Mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 53:31

דפר כהן משוח ודפר העלם דבר של ציבור ודשעירי עבודת כוכבים כדתניא (ויקרא ד, כ) ועשה לפר כאשר עשה לפר מה ת"ל לכפול בהזאות

And a man does not fulfil his obligation unless they are all bound in one band. And so it is with Israel's conciliation with God, [it is achieved] only when they are all in one band, as it is said, That buildet his chambers in the heaven, and hath founded his band upon the earth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Amos IX, 6. The people are founded and established on earth only when they are in one band - that is, when all the sections of the community are united, the righteous (the fruit-bearing) and the unrighteous (the non-fruit-bearing) ; this is symbolized by the taking and binding together in one band of the four species. It is evident therefore from this Baraitha that the four species must be bound together, contra R. Hanan.');">³⁶</span> - This is a matter of dispute between Tannaim. For it was taught: The lulab is valid whether it be bound with the others or not; but R'Judah says, If it is bound with the others it is valid, and if it is not so bound it is not valid. What is the r for R'Judah's view? - He draws an analogy by means of the expression 'taking' used [both here and] also in connection with the bunch of hyssop:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used in the purification rites of the leper, v. Lev. XIV, 4.');">³⁷</span> as there the kinds must be bound in one bunch, so here they must be bound in one band. The Rabbis, however, do not draw this analogy by means of the expression 'taking'. With whose view then would the following Baraitha agree? For it was taught: It is a meritorious act to bind the lulab with the other species; nevertheless if one did not bind it, it is valid! If with R'Judah's view, why then is it valid if one did not bind it? And if it agrees with the view of the Rabbis, why does it say 'It is a meritorious act'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to the Rabbis it is immaterial whether they are bound together or not.');">³⁸</span> - Indeed it agrees with the view of the Rabbis, and it is a meritorious act only on the principle of This is my God and I will beautify him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XV, 2. Thus it is a meritorious act generally to perform the precepts in the most beautiful manner possible.');">³⁹</span> OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS [OF THE BLOOD] OF THE RED COW, THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS - for the term 'statute' is used therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 2.');">⁴⁰</span> OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS BETWEEN THE STAVES OF THE ARK, AND OF THOSE TOWARDS THE VEIL AND UPON THE GOLDEN ALTAR, THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. As for the offerings of the Day of Atonement, because the term 'statute' is used therewith;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 34.');">⁴¹</span> and as for the bullock offered when the anointed High Priest sinned in error, and the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error, and the he-goats offered on account of the sin of idolatry, because of the following teaching: It is written, Thus shall he do with the bullock, as he did with the bullock of the sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 20. This verse is stated in connection with the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error, and its purport apparently is to direct that the service of this offering be performed in the same manner as the offering of the anointed High Priest mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. On examination, however, it will be seen that this injunction is superfluous, since all the details of the service, as stated in connection with the foregoing offering, are repeated here in full.');">⁴²</span> Wherefore is it written?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 20. This verse is stated in connection with the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error, and its purport apparently is to direct that the service of this offering be performed in the same manner as the offering of the anointed High Priest mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. On examination, however, it will be seen that this injunction is superfluous, since all the details of the service, as stated in connection with the foregoing offering, are repeated here in full.');">⁴²</span> In order to repeat thereby the laws of the sprinkling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus rendering the sprinklings indispensable.');">⁴³</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 53:31. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.