if a deed is not performed. The Radbaz brings

See the gloss of the Radbaz to Chapter 3, Halachah 5, where he states that such an animal should be forbidden to

support for the Ra'avad's ruling from Isaiah 30:22 which when speaking about making the covering of idol's impure

the altar under all circumstances just like a sodomized animal is.

uses the expression: "Tell it: 'Be gone,'" implying that "telling it," i.e., speaking is sufficient to cause an article to be

8. For relations with a male are not significant until that age

considered as an idol. The difference between the Rambam's view and that of the

(Hilchot Ishut 11:3; Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 1:16; et al). 9. See Hilchot Melachim 9:5-6 which states that although a gentile is liable to be executed for engaging in sexual relations with an animal, the animal itself is not executed. Nevertheless, involvement in the transgression disqualifies it as a sacrifice. 10. See Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:8, et al, where it is explained that until a girl is three years old, sexual relations with her are not significant.

Ra'avad results from a variation in the text of Temurah 29a. According to the Rambam, the passage is speaking about an animal dedicated to the service of a false deity, while according to the Ra'avad, it refers to an animal intended to be worshiped as a false deity. (The standard printed text supports the Rambam's version, although Rashi mentions the other version as well.). The Radbaz explains that according to the Rambam an animal is forbidden as a

11. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on the latter

sacrifice only when it is forbidden to benefit from it. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1, whether an

point, noting that the ages the Rambam mentions are relevant with regard to the punishment of execution by

animal is designated to be worshipped or as a sacrifice to a false deity, it does not become forbidden until a deed is

stoning. Nevertheless, he argues that since the animal is disqualified from being offered as a sacrifice, because it

performed. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the prohibition against benefiting from the animal is different from

becomes offensive to offer it after it engaged in forbidden relations, that concept would seemingly apply regardless of

the prohibition against offering the animal as a sacrifice. More stringent rules apply in the latter context.

the age of the human with whom it engaged in those relations. Moreover, since the animal derived pleasure, the

14. The Radbaz states that in an instance where two witnesses

sexual activity should be considered significant. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that what is significant here is the halachic definition of sexual relations, not the pleasure the animal experiences. Since halachicly, the act is not considered as sex, the animal is not forbidden.

did not observe the transgression (as stated in Halachah 2), the person who engaged in relations with the animal is not at all liable to its owner financially, for he is not prohibited against benefiting from the animal. 15. In contrast to an animal which kills which is not disqualified if it was goaded into killing (see Halachah 3), an animal that

12. The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about both an

engaged in relations with a human is disqualified in all instances. Since the act causes it to be considered

animal which is itself going to be worshipped, and also an animal that will be used for the service of a pagan deity.

loathsome, the circumstances under which the act was performed are of no consequence. 16. This applies even (as stated in the previous halachah), he performed a deed indicating that the animal was set aside for pagan worship (Radbaz). 17. For once he consecrated it as a sacrifice, it is as if it no longer belongs to him. 18. Since a transgression has not been performed with it as of yet, it is not considered as loathsome (Radbaz). 19. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim (and in many other sources) a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden.

10

11

20. The Ra'avad quotes Avodah Zarah 54a which states that the

31. In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:8, the Rambam writes that

above restriction applies only when one performs a deed

once a gentile nullifies the connection of a worshipped entity

with the article he worshipped. From the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1, it is apparent

to paganism, it is permitted to benefit from it. The subsequent halachot in that chapter describe the process of

that he maintains that the principle that a person cannot cause property that does not belong to him to be forbidden to

nullification. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that although it is permitted to benefit from the article afterwards, the fact

be used applies even if he actually worships the article as a false deity and even when he performs a deed. The

that it was once worshipped - or served as an accessory to an article worshipped - prevents it from being offered as a

Rambam here is speaking about causing the article to be forbidden as a sacrifice to the altar and for that, a deed is not

sacrifice.

necessary. 21. Chapter 3, Halachah 10. Since the animal was consecrated, it cannot be used for ordinary purposes until it is redeemed and it cannot be redeemed until it is blemished.

32. Similarly, the branches of a palm tree that was worshipped should not be used as a lulav (Hilchot Lulav 8:1). 33. See the conclusion of the tractate of Kinnim which mentions how a sacrificial animal can be used for these purposes. There the Mishnah states that the wool is unacceptable for

22. Any garments or ornaments used to adorn the false deity. In

use as techelet. The Kessef Mishneh notes that although in

his Commentary to the Mishnah (Teumrah 6:1), the Rambam

Chapter 3, Halachah 14, the Rambam ruled that even though

explains the reason for this restriction is that the ornaments were worshipped together with the false deity.

wheat was worshipped, the flour made from it is not disqualified for use as a meal offering, because it underwent

23. See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:7. 24. Since they have not been worshipped, one is permitted to benefit from them and they may even be used as sacrifices [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. 25. See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1 which states that "Any

a change. In this and the other instances mentioned below, although the color and the form of the article may have undergone a change, that change does not alter its fundamental nature and it is still disqualified for the altar and its service. Such wool is also disqualified for use in tzitzit or for any

article that was not touched by human hands or made by

other purpose associated with a mitzvah. See Shulchan

man will is permitted to be used even though it was worshipped as a false deity."

Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:8).

26. Or any other part of the Temple building (Radbaz). As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:16, the altar was made with whole stones, both large and small over which is poured a liquid with lime, pitch, and molten lead. In the above instance, since the stones were taken from a mountain that was worshipped, it is inappropriate for them to be used for the altar.

34. I.e., as shofarot that are sounded together with the trumpets (Hilchot Taaniot 1:4). 35. Among the instruments sounded in the Temple service were flutes (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 3:4-6). Apparently, the thighs of sacrificial animals were hollowed out and converted into such instruments. 36. Which were also employed in the Temple service (ibid.).

27. Implied is that if the water is not his own, it may be used even as a libation even though it was worshipped (Rav Yosef

37. Because it was an integral part of an entity that was worshipped.

Corcus). The Radbaz notes that no such leniency is granted with regard to the stones mentioned in the previous clauae.

38. This general principle summarizes the concepts mentioned in the previous halachot. The Rambam now goes on to discuss

He differentiates between the two as follows: The water of a spring is constantly flowing. Thus the water that was

other reasons why animals were forbidden as sacrifices.

worshipped is not the same water that will be used for the libation. The stones of the mountain, by contrast, were worshipped themselves. Hence even though they are not a person's private property, they may not be used for the Temple. 28. In this instance as well, an ordinary person is permitted to use the water, but it is inappropriate to be used for the altar. 29. I.e., the water libation offered during the Sukkot holiday. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6-10. 30. A tree that is worshipped. See Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5, 12:3, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:3; et al.

39. Which is forbidden to be used as a sacrifice as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 7. 40. I.e., in exchange for intimacy.

12

41. The Rambam is explaining that here the emphasis is on the halachic meaning of the term zonah ("harlot") and not its

53. I.e., one might think that the law applies only with regard to a bondsman and his master, for the master has authority over

popular meaning. The point is not that the present is forbidden because it was given in exchange for intimacy, but

the bondsman and has certain responsibilities toward him, but not with regard to two free men who are not associated

that it was given in exchange for intimacy with a woman who meets the halachic definitions of that term. That definition is

in this manner (Kessef Mishneh). 54. And not an ordinary gift (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). This

given in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:1: "Based on the Oral

applies even when he does not explicitly say that he gave

Tradition, we learned that the term zonah7 used by the

them to her because of the relations they shared (Radbaz).

Torah refers to one who is not a nativeborn Jewess (thus excluding a gentile woman or maidservant) [or] a Jewish woman who engaged in relations with a man she was forbidden to marry, violating a prohibition that is universally applicable" (excluding the prohibited relations the Rambam mentions). 42. Incestuous and adulterous sexual relations for which one is liable for karet (Hilchot Ishut

1:5).

These

forbidden

relationships are mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 18. 43. The nine forbidden relationships mentioned in Hilchot Isut 1:7. 44. I.e., although he is engaging in intimacy out of lust and in exchange for payment, the woman is not termed a harlot, as Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:2 states: "Whenever a person has relations with an unmarried woman, even if she is a harlot who wantonly makes herself available to everyone... she is not deemed as a zonah... for she is not forbidden to marry [the people with whom she engaged in relations]." 45. I.e., she has experienced menstrual bleeding and has not purified herself afterwards. 46. For such relationships are also punishable by karet (see Hilchot Issurei Biah 4:1). Nevertheless, the fact that a woman is in the niddah state does not prevent the consecration of a woman from taking effect. 47. The consecration of such a woman is binding and she is considered as his wife (Hilchot Ishut 4:14). 48. Because he is forbidden to marry her and thus the present meets the criteria mentioned in the previous halachah. 49. See Temurah 29b. 50. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's intent is that although in a strict halachic sense, there is no prohibition against offering such an article as a sacrifice, it is an abomination unto God and should not be offered. 51. There are two points expressed by this halachah: a) that, as stated above, a Canaanite maidservant is considered as a harlot; b) that even though the present is not being given by the person engaging in the intimate relations, the present is still forbidden as a sacrifice. 52. Hilchot Avadim 3:3-4.

55. Because it was given to her in exchange for relations. It is not significant whether it was given before the relations or afterwards. 56. Because they had not engaged in relations yet. We do not say that since it was designated as "a present for a harlot," it is forbidden as a sacrifice (Radbaz). 57. Thus she was the legal owner at the time it was sacrificed. 58. If he did not make such a stipulation, he remains the legal owner of the animal. It is in the woman's possession as security, but she is not its owner. 59. Temurah 29b considers this question and does not reach a conclusion. 60. And from the time an entity is consecrated, it is considered as having been given to the Temple. Hence, it could be considered as if it already had been sacrificed. 61. Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. 62. As evident from Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:20, this is the ruling whenever there is a question whether an substance offered as a sacrifice is acceptable. 63. The principle under which this halachah operates is that for a "present to a harlot" to be forbidden as a sacrifice, it must be acquired by the woman at the time of relations even though it does not come into her full possession until afterwards.(Temurah 29a). 64. I.e., if the gentile woman later desires to offer this animal as a sacrifice, it is not accepted from her. Although we do accept animals brought by gentiles as burnt offerings, the animals must be acceptable.

65. According to Scriptural Law, an exchange is completed when an exchange is made. Hence, at the time the two engaged in

73. For at that point - since the owner has despaired of its return and it has departed from the possession of the thief - the

relations, the lamb became the woman's property. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that movable property is

harlot becomes its legal owner (see Hilchot Geneivah 5:3).

not transferred to the legal domain of the recipient until he acquires it through meshichah, physically drawing it into his possession (Hilchot Mechirah 3:1). Our Sages, however, did not impose this decree with regard to gentiles and transactions with them follow the original guidelines of Scriptural Law (see (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14).

Accordingly, it is disqualified as a sacrifice. 74. I.e., the Rambam understands Temurah 30b as deriving this law from the exegesis of a verse. According to logic, we would apply the principle: A person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to be become forbidden. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam regarding the

Hence a gentile harlot became the legal owner of the lamb

interpretation of the above passage. He maintains that it is speaking about ordinary doves. Nevertheless, since

directly after the relations. Hence it is considered as "the present of a harlot." The fact that it was not given to her until

blemished doves are acceptable as sacrifices (Chapter 3, Halachah 1), one might think that a present to a harlot is also

years afterwards is not significant.

acceptable. Therefore, the Torah must teach us that this is not the case. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh favor the

66. Because a person's courtyard can acquire an article on his or her behalf when it is placed within (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:8). Hence, while the women is holding the lamb in lieu of the money, it is considered to have entered her possession.

Ra'avad's understanding of the passage. 75. Which is forbidden for the altar, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 7.

67. Or other entities.

76. For a certain portion of each one is being given in exchange for the dog.

68. The finished product is considered as different from the raw material from which it is made.

77. For the article being offered is not considered as the article

69. For a consecrated article is not considered as his personal

78. I.e., a person sodomized a dog and separated a lamb as a

property. Hence, it is not his to give her (Temurah 30b).

exchanged. fee.

70. To partake of a Paschal sacrifice, one must designated to partake of it from the outset.

79. I.e., a person gave a colleague a lamb in exchange for a maidservant that was a harlot.

71. This refers to the festive offering brought on the fourteenth of Nisan to accompany the Paschal sacrifice. See Hilchot

80. I.e., the articles donated to the Temple treasury are sold and the money used for improvements. Thus the distasteful

Korban Pesach 4:11.

article itself is not becoming part of the Temple.

72. Although the owner retains the right to give others to partake of the offerings, they are not considered as his private

81. See Temurah 30a.

property. Instead, he is giving them the right to partake of consecrated property, not his own possessions.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

13

policy .

14



Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4

Even the slightest amount1 of a leavening agent and sweet entity2 is forbidden [as an offering] for the altar, as [Leviticus 2:11] states: "For no leavening agent or honey shall be kindled... [as a fire-offering]."3 One is liable only if he set them afire together with a sacrifice or for the sake of a sacrifice.4 Whether one sets afire these entities themselves or a mixture of them, he is liable for lashes for each one individually. If he set afire both of them at the same time, he is liable for only one set of lashes, because both of them are mentioned in the same prohibition.5 If even the slightest amount of these substances fell into the incense offering, it is disqualified.6 If one set [the mixture] afire in the Sanctuary,7 he is worthy of lashes. Setting an entity afire is significant only if one sets afire an olive-sized portion.

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 6

‫שאור ודבש אסורין לגבי המזבח‬ ‫ואיסורן בכל שהן שנאמר כי כל‬ ‫שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו וגו' ואינו חייב‬ ‫אלא אם הקטירן עם הקרבן או לשם קרבן‬ ‫ואחד המקטיר עצמן או המקטיר תערובות‬ ‫שלהן לוקה על כל אחד מהן בפני עצמו‬ ‫ואם הקטיר שניהן כאחד אינו לוקה אלא‬ :‫אחת לפי ששניהם נאמרו בלאו אחד‬

‫נפל מהם כל שהוא בקטורת נפסלה‬ ‫ואם הקטיר ממנה בהיכל לוקה ואין‬ :‫הקטרה פחותה מכזית‬

2

If one brought a leavening agent or a sweetener on the altar alone8 as kindling fuel, he is exempt, as [ibid:12] states: "They should not be brought to the altar as a pleasant fragrance." [Implied is that] they should not be brought as "a pleasant fragrance," i.e., as a sacrifice, but they may be brought as kindling fuel. Even if one set afire an entity that is not ordained to be set afire9 together with a leavening agent or with a sweetener, he is liable since it is part of a sacrifice.

‫העלה שאור או דבש בפני עצמן‬ ‫למזבח לשם עצים פטור שנאמר ואל‬ ‫המזבח לא יעלו לריח ניחוח לריח ניחוח‬ ‫אי אתה מעלה אבל אתה מעלה לשם‬ ‫עצים אפילו הקטיר דבר שאינו ראוי‬ ‫להקטרה בדבש או בשאור הואיל והוא מן‬ :‫הקרבן לוקה‬

What is implied? When one causes [the following entities] to be consumed [by fire on the altar]:10the meat of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering,11 the meat of sacrifices of a lesser order of sanctity,12 the remains of the meal offering,13 what is left-over from the omer14 or from a sin-offering from fowl,15 the showbread,16 the two loaves [offered on Shavuot],17 the log of oil brought by a leper18 - if one were to cause an olive-sized portion of any one of these entities to be consumed on the altar or on its ramp with a leavening agent or a sweetener,19 he is liable for lashes. Even though none of these entities are fit to be consumed by fire on the altar, since they are called sacrifices, one is liable for them, as [indicated by the initial clause of the verse cited above]: "You shall offer them as a first-fruit offering to God."20

‫כיצד המעלה מבשר חטא' ואשם או‬ ‫מבשר קדשים קלים או משיירי‬ ‫המנחות או ממותר העומר או מחטאת‬ ‫העוף או מלחם הפנים ושתי הלחם או‬ ‫מלוג שמן של מצורע המעלה כזית מאחת‬ ‫מאלו בחמץ או בדבש בין למזבח בין‬ ‫לכבש לוקה אף ע"פ שאין כל אלו ראויין‬ ‫להקטרה הואיל והן קרויין קרבן חייב‬ ‫עליהן שנאמר קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם‬ :'‫לי"י וגו‬

Similarly, it is forbidden21 to offer on the altar22 any entity from all those listed that is not fit to be consumed by fire, e.g., the meat of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, the remains of the meal offering, or the like. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that when there is an entity from which a portion is designated to be consumed by fire, it is forbidden to have the remainder [of that entity]23 consumed by fire.

‫וכן אסור להקטיר על המזבח דבר‬ ‫מכל דברים אלו שאינן ראויין‬ ‫להקטרה כגון בשר חטאות ואשמות ושירי‬ ‫מנחות וכיוצא בהן מפי השמועה למדו‬ ‫שכל דבר שמקצתו לאישים הרי שאריתו‬ :‫בבל תקטירו‬

A person who has the limbs of an impure24 animal consumed by fire on the altar is liable for lashes despite the fact that the prohibition against offering it is [merely] derived from a positive commandment.25 [This is derived as follows:] The Torah teaches us to partake of pure animals26 and to offer pure animals as sacrifices.27 One may conclude that an impure animal should not be eaten and should not be offered. Just as one is liable for lashes for partaking of an impure animal [although it is a prohibition] derived from a positive commandment as explained in the appropriate place,28 so too, he is liable for lashes for offering it.29 When, by contrast, one offers the limbs of a kosher wild beast,30 he violates a positive commandment, but he is not liable for lashes. What is the source that teaches that he violates a positive commandment? [Leviticus 1:2] states: "You shall offer your sacrifices from the domesticated animals: from cattle and flocks."31 From this, one can derive that one should not offer wild beasts as sacrifices. A prohibition derived from a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.32

3

‫המקטיר איברי בהמה טמאה על גבי‬ ‫המזבח לוקה ואע"פ שאיסור הקרבתה‬ ‫מכלל עשה שהרי נאמר מן הטהורה אכול‬ ‫ומן הטהורה הקרב הא טמאה לא תאכל‬ ‫ולא תקריב כשם שלוקה על אכילת‬ ‫הטמאה הבא מכלל עשה כמו שביארנו‬ ‫במקומו כך לוקה על הקרבתה אבל‬ ‫המקריב איברי חיה טהורה עובר בעשה‬ ‫ואינו לוקה ומנין שהוא בעשה שנאמר מן‬ ‫הבהמה מן הבקר ומן הצאן תקריבו את‬ ‫קרבנכם הא מן החיה לא תקריבו ולאו‬ :‫הבא מכלל עשה עשה‬

When one steals or obtains an object through robbery and offers it as a sacrifice, it is invalid33 and the Holy One, blessed be He, hates it, as [Isaiah 61:8] states: "[I am God Who...] hates a burnt offering [obtained] through robbery." Needless to say, it is not accepted. If the owner despairs of its return, the sacrifice is acceptable.34[This applies] even35 if it is a sin-offering and thus the priests partake of its meat.

‫הגונב או הגוזל והקריב הקרבן פסול‬ ‫והקדוש ברוך הוא שונאו שנאמר‬ ‫שונא גזל בעולה ואין צ"ל שאינו מתקבל‬ ‫ואם נתייאשו הבעלים הקרבן כשר ואפילו‬ ‫היה חטאת שהכהנים אוכלין את בשרה‬ ‫ומפני תקנת מזבח אמרו שהחטאת הגזולה‬ ‫אם נודעה לרבים אינה מכפרת אף על פי‬ ‫שנתייאשו הבעלים כדי שלא יאמרו מזבח‬ :‫אוכל גזילות וכן העולה‬

For the sake of the enhancement of the altar's [honor], it was decreed that if it became public knowledge that a sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not bring about atonement even if the owner despaired of its return, so that it will not be said that the altar consumes stolen property.36 Similar laws apply with regard to a burnt offering.

4

When a person steals an animal consecrated to be offered as a burnt- offering37 by a colleague and has it offered without any further explanation,38 the original owner receives atonement.39

‫הגונב עולת חבירו והקריבה סתם‬ :‫נתכפרו בה הבעלים הראשונים‬

Meal offerings and wine libations may not be brought from tevel,40from chadash before the omer was offered,41 or from miduma.42 Needless to say,43 they may not be brought from orlah44or from mixed species in a vineyard,45 for that would be a mitzvah that comes as a result of a sin which God despises.46 If one brings such [an entity as a sacrifice], it is not sanctified to become fit to be offered as a sacrifice, but it is sanctified to be disqualified as are other consecrated entities that are disqualified.47

‫אין מביאין מנחות ונסכים לא מן‬ ‫הטבל ולא מן החדש קודם לעומר‬ ‫ולא מן המדומע ואין צ"ל מערלה וכלאי‬ ‫הכרם מפני שהיא מצוה הבאה בעבירה‬ ‫שהקב"ה שונאה ואם הביא לא נתקדשו‬ ‫להיותן ראויין לקרבן אבל נתקדשו להפסל‬ :‫ויהיו כקדשים שנפסלו‬

5

As an initial preference, none of the meal offerings should be brought from chadash before the two breads [are brought on Shavuot], for [Leviticus 23:17]48 refers to them as "the first fruits unto God."49 If, however, [such a meal offering] was brought, it is acceptable.50 Wine libations may be brought from wine that was set aside51 on a festival.52

‫כל המנחות אין מביאין אותן מן החדש‬ ‫קודם שתי הלחם לכתחלה שהרי נאמר‬ ‫בהן בכורים לי"י ואם הביא כשר ומביאים‬ :‫נסכים מן המוקצה ביו"ט‬

It is a positive commandment to salt all the sacrifices before they are brought up to the 53 altar, as [Leviticus 2:13] states: "On all of your sacrifices you shall offer salt."54 There are no entities that are offered on the altar without salt except the wine libations, the blood, and the wood. This matter was conveyed by the Oral Tradition, but there is no explicit verse to rely on.55

‫מצות עשה למלוח כל הקרבנות‬ ‫קודם שיעלו למזבח שנאמר על כל‬ ‫קרבנך תקריב מלח ואין לך דבר שקרב‬ ‫למזבח בלא מלח חוץ מיין הנסכים והדם‬ ‫והעצים ודבר זה קבלה ואין לו מקרא‬ ‫לסמוך עליו ומצוה למלוח הבשר יפה יפה‬ ‫כמולח בשר לצלי שמהפך את האבר‬ ‫ומולח ואם מלח כל שהוא אפילו בגרגיר‬ :‫מלח אחד כשר‬

It is a mitzvah to salt the meat very thoroughly like salts meat before roasting it, in which instance turns over the limbs and salts it.56 If, however, applies even the slightest amount of salt, even grain, it is acceptable.

one one one one

If one offered a sacrifice without any salt at all, he is liable for lashes,57as [the above verse] states: "You shall not withhold salt, the covenant of your God." Even though he receives lashes, the sacrifice is valid and is accepted [Above] with the exception of the meal offering. For salt is an absolute necessity when taking a fistful of the meal offering,58 as [the above verse] states: "You shall not withhold salt, the covenant of your God from your meal offering."

‫הקריב בלא מלח כלל לוקה‬ ‫שנאמר ולא תשבית מלח ברית‬ ‫אלהיך ואע"פ שלוקה הקרבן כשר והורצה‬ ‫חוץ מן המנחה שהמלח מעכב בקמיצה‬ ‫שנאמר ולא תשבית מלח ברית אלהיך‬ :‫מעל מנחתך‬

6

The salt which is used to salt all of the sacrifices should be communal property like the wood. A private individual should not bring salt or wood for his sacrifice from his home.59 There are three places where salt is stored for the sacrificial service:60 in the Chamber of Salt,61 on the ramp [ascending to the altar], and on the top of the altar itself. In the Chamber of Salt, the hides of the sacrificial animals would be salted. On the ramp, the limbs would be salted and on the top of the altar, the fistful of meal [taken from the meal offering], the frankincense [from the Showbread], the meal offerings which are burnt, and a fowl brought as a burnt offering are salted.

‫המלח שמולחין בו כל הקרבנות‬ ‫משל ציבור כמו העצים ואין היחיד‬ ‫מביא מלח או עצים לקרבנו מביתו‬ ‫ובשלשה מקומות היו נותנין המלח‬ ‫בלשכת המלח ועל גבי הכבש ובראשו של‬ ‫מזבח בלשכת המלח היו מולחין עורות‬ ‫הקדשים ועל גבי הכבש מולחין האיברים‬ ‫ובראשו של מזבח מולחין הקומץ והלבונה‬ :‫ומנחות הנשרפות ועולת העוף‬

« Previous

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 6

Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4 FOOTNOTES 1. For the prooftexts says "No...." Although setting an entity afire is significant only if one sets afire an olive-sized portion (as stated in Halachah 3), if one mixes a small amount of a leavening agent or a sweetener together with other substances the size of an olive, one is liable for setting the mixture on fire. 2. Divash, the term used by the prooftext and the Rambam, means "honey." Here it is interpreted in a broader sense applying to date honey, bee-honey, and sweet sap from other fruits. 3. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 98) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 117) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 4. If, however, he sets them afire for the sake of fuel, he is not liable as stated in Halachah 3. 5. Although one is liable for lashes for each individually, since both transgression are mentioned in the same verse, one is liable for only one set of lashes. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that he is liable for two sets of lashes. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the standard printed text of Menachot

6. The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 4:5) states that honey would greatly enhance the aroma of the incense offering. Nevertheless, it is forbidden by Divine decree. 7. On the Inner Altar where the incense offering is brought. If he would offer the incense on the Outer Altar, he would not be liable for lashes, because that is not the place of its where it is burnt (Kessef Mishneh). 8. I.e., not together with a sacrifice. 9. As explained in the following halachah. 10. All of the entities the Rambam mentions are sacrifices or portions of sacrifices that were intended to be eaten and not offered on the altar. 11. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:1; 9:1, which outlines the portions of the sacrifices that were eaten. 12. Ibid. 10:1. 13. Ibid. 12:9. 14. Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12. 15. Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:7.

58b appears to follow the Ra'avad's understanding, but a

16. Ibid. 12:3.

more comprehensive understanding of the issue would favor the Rambam's view.

17. Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:11. 18. Hilchot Mechusrei Kapprah 4:2-3.

19. From the exegesis of Leviticus 2:12, the Sifra and Menachot

30. All sacrifices are brought from behemot,

57b derive that the altar's ramp is equivalent to the altar in

animals, or fowl, not from chayot, wild beasts.

this context. 20. The verse speaks about the two loaves offered on Shavuot and from them, inference is drawn to other sacrificial entities. 21. Although the Rambam considers this prohibition as Scriptural in origin, he does not consider it as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot, Moreover, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that although this prohibition is derived from the exegesis of the verse cited above, since it is not explicitly stated in a verse, lashes are not given for its violation. 22. Here the prohibition applies only to the altar and not to the ramp. 23. Which was designated to be eaten and not consumed. 24. I.e., non-kosher. Conversely, in this context, "pure" means kosher. 25. And generally, lashes are given only when a negative commandment is violated and not when a positive commandment is violated. 26. As stated in Deuteronomy 14:6; see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 2:1. 27. In the verse stated at the conclusion of this halachah. 28. Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 2:1-2. There the Rambam

31. The term tzon, translated here as "flocks," can be used in reference to both sheep and goats. This is the intent here. 32. This is a general principle, applicable in many different contexts. See Chapter 3, Halachah 8, Hilchot Ishut 1:8, et al. 33. The Radbaz quotes Bava Kama 66b which explains that this refers to an instance where a person steals an animal set aside as a sacrifice and offers it as that sacrifice. It reaches that conclusion for it is obvious that if the animal was not consecrated beforehand, its offering is not acceptable, for a person cannot consecrate an object that does not belong to him. 34. When it comes to questions of monetary law, the owner's despair of the object's return is not enough to cause it to be acquired by the thief (Hilchot Geneivah 5:2-3; Hilchot Gezeilah VAveidah 2:1). Nevertheless, it is possible to say that according to Scriptural Law, the owner's despair is enough to effect the transfer of the property, further requirements are Rabbinic in origin and the Sages did not apply their decrees with regard to a sacrifice (Kessef Mishneh). Alternatively, with regard to questions of monetary law, a change of possession together with the owner's despair is sufficient to effect the transfer of the property

explains that "with regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4] states: 'These you may not eat

(Hilchot Geneivah, loc. cit.). Similarly, in this instance,

from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs.' From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative

possession (Lechem Mishneh, gloss to Hilchot Ma'aseh

commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut." And he concludes "Certainly, this applies to other

35. The Rambam's words imply that certainly the concept would

non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut." Thus although other non-kosher animals are not specifically mentioned in the prohibition, since they are included in the converse of the positive commandment, we conclude that the negative commandment applies to them as well.

consecration of the animal is comparable to a change of HaKorbanot 18:14).

apply if a burnt-offering was involved, but even when a sin-offering is involved, the principle is applied, implying that a sin-offering is a more severe issue than a burnt offering. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the word "even" should be omitted, implying that the two types of sacrifices are of equal standing.

29. The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, maintaining that just as

(A similar concept applies with regard to the conclusion of the halachah: The Ma'aseh Rokeach suggests amending the

one does not receive lashes for offering an animal with a blemish, so too, he does not receive lashes for offering an

text to read: "How much more so does this apply with regard to a burnt-offering?!" I.e., according to the Rambam, the sin

impure animal. His objection appears to be based on the principle that punishment is not given for transgressions that

offering is considered more severe, while the Ma'aseh

are derived by logical inference. Accordingly, since the obligation for lashes is explicit, even though it could be

weight.) The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam uses "even"

derived by logical inference, we should not make such a conclusion. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the

in reference to the first clause, even though the priests partake of such a sacrifice, it is unacceptable.

Rambam's perspective: these cannot be considered as prohibitions derived from logical inferences, because they are forbidden due to the positive commandment. Logic only expands the scope of the person's liability.

7

domesticated

Rokeach maintains that the burnt offering deserves more

36. The Radbaz asks: How can our Sages rule that the sacrifice is unacceptable and require that the person bring another offering? Since according to Scriptural Law, he has fulfilled his obligation, bringing the second sacrifice is in fact transgressing, for he is slaughtering an ordinary animal in the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Shechitah 2:1). The Radbaz answers that from this we see the power of the Sages: that if there is a significant reason - as in this instance - their decrees can nullify the validity of the first sacrifice. Hence, when the person brings the second sacrifice, he is bringing a sacrifice required of him, not an ordinary animal. 37. But not a sin-offering, for a sin-offering must be brought explicitly for the sake of the person receiving atonement (Radbaz). 38. I.e., he did not specify the reason for which it should be offered. 39. I.e., it is as if he had the animal sacrificed himself.

48. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:6), the Rambam uses the previous verse in that Biblical passage as a prooftext. 49. Implied is that these breads should be the first offerings brought from the new flour. Although it is permitted to be used by an ordinary person beforehand, it should not be used for sacrifices before then. 50. Since it is permitted to be used by a private person, after the fact, it is acceptable (op. cit.). 51. I.e., was placed with one's merchandise and was not intended to be used for one's individual purposes. Such wine is forbidden to be used on festivals, but not on the Sabbath. See Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov 1:17. 52. Although the Rabbis forbade the use of such wine for private use, it is fundamentally permitted. Hence using it for a libation is not considering as bringing a forbidden substance as an offering. The Radbaz states that the Sages never extended their prohibition to encompass sacrifices.

40. Produce from which the agricultural obligations of terumah

53. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 62) and Sefer

and the tithes were not separated. See Hilchot Ma'achalot

HaChinuch (mitzvah 119) include this commandment among

Assurot 10:19-21.

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

41. This refers to produce from the five species of grain which is forbidden before the offering of the omer on the sixteenth of Nisan or the passage of that day. See ibid.:2-5. 42. A mixture of terumah and ordinary produce which may be

54. This commandment is mentioned many times in this text; among the references: Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1; 6:4, 21-22; 7:1-2; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:10; 6:3; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:16.

eaten only a priest. See ibid. 15:13; Hilchot Terumot 13:1-2.

55. Although Menachot 21a explains that this concept can be

This is unacceptable, because the offerings must come from produce which is permitted to every Jew, not only a priest

derived from a verse, apparently, the Rambam does not

(Pesachim 48a). 43. The substances mentioned in the first clause, though forbidden at present, will ultimately be permitted, while those in this clause will never be permitted. Moreover, it is forbidden not only to partake of them, but also to benefit from them. 44. Produce that grows during the first three years of a tree's growth or replanting. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:9-10. 45. When a species of grain or vegetable is sown together with a vineyard, both plants become forbidden (ibid.:6-8). 46. This is a principle applicable in many other contexts as well. For example, Hilchot Lulav 8:1 speaks of being unable to fulfill that mitzvah with a stolen lulav. 47. I.e., once it is consecrated, it may never be used for ordinary purposes again, but must be destroyed like consecrated property that was disqualified.

accept the exegesis mentioned there. 56. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:12. 57. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 99) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 118) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The question is raised: Why is he liable for lashes? Lashes are not given for a transgression that does not involve a deed (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2). In this instance, seemingly, the omission of salt does not involve a deed. In reply, it is explained that the offering of the sacrifice without salt is a deed and thus warrants lashes. 58. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:16 where this concept is discussed. Salt is not placed on the entire meal offering, only on that fistful which is offered on the altar. 59. Although a private individual may donate wood for the altar (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 6:9), he may not demand that this wood be used for his own sacrifice. 60. See the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus. 61. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17 where the chamber is mentioned.

8

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .



Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 5

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 7

Just as it is a mitzvah for all the sacrifices to be unblemished and of the highest quality,1 so too, the accompanying offerings2 must be unblemished and of the highest quality, as [Numbers 28:31 states]: "They3 shall be perfect for you, as should be their accompanying offerings." Implied is that the accompanying offerings should also be unblemished. He should not bring wine libations that have been affected by smoke,4 nor flour that is worm-infested.5 Nor should he mix the flour with oil that is foul-smelling or foul-tasting.6

‫כשם שמצוה להיות כל קרבן תמים‬ ‫ונבחר כך הנסכין יהיו תמימים‬ ‫ונבחרים שנאמר תמימים יהיו לכם‬ ‫ונסכיהם שיהיו הנסכים תמימים שלא יביא‬ ‫נסכים לא מיין מעושן ולא סולת שהתליעה‬ :‫ולא יבלול בשמן שריחו או טעמו רע‬

Similarly, the wood for the arrangement [of the altar] should only be of the highest quality. They should not be worm-infested.7 Any tree that is worm-infested when it is fresh is unacceptable for the altar.8 If it became worm-infested after it dried out, one should scrape away the place that became worm-infested. Wood that comes from [a building that was] torn down is invalid. One should use only new wood.9

‫וכן עצי המערכה לא יהיו אלא‬ ‫נבחרים ולא יהיה בהם תולעת וכל‬ ‫עץ שהתליע כשהוא לח פסול למזבח‬ ‫התליע יבש גורר את המקום שהתליע‬ ‫ועצי סתירה פסולין לעולם לא יביאו אלא‬ :‫חדשים‬

2

There is an unresolved doubt when one consecrates invalid wine, flour, oil, or wood to the altar: Are they considered like a blemished animal in which instance, he would be liable for lashes10 or do they not resemble a blemished animal? Hence, he is not liable for lashes. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.11

‫המקדיש יין פסול או סלת או שמן‬ ‫פסול או עצים פסולים למזבח הרי‬ ‫הדבר ספק אם דומים לבעל מום כבהמה‬ ‫ולוקה או אינן כבעל מום לפיכך אינו לוקה‬ :‫ומכין אותו מכת מרדות‬

Fine flour, wine, oil, frankincense, fowl, wood, and sacred utensils that became invalid or impure should not be redeemed, as [can be inferred from Leviticus 27:11-12]: "He shall cause it to stand [before the priest]" and "have it evaluated." Whatever can be caused to stand [before a priest] can be evaluated. These cannot be caused to stand [before a priest]. Therefore they are never redeemed.12

‫הסולת והיין והשמן והלבונה והעופות‬ ‫והעצים וכלי שרת שנפסלו או‬ ‫שנטמאו אין פודין אותן שנאמר והעמיד‬ ‫והעריך כל שישנו בהעמדה נערך ואלו‬ :‫אינן בכלל העמדה לפיכך אין נפדין לעולם‬

When does the above apply? When they became13 invalidated or impure after they became sanctified in a sacred vessel, but before they have been sanctified in a sacred vessel, they may be redeemed if they become impure or invalid. Pure objects, by contrast, should not be redeemed even if they were not consecrated in a sacred utensil with the exception of the flour brought as a sin-offering. [Concerning which] it is said [Leviticus 5:6] "of his sin-offering" and [ibid.:13] "concerning his sin-offering," as will be explained.14 [From the juxtaposition of the verses, it is inferred that] one may bring a sin offering from the money of his sin-offering. Therefore before it was consecrated in a sacred utensil it is considered as consecrated for its monetary value and it can be redeemed even though it is ritually pure.

‫במה דברים אמורים בשנפסלו או‬ ‫שנטמאו אחר שנתקדשו בכלי שרת‬ ‫אבל קודם שיתקדשו בכלי אם נטמאו או‬ ‫נפסלו פודין אותן אבל טהורין אף על פי‬ ‫שעדיין לא קדשו בכלי אין פודין אותן חוץ‬ ‫ממנחת חוטא שנאמר בה מחטאתו על‬ ‫חטאתו לומר שמביא חטאתו מדמי‬ ‫חטאתו לפיכך קודם שתתקדש בכלי שרת‬ ‫הרי היא כקדושת דמים ופודין אותה‬ ‫אע"פ שהיא טהורה וכל הנסכים שנטמאו‬ ‫עושה להם מערכה בפני עצמן ושורפן‬ :‫במזבח‬

A separate arrangement of wood should be made for all of the accompanying offerings15 that became impure and they should be burnt on the altar.16

3

[The following laws apply with regard to] the water for the libation of Sukkot17 that became impure and then it was joined [to an acceptable mikveh],18 as will be explained with regard to [the Laws of] Purity.19If he purified it and then consecrated it, it may be used for a libation. If, however, it was consecrated and then became impure, since it was disqualified, it should remain disqualified.20

‫מי החג שנטמאו והשיקן וטהרן ]כמו‬ ‫שיתבאר בטהרות[ אם טיהרן ואחר‬ ‫כך הקדישן הרי אלו מתנסכין ואם הקדישן‬ :‫ואח"כ נטמאו הואיל ונדחו ידחו‬

When olives and grapes became impure, they should be crushed less than an egg-sized portion21 at a time.22 The liquids that emerge from them are acceptable for the accompanying offerings. For these liquids are considered as [distinct and] set aside in the foods and it is as if they are not from their body.23

‫זיתים וענבים שנטמאו דורכן פחות‬ ‫מכביצה והמשקין היוצאין מהן כשרים‬ ‫לנסכים שהמקשה מופקד הוא באוכל‬ :‫וכאילו אינו מגופו‬

Our Sages established an additional safeguard with regard to consecrated objects: When seeds became impure, even if they are sown, [the produce] that grows from them is not acceptable for the accompanying offerings, for sowing produce is not effective [in restoring ritual purity] for consecrated entities.24

‫מעלה יתירה עשו חכמים בקדשים‬ ‫שזרעים שנטמאו אפילו זרען היוצא‬ ‫מהן פסולין לנסכים שאין זריעה מועלת‬ ‫בקדשים וכן העצים והלבונה אף ע"פ‬ ‫שאינן אוכלין הרי הן מתטמאין כאוכל‬ ‫לענין הקרבנות ויפסלו העצים והלבונה‬ :‫בטומאה זו למזבח ואין מקריבין אותן‬

Similarly, with regard to wood and frankincense, even though they are inedible, they can become impure like foods with regard to the sacrifices.25 [In such an instance,] the wood and the frankincense become disqualified for the altar because of this impurity and they should not be offered.

4

These are the types of wine that are invalid as [libations] for the altar: sweetened wine,26 smoked wine,27 wine cooked over fire or in the sun until its flavor was changed by the cooking. The types of wine [to be listed] should not be brought [as libations] as an initial preference, but if they were brought, they are acceptable. They include: wine was warmed in the sun,28 but its flavor did not change due to the cooking and similarly, raisin wine, wine from the vat that is less than 40 days old,29 wine from [grapes grown] on trellises, wine from a vineyard in an arid region or in a dungheap, wine from vines in which other produce was sown between them, or wine from a vineyard that was not tilled.30

:‫ואלו הן היינות הפסולין לגבי המזבח‬ ‫המתוק והמעושן והמבושל באש או‬ ‫בשמש או שנשתנה טעמו בבישול אבל יין‬ ‫שמחממין אותו בשמש ולא נתנה בו טעם‬ ‫בישול וכן יין צמוקין ויין מגיתו שלא שהה‬ ‫ארבעים יום ויין הדליות ויין כרם הנטוע‬ ‫בבית השלחין או בבית הזבלים או יין‬ ‫גפנים שנזרע זרע ביניהן או יין כרם שלא‬ ‫נעבד כל אלו היינות לא יביא לכתחלה‬ :‫ואם הביא כשר‬

Wine that was left uncovered31 is not acceptable [as libations] for the altar. If one draped a vine over a fig tree, its wine is unacceptable for a libation, for its fragrance has changed and [Leviticus 23:37] states: "Sacrifice and libations," [equating the two]. Just as [the appearance of an animal offered as] a sacrifice may not have changed,32 the wine for libations may not have changed.

‫יין שנתגלה פסול לגבי המזבח הדלה‬ ‫גפן על גבי תאנה יינה פסול לנסכים‬ ‫מפני שנשתנה ריחו הרי הוא אומר זבח‬ ‫ונסכים מה זבח שלא נשתנה אף נסכים‬ :‫שלא נשתנו‬

When the majority of fine flour has become worm-ridden or the majority of the kernels of wheat have become worm-ridden33 and [flour] was made from them, it is unacceptable. If the majority of one kernel of wheat became worm-ridden, there is an unresolved doubt [with regard to its acceptability]. Whenever flour dust remains in the fine flour,34 it is unacceptable.

‫סולת שהתליעה רובה או התליעו‬ ‫רוב החיטים שנעשית מהן פסולה‬ ‫התליע רוב חטה אחת ה"ז ספק וכל סולת‬ :‫שנשאר בה קמח פסולה‬

5

How is the matter checked? The treasurer inserts his hand into the fine flour. If dust clings to it as he removes it,35 it is unacceptable until he sifts it again. Fine flour from wheat that grew in an arid land, a dungheap, in an orchard, on land that was not left fallow and tilled should not be brought as an initial preference,36 if it was brought, it is acceptable.

‫כיצד בודקים מכניס הגזבר ידו‬ ‫לתוך הסולת אם עלה בה אבק‬ ‫פסולה עד שיחזור וינפה אותה אבל סולת‬ ‫חיטים שנזרעו בבית השלחין או בבית‬ ‫הזבלים או בבית האילן או בארץ שלא נרה‬ ‫ולא עבדה לא יביא לכתחלה ואם הביא‬ :‫כשירה‬

When wheat kernels were collected from cattle feces and then sown in the ground, there is an unresolved doubt if their disgusting characteristic has departed because they were sown37 or they are still considered as disgusting. Therefore one should not bring meal offerings from [such flour] as an initial preference. If he brought, they are acceptable.

‫חיטים שלקטן מגללי הבקר וזרעם‬ ‫הרי אלו ספק אם עברה מיאוסן‬ ‫בזריעה או עדיין הן מאוסין לפיכך לא יביא‬ :‫מהן מנחות ואם הביא כשר‬

These are the oils which are unacceptable: oil from olives soaked in water or of pickled38 or cooked olives, oil from olive dregs, or foul-smelling oil. All of these are unacceptable. In contrast, oil from olives that were planted in a dungheap, in an arid region, which had another crop sown between them, or oil that was produced from olives that have not ripened and are still immature39 should not be brought as an initial preference, but if it was brought, it is acceptable.

‫ שמן של‬:‫ואלו הן השמנים הפסולין‬ ‫גרגרים שנשרו במים או של זיתים‬ ‫כבושין או שלוקים או שמן של שמרים או‬ ‫שמן שריחו רע כל אלו פסולין אבל שמן‬ ‫זית שנטעו בבית הזבלים או בבית השלחין‬ ‫או שנזרע זרע ביניהן או שמן שהוציאו‬ ‫מזיתים שלא בשלו אלא עדיין הם פגין כל‬ :‫אלו לא יביא ואם הביא כשר‬

All of the meal offerings and libations40 are acceptable whether from [produce grown in] Eretz [Yisrael] or from [produce grown in] the Diaspora. They are acceptable from fresh grain41 or grain from the previous years, provided it is of optimum quality. The only exceptions are the omer offering42 and the two loaves [brought on Shavuot]. They must be brought from fresh grain and from Eretz Yisrael.43

‫כל המנחות והנסכים כשרים‬ ‫מהארץ ומחוצה לארץ מן החדש‬ ‫ומן הישן ובלבד שיביאו מן המובחר חוץ‬ ‫מן העומר ושתי הלחם שאינן באין אלא מן‬ :‫החדש ומארץ ישראל‬

« Previous

Next »

6

Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 5

Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 7

FOOTNOTES 1. See Chapter 1, Halachah 1; Chapter 2, Halachah 8; Chapter 3, Halachah 11; Chapter 7, Halachah 11.

18. This is speaking about a situation in which the water that was taken for a libation before the Sabbath of the Sukkot

2. As will be explained, every sacrifice must be accompanied by

and became impure on that Sabbath. We are forced to say this, for if we were speaking of an ordinary weekday, there

a meal offering that is mixed with oil and a wine libation. 3. The offerings. 4. See Halachah 9.

would be no difficulty in going down to the Gichon Stream and getting new water. On the Sabbath, this is forbidden and

5. See Halachah 11.

the only alternative is restore the ritual purity of the water (Rashi, Meiri, Pesachim 34b).

6. See Halachah 14.

19. Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 2:21 which explains that when a

7. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:8 which explains that there was a special chamber set aside in the Women's Courtyard where the priests would check the wood to make sure it was not worm-infested. 8. Because then, it is impossible to scrape away the worm-infested portion in a desirable manner. 9. See Chapter 7, Halachah 3. 10. As in Chapter 1, Halachah 2. 11. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, and notes for a definition of this punishment and the situations where it is applied. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:7). 12. As explained in Hilchot Arachin 5:9, blemished animals are the subject of the above verse. They can be "caused to stand before a priest." All of the above are inanimate objects that cannot be "caused to stand before a priest." 13. The fine flour, wine, and oil. Wood, fowl, and sacred utensils may never be redeemed.

receptacle containing water has an ordinary sized opening and is submerged in a mikveh, the water can regain its status of ritual purity. 20. Even though the water regained its purity, it is no longer acceptable as an offering. This is a Rabbinic stringency (Pesachim, loc. cit.; see Halachah 8). Instead, water for the libation should be taken from the basin (see Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:10). 21. 57 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 100 cc according to Chazon Ish. 22. The rationale is that as stated in Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 4:1, impure food will not cause other foods or liquids to contract ritual impurity unless the impure food is the size of an egg sized portion. 23. I.e., were the liquids to be of the body of the fruit, they would be considered impure like the fruit itself. It is, however, considered as if they are distinct entities (ibid. 1:2) and they do not have the possibility of becoming impure until they emerge from the fruit. Hence, if there is less than an

14. Hilchot Shegagot 10:12. The verses and the latter source

egg-sized portion, the liquids will not become impure.

refer to an adjustable guilt offering. If a person was poor and

24. Even though it is acceptable with regard to terumah.

therefore set aside a meal offering as required of one of his financial status and then became wealthy, he may sell the

25. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 4:5) the

meal offering and use it to be an animal as is required of him in his new financial position. 15. The flour, wine, and oil that accompany a sacrifice. 16. The Radbaz states that this refers to offerings that became impure while on the top of the altar. If they became impure beforehand, they should not be brought there to be burnt. 17. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6.

Rambam writes that the only unfashioned wood which ever contracts ritual impurity is wood used for the altar. 26. Wine sweetened due to exposure to the sun; alternatively, wine to which a sweetener was added (see Hilchot Shabbat 29:14). 27. Wine stored in a utensil with a foul odor [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:6)]. 28. This improves the flavor of the wine. See Rav Kappach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.). 29. Grape juice that has not fermented. 30. All of these types of wine have an inferior flavor.

31. As explained in Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 11:6-8:10, when wine was left uncovered, it is forbidden because it is possible that a snake might have deposited venom in it. Hence, it is forbidden for the altar.

36. All of these types of flour are of inferior quality (ibid.). 37. And the grain growing from them is an entirely new entity. Were they not to have been sown, flour made from them would not be acceptable.

32. See Chapter 3, Halachah 5.

38. In vinegar or in brine.

33. Even slightly worm-ridden.

39. As explained above, fruit grown under these conditions is of

34. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 5:14), the Rambam defines solet, translated as "fine flour," as the flour of substance that remains in the process of refinement and kemach, translated as "flour dust," as the dust that is cast off. 35. Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:2).

inferior quality. 40. Both individual and communal offerings [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:1)]. 41. Grown in the present year. 42. The offering of barley brought on the second day of Pesach. 43. These concepts are evident from Leviticus 23:10 and, 16-17. See also Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:5-6; 8:2.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .



Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 6

Not every entity that is not unacceptable may be brought [as a sacrifice] as an initial preference.1 What is implied? If one is obligated to bring a burnt offering, one should not bring a weak and unattractive sheep and [justify oneself saying]: "It does not have a blemish." Concerning this, can be applied [the words of censure, Malachi 1:14]: "Cursed be the deceiver... [who sacrifices a blemished animal to God]." Instead, anyone who brings a sacrifice should bring from the highest quality.2 This is the practice that was observed in the era of the Temple: They would bring rams from Moab, broad-backed sheep3 from Chebron, calves from Sharon, young doves from Har HaMelech, wine from Korchayin and Chalutin, flour from Michmash and Yochanah and oil from Tekoa.4

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot

‫לא כל דבר שאינו פסול מביא אותו‬ ‫לכתחילה כיצד היה חייב עולה לא‬ ‫יביא שה כחוש וכעור ויאמר הרי אין בו‬ ‫מום ועל זה נאמר וארור נוכל וגו' אלא כל‬ :‫שיביא לקרבן יביא מן המובחר‬

‫וכך היו עושין בזמן המקדש מביאין‬ ‫אילים ממואב ומביאין כבשים‬ ‫שגביהן רחבים מחברון ומביאין עגלים מן‬ ‫השרון וגוזלות מהר המלך ומביאין יין‬ ‫מקרחיין והלוטיין וסולת ממכמש ויוחנה‬ :‫ומביאין שמן מתקוע‬

2

All virgin wood5 is acceptable for the altar. They would not bring wood from olive trees or grape vines [in consideration of] the settlement of Eretz [Yisrael].6 They would frequently use boughs of fig trees that grow in forests of unsettled areas,7 those of nut trees, and those of fast-burning8 trees. The logs that Moses made [for the altar in the Sanctuary] were a cubit long and a cubit wide.9 Their thickness was like that of the leveling rod for an overflowing se'ah. In

‫כל העצים החדשים כשרים למערכה‬ ‫ולא היו מביאין משל זית ולא משל גפן‬ ‫משום ישוב ארץ ישראל ובאלו היו רגילין‬ ‫במורביות של תאנה של חדשים שאינן‬ ‫ביישוב ובשל אגוז ובשל עץ שמן והגזרין‬ ‫שעשה משה אמה אורכן ואמה רחבן‬ ‫ועביין כמחק גדיש של סאה וכמותן עושין‬ :‫לדורות‬

future generations,10 [logs] of the same measurements were used. What would they do when sowing wheat for meal offerings and accompanying offerings?11 They would leave half a field fallow in the first year12 and sow the other half.13 In the second year, he should leave the portion he sowed in the first year fallow and he should sow the second half seventy days before Peach.14 If the field had not been tilled, he should plow it twice and then sow it. He should choose the kernels of wheat carefully15 and then he should strike them16 and tread on them17 until their shells are removed.

‫וכיצד היו עושין בזריעת חיטי‬ ‫המנחות והנסכים נר חצי השדה‬ ‫בשנה ראשונה וזרע חציה ובשנה שנייה‬ ‫נר החצי שזרע בראשונה וזרע החצי‬ ‫האחר קודם לפסח שבעים יום ואם לא‬ ‫היתה השדה עבודה חורש ושונה ואח"כ‬ ‫זורע ובורר החיטים יפה יפה ואחר כך שף‬ ‫את החיטים ובועט בהן הרבה עד‬ :‫שיתקלפו‬

All of the wheat used for the meal offerings must receive 300 blows and be tread on 500 times. He should give [the kernels] one blow and then tread on them twice; give them two blows and tread on them three times. Thus they will have received three blows and will have been tread on five times. He should then repeat the pattern until he completes all 300 blows and 500 treadings so that much of the shells will have been removed. As a stringency, extending and drawing back his arm is considered as one blow. After this process, he should grind and sift the flour very thoroughly.

‫כל החיטים של מנחות טעונות שלש‬ ‫מאות שיפה וחמש מאות בעיטה שף‬ ‫אחת ובועט שתים שף שתים ובועט שלש‬ ‫נמצאו שלש שיפות וחמש בעיטות וחוזר‬ ‫חלילה עד שיגמור שלש מאות שיפה‬ ‫וחמש מאות בעיטה כדי שיתקלפו הרבה‬ ‫וחושב ההובאה וההולכה בשיפה אחת‬ :‫להחמיר ואחר כך טוחן ומרקד יפה יפה‬

Wine [should be made by] bringing grapes from vines growing at foot level from vineyards that were tilled twice a year.18 He should crush the grapes and collect [their juice] in small jugs. They should not be stored individually or in pairs, but instead in groups of three.19 The jug should not be filled to its rim in order that its fragrance will be perceived.20 He should not bring [libations] from the wine near the rim, because of the specks resembling flour21 that rise to the surface of the wine, nor from the bottom, because of the dregs. Instead, he should take from the middle third and from its middle portion.

‫היין מביא ענבים מן הרגליות מן‬ ‫הכרמים העבודים פעמים בשנה ודורך‬ ‫וכונסין אותו בחביות קטנות ואין מניחין‬ ‫אותן אחת אחת ולא שתים שתים אלא‬ ‫שלש שלש ואינו ממלא את החבית עד‬ ‫פיה כדי שיהיה ריחו נודף ואינו מביא לא‬ ‫מפי החבית מפני הקמחין העולה על פני‬ ‫היין ולא משוליה מפני השמרים אלא‬ :‫משלישה ומאמצעה של אמצעית‬

A treasurer would sit [and watch] as the wine flowed from a hole on the side of a jug [of wine]. If he sees dregs flow out, he stops [the flow of wine] and does not complete the purchase.

‫היה הגזבר יושב והיין יוצא מן הנקב‬ ‫שבצד החבית כיון שיראה שינוי‬ ‫השמרים מתחיל לצאת פוסק ואינו לוקח‬ ‫ומאימתי מביא מאחר מ' יום לדריכתו עד‬ ‫שתי שנים או יתר מעט ואם הביא יין ישן‬ ‫מכמה שנים הרי זה כשר והוא שלא יפסד‬ :‫טעמו‬

At what point [in the aging process of wine] should it be brought? From 40 days after the grapes were tread upon22 until after two years and even slightly longer than that. If one brings wine that is even older, it is acceptable, provided its flavor has not spoiled.23

3

4

There are nine categories of oil, depending on the process in which they were prepared. What is implied? When one picks olives at the top of an olive tree, selects them one by one,24 crushes them and puts them into a basket, the oil that flows from them is considered in the first category. If, afterwards, he loads a beam upon them [to press them],25 the oil which flows from them is of the second category. If he loads [a beam upon them] a second time,26 the oil which flows from them is of the third category. When he picked olives in a mixture,27 brought them to the roof, selected them one by one, crushed them, and placed them into a basket, the oil which flows from them is of the fourth category. If, afterwards, he loads a beam upon them [to press them], the oil which flows from them is of the fifth category. If he loads [a beam upon them] a second time, the oil which flows from them is of the sixth category.

‫תשעה מינין בשמן מפני שינוי‬ ‫מעשיו כיצד זית שגרגרו בראש‬ ‫הזית ובררו אחת אחת וכתשו ונתנו לסל‬ ‫השמן שיצא ממנו הוא הראשון חזר אח"כ‬ ‫וטענו בקורה השמן שיצא ממנו הוא השני‬ ‫ואם חזר אחר שטענו וטחנו וטענו שנייה‬ ‫השמן שיצא ממנו הוא השלישי זיתים‬ ‫שמסקן כולן בערבוביא והעלן לגג וחזר‬ ‫ובירר גרגר גרגר וכתשן ונתנן לסל השמן‬ ‫שיצא ממנו הוא הרביעי ואם טענו בקורה‬ ‫אח"כ השמן שיצא הוא החמישי וחזר‬ ‫וטחן וטען פעם שנייה השמן שיצא הוא‬ ‫הששי זיתים שמסקן וטענן בתוך הבית עד‬ ‫שילקו והעלן ונגבן ואחר כך כתש ונתן‬ ‫לסל השמן שיצא הוא השביעי חזר וטען‬ ‫בקורה השמן שיצא הוא השמיני חזר וטחן‬ :‫וטען פעם ב' השמן שיצא הוא התשיעי‬

When he picks olives28 and loads them in the vat until they begin to decompose, he then takes them up [to the roof], dries them, and places them in a basket.29 The oil which flows from them is of the seventh category. If, afterwards, he loads a beam upon them [to press them], the oil which flows from them is of the eighth category. If he loads [a beam upon them] a second time, the oil which flows from them is of the ninth category. Even though they are all acceptable [to be brought] with the meal offerings,30 there is nothing that surpasses the first category.31 Afterwards, the second and the fourth are of equal quality.32 After them, the third, fifth, and seventh are of equal quality.33 After them, the sixth and the eighth are of equal quality.34 There is nothing inferior to the ninth.35

‫אף על פי שכולן כשירין למנחות‬ ‫הראשון אין למעלה ממנו ואחריו‬ ‫השני והרביעי ושניהן שוין ואחריהם‬ ‫השלישי והחמישי והשביעי ושלשתן שוין‬ ‫ואחריהם הששי והשמיני ושניהם שוין‬ :‫והתשיעי אין למטה ממנו‬

5

Only the first, fourth, and seventh categories are acceptable for the Menorah, for [Exodus 27:20] states: "crushed for the light," i.e., for the Menorah,36 only that which flows after [the olives] are crushed alone37 are acceptable. They are all acceptable for meal offerings.38

‫אין כשר למנורה אלא ראשון ורביעי‬ ‫ושביעי בלבד שנא' כתית למאור אין‬ ‫כשר למנורה אלא היוצא מן הכתוש בלבד‬ :‫אבל למנחות כולן כשירין‬

Since all of these categories of oil are acceptable, why were they listed as separate categories? So that one would know the superior category that nothing surpasses, those which are equal, and those which are inferior. In this way, 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.39 For it is written in the Torah [Genesis 4:4]: "And Evel brought from his chosen flocks and from the superior ones and God turned to Evel and his offering."

‫ומאחר שכולן כשרין למנחות למה‬ ‫נמנו כדי לידע יפה שאין למעלה‬ ‫ממנו והשוה והפחות שהרוצה לזכות עצמו‬ ‫יכוף יצרו הרע וירחיב ידו ויביא קרבנו מן‬ ‫היפה המשובח ביותר שבאותו המין‬ ‫שיביא ממנו הרי נאמר בתורה והבל הביא‬ ‫גם הוא מבכורות צאנו ומחלביהן וישע י"י‬ ‫אל הבל ואל מנחתו והוא הדין בכל דבר‬ ‫שהוא לשם האל הטוב שיהיה מן הנאה‬ ‫והטוב אם בנה בית תפלה יהיה נאה מבית‬ ‫ישיבתו האכיל רעב יאכיל מן הטוב‬ ‫והמתוק שבשולחנו כסה ערום יכסה מן‬ ‫היפה שבכסותו הקדיש דבר יקדיש מן‬ '‫היפה שבנכסיו וכן הוא אומר כל חלב ליי‬ :'‫וגו‬

The same applies to everything given for the sake of the Almighty who is good. It should be of the most attractive and highest quality. If one builds a house of prayer, it should be more attractive than his own dwelling. If he feeds a hungry person, he should feed him from the best and most tasty foods of his table. If he clothes one who is naked, he should clothe him with his attractive garments. If he consecrates something, he should consecrate the best of his possession. And so [Leviticus 3:16] states: "All of the superior quality should be given to God."40

« Previous Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 6 FOOTNOTES

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot

6

1. This chapter focuses on one fundamental concept: that ideally the entities used for the sacrifices should be of the highest quality. 2. As evident from Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 16:4, here, the Rambam is focusing on the optimum manner of fulfilling the mitzvah, not on the letter of the law. 3. Because of their fat (Rav Yosef Corchus). 4. All of the names mentioned here are regions or cities in Eretz Yisrael. Each respective was renown for the quality of the particular item associated with it. 5. I.e., wood that has not been used for any other purpose first. 6. Oil and wine are considered basic necessities and hence, the trees and vines from which they derive should not be cut down for use as fuel for the altar. The Radbaz explains that olive trees and grape vines also frequently have knots and produce smoke that is undesirable. 7. Which do not produce edible fruit [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid)]. This atoned for the Sin of the Tree of Knowledge which was a fig tree [Rashi (Yoma 58a)]. 8. Our translation is based on Rashi's Commentary to Tamid 29b. Literally, the words would be translated as "oily trees." 9. For this was the size of the pyre. 10. Even though the size of the altar as a whole was increased. 11. I.e., the practice to be described delineates the optimum manner of preparing flour for the meal offerings. Flour which

20. If the jug is filled to the brim, the vapors from the wine will have no chance to rise. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:6). 21. In that source, the Rambam explains that in the wines that he is familiar with, this phenomenon takes place only in the superior wines. He supposes that in Eretz Yisrael, this phenomenon would occur only with the inferior wines. 22. Until then, the fermentation process will not be complete. The Radbaz writes that although the Rambam's wording does not imply this, from the beginning of the fortieth day onward, the wine is acceptable. 23. Once its flavor has begun to spoil, however, it is unacceptable. See Chapter 6, Halachah 10. 24. Apparently, the Rambam is speaking about a situation when the majority of the crop are not ready to be picked and the ones he selects are those of the highest quality. 25. I.e., one of the techniques of pressing olives was to put them under pressure from a heavy beam. This would squeeze out more oil from them,. 26. Readjusting the beam will apply greater pressure and squeeze out more oil. 27. Without separated the good from the bad. This is speaking about the stage when most of the olives are ready for picking. Thus the ones he picks are not necessarily the most choice. 28. These are olives which grew late and never ripened sufficiently.

was prepared in another manner may also be acceptable. 12. Leaving the field fallow improved the quality of the grain it produces. 13. Plowing it each time [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:2)]. 14. Although this falls on 5 Shvat which is in the midst of winter. "the sun already has the power to shine upon it" (Rashi, Menachot 85a) and improve its growth. 15. To remove any other seeds and to select the highest quality wheat (Radbaz). 16. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 6:5) the Rambam interprets this as striking the wheat powerfully with one's hand so that the dust will be removed from them. 17. Crushing them with his feet to crack the shells (ibid.).

29. Although they were crushed and thus dregs will be produced, they were not, however, pressed with a beam, which would produce more dregs. 30. Menachot 86b states that the Torah allowed the inferior types of oil to be used, so that the price of superior oil would not rise and thus be prohibitively expensive for the people at large. 31. For the olives are superior and they are not pressed, so that few dregs will be included. 32. The second category uses superior olives, but they are pressed, so that they will have dregs. The fourth uses inferior olives, but they are not pressed, so there will be no dregs. 33. Even though the olives of the third category will have been

18. This is also the optimum manner to prepare wine. Wine prepared in other means is also acceptable.

pressed twice, because they are of a superior quality, they are equal to those of a lower quality that were pressed less.

19. The Radbaz explains that the more barrels are stored

Similarly, those of the seventh category, though pressed only once are of inferior quality to those of the fifth category.

together, the less each one is exposed to air. Hence, there is less deterioration in the flavor of the wine.

34. Even though those of the sixth category have been pressed twice, they are of a higher quality than those of the eighth.

35. For they are both of a lower category and have been pressed twice. 36. "The light." 37. I.e., excluding oil produced by pressing.

38. Even though the Rambam mentioned this point in the previous halachah, he mentions it again here to emphasize that this concept is also derived from the exegesis of the verse. It is necessary that the oil flow from crushing only "for the light," and not for the meal offerings. 39. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 16:3-4. 40. See also Hilchot Terumah 5:1 which states that the finest grain should be separated as terumah.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

1



Maaseh Hakorbanot Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 1 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 2 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 3 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 4 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 5 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 6 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 7 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 8 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 9 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 10 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 11 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 12 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 13 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 14 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 15 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 16 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 17 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 18 Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 19

2

1



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 2

Introduction to Hilchot Maaseh Hakorbanot

2

‫ הקדמה‬- ‫הלכות מעשה הקרבנות‬

They contain twenty three mitzvot: ten positive commandments and thirteen negative commandments. They are:

‫ עשר‬:‫יש בכללן שלוש ועשרים מצוות‬ ‫ ושלוש עשרה מצוות לא‬,‫מצוות עשה‬ :‫ וזה הוא פרטן‬.‫תעשה‬

1) In offering up the burnt-offering to follow the procedure in the prescribed order; 2) Not to eat the flesh of the burnt-offering; 3) (To observe) the prescribed procedure of the sin-offering; 4) Not to eat the flesh of the holiest sin-offerings; 5) Not to divide asunder the fowl brought as a sin-offering; 6) (To observe) the prescribed procedure of the trespass offering; 7) That the priests shall eat the flesh of the holy sacrifices, within the Sanctuary; 8) That they shall not eat them outside the Courtyard of the Sanctuary; 9) That a stranger (not a priest) shall not eat any portion of the holy sacrifices; 10) (To observe) the prescribed procedure of the peace offerings; 11) Not to eat the flesh of the offerings that are holy in a minor degree before their blood has been sprinkled (on the altar); 12) In offering up a meal-offering to observe the procedure specifically prescribed for it in the Torah; 13) Not to put oil in a meal-offering brought as a sin-offering; 14) Not to put frankincense upon it; 15) That the meal-offering of a priest shall not be eaten; 16) That a meal-offering shall not be baked as leavened bread; 17) That the priests shall eat the rest of the meal-offering (after a handful has been offered up on the altar); 18) That one shall fulfill all his vows and bring his

‫)א( לעשות העולה כמעשיה הכתובים על‬ .‫הסדר‬ .‫)ב( שלא לאכול בשר עולה‬ .‫)ג( סדר החטאת‬ .‫)ד( שלא לאכול מבשר חטאת הפנימית‬ .‫)ה( שלא יבדיל בחטאת העוף‬ .‫)ו( סדר האשם‬ ‫)ז( שיאכלו הכהנים בשר קדשי קדשים‬ .‫במקדש‬ .‫)ח( שלא יאכלום חוץ לעזרה‬ .‫)ט( שלא יאכל זר מקדשי קדשים‬ .‫)י( סדר השלמים‬ ‫)יא( שלא לאכול בשר קדשים קלים קודם‬ .‫זריקת דמים‬ ‫)יב( לעשות כל מנחה כסדר מעשיה‬ .‫הכתובים בתורה‬ .‫)יג( שלא ישים שמן על מנחת חוטא‬ .‫)יד( שלא יתן עליה לבונה‬ .‫)טו( שלא תאכל מנחת כהן‬ .‫)טז( שלא תאפה מנחת חמץ‬ .‫)יז( שיאכלו הכהנים שיָ רי מנחות‬ ‫)יח( שיביא אדם כל נדריו ונדבותיו ברגל‬ .‫שפגע בו ראשון‬ ‫)יט( שלא יאחר נדרו ונדבתו ושאר דברים‬ .‫שהוא חייב בהן‬ .‫)כ( להקריב כל הקרבנות בבית הבחירה‬ ‫)כא( להביא קדשי חוצה לארץ לבית‬ .‫הבחירה‬ .‫)כב( שלא לשחוט קרבנות חוץ לעזרה‬ .‫)כג( שלא להקריב קרבן חוץ לעזרה‬ :‫וביאור מצוות אלו בפרקים אלו‬

3

All of the sacrifices of living animals comes from five species alone: a) cattle, b) sheep, c) goats, d) turtle doves, and e) small doves.1

‫כל הקרבנות של מיני נפש חיה באין‬ ‫ מן הבקר ומן‬:‫מחמשה מינין בלבד‬ ‫הכבשים ומן העזים ומן התורים ומן בני‬ :‫היונה‬

All of the sacrifices - whether those brought by the community or by individuals - are of four types: a) burnt-offerings, b) sin-offerings, c) guilt-offerings, and d) peace-offerings.

‫וכל הקרבנות בין של צבור בין של‬ ‫ עולה וחטאת‬:‫יחיד ארבעה מינין‬ :‫ואשם ושלמים‬

There are also three other types of individual sacrifices: a) the Paschal sacrifice, b) the sacrifice of the firstborn,2 and d) the tithe3 sacrifice.4

‫ועוד יש שם שלשה מיני קרבן יחיד‬ :‫ הפסח והבכור והמעשר‬:‫והם‬

All of the communal offerings are burnt-offerings or sin-offerings. There are no communal peaceofferings except the two sheep offered with the bread that is waved on Shavuot.5 They are called "the sacrifices of communal peace offerings." The community never offers a guilt offering, nor a fowl.

‫כל קרבנות הצבור הן עולה או חטאת‬ ‫ואין בקרבנות הצבור שלמים חוץ‬ ‫משני כבשים הבאים עם לחם התנופה‬ ‫בעצרת והם הנקראים זבחי שלמי צבור‬ :‫ואין הצבור מקריבין אשם לעולם ולא עוף‬

The communal offerings are the two temidim6 offered every day,7 the additional offerings of the Sabbaths,8 Rashei Chodashim, and the festivals,9 and the sin-offering of a goat brought on Yom Kippur.10 Similarly, if [the High] Court11 inadvertently gave an erroneous ruling with regard to the worship of false deities, every tribe is required to bring a bull and a goat. The bull is brought as a burnt-offering and the goat as a sin-offering. These goats are called "the goats of false deities." If they inadvertently gave an erroneous ruling with regard to other mitzvot, they bring a bull as a sin-offering. It is called "the bull associated with the overlooking of a matter by the community."12

‫קרבנות הצבור הם שני תמידין של‬ ‫כל יום ומוספי שבתות וראשי‬ ‫חדשים והמועדות ושעיר חטאת של יום‬ ‫הכפורים וכן אם שגגו בית דין והורו בע"ז‬ ‫מביא כל שבט ושבט פר ושעיר הפר עולה‬ ‫והשעיר חטאת ואלו השעירים הם‬ ‫הנקראים שעירי ע"ז ואם שגגו והורו‬ ‫בשאר המצות מביאין פר לחטאת והוא‬ :‫הנקרא פר העלם דבר של צבור‬

4

The sacrifices [brought by] individuals include: a) the firstborn offerings,13 b) the tithe offerings,14 c) the Paschal offerings,15 d) the chagigah offerings, i.e., the peace offerings [brought in association with the pilgrimage festivals], e) the pilgrimage offering which is a burnt-offering,16 f) the sacrifice brought by a convert, that involves a burnt-offering from a domesticated animal, two small doves or two turtle doves; both of them are burntofferings, or two domesticated animals, one as a burntoffering and one as a peace-offering,17 g) one who vows18 or pledges19 a burnt-offering or a peace offering,20 h) peace-offerings that are accompanied by bread; they are called thanksgiving offerings,21 i) the sacrifices of a nazirite,22 which are a burntoffering, a sin-offering, and a peace-offering,23 j) the sacrifices of a metzora,24 which are a sin-offering, and a guilt-offering, and a burnt-offering,25 k) the sacrifices of a zav26 a zavah,27 and a women after childbirth; they are a sin-offering and a burnt-offering,28 l) the sacrifice brought by a person who inadvertently violated a negative commandment punishable by karet;29 it is a sin-offering,30 m) if a person was unsure of whether he transgressed or not, that transgressor brings a guilt-offering; it is called a conditional guilt-offering,31 n) there are certain sins32 for which one brings a guilt-

‫קרבנות היחיד הם הבכור והמעשר‬ ‫והפסח והחגיגה והיא שלמים והראיה‬ ‫והיא עולות וקרבן הגר והוא עולה מן‬ ‫הבהמה או שני בני יונה או שתי תורים‬ ‫ושניהן עולה או שתי בהמות אחת עולה‬ ‫ואחת שלמים והנודר או המתנדב עולה או‬ ‫שלמים ושלמים הבאין עם הלחם הם‬ ‫הנקראים תודה וכן קרבנות הנזיר והן עולה‬ ‫וחטאת ושלמים וקרבנות מצורע והן‬ ‫חטאת ואשם ועולה וקרבנות זבים ויולדות‬ ‫והן חטאת ועולה וקרבן השוגג במצות לא‬ ‫תעשה שיש בה כרת והוא חטאת ואם‬ ‫נסתפק לו אם עשה או לא עשה אותו‬ ‫החוטא מביא אשם והוא הנקרא אשם‬ ‫תלוי ויש עבירות שמביא עליהן אשם והוא‬ ‫הנקרא אשם ודאי וכן איל העולה ופר‬ ‫החטאת שמקריב כהן גדול משלו ביוה"כ‬ ‫הרי הן קרבן יחיד ופר זה הוא הנקרא פר‬ ‫יום הכפורים וכל אלו הקרבנות מפורשין‬ ‫הן בתורה וכל אחד מהן יתבארו דיניו‬ :‫במקומו‬

5

[The person bringing] any of the individual offerings is responsible for them and for their accompanying offerings35 with the exception of an animal pledged as sacrifice.36 [The community at large] is not responsible for sacrifices or their accompanying offerings.37 If a sacrifice was offered, they are responsible for its additional offerings.38 When an individual's sacrifice was required to be offered at a fixed time,39 it is like a communal offering and the person is not responsible for it.40

‫כל קרבנות היחיד חייב באחריותן‬ ‫ובאחריות נסכיהן חוץ מן הנדבה וכל‬ ‫קרבנות הצבור אינן חייבין באחריותן ולא‬ ‫באחריות נסכיהן ואם קרב הזבח חייבין‬ ‫באחריות נסכיהם וקרבן יחיד שקבוע לו‬ ‫זמן הרי הוא כקרבן צבור ואינו חייב‬ :‫באחריותו‬

All of the animals brought as burnt-offerings must only be male.41 It may be brought from sheep, goats, or cattle, whether large or small.42 They may also be brought from turtle doves and small doves, whether male or female.43

‫כל עולת בהמה אינה באה אלא מן‬ ‫הזכרים בלבד והיא באה מן הכבשים‬ ‫ומן העזים ומן הבקר בין גדולים בין קטנים‬ ‫ומן התורים ובני יונה ואחד בהן הזכר‬ :‫והנקבה‬

A sin-offering may be brought these five species, from both males and females, from small ones and large ones.

‫החטאת באה מחמשת המינים האלו‬ ‫מן הזכרים ומן הנקבות מן הגדולים‬ :‫ומן הקטנים‬

A guilt-offering may be brought only from male sheep. There are guilt-offerings that come from large members of this species44 and others which come from small members of this species.45

‫האשם אינו בא אלא מזכרי כבשים‬ ‫בלבד יש אשם בא מגדולי מין זה ויש‬ :‫אשם בא מן הקטנים‬

Peace offerings may be brought from sheep, goats, or cattle, from males and females, whether large or small. A fowl may not be brought as a peace offering. [When describing an animal as] small, [the intent] is one between the eighth day46 and a full year, from day to day. If the year was declared a leap year, [the extra month is included]. "Large" implies until three full years from day to day for cattle, for flocks,47 until two full years from day to day. From this age onward, [the animal] is considered as "old" and it should not be brought as an offering. Although all of the sacrifices are acceptable if they are brought from the eighth day onward, as an initial preference, we do not bring [an animal] as a sacrifice until it is 30 days old or older48 with the exception of a firstborn offering,49 a Paschal offering, and a tithe offering.50 If one desires to offer these sacrifices from the eighth day onward, he may.

‫אע"פ שכל הקרבנות כשרין מיום‬ ‫השמיני והלאה אין מקריבין‬ ‫לכתחלה אלא מיום שלשים והלאה חוץ מן‬ ‫הבכור ומן הפסח ומן המעשר שאם רצה‬ :‫להקריבן בשמיני לכתחילה מקריב‬

Hours are counted with regard to consecrated animals,51 i.e., if their [lives] were an hour longer52 or an hour was subtracted from their [lives],53 they are unacceptable.

‫שעות מונין לקדשים ואם הוסיפו‬ ‫שעה אחת או פחתו שעה פסולין‬ ‫כיצד קרבן שמצותו להיות בן שנה אם‬ ‫הוסיף על השנה שעה אחת נפסל אפילו‬ ‫היה בן שנה בשעת שחיטה והוסיף על‬ ‫השנה בשעת זריקה נפסל עד שיהיה בן‬ :‫שנה עד שעת זריקה וכן בכל הזבחים‬

What is implied? When it is required that a sacrifice be less than a year old, if an hour was added to its year, it is invalidated. Even if it was merely a year old when it was slaughtered and additional time was added before its blood was sprinkled [on the altar], it is invalidated. It must be less than a year until the time the blood is sprinkled [on the altar]. Similar [laws] apply with regard to all the sacrifices.

6

‫השלמים באים מן הכבשים ומן‬ ‫העזים ומן הבקר מזכרים ומנקבות‬ ‫מן הגדולים ומן הקטנים ואין העוף בא‬ ‫שלמים הקטנים הם מבן שמנת ימים עד‬ ‫שנה תמימה מיום ליום אם נתעברה שנה‬ ‫נתעברה לו והגדולים בבקר עד שלש שנים‬ ‫שלימות מיום ליום ובצאן עד שתי שנים‬ ‫שלימות מיום ליום יותר על זה הרי הוא‬ :‫זקן ואין מקריבין אותו‬

Whenever the Torah uses the expressions, "a male sheep," "a female sheep," "sheep," the intent is [an animal] in its first year [of life]. "A ram" or "rams"54 implies males in their second year [of life]. When is an animal called a ram? When 31 days of its second year of life pass. On the thirtieth day, however, it is not acceptable, neither as a sheep, nor as a ram. [At this stage,] it is called a pilgas.55 Whenever the expression "a calf" is used, the intent is [an animal] in its first year [of life]. The term "bull" implies that the animal is in its second year of life. The term "a goat kid" implies that it is in its first year, "a goat," that it is in its second year. Throughout the second year, it is called a goat.56 All of the communal offerings are male. All57 of the communal sin offerings58 come from goats or from cattle, none are brought from sheep. All of the communal burnt offerings are from sheep or cattle; there are no burnt-offerings brought from goats. All of the sin-offerings brought by individuals are female. They may be eaten by the priests and they do not come from cattle except three: a) the sin-offering of a nasi59 which is a goat60 and is eaten, b) the sin-offering of the anointed priest which is a bull,61 which is burnt;62 it is call "the bull that comes because of [the violation of] any mitzvah;" c) the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur;63 it is a sin-offering that is burnt.

7

‫כל מקום שנאמר בתורה כבש או‬ ‫כבשה או כבשים הרי אלו בני שנה‬ ‫וכל מקום שנאמר איל או אילים הם‬ ‫הזכרים בני שנתים ומאימתי יקרא איל‬ ‫משיכנס בשנה שנייה אחד ושלשים יום‬ ‫אבל ביום שלשים אינו כשר לא לכבש‬ ‫ולא לאיל והוא הנקרא פלגס וכל מקום‬ ‫שנאמר בו עגל הרי זה בן שנה פר בן‬ ‫שתים שעיר עזים ]בן שנה שעיר[ בן‬ :‫שתים כל שנה שנייה הוא נקרא שעיר‬

‫כל קרבנות הצבור זכרים וכן‬ ‫חטאות של צבור מן העז או מן‬ ‫הבקר ואין בהן מן הכבשים וכל עולות‬ ‫הצבור מן הכבשים ומן הבקר ואין להן‬ ‫עולה מן העז כל חטאת יחיד לנקבה‬ ‫ותאכל לכהנים ואינה באה מן הבקר חוץ‬ ‫משלש חטאות חטאת נשיא שהיא עז‬ ‫ונאכלת וחטאת כהן משיח שהוא פר‬ ‫ונשרפת והוא פר הבא על כל המצות‬ ‫והשלישי פר שמביא כהן גדול ביום‬ :‫הכפורים והוא חטאת ונשרף‬

8

All of the communal sin-offerings are eaten with the exception of the goat offered on Yom Kippur whose partner is sent [to Azazel],64 the goats brought [because of the violation65 of the prohibition against] idol worship,66 and the bull [brought because of the violation] a law forgotten [by the High Court].67 "The bull that comes because of [the violation of] any mitzvah"68 and the bull [brought because of] a law forgotten [by the High Court] are called "the bulls that are burnt." The goats brought [because of the violation of the prohibition against] idol worship are called "the goats that are burnt."

‫כל חטאות של צבור נאכלות חוץ‬ ‫משעיר של יוה"כ שחבירו‬ ‫משתלח וכן שעירי ע"ז ופר העלם ופר‬ ‫הבא על כל המצות ופר העלם נקראים‬ ‫פרים הנשרפין ושעירי ע"ז נקראים‬ ‫שעירים הנשרפים הא למדת שחמש‬ ‫חטאות הם הנשרפות שתים ליחיד ושלש‬ :‫לציבור‬

Thus there are five sin-offerings that are burnt: two are individual offerings69 and three are communal offerings.70 All of these offerings are called zevachim.71 All of the burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, guiltofferings, and the two sheep brought as peaceofferings on Shavuos are called "sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity."72 Peace offerings brought by an individual, the firstborn offerings, the tithe offerings, and the Paschal offerings, are called "sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity."73

‫כל הקרבנות האלו נקראים זבחים‬ ‫וכל העולות והחטאות והאשמות‬ ‫ושני כבשי שלמים של עצרת נקראים‬ ‫קדשי קדשים אבל שלמים של יחיד‬ ‫והבכור והמעשר והפסח נקראים קדשים‬ :‫קלים‬

The limbs and organs that are burnt on the altar from the sin-offerings that are eaten, from the guilt-offerings, and from the peace-offerings74 are called eimorim.75 These are the eimorim of an ox or a goat: the fat that is on the inner organs,76 included with that is the fat that is on the maw,77 the two kidneys and the fat that is on them, together with the fat that is on the flanks, the lobe of the liver, and a small portion of the liver should also be taken with its lobe.78If the sacrifice is from sheep, he should add to these the fat tail79 in its entirety80together with the vertebrae from the spine until the place of the kidneys, as [Levitcus 3:9] states: "he shall remove it opposite the kidneys." All of the eimorim are burnt on the outer altar.81

‫האיברים ששורפין אותן ע"ג‬ ‫המזבח מן החטאות הנאכלות ומן‬ ‫האשמות ומן השלמים הן הנקראין אימורין‬ :‫ואלו הן האימורין של שור או של עז‬

If a [sacrificial] animal was pregnant, even though the fetus had been carried for a full term, and even if it was discovered to be alive [after the mother was slaughtered],82 its fat should not be offered together with the fat of its mother. Instead, only the fat of the mother is offered. The fetus is considered as one of its limbs.83

‫מעוברת אף על פי‬ ‫של עובר ואפילו‬ ‫חלבו עם חלב אמו‬ ‫והרי העובר כאחד‬

‫החלב אשר על הקרב ובכללו חלב שעל‬ ‫גבי הקבה ושתי הכליות וחלב שעליהן עם‬ ‫החלב אשר על הכסלים ויותרת הכבד‬ ‫ונוטל מן הכבד מעט עם היותרת ואם היה‬ ‫הקרבן ממין הכבשים מוסיף על אלו‬ ‫האליה תמימה עם החוליות מן השדרה עד‬ ‫מקום הכליות שנאמר לעומת העצה‬ ‫יסירנה וכל האימורין נשרפין על מזבח‬ :‫החיצון‬ ‫היתה הבהמה‬ ‫שכלו חדשיו‬ ‫נמצא חי אינו מעלה‬ ‫אלא חלב אמו בלבד‬ :‫מאיבריה‬

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2 with regard to the

4. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, in the introduction to the

differences between these species. In this chapter, the Rambam outlines the different types of animal sacrifices and

order of Kodshim, the Rambam speaks of "peace-offerings

which animals are offered for each one.

explains that the term "[offerings] that resemble peaceofferings" refers to the three types of sacrifices mentioned

2. The sacrifice of the firstborn of one's cattle or flocks. 3. I.e., the tithing of one's cattle or flocks.

and [offerings] that resemble peace-offerings." He later

here, because they resemble peace-offerings." He elaborates on that theme in his commentary to Zevachim 5:5, explaining that the procedure in which these three sacrifices are offered resembles that of the peace-offerings with only minor differences. For that reason and because they are offerings which a person is required to bring only on specific and infrequent occasions, he does not consider them as a separate category of sacrifices.

9

10

5. I.e., the two loaves offered that day. The Rambam is borrowing the wording of Leviticus 23:17.

33. See Chapter 9 which describes both these types of sacrifices.

6. Literally "continuous offerings."

34. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim, ch. 4, which describes the offering of these sacrifices.

7. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:1-3.

35. I.e., if the animal he designated as a sacrifice dies or the

8. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:9.

meal or wine offering designated for the sacrifices was spoiled, he must bring another one in its place.

9. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, chs. 7-10. 10. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:2.

36. As will be explained in ch. 14, in that instance, the person is

11. The Sanhedrin of 71 judges who would hold their sessions in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. 12. Both of these sacrifices are described in Hilchot Shegagot 12:1.

not vowing to bring a sacrifice, he is designated a particular animal as a sacrifice. Hence if that animal is lost, he is not obligated to replace it. 37. We are speaking about sacrifices that are required to be brought at a specific time. If for some reason, the community was unable to bring them at that time, they are not required

13. See Hilchot Bechorot, ch. 1. 14. See Hilchot Bechorot, ch. 6.

to bring them afterwards. As Berachot 26a states: "If the time

15. See Hilchot Korban Pesach, ch. 1.

passes, the sacrifice is nullified."

16. Both of these sacrifices are described in Hilchot Chagigah, ch. 1.

38. For these additional offerings may be brought even at a later date, as will be explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 12.

17. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1.

39. Like the Paschal or festive offerings.

18. A person vows to bring either a burnt-offering or a peace-

40. In this instance as well, since the time passed, the sacrifice

offering. 19. A person pledges to bring a particular animal as a burntoffering or a peace-offering. 20. See Chapter 14 of these halachot (Hilchot

Ma'aseh

HaKorbanot) which describes these sacrifices. 21. See Chapter 9, Halachah 5, and onward which describe this sacrifice. 22. One who took a vow not to drink wine. 23. See Hilchot Nizirut, ch. 8. 24. A person afflicted with tzara'at a skin ailment, similar, but not identical, to leprosy. 25. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kaparah, ch. 4. 26. A male who has emissions from his sexual organ similar to those resulting from a gonorrheal infection.

cannot be brought. In truth, the matter is not at all dependent on whether an individual's sacrifice or a communal offering is involved. The determining factor is whether there is a specific time associated with the sacrifice or not (Radbaz). 41. Leviticus 22:18-19 speaks of bringing the three species mentioned as burnt offerings and specifies that they must be male. 42. Provided they are eight days old, as explained in Halachah 11. 43. The Torah does not make any specification with regard to fowl. 44. Those brought for the sins mentioned in note 32. 45. The guilt offering brought by a nazirite. 46. Before eight days, it is forbidden to bring an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Isssurei Mizbeiach 3:4.

27. A woman who experiences vaginal bleeding outside her menstrual cycle.

47. Both sheep and goats.

28. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kaparah 1:3.

48. If it was brought earlier, it is acceptable after the fact (Radbaz).

29. Premature death at the hand of heaven and the soul being cut off in the World to Come.

49. Since Exodus 22:29 explicitly states that a firstborn animal

30. See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 1. 31. See Chapter 9 which describes both these types of sacrifices. 32. When he engaged in relations with a maid-servant who was married, robbed, made mundane use of consecrated property. Similarly, a nazirite who became impure and a person afflicted with tzara'at must bring this offering.

may be offered on its eighth day of life, our Sages did not desire to place any restrictions on the offering. It may be offered on the eighth day even as an initial preference.

50. The tithe offering and the Paschal sacrifice are, like the firstborn offering, sacrifices of lesser sanctity and the laws

61. I.e. the High Priest, but only one who was anointed. If he assumed his office through wearing the garments of the High

governing the pouring of their blood on the altar are the same. Hence, our Sages considered them the same in this

Priest (as did the High Priests of the Second Temple), he is not required to bring this sacrifice (Hilchot Shegagot, loc.

instance as well [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 1:4)].

cit.).

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that the mishnah cited also states that the same laws apply to offerings that were vowed or pledged and question why the Rambam does not mention them in this halachah. The Radbaz notes that the Rambam does not mention pledges and vows in his Commentary to the Mishnah and maintains that he possessed a different version of the mishnah. 51. Generally, years are counted from day to day and not from hour to hour. For example, with regard to a child becoming Bar Mitzvah at age 13, if he was born at 3 PM on the sixteenth of Elul, he reaches Bar Mitzvah at nightfall on the sixteenth of Elul. He need not wait until 3 in the afternoon. With regard to sacrifices, however, Zevachim 18b uses Biblical exegesis to teach that we count from the hour of an animal's birth. 52. As the Rambam describes in the following clause. 53. This refers to an animal like a ram that is not acceptable for sacrifice until it is a year and 30 days old. It is not acceptable until the hour of its birth passes on the thirty-first day. 54. The term, ayil, Hebrew for ram, is identified with strength. Implied is that the animal must reach a stage of maturity that endows it with strength and power. 55. This is a Greek term. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 1:3), the Rambam explains that the term carries an allusion to the Hebrew phrase peleg gas, implying that it has passed its limits exceedingly. Similarly, this animal is in an intermediate state, having left one category, but not entered another. 56. Perhaps the Rambam's intent is that there is no concept of a pilgas with regard to goats. 57. Our translation is based on early printing and authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slightly different version. 58. Brought on Rosh Chodesh or the festivals and those mentioned in the following halachot. 59. I.e., a king as stated in Hilchot Shegagot 15:6. 60. I.e., as opposed to ordinary sin-offerings which can be either a goat or a sheep, the prince's offering must be a goat and it must be male in contrast to those offerings which are female.

62. I.e., and not eaten. 63. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1. 64. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1. 65. By people at large due to a erroneous ruling by the High Court. 66. See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1. 67. By people at large due to a erroneous ruling by the High Court. 68. I.e. the High Priest, but only one who was anointed. If he assumed his office through wearing the garments of the High Priest (as did the High Priests of the Second Temple), he is not required to bring this sacrifice (Hilchot Shegagot, loc. cit.). 69. The two bulls brought by the High Priest mentioned in the previous halachah. 70. The bulls and the goats brought because of transgressions performed due to a erroneous ruling by the High Court and the goat offered as a sin offered on Yom Kippur [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:5)]. Significantly, in his Commentary to Parah 8:3, the Rambam does not mention the goat offered on Yom Kippur among the goats that are burnt. 71. The Radbaz notes that this appellation is found in Zevachim 47a. He questions the reason for the Rambam's inclusion of this point and explains that it can resolve a question that might arise if a person made a particular pledge. 72. See Chapter 5, Halachot 2-3. 73. See Chapter 5, Halachah 4. 74. The Rambam does not mention the burnt offering, because then the entire animal is burnt. 75. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Introduction to the Order of Kodshim), the Rambam explains that this term is derived from the term emar, "spoke," i.e., these are the organs spoken about, i.e., specified by God to be burnt. 76. The Biblical term kerev (Leviticus 3:3, et al) refers to the inner digestive organs. That verse speaks of "the fat that covers the inner organs" and "all the fat on the inner organs." The first term refers to a large membrane that covers all of these organs like a sack. The second term refers to the fat on the organs themselves. 77. I.e., one of the animals four stomachs. Since the verse uses the term kol, "all," our Sages understood that additional fat was to be brought.

11

78. These are also mentioned explicitly in Leviticus 3:10, et al. 79. The tails of goat and cattle do not collect fat. Hence the term alyah, "fat tail" is not appropriate with regard to them and their tails are not offered (Radbaz). 80. Leviticus 3:9 speaks of haalyah temimah. In this context, temimah means "entire." 81. The inner altar is used only for incense and the blood sprinkled on it on Yom Kippur. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 2:11.

82. In which instance, its fat is forbidden to be eaten, as stated in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 7:3. 83. We do not consider it as if two animals were offered as this sacrifice and the eimorim from each must be offered on the altar. Instead, only the mother is considered as the sacrifice and the fetus is considered as an appendage to it. If the sacrifice is a sin offering, it is given to the priests to partake of. If it is a peace offering, it is given to the owner. Females are not sacrificed as guilt offerings.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

12

policy .

1



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 1

The wine and the fine flour that are brought together with an offering are called accompanying offerings.1 The fine flour alone is called the accompanying meal-offering. The accompanying meal-offering need not be waved, brought [to the corner of the altar], nor [offered with] frankincense.2 It requires salt3 and it is burnt on the outer altar in its entirety.4 The wine is poured over the altar. It is not poured over the fire. Instead, the priest should lift up his hands5 and pour it on [the altar's] base6 and from there, it descends to the shittin.7

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 3

‫היין והסולת שמביאין עם הקרבן הם‬ ‫הנקראין נסכים והסולת לבדה‬ ‫נקראת מנחת נסכים ומנחת נסכים אינה‬ ‫טעונה לא תנופה ולא הגשה ולא לבונה‬ ‫אבל טעונה מלח וכולה נשרפת על מזבח‬ ‫החיצון ויתנסך היין על המזבח ואין נותנין‬ ‫אותו על האש אלא מגביה ידו ויוצק על‬ :‫היסוד והוא יורד לשיתין‬

2

Accompanying offerings are required only for an animal brought as a burnt-offering or as a peaceoffering. Whether it was a communal sacrifice, an individual sacrifice, a sheep brought by a woman who gave birth, or the ram brought by the High Priest,8 since it was a burnt-offering, it requires the accompanying offerings. Accompanying offerings are not brought for [sacrifices of] fowl,9guilt-offerings, sin-offerings, with the exception of the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a person who had been afflicted with tzara'at, for those accompanying offerings are explicitly mentioned in the Torah.10

‫אין טעון נסכין אלא עולת בהמה‬ ‫ושלמים בלבד בין היו קרבן צבור או‬ ‫קרבן יחיד או כבש יולדת ואילו של כהן‬ ‫גדול הואיל והן עולות טעונים נסכים אבל‬ ‫העוף והאשמות והחטאות אין מביאין‬ ‫עמהם נסכים חוץ מחטאת מצורע ואשמו‬ :‫שנתפרשו נסכיהם בתורה‬

What is the source that teaches that accompanying offerings should not be brought together with sin-offerings and guilt-offerings? [When speaking about the accompanying offerings, Numbers 15:3] states: "to utter a vow or pledge," [implying that these offerings are necessary only for sacrifices] brought because of a vow or pledge. [This] excludes a sin-offering, guiltoffering, firstborn offering, tithe offering, and Paschal sacrifice. Since [these offerings] are not brought because of a vow or a pledge, they do not require accompanying offerings.

‫ומניין שאין מביאין נסכים עם החטאת‬ ‫והאשם שנאמר לפלא נדר או נדבה‬ ‫דבר הבא בנדר ונדבה יצאו חטאת ואשם‬ ‫ובכור ומעשר ופסח הואיל ואינן באין בנדר‬ ‫ונדבה אין טעונין נסכים ומניין להביא‬ ‫שלמי חגיגה ועולת ראייה לנסכים שנאמר‬ :‫או במועדיכם‬

Which is the source that teaches to include the festive peace-offerings and the pilgrimage burnt-offerings?11 [The above verse] states: "Or on your festivals."

What is the measure of the accompanying offerings? The accompanying offering for a male or female sheep is an isaron12 of fine flour mixed with a quarter of a hin13 of oil and a quarter of a hin of wine as a wine libation. These are also [the accompanying offerings] for a goat whether small14or large15 and whether male or female and for a ewe, even if she is large. The accompanying offerings of a ram, however, are two esronim mixed with a third of a hin of oil and a third of a hin of wine as a libation. The accompanying offerings of a cow or a calf, whether male or female, are three esronim mixed with a half of a hin of oil and a half of a hin of wine as a libation. These measures are applicable for the accompanying offerings for burnt-offerings and peace-offerings for each animal offered,16 as [implied by ibid.:12]: "According to the number that you offer, so shall you do for [each] one according to their number." We may not increase these measures, nor may we decrease them. [Indeed,] if one increases or decreases [the measure by] even the slightest amount, one disqualifies [the accompanying offering]. The only exception is the sheep offered as a burnt offering on the day of the waving of the omer.17 The accompanying offering for it is two esronim mixed with a third of a hin of oil.18 Although the measure of flour was doubled,19 the measure of wine was not and [only] a quarter of a hin is brought as a libation.

3

‫כמה הוא שיעור נסכים נסכי כבש או‬ ‫כבשה עשרון סולת בלול ברביעית‬ ‫ההין שמן ויין לנסך רביעית ההין וכן נסכי‬ ‫העז בין קטן בין גדול בין זכר בין נקבה או‬ ‫נסכי רחל אע"פ שהיא גדולה אבל נסכי‬ ‫איל הן שני עשרונים סלת בלול בשלישית‬ ‫ההין שמן ויין לנסך שלישית ההין ונסכי‬ ‫הפר או העגל בין זכרים בין נקבות שלשה‬ ‫עשרונים סלת בלול בחצי ההין שמן ויין‬ :‫לנסך חצי ההין‬

‫אלו הן הנסכים בין לעולה בין‬ ‫לשלמים כשיעור הזה לכל אחד‬ ‫ואחד שנאמר כמספר אשר תעשו ככה‬ ‫תעשו לאחד כמספרם אין מוסיפין על‬ ‫השיעורין האלו ואין גורעין מהן ואם גרע‬ ‫או הוסיף כל שהוא פסול חוץ מכבש‬ ‫העולה שמקריבין ביום הנפת העומר‬ ‫שהנסכים שלו שני עשרונים בלול‬ ‫בשלישית ההין שמן אע"פ שנכפלה סולתו‬ ‫לא נכפלו יינו ]ושמנו[ אלא יין לנסך‬ :‫רביעית ההין‬

4

A person who had been afflicted with tzara'at must bring three esronim of flour [as accompanying offerings] for the three sheep which he brings as a sin-offering, a guilt-offering, and a burnt-offering.20 According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that they come because of the sacrifices he brings,21 an isaron for each sheep mixed with a quarter of a hin of oil. A revi'it of wine should be brought with each of the

‫המצורע מביא עם שלשה כבשים שלו‬ ‫שהן חטאת ואשם ועולה שלשה‬ ‫עשרונים ומפי השמועה למדו שהן באין‬ ‫בכלל הזבחים שלו עשרון עם כל כבש‬ ‫בלול ברביעית ההין שמן ורביעית יין עם‬ ‫כל עשרון משלשתן כשאר נסכי הכבשים‬ ‫והמקריב את הפלגס מביא עמו נסכי איל‬ :‫ולא עולה לו זבחו‬

esronim as is the rule for the accompanying offering for all sheep. When one brings a pilgas,22 he should bring with it the accompanying offerings for a ram, [nevertheless,] it is not considered as if he brought [the appropriate] sacrifice.23 A hin comprises twelve log. We have already stated the measure of a log together with other measures in Hilchot Eruvin.24An isaron is an omer which is the measure [of dough from which] challah

‫ההין הוא שנים עשר לוג וכבר הודענו‬ ‫שיעור הלוג עם מדות אחרות בהלכות‬ ‫עירובין והעשרון הוא העומר שהוא שיעור‬ :‫חלה וכבר ביארנו שיעורו בענין חלה‬

must be separated. We have already explained this measure with regard to [the mitzvah of] challah.25 When the accompanying offerings or the meal offerings are measured, whether for an individual offering or a communal offering, they should not be measured in a measure of three esronim for a bull or two esronim for a ram. Instead, everything should be measured with the measure of one isaron that existed in the Temple.26 Similarly, the oil for the accompanying offerings should be measured with the appropriate measure in the Temple.27 The oil for a meal offering brought by an individual is measured in the measure of a log that existed in the Temple;28 the number of lugim [of oil] is determined by the number of esronim [of flour].29

‫כשמודדין הנסכים או המנחות בין‬ ‫מנחת יחיד בין מנחת צבור אין‬ ‫מודדין אותו במדה של שלשה עשרונים‬ ‫לפר או של שנים לאיל אלא מודד הכל‬ ‫בעשרון אחד שהיה במקדש וכן השמן של‬ ‫נסכים מודדין אותו במדתו שבמקדש‬ ‫ושמן של מנחות היחיד בלוג שבמקדש‬ :‫כמנין העשרונות כך מנין הלוגין‬

5

The overflow of the measures of flour are considered to be ordinary flour,30because the outer side of the isaron measure is not consecrated.31 The overflow of the wine and oil, by contrast, is consecrated, because it flows down the back of the utensil and both the inside and the outside of the liquid measures were anointed.

‫בירוצי המדות של סלת חול שאין גב‬ ‫העשרון קודש ובירוצי היין והשמן‬ ‫קודש לפי שהוא יורד על גב הכלי וכלי‬ ‫הלח נמשחו מבפנים ומבחוץ ולמה‬ ‫יתקדשו הבירוצין אע"פ שאין כוונת‬ ‫המודד אלא למה שבכלי בלבד כדי שלא‬ :‫יאמרו מוציאין מכלי שרת לחול‬

Why were the overflows consecrated even though the person measuring only intended to sanctify what was within the utensil?32 So that it would not be said that [substances] are used for ordinary purposes after having been in a sacred utensil.33 What would they do with the overflows? If there was another sacrifice, they would sacrifice them with it. [In that instance,] if they remained overnight,34 they became disqualified accordingly.35 If not, they were [redeemed36 and the proceeds] used to provide "dessert for the altar."37

‫מה היו עושין בבירוצין אם יש שם זבח‬ ‫אחר יקריבו עמו ואם לנו יפסלו בלינה‬ :‫ואם לאו מקיצין בהן המזבח‬

What is implied? Burnt offerings are purchased [with the proceeds of] their [sale]. The meat is offered to God and the hides are given to the priests.

‫כיצד לוקחין בהם עולות הבשר‬ :‫לשם והעורות לכהנים‬

The flour mixed with oil38 of the accompanying offerings are not indispensable requirements preventing [the offering of] the wine libation, nor is the wine libation an indispensable requirement preventing their offering, nor are the accompanying offerings an indispensable requirement preventing the offering of the sacrifices.39 Instead, a person may bring his sacrifice one day and his accompanying offerings after ten days. [This applies to] both individual offerings and communal sacrifices, provided the accompanying offerings were not consecrated in a sacred utensil. If, however, they were consecrated in a sacred utensil, they are disqualified if they remain overnight.

‫הסלת עם השמן של נסכים אינן‬ ‫מעכבין את היין ולא היין מעכבן‬ ‫ולא הנסכים מעכבין את הזבח אלא מביא‬ ‫אדם קרבנו היום ונסכיו אחר עשרה ימים‬ ‫אחד יחיד ואחד צבור והוא שלא קדשו‬ ‫הנסכים בכלי שרת אבל אם נתנן לכלי‬ :‫שרת אם לנו יפסלו בלינה‬

6

The accompanying offerings may only be brought from ordinary produce. They may not be brought from terumah, the second tithes, or the first fruits.40Even for the thanksgiving offering whose bread may be brought from the [second] tithe, its accompanying offerings should only be brought from ordinary produce.41

‫אין מביאין נסכים אלא מן החולין‬ ‫לא יביאם לא מן התרומה ולא‬ ‫ממעשר שני ולא מן הבכורים ואפילו‬ ‫תודה שמביא לחמה מן המעשר לא יביאו‬ :‫נסכים אלא מן החולין‬

All of the measures of the accompanying offerings mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel,42 the listing of the sacrifices, and the order of service written there are all inauguration offerings and will not be practiced in generations to follow.43 Instead, the prophet commanded and outlined how the inauguration offerings will be brought at the time of the dedication of the altar at the time of the coming of the King Mashiach when the Third Temple will be built.44

‫כל שיעורי הנסכים האמורין בספר‬ ‫יחזקאל ומנין אותן הקרבנות וסדרי‬ ‫העבודה הכתובים שם כולם מלואים הן‬ ‫ואין נוהגין לדורות אלא הנביא צוה ופירש‬ ‫כיצד יהיו מקריבין המלואין עם חנוכת‬ ‫המזבח בימי המלך המשיח כשיבנה בית‬ :‫שלישי‬

Just as the princes45 offered sacrifices at the dedication of the altar [of the Sanctuary in the desert], bringing offerings that were not brought in coming generations, and they brought them on the Sabbath, so too, a prince will bring a dedication offering on the Sabbath in the Ultimate Future, as stated explicitly there.46 Similarly, the sacrifices which the people who returned [to Zion] from the [Babylonian] captivity in the days of Ezra,47 were inaugural offerings and will not be practiced in generations to come. The practices to be followed in generations to come are the words of the Torah that we have explained as they were copied from Moses our teacher.48We may not add to them49 or subtract from them.50

‫וכשם שהקריבו הנשיאים בחנוכת‬ ‫המזבח דברים שאין כמותן לדורות‬ ‫והקריבו בשבת כך הנשיא מקריב חנוכתו‬ ‫בשבת לעתיד כאשר מפורש שם וכן‬ ‫קרבנות שהקריבו בימי עזרא הבאים‬ ‫מהשבי מלואים היו ואינן נוהגין לדורות‬ ‫אבל דברים הנוהגים לדורות הם דברי‬ ‫תורה שפירשנו כמו שהעתיקום מפי משה‬ :‫רבינו אין להוסיף עליהם ואין לגרוע‬

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 1 FOOTNOTES

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 3

1. The term nesachim is used continually throughout the Torah,

12. An isaron is equivalent to the size of 43.2 eggs. In modern

e.g., Numbers, ch. 15. Literally, it means "libations." We have

measure, the size of an egg is 57.6 cc according to Shiurei

not used that term, because it is not appropriate with regard to the meal offerings. In his introduction to the tractate of

Torah, and 99.5 cc according to Chazon Ish. 13. As stated in Halachah 7, a hin is equivalent to twelve log.

Menachot, the Rambam states that the Torah uses the term

Each log comprises four revi'iot. In modern measure, a revi'it

in a general sense without attention to its particular meaning. Since every sacrifice is accompanied by such offerings, before delineating the details of the sacrifices, the Rambam

is 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 150 cc according to Chazon Ish. Thus a hin is 48 times this amount.

describes these accompanying offerings. 14. In its first year of life, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 11. 2. As stated in Chapter 12, Halachot 6-7, all of the meal offerings brought independently must be brought to the corner of the altar and frankincense must be offered with them. Some also must be waved. 3. For Leviticus 2:13 states that salt must be brought on all sacrifices. 4. In contrast, there are other meal offerings which are fit to be

16. I.e., even if a person pledged to bring several sacrifices of a given type, he must bring the required accompanying offerings for each animal. 17. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3 where this sacrifice is mentioned.

5. The Kessef Mishneh notes that Sukkah 48b gives that

18. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that only a quarter of a hin of oil should be used. The Radbaz

instruction with regard to the water libation brought on

notes that Menachot 89b appears to support the Ra'avad's

Sukkot. Nevertheless, that text questions why this instruction is mentioned here with regard to the wine libation, for

position. Although he explains that the Rambam's position

eaten.

seemingly, there would be no reason to do so. 6. The Ra'avad notes that Sukkah 48a,b speaks of two cups on

could be justified, he admits that it is somewhat difficult. The Kessef Mishneh also suggests that a printing error crept into the text of the Mishneh Torah.

the southwest corner of the altar, i.e., on the upper level around which the priests would walk. The wine and water

19. Usually, only one isaron of flour was brought for a burnt-

libations would be poured into these cups and they would extend to the shittin. The Radbaz notes that the Rambam

20. See

himself (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:5; see also Chapter 7,

offering of a sheep, as stated in the previous halachah. Hilchot

Mechusrei

Kapparah

1:3.

Bringing

accompanying offerings for these sacrifices is an exception to the general rule, as stated in Halachah 2. The obligation

Halachah 11) speaks of bringing the wine to the top of the altar. Hence, he maintains that the Rambam agrees with the

to bring these three esronim is explicitly stated in Leviticus

Ra'avad concerning this issue. The Kessef Mishneh differs

one is designated for a different sacrifice.

14:10. The Oral Tradition (Menachot91a) teaches that each

and maintains that these cups were only used during Sukkot.

21. This version is found in some of the authoritative

Otherwise, the wine was poured on the altar's base and from there, it flowed into the shittin.

manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and is also suggested by

7. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11 which explains that these were two cavities in the southwest corner of the altar. 8. These two offerings are singled out because they are individual burnt-offerings that are not dependent on an individual's pledge or vow. Menachot 91b cites an explicit verse that teaches that accompanying offerings are required for these sacrifices.

the Or Sameach. The standard published text follows a slightly different version. 22. A ram that is between one year and one year and a month old (Chapter 1, Halachah 14). 23. I.e., regardless of whether he pledged a ram or a male sheep, he is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation by bringing a pilgas, for it is too old for the latter type sacrifice and not old enough for the former.

9. Even those brought as burnt offerings.

24. Hilchot Eruvin 1:13.

10. Menachot 91a derives the need for such accompanying

25. Hilchot Bikkurim 6:15.

offerings from a juxtaposing Leviticus 14:10 and Numbers 15:5. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that accompanying offerings are brought for these sacrifices, because they do not come because of a sin. 11. Which are obligations and not dependent on a person's volition.

7

15. In its second year of life (ibid.).

26. See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:16 which describes the various measures that existed in the Temple. 27. As stated (ibid.:17), there were measures of a half a hin, a third of a hin, and a quarter of a hin in the Temple.

8

28. I.e., a person should not measure out the flour in a private measure he has outside the Temple. Instead, the

40. All of these have a certain dimension of holiness and are not considered as ordinary property. It is forbidden to use them

measurement should be made with the Temple's measure (Radbaz).

for any purpose other than partaking of them in the ordinary manner. Hence they may not be used for these offerings.

29. See Chapter 12, Halachah 7 and Chapter 13, Halachah 5. 30. I.e., they are not consecrated. 31. Flour, wine, and oil that come in contact with sacred utensils become consecrated. Nevertheless, only the inside of the dry measures were consecrated. The outside remained unconsecrated. Hence, the fact that the flour came in contact with it does not change its status. See Hilchot

41. The bread from the thanksgiving offering may be eaten by an ordinary person. Hence, it is permitted for it to be brought from the second tithes. The accompanying offerings, as states above, are offered on the altar entirely. Hence, they may not be brought from the second tithes (Radbaz). 42. These differ greatly for the measures usually employed.

Klei

43. The Radbaz explains that since we are speaking about a directive for a specific time and not an ongoing practice, as a

32. As stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:20, an object

prophet, Ezekiel had the right to speak of offerings not prescribed by the Torah. This does not constitute a violation

HaMikdash 1:19.

placed in a sacred utensil does not become consecrated unless the person placing it there did so intentionally. Hence, even though the overflows came in contact with a sacred utensil, seemingly, there was no intent for them to become consecrated.

of the prohibition to add to the Torah's commandments. See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, ch. 9. 44. All authorities agree that Ezekiel's prophecy referred to special sacrifices and was not to be followed continuously.

33. I.e., a safeguard instituted by our Sages lest a mistaken

Rashi (Menachot 45b) interprets it as referring to the Second

impression be created. The Kessef Mishneh notes that even though this rationale is

Temple, while the Rambam understands it as applying to the era of Mashiach.

advanced by Menachot 90a in support of a minority opinion,

45. The leaders of the tribes as related in Numbers, ch. 7.

it would still be accepted by the majority.

46. Ezekiel 46:4.

34. I.e., there was another offering and it was thought they would be offered with it, but for some reason they were not and remained overnight. 35. For once they were placed in sacred utensil, remaining overnight would disqualify them, as stated in Halachah 12. 36. It is permitted to redeem them, because when consecrating them, there was the intent that they would be redeemed in such an eventuality (Radbaz). 37. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4), where he explains that the term

47. See Ezra 8:35. 48. I.e., from the Torah scrolls which he wrote. 49. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 313) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 454) count the prohibition against adding to the Torah as one of its 613 mitzvot. 50. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 314) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 455) count the prohibition against adding to the Torah as one of its 613 mitzvot. The above is not merely a point of law, but a fundamental

kayitz refers to the time of the fig and grape harvest. These

issue of Jewish faith. As the Rambam states in the ninth of his Thirteen Principles of Faith (Commentary to the Mishnah,

fruits are served as dessert, after a person has eaten his major meal. Similarly, these offerings do not represent the

Sanhedrin, ch. 10) declaring:

fundamental "food" of the altar, but instead, are offered only when the altar is free. 38. The flour and the oil are, however, absolute requirements. One cannot be offered without the other (Radbaz). 39. I.e., the person is required to bring both of these elements of

The ninth principle is that the Torah of Moses will never be nullified.... There can be no additions to it, nor any deletions from it - neither in its text nor in its explanation. And thus we are commanded: "Do not add to it and do not detract it from it."

the accompanying offering. Nevertheless, the offering of one is not dependent on the other as the Rambam continues to

(Our translation is taken from the original manuscript versions of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. The

explain.

standard published text varies slightly.)

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on

this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .

1



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 2

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 4

When two people desired to bring a peace-offering or a burnt-offering in partnership,1 they may whether it was pledged or vowed.2 Even a fowl3 may be brought in partnership.

‫שנים שרצו להביא שלמים או עולה‬ ‫בשותפות מביאין בין בנדר בין‬ :‫בנדבה ואפילו עוף יבוא בשותפות‬

Men, women, and, servants may bring all of these types of sacrifices.4 From gentiles, by contrast, we accept only burnt offerings, as [derived from Leviticus 22:28]: "From the hand of an alien, you shall not offer the food of your God [from all of these]."5 Even a burnt offering of fowl may be accepted from a gentile,6 even if he worships false deities.7

‫ואחד אנשים ואחד נשים או עבדים‬ ‫מביאין כל הקרבנות אבל העכו"ם אין‬ ‫מקבלין מהן אלא עולות בלבד שנאמר‬ ‫ומיד בן נכר לא תקריבו את לחם אלהיכם‬ ‫אפילו עולת העוף מקבלין מן הנכרי אף על‬ ‫פי שהוא עובד ע"ז אבל אין מקבלין מהן‬ ‫שלמים ולא מנחות ולא חטאות ואשמות‬ ‫וכן עולות שאינן באות בנדר ונדבה אין‬ ‫מקבלין אותן מן הנכרי כגון עולת יולדת‬ ‫וכיוצא בה מעולות שאינן באות משום נדר‬ :‫ולא משום נדבה‬

We do not, however, accept peace-offerings,8 meal-offerings, sin-offerings, or guilt-offerings9 from a gentile. Similarly, burnt-offerings that do not come as vows or pledges are not accepted from gentiles, e.g., a burnt-offering from a women who gave birth or the like or other burnt-offerings that do not come as vows or pledges.

2

When a gentile brings peace-offerings, they should be sacrificed as burnt-offerings, for [the intention of] a gentile's heart is [for the sake] of heaven.10 If he gives them to a Jew with the intent that a Jew receive atonement,11 the Jew may partake of them like the peace-offerings of the Jewish people. Similarly, if he gives them to a priest, the priest may partake of them.

‫נכרי שהביא שלמים מקריבין אותן‬ ‫עולות שהעכו"ם לבו לשמים נדר‬ ‫שלמים ונתנם לישראל על מנת שיתכפר‬ ‫בהן לישראל אוכלין אותן הישראלים‬ ‫כשלמי ישראל וכן אם נתנן לכהן כהן‬ :‫אוכלן‬

When a Jew is an apostate who worships false deities or who desecrates the Sabbath in public,12 we do not accept any sacrifices from him at all. Even a burnt-offering that is accepted from a gentile is not accepted from this apostate. [This is derived from Leviticus 1:2 which] states: "A man from you who will sacrifice." According to the Oral Tradition,13 we learned: "From you," i.e., not all of you, excluding an apostate.

‫ישראל שהוא מומר לע"ז או מחלל‬ ‫שבת בפרהסיא אין מקבלין ממנו‬ ‫קרבן כלל אפילו העולה שמקבלין אותה‬ ‫מן הנכרים אין מקבלין אותה מן המומר‬ ‫הזה שנאמר אדם כי יקריב מכם מפי‬ ‫השמועה למדו מכם ולא כולכם להוציא‬ ‫את המומר אבל אם היה מומר לשאר‬ ‫עבירות מקבלין ממנו כל הקרבנות כדי‬ ‫שיחזור בתשובה היה מומר לעבירה והוא‬ ‫מפורסם וידוע לעשותה והורגל בה בין‬ ‫להכעיס בין לתיאבון אין מקבלין ממנו‬ ‫קרבן לאותה עבירה כיצד כגון שהיה רגיל‬ ‫לאכול חלב בין להכעיס בין לתיאבון ושגג‬ ‫ואכל חלב והביא חטאת אין מקבלין אותה‬ :‫ממנו‬

If, however, one was a heretic with regard to other transgressions, any sacrifice [he brings] is accepted so that he will repent. If, however, he was a heretic with regard to a transgression and it is public knowledge that he commits it and he has become accustomed to doing so, a sacrifice [that he brings atoning for] that transgression - whether committed to anger [God]14 or out of desire15 -is not accepted.16 What is implied? If a person was accustomed to eat fat - whether committed to anger [God] or out of desire - and then he inadvertently partook of fat and brought a sin-offering [for this transgression], it is not accepted.

3

Gentiles do not bring accompanying offerings17 for the burnt-offerings they bring, as [can be inferred from Numbers 15:13]: "Every native among you shall do this."18 The accompanying offerings for their sacrifices are, however, brought from communal funds,19 as [ibid.:12] states: "So shall you do for each one according to their number."20 [These burnt offerings] do not require semichah,21 for semichah is performed only by a Jew, and by a male and not a female.22

‫עולות העכו"ם אין מביאין עמהן‬ ‫נסכים שנאמר כל האזרח יעשה ככה‬ ‫אבל נסכיהם קריבין משל צבור שנאמר‬ ‫ככה תעשו לאחד כמספרם ואינן טעונות‬ ‫סמיכה שאין סמיכה אלא בישראל‬ :‫באנשים לא בנשים‬

All of the offerings from domesticated animals that an individual brings23- whether those in which he is obligated or those promised through a vow - [require] semichah while they are alive with the exception of the firstborn offering, the tithe offering, and the Paschal sacrifice. [This is derived from Leviticus 3:2]: "And he shall lean his hand on the head of his offering." According to the Oral Tradition,24 we learned that this refers to all the sacrifices with the exception of the firstborn offering, the tithe offering, and the Paschal sacrifice.

‫כל קרבנות בהמה שיקריב היחיד בין‬ ‫חובה בין נדבה סומך עליהן כשהן חיין‬ ‫חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר והפסח שנאמר‬ ‫וסמך ידו על ראש קרבנו מפי השמועה‬ ‫למדו שכל קרבן במשמע חוץ מפסח ובכור‬ :‫ומעשר‬

[A sacrifice of] a fowl does not require semichah.25 We already explained in Hilchot Shekalim26 that the law is that all the money concerning which it was decided that it should be given to the chest for freewill offerings27 should be used to purchase burnt-offerings. The person to which this money belonged does not perform semichah on that animal, nor does he bring the accompanying offerings.28 Instead, the accompanying offerings are brought from communal funds.29 Even if he was a priest, the service [of offering the sacrifice] and its hide belong to the men of the watch.30

‫העוף אינו טעון סמיכה וכן כל המעות‬ ‫שדינן שיפלו לתיבות של נדבה שכבר‬ ‫ביארנו בהלכות שקלים שכולן יבואו‬ ‫עולות אין בעל אותן המעות סומך על‬ ‫אותה העולה ואינו מביא עליה נסכים אלא‬ ‫נסכיה משל צבור ואע"פ שהיה כהן‬ :‫עבודתה ועורה של אנשי משמר‬

4

All people may perform semichah

with

the

exception of a deafmute, a mentally and/or emotionally unstable individual, a minor,31 a servant, a woman,32 a blind man, and a gentile.33 An agent does not perform semichah, for semichah is performed only by the owners, as [implied by the prooftext]: "And he shall lean his hand." "His hand" and not the hand of his wife, his servant, or his agent. When five individuals bring a sacrifice [in partnership], they all perform semichah, one after the other. They should not perform semichah at the same time. 34

‫הכל סומכין חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן‬ ‫ועבד ואשה וסומא ונכרי ואין‬ ‫השליח סומך שאין סמיכה אלא בבעלים‬ ‫שנאמר וסמך ידו לא יד אשתו ולא יד‬ :‫עבדו ולא שלוחו‬

‫חמשה שהביאו זבח אחד כולן‬ ‫סומכין עליו זה אחר זה לא שיסמכו‬ ‫כולן בבת אחת מי שמת והניח קרבנו‬ ‫עולה או שלמים הרי יורשו מביאו וסומך‬ :‫עליו ומביא נסכיו‬

When a person died and left a sacrifice of a burnt offering or a peace offering, his heir should have it offered, perform semichah on it, and bring its accompanying offerings.35 Semichah is not performed with regard to communal offerings except with regard to two sacrifices: the goat sent to Azazel36 and the bull brought because of a law being forgotten.37 Three members of the Sanhedrin perform semichah on it. This is a law conveyed by Moses our teacher that semichah is not performed on communal offerings other than these two.38

‫אין סמיכה בקרבנות הצבור חוץ משתי‬ ‫סמיכות על שעיר המשתלח ועל פר‬ ‫העלם דבר ושלשה מן הסנהדרין סומכין‬ ‫עליו ודבר זה הלכה מפי משה רבינו שאין‬ :‫בצבור אלא שתי סמיכות‬

Semichah is performed only in the Temple Courtyard.39 If one performed semichah outside the Temple Courtyard, he should perform it again inside. If the one bringing the sacrifice was standing outside [the Temple Courtyard] and he extended his hands into [the Courtyard] and performed semichah, his semichah is valid,40 provided he performed semichah with all his strength.41

‫אין סומכין אלא בעזרה סמך חוץ‬ ‫לעזרה חוזר וסומך מבפנים ואם‬ ‫היה בעל הקרבן עומד בחוץ והכניס ידו‬ ‫לפנים וסמך סמיכתו כשירה והוא שיסמוך‬ ‫בכל כחו ואין סומך אלא טהור ואם סמך‬ :‫הטמא סמך‬

Only a person who is ritually pure may perform semichah. If a person who is ritually impure performed semichah, the semichah [is acceptable].42 The animal should be slaughtered in the place where semichah is performed.43 The animal must be slaughtered directly after semichah. If one slaughtered it in a different place or waited [before slaughtering it], the slaughter is acceptable.

‫ובמקום שסומכין שוחטין ותכף‬ ‫לסמיכה שחיטה ואם שחט במקום‬ ‫אחר או ששהה שחיטתו כשירה והסמיכה‬ ‫שיירי מצוה היא לפיכך אם לא סמך כפר‬ ‫ואינה מעכבת ואף על פי כן מעלין עליו‬ :‫כאילו לא כפר‬

Semichah is an incremental aspect of the mitzvah. Accordingly, if one did not perform semichah, the sacrifice [still] brings atonement; [the semichah] is not an indispensable requirement. Nevertheless, it is considered as if the sacrifice did not bring atonement.44 The person performing semichah must do so with all his power, [placing] both hands45 on the head of the animal, as [Leviticus 1:4] states: "on the head of the burnt-offering." [Implied is his hands must be placed on the head] and not on the [animal's] neck or the side of its face,46 and that should not be any intervening substance between his hands and the animal.

5

‫וצריך הסומך לסמוך בכל כחו בשתי‬ ‫ידיו על ראש הבהמה שנאמר על‬ ‫ראש העולה לא על הצואר ולא על הצדדין‬ :‫ולא יהיה דבר חוצץ בין ידיו ובין הבהמה‬

6

How is semichah performed? If the sacrifice was one of the offerings of the most sacred order, he should have the animal stand in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard,47 facing the west. The person performing semichah stands to the east with his face to the west. He should place both his hands between its two horns and recite [the appropriate] confession, for a sin-offering, the sin which warrants a sin-offering and for a guilt-offering, the sin which warrants a guilt offering. For a burnt offering, he confesses the sin of [negating the observance of] a positive commandment or of a negative commandment that can be corrected by the observance of] a positive commandment. How does he confess? He says: "I sinned, I transgressed, I committed iniquity, and I did this-and-this,48 and I have repented before You and this is my atonement.49 If he is bringing a peace-offering, he should perform semichah with all of his strength anywhere he desires within the Temple Courtyard,50 where [the animal] will be slaughtered. It appears to me that one does not confess on a peace-offering.51 Instead, he says words of praise.52

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 2

‫וכיצד סומך אם היה הקרבן קדש‬ ‫קדשים מעמידו בצפון ופניו למערב‬ ‫והסומך עומד במזרח ופניו למערב ומניח‬ ‫שתי ידיו בין שתי קרניו ומתודה על חטאת‬ ‫עון חטאת ועל אשם עון אשם ועל העולה‬ ‫מתודה עון עשה ועון לא תעשה שניתק‬ :‫לעשה‬

‫כיצד מתודה אומר חטאתי עויתי‬ ‫פשעתי ועשיתי כך וכך וחזרתי‬ ‫בתשובה לפניך וזו כפרתי היה הקרבן‬ ‫שלמים סומך בכ"מ שירצה מן העזרה‬ ‫במקום שחיטה ויראה לי שאינו מתודה על‬ :‫השלמים אבל אומר דברי שבח‬

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 4

FOOTNOTES 1. See Halachah 9. 2. See Chapter 1, Halachah 6, with regard to the distinction between these types of offerings. 3. I.e., an entity of seemingly little value. One might think that bringing such an offering in partnership is not becoming to the altar. Even so, if one's intent is desirable, the offering is accepted (Radbaz, based on Menachot 110a).

4. In this chapter, the Rambam outlines the types of individuals who may bring a sacrifice and the rite of semichah because that is an obligation on the person bringing the sacrifice.

7

5. The Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2:1) notes that the prooftext states that it is forbidden to accept an offering from

16. Since he frequently violates this transgression, we assume that he is not sincere in his desire for atonement for it,

a gentile from a blemished animal. One can infer that if the animal is unblemished, the offering may be accepted.

because a request for atonement must be accompanied by sincere regret. Sacrifices brought for other transgressions

The verse uses the term lechem, "food." That term is

are, however, accepted from him. See Hilchot Shegagot 3:7.

understood as referring only to a burnt-offering, as Numbers

17. A meal offering and a wine libation.

28:2 states: "My food for my fires."And the burnt-offering is the only type of offering, consumed entirely by the fire of the

18. This verse concludes the passage commanding the offering

altar (Radbaz). 6. Although the prooftext speaks only of animals, our Sages understood that the leniency applies to fowl as well (Radbaz). 7. As mentioned in Halachah 4, burnt offerings are not accepted from a Jew who worships false deities. Nevertheless, such restrictions are not placed upon gentiles. 8. To offer them as peace-offerings. They are, however, brought as burnt-offerings, as stated in the following halachah. 9. For the concept of atonement applies only with regard to the Jews' relationship with God. 10. Rashi (Menachot 73b) interprets this as meaning that the gentile desires that his sacrifices be offered entirely to God and not have mortals partake of them. 11. The Radbaz notes that peace-offerings are not intended to bring atonement and explains that this is referring to an instance where a Jew vowed to bring a peace offering and the gentile offered to bring it for him. One might think that since the gentile is bringing them they would be offered as burnt-offerings. Hence it is necessary to explain that they are peace offerings. 12. See the conclusion of Hilchot Shabbat where the Rambam explains that the public desecration of the Sabbath is equivalent to idol worship, because they are both cornerstones of the Jewish faith. "Public" refers to a matter known about by ten people. The Radbaz adds that we do not accept the sacrifices of a Jew who has abandoned Judaism and accepted a faith like Islam which does not involve idol worship. Such a person is included in the category (Hilchot Teshuvah 3:9) of an apostate with regard to the entire Torah. 13. Chulin 5a-b. 14. I.e., he had two cuts of meat before him of equal quality, one kosher and one non-kosher and he ate the non-kosher one solely for the intent of angering God (Gittin 47a). 15. Similarly, in Hilchot Edut 10:3, a distinction is not made with regard to the motivations for the transgression. There are other instances - see Hilchot Teshuvah, loc. cit., Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 8;14, Hilchot Gezeilah ViAveidah 11:2, and Hilchot Rotzeach 4:10 - where the Rambam does make such a distinction.

of the accompanying offers, implying that it is only a native i.e., a member of the Jewish people - who is required to bring them. 19. I.e., the Temple treasury. 20. Implying that the sacrifices themselves require that the accompanying offerings be brought. 21. Leaning on the animal with all one's strength, as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the concluding halachot of the chapter. 22. The prooftext for the obligation to perform semichah speaks of "the children of Israel," and uses the male form. Menachot 93b understands this to exclude gentiles and Chagigah 16b understands it as excluding women. See also Halachah 8. 23. This also includes offerings brought in partnership. The exclusion is only of communal offerings. See Halachah 10. 24. Sifra to the verse; Menachot 92b. 25. The Sifra derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 1:4: "And he will lean his hand on the head of the burntoffering." "The" implies that there are some burnt-offerings to which this does not apply. 26. Hilchot Shekalim 2:3; 3:14. 27. Money that was found between the chest of the freewill offerings and the chest of the shekalim that was closer to the chest of the freewill offerings. 28. Since the money was placed in the chest for the freewill offering, it is no longer considered as his personal property, but as the property of the community. Hence, he is not the owner of the sacrifices and may not perform semichah on them. For that same reason, the community brings the accompanying offerings. 29. A meal offering and a wine libation. 30. The priests designated to serve in the Temple that week. Even though the person whose money was used is a priest and he has the right to offer sacrifices that he brings (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:7), in this instance, he cannot demand the right to offer the sacrifice. 31. These three individuals are not considered as responsible for their actions and are free of the responsibility for all mitzvot. 32. See Halachah 5.

33. Gentiles are not obligated in any of the mitzvot. Hence the obligation of semichah does not apply to them.

43. Menachot 93b derives this concept from the subsequent law:

34. The Radbaz states that this concept is derived from the fact

thus follows that one must slaughter the animal in the same place where semichah was performed, for otherwise, this is

that the prooftext uses the term "his hand" in the singular.

that slaughter must be performed directly after semichah. It

not considered as directly afterwards.

35. For he is acting in the place of the original owner. 36. During the Yom Kippur services. The High Priest performs semichah on it.

44. Tosafot Yesheinim, Yoma 5a, explains that the intent is that although the person is not obligated to bring another sacrifice, in G-d's eyes, his atonement is lacking.

37. In both these instances, there is an explicit verse (Leviticus 16:21; 4:15) requiring semichah for the sacrifice. 38. I.e., were it not for that tradition, we might have derived the need for semichah for communal offerings from these two instances using Biblical exegesis [the Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:7)].

Rambam's

39. Zevachim 32b explains that just as the slaughter of the animal must be performed "before God," in the Temple Courtyard, so too, semichah must be performed "before God," in that same place.

45. This is derived from Leviticus 16:21 which states such a requirement with regard to the goat sent to Azazel. 46. Its cheeks (Rashi, Menachot 93b). 47. The sacrifices of the most sacred order must be slaughtered in this portion of the Temple Courtyard, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachot 2-3. See also Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:16. 48. See Hilchot Teshuvah 2:5 which states that a person seeking to repent must mention the particular sins that he violated.

40. This is indeed what is done when the atonement process of the people bringing the sacrifice has not been completed and

49. This is necessary, for without teshuvah, a sacrifice will not

they are not allowed to enter the Temple Courtyard until the sacrifice is offered.

50. For as stated in Chapter 5, Halachot 2-3, sacrifices of lesser sanctity (of which the peace offering is one) may be

41. As required by Halachah 13.

bring the person atonement (Hilchot Shegagot 3:10).

slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Courtyard. 51. For a peace-offering is not offered to atone for a sin.

42. After the fact.

52. As an example, the Or Sameach cites Psalm 100. The popular translation of II Chronicles 30:22 speaks of the people reciting confessions on their peace-offerings. Rashi and Metzudot, however, render the verb as meaning "offer thanks."

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .

9



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 3

All of the sacrifices may be offered only during the day,1 as [can be inferred from Leviticus 7:38]: "On the day when He commanded the children of Israel to offer their sacrifices." [Implied is] during the day and not at night. Therefore sacrifices are slaughtered only during the day and their blood is sprinkled [on the altar] on the day of the slaughter, as [can be inferred from ibid.:16]: "On the day he offers his sacrifice." Implied is that on the day the sacrifice is slaughtered, it should be offered.2 When the sun sets [on that day], the blood is disqualified.3

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 5

‫כל הקרבנות אין מקריבין אותן אלא‬ ‫ביום שנאמר ביום צוותו את בני‬ ‫ישראל להקריב את קרבניהם ביום ולא‬ ‫בלילה לפיכך אין שוחטין זבחים אלא ביום‬ ‫ואין זורקין דמים אלא ביום השחיטה‬ ‫שנאמר ביום הקריבו את זבחו ביום‬ ‫הזביחה תהיה ההקרבה וכיון ששקעה‬ :‫החמה נפסל הדם‬

2

As long as the elements that cause a sacrifice to be permitted were offered4during the day, [the other elements of] the sacrifice may be offered on the altar throughout the night. What is implied? When the blood of sacrifices was sprinkled during the day, their eimorim5 may be offered on the fire of the altar at night until dawn.6Similarly, the limbs of the burnt-offerings may be offered on the fire of the altar until dawn.7 In order to distance [a person] from inadvertent transgression,8 our Sages declared that the eimorim and the limbs of the burnt-offerings should only be offered on the fire of the altar until midnight.

‫כל שקרבו מתיריו ביום מעלין אותו‬ ‫על המזבח כל הלילה כיצד זבחים‬ ‫שנזרק דמם ביום מקטירין אימוריהן‬ ‫בלילה עד שיעלה עמוד השחר וכן איברי‬ ‫העולות מקטירין אותן בלילה עד שיעלה‬ ‫עמוד השחר וכדי להרחיק מן הפשיעה‬ ‫אמרו חכמים שאין מקטירין האימורין‬ :‫ואיברי העולה אלא עד חצות הלילה‬

Even though the eimorim and the limbs [of the sacrifices] may be offered on the fire of the altar at night, they may not be willingly delayed. Instead, an attempt should be made to offer everything during the day, for it is desirable that a mitzvah be performed at its designated time. [The importance of this can be seen from the fact that] the offering of the eimorim and the limbs [of the sacrifices] on the fire of the altar supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions on that day. We do not delay this until Saturday night.9

‫אע"פ שמותר להקטיר אימורין‬ ‫ואיברים בלילה אין מאחרין אותן‬ ‫לדעת אלא משתדלין להקטיר הכל ביום‬ ‫חביבה מצוה בשעתה שהרי הקטר‬ ‫אימורין ואיברים אף על פי שכשרים‬ ‫בלילה דוחין את השבת בזמנן ואין מאחרין‬ :‫אותן למוצאי שבת‬

Any element of a sacrifice that may be offered only during the day, e.g., the handful [of flour from the meal-offering], the frankincense [from the meal-offering], the incense offering, and the meal-offerings that are burnt [on the altar],10 may be offered [on the altar] at sunset.11 They then continue to be consumed [by the altar's fire] the entire night like the limbs of the burnt offerings.

‫כל דבר שאינו קרב אלא ביום כגון‬ ‫הקומץ והלבונה והקטרת ומנחות‬ ‫הנשרפות מותר להקריבן עם מבוא השמש‬ ‫והם מתאכלין והולכין כל הלילה כאיברי‬ :‫עולה‬

The libations that are offered with sacrifices12 are only offered during the day,13 as [Numbers 29:39] states: "And for their libations and for their peaceofferings." An association is established between the peace-offerings and the libations. Just as the peaceofferings [are offered only] during the day, so too, the libations must be offered during the day. Nevertheless, the libations that are offered independently may be sanctified at night and offered at night.14 Therefore if it happens that a person obtains libations that are brought independently, he should15 sanctify them at night and offer them at night.16 Dawn disqualifies [these libations], as it disqualifies the limbs of the burntoffering.17

‫הנסכים הבאים עם הזבח אין קריבין‬ ‫אלא ביום שנאמר ולנסכיכם‬ ‫ולשלמיכם מקיש נסכים לשלמים מה‬ ‫שלמים ביום אף נסכים ביום אבל הנסכים‬ ‫הבאים בפני עצמן מתקדשין בלילה‬ ‫וקריבין בלילה לפיכך אם נזדמנו לו נסכים‬ ‫הבאין בפני עצמן מקדישן ומקריבן בלילה‬ :‫ועלות השחר פוסלת בהן כאיברי העולות‬

The entire day is acceptable for semichah, slaughter, severing a fowl's head,18 offering objects on the altar's fire, bringing [meal] offerings to the altar,19 sprinkling [blood on the altar], waving [sacrificial offerings],20 taking a handful of the meal offering,21 and bringing the Musaf offering.22 The entire night is acceptable to offer the eimorim and the limbs on the altar's fire.23

‫כל היום כשר לסמיכה ולשחיטה‬ ‫ולמליקה להקטר להגשה ולהזייה‬ ‫ולתנופה ולקמיצה ולקרבן המוספין וכל‬ ‫הלילה כשר להקטיר אימורין ואיברים זה‬ ‫הכלל דבר שמצותו ביום כשר כל היום‬ ‫ודבר שמצותו בלילה כשר כל הלילה ואף‬ :‫על פי כן זריזין מקדימין למצות‬

This is the general principle: When the mitzvah is to perform a particular act during the day, it is acceptable throughout the day. If the mitzvah is to perform the act at night, it is acceptable throughout the night. Nevertheless, the eager hasten to perform the mitzvot.24 As an initial preference, all of the sacrificial animals may be slaughtered only with a knife that is a sacred utensil. Nevertheless, if one slaughtered it with any article [fit] to slaughter an ordinary animal - even the edge of a bulrush25 - it is acceptable.26

3

‫כל הזבחים אין שוחטין אותן לכתחלה‬ ‫אלא בסכין מכלי שרת ואם שחט בכל‬ ‫דבר ששוחטין בו החולין אפילו בקרומית‬ :‫של קנה כשרין‬

4

Whenever one received less than the amount of blood need to sprinkle it on the altar27 from any of the sacrifices, the blood does not become consecrated. [As an initial preference,] one should have the intent of receiving all the [animal's] blood. What should be done? One should hold the windpipe and the gullet28 in his hand, and together with the jugular vein, place them inside a basin29 and slit both of them - or their majority30 - so that all of the blood will be received in the basin. [After the slaughter,] the knife should be lifted up, so that the blood does not flow down along it, but rather from the neck. He should wipe off the blood that is on the knife on the [outer] edge of the basin.31 The space above the basin is considered as if it is inside the basin.32 If one was receiving the blood [of a sacrificial animal] and the bottom of the basin opened before the blood reached the open space of the bottomless basin, the blood is not consecrated. [The rationale is that when the blood enters] space in which it will ultimately not come to rest, it is not considered as if it came to rest.33

‫וכל הזבחין שקיבל מדמם פחות‬ ‫מכדי הזייה לא נתקדש הדם וצריך‬ ‫להתכוין לקבל כל הדם כיצד הוא עושה‬ ‫אוחז הסימנים בידו ומוציאן עם הורידין‬ ‫לתוך המזרק ושוחט שנים או רוב שנים‬ ‫כדי שיתקבל הדם כולו בכלי ומגביה הסכין‬ ‫למעלה כדי שלא ירד הדם מעליה אלא מן‬ :‫הצואר ודם שבסכין מקנחו בשפת המזרק‬

‫אויר הכלי הרי הוא ככלי היה מקבל‬ ‫הדם ונפחתו שולי המזרק קודם‬ ‫שיגיע הדם לאויר המזרק הנפחת לא‬ ‫נתקדש הדם שהאויר שאין סופו לנוח אינו‬ :‫כמונח‬

5

With regard to all of the sacrifices, the person performing the service34must have the intent of offering the proper type of sacrifice for the sake of the person bringing it at the time of slaughter, at the time the blood is received, at the time it is brought to the altar, and at the time that it is dashed on the altar,35 as [indicated by Leviticus 7:15]: "And the meat of his thanksgiving, peace-offering." [Implied is that] the slaughter together with the [three other] services must be for the sake of his peace-offering.36 Similar concepts apply with regard to other sacrifices.

‫כל הזבחים צריך העובד שתהיה‬ ‫מחשבתו לשם הזבח ולשם בעליו‬ ‫בשעת זביחה ובשעת קבלת הדם ובשעת‬ ‫הולכת הדם ובשעת זריקתו על המזבח‬ ‫שנאמר ובשר זבח תודת שלמיו שתהיה‬ ‫זביחה עם שאר ארבע העבודות לשם‬ ‫שלמיו וכן שאר הקרבנות ואם שחט ועבד‬ ‫שאר עבודות סתם ולא חשב כלל בעולה‬ :‫ובשלמים הרי הן כשרים ועלו לבעלים‬

If one slaughtered [an animal] and performed [these] other services without any intent, without thinking at all,37 this is acceptable for a burnt-offering and a peaceoffering and the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.38 At the time of the slaughter of [an animal designated as] a burnt-offering,39[the person offering it] must have six things in mind, [that the animal be slaughtered]: for the sake of the [desired] sacrifice,40 for the sake of the person bringing it,41 that it be sacrificed unto God, blessed be He, that it be consumed by fire,42 that its consumption by fire be for the sake of generating a [pleasing] fragrance,43 and that the fragrance be pleasing before God. If he slaughtered [the animal] without any intent, it is acceptable, as explained.44

‫וצריך שתהיה מחשבתו בשעת‬ :‫שחיטת העולה לשם ששה דברים‬ ‫לשם הזבח ולשם הזובח ושהזבח להשם‬ ‫ברוך הוא ושיקטירו לאישים ושהקטרתו‬ ‫לריח בלבד ושריח זה נחת רוח לפני השם‬ ‫ואם שחט סתם כשר כמו שביארנו‬ ‫והשוחט חטאת ואשם צריך שתהיה‬ :‫מחשבתו לשם אותו החטא שבא עליו‬

One who slaughters [an animal as] a sin-offering or a guilt-offering should have the intent that [the sacrifice atone] for the sin which he committed.45

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 3 FOOTNOTES

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 5

6

1. In this chapter, the Rambam lists the time limits associated with bringing the sacrifices and describes the intent with which the sacrifices must be offered. 2. I.e., its blood should be sprinkled on the altar. 3. As is the entire sacrifice (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:37). 4. I.e., the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the altar (Radbaz). 5. The fats and inner organs of the animal that are offered on the altar. 6. The appearance of the first glimmerings of the light of the sun on the horizon more than an hour before sunrise. 7. As Leviticus 6:2 speaks of "the burnt-offering... on the altar, the entire night until the morning."

22. The word "day" is mentioned in either the verse commanding the ritual acts mentioned or in a verse associated with them. Our Sages inferred that these ritual acts could only be performed during the day (see Megilah 20b). 23. I.e., according to Scriptural Law. See Halachot 2-3 above. 24. I.e., one should endeavor to perform them at the earliest possible opportunity. 25. See Hilchot Shechitah 1:14 and notes. 26. The Radbaz explains that the rationale is that slaughter is not considered part of the sacrificial service, as evidenced by the fact that it may be performed by a non-priest. 27. The laws governing the sprinkling of the blood are described in the following chapter. 28. The Rambam refers to these with the term siman, "signs," for

8. I.e., "lest time become pressing and they would not be offered until the following day" [the Rambam's Commentary

they are the organs which, when slit in the desired manner, indicate that ritual slaughter is acceptable.

to the Mishnah (Berachot 1:3)]. Rashi (at the beginning of his

29. The Rambam is quoting Zevachim 25a-b. As indicated by

commentary to Berachot) and other authorities differ and

the conclusion of the halachah, it appears that the intent is

maintain that such a safeguard was not instituted.

not that the animal's neck should be held inside the sacred basin - for then, it would be difficult to perform the slaughter -

9. When there would be no prohibition involved in offering them. 10. For example, the meal-offerings brought by the priests. See Chapter 12. 11. Provided certain conditions are met, these may be offered on the altar even after the afternoon daily sacrifice has been offered. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:6 and notes. 12. As accompanying offerings. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1. 13. They need not be offered on the day the sacrifice is offered, but they must be offered during the day.

but rather, above it (see Radbaz). 30. In Hilchot Shechitah 1:9, the Rambam states: "Superior slaughter involves cutting both [the windpipe and the gullet], whether for an animal or a fowl, and a slaughterer should have this intent. [After the fact,] if one cut the majority of one of them for a fowl and the majority of both of them for an animal or a beast, the slaughter is acceptable." 31. So that the blood will not flow into the basin (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). 32. Our division of the halachot is based on the authentic

14. Since they were not associated with a particular sacrifice, there are no limits as to when they may be offered.

manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published

15. Our translation follows the gloss of the Radbaz who

33. The question is whether the blood is considered as if it came

maintains that it is preferable for him to offer them at night, for the libations should be consecrated and offered at the

to rest in the basin and then spilled out (in which instance, it would be acceptable to be gathered from the floor) or

earliest possible opportunity. Hence, if it is possible for him to do so by day, he should do so by day. If that option becomes

whether it spilled directly on the floor and was hence, disqualified (Rashi, Zevachim 25b). The Rambam is stating

available at night, he should not wait for the next day.

that since the blood is not going to come to rest in the bottomless basin, it is not considered as if it was spilled out

16. This is acceptable even as an initial preference. 17. I.e., one might think that since they were sanctified at night, they would not be disqualified until the end of the next day. Hence, it is necessary to state that this is not so. 18. See Chapter 7, Halachah 6. 19. See Chapter 12, Halachah 6. 20. See, for example, Chapter 9, Halachah 7. 21. See Chapter 13, Halachot 12-13.

text has a slightly different version.

and is therefore not consecrated. Note the Radbaz who maintains that even if the utensil has a hole in it, if the blood is able to be collected, it is acceptable. 34. His intent is significant and not the intent of the person who donated the sacrifice [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 4:6); Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:1].

35. Although there are many activities connected with a sacrifice being offered, these four activities are considered the ones

39. The commentaries discuss whether these concepts apply with regard to the peace offerings as well. From the

that are significant with regard to whether or not the sacrifice is disqualified.

Rambam's words, it would appear that the general intent applies to the peace-offerings, some of the particulars the

36. The process of Biblical exegesis through which these concepts are derived is explained in Zevachim 4a-b. 37. If, however, they were sacrificed with a different intent, the sacrifice is acceptable, but the person is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation (Zevachim 2a). 38. From the Rambam's words, it appears that this is not true with regard to a sin-offering or a guilt-offering or the Paschal sacrifice. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that from Zevachim 46b, it would appear that even those sacrifices are acceptable as long as one does not have a

Rambam mentions obviously do not. 40. I.e., he must know the type of offering for which he is slaughtering an animal (Rashi, Zevachim 46b). 41. I.e., and not for someone else (ibid.). 42. Rather than roasted for human consumption (ibid.). 43. That they be burnt on the altar and not elsewhere and then brought to the altar (ibid.). 44. In the previous halachah. 45. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 15:6.

wrong intent. It is only when one has a wrong intent that they are disqualified. The Radbaz maintains that even though those sacrifices are not disqualified, the person bringing them is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation. The Kessef Mishneh does not accept this explanation and leaves his question of the Rambam's ruling unresolved.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

8

1



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 4

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 6

We have already explained1 that the slaughter of consecrated animals is acceptable even when performed by non-priests.2 From the receiving of the blood and onward, the mitzvah is that of the priests.3 The blood of all the sacrifices must be received in a sacred utensil4 held by a priest's hand.5 Nevertheless, the place where they are slaughtered and their blood is received is not the same in all instances.

‫כבר ביארנו ששחיטת הקדשים‬ ‫כשירה בזרים ומקבלת הדם ואילך‬ ‫מצות כהונה וכל הזבחים קיבול דמן בכלי‬ ‫שרת ביד כהן אבל מקום שחיטתן ומקום‬ :‫קיבול דמן אינו שוה בכלן‬

What is implied? Sacrifices of the most sacred order may be slaughtered and their blood may be received6 in the any portion of [the area designated as] north of the altar whose boundaries we defined in the beginning of this book.7 Sacrifices of lesser sanctity may be slaughtered and their blood received in every place in the Temple Courtyard.

‫כיצד קדשי קדשים אין שוחטין אותן‬ ‫ואין מקבלין את דמן אלא בצפון‬ ‫המזבח בכל המקום שביארנו גבולותיו‬ ‫בתחילת ספר זה וקדשים קלים שחיטתן‬ :‫וקיבול דמן בכל מקום מן העזרה‬

What is the source that teaches the sacrifices of the most holy order may be slaughtered only in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard. With regard to a burnt-offering, [Leviticus 1:11] states: "And it shall be slaughtered on the northern flank of the altar." And with regard to the sin-offering, [ibid. 6:18] states: "In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, you shall slaughter the sin-offering." And just as a sin-offering is called a sacrifice of the most sacred order,8 so too, the burnt-offering is called, a sacrifice of the most sacred order.9 With regard to the guilt-offering, [ibid. 7:2] states: "In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, you shall slaughter the guilt-offering." And an association was established between communal peace-offerings10 and sin-offerings, as [ibid. 23:19] states: "You shall offer one he-goat as a sin-offering and two sheep a year old as a peace-offering." Therefore, they are considered sacrifices of the most sacred order like a sin-offering and are slaughtered in the place where it is slaughtered.11 In the place where [these sacrificial animals] are slaughtered, their blood should be received. What is the source that teaches that sacrifices of lesser sanctity may be slaughtered in any place in the Temple Courtyard, even behind the Temple building?12With regard to the peace-offerings, [Leviticus] 3:2] states: "And you shall slaughter it at the opening to the Tent of Meeting," this indicates that all directions are acceptable,13 for a particular direction was not specified. The same applies to other sacrifices of lesser sanctity. If they were slaughtered in the Temple building itself, they are acceptable.14 If, however, they slaughtered them on the roof of the Temple building,15 they are not acceptable, for the roofs are not fit for ritual slaughter at all. It must be performed on the earth of the Temple Courtyard.

2

‫ומנין שאין שוחטין קדשי קדשים אלא‬ ‫בצפון שהרי נאמר בעולה ושחט אותו‬ ‫על ירך המזבח צפונה ובחטאת הוא אומר‬ ‫במקום אשר תשחט העולה תשחט‬ ‫החטאת וכשם שהחטאת נקראת קדש‬ ‫קדשים כך העולה נקראת קדש קדשים‬ ‫ובאשם הוא אומר במקום אשר ישחטו‬ ‫את העולה ישחטו את האשם ושלמי צבור‬ ‫הוקשו לחטאת שנאמר ועשיתם שעיר‬ ‫עזים אחד לחטאת ושני כבשים בני שנה‬ ‫לזבח שלמים לפיכך הן קדשי קדשים‬ ‫כחטאת ונשחטין במקום שחיטתה ומקום‬ :‫שחיטה הוא מקום הקבלה‬

‫ומנין ששוחטים קדשים קלים בכל‬ ‫העזרה אפילו אחורי ההיכל שהרי‬ ‫נאמר בשלמים ושחטו פתח אוהל מועד‬ ‫להכשיר כל הרוחות שהרי לא ייחד להם‬ ‫רוח והוא הדין לשאר הקדשים קלים ואם‬ ‫שחטם בהיכל כשרים אבל אם שחטן בגגו‬ ‫של היכל פסולין שאין הגגות ראויות‬ :‫לשחיטה כלל אלא בקרקע העזרה‬

3

Peace offerings16 that were slaughtered before the gates to the Temple building were opened are unacceptable,17 as [indicated by the prooftext,] "at the opening to the Tent of Meeting," i.e., when it is open. Even if the doors were closed, [but not locked,] they are considered as locked. However, the curtain that is over [the entrance]18 does not disqualify [the offering].

‫שלמים ששחטן קודם שיפתחו‬ ‫דלתות ההיכל פסולין שנאמר פתח‬ ‫אהל מועד בזמן שפתוח אפילו היו‬ ‫דלתותיו מוגפות הרי זה כנעול אבל‬ :‫הפרוכת שעליו אינה פוסלת‬

The manner in which the blood of a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, and a peace offering, whether communal or individual, is cast on the altar is the same for all three types of sacrifices at all times.

‫העולה והאשם והשלמים בין של יחיד‬ ‫בין של צבור זריקת דם שלשתן על גבי‬ ‫המזבח שוה לעולה וכיצד הוא עושה‬ ‫כשלוקח הכהן הדם במזרק וזורק ממנו‬ ‫במזרק שתי זריקות על שתי זויות המזבח‬ ‫באלכסון מחצי המזבח ולמטה על קרן‬ ‫מזרחית צפונית ועל קרן מערבית דרומית‬ ‫ומתכוין כשיזרק הדם על הקרן שיהיה‬ ‫הדם מקיף על הזויות כמין ג"ם כדי שימצא‬ ‫הדם של שתי מתנות על ארבעה כתלי‬ ‫המזבח לפי שנאמר בעולה ובשלמים סביב‬ ‫והוא הדין לאשם ושירי הדם נשפכין על‬ :‫היסוד הדרומי‬

What does [the priest] do? The priest takes the blood which is in a receptacle and casts it from the receptacle19 twice, [once] on each of two of the corners of the altar on a diagonal, on the bottom half of the altar.20 [The corners were] the northeast and the southwest.21 When casting the blood on the corners, he should have the intent that the blood will surround the corners like a gamma.22 In this way, the blood from these two castings will be found on the four walls of the altar.23 For with regard to the burnt-offering and the the term peace-offering, [the Torah] uses24 "surrounding."25 This also applies to the guilt offering.26 The remainder of the blood is poured on the foundation on the southern side of the altar.

The sin offerings from which [the priests] partake require four presentations [of blood], [one] on each of the four corners of the outer altar, on its upper half,27 for concerning it, [Leviticus 4:25] states: "On the corners of the altar.28 What should [the priest] do? When the priest takes the blood in the receptacle, he carries it to the altar. He dips the index finger of his right hand29 into the blood. He then places his thumb [on one side of the altar] and his middle finger [on the other side] and applies30 [the blood] on the point of the corner of the altar, descending until he finishes [bestowing] all the blood on his finger. He does this on each corner. If he placed the blood near the corner, within a cubit on either side, he achieves atonement [for the owner of the sacrifice].31

4

‫החטאות הנאכלות דמן טעון ארבע‬ ‫מתנות על ארבע קרנות המזבח החיצון‬ ‫מחצי מזבח ולמעלה לפי שנאמר בה על‬ ‫קרנות המזבח וכיצד הוא עושה כשלוקח‬ ‫הכהן הדם במזרק מוליכו אצל המזבח‬ ‫וטובל אצבעו הימנית הסמוכה לגודל בדם‬ ‫וסומך באצבעו הגדולה מכאן ובגודל מכאן‬ ‫ומחטא ויורד כנגד חודה של קרן עד‬ ‫שיכלה כל הדם שבאצבעו וכן הוא עושה‬ ‫בכל קרן וקרן ואם נתן סמוך לקרן כאמה‬ :‫אחת מכאן או מכאן כפר‬

He must dip his finger [in the blood] before applying it to each corner. When he finishes applying it to the corner, he should clean his finger on the [outer] edge of the container.32 He then dips it in a second time, for the blood on his finger is unacceptable to place on another corner.

‫וצריך לטבול אצבעו על כל קרן וקרן‬ ‫וכשגומר הנתינה על הקרן מקנח‬ ‫אצבעו בשפת המזרק ואח"כ טובל פעם‬ ‫שניה ששירי הדם שבאצבעו פסולין ליתן‬ :‫מהן על קרן אחרת‬

None of the other sacrifices require the application of the blood on the altar with one's finger aside from the sin-offering,33 for with regard to it [Leviticus 4:6] states: "And he shall dip his finger into the blood." There must be enough blood so that he can dip his finger into it. He should not collect the blood with his finger.

‫אין בכל הקרבנות קרבן שטעון הזיית‬ ‫דם באצבעו אלא חטאת בלבד‬ ‫שנאמר בה וטבל אצבעו בדם וצריך‬ ‫שיהיה שם דם כדי טבילה לא שיספג‬ :‫אצבעו מדם‬

From [which] corner should he begin? He should ascend on the ramp and turn to his right, walking on the surrounding ledge. He should apply the blood to the southeast corner first and then to the second corner that is close to it, the northeast corner.34 Afterwards, he should proceed to the third corner, [the one] next to it, the northwest corner, and afterwards, to the fourth corner next to it, which is the southwest. On the base of the altar at the corner which he completed the applications of the blood, he pours out the remaining blood,35 as [Leviticus 4:17] states: "And all of the [remaining] blood he should pour on the base of the altar of the burnt-offerings."36 This refers to the base on the southern side [of the altar].

‫ומנין הוא מתחיל עולה בכבש ופונה‬ ‫לימינו ומהלך על הסובב ונותן בקרן‬ ‫דרומית מזרחית תחילה ואחר כך בקרן‬ ‫השניה הסמוכה לה שהיא מזרחית צפונית‬ ‫ואח"כ בקרן שלישית הסמוכה לה שהיא‬ ‫צפונית מערבית ואחר כך בקרן רביעית‬ ‫הסמוכה לה שהיא מערבית דרומית ועל‬ ‫יסוד אותה הקרן שהשלים בה המתנות‬ ‫הוא שופך שירי הדם שנאמר ואת כל הדם‬ ‫ישפך אל יסוד מזבח )העולה( זה יסוד‬ :‫דרומי‬

The blood of all of the sin-offerings that are burnt37 is taken in the Temple building, and it is sprinkled there as described in the Torah.38 The remainder of the blood should be poured on the western base of the outer altar, [the one] that he encounters first when he leaves the Temple building.

‫כל חחטאות הנשרפות דמם נכנס‬ ‫לפנים להיכל ומזין ממנו שם‬ ‫כאשר מפורש בתורה ושירי הדם שופכן‬ ‫על יסוד המערבי של מזבח החיצון שהוא‬ :‫פוגע בו תחילה בצאתו מן ההיכל‬

How is their blood sprinkled and how many sprinklings are made? The blood of both the bull39 and the goat40 offered on Yom Kippur require eight sprinklings between the staves [of the ark] and eight sprinklings on the curtain [before the Holy of Holies]. He then mixes together the blood of the bull and that of the goat and sprinkle four times, one on each of the four corners of the golden altar in the Temple building and seven sprinklings on the center of this altar, as will be explained in Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim.41 [Even] if he did not carefully direct the

‫והיכן מזין מדמן וכמה מזה מהם פר‬ ‫ושעיר של יום הכפורים דם כל‬ ‫אחד מהן טעון שמונה הזיות על בין הבדים‬ ‫ושמונה על הפרוכת ומערב דם הפר‬ ‫והשעיר ומזה משניהם ארבע הזאות על‬ ‫ארבע קרנות מזבח הזהב שבהיכל ושבע‬ ‫הזיות על אמצעו של מזבח זה כמו‬ ‫שיתבאר בהלכות עבודת יוה"כ ואם לא‬ :‫כיון בהזיות שבפנים כשרות‬

sprinklings42 performed in the innermost [chamber], they are acceptable.

5

6

The blood of the bulls that are burnt43 and the goats that are burnt44 should both be cast [in the following manner]. They should be sprinkled seven times on the curtain that separates between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies and four times on the four corners of the golden altar.45

‫פרים הנשרפין ושעירים הנשרפין‬ ‫זורק דם מכל אחד מהם שבע הזיות‬ ‫על הפרוכת המבדלת בין הקדש ובין קדש‬ ‫הקדשים וארבע הזיות על ארבע קרנות‬ :‫מזבח הזהב‬

With regard to the blood placed on the golden altar: When he enters [the Sanctuary],46 he stands between the altar and the Menorah47 with the altar in front of him. He should [sprinkle the blood] on the outer side of the horns of the altar. He should begin with the northeast corner and [proceed] to the northwest and then to the southwest and then to the southeast.

‫וכל הדמים הניתנין על מזבח הזהב‬ ‫כשהוא נכנס עומד בין המזבח‬ ‫למנורה והמזבח לפניו ונותן על קרנות‬ ‫המזבח מבחוץ מתחיל מקרן מזרחית‬ ‫צפונית לצפונית מערבית למערבית‬ :‫דרומית לדרומית מזרחית‬

With regard to the bull brought by the anointed priest48 for the violation of any of the mitzvot, the anointed priest himself receives its blood and sprinkles it in the Sanctuary.49 If an ordinary priest received this blood and sprinkled it, it is acceptable.

‫פר כהן משיח הבא על כל המצות‬ ‫כהן המשיח עצמו מקבל דמו ומזה‬ ‫ממנו מבפנים ואם קיבל והזה כהן הדיוט‬ :‫כשר‬

The goats [offered in atonement for] idol worship are called the goats which are burnt. The Torah does not explicitly state how their blood was sprinkled [on the altar]. Nevertheless, since they are communal sin offerings, the laws applying to them should be the same in their particulars as those applying to the bull brought because of a forgotten law, for it is also a communal sin-offering. [This applies to] the sprinkling of the blood, burning [the sacrifices], and the impurity they impart to the one who has them burnt.

‫שעירי ע"ז והן שעירין הנשרפין‬ ‫לא נתפרש בהן בתורה כיצד נותן‬ ‫דמן ולהיכן הוא נותן אלא לפי שהן חטאת‬ ‫הקהל דינן כדין פר העלם שהוא חטאת‬ ‫הקהל לכל האמור בו למתן דמים‬ :‫ולשריפה ולטמא את השורף‬

7

The blood of each [of the following], the firstborn offering, the tithe offering, and the Paschal sacrifice is required to be presented to the altar through one pouring at its base, in any direction one desires on the three corners of the altar that have a base. For, as we explained,50 the southeastern corner did not have a base. What is the source that teaches that all that is required is one present? For with regard to the first born sacrifice, [Numbers 18:17] states: "You shall cast its blood on the altar." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this also applies to the tithe offering and the Paschal sacrifice. Their blood is presented once like that of the firstborn offering. The eimorim51 of all the sacrifices are the first [elements of the sacrifice] offered on the pyre of the altar after the blood is cast [on the altar].52 All of the sacrificial [animals] are skinned and then the eimorim are removed. They are not skinned until the blood is cast. [This applies] with the exception of the sin-offerings, for they are not skinned at all,53 as [Leviticus 16:27] states: "You shall burn with fire their hide and their flesh." Thus, [the order of sacrifice is] first the blood is cast [on the altar].54 Then the sacrificial [animals] are skinned and then their [bellies] are ripped open, the eimorim are removed and offered [on the pyre of the altar].

‫הבכור והמעשר והפסח דם כל אחד‬ ‫מהן טעון מתנה אחת בשפיכה כנגד‬ ‫היסוד באי זו רוח שירצה משלש זויות‬ ‫המזבח שהרי קרן מזרחית דרומית לא היה‬ ‫לה יסוד כמו שביארנו ומניין שאינן טעונין‬ ‫אלא מתנה אחת שהרי נאמר בבכור ואת‬ ‫דמם תזרוק על המזבח מפי השמועה למדו‬ ‫שהוא הדין במעשר ובפסח שנותן דמן‬ :‫מתנה אחת כבכור‬

‫כל הזבחים מקטירין אימוריהן על‬ ‫גבי המזבח אחר שזורקין הדם‬ ‫תחילה וכל הזבחים מפשיטין אותן ואחר‬ ‫כך מוציאין את אימוריהן ואין מפשיטין‬ ‫אותן עד שיזרק הדם חוץ מחטאות‬ ‫הנשרפות שאין מפשיטין אותם כלל‬ ‫שנאמר את עורם ואת בשרם נמצאת‬ ‫אומר זורק תחילה ואח"כ מפשיט וקורע‬ :‫ומוציא האימורין ומקטיר‬

8

All of the hides of the sacrifices of the most sacred order - whether communal offerings or individual offerings - are given to the priests, as [Leviticus 7:8] states: "The hide of the burnt-offering55 he offered [shall belong to that priest]." The hides of sacrifices of lesser sanctity, by contrast, are given to the owners. Whenever the flesh of a burnt-offering did not merit to be offered on the altar,56 the priests do not acquire its hide, as [implied by the above verse which] states: "the burnt-offering of a man." [We can infer that it refers only to] a burnt-offering that was acceptable for a man.

‫כל עורות קדשי הקדשים לכהנים‬ ‫בין בקרבנות צבור בין בקרבנות‬ ‫יחיד שנאמר עור העולה אשר הקריב אבל‬ ‫עורות קדשים קלים לבעלים וכל עולה‬ ‫שלא זכה המזבח בבשרה לא זכו הכהנים‬ ‫בעורה שנאמר עולת איש עולה שעלתה‬ :‫לאיש‬

In all instances that a disqualifying factor was caused in one of the sacrifices of the most sacred order before they were skinned, their hides are not granted to the priests.57 [If they are disqualified] after they are skinned, their hides are granted to the priests. All of the hides should be divided among the members of the priestly watch from Friday to Friday.58

‫כל קדשי הקדשים שאירע בהן פיסול‬ ‫קודם הפשטן אין עורותיהן לכהנים‬ ‫לאחר הפשטן עורן לכהנים וכל העורות‬ ‫מחלקין אותן אנשי משמר ביניהן מערב‬ :‫שבת לערב שבת‬

When a person consecrates a burnt-offering to the Temple treasury59 or one consecrates his property [to the Temple treasury] and among [his possessions] were male animals concerning which the law is that they should be sacrificed as burntofferings,60 the hides are not given to the priests, for [the prooftext] states: "the burnt-offering of a man." This excludes the burnt-offering of the Temple treasury. Instead, the hides should be sold and the money given to the Temple treasury.

‫המתפיס עולתו לבדק הבית וכן‬ ‫המקדיש נכסיו והיו בהן זכרים‬ ‫שדינן שיקרבו עולות אין עורותיהן לכהנים‬ ‫שנאמר עולת איש פרט לעולת הקדש‬ ‫אלא ימכרו העורות ויפלו לבדק הבית‬ ‫אחד עולת איש או אשה או עכו"ם או עבד‬ ‫עורותיהן לכהנים לא נאמר איש אלא‬ :‫להוציא ההקדש‬

The hide of a burnt-offering brought by] a man or a woman, a gentile61 or a servant, is given to the priests. The term "man" was used only to exclude the Temple treasury.

9

« Previous

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 6

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 4 FOOTNOTES

9. In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim

1. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:6. In this chapter, the Rambam explains the place where

5:1), he explains that although there is no specific verse

sacrifices are offered and the manner in which the blood and fats from the sacrifices is presented to God.

referring to a burnt-offering as a sacrifice of the most sacred order, since an equivalence is established between it and a

2. Indeed, a non-priest may slaughter a sacrificial animal as an initial preference (Radbaz).

sin-offering and a guilt-offering, we can assume that it is included in that category.

3. Leviticus 1:5 states: "The sons of Aaron will offer it." Implied

10. This refers to the sheep offered on Shavuot. Different laws apply to individual peace-offerings, as stated below.

is that all the acts involved in offering the animal should be performed by the priests (Zevachim 32a). 4. Zevachim 97b notes that Exodus 24:5-6 speaks of the blood of peace-offerings being received in sacred vessels. Now if this is a requirement for peace-offerings which are sacrifices of lesser sanctity, it certainly holds true for sacrifices of the most sacred order. 5. I.e., the receptacle may not be resting on the ground (Radbaz). 6. Since, as implied by Chapter 4, Halachah 8, one must receive the blood immediately after slaughter, this is seemingly obvious. It could be explained that the Rambam is implying that even after the fact, receiving the blood elsewhere disqualifies the sacrifice. Moreover, even if he received only part of the blood outside the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is disqualified

11. The Kessef Mishneh notes that based on Numbers 10:10, Zevachim

55a

establishes

an

association

between

communal peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and asks why the Rambam prefers the association with the sin-offerings. Seemingly, deriving the concept from the burnt-offering would be more direct. In resolution, he explains that since the Torah states that the sin-offering should be slaughtered in the same place as the burnt-offering, it is as if it is explicitly stated that the sin-offering should be slaughtered in the north. Hence, the derivation is not indirect. 12. Zevachim 54b explains that there was a small opening at the rear of the Holy of Holies. Since the area behind the Temple building could see the Holy of Holies, it was considered as if it saw "the entrance to the Tent of Meeting." 13. In addition to the verse cited, Zevachim 55a states that there is another verse (Leviticus 3:8) which mentions the

(Radbaz).

slaughtering a sacrifice "before the Tent of Meeting." It explains that both verses are necessary, for from the verse

7. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:16 states: [The area] from the northern wall of the Temple Courtyard until the wall of the Altar, was sixty and a half [cubits] wide.

cited by the Rambam, one would not know that it is permissible to slaughter an animal in the side portions of the

The length of this area, from the wall of the Entrance Hall until the eastern wall of the Courtyard, was 76 [cubits].

Temple Courtyard. Indeed, the Kessef Mishneh suggests

The rectangle [described above] is called "the northern portion." The sacrifices of the most sacred order were

Rambam indeed desired to cite Leviticus 3:8.

slaughtered there. The 60 and a half cubit width can be broken down as follows: the space between the pillars and the northern wall, 8 cubits,

that a printing error crept into the Mishneh Torah and the

14. For if seeing the entrance to the Temple Building makes a sacrifice acceptable, certainly, being inside the Temple building itself does (Zevachim 63a). 15. Needless to say, this applies with regard to the roofs of the chambers in the Temple Courtyard (Radbaz). For the roofs of the structures in the Temple complex were not consecrated (Pesachim 85b).

the area of the pillars 12.5 cubits, the area of the tables, 8 cubits, the area of the rings, 24 cubits, the space between the rings and the Altar, 8 cubits. It was

16. Tosafot, Yoma 29a, maintains that this also applies to any

also called beit hamitbachayim, the butchering area,

other sacrificial animals that must be slaughtered. This view is not, however, accepted by all authorities (see the

because here the

commentaries to Zevachim 61a).

large majority of

sacrifices were

slaughtered and prepared to be offered on the altar. 8. In the verse cited.

17. This law also applies if the gates to the Temple were closed during the day, but that generally did not take place (Radbaz).

40. The goat whose pair was sent to Azazel. 41. Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:2.

18. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 7:17.

42. The sprinklings had to be directed, one upward and seven

19. I.e., unlike the sin-offering mentioned in Halachah 9, he need not sprinkle it with his hand.

downward, as will be explained in Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim. If the High Priest was not careful about

20. Beneath the scarlet band that was tied around the middle of the Altar. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:9. If he cast the blood above that band, the sacrifice is disqualified. 21. The priest would cast the blood on the northeast corner and

directing the sprinklings in this manner, they are still acceptable. This is the interpretation offered by Rav Yosef Corcus and also suggested as an alternative by the Kessef Mishneh.

then the southwest in that order (Tamid 4:1), so that when

The Kessef Mishneh,

walking, he would be circling the altar to the right (Yoma

interpretation: that the Hebrew should be translated as "he

15b). These corners were chosen because there was no

did not have the intent," i.e., he performed the act without the intent of it being a mitzvah. This can be connected to a

base on the altar's northwest corner (Hilchot

Beit

HaBechirah 2:10). 22. A Greek letter whose shape resembles an upside-down "L." 23. Hence our Sages (Zevachim 53b, et al) uses the expression: "Two presentations of blood that constitute four." 24. Leviticus 1:11, 3:2. 25. And in the manner described above, the blood will be cast on all four sides of the altar. 26. Leviticus 7:2 which describes the guilt offering also uses the term "surrounding." Nevertheless, its wording is slightly different. 27. If the blood is placed below the midway point of the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified. 28. Implying that it must be placed on all four corners. 29. For all service is performed with the right hand. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 5:18. 30. The verb used by the Rambam (and his source, Zevachim 53a) refers to the wording employed by Leviticus 6:19, which means "performs the service of the sin-offering." 31. I.e., after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable.

however,

also

offers

another

question of a much larger scope: Must a person who performs a mitzvah have the intention of doing so or not? From Rosh Hashanah 32b, it would appear that such intention is necessary. However, other Talmudic sources imply that there is no need for such intention. Whenever a person performs the deed of a mitzvah, he fulfills his obligation, regardless of his intention. On the surface, the Rambam's own decisions regarding this question appear paradoxical. Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 6:3 states: "A person who eats matzah without the intention [of fulfilling the mitzvah]... fulfills his obligation." By contrast, Hilchot Shofar2:4 states that a person who hears the sounding of the shofar from one who blows it casually, without the intent of performing a mitzvah, does not fulfill his obligation. There is extensive debate about this issue among the commentaries. The general consensus is that one must have the intent of performing a mitzvah. The situation involving matzah is unique for various reasons, each authority explaining the rationale for the exception in his own way. See the discussion of the rulings cited for more details. 43. These include a bull brought by a High Priest as a sin-offering and the bull brought as atonement for a law forgotten by the High Court (Chapter 1, Halachot 15-16).

32. So that it does not become mixed with the blood remaining in the container (Zevachim 93b).

44. As atonement for the prohibition against idol worship (ibid.).

33. See Halachah 6.

45. This is stated explicitly with regard to the sin-offering brought

34. For he is circling to the right, as required (Zevachim 62b). 35. If he fails to do this, the sacrifice is not disqualified (see Chapter 19, Halachah 4). 36. The Kessef Mishneh suggests amending the prooftext to Leviticus 30:34 for that verse refers to the sin-offerings brought on the outer altar, while the verse cited by the Rambam refers to the sin-offerings whose blood is sprinkled within the Temple itself. 37. See Chapter 1, Halachah 16, for a definition of this term. 38. See the following halachah for an actual description.

10

39. The sin-offering of the High Priest and his priestly brethren.

by the High Priest in Leviticus 4:6-7 and the bull brought because of the error of the High Court (ibid.:17). The sprinkling of the blood of the goats is derived from the laws regarding these offerings as stated in Halachah 16. 46. With regard to the sprinkling of the blood on Yom Kippur, this refers to the entry of the High Priest from the Holy of Holies. With regard to the other sacrifices, it refers to the entry into the Sanctuary from the Entrance Hall. The commentaries see a difficulty between the Rambam's words here and his statements in Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:2.

47. The Menorah was on the southern side of the Sanctuary (to the left of the priest as he faces the Holy of Holies).

57. Instead, they are burnt together with the meat of the sacrifice (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:9). 58. The Tosefta, Zevachim, ch. 11, states that originally, the

48. The High Priest. 49. As related by Leviticus 4:6, he sprinkles the blood toward the curtain separating the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies.

hides were divided daily among the members of the clan who served in the Temple that day. Nevertheless, under these

50. Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:10.

circumstances, strong-armed priests would seize the hides from others. Hence, they organized a larger division where

51. The fats and the inner organs that are offered on the altar.

seizing the hides in that manner would not be possible.

52. This order is explicitly stated in the Torah's description of the manner in which several sacrifices are offered, e.g., Numbers 18:17: "Their blood shall the cast upon the altar and their fats they shall offer on the altar's pyre." 53. See Chapter 7, Halachah 2. 54. For otherwise there would be an interruption between receiving the blood and casting it upon the altar (Rashi,

59. It is offered on the altar, but it is not considered as his personal sacrifice. 60. Rambam LeAm notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:7), one opinion states - as the Rambam states here - that the male animals should be offered as burnt-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer

absolute

maintains that the males should be sold to others to be offered as burnt-offerings. Significantly, when referring to this

requirement. If the animal is skinned first, the sacrifice is not

law in Hilchot Arachin and in his Commentary to the

disqualified (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:9).

Mishnah, the Rambam follows Rabbi Eliezer's position.

Zevachim103b).

This,

however,

is

not

an

55. And from the burnt-offering, we derive that this law applies to other sacrifices of the most sacred order (Zevachim 103a). 56. I.e., the sacrifice was disqualified before its blood was cast on the altar in which instance, it was never required that its flesh would be offered on the altar.

61. The Kessef Mishneh notes that the standard published texts for Zevachim 103a speak about a convert rather than a gentile. He favors the Rambam's version of the text, because seemingly there is no reason to separate between a convert and another Jew in this regard.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

11

policy .

12



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 5

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 7

It is a positive commandment to offer the burntoffering1 according to its statutes as they are written in the Torah.2 How is the burnt-offering brought? One slaughters [the animal] and casts its blood in the manner described,3 skins it, cuts it into pieces and offers all the pieces on the pyre of the altar, as [Leviticus 1:9] states: "The priest shall offer the entire [sacrifice] on the pyre of the altar."

‫מצות עשה לעשות העולה כמשפטה‬ ‫הכתובה בתורה וכיצד מעשה העולה‬ ‫שוחט וזורק הדם כמו שביארנו ומפשיט‬ ‫ומנתח ומקטיר כל הנתחים על גבי המזבח‬ :‫שנאמר והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה‬

The wool on the heads of the sheep, the hair of the beards of the goats, and the bones, sinews, horns, and hoofs of the [sacrificial animals]4 should be offered on the pyre of the altar5 if they are still connected [naturally6 to the animal's body]. If they have been separated, they should not be brought up [to the altar].7 [This is derived from Deuteronomy 12:27 which mentions]: "Your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood."8All parts of the sacrificial animal which flew off9 the altar should not be returned to it. Similarly, a coal which flew off the altar should not be returned to it.

‫צמר שבראשי כבשים ושיער שבזקן‬ ‫התיישים והעצמות והגידים והקרנים‬ ‫והטלפים בזמן שהן מחוברין מקטירין את‬ ‫הכל ואם פרשו לא יעלו שנאמר עולותיך‬ ‫הבשר והדם וכולן שפקעו מעל המזבח לא‬ ‫יחזיר וכן גחלת שפקעה מעל המזבח לא‬ :‫יחזיר‬

2

[The following rules apply when] the limbs [of a sacrificial animal] flew off the altar. If they still have substance, even if they flew off after midnight,10 they should be returned to the altar,11 [for Leviticus 6:2] speaks of [the burnt-offering remaining] "on its fire, on the altar, the entire night." If they do not have substance, even if they flew off before midnight, they should not be returned.12 If the meat became charred and dried up upon them like wood13 and they flew off before midnight, they should be returned. After midnight, they should not be returned.14

‫איברים שפקעו מעל המזבח אם יש‬ ‫בהן ממש אפילו פקעו אחר חצות‬ ‫הלילה יחזיר שנאמר על מוקדה על‬ ‫המזבח כל הלילה ואם אין בהם ממש‬ ‫אפילו פקעו קודם חצות לא יחזיר נתחרך‬ ‫הבשר ויבש עליהן כעץ ופקעו קודם חצות‬ :‫יחזיר אחר חצות לא יחזיר‬

After one cuts up the limbs of the burnt-offering, all of the different portions should be brought to the altar's ramp15 and salted there.16 Afterwards, all of the limbs should be brought up to the top of the altar.17 The gid hanesheh18 should be removed at the top of the altar19 and tossed on the pile of ash in the midst of the altar. All of the limbs should be cast on the altar, as [implied by the prooftext cited above], "the flesh and the blood." Just as the blood is cast [on the altar],20 so too, all of the flesh must be cast [on the pyre].21 After they were tossed [on the altar, the priest] should come and arrange them on the pyre, as [Leviticus 1:12] states: "And the priest shall arrange them." If limbs [of sacrificial animals] were roasted and then brought up to the altar, they are not considered as a pleasing fragrance.

‫כשמנתח איברי העולה מוליכין את‬ ‫כל הנתחים לכבש ומולחין אותם שם‬ ‫ואחר כך מעלין כל האיברים לראש‬ ‫המזבח ומסיר גיד הנשה בראש המזבח‬ ‫ומשליכו על גבי הדשן שבאמצע המזבח‬ ‫וזורק כל האיברים על האש שנאמר‬ ‫הבשר והדם כשם שהדם בזריקה כך כל‬ ‫הבשר בזריקה ואחר שזורקן חוזר ועורך‬ ‫אותן על האש שנאמר וערך הכהן אותם‬ ‫ואיברים שצלאן ואח"כ העלן למזבח אין‬ :‫בהם משום ריח ניחוח‬

3

How is the burnt-offering cut up? One would not break the animal's leg. Instead, a hole was made in it.22 It was hung from [the hole]23 and skinned. If [the burnt-offering] was an ox, it should be skinned without being hung.24 The person25 continues skinning, until he gets to the breast, When he gets to the breast, he should cut off the head26 and give it to a priest. He then cuts off the feet27 and gives them to others. He then completes skinning the animal. He rips open the heart and takes out its blood. He then proceeds to the forelegs and cuts them off.28 He proceeds to the right hindleg and gives it to [the priest] who merited [to carry] the head. The two testicles should be taken with it.

‫כיצד מנתחין את העולה לא היה‬ ‫שובר את הרגל אלא נוקבו ותולה בו‬ ‫ומפשיט ואם היה שור מפשיטו בלי תלייה‬ ‫ומפשיט עד שהוא מגיע לחזה הגיע לחזה‬ ‫חותך את הראש ונותנו לכהן וחותך את‬ ‫הכרעים ונותנן לאחר ומשלים את ההפשט‬ ‫וקורע את הלב ומוציא את דמו וחותך את‬ ‫הידים ונותנן לאחר עלה לרגל ימיני חותכו‬ ‫ונותנו למי שזכה בראש ושתי ביצים עמה‬ ‫ואחר כך קורע את הבהמה עד שיגלו‬ ‫)את( המעים ונוטל את הפדר ונותנו על‬ ‫הראש מלמעלה על בית השחיטה ונוטל‬ :‫את הקרביים ונותנן לאחר‬

Afterwards, he rips open the animal's [belly] until he reveals the intestines. He takes the fat29 and places it on the head, to cover the place of slaughter.30 He takes the inner organs and gives them to another [priest]. [The latter] goes and washes them with water, as [Leviticus 1:13] states: "The inner organs and the feet should be washed with water." [This excludes] wine, a mixture of wine and water, and other liquids. All types of water are, [however,] acceptable.31 To what extent should he wash them? The stomach should be washed in the Washing Chamber32 to whatever degree necessary. The intestines should be washed at least three times.33 They should be washed on the marble table located between the pillars.

‫הולך ומדיחן במים שנאמר והקרב‬ ‫והכרעים ירחץ במים לא ביין ולא במזג‬ ‫ולא בשאר משקין וכל המימות כשרין‬ ‫כמה מדיחן הכרס מדיחין אותה בבית‬ ‫]המדיחין[ כל צרכה הקרבים אין פוחתין‬ ‫משלש פעמים ומדיחין אותן על שלחנות‬ :‫של שיש שבין העמודים‬

4

He then takes the knife and separates the lung from the liver and [also] the lobe of the liver from the liver.34 He should not move the liver from its place. He hollows out the chest and gives it to another [priest]. He then proceeds upward to the right flank and cuts if off and descends to the backbone. He does not touch the backbone35 until he reaches the two soft ribs. He cuts it off and gives it to another [priest] while the liver is attached to it.

‫נטל את הסכין ומפריש את הריאה מן‬ ‫הכבד ואצבע הכבד מן הכבד ואינו‬ ‫מזיז הכבד ממקומו ונוקב את החזה ונותנו‬ ‫לאחר ועולה לדופן הימנית וחותך ויורד‬ ‫עד השדרה ולא יגע בשדרה עד שהוא‬ ‫מגיע לשתי צלעות רכות חותכה ונותנה‬ :‫לאחר והכבד תלויה בה‬

He then reaches the neck and leaves it with two ribs on either side. He cuts it off and gives it to another priest with the windpipe, the heart, and the lungs attached to it. He proceeds to the left flank and leaves two soft ribs above and two soft ribs below and, as he had left in the other one. Thus on the two sides, he leaves four ribs on either side. He then cuts it off and gives it to another person together with the backbone36 with the spleen attached to it.

‫בא לו לגרה מניח בה שתי צלעות‬ ‫מכאן ושתי צלעות מכאן חותכה‬ ‫ונותנה לאחר והקנה והלב והריאה תלויין‬ ‫בה בא לו לדופן השמאלית ומניח בה שתי‬ ‫צלעות רכות מלמעלה ושתי צלעות רכות‬ ‫מלמטה וכך היה מניח בחברתה נמצא‬ ‫מניח בשתי הדפנות ארבע צלעות בזו‬ ‫וארבע צלעות בזו חותכה ונותנה לאחר‬ :‫והשדרה עמה והטחול תלוי בה‬

He then comes to the tail and severs it and gives it to another [priest] together with the fat-tail, the lobe of the liver, and the two kidneys with it.37 He should take the left foot and give it to another [priest]. This order should be followed when skinning and cutting up a burnt-offering of an animal. These are the portions referred to by the Torah [in Leviticus 1:6]: "You shall cut it into its portions."38

‫בא לו לעוקץ חותכו ונותנו לאחר‬ ‫והאליה ואצבע הכבד ושתי כליות‬ ‫עמה נוטל את הרגל השמאלית ונותנה‬ ‫לאחר וכסדר זה מפשיטין ומנתחין עולת‬ ‫בהמה ואלו הן הנתחין האמורין בתורה‬ :‫ונתח אותה לנתחיה‬

How many priests bring the limbs to the ramp? If the burnt-offering is from sheep, six priests should carry it.

‫בכמה מוליכין את האיברים לכבש אם‬ ‫מן הצאן היא העולה מוליכין אותה‬ :‫ששה‬

5

The first [priest] carries the head and the [right] foot.39 [He carries] the head in his right hand40 with its nose facing his forearm and its horns between his fingers. The place where [the animal] was slaughtered is held upward with the fat upon it. The right foot is in his left hand41 with the side from which the skin was removed42 facing outward.

‫הראשון בראש וברגל הראש‬ ‫בימינו וחוטמו כלפי זרועו וקרניו‬ ‫בין אצבעותיו ובית שחיטה למעלה והפדר‬ ‫עליה והרגל של ימין בשמאלו ובית עורה‬ :‫לחוץ‬

The second [priest carries] the two forelegs, the right one in his right hand and the left one in his left hand.43 The side from which the skin was removed should face outward.

‫השני בשתי הידים של ימין בימינו‬ ‫ושל שמאל בשמאלו ובית עורן‬

The third [priest carries] the tail and the hindleg, the tail in his right hand with the fat-tail that hangs between his fingers. Together with it should be the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys. The left hindleg should be in his left hand with the side from which the skin was removed facing outward.

‫השלישי בעוקץ וברגל העוקץ בימינו‬ ‫והאליה מדולדלת בין אצבעותיו‬ ‫ואצבע הכבד ושתי הכליות עמו והרגל של‬ :‫שמאלו בשמאלו ובית עורן לחוץ‬

The fourth [priest carries] the breast and the neck, the breast in his right hand and the neck in his left hand with the ribs between his fingers.

‫הרביעי בחזה ובגרה החזה בימינו‬ ‫והגרה בשמאלו וצלעותיה בין‬ :‫אצבעותיו‬

The fifth [priest carries] the two flanks, the right flank in his right hand and the left flank in his left hand. The side from which the skin was removed should face outward.

‫החמישי בשתי דפנות של ימין‬ ‫בימינו ושל שמאל בשמאלו ובית‬ :‫עורן לחוץ‬

:‫לחוץ‬

The sixth [priest carries] the intestines in a bowl.44 The feet should be placed above them.45 [This applies] if the burnt-offering was a sheep or a goat. If, however, it was a ram, two priests should bring the intestines.46

‫הששי בקרבים נתונין בבזך‬ ‫וכרעים על גביהן מלמעלה אם‬ ‫היתה העולה כבש או עז אבל אם היתה‬ ‫איל מוליכין הקרבים שנים וכן הסלת של‬ ‫נסכיה ביד אחד והיין ביד אחר ואם היה‬ :‫איל הסלת בשנים והיין בשנים‬

Similarly, [if it was a sheep,] the flour of the accompanying offering should be brought by one priest and the wine by another. If it was a ram, the flour should be brought by two priests47 and the wine, by two priests. Thus eight [priests] bring [a burnt offering of] a sheep or a goat to the altar.48 That of a ram is brought by eleven and that of an ox is brought by twenty-four.

‫נמצאת למד שהכבש או העז מוליכין‬ ‫אותו שמונה למזבח והאיל מוליכין‬ :‫אותו אחד עשר‬

There are 24 [priests] who bring [a burnt offering of] an ox to the altar. The first brings the head. The second and the third bring the right foot.49The fourth and the fifth bring the tail. The sixth and the seventh bring the left foot. The eighth brings the breast. The neck is brought by three [priests], the ninth, tenth, and eleventh. The two forelegs are brought by two priests, the two flanks, by two, and the intestines, the flour, and the wine in sets of three.50 Thus there are 24.

‫השור מוליכין אותו ארבעה‬ ‫ועשרים הראשון מוליך את הראש‬ ‫והשני והשלישי מוליכין הרגל של ימין‬ ‫והרביעי והחמישי מוליכין את העוקץ‬ ‫והששי והשביעי מוליכין את הרגל של‬ ‫שמאל והשמיני מוליך את החזה והגרה‬ ‫מוליכין אותה שלשה תשיעי ועשירי ואחד‬ ‫עשר ומוליכין שתי הידים בשנים ושתי‬ ‫הדפנות בשנים והקרבים והסולת והיין‬ :‫בשלשה שלשה הרי ארבעה ועשרים‬

Why was a large limb of an ox not divided into portions? Because it is written: "You shall cut it into its portions." [Implied is that] its portions should not be cut into portions.

‫ולמה לא יחלקו האבר הגדול של‬ ‫שור לחלקים שנאמר ונתח אותה‬ ‫לנתחיה ולא נתחיה לנתחים בד"א בעולות‬ ‫הצבור אבל עולות היחיד אם רצו להוליך‬ :‫נתחיה בפחות מאלו או ביותר מוליכין‬

When are the above [number of priests] required [to bring the limbs to the altar]?51 For a communal burntoffering. If it was desired that the portions of an individual burnt-offering be brought to the altar with less than this [number of priests] or more, it is possible.

6

7

How was the burnt-offering of a fowl brought? [The priest] would ascend upon the ramp52 He would turn [right] to the surrounding ledge and approach the southeast corner.53 There he would sever the head [of the fowl] at the nape of its neck, severing [the head]54 entirely. If he does not sever it entirely, [the sacrifice] is invalid. He then squeezes out the blood of the head and the blood of the body on the wall of the altar above the [scarlet] band in the middle of the altar.

‫עולת העוף כיצד היתה נעשית עולה‬ ‫לכבש ופנה לסובב ובא לו לקרן‬ ‫דרומית מזרחית והיה מולק שם את ראשה‬ ‫ממול ערפה ומבדיל ואם לא הבדיל פסולה‬ ‫וממצה דם הראש ודם הגוף על קיר‬ ‫המזבח למעלה מן החוט שבאמצע המזבח‬ ‫ואם מצה דם הראש ולא מצה דם הגוף‬ ‫פסולה מצה דם הגוף ולא מצה דם הראש‬ :‫כשירה‬

If he squeezed out the blood of the head, but did not squeeze out the blood of the body, [the sacrifice] is invalid. If he squeezed out the blood of the body, but did not squeeze out the blood of the head, [the sacrifice] is valid.55 He should take the head and bring the opening where it was severed close to the altar, dips it into salt,56 and cast it on the pyre. He then focuses his attention on the body. He removes the crop,57 the skin that is upon it with its feathers,58and the intestines that are removed with it59 and casts them on the ash pile.60

‫ונוטל את הראש ומקיף בית‬ ‫מליקתו למזבח וסופגו במלח‬ ‫וזורקו על גבי האישים ובא לו לגוף והסיר‬ ‫את המוראה והעור שעליה בידו עם הנוצה‬ ‫ואת בני מעים היוצאין עמה ומשליכן לבית‬ :‫הדשן‬

[Leviticus 1:17 states:] "He shall split it with its wings" - [this is performed] by hand,61 not with a knife. He need not separate [one part of the body from the other], as [that verse] states: "He [need] not separate it." If he separates it, it is valid. He then spreads salt upon it and casts it upon the altar.

‫ושסע אותו בכנפיו בידו בלא‬ ‫סכין ואינו צריך להבדיל שנאמר‬ ‫לא יבדיל ואם הבדיל כשר וסופגו במלח‬ ‫וזורקו על גבי האישים לא הסיר את‬ ‫המוראה ולא את הנוצה ולא את בני מעים‬ ‫ולא ספגה במלח כל ששנה בה מאחר‬ :‫תמצית הדם כשירה‬

If he did not remove the craw, the feathers, or the intestines or spread salt upon it, it is valid. As long as the change that one makes comes after squeezing out the blood, [the sacrifice] is acceptable.62

How is melikah performed? [The priest] cuts and descends with his nail at the nape of the neck.63 If he desires to move his nail back and forth,64 he may. If he wishes to chop and descend with his nail,65 he may. If the organs necessary for ritual slaughter slip from their place,66 he need not be concerned. He must cut through the spine, i.e., the neckbone, without cutting through the majority of the meat surrounding it, for if he would cut through the majority of the meat, [the sacrificial animal] would be considered as dead67 before he reached the organs necessary for ritual slaughter. With regard to a burnt offering, as he descends he must cut both the organs68 necessary for ritual slaughter.

‫כיצד מולקין קוצץ ויורד בצפורן‬ ‫ממול עורף אם רצה להוליך‬ ‫ולהביא מוליך ומביא ואם רצה להיות‬ ‫דורס ויורד בצפורן דורס ואם נעקרו‬ ‫הסימנים אינו חושש וחותך שדרה‬ ‫ומפרקת בלא רוב בשר שאם חתך רוב‬ ‫בשר הרי זו כמתה קודם שיגיע לסימנין‬ ‫וצריך לחתוך שני הסימנים בעולה כשהוא‬ ‫יורד והמולק בסכין או מן הצדדין אינה‬ ‫מליקה אלא כמי שחנק או נחר וכל העורף‬ :‫כשר למליקה‬

When one performs melikah with a knife or does so from the side, it is not considered as melika. Instead, it is like strangling or decapitating the fowl. The entire [width of] the nape of the neck is acceptable for melikah.

« Previous

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 7

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 5 FOOTNOTES 1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 63) and Sefer

3. See Chapter 5, Halachot 1-3, with regard to the slaughter of

HaChinuch (mitzvah 115) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This refers both to the burnt-offerings

the animal and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to casting its blood on the altar.

brought by individuals and those brought by the Jewish people as a whole.

4. All of these are not fundamental parts of the animal's body. Hence while they are connected to the body, they are

2. Having described the general principles that apply with

considered as part of it and must be offered on the altar's pyre. The implication is that ordinarily, they would not be

regard to all the sacrifices, the Rambam begins to focus on each one individually, describing its laws in a particular chapter or set of halachot. Here the Rambam focuses on the manner in which the sacrifices are brought. In later sets of halachot, he speaks of the obligations of individuals and of the Jewish people as a whole to bring these sacrifices.

8

separated and the animal would be offered on the altar while they were attached. Nevertheless, if they had been separated and they had descended from the altar, they are considered as distinct and there is no longer any obligation to offer them.

9

5. If, however, they flew off the pyre, but remained on the altar, they should be placed back on the pyre (Meilah 9b). 6. This addition is made on the basis of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:5).

19. It should not be removed beforehand, because the limb will not look attractive as it is being carried to the altar (Chulin 90b). 20. As described in Chapter 5, Halachah 6.

7. Indeed, if they were brought up to the altar as separate

21. Indeed, the altar's ramp was separated slightly from the altar

entities, they should be taken down again, rather than offered (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:16). Nevertheless,

itself to insure that the limbs were thrown on the fire rather than merely placed there (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:13).

if they were separated on the altar itself before they were

22. As obvious from the continuation of the halachah, the hole is

offered, they should not be taken down, but instead should be offered on its pyre (Radbaz, Rav Yosef Corcus).

not made in the animal's foot, but on its thigh above its knee. Thus it will remain hanging after its legs were cut off.

8. The prooftext is defining the meat and the blood as the fundamental elements of a burnt offering. The implication is

23. There were pillars in the Temple Courtyard with hooks to serve this purpose (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:13).

that it is necessary for them to be consumed by the altar's fire and hence, they must be returned to the altar if they flew

24. Perhaps because of its weight, hanging it up would present a

off. There is, by contrast, no fundamental necessity for the secondary elements of the animal's body to be consumed by

difficulty. 25. In Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:6, the Rambamd states that the

fire. Hence there is no obligation to return them to the altar if they flew off.

skinning of the animal and its division into portions need not

9. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:6), the

26. If he would skin the breast before cutting off the head, the

Rambam explains that often we see that when entities that contain moisture are placed on a fire, the moisture will

skin would hang from the neck and it would be difficult to cut off the head precisely (Tifferet Yisrael, Tamid 4:2).

vaporize. At times, the process will be powerful enough to lift up that entity and propel it upward.

Alternatively, since the head is offered first, it is appropriate that it be cut off first (Radbaz).

be performed by a priest.

10. When at times a distinction is made, as the Rambam explains in the second portion of the halachah.

27. The portion below the knees.

11. To be consumed by its fire, as the mitzvah requires.

29. I.e., the fat that is on the digestive organs.

12. For the mitzvah of having them consumed by fire has been completed.

30. So that when the head is carried to the altar, the opening

13. I.e., they did not become like ash. 14. Zevachim 86a notes that the prooftext cited speaks of the burnt offering being on the altar's fire "the entire night, until the morning." From the redundancy, our Sages derive that within the night, a distinction should be made. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). 15. See Halachot 10-18 which describes the manner in which the limbs are brought to the altar. 16. For salt must be applied to all offerings (see Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11-12). 17. Different priests would perform this service, i.e., one priest would bring a limb to the ramp and salt it and another one would bring it to the top of the altar (Radbaz, Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:6,8). 18. The Rabbis identified the gid hanesheh as the sciatic nerve, the large main nerve running down the back of an animal's hind leg. This nerve must be separated before the meat of an animal is eaten or offered on the altar. See Hilchot Ma'achaolot Assurot 8:1 for more details.

28. I.e., the portion from the knee until the shoulder joint.

where it was severed will not be seen. This is a gesture of respect for the Divine Presence. 31. I.e., even water that is collected is acceptable (Kessef Mishneh). 32. This chamber is described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17. The stomach was washed there, because it would not be respectful to wash out its filth in the Temple Courtyard. 33. Since they are narrow, it is difficult to clean them thoroughly. At least three washings are necessary. If more are required to clean them, they should be washed more [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 4:2)]. 34. For it is sacrificed with the tail as stated in Halachot 9 and 13. 35. For the backbone is offered with the left flank. 36. The Radbaz explains that the backbone is left intact so that the vertebrae will not separate into individual units. 37. The ribs that were left are also taken with it (Radbaz). 38. Rav Yosef Corcus states that there is no Scriptural source for the division of the animal in this manner. Instead, this was simply the most practical and logical way of dividing it.

39. In this way, a portion of the animal with many bones (the head) and much meat (the leg) will have been offered. The head is also given priority, because it has been mentioned explicitly in the Torah (Radbaz). 40. For the offering of the head is most important.

52. Holding the fowl. 53. Zevachim 65a states that this corner is chosen, because it is close to the ash pile where the skin and the intestines would be cast. 54. The Lechem Mishneh (gloss to Chapter 7, Halachah 6)

41. Since carrying the limbs to the altar is not part of the atonement process, there is no difficulty in it being performed with one's left hand (Rabbenu Asher). 42. I.e., the outer side. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 4:4). 43. These limbs are the largest and hence, receive priority. 44. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). Others interpret the term bezech differently. 45. To cover them, for their appearance is not appealing

quotes authorities who maintain that he need not sever the head entirely from the body entirely. What must be severed are the gullet and the windpipe organs. Just as ritual slaughter requires that they be severed, so too, they must be severed in the rite of melikah. The Kessef Mishneh (to that halachah) however, understand the Rambam's words simply. The head must be separated from the body entirely. 55. The rationale for both these rulings is that the majority of the blood is lodged in the body. 56. For all offerings must be salted. 57. One of the stomaches of the fowl.

(Radbaz). 46. Since a ram is much larger than a sheep, it would be difficult for one priest to carry the intestines alone. The Radbaz

58. Our translation follows the Rambam's Commentary of the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:5). The Radbaz interprets the term

explains that the intent is that the intestines are cut in half and part given to one priest and part to another. The Tifferet

enables us to understand why these organs are not burnt

Yisrael (Yoma 2:6) differs and maintains that two priests

together with the rest of the fowl. The intestines of an animal are washed out before being offered. Hence they are fit to be

carry them together. 47. Here too, because it is a larger amount, it would be difficult for one priest to carry it. Here too, the Radbaz explains that the intent is that each priest carries a container with half of the meal offering, while the Tifferet Yisrael maintains that it is

notzah as feces rather than as feathers and explains that this

offered on the altar. Those of the fowl are not. 59. As required by Leviticus 1:16. 60. The ash pile on the floor of the Temple Courtyard, between

placed in a large container and that container is carried by

the ramp and the altar, near the southeastern corner of the altar. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2:12. The term

two priests together.

ash-pile has several meanings; see Chapter 7, Halachah 4.

48. The

Rambam is

speaking

about

any

burnt-offering.

Therefore he does not mention the chavitin offering which is brought together with the daily burnt-offering. 49. For the foot of an ox is large and requires two priests to bring it. Similar concepts apply with regard to the other limbs. 50. Here also the Radbaz explains that the portions would be divided, with each priest receiving a separate portion. This, he maintained, is a greater expression of honor and respect than to have the priests carry the burdens together. 51. The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz. He explains that the animal may not be cut into smaller portions, as implied by the first clause of this halachah. (Indeed, the prooftext cited refers to an individual burnt-offering.)

61. As evident from Judges 14:6 (Zevachim 65b). 62. Because the primary element of the sacrifice was completed (Rav Yosef Corcus). 63. See Chapter 7, Halachah 8, which describes the manner in which the priest would hold the fowl. As stated there, this was one of the difficult tasks performed in the Sanctuary. 64. As one does when performing ritual slaughter (Hilchot Shechitah 2:7). 65. Such a motion is unacceptable for ritual slaughter (ibid. 3:7). 66. This would disqualify an animal for ritual slaughter (ibid. 3:14). 67. I.e., that would make the animal. trefe. 68. Cutting the majority of them is, however, acceptable. They need not be severed entirely.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.

10

© Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

11

policy .

1



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 6

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 8

It is a positive commandment to offer the sin-offerings1 according to its statutes as they are written in the Torah. How are the sin-offerings which are eaten2 brought? One slaughters [the animal] and sprinkles its blood in the manner described,3 skins it, and separates the eimorim.4 He salts them and casts them on the pyre. If he desires to place the eimorim in a container while they are being carried to the altar, he may. The remainder of the meat in eaten by male priests in the Temple Courtyard.5

‫מצות עשה לעשות החטאות כמצותן‬ ‫האמורה בתורה וכיצד מעשה‬ ‫חטאת הנאכלת שוחט ונותן הדם כמו‬ ‫שביארנו ומפשיטה ומפריש האימורים‬ ‫ומולחן וזורקן על גבי האשים ואם רצה‬ ‫ליתן את האימורין בכלי כשמוליכן למזבח‬ ‫נותן ושאר בשרה נאכל לזכרי כהונה‬ :‫בעזרה‬

How are the sin-offering which are burnt brought? One slaughters [the animal] and sprinkles its blood in the manner described. Afterwards, one rips open [its belly] and removes the eimorim. He places them into a

‫וכיצד מעשה חטאות הנשרפות‬ ‫שוחט וזורק דמם כמו שביארנו‬ ‫ואח"כ קורעם ומוציא האימורים ונותנן‬ ‫בכלי ומולחן וזורקן על גבי האשים ומוציא‬ ‫שאריתן חוץ לעיר ומנתחין אותן שם‬ ‫כנתחי העולה בעורן ושורפין אותן שם‬ :‫בבית הדשן‬

container, salts them, and casts them on the pyre. The remainder [of the animal] should be taken outside the city6 and cut up there as the burnt offering is cut up7 with its hide.8 [The pieces] are burnt there in the ash pile.9

There are three places [where sacrifices] are burnt: The first is in the midst of the Temple Courtyard.10 [The following are] burnt there: sacrifices [of the highest order of sanctity] that have been disqualified,11 the eimorim of sacrifices of lesser sanctity which were disqualified,12 the bulls and goats that are burnt if they are disqualified, whether before their blood was sprinkled or after their blood was sprinkled,13 e.g., they became impure, they were taken outside the Temple Courtyard before the time they were supposed to be taken out arrived, or their meat or their eimorim

‫שלשה מקומות לשריפה אחד בתוך‬ ‫העזרה ובו שורפין פסולי המוקדשין‬ ‫ואימורים קדשים קלים שנפסלו ופרים‬ ‫ושעירים של חטאות הנשרפות אם אירע‬ ‫בהם פסול בין לפני זריקה בין לאחר זריקה‬ ‫כגון שנטמאו או שיצאו חוץ לעזרה עד‬ ‫שלא הגיע זמנן לצאת או שלן הבשר או‬ :‫לנו האימורין שלהן‬

remained overnight [without being burnt].14 The second place is on the Temple Mount. It is called the birah.15 There we burn sin-offerings that are to be burnt if they were disqualified16 after they departed from the Temple Courtyard. The third place is outside Jerusalem. It is called the ash-pile. There we burn the sin-offerings that are burnt when they are burnt according to their commandment.17 It is acceptable for the burning of all of [the sacrifices] that must be burnt18 to be performed by a non-priest19 and at night.20 Any type of wood, even straw and stubble, is acceptable21 for the burning of all of the sacrifices that must be burnt outside the Temple Courtyard , as [Leviticus 4:12] states: "On wood with fire," any type of fire. Why is wood mentioned? To exclude lime or hot ash.

2

‫והמקום השני בהר הבית ושמו בירה‬ ‫ובו שורפין חטאות הנשרפות אם‬ ‫אירע בהן פסול אחר צאתן מן העזרה‬ ‫והמקום השלישי חוץ לירושלים והוא‬ ‫הנקרא בית הדשן ושם שורפין חטאות‬ :‫הנשרפות בזמן שהן נשרפות כמצוותן‬

‫ושריפת כל הנשרפין כשירה בזר‬ ‫ובלילה וכל הנשרפין חוץ לעזרה כל‬ ‫העצים כשרין לשריפתן אפילו בקש‬ ‫ובגבבא שנאמר על עצים באש אש מכל‬ ‫מקום ולמה נאמר עצים להוציא את הסיד‬ :‫ואת הרמץ‬

How is a sin-offering from fowl brought? Melikah should be performed on the southwest corner [of the altar],22 as we explained.23 He should descend with his nail until he cuts the organs [required for ritual slaughter]24 or [at least] the majority of one of them. He should not separate the head from the body.25 If he does, he disqualifies [the sacrifice] and is liable for lashes,26 as [Leviticus 5:8] states: "He shall nip off its head at the nape [of the neck], but should not separate it."

‫חטאת העוף כיצד היתה נעשית מולק‬ ‫אותה בקרן דרומית מערבית כמו‬ ‫שביארנו ויורד בצפורנו עד שיחתוך‬ ‫הסימנין או רוב אחד מהן ואינו מבדיל‬ ‫הראש מן הגוף ואם הבדיל פסל ולוקה‬ ‫שנאמר ומלק את ראשו ממול ערפו ולא‬ ‫יבדיל ומזה מדמה על קיר המזבח למטה‬ ‫מאמצעו ושירי הדם מתמצים על היסוד‬ ‫שנאמר והנשאר בדם ימצה על יסוד‬ ‫המזבח מכלל שהנתינה על קיר שהשירין‬ :‫שלו מתמצין אל יסוד וזהו קיר התחתון‬

He then sprinkles its blood on the wall of the altar, below its midpoint.27 The remainder of the blood should be squeezed out on the altar's base,28 as stated [ibid.: 9]: "And the remainder of the blood, he shall squeeze out on the altar's base." One can conclude from this that when one presents the blood on the wall [of the altar], [the fact that] the remainder [of the blood] is squeezed out toward the base [indicates that] "the wall" refers to the lower [portion] of the wall.29 Squeezing out the blood of a fowl brought as a sin-offering is an absolute requirement.30 All the altar receives from this offering is its blood. The remainder is eaten by males of the priestly family like the meat of an animal brought as a sin-offering.31

‫ומצוי דם חטאת העוף מעכב ואין‬ ‫למזבח בה אלא דמה והשאר נאכל‬ :‫לזכרי כהונה כבשר חטאת הבהמה‬

How should the fowl brought as a sin-offering be held at the time of melikah? He should hold its two feet between two of his fingers32 and its two wings between his other two fingers,33 extending its neck over [the thumb for]34 a width of two fingers and then snip off its head.35

‫כיצד אוחז חטאת העוף בשעת‬ ‫מליקה אוחז שתי רגליה בין שתי‬ ‫אצבעותיו ושתי אגפיה בין שתי אצבעותיו‬ ‫ומותח צוארה אל רוחב שתי אצבעותיו‬ ‫ומולק וזו מעבודות קשות שבמקדש ואם‬ :‫שנה ואחז בכ"מ כשירה‬

This was one of the difficult tasks performed in the Temple. If one deviated and held the fowl in any other manner, it is acceptable.

3

Every part of the altar is acceptable for melikah, provided he sprinkles its blood below the midpoint of the altar. If he sprinkles it anywhere [on the altar], it is acceptable provided he presents [at least] a small amount of the blood of the soul36 below [the midpoint of the altar]. The upper half of southwest corner of the altar would serve three purposes and the lower half would serve three purposes. The lower half was used for the melikah of a fowl brought as a sin-offering, approaching the altar with the meal-offering,37 and pouring the remainder of the blood of the burntofferings, the sin-offerings that are eaten, the guiltofferings, and the peace-offerings upon its [base].38 The three purposes for which the upper portion was used are: the water libation on Sukkos,39 the wine libation of the accompanying offering [of Sukkot],40 and the burnt offerings of fowl if there are many of them. If the southeast corner41 does not have the capacity for all of them,42 [the priests would] turn to the southwest corner and perform melikah there.43

4

‫וכל מקום מן המזבח כשר למליקתה‬ ‫ובלבד שיזה דמה למטה מאמצע‬ ‫המזבח ואם הזה בכל מקום כשירה והוא‬ :‫שיתן למטה מעט מדם הנפש‬

‫שלשה דברים היתה קרן דרומית‬ ‫מערבית משמשת למעלה ושלשה‬ ‫למטה מלמטה חטאת העוף והגשת‬ ‫המנחות ושירי הדם של עולות וחטאות‬ ‫הנאכלות ואשמות ושלמים ששופכין עליה‬ ‫והשלשה של מעלה ניסוך המים שמנסכין‬ ‫בחג וניסוך היין של נסכים ועולת העוף‬ ‫בזמן שהיא רבה ואם אין קרן דרומית‬ ‫מזרחית מכילה אותה נפנין לקרן דרומית‬ :‫מערבית ועושין אותה שם‬

5

All of those who ascend the altar on the right [side of the ramp],44 circle it, and descend on the left [side] except for one who ascends for one of the latter three purposes mentioned above which are performed on the upper portion45 of this corner. [Those involved in these services] ascend on the left side, turn to the left, to that corner, perform their task, and retrace their steps. Why do they turn to the left? So that they will encounter the southwest corner first. For if they would turn to the right and circle the entire altar until they reached the southwest corner, the water or the wine might become smoky46 or perhaps the fowl would die because of the altar's smoke. Therefore when someone who performs a water or wine libation circles the altar,47 he should not have anything in his hands. He begins circling from the southeast corner, [proceeding] to the northeast and then to the northwest and the southwest. He should not be holding anything. When he reaches the southwest corner, the water or the wine is placed in his hand and he performs the libation. If he does not [desire to] circle [the altar], he may ascend [the ramp], turn to the left, perform his service, and descend.

« Previous

‫כל העולין למזבח עולין דרך ימין‬ ‫ומקיפין ויורדין דרך שמאל חוץ מן‬ ‫העולה לאחד משלשה דברים אלו‬ ‫שלמעלה בקרן זו שהן עולין ונפנין על‬ ‫השמאל לקרן ועושין מלאכתן וחוזרין‬ ‫לעקב ומפני מה נפנין לשמאל כדי שיפגעו‬ ‫בקרן מערבית דרומית תחלה שאם נפנין‬ ‫על ימין ומקיפין את כל המזבח עד שיגיעו‬ ‫לקרן דרומית מערבית שמא יתעשן המים‬ :‫והיין או שמא ימות העוף בעשן המזבח‬

‫לפיכך המנסך מים או יין כשהוא‬ ‫מקיף את המזבח לא יהיה בידו‬ ‫כלום ומתחיל ומקיף מקרן דרומית מזרחית‬ ‫למזרחית צפונית לצפונית מערבית‬ ‫למערבית דרומית ולא יהיה בידו כלום‬ ‫וכשמגיע למערבית דרומית נותנין המים או‬ ‫היין בידו ומנסך ואם לא הקיף עולה ופונה‬ :‫על שמאלו ועושה מלאכתו ויורד‬

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 8

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 6 FOOTNOTES 1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 64) and Sefer

3. See Chapter 5, Halachot 1-3, with regard to the slaughter of

HaChinuch (mitzvah 138) include this as one of the 613

the animal and Halachot 7-10 of that chapter with regard to casting its blood on the altar.

mitzvot of the Torah. Even though there are several different types of sin-offerings, since they are all offered in the same manner, they are considered only as one mitzvah (Radbaz).

4. The fats and inner organs offered on the altar. See Leviticus

2. In Chapter 1, Halachot 15-16, the Rambam mentions which

5. Leviticus 6:19 speaks of the priests partaking of the

sin-offerings are eaten and which are burnt.

4:8-10. sin-offerings in the Courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. See Chapter 10.

6

6. Leviticus 2:12 speaks of these sacrifices being burnt outside the camp. See also Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:7. 7. Chapter 6, Halachot 5-9. 8. They are not skinned before being burnt, as related in Chapter 5, Halachah 18. 9. See Halachah 4. 10. It was to the east of the ramp ascending to the altar (Sifra, Vayikra 9:3). 11. Rashi (Zevachim 104b) explains that since these sacrifices are eaten in the Temple Courtyard, they should also be burnt there. 12. Since these eimorim should have been burnt on the altar, they are burnt in the Temple Courtyard if they became impure (Radbaz). The sacrifices of lesser sanctity themselves should be burnt in Jerusalem (the place where they are eaten). We can assume that they were burnt on the Temple Mount, at the birah (ibid., gloss to Halachah 4). 13. Although they had reached a stage where they were to be taken out of the Temple Courtyard, since in fact they had not been removed from the Temple Courtyard before they were disqualified, they should be burnt there (Radbaz). 14. See more details in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:3. 15. The term birah means "tower" or "large building." At times, it is used to refer to the Temple complex as a whole.

23. Rav Yosef Corcus states that the reference is to the order of melikah described at the conclusion of ch. 6. Melikah at the southwestern corner of the altar is not mentioned elsewhere. 24. The windpipe and the gullet. 25. In contrast to the requirement for the burnt-offering mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 20. 26. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 112) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 124) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Lechem Mishneh quotes authorities who understand this as meaning that one may not separate both the gullet and the windpipe entirely. The Kessef Mishneh, however, maintains that the Rambam's words should be explained simply: the head may not be severed from the body. If it is attached, even if these two organs are severed, the prohibition is not violated. 27. In contrast to the requirement for the burnt-offering mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 20. 28. Hence when performing melikah, the priest does not ascend on the ramp, but rather stands on the ground (Radbaz). 29. The Rambam is explaining why the obligation is to present the blood of a sin-offering from fowl on the lower half of the altar in contrast to the blood of a sin-offering from an animal which is presented on the upper half. 30. Although there is a difference of opinion concerning this

16. Because of impurity or because they remained overnight. These factors can still disqualify these sacrifices even

matter in the Talmud and there are passages which appear to follow the other view, the Rambam's approach represents

though they have been taken out of the Temple Courtyard (Radbaz).

the consensus, as indicated by Me'ilah 9b (Radbaz, Kessef

17. I.e., when they have not been disqualified. The Biblical commandment is to burn them "outside the camp." In later times, that meant "outside Jerusalem" as stated in Halachah 2. The term ash-pile has several meanings; see Chapter 6, Halachah 21. 18. I.e., those sacrifices which must be burnt outside Jerusalem. Those that must be burnt in the Temple Courtyard must be burnt with wood fit to be used for the altar (Sifra). 19. This indicates that burning them is not a fundamental element of the sacrificial service (Radbaz). 20. There are some exceptions to this as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:5. 21. I.e., the wood need not meet the criteria for wood required for the altar. 22. From Zevachim 63a,b, it is apparent that, after the fact, a

Mishneh). 31. See Chapter 10. 32. The pinky and the finger next to it on his left hand. 33. The index finger and the middle finger. 34. The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:4). 35. With his right hand. 36. As indicated in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:3, this term refers to the blood that flows out when the fowl is slaughtered. 37. See Chapter 12, Halachah 6; Chapter 13, Halachah 12. 38. See Chapter 5, Halachot 6, 10. 39. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6. 40. I.e., in contrast to the wine libations offered throughout the

sin-offering is acceptable if melikah is performed at any

year which are offered on the lower portion of the altar. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, and notes.

place in the Temple Courtyard. (See also Halachah 9.) This corner is mentioned as an initial preference, because the

41. Which was the preferential place for them to be offered, as

blood must be sprinkled there (Radbaz).

stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20.

42. I.e., if many fowl were being offered and it was difficult to approach that corner of the altar. 43. For this is close to the place where portions of the sacrifices are discarded. 44. I.e., they should turn to the southeastern corner. The

46. Wine that became smoky is unacceptable for a libation (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:9). We can assume that the same law applies with regard to water. 47. There is no necessity - or even preference - that the priest circle the altar. The matter is solely dependent on his choice. The Mishnah (Tamid 6:6) that is the source for this teaching

rationale is that, at the outset, one should always turn to the right.

speaks about a High Priest, but as the Rambam states in his

45. Those who perform the tasks on the lower portion of this

Commentary to the Mishnah, the concept applies to any priest. If he desires, he may circle the altar before performing

corner do not ascend the ramp at all, but instead, approach the altar from the ground.

this service.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

1



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 8 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 7

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 9

There is a stringency that applies with regard to an animal1 brought as a sin-offering that does not apply [even] to other sacrifices of the most sacred order. If blood from an animal brought as a sin-offering will spew from the container in which the blood was received2 onto a garment before [the blood] was sprinkled [on the altar],3 that garment is obligated to by washed with water4 in the Temple Courtyard, as [Leviticus 6:20] states: "If its blood is spewed on a garment, that which it has been spewed upon must be washed in a holy place."

‫חומר בחטאת הבהמה משאר קדשי‬ ‫קדשים שדם חטאת הבהמה שניתז‬ ‫מן הכלי שקבל בו הדם קודם הזיה על‬ ‫הבגד טעון כיבוס במים בעזרה שנאמר‬ ‫ואשר יזה מדמה על הבגד אשר יזה עליה‬ :‫תכבס במקום קדוש‬

A garment made from wool or linen,5 a soft hide,6 or a garment from goat's hair7 is required to be washed. A firm hide, however, is considered as wood8 and one should scrape the blood from it.

‫אחד הבגד ואחד העור הרך ואחד‬ ‫השק טעונין כיבוס אבל העור הקשה‬ ‫הרי הוא כעץ וגורד הדם מעליו ואחד דם‬ ‫חטאת הנאכלת או דם חטאת הנשרפת‬ ‫אבל לא דם חטאת העוף שנאמר תשחט‬ ‫החטאת בנשחטת הכתוב מדבר לא‬ :‫בנמלקת‬

[The above applies to] the blood of sin-offerings that are eaten or those which are burnt,9 but not to sin-offerings from fowl, as implied by [ibid.:18]: "the sin-offering will be slaughtered," i.e., the Torah is speaking about [an offering] that is slaughtered and not one that is killed by melikah.10

When a sin-offering was disqualified, its blood need not be washed [from garments]. This applies whether there was a time when it could have been acceptable or there was never a time when it could have been acceptable. What is meant by [an offering] that had a time when it could have been acceptable? One which was left overnight, that became impure, or that was taken outside of the Temple Courtyard.11 What is meant by [an offering] that never had a time when it could have been acceptable? One that was disqualified because of [the manner in which] it was slaughtered12 or the manner in which its blood was sprinkled.

2

‫חטאת שנפסלה אין דמה טעון כיבוס‬ ‫בין שהיתה לה שעת הכושר בין שלא‬ ‫היתה לה שעת הכושר אי זו הוא שהיתה‬ ‫לה שעת הכושר שלנה ושנטמאת ושיצאת‬ ‫חוץ לעזרה ואי זו היא שלא היתה לה שעת‬ ‫הכושר שנפסלה בשחיטה או בזריקת‬ :‫הדם‬

Only the place where the blood [was absorbed] must be washed.13 [The above applies provided the garment or] utensil14 is susceptible to contract ritual impurity and is fit to be washed. If, however, the blood spews on a wooden utensil or a metal utensil, it need not be washed because it is not fit to be washed. Instead, one should merely scrape the blood off.

‫אין טעון כיבוס אלא מקום הדם בלבד‬ ‫והוא שיהיה על כלי שראוי לקבל‬ ‫טומאה וראוי לכיבוס אבל אם ניתז על כלי‬ ‫עץ או כלי מתכת אינו טעון כיבוס לפי‬ :‫שאינן ראויין לכיבוס אלא גורדן בלבד‬

If [the blood] spewed onto the skin of a fish, it is not necessary to wash it, for [the skin of a fish] is not susceptible to ritual impurity.15 If it was spewed onto the hide of an animal that was not skinned, it need not be washed. If, however, [the hide] was skinned [from the animal], it must be washed. Even though it is not susceptible to ritual impurity in its present state,16 it will be susceptible to ritual impurity after it has been treated.

‫ניתז על עור הדג אינו טעון כיבוס‬ ‫לפי שאינו ראוי לקבל טומאה אבל‬ ‫אם ניתז על עור בהמה עד שלא הופשט‬ ‫אינו טעון כיבוס אחר שהופשט טעון‬ ‫כיבוס שאף על פי שאינו מקבל טומאה‬ ‫עתה הרי הוא ראוי לקבל טומאה לאחר‬ :‫שיתעבד‬

3

If blood spewed from [the animal's] neck onto a garment, it sputtered from the corner of the altar [to a garment],17 or the blood spilled to the floor [of the Temple Courtyard],18 it was gathered and then it spewed on to a garment, there is no requirement that [the garment] be washed, as [the prooftext] states: "If its blood is spewed...."19 [Implied is that the requirement] was stated only with regard to blood that was received in a sacred utensil and is fit to be sprinkled [on the altar], [because it is] of sufficient measure [to be sprinkled].20

‫ניתז מן הצואר על הבגד או מעל קרן‬ ‫המזבח או שנשפך הדם על הרצפה‬ ‫ואספו וניתז ממנו על הבגד אינו טעון‬ ‫כיבוס שנאמר ואשר יזה מדמה לא אמרתי‬ ‫אלא בדם שנתקבל בכלי שרת וראוי‬ :‫להזיה ויש בו כדי הזייה‬

If the four presentations of blood21 were made and then some of the remainder of the blood spewed from the container onto a garment, it need not be washed even though the remainder of the blood was not yet poured out on the base [of the altar].22 Similar principles apply with regard to the sin-offerings that are burnt.23

‫נתן ארבע המתנות ואחר כך ניתז מן‬ ‫הכוס על הבגד משירי הדם אינו טעון‬ ‫כיבוס אע"פ שעדיין לא זרק השירים על‬ :‫היסוד וכן בחטאות הנשרפות‬

[If the blood of a sin-offering] sputtered from [a priest's] finger after he performed its sprinkling with his hand, [the garment onto which it sputtered] need not be washed, because the remainder of the blood on his finger is not acceptable for sprinkling.24

‫ניתז מאצבעו אחר שיצאת הזייה‬ ‫מידו אינו טעון כיבוס ששירי הדם‬ :‫שבאצבע פסולין להזייה‬

If [the blood] spewed from one garment to another, the second garment need not be washed.25 If [blood] spewed on an impure garment, it need not be washed.26 If blood from a sin-offering sputtered onto a garment and then ordinary blood27 sputtered onto the blood from the sin-offering, it must be washed.28 If, however, ordinary blood - or even blood from a burnt-offering sputtered onto a garment and then blood from a sin-offering sputtered on to it, it is not required to be washed, because [the blood from the sin-offering] is not absorbed in [the garment].29 When the place [stained by] the blood is washed, it should be washed very thoroughly with water until no trace [of the blood] remains. All of the seven detergents30 that are used [to determine whether] a stain is blood or not31 should be used to [wash away] the blood of a sin-offering with the exception of urine, for urine should not be brought into the Temple.32

4

‫ניתז מן הבגד לבגד שני אין הבגד‬ ‫השני טעון כיבוס ניתז על בגד טמא‬ ‫אינו טעון כיבוס ניתז דם החטאת על הבגד‬ ‫וניתז על דם החטאת דם חולין טעון כיבוס‬ ‫אבל אם ניתז דם החולין תחלה )או אפילו‬ ‫דם עולה( וניתז עליו דם החטאת אינו טעון‬ :‫כיבוס שהרי לא נבלע בו‬

‫כשמכבסין את מקום הדם מכבסין‬ ‫אותו במים יפה יפה עד שלא ישאר לו‬ ‫רושם וכל שבעת הסממנים שמעבירין על‬ ‫הכתם מעבירין על דם חטאת חוץ ממי‬ :‫רגלים שאין מכניסין מי רגלים למקדש‬

An earthernware vessel in which a sin-offering that is to be eaten33 was cooked must be broken34 in the Temple Courtyard. A metal vessel in which [a sin-offering] was cooked must be cleansed35 and rinsed in water36 in the Temple Courtyard, as [Leviticus 6:21] states: "An earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken." Although this verse does not state "in a holy place,"37 the same laws that apply to washing [a garment] apply. Just as the washing must be performed in a sacred place, so too, the breaking of an earthenware vessel and the cleansing and the rinsing of a metal utensil must be performed in a holy place. [These laws apply equally to] a utensil in which [the sin-offering] was cooked and one into which it was poured while it was boiling.38 "Cleansing" is performed with hot water and "rinsing" with cold water.39 The prooftext mentions "water," [excluding] wine, wine mixed with water, or other liquids. The thorough cleansing and rinsing [of the vessel] should resemble the thorough cleansing and rinsing of a cup.40 A spit and a grill [used to cook the meat of a sin-offering] must be purged41 in water that is heated by fire and then washed [in cold water].42

5

‫כלי חרש שנתבשלה בו החטאת‬ ‫הנאכלת טעון שבירה בעזרה וכלי‬ ‫מתכות שנתבשלה בו טעון מריקה‬ ‫ושטיפה במים בעזרה שנאמר וכלי חרס‬ ‫אשר תבושל בו ישבר אף על פי שלא‬ ‫נאמר כאן במקום קדוש הרי דינן כדין‬ ‫הכיבוס מה כיבוס הבגד בקדש אף שבירת‬ ‫כלי חרס ושטיפת כלי מתכות ומריקתו‬ ‫בקדש ואחד כלי שבישל בו או כלי‬ :‫שהערה לתוכו רותח‬

‫מריקה בחמין ושטיפה בצונן במים‬ ‫לא ביין ולא במזג ולא בשאר‬ ‫משקין והמריקה והשטיפה כמריקת הכוס‬ ‫ושטיפתו והשפוד והאסכלה מגעילן במים‬ :‫חמים על גבי האש ואח"כ מדיחן‬

6

When does the above apply? When one cooked [sacrificial meat] in these utensils after their blood was sprinkled as required by law. If, however, he cooked in [these utensils] before the sprinkling [of the blood]43 or he cooked meat from sin-offerings that were to be burnt in such utensils,44 it is not necessary that they be washed thoroughly and rinsed.45 If one cooked [the meat of a sin-offering] in [only] a portion of a utensil, the entire utensil must be washed thoroughly and rinsed.46

‫במה דברים אמורים שבישל בהן‬ ‫אחר שנזרק דמה כהלכתו אבל אם‬ ‫בישל קודם זריקה או שבישל בה בשר‬ ‫חטאת הנשרפת אינו טעון מריקה ושטיפה‬ ‫בישל במקצת הכלי כלו טעון מריקה‬ :‫ושטיפה‬

7

There is an unresolved doubt [concerning the ruling] when meat [from a sacrificial offering] was roasted in the space of an earthenware oven:47 Must [the oven] be destroyed48 since [the meat] was cooked inside of it49 or need it not be destroyed, since it did not touch it?50 [The above] does not apply only with regard to a sin-offering. Instead, all utensils that were used for [meat] from sacrificial offerings with hot water,51 whether sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity or sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, are required to be washed thoroughly and rinsed after52 the time for eating from them.53 Similarly, a spit and a grill should be purged after eating [from the sacrifice which they were used to cook]. They should not be left until one desires to eat from them a second time.54 Instead, when the time for eating from them is completed, one should purge the grill and the spit and wash thoroughly and rinse the utensil whether it be a metal utensil or an earthenware utensil.55 [There is] one exception: [the meat from] a sin-offering. An earthenware utensil [in which it was cooked] must be broken. [Nevertheless,] one may cook [in a utensil] and do so a second and third time immediately, whether using a metal utensil or an earthenware utensil. [The requirement to] wash it thoroughly and rinse it [applies only] at the conclusion of the time permitted to partake [from these sacrificial foods].

‫צלה הבשר ]באויר[ תנור של חרס‬ ‫יש בדבר ספק אם ישבר הואיל‬ ‫ונתבשלה בו או לא ישבר הואיל ולא נגעה‬ ‫בו ולא בחטאת בלבד אלא כל הכלים‬ ‫שמשתמשין בהן בקדשים על ימי חמין בין‬ ‫קדשי קדשים בין קדשים קלים טעונין‬ ‫מריקה ושטיפה עקב אכילה וכן השפוד‬ ‫והאסכלה מגעילן עקב אכילה ואינו מניחן‬ ‫עד זמן אכילה שניה אלא כשישלים לאכול‬ ‫יגעיל השפוד והאסכלה וימרק וישטוף‬ ‫הכלי בין כלי מתכות בין כלי חרס חוץ מן‬ ‫החטאת ששובר בה כלי חרס ומבשל‬ ‫ושונה ומשלש מיד בין בכלי מתכות בין‬ :‫בכלי חרס וממרק ושוטף עד סוף אכילה‬

8

Utensils made from animal turds,56 stone, or earth57 are not required to be thoroughly washed and rinsed even [when the meat of] a sin-offering was cooked in them. All that is necessary is that they be cleansed.58

‫כלי גללים וכלי אבנים וכלי אדמה‬ ‫אינן טעונין מריקה ושטיפה אפילו‬ ‫בחטאת אלא הדחה בלבד נאמר בחטאת‬ ‫כל אשר יגע בבשרה יקדש להיות כמוה‬ ‫אם פסולה היא הנוגע בה פסול ואם‬ :‫כשירה הנוגע בה יאכל כמוה ובקדושתה‬

With regard to a sin-offering, [Leviticus 6:20] states: "Anything that will touch its meat will become sanctified,"59 i.e., it will be of the same status. If it has been disqualified, anything that touches it is also disqualified. If it is kosher, anything that touches it should be eaten according to the laws that apply to it, with the same degree of holiness.60 When does the above apply? When [the flavor of the meat of a sacrificial offering] was absorbed by it. If, however, it merely touched it, but its flavor was not absorbed, it does not cause it to become sanctified.61 The above applies both to a sin-offering and any other sacrificial offering, whether sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity or sacrifices of a severe degree of sanctity, as [implied by Leviticus 7:37]: "This is the law for the burnt-offering, the meal-offering...."62

‫בד"א כשנבלעה בו אבל נגיעה‬ ‫בלא הבלעה אינה מקדשת ואחד‬ ‫החטאת ואחד שאר קדשים בין קדשים‬ ‫קלים בין חמורים שנאמר זאת התורה‬ :‫לעולה למנחה‬

If the meat [of a sacrificial offering] touched a cake63 and [its flavor] was absorbed in a portion of it, [the cake] does not become sanctified in its entirety. Instead, one should cut off the portion in which it was absorbed.64

‫נגע בשרה ברקיק ונבלע במקצתו לא‬ ‫נתקדש כולו אלא חותך מקום‬ :‫הבלע‬

9

[The following laws apply to] a utensil in which sacrificial food and ordinary food were cooked together or sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity were cooked together with sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. If there is a sufficient amount [of the sacrificial food] to impart its flavor,65 the entire mixture must be eaten according to the laws governing the food of the most severe category. The utensil must be thoroughly washed and rinsed according to the laws governing the food of the most severe category.66 If it did not impart its flavor to them, the foods of the more lenient category need not be eaten according to the laws governing the food of the most severe category and they are not governed by their laws at all. The utensil [in which the mixture was cooked], however, must be thoroughly washed and rinsed.67

‫כלי שבישל בו קדשים וחולין או‬ ‫קדשי קדשים וקדשים קלים אם‬ ‫יש בהן בנותן טעם הרי הכל נאכל כחמור‬ ‫שבהן וטעון הכלי מריקה ושטיפה והכל‬ ‫כחמור שבהן לכל דבר ואם לא נתן טעם‬ ‫זה בזה אין הקלין נאכלין כחמורים ואינן‬ ‫כמותן לכל דבר אבל הכלי טעון מריקה‬ :‫ושטיפה‬

When the blood of a sin-offering sputtered on a garment and then that garment was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, it should be returned to the Temple Courtyard and washed there.

‫בגד שניתז עליו דם החטאת ויצא‬ ‫חוץ לעזרה מחזירו לעזרה ומכבסו‬ ‫שם נטמא חוץ לעזרה כיצד יעשה קורעו‬ ‫כדי שיטהר ומכניסו ומכבסו בפנים וצריך‬ ‫להניח בו שלם כדי מעפורת לפי שנאמר‬ ‫בגד צריך לכבס בגד ואע"פ שהוא טמא‬ ‫מדבריהם מפני כדי המעפורת שנשארה‬ ‫בו כיון שנקרע רובו טהור מן התורה‬ :‫ומותר להכניסו למקדש לכבס הדם‬

What should be done if [the garment] became impure outside the Temple Courtyard?68 It should be torn69 so that it will become pure.70 He should then bring it into [the Temple Courtyard] and wash it there. He must leave intact a portion of the garment the size of a handkerchief, for [the relevant verse]71 speaks of a "garment," i.e., a garment must be washed.72 Even though [the remnants of the garment] are impure due to Rabbinic decree,73 because of the remnant the size of a handkerchief, since the majority of it is torn, it is ritually pure according to Scriptural Law and it is permitted to bring it into the Sanctuary to wash out the blood.74

10

What should be done when blood from a sin-offering sputtered on [the High Priest's] cloak,75 it was taken out [of the Temple Courtyard], and became impure? [The difficulty is that] one who tears it is liable for lashes, as we explained. He should bring it into [the Temple Courtyard] less than three fingerbreadths at a time76 and wash it in [the Temple Courtyard]. After all the blood has been washed off it little by little, it should be immersed [in a mikveh]77

‫מעיל שניתז עליו דם חטאת ויצא‬ ‫ונטמא לחוץ כיצד הוא עושה והרי‬ ‫הקורע אותו לוקה כמו שביארנו מכניסו‬ ‫פחות פחות משלש אצבעות ומכבסו‬ ‫בפנים ואחר שיתכבס כל הדם מעט מעט‬ :‫מטבילין אותו בחוץ‬

outside [the Temple Courtyard]. When an earthen-ware utensil in which a sin-offering78 was cooked was taken out of the [Temple] Courtyard, it should be brought back in and broken there.79 If it became impure outside the Temple Courtyard, it should be perforated to the extent that a small root [could protrude through it] so that it will be ritually pure,80 and then bring it back inside [the Temple Courtyard] and break it there. If it is broken with a larger hole, it should not be broken in [the Temple Courtyard], because only utensils are broken there.81 Similarly, when a metal utensil in which [sin-offerings] were cooked was taken out of the [Temple] Courtyard, it should be brought back in and thoroughly washed and rinsed there. If it became impure when it was taken out, its [bottom] should be opened82 until it becomes pure83 and then it should be brought back inside [the Temple Courtyard] [The metal] should then be flattened so that the opening becomes closed as is the form of utensils.84 Afterwards, it should be thoroughly washed and rinsed in the Temple Courtyard, as [Leviticus 6:21] states: "If [it was cooked] in a copper utensil, [it should be thoroughly washed and rinsed with water]." [Implied is that] only "utensils" are thoroughly washed in the Temple Courtyard.

‫כלי חרס שבישל בו החטאת‬ ‫ויצא מכניסו ושוברו בפנים‬ ‫נטמא בחוץ נוקבו בכדי שרש קטן כדי‬ ‫שיטהר ומכניסו ושוברו בפנים ואם נקבו‬ ‫נקב גדול מזה אינו שוברו בפנים שהרי‬ ‫אינו כלי ואין שוברין בפנים אלא כלים וכן‬ ‫כלי מתכות שבישל בו ויצא חוץ לעזרה‬ ‫מכניסו ומורקו ושוטפו בפנים נטמא‬ ‫כשיצא פוחתו עד שיטהר ומכניסו בפנים‬ ‫וחוזר ומרדדו עד שיסתם הפחת ויחזור‬ ‫כתבנית הכלים ואחר כך מורקו ושוטפו‬ ‫בעזרה שנאמר ואם בכלי נחשת וגו' אין‬ :‫מוריקן בפנים אלא כלים‬

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 7

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 9

FOOTNOTES 1. But not a fowl (Halachah 2). 2. If, however, it spewed forth from the animal at the time of

sprinkling of the blood on the altar and the spewing of the

slaughter, spluttered from the blood sprinkled to the altar, or spilled to the floor and was collected from there, these laws

blood on a garment, leading to the inference stated by the Rambam.

do not apply (Halachah 6). 3. Similarly, once the blood was sprinkled this stringency does not apply (Halachah 7). 4. See Halachah 10. 5. This is the meaning of the term beged (Rashi, Zevachim 93b). 6. See Halachah 5.

20. Our translation is based on the gloss of the Radbaz. 21. As prescribed in Chapter 5, Halachah 7. 22. Because pouring out the remainder of the blood is not an essential element of the sacrifice. 23. I.e., once the priest has completed the sprinkling of their blood that is required as explained in Chapter 5, Halachot 12-18, the remaining blood does not require that it be washed.

7. Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:1).

24. As evident from Chapter 5, Halachah 8.

8. See Halachah 4.

25. Zevachim 92b compares this to the situation described in

9. See Chapter 1, Halachot 15-16. 10. Although melikah is equivalent to ritual slaughter in certain contexts, since the verse specifies "slaughter," it is excluded in this instance (Radbaz).

Halachah 6 when blood was spilled onto the floor and then sputtered onto a garment. 26. For it is considered as if the blood became impure beforehand and thus would have been unacceptable for sprinkling. Zevachim 93a associates this situation with the

11. I.e., in all these instances, the ritual slaughter and the

question whether water set aside to be used for the

sprinkling were performed in an appropriate manner and thus the meat could have been consumed in an acceptable

sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer that became impure can be purified or not. Based on that discussion, Rav Yosef

manner.

Corcus suggests that there is a printing error in the text of the Mishneh Torah and the ruling is that the garment must

12. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 15:1 which mentions several ways in which ritual slaughter can be disqualified. 13. And not the entire garment (Zevachim 93b). 14. I.e., this requirement applies not only to garments, but also other objects made from these materials.

be washed. This conclusion is supported by the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:36 which states that blood from consecrated animals can never contract ritual impurity.

15. See Hilchot Keilim 1:3-4; 10:1. Zevachim 93b states that

27. I.e., blood from an animal that was not consecrated. As evident from the following clause, seemingly, the same law

only an article that is susceptible to ritual impurity must be washed.

would apply with regard to blood from a burnt offering. Indeed, Zevachim 98a-b states this explicitly.

16. For it is not considered as a k'li, a useful article, in its

28. For the blood from the sin-offering is absorbed into it and is

present state. 17. Since it has already been sprinkled on the altar, these laws no longer apply to it (Zevachim 92b). 18. Without first being received in a sacred utensil. In such an instance, it is not fit to be sprinkled on the altar (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:25). If, however, it was first

11

19. The same Hebrew root haza'ah is used both for the

not washed away by the other blood. 29. For it had already absorbed the other blood. 30. The saliva of a person who has not eaten, beans that have been chewed, urine that has become sour, marsh mallow, natron, glasswort, and soapwort. [The names of these

received in a sacred utensil and then spilled, it is fit to be

detergents were taken from Rav Kappach's translation of the Arabic terms used in the Rambam's Commentary to the

sprinkled on the altar. Hence, if it spewed onto a garment, the garment must be washed.

Mishnah (Niddah 9:6).]

12

31. If the stain is removed when these seven detergents are applied to it, we conclude that it was blood. If it is not removed, we assume that it is paint or another type of dye. 32. For it is not respectful to bring such a substance into a place where the Divine Presence is overtly revealed.

42. In the above source, the Rambam explains that this purging follows the same process in which non-kosher food is purged from cooking utensils. Significantly, however, when he mentions the process of purging non-kosher cooking utensils (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 17:3-4), he does not mention

The commentaries have noted that Zevachim 95a (the

the need to rinse them in cold water although he does

source for this halachah) mentions that urine was brought

mention that requirement in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:23.

into the Temple, except that it was first mixed with the saliva so that it was not taken in as an independent entity. 33. As opposed to those which are burnt. 34. The rationale is that the flavor of the meat of the sin-offering can never be totally purged from an earthenware vessel. 35. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 11:8), the Rambam defines this term as meaning "thoroughly washing a utensil until everything attached to it is removed." 36. There the Rambam interprets this as meaning "pouring water over the utensil without scraping the filth off by hand." The Radbaz elaborates on the difference between the Rambam's approach (who appears to require only the thorough cleaning of the vessels) and that of Rashi who interprets Zevachim 95b as requiring that these utensils must be purged in the same manner as one purges non-kosher food from a vessel into which it was absorbed.

43. This would disqualify the sacrifice. 44. See Halachah 11. 45. The Radbaz questions this ruling, because seemingly, the fat absorbed in the utensil, becomes notar, "sacrificial food that remained overnight," and it must be destroyed. He offers three possible resolutions: a) the Rambam is speaking about an instance when the utensil was used on the same day. Hence, the problem does not arise. b) the issue does not concern notar at all, as explained in the notes to Halachah 12. c) since the absorbed fat is more than a day old when it becomes notar, its flavor is impaired (notain taam lifgam). Hence, since the prohibition against the absorbed food is merely a Rabbinic safeguard, our Sages did not apply it in this instance, because the situation involves the Temple service.

According to this conception of the Rambam's approach, the problem is not that the fat absorbed in the utensil becomes

46. The Radbaz uses this law as a further support, for his idea

notar, "sacrificial food that remained overnight," and must be destroyed. Instead, the question involves merely the

that the fat need not be purged from the utensil. For the concept that cooked food which is absorbed in part of a

thorough cleaning of the utensil. This interpretation is borne out by the continuation of the Rambam's statements in his

utensil is considered as if it were absorbed in the entire utensil is an established principle.

Commentary to the Mishnah where he speaks about the issue of notar with regard to the food attached to the utensil,

47. Similar laws apply with regard to sacrifices cooked in a metal oven, except that the question involves the requirement to be

but does not mention the food absorbed within it. 37. As does the preceding verse which mentions washing the blood from a garment. 38. Since the stew including the meat of the sin-offering was boiling while it was poured into the vessel, it is considered as if it was cooked there. 39. This represents the Rambam's version of Zevachim, loc. cit. There are, however, other versions of that Mishnah.

thoroughly washed and rinsed. 48. As required by Halachah 11. 49. For the Torah mentions the necessity of washing out or destroying the utensil after sacrificial meat was cooked in it. It does not state that for requirement to apply, the flavor of the meat must be absorbed in the utensil. 50. I.e., the above question is discussed by Zevachim 95b and is left unresolved by our Sages.

40. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam

51. I.e., sacrificial meat was either cooked in it or poured in it

writes that the intent of this comparison is to imply that the container must be washed until there is no trace of the

while warm [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 11:8)].

previous substance, as one would a cup from which he would drink.

52. Our translation is based on the glosses of the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh.

41. To remove the fat absorbed in the container (ibid.).

13

quotes Zevachim, loc. cit., explaining that this concept is

65. Unless there is a priest who can distinguish whether the taste was imparted or not, we assume that if the food in the

derived as follows. Leviticus 6:21-22 states: "All of the priestly males shall partake of it" and directly afterwards

more lenient category is 60 times the amount of the food in the more severe category, the taste of the more severe type

states: "and it shall be washed thoroughly and rinsed in water," implying that the two activities should be performed in

of food has not been imparted. Otherwise, we must be stringent (Zevachim 97a).

53. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam

direct sequence.

66. Similarly, if an earthenware vessel was used to cook meat

55. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that

from a sin-offering, according to the Rambam, it must be broken. According to Rashi and others, this applies

there is no point in washing an earthenware utensil thoroughly. Even if one does so, the taste of the sacrificial

whenever sacrificial offerings are cooked in an earthenware utensil (Radbaz).

offering will remain absorbed within it. The Rambam's understanding is that the Torah only required that an

67. I.e., when meat from sacrifices of the most severe degree of sanctity is cooked together with a larger quantity of meat

earthenware utensil be broken when it was used for cooking a sin-offering, if it was used for cooking other sacrifices,

from sacrifices of lesser sanctity, the utensils need not be purged at the time the commandment to partake of the

there is no obligation. This difference of opinion relates to a question of greater scope: the difference of opinion

sacrifices of the most severe degree of sanctity is concluded, because that meat is considered insignificant, due to the

mentioned above whether it is necessary to purge the utensils from the food absorbed in them or not.

majority of the other meat. Nevertheless, when the time to partake of the sacrifices of the lesser degree of holiness is

56. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:1), the

concluded, the utensils must be thoroughly washed and rinsed (ibid.). When sacrificial meat is cooked together with

54. I.e., beyond the time when it is permitted to eat from them.

Rambam mentions that there are some who interpret the Hebrew term as referring to utensils made from marble. He, however, favors the translation given above. 57. This refers to utensils made from earth that were not fired in a kiln and hence, are not governed by the laws applying to earthenware utensils. 58. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that since the

ordinary meat, even if its taste is not recognizable, we require that the utensils be thoroughly washed and rinsed, because of the stringencies involving sacrificial food (Radbaz). 68. And thus it would not be permitted to return it to the Temple Courtyard in its present state [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 11:6)].

Torah does not make any specifications with regard to such utensils (as it does with regard to earthenware and metal

69. This refers to both ordinary garments and priestly garments

utensils), there is no obligation with regard to them. He does not mention wood utensils, because wood utensils do not

with the exception of the cloak. Although it is forbidden to tear priestly garments with a destructive intent (Hilchot K'lei

resemble earthenware and metal. 59. See Chapter 10, Halachah 12, which states that at the outset, a sin-offering should not be eaten together with other sacrifices. 60. I.e., it can only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard by males of the priestly family on the day the sacrifice was offered and on the following night. 61. Zevachim 97a, et al, derives this concept from the fact that the term the prooftext uses for "its meat," bibisarah, literally

Hamikdash 9:3), tearing it for this purpose is not considered as tearing it with a destructive intent. 70. As stated in Hilchot Kelim 23:11, when the majority of an impure garment is torn, the remnants are considered as ritually pure. 71. Leviticus 6:20. 72. Anything smaller than a handkerchief could not be justifiably called a garment.

means "in its meat." Implied is the flavor must be absorbed

73. And thus one might think that they should not be brought into the Temple Courtyard.

into the meat of the other food.

74. I.e., our Sages did not enforce their decree in this instance,

62. Zevachim 98b interprets this verse as teaching that there is a fundamental commonality to all the sacrificial offerings. 63. A soft, spongy wafer [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:4)]. 64. And only that portion becomes sanctified.

because doing so would lead to the nullification of a Scriptural obligation. 75. Concerning which there is an explicit prohibition not to tear it (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, loc. cit.). Hence the advice given in the previous halachah is not relevant.

76. A portion of cloth less than three fingerbreadths wide is not considered as a garment. Hence, the laws of ritual impurity

81. And if it is broken to a greater extent, it is not considered as a utensil at all and therefore should not be brought into the

do not apply to it. Although in this instance, the cloak is intact and hence, is larger than this measure, since there is no

Temple Courtyard. Why was a utensil broken to the extent that a root could

alternative, this provision is allowed.

project through it allowed to be brought into the Temple Courtyard? Since our Sages considered it a utensil in certain

77. To purify it. 78. The Radbaz maintains that this law applies to the meat of a sin-offering, but not the meat of other offerings. 79. Zevachim 94b explains that this concept is derived from the laws governing the washing of a garment mentioned in

contexts, they allowed it to be considered a utensil so that the obligation to break utensils in the Temple Courtyard could be fulfilled. 82. With a large hole (see Hilchot Keilim 11:1-2). 83. Because it is no longer fit to be serve as a utensil.

Halachah 19. 80. Zevachim 95a explains that "a utensil" must be able to

84. Hilchot Keilim 12:1 states that when a metal utensil that had

contain liquids and if has a hole, it is no longer fit for such a purpose. Thus once the utensil has been broken, it is ritually

regained ritual purity, because it had been opened, because closed again, it reverts to being ritually impure. This,

pure. (This represents the Scriptural Law. With regard to Rabbinic Law, see Hilchot Keilim 19:2.)

however, is a Rabbinic safeguard and our Sages did not uphold their decree in this instance so that the practice of purging the utensils could be fulfilled.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

14

policy .

15



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 9 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 8

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 10

It is a positive commandment to offer the guiltofferings1 according to its statutes as they are written in the Torah. How are the guilt-offerings brought? Both the definite guilt offerings2 and the conditional guilt-offerings3 should be slaughtered and their blood should be sprinkled on the altar, as we explained.4 They are skinned,5 the portions offered on the altar6 are removed, salted,7 and tossed on [the altar's] pyre. If one desires to carry [these portions] to the altar in a [sacred] utensil, he may. The remainder of the meat is eaten by males of the priestly family according to [the laws that govern the consumption of] sin-offering.8

‫מצות עשה לעשות כל האשמות‬ ‫כמצותן האמורה בתורה וכיצד‬ ‫מעשה האשמות בין אשם ודאי בין אשם‬ ‫תלוי שוחט וזורק הדם כמו שביארנו‬ ‫ומפשיט ומוציא האימורין ומולחן וזורקן‬ ‫על גב האשים ואם רצה להוליכן בכלי‬ ‫מוליך ושאר בשרם נאכל לזכרי כהונה‬ :‫בעזרה כחטאת‬

There is a difference with regard to [the laws governing] the acceptance of the blood of the guilt offering brought by a person who had been afflicted with tzara'at,9 as will be explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah.10 Nevertheless, all of its other procedures, the sprinkling of its blood on the altar, and its consumption are analogous to that required for other guilt-offerings in all regards.11

‫אשם מצורע יש בקבלת דמו שינוי‬ ‫כמו שיתבאר בהלכות מחוסרי כפרה‬ ‫ואעפ"כ שאר מעשיו וזריקת דמו על‬ ‫המזבח ואכילתו כשאר האשמות לכל‬ :‫דבר‬

It is a positive commandment to offer all the peaceofferings12 as commanded. There are four types: one is the communal peace-offerings13 and the [other] three are individual peace offerings.14

‫עשיית כל שלמים כמצותן מצות עשה‬ ‫ האחד שלמי צבור‬:‫והן ארבעה מינין‬ :‫והשלשה שלמי יחיד‬

What is the procedure for bringing the communal peace offerings? [The sacrificial lambs] should be slaughtered and their blood should be sprinkled on the altar, as we explained.15 They are skinned,16 the portions offered on the altar17 are removed, salted,18 and brought to be consumed by [the altar's] pyre. The remainder [of the meat] is eaten by males of the priestly family according to [the laws that govern the consumption of] sin-offering and a guilt-offering, for these [sacrifices] are also sacrifices of the most sacred order, as we explained.19

‫וכיצד מעשה שלמי צבור שוחט‬ ‫וזורק הדם כמו שביארנו ומפשיט‬ ‫ומוציא האימורים ומולחן ומקטירן והשאר‬ ‫נאכל לזכרי כהונה בעזרה כחטאת וכאשם‬ :‫מפני שהן קדשי קדשים כמו שביארנו‬

There are three types of individual peace-offerings:

‫שלמי יחיד שלשה מינין האחד הוא‬ ‫הבא שלמים בלא לחם כגון שלמי‬ ‫חגיגה ושמחה וזהו הנקרא שלמים והשני‬ ‫שלמים הבאים עם הלחם בנדר או נדבה‬ ‫וזהו הנקרא תודה ואותו הלחם נקרא לחם‬ ‫תודה והמין השלישי שלמים שמקריב‬ ‫הנזיר ביום מלאת נזרו והם באים עם לחם‬ :‫וזהו הנקרא איל נזיר‬

a) a peace-offering that is brought without bread, e.g., the festive peace-offering20 or the peace-offering of celebration,21 they are called peace-offerings; b) peace-offerings brought with bread because of a vow or a pledge;22 these are called thanksgiving offerings and the bread is called the bread of the thanksgiving offering; c) the peace-offering brought by a nazirite on the day he completes his nazirite vow; this offering is accompanied by bread and is called the nazirite's ram.23

2

3

What is procedure for bringing these three [types of offerings]? [The sacrificial animals] should be slaughtered and their blood should be sprinkled on the altar, as we explained.24 They are skinned25 and the portions offered on the altar26 are removed. Afterwards, the meat is cut up and the breast and the right thigh are set aside.27 The portions to be offered together with the breast and the thigh are placed on the hands of the owners. A priest places his hands below the hands of the owner and performs tenufah28 with all these items "before God," to the east [of the Altar].29 Whenever there is a requirement for tenufah, it is performed to the

‫וכיצד מעשה שלשתן שוחט וזורק הדם‬ ‫כמו שביארנו ומפשיט ומוציא‬ ‫האימורין ואחר כך מנתח את הבשר‬ ‫ומפריש החזה ושוק הימין ונותן האימורין‬ ‫עם החזה והשוק על ידי הבעלים וכהן‬ ‫מניח ידו תחת ידי הבעלים ומניף הכל לפני‬ ‫ה' במזרח וכן כל הטעון תנופה במזרח‬ :‫מניפין אותו‬

east [of the Altar]. How is tenufah performed? [The items] are taken [to each of the directions]30 and returned, lifted up and brought low.31 If the sacrifice was a thanksgiving offering, one should be taken one from each [of the four] groups of ten breads that are brought with it32 and place it together with the breast, the thigh, and the portions offered on the altar. Tenufah should be performed with all of these items upon the owner's hands, as explained.33

‫וכיצד הוא מניף מוליך ומביא מעלה‬ ‫ומוריד ואם היה הקרבן תודה לוקח מן‬ ‫הלחם הבא עמה אחד מעשרה ומניחו עם‬ ‫החזה והשוק והאימורים ומניף הכל על ידי‬ :‫הבעלים כמו שביארנו‬

How are they placed on the owner's hands? The fats are placed on the owner's hands with the breast and the thigh above them. The two kidneys and the lobe of the liver are placed above them and if [the offering includes] bread, it is placed above them34 and tenufah is performed with all these items.

‫וכיצד מניחן ע"י הבעלים נותן את‬ ‫החלבים על ידי הבעלים וחזה ושוק‬ ‫למעלה ושתי הכליות ויותרת הכבד‬ ‫למעלה מהם ואם יש שם לחם מניחו‬ :‫למעלה ומניף הכל‬

4

If the sacrifice was a nazirite's ram, [the priest] should remove the portions to be offered on the altar, set aside the breast and the thigh, and cook the remainder of the ram in the Women's Courtyard.35 The priest takes the cooked foreleg from the ram36 and one from each [of the two] groups of ten breads that are brought with it,37 together with the breast, the thigh, and the portions offered on the altar and places everything on the nazirite's hands. The priest places his hands under the owner's hands and moves all [items] as we described.38

‫היה הקרבן איל נזיר מוציא האימורין‬ ‫ומפריש חזה ושוק ומבשל שאר‬ ‫האיל בעזרת הנשים ולוקח הכהן הזרוע‬ ‫בשלה מן האיל עם אחד מעשרה מן הלחם‬ ‫הבא עמו עם החזה והשוק והאימורין‬ ‫ומניח הכל ע"י הנזיר והכהן מניח ידיו‬ ‫תחת ידי הבעלים ומניף הכל כמו‬ :‫שביארנו‬

What is meant by the breast? The portion [of the animal's body] that faces the ground that extends from the neck until the belly. Two ribs on either side should be cut off [and given to the priest] together with it. What is meant by the foreleg? The portion from the upper-joint until the ankle joint; two limbs, one connected with the other.39 The foreleg that is mentioned refers to the right foreleg. The corresponding portion in the rear leg is the thigh that is referred to universally.

‫אי זהו חזה כל הרואה את הקרקע‬ ‫למעלה עד הצואר למטה עד הכרס‬ ‫וחותך עמה שתי צלעות אילך ואילך ואי‬ ‫זהו זרוע מן הפרק של ארכובה עד כף של‬ ‫יד שהם שני איברים מעורין זה בזה והזרוע‬ ‫האמורה היא זרוע של ימין ושכנגדה ברגל‬ :‫הוא השוק האמור בכ"מ‬

After tenufah is performed with [these portions], they are offered on the pyre of the altar except for the breast and the thigh that are eaten by the priests,40 as [Leviticus 7:34] states: "but the breast with which tenufah was performed and the thigh that was lifted up...." The remainder of the peace-offerings are consumed by the owner.41 The priests do not acquire the breast and the thigh until after the portions to be offered on the altar were placed on its pyre.42

‫ואחר שמניפן מולח האימורין‬ ‫ומקטירן על גבי המזבח אבל החזה‬ ‫והשוק נאכל לכהנים שנאמר כי את חזה‬ ‫התנופה ואת שוק התרומה ושאר השלמים‬ ‫נאכלים לבעלים ואין הכהנים זוכין בחזה‬ :‫ושוק אלא לאחר הקטר האימורין‬

5

Similarly, the bread with which tenufah was performed from the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram and the cooked foreleg are eaten by the priests. The remainder of the bread and the remainder of the meat are eaten by the owner. The bread with which tenufah was performed together with the breast and the thigh is referred to43 as "the elevated portion from the thanksgiving offering." The cooked foreleg together with the breast and the thigh and the bread with which tenufah was performed are referred to as "the elevated portion from the nazirite's ram." There is an unresolved doubt whether the bread from the elevated portion of the thanksgiving offering44 is categorized as terumah or not.45 Therefore one is not liable for death,46 nor to repay an additional fifth, [as one is when partaking of] terumah. Nor is a

‫וכן הלחם שמניף בתודה ובאיל נזיר‬ ‫והזרוע הבשלה נאכלין לכהנים‬ ‫ושאר הלחם עם שאר הבשר נאכל‬ ‫לבעלים והלחם שמניף עם החזה והשוק‬ ‫הם הנקראין מורם מתודה והזרוע בשלה‬ ‫עם החזה והשוק עם הלחם שמניף הם‬ :‫הנקראין מורם מאיל נזיר‬

‫הלחם המורם מן התודה ספק‬ ‫תרומה הוא לפיכך אין חייבין עליו‬ ‫מיתה וחומש כתרומה ואינו מדמע‬ :‫כתרומה‬

mixture of it subject to the laws of dimua47 as is a mixture of terumah.48 If the person bringing the thanksgiving offering was a priest, the remainder of the bread may be eaten by the owner like a thanksgiving offering brought by an Israelite. For the bread that accompanies a thanksgiving offering or a nazrite's ram is not called a meal offering.49

‫היה בעל התודה כהן הרי שאר‬ ‫הלחם נאכל לבעלים כתודת‬ ‫ישראל שאין הלחם הבא עם התודה או‬ :‫עם איל נזיר קרוי מנחה‬

When two people bring a peace-offering in partnership, one should perform tenufah with the other's permission.50 Even if there are 100 [partners], one should perform tenufah for the sake of all of them. This does not apply with regard to semichah.51

‫שנים שהביאו שלמים בשותפות‬ ‫האחד מניף ברשות חבירו אפילו‬ ‫הם מאה אחד מניף על ידי כולן מה שאין‬ :‫כן בסמיכה‬

When a woman is the one bringing a sacrifice, she does not perform tenufah with it. The priest must perform that rite,52 for the sacrifice requires that tenufah be performed with it and a woman is unacceptable to perform that rite. A woman never performs tenufah except in two instances: a sotah53 and a female nazirite, as we explained.54 Tenufah should always be performed before [the elements of the sacrifice] are brought close to the altar.55

‫היתה אשה בעלת הקרבן אינה‬ ‫מניפה אבל הכהן מניף שקרבנה‬ ‫טעון תנופה והיא פסולה לתנופה ולעולם‬ ‫אין אשה מניפה אלא הסוטה והנזירה‬ ‫בלבד כמו שביארנו ותנופה קודמת‬ :‫להגשה בכל מקום‬

What is meant by the bread that is brought together with the thanksgiving offering? One should take 20 isaronim56 of fine flour. He should make ten isaronim leavened and ten unleavened. The ten that are made leaven should be made into ten loaves.

‫כיצד הוא הלחם שמביא עם התודה‬ ‫לוקח עשרים עשרון סולת ועושה‬ ‫מהם עשרה עשרונים חמץ ועשרה מצה‬ :‫העשרה של חמץ עושה אותם עשר חלות‬

How are they made leavened? He should bring enough yeast to cause the dough to leaven and place it in the measure of an isaron. He then fills the

‫וכיצד מחמצן מביא שאור כדי‬ ‫חמוצן ונותנו לתוך המדה וממלא‬ ‫את המדה אף על פי שסופה להיות חסירה‬ ‫או יתירה מפני השאור שפעמים יהיה עבה‬ ‫וקשה ופעמים רכה אין משגיחין אלא על‬ ‫מדתה עתה והרי הוא מודד עשרון עשרון‬ ‫שלמים והעשרה עשרונים של מצה עושה‬ ‫מהן שלשים חלות שוות עשר חלות מכל‬ ‫מין עשר חלות מאפה תנור ועשר חלות‬ :‫רקיקים ועשר חלות מורבכת‬

measure. Even though ultimately, [the measure] will be lacking or excessive because of the yeast,57 for at times [the yeast] will be thick and hard58 and at times it will be soft [and inflated],59 we are concerned only with its measure at the present time. Hence he should measure full isaronim. From the ten isaronim for the unleavened bread, he should make 30 loaves of the same size, ten of each [of the following three] types: ten loaves baked in an oven, ten loaves of flat-cakes, and ten loaves of fried cakes.60 How are the fried cakes prepared? [The cakes] should be scalded with boiling water.61 Then they should be baked slightly and then fried in oil in a roasting pot or the like, like doughnuts and fried. A large amount of oil is used for them. This is the deepfrying process mentioned in all places.

6

‫וכיצד היא המורבכת חולטה‬ ‫ברותחין ואופה אותה מעט ואח"כ‬ ‫קולה אותה בשמן על האלפס וכיוצא בו‬ ‫כדרך שקולין הסופגנין ומרבין במשנה וזהו‬ :‫הריבוך האמור בכ"מ‬

How much oil is used to prepare these 30 loaves?62 Half a log of oil.63 This measure is a halachah communicated to Moses from Sinai. A fourth is used for the fried doughballs, an eighth for the loaves [baked in the oven], and an eighth for the wafers.64

‫ובכמה שמן הוא עושה השלשים‬ ‫חלות בחצי לוג שמן ושיעור זה הלכה‬ ‫למשה מסיני רביעית ממנו לרבוכה‬ :‫ושמינית לחלות ושמינית לרקיקין‬

With regard to the loaves [that are baked]: their flour should saturate in the eighth [of a log]. Afterwards, they should be kneaded and baked. The oil should be poured over the wafers after they have been baked.

‫החלות לותת הסולת שלהן‬ ‫בשמינית של שמן ואחר כך לש‬ ‫ואופה אותן והרקיקין מושחן בשמינית‬ ‫שלהן אחר אפייתן והכהן לוקח מן הכל‬ ‫ארבע חלות אחת מכל מין ומין שנאמר‬ :‫אחד מכל קרבן‬

The priest takes four loaves from the entire [mixture], one of each type, as [Leviticus 7:14] states: "One from each [type], a sacrifice."

7

When one made [only] four loaves for the bread for the thanksgiving offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. [The Torah] mentions 40 only as [the optimum way of fulfilling] the mitzvah. [This applies] provided he separates a challah from each of the types of sacrifices while they are still dough.65 For a piece of bread may not be separated [as a sacrificial portion].66 [This is implied by the prooftext:] "One from each [type], a sacrifice," that the priest should not receive a portion.

‫ולחמי תודה שאפה אותן ארבע‬ ‫חלות יצא לא נאמר ארבעים‬ ‫אלא למצוה והוא שיפריש החלה שלהן‬ ‫אחת מכל קרבן כשהן בצק שאין מפרישין‬ ‫פרוסה שנאמר אחד מכל קרבן שלא יטול‬ :‫פרוס‬

What is meant by the bread that is brought together with the nazirite's ram? He should take six and two thirds isaronim of flour and make 20 equal sized loaves from them. They must all be unleavened bread.67 Ten should be wafers with oil poured over them and ten loaves whose flour was saturated in oil. The entire amount should be baked in an oven. A fourth [of a log] of oil is used for them.68 This measure is a halachah communicated to Moses at Sinai. The priest takes two of the loaves, one from each type.69

‫וכיצד הוא הלחם הבא עם איל‬ ‫נזיר לוקח ששה עשרונות ושני‬ ‫שלישי עשרון ועושה מהן עשרים חלות‬ ‫שוות והכל מצה עשרה רקיקין משוחין‬ ‫בשמן ועשר חלות לותת הסולת שלהן‬ ‫בשמן והכל מאפה תנור ושמן שלהן‬ ‫רביעית ושיעור זה הלכה למשה מסיני‬ :‫והכהן לוקח מהן שתי חלות אחת מכל מין‬

8

Each of the two types of bread [brought by] a Nazirite and the four types of bread brought for the thanksgiving offering is an absolute necessity.70 The bread for both these offerings is prepared outside the Temple Courtyard.71

‫שני מיני לחם שבנזיר וארבעה‬ ‫מיני לחם שבתודה מעכבין זה את‬ :‫זה ומעשה הלחם של שניהן חוץ לעזרה‬

How are the firstborn, tithe, and Paschal sacrifices offered? After their blood is poured on the altar as we explained,72 they are skinned, the portions offered on the altar are removed,73 salted, and placed on [the altar's] pyre.74 The remainder of the meat of the firstborn offering is eaten by the priests. The remainder of the meat of the tithe sacrifice is eaten by the owner. The remainder of the meat of the Paschal sacrifice is eaten by those enumerated upon it according to its laws, as will be explained in Hilchot [Korban] Pesach.

‫כיצד מעשה הבכור והמעשר‬ ‫והפסח אחר שזורק דמן כמו‬ ‫שביארנו מפשיט ומוציא האימורים ומולחן‬ ‫ומקטירן ושאר בשר הבכור נאכל לכהנים‬ ‫ושאר בשר המעשר נאכל לבעלים ושאר‬ ‫הפסח נאכל למנוייו כהלכותיו כמו‬ :‫שיתבאר בהלכות הפסח‬

« Previous

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 10

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 8 FOOTNOTES 1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 65) and Sefer

9. A skin affliction similar to, but not identical with leprosy, that

HaChinuch (mitzvah 140) include this as one of the 613

afflicts people, their clothes, and their homes because of spiritual inadequacies, in particular speaking lashon hara,

mitzvot of the Torah. 2. See Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 9, for a description of the transgressions for which these sacrifices are brought. 3. See Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 8, for a description of the situations which warrant bringing these sacrifices. 4. See Chapter 5, Halachah 2, with regard to slaughter, and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to sprinkling the blood on the altar. 5. As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18. 6. The fats, the lobe of liver, and the kidneys described in Leviticus 7:3-4. 7. For every element of a sacrifice offered on the altar must be salted (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11). 8. For Leviticus 7:7 establishes an equation between the guiltoffering and the sin-offering. See also Chapter 10, Halachah 3.

uncomplimentary gossip (the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at). 10. Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2. 11. This sacrifice is given as an example of one of the Thirteen Principles of Biblical Exegesis taught by Rabbi Yishmael (Sifra 1:4), It describes an entity (the guilt offering brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at) that was once included in a general category (all guilt offerings), was singled out with regard to a new stipulation (that its blood be received in a different manner). Hence the laws that apply to that general category apply to it only because there is an explicit verse (Leviticus 14:13) that returns it to the general category. 12. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 66) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 141) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 13. The two lambs offered on Shavuot (Leviticus 23:19).

14. The Radbaz emphasizes that there is a difference between peace-offerings and other sacrifices. Most of the peace-

30. The bracketed addition is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:5). This is also the

offerings are brought voluntarily, while most of the other offerings are brought due to an obligation.

perspective of Rashi (Menachot 62a) based on our Sages'

15. See Chapter 5, Halachah 2, with regard to slaughter, and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to sprinkling the blood on the altar. 16. As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18. 17. The fats, the lobe of liver, and the kidneys described in Leviticus 7:3-4. 18. For every element of a sacrifice offered on the altar must be salted (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11). 19. Chapter 1, Halachah 17; Chapter 5, Halachah 3. 20. Brought when making the festive pilgrimages (Hilchot Chagigah 1:1). 21. Additional peace-offerings brought at the time of the festive pilgrimages (ibid.). 22. The term "vow" refers to a promise to bring a sacrifice. The term "pledge" refers to a promise to bring a particular animal as a sacrifice (Hilchot Nedarim 1:2).

statements that this action is intended to prevent destructive winds. 31. This is intended to prevent harmful dews (ibid.). 32. See Halachot 17-22 for a description of the breads which would accompany the thanksgiving offering. 33. In the previous halachah. 34. In this way, the bread will not be spoiled through excessive contact with the meat (Radbaz). In his gloss (based on Menachot 61b), he cites exegetical reasons why the other items are placed in the order mentioned. 35. More particularly, as mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:8, there was a chamber in the southeast portion of the Women's Courtyard set aside for this purpose. 36. As commanded by Numbers 6:19. The Radbaz explains that it would appear that the foreleg would be placed above the other portions of the sacrifice, but below the bread. 37. See Halachah 23.

23. See Hilchot Nizirut 8:1.

38. In the previous two halachot.

24. See Chapter 5, Halachah 2, with regard to slaughter, and

39. An animal's foreleg is comprised of three bones. According to the Rambam, the lower two are given to the priest. See the

Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to sprinkling the blood on the altar. 25. As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18. 26. The fats, the lobe of liver, and the kidneys described in Leviticus 7:3-4. 27. Ultimately, they will be given to the priests as stated in Halachah 12.

Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin

10:4).

Others maintain the upper two should be given to the priest. 40. See Chapter 10, Halachah 4. 41. And any - both male and female - with whom he desires to share the meat. 42. Pesachim 59b derives this law from the order in which the

28. As explained in the following halachah.

concepts are stated in the Torah. Similarly, the owner may not partake of his portion until that time (Hilchot Pesulei

29. Our translation is based on Rashi, Menachot 61a. In his

HaMukdashim 18:7).

Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:6), the Rambam writes: "With regard to the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted with tzara'at..., it is written (Leviticus 14:12): 'And tenufah should be performed with them before God.' A tradition has been received interpreting 'before God' as meaning 'in the east.' Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this to mean that even the area to the east of the altar is considered as "before God," but the

43. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:21; Hilchot Bikkurim 1:15. 44. There is, however, no such doubt with regard to the elevated portion of the nazirite's ram (Radbaz). 45. For Leviticus 7:14 uses the word terumah when describing this offering. Nevertheless, since we find exclusions with regard to penalties associated with terumah in other verses,

area to the west certainly warrants that description. The Rambam does not accept this understanding. His

it is possible that they do not apply with regard to these

interpretation is question by the Kessef Mishneh and others,

unresolved.

for the Holy of Holies was to the west of the altar. Seemingly, the closer one comes to it, the more one is "before God."

breads. Accordingly, Menachot 77b leaves the matter

46. Hilchot Terumot 6:6. 47. As stated in Hilchot Terumot 13:1-2, in such an instance, one hundred times the amount of terumah is required before the mixture is permitted.

9

48. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that if these

59. And thus take up a lot of space.

breads become mixed with ordinary breads, seemingly, there

60. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:3), the

is a question whether a Scriptural prohibition applies and one should rule stringently. They explain that as long as

Rambam writes that he has found no definition for the term

there is a majority of permitted substances, the Scriptural prohibition is considered as nullified and the prohibition is

quantity of oil is used in the preparation of the cakes.

only Rabbinic in origin (see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:13). This also applies with regard to a mixture of terumah (Hilchot Terumot 14:7). Accordingly, in this instance, since it is possible that the laws of terumah are not applied to these breads, we do not impose the Rabbinic prohibition.

murbechet, but that appears to him that it implies that a large

61. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:6; Menachot 9:3), where he describes how these fried cakes are made. 62. Those loaves which are leavened do not require oil [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:4)].

49. As will be stated (Chapter 12, Halachah 9), in contrast to the meal offerings brought by Israelites, meal offerings brought

63. A half a log is 172 cc. according to Shiurei Torah and 300

by the priests are consumed entirely by the altar's pyre. Hence, the Rambam felt it necessary to clarify that these

64. The Radbaz maintains that the measure of half a log was

breads are not in that category. 50. If the two partners would perform tenufah each one holding part of the items, neither would be performing the rite as required. If one put his hand below the hand of the other one, there would be an interposition between that person's hand and the sacrificial items. And it is also impossible for them to perform tenufah, one after the other, because the Torah speaks about tenufah, using the singular, and not tenufot, using the plural (Menachot 94a). 51. That rite must be performed by each of the partners individually (Chapter 3, Halachah 9). 52. The Radbaz suggests that if she is married, her husband should perform this rite on her behalf. 53. A woman suspected of adultery who is required to bring an offering as part of her process of atonement. 54. Hilchot Sotah 3:15; Hilchot Nizirut 8:4. 55. Menachot 61a derives this concept from Numbers 5:25 which speaks of tenufah being performed with a sotah's offering and then of it being brought to the altar. 56. An isaron is defined as a measure equivalent to the volume of 43 and 1/5 eggs.

cc. according to Chazon Ish.

communicated to Moses, but the breakdown of how this measure should be used was not. Hence, after the fact, the sacrifice is not disqualified if there was some deviation. 65. Although the person desires to bake only four loaves, he must also separate one loaf of each type for the priest. This separation must be done beforehand, as the Rambam precedes to explain. Thus one tenth of each type of dough must be separated and prepared for the priest. 66. I.e., it would not be deferential to give the priest a piece of each of the four doughs as his sacrificial portion. 67. The nazirite is bringing two thirds of the unleavened bread brought in connection with a thanksgiving offering. Hence, he uses two thirds the amount of flour. 68. I.e., a similar amount of oil is used as is used for the corresponding loaves of the thanksgiving offering. 69. As stated in Numbers 6:19. 70. I.e., if any of the types of bread are lacking, the sacrifice is unacceptable and nothing should be brought at all. 71. In his gloss to the Mishnah (Menachot 3:7), Tosafot Yom Tov writes that these breads were baked in Beit Pagi, a small settlement, outside, but close to the Temple Mount. 72. Chapter 5, Halachah 17.

57. I.e., the space intended for the flour will be taken by the yeast.

73. Chapter 5, Halachah 18. 74. See Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:14; Hilchot Bechorot 1:2; 6:4.

58. And thus take up only a small amount of space.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

10

policy .

11



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 10 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 9

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 11

It is a positive commandment for the sin offerings and the guilt-offerings1 to be eaten,2 as [Exodus 29:33] states: "And they shall eat [the sacrifices] which convey atonement."3 The priests eat the sacrifices and the owners receive atonement. This also applies to other sacrifices4 that are eaten by the priests; partaking of them is a mitzvah.

‫אכילת החטאת והאשם מצות עשה‬ ‫שנאמר ואכלו אותם אשר כופר‬ ‫בהם הכהנים אוכלים ובעלים מתכפרים‬ ‫והוא הדין לשאר הקדשים שאוכלין אותן‬ :‫הכהנים שאכילתן מצוה‬

Similarly, partaking of the portion that remains from the meal offerings5 is a positive commandment,6 as [Leviticus 6:9] states: "What remains of it shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons."

‫וכן אכילת שירי מנחות מצות עשה‬ ‫שנאמר והנותרת ממנה יאכלו אהרן‬

The sin-offering, the guilt-offering, and the remnants of the meal-offering may be eaten only by males7 of the priestly family in the Temple Courtyard.8 If they were eaten in the Temple building, their consumption is [acceptable], as [indicated by Numbers 18:9-10]: "For all of their meal-offerings, for all of their sin-offerings, and for all of their guilt-offerings.... In the most holy place,9 you shall partake of it.10 All males shall partake of it." Similarly, the communal peaceofferings are similar to the sin-offerings and the guiltofferings, as we explained.11

‫ואין חטאת ואשם ושירי מנחות‬ ‫נאכלין אלא לזכרי כהונה בעזרה ואם‬ ‫נאכלו בהיכל נאכלו שנאמר לכל מנחתם‬ ‫ולכל חטאתם ולכל אשמם בקדש הקדשים‬ ‫תאכלנו כל זכר יאכל אותו וכן שלמי צבור‬ :‫הרי הן כחטאת וכאשם כמו שביארנו‬

:‫ובניו‬

The breast and the thigh of the peace-offerings are eaten by both males and females of the priestly family, for with regard to these [Numbers 18:11] states: "I have given it to you, to your sons and your daughters." This also applies to the elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram,12 [ibid.:19] states: "All of the elevated portions of the consecrated [offerings] that the children of Israel shall raise up have I given to you, your sons, and your daughters."

‫חזה ושוק של שלמים נאכלין לכהנים‬ ‫זכרים ונקבות שנאמר בהם לך‬ ‫נתתים ולבניך ולבנותיך וכן המורם מתודה‬ ‫והמורם מאיל נזיר שנאמר כל תרומת‬ ‫הקדשים אשר ירימו בני ישראל לה' נתתי‬ :‫לך ולבניך ולבנותיך‬

The same applies with regard to the firstborn offering, for concerning it [ibid.:18] states: "Their meat shall be yours, like the breast with which tenufah

‫וכן הבכור שהרי נאמר בו ובשרם‬ ‫יהיה לך כחזה התנופה וכשוק הימין‬ ‫וכל אלו הנאכלים לכהנות נאכלים לעבדי‬ ‫הכהנים ולנשיהם כתרומה וכולן נאכלים‬ ‫בכל העיר שנאמר את חזה התנופה ואת‬ ‫שוק התרומה תאכלו במקום טהור לא‬ ‫נאמר בהן במקום קדוש שהיא העזרה‬ ‫אלא טהור שהוא כל מחנה ישראל‬ ‫שכנגדו לדורות ירושלים והוא הדין‬ ‫למעשר ופסח שהרי הן קדשים קלים‬ :‫כשלמים והחלונות ועובי החומה כלפנים‬

was performed and the right thigh."13 All of these14 [portions of sacrificial meat] that may be eaten by the women of the priestly family may be eaten by the priests' servants and their wives, like terumah. All [these sacrifices]15 may be eaten throughout the city [of Jerusalem],16 as [Leviticus 10:14] states: "And the breast with which tenufah was performed and the thigh that was lifted up shall you eat in a pure place." It was not specified that they [be eaten] "in a holy place," which would mean "the Temple Courtyard," but "in a pure place." This refers to the camp of the Israelites.17 The parallel with regard to future generations is the city of Jerusalem. The same laws apply to the tithe offering and the Paschal sacrifice, for they are sacrifices of lesser sanctity like the peace-offerings. The windows and the thickness of the wall is considered as being within [the city].18

2

3

The peace-offerings may be eaten on the day they were slaughtered, throughout the [following] night, and throughout the following day until sunset, as [Leviticus 7:16-18] states: "On the day when his sacrifice was offered, it shall be eaten and on its morrow... If one would partake of the peace-offering on the third day...."19 Thus one can derive that they may be eaten for two days and one night. [This applies both] to the portion of the priests and the portions of the owners. This also applies to the firstborn and tithe offerings,20 for they are also sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, like the peace-offerings.

‫השלמים נאכלים ביום הזביחה וכל‬ ‫הלילה וכל יום המחרת עד שתשקע‬ ‫החמה שנאמר ביום הקריבו את זבחו‬ ‫יאכל וממחרת ואם האכל יאכל מבשר‬ ‫זבח שלמיו ביום השלישי וגו' נמצאת למד‬ ‫שהן נאכלין לשני ימים ולילה אחד בין‬ ‫חלק הכהנים בין חלק הבעלים והוא הדין‬ ‫לבכור ומעשר שהרי הן קדשים קלים‬ :‫כשלמים‬

The thanksgiving-offering, by contrast, even though it is one of the sacrifices of lesser sanctity, may be eaten only on the day of its sacrifice and the [following] night, as [ibid.:15] states: "It shall be eaten on the day it was offered. Do not leave anything from it until the morning." This also applies to the nazirite's ram and the bread which accompanies [these offerings], both to the portion of the priests and the portion of the owner. This also applies to the sin-offering, the guilt-offering, the communal peace-offerings, and the remainder of the meal-offerings. All of these are eaten for a day and [the following] night, as it is written: "It shall be eaten on the day it was offered."21 This appears to include all of the sacrifices with the exception of the peace-offerings concerning which the Torah explicitly [stated otherwise] and the firstborn and tithe offerings which resemble the peace-offerings.

‫אבל התודה אף על פי שהיא קדשים‬ ‫קלים אינה נאכלת אלא ביום הזביחה‬ ‫עם הלילה שנאמר בה ביום קרבנו יאכל‬ ‫לא יניח ממנו עד בקר וכן איל נזיר והלחם‬ ‫הבא עמהן וכיוצא בהן בין חלק הכהנים‬ ‫בין חלק הבעלים והוא הדין לחטאת‬ ‫ולאשם ולשלמי צבור ולשירי מנחות‬ ‫שהכל נאכל ליום ולילה שנאמר ביום‬ ‫קרבנו יאכל כל הקרבנות במשמע חוץ מן‬ ‫השלמים שפירש בהן הכתוב ובכור‬ :‫ומעשר הדומים להם‬

According to Scriptural Law, all of these [sacrifices] that may be eaten on the day [of their sacrifice] and the [following] night may be eaten until dawn.22 In order to separate a person from sin, our Sages said that they may only be eaten until midnight.23

‫כל אלו הנאכלין ליום ולילה דין‬ ‫תורה שהן נאכלין עד שיעלה עמוד‬ ‫השחר וכדי להרחיק מן העבירה אמרו‬ ‫חכמים שאין נאכלין אלא עד חצות‬ :‫הלילה‬

All of the sacrifices - both those of the highest degree of sanctity and those of a lesser degree may be eaten only by those who are ritually pure24 and who are circumcised.25 Even if the duration of the person's impurity has concluded,26 but he has not brought the [necessary] atonement,27 he may not partake of sacrificial foods. A tumtum28may not partake of sacrificial foods, because there is an unresolved doubt whether he is uncircumcised.29 It appears to me that an androgynus30 may partake of sacrifices of lesser sanctity.31

‫כל הקרבנות בין קדשי קדשים בין‬ ‫קדשים קלים אין אוכלין אותם אלא‬ ‫הטהורים בלבד המולין אפילו העריב‬ ‫שמשו ולא הביא כפרתו אינו אוכל‬ ‫בקדשים והטומטום אסור לאכול בקדשים‬ ‫לפי שהוא ספק ערל אבל האנדרוגינוס‬ :‫יראה לי שאוכל בקדשים קלים‬

It is permitted to eat sacrificial meat together with any other food. Even the priests are permitted to eat their portions - both from the sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity and those of a lesser degree - together with any other food.32 And they may change the manner [in which it is prepared] to be eaten, eating them roasted, lightly cooked, or thoroughly cooked33 and to spice them with spices that are not consecrated. They may not, however, spice them with spices that are terumah, lest this cause the terumah to be disqualified.34

‫ומותר לאכול את הקדשים בכל מאכל‬ ‫אפילו הכהנים מותרין לאכול חלקם‬ ‫בין מקדשים קלים בין מקדשי קדשים בכל‬ ‫מאכל ולשנות באכילתן ולאוכלם צלויים‬ ‫שלוקים ומבושלים ולתת לתוכן תבלין של‬ ‫חולין אבל לא תבלין של תרומה שלא‬ ‫יביאו את התרומה לידי פיסול והעצמות‬ ‫הנשארות מותרות ועושה אדם מהם כל‬ :‫כלים שירצה‬

The bones that remain are permitted [to be used for any purpose].35 A person may make any utensil he desires from them. If there was only a small amount [of sacrificial meat], ordinary food and terumah should be eaten with it so that it will be eaten in a satisfying manner.36 If there is a large amount [of sacrificial meat], ordinary food and terumah should not be eaten with it so that one will not have overeaten.37 Similar concepts apply with regard to the remainder of the meal offerings.38

4

‫היתה להם אכילה מועטת אוכלין‬ ‫עמה חולין ותרומות כדי שתהיה‬ ‫נאכלת עם השבע היתה להן אכילה מרובה‬ ‫אין אוכלין עמה חולין ותרומה כדי שלא‬ ‫תהיה נאכלת אכילה גסה וכן בשירי‬ :‫המנחות‬

5

A sin-offering and a guilt-offering should not be cooked together with the elevated portion of the thanksgiving-offering or the elevated portion of the nazirite's ram because doing so restricts the type of people able to partake of them39 and the place where they can be eaten.40 Nor may one [cook] the elevated portion of the thanksgiving-offering or the elevated portion of the nazirite's ram with the breast and thigh of the peace-offering because doing so restricts the time in which they may be eaten.41 Nor may the elevated portion of yesterday's peace-offering [be cooked] with a sin-offering or a guilt-offering brought today because doing so restricts the type of people able to partake of them,42 the place where they can be eaten,43 and the time in which they may be eaten.44

‫אין מבשלין חטאת או אשם עם‬ ‫מורם מתודה או מאיל נזיר מפני‬ ‫שממעט באוכליהן ובמקום אכילתן ולא‬ ‫מורם מתודה ומאיל נזיר עם בכור או עם‬ ‫חזה ושוק של שלמים מפני שממעט זמן‬ ‫אכילתן ולא מורם משלמים של אמש עם‬ ‫חטאת ואשם של יום מפני שממעט‬ ‫באוכליהן ובמקום אכילתן ובזמן אכילתן‬ ‫אבל חטאת ואשם מתבשלין זה עם זה‬ ‫ותודה ואיל נזיר זה עם זה והבכור וחזה‬ ‫ושוק זה עם זה חתיכה של קדשי קדשים‬ ‫או של פגול או נותר שנתבשלה עם‬ ‫חתיכות אחרות אותן החתיכות אסורות‬ :‫לזרים ומותרות לכהנים‬

One may, however, cook sin-offerings and guiltofferings together, the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram together, and the firstborn offering and the breast and the thigh [of the thanksgiving offering] together.45 If one cooked a peace [of meat] from the sacrifices of the most sacred order,46 one that was piggul,47 or one that was notar48 with other pieces of sacrificial meat,49 those other pieces are forbidden to non-priests and permitted to priests.50 When meat from the sacrifices of the most sacred order or sacrifices of lesser sanctity is cooked together with ordinary meat,51 the ordinary meat is forbidden to those who are ritually impure52 and permitted to those who are ritually pure.53

‫בשר קדשי קדשים או בשר קדשים‬ ‫קלים שנתבשל עם בשר תאוה הרי‬ ‫בשר התאוה אסור לטמאים ומותר‬ :‫לטהורים‬

6

With regard to a burnt-offering, [Leviticus 7:8] states: "The hide of the burnt-offering which the priest sacrificed will belong to him." With regard to a sin-offering, [ibid. 6:19] states: "The priest who performs the sin-offering shall partake of it." With regard to a guilt-offering, [ibid. 7:7] states: "It will belong to the priest who brings about atonement because of it." With regard to a peace-offering, [ibid.:14] states: "It will belong to the priest who pours the blood of the peace-offering." And with regard to the meal-offering, it is written: "The priest who offers it shall partake of it."54 In all the above instances, the verses are not referring [to the priest who actually brings the offering, but] to [any priest] who is fit to have done so. Any priest who is fit to perform the service has a right to share in the division [of the sacrifice] to partake of it.55 [Conversely,] one who is not fit [to serve] at the time it is offered, e.g., he was ritually impure, does not have a right to share in the division [of the sacrifice] to partake of it even if he will regain ritual purity in the evening. With regard to the division, the entire [matter] is given to the men of the clan who offer sacrifices that day.56 They all share in the division of all of the sacraments of the Temple, each man [receiving the same portion] as his brother, whether he was the one who offered the sacrifice or he was together with him in the Temple, but did not offer the sacrifice.

‫נאמר בעולה עור העולה אשר‬ ‫הקריב לכהן לו יהיה ונאמר‬ ‫בחטאת הכהן המחטא אותה יאכלנה‬ ‫ונאמר באשם הכהן אשר יכפר בו לו יהיה‬ ‫ונאמר בשלמים לכהן הזורק את דם‬ ‫השלמים לו יהיה ונאמר במנחה הכהן‬ ‫המקריב אותה לו יהיה אין הכתוב מדבר‬ ‫בכל אלו אלא בראוי שהכהן הראוי‬ ‫לעבודה זהו שיש לו חלק לאכול ומי‬ ‫שאינו ראוי בשעת הקרבן כגון שהיה טמא‬ ‫אין לו חלק לאכול אפילו כשיטהר לערב‬ ‫אבל לענין חלוקה הכל לאנשי בית אב‬ ‫שמקריבין באותו היום וכולם חולקים בכל‬ ‫קדשי המקדש איש כאחיו בין זה שהקריב‬ :‫בין אחיו שעמו במקדש שלא הקריב‬

7

Why did the verse make a distinction between the meal-offerings that are baked and the meal-offerings of flour? For with regard to [the meal-offerings] that are baked, [Leviticus 7:9] states: "Any meal-offering that is baked in an oven... it will belong to the priest who offers it" and with regard to the meal-offerings of flour [ibid.:10] states: "Any meal-offering that is mixed with oil or that is parched shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, every man like his brother." [The following explanation can be given:]57 When [the meal-offerings] that are baked are divided among the members of the clan, whenever a person receives a portion even if it is [merely[ an olive-sized portion of bread, it is fit for him to partake of it, because it may be eaten immediately. When, however, we are speaking of flour, if [such an offering] will be divided among them, there will be those who will receive only a handful of flour or less. This is not fit either to be kneaded into dough or to be baked. Hence, one might think that one meal offering should be apportioned in consideration of another meal-offering instead of dividing each meal-offering individually among all the members of the clan.58 Therefore it is necessary for the Torah to state [that it] "shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, every man like his brother," i.e., that it is divided individually. On this basis, our Sages said:59 that a meal offering is not divided in consideration of another meal-offering, not even one offering brought in a flat frying pan in consideration of another such offering or one flouroffering in consideration of another such offering. Instead, what remains60 from every [offering] is divided individually.

‫ולמה חלק הכתוב במנחות בין‬ ‫מנחות האפויות ומנחת הסלת‬ ‫שהרי באפויות הוא אומר כל המנחה‬ ‫אשר תאפה בתנור לכהן המקריב אותה לו‬ ‫תהיה ובמנחת הסלת הוא אומר וכל מנחה‬ ‫בלולה בשמן וחרבה לכל בני אהרן תהיה‬ ‫איש כאחיו שהאפויה כשחולקין אותה‬ ‫אנשי בית אב כל שיגיע לו חלקו אפילו‬ ‫כזית פת הרי הוא ראוי לו שהרי אוכלו‬ ‫מיד אבל הסלת אם יחלקוה ביניהן נמצא‬ ‫מגיע לזה מלא כפו סלת או פחות שאינו‬ ‫ראוי לא ללוש אותו ולא לאפותו לפיכך‬ ‫היה עולה על הדעת שיחלקו מנחה כנגד‬ ‫מנחה ולא יחלקו מנחה זו בפני עצמה על‬ ‫כל אנשי בית אב הוצרך הכתוב לומר בה‬ ‫לכל בני אהרן תהיה איש כאחיו לומר‬ ‫שיחלקוה בפני עצמה מכאן אמרו חכמים‬ ‫אין חולקין מנחה כנגד מנחה אפילו מעשה‬ ‫מחבת כנגד מעשה מחבת או סלת כנגד‬ ‫סלת אלא כל אחת ואחת חולקין שיריה‬ :‫בפני עצמה‬

8

Similarly, an offering of fowl is not apportioned in consideration of another such offering, nor a sin-offering in consideration of another such offering, nor a breast and a thigh in consideration of another such portion.61 Instead, every [sacrificial portion] is divided among all [the members of the clan] equally.

‫וכן אין חולקין עוף כנגד עוף ולא‬ ‫חטאת כנגד חטאת ולא חזה ושוק‬ ‫כנגד חזה ושוק אלא כל חלק וחלק חולקין‬ :‫אותו ביניהן בשוה‬

Even though it is permitted to feed a minor [meat even] from sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, he is not given a portion, even from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity.62 Similarly, a woman and an androgynus63 are not given a portion of

‫אין הקטן חולק אפילו בקדשים קלים‬ ‫אע"פ שמותר להאכילו קדשי‬ ‫קדשים וכן אשה ואנדרוגינוס אין חולקין‬ ‫להם בקדשי המקדש כלל שנאמר איש‬ ‫כאחיו אבל בעל מום בין קבוע בין עובר‬ ‫בין שנולד במומו בין שהיה תמים ונפסל‬ ‫חולק ואוכל שנאמר לחם אלהיו מקדשי‬ ‫הקדשים וגו' והוא שיהיה ראוי לאכילה‬ ‫אבל אם היה טמא אינו חולק לאכול‬ :‫לערב‬

the sacrifices from the Temple at all, as [the above verse] states: "Every man like his brother."64 [A priest] who has a disqualifying physical blemish whether permanent or temporary, whether he was born with it or born unblemished and later disqualified receives a portion of the sacrifices and may partake of them,65 as [Leviticus 21:22] states: "The food of his God, of the most sacred order... he may eat." [The above applies] provided he is fit to partake [of the sacrifice at the time it is offered]. If, however, he is impure, he is not given a portion to eat in the evening.66 The High Priest may partake [of any of the sacrifices] without a division having been made. Instead, he may take whatever he desires.

‫וכהן גדול אוכל שלא בחלוקה‬ :‫אלא נוטל כל מה שירצה‬

All [priests] who are fit to partake of sacrificial foods at the time the sacrifice is offered receive a share [of the sacrifice] to partake of. All [priests] who are not fit to partake of sacrificial foods at the time the sacrifice is offered, even though they are fit to perform sacrificial service and will be fit to partake [of the sacrifice in the evening] do not receive a share [of the sacrifice] to set aside until the evening.67

‫כל הראוי לאכילת הקדשים בשעת‬ ‫הקרבן חולק לאכול וכל מי שאינו‬ ‫ראוי לאכול בשעת העבודה אף על פי‬ ‫שהוא ראוי לעבודה והרי הוא ראוי לאכול‬ ‫לערב אינו חולק כדי להניח חלקו לערב‬ ‫כיצד טבול יום ומחוסר כפורים והאונן‬ ‫ביום הקבורה בין כהן גדול בין כהן הדיוט‬ :‫אין חולקין לאכול לערב‬

What is implied?68 A priest who has immersed that day,69 one who is lacking in atonement,70 or one who is onein on the day of burial,71 whether a High Priest72 or an ordinary priest, should not receive a share of the sacrifices in order to partake of them in the evening. All [priests] who are not fit to partake of sacrificial foods are not fit to perform sacrificial service with the exception of a High Priest who is an onein who may offer sacrifices, but may not partake [of sacrificial foods], as we explained.73 All [priests] who are not fit to perform sacrificial service are not fit to partake of sacrificial foods74 except one disqualified because of a physical blemish [whose license to partake of sacrificial foods] is explicitly stated in the Torah.75

9

‫כל שאינו ראוי לאכול אינו ראוי‬ ‫לעבוד חוץ מכהן גדול האונן שהוא‬ ‫מקריב ואינו אוכל כמו שביארנו וכל‬ ‫שאינו ראוי לעבוד אינו ראוי לאכול חוץ‬ :‫מבעל מום שהרי נתפרש בתורה‬

10

All [priests] who do not receive a portion of the sacrificial meat do not receive a portion of the hides of the sacrifices.76 Even if a priest was impure at the time when the blood [of a sacrifice] was sprinkled on the altar, but pure at the time its fats were offered on the altar's pyre,77 he does not receive a portion of the sacrificial meat, as [Leviticus 7:33] states: "One who offers the blood of the peace-offering and the fat from the sons of Aaron, to him the right thigh will be [given] as a portion." [Implied is that] the priest must be pure and fit to perform service from the time [the blood] is sprinkled until after the fats are offered.78

‫כל שאין לו חלק בבשר אין לו‬ ‫חלק בעורות אפילו טמא בשעת‬ ‫זריקת דמים וטהור בשעת הקטר חלבים‬ ‫אינו חולק בבשר שנאמר המקריב את דם‬ ‫השלמים ואת החלב מבני אהרן לו תהיה‬ ‫שוק הימין למנה עד שיהיה טהור וראוי‬ ‫לעבודה משעת זריקה עד אחר הקטר‬ :‫חלבים‬

If [a priest] became impure after [the blood of the sacrifice] was sprinkled [on the altar] and immersed himself and thus was also pure when the fats were offered on the altar's pyre, there is an unresolved question whether or not he receives a portion.79 Therefore if he grabs a portion, it is not expropriated from him.80

‫נטמא אחר זריקה וטבל והרי הוא‬ ‫טהור אף בשעת הקטר חלבים‬ ‫הדבר ספק אם חולק אם אינו חולק לפיכך‬ :‫אם תפס אין מוציאין מידו‬

When a communal sacrifice is offered in a state of impurity,81 even though impure priests [could have] offered it,82 they do not receive a portion together with the priests who are pure to partake of it in the evening,83 because they are not fit to partake of it [at the time it is offered].

‫קרבן צבור הבא בטומאה אע"פ‬ ‫שהטמאים מקריבין אותו אין‬ ‫חולקין עם הטהורין לאכול לערב מפני‬ :‫שאינם ראויים לאכילה‬

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 9 FOOTNOTES

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 11

11

1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 89) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 102) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

16. See Chapter 11, Halachah 6, which delineates the prohibition against eating such sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem.

2. This mitzvah is incumbent on the priests; it is not a dimension of the obligation to bring a given sacrifice.

17. As related in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:11, while the Jews

3. The choice of this prooftext and the concept it teaches sheds light on an issue debated by the commentaries: Is it a

considered as divided into three camps: the Camp of the Divine Presence, the Camp of the Levites, and the Camp of

were journeying through the desert, their encampment was

the Israelites.

positive mitzvah to partake of the meat of the sacrifices of lesser sanctity? In his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam

18. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:9. See also parallel rulings in

explains that since eating the other sacrifices does not bring

Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 2:16; Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:1.

about atonement, it should not be considered as an independent mitzvah. Instead, it is an extension of this

The Radbaz clarifies that this is referring to instances where the windows are open to the city. If they are open only to the

mitzvah. In this instance, however, since the atonement of the person bringing the sacrifice depends on the priests'

area outside the wall, he maintains that they should be considered as outside the city.

consumption of the sacrifice, it is considered as an independent mitzvah. There is extensive discussion on this

19. The verse continues "he shall bear his sin," implying that there is a prohibition in partaking of the sacrifice at that time.

issue by other Rabbis. 4. E.g., the communal peace offerings. 5. I.e., after the handful has been taken out to be offered on the altar. See Chapter 12, Halachah 9. 6. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 88) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 134) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This mitzvah encompasses partaking of all the different types of meal offerings (Radbaz). 7. Even minors; see Halachah 17.

20. But not the Paschal sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:1, 15. 21. I.e., the Rambam understands the verse as referring to all sacrifices unless it is specifically stated otherwise. 22. The first appearance of the sun's rays - but not the sun itself - on the eastern hemisphere. According to different halachic views, it is between 72 minutes and two hours before sunrise.

8. Indeed, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 5, there is a

23. I.e., if a person would be given the entire night, he might become lax and delay the consumption of the meat and

prohibition against partaking of these sacrifices outside the Temple Courtyard.

come to partake of the meat after dawn. Giving him a more restricted time serves as a safeguard to prevent the violation

9. This includes the Temple building. 10. Zevachim 63a asks: From that verse, it would appear that it is desirable (not merely acceptable after the fact) to partake of the offerings inside the Temple building. Our Sages then

of this limit. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 1:1). 24. Indeed, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:13, partaking of sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity violates a Scriptural prohibition. See also Hilchot Chagigah4.

cite Leviticus 6:9 which indicates that the sacrifices should be eaten in the Temple Courtyard. They explain that it is

25. As evident from Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4, sec. 69, the

preferable to consider the Temple Courtyard the primary place where the sacrifices are eaten, for the Temple building

prohibition against partaking of sacrificial meat while uncircumcised is an extension of the prohibition against

is the resting place for the Divine presence and it is not befitting for that to be the primary place for eating, an activity

Terumah 7:10; Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:7.

that is essentially a human need. 11. Chapter 9, Halachah 4. 12. The breads and the portions of meat given to the priest from those offerings; see Chapter 9, Halachah 12. 13. I.e., they are comparable to the peace-offering. 14. I.e., the portions from the sacrifices of lesser sanctity, including the breast and the thigh of the peace offering and the firstborn offering. 15. Not only the portions given to the priests, but also those given to the Israelites.

partaking of terumah while uncircumcised. See Hilchot

26. The literal meaning of the words used by the Rambam is "his sun has set." For in most instances, it is at sunset when the duration of the term of a person's ritual impurity ends. 27. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, which explains that a zav, a zavah, a person who had been afflicted with tzara'at and a woman who gave birth or miscarried must immerse themselves in a mikveh (or in a stream) to regain ritual purity. Nevertheless, they may not partake of sacrifices until they bring the offerings required of them. See also Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14. 28. A person whose gender is masked by an extra piece of flesh.

29. I.e., if he is in fact male, circumcision will not have been performed upon him. 30. One with both a male and female sexual organ. 31. For these sacrifices may be eaten by both males and females. Although there is a halachic uncertainty with regard to the definition of his gender (see Hilchot Nizirut 2:10), that should not prevent him from partaking of these sacrifices. He may not, however, partake of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, for these may only be eaten by males and he is not categorically defined as male. The Kessef Mishneh clarifies that this leniency applies only

thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may also be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (ibid.). Needless to say, one may not cook a sin-offering or a guiltoffering with the portion of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram to be eaten by the owner, for doing so certainly places restrictions on that meat, preventing even the owner from partaking of it. 41. The elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may be eaten only for a day and a night, while

been

the breast and thigh of the peace-offering may be eaten on the following day as well (ibid.).

32. There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's ruling, as noted

The same concepts apply with regard to cooking the meat of the thanksgiving offering or the nazirite's ram together with

when the male organ of the androgynus

has

circumcised. by Rav Yosef Corcus in his gloss to the following halachah, for sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard and ordinary food may not be brought into the Temple Courtyard. Rashi (Temurah 23a) explains that the intent is that one may partake of ordinary food outside the Temple Courtyard and then enter the

the meat of a peace-offering. It is only that since the Rambam had been speaking about the portions eaten by the priests, he continued to do so. 42. For sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten by

Temple Courtyard to partake of the sacrificial food. Tosafot

male priests, while the peace-offerings may be eaten by Israelites and women (ibid.).

explains that the prohibition against bringing ordinary food

43. A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten in the

into the Temple Courtyard applies only when it is not being brought there for a purpose connected with the Temple

Temple Courtyard, while the peace-offering may also be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (ibid.).

service. If, however, it is being brought there to be eaten together with the sacrifices, there is no prohibition.

44. Here the restrictions are reversed for the peace offering of

33. The Paschal sacrifice may only be eaten while roasted, but

the previous day may only be eaten until sunset, while the sin-offering and the guilt-offering may also be eaten until midnight of the following night (ibid.).

that is a specific obligation that does not apply to other sacrifices.

45. In all of these instances, the pairs of offerings mentioned

34. The sacrifices may be eaten only for a limited amount of time as mentioned above (Halachot 6-7), while there is no limit on

may be eaten by the same type of individual, in the same places, and for the same duration of time.

the time terumah may be eaten. Thus if the sacrifices were cooked with terumah, the terumah could be disqualified with the sacrifices and the time in which it could be eaten would be reduced.

46. Which may only be eaten by priests. 47. Meat from a sacrifice that was slaughtered with the intent to sprinkle its blood, offer the portions required to be offered on

35. I.e., this is not considered as a desecration of consecrated

the altar's pyre, or partake of its meat at an improper time (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1).

articles (Radbaz). This applies provided there are not any portions of the bones that are fit to be eaten (Kessef

48. Meat that remained after the required time for partaking of

Mishneh). 36. For it is not befitting for one to leave his master's table when he is hungry (Tosafot, Pesachim 120a).

this type of sacrificial meat passed (ibid. 18:10). 49. There are others who include sacrificial meat that became impure in the list of prohibitions mentioned here and indeed this is the standard text of the Mishnah (Orlah 2:16) which

37. For that is also not becoming.

serves as the source for this halachah. The Rambam does

38. I.e., that other foods may be eaten with it if there is only a small amount (Kessef Mishneh). Indeed, the verse from

not, however, include that particular in his version of the mishnah. The rationale for this distinction is discussed by the

which the above concepts are derived (Leviticus 6:9) concerns the meal offerings. 39. A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten by male priests, while the elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may also be eaten by their wives, their daughters, and their servant (Radbaz).

12

40. A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard, while the elevated portions of the

commentaries. See the notes to the following halachah.

13

50. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this is speaking about an instance when there

58. I.e., if there were 20 meal-offerings and 60 priests, one might think that each of the meal-offerings would be divided among

is sixty times more permitted meat than the piece of meat that is piggul or notar and that forbidden piece of meat was

three priests rather than have all 20 divided among the 60. Hence, it is necessary to explicitly state that every priest

removed. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:5-6 with regard

receives a portion of a meal-offering of flour.

to the latter points. This addition satisfies the objections raised by the Ra'avad.

59. Sifra to the verse, Kiddushin 53a; Menachot 73a.

According to this interpretation, the fundamental point of this ruling is that the meat is permitted only to priests and not to

61. In all these instances, one might think that it would be

60. After the portions offered on the altar are taken.

notar have been nullified since the sacrificial meat was

preferable to divide each of the sacrifices among a smaller number of priests.

originally to be eaten only by priests, that restriction still remains. There are, however, others who interpret the

62. Instead, he may only partake of what the other priests give him from their portions.

mishnah differently.

63. I.e., since the halachic status of the gender of an androgynus

non-priests. Although the prohibitions against piggul and

51. The term the Rambam uses literally translates as "the meat of desire," i.e., meat that there is no mitzvah to partake of. 52. Because it has absorbed the flavor of the sacrificial meat. The Radbaz states that even if there is enough ordinary meat to nullify the presence of the sacrificial meat, the prohibition against eating the sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity is not nullified. 53. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:17), the intent is that if the sacrificial meat was from sacrifices of the most sacred order, the ordinary meat may be eaten by priests. If it was of sacrifices of lesser sanctity, it may be eaten by ordinary individuals, provided they are ritually pure. In one of his responsa, the Radbaz mentions that only the ordinary meat is permitted to be eaten, the sacrificial meat is forbidden, because it is considered to have become ritually impure because of its contact with the ordinary meat. See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 11:5. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, the Rambam states that "everything may be eaten by pure priests" or "pure non-priests." 54. The verse cited in the text of the Mishneh Torah does not

is not defined, he is not given a portion as a male would be. 64. The same phrase excludes both women and minors, because the term "man" implies that the recipient must be male and of age. Since they are not fit to perform service, they are not allocated a portion of the sacrifices. 65. Even though he is not fit to perform service, he is considered an ordinary member of the priestly clan and given a portion of the sacrifices. There is an explicit verse requiring this [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1)]. 66. Even if he would regain his ritual purity by the evening. 67. For everything depends on the priest's state at the time the sacrifice is offered (ibid.). 68. I.e., which priests could be fit to perform service during the day and fit to partake of sacrifices after nightfall, but are unfit to partake of the sacrifices at the time they are offered. 69. But will not regain purity until nightfall. 70. A priest who had been a zav or who had been afflicted with tzara'at must immerse himself in a stream or a mikveh to regain ritual purity. In addition, he must bring a specific offering. Until he brings that offering, he is considered as

exist. The commentaries have suggested that the intent is Leviticus 7:9 as stated in the following halachah.

lacking atonement, as explained in Hilchot

See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains why all the different verses are necessary, because the concepts cannot

These two categories of priests are considered as fit to serve, because they would be fit to offer a communal

be derived from each other.

sacrifice if it were to be brought in a state of ritual impurity. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10 and Halachah 23 and

55. As indicated by Halachah 17 [see also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1)], priests with a

Mechusrei

Kapparah.

notes.

disqualifying physical blemish are not excluded from receiving a portion of the division of the sacrifices even

71. The term onein refers to a person in the acute state of

though they are unfit to offer them, because there is a special verse that teaches that they should receive a portion.

seven close relatives. On the day of such a relative's death, one is an onein according to Scriptural Law. If the relative is

56. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11 with regard to what is

not buried on the day of his death, the priest is considered an onein according to Rabbinic Law until after the day of

meant by a clan. 57. The commentaries note that the explanation appears to be the Rambam's own, rather than to stem from a prior source.

mourning experienced at the time of the death of any of

burial. Once the relative is buried, however, the priest may perform service and partake of sacrifices in the evening. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:7, 9-10.

72. Who is permitted to serve even though he is in the state of onein mourning. See the following halachah.

79. For although he was pure when both these services were performed, he was impure in the interim.

73. Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:6-8.

80. I.e., he is not given a portion, because he cannot prove that

74. The Or Sameach suggests that the text should read "are not fit to receive a portion of sacrificial foods," because women and children are fit to partake of the sacrifices, but are not fit to perform sacrificial service. 75. As stated in Halachah 17. 76. Zevachim 12:2 derives this concept from Leviticus 7:12: "The hide of the burnt-offering which he offered will belong to the priest," i.e., the priest must be fit to offer the sacrifice. If he is fit to offer it, he is fit to partake of it. The Radbaz explains that it is necessary for the Rambam to mention the allocation of the hides explicitly, because one might not necessary derive this point from the allocation of

he is worthy of one, but it is not taken from him, since the other priests also cannot prove that he is not worthy. In both instances, the basis for the decision is the principle: When one seeks to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. 81. I.e., as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10,12, when the majority of priests are impure, the communal offerings may be offered by the impure priests. 82. The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the glosses of the Radbaz and Rav Yosef Corcus who note that if the sacrifice was offered by impure priests, its meat is not eaten (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:11). Hence we are forced to say that we are speaking about a situation where the

the meat. 77. This is speaking about an instance where a priest was impure at the time a sacrifice was slaughtered and its blood was sprinkled on the altar. Nevertheless, the offering of the fats of the sacrifice was delayed and not performed until after nightfall. In the interim, the priest immersed himself and thus was pure at the time the fats were offered. 78. For the prooftext mentions both these services.

sacrifice could have been offered by impure priests, but in fact it was offered by pure priests. Thus the sacrifice may be eaten. One might think that the impure priests would receive a portion since they were fit to offer the sacrifice. Hence, the Rambam explains that they do not, because they were not fit to partake of it at the time it was offered. 83. I.e., even if they would be fit to partake of it in the evening.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

14

policy .

15



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 11 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 10

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 12

Anyone1 who eats an olive-sized portion2 of the meat of a burnt-offering, whether before its blood is sprinkled [on the altar] or afterwards,3 is liable for lashes,4 as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:17]: "You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain...5 and [the sacrifices brought because of] the vows that you take." According to the Oral Tradition,6 it was taught that this is a warning against partaking of the meat of a burntoffering.7

‫כל האוכל כזית מבשר העולה בין‬ ‫לפני זריקת דמה בין לאחר זריקת‬ ‫דמה לוקה שנאמר לא תוכל לאכול‬ '‫בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך וגו‬ ‫וכל נדריך אשר תדור מפי השמועה למדו‬ :‫שזו אזהרה לאוכל בשר העולה‬

Its fat, its meat, and the flour, oil, and wine of its accompanying offering - all five [of these components] can be combined to comprise this olive-sized portion.8

‫וחלבה ובשרה וסלתה ושמנה ויין של‬ :‫נסכיה חמשתן מצטרפין לכזית‬

Similarly, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion9 of any of the portions of the sacrifices to be offered on the altar's pyre, whether before the blood [of the sacrifice] is sprinkled [on the altar] or afterwards, whether he is a priest or an Israelite, is liable for lashes.10 For the portions to be offered on the altar's pyre must be totally consumed like the totality of the burnt offering. Now [Leviticus 6:16] states with regard to a meal-offering of a priest: "It shall be totally consumed; it should not be eaten." [From this, we derive that] there is a negative commandment [prohibiting] partaking of anything that should be consumed by [the fire of] the altar.11 One is liable for lashes for eating an olive-sized portion [of such substances]. Similarly, anyone who eats an olive-sized portion of any of the sin-offerings that must be burnt12 is liable for lashes,13 as [ibid.:23] states: "Any sin-offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting... should not be eaten. It should be burnt with fire."

2

‫וכן האוכל כזית מכל האימורין בין‬ ‫לפני זריקה בין לאחר זריקה בין כהן‬ ‫בין ישראל לוקה שהאימורין כליל למזבח‬ ‫ככל העולה והרי נאמר במנחת כהנים‬ ‫כליל תהיה לא תאכל כל שהוא כליל‬ ‫למזבח אכילתו בלא תעשה ולוקין עליו‬ ‫בכזית וכן האוכל כזית מבשר חטאות‬ ‫הנשרפות לוקה שנאמר וכל חטאת אשר‬ ‫יובא מדמה אל אהל מועד לא תאכל באש‬ :‫תשרף‬

3

Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of any of the sacrifices - even sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity - before their blood is sprinkled [on the altar]14 is liable for lashes,15 as it is written: "You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil... and [the sacrifices brought because of] your pledges." Implied is that you may not eat [the sacrifices brought because of] your pledges in your gates before their blood is sprinkled [on the altar] in God's gates. According to the Oral Tradition,16 it was taught that this is a warning against partaking of [the meat of] a thanksgiving-offering or a peace-offering before the sprinkling of its blood. This also applies to [the meat of] other sacrifices, whether sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity or those of a lesser degree.17 The six components of the thanksgiving offering, the fat, the meat, the flour, the oil, the wine,18 and the bread, may all be combined to comprise the olive-sized portion [for which one is liable].

‫כל האוכל כזית מבשר הקדשים‬ ‫אפילו קדשים קלים קודם זריקת‬ ‫דמם לוקה שנאמר לא תוכל לאכול‬ ‫בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך‬ ‫ונדבותיך כלומר לא תוכל לאכול נדבותיך‬ ‫בשעריך קודם שזורקין דמן בשערי המקום‬ ‫מפי השמועה למדו שזו אזהרה לאוכל‬ ‫תודה או שלמים קודם זריקת דמים והוא‬ ‫הדין לשאר קדשים בין קלים בין חמורים‬ ‫וששה דברים שבתודה שהם החלב‬ ‫והבשר והסלת והשמן והיין והלחם כולן‬ :‫מצטרפין לכזית‬

4

Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of any of the [sacrifices of] the most sacred order that was taken outside of the walls of the Temple Courtyard and meat from [sacrifices of] a lesser degree of sanctity that was taken outside Jerusalem is liable for lashes,19 as [implied by] the verse: "You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your cattle and your sheep...." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that this is a warning against partaking of [the meat of] a sin-offering or a guilt-offering outside the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, one who partakes of [the meat of] the sacrifices of lesser sanctity outside Jerusalem is liable for lashes. For with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, the walls of Jerusalem are comparable to the walls of the Temple Courtyard with regard to sacrifices of the most sacred order. [Included equally are] the meat of the sin-offerings and the guiltofferings and what remains of the meal-offerings.20

‫כל האוכל כזית מבשר קדשי קדשים‬ ‫חוץ לעזרה לוקה שנאמר לא תוכל‬ ‫לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך‬ ‫ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך וצאנך מפי‬ ‫השמועה למדו שזו אזהרה לאוכל מבשר‬ ‫חטאות ואשמות חוץ לעזרה והוא הדין‬ ‫לאוכל קדשים קלים חוץ לירושלים שהוא‬ ‫לוקה שחומת ירושלים לקדשים קלים‬ ‫כחומת העזרה לקדשי קדשים ואחד בשר‬ :‫חטאת ואשם או שירי מנחות‬

Meat from [sacrifices of] the most sacred order that was taken outside of the walls of the Temple Courtyard and meat from [sacrifices of] a lesser degree of sanctity that was taken outside Jerusalem is disqualified and is forbidden forever. Even if it is taken back to its place, it is forbidden to partake of it. One who eats an olive-sized portion of it21 is liable for lashes, as [implied by Exodus 22:30]: "Meat in a field [from an animal that is] treifah, you shall not eat." Once meat has left its designated place, it is considered as treifah, as we explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.22

‫בשר קדשי קדשים שיצא חוץ לחומת‬ ‫העזרה ובשר קדשים קלים שיצא חוץ‬ ‫לחומת ירושלים נפסל ונאסר לעולם ואף‬ ‫על פי שחזר למקומו אסור לאוכלו והאוכל‬ ‫ממנו כזית לוקה שנאמר ובשר בשדה‬ ‫טריפה לא תאכלו כיון שיצא בשר חוץ‬ ‫למחיצתו נעשה כטריפה כמו שביארנו‬ :‫בהלכות מאכלות אסורות‬

If meat from [sacrifices of] a lesser degree of sanctity was taken into the Temple Building, it is acceptable.23

‫נכנס בשר קדשים קלים להיכל הרי זה‬ :‫כשר‬

5

A non-priest who ate an olive-sized portion of meat from sacrifices of the most sacred order24 in the Temple Courtyard after their blood was sprinkled [on the altar] is liable for lashes,25 as [Exodus 29:33] states: "And they shall partake of [the sacrifices] which bring them atonement... and a non-priest shall not partake of them." [The association teaches26 that when sacrificial meat] was eaten by a non-priest in a place where a priest partakes of it and at a time when it is fit to be eaten, he is liable for lashes. If, however, a non-priest ate an olive-sized portion of meat from sacrifices of the most sacred order outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable for lashes for partaking of the sacrificial meat outside [the Temple Courtyard]27 and not because [of the prohibition against] a non-priest partaking of sacrificial foods,28 for they are not fit to be eaten by priests there. Similarly, if [a non-priest] partook of [such meat] in the Temple Courtyard before [the blood] was sprinkled [on the altar], he is liable for lashes only for partaking [of the meat] before the sprinkling of the blood, not because of [partaking of it] as a non-priest.

‫זר שאכל כזית מבשר קדשי קדשים‬ ‫בעזרה אחר זריקת דמים לוקה‬ '‫שנאמר ואכלו אותם אשר כופר בהם וגו‬ ‫וזר לא יאכל וגו' במקום שהכהן אוכל‬ ‫ובעת שראוי לאכול אם אכלו שם הזר‬ ‫לוקה אבל אם אכל הזר בשר קדשי‬ ‫קדשים בחוץ לוקה משום אוכל בחוץ לא‬ ‫משום זר שאכל קדש שהרי אינם ראויין‬ ‫שם לכהנים וכן אם אכלן בעזרה קודם‬ ‫זריקה לוקה משום אוכל קודם זריקה‬ :‫בלבד לא משום זרות‬

A non-priest who ate an olive-sized portion of meat from a sin-offering from fowl is liable for two sets of lashes: one because he is non-priest partaking of sacred meat29 and one because he is partaking of a neveilah.30 For every [fowl killed by] melikah31 is a neveilah.32 When license was granted to partake of it, it was granted to priests, but not to non-priests. These two prohibitions are considered as two prohibitions that take effect at the same time,33 as we explained.34

‫זר שאכל כזית מחטאת העוף לוקה‬ ‫שתים אחת משום זר שאכל את‬ ‫הקדש ואחת משום אוכל נבילה שכל‬ ‫מליקה נבילה היא וכשהותרה לכהנים‬ ‫הותרה לא לזרים והרי הן שני איסורין‬ :‫הבאין כאחד כמו שביארנו‬

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 10 FOOTNOTES

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 12

6

1. This prohibition applies equally to priests and Israelites (Radbaz).

15. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 147) and Sefer

2. This is a general principle with regard to all prohibitions

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, in his listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of this set of halachot, the Rambam

involving eating. Lashes are given only for partaking of an olive-sized portion. 3. Compare to Halachah 4. 4. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 146) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 447) include this prohibition as one of

HaChinuch (mitzvah 448) include this prohibition as one of

mentions this prohibition only with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. 16. For this is not the simple meaning of the verse (Rav Yosef Corcus).

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As explained in Hilchot Meilah

17. Makkot 17a explains the process of exegesis through which

1:3, this negative commandment is also the source for the

the prohibitions against partaking of the other sacrifices are

prohibition against deriving benefit from consecrated articles (meilah).

derived.

5. This refers to the second tithe which must be brought to Jerusalem. 6. Sifri to the above verse, Makkot 17a. 7. For the latter term is understood as a reference to the burnt offering (ibid.). 8. I.e., since they are all considered as components of the burnt offering, they are all forbidden. The Radbaz mentions that the omission of the blood of the sacrificial animal indicates that it is not included. 9. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam explicitly mentions that one must partake of an olive-sized portion to be liable instead, of allowing a reader to reach that conclusion on his own - because one might think that since the verse states that "It shall be totally consumed," as long as a person prevents it from being totally consumed, he is liable. 10. Besides the prohibitions mentioned here, a person who partakes of these sacrificial components also violates the prohibition against meilah.

18. I.e., the flour, the oil, the wine that comprise the accompanying offering that is brought together with the thanksgiving-offering. 19. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 145) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 446) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, in Sefer HaMitzvot and in his listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of this set of halachot, the Rambam mentions this prohibition only with regard to sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity although he does state that one who partakes of other sacrifices outside of Jerusalem is liable for lashes. When listing the prohibitions for which lashes are given in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4, the Rambam lists these two activities separately. 20. After the handful was taken to be offered on the altar. All of these are considered as sacrifices of the most sacred order. 21. Whether it was returned to its place or not. 22. Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:9. As the commentaries explain there, the term "field" is referring to a place which is not the natural place for the meat to be found. Being there causes it

11. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 138) and Sefer

to be considered treifah, unfit to be eaten. Similarly, the fact

HaChinuch (mitzvah 137) include this prohibition as one of

that this meat is taken outside its natural place causes it to

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Although the commandment

become forbidden.

specifically refers to the meal offering brought by a priest, the Sifra understands it as applying to a greater scope of sacrificial foods, as the Rambam explains. 12. See Chapter 7, Halachot 2-4. 13. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 139) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 139) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. A separate commandment is necessary, for these sin-offerings are not burnt on the altar of the Temple.

23. Since, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 3, after the fact, sacrifices of the most sacred order may be eaten in the Temple Building, taking sacrificial meat there is not considered as taking it outside its designated place. The Radbaz questions whether it is acceptable to eat meat from sacrifices of lesser sanctity in the Temple Building. 24. The Radbaz emphasizes that this applies only to meat from a sin-offering or a guilt-offering. If, however, a non-priest

14. As stated in Hilchot Meilah 2:1, after the blood is sprinkled

partakes of meat from a burnt-offering, he is liable only for the prohibition against partaking of the meat of a burnt-

on the altar, even one who is not permitted to partake of these sacrifices is not liable for meilah, misappropriating the

offering (see Halachah 1) and not because of the prohibition against a non-priest partaking of sacrificial meat.

sacred articles for one's personal use.

25. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 148) includes this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Sefer HaChinuch, however, does not include it.

26. I.e., as Makkot 18b states, the prohibition against a non-priest partaking of this sacrificial meat applies only in an instance where atonement would be granted were a priest to partake of the meat there.

32. For this is not an acceptable process of ritual slaughter. 33. At the time the fowl's head was snipped off, it becomes both forbidden to non-priests and a neveilah. 34. Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8 states:

27. As stated in Halachah 5. 28. The Radbaz explains that there is a practical as well as a theoretical difference resulting from this concept, for if the non-priest was given a warning for partaking of the meat because he was a non-priest and not because he was partaking of it outside the Temple Courtyard, he is not liable. 29. This law also applies only when the meat of the fowl was eaten in a time and a place when the fowl would have been permitted to be eaten by the priests (Radbaz). 30. An animal that died without proper ritual slaughter.

13There is a major general principle that applies with regard to all of the Torah's prohibitions. One prohibition does not take effect when another prohibition is in effect unless: a) both of the prohibitions take effect at the same time; b) the latter prohibition forbids additional entities besides [the entity that was originally] prohibited; c) the scope of the [latter] prohibition encompasses other entities together with [the entity that was originally] prohibited.

31. Snipping off its head, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 21.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

8



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 12 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 11

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 13

Meal-offerings are a type of sacrifice.1 The meal-offerings that are offered independently and not as part of the accompanying offerings2 include both communal meal-offerings and individual meal-offerings.

‫המנחות הם מן הקרבנות והמנחות‬ ‫הבאות בפני עצמן ואינן באות משום‬ :‫נסכים מהם מנחת צבור ומהם מנחת יחיד‬

All of the meal-offerings are brought from fine wheat flour with the exception of the meal offering of a sotah3 and the omer with which tenufah is performed4 which are brought from barley.

‫וכל המנחות סולת חיטין חוץ ממנחת‬ ‫סוטה ועומר התנופה שהם מן‬ :‫השעורים‬

There are three types of communal meal-offerings: a) the omer with which tenufah is performed.5 [A portion of] it is offered on the altar, as will be explained.6 b) the two breads offered on Shavuot.7 They are called a meal-offering, but are not offered on the altar and are chametz.8 Concerning them, [Leviticus 2:12] states: "You shall offer them as a sacrifice of first fruits to God, but they shall not be offered on the altar." c) The third meal-offering is the showbread that is brought every Sabbath. They are not offered on the altar, but instead are eaten entirely by the priests, as will be explained.9

2

‫שלש מנחות לצבור עומר התנופה‬ ‫והוא קרב למזבח כמו שיתבאר ושתי‬ ‫הלחם שמביאין ביום עצרת ואלו נקראו‬ ‫מנחה ואינן קריבין לגבי המזבח והן חמץ‬ ‫ועליהם נאמר קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם‬ ‫לה' ואל המזבח לא יעלו והמנחה‬ ‫השלישית הוא לחם הפנים שעושין בכל‬ ‫שבת ואינו קרב לגבי המזבח אלא כולו‬ :‫נאכל לכהנים כמו שיתבאר‬

3

There are nine types of individual meal-offerings. They are all offered on the altar.10 They include: a) the meal-offering of a sinner when he is obligated to bring a sin-offering, but is financially incapable.11 b) the meal offering of a sotah; it is the meal-offering of jealously. The manner in which it was offered has already been described.12 c) the meal-offering that every priest brings at the outset when he enters the Temple service the first time. He brings it himself. It is called the meal-offering of initiation.13 d) the meal-offering that the High Priest would offer every day. It is called the chavitin [offering];14 e) a meal-offering of fine flour.15 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge;16 f) a flat-pan flour-offering.17 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge; g) a deep-pan flour-offering.18 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge; h) a flour-offering baked in an oven.19 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge; i) an offering of wafers.20 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge.

‫ותשע מנחות היחיד וכלן קריבין‬ ‫ מנחת חוטא והוא‬:‫למזבח ואלו הן‬ ‫המנחה שמקריב העני כשיתחייב חטאת‬ ‫ולא תגיע ידו מנחת סוטה והיא מנחת‬ ‫הקנאות שכבר נתפרשו מעשיה המנחה‬ ‫שמקריב כל כהן תחילה כשיכנס לעבודה‬ ‫שמקריב אותה בידו והיא הנקראת מנחת‬ ‫חינוך המנחה שמקריב כהן גדול בכל יום‬ ‫והיא הנקראת חביתין מנחת הסולת והיא‬ ‫באה בנדר ונדבה מנחת המחבת והיא‬ ‫באה בנדר ונדבה מנחת המרחשת והיא‬ ‫באה בנדר ונדבה מנחת מאפה תנור והיא‬ ‫באה בנדר ונדבה מנחת רקיקין והיא באה‬ :‫בנדר ונדבה‬

With regard to all of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar, none may be less than an isaron,21 this an absolute requirement for the offering to be acceptable. A person may pledge and vow as large a quantity as he desires, even 1000 isaronim22 for any of the five meal-offerings that are brought as a pledge or a vow. By contrast, the meal-offering of the omer, the meal-offering of a sinner, the meal-offering of jealously, the meal-offering of initiation, and the chavitin offering must each be one isaron, neither more or less. All of the meal-offerings23 that are brought to the altar must be brought close to the altar on its western side, facing the tip of its southwest corner.24 Tenufah25 is not required for them with the exception of the meal-offering of a sotah26 and the omer [offering].27 Both of them require both tenufah and being brought close to the altar.

‫כל המנחות הקריבות לגבי המזבח‬ ‫טעונות הגשה במערב כנגד חודה של‬ ‫קרן דרומית מערבית ואינן טעונות תנופה‬ ‫חוץ ממנחת סוטה ועומר התנופה ששניהן‬ :‫טעונות תנופה והגשה‬

All of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar28 require that oil and frankincense be placed upon them,29 a log30 of oil for every isaron [of flour]31 and

‫כל המנחות הקריבות לגבי המזבח‬ ‫טעונות שמן ולבונה לוג שמן לכל‬ ‫עשרון וקומץ לבונה לכל מנחה בין שהיתה‬ ‫עשרון אחד בין שהיתה ששים עשרונים‬ ‫שאין מביאין בכלי אחד יתר על ששים‬ ‫עשרון כמו שיתבאר חוץ ממנחת קנאות‬ ‫ומנחת חוטא שנאמר לא ישים עליה שמן‬ :‫ולא יתן עליה לבונה‬

a handful of frankincense for every meal-offering whether it comprised one isaron or 60 isaronim32 - [the latter measure is mentioned because] more than 60 isaronim are never brought in one container, as will be explained33 - with the exception of the meal-offering of jealously and the meal-offering of a sinner, as [Leviticus 5:11] states:34 "He shall not place oil upon it,35 nor shall he place frankincense upon it."36

4

‫כל המנחות הקריבות לגבי המזבח‬ ‫אין כל אחת מהן פחותה מעשרון‬ ‫ומיעוטו מעכב את כולו וחמש מנחות‬ ‫הבאות בנדר ונדבה יש לו להתנדב ולנדור‬ ‫מהן כל מה שירצה אפילו אלף עשרון אבל‬ ‫מנחת העומר ומנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות‬ ‫ומנחת חינוך והחביתין כל אחת מהן‬ :‫עשרון אחת לא פחות ולא יתר‬

5

If one placed [oil and/or frankincense on these offerings] and offered them,37 he is liable for the oil individually and the frankincense individually.38 If one placed a container holding oil or frankincense on the offering, he does not transgress,39 nor does he disqualify [the offerings].40 Oil must be added to each of the initiation and chavitin meal-offerings, as will be explained.41

‫נתן והקריב לוקה על השמן בפני‬ ‫עצמו ועל הלבונה בפני עצמה נתן‬ ‫כלי שיש בו שמן או לבונה על גביה אינו‬ ‫עובר ולא פסל מנחת חינוך והחביתין‬ :‫מוסיף לכל אחת מהן שמן כמו שיתבאר‬

A handful is taken42 from all of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar.43 That handful is offered on the altar in its entirety and the remainder [of the offering] is eaten by the priests with the exception of a meal-offering brought by a male priest. A handful is not taken from such an offering. Instead, the entire offering is offered on the altar's pyre, as [Leviticus 6:16] states: "Every meal-offering from a priest [is offered on the pyre in its entirety]."44 From this we learn that all [of the following offerings]: an initiation and chavitin meal-offering or a meal-offering of a sinner or a free-will meal-offering brought by a priest are all offered on the altar's pyre and a handful is not taken from them.

‫כל המנחות הקריבות לגבי המזבח‬ ‫נקמצות ומקטיר הקומץ כולו על גבי‬ ‫המזבח והשאר נאכל לכהנים חוץ ממנחת‬ ‫זכרי כהונה שאינה נקמצת אלא מקטירין‬ ‫אותה כולה שנאמר וכל מנחת כהן וגו' הא‬ ‫למדת שמנחת חינוך והחביתין וכהן‬ ‫שהביא מנחת חוטא או מנחת נדבה כולן‬ :‫נשרפות על גבי המזבח ואינן נקמצות‬

A handful is taken from a meal-offering brought by woman of the priestly family45 as it is taken from the meal-offerings brought by Israelites and the remainder of it is eaten.46

‫הכהנת מנחתה נקמצת כמנחת ישראל‬ :‫ושיריה נאכלין‬

6

When sons [from a priestly family and one of Israelites] become intermingled and each of their identities are doubtful, a handful is taken from a meal-offering [brought by either], as is done with regard to a meal-offering brought by an Israelite, but [the remainder] is not eaten, as is done with a meal-offering brought by a priest.47

‫ולדות שנתערבו והרי כל אחד מהן‬ ‫ספק מנחתם נקמצת כמנחת‬ ‫ישראל ואינה נאכלת כמנחת כהנים כיצד‬ ‫עושים הקומץ קרב בפני עצמו והשירים‬ :‫מתפזרין על בית הדשן‬

What is done? The handful alone is offered on the altar and the remainder is scattered over the ash heap.48 The meal-offerings brought by all women married to a priest - whether from the priestly family or Israelites - are not eaten, because of the portion of the husband [present within them],49 nor is it offered on the pyre in its entirety, because of the portion of the woman.50 Instead, a handful alone is offered on the altar and the remainder is scattered over the ash heap.

‫כל הנשואות לכהנים בין כהנת בין‬ ‫ישראלית אין שירי מנחותיהן‬ ‫נאכלים מפני חלק הבעל שאינו אוכל‬ ‫ואינה כולה לאשים מפני חלק האשה אלא‬ ‫הקומץ קרב לעצמו והשירים מתפזרין על‬ ‫בית הדשן הקמיצה בכל מקום בעזרה ואם‬ :‫קמץ בהיכל כשירה‬

The handful may be taken in any place within the Temple Courtyard. If it was taken in the Temple Building, it is acceptable. A meal-offering may be consecrated by [placing the flour] in a container [even] while it is placed on the ground.51 [Similarly,] the handful may be taken from a container [placed] on the ground, [but] the handful may not be consecrated52 in a container [placed] on the ground.53 When is the remainder of a meal-offering permitted to be eaten? When the fire [of the altar] has consumed most of the handful.

‫מקדישין מנחה בכלי שעל גבי‬ ‫קרקע וקומצין מכלי שעל גבי קרקע‬ ‫ואין מקדישין הקומץ בכלי שעל גבי קרקע‬ ‫ומאימתי יותרו השירים באכילה משיצית‬ :‫האור ברוב הקומץ‬

7

All of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar are unleavened.54Similarly, although the remaining portions of the meal-offerings that may be eaten by the priests may be eaten with all foods and with a sweetener,55 they may not be eaten while leavened, as [Leviticus 6:10] states: "It shall not be baked leavened; their portion...." [Implied is that] even their portion may not be leavened. If they cause the remaining portion to become leavened, they are liable for lashes.56 One who performs an act that causes [the remaining portion of the meal-offering] to be leavened after it was leavened,57 is liable. One is liable for each act [that causes the remnants of the meal-offering to leaven].58

‫כל המנחות הקריבות לגבי המזבח‬ ‫מצה וכן שירי המנחות שאוכלין‬ ‫הכהנים אע"פ שהן מותרין לאכלן בכל‬ ‫מאכל ובדבש אין אוכלין אותן חמץ‬ ‫שנאמר לא תאפה חמץ חלקם אפילו‬ ‫חלקם לא יחמיצו ואם החמיץ שיריה לוקה‬ ‫והמחמץ אחר המחמץ חייב ולוקין על כל‬ :‫עשייה ועשייה שבה‬

What is implied? If one mixed [the remnants of a meal-offering] with water in manner that causes them to leaven, one kneaded them in a manner that causes them to leaven, 59 one shaped the loaves in such a manner, or baked them in such a manner, he is liable for lashes,60 as [Leviticus 2:11] states: "It shall not be prepared as leavened." [Now it is also written:] "It shall not be baked leavened." [Why are the two verses necessary?] To make one liable for every individual act performed [in its preparation]. If one prepared it as leavened from the beginning to the end, one is liable for lashes for every individual act performed.

‫כיצד לשה חמץ או ערכה חמץ או‬ ‫קטפה חמץ או אפאה חמץ לוקה‬ ‫שנאמר לא תעשה חמץ ונאמר לא תאפה‬ ‫חמץ לחייב על כל מעשה יחידי שבה עשה‬ ‫חמץ מתחלה ועד סוף לוקה על כל מעשה‬ :‫מהן‬

If one left yeast on a dough and then departed and sat elsewhere and [let] it leaven on its own accord, he is liable for lashes, for placing yeast [on the dough] is a deed.61

‫הניח שאור על גבי העיסה והלך‬ ‫וישב לו ונתחמצה מאליה לוקה‬ :‫שהנחת השאור הוא המעשה‬

If one dipped the remainder [of a meal-offering] in caraway or sesame seeds or any type of spice or oil, it is acceptable. It is matzah; it is merely called spiced matzah.62

‫תבל השירים בקצח או בשומשמין‬ ‫או בכל מיני תבלין ושמנים כשירה‬ :‫מצה היא אלא שנקראת מצה מתובלת‬

A person who causes a meal-offering that was disqualified63 to become leavened is exempt, as [implied by Leviticus 2:11]: "which will be offered to God; it should not be prepared as leaven." [We can infer that the prohibition applies when the offering is] acceptable to God, not when it is disqualified. If one caused [a meal-offering] to become leaven while it was acceptable and then it was taken outside the Temple Courtyard,64 and he then caused it to leaven again after it was disqualified, he is not liable65 for lashes.66 If one caused [a meal-offering] to become leavened at the top of the altar, he is not liable for lashes, for it is written "which will be offered," and this [offering] was already offered and it is acceptable.67

8

‫המחמץ מנחה פסולה פטור‬ ‫שנאמר אשר תקריבו לה' לא‬ ‫תעשה חמץ הכשירה להשם לא הפסולה‬ ‫חמצה כשהיא כשירה ויצאת לחוץ וחזר‬ ‫וחמצה אחר שנפסלה ביציאתה אינו לוקה‬ ‫חמצה בראשו של מזבח אינו לוקה‬ ‫שנאמר אשר תקריבו וכבר קרבה זו והיא‬ :‫כשירה‬

One who causes the showbread to become leaven is liable for lashes, for [the verse cited] states: "Any meal-offering."68 [Causing] the meal-offering of the accompanying offering [to leaven] does not incur liability for lashes. For if [the flour] was mixed with water, it was disqualified before it became leavened.69 And if it was mixed with the oil70 of the accompanying offerings, it is considered as fruit-juice and it does not cause [dough] to leaven.71

‫המחמץ לחם הפנים לוקה שנאמר‬ ‫כל המנחה אבל מנחת נסכים אין‬ ‫בה מלקות שאם גבלה במים הרי נפסלה‬ ‫קודם שתתחמץ ואם גבלה ביין של נסכים‬ :‫מי פירות הן ואין מחמיצין‬

We do not soak the wheat kernels72 for the meal-offerings, lest they leaven. For they would be soaked outside [the Temple Courtyard]73 and not everyone is ardent [enough] to watch them [so that they do not leaven]. With regard to the meal-offering of the omer, since it is a communal offering, [the kernels] are soaked, for [those acting on behalf of] the Jewish people as a whole are ardent74 and watch it.

‫החטים של מנחות אין לותתין אותן‬ ‫שמא יחמיצו שהרי בחוץ לותתין‬ ‫אותן ואין הכל זריזין לשומרן אבל מנחת‬ ‫העומר הואיל והיא של צבור לותתין אותה‬ :‫שהרי הצבור זריזין הן ומשמרין אותה‬

9

All of the meal-offerings that are baked should be mixed with lukewarm water75 and watched so that they do not leaven. [This is permitted,] because they are mixed and baked within the Temple Courtyard and [the priests] inside [the Temple Courtyard] are ardent.76

‫כל המנחות הנאפות נילושות‬ ‫בפושרין ומשמרן שלא יחמיצו‬ ‫הואיל ולישתן ואפייתן בפנים בעזרה אנשי‬ :‫פנים זריזין הן‬

In the place where the sacrifices of the most sacred order are cooked, the meal-offerings are 77 baked, as [Ezekiel 46:20] states: "This is the place where the priests will cook the guilt-offering and the sin-offering, where they will bake the meal-offering...."

‫ובמקום שמבשלין קדשי קדשים‬ ‫שם אופין את המנחות שנאמר‬ ‫זה המקום אשר יבשלו שם הכהנים את‬ ‫האשם ואת החטאת אשר יאפו את‬ :'‫המנחה וגו‬

The grinding and the sifting [of the flour] for the meal-offerings is performed outside [the Temple Courtyard],78 while the mixing of the dough, the kneading, and the baking are performed inside.79

‫כל המנחות טחינתן והרקדתן‬ ‫בחוץ ולישתן ועריכתן ואפייתן‬ ‫בפנים וכל מעשיהן כשרים בשר עד‬ ‫שיבואו לבית הקמיצה ומחבת ומרחשת‬ ‫היו בעזרה ושתיהם מכלי השרת ומקדשין‬ :‫ותנור של מקדש של מתכת היה‬

All of the acts [necessary to prepare it] are acceptable [when performed] by a non-priest until it reaches the stage where the handful [of flour] is separated.80 There were a flat frying pan and a deep frying pan in the Temple Courtyard. They were both considered as sacred utensils and caused [the substances placed in them] to be sanctified.81 The oven in the Temple Courtyard was made of metal.82

« Previous

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 13

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 11 FOOTNOTES 1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 67) and Sefer

5. This refers to the omer offering which is brought on the

HaChinuch (mitzvah 116) include bringing the meal-offerings

second day of the Pesach holiday. See Hilchot Temidim

as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

UMusafim 7:3-12.

2. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

6. See ibid.:12.

3. A woman suspected of adultery. See Hilchot Sotah 3:12.

7. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1-16.

4. This refers to the omer offering which is brought on the second day of the Pesach holiday. See Hilchot Temidim

8. Leavened bread in contrast to almost all the other meal-offerings that are unleavened.

UMusafim 7:3-12.

9. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:10-12; 5:5.

10. I.e., they are brought to the southwestern corner of the altar as described in Halachah 6 and a handful from them (or with

30. A log is 344 cc in contemporary measure according to

regard to offerings brought by priests, the entire offering) is offered on the altar's pyre, as described in Halachah 9.

31. This represents the minimum. More oil is placed on certain

11. See Leviticus 5:11; Hilchot Shegagot 1:4;10:4. 12. A woman suspected of adultery. See Hilchot Sotah 3:12. 13. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 5:16. See also Chapter 13, Halachah 4. 14. See Leviticus 6:13-15; Chapter 13, Halachot 2-4; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:18. The above four offerings are obligatory. The five that follow are voluntary. 15. See Leviticus 2:1; Chapter 13, Halachah 5. 16. See Hilchot Nedarim 1:2 with regard to the distinction between these two types of commitments. 17. See Leviticus 2:5; Chapter 13, Halachah 6.

offerings as mentioned in Halachah 8. 32. In contrast to the oil which is added proportionately to the flour, a uniform measure of frankincense is included for every meal offering. 33. See Chapter 17, Halachah 6. 34. This verse applies to the meal-offering of a sinner. Similar statements are made with regard to the meal-offering brought by a sotah in Numbers 5:15. In both instances, the commentaries explain that the reason for the prohibition is so that the sinner's (or the suspected adulteress') sacrifice should not appear attractive. 35. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 104) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 366) include the prohibition against

18. See Leviticus 2:7; Chapter 13, Halachot 6-7.

placing oil on the meal-offering of a sotah as one of the 613

19. See Leviticus 2:4; Chapter 13, Halachah 8.

mitzvot of the Torah. See also Hilchot Sotah 3:13.

20. This offering is also baked in an oven, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 8. 21. An isaron is 2500 cc in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah, and 4320 cc according to Chazon Ish. 22. The offerings must, however, be of complete isaronim. 23. The Radbaz explains that this includes the meal offerings brought by priests even though a handful of flour is not removed from them. It does not, however, include the meal-offerings brought as part of the accompanying offerings. The rationale for the distinction is that this rite is required only for the meal-offerings that are brought as

36. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 105) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 367) include the prohibition against placing frankincense on the meal-offering of a sotah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 37. The Rambam's understanding is that one is not liable unless he offers these meal-offerings on the altar after placing the oil and frankincense on them (Radbaz). 38. For they are considered as independent prohibitions. 39. Even if he offers the meal-offering on the altar in this manner (Radbaz). 40. If, however, he placed oil and/or frankincense directly on the

independent offerings, not for those that merely accompany other offerings. The showbread and the two loaves offered

meal-offering, he does disqualify it. Should one remove the frankincense after placing it upon the offering, the offering

on Shavuos are not brought close to the altar, because they are not offered on the altar at all.

becomes acceptable again (Radbaz).

24. Leviticus 6:7 states: "The sons of Aaron will bring it close, before God, towards the face of the altar." Sotah 14b interprets this as referring to the southwest corner of the altar." 25. See Chapter 9, Halachah 7, where this rite is described. 26. See Chapter 9, Halachah 16.

41. Chapter 13, Halachah 2. 42. See Chapter 13, Halachah 13, for a description of how this handful is taken. 43. The Radbaz states that this does not include the meal-offerings that are brought as part of the accompanying offerings, for they are offered on the altar in their entirety. 44. The passage from which the prooftext is taken speaks about

27. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12.

the initiation offering and the High Priest's chavitin offering.

28. This term excludes the showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos, as mentioned above.

Nevertheless, since it includes the word "every," the concept

29. With the exception of the meal-offering of a sinner and a sotah, it is explicitly stated that oil must be brought with every

it states is applied to other offerings brought by priests (Radbaz).

meal-offering. Including frankincense is mentioned only with

45. I.e., one unmarried, alternatively, one married to an Israelite as evident from Halachah 12 (Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).

regard to the offering of fine flour. Nevertheless, Menachot

46. Sotah 23b derives this concept from the fact that the

59a uses techniques of Biblical exegesis to derive that it should be included with every meal-offering.

10

Shiurei Torah, and 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.

prooftext cited above uses a male term for priest.

47. I.e., since there is a doubt involved, the offering is treated with both the stringencies applying to one brought by priests

62. See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:20 where the Rambam rules that the addition of such substances does not cause

and those applying to one brought by Israelites (Yevamot

matzah to leaven.

99b).

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, stating that it is

48. Rashi (ibid. 100a) interprets this as referring to the place

permissible to dip baked matzah

in

the

substances

outside the Temple Courtyard where the ashes from the altar are deposited. Tosafot interprets it as the place inside the

mentioned in this halachah, but not to mix them into the dough used to prepare matzah. The Radbaz, Kessef

Temple Courtyard where sacrifices of the most sacred order that are disqualified are burnt. This difference of opinion is

Mishneh, and others support the Rambam's position. 63. Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 11, describes many

possible, because the term ash-pile is used for several different places.

different factors that can cause a meal offering to become

The offering may not be eaten, for perhaps the person bringing it is a priest and meal-offerings a priest brings may

64. Which disqualifies it, as evident from Chapter 11, Halachah

not be eaten. Nor may it be burnt entirely on the altar, for perhaps the person bringing it is an Israelite and an Israelite's offerings may not be burnt entirely. 49. For a woman will bring her offering from flour that belongs to her husband (Rashi, Sotah 23a). 50. For she is bringing it for her atonement. 51. I.e., it need not be held by a priest. 52. The consecration of the handful is discussed in Chapter 13, Halachah 12. 53. Menachot 7b derives this concept from a parallel to the receiving of the blood. Just as that is only acceptable when the priest holds the container in his hands, so too, the consecration of the meal-offering is acceptable only when the priest holds the container. 54. The only meal-offerings that are leavened are the two loaves brought on Shavuos and ten of the loaves brought for the thanksgiving offering and these are not brought to the altar. 55. Although a sweetener may not be offered on the altar

disqualified. 6. 65. For the second leavening. He is, however, liable for the first leavening (Rav Yosef Corcus). 66. Although generally one who causes a meal-offering to leaven a second time is liable (Halachah 14), in this instance, since it was disqualified in the interim, he is exempt. 67. It should not, however, be offered on the altar's pyre (but should be taken from the altar and discarded), because no leaven should be offered on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:1 (Radbaz). 68. And this also includes the showbread. The commentaries note that Menachot 57a derives this concept from a different prooftext. 69. For the flour of the accompanying offerings should be mixed with oil, not water (Chapter 2, Halachah 4). 70. Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text states "wine" and hence, has been questioned by many. 71. See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:2.

(Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:1), it may be eaten with sacrificial foods. 56. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 124) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 135) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 57. E.g., one allowed it to leaven while kneading it and then another baked it. 58. As explained in the following halachah.

72. In the Talmudic era, when preparing fine flour, the wheat kernels would be soaked and then ground in a mill so that the shell of coarse bran would be removed. See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:7 which states that in order that the kernels not become leaven, they should be ground immediately. 73. By private individuals. 74. Rashi (Pesachim 36a) states that this sacrifice would be

59. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:2).

prepared by the agents of the court and those individuals

60. Each of these acts carries liability individually, as the

75. Even though lukewarm water will serve as a catalyst to cause the dough to leaven faster (Hilchot Chametz UMatzah

Rambam proceeds to explain. 61. And thus the person caused the dough to leaven.

would certainly act with the proper care and energy.

5:11), since the priests inside the Temple Courtyard are performing the service, we are not concerned that they will allow it to leaven. 76. And will not allow the flour to leaven. 77. For their status is the same.

11

78. See Chapter 13, Halachah 12; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:19.

81. For anything placed in a sacred utensil becomes sanctified, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:19.

79. Exceptions to this general principle were the the showbread

82. Zevachim 96a explains that it could not be made of

and the two loaves offered on Shavuos which were also kneaded outside the Temple Courtyard, as stated in Hilchot

earthenware, because it had the status of a sacred utensil since the showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos

Temidim UMusafim 5:7; 8:7).

were sanctified because they were baked inside of it and it is not befitting to make a sacred utensil from earthenware.

80. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:7.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

12

policy .



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 13 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 12

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 14

It is a positive commandment to prepare all of the meal-offerings1 according to the commandments prescribed by the Torah.

‫מצות עשה לעשות כל מנחה‬ :‫כמצותה האמורה בתורה‬

How was the chavitin offering of the High Priest prepared? He would bring an entire isaron and sanctify it2 and then divide it in half3 with the half isaron

‫וכיצד עשיית חביתי כהן גדול מביא‬ ‫עשרון שלם ומקדישו וחוצהו בחצי‬ ‫עשרון שבמקדש שאף על פי שהיא‬ ‫קריבה חציין אינה מתקדשת לחציין ומביא‬ ‫עמה שלשת לוגין שמן שנאמר בשמן‬ ‫תעשה להוסיף לה שמן כנסכי הכבש‬ ‫ובולל הסולת בשמן וחולטה ברותחין ולש‬ ‫מכל חצי עשרון שש חלות נמצאו שתים‬ :‫עשרה חלות‬

measure in the Temple. [This was necessary,] because even though it was offered in half [portions],4 it was not sanctified in half portions. Three lugim of oil are brought with it, as [Leviticus 6:13] states: "You shall prepare it with oil," i.e., [an amount of] oil equivalent to the accompanying offering for a lamb5 should be added to it.6 The flour should be mixed with the oil and then scalded7 with boiling [liquid]. Each half isaron should be kneaded into six loaves. Thus there are a total of twelve loaves.8

1

English

[These loaves] were prepared one by one. How were they prepared? The three lugim of oil would be divided [into twelve] using the measure of a revi'it [of a log] that existed in the Temple,9a revi'it for each loaf. The loaf would be baked some and then fried on the flat frying-pan with the remainder of its oil.10 It should not be cooked very much,11 for [Leviticus 6:14] uses the term tufinei which implies something between cooked and lightly cooked.12 Afterwards, each loaf should be divided into two13 by approximation,14so that half can be offered in the morning and half in the evening.15 He should take the halves and fold each one of them in half and then divide [the loaves at] the folds so that each flat cake will be folded in half. He then offers the halves with half of a handful of frankincense in the morning and the remaining half with half a handful of frankincense in the evening.16

‫ואחת אחת היו נעשות וכיצד עושה‬ ‫מחלק השלשה לוגין ברביעית‬ ‫שבמקדש רביעית לכל חלה ואופה החלה‬ ‫מעט ואח"כ קולה אותה על המחבת‬ ‫בשאר רביעית השמן שלה ואינו מבשלה‬ :‫הרבה שנאמר תופיני בין בשל ונא‬

‫ואחר כך חולק כל חלה וחלה לשנים‬ ‫באומד כדי שיקריב החצי בבקר‬ ‫והחצי בערב ולוקח החציים וכופל כל אחד‬ ‫מהן לשנים ופותת עד שתמצא כל פתיתה‬ ‫כפולה לשנים ומקריב החציין עם חצי‬ ‫קומץ לבונה בבוקר והחצי הנשאר עם חצי‬ ‫קומץ לבונה בערב ואם היתה מנחת חינוך‬ ‫אינו חוצה אלא מקריבה כולה כאחת עם‬ :‫קומץ לבונה ושתיהן כליל לאשים‬

If it is an initiation offering,17 it is not divided in half. Instead, it is offered entirely as a single entity together with the handful of frankincense. Both of them are consumed entirely by the altar's pyre.18 How is a meal-offering of fine flour prepared? One brings an isaron19 - or several isaronot or [many,] according to his vow20 - of fine flour and the oil appropriate for it.21 The flour should be measured in the isaron measure22 of the Temple. Oil should be placed in23 a container24 and the flour poured upon it and then other oil should be poured over the flour and the flour mixed in it. Afterwards, it is placed in a sacred vessel and oil is poured into it. The total of the oil placed first, that mixed with the flour, and that poured upon it is a log for a isaron. Frankincense is placed upon it.25

2

‫מנחת הסולת כיצד היתה נעשית‬ ‫מביא עשרון סולת או כמה עשרונות‬ ‫או כפי נדרו ושמן הראוי לה ומודד‬ ‫בעשרון של מקדש ונותן שמן בכלי ואחר‬ ‫כך נותן עליו את הסולת ואח"כ נותן שמן‬ ‫אחר על הסולת ובולל הסולת בו ואחר כך‬ ‫נותנה בכלי שרת וצק לתוכה שמן ושמן‬ ‫שנתן תחלה עם השמן הבלול עם שמן‬ ‫שיצק הכל לוג לעשרון ונותן עליה‬ :‫לבונתה‬

How are a meal-offering [cooked in] a flat frying-pan and one [cooked in] a deep frying pan prepared? Oil should be placed in a container and the flour poured upon it and then other oil should be poured over the flour and the flour mixed in it. Afterwards, it should be kneaded with warm water26 and baked in a flat frying-pan or a deep frying-pan as he vowed. It is broken into pieces27 and placed in a sacred vessel and the remainder of the oil is poured upon it. [Then] its frankincense is placed [upon it].

‫מנחת המחבת והמחרשת כיצד נותן‬ ‫השמן בכלי ונותן עליו הסלת ונותן על‬ ‫הסלת שמן אחר ובולל הסלת ואח"כ לשה‬ ‫בפושרין ואופה אותה במחבת או‬ ‫במרחשת כמו שנדר ופותת אותה פתים‬ ‫ונותנה בכלי שרת ויוצק עליה שאר השמן‬ :‫ונותן לבונתה‬

What is the difference between a flat frying-pan and a deep frying pan? A deep frying-pan has an edge28 and the dough cooked in it is soft,29 because since it has an edge, [the dough] does not drip off. The flat frying-pan does not have an edge. The dough cooked in it is firm so that it will not drip off to either side.

‫מה בין מחבת למרחשת מרחשת יש‬ ‫לה שפה והבצק שאופין אותו עליה רך‬ ‫שהרי יש לה שפה ואינו יוצא ומחבת אין‬ ‫לה שפה והבצק שאופין אותו בה קשה‬ :‫כדי שלא יצא מכאן ומכאן‬

How is a meal-offering baked in an oven prepared? If it is of loaves, one should mix the flour with oil,30 knead it with warm water, and bake it. [Afterwards,] it is broken into pieces, placed in a sacred utensil, and its frankincense is placed upon it. Oil is not poured over it, as [indicated by Leviticus 2:4]: "loaves of matzah mixed with oil."31

‫מנחת מאפה תנור כיצד אם חלות‬ ‫היא בולל הסלת בשמן ולש בפושרין‬ ‫ואופה ופותת ונותן בכלי שרת ונותן עליה‬ ‫לבונתה ואין בה יציקת שמן שנאמר חלות‬ ‫מצות בלולות בשמן ואם רקיקין היא לש‬ ‫את הסלת בפושרין ומושח את הרקיקין‬ ‫בשמן שנאמר ורקיקי מצות משוחים‬ ‫בשמן ויראה לי שאחר אפייה מושח‬ :‫אותם‬

If it is of wafers, one should need the flour with warm water and smear the wafers with oil, as [ibid.] states "wafers of matzah smeared with oil." It appears to me that they should be smeared after they are baked.32 How are they smeared? One brings a log of oil for every isaron and smears them and then smears them again until all of the oil in the log is finished.

3

‫וכיצד מושחן מביא לוג שמן לכל‬ ‫עשרון ומושחן וחוזר ומושחן עד‬ :‫שיכלה כל השמן שבלוג‬

4

All of these four types of baked33 meal-offerings, when they are baked, they are baked when dividing [each] isaron into ten loaves.34 If, however, one added or subtracted loaves, it is acceptable.35 How are they36 broken into pieces? Each loaf should be folded into two and then the double fold into four37 and then [the folds] should be separated. If the meal-offering was brought by males of the priestly family,38 they should not be separated and broken off. All of the pieces should be the size of an olive.39 If, however, one made them larger or smaller, [the offering] is acceptable. If one did not mix [the oil into the meal],40 fold [the loaves], bring [the meal-offering to the corner of the altar],41 or smear the wafers [with oil],42 [the offerings] are acceptable.43 All of these matters were mentioned only as a mitzvah,44 for it is a mitzvah [to bring the meal-offerings] in this manner.

‫כל ארבע מנחות אלו האפויות‬ ‫כשאופין אותן אופין כל עשרון עשר‬ ‫חלות ואם רבה בחלות או חסר כשירה‬ ‫וכיצד פותתין אותן כופל החלה לשנים‬ ‫והשנים לארבעה ומבדיל ואם היתה‬ ‫המנחה של זכרי כהונה אינו מבדיל ופותת‬ ‫וכולן פתיתין כזיתים ואם הגדיל הפתיתין‬ :‫או הקטין אותן כשרים‬

‫לא בלל לא פתת לא הגיש לא‬ ‫משח את הרקיקין כשירה לא‬ ‫נאמרו כל הדברים האלו אלא למצוה שכך‬ :‫היא מצותה‬

What is the order in which the meal-offering is brought? A person should bring flour from his home in a container of silver, gold, or another type of metal, a container that is fit [to be sanctified] as a sacred vessel.45 If it is a meal-offering of flour, he should place it in a sacred utensil and consecrate it46 in the sacred utensil.47 If it is one of the meal-offerings that are baked48 it should be baked there in the Temple and broken into pieces as we explained.49 The pieces should be placed into a sacred utensil and its oil and frankincense placed upon it. It should then be brought to a priest50 who brings it to the altar. He approaches the southwest corner of the altar with it. That is sufficient.51 He then moves all of its frankincense to one side52 and gathers a handful from the place where the majority of its oil has collected, as [Leviticus 2:2] states: "[He shall take a full handful] from its flour and from its oil." He places the handful in a sacred vessel and consecrates it in the sacred vessel.53 If a handful [from a meal-offering] was divided into two vessels, it is not consecrated. [Instead,] he should go back and consecrate it [in a single vessel].54 He should gather all of its frankincense and place it on the handful of flour in the vessel and take it up to the altar. He should salt it55 and place it on the pyre with a sacred utensil.56 If the meal-offering is brought by [male] priests, he does not take a handful. Instead, he salts the entire offering and tosses everything on the pyre.

5

‫סדר הבאת המנחה כיצד מביא‬ ‫אדם סולת מתוך ביתו בקלתות של‬ ‫כסף או של זהב או של שאר מיני מתכות‬ ‫כלי שהוא ראוי לכלי שרת ואם היתה‬ ‫מנחת הסלת נותנה לכלי שרת ומקדשה‬ ‫בכלי שרת ואם היתה מן המנחות הנאפות‬ ‫אופה אותה שם במקדש ופותת כמו‬ ‫שביארנו ונותן הפתיתין לכלי שרת ונותן‬ ‫עליה שמנה ולבונתה ומוליכה אצל כהן‬ ‫והכהן מוליכה אצל המזבח ומגישה בקרן‬ ‫דרומית מערבית כנגד חודה של קרן ודיו‬ ‫ומסלק את כל לבונתה לצד אחד וקומץ‬ ‫ממקום שנתרבה שמנה שנאמר מסלתה‬ ‫ומשמנה ונותן הקומץ לכלי שרת ומקדשו‬ ‫בכלי שרת וקומץ שחלקו בשני כלים אינו‬ ‫קדוש וחוזר ומקדש ומלקט את כל‬ ‫לבונתה ונותנה על הקומץ שבכלי ומעלהו‬ ‫על המזבח ומולחו ונותנו על גבי האשים‬ ‫מכלי שרת ואם מנחת כהנים היא אינו‬ ‫קומץ אלא נותן מלח על כלה ומשליך הכל‬ :‫על גבי האשים‬

6

How is a handful [of flour]57 taken from those meal-offerings from which it is taken? As any person would take a handful. He extends his fingers58 over the palm of his hand and closes them.59 If he gathered the flour only with his fingertips60 or from the side [of the container],61 he should not offer it on the altar's pyre. If he does so, nevertheless, it is accepted.62 If he added to the handful, i.e., he spread out his fingers and closed them,63 it is unacceptable. A handful should not be less than two olive-sized portions.64 [Bringing every] portion of the handful is an absolute requirement in [bringing] the entire handful.65 [Bringing both] the handful [of flour] and the frankincense are absolute requirements for [bringing] either of them.66 [Bringing both] the flour and the oil are absolute requirements for [bringing] either of them.67 [Bringing] even a portion of the oil is an absolute requirement in [bringing] the entire quantity.68 Less than a log [of oil] should not [be brought] for every isaron of flour, as we explained.69

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 12

‫כיצד קומצין מנחות הנקמצות כדרך‬ ‫שקומץ כל האדם פושט אצבעותיו‬ ‫על פס ידו וקומץ קמץ בראשי אצבעותיו‬ ‫או מן הצדדין לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר‬ ‫הורצה ואם הוסיף בקומץ כגון שהרחיק‬ :‫אצבעותיו וקמץ הרי זה פסול‬

‫אין קומץ פחות מכשני זיתים‬ ‫ומקצת הקומץ מעכב את כולו‬ ‫והקומץ והלבונה מעכבין זה את זה הסלת‬ ‫והשמן מעכבין זה את זה ומקצת השמן‬ ‫מעכב את כולו אין פחות מלוג לעשרון‬ :‫כמו שביארנו‬

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 14

FOOTNOTES 1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 67) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 116) include bringing the meal-offerings as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

5. See Chapter 2, Halachot 4, 7. 6. Menachot 51a explains that since the chavitin is cooked on a flat frying pan, it is obvious that oil should be added to it

Courtyard (see Chapter 2, Halachah 8). Once it was

like the other meal offerings cooked on such a frying pan (see Halachah 7). Hence by saying that the chavitin is

sanctified, it could not be taken out of the Temple Courtyard. Hence all the stages of its preparation had to be completed

prepared in oil, the verse implies that additional oil is added. The need for three lugin is then derived from a textual

within the Temple Courtyard (Radbaz). Indeed, one of the chambers in the Temple Courtyard was the Chamber of the

association of the terms used.

2. By placing it in the isaron measure found in the Temple

Makers of the Chavitin (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17). 3. Because half was sacrificed in the morning and half in the afternoon. 4. See Halachah 4.

7. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:6) the Rambam defines the term cholait, the verb translated as "scalded" here as: "pouring boiling water over the flour." 8. Menachot 15a derives this point from a comparison to the showbread which also comprised twelve loaves.

7

9. I.e., when the quantity of three lugim is divided in twelve (an

23. As stated in Menachot 6:3, oil is added to all of the

equal portion for each loaf), we arrive at the figure of a revi'it

meal-offerings offered other than those which are baked in

(a fourth of a log). There was a measure of this size in the

the oven three times: it is placed in the container before the flour, it is mixed into the flour and then it is poured over the

Temple. Hence the oil would be poured into this measure for each loaf to provide it with the desired amount of oil. 10. Thus there were three phases in the cooking process of these loaves. First, the flour was scalded as mentioned in the previous halachah. Then the loaf was made and then baked. Afterwards [see also the Rambam's Commentary to

mixture of flour and oil. This sequence is not explicitly stated with regard to the offering of fine flour. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains the process through which it is derived that the above concepts apply to this meal-offering as well.

fried in it. See also Chapter 9, Halachah 19, which describes

24. I.e., a trough where the oil and flour are mixed. Both the Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh state that, from the Rambam's

all these different stages of the cooking process. The same term, murbechet, is use to describe both that offering and the

wording, it appears that this trough was not a sacred utensil. They question that conclusion, for once the flour had been

chavitin offering.

put in a sacred utensil, it does not appear appropriate to place it in an ordinary utensil again. Indeed, they explain that

the Mishnah (Menachot 9:3)], the oil was boiled and the loaf

11. I.e., he should only bake it slightly (Kessef Mishneh). This interpretation is also borne out by Chapter 9, Halachah 19. 12. Afterwards, it is fried to complete the cooking process (Kessef Mishneh). 13. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the cakes should not be divided. Thus instead of offering twelve half-cakes as the Rambam maintains, he maintains that six

perhaps the second utensil was also sacred. 25. A handful of frankincense for every offering regardless of its size (Chapter 12, Halachah 7). 26. Care was taken so that they do not leaven (Kessef Mishneh). 27. As required by Leviticus 2:6.

full cakes should be offered in the morning and six in the afternoon.

28. Menachot 63b notes that Leviticus 7:9 states of such an

14. I.e., although half should be offered in the morning and half

are describes as being cooked "on a flat frying-pan." Implied is that the deep frying-pan had an edge large enough to

in the afternoon, an exact division is not required. The division is made by hand and not with a utensil. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's position, noting that the concept of dividing the cakes by hand and not with a utensil is stated in Menachot 87b. 15. I.e., in the late afternoon. 16. Further details concerning the bringing of this offering are mentioned in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:18-22. 17. Both an ordinary priest and a High Priest bring a meal-offering prepared in the same way to mark their initiation into office (Chapter 12, Halachah 4). 18. For the meal-offering of a priest is never eaten (Chapter 12, Halachah 9). 19. But no less than an isaron (ibid.:5). 20. One may bring as many isaronot as he desires, even 1000 (or more). 21. A log of oil for every isaron of flour, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 7. 22. Even if the offering contained many isaronot, it is measured out, isaron by isaron (Kessef Mishneh).

offering being cooked "in a deep frying-pan," while the others

contain liquids. 29. And thin like the dough of pancakes [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:8)]. 30. Oil is not, however, placed in the container before the flour is (Menachot 6:3). 31. I.e., only "mixed with oil." No other oil is used in preparing them. 32. The Radbaz supports this supposition, explaining that if the wafers were smeared before they were baked, they would not absorb the oil. 33. I.e., those fried in a deep frying pan and a flat frying-pan or the two types baked in an oven. Excluded is only the flour offering which is presented without being baked or cooked. 34. Menachot 76a derives this from a comparison to the thanksgiving offering. See Chapter 9, Halachot 17-18. 35. For even a thanksgiving offering is acceptable if its loaves are less than the required number (ibid.:22). 36. These four types of meal-offerings. Again, a flour offering is excluded. 37. Menachot, loc. cit., explains the rationale, stating that Leviticus 2:6 mentions "breaking them (i.e., into two) into pieces" (i.e., that the two are divided again).

8

38. For their meal-offerings are consumed entirely by the altar's pyre. Meal-offerings brought by females of the priestly family are broken into pieces.

54. Although placing the handful of flour in two utensils is unacceptable, it does not disqualify it. 55. As required by Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:23.

39. For making them any smaller would make them appear insignificant.

56. I.e., he should empty the flour from the sacred vessel over the pyre.

40. Note, however, Chapter 17, Halachah 6, which states that the offering must not be so large that it could not be mixed

57. We have mentioned flour, because taking a full handful - but

with its oil. 41. As required by Chapter 12, Halachah 6. 42. Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 7:8 rules that if the required

only a handful, not more and not less - of flour can be easily pictured. In truth, however, an exact handful must also be taken from those meal offerings that were already baked and that is much harder to picture.

amount of oil is not added to a meal offering, it is not acceptable. Nevertheless, after the fact, the oil does not

58. On the basis of Menachot 11a and Yoma 47b, many

have to be applied to the offering in the manner detailed above.

priest's three middle fingers. The pinky and the thumb are not included. Therefore it is considered as one of the difficult

43. Menachot 3:2, the source for this halachah, mentions the

services in the Temple. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:2; see also Yoma 1:5), however, the Rambam

above concepts and adds that the offerings are acceptable if salt and oil were not placed upon them. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that the intent is not that the offering is acceptable without salt and oil, but that they need not be added to the offering by a priest. 44. I.e., as the optimum manner to perform the mitzvah.

commentaries maintain that the handful is taken only with the

rejects this understanding and maintains that all of the priest's fingers should be used in taking the handful. 59. The Ra'avad (in his gloss to the Sifra) states that he should cup his hand and then insert his fingers into the flour until his palm is covered. He then closes his fingers over his palm.

45. As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:18, a sacred utensil

60. I.e., closing his fingers over themselves and not over the

may not be made of wood, bone, stone, or glass, only of metal.

palm of his hand and thus collected only a small amount of flour (Rav Yosef Corcus).

46. Placing it in the sacred vessel with the intent to consecrate it

61. Instead of from the middle (Radbaz). There are also other interpretations to these concepts.

brings about its consecration. See Chapter 2, Halachah 9, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:20. 47. As described in Halachah 5. 48. Or fried, i.e., any of the other types of meal offerings. 49. See Halachot 6-10. 50. I.e., up until this point, the services could have been performed by a non-priest. From this stage onward, they must be performed by a priest. See Chapter 12, Halachah 23. 51. I.e., he touches the altar's corner with the utensil. He does not have to have the flour itself touch the corner (Kessef Mishneh). 52. So that it will not be mixed with the flour taken in the handful (Sotah 14b). 53. Although the handful of flour was consecrated together with the other flour, it should be consecrated again now that it has become a separate entity. Sotah, loc. cit., draws a comparison to the blood from a sacrificial animal which is

62. Menachot 11a and Yoma 47b question whether these two ways to take a handful are acceptable and does not reach a conclusion. Therefore the Rambam rules that as an initial preference, one should not take a handful in this manner, but if one does so, it is acceptable after the fact. 63. And thus the handful was overflowing. 64. In modern measure, approximately 28 cc according to Shiurei Torah. 65. For Leviticus 2:2 states that "a full handful" must be offered. Thus if one cannot bring a portion of the handful, it is disqualified and should not be brought at all (Menachot 27a). 66. I.e., the offering should not be brought unless both are included. 67. Both are necessary because Leviticus 2:2 mentions the "full handful of flour" and "all of its frankincense." This emphasis is repeated in Leviticus 6:8, indicating that it is an absolute requirement.

consecrated together with the entire animal at the time of its slaughter and is consecrated again when collected in a

68. I.e., if one does not bring the entire amount, one should not

sacred utensil.

69. Halachah 5; Chapter 12, Halachah 7.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger

bring the offering at all.

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 14 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 13

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 15

A person may vow or pledge1 to bring a burntoffering, a peace-offering, or any of the five types of meal-offerings2 that may be brought as vows or as pledges.3 And he may vow or pledge [to bring] a meal offering from one of the three types of meal-offerings that serve as the accompanying offerings, as we explained.4 One may pledge or vow wine as an independent offering,5 frankincense as an independent offering,6 oil as an independent offering,7 or wood for the arrangement [of wood on the altar], for that is like a sacrifice,8 as [Nechemiah 13:31] states: "for the sacrifice of wood."

‫מתנדב אדם ונודר עולה ושלמים וכל‬ ‫מין שירצה מחמשה מיני מנחות‬ ‫הבאין בנדר ונדבה ומתנדב או נודר מנחה‬ ‫ממנחת נסכים לבדה מאי זה מין משלשה‬ ‫מיני מנחות נסכים כמו שביארנו ומתנדב‬ ‫או נודר יין בפני עצמו או לבונה בפני‬ ‫עצמו או שמן בפני עצמו או עצים‬ ‫למערכה מפני שהן כקרבן שנאמר ולקרבן‬ :‫העצים‬

Two people may pledge or vow one sacrifice, a burnt-offering or a peace-offering, even one turtle-dove and large ordinary dove in partnership. A meal-offering, by contrast, may not be brought in partnership. These matters were conveyed by the Oral Tradition.

‫שנים מתנדבין או נודרין קרבן אחד‬ ‫עולה או שלמים אפילו פרידה אחת‬ ‫של תורים או בני יונה מביאין אותה‬ ‫בשותפות אבל המנחה אינה באה‬ :‫בשותפות ודברים אלו הן דברי קבלה‬

When a person set aside a meal-offering for [the merit of] his two sons and died,9 they may both bring it.10

‫הניח מנחה לשני בניו ומת הרי אלו‬ :‫מביאין אותה‬

2

What is meant by a vow and what is meant by a pledge? When one says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering," "I promise to bring a peace-offering," "I promise to bring a meal-offering," or "I promise to bring the value of this animal11 as a burnt-offering" or "...as a peace-offering," this is considered a vow.12 If, however, he said: "This animal..." or "The value of this animal is [designated as] a burnt-offering,"13 or "...a peaceoffering," or "This isaron [of flour] as a meal-offering,"

‫אי זה הוא נדר ואי זו היא נדבה‬ ‫האומר הרי עלי עולה או הרי עלי‬ ‫שלמים או הרי עלי מנחה או הרי דמי‬ ‫בהמה זו עלי עולה או שלמים זהו הנדר‬ ‫אבל האומר הרי בהמה זו או דמי בהמה זו‬ ‫עולה או שלמים או הרי העשרון הזה‬ :‫מנחה הרי זו נדבה‬

this is a pledge.14 What is the difference between vows and pledges? If a person took a vow and separated a sacrifice and then it was lost or stolen, he is obligated to replace it15 until he offers the sacrifice he vowed.16 If a person made a pledge and said: "This [animal] is a sacrifice," he is not obligated to replace it if it died or was stolen.17

‫מה בין נדרים לנדבות שהנודר אם‬ ‫הפריש קרבנו ואבד או נגנב חייב‬ ‫באחריותו עד שיקריב כמו שנדר‬ ‫והמתנדב ואומר זו אם מת או נגנב אינו‬ :‫חייב באחריותו‬

When one says: "I promise to bring the value of this ox as a burnt-offering" or "I promise to bring the value of this house as a sacrifice," if the ox dies and the house falls, he is obligated to pay.18 If one says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering on the condition that I am not obligated to replace it," he is not obligated to replace it.19

‫האומר דמי שור זה עלי עולה ודמי בית‬ ‫זה עלי קרבן ומת השור ונפל הבית‬ ‫חייב לשלם אמר הרי עלי עולה על מנת‬ ‫שלא אתחייב באחריותה אינו חייב‬ :‫באחריותה‬

We already explained20 that one who constructs a temple to offer sacrifices within outside the Temple is not considered as [having built] a temple to a false divinity. If one says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering to sacrifice in the Temple [in Jerusalem]," and he brings it in [such] a temple, does not fulfill his vow.21 If he vowed to offer it in such a temple and he offers it in the Temple [in Jerusalem], he fulfills his vow.22 If he offers in such a temple, he fulfills his vow. He is like someone who vowed to bring a burnt-offering on the condition that he is not obligated to replace it.23 He is liable for karet for offering [the sacrifice] outside [the Temple Courtyard].

‫כבר ביארנו שהעושה בית חוץ‬ ‫למקדש להקריב בו קרבנות אינו כבית‬ ‫ע"ז והאומר הרי עלי עולה שאקריבנה‬ ‫במקדש והקריבה בבית זה לא יצא‬ ‫שאקריבנה בבית זה והקריבה במקדש‬ ‫יצא ואם הקריבה באותו הבית יצא הרי‬ ‫הוא כמי שנדר עולה על מנת שלא יתחייב‬ ‫באחריותה וענוש כרת על העליתה בחוץ‬ ‫וכן אם אמר הריני נזיר על מנת שאגלח‬ ‫בבית זה אם גלח שם יצא הרי הוא כמי‬ ‫שנדר לצער עצמו והרי ציער עצמו ואינה‬ :‫נזירות‬

Similarly, if one takes a vow saying that he is a nazirite on the condition that he shave24 in such a temple, he fulfills his obligation if he shaves there. He is considered as one who vowed to abstain from wine and he did so abstain. This is not considered as a nazirite vow. A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may be brought only for a sin.25 They may not be brought because of a pledge or a vow. [Hence,] if one26 says: "I promise to bring a sin-offering" or "...a guilt-offering," his statements are of no consequence. [Similarly,] if he said: "This animal is [designated as] a sin-offering" or "...a guilt-offering," his statements are of no consequence. If he was obligated to bring a sin-offering or a guiltoffering and he said: "This [animal] is for my sin-offering" or "...for my guilt-offering" or "This money is for my sin-offering" or "...my guilt-offering," his statements are binding.

3

‫חטאת ואשם אינן באין אלא על‬ ‫חטא ואינן באין בנדר ונדבה האומר‬ ‫הרי עלי חטאת או אשם או שאמר הרי זו‬ ‫חטאת או אשם לא אמר כלום היה מחוייב‬ ‫חטאת או אשם ואמר הרי זו לחטאתי או‬ ‫לאשמי או הרי המעות האלו לחטאתי או‬ :‫לאשמי דבריו קיימים‬

4

When a person says: "I promise to bring the sacrifices of this person afflicted by tzara'at" or "...this women who gave birth," if the afflicted person or the women are poor, the one who took the vow should bring the sacrifices of a poor person.27 If they were wealthy, the person who took the vow must bring the sacrifice of a wealthy person even though he is poor.

‫האומר קרבן מצורע זה או יולדת זו‬ ‫עלי אם היה אותו מצורע או היולדת‬ ‫עניים מביא הנודר קרבן עני ואם היו‬ ‫עשירים מביא הנודר קרבן עשיר אע"פ‬ :‫שהנודר עני‬

[The following laws apply when] one says: "I promise to bring the sin-offering, burnt-offering, guilt-offering, and peace-offering of so-and-so." If that person agrees, he may allow him to bring those sacrifices for him and he receives atonement thereby. If he agreed at the time [the sacrificial animals] were set aside, but reneged and did not agree at the time they were offered,28 with regard to a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, they should be sacrificed and he receives atonement through them even if he does not consent at this time, because he agreed at the time [the sacrificial animals] were set aside. With regard to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,29 by contrast, he does not receive atonement unless he consented from the beginning until the end.

‫האומר חטאתו ועולתו ואשמו ושלמיו‬ ‫של פלוני עלי אם רצה אותו פלוני הרי‬ ‫זה מניחו להקריבן על ידו ומתכפר לו רצה‬ ‫בשעת הפרשה ולא רצה בשעת הקרבה‬ ‫אלא חזר בו בעולה ובשלמים מקריבין‬ ‫ומתכפר לו בהן אף על פי שאינו רוצה‬ ‫עתה שהרי רצה בשעת הפרשה אבל‬ ‫בחטאת ובאשם לא נתכפר לו עד שירצה‬ :‫מתחלה ועד סוף‬

One who says: "I promise to bring vows like the vows of the wicked who take upon themselves nazirite vows, sacrifices, and oaths," he is obligated in all [of his statements].30 If he says: "...as the vows of the upright," he is not obligated in anything.31 If he says: "as the pledges of the upright," his vow is binding32with regard to nazirite vows and sacrifices.33 All terms used to refer to sacrifices are considered as sacrifices.34

‫האומר הרי עלי כנדרי רשעים‬ ‫שמנדריהן נזיר וקרבן ושבועה‬ ‫חייב בכולן כנדרי כשרין לא נתחייב כלום‬ ‫הרי עלי כנדבות כשרין הרי זה נדר בנזיר‬ :‫ובקרבן וכל כינויי קרבן כקרבן‬

5

Neither one who takes a vow or one who makes a pledge is liable unless his statements match his intent.35 What is implied? If one had the intent of saying: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering," but he said "...a peace-offering" or he had the intent of saying: "I promise to bring a peace-offering," but he said "...a burnt-offering," his words are of no substance. If, [however,] he intended to take a vow to bring a burntoffering and said: "a sacrifice," or he intended to say devotion offerings36 and he said: "consecrated property," his statements are binding, for a burntoffering is a sacrifice, and something designated as devotion offerings is consecrated. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. With regard to vows and pledges, it is not necessary for him to make any verbal statements. He is obligated even if he made a firm resolve in his heart without saying anything. What is implied? If one made a resolve in his heart that an animal should be designated as a burnt-offering or that he should bring a burnt-offering, he is obligated. [This is derived from Exodus 35:5]: "All those generous of heart shall bring it." Generosity in the heart [alone is sufficient to] establish an obligation to bring. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations involving vows and pledges for the consecration [of sacrifices].

‫אין הנודר ולא המתנדב חייב עד‬ ‫שיהא פיו ולבו שוין כיצד המתכוון‬ ‫לומר הרי עלי עולה ואמר שלמים או‬ ‫שנתכוון לומר הרי זו עולה ואמר שלמים‬ ‫לא אמר כלום נתכוון לנדור בעולה ואמר‬ ‫קרבן לנדור בחרם ואמר הקדש דבריו‬ ‫קיימים שהעולה קרבן והחרם הקדש וכן‬ ‫כל כיוצא בזה בנדרים ונדבות אינו צריך‬ ‫להוציא בשפתיו כלום אלא אם גמר בלבו‬ ‫ולא הוציא בשפתיו כלום חייב כיצד גמר‬ ‫בלבו שזו עולה או שיביא עולה הרי זה‬ ‫חייב להביא שנאמר כל נדיב לב יביאה‬ ‫בנדיבות לב יתחייב להביא וכן כל כיוצא‬ :‫בזה מנדרי קדשים ונדבותן‬

6

With regard to vows and pledges and other commitments that a person makes that obligated him, endowment obligations, pledges for worth,37 tithes.38 and the presents to the poor,39 it is a positive commandment of Scriptural origin to bring everything on the festival of immediate proximity,40 as [Deuteronomy 12:5-6] states: "And you shall come there and you shall bring your burnt-offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes,... your vows, your pledges..."], as if to say: When you come [to Jerusalem] to celebrate a festival bring there everything that you are obligated and satisfy every obligation upon you. If the festival arrived and he did not bring [the gifts in which he is obligated], he has negated the observance of a positive commandment. If three festivals pass without him bringing the sacrifices he vowed or pledged to bring or without giving the endowment obligations, devotion offerings, and pledges for worth, he violates a negative commandment,41 as [ibid. 23:22]

‫אחד נדרים ונדבות עם שאר‬ ‫הדברים שאדם חייב בהן מערכין‬ ‫ודמים ומעשרות ומתנות עניים מצות עשה‬ ‫מן התורה שיביא הכל ברגל שפגע בו‬ ‫תחלה שנאמר ובאת שמה והבאתם שמה‬ ‫וגו' כלומר בעת שתבא לחוג תביא כל מה‬ ‫שאתה חייב בו ותתן כל חוב שעליך לשם‬ ‫הגיע הרגל ולא הביא הרי זה ביטל מצות‬ ‫עשה עברו עליו שלשה רגלים ולא הביא‬ ‫קרבנותיו שנדר או התנדב או שלא נתן‬ ‫הערכים והחרמים והדמים הרי זה עבר‬ ‫בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תאחר לשלמו‬ ‫אינו עובר בלא תעשה עד שיעברו עליו‬ ‫רגלי השנה כולה ואין לוקין על לאו זה לפי‬ :‫שאין בו מעשה‬

states: "Do not delay in paying it." He does not violate the negative commandment until all of the three pilgrimage festivals of the year pass. Lashes are not given for the violation of this negative commandment, because it does not involve a deed.42 If one consecrated an animal [to be offered] on the altar and [after] two festivals passed [without it being offered], it became blemished and it was redeemed for another animal, the person does not violate the negative commandment until three festivals pass without the second [animal being sacrificed].43 Both a man and a woman44 are liable for transgression [the prohibition against] delaying [the offering of a sacrifice]. An heir, however, does not violate this prohibition.45

‫הקדיש בהמה למזבח ועברו עליו‬ ‫שני רגלים ונפל בה מום ופדאה על‬ ‫גב בהמה אחרת אינו עובר בלא תעשה עד‬ ‫שיעברו על האחרת שלשה רגלים ואחד‬ ‫האיש ואחד האשה עובר בבל תאחר אבל‬ :‫היורש אינו עובר בבל תאחר‬

7

Despite the fact that three festivals passed, no [animal consecrated as] a sacrifice is disqualified. Instead, [such animals should be] sacrificed and they are acceptable. Each and every day that passes after the three pilgrimage festivals involves a violation of [the above] prohibition. The [Jewish] court is commanded to apply physical coercion to the person46 immediately until he offers his sacrifices on the first festival that presents itself.47

‫כל הקרבנות שעברו עליהן שלשה‬ ‫רגלים לא נפסלו אלא מקריבן‬ ‫וכשרים ובכל יום ויום אחר השלשה רגלים‬ ‫הוא עובר בלא תאחר ובית דין מצווין‬ ‫לעשותו מיד עד שיקריב קרבנותיו ברגל‬ :‫שפגע בו תחלה‬

Even though [Leviticus 1:3] states that [a burntoffering must be sacrificed] "willfully," he may be compelled until he says: "I desire."48 Whether he vowed [to bring a sacrifice] and did not set it aside or set aside, but did not offer it, he may be compelled until he sacrifices it.

‫אע"פ שנאמר לרצונו כופין אותו‬ ‫עד שיאמר רוצה אני בין שנדר‬ ‫ולא הפריש בין שהפריש ולא הקריב כופין‬ :‫אותו עד שיקריב‬

[The court] seizes collateral from all of those obligated to bring burnt-offerings or peaceofferings [to compel them to offer them]. Even though [the sacrifice] will not bring him atonement unless he desires to offer it, as [implied by] the term "willfully," he is compelled until he says: "I desire."49 Collateral is not seized from those obligated to bring sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, by contrast. [The rationale is that] since [the failure to bring these sacrifices] prevents [the people] from receiving atonement,50 we are not concerned that they will be sinful and delay [bringing] their sacrifices. [The only] exception is the sin-offering brought by a nazirite. Since [the failure to bring] it does not prevent him from drinking wine,51 he is compelled [to bring the offering], lest he delay it.

‫כל חייבי עולות ושלמים ממשכנין‬ ‫אותם אף על פי שאין מתכפר לו עד‬ ‫שירצה שנאמר לרצונו כופין אותו עד‬ ‫שיאמר רוצה אני אבל חייבי חטאות‬ ‫ואשמות אין ממשכנין אותן הואיל והם‬ ‫מעוכבי כפרה אין חוששין להם שמא‬ ‫יפשעו וישהו קרבנותיהן חוץ מחטאת נזיר‬ ‫הואיל ואינה מעכבתו מלשתות יין שמא‬ :‫יאחר אותה לפיכך ממשכנין אותו עליה‬

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 13 FOOTNOTES

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 15

1. See Halachah 4 for the distinction between the two terms. 2. See Chapter 12, Halachah 4. 3. With regard to sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, see Halachah 8. 4. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, 4. 5. See Chapter 16, Halachah 14; Chapter 17, Halachah 12. 6. See Chapter 16, Halachah 13.

is liable for offering a sacrifice outside the Temple. Nevertheless, he is considered to have fulfilled his vow for the reason stated by the Rambam. 24. As is done at the conclusion of one's nazirite vow. 25. Thus when Leviticus 5:1 introduces the obligation to bring a sin-offering, it states: "If a person will sin...."

7. See Chapter 16, Halachah 14.

26. I.e., one who is not obligated to bring such a sacrifice.

8. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 6:9-10.

27. The types of sacrifices these individuals are obligated to

9. Before bringing it. 10. This is not considered as bringing an offering in partnership. 11. Even though he mentions a specific animal, since his promise focuses on the animal's value and not the animal itself, it is considered as a vow and not a pledge. Moreover, he made a promise incumbent on himself - that he bring the

bring vary dependent on the person's financial standing, as explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3. Accordingly, one might think that regardless of the financial status of the person who pledged to bring the sacrifice, the type of sacrifice to be brought is determined by the financial status of the person who is obligated to offer it. Nevertheless, as stated in Arachin 13a (and quoted by the Rambam in Hilchot

value of the animal as a sacrifice - and did not designate the animal's worth itself. See also Halachah 6.

Mechusrei Kapparah 5:11), this is not the case. If a wealthy

12. The obligation is on him; he has made a commitment to bring

by tzara'at, he must bring the sacrifices of a wealthy man.

the sacrifice. 13. I.e., pledging that the animal would be sold and the money

person vows to bring the sacrifices of a poor person afflicted Hence, we are forced to say that here the Rambam is speaking of a poor person who took such a vow.

received be designated for the purchase of a sacrifice.

28. Rashi (Arachin 21a) interprets the passage as referring to an

14. I.e., the animal or its worth is designated as a sacrifice.

instance where the person obligated to bring the sacrifice did not know it was being offered on his behalf. If he did know,

15. For the obligation is incumbent on him and it was not fulfilled. 16. Moreover, the sacrifice must be offered in an acceptable

however, he must consent. The Rambam differs and maintains that since he gave his consent originally and the

manner. If it was disqualified, he is still obligated to fulfill his vow.

atonement associated with these sacrifices is achieved immediately, it is not necessary that he consent at the time

17. Because he personally is under no further responsibility. He fulfilled his obligation by designating the animal.

the sacrifice was offered (Rav Yosef Corcus; see Halachah 17).

18. As stated in Halachah 4, this is considered a vow. The

29. Since the atonement associated with these sacrifices is more

rationale is that he said: elai, "I promise to bring." That

encompassing, it requires not only his initial consent, but also continuous willful activity (ibid.).

expression indicated his willingness to accept responsibility. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 5:5), the

30. The Rambam is referring to the wording of the Mishnah

Rambam states that he is obligated to pay only the value of

(Nedarim 1:1). The intent of the Mishnah is that the wicked

the dead ox, not its value when it was alive.

make vows hastily and moreover, obligate themselves for

19. Since he made an explicit stipulation freeing himself of responsibility, he is not considered as liable.

vows which constitute a commitment incumbent on their person that they will not necessarily be able to fulfill. As the

20. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:14 and the Rambam's

Rambam writes in Hilchot Nedarim 13:25 and in his

Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 13:10) which refers

commentary to the above mishnah, it is preferable not to take

to the temple constructed in Alexandria by Chonio, the son of Shimon the Just.

vows, for it is possible one will not be able to fulfill them. See also ibid. 1:25.

21. The Mishnah (Menachot 13:10) states merely "a burnt

31. For the upright do not take vows for the reason stated in the

offering," omitting the words "to sacrifice in the Temple." The commentaries question why the Rambam felt it necessary to add them. 22. Since he promised to bring a burnt-offering, it is necessary that it be brought to Jerusalem. The fact that he added that he would bring it elsewhere is not significant.

8

23. I.e., according to the Rambam, the animal set aside is considered as designated as a burnt-offering and the person

previous note (ibid.:26).

32. For the upright do make pledges, for a pledge involves the sanctification of an article at hand and if the upright wish to

44. Rosh HaShanah 6b explains that since a woman is not

take such action, there is nothing preventing them from fulfilling their vow. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc.

pilgrimage festival, one might think that the entire concept of a pilgrimage festival - and hence, this commandment - does

cit.), the Rambam explains that the upright would bring their

not apply to her. This supposition is, however, negated, for she is obligated in bringing the peace-offering of rejoicing

sacrificial animals to the Temple Mount and only then, pledge to bring them. In this way, there would be no question of them keeping their word. 33. The Rambam does not mention oaths, because the upright try to avoid taking oaths entirely. 34. See Hilchot Nizirut 1:16 which states:

obligated to bring a burnt-offering (olat re'i'ah) for the

(shalmei simchah) that are sacrificed on festivals. 45. The prohibition is not to delay paying one's vow. Since the heir did not make the vow himself, he does not violate this prohibition if he does not carry out the vow at the appropriate time. He is, however, to bring the sacrifice. See Rosh HaShanah 6b.

There are places where people are inarticulate and mispronounce words, calling subjects by different names. [In those places,] we follow the meaning of the local term. What is meant by the statement that all the terms used for the word korban, "sacrifice," are equivalent to the term korban? When one says: "[This produce] is considered for me like a konam," "...a konach," or "...a konaz," they are all terms referring to a korban. 35. This is a general principle applying with regard to oaths (Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:10-12) and vows (Hilchot Nedarim 2:2). In the continuation of the halachah, the Rambam describes a situation in which one is liable for a sacrifice he intended to give even though he does not say anything. That, however, is not a contradiction to the statements here, because here, the person's statements contradict his intent. 36. Which is consecrated to the Temple treasury. 37. Both of these terms refer to commitments to make donations to the Temple treasury. See Hilchot Arachin, ch. 1, for a more complete description. 38. I.e. the tithes (including the second tithe and the tithe for the poor) separated from one's crops (see Hilchot Ma'aser and Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni). Also, implied are the tithe offerings. See Hilchot Bechorot, ch. 4. 39. Leket, pe'ah, ollelot, etc., as described in Hilchot Matanot Aniyim. 40. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 83) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 438) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 41. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 155) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 574) count this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 42. As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2, lashes are only given for the violation of a prohibition that involves a deed. 43. For the calculation begins anew with the consecration of the second animal.

9

46. As Ketubot 86a-b explains, the court is obligated to compel every individual to observe every positive commandment incumbent upon him, even if it requires beating him to the point of death. 47. The Rambam's wording appears to imply that if the court sees the person acting indolently with regard to the sacrifice, it is obligated to subject him to compulsion even if the first festival has not passed. This point is not, however, accepted by all authorities (Rav Yosef Corcus).

48. In Hilchot Gerushin 2:20, the Rambam explains why acting

49. As stated in Hilchot Arachin 3:14:

under compulsion in such circumstances can be considered willful activity. [For there also, a bill of divorce must be written with the husband's consent and yet he can be compelled to consent.] The concept of being compelled against one's will applies only when speaking about a person who is being compelled and forced to do something that the Torah does

They take... [from the persons obligated] against their will. They are not required to return the collateral by day or by night. They sell all the landed property and movable property in [those person's] possession including their clothing, household articles, servants, and livestock, taking their payment from everything.

not obligate him to do - e.g., a person who was beaten until he consented to a sale, or to give a present. If, however, a

50. Burnt-offerings also feature in bringing atonement for the failure to fulfill positive commandments. Nevertheless, in that

person's evil inclination presses him to negate [the observance of] a mitzvah or to commit a transgression, and

instance the atonement is achieved through the person's repentance and the offering is considered merely as a

he was beaten until he performed the action he was obligated to perform, or he dissociated himself from the

present. In contrast, a sin-offering is required to bring about the atonement itself.

forbidden action, he is not considered to have been forced against his will. On the contrary, it is he himself who is

51. See Hilchot Nazirut 8:10.

forcing [his own conduct to become debased]. With regard to this person who [outwardly] refuses to divorce [his wife] - he wants to be part of the Jewish people, and he wants to perform all the mitzvot and eschew all the transgressions; it is only his evil inclination that presses him [to act otherwise]. Therefore, when he is beaten, until his [evil] inclination has been weakened, and he consents [to the divorce], he is considered to have performed the divorce willfully. The Rambam's statements have implications far beyond their immediate halachic context. The Rambam is saying that the fundamental desire of every Jew is to affirm his Jewishness and observe the Torah and its mitzvot. Even when a person's conscious mind does not necessarily consent to this inner motivation, it is at work, molding his character without his knowledge. And at times, either because of undesirable circumstances - being compelled against his will as above or because of desirable ones - an expression of Divine favor - this inner drive will surface.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

10

policy .

11



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 15 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 14

When a person says: "The offspring of this [animal]1 is [consecrated] as a burnt-offering2 and it is [consecrated] as a peace-offering,"3 his words are binding. [Should he say:] "It is [consecrated] as a peace-offering and its offspring as a burnt-offering," if that was his intent, his words are binding.4 If, after he made a resolve in his heart and expressed verbally that [the offspring] should be a peace-offering, he retracted and said: "Its offspring is a burnt-offering," even though he retracted immediately,5 the offspring are [designated] as peace-offerings. For one cannot retract [pledges of] consecration even when one does so immediately.6

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 16

‫האומר ולדה של זו עולה והיא‬ ‫שלמים דבריו קיימים היא שלמים‬ ‫וולדה עולה אם לכך נתכוון דבריו קיימים‬ ‫ואם אחר שגמר בלבו והוציא בשפתיו‬ ‫שתהיה שלמים חזר בו ואמר וולדה עולה‬ ‫אע"פ שחזר בו בתוך כדי דבור הרי ולדה‬ ‫שלמים שאין חזרה בהקדש ואפילו בתוך‬ :‫כדי דבור‬

2

When one says: "The right forefoot of this animal is a burnt-offering," or "The leg of this animal is a burnt offering," it should be sold to those obligated to bring burnt-offerings.7 The proceeds of the sale are considered as ordinary funds with the exception of the worth of that limb.8 [The above applies] provided the person obligated to bring a burnt-offering who purchased [the animal] vowed [to bring] a burnt-offering for a specific price.9

‫האומר ידה של זו עולה או רגלה של‬ ‫זו עולה תמכר לחייבי עולות ודמיה‬ ‫חולין חוץ מדמי אותו אבר והוא שיהיה זה‬ ‫המחוייב עולה שקנה אותה נדר עולה‬ ‫בדמים קצובים האומר לבה או ראשה של‬ ‫זו עולה הואיל ודבר שהנשמה תלויה בו‬ ‫הוא כולה עולה הקדיש אבר אחד מן העוף‬ ‫הרי זה ספק אם נתקדש כולו או לא‬ :‫נתקדש‬

If one says: "The heart [of this animal]..." or "The head of this [animal] is a burnt-offering," the entire animal is a burnt-offering, for he consecrated an organ upon which [the animal's] life depends. If one consecrated a limb from a fowl, there is an unresolved doubt whether or not the entire fowl becomes consecrated.10 When one says: "Half of this animal is a burntoffering and half is a peace-offering," it is consecrated, but it should not be offered.11 Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying physical blemish and then be sold. Half of the proceeds should be used to bring a burnt offering and half, a peace-offering.12 If he was obligated to bring a sin-offering13 and he said: "Half of this animal is a sin-offering and half is a burntoffering," or "...a peace-offering," or he said: "Half of this animal is a burnt-offering..." or "...a peace-offering and half is a sin-offering," [the animal] should be left to die, as will be explained with regard to the sin-offerings that are left to die.14

‫האומר בהמה זו חצייה עולה וחצייה‬ ‫שלמים קדשה ואינה קריבה אלא‬ ‫תרעה עד שיפול בה מום ותמכר ויביא‬ ‫בחצי דמיה עולה ובחצי דמיה שלמים היה‬ ‫מחוייב חטאת ואמר חצייה חטאת וחצייה‬ ‫עולה או שלמים או שאמר חצייה עולה או‬ ‫שלמים וחצייה חטאת הרי היא תמות כמו‬ :‫שיתבאר בחטאות המתות‬

3

When one of the partners who owned half an animal consecrated his portion and then purchased the other half and consecrated it, it is consecrated and offered on the altar. Even though originally, when he consecrated half of it, it was unacceptable,15 the fact that it was originally unacceptable does not cause it to be unacceptable forever.16 Even though originally only its worth was consecrated,17 since it is a live animal, [we follow the principle:]18 "Living animals are never permanently disqualified." Since it is [ultimately] fit to be sacrificed, it should be sacrificed. [Moreover,] if one sought to transfer its holiness to another animal,19 the transfer is binding.

‫בהמת השותפין שהקדיש אחד מהן‬ ‫חצייה שלו וחזר ולקח חצייה האחר‬ ‫והקדישו הרי זה קדשה וקריבה אף על פי‬ ‫שמתחילתה דחויה היתה כשהקדיש חציה‬ ‫אין הדחוי מעיקרו דחוי ואע"פ שהוא‬ ‫קדושת דמים הואיל והיא בעלי חיים אין‬ ‫בעלי חיים נדחים והרי נראית כולה‬ :‫להקרבה לפיכך תקרב ועושה תמורה‬

[Whether] one says: "The worth of this animal is a burnt-offering,"20 or "This animal is a burntoffering," if it is fit to be sacrificed as a burntoffering,21its body itself is consecrated and it should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering.22 If it is not fit [to be sacrificed], it should be sold23 and a burnt-offering brought with the proceeds of the sale.

‫האומר דמי בהמה זו עולה או הרי זו‬ ‫לעולה אם היתה ראויה ליקרב עולה‬ ‫נתקדשה קדושת הגוף והיא עצמה תקרב‬ ‫עולה ואם אינה ראויה תמכר ויביא בדמיה‬ :‫עולה‬

If a person said with regard to an impure animal24 or another similar animal that is forbidden [to be offered] as a sacrifice that can never be consecrated: "Behold this is consecrated as a burnt-offering,"25 his words are of no consequence.26 As we explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach,27if he says: "These are [consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering," they should be sold and a burnt-offering brought with the proceeds of the sale.28

‫אמר על בהמה טמאה וכיוצא בה‬ ‫מאסורי קרבן שאין קדושה חלה עליהן‬ ‫הרי אלו עולה לא אמר כלום כמו‬ ‫שביארנו בהלכות איסורי מזבח אמר הרי‬ :‫אלו לעולה ימכרו ויביא בדמיהן עולה‬

4

If a person said:29 "The worth of this cow30 is [consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering for an entire 30 day period. After 30 days, [it is consecrated for the sake of a peace-offering," or he said: "The worth of this cow is [consecrated] for the sake of a peaceoffering31 for an entire 30 day period. After 30 days, [it is consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering," his words are binding.32 [Thus] if he [comes to] offer [a sacrifice from] the proceeds of its sale within 30 days, he should bring the type of sacrifice that he vowed. If he offers it after 30 days, he should bring the type of sacrifice that he vowed.

‫האומר דמי פרה זו לעולה כל שלשים‬ ‫יום ולאחר שלשים יום לשלמים או‬ ‫שאמר דמיה לשלמים כל שלשים יום‬ ‫ולאחר שלשים יום לעולה דבריו קיימים‬ ‫ואם הקריב דמיה בתוך שלשים יום מביא‬ ‫בהן כמו שנדר ואם הקריבו לאחר שלשים‬ :‫יום מביא כמו שנדר‬

If a person possessed a pregnant animal33 and said: "Should it give birth to a male, it is a burntoffering. Should it give birth to a female, it is a peaceoffering," if the animal gives birth to a male, it should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. If it gives birth to a female, it should be sacrificed as a peace-offering. If it gives birth to a male and a female, the male should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering and the female, as a peace-offering.

‫היתה לו בהמה מעוברת ואמר אם‬ ‫תלד זכר הרי הוא עולה ואם היא‬ ‫נקבה זבחי שלמים ילדה זכר יקרב עולה‬ ‫ילדה נקבה תקרב זבחי שלמים ילדה זכר‬ ‫ונקבה הזכר יקרב עולה והנקבה זבחי‬ ‫שלמים ילדה שני זכרים אחד יקרב עולה‬ ‫והשני ימכר לצרכי עולה ודמיו חולין וכן‬ ‫אם ילדה שתי נקבות אחת תקרב שלמים‬ ‫ושניה תמכר לצרכי שלמים ודמיה חולין‬ ‫ילדה טומטום ואנדרוגינוס אינן קדשים‬ ‫והרי הן חולין כמו שביארנו והמקדיש‬ ‫עובר במעי בעלת מום וכיוצא בה הרי זה‬ :‫קדוש‬

If it gives birth to two males, one should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering34 and the other sold for the sake of a burnt-offering,35 but the proceeds of the sale are ordinary money.36If it gives birth to two females, one should be sacrificed as a peace-offering and the other sold for the sake of a peace-offering, but the proceeds of the sale are ordinary money. If it gave birth to a tumtum37 or an androgynus,38 they are not consecrated and they are like ordinary animals,39 as we explained.40 When a person consecrates a fetus, whose mother has a disqualifying blemish or the like,41 while it is in its mother's womb, it is consecrated.

« Previous

Next »

5

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 14

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 16

FOOTNOTES 1. This is speaking about an animal that is not consecrated. If an animal that is consecrated becomes pregnant, its status is automatically transferred to its offspring [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 5:1)]. 2. In which instance, the offspring should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering.

7. So that it will be sacrificed for that purpose and hence, the portion of the animal consecrated as a burnt-offering will have been offered as such. 8. For that limb was consecrated. 9. There is a difficulty because the person bringing the burnt-

3. In the discussion to follow, it is important to note that burnt-

offering will be bringing a sacrifice that does not belong to him entirely. The Jerusalem Talmud (Temurah 1:5) resolves

offerings are only male. Peace-offerings can be both male and female. Sin-offerings may also be female (Chapter 1,

this difficulty, explaining that we are speaking of an instance where the person vowed to spend a specific amount to bring

Halachot 8-11). Nevertheless, as stated in Hilchot Temurah

a burnt-offering. Since the animal is worth that amount, he has fulfilled his vow.

4:2, the offspring of a sin-offering is not sacrificed, but instead, set aside to die. Hence the Rambam speaks only of the offspring of peace-offerings.

10. This concept is debated without resolution by our Sages in Temurah 11b. The argument centers on the fact that the

4. The difference between the first clause and the second

concept that one can consecrate a limb from an animal as a

clause is that the first clause speaks about the offspring first. Consecrating the offspring certainly does not determine the

sacrifice was derived from the exegesis of a verse (Leviticus 27:9). Now that verse is referring to an animal sacrifice and

mother's status. In the second clause, by contrast, the person consecrated the mother first. Now consecrating the

hence, our Sages question whether the concept applies to all sacrifices or only those involving animals.

mother determines the status of the offspring, for the offspring is considered as "the thigh of its mother." Hence

11. Because there is no way that one animal can be offered for

ordinarily if an animal is consecrated as a peace-offering, its offspring also has that status and should be offered as such

12. For in this way, his vow will be kept to the fullest extent of his

a sacrifice (Hilchot Temurah 4:1). Nevertheless, in this instance, if the person originally had the intent of consecrating the offspring as a burnt-offering, the offspring is given that status, because it was never meant to be a peaceoffering. The person could only make one statement at a time and the fact that he chose to speak about the mother first does not affect the offspring's status. 5. The phrase translated as "immediately," toch kedai dibbur, has a very specific halachic meaning: "Within the time it takes to say Shalom Elecha, Rebbi" ("Greetings my master"; Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17). 6. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 5:3), the

two purposes. capacity. 13. Here he must be obligated, because as stated above, a sin-offering may not be brought on one's own initiative. 14. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1 regarding what is done with the animal. There the Rambam speaks about an animal separated as a sin-offering that was lost and discovered after its owner had brought another sin-offering in its stead. Since this animal was consecrated for a specific purpose and cannot be sacrificed for that purpose, it cannot be used for any other purpose and is hence caused to die. Similarly, in the instance at hand, since the animal cannot be sacrificed for the purpose for which it was consecrated, it is caused to die.

Rambam explains that generally if one seeks to retract his statements immediately, the retraction is effective. There are,

15. For half an animal cannot be sacrificed.

however, several instances marriage and divorce, the acceptance of a false divinity, blasphemy, the consecration

16. This is a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See

of sacrifices, and the transfer of holiness from one animal to another where retraction is not possible. Nevertheless, the Rambam's perspective is not accepted by all authorities. Siftei Cohen (Choshen Mishpat 255:5) takes issue with him and argues that one may retract the consecration of an animal. Other sages, however, support the Rambam's position.

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:24. 17. Since only its worth was consecrated (for originally, it could not be sacrificed), there is more reason to think that it would not become acceptable afterwards.

6

18. Zevachim 59a. This is also a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of

28. For we assume that he made his promise in a manner that it would be of consequence (Radbaz).

animals. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:23; Hilchot

29. The Rambam is referring to a difference of opinion among

Shegagot 3:8, et al.

our Sages, Nedarim 29a, whether or not the consecration of

19. Violating the prohibition of temurah.

the value (but not the physical substance) of an object for a

20. And thus from his statements, there is room to say that it

limited time expires if nothing is done within that time. As will be stated, his ruling is that it does expire.

could be sold and the proceeds used to purchase an offering rather than it having to be sacrificed itself. 21. It is male and unblemished. 22. For any animal that is consecrated and fit to be offered as a sacrifice should be offered (Radbaz). 23. The Kessef Mishneh elaborates, proving that here also, the Rambam's intent is that it should be left to pasture until it becomes blemished and then sold.

30. The Rambam is speaking of a situation where the cow's worth was consecrated, because all authorities agree that if the physical substance of the cow was consecrated, it would have to be redeemed for the first consecration to be nullified (ibid.). 31. This point is added, because it possesses an added dimension of severity beyond the first instance. For a cow

24. I.e., an animal from a non-kosher species.

may not be offered as a burnt-offering, but it may be offered as a peace-offering. Thus it is fit to be sacrificed for the sake

25. Or any other type of sacrifice.

of the offering.

26. The animal is not consecrated at all. Not only is it considered

32. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling and maintains

as ordinary property, the person who took the vow is under no obligation and need not sell the animal and purchase a

that the animal must be redeemed for the initial consecration to be nullified. The issue is debated by the subsequent

sacrifice with the proceeds. We have punctuated the Rambam's words in this manner so

commentaries.

that there is a direct correlation between the law stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:10 and the one stated here. Others maintain that the source refers to the first clause. In Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach (see below), the Rambam speaks of consecrating an animal "for the altar." If he states: "This animal is a sacrifice," no holiness is attached to it at all (see the gloss of the Ra'avad there). Similarly, in this instance, since he wished to designate the animals as a sacrifice, his words are of no consequence at all. 27. The commentaries explain that this reference is to Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:10 where the Rambam states: One who consecrates an animal which is a tumtum, androgynus, tereifah... to the altar is like one who

33. In his gloss to Hilchot Nedarim 12:10, the Lechem Mishneh states that this applies only when the animal is pregnant and thus the fetus exists. If, however, the animal is not pregnant, the person's words are not binding. 34. The Radbaz states that the animal of higher quality should be offered as the sacrifice. 35. For the person's initial vow encompassed both of them. 36. Since he is only obligated to bring one sacrifice, he is allowed to sell the second animal and use the proceeds for whatever purpose he desires. 37. An animal whose gender cannot be determined, because it is masked by a piece of flesh. 38. An animal that has both male and female organs.

consecrated stones or wood.... The holiness does not take effect with regard to its physical substance. It is considered

39. I.e., they are not consecrated at all and they may be used for ordinary purposes. Since the person specified that he was

as ordinary property in all contexts. It should be sold and the proceeds of the sale used to purchase any sacrifice

consecrating the offspring as a sacrifice and these animals are unfit for sacrifice, his words are of no consequence

one desires. It is not considered like a blemished animal, for a sacrifice may be brought from the species of a

whatsoever.

blemished animal.

40. Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:10 (cited above). See the second interpretation given in the notes to Halachah 6.

Similarly, in the case at hand, since a sacrifice cannot be brought from such animals, they should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase the appropriate sacrifice.

41. I.e., animals that are of a type able to be sacrificed, but disqualified for a particular reason. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, op. cit.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.

To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

1



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 16 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 15

When a person vows to bring a large animal, but instead brings a small one, he does not fulfill his obligation.1 [If he vows to bring] a small one and brings a large one, he fulfills his obligation.2

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 17

‫הנודר גדול והביא קטן לא יצא קטן‬ ‫והביא גדול יצא כיצד אמר הרי עלי‬ ‫עולה או שלמים כבש והביא איל או שנדר‬ :‫עגל והביא שור גדי והביא שעיר יצא‬

What is implied? He said: "I promise [to bring] a lamb3 as a burnt-offering" or "...as a peace-offering," and he brings a ram,4 or he vowed a calf5 and brought an ox,6 or a kid7 and brought a goat,8 he fulfills his obligation. 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 burntoffering12of 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

‫נדר עולה מן הכבשים או מן האילים‬ ‫והביא פלגס הרי זה ספק אם יצא ידי‬ ‫נדרו או לא יצא וכן הנודר עולת עוף מן‬ ‫התורים או מן בני היונה והביא תחילת‬ ‫הציהוב שבזה ושבזה הרי זה ספק נדר‬ ‫שחור והביא לבן לבן והביא שחור זכר‬ :‫והביא נקבה נקבה והביא זכר לא יצא‬

2

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 burntoffering 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 "burntoffering" 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.

‫הנודר סתם מביא מן הגדולים שבמין‬ ‫שנדר ואם אותו המקום רגילין לקרות‬ ‫בסתם לאחד מן המינין מביא כאנשי‬ ‫המקום כיצד נדר עולה מן הבקר יביא שור‬ ‫אמר הרי עלי עולה אם דרך אנשי המקום‬ ‫לקרות עולה סתם אפילו לעולת העוף‬ ‫מביא פרידה אחת תור או בן יונה ואם‬ ‫דרכן שאין קורין עולה סתם אלא לעולת‬ :‫בקר יביא שור וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

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

‫מי שנדר שור או איל או כבש או עגל‬ ‫וכיוצא בהם לא יביא כחוש ביותר‬ ‫שבאותו המין מפני שדמיו מועטין ואינו‬ ‫חייב להביא היפה השמן ביותר שאין שם‬ ‫למעלה ממנו אלא יביא הבינוני ואם הביא‬ :‫הכחוש יצא ידי נדרו‬

When a person says: "I promise to bring an ox worth a maneh,"23he should bring an ox worth a maneh in that place aside from its accompanying offerings.24 If he brought two [oxen] for a maneh, he did not fulfill his obligation.

‫האומר הרי עלי שור שוה מנה יביא‬ ‫שור ששוה מנה באותו מקום חוץ‬ :‫מנסכיו הביא שנים במנה לא יצא‬

3

[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.

‫האומר שור זה עולה ונפל בו מום אם‬ ‫רצה יביא בדמיו שנים ואפילו הביא‬ ‫בדמיו איל אחד יצא אמר שני שוורים אלו‬ ‫עולה ונפל בהם מום אם רצה יביא‬ ‫בדמיהם אחד איל זה עולה ונפל בו מום‬ ‫אם רצה יביא בדמיו כבש וכן אם נדר‬ :‫כבש ונפסל אם רצה יביא בדמיו איל‬

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.

‫אמר הרי עלי עולה והפריש שור ונגנב‬ ‫פוטר עצמו בשה אמר שור זה ודמיו‬ ‫עלי עולה הוקבע ואם נפסל לא יביא בדמיו‬ :‫אלא שור‬

If he says: "One of my sheep is consecrated and one of my oxen is consecrated," but he had two, the larger one is consecrated.30 If he has three, the larger one is consecrated, but concern should also be shown for the middle one.31

‫האומר אחד מכבשי הקדש ואחד‬ ‫משוורי הקדש והיו לו שנים הגדול‬ ‫שבהן הקדש היו שלשה הגדול שבהן‬ ‫הקדש וחוששין לבינוני כיצד יעשה ימתין‬ ‫לבינוני עד שיפול בו מום ותחול הקדושה‬ ‫על הגדול לבדו ואם אמר שור שבשוורי‬ ‫הקדש הגדול שבהם הקדש ואין חוששין‬ :‫לבינוני‬

What should be done? He should wait until the middle one becomes blemished so that the holiness will fall on the larger one alone.32 If he says: "An ox from my oxen is consecrated," the larger one is consecrated and concern need not be shown for the middle one.33

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,"34 he 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,37 he 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

‫פירש אחד מהן ושכח או שאמר לו‬ ‫אביו אחד מהן הקדש הרי זה‬ ‫מקדיש גדול שבהן ואחר כך יצא ידי‬ ‫חובתו וכן הנודר עולה מן הבקר וקבע‬ ‫נדרו ושכח מה קבע אם שור אם עגל הרי‬ ‫זה יביא שור וכן אם קבע בכבשים ושכח‬ ‫מה קבע יביא איל קבע בעזים ושכח יביא‬ ‫שעיר שכח באיזה מין מן הבהמה קבע‬ ‫עולתו יביא שור ואיל ושעיר ואם נסתפק‬ ‫לו שמא קבע עולתו בעוף יוסיף תור ובן‬ :‫יונה‬

When a person vowed to bring a thanksgivingoffering 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.

‫נדר תודה או שלמים וקבע נדרו בבקר‬ ‫ושכח במי קבעו יביא פר ופרה וכן אם‬ ‫נסתפק לו בכבשים יביא איל ורחל נסתפק‬ ‫לו בעזים יביא שעיר ושעירה שכח באי זה‬ ‫מין קבע נדרו מביא פר ופרה איל ורחל‬ ‫שעיר ושעירה האומר הרי עלי עולת עוף‬ ‫מביא תור או בן יונה פירש ושכח באי זה‬ :‫מין קבע נדרו מביא תור ובן יונה‬

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.

4

When one says: "I promise to bring [an offering] for the altar," he should bring a handful of frankincense,44 for there is nothing that is offered entirely on the altar in its immediate state except for frankincense.45 If he specified his vow, but forgot what he specified to bring, he should bring every type of entity that is offered on the altar in its entirety.46 Therefore he should bring a burnt-offering of an animal, a burnt-offering of fowl, a meal-offering of flour, frankincense, and wine alone.47

5

‫האומר הרי עלי למזבח יביא קומץ‬ ‫לבונה שאין לך דבר שקרב כולו‬ ‫למזבח כמות שהוא אלא לבונה פירש‬ ‫נדרו ושכח מה פירש יביא מכל דבר‬ ‫שקרב כולו למזבח לפיכך מביא עולת‬ ‫בהמה ועולת העוף ומנחת נסכים ולבונה‬ :‫ויין בפני עצמו‬

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

‫אמר הרי עלי בסלע למזבח יביא‬ ‫כבש שאין לך דבר שקרב בסלע‬ ‫למזבח אלא כבש פירש ושכח מה שפירש‬ :‫יביא בסלע מכל דבר ודבר שקרב למזבח‬

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 log a cubit long. If he desires to bring the worth of the logs, he may.54

‫האומר הרי עלי לבונה לא יפחות‬ ‫מקומץ הרי עלי עצים לא יפחות‬ ‫משני גזרים עביין כמחוקות וארכן אמה‬ ‫הרי עלי עץ מביא גזר אחד ארכו אמה‬ :‫ואם רצה להביא דמי העצים יביא‬

What should a person who vowed or pledged to bring oil do? He should take a handful of it,55 put salt on it,56 and toss it on the fire. The remainder is eaten by the priests like the remainder of the meal offerings.57 What is done with wine that is brought independently? It is salted58 and then poured entirely59 down the shittin60 like the other libations.61 Frankincense which is brought independently should be salted and then offered on the pyre in its entirety.

6

‫מי שנדר או התנדב שמן כיצד‬ ‫עושין בו קומץ ממנו קומץ ונותן‬ ‫עליו מלח וזורקו על גבי האשים והשאר‬ ‫נאכל לכהנים כשירי מנחות וכיצד עושין‬ ‫ביין הבא בפני עצמו נותן עליו מלח ומנסכו‬ ‫כולו על גבי השיתין ככל הנסכים והלבונה‬ ‫הבאה בפני עצמה נותן עליה מלח וכולה‬ :‫לאשים‬

When a person vowed [to bring a sacrifice], he should not bring it from money [for which] the second tithe [was redeemed].62 [The rationale is that] he became obligated63 to bring this sacrifice and anyone who is obligated to bring a sacrifice may bring it only from ordinary property.64

‫מי שנדר נדר לא יביאנו ממעות‬ ‫מעשר שני שהרי נתחייב בקרבן‬ ‫זה וכל המחוייב בקרבן לא יביא קרבנו‬ :‫אלא מן החולין‬

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

‫אמר הרי עלי תודה מן החולין‬ ‫ולחמה מן המעשר לא יביא לחמה‬ ‫אלא מן החולין שהרי נדר בקרבן תודה‬ ‫והתודה אינה באה אלא עם הלחם מן‬ :‫החולין‬

7

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.

‫פירש ואמר הרי עלי להביא תודה‬ ‫ממעות מעשר שני ולחמה מן החולין‬ ‫יש לו להביא כמו שנדר ואם הביא הכל מן‬ ‫החולין יצא וכן אם פירש ואמר הרי עלי‬ ‫תודה היא ולחמה מן המעשר יביא ולא‬ ‫יביא לחמה מחיטי מעשר שני אלא‬ ‫ממעות מעשר שני כמו הבהמה שהיא‬ ‫ממעות מעשר שני ואף על פי שפירש‬ ‫שיביא לחמה מן המעשר לא יביא נסכיה‬ ‫ממעות מעשר שני שאין הנסכים באין‬ ‫לעולם אלא מן החולין כמו שביארנו לפי‬ ‫שנאמר בהן והקריב המקריב קרבנו עד‬ :‫שיהיו משלו ולא יהיה בהן צד לגבוה כלל‬

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.

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 15

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 17

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

20. Although ibid.:11 states: "One who desires to gain merit for

fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless, since its status is unresolved, we are not definitely certain that he did not fulfill

generosity should bring his sacrifice from the most desirable and superior type of the item he is bringing," this is a

his obligation. The Kessef Mishneh questions why is he not considered to

desirable ethical standard, but not a halachic imperative.

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 a pilgas 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.

himself, subjugate his evil inclination, and amplify his

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 burntoffering 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

13. Turtle doves may only be brought as sacrifices when they

purpose. In the previous halachah, it was not acceptable for him to

are small and under-developed. Ordinary doves, by contrast, may be brought as sacrifices only when they have developed

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

and reached a mature state (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2).

does so, he does not fulfill his obligation. In this halachah, once the consecrated animal is disqualified, there are no

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

qualifications regarding which animals may be brought as burnt-offerings. See Menachot 108a. 26. I.e., the sacrifice he brings need not even be of the same species as the animal he originally designated for sacrifice.

reached this state of development, a person who brings one such dove would certainly not fulfill his obligation. In this

27. The new point this clause is teaching is that even if two

instance, however, since he brought one for each species, one might think that it is considered as if he fulfilled his vow.

animals were originally consecrated, one may be brought with the proceeds of their sale.

For if this is considered as a stage of development, he will have fulfilled the vow for he brought an acceptable ordinary

28. For when taking the vow, he did not specify what animal he

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.

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.

19. As Malachi 1:14 asks rhetorically: "You bring the stolen and

32. The Kessef Mishneh interprets the Rambam's words as

the lame and the sick and offer it as a sacrifice. Shall I accept it from you." See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:1.

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.

8

33. For by saying "An ox," we assume he meant the choicest one (Menachot, loc. cit.). The commentaries note that the

45. Since he said: "For the altar," we assume he meant something that is only for the altar. As mentioned below,

Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Meilah 7:7 appears to run

there are other entities which are also offered on the altar, but unlike frankincense, they are not offered on the altar in

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 burntofferings 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 burntoffering, 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

their entirety. (The hide of an animal offered as a burntoffering 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, but 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).

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

55. Kin'at Eliyahu questions how one takes a handful of oil.

designated.

56. As required of all the sacrifices (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach

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.

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."

9

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

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).

produce from the second tithe to the holy city, he should redeem it for money. That money must be used to purchase

66. As stated below, if he specifies, he is allowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering using the money from the second

food which must be eaten in Jerusalem according to the strictures that apply to the second tithe.

tithes, for he will partake of the meat of that sacrifice in Jerusalem. What is unique here is the fact that the sacrifice

63. Because of his vow. 64. And the second tithe is considered as holy, "consecrated unto God."

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

This is a general principle. The rationale is that since the person is obligated to bring the offering, it must be brought

Menachot 81b), the Rambam writes that it is indeed more

from resources that belong to him entirely (see the conclusion of Halachah 17).

68. In this instance as well, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that it is desirable for him to bring

desirable for him to bring the sacrifice from ordinary funds.

everything from ordinary property. 69. Chapter 3, Halachah 13. 70. This refers not only to the wine libations, but to all vows for sacrifices.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

10

policy .

11

1



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 17 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 16

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 18

When a person vows to bring a meal-offering baked in an oven, he should not bring one baked in a kopach,1 one baked on rafters,2or one baked in Arab pits.3

‫הנודר מנחה מאפה תנור לא יביא‬ ‫מאפה כופח ולא מאפה רעפים ולא‬ :‫מאפה יורות הערביים‬

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

‫האומר הרי עלי במחבת והביא‬ ‫במרחשת במרחשת והביא במחבת‬ ‫מה שהביא הביא וידי חובתו לא יצא ואם‬ ‫אמר זו להביא במרחשת והביאה במחבת‬ ‫או במחבת והביאה במרחשת הרי זו‬ ‫פסולה וכן כל כיוצא בזה וכן האומר הרי‬ ‫עלי שני עשרונות להביאן בכלי אחד‬ ‫והביאן בשני כלים בשני כלים והביאן בכלי‬ ‫אחד מה שהביא הביא וידי חובתו לא יצא‬ :'‫שנאמר כאשר נדרת לה‬

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.7 Similar 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

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." When he said: "I promise to bring two esronim in one

‫אמר אלו להביא בכלי אחד והביא‬ ‫בשני כלים או להביא בשני כלים‬ ‫והביא בכלי אחד הרי אלו פסולין לא קבען‬ ‫בשעת הנדר אלא אמר הרי עלי שני‬ ‫עשרונות ובשעת הפרשה קבען והפרישן‬ ‫בשני כלים וחזר והביאן בכלי אחד הרי‬ ‫אלו כשרים שנאמר כאשר נדרת ולא‬ ‫כאשר הפרשת אמר הרי עלי שני‬ ‫עשרונות להביא בכלי אחד והביאן בשני‬ ‫כלים אמרו לו בכלי אחד נדרת הקריבם‬ ‫בשני כלים הרי אלו פסולין הקריבם בכלי‬ :‫אחד הרי אלו כשרים‬

vessel," but he brought them in two, if despite being told that he vowed to bring them in one vessel, he offered them in two, they are not acceptable.11 If he brought them in one vessel, they are acceptable.12 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

2

‫אמר הרי עלי שני עשרונות להביא‬ ‫בשני כלים והביא בכלי אחד אמרו לו‬ ‫בשני כלים נדרת הקריבן בשני כלים הרי‬ ‫אלו כשרים הקריבן בכלי אחד הרי אלו‬ :‫כשתי מנחות שנתערבו‬

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

‫האומר הרי עלי מנחה יביא אחת‬ ‫מחמשת מיני מנחות הבאות בנדר‬ ‫ונדבה אמר הרי עלי מנחות יביא שני‬ ‫)מיני( מנחות מחמשתן אמר הרי עלי מין‬ ‫מנחות יביא שני מנחות ממין אחד הרי‬ ‫עלי מיני מנחות יביא שתי מנחות משני‬ ‫מינים וכן אם אמר מיני מנחה יביא שני‬ ‫מינין קבע נדרו במין מהן ושכחו מביא‬ :‫חמשתן‬

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

‫אין היחיד מביא מנחה בכלי אחד יותר‬ ‫מששים עשרון ואם נדר יותר מששים‬ ‫מביא ששים בכלי אחד והשאר בכלי שני‬ ‫שאין יכולין להבלל כאחד אלא ששים‬ ‫אבל יתר על ששים אין נבללין אע"פ שאין‬ ‫הבלילה מעכבת כמו שביארנו אמרו‬ ‫חכמים כל הראוי לבילה אין הבילה‬ ‫מעכבת בו וכל שאינו ראוי לבילה הבילה‬ :‫מעכבת בו‬

[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

3

4

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 esronim in 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]. 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.

‫אמר הרי עלי מאה ועשרים ואחד‬ ‫עשרון מביא מאה ועשרים בשני כלים‬ ‫ששים בכל כלי ומביא עשרון אחד בכלי‬ ‫השלישי אמר הרי עלי עשרון יביא עשרון‬ ‫אחד הרי עלי עשרונות יביא שנים פירש‬ ‫נדרו ושכח כמה עשרון פירש יביא ששים‬ ‫עשרון בכלי אחד שכח כמה עשרון פירש‬ ‫ובאי זה מין קבעו הרי זה מביא ששים‬ :‫עשרון מכל מין ומין מחמשתן‬

‫קבע נדרו ושכח כמה עשרונות נדר‬ ‫ובכמה כלים נדר הרי זה מביא‬ ‫מאחד ועד ששים בששים כלים כיצד‬ ‫מביא עשרון אחד בכלי ראשון ושני‬ ‫עשרונים בכלי שני ושלשה עשרונים‬ ‫בשלישי עד שיהיו עד ששים עשרון בכלי‬ ‫האחרון ואם שכח אף באי זה מין קבע‬ ‫מביא על סדר זה ששים כלים מכל מין‬ ‫ונמצא מביא מכל מין אלף ושמנה מאות‬ :‫ושלשים עשרון‬

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 an isaron," 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. 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 thanksgivingoffering 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.

5

‫האומר הרי עלי מנחת שעורים או‬ ‫מנחת חצי עשרון או מנחת בלא‬ ‫שמן ולבונה הרי זה פטור שלא התנדב‬ ‫דבר שכמוהו מקריבין אמר הרי עלי מנחה‬ ‫מן השעורים או מן העדשים או מנחה בלא‬ ‫שמן ולבונה או מנחה חצי עשרון שואלין‬ ‫אותו אם אמר לא נדרתי אלא על דעת‬ ‫שמותר להקריב כזה ואילו ידעתי שאין‬ ‫מקריבין אלא עשרון שלם סלת בשמן‬ ‫ולבונה לא הייתי נודר הרי זה פטור ואם‬ ‫אמר אילו הייתי יודע הייתי נודר כדרך‬ ‫שמקריבין הרי זה חייב להקריב כדרך‬ :‫שמקריבין‬

‫נדר עשרון ומחצה ואמר אילו הייתי‬ ‫יודע הייתי נודר כדרך המתנדבין הרי‬ ‫זה מביא שנים אמר הרי עלי קמח או הרי‬ ‫עלי חצי עשרון ולא הזכיר שם מנחה הרי‬ ‫זה פטור כמי שלא נדר מעולם וכן האומר‬ ‫הרי עלי תודה בלא לחם וזבח בלא נסכים‬ ‫הרי זה פטור ואם אמר אילו הייתי יודע‬ ‫שאין מקריבין כך הייתי נודר כדרך‬ ‫הנודרין הרי זה חייב להקריב כדרך‬ :‫המקריבין‬

6

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.

‫האומר הרי עלי לחמי תודה יביא‬ ‫תודה ולחמה שהדבר ידוע שאין‬ ‫מקריבין לחם בלא תודה וסוף הקרבן‬ ‫הזכיר אמר הרי עלי לחם לפטור תודתו‬ ‫של פלוני יביא לחם תודה עם תודת‬ :‫חבירו‬

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

‫מתנדב או נודר אדם יין בפני עצמו‬ ‫ואין מתנדבין לוג יין ולא שני לוגין‬ ‫שאין בנסכים לא לוג ולא שנים ואין‬ ‫מתנדבין חמשה שאין חמשת לוגין ראויין‬ ‫לא לנסכי בהמה אחת ולא לנסכי שתי‬ ‫בהמות אבל מתנדבין שלשה וארבעה‬ ‫וששה ומששה ומעלה מפני שהן ראויין‬ :‫לנסכי בהמות‬

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. 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].

‫כיצד נדר שבעה הרי הן כנסכי כבש‬ ‫ואיל נדר שמונה הרי אלו כנסכי שני‬ ‫אילים תשעה כנסכי שור וכבש או כנסכי‬ ‫שלשה כבשים נדר עשרה הרי אלו כנסכי‬ ‫שור ואיל או שני כבשים ואיל וכן עד‬ :‫לעולם‬

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

‫נדר חמשה לוגין אומרין לו השלם‬ ‫ששה שהרי קבען לקרבן אבל אם‬ ‫נדר לוג או שנים פטור שהרי אינן ראויין‬ ‫כלל לא הן ולא מקצתן ואין מתנדבין ולא‬ ‫נודרין פחות מלוג שמן שאין לך מנחה‬ ‫פחותה מעשרון והיא צריכה לוג אחד‬ :‫שמן‬

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 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 140 lugim of oil and an equal amount of wine as will be explained in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim.58

‫האומר הרי עלי יין לא יפחות‬ ‫משלשה לוגין הרי עלי שמן לא‬ ‫יפחות מלוג פירש נדרו ושכח כמה לוג‬ ‫נדר מן היין או מן השמן יביא ארבעים‬ ‫ומאה לוג שאין לך יום שמקריבין בו‬ ‫הצבור קרבנות מרובות יותר מיום טוב‬ ‫הראשון של חג שחל להיות בשבת והיו‬ ‫הנסכים בו מאה וארבעים לוג שמן וכמותם‬ :‫יין כמו שיתבאר בהלכות תמידין ומוספין‬

« Previous

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 18

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 16 FOOTNOTES 1. A range with an opening for one pot [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:9)].

4. See Chapter 13, Halachah 6, with regard to the difference between the two.

2. I.e., one of the common ways to bake in the Talmudic period

5. Because he did not bring the sacrifice he vowed to bring.

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.

7

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.

8

11. Because he did not fulfill his vow. It is, however, necessary to ask him and have him respond as the Rambam states.

23. As indicated by the following halachah, it appears to be preferable that he bring sixty in one vessel and the

Otherwise, we assume that he is not bringing this offering in fulfillment of his vow, but rather as a separate sacrifice. In

remainder in the other, rather than dividing the sum evenly between the two.

that instance, although he would not have fulfilled his vow, the sacrifice would be acceptable.

24. Even though oil is always mixed with the flour at a ratio of

12. Since he offered them as he vowed, the fact that he

nevertheless, if there is a very large quantity of flour, it will be

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.

one log to every isaron (Chapter 12, Halachah 7), 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,

16. The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the word "types" is a

because there is nothing inherently lacking in the mixture. If, however, they could not be mixed together, there is an

printing error, because even if he brought two of the same type of meal-offering, he fulfilled his obligation. The Radbaz,

inherent difficulty with the mixture, therefore it is disqualified. Note the parallels to the declaration made with regard to the

however, initially explains that the Rambam's wording could be interpreted as being precise. Since the person said two

firsts fruits mentioned in Bava Batra 82a.

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

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 two esronim 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 in Menachot 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

be used in a plural sense. The Kessef Mishneh notes that

bring one meal offering of 60 esronim. The Radbaz

this matter is debated by Menachot 105a and a ruling is not

questions why the Rambam chooses to follow Rabbi

reached. Hence he questions how the Rambam can require him to bring a second offering: If it is not required, he will be

Yehudah HaNasi's view, for it is a minority opinion. Moreover, he notes that in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah,

bringing ordinary flour into the Temple Courtyard (which is forbidden). Hence he maintains that the person must make a

he explicitly states that the halachah does not follow this view. The Radbaz explains that since the Talmud (Menachot

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

106a) tries to justify other teachings according to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's view, we can assume that it is accepted

a freewill offering."

as halachah.

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.

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 omer offering. 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).

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

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

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.

that of an adjective and the emphasis is on the words that follow. If, however, he used the term minchah ("meal-

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

offering"), we assume that the fundamental intent of his vow was to bring a meal-offering. Since the specifics he

the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot

mentioned were unacceptable, we ask him to clarify his intent. The Ra'avad does not accept this distinction, but the

50. The libations for a sheep are three lugim and those for a ram

Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's position.

12:4)].

are four. We assume that the person that the person desired to bring them both. 51. Six lugim.

36. Which is also unacceptable. Although Menachot103a 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 Mishneh maintain that this law applies only when the person

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.

said: "a meal-offering (minchah) of an isaron and a half." 54. Based on the ruling in Halachah 9 with regard to a 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.

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.

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

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).

clarify his intent, since he mentioned the thanksgivingoffering when making his vow, we take for granted that this was what he meant to say.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further,

9

provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

10

policy .

1



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 18 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 17

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.

English

Hebrew

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 19

‫כל הקרבנות כולן בין קרבנות בהמה‬ ‫ועוף בין קרבנות מנחות מצות עשה‬ ‫להקריבן בבית הבחירה שנאמר ושם‬ ‫תעשה כל אשר אנכי מצוך וכן מצות עשה‬ ‫להיות כל אדם מטפל ומביא קרבנות‬ ‫בהמה שנתחייב להקריבן מחוצה לארץ‬ ‫לבית הבחירה שנאמר קדשיך אשר יהיו‬ ‫לך ונדריך תשא וגו' מפי השמועה למדו‬ ‫שאינו מדבר אלא בקדשי חוצה לארץ‬ ‫שהוא מטפל בהם עד שיביאם לבית‬ :‫הבחירה‬

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.

‫המקריב קרבן חוץ לעזרה ביטל‬ ‫מצות עשה ועבר על לא תעשה‬ ‫שנאמר השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך בכ"מ‬ ‫אשר תראה ואם הקריב במזיד חייב כרת‬ ‫שנאמר אשר יעלה עולה או זבח ואל פתח‬ ‫אהל מועד לא הביאו ונכרת מעמיו בשוגג‬ :‫מביא חטאת קבועה‬

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.

‫וכן השוחט קדשים חוץ לעזרה אע"פ‬ ‫שלא העלם אם היה מזיד חייב כרת‬ ‫שנאמר אשר ישחט שור או כשב או עז‬ ‫וגו' דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך ונכרת‬ :‫ואם שחט בשוגג מביא חטאת קבועה‬

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 burntofferings...," 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.

‫והיכן הזהיר על השחיטה בחוץ‬ ‫בהקש נאמר שם תעלה עולותיך‬ ‫ונאמר ושם תעשה כל אשר אנכי מצוך‬ ‫מה העלייה בחוץ שענש עליה הזהיר עליה‬ ‫בפירוש שנאמר השמר לך פן תעלה‬ ‫עולותיך אף עשייה שבכלל השחיטה‬ ‫שענש עליה בפירוש הרי הוא מוזהר עליה‬ :‫שלא ענש הכתוב אא"כ הזהיר‬

3

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

‫השוחט קדשים והעלם בחוץ חייב‬ ‫שתים אחת על השחיטה ואחת על‬ ‫העלייה שחט בפנים והעלה בחוץ חייב על‬ ‫העלייה וכן אם שחט בחוץ והעלה בפנים‬ :‫חייב על השחיטה‬

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. 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 that Leviticus 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].

‫אינו חייב אלא על שחיטת קדשים‬ ‫הראויין ליקרב לגבי מזבח אבל‬ ‫השוחט בחוץ אחד מאיסורי מזבח או‬ ‫מחטאות המתות הרי זה פטור שנאמר‬ ‫לפני משכן ה' וכל שאינו ראוי לבוא אל‬ :‫משכן ה' אין חייבין עליו‬

If one slaughters an animal that is unacceptable because of a time factor involving its body15 or the status of its owners16 outside the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt.17 [The rationale is that] in its present state, it is not fit to be brought into the Temple Courtyard.18

‫שחט בחוץ מחוסר זמן בגופו או‬ ‫בבעלים הואיל ואינו ראוי עתה לבוא‬ :‫בפנים פטור‬

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

‫אי זהו מחוסר זמן בגופו בהמה בתוך‬ ‫שבעת ימי הלידה ותורין שלא הגיע‬ ‫זמנן ואותו ואת בנו שנשחט אחד מהם‬ :‫היום שאין השני ראוי עד למחר‬

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 birth24 slaughtered [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 burntoffering 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.

4

‫ואי זהו מחוסר זמן בבעלים קרבן‬ ‫שעדיין לא הגיע זמן בעליו להקריבו‬ ‫כיצד הזב והזבה והיולדת ששחטו חטאתם‬ ‫בחוץ ]בתוך[ ימי ספירה פטורין וכן‬ ‫מצורע ששחט חטאתו ואשמו בחוץ בתוך‬ ‫ימי הספירה פטור שעדיין לא נראו בעלי‬ ‫הקרבנות האלו לכפרה אבל אם שחטו‬ ‫עולותיהן בחוץ בתוך ימי הספירה חייבין‬ ‫שהעולה דורון היא והחטאת והאשם היא‬ ‫עיקר הכפרה וכן נזיר ששחט חטאתו‬ ‫בחוץ בתוך ימי נזירותו פטור הקריב עולתו‬ ‫או שלמיו בחוץ חייב שהחטאת היא‬ :‫המעכבתו והיא עיקר הנזירות‬

5

When a person offers a conditional guiltoffering31 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

‫אשם תלוי וחטאת העוף הבאה על‬ ‫הספק שהקריבן בחוץ פטור שהרי לא‬ ‫נקבע האיסור אשם מצורע ששחטו בחוץ‬ ‫שלא לשמו חייב הואיל ושלא לשמו ראוי‬ ‫בפנים וכשר כמו שיתבאר וכל קרבן שהוא‬ ‫פטור על שחיטתו בחוץ כך הוא פטור על‬ :‫העלאתו‬

Whenever one is exempt for slaughtering a sacrificial [animal] outside the [Temple Courtyard], one is also exempt for offering it there. [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].

‫שני שעירי יום הכפורים ששחטם‬ ‫בחוץ אם עד שלא התודה עליהם‬ ‫חייב כרת על שניהן הואיל וראויין לבוא‬ ‫לפני השם לוידוי ואם אחר שהתודה פטור‬ ‫על המשתלח שהרי אינו ראוי לבוא לפני‬ :‫השם‬

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

‫השוחט שלמים בחוץ קודם‬ ‫שיפתחו דלתות ההיכל פטור שהרי‬ ‫הן מחוסרים מעשה ואחר כך יהיו ראויין‬ ‫ליקרב לפני השם כמו שביארנו והשוחט‬ ‫את הפסח בחוץ אפילו בשאר ימות השנה‬ ‫בין לשמו בין שלא לשמו חייב שהפסח‬ :‫בשאר ימות השנה שלמים הוא‬

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 When the fetus [being carried by] an ordinary animal was consecrated [as a sacrifice for] the altar, it is forbidden to slaughter [the mother] outside [the Temple Courtyard].41 If he slaughtered it, he is not liable for lashes, because it42 is not fit to come before God [as a sacrifice].

‫בהמת חולין שעוברה קדשי מזבח‬ ‫אסור לשוחטה בחוץ ואם שחטה‬ ‫אינו לוקה מפני שאינה ראויה לבוא לפני‬ :‫השם‬

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.

‫גנב והקדיש ואח"כ שחט בחוץ‬ ‫חייב ומאימתי העמידוה ברשותו‬ ‫כדי לחייבו עליה כרת משעה שהקדישה‬ ‫והוא ששחטה אחר יאוש אבל לפני יאוש‬ :‫אינה קדושה‬

[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

6

7

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 by ibid.: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

‫היתה הבהמה כולה בחוץ וצוארה‬ ‫בפנים ושחט חייב שנאמר אשר‬ ‫ישחט שור או כבש או עז במחנה או אשר‬ ‫ישחט מחוץ למחנה אחד השוחט במקדש‬ ‫וצוארה בפנים ושאר גוף הבהמה בחוץ או‬ ‫שהיה גופה בפנים וצוארה בחוץ חייב עד‬ ‫שתהיה הבהמה כולה במקדש שנאמר‬ ‫ואל פתח אהל מועד לא יביאנו אבל‬ ‫השוחט בגגו של היכל אף על פי שאינו‬ :‫ראוי לזביחה כלל הרי זה פטור‬

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

‫שנים שאחזו בסכין ושחטו בחוץ‬ ‫פטורין שנאמר אשר ישחט או‬ ‫אשר ישחט אחד ולא שנים ואחד ששחט‬ ‫בחוץ אע"פ שלא נתכוון לשחוט קדשים‬ ‫אלו לה' הרי זה חייב שנאמר דם יחשב‬ ‫לאיש ההוא דם שפך אע"פ שזה הדם‬ ‫במחשבתו כדם הנשפך לא כקרבן הרי זה‬ :‫חייב‬

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.53 This 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.

8

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 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

‫השוחט בחוץ בלילה חייב הואיל‬ ‫והשחיטה בלילה כשירה בחוץ וכן‬ ‫אם העלה בלילה מזה ששחט בחוץ בלילה‬ ‫חייב על העלאה אבל אם שחט בפנים‬ ‫בלילה והעלה בחוץ פטור לפי שלא העלה‬ ‫אלא דבר פסול שאין לך שחיטה כשירה‬ ‫בלילה במקדש וכן אם קבל בכלי חול‬ :‫בפנים וזרק בחוץ פטור‬

‫וכן המולק את העוף בחוץ פטור‬ ‫ואם העלהו פטור מלק בפנים‬ ‫והעלה בחוץ חייב על העלאה שחט בפנים‬ ‫והעלהו בחוץ פטור שלא העלה אלא דבר‬ ‫שאינו ראוי ליקרב שחט את העוף בחוץ‬ ‫והעלהו בחוץ חייב שתים שהשחיטה בחוץ‬ :‫כשירה והרי היא כמליקה בפנים‬

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.

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 17 FOOTNOTES

Next » Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 19

1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 84) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 440) include this commandment as one

18. The prohibition involves slaughtering sacrificial animals and since these animals are not fit to be sacrificed or their

2. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this excludes sacrifices

owners are not fit to sacrifice them, they are not considered sacrificial animals in the full sense.

from fowl, but this understanding is not accepted by all

19. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:8 which states that it is a

of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.

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

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).

of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. The Ramban differs and

21. See Hilchot Shechitah 12:1-2 which states that it is

maintains that this should not be considered as an independent mitzvah.

forbidden to sacrifice an animal and its offspring on the same

5. The one stated in the previous halachah.

day. No matter which is slaughtered first, one must wait until the following day to sacrifice the other.

6. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 90) and Sefer

22. A person with a physical affliction somewhat similar to

HaChinuch (mitzvah 186) include this prohibition as one of

gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure and obligates him to bring a set of sacrifices (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah

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

1:1, 3-4; 2:1). 23. A woman who bleeds for three consecutive days after the

sacrifices on bemot (literally, "high-places"), i.e., individual

seven days associated with her menstrual period. This renders her ritually impure and obligates her to bring a set of

altars. See the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:3 which

sacrifices (see ibid. 1:1, 3-4,6)

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

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 zav and 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

HaChinuch (mitzvah 439) include this prohibition as one of

emerging from ritual impurity (see Hilchot

the Torah's 613 mitzvot.

Kapparah 1:1, 3-4).

Mechusrei

10. This applies even if he performed both transgressions without realizing the prohibitions involved in the interim, for

27. Such a person must also wait seven days after his condition ceases before bringing his sacrifices.

they are two separate transgressions that are not dependent on each other (Radbaz).

28. The sacrifices of all of these individuals include a burntoffering and a sin-offering and the sacrifice of a person

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.

emerging from tzara'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.

16. See Halachah 9. 17. It is, however, forbidden to do so.

9

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

39. The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this applies only

instance, the sacrifice is not offered. If the sacrificial animal has not been slaughtered, it is left to pasture until it contracts

explained below, during the remainder of the year, an animal designated as a Paschal sacrifice is considered as a peace-

a blemish. If it was slaughtered, its blood is poured down the drainage channel. Since there is a possibility of this taking

offering and a peace-offering is not disqualified if it is not offered for the desired intent. On the day preceding Pesach,

place, the animal is not deemed a sacrificial animal in the full sense and one is not liable for slaughtering it or offering it.

when the Paschal sacrifice is offered, it is unacceptable if it is not offered for the desired intent. Hence on that date, were

The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's ruling with regard to a sin-offering of fowl brought because of a doubt since only its

someone to slaughter an animal designated for this purpose for the sake of another sacrifice outside the Temple

blood is offered on the altar, but not its body. Hence, there is room to free one from the obligations involved with a

Courtyard, he would not be liable.

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 the Kessef 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 HaMukdashim 15:1, with the

during the remainder of the year. The rationale is that as

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.

exception of a sin-offering or a Paschal sacrifice, whenever a sacrificial animal was slaughtered for the sake of an offering

42. Neither the mother nor the fetus.

other the one for which it was intended, it is acceptable, but it does not fulfill the obligation of the owner (see also

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

ibid.:20). Since the sacrifice would be acceptable if it was

own so that he would be liable for karet. See Gittin 55b. The

offered in the Temple, the person is liable for slaughtering it

Kessef Mishneh raises questions on the Rambam's ruling

outside.

based on that passage, but Rav Yosef Corcus resolves the

35. The goat sent to Azazel and its pair whose blood is taken into the Holy of Holies. See Hilchot 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 Zevachim 113a. 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.

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 Mizbeiach 5:7 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 Zevachim 107b 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.

10

51. The commentaries note that although the Rambam's ruling has a source in Zevachim 108a 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.

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 not melikah (Zevachim 107a). 64. This is equivalent to slaughtering an animal inside the

55. Literally, "poured out."

Temple Courtyard and offering it outside.

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

65. Thus disqualifying it, for in the Temple Courtyard, a fowl should be killed through melikah not ritual slaughter. 66. Both for slaughtering and for offering.

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.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

11

policy .

12

1



Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 19 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 18

English

Hebrew

Next » Temidin uMusafim

A person who offers a sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard] is not liable unless he brings [the sacrificial animal] to the top of the altar that he constructed outside [the Temple]. If, however, he offered it on a stone or a rock, he is exempt, for the term sacrifice applies only when [an animal is offered] on an altar, even if it is outside [the Temple], as [indicated by Genesis 8:2]: "And Noah built an altar." He is not liable unless he offers the sacrifice to God, as [Leviticus 17:9]: "...to offer it to God," i.e., unless his intent is for God.1

‫אין המעלה בחוץ חייב עד שיעלה‬ ‫לראש המזבח שיעשה בחוץ אבל‬ ‫אם העלה על הסלע או על האבן פטור‬ ‫שאין קרוי קרבן אלא על המזבח ואף על‬ ‫פי שהוא בחוץ שנאמר ויבן נח מזבח ואינו‬ ‫חייב עד שיעלה לשם שנאמר לעשות‬ :‫אותו לה' עד שיתכוין לשם‬

One is liable only for offering an entity that is fit for the fire2 and for the altar,3 for example, a burnt offering, as [ibid.:8] states: "who will offer a burntoffering or a sacrifice." [One may infer:] Just as a burntoffering is fit to be offered on the fires, so too, everything that is fit to be offered on the fire is what one is liable for offering outside [the Temple Courtyard].

‫אינו חייב אלא על העלאת דבר‬ ‫הראוי לאשים ולמזבח כגון העולה‬ ‫שנאמר אשר יעלה עולה או זבח מה עולה‬ ‫שראויה לאשים אף כל שראוי לאשים הוא‬ :‫שחייבין על העלאתו בחוץ‬

2

On this basis, [our Sages] said that individuals [who perform the following services] outside [the Temple Courtyard] are liable: One who throws the blood, offers on the pyre the limbs of a burnt-offering, the parts of an animal offered on the altar,4a handful [of meal], or frankincense,5 or incense,6 the meal-offering of a priest,7or the meal-offering within the accompanying offerings8 or one who pours a libation of three lugim9 of wine or of water.10 [This is derived from

‫מכאן אמרו הזורק את הדם או‬ ‫המקטיר איברי עולה או אמורין או‬ ‫קומץ או לבונה או קטורת או מנחת כהנים‬ ‫או מנחת נסכים או המנסך שלשה לוגין יין‬ ‫או מים בחוץ חייב שנאמר לא יביאנו‬ ‫לעשות אותו כל המתקבל בפנים חייבין‬ :‫עליו בחוץ‬

ibid.:9:] "He did not bring it [to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting] to offer it." [Implied is that] any [sacrifice] that would be accepted within [the Temple Courtyard] causes one to be liable for [offering] it outside. If, however, one throws the remainder of the blood [of a sacrificial animal] - even the remainder of the blood [from a sin-offering whose blood was offered] inside [the Sanctuary],11 he is exempt. [The rationale is that] throwing the blood on the altar is the remaining aspect of the mitzvah and is not an absolute necessity.12 Similarly, one who pours a libation of less than three lugim of wine or water outside [the Temple Courtyard] is exempt, whether during Sukkot13 or throughout the year. Since the required measure is lacking,14 they are not fit to be accepted within [the Temple]. Similarly, one who offers from the meat of a sin-offering, that of a guilt-offering, or that of a peace-offering whether of an individual or of the community or from the remainder of the meal-offerings, the two breads [offered on Shavuot], or the showbread outside [the Temple Courtyard] is exempt. [The rationale is that] all of these are fit to be eaten, not for the fires [of the altar].

‫אבל הזורק שירי הדם בחוץ אפילו‬ ‫שירי דמים הפנימים פטור שזריקת‬ ‫שירי הדם שירי מצוה הם ואינן מעכבין וכן‬ ‫המנסך יין או מים פחות משלשה לוגין‬ ‫בחוץ פטור בין בחג בין בשאר ימות השנה‬ ‫הואיל וחסר השיעור הרי אינן ראויין‬ ‫להתקבל בפנים וכן המעלה מבשר חטאת‬ ‫מבשר אשם מבשר שלמים בין של יחיד‬ ‫בין של צבור משירי מנחות משתי הלחם‬ ‫מלחם הפנים בחוץ פטור שכל אלו ראויין‬ :‫לאכילה לא לאשים‬

3

One who offers an entire animal outside [the Temple Courtyard] is liable, because of the portions offered on the altar. Even though they have not been separated, the meat of the sacrifice is not considered as an intervening substance15 and it is as if he offered those portions on the pyre alone. In contrast, if one offers a meal-offering from which a handful [of meal] has not been separated, he is exempt. [Even though he would have been liable for the handful], the handful is not a distinct and discrete entity. If he separated [the handful] and then it was mixed back into it and he then offered the entire [measure] outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable.

‫המעלה את הבהמה כולה בחוץ חייב‬ ‫מפני האימורין ואע"פ שלא הפרישן‬ ‫אין בשר הזבח חוצץ וכאילו הקטיר‬ ‫האימורים בפני עצמן אבל המעלה מנחה‬ ‫שלא נקמצה פטור שאין הקומץ ברור‬ ‫ומובדל קמצה וחזר קומצה לתוכה והקריב‬ :‫כולה בחוץ חייב‬

One who pours oil [over a meal-offering], mixes the meal and oil, breaks up the wafers, salts them, waves them, approaches an altar with them, arranges a table for showbread, cleans the lamps of a candelabra, separates a handful [of meal], or receives the blood [of a sacrificial animal] outside [the Temple Courtyard] is exempt. [The rationale is that] all of these are not activities that complete the offering [of the sacrifice] and [the prooftext] says: "Who will offer a burnt-offering or a sacrifice." [One may infer:] Just as offering [these sacrifices] is the final stage of the service [involved with them], so too, one is liable only for activities that are the final stage of sacrificial service.

‫היוצק והבולל והפותת והמולח והמניף‬ ‫והמגיש והמסדר את השלחן והמטיב‬ ‫את הנרות והקומץ והמקבל דמים בחוץ‬ ‫פטור לפי שכל אחד מאלו אינו גמר‬ ‫עבודה ונאמר אשר יעלה עולה או זבח מה‬ ‫העלאה שהיא גמר עבודה אף כל שהוא‬ :‫גמר עבודה חייבין עליו‬

4

When one burns a red heifer outside the place where it is required to be burnt16 or if one offers, outside [the Temple Courtyard], the goat that is sent [to Azazel]17 after the confession was recited over it,18 he is exempt. [The rationale is that the prooftext] says: "He did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting." [One may infer:] One is not liable for any sacrifice which is not fit to be brought to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.19 In contrast, one is liable for offering [outside the Temple Courtyard] sacrificial animals that were disqualified if they were disqualified in the Temple. What is implied? [Sacrificial meat or blood] that remained overnight [without being offered], they were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard], they became impure, or they were disqualified because of the intent of the person sacrificing them all are required to be burnt20 as will be explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukkdashim.21 If a person transgressed and offered [such entities] as sacrifices outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable. [This is derived from the prooftext]: "...to offer it to God." One is liable for any [entity] that is are fit to be offered to God and these are fit to be offered to God.22 Whenever there is a substance for which one is liable for offering it outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable for offering an olive-sized portion of it outside.23 [This applies] whether he offered [a portion of the entity] inside [the Temple Courtyard] first, left over an olive-sized portion and then offered it outside or left the entire entity inside and took an olive-sized portion and offered it outside. If, however, [the size of] the sacrificial entity was decreased in the slightest way24 inside the Temple Courtyard and then the remainder was offered outside, he is exempt.

‫פרה אדומה ששרפה חוץ ממקום‬ ‫שריפתה וכן שעיר המשתלח שהקריבו‬ ‫בחוץ אחר שהתודה עליו פטור שנאמר‬ ‫ואל פתח אהל מועד לא יביאנו כל שאינו‬ ‫ראוי לבא אל פתח אהל מועד אין חייבין‬ ‫עליו אבל קדשים פסולין שהיה פיסולן‬ ‫בקודש אם העלה מהן בחוץ חייב כיצד‬ ‫כגון הלן והיוצא והטמא ושנפסל במחשבת‬ ‫העובד שכולן נשרפין כמו שיתבאר‬ ‫בהלכות פסולי המוקדשין אם עבר והעלה‬ '‫מהם בחוץ חייב שנאמר לעשות אותו לה‬ ‫כל הנעשה לה' חייבין עליו ואלו נעשו‬ :‫לשם‬

‫כל דבר שחייבין על העלאתו בחוץ‬ ‫כיון שהעלה ממנו כזית בחוץ חייב‬ ‫בין שהעלה בפנים תחלה ושייר ממנו כזית‬ ‫והעלהו בחוץ בין שהניח הכל בפנים ולקח‬ ‫ממנו כזית והעלהו בחוץ אבל אם חסר‬ ‫אותו דבר הקרב כל שהוא בפנים והעלה‬ :‫שאריתו בחוץ פטור‬

5

What is implied? If a portion of the handful [of meal offered on the altar], the frankincense, the portions of a sacrifice offered on the altar, a burnt-offering, a meal offering that is burnt,25 and the wine libations was decreased within [the Temple Courtyard] and the remainder was offered outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt. [This is derived from the prooftext which states:] "to offer it." [Implied is that] he is liable for a complete entity, but he is not liable if it is lacking.26 If one remove [the sacrificial entity] from the Temple Courtyard while it was complete, its [size] was decreased outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then he offered it [there], there is an unresolved question [whether he is liable]. Therefore [a transgressor] is not given lashes.

‫כיצד הקומץ או הלבונה והאימורין‬ ‫והעולה ומנחה הנשרפת והנסכין‬ ‫שחסרו מקצתם בפנים והקריב שאריתן‬ ‫בחוץ פטור שהרי נאמר לעשות אותו על‬ ‫השלם הוא חייב ואינו חייב על החסר‬ ‫הוציאו שלם וחסר בחוץ והעלהו הרי זה‬ :‫ספק לפיכך אינו לוקה‬

If, [outside the Temple Courtyard,] one offered a limb that did not have an olive-sized portion of meat on it, but the bone itself caused it to reach the olive-sized measure, he is liable, because the meat is connected to the bone. If salt caused [the sacrificial entity] to reach the olive-sized measure, there is an unresolved question [whether he is liable].27 Therefore [a transgressor] is not given lashes. A burnt-offering and the portions of the innards of a burnt-offering28 that are offered on the altar can be combined to complete an olive-sized portion [to cause one to be liable].29

‫העלה אבר שאין בו כזית בשר והיה‬ ‫העצם משלימו לכזית חייב מפני שהוא‬ ‫מחובר היה מלח משלימו לכזית הרי זה‬ ‫ספק לפיכך אינו לוקה ועולה ואימוריה‬ :‫מצטרפין לכזית‬

6

If one offered [a portion of a sacrifice outside the Temple Courtyard] and then offered another portion of it, he is liable for every individual limb.30 If he sprinkled its blood [outside the Temple Courtyard] and then offered its limbs, he is liable twice. For the Torah made a distinction between [offering blood and offering limbs as indicated by the two prooftexts] "Who will offer a burnt-offering" and "to offer it."31

‫העלה וחזר והעלה חייב על כל‬ ‫אבר ואבר זרק הדם והעלה‬ ‫האיברים חייב שתים שהרי חלק הכתוב‬ ‫בין מעלה לעושה שהרי נאמר אשר יעלה‬ ‫עולה ונאמר לעשות אותו העלה אבר חסר‬ ‫פטור שנאמר לעשות אותו על השלם הוא‬ :‫חייב‬

If one offered a limb that was lacking [in substance], he is exempt,32 as [one can infer from the prooftext] "to offer it." [This indicates] that one is liable [only] for a complete [limb]. When two people slaughter [a sacrificial animal outside the Temple Courtyard], they are exempt.33 If two people hold a limb [from a sacrificial animal] and offer it outside the Temple Courtyard], they are liable. [The rationale is that the prooftext states] "Every man34 who will offer a burnt-offering." Implied is that even two people who offer [a sacrifice] are liable.

‫שנים ששחטו פטורים שנים שאחזו‬ ‫באבר והעלוהו בחוץ חייבין שנאמר‬ ‫איש איש אשר יעלה עולה אפילו איש‬ :‫ואיש שהעלו חייבין‬

If a person makes several of the required sprinklings [of blood] outside [their appropriate place], he is liable.35 A person who receives the blood of a sin-offering36 in one cup and applies it to an altar outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then applies it to the altar inside [the Temple Courtyard],37 he is liable for the portion applied outside [the Temple Courtyard]. [The rationale is that] the entire amount was fit to be offered inside.38

‫הזורק מקצת מתנות בחוץ חייב‬ ‫המקבל דם חטאת בכוס אחד נתן‬ ‫ממנו בחוץ וחזר ונתן בפנים חייב על הניתן‬ ‫בחוץ שהרי כולו ראוי ליקרב בפנים ואם‬ ‫נתן ממנו בפנים וחזר ונתן בחוץ פטור‬ ‫מפני שהן שירים אבל אם קבל בשני‬ ‫כוסות בין שנתן שניהן בחוץ או אחד בחוץ‬ ‫ואחד בפנים או אחד בפנים ואחד בחוץ‬ :‫הרי זה חייב‬

If he applied it to [the altar] inside and then applied it outside, he is exempt, for [the blood he used] was merely remnants.39 If, however, he received the blood in two cups, he is liable whether he applied both of them outside [the Temple Courtyard], [the first] outside and the other inside, or [the first] inside and the other outside.40

7

When one offered a handful [of meal] or the frankincense from the meal offering41 outside [the Temple Courtyard] or offered one inside and the other outside, he is liable. Similarly, with regard to the two bowls of frankincense from the showbread,42 if one offered [the first] outside the [Temple Courtyard]43 or [the first] inside and the second outside, he is liable.

‫הקומץ והלבונה של מנחה שהקריב‬ ‫אחד מהן בחוץ או הקריב האחד‬ ‫בפנים והשני בחוץ חייב וכן שני בזיכי‬ ‫לבונה של לחם הפנים שהקריב אחד מהן‬ :‫בחוץ או אחד בפנים והשני בחוץ חייב‬

If a person slaughtered consecrated animals in the present era and offered them outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable, because [the sacrifices] are fit to be offered inside. For it is permitted to offer sacrifices even though the Temple is not built, because [when the Temple was] consecrated originally, it was consecrated for the immediate time and for all future time.44

‫מי ששחט קדשים בזמן הזה‬ ‫והעלם חוץ לעזרה חייב מפני‬ ‫שהוא ראוי ליקרב בפנים שהרי מותר‬ ‫להקריב אע"פ שאין בית מפני שקדושה‬ ‫ראשונה קדשה לשעתה וקדשה לעתיד‬ :‫לבא‬

8

[A Jew] who slaughters sacrificial animals belonging to a gentile outside [the Temple Courtyard] is liable.45 Similarly, one who offers them outside [the Temple Courtyard is liable]. Gentiles are permitted to offer burnt offerings to God in all places,46 provided they sacrifice them on a raised structure that they build.47 It is forbidden to help them [offer these sacrifices] or act as agents for them, for we are forbidden to sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard]. It is permitted to instruct them and teach them how to sacrifice to the Almighty, blessed be He.

‫השוחט קדשי נכרים בחוץ חייב‬ ‫וכן המעלה אותן בחוץ והנכרים‬ ‫מותרין להקריב עולות לשם בכל מקום‬ ‫והוא שיקריבו בבמה שיבנו ואסור לסייען‬ ‫ולעשות שליחותן שהרי נאסר עלינו‬ ‫להקריב בחוץ ומותר להורות להם וללמדם‬ :‫היאך יקריבו לשם האל ברוך הוא‬

:‫סליקו להו הלכות מעשה הקרבנות בס"ד‬

Blessed be the Merciful One who offers assistance.

« Previous

Next » Temidin uMusafim

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 18 FOOTNOTES 1. I.e., if he offers it for the sake of a person without designating him as a deity, but merely as a token of appreciation, he is not liable. 2. In contrast to an entity which is eaten, as stated in Halachah 4. 3. Excluding sacrifices that are not offered on the altar, as mentioned in Halachah 7. 4. This applies with regard to all sacrifices, even sacrifices of a lesser order of sanctity. Since these parts are offered on the altar in the Temple, one is liable for offering them outside the Temple (Radbaz). 5. Both the handful of meal taken from the meal-offering and the frankincense from that offering are offered on the altar in their entirety (Chapter 13, Halachah 12). 6. This is offered on the inner altar twice daily (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 2:11). 7. Which is offered on the altar in its entirety (Chapter 12, Halachah 9). 8. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1. 9. For a wine libation is never less than three lugim. See the following halachah.

10. The Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh maintain that one is liable for pouring water on an altar only during the holiday of Sukkos, for only then is water offered on the altar in the Temple. The Radbaz does clarify that this is not necessarily apparent from the Rambam's wording. Indeed, on the contrary, from the following halachah, one could infer the opposite. 11. This refers to the sin-offerings that were burnt. See Chapter 5, Halachah 11. 12. I.e., the fundamental aspect of pouring the blood is the sprinkling of the blood on the altar - or in the Temple Building - each sacrifice according to its laws. Pouring out the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar is not of fundamental importance and the sacrifices are acceptable even if it is not performed. Hence, it is not considered as an act of significance for which one is liable. 13. When the water libation is offered. See the notes to the previous halachah. 14. For three lugim is the smallest wine libation offered (see Chapter 17, Halachot 12, 15). Similarly, the water libation offered on Sukkot is three lugim (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:7).

9

Rambam explains that the rationale is that we follow the

31. The fact that the Torah uses two prooftexts implies that two different prohibitions are involved. The prooftext "to offer it"

principles that two entities that are the same substance are never considered as intervening substances.

refers to both the prohibitions against slaughter and against sprinkling the blood and the prooftext "who will offer it" refers

16. The red heifer should be slaughtered on the Mount of Olives,

to the prohibition against offering the limbs on the altar (Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh, thus resolving the questions

15. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:5), the

as stated in Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:1-2. 17. As stated in Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:7, the goat sent to Azazel was pushed off a mountain cliff in the desert outside of Jerusalem.

raised by the Ra'avad). 32. The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, noting that the previous halachah stated that a person is liable if the combination of a

18. See Chapter 18, Halachah 11.

portion of a limb and the portions of the innards offered on the altar equal an olive-sized portion. This indicates that a

19. I.e., the Temple. This excludes offerings like the above

limb need not be whole. The Kessef Mishneh and others,

which, though they are consecrated, are not offered in the Temple. 20. Radbaz notes that Zevachim 109a mentions sacrifices disqualified for other reasons. He explains that the Rambam does not mention them here, because here he is speaking in general terms. They are detailed in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim where he discusses the particulars pertaining to these laws. 21. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 19, which mentions the obligation to burn sacrifices that were disqualified for all these reasons.

however, justify the Rambam's ruling. 33. This law has already been stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 16. Indeed, there are some who considered its inclusion here as a scribal error. 34. The Hebrew original repeats the word ish meaning man, implying that even two men can be held liable for the same activity. 35. Even though he did not complete the required service associated with the sacrifice, as long as he sprinkled the blood on an altar once, he is liable. 36. The Rambam is quoting the wording of the mishnah

22. As explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 3, if sacrificial meat or blood was brought to the top of the altar after being disqualified for these reasons, it should be

(Zevachim13:6).

Nevertheless,

according

to

his

understanding, this law applies to the blood of other sacrifices as well.

offered on the altar's pyre. 23. Any lesser amount is not considered significant. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:10. 24. I.e., a portion of it was lost or burnt. 25. This refers to a meal offering brought by a male priest, the meal offering of the High Priest, and the meal component of the accompanying offerings (Zevachim 13:4). 26. For the prooftext states "it," and this implies that the entity must be complete. 27. Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:10. 28. We have translated the text according to its straightforward meaning. Nevertheless, the Radbaz states that this ruling applies, not only to a burnt-offering and its own innards, but even one that is combined with the innards of another sacrifice. Thus he maintains that one is liable for combining the meat of a burnt-offering, not only with the innards of a burnt-offering, but also with the innards of a peace-offering. 29. For they are part of the same type of offering and are both offered on the altar in their entirety. 30. Provided he was notified of the transgression between the offering of each particular limb (Radbaz, based on Hilchot Shegagot 6:2).

37. He is liable even if he does not apply the blood to the altar inside. The Rambam mentions the application of the blood inside only to emphasize that offering the blood properly does not remove the liability that was already established. 38. Hence if he offers any of it outside first, he is liable. The fact that he does not offer the entire amount outside is not significant. As long as a portion is offered outside, he is liable. 39. I.e., the offering was completed through the application of the blood to the altar inside. Although the remainder of the blood should also have been dashed on the altar, that is not an absolute requirement. Hence one is not liable for offering such blood outside the Temple Courtyard.

40. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam regarding the latter point, explaining that Zevachim 112a states that one is

44. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15-16 for an explanation of

exempt in the latter instance. Since the blood was first offered inside, the sacrifice is acceptable and the fact that

as the altar is built in its appropriate place sacrifices may be offered even though the Temple is destroyed. Based on

later blood was also offered outside is not of consequence. The Radbaz explains that, according to the Rambam, that rationale applies when the blood was offered inside according to all of its specifications. In this instance, however, the Rambam is speaking about a situation where the applications of the blood to the Temple altar were not completed. Hence, the blood in the second cup is still significant. 41. See Chapter 13, Halachot 12-13, which describe the offering of the meal-offering. 42. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:2 for a description of the offering of the showbread. 43. Even though the offering is not complete until both bowls of frankincense are offered (ibid.:3), one is liable for offering even one of them outside.

these concepts. See also ibid. 2:4 which states that as long

Zevachim 59a, the Radbaz states that even if the altar is not built, sacrifices can be offered on its site. Indeed, he writes that it is only because the gentiles do not allow us that we do not offer communal sacrifices in the present age. (Communal sacrifices may be offered while ritually impure.) Based on this rationale, after the conquest of Jerusalem in 5727 (1967), the Lubavitcher Rebbe advised his chassidim to leave the holy city on the day before Pesach. The rationale is that the Paschal sacrifice may also be brought while ritually impure. Now anyone who is close to Jerusalem on the day before Pesach and does not bring a Paschal sacrifice is liable for karet. Although many factors are involved and the Rebbe did not advise his followers to actually bring a sacrifice, he felt it necessary that precautions be taken so that they would not be held liable for not bringing the offering. This situation persisted for several years until the Rebbe felt that the Jewish control of the Temple Mount was weakened to the point that it would be impossible to bring an offering. 45. For slaughtering these animals outside the Temple Courtyard. As the Rambam proceeds to explain, this is speaking about a situation where the gentile desires to offer the sacrifice to God. 46. Zevachim 116b notes that the passage prohibiting the slaughter of sacrificial animals outside the Temple Courtyard begins: "Speak to the children of Israel," implying that the prohibition applies only to them. 47. This license applies in the present era as well.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

10

policy .

11

1



Temidin uMusafim Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 1 Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 2 Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 3 Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 4 Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 5 Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 6 Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 7 Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 8 Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 9 Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 10

2

1



Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 2

Introduction to Hilchot Temidin uMusafim They contain nineteen mitzvot: eighteen positive commandments and one negative commandment. They are:

‫ שמונה‬:‫יש בכללן תשע עשרה מצוות‬ ‫ ואחת מצוַ ת לא‬,‫עשרה מצוות עשה‬ :‫ וזה הוא פרטן‬.‫תעשה‬

1) To offer up every day two lambs as burnt-offerings; 2) To kindle fire upon the altar daily; 3) Not to extinguish it; 4) To remove the ashes daily; 5) To burn incense daily; 6) To light lamps daily; 7) That the High Priest shall offer up a meal-offering every day. This is called Havitin; 8) To offer up on the Sabbath, in addition, two lambs as burnt-offerings; 9) To prepare (and set in order) the shew-bread; 10) (To offer up) the additional sacrifice of the New Moons; 11) The additional sacrifice of Passover; 12) To offer up the Omer as a wave-offering; 13) That every one shall count seven weeks from the day the Omer is brought; 14) To offer up the additional sacrifice of Shavuot; 15) to bring on Shavuot two loaves of bread together with the sacrifices brought in connection with them; 16) (To offer up) the additional sacrifice of the New Year; 17) The additional offering of the Day of Atonement; 18) The additional offering of the Sukkot; 19) the additional offering Shmini Atzeret.

.‫)א( להקריב שני כבשים בכל יום עולות‬ .‫)ב( להדליק אש על המזבח בכל יום‬ .‫)ג( שלא לכבותה‬ .‫)ד( להרים את הדשן בכל יום‬ .‫)ה( להקטיר קטורת בכל יום‬ .‫)ו( להדליק נרות בכל יום‬ ‫ והיא‬,‫)ז( שיקריב כהן גדול מנחה בכל יום‬ .‫הנקראת "חבתין‬ .‫)ח( להוסיף שני כבשים עולות בשבת‬ .‫)ט( לעשות לחם הפנים‬ .‫)י( מוסף ראשי חודשים‬ .‫)יא( מוסף הפסח‬ .‫)יב( להקריב עומר התנופה‬ ‫)יג( לספור כל איש ואיש שבעה שבועות‬ .‫מיום הקרבת העומר‬ .‫)יד( מוסף עצרת‬ ‫)טו( להביא שתי הלחם עם הקרבנות‬ .‫הבאות בגלל הלחם ביום עצרת‬ .‫)טז( מוסף ראש השנה‬ .‫)יז( מוסף יום צום‬ .‫)יח( מוסף החג‬ .‫)יט( מוסף שמיני עצרת‬

These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.

2

‫ הקדמה‬- ‫הלכות תמידים ומוספין‬

:‫וביאור מצוות אלו בפרקים אלו‬

3

It is a positive commandment to offer two lambs as burnt-offerings every day.1 They are called the continuous offering. One [should be brought] in the morning and one in the afternoon as [Numbers 28:3] states: "Two each day, a continuous offering."

‫מצות עשה להקריב שני כבשים‬ ‫עולות בכל יום והם הנקראים תמידין‬ ‫אחד בבקר ואחד בין הערבים שנאמר‬ :'‫שנים ליום עולה תמיד וגו‬

When is the time at which they should be slaughtered? The morning one should be slaughtered before sunrise,2 when the entire eastern horizon becomes illuminated.3 Once there was a pressing situation for the community in [the era of] the Second Temple4 and they offered the daily morning sacrifice at four hours after daybreak.5

‫ואימתי זמן שחיטתן של בקר שוחטין‬ ‫אותו קודם שתעלה החמה משיאור‬ ‫פני כל מזרח ופעם אחת דחקה השעה את‬ ‫הצבור בבית שני והקריבו תמיד של שחר‬ :‫בארבע שעות ביום‬

[The lamb for] the continuous offering of the afternoon should be slaughtered when the shadows have been extended6 and it is obvious to all that they have been extended.7 This is from six and a half hours of the day until the day's end. Every day, they would not slaughter it until eight and a half hours of the day and they would offer it at nine and a half hours.

‫תמיד של בין הערבים שוחטין אותו‬ ‫משיאריך הצל ויראה לכל שהאריך‬ ‫והוא משש ומחצה ומעלה עד סוף היום‬ ‫ולא היו שוחטין אותו בכל יום אלא‬ ‫בשמונה שעות ומחצה וקרב בתשע‬ ‫ומחצה ולמה מאחרין אותו שתי שעות‬ ‫אחר תחילת זמן שחיטתו מפני הקרבנות‬ ‫של יחידים או של צבור לפי שאסור‬ ‫להקריב קרבן כלל קודם תמיד של שחר‬ ‫ולא שוחטין קרבן אחר תמיד של בין‬ ‫הערבים חוץ מקרבן פסח לבדו שאי אפשר‬ :‫שיקריבו כל ישראל פסחיהן בשתי שעות‬

Why would they delay [its slaughter] for two hours after the beginning of the time? Because of the sacrifices of individuals and those of the community.8 For it is forbidden to offer any sacrifice before the continuous offering of the morning and no sacrifice is offered after the continuous sacrifice of the afternoon9 with the exception of the Paschal sacrifice. [That leniency was granted, because] it is impossible for all of Israel to offer their Paschal sacrifices in two hours.

4

The Paschal sacrifice is slaughtered only after the continuous offering of the afternoon.10 Similarly, those individuals requiring atonement11 may offer their atonement offerings after the continuous offering of the afternoon on the fourteenth [of Nisan] so that they will be ritually pure and [and able] to partake of their Paschal offerings in the evening.12

‫אין שוחטין את הפסח אלא אחר‬ ‫תמיד של בין הערבים וכן מחוסרי‬ ‫כפורים מקריבין כפרתן אחר תמיד של בין‬ ‫הערבים ביום ארבעה עשר כדי שיהיו‬ :‫טהורין לאכול פסחיהן לערב‬

When the day before Pesach falls during the week or on the Sabbath, the Afternoon Sacrifice would be slaughtered after seven and a half hours and offered after eight and a half hours so that [the people] would have time to slaughter their Paschal sacrifices.13 If the day before Pesach falls on Friday, [the Afternoon Sacrifice] would be slaughtered at six and a half hours, the beginning of the time allotted for it and offered at seven and a half hours, so that they would have ample time to roast [their sacrifices] before the commencement of the Sabath.14

‫ערבי פסחים בין בחול בין בשבת‬ ‫היה התמיד נשחט בשבע ומחצה‬ ‫וקרב בשמונה ומחצה כדי שיהיה להם‬ ‫פנאי לשחוט פסחיהם ואם חל ערב פסח‬ ‫להיות ערב שבת היו שוחטין אותו בשש‬ ‫ומחצה בתחילת זמנו וקרב בשבע ומחצה‬ ‫כדי שיהיה להם ריוח לצלות קודם שיכנס‬ :‫שבת‬

Even though [no sacrificial animals] are slaughtered after the continuous offering of the afternoon,15 any entity that is fit to be offered on the altar's pyre is offered the entire day. And the limbs of the burnt-offerings and the eimorim16may be offered until midnight, as we explained in [Hilchot] Ma'aseh HaKorbanot.17

‫אף על פי שאין שוחטין אחר תמיד של‬ ‫בין הערבים מקטירין כל דבר הראוי‬ ‫להקטרה כל היום ומקטירין איברי עולות‬ ‫והאימורין עד חצי הלילה כמו שביארנו‬ ‫במעשה הקרבנות ואיברין ואימורין שלא‬ ‫נתאכלו בין מן התמיד בין משאר הקרבנות‬ ‫מהפכין בהן כל הלילה עד הבקר שנאמר‬ :‫כל הלילה עד הבקר‬

The limbs and the eimorim - whether from the continuous offerings or from other sacrifices - that were not consumed [by the fire] may be turned over18 throughout the entire night until the morning,19 as [Leviticus 6:2] states: "The entire night until the morning."

5

[The offering of] the limbs of the continuous offering on the altar's pyre [at night] supersedes [the prohibitions of] ritual impurity,20 but does not supersede the Sabbath [prohibitions]. Instead, all of the limbs of the continuous offerings offered on Friday are offered on the altar's pyre on Friday alone.21 For the initial [offering] of the continuous offering supersede the Sabbath [prohibitions],22 but its concluding aspects23 do not.24 The fats of [the communal sacrifices offered on] the Sabbath are offered on a festival at night if the festival falls on Saturday night. [These fats] may not, however, be offered on the night of Yom Kippur [if it falls on Saturday night].25 [These concepts are derived from Numbers 28:10 which] states: "The burnt-offering of a Sabbath on its Sabbath." [This excludes the offering of] a burnt-offering of a Sabbath on another Sabbath.26 Nor may the burnt-offering of a weekday be offered on a festival.

‫איברים של תמיד דוחין את הטומאה‬ ‫ואין דוחין את השבת אלא בערב שבת‬ ‫בלבד מקטירין איברי תמיד של ערב שבת‬ ‫שהתמיד תחילתו דוחה שבת וסופו אינו‬ ‫דוחה חלבי שבת קריבין בלילי יום טוב אם‬ ‫חל יום טוב להיות במוצאי שבת אבל אין‬ ‫קריבין בלילי יוה"כ שנאמר עולת שבת‬ ‫בשבתו ולא עולת שבת זו בשבת אחרת‬ :‫ולא עולת חול ביום טוב‬

When the fourteenth [of Nisan] falls on Sabbath, the fats of the Paschal sacrifice27 may be offered on the night of the festival,28 for they are considered as the fats of the Sabbath.29

‫ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בשבת‬ ‫מקטרין חלבי הפסחים בלילי יום‬ :‫טוב מפני שהם כחלבי שבת‬

There never should be less than six lambs that have been inspected30 in the Chamber of the Lambs.31 They should be prepared four days before their sacrifice.32 Even though they would be inspected beforehand, they would not slaughter the continuous offering until they inspect it again before its slaughter by the light of the torches.33 It was given water to drink from a golden cup34 so that it would be easier to skin.35

‫אין פוחתין מששה טלאים המבוקרין‬ ‫בלשכת הטלאים שבמקדש ויהיו‬ ‫מוכנים קודם יום הקרבה בארבעה ימים‬ ‫ואע"פ שהיו מבקרין אותו מתחילה לא היו‬ ‫שוחטין את התמיד עד שמבקרין אותו‬ ‫שניה קודם שחיטה לאור האבוקות‬ ‫ומשקין אותו מים בכוס של זהב כדי‬ :‫שיהיה נוח להפשט‬

6

The continuous offering of the afternoon is offered in the same manner as the continuous offering of the morning. Everything follows the regimen for the offering of the burnt offering, as written in [Hilchot] Ma'aseh HaKorbanot.36 The lamb was not bound before its slaughter so as not to copy the practice of the heretics.37 Instead, they would hold its forefeet and its hindfeet by hand.38 It would be held in the following manner: Its head would be to the south and its face to the west.39

‫כמעשה תמיד של שחר כך מעשה‬ ‫תמיד של בין הערבים והכל כמעשה‬ ‫העולה שכתבנו במעשה הקרבנות ולא היו‬ ‫כופתין את הטלה שלא יחקו את המינין‬ ‫אלא אוחזין ידיו ורגליו בידיהן וכך היתה‬ :‫עקידתו ראשו לדרום ופניו למערב‬

The continuous offering of the morning would be slaughtered in the northwest corner of the butchering area40 on the second ring41 and that of the afternoon would be slaughtered in the northeast corner on the second ring. [In this way,] they would be opposite the sun.42 The Received Tradition states that [these sacrificial animals] should be slaughtered opposite the sun.

‫תמיד של שחר היה נשחט על קרן‬ ‫בית‬ ‫של‬ ‫מערבית‬ ‫צפונית‬ ‫המטבחים על טבעת שנייה ושל בין‬ ‫הערבים על קרן צפונית מזרחית ממנה על‬ ‫טבעת שנייה כדי שיהיה כנגד השמש‬ ‫דברי קבלה הן שיהיו נשחטין כנגד‬ :‫השמש‬

If they erred and inadvertently - or even intentionally - failed to offer the continuous offering of the morning, that of the afternoon should be offered.

‫טעו או שגגו אפילו הזידו ולא‬ ‫הקריבו תמיד של שחר יקריבו‬ ‫תמיד של בין הערבים במה דברים אמורים‬ ‫בשנתחנך המזבח אבל היה מזבח חדש‬ ‫שעדיין לא קרב עליו כלום לא יקריבו עליו‬ ‫תחלה בין הערבים שאין מחנכין מזבח‬ :‫העולה אלא בתמיד של שחר‬

When does the above apply? After the altar has been dedicated. If, however, it is a new altar on which no sacrifices have been offered, the continuous offering of the afternoon should not be offered on it first. For the altar for burnt-offerings should be dedicated solely by [sacrificing] the continuous offering of the morning.43

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES

7

1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 39) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 401) count this as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. The Ramban (at the conclusion to his Hosafos to the negative commandments) argues that they should be considered as two separate mitzvot. 2. For "the eager hurry [to perform] mitzvot" (Pesachim 4a). 3. I.e., when the rays of the sun are already visible, but the orb of the sun has not appeared. 4. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 6:1, based on the

13. For every member of the Jewish people would have to partake of a Paschal sacrifice. Thus there would be a multitude of animals to slaughter and have their blood offered. 14. At all other times, the Paschal sacrifices could be roasted at night. Hence, as long as they were slaughtered before nightfall, there was no difficulty. The roasting of the Paschal sacrifices did not, however, supersede the prohibition against cooking on the Sabbath. Hence, the slaughter had to be performed earlier so that they could be roasted on time.

Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 1:4), the Rambam explains that once during the Greek occupation of the Holy Land, the Temple was besieged. Each day, the priests would exchange two baskets of gold coins for two lambs. One day, however, the Greeks refused to make the exchange. The people were forlorn. Later that morning, they miraculously found two lambs in the Chamber of the Lambs and R. Yuda bar Bava ruled that the morning sacrifice could be offered if the fourth hour of the day had not passed. 5. The Radbaz derives two points from the Rambam's statements: a) only in a pressing situation may the offering of the sacrifice be delayed until after daybreak; b) even in a pressing situation, the sacrifice may not be offered after four hours of the day have passed. 6. At noon, the sun is directly overhead and does not cast a shadow. By 12:30, the sun will have already passed to the western portion of the sky and will thus cast a shadow to the east. 7. I.e., the sacrifice could have been offered directly after noon. Nevertheless, since the time of noon is not obvious to everyone, it was delayed slightly. 8. I.e., to allow all of the other sacrifices to be offered, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. 9. The Radbaz asks: Why isn't its sacrifice delayed any longer?

15. This represents the division of the halachot in the authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. A printing error appears to have crept into the standard published text. 16. The fats and inner organs of the animal that are offered on the altar. 17. As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:2, this is a Rabbinic safeguard. 18. So that they will be consumed by the fires faster and more completely. 19. Although our Sages decreed that the limbs not be offered on the altar after midnight as mentioned above, if they were offered before midnight, they may be turned over the entire night. 20. I.e., communal sacrifices may be offered in a state of ritual impurity. If the offering itself was offered in this manner, the limbs may be offered in this manner at night. 21. I.e., during the day and not during the night. 22. I.e., an animal sacrificed as a communal offering may be slaughtered and offered on the altar on the Sabbath. 23. The offering of the limbs and fats which were not offered on the pyre on Friday.

He responds that the Sages did not desire for there to be any time pressure at all regarding its offering. Also, they

24. If there was no opportunity to offer the fats and the limbs on Friday, they should be brought up to the top of the altar on

wanted - at least partially - to fulfill the charge (Pesachim

Friday night, but not offered on the pyre. On the top of the altar, they are not disqualified because of the passage of the

4a): "The eager hurry [to perform] mitzvot." 10. See Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:4 for more details. 11. As stated in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, this term refers to certain individuals - a zav, a zavah, a person afflicted with tzara'at, and a woman after childbirth - who are not permitted to partake of sacrifices until they offer certain sacrifices. 12. This leniency is granted because a person who does not offer the Paschal sacrifices is liable for karet (Pesachim 59a).

night and they should be offered on Saturday night (Kessef Mishneh in the name of the Ritba). 25. According to the fixed calendar followed at present, Yom Kippur can never fall Saturday night. Moreover, even when the new moon was sanctified based on the testimony of witnesses, an effort was made not to have Yom Kippur fall directly after the Sabbath (Rosh HaShanah 20a). Nevertheless, it is possible for the two holy days to follow in succession. See Hilchot Eruvin 8:10. 26. And Yom Kippur is also called "a Sabbath." 27. Which is offered on the Sabbath. 28. I.e., on Saturday night which is the first night of the festival.

29. I.e., even though they were not offered because of the Sabbath, since their blood was offered on the Sabbath, the

38. Tamid 31b states that the sacrifice would be bound like the

offering of their fats supersedes the festival prohibitions (Radbaz).

commentaries explain that this means that one of the animals forefeet and one of its hindfeet would be bound, the

30. To make sure that they are free of physical blemishes [the

Rambam does not accept that interpretation and maintains that none of the legs were bound. the Tosafot Yom Tov

Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 2:5)]. 31. This was one of the sub-chambers in the Chamber of the Hearth (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:10). 32. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that the source for this practice was the Paschal sacrifice brought by the Jews in Egypt. They were commanded to take the lambs four days before they were offered. 33. The torches were necessary, because the offering was slaughtered before daybreak and more light was necessary for a careful inspection. 34. This was a sign of the wealth and prosperity of the Jewish people, as appropriate for the Temple [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 3:4)]. 35. The commentaries note that the rationale the Rambam gives here is different from that which he initially gave in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Beitzah 5:6). Afterwards, he emended that text to include the rationale mentioned here (Rav Kappach's notes to that mishnah). 36. Chapters 6 and 9. 37. Rashi, Tamid 31b, states that thus refers to pagan idolaters who would bind all four feet of their sacrifices.

binding of Isaac the son of Abraham. Although some

(Tamid 4:1) brings support for this interpretation, noting that our Sages state that the priest who would offer the limbs on the altar would hold them during the slaughter. Thus each of the limbs was held by a different priest. 39. In this way, if it defecated, its rear would not be facing the altar or the Temple Building. 40. The area on the northern side of the Temple Courtyard where the sacrificial animals were slaughtered and cut up. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:13-14. 41. There were rings implanted into the floor of the Temple Courtyard into which were inserted the legs of the sacrificial animals to hold them in place during the slaughter. See ibid.:14; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 4:1). Others maintain that the animal's head was inserted into the rings. 42. The sun rises in the east. Hence if the sacrifice was slaughtered on the eastern corner in the morning, it is possible that the wall of the Temple Courtyard would block its rays. Conversely, since it sets in the west, the afternoon sacrifice was slaughtered in the east so that the sun's rays would not be blocked. 43. Note the contrast to the Golden Altar, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .

9

1



Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 1

English

Hebrew

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 3

It is a positive commandment for there to be fire continuously burning on the altar,1 as [Leviticus 6:6] states: "A continuous fire shall burn on the altar."2 Although a fire descended from heaven,3 it is a mitzvah to bring from ordinary fire, as [ibid. 1:7] states: "And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall place fire on the altar."

‫מצות עשה להיות אש יקודה על‬ ‫המזבח תמיד שנאמר אש תמיד‬ ‫תוקד על המזבח אף על פי שהאש ירדה‬ ‫מן השמים מצוה להביא אש מן ההדיוט‬ ‫שנאמר ונתנו בני אהרן הכהנים אש על‬ :‫המזבח‬

In the morning, the wood was arranged.4 They would prepare a large array of fire at the top of the altar, as [ibid. 6:5] states: "And the priest shall burn on it wood each morning."5 Similarly, it is a mitzvah to bring two logs of wood6 [to the altar] together with the continuous offering of the morning, besides the wood of the arrangement. [This is also intimated by the same verse.]

‫בבקר עורכין עצים ועורכין בראש‬ ‫המזבח מערכה גדולה של אש‬ ‫שנאמר ובער עליה הכהן עצים בבקר‬ ‫בבקר וכן מצוה להעלות שני גזרים של עץ‬ ‫עם תמיד של שחר יותר על עצי המערכה‬ ‫שנאמר ובער עליה הכהן עצים בבקר וכן‬ ‫מוסיפין שני גזרים עם תמיד של בין‬ ‫הערבים שנאמר וערכו עצים על האש מפי‬ ‫השמועה למדו שבתמיד של בין הערבים‬ :‫הכתוב מדבר‬

Similarly, two logs of wood were added together with the continuous offering of the afternoon, as [implied by ibid. 1:7]: "And they shall arrange wood on the fire." According to the Oral Tradition,7 it was taught that the verse is speaking about the continuous offering of the afternoon.

2

The two logs brought in the afternoon are brought up [to the altar] by two priests, each one holding one log in his hand.8 This is derived from the fact that the term "and they shall arrange" used by the above prooftext is plural. Those of the morning, by contrast, are brought by one priest.9

‫שני גזרים של בין הערבים מעלין אותן‬ ‫שני כהנים כל אחד ואחד בעץ יחידי‬ ‫בידו שנאמר וערכו הרי כאן שנים אבל‬ :‫של שחר בכהן אחד‬

Three arrays of fire would be prepared on the top of the altar each day:10 The first was the large arrangement upon which were offered the continuous offering and the other sacrifices. The second was a small [arrangement] to its side from which fire was taken in a fire-pan to offer the incense offering each day.11 The third was not associated with any other purpose except to fulfill the mitzvah of burning fire, as [ibid. 6:6] states: "A continuous fire shall burn."12

‫שלש מערכות של אש עושין בראש‬ ‫המזבח בכל יום ראשונה מערכה‬ ‫גדולה שעליה מקריבין התמיד עם שאר‬ ‫הקרבנות שניה בצדה קטנה שממנה‬ ‫לוקחין אש במחתה להקטיר קטורת בכל‬ ‫יום שלישית אין עליה כלום אלא לקיים‬ :‫מצות האש שנאמר אש תמיד תוקד‬

According to the Oral Tradition,13 it was derived that [ibid.:2] which states: "On the pyre, on the altar" - refers to the large arrangement. "The fire of the altar shall burn upon it" [ibid.] - refers to the second arrangement for the incense offering. And "The fire of the altar shall burn upon it" [ibid.:5] - refers to the third arrangement for the maintenance of the fire. The limbs and the fats that were not consumed during the evening are placed on the side of the large arrangement.14

‫מפי השמועה למדו שזה שנאמר על‬ ‫מוקדה על המזבח זו מערכה גדולה‬ ‫ואש המזבח תוקד בו זו מערכה שניה של‬ ‫קטרת והאש על המזבח תוקד בו זו‬ ‫מערכה שלישית של קיום האש אבל‬ ‫איברים ופדרים שלא נתאכלו מבערב‬ :‫נותנין אותן בצדי מערכה גדולה‬

3

One who extinguished the fire of the altar is liable for lashes,15 as [ibid.:6] states:16 "It shall not be extinguished." Even one coal - even if it was removed from the altar - if one extinguishes it, he is liable for lashes.17 If, however, one extinguishes the fire of a fire-pan18 or the fire designated to kindle the Menorah19 that was kindled on the altar, even if he extinguishes it on the top of the altar, he is exempt. [The rationale is that] this fire has been allocated for another mitzvah and it is no longer called "the fire of the altar."

‫המכבה אש המזבח לוקה שנאמר לא‬ ‫תכבה אפילו גחלת אחת ואפילו‬ ‫הורידה מעל המזבח וכבה לוקה אבל אש‬ ‫מחתה ואש מנורה שהכינה במזבח‬ ‫להדליק ממנה אף על פי שכבה אותן‬ ‫בראש המזבח פטור שהרי נתקה למצוה‬ :‫אחרת ואין אני קורא בהן אש המזבח‬

When one arrays the wood of the large arrangement, he should arrange it on the eastern portion of the altar. It should be made [in a manner that makes it apparent]20 that he began to arrange it from the east. There should be open space between the logs21 and the ends of the inner logs should touch the ashes that are in the center of the altar. It is called the ash-heap.22

‫כשמסדר עצי מערכה גדולה מסדרה‬ ‫במזרח המזבח ויהיה מראה שהתחיל‬ ‫לסדר מן המזרח וריוח היה בין הגזרים‬ ‫וראשי הגזרים הפנימיים היו נוגעין בדשן‬ :‫שבאמצע המזבח והוא הנקרא תפוח‬

After the large arrangement is arrayed, logs of high-quality fig wood23 are selected and a second arrangement is made for [the fire for] the incense offering near the southwest corner,24 four cubits to the north of the corner.25 It would contain five se'ah26 of coals. On the Sabbath, it would contain about eight se'ah of coals, because on every Sabbath, the two bowls of frankincense from the showbread27 would be offered on it.

‫ואחר שמסדר מערכה גדולה חוזר‬ ‫ובורר עצי תאנה יפים ומסדר‬ ‫מערכה שניה של קטורת מכנגד קרן‬ ‫מערבית דרומית משוכה מן הקרן כלפי‬ ‫צפון ארבע אמות ובה כמו חמש סאין‬ ‫גחלים ובשבת עושין בה כמו שמונה סאין‬ ‫גחלים מפני שעליה מקטירין בכל שבת‬ :‫שני בזיכי לבונה של לחם הפנים‬

4

The third arrangement for the sake of the maintenance of the fire can be made on any place on the altar.28 The fire should be kindled on [the altar]. One should not kindle the fire on the ground and bring it up to the altar. Instead, it should be kindled on the altar itself, as [implied by] the verse: "The fire of the altar shall burn." This29 teaches that the kindling should be on the altar itself. It is a positive commandment to remove the ashes from the altar each day,30 as [Leviticus 6:3] states: "And he shall remove the ashes." This is one of the services performed by the priests.31 The priestly garments32 [worn] when removing the ashes33 should be less valuable than those [worn] when performing the other aspects of Temple service, as [ibid.] continues: "He shall remove his garments and put on other garments and remove the ashes." The term "other" does not imply ordinary34 garments, but rather [priestly garments] that are less valuable than the first. [The rationale is that]35 it is not proper conduct to serve a cup [of wine] to one's master in the same clothes as one cooked food for him.36 When should the ashes be removed from the altar each day? At dawn.37 On the festivals, it should be carried out from the beginning of the middle third of the night.38 And on Yom Kippur, from midnight.39

‫מערכה שלישית של קיום האש‬ ‫עושה אותה בכ"מ שירצה מן המזבח‬ ‫ומצית בה את האש ולא יצית האש למטה‬ ‫ויעלה אותה למזבח אלא במזבח עצמו‬ ‫מציתין שנאמר ואש המזבח תוקד בו‬ ‫מכאן להצתה שלא תהיה אלא בראשו של‬ :‫מזבח‬

‫הרמת הדשן מעל המזבח בכל יום‬ ‫מצות עשה שנאמר והרים את הדשן‬ ‫והיא עבודה מעבודות כהונה ובגדי כהונה‬ ‫שתורם בהן הדשן יהיו פחותין מן הבגדים‬ ‫שמשמש בהם בשאר עבודות שנאמר‬ ‫ופשט את בגדיו ולבש בגדים אחרים‬ ‫והרים את הדשן אינו אומר אחרים שיהיו‬ ‫בגדי חול אלא שיהיו פחותין מן הראשונים‬ ‫לפי שאינו דרך ארץ שימזוג כוס לרבו‬ :‫בבגדים שבישל בהם קדרה לרבו‬

‫אימתי תורמין הדשן בכל יום‬ ‫משיעלה עמוד השחר וברגלים‬ ‫מתחלת שליש אמצעי של לילה וביום‬ :‫הכפורים מחצות הלילה‬

5

How are [the ashes] removed? [The priest] who merited40 to remove the ashes would immerse [in the mikveh]41 and put on the clothes for the removal of the ashes.42 He would sanctify his hands and feet [from the basin].43 They would tell him:44 "Be careful lest you touch a sacred utensil before sanctify your hands and feet." Afterwards, he would take a fire-pan - it was silver and would be placed in the corner between the ramp and the altar - to the west of the ramp.45 He would take the fire-pan and ascend to the top of the altar and scattered the coals this way and that. [With the fire-pan,] he would lift up some of the coals46 which were consumed by the heart of the fire and descend to the ground. He would turn his face to the north47 and walk on the ground at the east of the altar48 approximately ten cubits to the north.49He would gather the coals that he lifted up [from the altar, placing them] on the floor [of the Temple Courtyard] three handbreadths away from the ramp,50 in the place where they would place the innards of a fowl [brought as an offering],51 the ashes of the inner altar and the Menorah52 Picking up these coals with the fire-pan and bringing them to the floor near the altar is a commandment that must be performed each day.

‫כיצד תורמין מי שזכה לתרום טובל‬ ‫ולובש בגדי הרמה ומקדש ידיו‬ ‫ורגליו ואומרים לו הזהר שמא תגע בכלי‬ ‫עד שתקדש ידיך ורגליך ואחר כך לוקח‬ ‫המחתה ושל כסף היתה והיא היתה נתונה‬ ‫במקצוע בין כבש למזבח במערבו של כבש‬ ‫ונוטל את המחתה ועולה לראש המזבח‬ ‫ומפנה את הגחלים אילך ואילך וחותה מן‬ ‫הגחלים שנתאכלו בלב האש ויורד למטה‬ ‫לארץ והופך פניו לצפון ומהלך בארץ‬ ‫למזרח הכבש כמו עשר אמות כלפי הצפון‬ ‫וצובר את הגחלים שחתה על גבי הרצפה‬ ‫רחוק מן הכבש שלשה טפחים במקום‬ ‫שנותנים מוראת העוף ודשון המזבח‬ ‫הפנימי והמנורה וחתיה זו שחותה במחתה‬ ‫ומוריד לרצפה אצל המזבח היא המצוה‬ :‫של כל יום‬

6

After the person who [initially] removed ashes from the altar descended, his priestly brethren53 would run and sanctify their hands and feet quickly.54 They would take rakes and spits55 and ascend to the top of the altar. They would place all of the limbs of the burnt-offerings and the eimorim of the sacrifices that were not consumed [by the pyre] throughout the night on the side of the altar.56 If the sides of the altar could not contain [all the limbs], they would be arranged on the ramp57opposite [the altar's] surrounding ledge.58 Afterwards, they would use the rakes to rake the ashes from all the corners of the altar and make a pile on the ash-heap.59 This pile [of ashes] would be cleared away with a pasachiter.60 This is a large container that contains a letech.61It is taken down [to the floor of the Temple Courtyard]. On the festivals, they would not bring it down, but instead would leave a high pile in the center of the altar, because this beautifies the altar. Any one of the priests who desired would collect the ashes that were brought down [from the altar] and take them outside the city to the ash depository.62 Taking the ashes outside [the Temple Mount] did not require a lottery. Instead, whoever desired [was allowed to do so]. None of the priests were ever lethargic about removing the ashes.63

‫אחר שירד זה שתרם רצים אחיו‬ ‫הכהנים ומקדשין ידיהם ורגליהם‬ ‫במהרה ונוטלין את המגרפות ואת‬ ‫הצנורות ועולין לראש המזבח וכל איברי‬ ‫העולות ואימורי הקרבנות שלא נתאכלו‬ ‫כל הלילה מחזירין אותם לצדדי המזבח‬ ‫אם אין הצדדין מחזיקין סודרים אותם‬ ‫בכבש כנגד הסובב ואח"כ גורפין את‬ ‫הדשן במגריפות מכל צדדי המזבח ומעלין‬ ‫אותו ערימה על גבי התפוח וגורפין אותה‬ ‫הערימה בפסכתר והוא כלי גדול שמחזיק‬ ‫לתך ומורידין אותו למטה וברגלים לא היו‬ ‫מורידין אותו אלא מניחין הערימה גבוהה‬ :‫באמצע המזבח מפני שהוא נוי למזבח‬

‫כל מי שירצה מן הכהנים ממלא מן‬ ‫הדשן שהורידו למטה ומוציא חוץ‬ ‫לעיר לשפך הדשן ואין להוצאת הדשן‬ ‫לחוץ פיוס אלא כל הרוצה ומעולם לא‬ :‫נתעצל כהן מלהוציא את הדשן‬

7

Although removing [the ashes] outside [the Temple Mount] is not considered as service,64 it should not be performed by priests with disqualifying physical blemishes. When it is removed outside the city, it is deposited in a place where the wind will not blow it powerfully and nor [rivers] would not flow into it.65 It should not be scattered there, as [Leviticus 6:3] states: "And you shall deposit it."66 [Implied is] that it should be placed down gently. It is forbidden to benefit from it.67

‫ואע"פ שאין הוצאתו לחוץ עבודה‬ ‫אין בעלי מומין מוציאין אותו‬ ‫וכשמוציאין אותו לחוץ לעיר מניחין אותו‬ ‫במקום שאין הרוחות מנשבות בו בחזקה‬ ‫ולא חזירים גורפים אותו ולא יפזרנו שם‬ ‫שנאמר ושמו שיניחנו בנחת ואסור ליהנות‬ :‫בו‬

« Previous

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 3

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 1 FOOTNOTES 1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 29) and Sefer

6. Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:3 states that the logs used for

HaChinuch (mitzvah 132) count this as one of the Torah's

the offering were "a cubit long and a cubit wide. Their

613 mitzvot. The Radbaz explains that this mitzvah has four components:

thickness was like that of the leveling rod for an overflowing se'ah."

a) to have a fire continuously burning on the altar; b) to bring ordinary fire with each sacrifice; c) to arrange the array of wood on the altar; and d) to offer two logs with the continuous offering. Although this different actions are each associated with a separate verse, since they all share one objective: to have fire burn on the altar, they are considered as one mitzvah.

7. See Sifra to the above verse; Yoma 26b. 8. The Radbaz maintains that the priest who would bring the logs in the morning (see note 4) would also bring a log in the afternoon and he would invite a friend to join him and bring the other log. 9. For the term used in that prooftext is singular.

2. There was a special pyre kept burning on the altar for this purpose, as stated in Halachah 4.

10. See Hilchot Avodat Yom Kippurim 4:5.

3. As Leviticus 9:24 states: "And fire emerged from before God and it... consumed the burnt-offering." This fire remained on

12. As stated in Halachah 1.

the altar throughout the entire existence of the Sanctuary. Yoma 21b relates that in the First and Second Temples, fire also descended from heaven and burned on the altar. 4. See Chapter 4, Halachah 5, which states that the priest who would remove the ashes from the altar would prepare the

11. See Chapter 3, Halachah 5.

13. Yoma 45a. 14. I.e., when the altar was arranged in the morning, these limbs and fats were placed there until the large arrangement could be prepared and kindled. 15. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 81) and Sefer

arrangement of wood and he would bring the logs together with the daily offering.

HaChinuch (mitzvah 133) count this prohibition as one of the

5. Yoma 26b derives this concept from a different prooftext. It is

16. We have cited this reference because it is the one the Rambam refers to in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit. Others cite

questionable why the Rambam deviates from that source, since by doing so, he is forced to derive two different concepts from the same verse.

Torah's 613 mitzvot.

Leviticus 6:5. And in his commentary on the Torah, Rashi states that there are two negative commandments involved. 17. Despite the fact that the fire of the altar as a whole continues to burn.

8

18. See Halachah 4. 19. See Chapter 3, Halachah 13. 20. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 2:4). 21. So that there would be enough air for the fire to burn effectively (Radbaz). 22. See Halachah 13. From the Rambam's statements here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:2), it would appear that the top surface of the altar was flat and the name tapuach (literally, "bulging") was given because of the ash-pile made there. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that there was a bulge in the center of the surface of the altar itself. See also the Meiri in his commentary to Tamid who maintains that the term refers to a concave curve on the altar's surface. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's interpretation. 23. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:3. 24. I.e., the corner closest to both the Temple Building and the ramp. 25. For in this way, he will be fulfilling the directive of Leviticus 16:12: "And he shall take... flaming coals from the altar, before God." Yoma 45b explains that this refers to the outer altar which has a portion that is "before God," opposite the Holy of Holies. The second arrangement of fire was arrayed exactly in this position. Although the above verse speaks about the incense offering of Yom Kippur, our Sages also applied the concept to the incense offering brought each day. 26. A se'ah is slightly more than 8 liter in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah. Other commentaries consider it larger. 27. See Chapter 4, Halachah 11; Chapter 6, Halachah 11. 28. Har HaMoriah states that this can be inferred from the fact that our Sages did not mention any specific place for this arrangement. 29. I.e., its description as "the fire of the altar. The Radbaz notes that Yoma 45b derives this concept from a different verse and explains that this is a characteristic practice of the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah: to interpret the Torah's

32. All four priestly garments, even though only two are mentioned explicitly in the Torah in this context [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:3)]. 33. In contrast to other commentaries, according to the Rambam, these clothes are worn when removing the ashes from the altar and not when taking them out of the Temple Courtyard, for, as he states in Halachah 15, taking them out of the Temple Courtyard is not considered as priestly service. 34. I.e., garments that have not been consecrated. 35. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that the reason they prepared clothes of lesser value is not because they did not wish to undertake the expense, because in the Temple, no such considerations were made. As our Sages state (Tamid 3:4), "Poverty is inappropriate in a place of wealth." 36. Removing the ashes is comparable to cooking food, for both are acts of preparation. Serving wine and offering sacrifices are also analogous, for both involving presenting something. 37. The time when the first rays of the sun become visible on the eastern horizon. According to the various opinions, this is between 72 minutes and two hours before sunrise. 38. Since there are many sacrifices offered during the festivals, all of the activity in the Temple is begun earlier so that there will be ample opportunity. 39. On Yom Kippur, all of the elements of the Temple service were performed by the High Priest. Lest he become tired, the different elements of the Temple service were spaced out as far as possible. Hence, this activity was performed earlier in the night. 40. See Chapter 4, Halachot 1-5, for a description of the process in which this priest was chosen. 41. From Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 5:4 and Tamid 26a, it appears that the intent is that a person who enters the lottery for the right to remove the ashes would immerse beforehand. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 5:9. 42. Chapter 4, Halachah 1, states that the priests would come to the lottery wearing their priestly garments. Thus the one who was chosen would remove his ordinary priestly garments and put on the garments for the removal of the ashes.

verses according to their simple meaning even though

43. As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah

different interpretations are offered in prior Rabbinic sources.

(Tamid 1:4), a priest should not approach the altar for any

30. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 30) and Sefer

aspect of the Temple service, as implied by Exodus 30:20. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 5:1.

HaChinuch (mitzvah 131) count this as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. 31. It may not be performed by an Israelite (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:8).

44. This warning was administered by the head of the clan that would serve in the Temple that day (Tifferet Yisrael, Tamid 1:4). 45. I.e., the side near the entrance to the Temple Building.

46. The Kessef Mishneh quotes authorities who mention that these coals must be from the limbs of the sacrifices that were consumed by the fire.

58. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:7, 10. 59. See note 22. The mishnah (Tamid 2:1) states that this pile would at times

47. For when descending the altar, he would be facing the south.

reach 300 kor (every kor being 2 letechim, see below).

48. The side closer to the entrance to the courtyard.

Although the Rambam states that this is an exaggeration, we

49. Thus he is 20 cubits from the altar, for the ramp was 30 cubits long. 50. Thus they are placed "near the altar," as stated in Leviticus

can be certain that the size of the ash-heap was significant. 60. See Chapter 3, Halachah 6, for more details regarding this utensil. 61. A Talmudic measure equal to 9 kor which is equivalent to

6:3. 51. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:21. 52. Which are described in Chapter 3, Halachot 4 and 12 respectively.

approximately 121 liter (approximately 27 gallons) according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 211 liter (48 gallons) according to Chazon Ish. 62. Leviticus 6:4 speaks of taking the ashes "outside the camp."

53. As opposed to the other services in the Temple, there was no lottery made for this service. In his gloss, the Radbaz first

For future generations, that was interpreted as meaning "outside of Jerusalem." In the same place the bull brought by

explains that since many priests were required, there was no need to make a selection. Anyone who desired could

the High Priest as a sin-offering would be burnt as required by Leviticus 4:12. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:4.

participate. The Radbaz appreciates the apparent question that arises from the comparison to the following halachah

63. Even though it was not considered part of the Temple

and hence offers another explanation: that the priest who was selected to remove the ashes initially was responsible

64. And thus does not require immersion or wearing the priestly

for gathering several of his priestly brethren to help complete the task. 54. They would hurry so that they would not remain in the Temple Courtyard without having sanctified their hands and feet (Tifferet Yisrael, Tamid 2:1). 55. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 2:1). 56. If they would be removed from the altar, they would be disqualified for having remained overnight. Nevertheless, while limbs and fats were on the altar themselves, they would never be disqualified. 57. For the ramp is considered as equivalent to the altar and the limbs are also not disqualified there.

service, as the Rambam proceeds to state. garments. 65. Our translation follows the first printings and authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and also follows the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 7:6). 66. The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's statements, noting that the prooftext he cites refers to the removal of the ashes from the altar and not depositing them outside of Jerusalem. As the Radbaz explains, the Rambam does not differentiate between the two. 67. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:13 which mentions this prohibition. The Radbaz maintains that not only is a prohibition is involved, a person is liable for meilah, unauthorized use of sacred property, as stated in Hilchot Meilah 2:14.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .

10

1



Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 2

It is a positive commandment to offer the incense1 offering2 on the Golden Altar3 in the Sanctuary twice each day, in the morning and in the afternoon, as [Exodus 30:7] states: "And Aaron shall burn on it the incense of fragrant spices." If one did not offer it in the morning, he should offer it in the afternoon even if [the omission] was intentional.4 The Golden Altar may be dedicated only with the incense offering of the afternoon.5 How much [incense] was offered every day? [An amount that] weighed 100 dinarim,6 50 in the morning and 50 in the afternoon. If the altar was removed from its place, the incense offering should, nevertheless, be offered there.7 When incense - even a grain of it - flies off the altar, it should not be returned.8

English

Hebrew

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 4

‫מצות עשה להקטיר הקטורת על‬ ‫מזבח הזהב שבהיכל פעמים בכל יום‬ ‫בבקר ובין הערבים שנאמר והקטיר עליו‬ ‫אהרן קטורת סמים לא הקטירו בבקר‬ ‫יקטירנו בין הערבים אפילו היו מזידין ואין‬ ‫מחנכין מזבח הזהב אלא בקטורת של בין‬ :‫הערבים‬

‫כמה מקטירין ממנה בכל יום משקל‬ ‫מאה דינרין חמשים בבוקר וחמשים‬ ‫בין הערבים מזבח שנעקר מקטירין‬ ‫הקטורת במקומו וקטרת שפקעה מעל‬ ‫המזבח אפילו קרטין שבה אין מחזירין‬ :‫אותן‬

When the incense is offered in the Sanctuary every day,9 all of the people depart from the Sanctuary and from [the area] between the Entrance Hall and the altar. No one should be there until [the priest] who offers the incense offering departs. Similarly, at the time when [a priest] enters [to sprinkle] the blood of a sin-offering that is offered inside [the Temple],10 everyone departs from from [the area] between the Entrance Hall and the altar until he departs, as [Leviticus 16:17] states: "And no person should be in the Tent of Meeting when he enters to atone in the holy place." [This is] a general principle11 [applying] to all atonement [made] in the holy place: No [other] person should be there.

‫בעת שמקטירין הקטורת בהיכל בכל‬ ‫יום פורשין כל העם מן ההיכל ומבין‬ ‫האולם ולמזבח לא יהיה שם אדם עד‬ ‫שיצא זה שהקטיר הקטרת וכן בשעה‬ ‫שיכנס בדם חטאות הנעשות בפנים‬ ‫פורשים הכל מבין האולם ולמזבח עד‬ ‫שיצא שנאמר וכל אדם לא יהיה באהל‬ ‫מועד בבואו לכפר בקודש וגו' בנין אב‬ :‫לכל כפרה שבקודש שלא יהא שם אדם‬

What is the order of the offering of the incense offering each day? [The priest] who merited12 to remove the ashes from the inner altar enters [the Sanctuary] [holding a] consecrated vessel called a teni.13 It was gold14 and would contain two and a half kabbin.15 He would place the teni on the ground in front of him and scoop up the ashes and the coals on the altar with his hands16 and deposit them in the teni. At the end, he would sweep off the remainder into it. He would leave [the teni] in the Sanctuary and depart.17

‫כיצד סדר הקטרת הקטורת בכל יום‬ ‫מי שזכה בדישון המזבח הפנימי נכנס‬ ‫בכלי קודש וטני היה שמו ושל זהב היה‬ ‫ומחזיק קביים וחצי מניח הטני בארץ לפניו‬ ‫וחופן בידיו האפר והפחם שבתוך המזבח‬ ‫ונותן לתוך הטני ובאחרונה מכבד את‬ ‫השאר לתוכו ומניחו שם בהיכל ויוצא ומי‬ ‫שזכה בקטורת נוטל כלי מלא קטורת‬ ‫גדוש וכסוי היה לו ובזך היה שמו ונותן‬ ‫הבזך בתוך כלי אחר וכף היה שמו ומכסה‬ ‫את הכף בבגד קטן ואוחז הכף בידו ונכנס‬ :‫עמו אחד במחתה של אש בידו‬

The one who merited to bring the incense offering18 would take a vessel filled to overflowing with incense. [The vessel] had a cover and was called a bezech.19 He would place the bezech in another vessel that was called a kaf. He would cover the kaf with a small cloth and hold the kaf in his hand. [Another priest]20 would enter [the Sanctuary] with him holding a fire-pan with fire.21

2

3

How does he collect the coals with the fire-pan? He takes a silver fire-pan22 and ascends to the top of the altar and moves the coals to the side,23 taking the coals that have been consumed by the fire in the second array24 and descends and places them into a golden fire-pan.25 If a kab or less of the coals have become scattered [on the ground],26 he should sweep them into the channel [for the outflow].27 On the Sabbath, he should cover them with the pisachter.28 If

‫וכיצד חותה זה שזכה במחתה לוקח‬ ‫מחתה של כסף ועולה לראש המזבח‬ ‫ומפנה את הגחלים אילך ואילך ונוטל מן‬ ‫הגחלים שנתאכלו במערכה שניה ויורד‬ ‫ומערן לתוך מחתה של זהב אם נתפזרו מן‬ ‫הגחלים כמו קב או פחות מכבדן לאמה‬ ‫ובשבת כופה עליהן הפסכתר ואם נתפזר‬ :‫יתר על קב חוזר וחותה‬

more than a kab become scattered, he should collect more with the fire-pan. The pisachter would serve three functions: It was used to cover coals and a [dead] crawling animal on the Sabbath29 and it was used to remove the ashes from the altar.30

‫שלשה דברים היה הפסכתר משמש‬ ‫כופין אותו על הגחלים ועל השרץ‬ :‫בשבת ומורידין בו את הדשן מעל המזבח‬

[The priest] who removed the ashes from the inner altar31 would proceed before them, he would take the teni that contained the ashes from the altar,32

‫ומקדים לפניהם זה שדשן המזבח‬ ‫הפנימי ונוטל הטני שבו דשון המזבח‬ ‫ומשתחוה ויוצא וזה שבידו המחתה צובר‬ ‫את הגחלים על גבי המזבח הפנימי ומרדדן‬ ‫בשולי המחתה ומשתחוה ויוצא וזה שבידו‬ ‫הכף נוטל את הבזך מתוך הכף ונותנו‬ ‫לאוהבו או לקרובו ורואה אם נתפזר מן‬ ‫הקטורת מעט בכף אוהבו או קרובו נותן לו‬ ‫לתוך חפניו זה שנתפזר עם הקטורת‬ :‫שבבזך ומשתחוה ויוצא‬

prostrate himself33 and depart. [The priest] holding the fire pan would array the coals on the surface of the inner altar, spreading them out with the bottom of the fire-pan. [He would then] prostrate himself and depart. The one holding the kaf would remove the bezech from the kaf and give it to a friend or relative.34 He checks if some of the incense spilled out [from the bezech] into the kaf. His friend or relative places the incense that spilled and that which is in the bezech in his hands. [He then] prostrates himself and depart. The one who offers the incense is warned:35 "Be careful. Do not begin [releasing the incense] in front of you, lest you become burned."36 He begins to pour the incense on the fire gently, like one who sifts flour until it is spread over the entire fire.

‫ואומרין לזה המקטיר הזהר שלא‬ ‫תתחיל מלפניך שלא תכוה ומתחיל‬ ‫ומשליך הקטורת על האש בנחת כמי‬ :‫שמרקד סולת עד שתתרדד על כל האש‬

The priest who offers the incense does not offer it until the overseer37 tells him: "Offer the incense." If the High Priest is the one offering the incense, the overseer says: "My sir, High Priest,38 offer the incense." After he says this, all of the people depart [from the area in front of the Temple Building].39 He then offers the incense, prostrates himself and departs.

‫ואין המקטיר מקטיר עד שהממונה‬ ‫אומר לו הקטר ואם כהן גדול הוא‬ ‫אומר לו הממונה אישי כהן גדול הקטר‬ ‫ואחר שאומר יפרשו כל העם ויקטיר‬ :‫המקטיר וישתחוה ויצא‬

The removal of the ashes from the lamps of the Menorah and their kindling40in the morning41 and the afternoon is a positive commandment,42 as [Exodus 27:21] states: "Aaron and his sons shall arrange it." The kindling of the lamps supersedes [the prohibitions of forbidden labor] on the Sabbath43 and [the restrictions of] ritual impurity,44 as do the [other] sacrifices that [are offered at] a fixed time,45 as [ibid.:20] states: "To raise up a continuously [burning] lamp."

‫דישון המנורה והטבת הנרות בבוקר‬ ‫ובין הערבים מצות עשה שנאמר יערוך‬ ‫אותו אהרן ובניו והדלקת הנרות דוחה את‬ ‫השבת ואת הטומאה כקרבנות שקבוע להן‬ :‫זמן שנאמר להעלות נר תמיד‬

How much oil should be put in each lamp? Half a log.46 [This is implied by the phrase (ibid.:21):]

‫וכמה שמן הוא נותן לכל נר חצי‬ ‫לוג שמן שנאמר מערב עד בקר תן‬ ‫לו כמדה שיהיה דולק מערב עד בקר ואין‬ ‫מחנכין את המנורה אלא בהדלקת שבעה‬ :‫נרותיה בין הערבים‬

"From the morning until the evening," Implied is that one must use a measure of oil that will enable it to burn from the afternoon until the morning.47 The Menorah may be dedicated only with the kindling of the seven lamps in the afternoon.

4

5

What is meant by the expression "the removal of the ashes of the Menorah"?48 Every lamp that has burnt out should have its wick and its [remaining] oil removed and it should be cleaned. The priest should place another wick and other oil in it, using the half log measure. [The wick and oil he removed] should be placed in the ash-heap near the [outer] altar together with the ashes removed from the inner alter and the outer altar.49 He should kindle [any] lamp that was extinguished. Kindling the lamps is what is meant by the term hatavah.50 When one discovers a lamp that has not been extinguished, he should restore it.51

‫מהו דישון המנורה כל נר שכבה‬ ‫מסיר הפתילה וכל השמן שבנר‬ ‫ומקנחו ונותן בו פתילה אחרת ושמן אחר‬ ‫במידה והוא חצי לוג וזה שהסיר משליכו‬ ‫במקום הדשן אצל המזבח עם דישון‬ ‫המזבח הפנימי והחיצון ומדליק נר שכבה‬ ‫והדלקת הנרות היא הטבתם ונר שמצאו‬ :‫שלא כבה מתקנו‬

When the western lamp52 becomes extinguished, after the ash is removed, it should be rekindled only [from fire] from the outer altar.53 When any of the other lamps are extinguished, by contrast, they may be rekindled from each other.54

‫נר מערבי שכבה אין מדליקין אותו‬ ‫אחר דשונו אלא ממזבח החיצון‬ ‫אבל שאר הנרות כל נר שכבה מהן‬ :‫מדליקו מנר חבירו‬

How are [the lamps of the Menorah] kindled? One should pull its wick out55 until he kindles it [from another one of the lamps].56 He must extend the wicks,] because the lamps are permanently affixed within the Menorah.57 And he may not use another lamp, because that would be disrespectful.58

‫וכיצד מדליקו מושך הפתילה עד‬ ‫שמדליקה ומחזירה לפי שהנרות‬ ‫קבועים במנורה ואינו יכול להדליק בנר‬ :‫אחר משום בזיון‬

All of the substances that are forbidden to be used as wicks on the Sabbath59 are forbidden to be used [as wicks] in the Temple for the Menorah.60 [This is derived from Exodus 27:20 which] states: "To raise up a continuously [burning] lamp." The flame must rise up on its own.61

‫כל הפתילות שאסור להדליק בהן‬ ‫בשבת אסור להדליק בהן במקדש‬ ‫במנורה שנאמר להעלות נר תמיד שתהא‬ :‫שלהבת עולה מאליה‬

6

[The priest] would not kindle all the lamps at once. Instead, he would kindle five lamps and make an interruption. In the interim, another service was performed.62 Afterwards, he would reenter and kindle the other two in order to attract the attention of everyone in the Temple Courtyard.63

‫לא היה מטיב כל הנרות בפעם‬ ‫אחת אלא מטיב חמשה נרות‬ ‫ומפסיק ועושין עבודה אחרת ואחר כך‬ ‫נכנס ומטיב השנים כדי להרגיש את כל‬ :‫העזרה‬

Whenever one of the lamps of the Menorah was extinguished, we kindle it from another lamp as we explained.64

‫כל נר שכבה מדליקין אותו מנר‬ ‫אחר מהן כמו שביארנו וכיצד סדר‬ ‫ההטבה זה שזכה בדישון המנורה נכנס‬ ‫וכלי בידו וכוז שמו ושל זהב היה דומה‬ ‫לקיתון גדול מדשן בו את הפתילות שכבו‬ ‫ואת השמן הנשאר בנר והטיב חמשה‬ ‫נרות ומניח הכוז שם לפני המנורה על‬ ‫מעלה שנייה משלש מעלות שלפניה ויוצא‬ ‫ואח"כ נכנס ומטיב שני הנרות ונוטל הכוז‬ :‫בידו ומשתחוה ויוצא‬

What is the order in which they were kindled? [The priest] who merited to remove the ashes of the Menorah enters the Sanctuary65 carrying a vessel referred to as a kuz. It was made of gold and resembled a large pitcher. He would place the wicks that were extinguished and the oil that remained in the lamp in it.66 He would then kindle five lamps and leave the kuz on the second step of the three steps positioned before [the Menorah]67 and depart. Afterwards,68 he would reenter and kindle two lamps, take the kuz in his hand, prostrate himself, and depart.

It is a positive commandment to offer the chavitin69 offering of the High Priest each day,70 half in the morning together with the continuous offering of the morning and half in the afternoon together with the continuous offering of the afternoon. Kneading [these cakes] and baking them supersede [the prohibitions of forbidden labor] on the Sabbath and [the restrictions of] ritual impurity, as do the [other] sacrifices that [are offered at] a fixed time,71 as [implied by Leviticus 6:14 which] states [that these cakes must be] tufinei [which allows for the interpretation that they must be] naeh, "attractive," i.e., and thus not baked on the preceding day.72 Moreover, were they to have been baked on the preceding day, they would have been disqualified by the passage of the night,73 for the deep frying pan74 is one of the sacred utensils, as we explained.75

‫חביתי כהן גדול מצות עשה‬ ‫להקריבן בכל יום מחצה בבקר עם‬ ‫תמיד של שחר ומחצה בין הערבים עם‬ ‫תמיד של בין הערבים ולישתן ואפייתן‬ ‫דוחין את השבת ואת הטומאה ככל קרבן‬ ‫שקבוע לו זמן שנאמר תופיני שתהא נאה‬ ‫ולא תאפה מבערב ועוד אם תאפה מבערב‬ ‫תפסל בלינה שהמרחשת מכלי הקדש היא‬ :‫כמו שביארנו‬

Grinding the flour for them and sifting it [which is performed] outside [the Temple Courtyard]76 does not supersede [the prohibitions of forbidden labor] on the Sabbath.77

‫טחינת סולתן והרקדן בחוץ ואינן‬ :‫דוחין את השבת‬

When a [High] Priest offered half [of the cakes] in the morning and then died, or became impure,78 or contracted a disqualifying physical blemish79 and another [High] Priest was appointed in his stead,80 [the latter] should not bring half an isaron81 [of flat cakes] from home [in the afternoon]. Nor should he bring the half an isaron [remaining] from [the offering of] the first [High Priest]. Instead, he should bring a complete isaron.82 Half is offered and half is

‫כהן שהקריב מחצה בשחרית ומת או‬ ‫נטמא או נולד לו מום ומינו כהן אחר‬ ‫תחתיו לא יביא חצי עשרון מביתו ולא חצי‬ ‫עשרון של ראשון אלא מביא עשרון שלם‬ :‫וחוצהו ומקריב מחצה ומחצה אבד‬

destroyed.83

7

8

Thus two half [esronim] will be offered and two will be destroyed. The two halves that will be destroyed should be left until their form is no longer recognizable84 and then be taken out to the place of burning. The same laws apply if the half [of a High Priest's offering that was set aside until] the afternoon was lost or became impure.85 Where should Courtyard.86

they

be

burnt?

In

the

‫נמצאו שני חצאים קריבין ושני‬ ‫חצאין אובדין ואלו שני החצאין‬ ‫האובדים מניחין אותן עד שתעובר צורתן‬ ‫ויוצאין לבית השריפה וכן אם אבד או‬ ‫נטמא החצי של בין הערבים והיכן שורפין‬ :‫אותן בעזרה‬

Temple

If the High Priest died in the morning after he offered the half of an isaron and another [High] Priest was not appointed, the heirs of the first should bring an entire isaron as atonement for the first. It was also offered complete.87 If the High Priest died in the morning before offering [the chavitin] and another [High] Priest was not appointed in his stead, [his heirs] should offer a complete isaron in the morning and a complete isaron in the afternoon.88 [The amount of] oil and the frankincense offered with it should not be doubled even though [the amount of] flour is doubled.89 Instead, three lugim of oil and a handful of frankincense is set aside

‫מת כהן גדול בשחרית אחר‬ ‫שהקריב חצי העשרון ולא מינו‬ ‫כהן אחר מביאין היורשין עשרון שלם‬ ‫עבור כפרתו ועושין אותו חביתין ושלימה‬ ‫היתה קריבה מת כהן גדול קודם שיקריבו‬ ‫בבקר ולא מינו כהן אחר מקריבין אותו‬ ‫עשרון שלם בבקר ועשרון שלם בין‬ ‫הערבים ואין כופלין שמנה ולבונתה אף על‬ ‫פי שנכפלה הסלת אלא מפרישין להם‬ ‫שלשה לוגי שמן וקומץ לבונה לוג ומחצה‬ ‫שמן וחצי קומץ לבונה לעשרון של בקר‬ ‫ולוג ומחצה שמן וחצי קומץ לבונה לעשרון‬ :‫של בין הערבים‬

for them, a log and half of oil and half a handful of frankincense for the isaron of the morning90 and a log and half of oil and half a handful of frankincense for the isaron of the afternoon.

« Previous Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 4

9

1. See the description of the way in which the incense offering was prepared in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, ch. 2.

14. As a sign of wealth and prosperity. See Hilchot Beit

2. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 28) and Sefer

15. A kab is 1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc

HaChinuch (mitzvah 103) count this as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. Preparing the incense for the offering is not considered as a mitzvah (Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 10). Significantly, the Ramban (Hosafot to the negative commandments) maintains that the morning incense offering and the afternoon one should be considered as separate mitzvot. 3. See the description of the Golden Altar in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:17. 4. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 4:4), the Rambam writes that it was rare that the priests willfully omitted offering the incense offering, because offering it brought blessings for prosperity. 5. Note the contrast to the daily offering (Chapter 1, Halachah 12). 6. A dinar is approximately 4 grams in modern measure. 7. For the altar itself need not be there for the offering to be acceptable. Note the parallel in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot 19:15. 8. From the exegesis of Leviticus 6:3, Yoma 45b derives that the limbs of a sacrifice that fly off the altar should be returned to it, but not the grains of incense. The grain should be entombed (Radbaz). 9. The Kessef Mishnehstates that this phrase is making a distinction between the incense offering brought each day and that brought on Yom Kippur. Since the latter offering is brought into the Holy of Holies, it is necessary to depart only from the Temple Building. One may remain in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. See Hilchot Avodat Yom Kippurim 4:2. 10. This refers to the bull brought by a High Priest as a sin-offering, the bull brought as atonement for a law forgotten by the High Court, and the goats that are brought to atone for idolatry (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:13). 11. This translates the Talmudic term binyan av. Note the

HaBechirah 1:19.

according to Chazon Ish. 16. They were already burnt out and there was no danger of him being burnt. 17. Yoma 21a states this was done so because of the miracle that occurred. To explain: Our Sages relate the ashes from the Menorah and from the Golden Altar would be miraculously swallowed up in their place each day. In order not to require God to perform this miracle twice each day, the ashes from the Golden Altar would be put aside until those from the Menorah were collected. See Halachah 12. 18. See Chapter 4, Halachah 7; Chapter 6, Halachah 4. 19. In his translation of the Torah, Onkelos translates the word kaf, generally translated as "spoon," as bezech. Both the kaf and the bezech were utensils resembling ladles, i.e., they had a receptacle and a long arm leading to it. 20. The one who merited to remove the ashes from the altar, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 5. 21. I.e., with burning coals, as explained in the following halachah. 22. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:5), the Rambam writes that this fire-pan would hold four kabbim. 23. The Rambam's statements are based on his text of the Mishnah (Tamid 5:5). Apparently, the Ra'avad had a slightly different version. 24. See Chapter 2, Halachot 4 and 8. 25. This fire-pan would hold three kabbim [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. Yoma 45a explains that gathering the coals would damage the fire-pan slightly and over time, it would have to be replaced. Hence rather than damage a golden one, the Sages took the financial needs of the Jewish people into consideration and did not require that a golden one be used each day. 26. Since the golden fire-pan was smaller than the silver one, it was natural that this would occur (ibid.).

Radbaz who explains that although Yoma 44a appears to

27. As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11, there was a

derive this concept through the exegetical method referred to

channel for outflow that ran through the Temple Courtyard.

as a gezeirah sheveh (a textual association), the intent is

The priest would sweep the coals there [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. The Radbaz

really a binyan av. 12. I.e., who was chosen in the lottery, as described in Chapter 4, Halachah 6. 13. The term is used in several contexts in the Talmudic literature to refer to a metal container. In his gloss to Tamid 3:6, Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura states that it has the same root as the word tene used by Deuteronomy 26:2 to refer to the container used to carry the first fruits.

questions why the priest would be allowed to intentionally extinguish the coals. Perhaps his question can be answered on the basis of Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 8:9 which states that these coals no longer have any holiness. 28. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that in his Targum (Exodus 27:3), Onkelos uses the term pisachter for the Hebrew sir, meaning "pot."

10

29. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:20.

47. The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 2:2) maintains that since the

30. See Chapter 2, Halachah 13.

summer nights are longer than the winter nights, the priests

31. Tamid 6:1 states that he would be accompanied by the priest

would compensate for that by using thicker wicks in the winter and thinner ones in the summer. In his Commentary to

who would clean the Menorah. The Rambam does not mention this point, because it is not germane to the discussion at hand. 32. Which he had left previously in the Temple Sanctuary, as stated in Halachah 4. 33. As appropriate for one who completed his Temple service and depart. 34. I.e., thus four priests would enter: a) one to clean the altar; b) one to place the coal on it; c) one to pour incense into the hands of the priest who would offer it; and d) one to offer the incense on the coals (Radbaz).

the Mishnah (Menachot 9:3), however, the Rambam writes that a medium sized wick was used at all times. The Radbaz explains that position, stating that if some oil was left over, it was not significant, for the Temple sacrifices should be offered in a spirit of wealth and prosperity. 48. Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Me'ilah 3:4) where the Rambam writes that deshen means "ash" and the remainder of the wicks and the coals produced are considered as ash. 49. See Chapter 2, Halachah 12. 50. Other authorities interpret hatavah as referring to the

35. As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 7, the incense offering would be given to a priest who never offered it previously.

cleaning of the lamps. In his Commentary to the Mishnah

Hence he would not be experienced and required these warnings (Radbaz).

cleaning of the lamps, rekindling what was extinguished, and changing their wicks." See also Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:7

36. I.e., the person offering the incense stands to the east of the altar. He should begin pouring the incense on the western

where it appears that the Rambam interprets this term as meaning cleaning and preparing the Menorah.

side of the altar. Otherwise, he will have to lean over the altar while the incense is burning and he could be burned in

As the Kessef Mishneh mentions, many other commentaries

this manner.

maintains that the term hatavah means only the cleaning and

(Tamid 3:9), the Rambam explains that this term means "the

follow the approach of Rashba (Responsa 79 and 309) who

37. Rashi (Yoma 28a) maintains that this term refers to the

preparing of the Menachot. This difference of opinion

segen, the High Priest's assistant. Tosafot maintains that it

regarding the definition of this term is dependent on a larger issue. Were all the lamps kindled in the morning or not? As

refers to the priest who apportions the Temple service by lottery. From Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:16, it is obvious that the Rambam accepts Rashi's view.

mentioned in Halachah 10, the Rambam maintains that they were. The Rashba and those who follow his approach differ.

38. I.e., as expression of deference.

Accordingly, they differ in their interpretation of Exodus 30:7 "when he performs hatavah for the lamps, he shall offer the

39. As stated in Halachah 3.

incense." According to the Rambam, this refers to the

40. See Halachah 12 which describes what this service entails.

kindling of the lamps, while according to the Rashba, this refers only to cleaning them.

41. The Rambam's view that the Menorah was kindled both in the afternoon and the morning is not accepted by all authorities. Many maintain that it was kindled only in the afternoon. And there is an intermediate view that one (or two) lamps also burned during the day. 42. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 25) and Sefer

Exodus 30:8 uses a different term for kindling the lamps at night (as the Rashba states in support of his approach). Perhaps hatavah can refer only to the rekindling of the lamps in the morning as indicated by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah cited above. See the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh.

HaChinuch (mitzvah 98) count this as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. 43. Although kindling light is usually forbidden on the Sabbath, in this instance it is permitted. 44. If the majority of priests or sacred utensils are impure, the Menorah may still be kindled. 45. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10. 46. 172 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 300 cc according to Chazon Ish.

51. I.e., add oil so that it will burn until nightfall. 52. As mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:8, the Rambam maintains that the Menorah was positioned from north to south. Accordingly, this refers to the center lamp that was positioned opposite the Holy of Holies. Others differ, maintaining that the Menorah is positioned from east to west and the term "western lamp" refers to the second lamp from the east which is "western" in relation to the more eastern one.

11

53. Yoma 45b derives this concept from Leviticus 6:6 which reads "A continuous fire shall burn on the altar." Using the

66. The wicks and oil were placed in the ash-pile near the outer altar as stated in Halachah 12. The commentaries have questioned the intent of the gloss of the Radbaz.

rules of Biblical exegesis, our Sages explain that the verse can be interpreted. Whenever a continuous fire will burn -

67. As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:11, there was a stone

and the Menorah is also referred to as a continuous fire - it

positioned before the Menorah into which three steps were

shall be kindled from the altar.

carved. The priest would stand on it while cleaning and kindling the Menorah.

The Ra'avad differs with this ruling and maintains that when possible, even the western lamp should be kindled from the other lamps of the Menorah. Only when there is no alternative, it should be kindled from the altar. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, give support for the Rambam's view. 54. Indeed, as stated in the following halachah, it is desirable to do so rather than use another candle. 55. With tweezers. This was possible, because the wicks were long. 56. The Radbaz suggests that each lamp would be kindled from the lamp next to it. Thus one would not have to stretch any of the wicks that far. 57. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:6-7. 58. Even if one would light the ordinary lamp from the lamp of

68. I.e., after the limbs were brought up to the altar as stated above. 69. This offering resembled flat cakes. The Rambam describes their preparation in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:2-4. 70. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 40) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 136) count this as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. 71. See the notes to Halachah 10, for details concerning the above. 72. For day-old cakes are not attractive. The Radbaz asks: Since the chavitin offering is considered one of the communal offerings, why is it necessary to add this and the subsequent rationale. He explains that they are

the Menorah, it would be unacceptable, because it is not

valuable for the lessons that they teach independent of the concept they are quoted to support.

respectful to light an ordinary lamp from the lamp of the Menorah (Kessef Mishneh, based on Maggid Mishneh,

73. For an article kept in a sacred vessel overnight is

Hilchot Chanukah 3:9). 59. See Hilchot Shabbat 5:5. The substances mentioned there are unacceptable, because they do not allow for a steadily burning flame. Instead, the flames they produce sputter. 60. They may, however, be used for other purposes, e.g., as wicks for the lanterns used to illuminate the Temple Courtyard during the Simchat Beit HaShoevah celebrations (Shabbos 21b). 61. This excludes substances which will prevent the fire from ascending smoothly on its own. 62. The limbs of the sacrifices would be brought up to the altar and the incense offering was brought, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachot 3-4. 63. By extending the duration of time in which this service is performed, it will be noticed by all those present [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 3:9)]. 64. Halachah 13. 65. The lottery through which this priest is selected is described in Chapter 4, Halachah 6. As mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 1, this priest would enter the Sanctuary together with the priest who removed the ashes from the inner altar. The Rambam does not mention that fact here, because it is not a point of present concern.

disqualified. 74. The Lechem Mishneh questions why the Rambam speaks of the deep frying pan when in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:3, he states that the High Priest's offering was prepared using the flat frying pan. 75. Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23. Both the flat and deep frying pans are mentioned there. 76. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, op. cit. 77. But instead, must be performed on Friday. 78. Although Halachah 18 stated that the offering of the chavitin supersedes the restrictions of ritual impurity, that refers to an instance when the majority of the Jewish community, the majority of the priests, or the majority of the Temple utensils are impure. In this instance, only the High Priest is impure and that difficulty can be remedied by temporarily appointing another in his place (Radbaz). 79. These latter two instances are not mentioned in Menachot 50b, the source for the Rambam's ruling. Nevertheless, the concept follows logically, because in these states, the High Priest cannot serve (Radbaz). 80. In the latter two instances, if and when the first High Priest regains ritual purity or is healed from his blemish, he is restored to his position (ibid.). 81. I.e., half the measure required to make the flat-cakes for the entire day, the measure required for the afternoon offering.

82. From his own property. 83. As explained in the following halachah. 84. This term is interpreted to mean that they should be left until

87. Menachot 51b derives this concept from Leviticus 6:15: "The priest... from his sons should offer it," i.e., his heirs should offer it, the entire offering, bringing it in his place.

they become disqualified because they remained overnight. They cannot, however, be destroyed immediately, because

88. Menachot, op. cit., derives this concept from the fact that the

since the disqualifying factor is not integral to the sacrificial food itself, destroying them would be an act of disrespect.

89. For there is a verse requiring the doubling of the flour and no such verse with regard to the oil and the frankincense

85. I.e., the High Priest must bring a complete isaron and half is offered and half is destroyed.

prooftext states "It shall be offered on the pyre in its entirety."

(Menachot, op. cit.). 90. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:2,4.

86. To the east of the altar, as stated in the notes to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

12

policy .

1



Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 3

English

Hebrew

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 5

All of these services that were performed [in the Temple] every day were performed on the basis of a lottery.1 How would they conduct themselves? All of the priests of the clan of that day2 enter the Chamber of Hewn Stone3 after dawn4 while garbed in the priestly garments. The [priest] appointed [to supervise] the lotteries [stands] with them and they stand in a semicircle. The supervisor takes a hat from one of the priests and returns it to him.5 This is the person from whom they will begin to count and thus determine the lottery, as will be explained.6

‫כל העבודות האלו שעושין בכל יום‬ ‫בפייס היו עושין אותן וכיצד היו‬ ‫עושין כל כהני בתי אבות של יום נכנסין‬ ‫ללשכת הגזית אחר שיעלה עמוד השחר‬ ‫ומלובשין הן בבגדי כהונה והממונה שעל‬ ‫הפייסות עמהן והן עומדין בהקפה‬ ‫והממונה נוטל מצנפת מעל ראשו של‬ ‫אחד מהן ומחזירה והוא האיש שמתחילין‬ :‫למנות ממנו ומפיסין כמו שיתבאר‬

The men [selected to perform] the services proceed to them. The remainder of the priests are taken to the attendants who remove the sacred garments from them, leaving them only with the leggings7 until they put on their ordinary garments. They then remove the sacred leggings. The attendants then return the garments to the lockers.8

‫ויוצאין לעבודה אנשים שעובדין בו‬ ‫ושאר הכהנים מוסרין אותן לחזנין‬ ‫ומפשיטין אותן את בגדי הקדש ולא היו‬ ‫מניחין עליהן אלא המכנסים בלבד עד‬ ‫שלובשין בגדי חול וחוזרין ופושטין את‬ ‫המכנסיים של קדש ומחזירים החזנים את‬ :‫הכלים לחלונות‬

How would the lottery be carried out? [The priests] would stand in a semi-circle. They would decide on a number, e.g., 100, 1000, or any other number that they would choose. Afterwards, the supervisor says: "Stick out your fingers" and they stick out one or two fingers.9 If one would stick out three, the three are counted.10 A thumb should not be stuck out in the Temple because of the deceivers. For a thumb is small and it is easy to stick out and then bend over.11 If one sticks out a thumb, it is not counted. The supervisor begins counting from [the priest] who was identified by the removal of his hat. The count on their fingers12 and then repeat13 until they reach the number they agreed upon. The person upon whose finger the counting was completed is the one who is chosen in the first lottery for the Temple service.

2

‫כיצד מפיסין עומדין בהיקף ומסכימין‬ ‫על מניין שמונים מאה או אלף או כל‬ ‫מניין שיסכימו עליו והממונה אומר להם‬ ‫הצביעו והן מוציאין אצבעותיהן אחת או‬ ‫שתים ואם הוציא שלש מונין לו שלש ואין‬ ‫מוציאין גודל במקדש מפני הרמאים‬ ‫שהגודל קצר ונוח להוציאו ולכפותו‬ ‫והמוציא גודל אין מונין אותו לו ומתחיל‬ ‫הממונה למנות מן האיש הידוע שהסיר‬ ‫מצנפתו תחילה ומונה על אצבעותיהן‬ ‫וחוזר חלילה עד שישלים המניין שהסכימו‬ ‫עליו והאיש ששלם המניין אצל אצבעו‬ :‫הוא שיצא בפייס ראשון לעבודה‬

Why do they count the number they have agreed upon by the fingers they stuck out instead of counting the people themselves? Because it is forbidden to count Jews14 except via another entity, as [I Samuel 15:4] states: "And he counted them with lambs."15

‫ולמה מונה המניין שהסכימו עליו על‬ ‫האצבעות שהוציאו ולא היה מונה על‬ ‫האנשים עצמן לפי שאסור למנות ישראל‬ ‫אלא על ידי דבר אחר שנאמר ויפקדם‬ :‫בטלאים‬

Four lotteries were carried out each day in the morning.16 The first lottery was for who would remove the ashes from the altar.17 The lottery was conducted and the one who merited was chosen to remove the ashes. He also arranges the wood on the altar and he brings the two logs of wood to the altar and brings in a fire-pan full of flaming [coals]18 from the outer altar to the golden altar to offer the incense upon it.

‫ארבעה פייסות היו מפיסין בכל יום‬ ‫בשחרית הפייס הראשון מי תורם‬ ‫את המזבח הפיסו וזכה מי שזכה לתרום‬ ‫והוא מסדר את המערכה והוא מעלה שני‬ ‫גזרי עצים למזבח והוא מכניס מחתה‬ ‫מלאה אש מן המזבח החיצון למזבח הזהב‬ :‫להקטיר עליה קטורת‬

Thirteen [priests] are chosen in the second lottery19 according to the order in which they stand. What is implied? The supervisor tells them to stick out their fingers and counts as explained.20 The one who is chosen first by lottery slaughters the continuous offering of the morning. The second priest standing next to him21 receives the blood of the continuous offering and he casts [on the altar]. The third, [who stands] next to the second, removes the ashes from the inner altar, the altar of the incense offering. The fourth on his side removes the ashes from the Menorah and kindles the lamps. The fifth brings up the head of the continuous offering and its [right] hindleg to the ramp.22 The sixth brings up the two forefeet. The seventh brings up the tail and the [left] hindleg. The eighth brings up the breast and the neck. The ninth brings up the two flanks. The tenth brings up the inner organs. The eleventh brings up the flour for the additional offerings. The twelfth brings up the chavitin23 and the thirteenth brings up the wine of the additional offerings. For the third lottery, the supervisor announces to all the members of the clan of that day: "Whoever has never brought an incense offering24 should come and enter the lottery."25 The one chosen first in this lottery merited to offer the incense offering.

3

‫הפייס השני זוכין בו שלשה עשר על‬ ‫סדר עמידתן כיצד הממונה אומר להם‬ ‫הצביעו ומונה כדרך שביארנו וזה שיצא‬ ‫בפייס ראשון הוא שוחט תמיד של שחר‬ ‫והשני שעומד בצדו הוא מקבל את דם‬ ‫התמיד והוא זורקו והשלישי הסמוך לשני‬ ‫מדשן המזבח הפנימי שהוא מזבח‬ ‫הקטורת והרביעי שבצדו מדשן את‬ ‫המנורה ומטיב את הנרות והחמישי מעלה‬ ‫ראש התמיד ורגלו לכבש והששי מעלה‬ ‫שתי הידים והשביעי מעלה העוקץ והרגל‬ ‫והשמיני מעלה החזה והגרה והתשיעי‬ ‫מעלה שתי הדפנות והעשירי מעלה‬ ‫הקרבים והאחד עשר מעלה סולת הנסכים‬ ‫והשנים עשר מעלה החביתין והשלשה‬ :‫עשר מעלה היין של נסכים‬

‫הפייס השלישי אומר להן הממונה לכל‬ ‫אנשי בית אב של אותו היום מי שלא‬ ‫הקטיר קטורת מימיו יבא ויפיס ויתקבצו‬ ‫אצל הממונה ויפיסו ומי שיצא בפייס זה‬ :‫ראשון הוא שיזכה להקטיר קטורת‬

4

For the fourth lottery, all the priests gathered.26 The lottery is held to know who will bring the limbs up from the ramp to the altar. The lottery was held and the one who was chosen27 merited. A different lottery was not held for the continuous offering of the afternoon. Instead, all of the priests who were chosen to perform any of the tasks in the morning should also perform them in the afternoon.28 An exception was the incense offering. Another lottery was made for [the right to offer] it in the afternoon. All those who never brought an incense offering from that clan could come and enter the lottery. If they had all offered incense previously, they are all able to enter the third lottery in the morning and the one who was selected in the morning offers the incense in the afternoon as well. On the Sabbath, when [besides] the continuous offerings, the additional offerings and the two bowls of frankincense were offered, how would they conduct themselves? In the morning, the lottery was held among the men of clan of the watch that was leaving.29 They would offer the continuous offering of the morning and the two sheep brought as burnt-offerings for the additional offering.30 The ones selected to perform the tasks for the continuous offering of the morning would [perform those tasks] for the two sheep [brought as] additional offerings.31 The watch that enters32 on the Sabbath would conduct other lotteries for the continuous offering of the afternoon. Both watches would [participate in] the division of the showbread.33 The [show]bread is not eaten until the two bowls of frankincense are offered on the pyre. The frankincense requires salt like the other sacrifices.34

‫הפייס הרביעי מתקבצין כולן‬ ‫ומפיסין לידע מי מעלה איברים מן‬ ‫הכבש למזבח הפיסו וזכה מי שזכה תמיד‬ ‫של בין הערבים אין מפיסין לו פייס אחר‬ ‫אלא כל כהן שזכה בעבודה מן העבודות‬ ‫שחרית יזכה בין הערבים חוץ מן הקטורת‬ ‫שהן מפיסין לה פייס אחר בין הערבים‬ ‫ויבוא כל מי שלא הקטיר קטורת מעולם‬ ‫מאנשי אותו בית אב ויפיסו עליה ואם‬ ‫כבר הקטירו כולן מימיהן מפיסין להן כולן‬ ‫בשחרית בפייס שלישי וזה שזכה בה‬ :‫שחרית מקטירה בין הערבים‬

‫בשבת שיש שם תמידין ומוספין‬ ‫ושני בזיכי לבונה כיצד הם עובדין‬ ‫מפיסין בשחר אנשי אותו בית אב של‬ ‫משמר היוצא ומקריבין תמיד של שחר‬ ‫ושני כבשי עולה של מוספין וכל שזכה‬ ‫בעבודה מעבודת התמיד של שחר הוא‬ ‫זוכה בה בשני כבשי מוסף והמשמר האחר‬ ‫שנכנס בשבת מפיסין פייסות אחרות‬ ‫לתמיד של בין הערבים ואלו ואלו חולקין‬ :‫בלחם הפנים‬

‫ואין אוכלין את הלחם עד שיקטירו שני‬ ‫בזיכי לבונה על האש והלבונה טעונה‬ :‫מלח כשאר הקרבנות‬

5

These two bowls are offered after the additional offerings.35 Two priests offer these two bowls.36

‫ואחר קרבן המוספין מקטירין שני‬ ‫הבזיכין ושני כהנים מקריבין את‬ :‫שני הבזיכין‬

How is the showbread divided on the Sabbaths of the year in general? The watch that enters receives six loaves and the watch that leaves receives six loaves. Those that enter divide [the bread] among themselves in the north, for they are prepared to carry out the Temple service.37 Those who depart divide it in the south.38

‫כיצד חולקין לחם הפנים בכל‬ ‫שבתות השנה משמר הנכנס נוטל‬ ‫שש חלות ומשמר היוצא נוטל שש‬ ‫הנכנסין חולקין ביניהם בצפון שהרי הן‬ ‫מוכנים לעבודה והיוצאין חולקין בדרום‬ ‫ובזמן שיהיה יום טוב של אחד משלשה‬ ‫רגלים בשבת וכן בשבת שבתוך החג‬ ‫חולקין כל המשמרות בשוה בלחם הפנים‬ ‫וכן אם חל יום טוב הראשון של חג‬ ‫]באחד[ בשבת חולקין כל המשמרות‬ ‫בשוה מערב יום טוב שהוא שבת בלחם‬ ‫הפנים מפני שהקדימו לעבודה וכן אם חל‬ ‫יום טוב האחרון להיות בערב שבת חולקין‬ ‫כל המשמרות בשוה בלחם הפנים באותה‬ ‫שבת שהיא מוצאי החג ודבר זה תקנה כדי‬ ‫שיתאחרו הכהנים בשביל חילוק לחם‬ ‫הפנים ואם נתאחר אחד מבעלי משמר‬ :‫ולא בא ימצא אחר‬

When the holiday of one of the three pilgrimage festivals39 falls on the Sabbath or on Sabbath in the midst of the holiday,40 all of the watches share equally in the division41 of the showbread.42 Similarly, if the first holiday of a festival falls on Sunday, all of the watches share equally in the division of the showbread on the day preceding the festival which is the Sabbath because they came early to the Temple service.43 Similarly, if the final day of the festival falls on Friday, all of the watches share equally in the division of the showbread on the Sabbath which is the day following the festival. This practice is an ordinance of our Sages [who instituted it] so that the priests should delay [their departure from Jerusalem so that they share] in the division of the showbread.44 [In this way,] if one of the members of the watch [of the coming week] would be delayed and not come [on time], another priest will be found [to take his place].

6

If there is one day intervening between the Sabbath and the festival, e.g., the first day of the festival fell on Monday or the last day fell on Thursday, or Shavuot fell on Monday or Thursday, the watch whose time was fixed that week receives ten loaves and the watch which enters receives two.45 The rationale is that only one day is left for them to serve alone,46 either Friday or Sunday, and they are indolent and only a few come [to the Temple].47

‫חל יום אחד להפסיק בין השבת ובין‬ ‫יום טוב כגון שהיה יום טוב הראשון‬ ‫של חג בשני או יום טוב האחרון בחמישי‬ ‫או יום של עצרת שחל להיות בשני או‬ ‫בחמישי משמר שזמנו קבוע באותה שבת‬ ‫נוטל עשר חלות וזה הנכנס נוטל שתים‬ ‫שהרי לא נשאר להם לעבודה הם לבדם‬ ‫אלא יום אחד שהוא ערב שבת או אחד‬ :‫בשבת ומתעצלין ואין באין מהן אלא מעט‬

The High Priest always receives from each watch half of the loaves that they receive, as [implied by Leviticus 24:9]: "And it shall be for Aaron and his sons," i.e., half for Aaron and half for his sons. A High Priest never receives a portion of a loaf, because that is not respectful.

‫כהן גדול לעולם נוטל מכל משמר‬ ‫חצי החלות שזכה בהן שנאמר‬ ‫והיתה לאהרן ולבניו מחצה לאהרן ומחצה‬ ‫לבניו ואין כהן גדול נוטל פרס שאין זה‬ :‫כבודו‬

« Previous

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 5

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 3 FOOTNOTES 1. This refers to the offering of the communal offerings. The priests to offer individual sacrifices were not chosen on the

3. A large chamber on the northern side of the Temple Courtyard. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17. This chamber

basis of a lottery (Rashi, Yoma 26b). See also the gloss of the Mishneh LiMelech to Halachah 9 which discusses this

was chosen because a portion of it is outside the Temple Courtyard and it was in that portion the priests would stand.

issue. Yoma 22a explains that the lotteries were initiated, because

The rationale is that, as will be explained, the hat of one of the priests would be removed and it is inappropriate to stand

originally the priests would race to carry out the Temple functions. Once as the priests were running up the ramp,

bareheaded in the Temple Courtyard even briefly.

one pushed another and he fell and broke his leg. When the Sages realized that danger could result, they instituted these lotteries. 2. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, ch. 4, which explains that the priests were divided into 24 watches. Each watch would serve in the Temple for one week at a time. Each of those watches were divided into seven clans which would carry out the services for that particular day.

4. The first glowing of the sun's rays, well before sunrise. At this time, the dust was removed from the altar, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 11. See also Chapter 6, Halachah 1. 5. Immediately, so that the priest would not be bareheaded. 6. In Halachah 3. 7. For reasons of modesty. 8. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 8:8-9. 9. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 2:1), the Rambam writes that a priest would stick out one finger if he was weak or several if he was healthy.

7

10. The commentaries note that the Rambam's interpretation of Yoma, loc. cit., is different from that of most other authorities

28. The Kessef Mishneh notes that although the wood for the

with regard to this point. See the gloss of the Radbaz who elaborates on this matter.

to the one in the morning, there was no need for a second lottery. Instead, the priest who was selected in the morning

11. And thus he could manipulate the counting to favor himself [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). Here also, the Rambam's interpretation differs from that of other authorities. 12. Proceeding to the right along the semi-circle.

altar was brought by two priests in the afternoon as opposed

would bring one of his friends to assist him in the afternoon. 29. I.e., completes their week of Temple service. For the watches changed after the offering of the sacrifices on the morning of the Sabbath (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3). 30. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 41) and Sefer

13. Counting each finger a second time.

HaChinuch (mitzvah 402) count the offering of the two sheep

14. Even for a mitzvah (Yoma 22b).

as the additional offering of the Sabbath as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.

15. This refers to Saul's census of the army before entering into battle against Amalek. Conversely, we find that when David took a census and actually counted people, a severe plague resulted. 16. With regard to the afternoon, see Halachah 8. 17. As described in Chapter 2, Halachah 12. 18. The Radbaz elaborates in questioning the Rambam's ruling, for it appears to run contrary to the statements of Yoma 25b-26a. Indeed, he maintains that there is a printing error in the text and that this phrase should be included in the

31. This conclusion is reached from the fact that the Talmud does not speak of a separate lottery for the additional offerings. 32. I.e., begins their week of Temple service. 33. As described in Halachah 12. 34. Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach 5:11-13; Hilchot

Ma'aseh

HaKorbanot 16:14. 35. See Chapter 6, Halachah 11. 36. They are the fourteenth and fifteenth priests in the second

following halachah. Others, however, explain that it appears that there is support for the Rambam's position based on the

lottery (Kessef Mishneh in the name of the Ritbah). The

Mishnayot of Tamid 5:5, 6:2.

that entered the Temple service that week.

19. As Yoma 26b relates, on Sabbaths and festivals even more

Radbaz maintains that these priests came from the watch

priests are selected in this lottery. As indicated by Chapter 6,

37. This is the portion of the Temple Courtyard where the communal sacrifices are slaughtered. Dividing the bread

Halachah 1, according to the Rambam, the first two lotteries were conducted in direct proximity to each other.

there distinguishes them as the watch that will perform the service in the Temple that week [the Rambam's Commentary

20. In Halachah 3. 21. On his right. 22. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 6, for details concerning how the offering was divided into portions and brought to the altar. 23. See Chapter 3, Halachah 18; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:4, 6:16. 24. The laws that apply had they all brought an incense offering once are mentioned in the following halachah. 25. Bringing the incense offering was a medium to drawn down Divine blessings for prosperity. Hence the opportunity is

to the Mishnah (Sukkah 5:6)]. 38. This would show that they have completed their service (Sukkah 56b). 39. I.e., the first and last days of Pesach and Sukkot and the holiday of Shavuot. 40. I.e., during Chol HaMoed. 41. This refers to the division of the bread itself, but not to the division of the tasks involved in offering it. Those are performed only by the priests of the watch who serve in the Temple that week (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:6). 42. See ibid.:4-5 which explains the derivation of this concept.

given to priests who had never brought that offering previously (Yoma 26a).

43. Indeed, they were given the right to share in the division of

26. I.e., in contrast to the previous lottery where those who had

44. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statements, explaining

brought the incense offering previously did not participate (ibid.).

that since the festival ended on the day before the Sabbath, the priests had no choice but to stay. The Radbaz explains

27. I.e., one priest would bring up all the limbs (Tosafot, Yoma

that it is possible that the priests will be staying in the surroundings of Jerusalem, but will not come to the Temple

26a).

the showbread to motivate them to come early.

Mount. Giving them a share in the showbread would encourage them to come to the Temple Mount.

45. This applies if the last day of the holiday fell on Thursday. Conversely, if the first day fell on Monday, few priests will

46. For the priests of all the watches will come to serve during the festival.

come so the watch which departs receives ten loaves and the watch which comes two. See the Rambam' Commentary

47. The Ra'avad and Rashi have a different understanding of

to the Mishnah (Sukkah 5:6).

the passage from Sukkah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer support for the Rambam's view.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .



Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 4

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 6

It is a positive commandment to arrange the showbread on the [golden] table before God in the Sanctuary,1 as [Leviticus 24:5] states: "On the Sabbath day, on the Sabbath day, the priest shall arrange it."

‫מצות עשה לסדר לחם הפנים בכל‬ ‫יום שבת על השולחן לפני ה' בהיכל‬ ‫שנאמר ביום השבת ביום השבת יערכנו‬ :'‫הכהן וגו‬

It is clearly evident from the Torah that there were twelve loaves. Each loaf required two esronim [of flour]. [The loaves] were arranged in two sets, six loaves in each set, one loaf on the other. There were three rods2 of gold placed between the loaves so that the wind could blow through them.3 Each set was supported by two side-frames. At the side of each set,4 there is placed a vessel containing a handful of frankincense, as [ibid.:7] states: "And you shall place pure frankincense next to5 the arrangement." This vessel is called a bezech (dish).6 Thus there were two handfuls of frankincense in two dishes. These dishes had flat bases so that they could be placed on the table.

‫ודבר ברור בתורה שהוא שתים‬ ‫עשרה חלות כל חלה שני עשרונים‬ ‫ועורכין אותו שני סדרים שש חלות בכל‬ ‫סדר חלה על גבי חלה ובין כל שתי חלות‬ ‫שלשה קנים של זהב כדי שתהיה הרוח‬ ‫מנשבת בו וסומך כל מערכה בשתי קשוות‬ ‫ונותנין בצד כל מערכה כלי שיש בו קומץ‬ ‫לבונה שנאמר ונתתה על המערכת לבונה‬ ‫זכה וכלי זה הוא הנקרא בזך נמצאו שני‬ ‫קומצי לבונה בשני הבזיכין ושוליים היו‬ :‫לבזיכין כדי שיניחום על השולחן‬

The two sets of showbread are fundamental necessities for each other.7 [Similarly,] the two dishes [of frankincense] are fundamental necessities for each other and the sets and the dishes are necessities for each other.8 The [golden] table should not be dedicated except by placing the showbread on it on the Sabbath.9 From one Sabbath to another, the bread that was placed on the table on the previous Sabbath is removed and new bread is arranged there. The bread that is removed is the bread that is divided between the two watches - that which enters and that which departs10 - and the High Priest11 and they partake of it.12

2

‫שני הסדרים מעכבין זה את זה ושני‬ ‫הבזיכין מעכבין זה את זה והסדרין‬ ‫והבזיכין מעכבין זה את זה ואין מחנכין את‬ ‫השולחן אלא בלחם הפנים בשבת מיום‬ ‫השבת ליום השבת מוציאין את הלחם‬ ‫שהוא שם על השולחן משבת שעברה‬ ‫ומסדרין לחם אחר וזה שמוציאין הוא‬ ‫שחולקין שתי המשמרות הנכנסת והיוצאת‬ :‫עם כהן גדול ואוכלין אותו‬

How are the sets of the showbread arranged? Four priests enter [the Sanctuary], two are holding the two sets13 [of bread]14 and two, the two dishes [of frankincense]. Four priests enter before them to remove the two sets of bread and the two dishes [of frankincense] that were on the table. The priests that enter15 stand in the north,16 facing the south and those that depart17 stand in the south, facing the north. These remove [the showbread from the previous week] and these place down [the new breads]. One should be within a handbreadth of another,18 for [Exodus 25:30] states: "[You shall place showbread] before Me continually."19

‫וכיצד מסדרין את הלחם ארבעה‬ ‫כהנים נכנסים שנים בידן שני סדרין‬ ‫ושנים בידם שני בזיכין וארבעה מקדימין‬ ‫לפניהם שנים ליטול שני סדרים ושנים‬ ‫ליטול שני בזיכין שהיו שם על השולחן‬ ‫הנכנסין עומדין בצפון ופניהם לדרום‬ ‫והיוצאין עומדים בדרם ופניהם לצפון אלו‬ ‫מושכין ואלו מניחין וטפחו של זה בתוך‬ :‫טפחו של זה שנאמר לפני תמיד‬

When they departed, they would place the bread on a second golden table that would be placed in the Entrance Hall.20 They would offer [the incense in] the dishes on the pyre21 and afterwards, the breads were divided. If Yom Kippur fell on the Sabbath, [the breads] are divided in the evening.22

‫יצאו ונתנו את הלחם שהוציאו על‬ ‫שולחן זהב אחר שהיה באולם‬ ‫והקטירו הבזיכין ואחר כך מחלקין החלות‬ ‫ואם חל יוה"כ להיות בשבת החלות‬ :‫מתחלקות לערב‬

3

How is the showbread prepared? 24 se'ah23 of wheat that is fit [to be made into flour] for meal-offerings are brought.24 [The kernels] are struck25 and tread upon26 like the other kernels of wheat for the meal offerings.27 They are then ground and sifted with eleven sifters to produce 24 esronim of fine flour.28 Twelve loaves of unleavened bread are made from it. If one did not sift [the flour] with eleven sifters or did not use 24 se'ah of grain to produce the flour, [the loaves] are acceptable, since fine flour was produced regardless. These measures were mentioned only as [the optimum manner] for the mitzvah.

‫כיצד מעשה לחם הפנים מביא ארבע‬ ‫ועשרים סאים חטים הראויין למנחות‬ ‫ושפין אותם ובועטין בהן כשאר חטי‬ ‫מנחות וטוחנין אותן ומנפין מהן באחת‬ ‫עשרה נפה ארבעה ועשרים עשרון סולת‬ ‫ועושין מהם שתים עשרה חלות מצות לא‬ ‫נפה אותם באחת עשרה נפה או שלא‬ ‫הוציאן מעשרים וארבע סאים הואיל ונעשו‬ ‫סלת מכל מקום כשירות לא נאמרו‬ :‫השיעורין האלו אלא למצוה‬

The kneading and the fashioning [of the loaves] was performed outside [the Temple Courtyard, but] they are baked in the Courtyard29 like the other meal-offerings.30 They should be kneaded one by one31 and baked two by two.

‫לישתן ועריכתן בחוץ ואפייתן בפנים‬ ‫בעזרה כשאר המנחות ולשין אותן‬ :‫אחת אחת ואופין אותן שתים שתים‬

They had three molds of gold for them:32 one in which the loaf was placed while it was dough, the second in which it was baked,33 and the third in which it was placed when it was removed from the oven so that its [form] would not be impaired.34

‫ושלשה דפוסין של זהב היו להם‬ ‫אחד שנותנין בו החלה והיא בצק‬ ‫והשני שאופין אותה בו והשלישי שנותנין‬ ‫אותה בו כשרודה אותה מן התנור כדי‬ :‫שלא תתקלקל‬

4

All of these loaves were rectangular, as [Exodus 35:13] states: Lechem Hapanim, [literally,] "the bread of faces," i.e., it had many surfaces.35 The length of each loaf was ten handbreadths,36 its width, five handbreadths, and its height, seven fingerbreadths.37 The length of the table was twelve handbreadths and its width, six handbreadths. [The priest] should place the length of the loaf across the width of the table. Thus the loaf would extend an extra two handbreadths at either side. He should fold up the portions that extend [beyond the table] on either side,38 leaving space in the middle [of the loaf] between the two ends.39 Similarly, he should place one loaf on another loaf until he arranged six loaves. Similarly, on the other side, he should make a second arrangement of six loaves.

‫כל חלה מהן מרובעת שנאמר לחם‬ ‫הפנים שיהיו לו פנים רבים אורך כל‬ ‫חלה מהן עשרה טפחים ורחבה חמשה‬ ‫טפחים ורומה שבע אצבעות והשולחן‬ ‫אורכו שנים עשר טפח ורחבו ששה‬ ‫טפחים נותן אורך החלה על רוחב השולחן‬ ‫נמצאת החלה יוצאת שני טפחים מכאן‬ ‫ושני טפחים מכאן וכופל את היוצא מכאן‬ ‫ומכאן וישאר בין שני הקצוות רוח באמצע‬ ‫וכן מניח חלה על גבי חלה עד שעורך שש‬ ‫חלות וכן עושה בצד המערכה שנייה שש‬ :‫חלות‬

The baking of the showbread does not supersede [the prohibitions of forbidden labor]40 on the Sabbath and festivals.41 Instead, on Friday, it was baked42 and it was arranged on the following day. If the two days of Rosh HaShanah fell on Thursday and Friday,43 it would be baked on Wednesday.

‫אין אפיית לחם הפנים דוחה את‬ ‫השבת ולא את יום טוב אלא בערב‬ ‫שבת אופין אותן ועורכין אותן למחר ואם‬ ‫חלו שני ימים טובים של ראש השנה‬ ‫להיות בחמישי ובערב שבת אופין אותן‬ :‫מיום רביעי‬

Neither the arrangement of the rods [between the breads], nor their removal supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions.44 Instead, on Friday, [a priest] would enter, remove them, and place them along the table's length. And on Sunday, [another priest] would enter and insert them between the loaves.

‫לא סדור הקנים ולא נטילתן דוחה‬ ‫את השבת אלא מערב שבת נכנס‬ ‫ושומטן ונותנן לאורך השולחן ובאחד‬ :‫בשבת נכנס ומכניס את הקנים בין החלות‬

If one arranged the bread as commanded, but did not place with it the bowls of frankincense until the next day45 and on the following Sabbath he offered [the contents of] the bowls [of frankincense] on the pyres,46 the bread is disqualified47 and is not sanctified.48 Similarly, if he arranged the bread and the bowls on Sunday and offered [the contents of] the bowls on the pyre after the following Sabbath, the bread is not sanctified and is disqualified.49 If he offered [the contents of] the bowls on the pyre on the Sabbath, the bread is not disqualified.50

‫סידר הלחם בשבת כמצותו ולא‬ ‫הניח עמו בזיכי לבונה עד למחר‬ ‫ולשבת הבאה הקטיר הבזיכין נפסל הלחם‬ ‫ואינו קדוש וכן אם סידר הלחם והבזיכין‬ ‫באחד בשבת והקטיר הבזיכין לאחר שבת‬ ‫הבאה הלחם אינו קדוש ונפסל אבל אם‬ :‫הקטיר הבזיכין בשבת ]לא[ נפסל הלחם‬

What should be done with the bread and the bowls [of frankincense] that were arranged after the Sabbath? They should be left on the table until the Sabbath day passes while they are arranged.51 Afterwards, he should offer [the contents of] the bowls [of frankincense] on the Sabbath that followed the Sabbath that passed after they were arranged. [This does not present a difficulty,] because even if the showbread and the bowls [of frankincense] were on the table for several weeks, this does not present a problem.

‫כיצד יעשה בלחם ובזיכין שסדרן‬ ‫לאחר השבת יניחם שם על השולחן‬ ‫עד שיעבור עליהן יום השבת והן מסודרין‬ ‫ואח"כ יקטיר הבזיכין לשבת הבאה אחר‬ ‫השבת שעברה עליהן והן מסודרין שאפילו‬ ‫נשאר הלחם עם הבזיכין על השולחן כמה‬ :‫שבתות אין בכך כלום‬

If one arranged the bread and the bowls [of frankincense] on the Sabbath as required52 and offered [the contents of] the bowls [of frankincense] after the Sabbath53- whether after this Sabbath or the following Sabbath - the bread is disqualified.54 Its status is that of sacred articles that have been disqualified in which instance the prohibitions of notar, piggul and

‫סידר את הלחם ואת הבזיכין‬ ‫בשבת כמצותן והקטיר את הבזיכין‬ ‫לאחר השבת בין לאחר שבת זו בין לאחר‬ ‫שבת אחרת הבאה נפסל הלחם והרי הוא‬ ‫כקדשים שנפסלו שחייבין עליהן משום‬ :‫פיגול ונותר וטמא כמו שיתבאר‬

consuming the bread in a state of ritual impurity55 apply, as will be explained.56

5

6

[The following rules apply if] one of the loaves became broken. If it was broken before the bread was removed from the table, the bread is disqualified,57 and the [the contents of] the bowls [of frankincense] should not be offered on the pyre because of it.58 If it was broken after the bread was removed, the bread is disqualified,59 but the [the contents of] the bowls should be offered.60

‫נפרסה חלה אחת מן הלחם אם‬ ‫עד שלא הסיר הלחם מעל השולחן‬ ‫נפרסה הלחם פסול ואינו מקטיר עליו את‬ ‫הבזיכין ואם אחר שהסיר הלחם נפרסה‬ :‫הלחם פסול ומקטיר עליו את הבזיכין‬

If the time to remove the bread61 arrived, it is as if the breads were removed. [Even] if a bread became broken, the [the contents of] the bowls should be offered although the arrangement [of the breads] has not been taken apart.

‫הגיע זמן הלחם להסירו הרי זה‬ ‫כמי שהסירו ואם נפרס הלחם‬ ‫מקטיר הבזיכין ואע"פ שלא פירק‬ ‫המערכה נטמא אחד מן הסדרין בין לפני‬ ‫הקטרה בין לאחר הקטרה או שנטמא‬ ‫אחד מן הבזיכין הטמא בטומאתו והטהור‬ :‫בטהרתו‬

If one of the arrangements became impure - whether before [the frankincense] was offered or afterwards - or one of the bowls [of frankincense] became impure, the entities that are impure are impure and those that are pure are pure.62

« Previous

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 6

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 4 FOOTNOTES 1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 27) and Sefer

3. I.e., in this way, the loaves were lifted up so that air could

HaChinuch (mitzvah 97) count this as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. Significantly, in his listing of the mitzvot at the

pass through them. The rods were hollow for this purpose (Menachot 97a).

beginning of the section, the Rambam defines the mitzvah as making the showbread. See also the notes of the Ra'avad to

The commentaries note that there was an ongoing miracle with regard to the showbread and it remained fresh from

the Rambam's listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of the Mishneh Torah where he questions why placing the incense

week to week (Yoma 21b). Nevertheless, the Torah advises

on the breads and partaking of the breads are not considered as separate mitzvot.

miracle.

2. See the description of the table and its utensils in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:13-15.

us to take this precaution, because one should not rely on a 4. I.e., a space of two handbreadths was left in the center of the table for this purpose. 5. The Kessef Mishneh states that although, generally, the word al is translated as "on," it can also mean "next to," as in the term elev, "Next to it" (Numbers 2:20). 6. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:2), the Rambam notes that bezech is Onkelos' translation of the Hebrew kaposav.

7

7. I.e., if one had only one set, it should not be offered. 8. Thus if there is anything lacking in either the breads or the frankincense, nothing should be offered. 9. One should wait until the Sabbath, because the prooftext cited above states: "On the Sabbath day, on the Sabbath day, the priest shall arrange it." 10. See Chapter 4, Halachot 12-13. 11. See ibid. 14.

29. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 11:2), the Rambam writes that it is permitted to knead the loaves outside the Temple Courtyard, but that it is not permitted to bake them outside. He states that the rationale for this distinction was not mentioned in the Talmud. 30. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:21-23. The intent is that the other meal-offerings are baked in the Temple Courtyard. They are, however, also kneaded in the Temple Courtyard. See Kessef Mishneh.

12. In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot

31. Menachot 94a derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus

2:2), he writes that the showbread may be eaten only on the Sabbath on which it was removed from the table.

24:5: "Each loaf will be two esronim." Implied is that each

Nevertheless, when Yom Kippur falls on the Sabbath, they are eaten on Saturday night. 13. From the Rambam's wording here, it appears that the breads were already folded over (as stated in Halachah 9) and placed one on top of the other. See also Halachah 11. 14. Each holding one. 15. I.e., who bring in the new showbread. 16. The table itself was on the north side of the Sanctuary, extending lengthwise from east to west.

loaf is treated individually. 32. This refers to the ka'arot mentioned in Hilchot

Beit

HaBechirah 3:14. 33. Significantly, Rashi in his gloss to Exodus 25:29 states that the loaves were baked in iron molds. 34. Since the loaves were thin, it is possible that their shape would be impaired. 35. In his Commetary to the Mishnah (Menachot 11:4), the Rambam writes that each loaf had six surfaces: two on either

17. I.e., who remove the showbread from the previous week.

side, one from the front and one from the bottom. This follows the opinion (Menachot 94b) that the showbread was

18. I.e., immediately after removing one, the other should be

like an open drawer. See the diagram accompanying Hilchot

placed down. 19. I.e., there should be no time when there is not bread on the table. 20. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:16. 21. On the outer altar. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 2:11. 22. For the obligation to partake of them does not supersede the mitzvah of fasting on Yom Kippur.

Beit HaBechirah 3:14. 36. A handbreadth is 8 centimeters in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah. 37. A fingerbreadth is 2 centimeters in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah. 38. Rashi (Menachot 94a) states that the loaves were baked while folded over. When the breads folded over some of the dough would jut out. That dough was left there as support for

23. The minimum size the contemporary authorities give for a se'ah is approximately 8.5 liter.

the sides. Menachot 96a refers to these as karanot,

24. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:4 with regard to the special

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 11:4), the

stringencies taken with regard to the preparation of the grain for such offerings.

Rambam writes that the height of the bread was four

25. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 6:5) the

"corners."

fingerbreadths. In order that there be no contradiction between those statements and the statements here, Minchat

Ramban interprets this as striking the wheat powerfully with

Yehudah

one's hand so that the dust will be removed from them.

fingerbreadths high. Together with these karanot, the height

26. Crushing them with his feet to crack the shells (ibid.). 27. Which are struck 300 times and tread upon 500 times (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit.). 28. This was of course a far smaller measure than the 24 se'ah. The remainder of the flour had to be redeemed and then it could be used for ordinary purposes. See Hilchot Bikkurim 6:3.

suggests

that

the

bread

itself

was

four

was seven fingerbreadths. The Kessef Mishneh, however, suggests that the bread was much thinner.

8

39. Hence producing the form "like an open drawer." All of the above follows the popular conception of the form of

46. The key to the understanding of this and the following halachah is that for the breads to be acceptable, they and

the showbread as it is usually depicted and as is explained by the Ralbag quoted by the Kessef Mishneh. The Radbaz,

the frankincense must have been placed on the table before the conclusion of the Sabbath, remain there for an entire

however, maintains that this is not the Rambam's intent. Instead, the simple meaning of his words is that the breads

week, and thus be on the table from the beginning of the next Sabbath.

were baked as elongated rectangles and folded over only when they were put on the table itself. The folds lay on top of

47. Because the bread is not acceptable until the frankincense

the bread rather than standing perpendicular to it. This form could still be considered "as an open drawer," because of the space between the two folds.

was offered properly and in this instance, it was not, because it was never on the table at the conclusion of the Sabbath. The Radbaz (see also Rashi, Menachot 100a) explains that

40. Baking is one of the labors forbidden on the Sabbath. Although the performance of the Temple service generally

in this instance, it is not acceptable to leave the bread and the frankincense on the altar for another week, for the bread

supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions, an exception is made in this instance, because the bread could be baked before

was arranged in the proper manner and hence, becomes disqualified if left on the table beyond the following Sabbath.

the Sabbath and it would not spoil due to the passage of one day (Menachot 97a).

In this instance, it is not possible to leave the bread on the table, because it was not arranged together with the frankincense (Radbaz to Halachah 14).

41. Although it is permitted to bake on the festivals, that leniency is granted only with regard to bread to be eaten that day and

48. Therefore the prohibitions of notar, piggul and consuming

the showbread would not be eaten until more than a week afterwards [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah

the bread in a state of ritual impurity are not relevant to it [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 11:8)].

(Menachot 11:9)]. 42. The commentaries question why the showbread was not disqualified even though it remained overnight on Friday, for

49. For the frankincense should be offered on the Sabbath. Since it was consecrated.

offered

improperly,

the

bread

is

not

any article that had been placed in a sacred utensil is disqualified if it remains overnight. Minchat Yehudah

50. Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts and early

explains that just as the bread is not disqualified while it is left on the golden table on the altar, it is similarly not

has a different - and somewhat difficult to understand -

disqualified when it is left on the marble table in the Entrance Hall (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:16).

Mishneh which discuss this point. According to our version,

43. We are speaking about the era when the Temple existed and then Rosh HaShanah was observed for only one day. Nevertheless, there was a possibility that there would be no witnesses who saw the new moon. In such a situation, the people would regard the 30th of Elul as holy regardless and not perform any work on it. If witnesses came, it was declared as Rosh HaShanah. If they would not come, the following day was declared as Rosh HaShanah, as explained in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:8. Taking that possibility into mind, the priests would bake the showbread on Wednesday. 44. Rashi (Menachot 97a) explains that by placing the rods between the breads, one looks like he is building. Tosafot explains that the problem is that the rods are muktzeh, articles forbidden to be moved on the Sabbath. 45. Instead of placing them on the table together with the bread, as stated in Halachah 4.

printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text version. See the glosses of the Kessef Mishneh and Lechem the intent is that since the frankincense should not have been offered on this Sabbath (but on the next, as stated in the following halachah), the bread is disqualified. 51. I.e., if they were placed on the table on Sunday, new showbread should not be prepared that week. Instead, the bread and the frankincense should be left on the table over the next Sabbath and should not be removed until the next Sabbath. The Radbaz questions: Seemingly, since they were not arranged in the proper manner, the arrangement should be not be acceptable. He explains that since they were placed down properly, when the time comes, retroactively, their having been arranged is considered effective. 52. They became sanctified, because they were arranged in the proper manner (Radbaz). 53. I.e., during the week; thus doing so in an improper manner. 54. Because the frankincense which enables it to be permitted to be eaten was offered in an improper manner. 55. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 17:1; 18:9-10, 13, for an explanation of these prohibitions.

56. The Chazon Ish states that the text should be amended to read "is not liable for" and cites as support Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:16 which states: "Whenever sacrificial food is permitted because [of the performance of] a particular act, one is not liable for the violation any of the prohibitions against partaking of piggul, notar, or impure sacrificial food unless the act which permits partaking of the food was performed according to law." This approach is not, however, accepted by all authorities. 57. Menachot 12b derives this concept from the fact that, with

58. Because that offering is made only when the breads are fit. The Radbaz explains that the situation is comparable to that of a meal offering whose substance was reduced before a handful of flour was offered on the altar. In such a situation, the entire offering is disqualified. 59. And should not be eaten. See also Hilchot

Pesulei

HaMukdashim 12:4. 60. Being on the table for the required time is sufficient to warrant that the breads be offered.

regard to all twelve loaves, Leviticus 24:9 states: "It is of the

If the bread breaks after the frankincense is offered, it may be eaten, for all the mitzvot associated with it have been

most sacred order of holiness." By referring to all twelve loaves as a single collective, the Torah implies that they are

fulfilled (ibid.).

granted this status only when they are all whole.

61. The beginning of the seventh hour on the Sabbath afternoon. 62. I.e., the frankincense should be offered and the priests should partake of the loaves.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .

10

1



Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 5

English

Hebrew

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 7

[The following is] order of continuous offerings brought each day: Shortly before dawn1 the supervisor in charge of the lotteries comes and knocks gently2 on [the gates of] the Temple Courtyard.3 They are opened for him and an inspection is made of the Temple Courtyard.4 The bakers of the chavitin are roused to prepare the chavitin.5 All of the priests there will have already immersed themselves before the supervisor comes and garbed themselves in the priestly garments. They come and stand in the Chamber of Hewn Stone and carry out the first and second lottery6 and [the priests] who merit [are designated to perform] their services, as we explained.7 The one who merited to remove the ashes [from the outer altar] begins removing them according to the procedure we described.8 Afterwards, he arranges the large array [of wood on the altar], then he arranges the second array,9 and then he brings up two logs of wood and places them on the array to increase the fire.10 Afterwards, they enter the Chamber of the Utensils11 and remove all the utensils that are necessary for the entire day.12 They give [the lamb to be sacrificed as] the continuous offering water to drink.13 The one who merited to slaughter it pulls it to the butchering area. All of the priests who merited to take the limbs [up to the ramp] follow him and wait there until they open the Great Gate14 of the Sanctuary. When the gate is opened [the lamb to be sacrificed as] the continuous offering is slaughtered.15 Afterwards two priests enter the Sanctuary: one who merited to remove the ashes from the inner altar16 and the other who merited to remove the ashes from the Menorah.17

2

‫סדר עבודות התמידות בכל יום כך‬ ‫הוא סמוך לעלות השחר יבוא‬ ‫הממונה שעל הפייסות ויקיש על העזרה‬ ‫ופותחין לו ומבלשין את כל העזרה‬ ‫ומעמידין עושי חביתין לעשות החביתין‬ ‫וכל הכהנים ששם כבר טבלו קודם שיבוא‬ ‫הממונה ולבשו בגדי כהונה ויבואו ויעמדו‬ ‫בלשכת הגזית ויפיסו פייס ראשון ושני‬ ‫ויזכה כל אחד במלאכתו כמו שביארנו‬ ‫ומתחיל זה שזכה בתרומת הדשן ותורם‬ ‫על הסדר שאמרנו ואחר כך מסדר‬ ‫מערכה גדולה ואח"כ מסדר מערכה שנייה‬ ‫ואחר כך מעלה שני גזרי עצים ומניחן על‬ ‫מערכה גדולה להרבות האש ואח"כ נכנסין‬ ‫ללשכת הכלים ומוציאין כל כלי השרת‬ ‫הצריכין להן כל היום ומשקין את התמיד‬ ‫מים וזה שזכה בשחיטתו מושכו לבית‬ ‫המטבחים והולכין אחריו הכהנים שזכו‬ ‫להעלות האיברים ושוהין שם עד שפותחין‬ ‫שער ההיכל הגדול ובשעת פתיחת השער‬ ‫שוחטין את התמיד ואחר כך נכנסין להיכל‬ ‫שני כהנים האחד שזכה בדישון המזבח‬ :‫הפנימי והשני שזכה בדישון המנורה‬

3

The one who removes the ashes from the altar should do that at the same time the slaughterer slaughters [the lamb to be offered] as the continuous offering. Afterwards, the person who receives its blood dashes it on the altar.18

‫והמדשן את המזבח מדשנו בשעה‬ ‫שהשוחט שוחט את התמיד ואח"כ‬ :‫זורק הדם זה שקבלו‬

After the blood is dashed on the altar, [the second priest] in the Sanctuary kindles five lamps19 and both of them leave the Sanctuary. The priests in the butchering area skin [the lamb] and cut it into portions.20 Each one brings the limb which he merited to the ramp. The limbs are placed on the lower half of the western portion of the ramp.21 The portions [of the animals sacrificed as] additional offerings are placed on the lower half of the eastern portion of the ramp. Those of the Rosh Chodesh are placed on the top of the altar between the horns, in the place where the priests walk to publicize that it is Rosh Chodesh.22 There they salt the limbs. They also salt the ramp, even on the Sabbath,23 so the priests will not slip and fall while bringing wood up to the ramp. Although the salt intervenes between [the priests'] feet and the ramp, it is not a concern since carrying this wood is not part of [the Temple] service.24

‫ואחר שזורקין את הדם מטיב זה‬ ‫שבהיכל חמש נרות ויוצאין שניהן מן‬ ‫ההיכל ואלו שבבית המטבחים מפשיטין‬ ‫ומנתחין וכל אחד ואחד מעלה אבר שזכה‬ ‫בו לכבש ונותנין האיברים מחצי כבש‬ ‫ולמטה במערבו ושל מוספין היו נותנין‬ ‫אותן מחצי כבש ולמטה במזרחו ושל‬ ‫ראשי חדשים נותנין על המזבח מלמעלה‬ ‫בין קרן לקרן במקום הילוך רגלי הכהנים‬ ‫כדי לפרסמו שהוא ראש חדש ומולחין‬ ‫שם את האיברים וזורקין מלח על גבי‬ ‫הכבש אפילו בשבת כדי שלא יחליק ויפלו‬ ‫הכהנים שם בעת הליכתן בעצים למערכה‬ ‫ואף על פי שהמלח חוצץ בין רגליהם ובין‬ ‫הכבש הואיל ואין ההולכה הזאת עבודה‬ :‫אינן חוששין‬

4

After the limbs are brought to the ramp, all of the priests gather in the Chamber of Hewn Stone and the supervisor tells them: "Recite one blessing." They begin the recitation of the blessing Ahavas Olam,25 the Ten Commandments,26 the passage Shema, the passage Vehayah Im Shamoa,and the passage Vayomer,27 [the blessing] Emet VaYatziv,28 and the blessings Retzei and Sim Shalom.29 On the Sabbath, another blessing is added. It is recited by the members of the priestly watch that depart30 to the members of the watch that enter: "May He Who causes His name to rest in this house cause love, brotherhood, peace, and friendship to rest among you." Afterwards, they hold the third and fourth lotteries.31 The priest who merits to offer the incense enters [the Sanctuary] and offers it.32 Afterwards, the one who merited to remove the ashes of the Menorah enters and kindles two candles.33 The priest who offered the incense and the one who removed the ashes of the Menorah depart and stand on the steps of the Entrance Hall together with his priestly brethren.34

‫ואחר שמעלין האיברים לכבש‬ ‫מתכנסין כולן ללשכת הגזית‬ ‫והממונה אומר להם ברכו ברכה אחת והן‬ ‫פותחין וקורין אהבת עולם ועשרת‬ ‫הדברות ושמע והיה אם שמוע ויאמר‬ ‫ואמת ויציב ורצה ושים שלום ובשבת‬ ‫מוסיפין ברכה אחת והיא שיאמרו אנשי‬ ‫משמר היוצא לאנשי משמר הנכנס מי‬ ‫ששכן את שמו בבית הזה ישכין ביניכם‬ ‫אהבה אחוה שלום וריעות ואחר כך‬ ‫מפיסין פייס שלישי ורביעי וזוכה בקטורת‬ ‫מי שזכה ונכנס ומקטיר ואח"כ נכנס זה‬ ‫שזכה בדישון המנורה ומטיב שתי הנרות‬ ‫ויוצא זה שהקטיר עם מדשן המנורה‬ ‫ועומד על מעלות האולם הוא ואחיו‬ :‫הכהנים‬

5

When [the priest who offered the incense] reaches the area between the Entrance Hall and the Altar,35 [a priest] takes a rake and throws it between the Entrance Hall and the Altar. It made a loud noise.36 It served three purposes: a) one who heard its sound would know that his priestly brethren were entering [the Sanctuary] to prostrate themselves37 and he would [also] run and go. b) a Levite who heard its sound would know that his Levitical brethren were gathering to begin the singing [that accompanied the offerings]38 and he would run and go. c) when the head of the ma'amad39 heard its sound, he would have the impure people40 stand at the eastern gate41 because of the suspicion, i.e., so that everyone should know that they had not brought their atonement offerings as of yet. Afterwards, [the priest] who merited [to bring up] the limbs brings the limbs up from the ramp to the altar. After the limbs are brought up,42 [the priests] standing on the steps of the Entrance Hall begin to recite the Priestly Blessing [as] one blessing43[reciting] God's explicit name, as explained in the appropriate place.44 Afterwards, they bring the flour of the accompanying offerings45 up [to the altar]. After the flour, they offer the chavitin on the pyre. After the chavitin, they offer the wine libation. While the wine is being poured, the Levites recite song and the musicians play on the various instruments in the Temple.46 Nine tekiot are sounded during the bars of the song.47

‫כשיגיע בין האולם ולמזבח נטל אחד‬ ‫המגריפה וזרקה בין האולם למזבח‬ ‫והיה לה קול גדול ושלשה דברים היתה‬ ‫משמשת כהן השומע את קולה היה יודע‬ ‫שאחיו הכהנים נכנסין להשתחוות והוא רץ‬ ‫ובא ובן לוי השומע את קולה היה יודע‬ ‫שאחיו הלוים נכנסין לדבר בשיר והוא רץ‬ ‫ובא וראש המעמד כשהיה שומע את קולה‬ ‫היה מעמיד את הטמאים על שער המזרח‬ ‫מפני החשד שידעו הכל שעדיין לא הביאו‬ ‫כפרתן ואחר כך מעלה זה שזכה באיברים‬ ‫את האיברים מן הכבש למזבח ואחר‬ ‫שמעלין את האיברים מתחילין אלו שעל‬ ‫מעלות האולם ומברכין ברכת כהנים‬ ‫ברכה אחת בשם המפורש כמו שביארנו‬ ‫במקומה ואח"כ מעלין סלת הנסכים ואחר‬ ‫הסלת מקטיר החביתין ואחר החביתין‬ ‫מעלין את היין לניסוך ובשעת הניסוך‬ ‫אומרין הלוים השיר ומכין המשוררין במיני‬ ‫ניגון שבמקדש ותוקעין תשע תקיעות על‬ :‫פרקי השיר‬

When they would give the wine to the priest who would perform the libation, there were two priests holding two trumpets in their hands who would stand on the table where the fats [were placed].48 The Segen49 stands on the corner of the altar with flags in his hands. [When he waves them], they would sound a tekiah, a teruah, and a tekiah.50 [The priests with the trumpets] would then stand next to the priest who was placed in charge of the cymbals,51 one to his right and one to his left.

‫כשהיו נותנין היין למנסך היו שני‬ ‫כהנים עומדין על שולחן החלבים ושתי‬ ‫חצוצרות בידן והסגן עומד על קרן המזבח‬ ‫והסודרין בידו ותקעו והריעו ותקעו ובאו‬ ‫ועמדו אצל זה הממונה על הצלצל אחד‬ :‫מימינו ואחד משמאלו‬

When the [priest who offered the libation] bent down to pour it, the segen would wave the flags,52 [the priest] with the cymbals would sound them and the others would sound the trumpets. The Levites began singing.53 When they reached [the end] of a bar, [the priests] would sound the trumpets54 and all the people in the Courtyard would prostrate themselves.

‫שהה המנסך לנסך מניף הסגן בסודרין‬ ‫הקיש זה בצלצל ותקעו אלו בחצוצרות‬ ‫ודברו הלוים בשיר הגיעו לפרק תקעו‬ ‫והשתחוו כל העם שבעזרה על כל פרק‬ ‫תקיעה ועל כל תקיעה השתחויה וכל‬ ‫התקיעות שעל התמיד תשע כמו‬ :‫שביארנו‬

At [the conclusion of] every bar [of the song],55 they would sound the trumpets and at every trumpet sounding, [the people] would prostrate themselves. There were a total of nine trumpet blasts56 sounded for the continuous offering, as we explained.57 Song is recited only over the communal burntofferings and peace-offerings which are mentioned in the Torah. Song is not recited over the free-will burntofferings that are offered from the remaining funds of the Temple collection58 even though they are communal offerings. Similarly, when the additional offerings are brought independently, song is not recited over them.59

6

‫אין אומרין שירה אלא על עולות‬ ‫הצבור וזבחי שלמיהם האמורין‬ ‫בתורה אבל עולות נדבה שמקריבין‬ ‫ממותר תרומת הלשכה אף על פי שהן של‬ ‫צבור אין אומרין שירה עליהן וכן נסכים‬ :‫הבאין בפני עצמן אין אומרין עליהן שירה‬

7

[These are] the songs that the Levites would recite:60 On Sunday, they would recite "The earth and its fullness is God's" (Psalm 24).61 On Monday, they would recite "God is great and exceedingly praised in the city of our Lord" (Psalm 48).62 On Tuesday, they would recite "God stands in the council of judges, among the judges, He delivers judgment" (Psalm 82).63 On Wednesday, they would recite "The Lord is a God of retribution, O God of retribution reveal Yourself" (Psalm 94).64 On Thursday, they would recite "Raise joyous song to God our strength; sound the shofar to the God of Jacob" (Psalm 81).65 On Friday, they would recite "God is King. He clothes Himself with grandeur. God has robed Himself. He has girded Himself with strength" (Psalm 93).66 On the Sabbath, they would recite: "A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day" (Psalm 92).67 For the Musaf offering of the Sabbath, the song Haazinu (Deuteronomy, ch. 32) is recited. It is divided into six segments: haziv lech68 just as it is read in the synagogue.69 One segment is recited each Sabbath. After the song is completed on six Sabbaths, they would return to the beginning. In the afternoon on the Sabbath, they would recite from "Then Moses sang..." and from "Who is like You...."70 For the Musaf offering of Rosh HaShanah, they would recite "Raise joyous song to God our strength."71 If [Rosh HaShanah] fell on Thursday,72 they would recite "I have removed his shoulder from the burden" (Psalm 81:7).73 In the afternoon on Rosh HaShanah, they would recite: "The voice of God causes the desert to tremble" (ibid. 29:8).74

:‫השיר שהיו הלוים אומרין‬ ‫ביום הראשון היו אומרין לה' הארץ‬ ‫ומלואה בשני היו אומרין גדול ה' ומהולל‬ ‫מאד בעיר אלהינו הר קדשו וגו' בשלישי‬ ‫היו אומרין אלהים נצב בעדת אל בקרב‬ ‫אלהים ישפוט ברביעי היו אומרין אל‬ ‫נקמות ה' אל נקמות הופיע בחמישי היו‬ ‫אומרין הרנינו לאלהים עוזנו הריעו לאלהי‬ ‫יעקב בששי היו אומרין ה' מלך גאות לבש‬ ‫לבש ה' עוז התאזר וגו' בשבת היו אומרין‬ ‫מזמור שיר ליום השבת במוספי שבת‬ ‫אומרים שירת האזינו וחולקין אותה‬ ‫לששה פרקים הזי"ו ל"ך כדרך שקוראין‬ ‫אותה ששה בבית הכנסת ואומרין פרק‬ ‫בכל שבת גמרו השירה בששה שבתות‬ ‫חוזרין לראש במנחה של שבת אומר אז‬ ‫ישיר משה ומי כמוכה וגו' במוסף של‬ ‫ראש השנה היו אומרין הרנינו לאלהים‬ ‫עוזנו ואם חל להיות בחמישי אומר‬ ‫הסירותי מסבל שכמו וגו' במנחה של‬ ‫ראש השנה היו אומרים קול ה' יחיל‬ :'‫מדבר וגו‬

8

When Rosh Chodesh falls on the Sabbath, the song of Rosh Chodesh75 takes priority over that of the Sabbath76 in order to publicize that the day is Rosh Chodesh.

‫ראש חדש שחל להיות בשבת שירה‬ ‫של ראש חדש דוחה את שירה של‬ :‫שבת כדי לפרסם שהיום ראש חדש‬

On the Sabbath, the two bowls of frankincense77 are offered on the altar's pyre together with the additional offerings before the wine libation that accompanied those offerings.78

‫בשבת מקטירין את שני בזיכי‬ ‫לבונה עם המוספין קודם ניסוך‬ ‫היין של מוספין וכסדר שעושין בכל יום‬ ‫בבקר כך עושין בין הערבים חוץ מהרמת‬ ‫הדשן ממזבח החיצון וסדור המערכות‬ ‫והפייסות שאין עושין דברים אלו אלא‬ :‫בכל יום בשחר לבד כמו שביארנו‬

The order that was followed [for the sacrifices offered] in the morning is followed [for the sacrifices offered] in the afternoon79 with the exception of the removal of the ashes from the outer altar,80 the arrangement of the arrays [of wood on the altar], and the lotteries which are only performed each day in the morning, as we explained.81

« Previous Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 5

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 7

FOOTNOTES 1. The term "dawn" refers to the first shining of the rays of the sun on the horizon, more than an hour before sunrise. See

3. As indicated by Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 8:11, the supervisor

the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 1:2)

the Chamber of the Hearth where the priests slept. By

which explains that the meaning of the term "the call of the gever" used by that source.

knocking, he would wake them. They would open the door for him.

2. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 1:2) which refers to the Song of Songs

Now the Chamber of the Hearth was located in the midst of the wall on the north side of the Temple Courtyard. Half was

5:2: "The voice of my beloved comes knocking," i.e., a gentle, beckoning knock.

consecrated and half was not. There were two gates leading to the Temple Courtyard from the Chamber of the Hearth. A

would come from the chayl and knock on the outer door of

large gate which would be opened at dawn and a smaller gate whose keys were hanging in the Chamber of the Hearth. The supervisor would take those keys and enter the Courtyard. 4. As described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit. 5. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:2 with regard to how this offering was prepared. 6. It appears that, according to the Rambam, these two lotteries were performed one after the other. The commentaries have noted that from Yoma 22a, 24b, it would appear that there was a span of time between the two.

7. See Chapter 4, Halachot 1, 5-6.

28. The blessing that follows the Shema.

8. See Chapter 2, Halachah 12.

29. Two of the final three blessings of the Shemoneh Esreh.

9. The Rambam does not mention the third array which was

These blessings are chosen because they are all prayers for

kept to maintain a fire, because that was kept burning at all times. Nevertheless, if it was necessary to place wood on it,

the sake of the Jewish people [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc cit.)].

the same priest would do so (Radbaz). 10. See Chapter 2, Halachah 2, and Chapter 4, Halachah 5. 11. The location of this chamber is not mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBecghirah, nor in the Mishnah of Middot. 12. Tamid 3:4 speaks of removing 93 utensils. 13. See Chapter 1, Halachah 9. 14. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:6-7. 15. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:5. 16. See Chapter 3, Halachah 4, and Chapter 4, Halachah 6. 17. See Chapter 3, Halachah 10, and Chapter 4, Halachah 6. 18. See Chapter 4, Halachah 6. 19. See Chapter 3, Halachah 16. 20. As described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:1. 21. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Ra'avad explains that they were placed there so that they would be "before God," closer to the entrance to the Temple.

30. After the conclusion of their week of service in the Temple, because the priestly watches switch on the Sabbath afternoon (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3). 31. See Chapter 4, Halachot 7-8. 32. All authorities agree that an interruption is made between kindling the five lamps and kindling the two lamps. There is, however, a difference of opinion between the Sages and Abba Shaul with regard to the service that intervenes. Here the Rambam follows the opinion of the Sages that it is the offering of the incense. In our daily prayers, however, we read the passage "Abbaye would recount the order of the offerings on the altar... according to Abba Shaul" (Yoma 33a). That passage states that the blood of the daily sacrifice was offered on the altar between the kindling of the lamps and the incense was offered afterwards. The Eshkol explains that even though Abbaye's reckoning does not follow the halachah in this instance, it is still included in the prayers, because it is a concise review of all the Temple services

22. I.e., to place them in an openly visible place.

33. See Chapter 3, Halachah 16.

23. Even though causing the salt to dissolve would be forbidden

34. Where they recite the priestly blessing, as stated in the

in other circumstances on the Sabbath. 24. Implied is that while bringing the limbs to the altar - which is part of the Temple service - there should not be any such intervening substances.

following halachah. 35. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that on the basis of Tamid 5:6, this was performed when the priest entered the Sanctuary to offer the incense and not when he departed.

25. The blessing recited before the recitation of the Shema. The

36. Tamid, loc. cit., states that its noise was so loud that no one

blessing Yotzer Or (which precedes Ahavat Olam in the prayer service) is recited afterwards, when the sun rises,

in Jerusalem could hear his fellow man speaking to him at that time. And Tamid3:8 states that the noise could be heard

because the order of the blessings of the Shema is not an

even in Jericho.

absolute requirement [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:1)]. 26. There the Rambam writes that the Ten Commandments were chosen because they comprise the fundaments of our faith. Indeed, they should be recited every day as part of the prayer service outside the Temple as well. Nevertheless, our

37. The prostration was not performed until after the continuous offering had been offered. 38. In this instance as well, as indicated by the conclusion of the halachah, the singing did not actually begin until later, but the preparations were begun.

Sages [Berachot 12a; Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 1:5)]

39. The term ma'amad refers to the Israelites who would be

refrained from doing so, lest the heretics say that these

present during the offering of the sacrifices as explained in

alone are the foundation of the Jewish faith.

Hilchot K'lei Hamikdash, ch. 6.

27. I.e., they read the three passages of the Shema. Even

40. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:6), the Rambam

though the optimum time for the recitation of the Shema has

explains that this refers to people who had been afflicted by

not arrived, the priests are allowed to recite it early (and fulfill their obligation), because afterwards they will be occupied

cured, but had not brought their offerings as of yet.

with the Temple services and we fear that they might forget to do so (Rashi, Yoma 37b).

tzara'at (a skin malediction similar to leprosy) and had been

41. I.e., the Gate of Nicanor which is the main entrance to the Temple Courtyard. See also Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.

9

10

42. This follows the order initiated by Aaron, the High Priest, at the dedication of the altar who did not bless the people until he had completed the offering of the sacrifices (see Leviticus, ch. 9). 43. I.e., in contrast to the practice outside the Temple, the people would not respond after each blessing. Instead, when all three blessings are completed, they would say: "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever" (Hilchot Tefilah UNesiat Kapayim 14:9).

64. On this day, the sun and the moon were created and this song is a prayer that God will take retribution against those who worship these celestial bodies (ibid.). 65. On this day, animal life was created. This is truly wondrous and arouses within man a desire to sing praises to the Creator (ibid.). 66. For on this day, with the creation of man, God's work of creation was brought to its ultimate fulfillment, because man acknowledges God's Kingship (ibid.).

44. Ibid.:10. I.e., they would pronounce the name Y-H-V-H as it is

67. For God rested on the seventh day (Rosh HaShanah 31b).

written. As stated in the above source, after the death of Simon the

And as the Mishnah (Tamid, loc. cit.) concludes, this is "a

Just, the priests stopped using this name, lest it be learned by a person of improper character.

and rest for life everlasting."

45. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1.

song for the ultimate future which will be entirely Sabbath 68. I.e., the Hebrew letters are an acronym for the words which begin the verses of these segments: Ha'azinu (32:1), Z'chor

46. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 3:2-4.

(32:7), Yarkiveihu (32:13), Vayar (32:19), Lu (32:29), Ki

47. See Halachot 6-7. Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 7:5

(32:40).

48. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 6:6), the Rambam states that this refers to the marble table that was positioned to the west of the ramp. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:15. 49. The assistant to the High Priest. See ibid. 4:16. 50. The trumpets were sounded like the shofar is sounded on Rosh HaShanah: one long blast (tekiah), a series of staccato blasts (teruah), and then another long blast (tekiah). 51. See ibid. 7:7. 52. As a sign for the others to perform their activities. 53. The songs are recited at this time, because "song is recited only over wine" (Berachot 35a). The songs the Levites would sing are mentioned in Halachah 9.

69. I.e., as the Torah reading is divided up into aliyot. See Hilchot Tefilah 13:5. 70. The song of redemption after the splitting of the sea. They would read from the beginning of the song until "Who is like You" (Mi Chamocha, Exodus 15:1-11) on one Sabbath afternoon, and then from that verse until the end of the song on the next Sabbath afternoon. The standard published text of Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit., states that on the third Sabbath they would recite the song of the well (Numbers 21:17), but apparently the Rambam's version of the text did not include that point. 71. For this psalm also includes the verse "Sound the shofar on the day of the new moon."

54. I.e., a series of tekiah, teruah and tekiah blasts.

72. When Psalm 81 was recited as the psalm of the day.

55. Each song had three bars.

73. I.e., the second half of the psalm. Since the psalm was already recited in the morning, they did not desire to repeat it

56. I.e., three series of three.

in its entirety. From Rosh HaShanah 31b, it would appear

57. Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 7:5.

that when Rosh HaShanah falls on Thursday, they would

58. See Hilchot Shekalim 4:9.

recite the second half of the psalm in the morning and the first half (which includes the verse concerning the sounding

59. See ibid 3:2 where the concepts mentioned here are explained in slightly greater detail. 60. These psalms are also recited as "the song of day" in our daily prayers to recall the Temple Service. 61. This psalm was associated with Sunday, for the world was

of the shofar) for the Musaf offering. The Rambam's ruling is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 4:8). 74. Rashi (Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit.) explains that this verse recalls the sounding of the shofar at Mount Sinai.

created on Sunday and this psalm states how all existence is His [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 6:7,

75. There is no Rabbinic source which is extant that mentions

based on Rosh HaShanah 31a)].

76. I.e., for the Musaf offering.

62. For God's greatness was manifest in the division of the waters, the creation of the second day (ibid.). 63. For on this day, the earth - the place were judgment is carried out - came into existence (ibid.).

which psalm was recited on Rosh Chodesh.

77. That had been on the Golden Table together with the showbread.

78. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's source for the

79. See Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

concept that the offering of the frankincense preceded the

80. The ashes were, by contrast, removed from the Menorah

wine libation. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that were there not a verse that teaches otherwise, we would think that the

and the inner altar in the afternoon, as stated in Chapter 3,

offering of the frankincense takes precedence over the additional offering as well. Hence once the additional offering

81. See Chapter 2, Halachot 2 and 11, and Chapter 4, Halachah

has been brought, it is offered next.

Halachah 10. 8.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

11

policy .



Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 6

Hebrew

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 8

On Rosh Chodesh, the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh is offered after the continuous offering of the morning.1 What does the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh comprise? Two bulls, one ram, and seven sheep. All are burnt-offerings. A goat is brought as a sin-offering.2

‫בראשי חדשים מקריבין מוסף ראש‬ ‫חדש אחר תמיד של שחר וכמה‬ ‫הוא מוסף ראש חדש פרים שנים ואיל‬ ‫אחד ושבעה כבשים הכל עולות ושעיר‬ :‫עזים חטאת‬

The procedure through which all the burnt-offerings are offered is the same as that of continuous offering.3 The procedure through which the sin-offerings of Rosh Chodesh and the festivals are offered is the same as that employed for the sin-offering which is eaten that we described.4

‫מעשה כל העולות אחד הוא כמעשה‬ ‫התמיד ומעשה החטאות של ראשי‬ ‫חדשים ושל מועדות כמעשה החטאת‬ :‫הנאכלת שביארנו‬

On Pesach, an additional offering is brought every day,5 from the first day to the seventh day, like that of the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh: two bulls, one ram, and seven sheep; all are burnt-offerings. A goat is brought as a sin-offering which is eaten.6

‫בפסח מקריבין קרבן מוסף בכל יום‬ ‫מיום הראשון עד יום השביעי כמוסף‬ ‫ראשי חדשים פרים שנים ואיל אחד‬ ‫ושבעה כבשים הכל עולות ושעיר חטאת‬ ‫הנאכלת ביום שני של פסח שהוא יום‬ ‫ששה עשר בניסן מקריבין יתר על מוסף‬ ‫של כל יום כבש לעולה עם עומר התנופה‬ :‫והיא מנחה של צבור כמו שביארנו‬

On the second day of Pesach, the sixteenth of Nisan,7 besides the additional offering brought each day [of the holiday],8 a lamb is offered as a burnt-offering together with the omer of barley that is waved.9 This is a communal meal-offering, as we explained.10

1

English

2

There is a fixed time [when this offering is brought]. Hence it supersedes [the prohibitions against forbidden labor on] the Sabbath and the restrictions of ritual impurity.11

‫וזמנו קבוע ולפיכך דוחה את השבת‬ :‫ואת הטומאה‬

This meal offering may be brought only from Eretz Yisrael,12 as [Leviticus 23:10] states: "And you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest,13 to the priest." It is a mitzvah to bring the omer from [fields that are] close [to Jerusalem].14 If it was not brought from a close place,15 it may be brought from any place in Eretz

‫אין מביאין מנחה זו אלא מארץ‬ ‫ישראל שנאמר והבאתם את עומר‬ ‫ראשית קצירכם אל הכהן מצותו לבוא מן‬ ‫הקרוב לא בא מן הקרוב מביאין אותה‬ :‫מכל מקום מארץ ישראל‬

Yisrael. It is a mitzvah that it be reaped at night, on the night of the sixteenth [Nisan].16 [This applies] whether [that day falls] during the week or on the Sabbath.17

‫מצותו להקצר בלילה בליל ששה עשר‬ :‫בין בחול בין בשבת‬

The entire night is acceptable for reaping [the barley for] the omer. If it was reaped during the day, it is acceptable.18

‫וכל הלילה כשר לקצירת העומר ואם‬ :‫קצרוהו ביום כשר‬

The mitzvah is to bring it from standing grain.19 If [appropriate standing grain] was not found, it should be brought from the sheaves.

‫מצותו לבוא מן הקמה לא מצאו‬ :‫יביאו מן העומרים‬

The mitzvah is [to harvest grain] that is fresh.20 If [such grain] was not found, it may be brought from dried grain.

‫מצותו לבוא מן הלח לא מצאו יביאו‬ :‫מן היבש‬

Their practice was to bring [the omer] from fields to the south [of Jerusalem].21 They would leave one half of the field fallow22 and sow the other half one year. And the following year, they would leave fallow the half of the field that was previously sown and sow the other half and bring [the omer] from it.23

‫דרכן היה להביא משדות שבדרום היה‬ ‫נר חצי השדה וזורע חצייה בשנה זו‬ ‫ובשנה אחרת נר חצי השדה שזרע וזורע‬ :‫החצי שנר ומביא ממנו‬

‫עומר זה מן השעורים היה בא‬ ‫ודבר זה הלכה ממשה רבינו וכיצד‬ ‫היה נעשה מערב יום טוב יוצאין שלוחי‬ ‫בית דין ועושין אותו כריכות במחובר‬ ‫לקרקע כדי שהיה נוח לקצור כל העיירות‬ ‫הסמוכות לשם מתכנסות כדי שיהיה נקצר‬ ‫בעסק גדול וקוצרין שלש סאין שעורין‬ ‫בשלשה אנשים ובשלש קופות ובשלשה‬ ‫מגלות כיון שחשכה אומר להם הקוצר‬ ‫לכל העומדים שם בא השמש אומרין לו‬ ‫הין בא השמש אומרים לו הין בא השמש‬ ‫אומרין לו הין מגל זה אומרין לו הין מגל זה‬ ‫אומרין לו הין מגל זה אומרין לו הין קופה‬ ‫זו אומרין לו הין קופה זו אומרין לו הין‬ ‫קופה זו אומרין לו הין ואם היה שבת אומר‬ ‫להן שבת היום אומרים לו הין שבת היום‬ ‫אומרין לו הין שבת היום אומרין לו הין‬ ‫ואחר כך אומר להן אקצור והן אומרין לו‬ ‫קצור אקצור והם אומרים לו קצור אקצור‬ ‫והם אומרים לו קצור שלש פעמים על כל‬ ‫דבר ודבר‪:‬‬ ‫וכל כך למה מפני אלו הטועים שיצאו‬ ‫מכלל ישראל בבית שני שהן אומרין שזה‬ ‫שנאמר בתורה ממחרת השבת הוא שבת‬ ‫בראשית ומפי השמועה למדו שאינה שבת‬ ‫אלא יום טוב וכן ראו תמיד הנביאים‬ ‫והסנהדרין בכל דור ודור שהיו מניפין את‬ ‫העומר בששה עשר בניסן בין בחול בין‬ ‫בשבת והרי נאמר בתורה ולחם וקלי‬ ‫וכרמל לא תאכלו עד עצם היום הזה‬ ‫ונאמר ויאכלו מעבור הארץ ממחרת‬ ‫הפסח מצות וקלוי ואם תאמר שאותו‬ ‫הפסח בשבת אירע כמו שדמו הטפשים‬ ‫היאך תלה הכתוב היתר אכילתם לחדש‬ ‫בדבר שאינו העיקר ולא הסיבה אלא‬ ‫נקרה נקרה אלא מאחר שתלה הדבר‬ ‫במחרת הפסח הדבר ברור שמחרת הפסח‬

‫‪This omer would come from barley.24 This is a‬‬ ‫‪halachah communicated by Moses our teacher.25‬‬ ‫‪How was [the offering] brought? On the day before the‬‬ ‫‪festival of Pesach, the agents of the court would go out‬‬ ‫‪[to the field] and tie [the barley] into bundles26 while it‬‬ ‫‪was still attached to the ground so that it would be easy‬‬ ‫‪to reap. [On the evening after Pesach,] all [of the‬‬ ‫‪inhabitants] of all the neighboring villages would gather‬‬ ‫‪so that it would be reaped with much flourish.27 They‬‬ ‫‪would have three men reap three se'ah of barley in‬‬ ‫‪three baskets with three sickles.‬‬ ‫‪When it became dark, the reapers would ask those‬‬ ‫‪standing [in attendance]: "Has the sun set?" They‬‬ ‫"‪would answer: "Yes.‬‬ ‫"‪"Has the sun set?" They would answer: "Yes.‬‬ ‫"‪"Has the sun set?" They would answer: "Yes.‬‬ ‫"‪"Is this a sickle?" They would answer: "Yes.‬‬ ‫"‪"Is this a sickle?" They would answer: "Yes.‬‬ ‫"‪"Is this a sickle?" They would answer: "Yes.‬‬ ‫"‪"Is this a basket?" They would answer: "Yes.‬‬ ‫"‪"Is this a basket?" They would answer: "Yes.‬‬ ‫"‪"Is this a basket?" They would answer: "Yes.‬‬ ‫‪If it was the Sabbath, they would ask: "Is it the‬‬ ‫‪Sabbath?" They would answer: "Yes."28‬‬ ‫"‪"Is it the Sabbath?" They would answer: "Yes.‬‬ ‫"‪"Is it the Sabbath?" They would answer: "Yes.‬‬ ‫‪Afterwards, they would ask: "Should I reap?" They‬‬ ‫"‪would answer: "Yes.‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

They reaped [the barley]; [then] they placed it in the baskets, and brought it to the Temple Courtyard. [There] they beat it, winnowed it, and selected [the kernels]. The barley [kernels] were taken and roasted over the fire in a cylinder with holes so that the fire would reach it in its entirety, as [Leviticus 2:14] states: "From ripe ears, roasted over fire, ground from fresh kernels." According to the Oral Tradition,37 we learned that the verse is speaking only about the omer meal-offering. After it is roasted, it is spread out in the Temple Courtyard and the wind wafts through it. It is then taken to a mill for kernels and ground [to produce] three se'ah.38 From that quantity, an isaron39 is taken out after it has been sifted with thirteen sifters. The remainder is redeemed and [afterwards] may be eaten by any person. Challah must be separated from [that grain], but it is exempt from the tithes, as we explained.40 This isaron of fine barley flour is taken and mixed with a log of oil41 on the sixteenth of Nisan and a handful of frankincense is placed upon it like on the other meal offerings.42 It is waved in the eastern portion of the Temple Courtyard, being passed to [all four directions], lifted up and brought down.43 It is then brought close to the tip of the southwest corner of the altar like the other meal-offerings.44 A handful of the meal is taken and offered on the altar's pyre. The remainder is eaten by the priests like the remainder of all other meal-offerings.45 When is this handful taken? After the additional offering of the day is offered.46 The lamb brought as a burntoffering47 is offered before the continuous offering of the afternoon.

4

‫קצרוהו ונתנוהו בקופות והביאוהו‬ ‫לעזרה וחבטוהו וזורין ובוררין‬ ‫ולוקחין את השעורין ומהבהבין אותו באור‬ ‫באבוב מנוקב כדי שיהיה האש שולט‬ ‫בכולן שנאמר אביב קלוי באש גרש כרמל‬ ‫מפי השמועה למדו שאינו מדבר אלא‬ ‫במנחת העומר בלבד ואחר שקולין אותו‬ ‫שוטחין אותו בעזרה והרוח מנשבת בו‬ ‫ונותנין אותו לריחים של גרוסות וטוחנין‬ ‫את השלש סאין ומוציאין מן הכל עשרון‬ ‫שהוא מנופה בשלש עשרה נפה והשאר‬ ‫נפדה ונאכל לכל אדם וחייב בחלה ופטור‬ ‫מן המעשרות כמו שביארנו ולוקחין זה‬ ‫העשרון של סולת השעורים ובוללין אותו‬ ‫בלוג שמן בששה עשר בניסן ונותנין עליו‬ ‫קומץ לבונה כשאר המנחות ומניפו במזרח‬ ‫מוליך ומביא מעלה ומוריד ומגישו כנגד‬ ‫חודה של קרן מערבית דרומית כשאר‬ ‫המנחות וקומץ ומקטיר והשאר נאכל‬ ‫לכהנים כשיירי כל המנחות ואימתי קומצין‬ ‫אותו לאחר שמקריבין מוסף היום וכבש‬ :‫העולה קודם תמיד של בין הערבים‬

5

It is forbidden to reap any of the species of grain48 in Eretz Yisrael49 before the reaping50 of the omer, [because Leviticus 23:10] refers [to it as]: "the first of your harvest," [implying that] it should be the first [grain] that is reaped.51 To what does the above apply? To a harvest from which the omer offering could be brought. [A field located] in parched land in a valley, by contrast, may be reaped before [the reaping of] the omer, because it is not fit to bring [the omer offering] from it.52 [Even such grain]

‫אסור לקצור בארץ ישראל מן‬ ‫מחמשת מיני תבואה קודם לקצירת‬ ‫העומר שנאמר ראשית קצירכם שיהיה‬ ‫תחלה לכל הנקצרים בד"א בקציר שראוי‬ ‫להביא ממנו עומר אבל בית השלחין‬ ‫שבעמקים הואיל ואינו ראוי להביא ממנו‬ :‫קוצרין אותו מלפני העומר אבל לא יגדוש‬

should not, however, be collected in a grain heap. When grain grew its roots53 before [the reaping of] the omer, [reaping] the omer causes it to be permitted. If not, it is forbidden to harvest it, just as it is forbidden to partake of it until the omer is harvested next [year].

‫תבואה שהשרישה קודם העומר‬ ‫העומר מתירה ואם לאו אסור‬ ‫לקצרה כדרך שאסור לאכלה עד שיבא‬ :‫העומר הבא‬

When grain has not completed the final third of its growth,54 it may be reaped [even if it had not grown roots before the reaping of the omer] to feed it to an animal. [Grain] may be reaped so it does not ruin trees. [Similarly,] it may be reaped to clear a place for an assembly of mourning or an assembly of study. For [the prooftext] states "your harvest." [Implied is that the restrictions] do not [apply] to harvest associated with a mitzvah.

‫תבואה שלא הביאה שליש מותר‬ ‫לקצור ממנה להאכיל לבהמה‬ ‫וקוצרין מפני הנטיעות שלא יפסדו וקוצרין‬ ‫לפנות מקום לבית האבל או לבית המדרש‬ :‫שנאמר קצירכם ולא קציר מצוה‬

Even though it is permitted to reap, one should not bind [the stalks of barley] as sheaves55 as the reapers do. Instead, he should leave them as small bundles.56

‫ואע"פ שמותר לקצור לא יעשה‬ ‫אותן כריכות כדרך הקוצרין אלא‬ :‫יניחם צבתים צבתים‬

We already explained57 that meal-offerings, the meal-offerings for the additional offerings58 and first fruits59 may not be brought from new grain before the bringing of the omer.60 If one brought them, the offering is invalid. [Similarly, these offerings] should not be brought before bringing the two loaves [on Shavuot], but if one brought them, the offering is acceptable.61 Anyone who offers a meal-offering from new grain should recite the blessing Shehechiyanu.62 When grain was sown after the offering of the omer and harvested after the omer was offered the following year, there is an unresolved doubt:63 May meal-offerings be brought from it as an initial preference before the two loaves are brought [on Shavuot] because the two loaves and the omer had been brought while this grain [was growing]64 or perhaps [meal-offerings] should not be brought from it until after bringing the two loaves after the omer of the

‫כבר ביארנו שאין מביאין מנחות ולא‬ ‫מנחת נסכים ולא ביכורים מן החדש‬ ‫קודם הבאת העומר ואם הביא פסול ולא‬ ‫יביא קודם להבאת שתי הלחם ואם הביא‬ :‫כשר‬

‫וכל המקריב מנחה מן החדש‬ :‫תחילה מברך שהחיינו‬ ‫תבואה שזרעה אחר שקרב העומר‬ ‫וקצרה אחר שקרב העומר של‬ ‫שנה הבאה הרי זו ספק אם מביאין ממנה‬ ‫מנחות לכתחילה טרם הבאת שתי הלחם‬ ‫הואיל ותבואה זו עבר עליה הבאת שתי‬ ‫הלחם וקצירת העומר או אין מביאין עד‬ ‫שיביאו שתי הלחם אחר הבאת העומר של‬ :‫שנה אחת‬

same year were brought.65

6

Similarly, if grain was growing in the ground and its leaves began to form or they began to blossom at the time of the bringing of the two loaves,66 there is an unresolved question if the blossoming or the formation of leaves is considered equivalent to [the grain] taking root and it is permitted to bring meal-offerings from it or it is not considered as equivalent to it having taken root. Therefore one should not bring [such offerings]. If one did, [we assume that] they were accepted.

‫וכן תבואה שהיתה בקרקע וחנטו‬ ‫עליה או הנצו עלים שלה כשהביאו‬ ‫שתי הלחם הרי זה ספק אם הנצת העלין‬ ‫או חנטתן כמו השרשה והותרה להביא‬ ‫ממנה מנחות או אינה חשובה השרשה‬ :‫לפיכך לא יביא ואם הביא הורצה‬

One who reaps grain before the harvest of the omer is not liable for lashes67 and [the grain] he reaps is fit to be used.68

‫והקוצר קודם קצירת העומר אינו‬ :‫לוקה והקציר כשר‬

It is a positive commandment to count69 seven complete weeks70 from the day the omer is brought, as [Leviticus 23:15] states: "And from the day after the Sabbath, you shall count... seven weeks." It is a mitzvah to count the days together with the weeks, as [ibid.:15] states: "You shall count 50 days."71

‫מצות עשה לספור שבע שבתות‬ ‫תמימות מיום הבאת העומר‬ ‫שנאמר וספרתם לכם ממחרת השבת‬ ‫שבע שבתות ומצוה למנות הימים עם‬ ‫השבועות שנאמר תספרו חמשים יום‬ ‫ומתחילת היום מונין לפיכך מונה בלילה‬ :‫מליל ששה עשר בניסן‬

One should count at the inception of the [new] day. Therefore one counts at night,72 [beginning] from the night of the sixteenth of Nisan. When one forgot and did not count at night, he should count during the day.73 One should count only when standing.74 If one counted while sitting, he fulfilled his obligation.

‫שכח ולא מנה בלילה מונה ביום‬ ‫ואין מונין אלא מעומד ואם מנה‬ :‫מיושב יצא‬

This mitzvah is incumbent on every Jewish male75 in every place76 and at all times.77 Women and servants are absolved from it.78

‫מצוה זו על כל איש מישראל‬ ‫ובכל מקום ובכל זמן ונשים‬ :‫ועבדים פטורין ממנה‬

Each night, the [following] blessing should be recited before counting:79 "Blessed are You, God, our Lord, Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the counting of the omer." If one counted without reciting the blessing, he fulfills his obligation80 and should not recite the blessing afterwards.81

‫וצריך לברך בכל לילה בא"י‬ ‫אמ"ה אקב"ו על ספירת העומר‬ ‫קודם שיספור מנה ולא בירך יצא ואינו‬ :‫חוזר ומברך‬

« Previous

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 8

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 6 FOOTNOTES 1. For the offerings that are offered more frequently are given precedence over those offered on occasion (Zevachim 89a). Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 42) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 403) include offering the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 2. See Numbers 28:11-14.

7

3. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, Chapter 6. 4. See ibid., Chapter 7.

8

5. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 43) and Sefer

18. Menachot 72a states that the Sages that maintain that it is

HaChinuch (mitzvah 299) include offering the additional

acceptable to harvest the barley for the offering during the

offering of Pesach as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The fact that the same offering is brought on each of the

day do not accept the view that this barley may be harvested on the Sabbath. How then can the Rambam accept both

days of the holiday has several consequences in other areas of Jewish Law. Among them: Hallel is only recited on the first

rulings? Nevertheless, since the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh

(and in the Diaspora, on the first two) days of the holiday.

contradictory, it is possible for the Rambam to accept both

The blessing Shehechiyanu is not recited on the last day(s).

rulings.

6. Numbers 28:19-24. 7. With regard to the date when this offering is brought, see Halachah 11. 8. As stated in the previous clause. 9. See Leviticus 23:11. 10. Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:3. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 44) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 302) include bringing the omer offering and the accompanying sacrifice as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 11. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:9-17. 12. In contrast to most of the other meal-offerings that may be brought from the Diaspora as well (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:15). 13. The words "your harvest" can be interpreted as a reference to the harvest of your land, i.e., Eretz Yisrael. Alternatively, the Rambam is referring to the beginning of the verse "When you come to the land," as some have inferred from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:1).

HaShanah 1:8, Megilah 2:7) does not see the two as

19. For this offering with the phrase: "When the sickle is first put to the standing grain." 20. For Leviticus 23:14 uses the term karmel which has the connotation of fresh grain. 21. I.e., from the southern slopes of the mountains on the outskirts of Jerusalem which had greater exposure to the sun (Tosafot, Menachot 85a). 22. Plowing it, but not sowing it [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:2)]. 23. In this way, the field's power of growth would always be restored and the barley would be of high quality. Compare to Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:4. 24. In contrast to all other meal offerings with the exception of the meal offering brought by a sotah (a woman suspected of infidelity) which were from wheat. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:2, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:3. 25. I.e., a concept that, although not explicitly stated in the Torah, was given to Moses at Sinai and always practiced among the Jewish people.

14. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit. 10:2), the

26. Rashi (Menachot 65a) states that all the stalks of barley that

Rambam explains that the rationale is that it is improper to

could be gathered within the reach of one's forearm would be tied together.

pass over the opportunity to perform a mitzvah. Since there was barley fit for this offering in Jerusalem, it was not fitting to seek it elsewhere. 15. Because the grain close to Jerusalem had not ripened (Rashi, Menachot 83b). 16. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:3), the Rambam explains that this preference stems from the fact that the Counting of the Omer must be "seven perfect weeks" (Leviticus 23:15), including both day and night. The

27. This was to refute the approach of the Sadducees as the Rambam proceeds to explain. Perhaps the Rambam elaborates so extensively in the refutation of the Sadducees, because in his time there were Karaites who also rejected the authority of the Oral Law while claiming to follow the Written Law. 28. Thus emphasizing that reaping the omer supersedes the prohibition against forbidden labor on the Sabbath, as stated in Halachah 6.

counting and the reaping should begin at the same time, as implied by Deuteronomy 16:9 which describes this offering

29. The Sadducees who maintained that only the Written Law

with the phrase: "When the sickle is first put to the standing grain, you shall begin counting." Hence the reaping should

was of Godly origin and that the Oral Law should not be followed.

also be done at night. 17. Since offering the omer supersedes the prohibition against forbidden labor on the Sabbath, this applies to all the aspects of its offering, including harvesting the barley.

30. I.e., Pesach. This is an accepted interpretation, because the festivals are referred to as "Sabbaths" several times in the Torah [the Rambam's (Chagigah 2:4).

Commentary

31. The Supreme Jewish court.

to

the

Mishnah

9

32. The proof proposed by the Rambam does not appear to be based on any prior Rabbinic source. Although Menachot 65b brings several proofs of this concept from the exegesis of different verses, the Rambam does not refer to them because he is seeking an explicit proof from Scripture which the Saduccees accept rather than a concept derived from

42. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, loc. cit. 43. See the description of the waving of the offerings in ibid. 9:6-7. 44. See ibid. 12:6. 45. See ibid. 12:9.

exegesis which they do not accept. The Sages did not refer to the proof used by the Rambam, because they would

46. For the offering brought more frequently receives priority (Kessef Mishneh).

rather employ a proof that has its source in the Torah itself rather than in the works of the prophets (Radbaz).

47. Which accompanies the omer as stated in Halachah 3.

33. Thus we can assume the day when the omer was brought

48. Wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt.

and new produce was permitted to be eaten was the day following Pesach.

49. In the Diaspora, this is permitted, however, because the omer may not be brought from there.

34. And thus there would be no proof of what to do in a year when Pesach does not fall on the Sabbath.

50. The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam puts the

35. Tosafot, Menachot 30a, mentions two opinions with regard to the day of the week on which Moses died: Friday or the Sabbath. Moses died on 7 Adar. Accordingly, Pesach, 15 Nisan, was either a Sunday or a Monday. 36. For according to the Saduccees' misguided conception, the fundamental point is that they ate the grain on the day after the Sabbath. If their approach was right, Scripture should have emphasized that the event took place then and not "on the day after Pesach."

limit on the reaping of the omer and not on its offering. Some have suggested that since the verse mentions "your harvest," the prohibition applies only until then. 51. As mentioned in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:2-3, it is forbidden to partake of any grain before the offering of the omer. That prohibition is referred to as chadash ("new [grain]"). Here the Rambam is emphasizing that even harvesting such grain is forbidden. The prohibition is, however, an outgrowth of a positive commandment and is not considered as a negative commandment. See Halachah 21.

37. See Sifra to the verse; Menachot 66b.

52. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:12. Since this grain is not of

38. A se'ah is approximately 8.3 liter in contemporary measure

high quality, the offerings should not be brought from it. It

according to Shiurei Torah. There are also more stringent

must be emphasized that this is only an a priori

views.

consideration. After the fact, such a meal-offering is

39. An isaron is one tenth of an ephah and an ephah is three se'ah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot

acceptable. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:2), the

in

contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah.

Rambam explains why this leniency is granted. The prooftext cited above states: "You shall reap your harvest and you

The priests would be endeavoring to get one tenth of the

shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest." From the first

original amount of grain. There the Rambam explains that since the kernels of grain are still somewhat underdeveloped

portion of the verse, it appears that the harvest should precede the omer, but the second portion states that the

- for this offering is being made right at the beginning of the harvest - there will not be as much fine flour and much sifting

the difficulty by teaching: "From the place where you may

will be required to produce the desired quantity.

bring the omer, you may not harvest, but from a place where

6:6)]. Thus an isaron

is

approximately

2.4

liter

40. Hilchot Ma'aser 3:25; Hilchot Bikkurim 6:3. The rationale is

omer is "the first of the harvest." The Oral Tradition resolves

that offering may not be brought, you may harvest."

that once the flour has been redeemed, the holiness

53. The Rabbis explain that it takes fourteen days between the

associated with it has departed. Hence, dough produced from it must be treated like ordinary dough. The obligation to

time when seedlings trees are planted and when they took root. One may assume that it takes less time for grain to root.

separate terumah and tithes takes effect at the conclusion of

54. At this stage, it has not reached a state fit to serve as food for humans. Hence the prohibition mentioned above does not

the harvest. At that time, the produce is consecrated and therefore exempt. The obligation to separate challah, by contrast, takes effect when the dough is kneaded and, at

apply. Our translation is dependent on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:8).

that time, the flour has already been redeemed and is no longer consecrated.

55. Larger bindings collected from several smaller bundles

41. As all the other meal-offerings. See Hilchot HaKorbanot 12:7

Ma'aseh

(ibid.).

56. The Rambam does allow the stalks to be tied in contrast to Rashi's view (Menachot 71a).

these are not two separate commandments. In some Ashkenazic communities, the custom is to count each night and, at the end of a week, to count the passage of the week.

57. Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:9. 58. This also includes the wine for the libations (ibid.). 59. The first-fruits are not mentioned in Hilchot

71. In Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam emphasizes that

Issurei

Mizbeiach, loc. cit.

The Sephardic custom is to mention the days and the weeks each night when counting. 72. For by including the night, the weeks will be "complete,"

60. Because the omer must be "the first of your harvest" as mentioned above.

without any lack (Menachot 66a). 73. It appears that according to the Rambam, after the fact, by

61. As explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:10, the two loaves are described by Leviticus 23:17 as "the first fruits unto God." Hence, no other grain offerings should be offered before them. Nevertheless, since this grain is acceptable for a private individual, after the fact, the offering is still acceptable. 62. Since it is the first meal-offering to be brought from new grain, it warrants a blessing. The Rambam is interpreting Menachot 75b differently than Rashi. 63. Our Sages discussed the issue in Menachot 68b and did not arrive at a resolution. 64. I.e., the two loaves of the previous year and the omer of the present year.

counting during the day, one fulfills the mitzvah just as one does by counting at night. Rabbenu Asher does not accept this view. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 489:7) states that if one did not count during the night, he should not recite a blessing while counting during the day. 74. For in its reference to this mitzvah, Deuteronomy 16:9 mentions "standing grain," which our Rabbis interpret as an allusion to fulfill the mitzvah while standing (Kessef Mishneh). 75. I.e., the mitzvah of counting is not entrusted to the court as is the mitzvah of counting the Jubilee, but rather is a personal responsibility for every individual (Radbaz). 76. I.e., in both Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora.

65. Rav Yosef Corcus states that if one does bring a meal-offering from such grain, after the fact, he is not required to bring a second one. See also the conclusion of the following halachah.

77. I.e., even after the destruction of the Temple. There are Ashkenazic authorities who differ and maintain that according to Scriptural Law, the mitzvah is dependent on the harvest of the omer. Hence in the present era, our

66. I.e., without the grain having become rooted in the ground. The Kessef Mishneh questions how is it possible for the

observance only possesses the status of a Rabbinic commandment. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 489:2 writes that

leaves of a plant to grow without it taking root. He explains that this refers to a situation where the seeds were sprouted

although primacy should be given to this view, there is no difference in practice between the two approaches.

in water which could produce leaves before roots. 67. For the violation of a negative Scriptural commandment is not involved. The Radbaz maintains that one is, however, liable for stripes for rebellious conduct. 68. Both as food and for a meal-offering (Rav Yosef Corcus). Needless to say, one must wait until the omer or the two loaves are offered.

78. As is true with regard to all other mitzvot associated with a specific time. 79. As

one

does

before

fulfilling

other

positive

commandment (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). 80. For the failure to recite a blessing does not nullify the mitzvah (Kessef Mishneh). 81. Even if one counted accidentally, one should not count

69. Verbalizing the reckoning of each day (see Radbaz). 70. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 161) and Sefer

afterwards with a blessing. Therefore if one's friend asks what day of the omer it is, one should answer "Yesterday

HaChinuch (mitzvah 306) include this as one of the 613

was such and such" [Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim

mitzvot of the Torah.

489:4)].

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

10

any

policy .

11



Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 8 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 7

The fiftieth day of the counting of the omer is the holiday of Shavuot.1 It is also called Atzeret. On this day, an additional offering is brought like the one brought on Rosh Chodesh:2 Two bulls, one ram, and seven sheep. All are burnt-offerings. A goat is brought as a sin-offering. These are the addition offerings that are mentioned in the Book of Numbers.3 They are the additional offering associated with the day. Also, besides the additional offering of this day, a meal-offering is brought from new grain: two loaves. Together with the loaves are offered a bull, two rams, and seven sheep. All are burnt-offerings. A goat is brought as a sin-offering and two sheep are brought as peace-offerings.4 These are the addition offerings that are mentioned in the Book of Leviticus.5 Thus on this day, besides [the two lambs brought as] continuous offerings, there are offered three bulls, three rams, and fourteen sheep - a total of 20 animals - as burnt offerings and two goats as sin-offerings which are eaten and two sheep as peace-offerings which are eaten.

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 9

‫ביום חמשים מספירת העומר הוא‬ ‫חג השבועות והוא עצרת וביום הזה‬ ‫מקריבין מוסף כמו מוסף ראש חדש שני‬ ‫פרים ואיל ושבעה כבשים כולם עולות‬ ‫ושעיר חטאת ואלו הן הקרבנות האמורות‬ ‫בחומש הפקודים והם מוסף היום ועוד‬ ‫מביאין יתר על המוסף ביום הזה מנחה‬ ‫חדשה שתי הלחם ומקריבין עם הלחם פר‬ ‫ושני אילים ושבעה כבשים הכל עולות‬ ‫ושעיר חטאת ושני כבשים זבח שלמים‬ ‫ואלו הן הקרבנות האמורות בחומש ויקרא‬ ‫נמצא הקרב ביום זה יתר על שני התמידין‬ ‫שלשה פרים ושלשה אילים וארבעה עשר‬ ‫כבשים הכל עשרים בהמה עולות ושני‬ ‫שעירי חטאות נאכלים ושני כבשים‬ :‫שלמים נאכלים‬

These two loaves may be brought only from Eretz Yisrael and from freshly-harvested grain,6 as [indicated by Leviticus 23:17]: "From your dwelling places,7 bring bread that will be waved...." If freshlyharvested grain cannot be found, one may bring from that which had been stored away.8

‫שתי הלחם אינן באין אלא מן הארץ‬ ‫ומן החדש שנאמר ממושבותיכם‬ ‫תביאו לחם תנופה וגו' לא מצאו חדש‬ :‫יביאו מן העליה‬

If wheat kernels descended from the clouds,9 there is an unresolved doubt whether they are considered as coming from "your dwelling places."10 Hence, [as an initial preference, the two loaves] should not be brought [from such grain]. After the fact, [the offering] is acceptable.

‫חטים שירדו בעבים יש בהם ספק אם‬ ‫אני קורא בהם ממושבותיכם או אינם‬ ‫ממושבותיכם לפיכך לא יביא ואם הביא‬ ‫כשר וכיצד היו עושין מביאין שלש סאין‬ ‫חטין חדשות ושפין אותן ובועטין בהם‬ ‫כדרך כל המנחות וטוחנין אותן סולת‬ ‫ומנפין מהן שני עשרונות מנופה בשתים‬ ‫עשרה נפה והשאר נפדה ונאכל לכל אדם‬ ‫וחייב בחלה ופטור מן המעשרות כמו‬ :‫שביארנו‬

How are [the two loaves] brought? Three se'ah of wheat from new grain are brought. [The kernels] are struck and tread upon as [is done] for all the meal offerings.11 They should be ground into fine flour [to produce] two esronim12 that are sifted with twelve sifters. The remainder is redeemed and [afterwards] may be eaten by any person. Challah must be separated from [that grain], but it is exempt from the tithes, as we explained.13 The two loaves that come from new grain must each come from an isaron produced from a se'ah and a half [of kernels]. They are sifted with twelve sifters. For the showbread that comes from grain that grown for a full season, it is sufficient to use eleven sifters and an isaron is produced from every se'ah.14 The omer which, however, comes from fresh barley does not come from choice grain.15 [Hence it requires] three se'ah and thirteen sifters. In all these instances, if one added the number of se'ah used or subtracted from them,16 [the offering] is acceptable.17

2

‫שתי הלחם שהן מן החדש צריכין‬ ‫לבוא עשרון מכל סאה ומחצה ומנפין‬ ‫אותן בשתים עשרה נפה ולחם הפנים‬ ‫שהוא בא מן הישן די לו באחת עשרה‬ ‫נפה והוא בא עשרון מכל סאה אבל‬ ‫העומר שהוא בא מן השעורים חדשות‬ ‫אינו בא מן המובחר אלא משלש סאין‬ :‫ובשלש עשרה נפה‬

‫וכולם אם רבה במדת הסאין שבאין‬ :‫מהן או מיעט כשר‬

3

The two esronim are taken and each one is kneaded into dough individually.18

individually and

baked

‫ולוקחין שני העשרונות ולשין אותן‬ :‫אחת אחת ואופין אותן אחת אחת‬

The dough for them is made and they are shaped outside [the Temple Courtyard].19 They are, however, baked inside [the Courtyard] like all the meal-offerings.20

‫ולישתן ועריכתן בחוץ ואפייתן בפנים‬ :‫ככל המנחות‬

Preparing these loaves does not supersede [the prohibitions against forbidden labor on] the festivals and needless to say, not [those of] Sabbath. Instead, they are baked on the day preceding the festival. For [Exodus 12:16 which permits cooking and baking on the festivals states]: "It alone may be done for yourselves." [Implied is an exclusion:] "For yourselves and not for the Most High.21

‫ואין עשייתן דוחה יום טוב ואין צריך‬ ‫לומר שבת אלא אופין אותן מערב‬ ‫יום טוב שנאמר הוא לבדו יעשה לכם לכם‬ :‫ולא לגבוה‬

If the day before the festival is the Sabbath, they should be baked on Friday and eaten on the third day after they were baked which is the festival.

‫היה ערב יום טוב שבת אופין אותן‬ ‫מערב שבת ונאכלות בשלישי‬ ‫לאפייתן שהוא יום טוב והרי מפורש‬ ‫בתורה שהם חמץ וכיצד עושה מביא‬ ‫שאור ממקום אחר ונותנו לתוך העשרון‬ ‫וממלא העשרון סולת ומחמצו באותו‬ :‫השאור‬

It is explicitly stated in the Torah that they should be leavened bread.22 How were they prepared? On would bring yeast from another place and place it into the isaron measure. He would then fill that measure with fine flour and let it leaven with that yeast.23 They were rectangular.24 The length of each loaf is seven handbreadths and their width was four handbreadths. Their height was four fingerbreadths.

‫ומרובעות הן אורך כל חלה שבעה‬ ‫טפחים ורחבה ארבעה טפחים וגובהה‬ :‫ארבע אצבעות‬

4

How is the bread waved together with the two sheep brought as peace offerings?25 Two sheep are brought and they should be waved while they are still alive, as [Leviticus 23:20] states: "And [the priest] shall wave them...." If one waved each of them individually, the obligation is fulfilled. Afterwards, they are slaughtered and skinned. The breast and the thigh from both of them are taken and placed aside the two loaves. [A priest] should place both of his hands below them and wave them all as a single entity26 in the eastern portion of the Temple Courtyard in the place where all the waving [of offerings] is performed.27 One should bring them back and forth [to each of the four directions] and up and down. If he waved each of the loaves [together with one breast and one thigh] individually, the obligation is fulfilled.

‫כיצד הנפת הלחם עם שני כבשי‬ ‫השלמים מביא שני הכבשים‬ ‫ומניפם בעודן חיים שנאמר והניף אותם‬ ‫תנופה ואם הניף זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני‬ ‫עצמו יצא ואחר כך שוחטין אותן ומפשיט‬ ‫ולוקח חזה ושוק מכל אחד משניהם‬ ‫ומניחן בצד שתי הלחם ומניח שתי ידיו‬ ‫מלמטן ומניף הכל כאחד במזרח במקום‬ ‫כל התנופות מוליך ומביא מעלה ומוריד‬ ‫ואם הניפן אחד אחד יצא ואח"כ מקטיר‬ ‫אימורי שני הכבשים ושאר הבשר נאכל‬ ‫לכהנים וכן שתי החלות נוטל כהן גדול‬ ‫אחת מהן והשניה מתחלקת לכל‬ ‫המשמרות ושתיהן נאכלות אותו היום‬ :‫וחצי הלילה כבשר קדשי קדשים‬

Afterwards, the eimorim28 of the sheep are offered on the altar's pyre. The remainder of the meat is eaten by the priests.29 With regard to the two loaves: the High Priest receives one of them30 and the other is divided among all the priestly watches.31 They both may be eaten for the entire day and half the night like the meat of the sacrifices of the most sacred order.32 [The following laws apply if] one slaughtered the two sheep for four loaves: If [the priest performing the service] said:33 "Let two of the four become sanctified," he should remove two of the four, and wave them.34 The remainder should be redeemed inside the Temple Courtyard35 and eaten outside like other ordinary [bread]. If he did not make such a stipulation, the bread does not become sanctified.

‫שחט שני כבשים על ארבע חלות‬ ‫אם אמר יקדשו שתים מתוך ארבע‬ ‫מושך שתים מהן ומניפן והשאר פודין‬ ‫אותן בפנים ונאכלין בחוץ כשאר החולין‬ :‫ואם לא התנה לא קדש הלחם‬

5

If he slaughtered four sheep for two loaves, they should take away two of them and dash their blood on the altar with the intent that they not be for this offering.36 He should then wave the remaining two together with the two loaves.37

‫שחט ארבעה כבשים על שתי חלות‬ ‫מושך שנים מהם וזורק דמן שלא‬ ‫לשמן ומניף השנים הנשארים הכשרים עם‬ :‫שתי הלחם‬

The two breads are each indispensable requirements for the offering of each other38 and the two sheep are each indispensable requirements for the offering of each other.39 If one of them died, fled, or became treifah, a partner should be taken for the second. If one was slaughtered with the proper intent [and then the other died or the like], a partner should be taken for [the first].40

‫שתי החלות מעכבות זו את זו ושני‬ ‫הכבשים מעכבין זה את זה מת‬ ‫אחד משניהם או ברח או נעשה טריפה‬ :‫יקח זוג לשני שחט אחד לשמו יקח לו זוג‬

The two loaves are indispensable requirements for the offering of the sheep,41 but the two sheep are not indispensable requirements for the offering of the loaves.42 [Nevertheless,] if [the loaves] were waved together with the sheep, they are indispensable requirements for their being offered.43 Thus if the loaves were lost, the sheep should be destroyed and if the sheep were lost, the loaves should be destroyed and other loaves and other sheep should be brought.

‫שתי הלחם מעכבים את הכבשים‬ ‫ושני הכבשים אינן מעכבים את‬ ‫הלחם ואם הונפו עם הכבשים מעכבין זה‬ ‫את זה ואם אבד הלחם יאבדו הכבשים‬ ‫ואם אבדו הכבשים יאבדו הלחם ויביאו‬ :‫לחם אחר וכבשים אחרים‬

How should the two loaves be brought when they are brought without the sheep? They should be waved and then [left] until their form spoils44 and then taken out to the place where [sacrifices] are burnt.45 This is a decree, [enacted] lest sheep be available in the coming year and the loaves be offered without them.

‫שתי הלחם הבאות בפני עצמן‬ ‫בלא כבשים כיצד עושין בהן יונפו‬ ‫ותעובר צורתן ויצאו לבית השריפה גזירה‬ ‫שמא ימצאו כבשים לשנה הבאה ויביאו‬ ‫לחם בלא כבשים הפר ושני האילים‬ ‫ושבעת הכבשים והשעיר הבאים ביום זה‬ ‫בגלל הלחם אינן מעכבין את הלחם ולא‬ :‫הלחם מעכבן‬

The two rams, seven sheep46 and the goat47 brought on this day because of the loaves are not indispensable requirements for the offering of the loaves, nor are the loaves indispensable requirements for their being offered.

6

The two bulls of the additional offering of the day and the bull brought because of the bread are not indispensable requirements for the offering of each other.48

‫שני פרים של מוסף היום ופר הבא‬ :‫בגלל הלחם אינן מעכבין זה את זה‬

The ram of the additional offering of the day and the two rams brought because of the bread are not indispensable requirements for the offering of each other.49

‫איל של מוסף היום ושני אילים‬ ‫הבאין בגלל הלחם אינן מעכבין‬ : (‫)זה את זה‬

The seven sheep of the additional offering of the day and the seven sheep brought because of the bread are not indispensable requirements for the offering of each other.50 If they were slaughtered, they are indispensable requirements for the offering of each other.51

‫שבעה כבשים של מוסף היום‬ ‫ושבעה כבשים הבאים בגלל הלחם‬ ‫אינן מעכבין זה את זה ואם נשחטו כולן‬ :‫מעכבין זה את זה‬

7

The continuous offerings are not indispensable requirements for the additional offerings, nor are the additional offerings indispensable requirements for the continuous offerings, nor are the additional offerings indispensable requirements for each other, nor is the entire amount of burnt offerings an indispensable requirement. What is implied? If only six sheep were found, the six should be offered. Even if one found only one sheep, it should be offered.52 [This applies] whether on Rosh Chodesh or on the festivals or Sabbaths. There is no obligation to offer the other animals on the following day or at any other time. Instead, whenever the date for a communal sacrifice passes without it being offered, [the obligation to offer] the sacrifice is nullified.53

‫התמידין אינם מעכבין את המוספין‬ ‫ולא המוספין מעכבין את התמידין‬ ‫ולא המוספין מעכבין זה את זה ולא מנין‬ ‫העולות כולן מעכב כיצד הרי שלא מצאו‬ ‫אלא ששה כבשים מקריבין ששה אפילו‬ ‫לא מצאו אלא אחד מקריבין אותו בין‬ ‫בראשי חדשים בין בימי המועדות‬ ‫והשבתות ואינן חייבין להקריב השאר‬ ‫למחר או למועד אחר אלא כל קרבן צבור‬ ‫שעבר זמנו בטל קרבנו לא מצאו אלא שני‬ ‫כבשים אם יקריבו אותן למוסף היום אין‬ ‫להן תמידין למחר הרי הדבר שקול אם‬ ‫הקריבום למוסף היום הקריבו ואם רצו‬ :‫להניחם למחר לתמידין יניחו‬

If there were only two sheep to be found and thus if they would be offered for the additional offering of the day, there would not be any for the continuous offering on the next day, the options are of equal weight.54 If they were offered for the additional offering of that day, the offering [is acceptable]. If it was desired that they be left to be offered on the following day, they should be left.

« Previous

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 9

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 7 FOOTNOTES 1. I.e., unlike other holidays, the celebration of Shavuot is not associated with a specific date of the month, but is instead dependent on the counting of the omer. In the era of the Temple, when the calendar was established based on the sighting of the moon, it was possible for the holiday to be celebrated on the fifth, sixth, or the seventh of the month. See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 3:12. 2. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 45) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 404) include offering the additional offering of Shavuot as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 3. Numbers 28:27-30.

4. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 46) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 307) include offering these loaves and these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 5. Leviticus 23:16-19. The Rambam is following the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (Menachot 45b) who sees the two as two different sets of offerings. 6. For Leviticus 23:16 describes this as "a new meal-offering," i.e., a meal-offering from grain harvested in the present year. 7. I.e., Eretz Yisrael.

8

8. The literal meaning of the Rambam's words is "from the attic." To support such a ruling, Menachot 83b explains that the expression "a new meal-offering" can be interpreted to mean that after these two loaves are brought, meal-offerings can be brought from new grain. 9. I.e., miraculously, without there being a logical explanation for their descent (see Tosafot, Menachot 69b). 10. I.e., from a simple perspective, the phrase "from your dwelling places," comes to exclude the Diaspora. Hence one

22. See Leviticus 23:17. Aside from one of the types of breads offered together with the thanksgiving offering, all of the meal-offerings were unleavened bread. 23. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:18 with regard to the leavening of one of the types of the bread used for the thanksgiving offering. 24. The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam derived this concept from the showbread. See also Tosefta, Menachot 11:1.

might think grain from the clouds would be acceptable. Nevertheless, grain from the clouds also does not come

25. As stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 9, the two loaves should

"from your dwelling places." Hence there is room to say that it is excluded (Menachot, loc. cit.).

26. Menachot 61a derives this from the description of the guilt

11. See Chapter 5, Halachah 6, and Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:4. 12. As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 7, Halachah 12, an isaron is one tenth of an ephah and an ephah is three se'ah. Thus an isaron is approximately 2.4 liter in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah. The priests would be endeavoring to get one fifth of the original amount of grain. Since the kernels of grain are still somewhat underdeveloped, for this is an early stage in the harvest, there will not be as much fine flour and much sifting will be required to produce the desired quantity. 13. See Chapter 7, Halachah 12; Hilchot Ma'aser 3:25; Hilchot Bikkurim 6:3. 14. Since the grain has had more time to grow, the kernels of wheat have matured more, and there is more fine flour in each kernel. Hence, there is no need to sift them so thoroughly and more fine flour is produced per se'ah. 15. Because at the beginning of the harvest such grain does not exist. 16. The same law applies if the grain was sifted less (see Chapter 5, Halachah 6). 17. He must, however, used the required amount of esronim for each offering (Kessef Mishneh). 18. In his Commentary to the Mishneh (Menachot 11:1), the Rambam states that this practice has its roots in the Oral Tradition transmitted by Moses from Sinai. 19. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:2), the Rambam notes that the Talmud does not explain why the two loaves were not prepared in the Temple Courtyard. 20. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23. 21. Even though the priests do partake of these two loaves, the purpose of their preparation is not to serve as food, but to be an offering unto God.

be offered before the sheep that accompany them.

offering and the log of oil that accompanies it. 27. See Chapter 7, Halachah 12; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:6. 28. The fats and organs offered on the altar. 29. I.e., the meat, and apparently also the bread, may not be eaten until the eimorim were offered on the altar. 30. As in the instance of the showbread where half the loaves are given to the High Prist (Chapter 4, Halachah 14; Kessef Mishneh). 31. For the priests of all the watches are able to offer the sacrifices of the festivals and share in their division (see Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:4-5). As the Radbaz emphasizes, this division is followed even though each of the priests will receive only a miniscule portion. 32. As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:8, this is a Rabbinic safeguard. According to Scriptural Law, the sacrifices may be eaten until dawn. Even though they are peace offerings, since they are communal sacrifices, they are considered sacrifices of the most holy order and the time during which they may be eaten is regulated accordingly (Kessef Mishneh). 33. The Radbaz emphasizes that if the priest does not make such a statement explicitly, the breads are not sanctified. 34. And they are acceptable for the offering. 35. For if they were redeemed outside the Temple, they would be disqualified (Menachot 47b). Rav Yosef Corcus explains that although one is forbidden to bring ordinary food into the Temple Courtyard, in this instance, one is not bringing the bread into the Temple Courtyard, The loaves are redeemed while they are located there. Afterwards, they are removed.

36. In such an instance, the sacrifices are not disqualified, but they are not considered as fulfilling the obligation of the given offering. Hence they are no longer associated with the two loaves. If, however, the blood of the first two sheep was offered with the proper intent, the later two are disqualified, before they were slaughtered. For this reason, the option

46. Offered as burnt offerings (Halachah 1). 47. Offered as a sin offering (ibid.). 48. Indeed, the two bulls brought because of the additional offering are not even indispensable requirements for the offering of each other (Kessef Mishneh).

mentioned by the Rambam is preferable (Menachot 48a).

49. In this instance, however, the two rams brought because of

That passage asks: Should one slaughter a sacrifice without

the bread are indispenaible requirements for the offering of each other (ibid.).

the proper intent, because there is a redeeming factor by doing so? It explains that there is no transgression involved

50. Here also the seven sheep brought because of the additional

in slaughtering a sacrifice without the proper intent. Hence in this situation, it is the most desired alternative.

offering are not even indispenaible requirements for the offering of each other. The Ra'avad maintains, however, that

37. And they are acceptable. 38. One is not acceptable without the other and should not be brought (Menachot 27a). 39. One is not acceptable without the other and should not be brought (Menachot 27a). 40. Our additions were made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. The Or Sameach suggests (and his suggestion is borne out by some manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah) amending the text to read "If one was slaughtered without the proper intent, (i.e., and thus disqualified,) a partner should be taken for the other."

the seven sheep brought because of the bread are indispenaible requirements for the offering of each other. The Kessef Mishneh differs and maintains that none of the sheep are indispenaible requirements for each other. 51. For the fact that they were slaughtered for the same purposes causes them to be considered as a single entity. The Ra'avad does not accept this concept, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer an explanation of the Rambam's source, Menachot 55b, that supports his ruling. 52. With regard to the Rosh Chodesh sacrifice, Ezekiel 46:7 speaks of offering one bull, while the Torah (Numbers 28:11) speaks of bringing two. Menachot 45a reconciles the

41. If there are no loaves, the sheep should not be offered.

apparent contradiction stating that if two are available, two

42. And even if there are no sheep, the loaves should be offered [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 4:3)].

should be offered. If only one is available, that one should be brought. Similarly that passage speaks of offering "six

43. For waving them together establishes interdependence (see

sheep... that one's hand will come by," though the Torah speaks of seven. Implied is that if seven are not available, six

Menachot 46b). The Ra'avad states that the matter is left unresolved by the Talmud and hence, questions the Rambam's ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh,

should be brought. And if six are not available, whatever animals "that one's hand will come by" should be offered.

however, offer an interpretation of the passage that supports

53. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:7.

the Rambam's approach.

54. The continuous offerings have the advantage of being offered more frequently, but the additional offerings are on a

44. Since they were waved, they are considered as sacrificial entities and may not be burnt until they are disqualified.

higher level of holiness. See also Chapter 9, Halachah 2.

45. In the initial version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.; this is the version in the standard published text), the Rambam rules according to Scriptural Law and states that the loaves should be eaten. Afterwards, he amended that text to read as above (Rav Kappach's notes).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .

10



Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 9 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 8

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 10

On the first day of Tishrei,1 for the additional offering of the day,2 we offer a bull, a ram, seven sheep, all as burnt-offerings and a goat as a sin-offering.3 This is the additional offering of the day aside from the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh that is offered on every Rosh Chodesh.4 Therefore [if that date] fell on the Sabbath, three additional offerings were brought: the additional offering of the Sabbath, the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh, and the additional offering of that date.

‫באחד בתשרי מקריבין מוסף היום‬ ‫פר ואיל ושבעה כבשים הכל עולות‬ ‫ושעיר חטאת הנאכלת וזה מוסף היום יתר‬ ‫על מוסף ראש חדש הקרב בכל ראש‬ ‫חדש לפיכך אם חל להיות בשבת היו שם‬ ‫שלשה מוספין מוסף שבת ומוסף ראש‬ :‫חדש ומוסף היום‬

What is the order in which they were offered? First they would offer the additional offering of the Sabbath, then the additional offering of the new month, and then the additional offering of the festival.5 [The rationale is that any offering brought] more frequently than another takes precedence over the other one.6 Similarly, if [an offering] is on a higher level of holiness than another one, it takes precedence over it.7 If one has a choice of [an offering that] is brought more frequently and one which is on a higher level of holiness, one may award precedence to whichever one desires.8

‫וכיצד סידור הקרבתן מוסף שבת‬ ‫תחלה ואחריו מוסף החדש ואחריו‬ ‫מוסף יום טוב שכל התדיר מחבירו קודם‬ ‫את חבירו וכן כל המקודש מחבירו קודם‬ ‫את חבירו היה לפניו תדיר ומקודש יקדים‬ :‫איזה מהם שירצה‬

If one transgressed and slaughtered [an animal for an offering that was] not [brought] more frequently or one which was on a lower level of holiness first, one should offer it [on the altar]9 and then slaughter the one [brought] more frequently or one which was on a higher level of holiness.

‫עבר או שכח ושחט את שאינו תדיר‬ ‫או הפחות בקדושה תחלה מקריבו‬ ‫ואחר כך שוחט את התדיר או את‬ :‫המקודש‬

If the two [animals]10 were slaughtered at the same time,11 one should stir the blood [of the one that is less frequent or less holy] until the blood of the one that is more frequent or holier is sprinkled [on the altar].

‫ואם נשחטו שניהם כאחד יהיה זה‬ ‫ממרס בדם עד שיזרק דם התדיר או‬ :‫דם המקודש‬

The blood of a sin-offering is given precedence12 over the blood of a burnt-offering, because the blood of a sin-offering brings atonement.13 [The offering of] the limbs of a burnt-offering take precedence over offering the fats and organs of a sin-offering, because a burnt-offering is consumed entirely by fire.14

‫דם החטאת קודם לדם העולה מפני‬ ‫שדם החטאת מכפר איברי עולה‬ ‫קודמין לאימורי חטאת מפני שהעולה‬ ‫כולה לאשים דם חטאת ואיברי עולה אי‬ ‫זה שירצה יקדים וכן דם עולה ואימורי‬ ‫חטאת או דם עולה ודם אשם אי זה‬ :‫שירצה יקדים‬

[If one must choose] between the blood of a sin-offering15 or the limbs of a burnt-offering,16 one may give precedence to whichever one desires. Similarly, [if one must choose] between the blood of a burnt-offering and the fat and organs of a sin-offering17 or the blood of a burnt-offering and the blood of a guilt-offering,18 one may give precedence to whichever one desires. A sin-offering takes precedence over a burntoffering.19 Even a sin-offering of a fowl takes precedence over a burnt-offering of an animal, as [Leviticus 5:8 which] states: "[who shall offer] the sin offering first." This is a general principal teaching that every sin-offering takes precedence over the burntoffering that accompanies it. Similarly, when setting aside [animals for sacrifices], one should set aside the animal to be offered as a sin-offering and then the one to be offered as a burnt-offering.

2

‫חטאת קודמת לעולה אפילו חטאת‬ ‫העוף קודמת לעולת בהמה שנאמר את‬ ‫אשר לחטאת ראשונה בנין אב לכל חטאת‬ ‫שהיא קודמת לעולה הבא עמה וכן בשעת‬ ‫הפרשה מפריש החטאת תחלה ואחר כך‬ :‫העולה‬

3

This does not apply with regard to the sacrifices of the holiday [of Sukkot].20 They are sacrificed in the order that they are mentioned in the Torah, for [Numbers 29:33] states: "according to their ordinance." What is implied? At first the bulls [should be offered], after them the rams, after them the sheep and after them, the goats, even though the goats are sin-offerings and those which preceded them are burntofferings. Similarly, with regard to the burnt-offering of a bull and the sin-offering of a goat the community brings to atone for the inadvertent transgression [of the prohibitions] against the worship of false deities,21 the bull is given precedence, because [ibid. 15:24] states: "according to the ordinance." The bull offered by the anointed priest22 is given precedence over the bull offered [to atone] for an inadvertent transgression by the community.23 The latter sacrifice takes precedence over the bull [offered to atone] for the worship of false deities.24The latter sacrifice takes precedence over the goat offered with it. Even though the bull is a burnt-offering and the goat is a sin-offering,25 [the bull is given precedence], for this is the order of the verses in the Torah. The goat brought [to atone for] idolatry takes precedence over the goat brought by a king,26 for the king is one individual.27 The goat brought by a king takes precedence over the she-goat brought by an ordinary individual.28 The she-goat brought by a private individual takes precedence over a ewe,29 even though they are both sin-offerings. For a she-goat is fit to be brought [to atone] for [all] sins for which one is liable for karet for which a sin-offering is brought and the ewe may not be brought [to atone] for the inadvertent transgression of the prohibitions of idolatry.

‫בקרבנות החג אינו כן אלא קריבין על‬ ‫סדר הכתוב שנאמר כמשפטם כיצד‬ ‫בתחלה פרים ואחריהם אילים ואחריהם‬ ‫כבשים ואחריהם שעירים אף על פי‬ ‫שהשעירים חטאת וכל אלו שקדמו אותן‬ ‫עולות וכן בשגגת צבור בע"ז שהן מביאין‬ ‫פר עולה ושעיר חטאת הפר קודם שנאמר‬ ‫בו כמשפט ופר כהן משיח קודם לפר‬ ‫העלם דבר של צבור ופר העלם קודם לפר‬ ‫ע"ז ופר ע"ז קודם לשעיר שלה אע"פ‬ ‫שהפר עולה והשעיר חטאת שכך הוא‬ ‫סדר הכתוב בתורה שעיר ע"ז קודם‬ ‫לשעיר נשיא שהנשיא יחיד ושעיר נשיא‬ ‫קודם לשעירת יחיד ושעירת יחיד קודמת‬ ‫לכבשה אף על פי ששניהם חטאת‬ ‫שהשעירה ראויה לבוא על הכריתות‬ ‫שמביאין עליהם חטאת והכבשה אינה‬ :‫באה על שגגת ע"ז‬

4

Even the sin-offering of a fowl brought by a woman after childbirth30 takes precedence over the sheep she brings.31 A sin-offering takes precedence over a guilt-offering, because its blood is applied to the four corners [of the altar] and on its base.32 All of the sin-offerings mentioned in the Torah take precedence over all of the guilt-offerings with the exception of the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted by tzaraat, because it comes to make a person fit.33 A guilt-offering takes precedence over a thanksgivingoffering and the ram brought by a nazirite, because it is a sacrifice of the most sacred order.34 A thanksgivingoffering and the ram brought by a nazirite take precedence over a peace-offering, because they may be eaten for only one day and require that bread bey brought with them. A thanksgiving-offering takes precedence over the ram of a nazirite, because it must be brought with four types of meal-offerings.35 A peace-offering takes precedence over a firstborn offering, because it requires two presentations of blood which are in fact four,36 leaning on the animal,37 waving the offering,38 and accompanying offerings.39 The firstborn offering takes precedence over the tithe offering, because it is sanctified from the womb and may be eaten only by priests.40 The tithe offering takes precedence over fowl41 because it involves ritual slaughter and it has an element of the most sacred order: its blood and the fats and organs are offered on the altar.42 Sacrifices of fowl take precedence over meal-offerings, for [they involve offering] blood. If a person has a sin-offering of fowl, a tithe offering, and a burnt-offering of an animal [to sacrifice], since the burnt-offering takes precedence over the tithe offering and the sin-offering of the fowl takes precedence over

‫אפילו חטאת העוף של יולדת‬ ‫קודמת לכבשה חטאת קודמת‬ ‫לאשם מפני שדמה ניתן על ארבע קרנות‬ ‫ועל היסוד וכל חטאות שבתורה קודמין‬ ‫לכל האשמות חוץ מאשם מצורע מפני‬ ‫שהוא בא ע"י הכשר האשם קודם לתודה‬ ‫ולאיל נזיר מפני שהוא קדשי קדשים‬ ‫תודה ואיל נזיר קודמין לשלמים מפני שהן‬ ‫נאכלין ליום אחד וטעונין לחם והתודה‬ ‫קודמת לאיל נזיר מפני שיש בה ארבעה‬ ‫מיני מנחה שלמים קודמין לבכור מפני‬ ‫שהן טעונין מתן שתים שהן כארבע וטעונין‬ ‫סמיכה ותנופה ונסכים הבכור קודם‬ ‫למעשר בהמה מפני שקדושתו מרחם‬ ‫ונאכל לכהנים בלבד המעשר קודמין‬ ‫לעופות מפני שהוא זבח ויש בו קדשי‬ ‫קדשים דמו ואימוריו והעופות קודמין‬ ‫למנחות מפני שהן מיני דמים הרי שהיו‬ ‫לפניו חטאת העוף ומעשר המעשר קודם‬ ‫מפני שהוא זבח היו שם חטאת העוף‬ ‫ומעשר ועולת בהמה הואיל ועולה קודמת‬ ‫למעשר וחטאת העוף קודמת לעולת‬ ‫בהמה מקריב חטאת העוף תחילה ואח"כ‬ :‫העולה ואחר כך המעשר‬

5

When a person has several types of animals from one type of sacrifice,45 in which order should they be offered? Bulls take precedence over rams, for their accompanying offerings are larger.46 Rams take precedence over sheep for the same reason. Sheep take precedence over goats, because they have more fats and organs offered on the altar, because the fat-tail is among the organs of the sheep offered and the goats do not have a fat-tail.47

‫הרי שהיו מיני בהמה הרבה ממין‬ ‫קרבן אחד כיצד הן קריבין הפרים‬ ‫קודמין לאילים שכן נתרבו בנסכים ואילים‬ ‫קודמין לכבשים שכן נתרבו בנסכים‬ ‫וכבשים קודמין לשעירים שכן נתרבו‬ ‫באימורים שבכלל אימורי כבשים האליה‬ ‫ואין בשעירים אליה העומר קודם לכבש‬ ‫הבא עמו ושתי הלחם קודמין לשני כבשים‬ ‫זה הכלל דבר הבא בגלל היום קודם לדבר‬ :‫הבא בגלל הלחם‬

The omer offering takes precedence over the sheep offered with it. The loaves take precedence to the two sheep [offered with them]. This is the general principle: An entity offered because of the day48 takes precedence over an entity brought because of the bread.49 A meal-offering brought by a male takes precedence over one brought by a female.50 A meal-offering of wheat51 takes precedence over a meal-offering of barley.52 A meal-offering brought as a sin-offering takes precedence over a meal-offering brought as a free-will offering, because it comes [as atonement] for sin. With regard to a meal-offering brought as a free-will offering and the meal-offering of a sotah, one may give precedence to whichever one desires.53

‫מנחת האיש קודמת למנחת האשה‬ ‫מנחת חטים קודמת למנחת שעורים‬ ‫מנחת חוטא קודמת למנחת נדבה מפני‬ ‫שהיא באה על חטא מנחת נדבה ומנחת‬ :‫סוטה אי זו שירצה מהם יקדים‬

Meal-offerings receive precedence over wine libations.54 Wine libations receive precedence over oil.55 Oil receives precedence over frankincense.56 Frankincense receives precedence over salt57 and salt receives precedence over wood.58

‫מנחות קודמין ליין והיין קודם‬ ‫לשמן והשמן קודם ללבונה ולבונה‬ ‫קודמת למלח ומלח קודם לעצים אימתי‬ ‫בזמן שבאו כולן כאחד אבל הבא ראשון‬ :‫קרב ראשון והבא אחרון קרב אחרון‬

When does the above apply? When they are all brought at the same time. When, however, a sacrifice is brought first, it is offered first and one which is brought last, is offered last.59

All [the sacrifices] that receive precedence with regard to being offered also receive precedence with regard to being eaten.

:‫כל הקודם בהקרבה קודם באכילה‬

If a person had before him a peace-offering that had been sacrificed on the previous day60 and one that was offered the present day, the one offered on the previous day is given precedence, because the limit [until when it may be eaten] is closer.61 If one has a peace-offering from the previous day and a sin-offering or a guilt-offering from the present day,62 the sin-offering and the guilt-offering take precedence, because they are sacrifices of the most sacred order, as we explained.63

‫היו לפניו שלמים של אמש ושלמים‬ ‫של יום של אמש קודמין שהרי קרב‬ ‫זמנן שלמים של אמש וחטאת או אשם של‬ ‫יום חטאת ואשם קודמין מפני שהן קדשי‬ :‫קדשים כמו שביארנו‬

« Previous

Next » Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 10

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 8 FOOTNOTES 1. Which is Rosh HaShanah. Sefer HaMitzvot

(positive

9. Lest its blood coagulate before the other animal was offered.

commandment 47) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 312)

10. One from a sacrifice offered more frequently and one from a sacrifice offered less frequently or one on a higher level of

include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

11. More precisely, whenever the animal from the more frequent

HaChodesh 5:8, even at times in the Talmudic era - Rosh

or holier offering was slaughtered before the blood of the other was sprinkled on the altar (see Radbaz).

HaShanah was observed for two days, sacrifices were offered only on the day consecrated as the first of Tishrei. 3. See Numbers 29:1-5. 4. See Chapter 7, Halachah 1. 5. I.e., Rosh HaShanah. 6. Zevachim 89a derives this from the fact that Numbers 28:23 refers to the "the morning offering that is the continuous offering." The latter phrase teaches that it is given

12. I.e., this and the following instance exemplify the principle that an offering that is holier than another receives precedence over it. 13. While a burnt-offering, by contrast, is considered merely as a present to God (Zevachim 7b). 14. And hence is considered as holier. 15. As mentioned in the notes to the following halachah, this is

precedence because it is a continuous offering, brought every day.

speaking about a situation where both animals were already slaughtered.

7. For example, as stated in Halachah 5, since it brings about atonement, the blood of a sin-offering is considered as on a

16. Since each has a positive quality, neither is considered as holier than the other.

higher level of holiness than the blood of a burnt-offering. Hence, it is given precedence.

17. In this situation, neither possesses a distinctive positive

8. Zevachim 90b debates which of the two should be given precedence without resolving the matter. Hence, it is left to an individual's choice (Kessef Mishneh).

6

holiness and one on a lower level.

2. Although at present - and as explained in Hilchot Kiddush

quality in and of itself. Instead, the blood of the burnt-offering is secondary to its limbs and the fats and organs of the sin-offering are secondary to its blood.

7

18. Zevachim 89b states that the blood of a guilt-offering is not

28. As a sin-offering. Hilchot Shegagot, loc. cit., states that an

on the same level of holiness as that of a sin-offering.

ordinary individual who performs a transgression punishable

According to the Rambam's version, there is an unresolved question which is holier, its blood or that of a burnt-offering

by karet must bring either a she-goat or a ewe as a

(Radbaz).

precedence, for his sacrifice is associated with his elevated position.

19. Rav Yosef Corcus understands this as referring to the slaughter of the sin-offering. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh ask: Since we know that a sin-offering receives

sin-offering. The sin-offering brought by a king receives

29. A she-goat can be brought to atone for all transgressions,

precedence, why was it necessary to state previously that

including idolatry, while a ewe may not be brought for idolatry. This indicates that the goat is of greater power.

the blood of a sin-offering is given precedence? They explain that the previous halachah is speaking about a situation

30. This offering is singled out, because it is not brought to atone for any particular transgression (Kessef Mishneh).

when both animals were already slaughtered and the question is which blood should be given precedence.

31. As related in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:2, after

20. See Chapter 10, Halachot 3-4, where these offerings are described. 21. See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1 where these offerings are described.

childbirth, in order to be able to partake of sacrificial foods, a woman must bring a dove or turtle-dove as a sin-offering and a sheep as a burnt-offering. Since the fowl is a sin-offering, it is given precedence. 32. See the description of the presentation of the blood of a

22. The High Priest. As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 1:4; 15:1-2,

sin-offering in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7. There are,

when a High Priest inadvertently transgresses and violates a

by contrast, only two presentations of the blood of a guilt-

sin other than idol worship.

offering on the altar (ibid. :6). Hence the sin-offering is given

23. As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 12:1 if the High Court errs in

precedence.

the issuance of a halachic warning and causes the people at

33. As explained in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah

large to sin, each tribe is required to bring a bull as a sin-offering.

(Zevachim 10:5), this sacrifice enables the person to regain

Horiot 13a derives the sequence of these offerings from

Courtyard and partake of sacrificial foods. The order of the sacrifices brought by a person after he being healed from a

Leviticus 4:21 which describes the bull brought by the High

his ritual purity. Afterwards, he may enter the Temple

Priest as "the first bull." Our Sages understood that as implying that it is given precedence. Moreover, they maintain

tzara'at affliction is described in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah

that it is logical to assume that the High Priest's offering should be given precedence, for he is the one who offers the

34. While the latter two are considered as sacrifices of lesser sanctity.

bull on behalf of the community. Hence first he should atone for himself and then, offer atonement for the community.

35. The offering of these three types of sacrifices and the breads

24. When the community violates a transgression involving the worship of false deities due to an erroneous ruling by the

Korbanot, ch. 9. The fact that the thanksgiving-offering and

High Court, each tribe must bring a burnt-offering of a bull and a sin-offering of a goat (Hilchot Shegagot, loc. cit.). Since this bull is a burnt-offering, the bull brought to atone for other transgressions is given precedence. 25. And sin-offerings should be given precedence, as stated in the preceding halachah. 26. As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 1:4, when a king sins and inadvertently performs a transgression punishable by karet other than idolatry. He must bring a goat as a sin-offering. 27. While the goat brought to atone for idolatry is brought on behalf of a tribe as a whole.

4:2.

that accompany them are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh the nazirite's ram are eaten for only one day and a night indicate a higher level of holiness for those restrictions are also placed on a sin-offering and a guilt-offering which are sacrifices of the most sacred order (Radbaz). The inclusion of breads in these offerings also points to their importance. 36. The presentation of the blood on the altar for these sacrifices is described in ibid.:6. 37. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 3, which describes this practice. 38. The waving of the peace-offering is described in ibid. 9:6-8. 39. The obligation to bring accompanying offerings is mentioned in ibid., ch. 2. None of these rites are associated with the firstborn offering. Its blood is only poured out at the base of the altar (ibid. 5:17); it does not require the owner to lean upon it (ibid. 3:6); nor is it waved; nor are accompanying offerings brought with it (see (ibid. 2:2).

40. Both of these factors indicate a higher level of holiness. 41. I.e., sin-offerings and burnt-offerings brought from turtle doves and ordinary doves. 42. In contrast, when a fowl is brought as an offering, only its blood is offered on the altar.

54. For the meal-offering is called a "sacrifice" and the wine libation is not (Radbaz). Alternatively, a handful of meal is sprinkled on the altar's pyre, while the wine is merely poured down the shittin, holes on the base of the altar. 55. For the wine libations are poured out separately, while oil is

43. As stated in Halachah 6.

always offered with other sacrifices (Radbaz). Alternatively, the majority of the oil is eaten by the priests, while the wine

44. I.e., were he not to have brought the burnt-offering, the tithe offering would have been sacrificed first, but because he

libations are poured on the altar in their entirety.

brought it, the entire order is rearranged. 45. E.g., they are all burnt-offerings or sin-offerings. 46. As indicated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:4.

56. Because the minimum quantity of oil is larger than the minimum quantity of frankincense (Or Sameach). 57. The Radbaz questions the Rambam's statements, noting that nowhere does the Rambam mention offering salt as an independent offering.

47. See ibid. 1:18. 48. I.e., the omer offering and the two loaves. 49. The sheep mentioned above. 50. This also applies to animal offerings brought by males (Radbaz). 51. Brought as a sin-offering, as evident from the concluding clause of the halachah. 52. I.e., the sotah offering, for this is the only individual meal-offering brought from barley. Wheat is a more important grain and hence, its offerings are given precedence. 53. For each have a positive quality lacking in the other. The free-will offering is brought together with frankincense and

58. For salt is associated with the sacrifices by the Torah (Leviticus 2:13), while wood is called a sacrifice only by Scripture (Nechemiah 10:35, see Kiryat Sefer). 59. This principle applies to all the above situations. 60. Peace-offerings may be eaten for two days and one night. 61. For the peace-offering sacrificed on the present day may also be eaten at night and on the following day, while the one offered the previous day must be completed by sunset. 62. In which instance, one must complete eating both before sunset. 63. Halachah 8; see also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:17.

oil, but the sotah offering comes to clarify whether a transgression was performed (Menachot 90a).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .

9



Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 10 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 9

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim

On the fast day of Yom Kippur an additional offering is offered like that of Rosh HaShanah:1 a bull and a ram - this ram is called "the ram of the people"2 - and seven sheep. All are burnt-offerings. A goat [is brought as] a sin-offering and it is eaten in the evening.3

‫ביום הכפורים מקריבין מוסף כמוסף‬ ‫ראש השנה פר ואיל ואיל זה נקרא‬ ‫איל העם ושבעה כבשים כולן עולות‬ :‫ושעיר חטאת והוא נאכל לערב‬

In addition, the community offers another goat as a sin-offering, it is burnt.4 Its pair is the goat sent to Azazel.5

‫ועוד מקריבין הצבור שעיר חטאת‬ :‫והוא נשרף שבן זוגו שעיר המשתלח‬

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.6 Similarly, on all the seven days of [the Sukkot] festival, two rams, fourteen sheep, and a sin-offering of a goat are offered.

‫ביום הראשון של חג הסכות מקריבין‬ ‫מוסף היום שלשה עשר פרים ושני‬ ‫אילים וארבעה עשר כבשים כולן עולות‬ ‫ושעיר חטאת נאכלת וכן כל יום ויום‬ ‫משבעת ימי החג מקריבין שני אילים‬ :‫וארבעה עשר כבשים ושעיר חטאת‬

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.

‫אבל הפרים פוחתין אחד אחד בכל‬ ‫יום בשני מקריבין שנים עשר‬ ‫בשלישי אחד עשר עד שימצא קרבן יום‬ ‫שביעי פרים שבעה אילים שנים כבשים‬ :‫ארבעה עשר הכל עולות ושעיר חטאת‬

On Shemini Atzeret,8 the following are brought as the additional offering of the day: a bull, a ram, and seven sheep. All are burnt offerings. And a goat [is brought as] a sin-offering.9 This is a separate offering in its own right.10

‫ביום השמיני עצרת מקריבין מוסף‬ ‫היום פר ואיל ושבעה כבשים כולן‬ :‫עולות ושעיר חטאת וזה מוסף בפני עצמו‬

On all the seven days of the [Sukkot] festival, a water libation is poured on the altar.11 This practice is a halachah communicated to Moses on [Mount] Sinai.12The water was poured as a separate libation together with the morning wine libation.13

‫כל שבעת ימי החג מנסכין את המים‬ ‫על גבי המזבח ודבר זה הלכה למשה‬ ‫מסיני ועם ניסוך היין של תמיד של שחר‬ :‫היה מנסך המים לבדו‬

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

‫ואם עירה המים לתוך היין או היין‬ ‫לתוך המים ונסך שניהם מכלי אחד‬ ‫יצא ואם הקדים ניסוך המים לזבח אפילו‬ ‫נסכן בלילה יצא ובקרן דרומית מערבית‬ ‫היה מנסך למעלה מחצי המזבח והכל יורד‬ ‫לשיתין כמו שביארנו כיצד היו עושין‬ ‫צלוחית של זהב מחזקת שלשה לוגין היה‬ ‫ממלא אותה מן השילוח הגיעו לשער‬ ‫המים תקעו והריעו ותקעו עלה לכבש‬ ‫ופנה לשמאלו ונותן המים מן הצלוחית‬ ‫לתוך הספל שהיה שם ושני ספלים של‬ ‫כסף היו שם מערבי היה בו המים ומזרחי‬ ‫היה בו היין של נסך והיו מנוקבין כמין שני‬ ‫חוטמין דקין ושל מים היה נקב שלו דק‬ :‫משל יין כדי שיכלה המים עם היין כאחד‬

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.19 When 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.

2

3

They would tell [the priest] who would pour the water libation: "Lift up your hands,"24 because once [a priest] poured [the water] on his feet,25 and the entire nation stoned him with their esrogim. For they said: "He was a Sadducee,"26 for they say that there is no water libation.

‫זה שמנסך המים היו אומרין לו הגבה‬ ‫ידך שפעם אחת נסך אחד על רגליו‬ ‫ורגמוהו כל העם באתרוגיהן שאמרו צדוקי‬ :‫הוא שהן אומרין אין מנסכין מים‬

[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

‫כמעשהו בחול כך מעשהו בשבת‬ ‫אלא שהיה ממלא מערב שבת חבית‬ ‫של זהב ואינה מכלי השרת ומניחה‬ :‫בלשכה ולמחר ממלא ממנה‬

If the water was spilled or was uncovered,30 one should fill [the pitcher] from the basin and pour the libation.

‫אם נשפכה או נתגלתה ממלא מן‬ :‫הכיור ומנסך‬

On every day of the Sukkot festival, a separate song31 was recited for the Musaf 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

‫בכל יום ויום מימי החג היו אומרים‬ ‫שירה בפני עצמה על מוסף היום‬ ‫בראשון מימי חולו של מועד היו אומרין‬ ‫הבו לה' בני אילים בשני ולרשע אמר‬ ‫אלהים וגו' בשלישי מי יקום לי עם מרעים‬ ‫ברביעי בינו בוערים בעם וגו' בחמישי‬ ‫הסירותי מסבל שכמו בששי ימוטו כל‬ ‫מוסדי ארץ וגו' ואם חל שבת להיות באחד‬ :‫מהן ימוטו ידחה‬

4

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.

‫כבר ביארנו שכל משמרות כהונה‬ ‫עשרים וארבעה וכולן עובדין בשוה‬ ‫ברגלים ובחג הסוכות היה כל משמר‬ ‫מקריב פר אחד או איל אחד או שעיר‬ ‫החטאת אבל הכבשים יש משמר שמקריב‬ ‫מהן שני כבשים ויש משמר שמקריב כבש‬ ‫אחד כיצד ביום טוב הראשון של חג היו‬ ‫שם שלשה עשר פרים ושני אילים ושעיר‬ ‫כל משמר מקריב בהמה אחת מהם נשארו‬ ‫שם ארבעה עשר כבשים לשמונה‬ ‫משמרות ששה משמרות מקריבין שנים‬ ‫שנים ושני משמרות מקריבין אחד אחד‬ ‫בשני היו שם שנים עשר פרים ושני אילים‬ ‫ושעיר כל משמר מקריב אחד נשארו שם‬ ‫ארבעה עשר כבשים לתשעה משמרות‬ ‫חמשה מקריבין שנים שנים וארבעה‬ ‫מקריבין אחד אחד בשלישי היו שם אחד‬ ‫עשר פרים ושני אילים ושעיר כל משמר‬ ‫מקריב אחד נשארו ארבעה עשר כבשים‬ ‫לעשרה משמרות ארבעה מקריבין שנים‬ ‫שנים וששה מקריבין אחד אחד ברביעי‬ ‫היו שם עשרה פרים ושני אילים ושעיר כל‬ ‫משמר מקריב אחד נשארו שם ארבעה‬ ‫עשר כבשים לאחד עשר משמר שלשה‬ ‫מקריבין שנים שנים ושמונה מקריבין אחד‬ ‫אחד בחמישי היו שם תשעה פרים ושני‬ ‫אילים ושעיר כל משמר מקריב אחד‬ ‫נשארו שם ארבעה עשר כבשים לשנים‬ ‫עשר משמר שני משמרות מקריבין שנים‬ ‫שנים ועשרה מקריבין אחד אחד בששי‬ ‫היו שמונה פרים ושני אילים ושעיר כל‬ ‫משמר מקריב אחד נשארו שם ארבעה‬ ‫עשר כבשים לשלשה עשר משמר משמר‬ ‫אחד מהן מקריב שני כבשים ושנים עשר‬ ‫משמר מקריבין אחד אחד בשביעי היו שם‬ ‫שבעה פרים ושני אילים ושעיר וארבעה‬ ‫עשר כבשים כמנין המשמרות נמצא כל‬ :‫משמר מקריב בהמה אחת‬

5

Whichever watch offered a bull one day did not offer a bull the next day. Instead, they would rotate. On the eighth day,41 they allot them through a lottery42 in which all watches are equal,43 as we explained.44

‫וכל מי שהיה מקריב פר היום לא‬ ‫היה מקריב פר למחר אלא חוזרין‬ ‫חלילה בשמיני חוזרין לפייס כולן כאחד‬ :‫כשאר הרגלים כמו שביארנו‬

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.

‫ביום טוב הראשון של חג שחל‬ ‫להיות בשבת היה שם מנחת נסכים‬ ‫של מוספין ושל תמידין ששים ואחד‬ :‫עשרון ולא היו מערבין אותו‬

The accompanying meal-offerings46 are never mixed together.47 Instead, the accompanying offerings of bulls [are prepared and offered] separately, those of rams separately, and those of sheep separately.48 [This applies] both with regard to communal offerings and individual offerings.

‫ולעולם אין מערבין נסכים אלא‬ ‫נסכי הפרים לבדם ונסכי האילים‬ ‫לבדם ונסכי כבשים לבדם בין בקרבנות‬ :‫צבור בין בקרבנות יחיד‬

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.

‫וכל החלבים של קרבנות בין‬ ‫קרבנות צבור בין קרבנות יחיד אין‬ ‫מערבין אותן זה בזה אלא מקטירין אימורי‬ ‫כל קרבן וקרבן בפני עצמו ואם נתערבו‬ :‫מקטיר הכל כאחד‬

If the meal-offerings of the accompanying offerings become intermingled after each type50 was mixed with oil separately,51 they are acceptable.

‫מנחות של נסכים שנתערבו זו בזו‬ ‫אחר שנבלל כל מין ומין בפני עצמו‬ :‫כשירות‬

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

‫וכיון שנבללו המנחות ונתערב‬ ‫שמנן וסולתן הרי זה מותר לערב‬ ‫יין שלהן לכתחלה וכן אם הקטיר מנחות‬ ‫של נסכים כל אחת ואחת בפני עצמה הרי‬ :‫זה מותר לערב היין שלהן‬

6

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.

‫כשמערבין היין של נסכים יש לו‬ ‫לערב יין נסכים של אמש בשל יום‬ ‫ושל יחיד בשל צבור וכשמערב מערב יין‬ ‫נסכי פרים ביין נסכי נסכי אילים יין נסכי‬ ‫כבשים ביין נסכי כבשים אבל אין מערבין‬ :‫יין נסכי כבשים ביין נסכי פרים ואילים‬

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. 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.

« Previous Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 9

‫ולעולם אין מערבין היין לכתחלה‬ ‫אלא אחר שנתערבה הסלת או אחר‬ :‫שהקטירו כמו שביארנו‬

:‫סליקו להו הלכות תמידין ומוספין בס"ד‬

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim

FOOTNOTES 1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 48) and Sefer

6. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 50) and Sefer

HaChinuch (mitzvah 314) include the offering of these

HaChinuch (mitzvah 320) include the offering of these

sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:7-8.

sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:12-34.

2. In the Mishnah (Yoma 7:3). This follows the opinion of Rabbi

7. The fact that the sacrifices of each day of Sukkot differ from

Yehudah HaNasi (Yoma 70b) who maintains that the ram mentioned in Leviticus 16:5 is the same mentioned in

each other endow the days of the holiday with an advantage over the days of the holiday of Pesach. For that reason, the

Numbers. See also Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1.

full Hallel is recited on each of the days of Sukkot, while this

3. After the conclusion of the fast.

is not true with regard to Pesach. Nevertheless, the fact that

4. See Leviticus 16:27; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:16.

the sacrifices differ is not sufficient for each day to be considered a separate mitzvah.

5. As mentioned in Leviticus 16:5-9. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim, ch. 3, for a description of the service performed with these goats.

8. Literally, "the eighth day of assembly."

9. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 51) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 322) include the offering of these

Mishneh states that these cups were not a permanent part of

sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:35-38.

the altar, but placed there only during the Sukkot holiday.

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.

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

11. In connection with the water libation, a special celebration, Simchat Beit HaShoevah was held in the Temple Courtyard.

Law, but not the Oral Law. [In truth, they wanted to abandon Jewish practice entirely, but realized that they could never

The Rambam describes that celebration and the immensity of the joy expressed at that time at the conclusion of Hilchot

attract a large number of followers with such an approach and hence, adopted this ruse (the Rambam's Commentary to

Shofar Sukkah VeLulav. Interestingly, however, in that

the Mishnah, Avot 1:3)]. Since the water libation is not

source, he does not associate the celebration with the water

explicitly stated in the Written Law, the Sadducees did not

libation and here, he does not mention the celebration.

accept its validity.

12. A practice that is part of the Oral Law, but is not specifically mentioned in the Written Law. As the Rambam mentions in

27. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:9), the

his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:8), there are

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

allusions to this practice in the Written Law.

Rambam gives an original interpretation for the reason the

13. I.e., initially, this is the preferred manner of observing the mitzvah.

would sanctify their hands with it. Thus they would perform that rite with water that was not consecrated or would use up

14. I.e., after the fact; the initial preference is that each be

the water and prevent it from being used for the libation (Rav Kappach's notes to that mishnah). This represents a different

poured separately as the Rambam proceeds to explain. The Radbaz explains that since ultimately, when the wine and the

approach than that of the other commentaries.

water reach the shittin, they will be mixed together, after the

28. With water from the Shiloach Stream.

fact, it is acceptable if they were mixed together initially.

29. This change was necessary, for going down to fill the pitcher

15. As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:5, 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 Torah and 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).

7

23. In his gloss to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1, the Kessef

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 Sukkah 55a). 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

44. Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3-4. 45. According to the guidelines established in Hilchot Ma'aseh

were chosen, because Sukkot marks the end of the harvest season when the agricultural gifts must be given to the poor.

HaKorbanot 2:4, for the additional offerings of Sukkot, the

These verses serve as a warning, impressing the people with the awareness that God is observing them at all times

total of 4 esronim, and the fourteen sheep, a total of 14

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.

thirteen bulls required a total of 39 esronim, the two rams, a esronim, a total of 57 esronim. 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.

41. When there are far fewer sacrifices, as stated in Halachah 5.

50. I.e., those of bulls, those of sheep, and those of rams.

42. The Radbaz infers from this that no lotteries were conducted during the prior seven days. Although there were some days

51. As required by Halachah 15.

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.

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.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .

9

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 1 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 6 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 7 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 8 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 9 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 10 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 14 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 15 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18 Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 19

2



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2

Introduction to Hilchot Pesulei Hamukdashim They contain eight mitzvot: two positive commandments and six negative commandments. They are:

‫ שתי מצוות‬:‫יש בכללן שמונה מצוות‬ ‫ וזה הוא‬.‫ ושש מצוות לא תעשה‬,‫עשה‬ :‫פרטן‬

1) Not to eat offerings that have become unfit or blemished; 2) Not to eat of an offering that is vile; 3) Not to leave the offerings beyond the time for their consumption, as specified (in the Torah); 4) Not to eat what has been left over of the sacrifice beyond the specified time; 5) Not to eat sacrifices that have become unclean; 6) That a man who has become unclean shall not eat of the sacrifices; 7) To burn that which has been left over; 8) To burn that which has become unclean.

‫)א( שלא לאכול קדשים שנפסלו או‬ .‫שהוטל בהם מום‬ .‫)ב( שלא לאכול פיגול‬ .‫)ג( שלא יותיר קדשים לאחר זמנם‬ .‫)ד( שלא יאכל נותר‬ .‫)ה( שלא יאכל קדשים שנטמאו‬ .‫)ו( שלא יאכל אדם שנטמא את הקדשים‬ .‫)ז( לשרוף הנותר‬ .‫)ח( לשרוף הטמא‬

These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.

1

‫ הקדמה‬- ‫הלכות פסולי המוקדשין‬

:‫וביאור מצוות אלו בפרקים אלו‬

2

All persons disqualified from performing sacrificial service1 may slaughter sacrificial animals, even sacrifices of the most sacred order, as an initial preference2 with the exception of a person who is ritually impure who may not slaughter as an initial preference. Even though he stands outside the Temple Courtyard3 and inserts his hands and slaughters in the Courtyard,4 [he was restricted]. This a decree, lest he touch the [sacrificial] meat.5

‫כל הפסולין לעבודה מותרין לשחוט‬ ‫קדשים לכתחלה ואפילו קדשי‬ ‫קדשים חוץ מן הטמא שאינו שוחט‬ ‫לכתחלה ואע"פ שהוא חוץ לעזרה ופשט‬ :‫ידיו ושחט בעזרה גזירה שמא יגע בבשר‬

If [an impure person] transgressed and slaughtered [a sacrificial animal], the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, with regard to the bull [brought by] the High Priest on Yom Kippur even though [Leviticus 16:11] states: "And Aaron... shall slaughter [the bull],"6 if a non-priest slaughtered it, it is acceptable. Even a red heifer that was slaughtered by a non-priest is acceptable,7 for there is no slaughter by a non-priest that invalidates [a sacrifice].

‫ואם עבר ושחט הזבח כשר וכן פר‬ ‫כהן גדול של יוה"כ אע"פ שנאמר בו‬ ‫ושחט אהרן אם שחטו זר כשר אף פרה‬ ‫אדומה ששחט הזר כשירה שאין לך‬ :‫שחיטה פסולה בזר‬

When a person slaughters sacrificial animals, but does not have the intent to slaughter them, but instead, is merely busying himself [thoughtlessly], they are disqualified. [He must] have the intent to slaughter them.

‫השוחט את הקדשים ולא נתכוין‬ ‫לשחיטה אלא כמתעסק הרי אלו‬ :‫פסולין עד שיתכוין לשחיטה‬

One should not slaughter the heads of two sacrificial animals at the same time.8 If one slaughtered [in this manner], the sacrifices are acceptable.9

‫ולא ישחוט שני ראשים כאחד‬ :‫בקדשים ואם שחט הרי אלו כשרים‬

Two people may slaughter a sacrificial animal together, just as they may slaughter an ordinary animal.10

‫אבל שנים שוחטין בהמה אחת‬ :‫בקדשים כחולין‬

A minor may not slaughter sacrificial animals even if an adult is standing over him.11 [The rationale is that the slaughter of] sacrificial animals requires concentrated intent and a minor does not have such a potential. Even when [a minor's] deeds indicate that he is acting with intention, [he is] not considered [to have acted] with intention if that will produce a leniency,12 only if it will produce a stringency.

‫הקטן אינו שוחט קדשים אף על פי‬ ‫שהגדול עומד על גביו שהקדשים‬ ‫צריכין מחשבה וקטן אין לו מחשבה אפילו‬ ‫היתה מחשבתו ניכרת מתוך מעשיו אינה‬ ‫מחשבה להקל אלא להחמיר כיצד היתה‬ ‫עולה עומדת בדרום ומשכה הקטן והביאה‬ ‫לצפון ושחטה שהרי ממעשיו ניכר‬ ‫שמחשבתו לשחיטת קדשים הרי זו‬ :‫פסולה‬

What is implied? If [an animal to be sacrificed as] a burnt-offering was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard] and a minor led it and brought it to the north where he slaughtered it - thus his actions indicate that he intended to slaughter a sacred animal13 - [the sacrifice] is still disqualified.

3

When sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard] or their blood was received there, they are disqualified.

‫קדשי קדשים שנשחטו בדרום או‬ :‫שנתקבל דמם בדרום פסולין‬

If one was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], but he extended his hands into the northern portion and slaughtered [a sacrifice of the most sacred order], his slaughter is acceptable.14

‫היה עומד בדרום והושיט ידו לצפון‬ :‫ושחט שחיטתו כשירה‬

If, [by contrast, a priest] was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], but he extended his hands into the northern portion and received the blood [of such a sacrificial animal], his receiving of the blood is unacceptable.15

‫היה עומד בדרום והושיט ידו וקיבל‬ :‫הדם בצפון קבלתו פסולה‬

If he brings his head and the majority of his body into the northern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], it is considered as if he was standing there.16

‫הכניס ראשו ורובו לצפון הרי הוא‬ :‫כעומד בצפון‬

4

If one slaughtered [such an animal] in the northern portion [of the Temple Courtyard] and then in the convulsive movements that accompanied its death, it moved to the southern portion or even if [a priest] took it to the southern portion, it is acceptable.17 If after these convulsive movements took it to the southern portion and then it returned to the northern portion and its blood was received there, it is acceptable.18

‫שחטה בצפון ופרכסה ויצאת‬ ‫לדרום אפילו הוציאה לדרום‬ ‫כשירה פרכסה ויצאת לדרום וחזרה לצפון‬ ‫ואח"כ קיבל דמה בצפון כשירה וכן‬ ‫קדשים קלים שהיו בפנים ועמד חוץ‬ ‫לעזרה והכניס ידו לפנים ושחט שחיטתו‬ :‫כשירה‬

Similarly, if [animals to be slaughtered as] sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were inside [the Temple Courtyard]19 and one was standing outside the Temple Courtyard and inserted his hand inside and slaughtered it, his slaughter is acceptable. If, [while standing outside the Temple Courtyard, a priest] inserted his hand inside and received the blood, the receiving of the blood is unacceptable.20 Even if [the entire body of the priest] performing the service was inside [the Temple Courtyard] and his locks of hair21 were outside, his service is unacceptable, for [when describing the priests' service in the Temple, Leviticus 10:9] states: "When you come to the Tent of Meeting."22 Implied is that one must enter in his entirety.

‫הכניס ידו וקיבל קבלתו פסולה‬ ‫אפילו הכניס ראשו ורובו אפילו‬ ‫היה העובד כולו בפנים וציצתו בחוץ‬ ‫עבודתו פסולה שנאמר בבואכם אל אהל‬ :‫מועד עד שיבואו כולן‬

If in the convulsive movements that accompanied its death, [such an] animal moved out of [the Courtyard] after its blood was received,23 it is acceptable. For even if the organs and fats to be offered on the altar and the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken outside [the Courtyard] before [the blood] was presented [on the altar], the sacrifice is acceptable, as will be explained.24

‫פרכסה הבהמה ויצאת לחוץ אחר‬ ‫קבלת דמה כשירה שאפילו יצאו‬ ‫האימורין והבשר קודם זריקה בקדשים‬ :‫קלים הזבח כשר כמו שיתבאר‬

If the entire body of [such an] animal was inside the Temple Courtyard and its foot was outside and it was slaughtered, the sacrifice is unacceptable. For [when speaking of bringing the sacrifices, Leviticus 17:5] states: "And they shall be brought to God." Implied is that they should be entirely within [the Courtyard].25

‫היתה הבהמה כולה בפנים ורגליה‬ ‫בחוץ ושחטה הזבח פסול שנאמר‬ :‫והביאום לה' עד שתהיה כולה בפנים‬

If one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal]26 while it was located entirely in [the Temple Courtyard] and afterwards, it moved one of its feet outside, he should cut off the meat until he reaches the bone27 and afterwards, the blood should be received. If he received the blood and afterwards, cut off the meat, it is disqualified because of the fat of the meat that is outside [the Temple Courtyard].28

‫שחטה והיא כולה בפנים ואח"כ‬ ‫הוציאה רגלה לחוץ חותך הבשר‬ ‫עד שהוא מגיע לעצם ואחר כך מקבל הדם‬ ‫ואם קיבל ואחר כך חתך פסול מפני‬ ‫שמנונית הבשר שבחוץ ובקדשים קלים‬ ‫אין צריך לחתוך אלא מחזיר רגלה לפנים‬ ‫ומקבל שבשר קדשים ]קלים[ שיצא קודם‬ :‫זריקה כשר‬

With regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, there is no need to cut off [the meat]. Instead, he should bring its foot back inside [the Temple Courtyard], and receive the blood. For [even] if meat from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] before their blood was cast [on the altar], [the sacrifice] is acceptable.29

5

If one hung the animal [above the earth] and slaughtered it in the free space of the Temple Courtyard, it is unacceptable, for [Leviticus 1:11] speaks [of slaughtering animals] "on the flank of the altar," implying that one must slaughter on the ground.30

‫תלה הבהמה ושחטה באויר‬ ‫העזרה פסולה שנאמר על ירך‬ :‫המזבח עד שישחוט בארץ‬

If the [sacrificial] animal was on the ground, but [the slaughterer] was hanging in the air and he slaughtered the animal while hanging, this disqualifies sacrifices of the most sacred order. Sacrifices of lesser sanctity, by contrast, are acceptable.31

‫היתה הבהמה בארץ ונתלה ושחט‬ ‫והוא תלוי באויר בקדשי קדשים‬ :‫פסול בקדשים קלים כשר‬

6

If one slit the lesser portion of the organs that must be slit for ritual slaughter32 outside [the Temple Courtyard]33 and one completed the slaughter inside or one slit the lesser portion of the organs34 in the southern portion of [the Temple Courtyard] and completed the slaughter in the north, they are unacceptable. For ritual slaughter is considered as one continuous, integral act from the beginning to its completion.35

‫שחט מיעוט סימנים בחוץ וגמרן‬ ‫בפנים או ששחט מיעוטן בדרום‬ ‫וגמרן בצפון פסולין שישנה לשחיטה‬ :‫מתחילתה ועד סוף‬

If one was hung and received the blood from the neck of a [sacrificial] animal36 that is located on the ground, [the act] is unacceptable, because this is not the manner of Temple service.

‫נתלה וקיבל הדם מצואר בהמה‬ ‫המונחת בקרקע פסול שאין דרך‬ :‫שירות בכך‬

If one was standing in the Temple Courtyard and hung a receptacle over his arm and received the blood in the air or lifted the animal and thus received the blood in the air, [the act] is acceptable, for the open space above the place is considered as the space itself.37

‫היה עומד בעזרה ותלה המזרק בידו‬ ‫וקיבל הדם באויר או שהגביה‬ ‫הבהמה וקיבל הדם באויר כשר שאויר‬ :‫המקום כמקום‬

If one placed one receptacle within a second receptacle and received the blood, [the act] is acceptable,38 one substance is not considered as an interposing substance for another substance of the same type.39 If one placed fibers inside the receptacle and received the blood, [the act] is acceptable, because the fibers are porous and thus the blood descends into the receptacle and there is no interference. If, however, one does this while taking a handful of flour from a meal offering and took the handful with the fibers, it is unacceptable.40

‫נתן מזרק לתוך מזרק וקיבל כשר‬ ‫מין במינו אינו חוצץ הניח סיב‬ ‫בתוך המזרק וקיבל כשר מפני שהסיב‬ ‫חלול והרי הדם יורד לתוך המזרק ואין‬ ‫כאן חציצה אבל אם עשה כן בקמיצת‬ :‫המנחה וקמץ מתוך הסיב פסולה‬

7

Receiving the blood [of a sacrificial animal], bringing it to the altar, casting it on the altar and bringing the limbs [of a sacrificial animal] to the ramp are all tasks41 that are only acceptable if performed by a priest who is fit to perform service, as we explained with regard to taking the handful of flour from a meal offering42 or snipping of the head of a fowl.43

‫קבלת הדם והולכתו למזבח‬ ‫וזריקתו וכן הולכת איברים לכבש‬ ‫כל אחת מאלו אינה כשירה אלא בכהן‬ ‫הכשר לעבודה כמו שביארנו בקמיצת‬ :‫המנחה ובמליקת העוף‬

Bringing [blood or limbs] to the altar in a way other than walking is not considered as bringing them. Therefore if a priest44 receives the blood [and while] standing in that place, casts it on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified.45

‫והולכה שלא ברגל אינה הולכה‬ ‫לפיכך כהן שקיבל את הדם ועמד‬ :‫במקומו וזרקו למזבח נפסל הזבח‬

If [the priest] received [the blood] with his right hand and then transferred [the receptacle in which he received] it to his left hand, he should return it to his right hand.46 If he received [the blood] with an ordinary utensil, the sacrifice is disqualified. If he received it in a sacred receptacle and transferred it to an ordinary receptacle, he should return it to a sacred receptacle.47

‫קיבל בימינו ונתן לשמאלו יחזיר‬ ‫לימינו קיבל בכלי חול נפסל הזבח‬ ‫קיבל בכלי קודש ונתן לכלי חול יחזיר‬ :‫לכלי קודש‬

If [the blood] spilled out of the receptacle on to the floor [of the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice] is acceptable if one gathers up [the blood].48 If, however, it spilled out from the neck of the [sacrificial] animal to the floor and then was collected and placed in a sacred receptacle, the sacrifice is disqualified.49

‫נשפך מן הכלי על הרצפה ואספו‬ ‫כשר אבל אם נשפך מצואר‬ ‫הבהמה על הרצפה ואספו ונתנו לכלי‬ :‫השרת נפסל הזבח‬

If some of the blood from the neck of the [sacrificial] animal was spilled on the ground and not collected, but [a priest] received the remainder from the neck of the animal, [the sacrifice] is acceptable,50 provided the blood that was received is [the animal's] lifeblood51 and not blood concentrated [in the limbs]52 or the blood of the skin.

‫נשפך מקצת הדם מצואר בהמה‬ ‫על הארץ ולא אספו וקבל מקצתו‬ ‫מצואר בהמה הרי זה כשר ובלבד שיהיה‬ ‫זה הדם שנתקבל דם הנפש לא דם‬ :‫התמצית ולא דם העור‬

8

If any of the individuals who are unacceptable to perform Temple service53 receive the blood [of a sacrificial animal], bring the blood to the altar, or cast it on the altar as required by law,54 the sacrifice is disqualified. If [a priest] who is acceptable for such service receives the blood and gives it to one who is unacceptable, but the latter does not walk with it, but instead stands in his place, he should return it to the acceptable [priest].55 If, however, the unacceptable person carried it [toward the altar] and then returned it to the acceptable [priest] who carried it [to the altar] or the acceptable priest carried it [to the altar] and then gave it to the unacceptable one who carried it, since it was carried by the unacceptable person, whether at the beginning or the end, the sacrifice is disqualified, because this matter cannot be corrected.

‫כל הזבחים שקיבל דמם אחד מן‬ ‫הפסולין לעבודה או שהוליך את‬ ‫הדם למזבח או שזרקו למזבח כהלכתו‬ ‫נפסל הזבח קיבל הכשר ונתן לפסול ולא‬ ‫הלך בו הפסול אלא עמד במקומו יחזיר‬ ‫לכשר אבל דם שהוליכו הפסול לעבודה‬ ‫והחזירו לכשר והוליכו או שהוליכו הכהן‬ ‫תחילה והחזירו ונתנו לפסול והוליכו הואיל‬ ‫והוליכו הפסול בין בתחילה בין בסוף נפסל‬ :‫הזבח שהרי אי אפשר לתקן דבר זה‬

[The following laws apply if] the blood was received by an unacceptable person. If any of [the animal's] lifeblood remains, an acceptable [priest] should receive the blood, bring it [to the altar], and cast [it upon it]. [The rationale is that] individuals who are unacceptable for Temple service do not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants.56

‫קיבל הפסול אם נשאר דם הנפש‬ ‫חוזר הכשר ומקבל ומוליך וזורק‬ ‫שאין הפסולין לעבודה עושין הדם הנשאר‬ ‫שירים חוץ מן הטמא הואיל והוא ראוי‬ ‫לעבודה בקרבן הבא בטומאה כמו‬ ‫שביארנו עושה שירים כיצד קיבל הטמא‬ ‫אף על פי שקיבל אחריו הכשר דם הנפש‬ ‫וזרקו נפסל הזבח שזה שקיבל הכשר‬ :‫באחרונה שירים הוא ואינו כלום‬

An exception is one who is impure. Since he is fit to carry out Temple service when a sacrifice is brought in a state of impurity as explained,57 he causes [the blood to be considered as] remnants. What is implied? If an impure [priest] received58 the blood [of a sacrificial animal] even if an acceptable [priest] received [the animal's] lifeblood afterwards and cast it [upon the altar], the sacrifice is disqualified. For [the blood] received by the acceptable [priest] afterwards is considered as remnants and is of no consequence.

9

When even the slightest substance is taken from one of the [sacrificial] animal's limbs59 after it was slaughtered, but before its blood was cast upon the altar, it is disqualified. Even if one [merely] mutilated the ear of an animal before [its blood] was received, it is as if [its blood] was not received. [This is derived from Leviticus 16:14 which] states: "And he shall take from the blood of the bull." [Implied is that] it must be entirely whole at the time [the blood] is received. If one received [the blood] of an imperfect [animal] and cast it upon the altar, [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.

‫בהמה שחסר מאיבריה כל שהוא‬ ‫אחר שחיטה קודם קבלת הדם‬ ‫נפסלה אפילו צרם באזנה קודם קבלה הרי‬ ‫זה לא יקבל שנאמר ולקח מדם הפר‬ ‫שיהיה שלם כולו בשעת הקבלה ואם קיבל‬ :‫מן החסרה וזרק הרי זה פסול‬

If, however, its substance was reduced after [its blood] was received,60 before it was cast [on the altar], even if the meat was lost before the blood was cast [on the altar] or it was consumed by fire, he should cast the blood [on the altar] as long as an olive-sized portion of the meat or the organs and fats to be offered on the altar's pyre remain.61 If not even that remains,62 he should not cast the blood. With regard to a burntoffering, even if half an olive-sized portion from the meat and half an olive-sized portion of the organs and fats [remain, he should cast the blood], because the entire [animal] is [offered on the altar's] pyre.63

‫אבל אם חסרה אחר קבלה קודם‬ ‫זריקה אפילו אבד הבשר קודם זריקת‬ ‫הדם או נשרף אם נשתייר כזית מן הבשר‬ ‫או כזית מן האימורין זורק את הדם ואם‬ ‫לאו אינו זורק ובעולה אפילו כחצי זית מן‬ ‫הבשר וחצי זית מן האימורין מפני שכולה‬ :‫לאשים‬

If less than an olive-sized portion [of a burntoffering remains], [the blood] should not be cast [on the altar]. If it is cast [upon it], the sacrifice is not received with favor [Above].64 If the meat65 is disqualified before [the blood] is cast on the altar or it was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, the blood should not be cast. If, however, it was cast, the sacrifice is received with favor [Above].66

‫נשאר פחות מכזית לא יזרוק ואם‬ ‫זרק לא הורצה נפסל הבשר‬ ‫קודם זריקה או שיצא חוץ לעזרה לא‬ :‫יזרוק הדם ואם זרק הורצה‬

10

When the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity was taken out of the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast [on the altar], even though the blood was cast [upon the altar] while the meat was outside, the sacrifice is acceptable,67 because ultimately, the meat will be taken outside [the Temple Courtyard].68

‫בשר קדשים קלים שיצא חוץ‬ ‫לעזרה קודם זריקת דמים אע"פ‬ ‫שנזרק הדם והבשר בחוץ הזבח כשר מפני‬ ‫שסוף הבשר לצאת והזריקה מועלת ליוצא‬ :‫לשרפו אבל לא לאכלו‬

Casting [the blood on the altar] is effective with regard to [the obligation to have the sacrificial meat] which was taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] burnt,69 but not to have it permitted to be eaten.70 Similarly, when the organs and fats to be offered on the altar from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] before their blood [was cast on the altar] and the blood was cast [on the altar] when they were outside, the sacrifice was not disqualified. If they were returned [to the Temple Courtyard], they should be offered on the altar's pyre.71 Even if they were not returned [to the Temple Courtyard], one is liable for violating the transgressions72 [against partaking of] piggul,73 notar,74 and impure [sacrificial] meat75 if he partakes of them.76

‫וכן אימורי קדשים קלים שיצאו‬ ‫לפני זריקת דמים ונזרק הדם והם‬ ‫בחוץ לא נפסל הזבח ואם החזירן מקטירין‬ ‫אותן ואף על פי שלא החזירן חייבין עליהן‬ :‫משום פיגול ונותר וטמא‬

11

With regard to any sacrifices [brought by] a private individual, whether the meat became impure, but the fats are intact or the fats became impure, but the meat remains intact, the blood should be cast on the altar.77 If they both became impure, the blood should not be cast. If, however, it was cast on the altar, the sacrifice is received with favor [Above], for the High Priest's forehead plate arouses [God's] favor.78 Similarly, when fats and organs to be offered on the altar's pyre or the limbs of a burnt-offering became impure and they were [nonetheless]79 offered on the altar, the High Priest's forehead plate arouses [God's] favor, as explained.80 With regard to any of the communal sacrifices, [even if] all of the meat and fats became impure, the blood should be cast [upon the altar].81

‫כל הזבחים של יחיד בין שנטמא‬ ‫בשר והחלב קיים בין שנטמא‬ ‫חלב והבשר קיים זורק את הדם נטמאו‬ ‫שניהן לא יזרוק ואם זרק הורצה שהציץ‬ ‫מרצה על הטומאה וכן אימורין או איברי‬ ‫עולה שנטמאו והקטירן הציץ מרצה כמו‬ ‫שביארנו וכל קרבנות הצבור שנטמא‬ :‫הבשר והחלב כולו הרי זה זורק את הדם‬

When the blood of sacrificial animals was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is disqualified. Even though it was brought back inside and cast on the altar, the sacrifice is not received with favor [Above].82

‫דם קדשים שיצא חוץ לעזרה‬ ‫נפסל הזבח ואע"פ שחזר והכניסו‬ :‫וזרקו על המזבח לא נרצה‬

No blood from sacrificial animals is susceptible to ritual impurity at all.83 For [Deuteronomy 12:16] states with regard to blood: "You shall pour it on the earth like water." [Implied is that] blood which is poured out like water is considered as water and is susceptible to ritual impurity. The blood of sacrificial animals, by contrast, is not poured out like water84 and hence is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

‫וכל דם הקדשים אינו מקבל טומאה‬ ‫כלל שנאמר בדם על הארץ‬ ‫תשפכנו כמים דם שנשפך כמים הוא‬ ‫הנחשב כמים ומקבל טומאה אבל דם‬ ‫קדשים שאינו נשפך כמים אינו מקבל‬ :‫טומאה‬

When the sun sets and the blood from a sacrificial animal [slaughtered that day] has not been cast [on the altar], the sacrifice is disqualified. If [the blood] is cast [on the altar afterwards],85 [the sacrifice] is not received with favor [Above].

‫ודם ששקעה עליו חמה ולא נזרק‬ :‫נפסל הזבח ואם זרקו לא הורצה‬

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. A non-priest or a priest who was disqualified for various reasons. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:15 for a detailed list of such individuals. 2. The wording of Zevachim 3:1 (the source for this ruling) could be interpreted as implying that the slaughter is acceptable only after the fact. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (based on Zevachim 31b), the Rambam explains

HaKorbanot 5:2-3). Thus he obviously had the intent to slaughter the animal as a burnt offering. 14. Zevachim 48b interprets Leviticus 1:11 as implying is that what is significant is the place where the animal is standing and not where the slaughterer is standing.

that this restriction applies only to a person who is ritually impure.

15. Zevachim, op. cit., interprets the above verse as implying

3. And thus does not violate the prohibition against entering the Temple Courtyard while ritually impure (see Hilchot Bi'at

important is where the person performing that act is standing.

HaMikdash 3:6). 4. Where the sacrificial animals must be slaughtered. As stated in ibid. 3:18, it is forbidden for an impure person to insert his hand into the Temple Courtyard according to Rabbinic Law. Nevertheless, this person was willing to transgress. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) the Rambam offers an interpretation that does not require that the person transgress: he slaughtered with a long knife. 5. In which instance he would make the sacrifice impure and disqualify it. That is forbidden. 6. Seemingly, implying that the slaughter must be performed by a High Priest. Nevertheless, Aaron's name is explicitly associated with the verb vihikriv, "and he shall offer." According to the Rambam, the verse should be interpreted as meaning that the offering of the bull must be performed by the High Priest, not necessarily its slaughter. 7. Nevertheless, as an initial preference, the slaughter should be performed by a priest (Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:2; 4:17).

that with regard to the receiving of the blood, what is

16. This reflects a general principle of Torah Law: the majority of a person's body is considered as his entire body (Rav Yosef Corcus). 17. For the slaughter was performed in the appropriate place. 18. The fact that between the slaughter and the receiving of the blood, it entered the southern portion of the courtyard does not disqualify it. 19. Where it is required that they be slaughtered (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:4). 20. For the blood must be received in the Temple Courtyard. 21. This translation is necessary, because we are speaking of a portion of the person's body and not his garments. See Ezekiel 8:3 for a similar usage. 22. Significantly, Zevachim 26a, the source for this law, uses a different prooftext. Some commentaries have suggested that perhaps a printing error crept into the text of the Mishneh Torah.

8. I.e., using a long knife so that the two are slaughtered with the same movements of the knife.

23. Implied is that if an animal moved out of the Temple Courtyard before its blood was received, it is disqualified.

9. I.e., after the fact. This applies only with regard to sacrificial animals. Ordinary animals may be sacrificed in this manner

24. See Halachot 32-33 of this chapter.

as an initial preference. See Chullin 29a. 10. See Hilchot Shechitah 2:10. 11. Such slaughter is acceptable for ordinary animals after the fact (Hilchot Shechitah 4:5). 12. This is a principle applicable in many different contexts of Jewish Law, e.g., Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 3:10, 14:2; Hilchot Keilim 2:1.

12

13. For burnt-offerings may only be slaughtered in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Ma'aseh

25. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:15. 26. From the sacrifices of the most sacred order. 27. He should not, however, cut off the bone, because that would render the animal as blemished before the reception of the blood and thus disqualify it (see Zevachim 26a and commentaries).

13

28. As indicated by Zevachim, op. cit., the problem is not

31. Based on Zevachim, op. cit., the Kessef Mishneh - and his

because of the blood from the meat that was outside the

objections are also seconded by Rav Yosef Corcus -

Temple Courtyard, because our Sages made a distinction between the blood that flows from the animal at the time of

suggests emending the text of this halachah. As stated in Halachah 19, there is a difficulty in receiving the blood of a

ritual slaughter and the blood that remains within its body (see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:4). Nevertheless, the fat

sacrifice while hanging in the air, because this is not befitting to the Temple service. Nevertheless, slaughtering an animal

from the portion of the animal that is outside the Temple Courtyard becomes mixed with its blood. This blood could

is not a formal part of the Temple service (and hence can be performed by a non-priest). Therefore there is no difficulty in

also be part of the blood which is received, causing that blood to be disqualified (Kessef Mishneh).

performing it while hoisted in the air. And as stated in Halachah 20, the open space of the Temple Courtyard is

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining

considered as the Temple Courtyard, so it is as if the slaughterer is standing in the Temple Courtyard.

that sacrificial animals of the highest degree of sanctity become disqualified when they are removed from the Temple Courtyard whether before the blood was presented on the altar or afterwards. Moreover, even if the meat is cut off as Rambam suggests, the animal will become ritually impure, because there is an unresolved doubt whether our Sages decreed that any animal that is removed from the Temple Courtyard becomes ritually impure. Hence, because of the doubt, we should rule stringently (see Pesachim 85a). The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus resolve the Rambam's ruling. 29. Provided of course that the animal was returned to the Temple Courtyard and the blood received there. Even if a portion of the animal was outside the Courtyard, as long as the blood was received inside the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is not disqualified. Nevertheless, the portion that

32. The windpipe and the gullet. 33. For an animal to be sacrificed as a sacrifice of a lesser degree of sanctity. 34. Of an animal to be slaughtered as a sacrifice of the most sacred order. 35. See Hilchot Shechitah 4:13 for another application of this principle. 36. This applies both with regard to sacrifices of the most sacred order and those of a lesser degree of sanctity. 37. Thus the animal's blood is considered to have been received in the Temple Courtyard. 38. It is considered as if one was holding the receptacle in which the blood was received in one's hands.

was outside the Temple Courtyard is forbidden to be eaten (see Halachah 32).

39. This is a general principle, applying in several areas of Torah

The Ra'avad states that after the blood was cast on the altar, the meat may be taken out of the Temple Courtyard. Rav

40. The difference is that the blood will flow through the fibers, but the flour will not.

Yosef Corcus states that this is obvious, because the meat of sacrifices of a less degree of sanctity may be eaten

41. I.e., they are considered integral parts of the process of

throughout

the

city

of

Jerusalem (Hilchot

Ma'aseh

HaKorbanot 11:5-6). 30. Based on Zevachim 26a, the Kessef Mishneh interprets this

Law (e.g., Hilchot Shofar Sukkah ViLulav 1:5; 7:12).

offering a sacrifice and involvement.

therefore

require

a priest's

42. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23; 13:12.

halachah as referring only to sacrifices of the most sacred order. (This is reflected also in the prooftext which refers to

43. The Kessef Mishneh states that this refer to ibid., ch. 6. The

such a sacrifice.) Sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, by contrast, may be slaughtered if they are hoisted in the air as

in that chapter there is an allusion to the need for a priest to perform that service.

long as they are within the space above the Temple Courtyard.

44. Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts of the

Lechem Mishneh states that he does not understand where

Mishneh Torah. The standard published text states kohen gadol. Translating that term as "the High Priest" would not be appropriate in the present context. Some have suggested that the intent is a large priest, but most consider it a printing error. However, see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 7, p. 205, where an explanation is given that justifies the wording kohen gadol. 45. Even if the blood was cast on the appropriate place. 46. And continue the service with it. If he received the blood while holding the receptacle with his left hand, the sacrifice is disqualified.

47. He may then continue the service; the sacrifice is not disqualified. 48. Since initially it was received in the proper manner, the fact that it spilled is not considered significant. 49. Since initially, it was not received in the proper manner. 50. For, after the fact, it is not necessary to receive all of the animal's blood (Kessef Mishneh). This is, however, the initial preference (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:8). 51. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:3, the Rambam defines this term as "blood that flows out [from the animal] when it is slaughtered, killed, or decapitated as long as it is tinted red."

HaMikdash, ch. 7, for a list of such blemishes. 60. Note the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger who maintains that it is possible that it be necessary also to bring the blood to the altar while the animal is whole. 61. An olive-sized portion is considered significant. If even that small a portion of the meat can be eaten or the organs and fats can be offered on the altar, the purpose of the sacrifice will be consummated. Hence, it is appropriate to cast the blood on the altar.

See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot

62. The remnants are not considered as significant.

5:1).

63. Hence the fat and the meat can be combined.

52. Blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). 53. A non-priest or a priest who was disqualified. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:15. 54. Once sacrificial blood has been cast on the altar as required by law, the blood remaining in the receptacle is considered merely as remnants and it is no longer able to be used to fulfill the service associated with this sacrifice. One might object because, from Halachah 28, it appears that a person who is unfit to carry out Temple service does not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants. Hence, in the situation at hand, it would appear that if there is sufficient blood left in the receptacle, the sacrifice should not be disqualified. A distinction can however be made between Halachah 28 which speaks about blood that remains in the body of the sacrificial animal and this situation where the blood is remaining in the receptacle from which other blood was taken (Tosafot, Zevachim 92a).

64. The sacrifice is disqualified and if the person was bringing it to fulfill an obligation, he must bring another one. 65. And the organs and fat to be offered on the altar. 66. In this instance, casting the blood on the altar is sufficient to cause the sacrifice to be considered acceptable. See also the following halachah. 67. I.e., the organs and the fats should be offered on the altar and the person bringing the sacrifice is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. 68. For sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem. 69. Generally, when a sacrifice was disqualified, it would have to be burnt immediately. If, however, it was disqualified because of a difficulty with the casting of the blood or because the owners were disqualified, it should be kept until its form decomposes and then it is burnt (Rashi, Me'ilah 7b-8a). 70. I.e., casting the blood of sacrifices of a lesser degree

If the blood was not cast on the altar as required by law, the

enables the meat of the animal to be eaten. This applies, however, only when the animal was in the Temple Courtyard

sacrifice is not disqualified and it is acceptable if that service is performed properly by an acceptable priest (Kessef

at the time the blood was cast on the altar. If not, the sacrifice is acceptable, but the meat may not be eaten (Rav

Mishneh).

Yosef Corcus). The Kessef Mishneh (see also Ra'avad)

55. Who should then bring it to the altar. The fact that the person who was unacceptable held it does not disqualify the sacrifice. 56. With which the service may not be performed. 57. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10. 58. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the intent is that the impure priest received the blood and cast it on the altar. Receiving the blood alone does not disqualify the animal. He bases his interpretation on Hilchot Me'ilah3:2-3 where this concept is stated explicitly. In this manner, he resolves the Ra'avad's objections to the Rambam's ruling.

14

59. I.e., in a manner which would cause the animal to be disqualified as physically blemished. See Hilchot Bi'at

offers a different interpretation, saying the intent could be sacrificial meat taken out of the city of Jerusalem.

71. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, questioning why these organs and fats should be offered on the altar's

78. In Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:2, the Rambam writes that if a

pyre. The Rambam's maintains that since the prohibition of me'ilah and the prohibitions mentioned in this halachah

Paschal sacrifice is impure, the forehead plate does not cause it to be considered acceptable, while in this instance,

apply, the sacrifice is not disqualified. Hence, there is no reason why these organs and fats should not be offered

he does not make such a distinction. Nevertheless, the reason for this distinction is evident from the Rambam's

(Kessef Mishneh).

statements in Hilchot Korban Pesach: the Paschal sacrifice

Rav Yosef Corcus avoids this difference of opinion by

is offered solely that it be eaten, while with regard to other

explaining that this is referring to an instance where the organs and the fats were returned to the Temple Courtyard

sacrifices there is a positive dimension to the offering of the fats and organs on the altar even if the sacrifice is not eaten.

before the blood was cast upon the altar. According to all authorities, the fats and the organs should be offered in this

79. The initial preference is that they should not be offered on

instance.

priest cast the blood on the altar when he knows that the

the altar. 80. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:7.

72. These transgressions apply when the blood is cast on the altar in the proper manner. The Rambam is emphasizing that even in this instance when the fats and organs are outside the Temple Courtyard at the time the blood is cast on the altar - and therefore disqualified - these prohibitions still apply.

81. In this instance as well, it is the High Priest's forehead plate that arouses the positive spiritual influences that cause the sacrifice to be accepted. In contrast to individual sacrifices, however, with regard to communal sacrifices, one should cast the blood on the altar as an initial preference even

73. As will be explained in chs. 14-16, when a person

though both the fats and the meat have been disqualified, for the restrictions against ritual impurity are superseded by the

slaughters an animal with the intent of partaking of its meat

obligation to offer communal sacrifices (Kessef Mishneh;

at times other than those which are permitted, the sacrifice

Rav Yosef Corcus).

is considered as piggul and it is forbidden to partake of its meat. 74. As explained in Chapter 18, Halachot 9-10, when sacrificial meat is left beyond the time when it should be eaten, it is called notar and it is forbidden to partake of it. 75. As stated in ibid.:12, when sacrificial meat becomes impure, it is forbidden to partake of it.

82. And another sacrifice must be brought in its place. The forehead plate does not cause such sacrifices to be acceptable (Zevachim 8:12). 83. Even if it comes in direct contact with a source of impurity, it does not become impure. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 8:4), the Rambam states that there are some Talmudic

76. Even if these organs and fats were outside the Temple

references to the blood of sacrificial animals becoming impure, but all of those statements were made before the

Courtyard at the time the blood was cast upon the altar, the casting of the blood caused them to be considered as

testimony given by Rabbi Yossi ben Yoezar which stated that they never become impure. Once that statement was made,

sacrificial meat.

the principle was accepted without argument.

77. I.e., if either the meat could be eaten (or offered on the altar in the instance of a burnt-offering) or the fats could be

84. Instead, it is poured on the altar. 85. Whether at night or on the next day.

offered on the altar, there will be some positive value to the sacrifice.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

15

policy .

16

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 1

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3

[With regard to the presentation of] the blood from any of the sacrifices on the outer altar: as long as one makes one presentation of blood, atonement is generated.1 Even with regard to a sin-offering, one presentation is of fundamental importance.2 Making the remaining [three of] the four [required] presentations is [merely] the optimum manner of fulfilling the mitzvah, as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:27]: "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour on the altar."3 [One can infer that one] pouring of blood on the altar is of fundamental importance.

‫כל הדמים הניתנין על מזבח החיצון‬ ‫אם נתן מתנה אחת בלבד כיפר‬ ‫ואפילו בחטאת מתנה אחת היא העיקר‬ ‫ושאר הארבע מתנות למצוה שנאמר ודם‬ ‫זבחיך ישפך על מזבח ה' אלהיך שפיכת‬ :‫הדם על המזבח היא העיקר‬

Whenever [a priest] poured [blood] over the altar when he should have cast it upon it,4 the obligation is fulfilled, as [implied by the verse:] "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour."

‫וכל הניתנין בזריקה שנתנן בשפיכה‬ :‫יצא שנאמר ודם זבחיך ישפך‬

With regard to all of the blood presented on the inner altar,5 if one of the presentations is lacking, the sacrifice does not bring atonement. Instead, all of them are integral for the atonement, for Scripture was precise with regard to their number, as [Leviticus 4:7, 17; 16:14] states: "seven times."

‫כל הדמים הניתנין על מזבח הפנימי‬ ‫אם חסר אחת מהן לא כיפר אלא כולן‬ ‫הן עיקר הכפרה שהרי הכתוב הקפיד על‬ :‫מניינן שנאמר שבע פעמים‬

2

If the owner died after one of the presentations of the blood of a sin-offering was made, the remainder of the presentations should be made after his death.6

‫חטאת שנתן ממנו מתנה אחת ומתו‬ ‫הבעלים ישלים ארבע מתנות לאחר‬ :‫המיתה‬

If, however, he made one presentation during the day, he should not make the [remaining] three at night.7

‫אבל אם נתן האחת ביום לא יתן‬ :‫השלש בלילה‬

If one made one [of the presentations of blood required to be made on] the inner altar on [that altar] and made the remainder on the outer [altar], he is liable for [karet] for offering [a sacrifice] outside its appropriate place.8

‫ואם נתן אחת בפנים והשלימן בחוץ‬ :‫חייב משום מעלה בחוץ‬

If [a priest] was sprinkling [the blood of a sacrifice9 on the altar] and his hand was cut off before the blood reached the space above the altar, the sprinkling of the blood is not acceptable.10

‫היה מזה ונקטעה ידו של מזה קודם‬ ‫שיגיע דם לאויר המזבח לא עלתה לו‬ :‫הזייה‬

If one changed [the order] of corners11 [of the altar on which the blood was presented when bringing] a sin-offering - whether for a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the inner altar12 or a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the outer altar13 - [the sacrifice] is disqualified.14 If, however, [the order of the presentation of the blood] for other sacrifices is changed, [the sacrifices] are acceptable.

‫שינה מתן קרבנות בחטאת בין‬ ‫בחטאת הנעשית בפנים בין בחטאת‬ ‫הנעשית בחוץ נפסל אבל בשאר קדשים‬ :‫כשרין‬

If [the priest] presented the blood beyond the corner of the altar - whether for a sin-offering or for another offering and whether for the inner altar or for the outer altar - [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.

‫נתן הדם מן הקרן ולפנים בין בחטאת‬ ‫בין בשאר קדשים בין במזבח הפנימי‬ :‫בין במזבח החיצון פסול‬

When blood that according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented above the midpoint of the altar15 was presented below it; if according to [the Torah's] command, it should have been presented below the midpoint of the altar,16 but it was presented above it; if [blood that] according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented inside [the Temple]17 and was presented on the outer altar; if [blood that] should have been presented on the outer altar was presented in [the Temple]; or if blood that should have been presented on the outer [altar] was presented on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar],18 [in all these instances,] the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable.19 Nevertheless, the owners of the sacrifices receive atonement because of it, for its blood has reached the altar. Although it did not reach the proper place, it is as if it reached its [proper] place with regard to atonement. When does the above apply? When the person casting [the blood] is acceptable for Temple service. If, however, a person fit for Temple service received [the blood] and gave it to a person who is unacceptable and that unacceptable person presented [blood] that should have been presented above [the midpoint] of the altar below its midpoint, [blood] that should have been presented [on the] outer [altar] was presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary], [blood] that should have been presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary] was presented[on the] outer [altar], or one presented [the blood] on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar],20 the meat of the sacrifice is not disqualified if [any of the sacrificial animal's] blood of 3

‫דם שמצותו ליתן אותו למעלה מחצי‬ ‫המזבח שנתנו למטה או שמצותו ליתנו‬ ‫למטה ונתנו למעלה או שמצותו ליתנו‬ ‫בפנים בהיכל ונתנו על מזבח החיצון או‬ ‫הניתנין על מזבח החיצון שנתנן לפנים‬ ‫בהיכל או שנתן דם הניתנין בחוץ על‬ ‫הכבש שלא כנגד היסוד הרי בשר הזבח‬ ‫פסול ואף על פי כן נתכפרו הבעלים בו‬ ‫כיון שהגיע דם למזבח אף על פי שהגיע‬ ‫שלא למקומו הרי הוא כמו שהגיע למקומו‬ ‫לכפר במה דברים אמורים כשהיה זה‬ ‫הזורק כשר לעבודה אבל אם קבל הכשר‬ ‫ונתן לפסול ונתן הפסול את הניתנין למעלה‬ ‫למטה ואת הניתנין בפנים בחוץ ואת‬ ‫הניתנין בחוץ בפנים או שנתן על הכבש‬ ‫שלא כנגד היסוד לא נפסל בשר הזבח אם‬ ‫נשאר דם הנפש אלא יחזור הכשר ויקבל‬ :‫שאר דם הנפש ויזרוק הדם במקומו‬

4

[The following rules apply when] the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed between two types of blood22 or between two cups of blood.23 If [the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] one presentation [of blood],24 one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture]. Similarly, if [the blood of sacrifices that require] four presentations [of blood was mixed] with [the blood of others that require] four presentations,25 four presentations should be made of the entire [mixture]. If, [however, the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] two presentations that are four,26 one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture].27

‫דמי קדשים שנתערבו בין דם בדם‬ ‫בין כוסות בכוסות אם נתערבו‬ ‫הניתנין מתנה אחת בניתנין מתנה אחת יתן‬ ‫הכל מתנה אחת וכן הניתנין מתן ארבע‬ ‫בניתנין מתן ארבע יתן הכל מתן ארבע‬ ‫נתערבו הניתנין מתנה אחת בניתנין מתן‬ ‫שתים שהן ארבע יתן הכל מתנה אחת‬ ‫נתערבו הניתנין למעלה בניתנין למטה‬ ‫ישפך הכל לאמה והזבחים פסולין אפילו‬ ‫נתערבו שירי החטאת עם דם העולה‬ :‫שמקום הכל למטה ישפך הכל לאמה‬

If [blood that was] to be presented on the upper [half of the altar] became mixed with [blood that was] to be presented on the lower [half of the altar],28 all [the blood] should be poured into the [waste] channel29 and the sacrifices are disqualified. Even if the remainder of [the blood from] a sin-offering30 is mixed with the blood of a burnt-offering in which instance, all of the blood should be presented on the bottom of the altar, the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.31 If [blood from a sin-offering32 became mixed with the remnants of the blood of a burnt-offering]33 and [the priest] did not inquire [concerning the law], but instead presented some of the mixture on the upper portion [of the altar] and some on the lower portion, it is acceptable.34 If he presented a portion on the upper [portion of the altar] and then inquired, he should present [the remainder] on the lower portion.35 He is considered to have fulfilled his obligation for both [sacrifices].

‫ואם לא שאל אלא נתן מן‬ ‫התערובות למעלה ולמטה הרי זה‬ ‫כשר נתן למעלה ושאל יתן למטה ואלו‬ :‫ואלו עלו לו‬

5

If blood that was required to be presented in the Temple building36 became mixed with blood to be presented on the outer [altar], the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.37 If he did not inquire and took the mixture of the blood and presented some in the Temple [building] and some outside - whether first he presented it inside and then he presented it outside or first he presented it outside and then he presented it inside - everything is acceptable.38 When does the above apply? With regard to the blood [of the sacrifices that must] be presented on the outer [altar] with the exception of a sin-offering. If, however, the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented outside becomes mixed with the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented inside, it is acceptable [only] if one made the presentation outside and then made the presentation inside.39 If, however, one made the presentation inside and then made the presentation outside, [the sacrifice whose blood was to be present outside] is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] the blood of a sin-offering that was brought into the Temple building - even the blood of a sin-offering brought by an individual [whose meat] should be eaten40 - becomes forbidden, as [implied by Leviticus 6:23]: "Any sin-offering whose blood has been brought [into the Tent of Meeting... shall not be eaten]."41 [The above applies] provided [the blood] is brought in through the gate to the Temple Building, for the prooftext speaks of it being "brought," implying an ordinary manner of entrance.42 If, however, it was brought in through a wicket43 or through a window or the roof, it is not disqualified.44

‫נתערבו הניתנין בפנים בניתנין בחוץ‬ ‫ישפוך הכל לאמה ואם לא שאל‬ ‫ולקח דם התערובת ונתן ממנו בפנים‬ ‫ובחוץ בין שנתן בפנים וחזר ונתן בחוץ או‬ ‫בחוץ וחזר ונתן בפנים הכל כשר במה‬ ‫דברים אמורים בשאר דמים הניתנים בחוץ‬ ‫חוץ מן החטאת אבל דם חטאת הנעשית‬ ‫בחוץ שנתערב בדם חטאת הנעשית בפנים‬ ‫אם נתן בחוץ וחזר ונתן בפנים כשר נתן‬ ‫בפנים וחזר ונתן בחוץ פסולה שדם חטאת‬ ‫שנכנס להיכל אפילו חטאת יחיד הנאכלת‬ ‫אסורה שנאמר וכל חטאת אשר יובא‬ ‫מדמה וגו' והוא שיבא דרך שער ההיכל‬ ‫שנאמר יובא דרך ביאה אבל אם הכניסו‬ :‫בפשפש או דרך חלון או גג אינו נפסל‬

6

When the blood from a bull brought [because of the violation a law] forgotten [by the High Court] or from a goat brought [because of the violation of the prohibition against] idol worship45 which should be brought into the Sanctuary was brought to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified. For this place is inward with regard to the appropriate place for this blood.46 Similarly, with regard to the bull and the goat brought on Yom Kippur47 whose blood is brought into the Holy of Holies, if the blood [of these offerings] was brought into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled there,48 was then taken to the Sanctuary and afterwards, returned to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified.49 [The High Priest] should not complete the sprinkling [of the blood] in the Holy of Holies. Once he departs, he has departed.50

‫פר העלם ושעיר ע"ז שדמם נכנס‬ ‫להיכל אם הכניסו לקודש הקדשים‬ ‫נפסל שבמקום זה פנימה של מקומן הוא‬ ‫וכן פר ושעיר של יום הכפורים שדמם‬ ‫נכנס לקודש הקדשים אם הכניס דמם‬ ‫לקודש הקדשים והזה ממנו והוציאו להיכל‬ ‫וחזר והכניסו לקודש הקדשים נפסל ואינו‬ ‫גומר ממנו הזיות שבקודש הקדשים כיון‬ ‫שיצא יצא וכן אם גמר הזיות שבקודש‬ ‫הקדשים והוציאן להיכל והזה מקצת הזיות‬ ‫והוציאן חוץ להיכל וחזר והכניסן להיכל‬ ‫אינו גומר הזיות שבהיכל שכיון שיצא הדם‬ :‫חוץ למקומו נפסל‬

Similarly, if he completed the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies, then brought the blood into the Sanctuary and made some of the sprinklings [required there], then took [the blood] out of the Sanctuary and afterwards returned it, he should not complete the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. [The rationale is that] since the blood was taken out of its place, it became disqualified.51 If the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering52 was received in two cups and one of them was taken outside, the one that remained inside is acceptable and the sprinklings may be performed.53 If, [by contrast,] one [of the cups] was taken into the Sanctuary and sprinkled there, even the one left outside is disqualified, as [implied by the prooftext] : "whose blood has been brought in," i.e., even if only a portion of its blood was brought in to the Sanctuary to bring about atonement, it is disqualified.

‫חטאת שקיבל דמה בשני כוסות‬ ‫ויצא אחד מהם לחוץ הפנימי כשר‬ ‫ויזה ממנו נכנס אחד מהם להיכל והזה‬ ‫ממנו שם אף החיצון פסול שנאמר אשר‬ ‫יובא מדמה אפילו מקצת דמה אם נכנס‬ :‫לכפר בקדש נפסלה‬

7

[The following rules apply when] the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering that was taken into [the Sanctuary] to achieve atonement, but nothing was done and instead, he took it out without sprinkling it inside. If he brought it in unknowingly, [the blood] remains acceptable and should be sprinkled outside, for nothing to achieve atonement was done in the Sanctuary.54 If he brought it in intentionally, it is disqualified.55

‫דם חטאת שהכניסו לכפר בו‬ ‫בפנים ולא כיפר אלא הוציאו ולא‬ ‫הזה ממנו בפנים כלום אם הכניסו בשוגג‬ ‫הרי זה כשר ומזה ממנו בחוץ שהרי לא‬ :‫כיפר בקדש ואם הכניסו במזיד פסול‬

If the sin-offering itself was brought into the Sanctuary,56 it is acceptable, because [the prooftext] mentions "whose blood was brought in," [i.e., it is the blood] and not the meat [that disqualifies it].

‫הכניס החטאת עצמה להיכל כשירה‬ ‫שנאמר אשר יובא מדמה ולא‬ :‫בשרה‬

When a sin-offering of a fowl moved in its death throes and entered the Sanctuary, it is acceptable.57

‫חטאת העוף שפרכסה ונכנסה‬ :‫להיכל כשירה‬

If the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl was taken into the Sanctuary in its neck,58 there is an unresolved doubt whether its neck is considered a receptacle [which would disqualify the sacrifice].59

‫הכניס דם חטאת העוף להיכל‬ ‫בצוארה הרי זה ספק אם הצואר‬ :‫חשוב ככלי‬

If the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl60 was spilled61 and then collected,62 there is an unresolved question: Does the receptacle disqualify the blood or not? Therefore the fowl should be burnt63 like all the sin-offerings of fowl concerning which there are unresolved doubts. 64

‫נשפך דם חטאת העוף ואספו הרי זה‬ ‫ספק אם הכלי פוסל בדמה או אינו‬ ‫פוסל לפיכך תשרף ככל חטאת העוף‬ :‫שהוא ספק‬

8

When [a priest] received the blood of a sin-offering in four cups and made one presentation [on the altar] from each cup, the remainder of all four cups is poured on the altar's base, as [Leviticus 4:30] states: "And all of its blood shall be poured [on the base of the altar]." If he made all four presentations from one cup, the remnants of that cup should be poured on the altar's base and the other cups poured in the drainage canal.65

‫חטאת שקיבל דמה בארבעה‬ ‫כוסות ונתן מתנה אחת מכל כוס‬ ‫וכוס שיירי ארבעתן נשפך על היסוד‬ ‫שנאמר ואת כל דמה ישפוך נתן ארבע‬ ‫המתנות מכוס אחד שיירי אותו הכוס‬ ‫נשפך על היסוד ושאר הכוסות נשפכין‬ :‫לאמה‬

When blood falls into water or into ordinary blood,66 it should not be sprinkled on the altar. If it was sprinkled, it is disqualified.67 When water fell into blood in a receptacle, if it has the appearance of blood, it is acceptable. If wine or ordinary blood fell into it, we make an assessment [as follows]: Were it to have been water would there have been enough to nullify the blood in the receptacle to the extent that it would no longer have the appearance of blood, he should not sprinkle from [the mixture]. If there would not have been enough to nullify its appearance, he should sprinkle from it.68

‫דם שנפל לתוך המים או לתוך‬ ‫דמי חולין לא יזה ממנו ואם הזה‬ ‫פסול נפל מים לתוך הדם שבמזרק אם יש‬ ‫בו מראה דם כשר נפל לתוכו יין או דם‬ ‫חולין אומדין אותו אילו היו מים אם ראויין‬ ‫לבטל דם שבמזרק עד שלא יהיו מראיו‬ ‫מראה דם הרי זה לא יזה ממנו ואם אינם‬ :‫ראויין לבטל מראיו יזה ממנו‬

When the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed with the blood of animals that are disqualified from the altar or with the blood of sacrificial animals that were disqualified because of unsatisfactory ritual slaughter, the entire mixture should be poured into the drainage canal.69 Even if all the cups [of blood] were offered aside from one, it should be poured into the drainage canal and all of those offerings are unacceptable.

‫דם הקדשים שנתערב בדם פסולי‬ ‫המזבח או בדם הקדשים שנפסלו‬ ‫בשחיטה ישפך הכל לאמה ואפילו קרבו‬ ‫כל הכוסות חוץ מאחד ישפך לאמה וכל‬ ‫אותן הזבחים פסולים נתערב בדם התמצית‬ :‫ישפך לאמה ואם לא שאל ונתן כשר‬

If the [life-]blood [of a sacrificial animal] became mixed with blood concentrated [in the limbs],70 [the mixture] should be poured into the drainage canal.71 If, [however,] one did not ask and presented [the blood on the altar], [the sacrifice] is acceptable.

9

If one cast the organs and fats offered on the altar, the limbs of burnt-offerings, the handfuls [of meal offered on the altar], the frankincense, or the meal-offerings that are to be burnt on the [altar's] pyre after they were consecrated in a sacred utensil, whether by hand72 or with a utensil, whether with one's right hand or with one's left hand, they are acceptable.

‫העולות‬ ‫ואיברי‬ ‫האימורין‬ ‫ומנחות‬ ‫והלבונה‬ ‫והקמצים‬ ‫הנשרפות אחר שנתקדשו בכלי שרת אם‬ ‫זרק אחד מכל אלו על גבי האשים בין ביד‬ ‫בין בכלי בין בימין בין בשמאל הרי אלו‬ :‫כשרים‬

When wine or water was poured [on the altar as a libation] with a bowl, the hin measure,73 or another sacred utensil, it is acceptable. If they were poured with an ordinary vessel or by hand, they are unacceptable.

‫היין והמים שנסכן בין בקערה בין‬ ‫בהין בין בשאר כלי השרת‬ :‫כשרים נסכן בכלי חול או בידו פסולין‬

When one arranged the limbs [of a burntoffering] or the handful [of meal from a meal-offering] and then arranged the logs for the altar's pyre above them74 or arranged them at the side of the limbs, there is an unresolved doubt whether this is considered as the typical way of having them consumed by fire or not.75 Therefore as an initial preference, one should not offer them in this manner, but if one did, it is acceptable.

« Previous

‫איברים שסידרן וכן קומץ שסידרו‬ ‫וסידר העצים של מערכה למעלה‬ ‫מהם או שסידרן מצדי העצים הרי זה ספק‬ ‫אם דרך הקטרה בכך או אין דרך הקטרה‬ ‫בכך לפיכך לא יעשה כן לכתחלה ואם‬ :‫עשה הורצה‬

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 1 FOOTNOTES 1. Although there is a desired manner in which the blood from

6. If the owner of a sin-offering dies before even one

every sacrifice should be offered on the altar, that is merely the desired manner of fulfilling the mitzvah. After the fact,

presentation of the blood was made, the blood should not be presented (see Chapter 4, Halachah 1). If, however, one

even one presentation of blood is sufficient.

presentation was made, the sacrifice is fundamentally acceptable, as stated in Halachah 1. Hence the remainder of

2. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Rambam's intent is that even if the priest did not present the blood of the sin-offering on the corners of the altar at all as required, but rather poured it on the wall of the altar, it is sufficient to bring atonement. 3. The Kessef Mishneh notes that rather than use the method

7. For the blood is disqualified at sunset (Zevachim 56a) and hence should not be presented upon the altar. Hence, even though the sacrifice is acceptable, presentations should not be made.

the

remaining

of exegesis stated in Zevachim 37b, the Rambam quotes a

8. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:13.

different prooftext. This follows a pattern demonstrated in

9. The Torah uses the term haza'ah, "sprinkling," with regard to

several other places in the Mishneh Torah where the

the sin-offering of a fowl and the sin-offerings whose blood is

Rambam derives a concept from the apparent meaning of

offered on the inner altar.

Biblical verses even though the traditional approach is to derive the idea from other sources.

Rabbinic

10. For at the time the sprinkling is completed, the priest who

4. Casting blood on the altar refers to a situation where a priest

performed it was no longer acceptable for Temple service, because of his physical blemish. Even though the blemish

stands slightly removed from the altar and casts the blood upon it powerfully. The blood of the burnt offerings, peace

did not occur until after the priest completed his activity, the time when the blood reached the altar is most significant.

offerings, and guilt offerings are presented on the altar in this manner. Pouring the blood on the altar refers to a situation

See Zevachim 15a.

where the priest stands next to the altar and pours the blood gently upon it. The blood of firstborn offerings, tithe offerings, and Paschal sacrifices are presented in this manner. 5. This refers to the bull and the goat offered on Yom Kippur and the other sin-offerings which are burnt rather than eaten that are mentioned in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:5. See ibid. 5:11 for a description of the manner in which the sacrifice was offered.

10

the presentations should also be made.

11. Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah uses a different version. 12. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:12, 14, for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices. 13. See ibid.:10 for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices.

11

14. Based on Halachah 10, it appears that the intent in this and the following halachah is that the meat of the sacrifice is

26. I.e., burnt-offerings, guilt-offerings, and peace-offerings whose blood is dashed on the northeast and southwest

unacceptable and may not be eaten. Nevertheless, the sacrifice itself is acceptable, since its blood has reached the

corners of the altar so that it will have been presented on all four sides as described in ibid. 5:6.

altar.

27. The rationale for this ruling is that it is forbidden to make

15. As mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:9, there was a scarlet band dividing the upper half of the altar from the lower half. Sin-offerings of animals (Hilchot

Ma'aseh

HaKorbanot 5:7) and burnt-offerings of fowl (ibid. 6:20) should be offered above the midpoint of the altar. 16. This refers to the blood of all other sacrifices. 17. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:6), the Rambam states that this refers to blood presented on the inner altar, on the Parochet (the curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies), and within the Holy of Holies itself.

more than one presentation of the blood that requires only one presentation, because doing so would be a violation of the prohibition of adding to the Torah's commandments (see Zevachim 8:10). And after the fact, it is sufficient to make one presentation of the blood of sacrifices that require more as stated in Halachah 1. Although in failing to make the four presentations required for a sin-offering, the priest is detracting from the Torah's commandments and that is also forbidden, he is not performing an act when doing so. 28. See the notes to Halachah 10. 29. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11.

18. The foundation of the altar did not surround the altar on its

30. I.e., this refers to the blood that remains after the

southern side, the place where the ramp was positioned. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that since the ramp is considered

presentations on the corners of the altar were completed. This blood should be poured out at the base of the altar.

as equivalent to the altar in several contexts (see Menachot

31. For the blood of the burnt-offering should be dashed on the wall of the altar, while the remnants of the blood of the

57b; Zevachim 87a), after the fact, presenting the blood on it is considered equivalent to presenting it on the altar itself. 19. Since the blood was not offered in its proper place, in this context, it is as if the sacrifice was disqualified and the meat cannot be eaten. Nevertheless, even if "the blood of life" remains, it may not be offered upon the altar again. The rationale is that since the blood reached the altar, atonement is granted and another sacrifice is not required. 20. Although the Rambam does not mention all the instances that were mentioned in the first clause, they are all included in this ruling.

sin-offering should be poured directly on the altar's base. It should not be poured on the altar's wall, for that would be considered as an addition to the required number of presentations. 32. Which must be presented on the upper half of the altar. 33. Which should be poured on the altar's base. The definition of the halachah as speaking about such a situation is taken from the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus, based on Zevachim 81b. 34. As an initial preference, he should not have presented the

21. Since the casting of the blood is disqualified entirely because the person sprinkling it was unacceptable, it is as if it was not

blood on the upper portion of the altar as stated in the previous halachah. Once he did, however, we assume that

performed at all. Hence, if more "blood of life" remains, the sacrifice can be offered as if nothing had happened.

some of the blood from the sin-offering was presented there, thus the entire mixture is considered as the remainder of the

22. Blood from two sacrificial animals were mixed into the same cup.

blood of both a sin-offering and burnt-offering. In both instances, the remainder should be poured on the base of

23. The blood from two sacrificial animals was collected in

the altar.

separate cups, but it was forgotten in which cup the blood of each sacrificial animal was contained. 24. E.g., the blood of a firstborn offering with the blood of a tithe offering or of a Paschal sacrifice. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:17. 25. Sin-offerings are the only sacrifices that require four presentations of blood on the altar. The Rambam is speaking about a situation in which the blood from one sin-offering was mixed with the blood from another.

35. I.e., on the altar's base. Once some of the mixture was presented on the upper half of the altar, the preferred course of action is to pour the entire mixture on the altar's base. 36. See Halachah 10. 37. Because, as an initial preference, there is no satisfactory manner of presenting this blood. For the blood from the sacrifices that is required to be offered in the Sanctuary should not be offered on the outer altar. Conversely, the blood that is required to be offered on the outer altar should not be offered in the Sanctuary.

12

38. For we assume that some of the blood for each sacrifice was presented in the appropriate manner. 39. I.e., even after the fact, it is acceptable only in this manner. 40. The Kessef Mishnehnotes that from the standard published text of Zevachim 82a, it would appear that the concept is more obvious with regard to an individual sin-offering than a communal sin-offering. They assume that the Rambam had a different version of the text. 41. Just as the sacrifice is forbidden to be eaten, the blood is forbidden to be presented on the altar. If, however, the blood was presented outside, the sacrifice is acceptable after the fact. The meat, however, is forbidden to be eaten. 42. The term huvah has as its root the word ba which means

51. The same rationale applies here as in the previous clause. Rav Yosef Corcus questions why the Rambam rules that the blood has been disqualified. Seemingly, since Zevachim 83a leaves this as an unresolved question, the Rambam should not rule that it is definitely disqualified. He explains that although one of the Sages considered it an unresolved issue, when the entire passage is considered, it would appear that it is not acceptable. 52. That should be offered on the outer altar. 53. For as long as a portion of the blood of a sin-offering is offered in the appropriate manner, it is acceptable. Although the blood that was taken out is disqualified, it does not disqualify the blood that remains.

"come," leading to the inference the Rambam draws. See parallels in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:19; Hilchot Tuma'at

54. Implied is that if it was sprinkled inside, even unknowingly, it

Tzara'at 16:5.

55. Even if it was not sprinkled inside. The Kessef Mishneh and

43. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:6 with regard to the wickets leading to the Sanctuary. 44. For these are not the normal manner through which blood is brought into the Sanctuary. 45. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:16 and notes for a description of these sacrifices. 46. I.e., just as blood that is required to be presented on the outer altar becomes disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary, blood that is to be presented on the inner altar, becomes disqualified when it is brought further inward, to the Holy of Holies. 47. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1. 48. But the required number of sprinklings were not completed. 49. Just as the blood of an ordinary sin-offering is disqualified when taken out of the Temple Courtyard, so, too, the blood of these offerings is disqualified when taken out of the Holy of Holies before the sprinklings are completed. 50. Even though the blood of this sacrifice will later be sprinkled in the Sanctuary as well, at the present time, the sprinklings should have been completed in the Holy of Holies. Since that was not done, taking the blood out disqualifies it. The Ra'avad (and similarly, Rashi in his commentary to Zevachim 82b-83a) has a different understanding of the passage on which the Rambam's ruling was based and hence, objects. The Kessef Mishneh offers grounds to justify the Rambam's understanding.

is disqualified.

Rav Yosef Corcus note that this ruling appears to contradict Zevachim 36a. The Kessef Mishneh concludes that although the Rambam's ruling can be reconciled with the passage, the resolution still leaves certain points that require explanation. 56. Even after the animal was slaughtered and before its blood was received (Zevachim 92b). 57. This law is mentioned because of the contrast to the law that follows. The prooftext above speaks of a sacrifice being disqualified because its blood was "brought into" the Temple Sanctuary. In this instance, the fowl was not brought in, but rather entered on its own. 58. I.e., the fowl was slaughtered, but the neck was held upright instead of allowing the blood to flow out into a receptacle. 59. For when the blood of a sin-offering is brought into the Temple sanctuary in a utensil, it is disqualified, as stated in Halachah 13. 60. With regard to a parallel situation concerning a sin-offering of an animal, see Chapter 1, Halachah 25. 61. Unto the floor of the Temple Courtyard. 62. Into a receptacle. The blood of a fowl should be squeezed from the neck of the animal unto the altar directly as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:6. The question is whether collecting the blood in a receptacle disqualifies the sacrifice or not, i.e., when the Torah stated that the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl should be presented directly on the altar was that granting permission (but not negating, presenting it from a receptacle) or stating that it must be presented in this manner (see Zevachim 92b). 63. The Kessef Mishneh states that this also applies to the situation mentioned in Halachah 19. 64. See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.

65. Since they were set aside as separate entities, but blood was not presented on the altar from them, they are not considered as the remnants of the blood presented and hence should not be poured on the altar's base. Yoma 57b derives this from the fact that Leviticus 4:26 states: "Its blood should be poured on the altar's base," implying that there are times when all of its blood is not poured there. 66. I.e., blood from an animal that was not offered as a sacrifice.

70. Blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). 71. Here also, our Rabbis saw the need for a safeguard, because this is a common situation (Kessef Mishneh). 72. Rav Yosef Corcus notes that the Rambam's ruling here directly contradicts his ruling in Chapter 11, Halachah 6,

67. This applies even if it has the appearance of blood. From

which states that a handful of meal that is presented on the altar by hand is disqualified. He states that although the

every drop of blood that falls into the mixture is nullified as it falls in. Thus it is considered as if there is never a majority of

Rambam's ruling can be resolved with difficulty, the explanations appear forced.

blood (Zevachim 77b). 68. See parallels to the above in Hilchot Shechitah 14:6; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 2:6.

73. This was one of the measures that were used in the Temple, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:17-18. 74. Instead of placing them above the logs.

69. In contrast to the instances mentioned in the previous

75. More precisely, it is obviously not the ordinary way of offering

halachah, in this instance even if the amount of the unacceptable blood is not sufficient to nullify the acceptable

these substances. The question is whether the departure from the norm is great enough to disqualify them or not.

blood, the sacrifice is disqualified. Among the explanations given for the distinction is that the previous halachah describes mixtures that were made with ordinary blood and it is uncommon for ordinary blood to be found in the Temple Courtyard. Hence there was no need for a Rabbinic decree to serve as a safeguard. This halachah, by contrast, speaks of mixtures that could frequently occur in the Temple. Hence lest the mixture also be permitted even when the unacceptable blood could nullify the ordinary blood, our Sages were strict and disqualified all mixtures (Kessef Mishneh).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

13

policy .

14

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4

When sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered on the top of the altar, it is as if they were slaughtered in the northern [portion of the Temple Courtyard],1 as [Exodus 20:21] states: "You shall slaughter upon it2 your burnt-offerings and your peaceofferings." This teaches that the entire altar is an appropriate place for the slaughter of burnt-offerings3 and peace-offerings.4

‫קדשי קדשים ששחטן בראש‬ ‫המזבח כאילו שחטן בצפון שנאמר‬ ‫וזבחת עליו את עולותיך ואת שלמיך‬ ‫מלמד שכל המזבח ראוי לשחיטת העולה‬ :‫ושחיטת השלמים‬

When a burnt-offering was slaughtered on the top of the altar or it was slaughtered below [on the ground of the Temple Courtyard] and then brought up to the top of the altar, it should be skinned and cut into portions in that place. The inner organs should be taken down and washed below5 and then brought back [to the top of the altar]. The skin should be taken down and given to the priests.6

‫עולה ששחטה בראש המזבח או‬ ‫ששחטה למטה והעלה אותה לראש‬ ‫המזבח יפשיט אותה וינתחנה במקומה‬ ‫ומוריד הקרבים ומדיחן למטה וחוזר‬ :‫ומעלה אותן ומוריד העור ונותנו לכהנים‬

Similarly, when [other] sacrifices that had been slaughtered were brought up to the altar, they should be skinned and cut into portions in that place. The inner organs should be taken down and washed below and then brought back [to the top of the altar]. The skin and the meat should be taken down and given to the owners. The remainder [of the sacrifice] should be offered on the altar's pyre. Why shouldn't he bring down the entire [carcass] instead of skinning it and cutting it up on the top of the altar? Because anything that is fit to be offered on the pyre7 if it was brought up to the top of the altar should not be taken down,8 as [indicated by ibid. 29:36]: "Everything that touches the altar shall be sanctified."

‫וכן זבחים שחוטים שעלו לגבי המזבח‬ ‫מפשיטן ומנתחן במקומן ומוריד‬ ‫הקרבים ומדיחן במים וחוזר ומעלה אותן‬ ‫ומוריד את העור ואת הבשר ונותנו‬ ‫לבעלים וחוזר ומקטיר את השאר ומפני‬ ‫מה לא יוריד הכל אלא יפשיט וינתח‬ ‫בראש המזבח שכל הראוי לאשים אם‬ ‫עלה לראש המזבח לא ירד שנאמר כל‬ ‫הנוגע במזבח יקדש יכול אע"פ שאינו‬ ‫ראוי תלמוד לומר היא העולה על מוקדה‬ ‫מה עולה שהיא ראויה לאשים אם עלתה‬ ‫לא תרד אף כל הראוי לאשים אם עלה לא‬ :‫ירד‬

Does [the above principle apply] even when [the entity brought to the top of the altar] is not fit [to be offered on the altar's pyre]? It is taught [Leviticus 6:2] "It is the burnt-offering on the pyre." Just as the burnt-offering is fit to be consumed by the altar's pyre should not be taken down once it was taken up [to the altar], so too, any entity that is fit for the altar's pyre9 if it is brought up, it should not be brought down.

2

When [an animal to be sacrificed as] a burntoffering is brought up to the top of the altar while alive, it should be brought down, because it is not yet fit [to be consumed by the altar's pyre].

‫עולה שהעלה חיה לראש המזבח‬ :‫תרד שעדיין אינה ראויה‬

Similarly, a handful of meal from a meal-offering that was not consecrated in a sacred vessel10 and all entities that are forbidden to be offered on the altar11should be taken down from the altar even if they were brought up, because from the outset, they were not fit [to be offered on the pyre].12

‫וכן קומץ המנחה שלא נתקדש בכלי‬ ‫שרת וכל איסורי המזבח שעלו ירדו‬ :‫לפי שאינן ראויין מתחילתן‬

Similarly, when a consecrated animal was slaughtered at night, its blood was spilled, or its [blood]13 was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, if it was taken up [to the altar's top], it should be taken down.14

‫וכן בהמת קדשים שנשחטה בלילה או‬ ‫נשפך דמה או שיצאת חוץ לעזרה אם‬ :‫עלתה תרד‬

[Different rules apply] if, by contrast, sacrificial animals were left over night - whether their blood, their meat, or their fats and organs were left over night;15

‫אבל קדשים שלנו או שלן הדם או‬ ‫הבשר או האימורים וזבח שיצא חוץ‬ ‫לעזרה או שנטמא או נפסל במחשבת‬ ‫הזמן או במחשבת מקום או במחשבת‬ ‫שינוי או שקבלו הטמאים וזרקו את דמו‬ ‫הואיל וראויין בעבודת קרבן הבא בטומאה‬ ‫ושנתן דמו חוץ למקומו או קדשי קדשים‬ ‫שנשחטו בדרום או שנתקבל דמם בדרום‬ ‫אף על פי שכל אלו פסולים אם עלו לראש‬ :‫המזבח לא ירדו‬

a sacrificial animal was taken out of the Temple Courtyard; it became impure or disqualified because of a disqualifying thought concerning the time [it was to be eaten] or the place [it was to be eaten]; it was sacrificed for the sake of a different offering;16 impure [priests] received its blood and cast it on the altar; [this is significant] since they are fit to perform Temple service when a sacrifice is brought in a state of impurity;17 when the blood was presented in an improper place;18 or sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the southern portion of the Temple Courtyard or their blood was received there.19 Although in all of these situations, [the sacrifices] are disqualified, if [the meat, fats, and/or organs] were brought to the top of the altar, they should not be taken down.

3

[This is the general principle:] Whenever an entity is disqualified in the Temple Courtyard,20 the holiness [of the altar] accepts it.21 Just as when these entities were brought up, they should not be taken down, so too, if they were taken down, they should not be brought up a second time. For they have been disqualified.

‫כל שפיסולו בקודש הקדש מקבלו‬ ‫וכשם שאם עלו לא ירדו כך אם‬ :‫ירדו לא יעלו שנייה שהרי פסולין הם‬

If the [altar's] fire took hold of them22 [before they were brought down from the altar], they should be brought up again [so that] they will be consumed by its fire.

‫ואם משלה בהם האור אע"פ שירדו‬ :‫יעלו שנייה וישלים הקטרתן‬

When the handful of meal [from the meal-offering] becomes disqualified as piggul,23

‫קומץ שנתפגל ומקצתו בארץ ומקצתו‬ :‫משלה בו האור יעלה כולו‬

and a portion of it is on the ground and a portion took fire, the entire [handful] should be brought up [to the altar to be consumed].24

4

When limbs, fats, and handfuls of meal were left overnight on the top of the altar, it is as if they were left overnight in the Temple Courtyard.25 If they were brought down from the altar, they should not be brought up again. If, however, they were not brought down, they should be offered on the altar's pyre in all situations.

‫איברים וחלבים וקמצים שלנו‬ ‫בראשו של מזבח כאילו לנו בעזרה‬ ‫ואם ירדו לא יעלו אבל אם לא ירדו‬ :‫מקטירין אותן לעולם‬

The open space above the altar is considered as the altar.26 When one brought the fats and the organs of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity27 up [to the altar] before their blood was poured on the altar,28 they should not be taken down, because they have become "the food of the altar."

‫ואויר מזבח כמזבח ואימורי קדשים‬ ‫קלים שהעלן קודם זריקת דמים לא‬ :‫ירדו שהרי נעשה לחמו של מזבח‬

5

[The following law applies when a person] sets aside two [animals for] a guilt-offering,29 one intended to serve as surety for the other.30 If he slaughtered both of them and brought the fats and organs of one up [to the altar] before [the blood] was cast [upon it], they should be brought down.31

‫הפריש שני אשמות לאחריות ושחט‬ ‫את שניהם וקדם והעלה אימורים‬ :‫של אחד מהם קודם זריקה הרי אלו ירדו‬

When an unacceptable sacrifice and unacceptable wine libations32 were brought up to the altar, the sacrifice should not be taken down as we explained. The wine libations, [by contrast,] should be taken down.33 Similarly, when wine libations are brought independently and they were disqualified and brought to the top of the altar, they should be taken down.

‫הזבח הפסול והנסכים הפסולים‬ ‫שעלו למזבח הזבח לא ירד כמו‬ ‫שביארנו מפני שהוא ראוי לאשים‬ ‫והנסכים ירדו וכן נסכים הבאים בפני עצמן‬ :‫שנפסלו ועלו וירדו‬

When melikah was performed on a fowl by a non-priest and then it was brought to the top of the altar, it should not be taken down.34 If, [by contrast,] a handful of meal was taken by a non-priest and brought to the top of the altar, it should be brought down. Even though both of these acts disqualify [the offerings], [the handful from the meal-offering] is considered as if it was never consecrated at all.35 [These laws apply to] a non-priest as well as to anyone else who is disqualified [from performing sacrificial service].36

‫עוף שמלקו זר ועלה לא ירד וקומץ‬ ‫המנחה שקמצו ועלה ירד אף על‬ ‫פי שזה פסול וזה פסול זה כאילו לא‬ ‫נתקדש כלל ואחד הזר ואחד שאר‬ :‫הפסולים‬

The following, however, should be taken down [even though] they were brought up to the top of the altar, anything that is not fit37 for the altar's pyre. [This includes:] the meat of sacrifices of the most sacred order, the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity,38 the remainder of the omer, the remainder of the meal-offerings,39 the two breads [offered on Shavuot], the showbread,40 the incense offering,41 the wool that is on the heads of sheep, the hair on the beards of goats, the bones, the sinews, the horns, and the hoofs if they are not attached to [the animal's body].42 [In all these instances,] if [these entities] were brought to the top [of the altar], they should be brought down. If some of the oil from the handful of meal was squeezed out on a bone43 [that had been laying on the altar] and then the bone was taken down, it should be returned [to the altar]. [The rationale is that] there is an unresolved doubt whether entities attached to entities that should be brought up [to the altar]44 are considered as if they should be brought up as well.

6

‫ כל שאינו ראוי‬:‫ואלו אם יעלו ירדו‬ ‫לאשים בשר קדשי קדשים ובשר‬ ‫קדשים קלים מותר העומר ושיירי מנחות‬ ‫ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים והקטרת וצמר‬ ‫שבראשי כבשים ושער שבזקן התיישים‬ ‫והעצמות והגידים והקרנים והטלפים בזמן‬ :‫שאינן מחוברים אם עלו ירדו‬

‫קומץ שמיצה שמנו על העצם וירד‬ ‫העצם יחזירו שהדבר ספק שמא‬ :‫חבורי עולין כעולין הם חשובין‬

The inner altar sanctifies unacceptable entities whether they are fit for it or not fit for it,45 but the outer altar only sanctifies unacceptable entities that are fit for it, as we explained.46 What is implied? When sacrifices that were disqualified are brought up to the outer altar, they should not be brought down. If an unfitting incense offering47 was offered upon it, it should be brought down, because an incense offering is not fit for the outer altar. If, by contrast, a handful of meal from the meal-offering was placed on the inner altar, it should not be taken off, whether it was fit or not fit. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Just as the altar sanctifies any entity that is fit for it, so too, the ramp, and other sacred utensils, sanctify what is fit for them. For with regard to the sacred utensils, [Exodus 30:29] states: "Any entity that touches them will be sanctified." Thus when an entity that is fit for it reaches the ramp, it should not be brought down even though it is disqualified.48 Similarly, if any entity that is fit for a sacred vessel reaches a sacred vessel, it should never be redeemed even though it was disqualified, as stated in Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach.49 Vessels made for liquids do not consecrate solids and vessels made for solids do not consecrate liquids. To what does the above apply? To the liquid and dry measures that existed in the Temple which we mentioned in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash.50 Receptacles,51 by contrast, consecrate both liquids and solids.52 Sacred utensils sanctify blood that was disqualified and cause it to be offered [on the altar].

7

‫מזבח הפנימי מקדש פסולים בין‬ ‫ראויין לו בין שאינן ראויין לו אבל‬ ‫מזבח החיצון אינו מקדש אלא פסולין‬ ‫הראויין לו כמו שביארנו כיצד מזבח‬ ‫החיצון שעלו לו זבחים שנפסלו לא ירדו‬ ‫עלתה לו קטרת זרה תרד שאין הקטרת‬ ‫זרה ראויה למזבח החיצון אבל מזבח‬ ‫הפנימי שעלה לו קומץ מנחה בין כשר בין‬ ‫פסול לא ירד וכן כל כיוצא בזה כשם‬ ‫שהמזבח מקדש את הראוי לו כך הכבש‬ ‫ושאר כלי השרת מקדשין את הראוי להם‬ ‫שהרי נאמר בכלים כל הנוגע בהם יקדש‬ ‫משיגיע לכבש דבר הראוי לו לא ירד‬ ‫ואע"פ שנפסל וכן כשיגיע לכלי שרת כל‬ ‫דבר הראוי לו מתקדש ולא יפדה לעולם‬ ‫ואף על פי שנפסל כמו שביארנו באיסורי‬ :‫המזבח‬

‫אין כלי הלח מקדשות את היבש‬ ‫ולא כלי היבש מקדשות את הלח‬ ‫בד"א במדות הלח והיבש שהיו במקדש‬ ‫כמו שביארנו בהלכות כלי המקדש אבל‬ ‫המזרקות מקדשות הלח והיבש וכלי שרת‬ :‫מקדשין דם הפסול ליקרב‬

8

Sacred vessels only consecrate [entities] in the Temple.53 Also, they only consecrate [entities placed in them] willfully,54 from their insides,55 and when intact. [The following rules apply if] a hole was made within them. If they could still be used to perform the original task for which they were used when intact, they consecrate what is placed within. If not,56 they do not consecrate [their contents]. They consecrate [their contents] only when they are full. The measures do not consecrate their contents when they are lacking unless one intends to fill them. If one does not intend to fill them, they consecrate their contents only in that [the contents] could [later] be disqualified,57 but not to have them offered.58 [When an entity is placed] in a sacred vessel at an inappropriate time, it is consecrated only to the extent that is disqualified, not that it should be offered. What is implied? When an entity whose mitzvah is performed during the day is placed into a sacred vessel at night, it is disqualified.59 It should be burnt,60 but not sacrificed. For example, if a handful is taken from a meal-offering at night and that handful is placed in a sacred vessel, it should be burnt. When an altar became damaged,61 all of the sacrificial animals that were in the Temple and had been slaughtered, but whose blood had not been cast on the altar, are disqualified.62 For there is no altar on which to cast the blood and [Exodus 20:21] states: "And you shall slaughter upon it your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." Implied is that when you slaughter [your offerings,] it shall be intact and not blemished.

‫כל כלי השרת אין מקדשין אלא‬ ‫במקדש ואין מקדשין אלא מדעת‬ ‫ואין מקדשין אלא מתוכן ואין מקדשין‬ ‫אלא שלימים ניקבו אם עושין מעין‬ ‫מלאכתן שהיו עושין והם שלימים מקדשין‬ ‫ואם לאו אין מקדשין ואין מקדשין אלא‬ ‫מליאין אבל המדות אין מקדשות חסרות‬ ‫אלא אם דעתו למלאותן ואם אין דעתו‬ ‫למלאותן מקדשות להפסל אבל לא‬ :‫ליקרב‬

‫כלי שרת מקדשין שלא בזמנן‬ ‫להפסל אבל לא להקרב כיצד‬ ‫דבר שמצותו ביום שנתקדש בכלי שרת‬ ‫בלילה נפסל וישרף אבל אינו קרב כגון‬ ‫שקמץ מנחה בלילה ונתן קומצה לכלי‬ :‫שרת הרי זו נשרפת‬

‫מזבח שנפגם נפסלו כל הקדשים‬ ‫שהיו שם שחוטין במקדש‬ ‫שעדיין לא נזרק דמם שהרי אין שם מזבח‬ ‫לזרוק עליו ונאמר וזבחת עליו את עולותיך‬ ‫ואת שלמיך כלומר תזבח והוא עומד‬ :‫בתקונו לא פגום‬

9

Sacrificial animals that were alive and located in the Temple Courtyard at the time [the altar] became damaged are not disqualified. Instead, when the altar is repaired, they should be sacrificed. [The rationale is that] living animals are not deemed unacceptable forever.63

‫אבל קדשים חיים שהיו שם בעזרה‬ ‫כשנפגם לא נפסלו אלא כשיבנה‬ :‫המזבח יקרבו שאין בעלי חיים נדחין‬

If animals were consecrated before the altar was built, they should be sacrificed after the altar was built, for the fact that they could not [be sacrificed] originally is not a disqualifying factor.

‫הקדיש בהמות עד שלא נבנה‬ ‫המזבח כשיבנה מקריבין אותן‬ :‫שהדחוי מעיקרו אינו דיחוי‬

Similarly, sacrificial meat should not be eaten while the altar is damaged, as [Leviticus 10:12] states: "You shall eat it64 as unleavened bread near the altar."65 This also applies to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity; they should not be eaten in Jerusalem while the altar is damaged until it is repaired.

‫וכן אין אוכלין קדשים והמזבח‬ ‫פגום שנאמר ואכלוה מצות אצל‬ ‫המזבח והוא הדין לקדשים קלים שאין‬ ‫אוכלין אותן בירושלים והמזבח פגום עד‬ :‫שיבנה‬

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4

FOOTNOTES 1. As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2, sacrifices of the most sacred order must be sacrificed in the northern

4. Peace-offerings are sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity which may be sacrificed anywhere in the Temple Courtyard

portion of the Temple Courtyard. Now, the altar is located in the southern portion. Nevertheless, based on the prooftext

(Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:4). Nevertheless, it is

the Rambam cites, Zevachim 85a derives that it is acceptable to slaughter these sacrificial animals on the top of

the altar, because one might think that since there is ample space to sacrifice them, they would have to be sacrificed on

the altar.

the ground (Zevachim, loc. cit.; Gittin 67a).

2. The altar. 3. Since it is acceptable for burnt-offerings, our Sages assumed that it was also acceptable for other sacrifices of the most-sacred order.

necessary to state that they may be sacrificed on the top of

5. For it is not respectful to clean out the wastes on the top of the altar. 6. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:19. 7. This refers to an entity like the carcass of a sacrifice which in its present state is not fit to be offered on the altar, but is not lacking any great tasks like slaughter. 8. This general principle (stated in Zevachim 9:1) is the subject of discussion in the following halachot. 9. But only an article that is fit to be consumed by the fires.

10

10. Unless a meal offering is consecrated in a sacred vessel, it is unacceptable. 11. Animals forbidden to be sacrificed, e.g., one that was worshipped, one that is treifah, or one which killed a person or the like. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:11.

24. For the handful of meal is considered as an integral entity. 25. I.e., they are disqualified. Nevertheless, they should be offered on the altar's pyre, because they are on the top of the altar. 26. Thus even if the disqualified sacrificial entities were not

The commentaries question why the Rambam does not mention animals with disqualifying physical blemishes. In his

placed down on the altar, but held by a person standing on the altar, the above concepts apply (see Zevachim 88a). Rav

Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:3) he rules that even if they were brought to the top of the altar, they should

Yosef Corcus notes that the Talmud mentions also a situation where a person is standing in the Temple Courtyard

be brought down. And if the Rambam changed his mind, it would have been appropriate to say so explicitly.

and holds a disqualified sacrificial entity over the altar with a pole. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the Talmud

Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that such animals are also included in the general category of "entities forbidden to

does not reach a final decision whether such an entity should be offered on the altar's pyre or not, because of the

be offered on the altar," as stated in Hilchot Issurei

doubt, they should not be taken down from above the altar.

Mizbeiach, loc. cit.. 12. The leniency that every entity brought up to the altar should

27. Certainly, this applies to the fats and the organs of sacrifices of the most sacred order (Kessef Mishneh).

be offered upon it applies only to entities that were disqualified after having been fit to be offered upon it. As our

28. Instead of afterwards, as required.

Sages taught (Zevachim 84a; see Halachah 8) whenever an

29. Or two sin-offerings (Kessef Mishneh).

entity was disqualified in the Temple, if it was brought to the

30. I.e., if one was lost, the other would be sacrificed (Rashi, Meilah 7a).

top of the altar, it should be offered. In this instance, these substances were never fit to be offered on the altar's pyre. 13. This addition is obvious from a comparison to the following halachah.

31. The blood of the second animal should be cast on the altar and then its fats and organs offered. Since two animals were

14. Even though it was disqualified in the Temple, nevertheless,

slaughtered and one offering can be carried out in a perfectly desirable manner, that is preferable to performing the

it was disqualified before the time its meat and/or fats and organs were to be offered on the altar's pyre (see Zevachim

offering in a manner that is effective only after the fact. Since the second animal will be offered in an effective manner, the

84a,b).

blood of the first should not be cast on the altar. And since its blood should not be cast on the altar, the fat and the organs

15. Once blood is left past sunset, it is disqualified (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:1) and if the meat of a burnt-offering is left overnight, it is disqualified (ibid.:2). Nevertheless, since the meat of a peace-offering is acceptable if left overnight, this is not a serious enough disqualifying factor to prevent these entities from being offered on the altar's pyre (Kessef Mishneh). 16. See Chapters 13-18 with regard to these factors. 17. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10-12. 18. In which instance, after the fact, in many instances, the sacrifice is acceptable, as stated in Chapter 2. 19. Rather than in the north as required (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2). 20. Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary, Zevachim 84a. 21. After the fact, as stated above. 22. See Chapter 18, Halachah 21, where the Rambam speaks of the fire taking hold of the majority of the entity. Seemingly, that concept would apply here as well. 23. See Chapter 13, Halachah 1, for a definition of this term.

should not be offered on the altar's pyre (ibid.). 32. This clause is speaking about wine libations that were brought as accompanying offerings for a sacrifice. 33. This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in Zevachim 9:1, who maintains that for a disqualified entity to be offered on the altar, it must be fit for the altar's pyre and wine libations are poured over the altar and not on its pyre. 34. The rationale is that in the era when sacrifices could be brought on individual altars (see the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:1), it was possible for a non-priest to perform melikah on a fowl that was offered on a sacrifice. Hence, even after the Temple was built, when a non-priest performs melikah on a fowl, that act is significant enough to endow with holiness to the extent that if the fowl is brought to the top of the altar, it should be offered on the pyre (Zevachim 69a).

11

35. One might ask: Why isn't the handful of meal acceptable? When offerings were brought on an individual altar, a handful

50. Hilchot K'lei Hamikdash 1:16-17. The rationale is that these

of meal could also be separated by a non-priest. In resolution, however, it is explained that in the Temple, the

only for measuring the particular types of substances liquids or solids - intended for them.

handful of meal was afterwards placed in a sacred utensil (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:12) and then offered on the

51. The receptacles used to receive the blood from the sacrificial

altar and such service was not performed by a non-priest on an individual altar (Zevachim, loc. cit.).

52. Since they were anointed to serve as receptacles, they

36. E.g., a priest with a disqualifying physical deformity; one who is intoxicated; one in the state of severe onein mourning (see Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah). 37. I.e., halachically not fit to be offered, but either eaten, offered on the inner altar, or discarded. 38. The meat of these sacrifices should not be offered on the altar, but rather eaten by the priests and, with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, the owners. 39. After a handful of meal is taken from the omer and the meal-offerings, the remainder should not be offered on the altar, but eaten by the priests. 40. These breads are eaten by the priests. 41. This is not fit to be offered on the pyre of the outer altar, but instead, on coals on the inner altar. 42. Once these entities are separated from an animal's body, they should be discarded rather than offered on the altar's pyre. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:2. 43. The Rambam's ruling is derived from the version of Menachot 23a in his possession. Ra'avad, Rashi, as well as the standard published text of that passage follow a different version which reads eitzim, wood, rather than etzem,, bone. 44. The oil is the entity that should be returned to the altar and

vessels were anointed only for the sake of measuring and

animal and then cast it on the altar. consecrate anything placed inside of them. 53. If, by contrast, an entity is placed within a sacred vessel outside the Temple Courtyard, it is not consecrated. 54. And not something that fell in accidentally. 55. If, however, solids are piled up over the edges of a sacred container, they are not consecrated. Note the apparent contrast to Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:19 which states that liquid measures consecrate the overflow that drips down their sides. 56. I.e., the hole prevents them from being used as a container. 57. I.e., if they remained overnight or were taken out of the Temple Courtyard. 58. This refers to offerings of flour and the like. As mentioned in the previous halachah, blood that is placed in such utensils is sanctified to be offered on the altar. 59. I.e., placing it in the sacred utensil is significant - for if it was not significant, it would not have been disqualified, and would have been able to be used on the following day. 60. As are sacred entities which became disqualified. 61. The square of the altar must be totally intact, even a slight chip disqualifies it, as stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:14-16; 2:18.

the bone is the entity attached to it (Rav Yosef Corcus). Although on its own accord, the bone should not be returned

62. Even if the altar is repaired before sunset, the blood of these sacrifices should not be cast upon it. Since at the outset, the

to the altar as stated in the previous halachah, since it is attached to the oil, it should be returned, lest this be

altar was fit to have their blood cast upon it and then there was a time when that service could not be performed, the

considered as treating sacred articles with disdain (Kessef

blood is disqualified forever.

Mishneh). 45. The inner altar has an added measure of holiness, because it was anointed and thus is comparable to a sacred vessel (Rashi, Zevachim 23b). 46. See Halachah 16. 47. This includes all incense offerings, because no incense offerings are ever offered on the outer altar. 48. Instead, it should be offered on the altar's pyre. 49. Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:4-5.

63. This is a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Chapter 4, Halachah 24; Chapter 6, Halachah 1; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4; et al. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot

Avodat

Yom

HaKippurim 4:15, this represents a reversal of the Rambam's initial position on the matter. 64. The meal-offering brought as part of the dedication of the altar. As the verse states, it was considered as a sacrifice of the most holy order. 65. Zevachim 60a explains that there is no obligation to eat sacrificial food near the altar. Rather the intent is as explained here.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

12

policy .

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5

[All of the following:] a) the offspring of [an animal designated as] a sin-offering, b) an animal exchanged for [an animal designated as] a sin-offering, c)[an animal designated as] a sin-offering whose owner dies, and d) such animal that was lost and then found only after the owner secured atonement,1 should be consigned to die. [In the latter instance, if the first animal designated as a sin-offering] was found after the second that was set aside was slaughtered, but before its blood was presented on the altar, there is an unresolved doubt2 if it should be consigned to death or left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.3 Therefore4 it should be consigned to death. What is meant by being consigned to death? Not that one should kill them with a utensil or by hand. Instead, they should be brought into a room, locked inside, [and left] until they die. All of these matters were conveyed by Moses our teacher. All of the above applies only to a sin-offering designated by an individual. [An animal designated as] a communal sin-offering, by contrast, which was lost and then discovered after atonement was secured whether it is fit [to be offered as a sacrifice] or unfit5should be left to be pasture until it contracts a blemish and then sold.6 The proceeds should be used for freewill offerings.7 With regard to communal sin-offerings, it is impossible to speak of offspring, exchanges, or the owners dying, because all of the communal offerings are male.8 The 2

‫ולד חטאת ותמורת חטאת וחטאת‬ ‫שמתו בעליה וחטאת שאבדה‬ ‫ונמצאת אחר שכיפרו הבעלים הרי אלו‬ ‫ימותו נמצאת אחר שנשחטה החטאת‬ ‫השניה שהפריש קודם שיזרק דמה הרי זו‬ ‫ספק אם תמות אם תרעה עד שיפול בה‬ ‫מום לפיכך תמות וכיצד הן מתות לא‬ ‫שיהרגם בכלי או בידו אלא יכניסם לבית‬ ‫ונועל עליהם עד שימותו ודברים אלו כולם‬ ‫מפי משה רבינו נשמעו אין כל הדברים‬ ‫אמורים אלא בחטאת יחיד בלבד אבל‬ ‫חטאת צבור שאבדה ונמצאת אחר כפרה‬ ‫בין ראויה בין אינה ראויה תרעה עד‬ ‫שיפול בה מום ותמכר ויפלו דמיה לנדבה‬ ‫ואין אתה יכול לומר בחטאת צבור ולד או‬ ‫תמורה או שמתו בעליה שכל קרבנות‬ ‫הצבור זכרים ואין הצבור עושין תמורה‬ :‫כמו שיתבאר ואין כל ישראל מתים‬

When the bull11 and/or the goat12 of Yom Kippur were lost, other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found], they should be left to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. [Then] they should be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings.13 [The rationale is that] a communal sin-offering is never consigned to death. [This same law applies when] the goats sacrificed as [atonement for the worship of] false divinities14 are lost other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found]. Why are [the animals that were lost and then discovered] themselves not offered as freewill offerings, for they are male? This is a decree, forbidding [offering them] after atonement was achieved, [lest they be offered as freewill offerings] before atonement [was achieved].15

3

‫פר ושעיר של יום הכפורים שאבדו‬ ‫והפריש אחרים תחתיהן וכן שעירי‬ ‫ע"ז שאבדו והפריש אחרים תחתיהן ירעו‬ ‫עד שיפול בהן מום וימכרו ויפלו דמיהן‬ ‫לנדבה שאין חטאת הצבור מתה ולמה לא‬ ‫יקרבו עצמן נדבה שהרי זכרים הם גזרה‬ :‫לאחר כפרה משום לפני כפרה‬

4

[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it, then the first one was found, and they both stood [before him]. If he took one of them and attained atonement through its [sacrifice], the other should be consigned to death.16 If he asks the advice [of the court],17 he is told to gain atonement through the one set aside first. The second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering.18 If one of them was unblemished and the other had a disqualifying physical blemish, the unblemished one should be sacrificed and the blemished one should be redeemed.19If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar],20 it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one].21 If they were both blemished, they should both be sold, a sin-offering should be purchased from the proceeds, and the remainder used for freewill offerings.22 [The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it and it was [also] lost, and he designated a third. Afterwards, the lost ones were found, and all three stood [before him]. If he received atonement through the first animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the third left to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish].23 If he received atonement through the third animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the first left to pasture.24 If he received atonement through the second animal [that was set aside], the first and the third should be consigned to death.25

‫המפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש‬ ‫אחרת תחתיה ונמצאת הראשונה‬ ‫והרי שתיהם עומדות משך אחת משתיהן‬ ‫ונתכפר בה האחרת תמות בא להמלך‬ ‫אומרין לו שיתכפר בזו שהפריש‬ ‫בראשונה והשניה תרעה עד שיפול בה‬ ‫מום ויפלו דמיה לנדבה היתה אחת מהן‬ ‫תמימה ואחת בעלת מום תמימה תקרב‬ ‫ובעלת מום תפדה נשחטה בעלת מום‬ ‫קודם שיזרק דם התמימה הרי זו אסורה‬ ‫בהנאה היו שתיהן בעלי מומין ימכרו‬ ‫שתיהן ויביא מדמיהם חטאת והשאר יפול‬ :‫לנדבה‬

‫הפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש‬ ‫אחרת תחתיה ואבדה והפריש אחרת‬ ‫ונמצאו האובדות והרי שלשתן עומדות‬ ‫ונתכפר בראשונה שנייה מתה ושלישית‬ ‫רועה נתכפר בשלישית שנייה מתה‬ ‫וראשונה רועה נתכפר באמצעית שתיהם‬ :‫מתות‬

5

When a person sets aside two [animals for] a sin-offering for surety,26 he may gain atonement through which one he desires, the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.

‫המפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות‬ ‫מתכפר באי זו שירצה והשנייה‬ ‫תרעה עד שיפול בה מום ויפלו דמיה‬ :‫לנדבה‬

When a person sets aside [an animal that] is pregnant as a sin-offering and it gives birth, it and its offspring are considered as two animals set aside for a sin-offering and as surety for it.27

‫הפריש חטאת מעוברת וילדה הרי היא‬ ‫וולדה כשתי חטאות שנתפרשו‬ :‫לאחריות‬

If one set aside a sin-offering and then its year passed,28 it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place. Similarly, if [an animal] was set aside as a sin-offering and it contracted a disqualifying blemish, [it should be sold and] the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place.

‫המפריש חטאתו ועברה שנתה תרעה‬ ‫עד שיפול בה מום ותמכר ויביא‬ ‫בדמיה אחרת וכן אם הפריש חטאתו ונפל‬ :‫בה מום יביא בדמיה אחרת‬

Whenever [an animal designated as] a sin-offering was lost and then discovered before [the owner] achieved atonement,29 - even though when it was discovered it was blemished or its year had passed30 it is not consigned to death.31 Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.

‫כל חטאת שאבדה ונמצאת קודם‬ ‫כפרה )אע"פ שנמצאת בעלת מום‬ ‫או שנמצאת אחר שעברה שנתה( אינה‬ ‫מתה אלא תרעה עד שיפול בה מום ויפלו‬ ‫דמיה לנדבה נמצאת אחר כפרה אף על פי‬ ‫שנמצאת בעלת מום או עברה שנתה‬ ‫הואיל והיתה אבודה בשעת כפרה הרי זו‬ :‫תמות‬

If it was found after [the owner] achieved atonement, even if it was discovered when it was blemished or its year had passed,32 since it was lost at the time atonement was achieved, it is consigned to death.

If [the animal] was stolen or robbed at the time atonement was achieved and afterwards returned, it is not consigned to death. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished], for all we heard from Moses our teacher was that [an animal] that was lost [should be consigned to death].33

‫היתה גנובה או גזולה בשעת כפרה‬ ‫ואח"כ חזרה אינה מתה אלא תרעה‬ ‫לא שמעו ממשה רבינו אלא אבודה היתה‬ ‫עיקר אבידתה בלילה אע"פ שהיתה‬ ‫אבודה בשעת כפרה אינה מתה אלא‬ :‫תרעה‬

If it first34 was lost at night, even though it remained lost at the time atonement was achieved, it is not consigned to death.35 Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished].

6

If [the owner] considered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] lost, but the shepherd did not or the shepherd considered it lost, but the owner did not, it is not consigned to death [if it is discovered after another animal was offered in place of it].36 Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished].

‫אבדה ממנו ולא מן הרועה או שאבדה‬ ‫מן הרועה ואינה אבודה מבעליה אינה‬ :‫מתה אלא רועה‬

All of those [animals mentioned in the above laws] that are allowed to pasture, may pasture until they contract a blemish. [Then they are sold and] the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering.

‫וכל אלו שרועות רועות עד שיפול‬ :‫בהן מום ויפלו דמיהן לנדבה‬

If [the animal] was considered lost by both [the owner] and the shepherd, but another person even in a far corner of the world - knows of its existence, there is an unresolved doubt whether it should be consigned to death.37 Therefore it should be consigned to death.38

‫היתה אבודה ממנו ומן הרועה‬ ‫ואחד מכירה אפילו בסוף העולם‬ :‫הרי זו ספק לפיכך תמות‬

7

[If the animal designated as a sin-offering] was hiding behind a door or behind a stairwell, it is considered as lost, for no one will see it at the time atonement is gained. If it is in a field or in a swamp, there is a doubt whether it is lost, for perhaps there is a person who saw it at the time atonement is achieved. Therefore it is consigned to death because of the doubt.

‫היתה נחבאת אחורי הדלת או‬ ‫בסתר המדרגה הרי זו אבודה שהרי‬ ‫אין אדם רואה אותה בשעת כפרה היתה‬ ‫בשדה או באגם הרי זו ספק אבודה שמא‬ ‫יש שם אדם רואה אותה בשעת כפרה‬ :‫לפיכך תמות מספק‬

When a person sends [an animal designated as] a sin-offering from a distant country, we sacrifice it under the assumption that he is alive.

‫השולח חטאתו ממדינת הים‬ ‫מקריבין אותה בחזקת שהוא קיים‬ ‫במה דברים אמורים בחטאת העוף או‬ ‫בחטאת בהמה של אשה שאינה בת‬ ‫סמיכה כמו שביארנו אבל אשם ודאי‬ ‫שמתו בעליו ושכפרו בעליו ירעה עד‬ ‫שיפול בו מום וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה‬ ‫שכל שבחטאת תמות באשם ירעה עד‬ :‫שיפול בו מום ויפלו דמיו לנדבה‬

When does the above apply? With regard to a sin-offering of a fowl or a sin-offering of an animal for a woman who does not perform semichah, as we explained.39 [Different rules apply with regard to an animal set aside as] an unconditional guilt-offering.40 [If] its owner died or received atonement,41 it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering. Whenever it is deemed that [an animal designated as] a sin-offering should be consigned to death, [one designated as] a guilt-offering should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering. [If] any [animal set aside as] a guilt-offering that is consigned to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish] is sacrificed as a burnt offering itself,42 it is acceptable. Why is it not the initial preference to offer it as a burnt-offering? [This is] a decree, [using such an animal for a burnt-offering] after [its owner] gained atonement [is forbidden] lest [such an animal be used for a burnt-offering] before [the owner] gained atonement.43

‫כל אשם שניתק לרעייה אם‬ ‫הקריבו עולה כשר ולמה לא יקרב‬ ‫בעצמו עולה לכתחילה גזירה לאחר כפרה‬ :‫משום לפני כפרה‬

8

When a person sets aside a female [animal] for a guilt-offering in which he [is obligated], it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.44 [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a guilt-offering.45 If his guilt-offering was offered, the proceeds from the sale should be used to purchase a freewill offering. This also applies to her offspring.46

‫המפריש נקבה לאשמו תרעה עד‬ ‫שיפול בה מום ותמכר ויביא‬ ‫בדמיה אשם אם הקריב אשמו יפלו דמיה‬ :‫לנדבה וכן ולדה‬

When a person sets aside a female [animal] for a burnt-offering47 in which he [is obligated] and she gives birth to a male, [the offspring] should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a burnt-offering.48

‫הפריש נקבה לעולתו וילדה זכר‬ ‫ירעה עד שיפול בו מום ויביא בדמיו‬ :‫עולה‬

If, however, an ordinary person49 set aside a male [animal] for a sin-offering,50 a king51 set aside a she-goat as a sin-offering,52 or an anointed priest set aside a cow,53 these are not consecrated [at all], their physical person is not consecrated,54 nor is their worth consecrated.55 Therefore they may be sold [even] when unblemished.56

‫אבל הדיוט שהפריש זכר לחטאת‬ ‫ונשיא שהפריש שעירה לחטאת‬ ‫וכהן משיח שהפריש פרה לחטאת הרי‬ ‫אלו אין מתקדשין לא קדושת הגוף ולא‬ :‫קדושת דמים לפיכך ימכרו שלא במום‬

9

[The following laws apply when a person] brought a conditional guilt-offering57 and then discovered that he did not sin58 or that he definitely sinned.59 [Should he become aware of this] before the animal was slaughtered, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.60 [The rationale61 is that] a person's heart feels contrite because of his sins. Since he designated [the animal as a sacrifice] because of a doubt, [we assume that] he resolved to consecrate it [regardless]. If he designated [an animal as a conditional guilt-offering] even because of witnesses62 and the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah,63 [the above ruling applies and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.

‫הביא אשם תלוי ונודע לו שלא‬ ‫חטא או שחטא ודאי אם עד שלא‬ ‫נשחט ירעה עד שיפול בו מום ויפלו דמיו‬ ‫לנדבה מפני שלבו של אדם דוה על‬ ‫עונותיו והואיל ועל ספק הפרישו גמר‬ ‫בלבו להקדיש הפריש אפילו ע"פ עדים‬ ‫והוזמו יפלו דמיו לנדבה ואם אחר שנשחט‬ ‫נודע לו הדם ישפך והבשר ישרף כשאר‬ ‫פסולי המוקדשין נודע לו אחר שנזרק‬ :‫הדם הבשר יאכל לכהנים ככל האשמות‬

If this was discovered after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be poured out64 and the meat burnt as prescribed with regard to other sacrifices that were disqualified.65 If this was discovered after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be eaten by the priests like that of other guilt-offerings.66 [This law] does not apply with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering. [In that instance,] if the person became aware that he did not sin before [the animal designated as a sacrifice was slaughtered], it should be allowed to go out and pasture among the flock like an ordinary animal.67 There is no holiness associated with it at all. If [he became aware of his innocence] after [the animal] was slaughtered, it should be buried.68 If [he became aware] after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be taken to the place where [invalid sacrifices] are burnt like other sacrifices that were disqualified.69

‫אשם ודאי אינו כן אם עד שלא‬ ‫נשחט נודע לו שלא חטא יצא וירעה‬ ‫בעדר כשאר החולין ואין בו קדושה כלל‬ ‫ואם משנשחט הרי זה יקבר ואם משנזרק‬ ‫הדם הבשר יצא לבית השריפה כשאר‬ :‫פסולי המוקדשין‬

10

When a person became liable to offer a conditional guilt-offering and he set aside two [animals] as surety,70 he should gain atonement through one of them and the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.71 [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering.72 Needless to say,73 this law applies with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering.

‫מי שנתחייב באשם תלוי‬ ‫והפריש שנים לאחריות מתכפר‬ ‫באחד והשני ירעה עד שיפול בו מום ויפלו‬ ‫דמיו לנדבה ואין צריך לומר באשם ודאי‬ :‫שהוא כן‬

All of the guilt-offerings mentioned in the Torah should be brought when they are in their second year of life74 and their price should be [two] silver shekalim75 with the exception of the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at76 and the guilt

‫כל האשמות שבתורה באין בני‬ ‫שתים ובאים בכסף שקלים חוץ‬ ‫מאשם מצורע ואשם נזיר שהם בני שנה‬ ‫ואין לדמיהם קצבה אשם תלוי בא מן‬ ‫הקטנים או מן הגדולים ומפי השמועה‬ :‫למדו שאינו בא אלא בכסף שקלים‬

offering brought by a nazirite77 which should be brought in their first year of life78 and their cost has no limit. A conditional guilt-offering comes from both young lambs and elder ones.79 According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that it be brought only from [two] silver shekalim. If the price of rams decrease and a ram cannot be found for two silver selaim, the person has no means of correcting [his circumstance].80 He must wait until their price inflates and then bring one for two selaim, for the Torah was precise about their price and gave it an explicit limit.

‫הוזלו אילים ולא ימצא איל בשתי‬ ‫סלעים אין לו תקנה אלא ישהא‬ ‫עד שיוקרו ויביא בשתי סלעים שהרי‬ :‫הקפידה תורה על דמיו ונתנו לו קצבה‬

If a person set aside an animal as a guilt offering which was worth [only] one sela at the time it was set aside, but its worth appreciated to two at the time of atonement,81 it is acceptable. For the fact that it was initially unacceptable does not make it permanently disqualified, since it was not fit to be sacrificed until it was worth two [selaim]. Even though it increased in value on its own,82 a person can gain atonement through the increase in value of consecrated property.83

‫הפריש אשמו והיה בשעת‬ ‫הפרשה יפה סלע ובשעת כפרה‬ ‫יפה שתים כשר שהדחוי מעיקרו אינו‬ ‫דחוי ועדיין לא נראה עד שנעשה שוה‬ ‫שתים ואף על פי שהשביח מאליו אדם‬ ‫מתכפר בשבח הקדש היה בשעת הפרשה‬ ‫יפה שתים ובשעת כפרה יפה סלע הרי זה‬ ‫פסול חזר ונעשה יפה שתים יחזור‬ ‫לכשרותו שאין בעלי חיים נדחין כמו‬ ‫שביארנו למה הדבר דומה למום שנפל‬ :‫ועבר‬

If it was worth two selaim at the time it was set aside, but its worth depreciated to one at the time of atonement, it is unacceptable.84 If its value later appreciated to two, it becomes acceptable again. For living animals are never permanently disqualified, as we explained.85 To what can the matter be likened? To a physical blemish that was contracted, but which disappeared. [The following rule applies when a person] set aside two selaim for a guilt-offering and purchased two rams for a guilt-offering with them. If one of them was worth two selaim, he should offer it as his guilt-offering86 and the other should be left to be pasture until it contracts a blemish [and then sold]. The proceeds should be used for a freewill offering.87

11

‫הפריש שתי סלעים לאשם ולקח‬ ‫בהם שני אילים לאשם אם היה‬ ‫אחד מהן יפה שתי סלעים יקרב לאשמו‬ ‫והשני ירעה עד שיפול בו מום ויפלו דמיו‬ :‫לנדבה‬

12

If a person was obligated to bring a guilt-offering that was a year old,88 and instead, brought one that was two years old,89 brought one that was a year old when he was obligated to bring one that was two years old, or brought one when the time for him to bring it had not come,90 it is unacceptable. It should be [left] until the next day91 and then it should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.

‫היה חייב באשם בן שנה והביא בן‬ ‫שתים או בבן שתים והביא בן שנה‬ ‫או ששחטו מחוסר זמן בבעלים פסול‬ ‫ותעובר צורתו ויצא לבית השריפה זה‬ ‫הכלל כל הפסול בחטאת פסול באשם חוץ‬ ‫מן האשם ששחטו שלא לשמו שהוא כשר‬ :‫כמו שיתבאר‬

This is the general principle: Any factor that disqualifies a sin-offering disqualifies a guilt-offering except a guiltoffering that was slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice, which is acceptable, as will be explained.92 When a burnt-offering that must be brought by a nazirite,93 a woman who gives birth,94 or a person who is being purified after tza'arat,95 was slaughtered when it was more than twelve months old or the time for the owner to bring it had not come,96 it is acceptable97 and its accompanying offerings are required to be brought.

‫עולת נזיר עולת יולדת עולת‬ ‫מצורע ששחטן בני שנים עשר‬ ‫חדש ויום אחד או מחוסרי זמן בבעלים‬ ‫כשרים וטעונין נסכים זה הכלל כל שאינו‬ ‫פוסל בעולת נדבה אינו פוסל בעולת חובה‬ :‫בין עלתה לבעלים בין שלא עלתה להם‬

This is the general principle: Any factor that does not disqualify a burnt offering brought willingly does not disqualify a burnt-offering that is obligatory regardless of whether the one bringing it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation or not.

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3 FOOTNOTES

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5

13

1. Through offering a different animal as a sin-offering. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam mentions several conditions when an animal is consigned to death in such a situation. They are listed in Halachot 9-13. 2. The doubt arises because the person does not secure

15. For as stated in the following halachah, it is preferable that the animals originally set aside as sin-offerings be offered for that purpose instead of their replacements. 16. Since he took one without questioning what should be done with the second, it is obvious that he consciously rejected

3. When an animal has been consecrated, but is unfit to be

the second one and is not concerned with its future. Hence it should be consigned to death (Rashi, Temurah 23a).

sacrificed for various reasons, it must be redeemed before being used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it may not

This ruling reflects a reversal in the Rambam's thinking. Originally [i.e., in the first version of his Commentary to the

be redeemed until it becomes disqualified as a sacrifice through contracting a physical blemish. Therefore it is left to

Abba who made his statements in the name of Rav.

pasture until it contracts such a blemish. During that time, it is still consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it.

According to that view, if he sacrificed the animal that was set aside originally, the second animal that was set aside

4. For if it is to be consigned to death, it would be forbidden to

need not be consigned to death. He later changed his mind (see Rav Kapach's version of the Commentary to the

atonement until the blood is presented.

benefit from it. Since there is a possibility that it is forbidden in this manner, it is not redeemed. 5. It became blemished or its age increased beyond that which is appropriate. 6. When an animal has been consecrated, but is unfit to be sacrificed for various reasons, it must be redeemed before being used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it may not be redeemed until it becomes disqualified as a sacrifice through contracting a physical blemish. Therefore it is left to pasture until it contracts such a blemish. During that time, it is still consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it. 7. I.e., the money is used to buy animals that are offered as burnt-offerings at a time when the altar is free [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4)]. 8. Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15. Since they are male, there are no offspring. 9. Hilchot Temurah 1:1. 10. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 2:2), the Rambam cites Bava Batra 115b which states that an entire tribe will not die and states that how much more so does this apply to the entire Jewish people. 11. Sacrificed by the High Priest as atonement for his household and for the entire priestly family. Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1 12. The pair of the goat sent to Azazel. This goat is offered as a sin-offering, for the entire Jewish people (ibid.). 13. The wording used by the Rambam literally means "the proceeds should fall to a freewill offering." In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 3:3, Rav Kapach's edition), the Rambam explains the meaning of that phrase. There were thirteen chests shaped like shofarot in the Temple. Six of

Mishnah (Temurah 4:3)], he accepted the opinion of Rav

Mishnah; see also the gloss of Tosafot Yom Tov to Temurah, loc. cit.) and amended his text to read as above. 17. And thus shows that he is concerned about the fate of the other animal. Accordingly, it is not consigned to death. 18. See Chapter 5, Halachah 9. 19. And the proceeds used for freewill offerings as above. 20. The act that brings about atonement. 21. This follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezar ben Shimon (Temurah 24a) who maintains that once the owner receives atonement, it becomes forbidden to benefit from the second animal even if the second animal was already slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is unlikely the Rambam accepted this view when it is opposed by the majority of the Sages. Hence he suggests amending the text to read: "If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar], it is permitted. [If it was slaughtered] after [the blood of the first] was cast upon the altar, it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one]." 22. See Chapter 5, Halachah 3. 23. Since the third animal does not have a direct connection with the first, the fact that the owner received atonement through the sacrifice of the first does not cause the third to be consigned to death. 24. For the same reason as stated in the previous note. 25. For both of these share a direct connection with the second. 26. So that if one is lost or becomes unacceptable, he will be able to offer the other one. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this is speaking about a situation when the person says: "One of these two should be consecrated as a sin-offering."

them were for money to be used for freewill offerings (see

27. And he can offer either as a sacrifice.

Hilchot Shekalim 2:2). The money from such a sale would

28. A lamb is not fit to be brought as a sin-offering if it is more than one year old.

be deposited in one of these chests. 14. See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1.

29. Through the offering of another sacrifice.

14

30. And thus when it was discovered, it was no longer fit to be offered as a sacrifice. The Kessef Mishneh suggests that this clause is a printing error, because according to the Rambam's logic, the term "even though" is inappropriate. 31. According to the Rambam (see his Commentary to the

45. For it was consecrated for that purpose. 46. If the female set aside as a guilt-offering became pregnant, its offspring (even if male) should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and then sold and the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering. The rationale

the animal was discovered before atonement is achieved or

is that the consecrated status of the offspring stems from the mother. Since the mother was not fit to be offered as a guilt-

not. Only when it is lost at the time of atonement is it consigned to death.

offering, the offspring also should not be used for that purpose.

32. In which instance, there is room to say that it should not be consigned to death, because perhaps it was already

47. All animals offered as burnt-offerings are male (Hilchot

Mishnah (Temurah 4:1-2), the determining factor is whether

disqualified as a sacrifice at the time the other animal was offered. Even in such a situation, however, it is consigned to death. 33. As mentioned in Halachah 1, the laws applying to the consignment of an animal designated as a sin-offering to death are part of the Oral Tradition conveyed to Moses at Sinai. And all that was mentioned in that tradition was an animal that was lost. 34. Temurah 22b explains that this is the meaning of ikar in this instance.

Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8). Hence the animal could never be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated. 48. The offspring itself should not be offered for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah. 49. In contrast to a king or a High Priest. 50. All the sin-offerings brought by an ordinary person are female (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15). 51. This is the interpretation of the term nasi used by the Rambam (see Hilchot Shegagot 15:6). 52. Instead of a he-goat as required.

35. Because at the time it was lost, it was not fit to be sacrificed, since sacrifices are not offered at night.

53. Instead of a bull as required.

36. As long as one - the owner or the shepherd - knows of the

55. In which instance, they would have to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice.

animal's existence, it cannot truly be considered as lost.

54. So that they would be sacrificed for the stated purpose.

37. Temurah 22b leaves this question unresolved. Significantly,

56. The rationale is that, as stated in Hilchot Temurah 1:21,

in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam writes that as long as one person knows of the

when an error was made in consecrating an animal as a sin-offering, it is not consecrated at all. The Ra'avad objects

animal's existence, it is not consigned to death.

to this ruling based on Temurah 19b-20a, but states that

38. As stated in Halachah 1. 39. Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5. A sin-offering for a man, by contrast, should not be brought unless he is present to perform semichah upon it. Although, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable if semichah is not performed, as an initial preference, one should not offer it unless that rite could be performed. 40. The situations under which a person is required to bring such a sacrifice are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:6. 41. Through the sacrifice of another animal. 42. I.e., if instead of being left to pasture, the animal was itself offered as a burnt-offering. 43. For if it was discovered before the owner gained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, the initial preference would be to sacrifice it. 44. All guilt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10). Hence the animal cannot be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated.

there is a way to resolve the Rambam's perspective. The Kessef Mishneh recognizes the difficulty in the Rambam's ruling and also offers a possible resolution. 57. Which must be brought when he is in doubt of whether he inadvertently committed a sin that would make him liable for a sin-offering, 58. In which instance he would not have to bring a sacrifice at all. 59. In which instance, he would have to bring a sin-offering instead. 60. I.e., since it was consecrated, it should be used for the purchase of a sacrifice. It cannot, however, be sacrificed as a guilt-offering, because the person is not obligated to bring such a sacrifice. 61. I.e., since it was consecrated conditionally - i.e., because he might have sinned - when he discovers that he did not, there is room to say that the consecration is not binding. Indeed, Keritot 23b mentions an opinion to that effect. The Rambam does not, however, accept this view for the reasons stated.

15

62. I.e., he had no suspicions that he sinned, but witnesses told him that he performed an action that could have involved a transgression, e.g., he ate a piece of meat that could possible have contained an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat.

78. As specifically stated in the Torah. 79. This rendering of the text is found in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah and in many reliable manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah. It is also cited by the Kessef Mishneh. Others maintain that the proper version is found in

63. Hazamah refers to a situation in which other witnesses

the early printings of the Mishneh Torah which reads "It is

disqualify the witnesses who testified previously by stating

explicit that an unconditional guilt-offering is brought only

that it was impossible for their testimony to be true, for the witnesses were together with them in a different place at the

from elder ones." This version is supported by the Rambam's statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

time the transgression mentioned in their testimony was performed (Hilchot Edut 18:2).

Also, Leviticus 5:18 specifically states that a ram should be brought for this sacrifice.

Here, also, there is room to say that the person consecrated the animal in error. Nevertheless, the rationale given

80. He is obligated to bring a guilt-offering and, as the Rambam

previously applies in this instance as well. 64. In the drainage channel. 65. See Chapter 19, Halachah 1. 66. For the sacrifice was offered as prescribed, and from the outset, it was offered conditionally. 67. Since it was consecrated in error, the consecration is not binding at all. 68. I.e., it is governed by the laws pertaining to an ordinary

proceeds to state, he may not bring such an offering for less. 81. I.e., when it was sacrificed. 82. I.e., the market price of rams rose; it was not fattened to the extent that its value increased (Rav Yosef Corcus). 83. I.e., it had already been consecrated at the time its value increased. 84. For at the time it is to be sacrificed, it is not worth the required amount. 85. Chapter 3, Halachah 22; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4.

animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard. 86. Since it is of the required worth. 69. See Chapter 19, Halachah 1. 87. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam 70. I.e., if one will be lost, the other should be sacrificed in place of it.

explains that this follows the general principle that if there is

71. As stated in Halachah 5, with regard to a sin-offering.

any money that was set aside for the purchase of a guiltoffering remains after the purchase of that offering, it should

72. Since he set aside an extra animal because he wanted to be

be used for the purchase of freewill offerings.

certain that he would be able to offer a sacrifice as atonement for his sins, we assume that he desired to consecrate it under all circumstances. 73. The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam feels that an unconditional guilt-offering is a more obvious matter than a conditional guilt-offering.

88. I.e., he was purifying himself from tzara'at or atoning for becoming impure while a nazirite. 89. As is obligated for the other types of guilt-offerings. 90. E.g., a nazirite must wait seven days after becoming impure to offer his sacrifice and a person who was purified from tzara'at must wait eight days. If these individuals sought to

74. More precisely when they are at least thirteen months old.

offer these sacrifices before this time came, they are

75. As stated explicitly in Leviticus 5:15 with regard to the guilt

unaceeptable.

offering that atones for the misappropriation of consecrated property. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam explains the process of exegesis through which this requirement is extended to apply to the guilt-offerings that

91. We have translated the term used by the Rambam according to its halachic intent. The literal meaning is that it should be left long enough to decompose until it loses the appearance of meat. Our Sages (see Pesachim 34b, et al; Rashi,

atone for robbery and for relations with a maid-servant that was designated for another man.

Menachot 46b) understood that as being a twenty-four hour

76. A skin affliction similar, but not analogous to leprosy. The

92. Chapter 15, Halachah 1. A sin-offering, by contrast, is unacceptable if slaughtered with the intent that it was

obligation to bring a guilt-offering when one emerges from this impurity is stated in Leviticus 14:10-12. 77. When the nazirite becomes impure and shaves his head before beginning his nazirite vow again, he brings several sacrifices including a guilt-offering as stated in Numbers 6:12.

period.

another sacrifice. 93. When he completes his nazirite vow, as stated in Numbers 6:14; Hilchot Nizirut 8:1.

94. The obligation for a woman to bring a burnt-offering after childbirth is mentioned in Leviticus 12:6; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3.. 95. See Leviticus 14:10, 20; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, op.

96. See note 88 with regard to the nazirite and the person purified after tzara'at. A woman who gave birth must wait 40 or 80 days before bringing a sacrifice as explained in the passage from Leviticus. 97. I.e., the sacrifice is acceptable. The person bringing it,

cit.

however, has not satisfied his obligation and is required to bring another offering.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

16

policy .



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 6

When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering and dies, the money should be [thrown] to the Mediterranean Sea.1 Similarly, when a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, another sin-offering is offered in its place, and then the [initial] money is found after atonement was achieved, [the money should be thrown] to the Mediterranean Sea.2

‫המפריש מעות לחטאתו ומת ילכו‬ ‫המעות לים המלח וכן המפריש‬ ‫מעות לחטאתו ואבדו והקריב חטאת‬ ‫תחתיהן ונמצאו המעות אחר כפרה ילכו‬ :‫לים המלח‬

When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, and he set aside other money in its stead, but did not have the opportunity to purchase a sin-offering with the later funds before the first funds were found, he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds.3 The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.4

‫הפריש מעות לחטאתו ואבדו‬ ‫והפריש מעות אחרות תחתיהן ולא‬ ‫הספיק ליקח בהן חטאת עד שנמצאו‬ ‫מעות הראשונות יביא מאלו ואלו לחטאת‬ :‫והשאר יפלו לנדבה‬

When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, and he set aside [an animal] as a sin-offering in its stead, but before he sacrificed it, the [original] funds were found and the [animal was discovered] to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it should be sold and he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds.5 The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.

‫הפריש מעות לחטאתו ואבדו והפריש‬ ‫חטאת תחתיהן ולא הספיק להקריבה‬ ‫עד שנמצאו המעות והרי החטאת בעלת‬ ‫מום תמכר ויביא מאלו ואלו חטאת‬ :‫והשאר יפלו לנדבה‬

2

When a person set aside [an animal] as a sin-offering, it was lost, he set aside money in its stead, but was not able to purchase [an animal] as a sin-offering with it before the [first] animal was found, but it [was discovered] to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it should be sold and he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds. The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.

‫הפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש‬ ‫מעות תחתיה ולא הספיק ליקח בהם‬ ‫עד שנמצאת חטאתו והרי היא בעלת מום‬ ‫תמכר ויביא מאלו ואלו חטאת והשאר‬ :‫יפלו לנדבה‬

If he set aside two piles of money for surety [that he will be able to purchase a sin-offering], he should gain atonement with one of them6 and the other should be used for freewill offerings.7

‫הפריש שני צבורי מעות לאחריות‬ ‫מתכפר באחד מהם והשני יפול‬ :‫לנדבה‬

If he set aside [an animal for] a sin-offering or the money for a sin-offering, because he thought that he was obligated [to bring one] and then he discovered that he was not so obligated, [the animal or the money] is of ordinary status; it is not consecrated.8

‫המפריש חטאתו או דמי חטאתו‬ ‫וכסבור שהוא חייב ונמצא שאינו חייב‬ ‫הרי אלו חולין ולא נתקדשו הפריש שתים‬ ‫או דמי שתים וכסבור שהוא חייב שתים‬ ‫ונמצא שאינו חייב אלא אחת יביא אחת‬ :‫והשאר יפלו לנדבה‬

If he set aside two [animals for] sin-offerings or the money for two [animals] because he thought was obligated to bring both and then it was discovered that he was only liable to bring one, he should bring one as a sacrifice and the other should be used for freewill offerings.9 When he picks up coins in his hand or was in the process of collecting them and said: "I will bring my sin-offering from these," the remainder are not consecrated.10Similarly, it appears to me11 that an inference can be drawn [from this ruling] to [similar situations involving] other sacrifices and the remainder are not considered as consecrated.12

‫הלוקח מעות בידו או שהיה מלקט‬ ‫ואמר אלו אביא מהם חטאתי המותר‬ ‫חולין וכן יראה לי שהדבר קל וחומר‬ :‫בשאר הקרבנות שהמותר חולין‬

When a person sets aside money for a meal-offering of a sinner13 and brings a meal-offering from those funds, or he set aside a meal-offering itself, and [in either of the above instances, money] was left over, the remainder should be used to bring a freewill meal-offering.14 Any extra [meal15 left after] the tenth of the ephah that is brought by the High Priest as his chavitin offering16 should be left to rot.17 Similarly, the remainder [of meal left after preparing] the bread for a thanksgiving offering or the bread for a nazirite's offering18 should be left to rot.19 The remainder of money for wine libations should be used for freewill offerings.20 We have already explained in [Hilchot] Shekalim,21 that any money remaining from the half-shekalim are considered as ordinary funds.

3

‫המפריש מעות למנחת חוטא והביא‬ ‫מהם מנחתו או שהפריש מנחת‬ ‫חוטא והותירה המותר יביא מנחת נדבה‬ ‫אבל מותר עשירית האיפה של כהן גדול‬ ‫שהיא החביתין ירקב וכן מותר לחמי תודה‬ ‫ומותר לחמו של נזיר ירקבו ומותר דמי‬ ‫נסכיו יפלו לנדבה כבר ביארנו בשקלים‬ :‫שמותר השקלים חולין‬

[Any money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] pairs of doves for zavim, zavot or for women after childbirth,22 sin-offerings, or guilt-offerings should be used for freewill offerings. They should be offered as burnt-offerings, as explained.23 [Any money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] burnt-offerings should be used for burnt-offerings, [to purchase] peace-offerings, for peace-offerings, [to purchase] meal-offerings, for meal-offerings, [to purchase] a Paschal sacrifice, for peace-offerings,24 [to purchase] nazirite-offerings, for nazirite-offerings,25 [to purchase] the offerings for a particular nazirite, for [freewill] offerings to be brought by that nazirite.26 When does the ruling that [money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] a sin-offering should be used for freewill offerings apply? With regard to a fixed sin-offering. When, however, one was obligated to bring an adjustable guilt offering27 and set aside money for a sin-offering of an animal and became poor, he should bring a fowl instead.28 He may transfer the holiness from those funds to the fowl and benefit from them.29 Similarly, if he set aside money for a fowl and became poor, he should bring a [meal-offering] of a tenth of an ephah instead.30 He may transfer the holiness from those funds to [the meal] and benefit from them.

4

‫מותר קיני זבים קיני זבות קיני‬ ‫יולדות חטאות ואשמות מותריהם‬ ‫יפלו לנדבה ויקרבו עולות כמו שביארנו‬ ‫מותר עולה לעולה מותר שלמים לשלמים‬ ‫מותר מנחה למנחה מותר פסח לשלמים‬ ‫מותר נזירים לנזירים מותר נזיר לאותו נזיר‬ ‫במה דברים אמורים שמותר חטאת‬ ‫לנדבה בחטאת קבועה אבל מי שהוא חייב‬ ‫בקרבן עולה ויורד שהפריש מעות לחטאת‬ ‫בהמה והעני מביא תחתיהם עוף ומחללן‬ ‫על העוף ויהנה מהם וכן אם הפריש דמי‬ ‫העוף והעני מביא תחתיהם עשירית‬ :‫האיפה ויחלל המעות עליה ויהנה בהם‬

5

If a person set aside an animal [for an adjustable guilt-offering], it contracted a disqualifying physical blemish, [and he became poor],31 it may be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a fowl.32 If, however, he set aside a fowl [for such an offering], it was disqualified, [and he became poor], he may not sell it and bring a tenth of an ephah from the proceeds of the sale, for a fowl [that was consecrated] may not be redeemed, as stated in [Hilchot] Issurei HaMizbeiach.33

‫הפריש בהמה ונפל בו מום תמכר‬ ‫ויביא בדמיה עוף אבל אם הפריש עוף‬ ‫ונפסל לא יביא בדמיו עשירית האיפה‬ ‫שאין לעוף פדיון כמו שביארנו באיסורי‬ :‫המזבח‬

[The following rules apply to] all those obligated by the Torah34 to bring pairs of doves35 who set aside money for those doves. If they desired to use all the money for sin-offerings of fowl alone, they may.36 If they desire to use it for burnt-offerings of fowl, they may. Even if they had [originally] said: "This is the money for my sin-offering and this is the money for my burnt-offering," he may mix the money together and buy the two offerings together, or use the money solely for sin-offerings, or solely for burnt-offerings. [The rationale is that the identity of] pairs of doves is designated only when purchased by the owners or when offered by a priest.37

‫כל חייבי קינין שבתורה שהפרישו‬ ‫מעות לקיניהן רצה להביא בכל‬ ‫המעות חטאת העוף לבדה יביא רצה‬ ‫להביא בהן עולת העוף לבדה יביא אפילו‬ ‫אמר אלו דמי חטאתי ואלו דמי עולתי יש‬ ‫לו לערב המעות וליקח בהן כאחד חטאתו‬ ‫ועולתו או ליקח בכל חטאת או עולה שאין‬ ‫הקינין מתפרשות אלא בלקיחת הבעלים‬ :‫או בעשיית כהן‬

Therefore if one set aside money for a pair of doves without making a determination and died, all of the money that was undetermined should be used for freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it is all fit to used for a burnt-offering.38

‫לפיכך אם הפריש מעות לקינין‬ ‫סתם ומת יפלו כל אותן המעות‬ ‫הסתומין לנדבה שהרי כולן ראויין לבא‬ :‫עולה‬

6

[The following laws apply when someone] was obligated to bring a sin-offering and he said: "I pledge a burnt-offering," and set aside money saying: "This is for my obligation." If he desires, he may use them to bring an animal as a sin-offering or he may use them to bring an animal as a burnt-offering.39 If he died and left the money, it should be taken to the Mediterranean Sea.40

« Previous

‫מי שהיה מחוייב חטאת ואמר הרי‬ ‫עלי עולה והפריש מעות ואמר אלו‬ ‫לחובתי רצה להביא בהן חטאת בהמה‬ ‫יביא עולת בהמה יביא מת והניח המעות‬ :‫ילכו לים המלח‬

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 6

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4 FOOTNOTES 1. The ruling is comparable to that governing an animal set aside as a sin-offering whose owner died mentioned in

9. I.e., with regard to money, the money should be used to purchase freewill offerings. With regard to an animal, the

Chapter 4, Halachah 1. Since this money was set aside to be used for a sin-offering, it may not be used for any other

animal should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. It should then be sold and the

purpose. Hence, it should be cast in a place where no one will benefit from it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the

proceeds used for freewill offerings (Kessef Mishneh). Since

Mishnah (Temurah 4:2). Although the term Yam HaMelech is generally translated as "the Dead Sea," it literally means "the Salt Sea." In several places in his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, the Rambam interprets Mediterranean.

the

term

as

referring

to

the

he did not specify which of the animals should be associated with the particular sin and he is liable for one sin-offering, the remaining animal is not considered to have been consecrated in error (Rav Yosef Corcus). 10. Since he said, "from these," the implication is that all of the coins were not consecrated, only those necessary to purchase the animal for the sin-offering.

2. I.e., this ruling is comparable to that governing an animal set

11. This phrase introduces a conclusion drawn by the Rambam

aside as a sin-offering which was lost and the owner attained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, as stated

through logic that is not based on any explicit prior Rabbinic source. The rationale is that when bringing a sin-offering it is

in Chapter 4, op. cit.

likely that the person feels remorse and is willing to give more to attain atonement. Nevertheless, none of the extra

3. Since both sets of money were set aside for the purchase of a sin-offering, they should be used primarily for that purpose. It is preferable to purchase a more expensive animal for a sin-offering than to have more money left over to purchase burnt-offerings.

money is consecrated. It follows logically that this principle should also apply with regard to a freewill offering in which instance the donor may not be as powerfully motivated.

4. Since the money was not used as of yet and the person did

12. The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's conclusion with regard to sacrifices that one is obligated to bring, but differs with

not yet gain atonement, any funds that remain can be used for another purpose.

regard to burnt-offerings and peace-offerings that one gives of his own volition. In those instances, he maintains that the

5. For the same reasoning as in the previous halachah. 6. He should not, combine the two to purchase a single offering. 7. See Chapter 4, Halachah 5. 8. For the consecration was made in error and hence is not binding. See Chapter 4, Halachah 20.

extra money should be used for those sacrifices. The Kessef Mishneh, however, substantiates the Rambam's approach. 13. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:4; Hilchot Shegagot 10:4.

7

14. Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:5) which states that since we are speaking about what

29. Keritot 27b derives this law through a process of Biblical exegesis.

remains after bringing a sin-offering, it should be used to bring freewill burnt-offerings.

30. As obligated of a person who violated these sins but did not

15. I.e., in this and the following situations, the person required

31. The bracketed additions are based on Hilchot Shegagot

to bring a meal-offering brought more than the required amount. 16. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:2.

have the means to purchase doves as a sacrifice.

10:11. 32. Even though the animal had already been purchased for the sacrifice, since it was disqualified and his status changed, he

17. For the concept that the remainder of what was set aside should be used for burnt-offerings was stated with regard to

is allowed to use the proceeds from its sale to bring a lesser offering.

sin-offerings and not these types of sacrifices (Menachot

33. Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:4. This applies only to a fowl

108a). 18. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:5 which states that the bread are integral parts of these two types of offerings. 19. The rationale is that these breads are not considered as independent sacrifices, but as elements of the thanksgiving or nazirite offerings. Hence they were consecrated - and may only be used for - those sacrifices. 20. For wine libations are sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity. Hence the laws governing them are the same as those governing sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. 21. Hilchot Shekalim 3-13. 22. The requirement for these individuals to bring doves as sacrifices is mentioned in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3. 23. Ibid. 2:2-3, and in several instances in this and the previous chapter. 24. For they are both sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:5)]. 25. See Hilchot Nizirut 9:1 which states: "[The following rules apply when a person] sets aside money for the sacrifices of [poor] nazirites, those sacrifices were offered, and there is money left over. He should bring sacrifices of other nazirites with those funds." In his Commentary to the Mishnah, op. cit., the Rambam interprets this teaching as referring to nazirites who desire to pool their offerings. 26. Since the money was designated for the offerings of that particular person, it cannot be used for the sacrifices of another nazirite. 27. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3 and ch. 10, which explains that there are certain transgressions for which the atonement offering required varies according to the transgressor's financial capacity. 28. As obligated of a person who violated these sins but did not have the means to purchase an animal as a sacrifice.

itself. Money set aside for a fowl may be redeemed, as stated in the previous halachah. 34. I.e., the individuals mentioned at the beginning of Halachah 9. 35. Generally, a pair of doves includes one to be offered as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. 36. The person must, however, bring another dove(s) for the other burnt- or sin-offerings, he or she is obligated to bring. 37. I.e., if the owners specify which doves are to be offered for which specific offering, the fowl is designated for that purpose. Alternatively, if such a distinction was not made, they become designated by the priest at the time he offers them (Keritot 28a; see Chapter 8, Halachah 8). 38. Were, however, the fowl to have been designated for sin-offerings, they would be consigned to die, as evident from Halachah 1. See also the previous chapter. 39. The Ra'avad differs and, based on Nazir 27a, maintains that the text should read: "He should not bring a sin-offering.... He should not bring a burnt-offering." He also explains that this version is preferable, for, otherwise, there would be no reason why the money mentioned in the following clause should be consigned to be destroyed. Seemingly, there is no difference between that clause and the situation mentioned in the previous halachah. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam had a different version of that text. Because of the difficulties, the Ra'avad raised, the Kessef Mishneh suggests a third version: If he desires to bring a sin-offering, he should. If he desires to bring a burnt-offering, he should not. 40. According to the Rambam, since he has an obligation to bring a sin-offering and did not clarify his intent, we must accept the possibility that the money is associated with a sin-offering and must be done away with, as stated in Halachah 1.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.

To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5

If one of [the animals designated as] a sin-offering that was consigned to death or an ox that was condemned to be stoned1 becomes intermingled with any other sacrificial animals - even in a ratio of one to a myriad - they should all be consigned to death.2 [The rationale is that] living animals are important and are never considered insignificant [in a mixture].3

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 7

‫כל הזבחים שנתערב בהן אחת‬ ‫מחטאות המתות או שור הנסקל‬ ‫אפילו אחד ברבוא כולן ימותו לפי שבעלי‬ ‫חיים חשובין הן ואינם בטלין ואם הקריב‬ :‫הורצה שאין בעלי חיין נדחין‬

If [the animals] were sacrificed,4 [the sacrifices] are acceptable, because living animals are never permanently disqualified.5 If [sacrificial animals] became intermingled with [animals that are] forbidden to be offered on the altar,6 they should all be allowed to pasture until they contract disqualifying physical blemishes. They should then be sold and the proceeds from the sale of the choicest animal among them7 should be used to bring sacrifices from the type in which [the forbidden animal] became intermingled.8

1

‫נתערב בהן אחד מאיסורי המזבח‬ ‫ירעו כלם עד שיפול בהן מום וימכור‬ ‫ויביא בדמי היפה שבהן מאותו המין של‬ :‫קדשים שנתערב‬

If sacrificial animals become intermingled with unblemished ordinary animals, the ordinary animals in the mixture should be sold as sacrifices of that type, and they should all be sacrificed. What is implied? If four animals that were designated as peace-offerings became intermingled with four unblemished ordinary animals, the four ordinary animals9 should be sold to someone who is obligated to bring peace-offerings and they should all be offered as peace-offerings. Similar laws apply with regard to burnt-offerings and guilt-offerings.

‫נתערבו קדשים בחולין תמימים ימכרו‬ ‫החולין שבתערובת לצרכי אותו המין‬ ‫ויקרבו כולן כיצד ארבע בהמות שלמים‬ ‫שנתערבו בארבע בהמות חולין תמימים‬ ‫ימכרו הארבע של חולין למי שהוא צריך‬ ‫להביא שלמים ויקרבו הכל שלמים וכן‬ ‫בעולה או באשם והדמים חולין לכל דבר‬ :‫שהרי דמי חולין הן‬

The proceeds of the sale are considered as ordinary money, for they are the proceeds of the sale of ordinary animals. When an ox that was consecrated became intermingled with ordinary animals, the largest among them is considered as the consecrated one10 and the others should be sold for sacrifices of that type.11 If sacrifices of the most sacred order became intermingled with animals consecrated for the same purpose,12 each one should be offered for the sake of its owner, even though none [of the owners] recognize their sacrificial animal. When does the above apply? With regard to sacrifices to be brought by women in which there is no obligation for semichah.13 With regard to sacrifices to be brought by men, since each one of them is obligated to perform semichah on his sacrifice,14 these animals should not be offered until each one gives his portion [in the sacrificial animal] to his colleague15 or until they all become blemished and are sold. [In that instance,] each one should then bring a sacrificial animal equal in value to the more select of that type.

2

‫נתערב שור הקדש בשוורים של חול‬ ‫גדול שבכולן הקדש וימכרו השאר‬ ‫לצרכי אותו המין נתערבו קדשים בקדשים‬ ‫מין במינו זה יקרב לשם בעליו וזה יקרב‬ ‫לשם בעליו אף על פי שאין כל אחד מהן‬ ‫מכיר קרבנו בד"א בקרבנות נשים שאין‬ ‫בהם סמיכה אבל קרבנות אנשים הואיל‬ ‫וכל אחד צריך לסמוך על ראש קרבנו הרי‬ ‫אלו לא יקרבו עד שיתן האחד חלקו‬ ‫לחבירו או עד שיפול מום בכל וימכרו‬ ‫ויביאו כל אחד בדמי היפה שבהן מאותו‬ :‫המין‬

3

If [sacrificial animals of] two [different] types become intermingled, e.g., a peace-offering with a burnt-offering, they should not be sacrificed, even as the more sacred.16 [The rationale is that] we should not cause sacrificial animals to become disqualified.17

‫נתערבו מין בשאינו מינו כגון עולה‬ ‫בשלמים לא יקרבו אפילו כחמורה‬ :‫שבהן שאין מביאין קדשים לבית הפסול‬

Just as we may not reduce the time [in which sacrifices] may be eaten,18 so too, we may not limit the people eligible to partake of them,19 nor the place where they can be eaten.20 Instead,21 what should be done? All [of the sacrificial animals of mixed identity] should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish. Then each one should be sold individually. He should purchase a sacrifice for each type of the value of the most choice animal. He must suffer the loss22 from his own resources.

‫וכשם שאין ממעטין בזמן אכילתן כך‬ ‫אין ממעטין באוכליהן ולא במקום‬ ‫אכילתן אלא כיצד יעשה ירעו הכל עד‬ ‫שיפול בהם מום וימכר כל אחד מהן לבדו‬ ‫ויביא בדמי היפה שבהן ממין זה ובדמי‬ ‫היפה שבהן ממין האחר ויפסיד המותר‬ :‫מביתו‬

Even though the person already sacrificed the burnt-offering or the peace-offering which he was obligated to bring,23 he should nevertheless bring a different burnt-offering and peace-offering from the proceeds [of the sale] of the mixture.

‫אע"פ שכבר הקריב עולה שחייב בה‬ ‫או שלמים שהיה חייב להקריבן הרי זה‬ ‫מקריב מדמי התערובת עולה אחרת‬ :‫ושלמים אחרים‬

When a sin-offering becomes intermingled with a peace-offering, [the two] should be allowed to pasture until they contracted disqualifying physical blemishes and were redeemed. He for should bring a peace-offering of the value of the most choice animal and a sin-offering of the value of the most choice animal. If he took the initiative and offered another [animal as a] sin-offering for the sin-offering that was set aside for him first,24 they should all be consigned to death.25

‫חטאת שנתערבה בשלמים ירעו הכל‬ ‫עד שיפול בהן מום ויביא בדמי היפה‬ ‫שבהן שלמים ובדמי היפה שבהן חטאת‬ ‫ואם קדם והקריב חטאת אחרת על חטאת‬ :‫שהפרישה לו כולן ימותו‬

Similarly, if money for a sin-offering becomes mixed together with money for a guilt-offering, one should take two animals and transfer the holiness of the money for the sin-offering wherever it is on [the animal set aside as] a sin-offering and transfer the holiness of the money for the guilt-offering on [the animal set aside as] a guilt-offering.

‫וכן אם נתערבו מעות חטאות במעות‬ ‫אשם לוקח שתי בהמות ומחלל דמי‬ ‫חטאת בכל מקום שהוא על חטאת ודמי‬ ‫אשם על אשם ואם כבר קרבה חטאתו‬ ‫יוליך כל המעות לים המלח ואם כבר‬ :‫קרבה אשמו יפלו הכל לנדבה‬

If he already offered his sin-offering, all of the money should be taken and thrown to the Mediterranean Sea.26 If he had already offered his guilt-offering, all of the money should be used for freewill offerings.27 When a thanksgiving-offering becomes mixed with an animal exchanged for it,28 they should both be offered and the bread [that accompanies the thanksgiving-offering] should be waved with [both of] them.29

‫תודה שנתערבה בתמורתה שתיהן‬ ‫תקרבנה ויניף הלחם עמהן וכך אם‬ ‫נתערבה תודה בשאר זבחים אף על פי‬ ‫שקרבה תודתו ירעו הכל עד שיפול בהן‬ ‫מום ויביא בדמי היפה תודה אחרת ובדמי‬ :‫היפה זבח אחר‬

If a thanksgiving-offering becomes mixed with other sacrificial animals, even if the person offered [another animal as] his thanksgiving-offering, all [the sacrificial animals] should be allowed to pasture until they contract a blemish. He should then bring another thanks-offering of the value of the most choice animal and the other offering of the value of the most choice animal.30 If [a thanksgiving-offering] becomes mixed with a nazirite's ram, they should both be sacrificed31 and the bread waved with them.

4

‫שתיהם‬

‫נתערבה באיל נזיר‬ :‫תקרבנה ויניף הלחם עמהן‬

When a firstborn offering becomes intermingled with a Paschal sacrifice, they should both be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish, and then eaten as a [blemished] firstborn offering.32

‫בכור שנתערב בפסח שניהם ירעו‬ ‫עד שיפול בהם מום ויאכלו כבכור‬ ‫ולמה לא יקרבו לפי שהפסח נאכל לכל‬ ‫אדם עד חצות והבכור לשני ימים ואינו‬ ‫נאכל אלא לכהנים ואין מביאין קדשים‬ :‫לבית הפסול ואין ממעטין באכילתן‬

Why aren't they sacrificed?33 Because a Paschal sacrifice may be eaten by any person until midnight34 and the firstborn offering is eaten for two days and is eaten only by priests. [We follow the principles that] we do not cause sacrifices to be disqualified35 and we do not reduce the amount of people eligible to partake of them.36

5

Similarly, when a tithe offering becomes intermingled with a Paschal sacrifice, when they contract a disqualifying physical blemish, they should be eaten according to the prescriptions regarding a tithe offering.37 When a firstborn and a tithe offering become intermingled, they may be eaten [as ordinary meat]38 after contracting a disqualifying physical blemish.39

‫וכן מעשר שנתערב בפסח כשיפול‬ ‫בהן מום יאכלו כמעשר הבכור‬ :‫והמעשר שנתערבו יאכלו במומן‬

Similarly, when other sacrificial animals become intermingled with a firstborn or a tithe offering, they should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish. They may be eaten according to the restrictions applying to a firstborn offering or a tithe offering that became blemished.

‫וכן שאר קדשים שנתערבו בבכור‬ ‫ובמעשר ירעו עד שיפול בהם מום‬ ‫ויאכלו כבכור שנפל בו מום או כמעשר‬ :‫שנפל בו מום‬

6

When a guilt-offering became intermingled with a peace-offering, even though only the fats and the organs are offered and the meat is eaten, they should not be offered.40 Instead, they should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish and bring a guilt-offering of the value of the more choice one and a peace-offering of the value of the more choice one. [The owner should] suffer the loss of the difference [between the value of these animals and the animals lost] from his own resources. If he took the initiative and offered his guilt-offering first, they should both [be allowed to pasture until they become blemished and sold, with the proceeds] used for freewill offerings.41

‫אשם שנתערב בשלמים אע"פ‬ ‫שאין מקריבין משניהן אלא‬ ‫האימורין אבל הבשר נאכל לא יקרבו אלא‬ ‫ירעו עד שיפול בהן מום ויביא בדמי היפה‬ ‫אשם ובדמי היפה שלמים והמותר יפסיד‬ ‫מביתו ואם קדם והקריב אשמו שניהן יפלו‬ :‫לנדבה‬

It is possible for sacrificial animals of any type to become intermingled with other sacrificial animals of the same species with the exception of [animals consecrated] as sin offerings and [those consecrated as] guilt-offerings, because guilt offerings may be brought only from male sheep42 and sin-offerings are brought from female sheep.43

‫כל הקדשים אפשר שיתערבו מין‬ ‫במינו חוץ מן החטאת עם האשם‬ ‫שאין האשם אלא מזכרי כבשים ואין לך‬ :‫חטאת מן הכבשים אלא נקבה‬

If any of the sacrificial animals [of two types] that were intermingled while alive were sacrificed,44 they are acceptable, because living animals are never permanently disqualified.45

‫וכל אלו המתערבין בחיים אם הקריב‬ :‫הורצה שאין בעלי חיים נדחין‬

[The following rules apply with regard to] any animal found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder46 or that radius to any other direction.47 If it is a female [that can be estimated to be] a year old, it is placed in a closed room to die, lest it be a sin-offering.48 If it [appears to be] two years old, it should be brought as a peace-offering49 and bread should be brought with it, lest it be a thanksgiving-offering.50 If a male that [appears to be] two years old is found, there is no way of correcting the situation, for it is possible that it is a guilt-offering whose owner has not yet received atonement.51 If one found a male animal that is a year old, he should allow it to pasture until it becomes blemished, bring two animals in its stead and make a stipulation, stating: "If the [blemished animal] was a burnt-offering, this is designated as a burnt-offering in place of it. If it was a peace-offering, this is a peace-offering in place of it."52 He then offers the first as a burnt-offering. Its accompanying offerings53 should be brought from communal funds.54 The other should be brought as a peace-offering together with bread, lest it be a thanksgiving-offering. What should be done with the animal that was found? It should be eaten after it contracts a blemish. For even if it was a firstborn offering or a tithe offering, it could be eaten after it was blemished.55 If it was a Paschal sacrifice whose time had passed, it is considered as a peace-offering. And during the time the Paschal sacrifice [must be offered], everyone is careful regarding it.56 If one might ask: Maybe it is a guiltoffering of a nazirite or a person purified from tzara'at?57 These are not frequently found. Therefore [the Sages] showed no concern about them.

7

‫בהמה שנמצאת מירושלים ועד‬ ‫מגדל עדר וכמדתה לכל רוח אם‬ ‫נקבה בת שנתה היא כונסה לכיפה עד‬ ‫שתמות שמא חטאת היא היתה בת שתים‬ ‫יביאנה שלמים ויביא עמה לחם שמא‬ ‫תודה היא מצא זכר בן שתי שנים אין לו‬ ‫תקנה שמא אשם הוא ועדיין לא כפרו‬ ‫בעליו מצא זכר בן שנה מניחו עד שיפול‬ ‫בו מום ומביא שתי בהמות תחתיו ומתנה‬ ‫ואומר אם עולה היה זה עולה תחתיו ואם‬ ‫שלמים היה זה שלמים תחתיו ומקריב‬ ‫האחד עולה ונסכיו משל צבור והאחר‬ ‫שלמים עם הלחם שמא תודה היה ומה‬ ‫יעשה בזה הנמצא יאכל במומו שאפילו‬ ‫היה בכור או מעשר במומו הוא נאכל ואם‬ ‫פסח אחר זמנו הוא הרי זה שלמים ובזמנו‬ ‫הכל נזהרין בו ואם תאמר שמא אשם נזיר‬ ‫או אשם מצורע הוא אינן מצויין תמיד‬ :‫לפיכך לא חשו להן‬

8

If sacrifices became intermingled with other sacrifices after the animals were slaughtered, they should be eaten according to the laws pertaining to the more severe category.58 If [such sacrifices] became intermingled with sacrificial animals that were disqualified or ordinary animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard,59 they should [be left] until their form is no longer recognizable60 and then be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.

‫נתערבו קדשים בקדשים אחר‬ ‫שנשחטו יאכלו כחמור שבהן‬ ‫נתערבו בפסולי המוקדשין או בחולין‬ ‫שנשחטו בעזרה תעובר צורתן ויצאו לבית‬ :‫השריפה‬

When the limbs of a sin-offering become mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering, the entire mixture should [be left] until their form is no longer recognizable.61 [Afterwards,] they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard in the place where sacrificial animals that were disqualified are burnt.62

‫איברי חטאת שנתערבו באיברי עולה‬ ‫מניחין הכל עד שיפסדו ותעובר‬ ‫צורתן ושורפין אותן בעזרה במקום‬ :‫ששורפין פסולי המוקדשין‬

When a limb from a blemished [sacrificial] animal becomes mixed with the limbs of sacrificial animals - even one in a thousand63 - they should all be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.64 Even if all the limbs [of the sacrifices] were offered except for one, it should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard in the place where sacrificial animals that were disqualified are burnt.

‫אבר של בעלי מומין שנתערב‬ ‫באיברי קדשים אפילו אבר‬ ‫באלף איברים יצאו הכל לבית השריפה‬ ‫ואפילו קרבו כולן חוץ מאחד מן התערובת‬ ‫הרי זה ישרף בעזרה במקום ששורפין‬ :‫פסולי המוקדשין‬

When pieces [of meat] from sacrifices of the most sacred order become mixed with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness or those which are eaten for one day65 become mixed with those eaten for two days, they should be eaten according to the prescriptions of the more severe of the two.

‫חתיכות קדשי קדשים שנתערבו‬ ‫בחתיכות קדשים קלים או‬ ‫הנאכלין ליום אחד בנאכלין לשני ימים‬ :‫יאכלו כחמור שבהן‬

9

When a piece [of meat] from a sin-offering that has become impure becomes intermingled with 100 pieces of meat from a pure sin-offering or a slice of the showbread that has become impure becomes intermingled with 100 slices of the showbread that are pure, [the mixture] may be considered acceptable,66 as we explained in [Hilchot] Terumot.67

‫חתיכה של חטאת טמאה‬ ‫שנתערבה במאה חתיכות של‬ ‫חטאת טהורה וכן פרוסה של לחם הפנים‬ ‫שנטמא שנתערבה במאה פרוסות של‬ ‫לחם הפנים הטהור הרי זה תעלה כמו‬ :‫שביארנו בתרומות‬

If, however, a piece [of meat] from a sin-offering became mixed with 100 pieces of ordinary meat or a piece of the showbread which is pure becomes mixed with 100 pieces of ordinary bread, [the mixture] should not be considered as acceptable.68 Instead, the entire mixture should be eaten by priests, as is true with regard to any mixture of consecrated food and ordinary food.69

‫חטאת‬ ‫של‬ ‫חתיכה‬ ‫אבל‬ ‫שנתערבה במאה חתיכות של‬ ‫חולין וכן פרוסה של לחם הפנים הטהור‬ ‫שנתערבה במאה פרוסות של חולין הרי‬ ‫אלו לא יעלו אלא יאכל הכל לכהנים ככל‬ :‫המדומעות‬

« Previous

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 7

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5 FOOTNOTES 1. For killing a human; see Exodus 21:29-32; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10. As stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:6, such an animal is unfit for sacrifice on the altar. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam states that, in this context, the term also applies to an ox that was sodomized by - or forced to participate in sexual relations with - a Jew, for it is also condemned to be executed. 2. For it is possible that every animal is that animal condemned to die. 3. I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a forbidden substance is considered as insignificant if mixed with a larger volume of permitted substances (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:1).

5. This is a general principle applicable in many contexts, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 24; Chapter 3, Halachah 22; and Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4. Thus the fact that as an initial preference the animal should not have been sacrificed is not significant, for according to Scriptural Law, the presence of the forbidden animal is nullified. Hence, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable. 6. E.g., animals that were set aside for sacrifice to false deities, an animal given to a prostitute, or one exchanged for a dog. See a full listing of such animals in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:11. 7. For perhaps the sacrificial animal was the most choice.

Even according to Rabbinic Law, it is considered insignificant

8. After selling the animals, the person obligated to bring the offerings must say: "The holiness of the sacrificial animal is

if mixed with more than sixty times its volume in most situations (ibid.:5). Nevertheless, this situation is an

transferred to these funds" and with those funds, he should purchase a new sacrificial animal.

exception for the reason stated by the Rambam. 4. For their designated purpose.

9. Even though the owner does not know which four animals they are, he may sell them (Rav Yosef Corcus). To avoid the difficulty mentioned in the following halachah, however, the owners must specify which animals are being given to the purchaser.

10. And should be sacrificed for the purpose for which the animal was consecrated originally.

25. As is the law with regard to an animal set aside as a sin-offering that was lost and another was offered in its place

11. For it is possible that any one of them is the consecrated

(Chapter 4, Halachah 1). Since the animal cannot be sacrificed because its identity is unknown, it is as if it was

animal. 12. E.g., burnt-offerings with burnt-offerings.

lost (see Rav Yosef Corcus who discusses this issue). Since it is not known which one of the mixture was consigned to

13. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5

death, both are given that fate.

14. Although, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable if semichah is not performed, as an initial preference, one should not offer it unless that rite could be performed. 15. Rabbi Akiva Eiger questions the Rambam's statements here, noting that in Hilchot Meilah 4:8, the Rambam rules that a person cannot sell an animal set aside as a peace-offering or as a burnt-offering. By the same reasoning, it would seem that it would be forbidden to make the exchange mentioned here. 16. I.e., in the example given above, to offer both of them as a burnt-offering. 17. See the explanation of this principle in Halachah 12. This rationale is given by Zevachim 8:3 with regard to a peaceoffering and a guilt-offering that became mixed together, for it is possible that the meat of one of the animals will not be finished during the first night and will therefore be disqualified, lest it be that of the guilt-offering. This is undesirable, because perhaps it is from the peace-offering and thus it will be disqualified, before its appropriate time (for peace-offerings may be eaten on the following day as well). This explanation of this concept is slightly different for a mixture of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, since a burnt-offering is not eaten at all. Instead, in that instance, offering the peace-offering as a burnt-offering is forbidden, based on Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:4 which states that it is

27. Rambam LeAm states that this refers to the money that remains after some of the money was used to purchase a sin-offering. 28. I.e., he desires to transfer its holiness to the other animal, in which instance, we follow the rule (Leviticus 27:33): "It and the animal exchanged for it shall be holy." 29. There is an obligation to wave the thanksgiving-offering together with its bread (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:6-7). When an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering is exchanged for another animal, the holiness of the original offering is not nullified. Nevertheless, the second animal should also be offered as a sacrifice, but bread should not be offered together with it (Chapter 12, Halachah 8). In this instance, since we do not know which is the original animal and which is the one exchanged for it, the bread should be waved with both of them. 30. The Ra'avad states that bread should not be brought with the second thanksgiving-offering. The Kessef Mishneh states that, since the thanksgiving-offering had already been brought, this is obvious. The Ra'avad mentioned the matter only lest one will think that it is parallel to the situation described in the first clause.

forbidden to offer the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of

31. The forearm of the nazirite's ram may be eaten only by the

sanctity on the altar. As a result, the meat of the sacrifice is disqualified.

priests (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:4). Thus to a

18. As explained in the previous note. See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:12. 19. For example, a firstborn offering which may be eaten only by priests, became mixed with a tithe offering that can be eaten be anyone. 20. Sacrifices of the most sacred order may be eaten only in the

certain extent, the amount of people eligible to partake of the sacrifice is being reduced (see Ra'avad), because a thanksgiving-offering can be eaten by everyone (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot). Nevertheless, since only one limb is involved, it is not considered significant (Kessef Mishneh). 32. A blemished firstborn animal may be eaten as ordinary meat. There are, however, some restrictions that apply; see Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:12; Hilchot Bechorot 1:18.

Temple Courtyard, while sacrifices of lesser sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem.

Pesachim 98b states that one should also transfer the

21. I.e., for this reason, we do not merely take one animal for

and offer it as a peace-offering. The Rambam mentions this point in his restatement of the law in Hilchot Korban Pesach

one type of sacrifice and another for the other. 22. The difference between the price of the most choice animal and the other animal. 23. Using another animal so that he will not delay the fulfillment of his obligation. 24. I.e., before these animals became blemished.

10

26. As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, with regard to money set aside for a sin-offering that was lost.

holiness of the blemished Paschal sacrifice to another animal

4:8. 33. For they are both sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. As Pesachim 98b relates even if there is company of priests, they should not offer these animals on the fourteenth of Nisan for the reason stated by the Rambam.

34. I.e., according to Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:15). 35. As the firstborn offering could be, if forced to be eaten within the time restrictions of the Paschal sacrifice. 36. As would be done with regard to the people eligible to partake of the Paschal sacrifice. 37. After contracting a blemish, a animal set aside as a tithe offering may be eaten as ordinary meat. There are, however, some restrictions which apply; see Hilchot Bechorot 6:6. As above, the holiness of the Paschal sacrifice must be transferred to another animal. 38. But only by a priest. 39. In this instance, there is no obligation to offer an animal in their stead. 40. For doing so would reduce the amount of time in which the peace-offering could be partaken. 41. This ruling combines that of Halachah 9 with regard to sin-offerings with that of Chapter 4, Halachah 14. 42. Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10. 43. Ibid.:9. 44. One arbitrarily being taken for one sacrifice and the other, for the second sacrifice. 45. Thus even though as an initial preference, the animals should not have been sacrificed because of the confusion about their identities, after the fact, the sacrifices are acceptable. 46. A small town not far from Jerusalem. 47. I.e., since it was found close to Jerusalem, we must consider the possibility that it had been consecrated for a sacrifice. Hence, it must be treated as a sacrificial animal with regard to all the possible consequences. 48. We suspect that its owner had attained atonement through another sacrifice. Hence the animal is consigned to death, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 1. 49. At this age, it is unacceptable to be offered as a sin-offering or a burnt-offering. We do not suspect that it was lost earlier and wandered aimlessly until this time. 50. Although a thanksgiving-offering must be eaten by midnight, while a peace-offering may be eaten for an extra day, the Rambam's wording does not imply that a second animal should be brought. Instead, he should bring one animal and stipulate: "If it is a peace-offering,.... If it is a thanksgiving offering..." (Kessef Mishneh). The Lechem Mishneh, however, states that one could infer from Kiddushin 55b, that two offerings should be brought.

51. And thus it could not be used for another purpose. If the owner had attained atonement, it should be allowed to pasture until it becomes blemished as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 14. 52. For a male animal of that age could be consecrated for either of these types of sacrifices. 53. The meal, oil, and wine. 54. Shekalim 7:5 states that originally our Sages would obligate the person who found the animal to bring the accompanying offerings from his own resources. The financial burden, however, was apparently too great and the people would abandon the animals they found so that they would not be obligated in this manner. When the Sages realized this, they ordained that the accompanying offerings be brought by the community. 55. Without having to be redeemed. 56. So it would not have been lost. 57. For these individuals also must bring male animals that are a year old. 58. In the previous halachot, the Rambam favored the alternative of letting the intermingled animals pasture until they contract a blemish so that none of the sacrifices will be placed under unnecessary restrictions. In this instance, since the animals have already been slaughtered, this alternative is no longer viable (Rav Yosef Corcus). 59. The meat of the latter two types of animals is forbidden to be eaten. 60. In practice, this phrase, used by the Talmud in several instances (Pesachim 34b, et al), is interpreted (Rashi, Menachot 46b) as meaning "to be left overnight." For it is forbidden to burn sacrifices until they have been disqualified. 61. The meat from the burnt-offering may not be eaten and the meat from the sin-offering may not be burnt on the altar. Hence, the mixture should be left overnight, at which point, it is disqualified and consigned to be burnt. 62. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3. 63. Since the limbs of the disqualified animals are significant entities, their presence is never nullified in the mixture. 64. And burnt there. The rationale is that since the limbs of the blemished animals are forbidden to be eaten and forbidden to be burnt on the altar, the entire mixture must also be done away with. 65. I.e., if sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness that are only eaten for one day (thanksgiving offerings) become mixed with other sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, which (with the exception of the Paschal sacrifice) are all eaten for two days and one night. See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:3).

11

66. The rationale is that there is enough acceptable meat or bread to render the presence of the unacceptable meat or

69. The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling here is in direct contradiction to his ruling in Hilchot Ma'achalot

bread insignificant. Some commentaries have suggested that, based on

Assurot 15:13 where he states that when a piece of the

Yevamot 81b, we are forced to say that this is speaking

bread, the mixture is permitted if there is 101 times the amount of ordinary bread.

about small pieces of meat that are not significant enough to

showbread becomes intermingled with pieces of ordinary

be used to honor guests. If they are larger and significant, their presence in the mixture is never nullified. However, it is

In his gloss to Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Kessef

more likely that since the concept that significant pieces of meat are nullified is a Rabbinic safeguard, it was not applied

pieces of the showbread that are ritually pure. Hence the

in this instance (see Lechem Mishneh, Kessef Mishneh to

Ma'achalot Assurot, by contrast, we are speaking about

the law from Hilchot Terumah cited in the following note).

pieces of the showbread that are impure. If the showbread was a significant part of the mixture, the entire mixture would

67. Hilchot Terumot 14:14. 68. Since there is an option for the entire mixture to be eaten by priests, there is no reason for leniency.

Mishneh explains that here, the Rambam is speaking about entire mixture should be eaten by the priests. In Hilchot

have to be burnt. Since it is not significant, we considered its existence negated. (As evident from a comparison to that source, the laws governing sacrificial foods are more stringent than those applying to terumah.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

12

policy .

13

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 6

Whenever anyone who is unacceptable to perform Temple service performs the rite of melikah,1 the melikah is unacceptable. [Nevertheless,] even though the dove [killed by such a melikah] is unacceptable, it is not considered as a nevelah2 of a kosher fowl with regard to the laws of ritual impurity.3

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 8

‫כל הפסולין לעבודה שמלקו מליקתן‬ ‫פסולה ואף על פי שאותו העוף פסול‬ ‫אינו כנבלת העוף הטהור לטומאה וכן אם‬ ‫מלק בלילה או ששחט חולין בפנים‬ :‫וקדשים בחוץ אינה כנבלה‬

Similarly, if one performed melikah at night or slaughtered an ordinary dove in [the Temple Courtyard] or a consecrated dove outside [the Temple Courtyard], they are not nevelot.4 If one performed melikah on turtle-doves before they reached the appropriate age or on young doves who passed the appropriate age5 or on a dove whose wing shriveled, whose eye was lost6 or whose leg was cut off,7 it is considered as a nevelah in all contexts. This is the general principle: Any disqualifying factor that takes place after [a dove] entered the Temple Courtyard8 disqualifies it, but does not render it a nevelah. If the disqualifying factor did not take place after it was brought into the Temple Courtyard, [the dove] is a nevelah in all contexts.

‫מלק תורים שלא הגיע זמנן ובני יונה‬ ‫שעבר זמנם ושיבש גפה ושנסמית‬ ‫עינה ושנקטעה רגלה הרי זו נבלה לכל‬ ‫דבר זה הכלל כל שהיה פסולה בקדש‬ ‫פסולה ואינה נבלה לא היתה פסולה‬ :‫בקדש הרי זו נבלה לכל דבר‬

For this reason, when a person performs melikah and the animal is discovered to be tereifah,9 he performed melikah with a knife,10 or performed melikah on an ordinary dove in [the Temple Courtyard] or a consecrated dove outside [the Temple Courtyard],11 they are considered as a nevelah in all contexts. For melikah permits and purifies only a dove that is acceptable to [be offered on] the altar.12

2

‫לפיכך המולק ונמצאת טריפה או‬ ‫שמלק בסכין או שמלק חולין בפנים‬ ‫וקדשים בחוץ הרי זו נבלה לכל דבר שאין‬ ‫המליקה מתרת ומטהרת אלא דבר שהוא‬ :‫כשר למזבח‬

In contrast, if melikah was performed on a dove that was sodomized, set aside for pagan sacrifice, worshiped, given to a prostitute as her fee, exchanged for a dog, was a tumtum13 or an androgynus,14 it is considered as a nevelah in all contexts. It causes a person's garments to become impure when it [enters his] gut.15 The rationale is that the holiness [of a sacrifice] does not fall upon them16 and thus it is not considered as having been disqualified [after entering] the Temple Courtyard.

‫אבל הנרבע והמוקצה והנעבד‬ ‫והטומטום‬ ‫והמחיר‬ ‫והאתנן‬ ‫והאנדרוגינוס שנמלקו הרי אלו נבלה לכל‬ ‫דבר ומטמאין בגדים בבית הבליעה שאין‬ ‫הקדושה חלה עליהן והרי אין פסולן‬ :‫בקדש‬

We already explained in [Hilchot] Ma'aseh Hakorbanot,17 that [the blood from] a sin-offering of fowl is presented on the lower [half of the altar] and [the blood from] a burnt-offering of fowl is presented on the upper [half of the altar].18 When [the blood from] a sin-offering of fowl is presented on the upper [half of the altar], it is unacceptable. [This applies] whether the blood was presented in the manner of a sin-offering19 or in the manner of a burnt-offering,20 whether it was offered for the sake of a burnt-offering or for the sake of a sin-offering.

‫כבר ביארנו במעשה הקרבנות‬ ‫שחטאת העוף נעשית למטה ועולת‬ ‫העוף למעלה חטאת העוף שעשאה‬ ‫למעלה פסולה בין שעשה הזייתה כמעשה‬ ‫חטאת בין שעשאה כמעשה עולה בין‬ ‫שעשאה לשם עולה בין שעשאה לשם‬ :‫חטאת‬

3

Similarly, when [the blood from] a burnt-offering of fowl was presented on the lower [half of the altar], even if he performed melikah on one of the signs of ritual slaughter21 on the lower half and the other sign on the upper half, it is unacceptable. [This applies] whether the melikah was performed in the manner of a

‫וכן עולת העוף שעשאה למטה אפילו‬ ‫מלק סימן אחד למטה וסימן אחד‬ ‫למעלה פסולה בין שמלקו כמליקת עולה‬ ‫בין שעשאה כמעשה חטאת בין שעשאה‬ :‫לשם חטאת בין שעשאה לשם עולה‬

burnt-offering or in the manner of a sin-offering,22 whether it was offered for the sake of a sin-offering or for the sake of a burnt-offering. When melikah was performed on a sin-offering of a fowl on the lower half of the altar in the manner as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering,23 or as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering,24 it is unacceptable.

‫חטאת העוף שמלקה למטה כמליקת‬ ‫עולה לשם חטאת או כמעשה חטאת‬ ‫לשם עולה או כמעשה עולה לשם עולה‬ :‫פסולה‬

Similarly, when a burnt-offering of a fowl was presented on the upper [half of the altar] in the manner as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering or as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, it is unacceptable. If, however, he performs it as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, it is acceptable,25 but it is not considered as if the owner fulfilled his obligation.26

‫וכן עולת העוף שעשאה למעלה‬ ‫כמעשה חטאת לשם עולה או‬ ‫כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת פסולה‬ ‫כמעשה עולה לשם חטאת כשירה ובלבד‬ :‫שלא עלתה לבעלים לשם חובה‬

4

All of these fowl that are disqualified because of the place [in the altar] where their blood was presented, because of the difference in the manner in which [melikah] is performed, or the intent for which they are offered, are not considered as a fowl that has become a nevelah with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Similarly, when a sin-offering or a burntoffering of fowl becomes piggul,27 impure,28 or notar29 it

‫כל אלו העופות שנפסלו מפני מקום‬ ‫עשייתן או מפני שינוי מעשיהן או‬ ‫שינוי שמם אינן כנבלת העוף לטומאה וכן‬ ‫חטאת העוף או עולת העוף שנתפגלה או‬ ‫נטמאה או נעשית נותר אינה מטמאה‬ ‫בבית הבליעה כנבלת העוף שכל אלו‬ :‫פסולן בקדש‬

does not cause impurity in one's gut30 as does a fowl that has become a nevelah, for all of these became disqualified [after having entered] the Temple Courtyard.31 When a sin-offering of fowl is brought because of a doubt, it should be offered as required, but not eaten.32 Instead, it should be burnt like all other sacrificial animals that become disqualified.33 When is such a sacrifice brought because of a doubt? When there is an unresolved question whether a woman is a zavah,34 impure because of childbirth,35 or the like. There is no concept of an animal being brought as a sin-offering because of a doubt, because if a person is unsure whether or not he committed a sin, he should bring a conditional guilt-offering, as will be explained in Hilchot Shegagot.36

‫חטאת העוף הבאה על הספק נעשית‬ ‫כמצותה ואינה נאכלת אלא תשרף‬ ‫ככל פסולי המוקדשין וכיצד תבא על‬ ‫הספק כגון שהיתה האשה ספק זבה או‬ ‫ספק יולדת וכל כיוצא בזה ואין לנו חטאת‬ ‫בהמה על ספק שאם נסתפק לו אם חטא‬ ‫אם לא חטא יביא אשם תלוי כמו שיתבאר‬ :‫בהלכות שגגות‬

5

[The following rules apply when] a sin-offering of fowl is brought because of a doubt and then it is discovered that the woman is definitely obligated to bring [the sacrifice]. If she realized this before melikah was performed on the [the dove], it should be offered with certainty and eaten.37 If she did not discover this until after melikah was performed, the sprinkling and presentation of its blood [on the altar] should be completed. Then it should be burnt,38 so that it will not be said that a sin-offering of fowl brought because of a doubt is eaten. For at the outset, [this offering] was brought because of a doubt.

‫חטאת העוף הבאה על הספק‬ ‫ונודע שהיא חייבת בה ודאי אם‬ ‫עד שלא נמלקה נודע לה תעשה ודאית‬ ‫ותאכל ואם אחר שנמלקה נודע לה הרי זה‬ ‫גומר הזיית דמה ותמציתו ותשרף כדי‬ ‫שלא יאמרו חטאת העוף הבאה על הספק‬ :‫תאכל שהרי בתחלה על ספק באה‬

If, after melikah was performed, she discovered that she was not obligated to bring a sacrifice, it should be buried.39

‫נודע לה שאינה חייבת בה מאחר‬ :‫שנמלקה הרי זו תקבר‬

« Previous

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 8

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 6 FOOTNOTES 1. The process of snipping of the head of a sacrificial dove. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:8. 2. An animal that dies without ritual slaughter. 3. A person who eats the corpse of a kosher fowl that was not slaughtered according to Torah Law contracts ritual impurity as stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:1. 4. In all of these instances, it is forbidden to partake of the meat of these doves. For melikah is acceptable only during the day (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:1), ordinary doves

5. As stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2, young doves are acceptable as offerings only when they are still underdeveloped, before they begin to sprout yellow feathers and turtle-doves are acceptable only after they pass this stage of development. 6. I.e., not merely blinded, but having lost the eye. 7. And thus was disqualified as a sacrifice, as other doves which have lost a limb or organ (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:1.

slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard are considered as tereifah (Hilchot Shechitah 2:1-2), and sacrificial doves

8. Our translation is based on Rashi, Zevachim 68b. In his

slaughtered outside the Temple Courtyard are disqualified (see Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:9). Nevertheless,

defines the term as meaning disqualification due to the intent of the priest, a factor which disqualifies him from performing

since melikah is a valid process for killing sacrificial doves

service, or because of the place the offering was slaughtered.

and the doves that were slaughtered in the wrong locations were slaughtered properly, the corpses do not convey impurity as a corpse of a nevelah would.

Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 7:5), the Rambam

9. A dove which is tereifah is not acceptable as a sacrifice (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:1). 10. Melikah may only performed with the priest's hands. 11. See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:12.

6

12. I.e., melikah is not an acceptable means of slaughter. It is acceptable only for sacrificial doves. Therefore when it is performed on a dove that is not acceptable as a sacrifice or in a place where a sacrifice is unacceptable, it is considered as if the animal has merely been killed.

24. I.e., not only is the offering unacceptable as a sin-offering; it is also unacceptable as a burnt-offering (Radbaz). 25. For a burnt-offering is acceptable even if it is not offered for the proper intent. 26. See also Hilchot Meilah 3:7.

13. An animal whose sexual organ is covered by a mound of flesh and thus its gender cannot be determined. 14. An animal which has both male and female sexual organs. All of the animals mentioned above are not acceptable as sacrifices, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, chs. 3-4. 15. As stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:1, a person and his garments do not become impure from eating a nevelah of a kosher fowl until he swallows it. While it is in his mouth, he and his garments are pure.

27. As will be explained in chs. 14-16, when a person slaughters an animal with the intent of partaking of its meat at times other than those which are permitted, the sacrifice is considered as piggul and it is forbidden to partake of its meat. 28. As stated in ibid.:12, when sacrificial meat becomes impure, it is forbidden to partake of it. 29. As explained in Chapter 18, Halachot 9-10, when sacrificial

fundamentally

meat is left beyond the time when it should be eaten, it is called notar and it is forbidden to partake of it.

unacceptable, they are not considered as sacrificial animals. See Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach 3:10.

30. As stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:1, a person

16. Since

these

types

of

animals

are

17. Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:20; 7:6.

and his garments do not become impure from eating a nevelah of a kosher fowl until he swallows it. While it is in his

18. As mentioned in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, after

mouth, he and his garments are pure.

purification, a zav (a male with discharges resembling, but

31. Our translation is based on Rashi, Zevachim 68b. In his

not identical with gonorrhea), a zavah (a woman with vaginal

Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 7:5), the Rambam

bleeding outside her menstrual cycle) and a woman after childbirth, are required to bring a pair of doves, one as a

defines the term as meaning disqualification due to the intent of the priest, a factor which disqualifies him from performing

sin-offering and one, as a burnt-offering. The remainder of this chapter and the three subsequent chapters deal with the

service, or because of the place the offering was slaughtered.

possibilities that a dove designated as a sin-offering becomes intermingled with one designated as a burntoffering. A convert also must bring a pair of two doves and they are offered as burnt-offerings, but since this is a rare occurrence, it is not taken into consideration [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 1:2)]. 19. As described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:20. 20. As described in ibid. 7:6. 21. Ritual slaughter involves slitting two "signs" - the windpipe and the gullet. These two organs must also be slit during melikah.

32. The sacrifices may not be eaten, for if the women were not obligated to bring them, the doves are considered as ordinary animals slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard which are forbidden to be eaten (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:6-7). Hilchot Shegagot 11:2 explains that the women the Rambam mentions are allowed to bring the sacrifices because of a doubt even though it is forbidden to offer a sin-offering if one is not liable, because their purification process is not completed until the sacrifice is offered. Hence they are granted this leniency to allow them to become ritually pure. 33. See Chapter 2, Halachah 20; Chapter 19, Halachah 10.

22. In addition to the place on the altar where the blood of the two is offered, there are two differences between the way

34. A woman had a series of vaginal secretions, but there is a doubt whether they render her a zavah or not.

melikah is performed for a burnt-offering and for a

35. A woman becomes impure because of childbirth even when she miscarries. There are times when there is a question

sin-offering: a) The head of the dove may not be severed while performing melikah on a sin-offering. For a burnt-offering, by contrast, there is an obligation that the head be separated. b) The blood of a burnt-offering is squeezed out on the wall of the altar. The blood of a sin-offering, by contrast, is sprinkled on the altar. 23. For a sin-offering is not acceptable if it is not offered for the proper intent (see Chapter 15, Halachah 1).

whether a miscarriage is serious enough to render her impure or not. 36. Hilchot Shegagot 8:1. 37. As would an ordinary sin-offering. 38. As it would have been originally.

39. So that no one will benefit from it. None of the remaining rites should be performed, since there is no need to bring the offering. Keritot 26b explains that this is a Rabbinic safeguard. According to Scriptural Law, it is permitted to benefit from the dove, as long as its blood was not presented on the altar.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 8 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 7

When a sin-offering of a dove becomes intermingled with a burnt-offerings of doves or a burnt-offering of a dove becomes intermingled with sin-offerings of doves,1 even one in a myriad, they should all be consigned to death.2 When does the above apply? When their identity had been explicitly determined when they were purchased by the owner, [saying]: "This is a sin-offering. This is a burnt-offering." Different rules apply, however, of one brought doves to fulfill his obligation, some [for] a sin-offering and some for a burnt-offering, without stating explicitly [what each was, instead, they were brought] without specification and then a [dove designated as] a sin-offering or as a burnt-offering became mixed with these undesignated [doves] brought to fulfill his obligation.

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 9

‫חטאת העוף שנתערבה בעולת העוף‬ ‫או עולת העוף שנתערבה בחטאת‬ ‫העוף אפילו אחת ברבוא כולן ימותו במה‬ ‫דברים אמורים כשהיו מפורשות בשעת‬ ‫לקיחת הבעלים זו חטאת וזו עולה אבל אם‬ ‫הביא עופות לחובתו מהן חטאת ומהן‬ ‫עולה ולא פירש אלא כולן סתומות‬ ‫ונתערבה חטאת או עולה בחובה זו‬ :‫הסתומה יש להן דינים אחרים‬

2

What are the appropriate laws? If [a dove designated as] a sin-offering becomes intermingled with this unspecified [group of doves] brought to fulfill one's obligation, only the number of doves to be brought as sin-offerings in the unspecified [group] are acceptable.3 The number of burnt-offerings in the unspecified [group] and the sin-offering that became intermingled with them are disqualified, for a sin-offering has become intermingled with burntofferings.4

‫וכיצד דיניהן אם נתערבה חטאת‬ ‫בחובה זו הסתומה אין כשר אלא‬ ‫מניין חטאות שבחובה בלבד אבל מניין‬ ‫העולות שבחובה עם החטאת שנתערבה‬ :‫בהן פסולין שהרי נתערבה חטאת בעולות‬

Therefore if the unspecified [group] is [at least] twice as large as the number of sin-offerings [that became intermingled with them], half of the unspecified group is acceptable,5 and half are disqualified. It appears to me that [the priest offering the sacrifices] should offer all of them on the lower portion of the altar according to the rites appropriate for a sin-offering.6

‫לפיכך אם היתה החובה שתים‬ ‫בחטאת חצי החובה כשר וחצייה‬ ‫פסול ויראה לי שהוא עושה כולן למטן‬ :‫כמעשה חטאת‬

Similarly, if a burnt-offering7 becomes intermingled with this unspecified [group of doves], only the number of doves to be brought as burnt-offerings in the unspecified [group] are acceptable. The number of sin-offerings in the unspecified [group] and the burntoffering that became intermingled with them are disqualified, for a burnt-offering has become intermingled with sin-offerings.8 Whether there are more doves in the unspecified group than the number of burnt-offerings that became intermingled with them, there were more burntofferings than doves in the unspecified group, or they were of equal amounts, only the amount of burntofferings in the unspecified group are acceptable. Therefore if the unspecified group was twice as large as the number of doves that became intermingled with them, half of the unspecified group is acceptable, and half are disqualified. It appears to me that [the priest offering the sacrifices] should offer all of them on the upper portion of the altar according to the rites appropriate for a burnt-offering.

3

‫וכן אם נתערבה עולה בחובה זו‬ ‫הסתומה אין כשר אלא מניין עולות‬ ‫שבחובה אבל מניין החטאות שבחובה עם‬ ‫העולה שנתערבה בהן פסולין שהרי‬ ‫נתערבה עולה בחטאת בין שהיתה החובה‬ ‫הסתומה מרובה על העולות שנתערב בה‬ ‫בין שהיו העולות מרובין על החובה‬ ‫הסתומה בין שהיו שתיהן שוות אין כשר‬ ‫אלא מניין עולות שבחובה לפיכך אם‬ ‫היתה החובה שתים בעולות חצי החובה‬ ‫כשר וחצייה פסול ויראה לי שהוא עושה‬ :‫כולן למעלה כמעשה עולה‬

When one unspecified group becomes intermingled with another unspecified group whether they were all for one purpose, e.g., doves brought by zavim together with doves brought by zavim, or for two purposes, doves brought by zavim together with doves brought by women after childbirth, whether they were both brought by the same person, or they were brought by two separate people, if they were both similar, half are acceptable and half are disqualified.9 [This applies] whether [the priest] offered all of them on the upper portion of the altar or all on the lower portion of the altar, or half were offered on the upper portion of the altar and half on the lower portion, half are always acceptable and half are always disqualified, because half [of the mixture] are burntofferings and half are sin-offerings and a sin-offering is offered on the lower portion of the altar and a burntoffering is offered on the upper portion. [To explain:] If he offered them all on the upper portion, half are acceptable and they are burnt-offerings.10 If he offered them all on the lower portion, half are acceptable and they are sin-offerings.11 If half were offered on the lower portion of the altar and half on the upper portion, half of the half offered on the upper portion are acceptable [and the other half are disqualified,] because of the mixture.12 [The acceptable ones] are burnt-offerings. And half of the half of those offered on the lower portion are acceptable and they are sin-offerings.

4

‫חובה סתומה וחובה אחרת סתומה‬ ‫שנתערבו בין שהיו שתיהן משם‬ ‫אחד כגון קיני זבים עם קיני זבים או משני‬ ‫שמות כגון קיני זבים עם קיני יולדות בין‬ ‫שהיו שתיהם לאדם אחד בין שהיו לשנים‬ ‫אם היו שתיהן שוות מחצה כשר ומחצה‬ ‫פסול בין שעשה הכל למעלה או הכל‬ ‫למטה או עשה חציין למעלה וחציין למטה‬ ‫לעולם מחצה כשר ומחצה פסול מפני‬ ‫שהכל חציין עולה וחציין חטאת והחטאת‬ ‫למטה והעולה למעלה אם עשה הכל‬ ‫למעלה חציין כשירות והן עולות ואם עשה‬ ‫כולן למטה חציין כשירות והן חטאות‬ ‫עשה חציין למטה וחציין למעלה חצי החצי‬ ‫שנעשה למעלה כשר מפני התערובת והוא‬ ‫עולות וחצי החצי של מטה כשר והוא‬ :‫חטאות‬

5

[The following rules apply if] two unspecified groups became intermingled with each other and one was larger than the other, e.g., one had four doves and one had six. If he offered them all on the upper portion of the altar, or all on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are disqualified for the reason we explained.13 [Different laws apply] if he offered half on the lower portion of the altar and half on the upper portion. If he did this after he asked,14 the lesser amount are acceptable.15 If he did this on his own initiative, the greater amount are acceptable.16

‫היו שתי החובות הסתומות שנתערבו זו‬ ‫גדולה מזו כגון שהיתה אחת ארבע‬ ‫עופות והשנייה שש אם עשה הכל למעלה‬ ‫או עשה הכל למטה מחצה פסול ומחצה‬ ‫כשר ומטעם שביארנו עשה חציין למטה‬ ‫וחציין למעלה אם אחר ששאל עשה כן‬ ‫המועט כשר ואם מדעתו עשה המרובה‬ :‫כשר‬

This is the general principle: Whenever, on his initiative, the priest offered half on the upper portion of the altar and half on the lower portion, and it is impossible that [the doves of] one [owner] will not have been offered on both halves of the altar, the greater amount is acceptable.17 Since it is known that a portion of [this person's]18 sacrifices will be [offered] on the upper portion of the altar and a portion on the lower half, all of his sacrifices are acceptable.

‫זה הכלל כל שעשה הכהן מדעתו חציין‬ ‫למעלה וחציין למטה ואי אפשר שלא‬ ‫יהיה משל אחד למעלה ולמטה הרי זה‬ ‫המרובה כשר הואיל ודבר ידוע שמקצת‬ ‫קרבנותיו למעלה ומקצתם למטה יהיו כל‬ :‫קרבנותיו כשרים‬

When two individuals purchase pairs of doves together or give the money for them to the priest [to purchase them], the priest may offer whichever he desires as sin-offerings and whichever he desires as burnt-offerings.19 For [the identity of the sacrifices] in the pair is determined only when purchased by the owners or when offered by the priest, as we explained.20

‫שנים שלקחו קיניהן בעירוב או‬ ‫שנתנו דמי קיניהן לכהן לאיזה‬ ‫שירצה הכהן יקריב חטאת ולאיזה שירצה‬ ‫יקריב עולה שאין הקינין מתפרשין אלא‬ ‫בלקיחת הבעלים או בעשיית הכהן כמו‬ :‫שביארנו‬

6

If there were [groups of doves], some [groups of] sin-offerings and others, burnt-offerings, before a priest and he offered21 both [groups] on the upper portion of the altar or both on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are not.22 If he offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion without knowing whether it was the sin-offerings or the burntofferings that he offered on the lower portion, they are all unacceptable. For we surmise that it was the burntoffering that were offered on the lower portion and the sin-offerings on the upper portion.

‫היו לפני הכהן חטאות ועולות עשה‬ ‫שתיהן למעלה או שתיהן למטה‬ ‫מחצה כשר ומחצה פסול עשה חציין‬ ‫למעלה וחציין למטה ולא ידע אם החטאות‬ ‫הם שעשה למטה או העולות הרי הכל‬ ‫פסול שאני אומר העולות הם שעשה‬ :‫למטה והחטאות למעלה‬

If there were three groups of doves before him:23 one sin-offerings, one burnt-offerings, and one undefined, half burnt-offerings and half sin-offerings, without the purpose [for any given dove] being defined, if he offered all of them on the upper portion or on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are not.24

‫היו לפניו שלשה צבורי עופות אחד‬ ‫חטאות ואחד עולות והאחד סתום‬ ‫חציו עולות וחציו חטאות ולא פירש אם‬ ‫עשה כלן למעלה או למטה מחצה כשר‬ :‫ומחצה פסול‬

If he offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion,25 only the group that was undefined that was offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion is acceptable.26 It is divided between the owners27 and [the portion allotted to] each one is considered as valid for them, for the priest does not know which groups were specified [as being sin-offerings] and which one was left undefined. The two specified groups are not acceptable, because it is not known which one was offered on the upper portion of the altar and which one, on the lower portion and it is possible that the burnt-offerings were offered on the lower portion and the sin-offerings on the upper portion.

‫עשה חציין למעלה וחציין למטה‬ ‫אין הכשר אלא הסתום בלבד‬ ‫שעשה חציו למעלה וחציו למטה והוא‬ ‫מתחלק בין הבעלים ועולה לשניהן שהרי‬ ‫הכהן אינו יודע לאי זה מהן פירש ולאי זה‬ ‫מהן היה הסתום ושני הצבורין המפורשין‬ ‫פסולין שהרי לא ידע אי זה עשה למעלה‬ ‫ואי זה עשה למטה ושמא העולה נעשית‬ :‫למטה והחטאת למעלה‬

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 7

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 9

7

FOOTNOTES 1. As mentioned in the previous chapter and notes, a zav, a

6. The expression "It appears to me" indicates a conclusion the

zavah, and a woman who gave birth are required to bring two doves as offerings, one as a sin-offering and one as a

Rambam reached through the process of deduction without any clearcut prior Rabbinic source. It appears that the

burnt-offering. The designation of the doves for these offerings is made either by the owner at the time of purchase

Rambam is saying that all of the doves, even those which are disqualified, should be offered on the lower half of the

or - and this is the most common instance - by the priest when he offers them. If the person bringing the doves did not

altar. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam, asking how is it possible for him to suggest that unacceptable doves

designate them, the doves are referred to as a chovah,

should be offered as sacrifices. (If, he states, the Rambam's intent was that all of the sin-offerings should be offered on

which we have translated as "the unspecified group." 2. A dove designated as a sin-offering may not be offered as a burnt-offering, nor may one designated as a burnt-offering be offered as a sin-offering, as explained in Chapter 7, Halachot 5-8. Since the identity of the dove is not known, some of the offerings will be unacceptable. Hence none are offered and instead, they are consigned to die. 3. The rationale is that half of the doves in the unspecified group are sin-offerings. Hence even if another dove that was designated as a sin-offering becomes intermingled with a group of four unspecified doves, there are definitely two doves that can be selected to be offered as sin-offerings (either two are from the unspecified group or one is from the unspecified group and one is the sin-offering that became intermingled). A third sin-offering may not be brought because it is possible that the third dove is from the unspecified group and it should be designated as a burnt-offering. 4. Either the dove designated as the sin-offering is among the three. Or the three are from the unspecified group and two are burnt-offerings and one is a sin-offering. 5. For example, if five sin-offerings become intermingled with an unspecified group of ten, there are five acceptable sin-offerings in the intermingled group of fifteen.

the bottom half of the altar, that is obvious and does not need the introduction "It appears to me.") The Kessef Mishneh states that with the expression "It appears to me," the Rambam is introducing a new idea. The previous halachah is speaking about an instance where the priest offered only half the doves in the unspecified group on the lower half of the altar. If, however, he offers more than half of the doves (half of the unspecified group and the number of doves designated as sin-offerings that became intermingled with them) on the lower half of the altar, not only is half the unspecified group acceptable, the sin-offerings that became mixed with the unspecified group are also acceptable. The priest is allowed to offer the majority of the unspecified group on the lower half of the altar because the other doves were never specified as burnt-offerings. Although they would have to be offered as burnt-offerings (and hence, are disqualified), since they were never specified as such, they may be offered on the lower half of the altar. Rav Yosef Corcus adds that according to the Rambam, the intent is the sacrifices are acceptable. It is just that the owners can fulfill their obligation only for half of them. 7. In addition to burnt-offerings from the pairs mentioned above, this could also refer to doves donated for freewill offerings which are all burnt offerings [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 1:3)]. 8. I.e., the same principles applied in Halachot 2-3 with regard to a sin-offering are applied here with regard to a burntoffering. 9. Here the problem is that perhaps unknowingly, the priest will be offering all the doves from one unspecified group as sin-offerings and all of the other, as burnt-offerings, instead of offering them, half and half, as required. 10. The other half are unacceptable, because they were sin-offerings and they were offered as burnt-offerings. 11. The other half are unacceptable, because they were burntofferings and they were offered as sin-offerings. 12. As explained in note 8. 13. In the previous halachah.

14. I.e., he consulted with the women and asked them what he should do [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 1:4)]. Others interpret this as meaning that he consulted the court.

22. I.e., the groups contained an equal number of sin-offerings and burnt-offerings. Thus if they are all offered as one type, half will be unacceptable.

15. For example, Leah brought six doves and Rachel, four. If the

23. This too is speaking about an instance where the groups are not intermingled, but rather three groups were brought to a

priest offered five on the upper portion of the altar and five on the lower portion, it is possible that three are from Leah's

priest to define their status and to offer them. Afterwards, he forgot and offered them without being conscious of their

group and she intended for them to be sin-offerings not burnt-offerings. Hence only two of the doves offered on the

different status [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:3)].

upper portion are acceptable. The same applies with regard to those offered on the lower portion (see the gloss of Rav

24. This is a combination of the previous halachah and Halachot 2 and 4.

Yosef Corcus).

25. This refers to a situation similar to that described in note 23,

16. For the reason explained in the next halachah. 17. Because the distinction of the sacrifices as burnt-offerings and sin-offerings was left to the priest to determine. 18. I.e., the person who brought the larger group. 19. They are all acceptable, because when offering them, he is determining which is a sin-offering and which, a burntoffering. 20. Chapter 5, Halachah 11. 21. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 3:2), the

except that here, he offered one group on the upper portion of the altar, one group one the lower portion, and one group, half and half. 26. For it was offered as required, half on the upper portion of the altar and half, on the lower portion. 27. Each of the people who brought sacrifices are credited with an equal share of the sacrifices offered. Thus each one is considered to have brought half their sacrifices and must bring the other half.

Rambam states that this is speaking about an instance where the groups were not intermingled. The identity of the groups was left for the priest to determine. After doing so, he forgot how he had determined the identity of the groups and offered them in the manner described. Afterwards, he remembered they were of different types and inquired what was the outcome of his deeds. If, however, the groups became intermingled at the outset, they should all be consigned to death, as stated in Halachah 1 (see Kessef Mishneh).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .

9



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 9 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 8

When a dove from an unspecified group flies to free spaces or among doves that are consigned to death,1 or one of the doves dies, a second one should be taken for its pair.

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 10

‫קן סתומה שפרח ממנה גוזל לאויר‬ ‫או שפרח לבין העופות שימותו כולן‬ :‫או שמת גוזל אחד יקח זוג לשני‬

2

If it flies among [doves] that are fit to be offered, it is disqualified and it disqualifies one [of the group], for when a dove flies from an unspecified group to among those which will be offered, it becomes disqualified and it disqualifies another one corresponding to it.2 What is implied? A dove from a group of unspecified doves flies to an unspecified group of ten doves. If [the priest] offered five on the lower portion [of the altar] and six on the upper portion, five of the burnt-offerings from the six offered on the upper portion are acceptable3 and four of the sin-offerings from the five offered on the lower portion are acceptable. [The rationale is that] one says: "Perhaps the dove that flew is one of the five offered on the lower portion."4

‫פרח לבין הקריבות פסול ופוסל אחד‬ ‫כנגדו שהגוזל הפורח מקן סתום לבין‬ ‫הקריבות פסול ופוסל אחד כנגדו כיצד‬ ‫פרח גוזל מן הסתום לעשרה עופות‬ ‫סתומות אם עשה חמשה למטה וששה‬ ‫למעלה הרי חמש עולות כשירות מהששה‬ ‫של מעלה וארבע חטאות כשירות‬ ‫מהחמשה עופות שנעשו למטה שאני‬ ‫אומר שמא הגוזל הפורח הוא אחד‬ ‫מחמשה של מטה וכן אם עשה מהם ששה‬ ‫למטה וחמשה למעלה נמצאת הכשר‬ ‫חמש חטאות וארבע עולות שאני אומר‬ ‫שמא הגוזל מחמשה של מעלה נמצאת‬ :‫הכשר מהעשרה תשעה הרי פסל אחד‬

Similarly, if he offered six on the lower portion and five on the upper portion, five sin-offerings and four burntofferings are acceptable. For one might say: "Perhaps the dove [that flew] is one of the five offered on the upper portion." Thus from the ten [from the second group], nine are acceptable and [the dove] disqualified one. [The following rules apply when there is one] unspecified group of four doves and another unspecified group of four doves. If one from the first group flew to the second group, it disqualified one of the second group.5 If, after it became intermingled among them,6 one of the second group flew to the first group, it disqualifies one of the first group.7 Thus there are only two doves in the first group that are acceptable.8

‫ארבעה עופות סתומות וארבעה עופות‬ ‫שניות סתומות פרח אחד מן‬ ‫הראשונות לשניות פסל אחד מן השניות‬ ‫אחר שנתערבו חזר אחד מן השניות ופרח‬ ‫לראשונות פסל אחד מן הראשונות ונמצא‬ :‫הכשר מן הראשונות שתים בלבד‬

3

If, again, one of the first group flew back to the second group, even if [they continue flying back and forth] the entire day, they do not add to the number disqualified,9 for even if they become entirely intermingled with each other, half are acceptable and half are disqualified, as we explained.10

‫חזר אחד ופרח מן הראשונות‬ ‫לשניות אפילו כל היום אינו מוסיף‬ ‫להפסיד יתר על זה שאפילו הן מעורבות‬ ‫כולן זו בזו מחצה כשר ומחצה פסול כמו‬ :‫שביארנו‬

4

[The following rules apply when there is one] unspecified group of two doves, a second group of four doves, a third of six, a fourth of eight, a fifth of ten, a sixth of twelve, and a seventh of fourteen. If one of the first group flew to the second,11 one of the second12 flew to the third, one of the third to the fourth, one of the fourth to the fifth, one of the fifth to the sixth, and one of the sixth to the seventh - and then, one flew back from group to group until one returned to the first group from which the original one had flown, one dove is disqualified in the first movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. Thus the first and second groups do not have any [acceptable doves]; the third group has two; the fourth, four; the fifth, six; the sixth, eight, and the seventh, twelve.13 If one of the doves flew from [group] to [group] a second time and then one flew back from the last [group], going from group to group until it reaches the first, one dove is disqualified in the movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. The third14 and the fourth groups do not have any [acceptable doves]; the fifth group has two; the sixth, four, and the seventh, ten. If one of the doves flew from [group] to [group] a third time and then one flew a fourth time, going from group to group, one dove is disqualified in the movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. Thus the fifth and the sixth are disqualified entirely and the seventh has eight acceptable doves remaining, i.e., when the fourteen doves are offered [on the altar], seven on the upper portion and seven on the lower portion, eight will be acceptable and six will be disqualified because of the intermingling of the doves that flew back and forth.

‫צבור אחד יש בו שני עופות ובשני‬ ‫ארבעה ובשלישי ששה וברביעי‬ ‫שמונה ובחמישי עשרה ובששי שנים עשר‬ ‫ובשביעי ארבעה עשר ופרח גוזל מן‬ ‫הראשונה לשנייה ואחד מן השניה‬ ‫לשלישית ומשלישית לרביעית מרביעית‬ ‫לחמישית ומחמישית לששית ומששית‬ ‫לשביעית וחזר אחד ופרח מצבור לצבור‬ ‫עד שחזר לראשונה שפרח ממנה ראשונה‬ ‫פוסל אחד בהליכתו ואחד בחזירתו‬ ‫הראשונה והשנייה אין להם כלום‬ ‫והשלישית יש לה שני עופות והרביעית יש‬ ‫לה ארבעה והחמישית יש לה ששה‬ ‫והששית יש לה שמונה והשביעית יש לה‬ ‫שנים עשר חזר אחד ופרח פעם שנייה מזו‬ ‫לזו וחזר אחד ופרח מן האחרונה‬ ‫לשלמעלה ממנה עד שחזר לראשונה‬ ‫פוסל אחד בהליכתו ואחד בחזירתו‬ ‫השלישית והרביעית אין להם כלום‬ ‫והחמישית יש לה שני עופות כשרים‬ ‫והששית יש לה ארבעה השביעית יש לה‬ ‫עשרה פרח פעם שלישית גוזל מזו לזו‬ ‫וחזר פעם רביעית מזו לזו פוסל אחד‬ ‫בהליכתו ואחד בחזירתו והחמישית‬ ‫והששית נפסלו כולן והשביעית נשארו לה‬ ‫שמונה עופות כשרין כשיעשה ארבעה‬ ‫עשר שבע למעלה ושבע למטה יהיו‬ ‫שמונה מהן כשרין והששה פסולין מפני‬ ‫תערובת גוזלות אלו שפרחו בהליכה‬ :‫ובחזרה‬

[The following laws apply when there was] a group of doves that was unspecified and another group [in which the doves for the sin-offering and the burntoffering] had already been specified. If one of the doves from the unspecified group flew to the group that had been specified, [the owner of the unspecified group] should take a partner for the remaining dove.15 If [the above group became intermingled and then of the doves] returned [to the unspecified group] or [at the outset,] one of the doves from the specified group flew to the unspecified group and it was not known whether it was the one designated as a burnt-offering or the one designated as the sin-offering,16 all of the doves in the unspecified group should be consigned to death. [The rationale is that] if it was the one designated as a burntoffering that became intermingled, all of the sin-offerings [in that group] are disqualified.17 And if it was the one designated as a sin-offering that became intermingled, all of the burnt-offerings [in that group] are disqualified. Therefore,18 they should all be consigned to death.

5

‫קן סתומה וקן מפורשת פרח מן‬ ‫הסתומה למפורשת יקח זוג לשני חזר‬ ‫או שפרח אחד מן המפורשת לסתומה ולא‬ ‫ידע זה שפרח אם היה עולה או חטאת‬ ‫ימותו כל העופות שבסתומה שאם‬ ‫נתערבה בהן עולה כל החטאות שבה‬ ‫פסולות ואם חטאת נתערבה כל העולות‬ :‫שבה פסולות לפיכך ימותו כולן‬

[The following laws apply when there were] a group of doves that were designated as sin-offerings on one side, others designated as burntofferings on the other side, and an unspecified group in the middle. If one of the unspecified group flew to the group on one side and another, to the other group, nothing is lost. Instead, the owner should say: "The one which flew to the sin offerings is a sin-offering. The one which flew to the burnt-offerings is a burnt-offering."19 If, after they became intermingled, one from each of the sides returned to the center, the two in the center should be consigned to death, for they are a burntoffering and a sin-offering mixed together and those on the sides should be offered - these as sin-offerings and these as burnt-offerings - as was their original state.

‫חטאת מכאן ועולה מכאן וסתומה‬ ‫באמצע פרח מן האמצע לצדדין אילך‬ ‫אחד ואילך אחד לא הפסיד כלום אלא‬ ‫יאמר זה שהלך אצל החטאות חטאת וזה‬ ‫שהלך אצל העולות עולה חזר אחר‬ ‫שנתערבו ופרח אחד מכאן ואחד מכאן‬ ‫לאמצע השניים האמצעיים ימותו שהרי הן‬ ‫חטאת ועולה מעורבין והצדדין אלו יקרבו‬ ‫חטאת ואלו יקרבו עולה כשהיו פרח מן‬ ‫האמצעית לצדדין כולן ימותו שמא עולה‬ :‫נתערבה בחטאות וחטאת בעולות‬

If those [which returned to] the center flew to the sides, they must all be consigned to death for perhaps20 the burnt-offering became intermingled with the sin-offerings and the sin-offering became intermingled with the burnt-offerings.

« Previous

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 10

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 8 FOOTNOTES 1. Because they have become intermingled with a dove designated as a sin-offering.

4. And one of the sin-offerings in that group had been offered together with the burnt-offerings.

2. The redundancy in the Rambam's ruling is a quote from

5. As described in the previous halachah.

Kinim 2:1. 3. I.e., it is obvious that one of the six offered as burnt-offerings is unacceptable, because there only five in the second group. The sixth is either one of the original group that should have been offered as a burnt-offering and is thus unacceptable. Or it is the one that flew into it, in which instance, it is unacceptable, because perhaps it was to be offered as a sin-offering. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:1).

6. If, however, it is obvious that the dove that flew from the first group flew back to it, none of the doves are disqualified (ibid.). 7. And it is disqualified itself. 8. They should be offered one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. Similarly, in the second group, only one pair of doves should be offered, for we surmise that it was one of the three that was acceptable that flew to the first group. 9. I.e., each group has two acceptable doves and two which are disqualified.

6

10. Chapter 8, Halachah 5. 11. And became intermingled there. The dove that flies into the group is unacceptable and it disqualifies another dove in the group. Thus of the group of four, only two acceptable doves remain. This principle applies every time one dove flies from one group to another, as evident from Halachah 3. 12. If it is discernable that the dove that flew from the first group to the second flew from the second to the third, etc., all of these rules do not apply [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:3)]. 13. More acceptable doves remain in the last group because only two doves are disqualified in each circuit, while in all the other groups four are disqualified each time. 14. As mentioned above, all of the doves in the first and second group were disqualified in the first phase of movement.

15. One should be offered as a sin-offering and one as a burntoffering. With regard to the doves from the group that had been specified. We are speaking about a situation where the identity of one of the doves - for argument's sake, the burntoffering - is still known and the one designated as the sin-offering has become intermingled with the dove that flew into that group. Hence one burnt-offering and two sin-offerings should be offered and only one of the sin-offerings is acceptable. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:4). 16. If, however, the identity of the dove which became intermingled is known, different laws apply, as explained in Chapter 8. 17. The rationale is that since the doves are intermingled and it is known that one was a burnt-offering, none may be offered on the lower portion of the altar. 18. I.e., since we do not know whether it was a burnt-offering or a sin-offering that was intermingled. 19. Determining their identities with that statement. The fact that the priest offering the doves does not know which doves were brought by which person is not significant. See Chapter 6, Halachah 4. 20. And even the possibility warrants that the doves be consigned to death.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

8

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 10 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 9

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11

2

When a woman says: "I pledge a pair of doves when I give birth to a male," when she gives birth to a male she must bring four doves: two because of her vow, they are burnt offerings, as we explained,1 and two which she is obligated to bring because of the birth,2 one, a burnt-offering and the other, a sin-offering. Therefore the priest must offer three doves on the upper portion of the altar and one dove on the lower portion. If he erred and offered two on the upper portion and two on the lower portion,3and he did not consult [with the woman],4 she must bring another dove and offer it on the upper portion of the altar.5 When does the above apply? When she brought all four doves from one type; either they were all turtle doves or young doves. If, however, she brought two turtle doves and two young doves and two6 were offered on the upper portion [of the altar] and two7 on the lower portion,8 she must bring one more turtle dove and one more young dove on the upper portion to fulfill her obligation.9 For if at the outset, two turtle doves were offered on the lower portion, another turtle dove must be brought on the upper portion to complete her obligation.10 [Or] if two young doves were offered on the lower portion, another young dove must be brought on the upper portion to complete her obligation. For a person should not bring a pair to fulfill his obligation that comprises one turtle dove and one young dove.11 Instead, either they should both be turtle doves or both be young doves.

‫האשה שאמרה הרי עלי קן כשאלד‬ ‫זכר ילדה זכר מביאה ארבעה עופות‬ ‫שנים לנדרה והן עולה כמו שביארנו ושנים‬ ‫לחובתה משום לידה והן אחד עולה ואחד‬ ‫חטאת נמצאת למד שהכהן צריך לעשות‬ ‫שלש פרידין למעלה ופרידה אחת למטה‬ ‫טעה ועשה שתים למעלה ושתים למטה‬ ‫ולא נמלך צריכה להביא עוד פרידה אחת‬ ‫ויקריבנה למעלה בד"א כשהביאה‬ ‫הארבעה ממין אחד כגון שהיו כולן תורין‬ ‫או בני יונה אבל אם היו שתי תורין עם שני‬ ‫בני יונה ועשה שנים למעלה ושנים למטה‬ ‫צריכה להביא עוד תור ובן יונה ויעשה‬ ‫שתיהן למעלה כדי לצאת ידי חובתה שאם‬ ‫עשה בתחילה שתי התורין למטה צריכה‬ ‫תור למעלה להשלים חובתה ואם עשה‬ ‫שני בני היונה למטה צריכה בן יונה‬ ‫למעלה להשלים חובתה שאין אדם מביא‬ ‫חובתו גוזל אחד תור אחת או בן יונה אלא‬ :‫או שניהן תורין או שניהן בני יונה‬

If she made her vow explicit, telling the priest: "These12 are for my vow and these are for my obligation," and the priest offered two on the upper portion and two on the lower portion without knowing which ones he offered on the upper portion and which ones he offered on the lower portion,13 she must bring three doves, two for her vow and one to complete her obligation.14 The two should be offered on the upper portion of the altar. [The rationale is that] she made her vow explicit and possibly the two brought because of her vow were offered on the lower portion, thus disqualifying them.15 When does the above apply? When she brought the four doves from which she explicitly defined two as being for her vow from one type. If, however, [she brought them from] two types, she must bring four other doves:16 the two from the type she designated explicitly for her vow should be offered for her vow and the other two may be from either type she desires for her obligation. One should be offered on the upper portion [of the altar] and one on the lower portion.

3

‫פירשה נדרה ואמרה לכהן אלו לנדרי‬ ‫ואלו לחובתי ועשאם הכהן שתים‬ ‫למעלה ושתים למטה ולא ידע אי זה מהן‬ ‫עשה למעלה ואי זה מהן עשה למטה‬ ‫צריכה להביא שלשה עופות שנים לנדרה‬ ‫ואחד להשלים חובתה ויעשו השנים‬ ‫למעלה שהרי פירשה נדרה ושמא שנים‬ ‫של נדרה נעשה למטה שהם פסולות במה‬ ‫דברים אמורים בשהביאה הארבעה‬ ‫שפירשה נדרה בשנים מהן ממין אחד אבל‬ ‫אם היו שני מינין תביא ארבעה אחרים‬ ‫שנים ממין שפירשה בו נדרה יעשו לנדרה‬ ‫ושנים מאי זה מין שתרצה יהיו לחובתה‬ :‫ויעשו אחד למעלה ואחד למטה‬

4

[The following laws apply if a woman] defined17 [which types of doves to be offered to fulfill] her vow, saying: "If I give birth to a male, I pledge two turtle doves," and she gave birth and brought four doves:18 two for her vow and two for her obligation. The priest offered two on the upper portion [of the altar] and two on the lower portion, but did not know which were offered on the upper portion and which were offered on the lower portion and she also forgot and did not know the type of doves she had pledged for her vow, whether turtle doves or young doves. She should bring two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow.19[All] four should be offered on the upper portion of the altar. She should bring another dove to complete her obligation and it should be offered on the lower portion. 20 When does the above apply? When originally she brought all of the four of one type. If, however, they were of two types, she must bring six other doves: two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow21 and for her obligation, she should bring either two turtle doves or two young doves22 and offer one on the upper portion of the altar and one on the lower portion. Similarly, if she gave them to the priest23 and forgot what she gave him and the priest went and offered them, but was not aware where he offered all of the doves, whether he offered them all on the upper portion, all on the lower portion, or half above and half below, she should bring two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow24 and two turtle doves or two young doves for her obligation.

‫קבעה נדרה ואמרה אם אלד זכר הרי‬ ‫עלי שתי תורים וילדה והביאה ארבעה‬ ‫עופות שנים לנדרה ושנים לחובתה ועשה‬ ‫שנים למעלה ושנים למטה ולא ידע אי זה‬ ‫נעשה למעלה ואי זה נעשה למטה וגם היא‬ ‫שכחה ולא ידעה באי זה מין קבעה נדרה‬ ‫אם בתורים או בבני היונה הרי זו צריכה‬ ‫להביא שתי תורים עם שני בני יונה לנדרה‬ ‫ויעשו ארבעתן למעלה ותביא גוזל אחד‬ ‫להשלים חובתה ויעשה למעלה )שכבר‬ ‫עשה שנים למטה שהם חטאת( בד"א‬ ‫כשהביאה הארבעה תחלה ממין אחד אבל‬ ‫אם היו שני מינין צריכה להביא ששה‬ ‫עופות שתי תורים עם שני בני יונה לנדרה‬ ‫ותביא לחובתה שתי תורים או שני בני‬ ‫יונה ויעשה אחד למעלה ואחד למטה וכן‬ ‫אם נתנתם לכהן ושכחה מה נתנה לו והלך‬ ‫הכהן ועשה ואינו יודע היכן עשה אם הכל‬ ‫למעלה או הכל למטה או מחצה למעלה‬ ‫ומחצה למטה הרי זו תביא שתי תורים עם‬ ‫שני בני יונה לנדרה ותביא שתי תורים או‬ :‫שני בני יונה לחובתה‬

5

If she defined [which type of offering25 to be offered to fulfill] her obligation and [which types of doves to be offered to fulfill] her vow and forgot what she defined, it is [also] possible that her obligation was a lamb for a burnt-offering and a dove - either a turtle dove or a young dove - as a sin-offering. Therefore she must bring six doves - four for her vow26 and two for her obligation.27 And she must bring one sin-offering, either a young dove or a turtle dove, with a lamb.28 Thus she will have brought seven doves and a lamb. None of these sin-offerings should be eaten, because they are all offered because of a doubt.29

« Previous

‫קבעה חובתה וקבעה נדרה ושכחה‬ ‫במה קבעה ואפשר שחובתה כבש‬ ‫לעולה ופרידה אחת תור או בן יונה‬ ‫לחטאת לפיכך תביא ששה פרדין ארבעה‬ ‫לנדרה ושנים לחובתה ועוד תביא חטאת‬ ‫אחד בן יונה או תור עם כבש נמצאת‬ : [‫שהביאה שבעה עופות ]וכבש‬

‫וכל החטאות האלו אינן נאכלות‬ :‫מפני שהם ספק‬

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 9 FOOTNOTES 1. The commentaries note that there is no explicit source which states that the doves pledged by a woman should be offered

8. This is speaking about a situation where the priest offering the sacrifice forgot which type he offered on the upper

as burnt-offerings. They do, however, point to Hilchot

portion of the altar and which type on the lower portion [Ra'avad; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah

Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:14 which states that a fowl is never brought as a peace-offering. Hence, the only alternative is for them to be offered as burnt-offerings. 2. I.e., when she is poor, as stated in Leviticus, ch. 14; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3. 3. As would be appropriate in most instances, for pairs of doves are generally required to be offered, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering. 4. If he did not consult with her, it is his prerogative to determine which dove should be offered as a sin-offering and which as a burnt-offering, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 8.

(Kinnim 3:5)]. Were he to know which type he had offered on which portion, it would be sufficient to bring only one more dove. 9. I.e., to serve as the burnt-offering for the pair she was obligated to bring because of the birth, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. 10. And the two young doves offered on the upper portion are considered as having been brought to fulfill her vow. 11. As the Kessef Mishneh states, it is not merely that it is unlikely for a person to do so, through Biblical exegesis, the Sifra derives that it is forbidden to do so.

5. To fulfill her vow to bring a pair of doves as burnt-offerings.

12. I.e., this pair of doves.

6. I.e., of one type.

13. And thus he is unsure if he fulfilled the woman's instructions.

7. Of the other type.

6

14. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that since it is possible that the two doves

19. The doves offered previously as a burnt-offering are of no consequence, because we are not certain that her vow was

designated for her vow were offered on the lower portion of the altar (as sin-offerings instead of burnt-offerings), it is

fulfilled. Because she is in doubt regarding which type she had specified in her vow, she must bring both types to fulfill

possible that her vow was not fulfilled and she must bring two other doves instead. Were that to have been the case, of

it.

the two offered on the upper portion of the altar, only one was acceptable and another dove must be brought as a sin-offering to fulfill her obligation. The above explanations are based of Rav Kappach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. The initial version (preserved in the standard printed texts) reads differently, stating that this situation is considered like a burnt-offering that became intermingled with an unspecified group. See in Chapter 8, Halachah 4.

20. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that this follows the same rationale as above. One of the burnt-offerings is acceptable. Hence it is necessary to bring a sin-offering to complete her obligation. He continues explaining that this decision is somewhat of a leniency, because it is possible that she will be offering the sin-offering from a different type of dove than the burnt-offering. Nevertheless, since we do not know of which type the original four doves were, this leniency is granted. The above explanations are based on Rav Kappach's edition

15. For they are burnt-offerings which must be offered on the upper portion of the altar.

of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. The initial version (preserved in the standard printed texts) reads

16. Here the difficulty is that since the woman specified that the doves for her vow should come from a specific type and the

differently. Similarly, this explanation requires - as suggested by the Kessef Mishneh - amending the standard printed text

priest did not remember whether he in fact offered that pair of doves as a burnt-offering. In his Commentary to the

of the Mishneh Torah to read:

Mishnah (Kinnim 3:5), the Rambam explains this law. In the

already offered on the lower portion as sin-offerings.

original sacrifice, perhaps the two turtle doves that were intended as burnt-offerings were sacrificed on the lower portion of the altar and were thus disqualified. Thus her vow was not fulfilled and she must bring two turtle doves. The two young doves were offered on the upper portion of the altar as burnt-offerings. Hence it is necessary for another young dove to be offered on the lower portion as a sin-offering to fulfill her obligation. It is, however, also possible that the two young doves were offered on the lower portion of the altar. In that instance, she would have to bring another young dove to be offered on the upper portion as a burnt-offer to fulfill her obligation. Hence she must bring a total of two turtle doves and two young doves. 17. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains the difference between this instance and the one mentioned in the previous halachah. In the previous halachah, we are speaking about an instance where the woman defined which doves were to be offered for which sacrifice at the time she gave them to the priest to offer and the priest forgot how he had offered them. In this instance, in addition to defining them when giving them to the priest, she pledged to bring them from a specific type and then she forgot which type of doves she pledged to bring for each particular sacrifice. 18. Of one type, as stated below.

it should be offered on the upper portion, for two were 21. To be offered as burnt-offerings, for as above, it is possible that the ones designated as her vow were not offered as burnt-offerings and she does not remember which type she specified. 22. In contrast to the previous situations, she must bring two doves to fulfill her obligation. In this instance, one of those that were offered as a burnt-offering is not acceptable, because we know for certain that the offerings originally brought were of two types and we do not know which type of dove was brought as a burnt-offering so that a sin-offering could be brought from the same type of dove. Hence she must bring an entire pair to fulfill her obligation. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's rulings based on his interpretation of the Mishnah in Kinnim (which is also supported by Rashi). Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's understanding. 23. Four doves. This is speaking about a situation where the woman designated two doves as a burnt-offering for her vow and two for her obligation, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. She forgot which type of doves she vowed, which she brought to the priest, and how she designated them. 24. To be offered as burnt-offerings. It is necessary to bring these offerings, because it is possible that no burnt-offerings were offered or those designated as burnt-offerings were not offered for that purpose. It is necessary to bring both types, because the woman does not know which type she pledged as a burnt-offering.

25. I.e., whether she would bring a lamb, the burnt-offering brought by a woman of means brings after childbirth, or a

28. In the event she intended to bring the sacrifice of a woman of means.

dove the burnt-offering brought when one lacks adequate means.

It must be noted that Kinnim 3:5, the source for the

26. Two turtle doves and two young doves. This is necessary,

Rambam mentions it, both here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah, because otherwise, there is no clear reason

because she forgot what type of dove she specified that she would bring to fulfill her vow. 27. Of one type, either young doves or turtle doves, for perhaps she intended to bring the sacrifice of a poor woman.

Rambam's ruling, does not mention a lamb at all. The

why an extra dove should be brought as a sin-offering (Kessef Mishneh). 29. Instead, it should be burnt, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 10.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 10

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12

Whenever any of the persons who are disqualified from performing Temple service take the handful of meal from a meal-offering,1 the offering is disqualified.2 Similarly, if one of these individuals collected the frankincense,3 the offering is unacceptable, even if he did not take the handful of meal.

‫כל המנחות שקמצן אחד מן הפסולין‬ ‫לעבודה הרי הם פסולות וכן אם‬ :‫לקט הלבונה פסל אע"פ שלא קמץ‬

[In all the following situations, a meal-offering] is disqualified:4

‫קמץ הכשר ונתן לפסול קמץ בימינו‬ ‫ונתן לשמאלו ואחר כך נתנו לכלי‬ :‫קמץ מכלי קודש ונתן לכלי חול פסל‬

a) the handful [of meal] was taken by an acceptable [priest] and given to one who is not acceptable; b) [the priest] took the handful with his right hand and then transferred it to his left hand and then placed it in a utensil; c) he took the handful [of meal] from a sacred utensil and placed it in an ordinary utensil. If [while] taking a handful of meal, he lifted up a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, it is disqualified.5

‫קמץ ועלה בידו צרור או גרגיר מלח‬ :‫או קורט לבונה פסול‬

If he took the handful when he was outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then entered [the Courtyard], he should take a handful inside the Courtyard6 and it is acceptable.

‫קמץ עד שהוא בחוץ ונכנס לפנים‬ :‫יחזור ויקמוץ בפנים וכשר‬

If the handful became scattered on the floor [of the Temple Courtyard], he should collect it again.7

‫נתפזר הקומץ על גבי הרצפה יחזור‬ :‫ויאספנו‬

[In all the following instances,] a meal-offering [is unacceptable]:

‫או‬ ‫או‬ ‫או‬ ‫עד‬

it was not placed in a sacred utensil, the handful of meal was not placed in a sacred utensil,

‫היתה המנחה שלא בכלי שרת‬ ‫שהיתה קומצה שלא בכלי שרת‬ ‫שהעלהו למזבח שלא בכלי שרת‬ ‫שבללה בשמנה חוץ לעזרה פסולה‬ :‫שתהיה בלילתה בפנים‬

it was brought to the altar8 while not in a sacred utensil,9 or it was mixed with oil outside the Temple Courtyard; [it is acceptable] only if it was mixed with oil in the Courtyard.10 All of the meal-offerings are acceptable even if oil was poured over them by someone who was unacceptable for Temple service, e.g., a non-priest or the like, or such a person mixed [the oil with the meal], broke [wafers] into pieces,11 or put salt upon them. If [such a person] approached the altar with them or waved them,12 a priest should approach the altar with them and/or wave them again. If a priest did not approach the altar with them and/or wave them again, they are [nevertheless] acceptable. [This is derived from Leviticus 2:2:] "And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron and [one] shall take a handful..." From taking the handful and onward, the mitzvah must be performed by a priest.13 Pouring and mixing [the oil] may be performed by a non-priest.

2

‫כל המנחות שיצק עליהן השמן פסול‬ ‫לעבודה כגון הזר וכיוצא בו או שבללן‬ ‫או פתתם או מלחן כשירות הגישן או‬ ‫הניפן חוזר הכהן ומגיש או מניף ואם לא‬ ‫הגיש ולא הניף הכהן כשירות שנאמר‬ ‫והביאה אל בני אהרן וקמץ מקמיצה ואילך‬ ‫מצות כהונה למד על יציקה ובלילה‬ :‫שכשירה בזר‬

When even the slightest amount of oil from another meal-offering or oil that was not consecrated falls into a meal-offering, it is disqualified. If [the full measure14 of] its oil is lacking, it is disqualified. If, [by contrast, the full measure15 of] its frankincense is lacking, it is acceptable provided there are at least two particles of frankincense upon it. If there is only one particle, it is disqualified, as it is written:16 "on all its frankincense."17

‫מנחה שנפל לתוכה שמן מנחה‬ ‫אחרת או שמן חולין כל שהוא‬ ‫נפסלה חיסר שמנה פסולה חיסר לבונתה‬ ‫כשירה והוא שיהיו עליה שני קורטי לבונה‬ ‫אבל קורט אחד פסולה שנאמר את כל‬ :‫לבונתה‬

If he added to its [measure of] oil and frankincense, [including] up to two lugim for every isaron and [up

‫ריבה שמנה ולבונתה עד שני לוגין‬ ‫לכל עשרון ושני קומצי לבונה לכל‬ ‫מנחה כשירה שני לוגין או שני קומצין או‬ :‫יתר על זה פסולה‬

to] two handfuls of frankincense for every meal offering,18 it is acceptable. If one uses two lugim or two handfuls or more, it is disqualified.

3

If one placed oil on the meal offering of a sinner19 or on the handful of meal taken from it, it is disqualified.20 If one placed frankincense on it, it should be gathered up.21 If [the frankincense] is ground, [the offering] is unacceptable because of the doubt, because it is impossible to gather [the frankincense].

‫מנחת חוטא שנתן עליה שמן או על‬ ‫הקומץ שלה נפסלה נתן עליה לבונה‬ ‫ילקטנה היתה שחוקה הרי זו פסולה‬ :‫מספק שהרי אי אפשר ללקט‬

If one placed oil on the remnants [of such a meal-offering] after the handful was removed, he is not liable for lashes,22 nor does he disqualify the offering,23 for the handful is acceptable.

‫נתן שמן על שיריה אחר שקמץ‬ ‫אינו לוקה ולא פסלה שהרי הקומץ‬

If he placed even the smallest amount of oil24 on an olive-sized portion25 of the meal-offering,26 he disqualifies it because of the doubt involved. If, however, he placed oil on less than an olive-sized portion, he does not disqualify it. One does not disqualify [a meal-offering] with frankincense27 unless he places an olive-sized portion28 [on the offering].

‫נתן משהו שמן על גבי כזית מן‬ ‫המנחה פסלה מספק אבל אם נתן‬ ‫השמן על פחות מכזית לא פסלה ואינו‬ :‫פוסל הלבונה עד שיתן כזית לבונה‬

:‫כשר‬

4

Even if he placed frankincense on the smallest portion of the meal-offering, he disqualifies it until he gathers it.

‫אפילו נתן הלבונה על כל שהוא מן‬ :‫המנחה פסל עד שילקט‬

If one mixed water with the meal and then took a handful, it is acceptable. [The Torah's requirement29 that the offering be] "dry" [refers only] to oil.

‫גבלה במים וקמץ כשירה לא נאמר‬ :‫חריבה אלא משמן‬

A meal-offering from which a handful was taken twice - or many times - is acceptable, provided an olive-sized portion is offered on the altar's pyre at once. For no less than an olive-sized portion may be offered on the altar.

‫מנחה שקמצה פעמים כשירה‬ ‫אפילו פעמים רבות והוא שיקטיר‬ ‫כזית בבת אחת שאין הקטרה פחותה‬ :‫מכזית‬

If one offered the handful [of meal30 on the altar] without salt, it is unacceptable,31 for the salt is an absolute requirement for a meal-offering, as we explained.32 When a meal-offering was lacking33 before the handful was taken, he should bring [more meal] from home and complete the measure. For taking the handful is what defines [the meal as] an offering,34 not placing it into a sacred vessel.

‫הקריב הקומץ בלא מלח פסולה‬ ‫שהמלח מעכב במנחה כמו‬ ‫שביארנו מנחה שחסרה קודם קמיצה‬ ‫יביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנה שהקמיצה היא‬ :‫הקובעת לא נתינתה בכלי שרת‬

When a person donates a handful35 of frankincense independently, it is unacceptable if it is lacking at all. Similarly, if the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the [show]bread36 are lacking even the slightest amount, they are unacceptable. They must contain two handfuls from the beginning until the end.

‫התנדב קומץ לבונה בפני עצמו אם‬ ‫חסר כל שהוא פסול וכן שני בזיכי‬ ‫לבונה שעם הלחם אם חסר אחד מהן כל‬ ‫שהוא פסולין עד שיהיו שני קמצין מתחלה‬ :‫ועד סוף‬

5

[The following rules apply when a] person set aside two handfuls [of frankincense] for one offering37 and one was lost. If this occurred before the handful [of meal] was taken, [the association between them and this offering] was not [yet] established.38 If it occurred afterwards, [the association] has been established and [the offering] is unacceptable, because he increased its frankincense.

‫הפריש שני קמצין למנחה אחת‬ ‫ואבד אחד מהן קודם קמיצה לא‬ ‫הוקבע לאחר קמיצה הוקבע ופסולה מפני‬ ‫שריבה לבונתה וכן אם הפריש ארבעה‬ ‫קמצים לשני בזיכי לחם ואבדו שנים מהם‬ ‫קודם סלוק הבזיכים לא הוקבעו וכשירים‬ ‫לאחר סלוק הבזיכין הוקבעו ופסולין מפני‬ :‫הרבוי‬

Similar [laws apply if one] sets aside four handfuls for the two bowls of the [show]bread39 and two were lost. If this occurred before the bowls were removed [from the showbread],40 [the association between them] was not established and they are acceptable. If it occurred after the bowls were removed, [the association] was established and they are disqualified, because of the extra amount. When the handful taken from a meal offering became impure and then it was offered on the altar's pyre,41 the High Priest's forehead plate causes it to be considered acceptable, as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And Aaron shall bear [the iniquity....]"42 If the handful was taken outside the Temple Courtyard and then brought in and offered on the altar's pyre, the forehead plate does not cause it to be considered acceptable. For the forehead plate causes [sacrifices tainted by] impurity to be considered acceptable, but not those which are taken outside the Temple Courtyard.

‫קומץ מנחה שנטמא והקטירו הציץ‬ ‫מרצה שנאמר ונשא אהרן יצא‬ ‫הקומץ חוץ לעזרה והכניסו והקטירו אין‬ ‫הציץ מרצה שהציץ מרצה על הטמא ואינו‬ :‫מרצה על היוצא‬

If one took the handful from a meal-offering and then the entire remainder [of the offering] became impure,43 was burnt, was taken out of the Temple Courtyard,44 or was lost, the handful should not be offered on the altar's pyre. [After the fact,] if it was offered, it is accepted [Above].45 If a small amount of the remnants [of the offering] remained acceptable, the handful should be offered. [Nevertheless,] the remnant that remains is forbidden to be eaten.46

‫קמץ את המנחה ואח"כ נטמאו‬ ‫שיריה כולן או נשרפו או יצאו חוץ‬ ‫לעזרה או אבדו לא יקטיר הקומץ ואם‬ ‫הקטיר הורצה נשאר מעט מן השירים‬ ‫בכשרותן יקטיר הקומץ ואותן השירים‬ :‫שנשארו אסורין באכילה‬

If there was a divider in the lower portion of a vessel containing an isaron [of flour] for a

‫היתה מחיצה מלמטה בכלי שיש‬ ‫בו עשרון של מנחה אף על פי‬ ‫שהוא מעורב מלמעלה לא יקמוץ ואם‬ :‫קמץ פסולה‬

meal-offering, even though [the flour] is mixed together above, one should not take a handful.47 If one did, it is unacceptable. If, [by contrast,] the container was separated by a divider above, but [the contents] were mixed together below, one may take a handful from it.48 If one divided the isaron in a single container and thus the portions were not touching each other, but there was no divider between them, there is an unresolved doubt whether the container causes [the two portions to be considered as] combined or not. Therefore, [at the outset,] one should not take the handful [in such an instance].49 If one did take the handful, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre. If it was offered, it is accepted [Above], but the remainder [of the offering] should not be eaten.50

6

‫היה הכלי חלוק במחיצה‬ ‫מלמעלה ומעורב מלמטה קומץ‬ :‫ממנו‬ ‫חלק העשרון בכלי אחד ואין‬ ‫חלקיו נוגעין זה בזה ואין ביניהן‬ ‫מחיצה הרי זה ספק אם מצרף הכלי‬ ‫לקמיצה או אינו מצרף לפיכך לא יקמוץ‬ ‫ואם קמץ לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר הורצה‬ :‫ולא יאכלו השירים‬

If one took a handful [of flour from a meal-offering] and placed the handful on the top of the [Golden] Table [elevated to] the height of the arrangement of the showbread,51 the Table causes it to be sanctified in that it can be disqualified,52 but it does not sanctify it so that it can be offered. For [the handful of flour] should not be sacrificed until it was sanctified in a sacred vessel fit for the handful [of flour].

‫קמץ ונתן הקומץ למעלה על‬ ‫השלחן כנגד גובה מערכת לחם‬ ‫הפנים קדשו השלחן להפסל אבל אינו‬ ‫מקדשו ליקרב ואינו קרב עד שיתקדש‬ :‫בכלי שרת הראוי לקומץ‬

If he attached the handful to the wall of the vessel and took it or overturned the vessel above his hand and took the handful while the opening of the vessel was turned downward, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.53 If it was offered, it is accepted [Above].

‫הדביק הקומץ לדופן הכלי וקמץ‬ ‫או שהפך הכלי על ידו וקמץ‬ ‫מתוכו ופיו למטה לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר‬ :‫הורצה‬

[The following rules apply when] an isaron was divided and one of its portions were lost, another portion was set aside in its stead, the lost portion was found and the three are all placed in one container, but are not touching each other. If the portion that was lost becomes impure, it is combined with the first portion and they are disqualified.54 The portion that was set aside [as a replacement] is not combined with them55 and it should be supplemented [to produce a full isaron].

‫עשרון שחלקו ואבד אחד מחלקיו‬ ‫והפריש חלק אחר תחתיו ונמצא‬ ‫האבוד והרי שלשתן מונחין בכלי אחד‬ ‫ואין נוגעין זה בזה נטמא זה שאבד הרי‬ ‫הוא מצטרף עם חלק ראשון ונפסלו וזה‬ ‫שהפריש אינו מצטרף אלא ישלים עליו‬ ‫נטמא המופרש מופרש וראשון מצטרפין‬ ‫ונפסלו וזה שנמצא אינו מצטרף עמהן‬ ‫נטמא החלק הראשון הרי האבוד‬ :‫והמופרש תחתיו מצטרפין‬

If the portion set aside [as a replacement] becomes impure, it and the first portion are combined and disqualified.56 The portion that was [lost and] discovered is not combined with them.57 If the initial portion becomes impure, both the portion that was lost and the portion set aside because of it are combined with it.58

7

8

Similar concepts apply with regard to taking the handful. If one took the handful from the portion that was [lost and then] discovered, the remainder of it and the first portion59 may be eaten and the portion that was set aside [afterwards] may not be eaten.60 If one took the handful from the portion that was set aside [afterwards] the remainder of it and the first portion may be eaten and the portion that was [lost and then] discovered may not be eaten. If one took the handful from the first portion, neither [of the other] two may be eaten.61 [The rationale is that] they are both extra portions.62 For together they are an entire isaron and thus resemble an entire isaron from which a handful was not taken and which is hence, forbidden.

‫וכן לענין קמיצה קמץ מן הנמצא‬ ‫שיריו עם החלק הראשון נאכלין‬ ‫והמופרש אינו נאכל קמץ מן המופרש‬ ‫שיריו נאכלין והנמצא אינו נאכל קמץ מן‬ ‫הראשון שניהן אין נאכלין לפי ששניהן‬ ‫שירים יתירים שהרי הן עשרון שלם ודומין‬ ‫למנחה שלא נקמצה שהיא אסורה והיאך‬ ‫קרב הקומץ הזה והרי לפניו עשרון ומחצה‬ ‫מפני שהקמיצה תלויה בדעת הכהן ובעת‬ ‫שקומץ אין דעתו אלא על העשרון בלבד‬ :‫והרי החלקים אינן נוגעין זה בזה‬

[One might ask:] How can the handful [that was taken] be offered, since there is an isaron and a half [in the vessel]? Because taking the handful is dependent on the intent of the priest and when he takes the handful, he has his mind on an isaron alone and the portions [of the isaron] are not touching each other.63 When a handful [taken from] a meal-offering became mixed with a handful [taken from] another meal-offering, they should both be offered on the altar's pyre together and they are acceptable. Similarly, it is acceptable if a handful [taken from a meal-offering] became mixed with a meal-offering of a priest,64 the meal-offering from an accompanying offering,65 or the chavitin offering of the High Priest.66 They should be offered on the altar's pyre together. [The rationale is that all of these substances] are offered on [the altar's] fire in their entirety.

‫קומץ מנחה שנתערב בקומץ‬ ‫מנחה אחרת מקטיר שניהן‬ ‫כאחת והן כשירות וכן אם נתערב הקומץ‬ ‫במנחת כהנים או במנחת הנסכים או‬ ‫בחביתי כהן גדול הרי אלו כשירות ויקטיר‬ :‫הכל כאחד שהכל לאשים‬

9

[The following rules apply when] two meal-offerings from which a handful had not been separated become mixed together. If [the priest] can remove a handful from each one separately, they are acceptable. If not, they are disqualified.

‫שתי מנחות שלא נקמצו‬ ‫שנתערבו זו בזו אם יכול לקמוץ‬ ‫מזו בפני עצמו ומזו בפני עצמו כשירות‬ :‫ואם לאו פסולות‬

When a handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with a meal-offering from which a handful had not been taken, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.67 If one did offer the entire mixture, the owner of [the offering] from which the handful was taken is considered to have fulfilled his obligation and the owner of the one from which the handful was not taken is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation.

‫קומץ שנתערב במנחה שלא נקמצה‬ ‫לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר הכל זו‬ ‫שנקמצה עלתה לבעלים וזו שלא נקמצה‬ :‫לא עלתה לבעלים‬

If the handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with the remaining portions of the offering or the remaining portions become mixed together with the remaining portions of another meal-offering,68 it69 should not be offered.70 If it was offered, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.

‫נתערב קומצה בשיריה או‬ ‫שנתערבו שיריה בשירי חברתה‬ :‫לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר עלתה לבעלים‬

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 10

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12

FOOTNOTES 1. See the description of the taking of the handful of meal in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:13. 2. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1), the

4. The Kessef Mishneh understands the Rambam as ruling that these acts disqualify the offering permanently, even if the priest corrects the act afterwards. From the Rambam's

Rambam explains that taking a handful of meal is equivalent

Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), it appears that the

to slaughtering an animal sacrifice. Hence if the act is performed by a person unacceptable, it is disqualified. Rav

deed may be corrected. 5. The frankincense should be shifted to side before the

Yosef Corcus states more precisely that it is equivalent to receiving the blood of a sacrifice, thus also disqualifying a

handful is taken. If afterwards any of these substances is found in the handful, it is unacceptable, because the handful

non-priest.

is lacking [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1)].

3. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:12 which mentions the separation of the frankincense.

6. Any place within the Temple Courtyard is acceptable (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12).

7. And the meal-offering is acceptable. The Kessef Mishneh states that this is referring to an instance where he placed the handful of meal into a utensil and from the utensil spilled to the floor. If, however, it falls to the floor from his hand, it is disqualified. As support, he cites a similar ruling with regard to the blood of a sacrifice (Chapter 1, Halachah 26). 8. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12 with regard to bringing the meal-offering to the altar.

utensil for each of these stages of service.

11. As required for certain meal-offerings; see Leviticus 2:6. 12. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12 which describes the which

is

necessary

for

certain

meal-offerings. 13. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23. 14. One log for every isaron (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7). 15. A handful per offering (ibid.). 16. There is no Biblical phrase using the exact wording employed by the Rambam. Menachot 11b derives the concept stated by the Rambam from Leviticus 6:8. Leviticus 2:2 uses a phrase very close to that cited by the Rambam. 17. The use of a plural term indicates that one particle is not sufficient. 18. Double the usual measure. 19. Concerning which Leviticus 5:11 states: "You shall not place upon it oil, nor shall you place upon it frankincense." See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7. 20. Because of the transgression involved. 21. Since the frankincense can be removed, the offering is not disqualified. 22. For the violation of the above prohibition. 23. The Rambam's wording appears to imply that as an initial preference, one should not place oil on these remnants. Nevertheless, from other sources, it would seem that there is no difficulty in doing so.

is acceptable," it is explained (ibid. 20a): "If a priest did not salt it, but a non-priest did." 32. Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:12. As stated there, this is a sacrifices.

Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5. 34. Hence it must be complete at that time. 35. This is the minimum size of the offering, as stated in ibid. 16:13. 36. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:2. 37. Doubling the minimum requirement. 38. And thus the offering is acceptable. 39. Doubling the minimum requirement. 40. On the afternoon of the Sabbath, before the showbreads are replaced by new breads, the bowls of frankincense are removed and the frankincense offered on the altar. 41. The Rambam is speaking after the fact. As an initial preference, once the handful of meal becomes impure, it should not be offered. 42. See Chapter 1, Halachot 34-35; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:7; Hilchot Me'ilah 3:9, et al. 43. Menachot 26a derives this from a comparison to the laws regarding offering the blood on the altar when the meat of a sacrifice became impure or otherwise disqualified. 44. Which causes the meal-offering to be disqualified. 45. And the person who brought it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. 46. Menachot 9b derives this concept from Leviticus 2:3: "The remainder of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons." Implied is that the priests should receive the remainder of the offering and not the remainder of the remnants. 47. For the handful must be taken from an isaron of flour and

24. Either ordinary oil or oil from another meal-offering.

since there is a division in the container, it is considered as if

25. For anything less than an olive-sized portion is not halachically significant.

the isaron was brought in two containers which is

26. Before the handful of meal is removed. 27. I.e., when ground, as stated in Halachah 10. Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slight error. 28. For here also anything less is not considered significant.

10

31. Although Menachot 18a states: "If salt was not placed on it, it

33. I.e., it must contain at least an isaron, as stated in Hilchot

10. Although it need not be mixed with oil by a priest, it must be mixed in the Temple Courtyard (Menachot9b).

process

30. The remainder of the offering, however, need not be salted.

severity that applies to the meal-offerings and not to other

9. Menachot 26a elaborates on the necessity of using a sacred

waving

29. Leviticus 7:10 speaks of a meal-offering "mixed with oil or that is dry."

unacceptable (Menachot 24a). 48. Since the flour is mixed together below, it is considered to be a single entity. 49. Since the question was not resolved, one should not attempt to bring the sacrifice in this manner.

50. The commentaries have not found an explicit source for this ruling. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is derived from the Halachah 20 above. 51. 15 handbreadths, for there are six showbreads in each arrangement and each one is two and one half handbreadths high. 52. I.e., if it remains overnight, is taken out of the Temple Courtyard, or the like. Beforehand, it could not be disqualified for those reasons. From the Rambam's wording, one can infer that placing the handful of meal on the table does not disqualify the handful entirely and if it is gathered and placed in a sacred vessel, it may be placed on the altar's pyre (Kessef Mishneh). 53. Menachot 11a questions whether these situations are acceptable and leaves the matter unresolved.

62. As the Rambam continues to explain, taking the handful from a meal-offering enables the remainder of the isaron from which it is taken to be eaten. It, however, only allows an isaron to be eaten, not more. Thus the two portions could not be eaten because when brought together, the three would comprise more than an isaron. 63. Since each portion is distinct from the other, it is possible for the priest to be focused on two, but not three. 64. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:9. 65. See ibid. 2:1. 66. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:9. 67. I.e., one might desire to offer the entire mixture so that he will have fulfilled his obligation to offer the handful. This, however, is undesirable for one will have offered a meal-offering without separating the handful from it.

54. The rationale for the ruling is that their presence in a common container causes the different elements of an

68. Our translation reflects the version in the standard published

offering to be considered as one, even if they are not touching (Chagigah 20b; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah

have questioned it and have suggested that the text should

12:7). Hence, since these two portions were originally part of the same offering and they are now in the same container, the first part is also disqualified. 55. Since these two portions were never planned to be offered together, they do not share a halachic connection.

texts of the Mishneh Torah even though many commentaries read: "or [the handful] became mixed with the remaining portion of another meal-offering." This version appears preferable, for seemingly, even if two offerings become mixed together, if their handfuls have already been separated, why shouldn't the handfuls be offered? Halachah 29 apparently leads to such a conclusion. Nevertheless, we did not correct

56. For the portion set aside as a replacement and the original portion were intended to serve as a single offering.

the text in this fashion, for the authoritative manuscripts and early printings employ the same version as the standard

57. For as mentioned, it and the replacement have no intrinsic connection.

printed text. Moreover, the Rambam's text of the Mishnah (Menachot 3:3) also contains such statements.

58. For they both share a connection with it.

69. In the first instance, this refers to the mixture of the handful

59. In its entirety.

and the remainder. In the second instance, according to the standard version of the Mishneh Torah, it refers to the

60. Instead, another portion should be combined with it and a second meal-offering brought (Zevach Todah).

handful for the remainder that became intermingled with another remainder.

61. The remainder of the first portion may, however, be eaten, because the handful is acceptable.

70. Generally, when a forbidden substance becomes mixed together with a permitted substance of the same type, the forbidden entity becomes betal - it is considered nullified because it is a tiny proportion of the mixture. Nevertheless, in this instance, Menachot 23b quotes a textual association to prove that the handful does not become betal to the remainder of the offering.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

11

policy .

12



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13

If one adds to or subtracts from the measure for the two loaves [offered on Shavuot],1 the showbread,2 and the omer that is waved,3 they are disqualified.

‫שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים ועומר‬ ‫התנופה שהוסיף במדתן או חסר כל‬ :‫שהוא פסולות‬

With regard to the loaves for the thanksgivingoffering4 and the cakes of a nazirite5 that lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice6 was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.

‫חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר שחסרו עד‬ ‫שלא נזרק דם הזבח פסולין משנזרק‬ :‫דם הזבח כשירין‬

Similarly, with regard to the two loaves, if lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice7 was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.

‫וכן שתי הלחם שחסרו עד שלא נזרק‬ ‫דמן של כבשים פסולין משנזרק דמן‬ :‫כשירים‬

And with regard to the showbread, if lacked [the required measure], before the the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre,8 it is unacceptable. If the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre, it is acceptable.

‫וכן שני סדרים שחסרו עד שלא‬ ‫הוקטרו הבזיכין פסולין משהוקטרו‬ :‫כשירים‬

With regard to the accompanying offerings that lacked [the required measure]: whether the sacrifice was offered or not, they are acceptable, but other accompanying offerings must be brought to complete [the required measure].

‫אבל הנסכים שחסרו בין משקרב‬ ‫הזבח בין עד שלא קרב כשרים ויביא‬ :‫נסכים אחרים למלאותן‬

[The following rules apply when] accompanying offerings were sanctified in a sacred vessel and then the sacrifice was disqualified. If it was disqualified through ritual slaughter, the accompanying offerings have not been sanctified so that they must be offered.9 If it was disqualified from the reception of the blood and onward,10 the accompanying offerings have become sanctified, because what sanctifies the accompanying offerings so that they should be offered is solely the slaughter of the sacrifice [in an acceptable manner].11

‫נסכים שקדשו בכלי שרת ונפסל הזבח‬ ‫אם נפסל בשחיטה לא קדשו הנסכים‬ ‫ליקרב נפסל מקבלה ואילך קדשו הנסכים‬ ‫ליקרב שאין הנסכים מתקדשים ליקרב‬ ‫אלא בשחיטת הזבח ומה יעשה בהן אם‬ ‫היה שם זבח אחר זבוח באותה שעה‬ ‫יקרבו עמו ואם לא היה שם זבח אחר זבוח‬ ‫באותה שעה נעשו כמי שנפסלו בלינה‬ ‫וישרפו במה דברים אמורים בקרבן צבור‬ ‫מפני שלב בית דין מתנה עליהן אבל‬ ‫בקרבן יחיד הרי אלו לא יקרבו עם זבח‬ ‫אחר ואע"פ שהוא זבוח באותה שעה אלא‬ :‫מניחן עד שיפסלו בלינה וישרפו‬

What should be done with [these accompanying offerings]?12 If there was another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time,13 they should be offered together with it. If there was not another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time, they are considered as if they were disqualified because they were left overnight and they should be destroyed by fire.14 When does the above apply? With regard to communal sacrifices, because the heart of the court makes stipulations concerning them.15 [Different rules apply with regard to] individual sacrifices.16 Such [accompanying offerings] should not be offered together with another sacrifice even if it was sacrificed at that time. Instead, they should be left until they become disqualified because they remained overnight and then they should be destroyed by fire.

2

3

Whenever a sacrifice was offered for a purpose other than that for which it was consecrated,17 the accompanying offerings should be offered with it.18

‫וכל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן יקרבו‬ :‫נסכיהם‬

[The following laws apply with regard to] the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering, an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred, and [a situation in which] one separated his thanksgiving-offering, it was lost, and he separated another one instead of it.19 If [any of these animals] were to be offered after the owner's obligation was not satisfied with the original thanksgiving-offering, bread20 need not be brought with it. If the owner's obligation was satisfied with the original offering and it and the one separated in place of it, it and its offspring, or it and the animal onto which its holiness was transferred are both present before us, bread is required to be brought with both of them.21

‫ולד תודה ותמורתה והמפריש‬ ‫תודתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת‬ ‫תחתיה אם הביאן לאחר שכפר בתודה‬ ‫ראשונה אינן טעונין לחם ואם עדיין לא‬ ‫כפר בה והרי היא וחליפתה או היא וולדה‬ ‫או היא ותמורתה עומדת הרי שניהן צריכין‬ ‫לחם במה דברים אמורים בנודר תודה‬ ‫אבל תודת נדבה חליפתה ותמורתה טעונין‬ ‫לחם וולדה אינו טעון לחם בין לפני כפרה‬ :‫בין לאחר כפרה‬

When does the above22 apply? When one vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering.23 When, however, one designated an animal as a thanksgiving-offering, an animal set aside instead of it or one onto which its holiness was transferred require that bread [be offered with them].24 Its offspring does not require bread.25 [This applies] whether or not the owner's obligation was already satisfied with the original offering.26

[The following laws apply if one] set aside an animal as a thanksgiving-offering27 and it was lost, he set aside a second one in its stead and it was also lost, he then set aside a third animal in its place and then the first two were found. Thus the three animals are standing before us. If he fulfills his obligation with the first one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.28 The third one, however, requires bread.29 If he fulfills his obligation with the third one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.30 The first one, however, requires bread.31 If he fulfills his obligation with the middle one, both the others do not require bread.32

4

‫הפריש תודתו ואבדה והפריש‬ ‫אחרת תחתיה ואבדה והפריש‬ ‫אחרת תחתיה ונמצאו הראשונות והרי‬ ‫שלשתן עומדות נתכפר בראשונה שנייה‬ ‫אינה טעונה לחם שלישית טעונה לחם‬ ‫נתכפר בשלישית שנייה אינה טעונה לחם‬ ‫ראשונה טעונה לחם נתכפר באמצעית‬ :‫שתיהן אינן טעונות לחם‬

5

[The following laws apply when one] sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, other money was set aside in its place, but [the owner] did not have the opportunity to buy a thanksgiving-offering until the first money was found. He should bring a thanksgiving offering and its bread from a combination of the two. From the remainder, he should bring a thanksgiving offering, but it does not require bread.33 It does, however, require accompanying offerings.34 Similarly, when one sets aside [an animal for] a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, money was set aside in its place, and afterwards [the original animal] was found, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread with that money.35 Similarly, if one sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, a thanksgiving-offering was set aside in its place, and then the money was found, the money should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering and its bread.36 The second thanksgiving-offering should be offered without bread.

‫המפריש מעות לתודתו ואבדו והפריש‬ ‫מעות אחרות תחתיהן ולא הספיק‬ ‫ליקח בהן תודה עד שנמצאו מעות‬ ‫הראשונות יביא מאלו ומאלו תודה‬ ‫בלחמה והשאר יביא בהן תודה ואינה‬ ‫טעונה לחם אבל טעונה נסכים וכן‬ ‫המפריש תודתו ואבדה והפריש מעות‬ ‫תחתיה ואחר כך נמצאת יביא במעות‬ ‫תודה בלא לחם וכן המפריש מעות‬ ‫לתודתו ואבדו והפריש תודה תחתיהן‬ ‫ואח"כ נמצאו המעות יביא מן המעות‬ ‫תודה ולחמה וזו התודה האחרונה תקרב‬ :‫בלא לחם‬

[The following laws apply if a person] says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread."37 If the bread is lost, he should bring other bread, If the thanksgiving-offering is lost, he should not bring another thanksgiving-offering.38 [The rationale is that] the bread is brought because of the thanksgivingoffering, but the thanksgiving-offering is not brought because of the bread.

‫האומר הרי זו תודה והרי זה לחמה‬ ‫אבד הלחם מביא לחם אחר אבדה‬ ‫התודה אינו מביא תודה אחרת מפני‬ ‫שהלחם בא בגלל התודה ואין התודה באה‬ :‫בגלל הלחם‬

When a person set aside money for his thanksgiving-offering and some remained, he should use it to bring bread. If he set aside money to bring bread and some remained, he should not use it to bring a thanksgiving-offering.39

‫הפריש מעות לתודתו ונותרו מביא‬ ‫בהן לחם הפריש ללחם והותיר אינו‬ :‫מביא בהן תודה‬

[The following rules apply when] one says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering,"40 it becomes intermingled with an animal upon which its holiness was transferred, one died, but he does not know which is which. There is no way to correct the situation of the one which remains. Were one to bring bread with it, [it is possible that he will have erred,] for perhaps this is the animal upon which the holiness was transferred.41 [But] were he to bring it without bread, it is possible that it is the thanksgiving-offering.42 Therefore this animal should not be sacrificed at all. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.43

6

‫האומר הרי זו תודה ונתערבה‬ ‫בתמורתה ומתה אחת מהן ואין ידוע‬ ‫אי זו היא הרי זו הנשארת אין לה תקנה‬ ‫שאם יביא עמה לחם שמא התמורה היא‬ ‫ואם הביאה בלא לחם שמא התודה היא‬ ‫לפיכך לא תקרב זו לעולה אלא תרעה עד‬ :‫שיפול בה מום‬

When one of the loaves of the bread brought with a thanksgiving-offering was broken in pieces, they are all disqualified.44 If a loaf was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] or it became impure,45 the remainder of the breads are acceptable. If the bread46 was broken in two, contracted impurity, or was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered, he should bring another bread and then slaughter [the sacrificial animal]. If the above occurred after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be cast [upon the altar], the meat [of the sacrifice] should be eaten, but all of the bread is disqualified.47 The person [bringing the sacrifice] does not fulfill his vow.48

‫תודה שנפרסה חלה מחלותיה כולן‬ ‫פסולות יצאת החלה או נטמאה‬ ‫שאר החלות כשירות נפרס לחמה או‬ ‫נטמא או יצא עד שלא נשחטה התודה‬ ‫מביא לחם אחר ושוחט ואם אחר שנשחט‬ ‫נפרס או נטמא או יצא הדם יזרק והבשר‬ ‫יאכל והלחם כולו פסול וידי נדרו לא יצא‬ ‫נזרק הדם ואחר כך נפרס מקצת הלחם או‬ ‫נטמא או יצא תורם מן השלם על הפרוס‬ ‫ומן הטהור על הטמא וממה שבפנים על‬ :‫שבחוץ‬

If the blood has been cast [upon the altar] and afterwards some of the breads were broken in two, became impure, or were taken outside, [the person bringing the sacrifice] should separate one of the whole loaves49 for [all the loaves of that type, including] the one which is broken, one of the pure for [all the others, including] the one which is impure, and one which is in [the Temple Courtyard] for [all the others, including] the one which was taken outside. When a thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered in connection with 80 loaves, 40 of the 80 are not consecrated.50 If [the person bringing the sacrifice] says: "May 40 of these 80 become consecrated," he should take 40 from the 80 and separate one from each [category brought as] an offering. The other 40 should be redeemed and then they are considered as ordinary bread.51

7

‫תודה שנשחטה על שמונים חלות‬ ‫לא קדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים‬ ‫ואם אמר יקדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים‬ ‫מושך ארבעים מתוך שמונים ומרים מהם‬ ‫אחת מכל קרבן והארבעים השניות יפדו‬ :‫ויצאו לחולין‬

When a person slaughters a thanksgivingoffering, but its bread was located outside the walls of Beit Pagi,52 the bread is not consecrated. If, however, the bread was outside the Temple Courtyard, the bread becomes consecrated even though it is not inside the Courtyard.53

‫השוחט את התודה והיה לחמה‬ ‫חוץ לחומת בית פגי לא קדש‬ ‫הלחם אבל אם היה חוץ לעזרה קדש‬ :‫הלחם אע"פ שאינו לפנים‬

If he slaughtered [an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] before the surface of the bread in the oven becomes hard, even if all of [the breads] became hard except for one, the bread is not consecrated.54

‫שחטה עד שלא קרמו פני הלחם‬ ‫בתנור ואפילו קרמו כולן חוץ מאחת‬ :‫מהן לא קדש הלחם‬

If he slaughtered [the animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] and its slaughter was disqualified because of an improper intent concerning the time or the place [where the sacrifice will be offered or eaten]55 the bread is sanctified.56 If [the animal] is discovered to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it was tereifah,57 or it was slaughtered with an improper intent,58 the bread is not consecrated. These laws also apply with regard to the ram brought by a nazirite.59

‫בשחיטתה‬ ‫ונפסלה‬ ‫שחטה‬ ‫במחשבת זמן או במחשבת מקום‬ ‫קדש הלחם נמצאת בעלת מום או טריפה‬ ‫או ששחטה שלא לשמה לא קדש הלחם‬ :‫וכן הדין באיל נזיר עם הלחם שלו‬

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13

FOOTNOTES 1. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1. 2. Ibid. 5:1. 3. And offered on the day following Pesach; ibid. 7:12; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5. 4. See ibid. 9:17-22. 5. Ibid.:23. 6. The animal offered with the loaves. 7. The communal peace-offerings brought on Shavuot. 8. Offering the frankincense is thus equivalent to offering the blood on the altar. See also Chapter 11, Halachah 17.

8

9. In all instances, however, they are considered sanctified to the extent that they must be kept overnight and then destroyed by fire. 10. According to the Kessef Mishneh, the intent is that even the reception of the blood was not performed in an acceptable manner. See the following note.

9

11. Hence since the sacrifices were slaughtered in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offerings should be

21. The apparent meaning of the Rambam's words here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot, loc. cit.) is that

offered on the altar. The Ra'avad notes that this ruling is the subject of a difference opinion between our Sages in

bread should be brought when offering both of these sacrifices. Shoham VeYashpah, however, cites Menachot

Menachot 79a. Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon maintains that for an accompany offering to be offered, the blood of the

79b which states that when both a thanksgiving-offering and an animal separated as a replacement for it are both present

sacrifice must be received in an acceptable manner. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi differs and maintains that as long as the

before us, the breads should be offered with either one and the other, offered without bread. Even such an interpretation,

slaughter is acceptable, even if the blood was not received in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offering should be

however, is not appropriate with regard to an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was

offered. The Ra'avad maintains that the Rambam follows Rabbi

transferred. The Rambam's ruling here is also slightly problematic when compared to the following halachah.

Elazer ben Shimon's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh and R.

22. That bread is or is not required for both of the offerings in the

Yosef Corcus, by contrast, elaborate to show that he accepts the position of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Moreover, they cite the Rambam's ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 18, as proof that this is the Rambam's understanding here. The Kessef Mishneh does, however, explain a way to interpret the

above situations. 23. I.e., he did not designate a specific animal as a thanksgivingoffering, but instead, undertook the responsibility to bring such a sacrifice. 24. Rambam LeAm explains that when an animal is designated

passage according to the Ra'avad's view. 12. I.e., by definition an accompanying offering may not be sacrificed alone, only with a sacrifice, and in this instance, the sacrifice has been disqualified.

as a thanksgiving sacrifice and is lost, there is no need to bring another instead of it. Hence the second thanksgivingoffering is considered as an independent sacrifice and bread is required for it independently.

13. And does not have an accompanying offering to be brought with it.

With regard to an animal upon which the holiness of the thanksgiving offering was transformed, Rambam LeAm

14. The priests must wait until the next morning to burn them.

questions the Rambam's ruling, because seemingly, bread should not be required for such a sacrifice after the first

For until a sacrifice is actually disqualified, it is forbidden to destroy it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:4). 15. I.e., the court takes into consideration all the possible eventualities that might crop up and has the accompanying offering brought with those possibilities in mind. Hence if the sacrifice is disqualified, the basis on which accompanying offering was brought is not nullified.

the

16. For the court does not make such stipulations about them. 17. I.e., when one sacrificed it with the intent that it was another type of offering, e.g., one slaughtered an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering with the intent that it was a peaceoffering. 18. For with the exception of a sin-offering, sacrifices are

animal was offered. Based on Halachah 13, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error here and that in no instance is bread required when offering an animal on which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred. 25. I.e., in any situation; see Hilchot Temurah 4:1. 26. Rambam LeAm maintains that this line refers only to the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering. 27. This law applies when the person made a vow to bring a thanksgiving-offering, accepting responsibility for the sacrifice. 28. The second animal was set aside in place of the first. Since the owner fulfilled his obligation with the first, there is no obligation to bring bread with the second.

acceptable if slaughtered with such a mistaken intent. And there are no accompanying offerings for a sin-offering.

29. For it does not have a connection to the first. Therefore it is

19. See the parallels to similar questions involving a sin-offering in Chapter 4, Halachah 4.

considered as a new thanksgiving-offering which requires bread.

20. I.e., the 40 breads offered together with a thanksgivingoffering.

30. For the third animal takes the place of the second. 31. For it is not associated with the third animal. 32. Because the middle one is associated with both of the others. It was set aside instead of the first and the third was set aside instead of it.

10

33. For if there are funds left over from the purchase of a sacrifice, the money should be used to purchase an offering of the same type, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 9. Nevertheless, the additional thanksgiving offering does not require bread as reflected by Halachah 8.

46. This is speaking about an instance when all of the loaves were disqualified in this manner. If only some of the loaves were disqualified, they should be replaced. 47. Rav Yosef Corcus and others question the Rambam's ruling, noting that he is equating the loaves becoming impure or

34. For it must be offered according to the requirements appropriate for thanksgiving-offerings.

taken outside the Temple Courtyard with their being broken when at the beginning of the halachah, he himself mentioned

35. I.e., the animal originally set aside as a thanksgiving-offering should be offered for that purpose together with the bread

the difference between these categories. Also, this ruling would apparently contradict the ruling in Chapter 17,

and the money should be used to purchase an additional thanksgiving-offering.

Halachah 13. Rav Yosef Corcus suggests that the Rambam's statements are referring to a situation where all the loaves

36. Since the money was originally set aside for this purpose, it should be used for the primary offering. 37. Setting aside a specific animal and bread. 38. Since he did not accept an obligation to bring a sacrifice upon himself, but rather designated an animal as a sacrifice, if that animal is lost, he is under no obligation. The fact that there is bread remaining does not obligate him as the Rambam explains. 39. Because the bread is referred to as a thanksgiving-offering, but the offering is not referred to as bread (Menachot 80a). 40. Designating an animal to be offered for that purpose.

became impure or were taken out of the Courtyard. 48. And instead must bring another thanksgiving-offering. The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling is in direct contradiction to the standard printed text of Menachot 46b. They suggest that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage. 49. A total of 40 loaves (10 of four different types) are offered with the thanksgiving offering. One loaf of each type is given to a priest (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:12, 17-18). 50. Since only 40 are required, the additional 40 are not consecrated. 51. The commentaries question why the loaves must be

41. And bread should not be brought with such an offering. As mentioned above, there appears to be a contradiction

redeemed. Since the person stated that only 40 are being consecrated, why is it necessary to redeem the other 40?

between this halachah and Halachah 8, for Halachah 8 appears to imply that bread is required for an animal to which

Among the answers given is that originally, when setting aside the loaves, he mentioned that all the loaves would be

the holiness of a thanksgiving offering was transferred if the original animal had been designated for the sacrifice. For this

consecrated.

reason, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error in Halachah 8. 42. Which requires bread. 43. At which time, it should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase another thanksgiving-offering and its bread. The Ra'avad maintains that the person should bring another thanksgiving-offering and bread from his own resources and the proceeds from the sale of the blemished animal should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering without bread. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, while the Chacham Tzvi (Responsum 24) reinforces the Ra'avad's objection.

52. This term refers to the wall that surrounds the Temple Mount. The term relates to the phrase (Daniel 1:5): patbag hamelech, "the food of the king" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:3)]. 53. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that although the Torah states that the thanksgiving offering should be brought "on the bread," the intent is not they must be physically adjacent to each other. It is sufficient that they be close. 54. For in order to be associated with the sacrifice, the bread must be baked at the time that the animal is slaughtered. 55. See the following chapters which discuss these issues at length.

44. The breads accompanying the thanksgiving offering must be whole. The Rambam is speaking about an instance when

56. Because the disqualification came at the time of the

one of these breads became broken between the slaughter of the animal and the presentation of its blood on the altar.

slaughter of the animal and not beforehand. Since the bread becomes sanctified, it is considered as piggul

45. Menachot 12b states that the High Priest's forehead plate

57. An animal that will die within a year. In these instances, since

causes those impure to be considered acceptable and the acceptability of those taken out of the Temple Courtyard is

the animal was never acceptable for sacrifice - even if that was not discovered before its slaughter - the breads are not

derived through Talmudic logic.

consecrated.

58. I.e., it was slaughtered with the intent of it being offered as another type of sacrifice. In this instance, even though the

59. I.e., for this offering is also accompanied by bread. The same concepts also apply with regard to the two loaves brought on

disqualifying factor took place at the time the animal is slaughtered, the bread is disqualified. For based on Leviticus

Shavuos and the two lambs brought at that time. See Chapter 17, Halachah 18.

7:12, the Sifra states that for the bread to be consecrated, the animal must be slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

11

policy .

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 14

2

There are three improper intents that disqualify sacrifices. They are: the intent [to offer a sacrifice]1 for a different purpose,2 the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, and the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time. What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose"?3 [The animal was designated as] a burnt-offering and [the priest] had the intent that it was a peace-offering, he slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, or for the sake of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, or he did not slaughter the sacrifice for the sake of its owners. These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose." What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose4 with the intent of casting its blood or offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside the Temple Courtyard or eating a portion of it that is fit to be eaten outside the place designated for it to be eaten.5 These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] in an [improper] place." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper place. What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose with the intent of casting its blood [on the altar] after sunset which is not the time at which its blood may be cast, with intent of offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre] on the next day, after dawn, which is not the time when it may be offered, or to partake of a portion of it that is fit to be eaten after the time when it is fit to be eaten.6 These are

‫שלש מחשבות הן שפוסלין את‬ :‫הקרבנות ואלו הן‬ ‫מחשבת שינוי השם ומחשבת המקום‬ ‫ומחשבת הזמן מחשבת שינוי השם כיצד‬ ‫זה השוחט את הזבח שלא לשמו כגון‬ ‫שהיה עולה ויחשב שהוא שלמים או‬ ‫ישחטנו לשם עולה ושלמים או לשם‬ ‫שלמים ולשם עולה או ששחט הזבח שלא‬ ‫לשם בעליו זו היא מחשבת שינוי השם‬ ‫מחשבת המקום כיצד כגון ששחט את‬ ‫הזבח לשמו על מנת לזרוק דמו או‬ ‫להקטיר ממנו דבר הראוי להקטרה חוץ‬ ‫לעזרה או לאכול ממנו דבר הראוי‬ ‫לאכילה חוץ למקום אכילתו זו היא‬ ‫מחשבת המקום וזבחים שחשב בהן‬ ‫מחשבה זו הם הנקראים זבחים ששחטן‬ ‫חוץ למקומן מחשבת הזמן כיצד כגון‬ ‫ששחט את הזבח לשמו על מנת לזרוק‬ ‫דמו מאחר שתשקע החמה שאינו זמן‬ ‫זריקתו או להקטיר ממנו דבר הראוי‬ ‫להקטיר למחר מאחר שיעלה עמוד השחר‬ ‫שאינו זמן הקטרתו או לאכול ממנו דבר‬ ‫הראוי לאכילה לאחר זמן הראוי לאכילתו‬ ‫זו היא מחשבת הזמן וזבחים שחשב בהן‬ ‫מחשבה זו הם הנקראים זבחים שנשחטו‬ ‫חוץ לזמנן והם הנקראים פגול בכ"מ וזהו‬ :‫פגול האמור בתורה‬

3

According to the Oral Tradition,8 we learned that the Torah's statements [Leviticus 7:18]: "If some of the meat of the peace-offering was eaten on the third day," [should not be interpreted literally]. Instead, it is speaking about one who has the intent while offering the sacrifice that it will be eaten on the third day.9 The same applies with regard to every sacrifice that, while offering it, one had the intent to partake of it after the time that is appropriate to partake of that type of sacrifice. Similarly, [the sacrifice is disqualified] if one had the intent to offer portions of it that are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre after the time appropriate for them to be offered. According to the Oral Tradition,10 the following concept was derived: With regard to both consumption by man and consumption by the altar, if one had the intent that [sacrifices] be consumed after the appropriate time, the sacrifice is considered as piggul.

‫מפי השמועה למדו שזה שנאמר‬ ‫בתורה ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח‬ ‫שלמיו אינו מדבר אלא במחשב בשעת‬ ‫הקרבה שיאכל ממנו בשלישי והוא הדין‬ ‫לכל קרבן שחשב עליו בשעת מעשיו‬ ‫שיאכל ממנו לאחר זמן הראוי לאכילת‬ ‫אותו קרבן וכן אם חשב להקטיר ממנו‬ ‫במזבח דבר הראוי להקטרה ]לאחר זמן‬ ‫הראוי להקטרה[ כך למדו מפי השמועה‬ ‫אחד אכילת אדם ואחד אכילת מזבח אם‬ :‫חשב עליהן אחר זמנן הרי הקרבן פגול‬

4

When, however, a sacrifice was not disqualified because of an improper intent, but instead, its blood was cast on the altar in the proper manner, but it remained after the time allotted for it to be eaten, the portion that remains is considered notar. It is forbidden to eat it,11 but the sacrifice was already accepted and atonement was achieved. It is written with regard to the blood [of a sacrifice, Leviticus 17:11]: "And I gave it to you upon the altar to bring atonement." [Implied is that] since the blood reached the altar according to law, the owners achieved atonement and the sacrifice was acceptable. Therefore the concept of piggul applies only to entities that possess services that will enable [them to be consumed] either by men or by the altar, as will be explained.

‫אבל קרבן שלא נפסדה מחשבתו אלא‬ ‫נזרק דמו על המזבח כהלכתו ונשאר‬ ‫ממנו לאחר זמן אכילתו אותו הנשאר‬ ‫נקרא נותר ואסור לאכלו והקרבן כבר‬ ‫נרצה וכפר הרי הוא אומר בדם ואני נתתיו‬ ‫לכם על המזבח לכפר כיון שהגיע דם‬ ‫למזבח כהלכתו נתכפרו הבעלים ונרצה‬ ‫הקרבן לפיכך אין מתפגל אלא דבר שיש‬ ‫לו מתירין בין לאדם בין למזבח כמו‬ ‫שיתבאר אחד זבח שחשב בו אחת משלש‬ ‫מחשבות אלו בשעת שחיטה או שחשב‬ ‫בשעת קבלת הדם או בשעת הולכתו‬ :‫למזבח או בעת זריקתו על המזבח‬

The same laws apply if one had one of these three disqualifying intents when slaughtering a sacrifice, receiving its blood, taking its blood to the altar, or casting it on the altar. We derive from the above that it is with regard to these four services that a sacrifice can be disqualified because of an [improper] intent: slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it [to the altar], and casting it on the altar.12

‫נמצאת למד שבארבע עבודות הזבח‬ ‫ בשחיטה ובקבלה‬:‫נפסל במחשבה‬ :‫ובהולכת הדם ובזריקתו על המזבח‬

A fowl [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in two services: melikah and squeezing out the blood [on the altar].13

‫ במליקה ובמצוי‬:‫והעוף בשני דברים‬ :‫הדם‬

The meal-offerings from which a handful is taken [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in four services: taking the handful, placing the handful in a sacred utensil, bringing the utensil to the altar, and casting it on the pyre.14

‫ בקמיצה‬:‫והמנחות הנקמצות בארבעה‬ ‫ובנתינת הקומץ בכלי שרת ובהולכת‬ :‫הקומץ למזבח ובזריקתו על האש‬

5

If, however, one had an improper intent while performing services other than these: e.g., one had such an intent when skinning [sacrificial animal], when cutting it into pieces, when bringing its internal organs and fats to altar,15 when mixing [the oil and flour of] a meal-offering, when bringing it close to the altar,16 or the like, that [improper] intent is of no consequence. [This applies] whether it is an intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose, an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, or an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.

‫אבל אם חשב בדברים אחרים חוץ‬ ‫מאלו כגון שחשב בשעת הפשט או‬ ‫בשעת ניתוח או בשעת הולכת אימורין‬ ‫למזבח או בשעת בלילת המנחה או בשעת‬ ‫הגשתה וכיוצא בדברים אלו אין אותה‬ ‫המחשבה מועלת כלום בין שהיתה‬ ‫מחשבת שינוי השם בין מחשבת המקום‬ :‫בין מחשבת הזמן‬

6

Similarly, if when performing one of these four tasks or all of them, one has an [improper] intent other than these three intents, that undesirable intent does not disqualify [a sacrifice] at all. What is implied? When slaughtering [a sacrificial animal], receiving [its blood], bringing [the blood to the altar], and casting [on the altar], a person had the intent to:17 a) leave the blood of the sacrifice or the organs and fats to be burnt on the altar for the next day18 or to remove them from the Temple Courtyard,19 b) or he had the intent to cast the blood on the [altar's] ramp, where it is not opposite the base20 c) or [take] the blood of sacrifices that must be presented on the upper portion of the altar21 on the lower portion or those to be presented on the lower portion22 on the upper portion, d) or those to be presented on the outer altar23 on the inner altar, or those to be presented on the inner altar24 on the outer altar, or to bring the blood of a sin-offering into the inner chamber, e) he had the intent that impure people or others disqualified from partaking of a sacrifice should partake of it, f) that the sacrifice be offered by impure people or others who are disqualified from performing sacrificial service, g) to mix the blood of the sacrifice with unacceptable blood; h) he intended to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice or to eat from it while it is not thoroughly cooked;25

‫וכן המחשב באחת מארבע עבודות‬ ‫אלו או בכולן מחשבה אחרת חוץ‬ ‫משלש מחשבות אלו אין אותה המחשבת‬ ‫מפסדת כלום כיצד המחשב בשעת‬ ‫שחיטה וקבלה והולכה וזריקה להניח דם‬ ‫הזבח או אימוריו למחר או להוציאן חוץ‬ ‫לעזרה או שחשב לזרוק הדם על הכבש‬ ‫שלא כנגד היסוד או ליתן את הניתנין‬ ‫למעלה למטה ואת הניתנין למטה למעלה‬ ‫או ליתן דמים הניתנין במזבח החיצון‬ ‫במזבח הפנימי או את הניתנין בפנימי‬ ‫לחיצון או להכניס דם החטאת לפנים או‬ ‫שחשב שיאכלו הזבח טמאים או שאר‬ ‫הפסולין לאכילה או שיקריבום טמאים או‬ ‫שאר הפסולין לעבודה או לערב דם הזבח‬ ‫בדם הפסולין או שחשב לשבר עצמות‬ ‫הפסח ולאכול ממנו נא או שחשב לשרוף‬ ‫חטאת הנשרפת חוץ לזמנן או חוץ למקומן‬ ‫בכל אלו המחשבות וכיוצא בהן הזבח‬ ‫כשר וכן אם חשב בשעת קמיצת המנחה‬ ‫ובשעת נתינתו לכלי ובשעת הולכתו‬ ‫ובשעת זריקתו על האש להניח קומצה או‬ ‫לבונתו למחר או להוציאו לחוץ הרי זו‬ :‫כשירה‬

7

We already explained27 that bringing [blood or limbs to the altar] in a way other than walking is not considered as bringing them. Therefore an undesirable intent28 does not disqualify [a sacrifice in such an instance]. Carrying [blood or a limb] to a place to which one need not is considered as carrying and [if one has] an undesirable intent while doing this, [the sacrifice] is disqualified. What is implied? One received the blood and while standing in his place extended his arm to cast it on the altar and while he extended his arm, he had an undesirable intent, that intent does not disqualify it. If, however, he received the blood inside [the Temple Courtyard] and did not carry it toward the altar, but instead, carried it and took it [toward the area] outside [the Courtyard],29 having a disqualifying intent, [like one] involving the time [the sacrifice would be eaten] or the like, he causes it to be disqualified.30

« Previous

‫כבר ביארנו שהולכה שלא ברגל‬ ‫אינה הולכה לפיכך אין המחשבה‬ ‫פוסלת בה והמהלך במקום שאינו צריך‬ ‫הרי זו הולכה והמחשבה פוסלת בה כיצד‬ ‫קבל הדם והוא עומד במקומו ופשט ידו‬ ‫לזורקו על המזבח וחשב בעת שפשט ידו‬ ‫בדם אין המחשבה פוסלת בה אבל אם‬ ‫קבל הדם בפנים ולא הלך בו לגבי המזבח‬ ‫אלא הלך בו והוציאו לחוץ וחשב בשעת‬ ‫הלוכו לחוץ במחשבת הזמן וכיוצא בה הרי‬ :‫זו פוסלת‬

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 14

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12 FOOTNOTES 1. The particular activities which disqualifiy a sacrifice are mentioned in Halachot 4-6. 2. I.e., for the sacrifice of another type or not for the sake of its owner, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. 3. Zevachim 1:1 states: "All of the sacrifices that were sacrificed without the proper intent are acceptable, but their offering does not fulfill the owner's obligation with the

5. Sacrifices of the most sacred order must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard and sacrifices of lesser sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem. 6. Most sacrifices must be eaten on the day they were offered and on the following night. Certain others may also be eaten on the following day. 7. Leviticus 7:18; 19:7. The term has the implication of

exception of a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice." Thus although most sacrifices that are not offered with the proper

"rejected" (Targum Onkelos) and "abhorrent" (Rav Saadia

intent are acceptable, since the owner does not fulfill his obligation while offering them, the Rambam mentions them in

8. Sifra to the verse quoted; Zevachim 29a; see the Rambam's

this halachah (Kessef Mishneh). See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:10. 4. I.e., for the type of sacrifice for which it was designated and for the correct owner.

Gaon).

Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:3).

9. I.e., the verse states: "if it was eaten on the third day, it is unacceptable." Peace-offerings may be eaten only for two

17. All of the acts mentioned by the Rambam would disqualify a sacrifice or its meat if performed. In this instance, however,

days. The Oral Tradition explains that the intent is not that eating the sacrifice on the third day disqualifies it, but that

we are not speaking about a situation where these acts were performed. Instead, it is merely that the priest performing the

having the intent that it be eaten on the third day while offering disqualifies it from the outset.

service intended that they be performed.

Although this interpretation is communicated by the Oral Tradition, there are allusions to it in the Torah's words. The above verse uses the term: "the one who offers it," implying that the disqualification involves the offering. And it uses the phrase venechshav ("and it will be considered"), implying that the disqualification has to do with thought. 10. Zevachim 28b explains that since the above verse uses a

18. While according to law, the blood must be cast on the altar on the day the sacrifice was offered and the limbs and organs must be burnt on either that day or the following night. 19. Which would disqualify them. 20. And the blood of certain sacrifices must be poured on the base of the altar.

twofold construction for the term "eat," haechol yaechol, our

21. Burnt-offerings.

Sages interpreted it as referring to two types of consumption:

22. Sin-offerings.

consumption by the altar and consumption by man.

23. I.e., the overwhelming majority of both the communal and

11. See Chapter 18, Halachah 10, for more details regarding this prohibition. 12. The rationale is that these four services are necessities for the offering of a sacrifice (Zevachim 1:4.)

individual offerings. 24. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:11. 25. Both of these are forbidden (Exodus 12:46, 9). 26. See ibid. 7:2-5 with regard to the burning of these

13. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:7), the Rambam writes that performing melikah is equivalent to

sin-offerings. As related there, they are burnt in a special place outside of Jerusalem on the day they were offered or

slaughter and squeezing a fowl's blood on the altar

on the following night.

equivalent to casting an animal's blood. In this instance, there are no parallels to receiving the blood or carrying it to

27. Chapter 1, Halachah 23.

the altar.

28. Even one of the three undesirable intents mentioned at the

14. For these four services are comparable to the four services mentioned in Halachah 4 (Zevachim 13b). As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:3) separating the handful is equivalent to ritual slaughter and the handful of meal, equivalent to the blood of a sacrificial animal. 15. All of these services are not essential to the offering of a sacrifice. Even if they are not performed, the sacrifice is acceptable. 16. These services are performed before taking the handful. Thus it is comparable to the services performed before

beginning of this chapter. 29. He did not actually take the blood outside - that would disqualify it - but he walked in that direction, away from the altar (see Rashi, Zevachim 16b). 30. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion in Zevachim, loc. cit., and the halachah appears to follow the view of Rabbi Elazar who maintains that a priest's intent can disqualify the sacrifice only when he is carrying the blood to the altar. The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution of the passage according to the Rambam's understanding.

slaughter which do not disqualify an animal.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .

9

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 14 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13

[With regard to the intent that could disqualify a sacrifice:] The only intent that is significant is that of the person performing the Temple service. The intent of the person bringing the sacrifice is of no consequence.1 Even when we heard that the owner had an intent which would cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul,2 if the person performing the Temple service had the proper intent, the sacrifice is acceptable.

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 15

‫אין המחשבה הולכת אלא אחר‬ ‫העובד אבל מחשבת בעל הקרבן‬ ‫אינה מועלת כלום אפילו שמענו הבעלים‬ ‫שפגלו והיתה מחשבת העובד נכונה הרי‬ :‫זה כשר‬

2

The intent of [the person performing sacrificial service] is significant only when he is fit to perform this service, he is performing service with an entity fit for service, and is doing so in a place fit for service.3 What is implied? If a person who is unfit for Temple service receives the blood, brings it to the altar, or casts it on the altar and at the time he is performing this service has an unacceptable intent with regard to place or time, his intent does not disqualify the sacrifice, because he is not fit to perform Temple service.4 The blood that he received or a portion that remained after he cast some [on the altar] should be poured into the drainage canal.5 If "the blood of the soul" remains [within the animal], a person who is fit to perform Temple service should receive it with a proper intent.6 If, however, a person who is unfit for Temple service has an disqualifying intent at the time he slaughters [the animal], he disqualifies it with his intent, because ritual slaughter is acceptable if performed by an unfit person, as explained.7 They are sacrifices that are acceptable if they are offered for an intent other than specified originally,8 as will be explained.9 Therefore, [in those instances,] if a priest who is not fit for Temple service receives the blood, carries it, or casts it on the altar, he disqualifies the sacrifice as if he offered it for the desired intent in which instance, it would be disqualified. Even if "the blood of the soul" remains and it was received by an acceptable [priest] and cast on the altar, the sacrifice was already disqualified. It was not disqualified because it was offered for a different purpose, but because [service] was performed by someone unfit for service, as we explained.10

‫ואין המחשבה מועלת אלא ממי‬ ‫שהוא ראוי לעבודה ובדבר הראוי‬ ‫לעבודה ובמקום ראוי לעבודה ממי שהוא‬ ‫ראוי כיצד אחד מן הפסולין לעבודה‬ ‫שקיבל הדם או הוליך או זרק וחשב‬ ‫בשעת העבודה מחשבת מקום או מחשבת‬ ‫הזמן לא פסל במחשבתו לפי שאינו ראוי‬ ‫לעבודה ואותו הדם שקבל או שזרק‬ ‫מקצתו ישפך לאמה ואם נשאר דם הנפש‬ ‫יחזור הראוי לעבודה ויקבל במחשבה‬ ‫נכונה אבל אם חשב הפסול בשעת‬ ‫שחיטה פסל במחשבתו שהשחיטה‬ ‫כשירה בפסולין כמו שביארנו יש קרבנות‬ ‫שאם נעשו שלא לשמן כשירין כמו‬ ‫שיתבאר לפיכך אם קבל הדם כהן זה‬ ‫שאינו ראוי לעבודה או הוליכו או זרקו‬ ‫פסל הזבח כאילו עשאהו לשמו שהוא‬ ‫פסול ואף על פי שיש דם הנפש וחזר‬ ‫הכשר וקבל וזרק כבר נפסל הזבח ולא‬ ‫מפני מחשבת שינוי השם פסל אותו אלא‬ :‫מפני שהוא פסול לעבודה כמו שביארנו‬

What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard] to "performing service with an entity fit for service"? [For example,] if a handful was taken from the meal-offering of the omer without the proper intent,11 it is considered as if it was taken with the proper intent and the remnants are eaten. [The rationale is that] it is offered from barley and barley is not a substance fit for other offerings.12

‫בדבר הראוי לעבודה כיצד מנחת‬ ‫העומר שקמצה שלא לשמה הרי זו‬ ‫כמי שנעשית לשמה ושיריה נאכלין מפני‬ ‫שהיא מן השעורים ואין השעורים דבר‬ ‫הראוי לשאר קרבנות וכן המחשב במנחת‬ ‫קנאות והלבונה עליה קודם שילקט‬ ‫הלבונה אין מחשבתו מועלת שהרי אינה‬ :‫דבר הראוי לעבודה וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the meal-offering of envy13 while frankincense was on it, before the frankincense was removed,14 there is no consequence to that intent, because [it does not involve] an entity fit for service. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard to "performing service] in a place fit for service"? When the altar has become damaged and [the priest offering the sacrifice] had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the sacrifice was to be offered or eaten], he did not disqualify the sacrifice with this intent,15 because the place was not fit for Temple service at that time.16

‫במקום הראוי לעבודה כיצד מזבח‬ ‫שנפגם וחשב מחשבת זמן או‬ ‫מחשבת מקום לא פסל הזבח במחשבה זו‬ ‫שהרי אין המקום עתה ראוי לעבודה קמץ‬ ‫את המנחה בחוץ וחשב בשעת קמיצה‬ ‫מחשבת זמן או מחשבת מקום אין‬ :‫מחשבה זו כלום‬

If one took a handful of flour from a meal-offering outside the Temple Courtyard and had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the meal-offering was to be offered or eaten] while taking the handful, the intent is of no consequence.17 These are elements of sacrificial [animals] that are not fit to be eaten, but are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre:18 its blood,19 its eimorim,20 the meat of a burnt-offering, and the handful of meal and the frankincense from the meal-offerings from which such a handful is removed.

3

‫אלו דברים שאינן ראויין לאכילה מן‬ ‫ הדם‬:‫הקרבנות וראויין להקטרה‬ ‫והאימורין ובשר העולה והקומץ והלבונה‬ :‫מן המנחות הנקמצות‬

4

These are the elements that are fit to be eaten and are not fit to be offered on the altar: the meat that is eaten from any of the sacrifices, whether eaten by the priests or by all other people, the remainder of the meal offering,21 the two breads [offered on Shavuot], and the showbread.

‫ואלו ראויין לאכילה ואינן ראויין‬ ‫ הבשר הנאכל מכל הזבחים‬:‫להקטרה‬ ‫בין הנאכל לכהנים בין הנאכל לכל אדם‬ :‫ושיירי המנחות ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים‬

These are the elements that are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre: the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt [outside the Temple Courtyard],22 the entire hide of an animal with the exception of the hide of the fat-tail which is fit to be eaten, [and] the murah, the thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten. [This category] also [includes] the bones, the giddim,23 the horns, and the hoofs, the feathers24 of a fowl, its nails, its beak, the tips of its wings, and the end of its tail.25 Even with regard to the soft places of the above which cleave to the flesh and would cause bleeding if cut off from a living animal, since they are not important, they are considered as an entity that is not fit to be eaten with regard to the sacrifices.26 This also applies to the sauce [in which a sacrifice is cooked], the spices [with which it is cooked], a fetus, a placenta, the egg of a fowl, and meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide; it is called the allal. All of the above are not significant with regard to an intent [that could disqualify] sacrifices. They are considered as a matter that is not fit to be eaten.

‫ואלו דברים שאינן ראויין לא לאכילה‬ ‫ בשר חטאת הנשרפת‬:‫ולא להקטרה‬ ‫והעור של בהמה כולו חוץ מעור האליה‬ ‫שהוא ]ראוי[ לאכילה אבל המוראה והוא‬ ‫הקרום הדק הדבק בעור ומבדיל בינו ובין‬ ‫הבשר אינו ראוי לאכילה וכן העצמות‬ ‫והגידים והקרניים והטלפיים והנוצה של‬ ‫עוף והצפרניים והחרטום שלו וראשי‬ ‫אגפיים וראש הזנב אפילו מקומות הרכים‬ ‫מכל אלו הדבוקים בבשר שאילו יחתכו מן‬ ‫החי יבצבץ הדם ויצא הואיל ואינן חשובין‬ ‫נקראים דבר שאינו ראוי לאכילה לענין‬ ‫הקרבנות וכן המרק והתבלין והשליל‬ ‫והשליא וביצת העוף והבשר שפולטתו‬ ‫הסכין בשעת הפשט וישאר מודבק בעור‬ ‫והוא הנקרא אלל כל אלו אינן חשובין‬ ‫לענין מחשבת הקרבנות והרי הן כדבר‬ :‫שאין ראוי לאכילה‬

5

A [disqualifying] intent is significant [even though] it concerns an entity that ultimately will be destroyed or that will ultimately be burnt. If, while performing any or all of the four [significant] services,27 one has a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of an entity that is not usually eaten or to offer on the altar's pyre an entity that is not usually offered there, the sacrifice is acceptable. What is implied? One thought to drink the blood of a sacrifice or partake of its eimorim or of the handful of meal or the frankincense [taken from a meal offering] outside [the Temple Courtyard]28 or on the following day,29 the sacrifice is acceptable.30 [This ruling also applies] if one had the intent of offering the meat of the sacrifice or what remains of the meal-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day. Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of or to offer on the altar's pyre the hide [of a sacrificial animal], its bones, giddim, sauce, allal, or the like, the sacrifice is acceptable.31 Similarly, if one had the intent to partake of the bulls or the goats that are burnt,32 outside [Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, the sacrifice is acceptable.33 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫ומחשבין על דבר העומד לאבוד או‬ ‫על דבר העומד לשריפה המחשב‬ ‫באחת מאותן ארבע העבודות או בכולן‬ ‫לאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכילה או‬ ‫להקטיר דבר שאין דרכו להקטרה בין‬ ‫במחשבת המקום בין במחשבת הזמן הזבח‬ ‫כשר כיצד חשב לשתות מדם הזבח או‬ ‫לאכול מאימוריו או מן הקומץ ומן הלבונה‬ ‫בחוץ או למחר או שחשב להקטיר מבשר‬ ‫הזבח או משיירי המנחה בחוץ או למחר‬ ‫הרי הזבח כשר וכן אם חשב לאכול או‬ ‫להקטיר מן העור ומן העצמות והגידין‬ ‫והמרק או האלל וכיוצא בהן בין במחשבת‬ ‫זמן בין במחשבת מקום הזבח כשר וכן אם‬ ‫חשב לאכול מפרים ושעירים הנשרפין‬ ‫בחוץ או למחר הרי הן כשרים וכן כל‬ :‫כיוצא בזה‬

6

If34 one had the intent that [other] persons who are impure or who are disqualified shall partake of an entity that is fit to be eaten or that these persons should offer an entity that is fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside of the set times for it to be eaten or offered, the sacrifice is piggul,35 as we explained.36 If he [had the intent that they partake of it or offer it] outside the places designated for eating and offering, the sacrifice is unacceptable, but not piggul.37

‫חשב שיאכלו הטמאים או הפסולין‬ ‫מדבר הראוי לאכילה או שיקטירו‬ ‫הטמאים או הפסולין מדבר הראוי‬ ‫להקטרה חוץ לזמן אכילה והקטרה הזבח‬ ‫פגול כמו שביארנו חוץ למקום אכילה‬ :‫והקטרה הרי זה פסול ואינו פגול‬

The concept of eating does not apply to a substance smaller than an olive, nor does the concept of offering an entity on the altar's pyre apply to a substance smaller than an olive.38 Therefore if a person had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of less than an olive size portion of an entity fit to be eaten or to offer less than an olive-sized portion of an entity fit to be offered, the sacrifice is acceptable.39 If he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] and offer half an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] or he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for eating and offer half an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for offering, the sacrifice is acceptable. [The rationale is that] eating and offering are not combined [to be considered as a single activity]. If, however, he used the wording achilah, saying: "Half an olive-sized portion should be eaten and half an olive-sized portion consumed by [the altar's] fire," the [two halves] are combined, for the wording of achilah is one. If one had a [disqualifying] intent to eat or offer half an olive-sized portion and then in the same thought had an intent concerning another half of an olive-sized portion, the two can be combined. If one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to eat half of an olive-sized portion and that an animal or beast should eat half of an olive-sized portion,40 they can be combined because both are called eating. If one had a [disqualifying] intent that two people partake of the sacrifice, the two are combined. Even though one intended to partake of an olive-sized portion in longer than the time it takes to eat a half a loaf of bread,41 the eating is combined.42 If at the time of slaughter, he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an 7

‫אין אכילה פחותה מכזית ולא הקטרה‬ ‫פחותה מכזית לפיכך המחשב לאכול‬ ‫מדבר הראוי לאכילה פחות מכזית או‬ ‫שחשב להקטיר מדבר הראוי להקטרה‬ ‫פחות מכזית בין במחשבת זמן בין‬ ‫במחשבת מקום הזבח כשר חשב לאכול‬ ‫כחצי זית בחוץ ולהקטיר כחצי זית בחוץ‬ ‫או שחשב לאכול כחצי זית אחר זמן‬ ‫אכילה ולהקטיר כחצי זית אחר זמן‬ ‫הקטרה הזבח כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה‬ ‫מצטרפין ואם הוציאו בלשון אכילה ואמר‬ ‫שיאכל כחצי זית ותאכל האש חצי זית‬ ‫הרי אלו מצטרפין לשון אכילה אחד הוא‬ ‫חשב לאכול או להקטיר כחצי זית וחזר‬ ‫וחשב על חצי זית אחר באותה המחשבה‬ ‫הרי אלו מצטרפין חשב לאכול כחצי זית‬ ‫ושתאכל בהמה או חיה כחצי זית בין‬ ‫במחשבת מקום בין במחשבת זמן הרי אלו‬ ‫מצטרפין ששם אכילה אחד הוא חשב על‬ ‫כזית שיאכלוהו שנים הרי אלו מצטרפין‬ ‫חשב לאכול כזית ביותר מכדי אכילת פרס‬ ‫הרי זה מצטרף חשב בשעת זביחה לאכול‬ ‫כחצי זית ובשעת זריקה לאכול כחצי זית‬ ‫הרי אלו מצטרפין בין במחשבת המקום‬ ‫בין במחשבת הזמן וכן אם חשב על כזית‬ ‫בשעת קבלה ועל כזית בשעת הולכה‬ ‫שארבע העבודות מצטרפות והרי הן‬ ‫כעבודה אחת חשב להקטיר כחצי זית מן‬ ‫הקומץ וכחצי זית מן הלבונה הרי אלו‬ ‫מצטרפין שהלבונה עם הקומץ למנחה‬ ‫כאימורין לזבח לפיכך אם חשב להקטיר‬ ‫כזית מן הלבונה חוץ לזמנו הרי זה פגול‬ ‫כמו שנתבאר אחד המחשב לזרוק דם‬ ‫הזבח כולו בחוץ או למחר או שחשב‬ ‫לזרוק מקצת דמו בחוץ או למחר כיון‬ :‫שחשב על כדי הזייה מן הדם פסל‬

8

« Previous

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 15

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13 FOOTNOTES 1. Note the parallel in Hilchot Shechitah 2:22. 2. Vayikra Rabbah 22:7 states that even if the owner "sits and

12. I.e., all of the other meal-offerings were brought from wheat and thus the barley used for the omer offering is unfit to be

thinks [unacceptable intents] the entire day," the sacrifice is not disqualified.

used for other meal-offerings. Hence even if one had the intent to offer it as another type of offering, that intent is of no

3. The Rambam proceeds to define each of these concepts. 4. For these undesirable intents disqualify a sacrifice only when they alone are the factors that disqualify it and not when it is disqualified for other reasons [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:1)]. 5. For it is disqualified and must be disposed. 6. He should then bring it to the altar and cast it upon it. The sacrifice is then acceptable. As stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 27-28, the rationale is that "individuals who are unacceptable for Temple service do not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants." Hence it is as if the blood of the sacrifice had never been taken. 7. Chapter 1, Halachah 1. 8. E.g., a burnt-offering is offered with the intent that it is a peace-offering. 9. Chapter 15, Halachah 1. 10. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is implying that since the sacrifice is acceptable in these instances, even though in other instances, such a change in intent would disqualify it, a person who is not fit for Temple service is considered just like one who is. His intent is significant and could disqualify the sacrifice. The Kessef Mishneh, however, questions on what the Rambam bases this principle. 11. I.e., with the intent that it be offered as another type of meal-offering.

consequence. (The meal-offering of a sotah is also brought from barley, but there are fundamental differences between it and the omer offering.) The Rambam's understanding is based on his understanding of Menachot 5b which states that the omer offering is a chidush,

something

new

and

different

than

other

meal-offerings, for it is from barley, as explained. The Ra'avad follows a different version of the text which states that the omer offering is different, because it is brought from chadash, wheat from the new harvest. There is an advantage to the Ra'avad's understanding, because - as he explains - according to the Rambam, the same rationale could seemingly be used with regard to the sotah offering mentioned in the second clause of the halachah. There would be no necessity to mention frankincense. The Kessef Mishneh favors the Rambam's version and explains that by mentioning frankincense, our Sages (and the Rambam) chose one of two possible answers. They could also have stated that it is unfit to be used for other offerings. 13. The term used by Numbers 5:15,18 to describe the meal-offering brought by a woman suspected of adultery. 14. It is forbidden to place frankincense on this offering (Numbers 5:15). Thus before the offering is brought, the frankincense must be removed and until it is removed, the offering is not fit. Hence, whatever intent the person has concerning the offering at that time is of no consequence. 15. And it may be offered when the altar is repaired. 16. This applies even if he had this intent while performing service in the Temple Courtyard. Since the altar is not fit for sacrifices to be offered upon it, the place is not considered as fit for service. 17. Because the act was performed outside the Temple Courtyard, a place where sacrificial service may not be performed. 18. The definitions given in this and the following two halachot are necessary to understand the laws stated in Halachot 8-10 (Kessef Mishneh).

9

19. The commentaries have noted that the Rambam's wording is not exact, for although the blood is presented on the altar, it is not "offered on the altar's pyre." 20. The fats and organs offered on the altar (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:18). 21. I.e., what remains after the handful is removed. 22. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:2-5 which describes the burning of these sacrifices. 23. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), the Rambam explains that this is a general term referring to blood vessels, nerves, and sinews. 24. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:2), the

36. In Chapter 13, Halachah 1. The fact that the person who was intended to partake of the sacrifice or offer it was impure or disqualified is not significant. 37. See Chapter 13 which explains that the concept of piggul applies only when the disqualifying intent applies time alone. 38. An olive-sized portion is 27 cc according to Shiurei Torah. Both the mitzvot and the prohibitions involving eating center on partaking of an olive-sized portion of food. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1; Hilchot Terumot 10:2, et al. This measure is also of consequence with regard to offering substances on the altar as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 15. 39. Because his forbidden intent is of no consequence.

Rambam explains that this term refers to the growth that

40. Zevachim 31b refers to II Kings 9:10 as support for the

remains after the large feathers are removed. [The Mishnah there uses the term mourah. The spelling of that term is

concept that consumption by animals can be termed achilah.

important, for some spell it in the same way as a term the Rambam translates as referring to one of a fowl's stomachs.]

41. I.e., an equivalent of three egg-sized portions. Generally, if a person stretches out his consumption of an olive-sized

25. In the above source, the Rambam explains that when the

portion beyond this time span, it is not considered as "eating," for he will not have ingested a significant amount at

feathers are removed from these places, they remain dry projections that are unfit for consumption unless the fowl is

once. The Rabbis mention different opinions with regard to this time span, referred to as k'dai achilat pras, some as brief

very fat.

as 2 minutes and some as long as 9 minutes. Based on Shiurei Torah, the suggested practice is to consider k'dai

26. Similarly, they are not considered as meat with regard to the prohibitions against partaking of forbidden foods and the laws of ritual purity. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:18, 9:7; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 1:7. 27. See Halachah 2 above. 28. I.e., a disqualifying intent because of the place.

achilat pras as 4 minutes with regard to eating matzah on Pesach, but 9 minutes with regard to eating on Yom Kippur. 42. For here the emphasis is not on the person's activity of eating, but on the sacrifice being eaten (Kin'at Eliyahu). 43. The Kessef Mishneh suggests amending the text to read

29. I.e., a disqualifying intent because of the time.

"half an olive-sized portion" and in that way fit the context of the entire halachah. The notes to the Frankel edition of the

30. Because the substances mentioned are not usually eaten.

Mishneh Torah, however, indicate that all of the authoritative

31. For these entities are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre.

manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah speak

32. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:2-5 which describes the

44. An olive-sized portion is 27 cc according to Shiurei Torah.

burning of these sacrifices. 33. Because these sacrifices are not fit to be eaten. With regard to a disqualifying intent while burning these sacrifices, see Chapter 13, Halachah 8. 34. While performing one of the four services mentioned previously. 35. The Kessef Mishneh notes that, as stated in the following halachah, our Sages considered an animal's consumption as "eating." Hence consumption by such individuals will certainly fall into that category.

of an olive-sized portion.

Both the mitzvot and the prohibitions involving eating center on partaking of an olive-sized portion of food. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1; Hilchot Terumot 10:2, et al. This measure is also of consequence with regard to offering substances on the altar as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 15. 45. See Halachah 2 above. 46. The Mishneh LiMelech notes that in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, the Rambam writes that two grains of frankincense are sufficient for a meal-offering to be considered acceptable. Seemingly, then, that amount should also be enough to disqualify such an offering. 47. I.e.,. a very small amount.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.

To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

10

policy .

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 15 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 14

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16

Any of the sacrifices - whether individual sacrifices or communal sacrifices1 - that were sacrificed for a different purpose than that for which they were originally designated are acceptable,2 but they did not satisfy the obligation incumbent on their owner with the exception of sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice.3 If they are offered for a different purpose, they are unacceptable. [This applies whether] one changes the purpose of the sacrifice at the time of slaughter, at the time he receives its blood, he brings it to altar, or when he casts it upon it, as we explained.4 What is meant by saying that [the owner] does not fulfill his obligation through such [a sacrifice]? For example, one slaughtered [an animal designated as] a burntoffering as a peace-offering. It does not fulfill the obligation of the owner, neither for the burnt-offering for which he is obligated or for a sin-offering. Instead, he is obligated to bring another sacrifice. Similarly, if one slaughtered a burnt-offering brought by Reuven for the sake of Shimon, it does not fulfill the obligation either of Reuven or of Shimon.5 When does the above apply? When one changed the purpose of the sacrifice intentionally. If, however, one erred and had the impression that the [animal designated as] a burnt-offering was [designated as] a peace-offering and carried out all of its services for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Similarly, when one offered a sin-offering or a Paschal sacrifice for a different purpose in error, they are acceptable. For supplanting [a purpose] mistakenly is of no consequence.6 Similarly, if one performs melikah on a fowl [designated as] a burnt-offering or squeezed out its blood for a different purpose, it is acceptable,7 but does not fulfill the obligation of the owner. And a sin-offering of fowl [brought for a different purpose] is unacceptable. 2

‫כל הזבחים שנשחטו במחשבת‬ ‫שינוי השם בין בקרבנות יחיד בין‬ ‫בקרבנות צבור כשרים אלא שלא עלו‬ ‫לבעלים לשם חובה חוץ מן החטאת‬ ‫והפסח שאם נעשו במחשבת שינוי השם‬ ‫פסולין ואחד המשנה שם הזבח בשעת‬ ‫שחיטה או בשעת קבלה או בשעת הולכה‬ ‫או בזריקה כמו שביארנו כיצד לא עלו‬ ‫לשם חובה כגון ששחט עולה לשם שלמים‬ ‫לא עלתה לבעלים לא משום עולה שהם‬ ‫חייבין בה ולא משום שלמים אלא חייבין‬ ‫להביא זבח אחר וכן אם שחט עולת ראובן‬ ‫לשם שמעון לא עלתה לא לראובן ולא‬ ‫לשמעון בד"א כשעקר שם הזבח בזדון‬ ‫אבל אם טעה ודימה שזו העולה שלמים‬ ‫היא ועשה כל עבודותיה לשם שלמים‬ ‫עלתה לבעלים לשם חובה וכן החטאת‬ ‫והפסח שעשאן במחשבת שינוי השם‬ ‫בטעות כשרים שעקירה בטעות אינה‬ ‫עקירה וכן עולת העוף שמלקה או שמצה‬ ‫דמה במחשבת שינוי השם כשירה ולא‬ :‫עלתה לבעלים וחטאת העוף פסולה‬

3

Similarly, all of the meal-offerings that were offered for a different intent than that originally conceived are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation with the exception of a meal-offering of a sinner8 and a meal offering of a sotah.9 If while performing one of the four services10 one had an intent for a different purpose, [the meal-offering] is unacceptable.11 What is implied? One separated a handful from a freewill meal-offering for the sake of a meal-offering of a sinner, from an offering intended to be prepared in a deep frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a flat frying-pan, or from an offering intended to be prepared in a flat frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a deep frying-pan.12 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫וכן כל המנחות שנעשו במחשבת‬ ‫שינוי השם כשירות ולא עלו לבעלים‬ ‫חוץ ממנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות שאם‬ ‫חשב באחת מארבע עבודות שלהן‬ ‫מחשבת שינוי השם פסולות שינוי השם‬ ‫במנחה כיצד כגון שקמץ מנחת נדבה לשם‬ ‫מנחת חוטא או מרחשת לשם מחבת או‬ :‫מחבת לשם מרחשת וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

4

It is forbidden to have an incorrect intent [when performing sacrificial service with] consecrated animals, as will be explained.13 Therefore if one slaughtered a sacrificial animal for a different purpose or took a handful from a meal-offering for a different purpose, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he is obligated to complete the remainder of the services for the proper purpose. Even if one slaughtered [the animal], received its blood, and brought it to the altar for an improper purpose, one is obligated to cast it on the altar for the proper purpose.14 Why are the laws governing a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice different from those governing all other sacrifices and the laws governing a meal-offering of a sinner and that of a sotah different from those governing all other meal-offerings? Because the Torah singled them out. With regard to a sin-offering, [Leviticus 4:33] states: "And he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering," i.e., that it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin-offering. Similarly, all of its other services [must be performed] for the proper intent, as [implied by ibid.:28]: "for his sin," i.e., that its service must be performed for the sake of [atoning for] that sin. And [ibid.:26] states: "And he will atone for him," i.e., [the service must be performed] for the sake of its owner.15 And with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, [Deuteronomy 16:1] states: "And you shall offer a Paschal sacrifice to God, your Lord," implying that all of the acts must be performed for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. [Exodus 12:27] states: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto God,' implying that it must be slaughtered for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. Thus if one altered the purpose for which it was sacrificed or [offered for] a different owner,16 it is not acceptable. And with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner, [Leviticus 5:12] states: "It is a sin-offering."17 And with

‫אסור לחשב בקדשים מחשבה שאינה‬ ‫נכונה כמו שיתבאר לפיכך זבח‬ ‫ששחטו שלא לשמו או מנחה שקמצה‬ ‫שלא לשמה בין בזדון בין בשגגה חייב‬ ‫להשלים שאר עבודות לשמן אפילו שחט‬ ‫וקבל והוליך במחשבת שינוי השם חייב‬ ‫לזרוק במחשבה נכונה ומפני מה נשתנה‬ ‫דין החטאת והפסח מכל הזבחים ודין‬ ‫מנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות מכל המנחות‬ ‫מפני שעיין עליהם הכתוב הרי הוא אומר‬ ‫בחטאת ושחט אותה לחטאת שתהיה‬ ‫שחיטה לשם חטאת וכן שאר עבודותיה‬ ‫לשמה ונאמר על חטאתו שתעשה לשם‬ ‫אותו החטא ונאמר וכפר עליו שתהיה‬ '‫לשם בעליה ונאמר בפסח ועשית פסח לה‬ ‫אלהיך שתהיה כל עשייתו לשם פסח‬ ‫ונאמר ואמרתם זבח פסח הוא לה' שתהיה‬ ‫זביחתו לשם פסח הא אם שינה שמו או‬ ‫שם בעליו פסול ובמנחת חוטא הוא אומר‬ ‫מנחה היא ובמנחת סוטה נאמר כי מנחת‬ :‫קנאות היא שיהיו כל מעשיה לשמן‬

When a sin-offering is offered for the sake of another sacrifice, e.g., it was offered for the sake of a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, or a peace-offering, it is unacceptable, as we explained. If, however, it was slaughtered as an ordinary animal, it is acceptable, but the owner does not fulfill his obligation.

‫חטאת ששחטה לשם זבח אחר כגון‬ ‫ששחטה לשם עולה או לשם אשם‬ ‫או לשם שלמים פסולה כמו שביארנו אבל‬ ‫אם שחטה לשם חולין הרי זו כשירה ולא‬ :‫עלתה לבעלים‬

According to the Oral Tradition,18 was derived that [an intent for] sacrificial purposes can disqualify sacrificial animals, but an intent for ordinary purposes does not.

‫מפי השמועה למדו שהקדשים‬ ‫מחללין קדשים ואין החולין מחללין‬ :‫קדשים‬

If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for another sin, e.g., it was brought [to atone] for partaking of fat and one slaughtered it [to atone] for partaking of blood, it is unacceptable.19

‫שחטה לשם חטא אחר כגון שבאה על‬ ‫אכילת חלב ושחטה על אכילת דם‬ :‫פסולה‬

If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a sin-offering, even an adjustable guilt-offering,20 it is unacceptable.

‫שחטה לשם אדם אחר שהוא מחוייב‬ ‫חטאת אפילו חטאת שאינה קבועה‬ :‫הרי זו פסולה‬

If, however, one slaughtered it for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a burntoffering ,21 it is acceptable, but the owner has not fulfilled his obligation.

‫אבל אם שחטה לשם אחד שהוא‬ ‫מחוייב עולה הרי זו כשירה ולא‬ ‫עלתה לבעלים וכפר עליו ולא על חבירו‬ :‫שהוא מחוייב חטאת כמותו‬

[The concept mentioned previously22 derived from Leviticus 4:26:] "And he will atone for him," [i.e., "for him,"] and not for his colleague who is obligated to bring a sin-offering like he is.

5

If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] for the sake of a deceased person, it is acceptable, but it does not satisfy the obligation of the owner, because there is no atonement for the dead [through sacrifices].23

‫שחטה לשם מת כשירה ולא עלתה‬ ‫לבעלים שאין כפרה למתים שחטה‬ ‫לשם מי שאינו מחוייב קרבן כלל לא‬ ‫חטאת ולא עולה ולא שאר קרבנות הרי זו‬ :‫פסולה שמא מחוייב הוא ואינו יודע‬

If one slaughtered it for the sake of a person who is not obligated to bring a sacrifice at all, not a sin-offering, nor a burnt-offering, nor any other sacrifice, it is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] perhaps he is obligated [to bring a sacrifice],24 but does not know.25 If one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] with the desired intent, but at the time of slaughter had the intent to cast its blood on the altar for a different purpose, it is disqualified, for the intent one has for one service during the performance of another service [is significant].26 Thus the intent one had during the time of slaughter is considered as if it was in [the priest's] mind at the time he cast [the blood on the altar]. Therefore [the sacrifice] is disqualified.

6

‫שחטה לשמה וחשב בשעת השחיטה‬ ‫לזרוק דמה שלא לשמה הרי זו פסולה‬ ‫לפי שמחשבין מעבודה לעבודה וזאת‬ ‫המחשבה שחשב בשעת השחיטה כאילו‬ :‫חשבה בשעת זריקה ולפיכך פסולה‬

A Paschal sacrifice that was slaughtered for a different intent - whether for the sake of another sacrifice or whether as an ordinary animal27 - it is unacceptable, as it is written: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto God,'28 When does the above apply? When it was slaughtered on its appropriate time, the day of the fourteenth of Nisan. Moreover, even if it was slaughtered in the morning of that day29 for a different intent, it is unacceptable.30 If, however, one slaughtered it with a different intent at a time not appropriate for its [sacrifice], it is acceptable.31

‫הפסח ששחטו במחשבת שינוי‬ ‫השם בין ששינה שמו לשם זבח‬ ‫אחר בין ששינהו לשם חולין פסול שנאמר‬ ‫ואמרתם זבח פסח הוא לה' במה דברים‬ ‫אמורים ששחטו בזמנו שהוא יום ארבעה‬ ‫עשר בניסן אפילו שחטו בשחרית‬ ‫במחשבת שינוי השם פסול אבל אם‬ ‫שחטו שלא בזמנו במחשבה שלא לשמו‬ ‫כשר שלא לשם בעליו נעשה כמי שאין לו‬ :‫בעלים בזמנו ופסול‬

[If it was slaughtered] for the sake of others and not for its owner, it is considered as if it did not have an owner on the day [when it should be sacrificed] and it is unacceptable.

7

When a Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered with the proper intent on the fourteenth of Nisan before noon, it is unacceptable, because this is not the time of the sacrifice. If it was older than one year32 and it was slaughtered at the appropriate time for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice and similarly, if one of the other sacrifices were slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice, even if it was slaughtered after noon, they are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation.

‫פסח ששחטו לשמו בארבעה עשר‬ ‫קודם חצות פסול לפי שאינו זמנו‬ ‫עברה שנתו ושחט בזמנו לשם פסח וכן‬ ‫השוחט שאר זבחים לשם פסח אפילו‬ ‫שחטן אחר חצות הרי אלו כשרים ולא‬ :‫עלו לבעלים לשם חובה‬

When a thanksgiving-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner's obligation is fulfilled. When a peace-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering, the owner's obligation is not fulfilled. [The rationale is that] a thanksgiving-offering is called a peace-offering,33 but a peace-offering is not called a thanksgiving-offering.

‫תודה ששחטה לשם שלמים עלתה‬ ‫לבעלים ושלמים ששחטן לשם תודה‬ ‫לא עלו לבעלים לפי שהתודה נקראת‬ :‫שלמים ושלמים לא נקראו תודה‬

8

When a burnt-offering was slaughtered for the sake of another person who was not obligated to bring a sacrifice at all, the owner does not fulfill his obligation,34 for it was not slaughtered for his sake. Although the person for whom it was sacrificed is not liable for any sacrifice in his own mind, it is impossible that he is not obligated [to seek] atonement from heaven, for there is no Jewish person who has never violated a positive commandment.35

‫עולה ששחטה על מי שאינו מחוייב‬ ‫קרבן כלל לא עלתה לבעלים שהרי‬ ‫שחטה שלא לשם בעליה ואף על פי שזה‬ ‫ששחטה לשמו אינו מחוייב כלום בעניינו‬ ‫אי אפשר שלא יהיה חייב כפרה לשמים‬ ‫שאין לך אדם בישראל שלא עבר מעולם‬ :‫על מצות עשה‬

When a burnt-offering that was brought after the death [of the person who set it aside] was offered for the sake [of that person set aside and] not for the sake of its owner,36 the owner37 is considered to have fulfilled his obligation, for there is no conception of ownership after death.

‫עולה הבאה לאחר מיתה שעשאה‬ ‫שלא לשם בעליה עלתה לבעלים‬ :‫לשם חובה שאין בעלים לאחר מיתה‬

When the two sheep to be brought on Shavuot were slaughtered with the intent that they were rams,38 the community is not considered to have fulfilled its obligation.39 If [the priests] thought they were rams and slaughtered them with the intent that they were rams, they are considered to have fulfilled their obligation, for the intent was uprooted in error.40

‫שני כבשי עצרת ששחטן לשם‬ ‫אילים לא עלו לצבור לשם חובה‬ ‫ואם דימה שהן אילים ושחטן לשם אילים‬ :‫עלו להן מפני שהיא עקירה בטעות‬

When a guilt-offering of a person [to be purified from] tzara'at41was slaughtered for the sake of another type of sacrifice or its blood was not placed on the thumb and large toe of the person seeking atonement,42 accompanying offerings43 are required.44 For if it was offered without accompanying offerings, it would be as if one offered a freewill offering. And a guilt-offering is never brought as a freewill offering.

‫אשם מצורע ששחטו שלא לשמו או‬ ‫שלא נתן מדמו על גבי בהונות טעון‬ ‫נסכים שאם יקרב בלא נסכים נמצא‬ :‫כמקריב נדבה ואין האשם בא נדבה‬

9

When the sheep that is brought together with the omer offering45 was slaughtered for a different intent, one should not bring two esronim for its accompanying offering.46 Instead, he should bring one isaron, as is brought for other freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it did not satisfy the obligation.47 Similarly, when [a lamb intended as] a continuous offering was slaughtered for a different intent, the two logs of wood48 should not be brought up with it, as is done for the other continuous offerings. [The rationale is that] it does not fulfill the obligation of the continuous offering, but instead, is like other freewill offerings.

‫כבש הבא עם העומר ששחטו‬ ‫שלא לשמו לא יביא מנחת נסכים‬ ‫שלו שני עשרונים אלא עשרון אחד כשאר‬ ‫הנדבות שהרי לא עלה לשם חובתו וכן‬ ‫תמיד ששחטו שלא לשמו לא יעלה עמו‬ ‫שני גזרי עצים כשאר התמידים שהרי לא‬ ‫עלה לחובת התמיד אלא הרי הוא ככל‬ :‫הנדבות‬

When the sheep offered on Shavout49 where slaughtered for a different intent or were slaughtered before their appropriate time or after their appropriate time, the blood should be cast upon the altar and the meat eaten50 even though the obligation of the community was not fulfilled. If it was the Sabbath, the blood should not be cast [on the altar].51 If it was cast [upon the altar], it is considered acceptable insomuch as the eimorim should be offered in the evening.

‫שני כבשי עצרת ששחטן שלא‬ ‫לשמן או ששחטן בין לפני זמנן בין‬ ‫לאחר זמנן הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל אף על‬ ‫פי שלא עלו לצבור לשם חובה ואם היתה‬ ‫שבת לא יזרוק ואם זרק הורצה להקטיר‬ :‫אימורין לערב‬

Similarly when the peace-offerings of a nazirite were offered for a different intent, even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation, they are eaten for a day and a night52 and do not require bread.53 Similarly, when the guilt-offering of a nazirite or the guilt-offering of one [to be purified from] tzara'at54 were offered for a different intent, they are eaten, even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation.

‫וכן שלמי נזיר ששחטן שלא לשמן‬ ‫אע"פ שלא עלו לבעלים הרי הן‬ ‫נאכלין ליום ולילה ואינן טעונין לחם וכן‬ ‫אשם נזיר ואשם מצורע ששחטן שלא‬ ‫לשמן אף על פי שלא עלו לבעלים הרי הן‬ :‫נאכלים‬

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 14 FOOTNOTES

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16

10

1. The mention of communal sacrifices represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1, which is preserved in the standard printing of that text), he writes that a communal sacrifice slaughtered for a different intent fulfills the community's obligation. Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura also

12. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 13, for a description of the differences between these offerings. 13. Chapter 18, Halachah 1. 14. The rationale is that since the sacrifice is acceptable, its functions must be performed for the proper intent.

follows this view. In his later years, however, the Rambam emended his text to agree with this ruling (see Rav Kapach's

15. Zevachim 7a interprets the phrase cited as implying: for him

text). Note also Rabbi Akiva Eiger's gloss who questions the initial version of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah.

16. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1), the

2. Hence, even if one slaughtered an animal designated as a

must be brought as a Paschal sacrifice and the second, that it must be brought for the sake of its owner. In his

burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, one should continue performing all the subsequent tasks for the sake of a burnt-offering [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)]. See Halachah 3. 3. See Halachah 3 which explains why these offerings are singled out in contrast to all others. 4. Chapter 13, Halachah 4. 5. See Halachah 3 which explains the derivation of this concept. The Mishneh LiMelech questions the Rambam's equation of sacrifices offered for a different purpose than they were originally designated and those offered for the sake of a different person. There is, he explains, a fundamental difference between them. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of another person, the owner is still considered to have fulfilled his obligation. It is only when the blood is cast on the altar for the sake of another person that he is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless, the Rambam's statements can be interpreted as referring to an instance when one slaughtered the animal with the intent to cast its blood on the altar for the sake of another person. 6. This also represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1), which is preserved in the standard printing of that text), he writes that if an intent is supplanted in error, it is considered to be supplanted. In his later years, however, the Rambam emended his text to agree with this ruling (see Rav Kapach's text). 7. This applies even if its blood was presented on the lower portion of the altar as is the blood of a sin-offering.

and not for his colleague. See Halachah 8.

Rambam states that the first verse teaches that the offering

Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 5:2), the Rambam quotes the Jerusalem Talmud which mentions only the second verse and states that a Paschal sacrifice that is not offered for the proper purpose is unacceptable. See also Halachah 11. 17. Our text reflects an amended version. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah contains a different prooftext. 18. Zevachim 46b derives this principle through Biblical exegesis. 19. I.e., even though it was slaughtered as a sin-offering, since it was not slaughtered for the sake of the sin for which the animal was originally designated, it is unacceptable. 20. Since this is a different type of sacrifice, one might think that the situation is comparable to that stated in the following halachah, slaughtering a sin-offering for the sake of a person obligated to bring a burnt-offering. Nevertheless, since both offerings atone for sins punishable by karet, they are considered

as

comparable.

Hence

the

sacrifice

is

disqualified (Rashi, Zevachim 9b). 21. To atone for the failure to observe a positive commandment. 22. I.e., the law stated in Halachah 7. From this concept, it is also possible to derive the law stated in this halachah, for the implication is that when one offers a sin-offering for the sake of another person who is obligated to bring a sin-offering, it is disqualified, but not when one offers it for the sake of another person who is not so obligated (Zevachim 7a). 23. Hence the deceased person is not considered as obligated to bring a sacrifice. Therefore, this is not considered as an

8. I.e., the mal-offering brought by a transgressor obligated to

instance where one offered a sacrifice for the sake of another person obligated to bring a sacrifice.

bring an adjustable guilt-offering who is very poor. See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 10.

24. A burnt-offering to atone for the failure to observe a positive

9. A woman suspected of adultery. This meal-offering is comparable to that of a sinner. 10. Mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 6. 11. See Halachah 3 which explains why these offerings are singled out in contrast to all others.

commandment.

25. Hence he is considered to be obligated to bring a sacrifice. Zevachim 71-7b explains that there is a difference between

34. For it is considered to have atoned for the person for whose sake it was sacrificed, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

such a situation and a person who knows he is obligated to bring a burnt-offering (in which instance, the sin-offering is

35. And atonement for these unknown faults will be secured by

not disqualified, as stated in the previous halachah). When the person knows he must bring a burnt-offering, his

36. The heir.

this sacrifice.

atonement is associated with that offering only. When, however, he does not know that he must bring a burnt-

37. For it is considered to have atoned for the person for whose

offering, he will not seek atonement. Hence, the sin-offering he brings will bring him a certain measure of atonement for

38. As stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1, together with

the positive commandments he did not perform. For as stated in Halachah 14, everyone has certain positive commandments that he has failed to fulfill. 26. The Mishneh LiMelech restricts the scope of the Rambam's

sake it was sacrificed, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

the two loaves brought on Shavuot are offered several burnt offerings, among them two rams, and two sheep as communal peace-offerings. 39. And two other sheep must be brought. 40. As stated in Halachah 1.

statements, maintaining that if at the time of slaughter or the performance of one of the other three services mentioned in Halachah 2, one has a disqualifying intent concerning receiving the blood or bringing it to the altar, the sacrifice is still acceptable. 27. The commentaries question the Rambam's ruling, because even a sin-offering is acceptable when slaughtered as an

41. A skin malady similar to, but not identical with leprosy that renders one ritually impure. 42. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2. 43. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2. 44. Even though the person has not fulfilled his obligation and

ordinary animal. The Kessef Mishneh states that the phrase

must bring another sacrifice, he is required to bring the accompanying offerings, for the reason mentioned by the

"unto God" in the prooftext excludes slaughtering the animal for ordinary purposes. In his Commentary to the Mishnah

Rambam.

(Pesachim 5:2), the Rambam cites the Jerusalem Talmud which states that the phrase "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice' excludes all other intents. 28. See Halachot 1 and 3. 29. The Paschal sacrifice may not be sacrificed until the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan. Nevertheless, since it is offered on that day, the morning is considered "the time of its sacrifice" with regard to the disqualification of an offering.

45. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3. 46. As would be required were it offered for the specified intent (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:5). 47. In contrast to the guilt-offering mentioned in the previous halachah, it is customary to bring burnt-offerings as freewill offerings. Hence, the accompanying offerings should be brought accordingly. 48. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2:2-3.

30. There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in

49. As stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1, together with

Zevachim 1:3. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam

the two loaves brought on Shavuot are offered several burnt

maintaining that the more lenient opinion should be accepted. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam

offerings, among them two rams, and two sheep as communal peace-offerings.

accepted the more stringent view because it is debated in the Talmud.

50. The commentaries note that it is forbidden to offer the eimorim on the festival and question whether the intent is

31. For if it was slaughtered at such a time, it is considered as a peace-offering and a peace-offering that was slaughtered

that the meat may be eaten on the festival or whether it is necessary to wait until the evening.

with a different intent is acceptable. In the clause which follows, the sacrifice is unacceptable, because there is no one to partake of it and a Paschal sacrifice is brought only to be eaten (Hilchot Korban Pesach, ch. 2).

51. For only obligatory sacrifices are offered on the Sabbath. 52. Like the peace-offerings of a nazirite, rather than for a two days and a night like other peace offerings. 53. Bread must be brought with the peace-offerings of a nazirite (Hilchot Nizirut 8:1).

32. At this age, it is no longer fit to be offered as a Paschal sacrifice. 33. See Leviticus 7:15 which speaks of "the thanksgiving-peace sacrifice."

11

54. A skin malady similar to, but not identical with leprosy that renders one ritually impure.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

12

policy .

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 15

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17

We have already explained1 that when a person has a disqualifying intent with regard to the place [a sacrifice will be offered or eaten] while performing one of the four [specified] services,2 the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul. If he had a disqualifying intent with regard to the time [the sacrifice would be offered or eaten], it is piggul. When does the above apply? When no other intent is combined together with the intent concerning time. If, however, an intent concerning the place - or with regard to the Paschal sacrifice or a sin-offering, an intent concerning the type of sacrifice3 - was combined with the intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul.4 What is implied? If one slaughtered, received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time or [even if] he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time while [perfoming] one of these services and his intent was proper or he had no intent while performing the other services, [the sacrifice] was piggul. If, however, If one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place or slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.5 Similarly, if a Paschal sacrifice or sin-offering were slaughtered for a different purpose, but one received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, or one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] for a different purpose, [the 2

‫כבר ביארנו שהמחשב באחת‬ ‫מארבע העבודות מחשבת המקום‬ ‫הקרבן פסול ואינו פגול ואם חשב מחשבת‬ ‫הזמן הקרבן פגול בד"א בשלא עירב עם‬ ‫מחשבת הזמן מחשבה אחרת אבל אם‬ ‫עירב מחשבת מקום או מחשבת שינוי‬ ‫השם בפסח ובחטאת עם מחשבת הזמן‬ ‫הקרבן פסול ואינו פגול כיצד שחט וקבל‬ ‫והוליך וזרק ומחשבתו בארבע עבודות אלו‬ ‫מחשבת הזמן או שהיתה מחשבתו באחת‬ ‫מארבעתן מחשבת הזמן ובשאר העבודות‬ ‫היתה מחשבתו נכונה או לא היתה שם‬ ‫מחשבה כלל בשאר העבודות הרי זה פגול‬ ‫אבל אם שחט במחשבת הזמן וקיבל או‬ ‫הוליך או זרק במחשבת המקום או ששחט‬ ‫במחשבת המקום וקיבל או הוליך או זרק‬ ‫במחשבת הזמן הרי זה אינו פגול אלא‬ ‫פסול בלבד וכן הפסח והחטאת ששחטן‬ ‫במחשבת שינוי השם וקיבל והוליך‬ ‫במחשבת הזמן או ששחטן במחשבת הזמן‬ ‫וקבל או הוליך או זרק במחשבת שינוי‬ ‫השם אין זה פגול אלא פסול והוא הדין‬ ‫בעופות ובמנחות אין שם פגול אלא קרבן‬ ‫שנפסל במחשבת הזמן ולא עירב עמה‬ ‫מחשבת המקום לא בתחלה ולא בסוף ולא‬ ‫עירב עמה מחשבת שינוי השם בקרבנות‬ :‫שנפסלין במחשבת שינוי השם‬

When, while performing one or all of the four services, a person has the intent to eat6 an olive-sized portion of a substance that is fit to be eaten7 outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and an olive-sized portion on the following day; an olive-sized portion on the following day and an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],8

‫המחשב באחת מארבע העבודות או‬ ‫בכולם לאכול כזית מדבר הראוי‬ ‫לאכילה בחוץ וכזית למחר או כזית למחר‬ ‫וכזית בחוץ או כחצי זית בחוץ וכחצי זית‬ ‫למחר או כחצי זית למחר וכחצי זית בחוץ‬ ‫הרי הקרבן פסול ואינו פגול וכן אם עירב‬ ‫המחשבה בהקטרה הרי זה פסול ואינו‬ :‫פגול‬

half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and half an olive-sized portion on the following day, or half an olive-sized portion on the following day and half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],9 the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. Similarly, if one combined another disqualifying intent regarding offering [a sacrifice with one regarding time, the sacrifice] is disqualified, but not piggul. If one had the intent to eat or to offer half an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place and to eat or to offer an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [This applies] whether the [disqualifying] intent concerning the olive-sized portion was first or last. [The rationale is that] half an olive-sized portion is not significant in relation to an olive-sized portion.10

3

‫חשב לאכול או להקטיר כחצי זית‬ ‫במחשבת המקום ולאכול או להקטיר‬ ‫כזית במחשבת הזמן הרי זה פגול בין‬ ‫שהקדים מחשבת כזית בין שאיחר אותה‬ :‫שאין חצי זית חשוב אצל כזית‬

If he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and a [disqualifying] intent concerning place with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, and then a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, [the sacrifice] is piggul.11

‫חשב על חצי זית במחשבת הזמן ועל‬ ‫חצי זית במחשבת המקום וחזר‬ ‫וחשב על חצי זית אחר במחשבת הזמן‬ ‫הרי זה פגול וכן אם חשב על חצי זית‬ ‫במחשבת הזמן וחזר וחשב על כזית חציו‬ ‫במחשבת הזמן וחציו במחשבת המקום‬ :‫הרי זה פגול‬

Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and then a [disqualifying] intent with regard to an olive-sized portion: with regard to half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, and with regard to the other half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, [the sacrifice] is piggul.12 If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the lower portion [of the altar] on the upper portion [of the altar] or he had an intent to present [blood] that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion [of the altar] or the like, [these] intents that do not disqualify [a sacrifice], as explained.13 If one combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul.14 If he combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning place alone,15 [the sacrifice] is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.

4

‫חשב על הדמים הניתנין למטה ליתן‬ ‫אותם למעלה או על הניתנין למעלה‬ ‫לתתם למטה וכיוצא במחשבות אלו שאינן‬ ‫פוסלין כמו שביארנו ועירב עמהן מחשבת‬ ‫הזמן הרי זה פגול ואם חשב עמהן מחשבת‬ :‫המקום לבדה הרי זה פסול ואינו פגול‬

If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day, [an intent] to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day, he had an intent to present blood that should be presented in the Sanctuary on the outer altar on the following day, or he had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the outer altar in the Sanctuary on the following day, [the sacrifice] is not piggul. Even though he had an intent concerning the time, since he changed the place where the blood was presented in his mind, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but is not piggul.16 Since we have explained in these halachot17 that when blood is presented in a place other than the desired place, it is considered as if it was presented in the desired place, why is [the sacrifice] not considered as piggul because of this intent to present the blood outside of its desired place on the following day? [The rationale is that] even though the sacrifice is acceptable, since the blood which was not presented in its proper place, it does not cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, as we explained.18 [There is a general principle:] In any situation where blood is cast upon [the altar, but it] does cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, if one had the intent to present it at a time [after the prescribed time], it is not piggul. Therefore, [in the circumstances mentioned above,] if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to this sacrifice, it is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.

5

‫חשב על הדם הניתן למעלה לתתו‬ ‫למחר למטה או על הדם הניתן למטה‬ ‫לתתו למחר למעלה או שחשב על הדם‬ ‫הניתן בפנים בהיכל לתתו למחר במזבח‬ ‫החיצון או שחשב על הדם הניתן במזבח‬ ‫החיצון לתתו למחר בפנים בהיכל אינו‬ ‫פגול אע"פ שחשב מחשבת הזמן הואיל‬ ‫ושינה מקום נתינת הדם במחשבתו הרי זה‬ ‫פסול ואינו פגול ומאחר שביארנו בהלכות‬ ‫אלו שהדם שניתן שלא במקומו כאילו ניתן‬ ‫במקומו למה לא יהיה זה פגול במחשבה זו‬ ‫שחשב ליתן הדם שלא במקומו למחר‬ ‫מפני שהדם הניתן שלא במקומו אף על פי‬ ‫שהזבח כשר אינו מתיר הבשר באכילה‬ ‫כמו שביארנו וכל זריקה שאינה מתרת‬ ‫הבשר באכילה אם חשב ליתנה חוץ לזמנו‬ ‫לא פיגל לפיכך אם חזר וחשב בזבח זה‬ :‫מחשבת הזמן הרי זה פסול ואינו פגול‬

If a person had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he took [the handful of flour from a meal-offering], but did not have such an intent at the time he collected the frankincense or he had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he collected the frankincense, but did not have such an intent at the time he took [the handful of flour, the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul.19 [An offering becomes piggul] only when one has a

‫חשב מחשבת זמן בשעת קמיצה אבל‬ ‫לא בשעת ליקוט הלבונה או שחשב‬ ‫מחשבת הזמן בשעת ליקוט הלבונה אבל‬ ‫לא בשעת קמיצה הרי זו פסולה ואינה‬ ‫פגול עד שיחשב מחשבת הזמן בכל‬ ‫המתיר שהוא הקומץ עם הלבונה בשעת‬ ‫קביצת הקומץ וליקוט הלבונה או בשעת‬ ‫נתינת שניהן בכלי או בשעת הולכתן או‬ :‫בשעת זריקתן‬

disqualifying intent with regard to all [the substances which] cause it to be permitted [to be eaten], i.e., the handful of meal and the frankincense, at the time the handful is taken and the frankincense is collected, or when they are both placed into a sacred utensil, brought [to the altar], or cast [upon its pyre]. If at the time he cast the handful [of meal] on the altar's pyre, he had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day, it is not piggul, because an intent to offer something on the altar's pyres while offering something else on the pyre does not cause the offering to be piggul.20 Similarly, if one offered only the frankincense or only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to eat the remainder on the following day, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that a disqualifying intent involving only] half [the substances which] cause an offering to be permitted [to be eaten], does not cause it to be considered as piggul. If, [by contrast,] one offered only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day and afterwards offered the frankincense and had the intent to partake of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for the [disqualifying] intent concerning time has spread throughout the entire meal-offering.21

6

‫חשב בשעת הקטרת הקומץ שיקטיר‬ ‫הלבונה למחר אינה פגול שאין‬ ‫הקטרת מפלגת הקטרה וכן אם הקטיר‬ ‫הלבונה לבדה או הקומץ לבדו והוא מחשב‬ ‫לאכול שירים למחר הרי זו פסולה ואינה‬ ‫פגול שאין מפגלין בחצי מתיר אבל אם‬ ‫הקטיר את הקומץ לבדו וחשב שיקטיר‬ ‫לבונה למחר ואח"כ הקטיר הלבונה וחשב‬ ‫שיאכל השירים למחר הרי זה פגול שהרי‬ :‫פשטה מחשבת זמן בכל המנחה‬

7

If one offered a portion of the handful [of meal] the size of a sesame seed together with the frankincense with the intent that he eat a sesame seed-sized portion of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [even if] he continues offering the entire handful [of meal] with the frankincense with [the same disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that] even though eating little by little is an ordinary manner of eating,22 this is not the ordinary manner in which entities are offered on the altar. Instead, it is like a meal-offering whose handful was not offered on the altar's pyre.23

‫הקטיר כדי שומשום מן הקומץ עם‬ ‫הלבונה והוא מחשב שיאכל כדי‬ ‫שומשום מן השירים למחר עד שהשלים‬ ‫כל הקומץ עם הלבונה במחשבת הזמן הרי‬ ‫זו פסולה ואינה פגול שאע"פ שדרך‬ ‫אכילה בכך מעט מעט אין דרך הקטרה‬ ‫בכך אלא הרי זו כמנחה שלא הוקטר‬ :‫קומצה‬

When there was frankincense placed on the meal-offering of a sinner or that of a sotah24 and one had a [disqualifying] intent involving time before the frankincense was removed, [the offerings] are disqualified, but are not piggul.25 If after he collected the

‫מנחת חוטא או מנחת קנאות שהיה‬ ‫עליה לבונה וחשב בה מחשבת הזמן‬ ‫קודם שילקט הלבונה הרי זו פסולה ואינה‬ ‫פגול ואם אחר שליקט הלבונה חשב עליה‬ :‫מחשבת הזמן הרי זה פגול‬

frankincense he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the offering, it is piggul.26 If the remaining portion [of a meal-offering] was diminished between the time the handful was taken and it was offered on the altar and then the handful was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, there is a doubt whether it was established [as fit to become] piggul27 and thus it is

‫שירים שחסרו בין קמיצה‬ ‫להקטרה והקטיר הקומץ במחשבת‬ ‫הזמן הרי זה ספק אם נקבעו לפגול והרי הן‬ :‫פגול או לא נקבעו ואינו פגול‬

piggul or it was not established28 and it is not piggul.

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 15 FOOTNOTES

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17

1. Chapter 13, Halachah 1. 2. Slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, and casting it on the altar, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 4, and in the following halachah. 3. Implied is that with regard to other sacrifices which are not disqualified when slaughtered for another purpose, if there was a disqualifying intent concerning time, the fact that they

room to think that they cannot be separated from each other, the two intents concerning time are considered as one unit and the intent concerning place is disregarded. 13. Chapter 2, Halachah 10. 14. Since these intents are not significant, they do not prevent

were slaughtered for a different purpose does not prevent them from being considered as piggul.

15. The Kessef Mishneh notes that this word is problematic,

4. As stated in Chapter 18, Halachot 3 and 6, when a sacrifice

because even if a disqualifying intent concerning time is also

is merely disqualified, a person who partakes of its meat is liable for lashes. If, however, it is deemed piggul, he is liable for karet, a much more serious punishment.

the sacrifice from being considered as piggul.

combined, the sacrifice is not piggul. 16. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Ra'avad's objection follows the

5. I.e., there is no difference which disqualifying intent a person has first, as long as another intent is mixed together with the

interpretation of Zevachim 27a advanced by Rashi. The

intent involving time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. In Zevachim 29b, there is a differing opinion which

Talmudic passage. It is possible to distinguish between the situations mentioned

maintains that if the intent involving time is first, the sacrifice is deemed piggul even if there is another disqualifying intent

in this halachah and those mentioned in the previous halachah as follows: In the situations mentioned here, the

afterwards.

very same thought which concerned the place where the blood of the sacrifice would be offered concerned also its

6. More precisely, that the meat be eaten whether by himself or by someone else.

Rambam, he maintains, has a different understanding of that

time.

7. See Chapter 14, Halachah 8.

17. Chapter 2, Halachah 10.

8. Both of these situations are examples where a disqualifying

18. Chapter 2, Halachah 10.

intent involving place is combined with a disqualifying intent concerning time. 9. As mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 10, to disqualify a sacrifice one must have an intent concerning an olive-sized portion. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that even though two different intents are involved, they may be combined.

19. Although the priest had a disqualifying intent while performing one of these acts, we do not say that he had the same intent concerning the other unless he explicitly had such a thought. 20. For, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 6, a disqualifying

10. In the previous halachah, the half portion was considered

intent concerning time causes a meal-offering to be considered piggul only when one thinks of it while

significant, because there was no olive-sized portion present and it can be combined with another half portion. In this

performing one of the four services mentioned in the previous halachah.

halachah, there is an olive-sized portion present. Hence, nothing concerning the smaller portion is significant.

21. Even though neither of the intents in their own right would

The commentaries note that the Rambam apparently had a slightly different version of the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for this law than the standard printed text. 11. I.e., the same law mentioned in the previous halachah applies in this instance as well. The fact that - had the

cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul, when combined, they have this effect. To explain: Until the frankincense is offered, it is forbidden to partake of the remaining portions of the meal-offering. Thus having the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day is equivalent to having the intent to partake of the remainder of the offering on the following day.

person not had the second disqualifying intent concerning time, the first half portion would have been combined with

22. As indicated by Chapter 14, Halachah 10, which states that if

the second half portion is not of consequence Ravva (Zevachim 31a) states lyrically: "The piggul arises, like one

one had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion in an extended interval, he can be held liable.

rising from sleep.".

8

12. Although the second disqualifying intent combines an intent concerning place and one concerning time and thus there is

23. There is a difference of opinion concerning this instance in Menachot 16b. One sage maintains that the offering is acceptable. One maintains that it is piggul, and one rules as the Rambam rules here. The Rambam accepts that view, because there are a majority of opinions, negating either of the extremes (see Kessef Mishneh). 24. Even though there are explicit negative commandments not to place frankincense on these offerings. See Chapter 14, Halachah 3; Chapter 11, Halachah 10.

25. Because the offering is not fit to be brought on the altar until the frankincense is removed. 26. Because the offering is fit to be brought on the altar. 27. For the handful is fit to be offered on the altar. Hence if one has a disqualifying intent while placing the handful in a sacred vessel, bringing it to the altar, or offering it on the altar's pyre, there is room to say that it is piggul. (See Rashi, Menachot 12a.) 28. For it is unfit to partake of such a meal-offering.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16

Whenever blood must be presented on the outer altar and the first presentation was made with a proper intent and a second or further presentation was made for the sake of a different sacrifice or he had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place or time, atonement is achieved and the sacrifice is acceptable.1 If the first presentation [of blood] was made with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time and [the priest] completed the presentation of the blood with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [The rationale is that] the first presentation of the blood is of fundamental importance.2 In contrast, with regard to all of the presentations of blood on the inner altar - since they are all absolute requirements [for the offering of the sacrifice], as we explained3 - if one of presentations was not made as required, but instead, one had a disqualifying intent, the sacrifice is unacceptable,4 even if all the other presentations were made as required.

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18

‫כל הדמים הניתנין על מזבח החיצון‬ ‫שנתן מהם מתנה ראשונה במחשבה‬ ‫נכונה ונתן ממתנה שניה ואילך במחשבת‬ ‫שינוי השם או במחשבת המקום או‬ ‫מחשבת הזמן הרי זה כיפר והורצה הקרבן‬ ‫ואם נתן את הראשונה במחשבת הזמן‬ ‫והשלים המתנות במחשבת המקום הרי זה‬ ‫פגול שמתנה ראשונה היא העיקר אבל כל‬ ‫הדמים הניתנין על מזבח הפנימי הואיל‬ ‫וכולן מעכבין זה את זה כמו שביארנו אם‬ ‫נתן אחת מהן שלא כתקנה אלא הפסיד‬ ‫בה המחשבה אף על פי שנתן כל השאר‬ :‫כתקנן הזבח פסול‬

2

If one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time when making the first [of the presentations of the blood on the inner altar]5 and had no specific intent6 regarding the remainder or he presented all of them as required with the exception of the final one, which he presented with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is not given that distinction] unless one makes [all] the presentations with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, for they are all considered as one presentation.

‫חשב בראשונה מחשבת הזמן ושתק‬ ‫בשאר או שנתן כולן כתקנן חוץ מן‬ ‫האחרונה שנתן במחשבת הזמן הרי זה‬ ‫פסול ואינו פגול עד שיזה במחשבת הזמן‬ :‫שהרי כלם במתנה אחת הן‬

[Having a disqualifying intent while] immersing one's finger in the blood of a sin-offering7 [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar can cause a sacrifice to become piggul.8

‫טבילת אצבע בדם החטאות הפנימיות‬ ‫מפגלת כיצד חשב בשעת טבילת‬ ‫אצבע בדם מחשבת הזמן הרי זה כמחשב‬ :‫בשעת הזייה‬

What is implied? If at the time [the priest] immersed his finger in the blood, he had a disqualifying intent concerning time, it is as if he had such an intent when presenting [the blood on the altar]. If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to one of the sin-offerings [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar with regard to an aspect of the sacrifice that is performed in the Sanctuary, [the offering] is not piggul. If he had such an intent with regard to an aspect that is performed in the Temple Courtyard, it is piggul.

‫היה עומד בעזרה וחשב מחשבת‬ ‫הזמן בחטאות הנעשות בפנים בדבר‬ ‫הנעשה בפנים אינו פגול חשב בדבר‬ :‫הנעשה בחוץ הרי זה פגול‬

What is implied? If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and said: "I am slaughtering [this animal] with the intent of presenting its blood tomorrow,"9 [the offering] is not piggul, because

‫כיצד היה עומד בעזרה ואמר הריני‬ ‫שוחט להזות דמו למחר אינו פגול‬ :‫שההזיה לפנים בהיכל‬

presenting the blood is performed inside, in the Sanctuary.

If [a priest] was standing in the Sanctuary and he said: "I am presenting [the blood] with the intent to pour the remaining [blood]10 on the following day, [the offering] is not piggul, because he had a disqualifying intent inside [the Temple Sanctuary] regarding a service performed outside. If, however, he was standing in the Temple Courtyard and slaughtered [the animal] with the intent to pour out the remainder [of the blood] on the following day or to offer the fats and the organs on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for he had a [disqualifying] intent while outside concerning a service that is performed outside.

‫היה עומד בהיכל ואמר הרי אני מזה‬ ‫לשפוך שירים למחר אינו פגול שהרי‬ ‫חשב בפנים בדבר הנעשה בחוץ אבל אם‬ ‫היה עומד בעזרה ושחט והוא מחשב‬ ‫לשפוך שירים למחר או להקטיר אימורין‬ ‫למחר הרי זה פגול שהרי חשב בחוץ‬ :‫בדבר הנעשה בחוץ‬

A [disqualifying offering causes become piggul, but the bread does not become piggul.11

‫התודה מפגלת את הלחם והלחם אינו‬ ‫מפגל את התודה כיצד השוחט את‬ ‫התודה והוא מחשב שיאכל מבשרה או‬ ‫יזרוק דמה או שיקטיר אימוריה למחר‬ ‫הזבח עם הלחם פגול אבל אם חשב‬ ‫לאכול מן הלחם למחר הלחם לבדו פגול‬ :‫וזבח התודה אינו פגול‬

intent] concerning a thanksgivingthe bread [that accompanies it] to a [disqualifying intent] concerning cause the thanksgiving-offering to

What is implied? When one slaughtered a thanksgiving-offering and had the intent to partake of its meat, cast its blood on the altar, or offer its fats and organs on the following day, the offering and the bread are piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the bread on the following day, the bread alone is piggul; the thanksgiving-offering is not piggul.12

3

4

Similar concepts apply with regard to the two sheep offered on Shavuot with the two breads offered with them. If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the sheep, the two breads are considered as piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the two breads on the following day, the two breads are piggul and the sheep are not piggul.13 If while performing one of the four [significant] services, [the priest] had the intent partake of an olive-sized portion of the meat of the sacrifice together with the bread14 tomorrow, the bread alone is piggul15 and the

‫וכן הדין בשני כבשי עצרת עם שתי‬ ‫לחם הבאות עמהן שאם חשב‬ ‫מחשבת זמן בכבשים נתפגלו שתי הלחם‬ ‫חשב שיאכל משתי הלחם למחר שתי‬ ‫הלחם פגול והכבשים אינן פגול חשב‬ ‫באחת מארבע העבודות לאכול כזית‬ ‫מבשר הזבח עם הלחם למחר הלחם לבדו‬ :‫פגול והתודה או הכבשים אינן פגול‬

thanksgiving-offering or the sheep are not piggul. When [a priest] offers the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the showbread and, while offering them, had the intent to partake of the showbread on the following day, the bread is piggul.16

‫המקטיר שני בזיכי לבונה שעם לחם‬ ‫הפנים וחשב בשעת הקטרתן שיאכל‬ :‫לחם הפנים למחר הרי הלחם פגול‬

When one slaughters the two sheep for Shavuot and has the intent to eat one of the loaves on the following day, they are both piggul.17

‫השוחט שני כבשי עצרת וחשב לאכול‬ ‫אחת משתי החלות למחר שתיהם‬ :‫פגול‬

If one offered the two bowls [of frankincense] and he had the intent to partake of one of the two arrangements of bread on the following day, both arrangements are piggul.18

‫הקטיר שני הבזיכים והוא מחשב‬ ‫לאכול אחד משני הסדרים למחר‬ :‫שני הסדרים פגול‬

Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] thought concerning time with regard to one of the breads of the thanksgiving-offering or with regard to one of the breads of meal-offering baked in an oven, all of the breads are piggul.

‫וכן אם חשב מחשבת הזמן באחת‬ ‫מחלות התודה או באחת מחלות‬ :‫מנחת מאפה התנור הרי כל החלות פגול‬

5

If, by contrast, one of the two breads [of Shavuot], one of the two arrangements [of the showbread], or one of the breads of the thanksgiving offering19- whether before the casting on the altar20 or afterwards - becomes impure, only that bread or that arrangement are forbidden to be eaten. What is pure may be eaten in its state of purity.

‫אבל אם נטמאת אחת משתי החלות‬ ‫או אחד משני הסדרים או אחת‬ ‫מחלות התודה בין לפני זריקה בין לאחר‬ ‫זריקה אותה החלה ואותו הסדר אסור‬ :‫והטהור בטהרתו יאכל‬

If, while performing the sacrificial service associated with one of the two sheep, [the priest] had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion of the two breads on the following day - and similarly, if while offering one of the two bowls [of frankincense], he had the intent to partake of an olive-sized portion of the showbread on the following day, the bread is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is given that distinction] only when he has a [disqualifying] intent while performing all the services that permit the bread to be eaten: [i.e.,] bringing both sheep and offering both bowls [of frankincense] on the altar's pyre.

‫חשב בעבודת אחד משני הכבשים‬ ‫שיאכל כזית משתי הלחם למחר‬ ‫וכן אם חשב בהקטרת אחד משני הבזיכין‬ ‫שיאכל כזית מלחם הפנים למחר הרי‬ ‫הלחם פסול ואינו פגול עד שיחשב בכל‬ ‫המתיר שהוא עבודת שני הכבשים‬ :‫והקטרת שני הבזיכין‬

If one slaughtered one [of the sheep] and had the intent to eat half an olive-sized portion from one loaf on the following day and slaughtered the second lamb and had the intent of eating half an olive-sized portion on the following day, [the two intents] are combined to render the loaves piggul.21 Similar concepts apply with regard to the two bowls [of frankincense] and the two arrangements [of showbread].

‫שחט אחד וחשב לאכול חצי זית‬ ‫מחלה זו למחר ושחט השני וחשב‬ ‫לאכול חצי זית מחלה שנייה למחר הרי‬ ‫אלו מצטרפין לפגול והוא הדין בשני‬ :‫הבזיכין עם שני הסדרים‬

If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to one of the two sheep and offered the second with a proper intent, the one that was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time is piggul and the other is acceptable.22

‫חשב באחד משני הכבשים‬ ‫מחשבת הזמן ועשה השני‬ ‫במחשבה נכונה זה שעשאוהו במחשבת‬ :‫הזמן פגול והשני כשר‬

If one slaughtered one of [these two sheep] and had the intent while slaughtering it to partake of the meat of the other one on the following day, they are both acceptable. For the intent one has with regard to one is of no consequence regarding the second.

‫שחט אחד מהן וחשב בשעת‬ ‫שחיטתו שיאכל מבשר השני למחר‬ :‫שניהן כשירים שאין מחשבין מזה על זה‬

The two lambs [offered on] Shavuot do not cause the bread to be sanctified unless they are slaughtered.

‫שני כבשי עצרת אין מקדשין את‬ ‫הלחם אלא בשחיטה כיצד שחטם‬ ‫וזרק דמם במחשבת שינוי השם לא קדש‬ ‫הלחם שחטן לשמן וזרק דמם שלא לשמן‬ ‫הלחם קדוש ואינו קדוש שחטן שלא‬ :‫לשמן אע"פ שזרק לשמן לא קדש הלחם‬

What is implied? If one slaughtered them and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, he did not sanctify the bread. If he slaughtered them with the proper intent and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, the bread is sanctified, but is not sanctified.23 If they slaughtered it for the sake of another sacrifice even though he cast [the blood] for the proper intent, the bread was not sanctified. When the two loaves were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] between the slaughter [of the two sheep] and the casting [of their blood] and the blood of the sheep was cast on the altar with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, the bread becomes piggul even though it is outside [the Temple Courtyard]. For casting [the blood] has an effect on [bread] that was taken out even though it is still outside [the Temple Courtyard].24

6

‫שתי הלחם שיצאו בין שחיטה‬ ‫לזריקה וזרק דם הכבשים‬ ‫במחשבת הזמן נתפגלו שתי הלחם אף על‬ ‫פי שהן בחוץ שהזריקה מועלת ליוצא‬ :‫אע"פ שעדיין הוא בחוץ‬

7

When the two sheep offered on Shavuos were slaughtered with the proper intent and the breads were lost, they are disqualified if their blood was cast [on the altar] with the desired intent.25 If their blood was cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time26 after the bread was lost, there is an unresolved doubt if [the meat of the sheep] is permitted to be eaten or not.27

« Previous

‫כבשי עצרת ששחטן לשמן ואבד‬ ‫הלחם אם זרק דמן לשמן הרי אלו‬ ‫פסולין זרק דמן במחשבת הזמן אחר‬ ‫שאבד הלחם הרי אלו ספק אם הותרו‬ :‫באכילה או לא הותרו‬

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16 FOOTNOTES 1. Hence the person(s) bringing the sacrifice are not required to bring another one.

9. When they should be presented on the day the sacrificial animal is slaughtered.

2. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

10. On the outer altar (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:10).

Chapter 16, Halachah 1, states that when a disqualifying intent concerning place is combined with a disqualifying

11. For the bread is secondary to and dependent on the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not dependent on the bread [the

intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but is not piggul. In the present instance, it is placed in the more

Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:3)].

severe category, because once the fundamental presentation was made in a manner that rendered the

12. Rashi's commentary to Menachot 15a implies that it is

sacrifice piggul, the subsequent intentions the priest had are of no consequence. 3. Chapter 2, Halachah 3. 4. However, it is not piggul. The Kessef Mishneh explains that it is not considered piggul because one must have the disqualifying intent concerning time when performing all of the presentations. 5. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7. 6. Literally, the Rambam's words mean: "Remained silent with regard to the others." 7. See ibid.:8. 8. The commentaries note that this ruling appears to run contrary to the statements of Zevachim 44a: "If one had a disqualifying intent that would render an offering piggul inside the Sanctuary, the offering is not piggul." Rambam LeAm suggests that Rabbi Elazar the author of the statement cited does not accept the concept that one's intent when immersing one's finger in the blood can cause an offering to be considered as piggul. If, however, he would have accepted that concept, he would also have accepted the Rambam's ruling here.

See also Chapter 15, Halachah 13.

forbidden to eat the meat. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, it would appear that the meat is permitted entirely. 13. Here, also, the bread is considered as secondary to the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not secondary to the meat [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. 14. I.e., half an olive-sized portion of meat and half an olive-sized portion of bread (Rashi, Menachot, loc. cit.). 15. Menachot, loc. cit., mentions both of the situations spoken about in this halachah. One opinion maintains that the ruling was given both with regard to the bread on Shavuos and the bread of the thanksgiving-offering. A second view maintains that it was given with regard to the breads and the offering of Shavuos, for they are interrelated as evidenced by the fact that they are waved together (Leviticus 23:20). It is possible, however, that it does not apply to the thanksgiving-offering. The Rambam accepts the more stringent view, because of the doubt involved (Kessef Mishneh). 16. For it is the offering of the bowls of frankincense that enable the breads to be eaten. 17. For the two loaves are considered as a single offering.

18. Here too both arrangments are considered as a single offering.

26. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that this is a printing error

19. The commentaries have noted the apparent contradiction to

This view, however, is not borne out by the manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah.

Chapter 12, Halachah 14. See the notes to that halachah.

and the text should read "with an intent for another sacrifice."

20. Of the blood of the sacrifices or the frankincense for the

27. According to the Kessef Mishneh, the Rambam's ruling can

showbreads [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:2)].

be explained as follows: One might think that the meat would be permitted to be eaten, because they are peace-offerings

21. For he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard

and when a peace-offering is offered for the sake of another offering, it is permitted to be eaten, as stated in Chapter 15,

to the entire offering that would enable the bread to be eaten.

Halachah 1. On the other hand, since the sheep are associated with the bread and the bread is lost, there is room

22. In this context, each of the sheep is considered as an independent entity.

to say that they have been disqualified. A question concerning this issue was raised by Menachot 47b. Rav

23. It appears that the Rambam follows the view of Ravva

Yosef Corcus maintains that according to the Rambam, the question was left unresolved. Rashi maintains that the

(Menachot 13b) that bread is considered as consecrated, but it is forbidden to be eaten . 24. The place where the bread is located is not of consequence. 25. For as stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:15, the offering of the bread is a fundamental requirement for the offering of the sheep and if the bread is lost, the sheep should be destroyed by fire.

question is rhetorical and that the meat is disqualified. The Kessef Mishneh notes, however, that Rabbenu Yehoshua, one of the Rambam's descendants, was asked about the matter and explained the question according to the existing text. According to his view, the issue is that since the blood was cast on the altar after the bread was lost, the Sages had a question whether to consider their meat as ordinary meat or whether the meat should still be considered as sacrificial meat, because the sheep were slaughtered before the bread was lost.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .

9

1



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17

English

Hebrew

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 19

Anyone who has an incorrect intent [while performing] sacrificial service violates a negative commandment,1 for [Leviticus 7:18] states: "He may not intent this."

‫כל המחשב מחשבה שאינה נכונה‬ ‫בקדשים הרי זה עובר בלא תעשה‬ :‫שהרי הוא אומר לא יחשב‬

According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that included in this prohibition is not to cause sacrificial offerings to be disqualified through thought, for this is comparable to causing a blemish in sacrificial animals. Nevertheless, [a transgressor] is not punished by lashes,2 for thought is not considered as deed.3

‫מפי השמועה למדו שבכלל דין זה‬ ‫שלא יפסיד הקדשים במחשבה‬ ‫שהרי זה דומה למטיל מום בקדשים‬ ‫ואע"פ כן אינו לוקה שאין המחשבה‬ :‫מעשה‬

Whenever a sacrifice is defined as unacceptable whether it was disqualified because of an intent, an action, or something which caused it to be disqualified - anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for lashes, as [a result of the prohibition, Deuteronomy 14:3]: "Do not partake of anything abhorrent."4

‫כל קרבן שנאמר שהוא פסול בין‬ ‫שנפסל במחשבה בין במעשה בין‬ ‫שאירע בו דבר שפסלו כל האוכל ממנו‬ ‫כזית במזיד לוקה שנאמר לא תאכל כל‬ :‫תועבה‬

According to the Oral Tradition, we learned5 that the verse was warning solely against [partaking of] sacrificial animals that were disqualified.6

‫מפי השמועה למדו שאין הכתוב‬ :‫מזהיר אלא על פסולי המוקדשין‬

2

Similarly, when sacrificial animals which were [intentionally] blemished, a person who eats an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes, for they are included in the category of "anything abhorrent." [It is forbidden to partake of them] until they contract another blemish, [at which time,]7 they may be eaten because of the blemish, as we explained.8 Whenever there is a unresolved doubt whether [a sacrificial animal] has been disqualified, lashes are not given.

‫וכן קדשים שהוטל בהם מום האוכל‬ ‫מהם כזית לוקה הרי הם בכלל כל‬ ‫תועבה עד שיולד להם מום אחר ויאכלו‬ ‫במומן כמו שביארנו וכל שפיסולו מספק‬ :‫אין לוקין עליו‬

Whenever a sacrifice has been deemed piggul because of a disqualifying intent concerning time, as we explained,9 anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for karet,10 as [implied by Leviticus 7:18]: "The soul which partakes of it will bear its sin."11 If one partakes of [the meat of such a sacrifice] inadvertently, he should bring a fixed sin-offering.12

‫כל קרבן שנתפגל במחשבת הזמן כמו‬ ‫שביארנו כל האוכל ממנו כזית במזיד‬ ‫חייב כרת שנאמר והנפש האוכלת ממנו‬ ‫עונה תשא ואם אכל ממנו בשגגה מביא‬ :‫חטאת קבועה‬

One is not liable for karet unless one partakes of entities that were permitted for consumption, either by a person or by the altar.13 If, however, one eats of the entity that permits [the sacrifice to be eaten] itself, one is not liable for karet. Instead, he is liable for lashes like one who partakes of disqualified sacrificial animals for which the transgression of karet is not involved. What is implied? When a meal-offering becomes piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the remaining [meal]14 intentionally, he is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of the handful [that is separated to be offered on the altar] or from the frankincense, he is not liable for karet, for these are the substances that enable [the meal to be eaten] by men. Similarly, when a sacrifice is deemed piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of its meat or of the fats and organs offered on the altar or from the meat of a burnt-offering is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of an olive-sized portion of the blood, he is not liable for karet, because [the casting of] the blood permits the fats and the organs to be offered on the altar and [the offering of] the fats and the organs permit the meat [to be eaten by] a person. [Similarly,] the blood of a burnt-offering permits its meat [to be offered] on the altar. [The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering of fowl permits its meat to be eaten by the priests. [The presentation of] the blood of a burntoffering of fowl permits its meat to be offered on the altar. [The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering that is burnt permits its fats and the organs to be offered on the altar. Therefore one is liable for [partaking of] the fats and the organs as piggul. [Offering] the handful [of meal] and the frankincense permit a meal-offering to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two sheep15 on Shavuot permit the two loaves to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two bowls of frankincense permit 3

‫אין חייבין כרת אלא על אכילת דברים‬ ‫שהותרו בין לאדם בין למזבח אבל אם‬ ‫אכל מן המתיר עצמו אינו חייב כרת אלא‬ ‫לוקה כאוכל פסולי המוקדשין שאין בהם‬ ‫פגול כיצד מנחה שנתפגלה האוכל כזית‬ ‫משיריה במזיד חייב כרת אבל אם אכל מן‬ ‫הקומץ שלה או מן הלבונה אינו חייב כרת‬ ‫לפי שהן הן המתירים את השירים לאדם‬ ‫וכן זבח שנתפגל האוכל כזית מבשרו או‬ ‫מאימוריו או מבשר העולה חייב כרת אבל‬ ‫אם אכל כזית מן הדם אינו חייב עליו‬ ‫משום פגול שהדם מתיר את האימורין‬ ‫ליקרב למזבח והאימורין מתירין את‬ ‫הבשר לאדם ודם העולה מתיר בשרה‬ ‫למזבח ודם חטאת העוף מתיר בשרה‬ ‫לכהנים ודם עולת העוף מתיר בשרה‬ ‫למזבח ודם חטאות הנשרפות מתיר‬ ‫אימוריהם למזבח לפיכך חייבין על‬ ‫אימוריהן משום פגול הקומץ והלבונה‬ ‫מתירין השירים לכהנים שני כבשי עצרת‬ ‫מתירין שתי הלחם לכהנים וכן שני בזיכי‬ ‫לבונה מתירין לחם הפנים לכהנים אבל‬ ‫דברים שאין להם מתירין כגון בשר‬ ‫חטאות הנשרפות ומנחות הנשרפות אינן‬ :‫מתפגלין לעולם‬

These are the entities that are never deemed as piggul:16 the handful [of meal] and the frankincense; the incense-offering; the blood [of any sacrifice]; wine whether wine that comes as part of the accompanying offerings17 or wine that is offered independently;18 and the meal-offerings that are burnt in their entirety; for there is not a handful that permits them, e.g., the meal-offering of a priest or the meal-offering of the accompanying offerings; the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt; and the log of oil brought by a nazirite.

‫ואלו דברים שאין חייבין עליהן‬ ‫ הקומץ והלבונה‬:‫משום פגול לעולם‬ ‫והקטרת והדם והיין בין יין הבא עם‬ ‫הנסכים בין יין הבא בפני עצמו ומנחות‬ ‫הנשרפות כולן שהרי אין להם קומץ‬ ‫להתירן כגון מנחת כהנים ומנחת נסכים‬ ‫ובשר חטאות הנשרפות ולוג שמן של‬ ‫מצורע ואם תאמר והלא דם האשם מתירו‬ ‫אינו תלוי בו שהרי אדם מביא אשמו היום‬ ‫ולוג אחר כמה ימים כמו שיתבאר‬ :‫במקומו‬

If one would ask [with regard to the latter instance]: Does not the blood of the guilt-offering [brought by the nazirite] permit the oil to be eaten? [In resolution, it can be said that] one is not dependent on the other, for a person may bring his guilt-offering one day and the log of oil after several days, as will be explained in the appropriate place.19 It is forbidden to leave sacrificial meat beyond the time in which it may be eaten,20 as [Leviticus 22:30] states with regard to the thanksgiving-offering: "Do not leave it over until the morning." This same applies to all other sacrifices.21 One who leaves over sacrificial meat is not liable for lashes, for Scripture enables [the transgression] to be corrected22 by [the fulfillment of] a positive commandment,23 as [Exodus 12:10] states: "That which remains from it until the morning should be burnt with fire."

4

‫אסור להותיר מבשר הקדשים לאחר‬ ‫זמן אכילתן שנאמר בקרבן תודה לא‬ ‫תותירו ממנו עד בקר והוא הדין לשאר‬ ‫הקדשים כולם והמותיר אינו לוקה שהרי‬ ‫ניתקו הכתוב לעשה שנאמר והנותר ממנו‬ :‫עד בקר באש תשרופו‬

5

One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of sacrifices that were left beyond their required time intentionally is liable for karet.24 If he did so unintentionally, he must bring a fixed sin-offering, as [Leviticus 19:8]: "He who partakes of it shall bear his sin, for he has desecrated what is holy unto God; [that soul] shall be cut off." From when is a person held liable for partaking of notar [this left-over meat]? If it is from sacrifices of the most sacred order, he is liable from dawn.25 If it is from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity,26 he is liable from sunset on the second day which is the beginning of the third day.

‫האוכל כזית מבשר קדשים שנותר‬ ‫במזיד חייב כרת בשוגג מביא חטאת‬ ‫קבועה שנאמר ואוכליו עונו ישא כי את‬ ‫קדש ה' חלל ונכרתה ומאימתי יתחייב‬ ‫כרת על אכילת הנותר אם קדשי קדשים‬ ‫הם חייב עליהן מאחר שיעלה עמוד השחר‬ ‫ואם קדשים קלים הם חייב עליהן משקיעת‬ ‫החמה של יום שני שהוא תחלת הלילה‬ ‫של יום שלישי והיכן הזהיר הכתוב על‬ ‫הפגול ועל הנותר במלואים שהרי נאמר‬ ‫שם לא יאכל כי קדש הם להזהיר על כל‬ ‫שפסולו בקדש שהוא בלא תעשה על‬ :‫אכילתו‬

Where does the Torah warn against piggul and notar? With regard to [the sacrifices of] the dedication [of the Sanctuary], [Exodus 29:34] states: "[They shall not be eaten, for they are holy."27 This warns against [partaking of] any [sacrificial food] disqualified [in the Sanctuary], [stating] that there is a negative commandment against partaking of it. Piggul and notar can be combined to reach the minimum measure of an olive-sized portion28 [for which one is held liable]. All sacrificial foods that became piggul or notar can be combined [for this purpose].

‫והפגול והנותר מצטרפין זה עם זה‬ ‫לכזית וכל הפוגלים והנותרין‬ :‫מצטרפין‬

6

It is forbidden to cause sacrificial foods to contract impurity or to create a circumstance that makes them impure,29 for he disqualifies them.30 One who makes sacrificial foods impure is not liable for lashes, but a person who is pure who partakes of an olive-sized portion of sacred foods that have become impure is liable for lashes,31 as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "Meat that will touch anything impure should not be eaten." The same also applies with regard to other sacrifices. [For example,] if one partakes of an olive-sized portion of the frankincense of a meal-offering that became impure after it was sanctified in a utensil is liable for lashes. [This refers] both to sacrificial food that became impure before atonement was attained32 or afterwards, whether it became impure because of contact with a primary source of impurity33 or a derivative of impurity34 of Scriptural origin. If, however, sacrificial foods contracted impurity that is Rabbinic in origin, one is not liable for lashes for partaking of them; he does, however, receives stripes for rebellious conduct.35 [Even one who partakes of sacrificial food that contracts impurity of Scriptural origin] is liable for lashes only when he partakes of it after its blood is cast [on the altar]. If, by contrast, he partakes of it before the casting of its blood, he is not liable for lashes because he partook of impure sacrificial food.36 He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.

‫אסור לטמא את הקדשים או לסבב‬ ‫להם טומאה שהרי פוסלן והמטמא‬ ‫את הקדשים אינו לוקה אבל אדם טהור‬ ‫שאכל כזית מקדשים שנטמאו לוקה‬ ‫שנאמר והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא‬ ‫יאכל והוא הדין לשאר הקרבנות שאם‬ ‫אכל כזית מלבונת המנחה שנטמאה אחר‬ ‫שנתקדשה בכלי לוקה אחד קדשים‬ ‫שנטמאו לפני כפרה או לאחר כפרה בין‬ ‫שנטמאו באב הטומאה או בולד הטומאה‬ ‫של דברי תורה אבל אם נטמאו בטומאות‬ ‫של דבריהם אינו לוקה על אכילתן אבל‬ ‫מכין אותו מכת מרדות ואינו לוקה אלא‬ ‫האוכל אחר זריקת דמים אבל אם אכל‬ ‫קודם זריקה אינו לוקה משום אוכל קודש‬ :‫טמא אבל מכין אותו מכת מרדות‬

Any person who contracted a form of impurity that would make him liable for karet for entering the Temple37 who ate an olive-sized portion of sacrificial food - whether the food is pure or impure38 intentionally is liable for karet,39 as [Leviticus 7:20] states: "A soul that will partake... of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for God while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off." If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring an adjustable guiltoffering.40 What is the source that teaches that the verse is speaking about a situation where the person's body is ritually impure?41 [Leviticus 7:21] states: "When a soul will touch any impurity, whether impurity of a human, an impure animal, or an impure creature and he partook of the meat of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for God while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off."42 The same applies to all other sacrifices of the altar.

‫כל אדם שנטמא טומאה שחייבין‬ ‫עליה כרת על ביאת המקדש ואכל‬ ‫כזית מן הקדשים בין בקדש טהור בין‬ ‫בקדש טמא במזיד הרי זה נתחייב כרת‬ ‫שנאמר והנפש אשר תאכל מזבח השלמים‬ ‫אשר לה' וטומאתו עליו ונכרתה ואם אכל‬ ‫בשגגה מביא קרבן עולה ויורד ומניין‬ ‫שאינו מדבר אלא בטומאת הגוף שנאמר‬ ‫ונפש כי תגע בכל טמא בטומאת אדם או‬ ‫בבהמה טמאה או בכל שקץ טמא ואכל‬ ‫מבשר זבח השלמים אשר לה' ונכרתה‬ ‫והוא הדין לשאר קדשי מזבח והיכן הזהיר‬ ‫על עון זה ביולדת שהרי נאמר בה בכל‬ :‫קדש לא תגע‬

Where did [the Torah] warn concerning this prohibition? With regard to a woman who gave birth, [Leviticus 12:4] states: "She shall not touch anything that is sanctified."43 According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that [the verse] is a warning to a person who is impure, that he or she should not partake of sacrificial food before he immerses himself [in a mikveh]. If one partakes of sacrificial food after immersion, before sunset of that day and before bringing the sacrifice that brings atonement,44 he or she is liable for lashes, but not for karet, for [Leviticus 7:20] states "while his impurity is upon him." [Implied is that] the full measure of impurity must be upon him.45

7

‫מפי השמועה למדו שזו אזהרה‬ ‫לטמא שלא יאכל קדש קודם‬ ‫שיטבול והאוכל קדש אחר שטבל קודם‬ ‫שיעריב שמשו קודם שיביא כפרתו לוקה‬ ‫ואינו חייב כרת שנאמר וטומאתו עליו עד‬ :‫שתהיה כל טומאתו עליו‬

8

If a person was impure because of impurity resulting from a Rabbinic ordinance, he is not liable for lashes [if he partakes of sacrificial food].46 Needless to say, he is not liable for karet. He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.

‫היה טמא בטומאות של דבריהם‬ ‫אינו לוקה ואין צריך לומר שאינו‬ :‫חייב כרת אבל מכין אותו מכת מרדות‬

One is not liable for karet for partaking of sacrificial food that is made permitted by a particular act unless one partakes of it after that act is performed. If, however, he partakes of the meat [of a sacrifice] before its blood is cast on the altar, he is not liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial meat while impure.47

‫אינו חייב כרת על קדש שיש לו‬ ‫מתירין עד שיאכל ממנו אחר‬ ‫שקרבו מתיריו אבל אם אכל את הבשר‬ ‫קודם זריקת הדם אינו לוקה משום טמא‬ ‫שאכל את הקדש זה הכלל כל שיש לו‬ ‫מתירין אין חייבין עליו משום פגול או‬ ‫משום נותר או משום טמא עד שיקרבו‬ ‫מתיריו כהלכתן וכל שאין לו מתירין כיון‬ ‫שקדש בכלי חייבין עליו משום טומאה‬ ‫אפילו נטמא הבשר קודם שיטמא האוכל‬ ‫הואיל וקרבו המתירין ואחר כך אכל חייב‬ ‫כרת וכן אם אכל מבשר חטאות הנשרפות‬ ‫והוא טמא אחר שנזרק דמם הרי זה חייב‬ :‫כרת‬

This is the general principle: Whenever sacrificial food is permitted because [of the performance of] a particular act, one is not liable for the violation of any of the prohibitions against partaking of piggul, notar, or impure sacrificial food unless the act which permits partaking of the food was performed according to law. Whenever there is not a given act that makes sacrificial food permitted, once it is sanctified in a consecrated vessel, one is liable for partaking of it if it becomes impure. Even if [sacrificial] meat becomes impure before the person partaking of it becomes impure, if the act [that would have] permitted the meat to be eaten was performed and the person partook of the sacrificial food, he is liable for karet.48 Similarly, if a person who is impure partakes of the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt, after their blood is cast [on the altar],49 he is liable for karet.

9

It was already explained for you,50 that even entities for which one is not liable for piggul, one may be liable for notar or because the object contracted ritual impurity? What is implied? There is no liability for piggul for sacrificial entities that do not have an activity that permits them [to be eaten], but one may be held liable [for partaking of them if they] became notar or impure in such circumstances.

‫כבר נתבאר לך שאף דברים שאין‬ ‫חייבין עליהן משום פגול חייבין‬ ‫עליהן משום נותר וטמא כיצד דברים שאין‬ ‫להם מתירין אין חייבין עליהן משום פגול‬ ‫וחייבין עליהם משום נותר וטמא וכן‬ ‫המתירין עצמן אף על פי שאין חייבין‬ ‫עליהם משום פגול כמו שביארנו חייבין‬ ‫עליהן משום נותר וטמא חוץ מן הדם שאין‬ ‫חייבין עליו לעולם אלא משום דבר אחד‬ :‫בלבד‬

Similarly, even though there cannot be liability for piggul for the very entities that cause the sacrificial meat to be permitted, as we explained,51 one can be liable [for partaking of such entities if the sacrificial meat] became notar or impure with the exception of the blood. For one is liable for only one transgression for partaking of it.52 When a person who is impure partakes of the fats and organs to be offered on the altar, he is liable for karet. [If an impure person] partook53 of Paschal sacrifice that was not roasted breads of the thanksgiving-offering of which the breads [to be given to the priest] were not taken, he is liable for karet because of the impurity of [his] body even though they are not fit for their [purpose at this stage].54 It is impossible for a person to be liable for the transgressions of piggul and notar with regard to consumption of the same sacrifice.55 [The rationale is that] piggul is a sacrifice that was disqualified because of an unacceptable thought concerning time. It does not fulfill the obligations of a sacrifice and is not acceptable at all. Notar, by contrast, refers to the remnants of a sacrifice that was offered as required which remained after the time [prescribed] for its consumption.

:‫טמא שאכל אימורין חייב כרת‬

‫אכל פסח שלא נצלה ולחמי תודה‬ ‫שלא הורמה חלתן הרי זה חייב‬ ‫כרת משום טומאת הגוף אע"פ שאינן‬ ‫ראויין למה שהן אי אפשר שיתחייב אדם‬ ‫על אכילה אחת משום פגול ומשום נותר‬ ‫שהפגול הוא הקרבן שנפסל במחשבת‬ ‫הזמן ואינו עולה לשם קרבן ולא נרצה כלל‬ ‫והנותר הוא הנשאר מקרבן שקרב כמצותו‬ :‫לאחר זמן אכילתו‬

When one combined [different types of sacrificial food that were] piggul, notar, and impure and partook of them,56 he is liable. Even though there was more of one type of prohibited substance than another, it does not nullify it, because [these] prohibited substances do not nullify each other.57

‫הפגול והנותר והטמא שבללן זה בזה‬ ‫ואכלן חייב אף על פי שריבה מין על‬ ‫חבירו אינו מבטלו שאין האיסורין מבטלין‬ :‫זה את זה‬

When [sacrificial meat] that was piggul, notar, or impure was brought up to the altar, once the fire takes hold of the majority of it, their prohibitions take flight.

‫ופגול או נותר או טמא שהעלן‬ ‫לראש המזבח משמשלה האור‬ ‫ברובן פקע איסורן מהן והאימורין‬ ‫מצטרפין עם הבשר לכזית בין בעולה בין‬ ‫בשאר קדשים לחייב עליו משום פגול או‬ :‫נותר או טמא‬

The fat and the organs can be combined with the meat, both with regard to a burnt offering or to other sacrifices with regard to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure. When a sacrifice becomes piggul or notar after the time for its consumption passes and a person partakes of it, from its skin, from the sauce or spices [in which it is cooked], the allal,58 the murah,59 from the giddim,60 the horns, and the hoofs, the nails, the beak [of a fowl], its feathers,61 or its eggs, he is not liable for karet.62 Similarly, if an impure person partakes of these substances from an acceptable sacrifice, he is not liable for karet. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.

‫זבח שנתפגל או שנותר לאחר‬ ‫זמנו ואכל ממנו מן העור או מן‬ ‫המרק או מן התבלין או מן האלל או מן‬ ‫המוראה מן הגידים ומן הקרניים ומן‬ ‫הטלפיים מן הצפרניים מן החרטום ומן‬ ‫הנוצה ומביצי העוף אינו חייב כרת וכן‬ ‫טמא הגוף שאכל דברים אלו מקרבן כשר‬ ‫אינו חייב כרת אבל מכין אותו מכת‬ :‫מרדות‬

If one partook of a fetus or a placenta, he is liable for [violating the prohibitions of] piggul,

‫אכל מן השליל או מן השליא חייב‬ ‫משום פגול ונותר וטמא כאוכל‬ :‫משאר בשר הזבח‬

notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure like one who partake of any other [portion of] the meat of a sacrifice.63

10

11

[The prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure do not apply with regard to sacrifices brought by gentiles.64 Nor do they apply to sacrificial blood, as explained.65 Similarly, one is not liable for karet66 for [the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or partaking of [sacrificial entities] while impure67 for partaking of frankincense, the incense offering, or the wood [of the altar].68

« Previous

‫קדשי עכו"ם אין חייבין עליהם‬ ‫משום פגול ונותר וטמא וכן דם‬ ‫הקדשים כמו שביארנו וכן הלבונה‬ ‫והקטורת והעצים אין חייבין עליהן כרת‬ ‫לא משום פגול ולא משום נותר ולא משום‬ :‫טומאת הגוף‬

Next » Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 19

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17 FOOTNOTES 1. The wording used by the Rambam is often employed when

7. After they have been redeemed. As the Rambam LeAm

referring to one of the 613 mitzvot. Nevertheless, neither in the listing at the beginning of these halachot, nor in Sefer

elaborates, in addition to contracting a blemish, an animal dedicated as a sacrifice must be redeemed before the

HaMitzvot, does he count this charge in that reckoning. The negative

prohibition against partaking of its meat is lifted. (This constitutes a difference between the laws pertaining to such

commandment 4) does give this charge that distinction. Megilat Esther explains that this charge is part of the

an animal and a firstborn animal.) Even after the Scriptural prohibition is lifted, there is a Rabbinic prohibition to partake

directive to offer sacrifices in the proper manner and hence need not be considered as a separate mitzvah. See also

of its meat until it contracts another blemish on its own accord. (This prohibition was instituted as a penalty lest one

Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 144) where the issue is

intentionally inflict such a blemish. See Bechorot 34b.)

Ramban (in his Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot,

discussed. 2. As is one who causes a blemish to sacrificial animals (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:7). 3. And lashes are given only when one violates a transgression while performing a deed (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2). 4. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 140) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 469) consider this prohibition as one of

8. The Rambam's wording has aroused the attention of the commentaries, for this law is stated in Hilchot Bechorot 2:7, where the entire law stated here is mentioned. As such, it would have been more correct for the Rambam to have stated "as will be explained." Some have suggested that the intent here is to the concept that a sacrificial animal that has contracted a blemish may be eaten after being redeemed, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:10.

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 9. In various halachot from Chapter 13, Halachah 1, onward. 5. See the Sifri to the verse cited. 6. The Rambam is emphasizing this point lest one think that the charge also refers to other prohibited substances. This stress is necessary, for otherwise the prohibition could be considered a prohibition of a general nature (lav shebiklalut). Lashes are not given for violating a prohibition of this nature (Hilchot Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).

10. Literally, that the soul is 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). 11. Since this phrase is also used with regard to notar (sacrificial meat left beyond its limit) in Leviticus 19:8 and the punishment of karet is explicitly stated with regard to that prohibition in that verse, the Sifra makes an equation with regard to the punishment for the two transgressions.

12. This term is used to differentiate between this offering and an adjustable guilt-offering in which instance, the sacrifice the person required to bring is dependent on the person's means. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3-4. 13. Entities eaten by a person or consumed by the altar's pyre. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 4:3), the Rambam explains this concept as follows: The prohibition of piggul is derived from Leviticus 7:18 which pertains to the peace-offerings. Our Sages explain that the peace-offerings are unique in that they involve both consumption by the altar and consumption by man and that there is an act that permits such consumption (the offering of the blood permits the fats and organs to be offered and offering them permits the meat to be eaten). Hence this is established as a general rule with regard to all sacrifices. 14. I.e., the portion to be eaten by man. 15. The sheep themselves, however, can also become piggul, as stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 16. 16. For there is no other act performed that enables these to be offered. 17. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2. 18. Ibid. 17:12. 19. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.

HaChinuch (mitzvah 143) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 24. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 131) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 215) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 25. The first shining of the light on the eastern horizon, between 72 and 120 minutes before sunrise according to the various authorities. 26. With the exception of the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite's ram for which one is liable from dawn of the day following their sacrifice. 27. The commentaries note that the Rambam's citation of the verse is not entirely exact. See also Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit. 28. From the wording of the Mishnah (Meilah 4:3), one might think that these two prohibitions are not combined. Nevertheless, the Talmud (Meilah 17b) states that the Mishnah is speaking about the impurity of one's hands, but that with regard to the prohibition against partaking of the food, they may be combined. 29. Although the Rambam's wording implies that a Scriptural prohibition is involved, he does not include it as one of the 613 mitzvot. See a parallel in Hilchot Terumah 12:1.

It must be noted that the latter point is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Mishnah. Rabbi Shimon

30. The Or Sameach comments that the Rambam's wording

maintains that the log cannot become piggul, while Rabbi

reasons, it is permitted to cause them to contract impurity. See Chapter 19, Halachot 5-6.

Meir maintains that it can for the reasons stated here.

implies that if the sacrificial foods were disqualified for other

Although the standard published text of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah states that the halachah follows

31. Partaking of sacrificial foods that have become impure is

Rabbi Shimon's view (as the Rambam rules here), Rav Kappach notes that all the manuscript copies of the

130) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 145) as one of the 613

Commentary to the Mishnah state that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon. 20. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 120) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 142) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

considered by Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment mitzvot of the Torah. 32. The attainment of atonement refers to the casting of the blood on the altar. Although the sacrifice became impure before the blood was cast on the altar, after the fact, it is acceptable, because the forehead plate of the High Priest causes such sacrifices to

21. Nevertheless, Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments

be considered acceptable (Menachot 25b). And since, after

117-119) does count the prohibitions against leaving over the

the fact, it is acceptable, one is liable for partaking of it if it became piggul.

meat of the Paschal sacrifice, the chagigah offering, and the second Paschal sacrifice as separate commandments.

33. In the original, an av tumah, literally, "a father of impurity," an

22. The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam mentions

object deemed inherently impure by Scripture decree which

this point. True, it is mentioned by Pesachim 84a, but that

has the potential to make other objects impure. See the Rambam's introduction to the Order of Taharot in his

passage follows the opinion that lashes can be given for the violation of a prohibition even if a deed is not involved. The Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2) maintains that lashes are not given unless the transgression involves a deed. Hence, seemingly, he does not have to add the explanation given here.

12

23. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer

Commentary to the Mishnah and also, Hilchot Tumat Meit 5:7 for more details regarding this and the term mentioned in the following note.

13

34. In the original, a v'lad tumah, literally, "the offspring of

44. As stated in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, to be

impurity," an object that contracts ritual impurity through

permitted to partake of sacrificial food or to enter the Temple,

contract with a primary source of impurity, which in certain instances can impart impurity to other substances.

a zav (a male who has secretions similar to those produced

35. The punishment given anyone who violates a Rabbinic

bleeding outside her menstrual cycle), a woman who gives

ordinance. 36. Because such a sacrifice is disqualified and, as an initial

by gonorrhea), a zavah (a woman who experiences vaginal birth or miscarries, and a person afflicted by the skin condition of tzara'at must do the following after they are fit to emerge from their ritual impurity: a) immerse in the mikveh,

preference, its blood should not be offered on the altar. The Mishneh LiMelech states that he is, however, liable for

b) wait until nightfall after immersion, and c) bring the

lashes for partaking of sacrificial food before its blood was cast on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot

45. Since the person has already immersed in the mikveh, a

11:1,4. 37. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:13-14. As mentioned in the Kessef Mishneh, there are certain states of ritual impurity for which one is not liable for karet for entering the Temple. This prohibition, however, focuses only on those concerning which this penalty can be incurred, because of an association between the words mikdash, "sanctuary," and kodesh, "sacrificial food." 38. There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:2) because there are two prohibitions

appropriate sacrifice.

certain dimension of his or her ritual impurity has been removed. Hence, although he or she is liable for lashes for this transgression, there is no liability for karet. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even in such a situation, one is liable for karet. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:9, the Kessef Mishneh cites Talmudic passages which could be used as support for both positions. 46. For according to Scriptural Law, he is not liable. Compare to Halachah 12.

involved: the prohibition against partaking of impure

47. In this instance as well, according to the Mishneh LiMelech,

sacrificial meat and the prohibition against a person who is impure partaking of sacrificial meat. Rabbi Yossi maintains

the person would be liable for lashes for partaking of

that since the meat is impure and unfit to be eaten, we are not concerned whether the person is impure or not. The Sages, by contrast, maintain that since the impure person is forbidden to partake of pure sacrificial food, the prohibition also applies when partakes of impure sacrificial food. The Rambam accepts the Sages' opinion. See also Halachah 16. 39. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 129) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 167) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 40. An obligation for which the offering changes dependent on the person's financial capacity (see Leviticus, ch. 5; Hilchot Shegagot 10:1). 41. For one could interpret the above verse as referring to sacrificial food that contracted ritual impurity. 42. This verse clearly indicates that the passage is speaking about a person who has contracted ritual impurity. 43. The interpretation of the verse is explained in the following halachah.

sacrificial food before its blood was cast on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 11:1,4. 48. See Halachah 13 and notes. 49. For afterwards, they are ready to be burnt. 50. I.e., this conclusion can be reached by comparing Halachah 7 with the previous halachah. An equation is made between sacrificial meat that is notar and that which contracted ritual impurity. 51. In Halachah 7. 52. I.e., the prohibition against partaking of blood, which appears uniformly, both to the blood of sacrificial animals and to that of ordinary animals. Since it is already prohibited, none of the other prohibitions apply to it. See Zevachim 4:5. 53. This is the version accepted by the R. Shabsi Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah. The Kessef Mishneh offers a different version of the text. 54. I.e., although these activities are necessary for these sacrifices to be acceptable, a person can still be held liable for partaking of the sacrifice in a state of ritual impurity. 55. This is a general rule. There are several particular aspects to it, as explained in Keritot 14a. 56. This is speaking about a situation where there is an olive-sized portion of all the prohibited substances. Nevertheless, one might think that the presence of one might nullify the other. The person receives a set of lashes for each prohibition he violates.

57. Instead, as stated in Halachah 11, they are combined together.

64. As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2, burnt-offerings

The commentaries have noted that this ruling appears to contradict the Rambam's own ruling in Hilchot Ma'achalot

the Rambam, even though such sacrifices are acceptable, these prohibitions do not apply.

Assurot 16:18, that orlah nullifies the presence of terumah.

The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling appears to reflect the understanding of Rabbi Shimon in Zevachim 4:3

See also the Beit Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 98. It can be explained that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Rambam is speaking about an instance where there is sufficient amount of kosher food to nullify the prohibited substance according to Scriptural Law (for only a majority is required). Hence, for the additional amount required by Rabbinic Law, a forbidden substance is also sufficient. In this instance, however, the substances are not nullified according to Scriptural Law. Hence, one forbidden substance cannot nullify another. 58. In Chapter 14, Halachah 7, the Rambam defines this as: "the meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide." 59. The thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten (ibid.). 60. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), the Rambam explains that this is a general term referring to blood vessels, nerves, and sinews. 61. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:2), the Rambam explains that this term refers to the growth that remains after the large feathers are removed.

brought by a gentile may be offered on the altar. According to

and, most authorities - including the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah - follow the view of Rabbi Yossi who differs. It can, however, be explained that Rabbi Shimon's opinion concerns only "one who offers them outside the Temple." The preceding clause of the mishnah concerning piggul and the like is accepted by all opinions (Kessef Mishneh). In truth, the Rambam's opinion concerning this issue is somewhat problematic. His acceptance of Rabbi Yossi's view in his ruling in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot

19:16.

Nevertheless, his ruling in Hilchot Me'ilah 5:15, like the one here, appears to follow Rabbi Shimon's view. 65. Halachah 17 above. 66. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it reflects the understanding of Rabbi Shimon in the above mishnah. Rav Kapach notes that in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, his original writing was rubbed out and his final statement is: "The halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon." The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution to the difficulty explaining that the Rambam is postulating that the transgressor is liable for lashes and not for karet. The

62. For these entities are not considered as fit to be eaten.

exemption for karet is accepted by all opinions. Rabbi

63. Based on a comparison to Chapter 14, Halachah 7, the

Shimon exempts the transgressor from lashes as well, but

Ra'avad explains this should be understood as meaning that if one intended to eat the meat of a sacrifice after the time

the initial opinion of the mishnah - which is accepted by the Rambam - holds him liable on that account.

when it was supposed to be eaten, the entire sacrifice, even the fetus and the placenta, become piggul. If, however, one's

67. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam

intent is to partake of the fetus or the placenta, the sacrifice does not become piggul.

one partaking of them while they are impure. The Kessef

equates a person partaking of them while he is impure with Mishneh debates the Rambam's intent here. 68. Although wood does not usually contract impurity, sacrificial wood may [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

14

policy .

15



Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 19 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18

It is a positive commandment to burn all the sacrifices that have become impure,1 as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "And the meat that will touch anything that [imparts] impurity may not be eaten. It must be burnt with fire." Similarly, it is a mitzvah to burn notar,2 as [ibid.:17] states: "What remains from the meat of the sacrifice on the third day3 shall be burnt with fire." Included in [the category of] notar is piggul and all other sacrifices that were disqualified. They must all be burnt. When a sacrifice becomes piggul or is [otherwise] disqualified, it should be burnt in the Temple4 immediately. Whenever there is a doubt whether a sacrifice has been disqualified, it should be left until the next day5 and then burnt in the Temple.

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Yom haKippurim

‫מצות עשה לשרוף כל הקדשים‬ ‫שנטמאו שנאמר והבשר אשר יגע‬ ‫בכל טמא לא יאכל באש ישרף וכן הנותר‬ ‫מצות עשה לשרפו שנאמר והנותר מבשר‬ ‫הזבח ביום השלישי באש ישרף ובכלל‬ ‫הנותר הפגול וכל פסולי המוקדשין הכל‬ :‫נשרפין‬

‫קרבן שנתפגל או נפסל ישרף‬ ‫במקדש מיד וכל שפיסולו מספק‬ :‫תעובר צורתו ואחר כך ישרף במקדש‬

2

There is an unresolved doubt with regard to the bulls and the goats which are to be burnt6 whether leaving them overnight or taking them outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the time to take them out7 disqualifies their meat as it would their fats and organs or not.8 Therefore, as a stringency, it is considered as if they were disqualified and they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.9 Similarly, there is an unresolved doubt if half [such] an animal was taken out [including] the majority of one limb.10 Therefore, as a stringency, it is considered as if it was disqualified and it should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, if five people carried [such] an animal to take it outside the Temple Courtyard and three departed from [the Courtyard] and two remained, but the three removed half of the animal, [such animals] are disqualified because of the doubt and they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.11 It appears to me that in such instances,12 it is not necessary to wait until the following day. [The rationale is that] regardless [such animals] will be burnt,13 even if they are not disqualified.

‫פרים ושעירים הנשרפים יש בהם‬ ‫ספק אם הלינה והיציאה קודם שיגיע‬ ‫זמנם לצאת פוסלת בשרם כאימוריהן או‬ ‫אינה פוסלת בשרן לפיכך פוסלין אותן‬ ‫להחמיר וישרפו בעזרה וכן אם יצא חצי‬ ‫הבהמה ברוב האבר אם מחזיקין אותן‬ ‫כיוצא הואיל ויצא רוב האבר או עדיין אינן‬ ‫יוצאין שהרי לא יצא רוב הבהמה לפיכך‬ ‫נפסלו מספק וישרפו בעזרה וכן אם‬ ‫נשאום חמשה להוציאן ויצאו שלשה‬ ‫ונשארו שנים והוציאו השלשה חצי‬ ‫הבהמה הרי אלו נפסלו מספק וישרפו‬ ‫בעזרה ויראה לי שאין אלו צריכין להמתין‬ ‫עד שתעובר צורתן הואיל והן עומדין‬ :‫לשריפה לעולם אפילו לא נפסלו‬

[The following laws apply when] meat is found in the Temple Courtyard: [Whole] limbs are [considered as parts of] burnt-offerings. Pieces [of meat] are considered as parts of sin-offerings.14 Pieces which are found in Jerusalem are considered as parts of peace-offerings.15 Everything should be left until the following day and then taken out to the place where sacrifices are burnt lest it be notar.16

‫בשר הנמצא בעזרה איברים עולות‬ ‫וחתיכות חטאות והנמצא בירושלים‬ ‫שלמים הכל תעובר צורתן ויצאו לבית‬ ‫השריפה שמא נותר הוא אם כן מה הועיל‬ ‫שתהיה חזקתו עולה או חטאת או שלמים‬ ‫למי שעבר ואכל אין שורפין את הנותר‬ ‫אלא ביום שנאמר ביום השלישי באש‬ :‫ישרף‬

[One might ask: If so,] of what benefit will it be that it be considered as [part of] a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, or a peace-offering? [To define the law for one] who transgressed and partook of it.17 Notar is burnt only during the day, as stated: "On the third day,18 [it] shall be burnt with fire." Although peace-offerings are forbidden to be eating from the beginning of the night of the third day,19 [the remainder] is only burnt during the day, whether [it is burnt] at the appropriate time or not at the appropriate time.20 Similarly, piggul is burnt only during the day.21 Burning [sacrificial meat] that is impure, notar, or piggul does not supersede [the prohibitions against forbidden labor on] festivals.22 Needless to say, it does not supersede [the prohibition against work on] the Sabbath. It is permitted to burn [sacrificial meat] that is impure, notar, and piggul together.23

3

‫אע"פ שהשלמים אסורין באכילה‬ ‫מתחילת ליל שלישי אין שורפין‬ ‫אותן אלא ביום בין בזמנו בין שלא בזמנו‬ ‫וכן הפגול אינו נשרף אלא ביום ואין‬ ‫שריפת טמא ונותר ופגול דוחה את יום‬ ‫טוב ואין צריך לומר את השבת ומותר‬ :‫לשרוף טמא ונותר ופגול כאחד‬

4

When the meat of a sacrifice of the most sacred order became impure in [the Temple Courtyard], it should be burnt in [the Temple Courtyard]. When it became impure outside [the Temple Courtyard], it should be burnt outside [the Temple Courtyard].24 [This applies] whether it became impure because of a primary source of ritual impurity or a derivative of ritual impurity.25 The priests never refrained from burning meat that contracted impurity from a primary source of impurity and thus it is defined as impure to the first degree with meat that contracted impurity from a derivative of impurity,26 even though this would increase the level of its impurity.27 For [an entity that is] of third degree impurity that touches an entity of first degree impurity is considered as of secondary impurity, as explained in [the appropriate] place.28 Moreover, even oil that became impure because it touched a person who immersed on that day,29 which is of third degree impurity is permitted to be burnt in a metal lamp30 that was touched by a person who is impure because of contact with a human corpse, in which instance, the lamp is a primary source of impurity.31 Although the oil becomes impure to the first degree when it touches the lamp, since it was already deemed impure, we are not concerned with the increase of the impurity. We are only careful that an entity that is pure will not become disqualified. Notar left over from sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness32 should be burnt by the persons bringing the sacrifice in their homes.33

‫בשר קדשי קדשים שנטמא בפנים‬ ‫שורפין אותו בפנים ואם נטמא בחוץ‬ ‫שורפין אותו בחוץ בין שנטמא באב‬ ‫הטומאה בין שנטמא בולד הטומאה‬ ‫ומימיהם של כהנים לא נמנעו מלשרוף את‬ ‫הבשר שנטמא באב הטומאה שהרי הוא‬ ‫ראשון לטומאה עם הבשר שנטמא בולד‬ ‫הטומאה שהרי הוא שלישי אף על פי‬ ‫שמוסיפין לו טומאה על טומאתו‬ ‫שהשלישי שנגע בראשון יחזור שני כמו‬ ‫שיתבאר במקומו ולא עוד אלא אפילו‬ ‫שמן שנפסל בטבול יום שהוא שלישי‬ ‫מותר להדליקו בנר של מתכת שנגע בה‬ ‫טמא מת שהנר אב הטומאה אע"פ שזה‬ ‫השמן נעשה ראשון כשיגע בנר הואיל ויש‬ ‫שם שום טומאה אין מקפידין על תוספתה‬ :‫ואין נזהרין אלא מן הטהור שלא יפסל‬

‫נותר של קדשים קלים שורפין אותו‬ :‫בעליו בבתיהן‬

[The following rules apply when a person] left Jerusalem and remembered that he had sacrificial meat34 in his possession. If he already passed Mt. Scopus,35 he should burn it where he is. If not36 and it is the size of an olive-sized portion, he should return and burn it in Jerusalem.37 If he is a guest who does not have a home, he should burn it before the Temple38 with wood designated for the arrangement of wood [of the altar].39

‫מי שיצא מירושלים ונזכר שיש בידו‬ ‫בשר קדש אם עבר הצופין שורפו‬ ‫במקומו ואם לאו אם יש בו כזית או יתר‬ ‫חוזר ושורפו בירושלים ואם הוא אורח‬ ‫שאין לו בית שורפו לפני הבירה מעצי‬ :‫המערכה‬

All of the bones of the sacrifices that do not have marrow need not be burnt40 with the exception of the bones of the Paschal sacrifice.41 We already explained42 that when a sacrifice was disqualified after it was skinned, its hide should be given to the priests43 or to the owners, in the instance of sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness. If, however, [a sacrifice] was disqualified before it was skinned, the hide is considered as the meat and it should be burnt in its entirety.44

‫כל עצמות הקדשים שאין בהן מוח‬ ‫אינן טעונין שריפה חוץ מעצמות‬ ‫הפסח כבר ביארנו שהקרבן שנפסל אחר‬ ‫שהופשט העור לכהנים או לבעליו‬ ‫כקדשים קלים אבל אם נפסל קודם הפשט‬ ‫הרי העור כבשר וישרף הכל וכן זבח‬ ‫שהופשט ונמצא טריפה או שנפסל‬ ‫במחשבת הזמן או במחשבת המקום‬ ‫הואיל ולא נרצה הזבח ישרף העור בין‬ ‫בקדשי קדשים בין בקדשים קלים אבל אם‬ ‫נעשה במחשבת שינוי השם אף על פי‬ ‫שלא עלה לבעלים הואיל ונרצה הרי העור‬ ‫לכהנים או לבעליו כמו שביארנו וזבח‬ :‫שהופשט קודם זריקה אינו פוסל‬

Similarly, if a sacrifice was skinned and then it was discovered to be tereifah or it was disqualified because of an improper thought concerning time or place, since the sacrifice was not accepted, the hide should be burnt. [This applies] both to sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity and to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. If, however, a sacrifice was offered for the sake of a different intent, even though the obligation of the owners was not fulfilled, since it is acceptable,45 the hide is given to the priests or the owners, as explained [above]. When a sacrifice was skinned before the blood was cast [on the altar46 and the sacrifice was disqualified afterwards, the hide] is not disqualified.

5

These are the entities that should be burnt:47 sacrificial meat that became impure, notar, or was disqualified, and also a meal-offering that became impure, notar, or was disqualified, a conditional guiltoffering in an instance when it became known to the transgressor that he definitely did not sin before its blood was cast [on the altar],48 a sin-offering of fowl that is brought because of a doubt,49 the hair of a nazirite who is ritually pure,50 and [produce that is] orlah51 or

‫ בשר קדש שנטמא‬:‫אלו הן הנשרפים‬ ‫או נותר או נפסל וכן המנחה שנטמא‬ ‫או נפסלה או נותרה ואשם תלוי שנודע לו‬ ‫שלא חטא קודם שנזרק דמו וחטאת העוף‬ ‫הבאה על הספק ושער נזיר טהור והערלה‬ ‫וכלאי הכרם ודבר שאין דרכו להשרף כגון‬ ‫משקין של ערלה ושל כלאי הכרם הרי‬ :‫אלו יקברו‬

kilei hakerem.52 Entities that are not fit to be burnt - e.g., liquids that are orlah or kilei hakerem - should be buried. These are the entities that should be buried: sacred animals that died, whether they were consecrated to [be offered on] the altar or for the sake of the Temple treasury - when sacred animals miscarry and discharge a fetus or a placenta, it should be buried - an ox that is stoned to death,53 a calf whose neck is broken,54 the fowl [used for the purification of] a person afflicted with tzara'at,55 the hair of a nazirite who

‫ קדשים שמתו‬:‫ואלו הם הנקברים‬ ‫בין קדשי מזבח בין קדשי בדק‬ ‫הבית וקדשים שהפילו נפל הפילו שליא‬ ‫תקבר ושור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה וצפורי‬ ‫מצורע ושיער נזיר טמא ופטר חמור ובשר‬ :‫בחלב וחולין שנשחטו בעזרה‬

became impure,56 a firstborn donkey [which was not redeemed],57 a mixture of milk and meat,58 and ordinary animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.59

6

When a person weaves the full length of a sit60 from the hair of a nazirite or a firstborn donkey with a weave of goatshair,61 it should be consigned to flames.62

‫האורג מלא הסיט משער נזיר‬ :‫ומפטר חמור בשק ידלק‬

[If] any of the entities that must be buried [are burnt], it is forbidden to benefit from their ashes. It is permitted to benefit from the ashes of all of the entities that must be burnt, [even if] they are sacred, with the exception of the ashes of the outer and inner altars and the ashes of the Menorah.63

‫כל הנקברין אפרן אסור וכל‬ ‫הנשרפין של הקדש אפרם מותר‬ ‫חוץ מדשן המזבח החיצון והפנימי ודישון‬ :‫המנורה‬

None of the entities to be burnt should be buried64 and none of the entities to be buried should be burnt. [The rationale for the latter point is that] even though he is stringent by burning it, he is being lenient with regard to its ash, for the ashes of the entities that are buried are forbidden.65

‫כל הנשרפין לא יקברו וכן כל‬ ‫הנקברים לא ישרפו שאע"פ שהוא‬ ‫מחמיר בשריפתו הרי הקל באפרן שאפר‬ :‫הנקברים אסור‬

If a person was offering sacrifices together with [a priest] and he told him: "[The sacrifices became] piggul," or if he was involved with entities that are ritually pure with a person and he told him, "They became impure," his word is accepted.66 A Jew is not suspected of lying in such an instance.67 If, by contrast, he told him: "The sacrifices which I offered for you on this and this day became piggul" or "those pure objects became impure," [different rules apply]. If [the person is one] whom he trusts, he should rely on his word. If not, according to the letter of the law, his word [need] not be relied upon. One who wishes to be stringent68 is praiseworthy.69

‫היה מקריב עמו בזבחים ואמר לו‬ ‫נתפגלו עושה עמו בטהרות ואמר‬ ‫לו נטמאו נאמן לא נחשדו ישראל על כך‬ ‫אבל אם אמר לו זבחים שהקרבתי לך‬ ‫באותו היום נתפגלו ואותן הטהרות נטמאו‬ ‫אם היה נאמן לו סומך על דבריו ואם לאו‬ ‫שורת הדין שאינו נאמן והרוצה להחמיר‬ :‫על עצמו הרי זה משובח‬

Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.

« Previous Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18

:‫סליקו להו הלכות פסולי המוקדשין בס"ד‬

Next » Avodat Yom haKippurim

FOOTNOTES 1. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 90) and Sefer

4. In the Temple Courtyard, but not on the altar. See Hilchot

HaChinuch (mitzvah 146) include this as one of the 613

Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3-4 which states that there are three

mitzvot of the Torah.

places where sacrifices are burnt.

2. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 143) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There the Rambam states that the commandment was instituted to correct the transgression of leaving the meat past its required time. See Chapter 18, Halachah 9. 3. This is speaking about a peace-offering which may be eaten on the day it was offered and on the following day. If it was left for a third day, it must be burnt.

5. We have translated the term used by the Rambam according to its halachic intent. The literal meaning is that it should be left long enough to decompose until it loses the appearance of meat. Our Sages understood that as being a twenty-four hour period. Leaving the sacrifice until the next day disqualifies it and requires it to be burnt. Since initially there was a doubt involved, this is the desired course of action. 6. I.e., they are burnt in the ash heap outside of Jerusalem after their fats and organs were offered on the altar's pyre.

7

8

7. I.e., before their blood is cast upon the altar. 8. The fats and the organs would definitely be disqualified in such circumstances. Zevachim 104b questions whether this would also apply with regard to the meat of a sacrifice and leaves that question unresolved. 9. Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam's decision, because the Talmud's query seems to follow the opinion of Reish Lakish (Zevachim 89b) who maintains that when the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness was removed from the Temple Courtyard before their blood was cast on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified. According to Rabbi Yochanan who maintains that in such an instance, the sacrifice is not disqualified, seemingly, these sacrifices are also not disqualified. Rav Yosef Corcus resolves the issue, explaining that even Rabbi Yochanan maintains that the meat of those sacrifices is disqualified. Hence, there is reason to question what his opinion would be in this instance. 10. If the majority of an animal is not taken out of the Temple Courtyard, it is not disqualified. Zevachim 105a speaks about a situation where only half an animal was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, but included that half was the majority of one limb. If the remainder of that limb was considered as outside the Temple Courtyard, the majority of the animal would be considered to be outside. 11. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on both of these instances, maintaining that the Talmudic passage which is the Rambam's source (Zevachim 104b-105a) can be interpreted differently. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's interpretation can be substantiated. 12. All three instances mentioned above.

14. Even though it is permitted to cut the meat of burnt-offerings into portions (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:19), the priests were not accustomed to doing so. Rather a burnt-offering was cut up into several large portions and then brought to the altar. Hence if the meat of an animal was cut up into smaller pieces, one could assume that it was a sin-offering (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:3)]. The meat of such offerings must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard. It is also possible that the meat was from a guilt-offering, but sin-offerings are more common and hence, they were mentioned. The meat could also have come from a peaceoffering - for such offerings are also cut up into smaller pieces - but out of respect to the stringencies associated with sin-offerings, it is considered in that category. 15. Since peace-offerings may be eaten throughout Jerusalem, we can assume that meat found there was left over from such an offering. 16. Which is forbidden to be eaten or offered on the altar. Since it is possible that the meat was left beyond its appointed time, it must be burnt as required for such meat. Nevertheless, since it is also possible that it had been sacrificed on this day, it cannot be burnt immediately. Instead, we wait until the following day when it is certainly required to be burnt and burn it at that time. For peaceofferings, it is necessary to wait two days. 17. I.e., since it is possible that the sacrificial meat had not been left for an extra day, if a person who is permitted to eat such a sacrifice partakes of it, he is not obligated to bring a guiltoffering to atone for misusing sacrificial meat. 18. Since the verse mentions the day, it must be burnt during those hours.

13. I.e., they will definitely be burnt. The question is only where they will be burnt, whether in the Temple Courtyard, like sacrifices that are disqualified or outside Jerusalem, as is

19. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:6. 20. I.e., even if it is discovered at night, several days after the

required for these bulls and goats. When, by contrast, a doubt arises with regard to other sacrificial animals, there is

meat should have been consumed, it should be burnt on the following day and not immediately at night.

no obligation to burn them unless they are disqualified. On the contrary, burning them would be considered as

21. The verse regarding notar serves as the basis for the ruling

degrading for sacred articles (Rav Yosef Corcus). Hence they are required to be left until the next day, so that they will

22. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:10), the

definitely be disqualified.

regarding all sacrifices that must be burnt.

Rambam states the rationale: The prohibition of work on festivals is mandated by both a positive and negative commandment, while the charge to burn notar is merely a positive commandment and a positive commandment never overrides the observance of both a positive and negative commandment. See also Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 3:8. 23. Although it is forbidden to cause sacrificial meat to contract ritual impurity - and by mixing notar or piggul with impure meat, one would be doing so - since notar or piggul are already considered impure, this provision is granted (Pesachim 15b).

9

24. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3-4. 25. In the original, an av tumah, literally, "a father of impurity," and a v'lad tumah, literally, "the offspring of impurity." See Chapter 18, Halachah 12, for more details regarding these terms.

39. This provision was made lest guests refrain from burning the sacrificial meat because of a lack of wood. See also Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:3 which touches on related matters. 40. It is sufficient to merely discard them. 41. See Hilchot Pesachim 10:1-2 which explain that the bones

26. The Rambam is borrowing the wording of the Mishnah

of the Paschal sacrifice are burnt together with its meat,

(Pesachim 1:6), even though - as he states in his Commentary to the Mishnah - the intent is "a derivative of a

because according to the Rambam, the prohibition against breaking a bone from the Paschal sacrifice applies even

derivative," i.e., an entity of third degree impurity as mentioned here. Thus we are speaking about meat that

after the mitzvah to partake of the sacrifice is concluded, it is therefore desirable to burn the bones so that the do not

touched an entity that had touched an entity that had touched a primary source of impurity. Indeed, the Kessef

become a cause of transgression. The Ra'avad mentions, based on Pesachim 83a, it can be concluded that only

Mishneh and others suggest that text of the Mishneh Torah

bones that had marrow and which were cracked open and the marrow removed must be burnt. If they have no marrow

should be emended to reflect that understanding. 27. The meat becomes impure only according to Rabbinical decree. According to Scriptural Law, food does not cause other food to contract ritual impurity [Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 7:1; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)]. 28. See Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 4:15. 29. To emerge from most types of ritual impurity, a person must immerse in a mikveh and then wait until nightfall. Even if a

at all, there is no need to burn even the bones of the Paschal sacrifice. According to this view, the difference between the law governing the bones of the Paschal sacrifice and those of other sacrifices can be explained as follows. It is forbidden to break open the bones of the Paschal sacrifice. Therefore if the bones of a Paschal sacrifice were broken open, we can assume that this was done after the Paschal sacrifice became notar, for, according to many authorities, there is no

person has already immersed in a mikveh, he does not

prohibition against breaking the bones of a Paschal sacrifice

regain impurity until night. Until that time, he can impart ritual impurity to certain entities (Tivul Yom 2:1).

once it has been disqualified. In such a situation, the bones are forbidden, because they served notar (i.e., the marrow).

30. But not an earthenware lamp touched by a person who became impure because of contact with a corpse, for an

(See the gloss of the Mishneh LiMelech who notes that in Hilchot Korban Pesach 10:6, the Rambam writes that even

earthenware utensil never becomes a primary source of impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op.

in such a situation, it is forbidden to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice, and offers a possible resolution.)

cit.)].

With regard to other sacrifices, by contrast, there is no prohibition against breaking their bones even during the time

31. For the impurity resulting from contact with a corpse is so severe that even an entity that touches it becomes a primary source of impurity. 32. Which may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem. 33. There is no necessity to bring it to the Temple and have it burnt there. 34. Meat from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem. 35. The last place from the surroundings of Jerusalem from which the Temple can be seen. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:8. 36. And thus the difficulty in returning is not so great. 37. If, however, it is smaller, it is not significant and can be burnt wherever he is. 38. The Hebrew term birah is used to refer to the entire Temple complex.

the sacrifice is acceptable. Hence we can assume that they were broken during that time and the marrow removed. Thus there is little likelihood that they served notar and thus became forbidden. According to this understanding, if a sacrifice was notar, any bone that contains marrow should be burnt. See the gloss of the Meiri to Pesachim, loc. cit., who implies that the Rambam should have been more explicit in his statements. 42. Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:20. 43. In the instance of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity. 44. As the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:2) states: "Whenever the altar did not acquire the flesh [of a sacrifice], the owners do not acquire the hide." 45. See Chapter 15, Halachah 1. 46. This is a violation of the norms of sacrificial practice (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:18). Nevertheless, it does not disqualify a sacrifice.

10

47. It is forbidden to benefit from these entities. They should be burnt so that they are destroyed entirely.

60. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:2), the Rambam

48. A conditional guilt-offering is brought when a person

interpret his statements as meaning "the distance between the top of the thumb and the next finger [when the fingers are

suspects he has violated a negative commandment, but has no definite knowledge that he did so. If he receives knowledge that he is guiltless after the animal has been slaughtered, but before its blood is cast on the altar, the

translates the term sit into Arabic. Most commentaries

spread out]. This is one-sixth of the distance between the thumb and the middle finger." Rav Kappach notes that in fact such a calculation will not be accurate. He interprets the Rambam's words as defining a sit as half the distance

sacrifice is disqualified. Once its blood has been cast on the altar, the sacrifice is acceptable even if the person receives

between the index finger and the middle finger when spread

definite knowledge that he is guiltless. See Chapter 4, Halachah 19.

out. This he maintains is two thumbreadths. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 13:4), the

49. See Chapter 7, Halachah 10. 50. A nazirite's hair is considered "holy" and it is forbidden to be benefit from it. Therefore at the conclusion of his nazirite vow, he shaves his head and burns his hair in the Chamber of the Nazirites that was in the southeastern corner of the Women's Courtyard (Hilchot Nizirut 8:1-3). 51. Produce that grows in the first three years after the planting of a tree. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, ch. 10, and Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, ch. 10. 52. Species of grain or vegetables sown in a vineyard. See Hilchot Kilayim, ch. 5. 53. An ox - or any other animal - that killed a person. The ox is stoned to death and it is forbidden to benefit from its flesh at all (Exodus 21:29-32; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10).

Rambam differentiates between "the width of a sit" and "the full length of a sit." As indicated by Hilchot Shabbat 9:20, "the full length of a sit" is two thumbreadths. In contrast, as stated (ibid.:7), "the width of a sit" is two thirds of a zeret, i.e., three thumbbreadths. 61. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:3). 62. Generally, the hair of an unredeemed firstborn donkey need only be buried, as stated in the previous halachah. Nevertheless, in this instance, the cloth must be burnt lest the forbidden substance not be recognized and the cloth considered as permitted (Temurah 34a). 63. Temurah, op. cit., derives this concept from the exegesis of the statements of Leviticus 25:3 with regard to the ash of the

54. When a wayfarer is found murdered and it is not known who

inner altar. From those statements, a parallel is established with regard to the other ashes mentioned here.

killed him, a calf is brought as atonement. See Deuteronomy, ch. 21; Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 9.

The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam and maintains that it is only forbidden to benefit from the ashes which the

55. As stated in Leviticus, ch. 14, Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at, ch.

priest removes when taking out the ash in the morning. He maintains that the ash on the altar is permitted. The

11, when a person's whose body had been afflicted with tzara'at becomes pure, he must bring two birds as part of the purification ritual. 56. As stated in Hilchot Nizirut 6:11, when a nazirite becomes impure because of contact with a human corpse, he must have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days. He then has his hair shaved on the

Rambam, by contrast, maintains that all of the ash of the altar is forbidden. 64. Because in all these instances, the mitzvah is that the article be burnt. 65. While the ash of entities that are to be burnt is permitted. 66. The Ra'avad states that, on the basis of Gittin 54b, both of

seventh day. This shaving need not be performed in the Temple Courtyard.

these statements should be understood as applying while the article in question is in that person's hands. The rationale

57. The firstborn male offspring of a donkey must be redeemed

is that since he could now make the article piggul or impure,

for a sheep. If it is not redeemed, it is executed and it is forbidden to benefit from its flesh (Exodus 13:13, Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 12).

his word is accepted when he says that it was previously brought to that state. The Kessef Mishneh states that although that is the opinion

58. Which is forbidden not only to be eaten but also to derive

of Abbaye in Gittin, loc. cit., Ravva differs, maintaining that

benefit from (Exodus 23:19; Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 9:1).

the law applies even when the articles in question are not in his hand. Generally, the halachah follows Ravva's opinion,

59. It is forbidden to benefit from the meat of such animals, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah 2:2.

but in this instance, Abbaye's view is favored. 67. For this would cause acceptable sacrifices to be burnt unnecessary articles and pure entities to be destroyed. 68. And accept the other person's statements.

69. The wording of the Talmud that the Rambam quotes, "according to the letter of the law, his word [need] not be relied upon," implies that it is desirable to go beyond the letter of the law. See the parallels in Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:1; Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 13:8.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

11

policy .

1



Avodat Yom haKippurim Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 1 Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 2 Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 3 Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 4 Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 5



Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 2

Introduction to Hilchot Avodat Yom haKippurim It contains one positive commandment. It is to perform the service of the Day of Atonement in regard to the sacrifices, confessions, sending away of the Scapegoat and the remainder of the service. This mitzvah is explained in the ensuing chapters.

1

‫ הקדמה‬- ‫הלכות עבודת יום הכפורים‬ ‫ והיא שיעשה מעשה יום‬,‫מצוַ ת עשה אחת‬ ‫ כמו שכתוב‬,‫הכפורים כולו על הסדר‬ ,‫ והוידויין‬,‫ הקרבנות‬:"‫בפרשת "אחרי מות‬ .‫ ושאר העבודה‬,‫ושילוח השעיר‬ :‫וביאור מצוָ ה זו בפרקים אלו‬

2

On the fast day of Yom Kippur, we sacrifice a continuous offering in the morning and in the late afternoon according to the order followed every day. And the additional sacrifices of the day are offered: a bull, a ram, and seven sheep - all these are burntofferings - and a sin-offering of a goat whose service is performed outside and which is eaten in the evening. Besides these additional offerings are sacrificed: a) a young ox as a sin-offering; it is burnt; b) a ram as a burnt-offering; both of these are brought by the High Priest; c) the ram which is brought from communal funds that is mentioned in the passage Acharei Mot; it is the ram mentioned in the Book of Numbers as part of the additional offering; it is called the ram of the people. In addition, two goats are brought from communal funds: one is offered as a sin-offering and it is burnt and the other is the goat sent to Azazel. Thus there are a total of fifteen animals sacrificed on this day: two continuous offerings, a bull, two rams and seven sheep; these are all burnt-offerings, two goats as sin-offerings, one offered outside the Temple building which is eaten in the evening and one whose blood is offered in the Temple building and which is burnt, and the bull of the High Priest which is a sin-offering that is burnt.

‫ביום הצום מקריבין תמיד בשחר‬ ‫ותמיד בין הערבים כסדר כל יום ויום‬ ‫ומקריבין מוסף היום פר ואיל ושבעה‬ ‫כבשים כלם עולות ושעיר חטאת נעשה‬ ‫בחוץ והוא נאכל לערב ועוד מקריבין יתר‬ ‫על מוסף זה פר בן בקר לחטאת והוא‬ ‫נשרף ואיל לעולה ושניהם משל כהן גדול‬ ‫ואיל הבא משל צבור האמור בפרשת‬ ‫אחרי מות והוא האיל האמור בחומש‬ ‫הפקודים בכלל המוסף והוא הנקרא איל‬ ‫העם ועוד מביאין משל צבור שני שעירי‬ ‫עזים אחד קרב חטאת והוא נשרף והשני‬ ‫שעיר המשתלח נמצאו כל הבהמות‬ ‫ שני תמידין‬:‫הקרבים ביום זה חמש עשרה‬ ‫ופר ושני אילים ושבעה כבשים כולם‬ ‫עולות ושני שעירים חטאת אחד נעשה‬ ‫בחוץ ונאכל לערב והשני נעשה בפנים‬ :‫ונשרף ופר כהן גדול לחטאת והוא נשרף‬

The sacrificial service for all these fifteen animals that are offered on this day may be performed only by the High Priest. This applies both to a High Priest anointed with the oil of anointment or initiated into office by wearing the garments of the High Priest. If Yom Kippur fell on the Sabbath, even the additional offering of the Sabbath should be sacrificed only by the High Priest. Similarly, all of the other services performed on this day, the offering of the daily incense offering, the kindling of the Menorah's lamps, are all performed by a married High Priest, as Leviticus 16:7 states: "And he shall atone for himself and his household." "His household" refers to his wife.

3

‫עבודת כל חמש עשרה בהמות אלו‬ ‫הקריבין ביום זה אינה אלא בכהן‬ ‫גדול בלבד אחד כהן המשיח בשמן‬ ‫המשחה או המרובה בבגדים ואם היתה‬ ‫שבת אף מוסף שבת אין מקריב אותו אלא‬ ‫כהן גדול וכן שאר העבודות של יום זה‬ ‫כגון הקטרת הקטורת של כל יום והטבת‬ ‫הנרות הכל עשוי בכהן גדול נשוי שנאמר‬ :‫וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו ביתו זו אשתו‬

4

For seven days prior to Yom Kippur, the High Priest departs from his home and stays in his chamber in the Temple. This is a tradition received from Moses our teacher. He is separated from his wife for these seven days, lest his wife become a niddah in the midst of relations and he become impure for seven days and thus unable to perform the Temple service. A substitute High Priest is prepared so that if this one becomes disqualified, the other may serve instead of him. Whether the disqualifying factor takes place when offering the continuous offering of the morning or the disqualifying factor occurred after he offered his sacrifice, the replacement need not be installed in his office by offering a special sacrifice. Instead, the performance of the sacrificial service of the day installs him. He should begin from the service where the other ceased.

‫שבעת ימים קודם ליוה"כ מפרישין‬ ‫כהן גדול מביתו ללשכתו שבמקדש‬ ‫ודבר זה קבלה ממשה רבינו ומפרישין‬ ‫אותו מאשתו כל שבעת ימים אלו שמא‬ ‫תמצא אשתו נדה ונמצא טמא שבעת ימים‬ ‫ואינו יכול לעבוד ומתקינין לו כהן גדול‬ ‫אחר שאם יארע בזה פיסול יעבוד האחר‬ ‫תחתיו בין שאירע בו פיסול קודם תמיד‬ ‫של שחר בין שאירע בו פיסול אחר‬ ‫שהקריב קרבנו זה שנכנס תחתיו אינו‬ ‫צריך חינוך אלא עבודתו מחנכתו ומתחיל‬ ‫מעבודה שפסק בה הראשון עבר יום‬ ‫הכפורים הרי הראשון חוזר לעבודתו‬ ‫והשני עובר וכל מצות כהונה גדולה עליו‬ ‫אלא שאינו עובד ככהן גדול ואם עבד‬ ‫עבודתו כשירה ואם מת הראשון זה השני‬ :‫מתמנה תחתיו‬

After Yom Kippur, the first High Priest resumes his position and the second ceases to serve in this capacity. All of the mitzvot incumbent on a High Priest are incumbent on him, but he does not carry out the service of the High Priest. If he does perform that service, his service is acceptable. When the first dies, he is appointed in his place. During these seven days, he is sprinkled with the ashes of the Red Heifer on the third day after he was separated and on the seventh day which is the day before Yom Kippur, lest he have contracted impurity from a corpse unknowingly. If the third or the seventh day of the sprinkling falls on the Sabbath, the sprinkling is not performed.

‫בשבעת ימים אלו מזין עליו מאפר‬ ‫הפרה בשלישי להפרשתו ובשביעי‬ ‫שהוא ערב יוה"כ שמא נטמא במת ולא‬ ‫ידע ואם חל יום שבת בשלישי או בשביעי‬ :‫שלו דוחין את ההזייה‬

5

For all of these seven days, he is trained to perform the Temple service. He casts the blood on the altar, offers the incense, kindles the lamps, and offers the limbs of the continuous offering on the altar's pyre so that he will be familiar with the Temple service. He is given sages from the elders of the court who read the relevant passages for him and teach him the service necessary to be performed on the holy day and its order. They tell him: "My sir, the High Priest, read by yourself, for perhaps you have forgotten or you never learned this point." On the day before Yom Kippur in the morning, they would have him stand in the eastern gates of the Temple Courtyard and cause bulls, rams, and sheep to pass before him so he would be familiar and accustomed with the Temple service. Throughout these seven days food and drink are not withheld from him. Nevertheless, on the day before Yom Kippur before nightfall, they would not let him eat amply, for indulgence in food leads to sleep. And they would not let him sleep, lest he would have a seminal emission. They would not feed him foods that increase semen, e.g., eggs, warm milk, and the like.

‫כל שבעת הימים מרגילין אותו‬ ‫בעבודות זורק את הדם ומקטיר את‬ ‫הקטרת ומטיב את הנרות ומקטיר איברי‬ ‫תמיד על המזבח כדי שיהיה רגיל בעבודה‬ ‫ביום הכפורים ומוסרין לו זקנים מזקני בית‬ ‫דין וקוראים לפניו ומלמדין אותו עבודת‬ ‫היום וסידורה ואומרין לו אישי כהן גדול‬ ‫קרא אתה בפיך שמא שכחת או שמא לא‬ ‫למדת דבר זה וערב יוה"כ בשחרית היו‬ ‫מעמידין אותו בשערי המזבח ומעבירין‬ ‫לפניו פרים ואילים וכבשים כדי שיהיה‬ :‫מכיר ורגיל בעבודה‬

‫כל שבעת הימים לא היו מונעין ממנו‬ ‫מאכל ומשקה ערב יום הכפורים עם‬ ‫חשיכה לא היו מניחין אותו לאכול הרבה‬ ‫שהמאכל מביא את השינה ולא היו מניחין‬ ‫אותו לישן שמא יראה קרי ולא היו‬ ‫מאכילין אותו דברים המרגילין לשכבת‬ :‫זרע כגון ביצים וחלב חם וכיוצא בהן‬

6

In the era of the Second Temple, heresy erupted in Israel, and the Sadducees emerged, may they speedily perish, who did not believe in the Oral Law and who maintained that the incense offering of Yom Kippur would be placed on fire in the Sanctuary outside the Parochet and when its smoke rose up, they would bring it into the Holy of Holies. Their rationale was that they interpreted the Torah's phrase Leviticus 16:2: "For in a cloud I will appear on the Kaporet,"as referring to the cloud of the incense offering. In contrast, according to the Oral Tradition, our Sages learned that the High Priest should not place the incense on the coals only in the Holy of Holies, before the Ark, as ibid.:13 states: "And he shall place the incense on the fire before God." Since in the Second Temple era, the Sages suspected that the High Priests would tend towards such heresy, they would have him take an oath on the day preceding Yom Kippur. They would tell him: "My sir, the High Priest, we are agents of the court and you are our agent and an agent of the court, we administer an oath to you in the name of He Who causes His name to dwell in this house that you not deviate at all from what we told you." The High Priest would turn away and cry because they suspected him of heresy and they would turn away and cry, because they placed suspicion on a person's whose conduct was unknown. Maybe he had no such thoughts in his heart.

‫בימי בית שני צץ המינות בישראל‬ ‫ויצאו הצדוקין מהרה יאבדו שאינן‬ ‫מאמינין בתורה שבעל פה והיו אומרין‬ ‫שקטרת של יוה"כ מניחין אותה על האש‬ ‫בהיכל חוץ לפרוכת וכשיעלה עשנה‬ ‫מכניס אותה לפנים לקדש הקדשים הטעם‬ ‫זה שכתוב בתורה כי בענן אראה על‬ ‫הכפרת אמרו כי הוא ענן הקטורת ומפי‬ ‫השמועה למדו חכמים שאין נותן הקטרת‬ ‫אלא בקדש הקדשים לפני הארון שנאמר‬ ‫ונתן הקטרת על האש לפני ה' ולפי שהיו‬ ‫חוששין בבית שני שמא כהן גדול זה נוטה‬ ‫לצד מינות היו משביעין אותו ערב יום‬ ‫הכפורים ואומרים לו אישי כהן גדול אנו‬ ‫שלוחי בית דין ואתה שלוחנו ושליח בית‬ ‫דין משביעין אנו עליך במי ששכן את שמו‬ ‫בבית הזה שלא תשנה דבר שאמרנו לך‬ ‫והוא פורש ובוכה על שחשדוהו במינות‬ ‫והן פורשין ובוכין לפי שחשדו למי‬ :‫שמעשיו סתומין שמא אין בלבו כלום‬

Throughout the entire night of Yom Kippur, the High Priest would sit and expound Torah teachings if he was a sage. If he was a scholar, expositions were delivered in his presence. If he would frequently read the Bible, he would read aloud. If not, they would read for him so that he would not sleep. What would they read for him? The Holy Scriptures. If he sought to doze off, the young Levites would snap their fingers before him and say: "My sir, the High Priest, stand up and cool your feet on the ground," so that he would not sleep. They would keep him busy until the time for the slaughter of the morning sacrifice arrived. They would not have the sacrificial animal slaughtered until they were certain that dawn had broken lest the animal be slaughtered at night.

‫כל לילי יוה"כ כהן גדול יושב ודורש‬ ‫אם היה חכם ואם היה תלמיד‬ ‫דורשים לפניו אם היה רגיל לקרוא קורא‬ ‫ואם לאו קורין לפניו כדי שלא יישן ובמה‬ ‫קורין לפניו בכתבי הקדש בקש להתנמנם‬ ‫פרחי לויה מכין לפניו באצבע צרדה‬ ‫ואומרים לו אישי כהן גדול עמוד והצטנן‬ ‫מעט על הרצפה כדי שלא תישן ומתעסקין‬ ‫עמו עד שמגיע זמן שחיטה ולא היו‬ ‫שוחטין עד שמכירין שעלה עמוד השחר‬ :‫בודאי שמא ישחטו בלילה‬

Next » Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

8

1



Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 1

All of the procedures involving the offering of the continuous offerings and the additional offerings of this day are performed by the High Priest while he is wearing his golden garments. The unique services of this day, by contrast, are performed while he is wearing his white garments. The unique services of the day are: the offering of the bull brought by the High Priest, the offering of the two goats including the one sent to Azazel, and the offering of the incense in the Holy of Holies. All of these services are performed while wearing white garments.

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 3

‫כל מעשה התמידין והמוספין של יום‬ ‫זה כהן גדול עושה אותן והוא לבוש‬ ‫בבגדי זהב ועבודות המיוחדות ליום זה‬ ‫בבגדי לבן ועבודה המיוחדת ליום זה היא‬ ‫מעשה הפר של כהן גדול ושני השעירים‬ ‫שאחד מהן שעיר המשתלח והקטרת‬ ‫הקטורת בקדש הקדשים כל אלו בבגדי‬ :‫לבן הם נעשים‬

Whenever the High Priest must change his clothes, removing one set of garments and putting on the others, he must immerse himself in a mikveh, as Leviticus 16:23-24] states: "And he shall remove the linen garments... and wash his flesh with water in a holy place and put on his garments." The High Priest would immerse himself five times and sanctify his hands and feet ten times on that day. What is implied? At the outset, he would remove the ordinary garments he was wearing and immerse himself. He would ascend, dry himself, put on his golden garments and, sanctify his hands and feet. He would slaughter the continuous offering, offer the daily morning incense, and kindle the lamps of the Menorah. He would then offer the limbs of the continuous offering on the pyre of the altar together with the chavitin offering and the wine libations. Then he would offer the bull and the seven sheep of the additional offering of the day. Afterwards, he would sanctify his hands and feet and remove his golden garments. He would immerse himself, ascend, dry himself, put on his white garments, and sanctify his hands and feet. He would then perform the unique service of the day, reciting all the confessions, performing the lottery of the goats, sprinkling the blood in the Temple building and offering the incense offering in the Holy of Holies. He would entrust the goat to the one who would send it to Azazel, remove the fats and organs of the bull and the goat that will be burnt and entrust the remainder to the one who will burn them. Afterwards, he would sanctify his hands and feet and remove his white garments. He would immerse himself, ascend, dry himself, put on his golden garments, and sanctify his hands and feet. He would then offer the sin-offering of a goat of the additional 2

‫כל עת שישנה הבגדים ויפשוט‬ ‫בגדים ולובש בגדים אחרים טעון‬ ‫טבילה שנאמר ופשט את בגדי הבד ורחץ‬ ‫את בשרו במים במקום קדוש ולבש את‬ ‫בגדיו וחמש טבילות ועשרה קידושין טובל‬ ‫כהן גדול ומקדש בו ביום כיצד בתחלה‬ ‫פושט בגדי חול שעליו וטובל ועולה‬ ‫ומסתפג ולובש בגדי זהב ומקדש ידיו‬ ‫ורגליו ושוחט את התמיד ומקטיר קטורת‬ ‫של שחר של כל יום ומטיב את הנרות‬ ‫ומקטיר איברי התמיד עם החביתין‬ ‫והנסכים ומקריב הפר ושבעה כבשים של‬ ‫מוסף היום ואח"כ מקדש ידיו ורגליו‬ ‫ופושט בגדי הזהב וטובל ועולה ומסתפג‬ ‫ולובש בגדי לבן ומקדש ידיו ורגליו ועובד‬ ‫עבודת היום כל הוידויים עם ההגרלה‬ ‫וזריקת הדמים בפנים והקטרת הקטורת‬ ‫בקודש הקדשים ומוסר השעיר למשלחו‬ ‫לעזאזל ומוציא אימורי הפר והשעיר‬ ‫הנשרפים ומוסר שארן לשריפה ואחר כך‬ ‫מקדש ידיו ורגליו ופושט בגדי לבן וטובל‬ ‫ועולה ומסתפג ולובש בגדי זהב ומקדש‬ ‫ידיו ורגליו ומקריב שעיר חטאת של מוסף‬ ‫היום ואילו ואיל העם והם עולות ומקטיר‬ ‫אימורי פר ושעיר הנשרפין ומקריב תמיד‬ ‫של בין הערבים ואח"כ מקדש ידיו ורגליו‬ ‫ופושט בגדי זהב וטובל ועולה ומסתפג‬ ‫ולובש בגדי לבן ומקדש ידיו ורגליו ונכנס‬ ‫לקדש הקדשים ומוציא משם את הכף‬ ‫ואת המחתה ואחר כך מקדש ידיו ורגליו‬ ‫ופושט בגדי לבן וטובל ועולה ומסתפג‬ ‫ולובש בגדי זהב ומקדש ידיו ורגליו‬ ‫ומקטיר קטרת של בין הערבים של כל יום‬ ‫ומטיב את הנרות בין הערבים ומקדש ידיו‬ ‫ורגליו ופושט בגדי זהב ולובש בגדי חול‬ :‫ויוצא‬

3

All of these immersions and the sanctification of his hands and feet were performed in the Temple Courtyard, as the verse states: "And he shall wash his flesh with water in a holy place," with the exception of the first immersion which he is permitted to perform outside the Temple, for it is only to heighten his awareness so that he will remember any old situation that caused him to become impure and separate himself from this impurity by immersing himself with that intent.

‫כל הטבילות האלו והקידושין כולן‬ ‫במקדש שנאמר ורחץ את בשרו במים‬ ‫במקום קדוש חוץ מטבילה ראשונה שהוא‬ ‫רשאי לטבול אותה בחול שאינה אלא‬ ‫להוסיף כוונתו שאם יזכור טומאה ישנה‬ ‫שבידו יפרוש ממנה בטבילה זו לשמה וכל‬ ‫כהן שלא טבל בין בגדים לבגדים או שלא‬ ‫קדש בין בגד לבגד ובין עבודה לעבודה‬ :‫ועבד עבודתו כשירה‬

If a High Priest did not immerse himself between a change of clothes or did not sanctify his hands and feet between a change of clothes and between one type of service and another and still performed the service, his service is acceptable. If the High Priest was elderly or sick, iron slabs should be made white-hot in fire from the previous day, and on the next day they would be cast into the water to remove their chill. This is permitted because prohibitions defined as shvut need not be observed in the Temple. Alternatively, hot water is mixed with the mikveh water to remove its chill.

‫היה כהן גדול זקן או חולה מלבנין‬ ‫עששיות של ברזל באש מבערב‬ ‫ולמחר מטילין אותן במים כדי להפיג צינתן‬ ‫שאין שבות במקדש או מערבין מים חמין‬ :‫במי המקוה עד שתפיג צינתן‬

Every other day, the High Priest sanctifies his hands and feet from the basin like the other priests. On this day, he sanctifies them from a golden pitcher as expression of honor for him. Every day, the priests ascend on the eastern side of the ramp and descend on the western side. On this day, they ascend in the center and descend in the center before the High Priest to glorify him. Every day, the priest who merited to bring the incense offering would gather coals in a silver fire-pan and then shift the fire into a golden fire-pan. On this day, the High Priest gathers the coals with a golden fire pan and enters the Temple Building with it so as not to weary him with additional service. Similarly, the fire-pan used every day holds four kabbin of coals and the one used on this day, three. The one used every day was heavy and the one used this day, light. The one used every day had a short handle and the one used this day, a long one. All of these were measures to make it easier for the High Priest so that he would not weary. Every day, there were three arrangements of fire on the altar. On this day, there were four. Another arrangement was added in order to glorify the altar and adorn it.

4

‫בכל יום כהן גדול מקדש ידיו ורגליו‬ ‫מן הכיור כשאר הכהנים והיום‬ ‫מקדש מקיתון של זהב משום כבודו בכל‬ ‫יום הכהנים עולים במזרחו של כבש‬ ‫ויורדין במערבו והיום עולים באמצע‬ ‫ויורדין באמצע לפני כהן גדול כדי להדרו‬ ‫בכל יום מי שזכה במחתה חותה במחתה‬ ‫של כסף ומערה האש למחתה של זהב‬ ‫והיום חותה כהן גדול במחתה של זהב ובה‬ ‫נכנס להיכל שלא ליגעו בתוספת עבודה‬ ‫וכן מחתה של כל יום מחזקת ארבעה קבין‬ ‫ושל היום שלשה קבין ובכל יום היתה‬ ‫כבידה והיום קלה ובכל יום ידה קצרה‬ ‫והיום ארוכה כדי להקל על כהן גדול שלא‬ ‫ייגע בכל יום ויום היו על המזבח שלש‬ ‫מערכות של אש והיום היו שם ארבע‬ :‫מוסיפין מערכה כדי להדר המזבח ולעטרו‬

The Torah's statements Leviticus 16:17: "And he shall atone for himself, for his household, and for the entire congregation of Israel" is interpreted by the Oral Tradition as referring to the recitation of the confessional. Thus he recites three confessions on this day: one for himself first; one for himself together with the other priests; both of these are recited over the bull which he brings as a sin-offering; and the third is recited for the entire Jewish people on the goat sent to Azazel. In each of these confessions, he recites God's explicit name three times. What is implied? He says: "I beseech you, HaShem, I have sinned, transgressed, and committed iniquity before You. I beseech you, HaShem, please atone for the sins, transgressions, and iniquities that I committed..., as ibid.:30 states: "For on that day, he shall atone for you to purify yourselves for all your sins, before God you shall be purified." Thus he mentions God's name three times in his confession. And he does this in each of these confessions. When he places the lot on the goat of the sin-offering, he proclaims: "A sin-offering for HaShem." Thus he mentions God's explicit name ten times on this day. On all occasions, he recites the name as it is written, pronouncing His explicit name. Originally, the High Priest would raise his voice when pronouncing God's name. When the number of wanton people increased, he would recite it in a low voice, swallowing it in a sweet chant until even his priestly brethren could not recognize it.

5

‫זה שנאמר בתורה וכפר בעדו ובעד‬ ‫ביתו ובעד כל קהל ישראל מפי‬ ‫השמועה למדו שזה וידוי דברים נמצאת‬ ‫למד שהוא מתודה ביום זה שלשה וידויים‬ ‫אחד על ידי עצמו תחילה וידוי שני ע"י‬ ‫עצמו עם שאר הכהנים ושניהם על פר‬ ‫החטאת אשר לו והוידוי שלישי על ידי כל‬ ‫ישראל על שעיר המשתלח ומזכיר את‬ ‫השם בכל וידוי מהן שלש פעמים כיצד‬ ‫הוא אומר אנא השם חטאתי עויתי‬ ‫ופשעתי לפניך אנא השם כפר נא לחטאים‬ ‫ולעוונות ולפשעים שחטאתי ושעויתי‬ ‫ושפשעתי וכו' שנאמר כי ביום הזה יכפר‬ ‫עליכם לטהר אתכם מכל חטאתיכם לפני‬ ‫ה' תטהרו הרי שלש פעמים הזכיר את‬ ‫השם וכן בכל וידוי מהן וכשהוא נותן את‬ ‫הגורל על שעיר החטאת אומר להשם‬ ‫חטאת נמצא מזכיר את השם ביום זה‬ ‫עשר פעמים ובכולם הוא מזכיר ככתבו‬ ‫שהוא השם המפורש בראשונה היה‬ ‫מגביה את קולו בשם כיון שרבו פרוצין‬ ‫חזרו לאומרו בקול נמוך ומבליעו בנעימות‬ :‫עד שלא יכירו בו אפילו חביריו הכהנים‬

When all the priests and the people standing in the Temple Courtyard would hear God's explicit name recited by the High Priest in holiness and purity, they would bow, prostrate themselves, and fall on their faces, saying: "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever." The rationale is that Deuteronomy 32:3 states: "When I call out the name of God, ascribe greatness to our Lord." During the three confessions, he would intend to complete the recitation of God's name while the people were blessing, and then he would say: "You shall be purified." It is acceptable to recite the confessional of Yom Kippur and the confessional over the bulls that are burnt throughout the entire day.

« Previous

‫כל הכהנים והעם העומדים בעזרה‬ ‫כשהם שומעים את השם המפורש‬ ‫יוצא מפי כהן גדול בקדושה ובטהרה היו‬ ‫כורעים ומשתחוים ונופלים על פניהם‬ '‫ואומרים בשכמל"ו שנאמר כי שם ה‬ ‫אקרא הבו גודל לאלהינו ובשלשת‬ ‫הוידויים היה מתכוין לגמור את השם כנגד‬ ‫המברכין ואומר להן תטהרו וכל היום כשר‬ ‫לוידוי יום הכפורים ולוידוי הפרים‬ :‫הנשרפים‬

Next » Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 3

Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

6

policy .

7

1



Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 2

There were two lots: upon one was written: "for God," and upon the other "for Azazel." It was acceptable to make them from any substance, whether from wood, from stone, or from metal. There should not, however, be one that is large and the other small, one that is silver and the other, gold. Instead, they should both be the same. Originally, they were made of wood and in the Second Temple era, they made them of gold.

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 4

‫שני הגורלות אחד כתוב עליו להשם‬ ‫ואחד כתוב עליו לעזאזל והם כשרים‬ ‫מכל דבר בין מן העץ בין מן האבן בין מן‬ ‫המתכת אבל לא יהיה אחד גדול ואחד‬ ‫קטן אחד כסף ואחד זהב אלא שניהם שוין‬ ‫ושל עץ היו ובבית שני עשו אותם של זהב‬ ‫ומניחין שני הגורלות בכלי אחד המחזיק‬ ‫שתי הידים כדי שיכניס שתי ידיו ולא‬ ‫יתכוין וכלי זה חול הוא ושל עץ היה וקלפי‬ :‫שמו‬

The two lots would be placed in a container that could fit no more than the High Priest's two hands, so that he would insert both of his hands at the same time and remove the lots without having the intent to chose one. This container was not sacred. It was made out of wood and was called a kalpi. Where was the lottery conducted? In the eastern portion of the Temple Courtyard, to the north of the altar. They would place the kalpi there and position the two goats facing the west with their rears to the east. The High Priest approaches that place with the segen on his right and the head of the clan to his left. The two goats were in front of him, one to his left and one to his right.

‫היכן מגריל במזרח העזרה בצפון‬ ‫המזבח מניחין שם הקלפי ומעמידין‬ ‫שני השעירים פניהן למערב ואחוריהם‬ ‫למזרח וכהן גדול בא לשם והסגן מימינו‬ ‫וראש בית אב משמאלו ושני השעירים‬ :‫לפניו אחד לימינו ואחד לשמאלו‬

2

He would quickly grab the lots from the kalpi and lift up the two lots in his two hands for the two goats. He would open his hands. If the lot "for God" was lifted up in his right hand, the segen would say: "My sir, the High Priest, raise your right hand." If it was lifted up in his left, the head of the clan would say: "My sir, the High Priest, raise your left hand." He would then place the two lots on the two goats, the lot in his right hand on the goat to his right and the lot in his left on the goat to his left. If he did not place the lots on the goats, the service was not disqualified, but the mitzvah was lacking. For placing the lots on the goats is a mitzvah that is not an absolute requirement. The selection of the lots, by contrast, is an absolute requirement, even though it is not an act of service. Therefore it is acceptable if a non-priest places the lots on the goats, but it is invalid if a non-priest lifts the lots from the kalpi. He ties a crimson cord weighing two selaim on the head of the goat to be sent to Azazel and positions it in the direction where it will be sent and ties such a cord on the goat to be slaughtered, hanging it over the place where it will be slaughtered. He then slaughters both his sin-offering of a bull and the goat for which the lot "for God" was lifted up.

‫טרף בקלפי והעלה שני הגורלות‬ ‫בשתי ידיו לשם שני השעירים ופותח‬ ‫ידיו אם של שם עלה בימינו הסגן אומר‬ ‫אישי כהן גדול הגבה ימינך ואם בשמאל‬ ‫עלה ראש בית אב אומר לו אישי כהן גדול‬ ‫הגבה שמאלך ונותן שני הגורלות על‬ ‫שניהם של ימין על ימין ושל שמאל על של‬ ‫שמאל ואם לא נתן לא עיכב אלא שחיסר‬ ‫מצוה שההנחה מצוה שאינה מעכבת‬ ‫וההגרלה מעכבת אף על פי שאינה עבודה‬ ‫לפיכך ההנחה כשירה בזר והעליית‬ :‫הגורלות מן הקלפי פסולה בזר‬

‫וקושר לשון זהורית משקל שתי‬ ‫סלעים בראש שעיר המשתלח‬ ‫ומעמידו כנגד בית שלוחו ולנשחט כנגד‬ ‫בית שחיטתו ושוחט את פר החטאת אשר‬ :‫לו ואת השעיר שעלה עליו הגורל לשם‬

He brings their blood into the Temple Building, where he sprinkles each 43 times. The sprinklings are as follows: First he sprinkles the blood of the bull eight times in the Holy of Holies between the staves of the ark within a handbreadth of the kaporet, as Leviticus 16:14 states: "He shall sprinkle before the kaporet." He should sprinkle once upward and seven times downward. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that when above verse mentions the seven sprinklings, the intent is seven in addition to the first sprinkling. He would count: one, one plus one, one plus two, one plus three, one plus four, one plus five, one plus six, and one plus seven. Why would he count in this manner? So that he would not forget and include the first sprinkling among the seven. Afterwards, he would sprinkle the blood of the goat between the staves of the ark seven times, once upward and seven downward. He counts the sprinklings as he did for the blood of the bull. He then goes and sprinkles the blood of the bull eight times in the Sanctuary on the parochet: once upward and seven downward. For with regard to the blood of the bull, the above prooftext states: "on the kaporet and before the kaporet." He counts as he counted within the Holy of Holies. He then sprinkles the blood of the goat eight times on the parochet, once upward and seven downward. For ibid.:15 states with regard to the blood of the goat: "And you shall do with its blood what you did with the blood of the bull." He also counts the sprinklings as he counted them inside the Holy of Holies. While performing all of these sprinklings, he would not intend to sprinkle above or below, but instead would be like one who is lashing. After the sprinklings, he mixes both bloods - the blood 3

‫ומכניס דמן להיכל ומזה מדם שניהן‬ ‫ביום הזה ארבעים ושלש הזיות ואלו‬ :‫הן‬ ‫מזה תחילה מדם הפר שמונה הזיות בקדש‬ ‫הקדשים בין בדי הארון קרוב לכפורת‬ ‫בטפח שנאמר ולפני הכפורת יזה וגו' ומזה‬ ‫שם אחת למעלה ושבע למטה מפי‬ ‫השמועה למדו שזה שנאמר שבע פעמים‬ ‫יזה יתר על הזייה ראשונה וכך היה מונה‬ ‫אחת אחת ואחת אחת ושתים אחת ושלש‬ ‫אחת וארבע אחת וחמש אחת ושש אחת‬ ‫ושבע ולמה מונה ככה שמא ישכח וימנה‬ ‫הזייה ראשונה מכלל השבע ואח"כ מזה‬ ‫מדם השעיר בין בדי הארון שמונה אחת‬ ‫למעלה ושבע למטה ומונה כדרך שמונה‬ ‫בדם הפר וחוזר ומזה בהיכל על הפרוכת‬ ‫מדם הפר שמונה אחת למעלה ושבע‬ ‫למטה שכך נאמר בדם הפר על הכפורת‬ ‫ולפני הכפורת ומונה כדרך שמונה בפנים‬ ‫וחוזר ומזה מדם השעיר כן על הפרוכת‬ ‫שמונה הזיות אחת למעלה ושבע למטה‬ ‫שנאמר בדם השעיר ועשה את דמו כאשר‬ ‫עשה לדם הפר ומונה כדרך שמונה בפנים‬ ‫וכל אלו ההזיות אינו מתכוין בהן להזות לא‬ ‫למעלה ולא למטה אלא כמצליף ואחר כך‬ ‫מערב שני הדמים דם הפר ודם השעיר‬ ‫ומזה משניהם ארבע הזיות על ארבע‬ ‫קרנות מזבח הזהב שבהיכל ושבע הזיות‬ :‫על אמצעו של מזבח זה‬

For all these 43 sprinklings, he dips his finger in the blood of the sacrificial animal, dipping once for each sprinkling. He should not sprinkle twice from one dipping. He would pour out the remainder of the blood on the western portion of the altar's base.

4

‫וכל אלו הארבעים ושלש הזיות טובל‬ ‫אצבעו בדם טבילה על כל הזייה לא‬ ‫שיזה שתי הזיות מטבילה אחת ושירי הדם‬ :‫שופך על יסוד מערבי של מזבח החיצון‬

5

Afterwards, he would send the living goat to be taken to the desert with a person prepared for this task. Anyone is acceptable to take the goat, but the High Priests ordained a fixed practice and they would not let an Israelite take it. Booths were built on the way from Jerusalem to the desert. One person or many people would spend the day in each booth so that they would accompany him from booth to booth. In each booth, they would say: "Here is food and here is water." If he became weak and it was necessary for him to eat, he would eat, but no one ever required this. The people in the last booth would stand at the end of the Sabbath limits and watch his actions from a distance. What would he do? He would divide the crimson cord tied to the goat's horns.He would tie half to a rock and half between its two horns. He would then push it backward and it would roll over and descend. It would not reach half of the mountain before it was broken into separate limbs, He would then sit in the last booth until nightfall. Sentries would be positioned along the way who wave flags so that the people in the Temple would know that the goat reached the desert. After sending the goat with the person who would take it to the desert, the High Priest would return to his bull and the goat whose blood he sprinkled inside the Temple Building. He rips open their bellies and removes their fats and organs, places them in a container to offer them on the altar's pyre. He cuts up the remainder of their meat into large pieces that are still connected like a net. He does not separate them and he sends them with other persons to take them out to the place where they are burnt. There they are cut up together with their hide, as we explained.

‫ואח"כ משלח את השעיר החי ביד‬ ‫איש המוכן להוליכו למדבר והכל‬ ‫כשרים להוליכו אלא שעשו כהנים גדולים‬ ‫קבע ולא היו מניחים את ישראל להוליכו‬ ‫וסוכות היו עושין מירושלים עד תחלת‬ ‫המדבר ושובת איש אחד או אנשים הרבה‬ ‫בכל סוכה וסוכה מהן כדי שיהיו מלוין‬ ‫אותו מסוכה לסוכה על כל סוכה וסוכה‬ ‫אומרין לו הרי מזון והרי מים אם כשל כחו‬ ‫וצריך לאכול אוכל ומעולם לא הוצרך‬ ‫אדם לכך ואנשי הסוכה האחרונה עומדין‬ ‫בסוף התחום ורואין את מעשיו מרחוק‬ ‫כיצד היה עושה חולק לשון של זהורית‬ ‫שבקרניו חציו קושר בסלע וחציו קושר בין‬ ‫שתי קרניו ודוחפו לאחוריו והוא מתגלגל‬ ‫ויורד לא היה מגיע לחצי ההר עד שהוא‬ ‫נעשה איברים איברים ובא ויושב לו תחת‬ ‫סוכה האחרונה עד שתחשך ודרכיות היו‬ ‫עושין ומניפין בסודרין כדי שידעו שהגיע‬ ‫שעיר למדבר ואחר שמשלח את השעיר‬ ‫ביד מוליכו חוזר אצל הפר והשעיר שהזה‬ ‫דמן לפנים וקורען ומוציא את אימוריהן‬ ‫ונותנם בכלי ומקטירן על גבי המזבח‬ ‫ומחתך שאר בשרן חתיכות גדולות‬ ‫מעורות זו בזו כמין קליעה ואינו מפרק‬ ‫אותן ומשלחן ביד אחרים להוציאן לבית‬ ‫השריפה ומנתחין אותן שם בעורן כמו‬ :‫שביארנו‬

6

After the goat reached the desert, the High Priest would go out to the Women's Courtyard to read from the Torah. While he would read, the bull and the goat were burnt in the ash-pile. Thus one who sees the High Priest reading does not see the bull and the goat being burnt. They may be burnt by a non-priest, as we explained.

‫כיון שהגיע שעיר למדבר יצא כהן‬ ‫גדול לעזרת הנשים לקרות בתורה‬ ‫ובזמן קריאתו שורפין הפר והשעיר בבית‬ ‫הדשן לפיכך הרואה כהן גדול כשהוא‬ ‫קורא אינו רואה פר ושעיר הנשרפין‬ :‫ושריפתן כשירה בזר כמו שביארנו‬

This reading is not part of the Temple service. Therefore if the High Priest desires to read in his own ordinary white garments he may. If he desires to read while wearing his priestly white garments, he may. For the priestly garments were made with the intent that benefit could be derived from them at a time when one is not involved in sacrificial service, as we explained.

‫קריאה זו אינה עבודה לפיכך אם‬ ‫רצה לקרות בבגדי חול לבנים משלו‬ ‫קורא ואם רצה לקרות בבגדי לבן קורא‬ ‫שבגדי כהונה ניתנו ליהנות בהן שלא‬ :‫בשעת עבודה כמו שביארנו‬

How would he read? He would sit in the Women's Courtyard while all the people stand in front of him. The attendant of the synagogue takes the Torah scroll and gives it to the head of the synagogue. The head of the synagogue gives it to the segen and the segen gives it to the High Priest. The High Priest stands and accepts it and stands and reads the passage Acharei Mot and ach bieasor which is in the passage of the festive offerings until the conclusion of the matter. He then roles close the Torah scroll and places it in his bosom and declares: "More than I have read for you is written here." He then reads the passage ubieasor in the Book of Numbers until its conclusion by heart. Why does he read it by heart? Because we do not roll a Torah scroll from passage to passage in front of a congregation. Why does he not read it from another scroll? Because one person should not read from two Torah scrolls, because this will cast aspersions on the validity of the first.

7

‫כיצד הוא קורא יושב בעזרת הנשים‬ ‫וכל העם עומדין לפניו וחזן הכנסת‬ ‫נוטל ספר תורה ונותנו לראש הכנסת‬ ‫וראש הכנסת נותנו לסגן והסגן נותנו לכהן‬ ‫גדול וכהן גדול עומד ומקבל עומד וקורא‬ ‫אחרי מות ואך בעשור שבפרשת מועדות‬ ‫עד סוף הענין וגולל את התורה ומניחה‬ ‫בחיקו ואומר יותר ממה שקראתי לפניכם‬ ‫כתוב כאן ובעשור שבחומש הפקודים עד‬ ‫סוף הענין קורא אותו על פה ולמה קורא‬ ‫על פה שאין גוללין ספר תורה בציבור‬ ‫ולמה לא יקרא בספר אחר לפי שאין אחד‬ :‫קורא בשני ספרים משום פגם ראשון‬

When he reads, he recites a blessing before the reading and afterwards as one recites the blessing for the Torah reading in a synagogue. Afterwards, he adds seven blessings, which are retzei, modim, selach lanu avinu ki chatanu, he concludes the latter blessing: "Blessed are You, God, Who forgives the sins of His people Israel with mercy." Thus three blessings are recited as ordained. He then recites a separate blessing for the Temple. Its theme is that the Temple should continue standing with the Divine Presence in it. He concludes it: "Blessed are You, God, Who dwells in Zion." He then recites a separate blessing for the Jewish people. Its theme is that God should deliver the Jewish people and sovereignty should not depart from them. He concludes it: "Blessed are You, God, Who chooses Israel."

‫בעת שקורא מברך לפניה‬ ‫ולאחריה כדרך שמברכין בבית‬ ‫הכנסת ומוסיף לאחריה שבע ברכות ואלו‬ ‫ רצה ה' אלהינו וכו' מודים אנחנו לך‬:‫הן‬ ‫וכו' סלח לנו אבינו כי חטאנו וכו' וחותם‬ ‫בה בא"י מוחל עונות עמו ישראל ברחמים‬ ‫הרי שלש ברכות כתקנן ומברך על‬ ‫המקדש ברכה בפני עצמה יהיה עניינה‬ ‫שיעמוד המקדש ושכינה בתוכו וחותם בה‬ ‫בא"י שוכן בציון ומברך על ישראל ברכה‬ ‫בפני עצמה עניינה שיושיע ה' את ישראל‬ ‫ולא יסור מהן מלך וחותם בה בא"י הבוחר‬ ‫בישראל ומברך על הכהנים ברכה בפני‬ ‫עצמה עניינה שירצה המקום מעשיהם‬ ‫ועבודתם ויברכם וחותם בה בא"י מקדש‬ ‫הכהנים ואחר כך אומר תפלה ותחנה‬ ‫ורנה ובקשה כפי מה שהוא רגיל וחותם‬ ‫הושע ה' עמך ישראל שעמך ישראל‬ :‫צריכין להושע בא"י שומע תפלה‬

He then recites a separate blessing for the priests. Its theme is that the Omnipresent should find favor in their deeds and service and bless them. He concludes it: "Blessed are You, God, Who sanctifies the priests." He then recites prayers, supplication, praises, and requests according to his proficiency and concludes "God, deliver Your nation Israel, for Your nation Israel is in need of salvation. Blessed are You, God, Who heeds prayer."

« Previous Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 2

Next » Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 4

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.

8

© Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .

1



Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 3

English

Hebrew

Next » Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 5

2

The order of all the practices carried out on this day is the following: At midnight, the lottery is held for the removal of the ashes of the altar. The wood for the altar is arranged and the ashes are removed from the altar as is done each day according to the order we explained until they reach the slaughter of the continuous offering. When they reach the slaughter of the continuous offering, a linen sheet is spread out between the High Priest and the people. Why is linen used? So that all will realize that the special service of the day is performed in linen garments. The High Priest removes his ordinary garments, immerses himself in the mikveh, puts on his golden garments, and sanctifies his hands and feet. He slits the majority of the two signs for kosher slaughter on the animal sacrificed as the continuous offering, but allows another person to complete the slaughter. He receives the blood and casts it on the altar as is commanded. Afterwards, he enters the Temple Sanctuary and offers the morning incense offering and lights the lamps of the Menorah. He offers the limbs of the continuous offering and the chavitin offering on the altar's pyre and pours the libations according to the order in which the continuous offering is brought every day as we explained. After the continuous offering, he offers the bull and the seven sheep of the additional offering of the day. Afterwards, he sanctifies his hands and feet and removes his golden garments. He immerses himself, puts on his white garments, and sanctifies his hands and feet. He approaches his bull. The bull was standing between the Entrance Hall and the altar with its head to the south, but facing the west. The High Priest would stand to the east and face the west. He would place his two hands on the head of the bull and

:‫סדר כל המעשים שביום זה כך הוא‬ ‫כחצות הלילה מפיסין לתרומת‬ ‫הדשן ומסדרין את המערכה ומדשנין את‬ ‫המזבח כדרך שעושין בכל יום על הסדר‬ ‫שביארנו עד שיגיעו לשחיטת התמיד‬ ‫כשיגיעו לשחוט את התמיד פורסין סדין‬ ‫של בוץ בין כהן גדול ובין העם ולמה של‬ ‫בוץ כדי שיכיר שעבודת היום בבגדי בוץ‬ ‫ופושט בגדי חול וטובל ולובש בגדי זהב‬ ‫ומקדש ידיו ורגליו ושוחט בתמיד רוב‬ ‫שנים ומניח אחר לגמור השחיטה ומקבל‬ ‫הדם וזורקו על המזבח כמצותו ואח"כ‬ ‫נכנס להיכל ומקטיר קטורת של שחר‬ ‫ומטיב את הנרות ומקטיר איברי התמיד‬ ‫והחביתין והנסכים ככל סדר התמיד של‬ ‫כל יום שביארנו ואחר התמיד מקריב הפר‬ ‫ושבעת הכבשים של מוסף היום ואחר כך‬ ‫מקדש ידיו ורגליו ופושט בגדי זהב וטובל‬ ‫ולובש בגדי לבן ומקדש ידיו ורגליו ובא לו‬ ‫אצל פרו ופרו היה עומד בין האולם‬ ‫ולמזבח ראשו לדרום ופניו למערב והכהן‬ ‫עומד במזרח ופניו למערב וסומך שתי ידיו‬ ‫על ראש הפר ומתודה וכך היה אומר אנא‬ ‫השם חטאתי עויתי פשעתי לפניך אני‬ ‫וביתי אנא השם כפר נא לחטאים ולעונות‬ ‫ולפשעים שחטאתי ושעויתי ושפשעתי‬ ‫לפניך אני וביתי ככתוב בתורת משה עבדך‬ ‫לאמר כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם לטהר‬ :‫אתכם מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה' תטהרו‬ ‫ואח"כ מגריל על שני השעירים וקושר‬ ‫לשון של זהורית בראש המשתלח ומעמידו‬ ‫כנגד בית שלוחו ולנשחט כנגד בית‬ ‫שחיטתו ובא לו אצל פרו שנייה וסומך‬ ‫שתי ידיו על ראשו ומתודה וידוי שני וכך‬ ‫הוא אומר אנא השם חטאתי עויתי פשעתי‬ ‫לפניך אני וביתי ובני אהרן עם קדושיך‬ ‫אנא השם כפר נא לחטאים ולעונות‬

3

When the incense offering was brought in the Holy of Holies, all of the people would withdraw from the Sanctuary alone. They would not withdraw from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, for it is not necessary to depart from between the Entrance Hall and the altar except when bringing the daily incense offering and when blood is being presented in the Sanctuary, as we explained in Hilchot Temidim. Afterwards, he takes the blood of the bull from the priest who was stirring it and takes it into the Holy of Holies. He sprinkles it eight times between the staves of the Ark. He departs and places it down in the Sanctuary on a golden base located there. He then departs from the Sanctuary and slaughters the goat, receives its blood, and brings it into the Holy of Holies. He sprinkles it eight times between the staves of the Ark. He then departs and places it down on a second gold base in the Sanctuary. Afterwards, he lifts up the blood of the bull from the base and sprinkles it on the parochet opposite the ark eight times. He puts down the blood of the bull and picks up the blood of the goat and sprinkles it on the parochet opposite the ark eight times. Afterwards, he pours the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat and pours the entire mixture into the container where the blood of the bull had been held so that they will be mixed thoroughly and stands before the golden altar, between the Menorah and the golden altar. He begins to apply the mixture of blood on the corners of the golden altar. He proceeds to circle it, sprinkling the blood on its corners from the outside as he proceeds. He begins from the northeast corner, proceeds to the northwest, the southwest, and then to the southeast. In all instances, he applies the blood from below upward with the exception of the last application in which

‫בשעת הקטרת הקטורת בקדש‬ ‫הקדשים כל העם פורשים מן ההיכל‬ ‫בלבד ואינן פורשים מבין האולם ולמזבח‬ ‫שאין פורשים מבין האולם ולמזבח אלא‬ ‫בשעת הקטרה בהיכל בכל יום ובשעת‬ ‫מתן דמים בהיכל כמו שביארנו בהלכות‬ ‫תמידין ואח"כ נוטל דם הפר מזה שהוא‬ ‫מנדנדו ונכנס בו לקדש הקדשים ומזה‬ ‫ממנו שם שמונה הזיות בין בדי הארון‬ ‫ויוצא ומניחו בהיכל על כן הזהב שהיה שם‬ ‫ואחר כך יוצא מן ההיכל ושוחט את‬ ‫השעיר ומקבל את דמו ונכנס בו לקדש‬ ‫הקדשים ומזה ממנו שם שמונה הזיות בין‬ ‫בדי הארון ויוצא ומניחו על כן הזהב שני‬ ‫שבהיכל ואחר כך נוטל דם הפר מעל הכן‬ ‫ומזה ממנו על הפרוכת כנגד הארון שמונה‬ ‫הזיות ומניח דם הפר ונוטל דם השעיר‬ ‫ומזה ממנו על הפרוכת כנגד הארון שמונה‬ ‫הזיות ואח"כ מערה דם הפר לתוך דם‬ ‫השעיר ומחזיר הכל למזרק שהיה בו דם‬ ‫הפר כדי שיתערבו יפה יפה ועומד לפנים‬ ‫ממזבח הזהב בין המזבח והמנורה ומתחיל‬ ‫להזות מדם התערובת על קרנות מזבח‬ ‫הזהב והוא מסבב והולך ומזה על הקרנות‬ ‫מבחוץ ומתחיל מקרן מזרחית צפונית‬ ‫לצפונית מערבית למערבית דרומית‬ ‫לדרומית מזרחית ועל כולן הוא נותן‬ ‫מלמטן למעלן חוץ מן האחרונה שהיתה‬ ‫לפניו שהוא נותן מלמעלן למטן כדי שלא‬ ‫יתלכלכו כליו וחותה הגחלים והאפר‬ ‫שבמזבח הזהב הילך והילך עד שמגלה‬ ‫זהבו ומזה מדם התערובת על טהרו של‬ ‫מזבח שבע פעמים בצד הדרום במקום‬ ‫ששלמו מתנות קרנותיו ויוצא ושופך שירי‬ :‫הדם על יסוד מערבי של מזבח החיצון‬ ‫ואחר כך בא אצל שעיר המשתלח וסומך‬ ‫שתי ידיו על ראשו ומתודה וכך הוא אומר‬

« Previous

Next » Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 5

Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

4

policy .



Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 4

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Me`ilah

All of the services which the High Priest performs while wearing the white garments inside the Temple Building must be performed in the order in which we mentioned. If he performed one of them before another, his acts are of no consequence.

‫כל עבודות שעובד בבגדי לבן בפנים‬ ‫בהיכל צריך לעשותן על הסדר‬ ‫שביארנו ואם הקדים בהן מעשה לחבירו‬ :‫לא עשה כלום‬

If the High Priest took a handful of incense before he slaughtered the bull, his act is of no consequence. Although taking the handful of incense is performed in the Courtyard, it is necessary for service performed inside the Temple Building. Similarly, if the goat was slaughtered before the blood of the bull was presented inside the Holy of Holies, the act is of no consequence. Although the slaughter is performed in the Temple Courtyard, its blood is brought within the Temple Building.

‫קטרת שחפנה קודם שחיטת הפר‬ ‫לא עשה כלום אע"פ שהחפינה‬ ‫בעזרה צורך פנים בעבודת פנים היא וכן‬ ‫שעיר ששחטו קודם מתן דמו של פר לא‬ ‫עשה כלום אף על פי שהשחיטה בעזרה‬ :‫הרי דמו נכנס לפנים‬

If the ram and the goat from the additional sacrifices of the day were offered before the service of the day in the Holy of Holies was performed, they are of no consequence.

‫איל ושעיר המוספין שעשה אותן‬ :‫קודם עבודת היום אינן כלום‬

2

If the blood of the goat was presented in the Holy of Holies before the blood of the bull, i.e., before the High Priest completes its service, he should sprinkle the blood of the bull as commanded. Afterwards, he should bring another goat, slaughter it, and sprinkle its blood as commanded. The first goat is disqualified. If, when sprinkling the blood on the parochet in the Sanctuary, he sprinkled the blood of the goat before the blood of the bull, he should sprinkle the blood of the goat a second time after the blood of the bull.

‫הקדים דם השעיר לדם הפר בקדש‬ ‫הקדשים קודם שיגמור עבודתו יזה‬ ‫מדם הפר כמצותו ואח"כ יביא שעיר אחר‬ ‫וישחוט אותו ויזה מדמו בקדש הקדשים‬ ‫כמצותו ויפסל הראשון הקדים דם השעיר‬ ‫לדם הפר במתנות שבהיכל על הפרוכת‬ ‫יחזור ויזה מדם השעיר פעם שנייה לאחר‬ :‫דם הפר‬

If the blood of the goat spilled before he completed presenting it in the Holy of Holies, he should bring other blood and begin sprinkling it anew in the Holy of Holies.

‫נשפך הדם עד שלא גמר מתנות‬ ‫שבקדש הקדשים יביא דם אחר‬ :‫ויחזור ויזה בתחילה בקדש הקדשים‬

If he completed the presentation of the blood in the Holy of Holies and began presenting it in the Sanctuary and the blood was spilled before he completed them, he should bring other blood and begin from the first sprinklings in the Sanctuary.

‫גמר מתנות שבקדש הקדשים והתחיל‬ ‫במתנות שבהיכל ונשפך הדם עד שלא‬ ‫גמר יביא דם אחר ויתחיל מתחילת הזיות‬ :‫שבהיכל‬

If he completed the first part of the presentation of the blood in the Sanctuary and began to apply the blood to the Golden Altar and the blood spilled before the applications were completed, he should bring other bloodand begin from the first applications to the altar. For each set of presentations of blood represents a separate phase of atonement.

‫גמר מתנות שבהיכל והתחיל ליתן על‬ ‫מזבח הזהב ונשפך הדם עד שלא גמר‬ ‫יביא דם אחר ומתחיל מתחילת מתנות‬ :‫המזבח שכולן כפרה בפני עצמן הן‬

3

If he completed the application of the blood to the altar and then the blood spilled, he does not have to bring other blood, for pouring the remainder of the blood on the outer altar is not a binding requirement. If the blood of the bull was spilled before he completed all of the presentations, he should bring another bull and take a handful of incense before slaughtering the bull. He should offer the incense, then bring the blood of the second bull and sprinkle its blood.

‫גמר מתנות המזבח ואחר כך נשפך‬ ‫הדם אינו צריך להביא דם אחר‬ ‫ששפיכת השירים על מזבח החיצון אינה‬ ‫מעכבת ואם דם הפר הוא שנשפך קודם‬ ‫שיגמור כל המתנות הרי זה מביא פר אחר‬ ‫ויחפון קטרת פעם שנייה קודם שחיטת‬ ‫הפר ויקטיר הקטורת ואח"כ יביא דמו ויזה‬ :‫ממנו‬

The only one which causes the priests and their clothes to become impure and which is burnt in the ashpile is the last bull with which the atonement was completed.

‫ואין מטמא בגדים ואין נשרף בבית‬ ‫הדשן אלא הפר הזה האחרון שבו‬ :‫נגמרה הכפרה‬

If the blood of the bull became mixed with the blood of the goat before the High Priest completed the sprinklings, he should sprinkle from the mixture once upward and seven times downward for the sake of the bull and then sprinkle from the mixture once upward and seven times downward for the sake of the goat. If they became mixed together before the last sprinkling, he should sprinkle once downward for the sake of the bull and then sprinkle once upward and seven times downward for the sake of the goat.

‫נתערב לו דם הפר בדם השעיר קודם‬ ‫שיגמור ההזיות נותן אחת למעלה‬ ‫ושבע למטה לשם פר וחוזר ונותן אחת‬ ‫למעלה ושבע למטה לשם שעיר נתערבו‬ ‫במתנה אחרונה נותן אחת למטה לשם פר‬ ‫וחוזר ונותן אחת למעלה ושבע למטה לשם‬ :‫שעיר‬

4

If the cups containing the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat become mixed together and the High Priest does not know which is the cup containing the blood of the bull and which is the cup containing the blood of the goat, he should sprinkle from one of them once upward and seven times downward and then sprinkle from the second one, once upward and seven times downward. And then he sprinkles again from the blood in the first cup, once upward and seven times downward. Thus regardless he will have sprinkled from the blood of the bull and afterwards, from the blood of the goat.

‫נתחלפו הכוסות ולא ידע אי זה‬ ‫הוא כוס דם הפר ואי זה הוא כוס‬ ‫דם השעיר נותן מאחד מהן אחת למעלה‬ ‫ושבע למטה ונותן מן השני אחת למעלה‬ ‫ושבע למטה )וחוזר ונותן מן הראשון אחת‬ ‫למעלה ושבע למטה( נמצא מכל מקום‬ :‫שנתן מדם הפר ואחריו מדם השעיר‬

The following rules apply when the High Priest received the blood of the bull in two cups and the blood of the goat in two cups and some of the cups became mixed together and it was not known which of the cups contained the blood of the bull and which, the blood of the goat. He should perform all the sprinklings as required by law from the cups that were not mixed together. He should then pour the remainder of the blood from the cups from which he sprinkled on the base of the altar, as required. The cups that were mixed together should be poured into the drainage channel.

‫קיבל דם הפר בשתי כוסות וקיבל‬ ‫דם השעיר בשתי כוסות ונתערבו‬ ‫מקצת הכוסות ולא נודע כוס דם הפר‬ ‫מכוס דם השעיר הרי זה מזה כל ההזיות‬ ‫כמצותן מן הכוסות שלא נתערבו ושופך‬ ‫שירי אלו שהזה מהן על היסוד כמצוה‬ :‫ואותן הכוסות שנתערבו ישפכו לאמה‬

5

Even though the High Priest would purchase the bull sacrificed on Yom Kippur from his own resources, as implied by Leviticus 16:6: "The bull for the sin-offering that is his," the Omnipresent nullified his ownership of it in favor of all of his priestly brethren. For if they did not have a share of it, they could not derive atonement through its sacrifice. Accordingly, if the High Priest died before the bull was slaughtered, the priest who assumes his position does not bring a different bull. Instead, he slaughters the first one, It is not considered a sin-offering whose owners have died which is itself consigned to death, for a sin-offering owned by many is never consigned to death,

‫פר יוה"כ אף על פי שכהן גדול קונה‬ ‫משלו שנאמר פר החטאת אשר לו‬ ‫המקום הפקיר ממונו בו לכל אחיו הכהנים‬ ‫שאילו לא היה להן בו שותפות לא היו‬ ‫מתכפרין בו לפיכך אם מת כהן גדול קודם‬ ‫שישחט הפר הכהן שעומד תחתיו אינו‬ ‫מביא פר אחר אלא שוחט את של ראשון‬ ‫ואינו חטאת שמתו בעליה שתמות שאין‬ ‫חטאת הרבים מתה שחט את הפר ומת‬ ‫קודם שיכפר בדמו הכהן האחר נכנס בדם‬ :‫זה ומכפר בו‬

If the High Priest slaughtered the bull, but died before sprinkling its blood to gain atonement, the second priest enters the Temple with this blood and performs the sprinkling that brings atonement. The desired manner of performing the mitzvah is that the two goats of Yom Kippur should be alike with regard to their appearance, their size, and their worth. They should be purchased at the same time. Nevertheless, even if they were not alike, they were acceptable. Similarly, if one was purchased on one day and the other on the following day, it is acceptable.

‫שני שעירי יום הכפורים מצותן‬ ‫שיהיו שוין במראה ובקומה ובדמים‬ ‫ולקיחתן כאחת אע"פ שאינן שוין כשירין‬ :‫לקח אחד מהן היום ואחד למחר כשירים‬

The following rules apply if one of these goats die. If it dies before the lottery was held, he should take another one as a pair for the remaining one. If it died after the lottery, he should bring two new goats and conduct the lottery again as he did originally. He sees which one died. If it was the one to be sacrificed to G-d, he says: "This one for which the lot for God was chosen should replace it." If the dead goat was the one to be sent to Azazel, he says: "This one for which the lot for Azazel was chosen should replace it." The other one of the pair from which the second lottery was made should be left to pasture until it receives a disqualifying blemish. Then it should be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings. This course of action is taken, because a communal sin-offering is never consigned to death. When the bull and/or the goat to be offered on Yom Kippur became lost, others were separated in their stead and offered and then the first ones were found, those first ones should pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. Afterwards, they should be redeemed and the proceeds used for freewill offerings. Similarly, if the first ones were found before the second were offered, the first ones should be sacrificed. The second ones should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. Afterwards, they should be redeemed and the proceeds used for freewill offerings. The rationale for these rulings is that a communal sin-offering is never consigned to death.

6

‫מת אחד מהן אם עד שלא הגריל‬ ‫מת יקח זוג לשני ואם משהגריל‬ ‫מת יביא שנים ויגריל עליהן בתחילה‬ ‫ורואה אי זהו שמת אם היה של שם אומר‬ ‫זה שעלה עליו הגורל לשם יתקיים תחתיו‬ ‫ואם היה המת של עזאזל יאמר זה שעלה‬ ‫עליו הגורל לעזאזל יתקיים תחתיו והשני‬ ‫מן השנים שהגריל עליהן בסוף ירעה עד‬ ‫שיפול בו מום וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה‬ :‫שאין חטאת הצבור מתה‬

‫פר ושעיר של יוה"כ שאבדו‬ ‫והפריש אחרים תחתיהן וקרבו‬ ‫ונמצאו הראשונים ירעו עד שיסתאבו‬ ‫וימכרו ויפלו דמיהן לנדבה וכן אם נמצאו‬ ‫הראשונים קודם שיקרבו אלו יקרבו‬ ‫הראשונים וירעו השניים עד שיפול בהן‬ ‫מום ויפלו דמיהן לנדבה שאין חטאת‬ :‫הצבור מתה‬

A disqualifying blemish - even a temporary blemish - renders the goat sent to Azazel unfit. Similarly, if it becomes unfit to be sacrificed because of a time factor, it is disqualified. For example, its mother was slaughtered to feed a sick person on Yom Kippur. Although the pertinent prohibition involves "slaughtering" an animal and its offspring on the same day, pushing the goat to Azazel is equivalent to slaughtering it. If the goat was treifah, it is unacceptable, for Leviticus 16:10 states: "It shall stand alive."

‫היה טריפה פסול שנאמר יעמד‬ :‫חי‬

If the goat becomes sick and is unable to walk, the one taking it to Azazel should carry it on his shoulders, even on the Sabbath.

‫חלה השעיר ואין יכול להלך‬ :‫מרכיבו על כתפו ואפילו בשבת‬

If the one designated to take it becomes sick, it should be sent with another person.

7

‫המום פוסל בשעיר המשתלח אפילו‬ ‫מום עובר וכן אם נעשה מחוסר זמן‬ ‫נפסל כגון שנשחטה אמו לחולה ביום‬ :‫הכפורים שדחייתו לעזאזל היא שחיטתו‬

‫חלה המשלח הרי זה משלחו ביד‬ :‫אחר‬

If the one designated to take it becomes impure, he should enter the Temple take it and depart, as Leviticus 16:21 states: "to the desert in the hands of a designated person." Implied is that it should be sent in the hands of the one designated even if he became ritually impure.

‫נטמא המשלח הרי זה נכנס‬ ‫למקדש ונוטלו ויוצא שנאמר‬ ‫ביד איש עתי המדברה ביד זה שהוכן‬ :‫אפילו נטמא‬

If that person pushed the goat off the cliff and it did not die, he should descend after it and kill it with any article that will serve that purpose. It is permitted to benefit from the limbs of this goat.

‫דחפו ונפל השעיר ולא מת ירד‬ ‫אחריו וימיתנו בכל דבר שממיתו‬ :‫ואיברי שעיר זה מותרין בהנייה‬

If the roof of the Temple Building was opened, the High Priest should not sprinkle the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat, because ibid.:17 states: "in the Tent of Meeting."

‫נפחתה תקרה של היכל לא היה‬ :‫מזה שנאמר באהל מועד‬

8

When the inner altar had not been dedicated by the offering of incense previously, the High Priest should not sprinkle the blood upon it, as ibid. 4:7 states: "the altar of the incense offering."

‫מזבח שלא נתחנך בקטרת לא‬ ‫יזה עליו שנאמר מזבח קטרת‬

If the incense offering was lacking one of its spices or the smoke-raising herb, the High Priest is liable for death, as Leviticus 16:2 states: "He shall not die, because in a cloud I will appear on the kaporet." Similarly, he is liable for death for entering the Holy of Holies while he is not performing a mitzvah. Therefore, if he transgressed inadvertently by entering, but purposely offered an unacceptable incense offering or offered a complete incense offering together with the one that was lacking, he is liable for death.

‫חסר מן הקטרת אחד מסמניה או‬ ‫מעלה עשן חייב מיתה עליה‬ ‫שנאמר ולא ימות כי בענן אראה על‬ ‫הכפורת וכן חייב מיתה על ביאתו בלא‬ ‫מצוה לפיכך אם שגג בביאה והזיד בקטרת‬ ‫או שנכנס בקטרת שלימה עם החסירה‬ :‫חייב מיתה‬

If he offered an olive-sized portion of the incense offering to be offered in the Holy of Holies in the Sanctuary, he is liable for death.

‫הקטיר מן הקטרת של קדש‬ :‫הקדשים כזית בהיכל חייב מיתה‬

Taking a handful of incense is considered as an element of the Temple service and improper thoughts can disqualify it. Similarly, the scooping of the coals for the incense offering can be disqualified by improper thoughts, for performance of the preparatory acts necessary to bring a sacrifice is considered as bringing the sacrifice itself.

‫חפינת הקטורת עבודה והמחשבה‬ ‫פוסלת בה וכן חתיית הגחלים‬ ‫לקטורת נפסלת במחשבה שמכשירי קרבן‬ :‫כקרבן‬

:‫הסמים‬

There is doubt regarding the proper ruling in all of the following incidents: a) he collected the incense with his fingertips, with the sides of his hands, or scooped from below upward; b) he gathered the incense with both hands and then brought them together;

‫חפן בראשי אצבעותיו או מן‬ ‫הצדדין או ממטה למעלה או‬ ‫שחפן בידו זו ובידו זו וקרב זו לזו או‬ ‫שנתפזרה קטורת מידו על הארץ ואספה‬ ‫או שחפן חבירו ונתן לחפניו או שחפן ומת‬ ‫ונכנס שני במה שחפן ראשון כל אלו ספק‬ :‫ולא יקטיר ואם הקטיר הורצה‬

c) the incense was scattered on the earth from his hand and he collected it; d) a colleague gathered the incense and put it in his hands; or e) a High Priest collected the incense and died and his replacement entered the Holy of Holies with the incense collected by the first. In all these instances, as an initial preference, he should not offer such incense. If he did, it is acceptable. Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.

:‫סליקו להו הלכות עבודת יוה"כ בס"ד‬

« Previous

Next » Me`ilah

Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .

10

1



Me`ilah Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Me`ilah - Perek 1 Me`ilah - Perek 2 Me`ilah - Perek 3 Me`ilah - Perek 4 Me`ilah - Perek 5 Me`ilah - Perek 6 Me`ilah - Perek 7 Me`ilah - Perek 8

2

1



Me`ilah - Perek 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 2

Introduction to Hilchot Me`ilah

‫ הקדמה‬- ‫הלכות מעילה‬

They contain three mitzvot: one positive commandment and two negative commandments. They are:

,‫ אחת מצוַ ת עשה‬:‫יש בכללן שלוש מצוות‬ :‫ וזה הוא פרטן‬.‫ושתים מצוות לא תעשה‬

1) That the one guilty of trespass shall pay for his trespass the value of what he has taken, and add a fifth, and bring an offering. This is the law of one who unlawfully takes holy things; 2) Not to work with cattle set apart for sacrifices; 3) Not to shear the fleece of such cattle.

‫)א( לשלם המועל אשר חטא בתוספת‬ .‫ וזהו דין המועל‬,‫חומש וקרבן‬ .‫)ב( שלא לעבוד בקדשים‬ .‫)ג( שלא לגזוז קדשים‬ :‫וביאור מצוות אלו בפרקים אלו‬

These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters. It is forbidden for an ordinary person to benefit from articles sanctified unto God, whether they are entities that are offered on the altar or articles consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. Anyone who derives a perutah' worth of benefit from an article sanctified unto God, is considered as having misappropriated a consecrated article.

‫אסור להדיוט ליהנות מקדשי השם‬ ‫בין מדברים הקרבין על גבי המזבח‬ ‫בין מקדשי בדק הבית וכל הנהנה בשוה‬ :‫פרוטה מקדשי השם מעל‬

2

The

concept

of

me'ilah,

misappropriating

consecrated articles, does not apply to sacrificial entities from the sacrifices that are permitted to be eaten, e.g., the meat of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings after their blood was cast on the altar, the two breads after the blood of the two sheep was cast on the altar. This applies even if these or the like are eaten by a non-priest. Since it is permitted for some people to benefit from them, anyone who benefits from them is not considered to have misappropriated consecrated articles. Even if they were disqualified and prohibited to be eaten, since there is a time when they are permitted to be eaten, one is not liable me'ilah.

‫דברים שהותרו באכילה מן הקרבנות‬ ‫כגון בשר חטאת ואשם אחר זריקת‬ ‫דמן או שתי הלחם אחר זריקת דם שני‬ ‫הכבשים אין בהן מעילה אפילו אכל הזר‬ ‫מאלו וכיוצא בהן הואיל והן מותרין‬ ‫למקצת בני אדם ליהנות בהן כל הנהנה‬ ‫מהן לא מעל ואפילו נפסלו ונאסרו‬ ‫באכילה הואיל והיתה להן שעת היתר אין‬ :‫חייבין עליהן מעילה‬

3

Anyone who purposely misappropriates consecrated articles is liable for lashes and must pay the value he decreased the value of the sacred articles. The warning against me'ilah is derived from Deuteronomy 12:17: "You may not partake of the tithes of your grain... your pledges... in your outlying cities." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning against one who partakes of the meat of a burnt-offering for it must be offered entirely to God. The same applies to all other consecrated articles that are dedicated to God alone, whether something consecrated for the altar or for the improvement of the Temple. If one derives a perutah's worth of benefit, he is liable for lashes. If he misappropriated a consecrated article unknowingly, he must make restitution for the benefit he received and add a fifth. Also, he must bring a ram worth two selaim and have it sacrificed as a guilt offering. This brings atonement for him and it is called: "the guilt offering for misappropriation,] as Leviticus 5:15-16 states "And he sinned inadvertently, misappropriating what was consecrated unto God and he shall bring his guilt-offering... and he should make restitution for what he misappropriated from the consecrated articles, adding a fifth." Paying the principal with the additional fifth and bringing the sacrifice is a positive commandment.

‫כל המועל בזדון לוקה ומשלם מה‬ ‫שפגם מן הקדש בראשו ואזהרה של‬ ‫מעילה מזה שנאמר לא תוכל לאכול‬ ‫בשעריך מעשר דגנך וגו' ונדריך מפי‬ ‫השמועה למדו שזו אזהרה לאוכל מבשר‬ ‫עולה הואיל וכולו לשם והוא הדין לשאר‬ ‫כל קדש שהוא להשם לבדו בין מקדשי‬ ‫המזבח בין מקדשי בדק הבית אם נהנה‬ ‫בהן שוה פרוטה לוקה מעל בשגגה משלם‬ ‫מה שנהנה ותוספת חומש ומביא איל‬ ‫בשני סלעים ומקריבו אשם ומתכפר לו‬ ‫וזהו הנקרא אשם מעילות שנאמר וחטאה‬ '‫בשגגה מקדשי ה' והביא את אשמו וגו‬ ‫ואת אשר חטא מן הקודש ישלם ואת‬ ‫חמישיתו וגו' ושילום הקרן בתוספת חומש‬ :‫עם הבאת הקרבן מצות עשה‬

Payment of the principal and bringing the guiltoffering are essential for the atonement; payment of the additional fifth is not essential. This is derived from the prooftext that speaks of: "the ram of the asham." Our Sages interpreted the term asham as referring to

‫תשלום הקרן והבאת האשם מעכבין‬ ‫הכפרה ואין החומש מעכב שנאמר‬ ‫באיל האשם איל ואשם מעכבין ואין‬ :‫החומש מעכב‬

the principal and stated: The ramand the payment of the principal are fundamental requirements. The additional fifth is not a fundamental requirement.

If the person brought the guilt-offering before he made restitution for the principal, he did not fulfill his obligation. If one is in doubt whether he derived benefit from a consecrated article or not, he is exempt from making restitution and bringing a sacrifice. The additional fifth is considered as a consecrated article itself. If one benefits from it, he should add a fifth to the fifth. We have already explained several times that the fifth is one fourth of the principal so that the principal and the fifth will be five units. There are articles for which one is not liable for me'ilah according to Scriptural Law, but from which it is forbidden to benefit according to Rabbinic decree.A person who derives benefit from them must only make restitution for the principal. He need not add a fifth, nor must he bring a guilt-offering.

‫יש דברים שאין חייבין עליהן מעילה‬ ‫מדברי תורה אבל אסור ליהנות בהן‬ ‫מדברי סופרים והנהנה מהן משלם קרן‬ :‫בלבד ואינו מוסיף חומש ואינו מביא אשם‬

All of the sacrifices offered on the altar - whether sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity or sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity - are forbidden to be shorn and it is forbidden to perform work with them, as Deuteronomy 15:19 states: "Do not perform work with the firstborn of your oxen and do not shear the firstborn of your sheep." The same applies to all other sacrificial animals. One who shears an ox or works with a sheep is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law.

‫כל קדשי מזבח בין קדשי קדשים בין‬ ‫קדשים קלים אסורין בגיזה ועבודה‬ ‫שנאמר לא תעבוד בבכור שורך ולא תגוז‬ ‫בכור צאנך והוא הדין לשאר קדשים‬ ‫והגוזז את השור או העובד בצאן לוקה מן‬ ‫התורה ותולש אינו כגוזז ויראה לי שאינו‬ ‫לוקה עד שיגזוז כדי רוחב הסיט כפול לא‬ :‫יהיה זה חמור משבת‬

One who pulls out hair is not considered as if he shears it. It appears to me that one is not liable unless he shears double the width of a sit. This prohibition should not be more severe than the prohibition against shearing on the Sabbath.

4

‫הביא מעילתו עד שלא הביא אשמו‬ ‫לא יצא נסתפק לו אם מעל או לא‬ ‫מעל פטור מן התשלומין ומן הקרבן‬ ‫והחומש הרי הוא כתחילת ההקדש ואם‬ ‫נהנה בו מוסיף חומש על החומש וכבר‬ ‫ביארנו כמה פעמים שהחומש אחד‬ ‫מארבעה מן הקרן עד שיהיה הוא וחומשו‬ :‫חמשה‬

When there is a doubt whether an animal is consecrated, e.g., an animal concerning which there is a question whether it is a firstborn or the like, it is forbidden to shear it or work with it, but one who shears it or works with it, is not liable for lashes.

‫ספק קדשים כגון בהמה שהיא ספק‬ ‫בכור וכיוצא בה הרי הן אסורין‬ ‫בגיזה ועבודה והגוזז או העובד בהן אינו‬ :‫לוקה‬

When a sacrificial animal contracted a physical blemish and it was redeemed as we explained, it is not permitted to shear it or to work with it. The prohibitions are still in effect until it is slaughtered. If it was slaughtered after it was redeemed, it is permitted to partake of it.

‫בהמת הקדש שנפל בה מום ונפדת‬ ‫כמו שביארנו אינה מותרת בגיזה‬ ‫ועבודה והרי היא באיסורה עד שתשחט‬ ‫נשחטה אחר פדיונה הותרה באכילה במה‬ ‫דברים אמורים כשקדם הקדשן את מומן‬ ‫או קדם מום עובר להקדשן אבל המקדיש‬ ‫בעלת מום קבוע למזבח אינה אסורה בגיזה‬ ‫ועבודה אלא מדבריהם נפדת הרי זו‬ ‫כחולין לכל דבר ותצא לחולין להגזז‬ ‫ולהעבד חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר‬ ‫שהקדושה חלה על גופן אף על פי שהן‬ ‫בעלי מומין קבועין מתחילתן ואינן יוצאין‬ ‫לחולין להגזז ולהעבד לעולם ואסור‬ :‫להרביע בבכור או בפסולי המוקדשין‬

When does the above apply? When the animal was consecrated before it contracted a permanent blemish or it contracted a temporary blemish before it was consecrated. If, however, one consecrated an animal with a permanent physical blemish as a sacrifice for the altar, it is only forbidden to be shorn and for work to be performed with it according to Rabbinic Law. If it is redeemed, it is like an ordinary animal in all regards and like an ordinary animal, it may be shorn and work may be performed with it. The only exceptions to this principle are a firstborn animal and one separated as the tithes. In these instances, the holiness falls on their physical bodies even if at the outset they have permanent physical blemishes. They are never considered as ordinary animals entirely and it is always forbidden to shear them or perform work with them. It is forbidden to mate an animal that is a firstborn or a sacrificial animal that was disqualified.

5

6

It is permitted, even as an initial preference, to pull off hair from a sacrificial animal in order to show a physical blemish to an expert. It is forbidden to benefit from the hair that was pulled off or which fell from a consecrated animal, a firstborn animal, or one designated as the tithes, even after it was redeemed and slaughtered because of its blemish. This is a decree lest the sacrifice of such an animal be delayed, because it does not come to bring about atonement. It is, by contrast, permitted to benefit from wool which fell from an animal designated as a sin-offering or a guilt-offering after it has been redeemed and slaughtered because of a physical blemish. The rationale is that since these offerings come to bring about atonement, the owners will not delay their sacrifice. There is an unresolved doubt if it is permitted to benefit from wool that was pulled off from a burntoffering.

‫מותר לתלוש את השיער לכתחילה מן‬ ‫הקדשים כדי להראות המום למומחה‬ ‫ואותו השיער שתלש או שנשר מן הבהמה‬ ‫או מן הבכור והמעשר הרי זה אסור‬ ‫בהנייה אפילו לאחר שישחטו מפני מומן‬ ‫גזירה שמא ישהה אותן הואיל ואינן באין‬ ‫לכפרה אבל צמר הנושר מן החטאת‬ ‫והאשם מותר בהנייה לאחר שחיטתן מפני‬ ‫מומן הואיל ולכפרה הן באין אינו משהה‬ ‫אותן ואם נתלש מן העולה הרי זה ספק‬ ‫וכל שיתלש מכל הקדשים אחר שנפל בהן‬ ‫מום הרי הוא מותר בהנייה שהרי לא תלש‬ ‫בידו חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר שאף הנתלש‬ :‫ממנו אחר שנפל בו מום אסור בהנייה‬

It is permitted to benefit from any wool that becomes pulled off from sacrificial animals after they have contracted a blemish, for it was not pulled off intentionally.The only exception is the wool of a firstborn animal and one designated as a tithe. In those instances, it is forbidden to benefit from wool even if it was pulled off from such an animal after it contracted a blemish. When a person slaughters a firstborn or another consecrated animal, he may pull off the wool from either side to make a place for the knife, provided he does not remove the wool from its place.

‫השוחט בכור או שאר מוקדשין‬ ‫תולש את השיער מכאן ומכאן‬ ‫לעשות מקום לסכין ובלבד שלא יזיזנו‬ :‫ממקומו‬

It is forbidden to shear and perform work with animals consecrated for the improvement of the Temple according to Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, they are not forbidden. Therefore one who shears such animals or performs work with them is not liable for lashes. He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.

‫קדשי בדק הבית אסורין בגיזה‬ ‫ועבודה מדברי סופרים אבל מן‬ ‫התורה אינן אסורין לפיכך הגוזז אותן או‬ ‫העובד בהן אינו לוקה אבל מכין אותו מכת‬ :‫מרדות‬

When one consecrates a fetus for the altar, it is forbidden to perform work with its mother according to Rabbinic decree. The rationale for this decree is that work weakens the fetus. It is, however, permitted to shear the mother, because this does not harm the fetus.

‫המקדיש עובר למזבח אמו אסורה‬ ‫בעבודה מדברי סופרים מפני‬ ‫שעבודתה מכחשת את העובר גזרו בה‬ ‫והרי היא מותרת בגיזה שאין בזה הפסד‬ ‫לולד הקדיש אבר אחד מן הבהמה בין‬ ‫לבדק הבית בין למזבח הרי הדבר ספק אם‬ ‫אסורה כולה בגיזה ועבודה או אינה‬ :‫אסורה לפיכך אין לוקין עליה‬

When one consecrates one limb of an animal - whether for the improvement of the Temple or for the altar there is an unresolved doubt whether or not the entire animal is forbidden to be sheared or for work to be performed with it. Therefore, if one performs such an activity, he is not liable for lashes.

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

8

1



Me`ilah - Perek 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Me`ilah - Perek 1

The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity until the blood has been cast on the altar. If the blood has been cast on the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the fats and organs until they are taken to the ashheap, for they are designated for the altar's pyre. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to an entity that is to be eaten as explained. Even if the fats and the organs were brought to the altar before the blood was cast upon it, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply until the blood is cast. If the fats and the organs were taken outside the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply until the blood is cast. If the blood was cast while they were outside and they had not been brought back in, the prohibition against me'ilah does apply, for casting the blood has an effect on the status of a sacrifice, whether it leads to a lenient ruling or a stringent one.

English

Hebrew

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 3

‫קדשים קלים אין מועלין בהן עד‬ ‫שיזרק הדם נזרק הדם מועלין‬ ‫באימוריהן עד שיצאו לבית הדשן שהרי הן‬ ‫לאשים ואין מועלין בדבר הנאכל כמו‬ ‫שביארנו אפילו העלה האימורין שלהן‬ ‫למזבח קודם זריקה אין מועלין בהן עד‬ ‫שיזרק הדם הוציא אימוריהן לחוץ קודם‬ ‫זריקה אין מועלין בהן עד שיזרק הדם נזרק‬ ‫הדם אף על פי שעדיין הן בחוץ ולא‬ ‫החזירן מועלין בהן שהזריקה מועלת ליוצא‬ :‫בין להקל בין להחמיר‬

2

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to all the sacrifices of the most sacred order from the time they were consecrated until the blood is cast upon the altar. Once the blood is cast, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the portions of them that are to be consumed entirely by the altar's pyre until they are burnt and taken to the ashheap. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the portions that are to be

‫כל קדשי קדשים מועלין בהן‬ ‫משהוקדשו עד שיזרק הדם נזרק‬ ‫הדם מועלין בהן בדבר שכולו לאשים עד‬ ‫שישרף ויצא לבית הדשן ואין מועלין בדבר‬ :‫הנאכל כמו שביארנו‬

eaten, as explained. What is implied? The prohibition against me'ilah applies to a burnt-offering - both of fowl and of an animal, the handful of meal and the frankincense from a meal-offering, a meal-offering of priests, the chavitin offering of the High Priest, and the meal-offering of the accompanying offerings, from the time they were consecrated until they were taken out to the ashheap after being burnt on the altar.

‫כיצד העולה אחד עולת העוף ואחד‬ ‫עולת בהמה והקומץ והלבונה ומנחת‬ ‫כהנים והחביתין ומנחת נסכים מועלין בהן‬ ‫משעת הקדשן עד שיצאו אחר שריפתן על‬ :‫המזבח לבית הדשן‬

Similarly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the bull and the goats that are burnt from the time they were consecrated until they are burnt - and their burning is complete - in the ashheap and their meat is burnt thoroughly,in their entirety. Before it is burnt thoroughly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it even though it is in the ashheap.

‫וכן פרים הנשרפין ושעירים הנשרפין‬ ‫מועלין בהן משעת הקדשן עד‬ ‫שישרפו ותגמר שריפתן בבית הדשן ויתוך‬ ‫הבשר אבל קודם שיתוך מועלין בו והוא‬ :‫בבית הדשן‬

Similarly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the red heifer from the time it was consecrated until it was reduced to ash. Even though its status is that of an entity consecrated for the improvement of the Temple, concerning it, Numbers 19:9 states: "It is a sin-offering." It is one of the conditions established by the court that a person does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah with the ashes of the red heifer.

‫וכן פרה אדומה מועלין בה‬ ‫משהוקדשה עד שתעשה אפר‬ ‫אע"פשהיא כקדשי בדק הבית הרי נאמר‬ ‫בה חטאת היא ותנאי בית דין הוא שלא‬ :‫ימעול אדם באפר הפרה‬

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to all the following: sin-offerings of animals, guilt-offerings, and communal peace-offerings from the time they were consecrated until the blood is cast on the altar. Once the blood is cast, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to their organs and fats until they are taken to the ashheap. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the meat.

‫חטאת בהמה ואשם וזבחי שלמי צבור‬ ‫מועלים בכולן משהוקדשו עד שיזרק‬ ‫הדם נזרק הדם מועלין באימוריהן עד‬ ‫שיצאו לבית הדשן ואין מועלין בבשר וכן‬ ‫חטאת העוף מועלין בה משהוקדשו עד‬ ‫שיזה דמה הוזה דמה אין בה מעילה אבל‬ ‫אסור ליהנות במוראתה ונוצתה והנהנה‬ :‫בהן אחר הזייה לא מעל‬

Similarly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to a sin-offering of fowl from the time it is consecrated until its blood is presented on the altar. After its blood was presented, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply. It is, however, forbidden to benefit from its murah and its feathers. If one benefits from them after the blood is presented, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. The

prohibition

against

me'ilah

applies

to

meal-offerings from the time they were consecrated, even though they have not become consecrated by being placed in a sacred utensil, until the handful of meal is offered on the altar's pyre. Once the handful is offered, the remainder of the offering is permitted to be eaten. If the remainder of the offering becomes disqualified or lacking in substance and then the handful is offered, a question arises. Since offering the handful does not cause the remainder to be permitted to be eaten in such a situation, there is an unresolved doubt if the meal-offering is absolved from the prohibition against me'ilah or not.

3

‫המנחות מועלין בהן משהוקדשו אע"פ‬ ‫שעדיין לא נתקדשו בכלי שרת עד‬ ‫שיקטיר הקומץ קרב הקומץ הותרו‬ ‫השירים באכילה ואם נפסלו השירים או‬ ‫חסרו ואחר כך הקטיר הקומץ הואיל‬ ‫והקטרה זו אינה מתרת השירים באכילה‬ ‫הרי הדבר ספק אם יצאו ידי מעילה או לא‬ :‫יצאו‬

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to the showbread from the time it was consecrated - even though it was not baked - until the bowls of frankincense are offered on the altar's pyre. Once the bowls of frankincense were offered, it is permitted to be eaten. Similarly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies

‫לחם הפנים מועלין בו משהוקדש אף‬ ‫על פי שעדיין לא נאפה עד שיקטיר‬ ‫הבזיכין הקטיר הבזיכין הותר באכילה וכן‬ ‫שתי הלחם מועלין בהן משהוקדשו קודם‬ ‫שיאפו עד שיזרק דם הכבשים נזרק דם‬ :‫הכבשים הותר באכילה‬

to the two loaves of Shavuot from the time they were consecrated, even before they were baked, until the blood of the sheep is cast on the altar. After the blood of the sheep was cast, they are permitted to be eaten. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to the libations once they have been consecrated. Once they are poured and descend to the shittin,the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies. As long as the water which is poured as a libation on the Sukkot holiday is in the golden jug, benefit should not be derived from it, but one who benefits is not liable for me'ilah. If it was placed in the pitcher, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it in its entirety, for it is one of the libations. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to the log of oil brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at from the time that it was consecrated in a sacred vessel until the blood of the guilt offering was cast on the altar. Once the blood of the guilt-offering was cast, one should not benefit from it until the placements are made from it, but the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies. After the placements were made, it is permitted for the priests to partake of the remainder of the oil like the meat of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.

4

‫הנסכים מועלין בהן משהוקדשו ירדו‬ ‫לשיתין אין מועלין בהן מים‬ ‫שמנסכים בחג הסוכות כל זמן שהן בכד‬ ‫של זהב אין נהנין בהן והנהנה לא מעל‬ ‫נתנו אותן בצלוחית מועלין בכולן שהרי הן‬ :‫מכלל הנסכים‬

‫לוג שמן של מצורע מועלין בו‬ ‫משהוקדש בכלי עד שיזרק דם האשם‬ ‫נזרק דם האשם לא נהנין ולא מועלין עד‬ ‫שיתנו ממנו מתנותיו נתנו ממנו המתנות‬ ‫הותרו השירים באכילה כבשר חטאת‬ :‫ואשם‬

5

The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to any of the blood of sacrificial animals that were slaughtered whether before atonement is attained or after atonement is attained until it flows out to the Kidron River. Once it flows out to the Kidron River, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it because it was sold as fertilizer for gardens and the proceeds of the sale are consecrated. If, however, one lets the blood of a consecrated animal, it is forbidden to benefit from that blood and the prohibition of me'ilah applies to it. Since the animal cannot exist without blood, it is considered as its body. With regard to the bones, the giddim, the horns, and the hoofs which were separated from sacrificial animals of the highest degree of sanctity. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to those separated before the blood was cast on the altar, but not to those which were separated after the blood was cast. With regard to the bones of a burnt-offering that were separated before the blood was cast on the altar, once the blood is cast, the prohibition no longer applies. The casting of the blood causes them to be permitted. If they were separated after the blood was cast, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to them forever. When the bones of a burnt-offering fly off the altar before midnight, the prohibition against me'ilah applies. After midnight, that prohibition no longer applies even though they flew off before midnight. The rationale is that since midnight arrived, all of the bones are considered as if they have been consumed by fire and as if they have been reduced to ash.

‫כל דמי שחיטת הקדשים אין‬ ‫מועלין בו בין לפני כפרה בין‬ ‫לאחר כפרה עד שיצא לנחל קדרון יצא‬ ‫לנחל קדרון מועלין בו מפני שהיה נמכר‬ ‫לגנות ודמיו הקדש אבל המקיז דם לבהמת‬ ‫קדשים הרי הוא אסור בהנייה ומועלין בו‬ ‫הואיל ואינה יכולה לחיות בלא דם הרי‬ :‫הוא כגופה‬

‫העצמות והגידים והקרנים והטלפים‬ ‫שפירשו מקדשי קדשים לפני‬ ‫זריקת דמים מועלין בהן פירשו לאחר‬ ‫זריקת דמים אין מועלין בהן עצמות העולה‬ ‫שפירשו לפני זריקה אין מועלין בהן לאחר‬ ‫זריקה שהזריקה מתרת אותם ואם פירשו‬ ‫אחר זריקה מועלין בהן לעולם עצמות‬ ‫העולה שפקעו מעל המזבח קודם חצות‬ ‫הלילה מועלין בהן לאחר חצות אין מועלין‬ ‫בהן אף על פי שפקעו קודם חצות כיון‬ ‫שהגיע חצות הלילה נעשו כל האיברים‬ :‫כמי שנתאכלו ונעשו אפר‬

6

When a coal flies off the altar - whether before midnight or after midnight - it is forbidden to benefit from it, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to a coal that was consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. It is forbidden to benefit from a flame, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to it. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to the ashes of the outer altar, both before the ash is removed from the altar and after it was removed.

‫גחלת שפקעה מעל המזבח בין לפני‬ ‫חצות בין לאחר חצות לא נהנין ולא‬ ‫מועלין אבל גחלת של קדשי בדק הבית‬ :‫מועלין בה והשלהבת לא נהנין ולא מועלין‬

‫דשן המזבח החיצון בין קודם‬ ‫הרמת הדשן בין אחר הרמה מועלין‬ :‫בו‬

With regard to the ashes of the inner altar and the ashes of the Menorah, we may not benefit from them, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to them.

‫דישון המזבח הפנימי ודישון‬ :‫המנורה לא נהנין ולא מועלין‬

Whenever there is an animal that was consecrated for a sacrifice of the most sacred order that contracted a disqualifying physical blemish whether the blemish preceded its consecration or came afterwards - the prohibition against me'ilah applies until it is redeemed. This even applies if the animal is unable to be sacrificed because of a time factor.

‫כל בהמת קדשי קדשים שהיא‬ ‫בעלת מום בין שקדם מום קבוע‬ ‫להקדשה בין שקדם הקדשה למום קבוע‬ ‫ואפילו היתה מחוסר זמן מועלין בהם‬ ‫משהוקדשו עד שיפדו אבל תורין שלא‬ ‫הגיע זמן ובני יונה שעבר זמנן והן קדשי‬ ‫מזבח אע"פ שאסור ליהנות בהן הנהנה לא‬ ‫מעל הואיל ואינן ראויין לפדיון הרי הם‬ :‫כחטאות המתות לפיכך אין מועלין בהן‬

A different law applies with regard to turtle-doves whose time to be offered] has not arrived and young doves whose time to be offered has passed that were consecrated to be offered on the altar. Even though it is forbidden to benefit from them, one who derives benefit has not violated the prohibition against me'ilah. The rationale is that since they are not fit to be redeemed, they are comparable to sin-offerings consigned to death. Therefore the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to them.

« Previous Me`ilah - Perek 1

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 3

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

1



Me`ilah - Perek 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Me`ilah - Perek 2

English

Hebrew

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 4

When animals consecrated as sacrifices for the altar die, the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies to their carcasses according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, the prohibition continues to apply according to Rabbinic Law. Similarly, if sacrificial animals will become disqualified because of matters that disqualify such animals as we have already explained, the prohibition against me'ilah continues to apply according to Rabbinic decree. When does the above apply? When there was no time that the sacrificial animal could be eaten by the priests. Different rules apply, however, if animals consecrated as sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity which are intended to be eaten had a time when they were permitted and then disqualified and forbidden to be eaten. Since they were permitted at a given time, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to those entities that are fit to be eaten, as we explained. What is implied? When sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity were disqualified before their blood was presented on the altar according to law, e.g., they were slaughtered in the southern portion of the Temple Courtyard even though the blood was received in the north, they were slaughtered in the north, but the blood was received in the south, they were slaughtered during the day and the blood was cast on the altar at night, they were slaughtered at night, but the blood was cast during the day, they were offered with a disqualifying intent concerning time or place, the blood was received by unacceptable persons even though it was cast by acceptable ones, it was cast by unacceptable persons even though it was received by acceptable ones, all of the blood and the meat were taken out of the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast, or the blood remained overnight - in all these instances, the principle of me'ilah applies forever, because there was never a time when these offerings 2

‫קדשי מזבח שמתו יצאו מידי מעילה‬ ‫דבר תורה אבל מועלין בהן מדברי‬ ‫סופרים וכן אם נפסלו בדברים שיפסלו‬ ‫בהן הקרבנות שכבר ביארנום מועלין בהן‬ ‫מדברי סופרים בד"א בשלא היה להן שעת‬ ‫היתר לאכילת כהנים אבל אם היה לקדשי‬ ‫קדשים הנאכלים שעת היתר ואחר כך‬ ‫נפסלו ונאסרו באכילה הואיל והותרו שעה‬ ‫אחת אין מועלין באותו דבר שהיה ראוי‬ ‫לאכילה כמו שביארנו כיצד קדשי קדשים‬ ‫שנפסלו קודם שיגיע הדם למזבח כהלכתן‬ ‫כגון ששחטן בדרום אע"פ שקיבל בצפון‬ ‫או ששחטן בצפון וקיבל בדרום או ששחט‬ ‫ביום וזרק בלילה או ששחט בלילה וזרק‬ ‫ביום או שעשאן במחשבת הזמן או‬ ‫במחשבת המקום או שקיבלו הפסולין את‬ ‫דמן אף על פי שזרקוהו כשרים או‬ ‫שזרקוהו פסולין אף על פי שקיבלוהו‬ ‫כשרים או שיצא הדם והבשר כולו קודם‬ ‫זריקת הדם או שלן הדם בכל אלו מועלין‬ ‫בכולן לעולם שהרי לא היה להן שעת‬ ‫היתר אבל אם הגיע הדם למזבח כמצותו‬ ‫ואח"כ לן הבשר או האימורין או שנטמא‬ ‫הבשר או האימורין או שיצא הבשר או‬ ‫האימורין לחוץ או שיצא מקצת הבשר‬ ‫קודם זריקת דמים בכל אלו וכיוצא בהן אין‬ ‫מועלין בשאר בשרן שהרי היה לו שעת‬ :‫היתר לאכילה כמו שביארנו‬

3

If persons who are unacceptable received a portion of the blood and cast it on the altar and then others who are acceptable to perform Temple service received the remainder of the animal's lifeblood and cast it on the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies to the meat. The rationale is that the sacrifice is acceptable, because the unacceptable persons do not cause the remainder of the lifeblood to be considered as remnants unless he is unacceptable due to ritual impurity. In that instance, since he is fit for communal Temple service, he causes the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants.

‫קיבלו הפסולין את הדם וזרקוהו‬ ‫וחזרו הכשרים לעבודה וקיבלו שאר‬ ‫דם הנפש וזרקוהו אין מועלין בבשרן שאין‬ ‫הפסולין עושין שאר דם הנפש שירים חוץ‬ ‫מן הטמא הואיל וראוי לעבודת צבור‬ :‫עושה שאר דם שירים‬

What is implied? If an impure priest received the blood and cast it on the altar, even if afterwards an acceptable person received the remainder of the life blood and cast it on the altar, this sacrificial animal never had a time when its meat was permitted and the prohibition of me'ilah applies to the meat in its entirety. The rationale is that this blood is considered as "remnants" and the casting of "remnants" on the altar is not effective.

‫כיצד קיבל הטמא וזרק אע"פ שחזר‬ ‫הכשר וקיבל שאר דם הנפש וזרקו‬ ‫הרי אלו לא היתה להן שעת היתר ומועלין‬ ‫בכולן שזה הדם שירים הוא ואין זריקת‬ ‫השירים מועלת כבר ביארנו שאין‬ ‫בקדשים קלים מעילה לעולם חוץ‬ ‫מאימוריהן אחר זריקת הדם והוא שתהיה‬ ‫זריקה המועלת אבל קדשים קלים‬ ‫שנתפגלו אף על פי שנזרק הדם אין מועלין‬ ‫באימוריהן וכן אם יצא הדם אע"פ‬ :‫שהחזירו וזרקו אין מועלין באימוריהן‬

We have already explained that the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity except to the fats and organs after the blood is cast on the altar, provided the casting is effective. If, however, sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity have been disqualified as piggul, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to their fats and organs even though the blood has been cast. Similarly, if the blood was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to their fats and organs even though it was brought back in and cast on the altar.

4

It is forbidden to benefit from any of the sin-offerings that are consigned to death, e.g., the offspring of a sin-offering, an animal onto which its holiness was transferred, or the like. If one benefits, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

‫כל חטאות המתות כגון ולד חטאת‬ ‫ותמורתה וכיוצא בהן אסור ליהנות‬ :‫בהן ואם נהנה לא מעל‬

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to all the sin-offerings which should be allowed to pasture until they contract a blemish until they are redeemed.

‫וכל חטאת שתרעה עד שיפול בה‬ :‫מום מועלין בה עד שתפדה‬

The following laws apply if one set aside his sin-offering, it was lost, he set aside another one instead of it, afterwards, the first one was found, and they are both present. If both of them were slaughtered at the same time and cast the blood of one of them, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply neither to the meat whose blood was cast on the altar, nor to the meat of the other even though the second one is not fit to be eaten. The rationale is that if one desires one may cast the blood of this one or the other one. If, however, one slaughtered one after the other, the blood of the first one is not effective with regard to the other, even after it is cast on the altar, for there was no time that it was fit for its meat to be permitted.

‫המפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש‬ ‫אחרת תחתיה ואחר כך נמצאת‬ ‫הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות ושחט‬ ‫שתיהן כאחת וזרק דם אחת מהן אין‬ ‫מועלין לא בבשר זו שנזרק דמה ולא‬ ‫בבשר חברתה ואף על פי שאינו ראוי‬ ‫לאכילה הואיל ואם רצה מזה זורק ואם‬ ‫רצה מזה זורק אבל אם שחט זו אחר זו‬ ‫אין דמה מועיל לבשר חברתה ואפילו‬ ‫לאחר זריקה שהרי לא היתה לה שעה‬ :‫הראויה להתיר בשרה‬

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to all sin-offerings of fowl or burnt-offerings of fowl that were disqualified because of a deviation in the way they should have been offered or in the place where they were offered. An exception is a burnt-offering of a fowl on which melikah was performed on the lower half of the altar for the sake of a sin-offering. Although it did not fulfill the obligation of the owners, the prohibition of me'ilah does not apply, since he changed its intent, the place where it was offered, and the manner in which it was offered to a type of sacrifice to which the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply.

‫כל חטאת עוף או עולת עוף שנפסלה‬ ‫בשינוי עשייתה או בשינוי מקום‬ ‫עשייתה מועלין בה חוץ מעולת העוף‬ ‫שנמלק למטה כמליקת חטאת לשם‬ ‫חטאת שאע"פ שלא עלתה לבעלים לשם‬ ‫חובה אין מועלין בה הואיל ושינה שמה‬ ‫ומקום עשייתה ושינה מעשיה לשם דבר‬ :‫שאין בו מעילה‬

5

When a meal-offering was brought in a manner causing it to be deemed piggul or it was brought with a disqualifying intent regarding the place - and similarly, if the two breads of Shavuot or the showbread were brought in a manner causing them to be deemed piggul or were brought with a disqualifying intent

‫מנחה שנתפגלה או שנעשית‬ ‫במחשבת המקום וכן שתי הלחם‬ ‫ולחם הפנים שנתפגלו או שנפסלו‬ ‫במחשבת המקום מועלין בהן שהרי לא‬ :‫היתה להן שעת היתר‬

regarding the place, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to them, because there was never a time when they were permitted to be eaten. Similarly, if the handful of meal taken from a meal-offering was taken outside the Temple Courtyard or if it remained overnight, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the remainder, because there was never a time when it was permitted to be eaten. If, however, the handful became impure and it was offered on the altar's pyre, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the remainder, because the High Priest's forehead plate brings about acceptance for the handful when it becomes impure, but not when it remained overnight or was taken outside the Courtyard. When the remainder of the meal-offering was taken out or became impure and afterwards, the handful was offered on the altar's pyre, even though the remainder is forbidden to be eaten, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to it, for the handful was offered as commanded,

‫וכן קומץ שיצא לחוץ או לן וחזר‬ ‫והקטירו מועלין בשירים שהרי לא‬ ‫היה שם שעת היתר אבל אם נטמא הקומץ‬ ‫והקטירו אין מועלין בשירים שהציץ מרצה‬ ‫על הטמא ואינו מרצה לא על הלן ולא על‬ ‫היוצא יצאו השירים או נטמאו ואח"כ‬ ‫הקטיר הקומץ אף על פי שהן אסורין‬ ‫באכילה אין מועלין בהן שהרי קרב הקומץ‬ :‫כמצותו‬

6

When one benefits from any of the sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity before their blood is cast on the altar or from the fats and organs of the sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity even after their blood has been cast, one derives benefit from a burntoffering, or from the handful of meal, the frankincense, a meal-offering brought by priests, or a chavitin offering, the value of the benefit he received should be used for free-will offerings. If he violated the prohibition against me'ilah with regard to a communal offering, the benefit he received should be given to the chamber.

‫הנהנה מקדשי קדשים כולם לפני‬ ‫זריקת דמים או מאימורי קדשים קלים‬ ‫לאחר זריקה או שנהנה מן העולה כולה או‬ ‫מן הקומץ והלבונה ומנחת כהנים והחביתין‬ ‫יפול מה שנהנה לנדבה מעל בקרבנות‬ :‫הצבור יפול מה שנהנה ללשכה‬

If one benefits from the meat of sacrifices of the most sacred order that became impure before the casting of the blood or one benefits from the fats and organs of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity that became impure even though he brought them to the top of the altar before the casting of the blood, he is exempt.

‫נהנה קודם זריקה מבשר קדשי‬ ‫קדשים שנטמא או שנהנה‬ ‫מאימורי קדשים קלים אע"פ שהעלן‬ :‫לראש המזבח הרי זה פטור‬

It is forbidden to benefit from the milk or the eggs of animals or fowl consecrated as sacrifices for the altar, but one who benefits does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. For that reason, the offspring of a consecrated animal or the offspring of an animal designated for the tithe-offering should not nurse from its mother, but rather from another animal that is not consecrated.A person may make a gift, saying: "The milk of this unconsecrated animal will be consecrated in order that the offspring of consecrated animals will nurse from it so that they do not die."

‫קדשי המזבח חלבן וביציהן אסור‬ ‫ליהנות מהן והנהנה לא מעל לפיכך‬ ‫ולד הקדשים וכן ולד המעשר לא יינק‬ ‫מאמו אלא מבהמה אחרת חולין ויש‬ ‫לאדם להתנדב ולומר חלב בהמה זו החולין‬ ‫יהיה הקדש לוולדות הקדשים שיינקוהו‬ :‫כדי שלא ימותו‬

If one consecrated the value of an animal or a fowl to the altar, e.g., he said: "The value of this animal is consecrated for an accompanying offering" or "The value of this young dove is consecrated for a peace-offering," they are like entities consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to them, their milk, and their eggs, as will be explained.

‫הקדיש בהמה ועוף למזבח קדושת‬ ‫דמים כגון שאמר דמי בהמה זו‬ ‫לנסכים ודמי בן יונה זה לשלמים הרי הן‬ ‫כקדשי בדק הבית ומועלין בחלבן ובביציהן‬ :‫כמו שיתבאר‬

« Previous

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 4

Me`ilah - Perek 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

8



Me`ilah - Perek 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Me`ilah - Perek 3

1

English

Hebrew

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 5

When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, turtle-doves, or young doves, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to them from the time he set them aside. If he set them aside for peace-offerings, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply.

‫המפריש מעות לחטאתו לעולתו‬ ‫ולאשמו ולתורין ובני יונה מועלין‬ ‫בהן משעה שהפריש הפריש לשלמים אין‬ :‫מועלין בהם‬

When a person consecrated the value of one limb of an animal to the altar, there is an unresolved doubt whether the holiness spreads throughout the entire animal or not. Therefore it should be offered and not redeemed. If it is redeemed, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the money used to redeem it.

‫הקדיש אבר אחד לדמיו למזבח הרי‬ ‫זה ספק אם פשטה קדושה בכלן או‬ ‫לא פשטה לפיכך תקרב ולא יפדה ואם‬ :‫נפדה אין מועלין בפדיונו‬

2

When a person sets aside money for the sacrifices to be offered at the conclusion of his nazirite vow, it is forbidden to benefit from it. If one benefits from it, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, because all of the funds are fit to be used to purchase a peace-offering and the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to a peace-offering, except to its fats and organs after the blood has been cast. If he dies, the money should be used for freewill offerings. If the money was explicitly designated for the particular sacrifices, the money for the sin offering should be taken to the Mediterranean Sea. One should not benefit from them, nor does the prohibition against me'ilah apply. The money for the burnt-offering should be used for a burnt-offering and the prohibition against me'ilah applies. When the person said: "This money is for my sin-offering and the remainder for my nazirite offering, if he benefited from all the remaining money, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If he benefited only from part of it, he does not violate that prohibition. Similarly, were he to say: "This money is for my burnt-offering and the remainder for my nazirite offering, if he benefited from all the remaining money, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If he benefited only from part of it, he does not violate that prohibition. The rationale is that the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to a peace-offering. If he set aside money and said: "This is for my burntoffering; this is for my sin-offering; and this is for my peace-offering," and the money became intermingled, the prohibition against me'ilah applies both whether he benefited from the entire sum or only a portion of the money. What should he do to correct the situation? He should bring three animals and transfer the holiness of the money for the sin-offering wherever it is on one for

‫המפריש מעות לנזירותו אסור ליהנות‬ ‫בהן ואם נהנה לא מעל מפני שהן‬ ‫ראויין לבא כלם שלמים ואין בשלמים‬ ‫מעילה אלא באימוריהן אחר זריקת דמים‬ ‫מת יפלו לנדבה היו מפורשים דמי חטאת‬ ‫ילכו לים המלח ולא נהנין ולא מועלין דמי‬ ‫עולה יביאו עולה ומועלין בהן אמר אלו‬ ‫לחטאתי והשאר לנזירותי אם נהנה בכל‬ ‫השאר מעל נהנה במקצתו לא מעל וכן אם‬ ‫אמר אלו לעולתי והשאר לנזירותי ונהנה‬ ‫בכולן מעל נהנה במקצתן לא מעל שאין‬ ‫בדמי שלמים מעילה הפריש מעות ואמר‬ ‫אלו לעולתי ואלו לחטאתי ואלו לשלמים‬ ‫ונתערבו מועלין בכולן ומועלין במקצתן‬ ‫וכיצד יעשה יקח שלש בהמות ומחלל דמי‬ ‫חטאת בכל מקום שהוא על החטאת ודמי‬ :‫עולה על העולה ודמי שלמים על שלמים‬

3

When one of the individuals obligated to bring a pair of doves separated money and said: "This is for my obligation," the prohibition against me'ilah applies whether he benefited from the entire sum or only a portion of the money. If the person dies, the money should be used for freewill offering, as explained above with regard to a nazirite. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to it.

‫אחד ממחוייבי קינין שהפריש מעות‬ ‫ואמר אלו לחובתי מועלין בכולן‬ ‫ומועלין במקצתן ואם מתו יפלו לנדבה כמו‬ :‫שביארנו בנזירות ומועלין בהן‬

When a person sets aside a sin-offering for partaking of forbidden fat and brings it for partaking of blood, he does not secure atonement. Therefore he is not considered to have violated the prohibition against me'ilah. If he set aside money for a sin-offering to atone for partaking of forbidden fat and instead purchased a sin-offering to atone for partaking of blood with it inadvertently, he can secure atonement with that offering. Therefore he has violated the prohibition against me'ilah applies. If he did so intentionally, he cannot secure atonement with that offering. Therefore he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

‫המפריש חטאת על אכילת חלב‬ ‫והביאה על אכילת דם הרי זה לא‬ ‫כיפר לפיכך לא מעל הפריש מעות‬ ‫לחטאת חלב וקנה בהן חטאת דם בשוגג‬ ‫כיפר לפיכך מעל במזיד לא כיפר לפיכך‬ :‫לא מעל‬

When a person sets aside two selaim for a guiltoffering and uses them to purchase two rams as ordinary animals, he has committed me'ilah, for he purchased ordinary animals with money designated for a guilt-offering. He is obligated to pay ten dinarim, i.e., the two selaim and an additional fifth. He should use this money to buy a ram for a guilt-offering and should bring another guilt-offering to atone for his me'ilah. Therefore if one of the two rams that he had purchased is worth two selaim and the other is worth ten dinarim, he should bring the one worth ten as a guilt offering for the money that he misappropriated and the additional fifth and he should bring the one worth two selaim as a guilt-offering for his violation of the prohibition of me'ilah. Different rules apply if he purchased one of the rams as a guilt-offering and one as an ordinary animal. If the one purchased as a guilt-offering was worth two selaim, he should bring that for the first guilt-offering for which he was originally liable. Similarly, if the one purchased as an ordinary animal was worth two selaim, he should bring it as a guilt-offering for his misappropriation of consecrated funds, for he misappropriated one sela of the money originally set aside for a guilt-offering. He should pay five dinarim which should be used for a freewill offering.

4

‫המפריש שתי סלעים לאשם ולקח בהן‬ ‫שני אילים לחולין הואיל וקנה חולין‬ ‫בדמי אשם מעל וחייב לשלם עשרה‬ ‫דינרים שהן שתי סלעים וחומש ויביא בהן‬ ‫אשם ויביא קרבן אשם על מעילתו לפיכך‬ ‫אם היה אחד משני האילים שקנה יפה‬ ‫שתי סלעים והשני יפה עשרה דינרין יביא‬ ‫השוה עשרה אשם תחת המעילה עם‬ ‫החומש ויביא השוה שתי סלעים אשם על‬ ‫מעילתו לקח אחד לאשם ואחד לחולין אם‬ ‫היה של אשם יפה שתי סלעים יביא אותו‬ ‫לאשמו הראשון וכן אם היה זה החולין‬ ‫יפה שתים יביא אותו אשם מעילתו שהרי‬ ‫מעל בסלע אחת מדמי האשם וישלם‬ :‫חמשה דינרים ויפלו לנדבה‬

5

When one benefits from money set aside for a sin-offering before the sin-offering is offered, he should add a fifth to the amount he benefited and bring his sin-offering with this money. And he should bring a guilt-offering for his misappropriation of consecrated funds. Similarly, when one benefits from money set aside for a guilt-offering before the guilt-offering is offered, he should add a fifth to the amount he benefited and bring his guilt-offering with this money. And he should bring a guilt-offering for his misappropriation of consecrated funds. The rationale is that the money paid for the misappropriation of animals consecrated to be offered on the altar should be used for such sacrifices. Money paid for the misappropriation of articles consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple should be used for that purpose. In the instance mentioned above, if he discovered that he committed me'ilah with a portion of the money and afterwards, his sin-offering was sacrificed, but he did not set aside the money he misappropriated or he set it aside, but did not include it with the money for his sin-offering, the money he misappropriated and the additional fifth should be taken to the Mediterranean Sea. If he discovered that he committed me'ilah with a portion of the money and afterwards, his sin-offering was sacrificed, the money for the misappropriation and its additional fifth should be used for a freewill offering, for money is not set aside at the outset to be destroyed. In either instance, he must bring a guilt-offering for me'ilah. Were the above situation to take place with regard to a guilt-offering, whether he discovered that he committed me'ilah before his guilt-offering was offered or afterwards, the money for the misappropriation and its additional fifth should be used for a freewill offering,

‫הנהנה מדמי חטאת עד שלא קרבה‬ ‫חטאתו יוסיף חומש על מה שנהנה‬ ‫ויביא בדמיו חטאתו ויביא קרבן אשם על‬ ‫מעילתו וכן אם נהנה מדמי אשם עד שלא‬ ‫קרב אשמו יוסיף חומש ויביא בדמיו אשמו‬ ‫ויביא אשם אחר למעילתו שקרבנות‬ ‫המזבח מעילתן לקרבנות המזבח וקדשי‬ ‫בדק הבית מעילתן לבדק הבית נודע לו‬ ‫שמעל ואחר כך קרבה חטאתו ועדיין לא‬ ‫הפריש מעילתו או שהפרישה ולא כללה‬ ‫בדמי חטאתו יוליך המעילה וחומשה לים‬ ‫המלח נודע לו שמעל אחר שקרבה‬ ‫חטאתו יפלו מעות המעילה וחומשה‬ ‫לנדבה שאין מפרישין בתחילה לאיבוד ובין‬ ‫כך ובין כך יביא אשם מעילתו ובאשם בין‬ ‫שנודע לו שמעל קודם שקרב אשמו או‬ ‫אחר שקרב תפול מעילתו וחומשה לנדבה‬ ‫מפני שהוא כמותר אשם ויביא אשם‬ :‫מעילתו‬

6

A person who sells an animal designated as a burnt-offering or a peace-offering has done nothing of consequence. According to Scriptural Law, the money should be returned to its original state. Nevertheless, our Sages penalized the purchaser and required that the money be used for a freewill offering. Even if the animal was worth four zuzim and it was sold for five, all of the five should be used for a freewill offering. The prohibition against me'ilah, however, does

‫המוכר עולתו ושלמיו לא עשה כלום‬ ‫ודין תורה שיחזרו המעות חולין כמו‬ ‫שהיו וקנסו אותו חכמים שיפלו המעות‬ ‫לנדבה אפילו היתה הבהמה שוה ארבעה‬ ‫ומכרה בחמשה החמשה כולן יפלו לנדבה‬ ‫ואין כאן מעילה לא מדברי תורה ולא‬ :‫מדברי סופרים‬

not apply, neither according to Scriptural Law, nor according to Rabbinic Law. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to articles set aside through vows. What is implied? A person said: "This loaf is considered like a sacrifice" or "...consecrated property for me." If he partakes of it, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, even though the loaf is permitted to others. Therefore such an article cannot be redeemed, for it is only considered as consecrated for this person. If he said: "This loaf is consecrated" or "...a sacrifice," whether he or someone else partakes of it, the prohibition against me'ilah is violated. Therefore it can be redeemed. If a ownerless loaf was before a person and he said: "This loaf is consecrated," should he take it to partake of it, he is considered to have misappropriated its entire value. If he took it to endow it to others, he is considered to have misappropriated the value of giving such a gift.

‫יש מעילה בנדרים כיצד האומר ככר‬ ‫זו עלי קרבן או הקדש ואכלה מעל‬ ‫אע"פ שהיא מותרת לאחרים לפיכך אין‬ ‫לה פדיון שהרי אינה קודש אלא לזה בלבד‬ ‫אמר ככר זו קודש או קרבן ואכלה בין הוא‬ ‫בין אחר מעל לפיכך יש לה פדיון היתה‬ ‫לפניו ככר של הפקר ואמר ככר זו הקדש‬ ‫נטלה על מנת לאכלה מעל לפי כולה על‬ :‫מנת להורישה מעל לפי טובת הנייה שבה‬

7

When a person tells a colleague: "My loaf is considered as consecrated property for you," and then gives it to that colleague, the recipient violates the prohibition against me'ilah when he uses it. The giver does not violate this prohibition, because the article is not forbidden to him. Similar laws apply to all analogous situations applying to other types of vows; the prohibition against me'ilah applies to those forbidden to benefit from them.

‫האומר לחבירו ככרי עליך הקדש וחזר‬ ‫ונתנה לו המקבל מתנה זו מעל‬ ‫לכשיוציא שהרי הנותן אינה אסורה עליו‬ ‫וכן כל כיוצא בזה משאר הקונמות יש בהן‬ ‫מעילה לנאסר בהן וכל דברים הנאסרין‬ ‫עליו מנדר כזה מצטרפין ואם נהנה מכולם‬ :‫בשוה פרוטה מעל‬

All entities forbidden to a person because of a vow can be combined. If he derived a p'rutah's worth of benefit from the combination, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. When a person says: "These plantings are a sacrifice if they are not cut down today" or "This garment is a sacrifice if it is not burnt today," and the day passed without the plantings being cut down or the garment being burnt, they are consecrated and they should be redeemed like other consecrated property. Only afterwards may one benefit from them. If, however, he says: "These plantings are a sacrifice until they are cut down," he cannot redeem them. For whenever they will be redeemed, they will become consecrated again until they are cut down and once they are cut down, they need not be redeemed, but one may benefit from them immediately.

‫האומר הנטיעות האלו קרבן אם‬ ‫אינן נקצצות היום וטלית זה קרבן‬ ‫אם לא תשרף היום ועבר היום ולא נקצצו‬ ‫ולא נשרפה הטלית הרי הם הקדש ויפדו‬ ‫כשאר ההקדשות ואח"כ יהנה בהן אבל‬ ‫אם אמר הרי הנטיעות האלו קרבן עד‬ ‫שיקצצו אינו יכול לפדותן שבכל עת‬ ‫שיפדו יחזרו הקדש עד שיקצצו וכיון‬ ‫שנקצצו אינן צריכין פדיון אלא נהנין בהן‬ ‫מיד במה דברים אמורים בשפדאן‬ ‫המקדיש אבל אם פדאן אחר הרי אלו‬ ‫יוצאין לחולין אף על פי שעדיין לא נקצצו‬ :‫ויהיו מותרין אף למקדיש‬

When does the above apply? When the person who consecrated them redeemed them. If, however, another person redeemed them, they do become ordinary property even though they have not been cut down and they are permitted even to the person who consecrated them.

« Previous

Next »

Me`ilah - Perek 3

Me`ilah - Perek 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

8

policy .

1



Me`ilah - Perek 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Me`ilah - Perek 4

English

Hebrew

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 6

The prohibition against me'ilah applies whether one consecrates an article that is fit to be used for the improvement of the Temple for that purpose, e.g., a stone or a beam, consecrates an article fit for the altar for the improvement of the Temple, e.g., sheep or doves, or consecrates an article that is fit to be used for the improvement of the Temple for the altar, e.g., a stone or a beam, or he consecrates for either of these purposes an article that is not fit for either of these purposes, e.g., he consecrated chickens, vinegar, brine, or land. This applies even if he consecrated a dungheap filled with fertilizer, dust, or ash. In all these instances, the prohibition against me'ilah applies from the time the entity was consecrated until it was redeemed if it is an article fit to be redeemed.

‫אחד המקדיש לבדק הבית דבר‬ ‫הראוי לחזק הבדק כגון אבן או קורה‬ ‫או המקדיש לבדק הבית דבר הראוי‬ ‫למזבח כגון כבשים ותורים או המקדיש‬ ‫למזבח דבר הראוי לבדק הבית כגון אבן‬ ‫וקורה או המקדיש לזה ולזה דברים שאינן‬ ‫ראויין לא לזה ולא לזה כגון המקדיש‬ ‫תרנגולין וחומץ וציר או קרקע אפילו‬ ‫הקדיש אשפה מליאה זבל או עפר או‬ ‫אפר מועלין בכולן משעה שהוקדשו עד‬ :‫שיפדו דברים הראויים להפדות‬

Any of the article consecrated for the improvement of the Temple and those entities from entities consecrated to the altar for which the prohibition against me'ilah applies may be combined together to

‫כל קדשי בדק הבית עם דברים‬ ‫שמועלין בהן מקדשי מזבח מצטרפין‬ ‫זה עם זה למעילה ואם נהנה בשוה פרוטה‬ :‫מכולם מעל‬

reach the minimum measure required for me'ilah. If one derives a p'rutah's worth of benefit from all of them, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

2

If one partook of consecrated food and fed a colleague or derived benefit from a consecrated object and caused a colleague to benefit. His eating and his colleague's benefit or his colleague's eating and his benefit are all combined to make one liable for me'ilah. If a sum of benefit worth a p'rutah is reached,

‫אכל והאכיל את חבירו או נהנה‬ ‫ומהנה חבירו אכילתו והניית חבירו או‬ ‫אכילת חבירו והנייתו כולן מצטרפין‬ ‫למעילה ואם נעשה מן הכל הנייה בפרוטה‬ :‫מעל‬

he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. A combination making one liable for the prohibition against me'ilah can be made over an extended period of time. What is implied? If one derived benefit from a consecrated article on one day and then derived benefit again after the passage of several years in one continuous state of not knowing, the two events are combined for a p'rutah's worth and he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

‫המעילה מצטרפת לזמן מרובה כיצד‬ ‫נהנה היום מן ההקדש ונהנה לאחר‬ ‫כמה שנים בהעלם אחד הרי אלו מצטרפין‬ :‫לפרוטה ומעל‬

The prohibition against me'ilah applies only to articles that have been separated from the earth. If, however, one benefits from consecrated earth or from consecrated articles attached to the earth, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah even if blemishes that entity. What is implied? If one plows a consecrated field or sows it, he is exempt. If he takes its earth, derives benefit from it, and damages the earth, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. A person who threshes in a consecrated field violates the prohibition against me'ilah, because its dust benefits the field. Thus he has benefited from the dust and damaged the field. Similarly, if one plowed a consecrated field in order to raise dust for grass that was planted there and he took the grass, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. A person who dwells in a cave that is consecrated or in the shade of a tree or dovecote that is consecrated does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, even though he benefited. Similarly, when one consecrates a house that was built, a person who dwells in it does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. When, however, a person consecrates wood and stones and builds a house, a person who dwells in it violates the prohibition against me'ilah, as will be explained.

3

‫אין מעילה אלא בתלוש מן הקרקע‬ ‫אבל הנהנה בקרקע עצמה או‬ ‫במחובר לה לא מעל אפילו פגם כיצד‬ ‫החורש שדה הקדש או הזורע בה פטור‬ ‫נטל מאבקה ונהנה בה ופגמה מעל הדש‬ ‫בשדה הקדש מעל שהאבק שלה מועיל‬ ‫לשדה והרי נהנה באבק ופגם השדה וכן‬ ‫אם חרש שדה הקדש כדי להעלות אבק‬ ‫לעשב שנתן בה ונטל העשב מעל הדר‬ ‫במערת הקדש או בצל אילן או שובך של‬ ‫הקדש אע"פ שנהנה לא מעל וכן המקדיש‬ ‫בית בנוי הדר בו לא מעל אבל המקדיש‬ ‫עצים ואבנים ובנה בהן בית הדר שם מעל‬ :‫כמו שיתבאר‬

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to produce that grows on consecrated property. What is implied? If one consecrated a field and it produced grass or one consecrated a tree and it produced fruit, the prohibition against me'ilah applies. If, however, one consecrated an empty cistern and afterwards, it became filled with water, a dungheap and it became filled with wastes, or a dovecote and it became filled with doves, since these are not the products of the consecrated articles, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply with regard to them. Similarly, one may not benefit - but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to - wastes and dung in a courtyard that was consecrated. What should be done with them? They should be sold and the proceeds given to the Temple treasury. When a spring emerges in a consecrated field, it is forbidden to benefit from the water that emerges in the field, but one who derives benefit does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If the water emerges outside the field, it is permitted to benefit from it. When a willow grows in a consecrated field, it is forbidden to benefit from it, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply. The following rules apply when an ordinary tree is growing next to a consecrated field and its roots emerge in that field. If there are up to sixteen cubits between it and the consecrated field, it is forbidden to benefit from the roots in the field, but one who benefits from them does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If the tree was more than sixteen cubits away from the field, one who benefits from the roots violates the prohibition against me'ilah. The converse applies when a consecrated tree is growing next to an ordinary field and its roots emerge 4

‫גידולי הקדש מועלין בהן כיצד הקדיש‬ ‫שדה והוציאה עשבים אילן ועשה‬ ‫פירות מועלין בהן אבל המקדיש את הבור‬ ‫ריקן ואחר כך נתמלא מים הקדיש אשפה‬ ‫ואחר כך נתמלאת זבל שובך ונתמלא‬ ‫יונים הואיל ואינן גדולי הקדש אין מועלין‬ ‫בהן וכן הזבל והפרש שבחצר הקדש לא‬ ‫נהנין ולא מועלין ומה יעשו בהן ימכרו‬ ‫ויפלו דמיהן ללשכה מעין שהוא יוצא‬ ‫מתוך שדה הקדש אסור ליהנות במים‬ ‫שיוצאין ממנו בתוך השדה והנהנה לא‬ ‫מעל יצאו המים חוץ לשדה מותר ליהנות‬ ‫בהן ערבה הגדילה בשדה הקדש לא נהנין‬ ‫ולא מועלין אילן של הדיוט הסמוך לשדה‬ ‫הקדש ושרשיו יוצאים בתוך השדה אם‬ ‫בינו לבין השדה של הקדש עד שש עשרה‬ ‫אמה הרי אותן השרשין שבתוך השדה‬ ‫אסורין והנהנה מהן לא מעל היה האילן‬ ‫רחוק יתר על שש עשרה הנהנה בהן מעל‬ ‫אילן של הקדש הסמוך לשדה הדיוט‬ ‫ושרשיו יוצאין בתוך השדה אם היה בתוך‬ ‫שש עשרה אמה מועלין בהן היה רחוק‬ ‫יתר על שש עשרה אמה אותן השרשין‬ ‫שבתוך השדה הדיוט לא נהנין ולא‬ :‫מועלין‬

When there is a nest in the top of a consecrated tree that a fowl built from wood and grass and the like, one should not benefit from the nest and the eggs in it together with the chicks that require their mother. One who derives benefit does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

‫קן שבראש האילן של הקדש שבנה‬ ‫אותן העוף מעצים ועשבים וכיוצא בהן‬ ‫כל הקן עם הביצים שבו עם האפרוחים‬ ‫הצריכין לאמן אין נהנין בהן והנהנה לא‬ :‫מעל‬

When one consecrates a forest, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it in its entirety, the trees

‫המקדיש את היער מועלין בכולו בין‬ ‫באילנות בין בכל קן שבראש‬ :‫האילנות או שביניהן‬

and the nests at the tops of the trees or between them. When the Temple treasurers plane consecrated trees and cut them down, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to those small pieces of wood that were cut off when the trees were cut to size. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the slivers, the sawdust, or to the nivia of the wood, i.e., a hard, round knot in the midst of the wood which resemble a wart, because it will not be useful for work.

5

‫גזברים ששפו עצי הקדש וקצצו‬ ‫אותן מועלין באותן העצים הקטנים‬ ‫שחתכו מעת שקצצו אבל אין מועלין לא‬ ‫בשפוי ולא בנסורת ולא בנביה של עצים‬ ‫והוא הגוף הקשה העגול שבתוך העץ‬ :‫הדומה ליבלת שלא יצלח למלאכה‬

When a person consecrates his servant, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to him, nor to his hair, even though his hair is fit to be cut off. The rationale is that the hair is still attached to the servant and as long as it is attached to him, it grows and increases in value.

‫המקדיש עבדו אין מועלין בו ולא‬ ‫בשערו אף על פי שהוא עומד להגזז‬ ‫מפני שהוא מחובר לו וכל זמן שהוא‬ :‫מחובר הולך ומשביח‬

When a person sows produce that was consecrated, he should redeem it when he sows it. Nevertheless, even if he does not redeem it, the produce that grows from it is not consecrated and the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to it. If one derived benefit from other consecrated property, he may not pay the principal and an additional fifth from such produce. One is obligated to separate challah from bread made from such grain.

‫הזורע פירות הקדש פודה אותן‬ ‫בשעת זרען ואע"פ שלא פדה הרי‬ ‫הגדולין חולין ואין מועלין בהן ואין משלמין‬ :‫מהן קרן וחומש וחייבין בחלה‬

6

When water was placed on consecrated grape dregs for the first, second, and third times, it is forbidden to benefit from it, but one who benefits does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. The fourth time, the mixture is permitted.

‫שמרים של הקדש שנתן עליהם‬ ‫מים ראשון ושני ושלישי אסור‬ ‫ליהנות בו והנהנה לא מעל רביעי מותר‬ ‫בד"א בקדשי בדק הבית אבל קדשי מזבח‬ :‫אף מרביעי ואילך לעולם אסור‬

When does the above apply? When the dregs had been consecrated for the Temple's improvement. If they were consecrated for the altar, even from the fourth time onward, they are always forbidden. When a person consecrates a hen for the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it and its eggs. When a person consecrates a donkey for the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it and its milk. When a person consecrates a dove for the improvement of the Temple, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it and its eggs, as we explained.

‫המקדיש תרנגולת למזבח מועלין‬ ‫בה ובביצתה הקדיש חמור למזבח‬ ‫מועלין בה ובחלבה הקדיש תורים לבדק‬ :‫הבית מועלין בהן ובביצתן כמו שביארנו‬

When the tunics of the priestly garments have worn out, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to them, as it does to other consecrated objects. If they are new, since it is permitted to benefit from them, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to them.

‫כתנות כהונה שבלו מועלין בהן‬ ‫כשאר קדשים והחדשים הואיל‬ :‫וניתנו ליהנות בהן אין מועלין בהן‬

The following rules apply to articles consecrated by gentiles. If he consecrated them for the improvement of the Temple, the prohibition against me'ilah applies. If they were consecrated for the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply according to Scriptural Law, for with regard to the sacrifices, Leviticus 1:2 states: "Speak to the children of Israel." It is, however, forbidden to benefit from them according to Rabbinic Law.

‫קדשי עכו"ם אם לבדק הבית‬ ‫הקדישו מועלין בהן ואם קדשי‬ ‫מזבח הן אין בהן מעילה מן התורה שנאמר‬ ‫בקרבנות דבר אל בני ישראל אבל אסור‬ :‫ליהנות בהן מדברי סופרים‬

With regard to sound, appearance, and fragrance from a consecrated object, it is forbidden to benefit from them, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply.

‫קול ומראה וריח של הקדש לא‬ ‫נהנין ולא מועלין במה דברים‬ ‫אמורים כשהריח בקטרת אחר שעלתה‬ ‫התימורת אבל אם הריח בקטרת כשתעלה‬ :‫תמרתה מעל‬

When does the above apply? When one smelt the fragrance of the incense offering after its cloud ascended. If, however, he smelt the fragrance of the incense offering as its cloud ascends, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

« Previous

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 6

Me`ilah - Perek 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

7

policy .

8

1



Me`ilah - Perek 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Me`ilah - Perek 5

English

Hebrew

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 7

2

There are different situations in which the prohibition against me'ilah applies. There are some articles from which a person benefits that are not ordinarily damageable, e.g., one who uses a pure golden utensil. There are other articles that are damageable, e.g., garments, and utensils made from silver, copper, iron, and the like. When a person derives a p'rutah's worth of benefit from a consecrated substance that is not attached to the ground, if he benefits from an article that is not ordinarily damageable, e.g., he used a consecrated golden utensil, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If he benefits from an article that is damageable, e.g., he wore consecrated garments or chopped with a consecrated axe, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah until he causes a p'rutah's worth of damage to consecrated property, i.e., the article from which he benefited itself, with the intent to benefit from it even though it causes damage at that time. If he derived a half a p'rutah of benefit and damaged a half a p'rutah or he derived a p'rutah of benefit and damaged a p'rutah's worth of another article, but did not benefit from what he damaged or did not damage the article from which he benefited, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah unless he derives a p'rutah's worth of benefit and causes a p'rutah's worth of damage to that article while deriving benefit from it. What is implied? A person removed a patch from a consecrated garment and sewed it unto his garment and wore it, deriving a p'rutah's worth of benefit and causing a p'rutah's worth of damage to the garment from which he removed it, without damaging the patch at all. He does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, because he derived benefit from one article and damaged another. We already explained, that

‫יש דברים שהאדם נהנה בהן ולא‬ ‫יפגמו כגון המשתמש בכלי זהב‬ ‫טהור ויש דברים שיפגמו כגון בגדים וכלי‬ ‫כסף ונחושת וברזל וכיוצא בהן והנהנה‬ ‫בשוה פרוטה מן ההקדש שאינו מחובר‬ ‫בקרקע אם נהנה בדבר שאין בו פגם כגון‬ ‫שנשתמש בכלי זהב של הקדש מעל נהנה‬ ‫בדבר שנפגם כגון שלבש בגדי הקדש או‬ ‫בקע בקורדום לא מעל עד שיפגום‬ ‫בהקדש בשוה פרוטה באותו דבר עצמו‬ ‫שנהנה בו ויתכוין ליהנות ויפגום ויהנה‬ ‫כאחת נהנה בכחצי פרוטה ופגם בכחצי‬ ‫פרוטה או שנהנה בשוה פרוטה ופגם‬ ‫בשוה פרוטה בדבר אחר ולא נהנה במה‬ ‫שפגם ולא פגם במה שנהנה הרי זה לא‬ ‫מעל עד שיהנה בשוה פרוטה ויפגום‬ ‫באותה הנייה בשוה פרוטה בדבר עצמו‬ ‫כיצד הרי שהתיר מטלית מבגד הקדש‬ ‫ותפרה בבגדו ולבשה ונהנה בה בשוה‬ ‫פרוטה והפסיד בבגד שהתירה ממנה‬ ‫בשוה פרוטה ולא הפסיד במטלית כלום‬ ‫הרי זה לא מעל מפני שנהנה בדבר אחד‬ ‫ופגם בדבר אחר וכבר ביארנו שהנהנה‬ :‫ומהנה חבירו מצטרף ואפילו לזמן מרובה‬

3

When a person removes wool from unblemished animals consecrated as sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity, since he derived a p'rutah's worth of benefit, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah even though he did not damage the animals. The animals are comparable to a cup of gold, for the removal of their wool does not prevent them from being offered. If, however, sacrificial animals incurred a physical blemish, since they are designated to be sold and being shorn causes their worth to decrease, the prohibition against me'ilah applies. Nevertheless, one does not violate that prohibition unless he derives a p'rutah's worth of benefit and causes that amount of damage. If one removes wool from a sacrificial animal after it dies, since he derived benefit, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, for there is no conception of reducing an animal's value once it has died. In this instance, this prohibition against me'ilah is of Rabbinic origin, as we explained.

‫קדשי קדשים התמימים שתלש‬ ‫מצמרן כיון שנהנה בפרוטה מעל אף‬ ‫על פי שלא פגם שהרי הן דומים לכוס של‬ ‫זהב שאינו נפגם שאין תלישת הצמר‬ ‫פוסלת אותן מליקרב אבל אם נפל בהן‬ ‫מום הואיל ולמכירה עומדים והגיזה פוגמת‬ ‫דמיהן לא מעל עד שיהנה ויפגום בפרוטה‬ ‫תלש מהן אחר שמתו כיון שנהנה מעל‬ ‫שאין פגם למתה ומעילה זו מדבריהם כמו‬ :‫שביארנו‬

4

When a person misappropriates articles consecrated for the improvement of the Temple unintentionally, since he did not act intentionally, the consecrated article loses its holiness. Anyone who benefits from it afterwards is not liable. If one intentionally misappropriates a consecrated article, since he is not obligated to bring a sacrifice to atone for me'ilah, the consecrated article does not lose its holiness. Instead, it remains in its consecrated state. Hence, if another person comes and benefits from it unintentionally, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. When does the above apply? When one misappropriated the article while it was consecrated, used it as if it was an ordinary article, and transferred ownership to another person. If, however, one derived benefit from it and damaged it, but did not transfer ownership to another person, there is the possibility of another person violating the prohibition against me'ilah with it, even though it has already been violated previously.

‫המועל בקדשי בדק הבית כיון שמעל‬ ‫בשגגה נתחלל הקדש וזה שנהנה‬ ‫אחריו פטור מעל בזדון הואיל ואינו חייב‬ ‫בקרבן מעילה לא נתחלל הקדש אלא הרי‬ ‫הוא בהוייתו ואם בא אחר ונהנה בו‬ ‫בשגגה מעל בד"א כשמעל בקדש והוציאו‬ ‫בתורת חולין והקנהו לאחר אבל אם נהנה‬ ‫בו ופגמו ולא הקנה לאחר יש בו מועל‬ :‫אחר מועל‬

The concept of a second person violating the prohibition against me'ilah with a consecrated article after someone has already done so applies only with regard to an animal and a utensil. What is implied? One chopped with an axe that was consecrated, derived a p'rutah's worth of benefit, and damaged the axe. Then his colleague came, chopped with it, derived benefit, and damaged the axe; both violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If he gave it to his colleague as a present, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but his colleague does not. If one drank from a golden goblet and derived a p'rutah's worth of benefit, his colleague came, drank, and derived benefit, and then another colleague came, drank, and derived benefit, they all violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If he took the goblet and gave it to his colleague as a present or sold it to him, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but his colleague does not. If one rode on a donkey, derived a p'rutah's worth of benefit, and damaged the donkey, his colleague rode on it, derived benefit, and damaged it, and then another colleague came, rode on it, derived benefit, and damaged it, they all violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If he gave it to his colleague as a present, sold it to him, or rented it to him, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but his colleague does not. Similarly, if he lends out a consecrated axe, he is considered to have misappropriated the amount of satisfaction he received from having lent out the axe. His colleague is permitted to chop with it even as an initial preference. Similar laws apply with regard to an animal.

5

‫ואין מועל אחר מועל במוקדשים‬ ‫אלא בבהמה וכלי תשמיש בלבד‬ ‫כיצד בקע בקורדום של הקדש ונהנה‬ ‫בפרוטה ופגם ובא חבירו ובקע בו ונהנה‬ ‫ופגם כולם מעלו נטל הקורדום ונתנו‬ ‫לחבירו הוא מעל אבל חבירו לא מעל‬ ‫שתה בכוס של זהב ונהנה בפרוטה ובא‬ ‫חבירו ושתה ונהנה ובא חבירו ושתה‬ ‫ונהנה כולם מעלו נטל הכוס ונתנו לחבירו‬ ‫מתנה או מכרו הוא מעל וחבירו לא מעל‬ ‫רכב על גבי החמור ונהנה בפרוטה ופגם‬ ‫ובא חבירו ורכב עליו ונהנה ופגם ובא‬ ‫חבירו ורכב עליו ונהנה ופגם כולם מעלו‬ ‫נתן החמור לחבירו מתנה או מכרו או‬ ‫השכירו הוא מעל וחבירו לא מעל וכן‬ ‫המשאיל קרדום של הקדש הוא מעל לפי‬ ‫טובת הנאה שבו וחבירו מותר לבקע בו‬ :‫לכתחילה והוא הדין לבהמה‬

6

These laws do not apply to an animal consecrated to the altar. Instead, there is the possibility for several individuals to violate the prohibition against me'ilah, one after the other. What is implied? One removed wool from an animal that is a sin-offering, his colleague came and removed wool, and a third colleague came and removed wool, they all violate the prohibition against me'ilah. Similarly, if one gave it to a colleague and the colleague gave it to a third individual, they all violate the prohibition against me'ilah. It appears to me that the laws applying to meal-offerings, offerings of fowl, libations, and sacrificial utensils are the same as those applying to an animal to be offered as a sacrifice, for in all these instance, the very physical person of the entity is consecrated. When an animal consecrated as a sacrifice of the most sacred order becomes blemished and it is fit to be redeemed, it is considered like an entity consecrated for the improvement of the Temple, whose worth is consecrated. If one gave it to a colleague and the colleague gave it to a third individual, only the first violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

‫בהמת קדשי מזבח אינה כן אלא יש‬ ‫בה מועל אחר מועל עד כמה פעמים‬ ‫כיצד תלש מן החטאת ובא חבירו ותלש‬ ‫ובא חבירו ותלש כולן מעלו וכן אם נתנה‬ ‫לחבירו וחבירו לחבירו כלן מעלו ויראה לי‬ ‫שדין המנחות והעופות והנסכים וכלי שרת‬ :‫כדין הבהמה שכולן קדושת הגוף הן‬

‫בהמת קדשי הקדשים שנפל בה מום‬ ‫הואיל והיא עומדת לפדיון הרי הוא‬ ‫כקדשי בדק הבית שהיא קדושת דמים‬ ‫ואם נתנה לחבירו וחבירו לחבירו הראשון‬ :‫בלבד מעל‬

7

Our Sages declared that one who takes a consecrated stone or beam intentionally and gives it to a colleague, they both violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If he gives it to the treasurer in whose possession the article was, that person violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but the treasurer does not. It appears to me that these concepts were stated only with regard to a person who willfully misappropriates a consecrated object, in which instance the holiness of the consecrated article does not depart.

‫אמרו חכמים שהנוטל אבן או קורה‬ ‫של הקדש ונתנה לחבירו שניהם מעלו‬ ‫ואם נתנה לזה הגזבר שהיתה תחת ידו‬ ‫הוא מעל והגזבר לא מעל ויראה לי שאין‬ ‫אלו הדברים אמורים אלא במועל בזדון‬ ‫שהרי לא נתחלל הקדש הנוטל פרוטה של‬ ‫הקדש על דעת שהיא שלו לא מעל עד‬ ‫שיוציא אותה בחפציו או עד שיתן אותה‬ ‫במתנה נתנה לחבירו הוא מעל וחבירו לא‬ ‫מעל שאין מועל אחר מועל בשאר‬ :‫הקדשות כמו שביארנו וכל כיוצא בזה‬

When a person takes a consecrated p'rutah with the conception that it is his own, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah until he uses it for his own desires or gives it as a present. If he gives it to his colleague as a present, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but his colleague does not. For, with regard to other consecrated articles, one person violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but the one following him does not, as we explained. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If he takes a consecrated stone or beam, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, because he has not benefited as of yet. If he builds it into his home, he violates that prohibition. If he places it on top of a window in the room without attaching it, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah until he dwells under it for a p'rutah's worth of benefit, because merely placing it there is not considered as discernible benefit.

‫נטל אבן או קורה של הקדש לא‬ ‫מעל שהרי לא נהנה עדיין בנה‬ ‫אותה בתוך ביתו מעל נתנה על גבי חלון‬ ‫שבתקרה ולא חיברה לא מעל עד שידור‬ ‫תחתיה בשוה פרוטה שאין זו הנייה‬ :‫הניכרת‬

If one took a consecrated p'rutah gave it to a bath attendant, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah even though he has not bathed yet, for he benefits in that he could bathe whenever he desires. Similarly, if he gives it to another type of craftsman as payment for his services, he violates the prohibition even though the craftsman has not performed any work. The following rules apply if one purchased an article with a consecrated p'rutah, but did not

‫נטל פרוטה של הקדש ונתנה לבלן‬ ‫אע"פ שלא רחץ מעל שהרי נהנה‬ ‫בהיותו רוחץ בכל עת שירצה וכן אם נתנה‬ ‫לאחד מבעלי אומניות מעל אף על פי‬ :‫שעדיין לא עשו מלאכתו‬

‫קנה בה חפץ ולא משך אם מן העכו"ם‬ :‫מעל ואם מן ישראל לא מעל‬

draw the article after him. If he purchased it from a gentile, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah; if, from a Jew, he does not violate that prohibition. When a person spends consecrated money for his own needs with the understanding that they are ordinary funds, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah even though he did not spend the money for ordinary matters. What is implied? A person who brings his sin-offering, guilt-offering, or Paschal sacrifice from consecrated funds or a person who is lacking atonement who brings his atonement offering from consecrated funds violates the prohibition against me'ilah. None of the above violate the prohibition until the blood is cast on the altar. Therefore one who brings meal-offerings, libations, or the bread for a thanksgiving offering does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah even though he violates a transgression. The rationale is that these offerings do not involve casting blood on the altar to atone for the person.

8

‫המוציא מעות הקדש בצרכיו על‬ ‫דעת שהן חולין אע"פ שלא הוציאן‬ ‫בדברי חול מעל כיצד המביא חטאתו‬ ‫ואשמו ופסחו מן ההקדש וכן מחוסר‬ ‫כפרה שהביא כפרתו מן ההקדש מעל‬ ‫וכולם אין מועלין עד שיזרק הדם לפיכך‬ ‫המביא מנחות ונסכים ולחם תודה מן‬ ‫ההקדש אף על פי שעבר עבירה לא מעל‬ :‫שאין כאן זריקת דם לכפר עליו‬

If

a

person

pays

his

half-shekel

from

consecrated funds, when money is taken from the collection of funds and even one animal is purchased and its blood is cast on the altar, the person who paid with the half-shekel violates the prohibition against me'ilah, because he has a portion in the animal whose blood was cast. When a person sets aside his half-shekel and then uses it for his personal needs both he and his colleague violate the prohibition against me'ilah. The following laws apply when one gives a half-shekel to a colleague to donate on the principal's behalf and the agent donates it on his own behalf. If the money for the sacrifices was already set aside, the agent who made the donation violates the prohibition against me'ilah, for the priest who sets aside the money takes also on behalf of the money that will be collected in the future, as we explained in Hilchot Shekalim. Thus it is considered as if this shekel already reached the treasury. Therefore the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If the money was not taken yet, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

‫נתן שקלו ממעות הקדש כשיתרמו‬ ‫התרומה ויקנו ממנה אפילו בהמה‬ ‫אחת ויזרק דמה ימעול השוקל שהרי‬ :‫חלקו באותה הבהמה שנזרק דמה‬

‫המפריש שקלו והוציאו בשאר‬ ‫צרכיו בין הוא בין חבירו מעל נתנו‬ ‫לחבירו לשוקלו על ידו הלך ושקלו ע"י‬ ‫עצמו אם כבר נתרמה התרומה מעל‬ ‫השוקל שהתורם תורם על העתיד להגבות‬ ‫כמו שביארנו בשקלים וכאילו הגיע שקל‬ ‫זה ללשכה ולפיכך מעל ואם עדיין לא‬ ‫נתרמה תרומה לא מעל ולעולם אין מועלין‬ :‫בשירי הלשכה‬

The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to money that remains in the chamber.

« Previous

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 7

Me`ilah - Perek 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

9

policy .

10

1



Me`ilah - Perek 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Me`ilah - Perek 6

English

Hebrew

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 8

2

The following rules apply when a person inadvertently took a consecrated article or consecrated money and gave it to an agent to use as ordinary property or money. If the agent carries out the mission with which he is charged, the principal is considered to have violated the prohibition against me'ilah. If the agent did not execute the agency, but instead acted on his own initiative, the agent is the one who violates the prohibition against me'ilah. What is implied? A person told his agent: "Give that meat to the guests," and instead, the agents gave them bread, or he told him to give them bread and he gave them meat. If one told his agent, "Bring me from the window," and he brought him from the closet or he told him to bring from the closet and he brought from the window, the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If the agent went and brought from the window as instructed, even though the principal told him: "In my heart, I wanted you to bring from the closet," the principal violates the prohibition against me'ilah, for the agent carried out the mission as he charged him. We follow the principle: "Matters in one's heart are not of consequence." Even if the agent was a deafmute, a mentally or emotionally incompetent person, or a minor to whom the laws of agency do not apply, if they carry out the principal's instructions, the principal violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If they do not carry out his instructions, the principal is exempt. If one tells his agent: "Give each one of the guests a piece of meat" and the agent told them: "Take two at a time," the principal violates the prohibition against me'ilah, because his instructions were carried out. The agent is exempt, because he is merely adding to the

‫מי ששגג ולקח הקדש או מעות‬ ‫הקדש ונתנו לשליח להוציאו בתורת‬ ‫חולין אם עשה השליח שליחותו המשלח‬ ‫הוא שמעל ואם לא עשה שליחותו אלא‬ ‫עשה השליח מדעת עצמו השליח הוא‬ ‫שמעל כיצד בעל הבית שאמר לשלוחו תן‬ ‫)לי( מאותו בשר לאורחין הלך ונתן להן‬ ‫ככר או שאמר לו תן להן ככר ונתן להן‬ ‫בשר אמר לשלוחו הבא לי מן החלון‬ ‫והביא לו מן המגדל או שאמר לו הבא מן‬ ‫המגדל והביא לו מן החלון השליח מעל וכן‬ ‫כל כיוצא בזה הלך השליח והביא מן‬ ‫החלון כמו שאמר לו אע"פ שאמר השולח‬ ‫לא היה בלבי שיביא אלא מן המגדל בעל‬ ‫הבית מעל שהרי עשה שליחות מאמרו‬ ‫ודברים שבלב אינן דברים ואפילו היה‬ ‫השליח חרש או שוטה או קטן שאין להן‬ ‫שליחות אם עשה כמאמרו בעל הבית מעל‬ ‫ואם לא עשה שליחותו בעל הבית פטור‬ ‫אמר לשלוחו תן לאורחין חתיכה חתיכה‬ ‫של בשר הלך השליח ואמר להן טולו‬ ‫שתים שתים בעל הבית מעל שהרי נעשה‬ ‫דברו והשליח פטור מפני שהוא מוסיף על‬ ‫שליחות בעל הבית ולא עקר השליחות‬ ‫אבל אם אמר להם השליח טולו שתים‬ ‫שתים מדעתי שניהן מעלו נטלו האורחים‬ ‫שלש שלש אף האורחין מעלו מפני שכל‬ ‫אחד מהן עשה שליחות חבירו והוסיף‬ ‫מדעתו נמצא חבירו חייב לפי שנעשו‬ ‫דבריו ולא נעקרה השליחות והוא חייב על‬ :‫זה שהוסיף מדעתו‬

3

When does the above apply? When the pieces of meat were consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. If they were meat from a burnt-offering or the like, only the person who partakes of them violates the prohibition against me'ilah. For he is obligated in another prohibition aside from me'ilah and, with regard to the entire Torah, there is no concept of a prohibition violated through agency except in the case of me'ilah

‫במה דברים אמורים כשהיו החתיכות‬ ‫מקדשי בדק הבית אבל אם היו בשר‬ ‫עולה וכיוצא בו לא מעל אלא האוכל בלבד‬ ‫שהרי הוא חייב באיסור אחר יתר על‬ ‫המעילה ובכל התורה כולה אין שליח‬ ‫לדבר עבירה אלא במעילה לבדה שלא‬ :‫יתערב עמה איסור אחר‬

alone and there, provided there is no other prohibition involved with it. When a person gives a p'rutah of consecrated funds to an agent and tells him: "With half, purchase lamps for me and with half, wicks," and the agent used the entire amount for lamps or for wicks, they are both exempt. This law also applies when he told him to use the entire amount for lamps or for wicks and he used half to purchase lamps and half to purchase wicks. The rationale is that the principal does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, because his agency was not completed with regard to a p'rutah's worth of value. The agent does not violate that prohibition, because he did not eradicate his agency for a p'rutah's worth. If, however, one told an agent: "For half a p'rutah, bring me lamps from this-and-this place and for the other half, bring me wicks from that-and-that place," and the agent brought the lamps from the place mentioned for the wicks and the wicks from the place mentioned for the lamps, the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

‫הנותן פרוטת הקדש לשלוחו ואמר לו‬ ‫הבא לי בחציה נרות ובחציה פתילות‬ ‫הלך והביא לו בכולה נרות או בכולה‬ ‫פתילות או שאמר לו הבא לי בכולה נרות‬ ‫או בכולה פתילות הלך והביא בחציה נרות‬ ‫ובחציה פתילות שניהם פטורים בעל הבית‬ ‫לא מעל שהרי לא נעשה שליחותו‬ ‫בפרוטה והשליח לא מעל שהרי לא עקר‬ ‫שליחותו בפרוטה אבל אם אמר לו הבא‬ ‫לי בחציה נרות ממקום פלוני ובחציה‬ ‫פתילות ממקום פלוני והלך והביא נרות‬ ‫ממקום פתילות ופתילות ממקום נרות‬ :‫השליח מעל‬

If a principal gave his agent two consecrated p'rutot and told him: "Bring me an esrog" and the agent went and brought him an esrog for a p'rutah and a pomegranate for a p'rutah, the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but the principal is exempt. The rationale is that the principal sent the agent to purchase an esrog worth two p'rutot for him. Therefore if the esrog which the agent brought the principal that cost one p'rutah is worth two p'rutot, they both violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

‫נתן לו שתי פרוטות ואמר לו הבא לי‬ ‫אתרוג והלך והביא לו בפרוטה‬ ‫אתרוג ובפרוטה רמון השליח מעל ובעל‬ ‫הבית פטור שהרי שלחו לקנות לו אתרוג‬ ‫ששוה שתי פרוטות לפיכך אם היה‬ ‫האתרוג שהביא לו בפרוטה אחת שוה‬ :‫שתי פרוטות שניהם מעלו‬

When a person sent a p'rutah via an agent to purchase a particular article and then, before it reached the domain of the storekeeper, the principal remembered that the p'rutah is consecrated, the agent

‫השולח פרוטה ביד שלוחו לקנות לו‬ ‫בה חפץ ונזכר בעל הבית שהיא‬ ‫הקדש קודם שתגיע ליד החנוני השליח‬ ‫מעל שהוא שוגג ובעל הבית כבר נזכר ואין‬ ‫המזיד חייב בקרבן מעילה כמו שביארנו‬ ‫נזכר אף השליח וידע שהיא הקדש קודם‬ ‫שתגיע לחנוני שניהם פטורים מקרבן‬ ‫מעילה והחנוני חייב כשיוציא אותה‬ ‫פרוטה שנתערבה במעותיו שהרי הוא‬ ‫שוגג הודיעו לחנוני שפרוטה שנתנו לו‬ ‫הקדש שלשתן פטורין ונתפס המקח‬ :‫להקדש‬

violates the prohibition against me'ilah, because he is acting unknowingly, while the principal has already remembered. As we explained, a person who acts knowingly is not liable for a sacrifice to atone for me'ilah. If the agent also remembered and was conscious that the money was consecrated before it reached the storekeeper, they are both exempt from a sacrifice to atone for me'ilah and the storekeeper is liable when he uses that p'rutah which became mixed with his money, for he is acting unknowingly. If the storekeeper was informed that the p'rutah he was given was consecrated, they are all exempt and the purchase is completed, with the article becoming consecrated.

4

5

What should be done in order to preclude the storekeeper from sinning so he will be permitted to use all the money he received? One should take a non-consecrated p'rutah or any non-consecrated utensil and say: "Wherever the consecrated p'rutah is its holiness should be transferred to this." The p'rutah or the utensil become consecrated and the storekeeper is permitted to use all the money he received. Similarly, if a consecrated p'rutah become intermingled with all the money in a purse or one said: "A p'rutah in this purse is consecrated," he should transfer its holiness and afterwards, he may use all the coins in the purse.If he used coins from the purse without transferring the holiness of the consecrated coin, he does not definitely violate the prohibition against me'ilah until he used all the coins in the purse.

‫וכיצד יעשה כדי להציל החנוני מן‬ ‫החטא עד שיהיה מותר להשתמש בכל‬ ‫המעות נוטל פרוטה של חולין או כלי כל‬ ‫שהוא ואומר פרוטה של הקדש בכ"מ‬ ‫שהיא מחוללת על זה ותעשה אותה‬ ‫פרוטה או הכלי הקדש ויותר החנוני‬ ‫להשתמש בכל המעות וכן פרוטה של‬ ‫הקדש שנתערבה בכל הכיס או שאמר‬ ‫פרוטה בכיס זה הקדש מחלל אותה‬ ‫ואח"כ ישתמש בכיס ואם הוציא ולא חילל‬ :‫לא מעל עד שיוציא את כל הכיס‬

If a person said: "One of my purses is consecrated" or "One of my oxen is consecrated," the prohibition against me'ilah applies to all of them and to some of them. What should he do? He should bring the largest of the purses or the oxen and say: "If this is consecrated, it should remain consecrated. If not, wherever the consecrated one is, its holiness should be transferred to this one." He may then use the smaller ones.

‫אמר כיס מכיסי הקדש ושור משוורי‬ ‫הקדש מועלין בכולן ומועלין במקצתן‬ ‫כיצד עושה מביא את הגדול שבהם ואומר‬ ‫אם הקדש הוא הרי הוא הקדש ואם לאו‬ ‫ההקדש בכל מקום שהוא מחולל על זה‬ :‫ויהנה בקטן‬

When a person misappropriates less than a p'rutah's worth of consecrated property, whether

‫המועל בפחות משוה פרוטה בין‬ ‫בזדון בין בשגגה משלם את הקרן‬ ‫ואינו חייב חומש ולא קרבן ויראה לי‬ ‫שאינו לוקה על פחות משוה פרוטה אם‬ :‫היה מזיד‬

intentionally or unintentionally, he must make restitution for the principal, but he need not pay an additional fifth or bring a sacrifice. It appears to me that he is not liable for lashes for misappropriating less than a p'rutah's worth if he acted intentionally.

When a person entrusts consecrated money to a homeowner and the homeowner uses them and spends them, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. The rationale is that he does not have permission to use these fundsand the owner did not grant him license to.

‫המפקיד מעות אצל בעל הבית‬ ‫ונשתמש בהן והוציא בעל הבית מעל‬ ‫שהרי אין לו רשות להשתמש בהן ובעל‬ :‫הפקדון לא הרשהו‬

Different rules apply if he entrusted them to a money-changer or a storekeeper and they were not sealed or tied close with an unusual knot. In these situations, since he is permitted to use them according to law, if he spent them, they are both exempt. The owner of the entrusted article is exempt because he did not tell the storekeeper or the money-changer to use them. And the store-keeper is exempt, because it is as if he used them with permission since they were not tied closed with an unusual knot or sealed.

‫הפקידן אצל שולחני או חנווני ולא היו‬ ‫חתומין ולא קשורין קשר משונה הואיל‬ ‫ויש לו רשות מן הדין להשתמש בהן אם‬ ‫הוציאו שניהן פטורין בעל הפקדון פטור‬ ‫שהרי לא אמר לו השתמש בהן והחנוני‬ ‫פטור מפני שאינן קשורין קשר משונה‬ :‫ולא חתומין וכאילו השתמש ברשות‬

When a woman brought consecrated money to her husband's domainor her testator consecrated property and then died and the consecrated property fell to her as an inheritance, when her husband spends the money on his personal needs, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

‫האשה שהכניסה מעות של הקדש‬ ‫לבעלה או שהקדיש מורישה ומת‬ ‫ונפלו לה הקדשות בירושה לכשיוציא‬ :‫הבעל המעות בחפציו ימעול‬

« Previous

Next » Me`ilah - Perek 8

Me`ilah - Perek 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

6

policy .

7

1



Me`ilah - Perek 8 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Me`ilah - Perek 7

English

Hebrew

Next » Sefer Korbanot

When workers are working in consecrated orchards, even though it was agreed that they would receive food, they should not eat consecrated figs. If they do, they violate the prohibition against me'ilah. Instead, the Temple treasury should give them money to purchase food.

‫הפועלים שהן עושין בהקדש אף על‬ ‫פי שפסקו עמהן מזונות לא יאכלו‬ ‫מגרוגרות של הקדש ואם אכלו מעלו אלא‬ :‫ההקדש נותן להם דמי מזונות‬

When a person is threshing vetch that is consecrated, he must muzzle the ox. Although Deuteronomy 25:4 states: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is threshing," the latter phrase can be interpreted as "threshing appropriate for it."

‫הדש כרשיני הקדש הרי זה חוסם‬ ‫את הפרה שנאמר לא תחסום שור‬ :‫בדישו דיש הראוי לו‬

The holiness of consecrated property should not be transferred as payment for work, but only on money.

‫אין מחללין את ההקדש על המלאכה‬ ‫אלא על המעות כיצד אומן שעשה‬ ‫מלאכה בהקדש במנה אין נותנין לו בהמת‬ ‫הקדש או טלית הקדש בשכרו עד‬ ‫שמחללין אותן על המעות ואחר שיעשו‬ ‫חולין נותנין אותן לאומן בשכרו אם רצו‬ ‫וחוזרין ולוקחין ממנו בהמה מתרומת‬ :‫הלשכה‬

What is implied? When a craftsman performs a maneh's worth of work for the Temple treasury, he should not be given a consecrated animal, nor a consecrated garment as payment unless its holiness is first transferred to money. After the article became ordinary property, it can be given to the craftsman as his wages. If the treasurers desire, they may then purchase the animal from the Temple treasury.

When the Temple is being built, consecrated wood and stones should not be taken, nor should the building be built with the intent that it is consecrated. Instead, everything should be built from ordinary property. This is a decree lest one of the workers benefit from the shade of the building or lean on a stone or beam while working. After the building is completed, the holiness of consecrated funds is transferred to the building. If the treasurers need wood for the Temple for that day alone, they may purchase it with consecrated funds, for they are not delaying the matter for days in which instance it would be necessary to take precautions lest one lean on them and thus violate the prohibition against me'ilah. When an agreement is made with workers to build in the Temple and its courtyards, the agreement is made for so-and-so many selaim for so-and-so many cubits, considering a cubit as containing 20 thumbbreadths. When a measurement is made of what they built, it is measured and payment determined, considering a cubit as containing 24 thumbbreadths, so that the workers will not take unfair benefit from the Temple treasury, because they are not exact in measurement.

2

‫כשבונין במקדש אין לוקחין עצים‬ ‫ואבנים מן ההקדש ולא בונין את‬ ‫הבניין על דעת שהוא קדש אלא בונין הכל‬ ‫מן החול גזירה שמא יהנה בצל הבניין או‬ ‫ישען על אבן או קורה בשעת מלאכה‬ ‫ואחר שישלם הבניין מחללין מעות‬ ‫ההקדש על הבניין ואם צרכו הגזברין‬ ‫לעצים לקודש לאותו היום בלבד לוקחין‬ ‫אותן ממעות ההקדש שהרי אינן מתאחרין‬ ‫ימים כדי שנחוש להן שמא ישען אדם‬ :‫עליהן וימעול‬

‫כשפוסקין עם האומנין לבנות‬ ‫במקדש ובעזרות פוסקין עמהן כך‬ ‫וכך אמה בכך וכך סלע באמה בת עשרים‬ ‫אצבע וכשמושחין להן מה שבנו מושחין‬ ‫ומחשבין להן באמה גדולה בת עשרים‬ ‫וארבע אצבעות כדי שלא יבואו לידי‬ :‫מעילה מפני שאין מדקדקין במשיחה‬

It is a stipulation of the court that the priests may benefit from consecrated salt and wood while partaking of the sacrifices granted to them as their portion. They may not, however, use the salt of the Temple on their ordinary food.

‫תנאי בית דין שיהיו הכהנים ניאותין‬ ‫במלח ובעצים באכילת קרבנות‬ ‫שאוכלין בחלקן אבל לא יתנו מלח‬ :‫המקדש בחולין שלהן‬

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to salt that is on a limb from a sacrifice to be offered on the altar. It does not, however, apply to salt on the ramp and the top of the altar.

‫מלח שעל גבי האבר מועלין בו שעל‬ ‫גבי הכבש ושעל ראש המזבח אין‬ :‫מועלין בו‬

3

It is appropriate for a person to meditate on the judgments of the holy Torah and know their ultimate purpose according to his capacity. If he cannot find a reason or a motivating rationale for a practice, he should not regard it lightly. Nor should he break through to ascend to God, lest God burst forth against him. One's thoughts concerning them should not be like his thoughts concerning other ordinary matters. See how severe the Torah rules concerning misappropriating sacred property. Now if wood, stones, earth, and ash become holy because the name of the Lord of the world was called upon them through speech alone and anyone who treats them as ordinary articles violates the prohibition against me'ilah and even if he acted unknowingly, he is required to secure atonement, how much more so with regard to the mitzvot which God ordained for us should a person not treat them derisively, because he does not understand their rationale. He should not conjure up matters that are not true concerning God, nor should he think about them with his mind as he would ordinary matters. For Leviticus 19:37 states: "And you shall guard all My decrees and all My judgments and perform them." Our Sages commented:This adjures us to guard and perform both the decrees and the judgments. The meaning of "performing" is well known, i.e,. that one should observe the decrees. "Guarding" means to treat them with caution and not think that they are any less than the judgments. The judgments are those mitzvot whose motivating rationale is openly revealed and the benefit of their observance in this world is known, e.g., the prohibitions against robbery and bloodshed and honoring one's father and mother. The decrees are the mitzvot whose motivating rationales are not known. Our Sages said: "I ordained decrees and you have no license to question them." A person's natural inclination confronts him

‫ראוי לאדם להתבונן במשפטי‬ ‫התורה הקדושה ולידע סוף ענינם‬ ‫כפי כחו ודבר שלא ימצא לו טעם ולא ידע‬ ‫לו עילה אל יהי קל בעיניו ולא יהרוס‬ ‫לעלות אל ה' פן יפרוץ בו ולא תהא‬ :‫מחשבתו בו כמחשבתו בשאר דברי החול‬ ‫בוא וראה כמה החמירה תורה במעילה‬ ‫ומה אם עצים ואבנים ועפר ואפר כיון‬ ‫שנקרא שם אדון העולם עליהם בדברים‬ ‫בלבד נתקדשו וכל הנוהג בהן מנהג חול‬ ‫מעל בה ואפילו היה שוגג צריך כפרה קל‬ ‫וחומר למצוה שחקק לנו הקדוש ברוך‬ ‫הוא שלא יבעט האדם בהן מפני שלא ידע‬ ‫טעמן ולא יחפה דברים אשר לא כן על‬ ‫השם ולא יחשוב בהן מחשבתו כדברי‬ ‫החול הרי נאמר בתורה ושמרתם את כל‬ ‫חקותי ואת כל משפטי ועשיתם אותם‬ ‫אמרו חכמים ליתן שמירה ועשייה לחוקים‬ ‫כמשפטים והעשייה ידועה והיא שיעשה‬ ‫החוקים והשמירה שיזהר בהן ולא ידמה‬ ‫שהן פחותין מן המשפטים והמשפטים הן‬ ‫המצות שטעמן גלוי וטובת עשייתן בעולם‬ ‫הזה ידועה כגון איסור גזל ושפיכות דמים‬ ‫וכיבוד אב ואם והחוקים הן המצות שאין‬ ‫טעמן ידוע אמרו חכמים חוקים חקתי לך‬ ‫ואין לך רשות להרהר בהן ויצרו של אדם‬ ‫נוקפו בהן ואומות העולם משיבין עליהן‬ ‫כגון איסור בשר חזיר ובשר בחלב ועגלה‬ ‫ערופה ופרה אדומה ושעיר המשתלח‬ ‫וכמה היה דוד המלך מצטער מן המינים‬ ‫ומן העכו"ם שהיו משיבין על החקים וכל‬ ‫זמן שהיו רודפין אותו בתשובות השקר‬ ‫שעורכין לפי קוצר דעת האדם היה מוסיף‬ ‫דביקות בתורה שנאמר טפלו עלי שקר‬ ‫זדים אני בכל לב אצור פקודיך ונאמר שם‬ ‫בענין כל מצותיך אמונה שקר רדפוני‬ ‫עזרני וכל הקרבנות כולן מכלל החוקים הן‬

Blessed be the Merciful One who provides assistance. This concludes the eighth book which is the Book of Temple Service.

:‫סליקו להו הלכות מעילה בס"ד‬ :‫נגמר ספר שמיני והוא ספר עבודה‬

« Previous

Next » Sefer Korbanot

Me`ilah - Perek 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

4

policy .

Sefer Hafla'ah - The Book of Promises. - Texts & Writings

1 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973859/jewish/Sefer-Haf...



Sefer Hafla'ah The Book of Promises. Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 1

Shvuot - Chapter 5

Shvuot - Chapter 2

Shvuot - Chapter 6

Shvuot - Chapter 3

Shvuot - Chapter 7

Shvuot - Chapter 4

View All 12

Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 1

Nedarim - Chapter 5

Nedarim - Chapter 2

Nedarim - Chapter 6

Nedarim - Chapter 3

Nedarim - Chapter 7

Nedarim - Chapter 4

View All 13

Nezirut Nezirut - Chapter 1

Nezirut - Chapter 5

Nezirut - Chapter 2

Nezirut - Chapter 6

Nezirut - Chapter 3

Nezirut - Chapter 7

Nezirut - Chapter 4

View All 10

Arachim Vacharamim Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8

8/21/2019 4:00 PM

Sefer Hafla'ah - The Book of Promises. - Texts & Writings

2 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973859/jewish/Sefer-Haf...

8/21/2019 4:00 PM

Sefer Hafla'ah - The Book of Promises. - Texts & Writings

1 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973859/jewish/Sefer-Haf...



Sefer Hafla'ah The Book of Promises. Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 1

Shvuot - Chapter 5

Shvuot - Chapter 2

Shvuot - Chapter 6

Shvuot - Chapter 3

Shvuot - Chapter 7

Shvuot - Chapter 4

View All 12

Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 1

Nedarim - Chapter 5

Nedarim - Chapter 2

Nedarim - Chapter 6

Nedarim - Chapter 3

Nedarim - Chapter 7

Nedarim - Chapter 4

View All 13

Nezirut Nezirut - Chapter 1

Nezirut - Chapter 5

Nezirut - Chapter 2

Nezirut - Chapter 6

Nezirut - Chapter 3

Nezirut - Chapter 7

Nezirut - Chapter 4

View All 10

Arachim Vacharamim Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8

8/21/2019 4:00 PM

Sefer Hafla'ah - The Book of Promises. - Texts & Writings

2 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973859/jewish/Sefer-Haf...

8/21/2019 4:00 PM

Shvuot - Texts & Writings

1 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973861/jewish/Shvuot.htm



Shvuot Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Shvuot - Chapter 1 Shvuot - Chapter 2 Shvuot - Chapter 3 Shvuot - Chapter 4 Shvuot - Chapter 5 Shvuot - Chapter 6 Shvuot - Chapter 7 Shvuot - Chapter 8 Shvuot - Chapter 9 Shvuot - Chapter 10 Shvuot - Chapter 11 Shvuot - Chapter 12

8/21/2019 4:00 PM

Shvuot - Texts & Writings

2 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973861/jewish/Shvuot.htm

8/21/2019 4:00 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

1 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973863/jewish/Shvuot-C...



Shvuot - Chapter 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 2

8/21/2019 4:01 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

2 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973863/jewish/Shvuot-C...

In the name of the Lord, the God of the world. The freewill offerings of my mouth accept now, O Lord, and teach me Your judgments.

(‫עוֹלם )בראשית כא לג‬ ָ ‫ְבּ ֵשׁם יי ֵאל‬ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ֶטי ַל ְמּ ֵדנִ י‬ ִ ,‫נִ ְדבוֹת ִפּי ְר ֵצה נָ א יי‬ (‫)תהלים קיט קח‬

The sixth book which is The Book of Promises

‫ספר ששי והוא ספר הפלאה‬

It contains four sets of Halachot and this is their order:

:‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו ארבע‬

The Laws of Shvuot The Laws of Nedarim The Laws of Nezirut The Laws of Arachim Vacharamim

‫הלכות שבועות‬ ‫הלכות נדרים‬ ‫הלכות נזירות‬ ‫ערכים וחרמין‬

Introduction to Hilchos Shvuot

‫ הקדמה‬- ‫רמב"ם הלכות שבועות‬

They contain 5 mitzvot: one positive commandment and four negative commandments. They are: 1. Not to swear falsely in [God’s] name, 2. Not to take [God’s] name in vain, 3. Not to deny [having received] an entrusted object, 4. Not to swear [falsely] when denying financial obligations, 5. To swear truly in [God’s] name. These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.

,‫ יש בכללן חמש מצות‬.‫הלכות שבועות‬ .‫ וארבע מצות לא תעשה‬,‫אחת מצות עשה‬ ‫וזה הוא פרטן‬ .‫)א( שלא לישבע בשמו לשקר‬ .‫)ב( שלא לישא את שמו לשוא‬ .‫)ג( שלא לכפור בפקדון‬ .‫)ד( שלא לישבע על כפירת ממון‬ .‫)ה( לישבע בשמו באמת‬ .‫וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו‬

8/21/2019 4:01 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

3 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973863/jewish/Shvuot-C...

There are four types of oaths [for which one may be liable]: sh'vuat bitui, sh'vuat shav, sh'vuat hapikadon, and sh'vuat ha'edut.1 Sh'vuat bitui2 is referred to in the Torah [by Leviticus 5:4]: "When a soul will take an oath, expressing with his lips, whether he will do harm3 or do good." [This category] subdivides into four groupings: two4 [involving statements made] concerning the future and two [involving statements made] concerning the past. For example, he took an oath concerning a past event that it occurred or did not occur, or concerning a future event, that he will do it or that he will not do it. [The concept of] a sh'vuat bitui applies with regard to deeds that a person could perform5 whether in the past or in the future. What is implied? With regard to the past: "I ate," "I cast a stone into the sea," or "So-and-so spoke with so-and-so"; "I did not eat," "I did not cast a stone into the sea," or "So-and-so did not speak with so-and-so." With regard to the future: "I will eat" or "I will not eat," "I will..." or "I will not cast a stone into the sea."6 Thus there are two groupings7 concerning the past and two groupings concerning the future.

‫ שבועת‬:‫ארבעה מיני שבועות הן‬ ‫ביטוי ושבועת שוא ושבועת הפקדון‬ ‫ שבועת ביטוי הוא‬,‫ושבועת העדות‬ ‫שנאמר בתורה או נפש כי תשבע לבטא‬ ‫ והיא נחלקת‬,‫בשפתים להרע או להיטיב‬ ‫ ושתים‬,‫ שתים להבא‬,‫לארבעה חלקים‬ ‫ כגון שנשבע על דבר שעבר‬,‫לשעבר‬ ‫ ועל דבר שעתיד‬,‫שנעשה או שלא נעשה‬ .‫להיות שיעשה ושלא יעשה‬

‫ואין שבועת ביטוי נוהגת אלא‬ ‫בדברים שאפשר לו לעשותן בין‬ ,‫ שאכלתי‬,‫ כיצד לשעבר‬,‫להבא בין לשעבר‬ ‫ או שדבר פלוני עם‬,‫או שזרקתי אבן לים‬ ‫ או שלא זרק אבן‬,‫ או שלא אכלתי‬,‫פלוני‬ ‫ כיצד‬,‫ או שלא דבר פלוני עם פלוני‬,‫לים‬ ‫ או שאזרוק‬,‫ שאוכל או שלא אוכל‬,‫להבא‬ ‫ הרי אלו שתים‬,‫או שלא אזרוק אבן לים‬ .‫לשעבר ושתים להבא‬

8/21/2019 4:01 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

4 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973863/jewish/Shvuot-C...

If a person takes an oath concerning one of these four categories and does the opposite, he has taken a false oath. For example, he took an oath not to eat and he ate, that he would eat and he did not eat, that he ate, when he did not or that he did not eat, when he had eaten. With regard to these matters, [Leviticus 19:12] states: "Do not swear falsely in My name."8 If he willfully swears falsely, he is liable for lashes.9 If he does so inadvertently, he must bring an adjustable guilt offering,10 as [ibid. 5:4] states: "And it became concealed from him and he did not know and became guilty."

‫נשבע אחת מארבע מחלוקות אלו‬ ‫והחליף כגון שנשבע שלא יאכל ואכל‬ ‫או שיאכל ולא אכל או שאכלתי והוא לא‬ ‫אכל שלא אכלתי ואכל הרי זו שבועת‬ ‫ ועל זה וכיוצא בו נאמר לא תשבעו‬,‫שקר‬ ‫ ואם נשבע לשקר במזיד‬,‫בשמי לשקר‬ ‫ בשוגג מביא קרבן עולה ויורד‬,‫לוקה‬ .'‫שנאמר ונעלם ממנו והוא ידע ואשם וגו‬

[The prohibition against taking] a sh'vuat shav, an

‫שבועת שוא נחלקת לארבע‬ ‫ האחת שנשבע על דבר‬,‫מחלוקות‬ ‫ כיצד כגון שנשבע על‬,‫הידוע שאין כן‬ ‫ ועל האשה שהוא‬,‫האיש שהוא אשה‬ ,‫ ועל עמוד של שיש שהוא של זהב‬,‫איש‬ 41 .‫וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

oath taken in vain,11 also subdivides into four categories: the first, a person took an oath concerning a known matter12 that was not true, e.g., he took an oath that a man was a woman, a woman was a man, that a marble pillar was gold, or concerning other similar factors. The second: that one takes an oath on a known matter concerning which no one has a doubt, e.g., one took an oath that the sky was the sky, that a stone is a stone, on two [objects] that they are two, and the like. Even though there is no doubt about the matter for a person of sound mind, one takes an oath to strengthen [the appreciation of] the matter.13

‫השניה שנשבע על דבר ידוע שאין‬ ‫ כגון‬,‫בו ספק לאדם שהוא כן‬ ‫ ועל‬,‫שנשבע על השמים שהוא שמים‬ ‫ ועל השנים שהם שנים‬,‫האבן זו שהיא אבן‬ ‫ שזה הדבר אין בו ספק‬,‫וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬ .‫לאדם שלם כדי לצדק הדבר בשבועה‬

The third is one who takes an oath to nullify a mitzvah.14 What is implied? One took an oath not to wrap himself in tzitzit,15 not to put on tefilin, not to dwell in a sukkah throughout the holiday of Sukkot,16 not to eat matzah on Pesach night, that he would fast on the Sabbaths and the festivals,17 or concerning other analogous instances.

,‫שלישית שנשבע לבטל את המצוה‬ ‫כיצד כגון שנשבע שלא יתעטף‬ ‫ ושלא ישב‬,‫ שלא ילבש תפילין‬,‫בציצית‬ ‫ ולא יאכל מצה בלילי‬,‫בסוכה בחג הסוכות‬ ‫ או שיתענה בשבתות ובימים טובים‬,‫הפסח‬ .‫וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:01 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

5 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973863/jewish/Shvuot-C...

The fourth - that one took an oath concerning a matter that he is unable to perform.18 What is implied? He took an oath that he would not sleep for three consecutive days and nights,19 he would not eat for seven consecutive days or concerning any analogous matter. Whenever a person takes an oath in vain by taking one of these four types of oaths, he transgresses a negative commandment,20 as [Exodus 20:7] states: "And you shall not take the name of God your Lord in vain." If he [takes the oath] willfully, he is liable for lashes.21 If he does so inadvertently, he is exempt entirely. What is meant by a sh'vuat hapikadon, [an oath concerning an entrusted object]?22 [It applies] when a person has money belonging to a colleague in his possession - whether it be an entrusted article or a loan, he stole from him, withheld his wages, he found a loss object belonging to him and did not return it, or any similar situation. If his colleague claims the money that he has in his possession and he denies the claim, he violates a negative commandment,23 as [Leviticus 19:11] states: "You shall not deny..."; this is a warning [not to] deny a monetary [claim]. One is not liable for lashes for this transgression.24

‫רביעית שנשבע על דבר שאין כח בו‬ ‫ כיצד כגון שנשבע שלא יישן‬,‫לעשות‬ ‫ או שלא‬,‫שלשה ימים לילה ויום רצופים‬ ‫יטעום כלום שבעה ימים רצופים וכן כל‬ ‫ כל הנשבע שבועת שוא‬,‫כיוצא בזה‬ ‫מארבע שבועות אלו עובר בלא תעשה‬ ,‫שנאמר לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לשוא‬ ‫ואם היה מזיד לוקה ואם היה שוגג פטור‬ .‫מכלום‬

‫ כל מי שיש‬,‫שבועת הפקדון כיצד‬ ‫ממון חבירו בידו בין פקדון בין מלוה‬ ‫או שגזלו או עשקו או מצא לו אבדה ולא‬ ‫החזירה וכיוצא בזה ותבע ממנו ממון שיש‬ ‫לו בידו וכפר בו הרי זה עובר בלא תעשה‬ ‫שנאמר לא תכחשו זו אזהרה לכפירת‬ ‫ ואם נשבע לו‬,‫ ואין לוקין על לאו זה‬,‫ממון‬ ‫על שקר על ממון שכפר בו הרי זה עובר‬ ‫בלאו אחר ועל זה נאמר לא תשקרו איש‬ ,‫בעמיתו זו אזהרה לנשבע על כפירת ממון‬ .‫ושבועה זו היא הנקראת שבועת הפקדון‬

If one took a false oath with regard to the financial claim that he denied, he transgresses another negative commandment,25 as [the above verse] continues: "A person may not lie to his colleague."26 This is a warning against swearing [falsely] when denying a financial [obligation].

8/21/2019 4:01 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

6 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973863/jewish/Shvuot-C...

What is a person's liability for taking a false sh'vuat hapikadon? He must pay the principle that he denied plus an additional fifth27 and bring a definite28 guilt offering as a sacrifice. [This applies] whether he [transgressed] intentionally or unintentionally,29 as indicated by Leviticus 5:21-23 which] states: "And he will deny his [obligation to] a colleague concerning an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, a robbery... when he sin and become guilty." [The verse] does not say: "And it will become concealed from him,"30 indicating that one who transgresses willfully is liable just as [one who transgresses] inadvertently.

‫ומה הוא חייב על שבועת הפקדון‬ ‫ משלם את הקרן שכפר‬,‫ששקר בה‬ ‫ ומקריב אשם ודאי‬,‫בו עם תוספת חומש‬ ‫בין שהיה מזיד בין שהיה שוגג שנאמר‬ ‫וכחש בעמיתו בפקדון או בתשומת יד או‬ ‫בגזל וגו' והיה כי יחטא ואשם ולא נאמר‬ .‫בו ונעלם ממנו לחייב מזיד כשוגג‬

The above applies when the person willfully accepted the entrusted object or the money that he was obligated and knew about it at the time of the oath. If, however, he acted unintentionally, forgot that he had the money in his possession, therefore denied it and took an oath, and then discovered the matter, he is considered [to have transgressed because of] factors beyond his control and is not liable at all.31 Similarly, if the person did not know that it was forbidden to take a false oath in denial of a financial claim, he is considered [to have transgressed because of] factors beyond his control and is not liable.32

‫והוא שיזיד בפקדון או בממון שנתחייב‬ ‫ אבל אם‬,‫בו וידע בו בשעת שבועה‬ ‫שגג ושכח שיש לו אצלו ממון וכפר‬ ‫ונשבע ואחר כך ידע הרי זה אנוס ופטור‬ ‫ וכן אם לא ידע שאסור לישבע‬,‫מכלום‬ ‫לשקר על כפירת ממון הרי זה אנוס‬ .‫ופטור‬

If so, what is meant by acting inadvertently with regard to a sh'vuat hapikadon? For example, he

‫אם כן היאך היא שגגת שבועת‬ ‫ כגון שנעלם ממנו אם‬,‫הפקדון‬ ‫חייבין עליה קרבן אם לאו וידע שהיא‬ ,‫אסורה ושיש לו אצלו ממון זו הוא שגגתה‬ .‫וזדונה שידע שחייבין עליה קרבן‬

forgot that one is liable to bring a sacrifice for [taking such a false oath], but knew that it was forbidden to do so and that he has the other person's money in his possession. This is considered the inadvertent transgression [of this prohibition].33 Willful transgression is when he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice [because of the transgression].

8/21/2019 4:01 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

7 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973863/jewish/Shvuot-C...

What is meant by sh'vuat ha'edut?34 Witnesses know testimony associated with a monetary claim35 and the person affected by the testimony demanded that they testify on his behalf. The witnesses deny knowledge of testimony, do not testify, and take an oath36 that they do not know any testimony concerning him. This is referred to as a sh'vuat ha'edut. For taking a [false] oath of this nature, one is liable for an adjustable guilt offering,37 [This applies] whether he [transgressed] intentionally or unintentionally, as [indicated by Leviticus 5:1 which] states: "When a person will sin: If he heard a demand for an oath and he had witnessed...." [The verse] does not say: "And it will become concealed from him,"38 indicating that one who transgresses willfully is liable just as [one who transgresses] inadvertently. What is meant by acting inadvertently with regard to a sh'vuat ha'edut? For example, he forgot that one is liable to bring a sacrifice for [taking such a false oath], but knew that this oath was forbidden and that he would be swearing falsely. Willful transgression is when he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice [because of the transgression]. If he did not know that [taking such an oath] is forbidden or forgot the testimony and took an oath39 and later it was discovered that he knew testimony and took a false oath, he is considered [to have transgressed because of] forces beyond his control and he is not liable to bring a sacrifice.40

‫ העדים שידעו‬,‫שבועת העדות כיצד‬ ‫עדות ממון ותבעם בעל העדות‬ ‫להעיד לו וכפרו בעדותן ולא העידו ונשבעו‬ ‫שאינן יודעין לו עדות זו היא נקראת‬ ‫ וחייבין על שבועה זו קרבן‬,‫שבועת העדות‬ ‫עולה ויורד בין שהיו מזידין בין שהיו‬ ‫שוגגים שנאמר נפש כי תחטא ושמעה‬ ‫קול אלה והוא עד ולא נאמר בה ונעלם‬ .‫לחייב על הזדון כשגגה‬

‫ כגון‬,‫כיצד שגגת שבועת העדות‬ ‫שנעלם ממנו שחייבין עליה קרבן‬ ,‫וידע ששבועה זו אסורה ושהיא שקר‬ ‫ אבל אם‬,‫וזדונה שידע שחייבין עליה קרבן‬ ‫לא ידע שהיא אסורה או ששכחו העדות‬ ‫ונשבעו ואח"כ נודע להם שהן יודעין לו‬ ‫עדות ושנשבעו על שקר הרי אלו אנוסין‬ ..‫ופטורין אף מן הקרבן‬

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES

8/21/2019 4:01 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

8 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973863/jewish/Shvuot-C...

1. The Rambam proceeds to explain these four types of oath in this chapter.

13. Thus since no one else but a fool will have any doubt concerning the matter, there is no need to take an oath.

2. Bitui literally means "expression." I.e., this oath is taken

Hence, the oath is considered to have been taken in vain (Radbaz).

expressing statements concerning the past or the future. See Chapters 4 and 5 where this subject is discussed in detail.

14. Since he is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah and the matter is

3. As evident from Chapter 5, Halachot 16-17, this applies when he takes an oath to harm himself, but not to harm

not dependent on his choice or consent, his oath is considered to be in vain. See also Chapter 5, Halachot

others.

14-15.

4. I.e., one positive and one negative. The concept that a sh'vuat bitui has both these forms is derived from the

15. The Radbaz clarifies that we are not speaking about taking

prooftext cited which states: "Whether he will do harm or do good." See Chapter 9, Halachah 18.

wear a tallit by Scriptural Law (see Hilchot Tzitzit 3:11).

5. But not with regard to something which he cannot perform. As stated in Halachah 7, that is included in the category of an oath taken in vain.

an oath not to wear a tallit, for a person is not obligated to Instead, the intent is to take an oath that he will wear a four-cornered garment and not put tzitzit on it. 16. See Chapter 5, Halachah 18. 17. For one must take pleasure in food and drink on these days.

6. An oath he takes concerning the future that involves another person is not included in this category, because he has no

It is forbidden to fast (Hilchot Shabbat 30:12; Hilchot Sh'vitat

way of controlling that person's conduct. See Chapter 5, Halachot 1-2.

18. Since he is unable to perform the matter, the oath he took is obviously in vain.

Yom Tov 6:17).

7. One positive and one negative.

19. See Chapter 5, Halachah 20.

8. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 61) and Sefer

20. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 62) and Sefer

HaChinuch (mitzvah 227) include this prohibition among the

HaChinuch (mitzvah 30) include this prohibition among the

613 mitzvot of the Torah.

613 mitzvot of the Torah.

9. This is somewhat of a new concept, because one does not receive lashes for violating a transgression that does not involve a deed and ordinarily, speech is not considered a deed. Nevertheless, taking a false oath is an exception to this principle, for Exodus 20:7 states: "God will not absolve anyone who takes His name in vain." Sh'vuot 21a interprets that to mean that a person who takes an oath in vain is liable for lashes. See also Chapter 4, Halachot 20-21 for more factors concerning this concept. 10. In contrast to an ordinary sin-offering, the sacrifice a person liable for such an offering must bring is adjusted according to his financial status as stated in Leviticus, ch. 5. See Chapter 3, Halachot 6-7 for details concerning when one is held liable for such a sacrifice and when he is not. 11. See Chapter 6 where this subject is discussed in detail. 12. The Ra'avad explains that the term "a known matter" refers to something known to three people. The Radbaz notes that the Rambam mentions this point in Chapter 5, Halachah 22. See Chapter 3, Halachah 5, and notes from which it is evident that here, the person taking the oath is not speaking facetiously. Although it is known that what he is saying is false, he intends that his words be taken at face value. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 21, and notes.

21. See the notes to Halachah 3. 22. The latter is the literal translation of the term pikadon. Nevertheless, as the Rambam continues to explain, the term has a broader halachic meaning in this context. The Radbaz explains that the mishnah uses the term sh'vuat hapikadon, because it is most common that such a claim will be made with regard to an entrusted object. Alternatively, because the prooftext (Leviticus 5:21) mentions an entrusted object first. See Chapters 7 and 8 where this subject is discussed in detail. 23. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 248) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 225) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 24. Either because the transgression does not involve a deed, or because financial compensation must be given and a person is not held liable both for financial restitution and lashes (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2). 25. He also violates the commandment against taking a false oath [Sh'vuot 20b; Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 249)]. 26. Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 226) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

8/21/2019 4:01 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

9 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973863/jewish/Shvuot-C...

27. As the Rambam explains in several instances, the intent is one fifth of the new total. For example, if he denied a debt of 20 zuz, he must pay 25 in restitution. 28. This term is used to distinguish this offering from the conditional guilt offering brought by a person who is unsure whether or not he committed a sin. 29. In contrast, an ordinary sin offering is brought only when one transgresses inadvertently.

34. The term literally means "an oath [associated with] testimony." See Chapters 9 and 10 where this subject is discussed in detail. 35. See Chapter 9, Halachot 3-5. 36. This oath is not required by the court, but rather is demanded by the person affected by their testimony. See Chapter 9, Halachah 6. 37. See the notes to Halachah 3.

30. As Leviticus 5:4 states with regard to a sh'vuat bitui.

38. See Chapter 9, Halachot 3-5.

31. Neither for a sacrifice, nor for the payment of an additional

39. In translation, we have used the singular for continuity. The Rambam, however, uses plural forms, because testimony

fifth of the object's value. 32. The Radbaz states that although such an individual is not liable for a sacrifice or the additional fifth, he is liable for transgressing the prohibition against denying property. 33. Since he is unaware of the fact that he must bring a sacrifice and thus does not know the full severity of his act, he is considered to have transgressed inadvertently.

brings about a monetary obligation only when given by two witnesses. 40. I.e., they are not considered to have transgressed at all. 41. ‫ שנשבע בדבר הידוע לשלשה‬/‫א"א‬/ ‫ כתב הראב"ד ז"ל‬.‫וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬ ‫שאינו כן כמו שנשבע עכ"ל‬.

Nevertheless, because he is conscious of the transgression and the fact that he has the other person's money in his possession, he is not considered to have transgressed due to forces beyond his control.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:01 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

10 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973863/jewish/Shvuot-C...

8/21/2019 4:01 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

1 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973864/jewish/Shvuot-C...



Shvuot - Chapter 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 1

Whether one takes one of these four oaths [falsely] on his own initiative or he is placed under oath by another person and answers Amen to his statements, he is liable.1 [This applies] even if he is placed under oath by a gentile2 or a minor3 and responds Amen. [The rationale is that] anyone who responds Amen or makes a statement equivalent to responding Amen, e.g., he says "Yes," "I am obligated in this oath," "I accept this oath upon myself," or the like in any language4 is considered to have taken an oath with regard to all matter,5 whether it be liability for lashes6 or for a sacrifice.7

English

Hebrew

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 3

‫אחד הנשבע אחד מארבעה מיני‬ ‫ ואחד‬,‫שבועות אלו מפי עצמו‬ ‫ אפילו‬,‫המושבע מפי אחרים וענה אמן‬ ,‫השביעו עכו"ם או קטן וענה אמן חייב‬ ‫שכל העונה אמן אחר שבועה כמוציא‬ ‫ ואחד העונה אמן או האומר‬,‫שבועה מפיו‬ ‫ כגון שאמר הן או‬,‫דבר שענינו כענין אמן‬ ‫ קיבלתי עלי‬,‫מחוייב אני בשבועה זו‬ ‫ וכל כיוצא בזה בכל לשון הרי‬,‫שבועה זו‬ ‫זה כנשבע לכל דבר בין לחייבו מלקות בין‬ .‫לחייבו קרבן‬

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

2 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973864/jewish/Shvuot-C...

[The same laws apply whether] one took an oath or another person administered an oath to him with God's ineffable name8 - or with one of the descriptive terms used to refer to Him,9 e.g., he took an oath "on He whose name is Gracious," "on He whose name is Merciful," or "on He whose name is Patient," regardless of the language he used.10 The statement is considered an oath in the full sense of the term.11 Similarly, a statement with the terms eleh or erur12 is considered as an oath,13 provided one mentions one of God's names or one of the terms used to describe Him. What is implied? When a person said: "May one who eats this-and-this entity be cursed unto God," or "...cursed unto He whose name is Gracious," "...cursed unto He whose name is Merciful" and then ate that entity, he has taken a false oath.14 Similar concepts apply with regard to the other types of oaths.

‫ או שהשביעו אחר‬,‫אחד הנשבע‬ ‫ או באחד מן הכינוין‬,‫בשם המיוחד‬ ‫ ובמי ששמו‬,‫כגון שנשבע במי ששמו חנון‬ ‫ וכיוצא בהן‬,‫ ובמי ששמו ארך אפים‬,‫רחום‬ ‫ וכן אלה‬,‫בכל לשון הרי זו שבועה גמורה‬ ‫ והוא שיזכיר שם מן‬,‫וארור הרי הן שבועה‬ ‫ כיצד כגון‬,‫השמות או כינוי מן הכינויין‬ ‫ או למי ששמו‬,'‫שאמר באלה או ארור לה‬ ‫ מי שיאכל דבר‬,‫ או למי ששמו רחום‬,‫חנון‬ ‫ וכן‬,‫פלוני ואכלו הרי זה נשבע לשקר‬ .‫בשאר מיני שבועות‬

Similarly, one who says: "[I am taking] an oath by God...," or "...by One whose name is Gracious that I will not eat," and he ate, "...that this is a woman," and it was a man, "...that I do not owe you anything," and he does, "that I do not know any testimony involving you," and he does,15 he is liable.

‫וכן האומר שבועה בה' או במי ששמו‬ ‫ שזו אשה והוא‬,‫חנון שלא אוכל ואכל‬ ‫ שאיני‬,‫ שאין לך בידי כלום ויש לו‬,‫איש‬ 41 .‫יודע לך עדות והוא יודע ה"ז חייב‬

If a person uses the term eleh or erur or an oath and does not mention God's name or a term describing Him, he is bound by a prohibition with regard to the entity concerning which he [desired to] take the oath. He is not, however, liable for lashes or for a sacrifice if he violated his oath unless it included one of God's names16 or a term describing Him as explained.

‫אמר אלה או ארור או שבועה ולא‬ ‫הזכיר שם ולא כינוי הרי זה אסור‬ ‫ אבל אינו לוקה ולא‬,‫בדבר שנשבע עליו‬ ‫מביא קרבן אם עבר על שבועתו עד‬ ‫שיהיה בה שם מן השמות המיוחדים או‬ .‫כינוי מן הכינויין כמו שבארנו‬

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

3 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973864/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Not only the term sh'vuah, but [the use of] any idiom used to refer to an oath is considered as [taking] an oath. For example, people in a given place were inarticulate and would call an oath shabutah or shakukah, or they were Aramites for whom the term for oath in their language is momata, and the inarticulate idiomatically refer to it is mohah. When a person makes a statement whose intent and meaning is that he is taking an oath, he is liable as if he used the term [in Lashon Hakodesh].17

‫ולא השבועה בלבד אלא כל כינויי‬ ‫ כגון שהיו אנשי‬,‫שבועה כשבועה‬ ‫אותו מקום עלגים והיו קוראים לשבועה‬ ‫ או שהיו ארמיים‬,‫שבותה או שקוקה‬ ‫ והעלגים‬,‫שלשון שבועה בלשונם מומתא‬ ‫ כיון שאמר‬,‫מכנין אותה ואומרים מוהא‬ ‫לשון שמשמעו וענינו שבועה הרי זה חייב‬ .‫כמי שהוציא לשון שבועה‬

Similarly, when a person says: "No, no," repeating the negative twice as if he is taking an oath or "Yes, yes," and mentions God's name or a term used to describe Him, it is considered an oath.18 Similarly, if he says: "[By God's] right hand," it is an oath, or "[By God's] left hand," it is an oath, as [implied by Isaiah 62:5] "God swore by His right hand and by the arm of His strength."19 Similarly, when someone says "Mivtah20 that I will not do such-and-such," and mentions God's name or a term used to describe Him, it is considered an oath.

‫וכן האומר לאו לאו שתי פעמים דרך‬ ‫שבועה או הן הן והזכיר שם או כנוי‬ ‫ ושמאל‬,‫ וכן ימין שבועה‬,‫הרי זה כנשבע‬ ‫ שנאמר נשבע ה' בימינו ובזרוע‬,‫שבועה‬ ‫ וכן האומר מבטא שלא אעשה כך‬,‫עוזו‬ .‫ והזכיר שם או כינוי הרי זו שבועה‬,‫וכך‬

When one says: "It is forbidden for God's [sake]" or "...for [the sake of] He whose name is Gracious that I will do..." or "...that I will not do [such-and-such]," it is considered an oath, because the wording he used has that implication.

‫אמר איסר לה' או למי ששמו חנון‬ ‫שאעשה או שלא אעשה הואיל‬ .‫והוציאו בלשון שבועה הרי היא כשבועה‬

If he heard his colleague take an oath and said: "I am like him," he is not liable,21 for he did not utter an oath, nor did his colleague administer an oath to him. This is "appending" to an oath for which one is not liable.22

‫ח‬

‫שמע חבירו נשבע ואמר ואני כמותך‬ ‫הואיל ולא הוציא שבועה מפיו ולא‬ ‫ וזהו מתפיס‬,‫השביעו חבירו הרי זה פטור‬ .‫בשבועה שהוא פטור‬

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

4 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973864/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Similarly, if he took an oath and said: "I will not eat this meat," and then said: "This bread is like this meat," he is not liable for the bread, because he did not explicitly take an oath regarding it. Instead, he appended [the prohibition concerning it to his existing oath]. Although he is exempt from lashes and from a sacrifice, he is forbidden to partake of the bread that he appended to his oath.23

,‫וכן אם נשבע שלא אוכל בשר זה‬ ‫וחזר ואמר והרי הפת זו כבשר הזה‬ ‫ שהרי לא הוציא‬,‫הרי הוא פטור על הפת‬ ‫ ואע"פ‬,‫שבועה מפיו עליה אלא התפיסה‬ ‫שהוא פטור מן המלקות או מן הקרבן‬ ‫אסור לו לאכול אותה הפת שהתפיס‬ .‫בשבועה‬

[Although] a person has the intent to take an oath and resolves in his heart not to eat on that day or not to drink and has the intent for that activity to forbidden for him by oath, [if] he does not actually make such a statement, he is permitted [to eat or drink], as [implied by Leviticus 5:4]: "expressing with his lips." [Implied is that] a person who takes an oath is not liable until he explicitly states the matter the oath concerns with his lips.

‫מי שנתכוון לשבועה וגמר בלבו שלא‬ ‫יאכל היום או שלא ישתה ושדבר זה‬ ‫אסור עליו בשבועה ולא הוציא בשפתיו‬ ‫ אין‬,‫הרי זה מותר שנאמר לבטא בשפתים‬ ‫הנשבע חייב עד שיוציא ענין שבועה‬ .‫בשפתיו‬

Similarly, if he resolved within his heart to take an oath and erred and uttered a statement that did not fit the intent in his heart, [the activity] is permitted.24

‫וכן אם גמר בלבו להשבע וטעה‬ ‫והוציא בשפתיו דבר שלא היה‬ ‫ כיצד המתכוין להשבע‬,‫בלבו הרי זה מותר‬ ‫שלא יאכל אצל ראובן וכשבא להוציא‬ ‫ הרי‬,‫שבועה נשבע שלא יאכל אצל שמעון‬ ‫זה מותר לאכול עם ראובן שהרי לא‬ ‫ ועם שמעון שהרי לא היה‬,‫הוציאו בשפתיו‬ .‫שמעון בלבו‬

What is implied? A person had the intent that he would not eat in Reuven's [home], but when he actually came to state the oath explicitly, he swore not to eat in [Shimon's] home. [In such a situation,] he is permitted to eat in Reuven's [home] for he did not explicitly [swear not to eat there]. [And he is permitted to eat] in Shimon's [home] for he did not have the intent [to prohibit that].

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

5 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973864/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Similarly, with regard to the other types of oaths, one is not liable until his mouth and his heart are in concord.25 Therefore [the following law applies if] a person took an oath in our presence that he would not eat and ate. He was given a warning [before he ate] and he responded: "My intent was that I would not depart today. I had a slip of the tongue and mentioned eating although that was not my intent."26 is not liable for lashes unless, before he eats, he admits in the presence of witnesses that [his intent in] taking the oath was [not] to eat. Alternatively, [he is liable for lashes] if he accepted the warning and did not protest that he erred at the time of the warning. Even though he protested afterwards, we do not pay attention to him.27 Similarly, [he is liable] if they warned him and he said: "I never took an oath - or a vow - concerning this matter." Despite the fact that after they give testimony that he took an oath or vow, he says: "Yes, that is true, but my mouth and heart were not in concord," or "In my heart, I had a stipulation in mind concerning the vow,"28 we do not heed him29 and he is liable for lashes.

‫וכן שאר מיני שבועות אינו חייב עד‬ ‫ לפיכך אם‬,‫שיהיה פיו ולבו שוין‬ ,‫נשבע אחד בפנינו שלא יאכל היום ואכל‬ ‫והתרו בו ואמר אני לא היה בלבי אלא‬ ‫שלא אצא היום וטעה לשוני והוציא‬ ,‫אכילה שלא היתה בלבי הרי זה אינו לוקה‬ ‫עד שיודה בפני עדים קודם שיאכל שעל‬ ‫ או שקבל עליו התראה ולא‬,‫אכילה נשבע‬ ‫טען שטעה בעת התראה אע"פ שטען‬ ‫ וכן אם התרו בו‬,‫אחר כך אין שומעין לו‬ ‫ואמר מעולם לא נשבעתי או לא נדרתי‬ ‫אלא על דבר זה ואחר שהעידו עליו‬ ‫שנשבע או נדר אמר כן היה אבל לא היה‬ ‫פי ולבי שוין או תנאי היה בלבי על הנדר‬ .‫אין שומעין לו ולוקה‬

Similarly, if [witnesses] told him: "Your wife took a vow," and he said: "My intent was to nullify the vow and I did so,"30 we heed his statements. If he is told, "She took a vow," and he denies it, but when he saw them testify against him, he said: "My intent was to nullify [the vow]," his word is not heeded.

,‫כיוצא בו אמרו לו אשתך נדרה‬ ‫ואמר בלבי היה להפר לה והפרתי‬ ‫ אמרו לו נדרה והוא אומר לא‬,‫שומעין לו‬ ‫נדרה וכיון שראה אותם העידו עליו אמר‬ .‫בלבי היה להפר אין שומעין לו‬

If he resolved within his heart not to partake of bread made from wheat, but took an oath not to partake of bread without qualifying his statement, he is forbidden to partake of bread from wheat. For when bread [is mentioned without qualification, the meaning] is bread from wheat.31

‫גמר בלבו שלא לאכול פת חטין‬ ‫ונשבע שלא יאכל פת סתם אסור‬ .‫בפת חטים שפת חטים פת שמה‬

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

6 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973864/jewish/Shvuot-C...

When a person takes an oath, saying: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat today and my oath is dependent on your intent,"32 he cannot [later] say: "I had these-and-these thoughts in my heart." [The rationale is] that the person did not take the oath dependent on his own intent, but rather on the intent of others. Since his statements did concur with the intent of those on whose intent he took the oath he is liable. [The intent in] the heart of those individuals takes the place of his own intent. [This concept also applies] with regard to other types of oaths. Therefore when judges administer an oath to a person,33 they tell him: "We are not administering the oath dependent on your intent, but dependent on our intent.34

‫מי שנשבע ואמר שבועה שלא‬ ,‫אוכל היום ועל דעתכם אני נשבע‬ ‫ שלא‬,‫אין זה יכול לומר כך וכך היה בלבי‬ ‫נשבע זה על דעתו אלא על דעת אחרים‬ ‫וכיון שהיה פיו ולבם של אחרים שנשבע‬ ‫על דעתם שוים חייב מפני שלבם של אלו‬ .‫ וכן בשאר מיני שבועות‬,‫במקום לבו קם‬

‫ט‬

‫לפיכך כשמשביעין הדיינין את‬ ‫הנשבע אומרים לו לא על דעתך אנו‬ .‫משביעים אותך אלא על דעתנו‬

[The following law applies when a person] took an oath and his statements and his intent concurred at the time he took the oath, but after he becomes forbidden [in the particular activity mentioned in the oath], he changes his mind immediately, directly after he spoke. [The latter term has a specific halachic definition]: the time it takes a student to tell his teacher: Shalom Elecha Rabbi.35 [If, in this interim, the person says:] "This is not an oath," "I changed my mind," "I retract," or the like, i.e., statements that imply that he seeks to release the prohibition he took on [himself], it is permitted.36 The oath is eradicated, for this resembles on who made a statement in error.

‫מי שנשבע והיה פיו ולבו שוין‬ ‫ ואחר שנאסר חזר בו מיד‬,‫בשבועה‬ ‫בתוך כדי דיבור והוא כדי שיאמר תלמיד‬ ‫ ואמר אין זו שבועה‬,‫לרב שלום עליך רבי‬ ‫או נחמתי או חזרתי בי וכיוצא בדברים‬ ‫אלו שענינם שהתיר מה שאסר הרי זה‬ .‫מותר ונעקרה השבועה שזה דומה לטועה‬

Similarly, if others tell him: "Retract," "It is permitted for you," or the like and he accepts their view within the above measure of time37 by saying: "Yes," or "I retract," he is permitted. After this measure of time, he cannot retract.38

‫וכן אם אמרו לו אחרים חזור בך‬ ‫או מותר לך וכיוצא בדברים אלו‬ ‫וקבל מהן בתוך כדי דיבור ואמר הן או‬ ‫ ואם‬,‫חזרתי בי וכיוצא בזה הרי זה מותר‬ 42 .‫אחר כדי דיבור אינו יכול לחזור בו‬

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

7 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973864/jewish/Shvuot-C...

If a person took an oath and retracted within his heart39 within the above measure of time, it is of no consequence. Similarly, if others told him: "Retract," "It is permitted for you," or "It is absolved for you," and he accepted their words in his heart within the above measure of time, it is of no consequence. He must state his retraction explicitly like his oath.40

‫נשבע וחזר בו בתוך כדי דיבור‬ ‫ וכן אם אמרו לו‬,‫בלבו אין זה כלום‬ ‫אחרים חזור בך או מותר לך או מחול לך‬ ‫וקבל דבריהם בלבו בתוך כדי דיבור אין זה‬ ‫כלום עד שיוציא החזרה בפיו כמו‬ ..‫השבועה‬

« Previous

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 3

Shvuot - Chapter 1 FOOTNOTES 1. The concept that a person is considered to have taken an oath when he responds Amen to the statements is derived from the Torah's statements with regard to a sotah, a woman

10. I.e., not only in lashon hakodesh, the Hebrew used in the Bible and by the Sages.

suspected of adultery (Numbers 5:22). For she is required to

11. The Rambam uses the expression "in the full sense of the term" to differentiate between this instance and the law

answer Amen to the oath administered to her by the priest

mentioned in Halachah 4. Note the Kessef Mishneh and the

and yet, it is considered as if she took the oath herself.

Radbaz who explains that there is a difference of opinion

2. Although in most instances, statements made by such gentiles are of no significance according to Jewish Law, this

among the Rishonim if a sh'vuat bitui must contain God's

is an acceptance. Here also there is an allusion to this concept in the Torah itself. Ezekiel 17:13 and II Chronicles

opinion or whether His name need not be mentioned as is the view of the Ramban, Rabbenu Asher, and others. The

36:13 speak of Nebuchadnetzar having King Tzidkayahu take an oath. Nedarim 65a states that this oath was binding.

Ra'avad takes an intermediate view, stating that one transgresses by taking a false oath and is liable to bring a

Similarly, Sh'vuot 36a speaks of an oath Moses took to

sacrifice, but he is not liable for lashes unless he mentions one of God's names.

Jethro, his gentile father-in-law (Kessef Mishneh). 3. This is derived through a comparison to gentiles. 4. I.e., not only in lashon hakodesh, the Hebrew used in the Bible and by the Sages. 5. See Chapter 7, Halachah 1, Chapter 8, Halachah 7, and Chapter 9, Halachah 1, which mentions instances where a person is considered to have taken an oath even if he does not respond Amen. 6. If he takes a false sh'vuat bitui or takes an oath in vain.

name for one to be liable as appears to be the Rambam's

All authorities agree that God's name must be mentioned for one to be liable with regard to a sh'vuat haedut or a sh'vuat hapikadon. On that basis, the Radbaz supports the Rambam's position, asking why a differentiation should be made between one type of oath and another. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 237:1) and commentaries. 12. Both these terms mean "curse." 13. Sh'vuot 36a derives this concept from the verses cited above

7. If he takes a false sh'vuat hapikadon or sh'vuat ha'edut.

with regard to Tzidkayahu's oath, for there he used the term "curse." See also I Samuel 14, 24, 27 which indicate that

8. I.e., the name Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei. See Hilchot

saying that one will be cursed is equivalent to an oath.

Avodat

Kochavim 2:7 which states that this term also refers to the name Adonai. The same law holds true for any other of God's names. 9. Note, however, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:5, which states that even when these descriptions are used to refer to Him, they are not considered to have the same holiness as one of

14. And is liable for taking a false sh'vuat bitui, as indicated by Chapter 1, Halachah 3. 15. I.e., the Rambam is giving an example of all four types of oaths. 16. See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:2 for a list of the seven names of God.

His names.

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

8 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973864/jewish/Shvuot-C...

17. For that reason, when called to take an oath in a secular court or the like, one should refuse. Instead of saying "I swear," he should say, "I affirm." 18. The repetition and the mention of God's name indicate that he is not merely making a statement, but intending that it

27. As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2, to be liable for lashes, a transgressor must acknowledge the warning. Since, at that time, he did not mention the lack of concurrence between his intent and his statements, we assume that he is fabricating the matter.

have the severity of an oath. The Kessef Mishneh states

28. And since the stipulation was not met, the vow is not binding.

that since the person mentioned God's name, seemingly, it is

29. For he has already lied concerning this oath.

not necessary for him to repeat yes or no, the mention of His name alone should be sufficient for his statement to be

30. There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries

considered an oath. He explains that we are speaking about an instance when God's name was not mentioned in direct

with regard to the interpretation of the Rambam's statements. Some explain that the intent is that the husband used the halachic convention of hafarah and made the statement

connection with the statement. Nevertheless, the fact that he repeated no, or yes while mentioning God's name, albeit

nullifying his wife's vow in a hushed tone. If, however, he did

indirectly, is sufficient for his statements to be considered an oath.

nullified, as stated in Hilchot Nedarim 13:7). The Tzaphnat

19. 2Nazir 3a states that "the arm of His strength" refers to His left arm. Otherwise, the verse would be redundant.

as referring to an oath. 21. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that the Rambam's choice of wording - "He is not liable" rather than "It is permitted" - implies that although he is not liable, he is forbidden to break the commitment he made. Although other Rishonim differ, he follows this interpretation in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 239:9-10). See the following halachah. 22. This is one of the distinctions between oaths and vows. One who "appends" - i.e., says "And I will be like him" - to a colleague's vow is liable. See Hilchot Nedarim 3:3-4. 23. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam elaborates here - in contrast to the previous halachah - for here there is greater reason to think that he will not be obligated. The explanation is based on a fundamental understanding of the difference between a sh'vuah - oath - and a neder - vow. When a person takes an oath, he places a prohibition upon his person - he is forbidden to perform the activity concerning which he took the oath. When he takes a vow, the article becomes forbidden for him. Hence, since he spoke about the article and not himself, one might think that his statement has no effect at all. 24. For as Sh'vuot 26b implies, one's heart and one's lips must be in concord. 25. In some authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, this sentence is the conclusion of the halachah.

The

present

halachah

Paneach states that the intent is that he used the halachic convention of bittul. In such in instance, a statement need not be made (Hilchot Nedarim 13:4).

20. Sh'vuot 20a notes that Numbers 30:7 understands this term

previous

not make a statement of hafarah at all, the vow is not

begins:

"Therefore..." Compare to Halachot 15-16. 26. I.e., if he makes this statement when given the warning, we accept his word and do not hold him liable (Tosefta, Taharot

31. Thus the person cannot claim that his statement did not reflect his intent. 32. I.e., this law applies even if the person takes the oath on his own volition, not only if it is administered by others. 33. I.e., require an oath of a person who denies a plaintiff's claim. See Chapter 11, Halachah 18. 34. Thus afterwards the person cannot claim that he had theseand-these thoughts in mind when taking the oath (Radbaz). See also Nedarim 25a. 35. "Greetings to you, my teacher." We have cited the term in transliteration for we are speaking about the amount of time it takes to say these three Hebrew words. 36. Nedarim 87a states that this principle applies with the exception of four situations: a blasphemer, one who accepts a false deity, one who consecrates a woman as a wife, and one who divorces her. Rabbenu Nissim explains that when taking an oath, a person has in mind that he might change his mind in this brief amount of time. Hence, his oath is not binding until this time passes. 37. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, saying that the objections of others cannot by connected to his oath. In his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 210:3), Rav Yosef Caro and also the Radbaz explain that since the others protested immediately after his oath and his acceptance also came immediately afterwards, it is as if he never completed taking the oath. 38. This applies even if the oath has not taken effect as of yet (Radbaz). 39. I.e., without verbalizing his retraction.

6:9).

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

9 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973864/jewish/Shvuot-C...

40. The Radbaz emphasizes that he must also make his statements with intent. Just as his mouth and heart must

41. ‫ א"א לא נתחוור אצלי דבר זה שלא מצאתי‬.'‫וכן האומר שבועה בה' וכו‬ ‫שם מן השמות ולא כינוי מהכינויים בשבועת ביטוי ולא מצינו שם אלא‬

concur when making an oath, so, too, they must concur when retracting it.

‫בעדות ובפקדון לפי שנאמר בעדות אלה וקול וילפינן אלה אלה מסוטה‬ ‫ופקדון תחטא תחטא מעדות אבל בשבועת ביטוי אפילו מבטא או איסר‬ ‫שבועה אם אמר מבטא לא אוכל לך שבועה וכן איסר אע"פ שלא אמר לא‬ ‫שם ולא כינוי אם אמר לשם שבועה אע"פ שלא הזכיר שם שבועה היא‬ ‫וכן לאו לאו והן הן אם נתכוון ללאו והן שאמר הבורא שבועה היא וכן ימין‬ ‫ושמאל אם נתכוון לימין ושמאל הבורא שבועה היא וה"מ לקרבן וכן נמי‬ ‫לבל יחל אבל למלקות בעינן שם דכתיב לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך‬ ‫'לשוא ושבועת שקר נמי נאמר לא תשבעו בשמי לשקר וגו‬. 42. ‫ א"א דבר זה אינו מחוור שאין אחרים‬.'‫וכן אם אמרו לו אחרים חזור בך וכו‬ ‫מוזקקין לנדרו שתהא מחאה שלהן סומכת נדרו לחזרתו‬.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

1 of 5

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973865/jewish/Shvuot-C...



Shvuot - Chapter 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 2

English

Hebrew

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 4

Whenever a person takes one of these four types of oaths under compulsion, he is exempt from all liability. This applies to a person who at the outset took a false oath because of factors beyond his control as we explained, one who took an oath and then was subjected to compulsion and was not given the opportunity to fulfill his oath, or he was compelled to take an oath by a man of force. Therefore one may take an oath when compelled to by robbers, potential murders, and tax collectors.

‫כל הנשבע שבועה מארבע מיני‬ ‫שבועות אלו באונס הרי זה פטור‬ ‫ ואחד הנשבע מתחלתו באונס כמו‬,‫מכלום‬ ‫ או שנשבע ונאנס ולא הניחוהו‬,‫שבארנו‬ ‫ לפיכך‬,‫ או שהשביעו אנס‬,‫לקיים שבועתו‬ .‫נשבעין לחרמין ולהורגין ולמוכסין‬

To which tax collector did we refer? To a tax collector that assumed the position on his own, who takes money without the license of the king or who takes money with the king's license, but takes more for himself than the fixed measure, as explained in Hilchot Gezelah.

‫ במוכס העומד‬,‫באי זה מוכס אמרו‬ ‫מאליו שלוקח ממון שלא ברשות‬ ‫ או שלוקח ברשות המלך‬,‫מלך המדינה‬ ‫אבל מוסיף לעצמו על הדבר הקצוב כמו‬ .‫שיתבאר בהלכות גזלה‬

When a person is compelled to take an oath, to be exempt, while taking the oath, he must have the intent in his heart for the oath to apply to something for which he is exempt. Although generally, words in a person's heart are of no consequence, since he cannot express his intent because of the forces beyond his control, he can rely on the intent in his heart.

‫וצריך הנשבע באונס להיות כונתו‬ ,‫בלבו בעת השבועה לדבר הפוטרו‬ ,‫ואע"פ שהדברים אלו שבלב אינן דברים‬ ‫הואיל ואינו יכול להוציא בשפתיו מפני‬ .‫ הרי זה סומך על דברים שבלבו‬,‫האונס‬

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

2 of 5

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973865/jewish/Shvuot-C...

What is implied? One took an oath to a man of force that would not eat meat without qualifying his statement, it is permitted if in his heart, he had the intent that he was saying that he would not eat the meat of pigs, or that he would not eat meat that day. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫כיצד כגון שנשבע לאנס שלא יאכל‬ ‫ ובלבו שלא יאכל היום או‬,‫בשר סתם‬ ‫שלא יאכל בשר חזיר הרי זה מותר וכן כל‬ .‫כיוצא בזה‬

Similarly, one is not liable for oaths involving exaggerations or unintentional oaths. What is meant by oaths involving exaggerations? A person saw vast armies and tall walls and he took an oath that "I saw the armies of King So-and-So and they are as vast as those who left Egypt," "I saw the wall of this-and-this city and it was as high as the heavens," or the like. He is exempt, because he did not resolve within his heart that this was the measure of the subject in question, no more and no less. His intent was only to describe the height of the wall or the multitude of the people.

‫וכן שבועת הבאי ושל שגגות פטור‬ ‫ שבועת )של( הבאי כיצד כגון‬,‫עליהן‬ ‫שראה חיילות גדולות וחומה גבוהה ונשבע‬ ‫שראיתי חיל פלוני המלך והם כיוצאי‬ ‫ ושראיתי חומת עיר פלונית גבוהה‬,‫מצרים‬ ‫ שזה לא‬,‫עד לרקיע וכיוצא בדברים אלו‬ ‫גמר בלבו שהדבר כך בלא פחות ולא יותר‬ ‫ולא נתכוון אלא לספר את גובה החומה או‬ 1 .‫רוב העם‬

What is meant by an oath taken inadvertently? With regard to a sh'vuat hapikadon or a sh'vuat ha'edut, it refers to a situation where the person forgot about the entrusted article or the testimony. He is entirely exempt, as we explained.

‫ אם שבועת‬,‫שבועה של שגגות כיצד‬ ‫העדות או הפקדון היא כגון ששגג‬ ‫בפקדון ובעדות שהוא פטור מכלום כמו‬ ‫ ואם שבועת שוא היא כגון‬,‫שבארנו‬ ‫שנשבע שלא ילבש תפילין ולא ידע‬ ‫ ואם שבועת שקר היא‬,‫שהתפילין מצוה‬ ‫ או‬,‫כגון שנשבע שלא אכל ונזכר שאכל‬ ‫ או שלא‬,‫שנשבע שלא יאכל ושכח ואכל‬ ‫תהנה אשתו לו מפני שגנבה כיסו או‬ ‫שהכתה את בנו ונודע שלא גנבה ושלא‬ .‫הכתה וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

With regard to an oath taken in vain, it refers to a situation where the person took an oath not to wear tefilin, but did not know that tefilin are a mitzvah. With regard to a false oath, it refers to a situation where the person took an oath that he did not eat and then remembered that he did in fact eat, he took an oath that he would not eat and then forgot and ate, he took an oath that he would not give any satisfaction to his wife because she stole his wallet or beat his son and afterwards, he found out that she did not steal it or beat him. Similar concepts apply in all analogous situations.

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

3 of 5

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973865/jewish/Shvuot-C...

If so, what is a sh'vuat bitui taken inadvertently for which one is liable to bring an adjustable guilt offering with regard to the past? One took an oath that he did not eat although he knew that he in fact had eaten and he knew that it is forbidden to have taken this false oath, but he did not know that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. This is the inadvertent violation for which one is liable to bring an adjustable guilt offering for taking a sh'vuat bitui with regard to the past.

‫אם כן אי זהו שגגת שבועת בטוי‬ ‫שחייבין עליה קרבן עולה ויורד‬ ‫ כגון שנשבע שלא אכל והוא יודע‬,‫לשעבר‬ ‫ וששבועת שקר זו שנשבע אסורה‬,‫שאכל‬ ‫ זו היא‬,‫אבל לא ידע שחייבין עליה קרבן‬ ‫השגגה שחייבין עליה קרבן עולה ויורד‬ .‫בשבועת בטוי לשעבר‬

What is meant by an inadvertent violation for which one is liable for an adjustable guilt offering for breaking an oath involving the future? For example, one took an oath that he would not eat bread from wheat and forgot and thought that he had taken an oath that he would eat bread from wheat and then ate it. In this instance, he became unaware of the content of the oath although he remembered the article concerning which he took the oath. This is an inadvertent violation of a sh'vuat bitui involving the future which obligates him to bring a sacrifice.

‫וכיצד היא השגגה שחייבין עליה‬ ‫ כגון שנשבע שלא יאכל‬,‫קרבן להבא‬ ‫פת חטים ושגג ודמה שנשבע שיאכל פת‬ ‫חטים ואכלה שזה נעלמה ממנו השבועה‬ ‫היאך היתה והרי הוא זוכר את החפץ‬ ‫ זו היא שגגת שבועת ביטוי‬,‫שנשבע עליו‬ .‫להבא שחייבין עליה קרבן‬

If, however, he took an oath that he would not eat bread from wheat and he ate bread from wheat thinking that it was made from barley, he is considered to have transgressed due to forces beyond his control and he is exempt. For he did not become unaware of the oath, but instead of the article concerning which he took the oath.

‫אבל אם נשבע שלא יאכל פת חטים‬ ‫ואכל פת חטים על דעת שהוא פת‬ ‫ שהרי לא‬,‫שעורים הרי זה אנוס ופטור‬ ‫נעלמה ממנו שבועה ולא נעלם ממנו אלא‬ .‫חפץ שנשבע עליו‬

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

4 of 5

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973865/jewish/Shvuot-C...

If he lost awareness of the oath he took and he lost awareness of the article concerning which he took the oath, he is not liable for a sacrifice. What is implied? For example, one took an oath that he would not eat bread from wheat and thought that he had taken an oath that he would eat bread from wheat and ate bread from wheat thinking it was barley. He is not liable, because he became unaware of both the oath and the article it concerned. It is considered as if he he transgressed due to forces beyond his control. The following laws apply if a person took an oath concerning a loaf of bread, swearing that he would not eat it and then suffered discomfort because of it. Should he eat the loaf because of his discomfort, because he thought that it is permitted for him to eat it because of discomfort, he is considered to have transgressed inadvertently. He is exempt from bringing a sacrifice, because he is not repenting because of his new knowledge. Instead, he knew that it was forbidden and ate it in error.

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 2

,‫נעלמה ממנו שבועה היאך היתה‬ ‫ונעלם ממנו חפץ שנשבע עליו הרי זה‬ ‫ כיצד כגון שנשבע שלא‬,‫פטור מן הקרבן‬ ‫לאכול פת חטים ודמה שנשבע שיאכל פת‬ ‫חטים ואכל פת חטים על דעת שהוא פת‬ ‫שעורים שהרי העלם שבועה וחפץ בידו‬ .‫הרי זה כאנוס ופטור‬

‫נשבע על ככר שלא יאכלנו‬ ‫ונצטער עליו ואכלו מפני הצער‬ ‫והוא שוגג שהרי דמה שמותר לו לאכלו‬ ‫מפני הצער הרי זו פטור מן הקרבן לפי‬ ‫שאינו שב מידיעתו אלא ידע שאסורה‬ .‫היא ואכלה בטעות‬

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 4

FOOTNOTES 1. ‫ א"א לא הוצרכו חכמים לומר‬.‫וכן שבועת הבאי ושל שגגות פטור עליהן‬ ‫שהוא פטור מקרבן אלא שאמרו כשם שנדרי שגגות ונדרי הבאי מותרין‬ ‫ שבועת שגגות שמותרין כגון‬,‫כך שבועת שגגות ושבועת הבאי מותרין‬ ‫שאמר לאשתו שבועה שלא אוכל היום שגנבת את כיסי ונודע שלא גנבה‬ ‫וכל כיוצא בזה שאם נשבע שלא יאכל ככר אחד אם שתה היום ונזכר‬ ‫ ושבועות הבאי שהן מותרות כגון שאמר‬,‫ששתה היום מותר לאכול הככר‬ ‫יאסרו עלי פירות העולם בשבועה אם לא ראיתי גמל פורח באויר וכיוצא‬ ‫בו שלא נתכוין לאסור פירות העולם על עצמו אלא לחזק הדבר שיאמינו‬ ‫ נעלמה‬,‫בו מפני שהוא דבר תימה ושבועת הבאי ענין שבועת שוא היא‬ ,‫ממנו שבועה כו' שהרי העלם שבועה וחפץ בידו הרי זה כאנוס ופטור‬ ‫נשבע על הככר שלא יאכלנו ונצטער עליו ואכלו והוא שוגג ששכח‬ ‫שבועתו פטור לפי שאינו שב מידיעתו שהרי דמה שמותר לו לאכלו מפני‬ ‫הצער ולא ידע שאסורה היא‬.

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

5 of 5

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973865/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:02 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

1 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973866/jewish/Shvuot-C...



Shvuot - Chapter 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 3

When a person takes an oath that he will not eat anything on that day and he ate less than an olive-sized portion of food, he is not liable. For "eating" does not involve a quantity less than an olive-sized portion.1 It is as if he partook of less than the minimum measure of a nevelah, a trefe, or the like.2

English

Hebrew

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 5

‫מי שנשבע שלא יאכל היום כלום‬ ‫ שאין‬,‫ואכל פחות מכזית פטור‬ ‫ והרי הוא כאוכל‬,‫אכילה פחותה מכזית‬ ,‫חצי שיעור מנבלות וטרפות וכיוצא בהן‬ ‫ואם אמר שבועה שלא אוכל דבר זה‬ ‫ ואפילו היה הדבר שנשבע‬,‫ואכלו חייב‬ .‫עליו זרע חרדל אחד או פחות ממנו‬

If he said: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat this substance," and he ate it, he is liable even if the substance concerning which he took the oath is one mustard seed or smaller.3 If he took an oath that he would not taste anything and partook of even the smallest amount of food, he is liable.4

‫נשבע שלא יטעום כלום ואכל כל‬ .‫שהוא חייב‬

When a person takes an oath that he will not eat on a specific day and drinks, he is liable, because [a prohibition against] eating includes drinking.5 Therefore, if he both ate and drank, he is liable only for one set of lashes6 if he acted willfully or one sin offering if he transgressed inadvertently.

‫מי שנשבע שלא יאכל היום ושתה‬ ‫ לפיכך‬,‫חייב שהשתייה בכלל אכילה‬ ‫אם אכל ושתה אינו חייב אלא מלקות‬ ‫אחת אם היה מזיד או חטאת אחת אם‬ .‫היה שוגג‬

8/21/2019 4:03 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

2 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973866/jewish/Shvuot-C...

When a person took an oath not to drink on a given day, he is permitted to eat, because [a prohibition against] drinking does not include eating. How much must he drink for him to be liable? It appears to me7 that he is not liable unless he drinks a revi'it8 as is the case with regard to other prohibitions.9

‫נשבע שלא ישתה היום הרי זה מותר‬ ,‫ שאין אכילה בכלל שתיה‬,‫לאכול‬ ‫וכמה ישתה ויהא חייב נראה לי שאינו‬ .‫חייב עד שישתה רביעית כשאר האיסורין‬

When a person takes an oath that he will not eat on a particular day and partook of many types of food, or he takes an oath that he will not drink on a particular day and partakes of many types of beverages, he is only liable once.10 Even if he said: "[I am taking] an oath that today I will not eat meat, bread, or beans," and he eat all [these types of food]. He is only liable once. All [of these foods] can be joined together to reach the measure of an olive-sized portion.11

‫שבועה שלא אוכל היום ואכל מינין‬ ‫ או שבועה שלא אשתה היום‬,‫הרבה‬ ‫ושתה מיני משקין הרבה אינו חייב אלא‬ ‫ ואפילו אמר שבועה שלא אוכל‬,‫אחת‬ ‫היום בשר ופת וקטנית ואכל הכל אינו‬ .‫חייב אלא אחת וכולן מצטרפין לכזית‬

When a person takes an oath that he will neither eat nor drink and then eats and drinks, he is liable twice. Although drinking is included in eating, since he specifically said: "And I will not drink," he revealed his intention not to include drinking in eating.12 Thus it is as if he took an oath on this independently and this independently. Therefore he is liable twice.

‫שבועה שלא אוכל ושלא אשתה ואכל‬ ‫ושתה חייב שתים שהשתיה בכלל‬ ‫ והואיל ופרט ואמר ושלא אשתה‬,‫אכילה‬ ‫גלה דעתו שלא כלל השתיה בכלל‬ ‫האכילה ונמצא כנשבע על זה בפני עצמו‬ .‫ועל זה בפני עצמו ולפיכך חייב שתים‬

Similarly, if a person said: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat bread from wheat, bread from barley, or bread from buckwheat," he is liable for each one individually if he partakes of them. He mentioned "bread" three times13 to make a distinction and cause him to be liable for each one individually.

‫וכן האומר שבועה שלא אוכל פת‬ ‫חטין ופת שעורין ופת כוסמין ואכלן‬ ‫חייב על כל אחת ואחת שלא אמר פת‬ .‫ופת ופת אלא לחלק ולחייב על כל אחת‬

8/21/2019 4:03 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

3 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973866/jewish/Shvuot-C...

[The following laws apply when a person's] colleague was persistently imploring him to eat at his [home], telling him: "Come and drink with me, wine, milk, and honey." If he answers: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not drink wine, milk, and honey," he is liable for each one individually if he partakes of them. [To be liable only once,] he should have said: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not drink anything," or "...[that I will not drink] what you said." Since he repeated the phrase, stating each one individually,14 he revealed his intention that he obligated himself with an oath for each and every type [of beverage] individually. Therefore [the beverages] are not combined with each other [to reach the minimum measure]15 and the person is liable only when he eats the minimum measure from each one individually. Since a sin offering is required for each one individually, they are like fat and blood which cannot be combined for [the measure of] an olive-sized portion as explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.16

‫היה חבירו מסרהב בו לאכול אצלו‬ ‫ואמר לו בוא ושתה עמי יין וחלב‬ ‫ ואמר שבועה שאיני שותה יין וחלב‬,‫ודבש‬ ‫ודבש ושתה מהן חייב על כל אחת ואחת‬ ‫ שהיה לו לומר שבועה שאיני‬,‫בפני עצמו‬ ‫שותה כלום או מה שאמרת ומשחזר ופרט‬ ‫גלה דעתו שחייב עצמו בשבועה על כל מין‬ ‫ לפיכך אין מצטרפין זה עם‬,‫ומין בפני עצמו‬ ‫זה ואינו חייב עד שיאכל כשיעור ממין‬ ‫ הואיל והן חלוקין לחטאות הרי הן‬,‫אחד‬ ‫כחלב ודם שאינן מצטרפין לכזית כמו‬ .‫שנתבאר בהלכות מאכלות אסורות‬

[When one says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat this loaf," or "...that I will not eat it," once he eats an olive-sized portion of it, he is liable.17 [If he says:] "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat it up,"18 he is not liable until he eats the entire loaf.

‫שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו או שלא‬ ‫אוכל אותה כיון שאכל ממנה כזית‬ ‫ שבועה שלא אוכלנה אינו חייב עד‬,‫חייב‬ ‫ אמר שבועה שלא אוכל‬,‫שיאכל את כולה‬ ‫ככר זו שבועה שלא אוכלנה ואכלה אינו‬ 49 .‫חייב אלא אחת‬

If he says: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat this loaf; [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat it up," should he eat it,19 he is liable only once.20

8/21/2019 4:03 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

4 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973866/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Similarly, if one said: ["I am taking] an oath that I will not eat today,"21 and then took an oath concerning a loaf that he would not eat it up, [even though] he eats the entire [loaf] that day, he is not liable only once.22 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.23 [The rationale is that] an oath does not take effect when another is already in effect.24 If, however, one took an oath that he would not eat up a loaf and afterwards, took an oath that he would not eat anything or that he would not eat this loaf, he is liable twice. [The rationale is that] at the time he took the oath that he would not eat it up, he would not be liable unless he ate the entire loaf. Thus when he took a second oath that he would not eat anything or that he would not eat the loaf, he is liable [for the latter oath,] when he eats an olive-sized portion. And when he eats the entire [loaf], he is liable for his first oath.

‫וכן אם אמר שבועה שלא אוכל היום‬ ‫וחזר ונשבע על הככר שלא יאכלנה‬ ‫ואכלה כולה באותו היום אינו חייב אלא‬ ‫אחת וכן כל כיוצא בזה שאין שבועה חלה‬ ‫ אבל אם נשבע על הככר שלא‬,‫על שבועה‬ ‫ או‬,‫יאכלנה וחזר ונשבע שלא יאכל כלום‬ ‫שלא יאכל ככר זו ואכלה כולה חייב‬ ‫ שבשעה שנשבע בתחילה שלא‬,‫שתים‬ ,‫יאכלנה אינו חייב עד שיאכל כולה‬ ‫וכשחזר ונשבע שלא יאכל ]כלום[ או‬ ‫שלא יאכל אותה משיאכל ממנה כזית‬ ‫יתחייב וכשיאכל כולה יתחייב בשבועה‬ 50 .‫ראשונה‬

[When a person takes] an oath not to eat figs and afterwards, takes an oath not to eat figs and grapes, he is liable twice for [eating] figs. [The rationale is that] he included the figs which were forbidden in the first oath with grapes that were permitted. Since the second oath took effect with regard the grapes, it also took effect with regard the figs and he becomes liable for two oaths, as we explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.25

‫ וחזר‬,‫שבועה שלא אוכל תאנים‬ ‫ונשבע על התאנים ועל הענבים‬ ‫חייב על התאנים שתים שהרי כלל‬ ‫התאנים שנאסרו בשבועה ראשונה עם‬ ‫הענבים שהיו מותרין ומתוך שחלה שבועה‬ ‫שניה על הענבים חלה על התאנים ונתחייב‬ ‫בשתי שבועות כמו שבארנו בהלכות‬ .‫מאכלות אסורות‬

[If one said: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat eight [of this item]," "...an oath that I will not eat nine," and "...an oath that I will not eat ten," he is liable only once whether he ate eight, nine, or ten.26

‫ שבועה‬,‫שבועה שלא אוכל שמונה‬ ‫ שבועה שלא‬,‫שלא אוכל תשע‬ ‫ בין שאכל שמונה בין שאכל‬,‫אוכל עשר‬ .‫תשע בין שאכל עשר אינו חייב אלא אחת‬

8/21/2019 4:03 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

5 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973866/jewish/Shvuot-C...

[If one said: "I am taking] an oath that I will not ten," "...an oath that I will not eat nine," and "...an oath that I will not eat eight," if he eats ten, he is liable three times, one for each oath.27 Similarly, if he eats nine, he is liable twice. If he eats eight, he is liable once.28

‫ שבועה‬,‫שבועה שלא אוכל עשר‬ ‫ שבועה שלא אוכל‬,‫שלא אוכל תשע‬ ‫ אם אכל עשר חייב שלש על כל‬,‫שמונה‬ ‫ וכן אם אכל תשע‬,‫שבועה ושבועה אחת‬ .‫ אכל שמונה חייב אחת‬,‫חייב שתים‬

[The following rules apply when a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat figs," and then takes another oath that he will not eat figs and dates together.29 If he forgot, ate figs, and set aside a sacrifice,30 afterwards, forgot, and ate grapes, he is not liable for the grapes. [The rationale is that] this is like half the measure [for which one is liable]31 and one does not bring a sacrifice for half the measure.

‫שבועה שלא אוכל תאנים וחזר‬ ‫ונשבע שלא יאכל תאנים וענבים‬ ,‫ ושגג ואכל תאנים והפריש קרבן‬,‫כאחת‬ ‫ואח"כ שגג ואכל ענבים אינו חייב על‬ ‫הענבים מפני שהן כחצי שיעור ואין‬ .‫מביאין קרבן על חצי שיעור‬

Similar [laws apply if] one took an oath that he would not eat ten, and then took an oath that he would not eat ten and nine.32 If he ate ten, separated a sacrifice,33 and then forgot and ate nine, this is like half the measure and one does not bring a sacrifice for half the measure. For the final oath concerned not eating nineteen.34

‫וכן הנשבע שלא יאכל עשר וחזר‬ ‫ונשבע שלא יאכל עשר ותשע‬ ‫ואכל עשר והפריש קרבן וחזר ושגג ואכל‬ ‫ ואין מביאין‬,‫תשע הרי זה כחצי שיעור‬ ‫ שענין שבועה‬,‫קרבן על חצי שיעור‬ 51 .‫אחרונה שלא יאכל תשע ועשר‬

[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat this large loaf if I eat this small loaf," if he forgets this stipulation when he eats the smaller loaf and afterwards willfully eats the larger [loaf], he is liable [for lashes].35

‫שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו הגדולה‬ ‫אם אוכל ככר זו הקטנה ושכח‬ ‫תנאי זה בעת שאכל הקטנה ואכל אח"כ‬ 52 .‫הגדולה במזיד חייב‬

If he ate the small one while he remembered the stipulation and knew that by eating it, the larger one would become forbidden and then forgot and ate the larger one while thinking that it was not forbidden yet, he is exempt.36 If he ate both of them unintentionally,37 he is exempt.38 [If he ate them] both willfully, he is liable,39 regardless of whether he ate the larger one first40 or last.

‫אכל את הקטנה והוא זוכר התנאי‬ ‫ויודע שבאכילתה תאסר הגדולה‬ ‫וישכח ואכל את הגדולה וכמדומה לו‬ ‫ אכל שתיהן‬,‫שעדיין לא נאסרה פטור‬ ‫ שתיהן במזיד בין שאכל‬,‫בשגגה פטור‬ 53 .‫הגדולה בתחלה או באחרונה חייב‬

8/21/2019 4:03 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

6 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973866/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Similarly, if he made the two loafs dependent on each other,41 taking an oath saying: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat one of these [loaves] if I eat the other." If he forgot the stipulation and ate one of them and then willfully ate the other, he is liable.42

‫וכן אם תלאן זו בזו ונשבע ואמר‬ ‫שבועה שלא אוכל אחת מהם אם‬ ‫אכלתי האחרת ושכח התנאי ואכל אחת‬ 54 .‫מהן ואכל השניה בזדון חייב‬

If he ate the first one willfully, but the second one inadvertently, he is exempt. [If he ate them] both willfully, he is liable.43

‫אכל הראשונה בזדון והשניה‬ 55 .‫ שתיהן בזדון חייב‬,‫בשגגה פטור‬

[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will eat this loaf today," and the day passes without him eating it, should he have acted unintentionally, he must bring an adjustable guilt offering. If he acted willfully, he is not liable for lashes, because he did not perform a deed,44 even though he violated [the prohibition against] taking a false oath.

‫שבועה שאוכל ככר זו היום ועבר‬ ‫ בשוגג מביא קרבן‬,‫היום ולא אכלה‬ ‫ במזיד אינו לוקה שהרי לא‬,‫עולה ויורד‬ ‫עשה מעשה ואף על פי שעבר על שבועת‬ .‫שקר‬

Why is a person who took an oath that he ate liable for lashes [if] he did not eat and one [who took an oath] that he did not eat [liable] if he did eat, even though he did not perform a deed. Because at the time he took the oath, he was taking a false oath.45 If, however, a person takes an oath that he will perform [a particular activity], it is not a false oath at the time it was taken.

‫ומפני מה לוקה אם נשבע שאכל‬ ‫והוא לא אכל או שלא אכל והוא‬ ‫ מפני‬,‫אכל ואע"פ שלא עשה מעשה‬ ‫ אבל אם‬,‫שמעת שבועתו לשקר נשבע‬ ‫נשבע שיעשה והוא לא עשה אינה שבועת‬ .‫שקר משעת שבועה‬

[The following laws apply when] a person tells a colleague: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat at your [home],"46 or [his colleague] was persistently imploring him to eat at his [home] and he refuses. If he takes an oath and says: "My oath [will take effect] if I eat at your [home]," or if he says: "There will be no oath if I do not eat at your [home],"47 these all bring about prohibitions. [It is considered that] he took an oath that he would not eat at his [home]. If he used all of these expressions [together] and transgressed and ate, he is only liable once.48

‫מי שאמר לחבירו שבועה לא‬ ‫אוכל לך או שבועה שאיני אוכל‬ ‫לך או שהיה מסרהב בו לאכול אצלו והוא‬ ‫ וכן‬,‫נמנע ונשבע ואמר שבועה שאוכל לך‬ ‫האומר לא שבועה לא אוכל לך כל אלו‬ ‫ ואם‬,‫אסורין והרי נשבע שלא יאכל אצלו‬ ‫אמר כל הלשונות האלו ועבר ואכל אינו‬ .‫חייב אלא אחת‬

8/21/2019 4:03 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

7 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973866/jewish/Shvuot-C...

« Previous

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 5

Shvuot - Chapter 3 FOOTNOTES 1. This is a principle applying to all of the Torah's prohibitions concerning eating.

14. I.e., the emphasis is one repeating his colleague's words, while stating each one individually. That shows that his intent

2. In such an instance, as stated in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot

is focused on each one individually. If, however, he made such a statement on his own initiative, without repeating his

4,:7-8, the prohibition is of Scriptural origin, but the violator is 238:1) rules that it is forbidden for the person who took such

colleague's words, they are not considered to have been singled out [Rav Kapach's edition of the Rambam's

an oath to partake of even the slightest quantity of food.

Comemntary to the Mishneh (Sh'vuot 3:4)].

not punished. Accordingly, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah

3. Because he singled out a specific article and by partaking of it broke his oath.

15. I.e., if he drank half of a revi'it of wine and half of a revi'it of

4. For tasting does not imply eating a full measure of food. Since he used that expression, it is clear that his intent was

16. Chapter 4, Halachah 16.

to forbid partaking of even the slightest measure of food.

milk, he is not liable.

17. We assume that his intention when taking the oath was to

5. Sh'vuot 22b derives this concept from Deuteronomy 14:23:

interpret the term eating according to its halachic definition (Radbaz).

"And you shall eat before God, your Lord... the tithes of your

18. Since he spoke in a colloquialism, we assume that he was

grain, your wine, and your oil." Implied is that partaking of wine and oil is also eating.

not referring to the halachic meaning and instead, meant the entire loaf.

6. As in Halachah 5.

19. Whether an olive-sized portion or the entire loaf.

7. This expression indicates a conclusion derived by the Rambam from logic without any explicit Talmudic or

20. Because once eating an olive-sized portion of the loaf is forbidden by an oath, a second oath concerning that same

Midrashic source. 8. I.e., a fourth of a log. In contemporary measure, a revi'it is equivalent to 86 cc. according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc. according to Chazon Ish. 9. The Radbaz explains that since this is the measure which the Torah considered significant in other contexts, one can extrapolate that anything less is not considered significant enough to warrant liability. Alternatively, with regard to oaths and vows, we follow the commonly accepted implications of the terms used and people do not consider partaking of a smaller measure as "drinking." 10. I.e., for one set of lashes or one sacrifice. As will be explained, this applies only when the transgressor did not become aware of his oath between eating. 11. The minimum measure for which one is liable as stated in Halachah 1. The Radbaz states that the superficial implication of the Rambam's words is that it is not necessary for one to partake of such a portion of each of the foods separately to be liable. He differs and maintains that the person must partake of all of them to be liable. 12. Otherwise, it would be considered as eating as stated in

loaf cannot take effect, as the Rambam states in the following halachah. 21. The implication is that he would not eat an olive-sized portion of food that day. 22. The Ra'avad accepts the principle stated by the Rambam, but explains that this is not a good example of it. For in this instance, the second oath does take effect, for it applies not only on the day that the first oath applies, but for all time. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam would agree that the second oath will take effect as soon as the day on which the first oath is in effect ends. This he maintains is why the Rambam mentions eating it "that day." 23. For example, that mentioned in Halachah 12. 24. The rationale for this principle is that a sh'vuat bitui applies only with regard to matters that are dependent upon one's volition, not on those forbidden by the Torah (Chapter 5, Halachah 17). Accordingly, once something is forbidden by an oath, it is no longer a matter dependent on one's volition. Hence, a sh'vuat bitui cannot take effect (Kiryat Sefer). As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 17, if the person has the first oath nullified, the second oath takes effect.

Halachah 3. 13. If, however, he mentioned "bread" only once, he is liable only once. See Halachah 5.

8/21/2019 4:03 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

8 of 10

25. Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:6 states that although one

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973866/jewish/Shvuot-C...

35. This ruling follows the version of Sh'vuot 28a suggested by

prohibition does not take effect when an object is already

Rabbenu Chananel. The standard published text of the

prohibited, there are exceptions. One of them is when the second prohibition includes other entities that were not

Talmud reverses the ruling. Thus in the instance stated by the Rambam, one would be exempt as the Ra'avad notes.

included in the first prohibition (issur kollel). Similarly, in this

The ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 239:16)

instance, since the second oath includes something which is

follows that of the standard printed text of the Talmud.

not prohibited by the first oath (grapes), it takes effect.

The Rambam's rationale can be explained as follows: Since the person willfully transgressed by eating the larger loaf, he

26. For he cannot eat nine or ten without first eating eight. Hence, the second and third oaths do not take effect, for one oath does not take effect when the objects it concerns are already forbidden. As mentioned in the Radbaz and the

is liable for lashes. The fact that he inadvertently caused the oath to take effect is not of consequence.

Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 238:12), there are instances

The person is liable for lashes only when he is given a warning before transgressing. From this we see that even if

where the second oath can take effect according to the

a warning is given conditionally, it is effective.

principle of issur kollel, a more inclusive prohibition. 27. For each oath was separate. After he took the oath forbidding ten, nine were still permitted. And after he took the oath forbidding nine, eight were still permitted. Hence, the later oaths take effect. 28. When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 238:13) states that if the person specifies 10 specific items in his oath, he is not liable if he later reduces their number to eight, for all ten have become forbidden to him. 29. I.e., he takes an oath against eating an olive-sized portion of each type of fruit. He does not violate his oath unless he eats both of these portions. Since the second oath also includes grapes, it takes effect with regard to the figs based on the principle of issur kollel. 30. For breaking his first oath. 31. For to be liable he must eat grapes and figs together. By realizing his transgression, he makes a distinction between the figs he ate and the grapes. 32. I.e., his first oath involved ten specific items. His second oath involved nine additional items from a larger group. The Ra'avad claims the Rambam's ruling is a distortion of Sh'vuot 28b. See also Rashi and Tosafot who discuss the proper wording of that source.

36. He is exempt for lashes. Nor is he required to bring a sacrifice, for as explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 6, and notes. This is considered as violated an oath due to forces beyond one's control. The Rambam's rationale is that he did not perform the transgression knowingly. At the time, he partook of the larger loaf, he was not aware that it was forbidden. In this instance as well, the Rambam's ruling does not follow the standard printed text of the Talmud. Hence there are authorities who differ. 37. I.e., without awareness of the oath. 38. For both lashes and a sacrifice as in the previous clause. 39. For lashes (Ra'avad). 40. And thus it becomes forbidden only retroactively. Although it was already eaten, when he eats the smaller loaf, his eating the larger loaf becomes a prohibited act. 41. I.e., not only the large loaf dependent on the smaller loaf as in the previous instance, but each one was dependent on the other as the Rambam continues to explain. 42. For lashes as in Halachah 16. Again, this runs contrary to the standard published text of the Talmud and there are other authorities who differ. 43. As stated in Halachah 17.

33. For breaking his first oath.

44. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2. Note the following halachah.

34. This version, slightly different from that of the standard

45. Hence he is liable for lashes, as stated in Chapter 1,

printed text, is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The intent is that the second oath included the original ten, plus a second nine. In this instance as well, had he not realized his first transgression, he would have been liable twice for eating the second nine.

Halachot 3, 7. 46. In the Hebrew, the Rambam restates this phrase using slightly different wording. 47. The double negative implies that an oath will take effect if he does eat. See Tosafot, Sh'vuot 36b.

8/21/2019 4:03 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

9 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973866/jewish/Shvuot-C...

48. I.e., it is not considered as if each one is an independent oath, because an oath cannot take effect when an object is already forbidden by another oath. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam is interpreting Nedarim 16a. One might think that the passage means that the person took an oath that he would not eat at his colleague's home. Afterwards, his colleague implored him to eat and to appease him, he took an oath that he would eat at

50. ‫ א"א גם זה שבוש הוא‬.‫וכן אם אמר שבועה שלא אוכל היום וחזר ונשבע‬ ‫שבתחלה לא נשבע אלא ליומו ולבסוף נשבע על אותו ככר לעולם ואולי‬ ‫כשיאמר שלא אוכלנה היום קאמר‬. 51. ‫ א"א בספרים שלנו אמר שלא יאכל עשר‬.'‫וכן הנשבע שלא יאכל עשר וכו‬ ‫וחזר ואמר שלא יאכל תשע ואכל תשע והפריש קרבן וחזר ואכל עשירית‬ ‫ ומ"ש הוא שבוש הוא‬,‫הויא לה עשירית חצי שיעור‬. 52. ‫ א"א בנוסחא שלנו פטור‬.'‫שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו הגדולה וכו‬.

his home. Seemingly, this resembles an oath taken in vain, for he is taking an oath to nullify the observance of a mitzvah

53. ‫השגת‬/ .‫ א"א בנוסחא דילן חייב‬.‫וכמדומה לו שעדיין לא נאסרה פטור‬

- the fulfillment of his previous oath. For this reason, the Rambam explains that all of these expressions should be

54. ‫ א"א בנוסחא דילן‬.‫ זו בזו כו' ואכל השניה בזדון חייב‬/‫תלאן‬/ ‫וכן אם לאן‬

interpreted to mean that he is taking an oath not to eat. Only one of them takes effect, because one oath does not take effect when an object is already forbidden.

‫ א"א הרב הגיה חייב מלקות‬.‫ שתיהן במזיד חייב‬/‫הראב"ד‬. ‫פטור‬. 55. ‫ א"א כללו של דבר אינו נתפס‬.‫הראשונה בזדון והשניה בשוגג חייב קרבן‬ ‫על שבועתו אא"כ אכל התנאי והוא זכור שהוא תנאו על האחר כי אז‬ ‫תחול השבועה על אותו הככר שנשבע עליו‬.

49. ‫ א"א תמה אני מה בין‬.'‫שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו או שלא אוכל אותו וכו‬ ‫שלא אוכל אותו לשלא אוכלנה וכי יש הפרש בין לשון זכר ללשון נקבה‬ ‫אלא שההפרש בין שאמר ככר זו שלא אוכלנה שכזית מן הככר נקרא ככר‬ ‫אבל שלא אוכלנה משמע על כולה ולא על כזית‬.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:03 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

10 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973866/jewish/Shvuot-C...

8/21/2019 4:03 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

1 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...



Shvuot - Chapter 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 4

When a person takes an oath that so-and-so threw a stone into the sea and he did not do so, or [he took an oath that] he did not throw it and he did, he is liable for taking a [false] sh'vuat bitui. [This applies] even though there is no [possibility of him taking such an oath] with regard to the future.1 For he cannot take an oath that so-and-so will throw [an article] or will not throw it. [Indeed,] any person who takes an oath with regard to other people's [conduct - that they will or will not perform a particular activity is not liable for taking a [false] sh'vuat bitui. [This applies even if the person concerned] is his son or wife. For it is not within his potential to keep or nullify the oath. He is given stripes for rebellious conduct since it is not within his potential to keep this oath. Thus he is causing an oath to be taken in vain.2

English

Hebrew

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 6

‫מי שנשבע שזרק איש פלוני צרור‬ ‫ או שלא זרק והוא‬,‫לים והוא לא זרק‬ ‫ ואף על‬,‫ הרי זה חייב בשבועת בטוי‬,‫זרק‬ ‫פי שאינו בלהבא שהרי אינו יכול להשבע‬ ‫ וכל מי‬,‫שיזרוק ושלא יזרוק איש פלוני‬ ‫שנשבע על אחרים שיעשו כך וכך או לא‬ ‫יעשו אפילו היו בניו או אשתו אינו חייב‬ ‫ שהרי אין בידו לא לקיים‬,‫בשבועת בטוי‬ ‫ ומכין אותו מכת מרדות שהרי‬,‫ולא לבטל‬ ‫אין בידו לקיים שבועה זו ונמצא גורם‬ .‫לשבועת שוא‬

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

2 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Why isn't he liable for lashes for taking an oath in vain? For it is possible for those other people to heed his [words] and keep his oath. Thus when he is given a warning at the time he takes the oath, the warning is of doubtful status. In such an instance, one is not given lashes because of it unless the prohibition is explicitly stated in the Torah, as will be explained in Hilchot Sanhedrin.3 Other people are not bound to fulfill the words of the person who took the oath unless they responded Amen, as we explained.4

‫ולמה אינו לוקה משום שבועת שוא‬ ‫שהרי אפשר לאותן אחרים שישמעו‬ ‫ ונמצא כשמתרים‬,‫ממנו ותתקיים שבועתו‬ ‫בו בעת שנשבע התראת ספק שאין לוקין‬ ‫עליה אלא אם כן היה לאו שבו מפורש‬ ,‫בתורה כמו שיתבאר בהלכות סנהדרין‬ ‫ואין אותן אחרים נזקקין לקיים דברי זה‬ .‫הנשבע אלא אם כן ענו אמן כמו שבארנו‬

If they fulfilled his words,5 they are praiseworthy, for [in this manner,] they did not habituate [the person who took the oath] to take an oath in vain.6

‫ואם קיימו דבריו הרי אלו משובחין‬ .‫שלא הרגילו להוציא שבועה לשוא‬

When does the above apply? When he took an oath concerning a matter that was not in his domain. For example, Reuven took an oath that Shimon would not go on a commercial journey, not eat meat, or the like.7 [Different laws apply,] however, should Reuven take an oath that Shimon may not enter his home and may not derive any benefit from his property. If Shimon transgressed and entered Reuven's house and benefited from his property without Reuven's knowledge, Reuven is exempt, for [his oath was violated] due to forces beyond his control.8 Shimon is liable, for he performed a deed prohibited to him. For Reuven took an oath only with regard to a matter within his property.9 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫במה דברים אמורים כשנשבע על‬ ‫ כגון שנשבע‬,‫דבר שאינו ברשותו‬ ‫ראובן על שמעון שלא ילך בסחורה או‬ ‫ אבל אם‬,‫שלא יאכל בשר וכיוצא בזה‬ ‫נשבע ראובן שלא יכנס שמעון בביתו‬ ‫ושלא יהנה מנכסיו ועבר שמעון ונכנס‬ ‫לביתו של ראובן ונהנה מנכסיו שלא‬ ‫מדעת ראובן ראובן פטור שהרי הוא אנוס‬ ‫ושמעון חייב שעבר על דבר האסור לו‬ ‫ שלא נשבע זה אלא על דבר‬,‫לעשותו‬ .‫שהוא ברשותו וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

3 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...

[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat," and he ate, but he ate articles that were not fit to be eaten10 or drank beverages that were not fit to be drunk, he is exempt.11 If he partook of foods that are forbidden to be eaten by the Torah, for example, he ate an olive-sized portion of a nevelah,12 a trefe,13 teeming animals, or creeping animals, he is not liable for a [false] sh'vuat bitui.14 [When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will eat," and he ate articles that were not fit to be eaten or drank beverages that were not fit to be drunk, or he partook of a nevelah, a trefe, or the like, he is not liable for a false sh'vuat bitui. He is considered to have fulfilled [his commitment to] eat. Since they are important in his eyes, eating them is considered as eating.15

‫שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל אוכלין‬ ‫שאינן ראויין לאכילה ושתה משקים‬ ‫ אכל דברים‬,‫שאינן ראויין לשתייה פטור‬ ‫האסורין מן התורה באכילה כגון שאכל‬ ‫כזית נבלות וטרפות שקצים ורמשים פטור‬ ‫ שבועה שאוכל ואכל‬,‫משום שבועת בטוי‬ ‫אוכלין שאינן ראויים לאכילה ושתה‬ ‫משקין שאינן ראויין לשתיה או שאכל‬ ‫נבלות וטרפות וכיוצא בהן פטור משבועת‬ ‫בטוי שהרי יצא ידי אכילה מאחר שהן‬ .‫חשובין אצלו אכילתן שמה אכילה‬

[When a person said: "I am taking] an oath that I did not eat," and he ate articles that were not fit to be eaten or he partook of a nevelah or a trefe, he is liable. Eating them is considered eating, because they are important to him, as evidenced by his having eaten them.16 With regard to the future, by contrast, i.e., he took an oath that he would not eat and then in an extraordinary instance, he ate them, this is not considered eating, as we explained [above].

‫שבועה שלא אכלתי והוא אכל דברים‬ ‫שאינן ראויין לאכילה או נבלות‬ ‫וטריפות חייב שאכילתן שמה אכילה‬ ‫ אבל‬,‫שכבר הן חשובין אצלו שהרי אכלן‬ ‫להבא שנשבע שלא יאכל ונקרה מקרה‬ .‫ואכלן אינה אכילה כמו שבארנו‬

[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat even the slightest amount of a nevelah

‫שבועה שלא אוכל כל שהוא מנבלות‬ ‫וטרפות ואכל פחות מכזית חייב‬ ‫בשבועה שהרי אינו מושבע על חצי שיעור‬ .‫מהר סיני‬

or a trefe," and he ate less than an olive-sized portion, he is liable for taking a [false] oath, for he is not bound by an oath from Mount Sinai17 for half the measure [which makes him liable].18

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

4 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...

[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will eat even less than an olive-sized portion of a nevelah or a trefe," he may be liable for taking a false sh'vuat bitui.19 [When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat earth and the like from substances that are not fit to be eaten," if he eats an olive-sized portion, he is liable. If he ate less than an olive-sized portion, there is a doubt [concerning the ruling]. Perhaps he is liable even for [eating] the smallest amount. Since these substances are not usually eaten so that a full measure must be eaten [for him to be held liable].20 Similarly, when one takes an oath that he would not eat grape seeds and he eats less than an olive-sized portion, there is a doubt [concerning his liability].21If the one taking the oath was a nazirite who is forbidden to eat an olive-sized portion of grape seeds,22 he is not liable for a [false] sh'vuat bitui if he ate less than an olive-sized portion. [The rationale is that] his intent in taking the oath is only concerning the olive-sized portion for which he is already liable and [hence] the oath does not take effect.23 Therefore if one said: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat even one grape seed," and ate it, he is liable.24 [When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat dates, a nevelah or a trefe," and he ate an olive-sized portion of a nevelah or a trefe, he is liable also25 for [taking] a [false] sh'vuat bitui.26 For he included forbidden entities together with permitted entities. Since the oath took effect with regard to the dates, it also takes effect with regard to the forbidden entities, as we explained.27

‫שבועה שאוכל פחות מכזית נבלה‬ ‫ שבועה‬,‫וטרפה חייב בשבועת ביטוי‬ ‫שלא אוכל עפר וכיוצא בו מדברים שאינן‬ ‫ אכל‬,‫ראויין לאכילה אם אכל כזית חייב‬ ‫פחות מכזית הרי זה ספק שמא יתחייב‬ ‫בכל שהוא מפני שאין זה דרכו לאכילה‬ .‫כדי להצריכו שיעור‬

‫וכן הנשבע שלא לאכול חרצן ואכל‬ ‫ היה‬,‫ממנו פחות מכזית הרי זה ספק‬ ‫הנשבע נזיר שהוא אסור בחרצן בכזית‬ ‫ואכל ממנו פחות מכזית אינו חייב‬ ‫ שהרי אין דעתו בשבועתו‬,‫בשבועת ביטוי‬ ‫אלא על )כל( כזית שהוא מושבע עליו ואין‬ ‫ לפיכך אם פירש ואמר‬,‫שבועה חלה עליו‬ .‫שבועה שלא אוכל חרצן אחד ואכלו חייב‬

‫שבועה שלא אוכל תמרים ונבלות‬ ‫וטרפות ואכל כזית נבילה או טרפה‬ ‫חייב אף משום שבועת ביטוי שהרי כלל‬ ,‫דברים האסורין עם דברים המותרין‬ ‫ומתוך שחלה שבועה על התמרים חלה על‬ .‫דברים האסורים כמו שבארנו‬

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

5 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...

If, however, a person took an oath that he would not eat a nevelah, a trefe, or the like,28 regardless of whether he partook of [the forbidden substance] or not, there is no obligation for an oath at all, neither a sh'vuat bitui,29 nor an oath taken in vain.30

‫אבל אם נשבע שלא יאכל נבלה‬ ‫וטרפה וכיוצא בהן בין אכל בין לא‬ ‫אכל אין כאן חיוב שבועה כלל לא שבועת‬ .‫ביטוי ולא שבועת שוא‬

When a person takes an oath that he will partake of a nevelah, a trefe, or another similar substance forbidden by the Torah, he is liable for lashes for taking an oath in vain31 whether he partook of the substance or not.32

‫נשבע שיאכל נבלה וטרפה וכיוצא‬ ‫בהן מאיסורי תורה הרי זה לוקה‬ .‫משום שבועת שוא בין אכל בין לא אכל‬

[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will eat this loaf. [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat it," the second oath is an oath taken in vain, for he is commanded to eat it.33 He is liable for lashes for the second oath whether he partakes of [the loaf] or not.34 If he does not eat it,35 he is liable also for [not fulfilling] a sh'vuat bitui.36

‫שבועה שאוכל ככר זו שבועה שלא‬ ‫אוכלנה השנייה שבועת שוא שהרי‬ ‫מצוה עליו לאכלה ולוקה על שבועה שנייה‬ ‫בין אכל בין לא אכל ואם לא אכלה חייב‬ .‫אף בשבועת בטוי‬

[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat this loaf. [I am taking] an oath that I will eat it," the second oath is an oath taken in vain, for he is forbidden to eat it.37 He is liable for lashes for the second oath whether he partakes of [the loaf] or not. If he eats it, he is liable also for [not fulfilling] a sh'vuat bitui.

‫שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו שבועה‬ ‫ השניה שבועת שוא‬,‫שאוכלנה‬ ‫שהרי זו אסורה עליו לאכלה ולוקה על‬ ,‫שבועה שניה זו בין אכלה בין לא אכלה‬ ,‫ואם אכלה לוקה אף משום שבועת ביטוי‬ ‫וכן כל הנשבע לבטל את המצוה ולא ביטל‬ ‫פטור משבועת בטוי ולוקה משום שבועת‬ .‫שוא ועושה המצוה שנשבע לבטלה‬

Similarly, whenever one takes an oath to neglect a mitzvah and does not neglect it, he is exempt for [violating] a sh'vuat bitui.38 He is, however, liable for lashes for taking an oath in vain.39 He should perform the mitzvah that he took an oath to neglect.

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

6 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...

What is implied? For example, a person took an oath that he would not make a sukkah, he would not put on tefillin, he would not give charity, he is liable for lashes for taking an oath in vain.40 Similarly, [one is liable] if he takes an oath for a colleague that he will not give testimony that he knows or that he will not testify if he will know testimony, for he is commanded to testify.41 Similarly, if he tells a colleague: "[I am taking] an oath that I will never know testimony concerning you," it is an oath taken in vain, for it is not within his capacity [to be certain] that he will never know of testimony concerning him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫כיצד כגון שנשבע שלא יעשה‬ ‫סוכה ושלא ילבש תפילין ושלא‬ ‫ וכן הנשבע לחבירו שלא אעיד‬,‫יתן צדקה‬ ‫לך עדות זו שאני יודעה או שלא אעיד לך‬ ‫אם אדע לך עדות הרי זה לוקה משום‬ ‫ וכן‬,‫שבועת שוא מפני שהוא מצווה להעיד‬ ‫האומר לחבירו שבועה שלא אדע לך‬ ‫עדות הרי זו שבועת שוא שאין בידו שלא‬ .‫ידע לו עדות וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

When a person takes an oath to fulfill a mitzvah and fails to fulfill it, he is not liable for not fulfilling a sh'vuat bitui.42

‫נשבע לקיים את המצוה ולא קיים‬ ‫ כיצד‬,‫פטור משום שבועת ביטוי‬ ‫כגון שנשבע שיעשה לולב או סוכה או‬ ‫שיתן צדקה לעני או שיעיד לו אם ידע לו‬ ‫עדות ולא עשה ולא נתן ולא העיד הרי זה‬ ‫ שאין שבועת‬,‫פטור משום שבועת ביטוי‬ ‫ביטוי חלה אלא על דברי הרשות שאם‬ ‫רצה עושה ואם לא רצה אינו עושה‬ ‫ לפיכך כל‬,‫שנאמר להרע או להיטיב‬ ‫הנשבע להרע לאחרים פטור משבועת‬ ‫ביטוי כגון שנשבע שיכה את פלוני או‬ ‫יקללנו או יגזול ממונו או ימסרנו ביד אנס‬ ‫ ויראה לי‬,‫מפני שהוא מצווה שלא לעשות‬ .‫שהוא לוקה משום שבועת שוא‬

What is implied? A person took an oath to make a lulav or a sukkah, to give charity, or to testify on behalf [of a colleague] if he knew testimony [that could affect him]. If he did not make [these articles], give [the charity], or testify, he is exempt for [not fulfilling his] sh'vuat bitui. For a sh'vuat bitui takes effect only with regard to matters left to one's choice - [i.e., matters that] if he wants to, he may perform and if he does not want to, he need not perform, as implied by [Leviticus 5:4]: "whether he will do harm or do good." Therefore whenever anyone takes an oath to harm another person, he is exempt from a sh'vuat bitui, e.g., he takes an oath to strike so-and-so, to curse him, steal his money, or deliver him to the control of a man of force. [The rationale is that] he is commanded not to do [these things]. It appears to me that he is liable for lashes for taking an oath in vain.43

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

7 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...

If a person took an oath to harm himself, e.g., he took an oath to inflict injury upon himself, the oath takes effect even though he is not allowed to do so.44If he does not harm himself, he is liable for [not fulfilling] a sh'vuat bitui. If he took an oath to help others with regard to a matter with which he could help them,45 e.g., to speak to the ruling authorities or to show him honor, the oath takes effect. If he transgresses and does not carry out [his promise], he is liable for [not fulfilling] a sh'vuat bitui.

‫נשבע להרע לעצמו כגון שנשבע‬ ‫שיחבול בעצמו אף על פי שאינו‬ ‫ ואם לא הרע‬,‫רשאי שבועה חלה עליו‬ ‫ נשבע‬,‫לעצמו חייב משום שבועת בטוי‬ ‫להיטיב לאחרים הטבה שבידו לעשותה‬ ‫כגון שידבר עליו לשלטון או יכבדנו‬ ‫ ואם עבר ולא עשה‬,‫שבועה חלה עליו‬ .‫חייב משום שבועת ביטוי‬

One who takes an oath not to eat matzah for a year or two is forbidden to eat matzah on the nights of Pesach.46 If he eats it, he is liable, for violating a sh'vuat bitui. This is not considered as an oath taken in vain, since he did not take an oath [specifically] not to eat matzah on the nights of Pesach. Instead, he included the times when eating matzah is a matter of choice together with those when it is a mitzvah. Since the oath takes effect with regard to the other days, it also takes effect with regard to Pesach. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations,47 e.g., one took an oath not to sit in the shade of a sukkah forever,48 or not to wear a garment for a year or two.49

‫נשבע שלא יאכל מצה שנה או‬ ‫ הרי זה אסור לאכול מצה‬,‫שנתים‬ ‫בלילי הפסח ואם אכל חייב משום שבועת‬ ‫ ואין זה שבועת שוא שהרי לא‬,‫ביטוי‬ ‫נשבע שלא יאכל מצה בלילי הפסח אלא‬ ‫כלל עתים שאכילת מצה בהם רשות עם‬ ‫עת שאכילתה בו מצוה ומתוך שחלה‬ ‫שבועה על שאר הימים חלה על ליל‬ ‫ כגון שנשבע‬,‫ וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬,‫הפסח‬ ‫שלא ישב בצל סוכה לעולם או שלא יעלה‬ .‫עליו בגד שנה או שנתים‬

If one took an oath that he put on tefillin that day or did not put them on, or wrapped himself in tzitzit or did not wrap himself in them, he is taking a sh'vuat bitui with regard to the past.50 For he is describe something which happened. He is not taking an oath whether to fulfill or not to fulfill a mitzvah.

‫נשבע שהניח תפילין היום או לא‬ ‫ שנתעטף בציצית או לא‬,‫הניח‬ ‫ שזה‬,‫נתעטף הרי זה שבועת ביטוי לשעבר‬ ‫מגיד דבר שנעשה ולא נשבע על המצוה‬ .‫לא לקיימה ולא לבטלה‬

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

8 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...

If a person took an oath that he will not sleep for a three-day period, he will not eat for seven days, or the like, it is an oath taken in vain.51 We do not say that the person should remain awake until he is overcome by pain or fast until he is overcome by pain and [only] when he no longer has the strength to bear [the suffering], eat or sleep.52 Instead, he is liable for lashes53 immediately for taking an oath in vain. He may eat and sleep whenever he desires.54

‫ או‬,‫נשבע שלא יישן שלשת ימים‬ ‫שלא יאכל כלום שבעת ימים וכיוצא‬ ‫ אין אומרין יעור‬,‫בזה שהיא שבועת שוא‬ ‫זה עד שיצטער ויצום עד שיצטער ולא‬ ‫יהיה בו כח לסבול ואח"כ יאכל או יישן‬ ‫אלא מלקין אותו מיד משום שבועת שוא‬ .‫ויישן ויאכל בכל עת שירצה‬

When a person takes an oath that he saw a camel flying in the sky and when questioned: "How could you have taken an oath in vain?", he responded: "I saw a huge bird and because of its size, I called it a camel. This was my intent," [his words] are of no consequence. For when all people mention a camel that is their intent. His intention is nullified because of that of people at large55 and he is liable for lashes.56 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

,‫נשבע שראה גמל פורח באויר‬ ‫אמרו לו היאך נשבעת לשוא‬ ‫ואמר עוף גדול ראיתי ומגדלו קראתיו גמל‬ ‫ שאין כל‬,‫וכך היה בדעתי אין זה כלום‬ ‫אדם קוראין גמל אלא לגמל ובטלה דעתו‬ .‫אצל כל אדם ולוקה וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

9 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...

It is a known matter to the sages who are masters of wisdom and knowledge that the sun is 170 times greater than the earth.57 [Nevertheless,] if one of the common people takes an oath that the sun is greater than the earth, he is not liable for taking an oath in vain.58 For even though this is the fact, this concept is not known to people at large, only to great sages. One is liable [for an oath taken in vain] only when he takes an oath concerning a matter that is known and obvious to three ordinary people, e.g., [an oath that] a man is a man or a stone is a stone. Similarly, when he takes an oath that the sun is smaller than the earth, he is not liable for lashes [for an oath taken in vain] although this is not the reality. For this matter is not known to all people.59 Such a person is not comparable to one who takes an oath that a man is a woman. For he took the oath according to his perception, for the sun looks small. Similar laws apply to other comparable concepts from the reckoning of the factors determining the calendar, astronomy, geometry, and other abstract concepts of the like that can be perceived only by other people.

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 4

‫דבר ידוע אצל החכמים בעלי‬ ‫שכל ומדע שהשמש גדולה מן‬ ‫ נשבע אחד‬,‫הארץ מאה ושבעים פעמים‬ ‫מן העם שהשמש גדולה מן הארץ אינו‬ ‫לוקה משום שבועת שוא שאף על פי‬ ‫שהדבר כן הוא אין דבר זה גלוי וידוע לכל‬ ‫ ואינו‬,‫העם אלא לגדולי החכמים בלבד‬ ‫חייב אלא אם כן נשבע על דבר שגלוי‬ ‫וידוע לשלשה בני אדם משאר העם כגון‬ ‫ וכן אם‬,‫איש שהוא איש ואבן שהוא אבן‬ ‫נשבע שהשמש קטנה מן הארץ אינו‬ ‫ ואף על פי שאין הדבר כן מפני‬,‫לוקה‬ ‫שאין זה ידוע לכל אדם ואינו כמי שנשבע‬ ‫על האיש שהוא אשה שהרי לא נשבע‬ ‫אלא על ראיית עיניו שהרי הוא רואה‬ ‫אותה קטנה וכן כל כיוצא בזה מדברי‬ ‫חשבון תקופות מזלות וגימטריאות וכיוצא‬ ‫בהן מדברי חכמה שאין ניכרין אלא‬ ..‫לאנשים אחרים‬

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 6

FOOTNOTES

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

10 of 13

1. Although the concept of a sh'vuat bitui applies both with

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...

9. The Tur questions the Rambam's ruling, focusing on the

regard to the past and the future (Chapter 1, Halachah 2), it

difference between an oath (sh'vuah) and a vow (neder).

is not necessary that every sh'vuat bitui have both a past

When taking an oath, a person causes his own person to be prohibited against performing a particular action. To use

and a future component. 2. As the Rambam continues to explain, the oath is not

yeshivah terminology, it is an issur gavra; the prohibition is

necessarily false, because the other people may do what he postulated. Rashi (Sh'vuot 25a) considers this a false oath.

on the person. When taking a vow, by contrast, he places the prohibition on the object. It is an issur cheftzah.

The Siftei Cohen 236:4 quotes Rashi's view.

Now when a person takes a vow against a colleague benefiting from his property, there is no difficulty, because he

3. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh point out several difficulties with the Rambam's words. Firstly, in Hilchot Sanhedrin, the Rambam does not make such statements explicitly. The only mention of a warning of a doubtful status is in Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:4. From those statements and those here, it appears that the Rambam considers such a warning as significant. There he does not explain the distinction of whether the prohibition is explicitly mentioned in the Torah or not. Also, the prohibition against taking a false oath is explicitly mentioned in the Torah. The Radbaz explains that the intent is that the concept that such an oath is considered as having been taken in vain is not explicit in the Torah and may not be known by an ordinary person. 4. As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1, whenever one responds Amen to a colleague's oath, he is bound by it. 5. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 236:2) mentions two opinions. One emphasizes that the one who took the oath must certainly fulfill it. For example, if one takes an oath to marry a woman, the oath is considered as having been taken in vain, because the woman may not consent. Nevertheless, if she

is placing the prohibition on the property. How can he, however, place a prohibition on a colleague's person? How can his oath take effect? The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 236:3; albeit using slightly different wording). The Turei Zahav 236:7 explains that the Rambam follows the principal stated by the Ramban that an oath expressed using the wording of a vow and a vow expressed using the wording of an oath is binding. The Radbaz, puzzled by the same difficulty, states that this refers to an instance where the colleague answered Amen to the oath. 10. E.g., earth or spoiled foods. 11. The Radbaz explains that he is eating them, not because he considers them as food, but in order to quench his pangs of hunger. 12. An animal that died without ritual slaughter. 13. An animal with a blemish that would cause it to die within twelve months. 14. Since he is already forbidden to partake of these entities by

does consent, the man should keep his word and marry her. The other, however, does not consider this as an oath taken

the oath taken by the Jewish people as a whole at Sinai, the oath he takes is of no significance (Sh'vuot 22b). See

in vain, but rather as a false sh'vuat bitui.

Halachah 11. The Radbaz emphasizes that this exclusion applies only with

6. The Ma'aseh Rokeach maintains that even if the involved parties fulfill the oath, the person taking it is given stripes for rebellious conduct, for he should never have taken such an oath. 7. For in these instances, he has no control over the other person's actions. 8. For he did not know of Shimon's actions.

regard to entities forbidden by Scriptural Law, but not those forbidden by Rabbinic Law. For in such an instance, he is not bound by the oath taken by our people at Sinai. 15. Rabbenu Nissim explains the difference between this and the first clause as follows: In the first clause, we assume that the not eating, he referred to in his oath was not eating foods that people usually eat. These articles were not included in his oath, for there is no reason to forbid them. In the second instance, he included everything that he considers as food in his oath. 16. Even before he took his oath. 17. As the Torah states: "Cursed is the man who will not observe the words of this Torah" (Deuteronomy 27:26).

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

11 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...

18. The Radbaz explains that although the Rambam maintains that there is a Scriptural prohibition against eating even less

35. I.e., within the time period he specified in the oath; alternatively, after the loaf was destroyed or eaten by others.

than the measure for which one is liable (Hilchot Ma'achalot

As long as the loaf continues to exist, however, he may fulfill his oath.

Asurot 14:2), this is not considered a matter for which one is bound by an oath from Sinai. For that oath includes only those matters which are explicitly mentioned by the Torah

36. For his first oath is binding.

and this prohibition is not. There are, however, other Rishonim who do not makes such a distinction. See Siftei

38. For the reasons stated in Halachah 11.

Cohen 238:6. 19. The oath takes effect, because, as stated in the previous halachah, for this quantity, he is not bound by an oath from Sinai. The Radbaz states that preferably, he should have this oath nullified. Nevertheless, if that is not possible, it is preferable for him to keep the oath and violate the Scriptural commandment. 20. On the other hand, perhaps, he is not liable, for since he mentioned "eating" in his oath, we assumed that he meant an olive-sized portion. 21. Perhaps he is liable for, as mentioned above, since such articles are not usually eaten, he may be held liable even for eating less than the usual amount or perhaps we require an olive-sized portion. 22. As stated in Numbers 6:4. 23. As stated in Halachah 11. 24. See Chapter 4, Halachah 1. 25. I.e., in addition to violating the prohibition against forbidden foods. 26. We do not say he is required to eat the two together.

37. Due to his first oath, as above.

39. As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 6. 40. For these are all mitzvot that he is required to fulfill. 41. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 178) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 122) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See Hilchot Edut 1:1. 42. Nor is he liable for taking an oath in vain, for at the time he took the oath, it was not in vain. And one may take an oath to observe the mitzvot, so his intent was desirable (Radbaz). 43. I.e., since performing any one of these acts violates one of the Torah's prohibitions, taking an oath to perform such an act is equivalent to taking an oath to nullify a mitzvah. Nevertheless, the Rambam prefaces his ruling with the words "It appears to me" - which indicate a ruling based on his own deductive processes - for, in prior Rabbinic sources, the statement that taking an oath to nullify a mitzvah is considered taking an oath in vain were made with regard to prohibitions between man and God prohibitions between man and man.

and

these

are

44. Hilchot Chovel UMazik 5:1 states that a person may not injure himself. Nevertheless, since this prohibition is not

27. Chapter 4, Halachah 11.

explicitly stated in the Torah, it is not considered as one is taking an oath to nullify a mitzvah (see Halachah 7) and the

28. Substances explicitly forbidden by the Torah.

oath takes effect (Radbaz).

29. This oath does not take effect, because an oath cannot take effect with regard to an object bound by another oath. Since

45. If, however, it is not in his capacity to perform this favor, he is liable for taking an oath in vain, but not for failing to fulfill a sh'vuat bitui (Radbaz).

the entire Jewish people are bound by the oath taken at Sinai not to partake of these substances, no other oath

Performing

involving these entities can take effect (Kessef Mishneh).

Nevertheless, since the specific deeds are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah as mitzvot, the violation of an

30. Were the person to have taken an oath to eat the forbidden substance, he would be taking an oath in vain, for his oath would be to nullify one of the Torah's mitzvot. In this instance, however, he is taking an oath to fulfill the mitzvah. This is permitted. See Nedarim 8b; Chapter 11, Halachah 3. 31. See Chapter 1, Halachah 6. 32. For the oath is considered as having been taken in vain at the moment it was uttered (see Rashi, Sh'vuot 29b). 33. Due to his first oath. 34. As stated in the previous halachah.

deeds

of

kindness

fulfills

a

mitzvah.

concerning them is considered as a false sh'vuat bitui. 46. When we are commanded to eat matzah. The mitzvah applies only on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan and not throughout the holiday. 47. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 236:5, quoting the Maharam of Padua, Responsa 74) emphasizes that this ruling only applies with regard to positive commandments, but not with regard to the Torah's prohibitions. Thus if a person took an oath that he would eat all types of meat, we do not say that since the oath takes effect with regard to the kosher meat, it also takes effect with regard to the non-kosher meat. 48. And thus the oath also prevents one from fulfilling the mitzvah of dwelling in a sukkah on Sukkot.

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

12 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...

49. The Radbaz interprets the oath as preventing the person from fulfilling the mitzvah of tzitzit. Nevertheless, as the

53. Our translation is based on the commentary of the Radbaz. Even if there is no court to administer this punishment to him,

Radbaz himself notes, this interpretation is somewhat problematic, because there is no Scriptural mitzvah to wear

he may eat and sleep whenever he desires. When he is brought before the court, they will subject him to punishment.

tzitzit each day. Instead, the mitzvah is that if one is wearing a four-cornered garment, one must attach tzitzit to it. See Hilchot Tzitzi 3:11. Others interpret this as referring to priests who take such an oath and thus are prevented from wearing the priestly garments while serving in the Temple. As stated

54. For the oath is not considered to have taken effect at all. 55. Because the meaning of phrases used by people at large determines the ruling with regard to oaths and vows (Radbaz).

in Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 10:4, wearing such garments is a

56. For taking an oath in vain.

mitzvah.

57. Actually, according to the scientific data available at present,

50. And he is liable if the oath is false. 51. For there is no way that he can keep his word. Thus from the moment he uttered the oath, it was uttered in vain (Radbaz). See Chapter 1, Halachah 7. 52. The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Nissim who questions the similarity between the two instances. It is impossible that a person will not sleep for seven days. He will fall asleep whether he desires to or not. Hence, he should not even try to remain awake. With regard to eating, by contrast, seemingly, the person should wait until he reaches a dangerous state and then he should be allowed to eat. Based on the commentary of the Tzaphnat Paneach, it is possible to explain the differences in approach as follows: According to Rabbenu Nissim, the prohibition is lifted

the sun is far larger than this. Some have tried to reconcile the Rambam's statements with this data by explaining that the Rambam is speaking about the actual mass of the sun and not the burning energy on its surface. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 10, p. 180. 58. I.e., one might think that since this is the reality, taking such an oath is considered an oath in vain. The Rambam is clarifying that since people at large may not be aware of this fact, it is not placed in that category. 59. The Radbaz states that even if the person taking the oath knows that the sun is larger than the earth, he is not liable for taking an oath that is smaller, for people at large do not know this fact.

because of the danger, but it is not nullified entirely. Hence, when a person takes an oath on a matter that involves danger, we lift the prohibition, but only after we have waited until the danger is acutely felt. Hence, the oath not to eat is not necessarily a false oath. The oath not to sleep, by contrast, is definitely false, because it is impossible that he will not sleep. According to the Rambam, by contrast, since there is danger to life involved, the prohibition is nullified entirely. Hence, even the oath not to eat is considered to have been taken in vain.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

13 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973867/jewish/Shvuot-C...

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

1 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...



Shvuot - Chapter 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 5

English

Hebrew

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 7

[The following rules apply when] a person took a sh'vuat bitui1 and [then] regretted having taken the oath. If he sees that he will suffer if he upholds this oath and his intent changes or a factor occurred that was not in his intent originally when he took the oath and he changed his mind because of this, he may appeal2 [to be released from his oath] from one sage3 - or from three ordinary people4 in a place where there are no sages. His oath is repealed and he is permitted to perform the matter that he took the oath not to do or not to do the matter that he took an oath to do. This is called the release of an oath.

‫מי שנשבע שבועת ביטוי וניחם על‬ ‫שבועתו וראה שהוא מצטער אם‬ ‫יקיים שבועה זו ונהפכה דעתו לדעת‬ ‫ או שנולד לו דבר שלא היה בדעתו‬,‫אחרת‬ ‫ הרי זה‬,‫בשעת השבועה וניחם בגללו‬ ‫נשאל לחכם אחד או לשלשה הדיוטות‬ ,‫במקום שאין שם חכם ומתירין לו שבועתו‬ ‫ויהיה מותר לעשות דבר שנשבע שלא‬ ‫ או שלא לעשות דבר שנשבע‬,‫לעשותו‬ .‫ וזהו הנקרא היתר שבועות‬,‫לעשותו‬

This provision has no source in the Written Law.5 Instead, we learned from Moses our teacher through the Oral Tradition that the phrase [Numbers 30:3]: "He should not desecrate his word" means that he himself should not abuse it in a frivolous and brazen manner, as [Leviticus 19:13] states: "[For] you will desecrate the name of Your God."6 Nevertheless, if a person changed his mind and retracted, a sage may release him [from the oath].7

‫ודבר זה אין לו עיקר כלל בתורה‬ ‫ אלא כך למדו ממשה רבינו‬,‫שבכתב‬ ‫מפי הקבלה שזה הכתוב לא יחל דברו‬ ‫שלא יחלל הוא בעצמו דרך קלות ראש‬ ‫בשאט נפש כענין שנאמר וחללת את שם‬ ‫ אבל אם ניחם וחזר בו חכם מתיר‬,‫אלהיך‬ .‫לו‬

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

2 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...

It is not possible for a person to release himself from his own oath. A person does not have the license to release an oath or a vow in a place where there is a person whose knowledge surpasses his own.8 In a place where his teacher is found, he may only release a vow with the consent of his teacher.

,‫ואין אדם יכול להתיר שבועת עצמו‬ ‫ואין אדם רשאי להתיר שבועה או נדר‬ ‫ ובמקום‬,‫במקום שיש גדול ממנו בחכמה‬ ‫שיש בו רבו אסור לו להתיר אלא מדעת‬ .‫רבו‬

The person who took the oath - whether male or female - must himself come before the sage to be released. He may not appoint an agent to seek that he be released from his vow.9 A husband may, however, become an agent to express his wife's regret and we release [the oath] for her.10 [This applies] provided the three judges had already gathered together. He should not, however, gather them together at the outset to release her [oath].11 Nor may he serve as an agent to have his wife's vow released.12

‫זה שנשבע הוא שיבא לפני החכם‬ ‫ ואינו‬,‫להתיר לו בין איש בין אשה‬ ‫ והבעל‬,‫עושה שליח להשאל לו על נדרו‬ ‫נעשה שליח לחרטת אשתו ומתירין לה‬ ‫ובלבד שיהיו השלשה מקובצים אבל לא‬ ‫ ואינו‬,‫יקבץ אותן להתיר לה לכתחלה‬ 51 .‫נעשה שליח להתיר נדר לאשתו‬

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

3 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...

How do we release [an oath]? The person who took the oath must come before the distinguished sage or three ordinary people if there is no expert.13 He says: "I took an oath concerning this and this and I have changed my mind. If I knew that I would feel such discomfort concerning this, I would not have taken the oath. If, at the time of the oath, my understanding was as it is now, I would not have taken the oath." The wise man or the foremost among the three asks: "Have you already changed your mind?" He answers: "Yes." He then tells him: "It is permitted for you," "It is released for you," "It is absolved for you," or the like with this intent in any language.14

‫כיצד מתירין יבוא הנשבע לחכם‬ ‫המובהק או לשלשה הדיוטות אם‬ ‫ ואומר אני נשבעתי על כך‬,‫אין שם מומחה‬ ‫ ואילו הייתי יודע שאני‬,‫וכך ונחמתי‬ ‫מצטער בדבר זה עד כה או שאירע לי כך‬ ‫וכך לא הייתי נשבע ואילו היתה דעתי בעת‬ ,‫השבועה כמו עתה לא הייתי נשבע‬ ‫והחכם או גדול השלשה אומר לו וכבר‬ ‫ חוזר ואומר לו‬,‫ והוא אומר לו הן‬,‫נחמת‬ ‫שרוי לך או מותר לך או מחול לך וכל‬ ‫ אבל אם אמר‬,‫כיוצא בענין זה בכל לשון‬ ‫לו מופר לך או נעקרה שבועתך וכל כיוצא‬ ‫ שאין מיפר אלא‬,‫בענין זה לא אמר כלום‬ ‫הבעל או האב אבל החכם אינו אומר אלא‬ .‫לשון התרה ומחילה‬

If, however, he says: "[The oath] is nullified for you," "Your oath is uprooted," or anything with that intent, his statements are of no consequence, because only a husband or a father can nullify an oath.15 A sage, by contrast, may use only an expression conveying release or absolution.16 Relatives are acceptable to release vows17 and oaths.18 [Oaths and vows] can be released at night19 and while standing,20 for this release is not a judgment. For this reason, one may request a release of an oath or a vow on the Sabbath21 if it is necessary for the Sabbath,22 for example, to release his oath so that he can eat and drink today. Even if the person had the opportunity to have his oath or vow released before the Sabbath [and did not], he may have it released on the Sabbath, because it is necessary for the Sabbath.

‫הקרובים כשרים להתיר נדרים‬ ‫ שאין‬,‫ ומתירין בלילה ומעומד‬,‫ושבועות‬ ‫ לפיכך נשאלין לשבועות‬,‫ההיתר הזה דין‬ ‫ כגון‬,‫ולנדרים בשבת אם היו לצורך השבת‬ ‫שיתירו לו שבועתו כדי שיאכל וישתה‬ ‫ ואפילו היה לו פנאי להתיר שבועתו‬,‫היום‬ ‫או נדרו מערב שבת הרי זה מתיר בשבת‬ .‫הואיל והוא לצורך השבת‬

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

4 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...

When Reuven administered an oath to Shimon and [Shimon] answered Amen23 or accepted the oath, if Shimon [later] regrets the oath and asks for it to be released, it should not be released except in the presence of Reuven24 who administered it to him.25 Similarly, if Reuven took an oath or a vow not to benefit from Shimon or that Shimon may not benefit from him and changed his mind and appealed to a sage [for the oath or vow to be released], we do not release him from it except in the presence of Shimon from whom he had vowed not to benefit. Even if Shimon was a minor or a gentile,26 [the oath or vow] is released only in his presence so that the person concerning whom the vow was taken will know that the person had his vow or oath released and thus he will benefit from him.27 Both a person who took an oath in private and one who took one in public - even one who took an oath in God's ineffable name, [swearing] by God, the Lord of Israel - may appeal for a release of his oath if he changes his mind.28

‫ או‬,‫ראובן שהשביע לשמעון וענה אמן‬ ‫קבל השבועה ונחם שמעון על שבועתו‬ ‫ אין מתירין לו אלא בפני‬,‫ונשאל עליה‬ ‫ וכן אם נשבע ראובן או‬,‫ראובן שהשביעו‬ ‫נדר שלא יהנה משמעון או שלא יהנה בו‬ ‫שמעון ונחם ונשאל לחכם אין מתירין לו‬ ‫אלא בפני שמעון שנדר ממנו הנייה ואפילו‬ ‫היה שמעון קטן או עכו"ם אין מתירין לו‬ ‫אלא בפניו כדי שידע הנידר שהתיר זה‬ ‫נדרו או שבועתו ולפיכך יהנה ממנו או‬ .‫יהנה לו‬

‫אחד הנשבע בינו לבין עצמו ואחד‬ ‫ ואפילו נשבע בשם‬,‫הנשבע ברבים‬ ‫המיוחד בה' אלהי ישראל וניחם הרי זה‬ ‫ נשבע על‬,‫נשאל על שבועתו ומתירין לו‬ ‫דעת רבים או שנדר על דעת רבים אין‬ .‫מתירין לו לעולם אלא לדבר מצוה‬

If, however, one took an oath or a vow based on the understanding of many others,29 it may not be released30 except for a purpose associated with a mitzvah.31

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

5 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...

What is implied? One took an oath and made his oath dependent on the understanding of others that he would not benefit from so-and-so at all and the people of that city needed someone to teach them the Torah, to circumcise their sons, or to perform ritual slaughter on their behalf and they only found this person,32 he may ask a sage or three ordinary persons [to release him from his oath]. We release his oath. He may perform these mitzvot on their behalf and he may receive his wage33 from the people concerning whom he had taken an oath that he would not benefit from them.

‫כיצד נשבע ותלה שבועתו בדעת‬ ‫רבים שלא יהנה בפלוני לעולם‬ ‫והוצרכו בני אותה העיר ללמוד תורה או‬ ‫למי שימול את בניהם או שיזבח להם ולא‬ ‫נמצא אלא זה בלבד הרי זה נשאל לחכם‬ ‫או לשלשה הדיוטות ומתירין לו שבועתו‬ ‫ועושה להם מצות אלו ונוטל שכרו מאותן‬ 52 .‫האנשים שנשבע שלא יהנה מהם‬

[The following laws apply when] a person took an oath, did not regret it, and came to the court to carry out his oath. If the judges saw that releasing this oath will lead to a mitzvah and to peace between a husband and his wife or between a man and his associates and carrying it out will lead to transgression and strife, they encourage him [to take] the option [of having the oath released].34 They discuss the matter with him, pointing out the consequences of his oath until he regrets [having taken it].35 If he changes his mind because of their words, we release his oath. If he does not change his mind and persists in his stubbornness, he must carry out his oath.

‫מי שנשבע ולא ניחם על שבועתו ובא‬ ‫ אם ראו‬,‫לבית דין לקיים שבועתו‬ ‫הדיינין שהיתר שבועה זו גורם למצוה‬ ‫ולשלום בין איש לאשתו בין אדם לחבירו‬ ‫ושקיום שבועה זו גורם לעבירה ולקטטה‬ ‫פותחין לו פתח ונושאין ונותנין עמו בדבר‬ ‫ומודיעין לו דברים שגורמת שבועתו עד‬ ‫ אם ניחם בדבריהם מתירין לו‬,‫שיתנחם‬ ‫ואם לא נחם ועמד במריו הרי זה יקיים‬ .‫שבועתו‬

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

6 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...

What is implied? A person took an oath that he would divorce his wife, that Jews would not benefit from his property, that he would not eat meat or drink wine for thirty days or the like, they tell him: "My son, if you divorce your wife, you will cause malicious gossip to circulate concerning her children36 [for people] will say: 'Why was their mother divorced?' In the future, they will be called: 'the children of the divorcee.' [Moreover,] perhaps she will marry someone else and you will never be able to remarry her"37 and the like.38 [And they say:] "The oath you took that Jews should not benefit from your property [is not to your advantage]. Tomorrow, someone may be in need and [by maintaining your oath,] you will violate [the commandments]:39 "And your brother will live with you and you shall support him" [Leviticus 25:35-36] and "You shall surely open [your hand to him" [Deuteronomy 15:8].

‫כיצד נשבע שיגרש את אשתו או‬ ‫שלא יהנה ישראל מנכסיו או שלא‬ ‫יאכל בשר ושלא ישתה יין שלשים יום‬ ‫וכיוצא בזה אומרים לו בני אם תגרש את‬ ‫אשתך אתה מוציא לעז על בניך ואומרים‬ ‫העם מפני מה נתגרשה אמן של אלו‬ ‫ולמחר קוראים להם בני גרושה ושמא‬ ‫תנשא לאחר ואי אתה יכול להחזירה‬ ‫ וכן זה שנשבעת שלא‬,‫וכיוצא בדברים אלו‬ ‫יהנה ישראל מנכסיך למחר יצטרך זה‬ ‫ותהיה עובר על וחי אחיך עמך והחזקת בו‬ ‫ וזה שנשבעת‬,‫או פתוח תפתח וכיוצא בהן‬ ‫שלא תאכל בשר ושלא תשתה יין שלשים‬ ‫יום הרי אתה פוגע ברגל ומבטל שמחת‬ ‫ אם אמר אילו הייתי‬,‫יום טוב ועונג שבת‬ ‫יודע זה לא הייתי נשבע מתירין לו ואם‬ ‫אמר אף על פי כן לא נחמתי ורוצה אני‬ .‫בכל זה אין מתירין לו‬

[And they say:] "The oath you took not to eat meat or drink wine for thirty days [is not to your advantage]. [Within that time,] you will encounter a festival and nullify the happiness of the festivals and the pleasure of the Sabbath."40 If he says: "Were I to have known this, I would not have taken the oath," we release him [from the oath]. If he says: "Nevertheless, I have not changed my mind and I desire all of this," we do not release him [from the oath].

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

7 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...

We do not encourage one [to take] the option [of having the oath released] because of something that had not occurred [at the time the oath was taken].41 What is implied? One took an oath not to derive benefit from so-and-so and that person became the city scribe. Since the person did not regret taking the oath, we do not encourage him [to take] the option [of having the oath released]. Even if he himself said: "If I knew that [he would be given this position], I would not have taken this oath," we still do not release him from it. For he does not regret [having taken the oath]. Instead, his desire is that he should not derive benefit from him, but that person not to be appointed the scribe. If, however, on his own initiative, he regretted because of what took place and his intent changed,42 we do release the oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. When a person takes an oath concerning a matter and then takes a [second] oath that he will never ask to have the [first] oath repealed, [if] he changes his mind, he must first ask that the second oath - that he would never ask to have the oath repealed - be repealed.43 Afterwards, he may ask that the first [oath] be repealed.

‫ כיצד נשבע שלא‬,‫אין פותחין בנולד‬ ,‫יהנה בפלוני ונעשה סופר העיר‬ ‫הואיל ולא ניחם על שבועתו אין פותחין לו‬ ‫ ואפילו אמר הוא מעצמו אילו‬,‫בדבר זה‬ ‫הייתי יודע לא הייתי נשבע אין מתירין לו‬ ‫הואיל ועדיין לא ניחם אלא רצונו שלא‬ ‫ אבל אם‬,‫יהנה לו ושלא יעשה זה סופר‬ ‫ניחם הוא מעצמו מפני הנולד ונהפכה‬ 53 .‫ וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬,‫דעתו מתירין לו‬

‫מי שנשבע על דבר ונשבע שלא‬ ‫ הרי זה נשאל‬,‫יתיר שבועה זו וניחם‬ ‫על השבועה האחרונה תחלה שנשבע‬ .‫שלא יתיר ואחר כך ישאל על הראשונה‬

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

8 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...

[The following laws apply if] one took an oath that he would not speak to so-and-so and afterwards, took an oath that if he asks for the repeal of this oath and has it released, he will be forbidden to drink wine forever. If he changes his mind, he must first ask for the repeal of the first oath and have it released. Afterwards, he may ask for the repeal of the second oath. For we may not have a vow or an oath repealed before it takes effect.44 Accordingly, if during Nisan, a person took an oath that he will not eat meat for thirty days beginning at Rosh Chodesh Iyar, [should] he change his mind, he may not have the oath repealed until [the month of] Iyar begins.

‫נשבע שלא ידבר עם פלוני ונשבע‬ ‫אחר כך שאם ישאל על שבועה זו‬ ‫ויתירה יהיה אסור לשתות יין לעולם‬ ‫ הרי זה נשאל על השבועה‬,‫וניחם‬ ‫ ואחר כך ישאל על‬,‫הראשונה ומתירה‬ ‫ שאין מתירין נדר או שבועה‬,‫השניה‬ ‫ לפיכך אם היה עומד‬,‫שעדיין לא חלו‬ ‫בניסן ונשבע שלא יאכל בשר שלשים יום‬ ‫מראש חדש אייר וניחם אינו נשאל עד‬ .‫שיכנס אייר‬

If a person takes an oath that he will not benefit from so-and-so and that he will not benefit from the sage who releases him from this oath, first he must ask for the repeal of the first [oath] and then for that of the second.45

‫נשבע שלא יהנה לפלוני ושלא‬ ‫יהנה לחכם שישאל לו על שבועה‬ ‫ נשאל על הראשונה ואחר כך ישאל על‬,‫זו‬ .‫השנייה‬

If a person takes an oath that he will not benefit from so-and-so and that he will become a nazirite if he asks for the repeal of this oath, first he must ask for the repeal of his oath and then for that of his nazirite vow.46 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫נשבע שלא יהנה לפלוני והרי הוא‬ ,‫נזיר אם ישאל על שבועה זו‬ ‫ישאל על שבועתו תחלה ואחר כך על‬ .‫נזירותו וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

9 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...

[The following rules apply when a person says:] "I am taking [an oath that I will not eat today, [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat today, [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat today," or "With regard to this loaf, [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat it, [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat it, [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat it." If he asks for the repeal of the first oath and it is released, he is, nevertheless, liable for the second oath.47 Similarly, if he asks for the repeal of the second oath, he is liable for the third oath. If he asks for the repeal of only the third oath, he is liable for the first and second. [Similarly,] if he asks for the repeal of the second oath,48 he is liable for the first.

‫שבועה שלא אוכל היום שבועה‬ ‫שלא אוכל היום שבועה שלא אוכל‬ ‫ או שאמר על ככר זו שבועה שלא‬,‫היום‬ ‫אוכלנה שבועה שלא אוכלנה שבועה שלא‬ ‫ ונשאל על שבועה ראשונה‬,‫אוכלנה‬ ,‫והותרה הרי זה חייב משום שבועה שנייה‬ ‫וכן אם נשאל על השניה חייב משום‬ ‫ נשאל על השלישית בלבד חייב‬,‫שלישית‬ ‫ נשאל על השנייה‬,‫משום ראשונה ושנייה‬ ‫ אם כן‬,[‫חייב משום ראשונה ]ושלישית‬ ‫מפני מה אמרו אין שבועה חלה על‬ ‫שבועה שאם לא נשאל ואכלה אינו חייב‬ .‫אלא אחת כמו שבארנו‬

If so, what is the meaning of the statement: "An oath cannot take effect [when the matter it concerns is already forbidden] by an oath"? That if the person did not repeal [any of] the oaths and ate [the forbidden article], he would be liable only once, as we explained.49 When a person takes a sh'vuat bitui regarding the future and violated his oath, e.g., he took an oath that he would not eat a loaf of bread and ate it, if he changes his mind, he may ask a sage to repeal it after eating it before bringing his sacrifice if he [ate it] inadvertently or before he was lashed if he did so willingly. [If the sage] releases the oath, he is exempt from the sacrifice or from the lashes. Moreover, even if they bound him [in preparation for lashes], he asked for the repeal of the oath and it was released before they began to administer lashes, he is exempt.50

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 5

‫מי שנשבע שבועת ביטוי להבא‬ ‫ כגון שנשבע‬,‫ושיקר בשבועתו‬ ‫שלא יאכל פת זו ואכלה ואחר שאכלה‬ ‫קודם שיביא קרבנו אם היה שוגג או קודם‬ ‫שילקה אם היה מזיד ניחם ונשאל לחכם‬ ‫והתירה לו הרי זה פטור מן הקרבן או מן‬ ‫ ולא עוד אלא אפילו כפתוהו‬,‫המלקות‬ ‫ללקות ונשאל והתירו לו קודם שיתחילו‬ .‫להלקותו הרי זה פטור‬

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 7

FOOTNOTES

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

10 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...

1. Kiryat Sefer emphasizes that the concept of repealing an

11. Nedarim 8b explains that if a person takes the effort to

oath applies only with regard to a sh'vuat bitui that involves

gather a court together, we fear that he will also exaggerate

the future. With regard to a sh'vuat bitui that involves the past, an oath taken in vain, a sh'vuat hapikadon, or an oath

his wife's statements and the court's cross-examination of him will not be effective.

regarding testimony, it does not apply. These oaths cannot

12. I.e., he may not serve as one of the three judges who

be repealed for the transgression was performed at the time they were uttered.

release the vow [Radbaz; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah

More particularly, as the Radbaz explains, there is a difference between a sh'vuat bitui that involves the future

the Ra'avad. Since he is identified with his wife to the extent that he is considered as the same person, he cannot act

and one that involves the past. For when taking a sh'vuat

objectively with regard to her issues.

bitui that involves the past as well, as soon as one utters the oath it is false. Nevertheless, he states that it is customary to repeal even this oath to minimize one's punishment. 2. The Rambam uses the passive form, nishal, rather than the active form sho'el. Tosafot Yom Tov, Shabbat 24:5 explains that form is used because the person asked for the repeal of the oath is asked many questions by the sage.

234:57)]. This interpretation resolves the objection raised by

13. See Halachah 1. 14. I.e., he need not make a formal statement in Hebrew. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 10:8, the Rambam elaborates on this rite: He tells [the sage or the three ordinary people]: "I took a vow... and I changed my mind."

3. The sage must be of unique distinction in Torah knowledge to be given the privilege of releasing oaths alone.

They ask him the reason he changed his mind and he tells them.... The foremost among the three asks: "At the time,

Nevertheless, he need not have been granted the special semichah extending back to Moses our teacher. For the

you took the vow, had you known that this and this would occur to you, would you have taken the vow?" And he

Torah does not describe the judges with the term elohim in

says: "No."... He asks him: "Do you regret this oath?" and he says: "Yes."

the passage concerning oaths (Rabbenu Nissim). 4. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro maintains that the Rambam's words can be interpreted simply: Even three ordinary people can perform this function. The Radbaz, by contrast, maintains that the intent is three Torah scholars who are knowledgeable, but are not worthy of being called sages. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 228:1), Rav Caro, however, rules that the three men repealing the oath must be knowledgeable. He also states that in the present age, there are no sages of the stature to repeal an oath alone. 5. See Chagigah 10a which states: "The release of vows is hanging in the air and they have nothing to depend on." 6. That verse begins: "You shall not take a false oath in My name." 7. See also Chapter 12, Halachah 12. 8. This is an expression of respect for the greater scholar. The Radbaz states that he has not seen this restriction observed and question why this leniency is taken. If the greater scholar grants permission, the lesser scholar may release the oath [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 228:2)]. Nevertheless, after the fact, if a lesser scholar releases an oath even without permission, the release is binding. 9. Nor may he send a written request to the court (Radbaz). He may, however, use a translator [Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 10:8); Rama (Yoreh De'ah 228:16)]. 10. For a husband and his wife are considered as the same

The foremost of the three addresses him with this wording: "It is permitted for you; it is permitted for you; it is permitted for you. It is absolved for you in the heavenly academy and the earthly academy as it is written (Numbers 15:26): 'And it will be forgiven for the entire congregation of Israel and the stranger who dwells among them for the entire nation has acted inadvertently.' 15. The Torah gave them this power. See Hilchot Nedarim, Chapter 13, for an explanation of this issue. 16. The Radbaz explains that the term "nullify" or "uproot" imply being overpowered by a stronger authority without reason. For the woman is placed under the control of her husband or father and with or without reason, he may nullify her oath even against her will. His authority overpowers the oath, as it were. "Permit," "release," or the like, by contrast, imply that a decision is made on the basis of logic and the oath is revoked as if it never existed. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit., where he discusses the differences between these two terms. 17. Thus two relatives may sit on the same "court" that releases vows on the day preceding Rosh HaShanah. 18. Although they are not acceptable to serve on the same court with regard to cases of law. 19. In contrast to judgments of law which may be rendered only during the day. 20. In contrast to judgments that are rendered while sitting.

person.

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

11 of 13

21. When it is forbidden to render judgments (Hilchot Shabbat 23:14).

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...

32. I.e., the person who took the oath.

22. If, however, it is not for the sake of the Sabbath, it may not

33. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that he misinterpreted the passage from Gittin, loc. cit. The Ra'avad

be released on the Sabbath, because it is forbidden to perform any activity for the weekdays on the Sabbath

continues, explaining that in the situation described by the Rambam, it is preferable for the person to teach without

(Radbaz). See Hilchot Nedarim 13:8 with regard to the

charging a wage. Moreover, he is not responsible for the Torah education of those children and hence, the motivation

nullification of vows and oaths by a husband or a father. 23. Which causes the oath to take effect, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1. 24. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 228:20) states that Reuven must "be notified." The Rama maintains that he must also consent to the oath being released. The Shulchan Aruch also states that this law applies only when the oath was taken in response to a favor the person performed for him. 25. Lest Shimon see Reuven not paying attention to the oath and think that he violated the Torah's prohibition. Alternatively, so that Reuven will be embarrassed and not treat oath and vows frivolously [Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 5:4)]. The Radbaz and the Hagahot Maimoniot state that, after the fact, if Reuven had the oath released outside Shimon's presence, the release is binding. The Radbaz, however, states that if the oath involves financial claims, the person in whose presence the oath was taken must be present. 26. Who are not obligated in the observance of mitzvot. Nedarim 65a states that since Moses took an oath in the presence of Jethro, his father-in-law, to stay in Midian, he had to have the oath nullified in Jethro's presence. At that time, Jethro was not Jewish. 27. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah concludes "or provide benefit for him." This appears to be a printing error; it is not found in manuscripts or early printings. 28. I.e., we do not say that since the respect due God's name will be compromised, the oath may not be released. 29. At least three (Radbaz, based on Gittin 46a).

to have the oath rescinded is not his. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's ruling, noting (see Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:2) that a sage is obligated to teach all the students, not only the members of his family. The Radbaz explains that it is preferable that he work for a wage than do so gratuitously, for a person who does not receive a wage for his work will not apply himself sufficiently. 34. I.e., they try to influence him to change his mind and express his regret. 35. The Ma'aseh Rokeach explains that we are talking about a situation in which the person feels uncomfortable with keeping the oath in the future, but does not regret having made it. In such a situation, the oath cannot be repealed (see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 228:7). Therefore the court, as the Rambam illustrates, explains the negative consequences of the oath so that the person will feel genuine regret. 36. I.e., people will spread rumors that the children were conceived out of adultery and are illegitimate. 37. As stated in Hilchot Gerushin 11:12. 38. For example, Nedarim 66b states that we warn him that paying the woman's ketubah is a significant expense. 39. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 7:1 which mentions these obligations. 40. See Hilchot Shabbat 30:10; Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 6:16,18 which detail how partaking of these foods leads to the fulfillment of these mitzvot. 41. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that we do encourage the person to ask for the repeal of an oath

that we may release the oath or vow if those people consent.

if the factor that caused the oath was a reasonable probability. To support his argument, he refers to Nedarim

The Rama states that the oath can never be released. The difference between these rulings depends on the rationale

64b which states that God encouraged Moses to nullify his vow not to return to Egypt, telling him that the people who

for this decision. Rabbenu Nissim explains that taking an oath based on the understanding of others reinforces the

caused him to flee had died. The Talmud explains that the individuals concerned, Datan and Aviram, had not actually

severity of the oath and prevents it from being repealed. Others explain that the person is merely substituting the

died; they merely became impoverished and "a poor person is considered as if he died." Since poverty is a frequent

others for himself. Just as ordinarily an oath is dependent on his own understanding, now it is dependent on that of others.

occurrence, it was appropriate for God to encourage Moses to ask to have his oath repealed. The Radbaz explains that

31. For we assume the others would agree not to enforce the

the Rambam would also accept this principle, but the Kessef

30. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah228:21) state

oath when doing so would prevent the fulfillment of a mitzvah (Tosafot, Gittin 36a).

Mishneh differs. 42. I.e., he regretted taking the oath not to benefit from him, because he realized that he could become the city scribe.

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

‫‪https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...‬‬

‫‪Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings‬‬

‫כיצד נשבע ותלה שבועתו בדעת רבים שלא יהנה מבני העיר כלום וכו' ‪52.‬‬ ‫ועושה מצות אלו ונוטל שכרו‪ .‬א"א יש כאן לשון אחר ויש כאן דברים של‬

‫‪43. Otherwise, asking for the repeal of the first oath would‬‬ ‫‪violate the second oath (Kessef Mishneh).‬‬

‫תימה שאם נשבע המוהל או השוחט שלא יהנה מבני העיר על דעת‬ ‫רבים ימול להם וישחוט בחנם ולא יהנה מהם ומאי מצוה איכא בהיתר‬

‫‪44. And the second oath will not take effect until the first oath is‬‬

‫נדרו‪ ,‬אבל ודאי אם הוא צריך למעשה ידיו ואם יתעסק במלאכתו לא יוכל‬ ‫למול להם ולשחוט ודאי יתירו לו את נדרו ויפרנסוהו מפני חסרון המצוה‪,‬‬ ‫ואם נשבעו אנשי העיר שלא יהנו ממנו הרי יכול למול וללמד את בניהם‬ ‫בחנם‪ .‬נוסחא אחרת מזאת ההשגה ‪ -‬מכיר אני האמת עם אותם שאמרו‬ ‫המעתיק מלשון ללשון צריך שיהיה בקי בדבר מאד ושיהיה בקי בשתי‬ ‫הלשונות‪ ,‬הנה ראיתי זה המחבר עשה עצמו מעתיק לשון גמרא אל לשון‬ ‫עברית ובמליצה אחרת וטעה במליצתו כי הגמרא שלנו היא שנדרו בני‬ ‫העיר שלא יהנה אותו המלמד מנכסיהם והוא לא היה רוצה ללמד אלא‬ ‫בששר ‪/‬בשכר‪ /‬וכשראו שלא מצאו מלמד יפה כמוהו התיר להם אמימר‬ ‫את נדרם אע"פ שנדרו ע"ד רבים שפתח להם המצוה פתח לנדרם‬ ‫שאמרו אילו היינו יודעים שלא נמצא כמוהו בשום שכר לא היינו נודרים‬ ‫וזה אינו רוצה ללמדנו ואין דעת שום אדם עולה לומר אעפ"כ אני נודר‪,‬‬

‫‪released. The Siftei Cohen 228:30 writes that even after the‬‬ ‫‪fact, an oath cannot be nullified until it takes effect.‬‬ ‫‪This refers to the repeal of a vow or an oath by a sage. A‬‬ ‫‪father or a husband, by contrast, may nullify a vow before it‬‬ ‫‪takes effect. See Hilchot Nedarim 12:12.‬‬ ‫‪45. For as above, the second oath cannot be repealed until it‬‬ ‫‪takes effect. See the Radbaz who offers explanations why‬‬ ‫‪the Rambam includes this and the following halachah though‬‬ ‫‪seemingly they could easily be derived from the previous‬‬ ‫‪one.‬‬ ‫‪46. Even though it is a mitzvah, a nazirite vow can be repealed.‬‬ ‫‪See Hilchot Nazirut 3:10.‬‬

‫אבל מה שכתב המתרגם הזה שהמלמד נדר שלא יהנה מהם כאשר לא‬ ‫ימצאו מלמד כמותו אי זה פתח יהיה לנדרו שיהנה מהם בלמודו ילמד‬

‫‪47. For even though he is not liable for that second oath until the‬‬ ‫‪first oath is repealed, the second oath is not nullified.‬‬

‫אותם בחנם ותהיה מצותו יפה ולא תיבטל המצוה אבל אם לא יוכל לחיות‬ ‫אא"כ יעסוק באומנות או ילמוד בשכר אפשר שיהיה זה פתח לנדרו אילו‬

‫‪Instead, it is valid and thus can take effect after the first oath‬‬ ‫‪is nullified.‬‬

‫הייתי יודע שלא ימצאו כמוני לא הייתי נודר שהייתי סבור לחיות באומנות‬ ‫ואחיה זולתם והם ימצאו כמוני‪ ,‬עכ"ז אין דעתי נוחה הימנו שאין המצוה‬ ‫‪.‬מוטלת עליו להיות להם מלמד או לבקש להם מלמד מומחה‬ ‫אבל אם ניחם הוא מעצמו וכו'‪ .‬א"א נולד שאמרו אין פותחין בו בנולד ‪53.‬‬ ‫שאינו מצוי אבל בנולד המצוי פותחין כדאמרינן שכיח אפיקורי דמצערי‬ ‫רבנן וכי ההיא דאמרינן עניות שכיחא טפי ממיתה ומשום הכי פתח ליה‬ ‫הקב"ה למשה בשבועתיה בעניות דדתן ואבירם ודוקא בשאין באין לו‬ ‫מדרך חרטה שאינו מתחרט אלא מפני ענין שאינו יוצא לו כרצונו מפני‬ ‫הנדר ואומר לו אילו היית יודע שיקרה לך מקרה זו בנדרך הייתי נודר בזה‬ ‫אנו אומרים אם המקרה ההוא מצוי מתירין לו דכיון שהוא מצוי ואילו היה‬ ‫באותה שעה לא היה נודר רואין אותו המקרה כאילו היה בשעת הנדר‬ ‫ולא ידע אותו הנודר בענין שנעשה הנדר בטעות אבל כשהוא בא מדרך‬ ‫חרטה אין כאן לדקדק שהרי הוא עוקרו מעיקרו שהוא אומר כעס היה‬ ‫בלבי או עצבות באותה שעה ועכשיו עבר ממני ונתרציתי ואני מתחרט‬ ‫‪.‬על אותו הכעס‪ ,‬ומה שכתב הוא אינו ברור‪ ,‬ע"כ‬

‫‪48. The Rambam maintains that since this oath is prevented‬‬ ‫‪from taking effect only because of another oath, one can ask‬‬ ‫‪for it to be repealed. Based on this view, the Radbaz‬‬ ‫‪maintains that one may have all the relevant oaths repealed‬‬ ‫‪with one request. There are, however, other views (the‬‬ ‫‪Ramban), who maintain that since the second and third‬‬ ‫‪oaths have not taken effect, they cannot be repealed. The‬‬ ‫‪Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 228:46) cites the Ramban's‬‬ ‫‪view, while the Siftei Cohen 228:110 mentions that of the‬‬ ‫‪Rambam.‬‬ ‫‪49. Chapter 4, Halachah 10.‬‬ ‫‪50. Once the court begins administering the lashes, the oath‬‬ ‫‪cannot be repealed (Radbaz).‬‬ ‫‪.‬נעשה שליח להתיר נדר אשתו‪ .‬א"א פירוש שלא מדרך חרטה )ואינו( ‪51.‬‬

‫‪Translated by Eliyahu Touger‬‬ ‫‪Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.‬‬ ‫‪To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on‬‬ ‫‪this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.‬‬ ‫‪© Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further,‬‬

‫‪policy .‬‬

‫‪8/21/2019 4:04 PM‬‬

‫‪provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright‬‬

‫‪12 of 13‬‬

Shvuot - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

13 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973868/jewish/Shvuot-C...

8/21/2019 4:04 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

1 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973869/jewish/Shvuot-C...



Shvuot - Chapter 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 6

When a person issues a financial claim against a colleague which would require the latter to pay were he to admit [liability]1 and [the colleague] denies [his obligation] and takes an oath or the plaintiff administers an oath to him and he denies [any obligation]. [If he is lying,] the defendant is liable for an oath concerning a sh'vuat hapikadon.2

English

Hebrew

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 8

‫התובע חבירו בממון שאם הודה בו‬ ‫ או‬,‫יהיה חייב לשלם וכפר ונשבע‬ ‫ הרי זה הנתבע‬,‫שהשביעו התובע וכפר‬ ‫הוא חייב בשבועת הפקדון אף על פי שלא‬ ‫ שבשבועת הפקדון אחד הנשבע‬,‫ענה אמן‬ ‫מפי עצמו ואחד שהשביעו אחר וכפר‬ ‫אע"פ שלא ענה אמן חייב שכפירתו אחר‬ .‫שהשביעו התובע כעניית אמן‬

[The above applies] even if [the defendant] does not respond Amen.3 For with regard to a sh'vuat hapikadon, one is liable whether he took the oath on his own initiative or another person administered the oath to him and he denied [any obligation], even though he did not respond Amen. For denying the claim after the plaintiff administered the oath is equivalent to responding Amen.4 [This does not apply] when [the plaintiff] lodges a claim which if acknowledged by the defendant, i.e., if he would admit that it is true, would not require him to make payment, e.g., he lodged a claim concerning a k'nas.5 For a person is not required to pay a k'nas

‫תבעו בממון שאם יודה לו ויאמר כן‬ ‫ כגון‬,‫הדבר לא יהיה חייב לשלם‬ ‫שתבעו בקנס שאין אדם משלם קנס ע"פ‬ ‫ הרי זה פטור משבועת‬,‫ וכפר ונשבע‬,‫עצמו‬ .‫הפקדון וחייב משום שבועת ביטוי‬

based on his own admission.6 [In such an instance,] if a person denied [an obligation], he is exempt from a sh'vuat hapikadon, but liable for a sh'vuat bitui.7

8/21/2019 4:05 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

2 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973869/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Similarly, if [the plaintiff] lodged a claim concerning landed property, a servant, or a promissory note, and [the defendant] denied [the claim] and took an oath, he is exempt from a sh'vuat hapikadon, but liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath.

‫וכן אם תבעו בקרקע או בעבד או‬ ‫בשטר וכפר ונשבע פטור משבועת‬ ‫הפקדון וחייב בשבועת ביטוי שהרי נשבע‬ .‫על שקר‬

Why is one [who took an oath concerning such claims] exempt from [the obligations of a false] sh'vuat hapikadon? Behold, were he to have

‫ולמה נפטר משום שבועת הפקדון‬ ‫והרי זה אילו הודה חייב היה ומשלם‬ ‫ לפי שנאמר בפקדון או‬,‫מה שכפר‬ ‫בתשומת יד או בגזל או עשק את עמיתו‬ ‫או מצא אבדה הכל מטלטלין שאם יודה‬ ‫ ויצאו קרקעות‬,‫בהן יוציא ממון מתחת ידו‬ ‫שאין מטלטלין והרי הן לפני בעליהן‬ ,‫ ויצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות‬,‫ובחזקתן‬ .‫ויצאו שטרות שאין גופן ממון‬

acknowledged [his obligation], he would have been held liable and [required] to pay what he denied. Because [Leviticus 5:21-22] states: "Concerning an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, a robbery; he oppressed his colleague, or discovered a lost object." All of this concerns movable property which if he would admit his liability he would have to make financial restitution from his own domain. This excludes landed property for it is not movable property. For landed property is always revealed before its owner8 and is always in their possession.9[Similarly,] it excludes servants, for an equation is established between servants and landed property.10 And it excludes promissory notes, for their actual substance is not of financial value.11 [The above laws apply] whether one took an oath after the plaintiff lodged a claim against him or whether he took it on his own initiative even though a claim was not lodged against him.12 What his implied? He took the initiative and said: "Why are you following me? Do I have any money belonging to you? I am taking an oath that I am not in possession of any of your money." Since he denied [an obligation] and took an oath, [he is liable,] even though [the plaintiff] did not lodge a claim against him.

‫אחד הנשבע אחר שתבעו בעל‬ ‫ או הנשבע מעצמו אע"פ‬,‫הממון‬ ‫ כיצד כגון שקדם ואמר למה‬,‫שלא תבעו‬ ‫אתה הולך אחרי כלום יש לך בידי ממון‬ ‫ הרי זה חייב‬,‫שבועה שאין לך בידי ממון‬ ‫בשבועת הפקדון הואיל וכפר ונשבע‬ .‫ואע"פ שלא תבעו זה‬

8/21/2019 4:05 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

3 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973869/jewish/Shvuot-C...

[One is liable] whether he took an oath to the person to whom he owes the money or to his agent who was given power of attorney. For a person's agent is equivalent to his own self.13

‫אחד הנשבע לבעל הממון עצמו או‬ ‫לשלוחו הבא בהרשאתו ששלוחו של‬ .‫אדם כמותו‬

One is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon unless he requires him to take an oath in a language that he understands.14

‫ואינו חייב בשבועת הפקדון עד‬ .‫שישביעו בלשון שהוא מכירה‬

When a person consciously takes a sh'vuat hapikadon, even though he takes a false oath and is warned by witnesses at the time he takes the oath, he is not liable for lashes, but instead must merely bring a guilt offering. For the Torah excluded him from those who are liable for lashes15 and obligated him to bring a guilt offering whether he transgressed willfully or inadvertently, as we explained.16

‫הנשבע שבועת הפקדון במזיד אע"פ‬ ‫שנשבע לשקר והתרו בו עדים‬ ‫בשעת שבועתו אינו לוקה אלא מביא‬ ‫ שהרי הכתוב מוציאו מכלל‬,‫אשמו בלבד‬ ‫חייבי מלקות וחייבו אשם בין בזדון בין‬ .‫בשגגה כמו שבארנו‬

If one denied [an obligation] and took an oath [concerning it] four or five times or the plaintiff administered an oath to him four or fives times and he denied each one of them, he is liable for a guilt offering for each individual oath.17 [This applies] whether this took place in a court or outside the court.

,‫כפר ונשבע ארבע או חמש פעמים‬ ‫או שהשביעו התובע ארבע וחמש‬ ‫פעמים והוא כופר על כל אחת ואחת בין‬ ‫בבית דין בין שלא בבית דין הרי זה חייב‬ ‫ שאילו‬,‫קרבן אשם על כל שבועה ושבועה‬ ‫הודה אחר שכפר היה חייב לשלם אע"פ‬ ‫שכפר בבית דין ונמצא פוטר עצמו בכל‬ ‫כפירה וכפירה מן התשלומין לפיכך חייב‬ .‫על כל שבועה ושבועה‬

[The rationale is that] were he to have admitted his obligation after making his denial, he would be liable to make restitution even though he made the denial in a court. Thus with each denial, he is making himself exempt from payment. Hence, he is liable for each individual oath.

8/21/2019 4:05 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

4 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973869/jewish/Shvuot-C...

If five different people were lodging claims against him and telling him: "Give us the entrusted article of ours that you have in your possession," and he responds: "[I am taking] an oath that I do not have anything of yours in my possession," [should his oath be false,] he is liable for only one sacrifice.18

‫היו חמשה תובעין אותו ואומרין לו תן‬ ‫ שבועה שאין‬,‫לנו פקדון שיש לנו בידך‬ ,‫לכם בידי אינו חייב אלא קרבן אחד‬ ‫שבועה שאין לך בידי לא לך ולא לך ולא‬ .‫לך חייב על כל אחת ואחת‬

[If he answers: "I am taking] an oath that I don't have anything of yours, or of yours,... or of yours, in my possession," he is liable for each [statement].19 If his colleague told him: "Give me the entrusted object, [financial] deposit, stolen object, and lost object [of mine], that you have in your possession," and he responds: "[I am taking] an oath that I do not have anything of yours in my possession," [should his oath be false,] he is liable for only one [sacrifice].20 Even if the total of all the claims is [merely] a p'rutah, they are all included together and he is liable.21

‫אמר לו חבירו תן לי פקדון‬ ‫ותשומת יד גזל ואבדה שיש לי‬ ‫ שבועה שאין לך בידי אינו חייב‬,‫בידך‬ ‫ ואפילו היה לו פרוטה אחת‬,‫אלא אחת‬ .‫מכולן הרי אלו מצטרפין וחייב‬

[If he answers: "I am taking] an oath that I don't have an entrusted object, [financial] deposit, stolen object, and lost object of yours in my possession," he is liable for each [statement].22

‫שבועה שאין לך בידי פקדון‬ ‫תשומת יד גזל ואבדה חייב על כל‬ .‫אחת ואחת‬

[If the plaintiff says:] "Give me the wheat, barley, and buckwheat of mine that you have in your possession," and [the defendant responds]: "[I am taking] an oath that I do not have anything of yours in my possession," [should his oath be false,] he is liable for only one [sacrifice].23 [If he answers: "I am taking] an oath that I don't have any wheat, barley, and buckwheat of yours in my possession," he is liable for each [statement].

‫תן לי חטים ושעורים וכוסמין שיש‬ ‫ שבועה שאין לך בידי אינו‬,‫לי בידך‬ ‫ שבועה שאין לך בידי‬,‫חייב אלא אחת‬ ‫חטים ושעורין וכוסמין חייב על כל אחת‬ .‫ואחת‬

8/21/2019 4:05 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

5 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973869/jewish/Shvuot-C...

If five different people were lodging claims against him and telling him: "Give us the entrusted article, [financial] deposit, stolen object, and lost object [of mine], that you have in your possession," and he responds to one of them: "[I am taking] an oath that I don't have an entrusted object, stolen object, lost object, and [financial] deposit of yours, or of yours,... or of yours in my possession," he is liable for each claim [made] by each individual. Thus he is liable for 20 guilt offerings.24

‫היו חמשה תובעין אותו ואומרין לו‬ ‫תן לנו פקדון גזל ואבדה ותשומת‬ ‫ ואמר לאחד מהן‬,‫יד שיש לנו בידך‬ ‫שבועה שאין לך בידי פקדון וגזל ואבדה‬ ‫ותשומת יד ולא לך ולא לך ולא לך הרי זה‬ ‫חייב על כל טענה וטענה לכל אחד ואחד‬ .‫ונמצא זה חייב עשרים אשם‬

If [the defendant] claims that he lost an entrusted object or denies [receiving it], he took an oath, and afterwards admitted [that it was in his possession], and then claimed that it was lost, took an oath, and then admitted [that it was in his possession], he must pay the principal and an additional fifth for each oath that he took.25 [This is derived from Leviticus 5:24 which literally translates as] "its fifths,"26 [implying that] the Torah took into account several fifths for [one sum of] principal.

‫טען שאבד הפקדון או כפר בו‬ ‫ וחזר וטען‬,‫ונשבע ואחר כך הודה‬ ‫שאבד ונשבע וחזר והודה משלם הקרן‬ ‫הראשון וחומש אחד על כל שבועה‬ ‫ התורה רבתה‬,‫ושבועה שנאמר וחמישיתיו‬ ‫ כיצד היה‬,‫חומשין הרבה על קרן אחד‬ ‫הקרן ארבעה וכפר ונשבע והודה וחזר‬ ‫וטען שאבד ונשבע וחזר והודה וחזר וטען‬ ‫שאבד ונשבע והודה משלם שבעה וכל‬ .‫כיוצא בזה‬

What is implied? The principal was [worth] four [zuz]. One denied [receiving an entrusted article], took an oath, and then admitted [that he possessed it]. Afterwards, he claimed that it was lost, took an oath and then made a second admission, and then claimed that it was lost, took an oath and then made an admission another time. He is required to pay seven [zuz].27 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

8/21/2019 4:05 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

6 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973869/jewish/Shvuot-C...

A value less than a p'rutah is not considered as financially significant.28 Hence, if a person lodges a claim against a colleague for less than a p'rutah or for articles worth less than a p'rutah and [the defendant] denied the obligation and took an oath, he is exempt with regard to a sh'vuat hapikadon29 and liable for a sh'vuat bitui.30

‫פחות מפרוטה אינו ממון לפיכך‬ ‫התובע חבירו בפחות מפרוטה או‬ ‫בפחות משוה פרוטה וכפר ונשבע פטור‬ .‫משבועת הפקדון וחייב בשבועת ביטוי‬

« Previous

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 8

Shvuot - Chapter 6 FOOTNOTES 1. The qualifications the Rambam mentions here make a distinction between mammon, a financial claim, for which

12. Note the contrast to an oath concerning testimony (Chapter 9, Halachah 6-7). The gloss of the Torah Temimah to the

one is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon and k'nas, a fine, for

prooftext explains that since the verse speaks of "deny his [obligation to] a colleague," he is liable whether his colleague

which one is not liable, as stated in the following halachah. 2. The term literally means "an oath concerning an entrusted

demands an oath of him or not.

object." Its meaning in a halachic context is explained in this and the subsequent halachot.

13. See Hilchot Shluchim 3:5, 7. See the Lechem Mishneh who

If one takes such an oath falsely, he is liable to pay an additional fifth of the principal and bring a guilt offering as

power of attorney to require an oath of the defendant. If, however, he merely gave the agent the authority to

stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 9.

prosecute the claim, he may not require him to take an oath.

3. With regard to other oaths, it is necessary for the person to answer Amen as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1. Nevertheless, a sh'vuat hapikadon is a unique instance, as the Rambam continues to explain. 4. If, however, he remains silent in response to the oath administered by the plaintiff, he is not liable even if he had denied his claim beforehand (Radbaz). 5. A fine. In Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 2:8, the Rambam defines a fine as an instance where a person pays more or less than the monetary value of the damage he caused. 6. See Hilchot Genevah 1:5. See also Chapter 8, Halachot 1-3, for illustrations of this concept. 7. For he is taking a false oath regarding his past activity. 8. In contrast to movable property which can be concealed. 9. In contrast to movable property where possession may determine ownership in a situation of doubt, with regard to landed property, a person must display proof of ownership. See also Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 5:1; Hilchot Gezeilah 8:14; 9:1. 10. See Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an, loc. cit.

emphasizes that the principal must have given the agent

14. For an oath can be taken in any language. Sotah 33a derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 5:1. 15. Neither is one who takes such a false oath liable for lashes for taking a false sh'vuat bitui. 16. See Chapter 1, Halachah 9, which explains that one is liable for a sacrifice whether he transgressed willingly or inadvertently. As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 1, Halachah 8, one is not liable for lashes either because the transgression does not involve a deed, or because financial compensation must be given and a person is not held liable both for financial restitution and lashes. 17. Note the contrast to an oath concerning testimony, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 18. He is also liable to pay an additional fifth of the principal for each false oath, as stated in Halachah 15. 18. Since his response included all of them in one statement, it is considered only as one oath. 19. Since he addressed each one individually, each statement is considered as an independent oath. 20. Since his response included all of these items in one statement, it is considered only as one oath.

11. Instead, they only serve as proof of an obligation (ibid.).

8/21/2019 4:05 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

7 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973869/jewish/Shvuot-C...

21. In this instance, were they to have been considered individually, he would be exempt, for since each of the claims

27. This figure can be explained as follows: The principal is four. He must pay an additional three, for each fifth is one fifth of

are less than a p'rutah, they are not significant individually.

the new total and not one fifth of the original principal (Chapter 11, Halachah 20). He is not, however, required to

Nevertheless, since he included them in one statement, the sum is totaled as one and he is liable. 22. Since he mentioned each item individually, each statement is considered as an independent oath and it is necessary that each claim concern the worth of a p'rutah. 23. Although they are different species of grain, since he

pay more than one for the second and third oaths, for one is required to pay one fifth of the principal and not a fifth of the fifths (Radbaz). Note, however, Hilchot Gezelah 7:12 which explains that if he already was held liable by a court for the additional fifth, it becomes considered as part of the principal.

included them all in one statement, he is liable only once. Even though buckwheat is a subspecies of wheat, since it is

28. This principle is also reflected in Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 3:1

mentioned individually, he is liable for it individually (Radbaz).

Rambam defines a p'rutah as half a barleycorn of silver.

24. I.e., this combines the principles stated in Halachot 10 and 12. 25. Similarly, he is liable for a guilt offering for each oath as stated in Halachah 9. 26. It says chamishitav rather than chamishoto.

and Hilchot Sanhedrin 20:11. In Hilchot Shekalim 1:3, the Shiurei Torah defines this as 1/40th of a gram of silver. 29. For such an oath concerns a financially significant claim and this does not. The Sifra derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 5:26. 30. For he took a false oath, as in Halachot 2-3.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:05 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

8 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973869/jewish/Shvuot-C...

8/21/2019 4:05 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

1 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973870/jewish/Shvuot-C...



Shvuot - Chapter 8 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 7

A person is exempt [from liability for] a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following situation]: He stole an ox belonging to a colleague and slaughtered it or sold it.1 His colleague lodged a claim against him, telling him: "You stole my ox and you slaughtered it or sold it." [The defendant] responded: "I stole it, but did not slaughter it or sell it" and took an oath to support his claim. [The reason for his exemption is that] were he to have acknowledged that he slaughtered or sold [the ox] on his own accord, he would not have been required to pay four and five times its worth for this is a fine, as explained in Hilchot Genevah.2 Thus it is as if he did not deny a financial obligation. Therefore he is exempt [from liability for] a sh'vuat hapikadon, but liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath, saying that he did not slaughter [the ox], when [in fact] he did.

English

Hebrew

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 9

‫הגונב שורו של חבירו וטבחו או‬ ‫ תבעו בעל השור ואמר לו‬,‫מכרו‬ ‫גנבת שורי וטבחת או מכרת והוא אומר‬ ‫גנבתי אבל לא טבחתי ולא מכרתי ונשבע‬ ‫ שאילו‬,‫הרי זה פטור משבועת הפקדון‬ ‫הודה מעצמו שטבח או מכר לא היה‬ ‫משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה מפני‬ ,‫שהוא קנס כמו שיתבאר בהלכות גנבה‬ ‫ונמצא זה כמו שלא כפר ממון ולפיכך‬ ‫פטור משבועת הפקדון וחייב בשבועת‬ ‫ביטוי שהרי נשבע על שקר שלא טבח‬ .‫והוא טבח‬

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

2 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973870/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Similarly, a person is exempt [from liability for] a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following situations]. A person lodged a claim against him saying: "Your ox killed my servant," and he denied the incident and took an oath.3 A servant lodged a claim against his master saying: "You knocked out my tooth" or "You blinded my eye."4 For if he acknowledged the claim, he would not be obligated to pay because it is a fine.5 He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui. Similar laws apply in

‫וכן האומר לחבירו המית שורך את‬ ‫עבדי וכפר ונשבע והעבד שתבע רבו‬ ‫ואמר הפלת שני וסמית עיני וכפר ונשבע‬ ‫ שאילו הודה לא‬,‫פטור משבועת הפקדון‬ ‫היה משלם מפני שהוא קנס אבל חייב‬ .‫בשבועת ביטוי וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

all analogous situations. When a person lodges a claim against a colleague concerning a matter that involves both a fine which he would not be obligated to pay if he admits his liability on his own initiative as explained [above] and a financial claim which he is liable to pay on his own admission, he denies the entire claim, and takes an oath, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon.6 What is implied? A person lodged a claim [against a colleague,] telling him: "You raped or you seduced my daughter."7 [The defendant] responded: "I did not rape or seduce her" and took an oath to this effect, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. For although he would not be required to pay the fine were he to have admitted [his guilt], he is obligated to pay for the embarrassment and damages even on his own admission.8

‫התובע את חבירו בדבר שיש בו קנס‬ ‫שאינו משלם אותו על פי עצמו כמו‬ ‫ ויש בו ממון שהוא משלם אותו‬,‫שבארנו‬ ‫על פי עצמו וכפר בכל דבר ונשבע הרי זה‬ ‫ כיצד תבעו‬,‫חייב משום שבועת הפקדון‬ ‫ואמר לו אנסת או פתית בתי והוא אמר‬ ‫לא אנסתי ולא פתיתי ונשבע חייב‬ ‫ שאע"פ שאינו משלם‬,‫בשבועת הפקדון‬ ‫קנס על פי עצמו אילו הודה היה משלם‬ ‫ וכן האומר לחבירו‬,‫בשת ופגם על פי עצמו‬ ‫גנבת שורי והוא אומר לא גנבתי ונשבע‬ ‫חייב בשבועת הפקדון שאע"פ שאינו‬ ‫משלם כפל בהודאתו משלם הוא את הקרן‬ .‫בהודאתו‬

Similarly, if a person tells a colleague: "You stole my ox," and he says, "I did not steal it" and takes an oath, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. Although he would not obligated to make the double payment [for a stolen object] on the basis of his own admission,9 he would be obligated to pay the principal on the basis of his own admission.

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

3 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973870/jewish/Shvuot-C...

When a person tells a colleague: "You inflicted a wound upon me,"10 and [the defendant] denies it, or "Your ox killed my ox,"11 and [the defendant] denies it, taking an oath, [the defendant] is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. Had he admitted [his act], he would be obligated to make restitution.

‫האומר לחבירו עשית בי חבורה והוא‬ ‫ המית שורך את‬,‫אומר לא עשיתי‬ ‫שורי והוא אומר לא המית ונשבע חייב‬ ‫בשבועת הפקדון שאילו הודה היה חייב‬ .‫לשלם‬

[A watchman] is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following instance]: A person entrusted his ox to an unpaid watchman, the ox died, and he lodged a claim against the watchman, saying: "Where is the ox I entrusted to you?" The watchman responded: "You did not entrust anything to me," "You entrusted it, but it was stolen," or "...lost"12 and took an oath [to that effect]. [The rationale is] that had he admitted and related the matter as it occurred, he would not have been liable to make financial restitution, because he is an unpaid watchman.13 He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

,‫נתן שורו לשומר חנם ומת השור‬ ‫תבעו ואמר לו היכן שורי שהפקדתי‬ ‫אצלך אמר לו לא הפקדת אצלי כלום או‬ ‫שאמר לו הפקדת ונגנב או אבד ונשבע‬ ‫ שאילו‬,‫הרי זה פטור משבועת הפקדון‬ ‫הודה ואמר הדבר כשהיה לא היה חייב‬ ‫ אבל‬,‫לשלם ממון מפני שהוא שומר חנם‬ ‫חייב הוא משום שבועת ביטוי שהרי נשבע‬ .‫ וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬,‫על שקר‬

[Similarly, a person] is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following instance]: A person lent his ox to a colleague and then demanded its return, saying: "Where is the ox you borrowed from me?" Now the ox had died, but the borrower said: "It was stolen" or "...lost" and took an oath to this effect. [The rationale is that] he did not free himself from making restitution by his denial and is nevertheless liable to pay whether the animal died, was stolen, lost, or taken captive because he was a borrower, as will be explained in the appropriate place.14 He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫השאיל שורו לחבירו ותבעו ואמר לו‬ ‫היכן שורי ששאלת ממני והרי השור‬ ‫ ואמר לו השואל נגנב או אבד ונשבע‬,‫מת‬ ,‫על זה הרי זה פטור משבועת הפקדון‬ ‫שהרי לא פטר עצמו מן התשלומין‬ ‫בכפירתו ומכל מקום חייב הוא לשלם בין‬ ‫מת או נגנב או אבד או נשבה מפני שהוא‬ ‫ אבל חייב‬,‫שואל כמו שיתבאר במקומו‬ ‫הוא משום שבועת ביטוי שהרי נשבע על‬ .‫שקר וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

4 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973870/jewish/Shvuot-C...

This is the general principle: Whoever does not free himself from financial responsibility unless he makes this denial is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon if he takes an oath. [This applies] whether he took the oath on his own initiative or the plaintiff administer the oath and he stated his denial even though he did not answer Amen nor utter the oath himself.

‫זה הכלל כל שאינו פוטר עצמו מן‬ ‫התשלומין אלא בכפירה זו ונשבע בין‬ ‫מפי עצמו בין שהשביעו התובע וכפר הרי‬ ‫זה חייב בשבועת הפקדון אע"פ שלא ענה‬ .‫אמן ולא הוציא שבועה מפיו‬

[A thief] is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following instance]: He stole his colleague's ox. [The colleague] demanded payment, telling him: "You stole my ox."

‫הגונב שור חבירו ותבעו ואמר לו‬ ,‫שורי גנבת והוא אומר לא גנבתי‬ ‫מה טיבו אצלך אתה הפקדתו אצלי‬ ‫ שאילו‬,‫ חייב בשבועת הפקדון‬,‫ונשבע‬ ‫הודה שגנבו היה חייב לשלם דמי השור‬ ‫מכל מקום ועכשיו שאמר פקדון הוא הרי‬ ‫פטר עצמו בכפירה זו מן הגנבה ומן‬ ‫האבדה שאם נגנב השור או אבד אחר‬ .‫הודאה זו היה פטור מלשלם‬

[The thief] responded: "I did not steal it." Why, then, is it in your possession?" "You entrusted it to me [for safekeeping]" and he took an oath to that effect.15 [The rationale is that] had he admitting stealing it, he would have been liable to pay the value in any case.16 By saying now that it is an entrusted object, he exempts himself from liability for theft and for loss,17 i.e., were the ox to be lost or stolen after this admission, he is not obligated to pay. Similarly, if he were to claim that he rented it and took an oath to that effect, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon, for he freed himself for liability in the cases of injury or death. Similarly, if he claimed: "You lent it to me" and took an oath to that effect, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon, for he freed himself for liability if it dies while performing its work, as will be explained in Hilchot Sheilah.18

‫וכן אם טען ששכרו ונשבע חייב‬ ‫בשבועת הפקדון שהרי פטר עצמו‬ ‫ וכן אם טען ואמר‬,‫מן השבורה ומן המיתה‬ ‫השאלתו לי ונשבע חייב בשבועת הפקדון‬ ‫שהרי פטר עצמו מן המיתה בשעת‬ .‫המלאכה כמו שיתבאר בהלכות השאלה‬

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

5 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973870/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Therefore if one says: "I did not steal it. Instead, you entrusted it to me...", "...hired me to watch it...", or "...lent it to me. Here is your ox. Take it." If he took an oath to that effect, he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon,19for he admitted owing the principle and did not exempt himself from any liability with this denial.20

‫לפיכך אם אמר לא גנבתי אבל אתה‬ ‫הפקדתו אצלי או שכרתני לשומרו או‬ ‫השאלתהו לי והרי שורך לפניך קחהו‬ ‫ונשבע על זה הרי זה פטור משבועת‬ ‫ שהרי הודה בקרן ולא פטר עצמו‬,‫הפקדון‬ .‫בכפירה זו מכלום‬

Similarly, he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon if he uses any of the following excuses and takes an oath to that effect: "You sold it to me, but I have not paid for it yet. If you want, take the money for it. If not, here is your ox," "You gave it to me as payment for work which I will perform for you. If you desire, I will perform the work. If you do not desire, take it and depart," "I found it wandering on the road and did not know that it was yours. Now that I know, take it and depart," or "It chased after my ox. Here, it's yours." He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath.

‫וכן אם אמר לו אתה מכרתו לי‬ ‫ועדיין לא נתתי דמיו אם תרצה‬ ‫ או שאמר לו‬,‫קח דמיו או הרי שלך לפניך‬ ‫אתה נתתו לי בשכר מלאכה שאעשה לך‬ ‫ תועה‬,‫אם תרצה שאעשה לך או קחנו ולך‬ ‫בדרך מצאתיו ולא ידעתי שהוא שלך‬ ‫ או שאמר אחר‬,‫עכשיו שידעתי קחנו ולך‬ ‫ ונשבע על כל‬,‫פרתי רץ והרי הוא לפניך‬ ‫טענה מאלו פטור משבועת הפקדון שהרי‬ ‫ וחייב בשבועת‬,‫לא פטר עצמו מכלום‬ .‫ביטוי שהרי נשבע על שקר‬

When a person is financially obligated to two partners, one demands payment from him, he denies his obligation and takes an oath, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon21 for he denied a financial obligation. If they both demanded payment from him and he admitted the entire obligation to one of them, but said: "I borrowed only from this one,"22 should he take an oath to this effect, he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon, for he did not free himself from any liability. He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui.

‫מי שהיה חייב ממון לשני שותפין‬ ‫ותבעו אחד מהן וכפר בו ונשבע‬ ,‫חייב בשבועת הפקדון שהרי כפר ממון‬ ‫תבעוהו שניהם והודה בכל לאחד מהם‬ ‫ואמר לא לויתי אלא מזה לבדו ונשבע‬ ‫פטור משבועת הפקדון שהרי לא פטר‬ .‫עצמו מכלום אבל חייב בשבועת ביטוי‬

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

6 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973870/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Similarly, if there was a person who owed a debt supported by a promissory note, but he denied it and took an oath to that effect, he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. [The rationale is that because of] the promissory note, [the person's] landed property is placed under lien. Thus the person is denying [an obligation involving] landed property. And as we have already explained,23 a person who denied a claim involving landed property is not liable for a sh'vuat

‫וכן מי שהיתה עליו מלוה בשטר‬ ‫וכפר בה ונשבע פטור משבועת‬ ‫ שהרי בשטר נשתעבד הקרקע‬,‫הפקדון‬ ‫ וכבר בארנו‬,‫ונמצא זה ככופר בקרקע‬ ‫שהכופר בקרקע פטור משבועת הפקדון‬ ‫וחייב בשבועת ביטוי שהרי נשבע על‬ .‫שקר‬

hapikadon. He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath.24 If a person owed a debt to which there were witnesses, he denied [his obligation], and took an oath [to that effect], he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. For by denying his obligation, he freed himself from the liability of paying immediately. When the witnesses will come, he will be obligated to pay and thus his denial will not be effective.25 It is, however, effective in that perhaps the witnesses will not come, they will come and their testimony will not be substantiated,26 or they will be disqualified.27 Therefore28 he is liable.

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 7

‫היתה עליו מלוה בעדים בלבד וכפר‬ ‫ונשבע חייב בשבועת הפקדון שהרי‬ ‫ ואע"פ‬,‫פטר עצמו בכפירתו מלשלם עתה‬ ‫שכשיבואו העדים יתחייב לשלם ונמצא‬ ‫ הרי הועילה בעתה‬,‫שלא הועיל לו כפירתו‬ ‫ושמא לא יבואו העדים או יבואו ולא‬ .‫תתקיים עדותן או יפסלו ולפיכך חייב‬

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 9

FOOTNOTES 1. In which instance, he is obligated to pay five times the value of the ox (Exodus 21:37).

6. For he is denying a financial claim. The fact that it also includes a fine is not significant.

2. Hilchot Genevah 1:5. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 2

7. I.e., a virgin girl between the ages of three and twelve and a half (Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:1).

above. 3. In which instance, the owner of the ox is liable to pay a fine of 30 shekalim to the owner of the servant (Exodus 21:32). 4. In which instance, the owner is required to free the servant (Exodus 21:26-27). 5. For in these instances, the person is not paying the worth of the damage, but an arbitrary amount that could be either more or less.

8. As explained in Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 2:1-2, a person who seduces a girl is required to pay a fine of 50 silver pieces, as stated in Exodus 22:15, for the embarrassment he causes her, and the damages due to her reduction in her value. A rapist must also pay for the pain he causes. The embarrassment and the damages are considered as financial obligations.

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

7 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973870/jewish/Shvuot-C...

19. He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui since he took a false

9. For that is a fine. 10. For the damages (more particularly, the unemployment assessment, the medical fees, and the allocation for embarrassment) he must pay his colleague for the wound are considered as a financial obligation and not as a fine (see Hilchot Chovel UMazik 5:7; Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 1:16). 11. Here as well, the damages one ox causes another are considered as a financial obligation. This applies with regard to an ox that has been distinguished as one which gores. If an ox is not known to have such a tendency, the half-payment for the damages that it causes is considered as a fine (see Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 2:8). 12. Since he would not have been liable had he told the truth, the fact that he took a false oath does not obligate him for a sh'vuat hapikadon.

oath. 20. For he told the owner to take his ox. 21. This applies even if he admits owing a portion of the debt to the other partner. Since he denied part of the debt, he is liable. 22. I.e., he admitted the entire debt, but said that he owed it only to one person and not to both partners. 23. Chapter 7, Halachot 2-3. 24. The Radbaz notes that this statement is seemingly redundant; it is made more than ten times in this and the previous chapter. He explains that it would appear that taking a false sh'vuat hapikadon is more severe than taking a false sh'vuat bitui, yet the punishment for a false sh'vuat bitui, lashes, is more severe than that for a false sh'vuat

13. He is not liable in cases involving death or other losses due to forces beyond his control. 14. Hilchot Sechirut 1:2; Hilchot Sheilah Ufikadon 1:1. 15. On his own volition; he is under no obligation to do so. 16. I.e., even if it dies or is destroyed by forces beyond his control. 17. Since he reduces his liability through his statements, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. 18. Hilchot Sheilah UFikadon 1:1.

hapikadon, bringing a sacrifice. Hence, it is necessary for the Rambam to state the point explicitly each time. 25. And thus there is room to say that he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon, as indicated by Halachah 7. 26. I.e., it will be disqualified through the process of crossexamination. 27. And thus be prevented from testifying. 28. I.e., because his denial has an immediate - and perhaps long-term - effect, he is liable.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

8 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973870/jewish/Shvuot-C...

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

1 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973871/jewish/Shvuot-C...



Shvuot - Chapter 9 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 8

When a plaintiff1 demands that witnesses testify concerning a matter that through their testimony alone2 will obligate the defendant to pay this plaintiff a financial claim involving moveable property,3 [the witnesses] denied [knowing] testimony and took an oath to this effect - whether in a court of law or outside of it - they are liable for sh'vuat haedut,4 for they caused the plaintiff a financial lost through their denial. Similarly, if the plaintiff administered an oath to them and they denied the matter, [they are liable] even though they did not take an oath or answer Amen to the

English

Hebrew

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 10

‫התובע עדיו להעיד לו עדות‬ ‫שיתחייב הנתבע בעדותן לבדה ליתן‬ ‫ וכפרו בעדותן‬,‫לתובע זה ממון המטלטל‬ ‫ בין שנשבעו בבית דין בין שנשבעו‬,‫ונשבעו‬ ‫חוץ לבית דין הרי אלו חייבין משום‬ ‫ שהרי הפסידוהו ממון‬,‫שבועת העדות‬ ‫ וכן אם השביעם התובע וכפרו‬,‫בכפירתם‬ ‫בו אע"פ שלא נשבעו הן ולא ענו אמן אחר‬ ‫ והוא‬,‫שבועתו כיון שכפרו הרי אלו חייבין‬ .‫שישביעם בבית דין‬

oath he [administered]. Since they denied the matter, they are liable, provided he administered the oath to them in court.5 The witnesses are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut unless they deny [knowing testimony] in court. Whether they took the oath or the oath was administered to them in court or outside the court, the denial must be in court alone, as [can be derived from Leviticus 5:1]: "If he will not testify, he will bear his sin." [Implied is that] in the place he will testify and [that testify] will have an effect,6there, if he does not testify, he will be liable.

‫אין העדים חייבין בשבועת העדות‬ ‫ בין‬,‫עד שיכפרו בעדותן בבית דין‬ ‫שנשבעו או השביען בבית דין בין שנשבעו‬ ‫ והכפירה בבית‬,‫או השביען חוץ לבית דין‬ ‫ שנאמר אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו‬,‫דין בלבד‬ ‫מקום שיגיד ויועיל הוא שאם לא יגיד שם‬ .‫יתחייב‬

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

2 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973871/jewish/Shvuot-C...

When the plaintiff demands [that the witnesses] testify concerning a claim that does not involve a financial obligation,7 concerns landed property, servants, or promissory notes, they deny [knowing testimony], and take an oath to that effect, they are not liable for a sh'vuat edut. For they are liable when denying testimony concerning financial claims that resemble an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, a robbery, or a lost oject which the verse8 mentions in this passage. This refers to moveable property which is itself of financial worth9 that were they to testify on [the plaintiff's] behalf, [the defendant] would have to pay.

‫תבען בעדות שאינה מחייבת ממון או‬ ‫בעדות קרקעות או עבדים או שטרות‬ ,‫וכפרו ונשבעו פטורין משבועת העדות‬ ‫שאין חייבין אלא על כפירת עדות ממון‬ ‫שדומה לפקדון ותשומת יד וגזל ואבדה‬ ‫שפרטן הכתוב בפרשה שהן מטלטלין‬ .‫שגופן ממון וכשיעידו לזה יתן זה‬

Similarly, when one administers an oath to witnesses who [can testify regarding] a fine and they deny [knowledge] of the matter, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] were the defendant to come and acknowledge his liability for the fine first,10 he would not be liable to pay even though the witnesses came afterwards and testified accordingly. Thus the witnesses did not make him liable through their testimony alone. Instead, it was their testimony together with the denial of the defendant that made him liable. Since their testimony would not be effective if he acknowledged [his liability], if they denied [knowing of] the matter and took an oath, they are not liable.

‫וכן המשביע עדי קנס וכפרו פטורין‬ ‫ מפני שאם קדם‬,‫משבועת העדות‬ ‫הנתבע והודה בקנס יפטר מלשלם ואע"פ‬ ‫ נמצאו‬,‫שבאו העדים אחר כן והעידו‬ ‫העדים לא חייבו זה בעדותן לבדה אלא‬ ‫עדותן עם כפירת הנתבע היא המחייבת‬ ‫אותן והואיל ואם הודה לא תועיל עדותן‬ .‫אם כפרו בה ונשבעו פטורין‬

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

3 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973871/jewish/Shvuot-C...

[When a plaintiff administers an oath to witnesses, saying:] "I am making you take an oath that you come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so owes me a double payment"11 or a four- or five-fold payment12 and the witnesses deny [knowledge of the matter], they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut because of the principle which is a financial obligation,13 but not because of the double payment which is a fine.

‫משביעכם אני שתבואו ותעידו לי‬ ‫שיש לי ביד פלוני תשלומי כפל‬ ‫ חייבין‬,‫ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה וכפרו‬ ‫בשבועת העדות מפני הקרן שהוא ממון‬ ‫ וכן אם‬,‫לא מפני הכפל שהוא קנס‬ ‫השביעם שיעידו לו שאנס פלוני או פתה‬ ‫בתו וכפרו חייבין בשבועת העדות מפני‬ ‫הבושת והפגם שאם הודה בהם הנתבע‬ .‫משלם לא מפני הקנס וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

Similarly, if he administered an oath that they testify that they testify that so-and-so raped or seduced his daughter and they deny [knowledge of the matter], they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut because of the [payment due] for embarrassment and damages.14 For if the defendant acknowledged his obligation, he would have to pay these obligations, but not because of the fine. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Witnesses are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut until they deny [knowledge of the matter] and take an oath after the plaintiff or his agent15 demand [that they testify]. If, however, they take an oath first, before a demand is made of them, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut.

‫אין העדים חייבין בשבועת העדות עד‬ ‫שיכפרו וישבעו אחר תביעת בעל דין‬ ‫ אבל אם קדמו ונשבעו‬,‫עצמו או שלוחו‬ .‫קודם שיתבעם פטורין משבועת העדות‬

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

4 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973871/jewish/Shvuot-C...

What is implied? [The witnesses] saw the plaintiff following after them, they told him: "Why are you following us? We are taking an oath that we do not know any testimony involving you," they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] the plaintiff did not make a demand of them. Instead, they took the oath first on their own initiative.16 Similarly, if the defendant administered an oath to them that if they knew testimony involving the plaintiff they should come and testify and they deny [knowledge of the matter], they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut unless the plaintiff makes them take the oath.17 Needless to say, if he administered an oath that they should come to testify that so-and-so owes so-and-so money and they deny [knowledge of the matter], they are not liable. For the person making this demand is not the plaintiff himself. Similarly, if the oath preceded [their knowledge of] the testimony, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut, as [implied by Leviticus 5:1]: "And he heard the voice of an oath [when] he was a witness." [It can be inferred that knowledge of] the testimony preceded the oath and not that the oath preceded the knowledge of the testimony. What is implied? [The plaintiff says:] "I am administering to you an oath that if you will know of testimony concerning me that you come and testify," and the witnesses responded Amen and afterwards they observed a matter concerning him.18 If he demands that they testify and they deny [knowledge of the matter], they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut.

‫כיצד ראו התובע הולך אחריהן אמרו‬ ‫לו למה אתה בא אחרינו שבועה שאין‬ ‫אנו יודעין לך עדות הרי אלו פטורין‬ ‫משבועת העדות מפני שלא תבען התובע‬ ‫ וכן‬,‫אלא הם קדמו ונשבעו בתביעת עצמן‬ ‫אם השביעם הנתבע שאם תדעו לזה‬ ‫שתובע אותו עדות שתבואו ותעידו לו‬ ‫וכפרו הרי אלו פטורין משבועת העדות עד‬ ‫ ואין צריך לומר אם‬,‫שישביעם התובע‬ ‫השביעם שיבואו ויעידו שיש לפלוני ביד‬ ‫פלוני ממון וכפרו שהן פטורין שאין זה‬ ‫ וכן אם קדמה‬,‫התובע בעל דין עצמו‬ ‫שבועה לעדות הרי אלו פטורין משבועת‬ ‫העדות שנאמר ושמעה קול אלה והוא עד‬ ‫שקדמה עדות לשבועה לא שקדמה‬ .‫שבועה לעדות‬

‫כיצד משביע אני עליכם כשתדעו לי‬ ‫עדות שתבואו ותעידוני ואמרו אמן‬ ‫וידעו לו עדות אחר כן ותבעם להעיד‬ ‫וכפרו בו הרי אלו פטורין משבועת‬ .‫העדות‬

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

5 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973871/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Witnesses are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut until the plaintiff singles them out and administers an oath to them or they take an oath.19 What is implied? A person stood up in a synagogue and said: "I am administering an oath to anyone who knows testimony concerning me to come and testify on my behalf." They all - including his witnesses responded Amen. Afterwards, he demanded of his witnesses that they testify and they denied [knowledge of the matter]. They are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut, because he did not single out the witnesses individually. If, however, he said: "I am administering an oath to all of those standing here that if they know testimony concerning me to come and testify on my behalf." [If] his witnesses were among those present and [then] they denied [knowledge of the matter], they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut, because he singled them out among the others.20 Similarly, if he told the witnesses: "Come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so owes me a maneh" and then stands in a synagogue and said: "I am administering an oath to anyone who knows testimony concerning me to come and testify on my behalf," should they not come and testify, they are liable, because he made a demand of them previously. [This applies] provided they are present in the synagogue and a court is also there.21 If a court was not present, they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut if they answered Amen and deny [knowledge of the matter] while in a court of law.22 If they did not answer Amen,

‫אין העדים חייבים בשבועת העדות‬ ‫עד שייחד אותם התובע וישביעם או‬ ‫ כיצד עמד בבית הכנסת ואמר‬,‫ישבעו‬ ‫משביע אני כל מי שידע לי עדות שיבא‬ ‫ויעיד לי וענו כולם אמן ועדיו בכללם ואחר‬ ‫כך תבע עדיו וכפרו בו הרי אלו פטורין‬ ‫ מפני שלא ייחד עדיו‬,‫משבועת העדות‬ ‫ אבל אם אמר משביע‬,‫בשבועה בפני עצמן‬ ‫אני כל העומדים כאן שאם ידעו לי עדות‬ ‫שיבואו ויעידו לי והיו עדיו בכללם וכפרו‬ ‫הרי אלו חייבין בשבועת העדות שהרי‬ .‫ייחדם בכלל אחרים‬

‫וכן אם אמר לעדים בואו והעידו לי‬ ‫ ואח"כ עמד‬,‫שיש לי מנה ביד פלוני‬ ‫בבית הכנסת והשביע כל מי שיודע לו‬ ‫עדות יבוא ויעיד ולא באו ולא העידו הרי‬ ‫ והוא שיהיו‬,‫ שהרי תבען תחלה‬,‫אלו חייבין‬ ‫ אבל‬,‫אז בבית הכנסת ויהיה שם בית דין‬ ‫אם לא היו בפני בית דין אם ענו אמן‬ ‫חייבין בשבועת העדות כשיכפרו בעדותן‬ 39 .‫בבית דין ואם לא ענו אמן אינן חייבין‬

they are not liable.

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

6 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973871/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Whether one administers an oath to his witnesses or tells them "I am commanding you with an oath" or "I am binding you with an oath," they are liable provided he administers the oath23 with God's name or with one of the terms used to describe Him as explained.24

‫ או‬,‫אחד המשביע עדיו בשבועה‬ ‫שאמר להן מצוה אני עליכם‬ ‫ אוסרכם אני בשבועה הרי אלו‬,‫בשבועה‬ ‫ והוא שישביעם בשם או בכינוי מן‬,‫חייבין‬ .‫הכינוים כמו שבארנו‬

The witnesses are not liable unless the oath is administered to them in a language that they understand.25

‫ואין העדים חייבין עד שישביעם‬ .‫בלשון שהם מכירין אותה‬

Thus you have learned that witnesses are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut unless ten conditions are [met]. They are:26

‫הנה למדת שאין העדים חייבין‬ ‫בשבועת העדות אלא ע"פ עשרה‬ ‫ ושתהיה‬,‫ שיתבעם התובע‬:‫דברים ואלו הן‬ ,‫ ושיהיה ממון המטלטל‬,‫עדות ממון‬ ‫ושיתחייב הנתבע לשלם בעדותן לבד אם‬ ,‫ ושיכפרו אחר שתבען התובע‬,‫העידו‬ ‫ ושתהיה שם שבועה‬,‫ושיכפרו בבית דין‬ ‫ ושתקדם ידיעת העדות‬,‫בשם או בכינוי‬ ‫ ושייחד עדיו בעת השבועה או‬,‫לשבועה‬ ‫ ושתהיה השבועה בלשון‬,‫בעת התביעה‬ .‫שהן מכירין אותה‬

a) [The witnesses] must be charged [with testifying] by the plaintiff; b) [The matter] must involve a financial claim; c) It must involve movable property; d) Their testimony alone, had it been given, would be sufficient to require the defendant to pay; e) They must deny [knowledge of the matter] after the plaintiff charges them; f) They must issue their denial in court; g) God's name or a term used to describe Him must be mentioned in the oath; h) The knowledge of the matter must precede the oath; i) The witnesses must be singled out at the time of the oath or at the time they are charged; j) The oath must be in a language that they understand.

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

7 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973871/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Whenever we have used the expression "they are not liable" [in this chapter], the intent is that they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. They are, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, provided they take the oath or answer Amen to an oath administered by a colleague, because they took a false oath.27 When, by contrast, one is liable for a sh'vuat haedut, he is only liable for a sh'vuat haedutand is not liable for a sh'vuat bitui, even though he took a false oath and did so intentionally. [The rationale is that] the Torah removed a sh'vuat haedut from the category of sh'vuat bitui to make a person who deliberately [takes a false oath] liable for a sacrifice for its violation just as one who took it inadvertently.28 He is not, however, liable for lashes, as [can be derived from Leviticus 5:5 which] states: "For one of these."29 A person who takes a [false] oath is liable for one type of oath, but not two. [We do not hold him liable for both] a sh'vuat haedut and a sh'vuat bitui. [When the plaintiff says: "I am administering] an oath to you unless you come and testify that so-and-so has an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, stolen property, and a lost object of mine in his possession," [and the witnesses respond: "We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning you," they are liable for only one [sacrifice].30 [If they say: "We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, stolen property, and a lost object of yours in so-and-so's possession, they are liable for each [statement].31

‫ פטור‬,‫כל מקום שאמרנו פטור‬ ‫משבועת העדות אבל חייב‬ ‫בשבועת ביטוי והוא שנשבע או שענה‬ ‫אמן אם השביעו אחר שהרי נשבע על‬ ‫ אבל המחוייב בשבועת העדות אע"פ‬,‫שקר‬ ‫שהוא נשבע על שקר ואע"פ שהוא מזיד‬ ‫אינו חייב משום שבועת ביטוי אלא משום‬ ‫ שהרי הכתוב הוציא‬,‫שבועת העדות בלבד‬ ‫שבועת העדות מכלל שבועת ביטוי לחייב‬ ‫המזיד בה כשוגג בקרבן אבל לא במלקות‬ ‫ במין אחד ממיני‬,‫שנאמר לאחת מאלה‬ ‫שבועות אתה מחייב הנשבע ואי אתה‬ ‫מחייבו בשני מינין עד שיהיה חייב בדין‬ .‫שבועת העדות ובדין שבועת ביטוי‬

‫משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבאו‬ ‫ותעידו לי שיש לי ביד פלוני פקדון‬ ‫ שבועה שאין אנו‬,‫ותשומת יד גזל ואבדה‬ ,‫יודעין לך עדות אינן חייבין אלא אחת‬ ‫שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות שיש לך‬ ‫ביד פלוני פקדון ותשומת יד גזל ואבדה‬ .‫חייבין על כל אחת ואחת‬

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

8 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973871/jewish/Shvuot-C...

[When the plaintiff says: "I am administering] an oath to you unless you come and testify that so-and-so has wheat, barley, and buckwheat of mine in his possession," and [the defendant responds]: "[We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning you," they are liable for only one [sacrifice].32[If they answer: "We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning any wheat, barley, and buckwheat of yours in his possession," he is liable for each [statement].

‫משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבואו‬ ‫ותעידו לי שיש לי ביד פלוני חטים‬ ‫ שבועה שאין אנו יודעין‬,‫ושעורים וכוסמין‬ ‫ שבועה‬,‫לך עדות אינם חייבין אלא אחת‬ ‫שאין אנו יודעים לך עדות שיש לך ביד‬ ‫פלוני חטים ושעורים וכוסמין חייבין על כל‬ .‫אחת ואחת‬

Similarly, if many people charged them with testifying and they said: "[We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning you," they are liable for only one [sacrifice]. [If they said:] "...concerning you, and you, and you," they are liable for each [statement], as explained with regard to sh'vuat hapikadon.33

‫וכן אם תבעו אותן רבים להעיד להם‬ ‫ואמרו שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לכם‬ ‫ לא לך ולא‬,‫עדות אינן חייבין אלא אחת‬ ‫לך ולא לך חייבין על כל אחת ואחת כדרך‬ .‫שבארנו בשבועות הפקדון‬

When a person administers an oath to a colleague that he knows testimony concerning him and ultimately, it is discovered that he does not know testimony, [the colleague] is not liable, neither for a sh'vuat haedut34, nor for a sh'vuat bitui. [The rationale is that] a sh'vuat bitui involves only matters that have

‫הנשבע לחבירו שהוא יודע לו‬ ‫עדות ונמצא שאינו יודע לו עדות‬ ‫הרי זה פטור ואין כאן לא שבועת העדות‬ ‫ מפני ששבועת ביטוי‬,‫ולא שבועת ביטוי‬ ‫ ואם‬,‫אינה אלא בדבר שיש בו לאו והן‬ ‫יאמר שבועה שאיני יודע לך עדות אין זה‬ ‫ הואיל‬,‫שבועת ביטוי אלא שבועת העדות‬ ‫ כך‬,‫ולאו זה שיש בה אינה שבועת ביטוי‬ ‫הן שבה שהוא הנשבע שיודע לו עדות‬ .‫אינו שבועת ביטוי‬

both a positive and negative dimension.35 Were the person to have said: "I am taking an oath that I do not know testimony concerning you," that would not be a sh'vuat bitui, but instead a sh'vuat haedut. Hence since the negative dimension of the statement is not a sh'vuat bitui, the positive dimension, taking an oath that one knows testimony, is not a sh'vuat bitui.36

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

9 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973871/jewish/Shvuot-C...

It is clear that when a person takes an oath to a colleague that he testified on his behalf and he did not testify or that he did not testify and he testified, he is liable for a sh'vuat bitui;37 there is no connection to a sh'vuat haedut at all.38

‫דבר ברור הוא שהנשבע לחבירו‬ ‫שהעיד לו והוא לא העיד או שלא‬ ‫העיד לו והוא העיד הרי זה חייב משום‬ .‫שבועת ביטוי ואין כאן שבועת עדות כלל‬

« Previous

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 10

Shvuot - Chapter 8 FOOTNOTES 1. This excludes instances when an oath is not made in response to the plaintiff's demands, as stated in Halachah 7. And it excludes an instance when the matter was observed by two pairs of witnesses, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 15.

13. For this must be paid even if he admits stealing himself. 14. See Chapter 8, Halachah 3, and notes. 15. This applies to a person who has been given power of attorney (see Chapter 7, Halachah 6). If he has not been given formal power of attorney, even if he is an agent acting

2. This excludes a fine, because in that instance, the defendant does not become liable until he denies the obligation and the

on behalf of the principal, the oath he administers is not of consequence (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

witnesses refute his denial. With regard to monetary claims, by contrast, once the witnesses testify, the defendant is

16. As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to Mishnah

liable regardless of whether he admits or disputes his liability. See Halachah 4. 3. Halachah 3 explains that this phrase excludes promissory notes, landed property, and servants. 4. This term literally means "the oath [concerning] testimony." As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 12, a person who takes this oath falsely is liable to bring an adjustable guilt offering. 5. As reflected by Halachah 10, when the oath is administered by the plaintiff and the witnesses do not answer Amen, the oath must be administered in court. If, however, the witnesses take the oath on their own accord or they answer Amen, they are liable even if this takes places outside a court, provided the denial takes place within a court, as stated in the following halachah (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh; see also Chapter 10, Halachah 7 and notes). 6. I.e., in court. See Halachah 10 and notes where this concept is discussed. 7. E.g., he demanded that they testify that he was a priest or a Levite (Chapter 10, Halachah 3). 8. Leviticus 5:21-22; see the explanations in Chapter 7, Halachah 4, and notes.

(Sh'vuot 4:12), Leviticus 5:1 states "If he does not tell" but the word "not" is written lamed alef vav. This implies both lamed alef "not," and lamed vav "to him." Implied is that he must say no to him, i.e., in response to his demand. 17. This can also be derived through the process of exegesis mentioned above. One can infer that the witnesses he must say no to him, to the plaintiff himself 18. I.e., at the time the oath was administered, they did not have knowledge of testimony concerning the plaintiff, but afterwards they observed the matter under investigation. 19. From the exegesis of the prooftext cited above, Sh'vuot 35a understands that the verse is speaking, not of people in general, but of persons singled out to serve as witnesses. 20. Although he spoke to the group as a whole, the oath was directed to each of the persons individually. Rabbenu Nissim mentions another concept related to this ruling. A plaintiff may administer an oath to a person even when he is not certain that the person in fact knows testimony concerning him. 21. Since they did not take the oath or answer Amen, they are not liable unless the oath is administered in the presence of a court, as stated in Halachah 1.

9. In contrast to promissory notes. 10. See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 2:8. 11. For a theft. 12. For the theft and slaughter or sale of a sheep or a cow.

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

10 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973871/jewish/Shvuot-C...

22. For their denial must be made in a court of law, as stated in Halachah 2.

29. The same passage mentions both a sh'vuat haedut and a

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's decision, explaining that the Rambam follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir (Sh'vuot

for only one of these types of oaths. This also applies with regard to the other false oaths for which the Torah holds one

30a), but the Ra'avad maintains that the halachah should be decided according to the Sages who differ with rabbi Meir.

liable. One can be held liable only for one.

Similarly, the Ra'avad also differs with the Rambam's postulate that if the witnesses do not answer Amen, the oath must be administered in a court. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's position, explaining that

sh'vuat bitui. This verse teaches that one can be held liable

30. Because they included all the obligations in a single statement. Note the parallel to this and the subsequent laws in Chapter 7, Halachot 10-14. 31. For they singled out each object individually.

since the witnesses did not take the oath themselves or respond Amen, it is their denial of knowledge of the

32. Although they are different species of grain, since he

testimony

that

constitutes

acceptance

of

the

included them all in one statement, he is liable only once.

oath.

33. Because they included all the obligations in a single

Accordingly, just as the denial must be made in court, the oath must be administered in court. For it is inappropriate

statement. Note the parallel to this and the subsequent laws in Chapter 7, Halachot 10-14.

that the oath itself be administered outside the court, while its acceptance is required to be in court. See also Chapter

34. For a sh'vuat haedut involves a situation when the witnesses

10, Halachah 17 and notes. 23. Or includes God's name in any of the other expressions

refuse to testify. 35. See Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and notes. 36. Hence he is totally absolved from liability.

(Radbaz). 24. See Chapter 2, Halachot 2-4. 25. See Chapter 7, Halachah 7. This applies even if they answer Amen to the oath (Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 7:1). 26. All of these points have been discussed in the previous halachot. 27. Although the Rambam's position is shared by many other Rishonim, there are others (e.g., Rashi, Sh'vuot 25b), who differ and maintain that since the oath involves testimony, one is never liable for a sh'vuat bitui even when he is not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. See Halachah 18 and notes. 28. Sh'vuot 30a notes that with regard to all the other types of oaths, the Torah uses the expression "and it became concealed from him," but it does not use that expression with regard to a sh'vuat haedut. Implied is that even if the matter is not concealed, i.e., he transgresses deliberately, he is liable for a sacrifice. The Radbaz questions - without resolving - why the Torah gives the person a lesser punishment - a sacrifice - instead of lashes, when he purposefully violates this transgression.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that one could raise a question based on Sh'vuat 25b. From that passage, it would appear that this and the concept stated in Halachah 14 are conflicting positions and one cannot accept both as halachah. Nevertheless, he explains that it is only in the preliminary stage of the Talmud's argument that the positions appear conflicting. After the Talmud cites the teaching derived from the prooftext, "for one of these," the two rulings can be reconciled. He cites other Rishonim who interpret the passage in this manner. 37. For he is taking an oath regard a specific activity which he performed or did not perform in the past. Since it has both a positive and negative dimension, he is liable. The fact that this oath does not have a future dimension - for if one takes an oath that he will not testify, he is negating a mitzvah, and hence, it is an oath in vain (Chapter 5, Halachah 15) and not a sh'vuat bitui - does not prevent one from being liable for the oath referring to the past. 38. For a sh'vuat haedut involves only the future. 39. ‫ א"א המחבר הזה שנה משנתו‬.'‫וכן אם אמר לעדים בואו והעידו לי וכו‬ ‫כר"מ ואין הלכה כמותו אלא בין מפי עצמו בין מפי אחרים אינן חייבין עד‬ ‫ ועוד בין לר"מ בין לרבנן מה צורך שיהיה הבית דין בבית‬,‫שיכפרו בב"ד‬ ‫הכנסת בשעת השבועה והלא אין מקפידין על השבועה באי זה מקום‬ ‫שתהיה ואין מקפידין אלא על הכפירה‬.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further,

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

11 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973871/jewish/Shvuot-C...

provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:06 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

1 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973872/jewish/Shvuot-C...



Shvuot - Chapter 10 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 9

English

Hebrew

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 11

If [both] or one of [the plaintiff's] witnesses was unacceptable, a relative,1 or even one of those disqualified from testifying by Rabbinic decree, the king - who is not fit to give testimony2 - was one of his witnesses, or the witnesses heard the testimony from other witnesses,3 [although] they both denied [knowing testimony] and took an oath, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut,4 for had they testified, they would not have obligated [the defendant] to pay.5

‫היו עדיו או אחד מהן פסול או קרוב‬ ,‫ואפילו מפסולי עדות של דבריהם‬ ‫או שהיה המלך אחד מעדיו שאינו ראוי‬ ‫ או שהיו עד מפי עד וכפרו ונשבעו‬,‫להעיד‬ (‫פטורין משבועת העדות שאילו )הודו‬ .‫העידו לא היו מחייבין בעדותן ממון‬

[If the plaintiff said:] "I am administering an oath to you that you come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so promised to give me 200 zuz, but he did not," and [the witnesses] denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. For even if they would testify concerning the matter, the defendant would not be liable financially because of his statement.6 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫משביע אני עליכם שתבאו ותעידו לי‬ ‫שאמר איש פלוני שיתן לי מאתים זוז‬ ‫ולא נתן וכפרו הרי אלו פטורין משבועת‬ ‫ שאם העידו בדבר זה לא יתחייב‬,‫העדות‬ .‫ וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬,‫הנתבע ממון באמירתו‬

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

2 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973872/jewish/Shvuot-C...

If one charged [witnesses] with testifying that he was a priest or a Levite, or that he was not the son of a woman who underwent divorce or chalitzah,7 and [the witnesses] denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. For this is not a financial claim.

‫תבען להעיד לו שהוא כהן או לוי או‬ ‫שאינו בן גרושה או בן חלוצה וכפרו‬ ‫ונשבעו פטורין משבועת העדות שאין כאן‬ .‫עדות ממון‬

[Similarly, although the witnesses] denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut [if the plaintiff] charges them with testifying [with regard to the following claims]:

‫תבען שיעידו לו שחבל בו בנו‬ ‫ושהדליק פלוני גדישו בשבת ושאנס‬ ‫פלוני או פתה בתו המאורסה וכפרו‬ ‫ שאם‬,‫ונשבעו פטורין משבועת העדות‬ ‫העידו עדות זו יתחייב הנתבע מיתת ב"ד‬ ‫ואינו חייב תשלומין כמו שבארנו בהלכות‬ .‫נערה וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

his son inflicted a wound upon him, so-and-so kindled his grainheap on the Sabbath, so-and-so raped or seduced his virgin daughter who had been consecrated. [The rationale is that] if they were to give this testimony the defendant would be liable for execution by the court8 and not for making financial recompense as we explained in Hilchot Na'arah.9 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If there was [only] one witness, he denied [knowledge of a financial claim], and an oath was administered to him, he is not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] the testimony of one witness does not obligate financial payment.10

‫היה עד אחד וכפר והשביעו פטור‬ ‫משבועת העדות שאין עדות עד אחד‬ .‫מחייבת ממון‬

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

3 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973872/jewish/Shvuot-C...

If one charged two witnesses with testifying that his wife committed adultery and they denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath to that effect, they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut. For if they had testified, they would have caused her to forfeit [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.11 Thus the one who charged them with testifying would be freed from liability. Hence the witnesses have denied a financial claim.

‫תבע את שני עדיו שיעידו לו שזנתה‬ ‫אשתו וכפרו ונשבעו הרי אלו חייבין‬ ‫ שאילו העידו היה‬,‫בשבועת העדות‬ ‫מפסידין לה כתובתה ויפטר זה שתבען‬ .‫והרי כפרו בעדות ממון‬

If [a husband] charges witnesses - [either witnesses] who observed him administering a [sotah] warning12 or those who observed her entering into privacy with the man concerning whom she was warned - with testifying, and they denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath to that effect, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] even if they had testified, [the testimony] would not result in a financial claim only in the obligation to have her drink [the sotah] waters. Although this testimony [can] cause her to forfeit [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah if she does not drink [the sotah waters],13 a

‫תבע עדי קנוי או עדי סתירה וכפרו‬ ‫ונשבעו פטורין משבועת העדות שאילו‬ ‫העידו אין חיוב ממון כאן אלא להשקותה‬ ‫ ואע"פ שעדות זו גורמת לה‬,‫בלבד‬ ‫שתפסיד כתובתה אם לא תשתה דבר‬ ‫שגורם לממון אינו כממון שהרי אפשר‬ .‫שתשתה ולא תשבור כתובתה‬

matter that could lead to a financial claim is not considered as a financial claim. For it is possible that she will drink the waters and not invalidate her ketubah.

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

4 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973872/jewish/Shvuot-C...

[A witness] is liable for a sh'vuat haedut [in the following situation. A man] issued a [sotah] warning to his wife. She entered into privacy [as observed by] two witnesses and then committed adultery, [as observed by] one witness after being warned and entering into privacy. If [the husband] administered an oath to this witness that he come and testify and he denied knowledge [of the matter], he is liable. Although he is only one witness, if he would have delivered this testimony, the woman would have been divorced without receiving [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah as explained in Hilchot Sotah.14

‫הרי שקנא לאשתו ונסתרה בעדים‬ ‫וזנתה בעד אחד אחר הקנוי‬ ‫והסתירה והשביע עד זה שיבא ויעיד וכפר‬ ‫חייב בשבועת העדות שאע"פ שהוא עד‬ ‫אחד אילו העיד עדות זו היתה יוצאה בלא‬ .‫כתובה כמו שבארנו בהלכות סוטה‬

Similarly, in any other instance where the testimony of one witness creates a financial obligation, if that witness denies knowledge [of the matter] and took an oath or an oath was administered to him in court supporting his denial, he is liable for a sh'vuat haedut.

‫וכן כל עד אחד שמחייב ממון‬ ‫בעדותו אם כפר ונשבע או‬ ‫שהשביעו בבית דין וכפר חייב משום‬ .‫שבועת העדות‬

What is implied? Both the plaintiff and the defendant were reputed [to take false] 15 oaths and hence they are not given the opportunity to take oaths, [the plaintiff] administered an oath to one witness that he should come and testify that so-and-so owes him a maneh and he denied [knowledge of the matter], he is liable for a sh'vuat haedut. For were he to have testified, the defendant would have been required to pay because of his testimony, as will be explained in Hilchot To'en.16 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫כיצד כגון שהיה התובע והנתבע‬ ‫חשודין על השבועה שאין משביעין‬ ‫אותם והשביע לעד אחד שיבא ויעיד לו‬ ‫שיש לו ביד זה מנה וכפר הרי זה חייב‬ ‫משום שבועת העדות שאילו העיד היה‬ ‫הנתבע הזה משלם ממון בעדותו כמו‬ .‫שיתבאר בהלכות טוען וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

When a woman administers an oath to one witness that he testify regarding the death of her husband and he denies [knowledge of the matter], he is liable for a sh'vuat haedut. Were he to have testified, she would have married and received [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.17

‫האשה שהשביעה עד אחד שיעיד‬ ‫לה במיתת בעלה וכפר חייב‬ ‫בשבועת העדות שאילו העיד היתה נשאת‬ .‫ונוטלת כתובתה‬

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

5 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973872/jewish/Shvuot-C...

When does the above apply? When she could have collected [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah from movable property.18 If, however, she could only have collected [this sum] by expropriating landed property, [the witness] is not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. This also applies if there are two witnesses, for

‫במה דברים אמורים כשהיה לה‬ ‫לגבות כתובתה מן המטלטלין אבל‬ ‫אם אין לה לגבות כתובתה אלא מן הקרקע‬ ‫ וכן אם היו‬,‫הרי זה פטור משבועת העדות‬ ‫ שהמשביע עדי קרקע פטורין כמו‬,‫שנים‬ .‫שבארנו‬

when one administers an oath [to witnesses for claims] involving landed property, they are not liable [for a sh'vuat haedut,] as we explained.19 When a person administers an oath to witnesses in a court and both denied [knowledge of the matter] at once, e.g., the second witness began his denial immediately after the statements of his colleague,20 they are both liable for a sh'vuat haedut. Each one of them must bring a sin offering21 for his oath. If the first one denied [knowledge of the matter] and the second witness waited longer than the appointed time period and then denied [knowledge of the matter], the first [witness] is liable for a sh'vuat haedut and the second is exempt. For even if the second had acknowledged [the obligation], his testimony would not have obligated [the defendant] financially.22 If one of the witnesses acknowledged [the claim] and the other denied [knowledge of it], the one who denied is liable whether he made his denial before [the other witness' acknowledgement] or afterwards.23 If they both denied [knowledge of the matter] at the same time and then one took the initiative and acknowledged [the matter] immediately thereafter,24 he is exempt and the witness that persists in his denial is liable for a sh'vuat haedut.

‫השביע עדיו בבית דין וכפרו שניהם‬ ‫ כגון שהתחיל השני לכפור‬,‫כאחת‬ ‫בתוך כדי דבורו של חבירו שניהם חייבין‬ ‫בשבועת העדות וכל אחד ואחד מביא‬ ‫ כפר הראשון ושהה‬,‫חטאתו על שבועתו‬ ,‫העד השני יותר מכדי דיבור ואח"כ כפר‬ ‫הראשון חייב בשבועת העדות והשני פטור‬ ‫ שאילו הודה זה השני לא‬,‫משבועת העדות‬ .‫היתה עדותו מחייבת ממון‬

‫הודה אחד וכפר אחד הכופר חייב‬ ,‫בין שכפר בתחלה בין שכפר בסוף‬ ‫כפרו שניהם כאחד וקדם האחד והודה‬ ‫בתוך כדי דיבור ה"ז פטור והעומד‬ .‫בכפירתו חייב בשבועת העדות‬

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

6 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973872/jewish/Shvuot-C...

When a person administered an oath to two pairs of witnesses who are both fit to deliver testimony and the first group denied [knowledge of the matter] and then the second pair denied knowledge of the matter, the first are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] they are relying on the testimony of the second pair and that testimony is sufficient to expropriate money. Hence the defendant would not be liable to make financial restitution because of the testimony of these [witnesses] who denied [knowledge of the matter] alone.25 If the second pair of witnesses were related to the plaintiff or to the defendant by marriage and their wives were on their deathbeds, the first pair of witnesses are also liable. For at the time the first pair made their denial, the second pair were not fit to give testimony even though they will soon be fit to give testimony when [the women] on their deathbeds die.26 If the second pair make their denial after their wives die, they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut. When a person charges his witnesses with testifying on his behalf and they deny [knowledge of the matter], he administers an oath and they answer Amen,27 he administers an oath four or five times and they respond to each oath outside the court, and when they come to the court, they acknowledge [the matter] and testify, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut, as we explained.28

‫השביע שתי כתי עדים ושתיהן‬ ‫ וכפרה כת ראשונה‬,‫ראויות להעיד‬ ‫ הראשונה‬,‫ואחר כך כפרה כת שניה‬ ‫פטורה משבועת העדות מפני שהן סמוכין‬ ‫על עדות שניה ואפשר להוציא הממון‬ ‫בעדות הכת האחרת ונמצא זה הנתבע‬ ,‫אינו חייב לשלם בעדות אלו שכפרו לבדה‬ ‫היתה הכת השניה קרובין לתובע או‬ ‫לנתבע בנשותיהן והרי הן גוססות אף‬ ‫ שהרי השניה בעת‬,‫הראשונה חייבת‬ ‫כפירת הראשונה לא היתה ראויה להעיד‬ ‫ואף על פי שבמהרה יהיו ראויין כשימותו‬ ‫ ואם כפרה השניה אחר‬,‫אלו הגוססות‬ .‫שמתו נשותיהן חייבין בשבועת העדות‬

‫התובע את העדים להעיד לו וכפרו‬ ‫והשביען וענו אמן והשביען ארבע‬ ‫וחמש פעמים והן עונין אחר כל שבועה‬ ‫ושבועה חוץ לבית דין וכשבאו לבית דין‬ ‫הודו והעידו הרי אלו פטורין משבועת‬ ‫ ואם באו לבית דין‬,‫העדות כמו שבארנו‬ ‫ועמדו בכפירתן חייבין על כל אחת ואחת‬ .‫מאותן השבועות שחוץ לבית דין‬

If [when] they came to court, they persisted in their denial, they are liable for every one of the oaths [administered] outside the court.29

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

7 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973872/jewish/Shvuot-C...

When does the above30 apply? When they answered Amen. If, however, they did not answer Amen, but [merely] denied [knowledge of the matter] after every oath, they are not liable unless the oath is administered in court, as we explained.31 [The rationale is that] they did not utter the oath themselves or answer Amen.

‫במה דברים אמורים בשענו אמן‬ ‫אבל אם לא ענו אמן אלא כפרו על‬ ‫כל שבועה ושבועה הואיל ולא הוציאו‬ ‫שבועה מפיהם ולא ענו אמן הרי אלו‬ ‫פטורין עד שישביעם בבית דין ויכפרו בו‬ 35 .‫שם כמו שבארנו‬

If [the plaintiff] administered an oath to [the witnesses] in court and they denied [knowledge of the matter] and then he administered an oath again four or five times and they deny [knowledge of the matter] each time, they are liable only once for a sh'vuat haedut.32 [This applies whether the oath was administered] in court or outside the court and even if they answered Amen or took the oath on their initiative

‫השביען בבית דין וכפרו וחזר‬ ‫והשביען ארבע וחמש פעמים והן‬ ‫כופרין על כל אחת ואחת בין חוץ לבית דין‬ ‫בין בפני בית דין ואפילו ענו אמן או נשבעו‬ ‫מפי עצמן פעם אחר פעם אינן חייבין‬ ‫משום שבועת העדות אלא אחת מפני‬ ‫שאחר שכפרו בבית דין אם חזרו והודו‬ .‫אין עדותן מועלת כלום‬

time after time. [The rationale is that] after they denied [knowledge of the matter] in court, were they to retract and admit [knowledge of it], their testimony would no longer be effective.33 It can thus be derived that all the oaths that they take after denying [knowledge of the matter] in court involve a denial of testimony that would not obligate [the defendant] financially. [In that instance, the witnesses] are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut, but they are liable for a sh'vuat bitui, as we explained.34

« Previous

‫נמצאת למד שכל השבועות‬ ‫שנשבעו אחר שכפרו בבית דין הן‬ ‫על כפירת עדות שאינה מחייבת ממון שהן‬ ‫פטורין עליה משבועת העדות וחייבין‬ .‫בשבועת ביטוי כמו שבארנו‬

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 11

Shvuot - Chapter 9 FOOTNOTES 1. Relatives are also among these unacceptable as witnesses.

2. See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Melachim

See Hilchot Edut from ch. 9 onward for a detailed discussion

3:7) which explains that since we are required to hold the king in awe, he is not allowed to testify. See also Hilchot

of which witnesses are not acceptable.

Edut 11:9. 3. In which instance, their testimony would not be effective in cases of monetary law.

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

8 of 10

4. It would seem that according to the Rambam, they are liable for a sh'vuat bitui. The same law applies with regard to the subsequent halachot. See Chapter 9, Halachah 14. 5. Since their testimony is not effective, they are not liable. 6. Making such a statement does not create a binding financial obligation (Sh'vuot 35a).

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973872/jewish/Shvuot-C...

15. See Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 2:1 that mentions the individuals placed in this category: those who took false oaths in the past and those disqualified from testifying because of transgressions they performed. 16. Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 2:4. 17. See Hilchot Gerushin 12:15 which states that our Sages

7. I.e., were his mother to have undergone either divorce or chalitzah, he would be disqualified from the priesthood.

were lenient and accepted the testimony of only one witness in order to allow a woman to remarry. And since they allowed

8. The son is liable for execution for wounding his father

her to remarry on that basis, they also allowed her to collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.

(Hilchot Mamrim 5:5), the kindler is liable for desecrating the Sabbath, and the seducer or rapist for adultery. 9. Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:13 explains that this concept is derived from the exegesis of Exodus 21:22. 10. As stated in Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 1:2, one witness does not make one liable financially, but it does require an oath. There are times when this requirement will also lead to financial payment, for the defendant may chose to pay rather than to take the oath. Nevertheless, since the matter depends on the defendant's choice and not the witness's testimony, he is not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1. Nevertheless, as stated in Halachot 8-10 of this chapter, when the testimony of one witness does create an obligation

18. I.e., she took possession of movable property during the lifetime of her husband and after his death, sought to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from it. Otherwise, the moveable property left by her husband is not under lien to his obligations and she must expropriate his landed property. This applies according to the ruling of the Talmud. At present, however, our Rabbis have ordained that a person's movable property is on lien to all of his debts (Radbaz; see Hilchot Ishut 16:8). 19. Chapter 9, Halachah 3. This ruling also applies to the situation described in Halachah 11. 20. The term the Rambam uses has a specific halachic meaning:

for financial payment, the witness is liable for a sh'vuat

the time it takes to say: "Shalom Elecha Rabbi, as stated in

haedut.

Chapter 2, Halachah 17.

granted her in her ketubah (ante nuptial agreement). See

21. More specifically, an adjustable guilt offering, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 12.

Hilchot Ishut 24:6.

22. Since the first witness denied knowledge of the matter, the

11. For a woman who commits adultery forfeits all the privileges

Generally, a person who is guilty of a transgression that involves capital punishment is not held liable for any financial

testimony of the second witness will not be effective, for he is only one witness.

responsibility. This case, however, is an exception, because the woman is not paying anything. It is just that her conduct

23. He is liable, for had he testified, his testimony would have obligated the defendant.

voids her husband's obligation to pay her. 12. In the era of the Temple, when a man suspected his wife of committing adultery, he would warn her not to enter into privacy with the suspect. Two witnesses had to observe that warning being given. If she in fact entered into privacy with him afterwards as verified by two witnesses, she would have to drink the special sotah waters. If she had indeed

24. I.e., within the time period, toch k'dei dibbur, mentioned above. Even if he completed his own statements, his colleague spoke, and then he made the denial, he is exempt. See Chapter 2, Halachah 18. 25. And hence they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut as stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 1.

committed adultery, the water would cause internal hemorrhaging and she would die. If she was innocent, she

26. As long as a person is alive, he or she is considered as alive with regard to all the halachic ramifications of that state.

would be granted blessings. Here we are speaking of the husband charging either of these two pairs of witnesses to

This and the following clause apply when the witnesses observed the testimony before they married the women in

testify.

question. Otherwise, their testimony will not be acceptable, for they must be fit to testify both at the time they witness the

13. See Hilchot Sotah 2:1. 14. Hilchot Sotah 1:14. Since there are witnesses who testify that she received a warning and that she entered into privacy with the man who was singled out, there is basis to assume that she committed adultery with him. Hence the testimony of one witness is sufficient.

testimony and at the time they deliver it in court. 27. This constitutes acceptance of the oath. If, however, they remain silent outside the court, they are not considered to have accepted the oath.

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

9 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973872/jewish/Shvuot-C...

28. As stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 2, for witnesses to be liable, they must make their denial in court.

32. They are, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui as stated in the

They are, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui for every oath

33. As stated in Hilchot Edut 3:5, once witnesses testify in court,

they accepted outside the court (Radbaz). 29. For the same denial applies to all of them. Since they never denied the matter in court, each denial they make is still significant (in contrast to the instance mentioned in Halachah 18). 30. That they are liable for an oath administered outside the court.

following halachah.

they cannot change that testimony. Since their testimony would no longer have an effect, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. 34. Chapter 9, Halachah 14. This also applies to all the other instances in this chapter where it was stated that the witnesses were not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. 35. ‫ א"א הא לא כר"מ ולא כרבנן וטעות‬.'‫במה דברים אמורים בשענו אמן וכו‬

31. Chapter 9, Halachot 1, 10. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this issue,

‫ ודע דר"מ ורבנן בשבועת העדות ושבועת הפקדון מודו‬,‫גדולה נכנסה בו‬ ‫ לב"ד חייב ולא פליגי אלא בכפירתם‬/‫חוץ‬/ ‫דשבועה גופה אפילו היתה חוך‬

stating that he has made a great error in interpreting the difference of opinion between Rabbi Meir and the Sages

‫דר"מ סבר שבועת העדות מפי עצמן אפילו כפרו חוץ לב"ד חייבין ואע"פ‬ ‫שהודו בבית דין מ"מ מפקדון גמרינן לה ודון מינה ומינה ורבנן סברי‬

mentioned in Sh'vuot 30b. The Ra'avad maintains that their

‫כפירה בב"ד בעינן דון מינה ואוקי באתרה ובשבועת הפקדון סבר ר' מאיר‬ ‫מפי אחרים בעינן כפירה בב"ד דומיא דעדות ואם כפר חוץ לב"ד והודה‬

difference of opinion concerns only whether the denial of knowledge of the matter must be made in the presence of the court or outside of it. Both, however, agree that an oath

‫בב"ד פטור ורבנן סברי מפי אחרים כיון דכפר חייב‬.

is significant, whether made in the presence of the court or outside of it. The Rambam, however, maintains that since the witnesses did not take the oath themselves or respond to it, they are not liable. It is only when the oath is administered in court that the oath is significant even though the witnesses do not respond to it.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

10 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973872/jewish/Shvuot-C...

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

1 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973873/jewish/Shvuot-C...



Shvuot - Chapter 11 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 10

English

Hebrew

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 12

Just as there is a negative commandment forbidding an oath taken in vain and a false oath,1 so, too, there is a positive commandment for a person who is obligated to take an oath in court2 to take that oath in God's name,3 as [Deuteronomy 6:13] states: "And you shall take an oath in His name." This is a positive commandment.4 For taking an oath in His great and holy name is one of the paths of His service. It is a great measure of glorification and sanctification to take an oath in God's name.5

‫כשם ששבועת שוא ושקר בלא‬ ‫ כך מצות עשה שישבע מי‬,‫תעשה‬ ‫שנתחייב שבועה בבית דין בשם שנאמר‬ ‫ שהשבועה‬,‫ובשמו תשבע זו מצות עשה‬ ‫בשמו הגדול והקדוש מדרכי העבודה היא‬ .‫והדור וקדוש גדול הוא להשבע בשמו‬

It is forbidden to take an oath on any other matter together with God's name.6 Whoever combines another matter with the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, in an oath will be uprooted from this world.7 For there is no one who is fit to give honor by taking an oath in his name except the [Absolute] One, blessed be He.

,‫ואסור להשבע בדבר אחר עם שמו‬ ‫וכל המשתף דבר אחר עם שם‬ ‫הקדוש ברוך הוא בשבועה נעקר מן‬ ‫ שאין שם מי שראוי לחלוק לו‬,‫העולם‬ ‫כבוד שנשבעין בשמו אלא האחד ברוך‬ .‫הוא‬

It is permitted for a person to take an oath to fulfill a mitzvah in order to encourage himself [toward its performance]. Although he is under oath [to observe] it from Mount Sinai [onward],8 [he may take an oath, as implied by Psalms 119:106]: "I took an oath and I will uphold it - to observe Your righteous judgments."9

‫ומותר לאדם להשבע על המצוה‬ ‫לעשותה כדי לזרז את עצמו ואע"פ‬ ‫שהוא מושבע עליה מהר סיני שנאמר‬ .‫נשבעתי ואקיימה לשמור משפטי צדקך‬

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

2 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973873/jewish/Shvuot-C...

The oath which the judges administer to individuals who are obligated to take an oath is called: "The oath of the judges." [This applies whether the person] is liable for an oath according to Scriptural Law or according to Rabbinic Law.

‫שבועה זו שמשביעין הדיינים למי‬ ‫שנתחייב שבועה היא הנקראת‬ ‫ בין שהיה חייב בשבועה זו‬,‫שבועת הדיינין‬ ‫מן התורה בין שהיה חייב בה מדברי‬ .‫סופרים‬

There are three types of oaths for which one is obligated according to Scriptural Law:

‫שלשה מיני שבועות הן שחייבין בהן‬ ‫ מי שטענו חבירו‬:‫ ואלו הן‬,‫מן התורה‬ ,‫מטלטלין והודה במקצתן וכפר במקצתן‬ ‫ומי שכפר בכל המטלטלין שטענו ועד‬ ‫אחד מעיד עליו ומכחישו הרי אלו שתי‬ ‫ וכן‬,‫שבועות על ידי טענת ודאי וכפירה‬ ‫שומר שטוען שאבד דבר שהפקידו אצלו‬ ‫או נגנב או מת וכיוצא בזה הרי זה נשבע‬ ‫ שאין בעל הפקדון יודע אם אמת‬,‫מספק‬ ‫ והוא נשבע מן‬,‫טוען זה השומר או שקר‬ ‫התורה שנאמר שבועת ה' תהיה בין‬ .‫שניהם‬

a) A claim involving movable property10 was lodged against a person by a colleague. He admitted liability for a portion and denied liability for a portion.11 b) [The defendant] denied liability for all the movable property, but one witness testifies against him, contradicting his statements.12 These two oaths come in response to a definite claim and a denial.13 c) When a watchman claims that the article entrusted to him was lost, stolen, died, or the like, he is required to take an oath, because of the doubt, for the owner of the entrusted article does not know if the watchman is making a true claim or not.14 This oath is of Scriptural origin, as [Exodus 22:10] states: "The oath of God will be between them." 15

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

3 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973873/jewish/Shvuot-C...

All oaths which the judges require aside from these three are of Rabbinic origin. They are also called "the oath of the judges." Within these oaths of Rabbinic origin, there are also two categories: a) Oaths administered because of a definite claim and denial: e.g., the oath [taken by] a hired worker,16 [the oath taken by] one who impugns his promissory note,17 and the like.18 b) Oaths taken when [the plaintiff] has a claim of a doubtful nature, e.g., the oaths taken by partners, sharecroppers, and the like.19

‫כל שבועה שמשביעין אותה הדיינין‬ ‫חוץ משלשה מיני שבועות אלו הרי‬ ‫הוא מדברי סופרים וגם היא הנקראת‬ ‫ וגם שבועות אלו‬,‫שבועת הדיינין‬ ‫ יש מהן‬,‫מדבריהם שני מיני שבועות הן‬ ‫שבועות על ידי טענת ודאי וכפירה כגון‬ ,‫שבועת שכיר ופוגם שטרו וכיוצא בהן‬ ‫ויש מהן שבועות בטענת ספק כגון שבועת‬ ‫ ובדיני‬,‫השותפין והאריסין וכיוצא בהן‬ ‫ממונות יתבאר חיוב כל אחת ואחת מאלו‬ .‫השבועות ודיניהם‬

In the laws of financial matters, the obligation of all these types of oaths and the associated laws will be explained. There is also another oath which was ordained by the Sages of the Talmud.20 It is called a sh'vuat heset.21 Although it is administered by the court in the present era. It is not referred to by the term "the oath of the judges."

‫ויש שם שבועה אחרת והיא תקנת‬ ‫חכמי הגמרא והיא הנקראת שבועת‬ ‫ ואע"פ שבית דין משביעין אותה‬,‫הסת‬ .‫]היום[ אינה נקראת שבועת הדיינין‬

An oath of the judges, whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin, whether stemming from a definite or an indefinite claim is [administered in] the following [manner]: The person taking the oath holds a Torah scroll22 in his arm.23 He must stand24 and take the oath or recite a curse using God's name or one of the terms used to describe Him. [Either] he pronounces the oath himself or it is pronounced by the judges. My masters25 ruled that an oath of the judges is administered only in Lashon HaKodesh.26

‫ושבועת הדיינין בין שהיתה של‬ ‫תורה או של דברי סופרים בין על‬ ,‫טענת ודאי בין על טענת ספק כך היא‬ ‫הנשבע אוחז ספר תורה בזרועו והוא עומד‬ ‫ונשבע בשם או בכינוי בשבועה או באלה‬ ‫ והורו רבותי שאין‬,‫מפיו או מפי הדיינין‬ ‫משביעין שבועת הדיינין אלא בלשון‬ .‫הקדש‬

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

4 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973873/jewish/Shvuot-C...

What is meant by an oath pronounced by [the defendant] himself? For example, he says: "I am taking an oath by God, the Lord of Israel...",27 "...by He whose name is graciousness...", "...by He whose name is mercy that I am not liable to this person at all." Similarly, if he says: "May one28 be cursed to God..." or "...cursed to He whose name is graciousness if I owes anything to that person."

‫ כגון שיאמר הריני נשבע‬,‫כיצד מפיו‬ ‫בה' אלהי ישראל או במי ששמו חנון‬ ,‫או במי ששמו רחום שאיני חייב לזה כלום‬ ‫וכן אם אמר הרי הוא ארור לה' או ארור‬ .‫למי ששמו חנון אם יש לזה אצלי כלום‬

What is meant by an oath pronounced by the judges? For example, they tell him: We are administering an oath to you by God, the Lord of Israel...", "...by He whose name is graciousness that you are not liable to this person at all" and [the defendant] answers Amen.29 Or they say: "May

‫וכיצד מפי הדיינין כגון שאמרו לו‬ ‫משביעין אנו אותך בה' אלהי ישראל‬ ‫או במי ששמו חנון שאין לזה בידך כלום‬ ‫ או שאמרו הרי פלוני בן‬,‫והוא עונה אמן‬ ‫פלוני ארור לה' אלהי ישראל או למי‬ ‫ששמו חנון אם יש לפלוני אצלו ממון ולא‬ ‫יודה לו והוא עונה אמן זו היא שבועת‬ .‫הדיינין‬

so-and-so be cursed to God..." or "...cursed to He whose name is graciousness if he owes money to that person and does not acknowledge the debt" and [the defendant] answers Amen. This is the oath of the judges. When the judges administer an oath without the defendant holding a [sacred] article in his hand, they have made an error. He must take the oath again while holding a Torah scroll in his hand.30 If he was holding tefillin when they administered the oath to him, he is not required to take the oath again. For he held [an article equivalent to] the Torah in his hand,31 for they are like a scroll. If they administered the oath while [the defendant] was sitting, he does not have to take the oath again.

‫הדיינין שהשביעו בלא נקיטת חפץ‬ ‫ וחוזר ונשבע‬,‫בידו הרי אלו טועים‬ ‫ ואם אחז תפילין בידו‬,‫וספר תורה בידו‬ ‫והשביעוהו אינו חוזר ונשבע שהרי אחז‬ ‫ השביעוהו מיושב‬,‫תורה בידו וכמו ספר הן‬ .‫אינו חוזר ונשבע‬

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

5 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973873/jewish/Shvuot-C...

At the outset, an oath should be administered to a Torah scholar while seated and while holding tefillin.32 He need not hold a Torah scroll. Holding tefillin in his hand [fulfills the requirement of] a sacred article. He takes an oath in Lashon HaKodesh, as we explained.33

‫תלמיד חכם לכתחילה משביעין‬ ‫אותו מיושב ותפילין בידו ואינו‬ ‫צריך ליטול ספר תורה אלא תפילין בכפו‬ ‫חפץ הוא ונשבע בלשון הקדש כמו‬ .‫שבארנו‬

There is no difference between a sh'vuat heset and an oath of the judges except that [the latter] must be taken [while] holding a sacred article and a person who takes a sh'vuat heset does not hold a Torah scroll. Instead, an oath is administered to him by God's name or using one of the terms used to describe Him,34 either an oath or a curse which he utters or which the court states, as is the practice with regard to the oath of the judges. It has already become the universal custom for the synagogue attendant or another person to hold a Torah scroll while a sh'vuat heset is being administered to cast fear [into the heart of the defendant].

‫אין בין שבועת הסת לשבועת‬ ‫ שאין‬,‫הדיינין אלא נקיטת חפץ‬ ‫הנשבע שבועת הסת אוחז ספר תורה אלא‬ ‫משביעין אותו בשם או בכנוי בשבועה או‬ ‫באלה מפיו או מפי בית דין כמו שבועת‬ ‫ וכבר נהגו הכל להיות ספר תורה‬,‫הדיינין‬ ‫ביד חזן הכנסת או שאר העם בעת‬ .‫שמשביעין שבועת הסת כדי לאיים עליו‬

The judges administer the oath to the person taking it in any language that he understands.35 The Geonim ruled in this manner. My masters, however, ruled that an oath should be administered only in Lashon HaKodesh. This ruling should not be relied upon.36

‫הדיינין שהשביעו את הנשבע בכל‬ ‫לשון שהוא מכיר הרי זו כמצותה‬ ‫ אבל רבותינו הורו שאין‬,‫וכן הורו הגאונים‬ ‫ ואין ראוי‬,‫משביעים אלא בלשון הקדש‬ ‫ ואף על פי שנהגו‬,‫לסמוך על הוראה זו‬ ‫בכל בתי דינין להשבע בלשון הקדש צריך‬ ‫להודיע את הנשבע עד שיהא מכיר לשון‬ ‫ ששבועת הדיינין היא שבועת‬,‫השבועה‬ ‫ ואף שבועת הסת נהגו כל‬,‫הפקדון בעצמה‬ .‫העם להשביע אותה בלשון הקדש‬

Although it has become customary to administer oaths in Lashon HaKodesh, the person taking the oath should be familiarized with the matter until he understands the wording of the oath. [The rationale is that] the oath of the judges is a sh'vuat hapikadon itself.37 People have

55

even adopted the custom of administering a sh'vuat heset in Lashon HaKodesh.38

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

6 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973873/jewish/Shvuot-C...

Everyone who is obligated to take an oath of the judges that comes about because of a definite claim and denial,39 whether it is of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin, is subjected to a admonition, as will be explained.40 Everyone who is obligated to take an oath, whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin, because of a doubtful claim need not be subjected to an admonition.41

‫כל מי שיתחייב שבועת הדיינין‬ ‫שהיא על ידי טענת ודאי וכפירה‬ ‫בין שהיתה מדברי תורה בין שהיתה‬ ‫ וכל‬,‫מדבריהם מאיימין עליו כמו שיתבאר‬ ‫מי שיתחייב בה בטענת ספק בין מן‬ .‫התורה בין מדבריהם אינו צריך איום‬

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

7 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973873/jewish/Shvuot-C...

How is an admonition administered to the person taking the oath? We tell him: Know that the entire world trembled at the time the Holy One, blessed be He, told Moses [Exodus 20:7]: "Do not take the name of God, your Lord, in vain." For with regard to all the transgressions in the Torah, as [Exodus 34:7] states: "And He shall cleanse." And with regard to [a false oath,] as [Exodus 20:7] states: "[God] will not cleanse one who takes His name in vain."42 With regard to all the transgressions in the Torah, retribution is exacted from him [alone], but with regard to [a false oath], retribution is exacted from him and from his family who conceal the matter for him.43 Moreover, this causes retribution to be exacted from "the enemies of the Jews,"44 for the entire Jewish people are responsible for each other,45 for [Hoshea 4:2-3] states: "Swearing, denying, murdering.... Therefore the land will mourn and all who inhabit it will be forlorn." With regard to all the transgressions in the Torah, [retribution] is suspended for two or three generations if he possesses merit, but with regard to [a false oath], retribution is exacted immediately, as [Zechariah 5:4] states: 'I have let loose [the curse],' declares God, the Lord of Hosts, 'It will come into the house of the thief and the house of he who took an oath in My name falsely.'

‫ אומרין‬,‫וכיצד מאיימין על הנשבע‬ ‫לו הוי יודע שכל העולם כולו‬ ‫נזדעזע בשעה שאמר הקב"ה למשה לא‬ ‫ וכל‬,‫תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לשוא‬ ‫עבירות שבתורה נאמר בהן ונקה וכאן‬ ‫ כל עבירות שבתורה‬,‫נאמר לא ינקה‬ ‫נפרעין ממנו וכאן ממנו וממשפחתו‬ ‫ ולא עוד אלא גורם להפרע‬,‫שמחפין על זה‬ ‫משונאיהם של ישראל שכל ישראל ערבין‬ '‫זה בזה שנאמר אלה וכחש ורצוח וגו‬ ‫וכתוב אחריו על כן תאבל הארץ ואמלל‬ ‫ כל עבירות שבתורה תולין לו‬,‫כל יושב בה‬ ‫שנים ושלשה דורות אם יש לו זכות וכאן‬ '‫נפרעין מיד שנאמר הוצאתיה נאם ה‬ ‫צבאות ובאה אל בית הגנב ואל בית‬ ‫ ובאה‬,‫ הוצאתיה מיד‬,‫הנשבע בשמי לשקר‬ ‫אל בית הגנב זה הגונב דעת הבריות ואין‬ ,‫לו ממון על חבירו וטוענו בחנם ומשביעו‬ ,‫אל בית הנשבע בשמי לשקר כמשמעו‬ ‫וכלתו ואת עציו ואת אבניו דברים שאין‬ ‫אש ומים מכלין אותן שבועת שקר מכלה‬ .‫אותן‬

"I have let loose" implies immediately. "It will come into the house of the thief" - this refers to deceiving people, i.e. one who does not have money owed to him by a colleague and yet lodges a claim against him to require him to take an oath. "He who took an oath in My name falsely" - this should be interpreted literally. [The verse continues:] "It shall destroy it, its wood, and its stones." Entities that cannot be destroyed by fire and water will be destroyed by a false oath.

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

8 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973873/jewish/Shvuot-C...

The concept [conveyed] by this admonition is told [to the person taking the oath] entirely in a language that they understand, so that they will understand the matter and the sinner will repent and correct [is conduct].

‫וענין האיום הזה כלו בלשון שהן‬ ‫מכירין אומרים להם כדי שיבינו‬ ‫ אמר איני‬,‫בדברים ויחזור החוטא למוטב‬ ‫נשבע פוטרין אותו ונותן מה שטענו‬ ‫ וכן אם אמר הטוען איני משביעו‬,‫חבירו‬ .‫ופטרו הולכין להן‬

If he says: "I am not taking the oath," he is released,46 but he must pay what his colleague demands. Similarly, if the plaintiff says: "I will not subject him to an oath and I release him," they may depart.47 If [the defendant] says: "I will take the oath," and [the plaintiff] persists in the claim, the people there say to each other: "Turn away from the tents of these wicked men."48

,‫אמר הריני נשבע וחבירו תובע‬ ‫העומדים שם אומרים זה לזה סורו‬ ,'‫נא מעל אהלי האנשים הרשעים וגו‬ ‫ואומרין לו לא על דעתך אנו משביעין‬ .‫אותך אלא על דעתנו ועל דעת בית דין‬

[The court] tell [the defendant]: "We are not administering the oath to you according to your understanding, but according to our understanding and the understanding of the court."49 Although this admonition is not administered for an oath taken because of a claim involving a doubt or a sh'vuat heset,50 the judges should implore the litigants exceedingly [before administering these oaths] perhaps they will retract and so there will be no oaths taken at all.51 It is a clear and that anyone who takes an oath of the judges or a sh'vuat heset falsely, is liable for taking a [false] sh'vuat hapikadon, the details of which have already been explained.52 Even though he willfully [took the false oath], he does not receive lashes. [Instead,] he is obligated to pay what he owes plus an additional fifth. [The fifth] is one fourth of the principal, so that the principal and the fifth are equal to five.53 And he must bring a guilt offering if the oath was taken in court, as we explained.54

‫אע"פ שאין מאיימין איום זה‬ ‫בשבועת טענת ספק כמו שבארנו‬ ‫ צריכין הדיינין לפצור‬,‫ולא בשבועת הסת‬ ‫בבעלי דינין אולי יחזרו בהן עד שלא תהיה‬ .‫שם שבועה כלל‬

‫דבר ברור וגלוי שכל הנשבע שבועת‬ ‫הדיינין או שבועת הסת בשקר שיהא‬ ‫חייב משום שבועת הפקדון שכבר נתבארו‬ ‫משפטיה ואינו לוקה ואע"פ שהוא מזיד‬ ‫ונתחייב לשלם מה שנשבע עליו בתוספת‬ ‫חומש שהוא רביע הקרן עד שיהיה הוא‬ ‫ ומביא קרבן אשם אם יש‬,‫וחומשו חמשה‬ .56 .‫שם בית )דין( כמו שבארנו‬

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

9 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973873/jewish/Shvuot-C...

« Previous

Next » Shvuot - Chapter 12

Shvuot - Chapter 10 FOOTNOTES 1. See Chapter 1, Halachot 7-8. 2. See Halachah 5 which mentions the oaths required by the

13. If, however, the plaintiff suspects the defendant is liable, but is unsure of his claim, he cannot require the defendant to take an oath (ibid.:7). Similarly, if the defendant is unsure

court.

whether he is liable or not, he may not take a Scriptural oath

3. See Halachot 8-9. 4. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 7) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 435) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Note the Hasagot of the Ramban to Sefer HaMitzvot and the Ra'avad' objections at

to absolve himself of responsibility. The Rambam's statements here are significant in another context. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if a plaintiff who makes a claim that is supported by the

the beginning of the Mishneh Torah which differ and argue

testimony of one witness must be certain of the veracity of the claim himself or whether he can be doubtful, but rely on

that

the testimony of the witness. The Maggid Mishneh (in his

this

should

not

be

considered

as

a

positive

commandment. See also Hilchot Nedarim 1:4 which states

gloss to Hilchot Gezelah 4:17 and the Kessef Mishneh (in

that there is a positive Scriptural commandment for a person

his gloss to Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 3:6) maintain that the

to carry out an oath or vow he took.

Rambam follows the latter view. Here, however, it appears

5. For this reveals the reverence and awe in which God's name is held.

otherwise. 14. See ibid.:2; Hilchot Sechirut 1:2; 2:8.

6. For that implies drawing a certain equation between that other entity and God.

15. The Ma'aseh Rokeach states that the word Shema ‫שמע‬

7. See the Radbaz who explains why the expression: "As God

Shomrim, Modeh bimitzat eid echad, ‫ עד‬,‫ מודה במקצת‬,‫שומרים‬

lives and by the life of your soul" (II Kings 2:4, 4:30) is not a contradiction of this principle. 8. When the Jewish people were compelled by God to accept the Torah by oath. One might think that we would apply the principle (see Chapter 5, Halachah 11, and notes) that one oath does not take effect when another is already in effect. Hence, taking the oath would be taking God's name in vain. This is not so as the Rambam continues to explain. 9. Thus if David - a paradigm of pious conduct - could take an oath for this purpose, so can others. 10. In contrast to landed property, servants, and promissory notes (Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 5:1). 11. This situation is referred to by our Sages with the term modeh bimiktzat: "one who admits a portion." See Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 1:1. 12. "Whenever [the testimony of] two [witnesses] would require him to make financial restitution, [the testimony of] one [witness] obligates him to take an oath" (Ibid.).

serves as an acronym for the names of these three oaths: ‫אחד‬ 16. See Hilchot Sechirut 11:6 which explains that when an employer denies owing a worker his wage, the worker may take an oath and collect his due. 17. See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 14:1. 18. For example, Sh'vuot 44b mentions several other instances when such an oath is required of a defendant: a person who claims that property was stolen from him and their is substantial circumstantial evidence corroborating his claim (see Hilchot Gezeilah 4:2), a storekeeper who disputes a client's claims with regard to payment (Hilchot Mechirah 20:8). 19. See Hilchot Shluchim V'Shutafim 9:1. 20. I.e., in contrast to the oaths mentioned in the previous halachah which were established by the Sages of the Mishnah. Sh'vuot 40b states that this oath was ordained by Rav Nachman, one of the leading Sages in the midst of the era of the Gemara. See Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 1:3. A defendant is required to take this oath whenever he denies entirely a claim registered against him by a plaintiff. 21. The Seifer Meirat Einayim 75:16 interprets the term heset as meaning "placed upon," i.e., it is an oath which our Sages placed upon a person. Others interpret it as relating to the root meisit, meaning "entice." The purpose of this oath is to entice a defendant to admit an obligation.

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

10 of 12

22. This will impress him with the seriousness of the matter. 23. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 87:15) quotes opinions stating that the defendant should not hold the scroll. Instead, it should be placed before him and he should place his hand on it. 24. I.e., he may not sit. Note, however, Halachot 11-12. 25. This term is used to refer to Rav Yosef Migash, the Rambam's teacher, and Rav Yitzchak Alfasi, Rav Yosef's teacher. 26. "The Holy Tongue," i.e., the Hebrew of the Tanach and the Mishnah. With regard to this ruling, see Halachah 14. 27. The Hagahot Maimoniot quote Rashi (Sh'vuot 38b) who states that it has become customary not to administer oaths using God's name, for the awesomeness of the punishment for taking His name in vain would lay waste to the world.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973873/jewish/Shvuot-C...

34. The Ra'avad states that it is not customary to administer a sh'vuat hesit with God's name in the present age, for we fear that people will take false oaths. Hence to reduce the punishment that might be incurred, God's name is not mentioned. To compensate for that omission, the court should employ various techniques to impress the person taking the oath with the seriousness of the matter. As the Radbaz states, his argument with the Rambam appears to be practical, but not theoretical. In the era of the Talmud, the Rambam's ruling would be followed. Other authorities do not accept the Rambam's view even theoretically. They maintain that even in the era of the Talmud, a sh'vuat heset was not administered with God's name. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat

87:18)

mentions the Rambam's view, but follows that of the other authorities.

This principle is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch Choshen

35. I.e., even languages other than Lashon HaKodesh.

Mishpat 87:19).

36. For the Sh'vuot 38b, 39a and the Tosefta, Sotah 7:1 states

28. He is referring to himself. 29. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1. 30. For this is equivalent to a judge making an error in a law explicitly stated in the Mishnah, in which instance the law is

that an oath can be administered in any language. 37. And a person is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon only if he understands what he is saying, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 7.

that the judgment is revoked (Sh'vuot 38b).

38. See Halachah 20.

The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 87:15) quoutes an opinion that

39. See Halachah 6.

states that a Torah scroll is not required. Any sacred text with God's name is sufficient. Similarly, in one of the Rambam's

40. In the following two halachot.

responsum, he writes that a Chumash is sufficient.

41. For the prooftext from Zechariah cited in the admonition is speaking about a definite claim. See also Halachah 19.

31. For Exodus 12:9 says of tefillin: "So that the Torah of God will be in your mouth." 32. This is a token of respect for him. See Sh'vuot 38b.

42. See also Chapter 12, Halachah 1; Hilchot Teshuvah 1:2. 43. Sh'vuot 39a derives this concept from Ecclesiates 5:5 which

The Siftei Cohen 87:41 quotes Rav Hai Gaon who states

states: "Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin." "Your

that the term Torah scholar has been given many definitions,

mouth" refers to taking a false oath and "your flesh" to one's family."

but that employed today is "anyone who puts on tefillin." On this basis, the Siftei Cohen writes that in the present day, there is no difference between Torah scholars and ordinary individuals. 33. See Halachah 8.

44. Here the intent is the Jewish people themselves. Our Sages (see Sukkah 29a) use this expression as a euphemism. 45. The Sefer Meirat Einayim 87:58 notes that this concept applies, not only with regard to a false oath, but to all the transgressions mentioned in the Torah. Nevertheless, there is a stringent aspect that applies with regard to a false oath, for with regard to other transgressions, the interrelation affects one when he has the opportunity to rebuke the transgressor and with regard to a false oath, it applies even when one does not have such an opportunity. 46. The Sefer Meirat Einayim 87:60 interprets this as meaning that he is sent away from the court. For once he leaves the court, he cannot change his mind and decide to take the oath.

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

11 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973873/jewish/Shvuot-C...

47. Once the plaintiff has retracted his request for the defendant to take the oath, he is considered to have waived his claim

50. Although he does not dispute the Rambam's ruling, the Radbaz questions why an admonition is not administered in

and can no longer prosecute it again. See Hilchot Mechirah

these instances. The Meiri and the Sefer Meirat Einayim

5:1.

87:61 explain that when the plaintiff is making a definite

48. This malediction refers to the plaintiff as well. For as Sh'vuot 39b states, the negative repercussions of taking the oath affect them both. The Radbaz explains that the plaintiff shares in the responsibility, for he should have been more careful and not entered into a business arrangement without

claim, it is one person's word against the other's. Thus there is reason to think that the defendant's oath is false and to prevent him from doing so, we issue this warning. When, however, an oath is taken because of a doubt, the defendant is not being challenged. Hence, there is less reason to suspect that he would take a false oath.

having the matter observed by witnesses. And if the oath is true, he should have been more careful with his accounts, so

51. For in all situations, it is preferable that an oath not be taken.

as not to require God's name to have been employed for such matters.

For this reason, courts have adopted the policy of trying to negotiate compromises in all litigation (Radbaz).

The Sefer Meirat Einayim 87:61 explains that when the plaintiff sees that the defendant is prepared to take a false oath, he should have offered a compromise rather than continue to pressure him and thus cause God's name to be taken in vain. 49. As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 15-16, this measure is employed so that later, the defendant will not try to absolve

52. See Chapters 7 and 8. 53. I.e., it is one fifth of the new total and not one fifth of the original principal. 54. Chapter 1, Halachah 9. The Ra'avad writes that at present since God's name is not mentioned in the oath administered by the judges, there is no liability for a guilt offering or to pay the additional fifth.

himself saying: "I had this-and-this intent in my heart when taking the oath." Since the oath is being administered to him

55. ‫אין בין שבועת היסת לשבועת הדיינין אלא נקיטת חפץ וכו' אלא משביעין‬

according to the understanding of others, it is their interpretation that is upheld. See Sh'vuot 29a and Nedarim

‫ א"א שמעתי שתקנו הגאונים שאין משביעין עכשיו‬.‫אותו בשם או בכינוי‬ ‫לא בשם ולא בכנוי כדי שלא יהא העולם חרב על ידי החוטאים שרבו אלא‬

25a which speak of a defendant employing deception while taking an oath.

‫שמחרימין אותו ומקללים אותו ומחרימין עליו בשופרות וכבוי נרות ומטות‬ ‫כפויות לאיים עליו שאם יחטא לעצמו יחטא‬. 56. ‫ א"א אחר שתיקנו הגאונים שאין בשבועתנו לא‬.'‫ואע"פ שהוא מזיד וכו‬ ‫שם ולא כנוי אין בהם לא חומש ולא אשם שאינן אלא ענין קללות לחוטא‬.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

12 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973873/jewish/Shvuot-C...

8/21/2019 4:07 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

1 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973874/jewish/Shvuot-C...



Shvuot - Chapter 12 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 11

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim

Although a person who took a false oath or an oath in vain is given lashes,1 and similarly, one who takes a [false] sh'vuat haedut or sh'vuat hapikadon brings a sacrifice,2 they do not receive complete atonement for the sin of taking a [false] oath, as [Exodus 20:7] states: "God will not cleanse [one who takes His name in vain]." He will not be absolved from the judgment of heaven until he receives retribution for his desecration of [His] great name, as [Leviticus 19:12] states: "[You shall not take a false oath in My name, for] you will desecrate the name of Your God." Therefore a person must be very careful with regard to this sin, more than with regard all other sins.3

‫אף על פי שלוקה הנשבע לשוא או‬ ‫לשקר וכן הנשבע שבועת העדות או‬ ‫ אין מתכפר‬,‫שבועת הפקדון מביא קרבן‬ '‫להן עון השבועה כלו שנאמר לא ינקה ה‬ ‫אין לזה נקיון מדין שמים עד שיתפרע‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫ממנו על השם הגדול שחלל‬ ‫ לפיכך‬,'‫וחללת את שם ה' אלהיך אני ה‬ ‫צריך אדם להזהר מעון זה יותר מכל‬ 38 .‫העבירות‬

This sin is considered one of the severe transgressions, as explained in Hilchot Teshuvah.4 Although it does not involve kerait or execution by the court, it involves the desecration of [God's] holy name which is more severe than all other sins.

‫עון זה מן החמורות הוא כמו שבארנו‬ ‫ אף על פי שאין בו‬,‫בהלכות תשובה‬ ‫לא כרת ולא מיתת בית דין יש בו חלול‬ .‫השם המקודש שהוא גדול מכל העונות‬

8/21/2019 4:08 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

2 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973874/jewish/Shvuot-C...

When a person takes an oath by the heaven and earth, by the sun, or the like, this is not an oath,5 even though his intent is He who created them. Similarly, one who takes an oath by one of the prophets or by one of the texts of the Holy Scriptures, this is not an oath, even if his intent is He who sent the prophet or gave the commandments in this text.6 Although these are not oaths, those who take them are subjected to a severe warning and we teach the people not to act frivolously in this manner. [Indeed,] we make it look as if these are oaths and give them an opening [to ask for their absolution] and absolve them.7

‫מי שנשבע בשמים ובארץ ובשמש‬ ‫וכיוצא בהן אע"פ שאין כוונתו אלא‬ ‫ וכן הנשבע‬,‫למי שבראם אין זו שבועה‬ ‫בנביא מן הנביאים או בכתב מכתבי‬ ‫הקדש אע"פ שאין כוונתו אלא למי ששלח‬ ‫נביא זה או למי שצוה בכתב זה אין זו‬ ‫ ואע"פ שאין אלו שבועות מאיימין‬,‫שבועה‬ ‫עליהן ומלמדין את העם שלא ינהגו קלות‬ ,‫ראש בכך ומראין בעיניהם שזו שבועה‬ 39 .‫ופותחין להם פתח ומתירין להם‬

When does the above apply? With regard to other holy texts. [Different rules apply,] however, when one takes an oath by the Torah.8 If one takes an oath by what is written in [the Torah],9 his intent is by the names of God [it contains].10If one takes an oath by it without any further definition, his intent is on the parchment [of the scroll] and it is not considered as an oath.11 If he took [the scroll] in his hand and took an oath by it,12 it is as if he took an oath by what was written in it and [the matter] is forbidden.13

‫ אבל‬,‫בד"א בשאר כתבי הקדש‬ ‫ אם נשבע במה‬,‫הנשבע בתורה‬ ‫ ואם נשבע‬,‫שכתוב בה דעתו על ההזכרות‬ ,‫בה סתם דעתו על הגויל ואין כאן שבועה‬ ‫נטלה בידו ונשבע בה הרי זה כמי שנשבע‬ 40 .‫במה שכתוב בה ואסור‬

[The following rules apply when] a person takes an oath by the Torah without any further definition. If he is a Torah scholar, he does not need to be released by a sage.14 If he is a common person,15 it is necessary that he asked to be released by a sage so that he will not treat oaths frivolously.16

‫והנשבע בתורה סתם אם תלמיד‬ ,‫חכם הוא אינו צריך שאלה לחכם‬ ‫ואם עם הארץ הוא צריך שאלה לחכם כדי‬ .‫שלא ינהג קלות ראש בשבועות‬

8/21/2019 4:08 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

3 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973874/jewish/Shvuot-C...

When a servant takes an oath, his master does not have to compel him [to break the oath to nullify it].17 Instead, his [status] is the same after taking the oath as it was before he did so.18 [The rationale is that] his body is not his property for that the oath he takes will be effective. With regard to oaths, [Numbers 30:3] states: "To forbid something upon one's soul." [Implied is that the verse applies to] someone whose soul is his property. It excludes a servant who is someone else's property. Thus [a servant's taking an oath] is comparable to taking an oath regarding someone else's property.19

,‫עבד שנשבע אין רבו צריך לכפותו‬ ‫והרי הוא אחר שנשבע כקודם‬ ‫ לפי שאין גופו קנוי לו כדי‬,‫שנשבע‬ ‫שתחול עליו שבועתו ונאמר בשבועות‬ ‫לאסור אסר על נפשו מי שנפשו ברשותו‬ ‫ ונמצא זה‬,‫יצא עבד שהוא ברשות אחרים‬ 41 .‫כמו שנשבע על נכסי אחר‬

[Even though] minors20 understand the significance of an oath take an oath, they are not obligated [to maintain their commitment].21 [Nevertheless,] we compel them to uphold their word to train them [in the observance of mitzvot] and to impress them with fear so that they do not act frivolously with regard to oaths. If the matter concerning which they took the oath is such that a minor could not maintain without suffering injury,22 e.g., he took an oath that he would fast or that he would not eat meat for a long time, his father or his teacher should beat him and rebuke him, and create the appearance that his oath [took effect, but] was released, so that he will not be habituated to treat oaths frivolously.

‫קטנים שנשבעו והן יודעין טעם‬ ‫ כופין‬,‫השבועה אע"פ שאינן חייבין‬ ‫ כדי לחנכן ולאיים‬,‫אותן לעמוד בדבריהן‬ ‫עליהם כדי שלא ינהגו קלות ראש‬ ‫ ואם היה הדבר שנשבעו עליו‬,‫בשבועות‬ ‫דבר שאין הקטן יכול לעמוד בו אלא אם‬ ‫ כגון שנשבע שיצום או שלא יאכל‬,‫כן ניזק‬ ‫ מכה אותו אביו או רבו‬,‫בשר זמן מרובה‬ ‫וגוער בו ומראין לו שהותר שבועתו כדי‬ .‫שלא יהיה רגיל להקל ראש בשבועות‬

We must be very careful with children and train them to speak words of truth without [resorting to] an oath so that they will not be habituate to swear at all times like gentiles do. This matter is tantamount to an obligation for their parents and for those who teach young children.

‫צריך להזהר בקטנים הרבה וללמד‬ ‫לשונם דברי אמת בלא שבועה כדי‬ ,‫שלא יהיו רגילים להשבע תמיד כעכו"ם‬ ‫וזה הדבר כמו חובה על אבותיהם ועל‬ .‫מלמדי תינוקות‬

8/21/2019 4:08 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

4 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973874/jewish/Shvuot-C...

When one hears a colleague mention God's name in vain, take a false oath in his presence, or recite a blessing that is unnecessary in which instance [his colleague] transgresses23 because he takes God's name in vain,24 as we explained in Hilchot Berachot,25 he must place him under a ban of ostracism.26If he does not, he himself should be ostracized. The ban should, however, be lifted immediately so that it will not present an obstacle to others, for they will not know that he was placed under a ban. And if one would say, "Make it known that he [is under ostracism]," the entire populace will be under ban for [people] have already habituated their tongues to iniquity27 and oaths at all times.

‫השומע הזכרת השם מפי חבירו‬ ‫לשוא או שנשבע לפניו לשקר או‬ ‫שבירך ברכה שאינה צריכה שהוא עובר‬ ‫משום נושא שם ה' לשוא כמו שבארנו‬ ‫ ואם‬,‫בהלכות ברכות הרי זה חייב לנדותו‬ ‫ וצריך‬,‫לא נדהו הוא בעצמו יהא בנדוי‬ ‫להתיר אותו מיד כדי שלא יהא מכשול‬ ‫ ואם‬,‫לאחרים שהרי אינו יודע שנדוהו‬ ‫תאמר יודיעו נמצאו כל העולם בנידוי‬ .‫שהרי למדו לשונם העוה ושבועה תמיד‬

When does the above apply? When the person taking this oath or reciting this blessing in vain does so intentionally? If, however, he does so inadvertently or does not know that this is forbidden,28 [a listener] is not obligated to place him under a ban of ostracism. Indeed, I maintain that it is forbidden to place him under a ban of ostracism, for the Torah did not [prescribe] punishment for an inadvertent transgressor. Instead, one should caution him and warn him not to repeat [the transgression].

‫במה דברים אמורים בשהיה הנשבע‬ ‫ אבל אם‬,‫הזה או המברך לבטלה מזיד‬ ‫היה שוגג ולא ידע שזה אסור אינו חייב‬ ‫ ואני אומר שאסור לנדותו שלא‬,‫לנדותו‬ ‫ענש הכתוב שוגג אלא מזהירו ומתרה בו‬ .‫שלא יחזור‬

8/21/2019 4:08 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

5 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973874/jewish/Shvuot-C...

It is not only a false oath that is forbidden. Instead, it is forbidden to mention even one of the names designated for God29 although one does not take an oath. For the verse [Deuteronomy 28:58] commands us, saying: "to fear the glorious and awesome name."30 Included in fearing it is not to mention it in vain.31 Therefore if because of a slip of the tongue, one mentions [God's] name in vain, he should immediately hurry to praise, glorify, and venerate it so that it will not have been mentioned [entirely] in vain. What is implied? If he mentions God's name, he should say: "Blessed be He for all eternity," "He is great and exceedingly praiseworthy,"32 or the like so that it will not have been [mentioned entirely] in vain. It is permitted to approach [a sage] to have an oath released as we explained33 and there is no fault [in doing so]. [Indeed,] one who has hesitations about the matter is [showing] traces of heresy.34 Nevertheless, it is appropriate to show care in this regard. One should not respond [to a request] to release [an oath] unless it involves a matter concerning a mitzvah or a great need.35 It is of great benefit for a person never to take an oath at all.36If, however, one transgressed and took an oath, he should endure great difficulty and keep his oath,37 as [Psalms 15:4-5] states: "One who takes an oath to his own detriment and does not nullify it..., he who acts in this manner will never falter."

‫ולא שבועה לשוא בלבד היא‬ ‫שאסורה אלא אפילו להזכיר שם‬ ‫מן השמות המיוחדין לבטלה אסור ואע"פ‬ ‫ שהרי הכתוב מצוה ואומר‬,‫שלא נשבע‬ ‫ ובכלל‬,‫ליראה את השם הנכבד והנורא‬ ‫ לפיכך אם‬,‫יראתו שלא יזכירו לבטלה‬ ‫טעה הלשון והוציא שם לבטלה ימהר מיד‬ ‫וישבח ויפאר ויהדר לו כדי שלא יזכר‬ ‫ כיצד אמר ה' אומר ברוך הוא‬,‫לבטלה‬ ‫לעולם ועד או גדול הוא ומהולל מאד‬ .‫וכיוצא בזה כדי שלא יהא לבטלה‬

‫אע"פ שמותר להשאל על השבועה‬ ‫ ומי‬,‫כמו שבארנו ואין בזה דופי‬ ‫שלבו נוקפו בדבר זה אינו אלא שמץ‬ ‫ ואין‬,‫ אעפ"כ ראוי להזהר בדבר זה‬,‫מינות‬ ‫נזקקין להתיר אלא מפני דבר מצוה או‬ ‫ וטובה גדולה היא לאדם‬,‫מפני צורך גדול‬ ‫ ואם עבר ונשבע שיצטער‬,‫שלא ישבע כלל‬ ‫ויעמוד בשבועתו שנאמר נשבע להרע ולא‬ ‫ימיר וכתוב אחריו עושה אלה לא ימוט‬ ‫ סליקו להו הלכות שבועות‬42 .‫לעולם‬ .‫בס"ד‬

Blessed be God who grants assistance.

« Previous Shvuot - Chapter 11

Next » Nedarim

FOOTNOTES

8/21/2019 4:08 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

6 of 8

1. Chapter 1, Halachot 3,7. 2. But are not subjected to lashes, Chapter 1, Halachah 8. 3. See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:10.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973874/jewish/Shvuot-C...

13. For by taking the Torah scroll in his hand, the person is implying that he is considering the matter with the seriousness of an oath (Nimukei Yosef).

The Ra'avad differs and maintains that lashes are sufficient to atone for a person's sin entirely. The Radbaz explains that

14. For he knows the distinction mentioned in the previous halachah and thus understands that the oath is not effective

the sin of taking a false oath is two dimensional, involving not only the particular transgression of taking a false oath, but

and does not intend for it to be binding. Note, however, the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 212) who severely criticizes

also the desecration of God's name. The lashes atone for the particular transgression of the false oath, but not for the

scholars who take an oath by the Torah, knowing that it is not effective to deceive the people to whom they are taking

desecration of God's name. That requires more severe retribution as the Rambam explains.

the oath. 15. Who does not know the above distinction.

4. Hilchot Teshuvah 1:2.

16. As explained in Halachah 3.

5. The Ra'avad states that although one is not liable for a sacrifice or lashes for such an oath, it is forbidden to take

17. Note the contrast to the law that applies when a servant takes a Nazirite vow (Hilchot Nazirut 2:7).

such an oath. At first, the Kessef Mishneh states that it is

18. The Ra'avad, however, maintains that the Rambam's ruling

possible that this is also the Rambam's intent, but afterwards, states that the Rambam's wording implies that

applies only to oaths that will affect the servant's capacity to work. If that is not the case, the oath can take effect. As the

such statements are not considered oaths at all. The Radbaz writes (and this understanding is borne out by

Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazirut

one of the Rambam's responsa) that according to the Rambam, such an oath is not binding and need not be

regard. The Ra'avad's statement will apply with regard to vows, but not to oaths (Or Sameach).

released. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that such oaths must be released and if they are false, one transgresses the

19. Which is not effective as stated in Nedarim 47a. See also

prohibition against taking a false oath. See also the notes to the following halachah. 6. See the following halachah and notes. 7. See Chapter 6, Halachah 10; Hilchot Nedarim 2:12. 8. The Ra'avad differs with this principle, maintaining that there is no difference between the Torah and the other books of the Holy Scriptures with regard to their fundamental holiness. Thus a person who takes an oath by the contents of any of the other books of the Bible is also liable. The difference between these two understandings depends on whether one understands the passage from Nedarim 14b as referring to only vows (as is explicitly stated, and as is the Ra'avad's understanding) or as apply also to oaths (as the

9:1), there is a difference between vows and oaths in this

Chapter 5, Halachah 1. 20. Boys under 12 and girls under 11. See Hilchot Nedarim 11:1. 21. For they are not liable for any of the Torah's commandments. 22. The Radbaz explains that we are not speaking about a person in mortal danger, for that would apply with regard to an adult as well. Instead, the intent is aggravation or sickness. 23. The commentaries question whether the Rambam's intent is that he has transgressed a Scriptural commandment or merely a Rabbinic one. The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 30) states that the transgression is Scriptural in origin and the

Rambam maintains). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 212:1) quotes

violator should be punished by lashing. This opinion is also mentioned by the Magen Avraham 215:6. From the Kessef

the Rambam's view.

Mishneh to Hilchot Milah 3:6, it appears that even the

9. I.e., he states that explicitly. 10. In which instance the person is liable for taking an oath, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 2. 11. For he is not taking an oath by God's name.

Rambam would consider the prohibition as Rabbinic in nature. The latter understanding is shared by many other Rishonim. Their position is - as explained by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 215:3 - since he is reciting a blessing, his mention of God's name is not entirely frivolous.

12. The Chatam Sofer (in his commentary to Nedarim 14b) states that the Rambam is referring to an instance where the person specifically picked up the Torah scroll for the purpose of taking an oath. Otherwise, even if he was holding the scroll in his hand before taking the oath, this law would not apply. Rashi understands the passage differently.

8/21/2019 4:08 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

7 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973874/jewish/Shvuot-C...

24. See the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger who questions the Rambam's statements, based on the ruling that a person

36. For it is possible that unwittingly, he could take a false oath and thus bring severe retribution upon himself and others.

who is unsure whether or not he recited the Grace After Meals must recite the blessing again. Seemingly, the

See Gittin 35a which explains how a woman unknowingly

recitation of that blessing would be problematic, because there is a doubt whether or not he is required to do so or not.

37. See Hilchot Nedarim 1:4 which states that keeping an oath

Thus it is possible that he is transgressing a Scriptural commandment. In resolution, Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains that since the person is obligated to recite the blessing, even if that obligation stems from a doubt, he is not considered to be taking God's name in vain. 25. Chapter 1, Halachah 15. 26. See the concluding chapters of Hilchot Talmud Torah for a description of the implications of this ban. 27. Cf. Jeremiah 9:4.

took a false oath and caused one of her sons to die.

or a vow fulfills a Scriptural mitzvah. Nevertheless, there is a difference between oaths and vows. As the Ra'avad (see also Hilchot Nedarim 13:25) mentions, it is desirable to have vows released. Oaths, by contrast, should be observed and not released. 38. ‫ א"א והרי אמרו על שבועת שוא ועל כיוצא‬.‫אע"פ שלוקה הנשבע לשוא‬ ‫בה ב"ד של מעלה אין מנקין אותו אבל ב"ד של מטה מלקין אותו ומנקין‬ ‫אותו והרי חייבי מיתות ב"ד מתודין ומתכפר להן ומלקות תחת מיתה‬ ‫עומדת‬. 39. ‫מי שנשבע בשמים ובארץ אף על פי שאין כוונתו אלא למי שבראם אין זו‬ ‫ ומלמדין את‬/‫השגת הראב"ד‬/ .‫ א"א ליחייב עליה קרבן ומלקות‬.‫שבועה‬

more lenient than that of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol who

‫ א"א באמת צריכין שאלה לחכם ועובר‬.‫העם שלא ינהגו קלות ראש בכך‬ ‫משום בל יחל‬.

maintains that this leniency applies only when one does not

40. ‫ א"א כמה אני תמה על המחבר הזה מה ראה‬.‫בד"א בשאר כתבי הקדש‬

know of the prohibition at all. According to his view, one who knows of the prohibition, but accidentally recites a blessing

‫לחלק בין תורה לשאר כתבי הקדש ואם יש ביניהם לענין בני העיר‬ ‫שמכרו תורה לא יקחו ספרים ולענין מניחין ס"ת ע"ג ספרים אבל לענין‬

in vain must be placed under ban.

‫קדושה הכל קדוש ומצילין אותן בשבת מפני הדליקה וטעונין גניזה‬ ‫ומטמאין את הידים וקדושים הם לכל דבר כתורה והנשבע בהם ומשקר‬

28. The Turei Zahav 334:18 mentions that the Rambam's view is

29. I.e., the seven names for God mentioned in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, ch. 6. 30. See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 4) which quotes Sanhedrin 56a and Temurah 4a as deriving this concept from another prooftext (Deuteronomy 6:13). 31. For one does not treat something that is truly revered with such carelessness. 32. See Hilchot Berachot 4:10 which states that when a person recites a blessing in vain, he should say Baruch shem kevod malchuto leolam va'ed, "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever." 33. Chapter 6, Halachah 1. 34. For this indicates that he does not accept the Oral Tradition that Moses communicated. For the release of vows is not explicitly stated in the Torah, but instead communicated by the Oral Tradition, as stated above. 35. See Chapter 6, Halachot 9-10 which gives examples of such

‫ והריני מודיע שאין הענין הזה כמו שהוא סובר‬,‫כמשקר במי שצוה אותן‬ ‫שלא על הנשבע בתורה קאמר אלא על המתפיס בס"ת שאם אמר ככר‬ ‫זו עלי כספר התורה הזה אם מנחא אארעא לא אמר כלום דדעתיה‬ ‫אגוילים וגוילים אין בהם קדושה אלא בשביל האותיות שעליהן הילכך אין‬ ‫כאן התפסה אבל אי נקיט ליה בידיה דעתיה אהזכרות שבו ואזכרות‬ ‫כדבר הנדור הוא שעל ידי הכתיבה והכוונה לשם קדושה הם קדושות‬ ,‫וכ"ש אם אמר במה שבתוכה שהיא התפסה ואע"ג דמנחא אארעא‬ ‫ובירושלמי מפורש בתורה הרי זה מותר כקדושת התורה כלומר ואין זה‬ ‫ ככתוב בה הרי זה אסור דקדושה כתוב בה‬,‫כדבר המקודש בידי אדם‬ ‫כלומר שהם מקודשים ע"י אדם וכוונתו לקדושה‬. 41. ‫ א"א פירוש אם נשבע שיתענה אינו צריך לכפותו‬.'‫עבד שנשבע וכו‬ ‫שיאכל לפי שלא חל עליו הנדר שנאמר להרע או להיטיב מה הטבה‬ ‫רשות וכו' יצא זה ששבועתו להרע לרבו אבל אם נדר בנזיר צריך שיאמר‬ ‫לו רבו שתה‬. 42. ‫ א"א דוקא בשבועה ושנשבע להרע‬.‫ואם עבר ונשבע שיצטער ויעמוד‬ ‫לעצמו אבל נודר בנדר אפילו להרע לעצמו מצוה להתירו שהרי אמרו‬ ‫הנודר כאילו בנה במה והמקיימו כאילו הקריב עליו קרבן‬.

situations.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:08 PM

Shvuot - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

8 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973874/jewish/Shvuot-C...

8/21/2019 4:08 PM

Nedarim - Texts & Writings

1 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973879/jewish/Nedarim.htm



Nedarim Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Nedarim - Chapter 1 Nedarim - Chapter 2 Nedarim - Chapter 3 Nedarim - Chapter 4 Nedarim - Chapter 5 Nedarim - Chapter 6 Nedarim - Chapter 7 Nedarim - Chapter 8 Nedarim - Chapter 9 Nedarim - Chapter 10 Nedarim - Chapter 11 Nedarim - Chapter 12 Nedarim - Chapter 13

8/21/2019 4:09 PM

Nedarim - Texts & Writings

2 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973879/jewish/Nedarim.htm

8/21/2019 4:09 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

1 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 2

Introduction to Hilchos Nedarim They contain 3 mitzvot: two positive commandments and one negative commandment. They are: 1. To heed the utterances of one’s mouth and to carry out one’s vow; 2. Not to desecrate one’s word; 3. To nullify a vow or an oath; this is the law concerning the nullification of oaths explicitly stated in the Torah.

‫ הקדמה‬- ‫רמב"ם הלכות נדרים‬ ‫ שתי‬,‫ יש בכללן שלש מצות‬.‫הלכות נדרים‬ ‫ וזה‬.‫ ואחת מצות לא תעשה‬,‫מצות עשה‬ :‫הוא פרטן‬ ‫א( שישמור מוצא שפתיו ויעשה כמו‬ .‫שנדר‬ .‫)ב( שלא יחל דברו‬ ‫ זהו דין‬,‫)ג( שיפר הנדר או( השבועה‬ .‫הפרת נדרים המפורש בתורה שבכתב‬

These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters. .‫וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

2 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

There are two categories of vows: The first is to forbid oneself [from benefiting] from entities permitted to him;1 e.g., he said: "The produce from this-and-this country is forbidden to me for 30 days" or "...forever." "This type of produce is forbidden to me" or "This produce is forbidden." Regardless of the language in which the prohibition is stated,2 they become forbidden to him, even though there is no oath at all, nor did it mention God's name or a term used to describe Him.3 Concerning this, the Torah [Numbers 30:3] states: "To cause a prohibition to take effect upon his soul," i.e., to cause permitted entities to become forbidden to him. Similarly, such a vow takes effect if he says: "They are forbidden to me." I call this category: "vows involving prohibitions."

‫הנדר נחלק לשתי מחלוקות החלק‬ ‫הראשון הוא שיאסור על עצמו‬ ‫דברים המותרים לו כגון שיאמר פירות‬ ‫מדינה פלונית אסורין עלי כל שלשים יום‬ ‫או לעולם או מין פלוני מפירות העולם או‬ ‫פירות אלו אסורין עלי בכל לשון שיאסור‬ ‫הרי זה נאסר בהן ואע"פ שאין שם שבועה‬ ‫כלל ולא הזכרת שם ולא כנוי ועל זה‬ ‫נאמר בתורה לאסור אסר על נפשו‬ ‫שיאסור על עצמו דברים המותרים וכן אם‬ ‫אמר הרי הן עלי איסר הרי אלו אסורין‬ :‫וחלק זה הוא שאני קורא אותו נדרי איסר‬

The second category is to obligate himself for a sacrifice that he is not required to bring. For example, he said: "I obligate myself [to bring] a burnt offering," "I obligate myself to bring a peace offering," "...a meal offering," or "This animal is a burnt offering," or "...a peace offering."

‫והחלק השני הוא שיחייב עצמו‬ ‫בקרבן שאינו חייב בו כגון שיאמר‬ ‫הרי עלי להביא עולה או הרי עלי להביא‬ ‫שלמים או מנחה הרי בהמה זו עולה או‬ ‫שלמים והאומר ]הרי[ עלי הוא הנקרא‬ ‫נדר והאומר הרי זו הוא הנקרא נדבה‬ ‫והנדבה והנדר ממין אחד הוא אלא‬ ‫שהנדרים חייבין באחריותן ונדבות אין‬ ‫חייבין באחריותן ועל זה נאמר בתורה‬ ‫ונדריך אשר תדור ונדבותיך וגו' וחלק זה‬ :‫הוא שאני קורא אותו נדרי הקדש‬

When he says: "I obligate myself [to bring]...", this is called a vow.4 When he says: "This is...", it is called a donation.5 Donations and vows are of the same type [of pledges], but [the one making the pledge] is responsible for a vow.6With regard to a donations, by contrast, he is not responsible.7 Concerning these the Torah states [Deuteronomy 12:17]: "Your vows which you pledge and your donations...." This category, I refer to as "vows of sanctification."

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

3 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

The laws concerning the first category and its relevant matters are [the subject] we will discuss in these halachot. The laws concerning vows of sanctification and their particulars will be discussed in their appropriate place in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot.8

‫ודיני החלק הראשון וענינו הם שאנו‬ ‫מבארים בהלכות אלו אבל דיני נדרי‬ ‫הקדש ומשפטיהם כלם יתבארו במקומם‬ :‫בהלכות מעשה הקרבנות‬

It is a positive commandment of Scriptural origin for a person to carry out his oath or vow9 whether it be a vow involving prohibitions or a vow of sanctification, as [Deuteronomy 12:23] states: "Heed the utterances of your mouth and do as you vowed." And [Numbers 30:3] states: "He shall act in accordance with all that he uttered with his mouth."10

‫מצות עשה של תורה שיקיים אדם‬ ‫שבועתו או נדרו בין שהיה מנדרי‬ ‫איסר בין שהיה מנדרי הקדש שנאמר‬ ‫מוצא שפתיך תשמור ועשית כאשר נדרת‬ :‫ונאמר ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה‬

When a person forbids himself from partaking of a particular type of food, e.g., he said: "Figs are forbidden to me," "Figs from such-and-such a country are forbidden to me," "These figs are forbidden to me," or the like, if he partakes of any amount of them, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law,11 as [Numbers, Ibid.] states: "He shall not desecrate his word."

‫האוסר על עצמו מין ממיני מאכל‬ ‫כגון שאמר תאנים אסורין עלי או‬ ‫תאנים של מדינה פלונית אסורים עלי או‬ ‫תאנים אלו אסורין עלי וכיוצא באלו ואכל‬ ‫מהן כל שהוא לוקה מן התורה שנאמר לא‬ ‫יחל דברו שאין לנדרים שיעור שכל הנודר‬ ‫מדבר הרי זה כמפרש כל שהוא אמר‬ ‫אכילה מפירות מדינה פלונית אסורין עלי‬ ‫או אכילה מפירות אלו אינו לוקה עד‬ :‫שיאכל כזית‬

There is no minimum measure [for the desecration of] a vow, for by taking a vow [not to partake of] a substance, it is as if one explicitly stated that he would not partake of even the slightest amount.12 If one said: "It is forbidden for me to eat the produce of this-and-this country" or "...to eat these fruit," he does not receive lashes unless he partakes of an olive-sized portion. If a person forbade himself from eating figs and grapes - whether in two vows or in one - the two can be combined to make up the measure of an olive-sized portion.13 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫אסר על עצמו אכילה מן התאנים‬ ‫ואכילה מן הענבים בין בנדר אחד בין‬ ‫בשני נדרים הרי אלו מצטרפין לכזית וכן‬ :‫כל כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

4 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person says: "This produce is considered like a sacrifice," or he tells a colleague: "Everything that I partake of with you is a sacrifice,"14 "...like a sacrifice," "or considered like a sacrifice for me," they are forbidden to him. For it is possible that a person will make a vow for a sacrifice and make an animal that is ordinary a sacrifice and thus be forbidden for him.15

‫האומר פירות אלו עלי קרבן או שאמר‬ ‫הרי הם כקרבן או שאמר לחבירו כל‬ ‫מה שאוכל עמך עלי קרבן או כקרבן או‬ ‫הרי הן עלי קרבן הרי אלו אסורין עליו‬ ‫מפני שאפשר שידור אדם קרבן ויעשה‬ :‫בהמה שהיתה חול קרבן ותאסר‬

If, however, a person says: "This produce is considered for me...", "This type of produce is considered for me...", "What I will eat with so-and-so will be considered as pig meat," "...as a false deity," "...as nevelot and trefot," or the like, they are permitted and no vow takes effect. [The rationale is that] it is impossible for a person to make something that is not pig meat as pig meat.16

‫אבל האומר פירות אלו עלי או מין‬ ‫פלוני עלי או מה שאוכל עם פלוני‬ ‫עלי כבשר חזיר או כעכו"ם או כנבלות‬ ‫וטרפות וכיוצא באלו הרי אלו מותרין ואין‬ ‫כאן נדר שאי אפשר שיעשה דבר שאינו‬ :‫בשר חזיר כבשר חזיר‬

This is the general principle [that applies] whenever anyone attempts to have permitted entities considered as forbidden entities: If he could have endowed that forbidden entity with its status by taking a vow,17 [the permitted entities] are forbidden. If he cannot endow it with its status by taking a vow,18 [the permitted entities] remain permitted.

‫זה הכלל כל המשים דברים‬ ‫המותרים כדברים האסורים אם‬ ‫אותו דבר האסור יכול לעשותו בנדר הרי‬ ‫אלו אסורים ואם אינו יכול לעשותו בנדר‬ :‫הרי אלו מותרין‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

5 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

Sin-offerings and guilt-offerings cannot be brought as vows or as donations, as will be explained in the appropriate place.19 Nevertheless, it is possible for a person making a vow to offer them as a result of his vow. For a person who takes a nazirite vow must bring a sin offering,20 and if he becomes impure,21 he must bring a guilt offering, as will be stated.22 Accordingly, when one says: "This produce is considered for me like a sin-offering" or "...like a guiltoffering," or he says: "It is a sin-offering" or "It is a guiltoffering," it is forbidden. Needless to say, if he says: "It is a burnt-offering," "...a peace-offering," "...a meal-offering," or "...a thanksgiving-offering," it is forbidden, for all of these offerings can be brought as vows or as donations.23

‫החטאת והאשם אף על פי שאינן באין‬ ‫בנדר ונדבה כמו שיתבאר במקומו‬ ‫אפשר לנודר להביא אותם מחמת נדרו‬ ‫שהנודר בנזיר מביא חטאת ואם נטמא‬ ‫מביא אשם כמו שיתבאר לפיכך האומר‬ ‫פירות אלו עלי כחטאת או כאשם או‬ ‫שאמר הרי הן חטאת או הרי הן אשם הרי‬ ‫אלו אסורין ואין צריך לומר באומר הרי הן‬ ‫עולה או שלמים או מנחה או תודה שהן‬ :‫אסורין שכל אלו באין בנדר ונדבה‬

If, however, one says: "This produce is considered for me like the challah [brought] to Aaron" or "...like the terumah for him,"24 it is permitted. For there is no way that these can be brought as vows or as donations.25

‫אבל האומר פירות אלו עלי כחלת‬ ‫אהרן או כתרומתו הרי אלו מותרין‬ :‫שאין שם דרך להביא אלו בנדר ונדבה‬

If one says: "This produce is considered for me like notar,"26"...like piggul,"27 or "...like sacrificial meat that has become impure,"28 it is forbidden. For the person has, nonetheless, made the substance like sacrificial meat.29

‫האומר הרי הפירות האלו עלי‬ ‫כנותר כפגול כבשר טמא של‬ ‫קדשים הרי אלו אסורין שהרי עשאן‬ :‫כבשר קרבן מכל מקום‬

If one says: "[This produce] is considered for me like the tithe-sacrifice of an animal,"30 it is forbidden, for the sanctity [of the tithe-sacrifices] is conveyed upon them by mortals.31 If he says: "[This produce] is considered for me like a firstborn,"32 it is permitted, for the sanctity [of the firstborn] is not conveyed by mortals.33It cannot be designated [for another sacred purpose] with a vow, as [Leviticus 27:26] states: "A man should not consecrate it."34

‫האומר הרי הן עלי כמעשר בהמה‬ ‫הרי אלו אסורין הואיל וקדושתו‬ ‫בידי אדם הרי הן עלי כבכור הרי אלו‬ ‫מותרין שאין קדושתו בידי אדם ואינו יכול‬ ‫להתפיסו בנדר שנאמר לא יקדיש איש‬ :‫אותו‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

6 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

If one says: "[This produce] is considered for me like a devotion offering for Above,"35 it is forbidden, for the devotion offering for Above are [set aside] for improvements within the Temple.36 [A vow takes effect and produce] becomes forbidden although the person did not mention a sacrifice [if he makes any of the following statements]: "[This produce] is considered for me like the donations for the chamber,"37 "...like the daily sacrifices," "...like the storage rooms,"38 "...like the wood,"39 "...like the fire-offerings,"40 "...like the altar," or "...like any of the utensils of the altar," e.g., he said: "[This produce] is considered for me like the altar rakes,"41 "...like the ewers [for the blood of the sacrifices],"42 "...like the altar forks,"43 or the like. [This law also applies] if he says: "This produce] is considered for me like the Temple,"44 "...like Jerusalem."45 [The rationale is that] all of these statements are similar to saying: "[This produce] is considered for me like a sacrifice." [When there was] sacrificial meat - even meat from a peace offering whose blood had been poured [on the altar] which is permitted to non-priests before a person and he said: "[This produce] is considered for me like this meat," it is forbidden. [The rationale is that] he attached [his vow] to the fundamental element of the meat, and that was forbidden.46

‫אמר הרי הן עלי כחרמי שמים הרי‬ ‫אלו אסורין שחרמי שמים לבדק‬ ‫הבית הרי הן עלי כתרומת הלשכה‬ ‫כתמידים כדירים כעצים כאשים כמזבח‬ ‫או כאחד ממשמשי המזבח כגון שאמר‬ ‫הרי הן עלי כיעים כמזרקות כמזלגות‬ ‫וכיוצא בהן וכן האומר הרי הן עלי כהיכל‬ ‫כירושלים הרי אלו אסורין ואף על פי שלא‬ ‫הזכיר שם קרבן שכל דברים אלו ענינם‬ :‫כאומר הרי הן עלי קרבן‬

‫היה לפניו בשר קדש אפילו היה‬ ‫בשר שלמים אחר זריקת דמים‬ ‫שהוא מותר לזרים ואמר הרי הן עלי‬ ‫כבשר זה הרי אלו אסורין שלא התפיס‬ ‫אלא בעיקרו שהיה אסור אבל אם היה‬ ‫בשר בכור אם לפני זריקת דמים הרי זה‬ ‫אסור ואם לאחר זריקת דמים הרי זה‬ :‫מותר‬

[Different rules apply if] the meat was from a firstborn sacrifice. If its blood had not been poured [on the altar], [the produce] is forbidden.47 If it had been poured, it is permitted.

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

7 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

There are places where people are inarticulate and mispronounce words, calling subjects by different names. [In those places,] we follow the meaning of the local term. What is meant by the statement that all the terms used for the word korban, "sacrifice," are equivalent to the term korban? When one says: "[This produce] is considered for me like a konam," "...a konach," or "...a konaz," they are all terms referring to a korban. Cherek, cheref, and cherech are all terms referring to a cherem (dedication offering).

‫יש מקומות שאנשיהם עלגים‬ ‫ומפסידין את הלשון ומכנין על‬ ‫דבר בדבר אחר הולכין שם אחר הכנוי‬ ‫כיצד כל כנויי קרבן כקרבן האומר הרי הן‬ ‫עלי קונם קונח קונז הרי אלו כנויין לקרבן‬ ‫חרק חרף חרך הרי אלו כנויין לחרם וכן‬ ‫כל כיוצא בזה הולכין אחר לשון כלל העם‬ :‫באותו מקום ובאותו זמן‬

Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. We follow the language used by people at large in that place and at that time.48 Just as a person can make a vow forbidding entities to himself with such terms, so, too, if he consecrates an entity with such terms, the entity is consecrated. Nicknames for such terms,49 however, are not binding50 whether for vows involving prohibitions or vows involving the consecration of property.

‫וכשם שאוסר עצמו בכנויין כך אם‬ ‫הקדיש בכנויין הרי זה הקדש וכנויי‬ ‫הכנויין מותרין בין בנדרי איסר בין בנדרי‬ :‫הקדש‬

If a person tells a colleague: "Whatever I eat from your [property] will not be like ordinary food," "...will not be kosher," or "...will not be pure,"51 it is as if he told him: "Everything that I eat from your [property] will be like a sacrifice,"52 which is forbidden. Similarly, if he tells him: "Everything that I eat from your [property] will be an impure [sacrifice]," "...notar," or piggul,"53 it is forbidden.

‫האומר לחבירו מה שאוכל עמך‬ ‫לא יהא חולין או לא יהא כשר או‬ ‫לא יהא דכי או לא יהא טהור הרי זה כמי‬ ‫שאמר לו כל מה שאוכל עמך יהא קרבן‬ ‫שהוא אסור וכן אם אמר לו כל מה שאוכל‬ :‫עמך טמא או נותר או פגול הרי זה אסור‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

8 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person tells a colleague: "Not ordinary food will I not eat from your [property]," it is as if he told him:54 "What I will eat from your [property] will not be like ordinary food, but instead, like a sacrifice."55 Similarly, if he tells him: "The sacrifice if I eat from your [property]," "A sacrifice if I eat from your [property]," or "Like a sacrifice if I eat from your [property]," he is forbidden [to eat from his property].56 If, by contrast, he tells him: "The sacrifice I will not eat from your [property]," "Like a sacrifice, I will not eat from your [property]," "For a sacrifice, I will not eat from your [property]," "A sacrifice I will not eat from your [property]," or "Not a sacrifice, I will not eat from your [property]," he is permitted in all of these instances.57 For all of these expressions do not have any implication other than he is taking an oath by a sacrifice that he will not eat from his [property] and taking an oath on a sacrifice is not binding. Alternatively, [his intent can be interpreted] as taking a vow that he will not partake of a sacrifice with him.

‫האומר לחבירו לא חולין לא אוכל‬ ‫לך הרי זה כמי שאמר לו מה‬ ‫שאוכל לך לא יהא חולין אלא קרבן וכן‬ ‫אם אמר הקרבן שאוכל לך קרבן שאוכל‬ ‫לך כקרבן שאוכל לך הרי זה אסור אבל‬ ‫האומר הקרבן לא אוכל לך או כקרבן לא‬ ‫אוכל לך או לקרבן לא אוכל לך או קרבן‬ ‫לא אוכל לך או לא קרבן לא אוכל לך כל‬ ‫אלו מותרים שאין משמע דברים אלו אלא‬ ‫שנשבע בקרבן שלא יאכל לזה והנשבע‬ ‫בקרבן אינו כלום או שנדר שלא יאכל לו‬ :‫קרבן‬

[If he tells him:] "Ordinary food, I will eat from your [property]," "The ordinary food, I will eat from your [property]," "Like ordinary food, I will eat from your [property]," "Ordinary food, I will not eat from your [property]," "The ordinary food, I will eat not with you," "Like ordinary food, I will not eat from your [property]," it is permitted for him [to eat from his property].58

‫חולין שאוכל לך החולין שאוכל לך‬ ‫כחולין שאוכל לך חולין שלא אוכל‬ ‫לך החולין שלא אוכל לך כחולין שלא‬ :‫אוכל לך הרי זה מותר‬

If, by contrast, he says: "No impure [sacrifices] will I eat from your [property]," "No notar, will I eat from your [property]," or "No piggul will I eat from your [property]," he is forbidden. [The vow takes effect, because] the intent of his statements appears to be: "What I will eat will be piggul or impure. Therefore, I will not eat from your [property]."59

‫אבל האומר לא טמא שאוכל לך‬ ‫לא נותר שאוכל לך לא פגול‬ ‫שאוכל לך אסור שמשמעו של דבר דבר‬ ‫שאוכל הוא שיהיה פגול או טמא לפיכך‬ :‫לא אוכל לך‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

9 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

[If he says:] "By the Temple, I will eat from your [property]," "The Temple, I will eat from your [property]," or "No Temple, I will eat from your [property]," [the vow is effective,60 and] it is forbidden. "The Temple, I will not eat from your [property]," "Like the Temple, I will not eat from your [property]," or "No Temple, I will not eat from your [property]," he is permitted.61 For this is like taking an oath by the Temple, that he will not eat from his [property]. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫בהיכל שאוכל לך היכל שאוכל‬ ‫לך לא היכל שאוכל לך אסור‬ ‫היכל שלא אוכל לך כהיכל שלא אוכל לך‬ ‫לא היכל שלא אוכל לך מותר שזה כמי‬ ‫שנשבע בהיכל שלא יאכל לך וכן כל‬ :‫כיוצא בזה‬

When a person tells a colleague, "I am taking a vow from you," his statement implies that he will not speak with him.62 "I am separate from you" implies that he will not do business with him. "I am distant from you" implies that he will not sit within four cubits of him. That same implication is conveyed by telling him: "I am ostracized from you" or "I am banned from you."63

‫האומר לחבירו מודר אני ממך‬ ‫משמע דבר זה שלא ידבר עמו‬ ‫מופרש אני ממך משמעו שלא ישא ויתן‬ ‫עמו מרוחק אני ממך משמעו שלא ישב‬ ‫בארבע אמותיו וכן אם אמר לו מנודה אני‬ ‫לך או משמתנא ממך אבל אם אמר לו‬ ‫מודר אני ממך שלא אוכל לך או מופרש‬ ‫אני ממך שלא אוכל לך או מרוחק אני‬ ‫ממך שלא אוכל לך הרי זה אסור לאכול‬ ‫ואם אכל כזית מכל נכסיו לוקה משום לא‬ :‫יחל דברו‬

If, however, says "I am taking a vow from you in that I will not eat from your [property]," "I am separate from you in that I will not eat from your [property]," or "I am distant from you in that I will not eat from your [property]," he is forbidden to eat from his [property].64 If he eats an olivesized portion [of food] from any of his property, he is liable for lashes for [violating the prohibition]: "He shall not desecrate his word." If he tells him: "I am ostracized from you in that I will not eat from your [property]," he may not eat from his [property, but] if he does, he is not liable for lashes.65 If he tells him: "I have drifted66 from you," he is forbidden to benefit from him.67

‫אמר לו מנודה אני לך שלא אוכל‬ ‫לך אינו אוכל לו ואם אכל אינו‬ ‫לוקה אמר לו נדינא ממך הרי זה אסור‬ :‫ליהנות‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

10 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person tells a colleague: "Let it be considered for me like the vows of the wicked who make nazirite vows, vows for a sacrifice, and oaths,68 if I eat from your [property]," should he eat [from his property], he is liable for all of the above.69

‫האומר לחבירו הרי עלי כנדרי‬ ‫רשעים אם אוכל לך שמנדריהם‬ ‫נזיר וקרבן ושבועה ואכל חייב בכולן וכן‬ ‫האומר הרי עלי כנדבות כשרים‬ :‫שמנדבותם נזיר וקרבן הרי זה חייב‬

Similarly, if he says: "Let it be considered for me like the pledges of the upright who make nazirite pledges70 and donations for a sacrifice,71 if I eat from your [property," should he eat from his property,] he is liable.72 If one says: "Let it be considered for me like the vows of the wicked..." or "...like the pledges of the upright73 that I will eat from your [property]," or "...if I eat from your property," he is forbidden [to do so], even if he did not make an explicit statement.74 If he said: "Like the vows of the upright," his statement is of no consequence, for the upright do not take vows to prohibit things out of anger. If he says: "I am like the vows of the wicked," and a nazirite was passing before him, he is obligated to observe a nazirite vow.75 If he says: "I am responsible, like the vows of the wicked," he is obligated to bring a sacrifice.76 "Like the vows of the wicked, I will not eat from it,"77 he is liable for an oath.78 When a person takes a vow by the Torah, i.e., he says: "This produce is considered for me like this,"79 his statements are of no consequence80 and he need not ask a sage to release him from it.81 [An exception is made if] he is a common person so that he will not act frivolously with regard to vows.82

‫אמר הרי עלי כנדרי רשעים או‬ ‫כנדבות כשרים שאוכל לך או אם‬ ‫אוכל לך הרי זה אסור אע"פ שלא פירש‬ ‫אמר כנדרי כשרים לא נתחייב בכלום‬ ‫שאין הכשרים נודרים בדרך אסור וכעס‬ ‫אמר כנדרי רשעים הריני והיה נזיר עובר‬ ‫לפניו חייב בנזירות כנדרי רשעים עלי חייב‬ ‫קרבן כנדרי רשעים שלא אוכל ממנו חייב‬ :‫בשבועה‬

‫הנודר בתורה כגון שאמר פירות‬ ‫אלו עלי כזו לא אמר כלום ואינו‬ ‫צריך שאלה לחכם אלא א"כ היה עם‬ :‫הארץ כדי שלא ינהגו קלות ראש בנדרים‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

11 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

If one took a vow by what was written in [the Torah], he is forbidden [to partake of the article mentioned in his vow], for [the Torah] contains statements involving prohibitions and vows.83 If he took it in his arm and took an oath on it, it is as if he took a vow by what was written in it.84

‫נדר במה שכתוב בה הרי זה‬ ‫אסור שהרי כתוב בה איסר ונדר‬ ‫נטלה בידו ונדר בה הרי זה כמי שנדר‬ :‫במה שכתוב בה‬

When a person tells a colleague: "Let's get up and study a chapter [of Torah]," he is obligated to get up and study.85 Even though he did not use the wording of a vow, this is comparable to a vow.86

‫האומר לחבירו נשכים ונשנה‬ ‫פרק עליו להשכים ולקרות שזה‬ ‫כמו נדר הוא ואף על פי שלא הוציאו‬ :‫בלשון נדר‬

When a person tells his wife: "You are considered to me as my mother," "...as my sister,"87 "...as orlah," or "...as mixed species in a vineyard,"88 it is as if one says concerning produce: "May it be like pig meat." Just as he is permitted to partake of that produce, as explained,89 so, too, he is permitted [to engage in relations] with his wife.

‫האומר לאשתו הרי את עלי כאמי או‬ ‫כאחותי או כערלה או ככלאי הכרם‬ ‫הרי זה כאומר על הפירות הרי אלו כבשר‬ ‫חזיר כשם שהוא מותר לאוכלן כמו‬ ‫שביארנו כך מותר באשתו אבל אם אמר‬ ‫לה הריני מודר ממך הניה או הנאת‬ ‫תשמישך אסורה עלי הרי זו אסורה עליו‬ :‫כמו שיתבאר‬

If, however, he tells her: "I am taking a vow, forbidding all pleasure from you"90or "The pleasure of relations with you is forbidden to me," she is forbidden to him, as will be explained.91

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. For the intent of a vow is not to forbid what the Torah has prohibited, and certainly not to permit what the Torah has prohibited (Radbaz). 2. I.e., it need not be stated in Lashon HaKodesh (Biblical Hebrew). 3. As stated in Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:2, an oath must mention God's name or one of the terms used to describe Him. 4. I.e., he is personally responsible to bring a sacrifice; there is no set animal designated for that purpose.

5. I.e., the animal is designated to be offered as a sacrifice; there is no obligation on the person. 6. I.e., if the animal which he originally intended to be sacrificed is lost, he must provide another one, because he accepted personal responsibility. See Halachot 25 and 26 with regard to the distinction between the two terms. 7. For it was only the one animal that was designated as a sacrifice.

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

12 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

8. See Chapters 6 and 9 of those halachot which explain the difference between these types of sacrifices. There are also

17. As a person can cause a sacrifice to become forbidden. The Rambam is explaining a fundamental principle with

occasional references to such vows in these halachot. See, for example, Halachah 17 of this chapter.

regard to vows. A vow becomes effective when a person establishes an equation between an entity (e.g., produce)

9. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 94) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 575) include this commandment among

and another entity (e.g., a sacrifice), provided it is possible for him to cause the latter entity to become forbidden on the

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

basis of his vow alone.

10. Although there are two different verses which point to the same commandment, they are counted only as one mitzvah.

18. I.e., objects which are inherently forbidden. 19. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:8, Hilchot Shegagot

For the verse from Deuteronomy could be interpreted as a reinforcement for the negative commandment mentioned in

1:1. These sacrifices are required when a person transgresses a prohibition. If he does not transgress, he may

the following verse and the verse from Numbers can be interpreted as referring only to vows involving prohibitions

not bring such a sacrifice and if he does transgress, he is compelled to do so. Offering it is not dependent on his vow.

(Radbaz). In his Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, the Ramban considers these as two separate mitzvot.

21. Due to contact with a human corpse (ibid. 7:2).

11. As is the punishment prescribed for the violation of any negative

commandment.

Sefer

HaMitzvot

20. Hilchot Nazirut 6:11; 8:1.

(negative

commandment 157) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 407) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 12. As evident from the continuation of the Rambam's statements, were the person to have mentioned "eating" in his vow, we would have interpreted the prohibition as involving an olive-sized portion, the minimum measure for eating that applies with regard to other prohibitions. Since he did not, the implication is that even the slightest amount is forbidden. Compare to Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1.

22. Ibid. 6:11; see also Hilchot Shegagot 9:1. 23. And thus bringing them is obviously dependent on his making a vow. 24. Challah refers to a portion that must be separated from dough and given to a priest. Terumah refers to a portion of grain that must be separated and given to a priest. Since they may not be eaten by a non-priest, one might think that they could be the subject of a vow. Aaron is mentioned, because he is the progenitor of the priestly family. 25. A person is required to separate these portions from his

4:8). Even with regard to vows, it applies only when one

dough or grain. Although the amount he gives and the designation of the priest to whom he gives them is

uses the expression "eating." The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the law applies only when the

dependent on his will, he is obligated to make the gift. The Ra'avad offers a different rationale for this law.

two are included in the same oath. Their difference of opinion revolves around the understanding of Sh'vuot 22a.

26. Sacrificial meat that was left after its prescribed time and

14. I.e., the person wants to forbid himself from eating together with his colleague.

27. Sacrifices that were offered with the intent that they be eaten

13. This does not apply with regard to oaths (Hilchot Sh'vuot

15. Just as a person cannot partake of a sacrifice until it is offered, so, too, he cannot partake of an entity forbidden by a vow. Just as the consecration of a sacrifice comes about because of a person's vow and his vow is what causes the sacrifice to become forbidden, so too, a vow causes an entity to be forbidden. See Hilchot Meilah 4:9-10 which explains that with regard to the person forbidden by the vow, the article becomes like consecrated property. Hence, he is obligated to bring a sacrifice in atonement if he benefits from the article. 16. For these substances are inherently forbidden; they do not become prohibited because of man's statements. An animal

hence, forbidden to be eaten. at a time when it was forbidden to do so and hence, become forbidden to be eaten. 28. And is thus forbidden to be eaten. 29. It is beyond his capacity to make the object concerning which he is taking a vow bound by any of the prohibitions mentioned. Nevertheless, all of these prohibitions involve sacrificial meat and sacrificial meat is forbidden to be eaten before it was offered in a proper way, because of his oath as above. Hence, the vow can take effect. 30. As Leviticus 27:32 states, a person must bring every tenth animal born to his herd as a tithe offering. See also Chapter 2, Halachah 9.

consecrated as a sacrifice, by contrast, is inherently permitted. It is only man's statements that cause it to become forbidden.

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

13 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

31. Although we are required to separate these offerings, the tithing process through which the holiness is conveyed upon

46. Since fundamentally, before its blood was poured on the altar, the meat was forbidden, that is the factor that we

the animal is a result of man's actions. It is possible to differentiate between such offerings and

consider. We do not take into consideration the fact that afterwards it became permitted. This ruling is the subject of

terumah, for even before the terumah was separated, the

an unresolved question in Nedarim 11b. Hence, we rule

grain was not permitted to be eaten, because it was tevel.

stringently (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

The animals, by contrast, could have been slaughtered, before the tithe was separated (see Radbaz, quoting Rabbenu Asher). 32. Which is sanctified from birth and offered as a sacrifice. 33. Instead, it is sanctified from birth. 34. The Kessef Mishneh quotes a responsum from the Rambam's son, Rav Avraham who addresses the following question that was posed to him: The prooftext from Leviticus has been interpreted by the Sifri as teaching that a firstborn may not be consecrated as another sacrifice (see Hilchot Temurah 4:11 where the Rambam quotes this concept). Moreover, although the firstborn is intrinsically holy, it is a mitzvah to consecrate it for that sacrifice (quoted by the Rambam in Hilchot Bechorot 1:5), and thus seemingly, the holiness is conveyed upon it by a mortal's actions. Rav Avraham replies that since the holiness of the firstborn is inherent and it cannot be changed to that of another sacrifice, that is a proof that a vow cannot affect it. With regard to using a first born as the basis for a vow, see also Halachah 15 and notes. 35. See Hilchot Arachin V'Charamim 6:1 for a description of the nature of this pledge.

47. For then it is forbidden to everyone. Hence one might say that just as his designation of the firstborn causes the meat to be forbidden, making a vow using a firstborn sacrifice as a basis is effective. This ruling has created difficulty among the commentaries, because in Halachah 13 the Rambam ruled that a firstborn animal cannot be used as the basis of a vow. Similarly, as the Ra'avad points out, the Rambam's ruling does not appear to be consistent with either of the positions mentioned in Nedarim 12b, the source for this halachah. This leads the Kessef Mishneh to conclude that there was a printing error in the text of the Mishneh Torah and the proper version is "[the produce] is permitted." He states that he found an ancient text that reads this way. Similarly, the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah read in that manner, omitting the last phrase entirely. The Kessef Mishneh, however, notes that the Rambam's son, Rav Avraham defends the ruling in the existing text of the Mishneh Torah, explaining that there is a difference between a firstborn sacrifice and the meat of a firstborn sacrifice. 48. For this is representative of the person's intent. Taking this concept further, the Rama Yoreh De'ah 207:1) quotes

36. And are forbidden to be used for mundane purposes. Thus they represent an entity that was forbidden by man's pledge.

opinions that maintain that this surely applies to vows made in gentile languages. And conversely, he also mentions

37. The Hebrew term terumat halishkah refers to the money collected from the half-shekel donations collected from the

views that maintain that if someone makes a vow using the wording of our Sages without understanding what he is

Jewish people and used for the communal sacrifices offered

saying, it does not take effect.

in the Temple. See Hilchot Shekalim, ch. 2. 38. I.e., the chambers in the Temple. This and several of the following interpretations are based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 1:3). 39. For the altar. 40. I.e., the portions of the sacrifices offered on the Temple altar. 41. Used to rake the ashes on the altar.

49. Nedarim 10b gives examples: miknamna, miknachna, and miknasna. 50. For they are very distant from the original wording [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 207:1)]. Kin'at Eliyahu states that apparently, they also would not have been recognized universally as having the desired intent. 51. The Rambam states this expression twice: once in Aramaic and once in Lashon HaKodesh.

42. Used to collect the blood from the sacrifices and then pour it on the altar. 43. Used to move portions of the sacrifices around on the altar's fire, so that they would be consumed by it.

52. I.e., the opposite of ordinary food is sacrificial food that is consecrated. Similarly with regard to his statement about impure food, we assume that his intent is an impure sacrifice

44. I.e., like the sacrifices offered in the Temple.

in which instance, his vow is effective. Although it is possible that his intent is impure terumah (in which instance, his vow

45. Like the sacrifices eaten in Jerusalem.

would not be binding), we follow the principle (Chapter 2, Halachah 7): Whenever there is a doubt concerning the effectiveness of a vow, we rule stringently (Rabbenu Nissim).

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

14 of 16

53. See Halachah 11 for a definition of these terms.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

65. From Nedarim 7a, it appears that this expression creates an

54. I.e., we interpret his statement as the Rambam explains.

unresolved question whether the one taking the vow was

55. And hence, forbidden to be eaten (Nedarim 11b).

merely promising not to come within four cubits of the other person or whether he intended to forbid partaking of that

56. Even though none of these expressions is precise, they are still close enough to imply that his intent is that he is forbidding eating with his colleague like a sacrifice is forbidden. 57. I.e., his oath is not binding, for the reasons the Rambam continues to explain.

person's property. Because of the doubt, he is forbidden to partake of the property, but is not given lashes. 66. The term the Rambam uses relates to the Hebrew words na and nad which mean "wander" and "roam." Nevertheless, Nedarim 7a states that all authorities agree that this expression creates a binding commitment.

58. Because he does not mention a sacrifice in any of these expressions. The Ra'avad mentions that from Nedarim 11a,

67. Since he does not use the words "eat" or "partake," we assume that he intended to create a more encompassing

it would appear that some of these expressions would involve a vow. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify

prohibition. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the expression

the Rambam's rulings.

means that he is not allowed to partake of his property in his presence. That interpretation is also discussed by the

59. Based on Nedarim 10b, the Lechem Mishneh explains that we offer this interpretation, because we assume that a

Kessef Mishneh.

person will not make statements unnecessarily. Hence, since his statements could be interpreted as implying a vow, we

68. The Rambam is referring to the wording of the Mishnah

offer such an interpretation. The Kessef Mishneh struggles

obligate themselves for vows which constitute a commitment incumbent on their person (Halachah 2). See also Chapter

with the meaning of the Rambam's words and suggests that perhaps an error crept into the text. 60. For he is forbidding himself from eating with his colleague, like he is forbidden to partake of the Temple's sacrifices. 61. Concluding with a negative expression implies that this is his intent, as in Halachah 19 (Radbaz). In this instance as well, the Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's wording. 62. This and the subsequent statements of this clause do not imply that he is forbidden to partake of the other person's food. 63. For this restriction applies when a person is under a ban of ostracism (see Hilchot Talmud Torah 7:4). The Turei Zahav 206:1 mentions the opinion of Rabbenu Asher who maintains that these vows are not effective at all. 64. He may, however, speak to him (Radbaz). Although the person does not mention the terms "prohibition" or "sacrifice" in his vow, since his intent is obviously to prohibit himself from benefiting from the other person, that prohibition takes effect. This reflects the principle (Nedarim 3a): "The handles of vows are as vows." The intent is that even a statement that, like a handle to a cup, is merely an auxiliary to a vow is binding like a vow itself. See also a responsum authored by the Rambam's son, Rav Avraham, which explains that even when the intent of one's statements are not entirely clear, as in the present instance, they may constitute a vow, provided their intent is somewhat clear. This principle is also quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 206:1).

(Nedarim 1:1). The wicked make vows hastily and moreover,

13, Halachah 25, which states that it is undesirable to make vows. 69. I.e., he must accept a nazirite vow, bring a burnt offering, and is liable for lashes for taking a false sh'vuat bitui. 70. See Chapter 13, Halachah 23. 71. The term the Rambam refers to "donations," i.e., animals which the person designates as a sacrifices, but if lost do not create a lien on his person (Halachah 2). 72. To uphold a nazirite vow and to bring a sacrifice. He is not, however, liable for an oath, because he did not mention an oath in his statements, since the upright do not take oaths casually. 73. In either case, his statement implies a binding commitment for the wicked make vows and the upright make pledges. 74. I.e., he did not explicitly attach his vow to a sacrifice. This is another example of "the handles of vows" mentioned above (Radbaz). 75. Since the nazirite was passing before him, we assume that this was his intent. 76. This applies even when an animal is not in his sight, for this appears to be his intent (Radbaz). 77. I.e., a loaf of bread [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 206:4)]. 78. I.e., if he partakes of the food, he is liable for taking a false sh'vuat bitui. 79. I.e., a Torah scroll. 80. For the holiness of a Torah scroll is inherent. It is not established by man's actions.

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

15 of 16

81. See Chapter 4, Halachah 5, and Hilchot Sh'vuot, ch. 6, which describe this practice. 82. I.e., the vow is not binding. Nevertheless, we make it appear that it is and require him to seek to be released for the reason stated by the Rambam. See the parallels in Chapter 2, Halachot 12-13 and Hilchot Sh'vuot 12:4-5. 83. The Rambam's explanation is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 1:3). With regard to oaths, by contrast, his intent is focused on God's name. 84. Since he knows what is written in the Torah and is holding it in a reverent manner, we assume that he is not making his statements in vain. Hence, we interpret them as referring to an option for which he would be liable. 85. Nedarim 8a derives this concept from Ezekiel 3:22-23 which states: "And He said to me: "Arise and go out to the valley and there I will speak to you. I arose and I went out to the valley and there the glory of God was standing." Since God promised to reveal Himself to Ezekiel, He kept his word, appearing even before Ezekiel arrived there.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

86. From Nedarim 8a, it appears that although this statement establishes a binding commitment, it does not have the full power of a vow. The Tur and the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 213:2) consider this statement as an actual vow. The Rambam's perspective appears to be that a vow involves making an object forbidden. This instance where the person accepts a commitment upon himself bears a closer resemblance to the obligation incurred when making an oath. Nevertheless, since the person did not employ the wording associated with an oath, it is not binding as an oath. Nonetheless, since a mitzvah is involved, a binding commitment is established. 87. With whom it is forbidden for him to engage in relations. 88. Of which it is forbidden to partake. See Leviticus 19:23, Deuteronomy 22:9. 89. Halachot 8-9. See also Chapter 2, Halachah 13. 90. A man is obligated to give his wife conjugal rights. Hence, he is not allowed to forbid himself from engaging in relations with her. Nevertheless, in this instance, since the vow also involves satisfaction that he could forbid him, it also includes this form of satisfaction. 91. For he did not forbid relations, but instead, the satisfaction relations bring him. See Chapter 12, Halachah 9.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

16 of 16

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973880/jewish/Nedarim...

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

1 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973881/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 1

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 3

[The same laws apply] whether one took the vow on his own [volition] or another person states a vow for him and he answers Amen or says something which like Amen implies that he accepts the matter.1

‫אחד הנודר מפי עצמו או שהדירו‬ ‫חבירו ואמר אמן או דבר שענינו‬ :‫כענין אמן שהוא קבלת דברים‬

A person who takes an oath is not forbidden [to partake of] the entity which he forbade to himself until he makes a verbal statement to that effect2 and his statements must match his intent, as we explained with regard to oaths.3

‫ואין הנודר נאסר בדבר שאסר על‬ ‫עצמו עד שיוציא בשפתיו ויהיה פיו‬ ‫ולבו שוין כמו שבארנו בשבועות אבל‬ ‫המתכוין לנדור בנזיר ונדר בקרבן בקרבן‬ ‫ונדר בנזיר בשבועה ונדר או שנתכוון‬ ‫לנדור ונשבע או שנתכוון לומר תאנים‬ ‫ואמר ענבים הרי זה מותר בשניהם ואין‬ :‫כאן נדר‬

If, by contrast, one intended to take a nazirite vow and instead, vowed to bring a sacrifice, [intended to vow to bring] a sacrifice and instead, took a nazirite [vow], [intended to take] an oath and instead, [took] a vow, [intended to take] a vow and instead, [took] an oath, intended to say "figs" and instead, said "grapes," both are permitted to him.4 There is no vow.

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

2 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973881/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person takes a vow dependent on the intent of others, it is like he took an oath dependent on the intent of others.5 Similarly, if one takes a vow and retracts6 immediately thereafter or someone rebuked him immediately thereafter and he accepted their statement, he is permitted [to use the article mentioned].7 The laws applying to all these matters with regard to vows are the same as those applying to oaths.8

‫הנודר על דעת אחרים הרי זה כנשבע‬ ‫על דעת אחרים וכן הנודר וחזר בו‬ ‫בתוך כדי דבור או שמיחו בו בתוך כדי‬ ‫דבור וקבל הרי זה מותר ודין כל אלו‬ :‫הדברים בנדרים כדינן בשבועות‬

[The following laws apply when] a person issued a stipulation before he made a vow, saying: "I am retracting from any vow that I will take from now until ten years in the future," "They are nullified," or other similar statements, and then took a vow: If he remembered the stipulation at the time he made the vow, the vow is effective, for by taking the vow, he nullified the stipulation.9 If, however, he did not remember the stipulation until after he made the vow, the vow is nullified10 even if [immediately after taking the vow], he brought the stipulation to mind and maintained it. Although he did not verbalize his retraction at the time [he made the vow], the retraction preceded the vow and he verbalized it beforehand.11 There is an authority who rules stringently and says that he must remember the stipulation immediately thereafter taking the vow.12

‫מי שהתנה קודם שידור ואמר כל‬ ‫נדר שאדור מכאן ועד עשר שנים‬ ‫הריני חוזר בהן או הרי הן בטלים וכיוצא‬ ‫בדברים אלו ואחר כך נדר אם היה זוכר‬ ‫התנאי בשעה שנדר הרי נדרו קיים שהרי‬ ‫בטל התנאי בנדר זה ואם לא זכר התנאי‬ ‫אלא אחר שנדר אף על פי שקבל התנאי‬ ‫בלבו וקיימו הרי הנדר בטל ואע"פ שלא‬ ‫הוציא עתה החזרה בפיו כבר הקדים‬ ‫החזרה לנדר והוציאה בפיו מקודם ויש‬ ‫שמורה להחמיר ואומר והוא שיזכור‬ :‫התנאי אחר שנדר בתוך כדי דבור‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

3 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973881/jewish/Nedarim...

[The following rules apply when] one made a stipulation [similar to that mentioned above]13 for a year or for ten years and afterwards took a vow, remembering at the time that he took the vow that he had made a stipulation, but forgetting the subject of that stipulation or what it involved. If [when taking the vow], he said:14 "I am acting according to my original intention,"15 his vow is not effective, for he has nullified it. If he does not make such a statement, he has nullified the stipulation and upheld the vow, for, at the time he took the vow, he remembered that there was a stipulation and, nevertheless, took the vow.16

‫מי שהקדים את התנאי לשנה או‬ ‫לעשר ואח"כ נדר ונזכר בשעה‬ ‫שנדר שיש לו תנאי ושכח על אי זה דבר‬ ‫התנה וכיצד היה התנאי אם אמר על דעת‬ ‫ראשונה אני עושה אין נדרו נדר שהרי‬ ‫בטלו ואם לא אמר על דעת ראשונה אני‬ ‫עושה כבר בטל התנאי וקיים הנדר שהרי‬ ‫זכר בשעת הנדר שיש שם תנאי ואע"פ כן‬ :‫נדר‬

There are some of the Geonim who maintain that all of these statements are applicable only with regard to vows and not to oaths,17 but there is an authority who maintains that the laws pertaining to vows and oaths are the same in this regard. Thus one may issue a stipulation nullifying an oath [beforehand] in the same manner as was stated with regard to vows.18

‫יש מהגאונים שאומרים אין כל אלו‬ ‫הדברים נוהגין אלא בנדרים בלבד לא‬ ‫בשבועות ויש מי שמורה שדין הנדרים‬ ‫והשבועות בעניינות אלו אחד הם וכי יש‬ ‫לו להקדים תנאי לשבועתו כדרך שאמרו‬ :‫בנדרים‬

[When a person takes] a vow whose object is not clear,19 we rule stringently.20 If he interprets them, there is room for both leniency and stringency.

‫סתם נדרים להחמיר ופירושן יש בו‬ ‫להקל ולהחמיר כיצד האומר הרי‬ ‫הפירות האלו עלי כבשר מליח וכיין נסך‬ ‫אומרין לו ומה היה בלבך אם פירש ואמר‬ ‫כבשר מליח של קרבן וכיין שנתנסך על‬ ‫המזבח היה בלבי הרי זה אסור ואם אמר‬ ‫לא היה בלבי אלא תקרובת עכו"ם ויין‬ ‫שנתנסך לה הרי זה מותר ואם נדר סתם‬ :‫הרי זה אסור‬

What does this imply? If one says: "Let this produce be considered as salted meat and as wine poured as a libation for me," we ask him what his intent was. If he explained himself, saying "My intent was that salted meat refers to sacrificial meat21 and wine poured as a libation refers to libations poured on the Temple altar," he is forbidden [to partake of the produce].22 If, however, he says: "My intent was a sacrifice offered to a false deity23 and wine poured as a libation to it," he is permitted.24 If he took the vow without a specific intent, he is forbidden.

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

4 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973881/jewish/Nedarim...

Similar principles apply when one says: "This produce is considered as cherem (a dedication offering) for me." If [his intent was] a dedication offering for the upkeep of the Temple, he is forbidden [to partake of the produce].25 If [his intent] was a dedication offering for the priests, he is permitted, because [these offerings] become [the priests'] personal possessions and are not forbidden [to others].26 If [he took the vow] without a specific intent, he is forbidden.

‫וכן האומר הרי הפירות האלו עלי‬ ‫חרם אם כחרם של בדק הבית אסור‬ ‫ואם כחרמי הכהנים מותר מפני שהן ממון‬ :‫שלהם ואין בה אסור ואם סתם אסור‬

[If he states:] "May they be considered like the tithes for me," [we investigate his intent. If his intent was] the tithe taken from animals, [it becomes] forbidden, because these are sacrifices that he consecrates through his actions, as we explained.27 [If his intent was] the tithe taken from grain, it is permitted.28 If [he took the vow] without a specific intent, he is forbidden.

‫הרי הן עלי כמעשר אם כמעשר‬ ‫בהמה אסור מפני שהוא קרבן‬ ‫שהקדישו בידו כמו שבארנו ואם כמעשר‬ :‫דגן מותר ואם סתם אסור‬

[If he states:] "May they be considered like terumah for me," [we investigate his intent. If his intent was] the money donated for the sacrificial offerings,29 it is forbidden. If his intent was terumah [separated from] the grain heap, it is permitted.30 If [he took the vow] without a specific intent, he is forbidden. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫הרי הן עלי כתרומה אם לתרומת‬ ‫הלשכה נתכוון הרי זה אסור ואם‬ ‫לתרומת הגורן נתכוון מותר ואם סתם‬ :‫אסור וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

5 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973881/jewish/Nedarim...

When does the above31 apply? In a place where the terms used have these two possible meanings. In a place where the term cherem without any further definition is used only to refer to the dedication offerings for the upkeep of the Temple,32 if he says: "[This produce is considered] as cherem for me," he is forbidden [to partake of the produce].33 Similarly, if their custom was to use the term cherem without any further definition to refer only to dedication offerings given the priests, he is permitted. Similar concepts apply in all analogous situations, for with regard to vows, we follow the connotations understood by the people in that place in that era.34

‫במה דברים אמורים במקום‬ ‫שמשמע כל אחד מאלו שם שני‬ ‫ענינות אבל מקום שדרכן שאין קוראים‬ ‫חרם סתם אלא לחרמי בדק הבית בלבד‬ ‫ואמר שם הרי הן עלי חרם הרי זה אסור‬ ‫וכן אם היה דרכן שאין קוראים חרם סתם‬ ‫אלא לחרמי כהנים הרי זה מותר וכן כל‬ ‫כיוצא בזה שאין הולכין בנדרים אלא אחר‬ :‫לשון אנשי אותו מקום באותו זמן‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

6 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973881/jewish/Nedarim...

[The ensuing rules apply] in all situations analogous to those exemplified: i.e., situations when a person takes a vow which appears to everyone to involve a prohibition, but he says: "My intent was for this and this specific instance,"35 for example, he takes a vow based on a cherem,36but [afterwards] said: "My intent was a sea cherem, i.e., a fishing net,"37 he took a vow based on an offering, but said: "My intent was an offering brought to the king," He told a colleague: "Myself is like a sacrifice for you," and then explained: "My intent was only to forbid him from [benefiting from] a bone38that I set aside so that I could take a vow as a lark," he took a vow that his wife could not benefit from him and then explained that his intent was his first wife whom he had divorced. [In all the above situations,] if the person who took the vow was a Torah scholar, he is permitted and he need not ask a sage [for the vow to be released].39 If the one who took the vow is a common person, we make it appear to him that it is a vow, yet we give him an opportunity to ask for its release from another vantage point and then release the vow.40 Whether he is a Torah scholar or a common person, we rebuke him and teach him not to conduct himself in this manner with regard to vows and not to take vows as a lark or a caper.

‫הנודר בחרם ואמר לא היה בלבי‬ ‫אלא חרמו של ים שהיא המכמורת‬ ‫נדר בקרבן ואמר לא היה בלבי אלא‬ ‫בקרבנות מלכים אמר לחבירו הרי עצמי‬ ‫עליך קרבן ואמר לא היה בלבי אלא‬ ‫לאסרו בעצם שהנחתי לי להיות נודר בו‬ ‫דרך שחוק נדר שלא תהנה לו אשתו‬ ‫ואמר לא היה בלבי אלא אשתי ראשונה‬ ‫שגירשתיה וכן כל כיוצא באלו הדברים‬ ‫שמשמען לכל העם איסור והוא אומר לא‬ ‫נתכוונתי אלא לכך ולכך אם היה הנודר‬ ‫תלמיד חכם הרי זה מותר ואין צריך‬ ‫שאלה לחכם ואם היה עם הארץ מראין‬ ‫בעיניו שזה נדר ושהוא אסור ופותחים לו‬ ‫פתח ממקום אחר ומתירין לו ובין שהיה‬ ‫תלמיד חכם או עם הארץ גוערין בהן‬ ‫ומלמדין אותן שלא ינהגו מנהג זה בנדרים‬ :‫ולא יהיו נודרין דרך שחוק והתול‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

7 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973881/jewish/Nedarim...

Similarly, when a person tells his wife: "You are considered as my mother to me," or he says: "Let this produce be considered as pig meat for me," the vow is not effective, as we explained.41 If the person who took the vow was a Torah scholar, he is permitted and he need not ask a sage [for the vow to be released].42 If the one who took the vow is a common person, he must ask a sage [for the vow to be released]. We make it appear to him that his wife is forbidden to him and that the produce is forbidden,43 but we give him an opportunity to ask for its release from another vantage point and then release the vow in order that people not act frivolously with regard to vows.44

‫וכן האומר לאשתו הרי את עלי‬ ‫כאמי או האומר פירות אלו עלי‬ ‫כבשר חזיר שאין כאן נדר כמו שבארנו‬ ‫אם היה האומר תלמיד חכם אינו צריך‬ ‫שאלה לחכם ואם היה עם הארץ צריך‬ ‫שאלה לחכם ומראין בעיניו שאשתו‬ ‫אסורה ושאותן הפירות אסורין ופותחין לו‬ ‫פתח ממקום אחר ומתירין לו נדרו כדי‬ :‫שלא ינהגו קלות ראש בנדרים‬

Although declaring property ownerless is not a vow,45 it resembles a vow, for the person is forbidden to retract.

‫ההפקר אף על פי שאינו נדר הרי‬ ‫הוא כמו נדר שאסור לו לחזור בו‬ ‫ומה הוא ההפקר הוא שיאמר אדם נכסים‬ ‫אלו הפקר לכל בין במטלטלין בין‬ ‫בקרקעות וכיצד דין ההפקר כל הקודם‬ ‫וזכה בו קנהו לעצמו ונעשה שלו ואפילו זה‬ ‫שהפקיר דינו בו כדין כל אדם אם קדם‬ :‫וזכה בו קנהו‬

What is meant by declaring property ownerless? A person says: "This property is free for everyone"46 to acquire. It applies to both movable property and landed property. What is the law [applying to property] declared ownerless? Whoever comes first and acquires it,47 becomes the owner. He acquires it as his own and it becomes his. Even the person who declared the property ownerless has the same rights as others with regard to it. If he comes first and acquires it, it becomes his.48

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

8 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973881/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person declares his property ownerless [so that it can be acquired by] the poor, but not by the rich, it is not ownerless.49 He must declare it ownerless for everyone like the produce of the Sabbatical year.

‫המפקיר לעניים אבל לא לעשירים‬ ‫אינו הפקר עד שיפקיר לכל‬ ‫כשמיטה והמפקיר עבדיו הגדולים קנו‬ ‫עצמן והקטנים כל הקודם והחזיק בהן זכה‬ :‫כשאר המטלטלין‬

When a person declares his servants ownerless, those past majority acquire themselves.50 With regard to those below majority, whoever comes first and takes hold of them acquires them as is the law with regard to other movable property.51 When a person declares landed property ownerless, whoever comes first and manifests his ownership52 over it acquires it. According to Scriptural Law, even when a person declares his property ownerless in the presence of one person, it becomes ownerless and one is not required to tithe its produce,53 as will be explained in its place.54 According to Rabbinic decree, however, [property] is not ownerless until one declares as such in the presence of three people so that one can acquire it and two can act as witnesses.

‫המפקיר את הקרקע כל הקודם‬ ‫והחזיק בהן זכה דין תורה אפילו‬ ‫הפקיר בפני אחד הרי זה הפקר ונפטר מן‬ ‫המעשרות כמו שיתבאר במקומו אבל‬ ‫מדברי סופרים אינו הפקר עד שיפקיר‬ ‫בפני שלשה כדי שיהיה אחד זוכה אם‬ ‫רצה והשנים מעידים והאומר הרי זה‬ ‫הפקר וזה הרי השני ספק הפקר ואם אמר‬ ‫וזה כמו זה או שאמר וגם זה הרי התפיס‬ :‫השני ויהיה הפקר ודאי‬

Should one say: "This is ownerless and this," there is an unresolved doubt whether the second entity is ownerless.55 If he said: "...and this is like this" or "...and also this," he has associated the second entity [with the first], and it is definitely ownerless. When a person declares his field ownerless and no one else acquires it,56 during the first three days, he may retract.57 After these three days, he may not retract unless he comes first and acquires it.58 He is like one acquiring ownerless property.59 [There is no difference] between him and another person.

‫המפקיר את שדהו ולא זכה בה אדם‬ ‫כל שלשה ימים יכול לחזור בו אחר‬ ‫שלשה ימים אינו יכול לחזור בו אלא אם‬ ‫כן קדם וזכה בה הרי הוא כזוכה מן‬ :‫ההפקר בין הוא בין אחר‬

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

9 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973881/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person says: "This field is declared ownerless for one day," "...for one week," "...for one month," "...for one year," or "...for one seven-year cycle," he may retract before he or another person acquires it.60 Once it is acquired, whether by the person himself or by someone else, he may not retract. Why does he have the right to retract before it was acquired? Because this is an uncommon matter. [Generally,] a person will not declare [property] ownerless for a limited time. When a person comes and watches over ownerless property, looking at it so that another person will not take it, he does not acquire it by looking at it. Instead, he must lift it up if it were movable property61 or manifest ownership over it if it were landed property,62 as purchasers acquire property.63

‫האומר שדה זו מופקרת ליום אחד‬ ‫לשבת אחת לחדש אחד לשנה‬ ‫אחת לשבוע אחד עד שלא זכה בה הוא‬ ‫או אחר יכול לחזור בו ומשזכה בה בין‬ ‫הוא בין אחר אינו יכול לחזור בו ומפני מה‬ ‫יש לו לחזור כאן עד שיזכו בה מפני שזה‬ ‫דבר שאינו מצוי הוא שאין אדם מפקיר‬ :‫לזמן קצוב‬

‫דבר המופקר שבא אחד ושמרו‬ ‫והיה מביט בו שלא יטלנו אדם לא‬ ‫קנהו בהבטה אלא עד שיגביהו אם היה‬ ‫מטלטלין או יחזיק בקרקע כדרך שקונין‬ :‫הלקוחות‬

« Previous

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 3

Nedarim - Chapter 1 FOOTNOTES 1. See the parallels in Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:1. 2. I.e., mere thought is not sufficient. With regard to vows, Numbers 30:7 mentions "the expression of her lips," implying that one must express his intent verbally. 3. Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:10-12. The latter point is also implied by the prooftext cited above, for the term "expression" implies bringing out something which exists, i.e., revealing one's thoughts. Thus if a statement does not match one's thoughts, it is not an "expression" (Kiryat Sefer). 4. The figs, because he did not make a statement concerning them and the grapes, because he did not intend to mention them. 5. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:15. 6. He must state his retraction verbally. It is not sufficient for him to have this intent in his heart [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 210:3)].

7. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17-18. As mentioned there, the term "immediately thereafter" has a specific halachic definition: the time it takes a student to tell his teacher: Shalom Elecha Rabbi. Since he retracts in this short time, it is considered as if the vow was never made. 8. For Numbers 30:3 associates the two together (Kessef Mishneh). See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 239:1). 9. For by taking the vow, he is indicating that he no longer desires to uphold the stipulation (see Nedarim 23b). 10. Kiryat Sefer explains this ruling as follows: Although Numbers 30:3 states: "He shall not desecrate his word," that applies only to a vow that has taken effect. In this instance, since he forgot his stipulation, it is as if he took the vow in error and it never took effect. 11. Our translation and bracketed additions are made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz.

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

10 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973881/jewish/Nedarim...

12. Otherwise, according to that view, the vow takes effect and the fact that he remembers the stipulation afterwards is not significant. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah

211:2)

mentions the Rambam's view, but also that of the other authority and states that we should give weight to that authority's view. The Ra'avad also differs with the Rambam and offers another interpretation, stating that the nullification is only effective when he willingly accepts the stipulation immediately after remembering it. As Nedarim, loc. cit., emphasizes, the most common application of this principle is the declaration customarily made after the release of vows on the day preceding Rosh HaShanah, when we nullify all the vows we will take in the year to come. This is also the source for the Kol Nidrei prayer recited at the beginning of Yom Kippur which nullifies all vows to be taken in the coming year. Note, however, the statement of Rama (Yoreh De'ah 211:1) that we do not rely on this stipulation without going to a sage for a formal annulment of a vow unless a great necessity was involved. 13. In this instance, he did not nullify all vows that he would make in the future, only those of a certain type, e.g., not to drink wine or eat meat [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 211:3)]. 14. In one of his response, the Radbaz states that this intent need not be verbalized. It is sufficient that he have the intent at heart. 15. I.e., his intent is that if his original statement is discovered to run contrary to his vow, he desires to follow his original statement. 16. I.e., he was aware of the possibility that his vow could run contrary to his original statement and took it nonetheless.

20. We say that he associated the vow with an object that causes entities to be forbidden (ibid.). The rationale is that if this was not his intent, he should have remained silent (Radbaz). See also Chapter 9, Halachah 4. 21. For it was necessary to salt all the sacrifices (Leviticus 2:13). 22. For when one equates produce with a sacrifice the vow is binding (Chapter 1, Halachot 7, 9). 23. For the gentiles would also salt their offerings. 24. For there is no way, he can cause an article to be forbidden as a sacrifice to a false deity through his vow. Hence, when he mentions such an object as the basis of a vow, the vow is not effective (Chapter 1, Halachot 8, 9). 25. For in such an instance, the articles dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple become consecrated and forbidden for ordinary use until they are redeemed. 26. Hence an entity that is made equivalent to them is likewise not forbidden. 27. Chapter 1, Halachah 13. 28. For the tithe taken from grain is not forbidden to be eaten by ordinary people. Moreover, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir who rules that ordinary people may not partake of these tithes, they are not forbidden due to a vow. Instead, it was forbidden to partake of the grain before they were separated and once, they were separated, they remain forbidden (Ritba, Nedarim 18b). 29. Terumat halishkah in Hebrew. See Hilchot Shekalim, ch. 2, which describes how these funds were collected and used. 30. See Chapter 1, Halachah 11. 31. That we explore the person's intention.

17. For oaths have a more severe dimension, since God's name must be invoked. (See Hilchot Sh'vuot 12:2.) The Jerusalem

32. Nedarim 18b explains that in the Galilee, it was not common

Talmud (Nedarim 3:1) would appear to support this

cherem there, his intent is a dedication offering for the

approach.

upkeep of the Temple.

18. The Radbaz maintains that the Rambam follows this view as evidenced by the fact that he does not include this in the list of matters in which oaths differ from vows (Chapter 3, Halachah 1). The text for the nullification of vows rite recited on the day preceding Rosh HaShanah and the Kol Nidrei prayer mention oaths as well as vows. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 211:4) adds that the

for priests to live. Hence, when a person uses the term

33. For we assume that his intent was a dedication offering to the Temple, even if he says that his intent was an offering to the priests. 34. See Chapter 9, Halachah 1. 35. I.e., a situation where the basis for the vow is a permitted entity and hence, the vow does not take effect.

nullification of vows in this manner is possible only when one

36. I.e., he said: "Let this produce be like a cherem."

takes a vow on his own initiative, but not when he agrees to a vow proposed by a colleague, for the colleague does not

37. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 2:8), the

have that person's original stipulation in mind. Thus by agreeing to his colleague's statement, he implies that he is

38. The Hebrew word atzmi means "myself," but it can also

not concerned with his original stipulation. 19. I.e., he does not know with regard to which prohibition he

Rambam cites Chabakuk 1:15 which employs such a term.

mean "my bone." Initially, it was thought that the person's intent was that he forbade his colleague from benefiting from his self. He clarified, however, that his intent was "his bone."

associated his vow (Rashi, Nedarim 18b).

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

11 of 12

39. His word can be accepted when he says: "This was my intent." Hence, the vow is not effective at all. With regard to the release of vows, see Chapter 4, Halachah 5. 40. I.e., as stated in the following halachah, this is a safeguard to insure that the common people treat vows with the earnestness required. 41. Chapter 1, Halachah 30. 42. For we assume he knows that the vow is of no consequence. Note the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 205:1) who states that in the present age, we consider everyone as a common person with regard to such matters.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973881/jewish/Nedarim...

50. I.e., are set free. Since they are released from their owner's property, they are free to be acquired by anyone and so they acquire themselves. Nevertheless, although the servant becomes his own man at this time, before he becomes a full-fledged member of the Jewish people, he must be given a bill of freedom (Hilchot Avadim 8:13). 51. Since they are below majority, they do not have an independent financial capacity and hence, cannot acquire themselves. Therefore any other person can acquire them. 52. Through a formal kinyan, e.g., locking a door or erecting a fence.

43. The Rama (loc. cit.) states that the person is required to

53. Rabbenu Asher and the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 273:7)

approach a sage only with regard to vows involving his wife, but not with regard to those involving other matters.

states that even when one declares property ownerless without anyone else being present, the declaration is binding

44. If the common person was allowed not to pay heed to his vow, he might take leniency with regard to other vows in the future, including some which would be halachically binding. 45. This implies that he does not have the potential to retract merely by making a statement (Radbaz, Ketzot HaChoshen

according to Scriptural Law. 54. See Hilchot Terumah 2:11; Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 5:27. Tithes are only required to be given from crops that one grew as one's own, not those acquired from ownerless property.

273:1). According to Rabbinic decree, the laws are more

55. Nedarim 7b raises the question, but does not resolve it.

stringent with regard to landed property, but this is law in all other instances.

Hence, if the original owner desires to retain possession, we

Ketzot HaChoshen discusses whether declaring an object

56. If, however, another person acquires, it becomes that person's property. The original owner may not retract his

ownerless is merely a retraction of one's own ownership over or does it involves transferring ownership to the person who will ultimately acquire it. The Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 6:1) explains that the declaration of property as ownerless is derived from the laws of the Sabbatical Year. In the Sabbatical year, this is done by Divine decree and here, by contrast, man declares the property ownerless.

do not expropriate it from him (Sefer Meirat Einayim 273:12).

declaration (Kessef Mishneh). 57. According to Scriptural Law and even according to Rabbinic Law with regard to other property, when one declares his property ownerless, the declaration takes effect from the first day and he is forbidden to retract, as stated in Halachah 14. Nevertheless, if he does retract, the retraction is binding. 58. Our Sages, however, ordained this ruling as a safeguard

46. Both the rich and the poor (Nedarim 7a). See the following halachah. 47. Through a formal act of acquisition (kinyan) as stated in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 2:1. See Halachah 19. 48. I.e., it is not like consecrated property for him (Radbaz). See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 5:27 which states that in this way, a person frees himself from the obligation to tithe the crops of his field. 49. This is one of the indications that this declaration is not a vow. For were it a vow, it could be given to the poor alone (Jerusalem Talmud, loc. cit.).

against people declaring their fields ownerless and then retaking possession of them and in this way, freeing themselves from the responsibility of separating the tithes (Radbaz, Sefer Meirat Einayim 273:13). 59. And thus he is not liable to separate the tithes (Kessef Mishneh). 60. I.e., even after three days pass. Since he is not intending to give up ownership entirely, even during the time he is willing to give up ownership, he still has a connection to the article and thus may withdraw his declaration (Radbaz). 61. Performing the kinyan of hagba'ah. Similarly, other kinyanim are also effective. 62. Performing the kinyan of chazzakah. 63. See Hilchot Mechirah 1:3, 3:1.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

12 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973881/jewish/Nedarim...

To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:10 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

1 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973882/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 2

There are four differences between a vow and a sh'vuat bitui: a) With regard to a sh'vuat bitui, one oath cannot take effect while another is already in effect,1 and with regard to vows, a vow can take effect while another is already in effect. b) When one attempts to extend the scope of an oath taken previously, he is not liable,2 and with regard to vows, one is.

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 4

‫ארבעה דברים יש בין נדרים‬ ‫לשבועת ביטוי שבשבועת ביטוי אין‬ ‫שבועה חלה על שבועה ובנדרים יחול נדר‬ ‫על נדר המתפיס בשבועה פטור ובנדרים‬ ‫חייב אין שבועת ביטוי חלה אלא על דברי‬ ‫הרשות ונדרים חלות על דברי מצוה‬ ‫כדברי הרשות שבועת ביטוי חלה על דבר‬ ‫שיש בו ממש ועל דבר שאין בו ממש‬ ‫ונדרים אינן חלין אלא על דבר שיש בו‬ :‫ממש‬

c) A sh'vuat bitui can take effect only with regard to actions that are left to one's choice,3 while vows take effect with regard to mitzvot as well as actions that are left to one's choice. d) A sh'vuat bitui can take effect with regard to entity of substance and an entity that is not of substance, 4 while vows take effect only with regards to entities of substance.

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

2 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973882/jewish/Nedarim...

What is meant by the statement that a vow can take effect while another is already in effect? If a person says: "I will be obligated to bring a sacrifice if I eat this loaf [of bread]," [repeats]: "I will be obligated to bring a sacrifice if I eat it," he is liable [to bring a sacrifice] for every vow that he takes. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫כיצד יחול נדר על נדר האומר הרי‬ ‫עלי קרבן אם אכלתי ככר זו הרי עלי‬ ‫קרבן אם אוכלנה ואכלה חייב על כל אחת‬ :‫ואחת וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

What is meant by the statement that one who extends the scope of a vow taken previously is liable? He heard his colleague take a vow and said: "And I am like you" immediately thereafter,5 he is forbidden [to partake of] the substance that his colleague deemed forbidden.6 If a third person heard the second person say: "And I am like you," and he also said: "I am like you," [he is also forbidden]. Even if there are one hundred and each one says: "And I am like you" immediately thereafter the statements of the previous one," they are all forbidden.

‫כיצד המתפיס בנדרים חייב שמע‬ ‫חבירו שנדר ואמר ואני כמותך בתוך‬ ‫כדי דבור הרי זה אסור במה שנאסר בו‬ ‫חבירו שמע השלישי זה שאמר ואני ואמר‬ ‫ואני אפילו היו מאה וכל אחד מהן אומר‬ ‫ואני בתוך כדי דבורו של חבירו הרי כולן‬ :‫אסורין‬

Similarly, when one says: "This meat is considered forbidden to me,' and even after several days7 says: "This bread is like this meat," [the prohibition] is extended to the bread and it becomes forbidden. If afterwards, he said: "And this honey is like this bread, and this wine is like this honey," even if he mentions 100 [substances], they are all forbidden.

‫וכן האומר הבשר הזה עלי אסור‬ ‫וחזר ואמר אפילו אחר כמה ימים‬ ‫והפת הזאת כבשר הזה הרי הפת נתפשה‬ ‫ונאסרה חזר ואמר ודבש זה כפת הזאת‬ ‫ויין זה כדבש זה אפילו הן מאה כולן‬ :‫אסורין‬

[The following rules apply when a person's] father or teacher died on a particular day and he took a vow to fast that day8 and [actually] fasted.9 If after years passed, he said: "Let this day10 be considered as the day on which my father - or my teacher - died," he is forbidden to eat on that day. For he attached this day [to his existing vow] and caused it to be forbidden as the day which is forbidden for him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫הרי שמת אביו או רבו היום ונדר‬ ‫שיצום אותו היום וצם ולאחר שנים‬ ‫אמר הרי יום זה עליו כיום שמת בו אביו‬ ‫או רבו הרי זה אסור לאכול בו כלום שהרי‬ ‫התפיס יום זה ואסרו כיום האסור לו וכן‬ :‫כל כיוצא באלו‬

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

3 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973882/jewish/Nedarim...

What is meant by the statement that vows take effect with regard to mitzvot as well as actions that are left to one's choice? When a person says: "Matzah is forbidden to me on Pesach night," "Dwelling in a sukkah on that holiday is forbidden to me," or "I am forbidden to take hold of tefillin," they are forbidden to him. If he ate matzah, dwelled in a sukkah, or took tefillin, he is liable for lashes.11 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Needless to say, one who says: "I am obligated to bring a sacrifice if I eat matzah on

‫כיצד חלים הנדרים על דברי מצוה‬ ‫כדברי הרשות האומר הרי המצה‬ ‫בלילי הפסח אסורה עליו הרי ישיבת‬ ‫הסוכה בחג הסוכות אסורה עליו והרי‬ ‫התפילין אסורות בנטילה עליו הרי אלו‬ ‫אסורין עליו ואם אכל או ישב או נטל‬ ‫לוקה וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואין צריך לומר‬ ‫במי שאמר הרי עלי קרבן אם אוכל מצה‬ ‫בלילי הפסח שהוא חייב בקרבן וכן כל‬ :‫כיוצא בזה‬

Pesach night," is obligated to bring a sacrifice.12 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Why do vows take effect with regard to mitzvot and oaths do not take effect with regard to mitzvot? Because when a person takes an oath he forbids himself from [partaking of] the entity mentioned in the oath.13 When, by contrast, one takes a vow, he causes the entity mentioned in the vow to be forbidden to him.14 Thus when a person takes an oath to nullify a mitzvah, he is placing a prohibition upon himself and he is already bound by an oath [to observe that mitzvah] from Mount Sinai, and one oath does not take effect if another is already in effect. When, by contrast, a person causes an entity to be forbidden through a vow, the prohibition involves the entity itself and that entity is not under oath from Mount Sinai.

‫ומפני מה נדרים חלים על דברי מצוה‬ ‫ושבועות אין חלות על דברי מצוה‬ ‫שהנשבע אוסר עצמו על דבר שנשבע‬ ‫עליו והנודר אוסר הדבר הנדור על עצמו‬ ‫נמצא הנשבע לבטל מצוה אוסר עצמו‬ ‫וכבר עצמו מושבע מהר סיני ואין שבועה‬ ‫חלה על שבועה והאוסר דבר זה בנדר זה‬ ‫הדבר הוא שנאסר ואותו הדבר אינו‬ :‫מושבע מהר סיני‬

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

4 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973882/jewish/Nedarim...

When you contemplate [the wording of] the Torah, it appears that their interpretation matches the explanation which our Sages received according to the Oral Tradition. For with regard to a sh'vuat bitui, [Leviticus 5:4] states: "Whether he will do harm or do good," i.e., speaking about permitted activities as we explained,15 e.g., whether I will eat or drink today, whether I will fast, or the like. With regard to vows, by contrast, [Numbers 30:3] states: "He shall do everything uttered by his mouth," without differentiating between matters associated with mitzvot and those left to our own volition.

‫כשאתה מתבונן בכתוב תמצא‬ ‫שהדברים מראין כן כמו שקבלו‬ ‫חכמים מפי השמועה שהרי אומר‬ ‫בשבועת ביטוי להרע או להיטיב בדברי‬ ‫הרשות כמו שבארנו שיאכל וישתה היום‬ ‫או שיצום וכיוצא בהן ובנדרים הוא אומר‬ ‫ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה ולא חלק בין דברי‬ :‫מצוה לדברי הרשות‬

When a person takes a vow to fast on the Sabbath or a festival, he is obligated to fast16 for vows take effect even when they involve [the nullification of] a mitzvah as explained.17 Similarly, if a person takes an oath to fast every Sunday or every Tuesday throughout his life and a festival or the day preceding Yom Kippur18 falls on that day, he is obligated to fast. Needless to say, this applies with regard to Rosh Chodesh. If, however, Chanukah or Purim fall [on these days], his vow is superceded by [the celebrations of] these days. Since the prohibition against fasting on them is based on Rabbinic decree, reinforcement is necessary.19 Hence, his vow is superceded by the Rabbinic decree.

‫הנודר שיצום בשבת או ביום טוב‬ ‫חייב לצום שהנדרים חלים על דברי‬ ‫מצוה כמו שבארנו וכן הנודר שיצום יום‬ ‫ראשון או יום שלישי כל ימיו ופגע בו יום‬ ‫זה והרי הוא יום טוב או ערב יוה"כ הרי זה‬ ‫חייב לצום ואין צריך לומר ראש חדש פגע‬ ‫בו חנוכה ופורים ידחה נדרו מפני הימים‬ ‫האלו הואיל ואיסור הצום בהם מדברי‬ ‫סופרים הרי הן צריכין חזוק וידחה נדרו‬ :‫מפני גזירת חכמים‬

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

5 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973882/jewish/Nedarim...

What is meant by the statement that vows take effect only with regards to entities of substance? If one says: "My speech is like a sacrifice for you,"20 he is not forbidden to speak to him, because speech is not an entity of substance. Similarly, if he tells him: "My speech is forbidden to you," it is not like his saying: "my produce is forbidden to you," or "My produce is like a sacrifice for you," in which instance, [the produce] would be forbidden. Therefore, if a person tells a colleague: "[It is like a vow for] a sacrifice that I will not speak with you," "...that I will not act on your behalf," or "...that I will not go with you," or he told his wife, "[It is like a vow for] a sacrifice that I will not be intimate with you," his vow does not take effect in all these instances. For this is as if he is saying: "My speech, going, actions, or intimacy is like a sacrifice, and none [of these are] entities of substance.21

‫כיצד אין הנדרים חלים אלא על דבר‬ ‫שיש בו ממש האומר דבורי עליך קרבן‬ ‫אינו אסור מלדבר עמו שהדבור אין בו‬ ‫ממש וכן אם אמר לו דבורי אסור עליך אין‬ ‫זה כאומר פירותי אסורין עליך או פירותי‬ ‫קרבן עליך שהן אסורין עליו לפיכך האומר‬ ‫לחבירו קרבן שאיני מדבר עמך או שאיני‬ ‫עושה עמך או שאיני מהלך עמך או‬ ‫שאמר קרבן שאיני ישן שאיני מדבר‬ ‫שאיני מהלך או שאמר לאשתו קרבן‬ ‫שאיני משמשך אין הנדר חל בכל אלו‬ ‫והרי זה כאומר דבורי והלוכי ועשייתי‬ :‫ושמושי קרבן שהן דברים שאין בהן ממש‬

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

6 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973882/jewish/Nedarim...

When, by contrast, a person says: "Let my mouth be forbidden to speak, my hands to act, my feet to walk, and my eyes to sleep," his vow is effective with regard to them.22 Therefore if a person tells a colleague: "My mouth is like a sacrifice with regard to speaking with you, my hands [are so] with regard to acting on your behalf, and my feet [are so] with regard to going with you," he becomes forbidden. Similarly, one who tells a colleague: "I will be obligated to bring a sacrifice if I speak to so-and-so" or "...if I don't speak to so-and-so," he is obligated to bring a sacrifice if he violates this commitment. Similarly, if he took a vow in which he said: "[If] I spoke [to so-and-so, I must bring a sacrifice]" or "[If] I did not speak..." or the like, [he is liable]. For these are not vows in which he accepts prohibitions upon himself23 whose ground rules we are explaining here, but vows of dedication.24 Although when a person takes a vow concerning entities that are not of substance and forbids them, the vow does not take effect with regard to them, we do not rule that he should act as if they are permitted. [Instead,] since he willingly [took a vow] forbidding them to him, [according to Rabbinic decree]25 the vow took effect with regard to them. Although they are not forbidden, we give him an opportunity [to ask for the vow's release] from another vantage point and then release the vow, so that he will not act frivolously with regard to vows.26

‫אבל האומר יאסר פי לדבורו וידי‬ ‫למעשיהן ורגלי להלוכן ועיני‬ ‫לשינתן הרי הנדר חל עליהן לפיכך האומר‬ ‫לחבירו קרבן פי מלדבר עמך וידי‬ ‫מלעשות עמך ורגלי מלהלך עמך הרי זה‬ ‫אסור וכן האומר הרי עלי קרבן אם אדבר‬ ‫עם פלוני או אם לא אדבר עמו ועבר על‬ ‫דברו חייב בקרבן וכן אם נדר דברתי ולא‬ ‫דברתי וכיוצא בהן שאין אלו נדרי איסר‬ ‫שאנו מבארין משפטיהם אלא נדרי‬ :‫הקדש‬

‫הנודר בדברים שאין בהם ממש‬ ‫ואסרן אע"פ שאין הנדר חל עליהם‬ ‫אין מורים לו שינהוג בהן היתר הואיל‬ ‫ואסר עצמו בהן ובדעתו שהנדר חל עליהן‬ ‫אלא פותחין לו פתח ממקום אחר ומתירין‬ ‫לו נדרו אף על פי שלא נאסר כדי שלא‬ :‫ינהגו קלות ראש בנדרים‬

« Previous

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 4

Nedarim - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:9-10. The reverse ruling with regard to vows is described in Halachah 2.

2. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:8-9. The reverse rulings with regard to vows are described in Halachot 3-5.

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

7 of 8

3. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 5:14-16. The reverse ruling with regard to vows is described in Halachot 6-9. 4. This concept can be explained as follows: As stated in Halachah 6, an oath creates a prohibition on the person taking the oath (the gavra), i.e., the article is essentially permitted, he has accepted a prohibition on himself not to partake of it. Hence, it is not significant whether the article is of substance or not. With regard to vows, by contrast, the article itself (the cheftzah) becomes forbidden. Hence, for that prohibition to take effect, the article must be of substance (Radbaz). See Halachah 10 for an illustration of how this principle is effective with regard to vows. 5. This term refers to a specific span of time, the time it takes to say: Shalom Elecha Rebbi (Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17). 6. I.e., he is extending the scope of his colleague's vow, so that it includes not only his colleague, but he himself. Here also the concept can be explained according to the above difference. Since an oath involves an obligation on the person taking the oath (gavra), it cannot be extended to include another individual, for each person must take his own oath. With regard to a vow, by contrast, since the prohibition caused by the vow is associated with a substance (cheftzah), another person can also extend the prohibition to himself (Rabbenu Nissim). 7. In this instance, it is not necessary to make the statement immediately thereafter the first vow. Since the meat is visible before us, one can attach a vow to it. With regard to the previous halachah, by contrast, we are speaking about a subject that cannot be seen. Hence, unless the statements are made immediately after each other, there is no way we can be certain of the meaning of the statement: "And I am like you" (Radbaz). 8. This is a common practice in many communities. 9. If, however, he never fasted on that day, he cannot attach another day to this vow (Chazon Yechezkel). 10. I.e., any given day.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973882/jewish/Nedarim...

14. I.e., the prohibition involves the cheftzah, the article. Once it is forbidden, it is forbidden to fulfill the mitzvah by partaking of it or using it, for a positive commandment does not supercede a negative commandment. It would be a mitzvah fulfilled through a transgression which is a forbidden act (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.). 15. Hilchot Sh'vuot 5:16. 16. Despite the fact that by doing so he negates the mitzvah of taking pleasure in the Sabbath and festivals. The Ra'avad clarifies that the matter is dependent on the wording he used in his oath. If on the Sabbath, he said: "I will fast today," he is forbidden to keep his vow. 17. In the three preceding halachot. 18. When it is a mitzvah to eat in preparation for the fast (Rosh HaShanah 9a; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 604:1). 19. In contrast to the Sabbath and festivals where the obligation to eat is of Scriptural origin. This is a general principle in Talmudic Law. There are times when our Sages gave their decrees greater power than Scriptural Law, for Scriptural Law is revered by the people at large and does not require reinforcement. If, by contrast, Rabbinic Law was abrogated in such instances, it might lead people to take leniencies even when uncalled for (see Ta'anis 17b; Kessef Mishneh). The Radbaz explains that if keeping one's vow was allowed to override a Rabbinic decree, then there would be no point in making such decrees. For people could nullify them by taking vows. For example, a person could take a vow to drink ordinary gentile wine. The Kessef Mishneh also explains that although the obligation to eat on Rosh Chodesh and the day preceding Yom Kippur is also of Rabbinic origin, since our Sages found an allusion to it in the Torah, it is less likely that people will treat it lightly. 20. I.e., he takes a vow against the other person listening to his speech.

11. For breaking his vow. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 215:1)

21. If, however, he states: "The satisfaction that I receive from any of the above is forbidden," his vow is effective, for the

mentions a view that maintains that the person should be given corporal punishment for taking such a vow and should

satisfaction is considered substantial. See Chapter 12, Halachah 9.

be compelled to ask to have the vow released. 12. For he can fulfill the mitzvah and bring the sacrifice (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 2:2). 13. I.e., the prohibition involves the gavra, the person himself. It cannot take effect if he is already bound to act otherwise.

22. For these organs are objects of substance (Nedarim 13b). 23. And apply only to entities of substance. 24. Which are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, chs. 6 and 9. See also Chapter 1 where the Rambam makes a distinction between these two types of vows. 25. See Nedarim 15a. Similarly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 2:1), the Rambam writes that the prohibition against desecrating one's word applies with regard to these vows. Compare to Chapter 4, Halachah 4. 26. See Chapter 2, Halachot 12-13.

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

8 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973882/jewish/Nedarim...

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

1 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973883/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 3

Vows taken because of coercion,1 vows taken unintentionally,2 and vows involving exaggerations are permitted,3 as we explained with regard to oaths.4 If men of coercion or customs collectors made him take a vow, saying: "Take a vow to us that meat is forbidden to you if you possess something on which customs duty is due," should he take a vow and say: "Bread, meat, and wine are forbidden to me...", he is permitted [to partake of] all of them5 even though he added to what they asked him [to say].6 Similarly, if they asked him to take a vow [on the condition] that his wife not benefit and he took a vow [on the condition] that his wife, his children, and his brothers not benefit from him, they are all permitted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 5

‫נדרי אונסין ונדרי שגגות ונדרי הבאי‬ ‫הרי אלו מותרים כדרך שבארנו‬ ‫בשבועות הרי שהדירוהו האנסין והמוכסין‬ ‫ואמרו לו נדור לנו שהבשר אסור עליך אם‬ ‫יש עמך דבר שחייב במכס ונדר ואמר הרי‬ ‫הפת והבשר והיין אסורין עלי הרי זה‬ ‫מותר בכל ואע"פ שהוסיף על מה שבקשו‬ ‫ממנו וכן אם בקשו ממנו שידור שלא‬ ‫תהנה אשתו לו ונדר שלא תהנה לו אשתו‬ :‫ובניו ואחיו כולן מותרין וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

2 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973883/jewish/Nedarim...

In all vows of this type, he must have the intent at heart for something that is permitted,7 for example, that they be forbidden for him for that day alone or for that hour alone or the like. He may rely on the intent in his heart, since he is being compelled by forces beyond his control.8 Thus at the time he is taking the vow for them, his mouth and his heart are not in concord. [This is required,] as we explained with regard to vows.9

‫ובכל הנדרים האלו צריך שיתכוין‬ ‫בלבו לדבר המותר כגון שישים בלבו‬ ‫שיהיו אסורין עליו אותו היום בלבד או‬ ‫אותה שעה וכן כיוצא בזה וסומך על‬ ‫דברים שבלבו הואיל והוא אנוס ואינו יכול‬ ‫להוציא בשפתיו ונמצא בשעה שידור להן‬ :‫אין פיו ולבו שוין כמו שבארנו בשבועות‬

Similarly, vows of encouragement are permitted.10 What does this imply? One administered a vow to a colleague to eat at his [home] and that colleague took a vow not to eat there, because he did not want to trouble him. Whether he eat or did not eat, they are both exempt.

‫וכן נדרי זרוזין מותרין כיצד כגון‬ ‫שהדיר חבירו שיאכל אצלו ונדר זה‬ ‫שלא יאכל מפני שאינו רוצה להטריח‬ ‫עליו בין אכל בין לא אכל שניהן פטורין וכן‬ ‫המוכר שנדר שלא ימכור חפץ זה אלא‬ ‫בסלע והלוקח נדר שלא יקחנו אלא בשקל‬ ‫ורצו בשלשה דינרין שניהן פטורין וכן כל‬ ‫כיוצא בזה לפי שכל אחד מהם לא גמר‬ ‫בלבו ולא נדר אלא כדי לזרז את חבירו‬ :‫ולא גמר בלבו‬

Similarly, if a merchant took a vow that he would not sell an article for less than a sela and a purchaser took a vow that he would not buy it for more than a shekel,11 if they agree on three dinarim,12 they are both exempt.13 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] neither of them made a definite conclusion in his heart. He took the vow only to encourage his colleague without making a definite conclusion in his heart.14 What is the source which teaches that it is forbidden for a person to take even these four types of vows which are permitted with the intent of nullifying them? It is written [Numbers 30:3): "He shall not desecrate his word," i.e., he should not make his word an inconsequential matter.

‫ומנין שאפילו ארבעה מיני נדרים אלו‬ ‫שהן מותרים שאסור לו לאדם להיות‬ ‫נודר בהן על מנת לבטלן תלמוד לומר לא‬ :‫יחל דברו לא יעשה דבריו חולין‬

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

3 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973883/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person took a vow and then [changed his mind and] regretted his vow, he may approach a sage and ask for its release. The laws pertaining to the release of vows are the same as those applying to the release of oaths.15 A vow can be released only by a distinguished sage or by three ordinary men in a place where there are no sages.16 The same wording is used to release a vow as is used to release an oath.17 Similarly, all of the other concepts that we explained with regard to oaths apply to vows in the same way as they apply to oaths. We do not release a vow until it takes effect, as is the law pertaining to an oath.18

‫מי שנדר וניחם על נדרו הרי זה‬ ‫נשאל לחכם ומתירו ודין היתר נדרים‬ ‫כדין היתר שבועות שאין מתיר אלא חכם‬ ‫מובהק או שלשה הדיוטות במקום שאין‬ ‫חכם ובלשון שמתירין השבועה מתירין‬ ‫הנדר וכן שאר הענינות שפירשנו‬ ‫בשבועות כולן בנדרים כדרך שהן‬ :‫בשבועות‬

:‫ואין מתירין הנדר עד שיחול כשבועה‬

Just as we may ask for the release of vows involving prohibitions and they are repealed, so, too, may we ask for the release of vows involving consecrated property and they are repealed.19 This applies both to [articles] consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple and [animals] consecrated to [be sacrificed] on the altar. When the holiness of a sacrifice is transferred from one animal to another, that holiness cannot be released.20

‫וכשם שנשאלים על נדרי האיסר‬ ‫ומתירין אותו כך נשאלים על נדרי‬ ‫הקדש ומתירין אותו בין נדרי קדשי בדק‬ ‫הבית בין קדשי מזבח ואין נשאלין על‬ :‫התמורה‬

Just as a father or a husband can nullify [a woman's] vows involving prohibitions,21 so, too, they can nullify vows of consecration that resemble vows involving prohibitions.

‫וכשם שהאב או הבעל מפר נדרי‬ ‫איסר כך מפר נדרי הקדשות הדומין‬ :‫לנדרי האיסר‬

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

4 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973883/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person takes a vow, a colleague hears and says, "And also me," a third person hears and says, "And also me,"22 if the first asks for the release of his vow and it is released, all the others are also released.23

‫מי שנדר ושמע חבירו ואמר ואני‬ ‫ושמע שלישי ואמר ואני ונשאל‬ ‫הראשון על נדרו והותר הותרו כולן נשאל‬ ‫האחרון והותר האחרון מותר וכולן אסורין‬ ‫נשאל השני והותר השני ושל אחריו‬ :‫מותרין והראשון אסור‬

If [the one who agreed to the vow] last asks for a release and it was granted, he alone is released and the others are still bound by the vow.24 If the second person asks for a release and it was granted, he and all those after him are released,25 but the first is still bound by the prohibition. Similar principles apply when one has attached many entities to a single vow, e.g., he took a vow [forbidding] bread and extended it to meat,26 if he asks for release of [the prohibition against] bread and it is granted, the [prohibition against] meat is also released.27 If he asks for release of [the prohibition against] meat and it is granted, the [prohibition against] bread is not released.28

‫וכן המתפיס דברים הרבה בנדר כגון‬ ‫שנדר על הפת והתפיס הבשר ונשאל‬ ‫על הפת והותר בה הותר הבשר נשאל על‬ :‫הבשר והותר בו לא הותר הפת‬

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

5 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973883/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person takes an oath or a vow saying: "I will not benefit from any one of you," if he asks for the release of his vow or oath concerning one of them and the release was granted, they are all released. [The rationale is that] when a vow is released in part, all of its [particulars] are also released.29 When a person says: "I will not benefit from this person, and from this person, and from this person," if [the prohibition against] the first is released, [the prohibitions against] all of them are released.30 If the prohibition against the last is released, that prohibition is released, but the others remain binding. If he said: "I will not benefit from this one; nor from this one; nor from this one," he must ask for a release for each one indidivually.31 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.32

‫הנשבע או הנודר שאיני נהנה‬ ‫לכולכם ונשאל על נדרו או על‬ ‫שבועתו על אחד מהם והתירו הותרו כלם‬ ‫שהנדר שהותר מכללו הותר כולו אמר‬ ‫שאיני נהנה לזה ולזה ולזה הותר הראשון‬ ‫הותרו כולן הותר אחרון האחרון מותר‬ ‫וכולן אסורין שאיני נהנה לזה לזה לזה‬ ‫צריכין פתח לכל אחד ואחד וכן כל כיוצא‬ :‫בזה‬

When a person took a nazirite vow, a vow to bring a sacrifice, and an oath [forbidding himself from partaking of something], or he took a vow, but does not know concerning which of these he took the vow, one request for release [can release] all of them.33

‫נדר בנזיר ובקרבן ובשבועה או‬ ‫שנדר ואין ידוע באי זה מהן נדר‬ :‫פתח אחד לכולן‬

When a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from the people of a city and he ask for the release of that vow from the sage of that city34 or he took a vow [not to benefit] from the Jewish people and asks for the release of the vow from a Jewish sage,35 the vow is released.

‫הנודר מאנשי העיר ונשאל לחכם‬ ‫שבעיר או שנדר מישראל והרי הוא‬ :‫נשאל לחכם שבישראל הרי נדרו מותר‬

If one says: "This produce is forbidden to me today if I go to this-and-this place tomorrow," he is forbidden to partake of them that day. [This is a] decree lest he go that place tomorrow.36 If he transgressed and partook of it that day and then undertook the journey on the morrow, he is liable for lashes.37 If he did not go, he is not liable for lashes.38

‫האומר פירות אלו אסורין עלי היום‬ ‫אם אלך למחר למקום פלוני הרי‬ ‫זה אסור לאכלם היום גזירה שמא ילך‬ ‫למחר לאותו מקום ואם עבר ואכלן היום‬ :‫והלך למחר לוקה ואם לא הלך אינו לוקה‬

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

6 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973883/jewish/Nedarim...

If one says: "This produce will be forbidden to me tomorrow if I go to this-and-this place today," he is permitted to go that place today and the produce will be forbidden for him tomorrow. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] a person is careful about not violating a prohibition,39 but he is not careful in keeping a condition that will cause a permitted entity to become forbidden.40

‫אמר הרי הן אסורין למחר אם‬ ‫אלך היום למקום פלוני הרי זה‬ ‫מותר לילך היום לאותו המקום ויאסרו‬ ‫עליו אותן הפירות למחר וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬ ‫מפני שאדם זהיר בדבר האסור שלא‬ ‫לעשותו ואינו זהיר בתנאי שגורם לאסור‬ :‫דבר המותר‬

When a person takes a vow to fast for ten days,41 whenever he desires and he was fasting one day and had [to interrupt the fast] for the sake of a mitzvah42 or to honor a person of stature, he may eat and repay [the fast] on another day. [The rationale is that] he did not specify the days [he would fast] when he took the vow initially.43

‫הנודר לצום עשרה ימים באי זה‬ ‫יום שירצה והיה מתענה ביום אחד‬ ‫מהם והוצרך לדבר מצוה או מפני כבוד‬ ‫אדם גדול הרי זה אוכל ופורע יום אחר‬ ‫שהרי לא קבע הימים בתחלת הנדר נדר‬ ‫שיצום היום ושכח ואכל משלים לצום נדר‬ ‫שיצום יום אחד או שנים וכשהתחיל לצום‬ ‫שכח ואכל אבד תעניתו וחייב לצום יום‬ :‫אחר‬

If he took a vow that he would fast today, but forgot and ate, he must continue to refrain from eating.44 If he took a vow to fast for a day or two and when he began to fast, forgot and ate, he forfeits his fast and is obligated to fast again.45

« Previous

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 5

Nedarim - Chapter 3 FOOTNOTES 1. As explained immediately below.

8. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 232:14) emphasizes that the

2. See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.

statement he makes may not be a direct contradiction to the

3. Note, however, Halachah 4.

intent in his heart. He also emphasizes that the vow may not be broken in a way that the gentile who forced the vow to be

4. Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:1, 5. 5. Even though he possessed items for which customs duty was due. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:2. 6. I.e., one might think that since he was not compelled to mention the other substances, the vow would take effect with regard to them. Hence, the Rambam explains that since he was compelled to take the vow, his additions do not change its status. 7. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:3.

taken will be become aware of its violation. For this would lead to the desecration of God's name. 9. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:12. 10. The laws of this halachah do not apply with regard to oaths. Since an oath involves the mention of God's name, taking an oath for this purpose would be taking God's name in vain. A vow does not require the mention of God's name. Hence, this is permitted (Radbaz). 11. I.e., two dinarim which are half a sela.

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

7 of 8

12. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 232:2) quotes opinions that

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973883/jewish/Nedarim...

maintain that each one can fluctuate slightly past the midway

29. I.e., at the outset, his intent was that the oath or vow include all the individuals in the group, once that intent is no longer

point, but may not accept the other's position completely. He also quotes other more lenient views.

valid, it is as if the entire vow or oath was taken in error. Hence, it is no longer binding. The Jerusalem Talmud

13. For neither definitely meant what he said. Taking the vow

(Nedarim 1:1) derives this concept from the exegesis of

was just a bargaining technique. See the Shulchan Aruch

Numbers 30:3: "He should act according to everything that

(Yoreh De'ah 232:2) which states that this applies when they

he uttered from his mouth." Since "everything" he uttered from his mouth need not be fulfilled, nothing must be fulfilled.

continue negotiating after taking the vow. Then it is clear that they were merely bargaining. If, however, they broke off negotiations, the vow is considered binding. 14. Thus it could be said that his heart and his mouth were not in concord (Radbaz). 15. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:1. 16. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:1. 17. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:4.

If part of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified. 30. Since the person said "and" between each one, he made the latter individuals dependent on the first. Nevertheless, in contrast to the first clause, all of the individuals are not considered as being included in the same vow. 31. Since he did not associate them by saying "and," it is considered as if he took a vow concerning each person individually. See also Hilchot Sh'vuot 7:10.

18. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:14.

32. See Chapter 8, Halachah 6.

19. Nevertheless, it is undesirable to do so. One should seek

33. They are all considered as one vow. Hence, as in the previous halachah, once a portion of a vow is nullified, the

their release only in a pressing situation. See Chapter 13, Halachah 25. Since ultimately, the person did not desire to make the vow, it is as if the article were consecrated in error. In such an instance, the consecration is not effective (Radbaz, based on Ketubot 78a). 20. The rationale is that the release of vows is based on the principle that after the person changes his mind and regrets having made the vow, it is as if the vow was made in error. Since the transfer of holiness from a sacrificial animal to another animal is binding even if it is done in error (Temurah 17a), there is no reason why a release is possible after such a transfer has been effected (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, if one regrets the original consecration, that can be nullified and then, as a matter of course, the animal to which the holiness was transferred will also lose its status (see Mishneh LeMelech). 21. See chs. 11-13. 22. The latter two are bound by the vow taken by the first, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3. 23. For the vows of the latter individuals are dependent on the vow of the first. Once the first vow is nullified, they no longer have any basis on which they can stand. 24. For their vows are not dependent on his. 25. For his vow serves as the basis for theirs.

entire vow is nullified. Even if he only has a reason to regret the last portion of the vow, the entire vow is nullified (Radbaz). 34. As the Rambam states in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, initially, it is forbidden for the person to ask such a sage to release his vow, for in this way, he is benefiting from the people of the city. After the fact, however, the vow is released, because retroactively, it is as if the vow were never taken. 35. In this instance, he may initially ask a Jewish sage to have his vow released, for he has no alternative. Only a Jewish sage can release a vow. In the previous instance, by contrast, he can ask a sage from another city to release the vow (Radbaz). 36. And then the vow would take effect retroactively. 37. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:16, to be liable for lashes, one must be given a warning. This law indicates that even if the warning was delivered conditionally, the person can be held liable for lashes. 38. Despite the fact that he violated the advice of our Sages, since he did not violate a Scriptural commandment, he is not liable for lashes. 39. Hence, we do not fear that he will partake of the produce on the following day.

26. See Chapter 3, Halachah 4.

40. Therefore, in the previous halachah, he is forbidden to partake of the produce at the outset.

27. For it is dependent on the prohibition against bread.

41. I.e., not consecutively.

28. For it is not dependent on the prohibition against meat.

42. I.e., to participate in a feast celebrating the observance of a mitzvah, e.g., a circumcision or the completion of a Talmudic tractate (Mishnah Berurah 568:9).

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

8 of 8

43. Since he did not stipulate the day on which he would fast, even though he began fasting on a particular day, he can change his mind and switch the fast to another day.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973883/jewish/Nedarim...

45. Nevertheless, since he did not specify a particular day at the time of his vow, once he ate, he may eat on the day he began fasting.

44. Since he took a vow against eating that day, the fact that he broke his fast does not make it permissible for him to eat afterwards. This applies even if he is willing to fast another day instead. Compare to Hilchot Ta'aniot 1:14. the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 568:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Rama adds that there are some who accept upon themselves to fast another day to compensate for the fast he did not keep.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:11 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

1 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973884/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 4

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 6

When Reuven tells Shimon: "I [am forbidden] to you like a dedication offering"1 or "You are forbidden to benefit from me," it is forbidden for Shimon to benefit from Reuven.2 If he transgresses and benefits from him, he is not liable for lashes, because Shimon did not say anything.3 Reuven is permitted to derive benefit from Shimon, because he did not forbid this to himself.

‫ראובן שאמר לשמעון הריני עליך‬ ‫חרם או הרי אתה אסור בהנייתי‬ ‫נאסר על שמעון שיהנה בראובן ואם עבר‬ ‫ונהנה אינו לוקה שהרי לא אמר שמעון‬ ‫כלום ומותר לראובן ליהנות בשמעון שהרי‬ :‫לא אסר עצמו בהנייתו‬

If he tells Shimon: "You [are forbidden] to me like a dedication offering" or "I am forbidden to benefit from you," Reuven is forbidden to benefit from Shimon. If he derives benefit, he is liable for lashes, because he desecrated his word. Shimon is permitted to benefit from Reuven.

‫אמר לשמעון הרי אתה עלי חרם או‬ ‫הריני אסור בהנייתך הרי נאסר‬ ‫ראובן מליהנות בשמעון ואם נהנה לוקה‬ ‫שהרי חלל דברו ושמעון מותר בהניית‬ ‫ראובן אמר לו הריני עליך חרם ואתה עלי‬ ‫או הריני אסור בהנייתך ואתה אסור‬ ‫בהנייתי שניהם אסורין זה בזה וכן כל‬ :‫כיוצא בזה‬

If he tells him: "I [am forbidden] to you like a dedication offering and you are [forbidden] to me" or "I am forbidden to benefit from you and you are forbidden to benefit from me," they are both forbidden to benefit from each other. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

8/21/2019 4:12 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

2 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973884/jewish/Nedarim...

If Reuven tells Shimon: "So-and-so's produce is forbidden to you" or "You are forbidden to benefit from so-and-so," his words are of no consequence. For a person cannot cause his colleague to be prohibited with regard to a matter that is not his unless [that person] responds Amen, as we explained.4

‫ראובן שאמר לשמעון הרי פירות‬ ‫פלוני אסורין עליך או הרי אתה אסור‬ ‫בהניית פלוני אין זה כלום שאין אדם אוסר‬ ‫חבירו בדבר שאינו שלו אא"כ ענה שמעון‬ :‫אמן כמו שבארנו‬

When a person tells a colleague: "This loaf [of bread] of mine is forbidden to you," it [remains] forbidden to him even if he gives it to him as a present.5 If he dies, and [the other person] inherits it or [it is acquired by a third party] who gives it to him as a present, he is permitted. For [the one taking the vow said] "My loaf," and now it is not his.6

‫האומר לחבירו ככרי זו אסורה עליך‬ ‫אף על פי שנתנה לו במתנה הרי זו‬ ‫אסורה עליו מת ונפלה לו בירושה או‬ ‫שנתנה לו אחר במתנה הרי זו מותרת‬ ‫שלא אמר לו אלא ככרי והרי אינה עתה‬ :‫שלו‬

If he tells him: "This produce is forbidden to you," but does not say: "My produce," even if he sold it or died and it became the property of another person,7 it [remains] forbidden to him. For when a person causes his property to be forbidden to a colleague, it remains forbidden unless he says: "my property," "my house," "my produce," or uses another similar term. For in those instances, he only forbade [using] the articles while they were in his possession.8

‫אמר לו פירות אלו אסורין עליך ולא‬ ‫אמר לו פירותי אע"פ שמכרן או‬ ‫שמת ונפלו לאחר הרי אלו אסורין עליו‬ ‫שהאוסר דבר שהוא שלו על חבירו אף על‬ ‫פי שיצא מרשותו הרי הוא באיסורו עומד‬ ‫אלא אם כן אמר נכסי או ביתי או פירותי‬ ‫וכיוצא בלשונות אלו שהרי לא אסרן אלא‬ :‫כל זמן שהן ברשותו‬

When a person tells his son: "You are forbidden to benefit from me" or he takes and oath that his son is forbidden to benefit from him, when he dies, the son may inherit his property. For this is as if he says: "My property is forbidden to you." If he forbade [the son] from benefiting from him and specified: "During my lifetime and after my death," if he dies, [the son] should not inherit his [estate].9 For this is as if he said: "This property is forbidden to you."

‫האומר לבנו הרי את אסור בהנייתי או‬ ‫שנשבע שלא יהנה בו אם מת יירשנו‬ ‫שזה כאומר נכסי עליך אסורין אסר עליו‬ ‫הנייתו ופירש בין בחיי בין במותי אם מת‬ ‫לא יירשנו שזה כמי שאמר לו נכסים אלו‬ :‫אסורין עליך‬

8/21/2019 4:12 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

3 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973884/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person forbids his son from benefiting from him10 and says: "If this son's son will be a Torah scholar,11 this son will acquire this property to transfer it to his son,"12 this is permissible. The son is forbidden [to benefit] from his father's estate and the grandson is permitted to derive such benefit13 if he is a Torah scholar as was stipulated.

‫אסר בנו בהנייתו ואמר אם יהיה בן בני‬ ‫זה תלמיד חכם יקנה בני זה נכסי כדי‬ ‫להקנותן לבנו הרי זה מותר ויהיה הבן‬ ‫אסור בנכסי האב ובן הבן מותר בהן אם‬ :‫יהיה תלמיד חכם כמו שהתנה‬

If this son who is forbidden to benefit from his father's estate gives14 [the property] he inherits from his father to his brother or his sons, they are permitted to benefit from them.15 This also applies if he paid a debt with them or paid [the money due] his wife [by virtue of] her ketubah.16 He must tell [the recipients] that [the payment they receive] is from the estate of his father which was forbidden to him. [The rationale for this leniency is that] when a person takes an oath that a colleague will not benefit from his property, he may pay that colleague's debt, as will be explained.17

‫זה הבן האסור בירושת אביו אם נתן‬ ‫ירושת אביו לאחיו או לבניו הרי זה‬ ‫מותר וכן אם פרעם בחובו או בכתובת‬ ‫אשתו וצריך להודיען שאלו נכסי אבי‬ ‫שאסרן עלי שהנשבע שלא יהנה בו חבירו‬ :‫מותר לו לפרוע את חובו כמו שיתבאר‬

When a person was forbidden - either through a vow or an oath - to partake of a type of food, he is permitted to partake of other types of food that were cooked or mixed together with [the forbidden] food, even though it has [acquired] the flavor of the forbidden food.18 If he was forbidden to partake of specific produce19 and that produce became mixed with others, if they have the flavor of the forbidden food, [the other food] is forbidden. If not,20 it is permitted.

‫מי שנאסר עליו מין ממיני מאכל בין‬ ‫בנדר בין בשבועה ונתבשל עם מינים‬ ‫אחרים או נתערב עמהן הרי זה מותר‬ ‫במינים המותרים אף על פי שיש בהן טעם‬ ‫המין האסור ואם נאסר בפירות אלו‬ ‫ונתערבו באחרים אם יש בהן טעם דבר‬ :‫האסור אסורין ואם לאו מותרין‬

What is implied? A person who is forbidden to partake of meat or wine may partake of soup or vegetables that were cooked with meat or wine. [This applies] even if they have the flavor of meat or wine. He is forbidden only to eat meat alone or drink wine alone.

‫כיצד נאסר בבשר או ביין הרי זה‬ ‫מותר לאכול מרק וירקות שנתבשלו‬ ‫עם הבשר ועם היין אע"פ שיש בהן טעם‬ ‫הבשר או טעם היין ואינו אסור אלא‬ ‫באכילת בשר בפני עצמו או לשתות יין‬ :‫בפני עצמו‬

8/21/2019 4:12 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

4 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973884/jewish/Nedarim...

If, however, he forbade himself [to partake of] "this meat" or "this wine,"21 if the vegetables have the flavor of meat or wine, they are forbidden. If not, they are permitted. For this meat or this wine become considered like the meat of nevelot, teeming animals, or the like. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Therefore if one says: "This meat is forbidden for me," he is forbidden to partake of it, its sauce, and the spices [cooked] with it.22

‫נאסר בבשר זה או ביין זה ונתבשל‬ ‫עם הירק אם יש בירקות טעם‬ ‫בשר או טעם היין אסורין ואם לאו מותרין‬ ‫שזה הבשר וזה היין נעשה כמו בשר‬ ‫נבלות ושקצים וכיוצא בהן וכן כל כיוצא‬ ‫בזה לפיכך האומר בשר זה אסור עלי הרי‬ :‫זה אסור בו ובמרק שבו ובתבלין שבו‬

If the wine which he forbade himself23 became mixed with other wine,24 even one drop in an entire barrel, the entire quantity becomes forbidden. [The rationale is that] since he has the possibility to ask for the release of his vow, [the forbidden substance] is considered as an entity that can be permitted and hence, never becomes nullified in [a majority of permitted] substances of its own kind, as explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.25

‫נתערב יין זה שאסרו על עצמו ביין‬ ‫אחר אפילו טיפה בחבית נאסר‬ ‫הכל מפני שיש לו להשאל על נדרו נעשה‬ ‫כדבר שיש לו מתירין שאינו בטל במינו‬ :‫כמו שבארנו בהלכות מאכלות אסורות‬

When a person says: "This produce is like a sacrifice for me," "...a sacrifice to my mouth,"26 or "...a sacrifice because of my mouth," he is forbidden to partake of anything exchanged for them or produce that grows from them.27 Needless to say, this applies to juices produced by them.

‫האומר פירות האלו קרבן עלי או‬ ‫קרבן הן לפי או קרבן הן על פי הרי‬ ‫זה אסור בחילופיהן ובגדוליהם ואין צריך‬ :‫לומר במשקין היוצאין מהן‬

8/21/2019 4:12 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

5 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973884/jewish/Nedarim...

[The following rules apply] if a person took a vow or an oath not to eat [produce] or not to taste it. If it is an entity whose seed decomposes when it is sown like wheat or barley, he is permitted [to partake of] the articles exchanged for it28 and the produce that grows from it.29 If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose in the earth when it is sown, like onions or garlic,30 even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from it is forbidden.31 In all situations, there is a doubt [whether he is forbidden to drink] the juices they produce.32 Therefore, if he drinks them, he is not liable for lashes.

‫נדר או נשבע שאיני אוכל אותם או‬ ‫שאיני טועם אותם אם היה דבר‬ ‫שזרעו כלה כשיזרע כגון חטה ושעורה‬ ‫הרי זה מותר בחילופיהן ובגדוליהן ואם‬ ‫היה הדבר שאין זרעו כלה בארץ כשיזרע‬ ‫כגון בצלים ושומין אפילו גדולי גדולין‬ ‫אסורין ובין כך ובין כך משקין היוצאין מהן‬ :‫ספק לפיכך אם שתה מהן אינו לוקה‬

Similarly, if a person tells his wife: "The work produced by your hands33 is like a sacrifice to me," "...a sacrifice to my mouth," or "...a sacrifice because of my mouth," he is forbidden to partake of anything exchanged for [her earnings] or produce that grows from her work.34 If he says that he will not to eat [from the work of her hands], nor taste it, if the produce [that grew from] the work of her hands is an entity whose seed decomposes, he is permitted [to partake of] articles exchanged for it and the produce that grows from it. If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose, even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from them is forbidden.

‫וכן האומר לאשתו מעשה ידיך‬ ‫עלי קרבן או קרבן הן לפי או קרבן‬ ‫הן על פי אסור בחלופיהן ובגדוליהן שאיני‬ ‫טועם שאיני אוכל אם היו פירות מעשה‬ ‫ידיה דבר שזרעו כלה מותר בחלופיהן‬ ‫ובגדוליהן ואם היה דבר שאין זרעו כלה‬ ‫אפילו גדולי גדולין אסורין ולמה לא יבטל‬ ‫העיקר האסור בגדולין שרבו עליו שהרי הן‬ ‫דבר שיש לו מתירין שאינו בטל ברוב כמו‬ :‫שבארנו‬

Why do we not consider the original produce that is forbidden insignificant because of the [new] growth that is larger than it? Because the original produce is an entity whose prohibition can be released, which is not nullified [when mixed] with a majority [of permitted substances], as explained.35

8/21/2019 4:12 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

6 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973884/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person forbids his produce to a colleague, whether by vow or by an oath, there is an unresolved question if the produce that grows from it36 and articles exchanged for it [are permitted to the colleague].37 Therefore the produce that grows from it and articles exchanged for it are forbidden to his colleague. If he transgresses and benefits, he has benefited.38

‫האוסר פירותיו על חבירו בין בנדר‬ ‫בין בשבועה הרי גדוליהן וחלופיהן‬ ‫ספק לפיכך חבירו אסור בגדולי פירות אלו‬ :‫ובחלופיהן ואם עבר ונהנה נהנה‬

« Previous

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 6

Nedarim - Chapter 4 FOOTNOTES 1. See Chapter 1, Halachah 14; Chapter 2, Halachah 8. 2. It is as if Reuven designated his property as consecrated with regard to Shimon (Or Sameach).

11. This is speaking about a situation in which the grandson is not born yet or is still a minor in which instance, the grandfather cannot transfer the property to him directly Alternatively, he is not yet a Torah scholar (Radbaz).

3. And the prohibition which Reuven established does not make Shimon liable. If, however, Shimon said Amen, he would be

12. The Ra'avad and others question the Rambam's ruling, for

liable, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1. See Chapter 10, Halachah 12, from which it is apparent that

seemingly, it does not involve any new concept. The son becomes the owner of the estate regardless. Although he is

if Reuven voluntarily allows Shimon to benefit from his property, Reuven is liable for lashes, for he is desecrating his

forbidden to benefit from it, he has the right to give it to his son whether he is a Torah scholar or not as stated in the

own vow. As indicated by Hilchot Meilah 4:9, even though the person

following halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that

is not liable for lashes, he is liable to bring a sacrifice for

it to his brother as a present. If, however, the grandson is a Torah scholar, this is forbidden and it is as if the estate was

atonement, since with regard to him, it is as if he benefited from consecrated property. 4. Chapter 2, Halachah 1. 5. For there is no way that he can acquire it in a permitted manner. 6. I.e., once he dies, the loaf no longer belongs to him.

ordinarily, the son may use the estate to pay a debt or to give

transferred to him directly and the father cannot use it for other purposes. The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about a situation where the father had two sons and if this son's son was not a Torah scholar, he would give his entire estate to the other son. 13. The Kessef Mishneh interprets this as meaning that the

7. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 216) states that this applies when the

estate will be given to the grandson. The Bayit Chadash

person taking the vow says: "During my lifetime and after my

(Yoreh De'ah 223) explains that implicit in the grandfather's

death." From the Rambam's words and a comparison to Halachah 6, it is apparent that he need not make such a

statement is the stipulation that if the grandson is not a Torah

specification. See Turei Zahav 216:10 which discusses these two perspectives. 8. For that is the implication of the term "my." Compare to Chapter 8, Halachah 11. 9. See Halachah 8 which explains that the estate does become

scholar, he - like his father - will be forbidden to benefit from the estate. See Siftei Cohen 223:4. 14. Rabbenu Nissim explains that the intent is not that he actually gives the money to the recipients, but he informs them of where it is and allows them to take it. See Siftei Cohen 223:3.

the son's property and he may use it in certain ways. 10. And specifies that this applies after his death as well, as in the previous halachah.

8/21/2019 4:12 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

7 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973884/jewish/Nedarim...

15. Here also, the son must tell the recipients that they are receiving property that he is forbidden to benefit from.

27. I.e., if the produce forbidden because of the vow was sown and other produce grew from it, that produce is also

Implied is that the estate becomes the son's property. He is forbidden to benefit from it. Nevertheless, as indicated here,

forbidden. Since the produce forbidden by the vow is equated to a

he may receive indirect benefit, for certainly the recipients of his gifts will be thankful to him and repay him in some way or

sacrifice, like a sacrifice, it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it (Kessef Mishneh).

other.

The Ra'avad (in his gloss to Halachah 16) asks: Why is the produce that grows from the forbidden produce prohibited.

16. For this also considered as another debt. 17. Chapter 6, Halachah 4. The person is not considered to have received benefit from the payment of his debt, since holding back a creditor from pressing claim is not considered as benefit (Radbaz). The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 223) questions the Rambam's ruling, explaining that although the father would have been permitted to pay the son's debt, for the son to pay his own debt with the estate's money is considered as benefiting from the estate. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 223:4) accepts the Rambam's ruling. 18. For his vow involved only the food itself - i.e., something that people would have in mind when using that term - but not its flavor. It does not become like forbidden food, in which case, even the flavor is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh). 19. That produce is considered as if it was inherently forbidden and hence, even its flavor is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh). 20. I.e., a person who had not taken the vow tasted the food and said that the flavor of the forbidden food could not be detected. Alternatively, there was more than 60 times the amount of the forbidden food. 21. I.e., designating a particular piece of meat or quantity of wine. 22. For these other entities will derive the flavor of the meat.

Seemingly, we should follow the principle: Zeh vizeh goraim mutar, when an entity is produced by two factors, one permitted and one forbidden, it is permitted. Here as well, since the second generation produce was produced by the forbidden produce and also by the earth, it should be permitted. The Radbaz explains that since a vow is involved, we follow the principle mentioned in Halachah 12, that since the prohibition involved can be released entirely, we do not consider it nullified because another factor is also involved. 28. For his vow specified only eating or tasting the produce, not benefiting from it. Nor is there any taste of the original produce in the produce that grows from its seeds. 29. For the second generation produce is not the same substance concerning which the vow was taken. 30. The onion or the garlic head is put in the ground and a new plant grows from it. 31. For ultimately, even the third generation produce has the flavor of the first generation produce. As the Rambam explains at the conclusion of Halachah 15, we do not say that its flavor will be nullified because the greater portion of the substance of the new produce is permitted, because, as stated in Halachah 12, the forbidden fruit is an entity whose prohibition could be released.

23. The Or Sameach emphasizes that the Rambam is speaking

32. Nedarim 52b leaves unresolved the question whether in this

about a vow which a person made himself, for he can have

context the juice produced from the fruit is considered as the fruit or not. Hence, because of the doubt, one is forbidden to

such a vow released. If, however, he responds to another person, he cannot ask for the vow's release. 24. If, however, the wine becomes mixed with a liquid of another type, its presence becomes nullified if its taste is no longer detectable (Turei Zahav 216:13). 25. Chapter 15, Halachah 10. The rationale is that since the prohibition can be released, it is preferable to do that rather than have the prohibition nullified. 26. I.e., just as he may not partake of a sacrifice with his mouth, he may not partake of this produce.

partake of it, but cannot be held liable for punishment. This refers to fruits other than grapes or olives. In the latter instances, the liquid is considered as the fruit. 33. The Siftei Cohen 216:8 states that we are referring to an instance that the husband uses wording similar to that suggested in Chapter 3, Halachah 11; alternatively, that he is referring to work which his wife already performed. Otherwise, there would be a difficulty because a vow is not effective unless the object concerned already exists. 34. I.e., if she planted a tree, he is forbidden to partake of its fruit. The Rambam (based on Nedarim 57a) is restating the concepts mentioned in the previous halachah in a different context. 35. See Halachah 12 which explains that he has the potential to have his vow released.

8/21/2019 4:12 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

8 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973884/jewish/Nedarim...

36. The Ra'avad protests the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that based on Nedarim 47a, it appears that the produce grown

38. I.e., he is not liable. Firstly, lashes are not given when an unresolved question is involved. Also, as stated in Halachah

from the fruits of his efforts is definitely forbidden. The Radbaz, however, explains that the Rambam has a different

1, when a person becomes forbidden because of another person's vow, he is not liable for lashes unless he responds

way of understanding that Talmudic passage.

Amen.

37. Nedarim, loc. cit., explains that the question is: Since these entities have not come into existence as of yet, can he cause them to be forbidden to his colleague.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:12 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

1 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973885/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 5

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 7

When a person tells a colleague: "Benefit that leads to your food is forbidden to me," or "Benefit that leads to my food is forbidden to you," the person who is forbidden should not borrow from the other person: a sifter, a strainer, a hand mill, an oven, or any other utensil used to prepare food. He may, however, borrow from him bracelets, rings, and other articles that are not used to produce food. He is forbidden to borrow from him a sack or a donkey to carry produce.1

‫האומר לחבירו הנאה המביאה לידי‬ ‫מאכלך אסורה עלי או הנאה‬ ‫המביאה לידי מאכלי אסורה עליך הרי זה‬ ‫הנאסר לא ישאל מן האסור לו נפה וכברה‬ ‫ורחיים ותנור וכל דבר שעושין בהן אוכל‬ ‫נפש אבל משאילו נזמים וטבעות וכלים‬ ‫שאין עושין בהן אוכל נפש ואסור לשאול‬ ‫ממנו שק להביא בו פירות וחמור להביא‬ :‫עליו פירות‬

[In the above situation,] in a place where utensils are given out only for a fee, it is forbidden to borrow [without charge] even utensils that are not used to produce food.2If they were in a place where a fee is not charged and he borrowed from him utensils that are not used to produce food to look impressive to others because of them so that he will receive benefit from them3 or he sought to pass through his property so that he could reach a place where he would derive benefit,4 there is an unresolved question whether it is prohibited.5 Therefore, if he transgresses, he is not liable for lashes.

‫מקום שדרכן שאין משאילין כלים‬ ‫אלא בשכר אסור לשאול ממנו אף‬ ‫כלים שאין עושין בהן אוכל נפש הרי שהיו‬ ‫במקום שאין נוטלין שכר ושאל ממנו כלים‬ ‫שאין עושין בהן אוכל נפש כדי להראות‬ ‫בהן בפני אחרים עד שיהנה מהם או‬ ‫שבקש לעבור בארצו כדי שילך במקום‬ ‫שיהנה בו הרי זה אסור מספק לפיכך אם‬ :‫עבר אינו לוקה‬

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

2 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973885/jewish/Nedarim...

There is no difference between one who takes a vow not to benefit from a colleague and one who takes a vow not to derive benefit that leads to food except [permission to] pass through [property]6 and borrowing utensils that are not used to produce food in a place where they are borrowed without charge.7

‫אין בין מודר הנאה מחבירו למודר‬ ‫ממנו הניית מאכל אלא דריסת הרגל‬ ‫וכלים שאין עושין בהן אוכל נפש במקום‬ :‫שמשאילין אותם שם בחנם‬

When Reuven was forbidden to benefit from Shimon, either through a vow or through an oath, Shimon may give the half-shekel which Reuven is obligated to give.8 Similarly, he may pay a debt that he owes. [The rationale is that] Reuven does not receive anything, all [Shimon does] is prevent a claim from being lodged against him. And preventing a claim from being lodged is not included in the prohibition against [giving] benefit.9

‫ראובן שנאסרה עליו הניית שמעון בין‬ ‫בנדר בין בשבועה מותר לו שיתן‬ ‫שמעון על ידו מחצית השקל שראובן חייב‬ ‫בה וכן פורע חוב שעליו שהרי לא הגיע‬ ‫ליד ראובן כלום אלא מנע ממנו התביעה‬ ‫ומניעת התביעה אינה בכלל אסור הנייה‬ ‫לפיכך מותר לו לזון את אשתו ואת בניו‬ ‫ועבדיו אפילו הכנענים אף על פי שהוא‬ ‫חייב במזונותם אבל לא יזון את בהמתו בין‬ ‫טמאה בין טהורה שכל שמוסיף בבשרה‬ :‫היא הנייה שהגיע ליד ראובן‬

Therefore [Shimon] may provide food for [Reuven's] wife,10 his sons, and his servants, even his Canaanite servants,11 even though [Reuven] is obligated to provide for their sustenance. He may not, however, provide food for [Reuven's] animal, whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher one,12 for any increase in the animal's weight is benefit given to Reuven. If Shimon was a priest, he is permitted to offer sacrifices brought by Reuven. [The rationale is that] the priests are agents of God and not the agents of the person bringing the sacrifice.13 Shimon may marry off his daughter who is past maturity to Reuven with her consent.14 If, however, she is a na'arah,15 she is under his domain. [Hence,] it is forbidden [to marry her to him],16 because this is like giving him a maid-servant to serve him.

‫היה שמעון כהן הרי הוא מותר‬ ‫להקריב קרבנות ראובן שהכהנים‬ ‫שלוחי שמים הם ואינם שלוחי בעל הקרבן‬ ‫ומשיא שמעון בתו הבוגרת לראובן‬ ‫מדעתה אבל אם היתה נערה שהרי עדיין‬ ‫היא ברשותו אסור שזה כמוסר לו שפחה‬ :‫לשמשו‬

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

3 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973885/jewish/Nedarim...

Shimon may separate terumah on behalf of Reuven and separate his tithes with his consent.17 What is meant by "with his consent"? For example, Reuven said: "Whoever desires to separate terumah [from my produce] may do so." He may not, however, tell Shimon to separate terumah on his behalf, for then he is making him his agent and this is [deriving] benefit from him.

‫ותורם שמעון תרומת ראובן ומפריש‬ ‫לו מעשרותיו מדעתו כיצד מדעתו כגון‬ ‫שאמר ראובן כל הרוצה לתרום יבוא‬ ‫ויתרום אבל לא יאמר לשמעון לתרום לו‬ :‫שהרי עושה אותו שליח וזה הנייה לו‬

[Shimon] may instruct [Reuven] in the Oral Law,18 for it is forbidden to charge a wage for teaching it.19 The Written Law, by contrast, may not be taught by him, because a wage can be charged for teaching it.20 If it is not customary [in that community] to charge for instruction in the Written Law, this is permitted. Regardless of [the local custom with regard to payment], [Shimon] may teach [Reuven's] son.21

‫ומלמדו תורה שבעל פה שהרי אסור‬ ‫ליטול עליה שכר אבל לא תורה‬ ‫שבכתב שנוטלין עליה שכר ואם אין דרכן‬ ‫שם ליטול שכר על תורה שבכתב הרי זה‬ :‫מותר ובין כך ובין כך מותר ללמד את בנו‬

If Reuven becomes ill, Shimon may come and visit him.22 In a place where one who sits with a person who is ill to keep him company receives a wage, Shimon should not sit with him. Instead, he should visit him and stand.23 He may personally give him medical treatment, for this fulfills a mitzvah.24

‫חלה ראובן נכנס שמעון לבקרו‬ ‫ובמקום שנוטל שכר מי שישב עם‬ ‫החולה לצוות לו לא ישב שמעון אלא‬ ‫מבקרו ועומד ומותר לו לרפאתו בידו שזו‬ :‫מצוה היא‬

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

4 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973885/jewish/Nedarim...

When an animal belonging to Reuven becomes ill,25 Shimon should not give it veterinary attention. He may, however, tell him: "Do such and such for it."26 [Shimon] may wash with Reuven in a large bath,27 but not in a small bath, because he gives him pleasure by raising the water over him.28 He may sleep in the same bed as him in the summer,29 but not in the winter, because he warms him.30 He may sit on the same couch as him and eat at the same table,31but may not eat from the same plate or from the same food trough that is placed before workers. [The rationale is that we fear that] Shimon will leave a nice piece of meat and refrain from eating it so that Shimon will eat it or move it closer to him and in this way, bring him benefit.32 Similar concepts apply with regard to produce in a food trough. It is, however, permitted for Shimon to eat from a plate even though he knows that when he returns it to the host, the host will place it before Reuven. We do not fear that [Shimon] will leave a choice cut of meat for [Reuven].33 It is permitted for Reuven to drink a cup of comfort34 of his own [wine] from Shimon's hand. Similarly, he may give him the cup of the bathhouse,35 for this does not involve satisfaction.36 Reuven is forbidden to use Shimon's coal, but he is permitted to use his flame.37

‫חלתה בהמת ראובן לא ירפא אותה‬ ‫שמעון אבל אומר לו עשה לה כך‬ ‫וכך ורוחץ עמו באמבטי גדולה אבל לא‬ ‫בקטנה מפני שמהנהו בשעה שמגביה עליו‬ ‫המים וישן עמו במטה בימות החמה אבל‬ ‫לא בימות הגשמים מפני שמחממו ומסב‬ ‫עמו על המטה ואוכלין על שולחן אחד‬ ‫אבל לא מקערה אחת ולא מאבוס שלפני‬ ‫הפועלים שמא יניח שמעון חתיכה אחת‬ ‫טובה ולא יאכל אותה כדי שיאכל אותה‬ ‫ראובן או יקרב אותה לפניו ונמצא מהנהו‬ ‫וכן בפירות שבאבוס אבל אם אכל שמעון‬ ‫מקערה שהוא יודע שכשיחזירנה לבעה"ב‬ ‫יחזור בעה"ב ויניחנה לפני ראובן ה"ז‬ ‫מותר ואין חוששין שמא הניח נתח טוב‬ :‫בשבילו‬

‫ומותר ראובן לשתות כוס של תנחומין‬ ‫מידו של שמעון משל ראובן וכן כוס‬ :‫של בית המרחץ שאין בזה הנייה‬

‫ואסור ראובן בגחלתו של שמעון‬ :‫ומותר בשלהבת שלו‬

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

5 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973885/jewish/Nedarim...

[The following laws apply if] Shimon owned a bathhouse or an olive press that were hired out [to others] in the city. If Shimon retains a hold on them, e.g., he left a portion for himself and did not hire it out, it is forbidden for Reuven to enter that bathhouse or tread in that olive press.38 [This applies] even if he retains merely one tub in the bathhouse or one press39 in the olive press. If he did not retain anything for himself, but rather hired it out in its entirety, it is permitted [for Reuven to enter].40

‫היה לשמעון מרחץ או בית הבד‬ ‫מושכרים בעיר אם היה לשמעון‬ ‫בהן תפיסת יד כגון שהניח מהן כל שהוא‬ ‫לעצמו ולא שכרו אפילו הניח במרחץ‬ ‫אמבטי אחת ובבית הבד עקל אחד אסור‬ ‫לראובן להכנס לאותה מרחץ ולדרוך בגת‬ ‫ואם לא הניח לעצמו כלום אלא שכר הכל‬ :‫הרי זה מותר‬

It is forbidden for Reuven to partake of the produce of Shimon's field, even during the Sabbatical year when everything is ownerless, for he took the vow before the beginning of the Sabbatical year.41 If he took the vow in the Sabbatical year itself, [Reuven] may partake of the produce that hangs outside the field.42 He may not, however, enter the field even though the land is ownerless. [This is] a decree lest he remain there after he partook of [the produce],43 for the Torah declared [the land] ownerless only during the time the produce is found within it.

‫ואסור לראובן לאכול מפירות שדה‬ ‫שמעון ואפילו בשביעית שהכל‬ ‫הפקר שהרי לפני שביעית נדר אבל אם‬ ‫נדר בשביעית אוכל מן הפירות הנוטות‬ ‫חוץ לשדה אבל לא יכנס לשדה אע"פ‬ ‫שהקרקע הפקר גזירה שמא ישהה שם‬ ‫אחר שיאכל ולא הפקירה אותה תורה‬ :‫אלא כל זמן שהפירות בתוכה‬

When does the above apply? When he told him: "Benefit from this property is forbidden to you."44 If, however, [Shimon] told [Reuven]: "It is forbidden for you to benefit from my property,"45 or Reuven took an oath or a vow [prohibiting him from benefiting] from Shimon's property, when the Sabbatical year begins, he may partake of the produce of his field, for they have left Shimon's domain.46 He may not, however, enter his field for the reasons we explained [in the previous halachah].

‫במה דברים אמורים כשאמר לו‬ ‫הניית הנכסים האלו אסורין עליך‬ ‫אבל אם אמר לו הניית נכסי אסורין עליך‬ ‫או שנשבע ראובן או שנדר מנכסי שמעון‬ ‫כיון שהגיעה שביעית אוכל מפירות שדהו‬ ‫שהרי יצאו מרשות שמעון אבל לא יכנס‬ :‫לשדהו מן הטעם שבארנו‬

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

6 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973885/jewish/Nedarim...

[Different laws apply if] only benefiting from Shimon's food was forbidden to Reuven,47 If, either because of a vow or an oath, the prohibition took effect before the Sabbatical year, he may enter his field,48 but may not eat his produce.49If the prohibition took effect in the Sabbatical year, he may enter his field and partake of his produce, for this produce does not belong to Shimon. Instead, it is ownerless.50

‫נאסרה על ראובן הניית מאכל‬ ‫שמעון בלבד אם לפני שביעית‬ ‫נאסרה בין בנדר בין בשבועה הרי זה יורד‬ ‫לתוך שדהו אבל אינו אוכל מפירותיו ואם‬ ‫בשביעית נאסרה יורד ואוכל מפירותיו‬ ‫שאין פירות אלו של שמעון אלא של‬ :‫הפקר הן‬

It is forbidden for Reuven to lend [articles] to Shimon. [This is] a decree, lest he borrow from him although it is forbidden for him to benefit from him. Similarly, it is forbidden for [Reuven] to give [Shimon] a loan. [This is] a decree, lest he borrow from him.51 Similarly, he may not sell something to him. [This is] a decree, lest he buy from him.52

‫ואסור לראובן להשאיל לשמעון‬ ‫גזירה שמא ישאל ממנו והרי הוא‬ ‫אסור בהנאתו וכן אסור להלוותו גזירה‬ ‫שמא ילוה ממנו ולא ימכור לו גזירה שמא‬ :‫יקח ממנו‬

If it happened that [Shimon] was working with [Reuven], e.g., they were harvesting together, he should work far from him. [This is] a decree, lest he help him.

‫נזדמנה לו מלאכה עמו כגון שהיו‬ ‫קוצרים כאחד עושה ברחוק ממנו‬ ‫גזירה שמא יסייענו המדיר את בנו מפני‬ ‫שאינו עוסק בתורה ונאסר בהניית אביו‬ ‫הרי האב מותר למלאות לו חבית של מים‬ ‫ולהדליק לו את הנר ולצלות לו דג קטן‬ ‫שאין כוונתו אלא להנאה גדולה ודברים‬ :‫אלו לגבי הבן אינן חשובין‬

When [a father] takes a vow, forbidding his son to benefit from him because the son does not occupy himself in Torah study, the father is permitted to fill up a jug of water [for his son], light a lamp [for him], or roast a small fish. For [the father's] intent was only to forbid [his son] from deriving significant pleasure and these matters are not considered important by the son.53 When a person took an oath or a vow not to speak to a colleague,54 he may write to him55 or speak to another person even though [the person whom he forbade] hears the idea he wants to communicate to him.56 The Geonim ruled in this manner.

« Previous

‫מי שנשבע או נדר שלא ידבר עם‬ ‫חבירו הרי זה מותר לו לכתוב‬ ‫בכתב ולדבר עם אחר והוא שומע הענין‬ :‫שירצה להשמיעו וכזה הורו הגאונים‬

Next »

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

7 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973885/jewish/Nedarim...

Nedarim - Chapter 5

Nedarim - Chapter 7

FOOTNOTES 1. For this also leads to him deriving pleasure from food. 2. For the money that he saved by not paying the fee could be used to purchase food.

12. This applies even though the non-kosher animal may not be eaten by the Jew, he may sell it to a gentile and will receive a greater payment because of its increase in weight.

3. E.g., he lent him attractive clothing which created a favorable impression on others who gave him gifts as a result.

13. And thus he is not considered as having performed a favor for the person bringing the sacrifice.

4. To attend a feast, but not when going to his business as

14. For then, she is considered as having carried out the marriage. Her father is merely acting as her agent and thus

stated in the notes to the following halachah. 5. In both cases, he did not give him direct benefit, but he did enable him to receive benefit. 6. I.e., to tend to his business. If he took a vow against benefiting from him, he may not pass through the property, for he is deriving some benefit. Nevertheless, that benefit does not lead to food. Hence, one who prohibits all benefit is

is not considered as offering Reuven benefit. 15. A girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half who has manifested signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:1-2). Needless to say, this applies if the girl is a minor, in which instance, her consecration is dependent entirely on her father.

forbidden, but one who forbids benefit that leads to food is permitted. If, however, he wishes to pass through his

16. For at this age, she cannot marry without her father's

property to attend a feast, he is forbidden in all instances, as stated in the previous halachah (Radbaz).

17. If, however, Reuven does not consent, the separation of the terumah is not effective (Bava Metzia 22a).

7. This is benefit, but not benefit that leads to food.

consent, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 3:11.

18. Since Shimon is forbidden to receive a wage from teaching

the Temple treasury as his share in the communal sacrifices.

Reuven, he is not giving him tangible benefit. Although he is enabling him to observe a mitzvah, the mitzvot were not

See Hilchot Shekalim 1:1.

given for our satisfaction (Eruvin 31a).

8. I.e., the half-shekel which every Jew is obligated to pay to

9. See Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 26:6 where the Rambam states that if "a person pays a promissory note of a colleague without that colleague's knowledge, even if it is a debt for which security was given, the borrower is not required to pay him anything. The borrower may take his security.... The other person forfeits his money. [The rationale is that] perhaps the borrower would have been able to appease the lender and have him waive the debt." Thus by paying Reuven's debt, Shimon is not considered to have given him anything. 10. See also Hilchot Ishut 12:19 which states that when a husband traveled to a distant country and left his wife without resources, if another person gives the woman money without clearly specifying that he is extending a loan to her, he forfeits his money. Even though the husband is obligated to pay for his wife's provisions, as long as a debt is not formally established, the person who pays the money has no claim upon him. 11. The qualifier "even" is mentioned for the Canaanite servants, because it is not as great a mitzvah to sustain them as the others who are full-fledged members of the Jewish people.

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

8 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973885/jewish/Nedarim...

issues such a ruling and explains that this is derived from

23. I.e., pay a short visit and leave promptly. Since sitting with the sick person is worth money in that community, it is

Deuteronomy 4:5: "Behold, I [Moses] have taught you laws and statutes, as God commanded me." On this basis,

forbidden, by doing so, he will be providing the sick person with a tangible benefit. Payment is not given for visiting while

Nedarim 37a teaches that Moses was implying: "Just as I

standing. Therefore, there is no prohibition against doing so. See Siftei Cohen 221:19 who writes that if he charges for his

19. See Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:7, 3:10 where the Rambam

learned at no cost, so, too, you have been instructed at no

time, he may sit and pay the sick person a longer visit.

cost by me. And so, too, should you teach the coming generations at no cost."

24. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:4), the

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:3), the

Rambam states that it is a mitzvah of Scriptural origin for a

Rambam writes:

doctor to heal a sick person. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:4) states that when

According to our Torah, there is no way that it is permitted to take a wage for teaching any of the Torah's professions.... I am amazed at the men of stature who aroused by desire, denied the truth had wages designated for themselves for giving Torah rulings and instruction, citing flimsy support.

medical attention is given without charge, he may treat him without charge. If, however, it is customary for a doctor to charge, he must also do so. 25. In certain manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, this clause is included as the conclusion of the previous halachah rather than at the beginning of this one.

See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah Avot 4:7. It must, however, by noted that most authorities [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 246:5) allow a teacher to charge for the time he spends teaching Torah on the basis of the principle of sechar batalah, i.e., he could have spent the time he spends teaching working at another profession which would bring him an income. He is allowed to be reimbursed for the money he loses by choosing to teach Torah instead. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:2) does not accept the Rambam's ruling and forbids Shimon from teaching Reuven. 20. Nedarim 37a gives two reasons why it is permitted for a teacher of young children to charge a wage for his services: a) he is not charging for teaching; he is charging for being a disciplinarian; b) he is not charging for teaching the wordings of Torah; he is charging for teaching the cantillation notes. (For at that time, there were no texts with vowels and the Written Law was studied by memorizing its chants.) The first rationale does not apply with regard to adults, but the second does.

26. I.e., he may give him advice with regard to which treatments to employ, but may not treat the animal himself. The rationale is that treating a colleague's animal is not considered a mitzvah (Tosafot, Nedarim 41b). The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 221) explains that if there is no one else capable of treating the animal but Shimon, Shimon may do so, because the mitzvah of returning a lost object also includes doing what is necessary to save a colleague's livestock. The Radbaz also adds the rationale that Scriptural Law requires us to alleviate an animal's discomfort. 27. For the entrance of one person into a large bath is not significant. 28. And that is considered as pleasurable. 29. Because the increase in warmth is not desirable. 30. The more people under the same bed clothes, the greater the warmth produced. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:5) states that this applies with regard to a small bed. If the bed is large, even in the winter, it is permitted.

21. A father is obligated to teach his son the Torah. Hence, by

31. This alone is not enough to create suspicion that he will offer him food.

instructing Reuven's son, Shimon is freeing him of an obligation. Nevertheless, this is not considered as providing

32. The Meiri explains that even though the two are at odds -

him with benefit, for teaching his son is a mitzvah. And as stated above, the mitzvot were not given for our satisfaction. Moreover, it is possible that Reuven could find another person to teach his son without charge. 22. For this is also a mitzvah. Even though the sick person derives benefit from the person's visit, the benefit is not granted him directly (see Nedarim 39a).

and for that reason one has taken a vow not to offer the other benefit - we fear that he might make such a gesture out of good manners. 33. The custom was that before passing the tray to another person, the host would fill it up again. Hence there would be no need for Shimon to worry about leaving a piece for Reuven [Radbaz; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:5)]. The Rama adds that if the serving plate contained a very large amount, there is no prohibition. 34. It was customary to drink wine in the house of mourners to help him overcome his sorrow (see Ketubot 8b).

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

9 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973885/jewish/Nedarim...

35. A cup of hot water that was provided for bathers by the owner of the bathhouse (i.e., and not one belonging to

46. For the entrance of the Sabbatical year causes them to be considered as ownerless. Shimon cannot cause the produce

Shimon). Nedarim 38b states that Shimon may give Reuven "the cup

to be forbidden for Reuven, for a person cannot cause food that does not belong to him to be forbidden to a colleague

of peace" and advances these two interpretations for the term. The Rambam does not consider the interpretations as

(Nedarim 42b). And when Reuven takes an oath or a vow

mutually exclusive, for the same principle - that the satisfaction Shimon gives Reuven is minimal - applies in both

does not pertain to this produce, for it does not belong to Shimon.

instances (Kessef Mishneh).

not to benefit from Shimon's property, the oath or the vow

47. See Halachot 1 and 3.

36. The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation than the Rambam, explaining that the "cup of the bathhouse" is given

48. Because in such a situation, he is not forbidden to enter Shimon's property.

to save the person's life, lest he dehydrate. Moreover, he explains that since the cup belongs to Reuven, there is no

49. Since the prohibition took effect before the Sabbatical year, it

difficulty. And he states that giving the cup of comfort is a mitzvah. 37. For the coal is considered an entity of substance, while the flame is not (Siftei Cohen 221:57). 38. Since Shimon retains a certain dimension of ownership, when Reuven makes use of it, he is still considered as benefiting from Shimon's property. 39. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Maaserot 1:7) the Rambam defines the term ekal as referring to a container made from ropes in which olives are placed and crushed. 40. Provided Shimon did not specifically forbid Reuven from entering these structures, as indicated by Halachah 14. 41. And once an entity has become forbidden because of a vow, it remains forbidden.

continues during the Sabbatical year, as stated in Halachah 13. 50. Hence Shimon cannot cause it to be forbidden for Reuven, as above. 51. Reuven is not receiving any benefit from lending out either his articles or his money. Nevertheless, he is forbidden lest Shimon reciprocate and that would involve receiving benefit. 52. In a sale, even though the purchaser receives an article in return for his money, the seller is considered to have benefited. For if this was not so, he would not have sold the article. 53. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, explaining the source for this law (Nedarim 38b) in another way. The Radbaz explains

that

halachically,

both

interpretations

acceptable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah

are

223:1)

42. For that is ownerless and is not affected by the vow.

quotes the Ra'avad's interpretation, but not of the Rambam.

43. Although he is allowed to benefit from the produce, he is not

Accordingly, the Bayit Chadash maintains that according to

allowed to set foot in Shimon's land, as stated in Halachah 3, and as the Rambam continues to explain.

the Shulchan Aruch, the Rambam's interpretation is not

44. For then, benefit from that particular field itself becomes forbidden to Reuven forever. Compare to Chapter 5,

accepted. See also Turei Zahav 223:1 and Siftei Cohen 223:1. 54. See Chapter 3, Halachot 10-11, for details on how a vow of this nature must be worded for it to be effective.

Halachah 5. 45. In which case, the prohibition involves only property actually owned by Shimon without applying to any particular property

55. The Baer HaGolah 221:65 rules that he may not write a note specifically for that person. Instead, he should write on the wall with the intent that the person see. Others, however, do not accept this stringency.

individually.

56. He may not, however, speak to the wall, for in this instance, it is obvious that he is speaking to his colleague. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 221) is even more stringent, stating that when it is obvious that he is intending for the person to whom he is forbidden to speak to hear, he may not speak even to another colleague.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

10 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973885/jewish/Nedarim...

© Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

1 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973886/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 6

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 8

When two people are forbidden - by vow or by oath - to derive benefit from each other, they are allowed1 to return a lost article to each other, because doing so is a mitzvah.2 In a place where it is customary for the person who returns a lost article to receive a reward, the reward should be given to the Temple treasury.3 For if [the person who returns the lost article] will take the reward, he will be receiving benefit.4 If he does not take it, he will be giving the other person benefit.5

‫שנים שנאסרה הנאת כל אחד מהן‬ ‫על חבירו בין בנדר בין בשבועה הרי‬ ‫אלו מותרין להחזיר אבידה זה לזה מפני‬ ‫שהוא מצוה ובמקום שדרכן שנוטל שכר‬ ‫המחזיר את האבידה יפול השכר להקדש‬ ‫שאם יטול שכר נמצא נהנה ואם לא יטול‬ :‫נמצא מהנה‬

They are [both] permitted [to make use of] those entities that are owned jointly by the entire Jewish people,6 e.g., the Temple Mount, its chambers, its courtyards, and a well in the midst of a highway.7 They are forbidden [to make use of] those entities that are owned jointly by all the inhabitants of that city,8 e.g., its marketplace, its bathhouse, its synagogue, its ark, and its holy texts.

‫ומותרין בדברים שהם בשותפות כל‬ (‫ישראל כגון הר הבית )והלשכות‬ ‫והעזרות והבאר שבאמצע הדרך ואסורין‬ ‫בדברים שהם בשותפות כל אנשי העיר‬ ‫כגון הרחבה שבעיר והמרחץ ובית הכנסת‬ :‫והתיבה והספרים‬

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

2 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973886/jewish/Nedarim...

What can they do so that they will be permitted to use these entities? Each one of them should sign over his portion to the nasi9 or to another person and have him acquire that portion through the medium of another person.10 Thus when either of them enter a bathhouse belonging to all the members of the city or to the synagogue, he is not entering the property of the colleague [from whom he is forbidden to benefit], for each of them has relinquished his share of the place and given it away as a present.

‫וכיצד יעשו כדי שיהיו מותרין בדברים‬ ‫אלו כל אחד ואחד משניהם כותב‬ ‫חלקו לנשיא או לאחד משאר העם ומזכה‬ ‫לו בחלקו ע"י אחר ונמצא כל אחד מהם‬ ‫כשיכנס למרחץ שהוא לכל אנשי העיר או‬ ‫לבית הכנסת אינו נכנס לרשות חבירו‬ ‫אלא לרשות אחרים שהרי כל אחד מהם‬ :‫נסתלק מחלקו שבמקום זה ונתנו במתנה‬

[The following laws apply when] they are both partners in a courtyard.11If it can be divided,12 they are forbidden to enter it unless it is divided and each person enters his portion. If it cannot be divided,13 each one should enter his house, saying: "I am entering my property."14 Regardless,15 they are both forbidden to place a mill or an oven there or to raise chickens in this courtyard.16

‫היו שניהם שותפין בחצר אם יש בה‬ ‫דין חלוקה הרי אלו אסורין להכנס‬ ‫לה עד שיחלוקו ויכנס כל אחד לחלקו ואם‬ ‫אין בה דין חלוקה כל אחד ואחד נכנס‬ ‫לביתו והוא אומר בתוך שלי אני נכנס ובין‬ ‫כך ובין כך שניהם אסורים להעמיד רחיים‬ :‫ותנור ולגדל תרנגולין בחצר זו‬

When two people are partners in a courtyard17 and one of them takes an oath that the other may not benefit from him, we force the person who took the oath to sell his portion.18

‫שנים שהיו שותפין בחצר ונדר אחד‬ ‫מהן שלא יהנה בו השני כופין את‬ ‫הנודר למכור חלקו נדר שלא יהנה הוא‬ ‫בשני הרי זה מותר להכנס לביתו מפני‬ ‫שברשותו הוא נכנס אבל אינו יכול‬ :‫להשתמש בחצר כמו שבארנו‬

If he took an oath not to benefit from the other person, he is permitted to enter his home, for he is entering his own domain.19 He may not, however, make any other use of the courtyard, as explained [in the previous halachah].20 If a person from outside was forbidden to benefit from either of [the owners of the courtyard],21 he may enter the courtyard,22 for he tells [the person from whom he is forbidden to benefit]: "I am entering your colleague's domain, not yours."

‫היה אחד מן השוק אסור בהנאת אחד‬ ‫משניהם הרי זה מותר להכנס לחצר‬ ‫מפני שהוא אומר לו לתוך של חבירך אני‬ :‫נכנס איני נכנס לתוך שלך‬

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

3 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973886/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person forbids himself from benefiting from one of the nations, he is permitted to buy [an article] from them at more than the market price and sell to them at less than the market price.23 If he forbids them from benefiting from him, if they are willing, it is permitted for him to purchase from them for less than the market price and sell to them at more than the market price.24 We do not issue a decree forbidding him to sell [at less than the market price], lest he purchase [at less than the market price].25 [The rationale is that] he did not take a vow concerning only one individual, in which instance such a decree would be appropriate, but concerning an entire nation and if it is impossible for him to do business with one person, he will do business with another.26 Therefore, if he forbade himself from benefiting from them, he may lend both articles and money to them, but may not borrow either of these from them.27

‫מי שאסר הניית אומה מן האומות על‬ ‫עצמו הרי זה מותר ליקח מהן ביותר‬ ‫ולמכור להן בפחות אסר הנייתו עליהם אם‬ ‫שומעין לו שיקח מהן בפחות וימכור‬ ‫ביותר מותר ואין גוזרין כאן שלא ימכור‬ ‫גזירה שמא יקח שהרי לא נדר מאיש אחד‬ ‫כדי שנגזור עליו ]אלא[ מאומה כולה‬ ‫שאם אי אפשר לו לישא וליתן עם זה ישא‬ ‫ויתן עם אחר לפיכך אם אסר הנייתן עליו‬ ‫הרי זה משאילן ומלוה אותן אבל לא ישאל‬ :‫מהם ולא ילוה מהן‬

If he forbade them from benefiting from him and himself from benefiting from them, he should not do business with them, nor may they do business with him.28 He may not borrow an article from them or lend an article to them, nor borrow money from them or lend money from them.

‫אסר הנייתו עליהן והנייתן עליו לא‬ ‫ישא ויתן עמהם וכן לא ישאו הן‬ ‫ויתנו עמו ולא ישאיל להן ולא ילוה מהם‬ :‫ולא ילוה אותן‬

If he forbade himself from benefiting from the inhabitants of a city, he is forbidden to ask the sage of the city for the repeal of his vow.29 If, however, he did ask him and he released the vow, the vow is released, as explained.30

‫אסר על עצמו הניית בני העיר אסור‬ ‫להשאל על נדרו לחכם מבני אותה‬ ‫העיר )ההיא( ואם נשאל והתיר לו הרי‬ :‫נדרו מותר כמו שבארנו‬

When a person forbade himself from benefiting from any other people, he is permitted to derive benefit from leket, shichechah, pe'ah31 and the tithe for the poor that is distributed in the granaries,32 but not that [which is distributed] from one's home.33

‫מי שאסר הניית הבריות עליו הרי זה‬ ‫מותר ליהנות בלקט שכחה ופאה‬ ‫ומעשר עני המתחלק בגרנות אבל לא‬ :‫בתוך הבית‬

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

4 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973886/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person forbade priests or Levites from benefiting from his property, they may come and take the gifts [to be separated from his produce]34 against his will.35 If he says: "These priests and these Levites [are forbidden to benefit from my property,]" they are bound by the prohibition.36 He should give his terumah and tithes to other priests and Levites. Similar laws apply with regard to the gifts for the poor37 and the poor.

‫מי שאסר הנייתו על הכהנים ועל‬ ‫הלוים הרי אלו באין ונוטלין‬ ‫מתנותיהם על כרחו ואם אמר כהנים אלו‬ ‫ולוים אלו הרי אלו אסורין ויתן תרומותיו‬ ‫ומעשרותיו לכהנים ולוים אחרים והוא‬ :‫הדין במתנות עניים עם העניים‬

When it is forbidden for a person to benefit a colleague and that colleague has nothing to eat, the person may go to a storekeeper and say: "So-and-so is forbidden to benefit from me and I don't know what to do."38 It is permitted for the storekeeper to go and give [food] to the colleague and take [payment] from that person.39

‫מי שהיתה הנייתו אסורה על חבירו‬ ‫ואין לחבירו מה יאכל הולך אצל‬ ‫החנוני ואומר איש פלוני אסור בהנייתי‬ ‫ואיני יודע מה אעשה אם הלך החנוני ונתן‬ :‫לו ובא ונטל מזה הרי זה מותר‬

[Similar laws apply]40 if it is necessary to build [that colleague's] house, put up a fence for him, or harvest his field. If the person from whom it was forbidden to benefit approached workers and told them: "So-and-so is forbidden to benefit from me and I don't know what to do,"41 They may then perform these activities, go back to that person, and he may pay them. For he is paying the debt of the colleague and we already explained42 that a person [from whom one is forbidden to benefit] may pay a debt for his colleague.

‫היה ביתו לבנות גדרו לגדור שדהו‬ ‫לקצור והלך אצל פועלים ואמר‬ ‫איש פלוני אסור בהנייתי ואיני יודע מה‬ ‫אעשה והלכו הן ועשו עמו ובאו לזה ונתן‬ ‫להן שכרן הרי זה מותר שנמצא זה שפרע‬ ‫לו חובו וכבר בארנו שזה מותר לפרוע לו‬ :‫חובו‬

If the two43 were traveling on a journey and [the person who is forbidden to benefit from his colleague] does not have anything to eat, [that colleague] may give [food] to another person as a present and [the person who is forbidden] is then permitted to partake of it.44 If there is no one else with them, [the person whose property is forbidden] should put [food] on a stone and say: "This [food] is considered ownerless for everyone who desires it."45 The other person may then take it and eat.46

‫היו מהלכין בדרך ואין לו מה יאכל‬ ‫נותן לאחר משום מתנה והלה‬ ‫מותר בה ואם אין עמהם אחר מניח על‬ ‫הסלע ואומר הרי הן מופקרין לכל מי‬ :‫שיחפוץ והלה נוטל ואוכל‬

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

5 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973886/jewish/Nedarim...

If, [however,] he gives a colleague a present [of a feast] and tells him: "This feast is given to you as a present. Let so-and-so who is forbidden to benefit from me come and eat with us," this is forbidden.47 Moreover, even if he gave the present without saying anything, but afterwards48 said: "Do you want so-and-so to come and eat with us?" it is forbidden if it appears that initially, he gave the present solely so that ultimately so-and-so could eat with them. For example, it is a large feast and he wants his father, his teacher, or the like to partake of the feast. For [the size of] the feast indicates that he did not intend to give it to him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫נתן לאחד מתנה ואמר לו הרי‬ ‫סעודה זו נתונה לך מתנה ויבא‬ ‫פלוני שהוא אסור בהנייתי ויאכל עמנו הרי‬ ‫זה אסור ולא עוד אלא ]אפילו[ אם נתן לו‬ ‫סתם וחזר ואמר לו רצונך שיבא פלוני‬ ‫ויאכל עמנו אם הוכיח סופו על תחלתו‬ ‫שלא נתן לו אלא על מנת שיבוא פלוני‬ ‫ויאכל אסור כגון שהיתה סעודה גדולה‬ ‫והוא רוצה שיבוא אביו או רבו וכיוצא בהן‬ ‫לאכול מסעודתו שהרי סעודתו מוכחת‬ ‫עליו שלא גמר להקנות לו וכן כל כיוצא‬ :‫בזה‬

Any present that, were it to be consecrated [by the recipient], the consecration would not be effective, is not considered as a present.49

‫כל מתנה שאם הקדישה לא תהיה‬ ‫מקודשת אינה מתנה וכל הנותן‬ ‫לזה מתנה על מנת להקנותה לאחר הרי זה‬ ‫האחר קנה בעת שיקנה לו הראשון ואם‬ ‫לא הקנה לו הראשון לאותו אחר לא קנה‬ :‫לא הראשון ולא השני‬

Whenever a person gives a colleague a present with the stipulation that he transfer it to another person, that other person acquires ownership at the time the first [recipient] transfers it to him.50 If the first recipient does not transfer it to that other person, neither the first, nor the second [recipient] acquires it.51

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

6 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973886/jewish/Nedarim...

[The following principle applies when a person's son-in-law is forbidden to benefit from him and he desires to give his daughter money so that she can benefit from it and spend it as she desires.52 He should give her a present and say: "This money53 is given to you as a present on the condition that your husband has no authority over it.54 Instead, it shall be used for what you put in your mouth, what you cloth yourself, and the like."55 Even if he said: "...on the condition that your husband has no authority over it. Instead, it shall be used for whatever you want to do with it,"56 the husband does not acquire it and she may do what she desires with it. If, however, he gave her a present and told her. "...on the condition that your husband has no authority over it," but did not specify the purpose for which the present was being given or even did not say that it was intended for whatever she desires, the husband acquires it to derive benefit from it.57 This would be forbidden, because he is forbidden to benefit from his father-in-law.58

‫מי שנאסרה הנייתו על בעל בתו‬ ‫והוא רוצה לתת לבתו מעות כדי‬ ‫שתהיה נהנית בהן ומוציאה אותן בחפציה‬ ‫הרי זה נותן לה ואומר לה הרי המעות‬ ‫האלו נתונין לך במתנה ובלבד שלא יהא‬ ‫לבעליך רשות בהן אלא יהיו למה שאת‬ ‫נותנת לפיך או למה שתלבשי וכיוצא בזה‬ ‫ואפילו אמר לה על מנת שאין לבעליך‬ ‫רשות בהן אלא מה שתרצי עשי בהן לא‬ ‫קנה הבעל ומה שתרצה תעשה בהן אבל‬ ‫אם נתן לה מתנה ואמר לה על מנת שאין‬ ‫לבעליך רשות בהן ולא פירש שתהיה‬ ‫המתנה הזאת לכך ולכך או למה שתרצה‬ ‫תעשה בהן הרי קנה אותה הבעל לאכול‬ ‫פירותיה ודבר זה אסור שהרי הוא אסור‬ :‫בהניית חותנו‬

« Previous

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 8

Nedarim - Chapter 6 FOOTNOTES 1. And since they are allowed, they are obligated. 2. For he is not returning it as a favor to him, but instead, in fulfillment of the Torah's command [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:2). 3. Or, in the present age, to charity. This is preferable to destroying it. 4. I.e., he will be returning it for the sake of the reward and not for the sake of the mitzvah (ibid.).

6. Technically, the other person has a share in these places, for they are owned communally. Nevertheless, since each person's individual share is so small, these places are considered as if they are ownerless and not as communal property (see ibid. 5:4). 7. I.e.., a well built for the pilgrims' journey to Jerusalem from Babylon for the pilgrimage festivals (ibid.).

5. For ordinarily the person would pay a reward for the return of the lost article.

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

7 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973886/jewish/Nedarim...

8. For in this instance, each person's share is greater and more distinct.

19. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 226:2) states that the

The Ramban and the Ran object to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that this ruling does not apply with regard to an

The rationale is that the Rambam's understanding is accepted, except that an additional stringency is applied, lest

entity like a synagogue that cannot be divided. In such an instance, it is considered as a communal entity and the

the person remain in the courtyard for other purposes besides entering and departing his home (Siftei Cohen

person who took the vow is allowed to make use of it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 224:1) quotes both views. See

226:10).

the Lechem Mishneh and the Turei Zahav 224:1 who elaborate in support of the Rambam's position.

person who took the vow is forbidden to enter the courtyard.

20. We do not force him to sell his portion of the courtyard because he is causing difficulty only to himself and he is

9. The leader of the Jewish people. He is mentioned, because

willing to abide by his prohibition (Radbaz). The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, citing Nedarim

it is very unlikely that he will forbid a member of the people from using his property (Nedarim 48a).

46a as support for his understanding. He mentions that the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 5:2) appears to support the

10. I.e., the person acquiring the portion need not know about

Rambam's interpretation, but states that we should abide by the principle that whenever there is a difference of opinion

his acquisition. We follow the principle that a person can acquire property without his knowledge if it is to his benefit to do so (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:2). 11. In the Talmudic era, it was common that several houses

between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, the perspective of the Babylonian Talmud should be followed. See the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh who try to reconcile the differences in the positions of the two Talmuds.

would open up to a courtyard that was the combined property of the homeowners. In this halachah, we are

As mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch follows the Rambam's

speaking of an instance where two of those homeowners took vows forbidding them to benefit from each other.

21. This is speaking about a courtyard that is too small to require

12. See Hilchot Shechenim 2:1 which states that if after the division of a courtyard, each of the homeowners will receive a plot of land four cubits by four cubits as his individual property, the courtyard should be divided if one of the neighbors requests that this be done. 13. I.e., if it were to be divided, the homeowners would not receive a portion of land that size.

understanding, but is even more stringent. division (Radbaz). 22. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 226:1) states that this applies only when the other owner of the courtyard needs that person. Otherwise, he is forbidden to enter. 23. For thus he is suffering a loss every time he deals with them. 24. For they are suffering a loss every time they deal with him.

14. Rabbenu Nissim explains this ruling based on the principle of

25. As a decree was made with regard to an individual. See Chapter 6, Halachah 16.

bereirah, i.e., retroactively, it becomes apparent that when

26. I.e., with regard to one individual, there is room for

he enters the courtyard, he is entering property that was

stringency, but this stringency is not required with regard to an entire nation, for there is (Radbaz).

designated as his. We are forced to accept this definition (even though generally, the principle of bereirah is not followed in questions of Scriptural Law), for there is no alternative in this instance. The person has a right to the courtyard and he cannot be forbidden from using his own property. See Siftei Cohen 226:4, Turei Zahav 226:1. 15. Whether it cannot be divided or whether it can be divided, but was not divided yet. 16. Bava Batra 57b relates that partners in a courtyard have the right to prevent each other from performing such activities.

27. I.e., we do not make a decree like we do with regard to an individual (Siftei Cohen 227:7). 28. For one of them, either they or he will be benefiting from the sale. 29. For this is a benefit that he is receiving. 30. For when a sage releases a vow, it is as if it never existed. Hence, it is as if he were never forbidden to approach the sage. See Chapter 4, Halachah 13, and notes.

Although most partners do not exercise this right, in this instance, by failing to exercise the right, one is providing benefit to the other person (Rabbenu Nissim). 17. I.e., a courtyard to small for the owners to divide. 18. His vow imposes unnecessary hardship on the other person who has a legitimate right to the property. Hence, we compel him to sell his share of the courtyard rather than put his colleague in a situation where he might transgress.

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

8 of 10

31. Leket refers to crops that drop from a reaper's hand in the

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973886/jewish/Nedarim...

field. He is forbidden to pick them up again, but instead must

39. Since the person did not charge the storekeeper with providing the colleague with food, he is not responsible for

leave them for the poor (Leviticus 19:10). Shichechah refers

the account [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 221:8)]. If he, nevertheless,

to crops or bundles forgotten in the field by accident. The

chooses to pay it, he is not considered to have given benefit

harvesters may not return and collect, but must instead leave them for the poor (Deuteronomy 24:19). Pe'ah refers to a

to that colleague. 40. The Kessef Mishneh states that the two instances are not

corner of the field which must be left unharvested, so that it

entirely analogous, for the first involves providing the person

could be harvested by the poor (Leviticus 19:9). See Hilchot

with food necessary for his livelihood, while the second involves the performance of a task that is important, but not

Matanot Aniyim chs. 1,4, and 5 where these mitzvot are discussed. 32. In the third year of the six-year agricultural, instead of taking

vital for him. Perhaps this is the reason why in the preceding halachah, the Rambam stated: "The person may go to a

the second tithe to be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of holiness, it is given to the poor (Deuteronomy 14:28; Hilchot

storekeeper," i.e., he is permitted as an initial and preferred option. In this halachah, by contrast, he states: "If the

Matanot Aniyim ch. 6). The person who took the vow is

person... approached workers," i.e., the Rambam is describing a law that applies after the fact, but not initially.

allowed to benefit from these crops, because the owner of the field is not considered as giving him anything of his own. Instead, he is fulfilling a mitzvah. 33. Nedarim 83-84a explains this distinction. When the tithe for the poor is distributed in the granaries, it may be taken by a poor person without asking. The owner does not have the right to decided to whom he will give it. If, however, he has already brought produce from the tithe for the poor home, he has the right to choose to whom to give it. 34. I.e., the tithes that must be given to the Levites and terumah which must be given to the priests. 35. Since he is obligated to give these presents to the priests and Levites, he has no choice in the matter and must make these gifts. Generally, a person is allowed to decide which Levite and which priest, he desires to give these gifts to. In this instance, however, since he forbade all priests from benefiting from his property, there is no one to whom he can give it. Hence his right to decide is taken from him and any priest or Levite can come and take the portions. 36. Since the terumah and tithes may be given to others, there is no reason to take away the person's right to distribute them as he desires, for that right is of financial value (Nedarim 84b). 37. E.g., those mentioned in the previous halachah. See Siftei Cohen 227:9 and Turei Zahav 227:3 who rule that this concept also applies with regard to charity. 38. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:8) is even more lenient and states that he may say: "Anyone who sustains so-and-so will not suffer a loss," for he is still merely intimating that one should support him. He may not say: "Whoever hears my voice should sustain so-and-so," for that it a direct command. Nor may he tell one person: "If you sustain so-and-so, you will not suffer a loss," for then it appears as if he is appointing him as an agent for this purpose.

41. The Radbaz explains that although the previous law was mentioned, it is also necessary to state this law, because it is uncommon for workers to extend credit on money do them. This is, by contrast, a common practice for storekeepers. 42. Chapter 6, Halachah 4. 43. I.e., a person who took a vow not to benefit from a person and that person. 44. Giving a present is not permitted in the situations described in the previous halachot, because there are other alternatives. Hence it is considered as too great a leniency. In this situation, there is no other alternative and therefore it is permitted. See Siftei Cohen 221:52. 45. Generally, according to Rabbinic Law, there must be three people present when an object is declared ownerless. In this instance, however, since there is no other alternative, we do not require anything more than required by Scriptural Law (Siftei Cohen 221:53). 46. For then he is not partaking of the property of the person from whom he is forbidden to benefit, but from ownerless property. 47. For he is obviously making this gift solely so that the other person may partake of it. If it is a large feast, it is obvious that a person is not preparing it for the sake of giving it to a colleague. Nedarim 48b gives as an example, an instance where a person's father was forbidden to benefit from him. When he made a wedding feast for his son, he tried to employ this tactic to enable his father to attend. 48. The Kessef Mishneh states that there are opinions that maintain that this law applies only when the statements were made immediately after giving the feast. The wording chosen by the Rambam, however, indicates that the law applies even if he makes the statements later. The interpretation of the Kessef Mishneh is borne out by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:5).

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

9 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973886/jewish/Nedarim...

49. I.e., the giver tells the recipient: "I did not give you the present so that you could consecrate it."

55. Since the father has designated the money for a specific purpose, it may be used only for that and thus the son never

Nedarim, loc. cit., states this principle in continuation of the above story. After the son gave the wedding feast to a

acquires a right to it. The rationale is closely related to the concept of a vow. Just as a vow can determine how property

colleague so that his father could attend, that colleague consecrated it. When the giver, protested saying that he had

may be used even after it leaves the domain of the person who took the vow, so, too, the father can determine how his

not given it to him for that purpose, the recipient complained that he was not going to serve as a medium to allow the first

property may be used even after it leaves his domain. This ruling teaches that even though it is to the husband's

person to break his vow. When the Sages were asked to rule about this situation, they stated the principle mentioned by

benefit that his wife eats or is clothed - indeed, he is responsible to provide for these needs of hers - the husband

the Rambam here.

is not considered to have benefited from this present (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 11:8).

50. I.e., we do not say that since the first recipient is going to give to the second, the second acquires it when it is acquired

56. In this instance, even though the specific purpose for which

by the first. This is not a situation where the first recipient is acting as an agent for the second. Instead, he acquires it first

the present was given was not stated at the outset, when the woman decides what she desires to do with the present,

on his own behalf and then transfers it to the other person. 51. The first does not acquire it, because it was given to him

retroactively, it is as if it was given for that purpose alone. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point,

only on condition that it be transferred to the second. Since that condition was not fulfilled, his own acquisition is not

noting that although the law stated in the first clause is accepted by all authorities, the one stated in this clause is

binding (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:6). The second

the subject of a difference of opinion between the Sages Rav and Shmuel in Nedarim 88b. The Rambam's ruling follows

person does not acquire it, because ownership was never transferred to him. 52. Ordinarily, whatever a woman acquires immediately is given to her husband's jurisdiction. While she remains the legal owner, he has the legal right to control it and use the profits as he sees fit. In this instance, this would be forbidden for the son-in-law is prohibited against benefiting from his fatherin-law, as the Rambam states in the conclusion of the

the opinion of Shmuel although generally, with regard to matters involving the Torah's prohibitions, the halachah follows that of Rav. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh state that other Rishonim also follow Shmuel's perspective and give logical support for it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 222:1) quotes both views without stating which should be followed. 57. See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13. The rationale is that

halachah. 53. If he gives her the food itself, it is not necessary to make any stipulations (Radbaz, Siftei Cohen 222:1). 54. Tosafot Yom Tov (Nedarim 11:8) states that from Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13, it appears that the inclusion of this part of the statement is not an absolute necessity. As long as he specifies that the present is being given for a specific

the giver does not have the prerogative of negating the rights given the husband by the Rabbis. 58. Nevertheless, the present is binding. The husband should purchase something that brings income with the money. That article belongs to his wife. He should give the proceeds to charity, since he is not allowed to benefit from them (Radbaz)

purpose alone, the husband does not acquire rights to it. Rav Yosef Caro does not accept this option, however, in his Kessef Mishneh and quotes the Rambam's wording from this halachah in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 222:1; see Siftei Cohen 222:2).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

10 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973886/jewish/Nedarim...

8/21/2019 4:13 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

1 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973887/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 8 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 7

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 9

When a person takes a vow or an oath and at the time of the vow or the oath specifies a stipulation for which he is making the vow, it is as if he made the vow or the oath dependent on that matter. If the stipulation for which he took the oath is not fulfilled, he is permitted [to act is if the oath had never been taken].1

‫מי שנדר או נשבע ופירש בשעת‬ ‫נדרו דבר שנדר או נשבע בגללו הרי‬ ‫זה כמי שתלה נדרו או שבועתו באותו דבר‬ ‫ואם לא נתקיים אותו דבר שנשבע בגללו‬ :‫הרי זה מותר‬

What is implied? If he took an oath or vow saying: "I will not marry this-and-this woman whose father is evil" or "I will not enter this house, because there is a harmful dog within it," if they died or the father repented, he may [do so]. This is comparable to someone who says "I will not marry so-and-so..." or "...not enter this house unless the harmful factor is removed."2 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫כיצד נדר או נשבע שאיני נושא‬ ‫אשה פלונית שאביה רע שאיני נכנס‬ ‫לבית זה שכלב רע בתוכו מתו או שעשה‬ ‫האב תשובה הרי זה מותר שזה כמי שנדר‬ ‫או נשבע ואמר שלא אשא פלונית ולא‬ ‫אכנס לבית זה אלא אם נסתלק ההיזק וכל‬ :‫כל כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:14 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

2 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973887/jewish/Nedarim...

[A different rationale applies] when one takes a vow or an oath: "I will not marry so-and-so who is ugly," and it is discovered that she is beautiful,3 "...who is dark-skinned," and it is discovered that she is lightskinned, "...who is short," and it is discovered that she is tall, or "I am taking a vow that my wife shall not benefit from me, because she took my wallet and beat my son," and it was discovered that she did not take it or beat him. He is permitted, because the vow was taken in error. It is included among the category of inadvertent vows that are permitted.4 This does not resemble an instance where the vow was made dependent on a stipulation and that stipulation was not kept.5 For the reason for which the vow was taken never applied. Instead, it was an error [of perception].

‫אבל הנודר או הנשבע שאיני נושא‬ ‫פלונית הכעורה ונמצאת נאה שחורה‬ ‫ונמצאת לבנה קצרה ונמצאת ארוכה קונם‬ ‫שאין אשתי נהנית לי שגנבה את כיסי‬ ‫ושהכתה את בני ונודע שלא גנבה ושלא‬ ‫הכתה הרי זה מותר מפני שהוא נדר טעות‬ ‫והוא בכלל נדרי שגגות שהן מותרין ואין‬ ‫זה כתולה נדרו בדבר ולא נתקיים הדבר‬ ‫שהרי הסבה שבגללה נדר לא היתה מצויה‬ :‫וטעות היה‬

Moreover,6 even if a person saw from a distance that people were partaking of his figs and he said [concerning] them: "They are like a sacrifice for you,"7 but when he came close to them and looked [at them], he saw that they were his father and his brothers, they are permitted [to partake of them]. Even though he did not explicitly state the reason why he took a vow [forbidding] them, it is as if he did. For it is obvious that he forbade his produce to them only because he thought they were people at large.8 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫ולא עוד אלא מי שראה אנשים‬ ‫מרחוק אוכלים תאנים שלו ואמר להן‬ ‫הרי הן עליכם קרבן כיון שקרב אליהם‬ ‫והביט והרי הן אביו ואחיו הרי אלו מותרין‬ ‫אף על פי שלא פירש הסבה שהדירן‬ ‫בגללה הרי זה כמו שפירש שהדבר מוכיח‬ ‫שלא אסר עליהם אלא שהיה בדעתו שהן‬ :‫זרים וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:14 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

3 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973887/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person took a vow or an oath and then a factor came up that was not in his mind at the time he took the oath or the vow, he is forbidden [in the matter] until he requests a sage to release his vow. What is implied? A person forbade himself from benefiting from so-and-so or from entering this-and-this place and that person became the city scribe9 or a synagogue was made at that place.10 Even though he said "If I knew that this person would become the scribe or that in this place a synagogue would be made, I would not have taken the vow or the oath," he is forbidden to benefit [from the person] or enter the place until he has his vow released, as we explained.11 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Whenever a portion of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified.12 This law also applies with regard to oaths. What is implied? A person saw from a distance that people were partaking of his figs and he said [concerning] them: "They are like a sacrifice for you," but when he came close to them and looked [at them], he saw that they were his father and people at large. Since his father is permitted [to partake of them],13 they are all permitted.14 Even if he said: "So-and-so and so-and-so are forbidden and my father is permitted, they are all permitted.15

‫מי שנדר או נשבע ונולד לו דבר‬ ‫שלא היה בלבו בשעת השבועה או‬ ‫בשעת הנדר הרי זה אסור עד שישאל‬ ‫לחכם ויתיר את נדרו כיצד אסר את עצמו‬ ‫בהניית פלוני או שלא יכנס למקום פלוני‬ ‫ונעשה אותו האיש סופר ואותו מקום בית‬ ‫הכנסת אף על פי שהוא אומר אילו הייתי‬ ‫יודע שזה נעשה סופר ובמקום זה יעשה‬ ‫בית הכנסת לא הייתי נודר או נשבע הרי‬ ‫זה אסור ליהנות ולהכנס עד שיתיר נדרו‬ :‫כמו שבארנו וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

‫כל נדר שהותר מקצתו הותר כולו‬ ‫והוא הדין בשבועה כיצד ראה אנשים‬ ‫מרחוק אוכלין פירותיו ואמר הרי הן‬ ‫עליכם קרבן וכשהגיע אליהם והנה הם‬ ‫אביו ואנשים זרים הואיל ואביו מותר כולן‬ ‫מותרין ואפילו אמר אילו הייתי יודע כן‬ ‫הייתי אומר פלוני ופלוני אסורין ואבי‬ ‫מותר הרי כולן מותרין אבל אם אומר‬ ‫כשהגיע אליהן אילו הייתי יודע שאבי‬ ‫ביניכם הייתי אומר כולכם אסורין חוץ‬ ‫מאבי הרי כולן אסורין חוץ מאביו שהרי‬ ‫גלה דעתו שלא התיר מקצת הנדר אלא‬ :‫כמו שנדר היה נודר ומתנה על אביו‬

If, however, when he reached them he said: "If I would have known that my father is with you, I would have said: 'You are all forbidden [to partake of my produce], except my father,' they are all forbidden except his father. For he revealed his intent was not to release a portion of his vow,16 but to make a vow as he did, but to make a stipulation concerning his father.17

8/21/2019 4:14 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

4 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973887/jewish/Nedarim...

Similar [laws apply] when one says: "Wine is like a sacrifice18 for me, because wine is bad for digestion," but he was told: "Aged wine is good for digestion." If he said: "Had I known, I would not have taken the vow" or even: "Had I known, I would have said: 'Fresh wine is forbidden, but aged wine is permitted,' he is permitted [to drink] both fresh wine and aged wine.19 If, however, he said: "Had I known, I would have said: 'All wine is forbidden for me except aged wine,' he is permitted [to drink] only aged wine.20Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫וכן האומר היין קרבן עלי מפני שהיין‬ ‫רע לבני מעיים ואמרו לו הרי המיושן‬ ‫יפה לבני מעיים אם אמר אילו הייתי יודע‬ ‫לא הייתי נודר ואפילו אמר אילו הייתי‬ ‫יודע הייתי אומר החדש אסור והישן מותר‬ ‫מותר בישן ובחדש אבל אם אמר אילו‬ ‫הייתי יודע הייתי אומר כל היינות אסורין‬ ‫עלי חוץ מן המיושן הרי זה מותר במיושן‬ :‫בלבד וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

Whenever a person takes a vow or an oath, we consider the motivating factor for the oath or the vow and extrapolate from it what the person's intent was. We follow his intent, not the literal meaning of his words.21

‫כל הנודר או נשבע רואין דברים‬ ‫שבגללן נשבע או נדר ולמדין מהן‬ ‫לאי זה נתכוון והולכין אחר הענין לא אחר‬ ‫כל משמע הדבור כיצד היה טעון משא של‬ ‫צמר או של פשתים והזיע והיה ריחו קשה‬ ‫ונשבע או נדר שלא יעלה עליו צמר או‬ ‫פשתים לעולם הרי זה מותר ללבוש בגדי‬ ‫צמר או פשתים ולכסותן ואינו אסור אלא‬ ‫להפשילן לאחוריו היה לבוש בגדי צמר‬ ‫ונצטער בלבישתן ונשבע או נדר שלא‬ ‫יעלה עליו צמר לעולם אסור ללבוש ומותר‬ ‫לטעון עליו ומותר להתכסות בגיזי צמר‬ ‫שלא נתכוון זה אלא לבגד צמר וכן כל‬ :‫כיוצא בזה‬

What is implied? He was carrying a load of wool or of linen and was perspiring, causing a foul odor. If he took an oath or a vow that he would never have wool or linen upon him again, he is permitted to wear woolen or linen clothes and cover himself with them. He is only forbidden to carry them on his back like a burden. If he was wearing woolen clothing and became aggravated because of these garments and took an oath or a vow that he would never have wool upon him again, he is forbidden to wear [woolen clothes], but is permitted to carry wool and to cover himself with woolen spreads. For he intended only [to forbid] woolen clothes. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

8/21/2019 4:14 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

5 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973887/jewish/Nedarim...

[Similar laws apply if] people were asking him to marry his relative,22 but he refused and they pressured him, so he took a vow or an oath that she could not benefit from him forever. Alternatively, a person divorced his wife and took an oath that she would never benefit from him. These women are permitted to derive [ordinary] benefit from him. His intent was that only [to prevent himself from] marrying them.

‫היו מבקשין ממנו שישא קרובתו‬ ‫והוא ממאן ופרצו בו ונדר או נשבע‬ ‫שלא תהנה בו לעולם וכן המגרש את‬ ‫אשתו ונשבע או נדר שלא תהנה בו לעולם‬ ‫הרי אלו מותרות ליהנות לו שאין כוונתו‬ :‫אלא לשם אישות‬

Similarly, if a person called to his friend, [inviting him] to eat at his [home] and he took an oath or a vow not to enter his home or even drink cold water of his, he is permitted to enter his home and drink his water. His intent was only that he would not eat and drink with him at that feast.23 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫וכן הקורא לחבירו שיסעוד אצלו ומיאן‬ ‫ונשבע או נדר שלא יכנס לביתו ולא‬ ‫ישתה לו טפת צונן הרי זה מותר להכנס‬ ‫לביתו ולשתות לו צונן שלא נתכוון זה אלא‬ ‫שלא יאכל וישתה עמו בסעודה זו וכן כל‬ :‫כיוצא בזה‬

When a person takes a vow or an oath, telling a colleague: "I will never enter your house" or "...buy your field," and [that colleague] dies or sells [the property] to someone else, [the person who took the vow] is permitted to enter the house or purchase the field from the heir or from the purchaser.24 His intent [when establishing the prohibition] was only for the time they belonged to [the original owner].25

‫האומר לחבירו קונם לביתך אני‬ ‫נכנס ושדך אני לוקח בין בנדר בין‬ ‫בשבועה ומת או מכרן לאחר הרי זה מותר‬ ‫להכנס לבית וליקח השדה מן היורש או מן‬ ‫הלוקח שלא נתכוון זה אלא כל זמן שהן‬ ‫ברשותו אבל אם אמר לבית הזה איני‬ ‫נכנס ושדה זה איני לוקח ומת או מכרן‬ :‫לאחר הרי זה אסור‬

If, by contrast, he said: "I will never enter this house" or "I will never purchase this field," even if [the original owner] dies or sells [the property] to someone else, [the person who took the vow] is forbidden.26

8/21/2019 4:14 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

6 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973887/jewish/Nedarim...

[The following laws apply when a person] asks a colleague: "Lend me your cow," he answers him: "She is not free," and [the first person] takes an oath or a vow,27 saying: "I will never plow my field with it." If he is accustomed to plowing his field himself, he is forbidden to plow [his field with that cow], but any other person is permitted to plow [his field] with it.28 If he is not accustomed to plowing his field himself, both he and everyone else is forbidden to plow [his field] with it.29Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫האומר לחבירו השאילני פרתך‬ ‫אמר לו אינה פנויה נשבע או נדר‬ ‫ואמר קונם שדי איני חורש בה לעולם אם‬ ‫היה דרכו לחרוש בידו הוא אסור וכל אדם‬ ‫מותרין לחרוש לו בה ואם אין דרכו‬ ‫לחרוש בידו הוא וכל אדם אסורין וכן כל‬ :‫כיוצא בדברים אלו‬

When a person takes an oath or a vow that he will marry a woman, purchase a house,30 depart with a caravan, or set out to sea, we do not obligate him to marry, make the purchase, or set out immediately. Instead, he may wait until he finds something appropriate for himself.

‫מי שנשבע או נדר שישא אשה או‬ ‫שיקנה בית או שיצא בשיירא או‬ ‫יפרוש בים אין מחייבין אותו לישא אשה‬ ‫או לקנות או לצאת מיד אלא עד שימצא‬ ‫דבר ההגון לו מעשה באשה שנדרה שכל‬ ‫מי שיתבע אותה תנשא לו וקפצו עליה בני‬ ‫אדם שאינן הגונין לה ואמרו חכמים לא‬ ‫נתכוונה זו אלא לכל מי שיתבע אותה מן‬ :‫ההגונין לה וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

An incident occurred concerning a woman who took a vow that she would marry anyone who asked her to marry him. Men who were not appropriate for her jumped at the opportunity. Our Sages ruled that her intent was [to marry] anyone from among those appropriate for her who asked her. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

8/21/2019 4:14 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

7 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973887/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person administers a vow to a colleague or takes an oath telling him to come and take a kor of wheat or two barrels of wine for his son, [the colleague] can release the vow without asking a sage to do so. [He need only] say: "Your intent was only to honor me.31 It is a greater token of respect for me not to take [the gift].32 I already received the honor that you desired to give me through your vow." Similarly, if one took an oath or a vow: "You may not derive any benefit from me until you give my son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine, he can release the vow without asking a sage to do so. [He need only] say: "It is as if I received them and they reached my hand." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫המדיר את חבירו או שנשבע ואמר‬ ‫לו שתבוא ותטול לבניך כור אחד‬ ‫חטים או שתי חביות של יין הרי זה יכול‬ ‫להתיר נדרו בלא שאלה לחכם ויאמר לו‬ ‫כלום נתכוונת אלא לכבדני כבודי שלא‬ ‫אטול וכבר הגיע אלי כבוד שנדרת‬ ‫בשבילי וכן הנודר או הנשבע שאין אתה‬ ‫נהנה לי אם אין אתה נותן לבני כור של‬ ‫חטים ושתי חביות של יין הרי זה יכול‬ ‫להתיר נדרו שלא בשאלת חכם ויאמר‬ ‫הריני כאילו נתקבלתי והגיעו לידי וכן כל‬ :‫כיוצא בזה‬

« Previous

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 9

Nedarim - Chapter 7 FOOTNOTES 1. He need not seek the release of the oath (Radbaz). This law applies with regard to vows as well.

10. And everyone desires to be able to enter the local synagogue.

2. Even though the father dies or repents after the vow was taken, with his death or repentance, the vow is nullified,

11. Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:5, 12. As stated there, the vow was not

because the conditions under which it was taken no longer apply.

the person become the scribe. Hence, the oath takes effect. The Ra'avad suggests that the statement from Halachah 3:

3. If, however, she was ugly at the time the vow was taken, but was made beautiful, the vow takes effect [Shulchan Aruch

"This does not resemble an instance where the vow was made dependent on a stipulation and that stipulation was not

(Yoreh De'ah 232:6)]. 4. See Chapter 4, Halachah 1, which states that such vows are not binding.

made initially in error, for at the outset, he did not desire that

kept" should be included here, for this is a different category of vows than those mentioned in the previous halachot. 12. The Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim 1:1 derives this from the

5. As described in the first two halachot.

exegesis of Numbers 30:3: "He shall do all that he utters from his mouth." Implied is that everything that he utters must

6. I.e., the previous halachah describes an instance where one explicitly stated the condition under which he took the vow.

be fulfilled or the vow does not take effect. Rabbenu Nissim gives a logical explanation for this concept. At the outset, his

This halachah, by contrast, describes a situation where the condition is not stated, but is self-apparent.

intent was that the vow would be kept in its entirety. If a factor arose that prevented that from taking place, it is as if

7. Which would cause them to be forbidden to eat the figs.

the vow was taken in error.

8. And thus the vow was taken in error.

13. As explained in Halachah 4.

9. And everyone in the city needs the scribe to compose legal documents for him. Hence, he no longer desires to be

14. Because the prohibition against them was mentioned in the same vow.

forbidden to benefit from him.

8/21/2019 4:14 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

8 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973887/jewish/Nedarim...

15. Because the vow was taken against all of the persons together. Hence, it cannot be nullified only in part.

25. As emphasized by the fact that he said: "Your house" and "Your field."

16. For even when qualifying his statement, he still says that all

26. For in this instance, the vow was not associated with the

of the individuals are forbidden, indicating that he did not desire to retract his original statement (Kessef Mishneh). In

owner of the property, but with the property itself. Compare to Chapter 5, Halachot 4-5.

his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 232:8), Rav Yosef Caro

27. As an expression of resentment for the owner's refusal (Kessef Mishneh).

appears to follow a slightly different rationale. 17. I.e., that the prohibition would not include his father.

28. Since he is accustomed to plowing his field himself, we assume that his vow applied only to his own actions.

18. I.e., forbidden. 19. The portion of the vow involving aged wine is nullified,

29. Since he is not accustomed to plowing his field himself, we

because it was taken in error. And accordingly, the portion involving fresh wine is also nullified, based on the principle

interpret his vow as meaning that he would never have another person plow the field with it.

stated in the previous halachah. 20. For he did not seek to nullify his former vow, merely to qualify it, as stated in the conclusion of the previous halachah. 21. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 218:1) emphasizes that this applies when a person takes a vow on his own initiative. If, however, he takes a vow in response to wording chosen by a colleague, we follow the meaning of that wording. 22. For it is desirable that a person marry his relatives (see Yevamot 62b). 23. The Radbaz states that he is even permitted to enter his home at the time of the feast. 24. For it is no longer the colleague's house or field (Siftei Cohen 216:10).

30. Although the standard published text of Bava Kama 80a mentions purchasing a house or marrying a woman in Eretz Yisrael, the commentaries [nor the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 219:1)] see no reason why the Holy Land is different from other places in this regard. 31. By giving me a present in public. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 332:20) states that the person who administered the vow need not explicitly agree to this interpretation. Even if he remains silent, we accept it. The Siftei Cohen 332:46 states that if the person specifically says that he administered the vow so that he would receive honor by having the other person receive a gift from him, his word is accepted and a sage must be approached to have the vow released. 32. For people seeing that I demur will respect me more.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:14 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

9 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973887/jewish/Nedarim...

8/21/2019 4:14 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

1 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 9 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 8

With regard to vows, we follow the intent of the words people use at that place, in that language, and at that time when the vow or oath was taken.1 What is implied? A person took a vow or an oath not [to partake of] cooked food. If it was customary in that place in that language and at that time to call roasted meat and boiled meat2 also cooked food, he is forbidden to partake of all types of cooked food. If they were accustomed to use the term cooked food only to refer to meat cooked with water and spices, he is permitted [to partake of] roasted meat or boiled meat. Similarly, with regard to smoked food or food cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias. We follow the terminology used by the people of that city. [The following rules apply if a person] took a vow or an oath not to partake of salted foods. If it is customary to call all salted foods "salted food," he is forbidden to partake of all of them.3 If it is customary to use the term "salted food" to refer only to salted fish, he is only forbidden to partake of salted fish.

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 10

‫בנדרים הלך אחר לשון בני אדם‬ ‫באותו מקום ובאותו לשון ובאותו‬ ‫זמן שנדר או נשבע בו כיצד נדר או נשבע‬ ‫מן המבושל אם דרך אותו מקום באותו‬ ‫לשון באותו זמן שקוראין מבושל אפילו‬ ‫לצלי ולשלוק ה"ז אסור בכל ואם אין‬ ‫דרכם לקרות מבושל אלא לבשר‬ ‫שנתבשל במים ובתבלין הרי זה מותר‬ ‫בצלי ובשלוק וכן המעושן והמבושל בחמי‬ ‫טבריא וכיוצא בהן הולכין בו אחר הלשון‬ :‫של בני העיר‬

‫נדר או נשבע מן המליח אם דרכם‬ ‫לקרות מליח לכל המלוחין הרי זה‬ ‫אסור בכל המלוחין ואם אין דרכם לקרות‬ ‫מליח אלא לדג מליח בלבד אינו אסור‬ :‫אלא בדג מליח‬

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

2 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

[The following rules apply if a person] took a vow or an oath not to partake of pickled foods. If it is customary to call all pickled foods "pickled food," he is forbidden to partake of all of them.4 If it is customary to use the term "pickled food" to refer only to pickled vegetables, he is only forbidden to partake of pickled vegetables. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫נדר או נשבע מן הכבוש אם דרכם‬ ‫לקרות כבוש לכל הכבושים הרי זה‬ ‫אסור בכל ואם אין דרכם לקרות כבוש‬ ‫אלא לירק כבוש בלבד אינו אסור אלא‬ :‫בכבוש של ירק וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

If some of the people would refer to food with one term and others would not use that term, we do not follow [the practice of] the majority. Instead, it is considered an unresolved question with regard to his vow. And whenever there is an unresolved question with regard to a vow, we rule stringently.5 If one violates the vow, however, he is not worthy of lashes.6

‫היו מקצת בני המקום קורין לו כך‬ ‫ומקצתם אין קורין אין הולכין אחר‬ ‫הרוב אלא הרי זה ספק נדרים וכל ספק‬ :‫נדרים להחמיר ואם עבר אינו לוקה‬

What is implied? A person takes a vow [not to partake] of oil in a place where both olive oil and sesame seed oil are used. When most people from that place use the term "oil" without any modifier, they mean olive oil. When they refer to sesame seed oil, they call it "sesame seed oil." A minority of the populace, however, also refer to sesame seed oil with the term "oil" without a modifier. [Hence,] he is forbidden to partake of both of them, but is not liable for lashes for [partaking of] sesame seed oil. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫כיצד נדר מן השמן במקום‬ ‫שמסתפקין בשמן זית ובשמן‬ ‫שומשמין ורוב אנשי המקום אין קורין שמן‬ ‫סתם אלא לשמן זית וקורין לשמן‬ ‫שומשמין שמן שומשמין ומיעוטם קורין‬ ‫אף לשמן שומשמין שמן סתם הרי זה‬ ‫אסור בשניהם ואינו לוקה על שמן‬ :‫שומשמין וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

3 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

Whenever an agent in a given locale would have to question [the principal if that was his intent], it is considered in the category of the substance that was mentioned to the agent when [the term is mentioned] without a modifier. What is implied? In a place where if a person would send an agent to buy meat without using a modifier to describe the term, the agent would tell him: "I found only fish [being sold],"7 [a person who took a vow not to partake of meat] is forbidden to partake of fish as well.8 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. In all places, a person who takes a vow [not to partake] of meat is forbidden to partake of fowl and of the entrails,9 but is permitted to partake of grasshoppers.10 If it appears that at the time he took the vow, his intent was only to forbid meat from an animal - or meat from an animal and fowl - he is permitted [to partake] of fish even in a place where an agent would question [if fish would be considered as meat].11 When a person takes a vow against partaking of cooked food, he is permitted to partake of an egg that has not been cooked until it hardens, but has merely been soft-boiled.12 When a person takes a vow [not to partake of food] boiled lightly in a pot,13 he is only forbidden [to partake] of those foods that are boiled in a pot, e.g., groats, dumplings, and the like.14 If he forbade himself from partaking of anything placed in a pot, he is forbidden to partake of all food cooked in a pot.

‫כל דבר שדרך שליח באותו מקום‬ ‫להמלך עליו הרי הוא בכלל המין‬ ‫שנאמר לשליח סתם כיצד מקום שדרכן‬ ‫אם ישלח אדם שליח לקנות לו בשר סתם‬ ‫אמר לו לא מצאתי אלא דגים אם נשבע‬ ‫או נדר במקום זה מן הבשר נאסר אף‬ ‫בבשר דגים וכן כל כיוצא בזה ובכ"מ‬ ‫הנודר מן הבשר אסור בבשר עופות‬ ‫ובקרבים ומותר בחגבים ואם מראין‬ ‫הדברים בעת שנדר שלא נתכוון אלא‬ ‫בבשר בהמה בלבד ]או לבשר עוף ובהמה‬ ‫בלבד[ הרי זה מותר בבשר דגים ואפילו‬ :‫במקום שהשליח נמלך עליהן‬

‫הנודר מן המבושל מותר בביצה שלא‬ ‫נתבשלה עד שקפתה אלא נתגלגלה‬ ‫בלבד הנודר ממעשה קדרה אינו אסור‬ ‫אלא מדברים שמרתיחין אותן בקדרה כגון‬ ‫ריפות ולביבות וכיוצא בהן אסר עצמו מכל‬ ‫היורד לקדרה הרי זה אסור בכל‬ :‫המתבשלין בקדרה‬

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

4 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

A person who vows [not to partake] of fish is permitted to partake of brine and a dip made with fish oil.15 A person who vows [not to partake] of milk is permitted to partake of the whey, i.e., the liquid that is separated from the milk. If he vows [not to partake] of whey, he is permitted to partake of milk. If he vows [not to partake] of cheese, he is forbidden to partake of both salted cheese and unsalted cheese.16

‫הנודר מן הדגים מותר בציר‬ ‫ובמורייס של דגים הנודר מן החלב‬ ‫מותר בקום והוא המים המובדלין מן החלב‬ ‫נדר מן הקום מותר בחלב נדר מן הגבינה‬ :‫אסור בה בין מלוחה בין תפלה‬

A person who vows not to partake of grains of wheat is forbidden to partake of wheat kernels whether they are fresh or cooked. If he says: "Neither wheat, nor grains of wheat will I taste,"17 he is forbidden to partake of either flour or bread. "I will not taste wheat," he is forbidden to partake of baked goods, but permitted to chew kernels of wheat. If he states: "I will not partake of grains of wheat," he is permitted to partake of baked goods, but forbidden to chew kernels of wheat. If he says: "Neither wheat, nor grains of wheat will I taste," he is forbidden to partake of baked goods, nor may he chew kernels of wheat. When a person takes a vow forbidding himself from partaking of grain, he is forbidden only [to partake of] the five species.18

‫הנודר מן החטים אסור בהן בין חיין‬ ‫בין מבושלין חטה חטים שאני טועם‬ ‫אסור בהן בין קמח בין פת חטה שאני‬ ‫טועם אסור באפוי ומותר לכוס חטים‬ ‫שאני טועם מותר באפוי ואסור לכוס חטה‬ ‫חטים שאני טועם אסור בין באפוי בין‬ ‫לכוס והנודר מן הדגן או מן התבואה אינו‬ :‫אסור אלא בחמשת המינין‬

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

5 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person takes a vow [not to partake of] green vegetables, he is permitted to partake of squash.19 If he takes a vow [not to partake of] leek, he is permitted to partake of the poret.20 If a person takes a vow [not to partake of] cabbage, he is forbidden to partake of the water cooked with cabbage, for the water in which food is cooked is considered as the food itself.21 If, however, he vowed not to partake of the water in which a food is cooked, he may partake of the cooked food itself.22

‫הנודר מן הירק מותר בדלועין הנודר‬ ‫בכרישין מותר בקפלוטות הנודר מן‬ ‫הכרוב אסור במים שנתבשל בו הכרוב‬ ‫שהרי מי שלקות כשלקות נדר ממי‬ ‫השלקות מותר בשלקות עצמן הנודר מן‬ ‫הרוטב מותר בתבלין שבו מן התבלין‬ ‫מותר ברוטב הנודר מן הגריסין אסור‬ :‫במקפה של גריסין‬

A person who takes a vow [not to partake of] sauce is permitted [to partake of] the spices. [One who takes a vow not to partake] of the spices is permitted [to partake of] the sauce. One who takes a vow [not to partake of] groats23 is forbidden [to partake of] the thick sauce produced by the groats.24 A person who takes a vow [not to partake of] the produce of the earth is forbidden to partake of all the produce of the earth,25 but is permitted [to partake of] fungi and mushrooms.26 If he says: "Everything that grows upon the earth is [forbidden] to me," he is forbidden to partake of even fungi and mushrooms. [The rationale is that] although they do not derive their nurture from the earth, they grow upon the earth.

‫הנודר מן פירות הארץ אסור בכל‬ ‫פירות הארץ ומותר בכמהין‬ ‫ופטריות ואם אמר כל גידולי קרקע עלי‬ ‫אסור אף בכמהין ופטריות אף על פי‬ :‫שאינן יונקין מן הקרקע גדלין הן בקרקע‬

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

6 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person takes a vow forbidding himself from partaking of the produce of a particular year, he is forbidden to partake of all the produce of that year. He is, however, permitted to partake of kid-goats, lambs, milk, eggs, and, chicks.27 If, however, he said: "All of the products of a given year are [forbidden] to me," he is forbidden to partake of all of them.28

‫הנודר מפירות השנה אסור בכל‬ ‫פירות השנה ומותר בגדיים‬ ‫ובטלאים ובחלב ובביצים ובגוזלות ואם‬ ‫אמר כל גדולי שנה עלי אסור בכולם‬ ‫הנודר מפירות הקיץ אין אסור אלא‬ :‫בתאנים‬

When a person takes a vow forbidding himself from partaking of the fruits of the kayitz, he is forbidden only to partake of figs.29 In all of the above - and in analogous instances follow this general principle: With regard to vows, we follow the intent of the words people use at that place, in that language, and at that time when the vow or oath was taken.30 Based on this principle, one should rule and say: "The person who took the vow is forbidden [to benefit from] these entities and permitted [to benefit from] these entities."

‫ובכל הדברים האלו כיוצא בהן הזהר‬ ‫בעיקר הגדול שהוא בנדרים הלך‬ ‫אחר לשון בני אדם שבאותו מקום באותו‬ ‫לשון ובאותו זמן ועל פי עיקר זה תורה‬ ‫ותאמר זה הנודר אסור בדבר פלוני ומותר‬ :‫בדבר פלוני‬

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

7 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person takes a vow [not to partake of grapes], he is permitted to partake of wine, even fresh wine.31 [If he takes a vow not to partake] of olives, he is permitted to partake of oil. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of dates, he is permitted to partake of date-honey. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of grapes that blossom in the fall,32 he is permitted to partake of vinegar that is produced from them.33 If he takes a vow not to partake] of wine, he is permitted to partake of apple wine. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of oil, he is permitted to partake of sesame seed oil. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of honey,34 he is permitted to partake of date honey. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of vinegar, he is permitted to partake of vinegar produced from grapes that blossom in the fall. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of vegetables, he is permitted to partake of vegetables that grow on their own.35 [The rationale for all of these rulings is] that [the names of] all these substances have a modifier36 and [when] the person took the vow, he referred to the substance without a modifier. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. When a person takes a vow not to wear clothing, he is permitted [to cover himself] with sackcloth,37 a coarsely woven thick fabric,38 a thick sheet used as a rainshield.39 [When a person takes a vow not to enter] a house, he is forbidden to enter its loft. For the loft is part of the house. [If he] takes a vow [not to enter] a loft, he is permitted [to enter] the home.

‫הנודר מן הענבים מותר ביין ואפילו‬ ‫החדש מן הזיתים מותר בשמן מן‬ ‫התמרים מותר בדבש תמרים מן הסתוניות‬ ‫מותר בחומץ סתוניות מן היין מותר ביין‬ ‫תפוחים מן השמן מותר בשמן שומשמין‬ ‫מן הדבש מותר בדבש תמרים מן החומץ‬ ‫מותר בחומץ סתוניות מן הירק מותר‬ ‫בירקות שדה מפני שכל אלו שם לווי הם‬ ‫והוא לא נדר אלא משם שאינו לווי באותו‬ :‫מקום וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

‫הנודר מן הכסות מותר בשק‬ ‫וביריעה ובחמילה מן הבית אסור‬ ‫בעליה שהעליה בכלל הבית נדר מן העליה‬ ‫מותר בבית מן הדרגש מותר במטה מן‬ ‫המטה אסור בדרגש שהוא כמו מטה‬ :‫קטנה‬

[When a person takes a vow not to] use a dargeish,40 he is permitted [to use] a bed. [If he takes a vow not to use] a bed, he is forbidden to use a dargeish, because it is like a small bed.

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

8 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person takes a vow not to enter a particular house, he is forbidden to enter from the doorframe onward. When one takes a vow not to enter a particular city, he is permitted to enter its Sabbath limits.41 He is, however, forbidding to enter its outlying areas.42

‫הנודר שלא יכנס לבית זה הרי זה‬ ‫אסור מן האגף ולפנים נדר שלא‬ ‫יכנס לעיר זו מותר להכנס לתחומה ואסור‬ :‫להכנס לעיבורה‬

When a person takes a vow not to benefit from the residents of a city and a person comes and lives there for twelve months, it is forbidden for the person who took the vow to benefit from him.43 If he stays for a lesser time, it is permitted.

‫הנודר הנייה מבני העיר ובא אדם‬ ‫ונשתהה שם שנים עשר חדש הרי‬ ‫זה אסור ליהנות ממנו פחות מכאן מותר‬ ‫נדר מיושבי העיר כל ששהה שם שלשים‬ :‫יום אסור ליהנות ממנו פחות מכן מותר‬

If he takes a vow from those who dwell in a city, he is forbidden to benefit from anyone who dwells there for 30 days. He is permitted to benefit from one who dwells there for a lesser period.44 When a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from the water that flows from this-and-this spring, he is forbidden [to benefit] from all the rivers that derive nurture from it. Needless to say, this refers to those that flow directly from it. Although the name [of the body of water] has changed and it is now called "the So-and-So River" or "the So-and-So well," and we do not associate it at all with the name of the spring concerning which a vow was taken, since it is the source for these bodies of water, he is forbidden to benefit from all of them. If, however, a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from this-and-this river or spring, he is only forbidden [to benefit] from those rivers called by that name.

‫הנודר מן המים הנמשכין ממעין‬ ‫פלוני אסור בכל הנהרות היונקות‬ ‫ממנו ואין צריך לומר הנמשכות אע"פ‬ ‫שנשתנה שמם ואין קורין אותן אלא נהר‬ ‫פלוני ובאר פלוני ואין מלוין אותן לשם‬ ‫המעין הנדור הואיל והוא עיקרן אסור בכל‬ ‫אבל אם נדר מנהר פלוני או ממעין פלוני‬ ‫אין אסור אלא בכל הנהרות הנקראות על‬ :‫שמו‬

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

9 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from sea-farers,45 he is permitted [to benefit] from those who dwell on the land. When he takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who dwell on the land, he is forbidden [to benefit] from sea-farers even though they set out to the Mediterranean Sea. For sea-farers are considered as among those who dwell on land.46 When he takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who see the sun, he is forbidden to benefit from the blind.47 For his intent was those who are seen by the sun. If he takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who are dark-haired, he is forbidden to benefit from men who are bald and grey-haired48 and permitted to benefit from women49 and children.50 If it customary to refer to all people as dark-haired, he is forbidden to benefit from everyone. When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who rest on the Sabbath, he is forbidden [to benefit] from Jews and Samaritans.51 One who takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who make pilgrimages to Jerusalem is forbidden to benefit from the Jews and permitted to benefit from Samaritans. For his intent was to include only those for whom it is a mitzvah to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.52

‫הנודר מיורדי הים מותר ביושבי‬ ‫היבשה מיושבי היבשה אסור‬ ‫ביורדי הים אף על פי שהן מפרשים‬ ‫באמצע הים הגדול שיורדי הים בכלל‬ ‫יושבי היבשה נדר מרואי חמה אסור‬ ‫בסומין שלא נתכוון זה אלא ממי שהחמה‬ ‫רואה אותו נדר משחורי הראש אסור‬ ‫בקרחים ובעלי שיבות ומותר בנשים‬ ‫ובקטנים ואם דרכן לקרות שחורי הראש‬ :‫לכל אסור בכל‬

‫נדר משובתי שבת אסור בישראל‬ ‫ובכותיים נדר מעולי ירושלים אסור‬ ‫בישראל ומותר בכותיים שלא נתכוון זה‬ ‫אלא למי שמצוה עליו לעלות לירושלים‬ ‫והנודר מבני נח מותר בישראל שאין‬ :‫נקראים בני נח אלא שאר האומות‬

When one takes a vow not [to benefit] from the descendants of Noah, he is permitted to benefit from the Jews.53 For the term "descendants of Noah" is used only to refer to members of other nations.

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

10 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from the descendants of Abraham, he is permitted [to benefit] from the descendants of Yishmael and the descendants of Esau.54 He is forbidden to benefit only from the Jews,55 as [indicated by Genesis 21:12]: "Through Isaac, your offspring will be called."56 And Isaac told Jacob [ibid. 28:4]: "And I will give you the blessing of Abraham."57

‫נדר מזרע אברהם מותר בבני‬ ‫ישמעאל ובני עשו ואינו אסור‬ ‫אלא בישראל שנאמר כי ביצחק יקרא לך‬ ‫זרע והרי יצחק אמר ליעקב ויתן לך את‬ :‫ברכת אברהם‬

When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from uncircumcised individuals, he is forbidden [to benefit] from circumcised gentiles,58 but is permitted [to benefit] from uncircumcised Jews. If he takes a vow not [to benefit] from circumcised individuals, he is forbidden [to benefit] from uncircumcised Jews, but is permitted [to benefit] from circumcised gentiles.

‫נדר מן הערלים אסור במולי‬ ‫עכו"ם ומותר בערלי ישראל נדר‬ ‫מן המולים אסור בערלי ישראל ומותר‬ ‫במולי עכו"ם שאין הערלה קרוייה אלא‬ ‫לשם עכו"ם שנאמר כי כל הגוים ערלים‬ ‫ואין כוונתו של זה אלא למי שהוא מצווה‬ :‫על המילה ולא למי שאינו מצווה עליה‬

[The rationale is that] the foreskin is identified with the gentiles, as [Jeremiah 9:25] states: "For all the gentiles are uncircumcised. His intent is only to refer to those who are commanded concerning the circumcision and not to those who were not commanded concerning it.

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

11 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from the Jewish people, he is forbidden [to benefit] from converts. [When a person takes a vow not to benefit] from converts, he is permitted [to benefit] from natural born Jews. When he takes a vow [not to benefit] from Israelites, he is forbidden [to benefit] from priests and Levites.59 [When he vows not to benefit] from the priests and the Levites, he is permitted to benefit from an Israelite. [When he vows not to benefit] from the priests, he is permitted to benefit from the Levites.60 [When he vows not to benefit] from the Levites, he is permitted to benefit from the priests. [When he vows not to benefit] from his sons, he is permitted to benefit from his grandchildren.61In all these and analogous matters, the laws regarding those who take a vow and an oath are the same.

‫הנודר מישראל אסור בגרים מן‬ ‫הגרים מותר בישראל הנודר‬ ‫מישראל אסור בכהנים ולוים מן הכהנים‬ ‫ומן הלוים מותר בישראל הנודר מן‬ ‫הכהנים מותר בלוים מהלוים מותר בכהנים‬ ‫הנודר מבניו מותר בבני בניו ובכל הדברים‬ ‫האלו וכיוצא בהן דין הנודר והנשבע אחד‬ :‫הוא‬

« Previous

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 10

Nedarim - Chapter 8 FOOTNOTES 1. The Rambam's rationale is that since everything depends on the person's intent, it is logical to assume that the meaning of

4. Although the Rambam's ruling runs contrary to the statements of the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:2), the Rambam relies

his statements follows the usage common at that time and place. See also Halachah 13.

on the principle that the determinant factor in values is the meaning attached to the terms used by people at that time

One might ask: If so, why in the halachot that follow does the Rambam set out guidelines with regard to vows. The Radbaz

follows the Rambam's approach.

(in his gloss to Halachah 13) explains that these guidelines should be followed only in places where there is no clarity regarding the expressions commonly used. 2. I.e., boiled without spices (Rav Avraham MinHaHar). 3. Although the Rambam's ruling runs contrary to the statements of the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:2), the Rambam relies on the principle that the determinant factor in values is the meaning attached to the terms used by people at that time and in that place. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:3) follows the Rambam's approach.

and in that place. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:3)

5. Since there is a possibility that a prohibition is involved, we must rule stringently. 6. For corporal punishment is inflicted only when we are certain that a prohibition has been violated. 7. I.e., he is not certain whether the principal's intent when telling him to buy meat was to buy fish or not. 8. For in that locale, it is possible that it is referred to as "meat." 9. For they are generally referred to as meat. 10. For they are not. In the present age, this principle also applies to fish. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 217:8) goes further and states that even fowl is not usually implied by the term "meat."

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

12 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

11. The commentaries have noted that the Rambam's ruling is not entirely identical with that of his source (Nedarim 54a). In

26. Our Rabbis explain that the terms refer to species that have little botanical difference between them. The first term refers

his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:1), the Rambam explains this difficulty, stating that the meanings of terms

to those mushrooms which grow on the earth and the second, to those which grow in trees. The rationale is that,

used today are different than the meanings used for the same terms in the Talmudic period.

as the Rambam states, these fungi do not have roots. Thus they do not derive their nurture from the earth, but from the

12. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:1). 13. This is the implication of the Hebrew term used by the Rambam [Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 217)]. 14. E.g., porridge (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.). See also Hilchot Berachot 3:4 which discusses these terms. 15. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:3). 16. In the Talmudic and Rabbinic era, most hard cheeses were salted to preserve them. 17. The term chittim is plural, implying many kernels of grain. Chitah is singular, referring not to a single kernel, but rather to a single entity made from wheat flour (Rabbenu Nissim, as cited by the Kessef Mishneh). 18. I.e., wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. Other grains, e.g., rice and millet, are not included.

atmosphere (see Nedarim 55b; Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:4). 27. The Hebrew word peirot can also be interpreted as: "benefit accruing from." Thus these entities could be included in the term. Nevertheless, since this is not the popular usage, they are not included. 28. The Siftei Cohen 217:31 explains that this applies only when it is possible for a person to abide by this prohibition. If, however, the vow prevents him from eating enough to maintain his wellbeing, it is nullified. 29. The term kayitz has a specific meaning "fruit harvested by hand," rather than cut from the tree with a knife. Therefore, it refers to the fig harvest alone (Nedarim 61b). 30. As stated in Halachah 1. The Radbaz explains that the only reason the Rambam mentioned all the principles in the above and following halachot is to clarify the guidelines set forth by our Sages. They should be followed only in places where there is no clarity regarding the expressions commonly used.

19. For in Talmudic terminology, the term green vegetable refers

31. Even though the wine tastes the same as grapes, since it is

to vegetables that are eaten raw and squash must be cooked.

called by a different name, it is not considered in the same category (Siftei Cohen 216:27). This principle is reflected in

20. These two species of vegetables are similar, but not identical. Therefore, the Rambam feels it necessary to make

all the rulings of this halachah: As long as an entity has a

this clarification. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim

different name, even if its flavor is the same as another entity and even their substance is fundamentally the same, they

5:7), he uses the same Arabic term to define the two species

are considered as different entities with regard to vows.

but explains that the latter is more commonly grown in Eretz Yisrael.

32. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:6) explains

21. For through the cooking process, it takes on the flavor of the

that these grapes are not fit to be eaten and instead, are used to produce vinegar.

food (see Berachot 39a; Hilchot Berachot 8:4). In his

33. The substances produced by the fruit are considered as

Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:8), the Rambam maintains that this is the meaning of the first clause of that mishnah. Rashi and others, while accepting this principle, interpret that clause differently. 22. For there is obviously a difference between the food and the liquid in which it was cooked. 23. I.e., ground beans (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.). 24. For it has the flavor of the groats. 25. Not only vegetables, but fruit as well [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:23)].

being different from the fruit itself. 34. Although the Torah uses the term honey to refer to date-honey, in common usage, everyone understands the term as referring to bee honey (Siftei Cohen 217:22). 35. The Siftei Cohen 217:15 states that in the present age, people do not make such a distinction when referring to these vegetables. 36. I.e., they are not referred to by the name of the substance as it is used without a modifier. 37. This term refers to a weave from goat's hair (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 7:3). 38. This translation is taken from the above source.

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

13 of 14

39. This translation is also taken from the above source. The rationale is that none of these fabrics are considered as garments. 40. A small bed that is placed before a larger bed to use as a stepstool for the larger bed (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 7:4). 41. The area 2000 cubits around the city. See Hilchot Shabbat

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

51. This term refers to the people brought by the Assyrians to settle in Samaria after they exiled the Ten Tribes. At first, they converted and observed the rudiments of Judaism. Afterwards, however, they became like gentiles entirely. 52. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 3:8), the Rambam explains that the Samaritans despise Jerusalem and make their pilgrimages to Mount Gerizim instead. The

27:1-2. In other contexts, this area - and indeed, even further

Merkevat HaMishnah explains that since the Samaritans are

removed places - are considered as part of a city. With regard to vows, this is not the case, for we follow the

Yisrael. Hence they are not obligated to ascend to

terminology people commonly used (Siftei Cohen 217:35).

Sheni 11:15).

converts, they do not have a right to a portion in Eretz Jerusalem for the pilgrimage festivals (see Hilchot Ma'aser

42. This term refers to homes that are located within 70 cubits of each other on the perimeter of the city. As long as they are

53. Although the Jews are also of Noah's descendants, they are not popularly referred to with that term.

within that distance of another home, they are considered as part of the city itself (Hilchot Shabbat 28:1; the Rambam's

54. Although actually, both of these nations descended from

Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim, loc. cit.).

55. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:40) states that this

Nedarim 56b derives these concepts from the exegesis of Biblical verses. Joshua 5:13 states: "And while Joshua was in Jericho" and describes an event that took place while the Jews were camp on the outer reaches of the city. And when speaking about measuring the area 2000 cubits around a city, Numbers 35:5 speaks of measuring "outside the city." 43. Note the parallel to Hilchot Shechenim 6:5 which states that a person who lives in a city for twelve months becomes obligated to pay all the city's levies. 44. See the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 217:32) and the Siftei Cohen 217:37 who emphasizes that if the common terminology used at present is different, the laws are dependent on the current usages. 45. This term refers to people who set out on extended journeys, not on short jaunts. 46. For they do not remain on an ocean journey forever and ultimately, return home.

Abraham, Yishmael being Abraham's son and Esau, Isaac's.

includes converts. 56. Thus excluding Yishmael and his descendants. 57. Thus

excluding

Esau

and

his

descendants.

In

his

Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 3:11), the Rambam adds another point. In the covenant God made with Abraham bein habetarim, he was told that his descendants would be "strangers in a foreign land" and only Jacob's descendants not those of Esau or Yishmael - were subjected to this decree. 58. This includes both gentiles who circumcise themselves for health reasons and those - like the Arabs - who circumcise themselves for religious reasons. The rationale is that the majority of gentiles and uncircumcised and the person made his statements with the intent of referring to the majority. See the Commentary of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Nedarim, loc. cit. 59. For when the term Israelite is used, it refers to the entire

47. Even though they cannot see the sun.

Jewish people as a collective. As Yoma 66a states: "Are not

48. For this term is generally used to refer to men, even if they

the priests part of Your nation Israel?"

do not have dark hair.

60. Even though in the Torah, the priests are identified as

49. For they are referred to as being "covered-haired" (Rabbeinu

Levites at times (Deuteronomy 17:9, et al), we follow the wording used by people at large (Radbaz).

Nissim). 50. For they are referred to as being "uncovered-haired" (ibid.).

61. Although Yevamot 62b states that grandchildren are considered as children, that is not the meaning employed by people at large (Radbaz).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further,

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

14 of 14

provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973888/jewish/Nedarim...

policy .

8/21/2019 4:15 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

1 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973889/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 10 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 9

When a person takes a vow or an oath, saying: "I will not taste [food] today," he is forbidden only until nightfall.1 [If he said]: "I will not taste food for one day," he is forbidden [to eat] for a twenty-four hour period after taking his vow. Accordingly, even though he is permitted [to eat] after nightfall, one who takes a vow "not to taste [food] today" should not eat after nightfall until he asks a sage [to retract his vow]. [This is] a decree lest he take an oath another time not to eat for an entire day and eat after nightfall. For people at large do not know the difference between these two situations.

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 11

‫הנודר או הנשבע שאיני טועם היום‬ ‫אינו אסור אלא עד שתחשך שאיני‬ ‫טועם יום אחד אסור מעת לעת משעת‬ ‫נדרו לפיכך הנודר שאני טועם היום אע"פ‬ ‫שהוא מותר משתחשך לא יאכל‬ ‫משתחשך עד שישאל לחכם גזירה שמא‬ ‫ישבע פעם אחרת יום אחד ויאכל‬ ‫משתחשך שהרי אין כל העם יודעים‬ :‫הפרש שבין זה לזה‬

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

2 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973889/jewish/Nedarim...

When one takes a vow, saying: "I will not taste [food] a day," there is an unresolved question.2 [Hence] he is forbidden to [eat] for an entire day, as if he had said "for one day." If he eats after nightfall, he does not receive lashes.3 When one takes a vow, saying: "I will not taste [food] during this week,"4 he is forbidden to eat during the remainder of the week and on the Sabbath, but he is permitted on Sunday.5 [When he says:] "I will not taste [a type of food]6 for one week," he is forbidden to eat [that type of food] for seven full days. If he says "[I will not eat a type of food] a week," there is an unresolved question. [Hence] he is forbidden to [eat that type of food] for seven full days. If he eats after the Sabbath, he does not receive lashes, as we explained.7 [When one takes a vow, saying:] "I will not drink [wine] during this month," he is forbidden in the remaining days of the month. He is, however, permitted on the day of the following Rosh Chodesh even if the month is lacking.8 [If he took a vow, saying]: "I will not drink [wine] for an entire month," he is forbidden for 30 full days. [If he said]: I will not drink [wine] for a month," he is forbidden for 30 full days because of the unresolved question.9

‫נדר שאני טועם יום הרי זה ספק‬ ‫ואסור מעת לעת כאומר יום אחד‬ ‫ואם אכל אחר שחשיכה אינו לוקה שאני‬ ‫טועם שבת זו הרי זה אסור בשאר ימי‬ ‫השבת וביום השבת והרי הוא מותר‬ ‫מאחד בשבת שאני טועם שבת אחת הרי‬ ‫זה אסור שבעה ימים מעת לעת אמר שבת‬ ‫סתם ולא פירש לא אחת ולא זו הרי ספק‬ ‫ואסור שבעה ימים מעת לעת ואם אכל‬ :‫אחר שבת אינו לוקה כמו שבארנו‬

‫שאני שותה חדש זה אסור בשאר ימי‬ ‫החדש אבל ביום ראש חודש יהיה‬ ‫מותר אף על פי שהיה חדש חסר שאני‬ ‫טועם חדש אחד אסור שלשים יום גמורים‬ ‫מעת לעת נדר חדש סתם אסור שלשים‬ :‫יום מעת לעת מספק‬

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

3 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973889/jewish/Nedarim...

[When one takes a vow, saying:] "I will not eat meat this year," even if there is only one day left in the year,10 he is forbidden only that day and is permitted to eat [meat] on Rosh HaShanah. For the beginning of the year with regard to vows is Rosh Chodesh Tishrei.11 [If he says:] "I will not eat [meat] for one year," he is forbidden for a complete year12 from day to day. If it is a leap year,13 he is forbidden in that year and in the extra month. [If he says]: "I will not eat [meat] for a year," he is forbidden for a complete year from day to day, because of the unresolved question as explained.14 [When one takes a vow, saying:] "I will not drink wine this seven-year cycle," he is forbidden in the remaining years of the seven year cycle and in the Sabbatical year.15 He is not permitted until Rosh HaShanah of the year after the Sabbatical year. [If he says:] "I will not drink wine for a seven-year cycle," he is forbidden for seven full years from day to day. [If he says: "I will not drink wine] this Jubilee cycle, he is forbidden in the remaining years of the Jubilee cycle and in the fiftieth year itself.16 [The following rules apply when one says:] "I will not drink wine until Rosh Chodesh Adar: If it was a leap year, but he did not know that it was a leap year when he took the vow, he is forbidden only until Rosh Chodesh Adar I.17 If he took the vow until the end of Adar, he is forbidden until the end of Adar II.18 If he did know that it was a leap year, he is forbidden until Rosh Chodesh Adar II.19

‫שאני אוכל בשר שנה זו אפילו לא‬ ‫נשאר מן השנה אלא יום אחד אין‬ ‫אסור אלא אותו היום וביום ראש השנה‬ ‫מותר וראש השנה לנדרים הוא יום ראש‬ ‫חדש תשרי שאני אוכל שנה אחת הרי זה‬ ‫אסור שנה תמימה מיום ליום ואם נתעברה‬ ‫השנה אסור בה ובעיבורה שאני אוכל שנה‬ ‫הרי זה אסור שנה תמימה מיום ליום‬ :‫מספק כמו שבארנו‬

‫שאני שותה יין שבוע זה אסור‬ ‫בשאר שני השבוע ובשנת השמטה‬ ‫ואינו מותר אלא מראש השנה של מוצאי‬ ‫שביעית שאני שותה יין שבוע אחד אסור‬ ‫שבע שנים גמורות מיום ליום אמר יובל זה‬ ‫אסור בשאר שני היובל ובשנת חמשים‬ :‫עצמה‬

‫שאני שותה יין עד ראש אדר אם‬ ‫היתה שנה מעוברת ולא ידע שהיא‬ ‫מעוברת כשנדר אינו אסור אלא עד ראש‬ ‫חדש אדר ראשון ואם נדר עד סוף אדר‬ ‫הרי זה אסור עד סוף אדר שני ואם ידע‬ ‫שהשנה מעוברת ונדר עד ראש אדר אסור‬ :‫עד ראש אדר שני‬

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

4 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973889/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person forbids himself from benefiting from a substance until Pesach, whether he said "until before Pesach" or "until Pesach," he is only forbidden until the holiday commences. If he says: "while it is Pesach,"20 he is forbidden until Pesach concludes. If he said: "until the wheat harvest" or "until the grape harvest," or "while it is the grape harvest" or "while it is the wheat harvest," he is forbidden only until that time arrives.21

‫האוסר עצמו בדבר עד הפסח בין‬ ‫שאמר עד פני הפסח בין שאמר עד‬ ‫הפסח אינו אסור אלא עד שיגיע בלבד‬ ‫ואם אמר עד שיהיה הפסח הרי אסור עד‬ ‫שיצא הפסח אמר עד הקציר או עד‬ ‫הבציר או שאמר עד שיהיה הבציר או‬ :‫הקציר אינו אסור אלא עד שיגיע‬

This is the general principle: Whenever there is a fixed time22 for a subject mentioned in a vow, he is forbidden only until that time comes. If he words [his vow] "as long as it is," he is forbidden until that time concludes. Whenever a subject does not have a fixed time - like the time of the wheat harvest or the grape harvest23 - whether he said "until" or "while it is," he is forbidden only until that time arrives.24

‫זה הכלל כל שזמנו קבוע ונדר עדיו‬ ‫אין אסור אלא עד שיגיע ואם נדר‬ ‫עד שיהיה הרי זה אסור עד שיצא וכל‬ ‫שאין לו זמן קבוע כגון זמן הקציר והבציר‬ ‫בין שנדר עדיו בין שנדר עד שיהיה אינו‬ :‫אסור אלא עד שיגיע‬

When a person forbids himself [from benefiting from] a substance until the kayitz,25 he is forbidden until the people in his place begin bringing in baskets of figs. [If he vowed] until the katzir, [he is forbidden]

‫האוסר עצמו בדבר עד הקיץ הרי‬ ‫אסור עד שיתחילו אנשי המקום‬ ‫שנדר בו להכניס כלכלות תאנים עד‬ ‫הקציר עד שיתחילו העם לקצור קציר‬ ‫חטים אבל לא קציר שעורים פירש ואמר‬ ‫עד שיעבור הקיץ הרי זה אסור עד שיכפלו‬ ‫העם רוב המחצלאות שבמוקצה שמיבשין‬ ‫עליהם תאנים וענבים לעשותם גרוגרות‬ :‫וצמוקים הכל לפי מקום נדרו של נודר‬

until people will harvest wheat, but not barley.26 If he explicitly said: "...until the kayitz passes," he is forbidden until the majority of the people fold up the mats they have set aside to dry figs and grapes to produce dried figs and raisins.27 Everything depends on the local practice in the place where the person took his vow.28

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

5 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973889/jewish/Nedarim...

What is implied? If he took a vow in a valley and forbid himself [from benefiting] from a substance until the kayitz and then moved to a mountainous region,29 he should not pay attention to the time whether or not the fig harvest has begun in the place where he is at present. Instead, [he is concerned] with when it begins in the place where he took the vow and that is what he follows.30 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.31

‫כיצד הרי שנדר בבקעה ואסר עצמו‬ ‫בדבר עד הקיץ ועלה להר אינו מסתכל‬ ‫בקיץ של מקום שהוא בו עתה אם הגיע‬ ‫אם לא הגיע אלא בקיץ של מקום שנדר בו‬ :‫ועליו הוא סומך וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

When a person forbids himself [from benefiting] from a substance until "the rains," he is forbidden until the rainy season which in Eretz Yisrael [begins] on Rosh Chodesh Kislev. When the time of the rainy season arrives, he is released [from his vow] whether it rains or not. If, however, it rained from the seventeenth of MarCheshvan, he is released.32

‫האוסר עצמו בדבר עד הגשם הרי‬ ‫זה אסור עד זמן הגשמים שהוא‬ ‫בארץ ישראל ראש חדש כסליו הגיע זמן‬ ‫הגשמים הרי זה מותר בין ירדו גשמים בין‬ ‫לא ירדו ואם ירדו גשמים משבעה עשר‬ ‫במרחשון הרי זה מותר ואם אמר עד‬ ‫הגשמים הרי זה אסור עד שירדו הגשמים‬ ‫והוא שירדו מזמן רביעה שניה שהוא‬ ‫בארץ ישראל ומקומות הסמוכין לה מכ"ג‬ ‫במרחשון ואילך ואם פירש ואמר עד‬ ‫שיפסקו הגשמים הרי זה אסור עד שיעבור‬ ‫הפסח בארץ ישראל ובמקומות שהם‬ :‫כמותה‬

If he said: "...Until it rains," he is forbidden until it rains, provided it rains from the second phase of the preliminary rainy season.33 In Eretz Yisrael and in the places close to it, this is from the twenty-third of MarCheshvan onward. If he explicitly said: "...until the rains cease," he is forbidden until the conclusion of Pesach in Eretz Yisrael and in the places like it.34

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

6 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973889/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person has his wife bound by a vow in MarCheshvan, telling her: "You may not benefit from me from now until Pesach if you go to your father's house from now until Sukkot," she is forbidden to benefit from him immediately. [This is] a decree for perhaps she will go.35 If she went before Pesach and derived benefit from him before Pesach, he is liable for lashes.36 If Pesach passed, even though the stipulation has expired,37 it is forbidden for him to treat the vow casually and allow her to go [to her father's home] and derive benefit from him.38 Instead, he should treat her as if it is forbidden until Sukkot as he vowed. [This applies] even though he made the vow dependent on a time that has already passed. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If she went [to her father's home] after Pesach, she is not forbidden to benefit from him.39 If he told her: "You may not benefit from me from now until Sukkot if you go to your father's house from now until Pesach," she is forbidden to benefit from him immediately.40 If she went [to her father's home] before Pesach and he gave her benefit, he is subject to lashes. She remains forbidden to him until Sukkot.41 After Pesach arrives, she is permitted to go to her father's house.42

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 9

‫מי שהדיר את אשתו במרחשון‬ ‫ואמר לה שאין את נהנית לי מכאן‬ ‫ועד הפסח אם תלכי לבית אביך מהיום‬ ‫ועד סכות הרי זו אסורה ליהנות לו מיד‬ ‫גזירה שמא תלך ואם הלכה לפני הפסח‬ ‫והרי הוא מהנה אותה לפני הפסח הרי זה‬ ‫לוקה עבר הפסח אע"פ שהלך התנאי הרי‬ ‫זה אסור לנהוג חולין בנדרו ולהניחה‬ ‫שתלך ותהנה אלא נוהג בה איסור עד החג‬ ‫כמו שנדר ואף על פי שתלה הנדר באיסור‬ ‫זמן שעבר וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואם הלכה‬ :‫אחר הפסח אינה אסורה מליהנות לו‬

‫אמר לה שאין את נהנית לי עד החג‬ ‫אם תלכי לבית אביך עד הפסח‬ ‫אסורה ליהנות מיד ואם הלכה לפני הפסח‬ ‫ונמצא מהנה אותה הרי זה לוקה ואסורה‬ ‫בהנייתו עד החג ומותרת לילך לבית אביה‬ :‫משהגיע הפסח‬

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 11

FOOTNOTES

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

7 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973889/jewish/Nedarim...

1. For that is the end of the day in halachic terms.

10. I.e., he made the vow on the twenty-ninth of Elul.

2. Nedarim 60a discusses this issue without reaching a

11. Although Rosh Chodesh Nisan is considered the beginning of the year in certain contexts, this does not apply with

conclusion. 3. I.e., for lashes are not given when there is a doubt. 4. The Rambam uses the Hebrew term Shabbat, which literally means "Sabbath." Nevertheless, his intent (and that of his source, Nedarim 60a) is obviously a week and not the holy day itself. When stating this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 220:3) uses the term shavua for "week," rather than Shabbat. The Turei Zahav 220:2 states that the Shulchan Aruch's ruling applies when the person taking the vow

regard to vows. 12. I.e., a full year on the Jewish calendar. 13. And a month is added. See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, ch. 4. 14. In Halachah 2. 15. Like the Sabbath is the conclusion of the week, the Sabbatical year is the conclusion of the seven year cycle (Radbaz).

he would speak in Yiddish and say di voch, "this week," the

16. For the Jubilee year is considered as the conclusion of the 50 year cycle.

Sabbath is not included, because the term voch implies

17. For his intent was Adar that follows Shvat.

ordinary, weekdays that are different in nature than the holy Sabbath.

18. For his intent was to remain forbidden for the entire time referred to as Adar. This applies whether he knew that it was

speaks in lashon hakodesh, "the holy tongue." If, however,

5. Even if a week has not passed since the vow was taken.

a leap year or not (Radbaz).

The Radbaz states that the vow takes effect only when it is made during the week. If, however, it is made on the

19. There is a difference of opinion among the Sages (Nedarim

Sabbath, it takes effect only on the Sabbath itself, for the week has already concluded.

and which is the additional month. There are other authorities who follow a different version of the passage in

6. We are forced to say that he is referring only to one type of food. For if a person takes a vow that he will not eat at all for an entire week, the vow does not take effect, for it is impossible that he will fulfill it. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 1:7. 7. In the first clause of this halachah. 8. A month which is lacking is a month of 29 days [as opposed to a month of 30 days; see Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, chs. 1-3, which discusses the principles determining when a month is given only 29 days and when it is given 30]. The commentaries question why the Rambam (based on Nedarim 60b) speaks of the month being lacking. Seemingly, it is quite obvious that if there are only 29 days in a month, one would be permitted on Rosh Chodesh in the next month. The new month has already begun. A point that has to be made is that even if there are 30 days in a month, one is permitted to partake of wine on the thirtieth day. Since it is

63a) which of the two months Adar is considered as Adar

Nedarim and maintain that he is always forbidden only until the beginning of Adar I. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 220:8) mentions the Rambam's view as a minority opinion. The commentaries note that in other places in the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 43:28, Rama, Even HaEzer 126:7), the Rambam's view is not cited at all. 20. We have translated the expression to fit the meaning given it by the Rambam. 21. The rationale for this ruling is explained in the following halachah. 22. Like Pesach which lasts for seven days (eight in the Diaspora) as prescribed by the Torah. 23. There is no fixed time for the harvest's conclusion, for that depends on how plentiful it will be.

Rosh Chodesh of the coming month, the vow has concluded even though the date is the thirtieth of the previous month.

24. For we do not assume that he took a vow of undetermined length.

The Radbaz explains that this in fact is the Rambam's intent, even though his wording is somewhat difficult to explain in

25. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 8:3), the

that manner. This interpretation is reflected in the wording of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 220:4). The Or Sameach offers a different interpretation, stating that when a month has only 29 days, sometimes the conjunction of the sun and the moon does not take place until the first day of the new month. Even so, since it is already Rosh Chodesh, the vow is concluded. 9. As explained in the previous halachah.

Rambam defines this as referring to the period from the end of Tammuz until the end of Elul when figs ripen and are ready for harvesting. 26. The wheat harvest is several weeks after the barley harvest. Since wheat is the more important crop, it is given prominence (Kessef Mishneh). 27. The figs and grapes would be laid out upon the mats to dry in the sun.

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

8 of 9

28. As the Rambam explains in the following halachah. 29. A mountainous region is cooler in the summer than a valley and the figs there will ripen later. 30. For that was his intent when he took the vow. It does not matter if this leads to a more lenient ruling or a more stringent one [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 220:13). 31. E.g., if he took a vow until the katzir in a place where the primary crop is barley, he is forbidden until the beginning of the barley harvest (ibid.:14). 32. The seventeenth of MarCheshvan begins the first phase of the rainy season. Although it is really an extension of the summer and not the beginning of the winter (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Pe'ah 7:5), rain at that time is not considered a chance occurrence and the vow is released. See Hilchot Ta'aniot 3:1-2 and Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 1:11 which also discuss these times for rain. 33. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973889/jewish/Nedarim...

35. And thus retroactively, she will be forbidden to derive benefit from the time the vow was taken. Had she been allowed to derive benefit, after she broke the vow, it would be a transgression. 36. For he allowed her to benefit from his property, thus committing a transgression. The woman is not liable for lashes (Radbaz). Others (Rashba, Rosh, Nedarim 57b) differ with the Rambam and maintain that the woman is liable for lashes. 37. For she did not benefit from him until Pesach. 38. The Merkevat HaMishneh explains that he should continue to withhold benefit from her, for that is the only way that he can insure that she will keep the vow. The Ra'avad and others differ with the Rambam concerning the need for this safeguard and their view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 220:22). 39. For the time for the stipulation has passed.

interprets the term reviah as referring to the time when rain

40. As above.

descends, explaining that it is similar to the term used for impregnating a woman, because in both cases, the potential

41. I.e., even if he was subjected to lashes for one transgression.

for life is granted. 34. For that is when the rains cease there. In the Diaspora, different laws apply with regard to all these expressions according to the local conditions.

42. Because the term of the vow was completed. This applies even if she broke the vow and went before Pesach (Radbaz).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

9 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973889/jewish/Nedarim...

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

1 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973890/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 11 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 10

[The following rules apply with regard to] a male minor who is twelve years and one day old1 and a female minor who is eleven years and one day old who took an oath or a vow, whether a vow forbidding something to them or a vow consecrating an article. We investigate them and ask them [questions]. If they know for Whose sake they took the vow2 or for Whose sake they consecrated [the article] or took the oath, their vows and their consecration are binding.3 If they do not know, their vows and their statements are of no consequence.

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 12

‫קטן בן שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד‬ ‫וקטנה בת אחת עשרה שנה ויום‬ ‫אחד שנשבעו או נדרו בין נדרי איסר בין‬ ‫נדרי הקדש בודקין אותן ושואלין אותן אם‬ ‫יודעין לשם מי נדרו ולשם מי הקדישו‬ ‫ונשבעו נדריהן קיימים והקדשן הקדש ואם‬ ‫לא ידעו אין בנדריהם ובדבריהם כלום‬ ‫וצריכין בדיקה כל השנה כולה שהוא שנת‬ :‫י"ב לקטנה ושנת י"ג לקטן‬

It is necessary to make an investigation throughout the entire twelfth year of a female minor and the entire thirteenth year of a male minor.4

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

2 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973890/jewish/Nedarim...

What is implied? A minor took a vow or consecrated [property] at the beginning of the year, they were questioned, it was discovered that they knew [for Whose sake the vow was taken], and the vow was maintained. If they took another vow, even at the end of this year, they must be questioned again [for the vow] to be maintained. We do not say: "Since they were knowledgeable at the beginning of the year, they no longer have to be questioned. Instead, we question them throughout the entire year.5

‫כיצד הרי שנדרו או הקדישו בתחלת‬ ‫שנה זו ושאלו אותן ונמצאו יודעין‬ ‫ונתקיים נדרן ונדרו נדר אחר אפילו בסוף‬ ‫שנה זו צריכין בדיקה ואחר כך יתקיים‬ ‫ואין אומרין הואיל ונמצאו יודעין בתחלת‬ ‫השנה אין צריכין בדיקה אלא בודקין אותן‬ :‫את כל השנה הזו כולה‬

Before this time, even when they say: "We know for Whose sake we took the vow or for Whose sake we consecrated it," their vows and their consecration are of no consequence. After this time [passes] and a male is thirteen years and one day and a female is twelve years and one day,6 even though they say: "We do not know for Whose sake we took the vow or for Whose sake we consecrated it,"7their vows and their consecration are binding even if they did not manifest physical signs of maturity.8 This is the time when vows [take effect] which is mentioned in all sources.9

‫קודם הזמן הזה אף על פי שאמרו‬ ‫יודעין אנו לשם מי נדרנו ולשם מי‬ ‫הקדשנו אין נדריהן נדר ואין הקדשן‬ ‫הקדש ואחר הזמן הזה שנמצא הבן בן י"ג‬ ‫שנה ויום אחד והבת בת י"ב שנה ויום‬ ‫אחד אע"פ שאמרו אין אנו יודעין לשם מי‬ ‫נדרנו ולשם מי הקדשנו דבריהן קיימין‬ ‫והקדשן הקדש ונדריהן נדרים ואף על פי‬ ‫שלא הביאו שתי שערות וזו היא עונת‬ :‫נדרים האמורה בכל מקום‬

Since they reached the age of majority, their vows are binding even if they did not manifest physical signs of majority and [thus] are not considered as adults with regard to all matters. This concept is of Scriptural origin:10 that when a person close to the age of adulthood utters a vow, his consecration [of articles] and his vows are binding. Nevertheless, although the vows of these individuals are binding, if they desecrate their vows or take oaths and substitute for them, they are not punishable by lashes until they reach the age of majority and manifest signs of physical maturity.11

‫הואיל והגיעו לשני הגדולים נדריהן‬ ‫קיימין אע"פ שלא הביאו סימנין‬ ‫ועדיין לא נעשו גדולים לכל דבר ודבר זה‬ ‫מדברי תורה שהמופלא הסמוך לאיש‬ ‫הקדשו ונדרו נדר אף על פי שנדריהן‬ ‫קיימין אם חללו נדרן או נשבעו והחליפו‬ :‫אינן לוקין עד שיגדילו ויביאו שתי שערות‬

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

3 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973890/jewish/Nedarim...

If [such a minor] consecrated an article and an adult came and benefited from the article that he consecrated, [the adult] is liable for lashes.12 For [the minor's] vows are valid according to Scriptural Law, as explained.13

‫הקדישו ובא הגדול ונהנה מן‬ ‫ההקדש שהקדישו לוקה משום‬ :‫שנדריהם נדרים מן התורה כמו שבארנו‬

When does the above statement - that the vows taken by a female twelve years and one day old are binding - apply? When she is neither in her father's domain14 or her husband's domain. If, however, she is in her father's domain, even if she comes of age and she is a maiden,15 her father may nullify16 all17 of the vows and oaths she takes on the day he hears of them, as [Numbers 30:6] states: "All of her vows and prohibitions18... [shall not stand...] because her father withheld her."

‫בד"א שבת י"ב שנה ויום אחד נדריה‬ ‫קיימין בשלא היתה ברשות האב או‬ ‫ברשות הבעל אבל אם היתה ברשות האב‬ ‫אפילו הגדילה והרי היא נערה אביה מפר‬ ‫כל נדריה וכל שבועות שתשבע ביום‬ ‫שמעו שנאמר כל נדריה ואסריה וגו' כי‬ :'‫הניא אביה אותה וגו‬

Until when may her father nullify [her vows]? Until she fully comes of age.19 Once she fully comes of age, he may not nullify her [vows].20 Instead, all of her vows and oaths are like those of a widow or a divorcee, as [implied by Numbers 30:10]: "Everything that she forbade upon her soul [shall remain upon her]."

‫ועד מתי אביה מפר עד שתבגר בגרה‬ ‫אינו מפר לה והרי כל נדריה‬ ‫ושבועותיה כנדר אלמנה וגרושה שנאמר‬ :'‫בהן כל אשר אסרה על נפשה וגו‬

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

4 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973890/jewish/Nedarim...

When may a husband nullify his wife's vows and oaths? From the time she enters the chupah.21 He may continue to nullify her vows forever until he divorces her, with the bill of divorce reaching her hand.22 If there was an unresolved doubt concerning her divorce,23 he should not nullify her vows. If he gives her a bill of divorce conditionally24or one that takes effect at a later time,25 he should not nullify [her vows] in the interim.26Similarly, [when a woman] has heard that her husband died and remarried, but [in truth] her husband was alive27 or other similar situations [prevail],28neither her first husband, nor her second husband should nullify her vows.29 If she was forbidden [to her husband] by a negative commandment30 and needless to say, if she is forbidden only by a positive commandment,31 and her husband nullified her vows, her vows are nullified.32

‫ומאימתי מפר הבעל נדרי אשתו‬ ‫ושבועותיה משתכנס לחופה והוא‬ ‫מפר לעולם עד שיגרשנה ויגיע הגט לידה‬ ‫היתה מגורשת מספק לא יפר לה נתן לה‬ ‫גט על תנאי או לאחר זמן לא יפר בימים‬ ‫שבינתיים וכן מי ששמעה שמת בעלה‬ ‫ונשאת והרי בעלה קיים וכיוצא בה אין‬ ‫הבעל הראשון ולא האחרון מפירין נדריה‬ ‫היתה מחייבי לאוין ואין צריך לומר מחייבי‬ :‫עשה והפר נדריה הרי אלו מופרין‬

When a maiden33 has been consecrated, her vows may be nullified only by her father and the erus34 together.35 If one nullified [a vow] alone, it is not nullified. If her erus nullified [the vow] alone and she violated the vow before her father nullified it, she is not liable for lashes.36

‫נערה מאורסה אין מפר נדריה אלא‬ ‫האב עם הבעל כאחד ואם הפר‬ ‫האחד לבדו אינו מופר הפר הבעל לבדו‬ ‫ועברה על נדרה קודם שיפר האב אינה‬ :‫לוקה‬

If (the erus) dies, she returns to her father's

‫מת הארוס חזרה לרשות אביה וכל‬ ‫שתדור האב מפר כשהיה קודם‬ ‫שתתארס מת האב אחר שנתארסה ונדרה‬ ‫אחר מותו אין הבעל מפר שאין הבעל‬ :‫מפר נדרי אשתו עד שתכנס לחופה‬

domain. Any vow she takes37 may be nullified by her father as was her status before consecration.38 If her father died after she was consecrated and she took a vow after his death, her erus cannot nullify it. For an erus cannot nullify his wife's vows [alone] until she enters the chupah.39

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

5 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973890/jewish/Nedarim...

[The following rules apply when] a consecrated maiden takes a vow, her father heard her vow, but not her erus,40 she was divorced that day and then consecrated by another person41 that day.42 Even if [she was divorced and consecrated] 100 times [that day], her father and her last erus may nullify the vows she took before her first erus. [The rationale is that] she never departed into her own domain for one moment,43 for throughout the entire time, she is in her father's domain, for she is still a maiden.

‫נערה ארוסה שנדרה ושמע אביה‬ ‫ולא שמע ארוסה ונתגרשה בו‬ ‫ביום ונתארסה לאחר בו ביום אפילו‬ ‫למאה אביה ובעלה האחרון מפירין נדריה‬ ‫שנדרה בפני ארוס ראשון מפני שלא‬ ‫יצאתה לרשות עצמה שעה אחת שעדיין‬ :‫היא ברשות האב מפני שהיא נערה‬

When, by contrast, a married woman took a vow and her husband did not nullify it, he divorced her that day, and remarried her that day, he cannot nullify her vows,44 for she departed into her independent domain after she took her vow.45 Although she took her vow in his domain and she is now in his domain, since she departed into her own domain in the interim, her vows are binding.

‫אבל האשה הנשואה שנדרה ולא‬ ‫הפר לה בעלה וגרשה בו ביום‬ ‫והחזירה בו ביום אינו יכול להפר שהרי‬ ‫יצאתה לרשות עצמה אחר שנדרה אע"פ‬ ‫שנדרה ברשותו והיא עתה ברשותו הואיל‬ ‫ויצתה ברשות עצמה בינתיים נתקיימו‬ :‫נדריה‬

[The following rule applies when] a consecrated maiden took a vow that was not heard by either her father or her erus,46 she was divorced, and then consecrated to someone else.47 Even several days after [she took the vow], when her father and her last erus hear about the vow that she took while consecrated to her first erus, they may nullify it, since her first erus did not hear it.

‫נערה מאורסה שנדרה ולא שמע‬ ‫אביה ולא בעלה ונתגרשה ונתארסה‬ ‫לאחרים אפילו לאחר כמה ימים כשישמע‬ ‫האב והבעל האחרון מפירין נדריה שנדרה‬ ‫בפני ארוס הראשון הואיל ולא שמע אותם‬ :‫הארוס הראשון‬

[The following rule applies when] a consecrated maiden took a vow, her father alone heard it and nullified it, but the man to whom she was consecrated died before hearing it. If she was consecrated to another man - or to 100 other men - that day48 her father and her last erus may nullify her vow.49

‫נערה מאורסה שנדרה ושמע אביה‬ ‫לבדו והפר לה ומת הארוס קודם‬ ‫שישמע ונתארסה בו ביום אפילו למאה‬ ‫אביה וארוסה האחרון מפירין נדריה‬ ‫שנדרה בפני ארוס ראשון שמת קודם‬ :‫שישמע‬

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

6 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973890/jewish/Nedarim...

[The following rule applies when] the erus heard [her vow], nullified it and died and afterwards,50 her father heard and she was consecrated to another person that day.51 Her father and the second erus may nullify her vows.52 If her father heard [that she took a vow], but the erus did not and the erus died that day or the erus also heard [about her vow] and nullified it or remained silent53 and then died that day, she returns to her father's domain and her father may nullify [her vows].54

‫שמע ארוס ראשון והפר ומת‬ ‫ואחר כך שמע האב ונתארסה‬ ‫לאחר בו ביום אביה עם הארוס האחרון‬ :‫מפירין נדריה‬

‫שמע אביה ולא שמע הארוס ומת‬ ‫בו ביום הארוס או ששמע גם‬ ‫הארוס והפר או ששתק ומת בו ביום‬ ‫נתרוקנה רשות לאב והאב יכול להפר‬ ‫שמע הארוס וקיים ומת בו ביום או ששמע‬ ‫ושתק ומת ביום שלאחריו אין האב יכול‬ :‫להפר‬

If the erus heard [about her vow] and maintained it and died that day, or remained silent and died the following day,55 her father cannot nullify her vow. If the erus, divorced her after hearing [of her vow], there is an unresolved question whether the divorce is considered as silence and her father may nullify her vow together with a second erus who consecrates her that day.56 Or perhaps the divorce is like her first erus maintaining her vow, in which instance, the vow is maintained.57

‫גירשה הארוס אחר ששמע הרי זה‬ ‫ספק אם הגירושין כשתיקה ויפר‬ ‫האב עם הבעל האחרון שיארס בו ביום או‬ ‫הגירושין כמו שקיים ארוס ראשון שכבר‬ :‫נתקיימו הנדרים‬

When the father heard the vow and nullified it and then died and then the erus heard [of the vow] or even if the erus heard of the vow before the death of the father,58 she is not transferred [entirely] to the domain of her erus. He cannot ever nullify the vow after the father's death, for an erus can nullify a vow only together [with the father].

‫שמע האב והפר לה ומת האב‬ ‫ואח"כ שמע הבעל אפילו שמע‬ ‫הבעל קודם שימות האב לא נתרוקנה‬ ‫רשות לבעל ואינו יכול להפר לעולם אחר‬ ‫מות האב שאין הארוס מפר אלא‬ :‫בשותפות‬

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

7 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973890/jewish/Nedarim...

If the erus heard [the vow], nullified it, and died and then the father heard or the father heard and nullified it and the erus died before he heard it, the father cannot nullify these vows that were in the jurisdiction of the first erus except together with a second erus to whom she is consecrated that day,59 as we explained.60

‫שמע ארוס והפר לה ומת ואח"כ‬ ‫שמע האב או ששמע האב והפר‬ ‫לה ומת הבעל קודם שישמע אין האב‬ ‫לבדו יכול להפר נדרים אלו שנראו לארוס‬ ‫ראשון אלא בשותפות ארוס האחרון אם‬ :‫נתארסה בו ביום כמו שבארנו‬

If a woman took a vow, her father nullified it alone, and her husband did not hear [of the vow] until he brought her into his domain,61 he cannot nullify [her vow]. For a husband cannot nullify a vow taken by the woman he consecrated after he marries her.62 Instead, [this must be done] before she enters his domain, when he nullifies it together with her father. For this reason,63 it was the practice of Torah Sages to tell their daughters before they left their domain:64 "All the vows which you took while in my household are nullified."

‫נדרה והפר לה אביה לבדו ולא שמע‬ ‫הארוס עד שנכנסה לרשותו אינו‬ ‫יכול להפר שאין הבעל מפר נדרי ארוסתו‬ ‫אחר שנשאת אלא קודם שתכנס לרשותו‬ ‫הוא שמפר בשותפות האב לפיכך היה‬ ‫דרך תלמידי חכמים עד שלא תצא בתו‬ ‫מרשותו אומר לה כל נדרים שנדרת בתוך‬ :‫ביתי הרי הן מופרין‬

Similarly, the husband would tell her before she enters his domain: "All of the vows that you took from the time I consecrated you65 until you entered my home are nullified." For a husband66 can nullify the vows of his wife even though he did not hear them.67

‫וכן הבעל עד שלא תכנס לרשותו‬ ‫אומר לה כל נדרים שנדרת‬ ‫משאירסתיך עד שלא תכנסי בתוך ביתי‬ ‫הרי הן מופרין שהבעל מפר נדרי אשתו‬ :‫אף על פי שלא שמע אותם‬

If the father went with the agents of the husband68 or the father's agents went with the agents of the husband, her vows must still be nullified by her father and her husband jointly.69 If her father transferred her to the agents of her husband or her father's agents transferred her to her husband's agents, her father can no longer nullify her vows.70 Nor may the husband nullify them. For the husband cannot nullify vows that were taken before [he married her], as we explained.71

‫הלך האב עם שלוחי הבעל או‬ ‫שהלכו שלוחי האב עם שלוחי‬ ‫הבעל עדיין אביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה‬ ‫מסר האב לשלוחי הבעל או שמסרו‬ ‫שלוחי האב לשלוחי הבעל אין האב יכול‬ ‫להפר שהרי יצאת מרשותו ולא הבעל‬ ‫יכול להפר שאין הבעל מפר בקודמין כמו‬ :‫שבארנו‬

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

8 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973890/jewish/Nedarim...

When a woman is waiting for yivum72 - even if the yevam already made a statement of his intent,73 and even if there is only one yevam and one yevamah74 - [the yevam] may not nullify her vows until he is intimate with her.75

‫שומרת יבם אפילו עשה בה יבמה‬ ‫מאמר ואפילו יבם אחד ליבמה‬ ‫אחת אינו מפר נדרי יבמתו עד שיבא‬ :‫עליה‬

When a yevamah who is a maiden had been [merely] consecrated to [her deceased husband] and her father is alive, the yevam and her father do not nullify her vows together. Instead, her father alone is the one who nullifies any vow that she takes.76 Even if the yevam stated his intent to marry her, she is not considered as a consecrated maiden, for a statement of intent does not [establish] a complete [marriage bond between] a yevamah [and her yevam], as we explained.77

‫היתה יבמתו נערה מאורסה‬ ‫לאחיו ואביה קיים אין היבם‬ ‫ואביה מפירים נדריה כאחת אלא האב‬ ‫לבדו הוא שמפר כל שתדור ואפילו עשה‬ ‫בה היבם מאמר אינה כנערה מאורסה‬ ‫שאין המאמר קונה ביבמה קנין גמור כמו‬ :‫שבארנו‬

When a maiden who was given in marriage by her father is widowed or divorced after marriage,78 she is like an orphan in her father's lifetime. Her father does not have the right to nullify her vows even if she is a maiden.79

‫נערה שהשיאה אביה ונתאלמנה‬ ‫או נתגרשה מן הנשואין הרי זו‬ ‫כיתומה בחיי האב ואין אביה מפר נדריה‬ :‫ואע"פ שעדיין היא נערה‬

When a consecrated maiden takes a vow, but neither her father or her husband heard of her vows until she came of age80 or until she became like an orphan in her father's lifetime,81 her vows are binding; they cannot be nullified by her erus.82 [The rationale is that] she departed from her father's domain and he [and her erus] must nullify her vows together and she has not entered her husband's domain.83

‫נערה מאורסה שנדרה ולא שמעו‬ ‫נדריה אביה ובעלה עד שבגרה או‬ ‫עד שנעשית יתומה בחיי האב הרי נדריה‬ ‫קיימים ואין הבעל יכול להפר שהרי יצאת‬ ‫מרשות אביה שהוא מפר עמו בשותפות‬ :‫ועדיין לא נכנסה לרשות הבעל‬

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 10

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 12

FOOTNOTES

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

9 of 12

1. As explained by the commentaries, in this context, we follow the principle: "A portion of a day is considered as an entire day." Thus, directly after his twelfth birthday, as soon as a male child enters into his thirteenth year of life, these laws apply to him. Similar concepts apply with regard to a female minor. 2. For a vow must be taken for God's sake, as Numbers 30:3 states: "When a man will take a vow to God." 3. This is a unique concept that Niddah 45b derives from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:2. Although throughout Jewish law, until a male attains the age of thirteen and a female, the age of twelve, their actions are of no consequence according to Scriptural Law, an exception is made in this instance because of the above verse, as stated in Halachah 4. 4. As explained in the following halachah. 5. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that Niddah, loc. cit., the source for this halachah, does not lead to such a conclusion. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that text. Yayin Malchut states that this resolution is reflected in the revised version of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 5:6). In his initial explanation of the mishnah, he appeared to follow the same text as the popular version of the Talmud, but later in life, he revised that interpretation, accepting a different version of the text. The Rambam's rationale is that since we are speaking about a minor, it is possible that his level of understanding will fluctuate. 6. I.e., their thirteenth and twelfth birthdays arrive as stated in note 1. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 5:6), the Rambam writes that the Torah made the age for which women become responsible for their vows less than the age men become responsible, generally, a woman's lifetime is less than that of a man. 7. If they manifested signs that they are mentally or emotionally incapable, this law does not apply. If, however, they are merely somewhat slow and do not understand the concept of vows, their vows are of consequence, because they have already reached the age when one becomes responsible for his or her actions. 8. I.e., two pubic hairs as stated in Hilchot Ishut 2:1.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973890/jewish/Nedarim...

11. For until the latter age, they are still minors, and minors are not liable for punishment for transgressions that they perform. 12. For violating the prohibition against benefiting consecrated property (Hilchot Meilah 1:3).

from

13. In the previous halachah. Since the child's consecration is valid, the article has the status of a consecrated article according to Scriptural misappropriates it is liable.

Law

and

a

person

who

14. I.e., her father died. Alternatively, she was married as a minor and then she was divorced or widowed (see Halachah 25). Otherwise, she remains in his domain until the age of twelve and a half, as stated in the following halachah. 15. I.e., from the age of twelve until the age of twelve and a half. 16. See Chapter 13, Halachah 2, which describes how the father nullifies his daughter's vow. 17. As the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:1) states, this applies even to vows taken dependent on the consent of others which cannot be repealed by a sage. 18. The HaEmek HaShaalah interprets this term as referring to oaths. 19. I.e., reaches the age of twelve and a half after manifesting physical signs of maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:2). 20. Numbers 30:17 gives him this privilege "during her maidenhood," i.e., and not beyond that time period (Kessef Mishneh). 21. I.e, from the beginning of the second sage of the marriage relationship known as nissuin. At that time, he takes her into a private room and from that time onward, the couple live as man and wife (Hilchot Ishut 10:1). During the first stage of the marriage relationship (erusin), when the erus has merely consecrated his wife, he does not have the right to nullify her vows alone (see Halachah 9). (In the present era, it is customary to perform both these stages of marriage directly after each other.) 22. Implied is that if he sends the bill of divorce to her via an agent, he may nullify her vows until the bill of divorce enters her possession (Siftei Cohen 234:6, Turei Zahav 234:1). 23. I.e., he had a bill of divorce given to her and our Rabbis could not resolve if the manner in which the bill of divorce

9. There are others who maintain that the expression "the time when vows [take effect]" refers to a minor who understands

was given or written is effective. See Hilchot Gerushin 5:13

the meaning of his vows as stated in Halachah 1. The Rambam prefers his interpretation, because it is dependent

The rationale for this law is that our Sages understood that the reason the Torah gave a husband the right to nullify his

on time, the child's age, while the first interpretation is

wife's vows was so that she would not become unattractive to him (Yevamot 90b). In this instance, he is not concerned

dependent on the child's knowledge (Yayim Malchut). 10. This is the subject of debate among the Rishonim, for some do not accept the Rambam's view.

for an example.

that she becomes unattractive (Radbaz). 24. See Hilchot Gerushin 8:1.

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

10 of 12

25. He tells her: "Here is your bill of divorce, but it does not take effect for 30 days" (ibid. 9:1). 26. I.e., in the days before the vow takes effect. The Siftei Cohen 234:8 states that even after the fact, the nullification does not take effect. 27. See Hilchot Gerushin 10:5 which describes this situation at length. 28. E.g., a woman who went through a divorce and then remarried, but then it was discovered that her divorce was invalid (ibid.:7). In both this and the previous instance, both husbands are required to divorce the woman.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973890/jewish/Nedarim...

39. Before nissuin, an erus can nullify his wife's vows only together with her father and that is impossible in this instance. See also Halachah 16. 40. For if her first erus heard her vow and did not nullify it, her father can no longer nullify it together with her second erus. See Halachah 17. 41. Or consecrated again by her first erus [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:13)]. 42. It is necessary that the divorce(s) and the consecration(s) take place on the same day the father heard of and nullified the vow. For if not, the woman's last erus will not have the

29. The rationale for this and the previous laws is that our Sages understood that the reason the Torah gave a husband the

right to nullify the vow, as indicated by Chapter 12, Halachah 17.

right to nullify his wife's vows was so that she would not become unattractive to him. In this instance, since he is

43. In contrast to the laws applying to a married woman, as stated in the following halachah.

obligated to divorce her, it is desirable that she become unattractive to him (Yevamot, loc. cit.).

44. Nor may her father nullify her vows, for once she marries,

30. I.e., a negative commandment that is not punishable by

45. Once a woman becomes independent for even one moment,

execution, death at the hand of heaven, or karet. See Hilchot

her future husband cannot nullify the vows she took previously.

Ishut 1:7.

her father no longer has the right to nullify her vows.

31. E.g., marriages like that of a non-virgin to a High Priest, which are not prohibited by a negative commandment.

46. If, however, either her erus or her father heard her vow when

Instead, the prohibition is understood, because there is a positive commandment instructing the opposite. See ibid.:8.

47. Since she remains partially in her father's domain, the

32. Although these marriages are forbidden, since they are still binding, the husband has this privilege. 33. I.e., a girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half.

it was taken, it cannot be nullified at a later date. divorce does not effect the right of her father and her present erus to nullify her vows. 48. The consecration and the nullification of the vow must take

34. The term erus means "the man who consecrated her." The

place on the day that the father heard of the vow and nullified it (Turei Zahav 234:22).

Rambam does not use this term, but instead, the term baal

49. Since her first erus did not hear of her vow, the fact that he

meaning "husband." We, however, have used the term erus,

died before nullifying it does not deprive her last erus of that

because the term baal usually implies that nisuin, the

right. The father cannot nullify her vow alone, because it was

second stage of marriage, has already taken place. 35. Numbers 30:17 states: "These are the statutes... between a

taken when she was consecrated. Since her father nullified the vow, the right of her erus to nullify the vow is weak and of

man and his wife, between a father and his daughter in her youth." Nedarim 68a interprets the verse as referring to one

little substance. Accordingly, the right to nullify it cannot be transferred to the father alone, as in Halachah 16.

woman, implying that the nullification of her vows is performed by her father and her erus together. In his

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:16) quotes the

Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 9:9), the Rambam

the second erus can never nullify a vow together with the

writes that from the Biblical text, it might appear that both the father and the erus have the right to nullify her vows

father.

independently. Hence, it is necessary to clarify that this is not so.

Rambam's view, but also that of the Tur which maintains that

50. I.e., after the death of her erus. 51. But not on the following day. The Radbaz explains that this is

36. Nedarim 68a states that since one of the two has already

speaking about a situation when the father heard of the vow on the same day as her first erus, for the nullification must be

nullified the vow, it is weak and its violation is not punishable by lashes.

completed on the same day that he heard of the vow. If, however, her father does not hear about it until the following

37. Even the vows she took previously while consecrated [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:11)]. This applies even if

day and she was consecrated then, he and her new erus may nullify her vow then.

she has a yevam (Halachah 24). 38. As stated in Halachah 6.

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

11 of 12

52. The Turei Zahav 234:13 maintains that the Rambam would

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973890/jewish/Nedarim...

65. An erus may also nullify the vows that a woman took before

also give her father the right to nullify the vow alone,

he consecrated her (together with her father). We assume,

because her first erus also heard the vow and did not

however, that her father already nullified those vows (Siftei

maintain it (see the following halachah). The Rambam

Cohen 234:21; Turei Zahav 234:11).

mentions her being consecrated by another person only to teach that if, this is indeed the situation, the second erus must also nullify the vow. 53. Since he did not maintain the vow and died before the day was completed, we say that there was a possibility that he would nullify it. Hence, her father is given the right to nullify it. 54. Since her erus no longer exists and he did not maintain the vow, the right to nullify is given to her father. In his gloss to Halachah 19, the Radbaz explains the apparent contradiction between these two halachot by stating that this halachah refers to an instance where the father did not nullify the vow before the erus died. Accordingly, the right of the erus to nullify the vow is not weakened. Hence it can be transferred to the father. Halachah 19 refers to a situation where the father nullified the vow and weakens it, as explained above. 55. Since he did not nullify it on the day that he heard it, he cannot nullify again. It is considered as if he maintained it. Once he maintained it, her father cannot nullify it. 56. I.e., combining Halachah 15 which states that the father and the second erus can nullify the vow and Halachah 16 which states that silence is equivalent to nullification. If she does not become consecrated again, the father can nullify the vow alone (Turei Zahav, loc. cit.). 57. And cannot be nullified afterwards. 58. But did not nullify it then. 59. If, however, he nullifies on a later date it is unacceptable, for the father must nullify the vow on the day he became aware of it. 60. Halachah 15. In his gloss to this halachah, the Radbaz explains the apparent contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 16 by stating that Halachah 16 refers to an instance where the father did not nullify the vow before the

66. This also applies to her father. The husband and the father must, however, be capable of hearing. If they are deaf, they cannot nullify a vow (Chapter 12, Halachah 13). 67. Thus if both the father and the husband made these statements, the vows are nullified. In some manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah, these two halachot are combined as one. 68. Who were sent to bring her to her husband's home. 69. As long as her father is accompanying her, he is not considered to have transferred her to her husband's domain and hence, still has the right to nullify her vows. 70. I.e., even if the husband dies [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:12)]. 71. See Halachah 20. 72. I.e., we are speaking about a widow whose husband dies childless who must be married by her deceased husband's brother. See Deuteronomy, ch. 25. 73. Which is similar to consecration, but not entirely analogous to consecration (see Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 2:1). 74. And thus there is no question that she is designated for him. 75. At which point their marriage is consummated and she becomes his wife. Until then, even if he has stated his intent, according to Scriptural Law, she is not his wife and he cannot nullify her vows. 76. As stated in Halachah 10. 77. Which is similar to consecration, but not entirely analogous to consecration (see Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 2:1). 78. I.e., she has already completed nissuin, the second stage of the marriage bond. 79. I.e., although from the standpoint of age, her father would

erus died. Accordingly, the right of the erus to nullify the vow

still have the right to nullify her vows, since she married, she is given full independence. Hence, he no longer has this

is not weakened. Hence it can be transferred to the father.

right.

This halachah refers to a situation where the father nullified the vow and weakens it. Hence it cannot be transferred as

80. As stated in Halachah 7, once she comes of age, her father no longer has any authority over her.

explained in the notes to Halachah 15. This understanding is reflected in the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah

81. I.e., she was divorced or widowed after marriage, as stated in the previous halachah.

234:16). 61. I.e., completed the second stage of the marriage, nissuin. 62. See Halachah 8. 63. I.e., to enable all the vows concerning which he did not hear

82. I.e., in the first situation, the man who consecrated her before she came of age. In the second situation, it refers to a second husband who consecrated her after she was divorced or widowed.

to be nullified. 64. I.e., before their marriage.

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 11 - Texts & Writings

12 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973890/jewish/Nedarim...

83. This occurs only after nissuin. Moreover, even after she enters her husband's domain, he cannot nullify her vows that were taken beforehand, as stated in Halachah 20.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:16 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

1 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 12 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 11

A father [has the right to] nullify any1 vows and oaths [taken by his daughter only] on the day he hears of them,2 as [Numbers 30:6] states: "[But if her father withheld her on the day that he heard,] all of her vows and prohibitions3... [shall not stand]." A husband,4 by contrast, may nullify only those vows and oaths that involve personal aggravation5 or they are matters that affect the marriage relationship6, e.g., she took an oath or a vow not to put on eye-paint or wear jewelry.7 [This is implied by ibid.:17]: "between a man and his wife." What is the difference between [the laws governing] vows that involve personal aggravation and those that affect the marriage relationship. With regard to vows that involve personal aggravation, his nullification has bearing for himself and for others.8 With regard to those involving the marriage relationship, his nullification has bearing for himself but not for others.9

English

Hebrew

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 13

‫כל הנדרים והשבועות האב מפר‬ ‫ביום שמעו שנאמר כל נדריה‬ ‫ואסריה אבל הבעל אינו יכול להפר אלא‬ ‫כל נדרים ושבועות שיש בהן עינוי נפש או‬ ‫שהן בדברים שבינו לבינה כגון שנשבעה‬ ‫או נדרה שלא תכחול או שלא תתקשט‬ :‫שנאמר בין איש לאשתו‬

‫ומה בין נדרים שיש בהן עינוי נפש‬ ‫לדברים שבינו לבינה שהנדרים שיש‬ ‫בהן עינוי נפש מפר אל עצמו ואל אחרים‬ ‫ושבינו לבינה לעצמו מפר ולאחרים אינו‬ :‫מפר‬

8/21/2019 4:17 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

2 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Nedarim...

What is implied? She took a vow not to eat meat. He may nullify it and she will be permitted to eat meat if she is married to any other person forever. If she forbade marital intimacy with any man, he may nullify the vow with regard to himself10 and she may engage in intimacy with him. If, however, he dies or divorces her, she is forbidden to engage in intimacy with all other men. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫כיצד נדרה שלא לאכול בשר מפר לה‬ ‫ותהיה מותרת לאכול עם כל אדם‬ ‫לעולם אסרה עליה תשמיש כל אדם‬ ‫שבעולם יפר חלקו ותהיה משמשתו‬ ‫וכשימות או יגרשנה הרי היא אסורה‬ :‫בתשמיש כל אדם וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

Whether the aggravation is of a minor nature or a major nature, for a short time or for a long time, the husband has the right to nullify all [such] vows.

‫אחד עינוי גדול ואחד עינוי קטן‬ ‫ואחד עינוי שהוא לזמן מרובה או לפי‬ :‫שעה הכל מפר הבעל‬

What is implied? She took a vow or an oath "not to bathe today," "not drink wine today," or "not to eat honey today,"11 he may nullify the vows. [This also applies if] she vowed "not to put on eye paint today" or "not to wear colored woven garments today."12 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Even if she took a vow [not to partake of] an unpleasant food13 or a type of food that she had never eaten,14 [her husband] may nullify it.

‫כיצד נדרה או נשבעה שלא תרחץ‬ ‫היום או שלא תשתה יין היום או‬ ‫שלא תאכל היום דבש וכן אם נדרה שלא‬ ‫תכחול היום או שלא תלבש רקמה היום‬ ‫מפר וכן כל כיוצא בזה אפילו נדרה‬ ‫ממאכל רע או ממין שלא טעמה אותו‬ :‫מימיה הרי זה יפר‬

When she took a vow not to partake of two loaves of bread and not partaking of one would cause her aggravation, but not partaking of the other would not cause her aggravation,15 her husband may nullify the one that would cause her aggravation and may not nullify the one that would not cause her aggravation.16

‫נדרה משתי ככרות באחת יש לה עינוי‬ ‫ובאחת אין לה עינוי מפר לזו שמתענה‬ :‫בה ואינו מפר לזו שאין לה עינוי‬

8/21/2019 4:17 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

3 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Nedarim...

When a woman takes a vow not to eat figs from her native country, [her husband] may nullify her vow, because this is a matter that affects the marriage relationship.17 For it is a major problem for him to undertake the difficulty of bringing her [figs] from another place. Therefore, if he dies, divorces her, or another person brings her figs from her native country, they are forbidden to her. For [a husband's] nullification [of a vow that] affects the marriage relationship does not have bearing for others.18

‫נדרה שלא תאכל תאנים של מדינה זו‬ ‫יפר משום דברים שבינו לבינה שעסק‬ ‫גדול הוא לו להטפל ולהביא לה ממדינה‬ ‫אחרת לפיכך אם מת או גירשה או שהביא‬ ‫לה איש אחר מפירות אותה מדינה הרי‬ ‫אלו אסורין עליה שאינו מפר לאחרים‬ :‫בדברים שבינו לבינה‬

Similarly, if she took an oath not to benefit from people at large, even though her husband is not included in the vow,19 he has the right to nullify it, because it affects the marriage relationship.20 Otherwise, he will have to give her food only from his own resources. Similarly, he may nullify [the vow] if she [takes a vow], forbidding her from benefiting from an entire nation,21 e.g., all the Jews or all the Ishmaelites.

‫וכן אם נדרה שלא ליהנות לבריות‬ ‫אף על פי שאין הבעל בכלל יש לו‬ ‫להפר משום דברים שבינו לבינה שלא‬ ‫יהיה זקוק להאכילה משלו בלבד וכן אם‬ [‫אסרה הנאתה על אומה )כולה( כגון ]כל‬ :‫היהודים או כל הישמעאלים הרי זה יפר‬

When a woman tells her husband: "Pleasure from intimacy with me is forbidden to you," he need not nullify the vow.22 To what can the matter be compared? To one who forbids the owner of fruit from benefiting from his own fruit.23 Similarly, if he tells her: "Pleasure from intimacy with me is forbidden to you," his statements are of no consequence, because he is obligated to provide her with her sustenance, clothing, and intimacy, as we explained in Hilchot Ishut.24

‫האשה שאמרה לבעלה הנאת‬ ‫תשמישי אסורה עליך אינו צריך‬ ‫להפר הא למה זה דומה לאוסר פירות‬ ‫חבירו על בעל הפירות וכן הוא שאומר לה‬ ‫הנאת תשמישי אסורה עליך לא אמר‬ ‫כלום מפני שהוא משועבד לה בשאר‬ ‫כסות ועונה כמו שבארנו בהלכות אישות‬ ‫אבל אם אמרה לו הנאת תשמישך אסורה‬ ‫עלי צריך להפר ואם לא הפר הרי זה‬ ‫אסור לשמשה שאין מאכילין את האדם‬ :‫דבר האסור לו‬

If, however, she told him: "Pleasure from intimacy with you is forbidden to me," he must nullify the vow.25 If he does not nullify it, it is forbidden for him to engage in relations with her, because we may not force a person to partake of food that is forbidden to him.

8/21/2019 4:17 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

4 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Nedarim...

If she said: "May my hands be sanctified to the One who made them," or she took a vow that he would not benefit from the labor of her hands,26 he is not forbidden to benefit from the labor of her hands, because her hands are on lien to him.27 Although [our Sages] declared:28 "Emancipation,29[the prohibition against] chametz,30and consecration31sever a lien," our Sages reinforced a husband's lien [on his wife's work and her earnings], preventing her from severing it, because it is of Rabbinic origin.32 He must, however, nullify the vow, lest he divorce her and then he be forbidden to remarry her.33

‫אמרה יקדשו ידי לעושיהן או שנדרה‬ ‫שלא יהנה במעשה ידיה אינו נאסר‬ ‫במעשה ידיה מפני שידיה משועבדין לו‬ ‫שאע"פ שאמרו השחרור והחמץ וההקדש‬ ‫מפקיעין השעבוד חכמים עשו חזוק‬ ‫לשעבוד הבעל שאינה יכולה להפקיעו‬ ‫מפני שהוא מדבריהם אבל צריך הוא‬ ‫להפר שמא יגרשנה ותהיה אסורה לחזור‬ :‫לו‬

If she took an oath or a vow that neither the father of her husband, his brothers, or any of his other relatives will benefit from her, he cannot nullify the vow.34 Similarly, he may not nullify her vow if she vows not to bring his animal35 water,36 straw for his cattle,37 or the like. [The rationale is that these vows] do not aggravate the soul, nor do they affect the marriage relationship, [since] they are not of the tasks that she is obligated to perform.38

‫נשבעה או נדרה שלא יהנה בה לא‬ ‫אבי בעלה ולא אחיו ושאר קרוביו‬ ‫אינו יכול להפר וכן אם נדרה שלא אתן‬ ‫מים לפני בהמתך ותבן לפני בקרך וכיוצא‬ ‫בדברים אלו שאין בהן עינוי נפש ואינם‬ ‫מדברים שבינו לבינה ואינה ממלאכות‬ :‫שהיא חייבת בהן הרי זה אינו יכול להפר‬

A husband and a father may nullify vows that have not taken effect and have not yet caused prohibitions for her.39 What is implied? She said, for example: "Wine will be forbidden to me if I go to this-and-this place."40 Even though she has not yet gone there and [thus the wine] is not yet forbidden, the vow may be nullified. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫יש לבעל ולאב להפר נדרים שעדיין‬ ‫לא חלו ולא נאסרה בהן כיצד כגון‬ ‫שאמרה היין אסור עלי אם אלך למקום‬ ‫פלוני הרי זה מפר אף על פי שעדיין לא‬ :‫הלכה ולא נאסרה וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

A father or a husband who is deaf41 may not nullify vows.42 Even though a husband may nullify vows which he has not heard,43 when a person is fit to hear a vow, [the fact that he does not] hear it is not of consequence.44

‫האב או הבעל שאין שומעין אינם‬ ‫מפירין אע"פ שהבעל מפר נדרים‬ ‫שלא שמען הראוי לשמוע אין השמועה‬ :‫מעכבת בו‬

8/21/2019 4:17 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

5 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Nedarim...

Neither a father, nor a husband who is intellectually or emotionally unstable may nullify a vow. A minor cannot establish a marriage bond;45 accordingly, he may not nullify a vow. A husband may nullify the vows of two of his wives simultaneously. Similarly, a father may nullify the vows of two of his daughters simultaneously.46

‫השוטה אינו מפר בין אב בין בעל‬ ‫הקטן אין לו אישות לפיכך אינו‬ ‫מפר והבעל מפר נדרי שתי נשיו כאחת‬ :‫וכן האב מפר נדרי שתי בנותיו כאחת‬

The nullification of vows may be carried out throughout the entire day.47 [The right does not continue] for 24 hours.

‫הפרת נדרים כל היום ואינה מעת‬ ‫לעת כיצד נדרה בתחלת ליל שני‬ ‫הרי מפר אותה הלילה וכל יום שני נדרה‬ ‫ביום שני בתחלת היום מפר כל אותו היום‬ ‫נדרה בסוף היום עם חשכה אם הפר לה‬ ‫עד שלא תחשך מופר ואם לא הפר לה עד‬ :‫שחשיכה אינו יכול להפר‬

What is implied? If she took a vow at the beginning of Sunday night, the vow may be nullified throughout that night and the entire day Monday.48 When she took a vow at the conclusion of the day, directly before nightfall. If he49 nullified the vow before nightfall, it is nullified. If he did not nullify it until after nightfall, he may not nullify it any longer.50 What is meant by the Torah's words [Numbers 30:15]: "from one day to the next"?51 They teach that if she takes a vow at night, he may nullify it during the night. And he may nullify it throughout the following day, as we explained.52 If she took a vow and waited several days and only then, her father or her husband heard of it, he may nullify it on the day he heard of it. It is as if she took the vow on the day that he heard of it, as [implied by ibid.:6]: "On the day he heard of it," [i.e.,] and not only the day she took the vow.

‫ומהו זה שכתוב בתורה מיום אל‬ ‫יום מלמד שמפר בלילה אם נדרה‬ ‫בלילה וכן מפר כל היום כמו שבארנו‬ ‫נדרה ושהתה כמה ימים ואחר כך שמע‬ ‫האב או הבעל הרי זה מפר ביום שמעו‬ ‫וכאילו נדרה בעת ששמעה שנאמר ביום‬ :‫שמעו לא ביום נדרה בלבד‬

8/21/2019 4:17 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

6 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Nedarim...

When a consecrated maiden took a vow and her father heard of it and nullified it and after several days her erus heard of it and nullified it on the day he heard of it, it is not nullified, as [implied by ibid.:6-8]: "If her father prevented her on the day that he heard of it.... If she was married to a man with vows incumbent upon her.... If her husband heard of it. On the day, he heard of it...." From this we infer: Since her father nullified it and her erus heard of it, he must nullify it on the day the father heard of it. Similarly, if her erus heard [of the vow] and nullified it and after several days, the father heard of it and nullified it on the day he heard of it, it is not nullified.53

‫נערה מאורסה שנדרה ושמע אביה‬ ‫והפר ולאחר ימים שמע הארוס‬ ‫והפר ביום שמעו אין זה מופר שנאמר ואם‬ ‫הניא אביה אותה ביום שמעו וגו' ואם היו‬ ‫תהיה לאיש ונדריה עליה ושמע אישה‬ ‫ביום שמעו וגו' הא למדת שאחר שהפר‬ ‫האב ושמע הארוס הרי זה מפר ביום‬ ‫שמוע האב והוא הדין אם שמע ארוס‬ ‫והפר ואחר כמה ימים שמע האב והפר‬ ‫ביום שמעו שאינו מופר ומנין שבנערה‬ ‫מאורסה הכתוב מדבר שהרי הוא אומר‬ ‫למטה ואם בית אישה נדרה וגו' ושמע‬ ‫אישה והחריש לה וגו' מכלל שאישה‬ :‫האמור למעלה ארוס כמו שבארנו‬

How do we know that the verse is speaking about a consecrated maiden? Because further on, the passage [ibid.:11-12] states: "If she vows in her husband's home...54 her husband heard her and remained silent." We can infer that the husband spoken about previously is an erus., as we explained. When a father or a husband hears of a vow and remains silent in order to cause the woman aggravation,55 if the day passes without him nullifying or revoking [her vows], they are binding even if he did not have the intent of accepting them. If she took a vow and her father or her husband nullified it, but without knowing of the nullification, she willfully violated her vow or oath, she is not liable. Although she had the intent of transgressing, since she committed a permitted act,56 she is exempt. Concerning this, [ibid.:6] states: "God will forgive her, although her father prevented her." She is given stripes for rebellious conduct,57 because she had the intent to transgress.

‫שמע האב או הבעל ושתק כדי‬ ‫לצערה אף על פי שלא היה בלבו‬ ‫לקיים נדרה הואיל ועבר היום ולא הפר‬ ‫ולא בטל נתקיימו נדריה נדרה והפר לה‬ ‫האב או הבעל והיא לא ידעה שהפר‬ ‫ועברה על נדרה או על שבועתה בזדון הרי‬ ‫זו פטורה ואע"פ שנתכוונה לאסור הואיל‬ '‫ונעשה ההיתר פטורה ועל זה נאמר וה‬ ‫יסלח לה כי הניא אביה אותה ומכין אותה‬ :‫מכת מרדות מפני שנתכוונה לאיסור‬

8/21/2019 4:17 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

7 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Nedarim...

When she takes a vow and violates her vow before her father or her husband nullifies it, she is liable - either for lashes58 or a sacrifice59 - for the transgression she committed even if he heard of it that day and nullified it.60

‫נדרה ועברה על נדרה קודם שיפר‬ ‫לה אביה או בעלה אף על פי‬ ‫ששמע בו ביום והפר לה הרי זה חייבת על‬ ‫דבר שעברה בו אם מלקות מלקות ואם‬ :‫קרבן קרבן‬

If a father or a husband heard of [a woman's] vow, but remained silent, because he did not know that a father or a husband has a right to nullify her vows or he knew that he had a right to nullify her vow, but did not know that such a vow required nullification, when he learns of this, he may nullify [the vow]. The time when he gains this knowledge is equivalent to the time of the vow or the time he heard of it and he may nullify it for that entire day.

‫שמע נדרה ושתק מפני שלא היה‬ ‫יודע שיש לאב או לבעל להפר או‬ ‫שידע שיש להם להפר אבל לא ידע שנדר‬ ‫זה צריך הפרה ולאחר זמן ידע הרי זה יפר‬ ‫ושעת ידיעתו כאילו היא שעת הנדר או‬ :‫שעת שמועתו ויפר כל היום‬

[When a nullification is made in error,] one must return and nullify it again. [For example,] his wife took a vow and he thought that she was his daughter, and he nullified it with the intent that she was his daughter. She took a nazirite vow and he thought that she had vowed [to offer] a sacrifice and he nullified it with the intent that she had vowed [to offer] a sacrifice. She forbade herself to partake of figs and he thought she said grapes and nullified with the intent that she had forbade grapes. [In all such instances,] he must nullify the vow again when he learns of the vow and the identity of the woman taking the vow for the sake of this woman and this vow. [This can be inferred from ibid.:5]: "Her father did not prevent her"; [this indicates that he must have in mind] the woman taking the vow herself. "And her father heard her vow,"61 i.e., until he knows the vow that she took. He may nullify the vow throughout the entire day that he discovers this information.62

‫נדרה אשתו וסבור שהיא בתו‬ ‫והפר לה על דעת שהיא בתו וכן‬ ‫אם נדרה בנזיר וסבור שנדרה בקרבן והפר‬ ‫לה על דעת שנדרה קרבן אסרה עצמה‬ ‫בתאנים וסבור ]שאסרה עצמה[ בענבים‬ [‫והפר לה על דעת שנדרה לאסור ]עצמה‬ ‫בענבים צריך לחזור ולהפר כשידע הנדר‬ ‫והנודרת לשם הנודרת הזאת ולשם הנדר‬ ‫הזה שנאמר לא הניא אביה אותה לנודרת‬ ‫עצמה ואומר ושמע אביה את נדרה עד‬ ‫שידע אי זה נדר נדרה ויש לו להפר אותו‬ :‫כל יום הידיעה‬

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 11

Next » Nedarim - Chapter 13

8/21/2019 4:17 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

8 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Nedarim...

FOOTNOTES 1. I.e., he may nullify all vows, not merely those that a husband

13. Our translation follows the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. The

may nullify. Rabbenu Asher and other Rishonim differ and maintain that

Chatam Sofer explains that since it is forbidden to eat

the Sifri states that the father's rights are the same as the husband's. In a response attributed to the Rambam, he

as aggravating one's soul - even unpleasant foods are included in this category.

explains that although this view is stated in the Sifri, it is not

The Turei Zahav 234:51, however, translates the term as

mentioned anywhere else in the Talmud and the simple

"harmful foods," arguing that if the woman considered the

meaning of the Biblical passage does not lead to such an inference. This leads to the conclusion that the statement of

food unpleasant and had no desire for it, it would not be considered as "aggravation" for her to be prevented from

the Sifri is a minority opinion. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh

partaking of it.

De'ah 234:58) mentions both views without stating which one should be followed.

unpleasant foods on Yom Kippur - when fasting is described

14. Since she never partook of this food, there is room to say that no aggravation would be caused by prohibiting it. Hence it is necessary to emphasize that it is forbidden.

2. I.e., not necessarily on the day the vow was taken, but on the day he first heard of it.

15. The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Asher's commentary

3. The Emek HaShaalah interprets this term as referring to

to Nedarim 82b which explains that this refers to a situation where one loaf is made of fine flour and is attractive and one

oaths. 4. I.e., after nissuin, the second stage of the marriage relationship. 5. For Numbers 30:14 specifically mentions a husband's authority involving vows of this type. Vows that involve personal aggravation refer to vows that involve accepting a prohibition of a particular type of satisfaction.

is made of coarse flour and is not. She will suffer aggravation from not eating the first, but not from not eating the second. There is a slight difficulty with this explanation, because the previous halachah stated that a husband may nullify even a vow involving unpleasant food. It can be explained, however, that since her husband makes it possible for her to partake

6. Literally, those "between him and her."

of the loaf of fine bread, she will have no aggravation over not partaking over the coarse bread. When, however, she is

7. Such conduct could arouse a husband's displeasure, for he will not be happy that his wife does not appear attractive.

not able to partake of the unpleasant food, she has no similar alternative.

The Shulchan Aruch (234:59) mentions other views which consider these vows as ones that involve personal

Alternatively, Rabbenu Asher explains that she is hungry and will be satisfied by eating one loaf. Hence, not eating that

aggravation as well as the Rambam's view that these are matters that affect the husband-wife relationship.

loaf will give her aggravation. Not eating the second one will not. 16. The Kessef Mishneh notes that when a sage absolves a

8. I.e., even if he divorces her, the vow is nullified.

vow, if he nullifies a portion of the vow, the entire vow is nullified (Chapter 4, Halachah 11). This principle does not,

9. The nullification applies only when they are married. 10. See Halachah 9 with regard to clarification when this vow must be nullified and when it need not be nullified. The Siftei Cohen 234:83 quotes views that maintain that since the vow takes effect with regard to other men, it would also take effect with regard to him if he did not nullify it. 11. These

are

considered

vows

that

involve

considered

vows

affecting

personal

aggravation. 12. These are relationship.

however, hold true with regard to a vow nullified by a husband. 17. I.e., it is not a matter of aggravation, because she may eat figs. Nevertheless, obtaining the figs places a difficulty upon her husband. Although it also mentions the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:60) appears to follow the view of other Rishonim who maintain that this is also

the

marriage

considered a vow involving aggravation. 18. As stated in Halachah 2. 19. I.e., this point is obvious. Even if she does not say so explicitly, she may benefit from him without him having to nullify the vow.

8/21/2019 4:17 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

9 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Nedarim...

that one may not nullify such a vow. In his Commentary to

32. As in several other instances, our Sages reinforced their decrees, giving them more power than Scriptural Law (see

the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that this is a minority view.

Chapter 3, Halachah 9 for another example). The rationale is that if Rabbinic Law was not given this additional measure of

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:64) quotes the

strength, people might treat it lightly.

20. The Mishnah (Nedarim 11:3) quotes Rabbi Yossi who rules

Rambam's view, but also that of other Rishonim who maintain that such a vow is considered one which involves personal aggravation. 21. Our translation is based on the Kessef Mishneh who states that the wording of the original is inexact. 22. I.e., even if he does not nullify the vow, it does not take effect. 23. See Chapter 5, Halachah 3. By agreeing to marriage, a woman gives her husband rights to marital intimacy that cannot be withheld. 24. Hilchot Ishut 12:2, based on Exodus 21:10.

33. For her vow would take effect after the divorce and then, he would not be able to remarry her because he would then be forbidden to benefit from her work, including her performance of household tasks, thus creating an impossible situation. See Turei Zahav 234:63 who explains why we mention this concern in this instance and not in others where it would seemingly apply. 34. For, as reflected by Hilchot Ishut 21:3, she is not under any obligation to perform work on behalf of these people. 35. I.e., the animal he rides upon. 36. As Hilchot Ishut 21:5 states, she is obligated to provide

25. Since the vow does not forbid anything to the man, it will

straw for his riding animal. She is not, however, obligated to

take effect unless he nullifies it. See also parallels in Hilchot

provide water for it, for it is necessary to draw water from a spring or river and that is compromising to a woman's

Ishut 14:7 and Chapter 1, Halachah 30, above. Based on Chapter 3, Halachah 10, it must be concluded that we are referring to an instance where she said "Your body is forbidden to me," for satisfaction is not a tangible matter

modesty (Kessef Mishneh). As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit., the Rambam's ruling is based the version of Ketubot 61b cited by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi.

(Rashba, as quoted by Turei Zahav 234:57; Siftei Cohen

The standard published text of the Talmud follows a different

234:81). Tosafot maintains that even if he does not say "Your

understanding.

body...," we consider it as if he did. This intent is reflected in the wording chosen by the Shulchan Aruch.

37. She is obligated to provide straw for the animal he rides upon, for that is an expression of consideration for her

26. I.e., in both cases, she is consecrating the future products of

husband's person. She has no such obligation with regard to his cattle, for those animals are necessary only for work and

her labor to the Temple treasury. She must, however, be careful to phrase the vow in a manner that she is not

that is solely her husband's concern.

consecrating an entity that does not exist. For then the vow would not be effective [Nedarim 85a; Rama (Yoreh De'ah

38. I.e., were she obligated to perform these tasks, her vow not

234:71)]. See also Hilchot Arachin 6:28.

39. A sage, by contrast, may only absolve an oath or a vow after it takes effect (Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:14).

27. I.e., one of the rights given to a husband is the right to benefit from his wife's labor (Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit.). 28. Ketubot 59b; Nedarim 86b. 29. Of a servant. If a servant was designated as security for a debt and was then freed by his master, he is a free man and is not in any way subjugated to the person who had the lien (Hilchot Malveh ULoveh 18:6). 30. If a Jew designated leavened products (chametz) as security for a loan to a gentile, when the prohibition against benefiting from chametz takes effect, the lien is no longer effective and the chametz reverts to the ownership of the Jew and he is obligated to destroy it. 31. If an ox was designated as security for a loan and then its owner, the borrower, consecrated it, the lien is severed and the lender must collect the debt from another source. See also Hilchot Arachin 7:5.

to perform them would not take effect.

40. The Rambam's ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:28). The Kessef Mishneh and the Rama quote the ruling of Rabbenu Yerucham who maintains that this principle applies only with regard to vows that have not taken effect because the time when they are due to take effect has not come. If, however, they are dependent on a deed, they cannot be nullified until they take effect. See the comments of the Siftei Cohen 234:45 which discusses this issue. 41. This applies even if he is not both deaf and dumb [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:25)]. 42. For Numbers 30:5 speak of her father hearing. Implied is that if he cannot hear, he cannot nullify the vow (Sifri to the verse). 43. Chapter 11, Halachah 21. This also applies with regard to her father, as indicated by Halachah 20 of that chapter.

8/21/2019 4:17 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

10 of 11

44. Rabbenu Asher [quoted by Rama (Yoreh De'ah 234:25)] differs and maintains that it is necessary for him to hear the vow.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Nedarim...

54. I.e., this obviously applies after nissuin, when the woman is living in her husband's home. 55. I.e., he intended to nullify her vow afterwards, but desired

45. See Hilchot Ishut 4:7; 11:6. 46. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:29) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but mentions that there are other Rishonim who differ regarding this issue.

that she think that the vow is binding so that she will take the matter more seriously. 56. I.e., since the vow was nullified, there is no prohibition involved in the action.

47. I.e., until nightfall, as the Rambam continues to explain.

57. A punishment instituted by the Rabbis.

48. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:29) quotes the

58. If she transgressed willfully.

Rambam's ruling, but mentions that there are other Rishonim who differ regarding this issue. 49. I.e., neither a husband, nor a father. 50. For the day on which he heard the vow has passed. 51. Which seemingly implies a 24 hour period. 52. In the previous halachah.

59. If she transgressed inadvertently. 60. In contrast to the repeal of a vow by a sage, when a father or a husband nullify a vow, they do not nullify it retroactively, only from the time of their actions onward. See the notes to Chapter 13, Halachah 2. 61. Significantly, the Sifri derives the same concept from a different verse.

53. I.e., according to the Rambam, regardless of who hears about the vow and nullifies it first, the father and the husband must both nullify it on the same day. The Shulchan Aruch

62. For the day he discovers new information concerning the vow is equivalent to the day he hears of it.

(Yoreh De'ah 234:5) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of the Ramban and Rabbenu Asher who maintain that the father and the husband do not have to nullify the vow on the same day. As long as each one nullifies it on the day he hears of it, it is nullified. The Siftei Cohen 234:13 quotes the opinion of the Bayit Chadash who rules that we should be stringent and follow the Rambam's decision.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:17 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 12 - Texts & Writings

11 of 11

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Nedarim...

8/21/2019 4:17 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 13 - Texts & Writings

1 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973892/jewish/Nedarim...



Nedarim - Chapter 13 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nedarim - Chapter 12

English

Hebrew

Next » Nezirut

A man may nullify or accept the [vows] of his wife or daughter in any language, even though she does not understand it, for the woman need not hear the nullification or the acceptance [of her vow].1

‫מפר אדם או מקיים דברי אשתו או‬ ‫בתו בכל לשון ואע"פ שאינה מכרת‬ ‫שאין האשה צריכה לשמוע ההפרה או‬ :‫הקיום‬

How does he nullify [the vow]? He says: "It is nullified," "It is void," "This vow is of no consequence,"2 or uses other terms that imply that the vow is nullified from the outset, whether in the woman's presence or in her absence.

‫וכיצד מפר אומר מופר או בטל או‬ ‫אין נדר זה כלום וכיוצא בדברים‬ ‫שענינם עקירת הנדר מעיקרו בין בפניה‬ ‫בין לאחריה אבל אם אמר לה אי אפשי‬ ‫שתדורי או אין כאן נדר הרי זה לא הפר‬ ‫וכן האומר לאשתו או לבתו מחול ליך או‬ ‫מותר ליך או שרוי ליך וכל כיוצא בענין זה‬ ‫לא אמר כלום שאין האב והבעל מתיר‬ ‫כמו החכם אלא עוקר הנדר מתחלתו‬ :‫ומפירו‬

If, however, he tells her: "I cannot bear your taking a vow" or "This is not a vow," he did not nullify it.3 Similarly, if he tells his wife or his daughter: "[Your vow] is forgiven," "[It] is released," "[It] is absolved," or the like, his statements are of no consequence.4 For a father and a husband do not release a vow like a sage does, but instead, uproot the vow from the outset and nullify it.5

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 13 - Texts & Writings

2 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973892/jewish/Nedarim...

How does one express his acceptance of a vow? He says to her: "I uphold your vow," "It was good that you vowed," "There is no one like you," "Had you not taken the vow, I would have administered it to you," or any analogous statement that implies that he is happy with this vow.

‫וכיצד מקיים כגון שיאמר לה קיים‬ ‫ליכי או יפה נדרת או אין כמותך או‬ ‫אילו לא נדרת הייתי מדירך וכל כיוצא‬ :‫בדברים שמשמען שרצה בנדר זה‬

When a person voids the vows of his wife or daughter, it is not necessary for him to say anything6 and all of the vows are nullified.

‫המבטל נדרי אשתו או בתו אינו‬ ‫צריך לומר כלום ונתבטלו כל‬ :‫הנדרים‬

What is meant by voiding? That he forces her to do something that she forbade herself to do.7 Nullification, by contrast, does not involve forcing her. Instead, he nullifies the vow verbally and allows her [to do as she desires]. If she desires, she may act [in violation of the vow]. If she desires, she need not.8

‫ומהו הביטול שיכוף אותה לעשות‬ ‫דבר שאסרה אותו אבל ההפרה אינו‬ ‫כופה אותה אלא מפר לה ומניחה אם‬ :‫רצתה עושה ואם רצתה אינה עושה‬

What is implied? She took a vow or an oath not to eat or not to drink and he told her: "It is nullified for you." It is nullified and she is permitted to eat and to drink. If he took it and gave it to her, saying: "Take this and eat it," "Take this and drink," she may eat and drink and the vow is automatically nullified.9

‫כיצד נדרה או נשבעה שלא תאכל או‬ ‫שלא תשתה ואמר לה מופר לך הרי זה‬ ‫הפר ומותרת לאכול ולשתות נטל ונתן לה‬ ‫ואמר לה טלי ואכלי טלי ושתי הרי זו‬ :‫אוכלת ושותת והנדר בטל מאליו‬

When a person nullifies the vows of his wife or daughter, he must make a verbal statement of nullification. If he nullifies it within his heart, [the vow] is not nullified. When, however, he voids [their vows], he does not have to make a verbal statement. Instead, he nullifies the vow in his heart and compels her to perform [the deed]. Whether she performs it or not, the vow is nullified.

‫המפר נדרי בתו או אשתו צריך‬ ‫להוציא בשפתיו ואם הפר בלבו אינו‬ ‫מופר אבל המבטל אינו צריך להוציא‬ ‫בשפתיו אלא מבטל בלבו בלבד וכופה‬ ‫אותה לעשות בין עשתה בין לא עשתה‬ :‫בטל הנדר‬

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 13 - Texts & Writings

3 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973892/jewish/Nedarim...

We may nullify vows on the Sabbath, whether for the sake of the Sabbath10 or not.11 On the Sabbath, however, one should not, however, tell [his wife or daughter]: "[Your vow] is nullified," as one would say during the week.12 Instead, he should nullify [the vow] in his heart and tell her: "Take this and eat it," "Take this and drink," or the like.

‫מפירין נדרים בשבת בין לצורך‬ ‫השבת בין שלא לצורך השבת ולא‬ ‫יאמר לה בשבת מופר ליך כדרך שאומר‬ ‫בחול אלא מבטל בלבו ואומר לה טלי‬ :‫אכלי טלי ושתי וכיוצא בזה‬

When a person tells his wife or his daughter: "All the vows that you will take from now until I come from this and this place are upheld" or "...are nullified," his words are of no substance.13

‫האומר לאשתו או לבתו כל הנדרים‬ ‫שתדורי מכאן ועד שאבוא ממקום‬ ‫פלוני הרי הן קיימין או הרי הן מופרין לא‬ ‫אמר כלום עשה שליח להפר לה או לקיים‬ ‫לה אינו כלום שנאמר אישה יקימנו ואישה‬ :‫יפרנו וכן האב בעצמו ולא בשלוחו‬

If he appointed an agent to nullify her vows or to uphold them, his act is of no substance, as [implied by Numbers 30:14]: "Her husband will uphold them, her husband will nullify them." Similarly, her father must act on his own, not through an agent. [When a woman takes a vow,] forbidding herself to [partake of] figs and grapes, whether through a vow or through an oath, whether she forbade herself from [partaking of] all types of the species or she said: "These figs and these grapes," if [her husband] upheld [the vow] concerning figs and nullified that concerning grapes or upheld [the vow] concerning grapes and nullified that concerning figs, what he upheld is binding and what he nullified is nullified. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. With regard to the nullification of a vow, we do not say that when a portion of a vow has been nullified, the entire vow is nullified, as is said with regard to the absolution of vows.14

‫אסרה עצמה בתאנים וענבים בין בנדר‬ ‫בין בשבועה בין שאסרה עצמה בכל‬ ‫המין בין שאמרה תאנים וענבים אלו וקיים‬ ‫לתאנים והפר לענבים או שקיים לענבים‬ ‫והפר לתאנים מה שקיים קיים ומה שהפר‬ ‫מופר וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואין אומרין‬ ‫בהפרה נדר שהופר מקצתו הופר כולו‬ :‫כדרך שאומרין בהתרה‬

When a man's wife takes a vow and he hears it and extends the vow to apply to him,15 he cannot nullify it. [The rationale is that] he [already] upheld it.16If he took a vow and she extended it and applied it to herself, he may nullify her vow, but his vow is binding.

‫מי שנדרה אשתו ושמע והתפיס‬ ‫עצמו בנדרה אינו יכול להפר‬ ‫שהרי קיים לה נדר הוא והתפיסה עצמה‬ :‫בנדרו מפר את שלה ושלו קיים‬

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 13 - Texts & Writings

4 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973892/jewish/Nedarim...

What is implied? He heard his wife or his daughter say: "I am a nazirite," and said: "And I am also," he cannot nullify [her vow]17 and they are both nazirites.18 If he said: "I am a nazirite," and she heard and said: "And so am I," he may nullify her vow and his vow is still binding.19 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫כיצד שמע אשתו או בתו אומרין‬ ‫הריני נזירה ואמר ואני אינו יכול‬ ‫להפר ושניהם נזירים אמר הוא הריני נזיר‬ ‫ושמעה היא ואמרה ואני מפר לה ושלו‬ :‫קיים וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

When a husband takes a vow and administers an identical vow to his wife, having made a certain decision to administer the vow to her, if she says Amen,20 he may not nullify it. If he took a vow and

‫נדר לעצמו והדירה כמותו וגמר‬ ‫בלבו להדירה ואמרה אמן הרי זה‬ ‫אינו יכול להפר ואם נדר והדירה דרך‬ ‫שאלה לידע מה בלבה כמו שאמר לה‬ ‫התרצי בנדר זה להיות כמותי או לא‬ :‫ואמרה אמן הרי זה מפר לה‬

administered it to her as a question to see what she felt about it, e.g., he asked her "Do you desire to be like me [by taking] this vow or not?" If she says: Amen, he may nullify her vow. What is implied? He said: "I am a nazirite and so are you," i.e., you are a nazirite just like me. If she says Amen, he may not nullify her vow.21 If he says: "I am a nazirite. What do you say? Will you be a nazirite like me?" If she says Amen, he may nullify her vow.22 If he nullifies her vow, his vow is also nullified. It is as if he made his vow dependent on her vow.23

‫כיצד אמר לה הריני נזיר ואת‬ ‫כלומר ואת נזירה כמותי ואמרה‬ ‫אמן אינו יכול להפר אמר לה הריני נזיר‬ ‫ומה תאמרי האת נזירה כמותי ואמרה אמן‬ ‫הרי זה יפר ואם הפר לה שלו בטל שזה‬ ‫כמי שתלה נדרו בנדרה אמרה לו הריני‬ ‫נזירה ואתה ואמר אמן אינו יכול להפר וכן‬ :‫כל כיוצא בזה‬

If she told him: "I am a nazirite. What about you?", if he answered Amen, he cannot nullify [her vow].24 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The following rules apply when] a woman takes a vow and another person extends the scope of the vow to include himself, saying "And I [as well]." If her father or husband hears of the vow and nullifies it, her vow is nullified, but that of the person who extended the vow is not.25

‫האשה שנדרה ושמע אחר‬ ‫והתפיס עצמו בנדרה ואמר ואני‬ ‫ושמע אביה או בעלה והפר לה שלה מופר‬ :‫וזה שהתפיס עצמו חייב‬

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 13 - Texts & Writings

5 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973892/jewish/Nedarim...

[The following rules apply concerning] a woman who is unmarried and not in her father's domain who says: "Meat will be forbidden to me after 30 days" and she marries within those 30 days. Even though she is in her husband's domain at the time the vow takes effect, he cannot nullify it. [The rationale is that] at the time the vow was taken she was not in his domain. Concerning such a situation, it was said [Numbers 30:10]: "The vow of a widow or a divorcee... shall remain standing." [This applies] even if she was consecrated to [her husband] at the time she took the vow, for a husband may not nullify26 [vows that were taken] before [the marriage is consummated], as we explained.27

‫האשה שאין לה בעל ואינה‬ ‫ברשות אב ואמרה הרי הבשר‬ ‫אסור עלי לאחר שלשים יום ונשאת בתוך‬ ‫שלשים יום אף על פי שבשעה שחל הנדר‬ ‫הרי היא ברשות הבעל אינו יכול להפר‬ ‫שבשעת הנדר לא היתה ברשותו ועל זה‬ ‫נאמר ונדר אלמנה וגרושה וגו' ואפילו‬ ‫היתה מאורסת לו בשעת הנדר שאין הבעל‬ :‫מפר בקודמין כמו שבארנו‬

[The following rules apply if a woman] took a vow while under her husband's domain that meat will become forbidden to her after 30 days or that she will become a nazirite after 30 days and her husband nullified her vow, but he died or divorced her within those 30 days. Although she will be a divorcee or a widow when the vow will take effect, she is not bound by it, because [her husband] already nullified this vow for her.28

‫נדרה תחת בעלה שיהיה הבשר‬ ‫אסור עליה לאחר שלשים יום או‬ ‫שתהיה נזירה לאחר שלשים יום והפר לה‬ ‫בעלה ומת או גירשה בתוך שלשים יום‬ ‫אע"פ שבשעה שהיה לנדר לחול הרי היא‬ ‫גרושה או אלמנה הרי זו מותרת שכבר‬ :‫הפר לה נדר זה‬

When a widow or a divorcee says: "Wine will be forbidden to me when I marry," [if] she marries, her husband cannot nullify the vow.29 [If a married woman says]: "I will be forbidden [to eat] meat when I am divorced," her husband may nullify the vow. When she is divorced, she is permitted [to eat meat].30

‫אלמנה או גרושה שאמרה הריני‬ ‫אסורה ביין כשאנשא ונשאת אין‬ ‫הבעל יכול להפר אמרה והיא תחת בעלה‬ ‫הריני אסורה בבשר כשאתגרש הרי הבעל‬ :‫מפר וכשתתגרש תהיה מותרת‬

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 13 - Texts & Writings

6 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973892/jewish/Nedarim...

When a husband upholds [his wife's vow] in his heart, it has been upheld.31 If he nullifies it in his heart, it is not nullified, as we explained.32 Therefore, if he nullifies it in his heart, he can still retract and uphold it. If, by contrast, he upheld it within his heart, he cannot retract and nullify unless he retracts immediately thereafter.33 [That leniency is granted] so that his thoughts within his heart should not have greater power than the statements he makes.34

‫המקיים בלבו הרי זה קיים והמפר‬ ‫בלבו אינו מופר כמו שבארנו‬ ‫לפיכך אם הפר בלבו הרי זה יכול לחזור‬ ‫ולקיים ואם קיים בלבו אינו יכול לחזור‬ ‫ולהפר אלא אם חזר בתוך כדי דבור כדי‬ ‫שלא יהיו כח דברים שבלבו גדול מכח‬ :‫המוציא בשפתיו‬

When a person upholds the vows of his daughter or his wife and then changes his mind, he may appeal to a sage to absolve him of his acceptance [of the vow].35 He may then recant and nullify it for her that day.36 If, by contrast, he nullifies it for her and then changes his mind, he cannot appeal to a sage to absolve it so that he can retract and maintain it.37

‫המקיים נדרי בתו או אשתו וניחם‬ ‫הרי זה נשאל לחכם ומתיר לו הקמתו‬ ‫וחוזר ומפר לה בו ביום אבל אם הפר לה‬ ‫וניחם אינו יכול להשאל לחכם כדי שיחזור‬ :‫ויקיים‬

When a consecrated maiden takes a vow and only one of her father or husband upholds her vow, while the other nullifies, even if the one who upheld the vow approaches a sage and has his acceptance absolved, he cannot recant and nullify the vow38 together with the one who has already nullified it. [The rationale is that] the two may only nullify [the vow] together.39

‫נערה מאורסה שנדרה וקיים לה‬ ‫אביה לבדו או בעלה לבדו והפר‬ ‫לה האחר אע"פ שנשאל לחכם והתיר לו‬ ‫הקמתו אינו חוזר ומפר לה עם האחר‬ ‫שכבר הפר לה שאין להם להפר אלא‬ :‫שניהם כאחד‬

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 13 - Texts & Writings

7 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973892/jewish/Nedarim...

If a man tells his daughter or his wife: "It is upheld for you. It is upheld for you," [even] if he asks to have the first acceptance absolved, the second one takes effect.40 If he tells her: "It is upheld for you. It is nullified for you, but the acceptance will not take effect until after the nullification does," [the vow] is nullified, because the acceptance does not take effect after the nullification.41 If, however, he tells her: "It is upheld for you and nullified for you at the same time,"42 it is upheld.43 If he tells her: "It is upheld for you today," it is upheld forever.44 If he tells her: "It is nullified for you tomorrow," it is not nullified, for he upheld it today and he cannot nullify it on the following day.45If he tells her: "It is upheld for you for one hour," and the day passed without him nullifying it, he has upheld it. We do not say that this is like one who said: "It is nullified for you after an hour," because he never verbally expressed its nullification.46

‫אמר לבתו או לאשתו קיים ליך‬ ‫קיים ליך ונשאל על הקמה‬ ‫הראשונה הרי השניה חלה עליו אמר לה‬ ‫קיים ליך ומופר ליך ולא תחול הקמה‬ ‫אא"כ חלה הפרה הרי זה מופר שאין‬ ‫ההקמה מועיל אחר ההפרה אמר לה קיים‬ ‫ומופר ליך בבת אחת הרי זה קיים אמר‬ ‫לה קיים ליך היום הרי זה קיים לעולם‬ ‫אמר לה מופר ליך למחר אינו מופר שהרי‬ ‫קיימו היום ולמחר אינו יכול להפר אמר‬ ‫לה קיים ליך שעה אחת ועבר היום ולא‬ ‫הפר הרי זה קיים ואין אומרין שזה כמי‬ ‫שאמר לה הרי מופר ליך לאחר שעה‬ ‫שהרי לא הוציא הפרה מפיו אמר לה קיים‬ ‫ליכי שעה אחת וכשעברה השעה אמר לה‬ ‫מופר ליך הרי זה ספק ולפיכך אסורה‬ :‫בנדרה ואם עברה על נדרה אינה לוקה‬

If he told her: "It is upheld for you for one hour," and after an hour, he told her: "It is nullified for you," there is an unresolved question [as to the ruling].47 Therefore she is forbidden in [the matters] her vow [concerned].48 If, however, she violated her vow, she is not punished by lashes.49

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 13 - Texts & Writings

8 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973892/jewish/Nedarim...

When a person takes vows in order to establish his character traits and correct his conduct, he is considered eager and praiseworthy. What is implied? If a person was a glutton and he [took a vow] forbidding meat for a year or two, a person was obsessed with wine and he [took a vow] forbidding himself from drinking wine for a prolonged period or he forbade himself from ever becoming intoxicated, a person would continually pursue illicit gain and was overexcited about wealth [took a vow] forbidding [accepting] presents or benefit from people in a particular country, similarly, a person who would be proud of his comely appearance and took a nazirite vow,50 or the like - all of these are paths in the service of God and concerning such vows and the like our Sages said:51 "Vows are a safeguard for restraint."52

‫מי שנדר נדרים כדי לכונן דעותיו‬ ‫ולתקן מעשיו הרי זה זריז ומשובח‬ ‫כיצד כגון מי שהיה זולל ואסר עליו הבשר‬ ‫שנה או שתים או מי שהיה שוגה ביין‬ ‫ואסר היין על עצמו זמן מרובה או אסר‬ ‫השכרות לעולם וכן מי שהיה רודף‬ ‫שלמונים ונבהל להון ואסר על עצמו‬ ‫המתנות או הניית אנשי מדינה זו וכן מי‬ ‫שהיה מתגאה ביופיו ונדר בנזיר וכיוצא‬ ‫בנדרים אלו כולן דרך עבודה לשם הם‬ ‫ובנדרים אלו וכיוצא בהן אמרו חכמים‬ :‫נדרים סייג לפרישות‬

Although [taking vows] is an element of the service of God, a person should not take many vows involving prohibitions and should not habituate himself to taking them.53 Instead, he should abstain from those things from which one should abstain without taking a vow.

‫ואף על פי שהן עבודה )לשם( לא‬ ‫ירבה אדם בנדרי איסור ולא‬ ‫ירגיל עצמו בהם אלא יפרוש מדברים‬ :‫שראוי לפרוש מהן בלא נדר‬

Our Sages stated:54 "Anyone who takes a vow is considered as having built a private altar."55 If he transgressed and took a vow, it is a mitzvah to ask [a sage] to absolve it,56 so that he will not have an obstacle before him.

‫אמרו חכמים כל הנודר כאילו‬ ‫בנה במה ואם עבר ונדר מצוה‬ ‫להשאל על נדרו כדי שלא יהא מכשול‬ ‫לפניו בד"א בנדרי איסר אבל נדרי הקדש‬ ‫מצוה לקיימן ולא ישאל עליהן אלא‬ :‫מדוחק שנאמר נדרי לה' אשלם‬

When does the above apply? With regard to vows involving prohibitions. With regard to vows involving the consecration of articles, it is a mitzvah to uphold them and not to ask for their absolution unless one is [financially] pressed, as [Psalms 116:14] states: "I will fulfill my vows to God." Blessed be God who grants assistance.

:‫סליקו להו הלכות נדרים בס"ד‬

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 13 - Texts & Writings

9 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973892/jewish/Nedarim...

« Previous

Next » Nezirut

Nedarim - Chapter 12 FOOTNOTES 1. See Chapter 12, Halachah 18, which explains that even if the woman intended to transgress, if her father or husband nullified the vow beforehand, she is not liable.

7. E.g., if she took a vow not to drink wine, he causes her to drink wine.

2. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:37) mentions

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that there is no concept of voiding a woman's vow by causing her to

the Rambam's view, it also mentions that of Rabbenu Asher who maintains that this last phrase is not effective in

break it. Such concepts apply only with regard to servants. The Radbaz explains the Rambam's wording, stating that

nullifying a vow.

with regard to servants, it is necessary to actually compel them to break their vows. Such conduct is not appropriate

3. For his wording does not imply that the vow is nullified. 4. I.e., although these expressions are effective for a sage when absolving a vow, they are not effective for a husband or a father. 5. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 13:8), the Rambam explains the statements he makes here. The term "nullify" implies nullifying an entity to the extent that it is as if it never existed. "Releasing," by contrast, implies that a connection existed, but it was released and will not have any effect in the future. The Rambam's statements have aroused the attention of the commentaries for they appear to run contrary to the understandings of other authorities and the Rambam's own

with regard to one's wife or daughter. Nevertheless, if a husband or a father gently cause a woman to break their vow, that vow is nullified. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:39) mentions both views though it appears to favor the Ra'avad's view. 8. I.e., since the vow has been nullified, she is under no obligation to keep it. On the other hand, she is not obligated to perform the act forbidden by the vow.. 9. Without him saying anything. 10. I.e., she took a vow not to wear jewelry or not to partake of a particular food. 11. Even though the vow has no connection to the Sabbath and

rulings. To explain: From Halachah 15 of this chapter and from Chapter 12, Halachah 19, it appears that until a father

it is forbidden to perform any activity for the weekdays on the Sabbath, we allow him to nullify it. The rationale is that,

or a husband nullifies a vow, the vow is binding. Even when he nullifies it, the nullification affects only the future. See

otherwise, he will not be able to nullify it on Saturday night, because the time for nullification will have already passed.

Hilchot Nazirut 9:11. When a sage absolves a vow, by

As stated in Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:6, on the Sabbath, a sage may

contrast, it is as if the vow was never taken. See Hilchot

absolve only those vows that concern the Sabbath (Kessef

Ishut 7:8-9, Hilchot Nazirut 3:10.

Mishneh).

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the terminology employed by the Rambam here can be explained as follows: A sage does not "uproot" a vow, he causes it to be considered as if a vow not taken originally. A father or a husband, by contrast, uproot a vow, causing an entity that did exist to be nullified. 6. I.e., the Rambam is making a distinction between hafarah, "nullification," and bittul, voiding as he proceeds to explain. See also his Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.,, where he elaborates on the distinction between these two activities.

12. Because it is the Sabbath, it is preferable to change the wording one uses. Even if one uses this wording during the week, the vow is nullified, as indicated by Halachah 6. 13. This concept is also derived from the prooftext cited below. Until a vow comes into existence and can be upheld, it cannot be nullified (Turei Zahav 234:28). 14. See Chapter 4, Halachah 11, Chapter 8, Halachah 6. The rationale is that a sage nullifies the vow from the outset, causing it to be considered as if it were never taken. Therefore the entire vow is considered as a single entity. A husband, by contrast, nullifies a vow as it exists. Hence, each element of the vow can be considered independently. The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:36). The Tur and the Rama differ and maintain that a husband must also nullify the entire vow. Once a portion of a vow is upheld, the vow cannot be nullified.

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 13 - Texts & Writings

10 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973892/jewish/Nedarim...

15. See Chapter 3, Halachah 3, for an explanation regarding the convention of extending a vow.

31. As stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 18, when a husband remains silent throughout the day, his wife's vow is upheld.

16. For by attaching himself to her vow, he shows that he

This is a sign that his tacit acceptance of a vow is sufficient for it to be binding (Rabbenu Nissim).

considers it a viable entity. 17. As Nedarim 3a states, the laws that apply to the nullification of other vows also apply to the nullification of nazirite vows. 18. For the reason mentioned in the previous halachah. 19. For his vow is not at all dependent on hers. 20. She must, however, state her consent, for he cannot compel her to take a vow against her will. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1. 21. He is forbidden to nullify his wife's vow, because by doing so, his own vow would be nullified as stated in the conclusion of the halachah. Since he is forbidden to cause his own vow to be nullified, he is forbidden to nullify her vow (see Nazir 22b). 22. For his commitment is not dependent on hers at all. Even if she refuses to accept a nazirite vow, he is obligated to keep his vow. Hence, his right to nullify her vow is intact.

32. As stated in Halachah 7, he must make a verbal statement of nullification. If, however, he voids his wife's vow, her nullification is not binding, as stated in Halachot 4-5. 33. This term has a specific halachic definition: the time it takes a student to tell his teacher: Shalom Elecha Rabbi (Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17). 34. Since a person can nullify a vow or an oath if he retracts within this time, he may certainly retract his acceptance of his wife's oath in thought. 35. I.e., just as he can appeal to a sage to absolve him of a vow he took, so, too, he may absolve his acceptance of a vow. 36. I.e., the day he changed his mind, even if it is several days afterwards, is equivalent to the day he heard of his wife's vow. Since he cannot have his acceptance nullified unless he changes his mind, the days when he does not change his

23. This refers to the first clause. It is as if he made his vow and

mind are considered equivalent to days when he does not know of the vow [Tur (Yoreh De'ah 234)].

her vow a single statement. Thus nullifying her vow would cause his vow also to be nullified. This is forbidden, because

There are other Rishonim who maintain that he can ask the

he is bound to uphold his vow. Nevertheless, after the fact, if he does nullify her vow, his vow is also nullified (Radbaz).

heard of the vow. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:49)

See the Nekudot HaKessef [to Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah

favored. The Rama maintains that we should be stringent and follow the second view.

234:54)] who explains that the Rambam's version of Nazir 22b follows the Jerusalem Talmud and differs from the standard text of the Babylonian Talmud. 24. As stated in Halachah 11. 25. The rationale for this ruling is that the husband's nullification affects the vow only from the time he made it onward. It does not nullify it from the outset. Hence, any extension of a vow

sage to have his acceptance absolved only on the day he mentions both vows without indicating which one should be

37. Upholding a vow is considered equivalent to taking a vow. Hence, just as a vow can be absolved, the acceptance of one can be absolved. The nullification of a vow, by contrast, cannot be considered as a vow and cannot be absolved. The Radbaz adds that if the person does not know that he can have his acceptance absolved, the day he finds out that information is equivalent to the day he heard of the vow.

that was made before the vow is nullified is binding [Radbaz; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:51)].

38. The Siftei Cohen 234:16 states that this applies even if he

26. I.e., alone, without the nullification of the father (Chapter 11, Halachah 10).

has the acceptance absolved on the day he hears of the vow.

27. Chapter 11, Halachot 20, 22. 28. I.e., whether or not his nullification takes effect depends on their relationship at the time he nullifies the vow (Nedarim 89a). 29. Because he cannot nullify the vows that were taken before marriage, as explained above. 30. Here also, what is important is the woman's status at the time of the vow and not what her status will be when the vow takes effect.

39. Even if the first one nullified the vow again so that they make a combined statement, their nullification is not accepted. 40. At the time he stated his acceptance of the vow a second time, his acceptance was of no consequence, because it was unnecessary. Nevertheless, after he nullifies his first acceptance, the second acceptance becomes significant. 41. As stated in Halachah 20. 42. The Radbaz states that this ruling applies even if he does not add the words "at the same time."

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 13 - Texts & Writings

11 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973892/jewish/Nedarim...

43. The two statements cancel each other out. It is as if he remained silent and the vow is therefore upheld. The Kessef

52. In his commentary to that mishnah, the Rambam explains that "taking and maintaining vows to abstain from certain

Mishneh explains that the Rambam's rationale is that since the nullification cannot take effect after the vow is upheld, it

[undesirable] elements [of conduct] ingrains in a person the tendency to bridle the desires he seeks to curb. This

cannot take effect if it is made simultaneously with the upholding of the vow.

tendency will continue and it will be easy for him to acquire the quality of restraint - i.e., the tendency to protect oneself

44. Since, as the Rambam states later on, he did not verbally

from impurity." See also Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, the

express his nullification of the vow, it remains binding even after the day passes.

conclusion of ch. 48, which discusses the Divine service

45. For a vow must be nullified on the day, the man heard about it. In his Nekudot HaKessef, the Siftei Cohen explains that the Rambam's wording implies that he may nullify it that day. The Turei Zahav 234:39-40, however, infers that he cannot nullify it at all once it takes effect for that day. 46. The instances cited by the Rambam are questions posed by Nedarim 69b, 70a. Since the Talmud continues asking questions, using one instance as a springboard for another, following the pattern of im timtzeh lomar, the Rambam concludes that each of the instances used as a basis for a further question is accepted as halachah (Kessef Mishneh). 47. This is the last of the series of instances concerning which the Talmud asks in that passage. 48. Lest her vow in fact be binding. 49. Because punishment is not given when we are uncertain whether a prohibition exists. 50. This requires him to allow his hair to grow untrimmed and thus will prevent him from beautifying his appearance. See Nedarim 9b which relates that Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach would almost never partake of the sacrifices of a nazirite. Once, however, he saw a particularly handsome young man who had taken a nazirite vow. He asked him why he had done so and the young man explained that, because of his good looks, he was being tempted by his evil inclination. To rise above the temptation, he took the nazirite vow. Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach praised him for his actions. 51. Avot 3:13.

associated with taking and maintaining vows. Nevertheless, the Rambam is not praising restraint as a mode of conduct that is always desirable. On the contrary, in Hilchot De'ot 3:1, he explains that a nazirite is called "a sinner" because he abstains from wine and states: Our Sages directed man to abstain only from those things which the Torah denies him and not to forbid himself permitted things by vows and oaths. Thus our Sages (Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim 9:1) asked rhetorically: "Are not the things which the Torah has prohibited sufficient for you? [Why] must you add further prohibitions?" In the instances mentioned here, however, the person taking the vow is not doing so because he thinks that abstinence is desirable. Instead, he wishes to develop self-control and inner discipline and feels that taking a vow is an effective means to encourage him to do so. 53. Lest he not keep the vow, and in this way transgress. 54. Nedarim 22a. 55. During the time the Sanctuary stood at Shilo and from the time the Temple was built in Jerusalem afterwards, it was forbidden to offer sacrifices on private altars. Similarly, taking a vow is considered undesirable and comparable to building such an altar. Rabbenu Nissim explains the comparison based on the passage from Hilchot De'ot cited above, i.e., just as a person who builds a private altar offers a sacrifice to God in an undesirable manner, so, too, a person who takes a vow adds a restriction that the Torah does not require him to observe. 56. As explained in ch. 4.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nedarim - Chapter 13 - Texts & Writings

12 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973892/jewish/Nedarim...

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nezirut - Texts & Writings

1 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983584/jewish/Nezirut.htm



Nezirut Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Nezirut - Chapter 1 Nezirut - Chapter 2 Nezirut - Chapter 3 Nezirut - Chapter 4 Nezirut - Chapter 5 Nezirut - Chapter 6 Nezirut - Chapter 7 Nezirut - Chapter 8 Nezirut - Chapter 9 Nezirut - Chapter 10

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nezirut - Texts & Writings

2 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983584/jewish/Nezirut.htm

8/21/2019 4:18 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

1 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983585/jewish/Nezirut-...



Nezirut - Chapter 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 2

Introduction to Hilchos Nezirut They contain ten mitzvot: two positive commandments and eight negative commandment. They are: 1. That a nazirite should let his hair grow long; 2. That he should not cut his hair throughout the time of his nazirite vow; 3. That a nazirite should not drink wine, nor a mixture of wine, not even vinegar coming from wine; 4. That he not eat fresh grapes; 5. That he not eat raisins; 6. That he not eat grape seeds; 7. That he not eat grape peels; 8. That he not enter a shelter where a corpse is located; 9. That he not contract impurity because of a corpse; 10. That he shave [his skin] and [bring] his offerings when he completes his nazirite vow or when he becomes impure.

‫ הקדמה‬- ‫הלכות נזירות‬ ‫הלכות נזירות יש בכללן עשר מצות שתי‬ ‫מצות עשה ושמנה מצות לא תעשה וזה‬ :‫הוא פרטן‬ ‫)א( שיגדל הנזיר פרע‬ ‫)ב( שלא יגלח שערו כל ימי נזרו‬ ‫)ג( שלא ישתה הנזיר יין ולא תערובת יין‬ ‫ואפילו חומץ שלהם‬ ‫)ד( שלא יאכל ענבים לחים‬ ‫)ה( שלא יאכל צמוקים‬ ‫)ו( שלא יאכל חרצנים‬ ‫)ז( שלא יאכל זגין‬ ‫)ח( שלא יכנס לאהל המת‬ ‫)ט( שלא יטמא למתים‬ ‫)י( שיגלח על הקרבנות כשישלים נזירותו‬ ‫או כשיטמא‬ :‫וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו‬

These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.

8/21/2019 4:19 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

2 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983585/jewish/Nezirut-...

A nazirite vow is one of the types of vows involving prohibitions,1as [Numbers 6:2] states: "When one will take a nazirite vow...." It is a positive commandment for [a nazirite] to let the hair of his head grow,2 as [ibid.:5] states: "He shall let the mane of the hair of his head grow." If he cuts [his hair] in the midst of the days of his nazirite vow, he violates a negative commandment,3 as [ibid.] states: "A razor shall not pass over his head." Similarly, he is forbidden to contract ritual impurity from a corpse4 or eat those products of a grape vine which the Torah forbids him from eating5 throughout the entire span of his nazirite vow.6

‫הנזירות הוא נדר מכלל נדרי איסר‬ ‫שנאמר כי ידור נדר נזיר וגו' ומצות‬ ‫עשה שיגדל שער ראשו שנאמר גדל פרע‬ ‫שער ראשו ואם גילח בימי נזרו עובר בלא‬ ‫תעשה שנאמר תער לא יעבור על ראשו‬ ‫וכן אסור להטמא למתים או לאכול דברים‬ :‫שאסרן הכתוב עליו מגפן היין כל ימי נזרו‬

When [a nazirite] transgressed and cut his hair, became impure [due to contact with a corpse], or partook of wine grapes, he receives two sets of lashes:7one because of the prohibition "He shall not desecrate his word,"8 and one because of the prohibition that he transgressed from the unique prohibitions that apply to a nazirite.9

‫עבר וגלח או נטמא או אכל מגפן היין‬ ‫הרי זה לוקה שתים אחת משום לא‬ ‫יחל דברו שכולל כל הנדרים ואחת משום‬ ‫דבר שעבר עליו מדברים שאסורין איסור‬ :‫מיוחד על הנזיר‬

When a person takes a nazirite vow and fulfills his vow according to the mitzvah, he has performed three positive commandments: a) "He shall act in accordance with all that he uttered with his mouth,"10 and he has acted [accordingly], b) "He shall let the mane of the hair of his head grow," and he has let it grow, and c) shaving and bringing his sacrifices,11 as [ibid.:18] states: "And the nazirite shall shave at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting."

‫נדר בנזיר וקיים נדרו כמצותו הרי זה‬ ‫עושה שלש מצות עשה האחת ככל‬ ‫היוצא מפיו יעשה והרי עשה והשניה גדל‬ ‫פרע שער ראשו והרי גדל והשלישית‬ ‫תגלחתו עם הבאת קרבנותיו שנאמר וגלח‬ :'‫הנזיר פתח אהל מועד וגו‬

8/21/2019 4:19 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

3 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983585/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a person says: "I will not depart from the world until I become a nazirite," he becomes a nazirite immediately, lest he die at that time. If he delays [implementing] his nazirite vow, he transgresses the prohibition:12 "Do not delay in paying it." Lashes are not given for the violation of this prohibition.13

‫האומר לא אפטר מן העולם עד‬ ‫שאהיה נזיר הרי זה נזיר מיד שמא‬ ‫ימות עתה ואם איחר נזירותו הרי זה עובר‬ :‫בבל תאחר לשלמו ואין לוקין על לאו זה‬

With regard to a nazirite vow, we do not say: [The vow does not take effect] until he makes a statement that every person would be able to understand [that] in his heart [he desired to take a nazirite vow]. Instead, since he made a decision in his heart to take a nazirite vow and verbally expressed concepts that suggest this intent, he is a nazirite although these concepts are distant and [their simple meaning] does not communicate the concept of a nazirite vow.14

‫אין אומרין בנזירות עד שיוציא‬ ‫בשפתיו דבר שמשמעו אצל כל העם‬ ‫כענין שבלבו אלא כיון שגמר בלבו והוציא‬ ‫בשפתיו דברים שעניינם שיהיה נזיר אע"פ‬ ‫שהן עניינות רחוקות ואף על פי שאין‬ :‫במשמען לשון נזירות הרי הוא נזיר‬

What is implied? A nazirite was passing in front of a person and he said: "I will be," he is a nazirite. Since in his heart, he intended to say that he will be like that person, [it is considered as if he made such a statement] even though he did not explicitly say: "I will be like him." Similarly, if he took hold of his hair15 and said: "I will become attractive," "I will grow my hair," "I will cultivate my hair,"16 "I will let my hair grow long," he is a nazirite, provided he made such a decision in his heart.

‫כיצד הרי שהיה נזיר עובר לפניו ואמר‬ ‫אהיה הרי זה נזיר הואיל ובלבו היה‬ ‫שיהיה כמו זה ואע"פ שלא פירש ואמר‬ ‫אהיה כמו זה וכן אם אחז בשערו ואמר‬ ‫אהיה נאה או אהא מכלכל או אהא‬ ‫מסלסל או שאמר הריני מסלסל או הריני‬ ‫מכלכל או הרי עלי לשלח פרע הרי זה‬ :‫נזיר והוא שיגמור בלבו להזיר‬

If he says: "I am obligated to bring doves [as offerings],17 he is not a nazirite even if a nazirite is passing in front of him and even if he had the intent of becoming a nazirite. It is as if he did not say anything.18

‫אמר הרי עלי צפרים אף על פי שהיה‬ ‫נזיר עובר לפניו ואע"פ שהיה בלבו‬ ‫להזיר אינו נזיר והרי זה כמי שלא הוציא‬ :‫בשפתיו כלום‬

8/21/2019 4:19 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

4 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983585/jewish/Nezirut-...

All nicknames for a nazirite vow are considered like a nazirite vow. What is implied? In places where people mispronounce the words they use, if one says: "I am a nazik, a naziach, a paziach,19 he is a nazirite."

‫כל כנויי נזירות כנזירות כיצד‬ ‫מקומות העלגים שמשנין את הדבור‬ ‫ואמר שם הריני נזיק נזיח פזיח הרי זה‬ :‫נזיר‬

If a person says: "I am a nazirite only with regard to grape seeds" or "...with regard to grape peels," "I am a nazirite with regard to shaving," or "I am a nazirite only with regard to impurity," he is a nazir in the complete sense and he must keep all the particular laws incumbent on nazirites even though his inten was to forbid himself only with regard to the particular he mentioned. Since the matter concerning which he took the nazirite vow is forbidden to nazirites, he is a nazirite in the full sense of the term.20

‫האומר הריני נזיר מן החרצנים בלבד‬ ‫או מן הזגים בלבד או הריני נזיר מן‬ ‫התגלחת או הריני נזיר מן הטומאה בלבד‬ ‫הרי זה נזיר גמור וכל דקדוקי נזירות עליו‬ ‫ואף על פי שלא היה בלבו להזיר אלא‬ ‫מדבר זה בלבד הואיל ודבר שנזר ממנו‬ :‫אסור על הנזירים הרי זה נזיר גמור‬

If, however, one says: "I am a nazirite from dried figs," "...from cakes of dried figs," or the like, he is forbidden [to partake of] the article specified, but he is not a nazirite.21

‫אבל האומר הריני נזיר מן הגרוגרות או‬ ‫מן הדבילה וכיוצא בהן הרי זה אסור‬ :‫בהן ואינו נזיר‬

When a cup of wine was mixed22 for a person and given to he to drink and he said: "I am a nazirite from it," he is a nazirite in the complete sense.23 If he was a morose person, angry, or in mourning and the others were trying to have him drink to release his burden and he said: "I am a nazirite from this [cup]," he is forbidden to drink only that cup, but he is not a nazirite. [The rationale is that] his intent was only that he would not drink that cup.

‫מזגו לו כוס של יין ונתנו לו‬ ‫לשתות ואמר הריני נזיר ממנו הרי‬ ‫זה נזיר גמור ואם היה מר נפש או כעוס או‬ ‫מתאבל והיו מבקשין ממנו שישתה כדי‬ ‫לשכח עמלו ואמר הרי זה נזיר ממנו הרי‬ ‫זה אסור באותו הכוס בלבד ואינו נזיר‬ :‫שלא נתכוון זה אלא שלא ישתה כוס זה‬

8/21/2019 4:19 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

5 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983585/jewish/Nezirut-...

Similarly, if a drunken man was given a cup to make him totally inebriated and he said: "I am a nazirite from it," he is forbidden to drink only that cup, but he is not a nazirite. [The rationale is that his intent was] only that they should not have him become overly drunk. If he was as drunk as Lot24 his statements are of no consequence and he is not liable for any transgression that he performs. For when he reaches a state of inebriation equivalent to Lot's, he is not liable at all.25

‫וכן שכור שנתנו לו כוס כדי לרוותו‬ ‫ואמר הרי זה נזיר ממנו הרי זה‬ ‫אסור באותו הכוס בלבד ואינו חייב‬ ‫בנזירות שלא נתכוון זה אלא שלא ישכרו‬ ‫אותו יותר מדאי ואם הגיע לשכרותו של‬ ‫לוט אין דבריו כלום ואינו חייב על כל‬ ‫עבירה שיעשה שמשהגיע לשכרותו של‬ :‫לוט אינו בן חיוב‬

When a person says: "I am a nazirite on the condition that I can drink wine," "...become impure because of contact with the dead," or "...cut my hair,"26 he is a nazirite and is forbidden to perform all of the above. [The rationale is that] he made a stipulation against what is written in the Torah and whenever one makes a stipulation against what is written in the Torah, the stipulation is nullified.27

‫האומר הריני נזיר על מנת שאהיה‬ ‫שותה יין או מטמא למתים או מגלח‬ ‫שערי הרי זה נזיר ואסור בכולם מפני‬ ‫שהתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה וכל המתנה‬ :‫על הכתוב בתורה תנאו בטל‬

When a person takes a nazirite vow and [afterwards] says: "I did not know that a nazirite was forbidden to partake of wine..., "...to become impure," or "...to cut hair. Had I known this, I would not have take the vow," he is a nazirite and is obligated in all these prohibitions. [The rationale is that] he knows that he is obligated in at least one of these [prohibitions] and as we explained,28 even if one took a [nazirite] vow, forbidding only one of these acts, he is forbidden in all of them.29

‫נדר בנזיר ואמר לא הייתי יודע‬ ‫שהנזיר אסור ביין או בטומאה או‬ ‫בתגלחת ואילו הייתי יודע כן לא הייתי‬ ‫נודר הרי זה נזיר וחייב בכולם שהרי הוא‬ ‫היה יודע שאסר עצמו באחד משלשת‬ ‫מינין וכבר בארנו שאפילו לא נדר אלא‬ :‫מאחד מהם אסור בכולן‬

8/21/2019 4:19 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

6 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983585/jewish/Nezirut-...

If the person says: "I know that a nazirite is forbidden in all of the above, but I thought that it would be permitted for me to drink wine, because I cannot live without wine," or "[I thought that I would be permitted to become impure,] because I bury the dead," he is not a nazirite,30 because his vow is included in the category of vows made in error31 which need not be absolved by a sage, as we explained.32

‫אמר יודע הייתי שהנזיר אסור בכל‬ ‫אלו אבל היה בדעתו שמותר לי‬ ‫לשתות אני היין מפני שאיני יכול לחיות‬ ‫בלא יין או מפני שאני קובר את המתים‬ ‫הרי זה אינו נזיר מפני שאלו בכלל נדרי‬ ‫שגגות שאינם צריכין שאלה לחכם כמו‬ :‫שבארנו‬

When a person says: "My hand is a nazirite" or "My foot is a nazirite," his words are of no consequence. If, however, he says: "My head is a nazirite" or "My liver is a nazirite," he is a nazarite." This is the general principle: Whenever a person designates as a nazirite an organ upon whose removal33 from a living person would cause him to die, he is a nazirite.34

‫האומר הרי ידי נזירה הרי רגלי‬ ‫נזירה לא אמר כלום הרי ראשי‬ ‫נזיר כבדי נזירה הרי זה נזיר זה הכלל כל‬ ‫אבר שאם ינטל מן החי ימות אם אמר הרי‬ :‫הוא נזיר הרי זה נזיר‬

When a person says: "I will be a nazirite when a ben is born to me," if a son is born to him, he is a nazirite. If, however, a daughter, a tumtum,35 or an androgynus36 is born to him, he is not a nazirite.37

‫האומר הריני נזיר כשיהיה לי בן אם‬ ‫נולד לו בן זכר הרי זה נזיר אבל אם‬ ‫נולדה לו בת או טומטום או אנדרוגינוס‬ ‫אין זה נזיר אמר הריני נזיר כשיהיה לי ולד‬ ‫אפילו נולד לו בת או טומטום ואנדרוגינוס‬ ‫הרי זה נזיר הפילה אשתו אינו נזיר חזרה‬ :‫ונתעברה וילדה הרי זה נזיר‬

If he says: "I will be a nazirite when offspring is born to me," even if a daughter, a tumtum, or an androgynus is born to him, he is a nazirite. If his wife miscarries, he is not a nazirite. If she becomes pregnant again and gives birth, he is a nazirite.38

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. Thus it is governed by the laws mentioned in the previous set of halachot. As mentioned in the beginning of Hilchot Nedarim, there are two types of vows: vows involving

2. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 374) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

prohibitions and vows taking on an obligation to bring

3. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 209) and Sefer

sacrifices. A nazirite vow also involves bringing sacrifices, as will be explained. Nevertheless, it is considered primarily a

HaChinuch (mitzvah 373) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

vow involving prohibitions (Radbaz).

8/21/2019 4:19 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

7 of 9

4. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 207-208) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 375-376) include two prohibitions involving this matter among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See Chapter 5 which describes this prohibition. 5. This includes prohibitions against drinking wine and eating fresh grapes, raisins, grape seeds, and grape peels. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 202-206) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 368-372) include five prohibitions against partaking of these grape products among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983585/jewish/Nezirut-...

15. According to the Rambam, when he makes such statements while holding his hair, it is not necessary that a nazirite pass in front of him for his statement to be binding. 16. The Hebrew uses two expressions to communicate this and the previous concept. Our translations for these terms are taken from Rav Kappach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 1:1). 17. The offering a nazirite would bring if he became impure (see Numbers 6:10). 18. I.e., with regard to a nazirite vow. Since it is possible that his

6. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam does not mention these prohibitions in the order that they are mentioned in the

statement meant that he intended to offer the doves as a sacrifice, it is not considered as implying a nazirite vow. From

Torah, not in the order that they are mentioned in the Mishnah. The rationale is that the mitzvah of letting one's

the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), it

hair grow is mentioned first because it involves both a positive and a negative commandment.

voluntary offering. It is questionable if here the Rambam is negating that implication.

7. For with his deed, he has violated two of the Torah's prohibitions.

19. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam

8. Which applies with regard to the violation of all vows, as stated in Hilchot Nedarim 1:5. 9. If he violates his nazirite vow in several ways, e.g., he eats grapes and becomes impure, he receives lashes according to the number of violations involved (Radbaz). 10. I.e., the commandment to observe the vows one takes. See Hilchot Nedarim 1:4. 11. Which is done at the fulfillment of one's nazirite vow. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 93) and Sefer HaChinuch

appears that the person is liable to bring these doves as a

writes that gentiles who lived among the Jewish people would mispronounce the word nazir in this manner. As such, there would be some Jews who would make similar mistakes. See parallel concepts in Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:5, Hilchot Nedarim 1:16. 20. I.e., since he used the term "nazirite" and the object which he mentioned is forbidden to nazirites, the nazirite restrictions all take effect. Note the contrast to the following halachah. 21. Because the term nazirite does not apply with regard to those objects.

(mitzvah 377) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See Chapter 8 which describes this

22. I.e., in the Talmudic era, the wine was very strong. Hence it was customary to mix water into wine before serving it.

procedure. 12. Deuteronomy 23:22. As the Rambam states in Hilchot

23. I.e., the situation is comparable to those described in Halachah 9.

Arachin VaCharamim 1:1, this prohibition applies to any

24. Who became so drunk that he lost all consciousness of his

person who delays keeping the vows and pledges he makes. He does not, however, list this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot in these halachot, but instead, in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot (in the introduction to those halachot and in Chapter 14, Halachah 13). See also Hilchot Arachin 6:33 which uses this law as support for the principle that a pledge to perform a mitzvah is considered as a vow. 13. For as stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2, lashes are not given for the violation of a prohibition that does not involve a deed. Note, however, Chapter 5, Halachah 21.

actions. See Genesis, ch. 19. 25. I.e., he is considered like a mentally and emotionally incapable person (a shoteh). See Hilchot Ishut 4:18, Hilchot Mechirah 29:18. 26. I.e., he seeks to avoid keeping one or more of the obligations of the nazirite vow although he will keep the others. 27. This is a general principle applying in many aspects of Torah law, e.g., Hilchot Ishut 16:9. 28. In the previous halachah.

14. This concept, which the Rambam illustrates in the following halachot, expresses the principle (see Nedarim 5b) that yadot nedarim, literally "handles of vows," are considered equivalent to vows themselves.

8/21/2019 4:19 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

8 of 9

29. The Ra'avad states that if a person would approach a sage and ask him to absolve his nazirite vow on these grounds, the sage would certainly consent. We are speaking about an instance when the person seeks to have the vow nullified without consulting a sage because it was taken in error. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would also accept this

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983585/jewish/Nezirut-...

32. Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:6; Hilchot Nedarim 4:1. 33. The Or Sameach notes that the Rambam changes slightly the wording of his source, Nazir 21b, based on his ruling in Hilchot Shechitah 8:16. There the Rambam writes that if an animal is born without a liver it may live, but if it was born with a liver and then the liver was removed, it is treifah.

ruling. The Kessef Mishneh, however, does not accept this 34. For it is considered as if he took the vow upon his entire person. Compare to Hilchot Arachin 2:1; Hilchot Ma'aseh

explanation. 30. He need not observe any of the nazirite prohibitions, even

HaKorbanot 15:2; Hilchot Mechirah 27:8.

the ones he had intended to observe. 31. The Ra'avad considers this as a vow which a person is prevented from keeping by forces beyond his control, citing Nazir 11b which appears to support this interpretation. The Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz state that while the actual wording of the Talmud fits the Ra'avad's interpretation, the Rambam's explanation can be justified. [Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 2:4), the Rambam uses the wording suggested by the Ra'avad.]

35. A person whose genital area is covered by a piece of flesh and it is impossible to detect his gender. 36. A person with both male and female sexual organs (Hilchot Ishut 2:24-25). 37. Although the term ben can be translated as "offspring," its specific meaning is "son." Hence the Rambam rules in this manner. 38. The fact that his wife miscarried in the interim does not negate the vow.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:19 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

9 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983585/jewish/Nezirut-...

8/21/2019 4:19 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

1 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...



Nezirut - Chapter 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nezirut - Chapter 1

When a person takes a nazirite vow inadvertently,1 is compelled to take one by forces beyond his control,2 takes one in order to encourage a colleague,3 or takes one while making exaggerated statements,4 he is exempt as is the law concerning other vows.

English

Hebrew

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 3

‫הנודר בנזיר בשוגג או באונס או‬ ‫שנדר לזרז חבירו או דרך הבאי הרי‬ ‫זה פטור בשאר נדרים ומי שנדר בנזיר‬ ‫וניחם על נדרו הרי זה נשאל לחכם ומתיר‬ :‫לו נזירותו כדרך שמתירין שאר הנדרים‬

When a person takes a nazirite vow and regrets having taking it, he may approach a sage and ask him [to absolve it]. He may release his nazirite vow in the same way he releases other vows.5 [The following rules apply when a person] took a nazirite vow and went to brings his sacrifices for that vow with the intent that he will bring them on the completion of the days of his vow, but discovered that either all of the animals or one of them were stolen. If he took the nazirite vow before the animal was stolen, he is a nazirite.6 If he took the nazirite vow after [an animal] was stolen, lost, or died, he is not a nazirite. It is as if he took a nazirite vow in error.7

‫מי שנדר בנזיר והלך להביא‬ ‫קרבנותיו שנזר על דעת שיביאם‬ ‫במלאת ימי נזרו מצאן שנגנבו או נגנבה‬ ‫בהמה מהן אם עד שלא נגנבה הבהמה נזר‬ ‫הרי זה נזיר ואם אחר שנגנבה או שאבדה‬ :‫או שמתה נזר אינו נזיר שזה נזר בטעות‬

When a person extends a nazirite vow,8 he is a nazirite, as we explained with regard to the laws concerning the extension of other vows.9

‫המתפיס בנזירות הרי זה נזיר כמו‬ :‫שבארנו בדין כל המתפיס בנדר‬

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

2 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

If a nazirite was passing before him and he said: "I am like him," he is a nazirite.10 If a colleague of his took a nazirite vow and he said: "My mouth is like his mouth with regard to wine"11 or "My hair is like his hair with regard to cutting it,"12 he is a nazirite. Similarly, if he heard him [take a nazirite vow] and said: "And also I" immediately thereafter,13 [he is a nazirite]. And if a third person said: "And also I" immediately after the second person's statement - even if this continues for 100 individuals14 - they are all nazirites.

‫היה נזיר עובר לפניו ואמר הריני כזה‬ ‫הרי זה נזיר נדר חבירו בנזיר ואמר‬ ‫הוא פי כפיו מיין או שאמר שערי כשערו‬ ‫מלהגזז הרי זה נזיר וכן אם שמע ואמר‬ ‫ואני בתוך כדי דבור ]ושמע שלישי בתוך‬ ‫כדי דבור[ של שני ואמר ואני ואפילו הן‬ :‫מאה כולן נזירין‬

If a person says: "I will be a nazirite when a son will be born to me," and his colleague says: "And also I," his colleague becomes a nazirite immediately.15

‫האומר הריני נזיר כשיהיה לי בן‬ ‫וחבירו אמר ואני הרי חבירו נזיר‬

When a person tells a colleague: "I will be a nazirite when a son will be born to you," and his colleague says: "And also I," [his colleague does not become] a nazirite. [The rationale is that] the latter person only had the desire to say that he would love for a son to be born to him to the same degree as the first does. For he is embarrassed in his presence.16

‫האומר לחבירו הריני נזיר כשיהיה לך‬ ‫בן ושמע חבירו ואמר ואני אין זה נזיר‬ ‫שלא נתכוון זה האחרון אלא לומר שאני‬ ‫אוהב שיהיה לך בן כמו זה שהרי הוא בוש‬ :‫ממנו‬

When a person says: "I will be a nazirite when a son will be born to so-and so,"17 and his colleague heard his statement and said: "And also I," there is an unresolved question concerning the matter. Perhaps his colleague's intent was to become a nazirite like him18 or perhaps he wanted to say that he loved him like the other person did. When there is a question whether a nazirite vow takes effect, we rule leniently.19

‫האומר הריני נזיר כשיהיה לפלוני בן‬ ‫ושמע חבירו ואמר אני הרי זה ספק‬ ‫שמא לא נתכוון אלא להיות נזיר כמותו או‬ ‫לומר שאני אוהב אותו כמותך וספק‬ :‫נזירות להקל‬

:‫מיד‬

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

3 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

[A nazirite vow can take effect in the following situation.] Two people were walking on the road and saw another person approaching them. One of the said: "The person approaching us is Shimon." The other said: "He is Reuven." The first replied: "I will become a nazirite if it is Reuven" and the second responded: "I will become a nazirite if it is Shimon." If he reaches them and he is Reuven, [the first] is a nazirite. If it is Shimon, the second is a nazirite as per the vows. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If the person did not reach them, but instead turned backward and disappeared from their sight and they did not discover his identity, neither of them are nazirites.20

‫שנים שהיו מהלכים בדרך וראו אחד‬ ‫בא כנגדן ואמר אחד מן השנים זה‬ ‫ההולך כנגדנו שמעון הוא ואמר חבירו‬ ‫ראובן הוא ואמר זה הריני נזיר אם יהיה‬ ‫ראובן ואמר האחר הריני נזיר אם יהיה‬ ‫שמעון הגיע אליהם והרי הוא ראובן הרי‬ ‫זה נזיר ואם היה שמעון הרי חבירו נזיר‬ ‫כמו שנדרו וכן כל כיוצא בזה לא הגיע‬ ‫אליהם אלא חזר לאחוריו ונעלם מעיניהם‬ :‫ולא ידעו מי הוא אין אחד מהן נזיר‬

Similarly, when a person says: "I will be a nazirite if there will be 100 kor21 in this grainheap," if when he goes to measure it, he discovers that [some of the produce] was stolen or lost, he is not a nazirite.22 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] When there is a question about whether a nazirite vow takes effect, we rule leniently.

‫וכן האומר הריני נזיר אם יהיה בכרי‬ ‫זה מאה כור והלך למודדו ומצאו‬ ‫שנגנב או שאבד אינו נזיר וכן כל כיוצא‬ :‫בזה שספק נזירות להקל‬

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

4 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

All [of the people who took nazirite vow in the following situation] are nazirites. Several people] were walking on the road and saw a ko'i23from a distance. One said: "I will be a nazirite if that is a wild beast." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if that is a domesticated animal." Another said:24 "I will be a nazirite if that is not a wild beast." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if that is not a domesticated animal." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if that is neither a wild beast, nor a domesticated animal." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if that is both a wild beast and a domesticated animal." [The rationale is that] in certain matters,25 a ko'i resembles a wild beast. In other matters, it resembles a domesticated animal. In still other matters, it resembles both a wild beast and a domesticated animal and in still other matters, it resembles neither a domesticated animal, nor a wild beast.

‫היו מהלכין בדרך וראו את הכוי‬ ‫מרחוק ואמר אחד מהם הריני נזיר‬ ‫שזה חיה ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שזה‬ ‫בהמה ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שאין זה חיה‬ ‫ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שאין זה בהמה‬ ‫ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שאין זה לא חיה‬ ‫ולא בהמה ואמר אחד הריני נזיר שזה‬ ‫בהמה וחיה הרי כולם נזירים מפני שהכוי‬ ‫יש בו דרכים שוה בהן לחיה ויש בו דרכים‬ ‫שוה בהן לבהמה ויש בו דרכים שוה לחיה‬ ‫ולבהמה ויש בו דרכים שאינו שוה לא‬ ‫לבהמה ולא לחיה והוא הדין אם ראו‬ ‫אנדרוגינוס ונחלקו בו אם הוא איש או‬ ‫אשה ונדרו על דרך שנדרו אלו בכוי הרי‬ ‫כולם נזירים שהאנדרוגינוס יש בו דרכים‬ ‫שוה בהן לאיש ודרכים שוה בהן לאשה‬ ‫ודרכים שאינו שוה בהן לא לאיש ולא‬ :‫לאשה ודרכים שהן שוין לאיש ולאשה‬

Similar laws apply if they saw an androgynus and argued whether the person was a man or a woman and took vows similar to those mentioned with regard to a ko'i. They are all nazirities, because there are matters26 in which an androgynus resembles a man, matters where the resemblance is to a woman, matters in which there is no resemblance to either a man or a woman, and matters in which there is a resemblance to both a man and a woman.

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

5 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

All of the above applies to the person's status with regard to the mitzvot and not with regard to his nature and physical characteristics. Similarly, the factors involving a ko'i apply with regard to the mitzvot and not with regard to its nature and physical characteristics. What is implied? [When] a ko'i [is slaughtered, its] blood must be covered as the blood of a wild beast must.27 Its fat is forbidden as is the fat of a domesticated animal.28 It is considered a union of mixed species if it is mated with either a domesticated animal or a wild beast,29 as if it were neither a wild beast or a domesticated animal. And it must be ritually slaughtered as is required for both a domesticated animal or a wild beast. Similarly, there are other halachic considerations that apply with regard to it and they will all be explained in their appropriate place.30

‫וכל הדרכים האלו בעניני המצות‬ ‫ולא בטבעו ותולדתו וכן דרכי הכוי‬ ‫בעניני המצות לא בטבעו ותולדתו כיצד‬ ‫דמו טעון כיסוי כחיה וחלבו אסור כבהמה‬ ‫והרי הוא כלאים עם הבהמה וכן עם החיה‬ ‫כאילו אינה חיה ולא בהמה וטעון שחיטה‬ ‫כבהמה וחיה ויש בו דרכים אחרים וכל‬ ‫אחד מהן יתבאר במקומו וכן אנדרוגינוס‬ ‫מטמא בלובן כאנשים ומטמא באודם‬ ‫כנשים ואינו נמכר בעבד עברי לא‬ ‫כאנשים ולא כנשים וההורגו נהרג עליו‬ ‫כאנשים וכנשים ויש בו דינים אחרים וכל‬ :‫אחד יכתב במקומו‬

Similarly, an androgynus becomes impure because of a seminal emission like a man and because of uterine bleeding like a woman.31 He cannot be sold as a Hebrew servant, [differing in this way] from both a man and a woman.32 And a person who kills him is executed like one who kills either a man or a woman. There are also other laws applying to him. Each one will be stated in its place.33

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

6 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

Similar [laws apply]34 if [several people] saw a group of men approaching them which contained sighted people and blind people. One said: "I will be a nazirite if they are sighted people." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if they are not sighted people." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if they are blind." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if they are not blind." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if among them are sighted people and blind people." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if among them are those who are not sighted people and those who are not blind." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫וכן אם ראו אנשים באים כנגדם‬ ‫מהם פקחים ומהם סומים ואמר‬ ‫אחד הריני נזיר שאלו פקחין ואמר אחר‬ ‫הריני נזיר שאין אלו פקחין ואמר אחר‬ ‫הרי אני נזיר שאלו סומין ואמר אחר הריני‬ ‫נזיר שאין אלו סומין ואמר אחר הריני נזיר‬ ‫שאלו פקחין וסומין ואמר אחר הריני נזיר‬ ‫שאין אלו לא פקחין ולא סומין הרי כולם‬ :‫נזירים וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

When a minor reaches the age when his vows are of consequence35and he takes a nazirite vow, he is a nazirite and must bring his sacrifices36 even though he has not manifested signs of physical maturity, as he [must uphold] his other vows.

‫קטן שהגיע לעונת נדרים ונדר בנזיר‬ ‫הרי זה נזיר ומביא קרבנותיו ואף על‬ ‫פי שעדיין לא הביא שתי שערות כשאר‬ ‫הנדרים והאיש מדיר את בנו קטן בנזיר‬ ‫אע"פ שלא בא לעונת נדרים ואין האשה‬ ‫מדרת את בנה בנזיר ודבר זה הלכה מפי‬ :‫הקבלה הוא ואינו נוהג בשאר נדרים‬

A father may administer a nazirite vow to his son who is underage even though he has not reached the age when his vows are of consequence. A woman, by contrast, may not administer a nazirite vow to her son.37 This is a concept conveyed by the Oral Tradition. It does not apply with regard to other vows. What is implied? A father told his son who was a minor: "You are a nazirite"; he said: "My son, so-and-so, is a nazirite;" or he said, [pointing to his son,] "He is a nazirite," and the son remained silent,38 the son is a nazirite. The father must have him conduct himself according to all the particulars of the nazirite laws.39 If [the son] becomes impure, he must bring the sacrifices [associated with the termination] of impurity. When he completes his nazirite vow, he must bring the sacrifices [required when a nazirite vow is completed in] purity.40

‫כיצד האב שאמר לבנו הקטן הרי‬ ‫אתה נזיר או שאמר בני פלוני נזיר‬ ‫או הרי זה נזיר ושתק הבן הרי זה נזיר‬ ‫וחייב האב לנהוג בו כל דקדוקי נזירות‬ ‫ואם נטמא מביא קרבן טומאה וכשישלים‬ ‫נזירותו מביא קרבן טהרה כשאר הנזירים‬ :‫הגדולים‬

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

7 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

If the son did not desire this and objected to the matter,41 his relatives objected,42 he cut off his hair, or his relatives cut off his hair - thus performing a deed that indicates that either he or his relatives did not desire the nazirite vow,43 he is not a nazirite.44 Until when may his father administer a nazirite vow to him? Until he attains majority,45 and becomes an adult.

‫לא רצה הבן ומיחה בדבר זה או‬ ‫שמיחו קרוביו או שגלח שערו או‬ ‫שגלחוהו קרוביו שהרי נעשה מעשה שגלה‬ ‫דעתו שלא רצה הוא או קרוביו בנזירות זו‬ ‫הרי זה אינו נזיר ועד מתי יש לו להדירו‬ :‫עד שיגדיל ויעשה איש‬

The concept of a nazirite vow does not apply to gentiles, for [Numbers 6:2]46 "Speak to the children of Israel."

‫העכו"ם אין להן נזירות שנאמר‬ :‫דבר אל בני ישראל‬

The concept of a nazirite vow does apply to women and servants.47A father or a husband may nullify a nazirite vow taken by a woman if he so desires as is the case with regard to other vows.48 With regard to a servant, [to nullify his nazirite vow,]49 his master must compel him to drink [wine] or become impure due to contact with the dead. If he does not compel him,50 he must observe the nazirite vow.

‫נשים ועבדים יש להן נזירות והאב או‬ ‫הבעל מפר נזירות האשה אם רצה‬ ‫כשאר הנדרים אבל העבד יש לרבו לכוף‬ ‫אותו לשתות ולהטמא למתים ואם לא‬ :‫כפה אותו נוהג נזירות‬

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

8 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a servant takes other vows that involve personal aggravation or that prevent his performance of work or makes a valuation assessment,51 his master does not have to compel him [to act against the vow to nullify it].52 [The rationale is that the servant] is not the owner of his self and he cannot cause a vow to take effect regarding his person. To what can the matter be compared? To a person who [takes a vow] forbidding produce belonging to another person to the owner of that produce.53

‫נדר העבד שאר נדרים שיש בהן‬ ‫עינוי נפש או שמעכבין את‬ ‫המלאכה או שהעריך אין רבו צריך לכופו‬ ‫מפני שאין נפשו קנויה לו ולא יחול עליו‬ ‫נדר למה הדבר דומה לאוסר פירות‬ ‫אחרים עליהם אבל אם אין שם עינוי ולא‬ ‫דבר שמעכב מלאכה אינו יכול לכופו נדר‬ ‫עבדו בנזירות ואמר לו מופר לך יצא‬ ‫לחירות וחייב להשלים נזירותו שהעבד‬ ‫כופין אותו ואין מפירין לו ואם הפר יצא‬ :‫לחירות‬

If, however, a vow does not involve personal aggravation and it is not a matter which holds back work, [the master] cannot compel him [not to observe it].54 If a servant took a nazirite vow and his master told him: "It is nullified for you," [when] he receives his freedom,55 he is obligated to complete his nazirite vow.56 [The rationale is that] a servant must be compelled to nullify his vow. We do not nullify it verbally. If one nullifies it verbally, he is granted his freedom.

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

9 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a servant took a nazirite vow and fled from or abandoned his master,57 he is forbidden to drink wine. [This measure was enacted so that] he would suffer difficulty and return to his master's domain.58 If he took a nazirite vow, completed it, and shaved,59 without his master knowing of this, and afterwards, was granted his freedom, he is considered to have satisfied the requirements of his nazirite vow.60 If, however, he took a nazirite vow, but did not shave, and was granted his freedom, he is not considered to have fulfilled his nazirite vow.61 If he became impure and then was granted his freedom, he must begin reckoning [the days of his nazirite vow] from the time he became impure.62

‫עבד שנדר בנזירות וברח או‬ ‫שהלך מרבו הרי זה אסור לשתות‬ ‫יין כדי שיצטער ויחזור לרשות רבו נזר‬ ‫והשלים נזירותו וגלח ולא ידעו רבו ואח"כ‬ ‫יצא לחירות הרי זה יצא ידי נדרו אבל אם‬ ‫נדר ולא גלח ויצא לחירות לא יצא ידי‬ ‫נדרו נטמא ואחר כך יצא לחירות מונה‬ :‫משעה שנטמא‬

Nazirite vows must be observed both while the Temple is standing and while the Temple was not standing. Therefore when a person takes a nazirite vow in the present era, he must observe it forever,63 because we do not have a Temple where he can go and offer his sacrifices at the conclusion of his nazirite vow.

‫נזירות נוהגת בפני הבית ושלא בפני‬ ‫הבית לפיכך מי שנדר בנזיר בזמן‬ ‫הזה הרי זה נזיר לעולם שאין לנו בית כדי‬ :‫שיביא קרבנותיו במלאת ימי נזרו‬

A nazirite vow may be observed only in Eretz Yisrael.64When a person takes a nazirite vow in the Diaspora, he is penalized and obligated to ascend to Eretz Yisrael65 and observe his nazirite vow there for as long as he vowed.66 Accordingly, when a person takes a nazirite vow in the Diaspora in the present era, we compel him to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and observe his nazirite vow there67 until he dies or until the Temple is built and he brings his sacrifices there at the conclusion of the span of his vow.

‫אין הנזירות נוהגת אלא בארץ‬ ‫ישראל ומי שנזר בחוצה לארץ‬ ‫קונסין אותו ומחייבין אותו לעלות לארץ‬ ‫ישראל ולהיות נזיר בארץ ישראל כמנין‬ ‫הימים שנזר לפיכך מי שנדר בזמן הזה‬ ‫בחוצה לארץ כופין אותו לעלות לארץ‬ ‫ישראל ולהיות נוהג שם נזירות עד שימות‬ ‫או עד שיבנה המקדש ויביא קרבנותיו‬ :‫במלאת ימי נזרו‬

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

10 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

Throughout the entire time he is in the Diaspora, he is forbidden to drink wine, to become impure due to contact with the dead, and to cut his hair.68 He must uphold all of the requirements stemming from a nazirite vow, despite the fact that the days are not counted for him. If he transgressed and drank [wine], cut his hair, or touched a corpse or the like,69 he is liable for lashes.

‫וכל זמן שהוא בחוצה לארץ הרי‬ ‫זה אסור לשתות יין ולהטמא‬ ‫למתים ולגלח וכל דקדוקי נזירות עליו‬ ‫ואע"פ שאין ימים אלו עולין לו ואם עבר‬ ‫ושתה או גלח או נגע במת וכיוצא בנגיעה‬ :‫לוקה‬

« Previous

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 3

Nezirut - Chapter 1 FOOTNOTES 1. E.g., he said: "I will be nazirite if I ate today," and he was under the impression that he had not eaten, but in fact he

15. In contrast to the person who took the vow who does not become a nazirite until the child is born (Chapter 1, Halachah

had eaten (Nedarim 25b). See Hilchot Nedarim 8:3 and

17). This is the conclusion the Rambam derives from the discussion of the issue in Nazir 13a. The Ra'avad offers a

Chapter 1, Halachah 15. 2. I.e., people compelled him to take the nazirite vows. See Hilchot Nedarim 4:1. 3. He said: "I will be a nazirite if you do not eat at my home." See Hilchot Nedarim 4:3. 4. He said: "I will be a nazirite if I did not see an army as numerous as the Jewish people when they left Egypt." See Hilchot Nedarim 4:1; Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:5. 5. See Hilchot Nedarim 4:5. 6. We do not automatically say: Had he known that the animal would have been stolen he would not have taken the vow. If, however, he asks a sage to absolve the vow on this account, it is absolved. See Hilchot Nedarim 8:5; Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:12. 7. I.e., his vow was taken on a false assumption, for he believed that he possessed these animals. See Hilchot Nedarim 8:3. 8. I.e., as illustrated in the following halachah, he states that a nazirite vow taken by a colleague should also apply to him. 9. Hilchot Nedarim 3:3. 10. See Chapter 1, Halachah 5. 11. I.e., "just as he is forbidden to drink wine, so am I." 12. I.e., "just as he is forbidden to cut his hair, so am I." 13. This term refers to a specific span of time, the time it takes to say: Shalom Elecha Rebbi (Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17).

different interpretation of the passage. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's understanding. 16. I.e., were he not to make such a statement, it would appear that he does not have genuine love for him. Because of the above, we say that his vow was not made sincerely and he never intended to become a nazirite. 17. In contrast to the situation described in the previous halachah, in this instance, the person mentioned in the nazirite vow was not present when the vow was taken. 18. Since the person was not present, we feel that it is less likely that his statements were made merely to make an impression (see Nazir 13a). 19. The rationale is that at the time of the completion of the vow, the person is required to offer sacrifices. Were his vow not to have taken effect, he would be slaughtering non-sacrificial animals in the Temple courtyard which is forbidden (Rabbenu Nissim). 20. Because as stated at the conclusion of the previous halachah, if there is a doubt where a nazirite vow is binding, we rule leniently. 21. A dry measure used in the Talmudic period equivalent to 30 se'ah (Hilchot Arachin 4:4). 22. For he desired the nazirite vow to take effect only if there was the said amount of grain in the grain heap.

14. I.e., each one speaking immediately thereafter his colleague.

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

11 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

23. A ko'i is a hybrid born from breeding a deer and a goat.

41. The Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz refer to the difference

There is an unresolved question among our Sages if it is

of opinion between Rashi and Tosafot (Nazir 28b) whether

considered as a domesticated animal (behemah) or a wild beast {(chayah) the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah,

the objection must be made immediately or whether they can be made throughout the span of the nazirite vow. In his

Bikkurim 2:8}. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 1:13, he states

Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 4:6), the Rambam

that the term refers to any hybrid that comes from mating a domesticated animal with a wild beast.

espouses the view shared by Tosafot that once the son

24. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 5:6), the Rambam

42. The Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 368) writes that if the child

states that if one person made all these statements, he is

agrees to observe the nazirite vow, it is binding even if the

obligated to fulfill an equivalent number of nazirite vows.

relatives object.

began observing the nazirite vow, he cannot object to it.

25. See the following halachah where the Rambam elaborates on these points.

43. See the Or Sameach who debates whether drinking wine is

26. See the following halachah where the Rambam elaborates on these points.

44. For his father's authority over him is not absolute.

27. See Hilchot Shechitah 14:4.

45. Becomes thirteen years old and manifests signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:2; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).

28. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 1:13. 29. See Hilchot Kilayim 9:5. 30. See Hilchot Shechitah 12:8-9; Hilchot Bikkurim 9:5; 10:7; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 1:6, et al. 31. I.e., either semen or the secretion of a zav. See Hilchot Mita'amei Mishkav UMoshav 1:7; Hilchot

also considered a deed which registers the son's objections.

Mechusarei

Kapparah 3:7.

46. The verse which introduces the laws of a nazirite vow. By addressing the passage to Jews, the Torah indicates that it does not apply to gentiles. 47. Numbers 6:2 specifically mentions a woman taking a nazirite vow. With regard to servants, Nazir 62b explains how this concept can be explained by Biblical exegesis. 48. See Hilchot Nedarim, chs. 11-13.

32. See Hilchot Avadim 4:1. 49. We are speaking about a Canaanite servant who is his 33. See Hilchot Tzitzit 3:9; Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 6:8; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 22:11, et al. 34. Note the Radbaz who offers an explanation why all three illustrations of the principle are necessary. 35. I.e., twelve for a male and eleven for a female. He or she must also be aware of the One for whose sake they are taking vows (Hilchot Nedarim 11:1-4). 36. The Ra'avad questions this ruling, noting that there are authorities who maintain that the obligation for a minor to keep his vow is Rabbinic in origin. According to their view, it

master's property. Accordingly, vows he takes are dependent on his master's consent as indicated by the following halachah. 50. I.e., with regard to a servant, a verbal nullification of the nazirite vow is not sufficient. The master must physically compel him not to observe it. 51. See Hilchot Arachin 1:2. 52. I.e., as the Rambam continues to explain, the vow is void without the master having to take any action at all.

would be forbidden for the minor to bring a sacrifice, for that would be bringing non-sacramental animals as offerings. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh maintain that those authorities follow a minority position. 37. The commentaries discuss this issue, noting that seemingly, the prophetess Chanah administered a nazirite vow to her son Samuel. They explain that although the inspiration for the vow came from Chanah, it was actually administered by Elkanah, Samuel's father. 38. I.e., his silence is considered as acceptance. If, however, he refuses to become a nazirite, he is not bound by his father's statements, as stated in the following halachah. 39. See Chapter 6, Halachot 3, 11. 40. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1.

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

12 of 14

53. According to the Rambam (based on Nazir 62b) , there are

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

four different rulings with regard to vows or oaths a servant

58. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, noting that Nazir 9:1 mentions that this issue is the subject of a

takes: a) All oaths and valuation assessments that a servant takes

difference of opinion between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi. Generally, in such instances, the halachah follows Rabbi

are nullified automatically. The rationale is that "his body is not his property so that the oath he takes will be effective.

Yossi and yet the Rambam follows Rabbi Meir's view. The Radbaz explains that the fact that Nazir 61a concludes by

With regard to oaths, [Numbers 30:3] states: 'forbid something upon one's soul.' [Implied is that the verse applies

mentioning Rabbi Meir's view indicates that the halachah follows his opinion. The Kessef Mishneh suggests (- this,

to] someone whose soul is his property. It excludes a servant who is someone else's property" (Hilchot Sh'vuot 12:6).

however, is not borne out by the Rambam's Commentary to

b) Vows other than a nazirite vow that are either aggravating or prevent the servant from working are automatically nullified. The rationale is that, with regard to an oath, Leviticus 5:4 states: "Whether he will do harm or do good." Implied is that he can take an oath - or a vow, because an association is established between vows and oaths - only when he has the choice of either doing good or doing harm to himself. This does not apply to these oaths. Since they harm his master, he has no right to take them. c) Nazirite vows are not automatically nullified, because the association with vows does not apply with regard to them. Nevertheless, since the servant belongs to his master, the master has the right to nullify his vow. d) Vows other than a nazirite vow that are neither aggravating nor prevent the servant from working must be fulfilled. The rationale is that in contrast to an oath in which the prohibition is incumbent on the servant (the gavra), for a

the Mishnah -) that the Rambam's text of the mishnah read opposite to the standard version. Others support the Rambam's ruling, based on Tosafot who states that the halachah follows Rabbi Meir with regard to his decrees. 59. I.e., completed the process required of a nazirite at the conclusion of his vow. 60. We do not say that since the vow was fulfilled without the knowledge of his master, its fulfillment is of no consequence. Although his master could have nullified his vow, since in fact he did not do so, it is considered significant (Radbaz). 61. I.e., he must begin counting the days of his nazirite vow anew as a free man, without counting the days during which he observed as a servant. The rationale why these days are not counted is that since he did not complete his vow (by shaving), the status of the vow is left open. For at any time, his master could compel him to drink wine and nullify his vow. As such, he is never

there is no harm to the master involved, such vows can take

considered to have completed a valid nazirite vow. Although the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, the

effect.

commentaries justify his approach.

vow, the prohibition falls upon the object (the cheftza). Since

54. Since the master does not suffer any loss, there is no reason that the vow should not take effect. 55. When a master desires to nullify a vow taken by his servant, he must physically compel him to break it, as mentioned

62. I.e., he does not bring a sacrifice as would a free man who became impure in the midst of his nazirite vow. Instead, he begins his nazirite vow anew when he becomes pure after he attains his freedom.

above. If he does not do so, but instead, verbally nullifies it, he is indicating that he no longer considers his servant as

63. See Chapter 3, Halachah 12, for a description of how this vow is observed.

having that status, but has freed him. See parallels in Hilchot

64. This is not a point of Scriptural Law. Instead, the rationale is

Avadim 8:17. Based on a different version of Nazir 62b, the Ra'avad differs

that since our Sages decreed that the Diaspora - its earth and even its air - conveys ritual impurity, a nazirite cannot

with the Rambam and does not agree that verbally nullifying

observe his vow there (Nazir 54a; see Hilchot Tuma'at Meit

a servant's vow is an indication that he must be freed. The commentaries support the Rambam's understanding.

11:1).

56. For the verbal nullification made by his master is of no consequence. 57. Fleeing from his master is not equivalent to attaining his freedom (Radbaz).

65. So that he can observe his nazirite vow in purity. 66. Nazir 19b, 20a relates that Queen Heleni took a vow that if her son would return safe from a war, she would be a nazarite for seven years. She observed her vow and came to the Temple to offer her sacrifices. The School of Hillel ruled that she should remain in Eretz Yisrael and observe her vow for another seven years, for the time she observed it in the Diaspora was not counted.

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

13 of 14

67. The Ra'avad questions what purpose will be served by ascending to Eretz Yisrael in the present era. We are all impure because of contact with a human corpse (or impurity that results from that) and there are no ashes from the red heifer to purify ourselves. If so, what difference is there between Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora? In neither place,

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

68. See the parallel in Chapter 6, Halachah 7, for parallels. 69. For even though we are all ritually impure at present, a nazirite who is impure who comes in contact with a corpse is liable for lashes for each time he comes in contact (Chapter 5, Halachah 17).

will one be able to complete his nazirite vow in purity. Hence, the Ra'avad concludes, it is forbidden to take a nazirite vow in the present age, whether in the Diaspora or in Eretz Yisrael. The Radbaz states that although we are ritually impure, abiding in the Diaspora increases that impurity. Hence, it is preferable for one who takes a nazirite vow to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. The Kessef Mishneh goes further and states that since a person can prevent himself from coming into contact with the ritual impurity associated with a corpse, there is no prohibition against taking a nazirite vow in the present age.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

14 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983586/jewish/Nezirut-...

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

1 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983587/jewish/Nezirut-...



Nezirut - Chapter 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nezirut - Chapter 2

English

Hebrew

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 4

If a specification is not made the term for a nazirite vow is 30 days. What is implied? If a person said: "I am a nazirite," [he must uphold his vow] for no less than 30 days.1 Even if he said: "I will be a nazirite for an excessively long and protracted time," he must uphold the nazirite vows for [only] 30 days, for he did not specify a time.2

‫סתם נזירות שלשים יום כיצד מי‬ ‫שאמר הריני נזיר אין פחות‬ ‫משלשים יום ואפילו אמר הריני נזיר‬ ‫נזירות גדולה עד מאד הרבה הרי זה נזיר‬ :‫שלשים יום שהרי לא פירש זמן‬

If he specified a time span that was less than 30 days, e.g., he said: "I will be a nazirite for one day," "...for ten days," or "...for twenty days," he must observe the nazirite vow for 30 days. For there is no concept of a nazirite vow for less than 30 days. This concept was conveyed by the Oral Tradition.

‫פירש זמן פחות משלשים כגון‬ ‫שאמר הריני נזיר יום אחד או עשרה‬ ‫ימים או עשרים יום הרי זה נזיר שלשים‬ ‫יום שאין נזירות פחותה משלשים יום‬ :‫ודבר זה הלכה מפי הקבלה‬

If a person explicitly mentioned a time span greater than 30 days:, e.g., he mentioned 31 days, 40 days, 100 days, or 100 years, he is a nazirite for the time he specified, neither more nor less.

‫פירש זמן יותר משלשים יום כגון‬ ‫שאמר אחד ושלשים יום או ארבעים‬ ‫או מאה יום או מאה שנה הרי זה נזיר‬ :‫כזמן שפירש לא פחות ולא יותר‬

When a person says: "I will be a nazirite for one hour," he must uphold his nazirite vows for 30 days. If he said: "I will be a nazirite for 30 days and one hour," he must be a nazirite for 31 days. For there is no conception of a nazirite vow [only for] hours.3

‫האומר הריני נזיר שעה אחת הרי זה‬ ‫נזיר שלשים יום אמר הריני נזיר‬ ‫שלשים יום ושעה אחת הרי זה נזיר אחד‬ :‫ושלשים יום שאין נוזרין שעות‬

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

2 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983587/jewish/Nezirut-...

[The following rules apply when a person] says: "I will be a nazirite from here until this-and-this place." If he did not set out on the road, he must uphold his nazirite vow for only 30 days. For his intent was to make a vow for a long nazirite vow,4 [as evident from the fact that] he did not specify a time. [Different rules apply if] he set out on the way. If it was less than a 30 day journey, he must uphold his nazirite vow for 30 days.5 If it was more than a 30 day journey, he must observe one nazirite vow for the duration of the days of the journey.6 When a person says; "I will observe two terms of nazirite vows," or three or four, he must observe the number of nazirite vows he mentioned, each one lasting 30 days. At the end of each 30 day period, he must shave and bring his sacrifices and begin observing his second nazirite vow. Even if he said: "I will observe 100,000 nazirite vows" - and it is impossible for him to live that long - he should observe them one by one7 until he concludes the amount of nazirite vows he took.

‫האומר הריני נזיר מכאן עד מקום‬ ‫פלוני אם לא החזיק בדרך הרי זה‬ ‫נזיר שלשים יום בלבד שלא נתכוון זה‬ ‫אלא לנזירות גדולה והרי לא פירש זמן‬ ‫ואם החזיק בדרך אם היה מהלך פחות‬ ‫משלשים יום הרי זה נזיר שלשים יום ואם‬ ‫היה יותר משלשים יום הרי זה נזיר נזירות‬ :‫אחת כמנין הימים‬

‫מי שאמר הריני נזיר שתי נזירות או‬ ‫שלש או ארבע הרי זה נזיר כמנין‬ ‫שאמר כל נזירות מהן שלשים יום ובסוף‬ ‫כל שלשים ושלשים מגלח ומביא קרבנותיו‬ ‫ומתחיל למנות נזירות שניה אפילו אמר‬ ‫הריני נזיר מאה אלף נזיריות שאי אפשר‬ ‫שיחיה כזמן הזה הרי זה מונה אחת אחר‬ ‫אחת עד שימות או עד שישלים מנין‬ :‫נזירותיו‬

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

3 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983587/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a person says: "I will observe nazirite vows as many days there are in a year," he must observe as many nazirite vows as there are days in a year. If he explicitly mentioned a solar year, he must observe 365 nazirite vows, with each one being 30 days long. If he mentioned a lunar year, he must observe 354 nazirite vows. If he did not explicitly state [a solar or a lunar year], he must observe 354 nazirite vows. [The rationale is that as] we already explained,8 with regard to vows, we follow the wording usually employed by people at large. Now, most of the solar years are 365 days long. Most of the lunar years are 354 days long. And when people at large use the term "year," they mean a lunar year.

‫האומר הריני נזיר כמנין ימות השנה‬ ‫מונה נזירותיו כמנין ימות השנה אם‬ ‫פירש שנות החמה מונה שלש מאות‬ ‫וששים וחמש נזירות כל אחד מהן שלשים‬ ‫יום ואם פירש שנת לבנה מונה שלש‬ ‫מאות ארבע וחמשים נזירות ואם סתם‬ ‫מונה שלש מאות וארבע וחמשים נזירות‬ ‫שהרי בארנו שכל הנדרים הולכין אחר‬ ‫לשון בני אדם ורוב שני החמה שלש מאות‬ ‫וחמשה וששים יום מונין לה ורוב שני‬ ‫הלבנה שלש מאות וארבע וחמשים יום‬ ‫מונין לה ואין קורין כל העם שנה סתם‬ :‫אלא לשנת הלבנה‬

When a person says: "I will observe one and a half nazirite vows," he is obligated to observe two nazirite vows.9 When one says: "I will be a nazir and one day," or "I will be a nazir and one hour," he must observe two nazirite vows.

‫האומר הריני נזיר אחת ומחצה הרי‬ ‫זה נזיר שתי נזירות אמר הריני נזיר‬ ‫ויום אחד או שאמר הריני נזיר ושעה אחת‬ ‫הרי זה נזיר שתי נזירות אמר הריני נזיר‬ ‫ואחת הרי זה נזיר שתים הריני נזיר ואחת‬ ‫ועוד הרי זה נזיר שלש נזירות הריני נזיר‬ ‫ואחת ועוד ושוב הרי זה נזיר ארבע נזירות‬ ‫הריני נזיר שלשים יום ויום אחד הרי זה‬ :‫נזיר נזירות אחת של שלשים ואחד יום‬

If he says: "I am a nazirite and one," he must observe two nazirite vows. If he says: "I am a nazirite, one, and more," he must observe three nazirite vows. If he says: "I am a nazirite, one, more, and again," he must observe four nazirite vows.10 [If he says:] "I am a nazirite for 30 days and one day," he must observe one nazirite vow for 31 days.11 [The following rules apply when] there are two pairs of witnesses who testify concerning a person. One testifies that he took two nazirite vows. The other testifies that he took five vows.12 He is required to observe two vows. For included in the five are two and thus all testify that he took two vows.13

‫מי שהיו שתי כתי עדים מעידין אותו‬ ‫אלו מעידין שנזר שתים ואלו מעידין‬ ‫שנזר חמש הרי זה נזיר שתים שבכלל‬ :‫חמש שתים והרי כולן מעידים בשתים‬

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

4 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983587/jewish/Nezirut-...

[The following rules apply when a person] took two nazirite vows, whether he took them both at the same time or took them one after the other, e.g., he said: "I am a nazirite for a day"14 and "I am a nazirite for a day." If he counted the days of the first vow and set aside his sacrifices15 and then asked for the absolution of his vow and had it released, the days he observed the first vow can count for the second. He can bring the sacrifices that he set aside and complete his obligation. [Moreover,] even if he brought [the sacrifices for] his atonement and even if he shaved off his hair and then asked for his vow to be absolved, the observance of the first vow fulfills the second. [The rationale is that] the second vow does not take effect until after the first one is completed.16 And since the first vow was released, it is as if it did not exist initially.17 When a person says: "I will be a nazirite forever" or "I will be a nazirite for all the days of my life," he is considered as a nazirite forever. If he says: "I will be a nazirite for 1000 years," he is considered as a nazirite for a limited time,18 even though it is impossible for a person to live for a 1000 years.

‫מי שנזר שתי נזירות בין שנדר שתיהן‬ ‫בבת אחת בין שנדר זו אחר זו כגון‬ ‫שאמר הריני נזיר יום הריני נזיר יום ומנה‬ ‫את הראשונה והפריש קרבן ואחר כך‬ ‫נשאל על הראשונה והתיר נדרו עלתה לו‬ ‫ראשונה בשניה ומביא זה הקרבן ונפטר‬ ‫ואפילו הביא כפרתו ואפילו גלח שערו‬ ‫ואח"כ נשאל עליה עלתה לו ראשונה‬ ‫בשניה שהרי אין השניה חלה אלא לאחר‬ ‫הראשונה והראשונה כיון שהתירה כאילו‬ :‫אינה מעיקרה‬

‫מי שאמר הריני נזיר לעולם או‬ ‫הריני נזיר כל ימי חיי הרי זה נזיר‬ ‫לעולם ואם אמר הריני נזיר אלף שנה הרי‬ ‫זה נזיר לזמן קצוב ואף על פי שאי אפשר‬ :‫שיחיה האדם אלף שנה‬

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

5 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983587/jewish/Nezirut-...

What is the difference between a nazirite forever and a nazirite for a limited time? A nazirite for a limited time is forbidden to cut his hair until the conclusion of his nazirite vow, as [Numbers 6:5] states: "Throughout the days of his nazirite vow, a razor shall not pass over his head until the days are completed." A nazirite forever, by contrast, may alleviate [the burden of his hair]19 with a razor every twelve months. When he cuts his hair, he must bring a sacrifice of three animals,20 as [II Samuel 14:26] states [with regard to Avshalom]: "From year to year, when he would shave, because his hair was heavy for him and he would shave." Avshalom was a nazirite forever. This concept is a halachah transmitted by the Oral Tradition.21

‫ומה בין נזיר עולם לנזיר לזמן קצוב‬ ‫שהנזיר לזמן אסור לגלח עד סוף‬ ‫ימי נזירו שנאמר כל ימי נדר נזרו תער לא‬ ‫יעבור על ראשו עד מלאת הימים ונזיר‬ ‫עולם אם הכביד שערו מקל בתער משנים‬ ‫עשר חדש עד שנים עשר חדש ומביא‬ ‫קרבנו שלש בהמות כשיגלח שנאמר ויהי‬ ‫מקץ ימים לימים אשר יגלח כי כבד עליו‬ ‫וגלחו ואבשלום נזיר עולם היה ודבר זה‬ ‫הלכה היא מפי הקבלה ונזיר עולם שנטמא‬ ‫הרי זה מביא קרבן טומאה ומגלח תגלחת‬ :‫טומאה כמו נזיר לזמן קצוב‬

When a nazirite forever becomes impure, he must bring sacrifices [to atone for] impurity and shave as is required in an instance of impurity like a nazirite for a limited time. Samson was not a nazirite in a complete sense, for he never took a nazirite vow.22 It was merely that the angel caused him to be separated from impurity.23

‫שמשון לא היה נזיר גמור שהרי לא‬ ‫נדר בנזיר אלא המלאך הפרישו מן‬ ‫הטומאה וכיצד היה דינו היה אסור ביין‬ ‫ואסור בתגלחת ומותר להטמא למתים‬ :‫ודבר זה הלכה מפי הקבלה‬

What were the laws applying to him? He was forbidden to drink wine and cut his hair.24 He was, however, permitted to incur impurity due to contact with the dead.25 This concept is a halachah transmitted by the Oral Tradition.

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

6 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983587/jewish/Nezirut-...

Accordingly, if someone said: "Behold I am a nazirite like Samson," he is a nazirite forever with regard to [the prohibition against] cutting his hair and [drinking] wine. He may not cut his hair every twelve months like others who are nazirites forever.26 He is, however, permitted to become impure because of contact with the dead.27

‫לפיכך מי שאמר הריני נזיר‬ ‫כשמשון הרי זה נזיר מן התגלחת‬ ‫ומן היין לעולם ואינו מגלח כל שנים עשר‬ ‫חדש כשאר נזירי עולם ומותר להטמא‬ ‫למתים ואם אמר לא נתכוונתי אלא לאיש‬ ‫אחר ששמו שמשון אינו נזיר ומי שנדר‬ ‫נזיר כשמשון אינו יכול להשאל על נדרו‬ :‫שנזירות שמשון לעולם היתה‬

If one says: "My intent was to refer to another person whose name is [also] Samson," he is not a nazirite.28 When a person takes a nazirite vow like Samson's, he is not permitted to have it absolved, for Samson's nazirite vow was [binding] forever.29 When a person says: "Behold, I am like Samson," "...like Manoach's son," "...like Delilah's husband," "...like the one who uprooted the gates of Gaza," or "...like the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines," he must keep the nazirite restrictions observed by Samson even though these deeds could have been performed by another person.30

‫האומר הריני כשמשון כבן מנוח‬ ‫כבעל דלילה כמי שעקר דלתות‬ ‫עזה כמי שנקרו פלשתים את עיניו הרי זה‬ ‫נזיר כנזירות שמשון ואע"פשאפשר‬ :‫שנעשו מעשים אלו לאיש אחר‬

[The prophet] Samuel of Rama was a nazirite forever.31 Therefore one who says: "Behold, I am like Samuel of Rama," "...like Chanah's son," "...like Elkanah's son," "...like the one who hewed Agag at Gilgal," or the like, he is a nazirite forever. We do not say that perhaps his intent was to refer to another person who performed such deeds.32

‫שמואל הרמתי נזיר עולם היה‬ ‫לפיכך האומר הריני כשמואל‬ ‫הרמתי כבן חנה כבן אלקנה כמי ששסף‬ ‫את אגג בגלגל וכיוצא באלו הרי זה נזיר‬ ‫עולם ואין אומרין שמא לאיש אחר‬ :‫שמעשיו כאלה נתכוון‬

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

7 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983587/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a person says: "Behold, I am a nazirite as this building is full" or "...as this container is full," we investigate his [intent]. If he says: "My intent was not to be a nazirite for my entire life. [Instead,] my intent was only to prolong the days of my nazirite vow for a long time," he must observe his nazirite vow for [only] 30 days.33 If he said: "I made this vow without any specific intent,"34 we see the container as if it is filled with mustard seeds and he must be a nazirite for his entire life. He is permitted to cut his hair every twelve months. [At that time,] he must bring sacrifices like everyone who is a nazirite forever.35

‫האומר הריני נזיר מלא הבית או‬ ‫מלא הקופה בודקין אותו אם אמר‬ ‫לא היה בדעתי שאהיה נזיר כל ימי ולא‬ ‫נתכוונתי אלא להאריך זמן הנזירות זמן‬ ‫מרובה הרי זה נזיר שלשים יום בלבד ואם‬ ‫אמר סתם נדרתי רואים את הקופה כאילו‬ ‫היא מלאה חרדל ויהיה נזיר כל ימיו ויש‬ ‫לו לגלח משנים עשר חדש לשנים עשר‬ :‫חדש ויביא קרבנותיו כשאר נזירי עולם‬

When a person says: "Behold, I am a nazirite like the hairs of my head," "...like the dust of the earth," or "like the sand of the sea," it is as if he said: "I will keep as many nazirite vows as I have hairs on my head," "...as there is dust on the earth," or "...as there is sand on the seashore." Therefore he must shave his hair36every 30 days and begin observing a second nazirite vow for 30 days, cut his hair37 and [continue this pattern] until he dies.38 Whenever he shaves his hair, he is forbidden to drink wine or become impure because of contact with the dead.39 If he drinks [wine] or becomes impure, even on the day he shaves his head, he is worthy of lashes.

‫האומר הריני נזיר כשער ראשי או‬ ‫כעפר הארץ או כחול הים הרי זה‬ ‫כמי שאמר הרי נזירות עלי כמנין שער‬ ‫ראשי או כמנין עפר הארץ או כמנין חול‬ ‫הים לפיכך יגלח כל שלשים יום ויתחיל‬ ‫למנות נזירות שניה שלשים יום ויגלח וכן‬ ‫עד שימות ובכל תגלחת ותגלחת אינו‬ ‫שותה יין ולא מיטמא למתים ואם שתה או‬ :‫נטמא אפילו ביום התגלחת הרי זה לוקה‬

When a person says: "Behold, I am a nazirite if I eat this loaf of bread," "Behold, I am a nazirite if I eat it," and "Behold, I am a nazirite if I eat it,"40 if he eats it, he is obligated to observe as many nazirite vows as he took.41 He observes them consecutively, each one for 30 days. At the end of each 30 days, he shaves [his hair] and brings his sacrifices.

‫האומר הריני נזיר אם אוכל ככר זו‬ ‫הריני נזיר אם אוכלנה הריני נזיר‬ ‫אם אוכלנה ואכלה הרי זה חייב בנזירות‬ ‫כמנין שאמר ומונה אחת אחר אחת כל‬ ‫אחת מהן שלשים ומגלח בסוף כל שלשים‬ :‫ומביא קרבנו‬

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

8 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983587/jewish/Nezirut-...

« Previous

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 4

Nezirut - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. Numbers 6:5 states that the nazir's hair "will be holy" ‫קדוש‬ ‫יהיה‬. Nazir 5a notes that Yihiyeh ‫ יהיה‬is numerically

16. In this context, this statement means that as long as the first vow is being observed, the days cannot be reckoned as part

equivalent to 30 and states that this is the span of an ordinary nazirite vow. In his Commentary to the Mishnah

of the observance of the second vow. Implied is that if they are not considered as part of the observance of the first vow,

(Nazir

they can be considered as part of the observance of the second.

1:3),

the

Rambam writes

that

the

numerical

equivalence is merely a support and that the concept was taught as as part of the Oral Tradition.

17. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:17-18 which explains that a sages'

2. And 30 days can be considered "an excessively long and

absolution of a vow causes it to be considered as if it was never made.

protracted time." 3. Hence if the time span he mentioned is less than 30 days, he is required to observe the vow for 30 days. When he says 30

18. The differences between these two categories are discussed in the following halachah.

days and an hour, the ruling is that since he mentioned more than 30 days, he is required to observe 31 days.

The Ra'avad notes that the Rambam's ruling appears to be based on the Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud (Nazir 1:4). The Babylonian Talmud (Nazir 8b) appears to differ, but the

4. Which is 30 days as explained above.

version of that text seems distorted.

5. For as above, there is no conception of observing a nazirite vow for a shorter time.

19. He should not, however, shave his head entirely.

6. I.e., he accepted the nazirite vow in the hope that its merit would arouse protective spiritual forces that would guard him

20. As is required when one completes a nazirite vow in purity. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1.

over the course of the journey (Tosafot, Nazir 7a).

21. Even though the concept is reinforced by a verse, were the

7. I.e., he is not considered a nazirite for life as mentioned in Halachah 12. 8. Hilchot Nedarim 9:1. 9. Each one being 30 days. Since he spoke of nazirite vows, we understand that his intent was to observe more than one nazirite vow. Since there is no concept of observing half a nazirite vow, we require him to observe two. 10. Each of the extra statements is considered as adding a nazirite vow. 11. For it is not clear that he wanted to observe two nazirite vows. The commentaries note that there is slight difficulty with the Rambam's statement based on the text of Nazir 7b. Nevertheless, they offer several possible resolutions to the issue. 12. The person himself denies taking any nazirite vows or says that

he

forgot

about

the

matter

(Nazir

20a

and

commentaries). 13. I.e., there is no disagreement regarding that, so he is obligated to observe the two nazirite vows. 14. In which instance he is obligated to observe a nazirite vow for an entire month (Halachah 2).

Oral Tradition not to have conveyed this idea, the verse could have been interpreted otherwise (Kessef Mishneh). 22. Although the angel gave instructions (Judges 13:5): "The youth shall be a nazirite unto God," Samson never took a nazirite vow himself, nor did his father administer one to him. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XVIII, pp. 68-70, which compares this situation to one in which a Jewish court converts a gentile child. When the child comes of age, if he does not protest, the conversion is binding upon him. Similarly, since Samson - and Samuel - did not protest, the nazirite restrictions conveyed from above became binding upon them. 23. See Judges 13:4. 24. As Judges 16:17 states: "A razor has never been brought up against my head, for I am a nazirite unto God from my mother's womb." 25. Hence he was not forbidden to come in contact with the corpses of the Philistines whom he killed (Nazir 4b). 26. For Samson was not allowed to cut his hair at all, as indicated by the verse cited above. 27. This is permitted even as an initial and preferred option [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 1:2).

15. See Chapter 8, Halachah 2.

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

9 of 10

28. See Hilchot Nedarim 2:12 which explains that a person is given the option of explaining his intent with regard to a vow that he took. See the glosses of the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz to the following halachah which discuss in detail whether this rule applies when it seems obvious that the person's intent was to take a vow to be a nazirite like

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983587/jewish/Nezirut-...

33. See Halachah 1. 34. I.e., with the intent that my words be interpreted by the sages according to their principles. 35. For he did not specify a time at which point his vow is concluded. See Halachah 12. 36. And bring the required sacrifices.

Samson was. 29. Since Samson's nazirite vow was imposed upon him by an angel at God's command, it could not be absolved as other vows taken because of man's desires (Rashi, Makkot 22a).

37. And bring the required sacrifices. 38. For there are more hairs on one's head than 30 day periods in a person's life.

30. This applies if the person making the vow remains silent. If, however, he specifically states that his intent was another

39. Because the second nazirite vow begins as soon as the first one is concluded.

person, his word is accepted as stated in the previous halachah (Radbaz).

40. I.e., he makes three successive vows concerning the same

31. Nazir 66a derives this concept through the principles of

41. I.e., this teaches that a nazirite vow can become binding

Biblical exegesis. 32. This applies if the person making the vow remains silent. If,

loaf of bread. even though one is already obligated to observe an existing vow.

however, he specifically states that his intent was another person, his word is accepted as stated in the previous halachah (Radbaz).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

10 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983587/jewish/Nezirut-...

8/21/2019 4:20 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

1 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983588/jewish/Nezirut-...



Nezirut - Chapter 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nezirut - Chapter 3

English

Hebrew

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 5

When a person says: "Behold I am a nazirite," he should perform the shaving [required when a nazirite vow is completed in] purity1 on the thirty-first day.2 If he performed this shaving on the thirtieth day, he fulfills his obligation.3 If he says: "Behold I am a nazirite for thirty days," he may only perform the shaving on the thirty-first day.4

‫האומר הריני נזיר הרי זה מגלח‬ ‫תגלחת טהרה יום אחד ושלשים ואם‬ ‫גלח ביום שלשים יצא אמר הריני נזיר‬ ‫שלשים יום אינו מגלח אלא ביום אחד‬ :‫ושלשים‬

When a person takes two nazirite vows, he should perform the shaving for the first one on the thirty-first day and the second on the sixty-first day.5 If he performed the first shaving on the thirtieth day, he should perform the second on the sixtieth.6 If he performed the [second] shaving on the fifty-ninth day, he fulfills his obligation, for the thirtieth day is counted also for the second nazirite vow.7

‫מי שנזר שתי נזיריות מגלח את‬ ‫הראשונה ביום אחד ושלשים ואת‬ ‫השניה ביום אחד וששים ואם גלח את‬ ‫הראשונה יום שלשים מגלח את השניה‬ ‫יום ששים ואם גלח יום תשעה וחמשים‬ ‫יצא שיום שלשים עולה לו אף למנין‬ :‫נזירות שניה‬

8/21/2019 4:21 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

2 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983588/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a person says: "Behold I am a nazirite, and [will be] a nazirite should a son be born to me,"8 if he began9 observing his nazirite vow10 and then a son was born to him, he should complete his own nazirite vow and then begin counting [the one associated with] his son. [The following rules apply if] he said: "Behold I will be a nazirite should a son be born to me and behold I am a nazirite for these-and-these days." If he began [observing] his own nazirite vow and then a son was born to him, he should interrupt [the counting of] his vow and begin counting [the one associated with] his son. Afterwards, he goes back and completes his own vow.11 They are both considered as one nazirite vow. Therefore if he becomes impure in the midst of the nazirite vow [associated with] his son, he invalidates everything. If he became impure after [completing] the nazirite vow [associated with] his son, he invalidates only [the days after the completion of] the nazirite vow [associated with] his son.12

‫האומר הריני נזיר ונזיר כשיהיה לי בן‬ ‫והתחיל נזירות שלו ואחר כך נולד לו‬ ‫בן משלים את שלו ואח"כ מונה את של‬ ‫בנו אמר הריני נזיר כשיהיה לי בן והריני‬ ‫נזיר כך וכך יום והתחיל בנזירות שלו‬ ‫ואחר כך נולד לו בן פוסק נזירות שלו‬ ‫ומונה את של בנו ואח"כ חוזר ומשלים את‬ ‫שלו והרי שתיהן כנזירות אחת לפיכך אם‬ ‫נטמא בתוך נזירות של בנו סותר הכל‬ ‫נטמא אחר נזירות בנו כשהתחיל להשלים‬ ‫נזירותו אינו סותר אלא עד נזירות בנו‬ ‫ובכמה ימים משלים את שלו אם נשאר‬ ‫מנזירותו כשנולד הבן שלשים או יותר‬ ‫מונה נזירות בנו ומשלים הימים שנשארו‬ ‫מנזירותו ואם נשארו מנזירותו פחות‬ ‫משלשים מונה שלשים אחר נזירות בנו‬ ‫שאין בין תגלחת לתגלחת פחות משלשים‬ :‫יום‬

For how many days [must he observe the nazirite laws] to complete his own [nazirite] vow?13 If there remained 30 days or more [from the days he was required to observe for] his nazirite vow14 after his son was born, he should observe the nazirite vow [associated with] his son and then complete the days remaining from his own nazirite vow. If less than 30 days remain from his nazirite vow, he must count 30 days after the nazirite vow [associated with] his son, for there is never less than 30 days between one shaving [associated with the conclusion of a nazirite vow] and another.

8/21/2019 4:21 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

3 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983588/jewish/Nezirut-...

What is implied? One says: "Behold I will be a nazirite when a son will be born to me and behold I am a nazirite for 100 days," he begins observing his nazirite vow and then a son was born to him. If 30 or more days remain from the 100 days concerning which he took the vow after his son was born, he does not forfeit anything. For he [temporarily] concludes his own nazirite vow, begins counting that associated with his son, performs the shaving, brings his sacrifices and then completes the 30 or more days that remain from his own nazirite vow. [At its conclusion,] he performs the shaving. If less than 30 remain from the 100, he forfeits some until [it is counted that he observed] 70 [days].

‫כיצד האומר הריני נזיר כשיהיה לי‬ ‫בן והריני נזיר מאה יום והתחיל‬ ‫בנזירות שלו ונולד לו בן אם נשאר מן‬ ‫המאה שנדר שלשים יום או יתר כשנולד‬ ‫הבן לא הפסיד כלום שהרי פוסק נזירות‬ ‫שלו ומתחיל ומונה של בנו ומגלח ומביא‬ ‫קרבנותיו ומשלים השלשים או יתר‬ ‫שנשארו מנזירותו ומגלח לנזירותו ואם‬ ‫נשאר מן המאה פחות משלשים סותר עד‬ :‫שבעים‬

What is implied? If his son was born on the eightieth day, he should count the vow associated with his son, complete that vow, perform the shaving, and begin counting 30 days after that shaving. Thus he loses the ten days that [immediately] preceded [the birth of] his son, i.e., the days from the seventieth day until the son's birth. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫כיצד נולד הבן ביום שמונים מונה‬ ‫של בנו ומשלים את של בנו ומגלח‬ ‫ומתחיל למנות מאחר התגלחת שלשים‬ ‫יום ונמצא מפסיד מקודם הולד עשרה‬ ‫ימים שהם מיום שבעים עד הולד וכן כל‬ :‫כיוצא בזה‬

When a person says: "Behold I will be a nazirite15 after twenty days pass," and then says: "I am a nazirite beginning now for 100 days,"16 he should observe his nazirite vow for twenty days17 and interrupts [his counting].18 He then begins to count 30 days for the nazirite vow that was to begin after twenty days. After he completes [the observance of this vow], he performs the shaving [required when a nazirite vow is completed in] purity and brings his sacrifices. He then counts the 80 days to complete the 100, performs the shaving and brings his sacrifices.

‫האומר הריני נזיר לאחר עשרים יום‬ ‫וחזר ואמר הריני נזיר מעתה מאה יום‬ ‫מונה עשרים יום ופוסק ומתחיל למנות‬ ‫שלשים שהיא הנזירות שנדר לאחר‬ ‫עשרים ואחר השלשים מגלח תגלחת‬ ‫טהרה ומביא קרבנותיו וחוזר ומונה‬ ‫שמונים יום כדי להשלים המאה שנדר‬ :‫בסוף ומגלח ומביא קרבנותיו‬

8/21/2019 4:21 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

4 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983588/jewish/Nezirut-...

If one says: "Behold I will be a nazirite after twenty days pass," and then says: "I am a nazirite beginning now," he should [observe the second vow first,] counting 30 days. He should then perform the shaving [required when a nazirite vow is completed in] purity,19 and count another 30 days. This is for the vow he took that would begin after 20 days. One might say: Let him observe 20 days, interrupt [the observance of that vow], and observe 30 days and perform a shaving.20 Thus there will remain ten days left from the nazirite vow which he began to observe initially for which he observed only 20 days. [We do not say this, because] there may never be less than 30 days between shaving [required when a nazirite vow is completed in] purity and another.

‫אמר הריני נזיר לאחר עשרים יום‬ ‫והריני נזיר מעתה מונה שלשים יום‬ ‫ומגלח תגלחת טהרה וחוזר ומונה שלשים‬ ‫יום אחרים והיא הנזירות שנדר לאחר‬ ‫עשרים שאם תאמר מונה עשרים ופוסק‬ ‫מונה שלשים ומגלח נשארו מנזירות‬ ‫שהתחיל בה עשרה יום בלבד ואין בין‬ ‫תגלחת טהרה לתגלחת טהרה לעולם‬ :‫פחות משלשים יום‬

If one says: "Behold I will be a nazirite after twenty days pass," and then says: "I am a nazirite forever beginning now," the nazirite vow which he took originally never takes effect.21

‫אמר הריני נזיר לאחר עשרים יום‬ ‫וחזר ואמר הריני נזיר עולם מעתה‬ :‫לא חלה עליו נזירות שנדר בראשונה‬

Similarly, if one says: "Behold I will be a nazirite like Samson22 after twenty days pass," and then says: "I am a nazirite beginning now, he should not shave for the last nazirite vow he took.23

‫וכן אם אמר הריני נזיר שמשון‬ ‫לאחר עשרים יום וחזר ואמר הריני‬ ‫נזיר מעתה אינו מגלח לנזירות זו שנדר‬ :‫באחרונה‬

When a person says: "Behold I am a nazirite one day before I die," he is forbidden to drink wine, to become impure [due to contact with the dead], and to shave forever.24

‫מי שאמר הרי אני נזיר יום אחד לפני‬ ‫מיתתי הרי זה אסור לשתות יין‬ :‫ולהטמא ולגלח לעולם‬

8/21/2019 4:21 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

5 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983588/jewish/Nezirut-...

[The following rules apply when a person takes a vow,] saying: "I will be a nazirite on the day when the son of David25 comes." If he took the vow during the week, he is forbidden to [perform any act that violates the nazirite prohibitions] forever.26 If he took the vow on the Sabbath or a festival, he is permitted on that Sabbath or festival. Afterwards, he is forbidden forever. [The rationale is that] there is a doubt concerning the question whether [the son of David] will come on a Sabbath or festival or not.27 Since the matter is an unresolved question, on the day he took the nazirite vow, the nazirite [restrictions] do not apply to him. For whenever there is a question whether the nazirite restrictions apply, we rule leniently.28 On the following Sabbath, although the above question still remains, it does not eliminate the nazirite vow that has taken effect concerning him. When a nazirite completes the days of his nazirite vow and does not perform the shaving [required when a nazirite vow is completed in] purity,29 he is forbidden to shave, to drink wine, and to become impure due to contact with the dead as he was before and all the particular laws associated with the nazirite vow are incumbent on him. If he shaves, drinks wine, or becomes impure [because of contact with the dead], he is liable for lashes.30

‫האומר הריני נזיר ביום שבן דוד‬ ‫בא בו אם בחול נדר הרי זה אסור‬ ‫לעולם ואם בשבת או ביום טוב נדר אותה‬ ‫שבת או אותו יום טוב מותר מכאן ואילך‬ ‫אסור לעולם שהדבר ספק אם יבא בשבת‬ ‫או ביום טוב או לא יבוא והואיל והוא ספק‬ ‫ביום שנדר לא חלה עליו נזירות שספק‬ ‫נזירות להקל מכאן ואילך חלה עליו נזירות‬ ‫ושבת הבאה שהיא ספק אינה מפקעת‬ :‫נזירות שחלה עליו‬

‫נזיר ששלמו ימי נזירותו ולא גלח‬ ‫תגלחת טהרה הרי זה אסור לגלח‬ ‫ולשתות יין ולהטמא למתים כשהיה‬ ‫מקודם וכל דקדוקי נזירות עליו ואם גלח‬ :‫או שתה יין או נטמא לוקה‬

8/21/2019 4:21 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

6 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983588/jewish/Nezirut-...

[The following rules apply when a person] takes a nazirite vow and thinks that it is not binding and hence acts as if he was not bound by his vow and drinks wine.31 Afterwards, he asked a sage and he ruled that it is a vow and that he is obligated to observe the nazirite laws. He should count the days from the day on which he took the vow.32 According to Rabbinic decree, he should continue to observe the prohibitions for the number of days which he acted as if it was permitted to him.

‫מי שנדר בנזיר ודמה שאינו נדר‬ ‫והיה נוהג היתר בנדרו ושתה יין‬ ‫ולאחר זמן שאל לחכם והורהו שהוא נדר‬ ‫ושהוא חייב בנזירות הרי זה מונה משעה‬ ‫שנדר ומדברי סופרים שינהוג איסור‬ :‫כימים שנהג בהן היתר‬

What is implied? He took a vow for 30 days and acted as if his vow was permitted for ten days and observed the prohibitions for twenty days. After the thirtieth day, he asked a sage and he told him that he was forbidden. He must observe ten days from the time he asked to compensate for the ten days during which he acted as if he was permitted. If he drinks [wine], shaves, or becomes impure [due to contact with a corpse], he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.33

‫כיצד הרי שנדר שלשים יום ונהג‬ ‫היתר בנדרו עשרה ימים ונהג‬ ‫איסור עשרים יום ולאחר השלשים שאל‬ ‫לחכם ואסר לו הרי זה מונה עשרה ימים‬ ‫מיום ששאל כנגד העשרה שנהג בהן היתר‬ ‫ואם שתה או גלח או נטמא בעשרת ימים‬ :‫האלו מכין אותו מכת מרדות‬

When does the above apply? With regard to a nazirite vow for a short time.34 If, by contrast, he took a prolonged nazirite vow,35 it is sufficient that he observe a nazirite vow for 30 days even though he violated this prolonged nazirite vow for his entire life. If he does not observe a prohibition at all, we do not pay attention to him at all.36

‫במה דברים אמורים בנזירות‬ ‫מועטת אבל בנזירות מרובה דיו‬ ‫שינהוג שלשים יום בנזירות אף על פי‬ ‫שעבר על נזירותו המרובה כל ימיו ואם לא‬ :‫נהג איסור בעצמו אין נזקקין לו כלל‬

Whenever a court pays attention to such a person or one like him and they inform these people who act contemptuously with regard to vows that they are not obligated to observe them according to Scriptural law, or they give a lenient ruling or they find a rationale why he could ask for the absolution of the vow, we place that court of commoners under a ban of ostracism.

‫כל בית דין שנזקקין לזה וכיוצא בו‬ ‫ומודיעין לאלו שמזלזלין בנדרים‬ ‫שאין חייבין מן התורה או שיורו להן להקל‬ ‫או שיפתחו להן פתח מנדין אותו בית דין‬ :‫ההדיוט‬

8/21/2019 4:21 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

7 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983588/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a woman takes a nazirite vow, the days of the vow are completed, she brings her sacrifices, one of the animals is slaughtered and its blood is poured [on the altar], if her husband hears of her vow, he cannot nullify it. This applies even if she has not shaven her hair already. Before its blood is poured on the altar, he may nullify her vow.37 When does the above apply? With regard to the shaving [required when a nazirite vow is completed in] purity. With regard to the shaving performed because one has contracted impurity, the husband may nullify her vow. Even though she has already offered the sacrifices associated with the contraction of impurity, [he may nullify her vow,] because she still must observe another nazirite vow.38

« Previous Nezirut - Chapter 3

‫האשה שנדרה בנזירות ושלמו ימי‬ ‫הנזירות והביאה קרבנותיה ונשחטה‬ ‫אחת מן הבהמות ונזרק דמה ואחר כך‬ ‫שמע בעלה אע"פ שעדיין לא גלחה אינו‬ ‫יכול להפר ואם קודם זריקה הרי זה יפר‬ ‫בד"א בתגלחת טהרה אבל בתגלחת‬ ‫טומאה יפר אף על פי שקרבו הקרבנות‬ ‫של תגלחת טומאה מפני שהיא עדיין‬ :‫צריכה למנות נזירות אחרת‬

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 5

FOOTNOTES 1. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1. As mentioned there, he also brings the appropriate sacrifices.

9. The Radbaz emphasizes that these laws apply when he began observing his own nazirite vow before his son was

2. For unless he specifies otherwise, a nazirite vow must be upheld for 30 days.

born. If his son was born before he began observing his own nazirite vow, he may observe whichever vow he desires first.

3. This leniency is granted based on the principle that a portion

10. I.e., the vow he took without making it conditional on the birth of a son.

of a day is considered as the entire day. Hence it is considered as if he observed his vow for 30 days (see Nazir 5b and notes). 4. Since he explicitly mentioned 30 days, we assume that he meant thirty complete days. 5. For the thirty-first day is considered as the first day of the second vow. 6. In this instance, the thirtieth day is considered as the first day of the second vow. 7. For a portion of the day is considered as the entire day.

11. As illustrated in the conclusion of the halachah. 12. Because he has already observed the rites marking the completion of the nazirite vow associated with his son. According to the Rambam, in such an instance, the person's observance of the days of his vow that preceded the vow associated with his son is considered significant. The rationale is that if the observance of the vow associated with his son is considered significant, the days that preceded it are likewise significant. The Ra'avad differs and maintains

8. I.e., he is vowing to observe two nazirite vows. One is

that although the observance of the vow associated with his son is significant, none of the days associated with his own

unconditional and the other is dependent on whether or not a son is born to him.

vow should be counted. For his own vow is an integral unit and should be considered as such.

8/21/2019 4:21 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

8 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983588/jewish/Nezirut-...

13. I.e., in a situation where he does not become impure and must complete his own vow after completing the vow

28. Seemingly, every day, there is a question whether the Mashiach will come and hence, we should rule leniently

associated with the birth of his son. See the illustrations in the following halachot.

every day. The Radbaz explains that since we are certain that it is possible for Mashiach to come that day, he must

14. I.e., his own nazirite vow was prolonged, extending more than the required 30 days. 15. I.e., he takes an ordinary nazirite vow which extends 30 days. 16. And thus the two vows clash. 17. Thus he will have observed 20 of the 100 days of his longer vow.

observe the nazirite restrictions. For if Mashiach would actually come that day, retroactively the vow he took would take effect. 29. As evident from Chapter 8, Halachah 5, more precisely, it is the nazirite's offering of his sacrifices and not his shaving which completes his nazirite vow. 30. Nazir 15a derives this concept from the exegesis of Numbers 6:6.

18. He does not, however, perform a shaving or bring sacrifices. 19. Completing the observance of that vow. 20. Completing the observance of that vow. 21. Because it is superceded by the second vow which is binding for life. The observance of that vow prevents the observance of the original vow. 22. See Chapter 3, Halachot 13-14. 23. The rationale is that he is not allowed to shave because of

31. The laws mentioned here apply only to drinking wine. Shaving or becoming impure nullify his nazirite vow and require him to begin counting again anew. See Chapter 6, Halachot 1-3. 32. When these days are completed, according to Scriptural law, he is no longer obligated to observe his nazirite vow even though he did not observe it for the full amount of time that he vowed.

his first vow. He must, however, observe the stringencies of an ordinary nazirite vow for the first 20 days and perhaps,

33. This is the punishment given for breaking a Rabbinic decree.

even for the first 30 days (Radbaz).

35. A vow for a longer period.

24. For that day might be the day of his death in which instance retroactively the vow he took would take effect. See the notes to the following halachah. 25. I.e., the Mashiach.

34. A nazirite vow of 30 days.

36. The sages pay no attention to him. Even if there is legitimate reason for him to ask for his vow to be released, his request is not heeded (Ra'avad). 37. For he has the right to nullify a nazirite vow which his wife

26. For perhaps the Mashiach will come that day. As we say in the popular restatement of the Rambam's Thirteen Principles of Faith, "I await his coming every day."

takes (Chapter 2, Halachah 17). 38. For the impurity nullifies the observance of the nazirite vow entirely.

27. The Rambam's ruling is based on Eruvin 43b. The Kessef Mishneh interprets the Rambam's understanding of that passage as follows: There is a question whether the prohibition against going beyond one's Sabbath boundaries (see Hilchot Shabbat, ch. 27) applies ten handbreadths above the ground or not. Thus there is a question whether Mashiach - who obviously will observe the Sabbath laws can come on the Sabbath for that will require him descending from heaven and thus going beyond his Sabbath boundaries. (Kin'at Eliyahu questions the entire issue, noting that according to the Rambam, Mashiach will be a flesh and blood human being who will "wage the wars of G-d... build the Temple" (see Hilchot Melachim 11:1). No where does the Rambam make mention of him descending from heaven.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.

8/21/2019 4:21 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

9 of 9

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983588/jewish/Nezirut-...

To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:21 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

1 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983589/jewish/Nezirut-...



Nezirut - Chapter 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nezirut - Chapter 4

There are three matters that are forbidden to a nazirite: a) ritual impurity [resulting from contact with a human corpse],1 b) shaving [his hair],2and c) [partaking of] products of the vine. [This applies] both to the fruit3or the waste products of the fruit.4 Alcoholic beverages made from dates, figs, or the like are permitted to a nazirite. The shaichar forbidden to [a

English

Hebrew

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 6

‫שלשה מינין אסורין לנזיר הטומאה‬ ‫והתגלחת והיוצא מן הגפן בין פרי‬ ‫בין פסולת פרי אבל השכר של תמרים או‬ ‫של גרוגרות וכיוצא בהן מותר לנזיר ושכר‬ ‫זה שנאסר עליו בתורה הוא השכר של‬ :‫תערובת היין‬

nazirite] by the Torah5 is an alcoholic beverage made from a mixture of wine.6 What is meant by "products of the grape vine"? When a nazirite eats an olive-sized portion of the fruit [of the vine]: fresh grapes, raisins, or unripened grapes, or he eats an olive-sized portion of the waste products of the fruit which are the peels or the seeds, he is liable for lashes. Similarly, if he drank revi'it7 of wine or ate an olive-sized portion of coagulated wine this is considered as fruit - or drank a revi'it of vinegar which is the waste products of the fruit - he is liable for lashes. Grape leaves, the tender shoots of the branches of the vine, grape sap, and grape buds are permitted to a nazirite, for they are neither fruit, nor the waste products of fruit, but rather are considered as parts of the tree.

‫היוצא מן הגפן כיצד נזיר שאכל כזית‬ ‫מן הפרי שהוא ענבים לחים או‬ ‫יבשים או בוסר או שאכל כזית מפסולת‬ ‫הפרי שהיא הזגין והם הקליפה החיצונה‬ ‫או החרצנים והם הזגין הפנימין שזורעים‬ ‫אותן הרי זה לוקה וכן אם שתה רביעית יין‬ ‫או אכל כזית מיין קרוש שהוא הפרי או‬ ‫שתה רביעית חומץ שהוא פסולת הפרי‬ ‫הרי זה לוקה אבל העלין והלולבים ומי‬ ‫גפנים והסמדר הרי אלו מותרין לנזיר‬ ‫שאינן לא פרי ולא פסולת פרי אלא מן‬ :‫העץ הן נחשבין‬

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

2 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983589/jewish/Nezirut-...

All forbidden grape [products] can be combined together [to produce the minimum measure for which one is liable for lashes].8 What is implied? One who mixed together fresh grapes with raisins, or with unripened grapes, pits, and peels, and ate an olive-sized portion of the mixture is liable for lashes. Similarly, if he ate them one after the other9 until he ate an olive-sized portion of the entire group, he is liable for lashes. Similarly, he is liable for lashes if he drank a revi'it of a mixture of wine and vinegar.10 A permitted substance is not included together with a forbidden substance [to produce the minimum measure] for which a nazirite [is liable for lashes].11 What is implied? Wine was mixed together with honey [producing a mixture] in which the flavor of wine [could be tasted in] its entirety and [a nazirite] drank the mixture. Raisins were pressed together with dried figs [producing a mixture] in which the flavor of raisins [could be tasted in] its entirety and [a nazirite] ate the mixture. He is not liable for lashes unless there will be an olive-sized portion of grape products in a portion of the mixture the size of three eggs as is the law with regard to other prohibitions that are forbidden universally, as we explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.12

‫כל איסורי גפן מצטרפין זה עם זה‬ ‫כיצד הרי שצירף ענבים לחים עם‬ ‫יבשים או עם בוסר וחרצן וזג ואכל מן‬ ‫התערובת כזית לוקה וכן אם אכלם זה‬ ‫אחר זה עד שאכל מן הכל כזית לוקה וכן‬ :‫אם שתה רביעית תערובת יין וחומץ לוקה‬

‫דבר המותר אינו מצטרף לדבר‬ ‫האסור בנזיר כיצד יין שנתערב‬ ‫בדבש אף על פי שטעם הכל טעם יין‬ ‫ושתה מן התערובת וכן הצמוקין שדרסן‬ ‫עם הגרוגרות וטעם הכל טעם צמוקין ואכל‬ ‫מן התערובת אינו לוקה עד שיהיה מדבר‬ ‫האסור בתערובת כזית בכדי שלש ביצים‬ ‫ואכל כשלש ביצים כשאר האיסורין‬ ‫השוים בכל אדם כמו שבארנו בהלכות‬ :‫מאכלות אסורות‬

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

3 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983589/jewish/Nezirut-...

Similarly, if a person soaked his bread in wine and there was a revi'it of wine within k'dei [achilat] p'ras13 of the bread and he ate a p'ras [of the bread], he will have consumed a revi'it of wine.14 [Hence,] he is worthy of lashes. Concerning this and similar situations, the Torah [Numbers 6:3] states: "Anything that has been steeped in grape [wine] shall you not partake."15 This forbids an entity in which wine has been mixed and its flavor is the flavor of wine.16 [This applies] provided it has both the flavor and substance [of the wine] as is the case with regard to other prohibited foods.17

‫וכן אם שרה פתו ביין והיה הרביעית‬ ‫יין בכדי פרס מן הפת ואכל כדי פרס‬ ‫שנמצא שאכל רביעית יין הרי זה לוקה‬ ‫ועל זה וכיוצא בו נאמר בתורה וכל משרת‬ ‫ענבים לאסור דבר שנתערב בו היין וטעמו‬ ‫כטעם היין והוא שיהיה טעמו וממשו‬ :‫כשאר איסורי מאכלות‬

If wine or the like were mixed together with honey and the flavor of wine cannot be detected, it is permitted for a nazirite [to partake of the mixture]. [The nazirite prohibitions] should not be considered more severe than [those against] fat and blood.18

‫נתערב יין וכיוצא בו בדבש ואין שם‬ ‫טעם יין הרי זה מותר לנזיר לא יהיה‬ :‫זה חמור מחלב ודם‬

If the mixture had the flavor of wine, but there is not a revi'it of wine within k'dei [achilat] p'ras, [the mixture] is prohibited according to Rabbinic decree, as we explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.19 If [a nazirite] partakes of it, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.

‫היה בו טעם יין ואין שם רביעית בכדי‬ ‫אכילת פרס הרי זה אסור מדברי‬ ‫סופרים כמו שבארנו בהלכות מאכלות‬ :‫אסורות ומכין אותו אם אכל מכת מרדות‬

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

4 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983589/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a nazirite eats an olive-sized portion of grapes, an olive-sized portion of [grape] seeds, an olive-sized portion of [grape] peels, and an olive-sized portion of raisins, and drinks an olive-sized portion of wine - even if he squeezed a cluster of grapes and drank [their juice]20 - receives five sets of lashes. For each [of the substances is forbidden] by a different prohibition. And he receives a sixth set of lashes for the violation of [the prohibition]: "He shall not desecrate his word"21 that applies to all vows. Similarly, if he ate an olive-sized portion of peels or an olive-sized portion of grapes, he receives two sets of lashes, one for the peels or one for the grapes, and he is given [an additional set of] lashes because of [the prohibition]: "He shall not desecrate his word." This law also applies to a nazirite who shaves [his hair] or becomes impure. He receives two sets of lashes: one because of the violation of the particular prohibition and one, because of the prohibition that applies to all vows: "He shall not desecrate his word." When a nazirite drank a revi'it of wine and a revi'it of vinegar, he receives only one set of lashes. He is not liable for the wine and for the vinegar independently. [The rationale is that] the Torah does not say: "Do not drink wine" and "Do not drink vinegar." Instead, [it states, Numbers 6:3]: "[He shall abstain from wine or alcoholic beverages.] He shall not drink vinegar of wine or vinegar of alcoholic beverages," i.e., he should not drink wine or a beverage into which wine was mixed - [that is the meaning of the term,] "alcoholic beverages" [in the verse] - even if they have become vinegar.22 Since [the Torah] repeated only the term vinegar which is one term, he does not receive lashes for them both independently.

‫נזיר שאכל כזית ענבים וכזית חרצן‬ ‫וכזית זג וכזית צמוקים ושתה רביעית‬ ‫יין ואפילו סחט אשכול ושתה ממנו‬ ‫רביעית הרי זה לוקה חמש מלקיות שכל‬ ‫אחד מהן בלאו אחד הוא ולוקה מלקות‬ ‫ששית משום לא יחל דברו שהוא שוה‬ ‫בכל הנדרים וכן אם אכל כזית זג או כזית‬ ‫ענבים לוקה שתים אחת משום זג או‬ ‫משום ענבים ואחת משום לא יחל דברו‬ ‫והוא הדין לנזיר שגלח או נטמא שהוא‬ ‫לוקה שתים אחת על האסור המיוחד בו‬ ‫ואחת על האסור השוה בכל הנדרים‬ :‫שהוא לא יחל דברו‬

‫נזיר ששתה רביעית יין ורביעית‬ ‫חומץ אינו לוקה אלא אחת שאינו‬ ‫חייב על היין בפני עצמו ועל החומץ בפני‬ ‫עצמו שאין כתוב יין לא ישתה וחומץ לא‬ ‫ישתה אלא כך חומץ יין וחומץ שכר לא‬ ‫ישתה כלומר לא ישתה יין ולא דבר‬ ‫שנתערב בו היין והוא השכר ואפילו‬ ‫החמיצו והואיל ולא כפל אלא החומץ‬ ‫שהוא שם אחד אינו לוקה על זה בפני‬ :‫עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו‬

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

5 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983589/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a nazirite is drinking wine for the entire day, even though he is liable in God's eyes23 for every revi'it, he receives only [two sets of] lashes, one for drinking wine and one for "desecrat[ing] his word," as we explained.24If he was given a warning for every revi'it, i.e., he was told: "Do not drink," "Do not drink," and he, [nevertheless,] did drink, he is liable for each [revi'it].25 According to Rabbinic decree, it is forbidden for a nazirite to abide amidst a gathering of people drinking wine. [Instead,] he should separate himself far from them, because they present a hurdle for him. Our Sages26 said: "Do not come close [even to] the area around the vineyard."27

‫נזיר שהיה שותה ביין כל היום כולו‬ ‫אע"פ שהוא חייב לשמים על כל‬ ‫רביעית ורביעית אינו לוקה אלא אחת‬ ‫משום יין ואחת דלא יחל דברו כמו‬ ‫שבארנו ואם התרו בו על כל רביעית‬ ‫ורביעית ואמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה‬ ‫והוא שותה חייב על כל אחד ואחד מדברי‬ ‫סופרים שאסור לנזיר לעמוד במושב שותי‬ ‫יין ויתרחק ממנו הרבה שהרי מכשול‬ :‫לפניו אמרו חכמים סביב לכרם לא יקרב‬

When a nazirite cuts off one hair, whether using a razor or a scissor, he is liable for lashes, provided he cuts it from its roots as a razor would.28 Similarly, if he pulls out [a hair] by hand, he is liable for lashes. Both [the nazirite] whose hair is cut29 and the person who cuts his hair [are liable], as [indicated by Numbers 6:5]: "A razor will not pass over his head." If he left enough of [the hair] so that it could be bent over for its tip to touch its root, he does not receive lashes,30 because [cutting in this manner] is not [equivalent to shaving it] with a razor.

‫נזיר שגלח שערה אחת לוקה בין‬ ‫בתער בין בזוג והוא שקצצה‬ ‫מעיקרה כעין תער וכן אם תלשה בידו‬ ‫לוקה אחד המגלח ואחד המתגלח שנאמר‬ ‫תער לא יעבור על ראשו ואם הניח ממנו‬ ‫כדי לכוף ראשה לעיקרה אינו לוקה שאין‬ :‫זה כעין תער‬

If a person applied a potion that removed hair to his head and in this way, removed his hair, he is not liable for lashes.31 He is, however, nullifying the observance of a positive commandment, as [Numbers 6:5] states: "He shall let the mane of the hair of his head grow."

‫העביר על ראשו סם שמשיר את‬ ‫השער והשיר את השער אינו לוקה‬ ‫אלא ביטל מצות עשה שנאמר גדל פרע‬ :‫שער ראשו‬

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

6 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983589/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a nazirite shaves his entire head, he is liable for only one set of lashes for the shaving. If he was given a warning concerning each hair, i.e., he was told: "Do not shave," "Do not shave," and he shaved, he is liable for lashes for every hair.

‫נזיר שגלח כל ראשו אינו לוקה‬ ‫משום התגלחת אלא אחת ואם‬ ‫התרו בו על כל שער ושער ואמרו לו אל‬ ‫תגלח אל תגלח והוא מגלח לוקה על כל‬ :‫אחת ואחת‬

When a nazirite is scrubbing his hair with his hands and scraping [his scalp] with his nails, he need not worry [about removing hairs accidentally], because his intent is not to remove hair and it is possible that he will not remove any.32 He should not, however, comb his hair with a comb or scrape his head with earth, for [these activities] will certainly remove hair. If he does so, he is not liable for lashes.33

‫נזיר חופף על שערו בידו וחוכך‬ ‫בצפרניו ואם נפל שער אינו חושש‬ ‫שהרי אין כוונתו להשיר ואפשר שלא‬ ‫ישיר אבל לא יסרוק במסרק ולא יחוף‬ ‫באדמה מפני שמשרת את השער ודאי‬ :‫ואם עשה כן אינו לוקה‬

When a nazirite becomes impure through contact with a human corpse in a manner that would require him to remain impure for seven days,34 he is liable for lashes. [This applies] with regard to ritual impurity for which he is required to shave, as will be explained,35 and for ritual impurity for which he is not required to shave.36

‫נזיר שנטמא למת טומאת שבעה‬ ‫בין בטומאות שהוא מגלח עליהן‬ ‫כמו שיתבאר בין בטומאות שאינו מגלח‬ :‫עליהן הרי זה לוקה‬

[When a nazirite] becomes impure through contact with a human corpse many times, even though in God's eyes, he is liable for lashes for each time, the court holds him liable for only one set of lashes. If he was given a warning concerning each time, and he, nevertheless, became impure, he is liable for lashes for every time he [became impure].

‫נטמא למת פעמים הרבה אף על‬ ‫פי שהוא חייב מלקות על כל אחת‬ ‫ואחת לשמים אין בית דין מלקין אותו אלא‬ ‫אחת ואם התרו בו על כל פעם ופעם והוא‬ :‫מטמא לוקה כל אחת ואחת‬

When does the above apply? When he became impure and then returned and touched, carried, or stood over [the corpse]. If, however, he was touching a corpse and while the corpse was still in his hand, he touched another corpse, he is liable only once even though he was warned for each time he touched it, for his [state of purity] has already been desecrated.37

‫במה דברים אמורים בשנטמא‬ ‫ופירש וחזר ונגע או נשא או האהיל‬ ‫אבל אם היה נוגע במת ועדיין המת בידו‬ ‫ונגע במת אחר אינו חייב אלא אחת אע"פ‬ ‫שהתרו בו על כל נגיעה ונגיעה שהרי‬ :‫מחולל ועומד‬

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

7 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983589/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a nazirite enters a home and remains there until a person dies or he enters a shelter in which a corpse is located while he is in a closed container, chest, or closet38 and a colleague came and opened the top of the chest with his consent,39 he is liable for two sets of lashes:40 one, due to [the violation of] the prohibition [Numbers 6:6]: "He shall not approach a human corpse" and one, due to [the violation of] the prohibition [ibid.:7]: "He shall not become impure," for his impurity and his entry come about at the same time.41 If, however, he enters [such a shelter] in an ordinary manner, his becoming ritually impure precedes his entry. For from the time that his nose or his toes enter, he becomes ritually impure42 and he does not become liable for entering [the shelter] until his entire [body] enters.43 When [a nazirite] enters a shelter where a corpse is located or a cemetery unintentionally44 and after he discovers this fact, he received a warning, but did not jump up and leave, but instead remained there, he is liable for lashes.45[This applies] provided he remains there for the time it takes to prostrate oneself like a ritually impure person who enters the Temple.46

‫נזיר שנכנס לבית ושהה שם עד‬ ‫שמת שם המת או שנכנס לאהל‬ ‫המת בשידה תיבה ומגדל ובא חבירו ופרע‬ ‫גג התיבה מעליו מדעתו הרי זה לוקה‬ ‫שתים אחת משום לא יבא ואחת משום‬ ‫לא יטמא שהרי טומאה וביאה באין כאחת‬ ‫אבל אם נכנס כדרכו טומאתו קודמת‬ ‫לביאתו שמעת שיכניס חוטמו או אצבעות‬ ‫רגליו נטמא ואינו חייב משום ביאה עד‬ :‫שיבוא כולו‬

‫נכנס לאהל המת או לבית הקברות‬ ‫בשגגה ואחר שנודע לו התרו בו‬ ‫ולא קפץ ויצא אלא עמד שם הרי זה לוקה‬ ‫והוא שישהא שם כדי השתחויה כמו טמא‬ :‫שנכנס למקדש‬

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

8 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983589/jewish/Nezirut-...

[The following rules apply when one] causes a nazirite to contract ritual impurity. If the nazirite acted intentionally, the nazirite is liable for lashes and the person who caused him to contract impurity violates the prohibition against placing a stumbling block in front of the blind.47 If the nazirite was not aware of the transgression and the person who caused him to contract impurity acted intentionally, neither of them are liable for lashes.48

‫המטמא את הנזיר אם היה הנזיר‬ ‫מזיד הנזיר לוקה וזה שטמאו עובר‬ ‫משום ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול ואם היה‬ ‫הנזיר שוגג וזה שטמאו מזיד אין אחד‬ ‫מהם לוקה ולמה לא ילקה המטמא את‬ ‫הנזיר לפי שנאמר וטמא את ראש נזרו‬ :‫אינו לוקה עד שיטמא עצמו מדעתו‬

Why is the person who caused the nazirite to contract impurity not liable for lashes?49 Since [Numbers 6:9] states: "He defiles his Nazirite head," a person is only liable if he willfully causes his own self to incur impurity.50

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

9 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983589/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a nazirite who is in a state of ritual purity makes himself ritually impure, he is also liable for lashes for [the violation of the prohibition, Deuteronomy 23:22]: "Do not delay in paying it."51 For he delayed the fulfillment of his nazirite vow in purity and performed a deed.52 Similarly, if he took a nazirite vow while in a cemetery, he is also liable for lashes for [the violation of the prohibition]: "Do not delay in paying it."53

‫נזיר טהור שטמא עצמו לוקה אף‬ ‫משום לא תאחר לשלמו שהרי‬ ‫איחר נזירות טהרה ועשה מעשה וכן אם‬ ‫נדר בבית הקברות לוקה אף משום לא‬ ‫תאחר הא למדת שהנזיר שטמא עצמו‬ ‫לוקה ארבע מלקיות משום לא יטמא‬ ‫ומשום לא יחל דברו ומשום לא תאחר‬ ‫לשלמו ומשום לא יבוא אם היתה ביאה‬ :‫וטומאה כאחת כמו שבארנו‬

From this we learn, that a nazirite who made himself impure receives four sets of lashes: a) because of the prohibition: "He shall not become impure," b) because of the prohibition: "He shall not desecrate his word," c) because of the prohibition: "Do not delay in paying it," and because of the prohibition: "He shall not approach..." if he entered and incurred ritual impurity at the same time, as we explained.54

« Previous

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 6

Nezirut - Chapter 4 FOOTNOTES 1. See Halachah 15 and onward. 2. See Halachah 11. 3. Whether grapes or wine. 4. E.g., peels or pits. See the following halachah. 5. Numbers 6:3. 6. E.g., a brandy, vermouth, or the like. 7. I.e., a quarter of a larger measure called a log. A revi'it is 86

8. This represents a contrast to other Torah prohibitions. As stated in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:16, "when a person takes a small amount of fat, a small amount of blood, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher animal, a small amount of the meat of a nevelah, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fish, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fowl, or the like from other prohibited substances, although he collects an olive-sized portion from the entire mixture and partakes of it, he is not liable for lashes."

cc according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc according to Chazon Ish.

9. He must, however, eat the olived-sized portion within the time it takes to eat three eggs, as explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:8.

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

10 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983589/jewish/Nezirut-...

10. From the Rambam's wording, it appears that eating and drinking are not combined to reach a single measure.

22. I.e., the verse uses vinegar as an adjective for wine and mentions only prohibition. Thus the prohibition is against

11. This ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion among

drinking wine, even wine that has become vinegar. Even though two separate adjurations are mentioned in the

our Sages (Nazir 35b-37b). Although there is an opinion which maintains that with regard to a nazirite - in contrast to all the other prohibitions of the Torah - the permitted food should be counted as part of the forbidden measure, the Rambam does not accept this view as Halachah. 12. Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:3. 13. The measure described in the previous halachah. 14. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:9 where the Rambam states that to be liable for lashes, one must drink a prohibited substance in the time it takes to drink a revi'it. Here, however, he mentions the time it takes to eat k'dei achilat p'ras. It is possible to explain that here, the person is "eating" the wine, i.e., ingesting it as it is absorbed in solid food. Hence, he uses a measure of time that involves eating. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, he speaks about drinking. Hence, he uses a measure of time that involves drinking. 15. We have translated the verse according to its halachic interpretation. Its literal meaning is somewhat different. 16. Nazir 37a exemplifies this concept as follows: One soaked grapes in water and the flavor of the water became that of grape juice. 17. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:3. 18. I.e., as stated in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:1-2, if a prohibited substance becomes mixed into another entity, its presence is nullified if there is so much of the permitted entity that the flavor of the prohibited substance cannot be detected. (When it is impossible to have someone taste the mixture, we require 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance.) 19. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:2-3. There the Rambam states that if there was less than an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat in a portion the size of three eggs, it is considered as if the substance of the prohibited substance is not present. Hence, according to Scriptural Law, there is no prohibition, even if the flavor of the forbidden fat is

prooftext, there is no separate prohibition for drinking vinegar from wine and vinegar from alcoholic beverages coming from wine, because the end product, vinegar, is the same in both instances. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that there is a separate prohibition against drinking vinegar, just like there are separate prohibitions against eating grapes and eating raisins. See the gloss of the Radbaz for a discussion of this matter. 23. And God will mete out punishment to him for every violation [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 6:4)]. 24. See Halachah 8. 25. The warning causes every violation to be considered independently (Radbaz). 26. Avodah Zarah 59a. 27. For if he comes close, he might be tempted to partake of the grapes. 28. The prooftext cited below indicates that the hair must be removed as effectively as a razor does. It does not, however, indicate that only cutting it with a razor makes a person liable. Note the contrast to the prohibition against cutting the hairs of one's beard. As mentioned in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:1, that prohibition applies only to removal of one's hair with a razor. 29. From a comparison to the laws governing the prohibition against shaving the corners of one's head (Ibid.:1), it would appear that the person whose hair is cut is not liable for lashes unless he assists the person doing the shaving by moving his head or the like. Otherwise, he will not performed a deed and one is liable for lashes only when his violation involves a deed. 30. Nor are the days of one's nazirite vow nullified by such an act (Nazir 39b). 31. The Radbaz explains the rationale for this leniency: When

detectable. The Ra'avad differs and quotes authorities who maintain that

applying the potion, the person is not removing the hair with his own hands.

although lashes are not given in such an instance, the prohibition is of Scriptural origin.

32. Even though he had no intention of removing hairs, were it impossible to scrape his head with his nails without removing

20. The Rambam is indicating that grape juice and wine are

hair, it would be forbidden for him, because doing so would be tantamount to willfully removing hairs, as the Rambam

governed by the same laws. Alternatively, that grapes and grape juice are not considered as part of the same

continues. Compare to Hilchot Shabbat 1:6.

prohibition. 21. See Hilchot Nedarim 1:5; see also Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

11 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983589/jewish/Nezirut-...

Mishneh). The Shiurei HaKorban explains that since these

40. For as mentioned in the mitzvot cited in the introduction to these halachot and in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, there are two

activities do not produce a razor-clean shave, he is not liable for the violation of a negative commandment. According to

prohibitions involved in this instance as the Rambam continues to explain.

the Radbaz who maintains that such a commandment is in fact involved, the question arises: Since it is inevitable (a

41. The removal of the top of the container brings about his

33. For he did not intentionally remove the hairs (Kessef

p'sik reishah) that the hairs will be removed, why is he not liable. 34. I.e., the ritual impurity incurred when he touches or carries a corpse or is located under the same covering as it. 35. See Chapter 7, where this subject is discussed in detail.

"entry" into the place where the corpse is located and, at that same time, he becomes impure. 42. See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 1:11. 43. Compare to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:18. In this instance, since he is already ritually impure, the

36. The Mishneh LiMelech and other commentaries question

prohibition against entering a place of ritual impurity does not apply to him (Nazir 43a).

the Rambam's ruling, noting that in Hilchot Tumat Meit 3:3,

44. I.e., he was not aware that a corpse was located in this place

he writes: "All ritual impurity resulting from a corpse for which a nazirite is not required to shave does not stem from Scriptural Law." If the impurity does not stem from Scriptural Law, why is the nazirite punished by lashes? The Ma'aseh Rokeach explains that there are times when the Rambam uses the term midivrei sofrim, which usually means "stemming from Rabbinic decree" to refer to matters that are of Scriptural origin, but derived by our Sages using the accepted principles of Biblical exegesis (see Hilchot Ishut 1:2; Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2). Similarly, with regard to the contraction of ritual impurity in question: Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, it could be considered of Scriptural origin, because it was derived through the laws of Biblical exegesis. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 1, where this issue is discussed. 37. The Rambam's ruling can be explained based on the following concept: When a person is in contact with a corpse, a person he touches is impure for seven days. When, however, he is not in contact with a corpse, a person

or that it was a cemetery. 45. The commentaries question why the person is liable for lashes. Although he is performing a transgression by remaining in the cemetery, seemingly, the performance of that transgression does not involve a deed and hence, he should not be liable for lashes. The Lechem Mishneh explains that since he performed a deed when he entered in violation of the prohibition, he is liable when he remained afterwards in conscious violation of the prohibition. Others cite the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Hilchot Sechirut 13:2 which explains that whenever a transgression usually involves a deed - as a nazirite would usually perform a deed to contract ritual impurity - one is liable for lashes even when one violates the transgression without performing a deed. See also Hilchot Evel 3:4. 46. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:21-24. 47. See Hilchot Rotzeach 12:14 which interprets this as a general prohibition, warning a person against causing a colleague to transgress.

he touches is impure only until the evening. Thus if he is in contact with a corpse, there is no difference

48. The nazirite is not liable because he did not transgress

halachically if he touches another corpse. If, however, he is not in contact with a corpse, it is halachically significant if he

intentionally. The other person is not liable for the reasons the Rambam proceeds to explain.

touches another corpse, because the impurity resulting from touching him is more severe. And since touching the corpse

49. See Hilchot Evel 3:5 which states that in a parallel situation

is halachically significant for others, it is also halachically significant for him. Hence he is liable for lashes for such contact. 38. I.e., while he is in a closed container, it is as if he is not under the same shelter as the corpse and he does not contract ritual impurity. 39. If the container is opened without his consent, he is not liable, for he is considered to have transgressed due to forces beyond his control. See Hilchot Evel 3:5.

when a person causes a priest to become ritually impure, the person who causes him to incur the impurity is indeed, liable. For it is the person who causes him to incur impurity who violates the prohibition. And similarly, one who shaves a nazirite's head is liable (Halachah 11). 50. See the gloss of the Radbaz to Hilchot Kilayim 10:31 which comments on the apparent contradiction between that halachah and the ruling here. 51. See Chapter 1, Halachah 4; Hilchot Arachin VaCharamim 1:1; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:13, with regard to the nature of this prohibition. 52. By incurring ritual impurity.

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

12 of 12

53. The commentaries question: Since he was in the cemetery at the time he took the vow, seemingly, his violation of the

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983589/jewish/Nezirut-...

54. See Halachah 18.

prohibition does not involve a deed. Generally, when a transgression does not involve a deed, lashes are not given. Why then is he liable? Among the resolutions offered is that failing to depart is also considered a deed (Tosafot, Nazir 17a).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

1 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983590/jewish/Nezirut-...



Nezirut - Chapter 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nezirut - Chapter 5

When a nazirite drinks wine or eats a grape product, even if he does so for many days, he does not invalidate even one of the days of his nazirite vow.1 Similar [principles apply] if he shaved a minority of his head, whether intentionally or unintentionally. If, however, the majority of his head was shaved, whether with a razor or through another means which is as effective as a razor and enough of the hairs to fold over their head to their base2 were removed whether intentionally or unintentionally3 - even if thieves shaved his head against his will - thirty days are invalidated. [He must wait] until he has an uncut mane of hair.4 Afterwards, he counts [the remaining days]. What is implied? A person took a nazirite vow for 100 days5 and after 20 days, the majority of his hair was shaved. He must wait 30 days until the hair of his head grows. After 30 days, he counts eighty days to complete his nazirite vow. Throughout these 30 days, he must observe all the particular nazirite law, but the days are not counted [as part of his nazirite vow].

English

Hebrew

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 7

‫נזיר ששתה יין ואכל יוצא מן הגפן‬ ‫אפילו ימים רבים אינו סותר מימי‬ ‫נזירותו אפילו יום אחד וכן אם גלח מיעוט‬ ‫שער ראשו בין בשוגג בין במזיד נתגלח‬ ‫רוב ראשו בין בתער בין כעין תער ולא‬ ‫נשאר מן השערות כדי לכוף ראשן לעיקרן‬ ‫בין בזדון בין בשגגה אפילו גלחוהו ליסטים‬ ‫באונס הרי זה סותר שלשים יום עד שיהיה‬ :‫לו פרע ואחר כך מתחיל למנות‬

‫כיצד נדר נזירות מאה יום ולאחר‬ ‫עשרים יום נתגלח רוב ראשו הרי זה‬ ‫שוהה שלשים יום עד שירבה שער ראשו‬ ‫ואחר השלשים יום מונה שמונים יום‬ ‫תשלום ימי נזירותו וכל אותן השלשים יום‬ ‫כל דקדוקי נזירות עליו אלא שאין עולין לו‬ :‫מן המנין‬

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

2 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983590/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a nazirite contracted ritual impurity [stemming from a corpse] whether intentionally or unintentionally - even if gentiles caused him to incur impurity against his will - all of the days he observed are invalidated. He must perform the shaving required for impurity,6 bring the sacrifices [associated with arising from] impurity, and begin to count the days of his nazirite vow [anew]. [This is implied by Numbers 6:12]: "The first days will fall." Even if he becomes impure on the day that he completes his [nazirite] vow,7 at the conclusion of the day, all of the days are invalidated.

‫נזיר שנטמא בין בזדון בין בשגגה‬ ‫ואפילו טמאוהו עכו"ם באונס סתר‬ ‫הכל ומגלח תגלחת טומאה ומביא קרבנות‬ ‫טומאה ומתחיל למנות ימי נזירות שנאמר‬ ‫והימים הראשונים יפלו ואפילו נטמא ביום‬ :‫מלאת ימי נזרו בסוף היום סתר הכל‬

If he contracted impurity on the day after he completed [his nazirite vow], i.e., the day on which he would have brought the sacrifices [associated with the completion of a nazirite vow] in purity had he not become impure, he invalidates only 30 days.8

‫נטמא אחר יום מלאת שהוא יום‬ ‫הבאת קרבנות טהרה אילו לא נטמא‬ ‫סותר שלשים בלבד וכיצד יעשה מביא‬ ‫קרבנות טומאה כשיטהר ומגלח תגלחת‬ ‫טומאה ומתחיל למנות נזירות שלשים יום‬ ‫ומגלח תגלחת טהרה ומביא קרבנות‬ ‫טהרה ואם נטמא אחר שנזרק עליו אחד‬ ‫מן הדמים אינו סותר כלום אלא יביא שאר‬ :‫קרבנות טהרה שלו כשיטהר‬

What should he do? He must bring the sacrifices [associated with arising from] impurity when he becomes pure and perform the shaving required for impurity. He then observes the nazirite laws for 30 days, he performs the shaving [associated with completing a nazirite vow] in purity and brings the appropriate sacrifices.9 If he contracts ritual impurity after the blood [of any of the sacrifices] was sprinkled upon him, none [of the days] are invalidated.10 Instead, he should bring the remainder11 of the sacrifices [associated with completing a nazirite vow] in purity after he regains ritual purity.12

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

3 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983590/jewish/Nezirut-...

If he contracted ritual impurity on the following day,13 i.e., the day which is fit for him to begin letting his hair grow, had he shaven his hair after the completion of his vow,14 he does not invalidate anything even though he did not shave yet. For he has completed his nazirite vow and everything associated with it.15

‫נטמא ביום שלאחריו שהוא יום‬ ‫שראוי לגדל שער או גלח אחר‬ ‫מלאת הרי זה אינו סותר כלום אע"פ‬ ‫שעדיין לא גלח שהרי שלמה הנזירות וכל‬ :‫שנטפל לה‬

If he becomes impure on the day he took the [nazirite] vow or on the second day, [these days] are not invalidated. Instead, he completes [the days of his vow including] them after he brings his sacrifices.16 [This is derived from the prooftext cited above:] "The days will fall." [The use of the plural implies that] there must be at least two [full] days. Therefore if he becomes impure from the third day onward, he invalidates all the previous days.

‫נטמא ביום שנדר או בשני אינו סותר‬ ‫אלא משלים עליהם אחר שיביא קרבנו‬ ‫שנאמר והימים הראשונים יפלו עד שיהיו‬ ‫שם שני ימים ראשונים לפיכך אם נטמא‬ :‫משלישי והלאה סותר כל הקודמין‬

When a person takes a nazirite vow although he is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, the nazirite vow takes effect.17 If he becomes impure again,18 drinks wine, or shaves his head, he is liable for lashes. If he remains impure for several days, they are not counted for him until he has [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days [after he contracted ritual impurity] and he immerses himself [in a mikveh] on the seventh day.19 When a person takes a [nazirite] vow while he is ritually impure, the seventh day is counted for him.20 When, by contrast, a nazirite who was ritually pure, became impure, he should not begin counting until the eighth day.

‫נדר בנזיר והוא טמא מת חלה עליו‬ ‫נזירות ואם נטמא פעם אחרת או שתה‬ ‫יין או גלח לוקה ואם שהה בטומאתו כמה‬ ‫ימים אין עולין לו עד שיזה שלישי ושביעי‬ ‫ויטבול בשביעי ויום שביעי שלו עולה לו‬ ‫ממנין נזירות לזה שנדר והוא טמא אבל‬ ‫נזיר טהור שנטמא אינו מתחיל למנות‬ :‫אלא מיום השמיני והלאה‬

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

4 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983590/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a person takes a nazirite vow in a cemetery, the nazirite vow takes effect.21 Even if he remains there for several days, they are not counted for him. He is liable for lashes for remaining there.22 If he was warned not to take a nazirite vow while there, he should not shave his hair when he leaves there.23 If while in the cemetery he contracted impurity in one of the ways which would require a nazirite to shave,24he should neither shave nor bring a sacrifice [associated with emerging from] impurity.25

‫מי שנדר והוא בבית הקברות נזירות‬ ‫חלה עליו ואפילו שהה שם כמה‬ ‫ימים אין עולין לו ולוקה על שהייתו שם‬ ‫ואם התרו בו שלא יזיר שם אינו מגלח‬ ‫שערו כשיצא משם ואם נטמא שם בבית‬ ‫הקברות באחת מן הטומאות שהנזיר‬ ‫מגלח עליהן אינו מגלח ואינו מביא קרבן‬ :‫טומאה‬

If [a nazirite] entered [a cemetery] in a closed container, chest, or closet, [made a nazirite vow there, and then] a colleague came and opened the top,26 [causing] him to contract ritual impurity, he is not liable for lashes even though he remains there.27 He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct if he remains [there].28

‫נכנס לשם בשידה תיבה ומגדל ובא‬ ‫חבירו ופרע עליו את המעזיבה‬ ‫ונטמא אף ע"פ ששהה שם אינו לוקה אבל‬ :‫מכין אותו מכת מרדות אם שהה‬

When the nazirite29 left the cemetery, remained several days [outside], and then returned, the days he remained outside are not counted [as part of his nazirite vow].30 If he departed, had [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him, immersed himself [in a mikveh],31 counted several days of his nazirite vow and returned to the cemetery, the days that he counts are significant for him.32 Even if he enters the cemetery on the eighth day [after becoming impure], the seventh day is counted for him.33 If while there he contracted one of the types of impurity for which a nazirite is required to shave, he is required to bring a sacrifice [as required when emerging from] impurity.34 The days [he counted] previously are invalidated35 and he must perform the shaving [required when emerging from] impurity.

‫יצא מבית הקברות ושהה ימים וחזר‬ ‫ונכנס אין אותן הימים עולין לו יצא‬ ‫והזה וטבל וטהר ומנה ימים מנזירותו וחזר‬ ‫לבית הקברות אותן הימים שמנה עולין לו‬ ‫ואפילו נכנס ביום שמיני שלו הרי השביעי‬ ‫שלו עולה לו מן המנין ואם נטמא שם אחר‬ ‫שנכנס באחת מן הטומאות שהנזיר מגלח‬ ‫עליהן מביא קרבן טומאה וסותר הימים‬ :‫הקודמין ומגלח תגלחת טומאה‬

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

5 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983590/jewish/Nezirut-...

What does the shaving [required when emerging from ritual] impurity involve? When a nazirite becomes impure in one of the ways which require him to shave because of it, he must have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days. He then has his hair shaved on the seventh day.36 And after having [the ashes] sprinkled on him on the seventh day, he immerses in [a mikveh] as is required of all those who are ritually impure [due to contact with a human] corpse.37 He waits until sunset and brings his sacrifices on the eighth day.38 These [sacrifices] are: two turtle doves39 or two young doves,40 one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering, and a year-old lamb as a guilt offering. All of the preceding days are invalidated and he begins counting his nazirite vow [anew]. If he shaved on the eighth day,41 he may bring his sacrifices on that day.

‫תגלחת טומאה כיצד היא הנזיר‬ ‫שנטמא באחת מן הטומאות שהוא‬ ‫מגלח עליהן הרי זה מזה עליו בשלישי‬ ‫ובשביעי ומגלח שער ראשו בשביעי וטובל‬ ‫בשביעי אחר ההזיה כדרך כל טמאי מת‬ ‫ומעריב שמשו ומביא קרבנותיו בשמיני והן‬ ‫שתי תורים או שני בני יונה אחד לעולה‬ ‫ואחד לחטאת וכבש בן שנתו לאשם‬ ‫וסותר כל הימים הקודמין ומתחיל למנות‬ ‫נזירותו ואם גלח בשמיני מביא קרבנותיו‬ :‫בו ביום‬

When does he begin counting [the days of his nazirite vow]? When he brings his sin offering. His burnt offering and his guilt offering,42 by contrast, do not hold him back from [beginning] his counting.43

‫מאימתי מתחיל למנות משיביא‬ ‫חטאתו אבל עולתו ואשמו אין‬ :‫מעכבין אותו מלמנות‬

If he had [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third day and the seventh day, but did not immerse himself, [but instead] delayed his immersion, when he immerses, he should wait until sunset and bring his sacrifices on the following day.44 If he immersed himself and waited until after sunset, but delayed [bringing] his sacrifices, he cannot begin counting [the days of his vow] until he brings his sin offering.45 His burnt offering and guilt offering do not hold him back from counting, as explained [in the previous halachah].

‫הרי שהזה בשלישי ובשביעי ולא‬ ‫טבל ונתאחר כמה ימים כשיטבול‬ ‫יעריב שמשו ויביא קרבנותיו למחר טבל‬ ‫והעריב שמשו ואיחר קרבנותיו אינו‬ ‫מתחיל למנות עד שיביא חטאתו אבל‬ ‫עולתו ואשמו אין מעכבין אותו כמו‬ :‫שבארנו‬

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

6 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983590/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a nazirite performs the shaving [required after] ritual impurity, he does not have to shave at the entrance to the Temple or cast his hair on the fire [where his sacrifices are being cooked].46 Whether he shaves outside the Temple or inside, it is forbidden to benefit from his hair.47 It must be buried. [If it is burnt,] it is forbidden [to benefit from] its ashes as is true of the ashes of [all forbidden substances that] must be buried.48 When one shaves in the Temple,49 if he casts [his hair] under the pot where his guilt offering [is being cooked], he fulfills his obligation.50

‫כשמגלח הנזיר תגלחת טומאה אינו‬ ‫צריך לגלח על פתח המקדש ולא‬ ‫להשליך שערו על האש ובין שגלח‬ ‫במדינה או במקדש שערו אסור בהנאה‬ ‫וטעון קבורה ואפרו אסור כאפר כל‬ ‫הנקברים והמגלח במקדש אם השליכן‬ :‫תחת דוד האשם יצא‬

When a nazirite becomes impure through contact with a corpse on several occasions, whether he was warned about each individual time or he was not warned about each individual time,51 he brings only one [set of] sacrifices for all the times he became impure.

‫נזיר שנטמא טומאות הרבה בין‬ ‫שהתרו בו על כל אחת ואחת ובין‬ ‫שלא התרו בו על כל אחת ואחת אינו‬ ‫מביא על טומאותיו אלא קרבן אחד בד"א‬ ‫שנטמא פעם שניה קודם שיביא קרבנות‬ ‫טומאה הראשונה ואע"פ שנתאחר כמה‬ ‫ימים אחר טהרתו קודם הבאת חטאתו‬ ‫ונטמא באותן הימים אינו מביא אלא קרבן‬ ‫אחד אבל אם נטמא וטהר והביא חטאתו‬ ‫ונטמא פעם שניה אחר שהביא חטאתו אף‬ ‫על פי שעדיין לא הביא אשמו ועולתו חייב‬ :‫בקרבנות אחרות‬

When does the above apply? When he becomes impure a second time before he brings the sacrifices [associated with emerging from] impurity the first time, but was delayed for several days after he regain ritual purity from bringing his sin offering and contracted impurity in those days.52 [In such a situation], he only brings one sacrifice. When, however, he contracted impurity, became ritually pure, and brought his sin offering, should he contract impurity a second time after bringing his sin offering, he is required to bring a second set of sacrifices even though he has not brought his guilt offering or his burnt offering.

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

7 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983590/jewish/Nezirut-...

[The following rules apply when] a nazirite performed the shaving [required when completing his vow in] purity and afterwards discovered that he had contracted the ritual impurity [stemming from contact with a corpse] in the midst of the days of his vow. If he became impure due to a [the source for] impurity that was known [by others], all [of the days of his vow] are invalidated.53 He must bring the sacrifices [required when emerging from] impurity, perform the shaving [required when emerging from] impurity, count [the days of] another nazirite vow, and bring the sacrifices [required when completing his vow in] purity.

‫נזיר שגלח תגלחת טהרה ואח"כ‬ ‫נודע שטמא היה בתוך ימי נזרו‬ ‫אם בטומאה ידועה נטמא סתר הכל ומביא‬ ‫קרבנות טומאה ומגלח תגלחת טומאה‬ ‫ומונה נזירות אחרת ומביא קרבנות טהרה‬ ‫ואם בטומאת התהום נטמא אינו סותר‬ :‫ודבר זה הלכה מפי הקבלה‬

If he became impure due to [a source of] impurity [likened to] the depths,54 he does not invalidate [the days he observed].55 This is a law communicated by the Oral Tradition.56 If he discovered that he was impure - whether from a known [source of] impurity or [a source of] impurity [likened to] the depths - before the blood from one of his sacrifices57 was sprinkled upon him, all [the days] are invalidated.58If he discovers this after the blood from one of his sacrifices was sprinkled upon him,59[should this be] an unknown [source of] impurity, it does not invalidate [the days] even though he has not performed his shaving yet.

‫ואם עד שלא נזרק עליו אחד מן‬ ‫הדמים נודע שהוא טמא בין‬ ‫בטומאה ידועה בין בטומאת התהום סותר‬ ‫הכל נודע לו אחר שנזרק אחד מן הדמים‬ ‫אע"פ שלא גלח הואיל וטומאה שאינה‬ :‫ידועה היא אינו סותר‬

What is meant by impurity [likened to] the depths?60 [A human corpse which] no one, not even one at the end of the world knows about. The concept of impurity [likened to] the depths applies only with regard to a person who died naturally, but not to a person who was killed. For the killer knows [of the existence of the corpse].61

‫אי זו היא טומאת התהום כל שאין‬ ‫אדם מכירה אפילו בסוף העולם‬ ‫ולא אמרו טומאת התהום אלא למת בלבד‬ :‫אבל הרוג לא שהרי יודע בו זה שהרגו‬

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

8 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983590/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a corpse is found in open view, this is not considered impurity [likened to] the depths.62 If a corpse is found sunk in the earth of a cave while covered with water, this is impurity [likened to] the depths which is not known. If [it is discovered] buried in straw or in pebbles, it is impurity [likened to] the depths.63 If [it is discovered] in water in the dark or clefts of the rocks, it is not impurity [likened to] the depths.64

‫נמצא המת גלוי אין זה טומאת‬ ‫התהום נמצא מושקע בקרקעות‬ ‫מערה והמים על גביו הרי זה טומאת‬ ‫התהום שאינה ידועה היה טמון בתבן או‬ ‫בצרורות הרי זו טומאת התהום במים‬ ‫באפלה ובנקיקי הסלעים אינה טומאת‬ :‫התהום‬

[The following rule applies when] a nazirite who became impure through contact with a corpse goes down to a cave and immerses there,65 brings the sacrifices required [after emerging from] impurity, counts [the days of his] nazirite vow, performs the shaving [required after completing the vow in] purity, and afterwards, discovers that there was a corpse sunk in the earth of the cave when he descended to immerse himself. Although this is an unknown source of impurity, all of the days are invalidated. [The rationale is that] his impurity was an established fact and hence, that condition is presumed to continue until he definitely purified himself.66

‫נזיר שנטמא במת וירד וטבל במערה‬ ‫והביא קרבנות טומאה ומנה נזירות‬ ‫וגלח תגלחת טהרה ואחר כך נודע שמת‬ ‫היה מושקע בקרקעות המערה כשירד‬ ‫לטבול אף על פי שהיא טומאה שאינה‬ ‫ידועה סתר הכל מפני שהוחזק לטומאה‬ ‫וחזקת הטמא טמא עד שיטהר ודאי ירד‬ ‫להקר הרי זה טהור עד שידע שנגע נמצא‬ ‫המת צף על פני המים הרי זה בחזקת טמא‬ :‫שחזקתו שנגע בזה שהוא צף‬

[In the above situation, if a nazirite] descended to [the pool] to cool himself off, he is ritually pure until he has certain [knowledge] that he touched the corpse.67 If the corpse is found floating on the water, we presume that [the nazirite] is impure. Since [the corpse] is floating, we operate under the presumption that [the nazirite] touched it.68

« Previous Nezirut - Chapter 5

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 7

FOOTNOTES

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

9 of 12

1. Thus if he drank wine for ten days in a thirty day nazirite period, he need not observe more than the thirty days. 2. See Chapter 5, Halachah 11. 3. I.e., the ruling is not dependent on his intent, but on the fact, is the majority of his head shaven or not. 4. I.e., and growing such a mane of hair takes 30 days.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983590/jewish/Nezirut-...

20. As stated in the following halachah, such a person is not required to bring any sacrifices after emerging from impurity. Hence, he may begin counting from the seventh day when he becomes ritually pure. Since a nazirite who becomes impure is required to bring sacrifices on the eighth day (see Halachah 11), he does not begin counting the days of his nazirite vow until that day (Kessef Mishneh).

5. According to the Rambam, the same ruling applies whether the nazirite vow is for 30 days or longer.

21. Even though he contracts impurity there, as stated in the previous halachah.

6. See Halachah 11

22. I.e., provided he remains there for the time it takes to prostrate oneself (Chapter 5, Halachah 19).

7. I.e., the thirtieth day of an ordinary nazirite vow or the last day of a prolonged vow. 8. I.e., thus had he taken a prolonged nazirite vow, he will benefit from the observance of all the days beyond the minimum of thirty. The commentaries discuss whether the invalidation of the 30 days is a Sciptural requirement or a Rabbinic decree. 9. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1. 10. For once the blood is sprinkled upon him, he is considered to have completed his nazirite vow (Nazir 46a; see also Chapter 8, Halachah 5). 11. I.e., the sacrifices other than the one whose blood was sprinkled on him. They were disqualified because of the impurity he contracted. 12. For while a person is impure due to ritual impurity contracted from contact with a corpse, we do not offer any sacrifices for him (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash). 13. E.g., after an ordinary nazirite vow on the thirty-second day or on the hundred and second day if he took a nazirite vow for 100 days (Meiri, Nazir 14b). 14. Our text reflects the version of the Mishneh Torah in authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard version of the text reads somewhat differently.

23. I.e., since he is not required to bring a sacrifice, he is not required to shave (Radbaz). The commentaries question, however, why the Rambam mentions a warning in regard to shaving. The only halachic context where a warning is relevant is with regard to lashes. The Radbaz explains that a printing error crept into the text and the proper version should read: "If he was warned not to take a nazirite vow while there, he is liable for lashes. He should not shave his hair...." The Kessef Mishneh also suggests a similar, but not identical emendation. It must, however, be noted that the present version of the text is found in many authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The Kiryat Sefer attempts to explain its meaning. 24. See Chapter 7, Halachot 2-6. The impurity imparted by the cemetery itself is never sufficient to warrant shaving as explained there. 25. Since he was not pure at the time he took the nazirite vow, he is not required to shave when he incurs impurity. 26. Without his consent. If he acted with his consent, he is liable, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18. 27. From Chapter 5, Halachah 19, one might think that the nazirite would be liable, because he remained in the cemetery in a state of ritual impurity. Indeed, the Ra'avad

15. Even though he has neither shaved, nor brought his sacrifices (Meiri, loc. cit.).

argues that he should be held liable if he remains. Nevertheless, according to the Rambam's understanding of

16. I.e., the sacrifices that must be brought when a nazirite becomes impure, as described in Halachah 11.

be made between a nazirite who took his vow outside the

17. And he must observe the relevant prohibitions.

cemetery and one who took his vow inside the cemetery in such a situation. The rationale is that if he was a nazirite

18. See Chapter 5, Halachah 17. 19. This is the requirement to be observed when emerging from the impurity associated with a human corpse, as described in Hilchot Parah Adumah 11:1. If the impure person has the

Nazir 17b, it can be explained that possibly, a distinction can

previously, entry into the cemetery in a closed container put him in a precarious position. Hence, he is liable if he remains there. In this instance, since he was not a nazirite previously, there is no difficulty with his entry. Hence he is not liable for

ashes sprinkled upon him on after the third day of his

remaining (Ma'aseh Rokeach). The Radbaz does not accept

impurity, the second sprinkling must be performed four days afterwards.

this explanation and maintains that here, the nazirite is not liable only because he was not given a warning.

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

10 of 12

28. For although it is questionable whether he is liable according to Scriptural Law, he is definitely treating his nazirite vow lightly. Hence, he is given this punishment according to Rabbinic Law. 29. This is also speaking about a nazirite who accepted his nazirite vows in a cemetery. 30. Since he did not emerge from ritual impurity, even though he left the cemetery, the laws stated in Halachah 8 apply and he is not required to bring a sacrifice even if he certainly becomes impure in a manner which would ordinarily require a nazirite to bring a sacrifice upon his emergence from impurity.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983590/jewish/Nezirut-...

46. These acts are required for the shaving required after a nazirite completes his vow in purity. See Chapter 8, Halachah 2. 47. Numbers 6:11 describes his hair as "holy." Implied is that it is forbidden to benefit from it (Radbaz). 48. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:12-14. 49. I.e., on the Temple Mount. Alternatively, it could refer to someone who entered the Women's Courtyard (where the nazirites perform the shaving associated with completing their vows in ritual purity). 50. I.e., he is seeking to emulate a nazirite who shaves after completing his vow in purity who casts his hair under the pot

31. I.e., performed the rites necessary to emerge from ritual impurity.

where his peace offering is being cooked. There is a difference of opinion among the Sages (Nazir, Tosefta 4:5) if

32. I.e., the days he counted before reentering the cemetery. The days he spent in the cemetery are not counted, as

it is desirable to emulate that act. The Rambam follows the view that at the outset, the hair should be buried and not

indicated by Chapter 7, Halachah 7. As evident from the continuation of the halachah, this applies in an instance

destroyed by fire. Nevertheless, all authorities agree that after the fact, the shaving is acceptable if the hair is burnt.

when he is not certain that he contracted impurity for which he is liable according to Scriptural Law.

51. As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 16, if a person receives a

33. And he must count only 29 days afterwards rather than 30. In

warning, he receives lashes for every time he contracts impurity. Nevertheless, these warnings have nothing to do

actual fact, he is a nazirite who was ritually pure and contracted impurity. Nevertheless, his counting begins on the

with the concept of ritual impurity and have no effect upon it (Radbaz).

seventh day and not the eighth (as one might think based on Halachah 7). The rationale is since he originally accepted his

52. As evident from Halachah 13, bringing the sin offering is the determining factor in a nazirite's resumption of the counting

nazirite vow in a cemetery, he is governed by the laws that apply in such an instance (Radbaz).

of the days of his nazirite vows. Hence, if he has not brought that sacrifice, the two times he contracted ritual impurity can

34. Although he was impure previously, his contracting impurity in this manner is significant enough for him to be required to bring the required sacrifices. 35. He must, however, have waited at least two days outside the cemetery. For as the Rambam states in Halachah 6, only two or more days can be invalidated. 36. See Numbers 6:9. 37. See Hilchot Parah Adumah 11:1. 38. See Numbers 6:10. 39. A smaller, wild variety of the dove family. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2 for more particulars. 40. Ordinary domesticated doves. 41. After purifying himself on the seventh day (Kessef Mishneh). 42. As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 3:11, this is in contrast to all other guilt offerings required by the Torah. 43. I.e., even if he brings them on a later date, it is not significant. 44. Because until he immerses himself and waits until sunset, he is not pure and cannot bring his sacrifices.

be covered by one sin offering. 53. As stated in Halachah 3. Since he was impure, the fact that he completed the observance of his nazirite vow is not significant. 54. See Halachah 18. 55. And he is considered to have completed his nazirite vow. 56. I.e., this is not a concept that can be derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis or through deductive logic. Instead, it is part of the Oral Tradition communicated to Moses at Sinai (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nazir 9:2). 57. Seemingly, this applies to any one of the sacrifices, not only the sin offering. 58. For until the blood is sprinkled upon him, he has not concluded his nazirite vow. 59. For this completes the observance of the nazirite vow. Afterwards, he may drink wine and become impure. 60. Just like mortal wisdom cannot fathom the extent of the depths, so, too, the existence of this corpse is not known to any mortal (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura, Parah 3:2).

45. For the sin offering is the primary factor leading to his emergence from impurity. See Halachah 15.

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

11 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983590/jewish/Nezirut-...

61. The Radbaz states that it must be apparent that the person was killed by another human and not an animal. It must be

67. I.e., we follow the logic mentioned in the previous note with regard to the situation when a nazirite is ritually pure.

noted that the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, but the Radbaz supports the Rambam's position.

68. In Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 14:3, the Rambam writes

62. For it is likely it was seen by others.

that if one is in doubt whether he touched a dead lizard floating on water, he is ritually pure, but concludes that this

63. In all of these instances, it is highly possible that no other person knew about the impurity.

principle applies only with regard to impurity resulting from contact with a dead lizard and not to similar situations

64. In these instances, though it is difficult for a person from the

applying with regard to other sources of impurity. The rationale is that we follow the principle: When a doubt

outside to see the corpse, since it is possible that he will, the impurity is considered to be public knowledge. 65. I.e., to conclude the process of emerging from ritual impurity.

concerning ritual impurity arises in a private place, we rule stringently. Since the corpse is floating and can be seen, we do not consider it an unknown source of impurity.

66. Thus in this instance, since it is possible that he touched the corpse when immersing, we are not certain that he purified himself. In the previous halachot, leniency was granted, because the nazirite was ritually pure. Hence we presume that he continues in that state unless we know for certain that he became impure. In this instance, however, he already was impure. Hence we presume that he remains in this state until we know for certain that he has regained purity.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

12 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983590/jewish/Nezirut-...

8/21/2019 4:22 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

1 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...



Nezirut - Chapter 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nezirut - Chapter 6

There are types of impurity resulting from [contact with] a corpse that do not require a nazirite to perform a shaving and do not invalidate the days previously observed even though he became impure in a manner that requires him to observe impurity for [at least] seven days.1 [The rationale is that] it is not stated concerning such situations: "When one will become impure due [to contact with] a corpse...", but rather [Numbers 6:9], "When a person will die upon him." [This implies that] he must become impure with those impurities that involve the actual substance of the corpse.2 Afterwards, he must bring the sacrifices [required] and perform the shaving required [when emerging from] impurity. All of the days [he observed] initially are invalidated.

English

Hebrew

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 8

‫יש טומאות מן המת שאין הנזיר‬ ‫מגלח עליהן ולא סותר את הקודמין‬ ‫ואע"פ שנטמא בהן טומאת שבעה לפי‬ ‫שלא נאמר בו וכי יטמא לנפש אלא וכי‬ ‫ימות מת עליו עד שיטמא מטומאות שהן‬ ‫מעצמו של מת ואח"כ יביא קרבנות‬ ‫טומאה ויגלח תגלחת טומאה ויפלו כל‬ :‫הימים הראשונים‬

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

2 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...

These are the types of impurity stemming from contact with a corpse that a nazirite must shave because of [contact with] them: a) an stillborn fetus, even if the sinews connecting its limbs have not formed,3 b) an olive-sized portion of the flesh of a corpse,4 c) an olive-sized portion of a decomposed corpse,5 d) bones from a corpse which represent the majority of the number of the bones of a corpse6 even though their volume is not a fourth of a kav,7 e) bones which represent the majority of the structure of the bones of a corpse even though their volume is not a fourth of a kav,8 f) a half of a kav of bones9 even though they do not represent the majority of the number or the structure of the bones of the corpse - all the bones must, however, be from one corpse, not from two, g) the backbone that comes from one corpse, h) the skull that comes from one corpse, i) a [complete] limb that comes from one corpse, j) a limb taken from a living person that has flesh that could cause it to regenerate in a living person,10 k) half a log11of blood from one corpse, and l) a handful of the decomposed mass of a corpse.12

‫ואלו טומאות מן המת שהנזיר מגלח‬ :‫עליהן‬ ‫על הנפל ואפילו לא נתקשרו איבריו‬ ‫בגידין ועל כזית מבשר המת ועל כזית נצל‬ ‫ועל עצמות שהן רוב מנין העצמות אף על‬ ‫פי שאין בהן רובע הקב ועל עצמות שהן‬ ‫רוב בנינו של מת ואע"פ שאין בהן רובע‬ ‫הקב ועל חצי קב עצמות אף על פי שאין‬ ‫בהן לא רוב בניינו ולא רוב מניינו וכל‬ ‫העצמות יהיו משל מת אחד ולא משני‬ ‫מתים ועל השדרה הבאה ממת אחד ועל‬ ‫הגולגלת של מת אחד ועל אבר מן המת‬ ‫הבא ממת אחד ועל אבר מן החי מאדם‬ ‫אחד שיש עליהן בשר שראוי לעלות בו‬ ‫ארוכה בחי ועל חצי לוג דם הבא ממת‬ ‫אחד ועל מלא חפנים רקב המת אי זהו‬ ‫נצל זה בשר המת שנמוח ונעשה לחה‬ :‫סרוחה‬

What is meant by the term netzel? Flesh from a corpse that decomposed and became putrid liquid. The decomposed mass (rekev) of a corpse does not convey ritual impurity unless it was buried naked in a marble coffin13 and was entirely intact. If one limb was lacking or it was buried in garments14 or in a wooden or metal15 coffin, there is no concept of rekev. The concept of rekev applies with regard to a corpse alone. This excludes a person who was slain, for his blood is lacking.

‫ואין רקב המת מטמא עד שיקבר‬ ‫ערום בארון של שיש ויהיה כלו שלם‬ ‫חסר ממנו אבר או שנקבר בכסותו או‬ ‫בארון של עץ או בשל מתכת אין לו רקב‬ ‫ולא אמרו רקב אלא למת בלבד להוציא‬ :‫הרוג שהרי חסר דמו‬

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

3 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...

When two corpses are buried together,16 the hair and the nails of a corpse were cut off and buried together with it,17 or a woman was buried together with a fetus in her womb,18 the rekev does not convey ritual impurity. Similarly, if one ground up a corpse until it became a decomposed mass, [these laws do not apply]. It must decompose naturally. If one ground the corpse and then left its remains until they decomposed naturally or a portion of the body decomposed while the person was alive, he died, and then the entire body decomposed, there is an unresolved doubt [concerning the ruling]. Hence, if [a nazirite] becomes impure because of this rekev, there is an unresolved doubt

‫קברו שני מתים כאחד או שגזזו‬ ‫שערו או צפרניו וקברום עמו או‬ ‫אשה עוברה שמתה ונקברה ועוברה‬ ‫במעיה אין הרקב שלהם מטמא וכן אם‬ ‫טחן המת עד שנעשה רקב אינו מטמא עד‬ ‫שירקיב מאליו טחן את המת והניח עפרו‬ ‫עד שהרקיב כולו או ]שהרקיב[ מקצתו‬ ‫כשהוא חי ומת והרקיב הכל הרי זה ספק‬ ‫ואם נטמא לרקב זה הרי זה ספק טמא וכן‬ ‫אם נטמא ברובע עצמות הבאין מהשדרה‬ :‫או מן הגולגולת באהלן הרי זה ספק טמא‬

whether he is impure. Similarly, there is an unresolved doubt whether [a nazirite] is impure if he contacts impurity from a fourth of a kav of bones coming from the backbone or the skull when he is under the same shelter19 as they are. [With regard to] all of these twelve [sources] of impurity that we listed:20 If a nazirite touches one of these sources, carries it, covers it from above with [a portion of his body], [the source of] impurity covers [a portion of] the nazirite's [body], or the nazirite and [the source of] impurity were located under the same shelter, [the nazirite becomes impure].21 He must perform the shaving [required because of] impurity and bring the sacrifices [required because of] impurity. All [of the days he observed] are invalidated. The only exception is a rekev. It does not convey impurity when one touches it, for it is impossible to touch it entirely [at the same time], for it is not a single mass.22 If, however, one carried it or became impure because one was under the same shelter,23 he must perform the shaving.

‫כל אלו השתים עשרה טומאות‬ ‫שמנינו אם נגע נזיר באחת מהן או‬ ‫נשאה או האהיל הנזיר עליה או האהיל‬ ‫הטומאה על הנזיר או היה הנזיר ואחת‬ ‫מטומאות אלו באהל אחד הרי זה מגלח‬ ‫תגלחת טומאה ומביא קרבן טומאה וסותר‬ ‫את הכל חוץ מן הרקב שאינו מטמא במגע‬ ‫שאי אפשר שיגע בכלו שהרי אינו גוף‬ ‫אחד אבל אם נשאו או נטמא באהלו‬ :‫מגלח‬

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

4 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...

Similarly, if a nazirite touches or carries a bone24 from a corpse - even if it is merely the size of a barley-corn25 - he must perform a shaving because of it and bring the sacrifices [required because of] impurity. All [of the days he observed] are invalidated. A bone the size of a barley corn does not, however, convey impurity26 if one was under the same shelter.27 If, by contrast, [a nazirite] becomes impure because of contact with one of the following twelve matters, [the days he observed] are not invalidated: a) a clod of earth from the Diaspora;28 b) [earth from] a field in which a grave had been plowed;29 both of these convey impurity through touch or if they were carried;30 c) branches which emerge from trees,31 protrusions that emerge from fences,32 from a bed, a camel, or the like, cover him and one of the twelve sources of impurity [mentioned in the Halachah 2];33

‫וכן נזיר שנגע בעצם המת אפילו עצם‬ ‫כשעורה או נשאו הרי זה מגלח עליו‬ ‫ומביא קרבנות טומאה וסותר את‬ ‫הקודמים ואין עצם כשעורה מטמא באהל‬ ‫אבל נטמא באחת משנים עשר דברים‬ :‫הללו‬ ‫בגוש ארץ העכו"ם או בשדה שנחרש קבר‬ ‫בתוכה שהן מטמאין במגע ובמשא או‬ ‫שהאהיל עליו ועל השריגים היוצאים מן‬ ‫האילנות או הפרעות היוצאות מן הגדר או‬ ‫מטה או גמל וכיוצא בו או שנטמא באהל‬ ‫רובע עצמות שאין בהן לא רוב בנין ולא‬ ‫רוב מנין או שנטמא ברביעית דם מן המת‬ ‫שהיא מטמא במגע ובמשא ובאהל או‬ ‫שנטמא בגולל או בדופק שהן מטמאין‬ ‫במגע ובאהל או שנטמא באבר מן החי או‬ ‫באבר מן המת שאין עליהן בשר כראוי‬ :‫הרי זה אינו סותר‬

d) he becomes impure by being under the same shelter as a quarter of a kav of bones34 that do not constitute the majority of the number of the corpse's bones, nor the greater portion of his structure; e) he became impure because of a revi'it of blood from a corpse which conveys ritual impurity whether one touches it, carries it, or is found under the same shelter;35 f) he became impure because he touched or was under the same shelter36 as a gravestone37or a stone at the side of a grave;38 for they convey impurity in either of these two ways; g) he became impure because of contact with a limb cut from a living person or a corpse which does not have sufficient flesh upon it.39

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

5 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...

Even though in all the above situations, [the nazirite] is impure for seven days and he must have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled [upon him] on the third and seventh days, he should not perform the shaving [required when emerging from] impurity, nor bring the sacrifices [required at that time], nor are his initial days invalidated. Nevertheless, the days when he is impure are not counted as part of his nazirite vow.

‫אע"פ שבכל אלו הוא טמא טומאת‬ ‫שבעה ומזה בשלישי ובשביעי אינו‬ ‫מגלח תגלחת טומאה ולא מביא קרבנות‬ ‫ולא סותר את הקודמין אבל כל ימי‬ :‫הטומאה אין עולין לו ממנין ימי נזירותו‬

When [a nazirite] touches a shelter in which a corpse is found or utensils40 that are touching a corpse,41 he should not have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled [upon him] on the third and seventh days.42 It appears to me43 that this law is unique to a nazirite. Any other person who contracts impurity that persists for seven days from utensils must have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled [upon him] on the third and seventh days, as will be explained in Hilchot Tuma'at Meit.44 Similarly, it appears to me that the reason [a nazirite] does not have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled [upon him] on the third and seventh days if he touched utensils [that convey such ritual impurity] is so that the days on which he is impure because [of contact with] the utensil will be counted as part of the days of his nazirite vow.45

‫נגע באהל המת או בכלים הנוגעים‬ ‫במת אינו מזה בשלישי ובשביעי‬ ‫ויראה לי שדין זה מיוחד בנזיר אבל כל‬ ‫אדם שנטמא בכלי טומאת שבעה יזה‬ ‫בשלישי ובשביעי כמו שיתבאר בהלכות‬ ‫טומאת מת וכן יראה לי שזה אינו מזה‬ ‫בשלישי ובשביעי אם נגע בכלים כדי‬ ‫שיעלו לו ימי טומאתו בכלי ממנין ימי‬ :‫נזירותו‬

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

6 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a nazirite contracts tzara'at46 and has his status [as a metzora] defined,47 all of the days during which he is set apart [as a metzora] and the seven days that he counts after purifying himself from his tzara'at between the first shaving48 and the second shaving49 do not count as days of his nazirite vow.50 The days when he is quarantined,51 by contrast, are counted [as part of his nazirite vow].52 Similarly, if either a male or a female has a zav emission from their flesh,53 all of the days of the emission are counted as part of their [nazirite vow] although they are impure.54 This matter is a halachah transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

‫נזיר שנצטרע והוחלט כל ימי חלוטו‬ ‫ושבעת ימי ספירו שסופר אחר‬ ‫שיטהר לצרעתו בין תגלחת ראשונה‬ ‫לשניה אין עולין לו מימי נזירותו אבל ימי‬ ‫הסגר עולין לו וכן אם זב בשרו בין איש בין‬ ‫אשה כל ימי זיבתן עולין להן אף על פי‬ ‫שהן טמאין ודבר זה הלכה למשה מסיני‬ :‫הוא‬

Needless to say, if [a nazirite] becomes impure as a result of other sources of impurity55 that the days during which he is impure are counted [as part of his nazirite vow] and no days are invalidated. If he becomes impure due to contact with a corpse during the time he is afflicted with tzara'at, all of the previous days are invalidated. [The rationale is that] he is still a nazirite, even though he is ritually impure.

‫אין צריך לומר שאם נטמא הנזיר‬ ‫בשאר טומאות שימי טומאתו עולין לו‬ ‫ואינו סותר כלום נטמא במת בתוך ימי‬ ‫צרעתו סותר את כל הקודמין שהרי‬ :‫בנזירותו עומד ואע"פ שהוא טמא‬

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

7 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...

A nazirite is permitted to become impure due to contact with a corpse when doing so is a mitzvah56 and may shave when doing so is a mitzvah.57 He is, however, forbidden to partake of [all] wine, whether in connection with a mitzvah or with regard to matters left to one's own choice.

‫הנזיר מותר בטומאת מת מצוה‬ ‫ובתגלחת מצוה ואסור ביין המצוה‬ ‫כיין הרשות כיצד מי שנשבע שישתה היום‬ ‫יין שהרי מצוה עליו לשתות ואח"כ נדר‬ ‫בנזיר חלה נזירות על השבועה ואסור ביין‬ ‫ואין צריך לומר שהוא אסור ביין קדוש‬ :‫והבדלה שאינו אלא מדברי סופרים‬

What is implied? A person took an oath that he will drink wine on this day. Thus it is a mitzvah for him to drink.58 Afterwards, he took a nazirite vow. The nazirite vow takes effect and [supercedes] the oath he took. Hence he is forbidden to drink wine. Needless to say, [a nazirite]59 is forbidden [to partake of] the wine [over which] Kiddush and Havdalah are recited. For [associating these blessings with wine] is merely a Rabbinic ordinance.60 What is meant by the statement that he is permitted to become impure due to contact with a corpse when it is a mitzvah? If he was walking on the road and encountered a corpse and there was no one else to bury it,61 he should become impure through contact with it and bury it.62 These matters were communicated by the Oral Tradition.

‫וכיצד הוא מותר בטומאת מת‬ ‫מצוה היה מהלך בדרך ופגע במת‬ ‫שאין שם מי שיקברנו הרי זה מטמא לו‬ :‫וקוברו ודברים אלו דברי קבלה הן‬

When a nazirite and a priest63 encounter a corpse that it is a mitzvah [to bury] the nazirite should [bury it and] become impure even though he invalidates the days [he observed] previously and must bring a sacrifice [because of his] impurity. The priest should not become impure. [The rationale is that the nazirite's] holiness is within the context of time64 - even if he took an everlasting nazirite vow65 - while the priest's holiness is beyond the context of time.

‫נזיר וכהן שפגעו במת מצוה יטמא‬ ‫נזיר אף על פי שהוא סותר הימים‬ ‫הראשונים ומביא קרבן טומאה ואל יטמא‬ ‫כהן שזה קדושתו קדושת שעה ואפילו‬ ‫היה נזיר עולם והכהן קדושתו קדושת‬ :‫עולם‬

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

8 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...

If two nazirites - one whose nazirite vow was for 30 days and one whose nazirite vow was for 100 days encounter [such a corpse] - the one whose nazirite vow was for 30 days should become impure. If one was a nazirite for a limited amount of time66 and the other was a nazirite forever, the nazirite for a limited amount of time should become impure. For the nazirite for all time has a higher degree of holiness.

‫פגעו בו שני נזירים אחד נזיר‬ ‫שלשים יום ואחד נזיר מאה יום‬ ‫יטמא נזיר שלשים היה אחד נזיר לזמן‬ ‫קצוב והשני נזיר עולם יטמא הנזיר לזמן‬ :‫קצוב שנזירות עולם קדושתו חמורה מזה‬

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

9 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...

What is meant by the statement that he is permitted to shave when doing so is a mitzvah? When a nazirite contracts tzara'at and becomes healed in the midst of the days of his nazirite vow, he should shave all of his hair.67 [The rationale is that] by shaving, he fulfills a positive commandment,68 for concerning a metzora, [Leviticus 14:8] states: "And he shall shave all of his hair." Whenever there is [a conflict between] a positive commandment and a negative commandment, if it is possible to observe both of them, that is desirable. If not, the positive commandment supercedes the negative commandment.69 Nevertheless, when a nazirite shaves his hair during the midst of his nazirite vow, he violates both a negative commandment and a positive commandment, as [Numbers 6:5] states: "[His hair] is holy. He shall let the mane of the hair of his head grow." And [the observance of] a positive commandment does not supercede a negative commandment that [is reinforced by] a positive commandment. Why then does the positive commandment of shaving the blemish supercede his nazirite vow? Because the nazirite has already become impure because of the tzara'at and the days when he is defined as impure are not counted [towards the fulfillment of his vow], as we explained.70 [Hence,] his [hair] is not holy during these days. Thus the positive commandment [mentioned above] is withdrawn and only the negative commandment [Leviticus, loc. cit.]: "A razor shall not pass over his head" alone remains incumbent upon him. Therefore the positive commandment of shaving [because of the tzara'at] can come and supercede it.71

« Previous

‫וכיצד הוא מותר בתגלחת מצוה‬ ‫נזיר שנצטרע ונרפא מצרעתו‬ ‫בתוך ימי נזירות הרי זה מגלח כל שערו‬ ‫שהרי תגלחתו מצות עשה שנאמר‬ ‫במצורע וגלח את כל שערו וגו' וכל מקום‬ ‫שאתה מוצא מצות עשה ולא תעשה אם‬ ‫יכול לקיים את שניהם מוטב ואם לאו יבא‬ ‫עשה וידחה את לא תעשה והלא נזיר‬ ‫שגלח בימי נזרו עבר על לא תעשה ועשה‬ ‫שנאמר קדוש יהיה גדל פרע שער ראשו‬ ‫ובכל מקום אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה‬ ‫ועשה ולמה דוחה עשה של תגלחת הנגע‬ ‫לנזירות מפני שכבר נטמא הנזיר בצרעת‬ ‫וימי חלוטו אין עולין לו כמו שבארנו והרי‬ ‫אינו קדוש בהן ובטל העשה מאליו ולא‬ ‫נשאר אלא לא תעשה שהוא תער לא‬ ‫יעבור על ראשו ולפיכך בא עשה של‬ :‫תגלחת הצרעת ודחה אותו‬

Next »

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

10 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...

Nezirut - Chapter 6

Nezirut - Chapter 8

FOOTNOTES 1. The Rambam explains these concepts in the following halachot.

12. See the following halachah for a more detailed definition of the term rekev; see also Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:11.

2. In Hilchot Tumat Meit 3:3, the Rambam writes: "All ritual

13. For in such a situation, the decomposed mass contains

impurity resulting from a corpse for which a nazirite is not required to shave does not stem from Scriptural Law." If this

nothing more than the corpse, for marble does not decompose. The same law would apply to a glass or stone

impurity were Rabbinic in origin, the Rambam would not have to explain why it does not invalidate the previous days,

coffin (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 3:4).

it would be obvious. A Rabbinic decree cannot supercede Scriptural Law and according to Scriptural Law, it is forbidden for a nazirite to shave. As explained in the notes to Chapter 5, Halachah 15, there are times when the Rambam uses the term midivrei sofrim, which usually means "stemming from Rabbinic decree" to refer to matters that are of Scriptural origin, but derived by our Sages using the accepted principles of Biblical exegesis (see Hilchot Ishut 1:2; Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2). Similarly, with regard to the contraction of ritual impurity in question: Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, it could be considered of Scriptural origin, because it was derived through the laws of Biblical exegesis. Hence, the Rambam needs a derivation from a Scriptural source to explain why shaving is not required. 3. I.e., a fetus in a preliminary stage of development. 4. Whether still soft or dried (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:1). 5. The Rambam defines the term netzel at the conclusion of the halachah; see also Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:1. 6. More details concerning the impurity resulting from the bones of a corpse are discussed in Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:8-10.

14. For then its clothes would be mixed together with it. 15. For metal rusts and wood rots and thus the mass would contain something other than the corpse (ibid.). 16. For the concept of rekev applies only when there is one corpse. 17. Since the hair and/or nails were separated, they are considered as separate entities. 18. For the fetus is considered a separate entity. 19. Or covers them with part of his body or part of his body is covered by them, as stated in the following halachah. As indicated by Halachah 6, the unresolved doubt applies only with regard to the impurity resulting from being in the same shelter as this amount of a corpse's bones. If one touches a corpse, he becomes impure, no matter how small the quantity of bones he touches is. 20. In Halachah 2. 21. See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 1:10-11. 22. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohelot 2:2). 23. For the fetus is considered a separate entity. 24. Or a piece of a bone.

Shiurei Torah, 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish). Thus we

25. This is not a minimum measure; even a smaller portion of a bone is sufficient to make the nazirite impure (Radbaz).

are probably speaking of the bones of an infant or a fetus.

26. In Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:8 and in his Commentary to the

7. A kav is a relatively small measure (1376 cc according to

See Halachah 4.

Mishnah (Ohelot 1:8, 2:3) the Rambam explains that this

8. Whether still soft or dried (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:1).

concept is derived from the exegesis of Numbers 14:19:

9. A person becomes impure even when he comes into contact

"When a person dies in a tent." Implied is that the object that conveys impurity must clearly indicate that it comes from a

with a fourth of a kav of bones (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:9). Nevertheless, a nazirite is not required to shave unless there is a half a kav there. See Halachot 6-7.

person and this is not true of a bone this small. 27. For the fetus is considered a separate entity.

10. For a limb that is cut off from a living body is considered as if it was cut off from a corpse (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:3). 11. Half a log is 172 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 300 cc according to Chazon Ish. Even though one revi'it is sufficient to convey ritual impurity (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:12), for a nazirite to be required to shave, twice that amount is required. See also Halachah 6.

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

11 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...

writes that in the Diaspora, people are not as careful with

43. This expression indicates a ruling for which the Rambam does not have an explicit source in the previous Rabbinic

regard to burial and will bury a corpse anywhere. Accordingly, our Sages feared that perhaps a small portion of

literature, but instead derives through his own process of deduction.

a bone would become mixed together with earth. Hence, they decreed that all earth from the Diaspora -even if brought

The Rambam makes this deduction according to his interpretation of Nazir 7:3 which links these two matters with

to Eretz Yisrael - conveys ritual impurity. See also Hilchot

those mentioned in Halachah 6. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statement, maintaining that for this law to apply

28. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohelot 2:3), the Rambam

Tuma'at Meit 2:16. Based on Chapter 2, Halachot 21-22, we are forced to say that we are speaking about an instance where a nazirite from Eretz Yisrael came in contact with the earth of the Diaspora. If a nazirite vow is taken in the Diaspora, different laws apply as stated there (Radbaz). 29. For we fear that small pieces of the corpse's bones were strewn over the field and that the nazirite came in contact with one (ibid.). 30. But not because of an ohel (shelter). 31. See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 13:1-2 where the Rambam writes that for a shelter to convey ritual impurity according to Scriptural Law, the shelter must be a handbreadth by a handbreadth. 32. I.e., protrusions less than a handbreadth by a handbreadth. 33. Our text follows the authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a different - and somewhat difficult to comprehend - version. See the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 19:6 where the Rambam discusses this issue and states that such impurity is midivrei sofrim, "from the words of the Sages." 34. See the notes to Halachah 2. 35. As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 2, according to Scriptural Law, one is ritually impure. Nevertheless, the Oral Tradition teaches that a nazirite is not required to perform a shaving in this instance (Nazir 54a). 36. For the fetus is considered a separate entity. 37. I.e., the stone laid over the corpse. See the definition of this and the following term in Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:15. 38. Which serves as support for the gravestone. 39. I.e., enough flesh that would cause the flesh to regenerate as stated in Halachah 2. See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:3. 40. The Radbaz maintains that this applies to utensils other than those made of metal. Touching metal utensils requires a person to have the ashes of the Red Heifer. According to the Rambam, however, it appears that there is no difference between metal utensils and those of other substances.

the utensils must be touching the corpse at the time he is touching the utensils. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam would also accept this conception and states that it appears to be indicated by the Rambam's wording here. Others, however, note that the Rambam's wording in Hilchot Tuma'at Meit, loc. cit., does not lead to that conclusion. 44. Hilchot Tuma'at Meit, loc. cit. 45. Were the sprinkling of the ashes to be required, he would be required to shave. Hence, he would not be able to count them as part of his vow (Kessef Mishneh). This constitutes a difference between the subjects mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in Halachah 6. 46. A skin affliction with symptoms similar to that of leprosy, but rather than being merely a physical condition is a sign of spiritual impurity. 47. I.e., the priest has declared that he is afflicted by tzara'at, as stated in Leviticus 13:11. 48. As Leviticus 14:5-8 describes, when a person who was afflicted with tzara'at is purged of that affliction, he must bring sacrifices and shave his hair. Afterwards, he may enter the camp of the Jewish people, but may not dwell within his own tent for seven days. 49. Which is performed after these seven days (ibid.:9). 50. See Halachah 15 which states that during these days, his hair is not "holy." This state of ritual impurity does not, however, invalidate the days counted previously (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nazir 7:3). 51. I.e., the days prior to the determination of whether he truly is afflicted with tzara'at when we wait to evaluate whether a blemish that he possesses is tzara'at or not. See Leviticus 13:4-5; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 7:2. 52. Since he is not required to shave his hair off after the conclusion of these days, they are counted as part of his nazirite vow (Kessef Mishneh). 53. A man becomes a zav when he has an emission from his urinary tract similar, but not identical to that which results from gonorrhea. A woman becomes a zavah when she

41. Since the utensil is touching the corpse, touching the utensil

experiences vaginal bleeding at times other than would be

is considered equivalent to touching the corpse (Hilchot

expected due to her menstrual cycle. In both cases, the individuals are ritually impure. See Leviticus, ch. 15.

Tuma'at Meit 5:3). 42. Even though he must consider himself impure.

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

12 of 13

54. Here also, since emerging from this impurity does not involve shaving, these days are counted as part of his nazirite vow (Radbaz).

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...

63. Who is also forbidden to become impure due to contract with a corpse, but is commanded to bury a corpse if there is no one else to do so, as cited in note 56.

55. E.g., he became impure due to contact with a dead lizard or because of the emission of semen in which instance he is impure only for a day. 56. See the following halachah. 57. See Halachah 15. 58. I.e., he is commanded to fulfill his oath and prohibited against not fulfilling it.

64. I.e., limited to the span of his nazirite vow. 65. See Chapter 3, Halachah 11. Although such a person must observe the nazirite laws for all time, his state of holiness is not an intrinsic element of his being, but rather dependent on his desire to take the nazirite vow. Before he took the vow he was not obligated by these restrictions and he may have the vow absolved - and thus remove them. The holiness of a priest, by contrast, is an inherent element of his being, not

59. Even one who has not taken a vow.

dependent upon his choice or will (Lechem Mishneh; see

60. See Hilchot Shabbat 29:1, 6. There is a Scriptural obligation

also Radbaz, Hilchot Evel 3:9).

to recite these prayers, but the association with a cup of wine is Rabbinic in origin (Radbaz). 61. See Hilchot Evel 3:8 which elaborates concerning this matter with regard to the prohibition incumbent on priests not to come in contact with ritual impurity:

66. Even a span of time that he will never complete, e.g., 150 years, see Chapter 3, Halachah 12. 67. Even though shaving the hair on his head is forbidden. 68. See Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 11:1. 69. And hence, the nazirite should shave his hair.

When does the above apply? When the priest is alone and there is no one else with him; even when he calls out on the road, no one answers him. If, however, when he calls others answer, this is not considered an unattended corpse. Instead, he should call to the others and they should come and tend to [the corpse].

70. Halachah 9. 71. The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's ruling, but gives a different rationale: The commandments associated with the nazirite vow are considered as insubstantial, because the nazirite could appeal to have his nazirite vow absolved.

62. Even though it is a mitzvah for him to become impure and

Although the rationale given by the Ra'avad is mentioned in Yevamot 5a, the Rambam favors the reason he gave, for

bury the corpse, he is obligated to shave and bring sacrifices. All the days of his nazirite vow which he observed

there are some nazirites who do not have the option of absolving their nazirite vows (see Chapter 3, Halachah 14).

previously are invalidated.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

13 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983591/jewish/Nezirut-...

8/21/2019 4:23 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

1 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983592/jewish/Nezirut-...



Nezirut - Chapter 8 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nezirut - Chapter 7

What does the shaving [required after completion of the nazirite vow in] purity involve? When the nazirite completes [the observance of] the days of his nazirite vow, he should bring three animals [as sacrifices]: a male lamb for a burnt offering, a ewe1 as a sin offering,2 and a ram3 as a peace offering. [The following rules apply when a person] brought three animals, but did not specify [for which sacrifice each was designated]. The one fit to be offered as a sin offering should be offered as a sin offering. The one fit to be offered as a burnt offering should be offered as a burnt offering. And the one fit to be offered as a peace offering should be offered as a peace offering.4

English

Hebrew

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 9

‫תגלחת הטהרה כיצד היא כשיגמור‬ ‫הנזיר ימי נזירותו מביא שלש בהמות‬ ‫כבש לעולה וכבשה לחטאת ואיל לשלמים‬ ‫הביא שלשתן ולא פירש הראויה לחטאת‬ ‫תקריב חטאת והראויה לשלמים שלמים‬ ‫והראויה לעולה עולה ומביא עם איל‬ ‫השלמים ששה עשרונות ושני שלישי‬ ‫עשרון סולת אופה מהן עשרים חלה עשר‬ ‫חלות מצות ועשרה רקיקי מצות ומושח‬ ‫העשרים ברביעית שמן ושעור זה הלכה‬ :‫למשה מסיני ומביא העשרים בכלי אחד‬

Together with the ram brought as a peace offering, he should bring six and two thirds esronot5 of fine flour. He should bake twenty loaves from them: ten loaves of matzah6 and ten loaves of matzah wafers.7 He should pour a revi'it [of a log] of oil over these twenty [loaves]. This measure is a halachah transmitted to Moses at Sinai. The twenty loaves should be brought in one container.8

8/21/2019 4:24 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

2 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983592/jewish/Nezirut-...

He should slaughter the sin offering first,9 then the burnt offering, and then the peace offering. Afterwards, he should shave. If he shaved after bringing the sin offering or the burnt offering, he fulfills his obligation. He should cook the peace offering or boil it.10 He should take from the sauce of the peace offering and apply it to his hair. Afterwards, he should place the hair under the pot where the peace offering is cooking. If he placed it under the pot of the sin offering, he fulfilled his obligation.11

‫ושוחט החטאת תחלה ואחר כך‬ ‫העולה ואחר כך שלמים ואח"כ‬ ‫מגלח ואם גלח אחר ששחט החטאת או‬ ‫העולה יצא ומבשל השלמים או שלקן‬ ‫ולוקח מן הרוטב של זבחי השלמים ונותן‬ ‫על השער ואחר כך משליכו לאש תחת‬ ‫דוד השלמים ואם השליכו תחת החטאת‬ :‫יצא‬

Where does he shave his hair? In the Women's Courtyard,12 in the Chamber of the Nazirites that was in its southeastern corner. There they would cook their peace offerings13 and cast their hair into the fire. If he shaved outside the Temple,14 he fulfills his obligation. Whether he shaves outside the Temple or inside it, he should cast his hair under the pot.15

‫והיכן מגלח שערו בעזרת הנשים‬ ‫בלשכת הנזירים שהיתה שם בקרן‬ ‫מזרחית דרומית ושם מבשלין את שלמיהן‬ ‫ומשליכין שערן לאש ואם גלח במדינה‬ ‫יצא ובין שגלח במדינה ובין שגלח במקדש‬ ‫תחת הדוד הוא משליך שערו ואינו מגלח‬ ‫עד שיהיה פתח העזרה פתוח שנאמר‬ ‫פתח אהל מועד לא שיגלח כנגד הפתח‬ :‫שזה בזיון מקדש הוא‬

He should not shave until the entrance to the Temple courtyard is open, for [Numbers 6:18] states: "at the entrance16 to the Tent of Meeting." The intent is not that he should shave in front of the entrance of the Sanctuary, for that would be demeaning to the Sanctuary.17 Afterwards, the priest takes the roasted forearm of the ram, one matzah from the basket, and one wafer and places them on the palm of the nazirite18 or female nazirite and waves them.19 Afterwards, the nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to become impure due to contact with the dead.

‫ואח"כ נוטל הכהן את הזרוע בשלה‬ ‫מן האיל וחלת מצה אחת מן הסל‬ ‫ורקיק אחד ונותנן על כפי הנזיר או הנזירה‬ ‫ומניפן ואחר כך הותר הנזיר לשתות יין‬ :‫ולהטמא למתים‬

8/21/2019 4:24 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

3 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983592/jewish/Nezirut-...

A bald nazirite does not have to pass a razor over his head. Even though a nazirite, [a nazirite] does not have hair20 or does not have a palm21 may still bring his sacrifices. He [may] then drink [wine] and become impure. If he brought his sacrifices, but did not shave his head, [the failure] to shave does not prevent [the termination of his nazirite vow] and he may drink [wine] and become impure that evening.22 Once the blood from one [of the sacrifices] has been sprinkled for him, he is permitted although [the portions of the sacrifice] were not placed on his hand and he did not wave them. For all these factors are [the most desirable way of performing the mitzvah]; they are not an absolute requirement.

‫נזיר ממורט אינו צריך להעביר תער‬ ‫ואע"פ שאין לו שער או שאין לו‬ ‫כפים הרי זה מקריב קרבנותיו וישתה‬ ‫ויטמא ואם הביא קרבנותיו ולא גלח ראשו‬ ‫אין התגלחת מעכבת אלא שותה ומטמא‬ ‫לערב שמשיזרק עליו אחד הן הדמים‬ ‫הותר אף על פי שלא נתן על כפיו ולא‬ :‫הניף שכל דברים אלו למצוה ולא לעכב‬

Although the shaving is not an absolute requirement, it is a mitzvah [for the nazirite] to shave,23 even if an extensive time has past [since the completion of his nazirite vow].

‫אע"פ שאין התגלחת מעכב עליו מצוה‬ ‫לגלח אפילו לאחר זמן מרובה ונזיר‬ ‫שגלח בלא תער או שגלח ושייר שתי‬ ‫שערות לא עשה כלום ולא קיים מצות‬ :‫גלוח בין נזיר טהור בין נזיר טמא‬

When a nazirite shaves without using a razor24 or he shaved and left two hairs,25 it is as if he did nothing; he did not fulfill the mitzvah of shaving. [This applies] whether the nazirite is pure or impure. [When a nazirite] shaved, left two hairs, his hair grew back entirely, and he shaved [his head again, removing] those two hairs,26 or27 he shaved one and the other fell off, he has fulfilled the mitzvah of shaving.28 If one fell off and he shaved the other one, the mitzvah of shaving does not apply.29

‫גלח והניח שתי שערות וצמח ראשו‬ ‫כולו וחזר וגלחו עם אותן שתי‬ ‫השערות או שגלח אחת ונשרה אחת הרי‬ ‫זה קיים מצות גלוח נשרה אחת וגלח אחת‬ :‫אין כאן מצות גלוח‬

8/21/2019 4:24 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

4 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983592/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a nazirite shaved [his head] when his peace offering was brought and that offering was unacceptable,30 his shaving is also unacceptable and his sacrifices are not of consequence for him.31 If he shaved when his sin offering was brought and it was discovered that the sin offering was not slaughtered with that intent,32 and afterwards, he brought the peace offering and the burnt offering and offered them as required, his shaving is also unacceptable and his sacrifices are not of consequence for him.33

‫גלח על השלמים ונמצא פסול‬ ‫תגלחתו פסולה וזבחיו לא עלו לו‬ ‫גלח על החטאת ונמצאת שלא נשחטה‬ ‫לשם חטאת ואח"כ הביא השלמים והעולה‬ ‫והקריבן במצותן תגלחתו פסולה וזבחיו לא‬ :‫עלו לו‬

If he shaved [his head] when his burnt offering and peace offering were brought, but they were slaughtered for another intent,34 his shaving is also unacceptable and his sacrifices are not of consequence for him.35

‫גלח על העולה ועל השלמים ונשחטו‬ ‫שלא לשמן ואחר כך הביא קרבנות‬ ‫אחרות להקריבן לשמן תגלחתו פסולה‬ :‫וזבחיו לא עלו לו‬

If he shaved [his head] when he brought [all] three offerings and one of them was acceptable, his shaving is acceptable.36 [Afterwards,] he should bring the other offerings [that were not acceptable] and offer them in an acceptable manner.

‫גלח על שלשתן ונמצא אחד מהם כשר‬ ‫תגלחתו כשרה ויביא שאר הזבחים‬ :‫ויקרבו כהלכתן‬

Whenever we have said: "His shaving is unacceptable," he is considered as one who shaved in the midst of the days of his nazirite vow who invalidates 30 days [of observance] as explained.37 Thus he should observe [the laws of a nazirite for] 30 days after the unacceptable shaving and bring his sacrifices.38

‫כל מקום שאמרו תגלחתו פסולה‬ ‫הרי הוא כמי שנתגלח בתוך ימי‬ ‫נזירותו שהוא סותר שלשים יום כמו‬ ‫שבארנו ונמצא מונה שלשים יום אחר‬ :‫התגלחת הפסולה ויביא קרבנותיו‬

8/21/2019 4:24 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

5 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983592/jewish/Nezirut-...

The peace offerings of a nazirite that were slaughtered in a manner that did not conform to their requirements39 are acceptable,40 but they do not fulfill the obligations of [the nazirite] who brought them.41 They may only be eaten for one day42 and they need not [be accompanied by] bread,43 nor are they placed [on the nazirite's hand for waving],44 nor is the foreleg [given to the priest].

‫שלמי נזיר ששחטן שלא כמצותן‬ ‫כשרים ואין עולים לבעלים לשם‬ ‫חובה ונאכלין ליום אחד ואין טעונין לחם‬ :‫ולא מתנות ולא זרוע‬

These three animals and the bread that accompanies them all must come from ordinary property45 as is true with regard to other vows to sanctify offerings, as will be explained in the appropriate place.46

‫שלש בהמות אלו והלחם הבא‬ ‫עמהם הכל מן החולין כשאר נדרי‬ :‫הקדש כמו שיתבאר במקומו‬

When a person says: "I am becoming a nazirite on the condition that when I perform the shaving, I will be able to bring my sacrifices using [money exchanged for] the second tithe,"47 he becomes a nazirite, but he should not bring his sacrifices using such funds. Instead, [he must purchase them] with ordinary funds.48

‫האומר הריני נזיר על מנת שאגלח‬ ‫ממעות מעשר שני הרי זה נזיר‬ ‫ואינו מביא קרבנותיו מן המעשר אלא מן‬ :‫החולין‬

8/21/2019 4:24 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

6 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983592/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a man takes a vow to become a nazirite, he may bring sacrifices set aside by his father for this purpose.49 A woman, by contrast, may not perform the shaving using the sacrifices of her father.50 This is a halachah conveyed by the Oral Tradition. What is implied? A person's father took a nazirite vow, set aside money to purchase sacrifices [to offer on the completion of that vow], but died [before he could offer them]. [The money] was left without being designated for any specific purpose.51 After his father died, he said: "I am a nazirite on the condition that I am able to bring my sacrifices from the money which my father set aside for his sacrifices," he may bring his sacrifices from these [funds]. Similarly, if he and his father were nazirites and his father set aside money [for his sacrifices] without designating it for a specific offering and then died, if, after the father's death, the son said: "I will perform the shaving with the sacrifices of my father," he may bring his sacrifices from these [funds].52 If he does not make these statements,53 the money should be used for freewill [offerings].54

‫האיש שנדר בנזיר יש לו להביא‬ ‫קרבנות אביו לעצמו ומגלח עליהם‬ ‫ואין האשה מגלחת על קרבנות אביה ודבר‬ ‫זה הלכה מפי הקבלה הוא כיצד מי שהיה‬ ‫אביו נזיר והפריש מעות לקנות בהן‬ ‫קרבנותיו ומת והניח המעות סתומין ואמר‬ ‫אחרי מות אביו הריני נזיר על מנת שאביא‬ ‫קרבנותי ממעות שהפריש בהן אבי‬ ‫לקרבנותיו הרי זה מביא מהן קרבנותיו וכן‬ ‫אם היה הוא ואביו נזירים והפריש אביו‬ ‫מעות סתומין ומת האב ואמר הבן אחר‬ ‫מות אביו הריני מגלח על מעות אבי הרי‬ ‫זה מביא קרבנותיו מהן אבל אם לא אמר‬ ‫יפלו המעות לנדבה מת האב והניח בנים‬ ‫רבים חולקים המעות הסתומים מפני‬ ‫שהיא ירושה להן ויש לכל אחד מהן לגלח‬ :‫על חלקו והבכור נוטל בהן פי שנים‬

If the father died and left many sons, they should divide the money that was not specified [among themselves], because it is their inheritance. Each one may perform the shaving [with sacrifices purchased] from his portion.55 The firstborn receives a double portion.56 Whether the father was a nazirite for all time57 and the son was a nazirite for a limited time or the father was a nazirite for a limited time and the son was a nazirite for all time, [the son] may perform the shaving and bring his sacrifices from the money [designated] for the nazirite vow of his father.

‫בין שהיה האב נזיר עולם והבן נזיר‬ ‫זמן קצוב בין שהיה האב נזיר זמן‬ ‫קצוב והבן נזיר עולם הרי זה מגלח ומביא‬ :‫קרבנותיו ממעות נזירות אביו‬

8/21/2019 4:24 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

7 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983592/jewish/Nezirut-...

If the father set aside money to bring the sacrifices [that are required when a nazirite emerges from] impurity and dies, the sons may not use that money to purchase sacrifices [that are offered when one completes the nazirite vow in] purity.58 Similarly, if the father set them aside for the sacrifices [offered when one completes the nazirite vow in] purity, the son may not use them for the shaving [and the sacrifices required when a nazirite emerges from] impurity. [There is] an unresolved doubt whether this [is acceptable]. If he brought his sacrifices from such funds, he is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation.59

‫הפריש האב מעות להביא בהן‬ ‫קרבנות טומאה ומת אין הבן מביא‬ ‫בהן קרבנות טהרה וכן אם הפרישן האב‬ ‫לקרבן טהרה אין הבן מגלח עליהן תגלחת‬ ‫טומאה שדברים אלו הן ספק ואם הביא‬ :‫זבחיו לא עלו לו‬

If a person says: "It is my responsibility to perform the shaving for a nazirite," he is obligated to bring the sacrifices required when a nazirite [completes his vow] in purity. He may have them offered by any nazirite that he desires. If he said: "I am obligated to bring half of the sacrifices of a nazirite," or he said: "It is my responsibility to [provide the means for] half the shaving for a nazirite,"60 he is obligated to bring half the sacrifices [required of] any nazirite he desires. That nazirite should bring the remainder of his sacrifices from his own funds. If, however, he said: "I am obligated to bring the sacrifices of half a nazirite," he must bring all of the sacrifices of a nazirite, for there is no concept of being half a nazirite.61

‫האומר הרי עלי לגלח נזיר חייב‬ ‫להביא קרבנות תגלחת טהרה‬ ‫ומקריבן על יד איזה נזיר שירצה אמר הרי‬ ‫עלי חצי קרבנות נזיר או אם אמר הרי עלי‬ ‫לגלח חצי נזיר הרי זה מביא חצי הקרבנות‬ ‫לאיזה נזיר שירצה ואותו נזיר משלים‬ ‫קרבנותיו משלו אבל אם אמר הרי עלי‬ ‫קרבנות חצי נזיר הרי זה מביא קרבנות‬ :‫נזיר שלם שאין לנו חצי נזירות‬

8/21/2019 4:24 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

8 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983592/jewish/Nezirut-...

When one says: "I am becoming a nazirite and I accept the responsibility to [provide the means for] the shaving for a nazirite," and his colleague says: "And so am I," the colleague is a nazirite, but he is not obligated to [provide the means for] the shaving, for he only included himself in his colleague's statements with regard to becoming a nazirite. If he said: "And so am I, and I accept the responsibility to [provide the means for] the shaving for a nazirite," he is obligated [for this as well]. If they are clever, each one should bring sacrifices provided by his colleague.62 If they do not do this, they are each obligated to [provide the means for] the shaving of other nazirites.

‫האומר הריני נזיר ועלי לגלח נזיר‬ ‫ושמע חבירו ואמר ואני הרי חבירו‬ ‫נזיר ואינו חייב לגלח נזיר אחר שהרי לא‬ ‫התפיס עצמו אלא בנזירות ואם אמר ואני‬ ‫ועלי לגלח נזיר הרי זה חייב ואם היו פקחין‬ ‫מביא כל אחד מהן קרבנות על ידי חבירו‬ ‫ואם לא עשו כן חייבים לגלח נזירות‬ :‫אחרים‬

If one says: "[I am a nazirite and]63 it is my responsibility to [provide the means for] half the shaving for a nazirite," and his colleague hears and says: "And I also am a nazirite and I also accept the responsibility to [provide the means for] half the shaving for a nazirite," [they are both nazirites]. If they are clever, one should bring half the sacrifices of the other and the second should bring half the sacrifices of the first and then each one should complete the [required] sacrifices [from his own resources]. If not, [in addition to bringing their own sacrifices,] each one must bring half the sacrifices of any nazirite he chooses.

‫האומר הרי עלי לגלח חצי נזיר ושמע‬ ‫חבירו ואמר ואני ועלי לגלח חצי נזיר‬ ‫זה מביא חצי קרבנותיו של זה וזה מביא‬ ‫חצי קרבנותיו של זה וכל אחד מהן משלים‬ ‫קרבנותיו אם היו פקחין ואם לאו זה מביא‬ ‫חצי קרבנות מאיזה נזיר שירצה וזה מביא‬ :‫קרבנות מאיזה נזיר שירצה‬

« Previous

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 9

Nezirut - Chapter 7 FOOTNOTES 1. Both the ewe and the lamb must be less than a year old (Numbers 6:14).

3. At least two years old.

2. See Hilchot De'ot 3:1 where the Rambam quotes Ta'anit 11a

4. Although the ewe is also fit to be brought as a peace offering, since it is the only one fit to be brought as a sin

that states that a nazirite is required to bring a sin offering, because he abstained from drinking wine and elaborates on

offering, we designate it for such and use the male lamb for the peace offering.

the negative aspects of an ascetic existence.

8/21/2019 4:24 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

9 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983592/jewish/Nezirut-...

5. An isaron is equivalent to the size of 43.2 eggs. In modern

18. The Rambam is quoting Numbers 6:19-20. See Hilchot

measure, the size of an egg is 57.6 cc according to Shiurei

Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:9, where the Rambam writes that

Torah, and 99.5 cc according to Chazon Ish.

(because it is a peace offering) he must also wave the ram's breast and thigh and the inner portions of the animal that

6. These loaves were made from a mixture of flour, water, and oil. The oil was adder to the batter before they were baked (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:21). 7. These wafers were made with flour and water. After they were baked, oil was poured over them (ibid.:23). 8. Numbers 6:17 speaks of "the basket of matzot." 9. The order of the rituals outlined by the Rambam follows the order in which they are mentioned in Numbers 6:15-18. This explanation may clarify the questions raised by the Kessef Mishneh. 10. Rav Avraham MinHaHer interprets this term as meaning boiling it with water alone, without spices. 11. Although Numbers 6:15 mentions the peace offering since uses the word zevach, offering and that term can also be applied to the sin offering, putting the hair under the sin offering is acceptable (Nazir 45b). 12. The courtyard before the Temple itself. It was given this name, because women were allowed to congregate on balconies there at certain times. See Hilchot

Beit

HaBechirah 5:7-9. 13. The sin offerings had to be cooked within the Temple Courtyard and the burnt offerings were placed on the fire of the altar.

were offered on the altar. 19. The priest puts his hand beneath the hand of the nazirite and moves these sacred articles up, down, and to each of the four compass directions. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:5). 20. To shave. 21. To wave the sacrifices. 22. The Radbaz states that this is understandable if he brings his offerings on the thirtieth day of his nazirite vow, for until he completes thirty days of observance, he is bound by the terms of the vow. He questions why, however, the sacrifice is itself is not sufficient if it is brought on the thirty-first day or afterwards. The Or Sameach explains that on any day, until sunset, he is given the option of bringing his hair to the Chamber of the Nazirites and burning it there. From the evening onward, that option is no longer viable. Hence until he either burns his hair there or the evening arrives, he is not able to drink wine. 23. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 93) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 377) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The mitzvah includes both the shaving performed after the conclusion of the nazirite vow in

14. We have translated the term mikdash as "Temple," for that is

purity and that performed after a nazirite emerges from impurity.

the most apparent meaning and most authorities understand it being used in this context. The Radbaz, however, notes

24. From the fact that Numbers 6:9 mentions a razor in the prohibition against a nazirite cutting his hair, Nazir 40a

that in certain contexts (see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 4:1), the Rambam interprets the term mikdash as referring to the city of Jerusalem as a whole. And in his commentary to Ma'aser Sheni 3:4, he states that the term medinah (the term used in this halachah) refers to cities outside Jerusalem. 15. The Radbaz understands the Rambam as implying that even when one shaves outside of Jerusalem, he should send his hair to have it cast under the fire in the Chamber of the Nazirites. Not all authorities share this view. 16. The Hebrew words petach, "entrance," and patuach, "open," share the same root. Seemingly, the gate to the Temple building must also be open. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:5. 17. The Chamber of the Nazirites where he would shave is, by contrast, a private place.

deducts that a razor should be used in the shaving process. 25. For in several halachic contexts, two hairs are considered as significant entities. 26. Since he let his hair grow back, he must shave his entire head, not merely the two hairs left initially. Note the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh who explain that the Rambam shares the approach of Tosafot with regard to the interpretation of Nazir 42a. 27. Before his hair started to grow back. 28. Since there were two hairs at the time he started shaving and ultimately, there were none remaining, he is considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah. 29. For at the time he began acting, the mitzvah of shaving no longer applied. 30. E.g., its blood was spilled before it was poured on the altar; alternatively, it came in contact with impurity and was thus invalidated.

8/21/2019 4:24 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

10 of 12

31. The rationale is that since he cut his hair off in an unacceptable manner, i.e., since the sacrifice was unacceptable, his shaving was unacceptable, the sacrifices he offers afterwards are also not acceptable. 32. But rather for the sake of another type of sacrifice. This disqualifies the sin offering (Hilchot Pesulei Hamukdashim 15:1). 33. Since the sin offering was unacceptable, the shaving is unacceptable. Accordingly, the sacrifices he offered afterwards are also unacceptable. 34. In such an instance, the sacrifices are acceptable (i.e., the appropriate portions can be offered on the altar and the others eaten), but the person who brings them is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation (ibid.). Accordingly, the nazirite is considered as having shaved his head before he was allowed to. 35. Since the shaving is unacceptable, the sin offering he brought afterwards is also unacceptable.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983592/jewish/Nezirut-...

46. Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 16:15. The rationale is that since he is obligated to bring these offerings, they must be brought from resources that belong to him entirely (Radbaz). 47. The second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there in a state of ritual purity. If a person lives outside Jerusalem, the Torah gives him the option of redeeming the second tithe with its worth and taking that money to Jerusalem to purchase food to be eaten there in a state of ritual purity. Although money with which the second tithe was redeemed may be used to purchase voluntary peace offerings, it may not be used to purchase the peace offerings of a nazirite, as indicated by the previous halachah. 48. The rationale is that as soon as he says: "I am becoming a nazirite," he must observe the restrictions associated with a nazirite vow. The statement: "on the condition that..." does not take effect, because it was made after he become obligated to observe the nazirite restrictions (Rashi, Beitzah 20a). From this, Tosafot concludes that if he reverses the

36. For as stated in Halachah 5, as long as one of the sacrifices

order of the clauses, saying: "On the condition that when I perform the shaving, I will be able to bring my sacrifices

was brought in an acceptable manner, he is considered to have concluded his nazirite vow.

using [money exchanged for] the second tithe, I will become a nazirite," he may bring his sacrifices from such funds.

37. Chapter 6, Halachah 1. 38. Shaving his hair again.

49. This law applies when the nazirite is the sole heir, as stated at the conclusion of the halachah.

39. E.g., it was not offered for the sake of a peace offering or the

50. Even if she is her father's sole heir (Nazir 30a).

ram was less than two years old. 40. The portions appropriate for the altar may be offered there and one may partake of the meat. They are considered as peace offerings that were offered voluntarily. 41. To fulfill the obligations of his nazirite vow, he must bring a different sacrifice. 42. As is the rule governing the peace offerings of a nazirite. Peace offerings that are brought voluntarily may be eaten for two days and the intervening night. 43. As is required for a peace offering of a nazirite (see Halachah 1). 44. As is required for a peace offering of a nazirite (see Halachah 4). This interpretation is based on the explanations of the Or Sameach. The Merkevet HaMishneh quotes the Orach Mishor who suggests amending the text so that it reads "they require presents" - i.e., the breast and the thigh that are given to a priest in connection with a voluntarily

51. I.e., he did not specify which coins should used to purchase a particular type of sacrifice. See Chapter 9, Halachot 3-4. 52. I.e., even though when he took the nazirite vow, he did not have the intent to use the money set aside by his father because his father was alive at that time - he may use it for his vow. 53. Even if he was a nazirite himself (Radbaz). 54. Burnt offerings brought as an embellishment to the altar. 55. The remainder of the costs of the sacrifices, he must add from his own funds. 56. As he does with regard to other aspects of the inheritance. It is necessary to clarify this point, because one might think that since this money is not the sons' personal property, he would not be given this extra portion. 57. See Chapter 3, Halachot 11-12, which explain that a nazirite for all time performs a shaving once a year and brings three sacrifices at that time.

peace offering - "but not the foreleg" - which is given to the priest in connection with a Nazirite's peace offering.

58. He may, however, use the funds to bring the sacrifices

45. I.e., the sacrificial animals may not have been consecrated

required when he becomes impure and emerges from impurity.

previously and the bread may not come from terumah or the second tithe.

8/21/2019 4:24 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

11 of 12

59. The commentaries raise questions regarding this ruling, because the unresolved doubt raises questions in either direction. For just as it is possible that he did not fulfill his obligation by bringing the sacrifices with the money set aside by his father, it is possible that he did. Hence, were he to bring sacrifices with his own funds, they would be unnecessary and he would be slaughtering ordinary animals in the Temple courtyard (a serious transgression). There is a way to avoid this difficulty, for him to offer his second set of sacrifices conditionally, i.e., making a stipulation: "If the first set of sacrifices were acceptable, then these are voluntarily offerings. If, however, the first set were unacceptable, then these are the offerings required" (Kessef Mishneh). This approach is, however, still somewhat problematic,

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983592/jewish/Nezirut-...

60. We have chosen a translation that reflects more the halachic meaning of the person's statements than the words' literal meaning. 61. See Chapter 3, Halachah 8. The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify it, based on the interpretation of Nazir 12b. 62. By bringing each other's sacrifices, they fulfill their vows to provide for the shaving of another nazirite and fulfill their obligations for their own nazirite vows. If they do not do this, they must each bring the sacrifices for their own vows and the sacrifices for another nazirite. 63. This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz.

because a sin offering may not be brought as a voluntary offering. Therefore, the Lechem Mishneh (in his gloss to the conclusion of Chapter 10) states that he should bring only a sin offering of a fowl which is brought when there is a doubt (see Chapter 10, Halachah 8, and notes). And the Lechem Mishneh continues, he need not bring a burnt offering and a peace offering at all. They are not of fundamental importance and the offerings he brought originally are sufficient for him.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:24 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

12 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983592/jewish/Nezirut-...

8/21/2019 4:24 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

1 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...



Nezirut - Chapter 9 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nezirut - Chapter 8

English

Hebrew

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 10

[The following rules apply when a person] sets aside money for the sacrifices of nazirites,1 those sacrifices were offered, and there is money left over. He should bring sacrifices of other nazirites with those funds,2 for the remainder of money [set aside for] nazirite [offerings should be used] for nazirite [offerings].3 If one set aside money for his own nazirite [offering] without specifying for which sacrifice it should be used4 and money was left over, the remaining funds should be used for freewill offerings.5

‫המפריש מעות שיקריב מהן קרבנות‬ ‫נזירים והקריב מהן והותירו יביאו‬ ‫במותרן קרבנות נזירים אחרים שמותר‬ ‫נזירים לנזירים הפריש מעות סתומין‬ :‫לנזירותו והותירו יפלו המותרות לנדבה‬

When a person set aside money that was designated for specific purposes for his nazirite offering and money was left over, the remainder of the funds set aside for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering. The remainder of the funds set aside for the sin offering should be brought to the Dead Sea.6 The remainder of the funds set aside for the peace offering should be used for a peace offering. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.7 It is eaten for one day.8

‫המפריש מעות מפורשין לנזירותו‬ ‫והותירו מותר מעות העולה יבאו‬ ‫עולה ומותר החטאת יוליכם לים המלח‬ ‫ומותר דמי השלמים יבאו שלמים ואין‬ :‫טעונין לחם ונאכלין ליום אחד‬

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

2 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...

[The following rules apply when a person] set aside money for [sacrifices for] his nazirite vow and died. If the money was not designated for specific sacrifices, it should be used for freewill offerings.9 If the money had been designated for specific sacrifices, the funds set aside for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering. The funds set aside for the sin offering should be brought to the Dead Sea.10 The funds set aside for the peace offering should be used for a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.

‫המפריש מעות לנזירותו ומת אם היו‬ ‫סתומין יפלו לנדבה היו מפורשין דמי‬ ‫עולה ]יבואו עולה[ דמי חטאת ילכו לים‬ ‫המלח דמי שלמים יבאו שלמים ונאכלין‬ :‫ליום אחד ואין טעונין לחם‬

What is meant by money not designated for specific sacrifices? For example, [a nazirite] set aside money to use to bring his sacrifices and did not say anything. If, however, he said: "This is for my obligation," it is as if they have been designated for a specific purpose.11 Needless to say, that if he says: "This [money] is for my burnt offering, sin offering, and peace offering," the money is considered as set aside for a specific purpose.

‫כיצד הם המעות הסתומין כגון‬ ‫שהפריש מעות להביא מהן קרבנותיו‬ ‫ולא אמר כלום אבל אם אמר אלו לחובתי‬ ‫הרי אלו כמפורשין ואין צריך לומר אם‬ ‫אמר אלו לעולתו ולחטאתי ולשלמי שהן‬ :‫כמפורשין‬

When a person sets aside an animal with a blemish12 [for his sacrifice], it is as if he set aside money without designating it for a specific purpose. Similarly, if he set aside a slab of silver or of gold or a utensil, it is as if he set aside money without designating it for a specific purpose.13 [This applies] even if he said: "This is for my burnt offering, sin offering, and peace offering."

‫המפריש בהמה בעלת מום הרי היא‬ ‫כמעות סתומין וכן המפריש לשון של‬ ‫כסף ושל זהב או כלי אף על פי שאמר זה‬ ‫לחטאתי ולעולתי ולשלמי הרי הוא כמעות‬ :‫סתומין‬

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

3 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a person says: "These [funds] are for my sin offering and the remainder is for my nazirite offering" and dies or a woman made such statements and then her husband nullified her nazirite vow,14 the money for the sin offering should be brought to the Dead Sea. Half of the remainder of the money should be used for a burnt offering and half for a peace offering.

‫האומר אלו לחטאתי והשאר לנזירותי‬ ‫ומת או שהיתה אשה והפר לה בעלה‬ ‫דמי חטאת ילכו לים המלח והשאר יבאו‬ :‫בחציין עולה ובחציין שלמים‬

If he says: "These [funds] are for my burnt offering and the remainder is for my nazirite offering" [and dies], the money for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering and the remainder should be used for freewill offerings.15

‫אמר אלו לעולתי והשאר לנזירותי דמי‬ :‫עולה יבאו עולה והשאר יפלו לנדבה‬

When a person thought that he was obligated in a nazirite vow and set aside his sacrifices and then inquired of a sage who told him that [his statements] do not constitute a vow and he is not obligated to be a nazirite, what should he do with the sacrifices that he set aside? They should go and pasture with the rest of the herd.16 For they were consecrated in error and that consecration is not binding, as will be explained in the appropriate place.17

‫מי שדמה שהוא חייב בנזירות‬ ‫והפריש קרבנותיו ואח"כ שאל‬ ‫לחכם והורהו שאין זה נדר ואינו חייב‬ ‫בנזירות מה יעשה בקרבנות שהפריש‬ ‫יצאו וירעו בעדר שזה הקדש טעות שאינו‬ :‫הקדש כמו שיתבאר במקומו‬

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

4 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...

[The following rules apply when] a woman takes a nazirite vow and set aside her sacrifices and afterwards, her husband nullified her vow. If the animal belonged to him, it should go out and pasture in the herd,18 for a person cannot consecrate an article that does not belong to him.19 If the [animals set aside for] sacrifices were hers and her husband did not own any part of them, e.g., they were given to her as a present on the condition that her husband have no authority over them, but instead, she could do whatever she wants with them,20 the sin offering should be left to die,21 the burnt offering should be sacrificed as a burnt offering, and the peace offering should be sacrificed as a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.22

‫האשה שנדרה בנזיר והפרישה‬ ‫קרבנותיה ואחר כך הפר לה בעלה‬ ‫אם שלו היתה הבהמה תצא ותרעה בעדר‬ ‫שאין אדם מקדיש דבר שאינו שלו ואם‬ ‫היו הקרבנות משלה ואין לבעלה בהן כלום‬ ‫כגון שנתנו לה במתנה על מנת שלא יהיה‬ ‫לבעל בהן רשות אלא מה שתרצה תעשה‬ ‫בהן החטאת תמות והעולה תקרב עולה‬ ‫והשלמים יקרבו שלמים ונאכלין ליום אחד‬ :‫ואינן טעונין לחם‬

If [a woman] set aside money that was not designated for specific sacrifices, it should be used to purchase freewill offerings. If it was designated for specific purposes, the funds set aside for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering. The funds set aside for the sin-offering should be brought to the Dead Sea. The funds set aside for the peace offering should be used for a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.

‫הפרישה מעות סתומין לקרבנותיה‬ ‫יפלו לנדבה היו מפורשין דמי חטאת‬ ‫ילכו לים המלח ודמי עולה יבאו עולה ודמי‬ ‫שלמים יבאו שלמים ונאכלין ליום אחד‬ :‫ואינן טעונין לחם‬

When a woman took a nazirite vow and became ritually impure [due to contact with a corpse] in the midst of the days of her nazirite vow, and afterwards her husband heard of her vow and nullified it, she must [still] bring the sacrifices [required when a nazirite] becomes ritually impure.23

‫האשה שנדרה בנזיר ונטמאת‬ ‫בתוך ימי נזירות ואח"כ שמע‬ ‫בעלה והפר לה הרי זו מביאה קרבן‬ :‫טומאה‬

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

5 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a father binds his son to a nazirite vow24 and set aside sacrifices, but the son did not desire this nazirite vow and he or his relatives objected or he shaved himself or his relatives shaved him,25 the sin offering should be left to die, the burnt offering should be sacrificed as a burnt offering, and the peace offering should be sacrificed as a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.26 If he set aside money that was not designated for specific sacrifices, it should be used to purchase freewill offerings. If it was designated for specific purposes, the funds set aside for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering. The funds set aside for the sin-offering should be brought to the Dead Sea. The funds set aside for the peace offering should be used for a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread. When a person says: "I will be a nazirite when a son is born to me," and sets aside a sacrifice, his wife miscarries27 and then she gives birth,28 the status of the sacrifices is questionable.29 It is forbidden to shear them or perform labor with them.30

‫האיש שהדיר את בנו בנזיר‬ ‫והפריש עליה קרבנותיו ולא רצה‬ ‫הבן בנזירות זו ומחה הוא או קרוביו או‬ ‫שגלח הוא או שגלחוהו קרוביו החטאת‬ ‫תמות והעולה תקרב עולה והשלמים יקרבו‬ ‫שלמים ונאכלין ליום אחד ואינן טעונין‬ ‫לחם הפריש לו מעות סתומים הרי אלו‬ ‫יפלו לנדבה היו מעות מפורשין דמי חטאת‬ ‫ילכו לים המלח דמי עולה יבואו עולה דמי‬ ‫שלמים יבואו שלמים ואינן טעונין לחם‬ :‫ונאכלין ליום אחד‬

‫האומר הריני נזיר כשיהיה לי בן‬ ‫והפריש קרבן והפילה אשתו וחזרה‬ ‫וילדה הרי הקרבנות ספק ואסורין בגיזה‬ :‫ובעבודה‬

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

6 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...

[A question arises when] there are two nazirites; one became ritually impure [due to contact with a corpse] and it is not known which of them became ritually impure.31 How should they bring their sacrifices?32 They should bring the sacrifices33 [required when emerging from] impurity and the sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity at the conclusion of the span of their nazirite vow.34 One of them then says: "If I was the one who became impure, the sacrifices [to emerge from] impurity are mine and the sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity are yours. If I am the one who is ritually pure, the sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity are mine and the sacrifices [to emerge from] impurity are yours."35

‫שני נזירים שנטמא אחד מהם ואין‬ ‫ידוע מי הוא כיצד מביאין‬ ‫קרבנותיהן מביאין קרבן טומאה וקרבן‬ ‫טהרה במלאת ימי נזירותם ואומר אחד‬ ‫מהם אם אני הוא הטמא קרבן טומאה שלי‬ ‫וקרבן טהרה שלך ואם אני הוא הטהור‬ ‫קרבן טהורה שלי וקרבן טומאה שלך‬ ‫וסופרים ימי נזירות אחרת גמורה מאחר‬ ‫קרבנות אלו וחוזרין ומביאין קרבן טהרה‬ ‫ואומר אחד מהן אם אני הוא שהייתי טמא‬ ‫קרבן טומאה שלי וקרבן טהרה שלך וזה‬ ‫קרבן טהרתי אם אני הוא הטהור קרבן‬ ‫טהרה שלי וקרבן טומאה שלך וזה קרבן‬ ‫טהרתך נמצאו שלא הפסידו בקרבנותיהן‬ :‫כלום‬

After bringing these sacrifices, they [both] then count the full span of another nazirite vow36and bring another [set of] sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity.37 They then bring38 the sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity and one says: "If I was the one who was ritually impure, the sacrifices [brought previously to mark the emergence from] impurity were mine and the sacrifices [brought to mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity were yours and these are the sacrifices [that mark my completion of a nazirite vow in] purity. If I was the one who was ritually pure, the sacrifices [brought previously to mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity were mine and those [brought to mark the emergence from] impurity were yours. And these are the sacrifices [that mark your completion of a nazirite vow in] purity."39Thus neither one lost anything [in bringing] these sacrifices.40

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

7 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...

If one of them dies, [the other] must bring a fowl as a sin-offering41and an animal as a burnt offering42 and say: "If I became impure, the sin offering fulfills my obligation and the burnt offering is a freewill offering. If I was pure, the burnt offering is my obligation and the fowl brought as a sin-offering is [because of] the doubt." He then counts the full span of another nazirite vow43 and brings the sacrifices44 [required when completing a nazirite vow in] purity. He should say: "If I was impure, the first burnt offering I brought is a freewill offering and this is the sacrifice that I am obligated to bring. If I was pure, then the first burnt offering was obligatory. This is a freewill offering and these are the remainder of my sacrifices."

‫מת אחד מהן הרי זה מביא חטאת‬ ‫העוף ועולת בהמה ויאמר אם‬ ‫טמא הייתי החטאת מחובתי והעולה נדבה‬ ‫ואם טהור הייתי העולה מחובתי וחטאת‬ ‫העוף ספק וסופר ימי נזירות אחרת ומביא‬ ‫קרבן טהרה ואומר אם טמא הייתי העולה‬ ‫הראשונה נדבה וזו חובה ואם טהור הייתי‬ ‫העולה הראשונה חובה וזו נדבה וזה שאר‬ ‫קרבני ואין אחד משניהם מגלח תגלחת‬ ‫טומאה אלא אם כן היו קטנים או נשים‬ :‫שאין אלו מקיפין פאת ראשם מספק‬

[In these instances,] neither of them45 perform the shaving [to emerge from] ritual impurity unless they are minors or women.46 [The rationale is that] these individuals should not shave their heads because of a doubt.47

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

8 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...

How could a doubt arise for them with regard to whether they contracted ritual impurity? For example, two nazirites were standing in a private domain where the ruling is that if a doubt concerning ritual purity arises in a private domain, the person is considered impure.48 A person who was standing outside saw them and said: "I saw that one of you became impure, but I do not know which one it is." If, however, this witness is together with them in the courtyard, they are both ritually pure. [The rationale is that] since there are three of them, they are considered as "many people." And when there are many people in a private domain, when a doubt arises concerning them, they are ritually pure like a doubt concerning ritual impurity in the public domain as will be explained in its place.49

‫וכיצד יולד להם ספק זה בטומאה‬ ‫כגון שהיו שני הנזירין עומדין‬ ‫ברשות היחיד שספק טומאה שם טמא‬ ‫והיה אחד מבחוץ רואה אותן ואמר ראיתי‬ ‫אחד מכם שנטמא ואיני יודע מי הוא אבל‬ ‫אם היה עד זה עמהן בחצר הרי שניהן‬ ‫טהורין כיון שהם שלשה הרי הן רבים‬ ‫ורבים ברשות היחיד ספקן טהור כספק‬ ‫טומאה ברשות הרבים שהוא טהור כמו‬ :‫שיתבאר במקומו‬

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

9 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...

When does the above apply? When both nazirites remain silent or the matter is doubtful for them. If, however, one of them says: "I did not become ritually impure," even if two witnesses testify that he became impure, he does not bring a sacrifice because of their statements. His statement: "I did not become ritually impure," can be understood to mean: "I will not bring a sacrifice [because of] impurity, because I have already asked [a sage] to absolve my vow." Thus he is not contradicting the witnesses and a person's word is accepted with regard to his own person.50 If, however, he remained silent or was in doubt concerning the matter, he should bring a sacrifice even when the cause is the testimony of one witness, as we explained [above] Similarly, if a witness tells a person: "You took a nazirite vow in my presence" and that person disputes the matter, he is not liable for anything.51 If he does not dispute the matter, he must observe [the restrictions of] a nazirite vow because of his statements.

‫במה דברים אמורים כששתקו‬ ‫הנזירים שניהם או נסתפק להן הדבר‬ ‫אבל אם אמר אחד מהן אני לא נטמאתי‬ ‫אפילו שני עדים מעידים עליו שנטמא אינו‬ ‫מביא קרבן על פיהם שזה שאמר לא‬ ‫נטמאתי כאומר איני מביא בטומאה שכבר‬ ‫נשאלתי על נזירותי ונמצא שאינו מכחיש‬ ‫את העדים ואדם נאמן על ידי עצמו אבל‬ ‫אם שתק או נסתפק לו הרי זה מביא קרבן‬ ‫אפילו על פי עד אחד כמו שבארנו וכן עד‬ ‫שאמר לאחד בפני נדרת בנזירות אם‬ ‫הכחישו אינו חייב כלום ואם לא הכחישו‬ ‫נוהג נזירותו על פיו אפילו אמר לשנים‬ ‫ראיתי אחד מכם שנזר ואיני יודע מי הוא‬ ‫הואיל ואין מכחישין אותו נוהגין נזירות על‬ ‫פיו נהג נזירות על פי עד אחד ושתה יין או‬ ‫נטמא והתרו בו ]שנים[ לוקה אף על פי‬ :‫שעיקר הנזירות בעד אחד‬

Even if [a person] told two others, "I saw one of you take a nazirite vow, but I do not know which of you it was," since [neither of them] dispute his statements, they both must observe a nazirite vow, because of his statements. If a person observed a nazirite vow because of the statements of one witness and drank wine or became impure [due to contact with a corpse] and two witnesses administered a warning, he is given lashes even though the fundamental dimension of the testimony is dependent on one witness.52

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

10 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...

When a corpse was lying across the breadth of a path53 and a nazirite walked by there, he is pure. [This applies] even if the only way to pass was [to step] over the corpse54 or to touch it and even if it was a source of impurity that was known.55 [The rationale is that when there is] an unresolved doubt concerning ritual impurity in the public domain, [we consider the person] pure.

‫מת שהיה מושכב לרחב הדרך‬ ‫אע"פ שאין שם מקום לעבור אלא‬ ‫עליו או נוגע בצדו ואף על פי שהיא‬ ‫טומאה ידועה ועבר שם נזיר הרי זה טהור‬ :‫הואיל וספק ברשות הרבים טהור‬

When does the above apply? When he was walking. If, however, he was riding or carrying a burden, he is impure.56 [The rationale is that] it is possible for a person who is walking on his feet not to touch the corpse, have his body pass over it, nor move it. When, by contrast, a person is carrying a burden or riding, it is impossible for him not to touch the corpse, have his body pass over it, nor move it, for the corpse is lying across the path.57

‫בד"א במהלך ברגליו אבל אם היה‬ ‫רוכב או טעון משא הרי זה טמא‬ ‫שהמהלך ברגליו אפשר שלא יגע או שלא‬ ‫יאהיל או שלא יסיט אבל טעון או רוכב אי‬ ‫אפשר שלא יגע ושלא יאהיל או שלא‬ :‫יסיט שהרי המת לרוחב הדרך‬

« Previous

Next » Nezirut - Chapter 10

Nezirut - Chapter 8 FOOTNOTES 1. I.e., he set aside money to pay for the sacrifices of poor nazirites. 2. Even if there are not enough funds remaining to purchase an entire sacrifice, the remaining funds should be contributed toward the purchase of a sacrifice. 3. Since the money was set aside for that purpose, it should be used accordingly. 4. See Halachah 4 for more details concerning this concept. 5. Voluntary burnt offerings whose sacrifice embellishes the altar. Since the money was set aside for use for his own offerings, it should not be used for the offerings of another person. This is the meaning of the phrase Shekalim 2:5: "What is left over from a nazirite's [offerings] should go for the sake of that nazirite.

6. Brought to a place where it is impossible to benefit from it. It must be noted that at times the Rambam interprets the term Yam HaMelach as referring to the Mediterranean Sea. The rationale for this ruling is that once a person has received atonement, it is forbidden to benefit from any funds designated for his sin offering. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1. The commentaries also note that in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 5:9, the Rambam writes that money left over from a sin offering should be used to purchase freewill offerings. 7. As the nazirite's peace offering must be accompanied (see Chapter 8, Halachah 1). 8. Like the peace offering brought by a nazirite in contrast to an ordinary peace offering which may be eaten for two days and one night.

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

11 of 13

9. Although a certain amount of the funds would have been used for a sin offering, since they have not been designated

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...

25. See ibid.:15. 26. See Halachah 9.

for that purpose, it does not become prohibited to use them for other purposes.

27. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam interprets our Sages'

10. As is the law when the owner of a sin offering dies (Hilchot

occurred in this order. Others interpret the Talmud as

Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1).

statements in Nazir 13a as applying when the events

11. Since it is known that he is required to bring these sacrifices,

speaking about a situation where the sacrifices were set aside after the woman miscarried. According to the Radbaz,

it is considered as an appropriate amount has been allotted for each offering. Hence the money set aside for the burnt

the Rambam would not argue with that view. Instead, he is stating that the law applies even in the instance mentioned.

offering and peace offering should be used for such sacrifices and the money set aside for the sin offering should be taken to the Dead Sea. 12. I.e., a blemish that disqualifies it as an offering. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, chs. 1-2. 13. Since the animal is available for immediate sale, it is considered as if the owner has cash in hand. 14. In which case, she has no obligation to bring the sacrifices. 15. Although there are funds for a sin offering involved, since the purpose was not specified, they may be used for freewill offerings. 16. It is considered as an entirely ordinary animal, as if it had never been consecrated. 17. Hilchot Arachin 6:34. 18. It is considered as an entirely ordinary animal, as if it had never been consecrated. 19. This is a general principle, applicable in many contexts with regard to sacrifices. See Hilchot Arachin 6:21, 24; Hilchot Temurah 1:3. 20. Generally, all of a woman's property is placed in her husband's care during their marriage and all her earnings belong to him. How then can she have money or property that is entirely her own? When a person gives it to her as a present with the above stipulation. See Hilchot Ishut 22:27; Hilchot Nedarim 7:17; Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13-14. 21. It is forbidden to benefit from the animal or to use it for any other purpose. Hence, it is left to die. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1. 22. See Halachah 3.

28. See Chapter 1, Halachah 17. 29. Since he is not bound by his nazirite vow after the miscarriage as stated in the cited halachah, it is possible that the consecration of the sacrifices is nullified. On the other hand, that is not a definite fact. Hence our Sages debated this issue. 30. These prohibitions apply with regard to all consecrated animals. Since these prohibitions are Scriptural in origin, they must be observed because of the doubt regarding these animals' status. See Hilchot Me'ilah 1:7-8. 31. See Halachot 16-17 which describe how such a situation could arise. 32. As the Rambam proceeds to explain, the nazirite who completed his vow in ritual purity is obligated to bring one set of sacrifices, while the one who became impure must bring a different set. Since it is not known which of these individuals became impure, there is a question which sacrifices they should bring. Neither can bring the sacrifices required by the other as a freewill offering, because the guilt offering that is required when emerging from impurity may not be brought as a freewill offering, nor may the sin offering that is required after completing one's nazirite vow in a state of purity. 33. I.e., sharing the costs equally. 34. This applies when they both took a nazirite vow for the same number of days at the same time (Radbaz). If their nazirite vows conclude at different times, they must wait to the latest date. 35. The other makes similar statements and they both perform all of the rituals necessary in the bringing of the sacrifices. In

23. The rationale is that when a husband nullifies a vow, his

this way, the one has fulfilled the obligation to bring the sacrifices required when emerging from impurity and the

nullification does not uproot the vow from its source. Instead, his nullification affects only the future. Hence, she is liable

other, the obligation to bring the sacrifices that mark the completion of the nazirite vow.

for the repercussions of becoming impure and must bring a sacrifice. If, by contrast, she were to have had her vow

36. In which they observe all the prohibitions incumbent on a nazirite.

nullified by a sage, it would have been nullified at its source and it would be as if she was never a nazirite. Hence she

37. In this way, the nazirite who became ritually impure has

would not have to bring a sacrifice. See Hilchot Nedarim 13:2 (Radbaz).

fulfilled the obligations incumbent on him at the conclusion of his nazirite vow. 38. I.e., sharing the costs equally.

24. See Chapter 2, Halachot 13-14.

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

12 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...

39. The other one makes a similar statement and they each perform all the rites required when bringing these sacrifices.

49. Ibid.. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this

40. More precisely, the person who was ritually pure was

50. See Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 14:11.

principle. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's view.

obligated to pay for half the sacrifices of the person who was ritually impure. Thus although no extra sacrifices were

51. For the person's own word supercedes the testimony of one

offered, he did suffer a slight loss. Nevertheless, this is obviously far preferential than for each one to have to bring

52. The rationale is that since, because of the doubt inspired by

the sacrifices required when emerging from ritual impurity on his own as stated in the following halachah. 41. This is the practice followed whenever there is a question whether one is obligated to bring a sin offering or not. This sacrifice

is

burnt

and

not

eaten

(Hilchot

Pesulei

witness. the testimony of the witness, the person willingly accepted the observance of the nazirite vow, he is obligated to observe it (Radbaz). 53. I.e., even if the corpse is in full public view. 54. Thus he would contract ritual impurity by covering the corpse

HaMukdashim 19:10). If he was impure, he will have

with his body (ohel).

discharged his responsibility by bringing this sacrifice, because after the fact, this is sufficient. The burnt offering

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this issue,

and the peace offering are not absolute necessities. See Chapter 10, Halachah 5. 42. This is for the sake of the offerings he is required to bring if he completed his nazirite vow in a state of purity. The peace offering and guilt offering are not absolute necessities. See Chapter 6, Halachah 12; Chapter 10, Halachah 8. 43. In which they observe all the prohibitions incumbent on a nazirite. 44. All three sacrifices, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. 45. The nazirites who entered a situation in which a doubt arouse which of them was impure. 46. Who are not bound by the prohibition against shaving the corners of their heads. See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:5.

citing Nazir 63b as support. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer interpretations of the Talmud that support the Rambam's position. In that source, the Talmud differentiates between a corpse that is visible and a corpse whose existence is unknown, as explained in Chapter 6, Halachot 18-19. The Rambam maintains that the distinctions apply only after the fact, when the blood from the sacrifices has already been sprinkled on the person. Before then, the ruling depends on the principle: When there is a doubt concerning ritual impurity in the public domain, the person is considered pure. If such a doubt arises concerning a question in a private domain, he is considered as impure. In explanation of the Rambam's position, the Kessef Mishneh states that we are speaking about an instance where it is possible for the nazirite, albeit with difficulty, to pass by the

47. Although a nazirite who is ritually impure and one who

corpse without touching it or passing over it. If that is not the case, he is certainly impure. The Radbaz states that we are

completes his nazirite vow in purity is allowed to shave his head, that is permitted because there is a definite positive

speaking about any instance where the person could have and we presume he did - move off the path so as not to

commandment which supercedes the prohibition. In these instances, however, we are unsure if there is a

touch the corpse.

commandment obligated the nazirite to shave. Hence, no leniency is granted. The nazirite's failure to shave does not

55. In contrast, if it was not known that a corpse was located there, the nazirite is pure in the case of a doubt.

prevent him from bringing his sacrifices, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 5.

56. Because, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, it is almost impossible for the person not to contract ritual impurity.

48. See Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 16:1. We assume that if

57. And when riding or carrying a burden, the person will not be able to squeeze by.

the nazirite knew that he was ritually impure, he would not deny it, because we operate under the assumption that a person would not consciously avoid bringing a sin offering if he knew that he was liable (Keritot 12a).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 9 - Texts & Writings

13 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983593/jewish/Nezirut-...

8/21/2019 4:25 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

1 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...



Nezirut - Chapter 10 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Nezirut - Chapter 9

English

Hebrew

Next » Arachim Vacharamim

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

2 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

A person cannot perform one shaving [that will fulfill the requirements for] his nazirite vow and [for the emergence from the state of ritual impurity associated with] tzara'at.1 When it is questionable whether a person was afflicted with tzara'at [and thus became a metzora], the shaving [associated with emerging from] tzara'at does not supercede his nazirite vow. 2 Therefore [the following rules apply] if a person took a nazirite vow for a year and throughout this year, there was a question whether he had been afflicted with tzara'at and a question whether he had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a human corpse3 or there was a question whether he had been afflicted with tzara'at and at the end of the year, a question arose whether he had contracted ritual impurity. He should count seven days, have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled [upon him] on the third and seventh days,4 but he should not shave [his hair] on the seventh day. He may not drink wine or become impure due to contact with a human corpse until four years have passed.5 He may partake of consecrated food after two years have passed.6 [The rationale is] that he is required [because of the doubts concerning his status,] to shave [his head] four times: a) the shaving [required when he completes his nazirite vow in a state of] purity,7 b) the shaving [required for a nazirite to emerge from a state of] impurity, [for which he is obligated because of the doubt], and the two shavings required of a metzora, for there is a doubt

‫אין אדם מגלח תגלחת אחת ועולה‬ ‫לו לנזרו ולצרעתו ותגלחת הצרעת‬ ‫בזמן שהוא ספק מצורע אינו דוחה את‬ ‫הנזירות לפיכך מי שנזר שנה אחת והיה‬ ‫בכל השנה הזאת ספק מצורע וספק טמא‬ ‫מת או שהיה בה ספק מצורע ובסוף השנה‬ ‫נטמא בספק הרי זה מונה שבעה ימים‬ ‫ומזה בשלישי ושביעי ואינו מגלח בשביעי‬ ‫ואינו יכול לשתות ביין ולהטמא למת אלא‬ ‫לאחר ארבע שנים ואוכל בקדשים לאחר‬ ‫שתי שנים מפני שהוא צריך לגלח ארבע‬ ‫תגלחיות תגלחת טהרה ותגלחת טומאה‬ ‫מספק ושתי תגלחיות שמגלח המצורע‬ :‫שהרי הוא ספק מצורע‬

whether he is a metzora.

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

3 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

The first shaving should be performed after the conclusion of the first year.8He shaves his head, his beard,9 and his eyebrows and undergoes the purification process involving a cedar tree, a hyssop, and two wild birds10 like other metzoraim.11 If he was not impure due to contact with a corpse, nor a metzora, this is the shaving performed upon completion of his nazirite vow in purity. If he was indeed a metzora during the first year, this is the first shaving required of the metzora. He then waits another year as is the span of his nazirite vow, and then performs the second shaving required of metzora. He may not shave after seven days like other metzoraim, for perhaps he was not a metzora, but instead had been impure because of contact with a corpse. [In that instance,] during this second year, he was a nazirite, who was forbidden to shave.12 [Nevertheless,] after he performed these two shavings, he has completed the purification process required after tzara'at13 and he is permitted to partake of consecrated foods. He then waits another year and afterwards, performs a third shaving, lest he had been definitely a metzora during the first year and not impure because of contact with a corpse. [The observance] of the first year was not of consequence for him because these were days when his status [as a metzora] was defined.14 [The observance] of the second year was not of consequence for him because these were the days when he was counting [as part of the purification process of a] metzora between the first shaving and the second shaving.15 Therefore he must wait a third year, [observing his] nazirite vow. [Afterwards,] he performs a third shaving for his nazirite vow. This shaving [is required to emerge from] purity.16 [Nevertheless,] perhaps he was definitely impure because of contact with a corpse and he was also definitely a metzora and

‫תגלחת ראשונה מגלח אותה אחר‬ ‫שנה ראשונה ומגלח בה ראשו וזקנו‬ ‫וגבות עיניו ומטהר בעץ ארז ואזוב וצפרים‬ ‫כשאר מצורעים אם אינו טמא מת ולא‬ ‫מצורע הרי היא תגלחת טהרה של נזירותו‬ ‫ואם הוא מצורע ודאי בשנה ראשונה הרי‬ ‫היא תגלחת ראשונה של מצורע ושוהה‬ ‫שנה אחרת כמנין ימי הנזירות ואח"כ‬ ‫מגלח תגלחת שניה של מצורע שאינו יכול‬ ‫לגלח אחר שבעה כשאר מצורעין שמא‬ ‫אינו מצורע אלא טמא מת ודאי היה ושנה‬ ‫שניה זו הרי הוא בה נזיר שאסור לגלח‬ ‫ומאחר שגלח שתי תגלחיות אלו שלמה‬ ‫טהרת הצרעת ומותר לאכול בקדשים‬ ‫ושוהה שנה שלישית ואחר כך מגלח‬ ‫תגלחת שלישית שמא מצורע ודאי היה‬ ‫בשנה ראשונה ולא היה טמא מת ושנה‬ ‫ראשונה לא עלתה לו מפני שהיא ימי‬ ‫חלוטו ושנה שניה לא עלתה לו מפני‬ ‫שהיא ימי ספירו של מצורע שבין תגלחת‬ ‫ראשונה ושניה לפיכך צריך לשהות שנה‬ ‫שלישית בנזירותו ומגלח תגלחת שלישית‬ ‫לנזירותו והיא תגלחת טהרה או שמא‬ ‫טמא מת ודאי היה ומצורע ודאי ואין‬ ‫תגלחת אחת עולה לנזירותו ולצרעתו‬ ‫ונמצאת תגלחת ראשונה ושניה תגלחת‬ ‫צרעת ותגלחת שלישית תגלחת טומאה‬ ‫ואין אחת משלש שנים עולה שהרי‬ ‫השלישית תגלחת טומאה לפיכך צריך‬ ‫לשהות שנה רביעית בנזירות ומגלח‬ ‫תגלחת רביעית ושערו בכל תגלחת ספק‬ ‫אסור בהנייה מספק ששער נזיר שנצטרע‬ :‫מותר בהנייה‬

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

4 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

Similar [rules apply if a person] took a nazirite vow for ten years and, in the midst, there arose a question whether he was a metzora and there also arose a question whether he contracted ritual impurity [through contact with a corpse] at the conclusion of this period. He may not drink wine for forty years and must perform four shavings, one at the conclusion of each decade. The first shaving comes because of the doubt concerning the days he must observe because of tzara'at. The second shaving [comes] because of the days a metzora [must count between his two shavings].

‫וכן אם נדר עשר שנים נזירות והיה‬ ‫בהן ספק מצורע ונולד לו ספק טומאה‬ ‫בסופן הרי זה אינו שותה ביין עד ארבעים‬ ‫שנה ומגלח ארבע תגלחות אחת בסוף כל‬ ‫עשר שנים תגלחת ראשונה לספק ימי‬ ‫צרעתו שניה לספק ימי ספירו של מצורע‬ ‫שלישית לספק טומאתו רביעית תגלחת‬ :‫טהרה‬

The third shaving is because of the doubt concerning his ritual impurity. And the fourth shaving is [the one required when completing a nazirite vow in] purity.20 How should such a person bring the sacrifices required of him?21 If he was rich, he should sign over all of his property to another person.22 [The rationale is that] a wealthy metzora who brought a sacrifice befitting a poor one does not fulfill his obligation.23 Afterwards, he brings a fowl as a sin offering and an animal as a burnt offering for the first, second, and third shavings.24 No one should partake of any of the fowl brought as sin offerings, because of the doubt involved.25 For the fourth shaving, he brings the sacrifices required of a nazirite [who completes his vow in] purity, as we explained.26

‫וכיצד מביא זה קרבנותיו אם היה‬ ‫עשיר כותב נכסיו לאחרים שמצורע‬ ‫עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא ואחר כך‬ ‫מביא חטאת העוף ועולת בהמה בתגלחת‬ ‫ראשונה ושניה ושלישית וכל חטאת עוף‬ ‫מהן לא תאכל מפני שהיא ספק ומביא‬ ‫בתגלחת רביעית קרבן נזיר טהור שהוא‬ :‫שלש בהמות כמו שבארנו‬

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

5 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

He brings three fowl as sin offerings for the following reasons: the first27is because of the doubt whether he is ritually impure,28the second because of the doubt whether he is afflicted by tzara'at, for a metzora brings a sacrifice only after his second shaving,29 the third because of the possibility that he was ritually impure. [The rationale is that] one shaving cannot fulfill the obligation for both one's nazirite vow and [purification from] tzara'at and perhaps he was definitely both a metzora and impure because of contact with a corpse. [In that instance,] the first and second shavings were to become purified from tzara'at, as explained.30 The third shaving is the shaving [required to emerge from] ritual impurity. Therefore he must bring the sacrifices [required when emerging from] impurity at that time. [The following principles apply with regard to] the three animals31[brought] as burnt offerings that accompany [the sin offerings]. He brings them conditionally. [When bringing] the first, he stipulates: "If I was pure, this is for my obligation."32 If I was impure, this is a freewill offering."33 He should make a similar stipulation for the second and third [shaving] as well.34

‫שלש חטאות העוף שמביא בשלש‬ ‫התגלחות חטאת ראשונה לספק‬ ‫טומאתו שניה לספק צרעתו שאין המצורע‬ ‫מביא קרבנו אלא לאחר תגלחת שניה וכן‬ ‫חטאת שלישית לספק טומאתו שאין‬ ‫תגלחת אחת עולה לנזרו ולצרעתו ושמא‬ ‫מצורע ודאי וטמא מת ודאי היה‬ ‫שהתגלחת הראשונה והשניה לצרעתו כמו‬ ‫שבארנו ותגלחת שלישית תגלחת טומאה‬ ‫ולפיכך צריך להביא קרבן טומאה‬ :‫בשלישית‬

‫שלש עולות בהמה שמביא עמהן על‬ ‫הראשונה הוא מתנה ואומר אם טהור‬ ‫אני זו מחובתי ואם טמא אני הרי היא‬ :‫נדבה וכן הוא אומר בשניה ובשלישית‬

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

6 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

For the fourth shaving, he brings the sacrifices [required when completing a nazirite vow in] purity35 and stipulates: "If I was impure, the first burnt offering was a freewill offering36 and this is my obligatory offering.37 "If I was definitely [afflicted with tzara'at], the first [burnt offering] was the one that I was obligated to bring as a metzora.38 This is the one that I was obligated to bring for my nazirite vow. And the two [brought] in between are freewill offerings.39 "If I was pure with regard to contact with a corpse, but I had been afflicted with tzara'at, the first and second [burnt offerings] were obligatory, the one for the obligation of a metzora40 and the one for the obligation of a nazirite. The third and the fourth are freewill offerings. The remainder [of the sacrifices] are the sacrifices [required when completing a nazirite vow in] purity.41

‫ומביא קרבן טהרה בתגלחת רביעית‬ ‫ואומר ומתנה אם טמא הייתי עולה‬ ‫ראשונה נדבה וזו חובה ואם מוחלט הייתי‬ ‫ראשונה חובת מצורע וזו חובת נזירות‬ ‫ושתים האמצעיות נדבה ואם טהור‬ ‫מטומאת מת הייתי ומצורע עולה‬ ‫הראשונה חובה וכן השניה אחת לחובת‬ ‫מצורע ואחת לחובת נזירות ושלישית‬ ‫ורביעית נדבה והשאר קרבן טהרתי ואם‬ ‫טמא הייתי ומצורע עולה ראשונה חובת‬ ‫צרעת ושניה ושלישית נדבה וזה קרבן‬ :‫תגלחת טהרה‬

"If I was impure and afflicted with tzara'at the first burnt offering was the obligation of a metzora.42 The second and the third are freewill offerings43 and this is the sacrifice [required when] shaving [after completing a nazirite vow in] purity."

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

7 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

The guilt offering and the burnt offering are not absolute requirements,44 neither for the shaving [required for a nazirite to emerge from] ritual impurity, nor for [the purification afflicted with] tzara'at. 45 Thus if he had definitely been a metzora, but had not become impure because of contact with a corpse, he became pure when bringing the wild birds. The fowl brought as a sin offering serves as his sin offering.46 It should not be eaten because it was brought because of a doubt.47 And the [lamb] brought with it as a burnt offering is part of the requirement for shaving [after completing a nazirite vow in] purity, so that the shaving will be associated [with the sacrifice of] an animal.48 If he was ritually impure because of contact with a corpse, the [lamb] brought as a burnt offering is a freewill offering.49

‫אבל האשם והעולה אינן מעכבין לא‬ ‫בתגלחת טומאה ולא בצרעת‬ ‫נמצאת אומר אם הוא מצורע ודאי ולא‬ ‫נטמא במת הרי טהר בצפורין וחטאת‬ ‫העוף היא חטאתו ולא תאכל מפני שהוא‬ ‫ספק ועולת בהמה שעמה מקרבן תגלחת‬ ‫טהרה כדי שיגלח על הבהמה ואם טמא‬ ‫מת הוא הרי עולת בהמה נדבה ואם אינו‬ ‫מצורע וטמא מת הוא חטאת העוף קרבן‬ ‫נזיר שנטמא ועולת בהמה נדבה והרי‬ ‫הביא קרבן טהרה באחרונה ואם אינו‬ ‫טמא מת ולא מצורע עולת בהמה שהביא‬ ‫בתגלחת הראשונה היא מחובת תגלחת‬ ‫וחטאת העוף באה על ספק והרי לא‬ :‫נאכלת‬

If he had not been afflicted by tzara'at, but had been impure due to contact with a corpse, the fowl brought as a sin offering is the offering [required of] a nazirite who became impure and the [lamb] brought as an animal is a freewill offering. And ultimately,50 he will bring the sacrifices [required when a nazirite vow is completed in] purity. If he was neither impure due to contact with a corpse nor a metzora, the [lamb] brought as a burnt offering for the first shaving is that required when shaving.51 The fowl brought as a sin offering is brought because of the doubt and it is not eaten.

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

8 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

When do the above statements that a nazirite performs four shavings apply? When speaking of a minor52 or a woman.53 An adult male should not perform a shaving because of a doubt,54 neither a shaving because of ritual impurity or one because of tzara'at lest he have been ritually pure and thus he will be cutting off the corners of his hair when there is no mitzvah involved.55Therefore, [in such a situation,] an adult male should perform only the shaving [required when completing the nazirite vow in] purity. For these four shavings are not absolute requirements,56 they are only [the more complete way of performing] the mitzvah.

‫במה דברים אמורים שהוא מגלח‬ ‫ארבע תגלחות כשהיה קטן או אשה‬ ‫אבל האיש אינו מגלח מספק לא תגלחת‬ ‫טומאה ולא תגלחת צרעת שמא טהור הוא‬ ‫ונמצא מקיף פאת ראשו שלא במקום‬ ‫מצוה לפיכך אינו מגלח אלא תגלחת‬ ‫טהרה בלבד שאין ארבע תגלחות אלו‬ :‫לעכב אלא למצוה‬

How should a nazirite conduct himself if he is certain that he contracted tzara'at and is uncertain whether he contracted ritual impurity. After he is purified from his tzara'at,57 he should have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days.58 He performs the shaving [required when emerging from] ritual impurity59 and then begins to count the days of his nazirite vow in their entirety. For, due to the doubt that he became ritually impure, [the observance of] the first days is nullified. [After completing that vow,] he brings the sacrifices [required when completing a nazirite vow in] purity and [is permitted to] drink wine. After he brings the sacrifices [required after being purified from] tzara'at, he may partake of sacrificial food.

‫נזיר שנצטרע ודאי ונטמא בספק כיצד‬ ‫הוא עושה אחר שיטהר מצרעתו מזה‬ ‫בשלישי ובשביעי ומגלח תגלחת טומאה‬ ‫ומתחיל למנות נזירותו כלה שהרי נפלו‬ ‫הימים הראשונים בספק טומאה שנטמא‬ ‫ומביא קרבן טהרה ושותה ביין ומאחר‬ :‫שיביא קרבן צרעת אוכל בקדשים‬

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

9 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

[The following rules apply if] it is certain that he became impure [from contact with a corpse] and there is a question whether he was a metzora. After he is healed from his questionable status as a metzora, he should count the full amount of the days of his nazirite vow60 and afterwards61 perform the shaving [required for tzara'at]. [The rationale is that] shaving [because of tzara'at] that is questionable does not supercede his nazirite vow. Afterwards, he counts the seven days between the first shaving of a metzora and the second and performs that shaving. He should bring his sacrifices and may partake of sacrificial foods if he had [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days.62 Afterwards, he counts seven more days [because of] the impurity associated with a corpse and performs the shaving [required to emerge from] ritual impurity. Afterwards, he counts the full term of his nazirite vow.

‫נטמא ודאי והיה מצורע בספק‬ ‫וטהר מספק צרעתו מונה ימי‬ ‫נזירותו שלימה ואחר כך מגלח תגלחת‬ ‫הנגע שאין תגלחת ספק נגעו דוחה נזירות‬ ‫ואח"כ מונה שבעת ימים שבין תגלחת‬ ‫מצורע הראשונה לתגלחת שניה ומגלח‬ ‫ומביא קרבנותיו ואוכל בקדשים ומזה‬ ‫בשלישי ושביעי ואח"כ מונה שבעה‬ ‫אחרים לטומאת מת ומגלח תגלחת טומאה‬ :‫ואחר כך מונה נזירותו כולה‬

Similarly, [the following rules apply if] he was certainly both ritually impure and a metzora.

‫וכן אם היה טמא ומצורע בודאי‬ ‫לאחר שיטהר מצרעתו מגלח‬ ‫תגלחת צרעת הראשונה ומזה בשלישי‬ ‫ובשביעי ומגלח ראשו וזקנו בשביעי והיא‬ ‫תגלחת שניה של צרעת ומביא קרבנותיו‬ ‫בשמיני ואוכל בקדשים וסופר שבעה‬ ‫ומגלח תגלחת טומאה ואחר כך סופר ימי‬ ‫נזירות שלימה ומביא קרבן טהרה ושותה‬ :‫ביין‬

After he becomes healed from his tzara'at, he performs the first shaving [required to be purified from] tzara'at, has [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh [days],63and has his head and beard shaved on the seventh day. This is the second shaving [required to be purified from] tzara'at. He brings the sacrifices [associated with that purification] on the eighth day and may partake of sacrificial foods. He then counts seven days64 and performs the shaving [required to emerge from] ritual impurity. Afterwards, he counts the full term of his nazirite vow. He then brings the sacrifices [required when completing a nazirite vow in] ritual purity and [may then] drink wine.

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

10 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

Why is it necessary for him to count seven [days before bringing the sacrifices required after emerging from ritual impurity]?65 [Because] the seven days of ritual impurity [associated with contact with a human corpse] are not counted during the seven days between the two shavings of a metzora.

‫למה סופר שבעה שאין שבעת ימי‬ ‫הטומאה עולין בשבעת ימי ספירה‬ :‫שבין תגלחת ותגלחת של מצורע‬

When a person says: "I will be a nazirite if I do this and this" or "...if I do not do [this or this]," he is a wicked man and a nazirite vow of this type is one of the nazirite vows taken by the wicked. If, however, a person takes a nazirite vow to God in a holy manner, this is delightful and praiseworthy66 and concerning this, [Numbers 6:7-8] states: "The diadem67 of his God is upon his head... He is holy unto God." And Scripture equates him with a prophet, as [Amos 2:11] states: "And from your sons, I will raise [some] as prophets, and from your youths, [some] as nazirites."

‫האומר הריני נזיר אם אעשה כך‬ ‫וכך או אם לא אעשה וכיוצא בזה‬ ‫הרי זה רשע ונזירות כזו מנזירות רשעים‬ ‫הוא אבל הנודר לה' דרך קדושה הרי זה‬ ‫נאה ומשובח ועל זה נאמר נזר אלהיו על‬ ‫ראשו קדש הוא לה' ושקלו הכתוב כנביא‬ ‫)שנאמר( ואקים מבניכם לנביאים‬ :‫ומבחוריכם לנזירים‬

« Previous Nezirut - Chapter 9

Next » Arachim Vacharamim

FOOTNOTES 1. As stated in Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at 11:1-3, after the signs of tzara'at have disappeared from a person's flesh, he must

2. Which involves a prohibition against shaving. As stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 15, ordinarily, "When a nazirite

undergo a twofold purification process that involves shaving his hair on the first and seventh days. Neither of these

days of his nazirite vow, he should shave all of his hair. The

shavings can be considered as the same shaving as the one performed by a nazirite. The rationale is that the first shaving

rationale is that] by shaving, he fulfills a positive commandment. [And] when there is [a conflict between] a

of the purification from tzara'at is for a different purpose than the shaving performed by a nazirite. For the intent of the

positive commandment and a negative commandment... the positive commandment supercedes the negative

shaving of a nazirite is to remove hair, while the intent of the first shaving performed by a person afflicted with tzara'at is to

commandment." There is also a positive commandment for a nazirite to grow his hair long and a negative commandment

allow hair to grow (Nazir 60b, Radbaz). Similarly, the second shaving associated with tzara'at is not analogous to the

does not override a negative commandment and a positive commandment. Nevertheless, when a nazirite contracts

shaving associated with the nazirite vow, for the shaving of a

tzara'at, that there is no positive commandment involved in

metzora is performed before the sprinkling of the blood and

growing his hair. Since it is possible that this is not the

the shaving of a nazirite afterwards.

situation prevailing in this instance, he should not shave (Radbaz).

contracts tzara'at and becomes healed in the midst of the

3. In this instance, it is questionable whether he is required to shave to perform a shaving to emerge from ritual impurity (as explained at the beginning of Chapter 6) or not.

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

11 of 14

4. A person who seeks to emerge from the impurity associated from the state of ritual impurity associated with contact with a human corpse must have the ashes of a Red Heifer sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days after he became ritually impure. He must also immerse himself in a mikveh (Hilchot Parah Adumah 11:1). 5. For only then will he complete all the shavings required because of the doubts and complete his nazirite vow. 6. For then he will have performed both of the shavings required of a person who contracted tzara'at and will have had the ashes of the Red Heifer sprinkled upon him to purify him from the impurity associated with contact with a human corpse. 7. The Rambam mentions this shaving first, because this is the only definite obligation.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

18. I.e., the first three shavings. 19. Ordinarily, it is forbidden to benefit from the hair of a nazirite (Chapter 8, Halachah 2), even if he became impure (Chapter 6, Halachah 14). Nevertheless, as the Rambam states in Chapter 7, Halachah 15, when a nazirite becomes afflicted with tzara'at, the holiness associated with his hair is nullified. Even with regard to the last shaving, his hair is not definitely forbidden, because it is possible that he already fulfilled his obligations with the first shavings (Radbaz). 20. This all follows the pattern explained in the notes to the previous halachah. 21. The full order of sacrifices that such a person would be required to bring were he in fact to have contracted ritual impurity and have been afflicted by tzara'at is the following: a) because of tzara'at: on the eighth day of the purification

8. For until then he is forbidden to shave because perhaps he

process, he must bring a guilt offering, a sin offering, and a

is not impure and his nazirite vow must be observed. The details regarding the sacrifices that must be offered when

burnt offering; b) because he became impure, he must bring a sin offering,

shaving his hair are explained in Halachot 4-5.

a guilt offering, and a burnt offering; and c) upon completion of his nazirite vow in purity, he brings a

9. As stated in Halachah 9, this applies only to a minor or a woman who took nazirite vows. If the nazirite is an adult male, he may not shave his head, because of the doubt. 10. According to certain commentaries, this refers to a kosher species of sparrows, according to others to a jay. See the notes of the Living Torah to Leviticus 14:4. 11. See Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at, Chapter 11, where this purification process is described in detail. 12. The Ra'avad writes that the Rambam's statements are correct if he became ritually impure more than seven days before the end of his first year of nazirite observance. If, however, there is less than seven days left before the conclusion of the year, different rules apply, for he will have not fulfilled the seven days required before shaving to emerge from impurity. The Kessef Mishneh takes issue with the Ra'avad's statements. 13. Were he to have indeed been a metzora. 14. And as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, the days when a person's status is defined as a metzora are not included as part of the fulfillment of his nazirite vow.

burnt offering, a peace offering, and a sin offering. 22. Because, as will be explained, it is possible to bring a fowl as a sacrifice when there is a doubt involved, but not an animal. 23. See Hilchot Mechusrai Kapparah 5:10; Hilchot Shegagot 10:13. A wealthy metzora must bring a ewe as a sin offering, while a poor one may bring two sets of doves or turtledoves. If the rich man retains possession of his property, he will not be able to bring a sin offering, because an animal can never be brought as a sin offering because of doubt (Radbaz). 24. For all of these are brought because of the doubt involved. 25. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:10. 26. Chapter 8, Halachah 1. The Rambam does not mention the wild birds that must be brought as part of the purification process for a metzora, for they were not sacrifices brought within the Temple. 27. I.e., the sin offering brought after the first shaving. 28. Because of contact with a corpse alone and not afflicted with tzara'at.

15. He could not wait only seven days, because it is possible he was not a metzora in which instance, he would not be

29. The wild birds brought after the first shaving are not considered sacrifices, because they are not brought within

permitted to shave his hair within the time of his nazirite vow. 16. Our translation follows the understanding of the Radbaz and

the Temple. According to this possibility, it was not necessary for him to

is supported by Halachah 5. The standard published text follows a slightly different version.

have brought the sin offering at the time of the first shaving. That first shaving cannot, however, serve two purposes as

17. And until he is ritually pure, the days he observes for his nazirite vow are not of consequence. He may not, however, perform these shavings earlier, because he is not definitely

the Rambam explains. 30. See Halachah 2. 31. I.e., the lambs.

impure or a metzora.

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

12 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

32. As required of a nazirite who completes his nazirite vow in purity.

43. One of these burnt offerings was obviously a freewill offering, because only one burnt offering is required for the

33. For the burnt offering required when a nazirite completes his

two shavings required to be purified from tzara'at. The other

vow in purity is a lamb and that required from a nazirite emerging from ritual impurity is a dove or turtle dove.

burnt offering is also a freewill offering, because the shaving

34. I.e., for the second shaving, he should make the following stipulation: "If I was only ritually impure because of contact with a corpse, then the first sin offering was to emerge from ritual impurity and this is the sin offering required at the

is required lest he was also impure because of contact with a corpse. Nevertheless, the burnt offering required for such a shaving is not a lamb, but rather a dove or a turtle dove. 44. Hence they are not required in this complex situation. 45. See Chapter 6, Halachah 12, with regard to a nazirite and

conclusion of the nazirite vow. If I had contracted tza'arat, this

Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:5 with regard to a metzora.

is for the sake of purification from that affliction. And if I was

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the

neither ritually impure nor had contracted tzara'at, this is a

guilt offering is also an absolute requirement for the purification of a nazirite. The Radbaz and the Kessef

freewill offering." For the third shaving, he should stipulate: "If I was both ritually impure and afflicted by tzara'at, the second sacrifice

Mishneh support the Rambam's ruling.

was to be purified from tzara'at and this is to emerge from the

46. The commentaries raise a difficulty with the Rambam's statement, noting that as explained in Halachah 5, the sin

ritual impurity stemming from a corpse. If I had been afflicted by tzara'at, but not ritually impure, this is to complete the

offering for a metzora is brought in association with the

obligation of my nazirite vow. If I had not been afflicted by tzara'at, this is a freewill offering." 35. I.e., a burnt offering, a sin offering, and a peace offering. 36. For a nazirite who became impure should not bring a lamb as a burnt offering.

second shaving, not the first. The Merkevet HaMishneh states the intent is that the sacrifice is brought because of the question of impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse. 47. For it is not known whether he was a metzora or not.

37. We do not say that the burnt offering brought after the

48. For if he does not bring an animal as a sacrifice, the shaving is not acceptable and in violation of his nazirite vow.

second or third shaving was the required offering, because perhaps he had been afflicted with tzara'at in which instance,

49. One of these burnt offerings was obviously a freewill offering, because only one burnt offering is required for the

those shavings were necessary to purify him (Kessef

two shavings required to be purified from tzara'at. The other

Mishneh).

burnt offering is also a freewill offering, because the shaving

5 that a metzora should not bring his sacrifice until after the

is required lest he was also impure because of contact with a corpse. Nevertheless, the burnt offering required for such a

second shaving. For this reason, the Ra'avad protests the

shaving is not a lamb, but rather a dove or a turtle dove.

38. With regard to a sin offering, the Rambam wrote in Halachah

Rambam's statements. Nevertheless, as stated with regard to a related issue in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:9, a distinction can be made between a burnt offering and a sin offering, for the sin offering is the fundamental catalyst for atonement and the burnt offering is merely a present (Kessef Mishneh; Lechem Mishneh). 39. One of these burnt offerings was obviously a freewill offering, because only one burnt offering is required for the two shavings required to be purified from tzara'at. The other burnt offering is also a freewill offering, because the shaving is required lest he was also impure because of contact with a corpse. Nevertheless, the burnt offering required for such a shaving is not a lamb, but rather a dove or a turtle dove.

50. After the fourth shaving. 51. The fact that the remainder of the sacrifices are not brought until a significantly later time, i.e., after the fourth shaving, is not significant. 52. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 13, a nazirite vow taken by a minor can be binding according to Scriptural Law. 53. For the prohibition against shaving the corners of the hair and the beard is not incumbent upon them (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:5). 54. I.e., the first three shavings described above. 55. As explained above, when a mitzvah is involved in the

40. As explained above.

shaving, we follow the principle: The performance of a positive commandment supercedes the observance of a

41. The fact that they are being brought much later than the burnt offering is not significant.

prohibition. This applies, however, only when we are certain that the observance of a positive commandment is indeed

42. As explained above.

involved. 56. See Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at 11:4.

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

13 of 14

57. Shaving and bringing the appropriate sacrifices. The sequence when the shavings are performed and sacrifices are brought is not explicitly mentioned by the Rambam. However, as reflected in the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh, seemingly he may perform the shaving immediately. Since he is definitely afflicted with tzara'at, there is no prohibition against his shaving during the term of his nazirite vow. 58. This purifies him from the impurity associated with a human corpse. Unless he performs this act of purification, no sacrifices may be offered on his behalf (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:12). The fact that he is still ritually impure because of tzara'at does not prevent him from purifying himself from the impurity associated with contact with a corpse (Hilchot Parah Adumah 11:3).

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

61. Since it is not certain that he has tzara'at, the shaving does not supercede his nazirite vow and thus he must wait until the observance of his nazirite vow is concluded. 62. For otherwise, he is ritually impure and may not partake of sacrifices. Our translation reflects an emendation of the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah based on authoritative manuscripts. 63. To be purified from the ritual impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse, so that sacrifices may be offered on his behalf, as explained above. 64. For the reason explained in the following halachah. 65. I.e., he is required to wait this amount of time as explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 7, but seemingly, he has already waited these days, in the process of his purification from tzara'at.

59. After the completion of all the days of his nazirite vow. He is required to wait this amount of time, because perhaps he

66. See ch. 13 of Hilchot Nedarim. Halachot 24 and 25 of that

never became impure. Thus were he to perform the shaving earlier, he might be shaving in the midst of his nazirite vow.

chapter focus on the negative dimension of taking vows that involve prohibitions, but Halachah 23 explains that there are

60. Any observance of his vow before then is disqualified. Nor

situations, i.e., when one feels challenged by his material desires, when taking such vows are praiseworthy. See the

can he bring the sacrifices required when emerging from ritual impurity until he first purifies himself from the possibility of having been afflicted with tzara'at.

incident from Nedarim 9b quoted in the notes to that halachah. 67. This Hebrew term shares the same letters as the root of the word nazirite.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Nezirut - Chapter 10 - Texts & Writings

14 of 14

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983594/jewish/Nezirut-...

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Texts & Writings

1 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983595/jewish/Arachim...



Arachim Vacharamim Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2 Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Texts & Writings

2 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983595/jewish/Arachim...

8/21/2019 4:28 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

1 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983596/jewish/Arachim...



Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2

Introduction to Hilchos - Chapter 1

‫ הקדמה‬- ‫הלכות ערכין וחרמין‬

They contain seven mitzvot: five positive commandments and two negative commandment. They are:

‫הלכות ערכין וחרמין יש בכללן שבע מצות‬ ‫חמש מצות עשה ושתים מצות לא תעשה‬ :‫וזה הוא פרטן‬

1. To apply the judgments [applying to] endowment evaluations concerning humans, as prescribed by the Torah; these are the laws of endowment evaluations concerning humans. 2. The laws [applying to] endowment evaluations concerning animals. 3. The laws [applying to] endowment evaluations concerning homes. 4. The laws [applying to] endowment evaluations concerning fields. 5. The laws [applying to] one who designates his property as a devotion offering. 6. That [property designated as] a devotion offering should not be sold. 7. That [property designated as] a devotion offering should not be redeemed.

‫)א( לדון בערכי אדם כאשר מפורש‬ ‫בתורה וזהו דין ערכי אדם‬ ‫)ב( דין ערכי בהמה‬ ‫)ג( דין ערכי בתים‬ ‫)ד( דין ערכי שדות‬ ‫)ה( דין מחרים נכסיו‬ ‫)ו( שלא ימכר חרם‬ ‫)ז( שלא יגאל חרם‬ :‫וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו‬

These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.

8/21/2019 4:29 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

2 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983596/jewish/Arachim...

Endowment valuations [arechim]1 are pledges included in the category of vows made to consecrate property,2 as [Leviticus] 27:2 states: "When a man will utter a vow, making an endowment evaluation concerning humans to God." Therefore [failure to fulfill them] makes one liable for the violation [of the prohibitions, Numbers 30:3:] "He shall not desecrate his word,"3 and [Deuteronomy 23:22]: "Do not delay in paying it,"4 and [the positive commandment, Numbers, loc. cit.]: "He shall act in accordance with all that he uttered with his mouth."5

‫הערכים הם נדר מכלל נדרי הקדש‬ ‫שנאמר איש כי יפליא נדר בערכך‬ ‫נפשות לה' לפיכך חייבין עליהן משום לא‬ ‫יחל דברו ולא תאחר לשלמו ומשום ככל‬ :‫היוצא מפיו יעשה‬

It is a positive commandment to render judgment concerning arechim as prescribed by the Torah.6 Whether one says: "I pledge my airech," "I pledge the airech of this person," or "I pledge the airech of so-and-so," he must pay the airech as prescribed according to the age of the person specified.7This is a fixed amount as dictated by the Torah, neither more, nor less.

‫מצות עשה לדון בדיני ערכין כאשר‬ ‫מפורש בתורה ואחד האומר ערכי‬ ‫עלי או האומר ערך זה עלי או ערך פלוני‬ ‫עלי נותן הערך לפי שני הנערך והוא הדבר‬ :‫הקצוב שבתורה לא פחות ולא יתר‬

8/21/2019 4:29 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

3 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983596/jewish/Arachim...

What is the airech [prescribed by the Torah]? If the person whose airech was donated was 30 days old or less,8 he has no airech. When one says: "I pledge the airech of this person," [and the person is 30 days old or less,] it is as if he said: "I pledge the airech of this utensil"9 and [the donor] is not liable at all. If [the person whose airech was donated] was between 30 days old and a full five years,10 the airech of a male is five [silver] shekalim and of a female, three [silver] shekalim.11 From when one begins his or her sixth year until the completion of the twentieth year, the airech of a male is 20 [silver] shekalim and of a female, 10 [silver] shekalim. From when one begins his or her twenty-first year until the completion of the sixtieth year, the airech

‫וכמה הוא הערך אם היה הנערך בן‬ ‫שלשים יום או פחות אין לו ערך‬ ‫והאומר עליו ערך זה עלי הרי זה כאומר‬ ‫ערך כלי זה עלי ואינו חייב כלום היה מבן‬ ‫אחד ושלשים יום עד בן חמש שנים‬ ‫גמורות ערך הזכר חמשה שקלים והנקבה‬ ‫שלשה שקלים משנכנס בשנת שש יום‬ ‫אחד עד שישלים שנת עשרים ערך הזכר‬ ‫עשרים שקלים והנקבה עשרה שקלים‬ ‫משיכנס בשנת אחת ועשרים יום עד‬ ‫שישלים שנת ששים ערך הזכר חמשים‬ ‫שקלים והנקבה שלשים שקלים ומשיכנס‬ ‫בשנת אחת וששים יום עד יום מותו אפילו‬ ‫חיה כמה שנים ערך הזכר חמשה עשר‬ :‫שקלים והנקבה עשרה שקלים‬

of a male is 50 [silver] shekalim and of a female, 30 [silver] shekalim..From when one begins his or her sixty-first year until the day of his or her death, [regardless of] the number of years [he or she lives,] theairech of a male is 15 [silver] shekalim and of a female, 10 [silver]shekalim.. All of these years are calculated from day to day from the person's birthday.12 All of the shekalim are holy shekalim, i.e., the weight in pure silver of 320 barley corns. [Our Sages] already added to the value [of this coin] and made it equivalent to a sela,13 as we explained in Hilchot Shekalim.14 There is no airech for a tumtum15 or an androgynus,16 for the Torah prescribed an airech only for a male whose status is definite or a female whose status is definite. Therefore if a tumtum or an androgynus says: "I pledge my airech," or another person pledges their airech, their statements are of no consequence.17

‫כל השנים האלו מעת לעת מיום‬ ‫הלידה וכל השקלים בשקל הקדש‬ ‫והוא משקל שלש מאות ועשרים שעורה‬ ‫מכסף טהור וכבר הוסיפו עליו ועשו אותו‬ :‫סלע כמו שבארנו בהלכות שקלים‬

‫טומטום ואנדרוגינוס אין להם ערך‬ ‫שלא קצבה תורה ערך אלא לזכר‬ ‫ודאי או לנקבה ודאית לפיכך טומטום‬ ‫ואנדרוגינוס שאמר ערכי עלי או שהעריכו‬ :‫אחר אינו חייב כלום‬

8/21/2019 4:29 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

4 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983596/jewish/Arachim...

An airech may be pledged for a gentile, but the pledge of a gentile is of no consequence.18 What is implied? When a gentile says: "I pledge my airech," or "I pledge the airech of this Jew," his words are of no consequence. When, [by contrast,] a Jew says: "I pledge the airech of this gentile" or "I pledge the airech of so-and-so, the gentile," he must pay according to the age of the gentile whose airech he pledged. Similarly, if

‫העכו"ם נערך אבל אינו מעריך כיצד‬ ‫עכו"ם שאמר ערכי עלי או ערך‬ ‫ישראל זה עלי לא אמר כלום וישראל‬ ‫שאמר ערך עכו"ם זה עלי או ערך פלוני‬ ‫העכו"ם עלי נותן לפי שני העכו"ם הנערך‬ ‫וכן המעריך את החרש ואת השוטה חייב‬ :‫ונותן לפי שניו‬

one pledges the airech of a deaf-mute or an intellectually or emotionally unstable person,19 he is obligated to pay according to that person's age. An airech may be pledged for a servant and he may pledge an airech like any member of the Jewish people.20 If he is redeemed21 and he has financial resources, he should pay the pledge that he vowed.

‫העבד נערך ועורך כשאר ישראל ואם‬ :‫יפדה והיה לו יתן ערך שנדר‬

Whether a person pledges the airech of an attractive, healthy person or one who is ugly and infirm, he must give the fixed amount specified by the Torah according to the age of that person.22 [This applies] even if that person has leprous blotches, is blind, lacking a limb, or possesses any type of blemish.

‫אחד המעריך את היפה הבריא‬ ‫ואחד המעריך את הכעור החולה‬ ‫אפילו היה הנערך מוכה שחין או סומא או‬ ‫גדם ויש בו כל מום נותן לפי שניו כמו‬ :‫שכתוב בתורה‬

Pledges for a person's worth are not like arechim. What is implied? When a person says: "I am responsible for my worth," "I am responsible for that person's worth," or "I am responsible for the worth of so-and-so," he must pay the worth of that person as if he were a servant sold in the marketplace,23 whether it be a dinar or a thousand dinar.24 [This applies] even if that person is a minor one day old, a tumtum, an androgynus25 or a gentile.26

‫הדמים אינן כערכין כיצד האומר‬ ‫דמי עלי או דמי זה עלי או דמי פלוני‬ ‫עלי אפילו היה אותו פלוני קטן בן יומו או‬ ‫טומטום ואנדרוגינוס או עכו"ם נותן מה‬ ‫שהוא שוה דינר או אלף כאילו הוא עבד‬ :‫הנמכר בשוק‬

8/21/2019 4:29 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

5 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983596/jewish/Arachim...

Unless specified otherwise,27 all arechim and all pledges of worth are [dedicated to] physical improvements to the Temple.28 They are placed in a special chamber in the Temple which is prepared for [funds] consecrated for physical improvements to the Temple.

‫והערכים כולן והדמים הכל סתמן‬ ‫לבדק הבית ויפלו הכל ללשכה שהיתה‬ :‫במקדש מוכנת לקדשי בדק הבית‬

When a gentile says: "I am responsible for my worth" or "I am responsible for the worth of so-and-so," he must pay according to his vow. [The money] is not, however, placed in the [abovementioned] chamber. For we do not accept pledges or vows from gentiles to make physical improvements in the Temple or in Jerusalem as [Ezra 4:3]: "It is not for you [together] with us to build [a house for our God]." And [Nechemiah] 2:20] states: "And you do not have a portion, a right, or a remembrance in Jerusalem."

‫עכו"ם שאמר דמי עלי או דמי‬ ‫פלוני עלי נותן כפי נדרו ואינו נופל‬ ‫ללשכה שאין מקבלין מן העכו"ם נדבה או‬ ‫נדר לחזק את בדק הבית או בדק ירושלים‬ '‫שנאמר לא לכם ולנו לבנות בית וגו‬ ‫ונאמר ולכם אין חלק וצדקה וזכרון‬ :‫בירושלים‬

What should be done with [these gifts]? We should question the gentile regarding the intent he had when taking the vow. If he had the intent to give it according to the guidance of the Jewish people, the court may use it for anything they see fit29 except improvements to the Temple and Jerusalem. If he said: "I took the vow for the sake of Heaven," [his gift] should be entombed.30

‫ומה יעשה בהן יבדק העכו"ם על‬ ‫דעת מי נדר אם נדר על דעת‬ ‫ישראל יוציאוהו בית דין במה שיראה להם‬ ‫חוץ מבדק הבית ובדק ירושלים ואם אמר‬ :‫לשמים נדרתי יגנזו‬

8/21/2019 4:29 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

6 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983596/jewish/Arachim...

When a person is in his death throes,31 he has no airech,32nor has he any worth. Since most people in their death throes will die, he is considered as if he is [already] dead.33 Similarly, if a person was sentenced by a Jewish court to be executed because of a transgression that he committed34 and another person pledged his airech, he pledged his own airech, or he pledged his worth or another person pledged his worth, none of the above are liable for anything. For the person is considered as if he is already dead and a deceased person has no airech, nor any worth. With regard to this, [Leviticus 27:29] states: "Any condemned person who is condemned from mankind shall not be redeemed,"35i.e., there is no redemption for him and he is considered as if he is dead.

‫הגוסס אין לו לא ערך ולא דמים‬ ‫הואיל ורוב הגוססין למיתה הרי הוא‬ ‫כמת וכן מי שנגמר דינו בבית דין של‬ ‫ישראל להורגו על עבירה שעבר והעריכו‬ ‫אחר או שהעריך עצמו או שאמר דמי עלי‬ ‫או שאמר אחר דמי זה עלי אינו חייב כלום‬ ‫שזה כמת הוא והמת אין לו ערך ולא דמים‬ ‫ועל זה נאמר כל חרם אשר יחרם מן‬ ‫האדם לא יפדה כלומר אין לו פדיון אלא‬ :‫הרי הוא כמת‬

If a person who is being led to his execution pledges the airech of other people, pledges their worth, or causes damage, he is obligated to pay. [The money owed] is collected from his estate.36

‫זה היוצא ליהרג שהעריך אחרים‬ ‫או נדר דמיהם או הזיק חייב לשלם‬ :‫וגובין הכל מנכסיו‬

Priests and Levites may pledge arechim and their airech may be pledged by others like other Israelites.37 When a minor reaches the age when his vows are of consequence,38 and pledges a person's airech or worth, he is obligated to pay,39 for his vows are of consequence, as we explained in Hilchot Nedarim.

‫כהנים ולויים מעריכין ונערכין‬ ‫כשאר ישראל וקטן שהגיע לעונת‬ ‫נדרים והעריך או נדר דמים חייב לשלם‬ ‫שהרי נדריו קיימים כמו שבארנו בהלכות‬ :‫נדרים‬

8/21/2019 4:29 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

7 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983596/jewish/Arachim...

The arechim are fixed according to the age of the person who is the object of the pledge, not the age of the person making the pledge. What is implied? When a twenty year-old tells a sixty year-old, "I pledge your airech," he must give the airech of a sixty year-old. When a sixty year-old tells a twenty year-old, "I pledge your airech," he must give the airech of a twenty year-old. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫הערכין הקצובין לפי השנים הן שני‬ ‫הנערך ולא שני המעריך כיצד בן‬ ‫עשרים שאמר לבן ששים ערכך עלי נותן‬ ‫ערך בן ששים ובן ששים שאמר לבן‬ ‫עשרים ערכך עלי נותן ערך בן עשרים וכן‬ :‫כל כיוצא בזה‬

The statements of the person pledging the airech must match his intent, as [is the law with regard] to other vows.40 One may appeal [to a sage] for the absolution of a pledge of an airech or one's worth, just as one may appeal for the absolution of other vows and consecrations.41

‫וצריך המעריך שיהא פיו ולבו שוין‬ ‫כשאר הנדרים ונשאלין על הערכין‬ ‫ועל הדמים כדרך שנשאלין על שאר‬ :‫נדרים והקדשות‬

When a person says: "I am responsible for the airech of these individuals," he must pay the combined airech of them all, each one of them according to his years. If he42 was poor, he should give one airech paid by a poor man43 for them all together. If he was wealthy, he should give the airech paid by a wealthy man44 for each one of them.

‫האומר ערך אלו עלי נותן ערך‬ ‫כולן כל אחד ואחד לפי שניו ואם‬ ‫היה עני נותן על ידי כולם ערך אחד עני‬ :‫ואם היה עשיר נותן ע"י כולן ערך עשיר‬

When a person says: "I pledge my airech" and then repeats: "I pledge my airech" - even if he makes this statement several times - he must pay an airech for each pledge.45 If he says: "I pledge two of my arechim, he must pay two arechim. This also applies if he pledges four, or even 1000, arechim, he must pay the number that he pledged.

‫האומר ערכי עלי וחזר ואמר ערכי‬ ‫עלי וכן אם אמר אפילו כמה‬ ‫פעמים חייב על כל אחת ואחת אמר שני‬ ‫ערכי עלי נותן שני ערכין וכן אם אמר‬ :‫ארבעה אפילו אלף נותן כמנין שנדר‬

When one says: "I pledge an airech" without identifying the person whose airech he is pledging, but mentions an airech without any more particulars, he is liable to pay the lowest of all arechim, i.e., three shekalim.46

‫אמר הרי עלי ערך ולא פירש ערך מי‬ ‫אלא ערך סתם נותן פחות שבערכין‬ :‫שהוא שלשת שקלים‬

8/21/2019 4:29 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

8 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983596/jewish/Arachim...

When a person says: "I pledge my airech," but dies before standing before [a court for] appraisal,47 his heirs are not liable to pay, as [implied by Leviticus 27:8]: "And he shall be made to stand before the priests and the priest will evaluate him."48 If he stood before [a court for] appraisal and then died, the heirs must pay.49 If, however, he says: "I pledge my worth," even if he stands before [a court for] appraisal, but dies before they establish a fixed amount and the judges say how much he is worth, his heirs are not obligated to pay.50 If, however, they affixed his worth and then he died, his heirs must pay.

‫האומר ערכי עלי ומת קודם‬ ‫שיעמוד בדין אין היורשין חייבין‬ ‫ליתן שנאמר והעמידו לפני הכהן והעריך‬ :‫אותו הכהן עמד בדין ומת יתנו היורשין‬

‫אבל האומר דמי עלי אף על פי‬ ‫שעמד בדין ומת קודם שיקצצו‬ ‫דמיו ויאמרו הדיינין כמה ישוה אין‬ ‫היורשין חייבין ליתן ואם קצבו דמיו ואח"כ‬ :‫מת יתנו היורשין‬

8/21/2019 4:29 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

9 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983596/jewish/Arachim...

What is the difference between arechim and pledges of worth? [The amount required to be paid] for arechim is fixed by the Torah, while [the amount required to be paid] for a pledge of worth is not fixed.51 Similarly, when a person says: "I pledge the airech of so-and-so and both the person who made the pledge and the one whose airech was pledged died after the latter stood before [a court for] appraisal, the heirs [of the person who made the pledge] are obligated to pay.52 If the person whose airech was pledged died before standing before [a court for] appraisal, even though the person who made the pledge is alive, he is not liable. [The rationale is that] a deceased person does not have an airech and a person whose airech

‫ומה בין ערכין לדמים שערכין‬ ‫קצובין מן התורה והדמים אינן‬ ‫קצובין וכן האומר ערך פלוני עלי ומת‬ ‫העורך והנערך אחר שעמד הנערך בדין‬ ‫חייבין היורשין ליתן מת הנערך קודם‬ ‫שעמד בדין אע"פ שהמעריך קיים הרי זה‬ ‫פטור שאין ערך למת והנערך צריך עמידה‬ ‫בדין אמר דמי פלוני עלי ועמד בדין ומת‬ ‫קודם שיקצצו דמיו הרי זה פטור שאין‬ :‫דמים למתים‬

must stand before [a court for] appraisal [before the commitment becomes binding]. [Similarly,] if one said: "I pledge the worth of so-and-so" and that person stood for an appraisal, but died before an evaluation of his worth was established,53 [the one who made the pledge] is not liable, for a deceased person has no worth.

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. The translation "endowment evaluation" is used because the source of the word airech means "evaluate." Nevertheless,

2. See Hilchot Nedarim 1:2. The Rambam makes this

the term is not appropriate, because these endowments do not involve an evaluation of the worth of the person (house

Hafla'ah (Kessef Mishneh). They are mentioned last,

or field), but instead, a standard figure. It refers to a donation given to the Temple treasury of one's own free will to be used for improvements within the Temple or the like.

statement to explain why he discusses these mitzvot in Sefer because unlike the other subjects discussed in this book, they concern donations to the Temple rather than prohibitions one takes upon oneself (Radbaz). 3. See Hilchot Nedarim 1:5 with regard to this prohibition.

8/21/2019 4:29 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

10 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983596/jewish/Arachim...

4. The Rambam describes this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah, but does not explain it in these

18. Arachin 5b derives this from Leviticus 27:2 which introduces

halachot, but instead, in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot (in the

thus excluding gentiles from pledging endowment evaluations. Nevertheless, the verse includes the word ish,

introduction to those halachot and in Chapter 14, Halachah 13). 5. See Hilchot Nedarim 1:4 with regard to this positive commandment. 6. See

Leviticus,

ch.

27.

Sefer

HaMitzvot

(positive

commandment 114) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 350) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 7. I.e., the age of the person mentioned. The age of the donor is not significant. 8. Until an infant reaches his thirty-first day, we are concerned that he will not survive. See also Hilchot Bikkurim 11:17. Note, however, the contrast to Halachah 9. 9. For the Torah makes no mention of the construct of airachin with regard to utsensils. 10. I.e., he reached his sixth birthday. 11. A shekel is eight oz. of silver in contemporary measure. 12. With regard to the censuses taken in the desert, the person's age at the beginning of the year was important. In this context, by contrast, the reckoning is made for every person individually. 13. A coin widely used in the Second Temple era. It was somewhat larger than a shekel, weighing 384 barley corns of silver.

this mitzvah with the phrase: "Speak to the children of Israel,"

"man," seemingly unnecessarily, indicating that a pledge can be made concerning a gentile. This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah derives the opposite concepts from the same verse. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the halachah follows Rabbi Yehudah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's ruling, citing Ezra 4:3 which states that the gentiles do not have a portion in building the Temple, the intent for which endowment evaluations are given. See also Halachah 11. 19. Who are not liable in the observance of the mitzvot themselves, because they are not in control of their intellectual faculties. 20. This applies even to a Canaanite servant, not only a Jewish servant (Arachin 2a). 21. For, otherwise, all of his financial resources are acquired by his master. 22. Note the contrast to the following halachah. 23. See Chapter 8, Halachah 2. 24. The person's age is of no consequence whatsoever. 25. An airech may not be pledged for these individuals (Halachot 3 and 5). 26. See Halachah 11.

14. Hilchot Shekalim 1:2.

27. See Chapter 5, Halachah 19.

15. A person whose genital area is covered by flesh and thus it

28. The Rambam (and his sources) are borrowing the wording of II Kings 12:6.

is impossible to determine his gender. 16. A person with both male and female genital organs. See Hilchot Nazirut 2:11 for a detailed description of such a person's halachic status. See also Hilchot Ishut 2:24. 17. If, however, a tumtum or androgynus pledges the airech of a man or a woman, the pledge is binding (Arachin 2a). If an operation is performed on a tumtum and it is revealed that he is a male or female, an airech may be given accordingly.

29. I.e., for matters that are for the communal benefit (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 1:2). 30. For it becomes consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 8:8; Hilchot Meilah 5:15. 31. Who is taking his last breathes (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 1:3, Rav Kappach's translation). Compare to Hilchot Gerushin 6:28. 32. Nor is an airech he takes binding (Arachin 6b). Note the contrast to the following halachah and note the gloss of the Radbaz. 33. Note, however, Hilchot Evel 4:5. 34. Since the Torah has condemned such a person to death, the matter is not dependent on the will of mortals. If, by contrast, one is condemned to death by a mortal king, these laws do not apply, because it is possible that the king will retract his decree (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.). Compare to Hilchot Gerushin 6:29.

8/21/2019 4:29 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

11 of 12

35. Our translation follows the commentary of Rashi and others. 36. Even against the will of the heirs, for a binding obligation has been created on the estate. Just as an estate is liable for the loans taken by the testator when supported by a legal document, so too, it is liable for the obligations established by Torah Law (the Rambam' s Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 1:3). 37. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 1:1), the Rambam explains that since these individuals are not liable for the redemption of the firstborn, one might think that they are not liable in this context as well. Hence, it is necessary to emphasize that they are. 38. As explained in Hilchot Nedarim 11:1-3, when a twelve year old boy and an eleven year old girl are aware of the significance of their vows, their vows are binding according to Scriptural Law. Below this age, their vows are not binding. 39. When he comes of age and has money of his own. 40. See Hilchot Nedarim 2:2. Since Leviticus 27:2 uses the term vow when speaking of these pledges, they are bound by the laws applying to other vows.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983596/jewish/Arachim...

48. I.e., the obligation takes effect only when he stands before the priest for appraisal (the Rambam' s Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 5:3). Since he did not do that, his heirs are under no obligation (Radbaz). The Ra'avad, however, differs with the Rambam and maintains that as soon as a person pledges an airech, he is liable for it and an obligation is created for his estate. Hence, he differs with the Rambam's ruling. Apparently, the Rambam is saying that if a person pledges an airech, he must stand before a priest and state his age, so that the priest will establish his appraisal. The Merkevat HaMishneh notes that the literal meaning of the verse is that if a person is too poor to pay the airech, the priests will evaluate how much he can pay. 49. For once an airech is established, a binding obligation is incurred and his estate is required to pay. 50. Until an appraisal is established by the courts, the obligation is not defined. Hence, when he dies, all liability is removed from the estate because a deceased person has no worth (Arachin 20a). 51. According to early printings and authoritative manuscripts of

41. See Hilchot Nedarim 4:5,7.

the Mishneh Torah. This clause should be part of the

42. The person making the pledge.

previous halachah and the present halachah begins:

43. See Chapter 3, Halachot 2-3, which states that the minimum

"Similarly, when a person says: 'I pledge....'"

amount of an airech is a sela. The Lechem Mishneh rules that a sela must be given for each individual whose airech he pledged. 44. I.e., the airech specified by the Torah. 45. For arechim are vows and one vow can take effect upon

52. This is a direct extension of the concepts stated in Halachah 21. 53. As the Rambam emphasizes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 5:2), there is a difference in this regard between the pledge of an airech and the pledge of a person's worth. When his airech is pledged, the person who

another (Radbaz). 46. We assume that his obligation was for the smallest amount possible. 47. See Chapter 8, Halachah 2.

made the pledge is liable as soon as he stands before the court for appraisal. Since the matter is dependent on his age alone, there is no need for an evaluation. When, by contrast, a person's worth is pledged, that worth must be evaluated and until the evaluation is completed, there is no obligation.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:29 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

12 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983596/jewish/Arachim...

8/21/2019 4:29 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

1 of 7

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983597/jewish/Arachim...



Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1

When a person says: "I pledge the airech of my hand," "...my eye," or "...my foot," or "...that person's hand" or "...that person's eye," his words are of no consequence.1 [If he says:] "I pledge the airech of my heart" or "...my liver" or "...that person's heart" or "...that person's liver," he must pay the entire airech.2

English

Hebrew

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3

‫האומר ערך ידי או ערך עיני או רגלי‬ ‫עלי או שאמר ערך יד זה או עינו‬ ‫עלי לא אמר כלום ערך לבי או כבדי עלי‬ ‫או ערך לבו של פלוני או כבדו עלי נותן‬ ‫ערך כולו וכן כל אבר שאם ינטל מן החי‬ :‫ימות אם אמר ערכו עלי נותן ערך כולו‬

Similarly, with regard to any limb which if removed would cause the person to die, if one says: "I pledge its airech," he must pay the airech of the entire person. If a person says: "I pledge half my airech," he must pay half his airech. If he says: "I pledge the airech of half myself," he must pay his entire airech, for it is impossible for him to live if half his body is removed.3

‫אמר חצי ערכי עלי נותן חצי ערכו‬ ‫ערך חציי עלי נותן ערך כולו שאי‬ :‫אפשר שינטל חציו ויחיה‬

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

2 of 7

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983597/jewish/Arachim...

When a person says: "I pledge the worth of my hand" or "...the worth of so-and-so's hand," we evaluate how much he is worth with a hand and how much he would be worth without a hand and he should give [the difference] to the Temple treasury.4 What is implied? If he is sold in his entirety, he will be worth fifty [zuz], but if he were sold aside from his hand - i.e., his hand would remain the property of its owner and the purchaser would not have any portion of it5 - he would be worth forty, he is obligated to pay ten to the Temple treasury. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫האומר דמי ידי עלי או דמי יד פלוני‬ ‫עלי שמין אותו כמה הוא שוה ביד‬ ‫וכמה הוא שוה בלא יד ונותן להקדש כיצד‬ ‫אם נמכר הוא כולו ]יהיה[ שוה חמשים‬ ‫ואם ימכר חוץ מידו שתשאר ידו זו לבעליו‬ ‫ולא יהיה ללוקח בה כלום שוה ארבעים‬ ‫נמצא זה יתחייב לשלם להקדש עשרה וכן‬ :‫כל כיוצא בזה‬

When a person says: "I pledge the worth of my head" or "...my liver" or "I pledge the worth of so-and-so's head" or "...so-and-so's liver," he must pay his entire worth.6 Similarly, if one says: "I pledge the worth of half myself," he must pay his entire worth. When, however, he says: "I pledge half my worth," he [is obligated] to pay [only] half his worth.

‫האומר דמי ראשי או כבדי עלי או‬ ‫דמי ראשו של פלוני עלי או לבו או‬ ‫כבדו עלי נותן דמי כולו וכן האומר דמי‬ ‫חציי עלי נותן דמי כולו אבל האומר חצי‬ :‫דמי עלי נותן חצי דמיו‬

When one says: "I pledge my weight" or "I pledge the weight of so-and-so," he should pay his weight. [If] he specified "[his weight in] silver," [he should pay in] silver; if [in] gold, [he should pay] in gold.7

‫האומר משקלי עלי או משקל פלוני‬ ‫עלי נותן משקלו אם כסף כסף אם‬ ‫זהב זהב כמו שפירש אמר משקל ידי או‬ ‫רגלי עלי רואין כמה היא ראויה לשקול‬ ‫ונותן ממון שפירש עד היכן היא היד לענין‬ ‫זה עד האציל והרגל עד הארכובה לפי‬ :‫שבנדרים הולכין אחר לשון בני אדם‬

If he said: "I pledge the weight of my arm" or "...my leg," we see how much it would weigh and he must pay the money that he specified. What is the length of the arm in this context? Until the elbow.8 And the leg is until the knee. [The rationale is that] with regard to vows, we follow [the meaning of] the terms as used by people at large.9

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

3 of 7

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983597/jewish/Arachim...

When a person says: "I pledge my height in silver" or "...in gold," he must give a scepter of his height that will [stand straight] without bending from the type [of metal] he specified. If he said: "I pledge the extent of my height," he may give even a scepter that will bend from the type [of metal] he specified.10

‫האומר קומתי עלי כסף או זהב נותן‬ ‫שרביט שאינו נכפף מלא קומתו ממין‬ ‫שפירש אמר מלא קומתי עלי נותן אפילו‬ :‫שרביט שנכפף ממין שפירש‬

[The following laws apply when a person] says: "I pledge my weight" and does not specify from which substance. If he is very wealthy and [obviously] intended to give a substantial donation, he should give his weight in gold.11 Similarly, if [such a person] says: "I pledge the weight of my arm," "...the weight of my leg," or "...my height" without specifying the substance from which he will give, he should give gold. If, however, [the donor] is not exceedingly wealthy, he should give his weight or the weight of his hand from any substance which is commonly weighed in that locale, even fruits. Similarly, he should give a scepter as tall as he is [from any substance], even from wood. Everything depends on his wealth and [our assessment of] his intent.

‫האומר משקלי עלי ולא פירש מאי זה‬ ‫מין אם היה עשיר ביותר ונתכוון‬ ‫למתנה מרובה נותן משקלו זהב והוא הדין‬ ‫באומר משקל ידי או רגלי או קומתי ולא‬ ‫פירש מאי זה מין נותן זהב ואם אינו מופלג‬ ‫בעשירות נותן משקלו או משקל ידו‬ ‫מדברים שדרכן להשקל באותו מקום‬ ‫אפילו פירות וכן נותן שרביט מלא קומתו‬ :‫אפילו של עץ הכל לפי ממונו ודעתו‬

When a person uses any [of the following] expressions - "I pledge my standing," "...my sitting," "...the place where I sit," "...my width," "...my thickness," or "...my circumference" - [his intent is a matter of question12 and] there is doubt [regarding his obligation. Hence,] he should [be required to] give [generously] according to [what could be expected of a person of] his means until he says: "This was not my intent."13 If he died,14 his heirs are required to give the minimum that the expression could mean.15

‫האומר עמדי עלי ישיבתי עלי או‬ ‫מקום ישיבתי עלי או רחבי עלי עביי‬ ‫עלי היקפי עלי כל אלו ספק ומביא לפי‬ ‫ממונו עד שיאמר לא כך נתכוונתי ואם‬ :‫מת יתנו היורשים פחות שבלשונות‬

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

4 of 7

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983597/jewish/Arachim...

When a person says: "I pledge a silver coin," he should not give less than a silver dinar.16 When he says: "I pledge a brass coin," he should not give less than [brass coins worth] a silver me'ah.17 "I pledge iron," he should not give less than [a piece of iron] one cubit by one cubit fit for the blade [of iron that protected against] ravens which stood at the top of the roof of the Temple, as explained in its place.18

‫האומר הרי עלי מטבע כסף לא‬ ‫יפחות מדינר כסף מטבע נחשת לא‬ ‫יפחות ממעה כסף הרי עלי ברזל לא‬ ‫יפחות מאמה על אמה לכלה עורב שהיה‬ :‫למעלה בגג ההיכל כמו שיתבאר במקומו‬

When he says: "I pledge silver" or "...gold" without mentioning the word "coin," he should [be required to] give a slab of silver or of gold of [significant] weight until he says: "This was not my intent." Similarly, if he explicitly mentioned a weight [of silver or gold], but forgot how much he specified, he should [be required to] give until he says: "This was not my intent."

‫האומר הרי עלי כסף או זהב ולא הזכיר‬ ‫מטבע יביא לשון של כסף או של זהב‬ ‫יהיה משקלה עד שיאמר לא לכך‬ ‫נתכוונתי וכן אם פירש המשקל ושכח‬ ‫כמה פירש יביא עד שיאמר לא לכך‬ :‫נתכוונתי‬

Whether a person says: "I pledge my worth" or "I pledge the worth of so-and-so," or whether one says: "I pledge a manah,"19 "...fifty zuz," "...silver," or "...gold," they are all called "monetary obligations." [Both] arechim and monetary obligations are given toward capital improvements for the Temple, as explained.20

‫אחד האומר דמי עלי או דמי פלוני‬ ‫עלי או האומר הרי עלי מנה או‬ ‫חמשים או כסף או זהב הכל הן הנקראים‬ ‫חייבי דמים והדמים והערכין לבדק הבית‬ :‫כמו שבארנו‬

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

5 of 7

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983597/jewish/Arachim...

There were two chambers in the Temple: one was called "the chamber of secret gifts," and the other "the chamber for vessels." "The chamber of secret gifts" was given that name because sin-fearing men make donations there furtively and poor people of distinguished lineage receive their sustenance from there in secret.21 "The chamber for vessels" was given that name because anyone who donated a vessel [to the Temple] would cast it there. Once in thirty days, the treasurers would open [the chamber]. Any utensil that could be used for the improvement of the Temple was saved [for that purpose]. The remainder would be sold and the proceeds placed in the chamber for [funds] consecrated for physical improvements to the Temple. If [funds] were needed [to purchase] sacrifices for the altar and the funds collected for that purpose were not sufficient, what is necessary can be taken from [the funds] consecrated for physical improvements to the Temple.22 If, however, [funds] were required for physical improvements to the Temple and there were not sufficient resources in the chamber dedicated for that purpose, we do not take what is necessary from [the funds] consecrated for sacrifices for the altar.23

« Previous

‫שתי לשכות היו במקדש אחת‬ ‫לשכת חשאים ואחת לשכת הכלים‬ ‫לשכת חשאים יראי חטא נותנין לתוכן‬ ‫בחשאי ועניים בני טובים מתפרנסים ממנה‬ ‫בחשאי לשכת הכלים כל מי שהתנדב כלי‬ ‫זורקו לתוכה ואחת לשלשים יום הגזברין‬ ‫פותחין אותה כל כלי שנמצא בו צורך‬ ‫לבדק הבית מניחין אותו והשאר נמכרין‬ :‫ודמיהן נופלין ללשכת בדק הבית‬

‫הוצרכו לקדשי מזבח ולא הספיקו‬ ‫להן תרומת הלשכה מוציאין את‬ ‫הראוי להן מקדשי בדק הבית אבל אם‬ ‫הוצרכו לבדק הבית ולא מצאו בלשכת‬ ‫בדק הבית דבר המספיק להן אין מוציאין‬ :‫הראוי להן מקדשי המזבח‬

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 FOOTNOTES 1. The rationale is that the Torah prescribed an airech for a

3. The same law applies if he pledges the airech of half of his

person in his or her totality, not for his individual limbs

heart (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin

(Arachin 4a; 20a).

5:3).

2. Since the person's life is dependent on his heart or his liver, pledging the airech of these organs is like pledging his entire airech. See Arachin 20a.

4. This reflects one of the differences between pledges of worth and arechim. He is liable for his pledge, because his words have significance. His hand has value that can be appraised.

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

6 of 7

5. Arachin 19b emphasizes that we do not evaluate his value as if his hand were amputated, for then his worth would depreciate greatly, because no one wants a person without a hand. 6. Again, since the person's life is dependent on that organ, it is as if his entire worth was pledged. 7. The laws that apply if he did not specify in what his weight should be measured are stated in Halachah 7. 8. The Rambam's opinion is shared by Tosafot 19a. Rashi and others, however, offer a different interpretation. 9. In a halachic context, by contrast, the term yad can refer to the hand. See Hilchot Berachot 6:4; Hilchot Mikveot 11:4. 10. Adding the extra term "extension of" indicates that he is deviating from the ordinary manner in which the term would be explained (Arachin 19a). 11. Arachin, loc. cit., derives this from an instance which occurred in the Talmudic era. A very rich woman pledged her daughter's weight to the Temple. Our Sages obligated her to give her weight in gold. 12. For example, if he pledged: "My standing," we are unsure whether he meant a scepter that could stand on its own or

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983597/jewish/Arachim...

14. And thus his estate is obligated to fulfill his vow (Chapter 1, Halachah 21). 15. There is no question of the heirs desecrating a vow, because they did not take the vow. The only question is the lien against the estate. Accordingly, we follow the principle that money is not expropriated from a person unless it is certain that he is liable (Lechem Mishneh). 16. We assume that this was the intent, for this is the most commonly used silver coin. 17. We assume that this was the intent, for anything less would not have significant value. 18. As related in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:3, there was a blade of iron position on top of the Temple building to prevent ravens from resting there and dirtying it with droppings. We assume that this was the intent, for there would be no other purpose to give iron to the Temple treasury. 19. One hundred zuz. 20. Chapter 1, Halachah 10. 21. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 10:8 which explains that giving charity in this manner - i.e., where neither the donor nor the recipient know of each other's identity - is one of the highest forms of giving.

one that would bend. If he pledged: "My sitting," we are unsure of whether he meant a scepter as tall as he is when

22. We are permitted to use funds designated for one charitable

he sits or one of his full height that is bent according to his position when he sits. See Rashi and Tosafot, Arachin, loc.

purpose for a charitable purpose that is higher. And the offering of the communal sacrifices is considered the highest

cit., where the possible interpretations of each of the above

possible purpose.

terms are explained.

23. Because doing so would be considering lowering the level of

13. I.e., we compel him to give generously, because if he gives less than the amount he promised, he will be transgressing

holiness from that for which the funds were designated. The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling based on

the prohibition against desecrating his vow. If, however, he says: "This was not my origin intent," we are certain that he

several sources. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's position.

fulfilled his vow (Lechem Mishneh).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2 - Texts & Writings

7 of 7

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983597/jewish/Arachim...

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

1 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983598/jewish/Arachim...



Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2

English

Hebrew

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4

When a person pledges the airech of someone less than 20 years old and he does not stand before [a court for] appraisal until he exceeds that age, the donor is required to give only the airech of one less than 20.1 For the airech is defined only at the time that it is pledged and not at the time one stands before the court.2

‫המעריך את הפחות מבן עשרים ולא‬ ‫עמד בדין עד שהיה יתר על עשרים‬ ‫אינו נותן אלא ערך פחות מבן עשרים‬ ‫שאין הערך אלא בזמן הערך לא בזמן‬ :‫ההעמדה בדין‬

All of the arechim that are explicitly mentioned in the Torah are to be given when the one who makes the pledge is wealthy.3 If, however, he was poor and he does not have the means, he is [required to] give everything that he possesses - even if it is only a sela4 and he discharges his obligation, as [Leviticus 27:8] states: "If he is too poor [to pay] the airech... the priest should evaluate him5 according to his capacity."

‫כל הערכין הקצובין בתורה הן שנותן‬ ‫המעריך אם היה עשיר אבל אם היה‬ ‫עני ואין ידו משגת נותן כל הנמצא בידו‬ ‫אפילו סלע אחד ונפטר שנאמר ואם מך‬ :‫הוא מערכך על פי אשר תשיג יד הנודר‬

Which source teaches that if he possesses only one sela, it is sufficient to give that sela? [Leviticus, ibid.,] states: "All of your arechim will be in holy shekalim."6 This teaches that there is no airech less than a sela, not more than 50.7

‫ומנין שהוא נותן אפילו סלע אחד אם‬ ‫אין לו אלא סלע אחד שנאמר וכל‬ ‫ערכך יהיה בשקל הקדש הא למדת שאין‬ :‫בערכין פחות מסלע ולא יותר על חמשים‬

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

2 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983598/jewish/Arachim...

If the person does not possess even a sela, we do not take less than a sela from him. Instead, the entire amount is considered as a debt incumbent upon him. If he acquires property and becomes wealthy,8 he must pay a full airech as prescribed by the Torah. When a rich person [pledged an airech] and then became poor, or when a poor person pledged an airech and became wealthy [before he was evaluated], he must give a full airech.9 If, however, he pledged an airech when he was poor, became wealthy, and then

‫הרי שלא נמצא בידו אפילו סלע אין‬ ‫לוקחין ממנו פחות מסלע אלא ישאר‬ ‫הכל עליו חוב ואם מצאה ידו והעשיר יתן‬ :‫ערך שלם הקצוב בתורה‬

‫עשיר שהעריך והעני או שהעריך‬ ‫כשהוא עני והעשיר הרי זה חייב‬ ‫בערך עשיר אבל אם העריך כשהוא עני‬ :‫והעשיר וחזר והעני נותן ערך עני‬

became poor again [before he was evaluated], he may give the airech required of a poor man. When a rich man says: "I pledge my airech" or "I pledge the airech of so-and-so," and a poor person heard and says: "I pledge whatever he said," the poor person is obligated to pay the airech required of a wealthy man, i.e., a full airech.10

‫עשיר שאמר ערכי עלי או ערך פלוני‬ ‫ושמע העני ואמר מה שאמר זה עלי‬ ‫הרי העני חייב בערך עשיר שהוא ערך‬ ‫שלם אבל עני שהעריך את העשיר ואמר‬ ‫ערך זה עלי אינו חייב אלא כערך עני‬ :‫שהוא כפי אשר תשיג ידו‬

If, however, a poor person pledges the airech of a wealthy man, saying: "I pledge his airech," he is liable only for a poor man's airech, i.e., what he is capable of paying. What is the difference between a person who is liable for a poor man's airech and one who is liable for the airech of a wealthy which is the entire sum [mentioned in the Torah]? Once everything that he owns is expropriated from a poor man, even if it is only one sela, and then he becomes wealthy, he is not liable to pay the greater sum.11 If, however, he would have been liable for the airech of a wealthy man, the entire airech would remain a debt for which he is liable until he becomes wealthy and pays it [in total].

‫מה בין החייב בערך עני להחייב בערך‬ ‫עשיר שהוא הערך הקצוב כולו‬ ‫שהחייב בערך עני שלקחו ממנו כל מה‬ ‫שידו משגת אפילו סלע אחד ואח"כ‬ ‫העשיר אינו חייב לשלם ואם היה חייב‬ ‫בערך עשיר ישאר שאר הערך עליו עד‬ :‫שיעשיר וישלים הערך שעליו‬

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

3 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983598/jewish/Arachim...

When a person explicitly mentions the sum of the airech, saying: "I pledge my airech of 50 selaim" or "I pledge the airech of so-and-so, 30 selaim," his financial capacity is not evaluated.12 Instead, we expropriate everything that he possesses and the remainder remains a debt for which he is liable until he becomes wealthy and pays.

‫המפרש את הערך ואמר ערכי עלי‬ ‫חמשים סלעים או ערך פלוני עלי‬ ‫שלשים סלעים אינו נדון בהשג יד אלא‬ ‫לוקחין כל הנמצא בידו והשאר עליו חוב‬ :‫עד שיעשיר ויתן‬

Similarly, if one says: "I pledge my worth" or "I pledge the worth of so-and-so," we do not evaluate his possessions.13 [The rationale is that] a pledge of worth is like an explicit vow.14 It is like someone who said: "I pledge a maneh15 to the Temple treasury." He is obligated to give an entire maneh.

‫וכן האומר דמי עלי או דמי פלוני‬ ‫עלי אינו נדון בהשג יד שחייבי דמים‬ ‫הרי פירשו נדרן והרי הן כמי שאמר מנה‬ :‫עלי הקדש שהוא חייב ליתן מנה גמור‬

When a person says: "I pledge an airech" without explaining his words, he is not considered as having pledged three shekalim.16 Instead, he is judged according to his financial capacity, as is the law with regard to other arechim.

‫האומר הרי עלי ערך סתם ולא פירש‬ ‫אינו כמפרש שלשת שקלים אלא נדון‬ :‫בהשג יד כשאר המעריכין‬

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

4 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983598/jewish/Arachim...

[The following laws apply when a person] states: "I pledge my airech" and then repeats: "I pledge my airech."17 If he possesses [only] ten selaim and gives nine for the second airech and one for the first, he fulfills the obligations of both of them.18 For arechim are not like debts.19 Although everything he possesses is on lien to the first [airech],20once the Temple Sanctuary has collected its due, it has been collected.21 If, however, he gave nine [selaim] for the first [airech] and one for the second, he fulfilled his responsibility for the second airech, but not for the first. [The rationale is that] everything that he possesses is on lien to the first airech and when he gave nine, he retained a sela. Thus he did not give everything in his possession.22 Therefore the remainder of the first airech should remain [a debt incumbent] upon him until he becomes wealthy and pays it. When a person says: "I pledge two of my arechim,"23 and he possesses only less than that sum, there is an unresolved question. Is [the money he possesses] on lien to them both? Hence he should give half of what he possesses for one airech and the other half, for the other and in this way fulfill his obligation.24 Or is he required to give one full airech - or everything that he possesses25 - for one airech and the other airech should remain a debt [incumbent] upon him which he will pay - either as a wealthy man or as a poor man - according to his financial capacity.26

‫האומר ערכי עלי וחזר ואמר ערכי‬ ‫עלי והיו בידו עשר סלעים ונתן‬ ‫תשע לשניה וסלע לראשונה יצא ידי‬ ‫שתיהן שהערכין לאו כחובות הן שאע"פ‬ ‫שכל מה שבידו משועבד לראשונה הקדש‬ ‫מאוחר שגבה גבה אבל אם נתן תשע‬ ‫לראשונה ואחת לשניה ידי שניה יצא‬ ‫שהרי כשנתן הסלע לא נשאר בידו כלום‬ ‫והרי אין ידו משגת ידי ראשונה לא יצא‬ ‫שהרי כל מה שהיה בידו משועבד‬ ‫לראשונה כשנתן התשע נשאר לו סלע‬ ‫והרי לא נתן כל מה שידו משגת לפיכך‬ ‫ישאר עליו שאר ערך ראשון עד שיעשיר‬ :‫וישלים‬

‫האומר שני ערכי עלי ולא היה בידו‬ ‫אלא פחות מכדי שני ערכין הרי‬ ‫הדבר ספק אם נתפס לשניהן ונותן חצי‬ ‫מה שיש לו לערך אחד וחצי לערך השני‬ ‫ויפטר או יתן ערך אחד מהן שלם או כל‬ ‫הנמצא בידו באחד מהן וישאר הערך‬ ‫האחר עליו חוב עד שיתן אותו בעניות או‬ :‫בעשירות כפי השג ידו‬

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

5 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983598/jewish/Arachim...

When a person sets aside his airech or his worth and [the funds] are stolen or lost, he is liable to replace them even if he did not accept responsibility for them until they reach the Temple treasurer,27 as [implied by Leviticus 27:23]: "You will give your airech on that day, sanctified unto God."28

‫המפריש ערכו או דמיו ונגנבו או‬ ‫אבדו אף על פי שלא אמר עלי חייב‬ ‫באחריותן עד שיגיעו ליד הגזבר שנאמר‬ ‫ונתן את הערכך ביום ההוא קדש לה' הרי‬ ‫הן חולין אף על פי שהפרישן עד שיגיעו‬ :‫לידי הגזבר‬

Even though he set them aside, they are nevertheless considered as ordinary property29 until they reach the Temple treasurer.30 [The Temple treasurers are entitled to] seize collateral for airechim or pledges of worth. They take what they vowed [from the donors] against their will.31 They are not required to return the collateral by day or by night.32 They sell all the landed property and movable property in their possession including their clothing, household articles, servants, and livestock, taking their payment from everything. They may not, however, sell the clothing of the [donor's] wife, that of his sons, clothing that he had dyed for them,33 nor new sandals that he purchased for them.34 Similarly, when a person consecrates all of his property, he has not consecrated these [articles].

‫חייבי ערכין ודמים ממשכנין אותן‬ ‫ולוקחין מהן בעל כרחן מה שנדרו‬ ‫ואינן חייבין להחזיר להם המשכון ביום או‬ ‫בלילה ומוכרין כל הנמצא להם מן הקרקע‬ ‫ומן המטלטלין מכסות וכלי תשמיש הבית‬ ‫ועבדים ובהמה ונפרעין מן הכל ואין‬ ‫מוכרין לא כסות אשתו ולא כסות בניו ולא‬ ‫בגדים שצבען לשמן ולא סנדלים חדשים‬ ‫שלקחן לשמן וכן המקדיש כל נכסיו לא‬ :‫הקדיש את אלו‬

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

6 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983598/jewish/Arachim...

[When a person] pledges arechim, the worth of an entity, or he consecrates a maneh to the Temple treasury and does not possess [the immediate resources to meet his pledge, we expropriate] all the movable property he owns, leaving him only:35 his head and arm tefillin, his sandals, a chair to sit on, and a bed and a mattress appropriate36 for him to sleep on. If he is poor, we give him a bed and a straw mat to sleep on. And we give him food for 30 days and clothing for twelve months for himself alone.37 We do not [make these provisions] for his wife and children although he is obligated to provide for their livelihood and their clothing,38 We leave him only garments that are fitting for his [social standing].39

‫ונותנין לו מכל נכסיו לזה שיש‬ ‫עליו ערכין או דמים או שהקדיש‬ ‫מנה לבדק הבית ואין לו נותנין לו תפילין‬ ‫של ראש ושל יד וסנדליו וכסא לישב עליו‬ ‫ומטה ומצע הראויין לו לישן עליהם ואם‬ ‫היה עני נותנין לו מטה ומפץ לישן עליו‬ ‫ונותנין לו מזון שלשים יום וכסות שנים‬ ‫עשר חדש לו לבדו אבל לא לאשתו ובניו‬ ‫אע"פ שהוא חייב במזונותיהם ובכסותם‬ :‫ואין נותנין לו אלא כסות הראויה לו‬

If he possesses silk garments and golden garments, we remove them from him and give him garments that are appropriate for a person of his social standing40 for the weekdays, but not for Sabbaths and festivals.41

‫היו עליו כלי משי ובגדים מוזהבין‬ ‫מעבירין אותן מעליו ונותנין לו‬ ‫כסות הראויה לאיש כמותו לחול אבל לא‬ :‫לשבתות וימים טובים‬

If he was a craftsman, we leave him two of every type of the tools of his trade.42

‫ואם היה אומן נותנין לו שני כלי‬ ‫אומנות מכל מין ומין כיצד אם היה‬ ‫חרש נותנין לו שני מעצדים ושתי מגרות‬ ‫היו לו כלים מרובין ממין אחד ומועטין‬ ‫ממין שני אין מוכרין מן המרובה ולוקחין‬ ‫לו מן המועט אלא נותנין לו שני כלים מן‬ :‫המרובין וכל שיש לו מן המועט‬

What is implied? If he was a carpenter, we leave him two planes and two saws. If he had many tools of one type and a few of another type, we do not sell many of those of which he possesses a lot and purchase some of those of which he possesses a little. Instead, we leave him two tools of those which he possesses a lot and all those he possesses of those which he possesses a little. If he was a donkey driver or a farmer, we don't leave him his livestock even though he can only earn his livelihood with it. If he was a sailor, we do not leave him his boat.43 Instead, everything must be sold.

‫היה חמר או איכר אין נותנין לו‬ ‫בהמתו אע"פ שאין לו מזונות אלא‬ ‫ממנה היה ספן אין נותנין לו ספינתו אלא‬ :‫ימכר הכל‬

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

7 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983598/jewish/Arachim...

If there were livestock, servants, and pearls among his possessions and merchants said: "If clothing worth 30 [zuz] is purchased for this servant, his value will increase by 100"; "If we wait to sell this cow to a meat market, its price will increase by ten [zuz]; or "If this pearl is taken to this-and-this place, it will be worth much money, but here it will only be worth a small amount," we do not heed them. Instead, what is done? We sell everything in its place and at its time as it is, as [the above prooftext [implied by Leviticus 27:23]: "You will give your airech on that day, sanctified unto God." [This teaches that] every entity [that is] consecrated [to the Temple treasury] is not embellished, nor do we wait to take it to the market, nor do we bring it from place to place. Instead, consecrated articles are sold only in their place and at the time [they were consecrated].44

‫היו בנכסים בהמה ועבדים‬ ‫ומרגליות ואמרו התגרים אם ילקח‬ ‫לעבד זה כסות בשלשים משבח הוא מאה‬ ‫ופרה זאת אם ימתינו בה לאטלס משבחת‬ ‫עשרה ומרגלית זו אם מעלין אותה למקום‬ ‫פלוני תשוה ממון רב וכאן אינה שוה אלא‬ ‫מעט אין שומעין להן אלא כיצד עושין‬ ‫מוכרין הכל במקומו ובשעתו כמה שהוא‬ ‫שנאמר ונתן את הערכך ביום ההוא קדש‬ ‫לה' לרבות כל דבר של הקדש שאין‬ ‫מפרכסין אותו ואין ממתינין בו לשוק ולא‬ ‫מוליכין אותו ממקום למקום אין להקדש‬ :‫אלא מקומו ושעתו‬

When does the above apply? With regard to movable property and servants.45 For landed property, by contrast, we announce the sale for 60 consecutive days, morning and evening46 and [only] afterwards, are they sold.47

‫בד"א במטלטלין ועבדים אבל‬ ‫הקרקעות מכריזין עליהם ששים יום‬ ‫רצופים בבקר ובערב ואחר כך מוכרין‬ :‫אותם‬

« Previous

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2 FOOTNOTES 1. Which is a lesser amount, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3.

5. Thus the evaluation mentioned by the verse is twofold: a) the age of the person whose airech is pledged is considered and

2. Arachin 18a derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus

on that basis, we determine the sum the one who made the pledge must pay;

27:17. 3. I.e., he has the means to pay the pledge that he made. 4. The laws that apply if he cannot pay even a sela are discussed in Halachah 4.

b) if the one who made the pledge is poor, we evaluate his capacity to pay (Radbaz). Once the poor person pays the lesser amount, he is not obligated to pay any more even if later he becomes wealthy (Halachah 7).

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

8 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983598/jewish/Arachim...

6. Implied is that an airech must be at least a shekel. In his

19. In Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 20:1, the Rambam writes that if a

Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 2:1), the Rambam

creditor whose lien begins later expropriates property from a

states that if he paid less than a shekel, it is as if he did not

debtor first, the court expropriates it from him and gives it to the creditor with the prior lien. This, however, applies only

pay anything at all. 7. For this is the highest airech mentioned in the Torah. 8. I.e., acquires the amount he pledged. 9. He is not given the option of paying a lesser amount. Instead, the full airech remains a debt incumbent upon him. 10. For he was not pledging an airech, but instead, taking vow to pay the amount the wealthy person had pledged. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the poor man is judged according to his own financial capacity. The Ra'avad supports his view from Arachin 17a where there appears to be a difference of opinion among the Sages. Although the Rambam interprets that passage differently (see his Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 2:1), the Kessef Mishneh notes that the Ra'avad's view seems more appropriate to the text's simple meaning. 11. We find a parallel concept with regard to sacrifices. There are certain offerings that are dependent on a person's financial status. If he is wealthy, he must bring one type of sacrifice and if he is poor another. If a poor person brings the

with regard to landed property and not to movable property (ibid.:2). 20. And thus he should have paid all ten selaim for that airech, if he did not do so and paid a lesser amount, he fulfills his obligation. 21. The Rambam's ruling follows the logic of Rav Sherira Gaon, as quoted by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi (Ketubot

94a),

although the wording of Arachin 7b, 8a, does not imply such a conclusion. The difference between the two situations is that the two debts are owed to two different people. Hence giving one is taking from the other. Thus the chronological sequence when the liens were established is important. Arechim, however, are always given to the Temple treasury. Thus they are both being given to the same place. Hence there is no point in having the money expropriated. 22. For when giving the first airech, he should not consider the second airech at all.

sacrifice required of him, he is not liable to bring a second sacrifice if he becomes wealthy (Arachin 17b; Radbaz).

23. In which case he is obligated to pay both of them, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 19.

12. I.e., even if he is poor, we do not evaluate his financial status as we ordinarily do if he pledged an airech. The rationale is

24. According to this view, even if he becomes wealthy afterwards, he is not obligated to give anything more.

that he mentioned a specific amount and hence, he is

25. If he does not have enough for even one complete airech.

obligated for that amount (Radbaz).

26. The Radbaz rules that, because of the doubt, all we obligate the person is to fulfill the first (more lenient) view.

13. I.e., and establish his liability only according to the possessions he owns. 14. The Ra'avad differs and offers a different explanation. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh favor the Rambam's view. 15. 100 zuz. 16. The smallest airech there is. I.e., he is liable to pay three shekalim if he possesses that sum (Chapter 1, Halachah 20). If, however, he does not possess that sum, we do not say that he has taken an explicit vow. Instead, his worth is evaluated, as above. 17. And thus he is obligated to pay two arechim. This halachah is speaking about an instance where the donor is poor and does not have the money to pay either - let alone both - of his pledges. 18. I.e., the priest began evaluating the second airech first. The donor could not give the entire amount for the second airech, since he was already liable for the first.

Nevertheless, if the Temple treasurer seizes the entire amount as payment for the first airech, the donor remains liable for the second. 27. Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text has a somewhat different version. 28. The verse implies that the obligation is incumbent upon you until the funds are actually given. This is in contrast to some other financial commitments vowed to the Temple treasury, as stated in Hilchot Nedarim 1:2; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:4-6. 29. I.e., they are not consecrated and the prohibition against misusing property dedicating to the Temple treasury does not apply to them. 30. For the implication of the prooftext is that on the day you give the airech, it becomes consecrated. 31. In contrast to an ordinary lender who must wait for collateral to be given to him. The donor must be evaluated by the court, however, before his property may be taken.

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

9 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983598/jewish/Arachim...

32. I.e., in contrast to collateral taken from an ordinary lender which must be returned. See Deuteronomy 24:13. 33. Even if they have not worn it already. 34. For these articles are considered as owned by the person's wife or children and their property may not be expropriated to pay for the donor's debt. Compare to Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 1:5. 35. I.e., he is left the basic necessities for his spiritual and material sustenance. If he consecrates all of his property, he is not left even these articles (Chapter 6, Halachah 3).

40. I.e., if he possesses clothing that is appropriate for someone of a higher social standing, that clothing is sold, the funds are used to purchase clothing appropriate for his social standing, and the remainder is given to the Temple treasury. Compare to Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 1:7. 41. I.e., weekday garments are less expensive than those worn on Sabbaths and festivals. 42. So that he will be able to continue to earn his livelihood. 43. For these are considered as property, not as tools. 44. The rationale is that although expected, these profits are not

36. Implied is that if he possesses an expensive mattress, we sell it and buy him an ordinary one.

certain and a loss may occur (Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 6:5).

37. If he does not possess the above, we leave him financial

45. We fear that the movable property can be lost or stolen or

resources to purchase them (see Arachin

6:3

and

commentaries). 38. These obligations are discussed in Hilchot Ishut 12, 2; 13:6. 39. Note the following halachah.

damaged in another way and that the servants may flee. See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 12:11. 46. See Chapter 4, Halachah 27, for details regarding these announcements. 47. For announcing the sale of the property will attract buyers and increase the price and land cannot be stolen or lost.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 - Texts & Writings

10 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983598/jewish/Arachim...

8/21/2019 4:30 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

1 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...



Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3

English

Hebrew

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5

A field which a person inherited from his testators is called "an ancestral field." One that he purchased or acquired1 is called "purchased property."2 When a person consecrates an ancestral field, it is measured and its airech is the fixed airech prescribed by the Torah.3

‫שדה שירשה אדם ממורישיו היא‬ ‫הנקראת שדה אחוזה ושדה שלקחה‬ ‫או זכה בה היא הנקראת שדה מקנה‬ ‫והמקדיש שדה אחוזתו מודדין אותה‬ :‫וערכה הוא הערך הקצוב בתורה‬

How much is that? For every place where it is fit to sow a chomer4of barley,5 sowing it by hand6 without sowing it too closely or to distantly, its airech is 50 shekel for all the years of the Jubilee.7 The yovel is not counted. [This applies] whether one is consecrating a good field which has no parallel in Eretz Yisrael or a poor field which has none as bad as it. [The above] is the airech for it.

‫וכמה הוא כל מקום שראוי לזרוע בו‬ ‫חומר שעורים ויזרענו ביד ולא יקרב‬ ‫זריעתו ולא ירחק אותה ערכו חמשים‬ ‫שקלים לכל שני יובל ואין שנת יובל מן‬ ‫המנין ואחד המקדיש שדה טובה שאין‬ ‫בכל ארץ ישראל כמותה או שדה רעה‬ :‫שאין כמוה לרוע כזה מעריכין אותו‬

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

2 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...

We have already explained in Hilchot Shekalim8 that the shekel referred to by the Torah was called a sela in our Sages' terminology and a gerah referred to by the Torah was called a ma'ah in our Sages' terminology. They added to the value of a shekel, making it equivalent to a sela.9 A sela is equivalent to four dinarim. A dinar is equivalent to six ma'yin. And a ma'ah is equivalent to two pundiyonin.

‫כבר בארנו בהלכות שקלים שהשקל‬ ‫האמור בתורה הוא הנקרא סלע‬ ‫בלשון חכמים והגרה האמורה בתורה היא‬ ‫המעה בדברי חכמים והוסיפו על השקל‬ ‫ועשו אותו סלע והסלע ארבעה דינרין‬ ‫והדינר שש מעין והמעה שני פונדיונין‬ ‫נמצא לכל שנה סלע ופונדיון שאף על פי‬ ‫שהסלע שמונה וארבעים פונדיונין כשיתן‬ ‫פונדיונות ליקח סלע מן השלחני נותן‬ :‫תשעה וארבעים‬

Thus [the airech for] each year is a sela and a pundiyon.10 Although a sela is 48 pundiyonin,11 when one gives pundiyonin to purchase a sela from a moneychanger, one give 49.12 A chomer is equivalent to a kor which is equivalent to two letachim. A letach is fifteen se'ah.13 Thus a letach is equivalent to 30 se'ah which are ten efot, for an efah is three se'ah. We already explained in Hilchot Shabbat14 that a place with an area of 50 cubits by 50 cubits is called a beit se'ah, because a se'ah can be sown in it. Thus a place with an area of 75000 sq. cubits, i.e., a square approximately 274 cubits by 274 cubits.15 This is a beit kor in which a chomer of barley can be sown.

‫החומר הוא הכור והוא שני לתכין‬ ‫והלתך חמש עשרה סאין נמצא‬ ‫החומר שלשים סאה שהן עשר איפות כל‬ ‫שלש סאין איפה וכבר בארנו בהלכות‬ ‫שבת שהמקום שיש בשבורו חמשים אמה‬ ‫על חמשים אמה הוא בית סאה והוא מזרע‬ ‫סאה נמצאת למד שהמקום שיש בשבורו‬ ‫חמשה ושבעים אלף אמה שהוא ברבוע‬ ‫מאתים ארבע ושבעים אמות על מאתים‬ ‫ארבע ושבעים אמות בקירוב הוא בית כור‬ :‫והוא זרע חומר שעורים‬

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

3 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...

What is the manner in which the arechim of fields are calculated? If a person consecrated his ancestral field when eight years remain until the Jubilee - not including the Jubilee, as we explained16 - whoever desires to redeem it from the domain of the Temple treasury must give eight selaim and eight pundiyonin for every portion in which a chomer of barley can be sown. If the [prior] owners desire to redeem it,17 they must give ten selaim and ten pundiyonin [for every portion of that size], for owners add a fifth.18 Similarly, whenever the Torah mentions a fifth, the intent is that the principal and the addition will be [a multiple of] five.19 Thus he adds a fourth of the principle. Similarly, if the wife of the one who consecrated it or one of his heirs redeems it, they must add a fifth.20 If four years remain until the Jubilee, the one who redeems it must give four selaim and four pundiyonin for every [portion in which a] chomer [of barley can be sown]. If the owners redeem it, they must pay five.21 Similarly, we calculate the sum [of every field dedicated based on multiples of] a sela and a

‫כיצד דרך החשבון בערכי שדות הרי‬ ‫שהקדיש שדה אחוזתו ונשאר ליובל‬ ‫שמנה שנים חוץ משנת היובל שאינה‬ ‫בחשבון כמו שבארנו כל הרוצה לפדותה‬ ‫מיד הקדש נותן לכל זרע חומר שעורים‬ ‫שמנה סלעים ושמנה פונדיונות ואם רצו‬ ‫הבעלים לפדותה נותנין עשר סלעים‬ ‫ועשרה פונדיונות לפי שהן מוסיפין חומש‬ ‫וכן כל חומש האמור בתורה צריך שיהא‬ ‫הקרן עם התוספות חמשה נמצא שהוסיף‬ ‫רביע הקרן וכן אם פדתה אשתו של‬ ‫מקדיש או אחד מיורשיו הרי אלו מוסיפין‬ :‫חומש‬

‫נשאר ליובל ארבע שנים נותן הפודה‬ ‫ארבע סלעים וארבעה פונדיונות לכל‬ ‫חומר ואם הבעלים פדו אותה נותן חומש‬ ‫וכן לפי חשבון זה סלע ופונדיון לכל שנה‬ ‫ואינו נותן שנה בשנה אלא נותן הכל‬ :‫כאחד‬

pundiyon. One may not pay the sum year by year. Instead, it must be paid all at once.22 If there remains only a year between [the time the field was consecrated] and the Jubilee, one cannot redeem it by paying a sela and a pundiyon, as [implied by Leviticus 27:18]: "And the priest shall calculate for him [the amount to be paid] according to the years that remain." [The use of the plural indicates] that the field cannot be redeemed by [the payment of] a reduced amount of silver23 except two or more years before the Jubilee.

‫נשאר בינו ובין היובל שנה אינו יכול‬ ‫ליתן סלע ופונדיון לפדותה שנאמר‬ ‫וחשב לו הכהן על פי השנים הנותרות‬ ‫אינה נפדית בגרעון כסף אלא קודם ליובל‬ :‫בשתי שנים או יותר‬

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

4 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...

If there remains a year and [several] months between [the time the field was consecrated] and the Jubilee and the Temple treasurer desires to calculate the months as a year so that [the donor] will give two shekelim and two pundiyonin for every [portion in which a] chomer [of barley] can be sown, this is permissible.24 [The rationale is that] we do not calculate months with regard to consecrated articles, as [indicated by the prooftext]: "According to the years that remain." [Implied is that one] should calculate years with regard to consecrated property, but one does not calculate months.

‫נשאר בינו ובין היובל שנה וחדשים‬ ‫אם רצה הגזבר לחשוב החדשים‬ ‫שנה ויתן שנים שקלים ושנים פונדיונים‬ ‫לכל זרע חומר הרי זה מותר לפי שאין‬ ‫מחשבין חדשים להקדש שנאמר על פי‬ ‫השנים הנותרות שנים אתה מחשב‬ :‫להקדש ואי אתה מחשב חדשים‬

Accordingly, it is not appropriate for a person to consecrate his field less than two years before the Jubilee. If he does consecrate it, it is consecrated and it cannot be redeemed by [paying] a reduced amount of silver. Instead, if the one redeeming it is willing to pay 50 shekel for [each parcel in which] a chomer [can be sown], he may redeem it. If not, it is given to the priests in the Jubilee year, as will be explained.25

‫לפיכך אין ראוי לאדם להקדיש‬ ‫שדהו לפני היובל בפחות משתי‬ ‫שנים ואם הקדישה הרי זו מקודשת ואינה‬ ‫נפדית בגרעון כסף אלא אם רצה הפודה‬ ‫ליתן חמשים שקל לכל חומר פודה אותה‬ ‫ואם לא פדאה הרי זו יוצאה לכהנים ביובל‬ :‫כמו שיתבאר‬

When a person consecrates his field in the Jubilee year itself, it is not consecrated.26 If a priest or a Levite consecrate [their property] in the Jubilee itself, it is consecrated.27

‫הקדיש שדהו בשנת היובל עצמה אינה‬ ‫מקודשת וכהן ולוי שהקדישו בשנת‬ :‫היובל עצמה הרי זו מקודשת‬

Just as they can redeem [their fields] at all times,28 so too, they can consecrate them at all

‫כשם שגואלין לעולם כך מקדישין‬ :‫לעולם‬

times.

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

5 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...

When a person consecrates his field after the Jubilee year, it is not redeemed by [paying] a reduced amount of silver until the completion of a year after the Jubilee, because we do not calculate months with regard to consecrated property.29 Therefore if the one redeeming it is willing to pay 50 shekel for [each parcel in which] a chomer can be sown, he may redeem it even on the day after the Jubilee year. He does not reduce its price at all.

‫המקדיש את שדהו אחר היובל‬ ‫אינה נפדית בגרעון כסף עד שיגמר‬ ‫שנה אחר היובל לפי שאין מחשבין‬ ‫חדשים להקדש לפיכך אם רצה הפודה‬ ‫ליתן חמשים שקל לכל זרע חומר הרי זה‬ ‫פודה אפילו ביום שאחר היובל ואינו גורע‬ :‫כלום‬

When [a field] is measured,30 we measure only those places fit to be sown. If there are stones that are ten [handbreadths] high or hollows filled with water that are ten handbreadths deep, they are not measured with it. If they are less than this, they are measured with it.31

‫כשמודדין אין מודדין אלא מקומות‬ ‫הראויין לזריעה היו שם סלעים‬ ‫גבוהים עשרה טפחים או נקעים מלאים‬ ‫מים עמוקים עשרה טפחים אין נמדדין‬ :‫עמה פחות מכאן נמדדין עמה‬

If there are hollows that are ten handbreadths or more deep that do not contain water, they are measured independently and calculated according to their worth.32

‫היו בה מקומות נמוכות עשרה או‬ ‫יותר ואין בהן מים נמדדין בפני‬ :‫עצמן ומחשבין להם מה שראוי להם‬

[If the consecrated field] contains trees, the trees are consecrated even if [the donor] did not say so explicitly. [The rationale is that] when a person consecrates property, he does so with a generous spirit. We calculate the worth of the trees [and add that to the sum arrived at by] measuring the land and placing its airech at a sela and a pundiyon for every [parcel in which] a chomer can be sown, as we explained.33

‫היתה מלאה אילנות אע"פ שלא‬ ‫פירש הרי הקדיש גם האילנות‬ ‫שכל המקדיש בעין יפה הוא מקדיש‬ ‫ומחשבין את האילנות בשוייהן והקרקע‬ ‫מודדין אותה ויהיה ערכה סלע ופונדיון‬ :‫לכל שנה ולכל זרע חומר כמו שבארנו‬

When a person consecrates a field that is not fit to be sown and is referred to as rocky terrain, it is redeemed for its value.34 Similarly, if a person consecrates trees alone, they are redeemed according to their value.

‫המקדיש את השדה שאינה ראויה‬ ‫לזריעה והיא הנקראת טרשין‬ ‫פודין אותה בשויה וכן המקדיש את‬ :‫האילנות בלבד פודין אותן בשוייהן‬

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

6 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...

If there were three trees35 planted in an area large enough to sow a se'ah36 and [the donor] did not explicitly say that he was consecrating only the trees, he is considered to have consecrated the land37 and the [small] trees between [the three larger ones].38 If, however, the trees were planted [more sparsely i.e.,] every three or less trees were planted in more than the area large enough to sow a se'ah39 or he consecrated [each of the trees individually,] one after the other,40 he did not consecrate the land41 or the [small] trees between [the larger ones].

‫היו האילנות שלשה אילנות לתוך‬ ‫בית סאה ולא פירש שהאילנות‬ ‫בלבד הוא שהקדיש הרי זה הקדיש את‬ ‫הקרקע ואת האילנות שביניהן אבל אם היו‬ ‫האילנות נטועים כל שלשה אילנות ביתר‬ ‫מבית סאה או בפחות או שהקדישן זה‬ ‫אחר זה הרי זה לא הקדיש את הקרקע‬ :‫ולא את האילנות שביניהם‬

If he consecrated the trees and then consecrated the land, he redeems the trees according to their worth and the land according to its measure.42

‫הקדיש האילנות ואחר כך הקדיש‬ ‫את הקרקע פודה את האילנות‬ :‫בשוייהן ואת הקרקע על פי מדתה‬

When a person consecrates an ancestral field and the Jubilee arrives without it being redeemed, but instead, it has remained in the domain of the Temple treasury, the priests [of the watch in which the Jubilee falls]43 must pay its airech44 and it

‫המקדיש שדה אחוזתו והגיע היובל‬ ‫ולא נפדית אלא הרי היא תחת יד‬ ‫הקדש הכהנים נותנין את דמיה ותהיה‬ ‫אחוזה להם שאין הקדש יוצא בלא פדיון‬ :‫ואותן הדמים יפלו להקדש בדק הבית‬

becomes their ancestral heritage.45 [They are required to pay,46 because] consecrated property is never released without being redeemed. The money paid is given to the Temple treasury for improvements to its structure.47

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

7 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...

If the person who consecrated it redeemed it before the Jubilee, it returns to its owner [in the Jubilee].48 The airech which he pays is given for improvements to the Temple, as we have explained.49 Similarly, if the son of the person who consecrated it redeemed it, it returns to his father in the Jubilee.50 If, however, his daughter, another relative, or an unrelated person redeemed it, [different laws apply]. If the person who consecrated it redeems it from them, it returns to him at all times [before the Jubilee year].51 If, however, he did not redeem it from their possession and when the Jubilee arrived it is in the possession of the daughter, another relative, or an unrelated person, it is expropriated from them52 [and becomes the property of] the Temple treasury. It never returns to its owners again. Instead, it becomes the ancestral property of the priests, as [Leviticus 27:21] states: "When the field departs [from the purchaser's domain] in the Jubilee, it shall become the priests." The priests do not have to pay its value,53 because it was already redeemed from the Temple treasury and [the Temple treasury] received its airech from another person. Hence, it is returned to the priests as if they are its owners.

‫גאלה המקדיש קודם שיגיע היובל‬ ‫הרי זה חוזרת לבעליה והערך שנתן‬ ‫יפול לבדק הבית כמו שבארנו וכן אם‬ ‫גאלה בנו של מקדיש הרי זו חוזרת לאביו‬ ‫ביובל אבל אם גאלה אותה בתו או שאר‬ ‫קרוביו או נכרי מיד ההקדש אם חזר‬ ‫המקדיש וגאלה מידן חוזרת לו לעולם ואם‬ ‫לא גאלה מידן אלא הגיע היובל והיא תחת‬ ‫יד הבת או שאר קרובים או נכרי הרי זה‬ ‫יוצאה להקדש ואינה חוזרת לבעלים‬ ‫לעולם אלא תהיה אחוזה לכהנים שנאמר‬ ‫והיה השדה בצאתו ביובל לכהן וגו' ואין‬ ‫הכהנים צריכין ליתן דמים שכבר נפדית‬ ‫מיד ההקדש ולקח ערכה מאחר אלא‬ :‫תחזור לכהנים כאילו הם בעליה‬

To whom does the above54 apply? To an Israelite. If, however, the person who consecrated the field was a priest or a Levite,55 he may redeem it at all times. Even if the Jubilee passed and it was not redeemed from the Temple treasury, he may redeem it after the Jubilee, as [Leviticus 25:32] states: "The Levites have an eternal right of redemption."

‫במה דברים אמורים בישראל‬ ‫אבל אם היה המקדיש כהן או‬ ‫לוי הרי זה גואל לעולם ואפילו עבר עליה‬ ‫היובל ולא נפדית מן ההקדש פודה אותה‬ ‫אחר היובל שנאמר גאולת עולם תהיה‬ :‫ללוים‬

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

8 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...

When a woman consecrated her ancestral field, her husband redeemed it from the Temple treasury, and it is in his possession when the Jubilee arrives, there is an unresolved question whether it returns to the woman56 or it is given to the priests.57 Therefore if the woman came first and took possession of it after the arrival of the Jubilee, the priests cannot expropriate it from her domain. If the priests took possession of it first, she cannot expropriate it from their possession.58

‫האשה שהקדישה שדה אחוזתה‬ ‫וגאלה בעלה מיד ההקדש והגיע‬ ‫היובל והיא תחת יד הבעל הרי הדבר ספק‬ ‫אם תחזור לאשה או תצא לכהנים לפיכך‬ ‫קדמה האשה והחזיקה בה אחר היובל אין‬ ‫הכהנים יכולין להוציא מידה וכן אם קדמו‬ ‫הכהנים והחזיקו בה אינה יכולה להוציא‬ :‫מידם‬

If a person consecrated a field and a priest redeemed it from the Temple treasury and it is in his domain when the Jubilee arrives, he should not say: "Since it is expropriated for the sake of the priests and it is in my possession, I should acquire it." Instead, it is given to all of his brethren, the priestly family.

‫המקדיש שדהו ופדה אותה כהן‬ ‫מיד ההקדש והגיע היובל והיא‬ ‫תחת יד הכהן לא יאמר הואיל והרי היא‬ ‫יוצאה לכהנים הרי היא תחת ידי וזכיתי‬ :‫בה אלא יוצאה לכל אחיו הכהנים‬

When it is expropriated on behalf of the priests in the Jubilee, it should be given to those 59 priests in the watch60 in which the Jubilee begins. If the Rosh HaShanah of the Jubilee falls on the Sabbath and thus one watch will enter and one will depart,61 it should be given to the watch which departs.62

‫כשתצא השדה לכהנים ביובל‬ ‫תנתן לכהנים שבמשמר שפגע בו‬ ‫היובל ואם היה ראש השנה של יובל‬ ‫בשבת שהרי משמר יוצא ומשמר נכנס‬ :‫תנתן למשמר היוצא‬

When a person consecrates trees and the Jubilee arrives without him having redeemed them, they are not expropriated [and given] to the priests, for [Leviticus 27:21] states: "When the field is expropriated in the Jubilee... [it shall become the priests]." [Trees,] however, are not a field.63 If, however, a person consecrates rocky terrain64 and the Jubilee arrives without it being redeemed, it is expropriated [and given] to the priests, for [the prooftext] states "And the field shall..." and this is called a field.

‫המקדיש את האילנות והגיע‬ ‫היובל ולא פדו אותם אינן יוצאין‬ ‫לכהנים שנאמר והיה השדה בצאתו ביובל‬ ‫ואין אלו שדה אבל המקדיש את הטרשים‬ ‫והגיע יובל ולא פדו אותן הבעלים הרי אלו‬ ‫יוצאין לכהנים שנאמר והיה השדה וזו‬ :‫נקראת שדה‬

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

9 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...

What are the laws that apply when a person consecrates purchased property? Its worth is evaluated and we see what its value will be65 until the Jubilee.66 Anyone who desires may redeem it. If the person who consecrated it redeems it, he is not required to add a fifth. The redemption is given for the purpose of improvements to the Temple as are other arechim and pledges of worth. When the Jubilee arrives, it returns to its original owner who sold it. [This applies] whether it was redeemed from the Temple treasurer and it is departing from the domain of another person or whether it was not redeemed and it is departing from the domain of the Temple treasury, it returns to the seller and is not expropriated for the priests. [The rationale is that] a person cannot consecrate an article that is not his.67 Whenever a field is evaluated for the Temple treasury so that it can be sold for its worth, we announce its sale for 60 consecutive days in the morning when workers come to work and in the evening when they leave. We mark its boundaries and say how much it produces and what is it worth.68 Whoever wishes to purchase it may come and purchase it.

‫כיצד דין מקדיש שדה מקנתו שמין‬ ‫אותה בדמיה ורואין כמה היא שוה‬ ‫עד היובל ופודה אותה כל מי שירצה ואם‬ ‫פדה אותה המקדיש אינו מוסיף חומש‬ ‫ופדיונה לבדק הבית כשאר ערכין ודמים‬ ‫וכשיגיע היובל תחזור לבעלים הראשונים‬ ‫שמכרוה בין שנפדית מיד הגזבר והרי היא‬ ‫יוצאה מיד אחר בין שלא נפדית והרי היא‬ ‫יוצאה מיד ההקדש הרי זו חוזרת למוכר‬ ‫ואינה יוצאה לכהנים שאין אדם מקדיש‬ :‫דבר שאינו שלו‬

‫כל שדה ששמין אותה להקדש‬ ‫למכור אותה בדמיה מכריזין עליה‬ ‫ששים יום רצופין בבקר בשעת הכנסת‬ ‫פועלים ובערב בשעת הוצאת פועלים‬ ‫ומסיימין מצריה ואומר כך היא יפה ובכך‬ :‫היא שומה כל הרוצה ליקח יבא ויקח‬

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

10 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...

[The following laws apply when a person] purchases a field from his father or from another person from whom he could inherit it and consecrates it to the Temple treasury. Whether he consecrated it after the death of his father or the other testator or he consecrated it during the lifetime of his father or the other testator and then his father [or that testator] died, it is considered as an ancestral field.69 [This is derived from Leviticus 27:22:] "[If he will consecrate] a field that he acquired which is not an ancestral field...." [Implied is that the subject is] a field that is not fit to be an ancestral field, thus excluding this one which is fit for him to inherit.70

‫הלוקח שדה מאביו או משאר‬ ‫המורישין אותו והקדישה בין‬ ‫שהקדישה אחר מות אביו או מורישו ובין‬ ‫שהקדישה בחיי אביו או שאר מורישיו‬ ‫ואח"כ מת אביו הרי זה כשדה אחוזה‬ ‫שנאמר ואם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא‬ ‫משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה ראויה להיות‬ :‫שדה אחוזה יצאת זו שראויה לו ליורשה‬

« Previous

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3 FOOTNOTES 1. As a present or the like. 2. The Rambam begins describing the laws involving the consecration of ancestral fields. Those involving the consecration of purchased property are described from Halachah 26 onward. 3. Leviticus 27:16. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 117) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 355) include the commandment to deal with the consecration of a field as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These laws apply only in

9. As mentioned above, a sela is equivalent to 384 barley corns of silver. 10. I.e., we divide the 50 selaim into 49 years. 11. And thus seemingly one is overpaying by a fractional amount. 12. That is the money-changer's profit for the transaction. 13. A se'ah is 8.3 liter in modern measure according to Shiurei Torah and 16.2 liter according to Chazon Ish.

Eretz Yisrael (Hilchot Bikkurim 1:6), but not in the Diaspora

14. Hilchot Shabbat 16:3.

and only during the time the Jubilee year is observed

15. The measure mentioned by the Rambam produces a square

(Chapter 5, Halachah 1; Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 10:9).

with an area of 75076 sq. cubits.

4. See Halachah 4 for a definition of this measure.

16. See Halachah 2.

5. This is a larger area than that required to sow an equivalent amount of wheat (the Rambam's Commentary to the

17. As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, the owners are

Mishnah, Arachin 3:2). 6. Arachin 25a makes this distinction, differentiating between a field that is sown by hand or sown by leading an animal with an open bag of seed through the field. 7. As indicated by the following halachah, the airech is given for every year individually. We calculate the number of years left until the Jubilee and divide the sum of 50 shekalim accordingly. 8. Hilchot Shekalim 1:2-3; see Chapter 1, Halachah 4.

commanded to redeem it and they are given the option of doing so before another person. 18. As Leviticus 27:19 states: "If the person who consecrates it redeems it, he shall add a fifth in silver of its airech." 19. See also Hilchot Terumot 10:26; Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 5:1. 20. The Mishneh LiMelech states that this refers to a heir redeeming the field after his testator's death, but not during his lifetime. A person's wife, however, must add a fifth even during her husband's lifetime, for they are considered as a single entity.

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

11 of 13

21. I.e., five selaim and five pundiyonin. 22. One may, however, redeem half the field by paying half the required sum, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. 23. We have taken some liberty in the translation. The Hebrew term used by the Rambam, girayon kessef, means "the subtraction of silver," i.e., we subtract the sum due for the years of the Jubilee cycle that have already passed from the sum of fifty shekel. See Leviticus 26:18. The Rambam uses this wording because, as stated in Halachah 9, if the person desires to pay the full 50 shekelim, he may redeem the field even if less than a year remains to the Jubilee. 24. The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that although this appears to be the meaning of Arachin 25a, it is illogical to say so. If the field is not redeemed by its owner before the Jubilee, he must pay 50 shekel a measure to redeem it in the Jubilee. If he does not redeem it, it is given

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...

32. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, noting that from Arachin 25a, it appears that such patches of land are measured together with the field. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the Talmud is stating that they are consecrated, but that they are considered as independent from the field. Hence, rather than be measured according to the standard value, they are measured according to their worth. 33. Halachah 5. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that although the trees are consecrated, they are redeemed when the field as a whole is redeemed. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's view. 34. The Torah passage pertaining to consecrated fields mentions a field that is "sown." Since such a field is not fit to be sown, the general principles that apply to arechim for fields at large do not apply to it. Instead, it is considered as an ordinary vow.

to the priests who are required to pay its fair value (see Halachah 19). Thus the Temple treasury will almost certainly

35. This reflects the Rambam's version of Arachin 14a. The

be losing by allowing the person to redeem it for the 2 year amount. Why then would the Temple treasurer be allowed to

36. Fifty cubits by fifty cubits, as stated in Halachah 4.

do so? The Kessef Mishneh notes the Ra'avad's logic, but states that this is the new concept taught: that even if it is not to the benefit of the Temple treasury, the treasurer may make such a decision. The Radbaz states that the law applies in an instance when there will be a benefit to the Temple treasury to enable the property to be redeemed in this manner. 25. See Halachah 19. 26. There is a difference of opinion concerning this issue in Arachin 25b. Shmuel interprets Leviticus 27:17 as excluding fields consecrated in the Jubilee itself. Rav differs. Significantly, although here the Rambam follows the opinion of Shmuel, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 7:1), he originally follows Rav's view, as indicated by the standard published version. Rav Kapach maintains that the manuscript copies of the Commentary to the Mishnah reflect a change of view and as in the text here, he follows Shmuel's view. 27. As stated in the following halachah and in Halachah 21, they are governed by different laws than ordinary Israelites in this regard. See also Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 13:7. 28. See Halachah 21.

standard printed text of that source reads differently.

37. In which instance, he adds the value of the trees to the standard airech of the field, as stated in Halachah 15. The rationale for this ruling is evident from Hilchot Shemitah V'Yoval 3:2; Hilchot Bikkurim 2:13: Once trees have grown, they need this much land to be maintained. Hence when one sells the trees, he is considered to have sold the land with them and when he consecrates the trees, he consecrates the land with them. 38. Because these are considered to be included in the land on which they are planted. 39. Since the trees are scattered, we do not consider the land as subservient to them. Hence, unless the land is consecrated explicitly, it is not considered as included in his statement. 40. Since the trees are all mentioned individually, each is considered as a discrete entity and we do not view him as having consecrated the property as a whole. 41. Since the land is not consecrated, the small trees are also not consecration, because their consecration depends on that of the land. 42. The Radbaz states that seemingly this ruling is self-evident, for it is the same as that of Halachah 15 where the donor does not mention the trees explicitly. He explains that there is

29. As stated in Halachah 8.

a new dimension in the Rambam's ruling, for one might think that since the donor mentioned the trees explicitly, the land

30. To calculate its size so that the amount required to be paid can be determined, as explained in Halachah 2.

associated with them should be considered as a distinct entity and evaluated according to its worth and not its

31. If they are not that high or that deep, they are not considered

measure. Hence, the Rambam feels it necessary to emphasize that this is not the case.

as significant entities (Arachin 25a).

43. See Halachah 24 and notes.

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

12 of 13

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...

understanding of Rashi (Arachin 25b) who maintains that the

55. This refers to a field that was given to a priest or a Levite as an ancestral heritage, not one that they purchased.

priests pay the standard amount for a beit kor.

56. Because her husband's redemption of it could be considered

44. The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam shares the

45. I.e., it never returns to its original owner or his heirs. 46. From a simple reading of Leviticus 27:20, one might think that they are given the field without any charge. Hence, the Rambam adds this explanation. 47. See Chapter 1, Halachah 10; Chapter 5, Halachah 7. 48. The Rambam is referring to the law (Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval, ch. 11) that an ancestral field which is sold returns to its owner in the Jubilee year. The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's wording, for since the donor redeemed the field, it need not return to him in the Jubilee; it is in his possession. The Radbaz explains that the intent is that even if the donor gave the money, but did not take possession before the beginning of the Jubilee, the field returns to him in the Jubilee. The fact that he consecrated it does not cause it to be removed from the category of an ancestral field. The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam is using wording

as if she redeemed it herself. 57. Because in actual fact, she did not redeem it. 58. We follow the principle: "When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him." The Ra'avad differs with this ruling, stating that since her husband is working the field, it is considered as having been acquired by him, for her. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Ra'avad's ruling, stating that since the Talmud (Arachin 25b) left the matter unresolved, it is not appropriate for the Ra'avad to resolve it by logic. The Radbaz adds that the husband (as his wife's agent) must intend to acquire the field and it is possible to work a field without having this intent. 59. It is sold and its value divided among all the priests of that watch, not only those serving in the Temple on Rosh HaShanah.

that will enable the different clauses of the halachah to appear similar.

60. The priestly family is broken up into 24 watches who each serve for a week in the Temple (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash

49. From a simple reading of Leviticus 27:20, one might think

4:3). Thus over the course of the years, there is a revolution of the times when each of the priestly watches serve.

that they are given the field without any charge. Hence, the Rambam adds this explanation.

61. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:9.

50. Leviticus 27:20 states that a person loses his right to have his ancestral field return in the Jubilee: "If he [the Temple

62. Because when Rosh HaShanah began, it was in their possession (Radbaz).

treasurer] sold the field to another man...." Nevertheless, since in many contexts, a son is considered an extension of

63. The Ra'avad states that this law applies when the person

his father, he is not considered as "another man" and his purchase of the field does not cause his father to lose his claim to it (Arachin 25b). 51. As is the law with regard to an ancestral field. The fact that it was consecrated and redeemed by another person does not remove it from this category. This ruling follows the Rambam's version of Arachin 7:3 and

consecrates only one or two trees, but not when he consecrates three. For in that instance, they are consecrated together with the land on which they grow (see Halachah 17) and hence, the consecrated property could be referred to as a field. 64. Although certain aspects of the laws of ancestral fields do not apply to it (see Halachah 16), this dimension of them does.

his interpretation in his Commentary to the Mishnah. The standard printed text of Arachin 25a differs, however, and

65. This is in contrast to an ancestral field where a standard

states that the field is given to the priests in such an instance. The Ra'avad notes the existence of the two

amount is given, as explained above. In his commentary to the Torah (Leviticus 27:22), Rashi writes that it is redeemed

versions of the source.

in the same manner as an ancestral field. Nevertheless, in his commentary to the Talmud (Arachin 26b), he states that it

52. For they purchased the right to it only until the Jubilee year. 53. In contrast to the situation mentioned in the previous halachah. The rationale for the difference is that they are required to pay in the previous instance, because consecrated property never leaves the domain of the Temple treasury without being redeemed. In this instance, however,

is redeemed according to its worth. 66. For in the Jubilee, it was to return to its ancestral owner. The donor's ownership did not extend past that time. Hence he cannot consecrate it for longer, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

the field has already been redeemed as the Rambam continues to explain. 54. That a field which is not redeemed becomes the property of the priests.

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 - Texts & Writings

13 of 13

67. And the person who consecrated the field never possessed permanent ownership of it, only the right to partake of its produce. Hence, he cannot consecrate it to the Temple treasury permanently (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 7:4). 68. As evaluated by the court.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983599/jewish/Arachim...

69. I.e., the price for its redemption becomes fixed and if he does not redeem it, it becomes the property of the priests, as stated above. 70. See also Hilchot Shemitah V'Yoval, ch. 11, where more details concerning ancestral fields and purchased property are discussed.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:32 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

1 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983600/jewish/Arachim...



Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4

When a person consecrates his ancestral field, it is a mitzvah for him to redeem it, for the owner receives priority.1 If, however, he does not desire to, we do not compel him. When does the above apply? In the era that the Jubilee is observed.2 For if the Jubilee arrives and he does not redeem it, it will be expropriated for the sake of the priests, as we explained.3 In the era when the Jubilee has been nullified4 and it is not expropriated for the sake of the priests, but instead will ultimately be redeemed, we compel5 the owner to make an initial bid6 and it is redeemed for its worth7 like other consecrated articles. If someone who is willing to add to [the bid] to redeem it, he may redeem it. If not, we tell him: "It has come to you," and he must give what he bid. He may not make an opening bid for less than four p'rutot so that the fifth that he will add will not be less than a p'rutah.8

English

Hebrew

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6

‫המקדיש שדה אחוזתו מצוה עליו‬ ‫לפדותה הוא שהאדון קודם ואם לא‬ ‫רצה אין כופין אותו בד"א בזמן שמצות‬ ‫יובל נוהגת שאם יגיע יובל ולא יגאלנה‬ ‫תצא לכהנים כמו שבארנו אבל בזמן‬ ‫שבטלו היובלות שהרי אינה יוצאת לכהנים‬ ‫אלא סופה להפדות לעולם כופין את‬ ‫האדון לפתוח בה תחלה והיא נפדית‬ ‫בשוייה כשאר ההקדשות אם נמצא מי‬ ‫שמוסיף עליו וגואל אותה יגאל ואם לאו‬ ‫אומרין לו הגיעתך ויתן מה שאמר ואינו‬ ‫פותח בפחות מארבע פרוטות כדי שיהא‬ :‫החומש שמוסיף פרוטה‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

2 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983600/jewish/Arachim...

If the owner desired to sell other fields that he owned or to borrow to redeem this field that he consecrated, he has permission to do so.9 This applies whether [he consecrated the field] during the time the Jubilee is observed or when it is not observed. He is given precedence over others. Similarly, if he desired to redeem half of it, he may. This contrasts with the laws that apply when one sells a field to an ordinary person.10 This is the greater stringency that applies with regard to ordinary property [and not] to the Temple treasury.

‫רצה האדון למכור שדות אחרות‬ ‫משדותיו או ללוות כדי לפדות שדה‬ ‫זו שהקדיש הרשות בידו בין בזמן שהיובל‬ ‫נוהג בין בזמן שאין היובל נוהג והוא קודם‬ ‫לכל אדם וכן אם רצה לגאול חציה גואל‬ ‫מה שאין כן במוכר להדיוט זה חומר‬ :‫בהדיוט מבהקדש‬

When a person consecrates his home,11 a non-kosher12 animal,13 or other property, they are evaluated for their worth, whether it be high or low.14 If the person who consecrated them, his wife, or his heirs15 redeem them, they must add a fifth. We compel the owner to make the first bid. The money is set aside for improvements to the Temple.

‫המקדיש את ביתו או את בהמה‬ ‫טמאה שלו או שאר מטלטליו הרי‬ ‫אלו נערכין בשוייהן בין טוב ובין רע ואם‬ ‫פדה אותן המקדיש או אשתו או יורשו‬ ‫מוסיף חומש וכופין את הבעלים לפתוח‬ ‫ראשון והדמים לבדק הבית בין שהיה‬ ‫הבית מבתי ערי חומה בין שהיה מבתי‬ :‫החצרים הרי זה נגאל לעולם‬

[The above] applies whether the house was from a walled city or from an unwalled habitation, [the owner] may redeem it at all times.16 [The following rules apply if] another person redeemed it from the Temple treasury. If the home was within a walled city and it remained in the possession of the redeemer for twelve months, it becomes his property forever.17 If the home was located in an unwalled habitation and the Jubilee arrived while it was in the possession of the redeemer, it returns to its owner in the Jubilee.18

‫גאלו אחר מיד ההקדש אם היה בית‬ ‫ערי חומה וקם ביד הגואל שנים עשר‬ ‫חדש נחלט ואם היה בית החצרים והגיע‬ :‫היובל והוא ביד הגואל חוזר לבעליו ביובל‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

3 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983600/jewish/Arachim...

When a person consecrates an unblemished19 kosher animal for the sake of improvements to the Temple,20 he has transgressed a positive 21 commandment. [Nevertheless,] the deed he performed is of consequence and sanctity is conveyed upon [the animal]. It is redeemed even though it is unblemished.22 The priest establishes its worth,23 and the money is given for improvements to the Temple. The person who redeems it, redeems it only for the sake of offering it on the altar for the type of sacrifice for which it is fitting.24 [This is required, because] any [consecrated entity] that is fit for the altar is never released from [the obligation to be sacrificed on] the altar.

‫המקדיש בהמה טהורה תמימה‬ ‫לבדק הבית אף על פי שעבר על‬ ‫עשה מה שעשה עשוי וחלה קדושה עליה‬ ‫ונפדית כשהיא תמימה ומעריך אותה‬ ‫הכהן בדמיה והדמים יפלו לבדק הבית ואין‬ ‫הפודה אותה פודה אלא על מנת‬ ‫להקריבה למזבח למה שהיא ראויה שכל‬ ‫דבר הראוי למזבח אינו יוצא מידי מזבח‬ :‫לעולם‬

What is the source that teaches that it is forbidden to consecrate unblemished animals for the improvement of the Temple? [Leviticus 22:23] states: "An ox or a sheep that has irregularly sized limbs or unsplit hoofs, it shall be [consecrated] as a donation." According to the Oral Tradition,25 we have learned that [the term] "donation" implies that it is consecrated for improvements to the Temple. Similarly, the situation indicates that it was consecrated only for its worth, for a blemished animal is not offered on the altar. [This is denoted by the term] "it," i.e., it26 is consecrated for improvements to the Temple, but an unblemished animal should not be consecrated as a donation for improvements to the Temple. A prohibition derived from a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.27

‫ומנין שאסור להקדיש תמימין לבדק‬ ‫הבית שנאמר ושור ושה שרוע וקלוט‬ ‫נדבה תעשה אותו מפי השמועה למדו‬ ‫נדבה לבדק הבית וכן הדברים מראין‬ ‫שאינה אלא קדושת דמים שאין מקריבין‬ ‫בעל מום למזבח שנאמר אותו אותו אתה‬ ‫עושה נדבה לבדק הבית ואין אתה עושה‬ ‫תמימים נדבה לבדק הבית ולאו הבא מכלל‬ :‫עשה כעשה הוא‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

4 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983600/jewish/Arachim...

[The following rules apply when a person] consecrates an animal without making any specifications or consecrates his property without making any specifications: We survey all the unblemished animals that are fit to be offered on the altar. The males should be sold for the purpose of burnt offerings28 and offered as burnt offerings. The females29 are sold for the purpose of peace offerings and offered as peace offerings. The proceeds [of the sales] should be given for improvements to the Temple. For unless explicit specification is made, all consecrated articles are for the sake of the improvement of the Temple. Concerning this [Leviticus 27:9] states: "If it is an animal which can be offered as a sacrifice to God, all parts of it that you can give to God shall be holy." Implied is that every entity that is fit to be offered as a sacrifice on the altar should be offered [on the altar]. When a person consecrates his possessions without making any specifications and among them were wine, oil, fine flour, and doves that are fit to be offered on the altar, they should be sold for the purpose of [offerings that employ them] and they should be offered. The money should be used to purchase male animals that should be brought as burnt offerings.30

‫המקדיש את בהמתו סתם או‬ ‫שהקדיש את נכסיו סתם רואין כל‬ ‫בהמה תמימה הראויה להקריב על גבי‬ ‫המזבח זכרים ימכרו לצרכי עולות ויקריבו‬ ‫אותן עולות והנקבות ימכרו לצרכי שלמים‬ ‫ויקריבו אותן שלמים והדמים יפלו לבדק‬ ‫הבית שסתם הקדשות לבדק הבית ועל זה‬ ‫נאמר ואם בהמה אשר יקריבו ממנה קרבן‬ ‫לה' כל אשר יתן ממנו לה' יהיה קדש‬ ‫כלומר כל הראוי לקרבן על גבי המזבח‬ :‫יקרב‬

‫הקדיש נכסיו סתם והיו בהן יינות‬ ‫ושמנים וסלתות ועופות הראויין‬ ‫ליקרב על גבי המזבח ימכרו לצרכי אותו‬ ‫המין ויקריבו אותן והדמים ילקח בהן‬ :‫זכרים ויקריבו עולות‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

5 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983600/jewish/Arachim...

Why should the proceeds from these sales be used to bring burnt offerings and the proceeds from the sale of an unblemished animal be used for improvements to the Temple?31 [The rationale is that] when an animal is consecrated to the altar suffers a [disqualifying] blemish, there is a concept of it being redeemed, as will be explained.32 When, by contrast, fine flour, wine, oil, and doves become unfit [for the altar], there is no concept of redeeming them.33 [This is derived from Leviticus 27:11-12 which] states: "You shall have the animal stand [before the priest and the priest shall evaluate it]." [Implied is that] any entity that is stood [before a priest] and evaluated may be redeemed. If any entity is not to be stood [before a priest] and evaluated, it may not be redeemed.

‫ומפני מה יקריבו דמי אלו עולות‬ ‫ודמי הבהמה התמימה יפלו לבדק‬ ‫הבית לפי שהבהמה הקדושה למזבח אם‬ ‫נפל בה מום יש לה פדיון כמו שיתבאר‬ ‫והסלת והיין והשמן והעופות שנפסלו אין‬ '‫להן פדיון שנאמר והעמיד את הבהמה וגו‬ ‫כל שישנו בכלל העמדה והערכה יש להן‬ ‫פדיון וכל שאינו בכלל העמדה והערכה‬ :‫אין לה פדיון‬

When a person consecrates his possessions without making any specifications and among them was incense which is given to the craftsmen for their wages until they return and purchase it, as we explained in [Hilchot] Shekalim,34 it should be given to the craftsmen for their wages as is done with the remainder of the incense. These guidelines are also followed when one of the spices used in the incense offering is found among his possessions.35

‫הקדיש נכסיו סתם והיתה בהן הקטרת‬ ‫שנותנין לאומנין בשכרן עד שיחזרו‬ ‫ויקחו אותה כמו שבארנו בשקלים הרי זו‬ ‫תנתן לאומנין בשכרן כמו שעושין במותר‬ ‫הקטורת וכן עושין אם יש בנכסיו אחד‬ :‫מסמני הקטרת‬

When a person consecrates an unblemished animal [as a sacrifice to be offered on] the altar and it became blemished36 and was disqualified, it should be evaluated and redeemed. Concerning this, [Leviticus 27:11] states: "When any impure animal37 of which a sacrifice should not be brought as an offering to God, you shall have the animal stand [before the priest....]" He should bring another sacrifice equivalent to it with its money.

‫המקדיש בהמה תמימה למזבח‬ ‫ונפל בה מום ונפסלה הרי זו‬ ‫נערכת ונפדית ועל זה נאמר ואם כל‬ ‫בהמה טמאה אשר לא יקריבו ממנה קרבן‬ ‫לה' והעמיד את הבהמה וגו' ויביא בדמיה‬ :‫קרבן אחר כמותה‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

6 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983600/jewish/Arachim...

Whenever a person consecrates an animal in its lifetime - whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher one, whether it was consecrated for the sake of the Temple treasury,38 it was consecrated to be offered on the altar and it became blemished,39 or it is an unblemished animal which is fit to be offered as a sacrifice as will be explained,40 it must be stood [before the court] for evaluation, as implied by the phrase: "You shall have the animal stand [before the priest....]" Therefore, if the animal died before it is evaluated and redeemed, it should not be redeemed. Instead, it should be buried.41 If, however, a person consecrated a slaughtered animal or an animal carcass for the sake of improvements to the Temple, it should be redeemed like other movable property.

‫כל המקדיש בהמה בחייה בין‬ ‫טהורה בין טמאה בין קדשי הבית‬ ‫בין קדשי מזבח שנפל בהן מום או תמימה‬ ‫הראויה ליקרב כמו שיתבאר הרי זו צריכה‬ ‫העמדה בבית דין שנאמר והעמיד את‬ ‫הבהמה לפיכך אם מתה הבהמה קודם‬ ‫שתערך ותפדה אין פודין אותה אחר‬ ‫שמתה אלא תקבר אבל אם הקדיש‬ ‫שחוטה או נבלה לבדק הבית הרי זו תפדה‬ :‫כשאר מטלטלין‬

[In the above situation,] if one slaughtered [the animal, slitting] the two organs42 [necessary for the slaughter to be acceptable] or slit the majority of these organs43 but the animal is still making convulsive movements, it is considered as alive with regard to all matters.44 It may be evaluated and [the provisions implied by the phrases:] "You shall have.... stand and... shall evaluate" apply until it dies.45

‫שחט בה שנים או רוב שנים ועדיין‬ ‫היא מפרכסת הרי היא כחיה לכל‬ ‫דבריה ונערכת והרי היא בכלל והעמיד‬ :‫והעריך עד שתמות‬

When a person consecrates the worth of an unblemished animal,46 the body of the animal becomes consecrated.47 What is implied? When a person says: 'The worth of this animal is consecrated to the altar,' the animal itself should be sacrificed.

‫המקדיש בהמה תמימה לדמיה הרי‬ ‫זו נתקדש גופה כיצד האומר דמי‬ ‫בהמה זו הקדש למזבח היא עצמה תקרב‬ ‫הקדיש אחד מאיבריה לדמיו ואמר דמי‬ ‫רגלה של פרה זו הקדש למזבח הרי זו‬ ‫ספק אם פשטה קדושה בכולה או לא‬ :‫פשטה ולפיכך תקרב ולא תפדה‬

When one consecrates the worth of one of its limbs or organs, saying: 'The worth of the feet of this cow are consecrated to the altar,' there is an unresolved question: Does the sanctity spread throughout the animal or not?48 Therefore it should be sacrificed and not redeemed.

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

7 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983600/jewish/Arachim...

What should be done?49 We sell it in its entirety to a person who will offer it as a sacrifice.50 The proceeds of the sale are not consecrated with the exception of those of that particular limb.51 If the limb or organ [consecrated] was of vital importance [to the animal], the sanctity [is considered to] spread throughout the entire animal.52

‫וכיצד עושין מוכרין אותה כולה‬ ‫למי שיקרב אותה ודמיה חולין חוץ‬ ‫מדמי אותו אבר ואם היה אבר שהנשמה‬ :‫תלויה בו פשטה קדושה בכולה‬

[Different rules apply if] the animal [consecrated] was blemished and unfit to be offered as a sacrifice. When one consecrates one of its limbs or organs - whether it is one of vital importance or not only that limb becomes consecrated.53

‫היתה בהמה בעלת מום שאינה‬ ‫ראויה ליקרב והקדיש אבר‬ ‫מאבריה לדמיו בין שהנשמה תלויה בו בין‬ ‫שהנשמה אין תלויה בו לא נתקדש אלא‬ ‫דמי אותו אבר בלבד כיצד כגון שאמר דמי‬ ‫רגל פרה זו או דמי לבה הקדש למזבח הוא‬ :‫והקדש שותפין בה‬

What is implied? A person said: 'The worth of the foot of this cow...' or 'The worth of its heart is consecrated to the altar,' he and the Temple treasury own it in partnership.54 Similarly, if a person says: 'The head of this servant...' or 'The heart of this donkey is consecrated to the altar,' [he is liable only for the worth of the limb or organ mentioned].55 Similarly, if he says: 'My head is consecrated to the altar,' he is liable only for the worth of his head.56 We see how much that limb or organ is worth and he must bring a sacrifice for that amount.

‫וכן האומר ראש עבד זה או לב חמור‬ ‫זה הקדש למזבח או שאמר ראשי‬ ‫הקדש למזבח אינו חייב אלא בדמי ראשו‬ ‫ורואין כמה ישוה אותו אבר אילו היה‬ :‫נמכר ויביא בדמיו קרבן‬

When does the above apply? With regard to animals consecrated to the altar. If, however, a person says: 'The head of this donkey...' or 'Its liver is consecrated,' or 'The head of this servant' or 'His liver is consecrated,'57 since his life is dependent on that organ, he is liable for its entire worth. For whenever an entity is consecrated for improvements to the Temple, the consecration involves the entity's worth.58

‫בד"א בקדשי מזבח אבל בקדשי‬ ‫בדק הבית האומר דמי ראש חמור‬ ‫זה או כבדו הקדש או דמי ראש עבד זה או‬ ‫כבדו הקדש הואיל והוא דבר שהנשמה‬ ‫תלויה בו הרי זה חייב בדמי כולו שכל‬ :‫הקדש בדק הבית קדושת דמים הוא‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

8 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983600/jewish/Arachim...

When a person says: 'I pledge my airech to the altar,' he must bring sacrifices of the value of his airech.59 If he is not financially capable of giving his entire airech,60 there is an unresolved question: Is his evaluation appraised according to his financial capacity for he made his pledge using the term airech or do we not appraise his financial capacity since he made his vow to the altar?61 Similarly, when a person consecrates his ancestral field to the altar, it should be redeemed and the proceeds should be used to purchase burnt offerings for the altar. There is an unresolved question: Should it be redeemed according to the fixed airech established for it62 or should it be redeemed according to its value, since he made his vow to the altar?63 In all these and similar instances, we rule stringently.64

‫האומר ערכי עלי למזבח מביא‬ ‫בערכו קרבן ואם אין ידו משגת‬ ‫לערך שלם הרי זה דבר ספק אם נידון‬ ‫בהשג יד הואיל והוציאו בלשון ערך או‬ ‫אינו נידון בהשג יד הואיל ולמזבח נדר וכך‬ ‫המקדיש שדה אחוזתו למזבח הרי זה‬ ‫נפדית והדמים יביאו בהן עולות למזבח‬ ‫ויש בדבר ספק אם פודין אותה בערך‬ ‫הקצוב בה או פודין אותה בשויין הואיל‬ ‫ולמזבח הקדיש ודנין בכל אלו וכיוצא בהן‬ :‫להחמיר‬

« Previous

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 FOOTNOTES 1. Arachin 27a derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:27. 2. See Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 10:3, 8-10 which explains that the Jubilee years is observed only when the entire Jewish

5. Were the person not to be compelled, it is possible that the Temple treasury would not receive its due (Radbaz). The Ra'avad differs and states that the person is not compelled to redeem his field, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's understanding.

people live in the Holy Land. Hence when the tribes of Reuven and Gad were exiled - decades before the

6. The owner is compelled to make the initial bid, because he is

destruction of the First Temple - the observance of the Jubilee no longer had the status of Scriptural Law.

required to add a fifth and thus the Temple treasury will be profiting more than if another person would offer the same

3. Chapter 4, Halachot 19-20. Since either the person who

price. Also, we assume that since it was his property, he is attached to it and will pay more to repossess it (Arachin

redeems it or the priests will pay for it, the Temple treasury will ultimately receive its due. Hence, there is no need to compel the owner to redeem it. 4. As evident from Chapter 8, Halachah 8, this refers to a time when the Temple is standing, but the Jubilee year is no longer observed.

27a). 7. I.e., for the price people are willing to pay, not for the standard value decreed by the Torah. Since the laws pertaining to arechim are taught as a single unit in the Torah and all the particulars do not apply, this fundamental factor is also not applied. 8. For anything less than a p'rutah is not financially significant.

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

9 of 12

9. Since a field that he consecrated will never return to him if he does not redeem it, he is given a greater opportunity to do so (Arachin 30a). 10. In which instance, these restrictions do apply. See Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 11:17-18; 12:2. 11. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 116) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 354) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 12. The laws involving kosher animals are found in Halachot 5-7. 13. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 115) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 353) include this commandment among

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983600/jewish/Arachim...

27. I.e., although the prohibition is of Scriptural origin, since the Torah did explicitly forbid it by saying: "Do not consecrate an unblemished animal for this purpose," it is not considered as the transgression of a negative commandment. Temurah 7b states that a negative commandment is also involved. Nevertheless, based on our Sages' statements in the Sifra, the Rambam considers that passage as merely an asmachta, the derivation of support for a concept by the Rabbis and not a Scriptural prohibition. 28. Although they could also be used for other types of sacrifices, it is preferable to offer them as burnt offerings. 29. Which may not be brought as burnt offerings.

the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 14. This - and not a standard value - is what the person must pay. The Torah established a standard value only for humans and fields. 15. See Chapter 4, Halachah 5, and notes. 16. I.e., as long as another person has not redeemed it first. As

30. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this issue, offering a different interpretation of the Rambam's source, Shekalim 4:7-8. The Radbaz explains the rationale behind the Rambam's ruling. Since animals can be redeemed, we assume that he consecrated them with the intent that they be redeemed and the money given for improvements to the

difference in the relevant laws with regard to the sale of such

Temple building. Since these other items cannot be redeemed, by contrast, we assume that from the outset, his

dwellings to private individuals. A home in a walled city must be redeemed from a private purchaser within a year.

intent was that they be consecrated for the sake of the altar alone. These concepts also apply with regard to Halachah 9.

stated in Hilchot Shemitah V'Yoval, ch. 12, there is a

Otherwise, it becomes his property forever. These restrictions do not apply with regard to a home in an

31. As stated in Halachah 7. 32. See Halachah 11.

unwalled habitation. 17. I.e., it does not return to the original owner in the Jubilee. It is as if the purchaser acquired the field from the owner.

33. The Ra'avad notes that fine flour, wine, and oil may be redeemed if they became impure before being placed in a consecrated vessel. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since

18. As would be the law had he purchased it from him directly.

they cannot be redeemed once they have been placed in a

19. I.e., were the animal to have a blemish that disqualifies it

consecrated vessel, that is most significant. For until they have been placed in a consecrated vessel, they have not

from being offered as a sacrifice, these laws would not apply. 20. As obvious from Halachah 7, this applies when he explicitly states that he is consecrating it for this purpose. 21. As stated in the following halachah. 22. In contrast to an animal consecrated as a sacrifice which is redeemed only when it is blemished. See Halachah 11. 23. See Halachah 12. The commentaries have noted that in Chapter 8, Halachah 2, the Rambam mentions that a priest is required to participate in the evaluation of humans and fields, but not in that of movable property. He makes no mention of the evaluation of animals. There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Sanhedrin 15a. 24. I.e., depending on the type and gender of the animal it is fitting for some sacrifices and not others. 25. See temurah 7b. 26. A blemished animal like those mentioned in the verse.

been sanctified in a complete sense. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 6:4-5. 34. As explained in Hilchot Shekalim 4:12, in every year that is not a leap year, there is a certain amount of incense left over. For 365 portions were prepared for daily offerings and there are either 353, 354, or 355 days in such a year. Thus there were extra portions left over. The holiness associated with these portions of incense was then transferred to money and that money used to purchase burnt offerings. Afterwards, the portions of incense would be given to the craftsmen who prepare the incense as their wages. They would then sell this incense back to the Temple treasury, so that it would be purchased back with the funds designated for communal sacrifices for the new year. This halachah is speaking about an instance where one of those craftsmen consecrated the incense in his possession to the Temple treasury. It should be given to other craftsmen as their wages and then purchased back as above.

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

10 of 12

35. I.e., it should be given to the craftsmen as part of their wages and then purchased with the money designated for the purchase of communal sacrifices. 36. I.e., a blemish that will not become healed (Radbaz).

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983600/jewish/Arachim...

49. For we cannot require the donor to sacrifice the entire animal (for perhaps it did not become consecrated), nor may allow him to regard it as his personal property (for perhaps it did). 50. As the commentaries to Temurah 11b explain, there is a

37. Bechorot 37b explains that the intent is not an animal from

difficulty when one limb of an animal was consecrated and

an impure species, but rather an animal from a kosher species that became disqualified because of a blemish, for

another person purchases it to offer it as a sacrifice, for it is as if the person offering the sacrifice is offering an animal

there is a second verse (27:27) that speaks about evaluating non-kosher animals. See also Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 1:10.

lacking a limb. For that limb was not consecrated by him, but by the original donor. They explain that this is referring to an

38. As explained in Halachah 5. 39. After its consecration. The laws applying to the consecration of a blemished animal are the same as those applying to other movable property. See the gloss of the Ra'avad.

instance where the purchaser pledged to purchase a burnt offering of a certain value and the animal is worth that amount, even without the limb in question. See Hilchot Maaseh HaKorbanot 15:2. 51. We follow the principle that when there is a question

40. Some commentaries suggest emending the wording of the text and having it read 'as was explained,' i.e., referring to

concerning ownership, one who desires to expropriate property (in this instance, the Temple treasury) from a

Halachah 5. The Merkevet HaMishneh suggests that the text should be left as is and that the reference is to Chapter

colleague (the donor), must prove the validity of his claim. Since that is not possible (because the question is

6, Halachah 8, which refers to consecrating to the Temple treasury an animal that was already designated as a

unresolved), the donor may retain the proceeds from the portion of the animal that was not consecrated.

sacrifice. 41. For the holiness that rested upon a consecrated animal cannot be transferred to money after its death. (See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Temurah 7:3). Instead, it must be buried so that no one will make use of it. 42. The windpipe and the esophagus. These are referred to as 'the signs' of ritual slaughter. See Hilchot Shechitah 1:9. 43. For that is sufficient for the slaughter to be acceptable (ibid.). 44. Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 2:1.

52. Since the animal could not live without that limb, consecrating it is equivalent to consecrating the entire animal. 53. Since the animal is unfit to be sacrificed, we do not say that the sanctity spread throughout the entire animal. 54. The animal should be sold and the proceeds from the sale of that limb or organ used to purchase a burnt offering. 55. Since neither a donkey or a servant is fit to offer on the altar, the principles mentioned in the previous halachah apply.

45. The commentaries note that according to the Rambam, this applies even if the animal is incapable of standing unsupported. There are, however, other authorities who differ; see Shitah Mekubetzet (Bava Kama 76a). 46. I.e., the person desired that the animal be sold and the proceeds used to purchase an animal to be sacrificed. 47. Since the animal is fit to be sacrificed, it is dedicated to the altar and should be sacrificed itself (Temura 19b). 48. Based on Temurah 11b, the Or Sameach explains that were a person to consecrate the limb itself, there is no question that the sanctity would spread throughout the entire animal. The question is since the person did not consecrate the limb itself, merely its worth, do we make two extensions: from the worth of the limb to the limb itself and from the limb to the entire body. There are, however, those who note that in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:2, the Rambam does not accept the principle that the sanctity spreads from a limb or organ throughout the entire animal unless the limb or organ is of vital importance.

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

11 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983600/jewish/Arachim...

56. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that a person's severed head is of no monetary value whatsoever,

58. Since the animal or person would not be worth anything without this organ, there is no difference between the worth

for it is forbidden to benefit from any portion of a corpse. And seemingly, if we would evaluate his head separately, it would

of that organ and the worth of the entire entity. The difference between this instance and those mentioned in

be considered as equivalent to his entire worth, for of what worth is a person without a head? Hence, the Temple

the previous halachot is that the previous halachot involve limbs or organs explicitly consecrated to be offered on the

treasury should be the sole owner without leaving any portion for the person himself. Therefore the Ra'avad

altar. Thus that is all that may be done with them. Even when an article itself may not be sacrificed on the altar and hence,

suggests that the intent of saying that they are partners is that the consecrated entity's value is divided in half.

we understand that the person is referring to the value of the article, since he is singling out that limb or organ, we

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Talmud clearly mentions

consider his intent to be that its individual value be offered on the altar.

evaluation in that passage and therefore, does not accept the Ra'avad's view. How is a head evaluated? The Kessef Mishneh explains that we consider the tasks the servant or the person performs. To the extent he is involved with those that require intellectual activity, his head is worth more. If, by contrast, his activity is primarily physical, his head is worth less. The Radbaz maintains that if a limb or organ is of vital importance to the animal or person, the value is divided in half as the Ra'avad states. The Rambam speaks of evaluating the worth of the organ only when it is not of vital importance. 57. I.e., for improvements to the Temple, for as stated in Halachah 7, whenever a person consecrates an entity without explicitly stated the purpose for which it was consecrated, we assume that it was consecrated for improvements for the Temple.

In those instances, the holiness is focused on the physical substance of the limb or organ. Its value is only a substitute for that physical substance. Hence, we look it at as a particular and not part of the person or animal as a whole. In the instances referred to by this halachah, from the outset, we are concerned with value. Hence, we consider the value of the limb or organ in a more encompassing manner. 59. I.e., the fixed amount required by Torah law, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3. 60. In which instance, were we speaking about a person who pledged his airech, he would be required to pay according to his financial capacity, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2. 61. And there are no other instances where a pledge to the altar can be fulfilled by giving less that the article's worth (Arachin 5a). 62. A shekel and a pundiyon for each year until the Jubilee, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachot 2, 5. 63. And there are no other instances where a pledge to the altar can be fulfilled by giving less that the article's worth (Arachin 5a). 64. And the Temple treasury is always given the benefit of the doubt. If the airech is more, the donor must pay the airech. If the worth is more, he must pay the worth.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5 - Texts & Writings

12 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983600/jewish/Arachim...

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

1 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...



Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5

Whether a person says: 'This1 is consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple,' 'This is a dedication offering2 for the sake of improvements to the Temple,' or 'This is a dedication offering for the sake of Heaven,' or he [makes] similar [statements] with regard to his property as a whole,3 saying that it is all consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple, as a dedication offering for the sake of improvements to the Temple, or as a dedication offering for the sake of Heaven, [the property] should be given for improvements to the Temple. If, however, he said [that the property should be given] as a dedication offering without making any specifications, it should be given to the priests,4 for unspecified dedication offerings are given to the priests,5 as [Numbers 18:14] states: 'All of the dedication offerings from the Jewish people will be yours.

English

Hebrew

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7

‫אחד האומר הרי זה הקדש לבדק‬ ‫הבית או חרם לבדק הבית או חרם‬ ‫לשמים וכן בכל נכסיו אם אמר כל נכסיו‬ ‫הקדש או חרם לבדק הבית או חרם‬ ‫לשמים הרי אלו יפלו לבדק הבית אבל אם‬ ‫אמר חרם סתם הרי אלו לכהנים שסתם‬ ‫חרמים לכהנים שנאמר כל חרם בישראל‬ :‫לך יהיה‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

2 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

A person may make a dedication offering from his cattle, his sheep, his Canaanite servants6 and maid-servants, and his ancestral fields.7 He should not, however, designate all of his cattle, all of his servants, all of his fields, nor all of any type of movable property that he owns as a dedication offering, as [implied by Leviticus 27:28]: 'From everything that he owns.'8 If he gives all he owns from a particular type of property as a dedication offering, even if he gives everything he owns as a dedication offering, his gift is binding. [This applies] whether he designates the dedication offering for the priests or for the improvement of the Temple.

‫מחרים אדם מן בקרו ומצאנו‬ ‫ומעבדיו ומשפחותיו הכנענים ומשדה‬ ‫אחוזתו אבל לא יחרים כל בהמתו ולא כל‬ ‫עבדיו ולא כל שדותיו ולא כל מין שיש לו‬ ‫משאר המטלטלין שנאמר מכל אשר לו‬ ‫ואם החרים את הכל אפילו החרים כל‬ ‫נכסיו הרי אלו מוחרמין בין שהחרים‬ :‫לכהנים בין שהחרים לבדק הבית‬

When a person gives all of his property as a dedication offering or consecrates it, we take everything that he owns, even the tefillin on his head. Needless to say, [this includes] his tools and his clothes,9 for he consecrated or gave as a dedication offering all of his possessions.

‫וכל מי שהחרים או הקדיש כל נכסיו‬ ‫לוקחין כל מה שיש לו ואפילו תפילין‬ ‫שבראשו ואין צריך לומר כלי אומנתו‬ :‫ובגדיו שהכל הקדש או חרם‬

What is the difference between dedication offerings designated for priests and those dedicated to Heaven? Dedication offerings to Heaven become consecrated property and must be redeemed for their worth.10 The payment is given for the sake of improvements to the Temple and then the possessions become ordinary property. Dedication offerings designated for the priests, by contrast, can never be redeemed.11 Instead, they are given to the priests like terumah. Concerning dedication offerings designated for the priests, [Leviticus 27:28] states: 'It shall neither be sold,12 nor redeemed,'13 i.e., it shall neither be sold to another person,14 nor redeemed by the owner.

‫מה בין חרמי כהנים לחרמי שמים‬ ‫שחרמי שמים הקדש ונפדין בשוייהן‬ ‫ויפלו הדמים לבדק הבית ויצאו הנכסים‬ ‫לחולין וחרמי כהנים אין להן פדיון לעולם‬ ‫אלא נתנין לכהנים כתרומה ועל חרם‬ ‫כהנים הוא אומר לא ימכר ולא יגאל לא‬ :‫ימכר לאחר ולא יגאל לבעלים‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

3 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

Whether a person designates land or movable property as a dedication offering, it is given to a priest15 in the watch16 serving at the time that the dedication offering was designated. As long as a dedication offering for the priests is in the homes of the owner, it is like consecrated property in all regards,17 as [Leviticus 27:28] states: 'All dedication offerings are consecrated as holy unto God.' Once it is given to the priests, it is considered as ordinary property, as [Numbers 18:14] states: 'All of the dedication offerings from the Jewish people will be yours.' If a priest has a field that was a dedication offering [or an ancestral field]18that he acquired after the Jubilee19 and he designates it as a dedication offering, it is considered as a dedication offering and should be given to his brethren, the priests, as [implied by Leviticus 27:21], 'It will become the priest's, [like his] ancestral property.' This teaches that a field [designated] as a dedication offering that [a priest acquires] is like an ancestral field owned by an Israelite.20 If he designates it as a dedication offering, it becomes sanctified immediately.

‫ואחד המחרים קרקע או מטלטלין‬ ‫הרי אלו ניתנין לכהן שבאותו משמר‬ ‫בשעה שהחרים חרמי כהנים כל זמן שהן‬ ‫בבית הבעלים הרי הן הקדש לכל דבריהם‬ '‫שנאמר כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא לה‬ ‫נתנו לכהן הרי הן כחולין לכל דבריהם‬ :‫שנאמר כל חרם בישראל לך יהיה‬

‫כהן שהיתה לו שדה חרם שזכה בה‬ ‫אחר היובל והחרימה הרי זו מוחרמת‬ ‫ויוצאה לאחיו הכהנים שנאמר לכהן תהיה‬ ‫אחוזתו מלמד ששדה חרמו לו כשדה‬ ‫אחוזה לישראל שאם החרימה היא‬ :‫מוחרמת מיד‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

4 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

When a priest sells a field that he [had acquired after it was designated as] a dedication offering and then the purchaser consecrates it - even if the purchaser was the original owner who designated it as a dedication offering21 - it is like [the consecration of] acquired property22 and it returns to the priest who sold it in the Jubilee year.23 Land or movable property that belongs to the priests or the Levites,24 by contrast, may not be designated as a dedication offering.25 [The rationale is that] with regard to the fields [granted to them, Leviticus 25:34] states: 'For it is an eternal inheritance for them,'26 and an association is established between movable property and land with regard to dedication offerings, as [Leviticus 27:28] states: 'from anything he owns... and from his ancestral field."

‫מכר הכהן שדה חרמי והקדישה לוקח‬ ‫אפילו היה הלוקח הבעלים הראשונים‬ ‫שהחרימוה הרי זה כשדה מקנה וחוזרת‬ ‫לכהן שמכרה ביובל אבל קרקע או‬ ‫מטלטלין של כהנים ולוים אינם מחרימין‬ ‫אותן שהרי אומר בשדה כי אחוזת עולם‬ ‫הוא לכם ומטלטלין הוקשו לקרקעות‬ ‫בחרמין שנאמר מכל אשר לו ומשדה‬ :‫אחוזתו‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

5 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

When a person consecrates [animals that] had been consecrated [to be offered] on the altar for the sake of improvements to the Temple, the [second] consecration is of consequence.27 The animal should be evaluated and redeemed and its worth given for the sake of improvements to the Temple. [Afterwards,] it should be offered for the purpose for which it was originally consecrated.28

‫המקדיש קדשי מזבח לבדק הבית‬ ‫הרי ההקדש חל עליהן ותערך‬ ‫הבהמה ותפדה ויפלו דמיה לבדק הבית‬ ‫והבהמה תקרב למה שהיתה בתחלה אבל‬ ‫המקדיש קדשי בדק הבית למזבח ואמר‬ ‫הרי זה עולה או שלמים או החרימם‬ ‫לכהנים לא עשה כלום ואין הקדש מזבח‬ ‫ולא החרם חל על קדשי בדק הבית שאין‬ :‫אדם מקדיש דבר שאינו שלו‬

When, however, a person consecrates [animals that] had been consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple [with the intent that they be offered] on the altar, saying: 'This is a burnt offering,' or '...a peace offering,' or he designates them as a dedication offering to the priests, his act is of no consequence.29 For [animals that] had been consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple cannot be consecrated [to be offered] on the altar or designated as dedication offerings, because a person cannot consecrate an entity that does not belong to him.30 When a person says: 'This ox will be consecrated31 after 30 days' and slaughters it within the 30 days, it is permitted to benefit from it.32 If he consecrated it to the altar, it is consecrated to the altar.33 If, by contrast, he says: "This animal is consecrated immediately after 30 days,"34 and he slaughters it within those 30 days, it is forbidden to benefit from it.35 If he consecrated it to the altar within the 30 days, the consecration does not take effect.36

‫האומר שור זה הקדש לאחר שלשים‬ ‫יום ושחטו בתוך שלשים יום הרי זה‬ ‫מותר בהנאה הקדישו למזבח הרי זה‬ ‫הקדש למזבח אבל אם אמר הרי זה הקדש‬ ‫מעכשיו לאחר שלשים יום ושחטו בתוך‬ ‫שלשים יום הרי זה אסור בהנאה ואם‬ ‫הקדישו בתוך השלשים למזבח אינו‬ :‫מוקדש‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

6 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

When a person consecrates [an animal designated as] a burnt offering for the sake of improvements to the Temple, only [its evaluation by] the Temple treasurers holds back [its slaughter].37 According to Rabbinic decree, however, it should not be slaughtered until it is redeemed.38 Therefore,39 if he transgressed and slaughtered it [before it was redeemed], it is acceptable.40

‫המקדיש עולה לבדק הבית אין בה‬ ‫אלא עיכוב גזברין בלבד ומדברי‬ ‫סופרים שלא תשחט עד שתפדה לפיכך‬ :‫אם עבר ושחטה הרי זה כשרה‬

A person may designate as a dedication offerings - whether set aside for the priests or for improvements to the Temple - [animals consecrated as] sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity41 or sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity.42 If he was liable to replace these sacrifices,43 he must pay their value44 whether to the priests or for the sake of improvements to the Temple. After they are redeemed, he should then offer the sacrifices for their original purposes.

‫מחרים אדם בין קדשי קדשים בין‬ ‫קדשים קלים בין חרמי כהנים בין‬ ‫חרמי בדק הבית ואם היו קדשים שהוא‬ ‫חייב באחריותן נותן את דמיהן בין לכהנים‬ ‫בין לבדק הבית ויקרבו אותן הקדשים אחר‬ :‫שיפדו למה שהן‬

What is the redemption process [when a person] vowed [to bring a particular animal as a sacrifice]45 and then designated it as a dedication offering?46 We evaluate how much a person would be willing to give for the right of sacrificing this animal as a burnt offering even though he is not liable to do so.47 Whoever gives this amount48 may offer this animal [for the sacrifice] for which it was originally pledged.

‫היו נדבה והחרימן כיצד פודין אותן‬ ‫אומדים כמה אדם רוצה ליתן‬ ‫בבהמה זו להעלותה עולה שאינו חייב בה‬ ‫וכל הנותן אותו שיעור יקריב בהמה זו‬ :‫נדבה כמו שהיתה‬

When an Israelite designates a firstborn animal whether unblemished or blemished49 - as a dedication offering for the sake of heaven, the designation takes effect.50 Needless to say, if the priest designates it as a dedication offering for the sake of heaven after it enters his domain, [the designation takes effect].51

‫ישראל שהחרים את בכור בהמה‬ ‫לשמים בין שהיה תמים בין שהיה‬ ‫בעל מום הרי זה מוחרם ואין צריך לומר‬ :‫שהחרימו הכהן לשמים אחר שבא לידו‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

7 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

How is it to be redeemed? We evaluate how much a person would be willing to give for the right for this firstborn to be his so that he will have the right to give it to whichever priest he desires, to his relative or his friend. Whoever gives this amount52 may take the firstborn and give it to whichever priest he desires. The money is given for the sake of improvements to the Temple.

‫וכיצד פודין אותן אומדין כמה אדם‬ ‫רוצה ליתן בבכור זה כדי שיהיה לו‬ ‫ותהיה הרשות בידו ליתנו לכל כהן שירצה‬ ‫לקרובו או לרעו וכל הנותן אותו שיעור‬ ‫יקח הבכור ויתננו לכל כהן שירצה ויפלו‬ :‫הדמים לבדק הבית‬

When a person designates an animal selected as a tithe offering53 as a dedication offering, it is as if he designated an animal pledged to be sacrificed as a peace offering.54 [The rationale is that] he is not liable to replace it.55

‫המחרים את המעשר הרי זו‬ ‫כמחרים שלמי נדבה לפי שאינו‬ :‫חייב באחריותו‬

When a person consecrates his [half-]shekel56 for the sake of improvements to the Temple, the consecration is binding.57 If one consecrates bikkurim58

‫המקדיש שקלו לבדק הבית הרי זו‬ ‫קדש הקדיש בכורים לבדק הבית‬ ‫אינן קדש אבל אם הקדישן הכהן אחר‬ :‫שבאו לידו הרי אלו קדש‬

for the sake of improvements to the Temple, the consecration does not take effect.59 If, however, the priest [to whom the bikkurim are given] consecrates them after they enter his domain, the consecration is binding.60 When a person designates half of his servant or half of his maid-servant as a dedication offering, he and the priests are joint owners.61 If, however, he consecrates half his servant and designates half his servant as a dedication offering to Heaven, he is consecrated entirely, as we explained.62 Whenever one consecrates his Canaanite servant or maid-servant or consecrates all of his property and he owns servants, their physical person becomes consecrated Therefore it is forbidden to benefit from them63 until they are redeemed.64

‫המחרים חצי עבדו ושפחתו הוא‬ ‫והכהנים שותפין בו אבל אם הקדיש‬ ‫או החרים לשמים חצי עבדו כולו קדש‬ ‫כמו שבארנו וכל המקדיש עבדו ושפחתו‬ ‫הכנענים או המקדיש כל נכסיו והיו בהן‬ ‫עבדים הרי גופן קדש לפיכך אסורים‬ :‫ליהנות בהן עד שיפדו‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

8 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

The Temple treasurers may not take the worth [of the servants] from other people and free them.65 Instead, they sell them to others66 and those others free them if they desire.

‫ואין הגזברין רשאין ליקח דמיהן‬ ‫מאחרים ולהוציא אותן לחירות‬ ‫אלא מוכרין אותן לאחרים ואחרים‬ :‫מוציאין אותן לחרות אם רצו‬

When one consecrates his servant's hands,67 anything he earns beyond what is required for his sustenance is consecrated.68

‫המקדיש ידי עבדו כל היתר על‬ ‫פרנסתו קדש וכיצד הוא מתפרנס‬ ‫עבד זה לווה ואוכל ועושה ופורע והוא‬ ‫שיעשה פחות פחות משוה פרוטה ויפרע‬ ‫שאם עשה בפרוטה ראשון ראשון קנה‬ :‫הקדש‬

How should this servant sustain himself? He should borrow the money [required for his sustenance], work, and repay the debt. [This is allowed] provided he always works for less than a p'rutah and pays it. For if he earned an entire p'rutah, it would be acquired by the Temple treasury as soon as he earned it.69 When a person consecrates himself, he consecrated only his worth.70 He is obligated to give [that amount to the Temple treasury]. He may earn money and [use it for] his sustenance, for his physical person did not become consecrated as that of a servant does.71

‫המקדיש את עצמו לא הקדיש אלא‬ ‫דמיו והרי הוא חייב בדמי עצמו‬ ‫ומותר לו לעשות ולאכול שהרי לא‬ :‫נתקדש גופו כעבד‬

A person cannot consecrate an entity that does not belong to him.72

‫אין אדם מקדיש דבר שאינו שלו‬ ‫כיצד כגון שהחרים בנו ובתו‬ ‫ועבדו ושפחתו העברים או שדה מקנתו‬ ‫הרי אלו אינן מוחרמין שאין אדם מקדיש‬ :‫דבר שאין גופו שלו‬

What is implied? If he designates his son, his daughter, his Hebrew servant, or Hebrew maid-servant, or a field he acquired as a dedication offering, they do not become dedication offerings. For a person cannot consecrate an entity when its physical person or substance is not his.73

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

9 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

A person may not consecrate an entity that is not in his domain. What is implied? A person entrusted an article to a colleague and the latter denied possession of it, the owners cannot consecrate it.74 If, however, [the watchman] did not deny possession of it, it is considered in its owner's domain, no matter where it is located.75

‫אין אדם מקדיש דבר שאינו‬ ‫ברשותו כיצד היה לו פקדון ביד‬ ‫אחר וכפר בו זה שהוא אצלו אין הבעלים‬ ‫יכולין להקדישו אבל אם לא כפר בו הרי‬ :‫הוא ברשות בעליו בכל מקום שהוא‬

When does the above apply? With regard to movable property. [Different rules apply] to landed property that was stolen and [the thief] denied [having taken it].76 If [the original owner] could have the land expropriated through legal process,77 he has the right to consecrate it even though he has not yet expropriated it. For the land itself is always considered in the domain of its [legitimate] owners.78

‫במה דברים אמורים במטלטלין‬ ‫אבל קרקע שגזלה אחר וכפר בה‬ ‫אם יכול להוציאה בדיינין הרי זה יכול‬ ‫להקדישה ואע"פ שעדיין לא הוציאה‬ :‫שהקרקע עצמה הרי היא ברשות בעליה‬

When a person steals from his colleague and the [original] owner does not despair [of recovery],79 neither of them can consecrate it. [The robber cannot,] because the article does not belong to him and [the owner cannot,] because it is not in his possession. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫הגוזל את חבירו ולא נתייאשו‬ ‫הבעלים שניהם אינן יכולין‬ ‫להקדיש זה לפי שאינו שלו וזה לפי שאינו‬ :‫ברשותו וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

[The following laws apply when] a person was selling squash, eggs, or the like and a [prospective] purchaser comes, takes one, and then departs. If the price of each particular article is fixed, it is as if a price was established,80 and the seller cannot consecrate this squash, for it is not in his domain.81 If the price is not fixed and he consecrated it, it is consecrated, because it is still in his domain,82 for [the prospective purchaser] did not take it with the intent to steal it.

‫מי שהיה מוכר דלועין או ביצים‬ ‫וכיוצא בהן ובא לוקח ונטל אחת‬ ‫והלך לו אם היו דמי כל אחת ואחד קצובין‬ ‫הרי זה כמי שפסק ואין המוכר יכול‬ ‫להקדיש דלעת זו שהרי אינה ברשותו ואם‬ ‫אין הדמים קצובין והקדישה מקודשת‬ ‫שעדיין ברשותו היא שזה שלקחה לא‬ :‫לקחה דרך גזלה וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

10 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

A person cannot consecrate an article that has not yet come into existence.83 What is implied? [If a person says:] "What my net will bring up from the sea is consecrated" or "The fruit my field will produce is designated as a dedication offering," his words are of no consequence.

‫אין אדם מקדיש דבר שלא בא‬ ‫לעולם כיצד מה שתעלה מצודתי‬ ‫מן הים קדש מה שתוציא שדה זו מן‬ :‫הפירות חרם לא אמר כלום‬

When a person tells a colleague: "When I repurchase this field which I sold you,84 it is consecrated," [although] he repurchases it, it is not consecrated. [The rationale is] that it was not in his possession when he consecrated it. 85

‫האומר לחבירו שדה זו שמכרתי‬ ‫לך לכשאקחנה ממך מקודשת‬ ‫ולקחה אינה מקודשת לפי שכשהקדישה‬ :‫לא באה ברשותו‬

Similarly, when a person consecrates the work to be produced by his wife's hands, she may work and partake [of her earnings]. The remainder is not consecrated.86 If he tells her: "May your hands be consecrated to their Maker," since they are under lien to him,87 [the profits of] all of the work that she produces are consecrated. To what can this be compared? To one who says: "This tree is consecrated," in which instance all the fruit it produces is consecrated.88 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

‫וכן המקדיש מעשה ידי אשתו‬ ‫הרי זו עושה ואוכלת והמותר‬ ‫חולין אמר לה יקדשו ידיך לעושיהן הואיל‬ ‫והן משועבדין לו הרי כל מעשה ידיה קדש‬ ‫הא למה זה דומה לאומר אילן זה קדש‬ ‫שכל פירות שיעשה להבא קדש וכן כל‬ :‫כיוצא בזה‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

11 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

When a person tells a colleague: "The field that I will sell you89 will be consecrated when I buy it back from you," the consecration takes effect when he buys it back.90 [The rationale is that] it is in his possession [originally] and he has the possibility of consecrating it.91 [If one tells a colleague:] "The field that I entrusted to you as security92 will be consecrated when I redeem it from you," the field becomes consecrated when he redeems it. [The rationale is that] he has the potential to redeem it.93 [The consecration is effective] even if it was given as a security for a fixed time,94 because he has the potential to redeem it after that time.

‫האומר לחבירו שדה זו שאני‬ ‫מוכר לך לכשאקחנה ממך‬ ‫תתקדש הרי זו מקודשת כשיקחנה שהרי‬ ‫עתה )בא( בידו להקדישה שדה זו‬ ‫שמשכנתי לך לכשאפדנה ממך תהי קדש‬ ‫משיפדה אותה תתקדש שהרי בידו‬ ‫לפדותה ואפילו היתה ממושכנת לזמן‬ :‫קצוב שהרי בידו לפדותה אחר הזמן‬

[Although a person] rents out a house to a colleague, if he retracts and consecrates it, the consecration is effective and the rental arrangement is terminated.95 If the tenant dwells there, he violates the prohibition against misappropriating sacred property.96

‫המשכיר בית לחבירו וחזר והקדישו‬ ‫הרי זה קדש ופקעה השכירות ואם‬ :‫דר בו השוכר מעל‬

It appears to me97 that even though a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not come into being, if he says: "I pledge to consecrate it," he is obligated to consecrate it when it will come into being to [fulfill] his vow. If he does not consecrate it, he transgresses [the prohibitions]: "Do not delay in paying it" and "He shall not desecrate his word" and [fails to fulfill the positive commandment:] "He shall act in accordance with all that he uttered with his mouth" as is true with regard to all other vows.98

‫יראה לי שאע"פ שאין אדם‬ ‫מקדיש דבר שלא בא לעולם אם‬ ‫אמר הרי עלי להקדישו הרי זה חייב‬ ‫להקדישו כשיבא לעולם משום נדרו ואם‬ ‫לא הקדיש הרי זה עובר משום בל תאחר‬ ‫ולא יחל דברו ומשום ככל היוצא מפיו‬ :‫יעשה כשאר הנדרים‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

12 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

What is implied? [When a person] says: "I pledge to consecrate everything that my net will bring up from the sea," "I pledge to give the fruit produced by this field to the poor," "I pledge to designate as a dedication offering - or give for the sake of captives - all of my earnings of this year," or makes any statement of this like, he is obligated to give and/or perform what he pledged when the article comes into his possession. For these and all similar statements are vows, not acts of consecration.99

‫כיצד האומר הרי עלי להקדיש כל‬ ‫שתעלה מצודתי מן הים הרי עלי‬ ‫ליתן לעניים פירות שתוציא שדה זו הרי‬ ‫עלי להחרים או ליתן לשבוים כל‬ ‫שאשתכר בשנה זו וכל כיוצא במאמרים‬ ‫אלו הרי זה חייב ליתן ולעשות בהן מה‬ ‫שאמר כשיבואו לידו וזה וכיוצא בו בכלל‬ :‫נדרים הוא לא בכלל הקדשות‬

Support for this can be drawn from the statements of Jacob our Patriarch [Genesis 28:22]:100 "And everything that You will give me, I will tithe." And [later, ibid. 31:13]101 states: "Where you took a vow."102 And103 when a person says: "I will not depart from this world until I become a nazirite," he is obligated to observe a nazirite vow104 although he did not actually take such a vow. Since he said that he would take a nazirite vow, he is obligated to observe those restrictions. This law parallels that. It is appropriate to rule in this manner.

‫ראיה לדבר זה מה שאמר יעקב‬ ‫אבינו וכל אשר תתן לי עשר‬ ‫אעשרנו לך ונאמר אשר נדרת לי שם נדר‬ ‫והרי האומר לא אפטר מן העולם עד‬ ‫שאהיה נזיר חייב לנהוג בנזירות ואף על‬ ‫פי שעדיין לא נדר בנזיר הואיל ואמר‬ ‫שידור בנזיר חייב להנזר וזה כיוצא בו‬ :‫וכזה ראוי לדון‬

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

13 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

A consecration that is made in error is not binding.105 What is implied? If one says: "When a black ox will go out of the building first, it will be consecrated," should a white ox go out [first], it is not consecrated.106 [If he says:] "When a gold dinar comes into my hand first, it is consecrated," should a silver [dinar] come up, it is not consecrated. [If he says:] "When a barrel of wine comes into my hand first, it is consecrated," should a barrel of oil come up, it is not consecrated. [This applies] whether wine is more expensive than oil107 in that place or oil is more expensive than wine.108

‫הקדש טעות אינו הקדש כיצד‬ ‫האומר שור שחור שיצא מבית‬ ‫ראשון הרי הוא הקדש ויצא לבן אינו‬ ‫הקדש דינר זהב שיעלה בידי ראשון הרי‬ ‫הוא הקדש ועלה של כסף אינו הקדש‬ ‫חבית של יין שתעלה בידי ראשונה הקדש‬ ‫ועלה של שמן בין שהיין יקר מן השמן‬ ‫באותו מקום או השמן יקר מן היין אינו‬ ‫הקדש התפיס בה אחרת ואמר זו כזו הרי‬ :‫השניה הקדש וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬

If he attempts to extend the consecration to a second entity, saying: "[The status of] this is the same as [that of] the other," the second is consecrated.109 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

« Previous Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7

FOOTNOTES 1. Any specific entity.

4. The differences between the two types of dedication

Cherem implies the removal of an entity from one framework

offerings mentioned are described in Halachah 4. To which priests the property is given is described in Halachah 5.

of reference and its inclusion in another. Similarly, in this

5. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting

instance, the property is being taken from the realm of private, personal possessions and being sanctified (see the

that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages (Arachin 28b) and it appears that the

gloss of HaKtav VeHaKabalah to Leviticus 27:29). It must, however, be emphasized that the term cherem has negative

conclusion of the Talmud is that if no specification is made, dedication offerings should be given for improvements to the

connotations, meaning 'a ban' and the root has the

Temple. Indeed, Rashi (Beitzah 36b) and others rule in this

connotation 'absolute destruction.' In that context, in his Living Torah, Rav Aryeh Kaplan interprets the term is

manner. The Or Sameach suggests that the Rambam's

2. This term is being used for the Hebrew term cherem.

meaning 'declare taboo,' i.e., banned from ordinary mortal use and hence, designated for the Temple treasury or the priests. 3. As stated in Halachah 2, a person should not dedicate all of his possessions. Nevertheless, if he chooses to do so, his statements are of consequence.

source is Ezekiel 44:29 which states: 'All the dedication offerings from the Jewish people shall be yours.' 6. But not his Hebrew servants. See Halachah 21 and notes. 7. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 145) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 357) include the laws governing dedication offerings among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

14 of 18

8. I.e., the dedication offering must be 'from what he owns,' i.e., implying that he is giving a portion of what he owns, but not all that he owns. The rationale for this ruling is explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 13.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

20. I.e., just like an ancestral field belonging to an Israelite is given to the priests, so too, a field owned by a priest that is designated as a dedication offering is given to the priests.

9. I.e., in contrast to a person who pledges an airech who is

21. Since he was the original owner, one might think that the laws that apply when one consecrates an ancestral field

allowed to retain ownership of his basic necessities, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachot 14-17.

would apply. This is not the case, because once he designated it as a dedication offering, it became the property of the priest.

10. I.e., until they are redeemed - by the owner or by another person - they are the property of the Temple treasury and it

22. Which, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 26, returns to its

is forbidden to benefit from them or use them for mundane purposes.

original owner. In that instance, as in this halachah, the person who consecrated it did not have everlasting

11. I.e., the owner loses all rights to them. They become the

ownership of it. Hence, he cannot consecrate the field forever.

property of the priests, able to be used for whatever purposes the priest who receives the property desires, as explained in the following halachah. 12. I.e., before it is given to the priest. Once it is given to the priest, he may sell it if he so desires. 13. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 110-111) and

23. For once it is given to him, the priest is considered its owner for all time. 24. This ruling was a matter of question for the Rambam. There is a difference of opinion concerning this point among the Sages. The standard published test of the Rambam's

Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 358-359) include both the

Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 8:5) indicates that he

prohibitions against selling and redeeming property designated as a dedication offering among the 613 mitzvot of

favored the view that maintains that this only applies to

the Torah. 14. The Rambam's apparent source is the Sifra, but the version

priests. Rav Kapach maintains that this is an error and his ruling there is - as stated here - that it applies to both priests and Levites.

of the standard text of the Sifra speaks of a prohibition

25. I.e., if they make such a dedication, it is of no consequence.

against selling the property to the Temple treasurer. There are those who maintain that the Rambam followed a version

26. I.e., their landed property is theirs forever. It cannot be given

of the Sifra with a different reading. Significantly, however, in his Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Rambam defines the prohibition as forbidding the sale to the Temple treasurer. 15. The implication appears to be that, like terumah, the donor has the right to give the dedication offering to the priest of his choice from the watch. It is not divided among all the priests of the watch. See Arachin 28a.

as a dedication offering, because a dedication offering is given to a priest as his private property. Hence there would be no advantage in his making such an offering (Rashi, (Arachin 28a). Thus there is obviously a difference between land or movable property that belongs to a priest and property that he acquired because it was designated as a dedication offering, as stated in Halachah 6. The rationale is that

16. As stated in the notes to Chapter 4, Halachah 24, there were

property that a priest owns as an ancestral heritage is essentially his. On the other hand, property that he acquired

24 priestly watches. Each one would serve in the Temple for a week at a time according to a rotating cycle.

because it was designated as a dedication offering is not essentially his. Hence, it can be given to other priests as a

17. They may not be used by the former owner for his own purposes and the prohibition of meilah, misappropriating consecrated property, applies. 18. Our translation follows the commentary of the Kiryat Sefer.

dedication offering. 27. The rationale is that consecrating an animal for the sake of improvements to the Temple is like taking a vow to pay its

The version of the standard published text (which reflects

value to the Temple treasury. Hence, such a vow can be taken even if the animal is already consecrated.

that of authentic manuscripts and early printings) would be literally translated as 'When a priest possesses a field that

28. For the second consecration and the redemption do not effect its original status.

was designated as a dedication offering which he acquired after the Jubilee.' We prefer the version of the Kiryat Sefer,

29. Tosafot (Temurah 32a) explains the difference between the

because there is no connection between the Jubilee year and a priest's acquisition of dedication offerings. 19. See Chapter 4, Halachot 19, 24.

two instances as follows: The owner of an animal consecrated as a sacrifice still shares a connection to it. For if it is blemished, he must redeem it and replace it. In contrast, once an animal is consecrated to the Temple treasury, it leaves the owner's domain entirely.

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

15 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

30. And once an animal has been consecrated to the Temple treasury, it is not the owner's unless he redeems it.

44. Since he is obligated to replace his sacrifices, he is required to redeem the consecrated animal.

31. For the sake of improvements to the Temple. Whether he

45. E.g., he said: "I will bring this animal as a burnt offering." In

states this explicitly or not, it is consecrated for that purpose as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 7, unless he explicitly

this instance, if the animal dies or is stolen, he is not required to replace it with another animal.

states that he is consecrating it for another purpose. 32. Because the consecration did not take effect yet. The Or

46. I.e., one might think that since the animal itself is already designated as a sacrifice and the person is not required to

Tosefta (Temurah 3:1), states that it is permitted to partake of

replace it if stolen, it is no longer his, and he does not have the right to consecrate it at all.

the animal that was slaughtered and questions why the

47. I.e., since the person could in fact bring the sacrifice, we

Sameach notes that the Rambam's apparent source, the

Rambam does not rule accordingly. He explains that the Rambam considers the person who consecrated the animal equivalent to an apostate for by slaughtering the animal, he prevents his vow from being fulfilled. As stated in Hilchot Shechitah 4:14, there are certain conditions necessary for slaughter performed by such a person to be successful. 33. Since the original consecration has not yet taken effect, he may still consecrate it for another purpose. 34. I.e., if the animal does not die within 30 dies, retroactively, the consecration will take effect from the time of his statements. 35. Since the consecration of the animal will ultimately take effect, it may not be used for mundane purposes unless it is evaluated by the court. That evaluation may not be performed when the animal is dead (Lechem Mishneh). 36. Since retroactively, the animal will become consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple, the consecration as a sacrifice is not of consequence, as stated in Halachah 8. 37. I.e., this evaluation is necessary to establish the extent of his

evaluate how much that right is worth to a person. 48. Since the person who consecrated the animal is not obligated to replace it, we do not require him to redeem it and offer it. Instead, anyone who desires to pay the estimated amount has the right to do so. 49. An unblemished firstborn animal is offered as a sacrifice and a priest is given the right to partake of it, while a blemished one must be given to a priest to use as his private property. 50. And the animal must be redeemed as stated in the previous halachah. 51. This is speaking about a firstborn animal with a blemish. It becomes the priest's private property, as stated in Hilchot Bechorot 1:3. Hence, there is no question that he has the right to do as he pleases with it. 52. I.e., we do not require the person who consecrated the animal to redeem it. 53. See Leviticus 27:32; Hilchot Bechorot, ch. 6, for a description of this offering.

obligation, but nothing more. We do not require him to wait until he actually redeems the animal. The Radbaz explains

54. In which instance, we follow the principles stated in Halachah 12. A price to be paid to offer the sacrifice is

that there are commentaries that if the animal was not redeemed the Temple treasurers are required to be present

established. Anyone willing to pay that price may redeem the animal.

at the offering of the animal, because the owner of a sacrifice must be present when it is offered. The Rambam does not,

55. I.e., if the animal selected to be sacrificed as a tithe offering dies or is stolen, he is not required to offer another animal in

however, require the treasurers' presence. 38. For the Sages decreed that the animal be considered as if its body has become consecrated.

its place. 56. The Rambam is referring to the half-shekel every male is required to give to purchase his share of the communal offerings. See Hilchot Shekalim, chs. 1-3.

39. I.e., because the requirement to wait until its redemption is Rabbinic in origin.

57. This is parallel to the law mentioned in Halachah 11, that a

40. Rashi (Temurah 32a,b) states that in such an instance, the

person may consecrate animals designated as sacrifices.

person is not required to pay anything for the dedication offering, because the animal was never evaluated. 41. Burnt offerings, sin offerings, or guilt offerings. 42. All other sacrifices. 43. I.e., he pledged to bring an offering of a particular type. Afterwards, he designated an animal to be offered to fulfill his pledge. If the animal is lost or stolen, he is required to supply

58. The first fruits that were brought to the Temple and then given to the priests. See Exodus, ch. 23; Deuteronomy, ch. 26, Hilchot Bikkurim, chs. 1-4. 59. For the bikkurim are not his, but rather the property of the priest. 60. The bikkurim become the priest's private property (ibid. 4:14). Hence he may do with them whatever he desires.

another animal.

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

16 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

61. I.e., for the portion given to the priest becomes his private property.

73. All of the four types of people mentioned above are considered as independent personalities. Although a father

62. As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18, when a person

and owner possess certain rights with regard to the earnings of these individuals, he does not own their physical persons.

consecrates a limb or an organ on which an animal's life depends, the entire animal becomes consecrated. Here, too, the servant cannot live with only half his body. 63. Nevertheless

the

prohibition

against

meilah,

misappropriating sacred property, do not apply. See Hilchot Meilah 5:10. 64. I.e., they are sold to others and the proceeds of the sale are used for the sake of improvements to the Temple. 65. For freeing them might create the impression that they were treating consecrated property with disdain and not seeking its full worth. 66. In which instance, they will receive the market value of the servant. 67. What the owner is attempting to do is to consecrate the servant's earnings. That, however, is not possible, for a person is unable to consecrate an entity that has not come into existence already (see Halachah 26). Therefore, he consecrates the servant's hands, for they do exist, and thus any earnings they produce become consecrated (Radbaz). Note the parallel in Halachah 28. 68. A servant's master is not liable to provide for his sustenance (Hilchot Avadim 9:7). Hence that money must be taken from

This applies even to his children who are beneath the age of majority (Arachin 28a). Similarly, a field that one acquires is never totally his, for he must return it to its original owners in the Jubilee. 74. For there is no way that they could regain possession of it immediately. Nor may the watchman consecrate it, because it does not belong to him. 75. I.e., although it is in the physical possession of the watchman, it is still considered as belonging to - and able to be secured by - the owner. See Halachah 25 and notes. 76. And instead, claimed to be the legitimate owner. 77. Proving his ownership through the testimony of witnesses or through a valid deed of title. 78. This is a principle applicable in many aspects of Jewish business law. Land can never be stolen and is always considered as being in the possession of the person who has title to it. See Bava Metzia 7a. 79. Even if the owner despairs of the recovery of the article, it is not desirable for the thief to consecrate it. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 5:7.

the servant's earnings. Nevertheless, since his earnings are

80. Since a standard price for each article was established and the articles were left for sale, we assume that as soon as the

consecrated, the process the Rambam continues to explain should be followed.

person took the article, he committed himself to the purchase and hence, the sale is completed.

69. Tosafot, Gittin 12b, explains that even a sum less than a p'rutah can be consecrated. (See Hilchot Meilah 7:8.)

81. For it is as if it was already sold.

Nevertheless, the owner had the intent that this amount not

82. Since the price has to be established, until it is established, the sale is not complete. And until the sale is complete, the

be consecrated so that the servant would be able to sustain himself.

article is considered as belonging to the seller. Hence, the prospective purchaser is considered as the watchman of an

70. The price that would be paid if he was sold as a servant in

entrusted article and the law stated in the final clause of Halachah 22 applies. Indeed, Bava Batra 88a mentions this

the marketplace. 71. A servant is considered as property and consecrating him makes him the property of the Temple treasury. Hence it is entitled to all of his earnings. This does not apply with regard to a free man. 72. Bava Kama 69b derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:14: "When a person will consecrate his house." Just as his house is his own, so too, everything he consecrates must be his own.

instance and from it, the law stated in Halachah 22 is derived. 83. Kiryat Sefer explains the rationale for this ruling: Since the object has not come into existence as of yet, it is not in his domain. And, as stated in Halachah 22, a person cannot consecrate an article that is not in his domain. 84. Needless to say, this applies when the person never owned the field he seeks to consecrate. By mentioning this instance, the Rambam (and his source, Ketubot

58b)

emphasize that even though the person originally and ultimately owned the field, since he did not own it at the time he consecrated it, the consecration is not effective.

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

17 of 18

85. The Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 258:15 emphasizes that his statement is not even considered a vow, because the wording used does not have the implication of a vow. See Halachah 31 which speaks of this issue. Note, however, the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Mechirah 22:15. 86. I.e., the consecration is not effective, because the fruits of the woman's labor did not exist at the time her husband sought to consecrate them. 87. As stated in Hilchot Ishut 12:3, all of the proceeds of the work a woman performs belong to her husband.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

96. He may, however, avoid the prohibition by paying his rent to the Temple treasury (Arachin 21a). 97. This phrase indicates a law that the Rambam derived through the process of deduction without an explicit prior Rabbinic source. 98. See Chapter 1, Halachah 1; Hilchot Nedarim 1:4-5, Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:13. 99. I.e., were the person to have the intent to consecrate the article with this statement, the consecration would not be effective, because the article does not yet exist. He is not,

88. For although the fruit did not exist at the time of the original consecration, the tree did. And once the tree is consecrated

however, consecrating the article, merely pledging to do so in the future. See also Hilchot Mechirah 22:15. On his notes

all the fruit it produces is consecrated. Similarly, the woman's hands exist at the time the consecration was made, and as a

to that source, the Ra'avad differs and maintains that for the statement to be considered a pledge, it must be worded in

result, all the products of her work are consecrated. Rabbenu Nissim does not accept the Rambam's ruling. He

that matter. See Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Choshen

explains that although our Sages ordained that the profits from a woman's labor should be given to her husband, those

100.After his vision of the ladder extending to heaven. He was

profits are given in exchange for his support of her. If she desires, she has the right to withdraw from the arrangement, decline his support, and keep her earnings. Since she has this right, her hands are not on lien to her husband, and he

Mishpat 212:7).

speaking of "what You will give me," i.e., possessions that he would acquire in the future. 101.When Jacob tells his wives of the message the angel gave him to return to Eretz Yisrael.

cannot consecrate them. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer

102.I.e., the pledge he made is considered as a vow.

81:1) follows the Rambam's view, while the Rama quotes

103.The Radbaz explains that the second proof is necessary,

that of Rabbenu Nissim. 89. I.e., at the time he makes this statement it is in his possession. 90. Even though he does not make a second statement, it becomes consecrated if and when he repurchases it. 91. Thus the fact that he sells it to another person in the interim does not detract from the consecration. 92. For a loan.

because one might say that Jacob's reference to his vow refers to his statement: "And the Lord will be my God." 104.See Hilchot Nazir 1:4 which states that he must observe the nazirite restrictions immediately, because he does not know how long he will live and he is required to fulfill his pledge before he dies. The Ra'avad accepts the support from Jacob's statement, but not that from the nazirite's pledge, bringing two

93. Even though the field was not in his possession at the time

objections: a) at present, it is within his potential to carry out the nazirite

he made his statement, since he had the right to redeem it, it is considered as if it were.

vow. Hence, the comparison to an entity that has not yet come into existence is not appropriate.

94. And during that time, he did not have the right to redeem it. 95. Although the house is the tenant's for the duration of the rental period, since ultimately it belongs to the owner, his

b) Since the person does not know when he will die, it is as if he has committed himself to observe the vow immediately. The Radbaz brings support for the Rambam's position.

consecration takes precedence over the rental agreement. For as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 14, consecration takes

105.Just like a vow made in error is not binding (Hilchot

precedence over other obligations. Although as implied by the previous halachah, the owner

106.I.e., we assume that his mention of a black ox was

could not consecrate a field given as security while it was in the possession of the lender, he has a greater right to the land in this instance. In the previous case, the field will not return to him unless he pays the loan, while in this instance, the home will return to him at the end of the rental period without payment. Hence he is considered to have greater rights over it and is given the right to consecrate it (Radbaz).

Nedarim 8:3).

deliberate and intended to be a stipulation, not merely a statement of his supposition of what would happen. 107.In which case, we might say that he would accept the change, because he will be saving money. 108.In which case, we might say that he would accept the change, because he will be bringing a more attractive offering.

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings

18 of 18

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983601/jewish/Arachim...

109.This ruling has amazed the commentaries, because if the first entity does not become consecrated, how can the second? Seemingly, its consecration is dependent on that of the first. The Radbaz seeks to explain that the second consecration is dependent not on the status of the initial article, but the intent of the donor who sought to consecrate it. He admits, however, that the interpretation is forced. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this clause is referring to a different concept entirely. If he had an article that was consecrated and extended its holiness to another article unintentionally, that article is consecrated.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 4:33 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

1 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...



Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6

English

Hebrew

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8

Consecrated articles1 may not be redeemed with land, nor with servants, for an equation was created between servants and land,2 nor with promissory notes for their physical substance is not of financial worth.3 [This is derived from the expression:]4 "And he shall give the silver." [This includes] silver and other movable property that is worth silver,5 even bran.6

‫ההקדשות אין פודין אותן לא‬ ‫בקרקע ולא בעבדים שהרי הוקשו‬ ‫לקרקעות ולא בשטרות )מפני( שאין גופן‬ ‫ממון שנאמר ונתן את הכסף אחד הכסף‬ ‫ואחד שאר המטלטלין ששוין כסף ואפילו‬ :‫סובין‬

Whenever a person redeems his consecrated property, he must add an additional fifth. The person who consecrated the property himself, his wife, or his heirs must all add a fifth, as we explained.7 This fifth must also only be movable property. The fifth itself becomes like the consecrated property and the same laws apply to them both.

‫כל הפודה קדשיו מוסיף חומש ואחד‬ ‫המקדיש עצמו או אשתו או היורש‬ ‫מוסיפים חומש כמו שבארנו ואף החומש‬ ‫לא יהיה אלא מן המטלטלין והחומש‬ ‫שמוסיף הרי הוא כהקדש עצמו ודין אחד‬ :‫להם‬

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

2 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

When a person redeems his consecrated articles, [failure to pay] the additional fifth does not hold back [the redemption]. Once the person paid the principal, the consecrated article is considered as an ordinary article and it is permitted to benefit from it [according to Scriptural Law]. According to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to benefit from it until one pays the additional fifth, lest one be negligent and fail to pay it. Nevertheless, on the Sabbath, [our Sages] gave one permission to partake [of a consecrated article that was redeemed] although the fifth was not paid for the sake of the enjoyment of the Sabbath.8 [Another reason for leniency is that] it is being demanded by the Temple treasurers.9

‫הפודה קדשיו אין החומש מעכב אלא‬ ‫מאחר שנתן את הקרן יצא הקדש‬ ‫לחולין ומותר ליהנות בו ומדברי סופרים‬ ‫שאסור לו ליהנות עד שיתן החומש שמא‬ ‫יפשע ולא יתן אבל בשבת מפני עונג שבת‬ ‫התירו לו לאכול ואע"פ שעדיין לא נתן את‬ :‫החומש והרי הגזברין תובעין אותו‬

[The following laws apply with regard to animals] consecrated for the sake of [sacrifice on] the altar which were [disqualified by] a blemish:10 If the person who consecrated it redeems it, he must add an additional fifth11 as is the rule with regard to other consecrated articles.12 The person who consecrated it for his own purposes is the one obligated to add a fifth, not the one who derives atonement through the [sacrifice after] it was redeemed.13

‫קדשי מזבח שנפל בהם מום ונפדו‬ ‫אם פדה המקדיש עצמו מוסיף חומש‬ ‫כשאר ההקדשות והמקדיש שפדה לעצמו‬ ‫הוא שמוסיף חומש לא המתכפר בה‬ ‫שפדאה והקדש ראשון הוא שחייב‬ ‫בתוספת חומש אבל הקדש שני אינו‬ ‫מוסיף עליו חומש שנאמר ואם המקדיש‬ ‫יגאל את ביתו ויסף חמישית המקדיש ולא‬ :‫המתפיס‬

[One is] obligate to add a fifth [when redeeming the article that was] consecrated originally, but one [need] not add a fifth [when redeeming an article] whose consecration was a derivative,14 as [implied by Leviticus 27:15]: "If the one who consecrated [it] will redeem his home, he must add a fifth." [The verse mentions] "one who consecrated," and not one who extends that holiness.

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

3 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

Accordingly, if one transferred the holiness of a [consecrated] animal - whether one consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple15 or one consecrated for [sacrifice on] the altar that became blemished16 - to another animal or exchanged an animal consecrated for [sacrifice on] the altar,17 When he redeems the second animal to which he transferred the holiness or which he exchanged for the sacrificial animal, he is not required to add a fifth.

‫לפיכך אם חלל בהמה על בהמה‬ ‫שניה בין בקדשי בדק הבית בין‬ ‫בקדשי מזבח שנפל בהם מום או שהמיר‬ ‫בקדשי מזבח כשהוא פודה את השניה‬ ‫שחלל עליה או את התמורה לעצמו אינו‬ :‫מוסיף חומש‬

There is an unresolved doubt [in the following situation]: A person set aside a guilt offering for the sake of his atonement and it became blemished. He added a fifth to its value and transferred its holiness to another animal and received atonement by [sacrificing] another guilt offering.18 As explained in the appropriate place,19 [the animal to which the holiness was transferred] is left to pasture [until it becomes blemished and then its holiness transferred to a third animal which is sacrificed as a burnt offering.20 The question is:] Are we required to add a fifth [when redeeming that animal], because it is a burnt offering, it involves another body21 and is consecrated for a different purpose? Or are we not so required because its [holiness] stems from the initial consecration for which a fifth was already added.22

‫המפריש אשם להתכפר בו ונפל בו‬ ‫מום והוסיף עליו חומש וחללו על‬ ‫בהמה אחרת ונתכפר באשם אחר ונתקה‬ ‫הבהמה שחלל עליה לרעיה כמו שיתבאר‬ ‫במקומו הרי הוא ספק אם מוסיף עליה‬ ‫חומש הואיל והוא קרבן עולה והרי הוא‬ ‫גוף אחד וקדושה אחרת או אינו מוסיף‬ ‫עליה חומש מפני שהיא באה מכח הקדש‬ :‫ראשון שכבר הוסיף עליו חומש‬

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

4 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

The concept of exchanging an animal23 does not apply with regard to animals consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple. For the Torah dealt with the concept of exchanging holiness only with regard to [animals] consecrated for [sacrifice on] the altar.24 What is implied? If a person had an ordinary animal and an animal consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple before him. If he said: "Let this one be substituted for this one" or "Let this one be exchanged for this one," his statements are of no consequence.25 If, however, he says: "This one is in place of this one" or "The holiness of this one is transferred to this one,"26 his statements are binding. The first animal returns to ordinary status and [its holiness] becomes attached to the second. The initial and preferred manner is that both [animals] consecrated for the sake of the improvement of the Temple and entities consecrated for the sake of the altar that became blemished should be redeemed only for their worth. If one transgressed and redeemed them for less than their worth, even if one redeemed consecrated property worth 100 dinarim with an article worth a p'rutah,27 the article is redeemed.28 It is considered as ordinary property and one is permitted to benefit from it. According to Rabbinic Law, it is necessary to evaluate its worth29 and the person redeeming it is obligated to make up the monetary difference.

‫קדשי בדק הבית אין עושין תמורה‬ ‫שלא דנה תורה בתמורה אלא בקדשי‬ ‫מזבח כיצד היו לפניו בהמת חולין ובהמת‬ ‫קדשי בדק הבית ואמר זו חלופת זו או זו‬ ‫תמורת זו לא אמר כלום אבל אם אמר‬ ‫הרי זו תחת זו הרי זו מחוללת על זו דבריו‬ ‫קיימין ויצאתה הבהמה הראשונה לחולין‬ :‫ונתפסה השניה‬

‫אחד קדשי בדק הבית ואחד קדשי‬ ‫מזבח שנפל בהן מום אין פודין אותן‬ ‫לכתחלה אלא בשוייהן ואם עבר וחללן על‬ ‫פחות משווייהן אפילו הקדש שוה מאה‬ ‫דינר שחללו על שוה פרוטה הרי זו פדוי‬ ‫ויצא לחולין ומותר ליהנות בו ומדברי‬ ‫סופרים שהוא צריך חקירת דמים וחייב‬ :‫להשלים את דמיו‬

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

5 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

What is implied? A person had an animal consecrated [to be offered on] the altar and it became blemished. If it is worth ten [zuz] and there is an ordinary animal worth five and he says: "The holiness of this one is transferred to this," it is redeemed and its status becomes that of an ordinary animal. He must, however, pay the additional five [to the Temple treasury]. In the same way, [if a similar transfer was made] when the first animal was consecrated to the Temple treasury, its status becomes that of an ordinary animal. It may be shorn and put to work30 and the second animal assumes its [consecrated status] according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it is necessary to evaluate its worth to see whether the one to which its holiness was transferred was of equivalent value. If not, he must make up the monetary difference.

‫כיצד היתה לו בהמת קדשי מזבח‬ ‫שנפל בה מום והרי היא שוה עשרה‬ ‫ובהמת חולין ששוה חמשה ואמר הרי זו‬ ‫מחוללת על זו הרי זו נפדית ויצאת לחולין‬ ‫אבל צריך להשלים החמשה וכן אם היתה‬ ‫הבהמה הראשונה קדשי בדק הבית הרי זו‬ ‫יצאת לחולין להגזז ולהעבד ותכנס השניה‬ ‫תחתיה דין תורה אבל מדבריהם צריך‬ ‫חקירת דמים אם היתה זו שחלל עליה‬ :‫שוה או ישלים דמיה‬

If three people evaluated [the two animals involved] and said they were of equivalent value, the evaluation is not nullified even if 100 come afterwards and say that the animal that was consecrated was more valuable. Since the evaluation [of the animal's] worth is a Rabbinic requirement, our Sages were not strict with regard to it. If, however, two people made the original evaluation and then three people came and say that even the slightest advantage was taken of the Temple treasury,31 [the animal] is reevaluated.

‫שמו אותה שלשה ואמרו שזו בדמיה‬ ‫אפילו באו אחר כן מאה ואמרו של‬ ‫קדש היתה יפה אינו חוזר הואיל וחקירת‬ ‫הדמים מדבריהם לא החמירו בה אבל אם‬ ‫שמו אותה שנים ובאו שלשה ואמרו‬ :‫שהונה ההקדש בכל שהוא חוזר‬

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

6 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

We do not redeem consecrated articles with a rough estimation instead, their worth is carefully evaluated, as we explained.32 If one redeemed a consecrated article [after making merely a rough estimation], the Temple treasury is given the upper hand. What is implied? One says: "May the holiness of this cow that is consecrated33 be transferred to this cow" or "May the holiness of this garment that is consecrated be transferred to this garment," the consecrated article is redeemed and the Temple treasury is given the upper hand. If the second article is worth more than the first, the Temple treasurers take it and remain silent. If it is not worth the value of the first, [the redeemer] must pay the difference as we explained34 and he must add a fifth.

‫אין פודין את ההקדש אכסרה‬ ‫אלא בחקירת דמים כמו שבארנו‬ ‫ואם פדה יד הקדש על העליונה כיצד פרה‬ ‫זו תחת פרה זו של הקדש טלית זו תחת‬ ‫טלית זו של הקדש הקדשו פדוי ויד הקדש‬ ‫על העליונה אם היתה השניה יפה מן‬ ‫הראשונה ביותר לוקחין אותה הגזברין‬ ‫ושותקין ואם אינה יפה משלם את הדמים‬ ‫כמו שבארנו ומוסיף חומש אבל אם אמר‬ ‫טלית זו בעשר סלעים תחת טלית של‬ ‫הקדש ופרה זו בעשר סלעים תחת פרה זו‬ ‫של הקדש אפילו היתה של הקדש שוה‬ ‫חמש ושלו עשר הרי זו מוסיף חומש ונותן‬ ‫שתי סלעים ומחצה שהרי בדמים קצובים‬ ‫פדה ושניה אינה טעונה חומש כמו‬ :‫שבארנו‬

If, however, he said: May the holiness of this garment that is consecrated be transferred to this garment that is worth ten selaim" or "May the holiness of this cow that is consecrated be transferred to this cow that is worth ten selaim," he is required to add a fifth and must give two and a half selaim.35 [The rationale is that] he redeemed it at a fixed price. It is not necessary to add a fifth when redeeming the second animal, as we explained.36

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

7 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

[The following rules apply when a person] redeems an article from the Temple treasury. If he drew the article into his possession37 when it was worth a maneh,38 but did not pay the money until it appreciated to 200, he must pay 200. [This is indicated by the expression:]39 "And he will pay the money and it will become his." It becomes his when he pays the money.40

‫הפודה מיד ההקדש משך במנה‬ ‫ולא הספיק ליתן הדמים עד שעמד‬ ‫במאתים נותן מאתים שנאמר ונתן את‬ ‫הכסף וקם לו בנתינת הכסף הוא שלו‬ ‫משכו במאתים ולא הספיק ליתן את‬ ‫הדמים עד שעמד במנה נותן מאתים לא‬ ‫יהא כח הדיוט חמור מכח הקדש והרי‬ :‫קנה במשיכה ונתחייב בדמים‬

If he drew it into his possession when it was worth 200, but did not pay the money until it depreciated to a maneh, he must pay 200. For the legal power of the Temple treasury should not be less than that of an ordinary person.41 He acquired it through drawing it into his possession and became liable for its value then. If he redeemed it at 200 and paid the money42 and did not draw into his possession until it depreciated to a maneh, he is considered to have acquired it when he paid the money.43 He should draw his article into his possession and the Temple treasury acquires the 200. If he redeemed it at a maneh and paid the money, but did not draw it into his possession until it appreciated to 200, the redemption is allowed to stand. He is only required to pay the maneh that he paid already. In this instance, we do not say: The legal power of the Temple treasury should not be less than that of an ordinary person.44 [The rationale is that] even an ordinary person would not be able to retract unless he receives the admonition mi shepara, as will be explained in the appropriate place.45 And it is not proper to administer the admonition mi shepara to the Temple treasury.

‫פדה במאתים ונתן הדמים ולא‬ ‫הספיק למשכו עד שעמד במנה כבר‬ ‫קנה בנתינת הכסף ומושך את שלו וזכה‬ ‫הקדש במאתים פדהו במנה ונתן הדמים‬ ‫ולא הספיק למשכו עד שעמד במאתים מה‬ ‫שפדה פדוי ואינו נותן אלא המנה שכבר‬ ‫נתן ואין אומרין כאן לא יהא כח הדיוט‬ ‫חמור מכח הקדש שאפילו הדיוט אינו‬ ‫יכול לחזור בו עד שיקבל מי שפרע כמו‬ ‫שיתבאר במקומו ואין הקדש ראוי לקבל‬ :‫מי שפרע‬

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

8 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

When a person consecrates all of his possessions and he is liable to [pay the money due his] wife [by virtue of her] ketubah or promissory notes [owed to] creditors, the woman may not collect [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah from the Temple treasury, nor may a creditor collect the debt due him. The rationale is that consecration absolves prior liens.46 [Nevertheless,] when the Temple treasury sells his property and the field loses its consecrated status, the creditor and his wife may collect it from the redeemer, for the lien remains on this landed property.47

‫המקדיש כל נכסיו והיתה עליו‬ ‫כתובת אשה או שטרי בעלי חובות‬ ‫אין האשה יכולה לגבות כתובתה מן‬ ‫ההקדש ולא בעל חוב את חובו שההקדש‬ ‫מפקיע השעבוד שקדם אבל כשימכור‬ ‫ההקדש הקרקע שלו ותצא השדה לחולין‬ ‫יש לבעל חוב ולאשה לגבות מן הפודה‬ :‫שהרי שעבודה עומד על קרקע זו‬

To what can this be compared? To two purchasers. [One bought the property from a woman's husband and the other from the first purchaser. The woman] wrote to the first [purchaser] "I have no claim against you."48 [After] he sells it to the second person, she may expropriate the money due her from him.49

‫הא למה זה דומה לשני לקוחות‬ ‫שכתבה לראשון דין ודברים אין לי‬ :‫עמך ומכר לשני שהיא טורפת מן השני‬

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

9 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

How is this land redeemed?50 We administer an oath to the woman or the creditor first as is the process whenever one seeks to expropriate property that is on lien.51 Afterwards, we publicly announce its sale for 60 days in the morning and in the evening, as we explained.52 We say:53 How much a person will desire to give for this field in order to pay the woman [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah or the creditor his debt? A purchaser redeems it and acquires it even for a dinar,54 so that it is not said that consecrated property was released without being redeemed. Then the redeemer comes and gives the woman [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah or the creditor his debt. [This applies] even if the debt was 100 [zuz] and the field worth only 90, [for] the person who redeems it does so for this sake. If, however, the debt was twice the value of the field, e.g., the field was worth 100 and it was on lien to a debt or a woman's ketubah for 200, we do not redeem it with the intent of paying the debt or [the money due the woman by virtue of] her ketubah. Instead, it is redeemed unconditionally,55 for if such a stipulation was required to be made, it would not be redeemed at all. When a person consecrates all of his property, divorces his wife, and [leaves her to] collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah from the one who redeems [his landed property] from the Temple treasury, she cannot collect [the debt] until he takes a vow,56 forbidding her to benefit from him. [This is a safeguard instituted,] lest an attempt be made to deceive the Temple treasury.57 We do not say that were he to desire [to nullify the consecration of his property], he should say: "I consecrated it in error," and ask a sage [to nullify] his consecration [in which instance, his property] would return to him.58

‫וכיצד פודין קרקע זה משביעין את‬ ‫האשה או בעל חוב תחלה כדרך‬ ‫כל הבא ליפרע מנכסים משועבדים ואח"כ‬ ‫מכריזין עליהם ששים יום בבקר ובערב‬ ‫כמו שבארנו ואומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן‬ ‫בשדה על מנת ליתן לאשה כתובתה ולבעל‬ ‫חוב את חובו ואחר שפודין אותה ולוקח‬ ‫אותה הלוקח אפילו בדינר כדי שלא‬ ‫יאמרו הקדש יוצא בלא פדיון חוזר הפודה‬ ‫ומגבה לאשה כתובתה או לבעל חוב את‬ ‫חובו אפילו היה החוב מאה והשדה שוה‬ ‫תשעים על מנת כך פודה אותה הרוצה‬ ‫לפדותה אבל אם היה החוב שנים בדמי‬ ‫השדה כגון שהיתה שוה מאה ויש עליו‬ ‫חוב וכתובת אשה מאתים אין פודין אותה‬ ‫על מנת ליתן החוב או הכתובה אלא פודין‬ ‫אותה סתם שאם התנו ליתן אינה נפדית‬ :‫כלל‬

‫המקדיש כל נכסיו ואחר כך גירש‬ ‫את אשתו וגבתה כתובתה מן הפודה‬ ‫מן ההקדש אינו גובה עד שידירנה הנאה‬ ‫שמא קנוניא עשו על ההקדש ואין אומרין‬ ‫אילו רצה היה אומר בטעות הקדשתי‬ :‫וישאל על הקדשו לחכם ויחזור לו‬

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

10 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

Similarly, after59 consecrating his property, a person's word is not accepted if he says: "I owe a maneh to so-and-so" or "This utensil belongs to so-and-so."60 [In this instance, we fear that] he is attempting to deceive the Temple treasury.61 Even if the creditor has a promissory note, he cannot use it to expropriate [the property from the Temple treasury].62 Instead, he must collect his due like the other creditors due, as explained.63

‫וכן אין נאמן לומר אחר שהקדיש‬ ‫מנה לפלוני חוב עלי או כלי זה של‬ ‫פלוני הוא שמא יעשו קנוניא על ההקדש‬ ‫ואפילו היה שטר ביד בעל חוב אינו גובה‬ ‫על פי זה אלא כדרך שגובין כל בעלי‬ :‫חובות כמו שבארנו‬

When does the above apply? With regard to a healthy person. If, by contrast a mortally ill person consecrates all of his property and at the time he consecrates it says: "I owe a maneh to so-and-so,"

‫בד"א בבריא אבל חולה שהקדיש‬ ‫כל נכסיו ואמר בשעה שהקדיש‬ ‫מנה לפלוני בידי נאמן שאין אדם עושה‬ ‫ערמה על ההקדש בשעת מיתתו וחוטא‬ ‫לאחרים שהרי הוא הולך למות לפיכך אם‬ ‫אמר תנו אותה לו נוטל בלא שבועה ואם‬ ‫לא אמר תנו אין נותנין אלא אם כן היה‬ ‫בידו שטר מקויים הרי זה נוטל מן ההקדש‬ ‫מפני הצואה ואם אחר שהקדיש אמר תנו‬ ‫אין שומעין לו אלא הרי הוא כשאר בעלי‬ ‫חובות אם נתקיים שטרו נשבע וגובה מן‬ :‫הפודה ולא מן ההקדש‬

his word is accepted. [The rationale is that] a person will not try to deceive the Temple treasury at the time of his death and sin for the sake of others, for he is going to die.64 Therefore if he says: "Give [the creditor his debt]," [the creditor] may collect it without having to take an oath. If he did not say: "Give [the creditor...]," we do not give him this money unless he has a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified. [In that instance,] he may collect [his debt] from the Temple treasury, because of the statements [the debtor made] on his deathbed.65 If he said to give [the money to the creditor] after he consecrated [his property],66 we do not heed his statements. Instead, this person is considered like other creditors. If the authenticity of his promissory note is verified, he must take an oath.67 He may then expropriate [the property] from the one who redeems it, but not from the Temple treasury.68

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

11 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

We do not take heed of a rumor that says that a certain person declared all of his property ownerless, consecrated it, or made it a dedication offering unless there is clear proof69 [of its validity].

‫מי שיצא עליו קול שהפקיר את‬ ‫נכסיו או הקדישן או החרימן אין‬ :‫חוששין לו עד שתהיה שם ראיה ברורה‬

« Previous

Next » Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6 FOOTNOTES 1. Articles which a person consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple. 2. This applies not only in this context, but also in many other areas of Jewish business law. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 7:4; Hilchot Geneivah 2:2, et al. 3. A promissory note itself is not worth money. It is valuable because of the debt that it records. 4. There is no such verse in the Tanach. The Rambam is referring to wording used by our Sages in Kiddushin 5a. They are also referring to a verse, but have shortened and edited Leviticus 27:19. 5. This principle also applies in many aspects of Jewish business law. Objects that are worth silver may be used for the same purposes as silver (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 8:10). 6. I.e., an object of minimal value. 7. See Chapter 4, Halachah 5; Chapter 5, Halachah 3, and notes. As explained there, we are speaking of a fifth of the new total, a fourth of the original amount. 8. Our Sages did not desire that his failure to pay the fifth prevent him from partaking of the entity, for this would reduce his Sabbath pleasure. 9. Since the treasurers demand payment of the fifth the person is not likely to forget. Nevertheless, this rationale itself is not sufficient reason for leniency. Hence, during the week, when the mitzvah of delighting in the Sabbath does not apply, the treasurers' reminder is not sufficient reason to permit use of the entity (see Bava Metzia 54a). 10. See Chapter 5, Halachah 11, which speaks of the redemption of such animals. 11. This is reflected by Leviticus 27:13.

14. I.e., it was consecrated in the process of redeeming another article, as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachah. See Halachah 11 for details regarding the redemption of an article by transferring its holiness to a second article. 15. In which instance, it must be redeemed whether blemished or unblemished. See Chapter 5, Halachot 5 and 12; see also Hilchot Temurah 1:12. 16. Since it is blemished, it is necessary to redeem it, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachot 11-12. 17. The Rambam is speaking about a practice, temurah, that involves transferring the holiness of an animal consecrated as a sacrifice to another animal. Leviticus 27:10 states that it is forbidden to make such an exchange, but if one does so both the animal originally consecrated and the one exchanged for it remain consecrated (ibid.:33; see Hilchot Temurah 1:1). 18. Because the animal to which the holiness was transferred was lost or unable to be used for a sacrifice for other reasons. 19. Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:14-15. 20. For he is no longer obligated to bring a guilt offering, but must offer the worth of the animal as a sacrifice. 21. I.e., it is not the same animal that was originally consecrated. Our translation represents a slight variation from the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah that was made based on authentic manuscripts and early printings. 22. Hence although the person is not obligated to pay the additional fifth, if the Temple treasurer seizes it, he cannot be required to relinquish it.

12. See Halachah 2. 13. I.e., if a person was obligated to bring a sacrifice and a colleague set aside an animal from his own resources for him to offer, that person required to bring the sacrifice is not required to pay an additional fifth if he redeems the animal.

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

12 of 15

23. The Rambam is speaking about a practice, temurah, that involves transferring the holiness of an animal consecrated

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

40. And not when it enters his possession. Hence, he must pay the value at the time he redeems it.

as a sacrifice to another animal. Leviticus 27:10 states that it is forbidden to make such an exchange, but if one does so

41. See Hilchot Mechirah 9:2. As mentioned above, when an

both the animal originally consecrated and the one exchanged for it remain consecrated (ibid.:33; see Hilchot

completed and he must pay its price then. When it lost value,

Temurah 1:1). 24. Temurah 13a relates that the concept of temurah, exchange,

ordinary person completes meshichah, the transaction is it was already in his possession. 42. One might ask: Why must he actually pay the money?

applies only with regard to sacrifices and an animal

Seemingly the very fact that he pledged to redeem it from the Temple treasury at 200 should be sufficient to make him

consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple is not considered a sacrifice.

liable in accordance with the principle (Kiddushin 28b, et al):

25. For these expressions imply temurah, exchange.

"A person's statements to the Temple treasury are equivalent to an ordinary person drawing the article into his

26. I.e., using statements that indicate that he desires to redeem the animal and not exchange it.

possession." The Radbaz explains that in this instance, that principle is not applied, because it is possible to say that the

27. A coin of minimal worth.

pledge was made in error. He did not expect that the article would depreciate in value. Hence, unless he paid the money,

28. With regard to transactions between men, the laws of ona'ah

he is not liable for the higher sum.

(unfair gain) apply and a transaction can be nullified if it is sold for more or less than a sixth of its value (Hilchot

43. And the depreciation is considered to have taken place in his possession as above.

Mechirah 12:4). These principles do not apply, however, with regard to consecrated property. 29. I.e., to carefully evaluate its worth. See Halachah 11. 30. While it is consecrated, both of these activities are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Meilah 1:12).

44. Since the transaction is not completed until the purchaser draws it into his possession, with regard to ordinary transactions, the purchaser would have the right to nullify the transaction. Nevertheless, were he to do so, he is liable to have the admonition mi shepara administered to him by the

31. With regard to transactions between private individuals, by

court (Hilchot Mechirah 7:1). As the Rambam continues to

contrast, as long as the difference between the article's value and the price for which it is sold is less than a sixth, the

explain, it is not appropriate to have this admonition administered to the Temple treasurers.

transaction is allowed to stand (Hilchot Mechirah 12:3). 32. See Halachah 8. 33. We are speaking about a cow consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple. If it were consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, even after its holiness were transferred to another animal, it would remain consecrated itself (Radbaz).

45. With regard to this admonition, ibid.:2 states: "He is cursed in court and told: 'May He who exacted retribution from the generation of the Flood, the generation of the Dispersion, the inhabitants of Sodom and Amorah, and the Egyptians who drowned in the sea, exact retribution from a person who does not keep his word.'

34. See Halachah 8. 35. As mentioned above, the fifth is one fifth of the new total including the fifth and the amount for which the article is redeemed. Since he stated the value of the article he was giving as ten selaim, the value of the fifth is calculated accordingly even though he is paying more than would actually have been required. 36. Halachah 4. 37. Performing meshichah, an act that would complete the kinyan (formal act of acquisition) of the article. 38. 100 zuz. 39. As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 1, the Rambam is not referring to an explicit verse in the Torah, but rather our Sages' restatement of the relevant verses in Kiddushin 28b.

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

13 of 15

46. I.e., were the person to sell all his possessions to a private person, his wife and his creditors would be able to collect their due from the landed property in his domain. Since the property becomes the possession of the Temple treasury, those obligations temporarily need not be met. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the liens are in effect even when the property is in the possession of the Temple treasury. Our Sages' statement (Ketubot 59b) that consecration absolves prior liens applies only with regard to the consecration of articles that themselves will be used for the Temple or its sacrifices, not articles to be sold and the proceeds used. One of the practical differences between the Rambam's position and that of the Ra'avad is whether a person will be liable for me'ilah, misappropriating consecrating property, for

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

53. Our translation is based on manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version. 54. Although the initial preference is that consecrated property be redeemed for its full value (Halachah 8), that is not feasible in the present instance. Instead, the person is allowed to pay any sum he desires, for his profit may be small after paying the debt. Indeed, as the Rambam continues, he may even suffer a loss. 55. And the lien on the field is ignored. 56. This vow must be taken conditional to the consent of people at large. In this way, it can never be nullified. Note a parallel in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:9. 57. I.e., he would remarry her and retake possession of a portion

benefiting from this property. In Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh

of his property in this way. See Hilchot Ishut 17:9-10.

18:7, the Rambam states similar ideas as in this halachah. In

Arachin 23a emphasizes that we are speaking about a

his gloss to that halachah, the Maggid Mishneh takes issue

healthy man. If a person on his death bed divorces his wife

with the Rambam. Although, here, in his Kessef Mishneh,

so that she will not have to undergo yibbum, he is not

Rav Yosef Caro defends the Rambam's position in his Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 117:7), it appears that he

required to take such an oath, for we do not suspect that a

accepts the other view. The Tur and the Rama explicitly state that the Ra'avad's position should be followed. 47. I.e., the property is redeemed with the awareness that it is under lien and that lien will ultimately be collected. Its price is calculated accordingly, as stated in Halachah 16. 48. She had the right to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from this property, but she agreed not to press her claim against this individual.

person on his death bed will try to deceive the Temple treasury. See Halachah 19. 58. For a consecration made in error can be nullified, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 34. 59. If, however, he made such statements before consecrating his property, his word is accepted (Radbaz). See the Siftei Cohen (Choshen Mishpat 255:5) who elaborates on the concept that even if he makes this statement directly after consecrating his property, it is not

49. For the field remains on lien to her. The promise she gave the first purchaser is not binding with regard to the second.

accepted. As support, he cites Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this point as well, maintaining that the woman does not have the right to

consecrates an animal, even if he seeks to retract his consecration immediately, he cannot. The Radbaz (see his

expropriate the property from the second purchaser. For by purchasing the field, he purchased every right that the first

gloss to the following halachah) supports this view. The Kessef Mishneh, however, maintains that a healthy person

purchaser had. Moreover, if forced to pay the woman, he could seek reimbursement from the first purchaser or nullify

can also retract his statement directly after making it.

the sale. In his gloss to Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 19:8, the Maggid Mishneh supports the Ra'avad's view. The Kessef

15:1 where the Rambam writes that after a person

60. I.e., the person claims to be holding it as an entrusted article. 61. And prevent a certain portion of his property from having to be redeemed.

Mishneh, however, defends the Rambam's position. 50. Since it is on lien, obviously, no one will desire to pay its actual worth. 51. As stated in Hilchot Ishut 16:10,20 and Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 22:10, we do not expropriate the field for the wife or the creditor until he or she takes an oath while holding a sacred object that the debt was not collected, waived, or sold to another person.

62. For as stated in Halachah 14, consecration lifts liens on property. 63. See Halachah 16. 64. At such a time, when he will not derive any worldly benefit from sinning and is conscious of the retribution he will receive in the world to come, he will certainly not seek to deceive the Temple treasury.

52. Chapter 3, Halachah 20; Chapter 4, Halachah 27.

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

14 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

65. I.e., his acknowledgement of the debt. If, however, the creditor does not have a promissory note whose authenticity

66. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, stating that the word of a person on his deathbed is accepted even he

has been verified, he cannot collect the debt, even though the debtor acknowledged it on his deathbed. The rationale is

makes his statements after consecrating the article. For at the time he consecrates an article, the statements of a

that (as stated in Hilchot To'ain ViNitan 6:7), a person is wont to state that he owes money even if he in fact does not

healthy person are also accepted. In view of this objection, the Radbaz explains that there are

so that his sons do not think of themselves as rich. His estate is not bound by these statements unless, as stated

three different time frameworks: a) before the consecration is made - in which instance the

above, he explicitly instructed that the debt be paid or the creditor has a promissory note that has been verified. Even

statements of both a healthy man and one on his deathbed are accepted;

though in this instance, the money will be going to the Temple treasury and not to his sons, a similar rationale can

b) immediately after (toch k'dei dibbur) the consecration is

still be applied. We say that he is admitting the debt so that people will not think of him as a person who hoarded money

are not accepted and those of one on his deathbed are; c) some time after the consecration is made - in which

throughout his life (Sefer Meirat Einayim 255:12).

instance neither the statements of a healthy man nor those of one on his deathbed are accepted.

made - in which instance the statements of a healthy man

The Kessef Mishneh follows the same basic thrust in interpreting the Rambam, but differs regarding one point, maintaining that a healthy person can also retract his statement directly after making it. The difference between a healthy person and one on his deathbed is that when a person is on his deathbed, his word is accepted as long as he is still speaking of the deposition of his property even though it is not directly after he consecrated it. 67. That he has not received payment for the debt. 68. As stated, in Halachot 14, 16. The Ra'avad adds that if we are speaking about an entrusted article which the dying man acknowledged having received for safekeeping, it is returned to its owner without being redeemed. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would not necessarily differ on this point. 69. Through the testimony of witnesses or a contract that has been verified.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 - Texts & Writings

15 of 15

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983602/jewish/Arachim...

8/21/2019 5:09 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

1 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983603/jewish/Arachim...



Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7

On the fifthteenth of Adar, the court1 diverts their attention [from other concerns] and examines and investigates matters involving the needs of the community and consecrated property. They check the matter and research the [cases involved], so that consecrated property and dedication offerings will be redeemed and arachim and pledges of worth are

English

Hebrew

Next » Sefer Zeraim

‫ בית דין נפנין‬,‫בחמישה עשר באדר‬ ‫לחפש ולבדוק על צורכי ציבור ועל‬ ‫ענייני הקדשות; ובודקין עליהן ודורשין‬ ‫ ופודין את ההקדשות ואת‬,‫וחוקרין‬ ‫ וגובין את הערכים ואת הדמים‬,‫החרמים‬ ‫מכל החייב בהן—כדי שיהיה הכול עתיד‬ .‫ לחזק את בית אלוהינו‬,‫עם תרומת שקלים‬

collected from all those who are liable for them so that the entire nation will be prepared to give the gift of shekalim to maintain the House of our God.2

8/21/2019 5:10 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

2 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983603/jewish/Arachim...

Consecrated articles are redeemed only on the basis of [evaluation by] three experts. Similarly, when movable property is being taken as security when one is liable for arachim,3 it should be evaluated by three people.4 And when an animal or the like is designated as an airech, it should be evaluated by three people. When, however, land is designated as an airech or if arachin for humans must be collected from landed property, it is evaluated only by ten people5 and one of them must be a priest. For the passage [that speaks about redemption] mentions a priest.6 Similarly, if a person says: "I pledge my worth," "...the worth of so-and-so," "...the worth of my hand," or "...the worth of my foot," when an evaluation of his worth, that of his hand, or that of his foot is made, it is made by ten people and one of them is a priest.7

‫ אלא‬,‫אין פודין את ההקדשות‬ ‫בשלושה בקיאין; וכן כשגובין‬ ‫ שמין‬,‫מיטלטלין שממשכנין מחייבי ערכים‬ ‫ וכשמעריכין בהמה וכיוצא‬.‫אותן בשלושה‬ ‫ שמין אותה‬,‫בה משאר מיטלטלין‬ ,‫ אבל כשמעריכין את הקרקעות‬.‫בשלושה‬ ‫או אם הוזקקו לגבות ערכי אדם מן‬ ‫הקרקע שלו—אין מעריכין אותן אלא‬ "‫ שהרי "כוהן‬:‫ ואחד מהן כוהן‬,‫בעשרה‬ ‫ח; ועוד שש פעמים בהמשך‬,‫)ויקרא כז‬ ‫ וכן האומר דמיי‬.‫הפרק( כתוב בפרשה‬ ‫ או‬,‫ או דמי ידי‬,‫ או דמי פלוני עליי‬,‫עליי‬ ,‫דמי רגלי—כששמין אותו כמה הוא שווה‬ ,‫או כמה דמי ידו או רגלו—שמין בעשרה‬ .‫ואחד מהן כוהן‬

8/21/2019 5:10 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

3 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983603/jewish/Arachim...

When consecrated property - whether landed property or movable property - is redeemed from the Temple treasury, an announcement is made before all those who might seek to redeem it.8 [The following rule applies if] one says: "I will [redeem] them for ten selaim," another says: "...for twenty," a third "...for thirty," a fourth "...for forty," and a fifth "...for fifty," and then the one who pledged fifty alone retracts. We expropriate ten [selaim] from the property [of the latter]9 and give the consecrated article to the one [who pledged to] give forty. Thus the Temple treasury receives fifty: Ten from one and forty from the other. If the one who pledged forty also retracts, we expropriate ten [selaim] from his property and give the consecrated article to the one who pledged thirty. [If he and the others also retract,] we follow the same process until [the option is given to] the first. If the first who pledged ten also retracts, we announce the redemption of the consecrated article a second time and sell it. If it is redeemed for less than ten, we collect the difference from the person who [originally] pledged ten.

,‫כשפודין את ההקדשות מידי ההקדש‬ ‫בין שהיו קרקעות או מיטלטלין‬ .‫—מכריזין עליהן בפני כל הבאין לפדות‬ ,‫אמר אחד הרי הן שלי בעשר סלעים‬ ‫ ואמר אחד‬,‫ואמר אחד בעשרים‬ ‫ ואמר‬,‫ ואמר אחד בארבעים‬,‫בשלושים‬ ‫ חזר בו של חמישים‬,‫אחד בחמישים‬ ‫ ונותנין אותן‬,‫לבדו—ממשכנין מנכסיו עשר‬ ‫ההקדשות לזה שנתן ארבעים; ונמצא‬ ‫ עשר מזה וארבעים‬,‫ההקדש נוטל חמישים‬ ‫ חזר בו אחרי כן של ארבעים‬.‫מזה‬ ‫ ונותנין את‬,‫—ממשכנין מנכסיו עשר‬ .‫ההקדש לבעל השלושים; וכן עד הראשון‬ ‫חזר בו הראשון שנתן עשר—מכריזין על‬ ‫ אם‬:‫ ומוכרין אותו‬,‫ההקדש פעם שנייה‬ ‫ נפרעין משל עשר‬,‫נפדה בפחות מעשר‬ .‫את המותר‬

8/21/2019 5:10 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

4 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983603/jewish/Arachim...

When does the above apply? When they retracted one after the other. If, however, they all retracted at the same time, we divide the sum among them. What is implied? The first one says: "I will [redeem] it for ten selaim," the second: "...for twenty," and a third "...for 24," and the second and third retract at the same time, we enable the first to redeem it for ten and we expropriate seven from the property of both the second and the third.10 Thus the Temple treasury collects 24. Similarly, if all three of them retract and the consecrated article is [ultimately] sold for three, we expropriate seven selaim from the property of all of them. These principles are followed in all instances.

‫ בשחזרו זה‬,‫במה דברים אמורים‬ ,‫אחר זה; אבל אם חזרו כולן כאחת‬ ‫ אמר‬:‫ כיצד‬.‫משלשין ביניהם בשווה‬ ‫ ואמר השני‬,‫הראשון הרי הוא שלי בעשר‬ ,‫ ואמר השלישי בארבע ועשרים‬,‫בעשרים‬ ‫וחזר בו השלישי והשני כאחד—נותנין‬ ‫ וממשכנים מנכסי‬,‫אותו לראשון בעשר‬ ‫שני בשבע ומנכסי שלישי בשבע; ונמצא‬ ‫ וכן אם חזרו‬.‫ההקדש גובה ארבע ועשרים‬ —‫ ונמכר ההקדש בשלוש‬,‫שלושתן כאחת‬ ‫ממשכנין מנכסי כל אחד משלושתן שבע‬ .‫ וכן על דרך זו לעולם‬.‫סלעים‬

8/21/2019 5:10 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

5 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983603/jewish/Arachim...

The [original] owners [of the consecrated article] are [given the opportunity to redeem the consecrated article] before all others, because they [are required to] add a fifth.11 They are not, however, required to add a fifth to the sum that they bid above other [potential] redeemers, only to what they initially pledged. What is implied? The owners said: "We will [redeem] it for 20 [selaim]," and another person says: "I will redeem it for 20," the owners are given the option, because they add a fifth and pay 25." If another person comes and says: "I will redeem it for 21," and the [original] owners remain silent and do not add anything, we sell it to them for 25.12 If the owners increased [the bid of] 21, adding even a p'rutah,13 they are required to pay 26 [selaim] and a p'rutah: the 21 and a p'rutah which they pledged on their own initiative and the five which are the fifth from their original bid. Similarly, if the second person said: "I will redeem it for 22," a third said, "...for 23," a fourth said, "...for 24," a fifth said, "...for 25," and [the original owner] added even a p'rutah to the sum of 25, they are compelled to give 30 and a p'rutah: the 25 and a p'rutah which they pledged on their own initiative and the five which are the fifth that they are obligated. For the owner is not required to add a fifth to the additions of the others. Instead, they must add the fifth from their original pledge to the final sum that they pledged.

‫ מפני שהן‬,‫הבעלים קודמין לכל אדם‬ ‫מוסיפין חומש; ואין מוסיפין חומש‬ ‫ אלא על מה‬,‫על עילויין של שאר הפודים‬ ‫ אמרו הבעלים‬:‫ כיצד‬.‫שנותנין הן תחילה‬ ‫ ובא אחר ואמר‬,‫הרי זה שלנו בעשרים‬ ,‫הרי הוא שלי בעשרים—הבעלים קודמין‬ ‫מפני שהן מוסיפין חומש ונותנין חמש‬ ‫ בא אחר ואמר הרי הוא שלי‬.‫ועשרים‬ ‫באחד ועשרים—אם שתקו הבעלים ולא‬ ‫ מוכרין אותו להם בחמש‬,‫הוסיפו כלום‬ ‫ ואם הוסיפו הבעלים על העשרים‬.‫ועשרים‬ ‫ אפילו פרוטה אחת—הרי אלו‬,‫ואחד‬ ‫ אחד ועשרים‬:‫נותנין שש ועשרים ופרוטה‬ ‫ וחמש שהן חייבין בו משום‬,‫שנתנו מעצמן‬ ‫ וכן אם בא‬.‫חומש המתן שנתנו תחילה‬ ,‫השני ואמר הרי הוא שלי בעשרים ושניים‬ ‫ ובא‬,‫ובא שלישי ואמר בעשרים ושלוש‬ ‫ ובא חמישי‬,‫רביעי ואמר בעשרים וארבע‬ ‫ והוסיפו הן על‬,‫ואמר בעשרים וחמש‬ ‫פרוטה‬ ‫אפילו‬ ‫וחמש‬ ‫העשרים‬ :‫אחת—כופין אותן ליתן שלושים ופרוטה‬ ,‫חמש ועשרים ופרוטה שנתנו מעצמן‬ ‫וחמש של חומש שהן חייבין בו—לפי‬ ‫שאין הבעלים מוסיפין חומש על עילוייו‬ ‫ אלא חומש מה שנתנו תחילה‬,‫של זה‬ .‫מוסיפין על מה שנתן האחרון אם רצו‬

8/21/2019 5:10 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

6 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983603/jewish/Arachim...

When does the above apply? When the consecrated property was not evaluated by three experts. If, however, three experts evaluated the consecrated property and said that it was worth what the last [bidder] pledged and the original owners then increased his bid by even a p'rutah, the additional fifth they must give [is calculated based on] the latter bid.14 They must, therefore, give 31 [selaim], a dinar,15 and a p'rutah.

‫ בשלא שמו‬,‫במה דברים אמורים‬ ‫ההקדש שלושה מומחין; אבל אם שמו‬ ‫ ואמרו שהוא שווה‬,‫אותו שלושה מומחין‬ ‫ והוסיפו הבעלים על‬,‫מה שנתן האחרון‬ ‫ אפילו פרוטה אחת—הרי הן‬,‫עילוייו‬ ,‫מוסיפין חומש על עילוייו של אחרון‬ .‫ונותנין אחד ושלושים ודינר ופרוטה‬

[The following rules apply when] the consecrated property was not evaluated, the owner pledged 20, someone else came and pledged 25, and the owner remained silent and did not add anything. The owner is still given priority, for he is also required to pay 25 because of the additional fifth. If another person came and pledged 26,16 he is given priority. If the owner desires to add even a p'rutah he must give 31 [selaim] and a p'rutah as we explained.17 This pattern is followed in all instances.

‫ ונתנו‬,‫הרי שלא נישום ההקדש‬ ‫ ובא אחרון‬,‫הבעלים תחילה עשרים‬ ‫ ושתקו הבעלים ולא‬,‫ונתן חמש ועשרים‬ ‫ שאף הן‬:‫הוסיפו כלום—הבעלים קודמין‬ .‫ מפני החומש‬,‫חייבין ליתן חמש ועשרים‬ ;‫ הוא קודם‬,‫בא אחרון ונתן שש ועשרים‬ ,‫ואם רצו הבעלים והוסיפו אפילו פרוטה‬ ‫נותנין אחת ושלושים ופרוטה כמו‬ .‫ ועל דרך זו לעולם‬.‫שביארנו‬

In the present era, we do not consecrate property, nor make evaluation offerings or dedication offerings,18 for there is no Temple to make improvements upon. [The following laws apply] if one did consecrate property or make an evaluation offering or a dedication offering:19 If it was an animal, he should lock it in [a closed room] until it dies naturally. If it was produce, a garment, or a utensil, it should be set aside until it rots. If it was coins or metal utensils, they should be taken to the Dead Sea or the Mediterranean Sea20 to be destroyed.

‫אין מקדישין ולא מעריכין ולא‬ ‫מחרימין בזמן הזה—שאין שם‬ ‫ ואם‬.‫ כדי לחזק את בדקו‬,‫מקדש בחטאינו‬ ‫הקדיש או העריך או החרים—אם הייתה‬ ‫ נועל דלת בפניה עד שתמות‬,‫בהמה‬ ,‫מאליה; ואם היו פירות או כסות או כלים‬ ‫מניחן עד שיירקבו; ואם היו מעות או כלי‬ ‫ ישליכן לים הגדול ים המלח כדי‬,‫מתכות‬ .‫לאבדן‬

8/21/2019 5:10 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

7 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983603/jewish/Arachim...

If a person consecrated a servant who accepted the mitzvot21 [incumbent on servants] or designates him as a dedication offering, he should redeem him and bring the money to the Dead Sea as is the law with regard to other pledges of the worth of an article or arachim in the present age.22 If the servant was a gentile,23 he may not be cast into a pit, nor may he be raised up from one.24

‫הקדיש או החרים עבד שנכנס‬ ‫ פודהו וילכו הדמים לים‬,‫למצוות‬ ;‫המלח כשאר דמים וערכים של זמן הזה‬ .‫ לא מעלין ולא מורידין‬,‫ואם היה עבד גוי‬

It is permissible to redeem consecrated property for a p'rutah in the present age even as an initial and preferable option.25 Our Sages, however, ruled that it be redeemed for four zuzim or close to that sum to publicize the matter. In the era of the Temple, as an initial preference, it should be redeemed for its worth, as we explained.26

‫מותר לפדות ההקדשות בזמן הזה‬ ‫ ואפילו בפרוטה; ומשליך‬,‫לכתחילה‬ ‫ וחכמים דנו‬.‫את הפרוטה לים המלח‬ ‫ כדי‬,‫שיפדה בארבעה זוזים או קרוב לזה‬ ‫ לא‬,‫ אבל בזמן המקדש‬.‫לפרסם הדבר‬ ‫יפדה לכתחילה אלא בשווייו כמו‬ .‫שביארנו‬

In the present age, if a person made a dedication offering of movable property without specifying his intent, it should be given to the priests27 in that locale. If, however, he designated a field in Eretz Yisrael as a dedication offering without specifying his intent or designated it as a dedication offering to the priests, it is not a dedication offering.28 For [the laws of] a dedication offering of a field apply in the era that the Jubilee year is observed.29

‫מי שהחרים בזמן הזה מיטלטלין‬ ‫ הרי אלו ניתנין לכוהנים‬,‫סתם‬ ‫ אבל אם החרים‬.‫הנמצאים באותו מקום‬ ‫ או שהחרימה‬,‫שדה בארץ ישראל סתם‬ ‫ שאין שדה חרמים‬:‫לכוהנים—אינה חרם‬ ‫ החרים‬.‫ אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג‬,‫נוהגת‬ ‫ ואפילו בזמן‬,‫לכוהנים קרקע בחוצה לארץ‬ ,‫הזה—הרי היא כמיטלטלין בארץ ישראל‬ .‫ותינתן לכוהנים‬

If one designated landed property as a dedication offering for the priests in the Diaspora even in the present era, it is considered like movable property in Eretz Yisrael30 and should be given to the priests.

8/21/2019 5:10 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

8 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983603/jewish/Arachim...

It is a mitzvah to consecrate property and designate dedication and evaluation offerings31 and it is appropriate for a person to observe these practices to subjugate his natural inclination32 so that he will not be parsimonious and to fulfill the charge of the prophets [Proverbs 3:9]: "Honor God with your wealth." Nevertheless, if a person never consecrated property nor designated a dedication or evaluation offering, it is of no consequence.33 For the Torah has given testimony, saying [Deuteronomy 23:23]: "If you will refrain from [uttering] a vow, you will not have sinned."

‫אף על פי שההקדשות והערכים‬ ‫ וראוי לו לאדם‬,‫והחרמים מצוות‬ ‫ כדי לכוף יצרו‬,‫להנהיג עצמו בדברים אלו‬ ‫ ויקיים מה שציוו נביאים‬,‫ולא יהיה כיליי‬ ‫אף על‬--(‫ט‬,‫ מהונך" )משלי ג‬,'‫"כבד את ה‬ ,‫ אם לא הקדיש ולא העריך מעולם‬,‫פי כן‬ ‫ הרי התורה העידה ואמרה‬:‫אין בכך כלום‬ "‫ חטא‬,‫ לנדור—לא יהיה בך‬,‫"וכי תחדל‬ .(‫כג‬,‫)דברים כג‬

8/21/2019 5:10 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

9 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983603/jewish/Arachim...

A person should never consecrate all of his property or designate it as a dedication offering. A person who does so violates the Torah's guidance, for [Leviticus 27:28] speaks [of a person designating a dedication offering] "from all that is his." [Implied is that he should not give] "all that is his," as our Sages explained.34This is not piety, but foolishness, for he will lose all his money and become dependent on others.35 We should not show mercy to such a person. In a similar vein, our Sages said:36 "A man of foolish piety is among those who destroy the world." Instead, a person who distributes his money for mitzvot should not distribute more than a fifth,37 and he should conduct himself as our Prophets advised [cf. Psalms 112:5]: "He arranges his affairs with judgment," both with regard to matters involving Torah and worldly concerns.38 Even with regard to the sacrifices for which a person is liable, the Torah showed compassion for [a person's] resources and dictated that the type of sacrifice be offered according to a person's financial capacity.39 How much more so should this approach be followed with regard to matters which a person is obligated only because of his vows. He should take such vows only in a manner appropriate for him, as [implied by Deuteronomy 16:17]: "Each man according to his generosity, according to the blessings of God, your Lord, which He has granted you."40

‫לעולם לא יקדיש אדם ולא יעריך‬ ,‫ כל נכסיו; והעושה זה‬,‫ולא יחרים‬ ‫עבר על דעת הכתוב—שהרי הוא אומר‬ ‫ לא כל‬,(‫כח‬,‫"מכל אשר לו" )ויקרא כז‬ ‫ ואין זו‬.‫ כמו שביארו חכמים‬,‫אשר לו‬ ‫ אלא שטות—שהרי זה מאבד כל‬,‫חסידות‬ .‫ ויצטרך לברייות; ואין מרחמין עליו‬,‫ממונו‬ ‫ חסיד שוטה‬,‫ובזה וכיוצא בו אמרו חכמים‬ ‫ אלא כל המפזר ממונו‬.‫מכלל מכלי עולם‬ ‫ אל יפזר יותר מחומש; ויהיה כמו‬,‫במצוות‬ "‫ במשפט‬,‫שציוו נביאים "מכלכל דבריו‬ ‫בין בדברי עולם בין‬--(‫ה‬,‫)ראה תהילים קיב‬ ‫ אפילו בקרבנות שאדם חייב‬.‫בדברי תורה‬ ,‫בהן—הרי חסה תורה על הממון ואמרה‬ ‫שיביא כפי מיסת ידו; קל וחומר לדברים‬ ‫ אלא מחמת‬,‫שלא נתחייב בהן‬ ‫ שנאמר‬.‫נדרו—שלא ינדור אלא כראוי לו‬ ,‫ כברכת ה' אלוהיך‬,‫ כמתנת ידו‬,‫"איש‬ .(‫יז‬,‫אשר נתן לך" )דברים טז‬

8/21/2019 5:10 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

10 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983603/jewish/Arachim...

Blessed be God who grants assistance. This concludes the sixth book with the help of the Omnipotent. There are 43 chapters in this book.

,‫ נגמר ספר שישי‬.‫בריך רחמנא דסייען‬ ,‫ ומניין פרקים של ספר זה‬.‫בעזרת שדיי‬ ‫ שנים‬,‫ הלכות שבועות‬:‫שלושה וארבעים‬ ‫ שלושה עשר‬,‫עשר פרקים; הלכות נדרים‬ ;‫ עשרה פרקים‬,‫פרקים; הלכות נזירות‬ .‫ שמונה פרקים‬,‫הלכות ערכים וחרמים‬

In Hilchot Sh'vuot, there are 12 chapters. In Hilchot Nedarim, there are 13 chapters. In Hilchot Nizirut, there are 10 chapters. In Hilchot Arachim Vacharamim, there are 8 chapters.

« Previous

Next » Sefer Zeraim

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 FOOTNOTES 1. I.e., the Sanhedrin, Israel's highest court. 2. There is a certain lack of clarity in the Rambam's words. For

10. I.e., since they retracted at the same time, the loss suffered by the Temple treasury is divided equally between them. The

the donation of the half-shekel that was announced and

Ra'avad and Rashi (Arachin

collected in the month of Adar was for the sake of the communal offerings (Hilchot Shekalim 4:10).

interpretation of how the sum is divided between the two.

3. See Chapter 3, Halachah 14. 4. A second opinion is always valuable lest one person err and a third is necessary, lest the two differ. None of the three is required to be a priest (Radbaz). 5. Megilah 23b derives this from the fact that Leviticus, ch. 27, mentions the word "priest" ten times when speaking of all of these types of evaluations. 6. It is not, however, necessary that all ten be priests (Megilah, loc. cit.). 7. In such an instance, the person - or his limb's - worth is evaluated like a servant being sold in the marketplace. Based on Leviticus 25:46, an equation is established between landed property and servants. Hence, the same evaluation process is used (Megilah, loc. cit.). 8. Note the contrast to Chapter 3, Halachot 19-20. 9. I.e., although he merely pledged the fifty, we follow the principle (Kiddushin 28b, et al): "A pledge to the Temple treasury is like transferring the article to an ordinary person." Nevertheless, he is only required to pay ten, since the Temple treasury can collect the forty from the other person.

27b)

offer

a

different

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, justify the Rambam's view. 11. And thus if the original owner and another person pledge the same amount, the Temple treasury will receive more if the original owner is allowed to redeem it. 12. They are given the opportunity to redeem it, because the Temple treasury will benefit more from their redemption than that of the other person. 13. A copper coin of minimal value. The Ra'avad and Rashi (Arachin 27b) maintain that even if the original owners do not raise the bid, they are liable for 26 selaim for they are liable for the sela added by the other bidder. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's approach. 14. Since this is the article's worth, it is appropriate that the fifth be calculated accordingly. 15. I.e., a fourth of 25 selaim is six selaim and a dinar. This is the additional fifth that the original owner is required to pay. 16. More precisely, anything above 25, so that his increase benefits the Temple treasury. 17. In Halachah 5.

8/21/2019 5:10 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

11 of 12

18. This refers to dedication offerings for the sake of the Temple. With regard to dedication offerings to the priests, see Halachah 11. 19. Since the property was consecrated, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Hence, it must be disposed of in a manner in which

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983603/jewish/Arachim...

30. See the Tur (Choshen Mishpat 95) and commentaries which debate whether this principle applies in all matters or only in this limited context. 31. As listed at the beginning of this set of halachot. 32. See The Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, ch. 39, which states

no one will benefit. The Ra'avad emphasizes that the advice given by the Rambam applies in an instance when one does

that the purpose for these mitzvot is to cultivate the trait of generosity. Also by consecrating his property, one uses his

not desire to redeem the consecrated property. If one desires to redeem it, it is preferable to do so, following the guidelines

wealth for a holy purpose rather than his own indulgence.

set down in Halachah 10. The Kessef Mishneh states that

33. Compare to the conclusion of Hilchot Nedarim.

the Rambam would not differ with this concept. See also the

34. Arachin 28a.

Rama (Yoreh De'ah 258:1) who suggests that if a person

35. The Rambam is very critical of those who can support

consecrates an article in the present age, he should ask a

themselves on their own, but instead, make wrong choices in the name of piety and thus, require others to support them.

sage to repeal his vow. 20. I.e., a place where the money will be lost to human hands forever.

See for example, Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 10:18 which states:

21. I.e., a gentile servant who is circumcised and immersed in the mikveh and then required to observe all the mitzvot

Even a dignified sage who becomes poor should work in a profession, even a degrading profession, rather than seek

incumbent upon women. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 13:11.

public assistance. It is better to skin the hides of dead animals rather than tell people: "I am a sage, support me."

22. In this way, the holiness associated with the servant will be transferred to the article and the article left in a place where no one will benefit from it.

36. Sotah 20a.

23. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:9, after

37. Ketubot 50a derives this concept from Jacob's vow to tithe

being purchased by a Jew, a gentile servant is given a year in which to decide whether he wishes to observe the mitzvot.

(Genesis 28:22). There the verb which conveys the promise to tithe is repeated, allowing for the concept of giving two

The Rambam is speaking about the laws that apply in the midst of that year.

tithes. See also Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 7:5. Yayin Malchut notes that in his Commentary to the Mishnah

24. The Rambam makes similar statements with regard to

(Pe'ah 1:1), the Rambam writes that as an act of piety, a

idol-worshiping gentiles in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1;

person may give more than a fifth. Nevertheless, there is not

Hilchot Rotzeach 4:11. The Radbaz interprets the Rambam's

necessarily a contradiction between the two. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam is speaking about

intent in citing these concepts here as implying that the owner should not redeem the servant. Since he remains consecrated, it is forbidden to benefit from his labor. 25. In the present era, since nothing can be done with the money, our Sages allowed the consecrated property to be redeemed in this manner. Note the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 258:1) who rules that consecrated property cannot be redeemed in the present age. The Siftei Cohen 258:3, however, cites the Rambam's view. 26. Chapter 7, Halachah 8.

giving to a needy who asks for alms. In response to that acute need, one may give more that a fifth. Here the Rambam is speaking about giving to charity when there is no acute need. Hence the limit should be adhered to. In Iggeret HaTeshuvah, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi states that one may give more than a fifth of his resources to charity to atone for his sins, for just as one is not concerned with the amount one gives when it comes to healing a physical wound or blemish, so too, one should not be worried about cost when healing a spiritual blemish.

27. See Chapter 6, Halachah 1.

38. See Hilchot De'ot 5:10.

28. The Ra'avad cites a view that maintains that even though the field is not given to the priests, it becomes consecrated and

39. I.e., there are different obligations for certain sacrifices, e.g., the adjustable guilt offering (Leviticus 5:6-11), depending on

can no longer be used by the person for his individual concerns. 29. See Hilchot Shemitah ViYovel 10:9.

one's means. 40. This verse specifically applies to the festive sacrifices a person brings for the pilgrimage festivals (see Hilchot Chagigah 1:2), but in an expanded sense, it applies to all offerings to the Temple.

8/21/2019 5:10 PM

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 8 - Texts & Writings

12 of 12

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983603/jewish/Arachim...

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 5:10 PM

Sefer Kedushah - The Book of Holiness - Texts & Writings

1 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960643/jewish/Sefer-Ke...



Sefer Kedushah The Book of Holiness Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Issurei Biah Issurei Biah - Chapter One

Issurei Biah - Chapter Five

Issurei Biah - Chapter Two

Issurei Biah - Chapter Six

Issurei Biah - Chapter Three

Issurei Biah - Chapter Seven

Issurei Biah - Chapter Four

View All 22

Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 1

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 5

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 2

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 6

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 3

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 7

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 4

View All 17

Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 1

Shechitah - Chapter 5

Shechitah - Chapter 2

Shechitah - Chapter 6

Shechitah - Chapter 3

Shechitah - Chapter 7

Shechitah - Chapter 4

View All 14

8/21/2019 2:49 PM

Sefer Kedushah - The Book of Holiness - Texts & Writings

2 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960643/jewish/Sefer-Ke...

8/21/2019 2:49 PM

Sefer Kedushah - The Book of Holiness - Texts & Writings

1 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960643/jewish/Sefer-Ke...



Sefer Kedushah The Book of Holiness Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Issurei Biah Issurei Biah - Chapter One

Issurei Biah - Chapter Five

Issurei Biah - Chapter Two

Issurei Biah - Chapter Six

Issurei Biah - Chapter Three

Issurei Biah - Chapter Seven

Issurei Biah - Chapter Four

View All 22

Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 1

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 5

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 2

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 6

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 3

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 7

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 4

View All 17

Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 1

Shechitah - Chapter 5

Shechitah - Chapter 2

Shechitah - Chapter 6

Shechitah - Chapter 3

Shechitah - Chapter 7

Shechitah - Chapter 4

View All 14

8/21/2019 2:49 PM

Sefer Kedushah - The Book of Holiness - Texts & Writings

2 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960643/jewish/Sefer-Ke...

8/21/2019 2:49 PM

Issurei Biah - Texts & Writings

1 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960644/jewish/Issurei-Bi...



Issurei Biah Translated by Eliyahu Touger

Issurei Biah - Chapter One Issurei Biah - Chapter Two Issurei Biah - Chapter Three Issurei Biah - Chapter Four Issurei Biah - Chapter Five Issurei Biah - Chapter Six Issurei Biah - Chapter Seven Issurei Biah - Chapter Eight Issurei Biah - Chapter Nine Issurei Biah - Chapter Ten Issurei Biah - Chapter Eleven Issurei Biah - Chapter Twelve Issurei Biah - Chapter Thirteen Issurei Biah - Chapter Fourteen Issurei Biah - Chapter Fifteen Issurei Biah - Chapter Sixteen Issurei Biah - Chapter Seventeen Issurei Biah - Chapter Eighteen Issurei Biah - Chapter Nineteen Issurei Biah - Chapter Twenty

8/21/2019 2:49 PM

Issurei Biah - Texts & Writings

2 of 2

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960644/jewish/Issurei-Bi...

Issurei Biah - Chapter Twenty One Issurei Biah - Chapter Twenty Two

8/21/2019 2:49 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

1 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...



Issurei Biah - Chapter One Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

English

Hebrew

Next » Issurei Biah - Chapter Two

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

2 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

In the name of the Lord, the God of the world. Prepare my steps with Your word, and do not allow any iniquity to rule over me. The fifth book which is The Book of Holiness It contains three sets of Halachot and this is their order: The Laws of Issurei Biah The Laws of Ma'achalot Assurot The Laws of Shechita Introduction to Hilchos Issurei Biah They contain 37 mitzvot: one positive commandment and 36 negative commandments. They are: 1. Not to have sexual relations with one’s mother, 2. Not to have relations with one’s father’s wife, 3. Not to have relations with one’s sister, 4. Not to have relations with the daughter of one’s father’s wife, 5. Not to have relations with the daughter of one’s son, 6. Not to have relations with one’s daughter, 7. Not to have relations with the daughter of one’s daughter, 8. Not to marry a woman and her daughter, 9. Not to marry a woman and her son’s daughter, 10. Not to marry a woman and her daughter’s daughter, 11. Not to have relations with the sister of one’s father, 12. Not to have relations with the sister of one’s mother, 13. Not to have relations with the wife of the brother of one’s father, 14. Not to have relations with the wife of one’s son, 15. Not to have relations with the wife of one’s brother, 16. Not to have relations with the sister of one’s wife, 17. Not to have relations with an animal, 18. For a woman not to engage in relations with an animal,

(‫עוֹלם )בראשית כא לג‬ ָ ‫ְבּ ֵשׁם יי ֵאל‬ ‫ וְ ַאל ַתּ ְשׁ ֶלט ִבּי ָכל ָאוֶ ן‬, ‫ְפּ ָ ַמי ָה ֵכן ְבּ ִא ְמ ָר ֶת‬ (‫)תהלים קיט קלג‬ ‫ספר חמישי והוא ספר קדושה‬ :‫ וזה הוא סידורן‬,‫הלכותיו שלוש‬ ‫הלכות איסורי ביאה‬ ‫הלכות מאכלות אסורות‬ ‫הלכות שחיטה‬ ‫ הקדמה‬- ‫הלכות איסורי ביאה‬ ‫הלכות איסורי ביאה יש בכללן שבע‬ ‫ושלשים מצות מצוה אחת עשה ושלשים‬ :‫ושש מצות לא תעשה וזה הוא פרטן‬ ‫)א( שלא לבא על האם‬ ‫)ב( שלא לבא על אשת אב‬ ‫)ג( שלא לבעול אחות‬ ‫)ד( שלא לבעול בת אשת אב‬ ‫)ה( שלא לבעול בת הבן‬ ‫)ו( שלא לבעול הבת‬ ‫)ז( שלא לבעול בת הבת‬ ‫)ח( שלא לישא אשה ובתה‬ ‫)ט( שלא לישא אשה ובת בנה‬ ‫)י( שלא לישא אשה ובת בתה‬ ‫)יא( שלא לבעול אחות אב‬ ‫)יב( שלא לבעול אחות אם‬ ‫)יג( שלא לבעול אשת אחי האב‬ ‫)יד( שלא לבעול אשת הבן‬ ‫)טו( שלא לבעול אשת אח‬ ‫)טז( שלא לבעול אחות אשתו‬ ‫)יז( שלא לשכב עם בהמה‬ ‫)יח( שלא תביא אשה בהמה עליה‬ ‫)יט( שלא לשכב עם זכר‬ ‫)כ( שלא לגלות ערות אב‬ ‫)כא( שלא לגלות ערות אחי אב‬

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

3 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

When a person voluntarily engages in sexual relations with one of the arayot1 mentioned in the Torah, he is liable for kerait,2 as [Leviticus 18:29] states: "Whenever anyone performs any of these abominations, the souls will be cut off...." [The plural is used, referring to] the man and the woman.3If they transgressed unknowingly, they are liable to bring a fixed4 sin offering. There are some arayot with whom relations are punishable by execution5 in addition to kerait which is applicable in all cases.6

‫הבא על אחת מכל העריות‬ ‫האמורות בתורה במזיד חייב כרת‬ ‫שנאמר כי כל אשר יעשה מכל התועבות‬ ‫האלה ונכרתו הנפשות וגו' שניהם הבועל‬ ‫והנבעלת ואם היו שוגגין חייבין חטאת‬ ‫קבועה ויש מן העריות שהוא במיתת בית‬ :‫דין יתר על הכרת השוה בכולן‬

With regard to the arayot that are punishable by execution by the court. If there were witnesses, they delivered a warning,7 and the transgressors did not cease their actions, they are executed through the means prescribed for them.

‫אותן העריות שיש בהן מיתת ב"ד‬ ‫אם היו שם עדים והתראה ולא‬ ‫פירשו ממעשיהם ממיתין אותן מיתה‬ :‫האמורה בהן‬

Even if a transgressor was a Torah scholar neither execution or lashes is administered unless a warning was given. For [the obligation for] a warning was instituted universally only to make a distinction between a person who transgresses inadvertently and one who transgresses intentionally.8

‫ואפילו היה העובר תלמיד חכם אין‬ ‫ממיתין ולא מלקין עד שתהיה שם‬ ‫התראה שלא נתנה התראה בכ"מ אלא‬ :‫להבחין בין שוגג למזיד‬

Among the arayot punishable through execution by

‫העריות שיש בהן מיתת ב"ד מהן‬ ‫שמיתתן בסקילה ומהן שמיתתן‬ ‫בשריפה ומהן שמיתתן בחנק ואלו‬ :‫שמיתתן בסקילה‬

the court are those for [which the violators are] executing by stoning, those for which they are executed by burning, and those for which they are executed by strangulation.9 The following transgressions are punishable by stoning: one who has relations with his mother, with his father's wife,10 his son's wife; she is called his daughter-in-law,11 one who sodomizes a male, a male who has relations with an animal, and a woman who has relations with an animal.

‫הבא על אמו ועל אשת אביו ועל אשת בנו‬ ‫והיא הנקראת כלתו והשוכב עם זכר‬ ‫והשוכב עם בהמה והאשה המביאה את‬ :‫הבהמה עליה‬

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

4 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

The following arayot are punishable by burning: a person who has relations with his wife's daughter12 during his wife's lifetime,13 with the daughter of her daughter, with the daughter of her son, with her mother, with the mother of her mother, with the mother of her father, with his own daughter, with the daughter of his daughter, or with the daughter of his son. The only instance in which forbidden sexual relations are punishable by execution by strangulation is adultery, as [derived from Leviticus 20:10]: "The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Whenever the Torah mentions "putting to death" without further description, the intent is strangulation.14 If [the adulteress] is the daughter of a priest, she should be executed by burning and the adulterer by strangulation, as [ibid. 21:9] states: "The daughter of a priest, when she begins to act promiscuously, she shall be burnt with fire."15 If the adulteress is a consecrated16 maiden,17 both she and the adulterer should be stoned,18 as [Deuteronomy 22:23-24] states: "When a virgin maiden.... they shall be stoned with rocks...." Whenever the Torah uses the phrase "They shall surely be put to death, they are responsible for their own blood" [Leviticus 20:11] - they are executed by stoning.19 All of the other arayot are punishable by kerait alone and are not punishable by execution by the court. Therefore if there were witnesses and a warning was administered, the court punishes them with lashes, for all those who are obligated for kerait are lashed.

:‫ואלו הן העריות שמיתתן בשריפה‬ ‫הבא על בת אשתו בחיי אשתו ועל בת‬ ‫בתה ועל בת בנה ועל אם אשתו ועל אם‬ ‫אמה ועל אם אביה והבא על בתו ועל בת‬ :‫בתו ועל בת בנו‬

‫אין לך ערוה בחנק אלא אשת איש‬ ‫בלבד שנאמר מות יומת הנואף‬ ‫והנואפת ומיתה האמורה בתורה סתם היא‬ ‫חנק ואם היתה בת כהן היא בשריפה‬ ‫ובועלה בחנק שנאמר ובת איש כהן כי‬ ‫תחל לזנות באש תשרף ואם היתה נערה‬ ‫מאורשה שניהם בסקילה שנאמר כי תהיה‬ ‫נערה בתולה וגו' וסקלתם אותם באבנים‬ ‫וכל מקום שנאמר בתורה מות יומתו‬ :‫דמיהם בם הרי הן בסקילה‬

‫שאר העריות כולן בכרת בלבד ואין‬ ‫בהם מיתת ב"ד לפיכך אם היו שם‬ ‫עדים והתראה ב"ד מלקין אותן שכל חייבי‬ :‫כריתות לוקין‬

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

5 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

When a person enters into relations with women who are forbidden by merely a negative commandment,20 both he and she are lashed. If they do so unknowingly, they are not liable for punishment. When a person enters into relations with one of the shniyot,21 Rabbinic Law ordains that he be given "stripes for rebellious conduct."22 When, however, a person enters into relations with a woman who is forbidden merely by a positive commandment,23he need not be punished. If, however, the court [wishes to] administer stripes for rebellious conduct to him to distance him from sin, they have that option.24 A person compelled [to engage in forbidden relations] is not liable at all, not for lashes nor for a sacrifice. Needless to say, there is no obligation for capital punishment, as [reflected by Deuteronomy 22:26]: "And to the maiden, do not do anything."25 To whom does the above apply? To the victim of rape. When, by contrast, a man engages in relations, there is no concept of being compelled against his will. For an erection is always a willful act.26

‫הבא על אחת מחייבי לאוין במזיד‬ ‫הוא לוקה והיא ואם בשוגג פטורין‬ ‫מכלום והבא על אחת מהשניות במזיד‬ ‫מכין אותו מכת מרדות מדבריהם אבל‬ ‫הבא על אחת מחייבי עשה אינו לוקה ואם‬ ‫הכו אותם ב"ד מכת מרדות כדי להרחיק‬ :‫מן העבירה הרשות בידם‬

‫אנוס פטור מכלום מן המלקות ומן‬ ‫הקרבן ואין צריך לומר מן המיתה‬ ‫שנאמר ולנערה לא תעשה דבר בד"א‬ ‫בשנאנס הנבעל אבל הבועל אין לו אונס‬ ‫שאין קישוי אלא לדעת ואשה שתחלת‬ ‫ביאתה באונס וסופה ברצון פטורה מכלום‬ ‫שמשהתחיל לבעול באונס אין בידה שלא‬ ‫תרצה שיצר האדם וטבעו כופה אותה‬ :‫לרצות‬

When a woman is compelled into relations at the outset and afterwards, she consents, she is not liable. Once [a man] compels her to engage in relations, it is beyond her control whether to desire [or] not. For man's natural tendency and inclination is compelling her to desire.27

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

6 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

A person who inserts the corona into [the woman's vaginal channel] is referred to as one who "uncovers" as [Leviticus 20:18] states: "He uncovered her source."28 A person who inserts the entire organ is referred to as one who completes [intercourse]. With regard to all the forbidden relations [mentioned] by the Torah, one who "uncovers" and one who "completes [intercourse] are [equally] liable for execution by the court, kerait, lashes, or stripes for rebellious conduct. Even though the man did not ejaculate and even if he withdrew and did not complete relations, [the man and the woman] both become liable.29 Whether a person engages in vaginal or anal intercourse,30 when he "uncovers" [the woman], they both become liable for execution, kerait, lashes, or stripes for rebellious conduct. Whether they were lying or standing,31 liability is established by the insertion of the corona. [There is never any liability when] a man engages in forbidden relations without an erection, instead his organ was hanging loosely like the organ of the dead, e.g., one who was sick or a person with a congenital malady, i.e., he was born sexually inadequate. Even though he inserts his organ with his hand, he is not liable for kerait or lashes. Needless to say, he is not liable for execution. For this is not considered sexual intercourse. Nevertheless, [such an act] disqualifies a woman from partaking of terumah.32 And the court subjects both of them to stripes for rebellious conduct.33

‫המכניס ראש העטרה בלבד הוא‬ ‫הנקרא מערה מלשון את מקורה הערה‬ ‫והמכניס כל האבר הוא הנקרא גומר ובכל‬ ‫הביאות האסורות אחד המערה ואחד‬ ‫הגומר ואע"פ שלא הוציא שכבת זרע ואף‬ ‫ע"פ שפירש ולא גמר כיון שהכניס ראש‬ ‫העטרה נתחייבו שניהם מיתת ב"ד או‬ ‫כרת או מלקות או מכת מרדות )ואחד‬ ‫הבא על הערוה כדרכה ואחד הבא עליה‬ ‫שלא כדרכה( משיערה בה יתחייבו שניהן‬ ‫מיתה או כרת או מלקות או מכת מרדות‬ ‫בין שהיו שוכבין בין שהיו עומדים על‬ :‫הכנסת העטרה הוא החיוב‬

‫כל הבא ביאה אסורה בלא קישוי‬ ‫אלא שהיה האבר שלו מדולדל‬ ‫כמו אבר המתים כגון החולים או מי‬ ‫שנולד כך כגון סריס חמה אף על פי‬ ‫שהכניס את האבר בידו אינו חייב לא‬ ‫כרת ולא מלקות ואין צריך לומר מיתה‬ ‫שאין זו ביאה אבל פוסל הוא מן התרומה‬ :‫וב"ד מכין את שניהם מכת מרדות‬

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

7 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

When a person enters into sexual relations with one of the arayot as a casual act,34 although he did not intend to do so, he is liable.35Similar concepts apply with regard to one who enters into relations with women forbidden by a negative commandment alone or with one of the shniyot.36 When, however, a man has relations with one of the arayot after she died, he is not liable at all.37 Needless to say, this applies with regard to those women with whom relations are forbidden by a negative commandment alone. When, by contrast, one has relations with a person who is trefe38 or who has relations with an animal which is trefe, he is liable. [The person or the animal] is [now] alive even though he will ultimately die from this illness. Even when the two signs39 which validate ritual slaughter were slit but [the woman or the animal] is making its last movements, if one enters into relations with [her or it] he is liable until she or it dies or is decapitated. When an adult male enters into relations with any of the women forbidden in connection with the above transgressions who is three years and one day old or more,40 he is liable for execution, kerait, or lashes and she is not liable41 unless she is past majority. If she is younger than this, both participants are not liable, for the act is not considered as sexual relations.42 Similarly, when an adult woman enters into sexual relations with a minor, if he is nine years and one day old, she is liable for execution, kerait,43 or lashes and he is not liable. If he is younger than nine years old, they are both free of liability.44

‫הבא על ערוה מן העריות כמתעסק‬ ‫אף ע"פ שאין כוונתו לכך חייב וכן‬ ‫בחייבי לאוין ובשניות אבל הבא על ערוה‬ ‫מן העריות והיא מתה פטור מכלום ואין‬ ‫צריך לומר בחייבי לאוין שהוא פטור‬ ‫והבא על הטריפה או ששכב עם בהמה‬ ‫טריפה חייב חי הוא אע"פ שסופו למות‬ ‫מחולי זה ואפילו שחט בה שני סימנין‬ ‫ועדיין היא מפרכסת הבא עליה חייב עד‬ :‫שתמות או עד שיתיז ראשה‬

‫כל אשה אסורה מאלו אם היתה בת‬ ‫ג' שנים ויום אחד ומעלה גדול הבא‬ ‫עליה חייב מיתה או כרת או מלקות והיא‬ ‫פטורה מכלום אא"כ היתה גדולה ואם‬ ‫היתה פחותה מזה הרי שניהן פטורין שאין‬ ‫ביאתה ביאה וכן אשה גדולה שבא עליה‬ ‫קטן אם היה בן ט' שנים ויום אחד ומעלה‬ ‫היא חייבת כרת או מיתה או מלקות והוא‬ ‫פטור ואם היה בן ט' שנים ולמטה שניהם‬ :‫פטורין‬

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

8 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

When a man enters into relations with a male or has a male enter into relations with him, once the corona is inserted [into the anus] they should both be stoned if they are both adults. As [Leviticus 18:22] states: "Do not lie with a man," [holding one liable for the act, whether] he is the active or passive partner. If a minor of nine years and a day or more is involved, the man who enters into relations or has the minor enter into relations with him should be stoned and the minor is not liable. If the male [minor] was less than nine years old, they are both free of liability.45 It is, however, appropriate for the court to subject the adult to stripes for rebellious conduct for homosexual relations46 although his companion was less than nine years old. One is liable for anal intercourse with an androgynus47 just as one is liable for relations with another male. One who engages in vaginal intercourse with [an androgynus] is not liable.48 There is a doubt concerning the gender of a tumtum.49 Therefore a person who has relations with a tumtum or vaginal intercourse with an androgynus should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.50

‫הבא על הזכר או הביא זכר עליו‬ ‫כיון שהערה אם היו שניהם גדולים‬ ‫נסקלים שנאמר ואת זכר לא תשכב בין‬ '‫שהיה בועל או נבעל ואם היה קטן בן ט‬ ‫שנים ויום אחד ומעלה זה שבא עליו או‬ ‫הביאו על עצמו נסקל והקטן פטור ואם‬ ‫היה הזכר בן ט' או פחות שניהן פטורין‬ ‫וראוי לבית דין להכות הגדול מכת מרדות‬ ‫לפי ששכב עם זכר ואף על פי שהוא‬ :'‫פחות מבן ט‬

‫]אחד הבא על הזכר או[ הבא על‬ ‫אנדרוגינוס דרך זכרותו חייב ]ואם‬ ‫בא עליו דרך נקבותו פטור[ והטומטום‬ ‫ספק הוא לפיכך הבא על הטומטום או על‬ ‫אנדרוגינוס ]דרך נקבותו[ מכין אותו מכת‬ :‫מרדות והאנדרוגינוס מותר לישא אשה‬

An androgynus may marry a woman.51

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

9 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

When a person sodomizes an animal or has an animal insert its organ in him, both the person and the animal should be stoned to death,52 as [Leviticus 18:23] states: "Do not lie down with any animal," prohibiting [such relations] whether he sodomizes the animal or has the animal enter him. All [living creatures] animals, beasts, and fowl should be stoned to death.53 The Torah did not make any distinction with regard to the age of an animal whether it is young or old. "Any animal" implies a prohibition on the day of its birth. Whether the person enters into vaginal or anal intercourse with the animal, when he inserts the corona or the animal inserts the corona within him, they are liable.

‫הבא על הבהמה או שהביא בהמה‬ ‫עליו שניהן נסקלין שנאמר ובכל‬ ‫בהמה לא תתן שכבתך בין שרבעה או‬ ‫הביאה עליו ואחד בהמה ואחד חיה ועוף‬ ‫הכל בסקילה ולא חלק הכתוב בבהמה בין‬ ‫גדולה לקטנה שנאמר ובכל בהמה אפילו‬ ‫ביום לידתה )הבא עליה בין כדרכה בין‬ ‫שלא כדרכה( כיון שהערה בה או‬ :‫שהערתה בו חייב‬

When a boy nine years old sodomizes an animal or has an animal engage in relations with him, the animal should be stoned, but he is not liable.54 If the boy was less than nine years old, the animal is not stoned. Similarly, when a girl three years old or more causes an animal or a beast to have relations with her, whether it is an older animal or a younger animal, once the corona of the animal is inserted into her vagina or anus, the animal is stoned to death and she is not liable.55 If she was past majority, they both should be stoned to death. If she was less than three years old, the animal should not be stoned.56

‫קטן בן ט' שנים ויום אחד שבא על‬ ‫הבהמה או הביאה עליו היא נסקלת‬ ‫על ידו והוא פטור היה בן ט' או פחות אין‬ ‫סוקלין את הבהמה וכן קטנה בת ג' שנים‬ ‫ויום אחד שהביאה בהמה וחיה עליה בין‬ ‫בהמה גדולה בין בהמה קטנה כיון‬ ‫שהערתה בה הבהמה )בין כדרכה בין‬ ‫שלא כדרכה( הבהמה נסקלת והיא פטורה‬ ‫ואם היתה גדולה שניהן נסקלין ואם היתה‬ :‫מבת ג' שנים ולמטה אין הבהמה נסקלת‬

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

10 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

When a person lies with an animal inadvertently or a woman causes an animal to have relations with her inadvertently,57 the animal is not stoned to death even though they are past majority.58 With regard to [relations with] all the arayot, when one is an adult and the other a minor, the minor is not liable and the adult is liable, as explained. If one is awake and one is sleeping, the one who is sleeping is not liable.59 If one [transgresses] intentionally and the other inadvertently, the one who [transgresses] intentionally is liable60 and the one who transgresses inadvertently must bring a sacrifice. If one acted under duress and one acted willingly, the one who acted under duress is not liable as stated above.61

‫וכן השוכב עם הבהמה בשגגה‬ ‫והאשה שהביאה את הבהמה‬ ‫עליה בשגגה אין הבהמה נסקלת על ידן‬ ‫ואף ע"פ שהן גדולים כל העריות כולן‬ ‫שהיה אחד גדול ואחד קטן הקטן פטור‬ ‫והגדול חייב כמו שביארנו אחד ער ואחד‬ ‫ישן הישן פטור אחד מזיד ואחד שוגג‬ ‫המזיד חייב והשוגג מביא קרבן אחד אנוס‬ :‫ואחד ברצון האנוס פטור כמו שביארנו‬

The witnesses are not required to see [the precise details] of couple's intimate relations, the man inserting [his organ]as one inserts a piston into a pipe. Instead, once they see them clinging together as is the way of all who engage in relations, they may be executed on the basis of this evidence. We do not say: Maybe he did not insert the corona, because we can assume that in this position, the corona was inserted.62

‫אין העדים נזקקין לראות המנאפים‬ ‫שהערו זה בזה והכניס כמכחול‬ ‫בשפופרת אלא משיראו אותן דבוקין זה‬ ‫עם זה כדרך כל הבועלין הרי אלו נהרגין‬ ‫בראיה זו ואין אומרים שמא לא הערה‬ :‫מפני שחזקת צורה זו שהערה‬

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

11 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

When an established presumption that people are close relatives has been established, we judge accordingly even though there is no clear proof that they were relatives.63 We give lashes and execute by burning, stoning, and strangulation based on such a presumption. What is implied? If it is an accepted presumption that a particular woman is a man's sister, daughter, or mother and he had relations with her in the presence of witnesses, he is given lashes or executed by burning or stoning even though there is no clear-cut evidence that the woman is his sister, mother, or daughter, only the accepted presumption. An incident occurred with a woman who came to Jerusalem carrying an infant on her shoulders and she raised it, [establishing] the assumption that he was her son. [After he grew older,] he had relations with her and they brought her to the court who executed her by stoning.64

‫מי שהוחזק בשאר בשר דנין בו על‬ ‫פי החזקה אף ע"פ שאין שם ראיה‬ ‫ברורה שזה קרוב ומלקין ושורפין וסוקלין‬ ‫וחונקין על חזקה זו כיצד הרי שהוחזק שזו‬ ‫אחותו או בתו או אמו ובא עליה בעדים‬ ‫הרי זה לוקה או נשרף או נסקל ואע"פ‬ ‫שאין שם ראיה ברורה שזו היא אחותו או‬ ‫אמו או בתו אלא בחזקה בלבד ומעשה‬ ‫באשה אחת שבאת לירושלים ותינוק‬ ‫מורכב לה על כתיפה והגדילתו בחזקת‬ ‫שהוא בנה ובא עליה והביאוה לב"ד‬ ‫וסקלוה ראיה לדין זה מה שדנה תורה‬ ‫במקלל אביו ומכה אביו שיומת ומנין לנו‬ ‫ראיה ברורה שזה אביו אלא בחזקה כך‬ :‫שאר קרובים בחזקה‬

A proof of this law can be drawn from the fact that the Torah speaks of the judgment of execution for one who curses his father and strikes his father65 How can we find clear proof that he is his father?66 Instead, we operate according to the existing presumption. So, too, with regard to other relatives, we operate according to the existing presumption. [The following rules apply when] a man and a woman come from overseas, he says: "This is my wife," and she says: "This is my husband." If in [their new] city, he establishes the presumption that she is his wife67 for 30 days,68 we execute [an adulterer who has relations] with her. Within 30 days, however, we do not execute anyone on the presumption that she is a married woman.69

‫איש ואשה שבאו ממדינת הים‬ ‫הוא אומר זאת אשתי והיא‬ ‫אומרת זה בעלי אם הוחזקה בעיר ל' יום‬ '‫שהיא אשתו הורגין עליה אבל בתוך הל‬ :‫יום אין הורגין עליה משום אשת איש‬

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

12 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

When a woman is presumed to be a niddah among her neighbors,70 her husband is given lashes for [engaging in relations] with her in the niddah state.71 [The following rule applies when] a person issues a warning [not to enter into seclusion with a specific man]72 to his wife and she enters into seclusion with him. If one witness comes and testifies that she was unfaithful,73 her husband was a priest, and he engaged in relations with her afterwards, he receives lashes because of her because he had relations with a zonah.74 Although the fundamental element of this testimony is established by one witness,75 [her conduct caused] her identity to be established as a zonah.76 When a father says: "My daughter is consecrated to this person," his word is accepted77 and she must marry him.78 [Nevertheless,] if she acts unfaithfully while [consecrated] to him, she is not stoned to death79 because of her father's statements unless there are witnesses [who testify] that she was consecrated in their presence.80

‫האשה שהוחזקה נדה בשכונותיה‬ ‫בעלה לוקה עליה משום נדה‬ ‫המקנא לאשתו ונסתרה ובא עד אחד‬ ‫והעיד שנטמא והיה בעלה כהן ובא עליה‬ ‫אחר כך הרי זה לוקה עליה משום זונה אף‬ ‫על פי שעיקר העדות בעד אחד כבר‬ :‫הוחזקה בזונה‬

‫האב שאמר בתי זו מקודשת היא‬ ‫לזה אע"פ שהוא נאמן ותנשא לו‬ ‫אם זינתה אינה נסקלת על פיו עד שיהיו‬ ‫שם עדים שנתארסה בפניהם וכן האשה‬ ‫שאמרה מקודשת אני אינה נהרגת על פיה‬ :‫עד שיהיו שם עדים או תוחזק‬

Similarly, when a woman states: "I have been consecrated," [if it is discovered that she engaged in relations with another man,] she is not executed on the basis of her own statements. Instead, there must be witnesses [that she was consecrated] or she must have established a common conception [that this was the case].

Next » Issurei Biah - Chapter Two FOOTNOTES

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

13 of 17

1. In Hilchot Ishut 1:5, the Rambam defines the term arayot as "[Those women] with whom relations are forbidden by Scriptural Law and with whom relations are punishable by kereit as enumerated in Parshas Acharei Mot. 2. 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). 3. The prohibition and the punishment is incumbent on them both equally. 4. This term is used to distinguish the sacrifice from the "adjustable guilt offering" (korban olah viyoreid) that is brought for certain transgressions. See Hilchot Shegagot ch. 1 which describes the fixed sin offering , and ch. 10 which describes the adjustable guilt offering. 5. See Halachot 4-6. 6. Even if they cannot be executed because the court cannot find two appropriate witnesses, they are punishable by kerait. 7. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2 which describes the obligation to give a warning and states: "How is a warning administered? We tell him: 'Desist..." or 'Do not do it. It is a transgression and you are liable to be executed by the court....'. 8. The Rambam's ruling reflects a unique instance in which he uses the wording of a Talmudic passage for the opposite intent. Sanhedrin 8b quotes Rabbi Yossi bar Rabbi Yehudah as coining the expression the Rambam employs: "A warning was instituted only to make a distinction between a person who transgresses inadvertently and one who transgresses intentionally." Rabbi Yossi, however, used this concept as support for his contention that a Torah scholar does not need a warning. Since he is knowledgeable, we assume that he is

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

12. I.e., from a previous marriage. 13. After his wife's death, her daughter is still prohibited to him and they are punishable by kerait. There is, however, no punishment to be administered by an earthly court. As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 8, this applies to any woman prohibited because they are closely related to the person's wife. 14. Sanhedrin 52b explains the rationale for this statement as follows: Just as death at the hand of heaven does not leave a mark; so, too, unless another form of execution is explicitly stipulated, death at the hand of the court should not leave a sign. This alludes to strangulation in which the condemned's body is not marred at all. 15. See Chapter 3, Halachah 3. 16. According to Jewish law, marriage is a two-staged process involving consecration (erusin or kiddushin) and marriage (nissuin). Consecration establishes the bond between a man and a woman. From that time onward, she is forbidden to engage in relations with other men. It is not until marriage, however, that the husband and wife relationship is consummated and the couple begin their life together. In the present era, both of these stages of marriage are completed at the same time. In the Biblical and Talmudic eras, it was customary to wait a year between these two stages. 17. I.e., between the age of twelve and twelve and a half and she is a virgin. Otherwise, adultery is punished by strangulation. 18. See Chapter 3, Halachah 4. 19. Sanhedrin 53a derives this concept from the fact that this phrase is used with regard to a person who divines with a yidoni concerning whom Leviticus 20:27 explicitly states that he should be stoned to death.

familiar with the laws. If he is transgressing, we can conclude that he is doing so as a conscious act of rebellion. Hence, he

20. I.e., the punishment of kerait is not mentioned with regard to

is deserving of punishment. The Rambam differs, maintaining that even a Torah scholar

mamzer or a mamzeret to an acceptable Jew or a divorcee

might not be aware that his act violates a particular prohibition. We do not suspect that he did know the law, it

21. Literally, "secondary." In Hilchot Ishut 1:6, the Rambam

was however possible that he was aware of the prohibition, but not know that it applied in this instance, e.g., he knew that adultery was forbidden, but did not know whether or not the woman was married or related to him. The warning will clarify that for him (Maggid Mishneh; Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Sanhedrin, loc. cit.). 9. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 15:1-5 for a description of these different modes of execution.

them. They include nine forbidden relationships, e.g., a to a priest. These nine are mentioned in Hilchot Ishut 1:7.

explains that this term refers to "women with whom relations are forbidden according to the Oral Tradition. These prohibitions are Rabbinic in origin." He continues listing 20 such women with whom our Sages forbade relations as a safeguard for the Scriptural prohibitions. For example, as a safeguard against relations with one's mother, the Sages forbade relations with both of one's grandmothers. 22. Lashes mandated by Rabbinic decree which are given as punishment for the violation of Rabbinic commandments and

10. Even if she is not his mother.

for other purposes. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, which

11. The wording of the Hebrew emphasizes that his son married

mentions this punishment.

the woman, not merely engaged in relations with her.

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

14 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

23. Relationships which the Torah does not explicitly prohibit, but the prohibition can be derived from a positive commandment.

27. Ketubot 51a states that even if the woman says: "Let him

For example, there is no prohibition against a High Priest marrying a non-virgin. Nevertheless, since he is commanded

hired him," she is considered as acting under duress and freed of liability. For it was not until after she was overcome

(Leviticus 21:13) to marry a virgin bride, we assume that it is forbidden for him to marry a woman who is not a virgin.

by desire that she consented.

There are two other such relationships: Egyptian and Edomite converts who cannot marry into the Jewish people until the third generation. See Hilchot Ishut 1:8. 24. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:4 which states that the court may administer punishment that is not required by Torah Law if

continue, for had he not taken me by force, I would have

28. This expression is used with regard to relations with a woman in the nidah state. From that instance, Yevamot 54a derives a connection to the entire Torah. 29. If, however, the man merely touches the entrance to the vaginal channel with his organ, he is not liable (see Beit Shmuel 20:3).

they feel that it will lead to the moral development of the Jewish people.

30. Based on Leviticus 19:13, Sanhedrin 54a states that both

25. The verse cited speaks of the rape of a consecrated maiden in a field where even if she had called for help, there would

31. Or Sameach notes that Leviticus 18:23 explicitly mentions a

have been none to save her. Since she was compelled to perform the transgression, she is not held responsible. 26. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on this point, explaining that if a man develops an erection with the intent of having relations with his wife and while he is still erect, he is compelled to engage in forbidden relations, he is considered to have acted against his will. The Maggid Mishneh states that even the Rambam would accept such a ruling. The Maggid Mishneh states, however, that there are authorities who maintain that if a man is compelled to engage in relations at the pain of death, he is considered to have been compelled to act against his will. Yevamot 53b, the source for the Rambam's ruling, is speaking about a situation when a person is not compelled by forces beyond his control. Other authorities maintain that he is liable, even in such a situation. It is, however, unlikely that the Rambam would maintain that the court should actually carry out capital punishment. For in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:4, the Rambam writes that a person who is compelled by gentiles to engage in adulterous or incestuous sexual relations should sacrifice his life rather than do so. If, however, he fails to chose martyrdom and transgresses, he should not be punished by the court. It would be difficult to explain that ruling applies only in a situation when he had already developed an erection for a woman with whom he was permitted to engage in relations and was then compelled to engage in forbidden relations. Thus it would appear that the man is not held responsible for capital punishment engaging in relations at the threat of death. [See Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 20)]. See also the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Sanhedrin 20:2 who states that since developing an erection comes as a result of the man's own pleasure and desire, he is considered to have acted willingly even though he was compelled to engage in the relations.

forms of intercourse are equally forbidden.

woman standing while engaged in forbidden relates. 32. I.e., if a priest's daughter or a priest's wife is involved in such a sexual act, she is forbidden to partake of terumah just as if she would be forbidden to do so had she engaged in ordinary relations (see Hilchot Terumah 6:6). 33. "Stripes for rebellious conduct" is a punishment which is not dependent on the Torah's binding laws, but rather is left to the court's jurisdiction based on its conception of what is appropriate for the moral standards of the persons involved and the community. Although such an act is not formally considered as sexual relations, chastisement is necessary to prevent such behavior from continuing. 34. The Hebrew term kimitasek literally means "as one was going about his business," i.e., he was performing other actions and without any intent, the forbidden act was performed. 35. Since he derived pleasure from the physical act, he is liable even though originally he had no intent (Yevamot 62b). This refers only to liability for a sin offering for inadvertent transgression. Needless to say, he is not liable for punishment by the court, because in such instances, he must acknowledge a warning (Maggid Mishneh). The commentaries question how sexual relations can be performed "as one was going about his business." With regard to the Sabbath prohibitions, we can appreciate the use of such a term. For example, a person intended to cut produce that was not connected to the ground and in the course of doing so also cut produce that was connected to the ground. But with regard to sexual relations, how is it possible to say that a man performed the act without intention? As stated above, "an erection is always a willful act." Based on Hilchot Shegagot 2:7, the Maggid Mishneh interprets this as referring to an instance in which a person intended to engage in relations with his wife, but accidentally engaged in relations with his sister.

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

15 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

36. The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's statements and the Maggid Mishneh states that this clause is a printing error, for

50. Since there is a possibility that such relations are prohibited, this punishment should be given to discourage them.

there is no sacrifice associated with these transgressions. The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution, explaining that

51. I.e., although there is a question regarding the status of the

although he is not punished by an earthly court, nor is he obligated to bring a sacrifice, the transgressor is liable to God. He will reckon with the transgression on His scales of judgment. Rav David Arameah states that this teaches that the person has an obligation to confess his sin. 37. Yevamot 55b derives this concept through the techniques of Biblical exegesis. 38. An animal or a person that is sick or wounded and will die within a year. 39. I.e., the esophagus and the windpipe were cut.

androgynus, relations between him and her are permitted (Maggid Mishneh). 52. Since the animal was the direct cause for the person's death, the animal is also executed. Alternatively, since the person was engaged in an unseemly transgression due to the animal, it is executed (Sanhedrin 54a). 53. And it is forbidden to benefit from that animal (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 4:2). 54. For a minor is never liable for punishment. Sanhedrin 55b explains that based on the first rationale mentioned in the

40. I.e., she reaches the date of her third birthday.

previous note, one might think that the animal should not be executed. Nevertheless, the person is worthy of execution

41. For a minor is never liable for punishment. Even though she consented to the transgression, she is not subjected to

because of his deed, it is only that the Torah has pity on him. And the Torah has pity on the person and not on the animal.

punishment, because she is not considered as responsible for her actions (Nidah 44b). Despite the fact that the woman is not punished, the man receives the punishment mandated by the transgression. 42. For until that age, her signs of virginity will regenerate and hence, relations are not of consequence. Nevertheless, even when the girl is below that age, it is forbidden to enter into such relations (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:4). 43. In his commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. ), the Rambam states that the punishment of kerait is not given until the violator is 20 years of age. Until that age, the person is considered immature and hence, not held liable by the heavenly court. 44. For below that age, relations are not of consequence. 45. For sexual relations with a male below the age of nine are not of consequence. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to enter

55. For she is not of age. 56. For this is not considered relations. 57. The question how such acts can be considered inadvertent has been raised by the commentaries. Among the answers given is that the person was not aware that the act which he performed was forbidden. 58. Since the person is not executed, according to the first of the rationales mentioned above, the animal should not be executed. Since our Sages did not conclude which of the rationales should prevail, the matter is left undecided and therefore the animal is allowed to live. 59. The person sleeping is considered as if he performed the forbidden act under duress. 60. For punishment by the court or at the hand of heaven. 61. Halachah 13. 62. This and the following halachot are based on the principle

into such relations (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:4).

that a chazzakah, a presumption that is firmly established, is

46. Although he is not liable according to Scriptural Law, his act certainly warrants punishment that will discourage him from

63. I.e., as long as it is the popular conception that two

continuing this pattern of conduct. 47. A person with male and female sexual characteristics. 48. For there is a doubt regarding the halachic status of such an individual. 49. A person whose genital are is covered with a mass of flesh and whose gender is impossible to detect. With regard to an androgynus, the doubt concerns the individual's halachic status. With regard to the tumtum, the doubt concerns the actual facts: Which gender is covered by the mass of flesh?

binding and considered as actual fact. individuals are related, we judge accordingly. It is not necessary for the court to bring testimony from the midwife that in fact this-and-this woman bore this-and-this child. 64. The punishment given for relations between a mother and her son. 65. Exodus 21:15, 17. 66. For we have no way of establishing the fact that his father conceived him. 67. By living together as husband and wife in a way obvious to all.

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

16 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

68. We see the concept of 30 days used to establish a person's identity in another context: After that period of time, his name may be mentioned in a legal document without fear of deception (Chelkat Mechokek 19:3; see Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 24:4). Although capital punishment is not enforced in the present age, there are certain aspects of this halachah which are relevant, for there are several halachic contexts in which it is necessary to determine whether or not a woman is married. Today, with the advances in recording keeping and communication, it is customary for the Jewish community particularly, in Eretz Yisrael and in a partial way, in certain places in the Diaspora - to keep records and to be able to verify whether or not a couple are married.

75. One might think that it was necessary for the change in the status of the woman to be established through the testimony of two witnesses. 76. I.e., since she violated the warning her husband gave her, we assume that she acted unfaithfully. Hence, the testimony of one witness is sufficient to bring about a change in her status. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the man is given lashes for violating a different prohibition, the prohibition against relations with a wife who has been unfaithful. The Ra'avad, however, speaks of the woman being raped and maintains that a woman is not placed in the category of a zonah when only one person observes her

69. The transgressors are given "stripes for rebellious conduct"

being raped. The Maggid Mishneh questions the Ra'avad's statements,

for certainly there is at least a possibility that the couple who claim to be husband and wife are married (Rabbi Akiva Eiger

noting that the Rambam does not mention rape at all. The Maggid Mishneh also states that the Rambam does not

to Halachah 15).

require lashes when a man engages in relations with his wife after she was unfaithful. The Kessef Mishneh questions that

70. I.e., she wore clothes that she set aside to wear while she is in her niddah state. See Turei Zahav 185:2 who states that

statement, noting that in Hilchot Gerushin 11:14, the

even if the woman later gives an explanation for her conduct, her explanation is not accepted and we consider her status

Rambam specifically rules that a man is given lashes in such

to have changed. The Siftei Cohen and others, however,

77. We are speaking about a girl who is a na'arah between the

differ. See Chapter 4, Halachah 10.

a situation. See also the notes to Chapter 18, Halachah 7.

age of twelve and twelve and a half. Her father has the right

71. A man is forbidden to have relations with a woman while she is in the niddah state. In this instance, although we do not

to consecrate her to whoever he desires. Therefore we accept his word when he states that he consecrated her, as

know for certain that she was in the niddah state, we act

Deuteronomy 22:16 states: "I gave my daughter to this man" (Kiddushin 64a).

according to the presumption created by her conduct. 72. When a man issues such a warning to his wife and she violates it, he is forbidden to engage in relations with her until she drinks the sotah waters (Hilchot Sotah 1:2). 73. In which instance, she is not given the sotah waters to drink. Instead, her husband is required to divorce her (ibid.:14). 74. The term zonah is halachicly defined as any woman who engages in relations with a man forbidden to her. The term literally means "a prostitute" or "a promiscuous woman." Here, however, the term is given the specific halachic meaning mentioned above. Whether she willingly or unwillingly engages in such relations, she is placed in this category. A priest is forbidden to engage in relations with such a woman. See Chapter 18, Halachah 12.

(A father's word is also accepted with regard to consecrating his daughter is she is younger. We are, nevertheless, compelled to say that here we are speaking about a na'arah, because punishment is mentioned and a girl below the age of twelve is never punished by the court.) 78. Or undergo formal divorce proceedings before marrying another man. 79. The punishment given for relations with a consecrated maiden. 80. Although the father's statement is given a certain amount of legal credibility, it is not considered as sufficient basis for capital punishment (Kiddushin 63b).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

17 of 17

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Issurei-B...

8/21/2019 2:50 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

1 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960648/jewish/Issurei-B...



Issurei Biah - Chapter Two Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Issurei Biah - Chapter One

The [following] four women: the wife of a man's father, the wife of his son, the wife of his brother, and the wife of the brother of his father, are considered an ervah1 for him forever, whether after consecration or after marriage, in the lifetime of their husbands or after their deaths, [even] if they were divorced - with the exception of the wife of one's brother who did not leave a son.2

English

Hebrew

Next » Issurei Biah - Chapter Three

‫אשת אביו ואשת בנו ואשת אחיו‬ ‫ואשת אחי אביו ארבעתן ערוה עליו‬ ‫לעולם בין מן האירוסין בין מן הנישואין בין‬ ‫שנתגרשו בין שלא נתגרשו בין בחיי‬ ‫בעליהן בין אחר מיתת בעליהן חוץ מאשת‬ ‫אחיו שלא הניח בן ואם בא על אחת מהן‬ ‫בחיי בעלה חייב שתים משום שאר בשר‬ ‫ומשום אשת איש שהרי שניהן האיסורין‬ :‫באין כאחד‬

If a man engages in relations with one of these woman during the lifetime of their husbands, he is liable for two [sin-offerings3]: for incestuous relations and adulterous relations, for both of these prohibitions take effect at the same time.4

8/21/2019 2:51 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

2 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960648/jewish/Issurei-B...

Therefore a person who engages in relations with his mother who is his father's wife is liable for two [sin-offerings], one because [the woman is] his mother and one because she is his father's wife. [This applies] both during his father's lifetime and after his father's death.5 The wives of both a person's paternal brother and his maternal brother are considered an ervah for him. [This applies regardless if he and/or his brother were conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship.6 The wife of the maternal brother of a man's father is, however, forbidden [only] as a shniyah, as explained.7 Both a person's paternal sister and his maternal sister are considered an ervah for him. [This applies regardless if he and/or his sister were conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship, e.g., his mother or his father acted promiscuously with others and his sister was conceived promiscuously, as [implied by Leviticus 18:9]: "one born at home or one born beyond [marriage]." The daughter of his father's wife who is his paternal sister is an ervah for him, [as ibid.:11] states: "the nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife, your father's offspring." If, however, a man's father marries a woman and she has a daughter from another man, that daughter is permitted to him.8 She is not "your father's offspring." Behold one is already liable for [relations] with her because she is a sister, why then [does the Torah mention]: "the daughter of your father's wife"? So that one should be liable for this prohibition as well.9

‫לפיכך הבא על אמו שהיא אשת‬ ‫אביו חייב שתים בין בחיי אביו בין‬ ‫לאחר מיתת אביו אחת משום אמו ואחת‬ ‫משום אשת אביו אחד אחיו מאביו או‬ ‫אחיו מאמו בין מנישואין בין מזנות אשתו‬ ‫ערוה עליו אבל אשת אחי אביו מן האם‬ ‫הרי היא שנייה כמו שביארנו ואחד אחותו‬ ‫מאביו או מאמו בין מן הנישואין בין מזנות‬ ‫כגון שזנתה אמו או אביו עם אחרים‬ ‫והיתה לו אחות מזנות הרי זו ערוה עליו‬ :‫שנאמר מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ‬

‫בת אשת אביו שהיא אחותו מאביו‬ ‫הרי היא ערוה עליו שנאמר ערות בת‬ ‫אשת אביך מולדת אביך אבל אם נשא‬ ‫אביו אשה ויש לה בת מאיש אחר אותה‬ ‫הבת מותרת לו שאין זו מולדת אביו והלא‬ ‫משום אחותו חייב עליה ולמה נאמר בת‬ :‫אשת אביך לחייב עליה אף משום זה‬

8/21/2019 2:51 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

3 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960648/jewish/Issurei-B...

Therefore a man who engages in relations with his sister who was born to his father's wife in marriage is liable for two [sin offerings]: one because of "the nakedness of your sister" and one because of "the nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife." If, however, one's father raped or seduced a woman and conceived a daughter, one is liable only for having relations with one's sister. For the daughter of the woman who was raped is not the daughter of the wife of one's father.10

‫לפיכך הבא על אחותו שהיא בת‬ ‫נשואת אביו חייב שתים אחת משום‬ ‫ערות אחותך ואחת משום ערות בת אשת‬ ‫אביך אבל אם אנס אביו אשה או פיתה‬ ‫אותה והוליד ממנה בת ובא עליה אינו‬ ‫חייב אלא משום אחותו בלבד שאין בת‬ :‫האנוסה בת אשת אביו‬

The sister of his mother is considered an ervah for

‫אחות אמו בין אחותה מאביה בין‬ ‫אחותה מאמה בין מן הנישואין בין‬ ‫מזנות הרי זו ערוה עליו משום אחות אם‬ ‫וכן אחות האב בין מן האם בין מן האב בין‬ ‫מן הנישואין בין מזנות הרי זו ערוה עליו‬ :‫משום אחות אב‬

him. [This applies to both her paternal and maternal sister and applies regardless whether she [was conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship. Similarly, his father's sister - both his paternal and maternal sister, whether she [was conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship - is considered an ervah for him. When a person has promiscuous relations with a woman and conceives a daughter with her, that daughter is considered an ervah for him.11 Although the Torah does not state: "Do not reveal the nakedness of your daughter," the prohibition is of Scriptural origin. Since [the Torah] forbade [relations] with the daughter of one's daughter, it did not mention [the prohibition against] one's daughter. This is not from the words of our Sages.12 Therefore a person who has relations with a daughter born of his wife is liable for two [sin offerings],13 for [relations with] his daughter and for relations with a woman and her daughter.14

‫הבא על אשה דרך זנות והוליד ממנה‬ ‫בת אותה הבת ערוה עליו משום בתו‬ ‫ואף על פי שלא נאמר בתורה ערות בתך‬ ‫לא תגלה מאחר שאסר בת הבת שתק מן‬ ‫הבת ואיסורה מן התורה ואינו מדברי‬ ‫סופרים לפיכך הבא על בתו מנשואתו‬ ‫חייב שתים משום בתו ומשום ערות אשה‬ :‫ובתה‬

8/21/2019 2:51 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

4 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960648/jewish/Issurei-B...

When a person consecrates a woman, her close relatives - six women - become forbidden to him as an ervah forever. This applies whether he consummates [the bond through nisuin] or divorces her, in the lifetime of his wife and after her death. They are: a) her mother, b) her mother's mother, c) her father's mother, d) her daughter,15 e) her daughter's daughter, and f) her son's daughter. If he has relations with one of these women during the lifetime of his wife, both [he and she] are executed by burning.

‫כיון שקידש אדם אשה נאסרו עליו‬ ‫מקרובותיה שש נשים וכל אחת מהן‬ ‫ערוה עליו לעולם בין כנס בין גירש בין‬ ‫בחיי אשתו בין לאחר מותה ואלו הן אמה‬ ‫ואם אמה ואם אביה ובתה ובת בתה ובת‬ ‫בנה ואם בא על אחת מהן בחיי אשתו‬ :‫שניהן נשרפין‬

If he has relations with one of these women after his wife's death, they are liable for kerait,16 but they are not executed by the court, as [derived from Leviticus 20:14]: "In fire, he and they shall be burnt." [This implies17 that only] when both women - his wife and the woman with whom he had relations - are alive, he and the ervah are executed by burning. When both [women] are not alive, there is no execution by burning.18

‫בא עליהן לאחר מיתת אשתו הרי‬ ‫אלו בכרת ואין בהן מיתת ב"ד‬ ‫שנאמר באש ישרפו אותו ואתהן בזמן‬ ‫ששתיהן קיימות שהן אשתו וזו שבא עליה‬ ‫הרי הוא והערוה נשרפין ובזמן שאין‬ :‫שתיהן קיימות אין שם שריפה‬

Similarly, the sister of his wife is considered an ervah for him until his wife dies.19 Both her maternal sister and her paternal sister, whether conceived in marriage or promiscuously, are considered as an ervah for him.

‫וכן אחות אשתו ערוה עליו עד‬ ‫שתמות אשתו בין אחותה מאמה בין‬ ‫אחותה מאביה בין מן הנישואין בין מזנות‬ :‫הרי זו ערוה עליו‬

If a man transgressed and engaged in relations with one of these seven women, whether intentionally or inadvertently, although he and the woman are liable for execution by the court or kerait, he is not forbidden to engage in relations with his wife.20 The only exception is [when he engages in relations with] the sister of the woman he consecrated. In this instance, his wife is forbidden to him, as explained in Hilchot Gerushin.21

‫עבר ונאף עם אחת משבע נשים אלו‬ ‫בין בזדון בין בשגגה אע"פ שהוא‬ ‫והנואפת במיתת בית דין או בכרת לא‬ ‫נאסרה אשתו עליו חוץ מאחות ארוסתו‬ ‫שהיא אוסרת אשתו עליו כמו שביארנו‬ :‫בהלכות גירושין‬

8/21/2019 2:51 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

5 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960648/jewish/Issurei-B...

When a man engages in promiscuous relations with a woman, the seven relatives mentioned above are not forbidden to him [according to Scriptural Law].22 Nevertheless, our Sages23 prohibited anyone who had promiscuous relations with a woman from marrying one of these seven relatives during the promiscuous woman's lifetime.24 [The rationale is that] the promiscuous woman will come to visit her relatives. He will thus enter into solitude with her. [Since] he is familiar with her, we fear that they will transgress and thus he will engage in relations with an ervah.25

‫הבועל אשה דרך זנות לא נאסרו‬ ‫עליו קרובותיה שהן השבע נשים‬ ‫שאמרנו אבל חכמים אסרו על מי שנאף‬ ‫עם אשה לישא אחת מן השבע נשים‬ ‫קרובותיה כל זמן שהזונה קיימת מפני‬ ‫שהזונה באה לקרובותיה לבקר אותן והוא‬ ‫מתייחד עמה ולבו גס בה ויבוא לידי‬ ‫עבירה שיבעול הערוה ולא עוד אלא‬ ‫אפילו נטען על אשה הרי זה לא ישא אחת‬ ‫מקרובותיה עד שתמות זו שנטען עליה‬ ‫ואם כנס הקרובה שזנה עם קרובותיה לא‬ :‫יוציא‬

Even if a man is merely suspected of relations with a woman,26 he should not marry one of her relatives until the woman with whom he was suspected of having relations died. If, however, he married the relative of the woman with whom he was suspected of having relations, he should not divorce her. When a person was suspected of having relations with an ervah or a rumor to that effect was circulated, he should not dwell together with her in the same lane or appear in the same neighborhood.27 An incident occurred concerning a man who was rumored [to have engaged in relations] with his motherin-law and our Sages had him beaten28 because he passed by the entrance to her home.

‫מי שנטען על ערוה או שיצא לו‬ ‫שם רע עמה לא ידור עמה במבוי‬ ‫אחד ולא יראה באותה שכונה ומעשה‬ ‫שהיו מרננין אחריו עם חמותו והכו אותו‬ ‫חכמים מכת מרדות מפני שעבר על פתח‬ :‫ביתה‬

8/21/2019 2:51 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

6 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960648/jewish/Issurei-B...

When a person has promiscuous relations with a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister or the like, it is as if he had relations with two unrelated woman. One is considered an ervah because of the other only in the instance of marriage, not in an instance of promiscuity. Similarly, if a man's father, son, brother, or father's brother raped a woman or seduced her, she is permitted to him and he may marry her. [The prohibition involving these individuals] mentions "the wife of" and here there is no context of marriage.

‫הבא על אשה ובתה דרך זנות או על‬ ‫אשה ואחותה וכיוצא בהן הרי זה‬ ‫כמי שבא על שתי נשים נכריות שאין‬ ‫נעשות ערוה זו עם זו אלא בנישואין לא‬ ‫בזנות וכן אם אנס אביו או בנו או אחיו או‬ ‫אחי אביו אשה או פיתה אותה הרי זו‬ ‫מותרת לו וישאנה שלא נאמר אלא אשת‬ :‫ואין כאן אישות‬

When a man's father or son marries a woman, that man may marry her daughter or her mother as we explained.29 A person may marry the wife of his brother's son.30 A man may marry a woman and her sister's daughter or her brother's daughter at the same time. It is a mitzvah from the Sages for a man to marry his sister's daughter,31 as [alluded to by Isaiah 58:7]: "Do not turn away from your own flesh." This law also applies to his brother's daughter.32

‫אביו או בנו שנשא אשה הרי זה‬ ‫מותר לישא בתה או אמה כמו‬ ‫שביארנו ומותר לאדם לישא אשת בן‬ ‫אחיו ונושא אדם אשה ובת אחותה או בת‬ ‫אחיה כאחת ומצות חכמים שישא אדם‬ ‫בת אחותו והוא הדין לבת אחיו שנאמר‬ :‫ומבשרך לא תתעלם‬

« Previous

Next » Issurei Biah - Chapter Three

Issurei Biah - Chapter One FOOTNOTES 1. The singular of the term arayot mentioned in the first chapter.

5. Since the Rambam speaks of laws that apply after the

2. When a man dies childless, one of the brothers of the

father's death, he mentions only two prohibitions. During the father's lifetime, he is liable for a third prohibition: relations

deceased is obligated to marry his widow to propagate his name. This obligation, yibbum in Hebrew, is described in Deuteronomy, ch. 25, and in Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah. 3. I.e., if he transgresses inadvertently. If he transgresses intentionally, he is liable for execution, by stoning for relations with his father's wife and his son's wife, and by strangulation for relations with his brother's wife and the wife

with a married woman. 6. For the prohibition against relations with all blood relatives applies regardless of whether the person was conceived within marriage or outside of it. 7. Hilchot Ishut 1:5. This is merely a Rabbinical prohibition. 8. Even if they were raised in the same household like a

of his father's brother. (For the latter two transgressions are punishable by kerait and so he receives the penalty for

brother and a sister, marriage between them is permitted. We are not considered with the possible impression such a union

adultery alone.)

might create [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 15:11)].

4. See Chapter 17, Halachah 8, and notes where this concept

9. And thus be required to bring two sin offerings.

is explained.

8/21/2019 2:51 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

7 of 8

10. This applies even if afterwards, the father marries the woman who he raped or seduced (Minchat Chinuch, mitzvah 196). 11. The fact that her mother was not married to him is not significant. 12. The Rambam's statements touch on an involved issue. In his Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 2), he writes that every

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960648/jewish/Issurei-B...

18. Sanhedrin, loc. cit., speaks about relations with one's mother-in-law, stating that only when one's wife is alive are these relations punishable by death. Since, however, the prohibition against relations with all the other five women mentioned above is derived from the prohibition against relations with one's mother-in-law, they are bound by the same laws (Maggid Mishneh).

concept derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis has the power of Scriptural Law. Nevertheless,

19. For Leviticus 18:18 explicitly states that the prohibition against relations with the sister of one's wife is "in her

commandments derived through these principles are not considered as part of the 613 mitzvot, but are instead "from

lifetime." While the wife is alive, even if she is divorced, the man is forbidden to engage in relations with her sister

the words of our Sages." The prohibition against relations with one's daughter, the

death, however, he may marry her sister.

[Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 15:26)]. After his wife's

Rambam states, is not in that category. Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah and Sanhedrin 76a uses

20. For his wife has not transgressed and there is no reason that

different principles of exegesis to derive it, it is not "from the

21. The Rambam is referring to Hilchot Gerushin 10:8-10 which

words of our Sages." Instead, it is as if it was explicitly stated in the Torah. From Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 9:2, it appears that the Rambam's intent is that since the Torah mentions the prohibition against relations with the daughter of one's daughter, the prohibition against relations with one's daughter is obvious. There is no need for the Torah to mention it. It must be mentioned that many other authorities do not follow the same understanding as the Rambam and consider concepts derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis as fully binding Scriptural Law. According to their understanding, there is no difficulty with the prohibition against relations with one's daughter being considered of Scriptural origin. 13. From the Ra'avad's statements, it appears that he does not require a sin offering for relations with one's daughter. The parenthesis are based on the understanding of the Maggid Mishneh.

she should become forbidden.

states: A man consecrated a woman, she journeyed to another country, the husband heard she died, and [then] married her sister. [If,] afterwards, it was discovered that she had not died, he must divorce both women.... Why did they require that the sister of the woman whom the man consecrated be divorced? Lest people say that the [first] kiddushin were given conditionally, [the condition was not fulfilled,] and thus the law would allow marriage to her sister. Since the [first] woman's sister was divorced... the man's first wife is also forbidden to him lest people think that he married his divorcee's sister. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam maintains that a divorce is required only in such an instance. If, by contrast, he enters into promiscuous relations with the sister

14. As stated in the following halachah.

of the woman he consecrated, he may still marry her if she consents. This explanation resolves the protests made by

15. When stating this law, Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 15:13)

the Ra'avad to the Rambam's statements.

emphasizes that if a man rapes a woman, after her death, he may marry her daughter who was conceived by another man. The Ramah adds that even if the rapist marries her daughter during her lifetime, he is not compelled to divorce her. 16. This is based on the Rambam's understanding of Sanhedrin 76b. Rashi, the Ramban, and the Rashba differ and maintain that after the death of the man's wife, he is prohibited against relations with her close relatives, but is not liable for kerait. 17. The use of the plural term "them" should not be interpreted to mean that the man's wife should be executed by being burnt to death. For what evil has she committed? Instead, the intent is that only in her lifetime is the death penalty applied

22. For the verses (Leviticus 18:18, 20:14) on which these prohibitions are based mention "taking," i.e., marriage. 23. See Yevamot 97a. 24. After her death, however, there are no restrictions on marrying her relatives (ibid., for the reason for the decree no longer applies. 25. For since he is married to one of her close relatives, she is an ervah for him. 26. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot 11:1), the Rambam states that this applies when the suspicion is verified.

(Rashi, Sanhedrin 76b).

8/21/2019 2:51 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Two - Texts & Writings

8 of 8

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960648/jewish/Issurei-B...

27. This ruling is derived from the law stated in the following clause of the halachah. The Ra' avad questions the Rambam's deduction, stating that extra stringency is appropriate with regard to one's mother-in-law, but otherwise, there is no need to enforce such a restriction. The Maggid Mishneh states that for that reason, lashes were given only with regard to one's mother-in-law, but agrees with the Rambam's ruling, stating that curbs should be placed on any conduct that may lead to promiscuity. See also Chapter 21, Halachah 27.

28. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:5 which states that a judge has the power to subject a person to lashes even if he is not liable according to Torah Law. 29. Halachah 3. 30. After she was widowed or divorced. 31. The Maggid Mishneh explains that a person has a natural affection for his close relatives. Those positive feelings provide a fertile ground of support for the marriage relationship to flourish. 32. Other Rishonim [Rashi, Rabbenu Tam (Sanhedrin 76) differ and maintain that the mitzvah applies only with regard to one's sister's daughter.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved. To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright

policy .

8/21/2019 2:51 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

1 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960649/jewish/Issurei-B...



Issurei Biah - Chapter Three Translated by Eliyahu Touger

SHOW CONTENT IN: Both

« Previous Issurei Biah - Chapter Two

English

Hebrew

Next » Issurei Biah - Chapter Four

When a person has relations with the wife of a minor, he is not liable.1[This applies] even to a yevamah with whom a nine year old [brother] had relations.2 Similar [laws apply when] a person has relations with the wife of a deaf-mute,3the wife of a mentally or emotionally unstable individual,4the wife of a tumtum or an androgynus,5a female deaf-mute or a woman who is mentally or emotionally unstable married to a mentally capable individual,6 or a woman whose consecration is of doubtful status or whose divorce is of doubtful status. In all of the above situations, one is not liable. If they willfully transgress, they are given stripes for rebellious conduct.

‫הבא על אשת קטן אפילו היתה‬ ‫יבמה שבא עליה בן ט' שנים ויום‬ ‫אחד הרי זה פטור וכן הבא על אשת חרש‬ ‫ושוטה ואשת טומטום ואנדרוגינוס ועל‬ ‫החרשת ועל השוטה אשת הפקח ועל‬ ‫אשה שהיא מקודשת בספק או מגורשת‬ ‫בספק כולן פטורין ואם היו מזידין מכין‬ :‫אותן מכת מרדות‬

[The following rules apply if a man] engages in relations with a female minor, the wife of an adult male. If she was consecrated by her father, [the adulterer] is executed by strangulation.7 She is not liable for anything,8 [but] she is forbidden to her husband,9 as explained in Hilchot Sotah.10

‫הבא על הקטנה אשת הגדול אם‬ ‫קידשה אביה הרי זה בחנק והיא‬ ‫פטורה מכלום ונאסרה על בעלה כמו‬ ‫שביארנו בהלכות סוטה ואם היא בת‬ ‫מיאון מכין אותו מכת מרדות והיא מותרת‬ :‫לבעלה ואפילו היה כהן‬

If she has the right to perform mi'un11, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct and she is permitted to [remain married] to her husband, even if he is a priest.12

8/21/2019 2:53 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

2 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960649/jewish/Issurei-B...

When the daughter of a priest commits adultery while married, she is executed by burning, as [Leviticus 21:9] states: "When the daughter of a man who is a priest will begin to commit adultery, [she will be burnt by fire]." [This applies] whether she is married to a priest or an Israelite. [Indeed,] even if her husband was a mamzer13 or a nitin14 or another whom it is forbidden to marry because of a negative commandment,15 [she is given this punishment].

‫בת כהן שזינתה כשהיא אשת איש בין‬ ‫שהיה בעלה כהן בין שהיה ישראל‬ ‫ואפילו היה בעלה ממזר או נתין או שאר‬ ‫מחייבי לאוין הרי זו בשריפה שנאמר ובת‬ ‫כהן כי תחל לזנות ובועלה בחנק וכן בת‬ ‫ישראל אשת כהן בחנק כדין כל אשת‬ :‫איש‬

The man who engages in adultery with her is executed by strangulation.16 Similarly, the daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest is [executed] by strangulation [if she commits adultery] as is the law with regard to any other married woman. When a man has relations with a consecrated maiden, they are both executed by stoning. They are not liable to be stoned to death until the maiden17 is a virgin, consecrated,18 and in her father's home. If she came of age19 or she entered the chupah20 even if the marriage was not consummated, they are executed by strangulation. [The lesser punishment is given] even if the father gave her to the emissaries of the husband21 and she committed adultery on the way.

‫הבא על נערה מאורשה שניהן‬ ‫בסקילה ואינן חייבין סקילה עד‬ ‫שתהיה נערה בתולה מאורשה והיא בבית‬ ‫אביה היתה בוגרת או שנכנסה לחופה אף‬ ‫על פי שלא נבעלה אפילו מסרה האב‬ :‫לשלוחי הבעל וזנתה בדרך הרי זו בחנק‬

When a man has relations with a girl who is a minor and is consecrated while she is living in her father's house, he is executed by stoning22 and she is not liable.23 When a consecrated maiden who is the daughter of a priest commits adultery, she is stoned to death.24

‫והבא על קטנה מאורשה בבית אביה‬ ‫הוא בסקילה והיא פטורה ונערה‬ :‫מאורשה בת כהן שזינתה בסקילה‬

8/21/2019 2:53 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

3 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960649/jewish/Issurei-B...

When ten men enter into relations with her one after the other while she is a virgin in her father's home, the first is executed by stoning and the remainder, by strangulation.25

‫באו עליה עשרה והיא בתולה ברשות‬ ‫אביה זה אחר זה הרי הראשון בסקילה‬ ‫וכולן בחנק )במה דברים אמורים שבאו‬ ‫עליה כדרכה אבל אם באו עליה שלא‬ :(‫כדרכה עדיין היא בתולה וכולן בסקילה‬

When does the above apply? When they had vaginal intercourse. If, however, they had anal intercourse, she is still a virgin and they are all executed by stoning.26 When a consecrated maiden was a freed slave or a convert, even if she was freed or converted before she reached the age of three,27 [the adulterer] is executed by strangulation,28 as is the law with regard to all married women.

‫נערה מאורשה שהיתה משוחררת או‬ ‫גיורת אע"פ שנשתחררה ונתגיירה‬ ‫והיא פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד‬ :‫הרי זו בחנק ככל אשת איש‬

There is a new law that applies to a person who spreads a malicious report [about his wife].29 What is this new [law]? That if the gossip is discovered to be true and witnesses come [and testify] that she committed adultery when she was a consecrated maiden, even if she committed adultery after she left her father's house and even if she committed adultery after she entered the marriage canopy before she had relations with her husband, she is stoned to death at the entrance to her father's house. Other consecrated maidens concerning whom a malicious report was not spread are executed by strangulation if they committed adultery after they left their father's home, as we explained.30

‫דין חדש יש במוציא שם רע ומה‬ ‫הוא החדוש שאם נמצא הדבר אמת‬ ‫ובאו עדים שזינתה כשהיתה נערה‬ ‫מאורשה אף על פי שזינתה אחר שיצאה‬ ‫מבית אביה ואפילו שזינתה אחר שנכנסה‬ ‫לחופה קודם בעילת הבעל סוקלין אותה‬ ‫על פתח בית אביה אבל שאר נערות‬ ‫מאורסות שלא היה להן דין הוצאת שם‬ ‫רע שזנו מאחר שיצאו מבית האב הרי הן‬ ‫בחנק כמו שביארנו הא למדת שבאשת‬ ‫איש שלש מיתות יש אשת איש שהיא‬ ‫בחנק ויש אשת איש שהיא בשריפה ויש‬ :‫אשת איש שהיא בסקילה‬

Thus there are three types of execution for adultery with a married women: strangulation,31 burning to death,32 and stoning to death.33

8/21/2019 2:53 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

4 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960649/jewish/Issurei-B...

Where is a consecrated maiden who committed adultery stoned to death? If she committed adultery while in her father's house, even though the witnesses did not testify until she went to her father-in-law's house and married, she is stoned to death at the entrance to her father's house.34 If she committed adultery in her father-in-law's house before her father conveyed her [to her husband], she is stoned to death at the entrance to the gate of the city.35 [This applies] even if [the witnesses] testified concerning her after she returned to her father's house.

‫והיכן סוקלין נערה מאורשה שזינתה‬ ‫אם זנתה בבית אביה אף על פי שלא‬ ‫העידו עליה העדים אלא אחר שבאה לבית‬ ‫חמיה )וניסת( הרי זו נסקלת על פתח בית‬ ‫אביה זינתה בבית חמיה קודם שימסור‬ ‫אותה האב אע"פ שהעידו עליה אחר‬ ‫שחזרה לבית אביה הרי זו נסקלת על פתח‬ :‫שער העיר ההיא‬

If witnesses come [and testify] after she comes of age36 or after her husband has relations with her, she is stoned to death in the place for stoning.37[This applies] even if they testify that she committed adultery in her father's home when she was a maiden.38

‫באו עדים אחר שבגרה או אחר‬ ‫שבעלה בעלה אף על פי שהעידו‬ ‫שזינתה בבית אביה כשהיתה נערה הרי זו‬ :‫נסקלת בבית הסקילה‬

If [a woman] was conceived before her mother converted and born after her mother converted, she is stoned at the entrance to the gate of the city.

‫היתה הורתה שלא בקדושה‬ ‫ולידתה בקדושה נסקלת על פתח‬ ‫שער העיר כל מי שמצותה לסקול אותה‬ ‫על פתח שער העיר אם היתה עיר שרובה‬ ‫עכו"ם סוקלין אותה על פתח ב"ד וכל מי‬ ‫שמצותה לסקול אותה על פתח בית אביה‬ ‫אם לא היה לה אב או שהיה לה אב ולא‬ ‫היה לו בית הרי זו נסקלת בבית הסקילה‬ :‫לא נאמר פתח בית אב אלא למצוה‬

[The following rule applies to] every woman who is obligated to be stoned at the entrance to the gate of the city. If the city is predominantly populated by gentiles, we stone her at the entrance to the court.39 [The following rule applies to] every woman who is obligated to be stoned at the entrance to her father's house, if she does not have a father or she has a father, but he does not have a house, she is stoned at the place for stoning. The "entrance to her father's house" was mentioned only as a mitzvah.40

8/21/2019 2:53 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

5 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960649/jewish/Issurei-B...

When a person engages in relations many times with one of the arayot, he is liable for kerait or execution by the court for every time he engages in relations.41 Although the court can only execute the person only once, the different times he engages in relations are considered as different transgressions. Similarly, if a person is liable for several different transgressions for engaging in relations once,42 if he transgressed inadvertently, he must bring a sacrifice for every transgression he performed even though he engaged in relations only once, as will be explained in Hilchot Shegagot43 If he transgressed intentionally, it is considered as if he violated many transgressions. Similarly, there is a situation where a person engages in relations once and incurs liability for lashes many times as will be explained.44 The term shifchah charufah employed by the Torah refers to [a woman] who is half a Canaanite maidservant and half a freed woman45 who has been consecrated by a Hebrew servant.46 [Concerning the infidelity of such a woman, Leviticus 19:20] states: "They shall not die, because she was not freed."47 If she was freed entirely, one is liable for execution by the court, for she becomes a married woman in a complete sense, as explained in Hilchot Ishut.48

‫הבא על ערוה מן העריות ביאות‬ ‫הרבה חייב כרת או מיתת בית דין‬ ‫על כל ביאה וביאה אע"פ שאין ב"ד יכולין‬ ‫להמית אלא מיתה אחת הרי הביאות‬ ‫נחשבות לו כעבירות הרבה וכן אם בא‬ ‫ביאה אחת שחייבין עליה משמות הרבה‬ ‫אם היה שוגג מביא קרבן על כל שם ושם‬ ‫אף על פי שהיא ביאה אחת כמו שיתבאר‬ ‫בהלכות שגגות ואם היה מזיד הרי זו‬ ‫נחשבת לו כעבירות הרבה וכן יש בא‬ ‫ביאה אחת ולוקה עליה מלקיות הרבה כמו‬ :‫שיתבאר‬

‫שפחה חרופה האמורה בתורה היא‬ ‫שחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין‬ ‫ומקודשת לעבד עברי שנאמר לא יומתו כי‬ ‫לא חופשה הא אם נשתחררה כולה חייבין‬ ‫עליה מיתת ב"ד שהרי נעשית אשת איש‬ :‫גמורה כמו שביארנו בהלכות אישות‬

8/21/2019 2:53 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

6 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960649/jewish/Issurei-B...

[The laws regarding] relations with this maidservant are different than [those regarding] all other forbidden relations in the Torah. For she is lashed, as [ibid.] states: "There shall be an inquiry."49 He is liable to bring a guilt offering, as [ibid.:21] states: "And he shall bring his guilt offering."50Whether he transgresses intentionally or inadvertently with a shifchah charufah, he must bring a guilt offering.

‫ביאת שפחה זו משונה מכל ביאות‬ ‫אסורות שבתורה שהרי היא לוקה‬ ‫שנאמר בקורת תהיה והוא חייב קרבן‬ ‫אשם שנאמר והביא את אשמו אחד שוגג‬ ‫אחד מזיד בשפחה חרופה מביא אשם‬ ‫והבא עליה ביאות הרבה בין בזדון בין‬ ‫בשגגה מביא אשם אחד אבל היא חייבת‬ ‫מלקות על כל ביאה וביאה אם היתה‬ :‫מזידה כשאר חייבי לאוין‬

When he enters into relations with her many times, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he is required to bring only one sacrifice.51 She, however, is liable for lashes for every act of relations if she acted intentionally, as is the law with regard to other instances [where relations are forbidden] by merely a negative commandment. When a person just inserts his corona into the female organ of the shifchah charufah, but does not insert the entire organ, he is not liable. [Liability is incurred only when] he inserts the entire organ.52 He is only liable when she is above majority, had engaged in relations previously and acts intentionally and willfully.53 If, however, she is a minor, she had never engaged in relations, or she transgressed inadvertently, was raped, or was sleeping, he is not liable. Similarly, if he had anal intercourse with her, he is not liable, for with regard to a shifchah charufah an equation was not established between vaginal intercourse and anal intercourse, for [Leviticus 19:20] speaks of: "ly[ing] while emitting seed."54 With regard to other [forbidden] relations, the Torah did not distinguish between one type of relations and the other, for [ibid. 18:22] speaks of "the ways [in which a man] lies with a woman." Implied is that the Torah recognizes two ways of lying with a woman.

‫המערה בשפחה חרופה ולא גמר‬ ‫ביאתו פטור עד שיגמור ביאתו‬ ‫ואינו חייב אלא על הגדולה הבעולה‬ ‫המזידה וברצונה אבל אם היתה קטנה או‬ ‫שלא היתה בעולה או היתה שוגגת או‬ ‫אנוסה או ישנה פטור ]וכן אם בא עליה‬ ‫שלא כדרכה פטור שבשפחה חרופה לא‬ ‫השוה ביאה כדרכה לביאה שלא כדרכה‬ ‫שנאמר שכבת זרע אבל בשאר ביאות לא‬ ‫חלק בין ביאה לביאה שנאמר משכבי‬ ‫אשה מגיד ]לך[ הכתוב ששני משכבות‬ :[‫באשה‬

8/21/2019 2:53 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

7 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960649/jewish/Issurei-B...

In every instance concerning a maidservant where we said there was no liability, he is not liable for a sacrifice and she is not liable for lashes. He,55 however, is given "stripes for rebellious conduct" according to Rabbinic Law56 if they were both adults who acted intentionally.

‫כל מקום שאמרנו בשפחה שהוא‬ ‫פטור הוא פטור מן הקרבן והיא‬ ‫פטורה מן המלקות אבל מכין אותו מכת‬ ‫מרדות מדבריהם אם היו שניהן מזידין‬ :‫וגדולים‬

When a youth nine years old engages in relations with a shifchah charufah, she is given lashes and he is required to bring a sacrifice,57 provided that she is an adult, not a virgin, and acts willfully, as we explained.58For a man is not liable to bring a sacrifice until she is liable for lashes, as [implied by] the verse: "There shall be an inquiry.... And he shall bring his guilt offering."

‫בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על‬ ‫שפחה חרופה היא לוקה והוא מביא‬ ‫קרבן והוא שתהיה גדולה ובעולה וברצונה‬ ‫כמו שביארנו שאין האיש חייב קרבן עד‬ ‫שתתחייב היא מלקות שנאמר בקורת‬ :‫תהיה והביא את אשמו‬

« Previous Issurei Biah - Chapter Two

Next » Issurei Biah - Chapter Four

FOOTNOTES 1. For there is no concept of marriage with regard to a male

5. As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 1, Halachah 15, there

below the age of majority. The term liable in this context means "liable for execution" if

is an unresolved doubt with regard to the halachic status of an androgynus and a doubt with regard to the physiological

the transgression was performed willfully or "liable for a sacrifice" if it was performed inadvertently.

makeup of a tumtum. Hence we cannot be certain whether

2. A yevamah is a childless widow whom one of the brothers of

the adulterer is engaging in relations with a woman whose marriage is halachicly significant.

the deceased is obligated to marry. Now, relations with a yevamah do not require the conscious intent of the brother

6. Since such women are not considered as capable of making responsible decisions, the man's consecration is not effective

who seeks to marry her (Hilchot Yibbum 2:3) and relations carried out by a nine year old are of consequence in certain

according to Scriptural Law. And since the consecration is not effective according to Scriptural Law, there are no

contexts (Chapter 1, Halachah 14). Hence, one might think that by carrying out relations with the yevamah, the nine year

punishments that result from it. In particular, however, there is a difference between the two situations, for the

old would acquire her as his wife. See also Hilchot Yibbum

consecration of a woman who is mentally or emotionally unstable is not effective at all. The consecration of a female

5:18. 3. A deaf-mute is not considered of sufficient mental capacity to be responsible for his actions. Hence, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Ishut 4:9, he cannot consecrate a woman

deaf-mute, by contrast, is effective according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit.). 7. He is given the punishment due any adulterer, for the

according to Scriptural Law. Although according to Rabbinic Law, his consecration is binding, he is not held liable for

consecration is binding according to Scriptural Law (Hilchot

execution or a sacrifice for violating a Rabbinic prohibition.

couple later married. Otherwise, the adulterer would be stoned to death. Also, it is speaking about a situation where

4. In this instance, the consecration is not binding even according to Rabbinic Law (ibid.).

Ishut3:11). This is speaking about a situation where the

the child is over three years old. Otherwise, the relations are not significant.

8/21/2019 2:53 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

8 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960649/jewish/Issurei-B...

8. Neither punishment, nor a sacrifice. For she is a minor and is not responsible for her conduct.

17. The term maiden has a specific halachic definition: a girl who at the age of 12 (or over) manifested signs of physical

9. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Gerushin 11:14, a woman

maturity. She remains in this category for six months (Hilchot

who engages in adulterous relations becomes forbidden to her husband. 10. Chapter 2, Halachah 4. The Ra'avad both here and in Hilchot Sotah differs with the Rambam, basing his objections on Yevamot 33b which states "The seduction of a minor is always considered equivalent to rape." Since she is not responsible for her actions, her consent is of no significance.

Ishut 2:1). 18. But not married. 19. I.e., the six months mentioned above passed. 20. I.e., completed the marriage ceremony. 21. For from this time, she is no longer under her father's control. 22. Although the verse speaks about "a consecrated maiden,"

And if a woman is raped, she is permitted to her husband if he is not a priest (Hilchot Ishut 24:19).

relations with even a younger girl are given the same punishment.

The Maggid Mishneh admits that the question raised by the

23. Since she is a minor, she is not responsible for her actions

Ra'avad is substantial, but points to a passage in Ketubot 9a which appears to support the Rambam's decision. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 178:3) cites both views without stating which to favor. The Beit Shmuel 178:3 states that the Ra'avad's view is accepted by most authorities. 11. Mi'un refers to a means of terminating a Rabbinically originated marriage arrangement. When a girl's father is not alive, our Sages gave her mother and/or her brothers the

and is not subjected to any punishment. 24. I.e., she is given the more severe punishment. 25. Because after relations with the first, she is no longer a virgin. Hence, they are given the ordinary penalty for adultery. 26. For with regard to punishment, there is no difference between anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse.

opportunity to consecrate her. This consecration is not binding according to Scriptural Law (see Hilchot Ishut 4:8,

27. In which instance, even if she had engaged in relations

Hilchot Gerushin 11:1). Hence, an adulterer is not punished

28. Ketubot 44a states that this concept is derived from a

for relations with her. This law also applies to a deaf-mute and anyone else whose consecration is acceptable only according to Rabbinic Law (Rav David Arameah).

beforehand, her signs of virginity would return.

Scriptural reference. When speaking of this transgression, Deuteronomy 22:21 states: "He committed an abuse in Israel," i.e., involving a native-born Jewess. In his Commentary to the Mishneh (Ketubot 4:3), the Rambam

12. A priest is not allowed to remain married to a woman who engaged in forbidden relations, even if she was compelled to

offers a different explanation, one which has raised questions among the commentaries.

do so. Nevertheless, in this instance, she can end her marriage whenever she desires without a formal divorce, it is

29. See Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and Hilchot Na'arah, ch. 3,

as if she was never married. Hence, her "adultery" is not of consequence. 13. A person born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship whom it is forbidden to marry. 14. See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23, which explain that this term refers to a person descended from one of the seven Canaanite nations who converted. Such a person is forbidden to marry into the Jewish people. 15. When the prohibition against marriage is punishable by execution or kerait, the marriage is not considered valid and

where this instance is discussed. A man enters into relations with his newly-wed wife and afterwards, claims she is not a virgin. Moreover, he produces witnesses who testify that the women committed adultery before entering into relations with him. If the testimony of the witnesses is not disproved, the women is executed as the Rambam continues to explain. 30. Halachah 4. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that once a woman enters the marriage canopy as a virgin, she is executed by strangulation as are all other married women. The difference of opinion centers on the interpretation of Ketubot 45a. Rashi and Tosafot also differ in their interpretation of that passage.

there is no punishment for adultery. If, however, it is forbidden only by a negative prohibition, the marriage is

31. An ordinary case of adultery.

binding.

32. The daughter of a priest who committed adultery.

16. For the Torah states the severe punishment only for the woman herself.

33. A consecrated maiden who committed adultery in her father's house or a maiden about whom a malicious report was spread and it was discovered to be true. 34. As Ketubot 45a states, this is intended to dishonor her parents, as if to say: "See the offspring which you raised."

8/21/2019 2:53 PM

Issurei Biah - Chapter Three - Texts & Writings

9 of 10

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960649/jewish/Issurei-B...

35. As stated in Deuteronomy 22:23. This is a mark of dishonor for the city, a sign that the environment is not moral. The

45. Such a situation is possible when a Canaanite maidservant was owned by two partners. One released her from bondage

Rambam's ruling is based on his version of Ketubot 45a.

and one did not. In this situation, she is obligated to serve her master one day and on the following day, she is free to

Rashi (and the standard published text of that passage) follow a different version. Or Sameach states that since the transgression did not take place in her father's home, it is not fitting that he be dishonored in this fashion.

do as she chooses. 46. In contrast to other Jewish men, a Hebrew servant is permitted to engage in relations with a Canaanite

36. I.e., six months after she manifests signs of physical maturity.

maid-servant. Hence, the fact that this woman is half a maid-servant will not represent a difficulty for him. And

37. As Hilchot Sanhedrin 13:1, 15:1, the place for stoning was a

because, she is half a freed woman, he may consecrate her.

two storey building somewhat removed from the city. 38. Since she has already come of age, the laws governing her change and she is not stoned at her father's house. If she would commit adultery at this age, she would be executed by

47. And since she was not freed, the Hebrew servant's consecration of her is contingent on her freedom. Until she is freed, they are not fully married. 48. Chapter 4, Halachah 16.

strangulation. Hence, when she is punished for the adultery she committed beforehand, her sentence is commuted

49. Keritot 11a interprets this phrase as indicating that she - and

somewhat and she is not executed at her parents' home (Maggid Mishneh).

50. See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 9, which describes the particulars

The Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh himself note that

not the man - should be given the above punishment.

of this sacrifice.

when a man spreads a malicious report about a woman and

51. Keritot 9a derives this concept through the principles of

his statements are proved to be correct, the woman is executed at her fat