Halakhah su Esodo 29:78

And another reason why they ruled that Ha-tov ve-ha-metiv should be the blessing for a change of wine, is that wine is a drink that comes from grapes that are in a vineyard, and our sages z”l already said “Seven years our enemies manured their vineyards with the blood of the martyrs of Beitar.”¹¹⁵B. Gittin 57a. So for that reason they ruled that Ha-tov ve-ha-metivshould be the blessing for a change of wine. And you need to know that it is the way of Torah for a person to be required to restrain his eating and drinking, and that he thus guard his mouth. This is why the Torah specifies which foods are permitted and prohibited, and afterwards connects to them the admonition: “You shall be holy,”¹¹⁶Lev 19:2. that is to say, be ascetic and restrain yourselves from even those foods that are pure and permitted, for if one don’t restrain himself from permitted food that is too pleasing to him, he’ll become one of those who “glut themselves on meat and guzzle wine.”¹¹⁷Prov 23:20. From this he profanes himself and his good qualities, and if a talmid hakham –a “disciple of the sages” – profanes his Torah. And already our rabbis taught us how a person should conduct himself when he’s drinking: he should sip the wine and let it linger in his throat, and by this be satisfied. And they brought proof from the altar where they used to close up the pits, which were holes under the hollow part of the altar from where the libations would flow down into the empty part, so that the wine would linger in the altar, which is what they were talking about in the chapter “Lulav and Willow”:¹¹⁸B.Sukkah 49b. “Resh Lakish said, ‘At the time when they poured the wine libation on Sukkot on top of the altar, they would cork the pits, as it is said, “to be poured in the sacred precinct as an offering of fermented drink to the Lord;”¹¹⁹Nu 28:7. That is, wine, according to traditional interpretation, and so the JSB. However, archaeological evidence has convinced some recent scholars that “fermented drink” (“shekhar”) means “beer.”’Fermented drink’ (shekhar) because it connotes “joy,” “satisfaction,” and “intoxication.” Raba replied, ‘Hear from this that wine satisfies a person; in his throat it satisfies him’ – meaning that if he lets it linger in his throat, he will be satisfied, for so they used to let the wine linger in the altar. And they said in tractate Yoma:¹²⁰B. Yoma 71a. “Whoever gives a drink of wine to a talmid hakham, it is as if they are making libation sacrifices on the altar, as it is said, ‘O men (‘ishim), I call you,’” and thus “ishim” is interpreted midrashically to connote both “wine flagon” as in the word “‘ashishah,” and “sacrifice,” as in the expression “isheh la-Shem” – “fire offering to the Lord.”¹²¹Ex 29:41: “like its libation offering (ki–niskah) you shall make it (lah), as a fragrant odor, a fire offering to the Lord.” However, by creative philology, it could be read “like a libation offering of Ha-Shem” – ke-nesekh Ha’ – you shall make it Lah, i.e., La-Shem, to the Lord.”

Yet it seems that since the Torah commanded us to use Techelet in the making of the Tabernacle and the Priestly Garments, and we have established in tractate Zevachim (18b) that for that Mitzvah we need that (the materials used for the Tabernacle) should be new and if they are defaced or filthy they are disqualified, see there. If so, evidently, if the likeness of their dyed state is faded they would be considered defaced and would be disqualified. And therefore, necessarily, the commandment of the Torah regarding the Techelet for the Priestly Garments was that it should sustain its beauty and not change, for we can not say that indeed for the Techelet of the Priestly Garments it was not necessary that its beauty be sustained and not change. And indeed, as of when the likeness of the dye fades it becomes disqualified and new garments would be made, for this is not the case. For the Torah said (Exodus 29) "And the Holy Garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him." And indeed if the dye is not one that sustains its beauty, and it changes in and of itself, and fades, the fading would occur immediately from the beginning, and it would continue to fade. And indeed, we certainly need that the Techelet dye of the Priestly Garments be of a dye that sustains its beauty and does not change. And therefore we would say that wherever the Torah requires Techelet, it would need to sustain its beauty and not change. And therefore our sages, of blessed memory, required the Hillazon for the Techelet.

That is that He commanded the priests to wear special garments for glory and adornment, so they can then serve in the Temple. And that is His saying, "And make holy garments for your brother Aharon, for glory and adornment" (Exodus 28:2); "Then bring his sons forward; clothe them with tunics" (Exodus 29:8). And this is the commandment of the priestly garments - eight garments for the high priests and four for an ordinary priest. And anytime the priest serves with less than this number of special garments, or more than them, his service is disqualified and he becomes liable for death at the hands of the Heavens - meaning for the one was lacking clothes and served. And likewise did they count him in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 83b) as one of those liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And this explanation does not appear in Scripture. But what does appear in Scripture is, "and you shall gird them with sashes [...] and they shall have priesthood" (Exodus 29:9). And the explanation appears - when their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them; when their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them, and they are outsiders (non-priests). Behold it has been made clear to you that an outsider that serves [in the Temple receives] the death penalty. And they said in the Sifra (Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Milium 1:7), "'And he placed the breastplate upon him': This section was learned for its time and for [all the] generations; for the daily service and for the Yom Kippur service. [However] every day he serves in the golden garments; and on Yom Kippur, in the white (linen) garments. And it already appears in the [Sifra], that wearing these garments is a positive commandment. And this is their saying (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8:10), "From where [do we know] that Aharon did not wear the garments for his aggrandizement, but only to fulfill the decree of the King? As it is stated, 'and he did as the Lord commanded Moshe' - that is to say, the wearing of the garments." And even though they are the utmost in beauty - given that they are from gold, onyx, jasper and the other precious and beautiful stones - he should not have intention [in wearing them,] for their beauty, but rather only to fulfill the command that God, may He be exalted, commanded Moshe. And that is that he always wear these garments in the Temple. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Zevachim, Yoma and Sukkah. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 10.)

That is that He commanded the priests to wear special garments for glory and adornment, so they can then serve in the Temple. And that is His saying, "And make holy garments for your brother Aharon, for glory and adornment" (Exodus 28:2); "Then bring his sons forward; clothe them with tunics" (Exodus 29:8). And this is the commandment of the priestly garments - eight garments for the high priests and four for an ordinary priest. And anytime the priest serves with less than this number of special garments, or more than them, his service is disqualified and he becomes liable for death at the hands of the Heavens - meaning for the one was lacking clothes and served. And likewise did they count him in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 83b) as one of those liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And this explanation does not appear in Scripture. But what does appear in Scripture is, "and you shall gird them with sashes [...] and they shall have priesthood" (Exodus 29:9). And the explanation appears - when their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them; when their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them, and they are outsiders (non-priests). Behold it has been made clear to you that an outsider that serves [in the Temple receives] the death penalty. And they said in the Sifra (Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Milium 1:7), "'And he placed the breastplate upon him': This section was learned for its time and for [all the] generations; for the daily service and for the Yom Kippur service. [However] every day he serves in the golden garments; and on Yom Kippur, in the white (linen) garments. And it already appears in the [Sifra], that wearing these garments is a positive commandment. And this is their saying (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8:10), "From where [do we know] that Aharon did not wear the garments for his aggrandizement, but only to fulfill the decree of the King? As it is stated, 'and he did as the Lord commanded Moshe' - that is to say, the wearing of the garments." And even though they are the utmost in beauty - given that they are from gold, onyx, jasper and the other precious and beautiful stones - he should not have intention [in wearing them,] for their beauty, but rather only to fulfill the command that God, may He be exalted, commanded Moshe. And that is that he always wear these garments in the Temple. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Zevachim, Yoma and Sukkah. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 10.)

And [the garments] of the high priest are eight, and their names are like this: robe (ketonet), trousers (mikhnasayim) and sash (avnet) - like the names of the three of the regular priest - and mitsnefet (miter) was for the high priest instead of the turban of the regular priest. As this and that were [both] placed on the head, except that the the miter is made like a long type of cloth that women coil around their heads - and the high priest would coil himself with it - but the turban is made like a type of hat (that does not require coiling). Behold, [these] four of the high priest, which were only of linen, were white, six-stranded and embroidered, but their embroidery was not similar to the embroidery of the regular priest's sash. And he also had four others of gold and their names were breastplate (choshen), apron (ephod), coat (me'il) [and] headband (tsits). And he would do the external service with all of the eight, but inside - which is past the partition - he would never serve with anything but the [linen] clothes. And after he served with them for one Yom Kippur, he does not repeat to ever serve with them (Yoma 24a), as it is stated (Leviticus 16:3), "and he leaves them there." And anytime a priest - whether a regular or a high [priest] - serves with less than the clothes that are designated for that service, or more than them, his service is disqualified. And he is also liable for the death penalty by the hand of the Heavens, as our rabbis, may their memory be blessed, learned (Sanhedrin 83b, Zevachim 17b-18a) from "And you shall gird them with a sash [...] and they would have priesthood" (Exodus 29:9) - at the time when their clothes are upon them, their priesthood is upon them; when their clothes are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them. And they are [hence] considered like a stranger (a non-priest) who transgresses, which is [punishable] by death. [These] and the rest of its details are elucidated in the second chapter of Zevachim and in places in Yoma and Sukkah (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 10).

The commandment of eating the meat of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings: That the priests were commanded to eat the meat of some of the sacrifices - such as the guilt offering and the sin offering, as it is stated about them (Exodus 29:33), "They shall eat that with which atonement was done." And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Pesachim 59b), "The priests eat, and the owners are atoned." And with God's help, we will write about the matter of the procedure of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, how they would do it, and the time of its eating in their Order (Sefer HaChinukh 138, 140). And the principle of the matter is that all the meat of the sacrifices of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering was eaten by the males of the priesthood in the [Temple] yard, except for their entrails; and the owners do not have any [part] in it. And there it will also be explained what are the parts that are to be burned. And also included in this positive commandment is that they eat the portion that is coming to them from the group of sacrifices called lightly consecrated. And the eating of the priestly tithe is also included in the commandment. However, the eating of the lightly consecrated, and so [too,] the priestly tithe, is not like the eating of the meat of a sin-offering and a guilt offering. As with the eating of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, the atonement of the penitent is accomplished - as they, may their memory be blessed, said, "The priests eat, and the owners are atoned." But the eating of the lightly consecrated and the priestly tithe does not add or subtract from the commandment of the one who brings [the sacrifice] or gives the [tithe].

That He prohibited us from eating piggul. And piggul is a sacrifice that was spoiled by the inention at the time of its slaughter or the time of its being offered - [in that] the man who was occupied with its being offered thought that he would eat it after its time. And it is explained completely in the second [chapter] of Zevachim (Zevachim 27). Indeed, the prohibition about eating piggul is from, "it shall not be eaten because it is holy" (Exodus 29:34) - as we explained with the previous commandment. However we have learned the punishment from His saying about piggul in [Parashat Tzav], "And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of [his] peace-offering be eaten at all on the third day, [etc.]" (Leviticus 7:18). And the tradition about this verse appeared [and taught] that it was speaking about a sacrifice that was spoiled by intention at the time of its offering; and that is called piggul. And in His saying, "be eaten," He indeed meant that he intended to eat it on the third day. They said (Zevachim 29a), "Open your ear to hear that the verse is speaking about one who intends to eat from his sacrifice on the third day" - that it is disqualified with that intention. And one who eats from it after that intention is liable for excision, due to His saying, "and the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity." [As] He had said about notar, "So everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity" (Leviticus 19:8). And in the Gemara, Keritot (Keritot 5a), they said, "A verbal analogy should never be regarded lightly in your eyes, as piggul is one of the essential laws of the Torah, and Scripture taught it only through a verbal analogy. [... It is learned from notar, by way of the common use of the word, iniquity.] It is written there, 'So everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity,' and it is written here, 'and the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.' Just as there, it is excision; here too, it is excision." And also one who eats piggul inadvertently must bring a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of piggul and notar have already been explained in many places in the Order of Kodashim. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 18.)

And yet its warning – meaning to say, the explicit negative commandment, besides the punishment that is mentioned here – is from that which is written in the inauguration [of the tabernacle], "it shall not be eaten, as it is holy" (Exodus 29:34). And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Pesachim 24a) that this verse includes in its warning all that which has been spoiled of the [sacrifices] and is not fitting to eat, like notar and piggul. And likewise did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Avodah Zarah 66a) that they are included in the warnings, "You shall not eat any abomination" (Deuteronomy 14:3) – which they expounded (Chullin 114b), "Anything that is abominable for me, is forbidden to eat." And since this is so, we shall say that [that warning (negative commandment) is to make one liable for] additional negative commandments; and the verse here is speaking about the punishment of the one who eats it, as so did the explanation come about it. And that which it stated (Leviticus 7:18), "If it shall surely be eaten on the third day," is meaning to say that he thought about it to eat it on the third day. As so did they, may their memory be blessed, expound (Zevachim 29a), "'And if it shall surely be eaten, etc.' – that is piggul." Bend your ear to hear that the verse is speaking about one who thinks to eat his sacrifice on the third day, that it is spoiled with this thought. And one who eats it is liable for excision, as it is stated about it, "and the soul that eats from it will carry his iniquity." And it is stated about notar (Leviticus 19:8), "And the one who eats it will carry his iniquity, as he has profaned the holy of the Lord, and he shall be excised." And we learned [about] it in Keritot 5a, "Let not an inferential comparison (gezara shava) be light in your eyes; as behold piggul is one of the [important] bodies of Torah, and Scripture only taught it through a gezara shava." As we learn it] from notar, from [the use of] ‘iniquity’ [in both cases] – "just like there it is excision, here too it is excision."

To not eat notar: To not eat notar - and that is what remains from the meat of consecrated animals, from a sacrifice that was brought according to its commanded [specifications] after the time that it is fit to eat from it, as it is stated about the inauguratory sacrifices (Exodus 29:33), "it shall not be eaten, they are holy." And the explanation came about this (Meilah 17b), "[It refers to] anything that is consecrated [that is] disqualified, to give a negative commandment on its eating." And this is hinted to by the verse, in its stating, "they are holy": This third person, which is "they," includes all that which is disqualified of the consecrated animals. But we should not learn from this that notar and pigul (sacrifices disqualified by the wrong thought) are considered one negative commandment, as they are two topics - as I have written above on the prohibition of pigul in the Order of Tsav (Sefer HaChinukh 144). And we found about them that two [different] verses came concerning the punishments, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18), "And if it is surely eaten, etc."; and it is written, after it, "and the soul that eats it will carry its iniquity" - and this carrying of iniquity is excision, as we learn from a comparison with notar. As here, it is written concerning notar (Leviticus 19:6-8), "and that which remains to the third day[...] is piggul, it is not acceptable. And one who eats them will carry his iniquity, since he profaned the holy of God, and excised, etc." And hence, even if the warning for both of them is from one verse, it is not made impossible because of this to consider them two [separate] negative commandments. And so did they say in Meilah 17b, "Pigul and notar do not combine because they are two topics, etc." - as it is explained there that there are things that do not combine and there are things that combine.

And there is also another matter with these four things - that they are similar to precious limbs in a man (see Vayikra Rabbah 30:14; Midrash Tanchuma, Emor 19): As the citron is similar to the heart, which is the dwelling place of the intellect, to hint that he should serve His creator with his intellect; the lulav is similar to the backbone, which is the essence of a person, to hint that he should straighten himself completely for His service, blessed be He; the myrtle [leaves are] similar to the eyes, to hint that he should not stray after his eyes 'on the day of the rejoicing of his heart'; and the willow [leaves are] similar to the lips, with which a man completes all of his acts of speech, to hint that he should put a muzzle to his mouth, calibrate his words and fear God, may He be blessed, even at a time of joy. And the reason that it is only practiced one day in the country (outside of the Temple) is well-known - since the main joy is on the first day. And if you should ask, "Why would one not take it on Shemini Atseret, which has great joy on it for Israel" - the answer is that the day of Shemini Atseret is completely for God, may He be blessed. And [it is] as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bemidbar Rabbah 21:22; Midrash HaGadol, Shemot 29:36), "A parable of a king who made a feast, etc.," as it is [found] in the Midrash. And at the end, He said to them, "Remain with me one day, as your departure is difficult for me." And therefore, it is called atseret (a stopping). And if so, there is no need for any other reminder. And the holiday of Pesach does not require another reminder with the lulav, as behold the matsa and marror and the body of the Pesach sacrifice are between his hands; and further since it is not a time of joy as [much as is] the holiday of the gathering. And the holiday of Shavuot also does not require another reminder, since the essence of [that] festival is only from the angle of the giving of our Torah - and that is the great reminder to straighten our ways. And this is what appears to me in these matters from the side of the simple understanding. And I have come to believe that the kabbalists (mystics) have wonderful secrets about the commandment of the lulav and the three [other plants].