Saturday, April 30, 2011

Menachot 52 – All Flour Offerings Were Matzah

Flour offerings were not allowed to become leavened. Those that consisted of dough had to be offered as matzah, or unleavened bread. The Torah specifically said that each flour offering must be “without leaven.”

The two exceptions to this rule were the two loaves of Shavuot and the thanksgiving offering. The two loaves of Shavuot were completely leavened; they were made of wheat, ground into fine flour. The thanksgiving offering was accompanied by forty loaves, ten of which had to be leavened.

The loaves that had to be leaved presented a special problem. Ordinarily one adds some sourdough to hasten the leavening process. In case of sacrifices, the measure had to be exact, and additional sourdough would make it invalid. Rabbi Meir suggests to take out some flour, allow it to leaven, then return it to the offering. Rabbi Yehudah disagrees, since leavening in this case would not be perfect. Rather, one has to put in sourdough and then add flour to complete the measure. The Sages, however, say that in that way too the offering would be either deficient or excessive, because the water in the sourdough would distort the measurements.

Art: Peter de Wint - Still Life With Basket, Bread, Bottles And A Keg By A Table

Friday, April 29, 2011

Menachot 51 – The Pancakes of Nobody

If the High Priest dies, his daily pancake offering must be brought nevertheless. Under normal circumstances, he pays for them and brings them. Who pays for them now? Rabbi Shimon says: “They are brought from the public funds.” Rabbi Yehudah says, “The funds come from his heirs, and in that case the offering was brought whole, not in two halves.”

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehudah? The Torah said, “The next high priest from his (Aaron's) sons will bring it (the offering),” and Rabbi Yehudah takes the words “from his sons” to also mean our case, where the funds come from his sons. Furthermore, the word “it” means that in this case the offering is brought whole.

And what is the logic of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states, “eternal law,” literally, the “world law.” Since any commandment is by its nature eternal, then we have an additional meaning that the offering comes “from the world,” that is, from the congregation.

Art: Adriaen Brouwer - The Pancake Baker

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Menachot 50 – The Pancakes of the High Priest

Every day the High Priest was to bring a special flour offering, for which he would take an issaron – five pound bag of flour – from his home, bake it on a griddle with oil, divide it into pieces, then bring half of the amount in the morning, and the remaining half in the afternoon.

He should not bring the flour in two halves, but rather verbally consecrate and bring the full issaron to the Temple in the morning, and then divide it. If a High Priest offered half an issaron in the morning and then died, and they appointed another one in his place that very day, the new High Priest should not bring half an issaron from his house, nor can he use the second half of the flour of the first priest. Rather, he brings a full issaron, divides it in half, then brings half of it in the afternoon, and the second half is destroyed. We thus find that two halves are offered and two halves are destroyed.

Art: Jan Van Bijlert - A women Holding Pancakes

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Menachot 49 – Are Regular or Shabbat Offerings More Important?

The daily offerings are not essential – that is, do not preclude – the Shabbat offerings, and the Shabbat offerings are not essential to the daily offerings.

Rav Chiya bar Avin asked a question: if the congregation does not have enough animals for both the daily offering and the additional Mussaf offerings for Shabbat or a Holiday, which one of them takes precedence? What exactly is his question? If you will say that it is about the regular and additional offerings on the same day, then it cannot be correct – for daily offerings are clearly more frequent and they are also holy, so of course they come first. It must be that he asked about the additional offerings of today and the daily offerings of tomorrow. But that seems to be exactly the rule above, which must be talking about the same circumstance, where there is not enough animals! - Not necessarily. Perhaps the “non essential” rule above applies when they had enough animals, and it says that if they reversed the order, it is still valid. But it does not answer Ravi Chiya's question about not having enough animals.

Practically, if one says the Mussaf prayer before the morning prayer on Shabbat, it is valid.

Art: Carl Kronberger - A Portrait Of A Woman With A Book Of Prayer

Menachot 48 – Do We Tell a Person, “Transgress in Order to Gain?”

If, instead of two lambs, the kohen slaughtered four lambs for two loaves, he still has a way out. He can throw the blood of the two lambs for their own sake, and of the other two – not for their sake, but as peace offerings. However, he must do it in a specific order. He must first throw the blood of two lambs not for their sake, and only then throw the blood of the two remaining Shavuot lambs. For if you first throw the blood of the Shavuot offerings, you have ruined the remaining two lambs, following the objections of Rabbi Zeira that we learned before.

Said Rabbi Yochanan to this, “Do we then tell the priest to transgress in order to gain?” Throwing the blood not for its sake is forbidden by a negative commandment, so how can we tell him to do this, even if in the end he gets to eat lamb? The Talmud answers that in this case we do indeed say this, because the result is the saving of the sacrifice from destruction, not just priests eating meat. However, the discussion continues with finer and finer distinctions.

Art: Eugène Boudin - Still Life With A Leg Of Lamb

Menachot 47 – How to Allow Lambs to be Eaten

If the two lambs of Shavuot were slaughtered but then the bread that goes with them was lost, what can be done to allow their consumption? The problem is this: if now they throw the blood, then, since the bread is lost, the lambs cannot be eaten and must be burned. However, could the priests throw their blood for the sake of a peace offering - which does not require bread - and then eat them as peace offerings?

Rabbi Zeira answered, can there be a thing that is invalid if done right, and valid if not done right? Talmud: the Passover offering before midday is exactly this case: it is not valid as a Passover but valid as a peace offering.

Rabbi Zeira clarified his objection: do you ever find something that was at one time fit if offered for its own sake, like these lambs before the bread was lost, then was rejected – like the lambs because the bread was lost, and is invalid for its own sake, but is valid if offered not for its own sake? Talmud: why, the Passover offering on the other days of the year is exactly that!

The discussion continues with no decisive victory.

Art: Eugène Verboeckhoven - Ewe With Two Lamb

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Menachot 46 – The Loaves and the Lambs on Shavuot

We learned a disagreement about what happens when either loaves or lambs are not available. However, all agree that once they are connected, they become indispensable to each other, and if either loaves or lambs are lost, the other cannot be brought. What constitutes the “connection?” Surely the slaughter of the lambs does, but what about waving them together, which happens before the slaughter?

Maybe the answer can be deduced from the following law of a thanksgiving offering. If one of the forty breads of the thanksgiving offering broke and it happened before the slaughter of the animal, the owner brings another whole loaf instead. However, if a loaf broke after slaughter, they continue as if it were a peace offering, which does not require bread altogether, but the bread may not be eaten, and the owner has not discharged his obligation. How can they do it?!? If slaughter creates attachment, they cannot proceed with the sacrifice! This would answer our question above that waving, not slaughter, creates an attachment!

No! No proof can be brought from a thanksgiving offering, since it is called a peace offering from the outset.

Art: James Ward - Heath Ewe And Lambs

Menachot 45 – The Book of Ezekiel

The book of Ezekiel contains apparent contradictions to the Torah. It would have been concealed, if not for Chanina ben Chizkiyah who who brought 300 barrels of oil up to his upper chamber and worked there until he explained all the difficult verses. For example, it says, “Any animal that was not properly slaughtered or that was sick the priests should not eat.” Are we to understand that regular Jews are allowed this? - No! Rather, the kohanim, since they eat birds slaughtered by melikah, may be thought to be allowed to eat other non-kosher meat, and Ezekiel prohibits that.

Wheat bread and two lambs were brought on Shavuot. If there was no bread, the lambs could not be brought, but if there were no lambs, the bread could be brought without them – these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas said that the reverse is true – since Jews brought the lambs in the wilderness, when they brought no bread, which had to come from Israel. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says that the law is like ben Nannas, but not because of his reason, and the final law is still like Rabbi Akiva.

Art: Gerard Do - Old woman slicing bread

Friday, April 22, 2011

Menachot 44 – Reward for Wearing Tzitzit Fringes

Said Rabbi Nathan, “For any light commandment in the Torah an abundant reward is given in this world, and I do not even know how big in the next.” Consider the following story.

There was a man careful about tzitzit but lax in other matters. When he heard about a harlot that took 400 golden dinars as her fee, he sent her the money and came to her house. She had six silver beds and one of gold, and she proceeded to the top one, naked. He wanted to follow her, but his tzitzit started pelting him on the face.

He went back down, and she descended to him. “What's wrong with me?” - she asked. He answered, “I never saw a more beautiful woman than you. But our God gave us the commandment of tzitzit and mentioned His name there twice, one for reward and one for punishment.”

She asked his name and his teacher's name. Then she paid one third of all her money to the nobles, as bribes, and as an excuse for not having them as clients anymore. Another third she gave to the poor, to protect her on the way, and the rest she took, together with her bedding, and came to the man's teacher, Rabbi Chiya, to convert. “Maybe you want to marry one of my students,” - said Rabbi Chiya, and then I cannot convert you. However, she explained the story, and he converted her. Then he said, “Now you can go and marry the student who came to your home.” She did so, and that bedding that she spread illicitly she now arranged in the allowed way.

“If that is the reward in this world, then I don't even know how great it will be in the next one,” - concludes Rabbi Nathan.

Art: Felix Edouard Vallotton - Interior, Bedroom With Two Figures

She lo asani isha

Courtesy Artscroll, would you agree or disagree? Just before we were praising God for making us closer to Him, and now we suddenly turn around and praise Him for making us farther away?

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Menachot 43 – Everybody Has to Wear Tzitzit – According to Rav Yehudah

Rav Yehudah would put tzitzit on his wife's garments, if they had four corners. He also said a blessing every morning when donning his own four-cornered cloak.

These two practices appear contradictory. If Rav Yehudah thinks that women have to wear tzitzit - and we know that women have to do only the commandments whose time is not fixed - then he must also think that tzitzit has no fixed time and applies both by day and by night. Why did he then say a blessing every morning? - Rav Yehudah recited a blessing every time he donned a garment, much like tefillin. Then let him say it more often! - True, but Rav Yehudah was modest and never undressed during the day, so that changing his night garment was the only time he could say a blessing.

Rabbi Shimon, however, does not require women to wear tzitzit. Since the Torah says “you will see them (tzitzit)” this applies only during the day. And what do his opponents say? - Some say that “them” means other commandments, some - that it means all commandments, and some - that it means "it" - God's presence.

Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - The Mennonite Minister Cornelis Claesz Anslo In Conversation With His Wife Aal

Menachot 42 – Make Tzitzit on the Garment, not Attach a Garment to Tzitzit

The Torah says, “You will make yourself tzitzit on the corners of your garment.” This means that the tzitzit is made when the garment is completed. If one made the tzitzit first, before the garment became obligated in tzitit, he would be wearing the tzitzit that was already made from before, not the one that he attached to the garment, and so it would be invalid. For example, if the garment tore, and he sewed it back with a woolen thread, then changed his mind and decided to use the thread as tzitzit, it would not be valid.

Can one unfasten the tzitzit on one garment and put it on another one? Rav says “no,” but Shmuel says “yes,” and this is one of the cases where Shmuel wins. We can even put the new tzitzit on the garment which already has the old ones, and this does not contradict the rule of “make but do not use already made ones” above, since in this case the removal of the old tzitzit is part of the making of the new ones.

Art: John Melhuish Strudwick - A Golden Thread

Menachot 41 – Opinion of an Angel about Tzitzit

Is tzitzit the obligation of a person, so that when one wears a four-cornered garment, he needs to put tzitzit fringes on it, or is it an obligation of the garment, so that even while it is in the box, unworn, it already requires a tzitzit? Rabbah bar Huna prefers the second, so that even unworn garment already requires tzitzit.

However, a Heavenly angel disagrees, for once an angel encountered Rav Ketina wearing a linen garment without a blue thread in tzitzit - following the opinion that this is not needed. Angel said, “Ketina, Ketina, since you wear linen in the summer and a woolen cloak with rounded corners in the winter, what will become of the mitzvah to have a tzitzit with blue threads?” Rav Ketina said to him, “Do you then punish for failure to fulfill a positive commandment?” The angel said, “At the time of anger, yes.”

From here we see that the angel considers tzitzit to be an obligation of a person, for why would he punish a person for the obligation of a garment?! - Not necessarily! He just told Rav Ketina that he was using loopholes to get out of the obligation.

Art: Pere Serra - Angel Playing A Harp

Monday, April 18, 2011

Menachot 40 - Beit Shammai Do Not Allow Shaatnez Anywhere

We learned earlier that the forbidden mixture of wool and linen, or shaatnez, is allowed in tzitzit, because the two commandments follow each other in the Torah, forming a “this is prohibited, [but] this is allowed” pattern. However, this is only the opinion of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai, who do not derive conclusions from the proximity of phrases, consequently do not allow Shaatnez in the tzitzit.

But practically, anybody who would put a blue woolen thread in his linen tzitzit, aroused astonishment in Jerusalem of old. Jerusalem was the place of especially pious people, and they did not use the Beit Hillel's permission. Why not? Must be that in practice Beit Hillel also forbade this.

Why would Beit Hillel forbid what they said was allowed by the Torah? Could it be because of the ignorant people who would not know the difference? Then let ten individuals wear it in the manner it is allowed! - All the more they will be astonished. Then let's teach them! - That would work, so the reason must be different. Talmud continues to look for the reason, and you are invited to submit your guesses.

Art: Jose Frappa - Surprised

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Menachot 39 – Forbidden Mixture of Wool and Linen is Allowed in Tzitzit

Normally, wearing wool and linen together is forbidden – to rectify the murder of Abel the shepherd by Cain the linen grower. However, the woolen blue strings in tzitzit can be attached to a linen garment. How do we know this?

The Torah said, “You shall not wear shaatnez, wool and linen together. [But] You shall make yourself braided fringes on the four corners of your garments.” This teaches that although shaatnez is forbidden, in tzitzit it is allowed. Moreover, one cannot say that the linen and wool are simply put together, because the tzitzit must have at least one double knot, which makes it permanently attached, and thus part to the garment.

The braiding should be done with no less than seven loops, to remind one of the seven heavens, and no more than thirteen loops, to correspond to the seven heavens and the six spaces between them.

All four-cornered garments require tzitzit. Rav Nachman exempts the silk garments. But we learned that they too require tzitzit?! - Says Rav Nachman, “By the decree of the Sages, to make it look good.”

Art: Caspar David Friedrich - Moonrise over the Sea

Menachot 38 – The Blue Thread in Tzitzit

“Blue” in the tzitzit, or “Tchelet”, is wool that has been dyed with blue dye produced from “blood” (that is, inky secretion) of a rare Mediterranean sea creature known as chilazon. For many centuries, this dye was unavailable because the identity of the chilazon was forgotten. However, if the tzitzit (ritual fringes) is made completely of white strings, it is still valid.

The tzitzit should be made of two white threads and two blue threads, knotted together. If one made them of only blue threads, and omitted the white, this is also valid.

What if the threads are so thick that they cannot be tied in a slipknot, but they are long enough that had they been thin, they could have been tied in a slipknot? Said Rav Acha the son of Rava to Rav Ashi, “Certainly they are valid, for when the threads are thick, their fulfillment of the commandment is even more noticeable.”

Art: Eugène Boudin - White Clouds, Blue Sky

Friday, April 15, 2011

Menachot 37 – The Tefillin of a Lefty

The arm tefillin must be worn on the weaker arm, since the commandment is to “bind it on your arm” (yadchah), which may be read as “yad kah”- the weaker arm. There are many opinions as to how an amputee wears his tefillin. Tosafot say that one who is completely missing his left arm does not wear the tefillin at all, one who is missing the lower portion of his left arm dons tefillin on his stump, and one who is missing the lower portion of the right arm is considered a lefty and dons tefillin on his right stump.

About a left-handed person, some say that he dons tefillin on his right arm, which is his weaker one, but others claim that since most people are right-handed, he too dons tefillin like them, that is, on his left arm.

Plimo asked Rabbi Yehudah the Prince a question, “One with two heads, on which of them does he don tefillin?” Rabbi Yehudah was indignant. At this moment a man came in and said, “A child with two heads was born to my wife. How much money do I need to pay to a kohen to redeem the child?” Elijah the Prophet came and gave an answer: “Ten coins, twice the amount, since the Torah counted people by the head.”

Art: Federico Zuccaro - Study Of Two Heads

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Menachot 36 – When to Put on Tefillin

The proper time to don tefillin is the first light of dawn. If one rose earlier than that, to go out on the road, and did not want to carry the tefillin in his hands, lest they become lost, he can don them immediately. When the prescribed time comes – that is, when he is able to recognize a friend at a distance of four steps – he should touch them and then recite the blessing.

The latest time to wear tefillin is when the sun sets. Rabbi Yakov says that one may leave the tefillin on until people have stopped walking the streets and no one can longer see him any longer. The Sages say that he may wear it until the time he decides to go to sleep. There a few possibilities to explain this argument: that the Torah prohibited wearing tefillin after sunset, that the Sages prohibited this out of concern for people falling asleep in their tefillin, or that no such prohibitions exist.

The rulings above apply mostly to the earlier times, when people wore tefillin all day. Nowadays they wear the tefillin only during the morning prayer.

Art: Adolph von Menzel- Schlafender - Man Asleep

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Menachot 35 – Tefillin

The Torah refers to the head tefillin three times, once with an extra letter vav, which teaches that the head tefillin must have four compartments – these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael. However, Rabbi Akiva says that this derivation is not needed. Rather, the word for tefillin (totafot) itself hints at the number four, since “tot” means “two” in the Cafti language, and “fot” means “two” in the Afriki language.

You might think to make four separate compartments out of four separate pieces of hide. However, the Torah said that it will be “remembrance” - one remembrance, and not two or three. How do we reconcile this? We take a piece of hide and shape it into four connected compartments. Then we take one scroll and write the four required passages from the Torah on it, and bend them and insert them in such a way that each passage goes into its own compartment.

However, the tefillin that goes on the arm, about which the Torah says “it will be a sign for you,” consists of one compartment, with the scroll containing four passages.

Art: Harmenszoon van Rijn Rembrandt - Portrait Of An Old Man Rabbi

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Menachot 34 – Why Write the Mezuzah on a Scroll

Since the Torah said, “And you will write them (those words) on the doorposts of your house,” you might think to write them directly on the stones of the doorway. However, we learn otherwise by comparing this writing to the writing of the divorce document, Get, which should be “on a scroll,” and this teaches us that the mezuzah is written on a scroll, and is then affixed to the doorpost.

But perhaps we should rather compare it to the writing of the words of the Torah on the stones, as the Jews did when on their entry to Israel? - We prefer to compare writing that applies in all generations (mezuzah) to writing that applies in all generations (Get), and not to writing which only happened once.

A better derivation is from the words “and you will write” (uchtavtam) themselves, which can be translated as “complete writing” - that is, on the scroll, and not on the stones. Now that we have this direct derivation, what do we need the previous one for? - You might still think to engrave the words on a stone, then attach the stone to the doorpost. This teaches otherwise.

Art: Laurent de La Hyre - Moses and the Tablets of the Law

Monday, April 11, 2011

Menachot 33 – Where to Put a Mezuzah

If the mezuzah was hung on the doorpost in a rod, it is not a mitzvah and poses danger. Some say that the danger is being without the mezuzah protection, and some – that he may bang his head against it. However, the servants of the king Munbaz, who were always traveling, would put the mezuzah that way, to remind themselves of the commandment.

If one affixed the mezuzah to the doorpost like a bolt, that is, horizontally, it is invalid. That is the explanation of Rashi. Rabbeinu Tam, however, says that it would be unseemly for the mezuzah to be upright, since the Torah in the Ark was lying down, and he explains “like a bolt” as vertical, thus invalidating a vertical position. Tosafot say that the Talmud here alludes to three positions, one of them being like a letter L, and that this one is valid both according to Rashi and to Rabbeinu Tam.

The study hall of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince did not have a mezuzah. According to Rashi, it was another door, but the study hall does require a mezuzah; according to Tosafot, it does not, and the custom is to affix it without a blessing.

Art: Edouard Brandon - Rabbinical Students In A Classroom

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Menachot 32 – How to Write a Mezuzah

The last words of the mezuzah - “on the earth” - must appear alone on the line. Some take it to mean at the end of the line, so that “heaven” appears directly over “earth,” to indicate that your days be prolonged like the height of heaven over the earth. Others say that it means at the beginning of the line, so that “earth” is as far as possible away from “heaven,” to indicate that the days of your life be prolonged like the heaven is far from the earth.

If a Torah scroll wore out it may not be made into a mezuzah by cutting out the two required paragraphs, sewing them, and affixing them to the doorpost, because we may not lower objects in sanctity but only bring them up. So lowering in sanctity is the only problem, but if not for that, we could? What about the requirement to write the mezuzah on the outer, tougher part of the skin? - That is only the preferred procedure.

In addition, mezuzah requires scoring with thin lines before writing, and it does not have to be copied from a text, because everyone knows it by heart.

Art: Johann Hamza - An Old Man Reading

Menachot 31 – How to Repair a Torn Torah Scroll

If the margin of a Torah scroll tore and the tear extends two lines into the writing, one can sew it, and the scroll is still valid. If, however, it extends three lines into the writing, he should not sew it; rather, he should replace the entire sheet. And that which we said that three lines should not be sewn is only true of an old parchment, but with the new parchment it is not a problem. “Old” does not mean literally old, but one that was treated with gallnut juice, and “new” means one not treated with gallnut juice. Some explain it to mean the opposite: a “new” parchment is one treated with gallnut juice, for this makes the parchment strong, and the seam will hold. If one remembers that gallnut juice is a prerequisite for a Torah scroll anyway, the explanation becomes even more complex.

Sewing the tear should be done with sinews, the same material used for sewing the sheets together, and not with threads. The custom, however, is to sew with silk threads, which leads to further study and to the interpretation of the above rule in a different way.

Art: Vincent van Gogh - Woman Sewing

Menachot 30 – Writing a Torah Scroll

If one writes a Torah scroll, he can conclude the last words, “before the eyes of all Israel,” even in the middle of the line, and some say, he must conclude it in the middle of the line. With his lines, he must go all the way to the bottom of the column, shortening the width of each successive line if needed.

Every Jewish man must write a Torah scroll during his lifetime. One who buys it fulfills the commandment, but not in the optimal way. If he bought the scroll and corrected even one letter, it is counted as if he wrote it.

Each piece of the parchment on which the scroll is written must contain between 3 and 8 columns. The margin at the bottom of each column must be a hand-breadth, and at the top – three finger-breadths. However, he must not reduce the size of the script to preserve the margins, but keep it uniform and beautiful, even if the margin becomes slightly narrower because of it.

Art: Marc Chagall - Rabbi with a Torah

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Menachot 29 – Crowns on the Letters

King Solomon "Made the ten Menorahs of closed gold... finishing gold". Why “finishing?” Because it finished off all “closed” gold that Solomon had. And what is “closed” gold? When this gold was sold, all other stores were closed. But Solomon had more gold!? - Not of “closed” gold quality. Solomon used a thousand talents for each Menorah, firing it in the kiln until it became purified to one talent.

When Moses ascended to Heaven, he found God sitting and attaching crowns to letters of the Torah. Moses said, “Master of the Universe, what stops You from giving the Torah without crowns?” God replied, “There is one man, Rabbi Akiva, who will expound heaps of laws based on each crown.” Moses was transported to the Academy of Rabbi Akiva, but could not understand his exposition, because Moses was used to know laws through revelation, without proofs. He became worried, but when Rabbi Akiva showed the students the Torah derivation rules he used, Moses' mind was at rest. “Give the Torah through him!” - said Moses to God. “No. Thus it came up in my thought,” - said God. “Then show me his reward,” - said Moses. God showed him how Rabbi Akiva was torn with iron combs and his body was sold in butcher shops. “This is the Torah and this is the reward?!” - said Moses. “Quiet! Thus it came up in my thought,” - said God.

Art: Theodule Augustine Ribot - The Torture of Alonso Cano

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Menachot 28 – The Menorah

The seven branches of the Menorah are all essential to one another, that is, if one of the branches is missing, the entire Menorah is invalidated. The seven lamps on top of the Menorah are essential to one another.

The two passages written in the mezuzah scroll are essential to one another, and even the proper writing of one letter is essential to the validity of both passages. In describing the mezuzah, that Torah says, “and you will write these words” (ktavtam) which can also be understood as “ktav-tam,” “perfect writing,” meaning that every letter should be perfect.

The Menorah was to be produced from a single block of raw material, and it would be made of gold. If the craftsman made it out of scraps of gold, the Menorah is invalid. In describing the Menorah, the Torah said that it must be “hammered out.” An additional word “being” indicates that this requirement is essential. However, if the Menorah was made of other kinds of metals, then it did not have to made out of one piece, and was nevertheless valid.

Art: Etching of the Lighting of the Menorah, by a Dutch Artist, 1705

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Menachot 27 – What is Essential

From here on, for the next few pages, we will be dealing with the question of which parts of the commandments are essential and cannot be omitted. As a general rule, nothing is essential, unless stated otherwise. The Torah can indicate that a requirement is essential by either repeating it, or by using the word “thus,” or the word “a decree” when describing it.

All parts of the flour offering are essential, so that if a smaller part of the flour is missing, the larger part is invalid. The same is true if the wine, oil, and handful of the offering. In addition, the handful and the frankincense are essential for each other.

The two goats of Yom Kuppor are essential to each other, that is, if one is absent, the other one is of no avail. This is also true for the two lambs of Shavuot, the two loaves of Shavuot, the two arrangement of the Bread of Vision, the three components of the Red Cow service, the four breads of a thanksgiving offering, the four parts of the lulav, and the seven sprinkling of the Red Cow.

Art: Paul Gauguin - Landscape with Two Goats

Monday, April 4, 2011

Menachot 26 – When Remainder of Flour Became Impure

The handful from the flour offering is burned, while the remainder is eaten by the kohanim. What happens if the remainder becomes impure before they have a chance to burn the handful? This is actually the same argument as the one about the Passover lamb offering, where the question was, can one throw the blood if the meat became impure. Rabbi Eliezer, who allows the blood of the Passover lamb to be thrown, would allow the handful of flour to be burned. And Rabbi Yehoshua, who does not allow the blood of the Passover offering to be thrown, would not allow the handful of the flour to be burned.

The handful of the flour offering was to be put into a service vessel first. If this was not done, the offering was invalid. Rabbi Shimon, however, rules it valid. What is his reason? According to Rabbi Shimon, since the flour offering had to be put into a vessel before service anyway, that was sufficient.

Art: Paul Cezanne - Still Life Bread And Leg Of Lamb

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Menachot 25 – The Tzitz

The tzitz was a golden head-plate worn by the High Priest on his forehead. It had the power to effect acceptance for an offering that became ritually impure.

If the handful from a flour offering became ritually impure, and the kohen nevertheless offered it, the head-plate of the High Priest effects acceptance. However, this is only true for ritual impurity. If the handful was taken out of the Temple Courtyard and then brought back and offered, the head-plate does not effect acceptance, for the rule is that the tzitz effects acceptance for an offering that became disqualified due it its being impure, but not due to its having left the confines of the Courtyard.

How do we know this rule? The Torah stated regarding the head-plate, “So that Aaron shall bear the sin of the sacred offerings.” Now, which specific sin does it mean? About the intention to eat it in the wrong place the Torah already said “it will not be considered,” and about the intention to eat it beyond allowed time, it said, “It will not be accepted.” The only one left for the head-plate to correct is being ritually impure.

Art: Eugene Carriere - Portrait Of A Priest

Menachot 24 – Two Flour Offerings In One Vessel

When Rav Kahana came to Israel, he met the sons of Rabbi Chiya who were pondering the following question: If one put two halves of his flour offering in a vessel so that they do not touch, and then a spiritually impure person touched one of the halves, does this make the other half impure? The rule is that a vessel combines the parts, but is it true even for impurity? Rav Kahana gave an answer from the wording of the rule, which does not state that it joins the halves, but only that it combines. This means that they are not joined for impurity.

If a zav (one with strong impurity) was lying on a sheet, the sheet acquired his strong impurity. If the owner then made this sheet into a curtain, on which no one can lie, then the previous strong impurity leaves, but since the sheet touches itself (every thread in it touches another thread), then it has the lighter impurity of being touched by a zav. However, Rabbi Yose asked, “Which zav touched it?” - Rabbi Yose means that a thread touching another thread means nothing, because this is hidden impurity, which does not count.

Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - The Holy Family with a Curtain

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Menachot 23 – Flour Offerings Mixed Together

If two flour offerings became mixed together, our problem is how to take a handful from each. If one can take off a handful from one, making sure that no flour from the other offering is mixed in, the offerings will still be valid.

If a handful became mixed with another flour offering, from which a handful has not been taken yet, then nothing can be done about it. One cannot burn the mixture because of the flour of the other offering mixed it, since only the handful can be burned. Neither can one take two handfuls. If the kohen went ahead and burned it on the Altar anyway, it counts for the owner of the first offering, but not for the owner of the second offering, into which the handful fell.

The same is true when a handful from an offering fell into the remnants of the other offering: the mixture should not be burned, but if one did burn it on the Altar, this counts for the owner of the handful.

Art: Adriaen Lievensz van der Poel - The Burning Windmill