Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: Wednesday, 15 Elul 5774 • 10 September 2014

Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: Wednesday, 15 Elul 5774 • 10 September 2014
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 43 Chapter 44 Chapter 45
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:

• TOMCHEI TEMIMIM FOUNDED (1897) 
The Yeshivah "Tomchei Temimim Lubavitch", the first to integrate the "revealed" part of Torah (Talmud and Halachah) with the esoteric teachings of Chassidism in a formal study program, was on this date founded by the fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Sholom DovBer Schneersohn.
DAILY QUOTE:

"Love your fellow as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18) is an elaboration and elucidation upon "And you shall love the L-rd your G-d" (Deuteronomy 6:5). When one loves one's fellow one loves G-d, for one's fellow contains within him/herself a "part of G-d above" (Job 31:2). By loving one's fellow, the innermost part of him, one loves G-d.(Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov)
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Ki Tavo, 4th Portion Deuteronomy 27:1-27:10 with Rashi
• Chapter 27
1. And Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Observe all of the commandment that I command you this day. א. וַיְצַו משֶׁה וְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הָעָם לֵאמֹר שָׁמֹר אֶת כָּל הַמִּצְוָה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם:
Observe all of the commandment: Heb. שָׁמֹר [The word שָׁמֹר here denotes] continuous action [that is to say:“You must observe this commandment always”]. Gardant in Old French.
שמור את כל המצוה: לשון הווה גרדנ"ט בלע"ז (בעאבאכטענד):
2. And it will be, on the day that you cross the Jordan to the land the Lord, your God, is giving you, that you shall set up for yourself huge stones, and plaster them with lime. ב. וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר תַּעַבְרוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ וַהֲקֵמֹתָ לְךָ אֲבָנִים גְּדֹלוֹת וְשַׂדְתָּ אֹתָם בַּשִּׂיד:
you shall set up for yourself: in the Jordan, and after this, you shall take out other [stones] from there, and out of this [second set of stones], build an altar on Mount Ebal. Consequently, we find that there were three places [at which constructions] of stones [were set up]: a) Twelve [stones were put together] in the Jordan, b) the same [number of stones set up] at Gilgal [i.e., the Israelites’ first stop in the land of Israel,] and c) the same [number of stones set up] at Mount Ebal. The above is taught in Tractate Sotah (35b) [where the Talmud, citing Chapter 4 of Joshua, proves the above].
והקמות לך: בירדן ואחר כך תוציא משם אחרות ותבנה מהן מזבח בהר עיבל נמצאת אתה אומר ג' מיני אבנים היו שנים עשר בירדן וכנגדן בגלגל וכנגדן בהר עיבל כדאיתא במסכת סוטה (ל"ה):
3. When you cross, you shall write upon them all the words of this Torah, in order that you may come to the land which the Lord, your God, is giving you, a land flowing with milk and honey, as the Lord, God of your forefathers, has spoken to you. ג. וְכָתַבְתָּ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת כָּל דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת בְּעָבְרֶךָ לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר תָּבֹא אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ | נֹתֵן לְךָ אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֶיךָ לָךְ:
4. And it will be, when you cross the Jordan, that you shall set up these stones, [regarding] which I command you this day on Mount Ebal, and you shall plaster them with lime. ד. וְהָיָה בְּעָבְרְכֶם אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן תָּקִימוּ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּהַר עֵיבָל וְשַׂדְתָּ אוֹתָם בַּשִּׂיד:
5. And there, you shall build an altar to the Lord, your God, an altar of stones. You shall not wield any iron upon them. ה. וּבָנִיתָ שָּׁם מִזְבֵּחַ לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים לֹא תָנִיף עֲלֵיהֶם בַּרְזֶל:
6. You shall build the altar of the Lord, your God, out of whole stones. And on it, you shall offer up burnt offerings to the Lord, your God. ו. אֲבָנִים שְׁלֵמוֹת תִּבְנֶה אֶת מִזְבַּח יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהַעֲלִיתָ עָלָיו עוֹלֹת לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ:
7. And you shall slaughter peace offerings, and you shall eat there, and you shall rejoice before the Lord, your God. ז. וְזָבַחְתָּ שְׁלָמִים וְאָכַלְתָּ שָּׁם וְשָׂמַחְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ:
8. You shall write upon the stones all the words of this Torah, very clearly. ח. וְכָתַבְתָּ עַל הָאֲבָנִים אֶת כָּל דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב:
very clearly: in seventy languages. — [Sotah 32a]
באר היטב: בשבעים לשון:
9. Moses and the Levitic priests spoke to all Israel, saying, "Pay attention and listen, O Israel! This day, you have become a people to the Lord, your God. ט. וַיְדַבֵּר משֶׁה וְהַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם אֶל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר הַסְכֵּת | וּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה נִהְיֵיתָ לְעָם לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ:
Pay attention: [To be understood] as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: [meaning, “Listen!” or “Pay attention!”].
הסכת: כתרגומו:
This day, you have become a people [to the Lord, your God]: Every single day, it should seem to you as though you are today entering into a covenant with Him. — [see Ber. 63b]
היום הזה נהיית לעם: בכל יום יהיו בעיניך כאילו היום באת עמו בברית:
10. You shall therefore obey the Lord, your God, and fulfill His commandments and His statutes, which I command you this day. י. וְשָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקוֹל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת מִצְו‍ֹתָו וְאֶת חֻקָּיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם:
___________________________
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 77 - 78
• 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 77
1. For the Conductor, on the yedutun,1 by Asaph, a psalm.
2. [I raise] my voice to God and cry out; [I raise] my voice to God and He will listen to me.
3. On the day of my distress I sought my Lord. My wound oozes at night and does not abate; my soul refuses to be consoled.
4. I remember God and I moan; I speak and my spirit faints, Selah.
5. You grasped my eyelids; I am broken, I cannot speak.
6. I think of olden days, of ancient years.
7. During the night I recall my music, I meditate with my heart, and my spirit searches:
8. Is it for eternity that my Lord forsakes [me], nevermore to be appeased?
9. Has His kindness ceased forever? Has He sealed the decree for all generations?
10. Has God forgotten mercy? Has He in anger restrained His compassion forever?
11. I said, "It is to ter- rify me that the right hand of the Most High changes.”
12. I remember the deeds of Yah, when I remember Your wonders of long ago.
13. I meditate on all Your works, and speak of Your deeds.
14. O God, Your way is in sanctity; what god is as great as God?
15. You are the God Who works wonders; You make Your might known among the nations.
16. You redeemed Your people with a mighty arm, the children of Jacob and Joseph, Selah.
17. The waters2 saw You, O God, the waters saw You and trembled; even the deep shuddered.
18. The clouds streamed water, the heavens sounded forth, even Your arrows flew about.
19. The sound of Your thunder was in the rolling wind; lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked.
20. Your way was through the sea, Your path through the mighty waters; and Your footsteps were not known.3
21. You led Your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron
Chapter 78
This psalm recounts all the miracles that God wrought for Israel, from the exodus of Egypt to David's becoming king over Israel.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Listen, my people, to my teaching; incline your ear to the words of my mouth.
2. I will open my mouth with a parable, I will utter riddles of long ago;
3. that which we have heard and know [to be true], and that our fathers have told us.
4. We will not withhold from their children, telling the final generation the praises of the Lord, and His might, and the wonders He has performed.
5. He established a testimony in Jacob, and set down the Torah in Israel, which He commanded our fathers to make known to their children,
6. so that the last generation shall know; children yet to be born will rise and tell their children,
7. and they shall put their hope in God, and not forget the works of the Almighty; and they shall guard His commandments.
8. And they shall not be like their fathers, a wayward and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart straight, and whose spirit was not faithful to God.
9. The children of Ephraim, armed archers, retreated on the day of battle.2
10. They did not keep the covenant of God, and refused to follow His Torah.
11. They forgot His deeds and His wonders that He had shown them.
12. He performed wonders before their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan.3
13. He split the sea and brought them across; He erected the waters like a wall.
14. He led them with a cloud by day, and all night long with the light of fire.
15. He split rocks in the wilderness, and gave them to drink as if from the abundant depths.
16. And He brought forth flowing waters from the rock, and caused waters to descend like rivers.
17. Yet they again continued to sin against Him, to provoke the Most High in the parched land.
18. And they tested God in their hearts, by requesting food for their craving.
19. They spoke against God; they said, "Can God set a table in the wilderness?
20. True, He hit the rock and waters flowed, streams gushed forth; but can He also give bread? Will He prepare meat for His people?”
21. And so the Lord heard and was enraged; a fire was kindled against Jacob; wrath, too, flared against Israel.
22. For they did not believe in God and did not trust in His salvation,
23. [though] He had commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven.
24. He had rained upon them manna to eat, and given them grain of heaven.
25. Man ate the bread of angels; He sent them [enough] provisions to satiate.
26. He drove the east wind through the heaven, and led the south wind with His might.
27. He rained meat upon them like dust, winged birds like the sand of seas;
28. and He dropped them inside His camp, around His dwellings.
29. And they ate and were very satiated, for He brought them their desire.
30. They were not yet estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths,
31. when the wrath of God rose against them and slew their mighty ones, and brought down the chosen of Israel.
32. Despite this, they sinned again, and did not believe in His wonders;
33. so He ended their days in futility, and their years in terror.
34. When He slew them they would seek Him, they would return and pray to God.
35. They remembered that God is their rock, God the Most High, their redeemer.
36. But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and deceived Him with their tongue.
37. Their heart was not steadfast with Him; they were not faithful to His covenant.
38. Yet He is compassionate, pardons iniquity, and does not destroy; time and again He turns away His anger, and does not arouse all His wrath.
39. He remembered that they were but flesh, a spirit that leaves and does not return.
40. How often they provoked Him in the desert, and grieved Him in the wasteland!
41. Again and again they tested God, and sought a sign from the Holy One of Israel.
42. They did not remember His hand, the day He redeemed them from the oppressor;
43. that He set His signs in Egypt, and His wonders in the field of Zoan.
44. He turned their rivers to blood, and made their flowing waters undrinkable.
45. He sent against them a mixture of beasts which devoured them, and frogs that destroyed them.
46. He gave their produce to the grasshopper, and their toil to the locust.
47. He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamores with biting frost.
48. He delivered their animals to the hail, and their livestock to fiery bolts.
49. He sent against them His fierce anger, fury, rage, and affliction; a delegation of messengers of evil.
50. He leveled a path for His anger, and did not spare their soul from death; He delivered their animals to pestilence.
51. He struck every firstborn in Egypt, the first fruit of their strength in the tents of Ham.4
52. He drove His nation like sheep, and guided them like a flock in the desert.
53. He led them in security and they did not fear, for the sea covered their enemies.
54. And He brought them to the boundary of His holy place, this mountain which His right hand acquired.
55. He drove out nations before them, and allotted them an inheritance [measured] by the cord; He settled the tribes of Israel in their tents.
56. Yet they tested and defied God, the Most High, and did not keep His testimonies.
57. They regressed and rebelled like their fathers; they turned around like a deceptive bow.
58. They angered Him with their high altars, and provoked Him with their idols.
59. God heard and was enraged, and He was utterly disgusted with Israel;
60. And He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shilo, the Tent where He had dwelled among men.
61. He put His might into captivity, and His glory into the hand of the oppressor.
62. He delivered His nation to the sword, and was enraged with His inheritance.
63. Fire consumed His young men, and His maidens had no marriage song.
64. His priests fell by the sword, and their widows did not weep.5
65. And the Lord awoke like one who had been asleep, like a warrior shouting [to sober himself] from wine.
66. He beat His enemies into retreat, and dealt them eternal disgrace.
67. He was disgusted with the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim.
68. He chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loves.
69. And He built His Sanctuary [permanent as] the heavens; like the earth, He established it forever.
70. And He chose David His servant, and took him from the sheep corrals.
71. From following the nursing ewes, He brought Him to shepherd His nation Jacob, Israel His inheritance.
72. And he tended them with the integrity of his heart, and led them with the skill of his hands.
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 43, 44 and 45.
Chapter 43
A significant prayer concerning the magnitude of the troubles we have suffered at the hands of the impious nations. May it be God's will to send Moshiach and Elijah the Prophet, who will lead us to the Holy Temple to offer sacrifices as in days of old.
1. Avenge me, O God, and champion my cause against an impious nation; rescue me from the man of deceit and iniquity.
2. For You are the God of my strength; why have You abandoned me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the enemy?
3. Send Your light and Your truth, they will guide me; they will bring me to Your holy mountain and to your sanctuaries.
4. Then I will come to the altar of God-to God, the joy of my delight-and praise You on the lyre, O God, my God.
5. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
Chapter 44
The psalmist cries and laments painfully over this bitter exile, where we and our Torah are shamed daily, when the nations say that God has exchanged us for another nation, and where we are considered as sheep for the slaughter, as a byword and taunt. It is therefore fitting that God redeem us, for the sake of His great Name that abides with us in exile.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, a maskil.1
2. God, with our ears we have heard, our fathers have told us, of the deeds You wrought in their days, in the days of old.
3. You drove out nations with Your hand, and planted [Israel in their place]; You afflicted peoples and banished them.
4. For not by their sword did they inherit the land, and their own arm did not save them, but by Your right hand, Your arm and the light of Your countenance-for You favored them.
5. You are my king, O God; decree the salvation of Jacob.
6. Through You will we gore our adversaries; with Your Name we will trample our opponents.
7. For I do not trust in my bow, and my sword cannot save me.
8. For You have delivered us from our foes, and You shamed those who hate us.
9. In God we glory all day, and forever thank Your Name, Selah.
10. Though You abandon and disgrace us, and do not go forth with our armies;
11. You cause us to retreat from the oppressor, and those who hate us plunder for themselves;
12. You deliver us like sheep to be devoured, and scatter us among the nations;
13. You sell Your nation without gain, and do not set a high price upon them;
14. You make us a disgrace to our neighbors, the scorn and derision of those around us;
15. You make us a byword among the nations, [a cause for] nodding the head among the peoples;
16. all day long my humiliation is before me, and the shame of my face covers me
17. at the voice of the reviler and blasphemer, because of the foe and avenger-
18. all this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten You, nor have we been false to Your covenant.
19. Our hearts have not retracted, nor have our steps strayed from Your path.
20. Even when You crushed us in the place of serpents, and shrouded us in the shadow of death-
21. did we forget the Name of our God, and extend our hands to a foreign god?
22. Is it not so that God can examine this, for He knows the secrets of the heart.
23. For it is for Your sake that we are killed all the time; we are regarded as sheep for the slaughter.
24. Arise! Why do You sleep, my Lord? Wake up! Do not abandon [us] forever!
25. Why do You conceal Your countenance and forget our affliction and distress?
26. For our souls are bowed to the dust, our bellies cleave to the earth.
27. Arise! Be our help, and redeem us for the sake of Your kindness.
Chapter 45
The psalmist composed this psalm referring to Moshiach. He describes his greatness, his attributes, his glory, his wealth, and his reign; and states that Israel anticipates him, remembering and saying in every generation, "When will King Moshiach come?"
1. For the Conductor, upon the shoshanim,1 By the sons of Korach; a maskil,2 a song of love.
2. My heart is astir with a noble theme; I say, "My composition is for the king;3 my tongue is the pen of a skillful scribe.”
3. You are the most handsome of men, charm is poured upon your lips; therefore has God blessed you forever.
4. Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one-it is your majesty and splendor.
5. And with your splendor, succeed and ride on for the sake of truth and righteous humility; and your right hand will guide you to awesome deeds.
6. Your arrows are sharpened-nations fall beneath you-[the arrows fall] into the hearts of the king's enemies.
7. Your throne, O ruler, is forever and ever, [for] the scepter of justice is the scepter of your kingdom.
8. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore has God, your God, anointed you with oil of joy above your peers.
9. Myrrh, aloes and cassia are [the fragrance] of all your garments, which are from ivory palaces that bring you joy.
10. Daughters of kings visit you, and the queen stands erect at your right hand, adorned in the fine gold of Ophir.
11. Hear, O daughter, and observe, incline your ear; forget your people and your father's house.
12. Then the king will desire your beauty. He is your master-bow to him.
13. The daughter of Tyre, the wealthiest of nations, will seek your favor with a gift.
14. All the glory of the princess is within; her clothing surpasses settings of gold.
15. In embroidered garments she will be brought to the king; the maidens in her train, her companions, will be led to you.
16. They will be brought with gladness and joy, they will enter the palace of the king.
17. Your sons will succeed your fathers; you will appoint them ministers throughout the land.
18. I will cause Your Name to be remembered throughout the generations; therefore will the nations praise You forever and ever.
____________________________
Tanya: 
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Wednesday, 15 Elul 5774 • 10 September 2014
Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 15
אך צריך להקדים מה ששמעתי ממורי, עליו השלום, על פסוק: ואנכי עפר ואפר
But it is necessary to state first what I heard from my master, R. Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezritch, peace be to him, on the verse,1 “And I am dust and ashes.”
שאמר אברהם אבינו, עליו השלום, על הארת נשמתו המאירה בגופו מאור חסד עליון
Our father Abraham, peace be to him, said this of the illumination from his soul which radiated in his body from the light of the Supreme Chesed.
והיא מדתו, מדת אהבה רבה
And that is his attribute: the attribute of ahavah rabbah (“magnanimous love”), that derived from the parent Sefirah called Chesed of Atzilut,
נוסח אחר: שבה היה שהיה אוהב את הקב״ה אהבה גדולה ועליונה כל כך, עד שנעשה מרכבה להקב״ה
for he loved (an alternative reading: “with which he loved”) the Holy One, blessed be He, with a love so great and sublime, that he became a chariot unto the Holy One, blessed be He.
Abraham’s degree of nullification to G d was that of a vehicle to its driver, having no independent will whatever. This is even greater than the subservience of a slave to his master, for the slave retains a will of his own.
וסלקא דעתך אמינא שבחינת חסד ואהבה שלמעלה בספירות העליונות, היא מעין וסוג מהות מדת אהבה רבה של אברהם אבינו, עליו השלום
Now one might possibly assume that the type of Chesed and love as it exists above in the Supernal Sefirot is of a similar nature to the attribute of abundant love [exemplified by] our father Abraham, peace be to him,
רק שהיא גדולה ונפלאה למעלה מעלה עד אין קץ ותכלית
though surpassing it infinitely.
כנודע ממדות העליונות, שאין להם קץ סוף ותכלית מצד עצמן
For it is known of the Supernal middot (“attributes”), that though their mode of emanation is finite, they themselves are essentially without end or limit,
כי אור אין סוף ברוך הוא מאיר ומלובש בתוכם ממש
because the [infinite] Ein Sof-light actually radiates and is vested within them,
ואיהו וגרמוהי חד
and “He and his middot (i.e., the kelim of the Sefirot) are One”; i.e., just as He is infinite, so too are they.
מה שאין כן בנשמת האדם, המלובשת בחומר
As regards the soul of man, however, which is vested in corporeality, in man’s body,
שיש למדותיה קץ וגבול
its attributes are finite and limited.
Thus, to revert to the above example, it is abundantly clear that the Supernal Sefirah of Chesed is infinitely loftier and more wondrous than its worldly counterpart — the attribute of Chesed and love in Abraham’s soul, which was vested within his body.
אבל מכל מקום, סלקא דעתך אמינא שמדותיה הן מעין וסוג מדות העליונות
Nevertheless, one might possibly assume that its attributes are of the same type as the Supernal attributes.
Until now the Alter Rebbe has explained that the Supernal Sefirah of Chesed is infinitely higher than Abraham’s attribute of love in this world. Now, in order to negate a comparison from any perspective whatever, he goes on to state that Abraham’s attribute of love is infinitely lower than the Supernal Sefirah of Chesed.
ולזה אמר: ואנכי עפר ואפר
This is why he said, “I am dust and ashes,”
דכמו שהאפר הוא מהותו ועצמותו של העץ הנשרף
that is, like ashes, which are the essence and substance of the burned wood;
שהיה מורכב מד׳ יסודות: אש, רוח, מים, עפר
for [the wood] was previously composed of the four basic elements — Fire, Air, Water and Earth, of which all matter is compounded,2
וג׳ יסודות: אש, מים, רוח, חלפו והלכו להם
and the three elements of Fire, Water and Air passed away
וכלו בעשן המתהוה מהרכבתן, כנודע
and were consumed in the smoke that came into being through their combination, as is known.
ויסוד הד׳ שהיה בעץ, שהוא העפר שבו, היורד למטה
As to the fourth element of the wood, namely its component of Earth, which goes downward, and does not ascend with the smoke,
ואין האש שולטת בו
and over which the fire has no dominion,
הוא הנשאר קיים, והוא האפר
it is this that remains in existence, and constitutes the ashes.
והנה כל מהות העץ, וממשו וחומרו וצורתו באורך ורוחב ועובי, שהיה נראה לעין קודם שנשרף
Now the whole of the essence of the wood, with its tangible substantiality, which does not result from the Fire, Water and Air within it, its matter, and its form in terms of length, width and density, which were visible to the eye before it was burned,
עיקרו היה מיסוד העפר שבו
derived basically from the element of Earth within it,
רק שאש, מים, רוח, כלולים בו
except that the Fire, Water and Air were also compounded in it.
כי העפר הוא חומרי יותר מכולן, ויש לו אורך ורוחב ועובי
For Earth is the most material of them all, of all the elements, having [dimensions of] length, width and density,
מה שאין כן באש ורוח
which is not the case with Fire and Air.
וגם המים, הם מעט מזעיר בעץ
And even Water, that does contain these dimensions, appears only sparingly in wood.
וכל ארכו ורחבו ועוביו, הכל היה מן העפר, והכל שב אל העפר
Thus, as to all the dimensions [in wood] of length, width and density,3 “All is of the earth, and all returns to earth,”
שהוא האפר הנשאר אחרי שנפרדו ממנו אש, מים, רוח
i.e., to the ashes that remain after the Fire, Water and Air have been separated from it.
Thus, the ash that remains is what was formerly the essence of the wood.
והנה, כמו שהאפר אין לו דמיון וערך אל מהות העץ הגדול באורך ורוחב ועובי קודם שנשרף, לא בכמותו ולא באיכותו
Now, just as there is neither a quantitative nor a qualitative resemblance or proportion between (on the one hand) the ashes and (on the other hand) the essence of the tree which, before being burned, had sizeable dimensions of length, width and density,
אף שהוא הוא מהותו ועצמותו, וממנו נתהוה
even though it (the wood) is its very essence and substance, and from it (the wood) did it (the ash) come into being,
כך, על דרך משל, אמר אברהם אבינו עליו השלום על מדתו, מדת החסד והאהבה, המאירה בו ומלובשת בגופו
precisely so, metaphorically speaking, did our father Abraham, peace be to him, speak of his distinctive attribute, the attribute of kindness and love, which radiated within him and was vested in his body.
דאף שהיא היא מדת האהבה וחסד העליון שבאצילות, המאיר בנשמתו שהיתה מרכבה עליונה
For though it was this very attribute of the love and Supreme Chesed of Atzilut that radiated in his soul, which was a chariot to [the will of] heaven,
אף על פי כן, ברדתה למטה להתלבש בגוף
nevertheless, as it descended downwards to vest itself in the body,
על ידי השתלשלות העולמות ממדרגה למדרגה, על ידי צמצומים רבים
by means of the evolution of the worlds from one level to another, by means of many contractions,
אין דמיון וערך מהות אור האהבה המאיר בו, אל מהות אור אהבה וחסד עליון שבאצילות
there was no semblance or proportion between the essence of the light of the love that radiated within him, and the essence of the light of the love and Supreme Chesed of Atzilut,
אלא כערך ודמיון מהות העפר שנעשה אפר, אל מהותו ואיכותו כשהיה עץ נחמד למראה וטוב למאכל, על דרך משל
except of the sort of proportion and semblance that exists (metaphorically speaking) between the essence of the element of Earth which became ashes, and its essence and quality in its original state as a tree,4 “pleasant to the sight and good for food.”
ויותר מזה, להבדיל באלפים הבדלות
Indeed, [the incomparability of Abraham’s Chesed and the Chesed of Atzilut] exceeds [the incomparability of the ash and the tree] by thousands of degrees of separation.
רק שדברה תורה כלשון בני אדם, במשל ומליצה
Nevertheless, the Torah speaks in human phraseology, by way of allegory and metaphor; hence its use of the analogy of the tree, despite its inherent disproportion.
Surely, then, the attributes and soul-powers of an ordinary Jew in this world bear absolutely no comparable relation to the Sefirot from which they derive. Nonetheless, since his soul-powers do after all derive from the Sefirot and are illuminated by them, he can attain some degree of understanding of G dliness from that dimension of the soul that animates his body. And this is the meaning of the verse, “From my flesh shall I behold G d.”
* * *
FOOTNOTES
1. Bereishit 18:27.
2. Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, beginning of ch. 4.
3. Cf. Kohelet 3:20.
4. Bereishit 2:9.
____________________________
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah P238 - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Wednesday, 15 Elul 5774 • 10 September 2014

A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 238
Damage Caused by a Ditch
"And if a man shall open a pit..."—Exodus 21:33.
We are commanded regarding the laws [of liability] that apply if a person digs a pit [and another's animal falls into it and is injured].
Damage Caused by a Ditch
Positive Commandment 238
Translated by Berel Bell
The 238th mitzvah is that we are commanded to follow the laws regarding damage caused by a pit in the ground.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If a person digs a pit in the ground [...and an ox or donkey falls into it, the one responsible for the pit must pay for the damage...]."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 3rd and 5th chapters of tractate Bava Kama.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid., 21:33.

________________________________________

Rambam:

• 1 Chapter a Day: To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 13
To`en veNit`an - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
The following individuals are not given the privilege of establishing a claim of ownership even though they have benefited from a property for three years: craftsmen, sharecroppers, guardians, partners, a husband with regard to property belonging to his wife, a wife with regard to property belonging to her husband, a son with regard to property belonging to his father, and a father with regard to property belonging to his son.
The rationale is that in all these instances the owners will not be irritated if the other uses the property. Therefore, the fact that they benefited from it does not serve as proof of ownership, even though the owner did not protest. Instead, the property should be returned to the owner, provided that they bring proof that this land was known to belong to them, and that they take a sh'vu'at hesset that they did not sell or give away the land, as we have explained.
Halacha 2
Similarly, the exiliarchs of that period, a robber and a gentile cannot establish a claim of ownership because they benefited from a property. The rationale is that they are men of force.
Similarly, a deaf-mute, a mentally or emotionally unstable person and a minor cannot establish a claim of ownership through benefiting from a property. The rationale is that they do not have a claim on which the property could be awarded to them. Instead, the property should be returned to its owners. Conversely, if a person manifests ownership over his property for three years, the fact that he benefited from the property is not considered proof of ownership.
Halacha 3
What is meant by the statement that they are not given the privilege of establishing a claim of ownership over property? Reuven benefited from a field originally belonging to Shimon for a sufficient number of years to establish a claim of ownership. He claims that he purchased the land. Shimon brought witnesses who testify that the property was known to belong to him. Similarly, he brought witnesses who testify that Reuven was known to be his partner, his sharecropper or his guardian. For this reason, he claims that he did not protest. The field is returned to Shimon, provided that he takes a sh'vu'at hesset that he did not sell or give the property to Reuven. Similar laws apply with regard to the others mentioned above.
Different laws apply, however, if Shimon does not bring proof that Reuven was his partner or sharecropper, but instead, Reuven made this admission on his own initiative, saying: "Yes, he is my partner and he sold me the property." Since he benefited from the land for the number of years long enough to establish a claim of ownership and he could have said: "He was never my partner," his word is accepted like the word of other persons.
Halacha 4
What is meant by the exclusion of craftsmen? If a person was building a property or repairing it for many years he cannot establish a claim of ownership over it.
If the craftsman abandoned his profession and benefited from a property for three years after he abandoned the profession, he can establish a claim of ownership.
Halacha 5
What is meant by the exclusion of sharecroppers? For example, a person worked as a sharecropper for the father of the owner of the property, or for another member of the family. Since he is a sharecropper who has worked for the family, the owner will not lodge a protest against him. If, however, a person becomes a sharecropper for the first time and then benefits from the land for the length of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he is allowed to retain possession. We tell the owners: "How did you allow him to benefit from the property year after year without issuing a protest?"
Halacha 6
Moreover, even when a sharecropper who has worked for the family brings other sharecroppers to work in his place, he may establish a claim of ownership. For ordinarily, there is no way that a person will bring sharecroppers into a colleague's property, and the latter will remain silent.
If, however, he divided the land among other sharecroppers who also worked on that property, he may not establish a claim of ownership. For it is possible that the owner appointed him as a supervisor over the sharecroppers.
When a sharecropper ceases working in that capacity and afterwards benefits from the produce of the land on which he had been working for three years, he establishes a claim of ownership.
Halacha 7
What is meant by the exclusion of guardians? The exclusion applies whether the guardian was charged with caring for a particular field or all of an heir's properties, whether he was appointed by the court or appointed by the father of the orphans, and the orphans came of age and allowed him to remain in that capacity, or whether an adult appointed a guardian to supervise his income and expenditures. Since these persons have permission to use the property, they cannot establish a claim of ownership. If a guardian left his position and benefited from the property for three years after leaving, he establishes a claim of ownership.
Halacha 8
What is meant by the exclusion of partners? When a person is a partner in a field that is not required to be divided , even though he alone benefits from the entire field for several years, the field is still presumed to be owned by both of the partners.
If, however, it is large enough to be divided and only one of the partners benefited from it in its entirety for the years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he establishes such a claim. For he may tell his partner: "If it is true that you did not sell or give me your share of the field, why did I alone benefit from the entire field? Why did you remain silent and not protest for all these three years?"
Similarly, when a man who had stipulated that he waives the right to benefit from his wife's property nevertheless derives benefit from his wife's property for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, the fact that he derived benefit is of no consequence. This applies even when - while she was consecrated but not yet married - he stipulated that he would not inherit her property, and afterwards derived benefit from it, built or destroyed structures on it, doing whatever he desired.
Similarly, when a woman derived benefit from her husband's property and made use of it as she desired for several years, the fact that she derived benefit is of no consequence. This applies even if her husband designated another field for her to derive her livelihood from, and she benefited from other fields.
Similarly, when a son receives his livelihood at his father's home and is considered one of the members of his household, if he benefits from his father's property for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, it is of no consequence. The same law applies when the father derives benefit from the property of this son, who derives his livelihood from him for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership.
Halacha 9
If such a son leaves his father's household or a woman is divorced - this applies even if there is a question whether the divorce is effective - they are bound by the laws that apply to all other individuals.
Halacha 10
The exiliarchs of the Talmudic era could not establish a claim of ownership because they benefited from a field. The rationale is that they had the authority to rale over the people.
Similarly, when a person manifests ownership over property belonging to the exiliarchs, even if he benefits from it for a number of years, the fact that he derived benefit is not significant. The rationale is that the exiliarchs do not protest because they have the power to remove the other person from the property whenever they desire. Instead, they must take a sh'vu'at hesset that they did not sell or give that person the property. Conversely, if they took possession of the property of another person, and that person says that he did not sell the property, that person must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he did not sell or give them the property.
Halacha 11

What is meant by the exclusion of robbers? When a person is presumed to have stolen this field, or his ancestors were presumed to kill people in order to take their property, although he benefits from a field for several years, he does not establish a claim of ownership, and the field should be returned to its owners.
____________________________
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters a Day: Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Six, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Seven, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Eight
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Six
1. What is meant by the term mu'ad?1 [An animal regarding which] testimony2 was given on three [different] days. If, however, an animal gored [other animals] on one day, or it bit, lay upon, kicked or butted [other animals many] - even one hundred - times in one day, it should not be considered to be mu'ad.3
If three pairs of witnesses gave testimony [concerning an animal]4 on one day, there is an [unresolved] doubt whether it is classified as mu'ad or not.
2. The warning administered to an owner [for an animal] must be administered in the owner's presence, as [implied by Exodus 21:29]: "And the owners shall be warned." The warning must be administered in a court.5
3. When an ox belonging to a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual, a minor6 or a person who is overseas gores, [the owner] is not liable. The court should, however, appoint a guardian for the ox and administer the warning to the guardian.
4. [The following rules apply when this ox] causes damage after the warning was administered to the guardian:7 If the ox is still classified as a tam, an ordinary animal, half the damages must be paid from the body [of the ox].8 If a warning was administered on three [different] days, and afterwards [the ox] causes damage, the guardian must pay for the damage from the choicest properties he owns.9 When the orphans attain majority, they must enter into litigation with the guardian and repay him.
5. When oxen are used for sport,10 and they are trained to gore each other, they are not considered to be mu'adim [to gore] each other. [Moreover,] even if they kill a human, they should not be executed, for [Exodus 21:28] states: "When an ox gores...," [implying that it does so on its own initiative,] not that it was prompted to gore.
6. When an ox was sold or given away as a present after its owners had been warned, its status reverts back to that of a tam. With the change in ownership, its status changes.
If, however, an ox was borrowed or entrusted to a watchman, its status remains unchanged. Similarly, if a warning regarding an ox was given to a guardian, and then the owner who was a deaf mute regained his faculties, or the owner who was mentally incompetent regained competence, or the owner who was a minor attains majority, the status of the ox remains unchanged,11 for it remains in the domain of the [same] owner.
7. When an animal was classified as mu'ad, and then it changes its conduct, its status changes and it is considered to be a tam.
What is implied? If an ox was classified as mu'ad with regard to goring and it ceased goring, it is considered to be a tam with regard to goring, even though it still butts.
When is it considered to have ceased [goring]? When children play12 with it and it does not gore them. Similarly with regard to other tendencies regarding which warnings were given, [the status of the animal remains unchanged] until [children] play with it, and it does not do [what it was wont to do previously].
8. When an ox has been classified as mu'ad with regard to [other oxen], it is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to other types of animals. An ox that has been classified as mu'ad with regard to humans is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to animals.13 If it has been classified as mu'ad with regard to young animals, it is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to older animals.
Therefore, if it caused damage of the type regarding which the warning was given, the owner is liable for the full amount of the damages. If it caused damages of another type, regarding which a warning was not given, [the owners] must pay [only] half the damages.
If it has been classified as mu'ad with regard to Sabbaths, it is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to weekdays.14 If it causes damage on the Sabbath, the owner is liable for the full amount of the damages. During the week, [the owners] must pay [only] half the damages.
When is the warning rescinded? When children will play with it on the day concerning which the warning was given, and it does not harm them in the way it is known to cause harm.
9. If [an ox] gored another ox on one day, a donkey on the following day, and a camel on the day afterwards, it is classified as mu'ad for all [these three] types [of animals].15
[A warning should also be administered to an owner in the following situation. His ox] saw another ox on one day and gored it. On the next day, it saw another ox but did not gore it. On the third day, it saw another ox and gored it. On the fourth day, it saw another ox but did not gore it. On the fifth day, it saw another ox and gored it, and on the sixth day, it saw another ox but did not gore it. [In these circumstances, the ox] becomes classified as mu'ad to gore oxen on alternate days.16 Similar laws apply in other analogous situations.
10. [Similarly, a warning should also be administered to an owner in the following situation. His ox] saw another ox on one day and gored it. On the next day, it saw a donkey, but did not gore it. On the third day, it saw a horse and gored it. On the fourth day, it saw a camel but did not gore it. On the fifth day, it saw a mule and gored it, and on the sixth day, it saw a wild ass but did not gore it. [In these circumstances, the ox] becomes classified as mu'ad to gore all [these three] types [of animals] on alternate days.
If it gores one of these types of animals that it had gored on alternate days on a day on which it is mu'ad, [the owner must pay the full damages, as is required for an ox that is] mu'ad.
11. [When an ox] gores [an animal] on the fifteenth of one month, on the sixteenth of the following month, and on the seventeenth of the third month, it is not classified as mu'ad until it adds a day a third time, in the fourth month.17
If an ox hears a shofar blast and gores on three [successive] occasions, it is considered mu'ad [to gore after hearing] shofar blasts.18 Similar laws apply in other analogous situations.
12. [There is an unresolved doubt in the following situations.] An ox gored three other oxen on three successive days. On the fourth day it gored a donkey, and on the fifth day it gored a camel. Or at first it gored a donkey and a camel, and then it gored three oxen one after another. There is a doubt if it is classified as mu'ad only for oxen or for all three types of animals.
Similarly, if an ox gores on three successive Sabbaths and then on the Sunday and the Monday [following the third Sabbath], or it gored on Thursday, on Friday and then on three successive Sabbaths, there is a doubt whether it is classified as mu'ad only for Sabbaths or for a block of three days, two of which are ordinary weekdays.19
13. With regard to these unresolved questions and the like, [the owner of the ox] that caused the damage is required to pay for only half the damages. If the person whose property was damaged seizes property belonging to the other person equivalent to the full amount of the damages, it is not expropriated from him.20
FOOTNOTES
1.Mu'ad literally means forewarned - i.e., the animal is prone to perform such acts, and the owner should be forewarned.
2.From two acceptable witnesses.
3.For it is possible that the animal was disturbed by certain factors on that day, and its conduct is not indicative of its ordinary pattern.
4.I.e., that it gored three other animals on three days (Ra'avad, Maggid Mishneh).
5.Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:12 states that this refers to a court of three judges who received semichah. For this reason, ever since this semichah was nullified, animals were no longer placed into the category of mu'ad. Accordingly, these laws do not apply in the present age.
6.All the first three people are considered to be mentally incompetent and are not held responsible for their conduct.
7.I.e., the Rambam explains that the ox gored another ox, a guardian was appointed, and then it gored again. (See Or Sameach.)
8.Rashi (Bava Kama 39a), Rabbenu Asher and the Ra'avad differ and maintain that a guardian is not appointed unless the ox gores three times. Otherwise, the owners are not held liable.
9.The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 406) states that the payment is made from the property of the orphans, and not from that of the guardian.
10.Bava Kama 4:3 uses the expression A bull from a stadium. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam explains This one sends out his bull and the other sends out his bull. After having trained their animals to gore, they call to them to attack the other animal to see who will be victorious. This is done with the owner's consent. This is the habit of many foolish people.
11.See Halachah 3. Although previously the guardian was responsible for watching the ox, the change in responsibility is not a change in ownership, and the ox's status is not changed.
12.Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 2:4). In neither source does the Rambam mention how often the children must play with the ox. With this ruling, the Rambam rejects an opinion stated in Bava Kama 23b, which states that if three days pass when the ox sees other oxen and does not gore them, the warning is rescinded.
13.Conversely, an ox that has been classified as mu'ad with regard to animals is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to humans.
14.Rashi (Bava Kama 37a) explains that on the Sabbath, an ox is not required to work. Hence, it may not feel the yoke of its master as thoroughly and may therefore cause damage. Others cite the Jerusalem Talmud which explains that since people dress differently on the Sabbath, the ox will not be familiar with them, and may gore them because it views them as strangers. This does not apply during the week.
15.Our translation is based on the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh, which reflects the Rambam's wording in Halachot 10 and 12. The Rambam is explaining that to be classified as mu'ad for a type of animal, an ox does not have to gore that type of animal three times. The Ra'avad differs and explains that the ox is considered to be mu'ad for all types of animals.
16.Thus, if it gores an ox on an odd day, its owner will be liable for the full extent of the damages, and if it gores on an even day, he will be liable for only half the damages.
17.A parallel to this law is found with regard to fixing the pattern of the onset of menstruation. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 8:6.
18.I.e., it appears that the shofar blasts prompt the ox to gore.
19.The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why the animal would be considered to be mu'ad for only this block of three days.
20.See Chapter 1, Halachah 11.
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Seven
1. [The following rules apply when] an ox breaks loose and causes damage after its owner had tied it with a rope and locked it [in a corral] in an acceptable manner.1 If it is a tam, he is required to pay only half the damages.
If it is mu'ad, he is not liable at all,2 as [implied by Exodus 21:29]: "[If the owners were warned,] and they did not guard him." [One can infer that] if they did guard, they are not liable. [And in the above instance, the ox] was guarded.3
Similarly, if an ox caused damage through an activity for which he is mu'ad at the outset - e.g., it ate a type of food that it usually eats or it broke objects by treading on them - [the owner] is not liable [in the above instance].
2. If the ox has been classified as mu'ad with regard to its right horn, but it is not mu'ad with regard to its left horn, and it got loose after it had been guarded in an acceptable manner, [the owner is required to] pay half the damages.4 [This applies] regardless of whether it gored with its right horn or its left horn.
3. [The following rules apply when] an animal injures a human being, whether intentionally or unintentionally. If the animal is a tam, half the damages must be paid from the body of the animal. If it is mu'ad, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damages.5
He is, however, not liable for compensation for unemployment, embarrassment, pain and medical expenses. For the Torah required redress for these matters only when one person injured a colleague.6 When, by contrast, it is an animal which caused the injury, it is as if [the animal] damaged the person's property, and [the owner] is liable for only half of the damages.
For this reason, if a person's ox causes [another individual] embarrassment, he is not liable. If, however, he causes that embarrassment himself, he is liable, as will be explained.7
If a person's ox injures his father or mother, or it sets fire to a person's grain heap on the Sabbath, [the owner] is liable, although if the person performed these same actions himself, he would not be liable.8
4. [The following rules apply when] a person brings his ox into a courtyard belonging to another person without his permission. If the [uninvited ox] was gored by an ox belonging to the owner or bitten by the owner's dog, the owner is not liable.
If the [uninvited ox] gored an ox belonging to the owner [of the courtyard], [the owner of the uninvited ox is liable.] If [his ox] is tam, [its owner] must pay half the damages. If it is mu'ad, he must pay the entire damages, as if it had gored [the other ox] in the public domain.9
5. [In the above situation, the following rules apply if the uninvited ox] falls into a cistern in this courtyard and spoils its water. If it spoiled the water immediately upon falling within,10 [the owner of the ox] is liable for the loss caused by the ruining of the water. If [the water] was not spoiled until afterwards,11 [the owner] is not liable. [The rationale is that] the ox is considered to be an obstruction in the cistern, and the water is considered to be a utensil. And one is never liable for damage to utensils caused by an obstruction.12
If [the owner of the ox received] permission to bring in his ox, the owner of the ox is not liable for any damage the ox caused.13 If the owner of the courtyard accepted responsibility for the ox,14 he is liable for the damages it suffers from falling into the cistern.
6. [The following rules also apply when] a person brings his ox into a courtyard belonging to another person without his permission. If the [uninvited ox] injures the owner of the courtyard, the owner of the courtyard suffers injury [because of the ox], or [the ox] digs pits or trenches, or burrows in the courtyard, the owner of the ox is liable for the damage to the courtyard [or to the owner]. [If another person] is injured because of these pits,15 the owner of the courtyard is liable, for it is his responsibility to fill them up.
7. [The following rules apply if] the owner of the courtyard damaged the ox: If he caused the damage unknowingly, he is not liable. For he can tell [the owner of the ox], "Why did you bring [your ox] in without permission. I was not aware of it until I [damaged it] unknowingly."16 If he caused the damage knowingly, he is liable for the full extent of the damage. He has the right to take the [intruding animal] out of his property; he does not have the right to damage it.
8. We evaluate the amount of damages caused.
What is implied? If either a person or his ox broke a utensil belonging to a colleague, we do not tell the person who caused the damage, "Take the broken utensil and pay its worth to its owner."17 Instead, we evaluate the loss caused to the utensil. This amount is paid by the person who caused the damage. [If the damage was caused by his ox, and the ox] was mu'ad, he is liable for the full amount of the damages. If it is tam, he is liable for half the damages.
[This is implied by Exodus 21:36]: "And the carcass will be his" - i.e., it belongs to the one whose property was damaged. If the carcass loses value, the person whose property was damaged suffers the loss. If its value rises, the increase is divided between the person who caused the damage and the person whose property was damaged.
9. What is implied? When an ox that is worth 200 [zuz] is gored and dies - its carcass was worth 100 [zuz] at the time of its death,18 but at the time of the trial, it decreased in value and was worth only 80. [In such an instance,] the person whose [ox] caused the damage is required to pay only 100 [zuz],19 if [the ox] was mu'ad. If it was a tam, the owner is required to pay only 50 [zuz] from the body of the ox.
10. If the value of the carcass increased, and it is worth 120 [zuz] at the time of the trial, the one who caused the damage must pay 9020 if the ox was mu'ad, and 45 from the body of the ox if it was a tam. [This is implied by Exodus 21:35]: "And they shall also divide the dead [ox]" - i.e., they shall divide the profit from the dead ox.21
11. [The amount that the person whose ox caused the damage must pay is subject to change in some, but not in all, circumstances. To illustrate:] An ox that was worth 200 [zuz] gored another ox worth 200 [zuz], causing it to depreciate 50 [zuz]. At the time of the trial, its value increased and it was worth 400 zuz. If, however, it had not been gored, it would have been worth 800 [zuz]. Whether its value increased because it was fattened or because of market fluctuations,22 the damages are evaluated according to the loss at the time the damage took place.23
If the ox became weak because of the injury it received and the damages amounted to 100 zuz at the time of the trial, the damages are evaluated according to the loss at the time of the trial.24
12. [The following rules apply if] the value of the ox that caused the damage increased at the time of the trial.25 If its value increased because the owner fattened it, only its value at the time it caused the damage is considered to be on lien for payment.26 If its value increased because of market fluctuations, half of the damages may be collected from its value at the time of the trial.27
13. It is the responsibility of the person who caused the damage to make the effort to bring the carcass of the ox that was damaged to the person [whose ox] was damaged.
What is implied? An ox fell into a cistern and died. [The owner of the cistern] must raise the carcass [of the ox]28 from the cistern and give it to its owner. Then we evaluate the extent of the loss.
[This is derived from Exodus 21:34]: "He shall give monetary recompense to the owners, and the carcass will be [the owners']." This teaches that he is obligated to return the carcass and the decrease in the value of the ox [from the time]29 when it was alive, to its owner. If [the ox that caused the damage was a tam], [its owner is required to pay only] half the damages, as explained above.30
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e., with a gate that can withstand an ordinary wind. According to the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:1), this halachah is speaking about guarding the animal in an inferior manner as explained in the notes to Chapter 4, Halachah 4. If the animal is guarded in an excellent manner, there is no liability.
2.According to the Rambam, the owner is not liable for even half the damages. Rabbenu Asher and others differ. According to their view, since he did guard the ox to some degree, he is not liable for the full damages. He is, however, liable for half the damages, for there is no reason why the laws governing him should be more lenient than those governing an ordinary ox. See Sefer Me'irat Einayim 396:1.
3.Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama, conclusion of Chapter 4), which states that since this ox frequently gores, it is a mitzvah to slaughter it.
4.Since the ox is considered to be a tam with regard to one element of goring, the owner is never freed from the obligation to pay the half damages that the owner of an ordinary ox would pay.
5.Although these principles are stated in the Torah explicitly with regard only to damage done to another animal, Bava Kama 33a explains how an equation to human injury is derived.
6.For Leviticus 24:19, the source for the laws applying to human injury, states: When a man will cause a blemish to a colleague.... Implied is that these laws apply only when the injury is caused by another man.
7.Hilchot Chovel UMazik 1:1,9.
8.A human being is not liable in these instances. The rationale is that he is liable for capital punishment for injuring his parents or desecrating the Sabbath. Whenever a person incurs both liability for capital punishment and monetary restitution with the performance of a single deed, he is freed of responsibility for the monetary claim. See Hilchot Chovel UMazik 4:5,7.
9.The words as if it had gored in the public domain refer to the fact that the owner of an ox that is tam pays for only half the damages. One might draw a comparison to the damage caused by eating or treading, in which instance the owner of the ox is not held liable for damage caused in the public domain, but he is liable for the entire amount of damages caused in the domain of the owner of the produce. To counter this hypothesis, the Rambam emphasizes that with regard to goring, one is liable as in the public domain, but not more.
10.E.g., the ox was covered with filth at the time it fell into the cistern.
11.E.g., the ox spoiled it with its wastes.
12.See Chapter 13, Halachah 1.
13.The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 8-9, when an ox causes damage in a courtyard belonging jointly to its owner and another person, the owner of the ox is liable for the damage it causes. Why then, asks the Ra'avad, is the owner of the ox not liable in this situation? The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 398:5), however, quotes the Rambam's ruling.
14.As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 3, Halachot 13-15, the Tur differs with Rambam and maintains that granting the owner of the ox permission to bring his ox into the courtyard is equivalent to accepting responsibility for any damage to it caused by the owner or his property. With regard to damages caused by others, however, the owner of the courtyard is not liable unless he accepts responsibility. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's wording, while the Ramah follows the perspective of the Tur.
15.The Maggid Mishneh and Sefer Me'irat Einayim 398:2 state that the owner of the courtyard is generally not liable for the injury another person suffered because of these pits, since he can always claim: Who gave you permission to enter my property? Only when the owner gives up ownership of his property or gives others the right to enter is he liable.
16.This phrase has attracted the attention of the commentaries, for it implies that if the owner of the courtyard knew that the animal had entered his property, he would be liable even when he caused the damage accidentally. From Hilchot Chovel UMazik 1:16, 6:3, however, it appears that he would not be liable in such an instance. See Migdal Oz, Lechem Mishneh.
17.Note the contrast to Hilchot Geneivah 1:15. See Sefer Me'irat Einayim 403:1.
18.The Tur maintains that the time that is significant is not the time of the animal's death, but the time when its owner is notified regarding its death. Until that time, the one who caused the damage is responsible for the loss. The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 403:2) mentions this view.
19.And not 120.
20.I.e., the 100 zuz that the owner of the ox lost, minus 10 zuz, which is the share of the profit given to the person who caused the damage.
21.The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 403:2) emphasize that although the person who caused the damage is given a share in the value of the dead ox, this applies only with regard to the loss. If the price of meat rises to the extent that the meat of the ox is worth more than the ox was worth when it was alive, the one who caused the damages is not given a share of the profits.
22.I.e., the price of cattle increased.
23.I.e., 50 zuz if the ox was mu'ad. With regard to the larger sum, the matter is considered one of grama, an indirect cause of damage. Therefore, the owner of the ox is not liable (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 404:2).
24.Tosafot, Bava Kama 10b draws a distinction between this instance and Halachah 8, which states that the increased loss to the carcass is suffered by its owner. The rationale for this distinction is that once the ox died, its owner should have sold it immediately. In this instance, since the ox was still alive, its owner thought that it would recover and that the loss would be less.
25.This increase is significant, because the owner of the ox that was damaged can collect the payment (half of the damage) for the damages, only from the body of the ox that caused the damage. Thus, if the damage to an ox was 200 zuz, and the ox that caused the damage was worth only 80 zuz, the fact that its value increased to 100 zuz could affect the amount the owner of the damaged ox receives.
