Today in Judaism – Today is: Tuesday, 7 Tevet
5774 · 10 December 2013
-------
Today’s Laws and Customs:
Sanctification of the Moon
Once a month, as the moon waxes in the
sky, we recite a special blessing called Kiddush Levanah, "the
sanctification of the moon," praising the Creator for His wondrous work we
call astronomy.
Kiddush Levanah is recited after
nightfall, usually on Saturday night. The blessing is concluded with songs and
dancing, because our nation is likened to the moon—as it waxes and wanes, so
have we throughout history. When we bless the moon, we renew our trust that
very soon, the light of G‑d's presence will fill all the earth and our people will be redeemed
from exile.
Though Kiddush Levanah can be recited as
early as three days after the moon's rebirth, the kabbalah tells us it is best
to wait a full week, till the seventh of the month. Once 15 days have passed,
the moon begins to wane once more and the season for saying the blessing has
passed.
Links:
Brief Guide to Kiddush Levanah: Thank G‑d for the Moon!
More articles on Kiddush Levanah from our
knowledgebase.
Daily Study - Chitas and Rambam for
today:
Chumash: Parshat Vayechi, 3rd Portion
(Genesis 48:17-48:22) with Rashi
Chapter 48
17. And Joseph saw that his father was
placing his right hand on Ephraim's head, and it displeased him. So he held up
his father's hand to remove it from upon Ephraim's head [to place it] on
Manasseh's head. יז. וַיַּרְא יוֹסֵף כִּי יָשִׁית אָבִיו יַד יְמִינוֹ עַל רֹאשׁ אֶפְרַיִם
וַיֵּרַע בְּעֵינָיו וַיִּתְמֹךְ יַד אָבִיו לְהָסִיר אֹתָהּ מֵעַל רֹאשׁ אֶפְרַיִם
עַל רֹאשׁ מְנַשֶּׁה:
So he held up his father’s hand: He
lifted it off his son’s head and held it up with his [own] hand.
ויתמך יד אביו: הרימה מעל ראש בנו ותמכה בידו:
18. And Joseph said to his father,
"Not so, Father, for this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his
head." יח. וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל אָבִיו לֹא כֵן אָבִי כִּי זֶה הַבְּכֹר שִׂים
יְמִינְךָ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ:
19. But his father refused, and he said,
"I know, my son, I know; he too will become a people, and he too will be
great. But his younger brother will be greater than he, and his children['s
fame] will fill the nations." יט. וַיְמָאֵן אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר יָדַעְתִּי בְנִי
יָדַעְתִּי גַּם הוּא יִהְיֶה לְעָם וְגַם הוּא יִגְדָּל וְאוּלָם אָחִיו הַקָּטֹן
יִגְדַּל מִמֶּנּוּ וְזַרְעוֹ יִהְיֶה מְלֹא הַגּוֹיִם:
I know, my son, I know: that he is the
firstborn.
ידעתי בני ידעתי: שהוא הבכור:
he too will become a people, etc.: for
Gideon is destined to be descended from him. [Gideon] through whom the Holy
One, blessed be He, will perform a miracle. — [from Midrash Tanchuma Vayechi 6]
גם הוא יהיה לעם וגם הוא יגדל: שעתיד גדעון
לצאת ממנו שהקב"ה עושה נס על ידו:
But his younger brother will be greater
than he: for Joshua is destined to be descended from him, [and Joshua is] the
one who will distribute the inheritances of the land and teach Torah to Israel.
— [from Midrash Tanchuma Vayechi 7]
ואולם אחיו הקטן יגדל ממנו: שעתיד יהושע לצאת
ממנו שינחיל את הארץ וילמד תורה לישראל:
and his children[’s fame] will fill the
nations: The whole world will be filled when his fame and his name are spread
when he stops the sun in Gibeon and the moon in the Valley of Ajalon. — [from
Abodah Zarah 25a]
וזרעו יהיה מלא הגוים: כל העולם יתמלא בצאת
שמעו כשיעמיד חמה בגבעון וירח בעמק אילון:
20. So he blessed them on that day,
saying, "With you, Israel will bless, saying, 'May God make you like
Ephraim and like Manasseh,' " and he placed Ephraim before Manasseh. כ. וַיְבָרֲכֵם
בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמוֹר בְּךָ יְבָרֵךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר יְשִׂמְךָ אֱלֹהִים כְּאֶפְרַיִם
וְכִמְנַשֶּׁה וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת אֶפְרַיִם לִפְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה:
With you, Israel will bless: Whoever
wishes to bless his sons, will bless them with their blessing (with a blessing
related to them), and a man will say to his son, “May God make you like Ephraim
and like Manasseh.” - [from Sifrei Nasso 18]
בך יברך ישראל: הבא לברך את בניו, יברכם בברכתם
ויאמר איש לבנו ישימך א-להים כאפרים וכמנשה:
and he placed Ephraim: Before Manasseh in
his blessing, to give him precedence in the groupings [of the tribes in the
desert] and [also] at the dedication of [the Tabernacle by] the [tribal]
princes. — [from Gen. Rabbah 97:5]
וישם את אפרים: בברכתו לפני מנשה, להקדימו בדגלים
ובחנוכת הנשיאים:
21. And Israel said to Joseph,
"Behold, I am going to die, and God will be with you, and He will return
you to the land of your forefathers. כא. וַיֹּאמֶר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל יוֹסֵף הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי
מֵת וְהָיָה אֱלֹהִים עִמָּכֶם וְהֵשִׁיב אֶתְכֶם אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲבֹתֵיכֶם:
22. And I have given you one portion over
your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with
my bow." כב. וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׁכֶם אַחַד עַל אַחֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר לָקַחְתִּי
מִיַּד הָאֱמֹרִי בְּחַרְבִּי וּבְקַשְׁתִּי:
And I have given you: Since you are
taking the trouble to occupy yourself with my burial, I have given you an
inheritance where you will be buried. And which is this? This is Shechem, as it
is said:“And Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel had brought up out of
Egypt, they buried in Shechem” (Josh. 24:32).
ואני נתתי לך: לפי שאתה טורח להתעסק בקבורתי,
וגם אני נתתי לך נחלה שתקבר בה, ואי זו, זו שכם, שנאמר (יהושע כד לב) ואת עצמות יוסף
אשר העלו בני ישראל ממצרים קברו בשכם:
one portion over your brothers: Heb. אַחַד
עַל אַחֶי שְׁכֶם, the actual [city of] Shechem, which will be for you one
share over your brothers. [Accordingly, we render: Shechem, [which is] one
[share] over your brothers.]- [from Gen. Rabbah 97:6] Another explanation:“One
portion” refers to the birthright, and indicates that his (Joseph’s) sons should
take two shares. שְׁכֶם is a word meaning “a portion,” as the Targum renders.
There are many similar instances in Scripture:“For You shall place them as a
portion (שְׁכֶם)” (Ps. 21:13), You shall place my enemies before me as
portions;“I will divide a portion (שְׁכֶם)” (ibid. 60:8);“…murder on the way, שֶׁכְמָה
” (Hos. 6:9), [meaning:] each one his share;“to worship Him of one accord אֶחָד)
(שְׁכֶם” (Zeph. 3:9),
[meaning: in one group].
שכם אחד על אחיך: שכם ממש, היא תהיה לך חלק
אחד יתירה על אחיך:
which I took from the hand of the
Amorite: From the hand of Esau, who behaved like an Amorite (Gen. Rabbah 97:6).
Another explanation [of why Esau is called אמֹרִי]: who deceived his father
with the sayings (אִמְרֵי) of his mouth.
בחרבי ובקשתי: כשהרגו שמעון ולוי את אנשי שכם
נתכנסו כל סביבותיהם להזדווג להם וחגר יעקב כלי מלחמה כנגדן. דבר אחר שכם אחד היא הבכורה
שיטלו בניו שני חלקים, ושכם לשון חלק הוא, והרבה יש לו דומים במקרא (תהלים כא יג) כי
תשיתמו שכם, תשית שונאי לפני לחלקים, [(שם ס ח) אחלקה שכם, (הושע ו ט) דרך ירצחו שכמה,
איש חלקו], (צפניה ג ט) לעבדו שכם אחד:
with my sword and with my bow: When
Simeon and Levi slew the men of Shechem, all those [nations] around them
(Jacob’s sons) assembled to attack them, and Jacob girded weapons of war
against them. — [from Gen. Rabbah 97:6, Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel]
אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי: מיד עשו שעשה מעשה אמורי.
דבר אחר שהיה צד אביו באמרי פיו:
with my sword and with my bow: I.e., his
cleverness and his prayer.
בחרבי ובקשתי: היא חכמתו ותפלתו:
---
Daily Tehillim – Psalms Chapters 39-43
Chapter 39
David's prayer bewailing his suffering.
But it is not suffering itself that pains him, rather he is saddened by its
disturbing his Torah study. For man's days are few, "and if not now, when
(will he study)?" for he may die, today or tomorrow. He therefore requests
that his suffering be removed, to enable him to study Torah and acquire a place
in the World to Come.
1. For the Conductor, for yedutun,1 a
psalm by David.
2. I said that I would guard my ways from
sinning with my tongue; I would guard my mouth with a muzzle, [even] while the
wicked one is before me.
3. I became mute with stillness, I was
silent [even] from the good, though my pain was crippling.
4. My heart grew hot within me, a fire
blazed in my utterance, as I spoke with my tongue.
5. O Lord, let me know my end and what is
the measure of my days, that I may know when I will cease.
6. Behold, like handbreadths You set my
days; my lifetime is as naught before You. But all is futility, all mankind's
existence, Selah.
7. Only in darkness does man walk, seeking
only futility; he amasses riches and knows not who will reap them.
8. And now, what is my hope, my Lord? My
longing is to You.
9. Rescue me from all my transgressions;
do not make me the scorn of the degenerate.
10. I am mute, I do not open my mouth,
for You have caused [my suffering].
11. Remove Your affliction from me; I am
devastated by the attack of Your hand.
12. In reproach for sin You chastened
man; like a moth, You wore away that which is precious to him. All mankind is
nothing but futility, forever.
13. Hear my prayer, O Lord, listen to my
cry; do not be silent to my tears, for I am a stranger with You, a sojourner
like all my forefathers.
14. Turn from me, that I may recover my
strength, before I depart and I am no more.
Chapter 40
The psalmist speaks of the numerous
wonders that God wrought for the Jewish people, asking: "Who can
articulate His might? I would relate and speak of them, but they are too
numerous to recount!" He created the world and split the sea for the sake
of Israel, [yet] He desires no sacrifices, only that we listen to His voice.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. I put my hope in the Lord; He turned
to me and heard my cry.
3. He raised me from the turbulent pit,
from the slimy mud, and set my feet upon a rock, steadying my steps.
4. He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn
to our God; multitudes will see and fear, and will trust in the Lord.
5. Fortunate is the man who has made the
Lord his trust, and did not turn to the haughty, nor to those who stray after
falsehood.
6. You have done much, O You, Lord my
God-Your wonders and thoughts are for us; none can compare to You; should I
relate or speak of them, they are too numerous to recount!
7. You desired neither sacrifice nor
meal-offering, but [obedient] ears You opened for me; You requested neither
burnt-offering nor sin-offering.
8. Then I said, "Behold, I come with
a Scroll of the Book written for me."1
9. I desire to fulfill Your will, my God;
and Your Torah is in my innards.
10. I proclaimed [Your] righteousness in
a vast congregation; behold I will not restrain my lips-O Lord, You know!
11. I did not conceal Your righteousness
within my heart; I declared Your faithfulness and deliverance; I did not hide
Your kindness and truth from the vast congregation.
12. May You, Lord, not withhold Your
mercies from me; may Your kindness and truth constantly guard me.
13. For countless evils surround me; my
sins have overtaken me and I cannot see; they outnumber the hairs of my head,
and my heart has abandoned me.
14. May it please You, Lord, to save me;
O Lord, hurry to my aid.
15. Let those who seek my life, to end
it, be shamed and humiliated together; let those who desire my harm retreat and
be disgraced.
16. Let those who say about me,
"Aha! Aha!" be desolate, in return for their shaming [me].
17. Let all those who seek You exult and
rejoice in You; let those who love Your deliverance always say, "Be
exalted, O Lord!”
18. As for me, I am poor and needy; my
Lord will think of me. You are my help and my rescuer; my God, do not delay!
Chapter 41
This psalm teaches many good character
traits, and inspires one to be thoughtful and conscientious in giving
charity-knowing to whom to give first. Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the
sick one, providing him with his needs.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of
the poor, [for] the Lord will save him on the day of evil.
3. The Lord will guard him and keep him
alive; he will be praised throughout the land; You will not deliver him to the
desires of his enemies.
4. The Lord will support him on the bed
of illness; You will turn him over in his bed all throughout his sickness.
5. I said, "Lord, be gracious to me!
Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You!”
6. My foes say that evil [awaits] me:
"When will he die, and his name perish?”
7. And if one comes to see [me], he
speaks insincerely, for his heart gathers iniquity for himself, and when he
goes out he speaks of it.
8. Together they whisper against me-all
my enemies; against me they devise my harm, [saying]:
9. "Let his wickedness pour into
him; now that he lies down, he shall rise no more.”
10. Even my ally in whom I trusted, who
ate of my bread, has raised his heel over me.
11. But you, Lord, be gracious to me and
raise me up, and I will repay them.
12. With this I shall know that You
desire me, when my enemies will not shout gleefully over me.
13. And I, because of my integrity, You
upheld me; You set me before You forever.
14. Blessed is the Lord, the God of
Israel, to all eternity, Amen and Amen.
Chapter 42
This psalm awakens the hearts of the
Children of Israel who do not feel the immense ruin, loss, and bad fortune in
their being exiled from their Father's table. Were they wise, they would
appreciate their past good fortune in coming thrice yearly, with joy and great
awe, to behold God during the festivals, free of adversary and harm. May God
place mercy before us from now to eternity, Amen Selah.
1. For the Conductor, a maskil1 by the
sons of Korach.
2. As the deer cries longingly for brooks
of water, so my soul cries longingly for You, O God!
3. My soul thirsts for God, for the
living God. When will I come and behold the countenance of God?
4. My tears have been my bread day and
night, when they say to me all day, "Where is your God?”
5. These do I recall, and pour out my
soul from within me: how I traveled [to Jerusalem] in covered wagons; I would
walk leisurely with them up to the House of God, amid the sound of rejoicing
and thanksgiving, the celebrating multitude.
6. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why
do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him for the
deliverances of His countenance.
7. My God! My soul is downcast upon me,
because I remember You from the land of Jordan and Hermon's peaks, from Mount
Mitzar.2
8. Deep calls to deep3 at the roar of
Your channels; all Your breakers and waves have swept over me.
9. By day the Lord ordains His kindness,
and at night His song is with me, a prayer to the God of my life.
10. I say to God, my rock, "Why have
You forgotten me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the enemy?”
11. Like a sword in my bones, my
adversaries disgrace me, when they say to me all day, "Where is your God?”
12. Why are you downcast, my soul, and
why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my
deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
Chapter 43
A significant prayer concerning the
magnitude of the troubles we have suffered at the hands of the impious nations.
May it be God's will to send Moshiach and Elijah the Prophet, who will lead us
to the Holy Temple to offer sacrifices as in days of old.
1. Avenge me, O God, and champion my
cause against an impious nation; rescue me from the man of deceit and iniquity.
2. For You are the God of my strength;
why have You abandoned me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the
enemy?
3. Send Your light and Your truth, they
will guide me; they will bring me to Your holy mountain and to your
sanctuaries.
4. Then I will come to the altar of
God-to God, the joy of my delight-and praise You on the lyre, O God, my God.
5. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why
do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my
deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
---
Today's Tanya Lesson - Likutei Amarim,
end of Chapter 6
Tuesday, 7 Tevet 5774 / 10 December 2013
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 6
ולכן נקרא עולם הזה ומלואו עולם הקליפות וסטרא
אחרא
That is why this world with all it
contains is called the world of kelipot and sitra achra — despite the fact that
this world, too, receives its vitality from G‑d’s holiness.
Since the creatures of this physical
world feel themselves to be independent, separate beings, and their surrender
to G‑dliness is not
apparent, they automatically belong to the realm of kelipah.
ולכן כל מעשה עולם הזה קשים ורעים והרשעים גוברים
בו, כמו שכתוב בע׳ חיים, שער מ״ב סוף פרק ד׳
This is also why all affairs of this
world are severe and evil, and the wicked prevail in it (as is written in Etz
Chayim, Portal 42, end of ch. 4).
In the following note, referring to his
previous statement that this is a world of kelipot, the Alter Rebbe writes that
this is so notwithstanding the fact that G‑dliness pervades all existence; or,
stated in the terminology of the Kabbalah, that G‑d’s infinite light (Or Ein Sof) clothes
itself in the Sefirot of the four Worlds —Atzilut, Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah,
and thereby even this physical world is filled with the Or Ein Sof; yet,
despite all this, it is still a world of kelipot.
הגהה
עם היות בתוכו עשר ספירות דעשיה דקדושה, וכמו
שכתוב בע׳ חיים, שער מ״ג
NOTE
To be sure, this world contains the Ten
Sefirot of [the World of] Asiyah, as is written in Etz Chayim, Portal 43.
(The World of Asiyah comprises both our
physical world, and the spiritual World of Asiyah. The Sefirot of the spiritual
Asiyah are, however, contained in the physical Asiyah as well.)
ובתוך עשר ספירות דעשיה אלו הן עשר ספירות דיצירה,
ובתוכן עשר ספירות דבריאה, ובתוכן עשר ספירות דאצילות, שבתוכן אור אין סוף ברוך הוא
Now, within these Ten Sefirot of Asiyah
are [contained] the Ten Sefirot of the World of Yetzirah, and within them the
Ten Sefirot of the World of Beriah, and in them the Ten Sefirot of the World of
Atzilut, in which abides the Or Ein Sof.
ונמצא אור אין סוף ברוך הוא מלא כל הארץ הלזו
התחתונה, על ידי התלבשותו בעשר ספירות דארבע עולמות, אצילות בריה יצירה עשיה
Thus, the Or Ein Sof pervades this entire
lowest world by being clothed in the Ten Sefirot of the four Worlds — Atzilut,
Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah,
כמו שכתוב בע׳ חיים, שער מ״ז פרק ב׳, ובספר
גלגולים פרק כ׳
as is written in Etz Chayim, Portal 47,
ch. 2, and in Sefer Gilgulim, ch. 20.
END OF NOTE
Yet, because the creatures of this world
are not openly surrendered to G‑d, this is a world of kelipot and sitra achra.
Until here it has been explained that all
thoughts, utterances and actions that are not directed towards holiness are
sitra achra, and that these are the garments by which the animal soul expresses
itself.
But this merely places the garments on a
par with the animal soul itself, which like them stems from the sitra achra. It
was explained earlier, however, that the garments of the divine soul are of a
higher spiritual level than the soul itself, and elevate it, and that the
animal soul is structured as a mirror-image of the divine soul. It follows,
then, that the animal soul’s garments are on an even lower level than the
animal soul itself and that they degrade it.
The Alter Rebbe goes on to explain that
this is indeed the case. After a discussion of the two categories of kelipah
(mentioned in the introduction to this chapter), he concludes that there are
those garments of the animal soul that drag down the soul from the level of
kelipat nogah — the soul’s natural state — to the level of the three completely
impure kelipot. These are: sinful thoughts, and forbidden words and actions.1
אלא שהקליפות הן נחלקות לשתי מדרגות, זו למטה
מזו
However, the kelipot are divided into two
categories, one lower than the other.
המדרגה התחתונה היא שלש קליפות הטמאות ורעות
לגמרי, ואין בהם טוב כלל
The lower category consists of three
completely unclean and evil kelipot, containing no good whatever.
ונקראו במרכבת יחזקאל: רוח סערה וענן גדול וגו׳
In the prophet Yechezkel’s vision of the
Divine chariot in which he saw and described the forces that conceal G‑dliness they
are described2 as “a stormwind,” “a great cloud” and “a flaring fire,”
representing these three wholly unclean kelipot.
ומהן נשפעות ונמשכות נפשות כל אומות העולם וקיום
גופם
From them flow and are derived the souls
of all the nations of the world, and the sustaining force of their bodies which
sustains their existence; apart from the soul, which animates them.
ונפשות כל בעלי חיים הטמאים ואסורים באכילה,
וקיום גופם
Also derived from these kelipot are the
souls of all living creatures that are unclean and forbidden to be eaten, and
the sustaining force of their bodies.
וקיום וחיות כל מאכלות אסורות מהצומח, כמו ערלה
וכלאי הכרם כו׳, וכמו שכתוב בע׳ חיים, שער מ״ט פרק ו׳
The existence and life of all forbidden
vegetation, too, such as orlah (the first three years‘ fruit of a tree), and a
mixture of grain seeds in a vineyard, and so forth, are derived from these
kelipot, as is written in Etz Chayim, Portal 49, ch. 6.
וכן, קיום וחיות כל המעשה דבור ומחשבה של כל
שס״ה לא תעשה וענפיהן, כמו שכתוב שם סוף פרק ה׳
Similarly, the existence and life of any
act, utterance or thought in violation of any one of the 365 [Biblical]
prohibitions, as well as their [Rabbinic] offshoots are all derived from these
three impure kelipot, as is written there, end of ch. 5.
The animal soul, on the other hand, is of
kelipat nogah, which contains an element of good (as mentioned in ch. 1). These
sinful garments, belonging to the realm of wholly impure kelipot, are thus
lower than the animal soul itself, and drag it down to their level; in exact
opposition to the divine soul’s garments of the thought, speech and action of
Torah and the mitzvot which are higher than the soul and elevate it.
——— ● ———
FOOTNOTES
1. The
Rebbe notes: In the case of one who ate “neutrally” (neither “for the sake of
heaven” nor to indulge his animal soul’s desire, but merely to sate his
hunger), it is questionable whether this applies (i.e., whether this too
degrades the animal soul). It would appear so from Kuntres Etz HaChayim, ch. 3
(where it is written that eating “neutrally” coarsens one at least to the point
of leading him to self-indulgence). It is similarly written further in ch. 13
of Tanya that one’s animal soul gains strength by being exercised through
eating and drinking. No proof to the contrary can be adduced from the
expression in ch. 7 that such (“neutral”) actions are “no better” than the
animal soul itself (and hence, they are apparently also no worse), for it is
quite possible that the words “no better” indicate merely that they all belong
to the same category: like the animal soul itself, such actions are of the
realm of kelipat nogah, not of holiness. In his Kitzurei Tanya, the Tzemach
Tzedek apparently takes these words in the same vein.
2. Yechezkel
1:4.
---
Rambam - Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
P246
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel
to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are
instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the
exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 246
Laws of Claims
"In every case of trespass...in
which one can say: 'This is it'"—Exodus 22:8.
We are commanded to adjudicate monetary
cases between litigants [according to the laws outlined in the Torah].
Laws of Claims
Positive Commandment 246
Translated by Berel Bell
The 246th mitzvah is that we are
commanded regarding claims and counterclaims [in lawsuits.]
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1
(exalted be He), "In every case of dishonesty... [and the watchman] said
that this is it."
In the words of the Mechilta: "The
phrase 'that this is it' refers to partial admission to the claim."2
This mitzvah includes anything that can
arise from the claims people have against one another involving admission and
denial.
The details of this commandment are
explained in the 3rd chapter of Bava Kama, the beginning of Bava Metzia, and
the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Shavuos. Many questions regarding this
subject are spread throughout the Talmud.
FOOTNOTES
1. Ex.
22:8.
2. Since
he has made a partial admission, he is required to take an oath regarding the
rest of the claim.
---
Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day: Metamme'ey
Mishkav uMoshav Chapter 12
Chapter 12
Halacha 1
When a person entrusts keilim to an
unlearned person or gives a k'li to an unlearned artisan to fix, they are
considered to be impure because of the impurity associated with a human corpse
and the impurity of midras. If the watchman is familiar with the owner of the
keilim and knows that he is a priest who partakes of terumah, they are considered
as pure with regard to the impurity associated with a corpse, but are
considered to have contracted midras impurity. The rationale is that it is
suspected that his wife sat on them while she was in the nidah state without
his knowledge, since care is not taken with regard to ritual impurity in the
homes of unlearned people.
Halacha 2
When a person places his keilim down
before an unlearned person and tells him: "Watch these for me," they
are considered to have contracted midras impurity, but not the impurity
associated with a human corpse. If he placed them on the shoulder of the
unlearned person, they are considered to have contracted both types of
impurity.
If one left his keilim in a synagogue,
they are considered as pure, for it is not entirely a domain of unlearned
persons. If he left his keilim in a bathhouse and found them as he left them,
they are pure, but he is taught not to do this in the future.
If one left his vat or his cistern
unattended, even if he entered a city and returned and found an unlearned
person next to the vat or the cistern, they are considered as pure, because the
unlearned person does not have license to enter.
Halacha 3
When a person entrusts the key to his
house to an unlearned person, everything in the house is considered as pure,
for he entrusted only the key to him for safekeeping.
Halacha 4
When a person places his keilim in the
lockers of a bathhouse and locked them, the keilim are pure, even if he gave
the key to an unlearned person. Similarly, if he sealed the locker or made a
sign on it, his keilim are pure even if the seal has been broken.
Halacha 5
When a chavair leaves an unlearned person
in his house to watch it and the owner sits a certain distance away, when he
sees the people who enter and depart, all the foods, liquids, and earthenware
containers that are not tightly sealed are impure. By contrast, surfaces on
which one lies or rides and earthenware containers that are tightly sealed are
pure. If the owner cannot see the people who enter or depart, everything in the
house is impure. Even if the unlearned person he left in the home was bound or
had his hands and feet cut off, everything is considered as impure, because it
was in the domain of an unlearned person.
Halacha 6
When a chavair slept in the home of an
unlearned person and his clothes were folded and placed under his head and his
sandal and his jug were placed before him, they are considered as pure, because
they are assumed to be guarded by their owner. The unlearned person will not
touch them for he will say to himself: "Now he will wake up and see
me."
Halacha 7
When an unlearned person borrows a bed
from a chavair and sleeps on it in the house of the chavair, only that bed and
the area which he can touch when extending his hand from the bed are impure.
Halacha 8
When a chavair told an unlearned person:
"Watch this cow for me so that it will not enter the house" or
"...break these utensils," the house and the utensils are pure, for
he charged him only with guarding the cow. If, however, he told him:
"Watch this house for me so that the cow will not enter it" or
"Watch these utensils so that it will not break them," the house and
the utensils are impure.
Halacha 9
The following rules apply when one leaves
an unlearned person lying down in his house and departs. Whether he left him
awake and discovered him awake when he returned, he left him sleeping and found
him sleeping, or left him awake and found him sleeping, everything in the house
is pure. If he left him asleep and he found him awake, any place that is close
to him to which he can extend his hand and touch is impure.
Similarly, if one leaves craftsmen in his
house, only the places that they can reach when they extend their hands and
touch are impure. We do not say that perhaps they climbed onto a chair or a
ladder and touched a k'li or food that was hanging on a high place on the wall.
Halacha 10
When the wife of a chavair leaves the
wife of an unlearned person - or two such women - to grind flour in her home,
only the places which the wife of the unlearned person can reach when she
extends her hand and touch are impure. This applies even if the mill stops for
a time. We do not say that while one was grinding, the other searched through
everything in the house and maybe even suspended herself and ascended to high
places.
Halacha 11
When a woman standing at the entrance to
her house went in to take out a loaf of bread for a poor man and when she came
out, found him standing at the side of loaves of bread, they are pure - even if
they are terumah. The rationale is that it can be assumed that he would not
touch anything without permission. Similarly, if a woman departed and when she
returned, found the wife of an unlearned person stirring the coals that are under
her pot, the pot is pure.
Halacha 12
When tax-collectors for the ruling
kingdom entered a house to take security for money that is owed, everything in
the house is impure. If they are accompanied by a gentile, their word is
accepted if they say they did not touch something, because they are possessed
by fear of the gentile.
When does the above apply? When there are
witnesses that they entered or they have security which they took in their
hands. If, however, they say on their own initiative: "We entered, but did
not touch anything," their word is accepted. The rationale is: the same
person whose words aroused our suspicion also allayed it.
Halacha 13
When thieves entered a house, only the
path where the thieves walked is impure. The rationale is that they are afraid
to search through the entire house. Instead, they take only what is at hand.
To what do they impart impurity on the
path where they walk? To food, liquids, and open earthenware containers.
Surfaces on which one lies or rides and earthenware containers that are sealed
closed are pure. If there is a gentile or a woman among them, everything is
impure.
Halacha 14
When tax-collectors and thieves repent
and return the articles they took on their own initiative, and not because of
fear, and when doing so, say: "When we entered, we did not touch anything
that was in the house except what we took," their word is accepted even
with regard to articles that were in their path.
Halacha 15
When a person leaves his house open and
finds it open or finds it locked - and even if he left it locked and found it
open - and nothing was stolen from it, everything in the house is pure. We
assume that thieves opened the door and then changed their minds and did not
enter.
Halacha 16
When a hatchet is lost in a house or left
in one corner and found in another corner, all the contents of the house are
impure, for we assume that an impure person entered the house and took it.
Halacha 17
When a person lives together with an
unlearned person and shares a common courtyard, if he forgot articles in the
courtyard - even barrels that were sealed close or an oven that was sealed
close - they are considered as impure. For them to be considered as pure, he
must construct a barrier ten handbreadths high around the oven so that it will
not be in the domain of an unlearned person.
Halacha 18
When a chavair has a partition or a hut
before the entrance to an unlearned person's home or an unlearned person has a
partition or a hut before the entrance to a chavair's home, keilim in the hut
or in the partition are impure, because the unlearned person has the right to
enter this hut or this partition.
Halacha 19
When the roof of a chavair is above the
roof of an unlearned person, thechavair may lay out utensils there and place
pure foods there under the presumption that their status has not changed, even
though the unlearned person could extend his hand and touch them. Similarly, if
his neighbor is a gentile, he need not be concerned about impurity or wine used
for libations to a false deity.
If the roofs were next to each other on
the same level or the roof of the unlearned person was higher and the chavair
laid out utensils or left pure foods on his roof, every place to which the
unlearned person could extend his hand and touch is considered to be impure.
Halacha 20
When there are two courtyards, one inside
the other, the inner one belonging to a chavair and the outer one, belonging to
an unlearned person, the chavair may place his utensils in his courtyard and
spread out his produce there, even though the unlearned person's hand could reach
there. There is no suspicion that the unlearned person would touch them,
because he would be considered as a thief.
Halacha 21
When a courtyard is divided by a
lattice-work barrier, with a chavair's domain on one side and an unlearned
person's domain on the other side, the pure food belonging to the chavair is
considered as pure, even though the unlearned person's hand could reach there.
There is no suspicion that the unlearned person would touch it, because it is
in the domain of the chavair.
Halacha 22
When the bucket of a chavair fell into
the well of an unlearned person and the chavair went to get materials to lift
it up, it is considered as impure. The rationale is that it was left unattended
in the domain of an unlearned person for a given time.
Halacha 23
When the wife of an unlearned person
enters the house of a chavair to take out the son or the daughter of the
chavair or his animal, everything in the house is pure, because she entered
without permission.
When a potter who is a chavair brings his
pots to sell and he descends to a well to drink, those on the inner rows are
pure, but those on the outer rows are impure. When does the above apply? When
he placed them near the public domain, because the passersby will touch the
outer ones as they walk by.
Different rules apply if they were placed
down distant from the public domain. If he was carrying the tools of his trade
in his hand, they are all impure, because his tools indicate that they were
placed down to be sold and everyone will touch them. If he was not carrying the
tools of his trade, they are all pure, for it can be assumed that no one
touched them.
When a chavair places food or liquids
down at the entrance to his store and enters, they are considered impure, for
the passersby will touch them.
---
Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day: To`en veNit`an
Chapter 16, Nehalot Chapter 1, Nehalot Chapter 2
Chapter 16
Halacha 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?"
Halacha 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.
Halacha 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."
Halacha 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
Halacha 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.
Halacha 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.
Halacha 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.
Halacha 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.
Halacha 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."
Halacha 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.
Chapter 1
HILCHOT NACHALOT
The Laws Pertaining to Inheritances
It contains one mitzvah: the laws of the
order of inheritance. This mitzvah is explained in the following chapters.
Halacha 1
This is the order of inheritance: When a
person dies, his children inherit his estate. They receive priority over
everyone else, and the sons receive priority over the daughters.
Halacha 2
In every situation, a female does not
inherit together with a male.
If a person does not have children, his
father inherits his estate. A mother does not inherit her son's estate. This
has been conveyed by the Oral Tradition.
Halacha 3
With regard to every concept of
precedence for an inheritance, a person's blood descendants receive precedence.
Therefore, when a person - either a man or a woman - dies and he leaves a son,
he inherits everything. If the son is no longer alive, we look to see if the
son left descendants. If there are descendants of the son, whether male or
female - even the daughter of the daughter of the son's daughter, and this
chain can be continued endlessly -that descendant inherits everything.
If the son does not have descendants, we
return to the deceased's daughter. If there are descendants of the daughter,
whether male or female - and this chain can be continued endlessly - that descendant
inherits everything.
If the son does not have descendants, the
estate returns to the deceased's father. If the father is no longer alive, -we
look to see if the father left descendants - i.e., the brothers of the
deceased. If there is a brother of the deceased or the descendant of a brother,
he inherits everything. If there are no brothers, we return and look to see if
the deceased had a sister. If there is a sister or the descendant of a sister,
that person inherits everything.
If there are no descendants of the
deceased's brothers or sisters, since there are no descendants of the
deceased's father, the estate returns to the deceased's paternal grandfather.
If the paternal grandfather is no longer alive, we look to see if the paternal
grandfather left descendants - i.e., the uncles or aunts of the deceased. The
males receive precedence over the females, and even the descendants of the
males receive precedence over the females, as is the law with regard to the
descendants of the deceased himself.
If there are no uncles or none of their
descendants, the estate returns to the deceased's paternal great-grandfather.
Following this pattern, the chain of inheritance continues to extend until
Reuven the son of Jacob. Thus the order of inheritance is as follows: A son
takes precedence over a daughter. Similarly, all of the son's descendants take
precedence over the daughter. The daughter takes precedence over her paternal
grandfather, and similarly, all her descendants take precedence over her
paternal grandfather.
The deceased's father takes precedence
over the deceased's brothers, because they are the father's descendants. The
deceased's brothers take precedence over his sisters. Similarly, all their
descendants take precedence over the sister.
The deceased's sister takes precedence
over her paternal grandfather, and similarly, all her descendants take
precedence over her paternal grandfather.
The deceased's paternal grandfather takes
precedence over the deceased's uncles. The uncles take precedence over the
aunts. Indeed, all the uncles' descendants take precedence over the aunts. The
aunts take precedence over the deceased's paternal great-grandfather. Indeed,
all the aunts' descendants take precedence over the deceased's paternal
great-grandfather. This pattern should be continued until the beginning of all
generations. Thus, there is no Jew who does not have heirs.
Halacha 4
When a person dies and leaves a daughter
and the daughter of a son - or even the daughter of the son's daughter and this
chain can continue for several generations - the son's daughter takes
precedence. She inherits everything; the deceased's daughter does not receive
anything.
Similar laws applies when a person is
survived by his brother's daughter and his sister, by his uncle's daughter and
his aunt, or in all other analogous situations.
Halacha 5
A woman is, however, given full rights in
the following situation. A person had two sons who died in his lifetime. One of
the sons left three sons and the other left a daughter. Afterwards, the elder
man died. The three grandsons inherit half of the inheritance and the
granddaughter inherits the other half. For each inherits their father's
portion. Similar laws apply with regard to the division of an estate among the
children of the deceased's brothers, the children of his uncles, or the
children of other relatives extending back until the beginning of all
generations.
Halacha 6
With regard to the concept of
inheritance, the family of a person's mother is not considered family.
Inheritance is relevant only with regard to one's father's family. Therefore,
maternal brothers do not inherit each other's estates, while paternal brothers
do. This applies to brothers who share only a father or who share both a father
and a mother.
Halacha 7
All relatives who were conceived through
forbidden relations have equal inheritance rights to those who are conceived
through permitted relations.
What is implied? When a person has a son
or a brother who is a mamzer, he is treated like any of the other sons or any
of the other brothers when it comes to the concept of inheritance. A person's
son who is born by a maid-servant or a gentile woman is not considered his son
at all, and has no right of inheritance whatsoever.
Halacha 8
A woman does not inherit her husband's
estate at all.
A husband inherits all his wife's
property, according to the words of our Sages. He takes precedence over all
others with regard to inheriting her estate. This applies even if she is
forbidden to him - e.g., a widow who was married to a High Priest, or a
divorcee or a woman who had performed chalitzah who was married to an ordinary
priest. Similarly, this applies even if the woman was below majority. Even
though a husband is a deaf-mute, he inherits his wife's estate.
Halacha 9
We have already explained in Hilchot
Ishut that a husband does not inherit his wife's estate until she enters his
domain, and that a man who is mentally aware does not inherit the estate of a
woman whom he married as a deaf mute. This applies even if she later becomes
fully mentally aware.
There we also explained that a husband
inherits the property that enters his wife's domain and which she took
possession of during her lifetime. This applies to the property she brought to
his household as a dowry, and property that she did not bring to his household.
When a husband attempted to divorce his wife, although there is a question
about the validity of the divorce, her husband does not inherit her estate
after her death.
Halacha 10
When a man marries a young girl who does
not need the right of
to nullify a marriage, he does not
inherit her estate, because there is no marriage. Similarly, when a man who was
mentally or emotionally unstable married a mentally aware woman, or a mentally
aware man married a woman who was mentally or emotionally unstable, the husband
does not inherit his wife's estate, for our Sages did not ordain marriage for
such individuals.
Halacha 11
When a man's wife died, and afterwards
her father, her brother, or any of the other individuals whose estate she may
inherit dies, her husband does not inherit their estate. Instead, the estate
should be inherited by her descendants, if she has descendants. If not, the
right of inheritance should return to the family of her father's home. The
rationale is that the husband does not inherit property that is fit to become
hers afterwards, only property that she already inherited before she died.
Halacha 12
Similarly, a husband does not inherit his
wife's estate while he is in the grave as is the ordinary pattern of
inheritance for members of his father's family.
What is implied? A man died, and
afterwards his wife died. We do not say: Since the husband receives precedence
over all others with regard to the inheritance, the husband's heirs should
receive precedence over the woman's other heirs. Instead, the woman's heirs
from her father's family inherit her estate if she dies after her husband.
Halacha 13
Similarly, a son does not inherit his
mother's estate while he is in the grave, so that the estate will be inherited
by his paternal brothers.
What is implied? A person died, and
afterwards his mother died. We do not say that if the son were alive, he would
take precedence in the inheritance of her estate, and hence, the heirs of the
son take precedence over the heirs of this woman. According to the latter
conception, the son's paternal brothers would inherit the estate of his mother
after her death. This view is not accepted. Instead, if the son has children,
they should inherit his mother's estate. If he does not have children, the
estate should return to her father's family.
If, however, the mother died first and
then the son died, even if he was a newborn baby who was born prematurely,
since he survived his mother and then died, he inherits his mother's estate and
then transfers the rights to that estate to the family of his father.
Chapter 2
Halacha 1
A firstborn receives a double portion of
his father's estate, as Deuteronomy 21:17 states: "To give him twice the
portion."
What is implied? If a father left five
sons, one the firstborn, the firstborn receives a third of the estate and each
of the other four receives a sixth. If he left nine sons, the firstborn
receives a fifth and each of the other eight receive a tenth. We follow this
pattern in dividing the estate in all instances.
Halacha 2
When a firstborn is born after his
father's death, he does not receive a double portion. This is derived from
ibid.: 16-17: "On the day when he transfers his inheritance to his sons...
he shall recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one." If his forehead
emerged during the lifetime of his father, even though his entire head did not
emerge until after his father's death, he receives a double portion.
Halacha 3
When a firstborn was born with his
genitals covered by flesh and afterwards, an operation was performed and it was
discovered that he was male, he does not receive a double portion. Conversely,
when an ordinary son was born with a similar condition and after the operation
was performed, it was discovered that he was male, he does not reduce the
firstborn's share. These concepts are derived from ibid.:15 "And she will
bear him sons." Implied is that the sons must be sons from the moment of
birth.
Halacha 4
What is meant by saying that such a son
does not reduce the firstborn's share? A person had a firstborn, two ordinary
sons, and this son whose genitals were covered by flesh and afterwards were
revealed through an operation. The firstborn receives one fourth of the estate
as his extra share as the firstborn, as if there were only two other sons. The
remaining three fourths of the estate are divided equally among the two
ordinary sons, the son who underwent the operation, and the firstborn.
Halacha 5
A child who lived for only one day
reduces the portion of the firstborn, but a fetus does not. Similarly, a son
born after his father's death, does not reduce the portion of the firstborn.
Halacha 6
When there is a question if a son is a
firstborn or an ordinary son - e.g., the firstborn became mixed together with
another - he does not receive a double portion.
What is done? If at first, the babies
were distinct and then they became mixed together," they may compose a
document granting power of attorney to each other, and on that basis take the
portion of the firstborn with their brothers. If the identity of the firstborn
was never known - e.g., the two wives gave birth in one hiding place, - they
should not compose a document granting power of attorney to each other, for
there is no extra portion for the firstborn.
Halacha 7
The following laws apply when a person
had two sons - a firstborn and an ordinary son - and they both died in his
lifetime, after fathering children. The firstborn left a daughter and the
ordinary son left a son. The son of the ordinary son inherits one third of the
estate of his grandfather - i.e., his father's portion. And the daughter of the
firstborn inherits two thirds of that estate, her father's portion.
The same laws apply with regard to the
sons of the deceased's brothers, or the sons of his uncles, or any other set of
heirs. If the father of any of the heirs was a firstborn, the person who
inherits his share of the estate also receives the firstborn's share.
Halacha 8
A firstborn does not receive a double
portion of his mother's estate. What is implied? When a firstborn and an
ordinary son inherit their mother's estate, they divide it equally. This
applies with regard to a son who was the firstborn with regard to the laws of
inheritance, and to one who "open his mother's womb."
Halacha 9
The firstborn with regard to the laws of
inheritance is the first child born to the father, as ibid.:17 states:
"Because he is the first manifestation of his strength." We do not
pay attention to the child's status vis-a-vis his mother. o Even if she gave
birth to several sons previously, since this was the first son born to the
father, he receives a double portion of the inheritance.
Halacha 10
A son who is born after stillborn babies,
even if the stillborn baby was alive when its head emerged from the womb, is
considered the firstborn with regard to the laws of inheritance. Similarly,
when a fetus was born after a full-term pregnancy, but was not alive when its
head emerged, the son who follows is considered the firstborn with regard to
the laws of inheritance.
The term "the first of his strength,"
Deuteronomy 21:17, used with regard to the firstborn implies that no child
before him emerged alive into the world. Hence, when a fetus was alive after
its head emerged after a full-term pregnancy, a son born afterwards in not a
firstborn even the first baby died immediately thereafter.
Halacha 11
Neither a son born by Cesarean section,
nor the son born after him, is considered "the firstborn." The first
son was never "born," and ibid.: 15 states "and she bore sons to
him." And the second son is not given this privilege, for he was preceded
by another.
Halacha 12
When a person had sons as a gentile and
then converted, he does not have a firstborn with regard to the rights of
inheritance. If, however, a Jewish man fathered sons from a maid-servant or from
a gentile woman, since they are not considered his sons, a son he fathers
afterwards from a Jewish woman is considered his firstborn with regard to the
laws of inheritance, and he receives a double portion of his father's estate.
Halacha 13
Even if the firstborn is a mamzer, he
receives a double portion. This is reflected by Deuteronomy 21:16: "But
rather he will recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one." This
refers to a woman whose marriage is "hated." Needless to say, this
applies if the firstborn is the son of a divorcee or a woman who performed
chalitzah.
Halacha 14
There are three individuals whose word is
accepted with regard to the designation of a firstborn: the midwife, the mother
and the father.
The midwife's word is accepted only at the
moment of birth. For example, a woman gave birth to twins; if the midwife said:
"This one emerged first," her word is accepted.
His mother's word is accepted for the
first seven days after birth, when she says: "This one is the
firstborn."
His father's word is always accepted.
Even if the father said that a person who was not known to be his son was his
firstborn son, his word is accepted. Similarly, his word is accepted if he says
that the person whom we consider to be his firstborn is not his firstborn.
Halacha 15
When a father loses his ability to speak,
we check the soundness of his intellect in the same way as is done with regard
to a bill of divorce. If through his motions he indicates - or he writes - that
this is his firstborn son, that son receives a double portion.
Halacha 16
If witnesses testify that they heard a
father make certain statements that clearly indicate that a child is his
firstborn son, the son receives a double portion even though the father did not
explicitly say: "This is my firstborn son."
Halacha 17
If the father was heard saying:
"This son of mine is a firstborn," the son does not necessarily
receive a double portion of the estate because of this testimony. Perhaps the
son was the mother's firstborn, and this was his father's intent. For the son
to receive a double portion, the father must call him: "My son, my
firstborn."
---
Hayom Yom
"Today's Day"
Tuesday Tevet
7 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayigash, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 39-43.
Tanya: consequently, this world (p. 23)...end
of ch. 5. (p. 25).
To avert chibut hakever ("Purgatory
of the grave")1 recite words of Torah, Tehillim, etc., for one sixth of
the day.2 To merit purity of the soul that obviates kaf hakela ("the
hollow of a sling"),3 spend as much of the day as possible in reciting
Mishna, Tanya and Tehillim by heart.
FOOTNOTES
1. Tanya
p. 29 and p. 33. This and kaf hakela (below) are processes of purgatory
undergone by the soul after death.
2. Namely,
four hours.
3. Tanya
p. 33. See Supplementary Footnotes, (p. 124 in the printed version).
---
Daily Thought:
Meditation
This is what meditation is: Once you have
thoroughly learned a concept and organized the ideas in your mind, you then try
to visualize it.
Once you have that visualization, you try
to feel the essential life of the thing.
If your mind is completely focused, then
the idea will move you until you are no longer the same self, and your day is
no longer the same day.
Then it has become yours.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment