Sunday, June 25, 2017

The Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States - Richard Rohr's Daily Meditation for Monday, 26 June 2017: "Action and Contemplation"


-------

The God Pause for Monday, 26 June 2017 - The Luther Seminary in Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States - Genesis 22:1-14

 
The God Pause for Monday, 26 June 2017 - The Luther Seminary in Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States - Genesis 22:1-14
Genesis 22:1
 (vii) After these things, God tested Avraham. He said to him, “Avraham!” and he answered, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love, Yitz’chak; and go to the land of Moriyah. There you are to offer him as a burnt offering on a mountain that I will point out to you.”
3 Avraham got up early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, together with Yitz’chak his son. He cut the wood for the burnt offering, departed and went toward the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day, Avraham raised his eyes and saw the place in the distance. 5 Avraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey. I and the boy will go there, worship and return to you.” 6 Avraham took the wood for the burnt offering and laid it on Yitz’chak his son. Then he took in his hand the fire and the knife, and they both went on together.
7 Yitz’chak spoke to Avraham his father: “My father?” He answered, “Here I am, my son.” He said, “I see the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” 8 Avraham replied, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son”; and they both went on together.
9 They came to the place God had told him about; and Avraham built the altar there, set the wood in order, bound Yitz’chak his son and laid him on the altar, on the wood. 10 Then Avraham put out his hand and took the knife to kill his son.
11 But the angel of Adonai called to him out of heaven: “Avraham? Avraham!” He answered, “Here I am.” 12 He said, “Don’t lay your hand on the boy! Don’t do anything to him! For now I know that you are a man who fears God, because you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” 13 Avraham raised his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in the bushes by its horns. Avraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son. 14 Avraham called the place Adonai Yir’eh [Adonai will see (to it), Adonai provides] — as it is said to this day, “On the mountain Adonai is seen.”
 [Complete Jewish Bible]
-------What we have in this well-known story of the sacrifice of Isaac is an account filled with irony, yet profound spiritual truth. We can assume that Abraham, even though living centuries before the Ten Commandments were given, knew that murder was contrary to God's good will. Yet, in response to the living voice of God, Abraham subsumed the commandment and obeyed God. Even a deep love for his precious son did not stand between Abraham and obeying God. Soren Kierkegaard, in his book, Fear and Trembling, called this obedience to God a "temporary suspension of the ethical." Rules, commandments and laws are important guidelines for shaping life responsibly and faithfully; yet, there are times and circumstances, extreme for sure, when responding to the living voice of God means subsuming the commandment and suspending the ethical. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's decision to become involved in the conspiracy to kill Hitler was--for him--such a suspension. Difficult, but necessary.
We give you thanks, Lord God, for your gracious commandments, intended to nurture our lives and guide our discipleship. Yet, O God, help us to be ever attentive to your living voice, as well. Help us, through the ambiguities of life to follow your lead, through laws and conscience, and through your still small voice. Amen.
John Matthews, '82
Pastor, Grace Lutheran Church, Apple Valley, Minn.
Genesis 22:
1 After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
2 He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you."
3 So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and set out and went to the place in the distance that God had shown him.
4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place far away.
5 Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you."
6 Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together.
7 Isaac said to his father Abraham, "Father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." He said, "The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?"
8 Abraham said, "God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together.
9 When they came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and[ laid the wood in order. He bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
10 Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son.
11 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
12 He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."
13 And Abraham looked up and saw a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
14 So Abraham called that place "The Lord will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided." [New Revised Standard Version]
The Luther Seminary
2481 Como Avenue
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108, United States
-------

Today in Judaism - chabad.org in New York, New York, United States: Monday, June 26, 2017 - 2 Tammuz, 5777 - 2 Tammuz, 5777 - Monday, June 26, 2017

Chabad.org
ב"ה
Today in Judaism - chabad.org in New York, New York, United States: Monday, June 26, 2017 - 2 Tammuz, 5777 - 2 Tammuz, 5777 - Monday, June 26, 2017
Torah Reading
Chukat: 
Numbers 19:1-17
Numbers 19:1
 Adonai said to Moshe and Aharon, 2 “This is the regulation from the Torah which Adonai has commanded. Tell the people of Isra’el to bring you a young red female cow without fault or defect and which has never borne a yoke. 3 You are to give it to El‘azar the cohen; it is to be brought outside the camp and slaughtered in front of him. 4 El‘azar the cohen is to take some of its blood with his finger and sprinkle this blood toward the front of the tent of meeting seven times. 5 The heifer is to be burned to ashes before his eyes — its skin, meat, blood and dung is to be burned to ashes. 6 The cohen is to take cedar-wood, hyssop and scarlet yarn and throw them onto the heifer as it is burning up. 7 Then the cohen is to wash his clothes and himself in water, after which he may re-enter the camp; but the cohen will remain unclean until evening. 8 The person who burned up the heifer is to wash his clothes and himself in water, but he will remain unclean until evening. 9 A man who is clean is to collect the ashes of the heifer and store them outside the camp in a clean place. They are to be kept for the community of the people of Isra’el to prepare water for purification from sin. 10 The one who collected the ashes of the heifer is to wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. For the people of Isra’el and for the foreigner staying with them this will be a permanent regulation.
11 “Anyone who touches a corpse, no matter whose dead body it is, will be unclean for seven days. 12 He must purify himself with [these ashes] on the third and seventh days; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself the third and seventh days, he will not be clean. 13 Anyone who touches a corpse, no matter whose dead body it is, and does not purify himself has defiled the tabernacle of Adonai. That person will be cut off from Isra’el, because the water for purification was not sprinkled on him. He will be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him.
14 “This is the law: when a person dies in a tent, everyone who enters the tent and everything in the tent will be unclean for seven days. 15 Every open container without a cover closely attached is unclean. 16 Also whoever is in an open field and touches a corpse, whether of someone killed by a weapon or of someone who died naturally, or the bone of a person, or a grave, will be unclean for seven days.
17 “For the unclean person they are to take some of the ashes of the animal burned up as a purification from sin and add them to fresh water in a container.
-------
Today in Jewish History:
  • Passing of Rabbi Nachman of Horodenka (Gorodenka) (1765)
Rabbi Nachman of Horodenka was a close colleague of the Baal Shem Tov. His son, Rabbi Simcha, married the Baal Shem Tov’s granddaughter, Feiga. Their son, the famed Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, became the founder of Breslov Chassidism. The Baal Shem Tov once asked Rabbi Nachman of Horodenka to deliver a letter to Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezritch (who later became known as the Mezritcher Maggid) in which he attempted to persuade Rabbi Dov Ber to become his disciple. Upon receiving the letter, Rabbi Dov Ber said, “I see an auspicious sign in the student who bears this letter. If Rabbi Nachman of Horodenka is such a holy tzaddik, how much more so is his teacher—the Baal Shem Tov.” Rabbi Dov Ber then agreed to meet with the Baal Shem Tov and later to join the Chassidic movement.
Chumash Parsh
Daily Quote:
The people of Israel did not believe in Moses because of the miracles he performed. So why did they believe in him? Because when we stood at Sinai, our own eyes saw and our own ears heard the fire, the sounds and the flames, and how Moses approached the cloud and G-d's voice called to him... [Maimonide]
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: Chukat, 2nd Portion Numbers 19:18-20:6 with Rashi
English / Hebrew Linear Translation
Video Class
Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Numbers Chapter 19
18A ritually clean person shall take the hyssop and dip it into the water and sprinkle it on the tent, on all the vessels, and on the people who were in it, and on anyone who touched the bone, the slain person, the corpse, or the grave. יחוְלָקַ֨ח אֵז֜וֹב וְטָבַ֣ל בַּמַּ֘יִם֘ אִ֣ישׁ טָהוֹר֒ וְהִזָּ֤ה עַל־הָאֹ֨הֶל֙ וְעַל־כָּל־הַכֵּלִ֔ים וְעַל־הַנְּפָשׁ֖וֹת אֲשֶׁ֣ר הָֽיוּ־שָׁ֑ם וְעַל־הַנֹּגֵ֗עַ בַּעֶ֨צֶם֙ א֣וֹ בֶֽחָלָ֔ל א֥וֹ בַמֵּ֖ת א֥וֹ בַקָּֽבֶר:
19The ritually clean person shall sprinkle on the unclean person on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall cleanse him on the seventh day, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall become ritually clean in the evening. יטוְהִזָּ֤ה הַטָּהֹר֙ עַל־הַטָּמֵ֔א בַּיּ֥וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֖י וּבַיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֑י וְחִטְּאוֹ֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י וְכִבֶּ֧ס בְּגָדָ֛יו וְרָחַ֥ץ בַּמַּ֖יִם וְטָהֵ֥ר בָּעָֽרֶב:
and he shall cleanse him: This consummates his cleansing.
וחטאו ביום השביעי: הוא גמר טהרתו:
20If a person becomes unclean and does not cleanse himself, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation, for he has defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord; the sprinkling waters were not sprinkled upon him. He is unclean. כוְאִ֤ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִטְמָא֙ וְלֹ֣א יִתְחַטָּ֔א וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַקָּהָ֑ל כִּי֩ אֶת־מִקְדַּ֨שׁ יְהֹוָ֜ה טִמֵּ֗א מֵ֥י נִדָּ֛ה לֹֽא־זֹרַ֥ק עָלָ֖יו טָמֵ֥א הֽוּא:
If a person becomes unclean…: If “Sanctuary” is stated [here], why need it say “ Mishkan …” [in verse 13]? The answer is that if it would say “ Mishkan,” I would say that the person is punished with excision only if he enters the Mishkan in a state of uncleanness because the Mishkan was anointed with the anointing oil, but if he enters the Temple in a state of uncleanness, he would not be punished since the Temple was not anointed with the anointing oil. If it would say,“Sanctuary,” denoting the Temple, I would say that only for entering the Temple in a state of uncleanness, would he be punished by excision because its sanctity is permanent, but for entering the Mishkan in a state of uncleanness, he would not be punished because its sanctity was temporary. Therefore, it was necessary to mention both,]… as it is stated in [Tractate] Shevuoth [16b].
ואיש אשר יטמא וגו': אם נאמר מקדש למה נאמר משכן וכו' כדאיתא בשבועות (דף טז ב):
21This shall be for them as a perpetual statute, and the one who sprinkles the sprinkling waters shall wash his clothes, and one who touches the sprinkling waters shall be unclean until evening. כאוְהָֽיְתָ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם לְחֻקַּ֣ת עוֹלָ֑ם וּמַזֵּ֤ה מֵֽי־הַנִּדָּה֙ יְכַבֵּ֣ס בְּגָדָ֔יו וְהַנֹּגֵ֨עַ֙ בְּמֵ֣י הַנִּדָּ֔ה יִטְמָ֖א עַד־הָעָֽרֶב:
and the one who sprinkles the sprinkling waters: Our Rabbis said that the one who sprinkles is actually ritually clean, but this teaches us that the one who carries the purifying waters becomes defiled with a stringent uncleanness, for even the clothes he is wearing are contaminated, unlike the one who merely touches [the sprinkling waters]. Scripture uses the expression מַזֵּה, “the one who sprinkles” to teach that the waters do not contaminate until there is an amount of water adequate for sprinkling. — [Yoma 14a]
ומזה מי הנדה: רבותינו אמרו שהמזה טהור, וזה בא ללמד שהנושא מי חטאת טמא טומאה חמורה לטמא בגדים שעליו, משא"כ בנוגע. וזה שהוציאו בלשון מזה, לומר לך, שאינן מטמאין עד שיהא בהן שיעור הזאה:
and the one who touches… shall be unclean: but he is not required to wash his clothes.
והנגע וגו' יטמא: ואין טעון כבוס בגדים:
22Whatever the unclean one touches shall become unclean, and anyone touching him shall be unclean until evening. כבוְכֹ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּע־בּ֥וֹ הַטָּמֵ֖א יִטְמָ֑א וְהַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַנֹּגַ֖עַת תִּטְמָ֥א עַד־הָעָֽרֶב:
Whatever the unclean one touches: I.e., this unclean one who was defiled by a corpse [touches], “becomes unclean.”