26.I.e., in the above instance, the payment would be only 80 zuz. The rationale is that the owner of the ox who caused the damage will say: Did I fatten my ox so that you will take the profit?The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 404:2) differ and maintain that if the increase in the value of the ox exceeds the cost of fattening it, the cost of fattening it is deducted from its value, and the person whose ox was damaged receives half of the difference.
27.I.e., in the above instance, the payment would be 100 zuz. The rationale is that since the body of the ox that caused the damage is on lien for the damages, and now that body is worth 100 zuz, the entire amount may be expropriated. Note the Or Sameach, who emphasizes that although the payment is taken from the body of the ox that caused the damages, the lien is not established until the time of the trial. Thus, if the owner of the ox that caused the damage consecrates it, it is consecrated, and the owner of the damaged ox receives no payment at all.
28.The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 403) writes that although the responsibility to raise the ox is that of the owner of the cistern, if the owner of the ox becomes aware that his ox fell into the cistern, he must raise it and then bill the owner of the cistern for his costs. Sefer Me'irat Einayim 403:8 quotes this ruling.
29.It is as if the verse reads He shall give monetary recompense and the carcass to the owners (Bava Kama 10b).
30.Halachah 8.
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Eight
1. When an ox belonging to an Israelite gores an ox that was consecrated1 or an ox that was consecrated gores an ox belonging to an Israelite, [the owner of the goring ox] is not liable, [as implied by Exodus 21:35]: "[If one person's ox injures] an ox belonging to a colleague...."2
All consecrated entities for which one is held liable for using them for one's own purposes3 are not bound by the laws of damages.4 Animals that were consecrated and then disqualified5 are bound by the laws of damages. This applies regardless of whether it is they who cause the damage, or they who are damaged. For they have been redeemed and can be considered ordinary.6
2. When [an animal consecrated for] a peace offering causes damage, the damages may be collected from its meat.7 [The person whose property was damaged] does not, however, collect his due from the portions burned on the altar. For the prohibition against using consecrated property for one's own purposes applies to the portions of sacrifices of lesser sanctity8 burned on the altar, as explained in Hilchot Me'ilah.9
Similarly, [if an animal consecrated for] a thanksgiving offering causes damage, the damages may be collected from its meat. They may not, however, be collected from the bread that accompanies it,10 for the bread is not considered to be part of the meat.
3. How can [the person whose property was damaged] collect [his due]? He and his company should eat, in a holy manner, a portion of the meat equivalent to half the damages he suffered.11
What is meant by the statement that [the person whose property was damaged] does not, however, collect his due from the portions burned on the altar? That if half the damages he suffered was equivalent to a dinar, and the meat and the portions to be offered on the altar together were worth two dinarim, but the meat without the portions to be offered was worth only a dinar and a half, [the person whose property was damaged] receives only half the meat, and not two thirds of the meat.
4. Similarly, an ox that is ownerless and causes damage is also not held responsible for the damage it causes. [This is also derived from the phrase,] "an ox belonging to a colleague," implying that the ox must be defined as the property of an owner.
What is implied? When an ox that is ownerless gores [another ox], and before the person whose property was damaged takes possession of [the goring ox] another person does so, that other person is not liable for the damages.12
Moreover, even if an ox that is defined as the property of an owner causes damage, and afterwards the owner consecrates it or declares it ownerless, [payment is] not expropriated [from the body of the ox]. [For payment to be expropriated], it must be owned by one person at the time it caused the damage and at the time of the the trial.13
5. When an ox - whether a tam or a mu'ad - belonging to a Jew gores an ox belonging to a gentile, [the Jew] is not liable. [The rationale is] that the gentiles do not hold a person responsible for damage caused by his livestock.14 Therefore we judge this case according to their laws.15
When, by contrast, an ox - whether a tam or a mu'ad - belonging to a gentile gores an ox belonging to a Jew, [the gentile] must pay the entire amount of the damages. This is a penalty imposed upon the gentiles because they are not careful about [the observance of] the mitzvot,16 and they do not remove factors that can cause damage. If we will not hold them liable for the damage caused by their animals, they will not guard them, and [the animals] will destroy other people's property.
6. When an ox that is tam causes damage and then is sold by its owner before the trial takes place, the person whose property was damaged may collect his due from it17 despite the fact that it was sold.18 Afterwards, the purchaser should collect that sum from the [previous] owner who sold it to him. [The rationale for this ruling is]19 that once an ox has gored, the matter becomes known, and the purchaser should not have purchased the animal until the one whose property was damaged had collected his due.
7. If [the owner of an ox that] caused damage consecrates [the ox], it is consecrated. [This law was instituted] so that people will not say, "An animal that was consecrated can lose its status without being redeemed."20
[If the owner] slaughters the ox, [the person whose property was damaged] may collect his due from the meat.21 [If the owner] gives it away as a present, [the present] is binding,22 but [the person whose property was damaged] may collect his due from [the animal].
8. If [an ox] caused damage, there was a trial, and afterwards, [the owner] sold it, the sale is of no consequence. If he consecrated it, it is not consecrated, and if he gave it away as a present, the present is of no consequence.23
If the creditors of the owner [of the ox] seize it first, [to collect their due from it], they are not entitled to retain possession. Instead, the person whose property was damaged collects his due from it. This applies whether the debt was undertaken before the damage was done24 or afterwards. [The rationale is] that even if it belonged to the creditors at the outset and caused damage, [the person whose property was damaged] would be entitled to collect his due.25
9. [The following rules apply when] an ox that is mu'ad causes damage: Regardless of whether the trial took place already or not, if [the owner] has consecrated it, sold it, given it as a present or slaughtered it, his deed is binding.
If the creditors of the owner lead [the ox] away before [the person whose property was damaged takes possession of it], they acquire it. [This applies] whether the debt owed them was made before the damage took place or afterwards.26 [The rationale is that] the person whose property was damaged is entitled to collect his due from the choicest property belonging to the owner. All of [the owner's] property is on lien because of the damage caused.27
10. When, for the person whose property was damaged, the court is required to expropriate property belonging to the person who caused the damage,28 his movable property should be expropriated first.29 If he does not own any movable property, or the property he owns is not sufficient to pay for all the damages, the remainder should be expropriated from the choicest properties he owns. As long as movable property is found, even property of inferior quality,30 landed property should not be expropriated.
11. If the person who caused the damage dies before he pays, the court does not expropriate the movable property belonging to his heirs. Instead, [they expropriate] the landed property [in the estate], taking that of least value.31 [The rationale is that] the person whose property was damaged becomes one of the creditors [of the person who caused the damage], and movable property is never considered to be on lien to a creditor.
If the person whose property was damaged [seized] possession of movable property [belonging to] the person who caused the damage in the latter's lifetime, payment for the damages may be collected from this [movable property] after his death.
12. The Geonim have already ordained that a debt owed a creditor can be expropriated from the movable property [in the estate].32 This ruling has been accepted by all the [Jewish] courts of law.33 Therefore, damages may also be expropriated from movable property left to heirs.
If [the deceased] did not leave any movable property, [the creditor] may expropriate the landed property of least value. For as explained [in the previous halachah], whenever a person seeks to expropriate property from heirs, he is given the property of the least value.
13. Damages should not be collected, nor is an atonement fine imposed, nor is an animal executed34 unless definite proof is brought [as substantiated] by acceptable witnesses. We do not say that since only shepherds,35 servants,36 and the like are found in the stables of horses, the stalls of cattle and the corrals of sheep, their testimony should be accepted if they testify that one animal damaged another. Similarly, if minors or women37 testify that one person injured another or caused another type of damage, [one might think] that we rely on them. This is not so.38
Instead, financial redress is required because of the testimony of witnesses only when the witnesses are acceptable and fit to testify with regard to other matters, and they give testimony, [on which basis] the court obligates the one who caused the damage to pay.
14. When an ox was pasturing at the edge of a river, and another ox is found dead near him, even though the dead ox was gored, and this ox was prone to gore - or the dead ox was bitten and this ox was prone to bite - we do not say: "One can be certain that this bit it, or this gored it."
Even if one of a group of camels is known to bite, and another camel is found dead at its side, we do not say that it is certain that this one killed it, unless the matter was observed by acceptable witnesses.39
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e., the owner of the ox consecrated it to serve as a burned offering or a sin offering, or (if it was blemished) to donate its value to the Temple, but he did not bring it to the Temple as yet.
2.One can infer that since the ox that is consecrated no longer belongs to a colleague, the laws that follow in the verse do not apply.
3.See Hilchot Me'ilah, which describes these laws.
4.For they are all considered to be consecrated unto God.
5.See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, which describes when a consecrated animal is placed into this category.See Chapter 12, Halachah 21, from which it is evident that the liablity applies only when a disqualified animal was already redeemed. If it has not been redeemed, the owner is not liable.
6.Although it is forbidden to work with, or shear these animals, they are still considered the private property of their owners and are thus an ox belonging to a colleague.
7.Since the meat of a peace offering is eaten by the owners, the animal is still considered to be their personal property, despite the fact that it is consecrated. Therefore, payment for the damages can be expropriated from the meat.See the commentary of the Lechem Mishneh, who questions the apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Geneivah 2:1.
8.Those that may be eaten outside the Temple Courtyard.
9.Hilchot Me'ilah 2:1.
10.Forty loaves of bread are offered together with the thanksgiving offering. These are, however, considered to be a separate entity and are not on lien to the person whose property was damaged.
11.I.e., as befits sacrifices of lesser sanctity.
12.I.e., one might think that the person whose property was damaged might be entitled to expropriate the amount of the loss from the body of the ox. Nevertheless, since the ox was acquired by its present owner after the damage took place, he is not held responsible.
13.Bava Kama 44b derives this concept from the exegesis of Exodus 21:29. If, however, the previous owner retakes possession of the ox, he is liable for the damages even though he declared it ownerless Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 406:3). With regard to the sale of the ox, see Halachah 6. (See also Halachah 8 and notes.)
14.The Ra'avad differs with the rationale stated by the Rambam, and objects because the gentiles seize animals in lieu of payment for the damage that they cause. The Ra'avad maintains that by speaking of a colleague's ox, the Torah excludes one belonging to a gentile. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 406:1) quote the Rambam's ruling.
15.See Hilchot Melachim 10:12, which states:The following rules apply when there is a dispute between a Jew and an idolater: If the Jew will fare better according to their laws, they are judged according to their laws.... If the Jew will fare better according to our laws, they are judged according to Torah law.... It appears to me that this approach is not followed with regard to a resident alien. He is always judged according to their laws.See also the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 4:3), which echoes and expands upon this principle.
16.It would appear that the intent of the word mitzvot, meaning commandments, is the seven universal laws commanded to Noach and his descendants. One of them is the law obligating societies to set up a system of civil law. See Bava Kama 38a.
17.For the damages that an ox that is tam causes are collected from its body. Thus, it is as if the ox is on lien for the damages it caused.
18.This implies that the sale is not nullified. The purchaser may plow with the ox directly after the purchase. Moreover, he cannot return it to the original owner because of the claim against it.
19.I.e., why the purchaser is at all responsible for the damage the ox caused previously.
20.Implied is that in essence the person whose property was damaged should be allowed to collect his due from the ox without redeeming it. Our Sages, however, did not allow this, because a person who knew that the ox was consecrated, but did not know that it had gored, might see it being given to the person whose property was damaged and think that an animal that was consecrated can lose its sacred status without being redeemed. Instead, they required that the person whose property was damaged redeem the ox for a minimal fee and then collect his due from it (Maggid Mishneh).The Chatam Sofer (Choshen Mishpat, Responsum 165) notes that there appears to be a contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 4. From Halachah 4, it appears that the person can consecrate the ox and thus totally nullify the lien of the person whose property was damaged. From this halachah, by contrast, it appears that the lien remains.In resolution, the Chatam Sofer makes a distinction between the sanctification of the value of the ox (as in this halachah), in which instance the lien remains, and the sanctification of the body of the ox (as in Halachah 4), in which instance the lien is nullified.
21.The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 407:2) state that if the slaughter causes the value of the ox to depreciate, the owner must reimburse the person whose property was damaged for the loss.
22.And therefore the recipient of the present may work with the animal.
23.For the lien on the body of the ox possessed by the person whose property was damaged has now been firmly established. He thus becomes a partner in the ownership of the ox, and the original owner cannot carry out a sale without informing him.
24.I.e., if the obligation were incumbent on the person whose ox caused the damage himself or on his property, those who had a prior claim would be entitled to take the ox as payment. In this instance, the obligation is associated with the body of the ox itself, and therefore the person whose property was damaged is entitled to the ox for the reason mentioned by the Rambam.
25.The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 407:4). The Tur and the Ramah differ and state that if the owner of the ox had already designated the ox as payment for a specific debt that existed before the damage took place, that creditor has a right to the ox.
26.According to Talmudic law, an earlier debt takes precedence over a later one with regard to landed property. With regard to movable property, by contrast, whichever creditor takes control of an asset first is entitled to it.
27.This explains the fundamental difference between damage caused by a tam and a mu'ad. When a tam causes damage, its own body is on lien for the damage; the damage is not considered to be a debt owed by the owner of the ox. When, in contrast, a mu'ad causes damage, the opposite is true. The person whose property was damaged has no claim to the ox itself; his claim is borne by all the holdings of its owner.
28.These laws, though applicable to damage caused by an ox that is mu'ad, apply to all other cases of damage for which a person is held responsible.
29.Bava Kama 7b explains that movable property is considered to be easier to sell after it has been expropriated than landed property. Therefore, it is considered to be choicer and should be given priority.Sefer Me'irat Einayim 419:1 writes that the person who caused the damages has the prerogative of giving the person whose property he damaged movable property or landed property, whichever he desires. The Siftei Cohen 419:2 differs and states that according to the Rambam, the Beit Yosef and others, if the person who caused the damages possesses movable property, he must pay in movable property, regardless of whether or not he desires.
30.The Hebrew term used by the Rambam literally means bran.As long as the person pays for the damage with movable property, the quality of the movable property with which he pays is of no consequence. The Hagahot Maimoniot state that according to the Rambam and Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, even if the person who caused the damage possesses cash, he may pay the person whose property he damaged with movable property of inferior quality.Although there is debate concerning this concept among the commentaries, it is accepted as binding by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 419:1).
31.During the lifetime of the person who caused the damage, the choicest property in his holdings is expropriated. After his death, however, the status of the obligation changes, and the property of least value is expropriated (Gittin 48b).This law applies regardless of the age of the heirs, even if they are past majority (Maggid Mishneh; Siftei Cohen 419:7). See, however, Sefer Me'irat Einayim 419:5.
32.In his gloss on Hilchot Ishut 16:7, the Maggid Mishneh explains that this ruling reflects a difference in the socio-economic status of the Jewish people. Land was commonly owned in the Talmudic period. In contrast, the ownership of land was less common in the era of the geonim. Movable property thus rose in importance, and a creditor would feel secure even when an obligation was supported only by movable property.
33.Thus, although it is post-Talmudic in origin, it should be adhered to because of its universal acceptance. See, however, Hilchot Ishut 16:8.
34.When an ox that is mu'ad kills a human being, the ox should be executed, and its owner is obligated to pay an atonement fine, as explained in Chapter 10. The Ra'avad explains that if a person admits that either he or his property caused damage, he is obligated for financial payment and for an atonement fine. His ox is not, however, executed because of his statements.
35.Who are disqualified from serving as witnesses, because they are suspected of pasturing their flocks in fields belonging to other people, for this is equivalent to stealing (Hilchot Edut 10:4).
36.Who are not acceptable witnesses (Hilchot Edut 9:2,4,7).
37.Who are not acceptable witnesses (Hilchot Edut 9:2,4,7).
38.The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 35:14) writes that although this is the legal standard, it has already become customary to accept witnesses whose testimony would ordinarily be disqualified, if there is no way of finding witnesses who are acceptable. Note, however, Sefer Me'irat Einayim 35:30, which states that the Ramah's leniency does not apply with regard to damages.

39. In this as in many other instances, the Rambam emphasizes that circumstantial evidence - no matter how indisputable - is not sufficient. According to Torah law, a claim can be established only through the testimony of witnesses. (See also Hilchot Chovel UMazik 5:4; Hilchot Sanhedrin 20:1, 24:1.)
____________________________
Hayom Yom:
Wednesday, 15 Elul 5774 • 10 September 2014

"Today's Day"
Wednesday, Elul 15, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tavo, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 77-78. Also 43-45.
Tanya: But it is (p. 465) ...and metaphor. (p. 469).
The founding of Yeshivat Tomchei T'mimim was on Sunday, Elul 15, 5657 (1897).
The beginning of studies in Talmud and Chassidus was on Wednesday, Elul 18, 5657 (1897).
On Simchat-Torah-eve, 5659 (1898), after hakafot, my father proclaimed: The name of the Yeshiva is Tomchei T'mimim, and the students who study and conduct themselves in its spirit are to be called t'mimim.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
Practice Makes Perfect
Anyone can come to see a higher world. But it’s not a flash of revelation from above that will take you there.
Train yourself, consistently, every day, until you become used to seeing each thing the way it is seen from above.
Real change only comes from consistent, daily practice.(Tanya, part 1, chapter 41; Kuntres HaAvodah; Kuntres Umaayon 1:3.)

____________________________