English translation — תבא ב

1.

In the Laws of the Chosen House¹

the Rambam says: "Any stone that is nicked so that the fingernail catches in it, like a slaughtering knife, is invalid for the ramp and the altar, as it is stated²

'Whole stones you shall build the altar of the Lord.'"

And he elaborates the law: "And likewise the stones of the Sanctuary and the courtyards were whole."

Then the Rambam says³

: Stones of the Sanctuary and courtyards that are nicked or chipped are invalid and have no redemption, etc.

(And only afterward does he state the law of a nick in the altar after it is built,

as below, section 2).

Simply, one learns that in "stones of the Heichal and courtyards that were blemished" the measure of the blemish is air "so that the fingernail catches in it" exactly as in the first law regarding "a stone that was blemished" which is invalid for building the ramp and the altar.

And that which the Rambam does not state the measure in <b>the </b>law,

is because it comes in continuation to the preceding law,

consequently it is not necessary to repeat the measure immediately again.

There are, however, commentators⁴

who deduce not so: from that which regarding the "stones of the Heichal and the courtyards" the Rambam says only "they were complete" and does not say

(in the law afterwards)

the measure of catching of the fingernail

(and at the beginning of his words he writes explicitly,

that the measure of a blemish in a stone

(so that the fingernail catches etc.)

is only

(only)

for the ramp and for the altar)

it is proven,

that regarding

For them, this measure is not connected with the belt of the fingernail⁵.

(And one brings a proof for this: regarding the stones of the Beis HaMikdash it is explicit⁶,

that they were hewn out by means of a shamir — and in Tosafos⁷

it is explained that by means of a shamir the stones cannot come out completely smooth so that there should not be even any blemish in them "so that the fingernail may catch on it")⁸.

2.

After these two halachos mentioned above

(And after he states the law of "a stone that iron touched it...

and the builder etc.')

the Rambam says in a halacha in its own chapter⁹

: A stone that was damaged or that iron touched it after it was built into the altar or into the ramp, that stone is invalid and the rest are valid.

From that which the Rambam also does not state here any measure,

and especially since he interrupts with "Stones of the Heichal and courtyards that were damaged etc." which

(according to the aforementioned commentators)

by them the measure of damage is different than earlier,

it implies,

that also by a stone of the altar after it was built into the altar,

the measure of damage is not the same.

And although in simple terms one would need to assume that it is the same measure as in the first

(burned)

halacha,

where the Rambam states the measure "any stone that is blemished such that it [the blemish] catches the fingernail is invalid for the ramp and the altar" — one must say that there is a difference between the stones as they stand for the building of the altar or — after they have been built:

Since the disqualification of a blemish is derived

(as the Rambam brings)

from the verse "whole stones you shall build the altar of the Lord" which speaks about the building of the altar¹⁰,

there is room to say that after the altar was built the measure of the blemish is not the same¹¹.

It is true indeed that in the Gemara¹²

stands the measure "so that the fingernail can be inserted into it" regarding "a blemish of the altar" — which simply speaks about the stones of the altar after they were built into the altar¹³

But from the very fact that the Rambam here deviates from the language of the Gemara

(although generally he copies the laws of the Gemara "in their form and in their language"¹⁴)

and states the measure of disqualification of a blemish "so that the fingernail can be inserted into it" specifically in connection with <b>the building of</b> the ramp and the altar,

based on the verse "Whole stones <b>shall you build</b> the altar of the Lord" — and did not set forth the laws in a manner that the measure of insertion of the fingernail should explicitly include¹⁵

also the stones after they were built into the altar as in the Gemara — it implies,

that regarding <b>these</b> stones the measure is

(according to the Rambam)

not "so that the fingernail can be inserted into it".

3.

It is however difficult to accept the above distinction in the opinion of the Rambam

(that "you shall build with whole stones" applies only to the stones for the building of the altar),

because the Rambam does not bring any other teaching for the disqualification of a stone that became blemished after it was built into the altar.

— The Ramban¹⁶

brings that regarding the stones of the altar after they were built into the altar there is indeed another teaching: "And you shall slaughter <b>upon it</b> your burnt offerings and your peace offerings etc."¹⁷

"Do you slaughter upon it? Rather, when it is whole and not when it is lacking"¹⁸,

and in his language: "For from 'whole stones' that would apply only at the time of building, but 'upon it' was stated."

And since the Rambam

(here - in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah)

does not learn it from that verse¹⁹

one must simply say,

as above,

that also regarding the stones after they were built into the altar, the source for the disqualification of a blemish is from the verse²⁰

"Whole stones shall you build the altar of the Lord",

which he brings in the previous halachah²¹.

And the difficulty returns to its place — why does the Rambam not state here the aforementioned measure "a stone that was blemished to this extent"

(and the like)²²,

From this it is implied that here is <b>not</b> the same measure?

4.

And one can say,

for it is known,

that

(also)

in the measure of "enough for the fingernail to catch in it"

(regarding a slaughtering knife)

there is a give-and-take and opinions²³

in the size of the measure,

until that there are those who say,

that the measure of catching of the fingernail means even a minimal nick,

But even according to the opinions&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

who explain

(in the Rambam)

that this is the smallest measure,

a "any amount"&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;,

nevertheless from the fact that the Rambam does not say here the term "any amount"&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

and the like, but rather "enough that the fingernail can catch on it like a slaughtering knife" it is understood that this means the Rambam is precise that this has a <b>specific measure</b>&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;.

And one can say the reasoning in this: the measure of any amount is found in the Rambam several times,

for example: "Wine that was poured as a libation to an idol is forbidden for benefit, and one who drinks from it <b>any amount</b> is flogged...

And likewise one who eats <b>any amount</b> from the offerings of an idol, whether meat or fruits, even water and salt, one who eats from them <b>any amount</b> is flogged"&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;.

And similarly the Rambam says in the Laws of Idolatry regarding an idol&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

and regarding the spoils of a city led astray&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;.

The Rogatchover³¹

adds to note to the Rambam, Laws of Shabbos³²

That there the Rambam brings several things whose prohibition of hotza'ah is "in any amount"³³.

However

(at first glance)

there is a distinction between them,

and preliminarily,

that the definition of the prohibition of any amount can be learned in two ways:

a)

So this is a <b>measure</b> in the specific prohibition — there are prohibitions whose measure is by dried figs,

by an olive's bulk etc. and also such that <b>their measure</b> of the prohibition is "any amount".

b)

It is a prohibition that has no measure,

and therefore the prohibition is "any amount",

not by the measure of ³⁴.

5.

And this is the difference between the category of "any amount" in the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat and "any amount" in the prohibition of idolatry:

Regarding carrying on Shabbat, that the prohibition of carrying generally has a measure is understood,

that these things whose prohibition is in any amount is therefore because for them "any amount" is a measure — either because even "any amount" of these things is significant in itself,

and like "pepper any amount,

costus any amount, good fragrance any amount, etc."³⁵,

or because "they hide them away for storage"³⁵

— people consider

(hide)

these things even an any amount.

But not so regarding an apostate city, and likewise regarding idolatry in general,

and upon this it is stated³⁶

"And nothing <b>at all </b>shall cleave to your hand from the devoted thing"³⁷,

the prohibition of "any amount" is not because "any amount" is a boundary of a measure,

but because regarding the prohibition of idolatry there is no measure — <b>"at all".</b>

And in the language of the Rambam³⁸

: because this prohibition is due to idolatry <b>it has no measure </b>and it is said regarding idolatry "And nothing <b>at all </b>shall cleave to your hand from the devoted thing."

6.

Based on this, one can explain the words of the Rambam in the laws of choosing the Temple,

And as an introduction:

It is known³⁹

that it is not the way of the Rambam to explicitly state novel laws

(except for the places where he says "it seems to me",

and they are found in the Rambam in a limited number,

as exceptions⁴⁰),

but in every place he changes his language and arranges his words in such a manner,

that one can learn from it a novelty in a particular law.

And similarly it can be said in our case: with that which the Rambam is precise to state the measure of a stone's flaw "enough for a fingernail to catch on it" specifically regarding the building of a stone on the altar and the ramp — unlike in the Talmud,

as above,

and by "after it was built into the altar" he does not add "a stone that was flawed &lt;b&gt;to this measure&lt;/b&gt;" and the like

(and also with that which he inserts between both laws regarding the stones of the altar the law of "stones of the Sanctuary and the courtyards that were flawed or were chipped are invalid etc.")

he hints

(and emphasizes)

that regarding "a stone <b>that was blemished</b> after it was built into the altar" comes only a disqualification that is not connected with the <b>measurement</b> "such that the fingernail catches on it like a slaughtering knife",

but the disqualification is "any amount",

within the categories of "any amount" as above.

And the reason for this distinction: the Rambam says in the Laws of the Chosen House in the following halacha⁴¹

"One who removes a stone from the altar or from the Sanctuary or from between the Entrance Hall and the altar destructively is lashed, as it is said⁴²

'And you shall tear down their altars etc., you shall not do so to the L-rd your G-d.'"

And since the prohibition is connected and comes in relation to idolatry

— and as the Rambam emphasizes in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah⁴³

: "One who destroys even one stone destructively from the altar or from the Sanctuary or from the rest of the Temple Courtyard is lashed, as it is said: <b>for their idols</b> you shall break down their altars⁴⁴

and it is written: you shall not do so to the L-rd your G-d" —

It turns out that the prohibition applies also when one "destroys" even any amount of one stone from the altar and the like — and destroying any amount means damaging

(even any amount),

and as it stands in Ohr HaChayim⁴⁵

"that it did not say precisely one stone, but rather that in his destruction he makes <b>an impression on the building"</b>⁴⁶.

7.

And based on this, the difference is understood between a stone that was blemished before being built into the altar and ramp,

and a stone that was blemished etc. after <b>it was built into the altar</b> or into the ramp:

The disqualification of a stone that was blemished before the building is from the aspect of the command and obligation "with <b>whole stones you shall build</b> the altar of the Lord" — that the stones must be "whole" at the building — and therefore there is a measure for the blemish,

that it should be sufficient to be considered a deficiency and defect in having "wholeness"⁴⁷,

and the measure is "that the fingernail catches in it like a slaughtering knife".

But not so a stone that was blemished &lt;b&gt;after it was built &lt;/b&gt;into the altar,

because this touches upon the matter of "to HaShem",

it is "the altar of HaShem",

so this is connected not only with the obligation of "stones &lt;b&gt;whole you shall build &lt;/b&gt;the altar of HaShem"&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

but also with the definition of demolishing the altar,

which is connected to "you shall not do &lt;b&gt;so &lt;/b&gt;

(as to an altar of &lt;b&gt;idolatry)&lt;/b&gt;

to HaShem";

And consequently, just as with idolatry the prohibition is in any amount,

not a defined measure as above,

so too the blemish in a stone that is built into the altar is not within a defined measure,

even not the smallest measure "sufficient for the fingernail to catch in it"

(even according to the opinions that it is any amount),

but a stone that is simply blemished,

without any measure*&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;,

"that stone is invalid"&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;.

it is not because the measure of their blemish is greater than "so that the fingernail catches in it"

(as above in section 1),

but rather,

since the stones became a part of the Heichal and courtyards&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

— the prohibition of blemish is not in the category of a measure,

but [for] any amount at all*&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;].

And even though the negative commandment and lashes of demolishing a stone was said specifically regarding the action of a person: &lt;b&gt;one who demolishes &lt;/b&gt;one stone from the altar ..

as it is said ..

you shall not &lt;b&gt;do! &lt;/b&gt;thus to the Lord your God,

and moreover — specifically "in a destructive manner" — it is however understood that also the demolition

(blemish)

that is effected in the object itself,

by itself,

even not through the action of a person and in a destructive manner,

has a connection and is in the manner of the category of nullification of idolatry:

Just as the mitzvah of "And you shall break down their altars, etc." consists not only in the act of breaking down by the person,

but also in the nullification of the existence of "their altars",

so too is this also in the prohibition of "You shall not do thus to the L-rd your G-d",

that the negative commandment [punishable by] lashes is indeed on the action of the person,

but the content and definition of the prohibition includes and excludes every manner of breaking the stone,

that every thing of "an altar to the L-rd your G-d" should not become broken and nullified.

in the definition of "You shall not do thus to the L-rd your G-d",

that the obligation of the Arab is not only when he removes the sanctity⁵²

from the stone,

but also when through this the altar becomes invalidated

(or a deficiency is caused in the Temple courtyard, etc.)⁵³

And likewise regarding "a stone that was damaged ..

after it was built into the altar",

there are these two details: both the annulment of the sanctity of the stone — "that stone is invalid": and also the nullification of the sanctity of the altar regarding the offering⁵⁴,

as the Rambam says in Hilchos Pesulei HaMukdashin⁵⁵

"for there is no altar upon which to sprinkle, and it is said 'and you shall slaughter upon it ..

in its repair, not damaged'"⁵⁶.

(And similar to this and likewise regarding "stones of the Sanctuary and courtyards that were damaged or chipped" in halacha 15)]

■

8.

The matter of the measure of the blemish of the stone after it was built into the altar is connected with the name of the laws — "Beit HaBechirah"⁵⁷

Beit HaBechirah is indeed named after "the place which the L-rd <b>will choose</b>"⁵⁸,

and the Rambam thereby emphasizes

(as has been said many times)⁵⁹

that the main virtue of the Temple is that it is a "House of <b>Choice",</b>

the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He:

It is known⁶⁰

that true choice is specifically when the selection of a thing comes entirely from the side of the free choice of the chooser — not because of any superiority and importance that is in the chosen thing,

and generally not because of any reasons and causes and inclinations,

which <b>compel</b> the chooser.

From this emerge two matters:

a)

When a person chooses an object because of its virtue and importance,

it is understood that the measure and intensity of its choice through the chooser is according to the measure of its virtue and importance:

When the choice, however, is not because of the virtue of the thing,

but because the chooser has chosen the object in his &lt;b&gt;free&lt;/b&gt; choice,

then this is in a manner that it is not bound to any measure and limit

(and consequently also without a matter of permanence).

b)

From this it is also understandable that when there is a lack in the chosen thing — then if the will and choice of the thing is because of its virtue,

it depends then on the "measure",

to what extent the lack damages the chosen virtue; but if the choice of the thing comes from the chooser,

then there is no difference in the measure of the lack — it is not the thing which he chose.

9.

And based on this it will also be understood regarding the Holy Temple: since the main virtue of the Temple is that it is the "House of Choice",

therefore a lack and blemish in the Temple is not connected to a measure,

but even a slight lack touches upon the essential matter of the House of Choice.

And based on this, it will be sweetened, if the matter of the aforementioned,

that the blemish is in any amount,

is emphasized primarily regarding the altar

(and as above, if the Rambam changes and says the measure "so that the fingernail will scratch it" not

(as in the Gemara)

regarding "a stone that was built into the altar",

but regarding a stone for the building of the altar),

Because regarding the altar⁵⁹

there was a special choice, both regarding its place, as the Rambam⁶¹

emphasizes regarding the altar: "The altar, its place is very precise, and one never changes it from its place",

both regarding the altar itself, as emphasized in the verse⁶³

"And this is the altar for the burnt-offering for Israel",

And as the Rambam brings in the beginning of the laws of the Chosen House&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;

both details from the verse "This is the house of the L-rd G-d and this is the altar for burnt-offering for Israel",

a special precision and choice

("This")

regarding the altar.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Devarim 5744)