Today's Laws & Customs:
• Eat in Sukkah (7 days)
The festival of Sukkot, commemorating G-d's enveloping protection of the Children of Israel during their 40-year journey through the desert (1313-1273 BCE), is celebrated for seven days, beginning from the eve of Tishrei 15. During this time, we are commanded to "dwell" in asukkah -- a hut of temporary construction, with a roof covering of raw, unfinished vegetable matter (branches, reeds, bamboo, etc.) -- signifying the temporality and fragily of human habitation and man-made shelter and our utter dependence upon G-d's protection and providence. "How [does one fulfill] the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah? One should eat, drink, and live in the sukkah, both day and night, as one lives in one's house on the other days of the year: for seven days a person should make his home his temporary dwelling, and his sukkah his permanent dwelling" (Code of Jewish Law, Orach Chaim 639:1).
At least one k'zayit (approx. 1 oz.) of bread should be eaten in the sukkah on the first evening of the festival, between nightfall and midnight. A special blessing, Leishiv BaSukkah, is recited. For the rest of the festival, all meals must be eaten in the sukkah (see the Code of Jewish Lawor consult a Halachic authority as to what constitutes a "meal"). Chabad custom is to refrain from eating or drinking anything outside of the sukkah, even a glass of water.
Also see: the Ushpizin
Links: The Big Sukkah; The Temporary Dwelling; The Easy Mitzvah
• "Water Drawing" Celebrations (7 nights)
When the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem, one of the special Sukkot observances was to pour water on the Altar. The drawing of water for this purpose was preceded by all-night celebrations in the Temple courtyard; on the 15 steps leading to the azarah (inner courtyard) stood Levites while playing a variety of musical instruments, sages danced and juggled burning torches, and huge oil-burning lamps illuminated the entire city. The singing and dancing went on until daybreak, when a procession would make its way to the Shiloach Spring which flowed in a valley below the Temple to "draw water with joy." "One who did not see the joy of the water-drawing celebrations," declared the sages of the Talmud, "has not seen joy in his life."
While water was poured each day of the fetival, the special celebrations were held only onChol Hamoed since many of the elements of the celebration (e.g., the playing of musical instruments) are forbidden on Yom Tov.
Today, we commemorate these joyous celebrations by holding Simchat Beit HaShoeivah ("joy of the water drawing") events in the streets, with music and dancing. The Lubavitcher Rebbe initiated the custom of holding such celebrations on Shabbat and Yom Tov as well -- without musical instruments of course. The fact that we cannot celebrate as we did in the Temple, said the Rebbe, means that we are free to celebrate the joy of Sukkot with singing and dancing every day of the festival.
Link: The Taste of Water
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vezot Hab'rachah, 7th Portion Deuteronomy 34:1-34:12 with Rashi
• Chapter 34
1And Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, [to the] top of the summit facing Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the Land: The Gilead until Dan, אוַיַּעַל משֶׁה מֵעַרְבֹת מוֹאָב אֶל הַר נְבוֹ רֹאשׁ הַפִּסְגָּה אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי יְרֵחוֹ וַיַּרְאֵהוּ יְהֹוָה אֶת כָּל הָאָרֶץ אֶת הַגִּלְעָד עַד דָּן:
from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo: There were many levels [leading up from the plain to the summit], but Moses covered them with one step. — [Sotah 13b] מערבות מואב אל הר נבו: כמה מעלות היו ופסען משה בפסיעה אחת:
all the Land: He showed him the entire Land of Israel in its tranquility, and the oppressors who were destined to oppress it. — [Sifrei 33:30] את כל הארץ: הראהו את כל ארץ ישראל בשלותה והמציקין העתידים להיות מציקין לה:
until Dan: He showed him the children of Dan practicing idolatry, as Scripture states, “And the children of Dan set up for themselves the graven image” (Jud. 18:30), and He showed him Samson, who was destined to issue from him [Dan] as a savior [for Israel]. — [ibid.] עד דן: הראהו בני דן עובדים עבודה זרה שנאמר (שופטים יח, ל) ויקימו להם בני דן את הפסל, והראהו שמשון שעתיד לצאת ממנו למושיע:
2and all [the land of] Naftali, and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, until the western sea, בוְאֵת כָּל נַפְתָּלִי וְאֶת אֶרֶץ אֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה וְאֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ יְהוּדָה עַד הַיָּם הָאַחֲרוֹן:
And all [the land of] Naftali: He showed him his land in its tranquility and in its destruction, and He showed him Deborah and Barak of Kedesh-Naftali, waging war against Sisera and his troops. — [Sifrei 33:31] ואת כל נפתלי: הראהו ארצו בשלותה וחורבנה, והראהו דבורה וברק מקדש נפתלי נלחמים עם סיסרא וחיילותיו:
and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh: He showed him their land in its tranquility and in its destruction; and He showed him Joshua, who was descended from Ephraim, waging war against the kings of Canaan, and Gideon, who was descended from Manasseh, waging war against Midian and Amalek. — [Sifrei 33:31] ואת ארץ אפרים ומנשה: הראהו ארצם בשלותה ובחורבנה והראהו יהושע נלחם עם מלכי כנען שבא מאפרים, וגדעון שבא ממנשה נלחם עם מדין ועמלק:
and all the land of Judah: in its tranquility and in its destruction, and He showed him the kingdom of the house of David and their victories. — [Sifrei 33:31] ואת כל ארץ יהודה: בשלותה ובחורבנה והראהו מלכות בית דוד ונצחונם:
until the western sea: Heb. עַד הַיָּם הָאַחֲרוֹן, the land in the west [of Israel], in its tranquillity and in its destruction. [Here, the sea referred to is the Mediterranean Sea, which represents the westernmost flank of the Land of Israel.] Another explanation: Do not understand the verse as stating הַיָּם הָאַחֲרוֹן, but read it as though it had said הַיּוֹם הָאַחֲרוֹן, “until the very last day,” meaning that the Holy One, blessed is He, showed Him all the incidents that were destined to happen to Israel [until “the last day,” namely,] until the time that the dead would return to life. — [Sifrei 33:31] עד הים האחרון: ארץ המערב בשלותה ובחורבנה. דבר אחר אל תקרי הים האחרון אלא היום האחרון, הראהו הקב"ה כל המאורעות שעתידין לארע לישראל עד שיחיו המתים:
3and the south, and the plain, the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, until Zoar. גוְאֶת הַנֶּגֶב וְאֶת הַכִּכָּר בִּקְעַת יְרֵחוֹ עִיר הַתְּמָרִים עַד צֹעַר:
and the south: Heb. הַנֶּגֶב, the southland [of the Land of Israel]. Another explanation: the Machpelah Cave [which is in Hebron, in the south of Israel], as Scripture states, “And they went up to the south בַנֶּגֶב, and they came to Hebron” (Num. 13:22). - [Sifrei 33:32] ואת הנגב: ארץ הדרום. דבר אחר מערת המכפלה, שנאמר (במדבר יג, כב) ויעלו בנגב ויבא עד חברון:
and the plain: He showed him Solomon molding the vessels of the Holy Temple, as Scripture states, “In the plain (כִּכָּר) of the Jordan, the king molded them in thick clay” (I Kings 7:46). - [Sifrei 33:31] ואת הככר: הראהו שלמה יוצק כלי בית המקדש, שנאמר (מ"א א' ז, מו) בככר הירדן יצקם המלך במעבה האדמה:
4And the Lord said to him, "This is the Land I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, 'I will give it to your offspring.' I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there." דוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֵלָיו זֹאת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב לֵאמֹר לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה הֶרְאִיתִיךָ בְעֵינֶיךָ וְשָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲבֹר:
saying, ‘I will give it to your offspring,’ I have let you see it: so that you [Moses] can go and say to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, “The oath that the Holy One, blessed is He, swore to you-He has fulfilled it!” This is what is meant by the word “saying” [i.e., Moses should say this to them] (Ber. 18b).“For this reason,” [God says to Moses,] “I have shown it to you. However, a decree has been made before Me, that you shall not cross over there, for otherwise, I would keep you alive until you would see Israel implanted and settled in the Land, and then you would go and tell them [the forefathers].” לאמר לזרעך אתננה הראיתיך: כדי שתלך ותאמר לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב שבועה שנשבע לכם הקב"ה קיימה, וזהו לאמר, לכך הראיתיה לך, אבל גזרה היא מלפני ששמה לא תעבור, שאלולי כך הייתי מקיימך עד שתראה אותם נטועים וקבועים בה ותלך ותגיד להם:
5And Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there, in the land of Moab, by the mouth of the Lord. הוַיָּמָת שָׁם משֶׁה עֶבֶד יְהֹוָה בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב עַל פִּי יְהֹוָה:
And Moses… died there: Is it possible that Moses died, and [then] wrote, “And Moses… died there”? But [the answer is:] Moses wrote up to that juncture, and Joshua wrote from then on. Says Rabbi Meir: But is it possible that the Torah Scroll would be lacking anything at all, and yet Scripture states (Deut. 31:26),“Take this Torah Scroll” [and Moses commanded this to the Levites; so, according to the above opinion, is it possible that the Torah Scroll referred to there was an incomplete one, up to the juncture of Moses’s death? This cannot be!] Rather, [continues Rabbi Meir, we must say that] The Holy One, blessed is He, dictated this [i.e., the verse “And Moses… died there”], and Moses wrote it in tears. — [B.B. 15b, Sifrei 33:34] וימת שם משה: אפשר משה מת וכתב וימת שם משה, אלא עד כאן כתב משה, מכאן ואילך כתב יהושע. ר' מאיר אומר אפשר ספר התורה חסר כלום, והוא אומר (לעיל לא, כו) לקוח את ספר התורה הזה, אלא הקב"ה אומר ומשה כותב בדמע:
by the mouth of the Lord: [i.e., Moses died] by a Divine kiss. — [B.B. 17a] על פי ה': בנשיקה:
