Great is the answer that reaches the throne of honor.
To the Honorable Gaon Michael Avraham,
A] In the fourth day of the month, it is explained, “Rabbi Levi said, Great is the repentance that reaches the throne of glory, as it is said, Return, Israel, to the Lord your God.”
And why didn’t the Hebrew text include an explicit verse, “And you shall rest until the Lord your God”?
[2] The additions to Shavuot 4:13, 13a, 13a, 13b, 13c, 13d
Therefore, the words of the Torah are not understood as if the atonement of the scapegoat is the atonement of a sacrifice, but rather the atonement of all sacrifices is by offering them at the altar, and the atonement of the goat is by confessing the scapegoat, and so on, from the time that it is time for it to atone for future offenses.
3] In the near future, a person who wishes to travel a distance in his residence outside the city to a base located near the city,
But not within the 2000-amemah limit, is this permissible in the eyes of God, since expenditure for the purpose of providing food for a person was permitted [Shulchan Abi Taqiq, 1-2, Necessity for a person 106 Necessity for a person…],
And why not say that this is a person’s need, or that it is not mutual?
Best regards and thanks
Hello.
A] Perhaps because they want to prove that repentance is great, and therefore a verse that is not a mitzvah is preferable. The mitzvah calls you to return to God, but this does not necessarily happen in every process of repentance. Beyond that, according to Maimonides in the 7th chapter of the book of Repentance, the repentance “and the Sabbath to God your God” is not a mitzvah but a promise for the future. This is what will happen then, but this does not mean that every repentance at any time is like this.
B] Your assumption that the goat is a sacrifice is a completely uncontested assumption. Already Abba Zacharias wrote on the Torah that it is not a sacrifice, and the words of Ramban are known. Beyond that, there is the intensity of a day, and therefore in any case it is not just atonement for a sacrifice. The Torah’s plain meaning is that the goats are not a sacrifice for atonement at all, but rather the way to enter the Holy Place (“With this Aaron will enter the Holy Place”), and the atonement is in any case. I expanded on this in my article on the two goats.
3] The prohibition of takhumin The poskim disagreed on whether it is from the rabbis or from the rabbis. But in the Rambam it appears in the 27th chapter of the book of the Sabbath after he concludes the description of the prohibitions of rabbis. This means that it is an independent prohibition and not from the prohibitions of takhum. Hence, the law of ‘from’ was not stated regarding it, since it was stated only regarding the prohibitions of takhum. The answer is that from the Risha in Ketubot 7:1:
“But the truth is that there is no difficulty here at all. Certainly, if there were a prohibition of tukhumin in general work, it would be in general permission, but only for what is eaten by every soul, etc., although tukhumin is not in general work and is not blood for burning… What is not so, tukhumin that is prohibited is a prohibition in itself, not for the sake of work, for there is no tradition that would include tukhumin in general work of the Mishkan, and only a strict reading and prohibition in the P’A, which is not relevant to the prohibition of work, such as the prohibition of leaven on Passover and the New Moon before the Omer, and so on. What is this relevant to the permission to eat a soul, and there is no place to permit it for the purpose of eating a soul if it is from the Torah, and just as an egg that was born on the ninth day after Shabbat is not permitted for the purpose of eating a soul, since its preparation is a prohibition in itself, not in general work, and it is not permitted to bring a tukhumin that is eaten by every soul, so it is clear that it is not permitted to bring outside the limits for the purpose of sanctification, etc….”
Therefore, the law does not have a nefm whether it is for the person’s need or not, it does not say ‘from’ and the rest is permissible in the context because it is not a prohibition of labor.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
