CHABAD - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: SUNDAY, NISSAN 27, 5774 • APRIL 27, 2014 - OMER: DAY 12 - HOD SHEB'GEVURAH

CHABAD - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: SUNDAY, NISSAN 27, 5774 • APRIL 27, 2014 - OMER: DAY 12 - HOD SHEB'GEVURAH
TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• COUNT "THIRTEEN DAYS TO THE OMER" TONIGHT 
Tomorrow is the thirteenth day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer for tomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is thirteen days, which are one week and six days, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day is Shavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Yesod sheb'Gevurah -- "Connection in Restraint"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" -- Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed, Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• WARSAW GHETTO UPRISING (1943) 
In the summer of 1942, about 300,000 Jews were deported from Warsaw to Treblinka. When reports of the mass murder in the killing center leaked back to the Warsaw ghetto, an organized resistance began forming, which managed to smuggle a modest chache of arms into the ghetto. On the 14th of Nissan of 1943, the remaining 35,000 Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto (from an original 450,000) staged an organized uprising, and drove back the Nazis with a rain of bullets when they came to begin the final removal of all Jews. The Jewish resistance lasted 27 days. A heroic stand was made in an underground bunker under 18 Mila Street, where hundreds of fighters, including the 24-year-old leader of the uprising, Mordechai Anilevitch, met their death. Although the Ghetto was burned to the ground by Iyar 3, a few stray survivors hid in the rubble and fired at the Nazis for two months longer.
In tribute to the uprising, the Israeli government designated the 27th of Nissan as its official "Holocaust and Bravery Day," and in many Jewish communities the day is observed as an annual Holocaust remembrance day. But because of the halachic prohibition to conduct eulogies and other mournful events in the festive month of Nissan, the chief rabbinate of Israel, and many Jewish communities, observe instead the 10th of Tevet as a day to mourn and remember the six million, which include many whose yahrtzeit (date of passing) remains unknown.
DAILY QUOTE:
A person should have two pockets in his coat. One should contain the Talmudic saying, "A person is commanded to maintain: For my sake was the world created." In the second pocket he should keep the verse, "I am but dust and ashes."--Chassidic master Rabbi Simchah Bunim of Peshischa
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Emor, 1st Portion Leviticus 21:1-21:15 with Rashi
• Chapter 21
1. And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to the kohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: Let none [of you] defile himself for a dead person among his people א. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם לְנֶפֶשׁ לֹא יִטַּמָּא בְּעַמָּיו:
Speak to the kohanim: Heb. אֱמֹר וְאָמַרְתָּ “Speak [to the Kohanim …] and say [to them],” lit. “Say…and you shall say.” [This double expression comes] to admonish the adult [Kohanim to be responsible] for the minors [that they must not contaminate them (Mizrachi)]. — [Yev. . 114a]
אמר אל הכהנים: אמור ואמרת, להזהיר גדולים על הקטנים:
the sons of Aaron: [Had Scripture used just this expression,] I would have thought that even desecrated [kohanim, those born from forbidden unions, as in verse 7, are included in this admonition to separate from uncleanness]. Scripture, therefore, states, “the kohanim ” [to teach us that the admonition applies only to non-desecrated kohanim].
בני אהרן: יכול חללים, תלמוד לומר הכהנים:
the sons of Aaron: Even those who have defects are implied.
בני אהרן: אף בעלי מומין במשמע:
the sons of Aaron: But not the daughters of Aaron, [who may become defiled for the dead]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:1,2]
בני אהרן: ולא בנות אהרן:
Let none [of you] defile himself [for a dead person] among his people: While the dead person is among his people [and therefore has people, non- kohanim, to bury him]. This comes to exclude [from the prohibition a kohen who comes across] a מֵתמִצְוָה, [a dead person for whom no one is in calling distance to attend to his burial and thus it is incumbent for people to attend to him]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:4]
לא יטמא בעמיו: בעוד שהמת בתוך עמיו, יצא מת מצוה:
2. except for his relative who is close to him, his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his brother, ב. כִּי אִם לִשְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו לְאִמּוֹ וּלְאָבִיו וְלִבְנוֹ וּלְבִתּוֹ וּלְאָחִיו:
except for his relative: [The expression שְׁאֵרוֹ] “his relative” refers only [here] to his wife. — [Torath Kohanim 21:5; Yev. . 22b]
כי אם לשארו: אין שארו אלא אשתו:
3. and for his virgin sister who is close to him, who was not [yet] with a man for her, he shall defile himself. ג. וְלַאֲחֹתוֹ הַבְּתוּלָה הַקְּרוֹבָה אֵלָיו אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָיְתָה לְאִישׁ לָהּ יִטַּמָּא:
who is close [to him]: [This expression is] to include the sister who was betrothed [but not yet married] - [Torath Kohanim 21:5; Yev.. 60a]
הקרובה: לרבות את הארוסה:
who was not [yet] with a man: for relations. — [see Yev. 60a]
אשר לא היתה לאיש: למשכב:
for her, he shall defile himself: [This is] an obligation [for him to do so]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:8; Sotah 3a]
לה יטמא: מצוה:
4. [But] a husband shall not defile himself for [a wife who causes] his desecration, [while she is] among his people. ד. לֹא יִטַּמָּא בַּעַל בְּעַמָּיו לְהֵחַלּוֹ:
[But] a husband shall not defile himself for [a wife who causes] his desecration, [while she is] among his people: He may not defile himself for his [deceased] wife who was unfit for him, and by whom he was desecrated [from his status,] while she was with him. — [Torath Kohanim 21:10; Yev.. 22b] And this is the simple meaning of the verse: “A husband shall not defile himself” for his relative [i.e., his wife], while she is still “among his people,” i.e., while she has [non- kohen] relatives who can attend to her burial, for she is therefore not under the category of an unattended deceased. And which relative [i.e., wife] are we dealing with here? [With a wife] “through whom he becomes desecrated (לְהֵחַלּוֹ),” i.e., [because she was unfit to marry him,] he subsequently becomes desecrated from his kehunah [and is unfit to perform the Holy Service].
לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו: לא יטמא לאשתו פסולה שהוא מחולל בה בעודה עמו. וכן פשוטו של מקרא לא יטמא בעל בשארו בעוד שהוא בתוך עמיו, שיש לה קוברין, שאינה מת מצוה, ובאיזה שאר אמרתי, באותו שהוא להחלו, להתחלל הוא מכהונתו:
5. They shall not make bald patches on their heads, nor shall they shave the edge of their beard, nor shall they make cuts in their flesh. ה. לֹא יִקְרְחוּ קָרְחָה בְּרֹאשָׁם וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ וּבִבְשָׂרָם לֹא יִשְׂרְטוּ שָׂרָטֶת:
They shall not make bald patches on their heads: for a deceased. But are not [all] Israelites warned against this (see Deut. 14:1)]? However, when referring to the Israelites, Scripture says, “[You shall not…make any baldness] between your eyes [for the dead]” (Deut. 14:1). Thus, one might think that one is not liable [for making bald patches] anywhere else on the head. Scripture, therefore, says [regarding kohanim] “[They shall not make bald patches] on their heads” [teaching us that the prohibition applies to the entire head]. And we can extrapolate from kohanim to all Israelites through a gezeirah shavah [i.e., a Rabbinical tradition linking the laws of two otherwise unrelated verses or passages through common key words or phrases, as follows]: Here [regarding kohanim] Scripture uses the expression קָרְחָה - bald patches, and there regarding Israelites, Scripture [also] uses the expression קָרְחָה - bald patches. Thus, just as here [regarding kohanim, the prohibition applies to] the entire head, so is it understood further [regarding all Israelites], [that the prohibition applies to] the entire head, wherever one makes a bald patch on the head, [not just “between the eyes”], and just as there [regarding all Israelites, the prohibition applies to making bald patches only as a gesture of mourning] over a dead person [(see Deut. 14:1), “You shall not…make any baldness…for the dead”] - so, here [regarding kohanim, the prohibition applies to making bald patches only as a gesture of mourning] over a dead person. — [Torath Kohanim 21:11; Mak. 20a]
לא יקרחה קרחה: על מת. והלא אף ישראל הוזהרו על כך, אלא לפי שנאמר בישראל (דברים יד א) בין עיניכם, יכול לא יהא חייב על כל הראש, תלמוד לומר בראשם, וילמדו ישראל מהכהנים בגזרה שוה, נאמר כאן קרחה ונאמר להלן בישראל קרחה, מה כאן כל הראש אף להלן כל הראש במשמע, כל מקום שיקרח בראש. ומה להלן על מת, אף כאן על מת:
nor shall they shave the edge of their beard: Since it is stated in reference to all Israelites, “and you shall not destroy [the edge of your beard]” (Lev. 19:27), one might think that if one removed [the hairs] with tweezers or with a plane, one would be liable [to lashes]. Therefore, it says [here], “nor shall they shave,” [meaning] that one is liable only for something called “shaving” (גִּלוּחַ) with “destruction” (הַשְׁחָתָה) involved in it - that being a razor. — [Mak. 21a]
ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו: לפי שנאמר בישראל (ויקרא יט כז) ולא תשחית, יכול לקטו במלקט וברהיטני יהא חייב, לכך נאמר לא יגלחו, שאינו חייב אלא על דבר הקרוי גלוח ויש בו השחתה, וזהו תער:
nor shall they make cuts in their flesh: יִשְׂרְטוּ שָׂרֶטֶת, lit. “nor shall they cut a cut in their flesh.” [Why the double language?] Since regarding [all] Israelites, Scripture states (Lev. 19:28), “You shall not make cuts in your flesh for a person [who died],” one might think, that if someone made [several, e.g.,] five cuts, he would be liable for [having transgressed] only one [negative commandment]. Scripture, therefore, states, “nor shall they cut a cut,” to make one becomes liable for every individual cut made. For this word שָׂרֶטֶת is superfluous and thus is to be expounded [as above], as Scripture could have [merely] written, “nor shall they cut,” [in which case] I would have known that it means [not to cut] a cut. [Hence, the superfluous שָׂרֶטֶת was written to make one liable for each individual cut.]- [Torath Kohanim 21:12]
ובבשרם לא ישרטו שרטת: לפי שנאמר בישראל (ויקרא שם כח) ושרט לנפש לא תתנו, יכול שרט חמש שריטות לא יהא חייב אלא אחת, תלמוד לומר לא ישרטו שרטת, לחייב על כל שריטה ושריטה. שתיבה זו יתירה היא לדרוש, שהיה לו לכתוב לא ישרטו ואני יודע שהיא שרטת:
6. They shall be holy to their God, and they shall not desecrate their God's Name, for they offer up the fire offerings of the Lord, the food offering of their God, so they shall be holy. ו. קְדשִׁים יִהְיוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ שֵׁם אֱלֹהֵיהֶם כִּי אֶת אִשֵּׁי יְהֹוָה לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֵיהֶם הֵם מַקְרִיבִם וְהָיוּ קֹדֶשׁ:
They shall be holy: [Since Scripture does not state “They are holy,” but rather “They shall be holy,” it means that if kohanim wish to defile themselves over the dead and thereby desecrate their holiness]-against their will, the court must [prevent them from doing so, and thereby] sanctify them in this respect. — [Mizrachi; Torath Kohanim 21:13]
קדשים יהיו: על כרחם יקדישום בית דין בכך:
7. They shall not marry a woman who is a prostitute or who is desecrated, and they shall not marry a woman who is divorced from her husband for he [the kohen] is holy to his God. ז. אִשָּׁה זֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה לֹא יִקָּחוּ וְאִשָּׁה גְּרוּשָׁה מֵאִישָׁהּ לֹא יִקָּחוּ כִּי קָדשׁ הוּא לֵאלֹהָיו:
who is a prostitute: Heb. זֹנָה, [a woman] with whom an Israelite who is forbidden to her, has cohabited, for example, [relationships] punishable by excision (see Lev., Chapter 18), or a nathin [a descendant of the Gibeonites who were converted at the time of Joshua (see Josh., chapter 9) and who were forbidden to marry into Israel for all generations], or a mamzer [a product of a forbidden union]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:14; Yev. 61b]
זנה: שנבעלה בעילת ישראל האסור לה, כגון חייבי כריתות או נתין או ממזר:
who is desecrated: Heb. חֲלָלָה, [a woman] who was born from one who is unfit for the kehunah, for example, the daughter of a widow from a Kohen Gadol or the daughter of a divorcee from an ordinary kohen [the children of such unions becoming “desecrated” from the kehunah]. Also, [the term חֲלָלָה includes a woman] who becomes desecrated from the kehunah through relations with one of those who are themselves disqualified for the kehunah. — [Kid. 77a]
חללה: שנולדה מן הפסולים שבכהונה, כגון בת אלמנה מכהן גדול או בת גרושה וחלוצה מכהן הדיוט, וכן שנתחללה מן הכהונה על ידי ביאת אחד מן הפסולים לכהונה:
8. You shall sanctify him, for he offers up the food offering of your God; he shall be holy to you, for I, the Lord Who sanctifies you, am holy. ח. וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ כִּי אֶת לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֶיךָ הוּא מַקְרִיב קָדשׁ יִהְיֶה לָּךְ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי יְהֹוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם:
You shall sanctify him: Against his will- [meaning], that if he refuses to divorce [such a woman, lash him and chastise him until he divorces [her]. — [Yev. 88b; Mizrachi; Torath Kohanim 21:19]
וקדשתו: על כרחו, שאם לא רצה לגרש, הלקהו ויסרהו עד שיגרש:
he shall be holy to you: Treat him with holiness, e.g., he should be the first to commence any matter, and to [be the one who] begins the blessings at a meal. — [Gittin 59b]
קדש יהיה לך: נהוג בו קדושה לפתוח ראשון בכל דבר ולברך ראשון בסעודה:
9. If a kohen's daughter becomes desecrated through adultery she desecrates her father; she shall be burned in fire. ט. וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת אֶת אָבִיהָ הִיא מְחַלֶּלֶת בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף:
If [a kohen’s daughter] becomes desecrated through adultery: Heb. כִּי תֵחֵל. [The word תֵּחֵל here, stems from the word חִלּוּל, desecration, and not from the word הַתְחָלָה, beginning, and thus, the phrase here means:] If she becomes desecrated (תִּתְחַלֵּל) through a forbidden union, whereby she had a marriage-bond to a man and she committed adultery-whether [this bond had been] a betrothal or a marriage. And our Rabbis differ with regards to the matter [i.e., as to which stage of marriage-bond is referred to here]. All agree, however, that Scripture did not speak of a single woman. — [Sanh. 50b-51a]
כי תחל לזנות: כשתתחלל על ידי זנות, שהיתה בה זיקת בעל וזנתה או מן האירוסין או מן הנשואין. ורבותינו נחלקו בדבר, והכל מודים שלא דבר הכתוב בפנויה:
she desecrates her father: She has desecrated and degraded his honor, for [people] will say of him, “Cursed is he who fathered this one! Cursed is he who raised this one!” - [Sanh. 52a]
את אביה היא מחללת: חללה ובזתה את כבודו, שאומרים עליו ארור שזו ילד, ארור שזו גדל:
10. And the kohen who is elevated above his brothers, upon whose head the anointment oil has been poured or who has been inaugurated to wear the garments he shall not leave his hair unshorn or rend his garments. י. וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו אֲשֶׁר יוּצַק עַל רֹאשׁוֹ | שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וּמִלֵּא אֶת יָדוֹ לִלְבּשׁ אֶת הַבְּגָדִים אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם:
he shall not leave his hair unshorn: Heb. לֹא יִפְרָע. He shall not leave his hair unshorn as a gesture of mourning. — [Torath Kohanim 21:27] Now what is considered “leaving one’s hair unshorn?” More than thirty days. — [Sanh. 22b]
לא יפרע: לא יגדל פרע על אבל. ואיזהו גידול פרע, יותר משלשים יום:
11. And he shall not come upon any dead bodies; he shall not defile himself for his father or his mother. יא. וְעַל כָּל נַפְשֹׁת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לֹא יִטַּמָּא:
And [he shall not come] upon any dead bodies: [i.e., he shall not enter] the tent [or house, etc., wherein] the dead person [lies]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:28]
ועל כל נפשת מת וגו': באהל המת:
dead bodies: [This comes] to include [the law that] revi’ith [a “quarter” of a log] of blood [issued] from a dead person, defiles [anything found] in the tent. — [Sanh. 4a]
נפשת מת: להביא רביעית דם מן המת שמטמא באהל:
he shall not defile himself for his father or his mother: [Since the Kohen Gadol, unlike the ordinary kohen (see verse 2 above), is forbidden to defile himself for any dead body, even for his parents, this seemingly superfluous statement here comes only] to permit him [to defile himself] for a מֵת מִצְוָה, a dead person for whom there is no one to attend to [his burial]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:28; Nazir 48a]
לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא: לא בא אלא להתיר לו מת מצוה:
12. He shall not leave the Sanctuary, and he will not desecrate the holy things of his God, for the crown of his God's anointing oil is upon him. I am the Lord. יב. וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל אֵת מִקְדַּשׁ אֱלֹהָיו כִּי נֵזֶר שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת אֱלֹהָיו עָלָיו אֲנִי יְהֹוָה:
He shall not leave the Sanctuary: He shall not [leave the precincts of the Sanctuary to] follow the funeral procession [even of a relative]. — [Sanh. 18a] Furthermore, from here, our Rabbis learned that a Kohen Gadol may offer up sacrifices [even] if he is an onen [i.e., if his close relative died on that day]. [The following, therefore], is its meaning [i.e., the meaning of the verse]: Even if his father or mother died, [the Kohen Gadol] need not leave the Sanctuary, but he may perform the service. — [Sanh.. 84a]
ומן המקדש לא יצא: אינו הולך אחר המטה. ועוד מכאן למדו רבותינו שכהן גדול מקריב אונן, וכן משמעו, אף אם מתו אביו ואמו אינו צריך לצאת מן המקדש אלא עובד עבודה:
he will not desecrate the holy things: [meaning] that he does not thereby desecrate the Holy Service, for Scripture has permitted him [to perform the Holy Service under such circumstances]. However, an ordinary kohen who performs the Holy Service while being an onen, desecrates [it]. — [Sanh. 84a]
ולא יחלל את מקדש: שאינו מחלל בכך את העבודה שהתיר לו הכתוב, הא כהן הדיוט שעבד אונן חלל:
13. He shall marry a woman in her virgin state. יג. וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִבְתוּלֶיהָ יִקָּח:
14. A widow, a divorcee, a woman who is desecrated or a prostitute he shall not marry [any] of these. Only a virgin of his people may he take as a wife. יד. אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זֹנָה אֶת אֵלֶּה לֹא יִקָּח כִּי אִם בְּתוּלָה מֵעַמָּיו יִקַּח אִשָּׁה:
a woman who is desecrated: [The terms וַחֲלָלָה זֹנָה are not to be connected to mean a חֲלָלָה who is a זֹנָה, but rather, they should be read as two separate items, וַחֲלָלָה and then זֹנָה Thus, חֲלָלָה here refers to a woman] who was born from those unfit for the kehunah. — [see Rashi verse 7 above; Torath Kohanim 21: 34]
וחללה: שנולדה מפסולי כהונה:
15. And he shall not desecrate his offspring among his people, for I am the Lord, Who sanctifies him. טו. וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו כִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה מְקַדְּשׁוֹ:
And he shall not desecrate his offspring: But, if he does marry one of those [women listed in the verse as] being unfit [to marry a Kohen Gadol], his offspring from that woman are desecrated from the holiness of the kehunah [and are permitted to defile themselves for the dead, and they may marry a widow or a divorcee]. — [Nachalath Yaakov; Torath Kohanim 21:34]
ולא יחלל זרעו: הא אם נשא אחת מן הפסולות, זרעו הימנה חלל מדין קדושת כהונה:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 120 - 134
• Chapter 120
This psalm rebukes slanderers, describing how the deadly effect of slander reaches even further than weapons.
1. A song of ascents. I have called out to the Lord in my distress, and He answered me.
2. O Lord, rescue my soul from the lips of falsehood, from a deceitful tongue.
3. What can He give you, and what [further restraint] can He add to you, O deceitful tongue?
4. [You resemble] the sharp arrows of a mighty one, and the coals of broom-wood.1
5. Woe unto me that I sojourned among Meshech, that I dwelt beside the tents of Kedar.
6. Too long has my soul dwelt among those who hate peace.
7. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.
Chapter 121
This psalm alludes to the Lower Paradise, from which one ascends to the Higher Paradise. It also speaks of how God watches over us.
1. A song of ascents. I lift my eyes to the mountains-from where will my help come?
2. My help will come from the Lord, Maker of heaven and earth.
3. He will not let your foot falter; your guardian does not slumber.
4. Indeed, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.
5. The Lord is your guardian; the Lord is your protective shade at your right hand.
6. The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night.
7. The Lord will guard you from all evil; He will guard your soul.
8. The Lord will guard your going and your coming from now and for all time.
Chapter 122
The psalmist sings the praises of Jerusalem and tells of the miracles that happened there.
1. A song of ascents by David. I rejoiced when they said to me, "Let us go to the House of the Lord.”
2. Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem;
3. Jerusalem that is built like a city in which [all Israel] is united together.
4. For there the tribes went up, the tribes of God-as enjoined upon Israel-to offer praise to the Name of the Lord.
5. For there stood the seats of justice, the thrones of the house of David.
6. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; may those who love you have peace.
7. May there be peace within your walls, serenity within your mansions.
8. For the sake of my brethren and friends, I ask that there be peace within you.
9. For the sake of the House of the Lord our God, I seek your well-being.
Chapter 123
The psalmist laments the length of time we have already suffered in exile.
1. A song of ascents. To You have I lifted my eyes, You Who are enthroned in heaven.
2. Indeed, as the eyes of servants are turned to the hand of their masters, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes turned to the Lord our God, until He will be gracious to us.
3. Be gracious to us, Lord, be gracious to us, for we have been surfeited with humiliation.
4. Our soul has been overfilled with the derision of the complacent, with the scorn of the arrogant.
Chapter 124
1. A song of ascents by David. Were it not for the Lord Who was with us-let Israel declare-
2. were it not for the Lord Who was with us when men rose up against us,
3. then they would have swallowed us alive in their burning rage against us.
4. Then the waters would have inundated us, the torrent would have swept over our soul;
5. then the raging waters would have surged over our soul.
6. Blessed is the Lord, Who did not permit us to be prey for their teeth.
7. Our soul is like a bird which has escaped from the fowler's snare; the snare broke and we escaped.
8. Our help is in the Name of the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
Chapter 125
1. A song of ascents. Those who trust in the Lord are as Mount Zion which never falters, but abides forever.
2. Mountains surround Jerusalem, and the Lord surrounds His people from this time and forever.
3. For the rod of wickedness will never come to rest upon the lot of the righteous; therefore the righteous need not stretch their hand to iniquity.
4. Be beneficent, O Lord, to the good and to those who are upright in their hearts.
5. But as for those that turn to their perverseness, may the Lord lead them with the workers of iniquity. Peace be upon Israel.
Chapter 126
The psalmist speaks of the future, comparing our Divine service in exile to one who sows arid land, then cries and begs God to send rain upon it so that the seed not be wasted. When he merits to reap the crop, he offers thanks to God.
1. A song of ascents. When the Lord will return the exiles of Zion, we will have been like dreamers.
2. Then our mouth will be filled with laughter, and our tongue with songs of joy; then will they say among the nations, "The Lord has done great things for these.”
3. The Lord has done great things for us; we were joyful.
4. Lord, return our exiles as streams to arid soil.
5. Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy.
6. He goes along weeping, carrying the bag of seed; he will surely return with songs of joy, carrying his sheaves.
Chapter 127
King David instructs his generation, and especially his son Solomon, to be sure that all one's actions be for the sake of Heaven. He also criticizes those who toil day and night in pursuit of a livelihood.
1. A song of ascents for Solomon. If the Lord does not build a house, then its builders labor upon it in vain. If the Lord will not guard a city, the vigilance of its watchman is in vain.
2. It is in vain for you, you who rise early, who sit up late, and who eat the bread of tension, for in fact He gives His loved ones sleep.
3. Behold, the heritage of the Lord is children; the fruit of the womb is a reward.
4. As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of youth.
5. Fortunate is the man who has his quiver full of them; they will not find themselves shamed when they speak with enemies in public places.
Chapter 128
This psalm extols one who enjoys the fruits of his own labor, avoiding theft and deception, even refusing gifts. It also describes behavior appropriate to the God-fearing.
1. A song of ascents. Fortunate is every man who fears the Lord, who walks in His ways.
2. When you eat of the labor of your hands, you will be happy, and you will have goodness.
3. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine in the inner chambers of your house; your children will be like olive saplings around your table.
4. Behold, so will be blessed the man who fears the Lord.
5. May the Lord bless you out of Zion, and may you see the goodness of Jerusalem all the days of your life.
6. And may you see children [born] to your children; peace upon Israel.
Chapter 129
The psalmist laments the troubles of Israel.
1. A song of ascents. Much have they persecuted me from my youth on. Let Israel declare it now-
2. "Much have they persecuted me from my youth on, [but] they have not prevailed against me.”
3. The plowmen plowed upon my back; they wished to make their furrow long.
4. But the Lord is just; He cut the cords of the lawless.
5. They will be humiliated and will be turned back, all the haters of Zion.
6. They will be as grass upon the rooftops that withers before one plucks it,
7. wherewith the reaper has never filled his hand, nor the sheaf-binder his arm;
8. and of which the passers-by never have said: "The blessing of the Lord be upon you; we bless you in the name of the Lord."
Chapter 130
The psalmist prays for an end to this long exile.
1. A song of ascents. Out of the depths I call to You, O Lord.
2. My Lord, hearken to my voice; let Your ears be attentive to the sound of my pleas.
3. God, if You were to preserve iniquities, my Lord, who could survive?
4. But forgiveness is with You, that You may be held in awe.
5. I hope in the Lord; my soul hopes, and I long for His word.
6. My soul yearns for the Lord more than those awaiting the morning wait for the morning.
7. Israel, put your hope in the Lord, for with the Lord there is kindness; with Him there is abounding deliverance.
8. And He will redeem Israel from all its iniquities.
Chapter 131
In this prayer, David declares that never in the course of his life was he haughty, nor did he pursue greatness or worldly pleasures.
1. A song of ascents, by David. O Lord, my heart was not proud, nor were my eyes haughty; I did not seek matters that were too great and too wondrous for me.
2. Surely I put my soul at peace and soothed it like a weaned child with his mother; my soul was like a weaned child.
3. Let Israel hope in the Lord from this time forth and forever.
Chapter 132
David composed this psalm while he and the elders of Israel wore sackcloth, in mourning over the plague that had descended upon the land, and their being distant from the Holy Temple. David therefore offers intense prayers, entreating God to remember the hardship and sacrifice he endured for the sake of the Temple.
1. A song of ascents. O Lord, remember unto David all his suffering,
2. how he swore to the Lord, and vowed to the Mighty Power of Jacob:
3. "I will not enter into the tent of my house; I will not go up into the bed that is spread for me;
4. I will not give sleep to my eyes, nor slumber to my eyelids;
5. until I will have found a place for the Lord, a resting place for the Mighty Power of Jacob.”
6. Lo, we heard of it in Ephrath; we found it in the field of the forest.
7. We will come to His resting places; we will prostrate ourselves at His footstool.
8. Ascend, O Lord, to Your resting place, You and the Ark of Your might.
9. May Your priests clothe themselves in righteousness, and may Your pious ones sing joyous songs.
10. For the sake of David Your servant, turn not away the face of Your anointed.
11. For the Lord has sworn to David a truth from which He will never retreat: "From the fruit of your womb will I set for you upon the throne.
12. If your sons will keep My covenant and this testimony of mine which I will teach them, then their sons, too, will sit on the throne for you until the end of time.
13. For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation.
14. This is My resting place to the end of time. Here will I dwell, for I have desired it.
15. I will abundantly bless her sustenance; I will satisfy her needy with bread.
16. I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her pious ones will sing joyous songs.
17. There I will cause David's power to flourish; there I have prepared a lamp for My anointed.
18. His enemies will I clothe with shame, but upon him, his crown will blossom."
Chapter 133
1. A song of ascents, by David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together.
2. Like the precious oil [placed] upon the head, flowing [in abundance] down the beard, the beard of Aaron which rests upon his garments.
3. Like the dew of Hermon which comes down upon the mountains of Zion, for there the Lord has commanded blessing, life unto eternity.
Chapter 134
The psalmist exhorts the scholarly and pious to rise from their beds at night, and go to the House of God.
1. A song of ascents. Behold: Bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord who stand in the House of the Lord in the nights.
2. Lift up your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.
3. May the Lord, Who makes heaven and earth, bless you from Zion.
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 43
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Sunday, Nissan 27, 5774 • April 27, 2014
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 43
It has previously been noted that the higher level of love can come about only after one’s fear of G d is total. However, the lower level of love may sometimes come about, as shall soon be explained, even without being preceded by the fear of G d.
והנה בחינת אהבה זו, פעמים שקודמת ליראה, כפי בחינת הדעת המולידה, כנודע שהדעת כולל חסדים וגבורות, שהם אהבה ויראה
This [latter] category of love sometimes precedes fear, according to the quality of the Daat which fathers it, as is known. (1For Daat incorporates both Chassadim and Gevurot, which are love and fear; Chessed is love and Gevurah is fear. Daat reveals both these emotions. Thus, binding one’s Daat intensely to the greatness of G d gives rise to both feelings, fear and love,
ופעמים שהחסדים קודמים לירד ולהתגלות 
and sometimes the Chassadim descend and manifest themselves first).
The Chassadim may sometimes precede the Gevurot; this means that Daat may sometimes evoke love before fear.
ולכן אפשר לרשע ובעל עבירות שיעשה תשובה מאהבה הנולדה בלבו, בזכרו את ה׳ אלקיו
Therefore it is possible for a wicked and sinful person to repent by virtue of the love that is born in his heart at the time he remembers the L rd his G d.
Although up to the point of his repentance he was wicked, and lacked a fear of G d, still there may be born in him a love for G d that will lead him to repent.
ומכל מקום, היראה גם כן כלולה בה ממילא, רק שהיא בבחינת קטנות והעלם, דהיינו, יראת חטא למרוד בו, חס ושלום, והאהבה היא בהתגלות לבו ומוחו
At any rate, fear, too, is included therein — in the love, as a matter of course, except that it is [there] in a state of “minuteness” and “concealment”, namely, as the fear of sin — of rebelling against Him, G d forbid, while the love is in a revealed state in his heart and mind, so that consciously the individual is only aware of a love for G d.
אך זהו דרך מקרה והוראת שעה בהשגחה פרטית מאת ה׳ לצורך שעה, כמעשה דרבי אלעזר בן דורדייא
However, such a case — where the wicked and sinful person should suddenly attain a love of G d and become a penitent — where love precedes fear is an extraordinary occurrence, and an “emergency prescription,” through G d’s particular providence as the occasion requires, as happened with Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya,2 who had been sinful, and suddenly became a penitent, repenting out of a love for G d. Indeed, so intense was his penitence that it caused his soul to depart his body.
This was an “emergency prescription” required for that occasion. For it is written3 that Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya was a gilgul — the reincarnated soul — of Yochanan the High Priest, who served in that office for eighty years and then became a Sadducee.4 All the Torah and mitzvot fulfilled by Yochanan were elevated through the transmigration of his soul into the body of Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya, whose life-story followed the reverse course, that of a sinner who ultimately repented out of his love for G d.5
אבל סדר העבודה הקבועה ותלויה בבחירת האדם, צריך להקדים תחלה קיום התורה והמצות על ידי יראה תתאה, בבחינת קטנות על כל פנים, בסור מרע ועשה טוב
However, the [regular] order of divine service, which is determined by and depends on a man’s choice, is to begin with the fulfillment of the Torah and mitzvot through yirah tata‘ah in its state of “minuteness” at least, departing from evil and doing good, i.e., refraining from committing any sins and performing all the mitzvot,
להאיר נפשו האלקית באור התורה ומצותיה
so as to illuminate his divine soul with the light of the Torah and its commandments,
ואחר כך יאיר עליה אור האהבה
whereupon the light of love will also shine upon it,
כי ואהבת בגימטריא ב׳ פעמים אור, כידוע ליודעי ח״ן 
(6for the word ve‘ahavta, (“And you shall love [the L rd your G d]”) has a numerical value twice that of or (“light”), as is known to those who are familiar with the Esoteric Discipline [of the Kabbalah]).
Thus, first must come the illumination earned by the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot; only then can one be granted the illumination of experiencing a love of G d.
FOOTNOTES
1. Parentheses are in the original text.
2. See Avodah Zarah 17a.
3. In Likkutei Torah of the AriZal, Tehillim 32.
4. See Berachot 29a.
5. The Rebbe cites the letter of the previous Rebbe, printed at the end of Kuntres HaAvodah, which states that the Alter Rebbe here speaks of Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya’s love for G d, even though the plain meaning of the narrative would seem to highlight only his repentance. True enough, the experience of ahavat olam alone would not be expected to bring about klot hanefesh, the expiry of his soul. Both love and repentance, however, were present here; indeed, his teshuvah was so intense that his soul left his body while he shed tears of contrition.
6. Parentheses are in the original text.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Sunday, Nissan 27, 5774 • April 27, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 7
Swearing in G d's Name
"And swear by His Name"—Deuteronomy 10:20.
When necessary to conclusively confirm or deny, we are commanded to swear solely in G d's Name. This constitutes an honor for, and exaltation of, G d.
It is forbidden to swear in the name of any other entity, such as an angel or constellation, unless the person's intention is only to swear in the name of the one and only Power who created these entities.
Swearing in G‑d's Name
Positive Commandment 7
Translated by Berel Bell
The 7th mitzvah is that we are commanded to swear in G‑d's name whenever necessary — whether to insure something be done or to prevent ourselves from doing something. [We are required to swear in His name] because it exalts, glorifies, and magnifies G‑d.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "And swear in His name."
Our Sages said explicitly,2 "The Torah tells us 'swear in His name' and 'do not swear.' " This means that just as one may not make an unnecessary oath, which is a prohibition, one is commanded to make a necessary oath, which is a positive commandment.
Therefore, one may not swear in the name of any other creation, such as angels or stars. An exception is where the subject [i.e. G‑d] is obviously omitted, such as one who swears in "the truth of the sun," but means "the true G‑d of [i.e. Who created] the sun." It is in this manner that our nation swears in the name of Moshe — in order to gain honor through [mentioning] his name. It is as if the person uttered the oath, "in the G‑d of Moshe," or "in the One Who sent Moshe." However, when the person uttering the oath does not have this in mind, and swears in the name of a created being having in mind that this object is so true that he can swear on it, he has transgressed, and has "placed an object on the same level as G‑d." The Oral Tradition3 explains that "one who 'places an object on the same level as G‑d' is uprooted from the world."
This is the intention of the verse, "swear in His name," i.e. keep in mind that He alone is the True Existence that it is proper to swear by. In the first chapter of T'murah4 our Sages say, "what is the source that one may take an oath to fulfill a mitzvah? The verse, 'And swear in His name.' "
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 10:20.
2.Sh'vuos 35b.
3.Sukkah 45b.
4.3b.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Thirteen 
Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Thirteen
Halacha 1
When a person encounters a colleague who is on a journey and his animal has fallen under its load, he is commanded to unload the burden from it. This applies whether the animal was carrying a burden appropriate for it, or a burden greater than it could bear.
This is a positive commandment, as Exodus 23:5 states: "You shall certainly help him."
Halacha 2
One should not unload the animal and depart, leaving the wayfarer in panic. Instead, one should lift up the animal together with its owner, and reload the animal's burden upon it, as Deuteronomy 22:4 states: "You shall certainly lift it up." This is another positive commandment.
If one leaves the wayfarer in panic without either unloading or reloading, one has negated the observance of a positive commandment and violated a negative commandment, as Deuteronomy, ibid. states: "You shall not see the donkey of your brother... and conceal yourself...."
Halacha 3
When a priest sees an animal fallen in a cemetery, he should not contract ritual impurity to unload and reload it, just as he does not contract ritual impurity to return a lost article.
Similarly, if he is an elder, whose practice is not to unload and load animals, since this is beneath his dignity he is not liable.
Halacha 4
This is the general principle: If the animal were his own and he would unload and reload it, he is obligated to unload and reload it for a colleague.
If he is pious and goes beyond the measure of the law, even if he is a great nasi, and sees an animal belonging to a colleague fallen under a load of straw, reeds or the like, he should unload and load it with its owner.
Halacha 5
If one unloaded and reloaded the animal, and it fell again, one is obligated to unload and reload it another time, indeed even 100 times, This is indicated by the verbs עזוב תעזוב and הקם תקים in the proof-texts cited above.
For this reason, one must accompany the animal for a parsah, unless the owner of the burden says that it is not necessary.
Halacha 6
When does one become obligated to unload and reload together with its owner? When he sees the fallen animal in a way that can be described as an encounter. For Exodus 23:5 states "When you see your colleague's donkey..." and the previous verse states: "When you encounter...."
How far a distance is implied? Our Sages determined it as being a distance of 266 2/3 cubits - i.e., 1/7.5 of a mil. If a person was further away from a fallen animal, he is not obligated.
Halacha 7
It is a mitzvah from the Torah to unload an animal without charge. Loading it, however, is a mitzvah for which one may charge. Similarly, for the time when one accompanies the animal for a parsah, one may receive payment.
Halacha 8
If one finds an animal belonging to a colleague fallen under its load, it is a mitzvah to unload and reload it even if its owner is not present, for "You shall certainly help" and "You shall certainly lift up..." implies that one must fulfill these mitzvot in all situations.
If so, why does the Torah say "together with him" i.e., the animal's owner? To teach that if the owner of the animal was there and goes off to the side, telling the passerby, "Since you have a mitzvah, if you would like to unload it yourself, unload it," the passerby is not obligated. This is implied by "together with him."
If the owner of the animal was old or ailing, the passerby is obligated to load and unload the animal by himself.
Halacha 9
The following rules apply when the animal [that has fallen is owned by a gentile, but the burden it is carrying is owned by a Jew. If the gentile is the one driving his donkey, one is not obligated toward him. If not, one is obligated to unload and reload it because of the distress suffered by the Jew.
Similarly, if the animal that has fallen is owned by a Jew, but the burden it is carrying is owned by a gentile, one is obligated to unload and reload it because of the distress suffered by the Jew.
When, however, both the animal and the burden are owned by a gentile, a passerby is not obligated to concern himself with the animal, unless there is the possibility that animosity will be aroused.
Halacha 10
When the legs of a donkey owned by one of the donkey drivers in a caravan are shaky, his colleagues may not proceed and pass before him. If it falls, the other donkey drivers may pass him.
Halacha 11
If one donkey was laden with a burden, and another was carrying a rider, and the way became too narrow for both of them, the rider must move to the side to allow the laden donkey to proceed.
If one donkey was laden with a burden, and another was burden-less, the burden-less one must move to the side to allow the laden donkey to proceed. If one was carrying a rider, and another was burden-less, the burden-less one must move to the side to allow the donkey carrying a rider to proceed.
if both are laden with burdens, carrying riders or burden-less, the owners should negotiate a compromise.
Halacha 12
Similarly, there are criteria laid down when two ships that are passing through the same straits confront each other, and if they both try to pass at the same time they would sink, but they could pass one by one, or when two camels that are climbing a high pass confront each other, and if they both try to pass at the same time they would fall, but they could pass one by one.
What should they do? If one was carrying cargo, and another was burden-less, the burden-less one should move to the side in favor of the one that was carrying cargo. If one was close to the port or city from which it set out and one was further removed, the one that was closer should move to the side in favor of the one that was further removed.
If they are both far removed, both close or both laden with cargo, and they both share the same difficulty, they should come to a compromise and reach a financial settlement between themselves. With regard to such situations, it is said Leviticus 19:15: "Judge your colleague with righteousness."
Halacha 13
When a person encounters two individuals: one whose donkey is fallen under its load and one with a donkey whose burden has been unloaded, but who cannot find anyone to help him reload it, it is a mitzvah to unload the fallen donkey first, because of the discomfort suffered by the animal. Afterwards, he should reload the other animal.
When does the above apply? When the two people he encounters are both friends or both enemies. If, however, the one whose donkey must be reloaded is an enemy and the other is a friend, it is a mitzvah for the passerby to reload his enemy's donkey first, in order to subjugate his evil inclination.
Halacha 14
The enemy mentioned in the Torah is not a gentile, but rather a Jew.
One might ask: How is it possible for one Jew to hate another? Is it not written Leviticus 19:17: "Do not hate your brother in your heart"?
Our Sages explained that this is referring to a person who while alone sees a colleague violate a transgression and rebukes him, but the colleague did not cease transgressing. In such an instance, it is a mitzvah to hate the person until he repents and abandons his wickedness.
Even if he did not repent yet, if one sees him in panic because of his cargo, it is a mitzvah to unload and reload with him, instead of leaving him inclined toward death, lest he tarry because of his money and be brought to danger. For the Torah showed concern for the lives of the Jewish people, both the wicked and the righteous, for they are attached to God and believe in the fundamentals of our faith. And Ezekiel 33:11 states: "Say to them, 'As I live,' says God, the Lord, 'Do I desire the death of a wicked man? I desire that the wicked return from his path and live.'
Blessed be God who grants assistance.
With the help of the Almighty, the eleventh book has been completed.
The number of chapters in this book are 62.
Hilchot Nizkei Mammon has 14 chapters.
Hilchot Geneivah has 9 chapters.
Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah has 18 chapters.
Hilchot Chovel UMazik has 8 chapters.
Hilchot Rotzeach USh'mirat HaNefesh has 13 chapters.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 10, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 11, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 12 
Shvuot - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
If [both] or one of [the plaintiff's] witnesses was unacceptable, a relative,1 or even one of those disqualified from testifying by Rabbinic decree, the king - who is not fit to give testimony2 - was one of his witnesses, or the witnesses heard the testimony from other witnesses,3 [although] they both denied [knowing testimony] and took an oath, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut,4 for had they testified, they would not have obligated [the defendant] to pay.5
Halacha 2
[If the plaintiff said:] "I am administering an oath to you that you come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so promised to give me 200 zuz, but he did not," and [the witnesses] denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. For even if they would testify concerning the matter, the defendant would not be liable financially because of his statement.6 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
If one charged [witnesses] with testifying that he was a priest or a Levite, or that he was not the son of a woman who underwent divorce or chalitzah,7 and [the witnesses] denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. For this is not a financial claim.
Halacha 4
[Similarly, although the witnesses] denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut [if the plaintiff] charges them with testifying [with regard to the following claims]:
his son inflicted a wound upon him,
so-and-so kindled his grainheap on the Sabbath,
so-and-so raped or seduced his virgin daughter who had been consecrated.
[The rationale is that] if they were to give this testimony the defendant would be liable for execution by the court8 and not for making financial recompense as we explained in Hilchot Na'arah.9 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
If there was [only] one witness, he denied [knowledge of a financial claim], and an oath was administered to him, he is not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] the testimony of one witness does not obligate financial payment.10
Halacha 6
If one charged two witnesses with testifying that his wife committed adultery and they denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath to that effect, they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut. For if they had testified, they would have caused her to forfeit [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.11 Thus the one who charged them with testifying would be freed from liability. Hence the witnesses have denied a financial claim.
Halacha 7
If [a husband] charges witnesses - [either witnesses] who observed him administering a [sotah] warning12 or those who observed her entering into privacy with the man concerning whom she was warned - with testifying, and they denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath to that effect, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] even if they had testified, [the testimony] would not result in a financial claim only in the obligation to have her drink [the sotah] waters. Although this testimony [can] cause her to forfeit [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah if she does not drink [the sotah waters],13 a matter that could lead to a financial claim is not considered as a financial claim. For it is possible that she will drink the waters and not invalidate her ketubah.
Halacha 8
[A witness] is liable for a sh'vuat haedut [in the following situation. A man] issued a [sotah] warning to his wife. She entered into privacy [as observed by] two witnesses and then committed adultery, [as observed by] one witness after being warned and entering into privacy. If [the husband] administered an oath to this witness that he come and testify and he denied knowledge [of the matter], he is liable. Although he is only one witness, if he would have delivered this testimony, the woman would have been divorced without receiving [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah as explained in Hilchot Sotah.14
Halacha 9
Similarly, in any other instance where the testimony of one witness creates a financial obligation, if that witness denies knowledge [of the matter] and took an oath or an oath was administered to him in court supporting his denial, he is liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
Halacha 10
What is implied? Both the plaintiff and the defendant were reputed [to take false] oaths15and hence they are not given the opportunity to take oaths, [the plaintiff] administered an oath to one witness that he should come and testify that so-and-so owes him a maneh and he denied [knowledge of the matter], he is liable for a sh'vuat haedut. For were he to have testified, the defendant would have been required to pay because of his testimony, as will be explained in Hilchot To'en.16 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 11
When a woman administers an oath to one witness that he testify regarding the death of her husband and he denies [knowledge of the matter], he is liable for a sh'vuat haedut. Were he to have testified, she would have married and received [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.17
Halacha 12
When does the above apply? When she could have collected [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah from movable property.18 If, however, she could only have collected [this sum] by expropriating landed property, [the witness] is not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. This also applies if there are two witnesses, for when one administers an oath [to witnesses for claims] involving landed property, they are not liable [for a sh'vuat haedut,] as we explained.19
Halacha 13
When a person administers an oath to witnesses in a court and both denied [knowledge of the matter] at once, e.g., the second witness began his denial immediately after the statements of his colleague,20 they are both liable for a sh'vuat haedut. Each one of them must bring a sin offering21 for his oath. If the first one denied [knowledge of the matter] and the second witness waited longer than the appointed time period and then denied [knowledge of the matter], the first [witness] is liable for a sh'vuat haedut and the second is exempt. For even if the second had acknowledged [the obligation], his testimony would not have obligated [the defendant] financially.22
Halacha 14
If one of the witnesses acknowledged [the claim] and the other denied [knowledge of it], the one who denied is liable whether he made his denial before [the other witness' acknowledgement] or afterwards.23 If they both denied [knowledge of the matter] at the same time and then one took the initiative and acknowledged [the matter] immediately thereafter,24 he is exempt and the witness that persists in his denial is liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
Halacha 15
When a person administered an oath to two pairs of witnesses who are both fit to deliver testimony and the first group denied [knowledge of the matter] and then the second pair denied knowledge of the matter, the first are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] they are relying on the testimony of the second pair and that testimony is sufficient to expropriate money. Hence the defendant would not be liable to make financial restitution because of the testimony of these [witnesses] who denied [knowledge of the matter] alone.25
If the second pair of witnesses were related to the plaintiff or to the defendant by marriage and their wives were on their deathbeds, the first pair of witnesses are also liable. For at the time the first pair made their denial, the second pair were not fit to give testimony even though they will soon be fit to give testimony when [the women] on their deathbeds die.26 If the second pair make their denial after their wives die, they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
Halacha 16
When a person charges his witnesses with testifying on his behalf and they deny [knowledge of the matter], he administers an oath and they answer Amen,27 he administers an oath four or five times and they respond to each oath outside the court, and when they come to the court, they acknowledge [the matter] and testify, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut, as we explained.28
If [when] they came to court, they persisted in their denial, they are liable for every one of the oaths [administered] outside the court.29
Halacha 17
When does the above30 apply? When they answered Amen. If, however, they did not answer Amen, but [merely] denied [knowledge of the matter] after every oath, they are not liable unless the oath is administered in court, as we explained.31 [The rationale is that] they did not utter the oath themselves or answer Amen.
Halacha 18
If [the plaintiff] administered an oath to [the witnesses] in court and they denied [knowledge of the matter] and then he administered an oath again four or five times and they deny [knowledge of the matter] each time, they are liable only once for a sh'vuat haedut.32 [This applies whether the oath was administered] in court or outside the court and even if they answered Amen or took the oath on their initiative time after time. [The rationale is that] after they denied [knowledge of the matter] in court, were they to retract and admit [knowledge of it], their testimony would no longer be effective.33
Halacha 19
It can thus be derived that all the oaths that they take after denying [knowledge of the matter] in court involve a denial of testimony that would not obligate [the defendant] financially. [In that instance, the witnesses] are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut, but they are liable for a sh'vuat bitui, as we explained.34
FOOTNOTES
1.Relatives are also among these unacceptable as witnesses. See Hilchot Edut from ch. 9 onward for a detailed discussion of which witnesses are not acceptable.
2.See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Melachim 3:7) which explains that since we are required to hold the king in awe, he is not allowed to testify. See also Hilchot Edut 11:9.
3.In which instance, their testimony would not be effective in cases of monetary law.
4.It would seem that according to the Rambam, they are liable for a sh'vuat bitui. The same law applies with regard to the subsequent halachot. See Chapter 9, Halachah 14.
5.Since their testimony is not effective, they are not liable.
6.Making such a statement does not create a binding financial obligation (Sh'vuot 35a).
7.I.e., were his mother to have undergone either divorce or chalitzah, he would be disqualified from the priesthood.
8.The son is liable for execution for wounding his father (Hilchot Mamrim 5:5), the kindler is liable for desecrating the Sabbath, and the seducer or rapist for adultery.
9.Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:13 explains that this concept is derived from the exegesis of Exodus 21:22.
10.As stated in Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 1:2, one witness does not make one liable financially, but it does require an oath. There are times when this requirement will also lead to financial payment, for the defendant may chose to pay rather than to take the oath. Nevertheless, since the matter depends on the defendant's choice and not the witness's testimony, he is not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1. Nevertheless, as stated in Halachot 8-10 of this chapter, when the testimony of one witness does create an obligation for financial payment, the witness is liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
11.For a woman who commits adultery forfeits all the privileges granted her in her ketubah (ante nuptial agreement). See Hilchot Ishut 24:6.
Generally, a person who is guilty of a transgression that involves capital punishment is not held liable for any financial responsibility. This case, however, is an exception, because the woman is not paying anything. It is just that her conduct voids her husband's obligation to pay her.
12.In the era of the Temple, when a man suspected his wife of committing adultery, he would warn her not to enter into privacy with the suspect. Two witnesses had to observe that warning being given. If she in fact entered into privacy with him afterwards as verified by two witnesses, she would have to drink the special sotah waters. If she had indeed committed adultery, the water would cause internal hemorrhaging and she would die. If she was innocent, she would be granted blessings. Here we are speaking of the husband charging either of these two pairs of witnesses to testify.
13.See Hilchot Sotah 2:1.
14.Hilchot Sotah 1:14. Since there are witnesses who testify that she received a warning and that she entered into privacy with the man who was singled out, there is basis to assume that she committed adultery with him. Hence the testimony of one witness is sufficient.
15.See Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 2:1 that mentions the individuals placed in this category: those who took false oaths in the past and those disqualified from testifying because of transgressions they performed.
16.Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 2:4.
17.See Hilchot Gerushin 12:15 which states that our Sages were lenient and accepted the testimony of only one witness in order to allow a woman to remarry. And since they allowed her to remarry on that basis, they also allowed her to collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.
18.I.e., she took possession of movable property during the lifetime of her husband and after his death, sought to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from it. Otherwise, the moveable property left by her husband is not under lien to his obligations and she must expropriate his landed property. This applies according to the ruling of the Talmud. At present, however, our Rabbis have ordained that a person's movable property is on lien to all of his debts (Radbaz; see Hilchot Ishut 16:8).
19.Chapter 9, Halachah 3. This ruling also applies to the situation described in Halachah 11.
20.The term the Rambam uses has a specific halachic meaning: the time it takes to say: "Shalom Elecha Rabbi, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 17.
21.More specifically, an adjustable guilt offering, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 12.
22.Since the first witness denied knowledge of the matter, the testimony of the second witness will not be effective, for he is only one witness.
23.He is liable, for had he testified, his testimony would have obligated the defendant.
24.I.e., within the time period, toch k'dei dibbur, mentioned above. Even if he completed his own statements, his colleague spoke, and then he made the denial, he is exempt. See Chapter 2, Halachah 18.
25.And hence they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut as stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 1.
26.As long as a person is alive, he or she is considered as alive with regard to all the halachic ramifications of that state.
This and the following clause apply when the witnesses observed the testimony before they married the women in question. Otherwise, their testimony will not be acceptable, for they must be fit to testify both at the time they witness the testimony and at the time they deliver it in court.
27.This constitutes acceptance of the oath. If, however, they remain silent outside the court, they are not considered to have accepted the oath.
28.As stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 2, for witnesses to be liable, they must make their denial in court.
They are, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui for every oath they accepted outside the court (Radbaz).
29.For the same denial applies to all of them. Since they never denied the matter in court, each denial they make is still significant (in contrast to the instance mentioned in Halachah 18).
30.That they are liable for an oath administered outside the court.
31.Chapter 9, Halachot 1, 10.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this issue, stating that he has made a great error in interpreting the difference of opinion between Rabbi Meir and the Sages mentioned in Sh'vuot 30b. The Ra'avad maintains that their difference of opinion concerns only whether the denial of knowledge of the matter must be made in the presence of the court or outside of it. Both, however, agree that an oath is significant, whether made in the presence of the court or outside of it. The Rambam, however, maintains that since the witnesses did not take the oath themselves or respond to it, they are not liable. It is only when the oath is administered in court that the oath is significant even though the witnesses do not respond to it.
32.They are, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui as stated in the following halachah.
33.As stated in Hilchot Edut 3:5, once witnesses testify in court, they cannot change that testimony. Since their testimony would no longer have an effect, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
34.Chapter 9, Halachah 14. This also applies to all the other instances in this chapter where it was stated that the witnesses were not liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
Shvuot - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
Just as there is a negative commandment forbidding an oath taken in vain and a false oath,1 so, too, there is a positive commandment for a person who is obligated to take an oath in court2 to take that oath in God's name,3 as [Deuteronomy 6:13] states: "And you shall take an oath in His name." This is a positive commandment.4 For taking an oath in His great and holy name is one of the paths of His service. It is a great measure of glorification and sanctification to take an oath in God's name.5
Halacha 2
It is forbidden to take an oath on any other matter together with God's name.6 Whoever combines another matter with the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, in an oath will be uprooted from this world.7 For there is no one who is fit to give honor by taking an oath in his name except the [Absolute] One, blessed be He.
Halacha 3
It is permitted for a person to take an oath to fulfill a mitzvah in order to encourage himself [toward its performance]. Although he is under oath [to observe] it from Mount Sinai [onward],8 [he may take an oath, as implied by Psalms 119:106]: "I took an oath and I will uphold it - to observe Your righteous judgments."9
Halacha 4
The oath which the judges administer to individuals who are obligated to take an oath is called: "The oath of the judges." [This applies whether the person] is liable for an oath according to Scriptural Law or according to Rabbinic Law.
Halacha 5
There are three types of oaths for which one is obligated according to Scriptural Law:
a) A claim involving movable property10 was lodged against a person by a colleague. He admitted liability for a portion and denied liability for a portion.11
b) [The defendant] denied liability for all the movable property, but one witness testifies against him, contradicting his statements.12
These two oaths come in response to a definite claim and a denial.13
c) When a watchman claims that the article entrusted to him was lost, stolen, died, or the like, he is required to take an oath, because of the doubt, for the owner of the entrusted article does not know if the watchman is making a true claim or not.14 This oath is of Scriptural origin, as [Exodus 22:10] states: "The oath of God will be between them." 15
Halacha 6
All oaths which the judges require aside from these three are of Rabbinic origin. They are also called "the oath of the judges." Within these oaths of Rabbinic origin, there are also two categories:
a) Oaths administered because of a definite claim and denial: e.g., the oath [taken by] a hired worker,16 [the oath taken by] one who impugns his promissory note,17 and the like.18
b) Oaths taken when [the plaintiff] has a claim of a doubtful nature, e.g., the oaths taken by partners, sharecroppers, and the like.19
In the laws of financial matters, the obligation of all these types of oaths and the associated laws will be explained.
Halacha 7
There is also another oath which was ordained by the Sages of the Talmud.20 It is called a sh'vuat heset.21 Although it is administered by the court in the present era. It is not referred to by the term "the oath of the judges."
Halacha 8
An oath of the judges, whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin, whether stemming from a definite or an indefinite claim is [administered in] the following [manner]: The person taking the oath holds a Torah scroll22 in his arm.23 He must stand24 and take the oath or recite a curse using God's name or one of the terms used to describe Him. [Either] he pronounces the oath himself or it is pronounced by the judges. My masters25 ruled that an oath of the judges is administered only in Lashon HaKodesh.26
Halacha 9
What is meant by an oath pronounced by [the defendant] himself? For example, he says: "I am taking an oath by God, the Lord of Israel...",27 "...by He whose name is graciousness...", "...by He whose name is mercy that I am not liable to this person at all." Similarly, if he says: "May one28 be cursed to God..." or "...cursed to He whose name is graciousness if I owes anything to that person."
Halacha 10
What is meant by an oath pronounced by the judges? For example, they tell him: We are administering an oath to you by God, the Lord of Israel...", "...by He whose name is graciousness that you are not liable to this person at all" and [the defendant] answers Amen.29 Or they say: "May so-and-so be cursed to God..." or "...cursed to He whose name is graciousness if he owes money to that person and does not acknowledge the debt" and [the defendant] answers Amen. This is the oath of the judges.
Halacha 11
When the judges administer an oath without the defendant holding a [sacred] article in his hand, they have made an error. He must take the oath again while holding a Torah scroll in his hand.30 If he was holding tefillin when they administered the oath to him, he is not required to take the oath again. For he held [an article equivalent to] the Torah in his hand,31 for they are like a scroll. If they administered the oath while [the defendant] was sitting, he does not have to take the oath again.
Halacha 12
At the outset, an oath should be administered to a Torah scholar while seated and while holding tefillin.32 He need not hold a Torah scroll. Holding tefillin in his hand [fulfills the requirement of] a sacred article. He takes an oath in Lashon HaKodesh, as we explained.33
Halacha 13
There is no difference between a sh'vuat heset and an oath of the judges except that [the latter] must be taken [while] holding a sacred article and a person who takes a sh'vuat heset does not hold a Torah scroll. Instead, an oath is administered to him by God's name or using one of the terms used to describe Him,34 either an oath or a curse which he utters or which the court states, as is the practice with regard to the oath of the judges. It has already become the universal custom for the synagogue attendant or another person to hold a Torah scroll while a sh'vuat heset is being administered to cast fear [into the heart of the defendant].
Halacha 14
The judges administer the oath to the person taking it in any language that he understands.35 The Geonim ruled in this manner. My masters, however, ruled that an oath should be administered only in Lashon HaKodesh. This ruling should not be relied upon.36
Although it has become customary to administer oaths in Lashon HaKodesh, the person taking the oath should be familiarized with the matter until he understands the wording of the oath. [The rationale is that] the oath of the judges is a sh'vuat hapikadon itself.37 People have even adopted the custom of administering a sh'vuat heset in Lashon HaKodesh.38
Halacha 15
Everyone who is obligated to take an oath of the judges that comes about because of a definite claim and denial,39 whether it is of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin, is subjected to a admonition, as will be explained.40 Everyone who is obligated to take an oath, whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin, because of a doubtful claim need not be subjected to an admonition.41
Halacha 16
How is an admonition administered to the person taking the oath? We tell him: Know that the entire world trembled at the time the Holy One, blessed be He, told Moses [Exodus 20:7]: "Do not take the name of God, your Lord, in vain." For with regard to all the transgressions in the Torah, as [Exodus 34:7] states: "And He shall cleanse." And with regard to [a false oath,] as [Exodus 20:7] states: "[God] will not cleanse one who takes His name in vain."42
With regard to all the transgressions in the Torah, retribution is exacted from him [alone], but with regard to [a false oath], retribution is exacted from him and from his family who conceal the matter for him.43 Moreover, this causes retribution to be exacted from "the enemies of the Jews,"44 for the entire Jewish people are responsible for each other,45 for [Hoshea 4:2-3] states: "Swearing, denying, murdering.... Therefore the land will mourn and all who inhabit it will be forlorn."
With regard to all the transgressions in the Torah, [retribution] is suspended for two or three generations if he possesses merit, but with regard to [a false oath], retribution is exacted immediately, as [Zechariah 5:4] states: 'I have let loose [the curse],' declares God, the Lord of Hosts, 'It will come into the house of the thief and the house of he who took an oath in My name falsely.'
"I have let loose" implies immediately. "It will come into the house of the thief" - this refers to deceiving people, i.e. one who does not have money owed to him by a colleague and yet lodges a claim against him to require him to take an oath. "He who took an oath in My name falsely" - this should be interpreted literally. [The verse continues:] "It shall destroy it, its wood, and its stones." Entities that cannot be destroyed by fire and water will be destroyed by a false oath.
Halacha 17
The concept [conveyed] by this admonition is told [to the person taking the oath] entirely in a language that they understand, so that they will understand the matter and the sinner will repent and correct [is conduct].
If he says: "I am not taking the oath," he is released,46 but he must pay what his colleague demands. Similarly, if the plaintiff says: "I will not subject him to an oath and I release him," they may depart.47
Halacha 18
If [the defendant] says: "I will take the oath," and [the plaintiff] persists in the claim, the people there say to each other: "Turn away from the tents of these wicked men."48
[The court] tell [the defendant]: "We are not administering the oath to you according to your understanding, but according to our understanding and the understanding of the court."49
Halacha 19
Although this admonition is not administered for an oath taken because of a claim involving a doubt or a sh'vuat heset,50 the judges should implore the litigants exceedingly [before administering these oaths] perhaps they will retract and so there will be no oaths taken at all.51
Halacha 20
It is a clear and that anyone who takes an oath of the judges or a sh'vuat heset falsely, is liable for taking a [false] sh'vuat hapikadon, the details of which have already been explained.52 Even though he willfully [took the false oath], he does not receive lashes. [Instead,] he is obligated to pay what he owes plus an additional fifth. [The fifth] is one fourth of the principal, so that the principal and the fifth are equal to five.53 And he must bring a guilt offering if the oath was taken in court, as we explained.54
FOOTNOTES
1.See Chapter 1, Halachot 7-8.
2.See Halachah 5 which mentions the oaths required by the court.
3.See Halachot 8-9.
4.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 7) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 435) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Note the Hasagot of the Ramban to Sefer HaMitzvot and the Ra'avad' objections at the beginning of the Mishneh Torah which differ and argue that this should not be considered as a positive commandment. See also Hilchot Nedarim 1:4 which states that there is a positive Scriptural commandment for a person to carry out an oath or vow he took.
5.For this reveals the reverence and awe in which God's name is held.
6.For that implies drawing a certain equation between that other entity and God.
7.See the Radbaz who explains why the expression: "As God lives and by the life of your soul" (II Kings 2:4, 4:30) is not a contradiction of this principle.
8.When the Jewish people were compelled by God to accept the Torah by oath. One might think that we would apply the principle (see Chapter 5, Halachah 11, and notes) that one oath does not take effect when another is already in effect. Hence, taking the oath would be taking God's name in vain. This is not so as the Rambam continues to explain.
9.Thus if David - a paradigm of pious conduct - could take an oath for this purpose, so can others.
10.In contrast to landed property, servants, and promissory notes (Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 5:1).
11.This situation is referred to by our Sages with the term modeh bimiktzat: "one who admits a portion." See Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 1:1.
12."Whenever [the testimony of] two [witnesses] would require him to make financial restitution, [the testimony of] one [witness] obligates him to take an oath" (Ibid.).
13.If, however, the plaintiff suspects the defendant is liable, but is unsure of his claim, he cannot require the defendant to take an oath (ibid.:7). Similarly, if the defendant is unsure whether he is liable or not, he may not take a Scriptural oath to absolve himself of responsibility.
The Rambam's statements here are significant in another context. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if a plaintiff who makes a claim that is supported by the testimony of one witness must be certain of the veracity of the claim himself or whether he can be doubtful, but rely on the testimony of the witness. The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to Hilchot Gezelah 4:17 and the Kessef Mishneh (in his gloss to Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 3:6) maintain that the Rambam follows the latter view. Here, however, it appears otherwise.
14.See ibid.:2; Hilchot Sechirut 1:2; 2:8.
15.The Ma'aseh Rokeach states that the word Shema שמע serves as an acronym for the names of these three oaths: Shomrim, Modeh bimitzat eid echad, שומרים, מודה במקצת, עד אחד
16.See Hilchot Sechirut 11:6 which explains that when an employer denies owing a worker his wage, the worker may take an oath and collect his due.
17.See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 14:1.
18.For example, Sh'vuot 44b mentions several other instances when such an oath is required of a defendant: a person who claims that property was stolen from him and their is substantial circumstantial evidence corroborating his claim (see Hilchot Gezeilah 4:2), a storekeeper who disputes a client's claims with regard to payment (Hilchot Mechirah 20:8).
19.See Hilchot Shluchim V'Shutafim 9:1.
20.I.e., in contrast to the oaths mentioned in the previous halachah which were established by the Sages of the Mishnah. Sh'vuot 40b states that this oath was ordained by Rav Nachman, one of the leading Sages in the midst of the era of the Gemara. See Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 1:3.
A defendant is required to take this oath whenever he denies entirely a claim registered against him by a plaintiff.
21.The Seifer Meirat Einayim 75:16 interprets the term heset as meaning "placed upon," i.e., it is an oath which our Sages placed upon a person. Others interpret it as relating to the root meisit, meaning "entice." The purpose of this oath is to entice a defendant to admit an obligation.
22.This will impress him with the seriousness of the matter.
23.The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 87:15) quotes opinions stating that the defendant should not hold the scroll. Instead, it should be placed before him and he should place his hand on it.
24.I.e., he may not sit. Note, however, Halachot 11-12.
25.This term is used to refer to Rav Yosef Migash, the Rambam's teacher, and Rav Yitzchak Alfasi, Rav Yosef's teacher.
26."The Holy Tongue," i.e., the Hebrew of the Tanach and the Mishnah. With regard to this ruling, see Halachah 14.
27.The Hagahot Maimoniot quote Rashi (Sh'vuot 38b) who states that it has become customary not to administer oaths using God's name, for the awesomeness of the punishment for taking His name in vain would lay waste to the world. This principle is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 87:19).
28.He is referring to himself.
29.See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
30.For this is equivalent to a judge making an error in a law explicitly stated in the Mishnah, in which instance the law is that the judgment is revoked (Sh'vuot 38b).
The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 87:15) quoutes an opinion that states that a Torah scroll is not required. Any sacred text with God's name is sufficient. Similarly, in one of the Rambam's responsum, he writes that a Chumash is sufficient.
31.For Exodus 12:9 says of tefillin: "So that the Torah of God will be in your mouth."
32.This is a token of respect for him. See Sh'vuot 38b.
The Siftei Cohen 87:41 quotes Rav Hai Gaon who states that the term Torah scholar has been given many definitions, but that employed today is "anyone who puts on tefillin." On this basis, the Siftei Cohen writes that in the present day, there is no difference between Torah scholars and ordinary individuals.
33.See Halachah 8.
34.The Ra'avad states that it is not customary to administer a sh'vuat hesit with God's name in the present age, for we fear that people will take false oaths. Hence to reduce the punishment that might be incurred, God's name is not mentioned. To compensate for that omission, the court should employ various techniques to impress the person taking the oath with the seriousness of the matter. As the Radbaz states, his argument with the Rambam appears to be practical, but not theoretical. In the era of the Talmud, the Rambam's ruling would be followed.
Other authorities do not accept the Rambam's view even theoretically. They maintain that even in the era of the Talmud, a sh'vuat heset was not administered with God's name. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 87:18) mentions the Rambam's view, but follows that of the other authorities.
35.I.e., even languages other than Lashon HaKodesh.
36.For the Sh'vuot 38b, 39a and the Tosefta, Sotah 7:1 states that an oath can be administered in any language.
37.And a person is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon only if he understands what he is saying, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 7.
38.See Halachah 20.
39.See Halachah 6.
40.In the following two halachot.
41.For the prooftext from Zechariah cited in the admonition is speaking about a definite claim. See also Halachah 19.
42.See also Chapter 12, Halachah 1; Hilchot Teshuvah 1:2.
43.Sh'vuot 39a derives this concept from Ecclesiates 5:5 which states: "Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin." "Your mouth" refers to taking a false oath and "your flesh" to one's family."
44.Here the intent is the Jewish people themselves. Our Sages (see Sukkah 29a) use this expression as a euphemism.
45.The Sefer Meirat Einayim 87:58 notes that this concept applies, not only with regard to a false oath, but to all the transgressions mentioned in the Torah. Nevertheless, there is a stringent aspect that applies with regard to a false oath, for with regard to other transgressions, the interrelation affects one when he has the opportunity to rebuke the transgressor and with regard to a false oath, it applies even when one does not have such an opportunity.
46.The Sefer Meirat Einayim 87:60 interprets this as meaning that he is sent away from the court. For once he leaves the court, he cannot change his mind and decide to take the oath.
47.Once the plaintiff has retracted his request for the defendant to take the oath, he is considered to have waived his claim and can no longer prosecute it again. See Hilchot Mechirah 5:1.
48.This malediction refers to the plaintiff as well. For as Sh'vuot 39b states, the negative repercussions of taking the oath affect them both. The Radbaz explains that the plaintiff shares in the responsibility, for he should have been more careful and not entered into a business arrangement without having the matter observed by witnesses. And if the oath is true, he should have been more careful with his accounts, so as not to require God's name to have been employed for such matters.
The Sefer Meirat Einayim 87:61 explains that when the plaintiff sees that the defendant is prepared to take a false oath, he should have offered a compromise rather than continue to pressure him and thus cause God's name to be taken in vain.
49.As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 15-16, this measure is employed so that later, the defendant will not try to absolve himself saying: "I had this-and-this intent in my heart when taking the oath." Since the oath is being administered to him according to the understanding of others, it is their interpretation that is upheld. See Sh'vuot 29a and Nedarim 25a which speak of a defendant employing deception while taking an oath.
50.Although he does not dispute the Rambam's ruling, the Radbaz questions why an admonition is not administered in these instances. The Meiri and the Sefer Meirat Einayim 87:61 explain that when the plaintiff is making a definite claim, it is one person's word against the other's. Thus there is reason to think that the defendant's oath is false and to prevent him from doing so, we issue this warning. When, however, an oath is taken because of a doubt, the defendant is not being challenged. Hence, there is less reason to suspect that he would take a false oath.
51.For in all situations, it is preferable that an oath not be taken. For this reason, courts have adopted the policy of trying to negotiate compromises in all litigation (Radbaz).
52.See Chapters 7 and 8.
53.I.e., it is one fifth of the new total and not one fifth of the original principal.
54.Chapter 1, Halachah 9.
The Ra'avad writes that at present since God's name is not mentioned in the oath administered by the judges, there is no liability for a guilt offering or to pay the additional fifth.
Shvuot - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
Although a person who took a false oath or an oath in vain is given lashes,1 and similarly, one who takes a [false] sh'vuat haedut or sh'vuat hapikadon brings a sacrifice,2 they do not receive complete atonement for the sin of taking a [false] oath, as [Exodus 20:7] states: "God will not cleanse [one who takes His name in vain]." He will not be absolved from the judgment of heaven until he receives retribution for his desecration of [His] great name, as [Leviticus 19:12] states: "[You shall not take a false oath in My name, for] you will desecrate the name of Your God." Therefore a person must be very careful with regard to this sin, more than with regard all other sins.3
Halacha 2
This sin is considered one of the severe transgressions, as explained in Hilchot Teshuvah.4 Although it does not involve kerait or execution by the court, it involves the desecration of [God's] holy name which is more severe than all other sins.
Halacha 3
When a person takes an oath by the heaven and earth, by the sun, or the like, this is not an oath,5 even though his intent is He who created them. Similarly, one who takes an oath by one of the prophets or by one of the texts of the Holy Scriptures, this is not an oath, even if his intent is He who sent the prophet or gave the commandments in this text.6
Although these are not oaths, those who take them are subjected to a severe warning and we teach the people not to act frivolously in this manner. [Indeed,] we make it look as if these are oaths and give them an opening [to ask for their absolution] and absolve them.7
Halacha 4
When does the above apply? With regard to other holy texts. [Different rules apply,] however, when one takes an oath by the Torah.8 If one takes an oath by what is written in [the Torah],9 his intent is by the names of God [it contains].10If one takes an oath by it without any further definition, his intent is on the parchment [of the scroll] and it is not considered as an oath.11 If he took [the scroll] in his hand and took an oath by it,12 it is as if he took an oath by what was written in it and [the matter] is forbidden.13
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply when] a person takes an oath by the Torah without any further definition. If he is a Torah scholar, he does not need to be released by a sage.14 If he is a common person,15 it is necessary that he asked to be released by a sage so that he will not treat oaths frivolously.16
Halacha 6
When a servant takes an oath, his master does not have to compel him [to break the oath to nullify it].17 Instead, his [status] is the same after taking the oath as it was before he did so.18 [The rationale is that] his body is not his property for that the oath he takes will be effective. With regard to oaths, [Numbers 30:3] states: "To forbid something upon one's soul." [Implied is that the verse applies to] someone whose soul is his property. It excludes a servant who is someone else's property. Thus [a servant's taking an oath] is comparable to taking an oath regarding someone else's property.19
Halacha 7
[Even though] minors20 understand the significance of an oath take an oath, they are not obligated [to maintain their commitment].21 [Nevertheless,] we compel them to uphold their word to train them [in the observance of mitzvot] and to impress them with fear so that they do not act frivolously with regard to oaths. If the matter concerning which they took the oath is such that a minor could not maintain without suffering injury,22 e.g., he took an oath that he would fast or that he would not eat meat for a long time, his father or his teacher should beat him and rebuke him, and create the appearance that his oath [took effect, but] was released, so that he will not be habituated to treat oaths frivolously.
Halacha 8
We must be very careful with children and train them to speak words of truth without [resorting to] an oath so that they will not be habituate to swear at all times like gentiles do. This matter is tantamount to an obligation for their parents and for those who teach young children.
Halacha 9
When one hears a colleague mention God's name in vain, take a false oath in his presence, or recite a blessing that is unnecessary in which instance [his colleague] transgresses23 because he takes God's name in vain,24 as we explained in Hilchot Berachot,25 he must place him under a ban of ostracism.26If he does not, he himself should be ostracized. The ban should, however, be lifted immediately so that it will not present an obstacle to others, for they will not know that he was placed under a ban. And if one would say, "Make it known that he [is under ostracism]," the entire populace will be under ban for [people] have already habituated their tongues to iniquity27 and oaths at all times.
Halacha 10
When does the above apply? When the person taking this oath or reciting this blessing in vain does so intentionally? If, however, he does so inadvertently or does not know that this is forbidden,28 [a listener] is not obligated to place him under a ban of ostracism. Indeed, I maintain that it is forbidden to place him under a ban of ostracism, for the Torah did not [prescribe] punishment for an inadvertent transgressor. Instead, one should caution him and warn him not to repeat [the transgression].
Halacha 11
It is not only a false oath that is forbidden. Instead, it is forbidden to mention even one of the names designated for God29 although one does not take an oath. For the verse [Deuteronomy 28:58] commands us, saying: "to fear the glorious and awesome name."30 Included in fearing it is not to mention it in vain.31
Therefore if because of a slip of the tongue, one mentions [God's] name in vain, he should immediately hurry to praise, glorify, and venerate it so that it will not have been mentioned [entirely] in vain. What is implied? If he mentions God's name, he should say: "Blessed be He for all eternity," "He is great and exceedingly praiseworthy,"32 or the like so that it will not have been [mentioned entirely] in vain.
Halacha 12
It is permitted to approach [a sage] to have an oath released as we explained33 and there is no fault [in doing so]. [Indeed,] one who has hesitations about the matter is [showing] traces of heresy.34 Nevertheless, it is appropriate to show care in this regard. One should not respond [to a request] to release [an oath] unless it involves a matter concerning a mitzvah or a great need.35 It is of great benefit for a person never to take an oath at all.36If, however, one transgressed and took an oath, he should endure great difficulty and keep his oath,37 as [Psalms 15:4-5] states: "One who takes an oath to his own detriment and does not nullify it..., he who acts in this manner will never falter."
Blessed be God who grants assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.Chapter 1, Halachot 3,7.
2.But are not subjected to lashes, Chapter 1, Halachah 8.
3.See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:10.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that lashes are sufficient to atone for a person's sin entirely. The Radbaz explains that the sin of taking a false oath is two dimensional, involving not only the particular transgression of taking a false oath, but also the desecration of God's name. The lashes atone for the particular transgression of the false oath, but not for the desecration of God's name. That requires more severe retribution as the Rambam explains.
4.Hilchot Teshuvah 1:2.
5.The Ra'avad states that although one is not liable for a sacrifice or lashes for such an oath, it is forbidden to take such an oath. At first, the Kessef Mishneh states that it is possible that this is also the Rambam's intent, but afterwards, states that the Rambam's wording implies that such statements are not considered oaths at all.
The Radbaz writes (and this understanding is borne out by one of the Rambam's responsa) that according to the Rambam, such an oath is not binding and need not be released. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that such oaths must be released and if they are false, one transgresses the prohibition against taking a false oath. See also the notes to the following halachah.
6.See the following halachah and notes.
7.See Chapter 6, Halachah 10; Hilchot Nedarim 2:12.
8.The Ra'avad differs with this principle, maintaining that there is no difference between the Torah and the other books of the Holy Scriptures with regard to their fundamental holiness. Thus a person who takes an oath by the contents of any of the other books of the Bible is also liable.
The difference between these two understandings depends on whether one understands the passage from Nedarim 14b as referring to only vows (as is explicitly stated, and as is the Ra'avad's understanding) or as apply also to oaths (as the Rambam maintains). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 212:1) quotes the Rambam's view.
9.I.e., he states that explicitly.
10.In which instance the person is liable for taking an oath, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 2.
11.For he is not taking an oath by God's name.
12.The Chatam Sofer (in his commentary to Nedarim 14b) states that the Rambam is referring to an instance where the person specifically picked up the Torah scroll for the purpose of taking an oath. Otherwise, even if he was holding the scroll in his hand before taking the oath, this law would not apply. Rashi understands the passage differently.
13.For by taking the Torah scroll in his hand, the person is implying that he is considering the matter with the seriousness of an oath (Nimukei Yosef).
14.For he knows the distinction mentioned in the previous halachah and thus understands that the oath is not effective and does not intend for it to be binding. Note, however, the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 212) who severely criticizes scholars who take an oath by the Torah, knowing that it is not effective to deceive the people to whom they are taking the oath.
15.Who does not know the above distinction.
16.As explained in Halachah 3.
17.Note the contrast to the law that applies when a servant takes a Nazirite vow (Hilchot Nazirut 2:7).
18.The Ra'avad, however, maintains that the Rambam's ruling applies only to oaths that will affect the servant's capacity to work. If that is not the case, the oath can take effect. As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazirut 9:1), there is a difference between vows and oaths in this regard. The Ra'avad's statement will apply with regard to vows, but not to oaths (Or Sameach).
19.Which is not effective as stated in Nedarim 47a. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 1.
20.Boys under 12 and girls under 11. See Hilchot Nedarim 11:1.
21.For they are not liable for any of the Torah's commandments.
22.The Radbaz explains that we are not speaking about a person in mortal danger, for that would apply with regard to an adult as well. Instead, the intent is aggravation or sickness.
23.The commentaries question whether the Rambam's intent is that he has transgressed a Scriptural commandment or merely a Rabbinic one. The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 30) states that the transgression is Scriptural in origin and the violator should be punished by lashing. This opinion is also mentioned by the Magen Avraham 215:6. From the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Milah 3:6, it appears that even the Rambam would consider the prohibition as Rabbinic in nature. The latter understanding is shared by many other Rishonim. Their position is - as explained by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 215:3 - since he is reciting a blessing, his mention of God's name is not entirely frivolous.
24.See the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger who questions the Rambam's statements, based on the ruling that a person who is unsure whether or not he recited the Grace After Meals must recite the blessing again. Seemingly, the recitation of that blessing would be problematic, because there is a doubt whether or not he is required to do so or not. Thus it is possible that he is transgressing a Scriptural commandment.
In resolution, Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains that since the person is obligated to recite the blessing, even if that obligation stems from a doubt, he is not considered to be taking God's name in vain.
25.Chapter 1, Halachah 15.
26.See the concluding chapters of Hilchot Talmud Torah for a description of the implications of this ban.
27.Cf. Jeremiah 9:4.
28.The Turei Zahav 334:18 mentions that the Rambam's view is more lenient than that of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol who maintains that this leniency applies only when one does not know of the prohibition at all. According to his view, one who knows of the prohibition, but accidentally recites a blessing in vain must be placed under ban.
29.I.e., the seven names for God mentioned in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, ch. 6.
30.See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 4) which quotes Sanhedrin 56a and Temurah 4a as deriving this concept from another prooftext (Deuteronomy 6:13).
31.For one does not treat something that is truly revered with such carelessness.
32.See Hilchot Berachot 4:10 which states that when a person recites a blessing in vain, he should say Baruch shem kevod malchuto leolam va'ed, "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever."
33.Chapter 6, Halachah 1.
34.For this indicates that he does not accept the Oral Tradition that Moses communicated. For the release of vows is not explicitly stated in the Torah, but instead communicated by the Oral Tradition, as stated above.
35.See Chapter 6, Halachot 9-10 which gives examples of such situations.
36.For it is possible that unwittingly, he could take a false oath and thus bring severe retribution upon himself and others. See Gittin 35a which explains how a woman unknowingly took a false oath and caused one of her sons to die.
37.See Hilchot Nedarim 1:4 which states that keeping an oath or a vow fulfills a Scriptural mitzvah. Nevertheless, there is a difference between oaths and vows. As the Ra'avad (see also Hilchot Nedarim 13:25) mentions, it is desirable to have vows released. Oaths, by contrast, should be observed and not released.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Sunday, Nissan 27, 5774 • 27 April 2014
"Today's Day"
Sunday, Nissan 27, 12th day of the omer, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: K'doshim, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 120-134.
Tanya: This quality of (p. 231)...The Esoteric Discipline. (p. 231).
The permissible, when done for one's pleasure,1 is completely evil, as the Alter Rebbe writes in Tanya, Chapter 7, for we are commanded, "sanctify yourself with what is permitted to you."2 One must introduce sanctity into those matters that are permissible so that they serve the purpose of enhancing one's Torah, mitzvot, fear-of-G-d and good character traits.
FOOTNOTES
1. E.g. eating kosher meat but like a glutton, etc.
2. Vayikra 19:2 and Ramban; Yevamot 20a.
-------
Daily Thought:
Broken & Whole
When you find the Infinite, where will you put it? In your broken vessel? It will not stay. In a new whole one? It will not fit. Let the heart be broken in bitterness for its confines. Let it be whole in the joy of a boundless soul. This is the secret that the human being holds over the angels: Only the human heart can be broken and whole at once.
-------