Loading...
 

Vol 33.17 - Korach 3                          Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page120   Page121   Page122   Page123   Page124   Page125   Page126  

Chumash  Rambam Talmud
Summary:
 
(5749) (Num. 18:32): "After you separate the choicest part from it, you shall not bear any sin on account of it" The difference from the comment of the Sifri that "if one separates Terumah  from an inferior quality he is in the category of "bearing sin" and the words of Talmud (Yev.89b): "it is forbidden to separate Terumah from an inferior quality for a superior quality".

The viewpoint of Rambam (Hil. Terumot 5:1) that "We should separate Terumah only from the most choice produce"

Lesson:
The obligation of beautifying Mitzvot (Hiddur) exists in every Mitzvah. 
 

Translation:

1. On the verse at the end of our Parsha (Num. 18:32):

“You shall not bear a sin because of it, when you separate its best part from it".

The Sifri states:

“From where do you say that if you did not separate it from the choicest, that you are in the category of bearing sin, it thus states ‘you shall not bear any sin on account of it’”.

The Talmud (Yev.89b) states:

“R’ Ilai said: From where is it derived with regard to one who separates Terumah from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce that his Terumah is Terumah? As it is written with regard to Terumah: “And you shall bear no sin because of it”.

At first glance, it appears that there is a disagreement here between the Talmud and the Sifri.

  • For in the Talmud it just states the prohibition to separate from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce. Moreover, it appears from this that there is no prohibition to separate poor-quality for poor-quality (and also from intermediate quality for intermediate quality)
  • Whereas from the words of the Sifri, it is explained that the Terumah itself must always be “from the choicest”. This is also apparent from the words of the Sifri on the verse (ibid. 18:30):

“When you separate its choicest part, it shall be considered for the Levites as produce” - “this is an admonition .. that one should not set aside Terumah except from the choicest”.

(And even though if one only has intermediate quality or poor quality, the obligation of Terumah just rests on the produce that he has, and he is not obligated to obtain choice produce in order to set aside Terumah from the choicest. Nevertheless, the ramification is that, if a person has good and poor quality produce, and he wants to separate from each type independently, namely from the good quality on the good quality; and from the poor quality on the poor quality, that according to the view of the Talmud, there is no prohibition in this. Whereas according to the Sifri, he must separate specifically from the choicest).

With this, one can also explain another difference of the wording of the Sifri versus that of the Talmud:

In the Sifri, the wording is “except from the choicest” (שלא מן המובחר) like it states: “one should not set aside Terumah except from the choicest”.

This is not like the Talmud that states: “on good quality”

In the Talmud the emphasis is on the “differences” in the quality of the produce and the fruit, namely whether they are of “poor” or “good” quality. Therefore, he states “good” in contrast with “poor” quality

(Similar to what we find with regard to the amount of Terumah: A good eye (generous amount): (one part out of forty etc.). An intermediate (average amount: one out of fifty), or a poor (amount: one out of sixty).

Whereas the intent of the Sifri is that one is always obligated to separate “from the choicest" (המובחר). In other words, even when one separates from good quality on good quality, that from the good fruit itself, one must separate from the choicest of them.

Therefore he states “choicest” (similar to the wording with regard to the Korbanot, that it must be “unblemished and of choice quality (תמימין ומובחרין)” – “from the highest quality”.

(One could say that the Sifri derives this law from the wording of the verse “its best part from it” (חלבו ממנו). For seemingly the words “from it” are superfluous. Moreover, in the preceding Sifri on the verse “you shall set aside from it” it states, “from one species on its own species, and not from one species on one that is not its species”. In other words he explains “from it” to mean from ”its species” ("ממנו" — "ממינו"). According to this, one could say that according to the Sifri, the explanation of “its best part from it” is that even if it is within its own “species”, the Terumah must be from the choicest of it. In other words, from the choices of the good quality itself).

2. However, seemingly, one must examine if one should explain that the Talmud disputes the Sifri in this matter. For we expressly learn in the Mishnah (Terumot 2:4)

“Any place where there is a Kohen, the Terumah should be set aside from the good kind.”

(And only where there is no Kohen present, one may “set aside Terumah from the longer lasting kind” (תורם מן המתקיים). Moreover according to the view of R’ Yehuda “one should always set the Terumah aside (only) from the finer kind.”

Therefore, one must say that even according to the view of the Talmud, the obligation of “when you separate its best part from it” is that not only that it is prohibition to set aside Terumah from the poor quality on good quality, but also that one is obligated to separate from “the good quality”.

We also learn so in the Mishnah (ibid 4:6), as it states:

“Any species that is not considered Kelayim with another species, one may set aside Terumah from the good quality for the poor quality”.

In other words, the obligation of setting aside Terumah from “the good” also means from the “good on the poor quality” and that one may not separate from the poor quality on the poor quality.

Indeed (איברא), the Mishnah there continues:

“(one may set aside Terumah from the good quality for the poor quality) but not from the poor quality for the good quality.

According to the aforementioned, the Tanna should have just said “but not from poor quality”. For then it also includes the prohibition of separating poor quality on poor quality. Therefore, it seemingly appears that the prohibition is just from the poor quality for good

However, one could say that the reason that the Tanna states “but not from the poor quality on the good” is because of his following words:

“But if one sets aside Terumah from the poor quality for the good, his Terumah is valid Terumah”.

Therefore he states, “from the poor quality on the good”, to tell us an innovation, namely that even in such a manner as this, where not only did he not set aside Terumah from the good, but moreover, that he set aside Terumah from the poor quality on the good, nevertheless, after the fact (בדיעבד), his Terumah is valid Terumah. However, at the onset (לכתחילה), one is prohibited from setting aside Terumah (not just from poor quality on the good, but) even from poor quality on poor quality.

This is the also the reason that in the Talmud there, R’ Ilai states, “If one separates Terumah from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce” (that it is in the realm of you shall not bear any sin on account of it”) not like the wording of the Sifri that “he sets aside Terumah, not from the choicest”.

For one may say that this is not a dispute, but rather a reason for the difference. Namely, that R’ Ilai’s intent is to tell us (not the essential law that he bearing sin, but rather) that the law that his “Terumah is valid Terumah”. With this, there is an even greater innovation than separating poor quality for good.

Whereas, the Sifri, who comes to tell us the essential law that he “bearing sin”, in general, writes “not from the choicest”, namely that this is the innovation, that even if he just did not separate from the choicest, he is in the realm of “bearing sin on account of it”.

3. However, it is difficult to explain that this is the Talmud’s view. For, in many places, that we find in the Mishnah and in the Talmud the prohibition of setting aside Terumah from poor quality produce, it states “not from the poor quality on the good”.

(Or it states, not from a specific species (which is inferior) for a species (which is superior)).

This is so, even though in those places it does not mention at all, the law that, after the fact (בדיעבד) his Terumah is valid Terumah. In fact, it appears that the prohibition is just from setting aside poor quality for the good.

Seemingly, one can also precisely derive this from the words of Ramban, in his notes on the Sefer HaMitzvot of Rambam, where he adds to the enumeration of the Positive commandments and writes:

“We are commanded in our setting aside of Terumah, to set it aside from the choicest, or from equal quality, and not from the poor quality on the good”

(He also adds in the enumeration of the Negative Commands, and writes:

“The Levites are prevented from setting aside from the Ma’aser that is given to them, the Terumat Ma’aser from the poor quality of it. Rather they must separate from the good or from equal quality, and this is what is the Supernal states: ‘You shall not bear a sin because of it, when you separate its best part from it’".

(Note: Terumat Ma’aser is separated by the Levites from the first tithe)

One could seemingly explain the Ramban’s intent in stating “or from equal quality” (“or equal”) that the obligation to set aside from the good just negates the setting aside Terumah from poor quality. However, it is permissible to separate from intermediate quality.

(This is similar to the law of selecting “the choicest” (מובחרים) for a korban. Namely, that in addition to that which, even if it is not choice, it is not invalidated because of it (אינו נפסל בכך). Moreover, even in the scope of “choicest”, that one is obligated, from the very onset, to bring, it is just that one “should not bring a weak and unsightly sheep”. However, one is not obligated (possibly even from the very onset) to bring “from the choicest quality”).

This is also explained in the Talmud (Bava Metzia 22a), in the section where the owner says, “You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and set aside Terumah from that” (כלך אצל יפות)

(Note: This concerns a case where someone who entered another’s field, gathered produce from it and set aside Terumah without the owner’s permission, whether it is considered Terumah. For the owner may consider him a thief).

The Talmud states there, that “an average owner, sets aside Terumah from intermediate quality”.

This is also precisely derived from the wording of the Talmud in another place (Temurah ibid):

“He is setting aside Terumah from poor quality for good, and the Divine Law says: ‘Of all the best thereof’. From the ‘best thereof’, but not from the inferior” (גירועין). Thus, only the “inferior” is prohibited.

However one must slightly examine (צע״ק) the Ramban’s wording “or from the equal quality” (שוה). For seemingly according to the aforementioned, he should have written like the wording of the Talmud “of from the intermediate quality (או מן הבינוני)”?

It is more logical to explanation that Ramban’s intent is stating “or from the equal”, is that if the Terumah and the remaining portion (התרומה והשיריים) are equal, in other words, from that very species (without distinction, whether it is good, intermediate or poor quality, that it is permissible to set aside Terumah from one over the other.

For the prohibition is just on setting aside Terumah from the poor quality on the good.

(And also Ramban’s words: “from the poor quality of it” means that the remaining part is not poor quality, and therefore, he is setting aside Terumah from poor quality on the good).

However, if the Terumah and the remains are “equal” - even if they are both from poor quality, then there is no prohibition.

(One could add, that even if one were to say that Ramban’s intent in “or from the equal ” is that one is permitted to set aside Terumah from the intermediate quality – this is, seemingly, not like the view of the aforementioned Sifri, who expressly writes, “for if one sets aside Terumah, not from the choicest, that you are bearing sin” on account of it”. “This is an admonition .. that one should not set aside Terumah except from the choicest”.

It is extremely problematic to say that his intent is to just negate the “poor” quality.

(And on the contrary, the simple apparent meaning of the Sifri it that even when one sets aside Terumah from the good, one must set aside Terumah from the choicest of the good itself, as aforementioned in Par. 1)

According to the aforementioned, one could say that Ramban’s source is in the words of the aforementioned Talmud, namely that the prohibition is just on setting aside Terumah from the poor quality on the good.

4. Therefore, it is logical to say that according to the Talmud’s view,

(Which in all places, precisely states that the prohibition is just not to set aside Terumah from the poor quality on the good”. And conversely expressly states (as aforementioned) that one should set aside Terumah “from the good on the poor quality” -which from this implies not from the poor quality on the poor quality) –

there is a difference between the obligation and prohibition (the Positive and Negative commandment of setting aside Terumah):

  • The obligation (the Positive commandment), from the onset, which is the best and most beautiful manner – “Hiddur” (להידור) - is to separate from good quality.

This includes setting aside from “the good on the poor quality” (and also in the good itself, the choicest of the good).

  • However, the prohibition (the Negative Command), when one does not separate from the good, is just when one separates from the poor quality on the good. For only then is he in the realm of “bearing sin”

(Whereas if one just is missing the Hiddur of setting aside from the good and choicest, there is no bearing of sin because of it).

(One could say that the difference is dependent on the wording of verses:

  • Regarding the prohibition (Negative Command) it states “You shall not bear a sin because of it, when you separate its best part from it" (ממנו).

From the simple meaning of the verse, this means that the remaining part (“from it”- ממנו) is not “its fat”. In other words that there must be setting aside Terumah from the good on the poor quality, and not the opposite – from the poor quality on the good.

  • Whereas, regarding the obligation (Positive Command) to separate from the good quality, it states (verse 29) (also) “from its choicest portion” (plainly) “The choice of the oil etc.” In other words, that the Terumah (in general) must always be from the “fat” – the choicest and best quality).

Whereas according to the Sifri, the prohibition is not just on setting aside Terumah from poor quality on the good, but even when one does not set aside “from the choicest”, he is bearing sin on account of it.

This is also the view of Rambam, who differentiates from the wording of the Mishnah “Any place where there is a Kohen, the Terumah should be set aside from the good kind.”

Rambam writes:

“We do not separate Terumah except from the good, as it states: ‘When you separate its most choice portion from it’”.

One may explain that his intent, is that the obligation to set aside Terumah from the good quality is not just a ‘Hiddur Mitzvah’ (הידור מצוה- performing the Mitzvah in the most beautiful manner) but rather that there is a prohibition against not setting aside Terumah from inferior quality ( i.e. not from the choicest as it states “We do not separate Terumah except from the good”). This is like the wording of the aforementioned Sifri “one should not set aside Terumah except from the choicest”.

5. One could say that these two manners

(Namely, whether setting aside Terumah from inferior quality is in the realm of bearing sin) –

are dependent in the scope of the obligation to set aside Terumah from the good:

Rambam writes at the conclusion of Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach:

“One who desires to gain merit for himself, subjugate his evil inclination, and amplify his generosity should bring his sacrifice from the most desirable and superior type of the item he is bringing . . The same applies to everything given for the sake of the A-lmighty who is good. It should be of the most attractive and highest quality. If one builds a house of prayer, it should be more attractive than his own dwelling. . . If he consecrates something, he should consecrate the best of his possessions. And so it states: ‘All of the superior quality should be given to G-d etc.’"

One should discern whether the obligation of setting aside Terumah from the choicest (“when you separate its best part from it”) is not just a part of the general obligation of “All superior quality should be given to G-d” or whether this is a unique law of Terumah.

One could say that in this, the Talmud and the Sifri differ:

  • According to the view of the Talmud, this obligation is just a part of the general law of “All superior quality should be given to G-d”. Therefore, one should not say that when does not fulfill this, that he is in the realm of “bearing sin”. For this general law is only a Hiddur for one who wants to “gain merit for himself” (as Rambam writes there). Therefore, the Talmud maintains that only when one sets aside Terumah from poor quality on the good, that he “bearing sin”. For then it is a disgrace to the Terumah (בזיון התרומה) since the remaining parts are the good and the Terumah (that permits the remaining parts) are from the poor quality.

Whereas, according to the view of the Sifri, namely that the law of “when you separate its best part from it” is a unique law of Terumah, it is understood that it is an absolute obligation (חיוב גמור) to separate from the choicest. Therefore, when one does not do so, “you are bearing sin”.

6. One could possibly additionally say, by prefacing a dispute between the Tanna Kamma and R’ Yehuda (that is cited above in the beginning of Par 2) with regard to the case where there is no Kohen present, whether one may separate from the “longer lasting kind” (תורם מן המתקיים)” or whether one must always separate from the good quality, even when there is no Kohen present.

One could explain that they differ whether the obligation to separate from the good is a condition of setting aside Terumah or whether it is a condition of giving to a Kohen:

  • The reason of R’ Yehuda, who maintains that one must always separate from the good (even if it will not endure) is that this obligation is a part of the law of setting aside Terumah. For the essential aspect of setting aside Terumah is – the setting aside for G-d (‘הפרשה לה'), as the verse states “The choice of the oil and the choice of the wine and grain, the first of which they give to the L-rd, to you I have given them”, “So shall you too set aside a gift for the L-rd”.

(However, afterward, we give it to the kohanim).

Therefore, there rests on the essential separating, the obligation that it be from the choicest (similar to the verse: “All superior quality should be given to G-d.”).

For this reason, R’ Yehuda maintains that even when the produce will not last, we are not concerned for the loss to the Kohen, for the main aspect is that the setting aside for G-d, must be from the choicest.

  • Whereas, the Tanna Kamma maintains that this mainly for the benefit of the Kohen, namely that the giving to him must be from the choicest, in order that the provision of his needs, through Bnei Yisroel, be in the best manner – from the best and choicest. According to this manner, if the good will not endure, the produce that will endure takes precedence.

According to this, one could say that the aforementioned question

(Whether the obligation to set aside Terumah from the choicest, is a part of the general obligation of “All superior quality should be given to G-d” or not)

is dependent on the scope of “All superior quality should be given to G-d”.

It has been explained in another place (Likkutei Sichos vol. 27 pg. 10), in the explanation of the view of Rambam who does not cite that which “Beautify yourself before Him in Mitzvot” (התנאה לפניו במצות) (which is derived from “this is my G-d and I will glorify Him ("זה א­לי ואנוהו - ‘anveihu’)

(Note: The Sages interpreted ‘anveihu’ homiletically as linguistically related to ‘noi’- beauty)

is only a law of “The same applies to everything given for the sake of the Almighty who is good. It should be of the most attractive and highest quality. If one builds a house of prayer . . If he consecrates something, he should consecrate the best of his possession. And so it states: "All superior quality should be given to G-d etc."

The intent of this is for something that is similar to a korban on the altar (an offering to G-d), where one gives the thing over to G-d, like one who “builds a house of prayer”, or “consecrates something”

(and even in the examples that Rambam cites there: “If one builds a house of prayer, it should be more attractive than his own dwelling. If he feeds a hungry person, he should feed him from the best and most tasty foods of his table. If he clothes one who is naked, he should clothe him with his attractive garments” it is because it is dealing with Tzedaka, which is for atonement (לכפרה)).

where it must be the “ best of his possession”. For this concerns the object (החפצא), namely that through the thing being “from the good”, the offering to G-d is complete and more beautiful (היא בשלימות ובהידור יותר).

According to this, Rambam’s view is explained in our case (the setting aside of Terumah from the good):

Since we rule according to Halacha like the Tanna Kamma, namely that when there is no Kohen present that we set aside Terumah from the produce that will endure. Moreover, that this is because it is a law in the giving to the Kohen. We therefore find that this law is not relevant to the general obligation of “All superior quality should be given to G-d”

(which is just in “everything given for the sake of the Almighty”)

Therefore Rambam maintains that this is a new and unique law with regard to the setting aside of Terumah, namely that one must give to the Kohen from the good. Therefore, since this is a unique law in Terumah, he also maintains that it is just a Hiddur, at the onset. However, if one does not fulfill this law, he is bearing sin (like the view of the Sifri). Therefore, he writes, “We do not separate Terumah except from the good”, as aforementioned.

Whereas, according to the view of the Talmud, namely that there is an obligation of beautification - Hiddur Mitzvah - in all Mitzvot, as it states, “Beautify yourself before Him in Mitzvot”

(Moreover, one could say that according to the view of the Talmud, there is no difference between the law of Hiddur Mitzvah, in general, and the obligation of "All superior quality should be given to G-d”)

Therefore, the Talmud maintains that the obligation to set aside Terumah from the good is just a part of the general obligation of Hiddur Mitzvah and “All superior quality should be given to G-d”. Therefore, it is impossible to say that because of this, namely that he is not from those who are scrupulous (שאינו מן המהדרים) that he should be in the realm of “bearing sin”.

7. There is another difference between the wording of the Sifri and the Talmud.

In the Talmud, the wording is:

“And if this inferior portion is not sanctified as Terumah at all, why is there a bearing of sin? “

(ואם אין קדוש נשיאות חטא למה)

(this is like the wording of the verse itself” you shall not bear any sin on account of it

However, in the Sifri, he changes it and states:

“You are bearing iniquity” (שאתם בנשיאות עון).

It is known that “iniquity/ עון” is more severe (חמור יותר) than “sin/חטא “.

Even though it has been explained that this law

(namely that just because he is lacking in the “from the choicest” that there is “bearing sin”)

is just with regard to Terumah. Nevertheless, one should learn from this regarding other Mitzvot of the Torah, the severity if one is lacking in Hiddur Mitzvah.

For even though one does not obligate him and force him to beautify the Mitzvah, nevertheless, when one is not scrupulous in Mitzvot (מהדר במצות), not only does he lack the virtue of Hiddur Mitzvah, but there is (a semblance of) bearing iniquity (נשיאות עון) (for it is considered a lacking in the Mitzvah itself)

Positively, as it states, “The measure of reward for good deeds is greater” (ומרובה מדה טובה), when one fulfills Mitzvot with Hiddur, in addition to the reward for the beautification of the Mitzvah, there is an addition in the reward of the Mitzvah itself

MSichas Shabbat Parshat Korach 5724, Chof Menachem Av 5745

 

Links:


 

 

Date Delivered:   Reviewer:       
Date Modified:    Date Reviewed:  
Contributor: