Today in Judaism: Today is: Friday, 24 Tevet 5774 · 27 December
2013
Today in Jewish History:
• Passing of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi (1812)
The founder of Chabad Chassidism, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi
(1745-1812), passed away on the eve of the 24th of Tevet, at approximately
10:30 pm, shortly after reciting the Havdalah prayer marking the end of the
Shabbat. The Rebbe was in the village of Peyena, fleeing Napoleon's armies,
which had swept through the Rebbe's hometown of Liadi three months earlier in their
advance towards Moscow. He was in his 68th year at the time of his passing, and
was succeeded by his son, Rab bi DovBer of Lubavitch.
Links: A brief biography; The Ascent of the Tzaddik; The
Physical World According to Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi; 28 Teachings; more on
Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi
• Safed Earthquake (1837)
A devastating earthquake struck northern Israel, killing four
thousand Jews in Safed and between 700 to 1000 Jews in Tiberias. Many of the
survivors migrated to Hebron, rejuvenating the developing Chabad community
established there 10 years earlier by the second Rebbe of Chabad, Rabbi DovBer
of Lubavitch.
Link: A Safed website
• Mt. Sinai Hospital (1852)
One of the first hospitals in America under Jewish direction,
Mount Sinai Hospital, was founded in New York on this date in 1852.
Link: Health, Illness and Healing
Daily Quote:
Someone once said to my father, "The Alter Rebbe's
chassidim were always keeping count." My father took a great liking to the
saying, and he commented: "That idea characterizes a person's service of
G-d. The hours must be 'counted hours,' then the days will be 'counted days.'
When a day passes one should know what he has accomplished and what remains yet
to be done... In general, one should always see to it that tomorrow should be
much better than today."(Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak of Lubavitch (Hayom Yom,
Iyar 1)))
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Va'eira, 6th Portion Exodus 8:19-9:16 with Rashi
• Chapter 8
19. And I will make a redemption between My people and your
people; this sign will come about tomorrow." ' " יט.
וְשַׂמְתִּי פְדֻת בֵּין עַמִּי וּבֵין עַמֶּךָ לְמָחָר יִהְיֶה הָאֹת הַזֶּה:
And I will make a redemption: which will set apart My people
from your people.
ושמתי פדת: שיבדיל בין עמי ובין עמך:
20. The Lord did so, and a heavy mixture of noxious creatures
came to Pharaoh's house and his servants' house, and throughout the entire land
of Egypt, the land was destroyed because of the mixture of noxious creatures. כ.
וַיַּעַשׂ יְהֹוָה כֵּן וַיָּבֹא עָרֹב כָּבֵד בֵּיתָה פַרְעֹה וּבֵית עֲבָדָיו וּבְכָל
אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם תִּשָּׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵי הֶעָרֹב:
The land was destroyed: the land was destroyed [as Onkelos
translates] the land was destroyed
תשחת הארץ: נשחתה הארץ אתחבלת ארעא:
21. Thereupon, Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron, and he said,
"Go, sacrifice to your God in the land." כא. וַיִּקְרָא פַרְעֹה אֶל
משֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמֶר לְכוּ זִבְחוּ לֵאלֹהֵיכֶם בָּאָרֶץ:
Go, sacrifice… in the land: in your place, and do not go into
the desert.
זבחו לאלהיכם בארץ: במקומכם, ולא תלכו במדבר:
22. But Moses said, "It is improper to do that, for we will
sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to our God. Will we sacrifice the
deity of the Egyptians before their eyes, and they will not stone us? כב. וַיֹּאמֶר
משֶׁה לֹא נָכוֹן לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן כִּי תּוֹעֲבַת מִצְרַיִם נִזְבַּח לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ
הֵן נִזְבַּח אֶת תּוֹעֲבַת מִצְרַיִם לְעֵינֵיהֶם וְלֹא יִסְקְלֻנוּ:
the abomination of the Egyptians: Heb. ךְתּוֹעִבַתמִצְרַיִם, the
deity of the Egyptians, like “and for Milcom, the abomination of the children
of Ammon” (II Kings 23:13), but for the Jews, [Scripture] calls it an
abomination. It may also be explained in another manner:
תועבת מצרים: יראת מצרים, כמו (מלכים ב' כג יג) ולמלכום תועבת בני עמון,
ואצל ישראל קורא אותה תועבה. ועוד יש לומר בלשון אחר תועבת מצרים, דבר שנאוי הוא למצרים
זביחה שאנו זובחים, שהרי יראתם אנו זובחים:
the abomination of the Egyptians: Our slaughtering is a hateful
thing to the Egyptians, for we are slaughtering their deity.
ולא יסקלנו: בתמיה:
and they will not stone us: This is a question.
23. Let us go [for] a three day journey in the desert and
sacrifice to the Lord, our God, as He will say to us." כג. דֶּרֶךְ
שְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים נֵלֵךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר וְזָבַחְנוּ לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר
אֵלֵינוּ:
24. Pharaoh said, "I will let you go out, and you will
sacrifice to the Lord, your God, in the desert, but do not go far away; entreat
[Him] on my behalf." כד. וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה אָנֹכִי אֲשַׁלַּח אֶתְכֶם
וּזְבַחְתֶּם לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם בַּמִּדְבָּר רַק הַרְחֵק לֹא תַרְחִיקוּ לָלֶכֶת
הַעְתִּירוּ בַּעֲדִי:
25. Moses said, "Behold, I am going away from you, and I
will entreat the Lord, and the mixture of noxious creatures will depart from
Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people tomorrow. Only let Pharaoh not
tease anymore, by not letting the people go to sacrifice to the Lord." כה.
וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי יוֹצֵא מֵעִמָּךְ וְהַעְתַּרְתִּי אֶל יְהֹוָה וְסָר
הֶעָרֹב מִפַּרְעֹה מֵעֲבָדָיו וּמֵעַמּוֹ מָחָר רַק אַל יֹסֵף פַּרְעֹה הָתֵל לְבִלְתִּי
שַׁלַּח אֶת הָעָם לִזְבֹּחַ לַיהֹוָה:
tease: Heb. הָתֵל, [like] לְהָתֵל, to tease. [The literal
translation is: let Pharaoh stop teasing.]
התל: כמו להתל:
26. So Moses went away from Pharaoh and entreated the Lord. כו.
וַיֵּצֵא משֶׁה מֵעִם פַּרְעֹה וַיֶּעְתַּר אֶל יְהֹוָה:
and entreated the Lord: Heb. וַיֶעְתַּר, he exerted himself in
prayer. Similarly, if [Scripture] meant to say וַיַעְתִּיר, it could have said
it, and that would mean that he increased [words] in prayer. Now, however,
because it uses the וַיִפְעַל form, it means that he exerted himself to pray
[devoutly].
ויעתר אל ה': נתאמץ בתפלה, וכן אם בא לומר, ויעתיר היה יכול לומר ומשמע
וירבה בתפלה, וכשהוא אומר בלשון ויפעל משמע וירבה להתפלל:
27. And the Lord did according to Moses' word, and He removed
the mixture of noxious creatures from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his
people; not one was left. כז. וַיַּעַשׂ יְהֹוָה כִּדְבַר משֶׁה וַיָּסַר
הֶעָרֹב מִפַּרְעֹה מֵעֲבָדָיו וּמֵעַמּוֹ לֹא נִשְׁאַר אֶחָד:
and He removed the mixture of noxious creatures: But they did
not die as the frogs had died, for had they [the creatures] died, they [the
Egyptians] would have derived benefit from the [animals’] hides. — [from
Tanchuma, Va’era 14]
ויסר הערב: ולא מתו כמו שמתו הצפרדעים, שאם מתו היה להם הנאה בעורות:
28. But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and he did
not let the people go. כח. וַיַּכְבֵּד פַּרְעֹה אֶת לִבּוֹ גַּם בַּפַּעַם
הַזֹּאת וְלֹא שִׁלַּח אֶת הָעָם:
this time also: Although he said, “I will let you go out,” he
did not keep his promise.
גם בפעם הזאת: אף על פי שאמר (פסוק כד) אנכי אשלח אתכם, לא קיים הבטחתו:
Chapter 9
1. The Lord said to Moses, "Come to Pharaoh and speak to
him, 'So said the Lord, God of the Hebrews, "Let My people go, that they
may serve Me. א. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה בֹּא אֶל פַּרְעֹה וְדִבַּרְתָּ אֵלָיו
כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי הָעִבְרִים שַׁלַּח אֶת עַמִּי וְיַעַבְדֻנִי:
2. For if you refuse to let them go, and you still hold on to
them, ב.
כִּי אִם מָאֵן אַתָּה לְשַׁלֵּחַ וְעוֹדְךָ מַחֲזִיק בָּם:
hold on to them: Heb. מַחִזִיק בָּם, hold on to them, similar to
“and take hold (וְהֶחֱזִיקָה) of his private parts” (Deut. 25:11).
מחזיק בם: אוחז בם, כמו (דברים כה יא) והחזיקה במבושיו:
3. behold, the hand of the Lord will be upon your livestock that
is in the field, upon the horses, upon the donkeys, upon the camels, upon the
cattle, and upon the sheep, a very severe pestilence. ג. הִנֵּה יַד יְהֹוָה הוֹיָה
בְּמִקְנְךָ אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׂדֶה בַּסּוּסִים בַּחֲמֹרִים בַּגְּמַלִּים בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן
דֶּבֶר כָּבֵד מְאֹד:
behold, the hand of the Lord will be: Heb. הוֹיָה. This is the
present tense, for so it is said in the feminine gender: in the past הָיְתָה,
in the future ךְתִּהְיֶה, and in the present הוֹיָה, like עוֹשָֹה (does), רוֹצָה
(wants), רוֹעָה (pastures).
הנה יד ה' הויה: לשון הוה, כי כן יאמר בלשון נקבה על שעבר היתה ועל
העתיד תהיה ועל העומד הויה, כמו עושה, רוצה, רועה:
4. And the Lord will make a separation between the livestock of
Israel and the livestock of Egypt, and nothing of the children of Israel will
die. " ' " ד. וְהִפְלָה יְהֹוָה בֵּין מִקְנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל
וּבֵין מִקְנֵה מִצְרָיִם וְלֹא יָמוּת מִכָּל לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל דָּבָר:
will make a separation: Heb. וְהִפְלָה, will set apart.
והפלה: והבדיל:
5. The Lord set an appointed time, saying, "Tomorrow, God
will do this thing in the land." ה. וַיָּשֶׂם יְהֹוָה מוֹעֵד לֵאמֹר מָחָר יַעֲשֶׂה
יְהֹוָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה בָּאָרֶץ:
6. God did this thing on the morrow, and all the livestock of
the Egyptians died, but of the livestock of the children of Israel not one
died. ו. וַיַּעַשׂ יְהֹוָה אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה מִמָּחֳרָת וַיָּמָת כֹּל
מִקְנֵה מִצְרָיִם וּמִמִּקְנֵה בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא מֵת אֶחָד:
7. And Pharaoh sent, and behold, not even one of the livestock
of Israel died, but Pharaoh's heart became hardened, and he did not let the
people out. ז. וַיִּשְׁלַח פַּרְעֹה וְהִנֵּה לֹא מֵת מִמִּקְנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד
אֶחָד וַיִּכְבַּד לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שִׁלַּח אֶת הָעָם:
8. The Lord said to Moses and to Aaron, "Take yourselves
handfuls of furnace soot, and Moses shall cast it heavenward before Pharaoh's
eyes. ח.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן קְחוּ לָכֶם מְלֹא חָפְנֵיכֶם פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן
וּזְרָקוֹ משֶׁה הַשָּׁמַיְמָה לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה:
handfuls-: Jaloynes in Old French, double handfuls.
מלא חפניכם: ילויני"ש בלעז [גלונים]:
furnace soot: Heb. פִּיחַ, a substance blown (נִפָּח) from dying
embers that were burned in a furnace, and in Old French [it is called] olbes,
cinders from a furnace. פִּיחַ is an expression of blowing (הֲפָחָה), that the
wind blows them (מְפִיחָן) and makes them fly.
פיח כבשן: דבר הנפח מן הגחלים עמומים הנשרפים בכבשן, ובלעז אולבי"ש
[אפר]. פיח לשון הפחה, שהרוח מפיחן ומפריחן:
and Moses shall cast it: And anything cast with strength can be
cast only with one hand. Hence there are many miracles [here], one that Moses
[single] handful held his own double handfuls and those of Aaron, and [another
miracle was] that the dust went over the entire land of Egypt. — [from Tanchuma
Va’era 14]
וזרקו משה: כל דבר הנזרק בכח אינו נזרק אלא ביד אחת. הרי נסים הרבה,
אחד שהחזיק קומצו של משה מלא חפנים שלו ושל אהרן. ואחד שהלך האבק על כל ארץ מצרים:
9. And it will become dust upon the entire land of Egypt, and it
will become boils, breaking out into blisters upon man and upon beast
throughout the entire land of Egypt."
ט. וְהָיָה לְאָבָק עַל כָּל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
וְהָיָה עַל הָאָדָם וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה לִשְׁחִין פֹּרֵחַ אֲבַעְבֻּעֹת בְּכָל אֶרֶץ
מִצְרָיִם:
boils, breaking out into blisters: As the Targum [Onkelos]
renders: שִׁיחִנָא סַגִי אִבַעְבּוּעִין, through which blisters break out.
לשחין פרח אבעבעת: כתרגומו לשחין סגי אבעבועין, שעל ידו צומחין בהן
בועות:
boils: Heb. שְׁחִין, an expression of heat. There are many
[examples of this word] in the language of the Mishnah: “a hot (שְחוּנַה) year”
(Yoma 53b, Ta’anith 24b).
שחין: לשון חמימות. והרבה יש בלשון משנה (יומא נג ב) שנה שחונה:
10. So they took furnace soot, and they stood before Pharaoh,
and Moses cast it heavenward, and it became boils breaking out into blisters
upon man and upon beast. י. וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת פִּיחַ הַכִּבְשָׁן וַיַּעַמְדוּ
לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה וַיִּזְרֹק אֹתוֹ משֶׁה הַשָּׁמָיְמָה וַיְהִי שְׁחִין אֲבַעְבֻּעֹת
פֹּרֵחַ בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה:
upon man and upon beast: Now if you ask, “From where did they
have beasts? Does it not say already, ‘and all the livestock of the Egyptians
died’ (above, verse 6) ?” [I will answer that] the decree was leveled only upon
those in the field, as it is said: “upon your livestock that is in the field”
(above, verse 3), but he who feared the word of the Lord brought all his
livestock into the houses, and so it is taught in the Mechilta (Beshallach 1)
regarding “He took six hundred chosen chariots” (Exod. 14:7). — [See Rashi on
that verse.]
באדם ובבהמה: ואם תאמר מאין היו להם הבהמות והלא כבר נאמר (פסוק ו)
וימת כל מקנה מצרים, אלא לא נגזרה גזרה אלא על אותן שבשדות בלבד, שנאמר (פסוק ג) במקנך
אשר בשדה והירא את דבר ה' הניס את מקנהו אל הבתים. וכן שנויה במכילתא אצל (יד ז) ויקח
שש מאות רכב בחור:
11. And the necromancers could not stand before Moses because of
the boils, for the boils were upon the necromancers and upon all Egypt. יא. וְלֹא
יָכְלוּ הַחַרְטֻמִּים לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי משֶׁה מִפְּנֵי הַשְּׁחִין כִּי הָיָה הַשְּׁחִין
בַּחַרְטֻמִּם וּבְכָל מִצְרָיִם:
12. But the Lord strengthened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not
hearken to them, as the Lord spoke to Moses.
יב. וַיְחַזֵּק יְהֹוָה אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה
וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה:
13. The Lord said to Moses, "Rise early in the morning and
stand erect before Pharaoh, and say to him, 'So said the Lord, the God of the
Hebrews, "Let My people go so that they may worship Me. יג. וַיֹּאמֶר
יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה הַשְׁכֵּם בַּבֹּקֶר וְהִתְיַצֵּב לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו
כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי הָעִבְרִים שַׁלַּח אֶת עַמִּי וְיַעַבְדֻנִי:
14. Because this time, I am sending all My plagues into your
heart and into your servants and into your people, in order that you know that
there is none like Me in the entire earth.
יד. כִּי | בַּפַּעַם הַזֹּאת אֲנִי שֹׁלֵחַ
אֶת כָּל מַגֵּפֹתַי אֶל לִבְּךָ וּבַעֲבָדֶיךָ וּבְעַמֶּךָ בַּעֲבוּר תֵּדַע כִּי
אֵין כָּמֹנִי בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ:
all My plagues: We learn from here that the plague of the
firstborn (מַכַּתבְּכוֹרוֹת) is equivalent to all the plagues.
את כל מגפתי: למדנו מכאן שמכת בכורות שקולה כנגד כל המכות:
15. For if now I had stretched forth My hand, and I had smitten
you and your people with pestilence, you would have been annihilated from the
earth. טו. כִּי עַתָּה שָׁלַחְתִּי אֶת יָדִי וָאַךְ אוֹתְךָ וְאֶת עַמְּךָ
בַּדָּבֶר וַתִּכָּחֵד מִן הָאָרֶץ:
For if now I had stretched forth My hand, etc.: For if I had so
desired, when My hand was upon your livestock, when I smote them with
pestilence, I could have stretched it forth and smitten you and your people
along with the beasts, and you would have been annihilated from the earth; “but
for this [reason] I have allowed you to stand, etc.”
כי עתה שלחתי את ידי וגו': כי אלו רציתי כשהיתה ידי במקנך שהכיתים בדבר
שלחתיה והכיתי אותך ואת עמך עם הבהמות ותכחד מן הארץ, אבל בעבור זאת העמדתיך וגו':
16. But, for this [reason] I have allowed you to stand, in order
to show you My strength and in order to declare My name all over the earth. טז. וְאוּלָם
בַּעֲבוּר זֹאת הֶעֱמַדְתִּיךָ בַּעֲבוּר הַרְאֹתְךָ אֶת כֹּחִי וּלְמַעַן סַפֵּר שְׁמִי
בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ:
-------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 113 - 118
• Chapter 113
This psalm recounts some of the wonders of the exodus from
Egypt.
1. Praise the Lord! Offer praise, you servants of the Lord;
praise the Name of the Lord.
2. May the Name of the Lord be blessed from now and to all
eternity.
3. From the rising of the sun to its setting, the Name of the
Lord is praised.
4. The Lord is high above all nations; His glory transcends the
heavens.
5. Who is like the Lord our God, Who dwells on high
6. [yet] looks down so low upon heaven and earth!
7. He raises the poor from the dust, lifts the destitute from
the dunghill,
8. to seat them with nobles, with the nobles of His people.
9. He transforms the barren woman into a household, into a
joyful mother of children. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 114
This psalm explains why the tribe of Judah merited kingship.
1. When Israel went out of Egypt, the House of Jacob from a
people of a foreign tongue,
2. Judah became His holy [nation], Israel, His domain.
3. The sea saw and fled, the Jordan turned backward.
4. The mountains skipped like rams, the hills like young sheep.
5. What is the matter with you, O sea, that you flee; Jordan,
that you turn backward;
6. mountains, that you skip like rams; hills, like young sheep?
7. [We do so] before the Master, the Creator of the earth,
before the God of Jacob,
8. Who turns the rock into a pool of water, the flintstone into
a water fountain.
Chapter 115
A prayer that God bring this long exile to an end, for the sake
of His Name-that it not be desecrated.
1. Not for our sake, Lord, not for our sake, but for the sake of
Your Name bestow glory, because of Your kindness and Your truth.
2. Why should the nations say, "Where, now, is their God?”
3. Indeed, our God is in heaven; whatever He desires, He does.
4. Their idols are of silver and gold, the product of human
hands.
5. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but
cannot see;
6. they have ears, but cannot hear; they have a nose, but cannot
smell;
7. their hands cannot touch; their feet cannot walk; they can
make no sound in their throat.
8. Those who make them will become like them-all who put their
trust in them.
9. Israel, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield.
10. House of Aaron, trust in the Lord; He is their help and
their shield.
11. You who fear the Lord, trust in the Lord; He is their help
and their shield.
12. The Lord who is ever mindful of us, may He bless: May He
bless the House of Israel; may He bless the House of Aaron;
13. may He bless those who fear the Lord, the small with the
great.
14. May the Lord increase [blessing] upon you, upon you and upon
your children.
15. You are blessed by the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
16. The heavens are the Lord's heavens, but the earth He gave to
the children of man.
17. The dead cannot praise the Lord, nor any who descend into
the silence [of the grave].
18. But we will bless the Lord from now to eternity. Praise the
Lord!
Chapter 116
This psalm contains magnificent praises to God. It also
describes David's love for God, in light of all the miracles He performed for
him. David does not know how to repay God, declaring it impossible to pay back
for all God has done for him.
1. I would love if the Lord would listen to my voice, to my
supplications;
2. if He would turn His ear to me on the days when I call.
3. The pangs of death encompassed me and the misery of the grave
came upon me; I encounter trouble and sorrow.
4. I invoke the Name of the Lord, "Lord, I implore you,
deliver my soul!”
5. The Lord is gracious and righteous; our God is compassionate.
6. The Lord watches over the simpletons; I was brought low, and
He saved me.
7. Return, my soul, to your tranquility, for the Lord has
bestowed goodness upon you.
8. For You have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from
tears, my feet from stumbling.
9. I shall walk before the Lord in the lands of the living.
10. I had faith even when I declared, "I am greatly
afflicted";
11. [even when] I said in my haste, "All men are deceitful.”
12. How can I repay the Lord for all His beneficences to me?
13. I will raise the cup of deliverance and proclaim the Name of
the Lord.
14. I will pay my vows to the Lord in the presence of all His
people.
15. Grievous in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His pious
ones.
16. I thank you, Lord, that since I am Your servant, I am Your
servant the son of Your maidservant, You have loosened my bonds.
17. To You I will bring an offering of thanksgiving, and proclaim
the Name of the Lord.
18. I will pay my vows to the Lord in the presence of all His
people,
19. in the courtyards of the House of the Lord, in the midst of
Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 117
This psalm of two verses alludes to the Messianic era, when the
Children of Israel will enjoy their former glory. All will praise God, in
fulfillment of the verse, "All will then call in the Name of God."
1. Praise the Lord, all you nations; extol Him, all you peoples.
2. For His kindness was mighty over us, and the truth of the
Lord is everlasting. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 118
This psalm describes David's immense trust in God. It also
contains many praises to God, Who has fulfilled that which He has promised us.
1. Offer praise to the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is
everlasting.
2. Let Israel declare that His kindness is everlasting.
3. Let the House of Aaron declare that His kindness is
everlasting.
4. Let those who fear the Lord declare that His kindness is
everlasting.
5. From out of distress I called to God; with abounding relief,
God answered me.
6. The Lord is with me, I do not fear-what can man do to me?
7. The Lord is with me among my helpers, and I will see [the
downfall of] my enemies.
8. It is better to rely on the Lord than to trust in man.
9. It is better to rely on the Lord than to trust in nobles.
10. All the nations surrounded me, but in the Name of the Lord I
will cut them down.
11. They surrounded me, they encompassed me, but in the Name of
the Lord I will cut them down.
12. They surrounded me like bees, yet they shall be extinguished
like fiery thorns; in the Name of the Lord I will cut them down.
13. You [my foes] repeatedly pushed me to fall, but the Lord
helped me.
14. God is my strength and song, and He has been a help to me.
15. The sound of rejoicing and deliverance reverberates in the
tents of the righteous, "The right hand of the Lord performs deeds of
valor.
16. The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right hand of the
Lord performs deeds of valor!”
17. I shall not die, but I shall live and recount the deeds of
God.
18. God has indeed chastised me, but He did not give me up to
death.
19. Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter them
and praise God.
20. This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous will enter it.
21. I offer thanks to You, for You have answered me, and You
have been my deliverance.
22. The stone which the builders scorned has become the chief
cornerstone.
23. From the Lord has this come about; it is wondrous in our
eyes.
24. This is the day which the Lord has made; let us be glad and
rejoice on it.
25. We implore You, Lord, deliver us. We implore You, Lord,
grant us success.
26. Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord; we bless
you from the House of the Lord.
27. The Lord is a benevolent God and He has given us light; bind
the festival offering with cords until [you bring it to] the horns of the
altar.
28. You are my God and I will praise You, my God-and I will
exalt You.
29. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is
everlasting.
-------
Today in Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 13
• Friday, 24 Tevet 5774 – 27 December 2013
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 13
In the previous chapter the Alter Rebbe described the spiritual
profile of the Beinoni. In the Beinoni’s heart, said the Alter Rebbe, evil
desires may often arise, but his divine soul constantly prevents such desires
from finding expression in actual thought, speech or action. On the contrary,
these three soul-garments are the exclusive domain of the divine soul and are
utilized by the Beinoni only for thought, speech and action of Torah study and the
fulfillment of the mitzvot.
ובזה יובן לשון מאמר רז״ל: בינונים זה וזה שופטן פירוש: יצר טוב ויצר
הרע
Accordingly, we may understand the comment of our Sages1 that
“Beinonim are judged by both [their good and evil inclinations]” — both “judge”
him and dictate his conduct. As Scriptural support for this contention, the
Talmud cites:
דכתיב: כי יעמוד לימין אביון להושיע משופטי נפשו
For it is written:2 “He —the Almighty — stands at the right hand
of the poor man, to save him from them that judge his soul.” The plural “them
that judge” indicates the presence of two judges within the person, the evil
inclination and the good.
We thus find that the Beinoni’s inclinations are described as
his “judges”. Now, were the term Beinoni to be understood in its simple,
literal sense of one who has an equal history of good deeds and bad, it should
more properly be said that “the Beinoni is ruled by both [inclinations]”. For
one to sin, his evil inclination must rule him; for him to do good his good
inclination must rule. The Beinoni who supposedly does both, must be ruled (and
not merely “judged”) by both.
However, according to the explanation of the term Beinoni given
in the previous chapter, it is clear that, indeed, the Beinoni is merely judged
by both inclinations, not ruled by both, as shall be explained presently.
ולא אמרו: זה וזה מושלים, חס ושלום
Note that [our Sages] did not say, “He is ruled by both the good
inclination and the evil,” G‑d forbid,
כי כשיש איזו שליטה וממשלה ליצר הרע בעיר קטנה, אפילו לפי שעה קלה
because where the evil nature gains any rule and dominion,
albeit momentarily, over the “small city,” i.e., whenever the evil rules one’s
body (likened to a city which both the good inclination and the evil seek to
conquer),
נקרא רשע באותה שעה
one is deemed “wicked” (rasha) at such times.
אלא היצר הרע אינו רק, על דרך משל, כמו שופט ודיין האומר דעתו במשפט
Rather, the evil inclination in the Beinoni is no more than, for
example, a magistrate or judge who expresses his opinion on a point of law,
ואף על פי כן יכול להיות שלא יהיה פסק הלכה כך למעשה, מפני שיש עוד
שופט ודיין החולק עליו
yet in fact his decision is not necessarily final, for there is
another magistrate or judge who disagrees with him.
וצריך להכריע ביניהם, והלכה כדברי המכריע
It then becomes necessary, in order to formulate a binding
decision, to arbitrate between the two, and the final verdict will rest with
the arbitrator.
כך היצר הרע אומר דעתו בחלל השמאלי שבלב
Similarly, in the battle between the evil inclination and the
good: The evil inclination states its opinion in the left part of the
[Beinoni’s] heart, i.e., it creates an evil desire in his heart and demands
that he act accordingly, thus rendering “judgment” as to his future conduct.
ומהלב עולה למוח להרהר בו
From the heart [the desire] ascends to the mind for
contemplation. This ascent is automatic; whenever a desire is awakened in the
heart, the brain will contemplate it.
ומיד חולק עליו השופט השני, שהוא הנפש האלקית שבמוח
Immediately upon its ascent to the brain it is challenged by the
second “judge”, the divine soul [residing] in the brain,
המתפשט בחלל הימני שבלב, מקום משכן היצר הטוב
which extends into the right part of the heart where the good
inclination abides (i.e., reveals itself).
The good inclination is actually the voice of the divine soul’s
emotional attributes, and is hence active in the right part of the heart; see
ch. 9. The good inclination thus battles the evil, ensuring that the latter’s
passion not be realized, for the “opinion” of the good inclination is that all
of the body’s faculties and organs be utilized only for matters of holiness.
והלכה כדברי המכריע, הוא הקב״ה, העוזרו להיצר טוב
The final verdict rests with the arbitrator — the Holy One,
blessed be He, who comes to the aid of the good inclination, enabling it to prevail
over the evil inclination.
כמאמר רז״ל: אלמלא הקב״ה עוזרו אין יכול לו
As our Sages say,3 “[Man’s evil inclination gathers strength
daily,…and] if the Almighty did not help him (i.e., help his good inclination)
he could not overcome it (his evil inclination).”
והעזר היא ההארה שמאיר אור ה׳ על נפש האלקית
The help that G‑d grants him
is the glow of divine light that illuminates his divine soul,
להיות לה יתרון ושליטה על סכלות הכסיל ויצר הרע, כיתרון האור מן החושך,
כנ״ל
that it may gain superiority and mastery over the folly of the
“fool”, the evil inclination, [a dominion] paralleling the superiority of light
over darkness, as stated above, in ch. 12.
Just as a little light banishes much darkness, so is the
abounding folly and darkness of one’s evil inclination driven away by dint of
the little light of holiness emanating from his divine soul. It is this ray of
divine illumination that constitutes G‑d’s assistance
to the divine soul.4
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to resolve the contradiction and
answer the question noted in the opening words of the Tanya:
The Talmud states that a Jew is charged with an oath to regard
himself as wicked, whereas elsewhere, the Mishnah declares: “Be not wicked in
your own estimation.” Also: “If a person considers himself wicked, he will be
grieved at heart and depressed, and will not be able to serve G‑d joyfully and with a contented heart.”
He now explains that the meaning of the oath — which literally
reads, “Be in your own eyes like a rasha” — is that one regard himself not as
an actual rasha, but as like one, having traits similar to those of a rasha.
This means that he must consider himself a Beinoni, who possesses the same evil
in his soul as does a rasha and can desire evil just as a rasha does.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
FOOTNOTES
1. Berachot 61b.
2. Tehillim 109:31.
3. Kiddushin 30b.
4. It was stated in the
previous chapter that man’s mind innately rules his heart. Why, then, should he
need special divine assistance in curbing his appetites?
The Rebbe answers:
This divine assistance is necessary whenever the conflict
between the two souls does not involve a struggle of mind vs. heart; e.g., (1)
when the divine soul wishes to prevent sinful thoughts from arising in the
mind, or (2) when the emotive faculties of the divine soul seek to overpower
those of the animal soul (without recourse to contemplation and meditation).
But now the question may be reversed: Why in ch. 12 does the
Alter Rebbe use the argument of the mind’s natural supremacy over the heart to
point out the divine soul’s supremacy over the animal soul?
To this the Rebbe answers: In ch. 12, the Alter Rebbe speaks of
the state of the Beinoni after prayer, when the effect of his meditation on G‑dliness during prayer still lingers in his mind. At such time
his mind is suffused with G‑dliness to the
point where the animal soul cannot so much as voice an opinion there. Thus, any
struggle between the souls at that time would be a case of mind vs. heart,
where the natural supremacy of the mind could confer victory on the divine
soul.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah Sefer Hamitzvos:
N287
Negative Commandment 287 (Digest)
Relatives' Testimony
"Fathers shall not be put to death on account of their
children; neither shall children be put to death on account of their
fathers"—Deuteronomy 24:16.
A judge may not accept testimony from a litigant's close
relative—whether the testimony is in support of the litigant or against him.
This law applies to all cases – capital and monetary – and all
close relatives. The verse refers specifically to a capital case and the
testimony of a father to demonstrate the extent of this mitzvah. For the Torah
even forbids accepting the testimony of a father, who presumably loves his
child dearly, against his child (or vice versa) in a capital case—though we'd
presume that such testimony is eminently credible.
This mitzvah is a supra-rational decree from Above.
The 287th prohibition is that a judge is forbidden from
accepting the testimony of relatives — whether for each other or against each
other.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Fathers shall not die
through their sons, and sons shall not die through their fathers."
The interpretation of this verse is given in the Sifri,2
"Fathers shall not die through the testimony of their sons, and sons shall
not die through the testimony of their fathers."
The same law applies to financial cases, but it was said in a
capital case to take the most extreme case. One should not reason, "Since
this involves the death penalty, the relative's testimony cannot be doubted,
and we shall therefore act in accordance with his words. Since his testimony is
causing the death of a relative, there is no doubt." To counter this claim
the example is brought of the relatives who have the strongest and greatest
love for each other — a father for his son and a son for his father. And even
when a father testifies against his son, and even if it is to have him
executed, we still cannot accept it. This is a decree of the Torah which has no
explanation whatsoever. You should understand this well.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third chapter3
of tractate Sanhedrin.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 24:16.
2.Parshas Ki Seitzei.
3.27b.
-------
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: She'ar Avot haTum'ah Chapter 16
Chapter 16
Halacha 1
Why did the Sages rule that when there is a question of impurity
in the public domain, the person should be considered pure? Because the
community offers the Paschal sacrifice in a state of impurity when the majority
of the people are impure. Now, if ritual impurity that was definitely
established is superseded by the presence of the community, certainly this
would apply to a mere question of the presence of impurity. For all
stringencies observed because of doubt were instituted by the Sages, as we
explained in Hilchot Bi'ot Assurot.
Why did they rule stringently concerning a doubt in a private
domain? For in the instance of a sotah who entered into
privacy with the person concerning whom she was warned, even though there is
only a doubt that she committed adultery, she is considered as impure with
regard to her husband until she drinks thesotah waters.
Halacha 2
Just as a sotah and the person suspected of
relations with her are two, so too, when there are questions of impurity that
involve two individuals, it is assumed that the person or the article is not
pure. If, however, there are three people in a private domain, when there is a
question concerning impurity that occurs there, it is assumed that the person
or the article is pure, as if the question arose in the public domain.
When does the above apply? When the person who could have
contracted impurity has the knowledge to be asked and be examined regarding the
details that occurred, as is true with regard to a sotah. When,
however, there is a deafmute, an emotionally or intellectually compromised
person, or a minor who does not know the details and is unable to respond to
questions that are asked involved in a private domain, if a doubtful situation
arises, it is assumed that the person or the article is pure.
What is implied? When a deafmute, an emotionally or
intellectually compromised person, or a minor who does not know how to respond
to questions are found in a courtyard or an alley where there is impurity and
there is a question whether or not they came in contact with it, they are
considered as pure. Similarly, in all instances where no one has the knowledge
to respond to questions, even though the question arises in a private domain,
they are considered as pure.
Halacha 3
When a person is blind, sleeping, or walking at night, if there
is a question whether or not they contracted impurity in a private domain, they
are impure, because they have the knowledge to respond to questions.
When do we apply the principle that whenever there is a question
involving one who does not have the knowledge to respond to questions, it is
assumed that the person or the article is pure? When the possibilities are
equally balanced and there is no established presumption regarding its status.
If, however, it is known that, in a given situation, one could be assumed to
have contracted impurity, he is considered impure.
What is implied? An impure child was standing next to some dough
and there was also dough on his hand, the dough is deemed impure, for a child's
habit is to pat dough and it can be assumed that he did so. Nevertheless, terumahshould
not be burnt because of this assumption.
Halacha 4
When impure liquids, a pure dough that is terumah,
and domesticated animals, beasts, or fowl were all located in the same place,
and teeth marks were found in the dough, it is presumed that the animals drank
the liquids and then bit the dough and thus imparted impurity to it. If a cow
was there and the distance between the liquids and the dough was sufficient for
the cow to wipe its tongue on its lips, the dough is pure. The same principle
applies with regard to other animals if there was enough place for the animals
to dry their mouths with their tongues. If there is less space than this, the
dough is impure. If a dog was there, the dough is pure even if it is located
next to the liquids, for it is not the habit of a dog to leave food and go to
water.
The following laws apply if there are signs of chickens pecking
at the dough. If there is enough space between the liquids and the dough for
them to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is pure. If not, it is not,
for it can be assumed that they drank and pecked at the dough while the liquids
were still in their mouths.
When does the above apply? When the water is clear enough for a
child's shadow to be recognized in them. If, however, the water was murky, the
dough is pure, because if the chickens pecked with the liquids, the marks of
the liquid would be observable in the dough. If the liquid was clear, although
the dough is assumed to be impure, it should not be burnt due to this
assumption. Instead, the determination of its status is held in abeyance.
Halacha 5
What is an example of a presumption due to which terumah is
burnt when a question of impurity arises in a private domain? There is a dough
in a house, both creeping animals and frogs are becoming stuck in it, and
pieces of their flesh was found in the dough. If most of those becoming stuck
in the dough are creeping animals, the dough is deemed impure and should be
burnt. If the majority are frogs, it is deemed as pure.
Halacha 6
The following rules apply when there were pure substances next
to or above sources of impurity and when a person clothed himself in his
garment, a question arose whether it touched the impurity and the pure
substances or not. If this took place in a private domain, it is deemed impure
because of the doubt, because when there is a question of impurity that arises
due to human activity, they can be questioned concerning it. Even if there is
an k'li placed on the ground, it is considered as if there is
someone to be questioned about it. If the pure substances and the source of
impurity were in a public domain and a question arises, the substances are
deemed pure. If it is impossible that the garment did not touch both of them,
even though there is some doubt, the substances are deemed impure.
Halacha 7
When a loaf of bread that is terumah is
positioned on a board and a support that contracted impurity from a zav is
positioned below it in a manner in which it is impossible for the loaf to fall
without touching the support, even though the support is inclined, should one
find the loaf in another place, its status of purity remains unchanged, for it
is possible to say that another person came, took it, and put it in that place.
If one can say: "I am certain that no person came here," it is
impure, because it certainly fell and touched the support when it fell.
Halacha 8
When a child is found standing next to a cemetery holding roses,
even when there are roses only in the place of impurity, he is pure because
there is a doubt; it is possible that another person gathered them and gave
them to him.
Similarly, when a donkey is standing in a cemetery, the keilim on
him are pure. We do not say that he pressed himself against them when lying on
the ground and touched a grave while doing so. The rationale for both instances
is that the child and the donkey do not have the knowledge to respond to
questions. Hence, we follow the principle that all questions of impurity are
judged according to the circumstances at the time that they were discovered.
Halacha 9
When a child was holding his father's hand or was riding on his
father's shoulders, he is deemed impure with regard to any question concerning
ritual impurity that arises in a private domain, for his father could be asked
with regard to his status.
Halacha 10
There are four questionable situations that our Sages discussed
with regard to a child:
a) When a child cannot walk and his mother placed him down in
one place and found him as he was in that place, he is pure. We do not say that
perhaps an impure woman came and kissed him and hugged him.
b) When the child matured to the extent that he began to leave
one domain and enter others on his own, his clothes are pure. They are not
considered as amidras as are the clothes of unlearned people.
Nevertheless, as an initial preference, they should not be brought into contact
with pure entities.
c) If he matured to the extent that he has the knowledge to
answer questions, in a private domain, whenever there is a doubt whether he
contracted impurity, he is considered as impure.
d) If he matured to the extent that he has the knowledge to
guard his body from contracting impurity, one may partake of pure foods that
touched his body. If he has the knowledge to guard his hands, pure foods that
touched them may be eaten.
How do we check him? He is immersed and given ordinary food
which he is told to treat as terumah. If he has the knowledge to
guard his body, one may partake of pure foods that touched his body. If he has
the knowledge to guard his hands, pure foods that touched them may be eaten.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Edut Chapter 14, Edut Chapter 15, Edut Chapter 16
Chapter 14
Halacha 1
Whenever a witness is disqualified from testifying on behalf of
a colleague because he is married to the witness' relative, if that relative's
wife dies, even if she left him sons, he is considered to have been released
from any connection and is acceptable as a witness.
Halacha 2
When a person knew of evidence concerning a colleague before he
became his son-in-law, and then became his son-in-law, he is not acceptable.
The same law applies if a person was in control of his senses and then became a
deaf-mute, was able to see and became blind - even though he is aware of the
measure of land concerning which he testifies and can define its boundaries, or
was intellectually and emotionally sound and then lost control of his
faculties.
If, by contrast, a person knew of evidence concerning a
colleague before he became his son-in-law, became his son-in-law, and then that
colleague's daughterdied, the witness is acceptable. Similar laws apply if a
person was in control of his senses, became a deaf-mute, and then regained
control of his senses, was intellectually and emotionally sound, lost control
of his faculties, and then regained control of them, or was able to see, became
blind, and then regained his sight.
The general principle is: Whenever a person is an acceptable
witness at the initial and the final stages, he is acceptable even though in
the interim, he was not acceptable as a witness. If, however, initially he is
unacceptable, even though ultimately, he would be acceptable, he is
disqualified. Therefore when a person is aware of evidence as a child, it is of
no consequence for him to testify with regard to it when he attains majority.
Halacha 3
There are matters concerning which we rely on the testimony
which a person gives after he attains majority with regard to events that he
observed when he was a child. The rationale is that these are matters of
Rabbinical origin. The matters are as follows; a person's word is accepted when
he states: a) "This is the signature of my father," "...my
teacher," "...or my brother," the rationale is that the
validation of legal documents is a Rabbinic requirement;
b) "I remember that when so-and-so was married, they
performed the customs performed for a virgin"; since most women marry when
virgins and a ketubah is a Rabbinic institution;
c) "This place is a beit hapras," for the
ritual impurity associated with such a place is a Rabbinic safeguard;
d) "We would proceed until this point on the Sabbath,"
because the restriction of the Sabbath limits until only 2000 cubits is a
Rabbinic restriction;
e) "So-and-so would leave school to immerse himself in a mikveh and
eatterumah in the evening" or "he would receive a portion
of terumah with us;"
f) "We would bring challah and presents of
meat to so-and-so, the priest"; this applies when the presents were sent
with the person himself;
g) "My father told me, 'This family is acceptable; this
family is not acceptable";
h) "We ate from the fruit-barrel brought by the brothers of
so-and-so to inform others that their brother, so-and-so, married a woman that
was not appropriate for him.
All of the latter four points involve establishing a person as a
priest to enable him to partake of terumah that is separated
at present because of Rabbinic decree or to prevent him from partaking of it.
Halacha 4
The leniency granted in all these situations to accept the
testimony of a person who reached majority with regard to what he knew when he
was a minor is not granted when a gentile or a servant witnessed such matters
and gave such testimony after he converted and was freed.
Halacha 5
If, before becoming a robber, a person knew of evidence
concerning a colleague and recorded that evidence in a legal document and then
became a robber, he cannot testify with regard to his signature. If, however, his
signature to the legal document was validated in court before he became a
robber, the legal document is acceptable.
Similarly, if a witness becomes a person's son-in-law, he may
not testify concerning his signature on a legal document involving his father-in-law.
Others, however, may testify concerning the son-in-law's signature. Even though
the document is not validated by the court until after the witness becomes a
person's son-in-law, it is acceptable. The disqualification of a witness
because of a transgression is not the same as the disqualification of a witness
because of a family connection, for a person disqualified because of a
transgression is suspected of forging the document.
Halacha 6
When a legal document has only two witnesses signed upon it and
they are related to each other or one of them is disqualified because of a
transgression, even if the document was transferred in the presence of
acceptable witnesses, it is worthless, like a shard, because of the invalid
signatures inside it.
Halacha 7
The following rule applies when a person composes one legal
document including testimony that he is granting all of his property to two
people and the witnesses to the document are related to one of the recipients
of the present, but not related to the other. The document is not acceptable,
because it is one statement of testimony.
If, however, he writes in one legal document that he is giving
this-and-this courtyard to Reuven and this-and-this field to Shimon, and the
witnesses are related to one, but not to the other, the present given to the
recipient to whom the witnesses are not related is binding. Even though the two
statements are included in one legal document, they are considered as separate
testimonies. To what can the matter be compared to a person who says:
"Serve as witnesses that I gave Reuven this-and-this, that I gave Shimon
this-and-this, and that I borrowed such-and-such from Levi." Although they
were all included in the same legal document and there is only one person
transferring the property, they are considered as three distinct statements.
Chapter 15
Halacha 1
Whenever a person will benefit from giving testimony, he may not
give such testimony for it is as if he is testifying concerning himself.
Therefore when a person comes to the inhabitants of a city with a complaint
concerning the public bathhouse or thoroughfare, none of the inhabitants of the
city can testify regarding this matter nor serve as a judge regarding this
matter until they undertake a contractual act removing themselves from any
connection to the property in question. Afterwards, they may testify or serve
as a judges.
Halacha 2
The following rules apply when a communal Torah scroll is stolen
from the inhabitants of a city. Since it is intended to be listened to by all
the members of the community, it is impossible for a person to withdraw his
share of ownership of it. Hence, the matter should not be adjudicated by the
judges of the city, and the inhabitants of the city may not testify to prove
the city's ownership. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
When a person says: "Give a manah to the
poor people of my city," the matter may not be adjudicated by the judges
of that city and the inhabitants of the city may not testify to prove that the
pledge was made.
When does the above apply? When the poor people depend upon them
and they allocate charity to them. In such a situation, even if two members of
the city promised: "We will give the fixed amount required of us
regardless; let us testify," we do not heed their request. For they
receive benefit from the fact that these poor people become wealthier for the
poor are dependent on the inhabitants of the city. Similar laws apply in all
analogous situations.
Halacha 4
The following rules apply when a person raises a protest and
seeks to expropriate land that is owned by two partners from the possession of
one of the partners. The other partner may not testify on behalf of his partner
concerning the land unless he withdraws from ownership of the land and
undertakes an act of contract affirming that he gave his portion to his partner
and committing himself to reimburse him for its value if his own creditor
expropriates it from his partner. After undertaking such an agreement, he may
testify concerning the field. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
The following rules apply when a person protests the ownership
of a field. If it contains produce, a sharecropper may not testify with regard
to it. For the sharecropper wishes it to remain in the possession of the owner
so that he will receive his portion of the crops. If there is no produce in the
field, he may testify concerning it.
Different rules apply with regard to a renter. If he brings the
rent with him and says: "Let whoever is established as the owner of this
field take this," he may offer testimony. If, however, he already paid the
rent to the owner of the field he may not testify. For if the field is
expropriated by the claimant, he would have to pay him rent for all the years
he dwelled in it. Hence, he may not offer testimony. Similar laws apply in all
analogous situations.
Halacha 6
The following rules apply if Shimon borrowed money and Reuven
guaranteed the debt. Yehudah entered into litigation against Shimon and sought
to expropriate landed property from his possession. If Shimon possesses another
field equal in value to the debt guaranteed by Reuven, Reuven may testify with
regard to the land, asserting that it belongs to Shimon. He does not derive any
benefit from this, for even if Yehudah would expropriate the field, Shimon
possesses another field from which the creditor could derive payment.
Similarly, a person who purchased a field may testify on behalf
of another person who purchased a field from the same seller and affirm that
the field is his. This applies provided the seller owns a field that is not on
lien that is equivalent to the value of the field acquired by the first
purchaser. In such a situation, the first purchaser does not derive any benefit
from the field remaining in the possession of the second purchaser, for even if
the field he purchased is expropriated from him, he may seek reimbursement from
the seller and the seller possesses another field from which he could
expropriate his due.
Chapter 16
Halacha 1
The following rule applies when Reuven stole a field or a garmen
from Shimon and Yehudah lodges a claim against Reuven, stating that the field
or the garment is his. Shimon may not testify on Reuven's behalf that the field
or the garment does not belong to Yehudah. The rationale is that Shimon desires
to have the field or garment remain in the possession of Reuven who stole it
from him so that he will have it returned to him from the thief. For it is
possible that the proof Shimon uses to expropriate it from Reuven will not
enable him to expropriate it from Yehudah.
Similarly, if Reuven sold or transferred as an inheritance the
stolen field to Levi and Yehudah lodges a claim against Levi, Shimon may not
testify that it does not belong to Yehudah. For perhaps it is more comfortable
for him to expropriate it from Levi.
Halacha 2
The following rules apply if Reuven sold the stolen garment to
Levi and Yehudah lodges a claim concerning it. If Reuven died, Shimon may
testify that it does not belong to Yehudah. The rationale is that this garment
will never be returned to Shimon, because the purchaser acquires it because of
his despair of recovering it and its change of domain. Reuven, the thief, died,
and thus he has no one from whom he could receive reimbursement.
If, however, Reuven is still alive, Shimon may not testify even
concerning a garment. For he will receive benefit from the fact that it will
not remain in Yehudah's possession so that he can bring proof that Reuven stole
it and require him to make reimbursement for it.
Similarly, if the garment is in the possession of Reuven's
heirs, Shimon may not testify concerning it. For ultimately, if the heir
retains possession, it will be returned to the original owner. Similar laws
apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
The following rule applies when Reuven sold a field to Shimon
without taking financial responsibility for it and Yehudah issued a claim to
expropriate it from Shimon. Reuven may not testify concerning it on Shimon's
behalf. Even though he did not accept financial responsibility for the field,
he desires that it remain in Shimon's possession. For if that is the case, one
of Reuven's creditors may come and collect it as payment for Reuven's debt and
thus Reuven will not be "a wicked person who borrows and does not
repay."
Halacha 4
When, by contrast, Reuven sold a cow or a garment to Shimon and
Yehudah raised a claim to expropriate it from Shimon, Reuven may testify that
it belongs to Shimon. The rationale is that even if it were to remain in Shimon's
possession, a creditor of Reuven does not have the right to expropriate movable
property that was sold. This applies even when the movable property was
designated as an apoteiki.
When does the above apply? When Shimon the purchaser admits that
the cow or the garment certainly belonged to Reuven the seller and he knows
that they truly belonged to him. If, however, Shimon does not acknowledge this,
Reuven may not testify to deny Yehudah's right to the property. For if it is
expropriated from Shimon, he will sue Reuven for its value, saying: "You
sold me an article that did not belong to you, for witnesses came and stated
that it belonged to Yehudah."
When do we accept Reuven's testimony to deny Yehudah's right to
the movable property and thus leave it in Shimon's possession? When witnesses
come and testify that Reuven never owned landed property. If, however, there
are no witnesses to deliver such testimony, Reuven may not testify concerning a
cow or a garment as well.
Why may he not testify concerning such objects? Because it is
possible that he placed them on lien to his creditor by virtue of the latter's
lien on landed property and in that contract stated: "That I will
acquire," establishing a lien on them by virtue of the lien on the landed
property. Thus his creditor has the right to expropriate a cow and a garment as
well. Hence, Reuven should not testify concerning them. For he desires to have
them remain in Shimon's possession so that his creditor can come and
expropriate them. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
These matters are dependent solely on the discerning capacity of
the judge and the greatness of his understanding when he comprehends the
fundamental thrust of the judgments and knows how one thing leads to another,
deepening his perception. If he sees that a witness will derive benefit from
this testimony even in an uncommon and extraordinary manner, he should not
allow that person to testify.
Just as a person should not testify with regard to a matter
because he may have a vested interest in the case; so, too, he should not act
as a judge concerning such a matter. Similarly with regard to other
disqualifying factors, just as they disqualifying a person as a witness; so,
too, they disqualify him as a judge.
Halacha 5
Therefore we do not appoint two judges to the Sanhedrin who
are related to each other. This applies to both a minor Sanhedrin and
the SupremeSanhedrin. With regard to the judges that are added to reach
the number of seven charged with declaring a leap year as mentioned in Hilchot
Kiddush HaChodesh, it appears to me that it is of no consequence that there
are relatives among them.
Halacha 6
Whoever is fit to act as a judge as fit to act as a witness.
There are, however, some who are acceptable to act as a witness, but not to act
as a judge. They include friends, enemies, converts, and freed slaves.
Similarly, an elderly person, a eunuch, a bastard, and a person with one eye
are acceptable as witnesses, but are not acceptable as judges as we explained.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Friday, 24 Tevet 5774 – 27 December 2013
"Today's Day"
Friday Tevet 24 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash:
Sh'mot, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 113-118.
Tanya: Ch. 13. Therewith will (p. 53)...as stated above. (p.
53).
On this day the Alter Rebbe passed away in the village Piena on
Saturday night of parshat Sh'mot 5573 (1813). He is interred in the city of
Haditz.
My grandfather (R. Shmuel) asked the Tzemach Tzedek: What did
Grandfather (the Alter Rebbe) intend with the "ways of Chassidus" and
what did he intend with Chassidus?
The Tzemach Tzedek answered: The "ways of Chassidus"
are that all Chassidim are to be like one family, with affection, as Torah
teaches. Chassidus is vitality. Chassidus is to bring life and illumination
into everything, to shed light even on the undesirable - to become aware of
one's own evil exactly as it is, in order to correct it.
-------
Daily Thought:
Ultimate Knowledge
Any reason we may suppose for G‑d’s will could
not be the ultimate reason. The finite mind cannot begin to fathom an infinite
wisdom—never mind that which brought forth wisdom from the void.
As a wise man once said, the ultimate knowledge is that we do not
know.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment