לקוטי שיחות חלק כ״ט - כי תבוא ב

Likkutei Sichos Vol. 29 – Ki Savo 2

1. In the laws of the Beis HaBechirah, the Rambam states: "Any stone that is damaged to the extent that a fingernail can catch on it, like the knife of a shechitah, is disqualified for the ramp and the altar, as it is stated, 'You shall build the altar of the L‑rd with whole stones.'" He then elaborates on the law: "Similarly, the stones of the Heichal and the courtyards were whole."

Subsequently, the Rambam says: "Stones of the Heichal and courtyards that were damaged or chipped are disqualified and cannot be redeemed, etc." (Only afterward does he mention the law regarding damage to the altar after it has been built, as will be discussed in section 2).

It is generally understood that the measure of damage for "stones of the Heichal and courtyards that were damaged" is also "to the extent that a fingernail can catch on it," just like in the first law regarding "a stone that is damaged," which is disqualified for building the ramp and the altar. The reason the Rambam does not specify this measure in the law is because it follows the previous law, and therefore it is not necessary to repeat the measure immediately again.

However, there are commentators who do not interpret it this way. From the fact that regarding the "stones of the Heichal and the courtyards," the Rambam only says "they were whole" and does not mention (in the subsequent law) the measure of a fingernail catching (and at the beginning of his words, he explicitly writes that the measure of damage to a stone (to the extent that a fingernail can catch, etc.) disqualifies only for the ramp and the altar), it is evident that for them, the measure is not connected to the fingernail catching.

(And they bring proof for this: Regarding the stones of the Beis HaMikdash, it is explicitly stated that they were hewn with a shamir — and in Tosafos, it is explained that through a shamir, the stones cannot come out completely smooth so that there would not even be a damage "to the extent that a fingernail can catch on it").

2. After the aforementioned two laws (and after he states the law of "a stone that was touched by iron... and the builder, etc."), the Rambam states in a separate law: "A stone that was damaged or touched by iron after it was built into the altar or the ramp, that stone is disqualified, and the rest are kosher."

From the fact that the Rambam does not specify a measure here either, and especially since he interrupts with "stones of the Heichal and courtyards that were damaged, etc." (according to the aforementioned commentators), where the measure of damage is different than before, it implies that also for a stone of the altar after it has been built into the altar, the measure of damage is not the same.

3. Although at first glance one might assume that the measure is the same as in the first (previously mentioned) law, where the Rambam specifies the measure "any stone that was damaged to the extent that a fingernail can catch on it is disqualified for the ramp and the altar," it can be suggested that there is a distinction between the stones as they are intended for building the altar and after they have been built into it.

Since the disqualification due to damage is derived from the verse "You shall build the altar of the L‑rd your G‑d with whole stones," which speaks about the construction of the altar, there is room to say that after the altar has been built, the measure of damage is not the same.

Indeed, the Gemara states the measure "to the extent that a fingernail can catch on it" regarding "damage to the altar," which seemingly refers to the stones of the altar after they have been built into the altar.

However, from the very fact that the Rambam deviates from the language of the Gemara and specifies the measure of disqualification due to damage "to the extent that a fingernail can catch on it" specifically in relation to the construction of the ramp and the altar, based on the verse "You shall build the altar of the L‑rd your G‑d with whole stones," and does not present the laws in a way that explicitly includes the stones after they have been built into the altar as in the Gemara, it implies that, according to the Rambam, the measure for the stones is not "to the extent that a fingernail can catch on it."

4. However, it is 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 construction of the altar), because the Rambam does not bring any other derivation for the disqualification of a stone that was damaged after it was built into the altar.

The Ramban indeed brings that for the stones of the altar after they have been built into the altar, there is another derivation: "And you shall slaughter your burnt offerings and your peace offerings upon it," implying that you only slaughter upon it when it is whole and not when it is lacking. In his words, "If from 'whole stones,' I would say this only applies at the time of construction; therefore, it says 'upon it.'

And since the Rambam (here — in the laws of the Beis HaBechirah) does not derive it from that verse, we must simply say, as mentioned above, that also regarding the stones after they have been built into the altar, the source of the disqualification due to damage is from the verse "You shall build the altar of the L‑rd your G‑d with whole stones," which he brings in the previous law.

And the question returns to its place — why does the Rambam not state here the aforementioned measure "a stone that was damaged to this extent" (or similar)?

3. From this, it is implied that there is not the same measure?

4. We can say that it is known that even regarding the measure "sufficient to catch the nail" (concerning the knife for shechitah), there is a discussion and differing opinions regarding the size of the measure. Some say that the measure of catching the nail means even the smallest nick.

However, even according to the opinions that interpret that this is the smallest measure, a "kol shehu" (any amount), nevertheless, from the fact that the Rambam does not use the term "kol shehu" or similar, but rather "sufficient to catch the nail like a shechitah knife," it is understood that the Rambam is precise in indicating that this has a specific measure.

The reasoning for this is: the measure of "kol shehu" is found in the Rambam several times. For example: "Wine that was poured for idol worship is forbidden for benefit, and one who drinks any amount of it is liable... and similarly, one who eats any amount from the offerings of idol worship, whether meat or fruits, even water and salt, one who eats any amount of them is liable." The Rambam also states this in the laws of idolatry regarding idol worship and the spoils of a condemned city.

The Rogatchover adds to point out the Rambam in the laws of Shabbat, where the Rambam mentions several items for which the prohibition of carrying them is "any amount."

However, there is (seemingly) a difference between them, as a preface, that the concept of the prohibition of "kol shehu" can be understood in two ways:

1. The first explanation is that this is a measure within the specific prohibition — there are prohibitions whose measure is in grogeres, in an olive's bulk, etc., and also those whose measure of prohibition is "any amount."

2. The second explanation is that it is a prohibition without a measure, and therefore the prohibition is "any amount," — not in the category of a measure.

5. This is the distinction between the concept of "any amount" in the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat and "any amount" in the prohibition of idolatry:

Regarding carrying on Shabbat, where the prohibition generally has a measure, it is understood that for those items whose prohibition is "any amount," it is because for them "any amount" is a measure — either because even "any amount" of these items is significant in itself, similar to "a peppercorn of any amount, tar of any amount, a pleasant fragrance of any amount, etc.," or because "they are stored for safekeeping" — people consider (store) these items even in any amount.

In contrast, regarding a condemned city and similarly with idolatry in general, where it is stated "and nothing of the banned items shall cling to your hand," the prohibition of "any amount" is not because "any amount" is a measure, but because in the prohibition of idolatry there is no measure — "nothing." In the words of the Rambam: since this prohibition is due to idolatry, it has no measure, and it is stated regarding idol worship, "and nothing of the banned items shall cling to your hand."

6. Based on this, we can also explain the words of the Rambam in the laws of the Temple, with the following preface: It is known that it is not the Rambam's way to explicitly state novel laws, but in many places, he changes his wording and arranges his words in such a way that one can derive a novel law in a specific detail.

Similarly, we can say in our case: with the fact that the Rambam is precise in stating the measure of the stone's blemish "sufficient to catch the nail" specifically regarding the construction of the stone in the altar and the ramp — different from in the Talmud, as mentioned above, and when "after it was built in the altar" he does not add "a stone that was blemished by this measure" or similar (and also by inserting between the two laws regarding the stones of the altar the law of "the stones of the Temple and the courtyards that were blemished or chipped are invalid, etc.") —

he hints (and emphasizes) that when "a stone" is blemished, etc., after it was built in the altar, an additional disqualification arises that is not connected with the measure "sufficient to catch the nail like a shechitah knife," but the disqualification is in "any amount," in the category of "any amount" as mentioned above.

6. The reason for this distinction: The Rambam states in the laws of the Beis HaBechirah in the halacha that follows, "One who demolishes even one stone from the altar or from the entire Temple or from between the Ulam and the altar through destruction is liable for lashes, as it is stated, 'And you shall break down their altars, etc. You shall not do so to the L‑rd your G‑d.'" And since this prohibition is connected and comes in relation to idolatry — as the Rambam emphasizes in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah: "One who demolishes even one stone through destruction from the altar or from the Temple or from the rest of the courtyard is liable for lashes, as it is stated regarding idolatry, 'You shall break down their altars,' and it is written, 'You shall not do so to the L‑rd your G‑d.'" — it follows that the prohibition applies even when one "demolishes" even the smallest amount from one stone of the altar or similar. And demolishing even the smallest amount means causing a blemish (even the smallest amount), as it is stated in the Ohr HaChaim, "He did not precisely say one stone, but that he makes a mark in the building with his demolition."

7. Based on this, we can understand the distinction between a stone that was blemished before being built into the altar and the ramp, and a stone that was blemished, etc., after it was built into the altar or the ramp:

The disqualification of a stone that was blemished before the construction is due to the command and obligation "You shall build the altar of the L‑rd your G‑d with whole stones," meaning that the stones must be "whole" at the time of construction. Therefore, there is a measure for the blemish, so that it is considered a deficiency and damage in the "wholeness" of the stone, and this measure is "sufficient to catch the nail like a shechitah knife."

However, a stone that was blemished after it was built into the altar, since it touches upon the matter of "to the L‑rd your G‑d," as it is "the altar of the L‑rd," is connected not only with the obligation of "You shall build the altar of the L‑rd your G‑d with whole stones" but also with the category of demolishing the altar, which is connected with "You shall not do so (as to the altar of idolatry) to the L‑rd your G‑d."

Therefore, just as with idolatry, the prohibition applies to any amount, not in the category of a measure as mentioned above, similarly, the blemish in a stone built into the altar is not in the category of a measure, not even the smallest measure "sufficient to catch the nail" (even according to the opinions that it is any amount), but a stone that was simply blemished, without any measure, is "that stone is disqualified."

[Based on this, we can say that also regarding the fact that the Rambam does not state a measure for "the stones of the Temple and the courtyards that were blemished or chipped," it is not because their measure of blemish is greater than "sufficient to catch the nail" (as mentioned above in section 1), but on the contrary, since these stones became part of the Temple and courtyards — the prohibition of blemish is not in the category of a measure, but in any amount.]

6. Although the prohibition and lashes for demolishing a stone are specifically stated regarding a human action: removing a stone from the altar, as it is written, "You shall not do so to the L‑rd your G‑d," and furthermore, it applies specifically "in a destructive manner," it is nevertheless understood that the demolition (blemish) that occurs in the object itself, even if not through a human action and not in a destructive manner, is related and similar to the concept of nullifying idolatry.

Just as the commandment "And you shall demolish their altars" consists not only of the act of demolition by a person but also in nullifying the existence of "their altars," similarly, the prohibition of "You shall not do so to the L‑rd your G‑d" includes and excludes any form of demolishing the stone, so that anything of "the altar of the L‑rd your G‑d" should not be demolished and nullified.

[We can add to this based on the words of the Tzafnas Paneach regarding the concept of "You shall not do so to the L‑rd your G‑d," that the obligation here is not only because he relinquishes the sanctity of the stone, but also because through this the altar becomes disqualified (or it becomes a deficiency in the courtyard, etc.).

Similarly, regarding "a stone that was blemished... after it was built into the altar," there are both aspects: both the removal of the sanctity from the stone — "that stone is disqualified"; and the nullification of the sanctity of the altar concerning the offering, as the Rambam states in the laws of disqualified offerings, "for there is no altar to throw upon, as it is stated, 'And you shall slaughter upon it... in its perfection, not blemished."

(And similarly, regarding "the stones of the Temple and courtyards that were blemished or chipped" mentioned in law 15.)]

8. The matter of the measure of the blemish of the stone after it was built into the altar is also connected with the name of these laws — "The House of Choice":

9. Based on this, we can also understand regarding the House of Choice: Since the primary virtue of the house is that it is the "House of Choice," therefore, any deficiency or blemish in the house is not connected to a specific measure. Rather, even the slightest deficiency affects the essential nature of the House of Choice.

This also clarifies why the above concept, that the blemish is in any amount, is primarily emphasized concerning the altar. As mentioned, the Rambam changes and states the measure "enough to catch a fingernail" not regarding "a stone after it was built into the altar," but regarding a stone for building the altar.

Because concerning the altar, there was a special choice both regarding its location, as the Rambam emphasizes, "The place of the altar is precisely determined and it is never changed from its place," and regarding the altar itself, as emphasized in the verse, "And this is the altar for the burnt offering for Israel."

And as the Rambam brings at the beginning of the laws of the House of Choice, both details from the verse "This is the house of the L‑rd G‑d, and this is the altar for the burnt offering for Israel," there is a specific emphasis and choice ("this") regarding the altar.