Musings on the Torah

This article suggests that people too can be conceived of as a mikdash with the requirement of maintaining ritual purity unrelated to the inanimate mikdash vkadashav The pasuk in Shemini (vayikrah 11:8) states as follows מִבְּשָׂרָם֙ לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ וּבְנִבְלָתָ֖ם לֹ֣א תִגָּ֑עוּ טְמֵאִ֥ים הֵ֖ם לָכֶֽם׃ which simply read precludes Israelites from contracting tumah from the previously mentioned contaminants.   Chazal (BT RH 16b) say otherwise: תניא נמי הכי ובנבלתם לא תגעו יכול יהו ישראל מוזהרין על מגע נבילה תלמוד לומר {ויקרא כ"א:א'} אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן בני אהרן מוזהרין בני ישראל אין מוזהרין. והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה טומאה חמורה כהנים מוזהרין ישראלים אינן מוזהרין טומאה קלה לא כל שכן with the pasuk being limited to the 3 regalim אלא מה ת"ל ובנבלתם לא תגעו ברגל. Still and all ibn Ezra seems to take it at face value as referring to all year round even mandating malkus for its transgression: והנוגע בזדון יש עליו מלקות, כי הוא עבר על לא תעשה. Theres a similar pasuk in Reeh (deva

The following presents a dilemma as it relates to the validity of עבודה after imbibing a reviis of wine במשנתו של הרמב"ם Rambam writes regarding birchas kohanim (hilchos tefilah ubirchas kohanim 15:4) מִי שֶׁשָּׁתָה רְבִיעִית יַיִן בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא אֶת כַּפָּיו עַד שֶׁיָּסִיר אֶת יֵינוֹ מֵעָלָיו לְפִי שֶׁהֻקְּשָׁה בְּרָכָה לַעֲבוֹדָה by which he is referring to the previous halacha (3) which states וּבְרָכָה כַּעֲבוֹדָה הִיא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ( דברים י׳:ח׳ ) לְשָׁרְתוֹ וּלְבָרֵךְ בִּשְׁמוֹ by which we find (bias mikdash 1:1) כָּל כֹּהֵן הַכָּשֵׁר לַעֲבוֹדָה אִם שָׁתָה יַיִן אָסוּר לוֹ לְהִכָּנֵס מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּלְפָנִים. וְאִם נִכְנַס וְעָבַד עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְחַיָּב מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ( ויקרא י׳:ט׳ ) וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ. Regarding tefilah we find a similar law (hilchos tefilah 4:17) שִׁכּוֹר אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כַּוָּנָה. וְאִם הִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלָּתוֹ תּוֹעֵבָה. לְפִיכָךְ חוֹזֵר וּמִתְפַּלֵּל כְּשֶׁיִּתְרוֹקֵן מִשִּׁכְרוּתוֹ. שָׁתוּי אַל י

This write up is an investigation into an identical biblical term—shichvas zera—which is interpreted by the Bavli to mean 3 different things, depending on context; and the intersection—or lack thereof—between issurei sotah and eishes ish All issurei biah are transgressed with העראה alone.  גמר ביאה is only required by a שפחה חרופה as the Torah says וְ֠אִ֠ישׁ כִּֽי⁠־יִשְׁכַּ֨ב אֶת⁠־אִשָּׁ֜ה שִׁכְבַת⁠־זֶ֗רַע (Vayikrah 19:20) with the Talmud explaining (kerisos 9a) למעוטי המערה.  The איסור of אשת איש is certainly violated with העראה alone.  When a married woman is unfaithful to her husband (or even in a case of rape if her husband is a kohen) she becomes forbidden to her husband.  As the pasuk (Bamidbar 5:13) states by the sotah וְשָׁכַ֨ב אִ֣ישׁ אֹתָהּ֮ שִׁכְבַת⁠־זֶ֒רַע֒ that would seem to indicate that gmar biah is necessary to create an איסור אישה לבעלה, with the result being a sharp distinction between the issur eishes ish (which is violated with ha'ara'ah) vs a wife's issu

This piece explores if a ger toshav is a quasi jew or not It is typically assumed that non jews are bound by the Noahide laws even without committing to live in accordance with them. So, for example, holds Rambam (melachim 8:10-11).  What differentiates a ger toshav (a non jew that is permitted residency in israel, along with some other benefits) from a regular non jew is that he formally accepts them in front of 3 chaveirim (Rambam requires him to accept them by dint of Sinai's revelation). If he ceases practicing or shows his acceptance wasn't ever sincere he presumably has his visa revoked and is bounced from the country. He is still obligated in the noahide laws but no longer has the status of a ger toshav along with all the benefits that it confers.  Rashba (toras habayis, bayis 5, shaar 4) has a girsa in the baraisa (tb az 64b) about what it takes to become a ger toshav that is different from our talmudic texts. Our text has איזהו גר תושב כל שקיבל עליו בפני ג׳ חברים שלא ל

Rambam mentions a curious minhag (mt hilchos tefilah 3:3) of folks praying two mincha services, one by mincha gedolah and the other at mincha ktana (one as a chova and the other as a reshus). Cohering with his opinion in the previous halacha of mincha ktana being the ideal time for the afternoon prayer, he agrees with the gaonim who cautioned people to make the earlier one the optional prayer (interesting that one can designate a tefilah as a reshus even before praying the obligatory one).  How and why would such a peculiar custom develop? Perhaps it sprang up amongst jews that lived in predominantly muslim populated lands. Muslims pray 5 times a day. 2 of them are afternoon prayers, one in the early afternoon (dhur) and one later on in the afternoon (asr). Not wanting to appear any less devout than their muslim neighbors jews may have figured out a way to get in an additional prayer, thus starting the strange minhag of two minchas daily! What is fascinating is that initially Islam had

The following is an analysis of a seeming inconsistency in the Torah's prescribed volume of oil for the various types of korban animals, offering two opposing views in its reconciliation  The Torah (Bamidbar 15) assigns specific amounts of oil for the menachos that accompany korbanos, and an equal and corresponding volume of wine for the accompanying nesachim. For a כבש it is 1/4 of a hin, for an איל a third and for a בן-בקר one half. Now, the amount of flour in their menachos are 1,2 and 3 tenths of an ephah (in that order) respectively. Ostensibly these are the amounts of oil required to do a proper belilah with the given number of esronos (with the wine mimicking). The problem is that the ratio of oil to flour does not seem to be consistent. If each isaron of flour requires 1/4 of a hin of oil to be well mixed (as is laid down for the כבש) then 2 esronos should need 1/2 a hin and 3 esronos 3/4s (not the 1/3 & 1/2 which are stated), and conversely, if each isaron only needs