Recent Activity on Sefaria פעילות אחרונה בספריא

Rabbi David G. Winship published a new Source Sheet, Being A Good Teacher Is Hard.
24 minutes ago
Rachel Axelrad published a new Source Sheet, Introduction to Leviticus.
4 hours ago
Michael Kimmel published a new Source Sheet, [sheet not found].
6 hours ago
Michael Kimmel published a new Source Sheet, [sheet not found].
7 hours ago
Michael Kimmel published a new Source Sheet, [sheet not found].
7 hours ago
Jonathan Emanuel published a new Source Sheet, A Nation of Storytellers.
7 hours ago
Menachem Ahmad published a new Source Sheet, The Four Lights of Heaven.
9 hours ago
Uriel Cohen published a new Source Sheet, Teshuva Shiur 1.
12 hours ago
Rabbi Steven Schwarzman published a new Source Sheet, The Essence of Repentance (Teshuvah) from Rambam's Mishneh Torah.
12 hours ago
Matthew Jacobson published a new Source Sheet, Milo Mann Bar Mitzvah.
13 hours ago
Matthew Jacobson published a new Source Sheet, Neal Kauffman Bar Mitzvah.
13 hours ago
Naomi Misonzhnik published a new Source Sheet, יעקב בונה את ביתו ב'.
13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Peri HaAretz, Re'eh 3 history »
Version: Pri Haaretz, Kopyst 1814 (Hebrew)

ראה אנכי נותן לפניכם היום ברכה וקללה את הברכה כו', דקדק הרב לשון נותן שהוא כמו דבר גשמי הנותן מיד ליד. והקדים הרב לזה דברי הבעל עבודת הקודש שהקשה על כל היעודים הגשמיים שבתור' כמו אם בחוקותי תלכו ונתתי גשמיכם בעתם אשר התמיה רבה וכי כל שכר המצות הוא זה הגשמיות ואמר בעל הספר הנ"ל שלא הזכירה התורה היעודים דרך שכר כ"א דרך הנהגה שממילא יהיה כן אמו אם בחוקותי תלכו השכר מצוה הוא מצוה והדביקות הרוחנית אבל הגשמי' ממילא ימשך ויהי כן ונתתי גשמיכם שבודאי יהי' כן אחר היותו דבוק בחיות אלהות אבל אין זה אמור לשכר והנה ענין ולשון ברכה הוא לשון בריכת מים שהוא הנביעה והשפעה אבל רוב ברכות בגשמית שהוא ענין התפשטות ומלוי חפצו בגשמית אפילו בדברים המיותרים הוא מאוס מאוד דהנה התאות נק' ע"ש טיט וצואה ולכלוך כל דבר ולא מן השם היא אלא יותר גרוע מטיט וצואה וסרחון שכל ענין סרחון הוא הכליון והפסד מהויתו הראשון מתחיל להסריח וכן כל התאות גשמית שמוליד בעצמו תולדתו הוא הסרחון שהוא הכליון והפסד מהויתו הראשון שהוא אהבת ה' ית' וכמו שצואת אדם מסרחת יותר מכולם כמבואר בהרחקת ק"ש דוקא מצואת אדם ולא של בהמות ועופות וזהו ענינו שלפי גדולתו מפלתו אחר היות האדם העולה על כולם לכן ההפסד והכליון שבו הוא מהיפוך להיפוך מאיגרא רמא לבירא עמיקתא ולפ"ע גודל ההפסד כן גודל הסרחון משא"כ בשאר ב"ח ועד"ז במלוי התאות שהוא ההפסד היותר גדול וכליון חרוץ מהיפוך להיפוך מאהבתו ית' שהוא א"ס אל אהבת התאות רחמנא ליצלן בודאי אין ערך אל גודל הסרחון ומיאוס וזהו שכל לשון חסד הוא חרפה ומיאוס כמאמ' בפ' עריות חסד הוא ונכרתו ופי' לשון חיסודא כי מבנין החסד מסתעפים התאות וזהו ענין וגעלה נפשי אתכם אמור בתוכחה שהאלהות מואס בהפסדו שהם התאות והעבירות ר"ל כאדם שמיאס בסרחון היוצא ממנו והפסדו ועד"ז נסמית עינו של בלעם הרשע על שאמר ומספר את רובע ישראל רביעותיהן של ישראל אמר מי שהוא קדוש ומשרתיו קדושים יסתכל בדבר זה שהוא ענין התאוה והמיאוס אבל באמת אין הענין כדבריו שהפרישות מכל הגשמית נגד גמירא א"א שרי וחי בהם כתיב אם אמנם בודאי יהי' טהור וקדוש יהיה כמלאכי השרת אעפ"כ לא נתנה תורה למלאכי השרת שהפרישית מכל וכל הוא ענין ההסתלקות מהגבורה ומדת הדין שאין העולם מתקיים בו כי אם ע"י שתוף מדה"ר למדה"ד שהוא המשקל ומאזני צדק המכריע בינתים פלס מעגל רגליו וכל עניני מדותיו לדעת ה' בכל דרכיו וכל מעשיו לכבוד בוראו בלתי לה' לבדו והמותר יהרס כי בהכניס הבורא בתוך מעשהו הרי הוא מחיה הדבר כמאמר ואתה מחיה את כולם ובודאי לא יכלה ולא יפסיד ולא יסריח ואינו נק' תאוה כלל כי אם מצוה לשון ציותא שהוא הדביקות האמיתי אפילו בשפלים התחתונים וגשמים ריח נחוח לה' שאמר ונעשה רצונו והיא השמחה היותר גדול' לפניו ית' ואין קץ לשמחת עבודת הגשמים יתר על כל הרוחנים והראי' לזה שהרי אנו מצים לתחיית המתים שיהיה לעתיד ב"ב ולא כל אדם זוכה כי לא כן הרשעים. ולכאורה תמוה מה ענין השמחה בהתחדש הגוף הגשמי והלבשת הגשמי בו הלא טוב לו אז בעולמות עליונים בלי גוף מעתה בגוף אבל האמת הוא כדברינו מגודל שמחת עבודת הגוף לבורא ית"ש אין קץ וזהו שביקש משה ליכנס לא"י וכי לאכול מפרי' הוא צריך אלא לקיים המצות התלויות בארץ בעודו בגוף. והנה ענייני התאוות והמדות בגשמיות שהמה לשם מצוה כמו האהבה בפו"ר וההיראה בדיני נפשות לדון המחויב המה מתנות באדם אשר לקח השרע"ה משרי' העליוני' בקבלת התורה כמבואר בזוהר שבלא"ה לא תנאף אפי' עם אשתו משמע וכן לא תרצח אבל מה שלשם מצוה הוא החיות של אותה התאווה שויתרו ישמעאל ואדום שרים העליונים משלהם וזהו שניסתמת עינו של בלעם הרשע על תמיהתו הנ"ל שבוודאי מותר תאוות הגשמיות להנאת הגוף המה' סרחון לכלוך וצואה אפי' בבמות' לו השי"ת ב"ה מואס בו אבל מה שהו' לצור' הגוף ולש' מצו' בודאי השי"ת מסתכל ומאיר בו בהכניס כוונתו לכבודו ית' ואותו ניצוץ מחי' ומאיר את הכל כענין הנר שהוא ניצוץ אור קטן דוחה את כל החושך מן החדר וגורם אפשריות ההסתכלות בכל החדר. וזהו ענין הברכה המסתעף בדבר ע"י מעשה המצוה שבתוכו כענין הברכה מן המעשר ולא דווקא במ"ע אלא אפי' בל"ת שהמה שס"ה כמו שס"ה גידין ע"ש נהר נגיד שהוא המשכה אור מחיות במצות שהם אברי הנשמה וכן מתברך פרי בטנו במצות לא תנאף אבל אין הברכה נקרא ע"ש הגשמיות בהתפשטותו כ"א ניצוץ כוונת כבודו ית' שמכניס בתוך הגשמיות הוא הנק' ברכה כמאמר הזוהר איהו ברוך ואיהו ברכה כי הכוונה גורם בהסתכלותו ית' בו והראיה וזהו ראה אנכי שהוא ענין אנכי ה' אלהיך שהוא אחדותו ית' להמשיך ע"ע בכ"ד ליחיד שמו ית' הסתכלו' וראי' זו הוא הנותן לפניכם ברכה וכו' ואין הברכה על מעשה הגשמיות כ"א את הברכה אשר תשמעון אל מצות ה' שהוא ענין בכל דרכיך דעהו ואפ"ל זהו פי' ומוראכם וחתכם יהיה על כל חית הארץ כי יראת ה' שבאדם היא ההשפעה שפע על כל חית הארץ.

13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited version metadata for Peri HaAretz.
Version: Pri Haaretz, Kopyst 1814 (Hebrew)

13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Chovat HaTalmidim 12:14 and 2 others »
Version: Chovat HaTalmidim, Warsaw 1932 (Hebrew)

נכון שבעת הלימוד תעשה איזה שינוי מעשה בגופך, כגון שנוי מקום,‏ אם אפשר לך שלא תלמד בביתך, תשתדל בכל יכולתך ללכת אל מקום אחר,‏ ואם אין לך מקום אחר ללמוד או שבמקום ההוא נמצאים אנשים בטלים אשר יבטלוך,‏ עכ״פ בביתך יהי׳ קבוע לך חדר מיוחד או עכ״פ מקום מיוחד ללמוד ודברים בגו,‏ כי‏ חוץ מזה שהמקום שאתה מיחד לתורה מתקדש ומסוגל יותר לתורה,‏ העשי׳ בעצמה והשנוי שתעשה עתה בפועל בגופך לתורה,‏ פועלת לשנות גם את מהחשבותיך וכל רעיונותיך,‏ ולהפסיק כל פתיליהן אשר חברו אותן עד עתה לעניני העולם,‏ וכמו הגוף גם נפשך ומחשבותיך תקומנה מתרדמתן או מעסקי העולם שהיו עוסקות בהם לאמר לעצמן די,‏ נתחזק מעתה לעבודת התורה.

14 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Tiferet Yisrael 34:11 history »
Version: Tiferet Yisrael, with footnotes and annotations by Rabbi Yehoshua D. Hartman, Machon Yerushalyim, 2010 (Hebrew)

וקאמר רבי ישמעאל, שהיו אומרים על הן - הן, ועל לאו - לאו. באור זה, כי היו מקבלים כל דבור כפי מה שהוא. כי כאשר אמר "אנכי", היו מקבלים עליהם הדבור לומר כי יכך נעשה. וכאשר אמר "לא יהיה לך", קבלו עליהם הדבור לא יהיה לנו אלהים אחרים. כפי אשר היה הדבור - היו מקבלים עליהם הדבור. אבל רבי עקיבא סבר, כאשר אמר להן "אנכי וגו'", היו מקבלין עליהן הדבור לומר כי כך נעשה. וכאשר אמר "לא יהיה לך" קבלו גם כן הם*, כלומר דבר זה כמו שגזרת עלינו. על דעת רבי ישמעאל היה הקבלה מחולקת לעשה ולא תעשה. ולדעת רבי עקיבא היה קבלה אחת - רק כך נעשה כמו שגזרת. וטעם רבי ישמעאל, כי צריך שתהיה קבלת הגזרה כאשר היא עצם הגזרה בעצמה; אם הגזרה לעשות דבר, כך הקבלה לעשות דבר זה. ואם הגזרה שלא לעשות דבר זה, קבלת הגזרה כך גם כן, שלא לעשות דבר זה. אבל רבי עקיבא סבר, שאין קבלת הגזרה רק לקבל בלבד הגזרה, תהיה הגזרה מה שהיא הגזרה. ולכך היו אומרים על לאו ועל הן קבלת הגזרה בענין אחד. והיינו שאמרו 'הן', כי דבר זה הוא מצד המקבל, שהוא מקבל עליו כל מה שיאמר הגוזר לדבר שלא יעשה, או מה שיעשה, אין צריך רק שיקבל, שהוא מוכן לעשות רצון הגוזר, וזה שיאמר 'הן'. ודי בזה.

14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Mishnah Tamid 1:1 and Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 5:10

14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection between Mishnah Tamid 1:1 and Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 5:9
(automatic citation link)

14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 5:10 and 2 others »
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007 (English)

Outside the Temple Courtyard,43Although 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. on its northern side,44To the right upon entering the Temple Courtyard. was a large structure between the Courtyard and the chayl. It was built with a dome45As a roof. and [its inner walls] were surrounded with stone protrusions.46On which the priests slept at night (Tamid 1:1). It was called the Chamber of the Hearth.47Because the priests kindled a fire there to keep warm. It contained two entrances: one to the Temple Courtyard48Each morning, the priests entered the Courtyard through this entrance to prepare it for the morning sacrifices. and one to the chayl.49A priest who became impure at night and therefore, could not participate in the Temple services would leave through this exit. There were four chambers inside it.50Middot 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. Two were consecrated51Thus they were considered extensions of the Temple Courtyard. This distinction is significant in regard to the prohibition against eating the sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity outside the Temple Courtyard. and two were not.52According to the interpretation of the Kessef Mishneh mentioned above, this statement is quite clear. Two 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. Marking posts53In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam defines "marking posts" as "a lattice divider, sometimes made of reeds, sometimes made of wood, and at other times, made of other building materials." They were placed on the ceiling of this structure. separated the consecrated [chambers] from those which were not consecrated.54In 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. For what purpose were they used? The southwestern [chamber]55The chamber to the right when facing the Temple Courtyard. was the Chamber of the Lambs.56Here 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. The southeastern [chamber]57The southeastern [chamber] - The chamber to the left when facing the Temple Courtyard. was the Chamber of the Bakers of the Showbread.58Here, the Showbread offered each Sabbath on the Golden Table was baked. [In] the northeastern [chamber], the Hasmoneans entombed the stones of the Altar59See Chapter 1, Halachah 15. which were defiled by the Greek kings.60The Greeks who occupied Jerusalem before the Maccabean revolt defiled the altar by offering sacrifices to idols upon it. Tamid 3:3 mentions that there was a Chamber of Seals within the Chamber of the Hearth. There, the priests would authorize the sale of the wine and meal offerings. In his 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. [In] the northwestern chamber, [a stairwell] descended to the mikveh.61As explained in the following halachah.

14 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Ralbag on Proverbs 31:14:1 history »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

היתה כאניות. הסוחרי' הגדולי' שיביאו סחורותיהם מארץ מרחק כן תביא מזונ' ממרחק למה שיצטרך אל השכל בדרושים יקשה לעמוד מן החוש אם לא בשוטט בארצות או בעדות מהקודמי' אשר ראוי לבטוח בהטם שיגידו האמת:¶

14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Rosh Hashanah 14b:6 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Vocalized Aramaic (Hebrew)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא גְּמָרֵיהּ אִסְתַּפַּק לֵיהּ, וְלָא יְדַע אִי בֵּית הִלֵּל בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט א~~וֹמֵ~~ֲמוּר, אִי בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בִּשְׁבָט א~~וֹמֵ~~ֲמוּר.

14 hours ago
User None added a connection between Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 293:4:1 and Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 29:11
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
User None added a connection between Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 293:4:1 and Mishneh Torah, Prayer and the Priestly Blessing 3:7
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection between Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 293:4:1 and Mishneh Torah, Prayer and the Priestly Blessing 3
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection between Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 293:4:1 and Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 29
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 293:4:1 and Mishneh Torah, Prayer and the Priestly Blessing 3:7

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 293:4:1 and Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 29:11

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 293:4:1 history »
Version: Tur Orach Chaim, Vilna, 1923 (Hebrew)

ומ"ש רבינו וקורין ק"ש בברכותיה וכו' ה"פ וקורין ק"ש אחר צאת הכוכבים ומתפללין י"ח קודם לכן והרמב"ם בפ"ג מהל' תפלה כתב ויש לו להתפלל תפלת ערבית של לילי שבת בע"ש קודם שתשקע החמה וכן יתפלל ערבית של מ"מש בשבת לפי שתפלת ערבית רשות אין מדקדקין בזמנה ובלבד שיקרא ק"ש בזמנה אחר צאת הכוכבים עכ"ל ובפכ"ט מהל' שבת כתב יש לו לאדם לקדש ע"ש מבע"י אע"פ שלא נכנסה השבת וכן מבדיל על הכוס מבע"י אע"פ שעדיין הוא שבת שמצות זכירה לאמרה בין בשעת כניסתו ויציאתו בין קודם לשעה זו כמעט וכתב ה"ה שפירושו שאע"פ שמבע"י קדש או הבדיל מותר לו לערב לאכול בקידוש זה ולאכול ולעשות בהבדלה זו מלאכה וזה דעת קצת מן הגאונים וכ"כ מן האחרונים וכדברי רבינו וכן עיקר עכ"ל ולזה הסכים הרשב"א בריש פרק תפלת השחר:

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Yitro, Torah Ohr 18 history »
Version: Shney Luchot Habrit by Rabbi Eliyahu Munk (English)

Keeping this in mind it is easy to understand that the Ten Commandments contain within them the whole Torah in "capsule form." The Ten Commandments consist of 620 letters, corresponding to כתר תורה. 613 of these letters represent the 613 commandments of the Torah that are addressed to the Jewish people, whereas the other 7seven letters represent the ~~7 Noachide laws addressed to all of mankind~~seven rabbinic commandments, as the earlier authorities wrote. It is fairly obvious then that the Ten Commandments more than any other part of the Torah contain the mystical dimension of the Ineffable Name. The shape and size of the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were engraved allude to the letters of the Ineffable Name. The number 10 corresponds to the letter י of that name, the 5 Commandments engraved on either one of the tablets correspond to the two letters ה of the Ineffable Name; the letter ו is represented by the height, width and thickness of the tablets, i.e. 6 טפחים, handbreadths each. When we "cube" the dimensions of the tablets, 6 by 6 by 6, we obtain 216 cubic טפחים. This number equals the mystical dimension of the Ineffable Name when we spell the letters as words, using the method involving the letter י. This is how it appears: 15=הי + ;22=ויו + ;15=הי + ;20=יוד; the total you obtain is 72. Viewing this number in the three dimensions of the tablets, you arrive at three times 72=216. This number corresponds to the number of letters (three times 72 in each verse) in the three successive verses in Exodus 14: 19,20,21, describing the interposition of G–d's angel between the camp of the Israelites and that of the Egyptians. The author of גינת אגוז comments that the Ineffable Name (spelled in letters) amounts to 26, and that this number equals the numerical value of the Ten Commandments, [no explanation is offered as to how that number is arrived at. Ed.] The author adds that there are 620 letters in the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the numerical value of the word כתר.

15 hours ago
User None added a connection between Genesis 25:18 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:9:3
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection between Genesis 25 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:9:3
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection (commentary) between Isaiah 16:9 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:9:3
(automatic commentary link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Genesis 25:18 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:9:2

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Genesis 25 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:9:2

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:9:3 and 2 others »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

נפל. ענין חניה כמו על פני כל אחיו נפל (ברא׳ כה):

15 hours ago
2 related »
User None added a connection between Isaiah 5 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:5
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
User None added a connection between Judges 15:9 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:8
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection between Judges 15 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:8
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection (commentary) between Isaiah 16:8 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:8
(automatic commentary link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Judges 15:9 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:7

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Judges 15 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:7

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:8 history »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

נטשו. ענין פזור והתפשטות כמו וינטשו בלחי (שופטים טו):

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection between Joshua 8:15 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:6
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:7 history »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

~~נטשו~~שלחותיה. ענין ~~פזור ו~~התפשטות ~~כמו וינטשו בלחי (שופטים טו~~הענפים וכן שלחיך פרדס רמונים (ש״ה ד):

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Joshua 8:15 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:5

15 hours ago
User None added a connection between Judges 5:26 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:4
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:6 history »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

~~שלהותיה. ענין התפשטות הענפים וכן שלחיך פרדס רמונים (ש״ה ד~~נגעו. מל' נגע ור״ל נגפו וכן וינגעו יהושע וכל ישראל (יהושע ח׳:ט״ו):

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection between Judges 5 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:4
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Isaiah 5:2 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:4

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:5 history »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

~~נגעו. מלי נגע ור״ל נגפו וכן וינגעו יהושע וכל ישראל (יהושע ח׳:ט״ו~~שרוקיה. זמורות נבחרים כמו ויטעהו שורק (לעיל ה):

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Judges 5:26 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:3

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Judges 5 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:3

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:8:4 and 2 others »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

~~שרוקיה. זמורות נבחרים כמו ויטעהו שורק (לעיל~~הלמו. ענין שבירה כמו והלמה סיסרא (שופטים ה):

15 hours ago
2 related »
User None added a connection between Isaiah 8 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:7:3
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection between Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:7:4 and Psalms 35:15
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:7:3 and Psalms 35:15

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection (commentary) between Isaiah 16:7 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:7:4
(automatic commentary link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:7:4 history »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

נכאים. ענין שבירה כמו נאספו עלי נכים (תהילים ל״ה:ט״ו):

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Isaiah 8:19 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:7:2

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 16:7:3 and 2 others »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

~~נכאים~~תהגו. ענין ~~שביר~~המיה כמו ~~נאספו עלי נכים (תהילים ל״ה:ט״ו~~המצפצפים והמהגים (לעיל ח):

15 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman added a connection (commentary) between Isaiah 16:5 and Metzudat David on Isaiah 16:5:6
(automatic commentary link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat David on Isaiah 16:5:6 history »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

ומהיר צדק. יהיה מהיר וזריז לעשות צדק ומוסב למעלה לומר הואיל ונפל סנחריב והוכן כסא חזקיה אם כן יכולים היו לחזור למקומם אם היית מסתירם:

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection (commentary) between Isaiah 16:5 and Metzudat David on Isaiah 16:5:5
(automatic commentary link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat David on Isaiah 16:5:5 and 4 others »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

ודורש. יחקור מעצמו לעשות משפט העשוקים ואף אם לא יצעקו לפניו:

15 hours ago
4 related »
Shmuel Weissman added a connection (commentary) between Isaiah 15:9 and Metzudat David on Isaiah 15:9:5
(automatic commentary link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat David on Isaiah 15:9:5 and 3 others »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

ולשארית אדמה. על הנשארי׳ באדמת מואב יבוא האריה וחיתו יער וכפל הדבר במ״ש לחוזק הענין:

15 hours ago
3 related »
User None added a connection between Menachot 87a:16 and Rashi on Isaiah 15:6:3
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection between Menachot 87a and Rashi on Isaiah 15:6:3
(automatic citation link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Menachot 87a:16 and Rashi on Isaiah 15:6:3

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Rashi on Isaiah 15:6:3 history »
Version: Sefaria vocalized edition (Hebrew)

כִּי יָבֵשׁ חָצִיר וגו׳. כְּלוֹמַר, גִּבּוֹרֵיהֶם וּמַלְכֵיהֶם וְשַׁלִּיטֵיהֶם. וּלְפִי שֶׁשִּׁבְחָהּ שֶׁל אֶרֶץ מוֹאָב הוּא מִרְעֶה הַטּוֹב שֶׁבָּהּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ (מנחות פז א): אֵילִים מִמּוֹאָב, לְפִיכָךְ מָשַׁל אֶת פֻּרְעָנוּתָה בְּחֻרְבַּן מִרְעֶה שֶׁלָּהּ:

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection (commentary) between Isaiah 15:4 and Metzudat David on Isaiah 15:4:4
(automatic commentary link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat David on Isaiah 15:4:4 and 3 others »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

נפשו ירעה לו. נפשו של מואב ירעה תרועת שבר על עצמו:

15 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman added a connection (commentary) between Isaiah 15:3 and Metzudat David on Isaiah 15:3:2
(automatic commentary link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat David on Isaiah 15:3:2 and 2 others »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

כלה ייליל. בכל מקום מהמקומות האלה ישמע קול יללה ונהימה בבכי:

15 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat David on Isaiah 15:2:4 history »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

גדרועה. תלש השערות ונחסר מהם:

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection (commentary) between Isaiah 14:31 and Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 14:31:4
(automatic commentary link)

15 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Metzudat Zion on Isaiah 14:31:4 and 2 others »
Version: On Your Way (Hebrew)

במועדיו. מל׳ מועד וזמן:

15 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Menachot 2a:6 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומקורו של דין זה, איבעית אימא [אם תרצה אמור] מן הסברא, ואיבעית אימא [ואם תרצה אמור] מן קרא [מקרא]. ומפרטים, איבעית אימא [אם תרצה אמור] סברא: וכי משום דמשני [שמשנה] בה שינוי אחד, כל הני לישני בה וניזיל [כל אלה ~~~~ישנה בה וילך~~]?~~]?

15 hours ago
Dov Levene published a new Source Sheet, Megillas Esther Explained (1:1).
15 hours ago
Kevin Bermeister published a new Source Sheet, OCCUPATION!.
17 hours ago
Ariel Tovlev published a new Source Sheet, Social Justice 1.
1 day, 1 hour ago
Rabbi Debra Robbins published a new Source Sheet, Psalm 27:7 and 100 Blessing.
1 day, 1 hour ago
ALEXANDER LAZARUS-KLEIN published a new Source Sheet, The View From Mount Nebo: A Sneak Peak into the Future of the Jewish People.
1 day, 3 hours ago
Peter Young published a new Source Sheet, Ki Teitzei.
1 day, 11 hours ago
Menachem Ahmad published a new Source Sheet, Mapulon, the Head of a Healer.
1 day, 12 hours ago
Rabbi Joshua Caruso published a new Source Sheet, The Stubborn and Rebellious Son.
1 day, 14 hours ago
Daniel Aronson published a new Source Sheet, Parashat Ki Teitzei / פָּרָשַׁת כִּי־תֵצֵא.
1 day, 23 hours ago
Yonason Bloch published a new Source Sheet, Sukkah Atop a Sukkah: Not a Question of Strength.
2 days, 2 hours ago
Chayva Lehrman published a new Source Sheet, Lost and Found.
2 days, 2 hours ago
Menachem Ahmad published a new Source Sheet, Anagolay, the Diwata of Lost Things.
2 days, 2 hours ago
Rabbi Lisa Grushcow published a new Source Sheet, Shofar, ShoGood.
2 days, 3 hours ago
A Novo published a new Source Sheet, Shofar 2026.
2 days, 4 hours ago
Kevin (Chaim Kalman) Minerley published a new Source Sheet, Chilun 113 as a Month of Elul Meditation.
2 days, 4 hours ago
Wendy Love Anderson edited Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 427:10 history »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

Anyone who transgresses these matters and similar ones, saying, "I am endangering myself—what does it matter to others?" or "I am not careful about this" is subject to lashes for rebelliousness. But one who takes care to avoid them—may that one be blessed with goodness.

2 days, 4 hours ago
Yonason Bloch published a new Source Sheet, Twenty Amos: Diras Arai and Diras Keva in Sukkah 2a–3b.
2 days, 5 hours ago
t n published a new Source Sheet, Avos 3:8 כָּל הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ דָּבָר אֶחָד מִמִּשְׁנָתוֹ, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ.
2 days, 5 hours ago
James Gibson published a new Source Sheet, Eternal Promise & Eternal Obligation in Deuteronomy.
2 days, 7 hours ago
Neil Tow published a new Source Sheet, Good, evil, & Somewhere in Between.
2 days, 8 hours ago
Rabbi Elana Nemitoff-Bresler published a new Source Sheet, Names of God.
2 days, 8 hours ago
Ilan Kogan published a new Source Sheet, A Double-Edged Sword: The Best Way to Receive Kaparah.
2 days, 9 hours ago
Alex Friedman edited Aggadat Bereshit 49:3 history »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

[3] Another interpretation: "And the Lord saw that Leah was hated. And it shall be that the man [Jacob] will have two wives (Deuteronomy 21:15). Rabbi Berechiah said: This man is Jacob, as it is stated, 'And Jacob was a simple man' (Genesis 25:27). There were two wives, Rachel and Leah. The one [Leah] was beloved, as it is written, 'this is Leah' (Deuteronomy 21:15), and the other was unloved, as it is written, 'And the Lord saw that Leah was unloved' (Genesis 29:31). Both of them bore children for him [Jacob]. What Leah accomplished, Rachel ~~did not accomplish, and what Rachel accomplished, Leah did not~~ accomplished. Leah gave birth to kings, and Rachel gave birth to kings. Leah gave birth to prophets, and Rachel gave birth to prophets. Leah gave birth to judges, and Rachel gave birth to judges. And the firstborn son was to the unloved [Leah], this is Reuben, as it is stated, 'And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben' (Genesis 29:32). And on the day that he [Jacob] bestowed his blessing, at the time when Jacob sought to depart from the world, he called his sons [to him]... 'he shall not give the son of the beloved [Rachel] precedence over the son of the unloved [Leah],' to Joseph [he gave this blessing], 'why should he [Reuben] be granted the rights of the firstborn?' (Deuteronomy 21:17) ["This is Reuben, as it is said, 'Reuben, you are my firstborn' (Genesis 49:3)]. Although I said that his impulsiveness was like water, do not withhold [praise] from him, for 'his bed is on high' (Genesis 49:4). What is 'on high'? When Moses comes, about whom it is written, 'And Moses went up' (Exodus 19:3), he will redeem you. Since Moses stood up and pleaded for him, as it is said, 'May Reuben live and not die' (Deuteronomy 33:6),. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, 'He shall live and not die,' [and thus] you [Reuben] are able to take two portions, as it is stated, 'For he [Reuben] should receive a double portion' (Deuteronomy 21:17). 'May Reuben live' - in this world; 'and not die' - in the World to Come. "For he is the beginning of my strength and so on. And it is written, 'my strength and the beginning of my might' (Genesis 49:3). Therefore, the Lord saw that Leah was hated."

2 days, 11 hours ago
Rabbi Benjamin Luks-Morgan published a new Source Sheet, These are the people (amongst many other things) in your neighborhood - 'Your Fellow', Care as Ethic, and Practical Implementation in Jewish Law.
2 days, 11 hours ago
אביע"ד סנדרס published a new Source Sheet, דבר סתר לפרשת וארא - הוא אהרן ומשה.
2 days, 12 hours ago
Ezra Cohen published a new Source Sheet, Why Did Bavli Beat Yerushalmi?.
2 days, 12 hours ago
Talya Sandor published a new Source Sheet, Faith in Fracture: Where Does Tefillah Live in Suffering?.
2 days, 12 hours ago
Scott Sandor published a new Source Sheet, L'Chaim After Death: Is Posthumous Organ Donation Permissible?.
2 days, 12 hours ago
אביע"ד סנדרס published a new Source Sheet, המדרש לפרשת וארא - הסוד של המטה.
2 days, 13 hours ago
אביע"ד סנדרס published a new Source Sheet, הפטרת וארא.
2 days, 13 hours ago
אביע"ד סנדרס published a new Source Sheet, פרשת וארא - שני ההיבטים של המכה הראשונה.
2 days, 13 hours ago
אביע"ד סנדרס published a new Source Sheet, דבר סתר לפרשת שמות - גלות ובירור.
2 days, 13 hours ago
אביע"ד סנדרס published a new Source Sheet, מדרש ההלכה לפרשת שמות - מציאות נטולת שם.
2 days, 14 hours ago
Evan Krame published a new Source Sheet, Congested Intensity.
2 days, 14 hours ago
אביע"ד סנדרס published a new Source Sheet, המדרש לפרשת שמות - סוד השם ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם.
2 days, 14 hours ago
אביע"ד סנדרס published a new Source Sheet, הפטרת שמות - נגד הניהיליזם הקיומי.
2 days, 15 hours ago
אביע"ד סנדרס published a new Source Sheet, פרשת שמות - בין משה לסרגון (וקצת על סופרמן).
2 days, 15 hours ago
Aaron Goldstein published a new Source Sheet, Lo Tuchal L'hitaleim.
2 days, 15 hours ago
Menachem Ahmad published a new Source Sheet, Aman Sinaya and the First Noahide Law.
2 days, 20 hours ago
Yavni יבני Bar-Yam בר-ים added a connection between Deuteronomy 30:6 and Machzor Yom Kippur Ashkenaz, Maariv Service for Yom Kippur Eve, Yaaleh 106

2 days, 23 hours ago
Amy Memis-Foler published a new Source Sheet, Ki Teitzei 2026/5786 כִּֽי־תֵצֵ֥א.
3 days ago
Jennifer Black published a new Source Sheet, Adonai's Intimacy with Jacob.
3 days, 1 hour ago
Orah Yonah K.S. published a new Source Sheet, Beyond Reward and Punishment: A Geonic-Andalusian Approach to Teshuva.
3 days, 3 hours ago
Tehila Wenger published a new Source Sheet, דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר: בן סורר ועיר הנדחת.
3 days, 5 hours ago
Aiden Pink published a new Source Sheet, You Must Not Remain Indifferent: Parashat Hashavua Ki Teitzei 5786.
3 days, 5 hours ago
Rabbi Drew Kaplan published a new Source Sheet, Breaking A Drinking Cup/Glass at a Jewish Wedding.
3 days, 5 hours ago
Trish Abrams published a new Source Sheet, The Social Justice Tithe.
3 days, 6 hours ago
Asher Altshul published a new Source Sheet, «Однажды в Лейпциге» - Ки Теце. 5786.
3 days, 6 hours ago
Rabbi Ruhi Sophia Rubenstein published a new Source Sheet, Ki Teitze: Building Up Your Brother's House.
3 days, 7 hours ago
Yosef Kurtz published a new Source Sheet, Bamidbar Perek 11.
3 days, 9 hours ago
Rick Lawrence published a new Source Sheet, Holding grudges.
3 days, 9 hours ago
Devorah Brody published a new Source Sheet, לדוד ה'.
3 days, 11 hours ago
Avishai Avital published a new Source Sheet, פרשת נצבים.
3 days, 14 hours ago
Tony Jurg published a new Source Sheet, Parashat Ki Teitzei: The Captive Woman in Jewish Reception History.
3 days, 15 hours ago
Avishai Avital published a new Source Sheet, סיפור אישי.
3 days, 16 hours ago
Avishai Avital published a new Source Sheet, פרשת כי תבוא.
3 days, 16 hours ago
Avishai Avital published a new Source Sheet, פרשת כי תצא.
3 days, 16 hours ago
Avishai Avital published a new Source Sheet, [sheet not found].
3 days, 16 hours ago
Matthew Chak edited Tzidkat HaTzadik 20:1 history »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

There are watches in the heavens for heavenly matters -- that is, for the service of Hashem, may He be blessed, just as there are [such watches] below [on Earth] in lower matters and in working the land. These are truly parallel, and from it we should take [a lesson] in the service of Hashem [at that time] in this manner. A sign for the first watch [is that] the donkey brays. The physical [analogous to the donkey; along these lines they said "a people resembling a donkey"] also brays like a donkey, [~~taking upon itself~~under] the burden of mitzvot through the faculties of action. [A sign for the] second [watch] - dogs bark. As is said in the Zohar, [the people] cry out like a dog, in prayer [and dogs are brazen, and likewise chutzpah (brazenness) in prayer toward heaven is effective, as is said in Taanit 8a]. As they said (Shabbat 155b), "there is none that is poorer than a dog" -- [that is, one that is] poor in understanding, and he has nothing except prayer as is said in Shemot Rabbah (Chapter 38): "They said to him, 'we do not know'", etc., see there. [A sign for the] third [watch] - the baby suckles. That is, Torah, as they said in the chapter Arvei Pesachim (Pesachim 112a): "More than the calf wants to suckle", for the Torah is compared with milk. And "a woman [converses with her husband] etc." [see also Berakhot 3a] - this refers to Torah, as they said in Yevamot 63b. However, [in the image of nursing], the woman nurses, and this [represents] the great sages of Israel, and the schoolchildren receive from them. And these [three watches/three forms of service represented by them are] Torah, [divine] service [i.e. prayer], and acts of kindness [and likewise Torah, prayer, and sacrifices (that is, action), in Shemot Rabbah there], which correspond to thought, speech, and action, as explained elsewhere. Except at night, during the time of darkness, they are reversed, as explained elsewhere.

3 days, 21 hours ago
Matthew Chak added a connection between Pele Yoetz 7:2 and Proverbs 14:23
(automatic citation link)

3 days, 22 hours ago
Matthew Chak added a connection between Lamentations 3:39 and Pele Yoetz 7:3
(automatic citation link)

3 days, 22 hours ago
Matthew Chak added a connection between Jeremiah 25:30 and Pele Yoetz 7:2
(automatic citation link)

3 days, 22 hours ago
Matthew Chak added a connection between Jeremiah 31:15 and Pele Yoetz 7:1
(automatic citation link)

3 days, 22 hours ago
Matthew Chak translated Pele Yoetz 7:4 and 4 others »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

And specifically over one’s father and mother it is proper to show increased mourning in all twelve months, and not to go to [any] revelry or feast, and not visit any [other] person, whether for Shabbat or festivals. Consequently, he should increase his study for their rest and the elevation of their souls, and he should not go out to stroll at all, and should always think: “perhaps they are suffering, and here I am enjoying myself”. And one should not say, “What [good] will my mourning over them bring? Can I bring them back through this? Of course not!” For they said in the Aggadah, which was brought by the Ramban of blessed memory in the book Torat HaAdam (page 27b), that Moshe our teacher, peace be upon him, said “Joshua, put on black [garments], and cover yourself in black, and be careful regarding the honor of this downtrodden one”, see there. This teaches us that everything that demonstrates mourning over the soul’s passing is an honor to it. However, one should not follow the custom of certain places that wear weekday garments on Shabbat, even on the Shabbat that falls within the seven [days of mourning], according to the words of the Rav, the Arizal of blessed memory, from whose mouth we live. The righteous should hold firmly to walk in the holy path, for all His ways are justice, and His words are life.

3 days, 22 hours ago
4 related »
Richard Friedman translated Sforno on Deuteronomy 22:27:1 history »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

(1) THE WOMAN CRIED FOR HELP. We give her the benefit of the doubt.

3 days, 22 hours ago
Richard Friedman translated Sforno on Deuteronomy 22:26:2 and 2 others »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

(2) FOR THIS CASE IS LIKE THAT OF ONE PARTY ATTACKING ANOTHER, ETC. This is unlike the case of a man having sexual relations with an animal, about which it is written (Lev. 20:15), "you shall kill the animal," for indeed, the animal did not resist at all, but this woman, whose intercourse began by being compelled, and she resisted as much as she could, what happened to her is like what happened to a murder victim, against whom a violation was committed against his will. Therefore, she has no guilt at all.

3 days, 22 hours ago
2 related »
Richard Friedman translated Sforno on Deuteronomy 22:24:1 history »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

(1) BECAUSE HE IMPOVERISHED HIS FELLOW'S WIFE [JPS: BECAUSE HE VIOLATED HIS NEIGHBOR’S WIFE]. He made her poorer and reduced her from her fit status, and disqualified her from being permitted to his fellow her husband, as in (Micah 2:9), "You drive the women of My people away From their homes of pleasure."

3 days, 22 hours ago
Richard Friedman translated Sforno on Deuteronomy 21:23:2 and 2 others »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

(2) DO NOT DEFILE. To cause the spirit of impurity in the place of the rotting unburied dead. ¶

3 days, 23 hours ago
2 related »
Jessica Jobanek published a new Source Sheet, Bye to Burnout: On Delegation and Balance.
3 days, 23 hours ago
Jessica Jobanek published a new Source Sheet, Bye to Burnout: Where Does Burnout Come From?.
4 days ago
Jessica Jobanek published a new Source Sheet, Bye to Burnout: Framing the Problem.
4 days ago
Jessica Jobanek published a new Source Sheet, Bye to Burnout: Tending Your Fire and Renewing Your Spirit.
4 days ago
Barry Block published a new Source Sheet, Jewish Approaches when Life Hurts - Violence.
4 days, 4 hours ago
Sefaria Communications published a new Source Sheet, Tisha B'Av on Sefaria: Texts and Resources for a Day of Mourning.
4 days, 4 hours ago
Richard Friedman translated Sforno on Deuteronomy 22:13:1 history »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

IF A MAN TAKES A WIFE. After the statement relating to settlement [of the Land], it states prohibitions [whose observance] will compel the resting of the Divine Presence on Israel and [it commands] refraining from causing removal [of the Presence] through the disqualification of the line, on account of sexual sins, or on account of mingling with ineligible nations, or on account of unseemliness in your camp, as it says (Deut. 23:15), "let your camp be holy; let [God] not find anything unseemly among you and turn away from you."¶

4 days, 5 hours ago
Naomi Misonzhnik published a new Source Sheet, בראשית כ"ט:י"ג-ל"ה.
4 days, 6 hours ago
Lina Zerbarini published a new Source Sheet, Elul Workshop.
4 days, 6 hours ago
Karizmah Brauner published a new Source Sheet, 5+6 RH Sheet.
4 days, 6 hours ago
Akiva Jacobs published a new Source Sheet, CBE Teen Class #1.
4 days, 7 hours ago
Gabriel Lehrman published a new Source Sheet, Tzedakah: a Model of Leadership.
4 days, 8 hours ago
Moshe Drukman published a new Source Sheet, Conversion for Marriage Part 2.
4 days, 8 hours ago
Kerith Spencer-Shapiro published a new Source Sheet, Images of the Divine Feminine.
4 days, 9 hours ago
Rabbi Pinhas Eliyahou SHADAY published a new Source Sheet, PARASHAT KI TETZE: THE SECRET OF THE REBELLIOUS CHILD.
4 days, 12 hours ago
Rabbi Pinhas Eliyahou SHADAY published a new Source Sheet, PARASHAT KI TETSE: LE SECRET DE L'ENFANT REBEL.
4 days, 12 hours ago
User None added a connection between Bava Batra 160a:1-176b:3 and Ketzot HaChoshen on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 28:6:1
(automatic citation link)

4 days, 13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection between Ketzot HaChoshen on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 28:6:1 and Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 46
(automatic citation link)

4 days, 13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Bava Batra 172a:13 and Ketzot HaChoshen on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 28:6:1

4 days, 13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Ketubot 24b:9 and Ketzot HaChoshen on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 28:6:1

4 days, 13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Ketzot HaChoshen on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 28:6:1 and Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 46:10

4 days, 13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Ketzot HaChoshen on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 28:6:1 history »
Version: Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen ha-Mishpat; Lemberg, 1898 (Hebrew)

בעדות שבשטר. והנה בזה שחותכין דיני ממונות בעדות שבשטר מצאנו ארבעה שיטות הא' שיטת רש"י ובעל המאור דכיון דאין כותבין השטר אלא מדעת המתחייב לא הוי מפי כתבם אלא מפי כתבו והיינו מכפי כתב מתחייב. שנית הוא שיטת הרמב"ן דלא שייך בעדות שבשטר מפי כתבם דכיון דנכתב בנוסח שטר ה"ל כמו שנחקר' עדותן בבית דין ולא שייך מפי כתבם אלא היכא דאינו בתורת שטר. שלישית הוא שיטת תוספות בשם רבינו תם דלא שייך מפי כתבם אלא במי שאינו ראוי להגיד בפה וכגון שהוא אלם. אבל במי שיכול להגיד בפה והוי ראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו. רביעי הוא שיטת הרמב"ם דעדות שבשטר אינו אלא מדברי סופרים ומה"ת אינו מועיל משום דהוי מפי כתבן ולכל השיטות שזכרנו לא נתיישב סוגיות הש"ס בפ"ב דכתובות דף כ"ד איבעי להו מהו להעלות משטרות ליוחסין ה"ד אילמא דכתוב בי' אני פ' כהן עד מאן קא מסהיד עלי' לא צריכא דכתיב בי' אני כהן לויתי מפ' מנה וחתימי סהדי מאי אמנה שבשטר. קא מסהדי או דלמא אכולה מלתא קא מסהדי רב הונ' ורב חסדא אמרי מעלין וקשה הא הוי מפי כתבם ואם כן נהי דמסהדי אכולה מלתא והיינו איך שפ' כהן הא הוי מפי כתבם. ולשיטת בעל המאור נמי קשה דגבי כהן לא מהני אלא מפי עצמו ולשיטת הרמב"ן דעדות שבשטר ל"ש בי' מפי כתבם נמי קשה דעדות שבשטר לא שייך אלא בדיני ממונות אבל לענין כהן לא שייך בי' עדות שבשטר ולא לישנא דשטרא ולשיטת הרמב"ם דהוי מד"ם נמי קשה דלא תיקנו אלא בדיני ממונות או בגיטין משום תקנת עגונות אבל בשאר דברים לא תיקנו ואם כן לא נתיישב הסוגיא אלא לפי שיטת ר"ת דמכשיר מפי כתבם בעדים שיכולין להגיד ☜ואפשר דכיון דכל המשפחות בחזקת כשרות ואפילו ע"א נאמן באיסורין לענין יוחסין אי לאו משום דעשו מעלה ביוחסין וכמבואר שם בתוספות ור"ן אם כן אינו אלא מעלה דרבנן ובמידי דרבנן הכשירו מפי כתבם וכמ"ש ברמ"א סימן מ"ו לענין קיום דסגי מפי כתבם ועדיין צריך ישוב ועיין בתוספות שם שהקשו ז"ל וא"ת ואי לאו אכולא מלתא קא מסהדי אם כן עדים חתמי אף על גב דלא ידעי אם כהן אם לאו ואם כן הא דתנן בפרק גט פשוט שני יוסף בן שמעון הדרים בעיר אחת אם היו משולשין יכתבו כהן ומה מועיל כיון שהעדים חותמין אף על פי שאין יודעין אם הוא כהן עיין שם ואפ"ל דודאי עדים אכולה מלתא קא מסהדי אלא דהכי קא מבעי' לי' מי אמרינן אמנה שבשטר קא מסהדי והיינו שמעידים שאיש פ' אשר הוא כהן לוה מנה מפלוני ואם כן ה"ל מלתא דשטרא ולא שייך בי' מפי כתבם וכמ"ש [הרמב"ן] דבלישנא דשטרא לא שייך מפי כתבם א"ד אכולה מלתא קא מסהדי והיינו שמעידים שזה לוה מנה וגם שהוא כהן ואם כן כיון דלאו אמלת' דשטרא מעידים בעדות כהן הוי לי' מפי כתבם דגבי עדות כהן לא הוי מלתא דשטרא ועמ"ש בסימן ס"ז סק"ה:

4 days, 13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Irin Kadishin, Kedoshim 1 history »
Version: Warsaw, 1889 (Hebrew)

ואהבת לרעך כמוך אני ה'. משל לשני אוהבים שהיה נפשם קשורה באהבה מאוד והיו רחוקים זה מזה. והגיע עילה על אחד מהם ונגמר דינו ליהרג והוכרז שכל המדינה יבואו לראות דין האיש הזה. ובא האוהב הזה ג"כ לשם.וכראותו כי כן צעק בקול גדול הניחוהו. אני הוא שעשיתיו העול הזה ולא חבירי, והגיע הדין למלך וקרא אותם לשאול להם אמיתת הדבר כיון שרק אחד עשה הדבר ולמה יחפוץ זולתו למות בחנם. אז השיב לו אני יודע שחבירי לא עשה שום עול כי אני מכיר מזגו ומהותו שא"א למעשות כן. א"כ אין זה רק עילה וחיי תלוי בחיי חבירי מוטב שאמות ולא אראה במיתת חבירי כי בודאי אני חייב מיתה על שהגיע לי עונש לראות במיתת חבירי. וכן השיב לו גם חבירו. אז פטר אותם זה המלך ובקש מהם שבין אוהבים כמותכם אני חפץ להיות ג"כ שתכניסי אותי באהבתכם ואני אהיה לכם ג"כ אוהב כזה כן הדבר כאשר יגיע למעלת ואהבת לרעך כמוך. אז אני ה' מבקש לשרות בכם שתאהבו גם אותי ואני אהיה לכם ג"כ לאוהב נאמן:

4 days, 13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Darkhei Moshe, Choshen Mishpat 28:6:1 history »
Version: Tur Choshen Mishpat: Vilna, 1923 (Hebrew)

ובהגהות מרדכי דקידושין דף ע"ג וע"ד האריך בזו בחתשובה וכתב דבדיני ממונות הוא הלכה מפי הגבורה להכשיר עדות בכתב כמו בשאר עדיות ע"פ וע"ש:

4 days, 13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Aramaic Targum to Psalms 78:72 and 3 others »
Version: Mikraot Gedolot (Hebrew)

וּמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהוֹן בִּשְׁלִימוּת לִבְּבֵיהּ וּבְסוּכְלְתָנוּת אַיְדוֹי יְדַבְּרִנוּן:¶

4 days, 13 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Joshua 5 and Malbim on Judges 16:23:4

4 days, 14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Malbim on Judges 16:23:4 and 4 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

~~~~(c) And they struck them at Bezek. At first the camps went out with their commanders and arrayed themselves around Bezek, and there they struck ten thousand men. And when it says “at Bezek,” it means around Bezek, as in: “And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho” (Joshua 5). (“Adoni-Bezek” the first time is accented on the last syllable [milra], and this indicates that the yod is not additional; rather, the yod strengthens the name, as is found in Scripture. But the second and third occurrences of “Adoni-Bezek” are accented on the penultimate syllable [mil‘el], which is a sign that the yod is additional — for by then he was no longer a lord.) at he had multiplied their slain, whereas to the lords he had not done these particular harms. (And “for rejoicing” is an infinitive form, like “to fear Hashem.”)

4 days, 14 hours ago
4 related »
User None added a connection between Bereshit Rabbah 16:6 and Seder HaDorot, Almanac 1:18
(automatic citation link)

4 days, 14 hours ago
User None added a connection between Sanhedrin and Seder HaDorot, Almanac 1:18
(automatic citation link)

4 days, 14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Bereshit Rabbah 16:6 and Seder HaDorot, Almanac 1:18

4 days, 14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Sanhedrin 56a:24 and Seder HaDorot, Almanac 1:18

4 days, 14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Seder HaDorot, Almanac 1:18 history »
Version: Warsaw, 1878-1882 (Hebrew)

אדה"ר נצטוה על ו' מצות ע"ז, ג"ע, ש"ד, גזל, ברכת ה', דינים (סנהדרין ורמב"ם יפ"ט מה' מלכים וב"ר ספט"ז), אדה"ר עיבדר את השנה ומסר לחנוך (יוחסין וע"ל אלף נ"ו):

4 days, 14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Chiddushei HaRa'ah on Ketubot 90a:1 history »
Version: Jerusalem, 1956 (Hebrew)

מי שהיה נשוי שתי נשים כו' עד לעולם אימא לך מה שגבה לא גבה כו'. פי' טעמא דמאן דאמר מה שגבה גבה משו' דקסבר שיעבוד' לאו דאוריית' ובדין הוא דבעל חוב לא טריף מלקוחו' אלא משו' טעמא שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווין אמר רבנן דתיטרוף. והכא ליתיה להאי טעמ' דתרוויהו בעלי חוב נינהו ועד שאת' נועל דלת בפני זה אתה פותח בפני זה ותו דלקוחות נחית אדעת' דארעא ומפסיד האיך אבל בעל חוב מאוחר אדעת' דזוזי דליפרעיה נחית וליפרעיה נמי להאי ותו דבלקוחות איכא נעילת דלת דאיכא למיחש דילמא יזיף ומזבין לנכסיה ובוודאי משכח מאן דזבן להו אי איתה דבעל חוב לא הדר עלייהו. אבל ליכ' למיחש דילמא יזיף והדר יזיף דוודאי לא משכח מאן דהדר יזיף לי' אדעת' דאי קדים וגבי. ומאן דקסבר מה שגבה לא גבה אית לי' שויעבוד' דאורייתא. אי נמי שיעבוד' לאו דאורייתא וקסב' דכיון דתקון רבנן למיגבי מלקוחות לא פליג רבנן בין בעל חוב ללוקח. והלכת' מה שגביה לא גבה דקי"ל נמי שיעבוד' דאוריית' ואע"ג דאמרי' התם במס' ערכין ברי' פר' אין בערכין אמ' רב אדא בר אהבא היו בידיו ה' סלעים ואמר ערכי עלי וחזר ואמ' ערכי עלי ונתן ד' לשני' ואחד לראשונה יצא ידי שתיהן מאי טעמא בעל חוב מאוחר שקדם וגבה מה שגבה גבה. התם היא בהקדש דאין הקדש מוציא מידי הקדש. אי נמי התם הוא במטלטלין דקי"ל דאין קדימה במטלטלין אי נמי התם הוא במלוה על פה דאין בה דין קדימה כלל רבינו נ"ר:

4 days, 14 hours ago
User None added a connection between Arakhin and Ritva on Ketubot 90a:6
(automatic citation link)

4 days, 14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Arakhin 7b:22 and Ritva on Ketubot 90a:6

4 days, 14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Ritva on Ketubot 90a:6 history »
Version: Chiddushei haRitva, Munkatch, 1908. (Hebrew)

איכא דאמרי מדלא קתני אם קדמה שניה ותפסה לא מפקינן מינה פי' דמשמע ליה להאי לישנא כיון דבשום דוכתא אשכחן לשון קדימ' בדיעבד דהכי עדיף לן למימר נמי דרישא דומי' דסיפ' בדיעבד ודחינן לעולם אימא לך מה שגבה גבה כיון [דהא] דמלוה בשטר גובה מנכסים משועבדים כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווין שאם אין ב"ח גובה מנכסים אין לך שילוה לחבירו דהא ידעי דלמחר מכר ליה נכסים ומפסיד מלוה לגמרי משא"כ בזו שאם אתה נועל דלת קצת בפני מלוה ראשון אתה פותח בפני מלוה אחרון ועוד דאפי' מלוה ראשון לא חייש כולי האי כיון דידע לכתחילה איהו קדים וגוביינ' בב"ד קלא אית ליה ומלוה אחרון נמי הדר ומוזיף על דעת דאם קדם וגבה לא מפקינן מיניה ומ"ד מה שגבה [לא] גבה דבהא נמי איכא משום נעילת דלת בפני הלווין. ורבי' הגדול ז"ל פי' דהאי פלוגתא שייכא בפלוגתא דעלמא בשעבוד' אי דאורייתא או לאו דאורייתא דמ"ד מה שגבה גבה קסבר שעבודא לאו דאוריית' ואין מלוה בשטר גובה מנכסים משועבדים אלא בתקנתא דרבנן שלא תנעל דלת בפני לווין ובשפני ~~ל"ת~~ב"ח ליתא להאי טעמא כדפי' רש"י ז"ל ומ"ד מה שגבה לא גבה קסבר שעבודא דאורייתא ומלוה בשטר טרפה מנכסים משועבדים ואפי' מלוה [על פה] היתה טורפת אי לא משום דלית ליה קלא הלכך לגבי ב"ח מאוחר נמי מפיק מיניה דאמר ליה שעבודא גבך היא. ובזה יובן מה שפסקו הגאונים ז"ל דמה שגבה לא גבה משום דהא קמ"ל שעבודי' (לאו) דאורייתא ואית דקשיא להו האי פסקא הא דאמרינן בערכין אמר רב אדא בר אהבה היה בידו חמש סלעים ואמר ערכי עלי נותן ד' לשניי' ואחת לראשונה יצא ידי שניהם מ"ט ב"ח מאוחר שקדם וגבה מה שגבה גבה ולאו קושיא היא דהתם במטלטלין דלית ביה דין קדימה אפי' למ"ד שעבודא דאוריית' אין עיקר שעבוד' עליה ותו דהתם אפי' מקרקע שהכל הקדש מוציא מידי שיעבו' דכולם זכי והתם הכי קאמר מ"ט ב"ח מאוחר שקדם וגבה מה שגבה גבה הקדש מה שגבה גבה והא דתנן לקמן בסוף פרקין השניי' מוציא מיד הלוקח והראשונה מיד השנייה דש"מ ב"ח מאוחר שקדם מה שגבה לא גבה לא הוה ראייה להאי פסקא דא"כ הו"ל למידק התם עלה בתלמוד' הכי אבל י"ל דשאני התם שאף האשה שהיא ב"ח מוקדם בא לגבות אלא שהלוקח מסלקה מפני שכתב לה דין ודברים אין לי עמך על שדה זו מדידה הוא דאסתלק ולא מן השניי' שהי' ב"ח מאוחר וכשבאה השנייה לגבות הראשונה מניחה מפני שאינה יכולה לטרוף עד שתצא מרשות הלוקח עליה לכשתבא לרשותה תטרוף ממנה לכאלו נעשית לה יד ובכי הא וודאי מה שגבה לא גבה והראב"ד תירץ דלהכי לא דייקי עלה בגמרא ש"מ מה שגבה לא גבה משום דמצי לאוקמי כשהיתה אותה השדה אפותיקי מפורש לראשונ' ובהא דכ"ע מה שגבה לא גבה דארעא דב"ח מוקדם חשיב ומדכתי' בפרק שור שנגח את הפרה גבי שור תם שהגביהו בעלי חובות לא עשו ולא כלום וק"ל א"כ ה"נ כי אתינן למידק מה שגבה לא גבה אמאי לא דחינן דדלמא מתני' כשהי' הקרקע אפותיקי מפורש לראשונה וי"ל דמתני' דמן דידן גוביינ' דידהו וקדימתן אתא לאשמועי' אי איתא דאפותיקי מפורש הוא הו' לי' למתני' בההיא משא"כ התם דדין חזרת חליל' אתא לאשמעינן כנ"ל לפי שיטה זו ודין:

4 days, 14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited German Commentary on Mishnah Eruvin 5:5:3 and 2 others »
Version: Mischnajot mit deutscher Übersetzung und Erklärung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de] (English)

folgt man dem Begünstigten. ובלבד שלא ירבה יותר ממרת העיר באלכסונה fügt die Gemara auch hier einschränkend hinzu (לאחר) רבה לאחד ומעט לאחד fasst sie auf, als stünde: (אחר) רבה אחד ומעט אחד, ohne jedoch eine Textänderung vorzunehmen. Sie sagt nicht תני, ja nicht einmal הכי קתני, sondern nur הכי קאמר [vgl. ב״ק 118a Z.7 !דוק ותשכח]. Auch hier gehen die Erklärungen weit auseinander. Raschi und Maimonides meinen: Wenn ein Fachmann den Schabbatbezirk weiter ausgedehnt hat als ein anderer, so hört man auf jenen, falls der Unterschied nicht grösser ist als die Differenz zwischen der Diagonale und der Seite eines Quadrats, dessen Diagonale 2000 Ellen misst, weil in diesem Falle angenommen werden kann, dass derjenige, welcher das geringere Ergebnis erzielt hat, die 2000 Ellen nicht wie vorgeschrieben in der Verlängerung der Seiten des um die Ortschaft beschriebenen Rechtecks (s. Einl. Abs. 4) gemessen hat, sondern irrtümlicherweise in der Verlängerung seiner Diagonalen. Dass diese Deutung sich in die Worte ובלבד שלא ירבה וכר׳ nicht hineinlegen lässt, erklärt Raschi in seiner liebenswürdigen Offenheit und Bescheidenheit frei und unumwunden selbst. Doch davon abgesehen! Ist es schon an sich sehr gewagt, einem sachverständigen מומחה einen solchen Irrtum, ja einen solch unverzeihlichen Verstoss gegen eine klare Vorschrift zuzutrauen, so ist es geradezu undenkbar, dass man sich bei einer so kühnen und bedenklichen Annahme ohne Weiteres beruhigen soll, da es doch so leicht ist, durch eine Anfrage bei dem Fachmanne, der zuletzt gemessen hat — und das ist nach der Reihenfolge in der Mischna gerade derjenige, welcher das geringere Ergebnis erzielte — über diesen Punkt Gewissheit zu erlangen. Wie endlich, wenn der Unterschied beider Ergebnisse, welcher nach der dafür ersonnenen Erklärung jedesmal genau so viel betragen müsste, als die Differenz zwischen der Seite und der Diagonale des erwähnten Quadrates, kaum die Hälfte, kaum ein Drittel derselben beträgt? Wie erklärt man sich dann den Mangel an Übereinstimmung? Diese Schwierigkeiten vermeidet nur zum Teil die Erklärung des R. Chananel, nach welcher die Gemara sagen will, dass der Unterschied der Ergebnisse nicht mehr betragen darf als die Diagonale der Ortschaft; unter dieser Voraussetzung könne man annehmen, dass zur Zeit, als der erste Fachmann die Schabbatgrenzen feststellte, die Ortschaft nur wenige Häuser zählte, und zwar — um ein Beispiel anzuführen — im Südwesten, später aber sich von hier aus immer weiter nach Osten wie nach Norden ausdehnte, so dass der jetzige Nordosten ihres Weichbildes fast um die ganze Diagonale derselben von dem ehemaligen entfernt ist, weshalb der zweite Fachmann, welcher den Markstein des תחום im Nordosten um die Länge dieser Diagonale weiterrückte, vollkommen im Rechte war. Diese Annahme ist natürlich nur dann haltbar, wenn die Feststellungen des ersten Fachmannes vor undenklichen Zeiten stattgefunden haben. Ferner sind bei dieser Erklärung immer die Ergebnisse desjenigen massgebend, welcher zuletzt gemessen hat. Das ist, worauf wir schon einmal hingewiesen haben, in unserer Mischa der, welcher das geringere Ergebnis erzielt hat. Es müsste also anstatt שומעין למרבה gerade שומעין לזה שמעט heissen, oder doch wenigstens — wenn man schon auf die Gruppirung der Gegensätze kein so grosses Gewicht legen will — שומעין לאחרון , da es doch garnicht darauf ankommt, wer mehr und wer weniger Ellen erzielt hat, sondern einzig und allein darauf, wer zuerst und wer zuletzt gemessen hat. Keineswegs ist שומעין למרבה am Platze, welches so, wie es hier steht, zu den schönsten Missverständnissen, ja Missdeutungen berechtigt. Auch die einschränkende Bemerkung der Gemara ist nach dieser Auffassung nicht gut stylisirt R. Ch. stützt sich allerdings auf eine Lesart, welche das Wort באלכסונה in ואלכסונה ändert. Was damit gewonnen ist, war ich jedoch zu ergründen leider nicht im Stande. Wenn er nach der Darstellung in Tosafot und Rosch der Ansicht ist, dass der zweite Fachmann soviel hinzufügen darf, als die Ortschaft in ihrer Diagonale misst, so ist באלכסונה viel richtiger als ואלבסונה. [Eine abweichende Darstellung seiner Ansicht in חרושי הריטב״א rechtfertigt zwar die Notwendigkeit dieser Textänderung, fordert aber, da sie in einer Verquickung der Ansicht Raschis und Maimunis mit der Darstellung in תוספות und רא״ש besteht, zu all den anderen Einwendungen auch noch die gegen Raschi und Maimonides geltend gemachten sämmtlich heraus]. Dagegen scheint mir sowohl יותר als מדת überflüssig und das ungelenke ἐν διὰ δυοίν in העיר ואלכסונה schier unerträglich; es hätte ובלבד שלא ירבה מאלכסון העיר stehen müssen. Wie der Text nun einmal lautet, können die Worte ובלבד שלא ירבה יותר ממדת העיר באלכסונה kaum anders als so übersetzt werden: Nur darf er nicht (irgend eine Strecke des Schabbatbezirkes) mehr vergrössern, als das Maass der Ortschaft durch ihre Diagonale (vergrössert wird). Wie der Talmud bei seinen Zeitbestimmungen nach Tagesstunden stets an den Normaltag denkt, der genau 12 Stunden hat, so schwebt ihm auch bei seinen Maassbestimmungen in unserm Kapitel stets eine Normalortschaft vor, welche rings im Kreise von einer Mauer umgeben ist, deren Durchmesser 2000 Ellen beträgt. Das geht klar und unbestreitbar aus Erubin 56b hervor. Unter dem אלכסון העיר ist die Diagonale des diesem Kreise umschriebenen Quadrates zu verstehen. Dieselbe ist nach dem Pythagoräischen Lehrsatz (s. Einl. Abs. 4) um <img src=""> Ellen grösser als der erwähnte Durchmesser. Dieser Überschuss wird an der eben angeführten Stelle, wo der durch die Quadratur erzielte Gewinn beiläufig zur Anschauung gebracht wird, wo es also auf Genauigkeit nicht ankommt, mit 800 Ellen angegeben. In Wahrheit beträgt er über 828,4271247461900 Ellen. Um diese Zahl, welche die Gemara an unserer Stelle, um nicht durch Angabe einer runden Summe wie שמנה מאות אמה irrezuführen, der hier erforderlichen Genauigkeit wegen lieber als Überschuss der Diagonale über den Durchmesser der Ortschaft umschreibt, kann das Ergebnis des einen Fachmannes von dem seines Vorgängers sich unterscheiden, ohne dass einer derselben sich eine Fahrlässigkeit oder die Verletzung einer Vorschrift zu Schulden kommen liess. Wir haben bereits in der Einl. a. O. gesagt, dass die Seiten des um das Weichbild zu beschreibenden Rechtecks dem »Weltquadrate« parallel sein sollen, dass man aber in dringenden Fällen von dieser Regel abweichen dürfe (s. ש״ות נו״ב מ״ב ס׳ נ״א). Ist z. B. eine Entfernung von mehr als 2000, aber weniger als 2828½ Ellen zwischen der Grenze einer Ortschaft und der Synagoge oder dem Lehrhause ihrer Nachbargemeinde, so darf das erwähnte Rechteck so gezeichnet werden, dass die Verlängerung seiner Diagonale mit dem Wege zusammenfällt, welcher die beiden Orte verbindet, obgleich seine Seiten dann nicht parallel sind denen des »Weltquadrats«. So gewinnt man nach dieser einen Richtung bis 828½ Ellen. Der Gewinn kann auch noch grösser sein. Haben zwei Orte z. B. die Form eines Kreises, so dürfte die Entfernung zwischen ihnen, wenn die Seiten des ihnen umschriebenen Quadrates denen des »Weltquadrats« gleichlaufen müssten, bei ungünstiger Lage nur 4141⅓ Ellen betragen (von denen je 2000 auf den תחום und je 70⅔ auf den קרפף oder עבור kommen; s. M. 2 und Einl. a. O.), um den Einwohnern ein Zusammentreffen an der gemeinsamen Schabbatgrenze zu ermöglichen. So aber messen die תחומין allein fast 5657, der קרפף je 100 Ellen ungefähr, und dazu kommen noch die halben Überschüsse der Diagonale über die Durchmesser beider Orte, welche bei der Normalortschaft je 1414¼ Ellen betragen und natürlich um so grösser sind, je grösser der Umfang der fraglichen Orte ist. Stellt das Weichbild eines Ortes eine andere, sei es regelmässige, sei es unregelmässige Figur dar, so ist auch die Grösse des Gesammtgewinnes eine andere; nur was durch eine den Ortsbedürfnissen geschickt angepasste Anordnung des erwähnten Rechtecks hinsichtlich des תחום gewonnen werden kann, das allein ist keinem Wechsel unterworfen, dieser Gewinn ist von der Figur des Weichbildes unabhängig, er beträgt immer rund 828 Ellen. Von ihm allein kann hier die Rede sein, und auf ihn bezieht sich auch nur die Einschränkung, dass er nicht grösser sein darf als die Differenz zwischen Diagonale und Durchmesser einer Normalortschaft. Der Gesammtgewinn kann allerdings grösser sein. Wie gross? — Dafür giebt es eben keine allgemein giltige Berechnung, das muss in jedem einzelnen Falle mit Hilfe des Bauplanes berechnet werden. Natürlich steht dem Gewinne an der einen Stelle ein genau ebenso grosses Deficit (welches man aber, da es sich um eine für den Verkehr minder wichtige Gegend handelt, nicht als einen Verlust bezeichnen darf) auf einer andern Stelle gegenüber; denn wie immer man das Rechteck zeichnen mag, der Flächeninhalt des Schabbatbezirks bleibt immer derselbe, und — ob da oder dort — immer bildet sich an den 4 Enden je ein Quadrat, dessen Diagonale rund 828 Ellen beträgt (Einl. a. O.). Es hat daher den Anschein, als ob unser רבה לאחד ומעט לאחד identisch wäre mit dem רבה למקום אחד ומעט למקום אחר des vorhergehenden Satzes (היינו הך! Gemara). Es wurde ja dem תחום nur das wiedergegeben, was ihm an anderer Stelle abgenommen wurde, und es gilt folglich auch hier: שומעין אף למקום שרבה! Erwägt man aber, dass sämmtliche Bewohner einer Ortschaft, mögen sie wohnen, in welcher Gegend sie wollen, einen und denselben Schabbatbezirk haben (נו״ב a. O.), so kann רבה לאחד ומעט לאחד unmöglich bedeuten, dass er dem Einen zugelegt und dem Andern abgenommen hat; denn was er da zugelegt hat, wurde Allen zugelegt, was er dort abgenommen hat, Allen abgenommen. Es handelt sich hier vielmehr um eine und dieselbe Strecke, welche er dem Einen, in dessen Aufträge er die Messungen vornahm, erweitert, dem Andern aber, der ihn später aufs Neue mit der Vermessung betraute, verkürzt hat. Während also im vorhergehenden Satze sich eine Differenz an zwei verschiedenenen Stellen im Verlaufe einer und derselben Messung herausstellte, ist hier die Rede von einer Differenz, welche zwei verschiedene, zeitlich von einander getrennte Messungen hinsichtlich einer und derselben Strecke ergaben. [Vielleicht ist gar das ל in לאחד temporal wie in לערב (Gen. 49, 27), לעת ערב (das. 8, 11), ,לעתיד לשעבר und öfter, so dass לאחד — לאחד »das eine Mal — das andere Mal« zu übersetzen wäre. Vgl. ואתם תלקטו לאחד אחד in Jes. 27,12, wo לאחד אחד so viel als אחד אחד »einzelweise« bedeutet, eig. das eine Mal Einer; der st. constr. von לאחד erklärt sich hiernach wie der von מאת in Koh. 8,12.] Es ist natürlich gleichgültig, ob die zwei Messungen mit ihren widersprechenden Ergebnissen von demselben Fachmanne oder von zwei verschiedenen Fachmännern ausgeführt wurden, und die Mischna hätte eben so gut sagen können: .רבה אחד ומעט אחד. Es käme auf dasselbe heraus. Mit Absicht aber kleidet sie diesen Gedanken in den scheinbar weniger adäquaten Ausdruck רבה לאחד ומעט לאחד, um zu zeigen, dass selbst dann, wenn derselbe Fachmann bei einer neuen Vermessung ein geringeres Ergebnis auf einer Strecke erzielt hat, dennoch das frühere, günstigere Ergebnis nicht als widerrufen und durch das spätere berichtigt anzusehen ist, vielmehr auch fernerhin als vollkommen zuverlässig und zu Recht bestehend gelten darf. Wenn also, um bei dem angeführten Beispiel zu bleiben, den Bewohnern zweier Ortschaften, welche sich bisher am Schabbat gegenseitig besuchen durften, durch das Ergebnis der neuen Vermessung dieser Verkehr unmöglich gemacht würde, so brauchen sie sich nicht daran zu kehren, können sich vielmehr nach wie vor an das frühere Ergebnis halten; und selbst wenn der Fachmann auf Befragen erklärt, er habe ganz genau gemessen und sich in allen Punkten streng an die Vorschrift gehalten, so können sie ihren Verkehr dennoch — oder richtiger: gerade deswegen — aufrecht erhalten. Liegt doch in dieser Erklärung die Lösung des Widerspruchs beider Ergebnisse. Diesmal wurden streng nach Vorschrift die Seiten des um die Ortschaft zu beschreibenden Rechtecks, das erste Mal aber aus statthaften Opportunitätsgründen, wenn auch gegen die Regel, dessen Diagonale den Seiten des Weltquadrats parallel gezogen. Nur darf, wie der Talmud einschränkend hinzufügt, das zweite Ergebnis nicht hinter dem ersten um 828½ Ellen zurückbleiben. Ist das der Fall, so hat das שומעין למרבה nicht mehr unbedingte Geltung. Es muss dann erst mit Hilfe des Bauplanes nach den oben dargelegten Gesichtspunkten eine ausreichende und befriedigende Erklärung für den grossern Überschuss gesucht werden, und findet man eine solche nicht, so muss eine neue Vermessung angeordnet oder das günstigere Ergebnis preisgegeben werden. Beträgt aber die Differenz nicht mehr als 828 Ellen, dann bedarf es keines Forschens, keines Fragens, keiner Prüfung des Bauplanes — dann gilt ohne Weiteres שומעין למרבה. Denn die Verschiedenheit der Resultate erklärt sich dann so einfach wie möglich durch die verschiedene Anordnung des oft erwähnten Rechtecks, welches das eine Mal vorschriftsmässiger der Lage des »Weltquadrats«, das andere Mal mehr den localen Bedürfnissen angepasst wurde; die Frage aber, ob nicht in der Zwischenzeit die Ortschaft sich verkleinert habe, braucht — wenn sie sich nicht von selbst bejaht — nicht ernstlich in Erwägung gezogen zu werden, da eine Abnahme der Häuserzähl nur äusserst selten eintritt. Deshalb kann man ohne Bedenken dem Begünstigten folgen. (כך נראה לע״ד פירוש שמועה זו ואע״פ שאיני ברי לחלוק הנראה לע״ד כתבתי )

4 days, 14 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Job 38:6 and Sha'arei Orah, First Gate, Tenth Sefirah 11

4 days, 14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Sha'arei Orah, First Gate, Tenth Sefirah 11 history »
Version: Shaarei Orah, grimoar (Hebrew)

ולפי זה הדרך נאמר: ברון יחד כוכבי בוקר וגו' (איוב לח, וז). ועניין רינה הם הזמירות הנאמרים בבוקר, ואזי יתפזרו ויתרועעו כל בעלי הדין הקשה הנקראים בני אלהים. ולשון יריעו מלשון רועה התרועעה הארץ (ישעיה כד, יט).

4 days, 14 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Siddur Sefard, Weekday Shacharit, Hodu 34 history »
Version: The Metsudah siddur, 1981 (Hebrew)

וַיְבָֽרֶךְ דָּוִיד אֶת־יְהֹוָה לְעֵינֵי כָּל־הַקָּהָל וַיֹּֽאמֶר דָּוִיד בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אָבִֽינוּ, מֵעוֹלָם וְעַד־עוֹלָם: לְךָ יְהֹוָה הַגְּ֒דֻלָּה וְהַגְּ֒בוּרָה וְהַתִּפְאֶֽרֶת וְהַנֵּֽצַח וְהַהוֹד כִּי־כֹל בַּשָּׁמַֽיִם וּבָאָֽרֶץ לְךָ יְהֹוָה הַמַּמְלָכָה וְהַמִּתְנַשֵּׂא לְכֹל לְרֹאשׁ: וְהָעֽשֶׁר וְהַכָּבוֹד מִלְּ֒פָנֶֽיךָ וְאַתָּה מוֹשֵׁל בַּכֹּל, וּבְיָדְ֒ךָ כֹּֽחַ וּגְבוּרָה, וּבְיָדְ֒ךָ לְגַדֵּל וּלְחַזֵּק לַכֹּל: וְעַתָּה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ מוֹדִים אֲנַֽחְנוּ לָךְ וּמְהַלְ֒לִים לְשֵׁם תִּפְאַרְתֶּֽךָ: וִיבָרְכוּ שֵׁם כְּבוֹדֶךָ, וּמְרוֹמַם עַל כָּל בְּרָכָה וּתְהִלָּה:

4 days, 14 hours ago
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Annotated Viduy 11 and 87 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

Though we are nothing and You, God, are everything, we come before You with a broken heart, knowing that You are close to all who call on You in truth. We stand before You bereft of merits, yet knowing that You chose our ancestors and made an unbreakable covenant with them. In their merits if not in ours, please listen to our prayers.

4 days, 14 hours ago
87 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Ne'ila, Verses of Unity 2 and 5 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

SHEMA YISRAEL – LISTEN, ISRAEL We now reach the supreme moment of Divine–human encounter in the entire Jewish year. For a day we have fasted in penitence and prayer. We have petitioned, pleaded, confessed our faults and sins, admitted our utter insignificance in the totality of things, spoken to God in the complete lexicon of relationship from self-abasement to impassioned love, and now the gates have almost closed. The day is at an end. The verdict has been written and sealed. There is no prayer left to pray. Instead our words are transfigured into something else. This is an affirmation of faith. We cry out to God that He is ours and we are His. There is no artistry here, no carefully constructed poetics of prayer. This is the cri de coeur of the God-intoxicated people who, for generation after generation, risked their existence on the covenant their ancestors made with God at Mount Sinai and which they never abandoned in all the dark centuries despite the defeats, exiles, tragedies and persecutions. The “stiff-necked people,” once obstinate in faithlessness, became yet more obstinate in their faith. They held fast to God with an awesome tenacity. This is our people and this our faith, our loyalty and love. We do not know exactly when, where and why this affirmation entered the liturgy of Yom Kippur. It is first mentioned in the eleventh century, in the school of Rashi. At first there were multiple variants. Some said “Listen, Israel” three times, though this was frowned upon. The unity of God needs no repetition. Some added “Blessed be the name…,” and then the phrase “The Lord He is God” began to appear, at first said twice, but eventually the custom was to say it seven times. The medieval authorities explained the declaration as follows: “Listen, Israel” represents the unity of God. The threefold, “Blessed be the name” represents the three dimensions of time: past, present and future. The sevenfold “The Lord He is God” represents the seven dimensions of space (the “seven heavens,” or the cosmos created in seven days). Taken together the three lines mean that God is One through and beyond all time, in and beyond all space. Modern thinkers point out the close similarity between this and the deathbed confession. In the closing words of Yom Kippur it is as if we were saying: Whether You have sealed me for life or not, still I will declare my faith in You. I will praise You as long as I have the breath to do so. The world and its worries have fallen away. We have ceased to think about ourselves. Our gaze is turned outward and upward. We are because God is. In His forgiveness is our hope; in His will, our freedom; in His redemption, our deliverance; in His unity, our integrity; in His love, our life. Infinitesimally small though we may be, for a moment we stand bathed in the radiance of Infinity. שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל, יהוה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ, יהוה אֶחָד Listen, Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is One. The first Hebrew words we learn as children, and the last words we say at the end of our life, the words Jewish martyrs said as they prepared to die for their faith. They are the words engraved on the Jewish soul. In this context they mean more than that God is One. They mean, “God alone.” You, God of the universe, are our God. We have no other. Our ancestors put their faith in You. We put our faith in You. You are the focus of our lives. You are the breath we breathe, the strength we feel, the voice we hear, the horizon of our hopes. There were times when we drifted, days when we forgot You; there may even have been times when we doubted You. But now we say with every breath in our body: it is You and You alone. As the gates are closing, do not leave us. As we face the coming year, do not leave us. Rabbi Levi Yitzḥak of Berditchev expressed this in a prayer he used to say: Master of the universe, Master of the universe, I would like to sing a song to You: Where shall I find You, and where shall I not find You? Where can one find You and where can one not find You? Wherever I go, it is You. Wherever I stand, it is You. Only You, just You. Either You or You. If it is good, it is You. If, God forbid, it is not good, still it is You. Heaven – You. Earth – You. Above – You. Below – You. Wherever I go, wherever I turn: You, You, You.

4 days, 14 hours ago
5 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Ne'ila, Leader's Repetition for Ne'ila 1 and 16 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

ḤAZARAT HASHATZ – LEADER’S REPETITION It is the custom for the Ark to be opened and remain open from this point to the end of Ne’ila. As “the gates are closing,” we symbolically keep the doors of the Ark open, beseeching God to stay open to our prayers, and as a way of signaling to the congregation the awesome nature of the prayers we are about to pray. Those able to, stand from this point onward.

4 days, 14 hours ago
16 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Ne'ila, The Amida 1 and 5 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

NE’ILA Ne’ila, short for Ne’ilat She’arim, “the closing of the gates,” is a service nowadays unique to Yom Kippur. In ancient times a Ne’ila prayer was also said on public fasts instituted in Israel because of drought; and when the Temple stood a Ne’ila prayer was said by priests during their rota of duty. Now it exists only on Yom Kippur. There was a dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan as to the significance of the name. One held that it meant the closing of the gates of the Temple, the other that it meant the closing of the gates of heaven (Yerushalmi, Berakhot 4:1). In truth however, the Talmud states that “though the gates of prayer may be closed the gates of tears are never closed” (Bava Metzia 59a). What gives this moment its drama and urgency is that it is the culmination of the one day that has the power to cleanse us of our sins. The sages said that in the absence of the Temple and the service of the High Priest, the day itself atones. The prayers we are about to say are the last syllables of this consecrated time. The sense of an ending is intense. The process of preparation and prayer began forty days ago on Rosh Ḥodesh Elul with the blowing of the shofar and the saying of Psalm 27. It gathered pace with the recitation of Seliḥot. It became a courtroom drama on Rosh HaShana with the shofar proclaiming that the heavenly court is in session and we are on trial for our lives. The case for the defense has been made. We have neither denied nor made excuses for our sins. We have confessed our guilt, individual and collective, and we have appealed for mercy and forgiveness. The trial is now in its closing moments. The court is about to rise. The verdict, signed, will soon be sealed. At no other time, barring exceptional circumstance, will we be as close to God as we will be for the next hour. We have fasted, prayed and had the courage to face the worst about ourselves. We have been empowered to do so by our unshakable belief that God loves, forgives, and has more faith in us than we do in ourselves. We can be better than we are, better than we were. And though we may have stumbled and fallen, God is holding out His hand to lift us, giving us the strength to recover, endure, and grow to become the person He is calling on us to be: a blessing to others, a vehicle through which His light flows into the world, an agent of hope, His partner in the work of redemption. Faith is the courage to take a risk, as Abraham and Sarah took the risk of following the Voice calling them to leave their land and birthplace to travel to an unknown destination, as the Israelites did when they began their journey into the desert, an “unsown land.” To be a Jew is to take the risk of believing that the evils of this world are not inevitable or irremediable; that we can mend some of the fractures of humanity; that we, by loving others as God loves us, can bring the Shekhina into our lives, turning a little of the prose of the human condition into poetry and song. Jews do not accept suffering that can be alleviated or wrong that can be put right as the will of God. We accept only what we cannot change. What we can heal, we must. So, disproportionately, Jews are to be found as teachers fighting ignorance, doctors fighting disease, economists fighting poverty, and lawyers fighting injustice. Judaism has given rise, not in one generation but in more than a hundred, to an unrivaled succession of prophets, priests, philosophers, poets, masters of halakha and aggada, commentators, codifiers, rationalists, mystics, sages and saints, people who gave the Divine Presence its local habitation and name, and taught us to make gentle the life of this world. Judaism has consistently asked great things of our people, and in so doing, helped make them great. Tonight, at Ne’ila, God is calling us to greatness. That greatness is not conventional. We do not need to be rich or successful or famous or powerful to find favor in the eyes of God and our fellows. All we need is ḥen, graciousness; ḥesed, kindness; raḥamim, compassion; tzedek, righteousness and integrity; and mishpat, what Albert Einstein called the “almost fanatical love of justice” that made him thank his stars he was a Jew. To be a Jew is to seek to heal some of the wounds of the world, to search out the lonely and distressed and bring them comfort, to love and forgive as God loves and forgives, to study God’s Torah until it is engraved in our minds, to keep God’s commands so that they etch our lives with the charisma of holiness, to bring God’s presence into the shared spaces of our common life, and to continue the story of our ancestors, writing our chapter in the book of Jewish life. “Wherever you find God’s greatness,” said Rabbi Yoḥanan, “there you will find His humility” (Megilla 31a). And wherever you find true humility, there you will find greatness. That is what Yom Kippur is about: finding the courage to let go of the need for self-esteem that fuels our passion for self-justification, our blustering claim that we are in the right when in truth we know we are often in the wrong. Most national literatures, ancient and modern, record a people’s triumphs. Jewish literature records our failures, moral and spiritual. No people has been so piercingly honest in charting its shortcomings. In Tanakh there is no one without sin. Believing as we do that even the greatest are merely human, we also know that even the merely human can also be great. And greatness begins in the humility of recognizing our failings and faults. The greatness to which God is calling us, here, now, is “not in heaven nor across the sea” but in our hearts, minds and lives, in our homes and families, our work and its interactions, the tenor and texture of our relationships, the way we act and speak and listen and spend our time. The question God asks us at Ne’ila is not, “Are you perfect?” but “Can you grow?” There are three barriers to growth. One is self-righteousness, the belief that we are already great. A second is false humility, the belief that we can never be great. The third is learned helplessness, the belief that we can’t change the world because we can’t change ourselves. All three are false. We are not yet great but we are summoned to greatness, and we can change. We can live lives of moral beauty and spiritual depth. We can open our eyes to the presence of God around us, incline our inner ear to the voice of God within us. We can bring blessings into other people’s lives. And now, in absolute humility, we turn to God, pleading with Him to seal us in the book of life so that we can fulfill the task He has set us, to be His ambassadors to humankind.

4 days, 14 hours ago
5 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Mincha, Leader's Repetition for Mincha 11 and 10 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

אֵיתָן [Abraham] the mighty one. An extended poem by the author Rabbi Eliya ben Mordekhai, divided into three parts, corresponding to the first three paragraphs of the Amida. The first and second form a two-part alphabetical acrostic. In the third, the acrostic spells the author’s name. The first paragraph of the Amida, with its ending “Shield of Abraham,” represents the first patriarch. Abraham is called “the mighty” because he answered the call of God to leave his home (Bava Batra 15a). בְּדוֹר In a generation. Abraham was a lone monotheist in an age of idolators (Maimonides, Laws of Idolatry 1:3).

4 days, 14 hours ago
10 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Mincha, Haftara; The Book of Jonah 5 and 3 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

HAFTARA: THE BOOK OF JONAH The reason we read the book of Jonah on the afternoon of Yom Kippur is because it “shows the power of repentance” (Rabbi Mordekhai Yaffe, Levush 622:2), and so that the change of heart of the inhabitants of Nineveh should serve as an example to us (Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, Shela). The book of Jonah is unique. The other prophetic books, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the other “minor” prophets, consist mainly of the words they spoke in the name of God. Jonah proclaims only five words in the name of God while the book consists largely of narrative, part realistic, part miraculous or symbolic. The other prophets speak mainly to Israel, while Jonah speaks solely to gentiles. Jonah is not the only prophet to prophesy about other nations but he is the only one to travel to the place of which he speaks: Nineveh, capital of Assyria. These features in themselves would mark Jonah as an unusual work, but others are stranger still. Jonah is the only prophet who, while not doubting that God has called him, runs away. He is unique among prophets for his dramatic and immediate success. Having pronounced a single, short warning, the whole of Nineveh repents and is forgiven. Yet it is his success rather than failure that makes Jonah angry to the point of wanting to die. It was, he says, his conviction that God would forgive that made him run away in the first place. This is a strange, expectation-defying book. What does it mean, first in historical context, then in its setting here toward the end of Yom Kippur? The book of Jonah tells us nothing of the life of the prophet before his call. A prophet with the same name, Jonah ben Amitai, is, however, mentioned in II Kings 14. The sages assume that these are the same person. If so, Jonah is one of the few prophets who lived and served in the northern kingdom (“Israel,” as opposed to “Judah” in the south). The kingdom had split after the death of Solomon, the ten northern tribes following Jeroboam ben Nebat. Jonah lived in the days of his namesake, Jeroboam II, in the eighth century BCE. Described as an evil king, Jeroboam II was nonetheless a political and military success who “restored the boundaries of Israel from Levo Ḥamat to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through His servant Jonah son of Amitai, the prophet from Gat Ḥefer” (II Kings 14:25). Stephen Rosenberg (Esther, Ruth, Jonah Deciphered, Devorah: 2004, 157–201) has proposed an ingenious historical reconstruction of the book of Jonah as a political parable. Israel during the ninth century had been threatened by Syria (Aram) who had conquered a number of the northern cities. The second book of Kings (ch. 6–7) tells the story of the siege of Samaria, capital of the northern kingdom, by the Syrian army under Ben Hadad. The city was in dire straits. Its food was exhausted. People were dying of starvation. Yet the prophet Elisha told the king that the next day the siege would be lifted and food would be plentiful. So it happened. Four lepers who lived outside the city went to the Syrian camp in the hope of finding food. They found the camp deserted. God had caused the Syrian soldiers to hear a noise sounding like an approaching army. The soldiers, fearing that Israel had hired allies (Hittites and Egyptians) to attack them, fled (II Kings 7). The Syrians could be kept in check if they feared that another military power was coming to Israel’s aid. It is against this background, Rosenberg argues, that we should read the story of Jonah. Jonah, a young disciple of Elisha (see Yalkut Shimoni, I Kings 223), was told by God that Nineveh, home of the Assyrian army, would safeguard Israel by being a military threat to Syria’s eastern border. Syria would not attack Israel in the west if it feared possible attack on the east. Jonah was convinced that help lay nearer to hand in Tarshish (Tarsus, ruled by the Hittites). The “great fish” (dag gadol) that swallowed Jonah, preventing him from reaching his destination, represents the Philistines, the name of whose chief god, Dagon, may mean “great fish.” Eventually Jonah came to Nineveh, whose 120,000 inhabitants correspond to the 120,000 Assyrian troops stationed there, and persuaded them of the power and righteousness of the God of Israel. If this is so, then we can understand why Jonah was displeased. There is a precedent. God had told Elijah to anoint Ḥazael as king of Syria (I Kings 19:15). In fact it was Elisha, Elijah’s successor, who did so. While he was doing so he started crying. “Why is my lord weeping?” asked Ḥazael. “Because I know the harm you will do to the Israelites,” he answered (II Kings 8:12). Jonah too had an intuition of the harm the Assyrians would eventually do to Israel. In the shifting world of politics, today’s allies can become tomorrow’s enemies. That is one possible reading of Jonah as a political parable. It is as a spiritual text, however, that it has eternal significance, which is why we read it on the afternoon of Yom Kippur. It makes a series of profound points. The first is about the nature of prophecy itself. There is a difference between a prophecy and a prediction. If a prediction comes true it has succeeded. If a prophecy comes true it has failed. A prophet does not predict: he warns. He tells of something that will happen unless people turn away from evil. He describes a future in order to avert it. Jonah complains to God that he has been made to look a fool. He told the people that in forty days Nineveh would be destroyed, but it was not destroyed. His words have not come true. God has to teach him that a prophecy is not a prediction. God’s verdict is not final. He always leaves room for human repentance and divine forgiveness. That is a vital message on Yom Kippur. The second is about justice and mercy. The sages said, “In the beginning God created the world through the attribute of justice, but then saw it could not survive. What did He do? He joined to it the attribute of mercy” (Bereshit Raba 12:15). Jonah is scandalized by the fact that the people of Nineveh were not punished for their wickedness. Justice demands no less. Yet God forgave them, as Jonah knew He would, since the God of Israel is a God of mercy. God has to teach Jonah a moral lesson. As humans we are inconsistent. We pray for mercy for ourselves but for strict justice for our enemies. But God is the creator of all: “He has compassion on all He has made” (Ps. 145:9). He shows mercy to all who repent, and mercy is something other and gentler than justice. There cannot be perfect justice in a world of imperfect humans. The world survives through divine forgiveness, and while we seek it for ourselves we cannot deny it to our enemies. The third and most challenging feature of the book is the extraordinarily positive light in which it paints gentiles – who in Jonah’s time were pagans and polytheists. We see this twice: not only in the alacrity in which the people of Nineveh repent, but also in the way the first chapter describes the sailors in Jonah’s ship threatened by the storm. While Jonah is sleeping, they are praying. When they realize that the storm is because of Jonah, Jonah tells them to throw him in the sea, but they are reluctant to do so. They do not want to be responsible for his death if there is any other chance of reaching safety. Eventually they have no other choice, but the text tells us that they prayed to the Lord, feared Him, and made an offering and vows to Him. The sailors and the people of Nineveh are two of several instances in which the Tanakh goes out of its way to emphasize the goodness of those who stand outside the Abrahamic covenant. Malkitzedek, Abraham’s contemporary, is one. Pharaoh’s daughter who saves the life of Moses is another. At the heart of Judaism is a duality between the covenant God makes with all humanity (the Noahide covenant) and the one He makes first with Abraham, then with Moses and the Israelites. Universality and particularity are at the center of Judaism. No other great faith has this structure. There is a relationship with God we share with others, and there is a relationship with God unique to the Jewish people. At times Jews have tended to forget one or other of these truths but they are both true. At this sacred moment the book of Jonah delivers an awesome challenge to us. It is as if God Himself were whispering to us: Shall others fear God while we forsake Him? Is it conceivable that Jews, the people who predicated their very survival on faith, should lose their faith and become a secular people, a mere ethnic group among others? Shall our enemies believe and we not believe? Israel’s strength, its greatness, its incomparable record of survival, has always come from its dedication to God. Where then is ours? That is the question Jonah poses to us on Yom Kippur, and its answer lies in the passion in which we say Ne’ila’s closing words, the most ringing affirmation of faith in the entire prayerbook.

4 days, 14 hours ago
3 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Mincha, Reading of the Torah 1 and 2 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

MINḤA – AFTERNOON SERVICE Unusually, Ashrei and Uva LeTziyon are not said here but at Ne’ila, the concluding service. The reason is so as not to delay the afternoon service after its proper time, since there are congregations where Musaf is continued well into the afternoon. Ashrei normally serves the purpose of marking a break between one prayer and the next (see Berakhot 30b). Here, however, the Reading of the Torah does so instead. Tosafot (Berakhot 31a) also hold that prayer should be preceded by words of Torah. Normally this is done through Ashrei, but here, through the Torah and Haftara readings. The combined effect, though, of the absence of the prayers that normally form the end of Musaf and those that mark the beginning of Minḥa, is startling. Despite the fact that the prayers of Yom Kippur are longer than those of any other day, there is a sense of urgency about them. There is no leisurely closure to Musaf, no preamble to Minḥa, no relaxation of mood, nothing that might de-intensify the awe of the day.

4 days, 14 hours ago
2 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Musaf, Birkat Kohanim 4 and 5 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

וְתֶעֱרַב עָלֶֽיךָ עֲתִירָתֵֽנוּ May our entreaty be as pleasing to You (previous page). In the Ashkenazi rite, this passage is said only when the Priestly Blessing is said, that is, during the Musaf Repetition on festivals. Some argue that it was included to give the Kohanim time to ascend before the Ark.

4 days, 14 hours ago
5 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Musaf, Eleh Ezkera 3 history »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

אֵֽלֶּה אֶזְכְּרָה These I remember. A lament for ten great rabbis who went to their deaths as martyrs, killed by the Romans. Their story is told, in differing forms, twice a year: once on Tisha B’Av, the other here. On Tisha B’Av the emphasis is on grief, since that is a day of mourning. Here the emphasis is on the way they gave their lives for their faith – as if to say that though the destruction of the Temple brought sacrifices to an end, Jews did not cease to make sacrifices for the sake of God. Often they gave their lives. In the first and second centuries CE there were three rebellions against Rome. First was the Great Rebellion of 66–73 during which Jerusalem was conquered and the Second Temple destroyed. Second was the uprising throughout the empire in 117 against the Emperor Trajan. Third, and in human terms the most tragic, was the Bar Kokhba rebellion of 132–135. It was during this last that most of the sages here mentioned, died. Throughout history there have been two kinds of assaults against Jewry, the first against Jews, the second against Judaism. Among the latter was that of Antiochus IV of Syria (against whom the Maccabees fought and won), and the Roman emperor Hadrian. Both sought to impose a Hellenistic culture on the peoples of the Middle East and both banned the public practice of Judaism, including circumcision. Jews, under the command of Shimon bar Kosiba (popularly known as Bar Kokhba, “son of the star”), rose against the Romans in 132. Initially the campaign was successful and Roman losses were heavy. Archaeologists working in the Judean desert between 1952 and 1961 found documents from the rebels, showing them to be deeply religious Jews concerned with the practice of their faith. But as more Roman legions were brought into the area, the tide turned and the rebels faced their final defeat in Beitar in 135. The Romans were ruthless in their reprisals. According to the Roman historian Dio, “very few [Jews] were saved.” Fifty forts were destroyed, 985 settlements razed, 580,000 Jews died in the fighting, along with “countless numbers” who died of starvation, fire and the sword. “Nearly the entire land of Judea lay waste” (Roman History 69:14). Jerusalem was rebuilt as a Roman city, Aelia Capitolina, which Jews were forbidden to enter except on Tisha B’Av and the name of the land was changed by Hadrian from Judea to Syria-Palestina, the origin of the name Palestine. The tragedy was compounded by the fact that many of the greatest scholars were brutally put to death, among them Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon, Rabbi Tarfon, head of the Sanhedrin before the revolt, Shimon ben Azzai and others. That is the historical basis of the events narrated in “These I remember,” although it also includes sages like Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel the Nasi and Rabbi Yishmael the High Priest who were killed in the earlier revolts. The narrative opens with the suggestion, paralleled by a passage in the Book of Jubilees, that the ten martyrs suffered death to atone for the ten sons of Jacob who sold their brother Joseph into slavery (Gen. 37:26–28). There may be an allusion here to the idea, expressed elsewhere by the sages, that the Second Temple fell because of internal dissension and “causeless hatred” within the Jewish people (Yoma 9b). Whatever the cause, the combination of physical destruction and spiritual devastation by the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt brought Jewry closer to despair than almost any other time in history. The Talmud (Bava Batra 60b) says that there were those who came to the conclusion that “by rights we should issue a decree that there should be no more Jewish marriages and no more Jewish children so that the seed of Abraham comes to an end of its own accord.” The memory of the martyrs never faded. The Talmud tells a famous story that one figure, Pappus ben Judah, warned Rabbi Akiva to stop teaching Torah in public for fear that he would be caught and killed by the Romans. Rabbi Akiva replied with a fable of the fox and the fish. A fox walking by a river saw fish darting here and there and asked them why. The fish said they were escaping the nets of fishermen. “In that case,” said the fox, “come and live with me safely on dry land.” The fish replied, “If we are in danger of death here in the only element in which we can live, how much more so on dry land where we cannot live at all” (Berakhot 61b). For Rabbi Akiva life without Torah was as inconceivable as a fish living without water. It is said that Rabbi Akiva went to his death serenely, saying “All my life I wondered whether I would have the chance to fulfill the command, You shall love the Lord your God…with all your soul – meaning, ‘even if He takes your soul,’ and now that I have the chance to fulfill it shall I not do so?” (ibid.). Heroic deaths like these inspired Jews in many subsequent centuries. Yet Judaism remains a religion of life, not death.

4 days, 14 hours ago
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Musaf, Seder HaAvoda 2 and 22 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

SEDER HA’AVODA – THE ORDER OF the TEMPLE SERVICE There now follows a unique feature of the Yom Kippur prayers: a narrative retelling of the order of service as it took place in the Temple. Every Musaf Amida contains a specific reference to the sacrifice of the day, but only here are we invited to re-envision it as it happened. The service in the Temple on Yom Kippur was unique, the dramatic high point of the Jewish year. On the holiest day the holiest person, the High Priest, would enter the Holy of Holies and, with the holiest name of God on his lips, atone for the sins of all Israel. It was a supremely emotive moment, an entire nation confronting its faults, confessing its failings, and turning to God as its source of forgiveness and hope: a nation focused on the service of one man, the Kohen Gadol, who prayed and confessed on their behalf. For close to two thousand years we have not had the Temple, nor High Priest, nor sacrifice. That the Jewish people survived as a people, that Judaism survived as a faith, and that Yom Kippur survived in the absence of so much of what constituted the service of the day, are three of the more remarkable stories in human history. In effect, the sages said: in place of sacrifice, we have prayer. In place of the Temple we have the synagogue. In place of the service of the High Priest we have the service of each of us, turning to God, confessing our sins, committing ourselves to a different and better future, offering God our heart. We no longer have the Temple ceremony, but we have the story; and we have the day itself, which atones even in the absence of the Temple. So on this day of days, more vividly than at any other time, the synagogue becomes a fragment of the Temple, and we re-create in our minds the scene that took place then on this holiest of days. Seder HaAvoda – the narrative retelling of the rituals of the day – was part of the Yom Kippur service already in Talmudic times. There were communities that recited it also in the morning and afternoon services, but the predominant custom was to do so only during Musaf. Many poetic versions were written, of which the most famous are Ata Konanta, adopted in Sephardi rites (), and our own Ashkenazi version, Amitz ko’aḥ (“Unshakable of strength”). (See also Mishna Yoma, Appendix II on .)

4 days, 14 hours ago
22 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Musaf, Leader's Repetition for Musaf 5 and 46 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

בָּרוּךְ Blessed. It is not we who bless God but God who blesses us. The meaning of “blessed” here is: We acknowledge You as the source of all our blessings. אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵֽינוּ Our God and God of our fathers. The order here is derived from the song the Israelites sang at the Sea of Reeds: “This is my God and I will glorify Him, my father’s God and I will exalt Him” (Ex. 15:2). Our parents teach us how to worship God, but we must make that faith our own if we are fully to honor and renew their heritage. Faith is more than deference to the past. It must live in the present, in us, if it is to change us and through us change the world. אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם, אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק, וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob. God is always and everywhere the same God, the One God, but for each of us there is a way of serving Him that is unique to us, for we are each in God’s image, but we are all different. The three patriarchs each walked with God in his own way. The radiance of faith is the result of the Oneness of God refracted through the diversity of humankind.

4 days, 14 hours ago
46 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Musaf, The Amida 1 history »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

MUSAF – ADDITIONAL SERVICE The Musaf service corresponds to the additional sacrifice that was offered in Temple times on Shabbat and festivals. The sacrificial element is more pronounced in Musaf than in other services, since the other services have a double aspect. On the one hand, they too represent sacrifice (except Ma’ariv, the evening service, because no sacrifices were offered at night). But they also represent the prayers of the patriarchs: the morning service is associated with Abraham, the afternoon service with Isaac and the evening service with Jacob. Musaf has no such additional dimension. It is, simply, the substitute for a sacrifice. As our ancestors brought offerings in the Temple so we bring an offering of words. In my heart I will build a Temple for His glory, and in the Temple I will place an altar to His splendor, and as an eternal light I will take the flame of Isaac’s binding, and as an offering I will offer my only soul. (Rabbi Elazar Azikri) If I declare my wants in prayer, it is not to remind You of them, but only that I may be conscious of my dependence on You. (Rabbi Baḥya ibn Pakuda)

4 days, 14 hours ago
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Musaf, Leader's Prayer 2 history »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

הִנְנִי הֶעָנִי מִמַּֽעַשׂ Here I am, empty of deeds. A private meditation, said in the first person singular by the leader of prayer. It expresses the sense of inadequacy anyone must feel, not simply in standing before God in prayer – for that is something we must all do – but in doing so on behalf of others. Abraham, praying for the people of Sodom, said “I am but dust and ashes” (Gen. 18:27). Moses, charged with leading his people to freedom, said, “Who am I?” (Ex. 3:11). The paradox of spiritual leadership is that those who think they are great are small; those who think themselves small are great. In Judaism, all leadership, including leadership in prayer, is a form of service, not superiority or dominance, and cannot exist without humility. הִנְנִי Here I am. This single word is the ultimate human response to the call of God. When God summons us, He calls our name, and the most profound reply is simply, Hineni, “Here I am.” So said Abraham at the beginning of the binding of Isaac (Gen. 22:1). So said Jacob when God told him not to be afraid to go to Egypt (Gen. 46:2). So said Moses when God appeared to him at the burning bush (Ex. 3:4). So said the young Samuel when God appeared to him at night (I Sam. 3:4), and Isaiah in the mystical vision that marked the beginning of his mission (Is. 6:8). At the beginning of the human story God called to Adam and Eve in Eden, “Where are you?” (Gen. 3:9). So He has done ever since: He calls to each of us, here where we are, this person, in this situation, at this time, saying: there is an act only you can do, a situation only you can address, a moment that, if not seized, may never come again. God commands in generalities but calls in particulars. He knows our gifts and He knows the needs of the world. That is why we are here. There is an act only we can do, and only at this time, and that is our task. The sum of these tasks is the meaning of our life, the purpose of our existence, the story we are called on to write. God’s call is almost inaudible. It speaks in “a still, small voice” (I Kings 19:12), meaning a voice we can only hear if we are listening. But it is there and if, from time to time throughout our lives, we create a silence in the soul, we will hear it. Our lives, offered in faith and trust, are the answer to God’s question. There is no life without a task, no person without a talent, no place without a fragment of God’s light waiting to be discovered and redeemed, no situation without its possibility of sanctification, no moment without its call. It may take a lifetime to learn how to find these things, but once we learn, we realize in retrospect that all it ever took was the ability to listen. When God calls, He whispers our name – and the greatest reply is simply Hineni, “Here I am,” ready to heed Your call, to mend a fragment of Your all-too-broken world. Let nobody in Israel, God forbid, ask himself: what am I, and what can my humble acts achieve in the world? Let him rather understand this, that he may know it and fix it in his thoughts: not one detail of his acts, his words, and his thoughts, is ever lost. Each one leads back to its origin, where it takes effect in the height of heights. (Rabbi Ḥayyim of Volozhyn) No limits are set to the ascent of humankind, and to each the highest stands open. Your choice alone decides. (Rabbi Naḥman of Bratslav) כִּתְפִלַּת זָקֵן וְרָגִיל… As if it were the prayer of an old man, experienced and fluent… This series of descriptions comes from the Mishna (Ta’anit 15a) which prescribes the procedure for public fasts proclaimed because of drought. The leader of prayer on such occasions had to be one beloved of God and of his fellow humans. וְתִגְעַר בְּשָׂטָן Banish the Adversary. Satan, the Adversary, is not, in Judaism, a force of evil as in some non-Jewish theologies, but one of God’s angels whose task is to be the prosecuting counsel in the heavenly court (See Zechariah 3, Job 1). וְאַל יְהִי שׁוּם מִכְשׁוֹל בִּתְפִלָּתִי And let there be no obstacle to my prayer. The saintly Ḥanina ben Dosa, known as one of the great masters of prayer in the age of the Mishna, used to say that if his prayers came fluently from his mouth, he knew they had been accepted (Mishna, Berakhot 34b).

4 days, 14 hours ago
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, Yizkor 6 and 2 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

YIZKOR The custom of remembering and praying for the dead is ancient. In the second book of Maccabees there is a reference to Judah the Maccabee saying prayers for fallen fighters and making a collection for the Temple on their behalf (chapter 12). Midrash Tanḥuma mentions the custom of remembering the dead on Yom Kippur. It bases it on the verse: “ Your people, whom You, God, have redeemed” (Deut. 21:8): Forgive Your people – these are the living. Whom You have redeemed – these are the dead (Tanḥuma, Ha’azinu, 1). Equally ancient is the custom of donating money to charity in their memory, for “charity redeems from death” (Prov. 10:2; 11:4). We believe that the soul is immortal, that the dead live on, and that we, by our actions in the present, can confer merit on them and their memory. This is especially germane to Yom Kippur when we recall our own mortality and remember those who brought us into the world. Rabbi Jacob Weil (Germany, fifteenth century) suggested that the plural form of the biblical name for the day, Yom Kippurim, literally “the Day of Atonements,” refers to two atonements, for the living and for the dead. The emotional impact of Yizkor deepened in the wake of the Crusades and later the pogroms, when many Jews went to their deaths as martyrs, and were remembered each year at this time. A special prayer for martyrs, Av HaRaḥamim, “Father of compassion,” was added to the service at that time. Nowadays, we add prayers for the victims of the Holocaust, as well as those who went to their deaths defending the State of Israel. The formal name for this prayer is Hazkarat Neshamot, “the Remembrance of Souls,” but it became popularly known as Yizkor because of the first word of the memorial prayer. Remembrance holds a special place in the Jewish soul. Jews were the first people to regard remembering as a religious duty. The verb “to remember” in one or other of its forms occurs 169 times in Tanakh. In Judaism we remember not just for the past but also, and especially, for the sake of the future. As mentioned in the commentary for the Ma’ariv remembrance verses, this can be seen in the three cases in which the word Yizkor appears in connection with God in Genesis. God “remembered Noah” (8:1) and brought him out onto dry land. God “remembered Abraham” (19:29) and rescued his nephew Lot from the destruction of Sodom. God “remembered Rachel” (30:22) and gave her a child. In each case the act of remembering was for the sake of the future and of life. Judaism gave two majestic ideas their greatest religious expression: memory and hope. Memory is our living connection to those who came before us. Hope is what we hand on to the generations yet to come. Those we remember live on in us: in words, gestures, a smile here, an act of kindness there, that we would not have done had that person not left their mark on our lives. That is what Yizkor is: memory as a religious act of thanksgiving for a life that was, and that still sends its echoes and reverberations into the life that is. For when Jews remember, they do so for the future, the place where, if we are faithful to it, the past never dies.

4 days, 14 hours ago
2 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, Reading of the Torah 49 and 9 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

TORAH READING: THE SERVICE OF THE HIGH PRIEST ON YOM KIPPUR This passage, dating from the second year of the Israelites’ journey in the wilderness, is the prototype for the later service of the High Priest in the Temple in Jerusalem, and ultimately for our service today. Only one other festival, Pesaḥ, is described in such detail in the Torah itself. אַֽחֲרֵי מוֹת After the deaths. The tragic death of two of Aaron’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, for offering “unauthorized fire” at the inauguration of the Tabernacle (Lev. 10:1), gave poignancy and depth to the role of Aaron in atoning for the sins of the people. He knew the depth of grief to which even well-intentioned transgression can give rise. וְאַל־יָבֹא בְכָל־עֵת Not at any time. The entry of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies was permitted only on the holiest of days, Yom Kippur.

4 days, 14 hours ago
9 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, Leader's Repetition for Shaharit 1 and 32 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

LEADER’S REPETITION OF THE AMIDA There are two views as to the meaning and significance of the Leader’s Repetition of the Amida (Rosh HaShana 34b–35a). According to some Mishnaic sages, the leader repeats the Amida for the sake of those unable to pray for themselves – a phenomenon more widespread then than now because there were few prayer books and not everyone was able to say the Amida by heart. This was especially so on Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, when the prayers were long and many of them less familiar than those said at other times of the year. The other view, held by Rabban Gamliel, was that the Repetition, said out loud by the leader, is the primary form of prayer. Evidently for Rabban Gamliel, prayer was essentially a substitute for the communal sacrifices, offered daily, together with an extra sacrifice (represented by Musaf) for Sabbaths and festivals. For this reason there is no Leader’s Repetition in the evening service, since no sacrifice was offered at night. In this view, prayer is a communal act: the leader stands in place of the priest, words take the place of the sacrifice, and the offering is made by one on behalf of all. With either interpretation it is important to follow the Repetition, to make the appropriate congregational responses, and not to talk otherwise until the prayer has been completed. We speak to God privately as individuals and publicly as a community, for ours is a faith of strong individuals and of deeply rooted, communal bonds. At this point it is the community speaking through the leader’s prayer.

4 days, 14 hours ago
32 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, Blessings of the Shema 2 and 15 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

בָּרְכוּ אֶת יהוה Bless the LORD. The formal start of communal prayer, to which the Verses of Praise have been a prelude and preparation. Barekhu, like the zimmun said before the Grace after Meals, is an invitation to others to join in an act of praise, based on the verse, “Magnify the LORD with me, let us exalt His name together” (Ps. 34:4).

4 days, 14 hours ago
15 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, HaMelekh 2 and 5 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

הַמֶּֽלֶךְ The King. Without changing the words of the usual Shabbat and festival prayers, the overarching theme of the Days of Awe – God’s kingship – is signaled at this point by the emphasis placed on one word, HaMelekh, “the King.” This is amplified by the custom for the main leader of prayer to take over at this point, singing the word as he ascends the bima, and by the music itself which begins softly in a minor key and rises to triumphant major, a practice dating back to Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg in the thirteenth century.

4 days, 14 hours ago
5 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, Nishmat 1 history »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

נִשְׁמַת The soul. An ancient poem, elements of which are cited in the Talmud, where it is referred to as a prayer of thanksgiving for rain after prolonged drought and as part of the Seder service on Pesaḥ. It is also known as Birkat HaShir, “the blessing of the song” (Pesaḥim 118a). It artfully weaves together many of the themes of the Verses of Praise, taking its cue from the last verse of Psalms, “Let all that breathes [kol haneshama] praise the LORD” – the words neshama and nishmat (“the soul of”) come from the same root. It also elaborates on the phrase, “All my bones shall say” (Ps. 35:10), describing how each part of the body seeks to praise God – an ancient prefiguration of the idea of “body language.”

4 days, 14 hours ago
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, Pesukei DeZimra 4 and 22 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָמַר Blessed is He who spoke. An introductory blessing to the Verses of Praise that follow, mainly taken from the Psalms. Their essential theme is God as He exists in Creation, designing and sustaining the universe in wisdom, justice and compassion. At their core are six psalms, 145–150, the last in the book of Psalms, which correspond to the six days of creation in Genesis 1. בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם Blessed is He who spoke and the world came into being. In the sharpest possible contrast to the mythology of the pagan world, creation unfolds in Genesis 1 without clash or conflict between the elements. God said, “Let there be” and there was. There is an essential underlying harmony in the universe. All that exists is the result of a single creative will. The world is fundamentally good – the word “good” appears seven times in the opening chapter. The opening section of this two-part blessing is a ten-line litany of blessings, corresponding to the ten times in Genesis 1 in which the phrase, “And God said” appears: the “ten utterances” by which the world was made (Avot 5:1). בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה Blessed are You. The second part of this two-part blessing is an introduction to the biblical passages that follow. וּבְשִׁירֵי דָוִד עַבְדֶּֽךָ With the songs of Your servant David. A reference to the psalms that form the core of the Verses of Praise.

4 days, 14 hours ago
22 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, A Psalm Before Verses of Praise 1 history »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

מִזְמוֹר שִׁיר Psalm 30. This psalm was a late addition to the morning prayers, appearing for the first time in the seventeenth century. Although entitled “A psalm of David. A song for the Dedication of the House,” we know that the Temple was not built in his lifetime. As a soldier and military leader he was deemed not to be privileged to build a Temple that symbolized peace (I Chr. 22:8). Hence it was built by his son King Solomon, whose name means peace and whose reign was marked by peace. Nonetheless, since it was David who conceived the plan to build the Temple, he wrote this psalm to be sung on that occasion (Rashi). In it David relates how, when his life was in danger, God delivered him to safety. Set here, it beautifully connects the dawn blessings (waking from sleep as a miniature experience of being saved from death to life) with the Verses of Praise that are about to follow (“So that my soul may sing to You”).

4 days, 14 hours ago
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, The Interpretive Principles of Rabbi Yishmael 1 history »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

THE INTERPRETIVE PRINCIPLES OF RABBI YISHMAEL This passage is included as an item of Talmud, defined in its broadest sense as “deducing conclusions from premises, developing implications of statements, comparing dicta, and studying the hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is interpreted” (Maimonides, Laws of Torah Study 1:11). It was chosen because it appears at the beginning of the Sifra, the halakhic commentary to Leviticus, which is the source of most of the laws of offerings. It also reminds us of the indissoluble connection between the Written Law (the Mosaic books) and the Oral Law (Mishna, Midrash and Talmud). Rabbi Yishmael’s principles show how the latter can be derived from the former.

4 days, 14 hours ago
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, Offerings 1 and 2 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

OFFERINGS There now follows a second cycle of study, with the same structure as the first, with passages from: (1) the Torah, (2) the Mishna, and (3) the Talmud (see below). The passages from the Torah relate to the daily, weekly and monthly sacrifices because, in the absence of the Temple, the sages held that study of the laws about sacrifice was a substitute for sacrifice itself (Ta’anit 27b). The passage from the Mishna (Zevaḥim 5) is also about sacrifices, and was chosen because it does not contain any disagreement between the sages, and thus accords with the rule that one should pray “after a decided halakha,” that is, an item of Jewish law about which there is no debate. There are different customs about how many and which passages are to be said. The passages in large type represent the text as it exists in the earliest siddurim, those of Rabbi Amram Gaon and Rabbi Sa’adia Gaon.

4 days, 14 hours ago
2 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, Accepting the Sovereignty of Heaven 1 and 4 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

רִבּוֹן כָּל הָעוֹלָמִים Master of all worlds. This passage expresses the paradox of the human condition in the presence of God. We know how small we are and how brief our lives.

4 days, 14 hours ago
4 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, The Binding of Isaac 3 and 2 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

THE BINDING OF ISAAC This passage, said daily by those whose liturgy follows the Jewish mystical tradition, evokes the supreme moment of sacrifice by the grandfather of Jewish faith, Abraham. Abraham found himself caught within a seeming contradiction. On the one hand God had told him that it would be Isaac and Isaac’s children through whom the covenant would continue and become eternal (Gen. 17:19). On the other, God had now commanded him to take Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice (Gen. 22:3). It was Abraham’s willingness, not merely to sacrifice that which was most precious to him, but to live with the contradiction, in the faith that God would resolve it in the course of time, that made him the hero of faith and its role model through the centuries.

4 days, 14 hours ago
2 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, Morning Blessings 25 and 5 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

MORNING BLESSINGS A series of thanksgivings, designed to open our eyes to the wonders of the world and of existence. The religious sense is not so much a matter of seeing new things but of seeing things anew.

4 days, 14 hours ago
5 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, Blessings over the Torah 1 and 4 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

BLESSINGS OVER THE TORAH In Judaism, Torah study is the highest of all spiritual engagements, higher even than prayer (Shabbat 10a), for in prayer we speak to God but in Torah study we listen to God speaking to us, through the sacred texts of our tradition. Judaism is supremely a religion of study. Hence we preface prayer with an act of Torah study. There are three types of Torah study: (1) study in order to know what to do, (2) study as a substitute for rituals that we are unable to perform, most notably the sacrifices, and (3) study as a religious act for its own sake, an aligning of our intellect with the mind of God.

4 days, 14 hours ago
4 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Shaharit, On Waking 3 and 4 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

מוֹדֶה אֲנִי I thank you. Sleep, said the sages, is a sixtieth, a foretaste, of death. Waking each morning is like a resurrection. In this simple prayer we say thank you to God for giving us back our life.

4 days, 14 hours ago
4 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Yom Kippur Evening, Massekhet Yoma 1:1 and 8 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

NOTE TO COMMENTARY ON THE MISHNAYOT References to the Mishna are often confusing, as the division of each chapter into individual mishnayot changes from edition to edition. Therefore, we have reluctantly adopted the policy of referencing mishnayot according to the page number of the Babylonian Talmud where the mishna appears, such as: Mishna, Menaḥot 65a. Mishnayot which have no Talmud tractate are also referenced according to the Vilna edition, such as: Mishna, Bikkurim 1:10. The exceptions are the references within Yoma, Rosh HaShana and Avot, where cross-references to the mishna, translation, and notes appear according to the order we have followed here, in the Koren Rosh HaShana Maḥzor and the Koren Siddur. Likewise, references to the Tosefta are according to the Vilna edition. (Despite some other editions being considered more reliable, the Vilna Talmud edition is still more accessible, and in none of the references does the edition make any substantial difference.) References to the Jerusalem Talmud have the chapter and mishna according to the Venice 1523 edition, which is the cornerstone for most printed editions. We have used the Hebrew name Yerushalmi. Unless otherwise specified, a citation of the Talmud refers to the Babylonian Talmud, and a citation of a page or a commentary refers to Massekhet Yoma. Citations of the Rif and his commentators are according to the pages of Hilkhot Rav Alfas printed at the back of the Vilna edition. An unspecified reference to Rambam refers to his commentary on the Mishna; an unspecified reference to Rosh refers to his “order of the Yom Kippur service” which is printed before his rulings on chapter eight. Rav Soloveitchik is cited from his Kuntras Avodat Yom HaKippurim, second edition, Jerusalem 2005. In the commentary to the Maḥzor, the names Maimonides and Nahmanides are used; in these notes, we have used the Hebrew acronyms Rambam and Ramban. The Tur, Shulḥan Arukh and commentaries around them are written in longhand; however, we have abbreviated the names of their components: OḤ for Oraḥ Ḥayyim, and YD for Yoreh De’ah (Ḥoshen Mishpat and Even HaEzer are not referred to in these notes). Some commentaries only wrote on one of the components, and those we have left unspecified. Rabbi David Fuchs CHAPTER ONE After the description of the Tabernacle’s construction in the book of Leviticus, we are told of the ceremony that inaugurates Aaron and his sons into the priesthood (chapter eight). Moses dresses them in the priestly vestments and anoints them with the sacred oil, after which they bring special inaugural offerings. They are then secluded inside the Tabernacle for a period of seven days. According to the Talmud Yerushalmi, these seven days parallel the week of Moses’ ascent to Mount Sinai, as described in the book of Exodus (24:16). To this description of the inauguration the Torah appends the words, “As was done on this day, so the LORD has commanded to be done, to make atonement for you” (Lev. 8:34). The Sifra (cited by Rashi) derives from this verse that there are two other situations in which these seven days of seclusion are to continue to be observed: the week leading up to Yom Kippur (see אַמִּיץ כֹּחַ, ), and the days prior to the burning of the red heifer, which purifies one who has become ritually impure though contact with a dead body. The Mishna (Para 3:1; Yoma 8a–b; see also the Seder HaAvoda piyutim, pages and ) states that during the week leading up to Yom Kippur, the High Priest is purified using the ashes of the red heifer, a process that takes seven days to complete. This may suggest that, besides evoking the inauguration days, this period also serves to shore against the risk that contact with a corpse may have rendered the High Priest impure, and therefore unfit for service. Should this have happened, perhaps without his knowledge, the week of separation and the ritual of the red heifer would be enough to purify him again. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira (Yoma 3b, Rambam 1:3) suggests another possible reason for the seven days’ separation. Impurity caused by relations with a menstrually impure woman lasts for seven days (Lev. 15:24). A week’s separation, then, from his wife, ensures that no mistake or misjudgment will render him invalid for service. The Netziv (Haamek Davar, Lev. 8:35) makes a further suggestion. The Yom Kippur Temple service is difficult and complex; these seven preparatory days, then, are an opportunity to train the High Priest in all of its details. This first chapter of our tractate, indeed, describes the High Priest practicing the Yom Kippur rituals in these days, (mishna 2), studying the relevant laws (mishna 3), swearing to observe them correctly (mishna 5), and becoming fully ready to perform them when the day arrives. Avoiding defilement is part of this preparation process; avoiding sleep on the night of Yom Kippur is one of the precautions taken (mishna 4, 6, 7). לִשְׁכַּת פַּלְהֶדְרִין Chamber of Palhedrin. In the context of the Temple, the word ִשְׁכָּה refers to any one of a number of chambers within its grounds, used for a variety of functions. The Sanhedrin held court in the לִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית, the Chamber of Hewn Stone; another chamber was designated to store the salt for the offerings; the לִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁאִין, Chamber of the Discreet, enabled people to donate and receive charity in an inconspicuous way. The Mishna (Midot 5:4) enumerates six chambers in the Temple courtyard itself, though the Talmud lists many more. The Chamber of Palhedrin was noteworthy as the only chamber to serve as living quarters (and consequently the only chamber in the Temple with a mezuza at its opening: see Yoma 10a). The Talmud (19a) debates whether it was on the north side of the courtyard or the south; most commentators agree that it was to the south (see figure I, ). The word “Parhedrin,” as it appears in the Talmud, is borrowed from the Greek meaning “clerks.” Specifically, it refers to the subordinate clerks of Roman procurators, who were recruited annually. Rabbi Yehuda (8b–9a) remarks that this was not the chamber’s official name; “the Chamber of Balvatei” (the Ministers’ Chamber) was given this derogatory label, expressing – as Rashi suggests – disapproval of the political selection of High Priests “in accordance with the ‘priesthood money’ they paid to the king.” וּמַתְקִינִין לוֹ כֹהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו And another priest is appointed as his substitute. The appointment of a substitute High Priest to be on standby from this early stage seems to be a precaution, aimed to avoid delays in the event that a replacement should be needed at the last minute. Tosafot Yeshanim (2a) note that an entirely new set of the priestly garments would have to be tailored for the substitute – a lengthy and expensive process (see mishna 3:7). The Talmud (13a) highlights a psychological advantage of the preemptive appointment; conscious that a substitute is readily available to replace him, the High Priest would be likely to be extra vigilant, to avoid any mistakes that might disqualify him. יֶאֱרַע בּוֹ פְסוּל Disqualify him. The mishna in Avot (5:5) lists ten miracles that happened in the Temple; one of them is the fact that no High Priest was ever defiled by a nocturnal emission on Yom Kippur. The Yerushalmi, however, does record one such case (Yoma 1:1), and names Yosef ben Ilem as the replacement. Significantly, though both the Tosefta (1:4) and the Talmud Bavli (12b) do cite the case of Yosef ben Ilem’s appointment, neither mention why the original High Priest was disqualified. The Talmud tells us of Yosef ben Ilem’s ardent hope that his appointment would be permanent. After being purified, however, the original High Priest was restored to office. This left Yosef ben Ilem in a legal limbo. No longer a High Priest, he was also unable to return to his previous status, as this would have been considered a degradation of the level of sanctity he had obtained in his short term of office (an application of the principle of מַעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין, “One may raise a thing in sanctity, but may not lower it”). בֵּיתוֹ – זוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ His house means “his wife.” The phrase “He shall make atonement for himself and for his house” is taken from the Yom Kippur service described in Leviticus (our translation there, , is slightly different in its context). The phrase appears twice in this passage (verses 6 and 11), and the rabbis understand the first to refer to the High Priest’s personal household – his family – and the second, to his tribal house, the entire priesthood. The High Priest is required to offer an independent confession for each of these two “houses.” Rabbi Yehuda understands “his house” in the specific sense of “his wife,” in line with Rabbi Yose’s saying “I have never called my wife, ‘my wife’; I call her ‘my house’” (Shabbat 118b). Rabbi Yehuda further rules that the High Priest’s confession for his household is an essential part of the Yom Kippur service, without which he is unable to atone for the rest of the people. Therefore, another woman is designated to take the place of his wife, in the event of his current wife dying suddenly. This ruling is reflected in the custom, first mentioned in the Kol Bo (65), always to select a married man to lead the prayers on the High Holidays, and the Seliḥot on the preceding days (Rema, OḤ 581:1). Later authorities, however, stress that the leader’s moral goodness and acceptance by the community are more important selection criteria than his marital status (Mishna Berura ibid. 13). אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף There would be no end to it. The Talmud in Yevamot 26a–b discusses at length the extent to which one may legally presume that a person will continue to live; in certain situations one is required to take precautions for the eventuality of a person dying without warning. The passage discusses these circumstances and concludes that while one must take precautions against the death of one person, there is no need to be concerned about the (smaller) risk of two people dying in close succession. Although this seems to be in line with Rabbi Yehuda’s position in our mishna, the Talmud explains that neither Rabbi Yehuda nor the rabbis there in fact agree with the conclusion of the discussion in Yevamot (see Sukka 24a). Both, rather, hold that even the risk of one person dying need not concern us under most circumstances. It is because of the gravity and importance of the High Priest’s service on Yom Kippur that Rabbi Yehuda asserts the need for extra concern in this case, with preparations being made not only for the High Priest’s possible defilement, but also for his possible widowerhood. Even Rabbi Yehuda, however, concedes that there is no need to prepare a third woman for fear that the replacement may also die (13a). He also does not require a second wife to be prepared for the replacement High Priest (Tosafot Yeshanim). The rabbis reject Rabbi Yehuda’s heightened concern. Their claim, “אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף, There would be no end to it,” is used in the mishna (here and in Pesaḥim 9a) to reject the compulsion to consider possibilities which would normally not concern us. If we begin to overstep the boundaries of reasonable caution, there is no longer any logical place to stop.

4 days, 14 hours ago
8 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Yom Kippur Evening, Massekhet Yoma 2:1 and 7 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

CHAPTER TWO This chapter provides an overview of the order of the daily Temple service as it was performed throughout the year. This is presented more fully in Tamid, the tractate devoted specifically to this topic. The Yom Kippur service follows the same general structure as the Temple routine of other days, with the significant difference that on the Day of Atonement, the entire service is undertaken by the High Priest (Horayot 12b). The first four mishnayot of our chapter describe the lotteries used to allocate the various ceremonial tasks to the priests who would perform them; according to the narrative we know from the piyut אַמִּיץ כֹּחַ (see ), these lotteries were performed on Yom Kippur as on every other day. Rabbi Zeraḥya HaLevi (Sefer HaMa’or, 1a) takes issue with this. He takes the rule that the Yom Kippur service should be performed by the High Priest alone as an absolute one. If this is so, then the details of the role-allocations are listed here without specific relevance to Yom Kippur. In defense of the piyutim, Ramban (ibid.) suggests that different rules apply to different parts of the Yom Kippur service; only those rites which are fundamental to Yom Kippur itself require the High Priest; other, more everyday elements of the ceremony may be performed by regular priests. He goes on to demonstrate that all the usual task-lotteries are held on Yom Kippur as on other days. (See note to 1:8 for a parallel dispute between Rashi and Tosafot as to whether the High Priest performs the rite of terumat hadeshen on Yom Kippur, which would otherwise be the subject of the first lottery of the day.) Rambam (Hilkhot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:1) appears to rule that the lottery which allocates the terumat hadeshen is held on this day too, while the other lotteries, of which he makes no mention, are omitted. After narrating the ritual of the lotteries, our chapter goes on to describe how the various offerings were brought, beginning with the daily offering (the Tamid), and then moving on to other categories of sacrifice. בֶָּרִאשׁוֹנָה At first. The rite of terumat hadeshen, the removal of the ashes from the altar, was performed before dawn. It was not a fundamental part of the daily service (see note to 1:8), and it was originally assumed that the priests would not be overly enthusiastic to undertake it, especially at the expense of sleep (Yerushalmi). The low demand for this privilege made it possible to select between the few volunteers by means of a race up the altar ramp. Experience, however, proved the priests’ enthusiasm to be more potent than predicted, and the chances of having a clear victor (see mishna 2) were diminished (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). The use of a lottery was therefore extended to this ritual as well. The change proved counterproductive however; with the selection process being founded on chance rather than prowess, the priests’ enthusiasm for the privilege waned. To provide the priests with extra incentive to get up in the night, the sages then enacted that the priests who won this lottery would also gain the privileges of setting the piles of wood upon the altar and of bringing up the two logs of kindling wood; the one who removed the ashes, then, essentially became the caretaker of the fire for the day (see note to 2:5) (Rav Ashi in Yoma 22a). בַּכֶּבֶשׁ The ramp of the altar. The Torah (Ex. 20:23) forbids the use of stairs to ascend the altar; raising one’s legs at each step would breach the high standards of modesty required in the Temple. Therefore, a ramp, thirty two cubits long, was constructed on the altar’s southern side (see 4:5). This rose at a gentle gradient to the surrounding ledge, which was just less than nine cubits high. בְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת The upper four cubits. The idea of using a race to select a priest for this privilege perhaps helped to determine which volunteer was most alert and capable of the task in the early pre-dawn. If the race failed to produce an outright winner, a lottery would be held among all the volunteers, not only among those who succeeded in reaching the top of the ramp (Rashi). A literal translation of the phrase, כָּל הַקּוֹדֶם אֶת חֲבַרוֹ בְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת implies that a lead of four cubits was required in order to gain the privilege. According to Rashi (22a), however, the rule is that the first to arrive within four cubits of the top was selected. (See Maharam di Lunzano, quoted by Melekhet Shlomo, who suggests that according to Rashi’s explanation, the text of our mishna should be emended; and, indeed, in several manuscripts a slightly different wording is found.) הַצְבִּיעוּ Put out fingers. Rashi (following the Tosefta and Yoma 22b) describes this method in more detail. Each priest would extend one finger. The administrator would then decide upon a large number, remove the miter of one of the priests and, beginning with him, count the outstretched fingers until he reached the chosen number. According to Ritva, a different priest would choose the number, to prevent the administrator from pre-calculating the result. The Tosefta records that this lottery was held in the Chamber of Hewn Stone (לִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית). Rabbeinu Tam (Tosafot, 25a s.v. וְהָא) explains that this was necessary because it is forbidden to be bareheaded in the main courtyard of the Temple. Rambam (Hilkhot Temidim UMusafim 4:1) writes that even in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the miter would be returned immediately after the selection; even there, bareheadedness was inappropriate. Rambam (Hilkhot Temidim UMusafim 4:3) rules that all the פְּיָסוֹת were carried out using this elaborate system of counting fingers. According to Rabbi Yehuda bar Binyamin, however, the subsequent lotteries were determined by actual lots (see note on 3:1). This may be linked to the etymology of the word פְּיָסוֹת; see note on 4:2. אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם One finger or two. The Tosefta explains that each priest would extend one finger, though a priest who was unable to extend one finger individually was allowed to extend two. In this case, it is noted in the Talmud (23a), his two fingers would be counted as one. Rambam rules, however, that the fingers are indeed each counted separately (Hilkhot Temidim UMusafim 4:3; see Rambam’s Responsa, no. 126). It would appear that he had a variant text of the Talmud; Rabbeinu Ḥananel seemingly shares such a version and explains that only those who were known as talmidei ḥakhamim were permitted to extend two fingers, as only they were fully trusted not to cheat (see next note). וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֲגֻדָּל Does not hold out a thumb. If a dishonest priest saw that the count was coming to an end, he might extend his thumb, far from his extended finger, to create the illusion that they belonged to two different people, and increase the chances that the count would end with him.

4 days, 14 hours ago
7 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Yom Kippur Evening, Massekhet Yoma 3:1 and 11 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

CHAPTER THREE The Mishna now focuses its attention on the day of Yom Kippur itself. Nonetheless, details relevant to the rest of the year continue to be woven in among those specific to the day. The first three mishnayot of the chapter describe both the sanctifications necessary for priests working in the Temple throughout the year, and the five immersions specific to the High Priest on Yom Kippur. The majority of the chapter (mishnayot 4–9) is then devoted to a discussion of the rites of the morning, leading up to, but not including, the casting of the lots on the two goats. The chapter concludes with a record of people remembered for their personal contributions to the Temple, as well as of those who gained infamy by refusing to share the secrets of their skills. The Tosefta expands on this section, providing many stories of the individuals mentioned, as well as of others and of the marks they made upon the Temple and its traditions. The Mishna, as ever, discusses the Temple service with an attitude of both halakhic inquiry and historical interest. Technical details of the rituals are debated with the same immediate involvement, in the same present tense, as are devoted to every other field of practical law; and this is woven in among passages of descriptive narrative about the Temple, which move seamlessly among past tense and present, oral tradition, personal memory and legal deduction. At times the impression that arises from this is of deep-rooted grief for a lost time and lost ideal; at other times – or simultaneously – the close engagement with the subject-matter transcends the loss and becomes an expression of hope. Here, the memories of some of those who left their imprints on the life of the Temple remind us that, within the broad sweep of history, of Temple and Exile, an individual person can have his or her lasting personal impact, for good or for bad. הַמְמֻנֶּה The appointed priest. Tosafot (Menaḥot 100a) identify this priest as the administrator of the lotteries described in the previous chapter, a claim supported by the phrasing of the parallel mishnayot in Tamid, chapter three. Rashi, however, suggests this was the סְגַן, the Deputy High Priest (see mishna 9). This is in line with the Talmud in Sanhedrin 19a where the “the appointed priest” is explicitly equated, albeit in a different context, with the Deputy. It seems unlikely, however, that someone in such a high position would perform such a technical daily duty. The Meiri suggests there were several deputies with different responsibilities; another possibility is that there was no single appointment, but rather that every day the officiating priest was granted the elevated status of Deputy (see Rosh, Tamid 5:1; for the view that there was one permanent Deputy see Rambam, Hilkhot Klei HaMikdash 5:12). Many commentators argue that the Deputy here was the priest appointed to replace the High Priest, should he be disqualified (see mishna 1:1). מַתִּתְיָא בֶּן שְׁמוּאֵל Mattitya ben Shmuel. Rabbeinu Gershom (Menaḥot 100a) and Rambam understand that Mattitya ben Shmuel disagrees with the first opinion in the mishna: light having appeared at one point (עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר), he argues, is not enough, but rather the entire eastern horizon must be lit. Rashi and Tosafot differ: Mattitya ben Shmuel does not appear anywhere as a halakhic authority, but in Mishna Shekalim 5:1 he is named as the administrator of the lotteries. His words in our mishna, then, should not be read as a dissenting opinion, but as another voice within the narrative. In his time in the Temple, the watcher would announce the morning light, and Mattitya ben Shmuel would then ask whether the entire eastern horizon was lit up (this view is reflected in our translation). Understanding these words to be the words of Mattitya ben Shmuel may make it less likely that he is also the “appointed priest” at the beginning of the mishna. This would be at odds with Tosafot’s claim (cited in the previous note) that the “appointed priest” was also the administrator of the lotteries, a role which in Mishna Shekalim 5:1, as mentioned above, is identified with Mattitya ben Shmuel. A resolution of this tension may arise from the commentary of Rabbi Yehuda bar Binyamin (Italy, twelfth century, the first to write a commentary on tractate Shekalim). He suggests that Mattitya ben Shmuel was responsible for the lots themselves, and for teaching the officiating priests to use them (although see note to 2:1 – in Rambam’s view the lotteries were conducted using finger counting, not lots). If so, it would seem there were two administrators: the one who conducted the lottery – and also instructed the watchman to look for the first light; and the one who took care of the lots but did not cast them – and it was he who asked the watchman how far the light had spread. הֵאִיר פְּנֵי כָל הַמִּזְרָח עַד שֶׁבְּחֶבְרוֹן Has all the eastern horizon lit up. We follow Rashi (as do most of the commentators) in translating the question “Has all the eastern horizon lit up as far as Hebron?” Ra’avad, on the other hand – interpreting פְּנֵי הַמִּזְרָח “the land in the east” rather than the eastern horizon – understands the question to mean “Could you recognize the silhouettes of those standing in Hebron?” (Mishna Tamid 3:2). The Yerushalmi reads the mention of Hebron here as a conscious allusion to the patriarchs buried there, intended to invoke their merit. In the recently published Mishnat Aryeh, Rabbi Aryeh Levin suggests that the reference is specifically to Abraham and his eagerness to serve God from the earliest moment in the day (see Gen. 22:3).

4 days, 14 hours ago
11 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Yom Kippur Evening, Massekhet Yoma 4:1 and 6 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

CHAPTER FOUR The description of the Order of the Day in chapter three has brought us to the point at which the two goats are positioned near the altar (3:9). Continuing from this place, chapter four will now describe how the two goats are designated to their respective roles; one as a sin-offering, the other to be sent to Azazel. The chapter then continues with the confession over, and subsequent slaughter of the bull. Before the High Priest can enter the Holy of Holies, the climax of the day’s service, he must complete his own atonement. This is realized through the two confessions he makes over the bull; one for his personal household and one for the Priesthood (see note to 1:1). The first of these confessions appears in chapter three, and the second will be discussed in this chapter. A third confession, for all the people, will be made over the sin-offering goat in chapter six. All confessions consist of the admission of a sin, (Talmud 87b), and a supplication for forgiveness (Rabbeinu Yona’s Sha’arei Teshuva, chapter four). Both elements are included in the High Priest’s confessions. The other condition for entering the Holy of Holies is the burning of the incense (see note to 4:2). In this chapter, the High Priest sets aside the coals for this purpose. The mishna notes that a different coal pan is used on Yom Kippur than on other days; this signals the beginning of a digression in which the mishna lists other differences between the service of Yom Kippur and those of the rest of the year. טָרַף בַּקַּלְפִּי The High Priest shook the box. The right hand is a symbol of strength (see, for instance, Ex. 15:6). It is therefore considered a good omen if the lot “to the LORD” arises in the High Priest’s right hand. The Talmud (39a) explains the High Priest “shook the box” (our translation) to prevent him manipulating the result. The Arukh translates the verb טָרַף as “mixed,” and on the basis of this understanding, Rabbeinu Ḥananel (39a) and Rashbam (Bava Batra 122a) explain he shook the box containing the ballots in order to mix them up; we have translated in accordance with this reading. Rashi interprets טָרַף as “snatched,” closer to the biblical sense of the word, “to tear apart prey.” Although the lots were both alike (see below), it might still be possible to distinguish between them from the engraving of the words. Snatching at them quickly precludes this possibility. The public nature of the ceremony also counters any suspicion (Mishnat Aryeh). הַגְבַּהּ יְמִינְךָ “Raise your right hand!” The Talmud (39a) relates that this happened every year throughout Shimon HaTzaddik’s forty-year tenure as High Priest, a testimony to the righteousness of his generation. The mishna follows the rabbis’ view that both lots are drawn out by the High Priest. Rabbi Yehuda, it is noted in the Talmud, disagrees, maintaining that the High Priest only draws the first lot, while the second is drawn by the Deputy. The dispute, it is suggested, hinges on whether the Deputy’s right hand or the High Priest’s left is deemed more fitting. The commentators consider that the issue is, again, whether the casting of the lots is a ritual of the day in its own right, to be performed exclusively by the High Priest, or merely a way to fairly allocate the roles of the two goats (see Rav Soloveitchik ad loc.) in preparation for the rituals proper. Alongside the preferred status of the High Priest, however, all Temple rites are to be performed with the right hand; Rambam (Hilkhot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:3) writes explicitly that although the drawing of the lots is an essential rite of the day, it is not an “act of service,” so can be partly held by the High Priest’s left hand. The Meiri insists that it must be considered a full part of the service, as it is clearly mandated in the Torah and the High Priest performs it in his white vestments. He therefore interprets Rambam’s statement to mean only that the designation of the lots should not to be considered an act of service in the same way as an offering. נְתָנָן עַל שְׁנֵי הַשְּׂעִירִים He would place the lots upon the two goats. The phrase אֲשֶׁר עָלָה עָלָיו הַגּוֹרָל (Lev. 16:9), literally, “[the goat] that the lot comes up upon,” is somewhat ambiguous. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan it suggests that the lots must literally be placed upon the goats, this being an indispensable stage in designating one goat as the sin-offering. Rabbi Yanai argues that it is simply an idiomatic way of referring to the result of the lottery, and not a directive. Rambam (3:3) rules in accordance with Rabbi Yanai. He therefore permits the placing of the lots by a non-priest, while insisting that the actual drawing of the lots, which is an essential part of the ritual, only be done by the High Priest. אַתָּה כּוֹנַנְתָּ oddly states גּוֹרָל יָמִין כְּשֶׁהוּא שֶׁל שֵׁם / יִתְּנֵהוּ עַל הַשָּׂעִיר “If the lot to the LORD was in his right, he would place it upon the goat” (), seeming to imply that if it came up in his left hand, he would not. The Beit Yosef (OḤ 621) objects to such a notion and rules that this line should be removed from the piyut; today it is absent in most Sephardi maḥzorim. Maharam Nigrin (a contemporary of the Beit Yosef) suggests interpreting the line not as a conditional statement but as an expression of hope that the lot to the LORD would indeed be drawn by the Priest’s right hand. Following this suggestion, many Ashkenazi maḥzorim retain the line (see Appendix II, ). In אַמִּיץ כֹּחַ, the point is not mentioned. חַטָּאת A sin-offering. “And Aaron shall offer up the goat whose lot falls to the LORD, and make it a sin-offering” (Lev. 16:9). Tosafot Yeshanim explain that the rabbis understand the conclusion, “and make it a sin-offering,” as the final step required to sanctify the goat as a sin-offering, by verbally designating it as such. According to Rabbi Yishmael, on the other hand, the end of the verse is descriptive, not prescriptive; the drawing of the lots mentioned in the first half of the verse is enough to define its status without verbal confirmation. The Tosefta (2:9) words the disagreement differently; there the rabbis have the High Priest declare, “To the LORD!” and the Deputy continuing, “A sin-offering.” Rabbi Yishmael, then, disputes the need for the Deputy’s participation. Rashi (Lev. 16:9) and Rambam (Hilkhot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 2:6) state that the High Priest would say the whole sentence, and this is also how the scene is narrated in the Order of the Service piyutim. Smag (209) and Ritva (39a) follow the Tosefta’s description. וְהֵן עוֹנִין And they would respond. We have translated this line as an independent clause, continuing the mishna’s account, and not as the conclusion of Rabbi Yishmael’s dissenting view. In this we follow the ruling of Rambam (ibid.), also reflected in the Order of the Service piyutim (see below). However, the earliest piyutim (up to the period of Rav Sa’adia Gaon) make no mention of this line, suggesting that they indeed understand it as part of Rabbi Yishmael’s account, and, as his opinion is not accepted as authoritative, omit it. In אַמִּיץ כֹּחַ () this response is mentioned without any addition; but in אַתָּה כּוֹנַנְתָּ (according to our version) a passage beginning with “וְהַכֹּהֲנִים” is added, describing the people kneeling in prostration upon the mention of the Holy Name (). Rabbi Moishe Sternbuch (Mo’adim UZemanim 1:61) suggests that a halakhic obligation to kneel exists only when the Holy Name is formally mentioned in a prayer or a blessing. The response here should therefore be understood as a spontaneous demonstration of praise and submission. Indeed, God’s name is mentioned three times in each confession, but the people kneel only after the third, responding to the prayer as a whole. In truth, even in אַתָּה כּוֹנַנְתָּ, the passage beginning with “וְהַכֹּהֲנִים” is not a part of the original piyut, but an addition based on the Abudraham. Rabbi Yosef Karo supports this addition (Beit Yosef, OḤ 621; Responsum Avkat Rokhel 27–28), but as late as the eighteenth century it was not accepted by all Sephardi congregations (it does not appear, for instance, in Shifat Revivim). The early Hasidic Maḥzorim (those of Rabbi Shabtai of Rashkov and of Shneur Zalman of Liadi), which were the first to introduce אַתָּה כּוֹנַנְתָּ to the European (Nusaḥ Sepharad) liturgy, specify that the congregation should not kneel at this point. In recent generations, some have added it (see Rav Soloveitchik on 37a), and this is the practice most common in Sephardi congregations today.

4 days, 14 hours ago
6 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Yom Kippur Evening, Massekhet Yoma 5:1 and 7 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

CHAPTER FIVE: On the first Yom Kippur, as the Talmud calculates the date, Moses descends from Mount Sinai with the Second Tablets, restoring the relationship between the Jewish people and God in the wake of the sin of the golden calf (Ta’anit 30b). Later in history, on another momentous Yom Kippur, God reveals to the prophet Ezekiel a vision of the future Redemption and rebuilding of the Temple (Ezek. 40:1; see Arakhin 12a). Yom Kippur is referred to there as רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, New Year, the only use of that term in the Bible. Even when the Temple stood, Yom Kippur was the climax of the year’s worship; twice the Torah emphasizes the rites of Yom Kippur are but אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה, “once a year” (see Ex. 30:10 and Lev. 16:34). Only on this day is the High Priest enjoined to enter the Holy of Holies. On other days he may not enter at will: “And the LORD said to Moses: speak to Aaron your brother, that he come not at any time to the holiest place – behind the curtain, to the presence of the kaporet that covers the Ark – so that he does not die; for I shall be revealed in the cloud above the kaporet. This is how Aaron shall come to the holiest place…” (Lev. 16:2–3). This would seem to indicate that entry is dependent on God revealing Himself in a “cloud.” However, from verse 13 it is apparent that the “cloud” which permits entry is in fact the cloud of smoke rising from the incense. This is likely the rationale behind the Sadducees’ insistence that the incense should be burned before entering the Holy of Holies. If the incense serves as a license to enter, it surely should be kindled first. The sages, however, insist that on Yom Kippur the High Priest was not entering in order to bask in the Divine Presence; he was summoned to serve. Just as a servant begs permission to serve only once he is in the presence of his master, so too the High Priest offers the incense only once already inside the Holy of Holies. The entrance to the Holy of Holies is only permitted with this attitude of humility. Indeed, one of the first commands to Aaron in the passage is that his entry to the Holy of Holies is only to be made in the modest attire of an ordinary priest (the four white vestments) and not in the spectacular and honorific golden vestments normally worn by the High Priest. The atonement of Yom Kippur is achieved in just two entrances of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies: offering the blood of the bull to atone for himself, and offering the blood of the goat to atone for the whole of Israel. However, the burning of the incense in order to permit entry necessitates that he also enter before these two atonement ceremonies, in order to create the incense cloud, and then again once more, after the atonements, to retrieve the incense and coal pan that remain there throughout. Thus he enters the Holy of Holies four times in total. The fourth entry, in contrast to the first three, does not involve a positive act of service. It is therefore further postponed to the afternoon, after the offering of the rams (mishna 7:3) (see Rabbi Mordekhai Breuer in Pirkei Mikra’ot p. 290). Generally, it is assumed that no one may enter the Holy of Holies except for the High Priest, and that even he only enters on Yom Kippur. This is indeed the opinion of Rashi (Lev. 16:3) and Ramban (ibid, 2). However, the beginning of Leviticus chapter sixteen, which discusses the license to enter the Holy of Holies, does not explicitly limit it to Yom Kippur. The Vilna Gaon is cited (at the end of Ḥokhmat Adam) as explaining that Aaron himself had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies at any time, as long as he followed the incense procedure outlined. The restriction of the license to Yom Kippur was applied only in future generations. This may already be hinted at in the Sifra (cited by Rashi on v. 34) which praises Aaron for not wearing the garments for his own magnificence, but only “as one fulfilling the decree of a king.” Perhaps this is to be understood as praise for relinquishing his personal privilege to enter at any time, entering only when commanded to on Yom Kippur. If Yom Kippur was the high point of the Temple year, the climax of the day is described in this chapter. It begins with the taking of the incense and its burning inside the Holy of Holies (mishnayot 1–2), the offering of the blood of the bull (3), and the slaughter of the goat and offering of its blood (4). After sprinkling the blood of both offerings at the covering of the Ark (or in the Second Temple, toward the place where the Ark used to stand), the High Priest sprinkles it again at the Curtain of the Holy of Holies, thus completing the purification of the Temple (4). At this point, the second chapter of the Tosefta (which may be considered to parallel the Mishna here) ends, emphasizing that this is the culmination of the day’s main rite. Our chapter continues with the second act of purification, that of the Golden Altar (5–6) and ends by reiterating the importance of following the exact Order of the Service as laid out in the Bible (7). אֶת הַכַּף וְאֶת הַמַּחְתָּה The censer and the pan. This is not the coal pan mentioned in the previous chapter, but a different pan filled with incense brought from the Avtinas Chamber (47a). The High Priest then performs the חֲפִינָה, “taking a handful,” from the incense in this pan, using both hands cupped together. This is somewhat less challenging than קְמִיצָה, “taking a handful of flour” for the meal offering, as in our case he is not required to take a precise amount (Yoma 48a; see Tosafot Rosh ad loc.). The Yerushalmi questions whether this חֲפִינָה carries the full status of one of the rites of the day, or whether it simply serves the practical purpose of measuring out a quantity of incense. Assuming that it only serves a practical purpose, the procedure would be valid even if the rite were not performed correctly; for instance if a different priest measured the incense into the High Priest’s hands. The Yerushalmi does not resolve this question, leading Rambam to rule that ideally in such a situation the חֲפִינָה should be performed again, but that if the incense has already been offered, it is acceptable (Hilkhot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 5:28). וְאֶת הַכַּף בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ And the censer in his left. It is not feasible for him to hold the fine incense in his hands for an extended period, and in any case, he also needs to carry the coal pan to the Holy of Holies (see Lev. 16:12). The only option available, then, is to place the incense into a censer which he holds with one hand, while carrying the coal pan in the other. Usually the more important item is held in the right hand (see 4:5). The coal pan, however, is very hot and much heavier than the incense, and so, for practical reasons, the pans are switched around (47a). הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּהֵיכָל And he would walk across the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary contains the Golden Altar, Table and Menora (see figure I, ). According to Rabbi Yehuda, the High Priest proceeds to walk directly down the center of the Sanctuary, bearing left to pass the Golden Altar on its southern side, and then returning to his course to pass between the Table and Menora. Rabbi Meir describes a similar path, but suggests that the Priest passes the altar on its northern side. A third opinion explains that he does not walk in between any of the vessels, but rather walks along the northern side of the Sanctuary, passing everything on his left-hand side. The Talmud explains that this third opinion is based on the assumption, held by Rabbi Yose in the mishna here, that the Holy of Holies has only one curtain, which opens at its northern end, making the quickest approach to it a straight path along the northern end of the room. Although this route would require the High Priest to take a left turn into the Holy of Holies (see commentary to 4:5), with all of Israel anxiously awaiting the news of their atonement, the desire for speed outweighs other concerns (51b). לְבֵין שְׁתֵּי הַפָּרֹכוֹת The place between the two curtains. In the Tabernacle, a curtain separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Tent of Meeting (Ex. 26:34). In the First Temple, King Solomon constructed a דְּבִיר, a solid “partition” (translation follows Rashi, see also Radak) to divide the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary, and he hung the curtain upon it (I Kings ch. 6 and Ralbag ibid. 8:8). In the Second Temple there was no partition. The Talmud (52b) explains that the walls of the Holy of Holies in the Second Temple were extremely high – a hundred cubits – so that it was not feasible to build so high a partition of only a cubit thickness; to do so would require the construction of buttresses which would encroach upon the space of the Sanctuary. It was also disputed whether the space occupied by the partition had the sanctity of the Sanctuary or of the Holy of Holies. To avoid all doubts, two curtains were erected, one on either side of the one cubit space the wall would have occupied, known as the אַמָּה טְרַקְסִין, the “one-cubit partition.” According to the Yerushalmi (Kilayim 8:4) the word טְרַקְסִין is an elision of the Greek words for “inside” and “outside,” suggesting that the partition was named after doubt concerning the space was raised. Rabbeinu Tam suggests a different etymology, deriving the name from the Aramaic טְרוֹק, “to close,” in which case the word refers to the whole enclosure around the Holy of Holies (Tosafot, Bava Batra 3a). It remains unclear how Rabbi Yose, who maintains there was only one curtain, relates to the status of the sanctity of the space taken by the original solid partition. הָיְתָה פְרוּפָה [Loosely] tied. Most commentators follow Rashi, who suggests that the curtain was folded on the outside and caught in a single hook to create an opening for entry. Meiri suggests there were several such hooks, to stabilize the curtain. A dissenting opinion is that of Rabbeinu Yeroḥam (7:3), who holds that the curtain remained connected to the wall, and that the High Priest would detach it himself to gain entry. These last two opinions are combined by Rid: usually the curtain would be attached to the wall of the Sanctuary by several hooks, but before Yom Kippur it would be almost fully detached, to make it easier for the High Priest to enter. מְהַלֵּךְ בֵּינֵיהֶן He would walk between the two. To avoid setting the curtain alight with the burning coals that he was carrying, the High Priest would use his shoulders and elbows to push the curtains away from him (Yerushalmi). צָבַר אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת He would pile the incense.The Talmud (47b) lists קְמִיצָה, taking a handful of flour for a meal offering, מְלִיקָה, slaughtering a bird with the priest’s fingernail, and חֲפִינָה, taking the handful of incense, as the three most difficult rituals in the Temple. For this reason, the High Priest spends some time on the night of Yom Kippur practicing the חֲפִינָה (Rashi, see note on 1:7). The difficulty of חֲפִינָה lies not in the initial taking of the handful in the courtyard, but in returning the incense back to his hands when he arrives inside the Holy of Holies. First he must place the coal pan on the ground to free his hands (Rashi). He then grasps the censer of incense with the tips of his fingers, or with his teeth, and empties its entire contents into his cupped hands. He must do this without spilling even a single granule; if this happens, in the view of Rabbeinu Yehonatan, the measurement of his handful would be considered lacking. He then places the incense onto the coals, starting with the further side in order not to be scorched (52b). The Talmud records a debate as to how the piling of the incense should be done. Some suggest that the incense should be spread thinly, allowing it to burn quickly and rapidly fill the room with smoke. This will prevent the High Priest seeing the Holy of Holies. Others suggest he should heap the incense in a pile such that it will not burn too quickly, which might startle or even choke him (Meiri). וְנִתְמַלָּא כָּל הַבַּיִת כֻּלּוֹ The whole house would be filled. This smoke is a fulfillment of the verse “for I shall be revealed in the cloud” (Lev. 16:2), which the sages explain to stipulate the formation of an “incense cloud” as a precondition for entry (see introduction to this chapter). Depending on which method he uses (see previous note), this will either be immediate, or take some time. In either case, Rambam (Hilkhot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 5:28) rules that the High Priest must remain in the Holy of Holies until the entire chamber fills with smoke. Rabbi Yitzḥak Ze’ev Soloveitchik (the “Brisker Rav”) explains that this is just an application of the general requirement for a priest to see the whole rite though to its fruition. His nephew, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, however, suggests that it is an intrinsic part of the ceremony of entry into the Holy of Holies: although the sages rule that the “incense cloud” does not need to be formed before the High Priest enters, they accept that without it, his entry is not fully valid. בֵּית כְּנִיסָתוֹ By way of his entrance. Literally retracing his steps, he walks backwards, with his face toward the Holy of Holies (53a). תְּפִלָּה קְצָרָה A short prayer. There was no standard text for this prayer, although, as the mishna indicates, it was expected that it be brief. The Talmud records one occasion on which a High Priest did prolong his prayer and was reproached for doing so (53b). The people were concerned that he may have died while inside the Holy of Holies. Rambam reports that several did indeed die. The Tiferet Yisrael suggests that if he were a Sadducee and incorrectly performed the rites, he might be punished. However, the Tashbetz (3:37) asserts that most of the High Priests were above this suspicion. The Zohar (Emor, 102a; Aḥarei Mot 67a) relates that a rope was tied to the High Priest’s leg so that, in the event that he did die, he could be pulled away from the Holy of Holies. However, there is no mention of this in the Rishonim, and the cases related in the Talmud imply that, at least during that period, there was nothing with which to pull the Priest out (see Yoma 53b; Rabbeinu Ḥananel on 19b).

4 days, 14 hours ago
7 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Yom Kippur Evening, Massekhet Yoma 6:1 and 8 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

CHAPTER SIX: Chapter five described the High Priest’s entrance into the Holy of Holies, the highest point of the year’s worship. Despite the great public importance of this ceremony, it is also an essentially private moment; no one is permitted to be in the Sanctuary while the High Priest performs these rituals (Lev. 16:17), and the other priests and the assembled crowds wait outside in anxious anticipation for the High Priest’s reappearance at the end of the Service. Chapter six, by way of contrast, discusses the very public rite of sending away the goat to Azazel. It is this ceremony that brings us to the emotional climax of the day. The Torah explains the purpose of this ceremony by the words: וְנָשָׂא הַשָּׂעִיר עָלָיו אֶת כָּל עֲוֹנֹתָם, “That goat shall bear upon itself all the people’s guilt” (Lev. 16:22). The Mishna (Shevuot 2b) explains that Azazel atones for all the sins of the Jewish people; sins of all degrees of seriousness, whether willful or inadvertent, known or unknown. Seforno (verse 5) submits that it is for this reason that it must be cast away. The great burden of sin the goat carries makes it unfit to be brought before God. And for the very same reason it engenders impurity in anyone involved with it (see mishna 6). Instead of being offered up, then, it is removed from the Temple, the city and all habitation to be cast to the abyss. According to Seforno, then, the only reason to send the goat to Azazel is because it cannot be brought to the Temple. Other commentaries, however, understand the sending away of the goat as part of a much greater scheme. The Midrash (Bereshit Raba 65:14) sees the rite of the goats already foreshadowed in the actions of Jacob. When Isaac wishes to give his patriarchal blessing to Esau, he asks Esau to prepare him a meal of good meat. Rebecca, however, understanding Jacob to be the true spiritual heir, instructs him to prepare the foods Isaac desires, so that he may take Esau’s place and gain the blessing, saying, “Bring me two good kids of the flock” (Gen. 27:9). The Midrash sees new layers of meaning in this pair of young goats: “Good – good for yourself, as through them you will receive the blessing; and good for your descendants, as through them they will be atoned for on Yom Kippur.” Abarbanel (Lev. 16:5) develops this idea further and suggests that the two goats represent the continuing struggle between Jacob and Esau. These twins are born identical (Rashi, Gen. 25:27), yet one chooses eternal life while the other rejects it. The two goats play out this elemental conflict to its conclusion; although seemingly identical, one goat is brought to the altar of God, its blood sprinkled in the innermost sanctum of the Temple, while the other is cast out, banished to a desolate place, far removed, where it can no longer challenge the domain of Holiness. His idea, indeed, is not a new one; the Midrash hears it resonate in the verse: וְנָשָׂא הַשָּׂעִיר עָלָיו אֶת כָּל עֲוֹנֹתָם, “That goat shall bear upon itself all [the people’s] guilt.” The word שָׂעִיר, goat, links associatively with Esau, אִישׁ שָׂעִר, “a hairy man” (Gen. 27:11; this characteristic becomes emblematic of him in the language of the Midrash; see Shemot Raba 42:7). הַר שֵׂעִיר, Mount Se’ir, is Esau’s eventual home (Gen. 32:3). The word עֲוֹנֹתָם, literally “their iniquities,” is split in two, a common technique in midrashic exegesis, to read עֲוֹנוֹת תָּם, “the sins of the pure one.” תָּם is the defining characteristic of Jacob – אִישׁ תָּם יֹשֵׁב אֹהָלִים (Gen. 25:27), “A pure man, dwelling in tents.” In this midrash, then, the verse is read “The hairy one – Esau – shall carry away all the iniquities of the pure one – Jacob.” This is also a common motif in the Yom Kippur piyutim; Esau is often cast as the קַטֵגוֹר, the accuser, ever eager to point out Israel’s fatal flaws. The descent of the goat to Azazel – carrying their confessed guilt with it – represents the silencing of his claims (see for instance ). The typology of Jacob and Esau represents not only the Jewish people’s struggle with external enemies, but more particularly, in our context, its internal struggle with the sinful elements of their own nature. A person holds two opposing forces inside; usually these are inseparable, and on Yom Kippur they are broken apart. The good is revealed as the true, essential quality; the bad is banished to the abyss (see Or HaḤayyim, Lev. 16:7). Drawing upon ideas expressed in the Zohar (the most direct expression is in Raya Meheimana, Naso 123b), Ramban offers the disquieting suggestion that the goat sent to Azazel is being offered to the “force of destruction” as a “bribe” not to interfere on this momentous day. He takes great pains to emphasize that this should not be understood as an “offering” from the Jewish people; it could only be done under God’s direct instructions and is in fact considered to come from Him. Therefore, explains Ramban, it is critical that the selection is made through a lottery, and not by human decision. Using a lottery makes it clear that both goats are ultimately given to God, and that it is He who makes the choice to give one to Azazel. Rabbi Tzvi Elimelekh of Dinov (Bnei Yissakhar, Yom Kippur) refers as a parallel to the two bulls Elijah offers on Mount Carmel as he adjures the people to renew their covenant with God. One of these bulls is indeed offered to God; the other is offered to Ba’al, the pagan god, by the priests that serve him (I Kings 18:23–26). The Midrash (BaMidbar Raba 23:9) narrates that the bull to be offered to Ba’al tries to escape, not wishing to suffer this degradation. Elijah, however, tells him that he too is to take his part in sanctifying God’s name – as proves, indeed, to be the case, when the priests of Ba’al fail to bring down fire to burn the offering. The event – with its double, similar-but-opposite offering – brings the people, at least briefly, back to their covenant with God. Choice, then, is a major theme here; man’s choice of good over evil, God’s choice of Jacob over Esau, and His choice determining the respective fate of the two goats. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, commenting on Leviticus 16:10, develops at length the idea that choice is the central motif of the day. He suggests that the lottery of the goats is also a moment of choice for each individual: whether to yield to temptation and follow the path of sin to the desert, or whether to assert one’s freedom and control over one’s needs and desires (Gen. 4:7), and to offer oneself to the service of God. On first inspection it is difficult to distinguish between these two goats, these two facets of our personalities, two possible projections of our selves into the future; but all the same, one leads to God, and the other to the abyss. Our chapter opens with the laws governing this rite; the selection criteria for the goats and the questions that arise if one of them dies (mishna 1). The chapter continues with details specific to the goat that is sent away: the confession upon it (2), how it is led out into the desert (3–6), and the method of informing the High Priest that the rite has been completed (8). While the goat is being led into the desert, the High Priest שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין To be alike. The two goats should be similar. This does not, however, mean that they must be indistinguishable. As long as they share the same basic qualities listed in the mishna, they are considered sufficiently alike. This is acceptable, as people do not usually focus on the finer characteristics of livestock (Tosafot Yeshanim, 62b). שֶׁאֵינָן שָׁוִין But if they are not alike. The Talmud derives from the verses in Leviticus 16:5–10 that the two goats should be similar, while also demonstrating that if this guideline is not met, they are still valid (62b). The same logic is also applied to the verses regarding the two birds used for purifying a person with tzara’at (Lev. 14:4–7). The Mishna, indeed, provides an identical list of requirements for the two birds, and the same caveat allowing for differences (Nega’im 14:5). The two lists are clearly written in deliberate parallel; the Mishna there states that the birds should be equal in height, a feature not usually considered relevant in birds. This parallel reflects on the rite of the two goats. Whenever birds are sacrificed, it is always a pair of them together (Lev. 1:14–17, 5:7, 12:8, 14:21–22); therefore, if one of the metzora birds is offered to God, it is likely that both are components of one offering. The same idea might be suggested here – that the two goats are one single offering, a part of which is brought into the Holy of Holies to atone for Israel and the other sent away to the desert (an idea developed by Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin, Oznayim LaTorah, Lev. 16:5). אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגְרִיל מֵת If it happens before the drawing of the lots. Purchasing the two goats together increases the likelihood that they will be similar; but they are not considered formally to be a pair until the lots are drawn. After this, the two goats are bound as a formal pair and disqualification of one invalidates the other, requiring two new goats to be purchased and the lots to be drawn again (Rabbeinu Yehonatan). For the two birds of the metzora, there is no defining moment parallel to the drawing of lots which could define them as a pair. The disqualification of one, therefore, does not invalidate the other, unless it happens after the rite has begun, the first bird having been successfully offered to the LORD (Rosh ibid). ואְִם מִשֶּׁהגִרְִיל מֵת If one dies after the lots have been drawn. According to the majority view, against which Rabbi Yehuda argues, a goat that remains after its “partner” has died can – and thus should – still be used (see below). It is the corresponding goat from the second pair that is sent to graze. The lots are cast a second time in order to designate a goat to replace the one that died, and the declaration made by the High Priest proclaims the substitution. The Hebrew text of this declaration can be read in more than one way. Before the scarlet strip is attached to the Azazel goat (see mishna 4:2), the identities of the two goats could be confused, so that it would not be certain which of the two goats had actually died. This being so, what we have read as two possible speeches introduced by conditional clauses could be one long speech with a double clause: “If the one to the LORD has died, let the one whose lot comes up to the LORD take its place, and if…” Assuming, however, that there was no room for confusion, the mishna should be punctuated as we have translated – two separate declarations for two different events (Bartenura following Rambam). תָּמוּת It is left to die. There is a הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינָי, (literally: “a law given to Moses on Sinai”) – an oral tradition not explicit in the biblical text – that certain sin-offerings, when they lose their designation, are left to die (see Mishna, Me’ila 10b). The Mishna (Temura 21b) lists four such cases: the offspring of an animal set aside for a sin-offering; an animal the owners of which have tried, inappropriately, to substitute for a sin-offering (see Lev. 27:33); a sin-offering whose owner has died; and a sin-offering whose owner has meanwhile achieved atonement by offering a different animal. In these four cases, the animal is already invested with the sanctity by being designated as a sin-offering, but there is no sin for it to atone for. Rabbi Shimon adds a fifth case: a sin-offering more than a year old; but the rabbis reject this. The Talmud (Temura 18a) states that: כָּל שֶׁבָּחַטָּאת מֵתָה בָּאַָשָׁם רוֹעָה: “a disqualification which would require a sin-offering to be left to die – [when it occurs] in a guilt-offering, the animal is sent to pasture.” An invalidated guilt-offering – while it cannot be offered up – is not left to die like an invalidated sin-offering, but instead is left to pasture until it develops a permanent blemish which invalidates it to an extent that allows it to be sold for secular use (with certain limitations). Its purchase value is then reinvested into the Temple service (Mishna Shekalim 6:5 states that these monies were used for the קֵיץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ offerings, communal offerings brought in times when the altar stood idle). The distinction between a sin- and a guilt-offering in this regard may be understood in light of the distinction offered by Ramban (Lev. 5:15). A sin-offering, he suggests, atones by “neutralizing” the sin, while a guilt-offering protects the person from the effects of his sin. If there is no sin to atone for, a sin-offering is meaningless, as there is nothing to achieve. There is always, however, significance to the guilt-offering, as the person can always benefit from its merit. Therefore even if the current animal is invalidated, its value can be donated to the Temple, and still, to some extent, fulfill its goal. The implied question behind our mishna is why, when the goat bereft of its partner and replaced by another is apparently an invalidated sin-offering (see Lev. 16:5), it is not treated as such and left to die. The answer given is that this הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינָי does not apply to public sin-offerings such as the goats, which are paid for out of the communal purse. These surely fall into a separate category of offering; indeed, three of the four reasons for being left to die can never apply to a public offering. It is not subject to substitution; its owners (the people as a whole) can never “die”; and, being male, the offering will never give birth. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and maintains that in the one situation when the rule can apply to a public sin-offering, it does. וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה Rabbi Yehuda also says. A case where one goat is invalidated and the other survives, but a complete new pair must be found to repeat the lottery, creates a situation of redundancy; the surviving goat and the new pair now make three. The rabbis maintain that as the surviving goat of the original pair is still valid, it should still be used, while its parallel from the second pair is left to graze; Rabbi Yehuda argues that the loss of its “twin” disqualifies the surviving goat, so that both goats of the new pair should be used. The Talmud (64b–65a) locates the root of the dispute in the more general question of whether to endorse the principle: בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין, “living animals can be permanently disqualified” – meaning that if the reason for an offering’s invalidation itself becomes irrelevant, the animal nonetheless remains disqualified. In our case, one goat is rendered unfit by a problem that arises with the other. Even if the problem with the other is “mended” by its replacement, the principle would imply that the surviving goat is still invalid, and must also be replaced, as held by Rabbi Yehuda. The majority view here would seem, in this perspective, to reject the בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין principle. יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַדָּם The blood of the other is poured out. If the blood of the goat for the LORD is spilled, the purpose of the goats cannot be fulfilled, so it follows that the Azazel goat is also disqualified. The reverse case is less clear-cut: the sending of the goat to Azazel, while very important in its own right, is not a precondition for the atonement achieved by its “twin” goat in the Holy of Holies. The fact that the premature death of the Azazel goat does, nonetheless, have implications for the goat designated to the LORD is explained in the Talmud (65a) through a midrashic reading of Leviticus 16:10. The statement that the Azazel goat shall “stand alive before the LORD, to atone” is understood to indicate that the sprinkling of the blood in the Sanctuary must take place while the Azazel goat is still alive. The principle בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין (see previous note), if it does hold true, only applies to living animals; all agree that when other objects are rendered unfit, their disqualification is permanent. Thus, even the rabbis agree that if the Azazel goat dies, the blood of the other, already slaughtered goat, is permanently disqualified (Rashi).

4 days, 14 hours ago
8 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Yom Kippur Evening, Massekhet Yoma 7:1 and 5 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

CHAPTER SEVEN: The central rites of the day have now all been completed. This chapter now, more briefly, describes the concluding stages of the day, and with it the Mishna’s dealings with the Yom Kippur service is complete. We begin, then, with the reading of the Torah (1), continue with the sending of the remains of the bull and goat to be burned (2), the offering of the two rams (3), and then the High Priest’s final entry into the Holy of Holies, this time to retrieve the coal pan and censer. He then offers the afternoon daily-offering to conclude the day. The chapter then describes his return home, accompanied by joyous crowds of the people celebrating the successful atonement (4). The last mishna is a description of the priestly vestments. The description of the vestments that express the “honor and splendor” of the Priesthood (see Ex. 28:2, 40; see also Yoma 69a) conjures up the majesty of the Temple service. The chapter ends with the Urim and Tumim, the central item of the High Priest’s apparel, through which God communicates with the Jewish people. These, we are told, were only used “for one to whom the public looks for its need,” reasserting that all this opulence was not created for its own sake, but as a means to attain the good of Israel. בָּא לוֹ כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל The High Priest then came. The reading is held in the עֶזְרַת נָשִׁים, The Women’s Courtyard, where the people visiting the Temple, both men and women, are gathered (69b). No reason is given in the Mishna for holding a ceremonial Torah reading at this point; this was not a feature of other Temple services. Rashi refers back to the parallels we discussed in the introduction to chapter one, between the Yom Kippur service and the Inauguration of the Tabernacle, and suggests that here too, the ceremony recalls the daily Torah readings during those days of inauguration. The Gevurat Ari (ad loc.) considers this unconvincing; the Talmud never suggests that the comparison between the days is far-reaching. What is more, most opinions hold that the Torah reading on Yom Kippur, unlike that of the Inauguration, is not an essential part of the Service (the opposing view, among others, is cited in the Meiri). The Yerushalmi founds the obligation on the verse which concludes the Yom Kippur proceedings in the Torah: “And just as the LORD commanded Moses, so it was done” (Lev. 16:34). It may be that the public reading, quite simply, was aimed at inspiring the people to repentance, as was the seven-yearly הַקְהֵל – Assembly – at which the people gather at the Temple to hear the king’s public reading of the Torah (Deut. 31:12; see Kli Yakar ad loc.). As mentioned above (6:8), Rabbeinu Yehonatan suggests that the Torah reading was held to fill the time while waiting for the goat to make its way to the wilderness. Most commentaries, however, reject this, holding that the Torah reading was held only after the goat had arrived, this chapter continuing on in chronological sequence from the one before. אִם רָצָה If he wished…The latitude granted here is somewhat surprising, on a day in which so much emphasis is placed on the exact execution of each rite in its finest details. The Torah reading, however, is not an essential part of the service (Yoma 68b), so this is understandable. The piyutim commonly said today indicate that the High Priest did not change out of his vestments (pages 895 and 1274), while the piyutim composed by Yose ben Yose state that he did. The Rishonim all rule that the choice lies with the High Priest; possibly this choice depended on practical considerations, such as whether his vestments became soiled in the previous rites (see note to 5:5). The Talmud is concerned, not by his freedom to choose, but by the fact that he is permitted to continue wearing the white vestments even though the Torah reading is not really considered part of the day’s service. Therefore, the Talmud revokes its initial assumption that it is forbidden to wear the vestments after the Service has finished (see also Kiddushin 54a and Rosh, Tamid 27a). חַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת The Shamash of the synagogue…The synagogue was on the Temple Mount, just outside the courtyard (Rashi). The Yerushalmi notes that in general it is considered respectful for people to come to where the Torah is stored, rather than the Torah being brought to them; on this mass public occasion, however, this could not be feasible. The word חַזַּן today means “cantor,” based on the definition of the Arukh. In rabbinic Hebrew, however, is it used for any attendant; ḥazanim typically maintained the synagogue building, led services, read from the Torah and taught children (see, for instance, Tosafot, Menaḥot 44b; Mordekhai, Megilla 817). The ḥazanim of the Temple would assist the priests in dressing (Rosh, Tamid 32b). We have used the Hebrew term Shamash, which is how Rashi translates the word, as this is probably the closest job title in contemporary synagogue terminology (Shabbat 35b; Sukka 51b). The other synagogue functionary, the רֹאשׁ הַכְּנֶסֶת, is explained by Rashi to have a similar administrative role to a modern gabbai; we have translated the term more literally, however, to reflect the dignity attached to his office in this case. וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד The High Priest stands…The Talmud (69a–b) uses the word “stands” to deduce that the ceremony takes place in the Women’s Courtyard. The High Priest has clearly been sitting until now, and this would not be permitted (except to a Davidic king) in the main courtyard. וְקוֹרֵא And reads…The High Priest recites three passages (today only the first and third are read). Although the three passages come from different books of the Torah, only one scroll is used. This may be to prevent the suspicion among the crowd that the first scroll was incomplete (70a), or because using a different scroll would necessitate the reciting of additional, and so superfluous, blessings (Rosh, Ḥullin 6:6). The view mentioned above (note 191) that taking the scroll out to the courtyard was considered disrespectful may also have considered it preferable not to take out more scrolls than necessary. The single scroll, then, would have to be scrolled from one place to the next for the two readings, the third being recited from memory. Scrolling while the congregation waits is usually considered disrespectful to the community, but in this case would not have kept them waiting too long, as the two readings appear close to one another. In Temple times, a translator (“meturgeman”) would be employed to translate each passage into the vernacular Aramaic as it was read (compare with the note on 1:6); this would take enough time to perform the scrolling without causing much delay. It is noted in the Talmud that the small delay would not be permissible either, were it not that the two readings deal with the same topic; otherwise the two readings from one scroll would be difficult to follow (69b–70a with Rashi). The custom of employing a translator for public Torah readings dates to Nehemiah 8:8 (see Megilla 3a; Nedarim 37b); the Mishna mentions the translating as a routine practice (Megilla 25a). Rav Natronai Gaon ruled that translating is an indispensible component of the reading (resp. 45); but in the Middle Ages, the custom was discontinued (Tosafot, Megilla 23b; see Tur, OḤ 144), and today is preserved only in Yemenite communities. When reading haftarot from the prophets it is acceptable to skip from one passage to another, likewise, only when the two readings appear is the same book. However, in the case of the twelve Minor Prophets, which are short and in some ways considered a single volume, it is permissible to roll between books. In current practice this usually happens twice a year: On Shabbat Shuva (between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur) the haftara contains portions of Hosea and Joel, and in Minḥa of Yom Kippur, the book of Jonah is read and the haftara then concludes with verses from Micah. קוֹרֵא עַל פֶּה He recites from memory. The third passage is taken from the book of Numbers, distant in the scroll from the two previous readings, and so, rather than causing a long delay by scrolling to it (see previous note), the High Priest recites it from memory. He announces, “More than I have read to you is written here,” to assuage any suggestion that he is reciting the passage because it does not actually appear in the text (70b). Tosafot Yeshanim note that the Talmud rules it is prohibited to recite the written Torah by heart (Gittin 60b). To square the High Priest’s oral recitation with this prohibition, they cite Riva who makes a distinction between reciting the Torah as an act of public learning, in which case it must be read from a scroll, and the case here, when the recitation is largely an announcement of the Order of the Service. They also refer to Ri, who restricts the prohibition to recitations that are required to fulfill a community’s obligation. It is noteworthy that, even though the mishna describes a situation in which some High Priests were unaccustomed to reading from the Tanakh (1:6), it is still expected of them to perform this reading in public. Perhaps the reading skills needed for studying during a long vigil were rare, whereas these passages could be learnt by rote, as is done today. עַל הַתּוֹרָה For the Torah. The blessing recited (still today) after all public readings from the Torah, אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָנוּ תּוֹרַת אֱמֶת… “who has given us the Torah of truth…” (70a). Meiri notes that before reading from the Torah he will also have recited the blessing, אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר בָּנוּ…, “who has chosen us…” וְעַל הָעֲבוֹדָה The Service. The next two blessings correspond to the blessings of the weekday Amida (Yerushalmi, Sota 7:6). “Thanksgiving” is the מוֹדִים blessing. “the Service” is רְצֵה, although the conclusion of the version used in the Temple differs from our current liturgy. In the Temple, the blessing ended either שֶׁאוֹתְךָ לְבַדְּךָ בְּיִרְאָה נַעֲבֹד, “for You alone do we serve with reverence” or הַמְקַבֵּל עֲבוֹדַת עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרָצוֹן, “who accepts the service of His people Israel with favor” (Rashi, Berakhot 11b). Our current ending, הַמַּחֲזִיר שְׁכִינָתוֹ לְצִיּוֹן, “who returns His presence to Zion” was introduced after the destruction of the Temple as a prayer for its restoration. In Ashkenazi communities, the conclusion שֶׁאוֹתְךָ לְבַדְּךָ בְּיִרְאָה נַעֲבֹד is retained for use during Birkat Kohanim (the priestly blessing) in the Musaf of festivals (see ), this being a vestige of the Temple service (Maḥzor Vitry, 347). The Vilna Gaon (cited in Pe’at HaShulḥan 2:17) objected to this practice, insisting that the conclusion should be reserved for use in the Temple only. Some congregations follow this view, rearranging the paragraph וְתֶעֱרַב “May our entreaty…” to accommodate it; in Israel this practice is common. וְעַל מְחִילַת הֶעָוֹן And for the Forgiveness of Iniquity. Rambam (Hilkhot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:11) identifies this as the סְלַח לָנוּ blessing from the regular weekday Amida, with a specially extended ending מוֹחֵל עֲוֹנוֹת עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרַחֲמִים, “who mercifully forgives the iniquities of His people Israel” (based on Yerushalmi Sota 7:7). Rashi suggests that it is the last paragraph of the fourth blessing of the Yom Kippur Amida, מְחַל לַעֲוֹנוֹתֵינוּ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הַזֶּה… מֶלֶךְ מוֹחֵל וְסוֹלֵחַ … מְקַדֵּשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים (). בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ Its own blessing. The Yerushalmi in Sota discusses these blessings but only provides the endings for each. Regarding the blessing for the Temple, the Yerushalmi cites two possible endings, “who chooses the Temple,” or Rabbi Idi’s view, “who resides in Zion.” The dispute reflects two different possible emphases – God’s original selection of the place, or His continuing presence there. Rashi (Yoma 68b) favors the first opinion, although he makes a noteworthy change; he records the ending as “who has chosen the Temple.” Rambam rules in accordance with Rav Idi. The Yerushalmi reads the blessing for Israel and the Priests, too, as praising God for choosing them: “who chooses Israel” and “who chooses the priests.” Again, Rashi’s version has them in the past tense. According to Rambam, the blessing for Israel is for the kings of Israel, and that for the priests is in fact another prayer for the Temple service, but concludes “who has sanctified the priests.” In the Tosefta and Yerushalmi, the blessing for Jerusalem is omitted; this is followed by most of the Rishonim. The Meiri argues for its inclusion, also noting that it is better placed after the blessing for the priests, as the version in Sota 40b. It also appeared in the original version of אַתָּה כּוֹנַנְתָּ, but was removed at the behest of the Beit Yosef (OḤ 621). According to the Meiri, it ends “who chooses Jerusalem.” The Talmud (Yoma 70a and Sota 41a) expands “for the rest of the prayers” to read: “[May all] song, supplication and pleas come before You, for Israel, Your people, who are in need of salvation. Blessed be He…who listens to prayer.” וְעַל שְׁאָר And for all the rest…The Tosefta (3:13, brought in Yoma 70a) describes how, after these prayers, everyone would produce their own scrolls (brought to the Temple the day before – Rashi) and read from them together. Yom Kippur thus became a day of public study, appropriately, perhaps, for the day when Moses descended from Mount Sinai with the second Tablets of the Law (Ta’anit 30b).

4 days, 14 hours ago
5 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Yom Kippur Evening, Massekhet Yoma 8:1 and 9 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

CHAPTER EIGHT: The seven chapters of our tractate have described the Yom Kippur Service performed in the Temple by the High Priest. This closing chapter now turns to the laws of the day as they apply to every Jew at every time (Tosafot, Yoma 73b), concluding with a more metaphysical discussion of atonement itself. The laws of the fast open with the five restrictions of the day (1–3) and those exempted from them, including cases of pikuaḥ nefesh, life and death (4–6). The mishna then digresses to a more general discussion of pikuaḥ nefesh situations (7). The last two mishnayot enlarge upon the day’s main theme – that of atonement – the focus now being not on the public atonement of the High Priest’s service, but on the private atonement of individual sins (8–9). The restrictions that apply to Yom Kippur have two aspects; this is at once both שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן, “a Sabbath of utter rest,” and a day on which we are commanded, וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, “afflict yourselves” – abstaining from food and drink and a number of other comforts (see mishna 1). These two models seem quite distinct from one another; cessation from work creates a day free from the everyday distractions of engagement with the world, creating a more contemplative or spiritual space. The “afflictions,” on the other hand, break a person’s sense of certainty and sufficiency, bringing him to a fragile state of mind in which he can truly submit himself to God. However, these two concepts might be united if we consider the five forms of abstinence as additional areas in which, as in the world of work, the Day brings respite from the preoccupations of the everyday. This might be indicated by Rambam’s entitling the section of his work that deals with Yom Kippur Hilkhot Shevitat Asor, “Laws of the Cessation of the Tenth Day.” The ultimate, double purpose of all the aspects of service that the tractate has discussed – the Temple service, the study, the prayer, the fasting – is the repentance of man, and atonement from God. The Mishna elsewhere enumerates thirty-six sins which bring about a punishment of karet – spiritual excision; literally, becoming “cut off from one’s people” (Keritot 2a). Eating and working on Yom Kippur are two of the sins listed; and there is a difference between the two. Work is presented as a prohibition of the day, while fasting, perhaps counterintuitively, is a positive command: “and you shall afflict yourselves” (Lev. 16:31). Karet, then, is the punishment not only for infringing the prohibitions, but even simply for neglecting the obligations of the day (see Maharal, Netiv HaTeshuva chapter seven), which at first glance seems somewhat harsh. The only other two positive commandments punishable by karet if neglected are circumcision and the Paschal offering (see Rabbi Yeruḥam Perla on Rav Sa’adia Gaon’s Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 264, s.v. “וְלָכֵן נִרְאֶה לוֹמַר”). Yom Kippur, it seems, enters the same category – that of circumcision, the Abrahamic covenant, and of the Paschal offering, which reconfirms the covenant made between God and the people He redeemed from slavery (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, 28; see Sefat Emet, Bo 654). This day too is an annual opportunity to reconvene with God; rejecting the opportunity is deemed an active separation from Him, a person’s initiation of what will then be framed as a two-way “cutting off” from the covenant. “You, LORD our God, have given us in love this Day of Atonement, to be the end, the pardon and forgiveness of all our iniquities, that we may end the oppression that is in our hands, and return to You” (Ne’ila, ). Repentance – literally “return” – is seen as a mutual movement-toward of man and of God; “How exalted is repentance! Yesterday, the [transgressor] was separated from God…He would call out without being answered…fulfill mitzvot, only to have them crushed before him…But today, he clings to the Divine Presence…is immediately answered…and his mitzvot are accepted with pleasure and joy” (Rambam, Hilkhot Teshuva 7:7). Most of our tractate has recalled the long lost atonement rituals of the Temple; the deepest emotional and spiritual elements of the Day as we still live it were played out there with a kind of resolution and clarity that are lost to us now. The theme of Return, then – the personal and, in parallel, collective and national, opportunity to renew our covenant with God – draws the tractate together, in the present tense and with an eye to the future. In Jeremiah 4:1, the prophet calls: “If you will return, Israel, says the LORD, return to Me.” God beckons us to Him. Dare we approach? יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים On the Day of Atonement…The mishna lists the חֲמִשָּׁה עִנּוּיִם, literally, the five afflictions, of Yom Kippur. In the Torah itself there is no direct reference to any of the five; the command simply reads, “On the tenth of the month, you shall afflict yourselves” (Lev. 16:29). The Talmud uses various biblical proof-texts to identify the five restrictions listed here as expressions of this affliction. Rav Ḥisda (76a) derives the number five from the number of times the mitzva of Yom Kippur is mentioned in the Torah. This would seem to imply that all five afflictions have biblical status, as is indeed the opinion of the Geonim (She’ilta 167; Behag) and the Yere’im (420). Ran (1a) explains this to be an example of the principle of מְסָרָן הַכָּתוּב לַחֲכָמִים; “the verse is given to the sages.” This principle, used in a number of contexts, suggests that while the Torah has commanded a certain effect, it is left to the sages to determine the means of achieving it; specifically, which particular prohibitions must be enforced to achieve the goal. These are then considered subcategories of the more overarching biblical prohibition, and the power to waive them when circumstances allow is left in the hands of the rabbis. A distinction is made between the prohibition on eating and drinking on the one hand, and the other restrictions on the other. Tosafot Yeshanim (73b) and Rabbeinu Tam (Tosafot, 77a) claim that only fasting is a biblical “affliction,” while the other restrictions are rabbinic. The proof-texts provided by the Talmud (see below in each case) are thus to be understood to be no more than אַסְמַכְתּוֹת – scriptural supports, for rabbinic enactments. The Talmud (74a) states clearly that the karet punishment for violating the restrictions only applies to eating and drinking, the most blatant infringement of the fast. The nature of karet is much debated. The Talmud suggests that a karet liability leads a person to die young (either under the age of fifty or under the age of sixty; Mo’ed Katan 28a). Elsewhere there is a suggestion that the punishment causes a person to remain childless or to lose the children he has (Yevamot 55a). Many of the Rishonim, however, understand it as a spiritual punishment (based on Sanhedrin 90b). Rambam defines it as losing one’s share in the World to Come (Introduction to Perek Ḥelek). For a fuller analysis of the punishment and the different forms it is conceived in, see Ramban to Leviticus 18:29 and Abarbanel to Numbers 15:22. The five forms of abstinence are common both to Yom Kippur and to Tisha B’Av; on other fast days only eating and drinking are prohibited (Tosafot, Ta’anit 13a; Ra’aviya 3:854). Ramban (Rosh HaShana 18b) claims that theoretically, all fast days should include all the restrictions. However, he says that the rules of non-biblical fast days are defined by the practice accepted by the Jewish people, and the custom that developed for the more minor fasts was only to refrain from eating and drinking. בַּאֲכִילָה וּבִשְׁתִיָּה To eat or drink. The Sifra (Parasha 5) and Talmud (74b) provide various possible Torah derivations for eating and drinking as Yom Kippur “afflictions.” The first suggestion in the Sifra uses the original commandment itself; translated literally – “You shall afflict your spirits.” This last word, נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, refers to the animal soul with its physical needs (cf. Is. 58:10). The Talmud turns to the verse describing the karet punishment: וְהַאֲבַדְתִּי אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, “I will destroy that spirit” (Lev. 23:29–30); affliction of that spirit, then, is read to indicate “affliction which destroys the spirit.” Rabbi Yishmael derives a similar idea from the verse in Deuteronomy 8:3: “He afflicted you, and starved you…” Here causing hunger is presented as the paradigmatic affliction. וּבִרְחִיצָה To wash. “I ate no pleasant bread; no meat or wine came into my mouth, and I did not anoint myself” (Daniel 10:3). Although this verse describes mourning rather than fasting, the Talmud (76b) derives from it that avoiding washing and anointing is also considered an affliction. Another proof text proposed (although ultimately rejected) is Proverbs 25:25: “As cold water upon a weary soul…” – the parched body’s desire for water on the skin is read as an example of affliction (77a). The Talmud (Pesaḥim 54b) states that even pouring water over a single finger is forbidden on Yom Kippur. There are, however, many exceptions and qualifications to this. The mishna itself continues by permitting a bride or king to wash. The Talmud (77b) states that a person actually sullied by dirt may wash it off. This includes washing after using the lavatory (Ra’avan, codified in Shulḥan Arukh ibid. 3) and upon waking up (Rabbeinu Tam, Tosafot, Yoma 77b) – but only as far as the knuckles (Shulḥan Arukh ibid. 2 following Rosh; see ). As mentioned above, the Yere’im understands all the restrictions to be biblical. He suggests, however, that the biblical prohibition only applies to washing the majority of the body for comfort; washing part of the body is only rabbinically prohibited. The rabbis, then, may waive the prohibition where they deem it necessary. The Talmud (88a) allows a person who is impure to purify him- or herself through immersion in a mikveh on Yom Kippur. As immersing at the first opportunity is considered a mitzva in such a situation (8a), the prohibition against washing for comfort does not apply here. Rambam and Ra’aviya accept this as halakha (Hilkhot Shevitat Asor 3:2; Ra’aviya 2:531). In the Yerushalmi, however, it is argued that all immersions are forbidden (Beitza 2:2). The Teruma (108) cites this and adds that even according to the Talmud Bavli the only sufficient justification for immersing is it being a mitzva. Today, the laws of ritual purity are no longer observed, it being assumed that everyone is טְמֵא מֵת – impure through contact with dead bodies – an impurity which immersion alone cannot purify (see Rabbeinu Tam, Tosafot, Yoma 8a). Sexual relations are forbidden on Yom Kippur, so there is no need for a woman to immerse in order to permit contact between her and her husband. Therefore, concludes the Teruma, there are no longer any cases for which immersion would be considered a mitzva on this day, and so neither Talmud would permit it. His opinion is codified in the Shulḥan Arukh (OḤ 613:11–12). וּבְסִיכָה To anoint oneself. The source for the prohibition on anointing is debated in the Talmud (76b); the first verse cited is the one from Daniel, discussed above in the context of washing, in which anointing is listed as one of the things Daniel avoids while grieving (10:3). Later the Talmud suggests that anointing is avoided because of the principle סִיכָה כִּשְׁתִיָּה – “anointing is considered like drinking.” This principle in turn is derived from the verse “it came into his innards like water – like oil, into his bones” (Ps. 109:18). In Nidda 32a, the Talmud uses the same verse to compare anointing oneself with Teruma oil to drinking Teruma wine (Rashi ad loc.); the Bible apparently views the two acts as equivalent. The Yerushalmi, however, implies that the principle is a rabbinic enactment (Yoma 8:1, compare Mishna Terumot 6:1). Based on this, Smag (Positive Commandment 32) limits the comparison between teruma oil and wine, ruling that they are equivalent only in the fines they incur with misuse, not in the punishments. The Talmud (77b) mentions one exception to the prohibition of anointing on Yom Kippur: one is allowed to apply an ointment to a wound or scab, or to treat an illness. וּבִנְעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל To wear shoes. The prohibition on wearing shoes is restricted to ones made of leather, considered the standard material for them. The Talmud in Yoma 78b asks whether on Yom Kippur a shoe made of cloth or שַׁעַם (cork in modern Hebrew; Rashi interprets it to be a kind of rubber) or other materials may be worn, and then attests that many Amoraim did indeed wear such shoes. Similarly, in Yevamot 102b, the Talmud allows the use of cloth slippers at home, but not leather ones. Rambam (Hilkhot Shevitat Asor 3:7) explains that it is permitted to wear non-leather shoes because one can still then feel the harsh ground underfoot; he understands the essence of the prohibition to be in the pain caused by walking barefoot. Rabbi Zeraḥya HaLevi, on the other hand, rules that the conclusion to the Talmudic discussion is that the practice of the Amoraim is not to be followed by others. In his view, no shoes may be worn on Yom Kippur (HaMa’or, Yoma 2a). The Talmud also discusses the permissibility of wearing wooden shoes; Rashi rules that these too are forbidden (Yoma 78b). This would be consistent with Rambam’s reasoning. Ramban, however, rules that wood is permitted, and only leather shoes – including ones that are only leather covered – are forbidden. The Shulḥan Arukh (OḤ 614:2) rules in accordance with the Ramban. This ruling suggests an understanding that it is not the discomfort that lies at the root of the prohibition, but the specific status of a leather shoe. During the biblical ḥalitza ceremony, performed when a brother chooses not to enter a levirate marriage with his deceased brother’s wife (Deut. 25:7–10), a shoe is removed from his foot as a mark of dishonor; the Talmud rules that a leather shoe is required for this, suggesting that these, specifically, convey a certain respectability (Yevamot 102b drawing from Ezek. 16:10, see also Shemot Raba 25:6). Walking barefoot appears in the Bible several times as an embodiment of degradation (see, for instance, Is. 20:2–4). A similar attitude to this “affliction” is expressed in תְּפִלָּה זַכָּה, said before the Kol Nidrei service (), in which we are said to walk “barefoot like one who has been banished.” Behag (Hilkhot Yom HaKippurim) allows shoes to be worn only to fulfill a mitzva (such as walking to the synagogue), or in a case of danger. Ra’aviya (2:531) understands that all (even leather) shoes are allowed in such cases, but the Tur (OḤ 614) understands that the ruling is in fact a stringency, implying that only cloth shoes are allowed in these circumstances, while in regular circumstances even those are forbidden. He rules, however, in accordance with the majority of the Rishonim, allowing leather shoes in cases of imminent danger, and non-leather shoes in other circumstances. Based on this ruling, contemporary rabbis allow soldiers and policemen to wear their uniform boots while on duty, in an extension of the category of “imminent danger.” In rabbinic Hebrew, סַנְדָּל usually refers to a closed shoe, and נַעַל to an open one (Rashi, Yevamot 102a; Rashbam, Bava Batra 58a). In modern Hebrew this is reversed. On Yom Kippur, in any case, both types are prohibited. וּבְתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה Marital relations. The Shulḥan Arukh rules that all restrictions that apply to a couple when the wife is Nidda (menstrually impure) are also observed on Yom Kippur (OḤ 615:1 following the Aguda). וְהַמֶּלֶךְ וְהַכַּלָּה A king and a bride. These people wash not for their own pleasure, but to make sure that their appearance is pleasing. The Talmud (78b) remarks that a new bride (for the first thirty days of her marriage – see Ketubot 4a) takes particular care of her appearance in order to be beautiful in her new husband’s eyes, until the two begin to feel more at home with one another. A king has to be particular about his appearance in order to maintain the prestige of his office (derived from Is. 33:17). וְהֶחָיָה A woman after childbirth. The Talmud (73b) explains that in the time after labor, a mother is dangerously sensitive to the cold and is therefore permitted to wear shoes. The Talmud in Shabbat 129a notes that this sensitivity can last up to thirty days after the birth. Rambam (Hilkhot Shevitat Asor 3:8) therefore rules that she is permitted to wear shoes on Yom Kippur during that period. In Exodus 1:15–21, Onkelos translates מְיַלְּדוֹת, midwives, as חַיָּתָא, and this meaning is also used by the Mishna in Ḥullin 71a. Here, however, the word seems to refer to the mother herself (see Rashi, Ex. 1:19). אוֹסְרִין These too are forbidden. Rabbi Yitzḥak ibn Gi’at (Hilkhot Yom HaKippurim) and Smag (Negative Commandment 68) rule according to the sages, but most of the Rishonim cite Rabbi Eliezer, which the Tur understands to indicate that they accept his position as authoritative (OḤ 614); and so is codified in the Shulḥan Arukh (ibid. 10; 615:3). Ḥayyei Adam and Mishna Berura rule that today a bride cannot be lenient; couples now generally know one another before getting married, and, in any case, at least the husband will generally be in the synagogue all day; therefore there is no additional need to wash (614:26). With regard to a woman just after childbirth, these authorities too continue to be lenient. However, see Shemirat Shabbat KeHilkhata (note 113 to chapter 39), for a discussion regarding whether today, when comfortable non-leather shoes are readily available, this leniency still applies.

4 days, 14 hours ago
9 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Yom Kippur Evening, Shir HaKavod 3 history »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

ANIM ZEMIROT – Song of Glory A mystical poem, attributed to Rabbi Judah the Pious (Germany, 1150–1217). Its theme is that God appears in many forms – the poet weaves together a long list of the metaphors and metonyms by which He is described by the prophets and poets of Tanakh – yet He remains One. Beyond the diversity of creation is the unity of the Creator. Beneath the noise of events is the music of Being. Behind the many ways in which we experience God – as Warrior, King, Father, Judge, in joy and grief, closeness and distance, intimacy and awe, penitence and praise – there is unity. Hence conflict is not written into the script of existence. As science is beginning to discover, the natural universe exhibits a precisely calibrated harmony of forces. Humans too will one day live in harmony when, together, they acknowledge the unity of God. This lovely poem with its daring imagery was considered by many to be too holy to be said daily. To mark its sanctity, the Ark is opened.

4 days, 14 hours ago
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Yom Kippur Evening, Shir HaYichud 1 and 8 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

SHIR HAYIḤUD – Song of God’s Oneness Originally a single song, now divided into seven, known as the Song of Oneness because of its dominant theme, the unity of God through all manifestations, revelations and intimations. Attributed to Rabbi Samuel the Pious, whose son, Rabbi Judah, composed the Hymn of Glory, Anim Zemirot. It is one of the great creations of the Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, the pietistic and mystical movement that flourished in northern Germany in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in such centers as Regensburg, Speyer, Worms and Mainz. These were communities that suffered persecution and massacres during the Crusades. The concept of Kiddush HaShem, martyrdom, giving one’s life for God, played an important part in their experience and thought. Their religious experience, as evidenced by their writings, was intense, shot through with yearning for God and for the life of holiness. Their ethical teachings are contained in Sefer Ḥasidim, The Book of the Pious, composed by Rabbi Judah, which emphasizes “humility for the sake of Heaven” and an elevated life in search of spiritual perfection. In some communities the Song faced opposition because of its dense imagery and daring anthropomorphisms, most notably on the part of Rabbi Shlomo Luria in sixteenth-century Poland. Many communities recited it in its entirety only on Kol Nidrei night. Others, dividing it into seven, said a section each day, completing it in the course of a week. Many communities, however, say the appropriate daily section in the morning services of the High Holy Days.

4 days, 14 hours ago
8 related »
User None added Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Yom Kippur Evening, Avinu Malkenu 3 and 6 others »
Version: English Edition; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2017 (English)

AVINU MALKENU – OUR FATHER, OUR KING The Talmud tells us that once a series of fasts was ordained after a prolonged drought. On the last of these, Rabbi Eliezer prayed twenty-four prayers and was not answered. Rabbi Akiva prayed a short prayer, beginning with the words “Our Father, our King,” and was answered (Ta’anit 25b). That was the origin of this prayer. Its power consists of the juxtaposition of the two phrases, “our Father” and “our King.” We are related to God in two primary ways. He is our Father and we are His children. He is our King and we are His subjects. The first bespeaks a relationship of love and compassion, the second of law and justice. It was Rabbi Akiva’s genius to place these two words next to one another, giving primacy to the first, to God’s love over and above His justice. The Nobel Prize–winning physicist Niels Bohr is said to have arrived at his Complementarity Theory – his explanation of the fact that we perceive light both as waves and as particles but not at the same time – when his son committed a minor crime. He found himself able to think of his son in two ways: as a judge in court passing judgment on his act, and as a father with compassion for his child, but not both at the same time. It is some such perception that lies behind Rabbi Akiva’s formulation. We are, he says to God, Your subjects, and we understand that You are judging us. But we are also Your children, therefore do not judge us: give us help instead. At that moment, rain fell. The idea that God loves us as a parent loves a child sounds obvious. Did God not tell Moses to say to Pharaoh: “My child, My firstborn, Israel” (Ex. 4:22)? Yet it was revolutionary in the ancient world and remains challenging in an age of scientific rationalism. Love – the concrete love of a parent for a child, as opposed to agape, the generalized love of all things, or eros, physical desire, – defines Judaism and is one of its greatest contributions to the imaginative horizons of humankind. Avinu Malkenu had its origins in public fasts for lack of rain. Therefore it is not said on Shabbat, even on Yom Kippur, since on Shabbat we do not pray for specific needs, nor do we give expression to distress.

4 days, 14 hours ago
6 related »

Older Activity »