Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: Thursday, 6 Cheshvan 5775 • 30 October 2014

Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: Thursday, 6 Cheshvan 5775 • 30 October 2014
Today's Laws & Customs:

Today in Jewish History:
DAILY QUOTE:
Know the G-d of your father and worship Him with a whole heart and with a desirous soul(I Chronicles 28:9)

DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Lech-Lecha, 5th Portion Genesis 14:21-15:6 with Rashi
• Chapter 14
21. And the king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me the souls, and the possessions take for yourself." כא. וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם אֶל אַבְרָם תֶּן לִי הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְהָרְכֻשׁ קַח לָךְ:
Give me the souls: Of that which was captured that belonged to me, which you rescued, give me back the people only.
תן לי הנפש: מן השבי שלי שהצלת, החזר לי הגופים לבדם:
22. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I raise my hand to the Lord, the Most High God, Who possesses heaven and earth. כב. וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי אֶל יְהֹוָה אֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ:
I raise my hand: Heb. הֲרִימֹתִי, lit. I raised. This is an expression of an oath: “I raise my hand to the Most High God.” And similarly (Gen. 22:16): בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי [means] “I swear by Myself,” and similarly (Gen. 23:13): נָתַתִּי כֶּסֶף הַשָּׂדֶה קַח מִמֶּנִּי [means] “I am giving you the price of the field, take it from me.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 43:9]
הרימותי ידי: לשון שבועה, מרים אני את ידי לאל עליון וכן (בראשית כב טז) בי נשבעתי, נשבע אני, וכן (שם כג יג) נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני, נותן אני לך כסף השדה וקחהו ממני:
23. Neither from a thread to a shoe strap, nor will I take from whatever is yours, that you should not say, 'I have made Abram wealthy.' כג. אִם מִחוּט וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל וְאִם אֶקַּח מִכָּל אֲשֶׁר לָךְ וְלֹא תֹאמַר אֲנִי הֶעֱשַׁרְתִּי אֶת אַבְרָם:
Neither from a thread to a shoe strap: will I keep for myself of the captured possessions.
אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל: אעכב לעצמי מן השבי:
nor will I take from whatever is yours: And if you offer [lit. say] to give me reward from your treasuries, I will not take [it].
ואם אקח מכל אשר לך: ואם תאמר לתת לי שכר מבית גנזיך, לא אקח:
that you should not say, etc: The Holy One, blessed be He, promised to make me rich, as it is said (above 12:2): “and I will bless you, etc.”
ולא תאמר אני העשרתי את אברם: שהקב"ה הבטיחני לעשרני, שנאמר לעיל (יב ב) ואברכך וגו':
24. Exclusive of what the lads ate, and the share of the men who went with me; Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre they shall take their share." כד. בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וְחֵלֶק הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ אִתִּי עָנֵר אֶשְׁכֹּל וּמַמְרֵא הֵם יִקְחוּ חֶלְקָם:
the lads: My servants who went with me, and additionally, Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, etc. Although my servants entered the battle, as it is stated (above verse 14): “he and his servants, and smote them,” while Aner and his companions stayed with the luggage to guard [it], nevertheless, “they shall take their share.” And from him, David learned, as he said (I Sam. 30:24): “for as the share of him who goes down into battle, so is the share of him who stays with the luggage; they shall share alike.” Therefore, it says (ibid. verse 25):“And it was so from that day (and had been so) from before, that he made it a statute and an ordinance.” It does not say וָהָלְאָה [and onwards], because that statute had already been enacted in the days of Abram. [from Gen. Rabbah 43:9]
הנערים: עבדי אשר הלכו אתי, ועוד ענר אשכול וממרא וגו'. ואף על פי שעבדי נכנסו למלחמה, שנאמר לעיל (פסוק טו) הוא ועבדיו ויכם, וענר וחבריו ישבו על הכלים לשמור, אפילו הכי הם יקחו חלקם. וממנו למד דוד שאמר (ש"א ל כד) כחלק היורד למלחמה וכחלק היושב על הכלים יחדיו יחלוקו. ולכך נאמר (שם פסוק כה) ויהי מהיום ההוא ומעלה וישימה לחוק ולמשפט, ולא נאמר והלאה לפי שכבר ניתן החוק בימי אברהם:
Chapter 15
1. After these incidents, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Fear not, Abram; I am your Shield; your reward is exceedingly great." א. אַחַר | הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הָיָה דְבַר יְהֹוָה אֶל אַבְרָם בַּמַּחֲזֶה לֵאמֹר אַל תִּירָא אַבְרָם אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ שְׂכָרְךָ הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד:
After these incidents: Wherever the term אַחַר is used, it signifies immediately afterwards; אַחֲרֵי signifies a long time afterwards (Gen. Rabbah 44:5). After this miracle had been wrought for him, that he slew the kings, he was worried and said, “Perhaps I have received reward for all my righteous deeds.” Therefore, the Omnipresent said to him, “Fear not Abram, I am your Shield” from punishment, that you will not be punished for all those souls that you have slain, and as far as your being worried about receiving reward, your reward is exceedingly great. [from Aggadath Bereishith 16:2; Tan. Buber, Lech Lecha 15; Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer ch. 27]
אחר הדברים האלה: כל מקום שנאמר אחר סמוך, אחרי מופלג. אחר שנעשה לו נס זה שהרג את המלכים והיה דואג ואומר שמא קבלתי שכר על כל צדקותי, לכך אמר לו המקום אל תירא אברם אנכי מגן לך מן העונש שלא תענש על כל אותן נפשות שהרגת, ומה שאתה דואג על קבול שכרך, שכרך הרבה מאד:
2. And Abram said, "O Lord God, what will You give me, since I am going childless, and the steward of my household is Eliezer of Damascus?" ב. וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה מַה תִּתֶּן לִי וְאָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ עֲרִירִי וּבֶן מֶשֶׁק בֵּיתִי הוּא דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר:
since I am going childless: Heb. עֲרִירִי. Menachem ben Saruk (Machbereth p. 137) explained it as meaning an heir, and a similar instance is (Mal. 2:12): “a son (עֵר) and a grandson (וְעֹנֶה).” Hence, עֲרִירִי would mean without an heir, as you would say (Job 31:12): “and it will uproot (תְשָׁרֵשׁ) all my crops,” [meaning] it will tear out its roots. Similarly עֲרִירִי means childless; in Old French, desenfantez. It appears to me, however, that עֵר וְעֹנֶה is derived from the same root as (Song of Songs 5:2): “but my heart is awake (עֵר),” whereas עֲרִירִי is an expression of destruction, as in (Ps. 137:7): “Raze it, raze it (עָרוּ עָרוּ)” and as in (Hab. 3:13): “destroying (עָרוֹת) the foundation,” and as in (Jer. 51:58): “shall be completely destroyed (עַרְעֵר תִּתְעַרְעַר),” and as in (Zeph. 2:14): “for the cedarwork will be destroyed (עֵרָה).”
הולך ערירי: מנחם בן סרוק פירשו לשון יורש, וחבר לו (מלאכי ב יב) ער ועונה, ערירי בלא יורש, כאשר תאמר (איוב לא יב) ובכל תבואתי תשרש, תעקר שרשיה, כך לשון ערירי חסר בנים, ובלע"ז דישאנפנטי"ף [חסר ילדים]. ולי נראה ער ועונה מגזרת (שיר השירים ה ב) ולבי ער, וערירי לשון חורבן, וכן (תהלים קלז ז) ערו ערו, וכן (חבקוק ג יג) ערות יסוד, וכן (ירמיה נא נח) ערער תתערער, וכן (צפניה ב יד) כי ארזה ערה:
and the steward of my household: וּבֶן מֶשֶׁק בֵּיתִי, to be interpreted like the Aramaic translation, (וּבַר פַּרְנָסָה הָדֵין דִי בְּבֵיתִי): and this sustainer who is in my house). My entire household is sustained by his orders, as (below 41:40): “and by your orders they will be sustained (יִשַּׁק).” [בֶּן מֶשֶׁק means] “my administrator,” but if I had a son, my son would be appointed over my possessions.
ובן משק ביתי: כתרגומו, שכל ביתי נזון על פיו, כמו (בראשית מא מ) ועל פיך ישק, אפוטרופס שלי, ואלו היה לי בן היה בני ממונה על שלי:
Damascus: Heb. דַּמֶּשֶׂק. According to the Targum, he was from Damascus, but according to the Midrash Aggadah (Gen. Rabbah 44:9) [the meaning is] that he pursued the kings until Damascus. And in our Talmud (Yoma 28b), it (the word דַּמֶּשֶׂק) is interpreted as a notarikon [acrostic for דּוֹלֶה וּמַשְׁקֶה]: he drew and gave to drink from his master’s teachings to others.
דמשק: לפי התרגום מדמשק היה, ולפי מדרש אגדה שרדף המלכים עד דמשק. ובתלמוד דרשו נוטריקון דולה ומשקה מתורת רבו לאחרים:
3. And Abram said, "Behold, You have given me no seed, and behold, one of my household will inherit me." ג. וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם הֵן לִי לֹא נָתַתָּה זָרַע וְהִנֵּה בֶן בֵּיתִי יוֹרֵשׁ אֹתִי:
Behold, You have given me no seed: So of what avail is all that You will give me?
הן לי לא נתת זרע: ומה תועלת בכל אשר תתן לי:
4. And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, "This one will not inherit you, but the one who will spring from your innards-he will inherit you." ד. וְהִנֵּה דְבַר יְהֹוָה אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר לֹא יִירָשְׁךָ זֶה כִּי אִם אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶיךָ הוּא יִירָשֶׁךָ:
5. And He took him outside, and He said, "Please look heavenward and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So will be your seed." ה. וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתוֹ הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הַבֶּט נָא הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וּסְפֹר הַכּוֹכָבִים אִם תּוּכַל לִסְפֹּר אֹתָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ כֹּה יִהְיֶה זַרְעֶךָ:
And He took him outside: According to its simple meaning: He took him out of his tent, outdoors, to see the stars. But according to its midrashic interpretation, He said to him,“Go out of your astrology,” for you have seen in the signs of the zodiac that you are not destined to have a son. Indeed, Abram will have no son, but Abraham will have a son. Similarly, Sarai will not give birth, but Sarah will give birth. I will give you another name, and your destiny will change (Ned. 32a, Gen. Rabbah 44:10). Another explanation: He took him out of the terrestrial sphere and lifted him above the stars. This explains the expression of הַבָּטָה, looking down from above (Gen. Rabbah 44:12).
ויוצא אתו החוצה: לפי פשוטו הוציאו מאהלו לחוץ לראות הכוכבים, ולפי מדרשו אמר לו צא מאצטגנינות שלך שראית במזלות שאינך עתיד להעמיד בן, אברם אין לו בן, אבל אברהם יש לו בן. וכן שרי לא תלד, אבל שרה תלד, אני קורא לכם שם אחר וישתנה המזל. דבר אחר הוציאו מחללו של עולם והגביהו למעלה מן הכוכבים, וזהו לשון הבטה מלמעלה למטה:
6. And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him as righteousness. ו. וְהֶאֱמִן בַּיהֹוָה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ צְדָקָה:
And he believed in the Lord: He did not request of Him a sign regarding this, but regarding the inheritance of the land, he did request of Him a sign, and he said to Him, “How will I know?” [from Ned. 32a]
והאמין בה': לא שאל לו אות על זאת, אבל על ירושת הארץ שאל לו אות ואמר לו במה אדע:
and He accounted it to him as righteousness: The Holy One, blessed be He, accounted it to Abram as a merit and as righteousness for the faith that he believed in Him (Targum Jonathan). Another explanation for: “How will I know?” He did not ask Him for a sign, but he said before Him, “Let me know with what merit will they [my descendants] remain therein [in the Land]?” The Holy One, blessed be He, replied, “With the merit of the sacrifices.”
ויחשבה לו צדקה: הקב"ה חשבה לאברם לזכות ולצדקה על האמונה שהאמין בו. דבר אחר במה אדע, לא שאל לו אות אלא אמר לפניו הודיעני באיזה זכות יתקיימו בה, אמר לו הקב"ה בזכות הקרבנות:  
___________________________
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 35 - 38
• Chapter 35
This psalm is an awe-inspiring and wondrous prayer about David's enemies-that they be as chaff before the wind, chased by the angel of God. It also declares that everything comes about through God's help.
1. By David. Fight my antagonists, O Lord, battle those who battle against me.
2. Take hold of shield and armor and arise to help me.
3. Draw a spear, and bar the way before my pursuers; say to my soul, "I am your deliverance.”
4. Let those who seek my life be shamed and disgraced; let those who devise my harm retreat and be humiliated.
5. Let them be as chaff before the wind; let the angel of the Lord thrust them away.
6. Let their path be dark and slippery; let them be chased by the angel of the Lord.
7. For without cause have they laid their nets in the pit for me; without cause have they dug [pits] for my soul.
8. Let darkness come upon him unawares; let the very snare that he hid trap him, in darkness he will fall in it.
9. And my soul shall exult in the Lord, rejoice in His deliverance.
10. My entire being shall declare: Lord, who is like You? Who saves the poor from one stronger than he, the poor and the destitute from one who would rob him.
11. Corrupt witnesses rise up [against me], they demand of me things of which I do not know.
12. They repay me evil for good, death for my soul.
13. But I wore sackcloth when they were ill; I afflicted my soul with fasting. Let my prayer return upon my own bosom.
14. As if it were my friend, my brother, I went about; like a mother in mourning, I was bent over in gloom.
15. But when I limped, they rejoiced and gathered; the lowly gathered against me-even those whom I do not know; they laugh and cannot be quiet.
16. With flattery and scorn, for the sake of a meal,1 they gnash their teeth at me.
17. My Lord, how long will You look on? Restore my life from their darkness; from young lions, my soul.
18. I will thank You in a great congregation, amidst a mighty nation I will praise You.
19. Let not those who hate me without cause rejoice over me; [let not] those who despise me without reason wink their eye.
20. For they speak not of peace, rather they scheme deceitful matters against the broken of the land.
21. They opened their mouths wide against me, they said, "Aha! Aha! Our eyes have seen [his misfortune].”
22. You saw, Lord, be not silent; my Lord, be not distant from me.
23. Rouse and awaken Yourself to my judgement, to my cause, my God and my Lord.
24. Judge me according to your righteousness, Lord my God; let them not rejoice over me.
25. Let them not say in their hearts, "Aha! We have our desire!" Let them not say, "We have swallowed him!”
26. Let them be shamed and disgraced together, those who rejoice at my trouble; let them be clothed in shame and humiliation, those who raise themselves arrogantly over me.
27. Let those who desire my vindication sing joyously and be glad; let them say always, "Let the Lord be exalted, Who desires the peace of His servant.”
28. My tongue will speak of Your righteousness, Your praise, all day long.
Chapter 36
This psalm is a message to those who follow their evil inclination, that tells them, "Do not place the fear of God before you," and brings them to sin by beautifying evil deeds in their eyes. For so is his way: "He descends (to earth) and corrupts, then goes up (to the Heavenly Court) and prosecutes."
1. For the Conductor, by the servant of the Lord, by David.
2. [I think] in my heart: Sin says to the wicked, "There is none [who need place] the fear of God before his eyes.”
3. For Sin makes itself appealing to him, until his iniquity be found and he is hated.
4. The speech of his mouth is evil and deceit; he fails to reason, to improve.
5. On his bed he contemplates evil, he stands in a path that is not good; he does not despise evil.
6. O Lord, Your kindness is in the heavens; Your faithfulness is till the skies.
7. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, Your judgements extend to the great deep; man and beast You deliver, O Lord.
8. How precious is Your kindness, O God; man takes shelter in the shadow of Your wings.
9. They will be filled by the abundance of Your house; from the stream of Your Eden, You will give them to drink.
10. For the source of life is with You; in Your Light do we see light.
11. Extend Your kindness to those who know You, and Your righteousness to the upright of heart.
12. Let not the foot of the arrogant overtake me; let not the hand of the wicked drive me away.
13. There1 the doers of evil fell, thrust down, unable to rise.
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.
____________________________
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 26
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Thursday, 6 Cheshvan 5775 • 30 October 2014
Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 26
ועוד יש להפליא, הפלא ופלא
There is yet further cause to be exceedingly amazed — at how “those who lack understanding” comprehend this quotation from Ra’aya Mehemna.
This statement comes in addition to the two preceding causes for surprise at their misunderstanding of this quotation: (a) that a portion of the Torah could be termed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; (b) according to their understanding of the Ra’aya Mehemna the study of issur and hetter does not supersede the obligation to pray at fixed times, even though the prayers were arranged according to the secrets of the Zohar and the Supernal Unions; whereas the fact is that for those individuals whose only occupation is the study of Torah, the study of issur and hetter does indeed take precedence over the mitzvah of prayer.
In addition to these two problematic queries, there is now a third:
איך אפשר שלימות המשיח, לא יצטרכו לידע הלכות איסור והיתר, וטומאה וטהרה
How is it possible that in the days of Mashiach people will not need to know the laws of ritual prohibition and permission, and of impurity and purity?
כי איך ישחטו הקרבנות, וגם חולין, אם לא ידעו הלכות דרסה וחלדה ושהיה, הפוסלים השחיטה, ופגימת הסכין
For how will they slaughter the sacrifices, and likewise animals for common use, if they will not know the laws of drassah,1 chaladah,2 and shehiyah,3 any of which disqualifies the slaughtering,4 and [likewise, the laws regarding] a defective knife?
וכי יולד איש בטבעו שיהא שוחט בלי שהיה ודרסה, וגם הסכין תהיה בריאה ועומדת בלי פגימה לעולם
Will there ever be born a man who by his very nature will [invariably] slaughter without shehiyah or drassah? Will the knife also remain perfect and unblemished forever?
Since these are physical impossibilities, people will obviously have to know the practical laws governing ritual slaughter.
ועוד הרבה הלכות: חלב ודם, ושאר איסורין
There are also many more laws relating to sacrificial offerings and so on, [such as those regarding] fat, blood, and other prohibitions.
וגם טומאת המת יהיו צריכין לידע, כדכתיב: הנער בן מאה שנה ימות
People then will also need to know [the laws regarding] the impurity imparted by a corpse; as it is written,5 “A young man will die at the age of a hundred.”6
And if there will be death in the world, these laws will of course be needed.
וגם טומאת יולדת צריך לידע, דכתיב: הרה ויולדת יחדיו
It will be further necessary to know the laws governing the impurity of a woman who has given birth; as it is written,7 “A pregnant woman, and one who gives birth8 together” [will be among those restored to the Holy Land at the time of the Redemption through Mashiach].
אם תלד אשה בכל יום מביאה אחת
If a woman will give birth every day, [these successive births] resulting from one marital union,
In Time to Come pregnancy will not last nine months; on the same day that a woman conceives she will give birth. Moreover, additional children will be born on successive days from that same conception.
אף על פי כן, דין איסור טומאתה לא ישתנה
nevertheless, the law with respect to the restrictions resulting from her impurity will not change.
It will thus still be necessary to know the laws regarding the ritual impurity of a woman who has given birth.
The Rebbe writes that the above elucidation — that a woman will give birth on the very day that she conceives — “accords with the explanation by the AriZal [of the teaching of the Sages in Tractate Shabbat 30b, that ‘In future time a woman will give birth every day’], in Likkutei HaShas (cited in the Miluim to Tehillim by the Tzemach Tzedek, ch. 20; also [in Biurei HaZohar of the Tzemach Tzedek, Vol. II, p. 827 ff.] at the end of s.v. Ginta). It differs from the commentary of Rashi [on the above teaching] in Tractate Shabbat 30b. See also Chiddushei Aggadot [of Maharsha] there.”
Commenting on the above-quoted phrase (“A pregnant woman, and one who gives birth together”), from which the Gemara derives its teaching that “In future time a woman will give birth every day,” Rashi explains that on the day a woman conceives a new child she will bear a previously-conceived child. For, as the Maharsha explains: It cannot mean that the conception and birth of the same child will take place on the very same day, for then the proof offered there in the Gemara regarding a chicken that laid eggs daily would not apply. For even a chicken does not lay the egg on the same day that it was fertilized; as the Gemara states in Tractate Bechorot, it takes twenty-one days. This means, as Rashi explains, that twenty-one days must elapse from the time of fertilization to the time the egg is laid. The AriZal, however, understands the Gemara in Tractate Shabbat to mean that a child will be conceived and born on the same day.
Parenthetically, the Tzemach Tzedek in the source quoted above quotes the Midrash Rabbah on Parshat Noach (beginning of sec. 36), to the effect that before the Flood as well, a woman would conceive and give birth on the very same day.
A further point: The Alter Rebbe added that the above-mentioned successive daily births would result “from one marital union.” This translation assumes that the unvocalized Hebrew text (מביאה אחת) is to be pronounced mibiah achat. Others, however, have assumed that it is to be pronounced meiviah achat; hence, “if a woman will give birth every day, she brings one [offering].” On this interpretation the Rebbe comments: “What connection does this have to our subject? (Especially, since this law [of impurity] also applies nowadays [i.e., prior to the arrival of Mashiach]. My opinion is that the phrase means ‘from one marital union.’ [I.e., further children will be born on subsequent days from that one marital union.]”
The Rebbe concludes: “This also solves the problem raised by the Maharsha.” In his Chiddushei Aggadot, the Maharsha asks: How can there possibly be additional births on subsequent days, when marital relations are forbidden for seven or fourteen days after birth? This question is answered by the above statement, that successive births will result from a single conception. This statement also accords with the reference made in the Gemara to a chicken, which lays eggs on different days from the same fertilization.
The Rebbe also refers to the Gemara (Niddah 27a) which relates that a certain woman’s conception resulted in the birth of two children, three months apart.
ואין להאריך בדבר הפשוט
There is no need to dwell on something so obvious — as the fact that these laws will still apply in the time of Mashiach, so that then, too, it will be necessary to know the laws of issur and hetter, and purity and impurity,
ומפורסם הפכו בכל הש״ס ומדרשים
when the entire Talmud and the Midrashim make known the reverse [of the misleading impression formed by a superficial reading of our opening quotation from Ra’aya Mehemna].
דפריך: הלכתא למשיחא
[For example:] The question is asked,9 “A law for the time of the Messiah?!”
I.e., why state now a law that will only apply to Messianic times? At that time, however, it will obviously be necessary to know it.
ואליהו בא לפשוט כל הספיקות, ופרשה זו עתיד אליהו לדורשה כו׳
Likewise we find that Elijah will come to clarify all doubts;10 and “This passage Elijah will expound in the future”;11 and so on.
ועוד אינו מובן מה שכתוב, דלא יתפרנסון תלמידי חכמים מעמי הארץ כו׳
Also not understandable is the statement (in Ra’aya Mehemna) that “the Torah scholars will not be sustained by illiterate people, and so on,”
As stated above, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is the root of issur and hetter, will not dominate the Jewish people, because “the Torah scholars will not be sustained by illiterate people,” —
ולא מערב רב, דאכלין פסול טמא ואסור, חס ושלום
nor by the mixed multitude, who eat that which is ritually unfit, impure, and prohibited, heaven forfend.
דהא גם בזמן בית שני, לא היו מתפרנסין מעמי הארץ דאכלין פסול ואסור, חס ושלום
Even12 during the time of the Second Temple they were not supported by the illiterate people who ate that which is ritually unfit and prohibited, heaven forfend,
שהרי תלמידי חכמים היו להם שדות וכרמים, כעמי הארץ
for the Torah scholars had fields and vineyards of their own, just like the illiterate people.
ואפילו הכי היו עוסקים בלימוד איסור והיתר, וטומאה וטהרה
Nevertheless, they engaged in the study of [the laws of] issur and hetter, and of impurity and purity —
כל הזוגות שהיו בימי בית שני
[for example,] all the pairs [of leading Sages] who lived at the time of the Second Temple13 —
והעמידו תלמידים לאלפים ורבבות
and they raised disciples in the legal of the Torah in the thousands and tens of thousands,14
ולימוד הנסתר בהסתר כו׳
while the study of the esoteric [of the Torah] took place in secret, and so on.
We thus see that the fact that Torah scholars need not be sustained by the illiterate is in no way a cause for their not studying (G‑d forbid) the laws of issur and hetter and purity and impurity.
* * *
FOOTNOTES
1. “Pressing” [on the knife].
2. “Passing [the knife] under” (instead of over) the windpipe and gullet.
3. “Pausing” and thus interrupting the act of slaughter.
4. Note of the Rebbe: “The Alter Rebbe does not mention hagramah [i.e., cutting in a slanting direction] or ikkur [i.e., severing the pipes by tearing].”
5. Yeshayahu 65:20.
6. Note of the Rebbe: “I.e., there will then be death.”
7. Yirmeyahu 31:7.
8. Note of the Rebbe: “I.e., there will then be birth.”
9. Sanhedrin 51b.
10. See Eduyot 8:7 and commentaries there.
11. Menachot 45a.
12. This sentence has been emended above in Hebrew and English according to the gloss of the Tzemach Tzedek as cited in Luach HaTikkun (Table of Corrections) at the end of Hebrew editions of Tanya.
13. Note of the Rebbe: “Chagigah 2:2.”

14. Rambam, Introduction to Yad HaChazakah.
____________________________

Rambam: 
Daily Mitzvah P242 Sefer Hamitzvot
Today's Mitzvah
Thursday, 6 Cheshvan 5775 • 30 October 2014

Positive Commandment 242
The Unpaid Watchman
"If a man gives his neighbor money or vessels to watch"—Exodus 22:6.
We are commanded [to follow all the laws outlined in the Torah] regarding one who watches an object for his fellow without compensation.
The Unpaid Watchman
Positive Commandment 242
Translated by Berel Bell
The 242nd mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the law of an unpaid watchman.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "If one person gives another money or articles to watch...."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 9th chapter of tractate Bava Kama, the 3rd chapter of Bava Metzia and the 8th chapter of Shavuos.
FOOTNOTES
1.See note to P243.
2.Ex. 22:6.

________________________________________

Rambam:

• 1 Chapter a Day: Edut Edut - Chapter 10
Edut - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
The wicked are unacceptable as witnesses according to Scriptural Law, as Exodus 23:1 states: "Do not join hands with a wicked person to be a corrupt witness." The Oral Tradition interprets this as meaning: "Do not allow a wicked person to serve as a witness."
Even when an acceptable witness knows that his colleague is "wicked," but the judges are unaware of his wickedness, it is forbidden for him to offer testimony together with him even though he knows that the testimony is true, for, by doing so, he is joining together with him. Thus the acceptable witness "joined hands" with the wicked person, enabling his testimony to be accepted. Needless to say, it is forbidden for an acceptable witness who knows testimony concerning a colleague to testify when he knows that the other witness who testifies with him is giving false testimony. This is also implied by the verse: "Do not join hands with a wicked person."
Halacha 2
What is meant by "a wicked person"? Anyone who violates a prohibition punishable by lashes is considered wicked and is unacceptable as a witness. For the Torah referred to a person obligated to receive lashes with the term "wicked," as Deuteronomy 25:2 states: "If the wicked person is liable to be beaten." Needless to say, a person who is obligated to be executed by the court is unacceptable, for Numbers 35:31 states: "He is a wicked person who is sentenced to die."
Halacha 3
When a person commits a transgression for which he is liable to receive lashes according to Scriptural Law, he is disqualified as a witness according to Scriptural Law. When the prohibition is Rabbinical in origin, he is disqualified by Rabbinic decree.
What is implied? A person who ate the meat of an animal cooked in milk, carrion, a teeming animal, or the like is not acceptable as a witness according to Scriptural Law. This applies whether he transgressed because of appetite or with the intent of angering God. The same law also applies if he desecrates the sanctity of the first day of a festival or wears a garment that is shaatnez, i.e., combed, spun, or woven with wool and linen. If he eat the meat of fowl cooked in milk, he desecrated the second day of a festival observed in the diaspora, or wore a woolen garment in which a strand of linen was lost or the like, he is disqualified by Rabbinic decree. We have already enumerated all the transgressions for which one is punished by lashes. And with regard to each and every mitzvah, we have already explained which matters are forbidden by Scriptural Law and which are forbidden by Rabbinic decree.
Halacha 4
There are other wicked persons who are not acceptable as witnesses even though they are required to make financial restitution and are not punished by lashes. Since they take money that does not belong to them lawlessly, they are unacceptable, as Deuteronomy 19:16 states: "When a lawless witness rises up against a person...." For example, thieves and people who seize property, even though they make restitution, they are no longer acceptable as witnesses from the time they stole or robbed onward.
Similarly, a lying witness, even though his testimony was disproved with regard to financial matters and he made restitution, he is still unacceptable as a witness according to Scriptural Law for all matters. From when is he disqualified? From the time he testified falsely in court, even though his testimony was not disproved until several days later.
Similarly, when people are involved with loans at interest - both the borrower and the lender - if fixed interest is involved, both are disqualified according to Scriptural Law. If the shade of interest is involved, they are both disqualified by Rabbinic decree. Similarly, a person who transgresses the Rabbinic decrees against theft is disqualified by Rabbinic decree.
What is implied? People who seize property - either landed property or movable property - without the consent of the owners, even though they pay its worth, are disqualified by Rabbinic decree. Similarly, herders of their own animals - both of small animals and of large animals - are disqualified, for it can be assumed that they take liberty and steal by allowing their animals to pasture in fields and orchards belonging to other people. Therefore, an ordinary herder is disqualified.
People who raise small animals in Eretz Yisrael are not acceptable as witnesses. In the diaspora, by contrast, they are acceptable. It is permissible to raise a large animal in every place.
Generally, the collectors of the king's duty are not acceptable, because it is assumed that they will collect more than what is required by the king's decree and keep the extra portion for themselves. Tax collectors, by contrast, are generally considered to be acceptable. If, however, it is known that they took more than is required to collect, even once, they are disqualified.
Similarly, those who guide the flight of doves in a settled area are disqualified, because we assume that they will steal doves belonging to others without paying for them. This ruling also applies to merchants of produce in the Sabbatical year, i.e., people who generally are idle but when the Sabbatical year arrives, they begin to do business with produce. It can be assumed that they collect the produce of the Sabbatical year and do business with it.
Similarly, dice-players are disqualified if this is their only occupation. Since such a person does not involve himself in ordinary business pursuits, it can be assumed that his livelihood is dependent on his gambling, which is forbidden as "the shade of robbery." The above applies not only to dice-players, but also to all those who gamble with the shells of nuts or the shells of pomegranates. Similarly, our Sages did not disqualify only those who train doves, but also those who gamble with other animals, beasts, and fowl, saying the owner of the one that will outrace the other or vanquish the other will acquire the stakes put up by both. Similarly, other analogous types of gamblers are disqualified, provided they do not derive their livelihood from a source other than gambling. All of the above are disqualified according to Rabbinic decree.
Halacha 5

The fact that a sharecropper takes a small amount of the produce which sprouts in Nisan and in Tishrei before the harvest is finished without the knowledge of the owner of the field does not cause him to be considered as a thief and he is acceptable as a witness. The rationale is that the owner of the field is not concerned with such a small quantity of produce. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
____________________________
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters a Day: She'elah uFikkadon She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 6, She'elah uFikkadon She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 7, She'elah uFikkadon She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 8
She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
The following rules apply when an unpaid watchman says, "I desire to pay and not to take an oath: If the entrusted article is of a uniform type and it is possible to purchase such articles in the market-place - e.g., produce, reams of wool and flax that are entirely uniform, beams on which images have not been carved, or the like- he may pay the value of the article and be excused from taking an oath.
If, however, the entrusted article was an animal, a decorated garment, a utensil that had been fixed, or an article that is not easily available to purchase in the market place, we suspect that the watchman coveted it for himself. We therefore require him to take an oath as instituted by our Sages, while holding a sacred article, that the entrusted object is no longer in his possession. Afterwards, he must make restitution.
The same law applies to other watchmen - e.g., a borrower who says that an entrusted animal died or was stolen, or a paid watchman, or a renter who says that an entrusted article was stolen or lost. Even though they are obligated to pay, they are required to take an oath that the article is no longer in their possession. Afterwards, they must make financial restitution for the entrusted animal or article. The rationale is that we suspect that the watchman coveted it for himself.
If the owner claims that the entrusted article was worth more than the watchman admits, he must also include in his oath that it was worth only such and such. Thus, every watchman who takes the oath required of watchmen must include three matters in the oath:
a) that he cared for the article in a manner appropriate for a watchman;
b) that this and this happened to the article and it is no longer in his domain; and
c) that he did not use the article for his own purposes before the event that absolves him of responsibility took place.
If he desires to make financial restitution, he must take an oath that the article is no longer in his domain and include in his oath that it is worth such and such.
Halacha 2
When accepting an article for safekeeping, a watchman may stipulate that he will not guard the articles in a manner appropriate for a watchman; instead: "Money that is entrusted to me, I will keep in the corner of my house," or the like.
The following rule applies if the watchman claims that he made such a stipulation and the owner agreed, and the owner claims that such a stipulation was never made. The watchman's claim is accepted. This applies even if the owner entrusted it to him in the presence of witnesses. The rationale is that since he could have claimed: "I guarded it in a manner appropriate for a watchman, but it was destroyed by forces beyond my control," we accept his claim that he made such a stipulation. Therefore, he must take an oath that he did not use the article for his own purposes, that it is not in his possession, and that he had made such a stipulation.
Halacha 3
When an unpaid watchman brings proof that he was not negligent, he is not required to take an oath. We do not suspect that he used the article for his own purposes before it was lost.
If the owner of the entrusted article brings proof that the watchman was negligent, the watchman must make restitution. If he claims that the owner had agreed to his stipulation that he not be required to guard the article in the manner required by witnesses, his claim is not accepted. The rationale is that there are witnesses who testify that he was negligent.
Halacha 4
When a person entrusts an article to a colleague in the presence of witnesses, there is a disagreement between the owner and the watchman, and the witnesses testify that the article that we see is the article that was entrusted in their presence, the watchman cannot claim: "Afterwards, I purchased it from him," or "He gave it to me as a present."
Therefore, if the watchman dies, the entrusted article may be expropriated from the orphans without an oath. Moreover, should a person come and tell an heir: "I entrusted this and this article with your father," and give very explicit signs to identify the article, if the entrusted article is found as he described it, and the judge knows that the deceased was not likely to have such an article, the judge may award the article to the person who identified it with the signs.
This law applies provided the person who claims that the article is his would not frequently visit the deceased. If, however, he would frequently visit him we do not award him the article. We suspect that perhaps it belongs to another person, and the claimant merely became familiar with its identifying characteristics.
If witnesses come and testify that the deceased is not likely to have owned the article, we do not expropriate the article from the orphans because of their testimony. For their estimation of the deceased's financial capacity is not necessarily that of the judge, and the judge should follow only information that he feels that he can rely only, as will be explained in Hilchot Sanhedrin.
An incident occurred concerning a person who entrusted sesame seeds to a colleague in the presence of witnesses and later came to claim them. The watchman replied: "I returned them."
The owner answered: "They were of this and this measure and they are now held in your jug."
The watchman responded: "I returned yours, and these are others."
The Sages ruled that the sesame seeds should not be expropriated from his possession, for perhaps these sesame seeds belonged to the watchman. Instead, the watchman is required to take an oath while holding a sacred object that he returned the entrusted object, as we have explained.
Halacha 5
The following rules apply when the owner of an entrusted object asks for the return of that object and the watchman gives it to him, but a difference of opinion arises between them. For example,the owner claims: "This is not the article I entrusted, but a different one," "My article was whole, and you broke it," "It was new and you used it," or "I entrusted 100 se'ah to you, and there are only 50 here." The watchman responds to these claims, saying: "This is the article you personally deposited. You will be taking what you gave me."
In all such instances, the watchman is required merely to take a sh'vuat hesset, as is required of others who must take oaths in response to such claims. For a watchman is not obligated to take the oath required of watchmen mentioned in the Torah unless he admits accepting responsibility for the very article that the owner claims, but asserts that it was stolen, it died, or it was captured.
The general principle is: When a watchman makes a claim that absolves him from payment, he is required to take the oath required of watchmen. If, however, he says, "This is the article that you lent me," "... hired to me," or "... paid me for watching," and the owner claims that the article he seeks to return is not the one given or that it was changed from its original state, the renter is required to take merely a sh'vuat hesset, or a Scriptural oath if he admits a portion of the plaintiff's claim.
What is implied? If the owner claims: "I entrusted 100 se'ah to you," and the watchman claims: "You only entrusted 50," he is required to take a Scriptural oath, because he admitted a portion of the claim, not because it is the oath required of a watchman. If the owner claims: "I entrusted 100 se'ah of wheat to you," and the watchman claims: "You entrusted only 100 se'ah of barley," he is merely required to take a sh'vuat hesset, as others who would have to take an oath with regard to this claim.
She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
When a person entrusts produce to a colleague, the watchman should not touch it even though its quantity is dwindling and diminishing.
When does the above apply? When it is diminishing at the ordinary rate that could be expected each year. If, however, the amount is diminishing beyond the ordinary norms, the watchman should sell the produce in the presence of a court. It is as if he were returning a lost object to the owner.
When he sells the produce, he should sell it to priests at the price at which terumah is sold, for perhaps the owner designated it as terumah or terumat ma'aser for other produce.
Halacha 2
When a person entrusts produce to a colleague and it spoils, honey that becomes ruined, or wine that sours, the watchman should perform a service to the owner and sell the entrusted object in the presence of a court.
This law applies even though the loss reached its limit and the produce would not spoil further, for the containers and the baskets would continue to spoil.
Halacha 3
When a person entrusts leaven to a colleague and the Pesach holiday arrives, the watchman should not touch the produce until the fifth hour on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan. After that, he should sell it in the market place at that hour, for it is like he is returning a lost object to the owner.
The same law applies to other entrusted objects. A watchman should not touch them even though he certainly knows that their value will diminish at this and this time, or they will be seized by the king, lest the owner come beforehand and take his property.
Halacha 4
When a person entrusts a Torah scroll to a colleague, the watchman should roll the scroll once every twelve months. It is permitted for him to open it and read it while rolling it. He should not, however, open it for his own purposes and read. The same law applies with regard to other scrolls. If the watchman opened the scroll, read it and rolled it for his own purposes, he is considered to have misappropriated the entrusted article and is liable if it is destroyed by forces beyond his control.
If the owner entrusted a woolen garment to a colleague, he should shake it out once every 30 days. The same principles that apply with regard to lost objects apply to entrusted objects. He should care for other entrusted objects in a similar way; this is an obligation incumbent upon him, like the return of a lost article to its owner.
When does the above apply? With regard to an entrusted object whose owner has traveled overseas. If, however, the owner was together with the watchman in that same land, the watchman should not touch the entrusted object even though it is being ruined.
Halacha 5
Whenever a person sells an entrusted object under the supervision of a court, he must sell it to others and may not purchase it himself, lest suspicion arise. The money should be kept in his possession, and he has the right to make use of it. Therefore, he is considered to be a paid watchman with regard to these funds even though he did not make use of them.
Halacha 6
The following rules apply when a person entrusts money to a storekeeper or a moneychanger. If the money was bound in a bag and sealed or tied with an unordinary knot, the storekeeper or the moneychanger should not use it. Therefore, if it became lost or was stolen, he is not responsible for it.
If the money was neither sealed nor tied in an unordinary manner, even though it is bound in a bag, the storekeeper or the moneychanger has the right to use the money.Therefore, he is considered to be a paid watchman, and if it is lost or stolen, he is responsible for it. If it is lost due to forces beyond his control - e.g., they were taken by armed thieves - he is not liable.
Halacha 7
When does the above apply? Before the storekeeper or the moneychanger used them. If, however, he does use the money, he is responsible for it until he returns it to the owner, as for any other loan in the world.
Halacha 8
When a person entrusts money to a householder, whether it is bound or not, the watchman may not use it. Therefore, if it became lost or was stolen, he is not responsible for it, provided he buries it in the ground, as has been explained.
Halacha 9
The following rules apply when a person entrusts a jug to a colleague regardless of whether or not the owner of the jug designated a specific place where he could put the jug down. If the watchman moved the jug for his own purposes, he is liable, whether the jug was broken in his hand or after he returned it to the place designated for it. If he moved it for the sake of the jug, he is not liable - whether the jug was broken in his hand or whether it was broken after it was put down in a different place.
Halacha 10
One should not accept entrusted articles from married women, from servants or from children. If a person accepted an entrusted object from a woman, he should return it to her. If she dies, he should return it to her husband. If he accepts an entrusted object from a servant, he should return it to him. If he dies, he should return it to his master. If he accepts an entrusted object from a child, he should buy a Torah scroll for him or a date palm so that he can eat its fruits.
With regard to all the above individuals, the following principles should be adhered to if, at the time of their death, they said, "The entrusted article belongs to so and so." If the watchman would accept their word, he should act upon their instructions. If not, he should return the entrusted article to their heirs.
Halacha 11
One may demand the return of an entrusted object or an object that was lost and discovered only in the original place.
What is implied? If he entrusted the article to him in Jerusalem, he cannot demand its return in Nov. If the watchman returns it to him in Nov, he must accept it.
If a person entrusted an article to a colleague in a settled community, and that colleague brought the entrusted article with him to the desert, the owner is not required to accept it from him. Instead, the owner may tell the watchman: "You are responsible for it until you return it to me as settled land, just like I entrusted it to you in a settled land.
Halacha 12
A question arose when a person entrusts an article to a colleague and then journeys overseas, and afterwards, the watchman also desires to travel overseas or depart in a caravan. There is an authority who ruled that if the watchman brings the entrusted article to the Jewish court, he is absolved of his responsibility.
These are well-reasoned words. For we do not imprison the watchman in this city because of the object entrusted to him by the person who departed overseas. The watchman cannot take the entrusted article with him, lest it be destroyed by factors beyond his control. The court should then entrust the article to a faithful person. This is like returning a lost object to its owner.
She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
The following rules apply when a person entrusts an animal or articles to a colleague, and they were lost or stolen. If the watchman says, "I will pay," because he does not desire to take an oath, he acquires the rights to certain profits that come because of the article.
If the thief is discovered, he must pay twice the value of the article. If he slaughtered it or sold it, he should pay four or five times the value of the stolen animal. To whom should restitution be made? To the person who has the rights to the article i.e., the watchman, for he said that he would make restitution.
If the animal itself is returned, it should be returned to the owner - it, its shearings and its offspring. For the watchman does not acquire the profits that come from its body, but only the profits that come because of outside factors. We have already explained that the thief is required to return only the shearings and the offspring that preceded the owner's despair of the recovery of his property.
If the watchman took the oath because he did not desire to pay, and afterwards the thief is discovered, the thief must pay twice the value of the article. If he slaughtered it or sold it, he should pay four or five times the value of the stolen animal. To whom should restitution be made? To the owner of the entrusted article.
Similarly, when a person rents a cow from a colleague and it is stolen, if he says, "I am willing to pay and I will not take an oath," if the thief is discovered afterwards, he should pay double or four or five times to the renter. For had the renter desired, he could have taken an oath that the cow was stolen in a manner in which he could not control, and he would be released from liability.
Halacha 2
When an unpaid watchman says, "I was negligent," he acquires the right to the double payment because he obligated himself to make restitution. For had he said, "It was stolen," or "It was lost," he would not have been liable. Similarly, when a renter or a borrower says, "It was stolen," he acquires the right to the double payment because he obligated himself to make restitution. For had he said, "It died," he would not have been liable.
A borrower, by contrast, does not acquire the right to the double payment until he makes restitution on his own initiative. If afterwards the thief is discovered, he makes the payment of four or five times the animal's value to the borrower.
Halacha 3
Whenever a watchman acquires the rights to the double payment, he also acquires the rights to any profit that comes as a matter of course.
What is implied? A person entrusts four se'ah, worth a sela, to his colleague. They were stolen or lost. The watchman says, "I will pay a sela; I do not desire to take the oath." If they were later discovered and at that time were worth four sela'im, they are granted to the watchman. He, however, is required to pay only a sela.
When does the above apply? When the watchman did not trouble the owner to undertake legal process to recover his money. Different rules apply, however, if the watchman admits that he was negligent and the court required him to pay, but he did not do so willingly and had to be compelled by the court, and it had to expropriate the money from him. If, afterwards, the thief is found or the entrusted article is discovered, it should be returned to the owner in its present condition. The money that was expropriated from the watchman should be returned to him. If the court expropriated utensils or land from the watchman after evaluating them, the watchman's utensils or land should be returned to him.
Halacha 4
When the owner demanded the return of the entrusted article from a watchman, the watchman took an oath to free himself of responsibility, but made restitution regardless, if the thief was discovered afterwards, since the watchman made restitution willingly, he acquires the right to the double payment.
This applies despite the fact that at the outset, he troubled the owner to take him to court until he took an oath. Similarly, if at first the watchman said, "I will not pay," and then he said, "I will pay," he acquires the right to the double payment.
Halacha 5
All the following situations represent questions left unresolved by the Talmud: The watchman said, "I will pay" and then said, "I refuse to pay";
the watchman said, "I will pay" and then died, and his children said, "We refuse to pay";
the owner was not able to demand payment from the watchman before the watchman died; he demanded payment of his sons and they paid;
the sons of the watchman paid the sons of the owner;
the watchman paid half the sum;
he borrowed two cows and paid for one of them;
he borrowed from partners and paid one of them;
partners borrowed and one of them paid;
he borrowed from a woman and paid her husband;
a woman borrowed and her husband paid.
There is unresolved doubt with regard to all the above instances. The ownership of the money is in doubt, and it is not in the hands of either of them. Therefore, the double payment or the increase in the value of the entrusted article is divided between the owner and the watchman. If, however, one of them took the initiative and seized the entire amount, it should not be expropriated from his possession. This applies even in the diaspora.
Halacha 6
When the entrusted article was stolen in a manner beyond the watchman's control, and afterwards the thief was discovered, both an unpaid watchman and a paid watchman must lodge a legal claim against the thief. The watchman is not required to take an oath.
The following rules apply when the watchman hurried and took the oath before the thief was discovered, and then the thief was discovered. If he is an unpaid watchman, he may remain content with his oath if he desires. If he desires, he may lodge a legal claim against the thief. If he is a paid watchman, he must lodge a legal claim against him.
There is a question when an animal that was deposited as an entrusted article is stolen in a manner beyond the watchman's control and then returned by the thief to the watchman's house, and it dies there because of the watchman's negligence. There is an unresolved question whether his responsibility as a watchman was concluded when the article was stolen, and hence he is absolved of liability or his responsibility did not conclude. Hence, the watchman is not required to make restitution. If the owner seizes the animal's worth, it is not expropriated from his possession.
With God's help, this concludes the Laws of Borrowing and Entrusted Objects
____________________________
Hayom Yom:
Thursday, 6 Cheshvan 5775 • 30 October 2014

"Today's Day"
Thursday, Cheshvan 6, 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: Lech L'cha, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 35-38.
Tanya: There is yet (p. 553) ...was in secret... (p. 555).
When the Alter Rebbe wished to bless R. Yekusiel Liepler with wealth, the latter said he did not want it; he did not want wealth to distract him from studying Chassidus and from his involvement with avoda. When the Rebbe wished to bless him with longevity, his answer was: But not "peasant years"1 - men that have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear, who do not perceive G-dliness nor do they hear G-dliness.
FOOTNOTES
1. I.e. the life of boors.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
Power of One
One individual had brought the world to the brink of destruction, but for the mercies of the Master of the Universe, who ordained that “the earth shall stand firm and shall not fall.”
Such is the power of a single human being to do evil.
A thousand times over is the power of each one of us to do good.(From a talk in 1958.)
____________________________