וכל אשר יגע בו: הטמא הזה שנטמא במת יטמא:
and anyone touching: him, that is, the one defiled by a corpse-
והנפש הנגעת: בו בטמא מת:
shall be unclean until evening: From here we derive that a corpse is the supreme source of contamination, whereas one touching it is a primary source of contamination, who can in turn defile another person [through contact]. This is the explanation [of this passage] according to its literal meaning and the laws associated with it. I have transcribed a homiletic interpretation from the commentary of R. Moshe Hadarshan [the preacher], which is as follows: [2]
תטמא עד הערב: מכאן למדנו שהמת אבי אבות הטומאה והנוגע בו אב הטומאה ומטמא אדם, זהו פירושה לפי משמעה והלכותיה. ומדרש אגדה העתקתי מיסודו של ר' משה הדרשן וזהו:
and have them take for you: From their own [possessions]; just as they removed their own golden earrings for the [golden] calf, so shall they bring this [cow] from their own [possessions] in atonement. — [Midrash Aggadah]
ויקחו אליך: משלהם כשם שהם פרקו נזמי הזהב לעגל משלהם כך יביאו זו לכפרה משלהם:
a red cow: This can be compared to the son of a maidservant who soiled the king’s palace. They said, “Let his mother come and clean up the mess.” Similarly, let the cow come and atone for the calf. — [Midrash Aggadah and Tanchuma Chukath 8]
פרה אדמה: משל לבן שפחה שטינף פלטין של מלך. אמרו תבא אמו ותקנח הצואה, כך תבא פרה ותכפר על העגל:
red: Alluding to [the verse], “if they [your sins] prove to be as red as crimson dye” (Isa. 1:18), for sin is described as [being] ‘red.’ - [Midrash Aggadah]
אדמה: על שם (ישעיה א, יח) אם יאדימו כתולע, שהחטא קרוי אדום:
perfectly: An allusion to the Israelites, who were perfect, but became blemished. Let this come and atone for them so that they regain their perfection. — [See Midrash Aggadah.]
תמימה: על שם ישראל שהיו תמימים ונעשו בו בעלי מומין, תבא זו ותכפר עליהם ויחזרו לתמותם:
and upon which no yoke was laid: Just as they cast off from themselves the yoke of Heaven. — [Midrash Aggadah] [3]
לא עלה עליה עול: כשם שפרקו מעליהם עול שמים:
to Eleazar the kohen: just as they assembled against Aaron, who was a kohen, to make the calf, but because Aaron made the calf, this service was not performed through him, for the prosecution cannot serve as the defense. — [Midrash Aggadah] [5]
אל אלעזר הכהן: כשם שנקהלו על אהרן, שהוא כהן, לעשות העגל. ולפי שאהרן עשה את העגל לא נעשית עבודה זו על ידו, שאין קטיגור נעשה סניגור:
The cow shall then be burned: just as the calf was burned. - [Midrash Aggadah
ושרף את הפרה: כשם שנשרף העגל:
a piece of cedar wood, hyssop, and of crimson wool: These three types [of objects] correspond to the three thousand men who fell because of the [sin of the golden] calf. The cedar is the highest of all trees, and the hyssop is the lowest of them all. This symbolizes that the one of high standing who acts haughtily and sins should lower himself like a hyssop and a worm [for the תּוֹלַעַת means ‘worm’ as well as ‘crimson.’ See Rashi on Isa. 1:18], and he will then gain atonement. - [Midrash Aggadah] [9]
עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת: שלשה מינין הללו כנגד שלשת אלפי איש שנפלו בעגל. וארז הוא הגבוה מכל האילנות ואזוב נמוך מכולם, סימן שהגבוה שנתגאה וחטא, ישפיל את עצמו כאזוב ותולעת ויתכפר לו:
a keepsake: Just as the transgression of the calf is preserved throughout the generations for retribution, for there is no reckoning [punishment] which does include a reckoning for the calf, as it says, “But on the day I make an accounting [of sins upon them], I will bring their sin to account…” (Exod. 32:34). Just as the calf defiled all those who were involved in it, so does the cow render unclean all those involved with it. And just as they were cleansed through its ashes, as it says, “[he] scattered [the ashes of the burned calf] upon the surface of the water” (ibid. 20), so [with the cow],“They shall take for that unclean person from the ashes of the burnt purification offering…” (verse 17). - [Midrash Aggadah]
למשמרת: כמו שפשע העגל שמור לדורות לפורענות, שאין לך פקודה שאין בה מפקודת העגל, שנאמר (שמות לב, לד) וביום פקדי ופקדתי וגו'. וכשם שהעגל טימא כל העוסקין בו, כך פרה מטמאה כל העוסקין בה, וכשם שנטהרו באפרו, שנאמר (שמות לב, כ) ויזר על פני המים וגו', כך ולקחו לטמא מעפר שריפת החטאת וגו':
Numbers Chapter 20
1The entire congregation of the children of Israel arrived at the desert of Zin in the first month, and the people settled in Kadesh. Miriam died there and was buried there. אוַיָּבֹ֣אוּ בְנֵֽי־יִ֠שְׂרָאֵ֠ל כָּל־הָ֨עֵדָ֤ה מִדְבַּר־צִן֙ בַּחֹ֣דֶשׁ הָֽרִאשׁ֔וֹן וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב הָעָ֖ם בְּקָדֵ֑שׁ וַתָּ֤מָת שָׁם֙ מִרְיָ֔ם וַתִּקָּבֵ֖ר שָֽׁם:
The entire congregation: The complete congregation, for the ones destined to die in the desert had already died and these were assigned for life. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukath 14]
כל העדה: עדה השלמה, שכבר מתו מתי מדבר ואלו פרשו לחיים:
Miriam died there: Why is the passage relating Miriam’s death juxtaposed with the passage of the Red Cow? To teach you that just as sacrifices bring atonement, so the death of the righteous secure atonement. — [M.K. 28a].
ותמת שם מרים: למה נסמכה פרשת מיתת מרים לפרשת פרה אדומה, לומר לך מה קרבנות מכפרין אף מיתת צדיקים מכפרת:
Miriam died there: She too died through a kiss [from God’s mouth rather than by the angel of death]. Why does it not say “by God’s mouth” [as it does with Moses]? Because it is not respectful to speak of the Most High in this way (M.K. 28a). Concerning Aaron it does say “by God’s mouth” in [the portion beginning] “These are the Journeys” (33:38).
ותמת שם מרים: אף היא בנשיקה מתה ומפני מה לא נאמר בה על פי ה', שאינו דרך כבוד של מעלה. ובאהרן נאמר על פי ה', באלה מסעי (במדבר לג, לח):
2The congregation had no water; so they assembled against Moses and Aaron. בוְלֹא־הָ֥יָה מַ֖יִם לָֽעֵדָ֑ה וַיִּקָּ֣הֲל֔וּ עַל־משֶׁ֖ה וְעַל־אַהֲרֹֽן:
had no water: From here [we learn that] all forty years they had the well in Miriam’s merit. — [Ta’anith 9a]
ולא היה מים לעדה: מכאן שכל ארבעים שנה היה להם הבאר בזכות מרים:
3The people quarreled with Moses, and they said, "If only we had died with the death of our brothers before the Lord. גוַיָּ֥רֶב הָעָ֖ם עִם־משֶׁ֑ה וַיֹּֽאמְר֣וּ לֵאמֹ֔ר וְל֥וּ גָוַ֛עְנוּ בִּגְוַ֥ע אַחֵ֖ינוּ לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
If only we had died: We wish that we had died. — [Onkelos]
ולו גוענו: הלואי שגוענו:
with the death of our brothers: With the death of our brothers from plague. This teaches us that death from thirst is more dreadful than it [death by plague].
בגוע אחינו: במיתת אחינו בדבר, למד שמיתת צמא מגונה ממנה:
with the death: Heb. בִּגְוַע אַחֵינוּ. This is a noun, like בְּמִיתַת אַחֵינוּ, with our brothers’ death [that is, in the way they died]. But it is incorrect to explain it as meaning, ‘ when our brothers died’ for in that case, Scripture would have punctuated it בִּגְוֹעַ.
בגוע: שם דבר הוא, כמו במיתת אחינו, ולא יתכן לפרשו כשמתו אחינו, שאם כן היה לו להנקד בגוע:
4Why have you brought the congregation of the Lord to this desert so that we and our livestock should die there? דוְלָמָ֤ה הֲבֵאתֶם֙ אֶת־קְהַ֣ל יְהֹוָ֔ה אֶל־הַמִּדְבָּ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה לָמ֣וּת שָׁ֔ם אֲנַ֖חְנוּ וּבְעִירֵֽנוּ:
5Why have you taken us out of Egypt to bring us to this evil place; it is not a place for seeds, or for fig trees, grapevines, or pomegranate trees, and there is no water to drink. הוְלָמָ֤ה הֶֽעֱלִיתֻ֨נוּ֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם לְהָבִ֣יא אֹתָ֔נוּ אֶל־הַמָּק֥וֹם הָרָ֖ע הַזֶּ֑ה לֹ֣א | מְק֣וֹם זֶ֗רַע וּתְאֵנָ֤ה וְגֶ֨פֶן֙ וְרִמּ֔וֹן וּמַ֥יִם אַ֖יִן לִשְׁתּֽוֹת:
6Moses and Aaron moved away from the assembly to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they fell on their faces. [Then] the glory of the Lord appeared to them. ווַיָּבֹא֩ משֶׁ֨ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֜ן מִפְּנֵ֣י הַקָּהָ֗ל אֶל־פֶּ֨תַח֙ אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֔ד וַיִּפְּל֖וּ עַל־פְּנֵיהֶ֑ם וַיֵּרָ֥א כְבוֹד־יְהֹוָ֖ה אֲלֵיהֶֽם:
Daily Tehillim - Psalms Chapters 10-17
Hebrew text
English text
Chapter 10
This psalm tells of the wicked one’s prosperity and his boasting of it, until he says: “There is neither law nor judge. God pays no attention to the actions of mere mortals.”
1. Why, O Lord, do You stand afar, do You hide Yourself in times of distress?
2. The wicked man in his arrogance pursues the poor; they are caught by the schemes they have contrived.
3. For the wicked man glories in the desire of his heart, and the robber boasts that he has scorned the Lord.
4. The wicked one in his insolence [thinks], “He does not avenge”; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
5. His ways always succeed; Your retribution is far removed from before him; he puffs at all his foes.
6. He says in his heart, “I shall not falter; for all generations no evil will befall me.”
7. His mouth is full of oaths, deceit and malice; mischief and iniquity are under his tongue.
8. He sits in ambush near open cities; in hidden places he murders the innocent; his eyes stealthily watch for the helpless.
9. He lurks in hiding like a lion in his lair; he lurks to seize the poor, then seizes the poor when he draws his net.
10. He crouches and stoops, then the helpless fall prey to his might.
11. He says in his heart, “God has forgotten, He conceals His countenance, He will never see.”
12. Arise, O Lord! O God, lift Your hand! Do not forget the lowly.
13. Why does the wicked man scorn God? Because he says in his heart, “You do not avenge.”
14. Indeed, You do see! For You behold the mischief and vexation. To recompense is in Your power; the helpless place their trust in You; You have [always] helped the orphan.
15. Break the strength of the wicked; then search for the wickedness of the evil one and You will not find it.
16. The Lord reigns for all eternity; the nations have vanished from His land.
17. Lord, You have heard the desire of the humble; direct their hearts, let Your ear listen,
18. to bring justice to the orphan and the downtrodden, so that [the wicked] shall no longer crush the frail of the earth.
Chapter 11
This psalm declares that the suffering of the righteous one is for his own benefit, to cleanse him of his sins; whereas the wicked one is granted prosperity in this world-similar to the verse, "Wealth remains with its owner, to his detriment."
1. For the Conductor, by David. I have placed my trust in the Lord; [thus] how can you say of my soul, your mountain,1 that it flees like a bird?2
2. For behold, the wicked bend the bow, they have readied their arrow upon the bowstring, to shoot in darkness at the upright of heart.
3. They destroyed the foundations; 3 what [wrong] has the righteous man done?
4. The Lord is in His holy Sanctuary, the Lord's throne is in heaven, [yet] His eyes behold, His pupils probe [the deeds of] mankind.
5. The Lord tests the righteous, but He hates the wicked and the lover of violence.
6. He will rain down upon the wicked fiery coals and brimstone; a scorching wind will be their allotted portion.
7. For the Lord is righteous, He loves [the man of] righteous deeds; the upright will behold His countenance.
FOOTNOTES
1.Your king (Metzudot).
2.And will eventually be captured by Saul (Metzudot).
3.Reffering to the murder of the priests in the city of Nob.
Chapter 12
This psalm admonishes informers, slanderers, and flatterers.
1. For the Conductor, upon the eight-stringed instrument, a psalm by David.
2. Help us, Lord, for the pious are no more; for the faithful have vanished from among men.
3. Men speak falsehood to one another; with flattering lips, with a duplicitous heart do they speak.
4. May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaks boastfully-
5. those who have said, "With our tongues we shall prevail, our lips are with us, who is master over us!”
6. Because of the plundering of the poor, because of the moaning of the needy, the Lord says, "Now I will arise!" "I will grant deliverance," He says to him.
7. The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in the finest earthen crucible, purified seven times.
8. May You, O Lord, watch over them; may You forever guard them from this generation,
9. [in which] the wicked walk on every side; when they are exalted it is a disgrace to mankind.
Chapter 13
A prayer for an end to the long exile. One in distress should offer this prayer for his troubles and for the length of the exile.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. How long, O Lord, will You forget me, forever? How long will You hide Your countenance from me?
3. How long must I seek counsel within my soul, [to escape] the grief in my heart all day? How long will my enemy be exalted over me?
4. Look! Answer me, O Lord, my God; give light to my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death.
5. Lest my enemy say, "I have overcome him," [and] my oppressors rejoice when I falter.
6. I have placed my trust in Your kindness, my heart will rejoice in Your deliverance. I will sing to the Lord, for He has dealt kindly with me.
Chapter 14
This psalm speaks of the destruction of the two Holy Temples-the first by Nebuchadnezzar, and the second by Titus.
1. For the Conductor, by David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God!" [Man's] deeds have become corrupt and abominable, no one does good.
2. The Lord looked down from heaven upon mankind, to see if there was any wise man who searches for God.
3. They have all gone astray together, they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
4. Indeed, all the evildoers, who devour My people as they devour bread, who do not call upon the Lord, will [ultimately] come to know [the consequences of their actions].
5. There they will be seized with fright, for God is with the righteous generation.
6. You scorn the counsel of the lowly, that he puts his trust in the Lord.
7. O that out of Zion would come Israel's deliverance! When the Lord returns the captivity of His people, Jacob will exult, Israel will rejoice.
Chapter 15
This psalm speaks of several virtues and attributes with which one should conduct oneself. He is then assured that his soul will rest in Gan Eden.
1. A psalm by David. Who may abide in Your tent, O Lord? Who may dwell on Your holy Mountain?
2. He who walks blamelessly, acts justly, and speaks truth in his heart;
3. who has no slander on his tongue, who has done his fellowman no evil, and who has brought no disgrace upon his relative;
4. in whose eyes a despicable person is abhorrent, but who honors those who are God-fearing; who does not change his oath even if it is to his own detriment;
5. who does not lend his money at interest, nor accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never falter.
Chapter 16
When one is in need, he should not implore God in his own merit, for he must leave his merits for his children.
1. A michtam,1 by David. Watch over me, O God, for I have put my trust in You.
2. You, [my soul,] have said to God, "You are my Master; You are not obligated to benefit me.”
3. For the sake of the holy ones who lie in the earth, and for the mighty-all my desires are fulfilled in their merit.
4. Those who hasten after other [gods], their sorrows shall increase; I will not offer their libations of blood, nor take their names upon my lips.
5. The Lord is my allotted portion and my share; You guide my destiny.
6. Portions have fallen to me in pleasant places; indeed, a beautiful inheritance is mine.
7. I bless the Lord Who has advised me; even in the nights my intellect admonishes me.2
8. I have set the Lord before me at all times; because He is at my right hand, I shall not falter.
9. Therefore my heart rejoices and my soul exults; my flesh, too, rests secure.
10. For You will not abandon my soul to the grave, You will not allow Your pious one to see purgatory.
11. Make known to me the path of life, that I may be satiated with the joy of Your presence, with the bliss of Your right hand forever.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm that was especially precious to David
2.To fear and love God (Rashi)
Chapter 17
A loftily person should not ask God to test him with some sinful matter, or other things. If one has sinned, he should see to reform himself, and to save many others from sin.
1. A prayer by David. Hear my sincere [plea], O Lord; listen to my cry; give ear to my prayer, expressed by guileless lips.
2. Let my verdict come forth from before You; let Your eyes behold uprightness.
3. You have probed my heart, examined it in the night, tested me and found nothing; no evil thought crossed my mind; as are my words so are my thoughts.
4. So that [my] human deeds conform with the words of Your lips, I guard myself from the paths of the lawbreakers.
5. Support my steps in Your paths, so that my feet shall not falter.
6. I have called upon You, for You, O Lord, will answer me; incline Your ear to me, hear what I say.
7. Withhold Your kindness-O You who delivers with Your right hand those who put their trust in You-from those who rise up against [You].
8. Guard me like the apple of the eye; hide me in the shadow of Your wings
9. from the wicked who despoil me, [from] my mortal enemies who surround me.
10. Their fat has closed [their hearts]; their mouths speak arrogantly.
11. They encircle our footsteps; they set their eyes to make us stray from the earth.
12. His appearance is like a lion longing to devour, like a young lion lurking in hiding.
13. Arise, O Lord! Confront him, bring him to his knees; rescue my soul from the wicked [who serves as] Your sword.
14. Let me be among those whose death is by Your hand, O Lord, among those who die of old age, whose portion is eternal life and whose innards are filled with Your concealed goodness; who are sated with sons and leave their abundance to their offspring.
15. Because of my righteousness, I shall behold Your countenance; in the time of resurrection, I will be sated by Your image.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 10
English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
Video Class
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 10
Monday, Tammuz 2, 5777 · June 26, 2017
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 10
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon WatchListen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman ListenDownload MP3
The Alter Rebbe now offers an instance of how creation came about through the Sefirot.
על דרך משל, ביום ראשון מששת ימי בראשית נגלית מדת החסד, כלולה מכל מדותיו הקדושות, ורצונו וחכמתו ובינתו ודעתו מלובשין בה
For example, on the first of the Six Days of Creation, the attribute of kindness — comprised of all [G‑d’s] holy emotive attributes, with His Will and wisdom and understanding and knowledge enclothed in it — was revealed,
וברא בה את האור, במאמר: יהי אור
and with [this attribute] He created light, through the utterance, “Let there be light,”
שהיא בחינת התפשטות והמשכת האור לעולם מלמעלה, והתפשטותו בעולם מסוף העולם עד סופו, שהיא בחינת מדת חסד
which is a diffusion and flow of light into the world from above, and its diffusion in the world from one end to the other. This [creation of light] is [an expression of] the attribute of kindness, for Chesed is characterized by diffusion and revelation.
רק מפני שכלולה גם ממדת גבורה
Yet, because [the attribute of kindness] also includes the attribute of might (for the attributes ofAtzilut all incorporate each other),
לכן לא היה רוחני כאור שלמעלה ממש
therefore [the light] was not as spiritual as the actual Supernal Light,
וגם נתלבש בעולם הזה, שהוא בחינת גבול ותכלית, שהוא מהלך ת״ק שנה מהאר׳ לרקיע וממזרח למערב
and it also became enclothed in this world, which is finite and limited, for1 “it is a journey of five hundred years from earth to heaven and from east to west.”
These limitations would not have come to pass were creation to proceed undiluted from the attribute of kindness, which diffuses without limitation. However, since the attribute of might — the source of limitation — is incorporated within this kindness, creation is finite.
At any rate, because the attribute of kindness was revealed and was dominant during the first day of creation, created beings related to Chesed — such as light — came into existence on that day.
וכן ביום שני נגלית מדת גבורה, כלולה משאר מדות, ורצונו וכו׳
In like manner, on the second day there was revealed the attribute of might, which is composed of the other emotive attributes and His Will, and so on, i.e., ChaBaD,
וברא בה הרקיע, במאמר: יהי רקיע בתוך המים, ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
and with [the attribute of might, G‑d] created the firmament, through the utterance, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”
שהיא בחינת צמצום וגבורות, להעלים מים העליונים הרוחניים ממים התחתונים
This [separation of the waters by the firmament] is an expression of tzimtzum and restraints (Gevurot), to conceal the upper spiritual waters from the lower waters.
ועל ידי זה נתגשמו התחתונים, בהבדלם מהעליונים
Through this separation from the upper waters, the lower waters became material.
This materiality was brought about through the tzimtzum and concealment which emanate from the attribute of might — the attribute that was revealed and dominant during the second day of creation.
ומדת חסד כלולה בה, כי: עולם חסד יבנה
The attribute of kindness is included in [this attribute], for2 “the world is built with kindness,”(Note of the Rebbe: “[and the very act of building itself is] an expression of kindness”),
Thus, even where might prevails, it is tempered by the attribute of Chesed.
שהכל כדי שתראה היבשה ואדם עליה לעבוד את ה׳
for all this — the division of the waters — is in order that dry land appear and man [live] upon it to serve G‑d; thus, this too is ultimately an expression of kindness.
וכן כולן
And so with them all: each of the other emotive attributes was likewise revealed on each subsequent day, in order to bring created beings into existence.
וזהו שאמר אליהו בתיקונים שם: לאחזאה איך אתנהיג עלמא בצדק ומשפט כו׳
And it is this thought that Elijah expressed in the Tikkunim, loc. cit.: “[The purpose of the emanation of the Sefirot was] to show how the world is conducted with…righteousness and justice;...
צדק איהו דין, משפט איהו רחמי כו׳, כולא לאחזאה איך אתנהיג עלמא
righteousness is…law (i.e., the attribute of Gevurah), justice is…mercy…; all [the revelation of the attributes] is to show how the world is conducted;
אבל לאו דאית לך צדק ידיעא, דאיהו דין
but it is not that You have a knowable righteousness, which is law,
ולאו משפט ידיעא, דאיהו רחמי
nor a knowable justice, which is mercy,
ולאו מכל אינון מדות כלל
nor any of these [other] attributes at all.“
This means to say that righteousness and justice exist as separately identifiable attributes only relative to worlds and created beings. As regards G‑d Himself, “it is not that You have” these attributes. In relation to Him, they do not exist independently at all, being completely unified with Him, just as sunlight enjoys no independent identity when within the sun
Commentary of the Rebbe on Chapter Ten
In the course of the frabrengen of Yud-Tet Kislev, 5728, the Rebbe explained the statement in the beginning of ch. 10 regarding the unity of the Divine attributes with the Ein Sof. The Alter Rebbe there likens their unity to “the unity of the sunlight that is within the solar globe, with the solar globe [itself].”
The Alter Rebbe goes on to say that the sun’s rays are found not only outside the solar globe but must also surely exist to an even greater degree within their source — the sun. Nevertheless, insofar as sunlight is to be found within its source, it is united with it to such a degree that “it has no existence by itself at all.” It therefore cannot be deemed “light”, for within the sun globe “there is only one entity, namely, the body of the luminary which emits light.”
Turning from the analogue to the analogy, the Alter Rebbe now says: “Precisely in this manner, and even more so,” is G‑d’s unity with His attributes. So perfect, indeed, is this unity, that the attributes are not called by any names at all, whether Will, wisdom, kindness, or whatever, for they are all truly One with G‑d Himself.
* * *
A number of points here call for clarification. To begin with: As soon as the Alter Rebbe proposes the analogy of the unity of the sun’s light with the sun, and before he even begins to explain it in detail, he mentions that the sun “is called a ‘luminary,’” and buttresses this point by citing a proof-text from Scripture (“the greater luminary”). He then goes on to say that “the radiation…which…shines from it is called ‘light’, as it is written, ‘And G‑d called the light — day.’”
Now this is somewhat problematic. Firstly: All that is necessary to know concerning the sun’s unity with its light while this light is within it, is that the sun serves as the source of the light. (We are then able to adduce that when something is found within its source, it does not possess a personality of its own.) Why is it important to let us know that the sun is called a luminary and its radiation is called light?
Secondly: Granting that a valid reason exists for the Alter Rebbe’s need to explain that the sun is a luminary, is it necessary to seek proof for this from Scripture? If the sun radiates light, then surely it is by definition a luminary.
Thirdly: Even more perplexing is why the Alter Rebbe not only informs us (as above) of the other most elementary fact — that the radiation of the sun is called light — but finds it necessary to go on to cite Scriptural evidence for this. All this seems to be completely superfluous. Furthermore, what innovative insights are we intended to glean from the verse that tells us that “G‑d called the light — day”?
These questions become even stronger when we bear in mind that the same illustration of the unity of sunlight with the sun, has already been used in ch. 3, and even earlier, in ch. 33 of the first part of Tanya. There the Alter Rebbe did not find it necessary to inform us that the sun is a luminary and that its rays are light, and understandably, no proof is sought from Scripture.
With regard to ch. 33, one might answer that since the Alter Rebbe himself indicates that the illustration will be treated at length elsewhere, and it is only mentioned there parenthetically, he does not go into detail at that stage. In ch. 3 of our text, however, this illustration is treated at length. If it is indeed necessary for the Alter Rebbe to spell out the above-mentioned details, why does he not do so in ch. 3?
We are thus compelled to conclude that here, in ch. 10, when repeating the illustration of the sunlight that is still in the sun, the Alter Rebbe seeks to explain something new — something that warrants the additional details that were previously unnecessary.
In order to understand the difference between what the Alter Rebbe sought to teach in each of these two cases, it is first necessary to explain the subject of each of these two analogues (which become understandable through their common analogy). And they are indeed different.
The analogy in ch. 10 seeks to explain the unity of G‑d with the Supernal Sefirot: although they bear not the slightest comparison with G‑d, they are nevertheless united with Him, to the point that “He and His attributes are One,” in perfect and uncompounded unity.
This is indeed mind-boggling. Ch. 9 made it clear that the Divine attributes are even more distant from G‑d Himself than the distance that separates the lowly level of action from the lofty level of wisdom — so distant, in fact, that we cannot even negate wisdom in relation to G‑d. How, then, can we possibly say that the attributes are united with Him in perfect unity?
In order to explain this, the Alter Rebbe proposes the analogy of sunlight within the sun. Light, too, while found within the sun is absolutely united with it. (This is a novel aspect of the concept that is not found in the preceding chapters.)
In order to explain in turn how this is the case, the Alter Rebbe first had to state that the sun is called a luminary and its rays are called light (as shall soon be explained). This is not true of ch. 3, where the Alter Rebbe seeks to explain (not the unity of the Sefirot, but rather) how created beings are nullified and of no account in relation to the Divine life-force that creates them constantly ex nihilo.
Since created beings are absolute nothingness in relation to the creative force that brings them into existence and provides them with life, it is thus clearly impossible to imagine, G‑d forbid, that they are united with Him; it is impossible to say that “He and His creation are One,” heaven forbid. The reason is simple: Since all of creation is truly naught in relation to G‑d, there exists no being which we could describe as being united with Him.
Ch. 10, by contrast, deals with the manner in which the Sefirot are united with G‑d. Concerning this unity the Alter Rebbe provides the analogy of the sunlight that is still within the sun, at which stage “it is united with it in absolute unity.”
This aspect of unity is made more readily understandable in the analogy by explaining that the sun is called a luminary and that its rays are called light, and by citing Scripture to prove this point.
The Alter Rebbe intends to stress that only that which radiates beyond the sun is called light; the light as found within the sun is not deemed light at all. Since this is a novel thought, he finds support for it by citing the verse, “And G‑d called light — day.” This verse tells us that the defining characteristic of light is “day”, as opposed to the darkness of “night”. This means to say that light refers, like the term “day”, to actual and visible illumination. By contrast, that which does not express itself overtly in actual illumination as light does by day is not deemed to be light. (This is true even when it exists, but its existence is assimilated in its source.)
The reason that light while found in its source is not considered to be light is self-understood: while there, it is one with its source in a state of absolute unity. Were it to be designated as light, we would then have within the orb of the sun two distinct entities — the luminary and the light. But this cannot be, for the source of light is deemed by the proof-text to be a luminary to the exclusion of all else: only one entity exists there, namely, the luminary. Saying that sunlight is united with the sun itself in absolute unity signifies that it is exclusively so, that even the light that is to be found in the luminary has no separate identity as light, but is itself [assimilated within the] luminary.
This detail is crucial to the analogue, namely, to the understanding that G‑d’s unity with His attributes is a perfect and absolute unity (as mentioned at the beginning of ch. 8). It is therefore clear that “all the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Will and wisdom, are not designated and called by these names at all,” as the Alter Rebbe says in ch. 10. Were the attributes to be designated by the names Will, wisdom, kindness, might, and so on, then there would be, G‑d forbid, a compound of G‑d Himself (the infinite Ein Sof-light) with His attributes.
In order for this to be understood in the analogue, it is necessary for the Alter Rebbe to explain in the analogy as well, that only that which spreads forth beyond the sun is called “light”; while found within its source, however, it “has no name of its own at all, only the name of its source” — the luminary.
FOOTNOTES
1.Cf.Chagigah 13a and Tanna Devei Eliyahu Rabbah 2.
2.Tehillim 89:3.
Rambam: 
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

Monday, Tammuz 2, 5777 · June 26, 2017
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Mendel Kaplan WatchListen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Berel Bell ListenMP3 Download
Negative Commandment 244
Stealing
"Do not steal"—Leviticus 19:11.
It is forbidden to steal another's possessions.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Stealing
Negative Commandment 244
Translated by Berel Bell
The 244th prohibition is that we are forbidden from stealing money.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not steal."
In the words of the Mechilta, "The verse 'Do not steal' constitutes the prohibition of financial theft."2
One who transgresses this prohibition must pay back according to the formula written in the Torah — either two, four, or five times the amount stolen, or only the actual value.3
The Sifra says, "The verse4 that says 'He must pay back double' [the value of the stolen object] teaches us the penalty. What teaches us that the act is prohibited?5 The verse 'Do not steal' — even if just to disturb." This phrase ["just to disturb"] means when the intention is to [not really steal, but only to temporarily] anger and confuse the victim, and afterwards return it to him. The Sifra continues,] "the verse, 'Do not steal,' teaches that you may not do so, even if you intend to pay him back four or five times the value."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 7th chapter of tractate Bava Kama.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 19:11.
2.In contrast with a similar phrase used in the Ten Commandments, which refers to the prohibition against kidnapping. See N243.
3.For a regular theft, he must pay double. For stealing sheep he must pay four times the amount, and for oxen, five times (Ex. 21:37). If he admitted the theft before he was discovered, he pays only the principal.
4.Ex. 22:3.
5.As explained on other occasions, each prohibition must have one statement that the act is prohibited and another dictating the penalty.
Positive Commandment 239
A Thief's Restitution
We are commanded to pass judgment on a thief. Depending on the circumstances, the thief may be required to pay double the amount stolen, or four or five times the principal.
This mitzvah also includes the allowance for a property owner to kill a thief who is trespassing on his land [under certain circumstances, if there's reason to believe that the thief poses a potential threat to the landowner's life], and the obligation on the court to sell the thief into servitude [if he has not the means to make restitution].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A Thief's Restitution
Positive Commandment 239
Translated by Berel Bell
Positive Commandment 240
The 239th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding [punishing] a thief — whether to collect two, four times, or five times the amount stolen1; to kill him should he break in [to the person's property];2 or to sell him.3 The general principle is that the mitzvah is to punish a thief according to the Torah's directions.
All the details of this mitzvah are explained in the 7th chapter of tractate Bava Kama, the 8th chapter of Sanhedrin, the 3rd chapter of Bava Metzia, and a few passages in Kesuvos,4 Kiddushin,5 and Shavuos.6
FOOTNOTES
1.See footnote to N244.
2.Ex. 21:37-22:2. Should it be clear that the thief would never kill the victim (such as if the victim is the thief's son), it is forbidden to kill the thief. See Hilchos Geneivah 9:7-10.
3.As a slave should he be unable to pay restitution (Ex. 22:2). The money is then used to pay back the victim.
4.30b.
5.58b.
6.42b.
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter A Day: To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 16
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
o`en veNit`an - Chapter 16
1
A person's protests are not accepted in the following situation. Reuven sold a field to Shimon, and Levi was one of the witnesses who signed the deed of sale. Afterwards, Levi came and protested Shimon's ownership of the field, claiming that Reuven stole it from him. We do not heed Levi's protest, nor do we pay attention to the proofs he brings concerning his ownership of that field. He has forfeited all of his rights to it. For we tell him: "How could you serve as a witness to the sale and then come and protest?"
Similar concepts apply if Levi gives testimony in a legal document that speaks of "the field belonging to Reuven on the east" or "... on the north." Since he referred to that field as an identification marker for the sake of another person and recorded this testimony in a legal document, he forfeited his right to it and cannot issue a protest concerning it. For we tell him: "How could you serve as a witness in this legal document that mentions this field being near another field and then issue a protest concerning it?"
א
ראובן שמכר לשמעון שדה והיה לוי מעדי השטר ובא לוי לערער על השדה ולטעון שראובן גזל אותה ממנו, אין שומעין לו ואין משגיחין על ראיות שיביא על אותה שדה והרי אבד כל זכותו שאומר לו היאך תעיד על המכר ותבא ותערער, וכן אם העיד לוי בשטר שכתוב בו השדה פלוני של ראובן מצד מזרח או מערב הואיל ועשה השדה סימן לאחר והעיד בשטר אבד את זכותו ואינו יכול לחזור ולערער שאומרים לו היאך תעיד בשטר זה שכתוב בו השדה הזאת מצד פלוני ותחזור ותערער עליה.
2
If, in the above situation, the witness claimed: "There is one row? that I designated as a sign, but not the entire field. That row that is next to the boundary of the field alone belongs to Reuven," this is a claim that is worthy of being heard. He may protest the ownership of the entire field, with the exception of that row.
All of the above concepts apply only with regard to one of the witnesses to the legal document who comes to protest. When, by contrast, a judge verified the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses to a bill of sale, he may protest the ownership of a field even though it was mentioned in that bill of sale. The rationale is that he can claim: "I did not know what was written in the bill of sale." For a judge may verify the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses to a legal document even though he did not read it. Witnesses, by contrast, may not sign a legal document unless they read it in its entirety and paid attention to its details.
ב
טען העד ואמר תלם אחד הוא שעשיתי סימן ולא כל השדה ואותו התלם הסמוך למצר בלבד הוא של ראובן הרי זה טענה הנשמעת ויש לו לערער על כל השדה חוץ מאותו התלם, ואין כל הדברים אמורים אלא באחד מעדי השטר שבא לערער, אבל הדיין שקיים השטר יש לו לערער מפני שיכול לטעון ולומר לא ידעתי מה היה כתוב בשטר מפני שיש לדיינין לקיים השטר אע"פ שלא קראוהו, אבל העדים אין חותמין על השטר אלא אם כן קראוהו כולו וידקדק בו.
3
The following rules apply when Shimon comes and consults Levi, telling him: "I am buying this-and-this field from Reuven. I will buy it with your advice." Even though Levi tells him: "Go and buy it. It is good," Levi has the right to protest Shimon's ownership. He does not forfeit this right, because he did not perform a deed. He can tell Shimon: "I desired that the field leave the hands of Reuven, for he is a man of force, so that I could lodge a claim in court and take possession of my field."
ג
בא שמעון ונמלך בלוי ואמר לו הריני קונה שדה פלונית מראובן ובעצתך אקנה אותה, אמר לו לוי לך וקנה אותה טובה היא, יש לו ללוי לערער עליה ולא איבד זכותו שהרי לא עשה מעשה ויש לו לומר רצוני היה שתצא מתחת יד ראובן שהוא אלם כדי שאתבענה בדין ואקח שדי.
4
The following rules apply when Reuven protests Shimon's ownership of a field, and Shimon tells him: "I don't know what you are talking about. I purchased this field from Levi. Here are witnesses who will testify that I benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership."
Reuven responds to him: "I have witnesses who will testify that yesterday evening, you came to me and asked me to sell you this field." This is not proof of Reuven's ownership. For Shimon could say: "I desired to purchase it from you so that you would not protest and trouble me to enter legal proceedings, even though I do not know whether or not it is really yours." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If Shimon does not make such a claim, the court does not advance it on his behalf, n
ד
ראובן שערער על שמעון ושמעון אמר איני יודע מה אתה סח אלא שדה זו מלוי לקחתיה והרי עדים שאכלתיה שני חזקה, אמר לו ראובן והלא עדים יש לי שבערב באת אלי ואמרת לי מכור לי שדה זו אין זו ראיה, ויש לו לשמעון לומר רציתי לקנות ממך כדי שלא תערער ולא תטריחני בדין אע"פ שאיני יודע אם היה שלך או אינה, וכן כל כיוצא בזה, ואם לא טען שמעון טענה זו אין טוענין לו.
5
The following rules apply when Reuven protests and brings witnesses who testify that the field belongs to him, and Shimon who is in possession of it claims: "You sold it to me and I benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership." Reuven responds: "You benefited from the field as a robber."
Whether there were no witnesses that he benefited from the field or whether there was only one witness who testified that he benefited for three years, the person in possession is not required to return the produce that he consumed. The rationale is that he is claiming: "I consumed my own produce," and there are no witnesses who are obligating him for the produce. On the contrary, he acknowledged it himself. And the witness who testified that he benefited from the property for three years is coming to reinforce the power of the person who benefited. Indeed, if there were another witness with him, the person in possession would be allowed to retain possession of the field.
Therefore, Reuven must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he did not sell the field, and then the field is returned to him. Shimon must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he does not owe Reuven anything because of the produce he consumed. He is then released of liability.
ה
ראובן שערער והביא עדים ששדה זו שלו ושמעון שבתוכה טוען אתה מכרתה לי ואכלתיה שני חזקה, וראובן אמר בגזל אכלת, בין שלא היו עדים שאכל כלל בין שהיה שם עד אחד שאכלה שלש שנים אינו חייב להחזיר הפירות שאכל שהרי הוא אומר שלי אכלתי ואין עליו עדים שמחייבין אותו בפירות שהרי מעצמו הודה, וזה העד שהעיד שאכלה שלש שנים ליפות כחו של אוכל הוא בא ואילו היה עמו אחר היתה השדה עומדת בידו, לפיכך ישבע ראובן היסת שלא מכר ותחזור לו השדה וישבע שמעון היסת שאינו חייב לו כלום בפירות שאכל ויפטר.
6
When there are two witnesses who testify that Shimon benefited from a field for less than the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he must return all the produce he consumed. Even if there is only one witness, he is liable to return all the produce because of his testimony. The rationale is that he is not contradicting the testimony of the witness. Instead, he is saying: "He testified truthfully. I did consume the produce for two years, but I consumed what was mine." He is thus obligated to take an oath, but unable to do so. Hence, he must pay.
ו
היו שני עדים מעידים על שמעון שאכלה פחות משני חזקה יחזיר כל הפירות שאכל ואפילו היה עד אחד חייב להחזיר על פיו שהרי אינו מכחיש העד אלא אומר אמת העיד ואכלתי שתי שנים ושלי אכלתי, נמצא מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול להשבע ומשלם.
7
The following principle applies whenever a person is obligated to return the produce he consumed, the extent of the benefit is unknown, and the court is unable to estimate - i.e., in contrast to houses and the like, which have a standard rate - the benefit he received from the produce of trees or the produce of the fields. Since the owner does not have a definite claim, he is required to pay only what he admits to have consumed. We issue a conditional ban of ostracism against anyone who consumed more produce and did not make restitution.
ז
כל המחוייב להחזיר הפירות אם לא היו ידועין ואין בית דין יכולין לשער אותן כשער הבתים וכיוצא בהן שהוא ידוע, אלא היו פירות אילן או פירות שדה שאינן ידועין הואיל ואין כאן טענה ודאית ישלם מה שיודה בו שאכלו, ומחרימין על מי שאכל יותר ולא ישלם.
8
The following laws apply whenever a person in possession of property is required to return it. If he rented the property to others while he was in possession of it, and the renters are accessible, we expropriate the rent from them a second time and give it to the owner of the land. They in turn should lodge a claim against a person who rented them land that he did not own.
ח
כל המחזיר קרקע מתחת ידו אם השכירה לאחרים כשהיה מחזיק בה והיו השוכרין קיימין מוציאין מהן השכר פעם שנייה ונותנין לבעל הקרקע וחוזרין ותובעין זה שהשכיר להם מקום שאינו שלו.
9
It is forbidden for a person to lodge a false claim to distort a judgment or prevent its execution. What is implied? If a person was owed a maneh by a colleague, he may not lodge a claim against him for 200 zuz, so that he will admit owing the maneh and be obligated to take an oath.
If a person owes a colleague a maneh, and the colleague claims 200 from him, he should not say: "I will deny the entire amount in court so that I will not be required to take an oath and acknowledge the debt of the maneh in private."
ט
אסור לאדם לטעון טענת שקר כדי לעות הדין או כדי לעכבו, כיצד היה נושה בחבירו מנה לא יטעננו מאתים כדי שיודה במנה ויתחייב שבועה, היה נושה מנה וטענו מאתים לא יאמר אכפור הכל בבית דין ואודה לו במנה ביני לבינו כדי שלא אתחייב לו שבועה.
10
When a person owes money to three people, and he denies owing a debt to one of them the three should not collaborate and perpetrate the following scheme. One person will claim the entire sum, and the others will falsely testify to his claim. When the money is expropriated from him, they will then divide it. With regard to things of this nature and the like, the Torah Exodus 23:7 warned us: "Keep a distance from words of falsehood."
This concludes the Laws Governing Disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendants, with God's help.
י
היו שלשה נושין מנה באחד וכפר בהן לא יהיה אחד תובע ושנים מעידים וכשיוציאו ממנו יחלוקו, ועל דברים אלו וכיוצא בהן הזהיר הכתוב ואמר מדבר שקר תרחק. סליקו להו הלכות טוען ונטען בס"ד.
Rambam: 
• 3 Chapters A Day: Genevah Genevah - Chapter One, Genevah Genevah - Chapter Two, Genevah Genevah - Chapter Three
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Genevah - Chapter One
Introduction to Hilchos Genevah
[This text] contains seven mitzvot: two positive commandments and five negative commandments. They are:
1) Not to steal property;
2) The laws governing a thief;
3) To insure the accuracy of scales and weights;
4) Not to deceive a person by using [inaccurate] measures and weights;
5) Not to possess two sets of weights or measures, even though one does not use them for business;
6) Not to move a colleague's property marker;
7) Not to kidnap.
These mitzvot are explained in the chapters [that follow].
הלכות גניבה - הקדמה
יש בכללן שבע מצות. שתי מצות עשה. וחמש מצות לא תעשה, וזה הוא פרטן:
א) שלא לגנוב ממון
ב) דין הגנב
ג) לצדק המאזנים עם המשקלות
ד) שלא יעשה עול במדות ובמשקלות
ה) שלא יהיה לאדם אבן ואבן איפה ואיפה אף על פי שאינו לוקח ונותן בהן
ו) שלא יסיג גבול
ז) שלא לגנוב נפשות
:
וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו
1
Whenever a person steals property that is worth a p'rutah or more, he transgresses a negative commandment, as Exodus 20:13 states: "Do not steal."
Lashes are not administered for the violation of this commandment, for one is obligated to give compensation. For the Torah requires a thief to compensate the party from whom he stole, whether he be a Jew or a gentile, an adult or a minor.
א
כל א הגונב ממון משוה פרוטה ולמעלה עובר על לא תעשה שנאמר לא תגנוב. ואין לוקין על לאו זה שהרי ניתן לתשלומין שהגנב חייבתו תורה לשלם. ואחד הגונב ממון ישראל או הגונב ממון עכו"ם ואחד הגונב את הגדול או את הקטן:
2
The Torah prohibits stealing even the slightest amount. It is forbidden to steal as a jest, to steal with the intent to return, or to steal with the intent to pay. All is forbidden, lest one habituate oneself to such conduct.
ב
אסור לגנוב כל שהוא דין תורה. ואסור לגנוב דרך שחוק או לגנוב על מנת להחזיר או על מנת לשלם הכל אסור שלא ירגיל עצמו בכך:
3
Who is a thief? A person who takes assets belonging to a colleague in stealth, without the owner's knowing - e.g., a pickpocket who is not detected by the owner or the like.
If, however, a person takes a colleague's assets in open view and with public knowledge by force, he is not considered a thief, but rather a robber.
For this reason, an armed bandit who steals is not considered a robber, but a thief. This applies even when the owner takes notice when he steals.
ג
אי זהו גנב זה הלוקח ממון אדם בסתר ואין הבעלים יודעים. כגון הפושט ידו לתוך כיס חבירו ולקח מעותיו ואין הבעלים רואים וכן כל כיוצא בזה. אבל אם לקח בגלוי ובפרהסיא בחוזק יד אין זה גנב אלא גזלן. לפיכך ליסטים מזויין שגנב אינו גזלן אלא גנב אף על פי שהבעלים יודעים בשעה שגנב:
4
When two acceptable witnesses testify that a person stole, he is required to pay twice the amount of the stolen property to its owner. If he stole a dinar, he must pay two. If he stole a donkey, a garment or a camel, he must pay twice its worth. He thus loses the amount that he desired that his colleague would lose.
ד
גנב שהעידו עליו עדים כשרים שגנב חייב לשלם א שנים לבעל הגניבה. אם גנב דינר משלם שנים. גנב חמור או כסות או גמל משלם שנים בדמיה נמצא מפסיד כשיעור שבקש לחסר את חבירו:
5
When a thief admits that he stole, he must repay the principal, but he is not liable for the payment of the double amount, as indicated by Exodus 22:8: "one who is deemed guilty by the court must pay double." This excludes a person who admits his own guilt; he need not pay double.
This principle applies with regard to all the fines required by the Torah. A person who admits his own guilt is not liable for the fine.
ה
ב גנב שהודה מעצמו שגנב משלם את הקרן ופטור מן הכפל שנאמר אשר ירשיעון אלהים ישלם שנים ולא המרשיע את עצמו משלם שנים. והוא הדין לכל הקנסות שהמודה בהן פטור:
6
The obligation to make double restitution applies with regard to all articles with the exception of a sheep or an ox. A person who steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it must pay four times the amount of the sheep and five times the amount of the ox.
ו
תשלומי כפל נוהגין בכל חוץ משה ושור שהגונב את השור או את השה וטבח או מכר משלם על השה תשלומי ארבעה ועל השור תשלומי חמשה:
7
The obligation to pay double - or four or five times the amount - of the value of the stolen article applies equally to a man and to a woman. If a woman is married and thus has no financial resources with which to pay, the double paymentremains a debt that she is obligated to pay when she is divorced or becomes a widow. At that time, the court exacts payment from her.
ז
ג אחד האיש ואחד האשה שגנבו חייבין לשלם תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. היתה אשת איש שאין לה לשלם הרי הכפל עליה חוב עד שתתגרש או ימות בעלה ובית דין נפרעים ממנה:
8
When a minor steals, he is not liable for the double payment. The stolen article must, however, be returned to its owner. If that article is lost, he is not obligated to pay the principal even after he attains majority.
ח
קטן שגנב פטור מן הכפל ומחזירין לו דבר הגנוב ממנו. ואם אבדו אינו חייב לשלם אף הקרן ואפילו לאחר שהגדיל:
9
When a servant steals, he is not liable for the double payment. Similarly, his owner is not liable. For a person is not liable for the damages caused by his servants although they are his property. The rationale is that the servants are mentally competent, and their owner is incapable of guarding them. Were the owner to be held liable for the damages his servants cause, if he angered a servant, the servant could desire to seek revenge and go and ignite a grain heap worth a thousand dinar or precipitate other similar damage to cause his owner to be liable.
If the servant is freed by his owner, he is obligated to pay the double payment.
ט
העבד שגנב פטור מן הכפל ובעליו פטורין שאין אדם חייב על נזקי עבדיו אע"פ שהן ממונו מפני שיש בהן דעת ואינו יכול לשמרן שאם יכעיסנו רבו ילך וידליק גדיש באלף דינר וכיוצא בזה משאר נזקין. נשתחרר העבד חייב לשלם את הכפל:
10
It is appropriate for the court to administer corporal punishment to a child who steals, according to the child's strength, so that he will not become accustomed to such conduct. The same principles apply if he causes other types of damage.
Similarly, servants who stole or caused damage should be administered severe corporal punishment, so that they will not become accustomed to causing damage.
י
ראוי לבית דין להכות את הקטנים כפי כח הקטן על הגנבה כדי שלא יהיו רגילין בה. וכן אם הזיקו שאר נזקין. וכן מכין את העבדים שגנבו או שהזיק מכה רבה כדי שלא יהיו רגילין להזיק:
11
When the stolen article increased in value while it was in the thief's possession - e.g., a sheep bore a lamb and it was shorn - the thief must restore the sheep, its shearings and its offspring.
If the owner already despaired of the sheep's return, and it gave birth or was shorn, the thief must pay only the value at the time of the theft. If the thief invested in the stolen property, causing its value to increase - e.g., he force fed livestock - the thief is entitled to the increase in value even when the owner does not despair of the article's return. When the thief restores the stolen article and the double payment, he should be repaid for the increase in value by the owner, or that amount should be deducted from the double payment.
יא
היתה הגניבה ביד הגנב והשביחה מאליה כגון כבשה שילדה וגזזה משלם אותה ואת גיזותיה ואת ולדותיה ואם אחר יאוש ילדה וגזזה משלם כשעת הגניבה. הוציא עליה א הוצאה והשביחה כגון שפטמה הרי השבח של גנב אפילו לפני יאוש. וכשמחזיר הגניבה עם הכפל נוטל השבח מן הבעלים או מחשבים לו מן הכפל:
12
When the stolen article remains unchanged in the possession of the thief, it should be returned to its owner regardless of whether or not he despaired of its return. If, however, it increased in value after the owner despaired of its return, the thief is entitled to that increase, as we have explained above.
If, however, the stolen article underwent a fundamental change while in the thief's possession, the thief acquires it and any increase in its value, even before the owner despairs of the article's return. All that is required of him is to return the value of the stolen article at the time of the theft.
יב
הגניבה עצמה שהיא ביד הגנב ולא נשתנית חוזרת לבעליה בין לפני יאוש בין לאחר [א] יאוש אלא שאחר יאוש השבח לגנב כמו שבארנו. נשתנית הגניבה ביד הגנב קנאה וקנה שבחה אפילו לפני יאוש ואינו משלם אלא דמים:
13
If he stole a gaunt animal and he fattened it, or he stole a fat animal and he caused its weight to be reduced, he is liable to pay twice - or four or five times - the value of the animal at the time of the theft.
If he stole a kid and it grew into a ram, or a calf and it grew into an ox, he is liable to pay twice the value of the animal at the time of the theft. If he slaughtered it or sold it after it matured, it is considered to have undergone a change while in the thief's possession, and he acquires it. Thus, he is slaughtering or selling his own animal; he is not required to pay four or five times its worth.
יג
גנב כחושה והשמינה או שמינה והכחישה משלם תשלומי כפל או תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה [ב] כשעת הגניבה. גנב טלה ונעשה איל עגל ונעשה שור משלם תשלומי כפל כשעת הגניבה. טבחו או מכרו אחר שהגדיל נעשה שינוי בידו וקנהו ושלו הוא טובח ושלו הוא מוכר ואינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:
14
When a person steals an animal, a utensil or the like that was worth four zuz at the time of the theft, but at the time the case is brought to court, it depreciated and is worth only two, the thief must pay the worth of the principal at the time of the theft, and pay the double - or quadruple or quintuple - amount as evaluated at the time the case is brought to court.
The following rules apply if an animal or a utensil was worth two zuz at the time of the theft, but at the time the case is brought to court, it appreciated and is worth four. If the person slaughtered or sold the animal or destroyed or lost the utensil, he must pay double - or four or five times - the worth of the stolen article at the time the case is brought to court.
If the animal died or the utensil was lost as a matter of course, he must pay double the worth of the stolen article at the time of the theft.
יד
גנב בהמה או כלי וכיוצא בהן ובשעת הגניבה היה שוה ארבעה ועכשיו בשעת העמדה בדין שוה שנים משלם קרן [ג] כשעת הגניבה ותשלומי כפל או ארבעה וחמשה כשעת העמדה בדין. היה שוה בשעת הגניבה שנים [ד] ובשעת העמדה בדין ארבעה אם שחט או מכר או שבר הכלי או אבדו משלם תשלומי כפל או ארבעה וחמשה כשעת העמדה בדין. ואם מתה הבהמה או אבד הכלי מאליו משלם תשלומי כפל כשעת הגניבה:
15
When a person steals a utensil and destroys it or causes it to decrease in value - or it is destroyed or it decreases in value as a matter of course - the amount of the decrease is not evaluated. Instead, we evaluate the original worth of this utensil, and the thief is obligated to pay the owner twice this amount. The broken utensil becomes the property of the thief. The same laws apply in all similar instances.
If the owner desires to take the broken utensil and be compensated for the damage done to it and receive the double payment, his wishes are respected.
טו
מי שגנב כלי ד ושברו או פחתו או נשבר או נפחת מאליו אין שמין לו [ה] הפחת אלא רואין כמה היה שוה אותו הכלי ומשלם לבעלים שנים בדמיו והכלי השבור יהיה לגנב. וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ואם רצו הבעלים ליטול הכלי השבור וישלם להם הפחת והכפל שומעין להם:
16
When a thief slaughters or sells a sheep or an ox before the owner despairs of its return, he is required to pay four or five times its amount, despite the fact that the sale is nullified and the purchaser does not acquire the article, but instead must return it intact to its original owner.
Needless to say, the above applies if he slaughters or sells the animal after the owner despairs of its return. For his deed is effective, and the purchaser is considered to have acquired the article.
טז
הגנב שגנב וטבח או מכר לפני יאוש בעלים אע"פ שלא קנה לוקח והרי הגניבה חוזרת בעצמה מיד הלוקח הרי זה משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. ואין צריך לומר אם טבח או מכר לאחר יאוש שהוא משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה שהרי הועיל במעשיו וקנה הלוקח:
17
When a thief steals from another thief, he is not required to pay twice its amount. This applies even if the original owner despaired of the stolen article's return. If the second thief slaughters or sells a stolen animal, he is not required to pay the first thief four or five times its worth.
The rationale is that the law is that this animal must be returned to its owner; it was never acquired by the thief. Nor must the second thief pay twice, four or five times the amount to the original owner, because he did not steal the property from the original owner's domain.
יז
הגונב מגנב אחר אע"פ שנתייאשו הבעלים אינו משלם תשלומי כפל ואם טבח ומכר אינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה לגנב הראשון שהרי דין הבהמה הזאת לחזור בעיניה לבעלים ולא קנאה הגנב ולבעלים אינו משלם הכפל או ארבעה וחמשה מפני שלא גנבה מרשותן:
18
When a thief steals an animal and slaughters it, and then another person steals the meat, the second thief must make double restitution to the first thief, for the first thief acquired the animal because of the change his deed brought about. The first thief must, however, pay four or five times the animal's worth.
The following rules apply when a thief stole an animal and sold it, and another person stole it from the purchaser. If the original owner despaired of the animal's return, the first thief must pay four or five times the animal's worth, and the second thief must pay double its worth. If the original owner did not despair of the animal's return, the second thief is required to restore only the principal.
יח
גנב וטבח ובא גנב אחר וגנב. הגנב האחרון משלם תשלומי כפל לגנב הראשון שהרי קנה בשינוי מעשה וגנב הראשון משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. גנב ומכר ובא אחר וגנב מן הלוקח. אם נתייאשו הבעלים הרי הראשון משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה והגנב השני משלם תשלומי כפל ואם לא נתייאשו הבעלים אין האחרון משלם אלא קרן בלבד:
Genevah - Chapter Two
1
When a person steals from a gentile or from consecrated property, he is required to pay only the principal, as implied by Exodus 22:8: "He shall pay twice the amount to his colleague." "To his colleague" excludes the Temple treasury and a gentile.
Similarly, a person who steals animals that were consecrated to be offered as sacrifices - both sacrifices of the highest sanctity and sacrifices of lesser sanctity - is not liable to pay twice or four or five times the animals' worth. This applies whether or not the owner is liable to bring another animal as an offering instead of the stolen animal.
The rationale is that Exodus 22:6 describes the article as having been "stolen from a person's home" - i.e., not from the the Temple treasury.
א
הגונב את העכו"ם או שגנב נכסי הקדש אינו משלם אלא הקרן בלבד שנאמר ישלם שנים לרעהו לרעהו ולא להקדש לרעהו ולא לעכו"ם. וכן הגונב קדשים מבית בעליהן בין קדשי קדשים בין קדשים קלים בין קדשים שאין הבעלים חייבין באחריותן בין קדשים שבעלים חייבין באחריותן הרי זה פטור מן הכפל ומתשלומי ארבעה וחמשה שנאמר וגונב מבית האיש ולא מבית הקדש:
2
Similarly, a person who steals servants, promissory notes or landed property is not liable to make double payment. For the Torah obligated double payment only for the theft of chattel that is itself worth money.
The exclusion of landed property is derived from Exodus 22:8, which speaks about paying double for: "an ox, a donkey, a sheep or a garment." Servants are equated with landed property, as Leviticus 25:46 states: "You shall give them as an inheritanceto your sons." And promissory notes are not themselves worth money.
ב
וכן הגונב עבדים ושטרות וקרקעות אינו משלם תשלומי כפל. שלא חייבה התורה הכפל אלא במטלטלין שגופן ממון שנאמר על שור על חמור על שה על שלמה אבל העבדים הוקשו לקרקעות שנאמר והתנחלתם אותם לבניכם והשטרות אין גופן ממון:
3
When a person steals a firstling donkey belonging to a colleague before it was redeemed, he must make double restitution to the owner. Although the donkey is not yet his, it is fit to be his at a later date.
ג
הגונב פטר חמור של חבירו קודם שיפדה משלם תשלומי כפל לבעלים. שאע"פ שאינו עכשיו שלו ראוי להיותו לו אחר שיפדה:
4
A person who steals tevel belonging to a colleague and eats it must reimburse him for his tevel. A person who steals forbidden fats belonging to a colleague and eats it must reimburse him for his fats.
ד
גונב טבלו של חבירו ואכלו משלם לו דמי טבלו. וכן אם גנב חלבו ואכלו משלם לו דמי חלבו:
5
When a person steals terumah from an Israelite who owns it, he is not required to pay double. For the Israelite possesses merely the prerogative to give it to the priest of his choice,and that prerogative is not considered to be equivalent to money.
ה
גנב תרומה מבעליה הישראלים שהפרישוה אינו משלם תשלומי כפל. שאין להם בה אלא טובת הנאה וטובת הנאה אינו ממון:
6
When a person steals a sheep or a cow from his father and slaughters or sells the stolen animal and then his father dies, he is liable to pay four or five times the animal's worth to his father's estate. If his father dies, and then he slaughters or sells the stolen animal, he must make double payment; he does not, however, pay four or five times the animal's worth.
If a thief steals a sheep or a cow, slaughters or sells the stolen animal and then consecrates it as a sacrifice, he must pay four or five times the animal's worth.
If, by contrast, a thief consecrates an animal and then slaughters or sells it - even if he consecrates it as a sacrifice of a lesser degree of sanctity - he must make a double payment; he does not pay four or five times the amount.
When does the above apply? When he consecrated the animal after the owner despaired of the animal's return. If, however, he consecrates it before the owner despairs of the animal's return, the consecration is not effective. If the thief slaughters or sells it, he must pay four or five times the amount.
ו
הגונב משל אביו וטבח או מכר ואחר כך מת אביו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. ואם מת אביו ואחר כך טבח או מכר משלם תשלומי כפל ואינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. גנב וטבח או מכר ואחר כך הקדיש משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה ואם הקדיש ואחר כך טבח או מכר אע"פ שהקדיש וקדשים קלים משלם תשלומי כפל ואינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. במה דברים אמורים כשהקדיש אחר יאוש אבל אם הקדיש לפני יאוש אינו קדוש ואם טבח או מכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:
7
If the owner consecrates the animal while it is in the thief's domain, the consecration is not effective. The rationale is that it is not in the owner's possession. If the thief slaughtered or sold it after the owner consecrated it, he must still pay four or five times its worth to the owner.
ז
הקדישו הבעלים והוא בבית הגנב אינו קדוש לפי שאינו ברשותן ואע"פ שלא נתייאשו ואם טבח או מכר אפילו אחר הקדשן משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:
8
When a thief slaughters a sheep or a cow, but the slaughter is not ritually acceptable, or he kills the animal or rips out the signs of ritual slaughter, he is liable to pay only double the animal's worth.
If, however, he slaughters an animal for medicinal purposes, to feed it to the dogs - and after it was slaughtered it was discovered to be taref - or he slaughtered it in the Temple courtyard although it was not consecrated, he must pay four or five times its worth.Although it is forbidden to benefit from a non-consecrated animal that is slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, since that prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, he is liable to pay four or five times the animal's worth.
ח
השוחט ונתנבלה בידו והנוחר והמעקר משלם תשלומי כפל בלבד. אבל אם שחט לרפואה או לכלבים או שנמצאת טריפה או ששחטו בעזרה משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. אע"פ שחולין שנשחטו בעזרה אסורין בהנאה הואיל ואיסורן מדבריהם הרי זה חייב לשלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:
9
Similarly, if a person steals a half-breed that comes from a sheep and another animal, or he steals an animal that had been preyed upon, one whose leg had been cut off, one that limped or was blind, or that belonged to partners, and he slaughtered it or sold it, he is liable to pay four or five times its worth.
ט
וכן הגונב כלאים הבא מן השה וממין אחר או שגנב טריפה או קטעת או חגרת או סומא או בהמת השותפין וטבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:
10
When a person steals a cow or a sheep and gives it to another person as a present, or he charges another person with slaughtering it, and the other person slaughters it, or he charges another person with selling it, and the other person sells it, the thief must pay four or fives times its worth.
He is also liable for this penalty if he stole it and sold it on credit, exchanged it for another article, paid a debt that he owed, or sent it as an engagement gift to his fiancee in his father-in-law's home.
י
גנב ונתן לאחר במתנה או שנתן לאחר לטבוח וטבח או שנתן לאחר למכור ומכרה לאחר. גנב והקיף גנב והחליף גנב ופרע בהקיפו או ששלחו סבלונות לבית חמיו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:
11
A thief stole a sheep or a cow and sold it, but posited that the sale not take effect until thirty days have passed - and within those thirty days the thief was apprehended - he is required to pay only double its worth.
The following rule applies if the thief sold the stolen animal to another person except for one hundredth of its bulk, or except for its foreleg or its hindleg. If the thief retained ownership of a portion of the animal that is permitted to be used only through ritual slaughter, he is not liable to pay four or five times its worth. If he sold it with the exception of its shearings or its horns, he is liable to pay four or five times its worth, for these portions of the animal are permitted to be used even without ritual slaughter.
יא
גנב ומכר והקנה למוכר לאחר שלשים יום ובתוך שלשים יום הוכר הגנב אינו משלם אלא כפל. מכרו חוץ מאחד ממאה שבו או חוץ מידו או רגלו כללו של דבר ששייר בו דבר הניתר עמו בשחיטה פטור מתשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. ואם מכרו חוץ מגיזתו או חוץ מקרניו חייב בשתלומי ארבעה וחמשה שאלו אינם ניתרים עמו בשחיטה:
12
If a thief stole a sheep or a cow, cut off a limb and then sold it, or he sold it with the exception of the right to work with it, or he sold it except for a 30-day period, the payment for four or five times its amount should not be expropriated from the thief. If the person whose animal was stolen seizes this amount from the thief's assets, the property that he seized should not be expropriated from him.
יב
גנב וקטע ממנה אבר ואחר כך מכרה או שמכרה חוץ ממלאכתה או שמכרה חוץ משלשים יום אין מוציאין ממנו תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. ואם תפש הניזק אין מוציאין מידו:
13
If the thief was a partner in the animal he stole and then he sold it, he is not liable to pay four or five times its worth.
יג
מכרה והיתה לו בה שותפות פטור מתשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:
14
The following rules apply when partners steal a sheep or a cow. If one of them slaughtered or sold the stolen animal with his partner's consent, they must both join in the payment of four or five times its worth. If he acted without the consent of his partner, they are not liable for the payment of four or five times the animal's worth. They must, however, make double restitution.
יד
שותפין שגנבו. אם טבח אחד מהן או מכר מדעת חבירו משלמין תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. ואם עשה שלא מדעת חבירו פטורים מתשלומי ארבעה וחמשה וחייבין בכפל:
15
When a thief stole a sheep or a cow, was brought to court and was told by the judges: "Go and give him what you stole," and instead of making restitution he sold or slaughtered the animal, he is not liable for the payment of four or five times the animal's worth. If the judges told him: "You are obligated to return it to him," and then he slaughtered or sold the stolen animal, he is liable for the payment of four or five times the animal's worth. The rationale is that the judgment was not rendered in a definitive manner, and he is persevering in his theft.
טו
גנב ועמד בדין ואמרו לו הדיינין צא תן לו מה שגנבת ויצא ואחר כך טבח או מכר פטור מתשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. אמרו לו חייב אתה ליתן לו וטבח או מכר אחר כך הרי זה חייב בתשלומי ארבעה וחמשה הואיל ולא חתכו הדין עליו ועדיין עומד הוא בגניבתו:
16
When a person steals an object without removing it from the domain of its owner, he is not liable for a double payment.Similarly, if he slaughtered or sold a stolen sheep or cow in the owner's domain, he is not liable for the added penalty. If, however, he lifted the stolen object above the ground, he is liable as a thief, even though he did not take it out of the owner's domain.
What is implied? If he stole a lamb from the corral and was pulling it, and it died while in the owner's domain, he is not liable for the added penalty. If he lifted it up or removed it from the owner's domain, and then it died, he is liable.
If while in the owner's domain, the thief gave it to a priest in redemption of his first-born son, to his creditor, to an unpaid watchman, to a borrower, to a renter or to a paid watchman, and the recipient was pulling the animal and it died, the recipient is not liable. If the recipient lifted it up or removed it from the domain of its owner and it died, the recipient is liable, because the thief did not remove it from the owner's domain and the recipient did.
טז
הגונב ברשות הבעלים הואיל והגניבה עדיין היא ברשותם פטור *מן הכפל. וכן אם טבח ומכר שם ברשותן פטור. ואם הגביה הגניבה נתחייב משום גונב אע"פ שעדיין לא הוציאה מרשות הבעלים. כיצד גנב טלה מן הדיר והיה מושכו ויוצא ומת ברשות הבעלים פטור. הגביהו או הוציא ומרשות הבעלים ומת חייב. נתנו שם בבית הבעלים לבכורת בנו או לבעל חובו או לשומר חנם ולשואל לנושא שכר ולשוכר והיה מושכו זה שניתן לו ומת פטור השומר. הגביהו או שהוציאו מרשות בעלים ומת חייב השומר או בעל החוב שניתן לו מפני שעדיין לא הוציאו הגנב מרשות בעליו:
17
When a herd of sheep or cows are in a forest, and a thief prods an animal to move and then hides it among the trees and woods, he is obligated to pay twice its worth. If he slaughters or sells it there, he is obligated to pay four or five times its worth.
יז
היה העדר ביער כיון שהכיש את הבהמה וטמנה בתוך האילנות והעצים חייב בתשלומי כפל ואם טבחה או מכרה שם משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:
18
When a thief steals a sheep or a cow in the owner's domain, and after the owner discovered the theft, the thief removed it and slaughtered it or sold it outside their domain, or if a thief stole and removed the animal from the owner's domain and then slaughtered or sold it in the owner's domain, he is obligated to pay four or five times its worth.
יח
גנב ברשות הבעלים ואחר שידעו שנגנבה הוציאה וטבחה או מכרה חוץ מרשותן. או שגנב והוציא חוץ מרשון וטבח או מכר ברשותן משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:
Genevah - Chapter Three
1
We have already explained in Hilchot Na'arah Betulah, that whenever a person violates a transgression that is punishable by both capital punishment and a financial penalty, he is not obligated to pay the financial penalty, even though he performed the act unintentionally.
When a person performs a transgression that is punishable by lashing and a financial penalty, he shall be lashed and is not required to pay the financial penalty. For a person should not receive both punishments: lashing and a financial penalty for the same deed. Therefore, if he performed the act unintentionally or he was not given a warning, he is required to pay and is not lashed.
When does the above apply? When the financial obligation and the transgression obligating capital punishment - or the financial obligation and the transgression punishable by lashing - came about at the same time. If, however, he became liable for a financial penalty and then became liable for capital punishment or lashing, or became liable for capital punishment or lashing and then became liable for a financial penalty, he shall be lashed and pay, or pay and be executed.
א
כבר בארנו בהלכות נערה שכל העושה עבירה שיש בה עון מיתת בית דין ותשלומין אינו משלם אע"פ שהיה שוגג. והעושה עבירה שנתחייב בה מלקות ותשלומין לוקה ואינו משלם שאין אדם לוקה ומשלם. לפיכך אם היה שוגג או לא התרו בו משלם ואינו לוקה. במה דברים אמורים שנתחייב בתשלומין עם עון מיתת בית דין כאחת או שנתחייב תשלומין ומלקות בבת אחת אבל אם נתחייב בתשלומין ואחר כך נתחייב במיתת בית דין או במלקות או שנתחייב מלקות או מיתת בית דין ואחר כך נתחייב בתשלומין הרי זה לוקה ומשלם ומת:
2
What is implied? If he propelled an arrow on the Sabbath, from the beginning of a four-cubit space until the end of the four-cubit space, and it tore a garment belonging to a colleague as it proceeded, he set fire to a grain heap belonging to a colleague on the Sabbath, or he stole a wallet on the Sabbath and was dragging it along the ground until he removed it from the owner's domain - which was a private domain - to the public domain, and caused it to be destroyed there, he is not liable for the damages. The prohibition against labor on the Sabbath, and the prohibition against theft or damages take effect at the same time. Therefore, he is not liable.
If, however, he stole a wallet on the Sabbath and lifted it up in the private domain, and then took it out to the public domain and threw it into a river, he is liable to make a double payment. For he became liable for the theft before he violated the prohibition punishable by execution by stoning. The same laws apply in all similar situations.
Similarly, if a person cut down a tree belonging to a colleague on a festival, and a warning was issued, or he set fire to a grain heap belonging to a colleague on Yom Kippur and a warning was issued, or he stole and slaughtered an animal on Yom Kippur, he is not under any financial obligation. If, however, a warning was not issued to him, he is liable for payment, and with regard to the slaughter of a stolen animal must pay four or five times its worth.
ב
כיצד זרק חץ בשבת מתחלת ארבע לסוף ארבעה וקרע בגד חבירו בהליכתו או שהדליק גדיש חבירו בשבת או שגנב כיס בשבת והיה מגררו עד שהוציאו מרשות הבעלים שהיא רשות היחיד לרשות הרבים ואבדו שם הרי זה פטור מן התשלומין שאיסור שבת ואיסור גניבה והיזק באין כאחד. אבל אם גנב כיס בשבת והגביהו שם ברשות היחיד ואחר כך הוציאו לרשות הרבים והשליכו לנהר חייב לשלם תשלומי כפל שהרי נתחייב באיסור גניבה קודם שיתחייב באיסור גניבה קודם שיתחייב באיסור סקילה וכן כל כיוצא בזה. וכן אם קצץ אילן חבירו ביום טוב והתרו בו או שהדליק את הגדיש ביום הכפורים והתרו בו או גנב וטבח ג ביום הכפורים והתרו בו פטור מן התשלומין אבל אם לא התרו בו חייב בתשלומין ומשלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:
3
If a thief stole a sheep or a cow and slaughtered it on the Sabbath or as a sacrifice to a false deity, he is not liable to pay four or five times its worth, as explained above. This applies even when he performs the transgression unintentionally.
ג
גנב וטבח בשבת או לע"ז אפילו בשגגה פטור מתשלומי ארבעה וחמשה כמו שביארנו:
4
If the cow had been lent to him and he slaughtered it on the Sabbath with the intent to steal it, he is not liable even for the double payment, for the violation of the prohibition against the laws of the Sabbath and the prohibition against theft came about simultaneously. For if there is no obligation for theft, there is no obligation for slaughter or for sale.
ד
היתה פרה שאולה אצלו וטבחה בשבת דרך גניבה פטור אף מן הכפל שהרי איסור שבת ואיסור גניבה באין כאחת ואם אין גניבה אין טביחה ואין מכירה:
5
When a person steals a sheep or a cow and sells it on the Sabbath or sells it to a pagan deity, he is obligated to pay four or five times its amount, for the sale itself does not cause one to incur the death penalty. If a forbidden labor was performed on the Sabbath at the time of the sale, the thief is not liable to pay four or five times its amount.
What is implied? For example, he agreed that the sale would not take effect until the animal comes to rest in the courtyard of the purchaser. Thus, when he took the animal from one domain to another domain, the prohibition against labor on the Sabbath and the sale take effect at the same time.
ה
גנב ומכר בשבת או שמכר לע"ז חייב לשלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה שאין במכירה מיתה. ואם נעשית מלאכה בשבת בעת המכירה פטור מתשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. כיצד כגון שלא הקנה לו עד שתנוח בחצר הלוקח שנמצא כשהוציא מרשות לרשות איסור שבת ומכירה באין כאחת:
6
When a thief appointed an agent to slaughter a stolen animal for him, and the agent slaughtered it for him on the Sabbath, the thief must pay four or five times the animal's worth. For the thief did not perform a transgression punishable by death, and as we have explained, a person who has an agent slaughter for him is liable for the additional payment.
ו
עשה שליח לשחוט לו ושחט לו השליח בשבת הרי הגנב חייב בתשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. שהרי זה הגנב לא עשה עון מיתת בית דין. וכבר ביארנו שהשוחט על ידי שליח חייב בתשלומין:
7
When two witnesses testify that a person stole a cow or a sheep, and then they themselves or two other witnesses testify that he slaughtered or sold the animal, the thief is liable to pay four or five times the animal's worth.
If two witnesses testify that the person stole a cow or a sheep and one witness testifies that he slaughtered or sold the stolen animal, or the thief admitted that he slaughtered or sold the stolen animal on his own initiative, the thief must pay double. He is not, however, liable to pay four or five times the animal's worth. The rationale is that a person who admits his liability for a fine is not liable for that penalty, as we have explained.
ז
היו שנים מעידים שגנב בין שהעידו הן עצמן שטבח או מכר בין שהעדיו אחרים שטבח או מכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. היו שנים מעידים שגנב ועד אחד מעיד שטבח או מכר או שהודה מעצמו שטבח או מכר משלם ג תשלומי כפל ואינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה שהמודה בקנס פטור כמו שביארנו:
8
The following rules apply when a person admits liability for a fine, and then afterwards witnesses come and testify to his liability. If he made his admission before a court while they were in session, he is not liable. If he made the admission when the court was not in session, or before two judges, and afterwards witnesses came and testified to his liability, he is liable to pay the fine because of their testimony.
ח
מי שהודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים. אם הודה בתחילה בפני ב"ד ובבית דין פטור. אבל אם הודה חוץ לבית דין או שהודה בפני שנים בלבד ואחר כך באו עדים הרי זה משלם קנס על פיהם:
9
What is implied? A thief admitted that he stole to a court while it was in session, and afterwards witnesses came and testified that he stole. He is not liable for a double payment, because he obligated himself for the principal before the witnesses came.
If, however, he denied stealing in the presence of a court in this way, freeing himself of liability, and then witnesses came and testified that he stole a sheep or a cow, at which point he admitted in the presence of the court that he slaughtered or sold the stolen animal, and then witnesses came and testified that he slaughtered or sold the animal, he is liable to pay four or five times the animal's worth. The rationale is that first he denied the obligation entirely before witnesses came.
ט
כיצד הודה בבית דין שגנב ואחר כך באו עדים שגנב פטור מן הכפל שהר יחייב עצמו בקרן קודם שיבואו עדים. אבל אם אמר לא גנבתי שפטר עצמו מן הכל ובאו עדים שגנב וחזר ואמר בבית דין טבחתי או מכרתי אם באו עדים אחר כך שטבח או מכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. לפי שפטר עצמו תחילה [א] מכלום עד שבאו העדים:
10
The following rules apply when a thief steals an ox belonging to two partners and slaughters it or sells it, and makes an admission to one in the presence of a court, but denies his liability to the other. If witnesses come afterwards and testify that he stole or sold, he must pay the partner whose claim he denied five times half the value of the ox. If the same situation takes place with regard to the theft of a sheep, he must pay four times half the value of the sheep.
י
הגונב שור של שני שותפין וטבחו או מכרו והודה בבית דין לאחד מהן וכפר באחר ואחר כך באו עדים שגנב וטבח או מכר משלם לזה שכפר לו חמשה חצאי בקר וארבעה חצאי צאן:
11
The law requires a thief to pay the principal and to make the payment of double - or four or fives times - the value of the theft from his movable property. If he does not own movable property, the court assesses his possessions and expropriates the entire debt from the finest of his landed properties, as is the practice with regard to other damages, regarding which Exodus 22:4 states: "He shall pay from the best of his field."
If he owns neither landed property nor movable property, the court sells him as a servant and gives the money from his sale to the person from whom he stole, as ibid.:2 states: "If he has no resources, he shall be sold for his theft."
יא
דין הגנב לשלם הקרן והכפל או תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה מן המטלטלין שלו. אם לא נמצאו לו מטלטלין בית דין יורדין לנכסיו וגובין הכל מן היפה שבנכסיו כשאר הנזקין שנאמר בהן מיטב שדהו. ואם אין לו לא קרקע ולא מטלטלין בית דין מוכרין אותו ונותין דמיו לניזק שנאמר אם אין לו ונמכר בגניבתו:
12
A man, but not a woman, may be sold because of a theft. This law is part of the Oral Tradition.
A thief is sold only because of the principal, but not for the payment of twice or four or five times the amount of the theft. If he can repay the principal, the additional amount remains a debt incumbent on him until he acquires the resources.
יב
האיש נמכר בגניבתו ג אבל לא האשה ודבר זה מפי הקבלה. ואין הגנב נמכר אלא בקרן אבל בכפל או בתשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אינו נמכר אלא הרי זה עליו חוב עד שיעשיר:
13
When a person steals from a gentile or steals consecrated property, he is not sold for the principal. Instead, it remains a debt incumbent on him until he acquires the resources.
יג
גנב את העכו"ם או הקדש אינו נמכר על הקרן אלא הרי זה עליו חוב עד שיעשיר:
14
When the principal of a theft was worth 100 zuz and the thief could be sold for only 50 zuz, he shall be sold, and the remainder of the principal and the double payment is considered a debt incumbent on him until he attains his freedom in the seventh year, acquires the resources and pays.
If the thief was worth 101 zuz, he shall not be sold. This is derived from the above verse, which states: "He shall be sold for his theft." Implied is that his entire worth must be included in the money received for his theft.
יד
היה קרן הגניבה שוה מאה ואין הגנב שוה אלא חמשים הרי זה נמכר ושאר הקרן עם הכפל עליו חוב עד שיצא בשביעית ויעשיר וישלם. היה הגנב שוה מאה ואחד אינו נמכר שנאמר ונמכר בגניבתו עד שיהיו דמיו כולן מובלעין בגניבתו:
15
The following rules apply if a person stole and was sold for his theft, and then stole again. If he stole from another person, he shall be sold as a servant a second time. Even if he stole from a hundred people, he shall be sold a hundred times. If, however, he stole from the first person a second time, he shall not be sold a second time. Instead, the entire amount remains a debt incumbent on him.
טו
גנב ונמכר וחזר וגנב. אם לשני גנב הרי זה נמכר פעם שנייה ואפילו גנב למאה אנשים נמכר מאה פעמים. ואם לראשון גנב פעם שנייה אינו נמכר שנייה אלא ישאר עליו הכל חוב:
16
If a thief stole from three different people, they are all considered to be partners for his servitude. If the value of his work is equivalent to or less than the principal he owes the three, he is sold and they divide the proceeds of the sale. The double payments remain a debt incumbent on him until he acquires the resources. If his value exceeds the principal, he should not be sold. Instead, the entire amount remains a debt incumbent on him until he attains the resources.
טז
גנב לזה וחזר וגנב לזה וחזר וגנב לזה כולם שותפין בו. אם היו דמיו כנגד הקרן של שלשתן או פחות מן הקרן נמכר ומחלקין ביניהן ושאר הכפלות חוב עליו. ואם היו דמיו יתר אינו נמכר והכל חוב עליו עד שיעשיר:
17
When partners commit a theft together, the liability is divided among them. Each of them can be sold for his portion of the principal. If the value of one of them is more than his share of the principal for which he is liable, he is not sold.
יז
שותפין שגנבו כאחד משלשין ביניהן וכ לאחד מהן נמכר בחלקו מן הקרן. וכל מי שדמיו יתר על חלק הקרן שנתחייב בו אינו נמכר:
Hayom Yom:
English Text |
Video Class

Today's Hayom Yom

Monday, Tammuz 2, 5777 · 26 June 2017
"Today's Day"
Monday Tamuz 2 5703
Torah lessons:
Chumash: Chukat, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 10-17.
Tanya: But inasmuch as (p.325) ...the teachings of Kabbalah). (p.329).
The Alter Rebbe writes in his Siddur1: It is proper to say before prayer, I hereby take upon myself to fulfill the mitzva - "Love your fellowman as yourself." This means that the precept of ahavat yisrael2 is the entry-gate through which man can pass to stand before G-d to daven. By merit of that love the worshipper's prayer is accepted.
FOOTNOTES
1. Page 12.
2. To love a fellow Jew.
-------
Daily ThoughtFriends In Time of NeedG‑d is with me among my helpers. [Psalms 118:7]
Your best friends are those who are at your side in time of distress.
And why are they there? Because you are at their side at the time of their distress.
Sometimes your charitable donations are seriously threatened. You might be short on funds, or the market might be unstable. Yet, nevertheless, you still provide with a full and generous hand.
You have stood by a good friend at an hour of distress. A friend called charity.
Sometimes, your fixed time for Torah study is under existential threat. You might be running off to business, chasing another client—and instead you stick it out to the end.
You have stood by a good friend at a threatening hour. A friend called Torah.
Without a doubt, such dear friends will not leave your dedication unrequited. When you will need them, they will come running. [12 Tammuz 5725, sicha 6.]
-------