הלכה על ויקרא 1:18

It is good to recite the passage of the Binding (Genesis 22:1-19), the passage of the Manna (Exodus 16:4-36), the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-13), and the passages of the burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:1-17), tribute-offering (Leviticus 2:1-13), peace-offering (Leviticus 3:1-17), sin-offering (Vayikra 4:27-35), and guilt-offering. Rem"a: But only in private is it permissible to recite the Ten Commandments each day: it is forbidden to recite them in congregation (Rashb"a Responsum 144).

It is good to recite the passage of the Binding (Genesis 22:1-19), the passage of the Manna (Exodus 16:4-36), the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-13), and the passages of the burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:1-17), tribute-offering (Leviticus 2:1-13), peace-offering (Leviticus 3:1-17), sin-offering (Vayikra 4:27-35), and guilt-offering. Rem"a: But only in private is it permissible to recite the Ten Commandments each day: it is forbidden to recite them in congregation (Rashb"a Responsum 144).

One should recite along with the sacrifice passages the verse: "And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord...." (Leviticus 1:11).

Right after washing the hands comes the blessing, in other words, whoever has washed their hands for mayim ahronim ought to say birkat ha-mazon immediately.¹⁷⁶B. Berakhot 42a. And so you will also find in the Jerusalem Talmud: “Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Abba, ‘There are three pairs of things that need to be done in immediate succession: the 18 Benedictions prayer has to follow the blessing for redemption without a break, kosher slaughter has to follow the laying on of hands without a break, and the blessing has to follow hand-washing without a break. The 18 Benedictions prayer has to follow the blessing for redemption without a break, as it is said, “The Lord is my Rock and my Redeemer,’ to which immediately is connected, ‘May the Lord answer you in time of trouble.’¹⁷⁷Ps 19:15 (last verse) and Ps 20:2 (first verse after the ascription). Kosher slaughter has to follow the laying on of hands without a break, as it is said, ‘He shall lay his hand…He shall slaughter.’¹⁷⁸Lev 1:4, 5. The blessing has to follow netilat yada’im without a break, as it is said, ‘Lift your hands toward the sanctuary and bless the Lord.’¹⁷⁹Ps 134:2. Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Abin said, ‘Everyone who connects ge’ulah to tefilah without a break, Satan cannot accuse for the whole day; and everyone who connects the blessing to netilat yada’im without a break, Satan cannot accuse him during that meal. And likewise, everyone who lays his hand and slaughters without a break, there will be nothing invalid about that sacrifice.” So says the Jerusalem Talmud.¹⁸⁰Y. Berakhot 1:1.

But there is nothing that will clarify the difference between a negation and a prohibition to you besides the content of the statement. Indeed it will surely not be clarified by the word, for the word for negation and prohibition are the same in Hebrew; and that is the word, lo. So one learned must understand the content of the statement. And then he will quickly grasp which negative statement is a negation and which negative statement is a prohibition, according to our preceding explanation. And [the Sages], peace be upon them, already alluded to this matter. And that is in that which we find disagreement about a certain negative statement, as to whether it is a negation or a prohibition. And that is His saying regarding a bird sin-offering (Leviticus 5:8), "pinching its head at the nape, and he does not sever it." For behold our tanna - and that is the tanna that speaks in the mishnah (Zevachim 6:4) - holds that this is a prohibition; and therefore said that if he separated it, it is disqualified. And according to this, this negative statement would have to be a negative commandment. That is that if he severed it, it is disqualified - as if he brought leaven or honey [on the altar]. But Rabbi Elazar (ben Shimon) holds that this negative statement is a negation and not a prohibition; and that His saying, "he does not sever it," is intending to say, one does not have to sever the head, but rather one can cut it in any way that it might be. And hence - according to his opinion - if one severed it, it is [still] fit. And accordingly, they said in the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 65b), "Rabbi Elazar ben Shimon would say, 'I have heard that we sever the bird sin-offering.' [Then] what is [the meaning of], 'he does not sever it?' He does not have to sever it." And they asked about this and said, "But from this - concerning a pit, about which it is written (Exodus 21:33), "and he does not cover it," is it also the same?" And the answer was, "There, it is written (Exodus 21:34), 'The one responsible for the pit must make restitution' - it is implied that he needs to cover it." Behold it has been clarified that they took a proof as to whether it is a negation or a prohibition from the content of the statement. And from it, it has become clear that His saying, "he does not sever it," is a negative commandment - according to what is written in the mishnah. And it has [also] become clear that His saying with a bird burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:17), "And he shall tear it open by its wings, he does not sever it," is inappropriate to count as a negative commandment - as it is a negation. And according to everyone, if he severs it, it is [still] fit. For it is because He said with an animal fire-offering (Leviticus 1:12), "And you shall cut it up into sections," that it would enter your mind that a bird burnt-offering is also like this. So He said that you do not need to sever it, but just tear it. So if he severed it, it is [still] fit - as is explained in its place.

But there is nothing that will clarify the difference between a negation and a prohibition to you besides the content of the statement. Indeed it will surely not be clarified by the word, for the word for negation and prohibition are the same in Hebrew; and that is the word, lo. So one learned must understand the content of the statement. And then he will quickly grasp which negative statement is a negation and which negative statement is a prohibition, according to our preceding explanation. And [the Sages], peace be upon them, already alluded to this matter. And that is in that which we find disagreement about a certain negative statement, as to whether it is a negation or a prohibition. And that is His saying regarding a bird sin-offering (Leviticus 5:8), "pinching its head at the nape, and he does not sever it." For behold our tanna - and that is the tanna that speaks in the mishnah (Zevachim 6:4) - holds that this is a prohibition; and therefore said that if he separated it, it is disqualified. And according to this, this negative statement would have to be a negative commandment. That is that if he severed it, it is disqualified - as if he brought leaven or honey [on the altar]. But Rabbi Elazar (ben Shimon) holds that this negative statement is a negation and not a prohibition; and that His saying, "he does not sever it," is intending to say, one does not have to sever the head, but rather one can cut it in any way that it might be. And hence - according to his opinion - if one severed it, it is [still] fit. And accordingly, they said in the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 65b), "Rabbi Elazar ben Shimon would say, 'I have heard that we sever the bird sin-offering.' [Then] what is [the meaning of], 'he does not sever it?' He does not have to sever it." And they asked about this and said, "But from this - concerning a pit, about which it is written (Exodus 21:33), "and he does not cover it," is it also the same?" And the answer was, "There, it is written (Exodus 21:34), 'The one responsible for the pit must make restitution' - it is implied that he needs to cover it." Behold it has been clarified that they took a proof as to whether it is a negation or a prohibition from the content of the statement. And from it, it has become clear that His saying, "he does not sever it," is a negative commandment - according to what is written in the mishnah. And it has [also] become clear that His saying with a bird burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:17), "And he shall tear it open by its wings, he does not sever it," is inappropriate to count as a negative commandment - as it is a negation. And according to everyone, if he severs it, it is [still] fit. For it is because He said with an animal fire-offering (Leviticus 1:12), "And you shall cut it up into sections," that it would enter your mind that a bird burnt-offering is also like this. So He said that you do not need to sever it, but just tear it. So if he severed it, it is [still] fit - as is explained in its place.

Once more the issue recedes into the background. Nothing more is heard of the proposal and the entire question is permitted to lie fallow until the middle of the nineteenth century when we find a new protagonist actively espousing resettlement of the Holy Land and reintroduction of sacrificial worship. In a letter addressed to Baron Asher Anshel Rothschild, dated 12 Elul, 5596, R. Zevi Hirsch Kalisher solicits the latter's support for plans to colonize the Land of Israel and outlines his views regarding the sacrificial rites. When these opinions regarding the resumption of the sacrificial service were incorporated in a work entitled Derishat Ẓion and published a little over one hundred years ago, in 5622, the question for the first time became a live issue.¹⁰In fact, R. Shlomoh Drimer of Skole, in an undated responsum, quotes an unnamed interlocutor who reported that “the sages of the Sephardim and of Lithuania wished to sacrifice [the paschal offering] this past erev Pesaḥ.” See Teshuvot Bet Shlomoh (Lemberg, 5637–51), Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 125. Considerable controversy was aroused and resulted in a meticulous examination by the foremost authorities of the time of the halakhic issues surrounding the proposed innovation. Opposition to Kalisher's views was of a dual nature. Apart from the controversial halakhic ramifications of his proposal, Kalisher's novel eschatological views caused many of his contemporaries to take sharp issue with him. Kalisher argues not only that reinstitution of the sacrificial rites is both permissible and halakhically feasible but that it constitutes a positive mizvah and is, in addition, a sine qua non for the advent of the Messiah. The redemption, he maintains, will take place in the following manner: first, a partial ingathering of the exiles, to be followed by the reinstitution of korbanot; after this will occur the war between Gog and Magog and the complete ingathering of the exiles, culminating in the advent of the Messiah. As evidence for his position, Kalisher cites the statement of the Palestinian Talmud, as quoted by Tosafot Yom Tov, Ma'aser Sheni, 5:2: "The Temple [will] be rebuilt before the reign of the House of David."¹¹In further support of this view, Kalisher cites the wording of the Mussaf service of Rosh Ḥodesh: “A new altar shalt Thou establish in Zion and the burnt offering of the New Moon shall we offer upon it” which is subsequently followed by the phrase “and in the service of Thy Temple shall we all rejoice.” Kalisher argues that reference to rejoicing in the Temple service—which is general in nature—should logically precede the more specific mention of the burnt offering of Rosh Ḥodesh. From this he concludes that the prior reference, which is to a new altar (not a Bet ha-Mikdash), refers to the reinstitution of communal sacrifices and hence is not dependent upon the rebuilding of the Bet ha-Mikdash, whereas the subsequent mention of the Temple service refers to private sacrifices which are contingent upon the rebuilding of the Temple (for reasons that will be examined later in this review) and will, therefore, be reinstituted at a latter date. Referring to the Sifri cited by Nachmanides in his commentary on Deuteronomy 12:5, Kalisher maintains that the offering of sacrifices is causally connected with the reappearance of prophecy and has as its effect the manifestation of the Divine Presence, just as the Shekhinah appeared in the Tabernacle in the wilderness only following the sacrificial offerings of the milu'im. Therefore, he concludes, the reinstitution of the sacrificial rites is not dependent upon a prophetic injunction; rather, prophecy cannot become manifest without prior sacrificial offerings.¹²It is a bit puzzling that in endeavoring to establish this point Kalisher does not cite the more explicit and more a propos discussion of Ramban contained in his commentary on Leviticus 1:9 in which he analyzes the rationale underlying the sacrificial precepts.

b) Leviticus 1:1

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.

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.

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.

And I found with Ramban, may his memory be blessed, [an explanation] on the [level] of the simple meaning, similar to this reason. As he wrote (Ramban on Leviticus 1:9) in the name of others, and this is his language: Since the deeds of people are determined by thought, speech and action, God, may He be blessed, commanded that when he sins, he brings a sacrifice and place his hands upon him corresponding to the deed, and confess with his mouth corresponding to the speech, and burn the innards and the kidneys, as they are the instruments of thought and desire. And the limbs [of the sacrifice] correspond to the hands and feet of a person that does all of his work. And he sprinkles the blood on the altar corresponding to the blood of his soul, so that a person think in doing all of this that he sinned to God with his body and his soul, and it is fit for him that his blood be spilled and his body burnt; were it not for the kindness of the Creator, who took an exchange and ransom from him [in] the sacrifice - that its blood be instead of his blood and its soul be instead of his soul. And the central limbs correspond to his central limbs. And the portions with which to sustain the teachers of Torah [are so] that they will pray for him. And the daily sacrifice is because there is no saving the community from always sinning. And these words are tenable [and] grab the heart, like the words of classic homiletic teachings (Shabbat 87a). To here [are his words]. And he wrote at more length about the matter and wrote, "And in the way of truth (mysticism), the sacrifices contain a hidden secret, etc.," as he wrote in his commentary on Parshat Vaykra.

We were commanded in all of these things, such as the table, the menorah, the bread of display and the sacrifices, from the angle of the receivers (people), and like the matter that I wrote. There is no doubt or qualm to anyone who understands, or student that is not lacking in comprehension in the world who would think that with the arrangement of bread in the Temple upon the table, which we place complete and we take [away] complete, that there is any benefit (enjoyment) accrued by the Above, God forbid - not in its appearance, not in its smell and not from any angle. Rather, He commanded us like this in His desire, blessed be He, that we be blessed from Him, in His great trait of kindness. And [this is] also [true about] the frankincense that comes with the bread, about which it is written, "a burnt offering to the Lord." And [when] some of the commentators (Rashi on Leviticus 24:7) said that there is nothing from the bread that is for the Above except for the frankincense, their intention was not, God forbid, that there be any distinction between the frankincense and the bread for the Above. And the fulfillment of the commandment of God is the same with the bread and the frankincense: As just like God, blessed be He, commanded to arrange the bread in front of Him, so too is His will done, with the frankincense that He commanded to burn, and they burned it - one standard for all. Rather, all of these matters were written from the angle of those involved [in them]. As it cannot be written about the bread - that we feed the priests - that it is all for God; as others have a portion in it. But with anything that man does not have any benefit in it at all, and it is completely consumed in the commandment - with that we can say about it that it is completely for God. [That] means to say that all of it is included in the commandment - no man ate from it, nor enjoyed any physical benefit from it at all. And since smell is not from the pleasures of the body, but rather from the pleasures of the spirit - as the body only receives tangible pleasure - the matter of smell is always attributed to God, blessed be He. [This is] even though He, blessed be He and blessed be His name, is not - due to His supernal level and His greatness - connected to these matters at all; as He is not a body, and not the attribute of a body. This is known to all that understand. And they, may their memory be blessed, already explained (Rashi on Zevachim 46b, s.v. hanachat ruach) [that] every place that it is stated, "a pleasing smell to the Lord" (for example, Leviticus 1:9), [it means] "I said something, and My will was done." And so [too,] "And the Lord smelled the pleasant smell" (Genesis 8:21), [should be understood] in this way. This is what appears [correct] to us regarding the matter of the arranging of the bread in the House of God. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Guide for the Perplexed 3:45), and this is his language: But I do not know a reason for the table and the bread always being put upon it; and to this day, I do not know to what thing to ascribe it.

The commandment of the procedure of the burnt-offering: To execute the burn-offering according to its statue, as it is stated (Leviticus 1:3), "If his sacrifice is a burnt-offering, etc." - as it is written in the section.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said about the procedure of the burnt-offering that it was executed thus: We slaughter the beast in the [Temple] yard - and the slaughter is fit even with non-priests, but from the reception of the blood and onward, it is a commandment of the priesthood. And the priest would sprinkle the blood and flay it and dissect the limbs whole - as it is written (Leviticus 1:6), "into sections," and they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Chullin 11:1), "And not sections into sections." And when he dissects [it], he removes the sciatic nerve from the thigh, and incinerates all of the sections on top of the altar. And the wool on the heads of the sheep, the hair of the beards of the male goats, the bones, the tendons, the horns and the hooves - when they are attached - we incinerate it all, as it is stated (Leviticus 1:9), "and the priest incinerates it all." [But if] they were separated, they do not go up, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:26), "And you shall execute your burnt-offerings, the meat and the blood."

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said about the procedure of the burnt-offering that it was executed thus: We slaughter the beast in the [Temple] yard - and the slaughter is fit even with non-priests, but from the reception of the blood and onward, it is a commandment of the priesthood. And the priest would sprinkle the blood and flay it and dissect the limbs whole - as it is written (Leviticus 1:6), "into sections," and they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Chullin 11:1), "And not sections into sections." And when he dissects [it], he removes the sciatic nerve from the thigh, and incinerates all of the sections on top of the altar. And the wool on the heads of the sheep, the hair of the beards of the male goats, the bones, the tendons, the horns and the hooves - when they are attached - we incinerate it all, as it is stated (Leviticus 1:9), "and the priest incinerates it all." [But if] they were separated, they do not go up, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:26), "And you shall execute your burnt-offerings, the meat and the blood."

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said that even though the fire descended from the Heavens in the days of Moshe, it is a commandment to bring [it] from the commoners, as it is stated (Leviticus 1:7), "And the sons of Aharon shall place fire, etc." And (Mishnah Tamid 2) they would set up wood in the morning and make a large arrangement of wood at the top of the altar, as it is stated (Leviticus 6:5), "and the priest would burn wood each morning." And besides the wood that was set up in the arrangement, it was a commandment upon the priest to bring up two blocks of wood, as it is stated, "and the priest would burn wood (etsim, which is plural)" - and the minimum of etsim is two. And so [too,] would they add two blocks of wood with the daily afternoon sacrifice; and two priests would bring them up, as it is stated, "and they shall set up" - but [for that] of the morning, [it was only] one priest.

“The order of confession (of sins)³⁹Viddui, ודוי, confession of sins, is a prerequisite for expiation and atonement in the Bible for sins committed individually or collectively. In the Bible there is usually a pardoning by God following the confession. Examples of this are found in the stories of Cain, (Genesis 4:13) David, (Psalms 32,41,51, and 69), Judah with Tamar (Genesis 36:26), Achan and the spoils of Jerico (Joshua 7:19-21), Saul and the Amalekite booty (I Samuel 15:24-25). There are also examples of Biblical confessions made for the nation; Moses and the golden calf worshipping (Exodus 32:31), the high priest’s confession on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:6, 11, 21) and the confession of Ezra (9:6, 7, 15) and Nehemiah (1:6,7;9:2,33-35).
Prior to the destruction of the Temple confessions had to precede special sin and guilt sacrificial offerings. The person confessing had to place his hands upon the head of the animal sacrifice to transfer his sins to the animal (Leviticus 1:4). The Bible gives no wording for these confessions but there is in the Mishna the wording for the confession of the high priest on Yom Kippur: “O God, I have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before Thee, I and my house. O God forgive the iniquities and transgressions and sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before Thee I and my house as it is written in the Law of Thy servant Moses, ‘For on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins shall ye be clean before the Lord’” (Leviticus 16:30; Yoma 3:8).
In rabbinic times it became an accepted custom to confess one's sins before seeking atonement and the confession of sins became an integral part of the synagogue ritual. On the Day of Atonement it became a focal point of the service. According to the Talmud (Yoma 87b) the simple statement "Truly, we have sinned" is sufficient for confession, but elaborate formulas of confession have evolved. The Ashamnu "We have incurred guilt" is the prayer on Yom Kippur that is inserted into the fourth benediction of the reader's repetition of the Amidah (see footnote 43). The prayer consists of two parts, each of which contains an alphabetical listing of sins probably committed by people during the year for which they are seeking atonement on Yom Kippur. The first alphabetical confession is known as the Viddui Katan, the "Small Confession". The second part of the Ashamnu is known as the Viddui Gadol, the "Great Confession". It is also known as the Al Ḥet "For the sin which I committed before Thee" which is the statement that precedes each specified sin. These confessionals are first mentioned in geonic liturgy (see footnote 19). Additions to the enumerated sins have evolved to include all possible transgressions since a person might have unintentionally forgotten about a sin during the year which must be confessed in order to receive atonement. The sins are all confessed in the first person plural, "we", communally, thus a person may even confess a sin he is sure he did not commit.
In addition to Yom Kippur, the Ashamnu is also recited during the Seliḥot Services prior to Yom Kippur (see footnote 14). It is also recited in the Minḥah Afternoon Service on the Eve of Yom Kippur and ten times during the Day itself.
The Ashamnu is also included in the daily service of the Ḥasidic rite, and on Monday and Thursday it is recited by the Sephardi, Italian, and Yemenite communities.
The viddui, confession of sins, can also be said by individuals silently at appropriate occasions especially when one is about to die. The viddui said on the Day of Atonement in the singular has become acceptable as a death confessional. A bridegroom also recites this viddui in the singular during the Minḥah Service before his wedding, the wedding day being considered a day of judgment for the bride and groom.
Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 5, pp. 878-80. during Minḥah⁴⁰Minḥah, מנחה, is the Afternoon Service which is one of the three daily services, the Morning Service being called the Shaḥarit (see footnote 17) and the Evening Service being called the Arvit or Ma'ariv Service (see footnote 144). The Minḥah Service possibly derives its name from the minḥah sacrificial offering performed at the Temple in Jerusalem in the afternoon. A lamb was sacrificed at the Temple at dusk. The Minḥah Service consists of the following parts: the Ashrei (Psalm 145 preceded by Psalms 84:5 and 144:15 and closed by Psalm 115:18); the Amidah (see footnote 17); the Taḥanun (see footnote 10); and it is concluded with the Aleinu (see footnote 17).
On the Sabbath and on fast days a portion of the Torah is read before the Amidah and in some rites portions dealing with daily sacrifices are read before the Ashrei. On Sabbaths part of the portion from the Torah of the coming week is read.
The Minḥah Prayer can begin any time after the sixth and one-half hour of the day, which mean any time after 12:30 P. M. If Minḥah is prayed at this time of the day it is called Minḥah Gedolah or the "major" Minḥah. If Minḥah is prayed after the nine and one-half hour, which means after 3:30 P. M., it is called Minḥah Ketannah or the "minor" Minḥah. The Minḥah Service must though be completed before the twelfth hour, that is, before sunset, (Ber. 4:1; Ber 26b-27a).
The Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 324 states that one may pray both Minḥah Gedolah and Minḥah Ketannah provided that one is obligatory (ḥovah) and the other is a voluntary act (reshut). But this is only allowed for the extremely pious.
The third meal on the Sabbath, Se'udah Shelishit is usually eaten between the Minḥah, Afternoon Service, and the Ma'ariv, or Evening Service. It has become the custom during the daily service to wait and begin the Minḥah Service shortly before sunset, so that the congregation can wait a few moments and then not have to reassemble (for a third time, having also assembled in the morning for Shaḥarit) for the Evening, Ma'ariv Service which on Sabbaths and holidays can be recited immediately following the sunset. On weekdays, it can be recited even before sunset.
cf., Aaron Rothkoff, E. J., v. 12, pp. 31-32. (the Afternoon Prayer) on the Eve of Yom Kippur” - Containing six paragraphs.
One needs to confess during Minḥah (the Afternoon Prayer) before the (last) meal before fasting.⁴¹Se'udah ha-Mafseket, סעודה המפסקת, is the term given to the last meal which is eaten immediately prior to the fast of Yom Kippur and the fast of Tishah be-Av. It contains the last food which is eaten until the fast has been completed.
Hagah: If one is alone he says it (the confessional) after he finished his Silent Prayer, but the public reader⁴²Shelia'aḥ Ẓibbur, שליח צבור, is the public reader or the envoy or messenger of the community. It is the term given to an individual in public synagogue worship who officiates as the reader or the cantor, ḥazzan, the one who chants the liturgy. The main function of the sheli'aḥ ẓibbur is to lead the congregation in communal worship by chanting (or reading) aloud certain prayers or parts of them. He also recites the doxology of calling the congregation to worship (Barekhu) and he repeats the Amidah (see footnote 17 and 43). He also recites most Kaddish (see footnote 177) prayers which is a prayer in praise of God, and he leads the congregation in responsive readings and hymns. The Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 53:4-9 lists the qualifications of a sheli'aḥ ẓibbur. He must have humility, be acceptable to the congregation, know the rules of prayer, and the proper pronunciation of the Hebrew text, have an agreeable voice, be properly dressed, and have a beard. The beard however was later not required except on the High Holydays. Except for the recital of hymns and psalms (e.g., pesukei de-zimra, see footnote 17) the sheli'aḥ ẓibbur had to be a male past the age of bar mitzvah, thirteen years old.
c.f., Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 14, pp. 1355-56. says his (confessional) on Yom Kippur during the Silent Prayer,⁴³Ha-Tefillah, התפילה, "The Prayer" is a synonym for the Amidah, עמידה, the Silent Prayer said standing which is recited individually during each of the daily services, the Shaḥarit, Morning Service (see footnote 17), Minḥah, Afternoon Service (see footnote 40), and the Arvit (or Ma'ariv), the Evening Service (see footnote 144). It is also recited for the Musaf, the Additional Service (see footnote 166) on the Sabbath and festivals, and on Yom Kippur for a fifth time during the Ne'ilah, the concluding prayer (see footnote 191). During a congregational prayer that is when there is a minyan, a quorum of at least ten adult males, the reader (see footnote 41) repeats the Amidah outloud and on festivals a number of additions are made. Originally the repetition was for the uneducated people who did not know the prayers. Upon hearing each blessing they could respond, "Amen" and thus fulfill their religious obligation of reciting the Amidah. The Amidah of Arvit, the Evening Service, was originally optional but it long ago became obligatory to recite it silently but it is not repeated outloud except on the Sabbath eve when an abbreviated version of it in one single benediction is recited.
The word Ha-Tefillah for this prayer originated in the Talmud where it was referred to as "The Prayer" par excellence. It is also known as the Amidah for it is said "standing" and as the Shemoneh-Esreh (18) for it originally had eighteen benedictions in the daily worship while today it contains ninteen.
The Amidah takes on various forms for different occasions. On weekdays there are ninteen benedictions, on fast days an additional benediction is added when the reader repeats the prayer, (in ancient times on some public fasts six prayers were added to the regular ones, Ta'an. 2:2-4). On Sabbaths and festivals there are only seven benedictions in the Amidah except for the Musaf Service (see footnote 166) on Rosh HaShanah where there are nine. All the various forms of the Amidah have six blessings in common, the first and last three, with the middle changing according to the occasion. The first three benedictions praise God and the last three basically express thanksgiving. On the weekdays the intermediate benedictions are petitions and the Amidah is therefore predominantly a prayer of supplication where praise, petition, and thanksgiving are included. In most of the benedictions the one praying addresses God as "Thou" for it is through the Amidah that one communicates with God. The pronoun, "we" is also used throughout the Amidah which indicates that it is to be a communal prayer. Even though at times it is said individually, the worshipper is considered a member of the congregation. On Sabbaths and on festivals the central prayer concerns the specialness of the day or one aspect of that part of the day (that is, morning, afternoon, or evening on the Sabbath), and there is no petition, only praise, the special blessing of the day, and thanksgiving.
On the Day of Atonement the central blessing called Kedushat ha-Yom, the sanctification of the day, is concluded specially as follows: "Barukh…Melekh moḥel ve-sole'aḥ le-avonoteinu…mekaddesh Yisrael ve-Yom ha-Kippurim," "Blessed…King who pardons and forgives our iniquities…who sanctifies Israel and the Day of Atonement". On Yom Kippur also the third blessing (of the first three standard blessings of praise) is elaborated to contain the prayer "u-Vekhen Ten Paḥekha", "Now therefore impose Thy awe", which is an ancient petition for the eschatological Kingdom of God. On the Day of Atonement the silent recital of the Amidah is followed by the viddui, a confession of sins (see footnote 39) which is not written as a benediction. When the reader repeats the Amidah the viddui is inserted into the fourth, the central, benediction. Two confessions are recited, one short and one long which are both arranged in alphabetical order. The sins which every person might have committed during the year are included and enumerated upon. Since this prayer is part of community worship, the pronoun "we" is used, "we have transgressed, etc." (see also footnote 17).
Joseph Heinemann, E. J., v. 2, pp. 838-45. (טור).⁴⁴Tur, טור, see footnote 23.