Today's Laws & Customs:
• ELUL OBSERVANCES
As the last month of the Jewish year, Elul is traditionaly a time of introspection and stocktaking -- a time to review one's deeds and spiritual progress over the past year and prepare for the upcoming "Days of Awe" of Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur.
As the month of Divine Mercy and Forgiveness (see "Today in Jewish History" for Elul 1) it is a most opportune time for teshuvah ("return" to G-d), prayer, charity, and increased Ahavat Yisrael (love for a fellow Jew) in the quest for self-improvement and coming closer to G-d. Chassidic master Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi likens the month of Elul to a time when "the king is in the field" and, in contrast to when he is in the royal palace, "everyone who so desires is permitted to meet him, and he receives them all with a cheerful countenance and shows a smiling face to them all."
Specific Elul customs include the daily sounding of the shofar (ram's horn) as a call to repentance. The Baal Shem Tov instituted the custom of reciting three additional chapters of Psalms each day, from the 1st of Elul until Yom Kippur (on Yom Kippur the remaining 36 chapters are recited, thereby completing the entire book of Psalms). Click below to view today's Psalms.
Chapter 37 Chapter 38 Chapter 39
Elul is also the time to have one's tefillin and mezuzot checked by an accredited scribe to ensure that they are in good condition and fit for use.
Links: More on Elul
As the last month of the Jewish year, Elul is traditionaly a time of introspection and stocktaking -- a time to review one's deeds and spiritual progress over the past year and prepare for the upcoming "Days of Awe" of Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur.
As the month of Divine Mercy and Forgiveness (see "Today in Jewish History" for Elul 1) it is a most opportune time for teshuvah ("return" to G-d), prayer, charity, and increased Ahavat Yisrael (love for a fellow Jew) in the quest for self-improvement and coming closer to G-d. Chassidic master Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi likens the month of Elul to a time when "the king is in the field" and, in contrast to when he is in the royal palace, "everyone who so desires is permitted to meet him, and he receives them all with a cheerful countenance and shows a smiling face to them all."
Specific Elul customs include the daily sounding of the shofar (ram's horn) as a call to repentance. The Baal Shem Tov instituted the custom of reciting three additional chapters of Psalms each day, from the 1st of Elul until Yom Kippur (on Yom Kippur the remaining 36 chapters are recited, thereby completing the entire book of Psalms). Click below to view today's Psalms.
Chapter 37 Chapter 38 Chapter 39
Elul is also the time to have one's tefillin and mezuzot checked by an accredited scribe to ensure that they are in good condition and fit for use.
Links: More on Elul
Today in Jewish History:
• R. YOSEF YITZCHAK SCHNEERSOHN'S MARRIAGE (1897)
Marriage of the 6th Rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (1880-1950), to Rebbetzin Nechamah Dinah (1882-1971).
• PASSING OF BEN ISH CHAI (1909)
Elul 13 is the yahrtzeit of Rabbi Yosef Chaim of Baghdad (1835-1909), the renowned Sephardic Halachic authority and Kabbalist, known as "Ben Ish Chai" after his work by that name.
Links:
The Ben Ish Chai, A Biography
The Ultimate Employee (from the teachings of the Ben Ish Chai)
Intellect and excitement are two separate worlds. Intellect--a world cold and settled; excitement--a world seething and impetuous. Man's avoda (service of G-d) is to combine them, unite them. The impetuousness then becomes transformed into a longing, and the intellect into the guide in a life of service and action.(Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak of Lubavitch (quoted in Hayom Yom, Shevat 12))Marriage of the 6th Rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (1880-1950), to Rebbetzin Nechamah Dinah (1882-1971).
• PASSING OF BEN ISH CHAI (1909)
Elul 13 is the yahrtzeit of Rabbi Yosef Chaim of Baghdad (1835-1909), the renowned Sephardic Halachic authority and Kabbalist, known as "Ben Ish Chai" after his work by that name.
Links:
The Ben Ish Chai, A Biography
The Ultimate Employee (from the teachings of the Ben Ish Chai)
DAILY QUOTE:
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Ki Tavo, 2nd Portion Deuteronomy 26:12-26:15 with Rashi with Rashi
• Chapter 26
12. When you have finished tithing all the tithes of your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give [them] to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, so that they can eat to satiety in your cities. יב. כִּי תְכַלֶּה לַעְשֵׂר אֶת כָּל מַעְשַׂר תְּבוּאָתְךָ בַּשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁלִישִׁת שְׁנַת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְנָתַתָּה לַלֵּוִי לַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה וְאָכְלוּ בִשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְשָׂבֵעוּ:
When you have finished tithing all the tithes of your produce in the third year: When you have finished separating the tithes of the third year [of the seven-year shemittah cycle]. It fixes a time for the removal [of the tithes from the house] and for the [accompanying] confession [regarding their proper disposal] on the Eve of Passover [for the removal, and for the confession, in the afternoon of the last day of Passover] of the fourth year, as it is said,“At the end of (מִקֵּץ) three years, you shall take out [all the tithe of your crop] (Deut. 14:28), and later on, Scripture also uses this expression:”At the end of (מִקֵּץ) seven years“ (Deut. 31: 10), referring to the mitzvah of הַקְהֵל [assembling all the people in the Temple courtyard, to hear the king read the book of Deuteronomy]. Just as there, the mitzvah was to be performed on a Festival, here too [in the case of removing the tithes and reciting the confession, the mitzvah must be performed] on a Festival. But one could suggest that just as there [in the case of הַקְהֵל, the mitzvah was performed] on the Festival of Sukkoth, here too, [the mitzvah must be performed] on the Festival of Sukkoth. Therefore, Scripture states here: ”When have you finished taking all the tithes in the third year"- [this refers to] a festival on which all tithes have been completely taken: this is Passover [not Sukkoth], because many trees have their fruits picked after Sukkoth [but not after Passover]. Consequently, the separating of tithes of the third year’s produce will conclude on Passover of [the following year, namely] the fourth year. And anyone who has delayed [in distributing] his tithes is ordered by Scripture to remove [any remaining tithes] from the house [on Passover of the fourth year of the shemittah cycle]. — [Sifrei 26:12]
כי תכלה לעשר את כל מעשר תבואתך בשנה השלישית: כשתגמור להפריש מעשרות של שנה השלישית, קבע זמן הביעור והוידוי בערב הפסח של שנה הרביעית, שנאמר (דברים יד, כח) מקצה שלש שנים תוציא וגו'. נאמר כאן מקץ, ונאמר להלן (שם לא י) מקץ שבע שנים, לענין הקהל מה להלן רגל אף כאן רגל, אי מה להלן חג הסוכות אף כאן חג הסוכות, תלמוד לומר כי תכלה לעשר, מעשרות של שנה השלישית רגל שהמעשרות כלין בו, וזהו פסח, שהרבה אילנות יש שנלקטין אחר הסוכות, נמצאו מעשרות של שלישית כלין בפסח של רביעית, וכל מי ששהה מעשרותיו הצריכו הכתוב לבערו מן הבית:
the year of the tithe: [The third year of each shemittah cycle is called“the year of the tithe” because] it differs from its preceding two years insofar as it is a year in which only one of the tithes separated in the two preceding years is separated. During the first and second years of the shemittah cycle, the tithes separated are: a) מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, “the first tithe,” as the verse says, “[Speak to the Levites, and say to them,] When you take from the children of Israel the tithe…” (Num. 18:26) [referring to“the first tithe,”] and b) מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, “the second tithe,” as the verse says, “And you shall eat before the Lord, your God… the tithes of your grain, of your wine and of your oil…” (Deut. 14:23) [which is a reference to “the second tithe”]. Thus, we have two tithes [being separated during the first two years of the shemittah cycle]. Now Scripture comes and teaches us that in the third year, only one of these two tithes is separated. And which one is that? It is “the first tithe.” [“The second tithe is not separated during the third year.”] Instead of “the second tithe,” one must give “the tithe for the poor,” for it says here in our verse “you shall give [them] to the Levite” what belongs to him, namely “the first tithe” ; [then our verse continues:] “the stranger, the orphan, and the widow”-this is “the tithe for the poor.” - [Sifrei 26:12; R.H. 12b]
שנת המעשר: שנה שאין נוהג בה אלא מעשר אחד משני מעשרות שנהגו בשתי שנים שלפניה, ששנה ראשונה של שמיטה נוהג בה מעשר ראשון, כמו שנאמר (במדבר יח כו) כי תקחו מאת בני ישראל את המעשר, ומעשר שני, שנאמר (דברים יד כג) ואכלת לפני ה' אלהיך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך, הרי שני מעשרות, ובא ולמדך כאן בשנה השלישית שאין נוהג מאותן שני מעשרות אלא האחד ואיזה, זה מעשר ראשון. ותחת מעשר שני תן מעשר עני שנאמר כאן ונתת ללוי. את אשר לו הרי מעשר ראשון. לגר ליתום ולאלמנה זה מעשר עני:
so that they can eat to satiety: Give them enough to satisfy them. Based on this, [our Rabbis] stated: One may not give the poor in the granary less than one-half a kav of wheat [or one kav of barley. [A kav represents the volume of twenty-four eggs]. — [Sifrei 26:12, Pe’ah 8:5]
ואכלו בשעריך ושבעו: תן להם כדי שבען מכאן אמרו אין פוחתין לעני בגורן פחות מחצי קב חטים וכו':
13. Then you shall say before the Lord, your God, "I have removed the holy [portion] from the house, and I have also given it to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, according to all Your commandment that You commanded me; I have not transgressed Your commandments, nor have I forgotten [them]. יג. וְאָמַרְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בִּעַרְתִּי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִן הַבַּיִת וְגַם נְתַתִּיו לַלֵּוִי וְלַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה כְּכָל מִצְוָתְךָ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָנִי לֹא עָבַרְתִּי מִמִּצְוֹתֶיךָ וְלֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי:
Then you shall say before the Lord, your God: Confess [i.e., declare] that you have given your tithes [as required]. — [Sifrei 26:13]
ואמרת לפני ה' אלהיך: התודה שנתת מעשרותיך:
I have removed the holy [portions] from the house: This refers to: a) “the second tithe,” and b) נֶטַע רְבָעִי, the fruit yielded by a tree in its fourth year of growth [both of which are termed קֹדֶשׁ, holy (portions)], they must be brought up to Jerusalem and eaten there in purity. [Accordingly,] the verse here teaches us that if one has delayed bringing these tithes up to Jerusalem for two years, he must take them up now [in the third year].
בערתי הקדש מן הבית: זה מעשר שני ונטע רבעי, ולמדך שאם שהה מעשרותיו של שתי שנים ולא העלם לירושלים, שצריך להעלותם עכשיו:
and I have also given it to the Levite: This refers to “the first tithe.” - [ibid.] [The seemingly superfluous word “also”] comes to include terumah, [the part given to the kohen] and the firstfruits [which is are also given to the kohen. Since Kohanim stem from the tribe of Levi, they are referred to here as Levites]. — [Yerushalmi Ma’aser Sheni 5:5]
וגם נתתיו ללוי: זה מעשר ראשון. וגם לרבות תרומה ובכורים:
the stranger, the orphan and the widow: This refers to “the tithe for the poor.” - [Sifrei 26:13]
ולגר ליתום ולאלמנה: זה מעשר עני:
according to all Your commandment: I have given them [the tithes] in their proper sequence (ibid). I did not give terumah before the firstfruits; I did not give tithes before terumah; I did not give the second tithe before the first tithe. For terumah is termed רֵאשִׁית, “the first one,” because it is the first portion to be separated when the produce has become [matured] “grain,” and it is written [regarding the separation of tithes]: מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר (Exod. 22:28), which means that one must not change the order [set out in Scripture for separating tithes]. - [Mechilta , Exod. 22:28]
ככל מצותך: נתתים כסדרן ולא הקדמתי תרומה לבכורים, ולא מעשר לתרומה ולא שני לראשון, שהתרומה קרויה ראשית, שהיא ראשונה משנעשה דגן, וכתיב (שמות כב כח) מלאתך ודמעך לא תאחר, לא תשנה את הסדר:
I have not transgressed Your commandments: I did not separate tithes from one species [of produce to fulfill the obligation of tithe-separation due] from another species [of produce], and I did not separate tithes from the new crop [of the year to fulfill the obligation of tithe-separation due] from the old crop. — [Sifrei, Ma’aser Sheni 5:11]
לא עברתי ממצותיך: לא הפרשתי ממין על שאינו מינו ומן החדש על הישן:
nor have I forgotten: to bless You [on the performance of the mitzvah] of separating tithes. — [ibid.]
ולא שכחתי: מלברך על הפרשת מעשרות:
14. I did not eat any of it [second tithe] while in my mourning, nor did I consume any of it while unclean; neither did I use any of it for the dead. I obeyed the Lord, my God; I did according to all that You commanded me. יד. לֹא אָכַלְתִּי בְאֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא בִעַרְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ בְּטָמֵא וְלֹא נָתַתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ לְמֵת שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּקוֹל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהָי עָשִׂיתִי כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָנִי:
I did not eat any of it [second tithe] while in my mourning: From here [our Rabbis derive the ruling that the second tithe] is forbidden to [be eaten by] an אוֹנָן [close relative of a deceased on the day of death]. — [Sifrei 26:14]
לא אכלתי באני ממנו: מכאן שאסור לאונן:
nor did I consume any of it while unclean: Whether I was unclean and it was clean, or I was clean it was unclean. But where [in the Torah] is one warned against this? [The warning is alluded to in the verse: (Deut. 12:17),]“You shall not eat in your cities [the tithe…].” This refers to eating in a state of uncleanness, as it is said in reference to פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָשִׁים, [animals dedicated as sacrifices, which subsequently became blemished and consequently unfit for that purpose (see Deut. 15: 21-22) the Torah says,] “You may eat it within your cities, the unclean and the clean person together…” (Deut. 15:22). This [the second tithe], however, you shall not eat in the manner of “eating in the cities,” mentioned elsewhere. - [Yev. 73b]
ולא בערתי ממנו בטמא: בין שאני טמא והוא טהור, בין שאני טהור והוא טמא. והיכן הוזהר על כך (לעיל יב יז) לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך, זו אכילת טומאה, כמו שנאמר בפסולי המקודשים (לעיל טו כב) בשעריך תאכלנו הטמא והטהור וגו', אבל זה לא תוכל לאכול דרך אכילת שעריך האמור במקום אחר:
neither have I used any of it for the dead: [using its value in money] to make for him a coffin or shrouds. — [Sifrei, Ma’aser Sheni 5:12]
ולא נתתי ממנו למת: לעשות לו ארון ותכריכין:
I obeyed the Lord, my God: [in that] I have brought [it] to the Temple. - [Sifrei , Ma’aser Sheni 5:12] [In fact, the second tithe was not brought to the Temple, but eaten in Jerusalem. If a person redeemed it, however, he was to bring the redempion money to Jerusalem and purchase food to be eaten in Jerusalem. Although all types of food could be purchased, it was customary to purchase animals and sacrifice them as peace offerings. In this respect, the tithe would be brought into the Temple (Malbim).]
שמעתי בקול ה' אלהי: הביאותיו לבית הבחירה:
I have done according to all that You have commanded me: I have myself rejoiced and caused others to rejoice through it. — [Sifrei, Ma’aser Sheni 5:12]
עשיתי ככל אשר צויתני: שמחתי ושימחתי בו:
15. Look down from Your holy dwelling, from the heavens, and bless Your people Israel, and the ground which You have given to us, as You swore to our forefathers a land flowing with milk and honey. טו. הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קָדְשְׁךָ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבָרֵךְ אֶת עַמְּךָ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵת הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה לָנוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ:
Look down from Your holy dwelling: We have fulfilled what You have decreed upon us. Now You do what is incumbent upon You to do (Sifrei , Ma’aser Sheni 5:13), for You said, “If you follow My statutes… then I shall give [you] your rains in their [proper] time….” (Lev. 26:3-4).
השקיפה ממעון קדשך: עשינו מה שגזרת עלינו, עשה אתה מה שעליך לעשות, שאמרת (ויקרא כו, ג) אם בחקתי תלכו ונתתי גשמיכם בעתם:
which You have given us, as You swore to our forefathers: to give to us, and You have [also] kept [the promise You made to our ancestors who left Egypt, that You would give us] “a land flowing with milk and honey.”
אשר נתתה לנו כאשר נשבעת לאבתינו: לתת לנו וקיימת ארץ זבת חלב ודבש:
___________________________
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 69 - 71
• Special Custom for the Month of Elul and High Holidays
The Baal Shem Tov instituted a custom of reciting three additional chapters of Psalms each day, from the 1st of Elul until Yom Kippur (on Yom Kippur the remaining 36 chapters are recited, thereby completing the entire book of Psalms).
See below for today's additional chapters.
Chapter 69
1. For the Conductor, on the shoshanim,1 by David.
2. Deliver me, O God, for the waters have reached until my soul!
3. I have sunk in muddy depths without foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the current sweeps me away.
4. I am wearied by my crying, my throat is parched; my eyes pined while waiting for my God.
5. More numerous than the hairs on my head are those who hate me without reason. Mighty are those who would cut me off, those who are my enemies without cause. What I have not stolen, I will then have to return.
6. O God, You know my folly, and my wrongs are not hidden from You.
7. Let not those who hope in You be shamed through me, O my Lord, God of Hosts; let not those who seek You be disgraced through me, O God of Israel,
8. because for Your sake I have borne humiliation, disgrace covers my face.
9. I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons,
10. for the envy of Your House has consumed me, and the humiliations of those who scorn You have fallen upon me.
11. And I wept while my soul fasted, and it was a humiliation to me.
12. I made sackcloth my garment, and became a byword for them.
13. Those who sit by the gate speak of me, and [of me] are the songs of drunkards.
14. May my prayer to You, Lord, be at a gracious time; God, in Your abounding kindness, answer me with Your true deliverance.
15. Rescue me from the mire, so that I not sink; let me be saved from my enemies and from deep waters.
16. Let not the current of water sweep me away, nor the deep swallow me; and let not the pit close its mouth over me.
17. Answer me, Lord, for Your kindness is good; according to Your abundant mercies, turn to me.
18. Do not hide Your face from Your servant, for I am in distress-hurry to answer me.
19. Draw near to my soul and liberate it; redeem me, so that my enemies [not feel triumphant].
20. You know my humiliation, my shame, and my disgrace; all my tormentors are before You.
21. Humiliation has broken my heart, and I have become ill. I longed for comfort, but there was none; for consolers, but I did not find.
22. They put gall into my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
23. Let their table become a trap before them, and [their] serenity, a snare.
24. Let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and let their loins continually falter.
25. Pour Your wrath upon them, and let the fierceness of Your anger overtake them.
26. Let their palace be desolate, let there be no dweller in their tents,
27. for they persecute the one whom You struck, and tell of the pain of Your wounded ones.
28. Add iniquity to their iniquity, and let them not enter into Your righteousness.
29. May they be erased from the Book of Life, and let them not be inscribed with the righteous.
30. But I am poor and in pain; let Your deliverance, O God, streng-then me.
31. I will praise the Name of God with song, I will extol Him with thanksgiving!
32. And it will please the Lord more than [the sacrifice of] a mature bull with horns and hooves.
33. The humble will see it and rejoice; you seekers of God, [see] and your hearts will come alive.
34. For the Lord listens to the needy, and He does not despise His prisoners.
35. Let heaven and earth praise Him, the seas and all that moves within them,
36. for God will deliver Zion and build the cities of Judah, and they will settle there and possess it;
37. and the seed of His servants will inherit it, and those who love His Name will dwell in it.
Chapter 70
David prays that his enemies be shamed and humiliated for their shaming him and reveling in his troubles. Then the righteous will rejoice, and chant songs and praises always.
1. For the Conductor, by David, to remind.
2. O God, [come] to rescue me; O Lord, hurry to my aid.
3. Let those who seek my life be shamed and disgraced; let those who wish me harm retreat and be humiliated.
4. Let those who say, "Aha! Aha!" be turned back in return for their shaming [me].
5. Let all who seek You rejoice and delight in You, and let those who love Your deliverance say always, "May God be exalted!”
6. But I am poor and needy; hurry to me, O God! You are my help and deliverer; O God, do not delay!
Chapter 71
In this awe-inspiring prayer, David speaks of his enemies' desire to kill him, declaring him deserving of death.
1. I have taken refuge in You, O Lord; I will never be shamed.
2. Rescue me and deliver me in Your righteousness; incline Your ear to me and save me.
3. Be for me a sheltering rock, to enter always. You have ordered my salvation, for You are my rock and my fortress.
4. O my God, rescue me from the hand of the wicked, from the palm of the scheming and violent.
5. For You are my hope, O my Lord, God, my security since my youth.
6. I have relied on You from the womb; You drew me from my mother's innards; my praise is of You always.
7. I became an example to the masses, yet You were my mighty refuge.
8. Let my mouth be filled with Your praise, all day long with Your glory.
9. Do not cast me aside in old age; do not forsake me when my strength fails;
10. for my enemies say of me, and those who watch my soul conspire together,
11. saying, "God has forsaken him. Give chase and catch him, for there is no rescuer.”
12. O God, do not distance Yourself from me; my God, hurry to my aid.
13. Let the adversaries of my soul be shamed and consumed; let those who seek my harm be enwrapped in disgrace and humiliation.
14. But as for me, I will always hope; I will add to all Your praises.
15. My mouth will tell of Your righteousness, all day long of Your deliverance, for I do not know their number.
16. I come with the strength of my Lord, God; I mention Your righteousness, Yours alone.
17. O God, You have taught me since my youth, and to this day I tell of Your wonders.
18. Even into old age and hoariness, O God, do not abandon me, until I tell of Your might to the generations, and of Your strength to all who are to come.
19. Your righteousness, O God, reaches the high heavens, for You do great things; O God, who is like You!
20. You, Who has shown me many and grievous troubles, You will revive me again; You will lift me again from the depths of the earth.
21. You will increase my greatness; You will turn and console me.
22. I too1 will thank You on the lyre for Your faithfulness, My God; I will sing to You on the harp, O Holy One of Israel.
23. My lips will rejoice when I sing to you, as well as my soul which You have redeemed.
24. My tongue will also utter Your righteousness all day, for those who seek my harm are shamed and disgraced.
Additional Three Chapters
The Baal Shem Tov instituted a custom of reciting three additional chapters of Psalms each day, from the 1st of Elul until Yom Kippur (on Yom Kippur the remaining 36 chapters are recited, thereby completing the entire book of Psalms).
Today's Chapters are 37, 38 and 39.
Chapter 37
King David exhorts his generation not to be jealous of the prosperity of the wicked, for it may lead to falling into their ways. Rather, put your trust in God, conduct yourselves with integrity, and God will take care of everything.
1. By David. Do not compete with the wicked; do not envy doers of injustice.
2. For like grass they will be swiftly cut down; like green vegetation they will wither.
3. Trust in the Lord and do good; then will you abide in the land and be nourished by faith.
4. Delight in the Lord, and He will grant you the desires of your heart.
5. Cast your needs upon the Lord; rely on Him, and He will take care.
6. He will reveal your righteousness like the light, your justness like the high noon.
7. Depend on the Lord and hope in Him. Compete not with the prosperous, with the man who invents evil schemes.
8. Let go of anger, abandon rage; do not compete with [one who intends] only to harm.
9. For the evildoers will be cut down; but those who hope in the Lord, they will inherit the earth.
10. For soon the wicked one will not be; you will gaze at his place and he will be gone.
11. But the humble shall inherit the earth, and delight in abundant peace.
12. The wicked one plots against the righteous, and gnashes his teeth at him.
13. My Lord laughs at him, for He sees that his day will come.
14. The wicked have drawn a sword and bent their bow to fell the poor and destitute, to slaughter those of upright ways.
15. But their sword shall enter their own hearts, and their bows shall break.
16. Better the little of the righteous, than the abundant wealth of the wicked.
17. For the strength of the wicked will be broken, but the Lord supports the righteous.
18. The Lord appreciates the days of the innocent; their inheritance will last forever.
19. They will not be shamed in times of calamity, and in days of famine they will be satisfied.
20. For the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord are as fattened sheep: consumed, consumed in smoke.
21. The wicked man borrows and does not repay; but the righteous man is gracious and gives.
22. For those blessed by Him will inherit the earth, and those cursed by Him will be cut off.
23. The steps of man are directed by God; He desires his way.
24. When he totters he shall not be thrown down, for the Lord supports his hand.
25. I have been a youth, I have also aged; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his offspring begging bread.
26. All day he is kind and lends; his offspring are a blessing.
27. Turn away from evil and do good, and you will dwell [in peace] forever.
28. For the Lord loves justice, he will not abandon his pious ones-they are protected forever; but the offspring of the wicked are cut off.
29. The righteous shall inherit the earth and dwell upon it forever.
30. The mouth of the righteous one utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice.
31. The Torah of his God is in his heart; his steps shall not falter.
32. The wicked one watches for the righteous man, and seeks to kill him.
33. But the Lord will not abandon him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged.
34. Hope in the Lord and keep His way; then He will raise you high to inherit the earth. When the wicked are cut off, you shall see it.
35. I saw a powerful wicked man, well-rooted like a vibrant, native tree.
36. Yet he vanished, behold he was gone; I searched for him, but he could not be found.
37. Watch the innocent, and observe the upright, for the future of such a man is peace.
38. But sinners shall be destroyed together; the future of the wicked is cut off.
39. The deliverance of the righteous is from the Lord; He is their strength in time of distress.
40. The Lord helps them and delivers them; He delivers them from the wicked and saves them, because they have put their trust in Him.
Chapter 38
A prayer for every individual, bewailing the length of the exile. One who is in distress should recite this psalm, hence its introduction, "A psalm... to remind" (to remind us to recite it in times of distress). One can also derive many lessons from it.
1. A psalm by David, to remind.
2. O Lord, do not rebuke me in Your anger, nor chastise me in Your wrath.
3. For Your arrows have landed in me, Your hand descended upon me.
4. There is no soundness in my flesh because of Your rage, no peace in my bones because of my sin.
5. For my iniquities have flooded over my head; like a heavy load, they are too heavy for me.
6. My wounds are rotted; they reek because of my foolishness.
7. I am bent and extremely bowed; all day I go about in gloom.
8. My sides are inflamed; there is no soundness in my flesh.
9. I am weakened and extremely depressed; I howl from the moaning of my heart.
10. My Lord, all that I desire is before You; my sighing is not hidden from You.
11. My heart is engulfed, my strength has left me; the light of my eyes they, too, are not with me.
12. My friends and companions stand aloof from my affliction; my intimates stand afar.
13. The seekers of my life have laid traps; those who seek my harm speak destructiveness; they utter deceits all day long.
14. But I am like a deaf man, I do not hear; like a mute that does not open his mouth.
15. I was like a man that does not perceive, and in whose mouth there are no rebuttals.
16. Because for You, O Lord, I wait; You will answer, my Lord, my God.
17. For I said, "Lest they rejoice over me; when my foot falters they will gloat over me.”
18. For I am accustomed to limping, and my pain is constantly before me.
19. For I admit my iniquity; I worry because of my sin.
20. But my enemies abound with life; those who hate me without cause flourish.
21. Those who repay evil for good resent me for my pursuit of good.
22. Do not forsake me, O Lord; do not be distant from me, my God.
23. Hurry to my aid, O my Lord, my Salvation.
Chapter 39
David's prayer bewailing his suffering. But it is not suffering itself that pains him, rather he is saddened by its disturbing his Torah study. For man's days are few, "and if not now, when (will he study)?" for he may die, today or tomorrow. He therefore requests that his suffering be removed, to enable him to study Torah and acquire a place in the World to Come.
1. For the Conductor, for yedutun,1 a psalm by David.
2. I said that I would guard my ways from sinning with my tongue; I would guard my mouth with a muzzle, [even] while the wicked one is before me.
3. I became mute with stillness, I was silent [even] from the good, though my pain was crippling.
4. My heart grew hot within me, a fire blazed in my utterance, as I spoke with my tongue.
5. O Lord, let me know my end and what is the measure of my days, that I may know when I will cease.
6. Behold, like handbreadths You set my days; my lifetime is as naught before You. But all is futility, all mankind's existence, Selah.
7. Only in darkness does man walk, seeking only futility; he amasses riches and knows not who will reap them.
8. And now, what is my hope, my Lord? My longing is to You.
9. Rescue me from all my transgressions; do not make me the scorn of the degenerate.
10. I am mute, I do not open my mouth, for You have caused [my suffering].
11. Remove Your affliction from me; I am devastated by the attack of Your hand.
12. In reproach for sin You chastened man; like a moth, You wore away that which is precious to him. All mankind is nothing but futility, forever.
13. Hear my prayer, O Lord, listen to my cry; do not be silent to my tears, for I am a stranger with You, a sojourner like all my forefathers.
14. Turn from me, that I may recover my strength, before I depart and I am no more.
____________________________
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 14
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Monday, 13 Elul 5774 • 8 September 2014
Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 14
ובכל שנה ושנה יורד ומאיר מחכמה עילאה אור חדש ומחודש שלא היה מאיר עדיין מעולם, לארץ העליונה
And every year there descends and radiates a new and renewed light which has never yet shone, from the Supreme Chochmah1 to the Eretz HaElyonah.
The light that reaches down to this level is here described as “new and renewed,” for in the first instance a new light radiates into Chochmah from the Ein Sof that transcends it, and then a new light issues from Chochmah and irradiates the Eretz HaElyonah.
כי אור כל שנה ושנה מסתלק לשרשו בכל ערב ראש השנה
For the light of every year withdraws to its source in the Essence of the Ein Sof on the eve of every Rosh HaShanah,
כשהחדש מתכסה בו
“when the moon is covered.”
Rosh HaShanah is known as2 “the holiday when the new moon is covered,” and is not seen. In a spiritual context this means that the Sefirah of Malchut (represented in the Kabbalah by the moon), the light that animates the worlds and created beings, is concealed and withdraws to its source.
ואחר כך, על ידי תקיעת שופר והתפלות, נמשך אור חדש עליון
Afterwards, by means of the sounding of the Shofar and by means of the prayers, a new and superior light is elicited,
מבחינה עליונה יותר שבמדריגת חכמה עילאה
[a light] of a yet higher rank in the sphere of the Supreme Chochmah,
להאיר לארץ עליונה ולדרים עליה
to radiate to the Eretz Elyonah and those who dwell upon it,
הם כל העולמות, העליונים והתחתונים, המקבלים חיותם ממנה
i.e., to all the higher and lower worlds that receive their vitality from it
דהיינו, מן האור אין סוף ברוך הוא וחכמתו המלובש בה
i.e., from the [infinite] Ein Sof-light, and from [G‑d’s] Chochmah which is vested in it, i.e., in “the Higher Land”;
כדכתיב: כי עמך מקור חיים, באורך נראה אור
as it is written,3 “For with You is the source of life; in Your light shall we see light.”
Supreme Chochmah, which is the source of life, is “with You,” i.e., nullified and unified with the Ein Sof; “in Your light” (i.e., in the light that radiates from Chochmah to “the Higher Land”) “we shall see light” (i.e., the light that descends from “the Higher Land” and illumines all the created beings which receive their vitality from it).
דהיינו אור המאיר מחכמה עילאה, מקור החיים
This refers to the light that radiates from Supreme Chochmah, the source of life.
וכנודע ליודעי חן, שבכל ראש השנה היא הנסירה, ומקבלת מוחין חדשים, עליונים יותר כו׳
(4And, as is known to the scholars of the Hidden Wisdom, i.e., the Kabbalists, every Rosh HaShanah the nesirah takes place, and [the Sefirah of Malchut] receives new, more sublime Mochin, and so on.)
This is a Kabbalistic theme regarding the “rebuilding” of the Sefirah of Malchut that takes place every Rosh HaShanah. The paradigm of this sequence is the slumber that G‑d brought upon Adam5 on the day of his creation, which took place on the day of Rosh HaShanah, and the subsequent excision (nesirah) of the rib from which Eve was then formed.
The Kabbalah explains that Adam is a terrestial echo of Supernal Man, i.e., the bracket of Sefirot known collectively as Za (ז״א, acronym for זעיר אנפין) of the World of Atzilut. “Slumber” alludes to the withdrawal of the Supernal intellectual attributes, or Mochin, from Za (just as man’s intellect withdraws during sleep). The new and more sublime Mochin which are then drawn down into Malchut are far superior to the Mochin that Malchut had previously received from Za.
ובפרטי פרטיות, כן הוא בכל יום ויום
In a very specific way, this takes place every day.
נמשכים מוחין עליונים יותר בכל תפלת השחר
More sublime Mochin are elicited by every morning-prayer,
ואינן מוחין הראשונים שנסתלקו אחר התפלה, רק גבוהין יותר
which are not the original Mochin that withdrew after the prayer [of the previous day], but more sublime ones.
ודרך כלל, בכללות העולם בשית אלפי שנין, כן הוא בכל ראש השנה וראש השנה
In general terms, with respect to the world as a whole — and not only with regard to the daily elicitation of new Mochin during prayer as experienced by an individual man — during the six thousand years [of the world’s existence],6 this occurs every Rosh HaShanah.
וזהו שכתוב: תמיד עיני ה׳ אלקיך בה
And this is the meaning of the above-quoted verse, “Forever are the eyes of the L‑rd your G‑d upon it,”
שהעינים הם כינוים להמשכת והארת אור החכמה
for “eyes” is an epithet for the efflux and radiation of the light of Chochmah,
שלכן נקראו חכמים: עיני העדה
for which reason sages are referred to as7 “the eyes of the congregation,” for they are illumined by the light of Chochmah which is known by the epithet “eyes”.
ואוירא דארץ ישראל מחכים
And [this, too, is the meaning of the teaching],8 “The atmosphere of the Land of Israel makes one wise” — for the Land of Israel, too, is illumined by Chochmah.
As was stated above, “Forever are the eyes of the L‑rd your G‑d upon it” refers to a constant illumination by Chochmah.
והארה והמשכה זו, אף שהיא תמידית
Now, this radiation and efflux, though it is continuous,
אף על פי כן אינה בבחינה ומדריגה אחת לבדה מימי עולם
nevertheless, it is not only on one and the same plane and level since the beginning of the world.
אלא שבכל שנה ושנה הוא אור חדש עליון
Rather, every year there is a new and superior light,
כי האור שנתחדש והאיר בראש השנה זה, מסתלק בערב ראש השנה הבאה, לשרשו
because the light which was generated and which shone on this Rosh HaShanah withdraws to its source on the eve of the next Rosh HaShanah.
וזהו שכתוב: מרשית השנה ועד אחרית שנה לבדה
This enables us to understand the verse that says that “the eyes of G‑d” are upon the Land “from the beginning of the year to the end of the year” only.
The verse does not state that they are there “everlastingly”, for the efflux that descends on Rosh HaShanah lasts only to the end of the year, at which time it withdraws and makes way for the descent of a new and more sublime light.
ולכן כתיב: מרשית, חסר א׳
And that is why meireishit (“from the beginning”) is written without an alef:
רומז על הסתלקות האור
it alludes to the withdrawal of the light, signified by the alef,9
שמסתלק בליל ראש השנה
which withdraws on the night of Rosh HaShanah
At that time the innermost element of the world’s vitality is in a state of withdrawal due to the “ascent of Malchut”; i.e., the innermost core of Malchut is then in a state of elevation and withdrawal,
עד אחר התקיעות
until after the sounding of the Shofar,
שיורד אור חדש, עליון יותר, שלא היה מאיר עדיין מימי עולם
when there descends a new and more sublime light that has never yet shone since the beginning of the world.
והוא מתלבש ומסתתר בארץ החיים שלמעלה ושלמטה
It vests itself and conceals itself in the Eretz HaChayim which is above — i.e., in Malchut of Atzilut, the source of all worlds and created beings — and in the Eretz HaChayim which is below, in the Land of Israel,
For the light that animates this world first passes through the Holy Land, and from there it is diffused throughout the world at large.
להחיות את כל העולמות כל משך שנה זו
in order to animate all the worlds for the duration of that year.
אך גילויו מההסתר הזה
Its manifestation, however,
For the light became concealed in the Eretz HaChayim above and below, so that its further descent and the revelation of its creative life-force to the world and to all its created beings:
תלוי במעשה התחתונים, וזכותם ותשובתם בעשרת ימי תשובה
depends on the actions of those below, and on their merits and penitence during the Ten Days of Penitence.
ודי למבין
This will suffice for the initiated.
In summary: The Divine light issuing from the Sefirah of Chochmah in the World of Atzilut that radiates within the Land of Israel throughout the year, increases yearly both in quantity and in quality. Similarly, the tzedakah given for the Holy Land should be increased every year both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The conclusion of the above letter makes it clear that this mortal initiative makes an impact on the revelation of this light: the ever-increasing revelation of the light that descends in a concealed form is dependent on the ever-increasing contributions of tzedakah given for the Land of Israel.
FOOTNOTES
1. Note of the Rebbe: “Cf. Likkutei Torah (Shir HaShirim 50b): ‘Surely in Supreme Chochmah too this new light is drawn down from Above....”’
2. Rosh HaShanah 8a.
3. Tehillim 36:10.
4. Parentheses are in the original text.
5. Bereishit 2:21.
6. Rosh HaShanah 31a.
7. See Bamidbar 15:24; Taanit 24a.
8. Bava Batra 158b.
9. Cf. Zohar II, 34a; ibid., 123a.
____________________________
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah P109, P237 - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Monday, 13 Elul 5774 • 8 September 2014
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 109 (Digest)
Immersing in a Mikvah (Ritual Pool)
"He shall bathe all his body in water"—Leviticus 15:16.
A person who chooses to become cleansed of any ritual impurity is commanded to immerse in a mikvah [a natural pool of water]. According to the tradition of the Oral Law, for a mikvah to be kosher it must contain enough water for [an average] person to submerge himself within them—unless it is a moving stream of water, in which case even the smallest amount of water suffices [for a smaller than average individual, or for immersing a ritually impure utensil].
Some details:
Of all the types of ritually impure people, only the zav requires immersion in a moving stream of water.
This mitzvah is not obligatory. As long as an individual has no intention of entering the Temple Mount, he may remain in his ritually impure state.
An individual's purification process is not finalized until the sun sets on the day he immerses.
There may not be anything separating between the person's body and the waters of the mikvah.
The 109th mitzvah is that we are commanded to immerse in the waters of a mikvah and thereby be purified from whichever form of tumah previously existed.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "He must immerse his entire body in water." The Oral Tradition2 explains that [the phrase "his entire body" also teaches that] there must be enough water to cover his entire body.3 This is the minimum size of a mikvah unless the water is from a spring, in which case there is no minimum amount,4 as explained in the laws which deal with this mitzvah.
Among the conditions [governing the mikvah] is that only in the case of a zav is spring water required,5 as the verse6 states, "mayim chaim."
When we say that immersion is a mitzvah, this does not mean that any person who is tameh is required to immerse himself — as one who wears a four-cornered garment must put tzitzis on it, or that anyone with a house must build a fence around the roof. [When I say, "it is a mitzvah,"] I refer to the laws of immersion — that we are commanded that anyone who wants purification from tumah can do so only through immersion in water, after which he becomes tahor.
The Sifra7 says, "One might think that the phrase8 'He must immerse in water' is a Divine decree [and that it is an absolute requirement to immerse]. The verse therefore says, 'then he can return to the camp' [after being purified] from tumah." This hints to the principle I just explained, i.e. that the mitzvah is just the law, i.e. that one who wants to be purified should take certain steps. This law is itself the mitzvah. This does not mean however, that there is an independent requirement to immerse — should he want to remain tameh and not enter the machaneh Shechinah9 for any period of time, he may do so.
The Book of Truth (i.e. the Torah) explains that even though after the person immerses he becomes tahor, his purification is incomplete until sunset.10 The Oral Tradition also explains that during immersion he must be naked and that his entire body must come in contact with the water. As our Sages put it,11 "The phrase, 'his entire body' teaches that there can be nothing intervening between his body and the water."
We have therefore explained that this mitzvah of immersion includes the laws of mikvah, of intervening substances, and t'vul yom.12 This mitzvah is explained in tractates Mikva'os and T'vul Yom.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 15:16.
2.Sifra.
3.This is 40 se'ah of water.
4.In practice, even a mikvah of spring water must contain 40 se'ah.
5.In other cases, even for a zavah, rain water is sufficient.
6.Lev. 15:13.
7.Ibid., 16:26.
8.Ibid., 14:8.
9.Corresponding to the Temple courtyard.
10.See Lev. 22:6. A person in this state is called a t'vul yom.
11.Eruvin 4b.
12.One who has immersed and is awaiting sunset, as mentioned above.
Positive Commandment 237 (Digest)
Damage Caused by Goring
"If an ox gores..."—Exodus 21:28.
We are commanded regarding the laws [of liability] that apply if a person's ox [gores another's animal, or any other malicious damage cause by any animal belonging to an individual].
The 237th mitzvah is that we are commanded to follow the laws regarding [damage caused by] an ox.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If an ox gores [a man or woman...]", and the verse,2 "If one person's ox injures the ox of another person...."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the first six chapters of tractate Bava Kama.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 21:28.
2.Ibid., 21:35.
Translation of (the unabridged text of) Sefer Hamitzvot by Rabbi Berel Bell, member of the Rabbinical Court of Montreal and director of Teacher Training for the Jewish Learning Institute.
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 109 (Digest)
Immersing in a Mikvah (Ritual Pool)
"He shall bathe all his body in water"—Leviticus 15:16.
A person who chooses to become cleansed of any ritual impurity is commanded to immerse in a mikvah [a natural pool of water]. According to the tradition of the Oral Law, for a mikvah to be kosher it must contain enough water for [an average] person to submerge himself within them—unless it is a moving stream of water, in which case even the smallest amount of water suffices [for a smaller than average individual, or for immersing a ritually impure utensil].
Some details:
Of all the types of ritually impure people, only the zav requires immersion in a moving stream of water.
This mitzvah is not obligatory. As long as an individual has no intention of entering the Temple Mount, he may remain in his ritually impure state.
An individual's purification process is not finalized until the sun sets on the day he immerses.
There may not be anything separating between the person's body and the waters of the mikvah.
The 109th mitzvah is that we are commanded to immerse in the waters of a mikvah and thereby be purified from whichever form of tumah previously existed.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "He must immerse his entire body in water." The Oral Tradition2 explains that [the phrase "his entire body" also teaches that] there must be enough water to cover his entire body.3 This is the minimum size of a mikvah unless the water is from a spring, in which case there is no minimum amount,4 as explained in the laws which deal with this mitzvah.
Among the conditions [governing the mikvah] is that only in the case of a zav is spring water required,5 as the verse6 states, "mayim chaim."
When we say that immersion is a mitzvah, this does not mean that any person who is tameh is required to immerse himself — as one who wears a four-cornered garment must put tzitzis on it, or that anyone with a house must build a fence around the roof. [When I say, "it is a mitzvah,"] I refer to the laws of immersion — that we are commanded that anyone who wants purification from tumah can do so only through immersion in water, after which he becomes tahor.
The Sifra7 says, "One might think that the phrase8 'He must immerse in water' is a Divine decree [and that it is an absolute requirement to immerse]. The verse therefore says, 'then he can return to the camp' [after being purified] from tumah." This hints to the principle I just explained, i.e. that the mitzvah is just the law, i.e. that one who wants to be purified should take certain steps. This law is itself the mitzvah. This does not mean however, that there is an independent requirement to immerse — should he want to remain tameh and not enter the machaneh Shechinah9 for any period of time, he may do so.
The Book of Truth (i.e. the Torah) explains that even though after the person immerses he becomes tahor, his purification is incomplete until sunset.10 The Oral Tradition also explains that during immersion he must be naked and that his entire body must come in contact with the water. As our Sages put it,11 "The phrase, 'his entire body' teaches that there can be nothing intervening between his body and the water."
We have therefore explained that this mitzvah of immersion includes the laws of mikvah, of intervening substances, and t'vul yom.12 This mitzvah is explained in tractates Mikva'os and T'vul Yom.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 15:16.
2.Sifra.
3.This is 40 se'ah of water.
4.In practice, even a mikvah of spring water must contain 40 se'ah.
5.In other cases, even for a zavah, rain water is sufficient.
6.Lev. 15:13.
7.Ibid., 16:26.
8.Ibid., 14:8.
9.Corresponding to the Temple courtyard.
10.See Lev. 22:6. A person in this state is called a t'vul yom.
11.Eruvin 4b.
12.One who has immersed and is awaiting sunset, as mentioned above.
Positive Commandment 237 (Digest)
Damage Caused by Goring
"If an ox gores..."—Exodus 21:28.
We are commanded regarding the laws [of liability] that apply if a person's ox [gores another's animal, or any other malicious damage cause by any animal belonging to an individual].
The 237th mitzvah is that we are commanded to follow the laws regarding [damage caused by] an ox.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If an ox gores [a man or woman...]", and the verse,2 "If one person's ox injures the ox of another person...."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the first six chapters of tractate Bava Kama.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 21:28.
2.Ibid., 21:35.
Translation of (the unabridged text of) Sefer Hamitzvot by Rabbi Berel Bell, member of the Rabbinical Court of Montreal and director of Teacher Training for the Jewish Learning Institute.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter a Day: Chapter: To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 11To`en veNit`an - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
Whenever landed property is known to have belonged to a person, we presume that he is the owner even though the property is now in the possession of another person.
What is implied? Reuven was using a courtyard as a person would commonly use his own property, living in it, renting it to others, building and tearing down structures. After a while, Shimon came and lodged a claim against him, saying: "The courtyard that is in your possession belongs to me. I rented it to you," or "... I lent it to you."
Reuven replied: "It was yours, but you sold it to me," or "You gave it to me as a present."
If Shimon does not bring witnesses who testify that it was known to belong to him, Reuven is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset, and he is allowed to retain possession of the courtyard. If, however, Shimon brings witnesses who testify that this field belonged to him, our presumption is that Shimon is the owner. We tell Reuven: "Bring proof that he sold it to you or gave it to you." If he does not bring proof, we force him to leave and establish Shimon as the owner. This law applies even when Reuven does not admit that the field ever belonged to Shimon, because there are witnesses who support Shimon's claim.
Halacha 2
When do we require Reuven to bring proof that he acquired the field or to depart? When he did not use the property for an extended time. If, however, Reuven brings witnesses who testify that he partook of the produce of this field for three consecutive years and benefited from it in its entirety in the manner in which any person would benefit from that field, we allow Reuven to maintain possession. This applies provided that it was possible for the original owners to know that this person had taken possession of the field, and they did not lodge a protest against him. Reuven must take a sh'vu'at hesset that Shimon sold him the field or gave it to him, and then he is released of all obligation.
The rationale for this decision is that we tell Shimon: "If your claim that you did not sell or give him the property is true, why is this person using your land year after year, when you do not have a legal document stating that it was rented to him or given to him as security for a loan, and yet you have not lodged a protest against him?"
If the plaintiff responds to this by claiming that the news that the other person was using his property did not reach him because he was in a distant country, we tell him: "It is impossible that the information did not reach you in three years. And when the information reached you, you should have lodged a protest in the presence of witnesses, telling them that 'So-and-so stole property from me, and in the future I will lodge a claim against him in court.' Since you did not issue a protest, you caused yourself a loss."
Therefore, if there was a war or a disruption of travel routes between the place where Reuven was located and the place where Shimon was located, we expropriate the property from Reuven even if he benefited from its produce for ten years. We return it to Shimon, because he could say: "I did not know that this person was using my property."
Halacha 3
Even in a situation where there was a war and a breakdown in communication, if Reuven brought witnesses who testify that each year Shimon came and stayed in this place" for 30 days or less, we tell Shimon: "Why didn't you protest when you came? You have lost your rights."
If Shimon claims: "I was very much occupied at the business fair and I did not know that so-and-so was in my courtyard," his claim is respected. For it is possible that a person will be occupied at a business fair for 30 days. If he stayed for more than 30 days and did not protest, he loses his rights.
It appears to me that this law applies only in the villages, for the people there are very much occupied with their business fairs.
Halacha 4
Why do we not tell Reuven: "If it is true that he sold the property to you or gave it to you as a present, why did you not take care of your deed of acquisition?" Because a person does not take care of his legal documents for his entire life, and it is an established presumption that a person will not take care of a legal document for more than three years. If by that time, he sees that no one is protesting his ownership, he will not take care of it any longer.
Halacha 5
If Shimon issued a protest in a distant country, why can Reuven not claim: "I did not hear that he lodged a protest against me so that I felt it necessary to safeguard my deed of acquisition"?
Because we tell him: "Your friend has a friend, and his friend has a friend. And it is an established presumption that word of the protest reached you. Hence, since you know that he lodged a protest against you within the three years, if it is true that you had a deed of acquisition and you did not safeguard it, you caused yourself a loss."
Halacha 6
Therefore, if Shimon lodged a protest in the presence of witnesses, but told them: "Do not utter a word about this protest," the protest is of no consequence. If, however, the witnesses said on their own volition: "We will not utter a word about this," the protest is significant. For a person will ultimately speak of a matter that he was not charged to keep private.
Similarly, if the original owner told the witnesses: "Don't tell the person who took possession of the property about my protest," or the witnesses said on their own volition: "We will not notify him," the protest is of consequence. For even though they will not notify him, they will notify others, and ultimately the information will reach him.
Halacha 7
What constitutes a protest? That the owner says in the presence of two witnesses: "So-and-so who is using my field is a robber. In the future, I will call him to court." Similarly, if he says: "The property is rented out to him or it was given to him as security for a loan. If he claims that I sold it to him or gave it to him as a present, I will lodge a claim against him in court." Similarly, if he makes other analogous statements, the protest is of consequence even though he did not issue it in the country where the person in possession of the land is located.
If, however, he told them merely: "So-and-so who is using my field is a robber," that is not a valid protest, for Reuven will say: "When I heard this, I said to myself: 'Maybe he was merely slandering me.' Therefore, I was not careful about keeping my deed of acquisition."
Halacha 8
A protest made in the presence of two witnesses is of consequence. They may compose a legal record of it, even if the owner does not tell them to compose it.
Once the owner issued a protest in the first year, he does not have to issue another protest each year. There must not, however, be three full years between each protest. He must, therefore, issue a protest at the end of each three-year period. If he protested, delayed for three full years and protested afterwards, the protest is of no consequence.
Halacha 9
If Reuven brought witnesses who testify that Shimon, the owner of the field, gathered the produce of the field together and gave it to Reuven, he is allowed to retain possession of the field. This applies even if Reuven claims that Shimon sold him or gave him the field that day. The rationale is that if he did not give him or sell him the field, he would not have helped Reuven in the field and given him its produce.
Halacha 10
If Shimon responds, claiming: "It's true; that event transpired. I sold him the rights to the field's produce and it belonged to him, but I never sold him the field itself," his word is accepted and the field should be returned to Shimon. There is, however, an exception: when Reuven partook of the produce for three years with Shimon's knowledge and Shimon did not protest against him, as explained.
____________________________
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters a Day: Mikvaot Mikvaot - Chapter 11, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter One, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Two
Mikvaot - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
We already explained that washing one's hands and/or immersing them is a Rabbinic requirement. Hands that must be immersed may be immersed solely in an acceptable mikveh that contains 40 se'ah. For only in a place where a person immerses his body may he immerse keilim and hands. When, however, hands need only to be washed, if they were immersed in the water of a mikveh, they are pure. If they were immersed in drawn water, whether in a container or on the earth, the person's hands are not purified. Instead, drawn water poured from a container must fall upon his hands. For hands may only be washed from containers and using human effort, as we explained in Hilchot Berachot.
Halacha 2
Any substance that intervenes for one's entire body when immersing also intervenes for one's hands, both when immersing then and when washing them. Any substance that is included in the measure of a mikveh, e.g., flowing mud, is also included in the measure of a revi'it required for the washing of hands. Everyone who washes his hands must rub them together.
Halacha 3
When a person washes both of his hands to partake of terumah, he must wash them a second time with other water to remove the water that is on his hands. For the water with which he washed them first - it is called the first water - contracted impurity from his hands. Therefore if a loaf of bread that was terumah fell into the water with which one first washed his hands, it contracts impurity. If it fell into the water of the second washing, it does not contract impurity. If one poured the water of the first washing and the second washing into one place and a loaf that was terumah fell there, it contracts impurity.
If one washed one's hands with the first water, an intervening object was found on his hands, and he removed it and washed again, his hands are impure as they were before, because the second water imparts purity only to what remains of the first water on his hands.
Halacha 4
Hands contract impurity and are purified until the joint.
What is implied? One washed his hands the first time until the joint. The second time, he washed them, the water poured beyond the joint, his hands are pure. The rationale is that the second water is pure.
If, when he washed his hands the first time and the second time, the water poured beyond the joint and it returned to his hand, his hand contracts impurity. The rationale is that the first water that poured beyond the wrist contracted impurity because of his hand. The second water does not purify the water outside the joint. Hence, since the water that was beyond the joint returned to his hand, it imparts impurity to it.
Halacha 5
If the first time, he washed one hand and changed his mind and washed both his hands together the second time, they are impure. The rationale is that the second water contracts impurity because of the hand that was not washed the first time and then they impart impurity to the other hand.
If he washed both his hands the first time and washed only one hand the second time, that one is pure. If he washed one hand and then rubbed it against his other hand which was not washed at all, the water upon the washed hand contracts impurity because of the unwashed hand and then imparts impurity to the hand which was washed. If he rubs it on his head or against the wall, it is pure.
Halacha 6
If one washes both hands with one washing, they are pure. We do not say that it is like washing one hand with the water that descended from the other hand. Moreover, even four or five people, one next to each other or one on top of the other, may wash in this manner, as long as they hold their hands open so that the water can flow over the entire hand.
Halacha 7
If one washed a portion of his hand and then washed the rest of his hand, his hand is impure as it was originally. If there is enough water to impart moisture to another substance on the portion of the hand washed first while the other part was being washed the hand] is pure.
When does the above apply? To the water of the first washing. With regard to the second washing, one may wash a portion of his hand and then wash again, adding to the portion washed.
Halacha 8
The minimum measure of water with which one may wash one's hands initially is a revi'it for each and every person for both their hands. No less than this measure is acceptable, as explained with regarding to washing before partaking of bread.
With regard to the second washing, by contrast, two people may wash their hands with a revi'it, and half a log may be used for three or four. And from a log, even 100 may wash. The rationale is that the second water does not come to purify, but merely to wash off the first water.
Halacha 9
When there was a container that held a revi'it of water that was acceptable for the washing of hands and one added to it a small amount of water that is not acceptable for that purpose, the mixture is acceptable. If one removed the amount of water he added from the container and there remained only a revi'it as there was originally, it is unacceptable. The rationale is that water that is unacceptable made up the measure of the revi'it.
Halacha 10
Any water that is deemed unacceptable for the first washing is unacceptable for the second washing. Any container that may not be used for the first washing is also unacceptable for the second washing. Just as the water of the first washing must be poured by human effort, so too, must the water of the second washing.
Halacha 11
We already explained in Hilchot Berachot all of the factors that could disqualify water for the washing of hands and what makes them acceptable, all of the containers that may be used for the washing of the hands and those that may not be used, Just as any doubt regarding the washing of hands is considered as pure with regard to partaking of ordinary food, as explained there, so too, with regard to terumah, any doubt regarding the washing of hands is considered as pure.
Halacha 12
It is a clear and apparent matter that the concepts of purity and impurity are Scriptural decrees and they are not matters determined by a person's understanding and they are included in the category of chukim. Similarly, immersion in a mikveh to ascend from impurity is included in the category of chukim, because impurity is not mud or filth that can be washed away with water. Instead, the immersion is a Scriptural decree and requires the focusing the intent of one's heart. Therefore our Sages said: "When one immersed, but did not intend to purify himself," it is as if he did not immerse.
Although it is a Scriptural decree, there is an allusion involved: One who focuses his heart on purifying himself becomes purified once he immerses, even though there was no change in his body. Similarly, one who focuses his heart on purifying his soul from the impurities of the soul, which are wicked thoughts and bad character traits, becomes purified when he resolves within his heart to distance himself from such counsel and immerse his soul in the waters of knowledge. And Ezekiel 36:25 states: "I will pour over you pure water and you will be purified from all your impurities and from all your false deities, I will purify you."
Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.
This concludes the tenth book with the help of the Almighty.
There are 144 chapters in this book.
In Hilchot Tum'at Meit, there are 25 chapters.
In Hilchot Parah Adumah, there are 15 chapters.
In Hilchot Tum'at Tzara'at, there are 16 chapters.
In Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, there are 13 chapters.
In Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah, there are 20 chapters.
In Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin, there are 16 chapters.
In Hilchot Keilim, there are 28 chapters.
In Hilchot Mikveot, there are 11 chapters.
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter One
1. Whenever a living animal owned by a person causes damages, the owner is required to pay, for the damage was caused by his property. [This is implied by Exodus 21:35:] "When a person's ox will gore an ox belonging to a colleague...."1
These laws apply equally to an ox and to any other animal, beast or fowl. The verse mentions an ox only because that is a common instance.
2. How much must [the owner] pay? If [the animal] caused damage through the performance of an act that it performs frequently and that is its natural habit - e.g., an animal ate straw or fodder, or it caused damage by [treading on an object] with its feet while walking - [the owner] is obligated to pay the full amount of the damage, [giving up, if necessary,]2 his most choice property, as stated in [Exodus 22:4]: "Payment should be exacted from his choice field and his choice vineyard."3
If [the animal] deviated from its ordinary habit and performed acts that it does not usually perform and caused damage in this manner - e.g., a ox gored or bit [another animal] - the owner is obligated to pay half the damages caused. [The payment must be exacted] from the animal that caused the damage, as [Exodus 21:35] states: "And they shall sell the ox that is alive and divide the money."
3. What is implied? When an ox that is worth a maneh4gores an ox that is worth 20 zuz and kills it, [leaving] a corpse that is worth four zuz, the owner of the ox [that caused the damage] is liable to pay eight zuz, half of the loss [suffered by the owner of the ox that was killed].
The payment must be exacted from the body of the animal that caused the damage,5 as it is written: "And they shall sell the ox that is alive."6 Therefore, if an ox that was worth 20 zuz killed an ox that was worth 200 zuz and its carcass was worth [only] a maneh, the owner of the dead ox cannot compel the owner of the living ox to give him 50 [zuz]. Instead, he should tell him: "Here is the ox that caused the damage. Take it and depart."7[This applies] even if the [ox that gored] is worth only a dinar. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
4. [An animal] that performs a deed it is accustomed to performing by nature is called a mu'ad.8 [When an animal] deviates from its ordinary pattern and performs an act that its species does not usually perform - e.g., an ox gores or bites - it is called a tam.9
If the animal continues to follow the deviant pattern on several occasions, it is considered to be mu'ad with regard to the deviation to which it has become habituated, as [implied by Exodus 21:36]: "Or it is known that it is a goring ox."
5. Five types of activities are considered to be abnormal for an animal. If it repeatedly performs any of them, it is considered to be mu'ad with regard to that activity.10 An animal is not considered to be prone to gore, to butt,11 to bite, to lie down on large utensils or to kick. If it becomes accustomed to such an activity, its owner should be forewarned.
At the outset, [an animal] is, however, considered prone to eat foods that are appropriate for it and to break utensils [on which it treads] as it walks. Similarly, an animal is considered prone to lie down on small utensils and crush them.
6. Five species of animals are considered prone to cause damage from the beginning of their existence. [This applies] even if they have become domesticated.12 Therefore, if they cause damage or death by goring, biting, treading, lying down upon, or the like, [the owner] is liable for the entire amount of the damages.
They are a wolf, a lion, a bear, a tiger and a leopard. Similarly, a snake that bites is considered to be mu'ad, even if it has been domesticated.
7. Whenever [an animal] is mu'ad, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damage, [even if this requires expropriating] his most choice property. Whenever, by contrast, an animal is considered a tam, [the owner] is required to pay [only] half the amount of the damages. [Moreover,] that half is taken only from the animal itself.
When does the above apply? When the animal entered into the domain belonging to the person to whom damage was caused, and caused damage. When, however, the person to whom damage was caused entered into the domain of the person [whose animal] caused the damage, [the owner] is not liable for anything. For he can tell [the party who suffered the damages]: "If you had not entered my domain, you would not have suffered any damages." Indeed, this is explicitly stated in the Torah, as [Exodus 22:4] states: "And if he shall send forth his animals, and they pasture in another's field."13
8. [The following rules apply when a person's] animal causes damage in the public domain or in a courtyard that belongs neither to the owner of [the animal that] caused the damage nor to the party who suffered the damages,14 or in a courtyard owned jointly by both parties that is set aside to leave produce there and/or to harbor an animal - e.g., a valley.
If [the animal] caused damage by eating or treading in its ordinary manner, the owner is not liable. For [the animal] has permission to go from here to there, and it is the habit of an animal to go and eat as it proceeds and to break [anything lying in its way] as it proceeds.15
[Different rules apply if] it [caused damage by] goring, butting, kicking or biting.16 If its status is tam, [the owner] must pay for half the damages. If its status is mu'ad, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damages.17
9. When a courtyard owned jointly by both parties18 is designated for produce and not for harboring an animal, and one of the parties lets his animal in and it causes damage, [the owner] is liable even for damage caused by eating or treading.19
Similarly, if both of them had the right to harbor an animal there, but only one had the right to keep produce there, if [an animal belonging to the other] damaged [that person's] produce, [its owner] is liable even for damage caused by eating or treading.20
10. There are three categories of damages [caused by] an ox:
a) goring, b) eating and c) treading.
The derivatives of goring are butting, biting,21 lying upon and kicking.22
The derivatives of eating are23 causing damage when scratching itself on a wall for its benefit, and soiling produce24 for its benefit.
The derivatives of treading are25 causing damage with its body while walking; causing damage with its hair while walking or by swishing its tail, or with its saddle, the bit in its mouth or the bell around its neck. Similarly, a donkey that causes damage with its burden while walking or a calf that is pulling a cart that causes damage while pulling it.
All of these are derivatives of treading. In a public domain [the owner] is not liable, and in a domain belonging to the party who suffered the damages, he must pay for the entire amount of the damages.
11. When [an animal] swishes its tail repeatedly in an abnormal manner and causes damage in the public domain, or when it swishes its sexual organ and causes damage in the public domain, [the owner] is not held liable.
If the person whose property was damaged seizes possession [of property belonging to the owner], he may take payment for half of the damages.26 [The rationale for that ruling is that] there is an unresolved question whether these acts are derivatives of goring, in which case [the owner] is liable [for damage caused] in the public domain, or whether they are derivatives of treading, in which case [the owner] is not liable [for damage caused] in the public domain, as has been explained.27
FOOTNOTES
1.Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 237) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 51) consider this to be one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. This mitzvah can be defined as compensating an owner for damages caused by one's animals through an action that they would not ordinarily perform.
2.I.e., the owner is obligated to reimburse the person whose property was damaged for his loss. If the owner does not have cash readily available, his most valuable landed property should be expropriated and sold to pay the damages his animal caused.
3.Payment of these damages is also considered one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 240) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 55). This mitzvah can be defined as compensating an owner for damages caused by one's animals through an action that they would ordinarily perform.
4.100 zuz.
5.As the Rambam proceeds to illustrate, the damages caused by the ox do not create a lien on all the property belonging to the owner of the ox.
6.The commentaries have cited the apparent redundancy in the citation of the proof-text.
7.Thus the owner of the dead ox receives only the worth of the ox which gored, 20 zuz, 30 zuz less than what would be due him.
8.Mu'ad literally means forewarned - i.e., the animal is prone to perform such acts, and the owner should be forewarned.
9.Tam literally means simple, implying that the animal is not habituated in the performance of the abnormal behavior.
10.I.e., for that activity alone, and not for any other abnormal activity (Maggid Mishneh).
11.I.e., to attack an animal with a part of its body other than its horns (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Bava Kama 1:4).
12.Even when these animals have been raised in a home and do not outwardly show wild traits, their tendency to violence is considered part of their instinct, never to be eradicated fully.The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 389:8) states that these animals are considered mu'adim only with regard to the specific negative traits for which they are known. If they cause damage in other ways, they are considered as tamim.
13.This is the verse that describes the payment of damages caused by grazing. It emphasizes that the owner is liable for damages caused in another's field, and not in his own.The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 389:10) and others cite Bava Kama 21b, which interprets this verse in a more specific and somewhat different manner. It would appear, however, that the Rambam is not referring to the exegesis of the verse by the Talmud, but is instead presenting the simple meaning of the verse as a support for the premise stated previously.
14.This applies when the party who suffered the damages placed produce there without receiving permission from the owner. If, however, he received permission from the owner, it is considered as though it were his own courtyard. See Shulchan Aruch and Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 389:16).
15.In the Guide for the Perplexed, Volume III, Chapter 40, the Rambam explains that this law is based on a logical premise. Since this is an animal's natural habit, it is difficult for the owner to prevent his animal from causing such damage. Moreover, the person whose property was damaged should have foreseen the problem and not left anything of value in such places.
16.For this represents a departure from the animal's natural pattern, for which its owner is held responsible.
17.Although both types of animals have the right to proceed in the public domain, neither has the right to damage the other animal. Therefore, the owner of the animal that caused the damages must assume responsibility.
18.I.e., the owner of the animal that caused the damage and the party who suffered the damages.
19.Since he brought his animal into a place where an animal should not enter, he must bear responsibility.
20.Since only the other partner was allowed to bring his produce there, in this regard it is considered his courtyard, and the owner of the animal is liable.
21.When it has no desire to eat, i.e., biting for a violent and destructive intent (Maggid Mishneh).
22.All these are acts performed by an animal with a desire to harm the animal (or object) it strikes, without any intention to derive any benefit from it.
23.The acts that follow are damages caused by an animal when it follows its ordinary pattern and seeks its own benefit.
24.This refers to soiling produce by rolling upon it, not by defecating (Ibid.). Ruining an object by defecating is considered to be a derivative of kicking stones (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 390:8). See Chapter 2, Halachah 13.
25.All the acts that follow are damages caused by an animal without any intent, that are likely to be caused when it proceeds in an ordinary manner (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 390:1).
26.As the Rambam proceeds to explain, these instances are the subject of an unresolved Talmudic debate (Bava Kama 19b). Because of the doubt involved, payment is not exacted from the owner, and for this same reason the person whose property was damaged may not seize the owner's property. If, however, he did seize the owner's property, the same rationale is advanced on his behalf. Since the property may rightfully belong to him, because of the doubt, we do not expropriate the property and return it to its owner.In any case, all that is involved is half of the damages, because the reason why one might hold the owner liable is that these activities are derivatives of goring. And for goring, the owner is required to pay only half the value of the damages.The Rambam's opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 390:2). The Ramah cites the opinion of the Ramban and the Tur, who maintain that when a question of law is unresolved, and one party seizes the other's property, the property that was seized must be returned.
27.See Halachah 8.
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Two
1. [The following laws apply with regard to] the major categories of damages and their derivatives. [If a person's property is considered] mu'ad with regard to the major category, it is considered mu'ad with regard to its derivatives. [If it is considered] tam with regard to the major category, the same law applies with regard to its derivatives.
From the outset, [a person's property is considered] to be mu'ad with regard to all the major categories of damage and their derivatives, with the exception of goring and its derivatives. In that instance, [an animal is considered] tam until it has been deemed prone [to goring],1 as explained.2
2. All the derivatives of a category of damages are governed by the same laws as the major category, with the exception of stones that are propelled by an animal while walking.
This activity is considered a derivative of the category of treading,3 and one is therefore not liable for damage caused in the public domain. Nevertheless, if such stones cause damage in a person's private domain, [the owner of the animal] must pay [for the damages] from his most choice property,4 as he must pay for damages caused by treading, the major category. And yet, he is required to pay only half the amount of the damages.5
3. What is implied? When an animal enters a courtyard belonging to another person and proceeds to walk, and in doing so propels stones from under its feet that break utensils, [the owner of the animal] must pay half the amount of the damage from his most choice property. This matter is a law communicated by the Oral Tradition.6
4. Similarly, if [an animal] was proceeding in the public domain7 and stones were propelled from under its feet into a domain belonging to someone else, and they broke utensils there, [the owner of the animal] must pay half the damages.
If [an animal] treads on a utensil in a domain belonging to someone else and breaks it, and shards from the broken utensil fall on another utensil and break it, [the owner of the animal] must pay the entire [damages for the destruction of] the first utensil, and half [the damages for the destruction of] the second utensil.8
5. If an animal was walking in the public domain and it kicked9 [the ground] and propelled stones that caused damage in the public domain, [the owner] is not liable. If the person whose property was damaged seized a fourth [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him.10 [The rationale is that] there is a doubt regarding the matter: perhaps this is considered a deviation from the ordinary pattern and it is not a derivative of treading, for [the animal] kicked.11
6. If the animal kicked the earth in the domain belonging to another person and stones were propelled because of its kick and caused damages, [the owner] is liable to pay a fourth of the damages, for this is a deviation from the ordinary manner of propelling stones. If the person whose property was damaged seized half [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him.12
Even if an animal was walking in a place where it would be impossible for it not to propel stones, and it kicked [the earth] and propelled stones, [the owner] is liable to pay a fourth of the damages.13 If the person whose property was damaged seized half [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him.
7. Whenever a person must pay full damages, the payment is considered to be a monetary obligation that he is liable to pay, as if he had borrowed [money] from his colleague. When, by contrast, a person must pay half the damages, the monetary obligation is considered a fine, with the exception of the half damages liable from stones,14 which is a halachah [transmitted by the Oral Tradition], as we have explained.15
8. This is the operating principle: Whenever a person pays for the damage that he caused, it is considered a monetary obligation. Whenever he pays more or less - e.g., the double payment (for theft) or half the amount of damages - the amount that is greater or less than the principal is considered to be a fine.
A fine is required only when one is obligated through the testimony of witnesses. When a person admits that he is liable for a fine, he is absolved of the obligation.16
9. [The following rules apply when] a rooster sticks its head inside a glass container, crows while doing so and breaks it [as a result of the sound]. If there were spices or the like inside [the container, and the rooster] stuck its head in to eat them, [the owner] must pay full damages for the spices17 and half the damages for the container, as one pays half damages for stones [that are propelled].18 [The rationale is that this is the animal's] ordinary pattern.19
If, however, the container is empty, this is a deviation from the norm, and [the owner] is liable to pay half the damages, as in the case with other fines.20
10. Similarly, if a horse yelped or a donkey bellowed and utensils were broken as a result, the owner is obligated to pay only half the damages.21
Roosters are considered prone to break utensils as they proceed in their ordinary pattern. If there was a string or a strap tied to [a rooster's] legs22 and a utensil became entangled with the string and rolled and broke, [the owner] is required to pay half the damages.23
When does the above apply? When the string was tied to the rooster by a person.24 If, however, the string became ensnarled around the rooster's foot, its owner is not liable.25 If that string was owned by a given person,26 rather than being ownerless, the owner of the string is liable to pay half the damages, because the string is like a moving pit.27
11. If the owner of the string hid the string, and the roosters trod on it and took it out, and then it became ensnarled around their feet, and as a result utensils were broken, the owner of the string is also freed of liability,28 for [the damage] was beyond his control.29
12. [The following rules apply when] roosters flew from place to place and broke utensils. If they broke the utensils with their wings, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage.30 If the utensils were broken by the wind generated by [the roosters'] wings, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.31
13. [If roosters] were digging32 at dough or at produce and soiled it or pecked at it, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage.33 If they caused damages with the dust or stones that they raised with their feet or with their wings, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.34
14. If [roosters] were pecking at a rope [that held a bucket], the rope tore, and the bucket broke, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage. [This applies when] the bucket rolled until it fell and broke because of them.35
If there was food on the rope, and the rope tore while they were eating, they are liable to pay the entire amount of the damage to the rope as well.36
15. When a dog or a goat jumps from a roof downward and breaks utensils, [the owner] is liable for the entire damages, because they are prone to this.37
Similarly, if they fell and caused damages, [their owner is liable], because the fact that they climbed to the roof is considered negligence.38 [Therefore,] even if they fell because of forces beyond [the owner's] control, [he is liable], because whenever a person is negligent at the outset, and damage subsequently occurs because of forces beyond his control, he is liable.39
16. If [the animals] jump upward [and cause damage], [the owner] is liable for half.40 This applies when a goat climbs upward or a dog jumps. If, however, a dog climbed upward and a goat leaps, whether upward or downward, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage.41
Similarly, if a rooster jumps either upward or downward, [the owner] is liable to pay for the entire amount of the damage.
17. [The following laws apply when] a dog takes a cake [from a fire where it is cooking, a coal is stuck to the cake], and [the dog] takes [the cake] to a grain heap. If it places [the cake] down on the grain heap, eats the cake and kindles the grain heap, [the owner] is liable to pay the full damages for the cake and the place where it placed the cake [in the grain heap].42 For the remainder of the grain heap, he is required to pay only half the damages.43
If [the dog] dragged the cake all over the grain heap, burning it as it proceeded, [the owner] is liable to pay the entire damages for the cake. For the place of the coals,44 [the owner] is liable to pay half the damages,45 and for the remainder of the grain heap he is not liable at all.46
18. When does the above apply? When the owner of the coal guarded his fire and closed the door, and yet the dog dug underneath [until it could enter and] take the cake from the fire.47 If, however, he did not guard his fire, the owner of the fire is liable for the burning of the grain heap,48 and the owner of the dog is liable for the cake and the place where it was placed.49
19. When a person sets a dog belonging to a colleague on a [third] individual, he is not held liable by mortal courts;50 the laws of heaven, however, obligate him to pay.51
The owner of the dog is liable to pay half the damages.52 Since he knows that if his dog is set upon [a person] maliciously he will bite him, he should not have allowed [his dog to be left to do this].
If [a person] set a dog [belonging to a colleague] to bite the person himself, the owner of the dog is not liable. For when there is already a deviation from the norm,53 and a person brings about a further deviation,54 [the owner] is not liable.
20. When there are two cows in the public domain, one lying down and one walking, if the one walking kicks the one lying down, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.55 Even though it would be the ordinary practice for [the cow] to tread on the cow that is lying down, it is not its ordinary practice to kick it.56
FOOTNOTES
1.The Ra'avad emphasizes that when an animal has been deemed prone to cause damage through goring or one of its derivatives, it is deemed mu'ad only with regard to the particular activity that it performed repeatedly, but not with regard to any of the other derivatives of goring.
2.See Chapter 1, Halachah 4-5.
3.For like damages caused by treading, it involves damages caused accidentally by an animal when walking in its ordinary manner.
4.The Lechem Mishneh raises questions regarding this point, but the Rambam's ruling is justified by the later commentaries.
5.See Halachah 7, which clarifies the distinction between this and other instances where half payment is required.
6.I.e., it is a law that was communicated orally to Moses on Mount Sinai and then transmitted orally from generation to generation. Although such laws are usually not even alluded to in the Written Law, their authority is the same as that of a law stated in Scripture. See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Sanhedrin, Chapter 6).
7.Despite the fact that the animal was walking in the public domain, since the damage took place in a private domain, the owner is liable.
8.The damage to the first utensil is an ordinary instance of treading, while the damage to the second utensil is a case of the law illustrated in the previous two halachot.
9.Intentionally.
10.See Chapter 1, Halachah 11 and notes.
11.This law is the subject of an unresolved question in Bava Kama 19a. The question is whether kicking the stone is considered like goring - for the kicking was done intentionally - in which case the owner would be liable for damage caused in the public domain, or it is considered to be an ordinary instance of stones that were propelled, and since the damage took place in the public domain, the owner is not held liable.Even according to the logic that maintains that the owner is liable, he is liable for only a fourth of the damage. This figure is arrived at as follows: When damage is caused by propelling stones, the owner is required to pay only half. Since the animal is considered to be a tam - i.e., it is not prone to cause such damages - the owner is required to pay only half of the amount for which he would be liable. Thus, one half of a half is a quarter.Since the question was not resolved by the Sages, the owner should not be held liable. Conversely, if the person whose property was damaged seized the money involved, it should not be expropriated from him.The Ra'avad raises objections to the Rambam's ruling, based on a different understanding of the Talmudic passage. The later authorities, however, follow the Rambam.
12.This law is an extension of the unresolved question mentioned in the previous halachah. Since the damage took place in a private domain, the owner is definitely held liable. The question is whether he is liable for half the damages or for only a quarter of the damages. According to the opinion that maintains that kicking is considered a deviation, he should be held liable for only a fourth. According to the opinion that maintains that a deviation is not significant with regard to this category of damages, he is liable to pay half the damages.Since the matter was left unresolved, the owner may be required to pay only one fourth. If, however, the person whose property was damaged seized the owner's property, he need not relinquish half the value of the damages.
13.The principles operating in this instance are the same as those operating in the first clause. The only reason for mentioning this law is that since it is impossible that the animal would not propel stones, one might not think that the deviation is significant, and the owner should be held liable for half the damages, as in an ordinary case of this nature. This premise is, nevertheless, not accepted.
14.In this instance, although the owner does not pay for the full extent of the damages, none of the leniencies stated below apply.With regard to the payment of half-damages, according to ordinary logic - and indeed, this was the practice of the secular laws at that time - since the animal was not mu'ad, prone to cause damage, one would not think to hold the owner liable. Nevertheless, to insure higher standards of respect for property, Torah law fined the owner of the animal for half the damages.
15.See Halachah 3.
16.This applies even if after a person admits that he is liable for a fine, witnesses testify to that effect (Hilchot Geneivah 3:8-9 and the Maggid Mishneh). There are also other distinctions between fines and monetary obligations; for example, cases involving fines were arbitrated only by judges who were given semichah. Thus, they are not arbitrated in the present era.
17.As is the case when one's animal eats produce belonging to someone else.
18.The parallel between this instance and stones that are propelled can be explained as follows: When an animal propels a stone and the stone causes damage, the damage is not caused directly by the animal's body, but indirectly by the power it generated. Similarly, when the rooster breaks the container by crowing, the damage is caused indirectly, as a result of the animal's energy.
19.I.e., a rooster is likely to stick its head into a container in order to eat food, and it is likely to crow while eating.
20.Since this is a deviation from the animal's ordinary pattern, one is liable only for half the damages. The Ra'avad raises the question: Since the first clause of the halachah draws an analogy between the rooster's crowing and an animal's propelling stones, how is this instance different from the law stated in Halachah 6, where the owner is held liable for only a quarter of the damages his animal caused?The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam's rationale is difficult to understand, but offers the following explanation. When there are no spices in the container, crowing and breaking the container is considered to be a derivative of goring, not of propelling stones.The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 390:9) does not resolve the issue, explaining that since a deviation from the ordinary pattern is involved, the case is considered a fine and is not arbitrated in the present era.
21.These are not considered departures from the norm. Instead, they are considered derivatives of the category of propelling stones. Therefore, payment is required for only half the damages.
22.The Ra'avad raises many questions concerning the Rambam's decision, and similarly, Rabbenu Asher interprets the passage in Bava Kama 17a differently from the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 390:10) quotes the Rambam's interpretation, while the Ramah refers to the Rambam's rulings as satum, closed to us, and follows the approach of Rabbenu Asher.
23.It appears that the Rambam considers the string to be like stones propelled by an animal's feet (tz'rurot). They are not considered as a pit, an inanimate object that causes damage, for as the Ra'avad notes, one is liable for the full damages caused by a pit and not half the damages.
24.I.e., by the rooster's owner. If it was tied by another person, the owner is not held liable, and the others are required to pay half the damages.
25.As mentioned, the string is considered to be a pit. With regard to that category of damages, Bava Kama 19b states that the pit must be brought into being by a person. If it is brought into being by an animal, the owner of the animal is not liable. In this case, since the owner did not tie the string to the rooster, he is not liable.
26.Other than the owner of the rooster.
27.As stated by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 411:4), when an object belonging to a person is left in the public domain, moved by an animal and then causes damage, the owner of the animal and the owner of the article must share the cost of the damages equally.
28.I.e., the owner of the rooster is freed of liability, because as above, he did not tie the string to the rooster.
29.I.e., he did everything he could to prevent the damage from occurring.
30.I.e., this is comparable to an animal's breaking a utensil by treading upon it.
31.The wind produced by the roosters' wings is comparable to an an animal's propelling stones.
32.Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 2:1).
33.I.e., since the roosters caused the damage in an ordinary fashion with their bodies, the owner is liable for the entire amount.
34.This is also comparable to an animal's propelling stones.
35.I.e., the roosters pushed the bucket until it fell and broke. They were thus the direct cause of its breaking, and this is considered as treading.If the bucket broke as a result of the rope's tearing, the ruling depends on whether the rope is new or worn. We assume that a rooster will peck at a rope slightly to sip its moisture. Thus, if the rope is worn, it is normal for it to snap. Hence, the owner is liable for the entire damages. If the rope is new, for the rope to tear from such pecking is not ordinary, and the owner is liable for only half the damages (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 390:11).
36.Since there is food on the rope, we assume that the roosters will peck on it exceedingly, and it will tear even if it is new.
37.This is considered to be a derivative of treading.
38.I.e., the animals' owner should have known that his animals are prone to climb to the roof, and he should have taken precautions against that happening.
39.Bava Metzia 42a explains that the logic is that, if not for the negligence, the damage would never have been caused by forces beyond their control.
40.For this is a departure from the norm.
41.For this is their ordinary pattern. The Rambam's ruling follows the version of Bava Kama 22a cited by Rabbenu Chanan'el and Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. The standard version of the Talmud we possess today differs.Our translation differs from that of Rashi and the Nimukei Yosef who translate as lowered itself while hanging.
42.This is the ordinary pattern of a dog, who will grab food from a fire in order to eat it. And since it is likely that a coal will remain attached to the cake, the owner of the dog is liable for the place where the cake is placed down as well.
43.The standard printed texts of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 2:3) offer the following rationale: This is a deviation from the ordinary pattern. This does not follow any of the explanations given in the Talmud. Rav Kapach's text of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah explains that the burning of the rest of the grain heap is compared to stones that are kicked, for in both cases the damage is caused indirectly. This follows Rabbi Yochanan's position, Bava Kama 22a.
44.According to the Radbaz (Volume V, Responsum 1662), this refers to all the places over which the dog dragged the coals.
45.For this is considered comparable to stones that are kicked.
46.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the owner is forced to pay one fourth of the damages, because he considers this case comparable to propelling stones, except that a deviation from the normal pattern is involved. The Tur also follows this approach. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 392:1) follows the opinion of the Rambam, while the Ramah mentions that of the Tur.The Rambam's opinion can be substantiated based on Hilchot Rotze'ach 6:15, which states that a person is not liable for ko'ach kocho, an activity that comes about as an indirect result of his exertion of energy. It appears that the Rambam considers the damage caused by propelling stones to be kocho, a direct result of the person's energy, and not ko'ach kocho (Kessef Mishneh, Radbaz). The Ra'avad, by contrast, considers propelling stones to be ko'ach kocho.
47.In which case, the owner of the dog is responsible for all the damages, for the fire took place because of his negligence.
48.For it is his negligence that made the fire possible.
49.For the dog caused this damage directly.The Ra'avad and the Tur, who in the previous law maintain that the owner of the dog must pay one fourth of the damages to the grain heap, maintain that he is liable for that amount in this instance as well. Hence, the owner of the fire is liable for only three fourths of the damages. In this instance as well, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) follows the opinion of the Rambam, while the Ramah mentions that of the Tur.
50.This reflects a fundamental principle in the laws of damages. Grama, being an indirect cause, does not generate liability.
51.I.e., he has a moral and ethical obligation to pay for the damages. See Bava Kama 55b, which gives several instances of grama and states that the person who indirectly caused the damage has a moral obligation to compensate for it.
52.Dogs do not usually bite. Therefore, the fact that the person who set the dog on the third person provoked it to do so is considered a departure from the norm, and the owner is liable for only half the damages.The Ra'avad adds that if the dog is known to be prone to bite, the owner is liable for the entire amount of the damages. The Maggid Mishneh differs, maintaining that since the dog was provoked by the person who set it, this is considered a departure from the norm. (See also Chapter 6, Halachah 5.) Sefer Me'irat Einayim 395:2 quotes the Maggid Mishneh's view.
53.Causing the dog to bite.
54.Causing the dog to bite his own master.
55.This is considered a derivative of goring. Since the cow is not known to be prone to kick other animals, the owner is liable for only half the damages.
56.The owner would not have been liable if the cow had caused the damage by treading on the other cow. Since he did cause the damage by kicking, the owner is liable.
____________________________
Hayom Yom:
Monday, 13 Elul 5774 • 8 September 2014
"Today's Day"
Monday, Elul 13, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tavo, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 69-71. Also 37-39.
Tanya: And every year (p. 463) ...for the initiated. (p. 465).
The chassid R. Hendel1 related: It was known to all chassidim that at one's first yechidus the orla (insensitive "thick skin") was removed. Whatever else, one was immediately rid of the orla of the heart.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Tevet 16.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
The Autograph
When He had finished His world, complete and whole, each thing in its place, the earth below and the heavens beyond,
…it was then that the Artist signed His holy name, a stillness within the busy painting, a vacuum in time, a pocket of silence within the polyphony, so that the Infinite Light could kiss the finite world, enter within and grant it life. And He called that Shabbat.
In each thing there is a Shabbat, a sense of wonder, of knowing that there is something greater, something it will never truly know, and a yearning to receive from there. With that yearning, it receives life. Without it, nothing can survive. For that emptiness provides entry to the Infinite.
____________________________
Monday, Elul 13, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tavo, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 69-71. Also 37-39.
Tanya: And every year (p. 463) ...for the initiated. (p. 465).
The chassid R. Hendel1 related: It was known to all chassidim that at one's first yechidus the orla (insensitive "thick skin") was removed. Whatever else, one was immediately rid of the orla of the heart.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Tevet 16.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
The Autograph
When He had finished His world, complete and whole, each thing in its place, the earth below and the heavens beyond,
…it was then that the Artist signed His holy name, a stillness within the busy painting, a vacuum in time, a pocket of silence within the polyphony, so that the Infinite Light could kiss the finite world, enter within and grant it life. And He called that Shabbat.
In each thing there is a Shabbat, a sense of wonder, of knowing that there is something greater, something it will never truly know, and a yearning to receive from there. With that yearning, it receives life. Without it, nothing can survive. For that emptiness provides entry to the Infinite.
No comments:
Post a Comment