Halakhah zu Schemot 25:78

It is important to note that a synagogue is not just a place that facilitates prayer with a minyan; rather, it has independent value as a place designated for devarim she-bikdusha, a place where the Shekhina dwells. It is a great mitzva to build a synagogue, as the Torah states: “They shall make Me a sanctuary and I will live among them” (Shemot 25:8). Although this verse primarily comes to teach us about the building of the Temple, an offshoot of that mitzva is the mitzva to build a synagogue (see Peninei Halakha: Collected Essays I, ch. 1 n. 1). This is what the prophet Yeḥezkel meant by “I have been for them a small sanctuary” (Yeḥezkel 11:16), as R. Yitzḥak interpreted, “These are the synagogues and batei midrash (study halls)” (Megilla 29a).

One also has to careful when about to say birkat ha-mazon to remove the knife from the table. The reason for this practice is because the table is called an “altar,” and just as on an altar we have been warned not to brandish something made of iron over it, as it is said, “do not build it [an altar] of hewn stones, etc.”¹⁹⁴Ex 20:22. The rule of Torah is that if one makes it into an altar of hewn stones with a tool of silver or flint, it is permitted. For the point of the prohibition is not against it being hewn, but rather because it is hewn with something made of iron, i.e., a sword, and Torah kept it far from the tabernacle, when it is written: “gold, silver, and copper,”¹⁹⁵Ex 25:3. but does not mention iron there. And likewise with the sanctuary it is written, “No hammers or axe or any iron tool was heard in the House when it was being built.”¹⁹⁶I Kings 6:7. The reason is because that is the power of Esau with what he was blessed from his father’s mouth; this is what is meant by “By the sword you shall live,”¹⁹⁷Gen 27:40. and it is written, “but Esau I hated.”¹⁹⁸Mal 1:3. Therefore it is kept far from the sanctuary. And likewise at the table we have been warned to remove the sword from it, because the sword is something destructive¹⁹⁹The pun ha-herev hu ha-mahriv is lost in the translation. and the source of destruction, the opposite of peace, and it does not belong in a place of blessing, i.e., peace. For indeed the altar and the table prolongs a person’s days, while a sword shortens them, and it makes no sense to brandish something that shortens over something that prolongs life.²⁰⁰Mekhilta Yitro (end).

Birkat ha-mazon consists of three blessings from the Torah, and one blessing from the words of the scribes. The oldest at the table leads the blessing, even if he came after the meal.²⁰⁷So the Tur and Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 201. A mnemonic acronym for the three blessings from the Torah comes from the verses “You shall make a table of acacia wood… and make around it a molding of gold – ZaHa”B:”²⁰⁸Ex 25:23,24. the blessing ha-Zan (“who feeds”), the blessing Ha-aretz (“for the land”) and the blessing Boneh Yerushalayim (“who builds Jerusalem”) – the initials of which are ZH”B, and zahav is numerically equivalent to DaVi”D,²⁰⁹I.e., both = 14. and thus the table hints at malkhut – “kingdom.”²¹⁰According to b. Yoma 72, “there were three rims in the sanctuary, one on the altar, one on the ark, and on the table…David earned the rim on the table, and he took it.” In other words, King David and his kingdom are associated with “the table.” The symbol of kingdom is the house of David son of Jesse, which includes the both the kingdom of the house of David below, and the kingdom above, which is the power of the frankincense: Dovid melekh Yisrael hay ve-kayam(“Long live David King of Israel!”) – this is what is meant by “We have no portion in David, No share in Jesse’s son! Every man to his tent (le–ohalav), O Israel!”²¹¹2 Sam 20:1. not “le-ohalav – to his tent” but rather “le’lohav– to his God.”²¹²In other words, the Torah is using “his tent” (ohalav) as a euphemism for “his God” (elohav), because it is quoting a wicked person, Sheba the son of Bichri, and it would have been disrespectful to God to quote Sheba’s call to rebellion that invoked God. I think what R. Bahya has in mind in all this is that “house of David,” “malkhut,” and “elohim” are all symbolic synonyms for the tenth sefirah – Malkhut, or Shekhinah. For you already knew that the table in the sanctuary corresponds to midat ha-din – God’s attribute of justice – which is the reason why it is located on the north, that is the left side,²¹³That is, if one is standing facing the east. the side of Gevurah – “Might.” And on the table were two cloths, one made of crimson, the other blue.²¹⁴Nu 4:7-8. The crimson one corresponds to midat ha-din above, and the blue one corresponds to midat ha-din below, which is comprised of all the other attributes. And here the showbread was on the table itself, without anything in between, as it is said, “And the regular bread shall rest upon it [the table],”²¹⁵Nu 4:7. and over the bread was spread the blue cloth. And on this cloth were put all the utensils for the table, and over the utensils was spread the crimson cloth; was the highest on top of everything else. The crimson cloth would be on top, and the blue cloth below, that’s just how the upper midat din emanates down into the lower one, and the point of this whole arrangement is that from the table in the sanctuary comes sustenance for the whole world.²¹⁶Zohar 153b: “This table stands inside the Mishkan, and from it goes out food for the whole world.” Corresponding to it is the midat din above that sustains the upper beings, the host on high, even as it does the lower beings, for it is the attribute “that supplies provisions for her household and, the daily fare of her maids.”²¹⁷Prv 31:15. From this you will understand the reason why the height of the table with all of the things arrayed on was ten handbreadths. For even so, the table in the sanctuary with what was on top of it should instruct you about midat ha-din, and understand this! For you need to be awakened to what our sages z”l said about this: “Ten tables King Solomon (peace be upon him) made, as it is explained in Scripture, and likewise ten lampstands, and ten washbasins.²¹⁸2 Chr 4:6-8. Clearly, R. Bahya is alluding to the ten sefirot, for whose array the arrangement of cloths, utensils, and shewbread on the table in the sanctuary is a microcosm.

You should know that sometimes commands appear in the Torah; yet those commands are not commandments, but rather preliminaries to the doing of the commandment - as if He is recounting how it is appropriate for you to do the commandment. An example of this is His saying, "You shall take fine flour and bake of it" (Leviticus 24:5). As it is inappropriate to count the taking of fine flour as a commandment or the making of bread as a commandment. Rather that which is counted is His saying, "And on the table you shall set the bread of display, to be before Me always" (Exodus 25:30). Behold the commandment is that the bread always be before the Lord. And afterwards, He explained how this bread should be, and from what it should be - and He said that it should be from fine flour and that it should be twelve loaves. And in this very same way is it inappropriate to count His saying, "to bring you clear oil of beaten olives" (Exodus 27:20); but rather "for lighting, for kindling lamps regularly" - which is the maintenance of the lamps, as is explained in Tamid 83a. And in this very same way does one not count, His saying, "Take the herbs to yourself" (Exodus 30:34); but rather the offering of the incense every day - as Scripture explains about it, "he shall burn it every morning when he tends the lamps. And when Aharon lights the lamps" (Exodus 30:7-8). And that is the commandment that is counted; whereas His saying, "Take the herbs to yourself," is only a preliminary of the command, to explain how you should do this commandment and what matter this incense should be from. And likewise should one not count, "Take choice spices for yourself"; but rather certainly count the command that He commanded that we anoint the high priest, the kings and the holy vessels with the anointing oil described. And apply this to all that is similar to it, such that you will not add what is inappropriate to count. And this is our intention about this principle, and it is a clear matter. However we mentioned it and it has come to our attention because many have erred also about this, and counted some of the preliminaries of the commandments with the commandments themselves as two commandments. This is clear to the one who understands the count of sections that Rabbi Shimon ben Kiara mentioned - he and all those who followed him - to mention the sections in their counts.

The first reason is because the food on a table is the cause of the sustenance of the body, which is composed of four elements. If one were missing or were more dominant than its fellows, a person would sicken immediately and be unable to eat or drink, or serve the Lord. The heart would be terrified and the mind afraid at the overturning of the equilibrium of the organs, which are the vessel of the soul. The soul cannot act without its vessel. If so, the table then is the foundation of the four elements, and they keep the body standing just as the four poles in the four rings used to hold up the table [in the Tabernacle], which is why Scripture said, “By these [the poles] the table shall be carried.”³⁶Ex. 25:28.

The author of the article published in Kokhavei Yizḥak similarly regards the giraffe as a kosher species but, rather than identifying it with the zemer, he somewhat fancifully identifies it as the taḥash, the animal whose skin was used in the construction of the tabernacle as described in Exodus 25:5. The Gemara, Shabbat 28b, depicts the taḥash as a species that existed "in the days of Moses," that was made available to Moses for the specific purpose of use in construction of the tabernacle and that was subsequently concealed. Identification of the taḥash with the giraffe is based upon Targum Onkelos' translation of taḥash as "sasgavna," i.e., a creature that "delights in its colors," and the Arabic meaning of the term zerafah, i.e., "beautiful," as well as the putative derivation of the Hebrew "taḥash" from the verb "ḥashoh" meaning to be silent, reflecting the erroneous belief that the giraffe is mute.

That is that we were commanded to build a choice house for Divine service, in which there will be sacrifices and an eternal burning of fire; and to which there will be journeying and pilgrimage on the festivals, and gatherings every year. And that is His saying, "And let them make Me a sanctuary" (Exodus 25:8). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 67:1) is, "Three commandments were commanded to Israel upon their entrance to the land: To appoint a king over themselves; to build themselves a choice house; and to cut off the seed of Amalek." Behold it has been made clear to you that the building of the choice house is a separate commandment. And we have already explained (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 12) that this aggregate includes many parts, such as the menorah, the table, the altar and the rest of them - all of them are parts of the Temple. And all of it is called, Temple, even as each and every part has an individual command. However, His saying about the altar, "Make for Me an altar of earth" (Exodus 20:21), could have been thought of as a separate commandment, besides the commandment of the Temple. And the content of this is as I will tell you: True, the simple understanding of the verse is indeed clearly speaking about the time of the permissibility of altars - as at that time, it was permitted for us to build an earthen altar and sacrifice upon it. But [the Sages] have already said that the [actual] content in this is that He commanded us to to build an altar that is connected to the ground, and that it not be detached and moved, as it was in the desert [journey from Egypt]. And that is their saying in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yochai 20:21) in explanation of this verse, "When you come to the land, make Me an altar that is attached to the ground." And since the matter is so, behold that this command is practiced for [all] generations; and it would be one of the parts of the Temple - meaning that specifically an altar of stones be built. And they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:22:1) in explanation of, "And if an altar of stones you make for Me" (Exodus 20:22), "Rabbi Yishmael says, 'Each and every, if, in the Torah [connotes] optionality, except for three.'" And one of the them is, "And if an altar of stones." They said, "'And if an altar of stones you make for Me.' This is obligatory. You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Of whole stones shall you build [the altar of the Lord]' (Devarim 27:6)." And the regulations of this commandment as a whole - meaning to say, the building of the Temple and its description and the building of the altar - have been explained in the tractate associated with it, and that is Tractate Middot. And likewise is the form of the menorah, the table and the golden altar; and the location of their placement in the chamber explained in the Gemara, Menachot and Yoma. (See Parashat Terumah; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 1.)

The prohibition against divulging a non-personal confidential communication is formulated by the Gemara, Yoma 4b: "Whence is it derived that [if] one relates something to one's fellow [the latter is commanded], 'Thou shalt not tell' until [the former] tells him 'Go tell'? For it is said, 'And the Lord spoke to him from the tent of meeting l'emor' " (Leviticus 1:1). Rashi understands the prohibition to be based upon talmudic exegesis interpreting the word "l'emor," which is spelled lamed, alef, mem, resh, as a contraction of two words "lo emor—do not say."¹¹See Maharsha, ad locum. Thus, the written word vocalized in two alternative ways literally constitutes a double entendre: "to say" and "do not say." As explained by Or ha-Hayyim, Exodus 25:2, the initial phrase of the immediately following sentence beginning "Speak to the children of Israel" clearly places upon Moses an affirmative obligation to repeat what he has been told. Taken together, the two sentences declare, in effect, that Moses may not speak other than when expressly directed or granted permission to speak. As formulated by the Gemara, Moses is admonished "Do not tell!" unless and until he is told "Go tell!" Prior to their communication to Moses, the contents of revelation were reserved to the Deity and, accordingly, the contents of revelation would have been held inviolate by Moses on the basis of the injunction "Do not say" had he not been commanded explicitly "l'emor," to speak and disclose that information to Israel. Interpreting the statement of the Gemara in a manner consistent with that of Rashi, Sefer Mizvot Gadol, lo ta'aseh, no. 9, regards violation of this injunction as transgression of a biblical commandment.¹²However, Sefer Miẓvot Gadol’s interpretations of the word “l’emor” is somewhat different from that of Rashi. Sefer Miẓvot Gadol also interprets that word as a contraction, but as the assimilated contraction of the words “lav amur,” i.e., “a negative commandment has been stated [with regard to this matter].”
R. Baruch ha-Levi Epstein, Torah Temimmah, Leviticus 1:1, regards the statement of the Gemara, Yoma 4b, as establishing a rabbinic prohibition. Cf., however, Bet ha-Beḥirah, Yoma 4b, who describes the stricture against disclosure of a non-personal communication, imparted in a confidential manner, as merely a matter of derekh ereẓ or unseemly behavior. This talmudic statement is cited as normative by Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Hayyim 156:2, and serves to establish a formal obligation to regard the communication of any personal or proprietary information as confidential unless permission for disclosure is explicitly granted.

If a Seifer Torah is found to be defective due to an error, if the error is a serious one we are not permitted to read from it, and another Seifer Torah must be taken out [of the ark] (see Chapter 79: 10). What constitutes a serious error? For example, [if there is] one letter too many, or one missing, or even if one letter is exchanged [with another] and as a result the pronunciation is changed, for example [if the word] tomim (twins)¹Genesis 25:24, 38:27. [is written with an added aleph, and would now be read] te'omim, or the word migresheihen²Numbers 35:3, 35:7. [with a nun at the end] [would be written] migresheihem [ending in a mem], even though the meaning of the word is the same, [i. e., their ground], nevertheless, since the pronunciation is not the same, it is considered a serious error. Likewise, if the error is such that the word could be pronounced, as though it were written correctly, but it was written in a way that changes its meaning; for instance, in the [weekly] portion Terumah³Exodus 25:10. [in the phrase] amah vacheitzi rochbo, the word rochbo (with a vav at the end) was instead written rochbah (with a hei at the end) although (even with the erroneous spelling) the beis can be pronounced with a cholam -o- (vocalized rochbo) nevertheless, since, as it is written [now] it is an error, because the meaning of the word is changed, it is also considered a serious mistake. And if the error is of the kind that it changes neither the pronunciation nor the meaning [of the word],⁴If massoretic rules regarding exceptions in the size or shape of certain letters are not complied with in the writing, no other Seifer Torah has to be taken out. (Mishnah Berurah 143:27) for example, if instead of the correct [spelling] of the word avosam with a vav after the beis, it is found [written] without a vav, or vice versa, or, if instead of the correct [spelling of a word] with an auxiliary yud [to indicate the plural], as for instance, if the word avoseichem is found written without a yud, or vice versa, or any similar case, we do not take out another Seifer Torah, (because [nowadays] our Sifrei Torah are not so exact that we can say [with certainty] that the other one will be more fit.) But if a Yud is missing that is part of the root [of the word], if, for instance, [in the verse] mah lach Hagar al tire'i,⁵Genesis 21:17. [what's the matter Hagar? Do not fear]. the word (tire'i) [would be written] without a yud after the tav, or if [in the verse] al tira Avraham [do not fear, Avraham]⁶Genesis 15:1. the word tira would be written [without a Yud], then another Seifer Torah should be taken out.

Both Maharsha, ad locum, and R. Baruch ha-Levi Epstein, Torah Temimmah, Leviticus 1:1, offer an interpretation of the derivation that is less elegant but far simpler than that advanced by Rashi.¹³This interpretation of Yoma 4b is inherent in the comments of Or ha-Ḥayyim, Exodus 25:2. See infra, note 15. According to those scholars the prohibition is predicated upon the plain meaning of the word "l'emor." The term "l'emor" is rendered in English translations as "saying." That translation portrays the entire sentence, "And God spoke to Moses saying," as a preferatory comment conveying the notion that the ensuing passages constitute the content of what was "said" to Moses. In effect, the sentence is rendered as a declaration indicating that what follows constitutes the content of God's communication to Moses. The translation of "l'emor" as "saying," although it serves to make the sentence read smoothly in the vernacular, is contrary to the plain meaning of the text and is probably incorrect. The initial letter lamed is a prefix meaning "to" and hence the word "l'emor" should properly be understood as a contraction of "le-emor" and translated as "to say," i.e., God commanded Moses "to say" the words of the verses that follow. Accordingly, the import of the sentence is not a declaration to the effect that the subsequently recorded verses were communicated to Moses, but that Moses was commanded to declare those verses to the children of Israel. The appropriate, albeit infelicitous, translation would be: "And God spoke to Moses to say."¹⁴This nuance of meaning is accurately captured in the standard Yiddish translation published in the Bet Yehudah edition of the Pentateuch which renders the “l’emor” as “zu zogen” rather than as “zogendig.” However, although linguistically accurate, this rendition of the passage seems to render the entire verse redundant. The very next verse begins with the phrase "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them." That phrase is synonymous in meaning with "l'emor" and renders "l'emor" superfluous. The plain inference, comments Maharsha, is that Moses would not have had the right to transmit the divine communication unless given express permission by God to do so.¹⁵Torah Temimmah differs from Maharsha only in understanding that the principle is derived from the plain meaning of “l’emor” and is not based upon its redundancy in light of the immediately following “Speak to the children of Israel.” Or ha-Ḥayyim, Exodus 25:2, understands the Gemara’s comment much in the same manner as Torah Temimmah but comments that “l’emor” alone would have served only to give Moses discretionary license to divulge the prophetic message he received; the phrase “speak to the children of Israel” is in the imperative voice and serves to make it incumbent upon Moses to do so. Hence that directive is recorded in order to teach that, absent such a waiver, all communications are to be regarded as confidential.

(Yod) “A person should engage in Torah [study] and the commandments, even if not for their own sake; as through [that which is] not for their own sake, one comes to [engage in them] for their own sake” – as it is [found] in the Talmud (Pesachim 50b). But behold on the verse (Exod. 25:2), “And they shall take an offering for Me,” Rashi explains, “‘For Me’ – for My sake.” And why this offering must be for its own sake more than the other commandments, requires elucidation. Just the opposite: let one be engaged in it, even not for its own sake, etc., as mentioned. And it appears that [it can be explained by noting that] there is a disagreement about acquisition with a handkerchief⁷⁵Such that acquisition of another item is effected by the symbolic exchange of a handkerchief or some other similar item. between Rav and Levi in the chapter [entitled] HaZahav (Bava Metzia 47a): Rav reasons [the handkerchief should be] from the [possessions] of the purchaser, whereas Levi reasons that [it should be] from those of the seller. And we establish [the law] to be like [the opinion of] Rav. And Ran⁷⁶Rabbeinu Nissim of Gerona (Spain, 14th century). in the first chapter of Kiddushin⁷⁷Kiddushin 7a. is troubled about Rav who holds that it is specifically from the items of the buyer and not of the seller, even if he is an important man. As in Kiddushin, we conclude that [a woman becomes] married if she gave something to an important man [to wed him], because of the enjoyment [she gets] from that which he accepted it from her.⁷⁸While marriage is not a commercial transaction, many of the laws of acquisition apply, such that the man is acquiring certain rights from the woman. And see there; that he wrote to resolve [this] – and these are his words, “When we say that if an important man receives a present, it is considered enjoyment [for the giver], that is when he receives a true present, but when it is on condition that [it] be returned, it is not considered so. And since an undifferentiated acquisition with a handkerchief is on condition that [the handkerchief] be returned, is has to specifically be from the items of the buyer.” See there. And see in Beit Chadash⁷⁹A commentary on the Shulchan Arukh by Rabbi Yoel Sirkis (Poland, 1560-1640). on Choshen Mishpat 190:4 who deduced from this that if one gives [such a gift] on condition to return [it] to an important man, it is not effective. [As] even though a gift given on condition that [it] be returned is considered a gift, it is not credited to the giver in this way. See there. And is it has already been written in Toldot Yitschak⁸⁰A commentary on the Torah by Rabbi Yitschak Karo (Spain, Turkey, Israel 1458-1535). and in [the commentary of R. Moshe] Alshekh [about] “And they shall take an offering for Me,” [that] it is fitting that it should [rather] say, “And they shall give.” And they wrote that the receiving of an important man is considered like giving; and [so in that case], the receiver is the giver. [Hence] all the more so [with] the Creator, may His name blessed, is that which is given to Him as if it is taken from Him. See there. And behold with all of the commandments, one who says, “I am contributing this small coin in order that my son will live,” behold he is a full-fledged righteous person;⁸¹Pesachim 8a-8b. and his present is a present – even if it is on condition that [it] be returned. And the same is the law here with offerings – even if he gives [it] for the sake of some reward, it is [still considered] giving. If so [however], we would still have the problem that it should have stated, “And they shall give” – like it is written in Toldot Yitschak and in Alshekh. And it is not relevant to answer like the commentators have answered, that giving to an important “person” is like receiving, since it is on condition that [it] be returned (in that the giver expects a reward) – and as I wrote in the name of Ran. Therefore Rashi explained, “For My sake” and not on condition to receive a reward. And then, “And they shall take an offering for Me,” fits – as mentioned above. And see there in my book, Ketzot HaChoshen on Choshen Mishpat 190:4. Nevertheless, it should appear to each person about himself that he has not yet been sufficiently righteous in his actions in front of his Creator, may He be blessed. Yet he should hope that he shall arrive above, as we will say at the beginning of the next section after this.

Rabbi Friedman raises an engaging question based upon the ramifications of Rabad's position. As established by Sefer ha-Hinukh, the commandment to build a Bet ha-Mikdash is not deemed to be incumbent upon us except at such time as a majority of the Jewish people resides in the Land of Israel. (The building of the Second Temple by Ezra, even though this condition was not fulfilled, was the result of a specific prophetic edict.) Nevertheless, the rebuilding of the Temple should be obligatory according to Rabad, not as an intrinsic obligation, but because the attendant sanctification is requisite in order to fulfill the mandatory obligation of offering sacrifices. The offering of sacrifices, if not for technical impediments, would, of course, be mandatory even in contemporary times. Friedman concludes that the prospect of rebuilding the Temple cannot be entertained by us since the Mishnah (Shevu'ot 14a) declares that the sanctification of the Temple area requires a king, a prophet, the urim ve-tumim and the Sanhedrin. Although there is an opinion in the Gemara that any one of the four requirements enumerated is sufficient, we do not possess any of them at present. In addition, though a prophet, according to this opinion, may not be required for the act of sanctification, the korban todah (thanksgiving sacrifice) offered on that occasion requires a prophet in order to direct the manner in which it is to be sacrificed. Moreover, notes R. Friedman, Rabad himself states that Ezra did not promulgate a perpetual kedushah because he knew by means of the Holy Spirit that eventually both the Temple site and Jerusalem itself would be expanded, and the enlarged boundaries would be sanctified with enhanced and unprecedented glory; therefore, it does not behoove us to sanctify the Temple Mount other than according to the directions of a prophet.²⁴Addressing himself to a different question entirely, R. Moses Sofer (Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 236) cites Rashi’s interpretation of Exodus 25:9, “According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all the furniture, and so shall you make it.” Troubled by the incongruous usage of the word “and” in ve-khen ta‘asu, Rashi, referring to Sanhedrin 16b and Shevu‘ot 14b, interprets this as an injunction to future generations. Ramban, in his commentary on this passage, raises an obvious objection to Rashi’s interpretation; namely, that Solomon did indeed deviate from these specifications. R. Moses Sofer emends Rashi’s interpretation and views the phrase “and so shall you make it” as referring back to the very beginning of the passage “Kekhol asher ani mar’eh otḥa— according to all that I show you” which he takes to mean that in subsequent generations any rebuilding of the Sanctuary must be in accordance with “all that I show you”—a specific prophetic revelation prior to each construction, as was the case with the building of the Tabernacle. According to this view, it is absolutely impossible to rebuild the Temple other than under clearly enunciated prophetic instructions.

But we, Israel, the children of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov have a received tradition, as is known, that the Oral Torah includes not only the Talmud and the other works of our Sages which have already been written or printed. Rather, every explanation and virtuous practice which the people of Israel inherit from their parents or teachers, as long as it does not oppose the holy Torah, is considered part of the Oral Torah and our accepted traditions, and we are bound in it by the prohibition of “Do not stray.” (Devarim 28:14) [Examples] of this type [of tradition] are calling the letter shaped א “alef” and the letter shaped ב “bet” and so too all the letters, and the fact that lo means negation and that hen means affirmation, and that seven days after the [accepted] beginning of the week is considered to be Shabbat and sanctified as such. About all of these and the many things similar to them, the knowledge of which cannot emerge from books and are known only through tradition from our ancestors and teachers, we say that they are received from Moshe at Sinai through direct transmission. So, too, the explanation of the hue of techelet is known and clear to every child of Israel who attends school. When he learns in the Torah of Moshe the word “techelet” his teacher explains to him (blue wool), and the knowledge received from his teacher is acceptable knowledge. And so, we have a clear received tradition about the hue of the color techelet. And why should we involve ourselves with academic analyses which can neither help nor hurt? Even if a wise and brilliant person would come and enumerate proofs like sand against our received tradition it would be forbidden for us to listen to him, and we are warned agains this as part of the prohibition of “Do not stray.”

The prohibition against divulging personal information concerning another person is derived from the biblical verse "Thou shalt not go as a bearer of tales among your people" (Leviticus 19:16). Such activity is forbidden even when it is not accompanied by malicious intent and even if the information is not derogatory in nature. As formulated by Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot De'ot 7:2, "Who is a tale-bearer? One who carries reports and goes from one person to another and says, 'So-and-so said this' or 'Such and such have I heard about so-and-so.' Even if he tells the truth, [the tale-bearer] destroys the world.¹³Although not in the category of talebearing and hence not the object of a negative commandment, the Gemara, Yoma 4b, declares disclosure of even a non-personal communication to be improper unless prior permission has been granted for such disclosure. See also commentary of Oraḥ Ḥayyim on Ex. 25:2. Sefer Miẓvot Gadol, lavin, no. 9, interprets Yoma 4b as establishing a negative prohibition (interpreting the word “lamor” as “lo emor”) forbidding disclosure of such information; see, however, Torah Temimah, Lev. 1:1, who understands Sefer Miẓvot Gadol as positing a rabbinic rather than a biblical prohibition. Cf., Bet ha-Beḥirah, Yoma 4b, who describes the stricture against disclosure of a non-personal communication which has not been imparted in a confidential manner as a matter of derekh ereẓ or seemly behavior.

The commandment of building the Choice House: To build a house for the sake of God, meaning to say that we would bring Him sacrifices there and that pilgrimage and yearly gathering of all of Israel be there, as it is stated (Exodus 25:8), "And let them make Me a sanctuary." And with it, this commandment includes the vessels needed for the service of the House of God - such as the menorah, the table, the altar, and all of the other vessels.

To not remove the poles of the ark from it: To not remove the poles of the ark from the rings, as it is stated (Exodus 25:15), "The poles shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be removed from it." And it is elucidated that this commandment is among the commandments practiced throughout the generations. As the understanding of 'practiced throughout the generations' is not that the doing of that commandment never cease from Israel ever at any time. Rather the matter is like this: Any commandment that was only commanded to do at a specific time and not more - such as that which is written (Exodus 19:15), "Be in preparation for three days"; and so [too,] the warning of Sinai (Exodus 34:3), "neither shall the flocks and the herds graze across from that mountain"; and all that is similar to it, wherein the command was only temporary - those are called commandments that are not practiced throughout the generations. But any commandment that we were not commanded about [only] for a specific time - even though there is a pause at any given time because of our exile or by reason of something else, such as now when, on account of our sins, we do not have the ark - is called a commandment practiced throughout the generations. As any time that we have the ark, we are obligated not to remove its poles from it, so that the Levites [may] take [the ark] out with them, if we need to bring it from one place to another place as a result of war or from whatever reason that [may] arise.

The commandment of arranging the bread of display and the frankincense: To always place bread in the Temple in front of God, as it is stated (Exodus 25:30), "And on the table you shall set the bread of display, to be before Me always" (See Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 27).