TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• COUNT "TEN DAYS TO THE OMER" TONIGHT
Tomorrow is the tenth 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 ten days, which are one week and three 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: Tifferet sheb'Gevurah -- "Harmony 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:
• THE FIRST SHABBAT CELEBRATED (1313 BCE)
Two days after the Jews crossed the Red Sea (see Jewish History for the 21st of Nissan) they arrived in Marah. There they received several commandments; one of them was to observe the Shabbat. The first Shabbat was observed on the 24th of Nissan.
Links:
A Brief History of Shabbat
Shabbat Mega Site
DAILY QUOTE:
In that generation the women repaired what the men broke down. The men gave their gold for the making of the Calf; the women refused. The men had been unwilling to enter the Land [in wake of the Spies' report]; the women [i.e., the daughters of Tzelafchad] petitioned to receive an inheritance in the Land--Midrash Rabbah (on Numbers 27:1)
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Kedoshim, 5th Portion Leviticus 20:1-20:7 with Rashi
• Chapter 20
1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, א. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2. And to the children of Israel, you shall say: Any man of the children of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall pelt him with stones. ב. וְאֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תֹּאמַר אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן הַגֵּר | הַגָּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ מוֹת יוּמָת עַם הָאָרֶץ יִרְגְּמֻהוּ בָאָבֶן:
And to the children of Israel, you shall say: [i.e., enumerate the following] punishments for the warnings [that were given in chapter 18.].
ואל בני ישראל תאמר: עונשין על האזהרות:
shall surely be put to death: By the court. And if the court is not [physically] powerful [enough to kill him by themselves], “the people of the land” must assist them. — [Torath Kohanim 20:91]
מות יומת: בבית דין, ואם אין כח לבית דין עם הארץ מסייעין אותן:
the people of the land: עַם הָאָרֶץ. [This may be rendered either: “the people of the earth” or “ the people of the land,” as follows:] The people for whose sake the earth was created, the people who are destined to possess the Land [of Israel], through [the observance of] these commandments. — [Torath Kohanim 20:91]
עם הארץ: עם שבגינו נבראת הארץ. דבר אחר עם שעתידין לירש את הארץ ע"י מצות הללו:
3. And I will set My attention upon that man, and I will cut him off from amidst his people, because he gave of his offspring to Molech in order to defile My holy ones and to profane My holy Name. ג. וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן אֶת פָּנַי בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא וְהִכְרַתִּי אֹתוֹ מִקֶּרֶב עַמּוֹ כִּי מִזַּרְעוֹ נָתַן לַמֹּלֶךְ לְמַעַן טַמֵּא אֶת מִקְדָּשִׁי וּלְחַלֵּל אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי:
And I will set my attention: Heb., פָּנַי, i.e., My leisure (פְּנַאי). I will turn aside (פּוֹנֶה) from all My affairs and occupy Myself with him. — [Torath Kohanim 20:92]
אתן את פני: פנאי שלי, פונה אני מכל עסקי ועוסק בו:
[that] man: But not the [whole] community. — [Torath Kohanim 20:92] [I.e., if the entire community give their offspring over to Molech, they are not punished with excision,] because the entire community are not to be cut off.
באיש: ולא בצבור, שאין כל הצבור נכרתין:
because he gave of his offspring to Molech: [Are not this phrase here, and the phrase in the next verse, “when he gives of his offspring to Molech” superfluous? However,] since Scripture says, “[There shall not be found among you] anyone who passes his son or daughter through fire” (Deut. 18:10), how do we know [that the law applies as well to] his son’s son or his daughter’s son? Scripture, therefore, says, “because he gave of his offspring to Molech.” And how do we know that the law applies even to one’s illegitimate offspring [i.e., one produced from a halachically illegitimate union]? Scripture. therefore says (in the next verse),“when he gives of his offspring to Molech” [to include even his illegitimate offspring]. — [Torath Kohanim 20:93; Sanh. 64b]
כי מזרעו נתן למלך: לפי שנאמר מעביר בנו ובתו באש (דברים יח י), בן בנו ובן בתו מנין, תלמוד לומר כי מזרעו נתן למולך. זרע פסול מנין, תלמוד לומר בתתו מזרעו למולך:
In order to defile My holy ones: Heb. מִקְדָּשִׁי. [This is] the congregation of Israel, which is sanctified to Me. [This reference to Israel as מִקְדָּשִׁי, what is sanctified to Me, is] reminiscent of the expression [referring to the holy sacrifices], “he shall not desecrate My holy things (מִקְדָּשַׁי) ” (Lev. 21:23).
למען טמא את מקדשי: את כנסת ישראל, שהיא מקודשת לי, כלשון (ויקרא כא כג) ולא יחלל את מקדשי:
4. But if the people of the land ignore that man when he gives of his offspring to Molech, not putting him to death ד. וְאִם הַעְלֵם יַעְלִימוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם מִן הָאִישׁ הַהוּא בְּתִתּוֹ מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ לְבִלְתִּי הָמִית אֹתוֹ:
But if [the people of the land] ignore [that man]: Heb. הַעְלֵם יַעְלִימוּ. [The double expression intimates that] if they ignore one matter [i.e., even one sin], they will eventually ignore many matters, and if the Small Sanhedrin [of twenty-three judges] ignores the matter, eventually the Great Sanhedrin [of seventy-one judges, in Jerusalem,] will ignore the matter. — [Torath Kohanim 20:94]
ואם העלם יעלימו: אם העלימו בדבר אחד, סוף שיעלימו בדברים הרבה. אם העלימו סנהדרי קטנה, סוף שיעלימו סנהדרי גדולה:
5. I will set My attention upon that man, and upon his family, and I will cut him off, and all who stray after him to stray after Molech, from amidst their people. ה. וְשַׂמְתִּי אֲנִי אֶת פָּנַי בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְהִכְרַתִּי אֹתוֹ וְאֵת | כָּל הַזֹּנִים אַחֲרָיו לִזְנוֹת אַחֲרֵי הַמֹּלֶךְ מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם:
and upon his family: Rabbi Shimon says: [In] what [way] did the family sin [that they are punished]? However, this teaches you that there is no family in which there is an [unfair] tax collector which may not [be regarded as consisting] entirely of tax collectors, for they all cover up for him. — [Torath Kohanim 20:95; Shev. 39a]
ובמשפחתו: אמר ר' שמעון וכי משפחה מה חטאה, אלא ללמדך שאין לך משפחה שיש בה מוכס שאין כולם מוכסין, שכולם מחפין עליו:
and I will cut him off: Why is this stated? Because since Scripture says, “[I will set My attention upon that man] and upon his family,” one might think that his entire family is included in [the punishment of] excision. Scripture, therefore, says, “[I will cut] him [off]”-that man is to be excised [from the people of Israel], but the entire family is not included in excision, but with suffering. — [Torath Kohanim 20:96]
והכרתי אתו: למה נאמר, לפי שנאמר ובמשפחתו, יכול יהיו כל המשפחה בהכרת, תלמוד לומר אותו. אותו בהכרת ולא כל המשפחה בהכרת, אלא ביסורין:
to stray after Molech: [This phrase comes to] include [in this penalty] any other pagan deity that one worshipped in this manner, even though it is not its mode of worship. — [Sanh. 64b]
לזנות אחרי המלך: לרבות שאר עבודה זרה שעבדה בכך, ואפילו אין זו עבודתה:
6. And the person who turns to Ov or Yid'oni, to stray after them I will set My attention upon that person, and I will cut him off from amidst his people. ו. וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּפְנֶה אֶל הָאֹבֹת וְאֶל הַיִּדְּעֹנִים לִזְנֹת אַחֲרֵיהֶם וְנָתַתִּי אֶת פָּנַי בַּנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא וְהִכְרַתִּי אֹתוֹ מִקֶּרֶב עַמּוֹ:
7. You shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am the Lord, your God. ז. וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם וִהְיִיתֶם קְדשִׁים כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
You shall sanctify yourselves: This [refers to] separation from idolatry. — [Torath Kohanim 20:100]
והתקדשתם: זו פרישות עבודה זרה:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 113 - 118
• Chapter 113
This psalm recounts some of the wonders of the exodus from Egypt.
1. Praise the Lord! Offer praise, you servants of the Lord; praise the Name of the Lord.
2. May the Name of the Lord be blessed from now and to all eternity.
3. From the rising of the sun to its setting, the Name of the Lord is praised.
4. The Lord is high above all nations; His glory transcends the heavens.
5. Who is like the Lord our God, Who dwells on high
6. [yet] looks down so low upon heaven and earth!
7. He raises the poor from the dust, lifts the destitute from the dunghill,
8. to seat them with nobles, with the nobles of His people.
9. He transforms the barren woman into a household, into a joyful mother of children. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 114
This psalm explains why the tribe of Judah merited kingship.
1. When Israel went out of Egypt, the House of Jacob from a people of a foreign tongue,
2. Judah became His holy [nation], Israel, His domain.
3. The sea saw and fled, the Jordan turned backward.
4. The mountains skipped like rams, the hills like young sheep.
5. What is the matter with you, O sea, that you flee; Jordan, that you turn backward;
6. mountains, that you skip like rams; hills, like young sheep?
7. [We do so] before the Master, the Creator of the earth, before the God of Jacob,
8. Who turns the rock into a pool of water, the flintstone into a water fountain.
Chapter 115
A prayer that God bring this long exile to an end, for the sake of His Name-that it not be desecrated.
1. Not for our sake, Lord, not for our sake, but for the sake of Your Name bestow glory, because of Your kindness and Your truth.
2. Why should the nations say, "Where, now, is their God?”
3. Indeed, our God is in heaven; whatever He desires, He does.
4. Their idols are of silver and gold, the product of human hands.
5. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see;
6. they have ears, but cannot hear; they have a nose, but cannot smell;
7. their hands cannot touch; their feet cannot walk; they can make no sound in their throat.
8. Those who make them will become like them-all who put their trust in them.
9. Israel, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield.
10. House of Aaron, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield.
11. You who fear the Lord, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield.
12. The Lord who is ever mindful of us, may He bless: May He bless the House of Israel; may He bless the House of Aaron;
13. may He bless those who fear the Lord, the small with the great.
14. May the Lord increase [blessing] upon you, upon you and upon your children.
15. You are blessed by the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
16. The heavens are the Lord's heavens, but the earth He gave to the children of man.
17. The dead cannot praise the Lord, nor any who descend into the silence [of the grave].
18. But we will bless the Lord from now to eternity. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 116
This psalm contains magnificent praises to God. It also describes David's love for God, in light of all the miracles He performed for him. David does not know how to repay God, declaring it impossible to pay back for all God has done for him.
1. I would love if the Lord would listen to my voice, to my supplications;
2. if He would turn His ear to me on the days when I call.
3. The pangs of death encompassed me and the misery of the grave came upon me; I encounter trouble and sorrow.
4. I invoke the Name of the Lord, "Lord, I implore you, deliver my soul!”
5. The Lord is gracious and righteous; our God is compassionate.
6. The Lord watches over the simpletons; I was brought low, and He saved me.
7. Return, my soul, to your tranquility, for the Lord has bestowed goodness upon you.
8. For You have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling.
9. I shall walk before the Lord in the lands of the living.
10. I had faith even when I declared, "I am greatly afflicted";
11. [even when] I said in my haste, "All men are deceitful.”
12. How can I repay the Lord for all His beneficences to me?
13. I will raise the cup of deliverance and proclaim the Name of the Lord.
14. I will pay my vows to the Lord in the presence of all His people.
15. Grievous in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His pious ones.
16. I thank you, Lord, that since I am Your servant, I am Your servant the son of Your maidservant, You have loosened my bonds.
17. To You I will bring an offering of thanksgiving, and proclaim the Name of the Lord.
18. I will pay my vows to the Lord in the presence of all His people,
19. in the courtyards of the House of the Lord, in the midst of Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 117
This psalm of two verses alludes to the Messianic era, when the Children of Israel will enjoy their former glory. All will praise God, in fulfillment of the verse, "All will then call in the Name of God."
1. Praise the Lord, all you nations; extol Him, all you peoples.
2. For His kindness was mighty over us, and the truth of the Lord is everlasting. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 118
This psalm describes David's immense trust in God. It also contains many praises to God, Who has fulfilled that which He has promised us.
1. Offer praise to the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. Let Israel declare that His kindness is everlasting.
3. Let the House of Aaron declare that His kindness is everlasting.
4. Let those who fear the Lord declare that His kindness is everlasting.
5. From out of distress I called to God; with abounding relief, God answered me.
6. The Lord is with me, I do not fear-what can man do to me?
7. The Lord is with me among my helpers, and I will see [the downfall of] my enemies.
8. It is better to rely on the Lord than to trust in man.
9. It is better to rely on the Lord than to trust in nobles.
10. All the nations surrounded me, but in the Name of the Lord I will cut them down.
11. They surrounded me, they encompassed me, but in the Name of the Lord I will cut them down.
12. They surrounded me like bees, yet they shall be extinguished like fiery thorns; in the Name of the Lord I will cut them down.
13. You [my foes] repeatedly pushed me to fall, but the Lord helped me.
14. God is my strength and song, and He has been a help to me.
15. The sound of rejoicing and deliverance reverberates in the tents of the righteous, "The right hand of the Lord performs deeds of valor.
16. The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right hand of the Lord performs deeds of valor!”
17. I shall not die, but I shall live and recount the deeds of God.
18. God has indeed chastised me, but He did not give me up to death.
19. Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter them and praise God.
20. This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous will enter it.
21. I offer thanks to You, for You have answered me, and You have been my deliverance.
22. The stone which the builders scorned has become the chief cornerstone.
23. From the Lord has this come about; it is wondrous in our eyes.
24. This is the day which the Lord has made; let us be glad and rejoice on it.
25. We implore You, Lord, deliver us. We implore You, Lord, grant us success.
26. Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord; we bless you from the House of the Lord.
27. The Lord is a benevolent God and He has given us light; bind the festival offering with cords until [you bring it to] the horns of the altar.
28. You are my God and I will praise You, my God-and I will exalt You.
29. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 42
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Thursday, Nissan 24, 5774 • April 24, 2014
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 42
In describing earlier the fear a Jew should possess for G d, the Alter Rebbe said that it should be similar to the fear felt “when one stands before a king,” for G d is omnipresent and observes all man’s actions.
A question arises: When one stands before a king, he is not only being seen by the king, but he is also looking at him, and this helps him to stand in fear of him. In the analogue, however, this is not the case: though G d, the King, sees him, he fails to see G d.
The Alter Rebbe will now respond to this question by saying that there is yet another means by which an individual may awaken within himself the fear of G d — by being able to “see” the King. For by observing heaven and earth and all the created beings that people them, and realizing that they all derive their life from G d, he will have fear of Him.
ועוד זאת יזכור כי כמו שבמלך בשר ודם, עיקר היראה היא מפנימיותו וחיותו ולא מגופו, שהרי כשישן אין שום יראה ממנו
In addition to this, one should remember that, as in the case of a mortal king, the fear of him relates mainly to his inner essence and vitality and not to his body — for when he is asleep, though his body does not change, there is no fear of him,
This is because while he sleeps his inner essence and vitality are in a state of concealment. Clearly, then, they are the main reason for fearing a king while he is awake.
והנה פנימיותו וחיותו אין נראה לעיני בשר, רק בעיני השכל
and, surely, his inner essence and vitality are not perceived by physical eyes, but only by the mind’s eye,
על ידי ראיית עיני בשר בגופו ולבושיו, שיודע שחיותו מלובש בתוכם
through the physical eyes‘ beholding his body and garments, and knowing that his vitality is clothed in them.
This in turn leads the beholder to fear him.
ואם כן
And if this is so, then surely in the analogue as well, not only is the king seeing him, but he is seeing the king as well, and this causes him to fear G d. Moreover,
ככה ממש יש לו לירא את ה׳ על ידי ראיית עיני בשר בשמים ואר׳ וכל צבאם, אשר אור אין סוף ברוך הוא מלובש בהם להחיותם
he must truly likewise fear G d when gazing with his physical eyes at the heavens and earth and all their hosts, wherein is clothed the [infinite] light of the blessed Ein Sof that animates them.*
הגהה
*NOTE
The Alter Rebbe will now say that by looking at heaven and earth one not only becomes aware of their G dly vitalizing force, but also perceives how the world and all its inhabitants are truly nullified to the divine life-force. This can be perceived by observing the stars and planets, all of which travel in a westerly direction. In doing so they express their nullification to the Shechinah, the Divine Presence, which is in the west.
וגם נראה בראיית העין שהם בטלים לאורו יתברך בהשתחוואתם כל יום כלפי מערב בשקיעתם, כמאמר רז״ל על פסוק: וצבא השמים לך משתחוים, שהשכינה במערב
And it is also seen with a glance of the eye that they are nullified to His blessed light, by the fact that they “prostrate” themselves every day towards the west at the time of their setting. As the Rabbis, of blessed memory, commented on the verse:1 “...and the hosts of the heavens bow before You,” that the Shechinah abides in the west,
ונמצא הילוכם כל היום כלפי מערב הוא דרך השתחוואה וביטול
Hence, not only do the heavenly hosts show their self-abnegation when they set in the west, but their daily orbit westwards is a kind of prostration and self-nullification.
We find it written that if the sun, moon and planets were to follow their natural characteristics they would travel in an easterly, rather than in a westerly direction. That they do not do so testifies to their constant self-nullification to the Divine Presence which is found in the west. For the four points of the compass are rooted in the Supernal Sefirot, and Malchut — the level of the Shechinah — is in the west. Thus, even man’s eye observes the self-nullification of creation to the divine life-force.
והנה גם מי שלא ראה את המלך מעולם ואינו מכירו כלל, אף על פי כן, כשנכנס לחצר המלך
Even he who has never seen the king and does not recognize him at all, nevertheless, when he enters the royal court,
“There the king is not revealed at all: it is not the place of his royal throne and the like. (In the analogue this refers to the physical world, in which various proofs are necessary in order to bring about self-nullification to the King.)” — Note of the Rebbe.
ורואה שרים רבים ונכבדים משתחוים לאיש אחד
and sees many honorable princes prostrating themselves before one man,
“The person who enters and looks superficially is unable to detect a difference between him and the other men present.” — Note of the Rebbe.
תפול עליו אימה ופחד
there falls on him a dread and awe.
So, too, the self-nullification before G d shown by the awesome creatures, such as the heavenly bodies, enables one to be in fear and awe of Him.
END OF NOTE
However, the question may be asked: When one gazes at the body of a physical king, he sees before him beyond a shadow of a doubt the king himself. He therefore can extrapolate intellectually about the inner essence and vitality of the king and come to fear him. This is not so, however, with regard to physical creatures. The divine life-force is so concealed within them through so many garbs of concealment, that it is quite possible for one to gaze at them and fail to be aware that their bodies are but garments to the divine life-force they contain.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say, that it is therefore important for a person who observes physical created beings to cultivate the habit of immediately recalling that within the concealment of their external trappings and garments, there is to be found the G dliness that animates them. By doing so, one is then able to perceive the divine life-force found within the world.
ואף שהוא על ידי התלבשות בלבושים רבים
And although many garments are involved in this vestiture, so that when one gazes at created beings, one does not perceive that they are but garments to their divine life-force,
הרי אין הבדל והפרש כלל ביראת מלך בשר ודם, בין שהוא ערום, ובין שהוא לבוש לבוש אחד, ובין שהוא לבוש בלבושים רבים
there is no difference or distinction at all in the fear of a mortal king, whether he be naked,2 or clothed in one or many garments.
It is the realization that the king is found within the garments that creates the fear of him. And the same, the Alter Rebbe will conclude, is true here. When a person becomes accustomed to remember that when he gazes upon created beings he is in reality gazing upon the King’s garments, he will then come to fear Him.
אלא העיקר הוא ההרגל, להרגיל דעתו ומחשבתו תמיד, להיות קבוע בלבו ומוחו תמיד, אשר כל מה שרואה בעיניו, השמים והאר׳ ומלואה, הכל הםלבושים החיצונים של המלך הקב״ה
The essential thing, however, is the training to habituate one’s mind and thought continuously, so that it always remain imprinted in his heart and mind, that everything one sees with his eyes — the heavens and earth and all they contain — constitutes the outer garments of the king, the Holy One, blessed be He.
ועל ידי זה יזכור תמיד על פנימיותם וחיותם
In this way he will constantly remember their inwardness and vitality, which is G dliness. This will create within him a fear of G d.
The Rebbe explains that what now follows answers a question: How can we possibly say here that the nullification of the world to G d is a concept that can be perceived intellectually, when in ch. 33 the Alter Rebbe explained that this was a matter of faith? In this chapter too, we have learned that it is a matter of faith — “that all Jews are believers, descendants of believers,” and so on. Faith and intellect are not only distinct entities, they are antithetical; for example, when something is understood, faith is not necessary.
The Alter Rebbe therefore now goes on to explain that this intellectual perception is also implicit in the word emunah (“faith”). For this word is etymologically rooted in the word uman (“artisan”). In order for an artisan with a talent for painting, creating vessels, or whatever, to be successful, he must habituate and train his hands; only then will they reveal the latent talents of the artistry found in his soul.
The same is true here: The soul of every Jew possesses the abovementioned faith. However, in order for this faith to be actualized, so that one’s actions will be in consonance with it, one must habituate and train himself to realize that all he sees — heaven and earth and all of creation — are but G d’s external garments. By constantly remembering that their inwardness is G dliness, the soul’s essential faith will be revealed and will affect one’s actions. His bodily organs will then follow the dictates of his faith.
וזה נכלל גם כן בלשון אמונה, שהוא לשון רגילות, שמרגיל האדם את עצמו, כמו אומן שמאמן ידיו וכו׳
This is also implicit in the word emunah (“faith”), which is a term indicating “training” to which a person habituates himself, like a craftsman who trains his hands, and so forth.
The Rebbe notes that “who trains his hands” means: “He is cognizant of the craft in his soul; he has a natural talent for it, but needs only to train his hands, so that it will find tangible expression in his actions (be it through art, or fashioning vessels, or the like).”
Thus, the analogue contains both aspects: The king sees the individual, and he sees the king, as it were, by looking at created beings and perceiving through them the divine life-force that vitalizes them.
* * *
FOOTNOTES
1. Bava Batra 25a.
2. The Rebbe notes: “Cf. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, end of ch. 2.”
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Nissan 24, 5774 • April 24, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 61
Violating Oaths
"Do not swear falsely by My Name"—Leviticus 19:12.
It is forbidden to violate an oath which one makes obligating himself to do or not to do a certain action (unless the fulfillment of the oath involves violating a religious precept).
Violating Oaths
Negative Commandment 61
Translated by Berel Bell
The 61st prohibition is that we are forbidden from violating the type of oath called a sh'vuas bitui.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not swear falsely in My name."
A sh'vuas bitui is an oath to do something (or to refrain from doing something) that the Torah does not prohibit (or require).3 We are required to fulfill such an oath4 and are prohibited from violating it by virtue of His statement, "Do not swear falsely in My name."
Our Sages said in tractate Sh'vuos,5
"What is a sh'vuas sheker?6 When one swears to change [the truth."]7
The Gemara amends this, "It should read, 'When one swears and changes,'" i.e. swearing to do something, and then doing the opposite of the oath. 8
In the third chapter of Sh'vuos, as well as in tractate T'murah,9 it is explained that a sh'vuas sheker is the non-fulfillment of a sh'vuas bitui. There our Sages say, "What kind of sh'vuas sheker is meant?" This refers to the Gemara's previous statement regarding a sh'vuas sheker where no action was performed [and the punishment is nevertheless lashes]. "If you say [it refers to a case where the person swore,] 'I will not eat,' and the person ate, then an action was performed. [Therefore, that case could not be what the Gemara was referring to.] If you say [it refers to a case where the person swore,] 'I will eat,' and the person didn't eat, is he punished by lashes? [This cannot be, for] it says explicitly..." [that there are no lashes in such a case.]10
One who transgresses this prohibition intentionally is punished by lashes. If it was done unintentionally, he must bring an offering of adjustable value, as explained in positive commandment 72. The source for this is the statement in the third chapter of Sh'vuos,11 "This is a sh'vuas bitui, which, if one violates intentionally, is punished by lashes, and if unintentionally, must bring an offering of adjustable value." The details of this mitzvah are explained there.
You should be aware that when I said that this prohibition is punished by lashes if done intentionally, this does not mean that there is another prohibition for which there is lashes even if done unintentionally. Rather, you should keep in mind that every time I say that a certain prohibition is punishable by lashes (whether it was said in a previous mitzvah or in a following mitzvah), this is only when done intentionally, in the presence of witnesses, and after being warned — the conditions regarding the witnesses and the warning being found in tractate Sanhedrin.12
If, however, the transgression was done unintentionally, or if the person was forced, or if he made an error, he is not punished by lashes or kares, and certainly not by execution. You should keep this in mind, for it applies to all the mitzvos.
In those few mitzvos where we say explicitly that the punishment is lashes or execution when done intentionally, this is said in order to distinguish from the case where an unintentional violation necessitates a sacrifice. [This must be said] because not every unintentional prohibition entails a sacrifice.13
But every case of punishment by kares, lashes, or execution is carried out only where there were witnesses and a warning. You should keep this principle in mind so that it will not necessary to repeat it.
FOOTNOTES
1.As defined immediately below. This is in contrast to a sh'vuas shav, discussed in the next mitzvah.
2.Lev. 19:12.
3.If, however, someone swears to eat pork, or not to wear tefillin, the oath is called a sh'vuas shav rather than a sh'vuas bitui. See N62.
4.See P94.
5.21a.
6.Although the commandment speaks of a sh'vuas bitui, and this passage speaks of a sh'vuas sheker, the Rambam soon explains that they are identical.
7.I.e. swearing that he did something in the past, although he really did not (for example, swearing that he ate, when in fact he did not.
8.The Rambam's intention in quoting this passage seems to be providing Talmudic proof for the definition he just gave for a sh'vuas bitui, i.e. swearing to do something in the future. The final conclusion is that swearing falsely about the past is also called a sh'vuas bitui. See Hilchos Shavuos 1:3, Kesef Mishneh ibid.
9.3b.
10.The Gemara concludes that the case referred to is where he swore that he ate, although in reality he had not. As mentioned previously, although this oath deals with the past, the Gemara concludes that this too is a sh'vuas sheker.
In any case, the point of this quote is to prove that the term, sh'vuas sheker , refers to violating a sh'vuas bitui.
11.21a.
12.81b.
13.Therefore, when no sacrifice is involved, the Rambam does not need to mention that lashes, etc. is for an intentional violation.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Ten Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Ten
Halacha 1
The law of the decapitated calf is practiced only in Eretz Yisrael. It is also practiced in TransJordan.
Halacha 2
The calf that is decapitated may be two years old or younger. If, however, it is two years and one day old, it is not acceptable. Physical blemishes do not disqualify it. Nevertheless, if it is taref, it is unacceptable. For "atonement" is mentioned with regard to it, as it is mentioned with regard to sacrificial offerings.
Halacha 3
Deuteronomy 21:3 states: "that has never been worked, and that has never carried a yoke." Accordingly, all types of work disqualify the calf, just as they disqualify a red heifer.
Why is "a yoke" then singled out; seemingly it is included with the other tasks in the expression "that has never been worked"? To teach that a yoke disqualifies a calf whether or not it carries it while working. If a calf carries a yoke for a distance of a handbreadth, it is disqualified even though it did not plow with it or perform any work. With regard to other tasks, by contrast, they do not disqualify a calf unless work was actually performed.
Halacha 4
Whenever the calf performs a task for its own benefit, that does not disqualify it; for example, the owner spread his garment over it to protect it from flies. Any task that is not for its own benefit - e.g., the owner spread his garment over it, so that it should carry it - disqualifies it. The same applies in all analogous situations, as we have explained in Hilchot Parah.
Halacha 5
The calf should be decapitated only during the daytime, for "atonement" is mentioned with regard to it, as it is mentioned with regard to sacrificial offerings.
It is acceptable to decapitate it any time during the entire day. Two calves should not be decapitated at the same time, for mitzvot should not be performed in bundles.
Halacha 6
It is forbidden to benefit from a calf that is decapitated. It should be buried at the place where it was decapitated.
Once it is taken down to the river, benefiting from it becomes forbidden, even though it has not yet been decapitated. Thus, if it dies there or was slaughtered after it was decapitated, one is forbidden to benefit from it, and it should be buried.
Halacha 7
If, however, the witnesses are found to be lying, it is permitted to benefit from the calf.
What is implied? One witness testified that he saw the murderer, and two witnesses come and negate his testimony, telling him: "You did not see him." If on this basis, the court set aside a calf and brought it down to the river to decapitate it because of their testimony, and these witnesses were disqualified afterwards as lying witnesses, it is permitted to benefit from the calf.
Halacha 8
If the murderer was discovered before the calf was decapitated, it should be released and allowed to pasture with the herd. If he was discovered after the calf was decapitated, before it was buried, it should be buried in its place. For at the outset, it was brought because of a doubt. It atoned for this lack of knowledge and served its purpose.
Even when the murderer is discovered after the decapitation of the calf, he should be executed, as Deuteronomy 21:9 states: "You shall thus rid yourselves of the guilt for the shedding of innocent blood."
Halacha 9
It is forbidden ever to sow seeds or till the river in which the calf was decapitated, as Deuteronomy 21:4 states: "that must never be worked or sown." Whoever performs work with the land itself - e.g., he plowed, he dug, he seeded, he planted, or the like - should be punished with lashes.
It is, however, permitted to comb flax there, or to drill stones, for this is similar to weaving a garment there or sewing it there, for these are tasks that are not performed with the land itself. To emphasize this concept, the verse states: "that must never be worked or sown." Implied is that just as sowing involves the land itself, similarly all work that is forbidden there involves the land itself.
Halacha 10
When the inhabitants of a city that was closest to a corpse have delayed and have not brought a calf for decapitation, they should be compelled to bring it even though several years have passed. For those who are liable to bring a calf for decapitation remain liable despite the fact that Yom Kippur has passed.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 1, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 2, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 3
Shvuot - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
There are four types of oaths [for which one may be liable]: sh'vuat bitui, sh'vuat shav, sh'vuat hapikadon, and sh'vuat ha'edut.1
Sh'vuat bitui2 is referred to in the Torah [by Leviticus 5:4]: "When a soul will take an oath, expressing with his lips, whether he will do harm3 or do good." [This category] subdivides into four groupings: two4 [involving statements made] concerning the future and two [involving statements made] concerning the past. For example, he took an oath concerning a past event that it occurred or did not occur, or concerning a future event, that he will do it or that he will not do it.
Halacha 2
[The concept of] a sh'vuat bituiapplies with regard to deeds that a person could perform5 whether in the past or in the future.
What is implied? With regard to the past: "I ate," "I cast a stone into the sea," or "So-and-so spoke with so-and-so"; "I did not eat," "I did not cast a stone into the sea," or "So-and-so did not speak with so-and-so." With regard to the future: "I will eat" or "I will not eat," "I will..." or "I will not cast a stone into the sea."6 Thus there are two groupings7 concerning the past and two groupings concerning the future.
Halacha 3
If a person takes an oath concerning one of these four categories and does the opposite, he has taken a false oath. For example, he took an oath not to eat and he ate, that he would eat and he did not eat, that he ate, when he did not or that he did not eat, when he had eaten. With regard to these matters, [Leviticus 19:12] states: "Do not swear falsely in My name."8 If he willfully swears falsely, he is liable for lashes.9 If he does so inadvertently, he must bring an adjustable guilt offering,10 as [ibid. 5:4] states: "And it became concealed from him and he did not know and became guilty."
Halacha 4
[The prohibition against taking] a sh'vuat shav, an oath taken in vain,11 also subdivides into four categories: the first, a person took an oath concerning a known matter12 that was not true, e.g., he took an oath that a man was a woman, a woman was a man, that a marble pillar was gold, or concerning other similar factors.
Halacha 5
The second: that one takes an oath on a known matter concerning which no one has a doubt, e.g., one took an oath that the sky was the sky, that a stone is a stone, on two [objects] that they are two, and the like. Even though there is no doubt about the matter for a person of sound mind, one takes an oath to strengthen [the appreciation of] the matter.13
Halacha 6
The third is one who takes an oath to nullify a mitzvah.14 What is implied? One took an oath not to wrap himself in tzitzit,15 not to put on tefilin, not to dwell in a sukkah throughout the holiday of Sukkot,16 not to eat matzah on Pesach night, that he would fast on the Sabbaths and the festivals,17 or concerning other analogous instances.
Halacha 7
The fourth - that one took an oath concerning a matter that he is unable to perform.18 What is implied? He took an oath that he would not sleep for three consecutive days and nights,19 he would not eat for seven consecutive days or concerning any analogous matter.
Whenever a person takes an oath in vain by taking one of these four types of oaths, he transgresses a negative commandment,20 as [Exodus 20:7] states: "And you shall not take the name of God your Lord in vain." If he [takes the oath] willfully, he is liable for lashes.21 If he does so inadvertently, he is exempt entirely.
Halacha 8
What is meant by a sh'vuat hapikadon, [an oath concerning an entrusted object]?22 [It applies] when a person has money belonging to a colleague in his possession - whether it be an entrusted article or a loan, he stole from him, withheld his wages, he found a loss object belonging to him and did not return it, or any similar situation. If his colleague claims the money that he has in his possession and he denies the claim, he violates a negative commandment,23 as [Leviticus 19:11] states: "You shall not deny..."; this is a warning [not to] deny a monetary [claim]. One is not liable for lashes for this transgression.24
If one took a false oath with regard to the financial claim that he denied, he transgresses another negative commandment,25 as [the above verse] continues: "A person may not lie to his colleague."26 This is a warning against swearing [falsely] when denying a financial [obligation].
Halacha 9
What is a person's liability for taking a false sh'vuat hapikadon? He must pay the principle that he denied plus an additional fifth27 and bring a definite28 guilt offering as a sacrifice. [This applies] whether he [transgressed] intentionally or unintentionally,29 as indicated by Leviticus 5:21-23 which] states: "And he will deny his [obligation to] a colleague concerning an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, a robbery... when he sin and become guilty." [The verse] does not say: "And it will become concealed from him,"30 indicating that one who transgresses willfully is liable just as [one who transgresses] inadvertently.
Halacha 10
The above applies when the person willfully accepted the entrusted object or the money that he was obligated and knew about it at the time of the oath. If, however, he acted unintentionally, forgot that he had the money in his possession, therefore denied it and took an oath, and then discovered the matter, he is considered [to have transgressed because of] factors beyond his control and is not liable at all.31 Similarly, if the person did not know that it was forbidden to take a false oath in denial of a financial claim, he is considered [to have transgressed because of] factors beyond his control and is not liable.32
Halacha 11
If so, what is meant by acting inadvertently with regard to a sh'vuat hapikadon? For example, he forgot that one is liable to bring a sacrifice for [taking such a false oath], but knew that it was forbidden to do so and that he has the other person's money in his possession. This is considered the inadvertent transgression [of this prohibition].33 Willful transgression is when he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice [because of the transgression].
Halacha 12
What is meant by sh'vuat ha'edut?34 Witnesses know testimony associated with a monetary claim35 and the person affected by the testimony demanded that they testify on his behalf. The witnesses deny knowledge of testimony, do not testify, and take an oath36 that they do not know any testimony concerning him. This is referred to as a sh'vuat ha'edut. For taking a [false] oath of this nature, one is liable for an adjustable guilt offering,37 [This applies] whether he [transgressed] intentionally or unintentionally, as [indicated by Leviticus 5:1 which] states: "When a person will sin: If he heard a demand for an oath and he had witnessed...." [The verse] does not say: "And it will become concealed from him,"38 indicating that one who transgresses willfully is liable just as [one who transgresses] inadvertently.
Halacha 13
What is meant by acting inadvertently with regard to a sh'vuat ha'edut? For example, he forgot that one is liable to bring a sacrifice for [taking such a false oath], but knew that this oath was forbidden and that he would be swearing falsely. Willful transgression is when he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice [because of the transgression]. If he did not know that [taking such an oath] is forbidden or forgot the testimony and took an oath39 and later it was discovered that he knew testimony and took a false oath, he is considered [to have transgressed because of] forces beyond his control and he is not liable to bring a sacrifice.40
FOOTNOTES
1.The Rambam proceeds to explain these four types of oath in this chapter.
2.Bitui literally means "expression." I.e., this oath is taken expressing statements concerning the past or the future. See Chapters 4 and 5 where this subject is discussed in detail.
3.As evident from Chapter 5, Halachot 16-17, this applies when he takes an oath to harm himself, but not to harm others.
4.I.e., one positive and one negative. The concept that a sh'vuat bitui has both these forms is derived from the prooftext cited which states: "Whether he will do harm or do good." See Chapter 9, Halachah 18.
5.But not with regard to something which he cannot perform. As stated in Halachah 7, that is included in the category of an oath taken in vain.
6.An oath he takes concerning the future that involves another person is not included in this category, because he has no way of controlling that person's conduct. See Chapter 5, Halachot 1-2.
7.One positive and one negative.
8.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 61) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 227) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
9.This is somewhat of a new concept, because one does not receive lashes for violating a transgression that does not involve a deed and ordinarily, speech is not considered a deed. Nevertheless, taking a false oath is an exception to this principle, for Exodus 20:7 states: "God will not absolve anyone who takes His name in vain." Sh'vuot 21a interprets that to mean that a person who takes an oath in vain is liable for lashes. See also Chapter 4, Halachot 20-21 for more factors concerning this concept.
10.In contrast to an ordinary sin-offering, the sacrifice a person liable for such an offering must bring is adjusted according to his financial status as stated in Leviticus, ch. 5. See Chapter 3, Halachot 6-7 for details concerning when one is held liable for such a sacrifice and when he is not.
11.See Chapter 6 where this subject is discussed in detail.
12.The Ra'avad explains that the term "a known matter" refers to something known to three people. The Radbaz notes that the Rambam mentions this point in Chapter 5, Halachah 22. See Chapter 3, Halachah 5, and notes from which it is evident that here, the person taking the oath is not speaking facetiously. Although it is known that what he is saying is false, he intends that his words be taken at face value. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 21, and notes.
13.Thus since no one else but a fool will have any doubt concerning the matter, there is no need to take an oath. Hence, the oath is considered to have been taken in vain (Radbaz).
14.Since he is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah and the matter is not dependent on his choice or consent, his oath is considered to be in vain. See also Chapter 5, Halachot 14-15.
15.The Radbaz clarifies that we are not speaking about taking an oath not to wear a tallit, for a person is not obligated to wear a tallit by Scriptural Law (see Hilchot Tzitzit 3:11). Instead, the intent is to take an oath that he will wear a four-cornered garment and not put tzitzit on it.
16.See Chapter 5, Halachah 18.
17.For one must take pleasure in food and drink on these days. It is forbidden to fast (Hilchot Shabbat 30:12; Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 6:17).
18.Since he is unable to perform the matter, the oath he took is obviously in vain.
19.See Chapter 5, Halachah 20.
20.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 62) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 30) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
21.See the notes to Halachah 3.
22.The latter is the literal translation of the term pikadon. Nevertheless, as the Rambam continues to explain, the term has a broader halachic meaning in this context. The Radbaz explains that the mishnah uses the term sh'vuat hapikadon, because it is most common that such a claim will be made with regard to an entrusted object. Alternatively, because the prooftext (Leviticus 5:21) mentions an entrusted object first. See Chapters 7 and 8 where this subject is discussed in detail.
23.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 248) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 225) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
24.Either because the transgression does not involve a deed, or because financial compensation must be given and a person is not held liable both for financial restitution and lashes (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2).
25.He also violates the commandment against taking a false oath [Sh'vuot 20b; Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 249)].
26.Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 226) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
27.As the Rambam explains in several instances, the intent is one fifth of the new total. For example, if he denied a debt of 20 zuz, he must pay 25 in restitution.
28.This term is used to distinguish this offering from the conditional guilt offering brought by a person who is unsure whether or not he committed a sin.
29.In contrast, an ordinary sin offering is brought only when one transgresses inadvertently.
30.As Leviticus 5:4 states with regard to a sh'vuat bitui.
31.Neither for a sacrifice, nor for the payment of an additional fifth of the object's value.
32.The Radbaz states that although such an individual is not liable for a sacrifice or the additional fifth, he is liable for transgressing the prohibition against denying property.
33.Since he is unaware of the fact that he must bring a sacrifice and thus does not know the full severity of his act, he is considered to have transgressed inadvertently. Nevertheless, because he is conscious of the transgression and the fact that he has the other person's money in his possession, he is not considered to have transgressed due to forces beyond his control.
34.The term literally means "an oath [associated with] testimony." See Chapters 9 and 10 where this subject is discussed in detail.
35.See Chapter 9, Halachot 3-5.
36.This oath is not required by the court, but rather is demanded by the person affected by their testimony. See Chapter 9, Halachah 6.
37.See the notes to Halachah 3.
38.See Chapter 9, Halachot 3-5.
39.In translation, we have used the singular for continuity. The Rambam, however, uses plural forms, because testimony brings about a monetary obligation only when given by two witnesses.
40.I.e., they are not considered to have transgressed at all.
Shvuot - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
Whether one takes one of these four oaths [falsely] on his own initiative or he is placed under oath by another person and answers Amen to his statements, he is liable.1 [This applies] even if he is placed under oath by a gentile2 or a minor3 and responds Amen.
[The rationale is that] anyone who responds Amen or makes a statement equivalent to responding Amen, e.g., he says "Yes," "I am obligated in this oath," "I accept this oath upon myself," or the like in any language4 is considered to have taken an oath with regard to all matter,5 whether it be liability for lashes6 or for a sacrifice.7
Halacha 2
[The same laws apply whether] one took an oath - or another person administered an oath to him - with God's ineffable name8 - or with one of the descriptive terms used to refer to Him,9 e.g., he took an oath "on He whose name is Gracious," "on He whose name is Merciful," or "on He whose name is Patient," regardless of the language he used.10 The statement is considered an oath in the full sense of the term.11
Similarly, a statement with the terms eleh or erur12 is considered as an oath,13 provided one mentions one of God's names or one of the terms used to describe Him. What is implied? When a person said: "May one who eats this-and-this entity be cursed unto God," or "...cursed unto He whose name is Gracious," "...cursed unto He whose name is Merciful" and then ate that entity, he has taken a false oath.14 Similar concepts apply with regard to the other types of oaths.
Halacha 3
Similarly, one who says: "[I am taking] an oath by God...," or "...by One whose name is Gracious that I will not eat," and he ate, "...that this is a woman," and it was a man, "...that I do not owe you anything," and he does, "that I do not know any testimony involving you," and he does,15 he is liable.
Halacha 4
If a person uses the term eleh or erur or an oath and does not mention God's name or a term describing Him, he is bound by a prohibition with regard to the entity concerning which he [desired to] take the oath. He is not, however, liable for lashes or for a sacrifice if he violated his oath unless it included one of God's names16 or a term describing Him as explained.
Halacha 5
Not only the term sh'vuah, but [the use of] any idiom used to refer to an oath is considered as [taking] an oath. For example, people in a given place were inarticulate and would call an oath shabutah or shakukah, or they were Aramites for whom the term for oath in their language is momata, and the inarticulate idiomatically refer to it is mohah. When a person makes a statement whose intent and meaning is that he is taking an oath, he is liable as if he used the term [in Lashon Hakodesh].17
Halacha 6
Similarly, when a person says: "No, no," repeating the negative twice as if he is taking an oath or "Yes, yes," and mentions God's name or a term used to describe Him, it is considered an oath.18 Similarly, if he says: "[By God's] right hand," it is an oath, or "[By God's] left hand," it is an oath, as [implied by Isaiah 62:5] "God swore by His right hand and by the arm of His strength."19 Similarly, when someone says "Mivtah20 that I will not do such-and-such," and mentions God's name or a term used to describe Him, it is considered an oath.
Halacha 7
When one says: "It is forbidden for God's [sake]" or "...for [the sake of] He whose name is Gracious that I will do..." or "...that I will not do [such-and-such]," it is considered an oath, because the wording he used has that implication.
Halacha 8
If he heard his colleague take an oath and said: "I am like him," he is not liable,21 for he did not utter an oath, nor did his colleague administer an oath to him. This is "appending" to an oath for which one is not liable.22
Halacha 9
Similarly, if he took an oath and said: "I will not eat this meat," and then said: "This bread is like this meat," he is not liable for the bread, because he did not explicitly take an oath regarding it. Instead, he appended [the prohibition concerning it to his existing oath]. Although he is exempt from lashes and from a sacrifice, he is forbidden to partake of the bread that he appended to his oath.23
Halacha 10
[Although] a person has the intent to take an oath and resolves in his heart not to eat on that day or not to drink and has the intent for that activity to forbidden for him by oath, [if] he does not actually make such a statement, he is permitted [to eat or drink], as [implied by Leviticus 5:4]: "expressing with his lips." [Implied is that] a person who takes an oath is not liable until he explicitly states the matter the oath concerns with his lips.
Halacha 11
Similarly, if he resolved within his heart to take an oath and erred and uttered a statement that did not fit the intent in his heart, [the activity] is permitted.24
What is implied? A person had the intent that he would not eat in Reuven's [home], but when he actually came to state the oath explicitly, he swore not to eat in [Shimon's] home. [In such a situation,] he is permitted to eat in Reuven's [home] for he did not explicitly [swear not to eat there]. [And he is permitted to eat] in Shimon's [home] for he did not have the intent [to prohibit that].
Halacha 12
Similarly, with regard to the other types of oaths, one is not liable until his mouth and his heart are in concord.25 Therefore [the following law applies if] a person took an oath in our presence that he would not eat and ate. He was given a warning [before he ate] and he responded: "My intent was that I would not depart today. I had a slip of the tongue and mentioned eating although that was not my intent."26 is not liable for lashes unless, before he eats, he admits in the presence of witnesses that [his intent in] taking the oath was [not] to eat. Alternatively, [he is liable for lashes] if he accepted the warning and did not protest that he erred at the time of the warning. Even though he protested afterwards, we do not pay attention to him.27 Similarly, [he is liable] if they warned him and he said: "I never took an oath - or a vow - concerning this matter." Despite the fact that after they give testimony that he took an oath or vow, he says: "Yes, that is true, but my mouth and heart were not in concord," or "In my heart, I had a stipulation in mind concerning the vow,"28 we do not heed him29 and he is liable for lashes.
Halacha 13
Similarly, if [witnesses] told him: "Your wife took a vow," and he said: "My intent was to nullify the vow and I did so,"30 we heed his statements. If he is told, "She took a vow," and he denies it, but when he saw them testify against him, he said: "My intent was to nullify [the vow]," his word is not heeded.
Halacha 14
If he resolved within his heart not to partake of bread made from wheat, but took an oath not to partake of bread without qualifying his statement, he is forbidden to partake of bread from wheat. For when bread [is mentioned without qualification, the meaning] is bread from wheat.31
Halacha 15
When a person takes an oath, saying: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat today and my oath is dependent on your intent,"32 he cannot [later] say: "I had these-and-these thoughts in my heart." [The rationale is] that the person did not take the oath dependent on his own intent, but rather on the intent of others. Since his statements did concur with the intent of those on whose intent he took the oath he is liable. [The intent in] the heart of those individuals takes the place of his own intent. [This concept also applies] with regard to other types of oaths.
Halacha 16
Therefore when judges administer an oath to a person,33 they tell him: "We are not administering the oath dependent on your intent, but dependent on our intent.34
Halacha 17
[The following law applies when a person] took an oath and his statements and his intent concurred at the time he took the oath, but after he becomes forbidden [in the particular activity mentioned in the oath], he changes his mind immediately, directly after he spoke. [The latter term has a specific halachic definition]: the time it takes a student to tell his teacher: Shalom Elecha Rabbi.35 [If, in this interim, the person says:] "This is not an oath," "I changed my mind," "I retract," or the like, i.e., statements that imply that he seeks to release the prohibition he took on [himself], it is permitted.36 The oath is eradicated, for this resembles on who made a statement in error.
Halacha 18
Similarly, if others tell him: "Retract," "It is permitted for you," or the like and he accepts their view within the above measure of time37 by saying: "Yes," or "I retract," he is permitted. After this measure of time, he cannot retract.38
Halacha 19
If a person took an oath and retracted within his heart39 within the above measure of time, it is of no consequence. Similarly, if others told him: "Retract," "It is permitted for you," or "It is absolved for you," and he accepted their words in his heart within the above measure of time, it is of no consequence. He must state his retraction explicitly like his oath.40
FOOTNOTES
1.The concept that a person is considered to have taken an oath when he responds Amen to the statements is derived from the Torah's statements with regard to a sotah, a woman suspected of adultery (Numbers 5:22). For she is required to answer Amen to the oath administered to her by the priest and yet, it is considered as if she took the oath herself.
2.Although in most instances, statements made by such gentiles are of no significance according to Jewish Law, this is an acceptance. Here also there is an allusion to this concept in the Torah itself. Ezekiel 17:13 and II Chronicles 36:13 speak of Nebuchadnetzar having King Tzidkayahu take an oath. Nedarim 65a states that this oath was binding. Similarly, Sh'vuot 36a speaks of an oath Moses took to Jethro, his gentile father-in-law (Kessef Mishneh).
3.This is derived through a comparison to gentiles.
4.I.e., not only in lashon hakodesh, the Hebrew used in the Bible and by the Sages.
5.See Chapter 7, Halachah 1, Chapter 8, Halachah 7, and Chapter 9, Halachah 1, which mentions instances where a person is considered to have taken an oath even if he does not respond Amen.
6.If he takes a false sh'vuat bitui or takes an oath in vain.
7.If he takes a false sh'vuat hapikadon or sh'vuat ha'edut.
8.I.e., the name Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei. See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:7 which states that this term also refers to the name Adonai. The same law holds true for any other of God's names.
9.Note, however, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:5, which states that even when these descriptions are used to refer to Him, they are not considered to have the same holiness as one of His names.
10.I.e., not only in lashon hakodesh, the Hebrew used in the Bible and by the Sages.
11.The Rambam uses the expression "in the full sense of the term" to differentiate between this instance and the law mentioned in Halachah 4. Note the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz who explains that there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim if a sh'vuat bitui must contain God's name for one to be liable as appears to be the Rambam's opinion or whether His name need not be mentioned as is the view of the Ramban, Rabbenu Asher, and others. The Ra'avad takes an intermediate view, stating that one transgresses by taking a false oath and is liable to bring a sacrifice, but he is not liable for lashes unless he mentions one of God's names.
All authorities agree that God's name must be mentioned for one to be liable with regard to a sh'vuat haedut or a sh'vuat hapikadon. On that basis, the Radbaz supports the Rambam's position, asking why a differentiation should be made between one type of oath and another. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 237:1) and commentaries.
12.Both these terms mean "curse."
13.Sh'vuot 36a derives this concept from the verses cited above with regard to Tzidkayahu's oath, for there he used the term "curse." See also I Samuel 14, 24, 27 which indicate that saying that one will be cursed is equivalent to an oath.
14.And is liable for taking a false sh'vuat bitui, as indicated by Chapter 1, Halachah 3.
15.I.e., the Rambam is giving an example of all four types of oaths.
16.See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:2 for a list of the seven names of God.
17.For that reason, when called to take an oath in a secular court or the like, one should refuse. Instead of saying "I swear," he should say, "I affirm."
18.The repetition and the mention of God's name indicate that he is not merely making a statement, but intending that it have the severity of an oath. The Kessef Mishneh states that since the person mentioned God's name, seemingly, it is not necessary for him to repeat yes or no, the mention of His name alone should be sufficient for his statement to be considered an oath. He explains that we are speaking about an instance when God's name was not mentioned in direct connection with the statement. Nevertheless, the fact that he repeated no, or yes while mentioning God's name, albeit indirectly, is sufficient for his statements to be considered an oath.
19.2Nazir 3a states that "the arm of His strength" refers to His left arm. Otherwise, the verse would be redundant.
20.Sh'vuot 20a notes that Numbers 30:7 understands this term as referring to an oath.
21.In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that the Rambam's choice of wording - "He is not liable" rather than "It is permitted" - implies that although he is not liable, he is forbidden to break the commitment he made. Although other Rishonim differ, he follows this interpretation in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 239:9-10). See the following halachah.
22.This is one of the distinctions between oaths and vows. One who "appends" - i.e., says "And I will be like him" - to a colleague's vow is liable. See Hilchot Nedarim 3:3-4.
23.The Radbaz explains that the Rambam elaborates here - in contrast to the previous halachah - for here there is greater reason to think that he will not be obligated. The explanation is based on a fundamental understanding of the difference between a sh'vuah - oath - and a neder - vow. When a person takes an oath, he places a prohibition upon his person - he is forbidden to perform the activity concerning which he took the oath. When he takes a vow, the article becomes forbidden for him. Hence, since he spoke about the article and not himself, one might think that his statement has no effect at all.
24.For as Sh'vuot 26b implies, one's heart and one's lips must be in concord.
25.In some authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, this sentence is the conclusion of the previous halachah. The present halachah begins: "Therefore..." Compare to Halachot 15-16.
26.I.e., if he makes this statement when given the warning, we accept his word and do not hold him liable (Tosefta, Taharot 6:9).
27.As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2, to be liable for lashes, a transgressor must acknowledge the warning. Since, at that time, he did not mention the lack of concurrence between his intent and his statements, we assume that he is fabricating the matter.
28.And since the stipulation was not met, the vow is not binding.
29.For he has already lied concerning this oath.
30.There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries with regard to the interpretation of the Rambam's statements. Some explain that the intent is that the husband used the halachic convention of hafarah and made the statement nullifying his wife's vow in a hushed tone. If, however, he did not make a statement of hafarah at all, the vow is not nullified, as stated in Hilchot Nedarim 13:7). The Tzaphnat Paneach states that the intent is that he used the halachic convention of bittul. In such in instance, a statement need not be made (Hilchot Nedarim 13:4).
31.Thus the person cannot claim that his statement did not reflect his intent.
32.I.e., this law applies even if the person takes the oath on his own volition, not only if it is administered by others.
33.I.e., require an oath of a person who denies a plaintiff's claim. See Chapter 11, Halachah 18.
34.Thus afterwards the person cannot claim that he had these-and-these thoughts in mind when taking the oath (Radbaz). See also Nedarim 25a.
35."Greetings to you, my teacher." We have cited the term in transliteration for we are speaking about the amount of time it takes to say these three Hebrew words.
36.Nedarim 87a states that this principle applies with the exception of four situations: a blasphemer, one who accepts a false deity, one who consecrates a woman as a wife, and one who divorces her. Rabbenu Nissim explains that when taking an oath, a person has in mind that he might change his mind in this brief amount of time. Hence, his oath is not binding until this time passes.
37.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, saying that the objections of others cannot by connected to his oath. In his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 210:3), Rav Yosef Caro and also the Radbaz explain that since the others protested immediately after his oath and his acceptance also came immediately afterwards, it is as if he never completed taking the oath.
38.This applies even if the oath has not taken effect as of yet (Radbaz).
39.I.e., without verbalizing his retraction.
40.The Radbaz emphasizes that he must also make his statements with intent. Just as his mouth and heart must concur when making an oath, so, too, they must concur when retracting it.
Shvuot - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
Whenever a person takes one of these four types of oaths under compulsion, he is exempt from all liability. This applies to a person who at the outset took a false oath because of factors beyond his control as we explained, one who took an oath and then was subjected to compulsion and was not given the opportunity to fulfill his oath, or he was compelled to take an oath by a man of force. Therefore one may take an oath when compelled to by robbers, potential murders, and tax collectors.
Halacha 2
To which tax collector did we refer? To a tax collector that assumed the position on his own, who takes money without the license of the king or who takes money with the king's license, but takes more for himself than the fixed measure, as explained in Hilchot Gezelah.
Halacha 3
When a person is compelled to take an oath, to be exempt, while taking the oath, he must have the intent in his heart for the oath to apply to something for which he is exempt. Although generally, words in a person's heart are of no consequence, since he cannot express his intent because of the forces beyond his control, he can rely on the intent in his heart.
Halacha 4
What is implied? One took an oath to a man of force that would not eat meat without qualifying his statement, it is permitted if in his heart, he had the intent that he was saying that he would not eat the meat of pigs, or that he would not eat meat that day. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
Similarly, one is not liable for oaths involving exaggerations or unintentional oaths. What is meant by oaths involving exaggerations? A person saw vast armies and tall walls and he took an oath that "I saw the armies of King So-and-So and they are as vast as those who left Egypt," "I saw the wall of this-and-this city and it was as high as the heavens," or the like. He is exempt, because he did not resolve within his heart that this was the measure of the subject in question, no more and no less. His intent was only to describe the height of the wall or the multitude of the people.
Halacha 6
What is meant by an oath taken inadvertently? With regard to a sh'vuat hapikadon or a sh'vuat ha'edut, it refers to a situation where the person forgot about the entrusted article or the testimony. He is entirely exempt, as we explained.
With regard to an oath taken in vain, it refers to a situation where the person took an oath not to wear tefilin, but did not know that tefilin are a mitzvah. With regard to a false oath, it refers to a situation where the person took an oath that he did not eat and then remembered that he did in fact eat, he took an oath that he would not eat and then forgot and ate, he took an oath that he would not give any satisfaction to his wife because she stole his wallet or beat his son and afterwards, he found out that she did not steal it or beat him. Similar concepts apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 7
If so, what is a sh'vuat bitui taken inadvertently for which one is liable to bring an adjustable guilt offering with regard to the past? One took an oath that he did not eat although he knew that he in fact had eaten and he knew that it is forbidden to have taken this false oath, but he did not know that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. This is the inadvertent violation for which one is liable to bring an adjustable guilt offering for taking a sh'vuat bitui with regard to the past.
Halacha 8
What is meant by an inadvertent violation for which one is liable for an adjustable guilt offering for breaking an oath involving the future? For example, one took an oath that he would not eat bread from wheat and forgot and thought that he had taken an oath that he would eat bread from wheat and then ate it. In this instance, he became unaware of the content of the oath although he remembered the article concerning which he took the oath. This is an inadvertent violation of a sh'vuat bitui involving the future which obligates him to bring a sacrifice.
Halacha 9
If, however, he took an oath that he would not eat bread from wheat and he ate bread from wheat thinking that it was made from barley, he is considered to have transgressed due to forces beyond his control and he is exempt. For he did not become unaware of the oath, but instead of the article concerning which he took the oath.
Halacha 10
If he lost awareness of the oath he took and he lost awareness of the article concerning which he took the oath, he is not liable for a sacrifice.
What is implied? For example, one took an oath that he would not eat bread from wheat and thought that he had taken an oath that he would eat bread from wheat and ate bread from wheat thinking it was barley. He is not liable, because he became unaware of both the oath and the article it concerned. It is considered as if he he transgressed due to forces beyond his control.
Halacha 11
The following laws apply if a person took an oath concerning a loaf of bread, swearing that he would not eat it and then suffered discomfort because of it. Should he eat the loaf because of his discomfort, because he thought that it is permitted for him to eat it because of discomfort, he is considered to have transgressed inadvertently. He is exempt from bringing a sacrifice, because he is not repenting because of his new knowledge. Instead, he knew that it was forbidden and ate it in error.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Thursday, Nissan 24, 5774 • 24 April 2014
"Today's Day"
Thursday, Nissan 24, 9th day of the omer, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Acharei Mot, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 113-118.
Tanya: In addition to (p. 225)...hands and so forth. (p. 225).
It is customary not to recite the b'racha she'he'che'yanu during the days of the omer count.
We all possess an element of "non-good." Why, the scapegoat (representing evil, banished to Azazeil)1 was actually a service in the Beit hamikdash!2 A physical created being inevitably has a negative element, but we must banish that evil to a "desolate land."
FOOTNOTES
1. See Vayikra 16. This was part of the Yom Kippur rites. Two goats were chosen by lot, one "for G-d" to be offered on the altar, the other, the scape-goat, to be cast down Azazeil, a rocky mountain in the "desolate land," the wilderness, "bearing their sins."
2. This sentence (like the ones preceding it and following it) continues the emphasis on the ubiquity of evil in this world, exclaiming that a procedure involving banishment of evil was even part of the sacred service within the holy Jerusalem sanctuary!
-------
Daily Thought:
Meditation Through a Sea of Reeds Accept the world at its face value and it won’t let you move forward. Every impulse must be bridled, every step carefully balanced —and even then, for every step forward, you fall back two. You are enslaved within an Egypt of your own making. Here is your route of escape: Meditate deeply upon the inner soul of the world; struggle to see the vision described by our teachers. Part the murky waters of a coarse, material world; enter the reality that lies beneath it; let that be your path from bondage. Grasp that inner vision and it will flow outward through the heart to the conscious self, down to the heel that steps upon the earth, until all these, as well, become mind. Your eyes are now open, your heart is awake, your hands themselves know what to grab and what to avoid, as your feet know where to walk. In the struggle for deeper vision, life becomes effortless. You are free.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment