Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: Monday, 17 Cheshvan 5775 • 10 November 2014

Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: Monday, 17 Cheshvan 5775 • 10 November 2014
Today's Laws & Customs:

Today in Jewish History:
• Great Flood Begins (2105 BCE) 
The rains began to fall on the 17th of Cheshvan of the year 1656 from creation (2105), flooding the earth and rising above the highest mountains. Only Noah and his family survived, in the ark built to that end by Divine command, and a pair of each animal species, who entered with him into the ark.
The following is a chronology of the Flood, as indicated by the dates and time periods given in the Torah's account and calculated by Rashi:
Cheshvan 17: Noah enters ark; rains begin.
Kislev 27: Forty days of rain end; begin 150 days of water's swelling and churning, during which the water reaches a height of 15 cubits above the mountain peaks.
Sivan 1: Water calms and begins to subside at the rate of one cubit every four days.
Sivan 17: The bottom of the ark, submerged 11 cubits beneath the surface, touches down on the top of Mount Ararat.
Av 1: The mountain peaks break the water's surface.
Elul 10:Forty days after the mountain peaks becom visible, Noah opens the ark's window and dispatches a raven.
Elul 17: Noah sends the dove for the first time.
Elul 23: The dove is sent a second time, and returns with an olive leaf in its beak.
Tishrei 1: Dove's third mission. Water completely drained.
Cheshvan 27: Ground fully dried. Noah exits ark.
(This chronology follows the opinion of the Talmudic sage Rabbi Eliezer; according to Rabbi Joshua's interpretation, the Flood began on Iyar 17, and all above dates should be moved ahead six months.)
Total time that Noah spent in the ark: 365 days (one solar year; one year and 11 days on the lunar calendar).
Link: See the Torah's account of the Great Flood, Rashi's commentary, and insights and interpretations from sages, scholars and mystics through the ages on the Noach Parshah Page
DAILY QUOTE:
"And these are the laws which you shall set before them..." (Exodus 21:1). The phrase "and these" implies that they are a continuation of what is written before. This is to teach us that just as the laws written above (the Ten Commandment) are from Sinai, so, too, are these (the logical laws of Mishpatim) from Sinai.(Rashi's commentary)

DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Chayei Sarah, 2nd Portion Genesis 23:17-24:9 with Rashi
• Chapter 23
17. And so the field of Ephron which was in Machpelah, facing Mamre, was established (as Abraham's possession). [This included] the field and the cave that was in it, and all the trees that were in the field, which were within its entire border around. יז. וַיָּקָם | שְׂדֵה עֶפְרוֹן אֲשֶׁר בַּמַּכְפֵּלָה אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי מַמְרֵא הַשָּׂדֶה וְהַמְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ וְכָל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל גְּבֻלוֹ סָבִיב:
the field of Ephron…was established: Heb. וַיָקָם, lit. it arose. It experienced an elevation, for it left the possession of a simple person [and went] into the possession of a king (Gen. Rabbah 48:8). The simple meaning of the verse is: And the field and the cave that was within it, and all the trees…were established to Abraham as a possession, etc. — from Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel]
ויקם שדה עפרון: תקומה היתה לה שיצאה מיד הדיוט ליד מלך. ופשוטו של מקרא ויקם השדה והמערה אשר בו וכל העץ לאברהם למקנה וגו':
18. [It was] to Abraham as a possession before the eyes of the sons of Heth, in the presence of all who had come within the gate of his city. יח. לְאַבְרָהָם לְמִקְנָה לְעֵינֵי בְנֵי חֵת בְּכֹל בָּאֵי שַׁעַר עִירוֹ:
in the presence of all who had come within the gate of his city: In the midst of them all and in the presence of all he sold it to him.
בכל באי שער עירו: בקרב כולם ובמעמד כולם הקנהו לו:  
19. And afterwards, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah, facing Mamre, which is Hebron, in the land of Canaan. יט. וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן קָבַר אַבְרָהָם אֶת שָׂרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל מְעָרַת שְׂדֵה הַמַּכְפֵּלָה עַל פְּנֵי מַמְרֵא הִוא חֶבְרוֹן בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן:
20. And the field and the cave within it were established to Abraham as burial property, [purchased] from the sons of Heth. כ. וַיָּקָם הַשָּׂדֶה וְהַמְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ לְאַבְרָהָם לַאֲחֻזַּת קָבֶר מֵאֵת בְּנֵי חֵת:
Chapter 24
1. And Abraham was old, advanced in days, and the Lord had blessed Abraham with everything. א. וְאַבְרָהָם זָקֵן בָּא בַּיָּמִים וַיהֹוָה בֵּרַךְ אֶת אַבְרָהָם בַּכֹּל:
had blessed Abraham with everything: [The word] בַּכֹּל is numerically equal to בֵּן [son]. Since he had a son, he had to find him a wife.
ברך את אברהם בכל: בכל עולה בגימטריא בן, ומאחר שהיה לו בן היה צריך להשיאו אשה:
2. And Abraham said to his servant, the elder of his house, who ruled over all that was his, "Please place your hand under my thigh. ב. וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל עַבְדּוֹ זְקַן בֵּיתוֹ הַמּשֵׁל בְּכָל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ שִׂים נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי:
the elder of his house: Since [the word זְקַן] is in the construct state, it is vowelized זְקַן.
זקן ביתו: לפי שהוא דבוק נקוד זקן:
under my thigh: (Shev. 38) Since one who swears must take with his hand an article related to a mitzvah such as a Torah scroll or Tefillin, and circumcision was his first mitzvah, and he had fulfilled it with pain, it was dear to him; so he took it.
תחת ירכי: לפי שהנשבע צריך שיטול בידו חפץ של מצוה, כגון ספר תורה או תפילין, והמילה היתה מצוה ראשונה לו ובאה לו על ידי צער והיתה חביבה עליו ונטלה:   
3. And I will adjure you by the Lord, the God of the heaven and the God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose midst I dwell. ג. וְאַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ בַּיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וֵאלֹהֵי הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִקַּח אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי מִבְּנוֹת הַכְּנַעֲנִי אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּקִרְבּוֹ:
4. But you shall go to my land and to my birthplace, and you shall take a wife for my son, for Isaac." ד. כִּי אֶל אַרְצִי וְאֶל מוֹלַדְתִּי תֵּלֵךְ וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי לְיִצְחָק:
5. And the servant said to him, "Perhaps the woman will not wish to go after me to this land. Shall I return your son to the land from which you came?" ה. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הָעֶבֶד אוּלַי לֹא תֹאבֶה הָאִשָּׁה לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרַי אֶל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת הֶהָשֵׁב אָשִׁיב אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יָצָאתָ מִשָּׁם:
6. And Abraham said to him, "Beware, lest you return my son back there. ו. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אַבְרָהָם הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תָּשִׁיב אֶת בְּנִי שָׁמָּה:
7. The Lord, God of the heavens, Who took me from my father's house and from the land of my birth, and Who spoke about me, and Who swore to me, saying, 'To your seed will I give this land' He will send His angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there. ז. יְהֹוָה | אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם אֲשֶׁר לְקָחַנִי מִבֵּית אָבִי וּמֵאֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתִּי וַאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לִי וַאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לִי לֵאמֹר לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת הוּא יִשְׁלַח מַלְאָכוֹ לְפָנֶיךָ וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי מִשָּׁם:
The Lord, God of the heavens, Who took me from my father’s house: But he did not say, “and the God of the earth,” whereas above (verse 3) he said, “And I will adjure you [by the Lord, the God of the heaven and the God of the earth].” He said to him,“Now He is the God of the heaven and the God of the earth, because I have made Him familiar in the mouths of the people, but when He took me from my father’s house, He was the God of the heavens but not the God of the earth, because mankind did not acknowledge Him, and His name was not familiar on the earth.”
ה' אלהי השמים אשר לקחני מבית אבי: ולא אמר ואלהי הארץ, ולמעלה אמר (פסוק ג) ואשביעך בה' אלהי השמים ואלהי הארץ. אמר לו עכשיו הוא אלהי השמים ואלהי הארץ, שהרגלתיו בפי הבריות, אבל כשלקחני מבית אבי היה אלהי השמים ולא אלהי הארץ, שלא היו באי עולם מכירים בו, ושמו לא היה רגיל בארץ:
from my father’s house: from Haran.
מבית אבי: מחרן:
and from the land of my birth: from Ur of the Chaldees.
ומארץ מולדתי: מאור כשדים:
and Who spoke about me: [Here לִי means]“concerning me,” like אֲשֶׁר דִבֵּר,“who spoke concerning me.” Similarly, every לִי, לוֹ, and לָהֶם used in conjunction with the verb דבר -speak-is to be interpreted in the sense of עַל,“concerning,” and their Aramaic translation is עִלֵי, עִלוֹהִי, עִלֵיהוֹן. For in conjunction with דִּבּוּר, the use of the terms לִי, לוֹ, and לָהֶם is inappropriate, but rather אֵלַי, אֵלָיו and אִלֵיהֶם [are to be used], and their Aramaic translation is עִמִּי, עִמֵּיהּ, עִמְּהוֹן However, following the expression אִמִירה [saying], the terms לִי, לוֹ, and לָהֶם are appropriate.
ואשר דבר לי: לצרכי, כמו (מלכים א' ב ד) אשר דבר עלי, וכן כל לי ולו ולהם הסמוכים אצל דבור מפורשים בלשון על, ותרגום שלהם עלי עלוהי עליהון, שאין נופל אצל דבור לשון לי ולו ולהם, אלא אלי אליו אליהם ותרגום שלהם עמי עמיה עמהון, אבל אצל אמירה נופל לשון לי ולו ולהם:
and Who swore to me: At the Covenant Between the Parts.
ואשר נשבע לי: בין הבתרים:
8. And if the woman will not wish to go after you, you will be absolved of this, my oath; only do not return my son back there." ח. וְאִם לֹא תֹאבֶה הָאִשָּׁה לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרֶיךָ וְנִקִּיתָ מִשְּׁבֻעָתִי זֹאת רַק אֶת בְּנִי לֹא תָשֵׁב שָׁמָּה:
you will be absolved of this, my oath: And take him a wife from the daughters of Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre. — [From Gen. Rabbah 49:8]
ונקית משבועתי וגו': וקח לו אשה מבנות ענר אשכול וממרא:
only…my son: “Only” is restrictive. My son will not return, but Jacob, my grandson, will ultimately return.
רק את בני וגו': רק מיעוט הוא, בני אינו חוזר אבל יעקב בן בני סופו לחזור:
9. And the servant placed his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and he swore to him concerning this matter. ט. וַיָּשֶׂם הָעֶבֶד אֶת יָדוֹ תַּחַת יֶרֶךְ אַבְרָהָם אֲדֹנָיו וַיִּשָּׁבַע לוֹ עַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה:
___________________________
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 83 - 87
• Chapter 83
A prayer regarding the wars against Israel in the days of Jehoshaphat, when the nations plotted against Israel.
1. A song, a psalm by Asaph.
2. O God, do not be silent; do not be quiet and do not be still, O God.
3. For behold, Your enemies are in uproar, and those who hate You have raised their head.
4. They plot deviously against Your nation, and conspire against those sheltered by You.
5. They say, "Come, let us sever them from nationhood, and the name of Israel will be remembered no more.”
6. For they conspire with a unanimous heart, they made a covenant against You-
7. the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites,
8. Geval and Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre.
9. Assyria, too, joined with them, and became the strength of the sons of Lot, Selah.
10. Do to them as to Midian; as to Sisera and Yavin at the brook of Kishon,
11. who were destroyed at Ein Dor, and were as dung for the earth.
12. Make their nobles like Orev and Ze'ev, all their princes like Zevach and Tzalmuna,1
13. who said, "Let us inherit the dwellings of God for ourselves.”
14. My God, make them like whirling chaff, like straw before the wind.
15. As a fire consumes the forest, and a flame sets the mountains ablaze,
16. so pursue them with Your tempest and terrify them with Your storm.
17. Fill their faces with shame, and they will seek Your Name, O Lord.
18. Let them be shamed and terrified forever; let them be disgraced and perish.
19. And they will know that You, Whose Name is the Lord, are alone, Most High over all the earth.
Chapter 84
In this psalm of prayers and entreaties, the psalmist mourns bitterly over the destruction of Temple from the depths of his heart, and speaks of the many blessings that will be realized upon its restoration. Fortunate is the one who trusts it will be rebuilt, and does not despair in the face of this long exile.
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. How beloved are Your dwellings, O Lord of Hosts!
3. My soul yearns, indeed it pines, for the courtyards of the Lord; my heart and my flesh [long to] sing to the living God.
4. Even the bird has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she lays her young on the [ruins of] Your altars, O Lord of Hosts, my King and my God.
5. Fortunate are those who dwell in Your House; they will yet praise You forever.
6. Fortunate is the man whose strength is in You; the paths [to the Temple] are in his heart.
7. For those who pass through the Valley of Thorns, He places wellsprings; their guide will be cloaked in blessings.2
8. They go from strength to strength; they will appear before God in Zion.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, hear my prayer; listen, O God of Jacob, forever.
10. See our shield,3 O God, and look upon the face of Your anointed one.
11. For better one day in Your courtyards than a thousand [elsewhere]. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God, than dwell [in comfort] in the tents of wickedness.
12. For the Lord, God, is a sun and a shield; the Lord bestows favor and glory; He does not withhold goodness from those who walk in innocence.
13. O Lord of Hosts! Fortunate is the man who trusts in You.
Chapter 85
In this prayer, lamenting the long and bitter exile, the psalmist asks why this exile is longer than the previous ones, and implores God to quickly fulfill His promise to redeem us. Every individual should offer this psalm when in distress.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. O Lord, You favored Your land; You returned the captives of Jacob.
3. You forgave the iniquity of Your people, and covered all their sin forever.
4. You withdrew all Your fury, and retreated from Your fierce anger.
5. Return us, O God of our salvation, and annul Your anger toward us.
6. Will You forever be angry with us? Will You draw out Your anger over all generations?
7. Is it not true that You will revive us again, and Your people will rejoice in You?
8. Show us Your kindness, O Lord, and grant us Your deliverance.
9. I hear what the Almighty Lord will say; for He speaks peace to His nation and to His pious ones, and they will not return to folly.
10. Indeed, His deliverance is near those who fear Him, that [His] glory may dwell in the land.
11. Kindness and truth have met; righteousness and peace have kissed.
12. Truth will sprout from the earth, and righteousness will peer from heaven.
13. The Lord, too, will bestow goodness, and our land will yield its produce.
14. Righteousness shall walk before him, and he shall set his footsteps in [its] path.
Chapter 86
This psalm contains many prayers regarding David's troubles, and his enemies Doeg and Achitophel. It also includes many descriptions of God's praise. Every individual can offer this psalm when in distress.
1. A prayer by David. Lord, turn Your ear, answer me, for I am poor and needy.
2. Guard my soul, for I am pious; You, my God, deliver Your servant who trusts in You.
3. Be gracious to me, my Lord, for to You I call all day.
4. Bring joy to the soul of Your servant, for to You, my Lord, I lift my soul.
5. For You, my Lord, are good and forgiving, and exceedingly kind to all who call upon You.
6. Lord, hear my prayer and listen to the voice of my supplications.
7. On the day of my distress I call upon You, for You will answer me.
8. There is none like You among the supernal beings, my Lord, and there are no deeds like Yours.
9. All the nations that You have made will come and bow down before You, my Lord, and give honor to Your Name,
10. for You are great and perform wonders, You alone, O God.
11. Lord, teach me Your way that I may walk in Your truth; unify my heart to fear Your Name.
12. I will praise You, my Lord, my God, with all my heart, and give honor to Your Name forever.
13. For Your kindness to me has been great; You have saved my soul from the depth of the grave.
14. O God, malicious men have risen against me; a band of ruthless men has sought my soul; they are not mindful of You.
15. But You, my Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in kindness and truth.
16. Turn to me and be gracious to me; grant Your strength to Your servant, and deliver the son of Your maidservant.
17. Show me a sign of favor, that my foes may see and be shamed, because You, Lord, have given me aid and consoled me.
Chapter 87
Composed to be sung in the Holy Temple, this psalm praises the glory of Jerusalem, a city that produces many great scholars, eminent personalities, and persons of good deeds. It also speaks of the good that will occur in the Messianic era.
1. By the sons of Korach, a psalm, a song devoted to the holy mountains [of Zion and Jerusalem].
2. The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.
3. Glorious things are spoken of you, eternal city of God.
4. I will remind Rahav Egypt and Babylon concerning My beloved; Philistia and Tyre as well as Ethiopia, "This one was born there.”
5. And to Zion will be said, "This person and that was born there"; and He, the Most High, will establish it.
6. The Lord will count in the register of people, "This one was born there," Selah.
7. Singers as well as dancers [will sing your praise and say], "All my inner thoughts are of you."
____________________________
Tanya: Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 28
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Monday, 17 Cheshvan 5775 • 10 November 2014
Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 28
The Alter Rebbe will now explain how this relates to the passing of a tzaddik, for this likewise draws down a degree of illumination that utterly transcends the world, transforming its darkness into light and bringing about atonement for the sins of the generation.
והנה מודעת זאת, דאבא יונק ממזל השמיני
Now, it is known1 that Abba (lit., “father”, a Kabbalistic name for the Sefirah of Chochmah) draws its sustenance from the eighth mazal.
I.e., the eighth in the Torah’s enumeration of the Thirteen Attributes of Divine Mercy,2 which correspond to the thirteen “tufts” of the celestial “beard”, the individual hairs of which are conduits for the emanation of a tenuous flow of life-force.
הוא תקון נוצר חסד
This is the tuft of Notzer Chesed that appears in the above listing: Notzer Chesed la’alafim (“He guards Chesed for thousands [of generations]”).
נוצר: אותיות רצון
[The Hebrew word] Notzer (“guards”) is composed of the same letters as [the Hebrew word] Ratzon (“Divine favor”).
והיא עת רצון, המתגלה ומאיר בבחינת גילוי, מלמעלה למטה, בעת פטירת צדיקי עליון
This is the et ratzon (“the time of Divine favor,” i.e., “the auspicious time”) that becomes revealed and radiates in a manifest way, from above downwards, at the time of the passing of tzaddikim of stature,
עובדי ה׳ באהבה, במסירת נפשם לה׳ בחייהם, ערבית ושחרית, בקריאת שמע
who serve G‑d out of love, surrendering their soul to G‑d during their lifetime every evening and morning when reading the Shema.
שעל ידי זה היו מעלין מיין נוקבין לאבא ואימא בקריאת שמע, כידוע
For thereby they would elevate mayin nukvin (lit., “feminine waters”; i.e., they would initiate a spiritual arousal expressing their desire to receive a flow of Divine energy) to Abba and Imma (i.e., to Chochmah and Binah) during the Reading of Shema, as is known.
(וכן בתלמוד תורה, דמחכמה נפקא)
(3The same applies to their study of the Torah, which derives from Chochmah; this, too, results in an elevation of mayin nukvin toward Chochmah.)
ועל ידי זה היו נמשכים ויורדים בחינת מיין דוכרין מתיקון ונוצר חסד
Thereby, the mayin duchrin (lit., the “masculine waters” which thereupon flow from above) were elicited and drawn down from the tuft of Notzer Chesed, since it is from this Divine attribute that Chochmah draws its sustenance, as stated above.
והם הם המאירים בבחינת גילוי בפטירתם
And, indeed, it is these [illuminations] that radiate in a manifest way at the time of the passing [of tzaddikim].
The illuminations that are drawn down through the self-sacrifice of tzaddikim during their lifelong recitation of the Shema and their Torah study, become revealed at the time of their passing.
כנודע, שכל עמל האדם, שעמלה נפשו בחייו, למעלה, בבחינת העלם והסתר
For as is known, all the effort of man, in which his soul toiled during his lifetime, [and which remains] above, in a hidden and obscured state,
מתגלה ומאיר בבחינת גילוי, מלמעלה למטה, בעת פטירתו
is revealed and radiates in a manifest way, from above downwards, at the time of his passing.
Thus all the unseen spiritual effects of the tzaddik’s Reading of Shema and of his Torah study, are revealed in the world below at the time of his passing.
והנה, על ידי גילוי הארת תיקון ונוצר חסד בפטירתן
Now, by the illumination from the tuft of Notzer Chesed that is revealed at the time of the passing [of tzaddikim],
מאיר חסד ה׳ מעולם ועד עולם על יראיו
the Chesed of G‑d radiates from world to world — from the World of Concealment down to the World of Revelation — over those who fear Him,4
ופועל ישועות בקרב הארץ, לכפר על עון הדור
and effects salvations in the midst of the earth,5 to atone for the sin of the generation,
אף גם על הזדונות, שהן מג׳ קליפות הטמאות, שלמטה מנוגה
even for the deliberate sins which are of the three impure kelipot which are inferior to nogah, for kelipat nogah can give rise only to unwitting sins, whose atonement is secured through sacrificial offerings.
לפי שמזל דנוצר: ממוחין סתימין דאריך אנפין, מקור הבירורים
For the mazal of Notzer Chesed is of the Mochin Setimin of Arich Anpin,i.e., the Chochmah of Keter, which is the source of the task of beirurim, the refinement of the material world by extracting and uplifting the Divine sparks within it.
ואתהפכא חשוכא דשבירת הכלים, לנהורא דעולם התיקון
The darkness incurred by the Breaking of the Vessels is thereby converted into the light of the World of Tikkun.
This light is therefore able to atone even for the deliberate sins that derive from the three impure kelipot — the lowest level that resulted from the Breaking of the Vessels.
מה שאין כן בקרבנות שעל גבי המזבח
This is not the case, though, with the sacrifices that are [offered] upon the altar.
שאינן מכפרים אלא על השגגות, שהן מהתגברות נפש הבהמית שמנוגה
They atone only for inadvertent sins which come about because of the strengthening of the animal soul [whose life-force derives] from nogah,
כמו שכתוב בלקוטי תורה, פרשת ויקרא
as is stated in Likkutei Torah of the AriZal, Parshat Vayikra.
ולכן נסמכה לפרשת פרה דוקא
This, then, is why [the passage concerning Miriam] was adjoined expressly to the passage concerning the Red Heifer:
מה פרה וכו׳
— [To teach you that] just as the Heifer [effects atonement, so, too, does the passing of the righteous].”
ובילקוט, פרשת שמיני, הגיה: מי חטאת וכו׳
The Yalkut, Parshat Shemini, [for “the Heifer”] reads “the waters of purification....”
This is more in keeping with the explanation provided above, for the Red Heifer’s atonement and its impact on the three impure kelipot is not a result of burning the Heifer, which is spiritually symbolic of elevation, but a result of the “sanctification of the purifying waters,” an act which draws down benefactions from above, just as water flows downward from above — from Supernal Holiness and Chochmah of Keter, the source of refinement and purification.
FOOTNOTES
1. Etz Chayim, Shaar 16, ch. 6; et al.
2. Shmot 34:6-7.
3. Text and parentheses here follow a gloss of the Rebbe in Luach HaTikkun.
4. Cf. Tehillim 103:17.

5. Cf. op. cit. 74:12.
____________________________

Rambam: 
Daily Mitzvah P246 Sefer Hamitzvot
Today's Mitzvah
Monday, 17 Cheshvan 5775 • 10 November 2014

Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 246
Laws of Claims
"In every case of trespass...in which one can say: 'This is it'"—Exodus 22:8.
We are commanded to adjudicate monetary cases between litigants [according to the laws outlined in the Torah].
Laws of Claims
Positive Commandment 246
Translated by Berel Bell
The 246th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding claims and counterclaims [in lawsuits.]
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "In every case of dishonesty... [and the watchman] said that this is it."
In the words of the Mechilta: "The phrase 'that this is it' refers to partial admission to the claim."2
This mitzvah includes anything that can arise from the claims people have against one another involving admission and denial.
The details of this commandment are explained in the 3rd chapter of Bava Kama, the beginning of Bava Metzia, and the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Shavuos. Many questions regarding this subject are spread throughout the Talmud.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 22:8.
2.Since he has made a partial admission, he is required to take an oath regarding the rest of the claim.
________________________________________

Rambam:

• 1 Chapter a Day: Edut - Chapter 21
Edut - Chapter 21
Halacha 1
The following rule applies when witnesses testify that so-and-so divorced his wife and did not pay her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and, afterwards, these witnesses were disqualified through hazamah. Now either today or tomorrow, when the husband divorces his wife, he must pay her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. Hence we calculate how much a person would pay for the right to collect the money due this woman by virtue of her ketubah in the event she would be widowed or divorced and the witnesses are required to pay this amount.
When calculating this amount, we take into consideration the state of the woman and the amount of her ketubah. If the woman is sick or old or there is peace between her and her husband, the value for which her ketubah will be sold will not be the same if she is young and healthy or there is strife between the couple. For such a woman is more likely to be divorced and less likely to die.
Similarly, the amount to be received for a large ketubah is not the same as for a small ketubah. For example, if her ketubah is for 1000 zuz, it might be sold for 100. If it is for 100, it will not be sold for 10 but for less. These matters are dependent on the estimates of the judges.
Halacha 2
Similar principles apply in the following situation. Witnesses testify with regard to a person, saying that he is obligated to pay so-and-so 1000 zuz in 30 days. The borrower admits the debt, but says that it is not due until five years and 30 days. If the witnesses are disqualified through hazamah, we evaluate how much a person would pay to have 1000 zuz available to him for five years. This is the sum paid to the borrower. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
When witnesses testify that a person's ox gored another ox and afterwards, the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah, they are required to pay half the damages. If the ox is not worth half the damages, they are required to pay only the value of the ox. For the fine of half of the damages must be paid only from the body of the goring ox itself. Therefore if they testified that the ox consumed produce or broke utensils while walking, the witnesses are required to pay the full amount of the loss. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
When witnesses testify that a person knocked out the tooth of his servant and then blinded the servant's eye, if afterwards, the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah, they are required to pay the master the value of the servant and the value of his eye.
A different rule applies if they testified that the master blinded the servant's eye and afterwards knocked out his tooth, the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah, and it was later discovered that the events occurred in the opposite order, the master knocked out his tooth and afterwards blinded him. The witnesses must pay the worth of the eye to the servant. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
When witnesses who testified that a woman was warned by her husband not to enter into privacy with another man or who testified that she disobeyed the warning and entered into privacy with him are disqualified through hazamah, they are punished by lashes. If one witness comes and testifies that she committed adultery after she was warned and entered into privacy, and that witness was disqualified through hazamah, that witness is required to pay the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.
If there were two witnesses and they served as the witnesses for the warning, that she entered into privacy, and that she committed adultery, should they be disqualified through hazamah, they are required to pay the money due her by virtue of her ketubah; they do not receive lashes. Why are they not executed - they gave testimony with regard to adultery? Because they did not warn the woman.
Halacha 6
If the lying witnesses testified that a person stole and slaughtered or sold the stolen animal, should they be disqualified through hazamah, they are required to pay the entire amount. If two witnesses testify that the person stole and two others that he slaughtered or sold the animal, and both pairs of witnesses are disqualified through hazamah, the first witnesses are required to pay twice the animal's worth, and the second pair, two or three times its worth.
If the second pair alone were disqualified through hazamah, the thief is required to make a double payment to his victim. The later witnesses must pay the remainder of the four and five time payment. If one of the last witnesses is disqualified through hazamah, the entire last testimony is negated. If one of the first witnesses is disqualified through hazamah, the entire testimony is negated. For if there is no theft, slaughtering it or selling the animal does not obligate the person to pay anything.
Halacha 7
When two witnesses testify that a person benefited from the produce of a field for three years and are disqualified through hazamah, they must pay the worth of the field to its owner. If two witnesses testify that a person benefited from the produce of a field for one year, two others testified that he benefited from its produce for a second year, and two others testified that he benefited from its produce for a third year, should they all be disqualified through hazamah, they divide the value of the field among themselves. For although the testimony concerning the establishment of the claimant's right to the field involves three separate testimonies, they are one testimony with regard to disqualification through hazamah.
For this reason, when there are three brothers and one other person, that person may join together with all three of the brothers and testify with regard to one of the years. Although they are three testimonies, they are considered as one testimony with regard to disqualification through hazamah. If they are all disqualified through hazamah, the three brothers must together pay half the value of the field and the person who joined together with each of them must pay the other half of its value.
Halacha 8
Different rules apply when an ox is declared to have a tendency to gore on the basis of the testimony of three groups of witnesses. If the first and the second pair of witnesses are disqualified through hazamah, all of the witnesses are released from liability. If all three sets of witnesses are disqualified, they are all obligated to pay for the entire damages even though half-damages are paid for an ordinary ox.
When does the above apply? When the witnesses are all motioning to each other, or they appear directly after each other, or they know the identity of the owner of the ox, but do not recognize the ox itself. If none of these factors are present, the first and the second group of witnesses are not liable, for they will say: "We came only to obligate him to pay half-damages. We did not know that subsequently another group would come and cause the ox to be deemed as a goring ox."
Halacha 9
The following law applies when two people testified with regard to a "wayward and rebellious son" with regard to the first testimony and two others came afterwards and testified with regard to the second testimony which would cause him to be executed. If they are both disqualified through hazamah, the first group is lashed and not executed. The rationale is that they can say: "We came to have him lashed." The second group, however, is executed, because it is their testimony that causes him to be executed. If the second group consisted of four witnesses: Two said: "In our presence, he stole," and two said: "In our presence, he feasted," should they all be disqualified through hazamah, they are all executed.
If two witnesses testify that a person kidnapped a Jewish person and sold him, and they were disqualified through hazamah, they should be executed by strangulation. If two witnesses testified that a person kidnapped a fellow Jew and another two testified that he sold him, whether the witnesses who testified that he kidnapped or those who testified that he sold were disqualified through hazamah, either group which is disqualified through hazamah are executed. The rationale is that kidnapping is the beginning of the conviction and condemnation to death of the defendant.
If two witnesses testify that a person sold a fellow Jew and were disqualified through hazamah, but there were no witnesses that he kidnapped him, the witnesses are not liable. The rationale is that even if they were not disqualified through hazamah, the defendant would not have been executed, because he could have excused himself saying: "I sold my servant."
If witnesses who testify to the sale come after the disqualification of the witnesses who testified concerning the kidnapping, they are not executed. This applies even if we see that they are motioning to each other.
Halacha 10
The following laws apply if a person spreads a libelous report about his wife, bringing witnesses that she committed adultery after she had been consecrated. If her father brought witnesses who disqualified the witnesses brought by the husband through hazamah, those witnesses are executed. If the husband brought witnesses who disqualified the witnesses brought by the father through hazamah, those witnesses are executed and are required to make financial restitution to the husband. They are executed, because the witnesses brought by the husband were condemned to death on the basis of their testimony. They must pay a fine, because the husband was held liable to pay a fine because of their testimony. Thus they are obligated to be executed because of this person and obligated financially, because of another person.
Similarly, when two people testify that a person engaged in relations with a consecrated maiden and they are disqualified through hazamah, they are executed and are not required to make a financial payment. If they said: "He engaged in relations with the daughter of so-and-so," and they are disqualified through hazamah, they are executed and are required to pay the fine to her father.
If witnesses testify: "So-and-so sodomized an ox," and they were disqualified by hazamah, they are executed, but not held liable financially. If they said: "the ox belonging to so-and-so," they are executed and required to pay the value of the ox to its owner. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
____________________________
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters a Day: To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 4, To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 5, To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 6
To`en veNit`an - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
A person who admits a portion of a claim is not required to take a Scriptural oath until the plaintiff lodges a claim against him for an entity with a specific measure, weight or number, and the defendant admits owing a portion of that measure, weight or number.
What is implied? A plaintiff claims: "You owe me 10 dinarim," and the defendant responds: "I owe you only five"; "You owe me a kor of wheat," "I owe you only a letech"; "You owe me two litras of silk," "I owe you only a rotel." In all these and in other similar situations, he is liable.
Different rules apply, however, if the plaintiff claims: "I gave you a wallet full of coins," and the defendant answers: "You gave me only 50," or he claims: "I gave you 100 dinarim" and the defendant answers: "You gave me only this pouch, and you did not count the contents before me. I do not know what was in it. You are receiving what you gave me." In these and all similar situations, he is not liable to take an oath.
Halacha 2
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "I gave you a room full of grain," and the defendant answers: "You gave me only ten korim" or he claims: "I gave you ten korim," and the defendant answers: "I do not know how much you gave me, because you did not measure them before me. You are receiving what you gave me," the defendant is not liable.
Halacha 3
If, however, if the plaintiff claims: "I gave you this room that was filled with grain until the projection," and the defendant responded: "It was filled only to the window," he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
A person who admits a portion of a claim is not required to take a Scriptural oath, unless he makes his admission with regard to a matter that he could deny [owing.
What is implied? A plaintiff lodged a complaint against a colleague, saying: "You owe me 100 dinarim. 50 are recorded in this promissory note, and 50 are not recorded in a promissory note." The defendant responds: "I owe you only the 50 mentioned in the promissory note." He is not considered to be a person who admits a portion of a claim. For his denial would be of no consequence with regard to the sum mentioned in the promissory note. All of his property is on lien to it, and even if he denied it, he would be obligated to pay. Therefore, he is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset concerning the 50 that are not mentioned in the promissory note.
Halacha 5
The following rules apply when a dispute arises concerning a promissory note that mentions that the defendant owes sela'im, but does not mentioned the number of sela'im he owes. The lender states: "You owe me five sela'im, and that is the intent of the promissory note." The borrower counters: "I owe you only three; that is what is implied by the promissory note."
Because of the promissory note alone, he would be obligated to pay only two sela'im" He is, nevertheless, not liable to take a Scriptural oath ' despite the fact that he admitted owing a sela that he could have denied, because he is like a person who returns a lost article. And it is one of the ordinances instituted by our Sages that any person who returns a lost article should not be required to take an oath, as explained in the appropriate place.
Similarly, when a person tells his colleague: "My father told me that you owe me zmaneh." The defendant responded: "I owe you only 50 dinarim." He is a person returning a lost object, and he is not liable even for a sh'vuat hesset. Needless to say, this applies if a person on his own initiative acknowledged: "I owed your father a maneh. I repaid him 50 dinarim, but I still owe him 50." He is not liable even for a sh'vuat hesset."
If, however, the heir claims: "I know with certainty that you..." or "...your father owe my father a maneh" and the defendant responds: "I owe your father only 50 dinarim" or "My father owes you only 50," he is considered to be a person who admits a portion of a claim and is required to take a Scriptural oath.
Halacha 6
When a plaintiff claims: "You owe me a maneh and this article is security for it," and the defendant claims: "I owe you only 50 dinarim" he is considered to be a person who admits a portion of a claim and must take a Scriptural oath.
If the security is worth only 50 dinarim or less, the defendant must take the oath and pay the 50 that he acknowledged owing. If the security was worth 100 dinarim or more, since the lender has the right to claim its value, the lender should take an oath and collect his claim from the value of the security.
If the security was worth 80 dinarim, the lender must take an oath that he is owed at least 80 and then he collects that amount from the security. The borrower must also take a Scriptural oath with regard to the 20 that he denies.
If the borrower denies the entire matter, saying: "This is not security. Instead, it is an entrusted article and I do not owe him anything," the lender must take an oath that he is owed at least 80 and the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset with regard to the 20 that he denies.
Halacha 7
The following ruling applies when a plaintiff claims: "You owe me a maneh" and the defendant responds: "I know that I owe you 50 dinarim, but I am unsure of whether or not I owe you the other 50." The defendant is obligated to take a Scriptural oath, because he acknowledged a portion of a claim. He cannot take an oath regarding the portion he denied owing, because he does not know whether he is liable or not. Therefore, he must pay the entire maneh; the lender is not required to take an oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
The defendant may have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who lodges a claim against him when the plaintiff is not certain that the defendant is obligated.
Halacha 8
Similar concepts apply in the following situation. The plaintiff claims: "I lent you a maneh and here is one witness who will testify that this is so." The defendant responds: "That is true, but you owe me a maneh to match it." The defendant is obligated to take an oath, but cannot take that oath, and hence, is obligated to pay.
Why can he not take an oath? Because he acknowledges the content of the testimony of the witness. And a person who must take an oath because of the testimony of one witness may take the oath only when he contradicts the witness, denies his testimony and takes the oath to support his denial.
Similarly, when there is a promissory note signed by one witness and the defendant claims to have paid the debt, or a person denied a claim, a witness testified against him, and then the defendant stated that he paid the debt or returned the entrusted article, ? the defendant is obligated to take an oath, but may not take the oath. Hence, he must pay.
An incident once occurred concerning a person who seized a slab of silver from a colleague in the presence of one witness. Afterwards, he said: "I seized it, but what I seized was mine." Our Sages said: "He is obligated to take an oath, but may not take the oath. Hence, he must pay. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 9
The testimony of one witness is also significant in the following instance. The plaintiff claims: "I lent you a maneh." The defendant denies the matter entirely, and the plaintiff brings one witness who testifies that the defendant took a loan in his presence. Had there been two witnesses, a presumption that the defendant is lying would have been established, and the defendant would be obligated to pay, as will be explained. Hence, the defendant is required to take an oath because of the testimony of one witness. For wherever the testimony of two witnesses requires a defendant to make financial restitution, the testimony of one witness requires him to take an oath.
If after the witness testifies, the defendant changes his claim and states that he paid the debt, he is required to make financial restitution. The plaintiff is not required to take an oath, as we have explained.
Halacha 10
When a plaintiff claims: "You owe me amaneh" the defendant denies the claim entirely, and witnesses testify that the defendant still owes the plaintiff 50 dinarim, all of the Geonim have ruled that the law is that the defendant must pay 50 and take an oath concerning the remainder. The rationale is that the principal's own admission should not have greater legal power than the testimony of witnesses.
To`en veNit`an - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
An oath is not taken on claims concerning the following according to Scriptural Law: landed property, servants, promissory notes and consecrated property. Even though a defendant admitted a portion of a claim or a witness testified against him, or he served as a watchman and sought to free himself on the basis of one of the claims according to which a watchman is freed of liability, he is not required to take an oath. These concepts are derived from Exodus 22:6, which, with regard to the obligation to take an oath, states: "When a person will give his colleague" -this excludes consecrated property - "money or utensils..." - this excludes landed property. And it excludes servants, which the Torah associated with landed property. It also excludes promissory notes, for their actual substance is not of financial value like money or utensils. They only serve as proof of an obligation.
With regard to all of these matters, the defendant must take a sh 'vuat hesset if the plaintiff issues a definite claim with the exception of consecrated property. In that instance, even though a person is not liable to take an oath concerning them according to Scriptural Law, our Sages ordained that the defendant take an oath resembling a Scriptural oath. This requirement was instituted so that people would not treat consecrated property lightly.
Halacha 2
Accordingly, when a plaintiff claims: "You sold me two fields," and the defendant responds: "I sold you only one," or he claims: "I entrusted two servants..." or "...two promissory notes to you," and the defendant responds: "You entrusted only one," the defendant is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "This courtyard, this servant or this promissory note that is in your possession is mine; you sold it to me," and the defendant denies the existence of the matter entirely, he is required to take merely a sh'vuat hesset. This applies whether the plaintiff brings a witness to support his claim or not.
A similar law applies when a person digs cisterns, trenches or caves in his colleague's property, reducing its value, and the owner of the field claims that the digger is liable to make financial restitution. Regardless of whether the owner claimed that a defendant dug such caves, and the defendant responded: "I did not dig anything," the owner claimed: "You dug two caves," and the defendant answered, "I dug only one," or one witness testified that he dug caves and the defendantresponded: "I did not dig anything," the defendant is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset regarding the claim.
Halacha 3
The following laws apply when the plaintiff claimed both utensils and landed property. Whether the defendant: acknowledged owing all of the landed property, but denied owing any of the utensils, acknowledged owing all the utensils, but denied owing any of the landed property, acknowledged owing some of the landed property, but denied owing the remainder as well as all of the utensils, he must take a sh'vuat hesset.
If, however, the defendant acknowledged owing some of the utensils and denied owing the remainder, as well as all of the landed property, since he is required to take an oath with regard to the utensils that he denied, he must also take an oath concerning the landed property that he denied together with them, for it is all one claim.
Similar laws apply when the plaintiff claims utensils and servants, or utensils and promissory notes, for all such claims are governed by the same legal process.
Halacha 4
When a plaintiff lodges a claim concerning grapes that are ready to be harvested, or grain that has dried and is ready to be reaped, and the defendant accepts a portion of the claim and denies a portion of the claim, he must take an oath concerning those he denied, as is required with regard to other movable property, provided they no longer require the nurture of the ground. The rationale is whatever is ready to be harvested is considered as though it has been harvested with regard to the denial and admission of claims.
If, however, the crops require the nurture of the ground, they are considered to be landed property in all contexts, and only a sh'vuat hesset is required concerning them.
Halacha 5
When a person lodges a claim against his colleague, saying: "You dwelled in my courtyard for two months, and you owe me two months rent," and the defendant responds, "I dwelled there for only one month," he is considered a person who denied a portion of a claim.
Thus, if the rent for the month that he denied owing is equivalent to two silver me'in, he must take an oath. The rationale is that the claim does not focus on the land itself, but on the rent for it, and that is movable property.
Halacha 6
When a plaintiff claims: "I gave you a promissory note that served as proof of a debt of ten dinarim," and the defendant denies the matter entirely, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat hesset.
If he reverses the obligation for the oath, requiring it of the plaintiff, the plaintiff must take a sh'vuat hesset that the note served as proof of a debt of ten dinarim, which he lost when the promissory note was destroyed. Afterwards, he may collect his claim.
If the defendant admitted: "It is true that you gave me the promissory note, and it was lost," he is not liable, even to take a sh 'vuat hesset. For even if he was negligent in its care and it was lost, he would not be liable, as we have explained in Hilchot Chovel.
Halacha 7
When a person tells a colleague: "The promissory note in your possession mentions a factor that is advantageous to me," and the colleague states: "I will not produce my promissory note," or "I do not know if it states anything that serves as support for your position," we compel him to produce the promissory note and bring it to court.
Halacha 8
If the holder of the promissory note claims that it was lost, we issue a conditional ban of ostracism against him.
If, however, the person who desires to see the promissory note claims that he is certain that his colleague is holding a promissory note that mentions a factor that is advantageous to him, his colleague must take a sh'vuat hesset that the promissory note is no longer in his possession and it is lost. My teachers ruled in this manner.
Halacha 9
An oath is never administered because of claims issued by deaf-mutes, mentally or emotionally incapable individuals and minors. In the latter instance, this principle applies regardless of whether the minor's claim involves his own issues or those of his father. For admitting a portion of a claim owed to a minor is like returning a lost article. '
Similarly, if the defendant denied the entire debt, and one witness came and testified on behalf of the minor, the defendant is not required to take an oath. For it is as though there were one witness, but no plaintiff, because a claim lodge by a minor is not a substantial claim.
Thus, if a minor said to an adult: "You owe me..." or "You owe my father a maneh," and the defendant said: "I owe you only 50," or "I do not owe you anything" and there was one witness who corroborates the minor's claim, the defendant is not liable to take a Scriptural oath.
If, however, a person acted as a watchman for a minor and claimed that the entrusted article was lost, he is required to take the oath required of a watchman. The rationale is that this oath is not taken because of a claim.
Similarly, if a person admitted that he was a partner or a sharecropper of a minor, the court should appoint a guardian for the minor, and the partner or the like should take an oath despite the fact that there is only an indefinite claim against him.
Halacha 10
My teachers ruled that although a Scriptural oath is not taken because of the claim of a minor, a sh 'vuat hesset must be taken. This applies even when the minor is not resourceful with regard to financial matters. The rationale is that an opportunity should not be granted for a person to take money belonging to a minor, and depart without paying him at all. I also favor this approach, and think that it will lead to the improvement of society.
Thus, if a minor lodges a claim against an adult, whether the adult admits a portion of the claim or denies it entirely, whether there is a witness who supports the plaintiff or not, the defendant is required to take a sh 'vuat hesset. He cannot reverse the responsibility for the oath, placing it on the minor, because an oath is never administered to a minor. Even a conditional ban of ostracism is not imposed upon the minor, for he does not know the severity of the retribution received for taking a false oath.
Halacha 11
The following rules apply when an adult lodges a claim against a minor. If the claim involves a matter that will benefit the minor - e.g., a claim involving business transactions - and the minor admits his liability, we expropriate payment from the minor's property. If the minor does not possess any resources, we wait until he gains such. Then he must pay. If the minor denies the obligation, the plaintiff must wait until the minor attains majority. At that point, he is required to take a sh 'vuat hesset.
The following rules apply when a person lodges a claim against a minor in a matter that will not benefit the minor - e.g., damages or personal injury. Even though the minor admits his responsibility and he has resources with which he could pay, he is not liable even after he attains majority. If the plaintiff was one of those who takes an oath and collects the money that he claims - e.g., an employee and the like - since the minor benefits from the fact that an employee will work for him, he may take an oath and collect from the minor. A storekeeper who takes an oath because of his account book, by contrast, may not take an oath and collect from a minor. The rationale is that the minor does not derive any benefit from this. For regardless, he must pay his workers who take oaths and collect from him. Thus it is the storekeeper who caused himself a loss, because he gave his money because of a minor's word. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 12
With regard to a deaf-mute and a mentally or emotionally incapable individual, we do not concern ourselves with them with regard to any claim, not a claim that they lodged against others, nor a claim that others lodge against them, nor for a lesser oath, and, needless to say, not for a severe oath or to compel them to make financial restitution. A blind man, by contrast, is considered to be a healthy person with regard to all matters concerning such subjects. He must take all types of oaths if required, and oaths are taken in response to his claims.
To`en veNit`an - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
The court requires that precise statements be made by the litigants. For example, litigants come to court and one of them claims: "He owes me a maneh that I lent to him," "... that I entrusted to him," "... that he stole from me," "... that he owes me as wages," or the like. Should the defendant answer: "I do not owe you anything," "I have nothing of yours," or "You are issuing a false claim," this is not a proper response. Instead, we tell the defendant: "Reply to his claim and clarify your answer as he clarified his claim. Say whether you borrowed from him or did not borrow from him," "... whether he entrusted an article to you or did not," "... whether you stole from him or did not," "... whether he hired you or did not," or lodge any other specific claim. Why do we not accept the general answer? Because it is possible that the person is making an error and this will lead to his taking a false oath. For it is possible that he borrowed money as the plaintiff claims and returned the debt to the lender's son or wife, or gave the lender a present of the value of the debt, and thinks that because of this, he is no longer liable for the debt. Hence, the court tells him: "Why are you saying that you are not liable? Maybe the law would hold you liable and you do not know. Instead, tell the judges the details of the matter, and they will tell you whether or not you are liable."
Even if the defendant is a wise man of great stature, we tell him: "You have nothing to lose by responding to his claim and telling us why you are not liable to him, whether it is because nothing of that nature ever happened, or because you were liable and you repaid the debt. You will not lose, because we follow the principle of miggo."
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "This person owes me a maneh," or "He has a maneh of mine in his possession." We ask him: "On what basis do you make this claim? Did you lend him money? Did you entrust it to him for safekeeping? Did he damage your property? Tell us why he is obligated to you." For it is possible that a person will think that a colleague is obligated to him when he is not - e.g., he suspects that he stole from him he promised him to give him a maneh but did not, or the like.
The defendant's word is not accepted in the following situation. The plaintiff claimed that he lent the defendant a maneh, and the defendant denied ever taking the loan. Afterwards, the plaintiff brought witnesses who testified that the loan was given in their presence. In response, the defendant replied that he took the loan, but repaid it. We do not accept his claim. Instead, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established, and he is required to pay.
If, however, in the latter situation, the defendant first replied: "I am not liable," "I do not owe you anything," "You are lying," or the like a different rule applies. Even though the plaintiff brings witnesses who state that the loan was given in their presence, if the defendant says: "That is true, but I returned the entrusted object" or "... repaid the loan," a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and then is released of all obligations.
Halacha 2
The following rules apply when witnesses see that the plaintiff counted out money and gave it to the defendant, but did not know for which reason. If the defendant demands payment in a court of law, saying: "Give me the money that I lent you,"" and the defendant replied: "You gave me a present," or "You repaid a debt," his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and then is released of all obligations. If, however, he claims that he was never given any money, and the witnesses came and testified that money was counted out in their presence, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established.
A person is never presumed by the court to be a liar unless he denies a matter in court and two witnesses come and offer testimony that contradicts the denial he made.
Halacha 3
There is a corollary to the above concept. The plaintiff claimed: "I lent you a maneh." The defendant denied the matter in court, saying: "The incident never occurred." Two witnesses came and testified that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and repaid the debt. After these comments were made, the lender stated: "I did not receive payment." The defendant is obligated to pay. The rationale is that anyone who says: "I did not borrow," is considered to have said: "I did not repay the debt," in the event that witnesses come and establish that he in fact took a loan. Thus, in the above situation, it is as if the borrower said: "I did not repay the debt," despite the fact that witnesses testify that he did. We postulate that the admission of the principal is considered as strong as the testimony of 100 witnesses and the borrower is held liable. The lender is not required to take an oath, for a presumption that the borrower is lying has been established.
A similar law applies if the lender produces a signed note saying that he is liable, and the borrower denies the entire matter and claims that he did not write the note. If the authenticity of the note was established in court or witnesses come and testify that it was his note, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established, and he is required to pay.
Halacha 4
There are times, however, when a person is not presumed to be lying despite the fact that his statements conflict with the testimony of witnesses. For example, a plaintiff claims: "I lent you a maneh, and it is in your possession." The defendant responds: "I paid you in the presence of so-and-so-and so-and-so," but those two witnesses come and deny having observed the matter. We do not say that a presumption that the defendant is lying is established. The rationale is that witnesses will remember only a matter concerning which they were designated to serve as witnesses. Hence, a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established, and the borrower may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "Give me the maneh that I lent you when you were standing next to this pillar," and the defendant responded: "I never stood next to that pillar," a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established even though witnesses come and testify that he stood there. The rationale is that a person will not take notice of matters that are not significant. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses, the borrower is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses, as explained. Accordingly, if the lender claims: "Give me the maneh that I lent to you; here are the witnesses in whose presence the loan was given." And the defendant claims: "I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so," we tell the borrower: "Bring them to court and be freed of responsibility." If they do not come, or they died, or they journeyed to another country, the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid the debt. For the only reason we require the defendant to bring the witnesses is to clarify his position and be released from the obligation of an oath.
Halacha 6
An admission made by the borrower outside of court may not be binding. For example, the plaintiff told the defendant in the presence of witnesses: "You owe me a maneh" and the defendant agreed. The following day, the plaintiff lodged a claim against the defendant in court and brought the witnesses to support his claim. If the defendant claimed: "I was joking with you and I do not owe you anything," he is not held liable. He must merely take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not owe anything.
This ruling applies even when the defendant denies that the event ever happened. The rationale is that the defendant never designated the witnesses to serve in that capacity. And when a person is not charged with acting as a witness with regard to a situation, he will not necessarily remember its particulars. Therefore, even if the defendant said that the events did not ever take place, we do not accept the presumption that he is lying.
Halacha 7
Morevoer, the defendant's denial is allowed to stand even in the following situation. The plaintiff hid witnesses behind a fence and told the defendant: "You owe me a maneh," and the defendant agreed. The plaintiff then told him: "Do you wish so-and-so and so-and-so to act as witnesses against you?"
He replied: "No. Lest you press me to judgment tomorrow; for I have nothing to pay you."
On the next day, he called him to court with these witnesses. Whether the defendant claimed: "I was speaking frivolously," or whether he claimed that the matter never took place, he may take a sh'vuat hesset and is then released of responsibility. The rationale is the testimony is not committing until the borrower says: "You are my witnesses," or the lender makes that statement in the presence of the borrower, and the borrower remains silent. The defendant is not presumed to be a liar, because of testimony of this nature.
An incident occurred concerning a person called kav r'shu ("a full measure of indebtedness") - i.e., that he had many debts. He would say: "The only person to whom I owe money is so-and-so." When that person came and lodged a claim against him, he said: "I do not owe him anything." Our Sages said: "He may take a sh'vuat hesset and be released of all obligation."
Similarly, there was a person about whom people would gossip that he was wealthy. At the time of his death, he said: "If I had money, would I not pay so-and-so and so-and-so." After his death, so-and-so and so-and-so lodged a claim against the estate. Our Sages said: "They have no claim against the estate." For a person is wont to try to make himself appear as if he does not possess any money, and even as if he did not leave money to his children. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 8
As mentioned, witnesses who are hidden cannot give binding testimony, and similarly, when a person admits a debt on his own initiative while witnesses are listening, or a person tells a colleague in the presence of witnesses: "You owe me a maneh" and the colleague admits the obligation, the testimony of the witnesses is not significant. Nevertheless, in all these situations, when the principals come to the court, we tell the defendant: "Why don't you pay the debt you owe him?"
If he says: "I do not owe him anything," we tell him: "Behold you made a statement saying this-and-this in the presence of these individuals," or "You admitted the obligation on your own initiative." If he arises and makes restitution, that is desirable. If he does not offer a defense, we do not suggest one for him. If, however, he claims: "I was speaking frivolously with him," "The event never occurred," or "I did not want to appear wealthy," he is not liable and is required to take a sh'vuat hesset, as we have explained in the previous halachah.
____________________________
Hayom Yom:
Monday, 17 Cheshvan 5775 • 10 November 2014

"Today's Day"
Monday, Cheshvan 17, 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: Chayei Sara, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 83-87.
Tanya: Now, it is (p. 573) ...waters of lustration..." (p. 575).

Time must be guarded. It is urgent to "accept the yoke of Torah." Every bit of time, every day that passes, is not just a day but a life's concern. Days go by; as the Talmud says (Yerushalmi Berachot 1:1), "A day enters and a day departs, a week enters etc.,... a month etc.,... a year etc.,..." My father quoted the Alter Rebbe: A summer day and a winter night are a year.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
A Small Candle
You don't need to move mountains.
You just need to know where to aim.
You can transform an entire family forever just with one candle lit by one little girl.(19 Kislev 5735:5.)
____________________________