6And He buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Pe'or. And no person knows the place of his burial, unto this day. ווַיִּקְבֹּר אֹתוֹ בַגַּי בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר וְלֹא יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת קְבֻרָתוֹ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה:
And He buried him: i.e., The Holy One, blessed is He, Himself, in His very glory [buried Moses]. — [Sotah 14a] Rabbi Ishmael, however, says that [the words“And he buried him” mean that] Moses buried himself. And this אֶת in the phrase here וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ is one of the three instances of the אֶת in Scripture which Rabbi Ishmael expounded on in this way [i.e., where the suffix attached אֶת is understood to be reflexive, meaning “to himself” , “to themselves” , and so on]. And similar to this case [are the following two instances]:“On the day when his Nazirite vow is completed, he must bring him (אֹתוֹ) ” (Num. 6:13), which means, “he shall bring himself” [i.e., present himself]. And likewise,“And they cause them (אוֹתָם) to bear the sin of their guilt” (Lev. 22:16). Surely does this refer to others causing them to bear that sin? Rather, the verse must mean that they cause themselves to bear the sin. — [Sifrei Nasso 32:124] ויקבר אותו: הקב"ה בכבודו. רבי ישמעאל אומר הוא קבר את עצמו, וזהו אחד משלשה אתין שהיה רבי ישמעאל דורש כן. כיוצא בו (במדבר ו, יג) ביום מלאת ימי נזרו יביא אותו, הוא מביא את עצמו. כיוצא בו (ויקרא כב, טז) והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, וכי אחרים משיאים אותם, אלא הם משיאים את עצמם:
opposite Beth Pe’or: His burial site was ready there [at Beth Pe’or], since the six days of Creation, to atone for the [sinful] act of Pe’or. — [see Num. 25:1-8; Sotah 14a] This [Moses’s burial site] was one of the things created at twilight, on the eve of [the first] Sabbath. — [Avoth 5:6] מול בית פעור: קברו היה מוכן שם מששת ימי בראשית לכפר על מעשה פעור, וזה אחד מן הדברים שנבראו בערב שבת בין השמשות:
7Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eye had not dimmed, nor had he lost his [natural] freshness. זוּמשֶׁה בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה בְּמֹתוֹ לֹא כָהֲתָה עֵינוֹ וְלֹא נָס לֵחֹה:
His eye had not dimmed: Even after he died. — [see Sifrei 33:36] לא כהתה עינו: אף משמת:
nor had he lost his [natural] freshness: [The word לֵחֹה refers to his [body’s] moisture. [Thus, the phrase means:] “[Even after his death,] decomposition did not take over his body, nor did the appearance of his face change.” ולא נס לחה: לחלוחית שבו לא שלט בו רקבון ולא נהפך תואר פניו:
8And the sons of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab for thirty days, and the days of weeping over the mourning for Moses came to an end. חוַיִּבְכּוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת משֶׁה בְּעַרְבֹת מוֹאָב שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם וַיִּתְּמוּ יְמֵי בְכִי אֵבֶל משֶׁה:
The sons of Israel: [ordinarily meaning the children of Israel, male and female. But here, it refers only to] the males [who wept for Moses]. However, concerning [the passing of] Aaron, since he used to pursue peace and bring peace between a man and his fellow and between a woman and her husband, it is said [at Aaron’s passing], “The whole house of Israel [wept for him]” (Num. 20:29), meaning both males and females. — [Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 17] בני ישראל: הזכרים, אבל באהרן מתוך שהיה רודף שלום ונותן שלום בין איש לרעהו ובין אשה לבעלה נאמר (במדבר כ, כט) כל בית ישראל, זכרים ונקבות:
9And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands upon him. And the children of Israel obeyed him, and they did as the Lord had commanded Moses. טוִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן מָלֵא רוּחַ חָכְמָה כִּי סָמַךְ משֶׁה אֶת יָדָיו עָלָיו וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֵלָיו בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
10And there was no other prophet who arose in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, יוְלֹא קָם נָבִיא עוֹד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר יְדָעוֹ יְהֹוָה פָּנִים אֶל פָּנִים:
whom the Lord knew face to face: For he was quite familiar with Him, speaking with Him at any time he wished, as it is said, “So now I will go up to the Lord” (Exod. 32:30), and, “You stand still, and I will listen to what the Lord will command concerning you” (Num. 9:8). אשר ידעו ה' פנים אל פנים: שהיה לבו גס בו ומדבר אליו בכל עת שרוצה, כענין שנאמר (שמות לב, ל) ועתה אעלה אל ה', (במדבר ט, ח) עמדו ואשמעה מה יצוה ה' לכם:
11as manifested by all the signs and wonders, which the Lord had sent him to perform in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and all his servants, and to all his land, יאלְכָל הָאֹתֹת וְהַמּוֹפְתִים אֲשֶׁר שְׁלָחוֹ יְהֹוָה לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם לְפַרְעֹה וּלְכָל עֲבָדָיו וּלְכָל אַרְצוֹ:
12and all the strong hand, and all the great awe, which Moses performed before the eyes of all Israel. יבוּלְכֹל הַיָּד הַחֲזָקָה וּלְכֹל הַמּוֹרָא הַגָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה משֶׁה לְעֵינֵי כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל:
and all the strong hand: [This refers to] his receiving the Torah on the Tablets with his hands. ולכל היד החזקה: שקבל את התורה בלוחות בידיו:
And all the great awe: [This refers to the] miracles and mighty deeds [that were performed for Israel] in the great and awesome wilderness. — [Sifrei 33:41] ולכל המורא הגדול: נסים וגבורות שבמדבר הגדול והנורא:
before the eyes of all Israel: [This expression alludes to the incident where] his heart stirred him up to smash the tablets before their eyes, as it is said, “and I shattered them before your eyes” (Deut. 9:17). - [Sifrei 33:41] And [regarding Moses shattering the Tablets,] the Holy One Blessed is He gave His approval, as Scripture states, “[the first Tablets] which you shattered” (Exod. 34:1); [God said to Moses:] “Well done for shattering them!” - [Shab. 87a] לעיני כל ישראל: שנשאו לבו לשבור הלוחות לעיניהם, שנאמר (לעיל ט, יז) ואשברם לעיניכם, והסכימה דעת הקב"ה לדעתו, שנאמר (שמות לד, א) אשר שברת, יישר כחך ששברת:Daily Tehillim: Chapters 97 - 103
• Chapter 97
1. When the Lord will reveal His kingship, the earth will exult; the multitudes of islands will rejoice.
2. Clouds and dense darkness will surround Him; justice and mercy will be the foundation of His throne.
3. Fire will go before Him and consume His foes all around.
4. His lightnings will illuminate the world; the earth will see and tremble.
5. The mountains will melt like wax before the Lord, before the Master of all the earth.
6. The heavens will declare His justice, and all the nations will behold His glory.
7. All who worship graven images, who take pride in idols, will be ashamed; all idol worshippers will prostrate themselves before Him.
8. Zion will hear and rejoice, the towns of Judah will exult, because of Your judgments, O Lord.
9. For You, Lord, transcend all the earth; You are exceedingly exalted above all the supernal beings.
10. You who love the Lord, hate evil; He watches over the souls of His pious ones, He saves them from the hand of the wicked.
11. Light is sown for the righteous, and joy for the upright in heart.
12. Rejoice in the Lord, you righteous, and extol His holy Name.
Chapter 98
This psalm describes how Israel will praise God for the Redemption.
1. A psalm. Sing to the Lord a new song, for He has performed wonders; His right hand and holy arm have wrought deliverance for Him.
2. The Lord has made known His salvation; He has revealed His justice before the eyes of the nations.
3. He has remembered His kindness and faithfulness to the House of Israel; all, from the farthest corners of the earth, witnessed the deliverance by our God.
4. Raise your voices in jubilation to the Lord, all the earth; burst into joyous song and chanting.
5. Sing to the Lord with a harp, with a harp and the sound of song.
6. With trumpets and the sound of the shofar, jubilate before the King, the Lord.
7. The sea and its fullness will roar in joy, the earth and its inhabitants.
8. The rivers will clap their hands, the mountains will sing together.
9. [They will rejoice] before the Lord, for He has come to judge the earth; He will judge the world with justice, and the nations with righteousness.
Chapter 99
This psalm refers to the wars of Gog and Magog, which will precede the Redemption.
1. When the Lord will reveal His kingship, the nations will tremble; the earth will quake before Him Who is enthroned upon the cherubim,
2. [before] the Lord Who is in Zion, Who is great and exalted above all the peoples.
3. They will extol Your Name which is great, awesome and holy.
4. And [they will praise] the might of the King Who loves justice. You have established uprightness; You have made [the laws of] justice and righteousness in Jacob.
5. Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down at His footstool; He is holy.
6. Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who invoke His Name, would call upon the Lord and He would answer them.
7. He would speak to them from a pillar of cloud; they observed His testimonies and the decrees which He gave them.
8. Lord our God, You have answered them; You were a forgiving God for their sake, yet bringing retribution for their own misdeeds.
9. Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down at His holy mountain, for the Lord our God is holy.
Chapter 100
This psalm inspires the hearts of those who suffer in this world. Let them, nevertheless, serve God with joy, for all is for their good, as in the verse: "He whom God loves does He chastise." The psalm also refers to the thanksgiving sacrifice-the only sacrifice to be offered in the Messianic era.
1. A psalm of thanksgiving. Let all the earth sing in jubilation to the Lord.
2. Serve the Lord with joy; come before Him with exultation.
3. Know that the Lord is God; He has made us and we are His, His people and the sheep of His pasture.
4. Enter His gates with gratitude, His courtyards with praise; give thanks to Him, bless His Name.
5. For the Lord is good; His kindness is everlasting, and His faithfulness is for all generations.
Chapter 101
This psalm speaks of David's secluding himself from others, and of his virtuous conduct even in his own home.
1. By David, a psalm. I will sing of [Your] kindness and justice; to You, O Lord, will I chant praise!
2. I will pay heed to the path of integrity-O when will it come to me? I shall walk with the innocence of my heart [even] within my house.
3. I shall not place an evil thing before my eyes; I despise the doing of wayward deeds, it does not cling to me.
4. A perverse heart shall depart from me; I shall not know evil.
5. He who slanders his fellow in secret, him will I cut down; one with haughty eyes and a lustful heart, him I cannot suffer.
6. My eyes are upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me; he who walks in the path of integrity, he shall minister to me.
7. He that practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; the speaker of lies shall have no place before my eyes.
8. Every morning I will cut down all the wicked of the land, to excise all evildoers from the city of the Lord.
Chapter 102
An awe-inspiring prayer for the exiled, and an appropriate prayer for anyone in distress.
1. A prayer of the poor man when he is faint [with affliction], and pours out his tale of woe before the Lord.
2. O Lord, hear my prayer, let my cry reach You!
3. Hide not Your face from me on the day of my distress; turn Your ear to me; on the day that I call, answer me quickly.
4. For my days have vanished with the smoke; my bones are dried up as a hearth.
5. Smitten like grass and withered is my heart, for I have forgotten to eat my bread.
6. From the voice of my sigh, my bone cleaves to my flesh.
7. I am like the bird of the wilderness; like the owl of the wasteland have I become.
8. In haste I fled; I was like a bird, alone on a roof.
9. All day my enemies disgrace me; those who ridicule me curse using my name.1
10. For I have eaten ashes like bread, and mixed my drink with tears,
11. because of Your anger and Your wrath-for You have raised me up, then cast me down.
12. My days are like the fleeting shadow; I wither away like the grass.
13. But You, Lord, will be enthroned forever, and Your remembrance is for all generations.
14. You will arise and have mercy on Zion, for it is time to be gracious to her; the appointed time has come.
15. For Your servants cherish her stones, and love her dust.
16. Then the nations will fear the Name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth Your glory,
17. when [they see that] the Lord has built Zion, He has appeared in His glory.
18. He turned to the entreaty of the prayerful, and did not despise their prayer.
19. Let this be written for the last generation, so that the newborn nation will praise the Lord.
20. For He looked down from His holy heights; from heaven, the Lord gazed upon the earth,
21. to hear the cry of the bound, to untie those who are doomed to die,
22. so that the Name of the Lord be declared in Zion, and His praise in Jerusalem,
23. when nations and kingdoms will gather together to serve the Lord.
24. He weakened my strength on the way; He shortened my days.
25. I would say: "My God, do not remove me in the midst of my days! You Whose years endure through all generations.”
26. In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.
27. They will perish, but You will endure; all of them will wear out like a garment; You will exchange them like a robe, and they will vanish.
28. But You remain the same; Your years will not end.
29. The children of Your servants will abide; their seed shall be established before You.
Chapter 103
David's prayer when he was ill, this psalm is an appropriate prayer on behalf of the sick, especially when offered by the sick person himself while his soul is yet in his body. He can then bless God from his depths, body and soul. Read, and find repose for your soul.
1. By David. Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all my being, His holy Name.
2. My soul, bless the Lord; forget not all His favors:
3. Who forgives all your sins, Who heals all your illnesses;
4. Who redeems your life from the grave, Who crowns you with kindness and mercy;
5. Who satisfies your mouth with goodness; like the eagle, your youth is renewed.
6. The Lord executes righteousness and justice for all the oppressed.
7. He made His ways known to Moses, His deeds to the Children of Israel.
8. The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and of great kindness.
9. He will not contend for eternity, nor harbor ill will forever.
10. He has not dealt with us according to our transgressions, nor requited us according to our sins.
11. For as high as heaven is above the earth, so has His kindness been mighty over those who fear Him.
12. As far as the east is from the west, so has He distanced our transgressions from us.
13. As a father has compassion on his children, so has the Lord had compassion on those who fear Him.
14. For He knows our nature; He is mindful that we are but dust.
15. As for man, his days are like grass; like a flower of the field, so he sprouts.
16. When a wind passes over him, he is gone; his place recognizes him no more.
17. But the kindness of the Lord is forever and ever upon those who fear Him, and His righteousness is [secured] for children's children,
18. to those who keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commands to do them.
19. The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His kingship has dominion over all.
20. Bless the Lord, you His angels who are mighty in strength, who do His bidding to obey the voice of His speech.
21. Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants who do His will.
22. Bless the Lord, all His works, in all the places of His dominion. My soul, bless the Lord!
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, beginning of Epistle 23• Lessons in Tanya
• Shabbat, Tishrei 20, 5776 · October 3, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Iggeret HaKodesh, beginning of Epistle 23
In the letter that follows, the Alter Rebbe urges chassidim to devote the daily interval between Minchah and Maariv to the group study of Ein Yaakov, and to the laws in the Shulchan Aruch that have frequent and practical application. He introduces this appeal by explaining how sublime is the Divine Presence that dwells within Jews when they study Torah publicly. Indeed, only in the World to Come can this lofty level of Divinity be manifestly received as a reward — except when it abidesover Jews and within Jews when, in this world, they study Torah together.
בגזירת עירין פתגמא ומאמר קדישין
“This statement is made by decree of the wakeful [angels] and by the word of [those] holy ones,”
This phrase1 is used by the Sages2 (and here by the Alter Rebbe) to denote eminent Torah scholars, who are likened to ministering angels;3 specifically —
חכמי המשנה, עליהם השלום
the Mishnaic Sages, peace be upon them,
ששנו במשנתם: עשרה שיושבין ועוסקין בתורה, שכינה שרויה ביניהם
who taught in their Mishnah:4 “If ten people sit togeth-er and engage in the study of the Torah, the Divine Presence (the Shechinah) rests among them.”
A similar teaching5 — “The Shechinah hovers over every gathering of ten Jews” — means only that the Divine Presence hovers over them in a transcendent (lit., “encompassing”) manner, as explained at the end of ch. 11 of Tanya. In this instance, however, where ten Jews are studying Torah together, the Shechinah rests “among them” — in an internalized manner.
כי זה כל האדם
“For this is the whole [purpose] of man.”6 As the Gemara7 interprets this verse: “The entire world was created solely for this purpose.”
ואף גם זאת היתה כל ירידתו בעולם הזה, לצורך עליה זו
Moreover, [the soul’s] very descent to this world was for the purpose of this ascent, which is accomplished through public Torah study,
אשר אין עליה למעלה הימנה
and no [possible] ascent is higher than this.
The ultimate ascent of the soul, the reason for which the soul initially descended, is attained not only after it completes its descent, after it leaves the body; rather, through public Torah study while the soul is still within the body, it causes theShechinah to rest in this nether world, and is thereby elevated more than by any other means.
כי שכינת עוזו אשר בגבהי מרומים, והשמים ושמי השמים לא יכלכלו אימתה
For the Shechinah of [G‑d’s] Might which is in the supernal heights, and Whose awesomeness8 “the heavens and the heavens of the heavens cannot contain,”
תשכון ותתגדל בתוך בני ישראל, כמו שכתוב: כי אני ה׳ שוכן בתוך בני ישראל
dwells and becomes magnified among the Children of Israel, as it is written,9 “For I, G‑d, dwell among (תוך) the Children of Israel,”
על ידי עסק התורה והמצות בעשרה דוקא
as a result of [their] study of the Torah and observance of the commandments in groups of [at least] ten,for ten Jews constitute a congregation.
כמו שאמרו רז״ל: אתיא תוך תוך כו׳
For, as our Sages of blessed memory said,10 “We infer a conclusion from [two appearances of] the word toch.”
In certain specified cases, the Sages draw an analogy from one expression in the Torah to the identical expression in a different context. A comparison of this kind (a gezeirah shavah) is made between two appearances of the above word. One verse states,11 “I will become sanctified in the midst (toch) of the Children of Israel,” while another verse, referring to ten of the spies dispatched by Moses, states,12 “...from the midst (toch) of this congregation.” From this we learn that the congregational recital of a davar shebikedushah, a text involving the sanctification of G‑d’s Name, requires a quorum of ten.
The Rebbe Rayatz asks:13 Of all the possible contexts, why do our Sages derive this rule from the evil assemblage of the spies, concerning whom the above-quoted verse in fact states, “Separate yourselves from the midst of this congregation”?
Answering his own question, the Rebbe Rayatz explains that with these words Moses sought to insulate the people from the makkif of evil, from the transcendent [and most intense] dimension of evil. (As far as the pnimi of evil was concerned, the permeating [but less intense] dimension of evil, Moses was able to rectify it.) Now, since everything in the realm of holiness has its counterpart in kelipah, in the forces of evil,14 it follows that the level of holiness referred to here is the transcendent level. Thus, when a congregation of at least ten participants engages collectively in prayer or in Torah study or in the observance of a mitzvah, they elicit a response from a transcendent level of Divine light, from an or makkif, that is utterly superior to the light called forth by a group of fewer than ten.
ועל זה נאמר: בקרבך קדוש
Concerning this it is written,15 “The Holy One is within you.”
This means to say that a level of Divinity which is holy in the sense that it is initially distinct from this world, is thereby drawn down and integrated within the ten or more people involved.
As the Rebbe Rayatz explains in the above-mentioned talk, the Alter Rebbe had spoken earlier of the transcendent degree of illumination that merely encompasses one; at this point he cites the phrase “The Holy One is within you” to indicate that this encompassing illumination can also become internalized within a Jew.
ואין דבר שבקדושה בפחות מעשרה
Likewise, “[the congregational recital of] a davar shebikedushah, a text involving the sanctification of G‑d’s Name, requires a quorum of ten,” as quoted above.16
Thus, in order that the holiness be “within you,” it is necessary that the Torah be studied in groups of at least ten.
ומשום הכי נמי אצטריך להו לרז״ל למילף מקרא, מנין שאפילו אחד שיושב ועוסק בתורה כו׳
This also explains why our Sages, of blessed memory, had to derive from Scripture [an answer to their question],17 “From where do we know that even one person who sits and engages in the study of the Torah, [the Holy One, blessed be He, sets a reward for him]?”
The Mishnah18 derives its answer from the verse,19 “He sits alone and [studies] in stillness; indeed, he takes [the reward] unto himself.” Evidently, then, a proof text was needed to show that even individual study is rewarded.
ואף גם זאת לא מצאו לו סמך מן המקרא, אלא לקביעת שכר בלבד, ליחיד לפי ערכו, לפי ולפי ערך המרובים
And even so [the Sages] did not find in Scripture support for that, i.e., they did not find support for the proposition that an individual can bring about the previously-mentioned indwelling of G‑d’s holiness, but only for the allotment of a reward to the individual, proportionate to himself [and]20 in proportion to the many.
If there are fewer than ten individuals, the reward is divided equally among them. According to the version “[and] in proportion...,” the more individuals participate, the greater the reward for each of them.
אבל לענין השראת קדושת הקב״ה, אין לו ערך אליהם כלל
But as to causing an indwelling of G‑d’s holiness,21 [the individual] cannot be compared to [the congregation] at all.
The sanctity drawn down through group study of the Torah is immeasurably more sublime.
* * *
וההפרש שבין השראה לקביעות שכר, מובן למביני מדע
The distinction between [causing a Divine] indwelling (by collective study) and the allotment of a reward (to an individual student), is understood by discerning thinkers.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Daniel 4:14. |
| 2. | Note of the Rebbe: “Pesachim 33a.” |
| 3. | Note of the Rebbe: “Rashi, loc. cit.; see there.” |
| 4. | Avot 3:6. |
| 5. | Sanhedrin 39a. |
| 6. | Kohelet 12:13. |
| 7. | Berachot 6b. |
| 8. | Cf. I Melachim 8:27. |
| 9. | Bamidbar 35:34. |
| 10. | Berachot 21b. |
| 11. | Vayikra 22:32. |
| 12. | Bamidbar 16:21. |
| 13. | Sefer HaSichot 5704, p. 29. |
| 14. | Kohelet 7:14. |
| 15. | Yeshayahu 123:6. |
| 16. | Berachot 21b. |
| 17. | Cf. Avot 3:6. |
| 18. | Cf. Avot 3:6. |
| 19. | Eichah 3:8. |
| 20. | Brackets are in the original text. |
| 21. | Note of the Rebbe: “The question here is well known — that the above-quoted mishnah (Avot 3:2) teaches that [even if only] ‘two people sit together and exchange words of Torah, the Shechinah dwells in their midst.’“ This may be understood in the light of Or HaTorah [by the Tzemach Tzedek] on Parshat Eikev, p. 542; see also Berachot6a.“ At the end of Part VI of Magen Avot: (1) there is a different version of the above letter; (2) according to the explanation there (evidently taken from the Tzemach Tzedek), the above difficulty can be resolved.” See also Tanya, Mahadura Kama, p. 261, footnote 13, line 48. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Today's Mitzvah
Shabbat, Tishrei 20, 5776 · October 3, 2015
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
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 244
The Borrower
"And if a man borrows from his neighbor..."—Exodus 22:13.
We are commanded [to follow all the laws outlined in the Torah] regarding one who borrows an object from his fellow.
The Borrower
The Borrower
Positive Commandment 244
Translated by Berel Bell
The 244th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the law of a borrower.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If a person borrows something from another..."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 8th chapter of tractate Bava Metzia and the 8th chapter of Shavuos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 22:13.
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
How do we define the term touch when we say that a gentile1 who touches wine causes it to be forbidden? Touching the wine itself whether with his hands2 or with any of his other limbs with which it is customary to pour a libation3 and shook the wine.4
If, however, he extended his hand to a barrel and his hand was grabbed before he could remove [any wine] or shake it, [there is room for leniency]. If the barrel was opened from below and the wine was allowed to flow out to the extent that it reached below his hand, the wine is not forbidden.5
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
When a gentile was holding a container on the ground and a Jew poured wine into it, the wine is permitted.11 If the gentile shakes the container, the wine becomes forbidden.
Halacha 4
It is permitted to have a gentile move a closed [container of wine] from one place to another even though the wine moves. For this is not the manner in which a libation is made.12
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
If wine moves because of a gentile's power although he did not intend to do so, since he did not touch the wine, it is permitted to drink it.22 What is implied? If he lifted up a container of wine and poured it into another container while thinking that it was beer or oil, [the wine] is permitted.
Halacha 7
If a gentile entered a house or a store seeking wine and extended his hand to search for it and touched wine,23 [the wine] is forbidden. [The rationale is that] he was intending [to touch] wine. This is not considered as touching without intent.
Halacha 8
When a barrel is split lengthwise and a gentile comes and embraces it so that the halves will not separate24 it is permitted to benefit from [the wine].25 If, however, it split widthwise and he grabbed the upper half so that it will not fall, it is permitted to drink [the wine]. For the wine is not affected by the gentile's power.
Halacha 9
When a gentile fell into a cistern of wine and was hoisted up dead,26measured a cistern containing wine with a reed, swatted away a fly or a hornet from it with a reed,27 patted a boiling bottle of wine so that the boiling would cease28 or took a barrel and threw it into the cistern in anger,29it is merely permitted to benefit from the wine. If, [in the first instance,] the gentile was raised [from the cistern] alive, it is forbidden to benefit from the wine.30
Halacha 10
When there is a hole on the side of a barrel, the stopper slips away from the hole, and a gentile places his finger over the hole so that the wine will not flow out, all of the wine from the top of the barrel until the hole is forbidden.31 It is, however, permitted to drink the wine beneath the hole.32
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply when] one end of a bent outflow pipe made from metal, glass, or the like is placed in wine and the other end extends out of the barrel. If one sucked on the wine and the wine began flowing out as is always done, and a gentile came and place his finger at the end of the outflow pipe and prevent the wine from flowing outward, all of the wine in the barrel is forbidden.33 [The rationale is that] were it not for his hand, everything [in the barrel] would have flowed out. Thus all the wine is affected by his power.
Halacha 12
When a person pours wine into a receptacle containing gentile wine, all of the wine in the upper container is forbidden.34 [The rationale is that] the column of wine being poured connects35 between the wine in the upper container and the wine in the lower container. Therefore when a person is measuring wine for a gentile into a container in the latter's hands, he should interrupt [the column of wine before it reaches the utensil] or throw the wine so that [the column of wine] being poured will not establish a connection and cause the wine remaining in the upper container to become forbidden.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply with regard to] a container possessed by a Jew that has two "nostrils,"40 that emerge from it, like containers that are used to wash hands, and is filled with wine. If a Jew is sucking and drinking from one nostril and a gentile is sucking and drinking from the other nostril, this is permitted,41provided the Jew begins [drinking] and concludes while the gentile is still drinking. When the gentile stops drinking, all the wine that was in the nostril will return to the container and cause all the wine in it to be forbidden. [The rationale is that] the wine [in the nostril] was moved by [the gentile's] power.42
Halacha 15
When a gentile sucks wine from a container with an outflow pipe, all the wine in the container becomes forbidden.43 For when he ceases [sucking], all of the wine that entered the outflow pipe through his sucking will return to the barrel and cause it to become forbidden.
Halacha 16
When a gentile is transferring barrels of wine from one place to another together with a Jew and [the Jew] is walking after them to protect them, they are permitted even if he separates from him for a mil.44 [The rationale is] that he is afraid of him and will say: "He will suddenly appear before us and observe us."
[More stringent rules apply if the Jew] tells [gentile porters]: "Proceed and I will follow after you."45 If they pass beyond his sight to the extent that [they have time] to uncover the opening of the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out,46 it is forbidden to drink all of the wine.47 If for a lesser [time], [the wine] is permitted.48
Halacha 17
Similarly, if a Jew leaves a gentile in his store, even though he departs and enters, [going back and forth] the entire day, the wine is permitted.49 If he informs him that he is departing for a significant period, should he wait long enough [to enable the gentile] to open the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out, it is forbidden to drink the wine.50
Similarly, if a person left his wine in a wagon or a ship51 with a gentile and enters a city to tend to his needs, the wine is permitted.52 If he informs him that he is departing for a significant period, should he wait long enough [to enable the gentile] to open the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out, it is forbidden to drink the wine.
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
When [a Jew] was drinking together with a gentile and he heard the sound of prayer in the synagogue and departed, even the open wine is permitted. For the gentile will say: "Soon he will remember the wine, come hurriedly and see me touching his wine." Therefore [we do not suspect that] the gentile will move from his place. Hence only the wine that is before him57 becomes forbidden.58
Halacha 20
[The following rules apply when] a gentile and a Jew are living together in one courtyard59 and they both left in agitation60 to see a bridegroom or a funeral. If the gentile returns and closes the entrance and the Jew comes later, the open wine in the Jew's home remains permitted. [We assume that] the gentile closed [the entrance] with the assumption that the Jew had already entered his home and no one remained outside; [i.e.,] he thought that the Jew came before him.
Halacha 21
[The following rules apply when] wine belonging to both a Jew and a gentile [is being stored] in one building and [the Jew's] barrels were open. If the gentile entered the building and locked the door behind him,61 all the wine is forbidden.62 If there is a window in the door that enables a person standing behind the door to see in front of him, all of the barrels that are opposite the window are permitted. Those on the sides are forbidden. [The leniency is granted,] because the gentile will fear from those who can see him.
Halacha 22
Similarly, if a lion roared or the like and the gentile fled and hid among the open barrels, the wine is permitted. For he will say, "Perhaps another Jew also hid here and will see me if I touch [the wine]."
Halacha 23
[The following laws apply with regard to] a wine cellar whose barrels were open, a gentile also stored wine in that inn,63 and the gentile was discovered standing among the open barrels belonging to the Jew. If he was frightened when discovered and it would be considered as if he was a thief,64 it is permitted to drink the wine. For because of his fear and dread, he will not have the opportunity to pour a libation. If he would not be considered as a thief, but instead, he feels secure there, the wine is forbidden.65
When a [gentile] baby is discovered among the barrels, regardless of whether he would be considered like a thief or not, all of the wine is permitted.66
Halacha 24
When a battalion [of soldiers] enter a country with an approach of peace, all of the open barrels [of wine] in the stores are forbidden.67 The closed ones, by contrast, are permitted.68 At a time of war, however, if a battalion spread through a city and moved on, both are permitted,69 because they do not have time to make libations.
Halacha 25
[The following laws apply when] a gentile is discovered standing next to a cistern of wine [belonging to a Jew]. If [the Jew] owes him a debt for which this wine serves is collateral, [the wine] is forbidden.70 Since he feels privileged, he will extend his hand and make a libation. If it is not collateral for a debt, it is permitted to drink the wine.71
Halacha 26
When a gentile harlot is present at a Jewish feast, the wine is permitted. For she is in dread of them and will not touch [the wine].72 When, however, a Jewish harlot is present at a gentile feast, her wine73 that is before her in her utensils is forbidden, for [the gentiles] will touch it without her consent.74
Halacha 27
[The following lays apply when] a gentile is discovered in a winepress:75 If there is enough moisture from wine that when one places his hand in it, [the hand] will become moist to the extent that if it touches his other hand, that hand will become moist,76 it is necessary to wash out the winepress thoroughly and dry it out.77 If this amount is not present, all that is necessary is to wash it out thoroughly. This is an extra measure of stringency.78
Halacha 28
[The following rules apply with regard to] a barrel floating in the river. If it was found near a city populated primarily by Jews, we are permitted to benefit from it.79 Near a city populated primarily by gentiles, it is forbidden.
Halacha 29
In a place where most of the wine merchants are Jewish, if one discovers large containers that are generally used only by wine merchants to store wine and which are filled with wine, it is permitted to benefit from [the wine].80
When a barrel has been opened by thieves, if most of the local thieves are Jewish, it is permitted to drink the wine. If not, it is forbidden.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As the Rambam stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, unless otherwise specified, when he uses the term "gentile," he is referring to an idolater.
|
| 2. |
Or with an article held in his hand [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11)].
|
| 3. |
As evident from Chapter 11, Halachah 11, according to the Rambam, it is not customary to pour a libation with one's feet. Note, however, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11) which forbids wine that a gentile touched with his feet. The Rama, however, quotes the Rambam's view.
|
| 4. |
If, however, he did not cause the wine to move, it is forbidden to drink it, but one is allowed to benefit from it (Radbaz). In his Kessef Mishneh, however, Rav Yosef Caro notes that although there are authorities who agree with the ruling of the Radbaz, from the Rambam's wording, it appears that the wine is permitted entirely. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:13), he follows the majority view and rules that it is permitted only to benefit from such wine.
|
| 5. |
The Rambam is citing an incident that transpired as recorded by Avodah Zarah 59b. It is not forbidden to benefit from the wine. The question of whether or not it is forbidden to drink it depends on the difference of opinion mentioned in the previous note.
|
| 6. |
With regard to a closed container, see Halachah 4.
|
| 7. |
The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, maintaining that as long as the gentile does not touch the wine itself, lift the container, or cause the wine to spatter, moving an open utensil does not cause it to be forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:17) quotes the Rambam's ruling as a minority opinion and the Rama states that it need not be followed if financial loss is involved.
|
| 8. |
This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz.
|
| 9. |
There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries if only the wine that is poured out is forbidden or also the wine which remains in the container (Kessef Mishneh). The Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 125:1) quotes the more stringent view. The Rama mentions the more lenient opinion, but states that it may be followed only in a case of severe loss.
|
| 10. |
I.e., even to drink the wine. For merely lifting up the wine is of no consequence.
|
| 11. |
One may even drink it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:8)].
|
| 12. |
A libation is made only from an open container (see Avodah Zarah 60a).
|
| 13. |
This addition was made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz.
|
| 14. |
For this is equivalent to closing it.
|
| 15. |
The Rambam's source (Avodah Zarah 60a) and also the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:10) emphasize that we are referring to a situation where the Jew is following the gentile. Otherwise, the wine is certainly forbidden.
|
| 16. |
The Radbaz states that the same laws apply regardless of what the container was made of. Therefore he maintains that the word "earthenware" is a printer's error.
|
| 17. |
Although the Rashba maintains that one may benefit from the wine, most authorities rule that it is prohibited to benefit from it as well as to drink it [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].
|
| 18. |
Since the container is both open and full, it is highly likely that the gentile touched the wine (Avodah Zarah 60a).
|
| 19. |
For shaking the wine is equivalent to pouring it as a libation, as stated in Halachah 1.
|
| 20. |
I.e., it is forbidden to drink it, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 5.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:24) states that in the present era, most gentiles are not idolaters. Therefore, if they touch wine unintentionally, the wine is not forbidden at all.
|
| 21. |
This addition was made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.
|
| 22. |
According to Scriptural Law, as long as the gentile does not touch the wine, it is not forbidden. Although our Sages forbade wine which he shook without touching as a safeguard, that applies only when the gentile intentionally touches the container of the wine (see Avodah Zarah 58a).
|
| 23. |
Shaking it (Kessef Mishneh). According to the Rambam, this applies even though he did not know for certain that the article he touched was wine. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the gentile must know that the container contains wine when shaking it. Otherwise, it is not forbidden. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:12) quotes the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 24. |
And thus the wine will not spill.
|
| 25. |
See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:22).
|
| 26. |
In this instance, it is permitted to benefit from the wine, because the gentile is considered to have touched it without intending to. See Halachah 5. According to the Rama's view that the gentiles of the present age are not considered as idolaters, there is no prohibition against using such wine at all. This leniency should be accepted if a significant loss is involved (Siftei Cohen 124:55). This concept also applies to the remainder of the instances mentioned in this halachah.
|
| 27. |
In these instances, since the gentile did not touch the wine directly, merely by means of another entity, it is not forbidden to benefit from it.
|
| 28. |
Rashi, Avodah Zarah 60a, states that it is not forbidden to benefit from this wine, because this is not the ordinary way that one makes a libation. Kin'at Eliyahu asks: Since the wine is boiling, the entire prohibition against gentile wine seemingly should not apply, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 9?
|
| 29. |
In this instance also, the gentile did not touch the wine directly. Hence it is permitted to benefit from it.
The Ra'avad protests to this ruling, stating that if he threw the barrel into the cistern in anger, the wine in the cistern is not forbidden at all. Even if he intentionally threw the barrel into the cistern, it is still permitted to benefit from the wine for the reason mentioned. The Radbaz notes that the wording of Avodah Zarah, loc. cit., appears to support the Ra'avad's perspective, for it states that our Sages hikshiru, "considered acceptable," the wine. He, however, cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 4:11) which appears to fit the Rambam's perspective. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:19) quotes the Rambam's view. Nevertheless, the commentaries note that in Yoreh De'ah 125:5, the Shulchan Aruch, appears to support the Ra'avad's view.
|
| 30. |
For we assume that in his happiness over being saved, he will offer the wine as a libation to his false deity (Avodah Zarah, loc. cit.). The Turei Zahav 124:19 states that if the gentile was alive when taken from the cistern, the wine is forbidden even if he dies immediately afterwards.
|
| 31. |
One may not even benefit from it. Since the wine would have flowed out had the gentile not place his finger there, our Sages considered it as if he touched all of that wine.
|
| 32. |
Because this wine was not affected by the gentile's touch at all. Although this wine is touching the wine that is forbidden, it is not forbidden. The Ra'avad objects to such a ruling, maintaining that the entire barrel should be considered as mixed together. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's ruling, explaining that had the gentile inserted his finger in the hole and touched the wine, the entire barrel would have been forbidden. Here, however, we are speaking about an instance where the gentile stopped the wine from flowing by placing his finger on the outside. Therefore the wine above the hole is forbidden because it was affected by his power, as stated in the following halachah. This is merely a Rabbinic decree. Hence, the wine below the hole is not forbidden at all. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:23) follow the Ra'avad's view. See also Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 8:6.
|
| 33. |
This ruling applies when the opening to the outflow pipe is placed at the bottom of the barrel, so that all the wine would actually have flowed out had the gentile allowed it to. If it was not placed at the bottom of the barrel, the laws mentioned in the previous halachah apply (Radbaz; Siftei Cohen124:69).
|
| 34. |
From the Rambam's wording, it appears that this ruling applies with regard to all gentile wine, even when it was not known to have been used as a libation for a false deity. The Rambam, moreover, appears to forbid benefit from the wine, not only partaking of it. The Ra'avad rules that it is permitted to benefit from the wine, but not to partake of it. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 126) mentions the opinion of Rabbbenu Tam which is more lenient, ruling that this stringency does not apply to ordinary gentile wine. He rules that it is even permitted to partake of the wine. The Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 126:1-2) follows the ruling of the Maharam of Rutenburg, who states the Rambam's stringency should be followed only when a small loss is involved. If there is a significant loss involved, we may rely on the perspective of Rabbenu Tam.
See also the Tur who mentions a perspective that maintains that the above stringency applies only to wine used as a libation for a false deity, but not to ordinary gentile wine.
|
| 35. |
Compare to Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 7:1,5 where this principle is not applied. It appears that it is applied in this instance because of the stringency of the prohibition against gentile wine.
|
| 36. |
Because the wine held back in the funnel is forbidden because of the connection to the column of wine that extends to the gentile's utensil.
|
| 37. |
Drying refers to the process of applying water and ashes mentioned in Chapter 11, Halachah 20.
|
| 38. |
The Kessef Mishneh offers the following interpretation of the Rambam's wording: As long as the funnel was washed thoroughly, even if it was not dried out, it does not cause other wine to become forbidden. He also, however, makes a distinction between a funnel that has been used by a gentile frequently and one that was used just once. In the former instance, he states, it is possible that washing it thoroughly alone is not sufficient.
|
| 39. |
I.e., it is forbidden to benefit from the entire quantity of wine [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah124:11)]. According to the Rama, one is permitted to benefit from the wine if the loss will be significant (Siftei Cohen 124:23).
The rationale for the prohibition is that the wine in the container will mix with the small quantity of gentile wine in the funnel and become forbidden.
|
| 40. |
I.e., outflow pipes.
|
| 41. |
Since the wine which the Jew is drinking and that which the gentile is drinking are flowing in opposite directions, they are not considered to be connected.
|
| 42. |
For it was his sucking that drew it into the outflow pipe. When that wine returns to the container and becomes mixed with the wine in the container, all the wine becomes forbidden as indicated by the following halachah.
|
| 43. |
Even if the wine never touched his mouth (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 44. |
A Talmudic measure equivalent to approximately a kilometer. The Lechem Mishneh notes that as stated in Hilchot Mitamei Moshav UMerkav 13:5, a mil is not a cut off point. As long as the gentile has reason to fear that the Jew will appear suddenly, the wine is permitted.
|
| 45. |
These words will imply to the porters that he will not be coming immediately. Hence there is reason to fear that they will take from the wine.
|
| 46. |
I.e., so that it would not be apparent that they touched it.
|
| 47. |
Implied is that one is permitted to benefit from it. The rationale is that since the barrel is sealed, we follow the principle stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 9. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 129:1) who rules that if the loss is significant, we may rely on the views that one seal is sufficient.
|
| 48. |
I.e., one may even partake of it.
|
| 49. |
One may drink it. For the gentile will be afraid to touch the wine, for he will never feel that the Jew has left him alone with the opportunity to do whatever he wants.
|
| 50. |
As in the previous halachah, since the gentile knows that the Jew is departing for a significant period, we fear that he will use the opportunity to take the wine.
|
| 51. |
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:4) which explains why it is necessary to mention all three instances: the store, the wagon, and the ship.
|
| 52. |
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:1) state that this applies only when the Jew went on a side path that would enable him to surprise the gentile. If, however, he follows the ordinary path, the wine is forbidden. For the gentile will watch to see whether he is coming.
|
| 53. |
And thus: a) the wine is easily accessible, and b) the barrel does not have to be sealed close to hide the fact that one took from the wine.
|
| 54. |
It would appear that according to the Rambam, it is even forbidden to benefit from the wine (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 55. |
We assume that he will touch the wine on the table, because it is open before him. But we don't think that he will take the risk of appearing as a thief by touching the wine on the counter. For it is not proper for a guest to take food left on the counter until the host has it brought to the table [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:5)].
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:7) rules slightly more stringently, stating that any wine which is in the gentile's reach is forbidden.
|
| 56. |
Since the Jew gave him license, we have no reason to think that he will restrain himself. Here, too, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules more stringently, stating that if the Jew remains outside for a prolonged period (as mentioned in the previous halachah), even the closed barrels are forbidden.
|
| 57. |
I.e., the wine on the table, as in the previous halachah (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 58. |
As above, when quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:7) mentions the possibility of the Jew coming from a side path and surprising the gentile. If this is not possible, that source does not accept this leniency.
|
| 59. |
Avodah Zarah 70a (the Rambam's source) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:9) state that this leniency applies when the Jew and the gentile live in a two-storey home, with the Jew living in the upper storey. The Rambam does not appear to think that is necessary (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 60. |
The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam chose his words carefully. This leniency is granted because they left in agitation. Hence, it was probable that they would not notice each other outside. If, however, they left with calm reserve, it is possible that the gentile would have looked to see that the Jew was not returning and then entered his home and touched his wine.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 129:9) quotes this understanding as halachah. The Turei Zahav 129:19, however, differs, explaining that even when a person leaves his home in an agitated state, he will not necessarily return in an agitated state.
|
| 61. |
If, however, we do not know that the door was locked - even though it was closed and it has a lock - the wine is permitted (Turei Zahav 128:5).
|
| 62. |
If, however, the Jew's barrels were closed, the wine in the closed barrels is permitted unless the gentile remained in the closed building alone for the time it would take to open a barrel, seal it closed again, and for its lid to dry, as stated in Halachah 16 [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 128:3)].
|
| 63. |
I.e., in an inn, there were several wine cellars, one in which a Jew stored wine and one in which a gentile stored wine (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 64. |
I.e., if he was brought before the judges of a city on the complaint that he touched the wine, the judges would consider him a thief [Rashi (Avodah Zarah 61b)]. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is possible that the Rambam interprets the term differently, understanding it as meaning "if he would think he would be considered a thief." According to this interpretation, it could refer not only to the gentile's touching the wine, but also entering the wine cellar.
To explain: Since the gentile also stores wine in that inn, he has permission to be in the inn, but he does not necessarily have permission to be in the Jew's wine cellar. This is precisely the question the Rambam is focusing on. Would the gentile be considered as a thief for being found in the Jew's wine cellar or not?
|
| 65. |
Since he feels unthreatened, there is a high likelihood that he touched the Jews' wine.
|
| 66. |
For a baby never pours wine as a libation. In Chapter 11, Halachah 5, the Rambam states that it is forbidden to drink wine touched by a gentile baby. Here, he permits the wine entirely, because we are not certain that the baby in fact touched the wine. The Radbaz explains the rationale for the Rambam's ruling.: Since the baby does not think of using the wine as a libation, there is no reason for it to trouble itself and touch it.
|
| 67. |
The Rambam's wording appears to imply that the open barrels in the homes are permitted. The soldiers would take the liberty of entering stores and making themselves free with their contents. They would not, however, feel that confident to enter homes. The Radbaz objects to this interpretation, noting that we see that soldiers often enter homes to loot. Indeed, when mentioning this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:12) speaks of homes and not stores.
Compare also to Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:26 which discusses a similar situation with regard to the question whether the women of the town have been raped.
|
| 68. |
We can be certain that had the soldiers open the wine for use as a libation, they would not have taken the trouble of closing them again [Kessef Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].
|
| 69. |
The Kessef Mishneh states that if a barrel was closed and it is discovered open, it is forbidden. For we see that the soldiers did have time to touch the wine.
|
| 70. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam's ruling as follows: If the wine is security for a debt owed the gentile, the gentile will certainly not be considered a thief for touching the wine. Therefore it is forbidden. If the wine is not considered as security for a loan, when the gentile would be considered as a thief, the wine is permitted. When he would not be considered as a thief, it is forbidden.
|
| 71. |
This applies even if the Jew owes him money, and the loan is due, but he has not designated the wine as security for the debt [Rashi (Avodah Zarah 60a); Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 128:2)].
|
| 72. |
Although the Jews are willing to give in to their lust for forbidden relations, they are not suspect to drink gentile wine (Avodah Zarah 69b). Even the gentile harlot realizes this.
|
| 73. |
I.e., wine that she herself brought.
|
| 74. |
Since they are employing her as a harlot, they look down upon her and show no consideration for her religious obligations.
|
| 75. |
I.e., a winepress that does not contain any wine, except for some remnants on the floor.
|
| 76. |
This is the meaning of the Hebrew phrase tofach al minat litfiach.
|
| 77. |
Applying water and ashes, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 20.
|
| 78. |
We are not certain that the gentile try to touch the wine. Even if he did try to touch the wine, there is no reason for a prohibition, for we are speaking of a dry winepress. Hence washing it out is certainly sufficient (Radbaz).
|
| 79. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:17) quotes this law as applying only in situations when there are obstructions in the river that prevent wine from being carried down the river from other places. In such a situation, we follow the principle of rov, i.e., since the majority of the city's inhabitants are Jewish, we assume that the barrel came from one of them. We are, nevertheless, forbidden to drink the wine. See the notes to the following halachah.
|
| 80. |
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions the Rambam's ruling. The Rambam's logic appears to be that since it is obvious that the wine came from a wine merchant and most of the wine merchants are Jewish, we follow the majority and rule that the wine is permitted. Nevertheless, since the majority of the inhabitants of the town are gentile, we forbid drinking the wine. The Kessef Mishneh asks: "If we fear that the gentile touched the wine, it should be forbidden to benefit from it as well. And if not, it should be permitted to drink it." Indeed, he proposes that perhaps the Rambam's intent is that it is permitted to benefit only from the barrels. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:19), he follows the Rambam's ruling. Based on his Beis Yosef, it is possible to explain that we are speaking about closed barrels. We assume that had a gentile opened them and touched the wine, he would not have closed them again. Alternatively, since we do not know for certain that the gentile touched the wine, we do not forbid benefiting from it.
|
She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
When a person borrows a cow from a colleague and the colleague sends it to him with his own son, his agent or his servant, and it dies before it enters the borrower's domain, the borrower is not liable. This law applies even if the owner sends it with the son, the servant or the agent of the borrower.
If the borrower tells the owner: 'Send it to me with my son,' 'with my servant,' or 'with my agent,' or even 'with your Hebrew servant,' or 'with your agent,' the borrower is liable. This law also applies if the owner tells the borrower: 'I am sending it to you with your son,' 'with your servant,' 'with your agent,' 'with my son,' 'with my Hebrew servant,' or 'with my agent,' and the borrower agrees, the borrower is liable if he sends it and it dies on the way.
If the owner sends the cow with his own Canaanite servant, the borrower is not liable if the cow dies on the way after it is sent. This law applies even if the borrower consents. The rationale is that the servant is considered to be an extension of his master's physical person. Thus, the cow has never left its owner's domain.
Halacha 2
The following rules apply when a person borrows a cow from a colleague, the borrower tells the owner: 'Switch it with a stick, and it will come on its own accord,' and the owner follows his instructions. The borrower is not liable until the cow enters his domain. If it dies on the way, he is not liable.
Similar laws apply when the borrower returns the animal to its owner. If he sends it with another person and it dies before it enters the owner's domain, he is not liable, because it is still the borrower's responsibility. If he returned it with another person with the consent of the owner and it died, he is not liable. If he returned it with his own Canaanite servant, and it died on the way, he is liable, even if the owner consented. The rationale is that the servant is considered an extension of his master's physical person. Thus, the cow has never left the borrower's domain.
When does the above apply? When the borrower returned the animal during the time for which it was lent out. If, however, he returns it after the end of the time for which it was lent out, he is not liable if it dies on the way. For once the time for which it was lent out has concluded, the laws of borrowing no longer apply, and the person who had borrowed the animal is considered a paid watchman. Therefore, if the animal is taken captive or dies after the period for which it was lent out has concluded, the person who had borrowed the animal is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
The following rules apply when a person borrows a cow from a colleague, the animal dies, and a dispute arises between the owner and the borrower concerning the circumstances of its death. For example, he borrowed it for half a day and rented it for half a day, borrowed it for one day and rented it for one day, or he borrowed one animal and rented another and one of the animals dies. The owner says: 'The borrowed animal died,' 'It died on the day it was borrowed,' or 'It died during the time it was borrowed,' and the borrower says: 'I don't know,' we follow the principle: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. This principle also applies if the borrower says: 'The rented ox died,' 'It died on the day it was rented,' or 'It died during the time it was rented,' and the owner said: 'I don't know,' or they both said: 'I don't know.'
If the owner cannot bring proof that the borrowed ox died, the renter must take an oath that the rented ox died or that he does not know, and he is freed of liability.
If the owner claims that the borrowed ox died, and the the watchman claims that the rented ox died, the watchman must take an oath that the rented ox died in an ordinary manner as he claims. Because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he must also include in his oath that it was the rented ox that died.
Halacha 4
The following rules apply when a person borrows two cows from a colleague, borrowing them for half the day and renting them for half the day, and the cows die. If the owner claims 'They died during the time that they were borrowed,' and the watchman replies: 'One did die during the time it was borrowed, but I don't know about the other one," since the watchman is not able to take an oath that denies the owner's claim, he must make restitution for the two cows.
Similar rules apply if the owner gave the watchman three cows, two were borrowed and one was rented and two cows died. If the owner claims: 'It was the two borrowed cows that died,' and the watchman replies: 'Certainly, one of the borrowed cows died, but I do not know whether the second cow that died was the borrowed one or the rented one,' since the watchman cannot take an oath that denies the owner's claim - for he says that he does not know which one died - he must make restitution for the two cows.
In Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an, it is explained how and for which reasons a defendant is required to pay in this law and in all similar cases where a defendant is not able to take an oath.
She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
The following law applies when a person entrusts an article to a colleague without charge, and it is lost or stolen. The watchman is required to take an oath that the entrusted article was lost or stolen. He is then freed of liability, asExodus 22:6-7 states: 'If it is stolen from the person's house..., the owner of the house shall approach the court and take an oath that he did not extend his hands to his colleague's undertakings.'
When he takes that oath, based on the convention of gilgul sh'vuah,the watchman must also include in the oath:
a) that he was not negligent, but rather guarded the article in the ordinary manner watchmen do, and
b) that he did not use the article for his personal use before if it was stolen. For if the article was stolen after he used it for his own purposes, he is responsible for it.
Halacha 2
Since the Torah freed an unpaid watchman from responsibility when an article was stolen, we can certainly infer that he is freed of responsibility when the entrusted object is destroyed by major factors beyond the watchman's control; for example, an animal was injured, taken captive or died.
This leniency applies provided that the watchman does not misappropriate the entrusted article. If, however, he misappropriates the entrusted article, he is liable even though it is destroyed by forces beyond his control.
What is meant by 'in the ordinary manner watchmen do'? Everything depends on the entrusted article. There are certain entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a gatehouse - for example, beams and rocks. There are other entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a courtyard - for example, large packages of flax and the like. There are other entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a house - for example, dressings and garments. There are other entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a locked chest or a locked cabinet - e.g., silk clothes, silver objects, golden objects, and the like.
Halacha 3
When a watchman placed an object in an inappropriate place and it was stolen from there or lost, he is considered negligent and is required to make restitution. This law applies even if it was destroyed by forces beyond the watchman's control - e.g., a fire broke out and consumed the entire house . It makes no difference whether the watchman placed the entrusted article together with his own property or not. If the place is fit for safekeeping, he is not liable. If it is not fit for safekeeping, he is liable. He may be careless with his own property. He does not have the right to treat another person's property in that manner.
Halacha 4
The only appropriate way of guarding silver coins and dinarim of gold is to bury them in the ground, placing at least a handbreadth of earth over them, or to hide them in a wall within a handbreadth of the ceiling.
They should not be hidden in the midst of the wall, lest the thieves check thereand steal them. Even if a person locked them securely in a chest or hid them in a place where a person would not recognize or be aware of them, he is considered negligent and is liable to make restitution.
Several men of understanding have ruled that the same rules apply with regard to any object that is light and will not be destroyed speedily in the ground - e.g., slabs of silver. Needless to say, this applies to slabs of gold and to jewels. The only appropriate way of guarding such objects is in the ground. I tend to support this ruling.
Halacha 5
When a person entrusts money to a colleague on Friday afternoon between the setting of the sun and the appearance of the stars, the watchman is not obligated to undertake the difficulty of burying it until Saturday night. If, however, he delayed burying it on Saturday night and before he buried it that night, it was stolen or destroyed by factors beyond his control, he is liable. If he is a Torah scholar, the watchman is not liable if he waits until after havdalah to bury it.
Halacha 6
When a person entrusts money to a colleague on a journey to bring to his home, or sends money with him from one place to another, the money must be bound in a packet and held in the watchman's hand or tied on his stomach opposite his faceand carried in this fashion until he reaches his home and buries it in the appropriate manner. If he did not tie it in this manner, even if the money was lost because of factors beyond the watchman's control, he is liable. The rationale is that at the outset, he was negligent.
An incident once occurred concerning a person who entrusted money to a colleague. The colleague placed the money in a partition made from reeds. The money was hidden in the midst of the partition and was stolen from there. When the matter was brought to the Sages, they said: Although this is an excellent manner of guarding to prevent theft,it is not a proper place to guard money in the event of fire. Since he did not bury it in the ground or the walls of a building, he is considered negligent. Whenever a person is negligent in his care for the article at the outset, even if it is ultimately destroyed by forces beyond his control, he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 7
The following law applies when a person entrusts either articles or money to a colleague. Should the owner demand of the watchman: 'Give me my entrusted article,' and the watchman tells him: 'I do not know where I placed the entrusted article,' or 'I do not know where I buried the money. Wait; I will look for it, find it and return it to you,' he is considered negligent and is required to make restitution immediately.
Halacha 8
Whenever a person entrusts either articles or money to a colleague, he entrusts them with the understanding that they may be placed in the care of the person's wife, children or other members of his household who are above the age of majority. If, however, the watchman gave the entrusted article to his sons or the members of his household who are below majority, his servants - whether they are above or below majority - or one of his relatives who does not dwell in his home and is not dependent on his larder - needless, to say, this applies if he gives the article to a stranger - he is considered negligent and is required to make restitution, unless the second watchman brings proof that he was not negligent, as we have explained.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who entrusted money to a colleague. The watchman gave the money to his mother, who hid it but did not bury it. Our Sages ruled: The watchman is not liable to pay, because he gave the money to his mother, and whenever a person entrusts an article to a colleague, he entrusts it with the understanding that it may be placed in the care of his sons or the members of his household.
Even though the watchman did not tell his mother that the money was not his, but had been entrusted to him, he is not liable, for he could claim: 'Certainly, she would have cared for it more carefully if she thought it belonged to me.' Similarly, his mother is not liable, because he did not tell her that the money was entrusted to him.
Our Sages ruled: The watchman must take an oath that the money that was entrusted to him was the money that he gave his mother, and the mother must take an oath that she hid it and it was stolen. Afterwards, they are both absolved of liability. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 9
From the above, one may conclude that should a watchman give an entrusted article to his wife or to the members of his household and inform them that it was an entrusted article, if they did not guard it in a manner appropriate for a watchman, they are liable to pay the owner, and the person originally appointed as a watchman is not liable. The rationale is that whenever a person entrusts either articles or money to a colleague, he entrusts them with the understanding that they may be placed in the care of the person's wife or children.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who entrusted hops to a colleague. That colleague had other hops in his possession. The colleague told his attendant: 'Place these hops into the beer.' The attendant erred and took the hops that had been entrusted instead.
The Sages ruled that the attendant is not liable, because the watchman did not tell him: 'Place these hops, and do not place those hops.' Therefore, the attendant thought that he was merely recommending one pile, but not insisting on it. The owner is also not liable, because he instructed him to take the hops from his own pile. He is required to make restitution only for the benefit he received. Therefore, if the beer becomes vinegar, he is not liable to pay anything. Regardless of the outcome, the watchman is required to take an oath that these in fact were the circumstances. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
If money designated to be given to the poor or to be used for the redemption of captives was given to a person, he was negligent in guarding it and it was stolen, the watchman is not liable. This is derived from Exodus 22:6, which states: "If a man gives money or articles to his colleague to watch...." The wording implies that obligations determined by the verse apply when the money or the article was given to watch, but not when it was given to divide among the poor. This decision is rendered, because there is no one to claim the money as his own.
Even if the thieves attacked the person and he saved himself by giving them the money designated for the redemption of captives, he is not liable. There is no greater redemption of captives than this.
When does the above apply? When the money was not entrusted to him for the sake of the poor people of a particular place or a designated group of captives. If, however, the money was designated for a particular group of poor people or captives, and is thus set aside for them, it is considered to be money that people can claim. Therefore, the watchman must pay if he was negligent, or take an oath that he was not negligent, as is required of all watchmen.
Halacha 2
The following rules apply when a person entrusts money or valuable articles to a colleague, thieves come and attack him and he gives them the entrusted article before offering any of his other property to save himself. If the person has the reputation of being wealthy, he is liable. The rationale is that we may presume that the thieves came because of the watchman. Thus, he is saving himself with money belonging to a colleague. If the watchman does not have the reputation of being wealthy, we presume that the thieves came only because of the entrusted article. Hence, the watchman is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
The following rules apply when a person entrusts articles or fruit to a colleague. If thieves come and steal the entrusted article in his presence and he remains silent, he may be held liable. If people would have come and rescued the entrusted article had he called out, he is considered negligent for remaining silent and he is obligated to make restitution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
The following laws apply when two people entrusted money to a colleague, one 100 zuz and the other 200 zuz, both claim to have entrusted the 200 zuz, and the watchman does not recall which one deposited 200, and which one 100. Each of the claimants must take an oath that he was the one who deposited the 200 zuz He may then collect the money he claims,14 as is the law with regard to any person who takes an oath and collects his due. The watchman must pay each claimant 200, losing 100 zuz from his own resources. The rationale is that he was negligent, for he should have written down the name of each person on the packet that he entrusted.
Therefore, if the two people together brought him the 300 zuz in a single packet, and afterwards each claims that the 200 belongs to him, the watchman is not considered negligent if he does not remember who brought the larger sum. He should give each one a maneh, and the balance should remain in the watchman's possession forever, or until one of them acknowledges the other's claim.21 The rationale is that the watchman can explain: "I saw that you two were not precise with each other, as indicated by the fact that you brought the money to me in a single packet. Therefore, I did not trouble myself to know and continuously remember who owned 100 and who owned 200."
Similar laws apply if two people entrusted one watchman with two utensils, one large and one small, each one claimed to be the owner of the larger utensil, and the watchman did not remember to whom it belonged. Each of the claimants must take an oath supporting his claim. The watchman must then give one of them the larger utensil, and the value of the larger one to the other. The smaller utensil remains his.If the two brought the two in a single container, he should give the smaller utensil to one and the worth of that utensil to the other. He may keep the remainder in his possession until one claimant acknowledges the other's claim or until eternity.
Similar laws apply if only one article was entrusted, and two people claim it as their own and the watchman says, "One of you is the owner, but I do not know which one." He must pay both of them. Similarly, when two people each entrust an animal to a shepherd, and one animal dies, if the watchman does not know whose animal died, he must make restitution to both of them. If they placed them in his herd without informing him, he may place one animal between them and depart. That animal shall remain until one acknowledges the other's claim or until they desire to divide it.
Halacha 5
When a person entrusts produce to a colleague, the watchman should not mix it together with his own produce. The following rules apply if the watchman transgressed and mixed the produce together. He should calculate the quantity of produce entrusted to him, see how much produce was lacking from the entire amount and estimate the amount of loss suffered by the entrusted produce. He should return this amount to the owner after he takes an oath.
If the watchman made use of the combined quantity of produce and did not know how much he used, he should subtract the standard norm before returning the produce. For example, for wheat and for shelled rice, he should subtract four and a half kabbin for every kor; for barley and for millet, he should subtract nine kabbin for each kor; and for buckwheat, flax seeds in their stalks and unshelled rice, he should subtract three se'ah for each kor.
When does the above apply? When the original measurement of the produce was made at harvest time, and it was returned during the harvest time. If, however, the watchman returns the produce in the rainy season, he should not make a deduction because of spoilage, for the produce swells.
Similarly, a watchman may deduct a sixth of a quantity of wine entrusted to him and three lugin for every 100 lugin of oil entrusted to him, one and half lugin for dregs and one and a half lugin for absorption. If the oil was refined, the watchman should not make a deduction for dregs. If the containers are old, he should not make a deduction for absorption.
Halacha 6
When a person entrusts produce that has not been measured to a watchman, and the watchman mixes it together with his own produce without measuring it, the watchman is considered negligent.
If the owner of the fruit says, "There was this and this amount of produce entrusted," and the watchman says, "I don't know how much there was," he is liable. For he is obligated to take an oath and yet cannot take the oath. My teachers, Rav Yosef HaLevi and his teacher, ruled in this manner.
Similarly, whenever a watchman is obligated to pay, but does not know how much he is obligated to pay, if the owners say: "It was worth such and such," they may collect this amount without taking an oath. This law applies provided the owner claims a sum or an object that he can be presumed to possess. The watchman may have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who expropriates more than his due.
What is the rationale for this law? Consider: The owner entrusted a purse full of gold coins to the watchman, and the watchman was negligent. The owner says, "It contained 200 dinarim, and the watchman says, "It certainly containeddinarim, but I do not know how much it contained." Thus, a claim is being issued for 200. The watchman admits a portion of the claim, and does not know about the remainder of the claim. He is thus obligated to take an oath, but cannot. Hence, he is required to pay, as will be explained.
Halacha 7
The following rules apply when a person's father died, leaving him a closed sack. The heir entrusted it to a colleague for safekeeping, the colleague was negligent in its care, and it was destroyed. The depositor says, "I don't know what it contained. Maybe it contained pearls." Similarly, the watchman states: "I don't know how much I am obligated to pay. Maybe it was filled with pieces of glass."
I maintain that the ruling in this instance is that, as our Sages required, the watchman should take an oath that the entrusted object is no longer in his domain. He should include in this oath that he does not know whether it was worth more than a specific amount. He must then pay the amount that he admits that it was worth. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
An incident occurred concerning a person who entrusted a closed sack to his colleague. The latter was negligent in its care, and it was lost. The owner said, "It contained gold jewelry, pearls and the like." The watchman replied: "I don't know. Perhaps all it contained were pieces of scrap metal or sand."
Our Sages ruled: "The owner of the entrusted article may take an oath supporting his claim, and then collect the sum he claims, provided he claims a sum that he could be presumed to have entrusted to him.
Why must the owner of the entrusted article take an oath in this instance?Because in this instance, the watchman is not obligated to take an oath. For even if the watchman were to admit and say: "I am definitely certain that it contained scrap metal," and the owner claimed: "It contained pearls," the watchman could take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of obligation. This resembles a case where the plaintiff demands wheat and the defendant admits owing barley. The same laws apply in all analogous situations. The fundamental principles upon which these laws revolve will be explained in Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an.
• Shabbat, Tishrei 20, 5776 · 03 October 2015
"Today's Day"
Tuesday Tishrei 20, 4th Day of Chol Hamoed Sukot 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: B'racha, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 97-103.
Tanya: Therefore, evil in (p. 527) ...the sacred Zohar. (p. 527).
During the movements of the lulav (p. 240) one should touch the chest with the lulav at the spot one strikes his heart forashamnu.
My father once said at a farbrengen that this (practice)1 is similar to the idea that only through the earnestness beforedavening, when one is embittered over his sins, can there afterwards be an emotional excitement in davening.
FOOTNOTES
1. Of touching the chest with the lulav at the spot where he strikes ashamnu; ashamnu being the daily confession-prayer for one's sins. (p. 61).
Daily Thought:
Hugged by a Hut
A sukkah is an embrace. You sit inside and G‑d is hugging you. All of you, from head to toe.
Whatever you do inside your sukkah—sip a beer, chat with a friend, answer your e‑mail, or just sleep soundly—all is transformed into a mitzvah, a secure and timeless connection with the Infinite.
And then, when you leave the sukkah to enter the world, you carry that hug with you.
All of life can become an embrace. A hug with the Infinite.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment