Torah Reading
Torah Reading: Lech-Lecha (Genesis 12:1 Now Adonai said to Avram, “Get yourself out of your country, away from your kinsmen and away from your father’s house, and go to the land that I will show you. 2 I will make of you a great nation, I will bless you, and I will make your name great; and you are to be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, but I will curse anyone who curses you; and by you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”
4 So Avram went, as Adonai had said to him, and Lot went with him. Avram was 75 years old when he left Haran. 5 Avram took his wife Sarai, his brother’s son Lot, and all their possessions which they had accumulated, as well as the people they had acquired in Haran; then they set out for the land of Kena‘an and entered the land of Kena‘an.
6 Avram passed through the land to the place called Sh’khem, to the oak of Moreh. The Kena‘ani were then in the land. 7 Adonai appeared to Avram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to Adonai, who had appeared to him.
8 He left that place, went to the hill east of Beit-El and pitched his tent. With Beit-El to the west and ‘Ai to the east, he built an altar there and called on the name of Adonai. 9 Then Avram traveled on, continuing toward the Negev. 10 But there was a famine in the land, so Avram went down into Egypt to stay there, because the famine in the land was severe.
11 When he came close to Egypt and was about to enter, he said to Sarai his wife, “Here now, I know that you are a good-looking woman; 12 so that when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife,’ and kill me but keep you alive. 13 Please say that you are my sister, so that it will go well with me for your sake, and so that I will stay alive because of you.”
(ii) 14 When Avram entered Egypt, the Egyptians did notice that the woman was very beautiful. 15 Pharaoh’s princes saw her and commended her to Pharaoh, so the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. 16 He treated Avram well for her sake, giving him sheep, cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female slaves, and camels.
17 But Adonai inflicted great plagues on Pharaoh and his household because of Sarai Avram’s wife. 18 Pharaoh called Avram and said, “What is this that you have done to me? Why didn’t you tell me that she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her to be my own wife? Now therefore, here is your wife! Take her, and go away!” 20 So Pharaoh gave orders concerning him to his men, and they sent him on his way with his wife and everything he had.
13:1 Avram went up from Egypt — he, his wife and everything he had, and Lot with him — into the Negev. 2 Avram became wealthy, with much cattle, silver and gold. 3 As he went on his travels from the Negev, he came to Beit-El, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Beit-El and ‘Ai, 4 where he had first built the altar; and there Avram called on the name of Adonai.
(iii) 5 Lot, who was traveling with Avram, also had flocks, herds and tents. 6 But the land could not support their living together, because their possessions were too great for them to remain together. 7 Moreover, quarreling arose between Avram’s and Lot’s herdsmen. The Kena‘ani and the P’rizi were then living in the land. 8 Avram said to Lot, “Please, let’s not have quarreling between me and you, or between my herdsmen and yours, since we’re kinsmen. 9 Isn’t the whole land there in front of you? Please separate yourself from me — if you go to the left, I will go to the right; if you go to the right, I will go to the left.” 10 Lot looked up and saw that the whole plain of the Yarden was well watered everywhere, before Adonai destroyed S’dom and ‘Amora, like the garden of Adonai, like the land of Egypt in the direction of Tzo‘ar. 11 So Lot chose all the plain of the Yarden for himself, and Lot traveled eastward; thus they separated themselves from each other. 12 Avram lived in the land of Kena‘an; and Lot lived in the cities of the plain, setting up his tent near S’dom. 13 Now the men of S’dom were evil, committing great sins against Adonai.
14 Adonai said to Avram, after Lot had moved away from him, “Look all around you from where you are, to the north, the south, the east and the west. 15 All the land you see I will give to you and your descendants forever, 16 and I will make your descendants as numerous as the specks of dust on the earth — so that if a person can count the specks of dust on the earth, then your descendants can be counted. 17 Get up and walk through the length and breadth of the land, because I will give it to you.” 18 Avram moved his tent and came to live by the oaks of Mamre, which are in Hevron. There he built an altar to Adonai.
14:1 (iv) When Amrafel was king of Shin‘ar, Aryokh king of Elasar, K’dorla‘omer king of ‘Elam and Tid‘al king of Goyim; 2 they made war together against Bera king of S’dom and against Birsha king of ‘Amora, Shin’av king of Admah, Shem’ever king of Tzvoyim, and the king of Bela (which is the same as Tzo‘ar). 3 All the latter kings joined forces in the Siddim Valley, where the Dead Sea is. 4 They had served K’dorla‘omer twelve years, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
5 In the fourteenth year K’dorla‘omer and the kings with him came and defeated the Refa’im in ‘Asht’rot-Karnayim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Eimim in Shaveh-Kiryatayim 6 and the Hori at Se‘ir, their mountain, all the way to Eil-Pa’ran by the desert. 7 Next they turned back, came to ‘Ein-Mishpat (which is the same as Kadesh), and defeated all the country of the ‘Amaleki, and also the Emori, who lived in Hatzatzon-Tamar. 8 Then the kings of S’dom, ‘Amora, Admah, Tzvoyim and Bela (that is, Tzo‘ar) came out and arrayed themselves for battle in the Siddim Valley 9 against K’dorla‘omer king of ‘Elam, Tid‘al king of Goyim, Amrafel king of Admah and Aryokh king of Elasar, four kings against the five.
10 Now the Siddim Valley was full of clay pits; and when the kings of S’dom and ‘Amora fled, some fell into them; while the rest fled to the hills. 11 The victors took all the possessions of S’dom and ‘Amora and all their food supply; then they left. 12 But as they left, they took Lot, Avram’s brother’s son, and his possessions; since he was living in S’dom. 13 Someone who had escaped came and told Avram the Hebrew, who was living by the oaks of Mamre the Emori, brother of Eshkol and brother of ‘Aner; all of them allies of Avram. 14 When Avram heard that his nephew had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, who had been born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15 During the night he and his servants divided his forces against them, then attacked and pursued them all the way to Hovah, north of Dammesek. 16 He recovered all the goods and brought back his nephew Lot with his goods, together with the women and the other people. 17 After his return from slaughtering K’dorla‘omer and the kings with him, the king of S’dom went out to meet him in the Shaveh Valley, also known as the King’s Valley.
18 Malki-Tzedek king of Shalem brought out bread and wine. He was cohen of El ‘Elyon [God Most High], 19 so he blessed him with these words:
“Blessed be Avram by El ‘Elyon,
maker of heaven of earth.
20 and blessed be El ‘Elyon,
who handed your enemies over to you.”
Avram gave him a tenth of everything.
(v) 21 The king of S’dom said to Avram, “Give me the people, and keep the goods for yourself.” 22 But Avram answered the king of S’dom, “I have raised my hand in an oath to Adonai, El ‘Elyon, maker of heaven and earth, 23 that I will not take so much as a thread or a sandal thong of anything that is yours; so that you won’t be able to say, ‘I made Avram rich.’ 24 I will take only what my troops have eaten and the share of the spoil belonging to the men who came with me — ‘Aner, Eshkol and Mamre; let them have their share.”
15:1 Some time later the word of Adonai came to Avram in a vision: “Don’t be afraid, Avram. I am your protector; your reward will be very great.” 2 Avram replied, “Adonai, God, what good will your gifts be to me if I continue childless; and Eli‘ezer from Dammesek inherits my possessions? 3 You haven’t given me a child,” Avram continued, “so someone born in my house will be my heir.” 4 But the word of Adonai came to him: “This man will not be your heir. No, your heir will be a child from your own body.” 5 Then he brought him outside and said, “Look up at the sky, and count the stars — if you can count them! Your descendants will be that many!” 6 He believed in Adonai, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
(vi) 7 Then he said to him, “I am Adonai, who brought you out from Ur-Kasdim to give you this land as your possession.” 8 He replied, “Adonai, God, how am I to know that I will possess it?” 9 He answered him, “Bring me a three-year-old cow, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a dove and a young pigeon.” 10 He brought him all these, cut the animals in two and placed the pieces opposite each other; but he didn’t cut the birds in half. 11 Birds of prey swooped down on the carcasses, but Avram drove them away.
12 As the sun was about to set, a deep sleep fell on Avram; horror and great darkness came over him. 13 Adonai said to Avram, “Know this for certain: your descendants will be foreigners in a land that is not theirs. They will be slaves and held in oppression there four hundred years. 14 But I will also judge that nation, the one that makes them slaves. Afterwards, they will leave with many possessions. 15 As for you, you will join your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 Only in the fourth generation will your descendants come back here, because only then will the Emori be ripe for punishment.”
17 After the sun had set and there was thick darkness, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch appeared, which passed between these animal parts. 18 That day Adonai made a covenant with Avram: “I have given this land to your descendants — from the Vadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River — 19 the territory of the Keni, the K’nizi, the Kadmoni, 20 the Hitti, the P’rizi, the Refa’im, 21 the Emori, the Kena‘ani, the Girgashi and the Y’vusi.”
16:1 Now Sarai Avram’s wife had not borne him a child. But she had an Egyptian slave-girl named Hagar; 2 so Sarai said to Avram, “Here now, Adonai has kept me from having children; so go in and sleep with my slave-girl. Maybe I’ll be able to have children through her.” Avram listened to what Sarai said.
3 It was after Avram had lived ten years in the land of Kena‘an that Sarai Avram’s wife took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to Avram her husband to be his wife. 4 Avram had sexual relations with Hagar, and she conceived. But when she became aware that she was pregnant, she looked on her mistress with contempt. 5 Sarai said to Avram, “This outrage being done to me is your fault! True, I gave my slave-girl to you to sleep with; but when she saw that she was pregnant, she began holding me in contempt. May Adonai decide who is right — I or you!” 6 However, Avram answered Sarai, “Look, she’s your slave-girl. Deal with her as you think fit.” Then Sarai treated her so harshly that she ran away from her.
7 The angel of Adonai found her by a spring in the desert, the spring on the road to Shur, 8 and said, “Hagar! Sarai’s slave-girl! Where have you come from, and where are you going?” She answered, “I’m running away from my mistress Sarai.” 9 The angel of Adonai said to her, “Go back to your mistress, and submit to her authority.” 10 The angel of Adonai said to her, “I will greatly increase your descendants; there will be so many that it will be impossible to count them.” 11 The angel of Adonai said to her, “Look, you are pregnant, and you will give birth to a son. You are to call him Yishma‘el [God pays attention] because Adonai has paid attention to your misery. 12 He will be a wild donkey of a man, with his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, living his life at odds with all his kinsmen.”
13 So she named Adonai who had spoken with her El Ro’i [God of seeing], because she said, “Have I really seen the One who sees me [and stayed alive]?” 14 This is why the well has been called Be’er-Lachai-Ro’i [well of the one who lives and sees]; it lies between Kadesh and Bered.
15 Hagar bore Avram a son, and Avram called the son whom Hagar had borne Yishma‘el. 16 Avram was 86 years old when Hagar bore Yishma‘el to Avram.
17:1 When Avram was 99 years old Adonai appeared to Avram and said to him, “I am El Shaddai [God Almighty]. Walk in my presence and be pure-hearted. 2 I will make my covenant between me and you, and I will increase your numbers greatly.” 3 Avram fell on his face, and God continued speaking with him: 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: you will be the father of many nations. 5 Your name will no longer be Avram [exalted father], but your name will be Avraham [father of many], because I have made you the father of many nations. 6 I will cause you to be very fruitful. I will make nations of you, kings will descend from you.
(vii) 7 “I am establishing my covenant between me and you, along with your descendants after you, generation after generation, as an everlasting covenant, to be God for you and for your descendants after you. 8 I will give you and your descendants after you the land in which you are now foreigners, all the land of Kena‘an, as a permanent possession; and I will be their God.”
9 God said to Avraham, “As for you, you are to keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you, generation after generation. 10 Here is my covenant, which you are to keep, between me and you, along with your descendants after you: every male among you is to be circumcised. 11 You are to be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; this will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 Generation after generation, every male among you who is eight days old is to be circumcised, including slaves born within your household and those bought from a foreigner not descended from you. 13 The slave born in your house and the person bought with your money must be circumcised; thus my covenant will be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who will not let himself be circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin — that person will be cut off from his people, because he has broken my covenant.”
15 God said to Avraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are not to call her Sarai [mockery]; her name is to be Sarah [princess]. 16 I will bless her; moreover, I will give you a son by her. Truly I will bless her: she will be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.” 17 At this Avraham fell on his face and laughed — he thought to himself, “Will a child be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah give birth at ninety?” 18 Avraham said to God, “If only Yishma‘el could live in your presence!” 19 God answered, “No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you are to call him Yitz’chak [laughter]. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 But as for Yishma‘el, I have heard you. I have blessed him. I will make him fruitful and give him many descendants. He will father twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Yitz’chak, whom Sarah will bear to you at this time next year.” 22 With that, God finished speaking with Avraham and went up from him.
23 Avraham took Yishma‘el his son, all the slaves born in his house and all who had been bought with his money, every male among the people in Avraham’s household, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin that very day, just as God had said to him.
(Maftir) 24 Avraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, 25 and Yishma‘el his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26 Avraham and Yishma‘el his son were circumcised on the same day; 27 and all the men in his household, both slaves born in his house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him.)
Haftarah: (Isaiah 40:27 - 41:16)
Today in Jewish History:• Passing of Methuselah (2105 BCE)
Methuselah, the longest-lived human being of all time, died at the age of 969 years on the 11th of Cheshvan of the year 1656 from creation (2105 BCE) -- exactly seven days before the beginning of the Great Flood. Methuselah was Adam's great-great-great-great-great-grandson and Noah's grandfather.
• Passing of Rachel (1553 BCE)
The matriarch Rachel died in childbirth on the 11th of Cheshvan of the year 2208 from creation (1553 BCE) while giving birth to her second son, Benjamin.
Rachel was born in Aram (Mesopotamia) approximately 1585 BCE. Her father was Laban, the brother of Jacob's mother, Rebecca. Jacob came to Laban's home in 1576 BCE, fleeing the wrath of his brother Esau. He fell in love with Rachel and worked for seven years tending Laban's sheep in return for her hand in marriage. But Laban deceived his nephew, and on the morning after the wedding Jacob discovered that he had married Rachel's elder sister, Leah. Laban agreed to give him Rachel as a wife as well in return for another seven years' labor.
Rachel was childless for many years, while her elder sister and rival gave birth to six sons and a daughter in succession. Finally, in 1562 BCE, she gave birth to Joseph. Nine years later, while Jacob and his family were on the road to Jacob's ancestral home in Hebron (after a 22-year absence), she gave birth to a second son, but died in childbirth. Jacob buried her by the roadside, in Bethlehem; there, "Rachel weeps over her children, for they are gone [in exile]" (Jeremiah 31:14). Her tomb has served as a place of prayer for Jews for more than 35 centuries.
• Passing of R. Nachum of Chernobyl (1797)
Rabbi Nachum of Chernobyl was a disciple of the second leader of the Chassidic movement, Rabbi DovBer of Mezeritch, and the founder of the Chernobyl dynasty of Chassidic Rebbes.
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Lech-Lecha, 7th Portion Genesis 17:7-17:27 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class
• Genesis Chapter 12
1And the Lord said to Abram, "Go forth from your land and from your birthplace and from your father's house, to the land that I will show you. אוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־אַבְרָ֔ם לֶךְ־לְךָ֛ מֵֽאַרְצְךָ֥ וּמִמּֽוֹלַדְתְּךָ֖ וּמִבֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַרְאֶֽךָּ:
2And I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will aggrandize your name, and [you shall] be a blessing. בוְאֶֽעֶשְׂךָ֙ לְג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל וַֽאֲבָ֣רֶכְךָ֔ וַֽאֲגַדְּלָ֖ה שְׁמֶ֑ךָ וֶֽהְיֵ֖ה בְּרָכָֽה:
3And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you." גוַֽאֲבָֽרְכָה֙ מְבָ֣רֲכֶ֔יךָ וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ֖ אָאֹ֑ר וְנִבְרְכ֣וּ בְךָ֔ כֹּ֖ל מִשְׁפְּחֹ֥ת הָֽאֲדָמָֽה:
4And Abram went, as the Lord had spoken to him, and Lot went with him, and Abram was seventy five years old when he left Haran. דוַיֵּ֣לֶךְ אַבְרָ֗ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֤ר אֵלָיו֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה וַיֵּ֥לֶךְ אִתּ֖וֹ ל֑וֹט וְאַבְרָ֗ם בֶּן־חָמֵ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ וְשִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה בְּצֵאת֖וֹ מֵֽחָרָֽן:
5And Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother's son, and all their possessions that they had acquired, and the souls they had acquired in Haran, and they went to go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan. הוַיִּקַּ֣ח אַבְרָם֩ אֶת־שָׂרַ֨י אִשְׁתּ֜וֹ וְאֶת־ל֣וֹט בֶּן־אָחִ֗יו וְאֶת־כָּל־רְכוּשָׁם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר רָכָ֔שׁוּ וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־עָשׂ֣וּ בְחָ֑רָן וַיֵּֽצְא֗וּ לָלֶ֨כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֖אוּ אַ֥רְצָה כְּנָֽעַן:
6And Abram passed through the land, until the place of Shechem, until the plain of Moreh, and the Canaanites were then in the land. ווַיַּֽעֲבֹ֤ר אַבְרָם֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ עַ֚ד מְק֣וֹם שְׁכֶ֔ם עַ֖ד אֵל֣וֹן מוֹרֶ֑ה וְהַכְּנַֽעֲנִ֖י אָ֥ז בָּאָֽרֶץ:
7And the Lord appeared to Abram, and He said, "To your seed I will give this land," and there he built an altar to the Lord, Who had appeared to him. זוַיֵּרָ֤א יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־אַבְרָ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לְזַ֨רְעֲךָ֔ אֶתֵּ֖ן אֶת־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֑את וַיִּ֤בֶן שָׁם֙ מִזְבֵּ֔חַ לַֽיהֹוָ֖ה הַנִּרְאֶ֥ה אֵלָֽיו:
8And he moved from there to the mountain, east of Beth el, and he pitched his tent; Beth el was to the west and Ai was to the east, and there he built an altar to the Lord, and he called in the name of the Lord. חוַיַּעְתֵּ֨ק מִשָּׁ֜ם הָהָ֗רָה מִקֶּ֛דֶם לְבֵֽית־אֵ֖ל וַיֵּ֣ט אָֽהֳלֹ֑ה בֵּֽית־אֵ֤ל מִיָּם֙ וְהָעַ֣י מִקֶּ֔דֶם וַיִּֽבֶן־שָׁ֤ם מִזְבֵּ֨חַ֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה וַיִּקְרָ֖א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהֹוָֽה:
9And Abram traveled, continually traveling southward. טוַיִּסַּ֣ע אַבְרָ֔ם הָל֥וֹךְ וְנָס֖וֹעַ הַנֶּֽגְבָּה:
10And there was a famine in the land, and Abram descended to Egypt to sojourn there because the famine was severe in the land. יוַיְהִ֥י רָעָ֖ב בָּאָ֑רֶץ וַיֵּ֨רֶד אַבְרָ֤ם מִצְרַ֨יְמָה֙ לָג֣וּר שָׁ֔ם כִּֽי־כָבֵ֥ד הָֽרָעָ֖ב בָּאָֽרֶץ:
11Now it came to pass when he drew near to come to Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, "Behold now I know that you are a woman of fair appearance. יאוַיְהִ֕י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר הִקְרִ֖יב לָב֣וֹא מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ אֶל־שָׂרַ֣י אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ הִנֵּה־נָ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי כִּ֛י אִשָּׁ֥ה יְפַת־מַרְאֶ֖ה אָֽתְּ:
12And it will come to pass when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, 'This is his wife,' and they will slay me and let you live. יבוְהָיָ֗ה כִּֽי־יִרְא֤וּ אֹתָךְ֙ הַמִּצְרִ֔ים וְאָֽמְר֖וּ אִשְׁתּ֣וֹ זֹ֑את וְהָֽרְג֥וּ אֹתִ֖י וְאֹתָ֥ךְ יְחַיּֽוּ:
13Please say [that] you are my sister, in order that it go well with me because of you, and that my soul may live because of you." יגאִמְרִי־נָ֖א אֲחֹ֣תִי אָ֑תְּ לְמַ֨עַן֙ יִֽיטַב־לִ֣י בַֽעֲבוּרֵ֔ךְ וְחָֽיְתָ֥ה נַפְשִׁ֖י בִּגְלָלֵֽךְ:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 60 - 65
• Hebrew text
• English text
• Chapter 60
• Hebrew text
• English text
• Chapter 60
This psalm tells of when Joab, David's general, came to Aram Naharayim for war and was asked by the people: "Are you not from the children of Jacob? What of the pact he made with Laban?" Not knowing what to answer, Joab asked the Sanhedrin. The psalm includes David's prayer for success in this war.
1. For the Conductor, on the shushan eidut. A michtam by David, to instruct,
2. when he battled with Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzovah, and Joab returned and smote Edom in the Valley of Salt, twelve thousand [men].
3. O God, You forsook us, You have breached us! You grew furious-restore us!
4. You made the earth quake, You split it apart-heal its fragments, for it totters!
5. You showed Your nation harshness, You gave us benumbing wine to drink.
6. [Now] give those who fear You a banner to raise themselves, for the sake of truth, Selah.
7. That Your beloved ones may be delivered, help with Your right hand and answer me.
8. God said with His Holy [Spirit] that I would exult; I would divide Shechem, and measure out the Valley of Succot.
9. Mine is Gilead, mine is Menasseh, and Ephraim is the stronghold of my head; Judah is my prince.
10. Moab is my washbasin, and upon Edom I will cast my shoe; for me, Philistia will sound a blast [of coronation].
11. Who will bring me into the fortified city? Who will lead me unto Edom?
12. Is it not You, God, Who has [until now] forsaken us, and did not go forth with our legions?
13. Grant us relief from the oppressor; futile is the salvation of man.
14. With God we will do valiantly, and He will trample our oppressors.
Chapter 61
David composed this prayer while fleeing from Saul. The object of all his thoughts and his entreaty is that God grant him long life-not for the sake of pursuing the pleasures of the world, but rather to serve God in awe, all of his days.
1. For the Conductor, on the neginat, by David.
2. Hear my cry, O God, listen to my prayer.
3. From the end of the earth I call to You, when my heart is faint [with trouble]: Lead me upon the rock that surpasses me!
4. For You have been a refuge for me, a tower of strength in the face of the enemy.
5. I will dwell in Your tent forever; I will take refuge in the shelter of Your wings, Selah.
6. For You, God, heard my vows; You granted the inheritance of those who fear Your Name.
7. Add days to the days of the king; may his years equal those of every generation.
8. May he sit always before God; appoint kindness and truth to preserve him.
9. Thus will I sing the praise of Your Name forever, as I fulfill my vows each day.
Chapter 62
David prays for the downfall of his enemies. He also exhorts his generation that their faith should not rest in riches, telling them that the accumulation of wealth is utter futility.
1. For the Conductor, on the yedutun,1 a psalm by David.
2. To God alone does my soul hope; my salvation is from Him.
3. He alone is my rock and salvation, my stronghold; I shall not falter greatly.
4. Until when will you plot disaster for man? May you all be killed-like a leaning wall, a toppled fence.
5. Out of their arrogance alone they scheme to topple me, they favor falsehood; with their mouths they bless, and in their hearts they curse, Selah.
6. To God alone does my soul hope, for my hope is from Him.
7. He alone is my rock and salvation, my stronghold; I shall not falter.
8. My salvation and honor is upon God; the rock of my strength-my refuge is in God.
9. Trust in Him at all times, O nation, pour out your hearts before Him; God is a refuge for us forever.
10. Men are but vanity; people [but] transients. Were they to be raised upon the scale, they would be lighter than vanity.
11. Put not your trust in exploitation, nor place futile hope in robbery. If [corrupt] wealth flourishes, pay it no heed.
12. God spoke one thing, from which I perceived two: That strength belongs to God;
13. and that Yours, my Lord, is kindness. For You repay each man according to his deeds.
Chapter 63
Hiding from Saul, and yearning to approach the place of the Holy Ark like one thirsting for water, David composed this prayer on his behalf and against his enemy.
1. A psalm by David, when he was in the Judean desert.
2. O God, You are my Almighty, I seek You! My soul thirsts for You, my flesh longs for You; [like one] in a desolate and dry land, without water,
3. so [I thirst] to see You in the Sanctuary, to behold Your might and glory.
4. For Your kindness is better than life; my lips shall praise You.
5. Thus will I bless you all my life, in Your Name I will raise my hands [in prayer].
6. As with fat and abundance my soul is sated, when my mouth offers praise with expressions of joy.
7. Indeed, I remember You upon my bed; during the watches of the night I meditate upon You.
8. For You were a help for me; I sing in the shadow of Your wings.
9. My soul cleaved to You; Your right hand supported me.
10. But they seek desolation for my soul; they will enter the depths of the earth.
11. They will drag them by the sword; they will be the portion of foxes.
12. And the king will rejoice in God, and all who swear by Him will take pride, when the mouths of liars are blocked up.
Chapter 64
The masters of homiletics interpret this psalm as alluding to Daniel, who was thrown into the lion's den. With divine inspiration, David foresaw the event and prayed for him. Daniel was a descendant of David, as can be inferred from God's statement to Hezekiah (himself of Davidic lineage), "And from your children, who will issue forth from you, they will take, and they (referring to, amongst others, Daniel) will be ministers in the palace of the king of Babylon."
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Hear my voice, O God, as I recount [my woes]; preserve my life from the terror of the enemy.
3. Shelter me from the schemes of the wicked, from the conspiracy of evildoers,
4. who have sharpened their tongue like the sword, aimed their arrow-a bitter word-
5. to shoot at the innocent from hidden places; suddenly they shoot at him, they are not afraid.
6. They encourage themselves in an evil thing, they speak of laying traps; they say: "Who will see them?”
7. They sought pretexts; [and when] they completed a diligent search, each man [kept the plot] inside, deep in the heart.
8. But God shot at them; [like] a sudden arrow were their blows.
9. Their own tongues caused them to stumble; all who see them shake their heads [derisively].
10. Then all men feared, and recounted the work of God; they perceived His deed.
11. Let the righteous one rejoice in the Lord and take refuge in Him, and let them take pride-all upright of heart.
Chapter 65
This psalm contains awe-inspiring and glorious praises to God, as well as entreaties and prayers concerning our sins. It declares it impossible to recount God's greatness, for who can recount His mighty acts? Hence, silence is His praise.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David, a song.
2. Silence is praise for You, O God [Who dwells in] Zion; and to You vows will be paid.
3. O Heeder of prayer, to You does all flesh come.
4. Matters of sin overwhelm me; You will pardon our transgressions.
5. Fortunate is [the nation] whom You choose and draw near, to dwell in Your courtyards; may we be sated with the goodness of Your House, with the holiness of Your Sanctuary.
6. Answer us with awesome deeds as befits Your righteousness, O God of our salvation, the security of all [who inhabit] the ends of the earth and distant seas.
7. With His strength He prepares [rain for] the mountains; He is girded with might.
8. He quiets the roar of the seas, the roar of their waves and the tumult of nations.
9. Those who inhabit the ends [of the earth] fear [You] because of Your signs; the emergences of morning and evening cause [man] to sing praise.
10. You remember the earth and water it, you enrich it abundantly [from] God's stream filled with water. You prepare their grain, for so do You prepare it.
11. You saturate its furrows, gratifying its legions; with showers You soften it and bless its growth.
12. You crown the year of Your goodness [with rain], and Your clouds drip abundance.
13. They drip on pastures of wilderness, and the hills gird themselves with joy.
14. The meadows don sheep, and the valleys cloak themselves with grain; they sound blasts, indeed they sing.
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 26
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
• Shabbat, Cheshvan 11, 5776 · October 24, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 26
The above applies nowadays, when the Shechinah is exiled in kelipat nogah; hence the main function of Torah study is to seek out and elevate the sparks of holiness from the kelipot. Hence, too, the current concentration on the laws of issur andhetter, kasher and passul, and the like.
אבל בצאת השכינה מקליפת נוגה [מהקליפות]
But when the Shechinah will emerge from kelipat nogah [1or: from the kelipot],
אחר שיושלם בירור הניצוצות, ויופרד הרע מהטוב, ויתפרדו כל פועלי און
after the extraction of the sparks will be completed, and the evil of the kelipot will be separated from the good of holiness,2 “and all the workers of evil will be dispersed,”
ולא שלטא אילנא דטוב ורע, בצאת הטוב ממנה
and the Tree of [Knowledge of] Good and Evil (which is of kelipat nogah and which prevails during the time of exile) will no longer be dominant, because the good will have departed from it,
Kelipat nogah is influential only by virtue of its minimal component of good; as soon as this is extracted, kelipat nogahwill have no dominion whatever.
אזי לא יהיה עסק התורה והמצות לברר בירורין
then people will engage in the study of Torah and in the observance of the commandments not in order to extract the sparks, as in the present,
כי אם ליחד יחודים עליונים יותר, להמשיך אורות עליונים יותר, שלמעלה מאצילות
but in order to bring about the consummation of yichudim (“unions” or “marriages” of Sefirot) more sublimethan those which are effected through our present Torah study — in order to call forth more sublime lights, transcending3 Atzilut.
כמו שכתב האריז״ל
This is explained in the writings of R. Isaac Luria, of blessed memory.
והכל על ידי פנימיות התורה, לקיים המצות בכוונות עליונות, שמכונות לאורות עליונים
Everything [will be accomplished] by means of the pnimiyut of the Torah, the esoteric dimension of the Torah,by the performance of the commandments with lofty mystical devotions directed to [drawing down] sublime “lights” [from the Divine Luminary].
כי שרש המצות הוא למעלה מעלה, באין סוף ברוך הוא
For the root of the commandments is exceedingly high, in the blessed Ein Sof, at a level loftier than Atzilut.
(ומה שאמרו רז״ל, דמצות בטילות לעתיד לבא
(4As for the statement of our Sages, of blessed memory, that5 “the commandments will be abrogated in the future,”
היינו בתחיית המתים
this refers to the era of the Resurrection of the Dead.
אבל לימות המשיח, קודם תחיית המתים, אין בטלים)
In the days of the Messiah, however, before the Resurrection of the Dead, they will not be abrogated.)6
At that time, the observance of mitzvot will draw down to this world even higher levels of G‑dliness than those drawn down by the current observance of mitzvot.
ולכן יהיה גם עיקר עסק התורה גם כן בפנימיות המצות, וטעמיהם הנסתרים
This is why Torah study will then be mainly directed to the pnimiyut (the innermost, mystical depths) of the commandments, and their hidden reasons.
Specifically: Gaining insights into the dynamics of the above-mentioned yichudim, and thereby understanding why the scrupulous performance of the commandments brings about these Supernal “unions” which give birth to renewed diffusions of the Divine light that animates this world.
אבל הנגלות יהיו גלוים וידועים לכל איש ישראל, בידיעה בתחלה, בלי שכחה
The revealed aspects of the Torah, however, will be manifest and known to every Jew, by an innate and unforgotten knowledge.
Review will thus be unnecessary.
ואין צריך לעסוק בהם, אלא לערב רב
Only the mixed multitude (and not the Jews) will have to toil in these [aspects of the Torah],
שלא יזכו למטעם מאילנא דחיי, שהוא פנימיות התורה והמצוה
because they will not have merited to taste from the Tree of Life, i.e., the pnimiyut of the Torah and of the commandments.
וצריכים לעסוק [בתורה] במשנה, להתיש כח הסטרא אחרא הדבוק בהם (על ידי עסק התורה)
They will [therefore] need to engage [7in Torah] in Mishnah, in order to weaken (8by their occupation with Torah) the power of the sitra achra that cleaves to them,
שלא תשלוט בהם, להחטיאם
so that it will not dominate them and cause them to sin.
כדכתיב: והחוטא בן מאה שנה יקולל, שיהיו חוטאים מערב רב
Thus it is written,9 “And the sinner at the age of a hundred will be cursed.” This refers to the sinners of the mixed multitude.
Thus, even with the arrival of the Messiah there will be sinners among the mixed multitude, since the sitra achra cleaves to them. They will therefore require means by which to weaken it, so that they will not sin.
Nor will they need only the revealed aspects of the Torah in order to repel the sitra achra.
למעשה יהיו צריכים לפרטי הלכות אסור וטומאה יותר מישראל
In addition, on the practical level, they will need the detailed rulings of prohibition and impurity more than the Jews.
שלא יארע להם פסול וטומאה ואסור
For the latter, nothing will occur that is ritually unfit, impure, or forbidden,
כי לא יאונה כו׳
since10 “there shall not befall [any sin to the righteous]”11 — and in the era of Mashiach, all Jews will be at the level of the “righteous”.
וגם אפשר, וקרוב הדבר, שידעו מפנימיות התורה, כל גופי התורה הנגלית
It is also possible, and indeed probable, that [the Jewish people] will know all the fundamentals of the revealed plane of the Torah from the pnimiyut of the Torah,
כמו אברהם אבינו, עליו השלום
as was the case with our father Abraham, peace be to him.
The Gemara relates12 that Abraham fulfilled the entire Torah even before it was given at Sinai. Now there are passages and commandments to which he could not possibly have related on a physical level.
Inscribed on the tiny parchment scrolls within tefillin, for example, are Biblical passages which record the Exodus from Egypt — a land to which his descendants had not yet been exiled. The mode of Abraham’s performance of the commandments was thus spiritual and esoteric, as the Alter Rebbe explains in Torah Or13 and Likkutei Torah.14
Abraham thus knew all the revealed aspects of Torah from its esoteric core. In Time to Come all Jews will know the Torah in a similar manner.
ולכן אין צריך לעסוק בהם כלל
They will therefore not need to occupy themselves with them — with the laws defining what is permitted or prohibited, pure or impure — at all.
מה שאין כן בזמן בית שני, היו צריכים לעסוק
At the time of the Second Temple, by contrast, although the scholars did not derive their sustenance from the illiterate, for they had their own fields and vineyards, they needed to be involved in these [laws],
גם כי לא בשביל הלכה למעשה בלבד, אלא שזהו עיקר העבודה
and not only for their practical application, but because this is the main purpose of divine service —
להתיש כח הסטרא אחרא, ולהעלות ניצוצי הקדושה, על ידי התורה והעבודה, כמו שכתוב במקום אחר
to weaken the power of the sitra achra and to elevate the sparks of holiness by means of Torah study and worship, as is explained elsewhere.15
* * *
ואחר הדברים והאמת האלו, יובן היטב בתוספת ביאור הרעיא מהימנא דלעיל
After the above words of truth it will be possible to clearly understand the earlier-quoted passage fromRa’aya Mehemna,
במה שאמר: אילנא דטוב ורע כו׳
which spoke of “the Tree of Good and Evil, [i.e., prohibition and permission],”
רצונו לומר: קליפת נוגה, שהוא עיקר עולם הזה
meaning kelipat nogah, which is the mainstay of this world,16
כמו שכתוב בעץ חיים
as is written in Etz Chayim.
At the moment, until Mashiach arrives, the dominant influence in this material world is kelipat nogah, the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.” After his arrival, however, this dominion will cease, and man’s divine service will be directed not to extracting the sparks of holiness hidden in the material world, but to bringing about ever higher Supernal unions, as explained above.
ודי למבין
This will suffice for the discerning.
Addendum
In the middle of the above Epistle, the Alter Rebbe stated that if “one ate [forbidden food] in order to save an endangered life,... [the food] becomes [entirely] permissible.”
The Rebbe notes17 that this concept is problematic; indeed, many editions of the Tanya omit the word “entirely”, which is evidently why it found its way into current editions as a bracketed text.
The Rebbe goes on to distinguish between prohibition (issur) and impurity (tumah). When something is prohibited, one can sense its inherent evil; for example, forbidden foods clog the mind and heart with spiritual congestion. Thus, even if a pregnant woman scented forbidden food on Yom Kippur and the Torah permitted her to eat it (if her life would otherwise be in danger),18 eating that food would still becloud her soul.
Moreover, even when the prohibition was not intrinsic to the food, but a thought or a statement invalidated it, as for example when an animal was slaughtered with idolatrous intent,19 eating this food leaves its imprint. Thus, for example, theMidrash20 traces the wayward path of Elisha ben Avuyah (known as “Acher”) to very early beginnings — before his birth his mother had tasted food that was prepared for idolatrous worship.
In light of the above, the Rebbe goes on to note, we can understand why a nursing mother who has eaten forbidden food, even when permitted to do so because her life was endangered, should refrain from nursing her child.21 For although eating this food was in fact halachically permitted, the nature of the food and the spiritual blemish which it imparts to her infant remain unchanged.
This is especially so, according to the halachic determination (with regard to one who is ill as well), that a life-threatening situation merely sets aside a prohibition; it does not make the prohibited object permissible.22
As the Rebbe concludes, the above considerations evidently explain why in current editions of Iggeret HaKodesh — regarding the food eaten in a life-threatening situation that becomes “[entirely] permissible” — the word “entirely” is bracket-ed, and in many editions never appeared.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | These brackets are in the original text. |
| 2. | Tehillim 92:10. |
| 3. | The word translated “transcending” does not appear in the printed Hebrew text. It has been inserted here according to the emendation of the Rebbe in Luach HaTikkun. |
| 4. | These parentheses are in the original text. |
| 5. | Niddah 61b. |
| 6. | This differentiation between the performance of mitzvot before and after the Resurrection, follows the view of Tosafot inNiddah (loc. cit.). There Tosafot explains that the fact that burial shrouds may be made of kilayim, the forbidden mixture of wool and linen, proves that mitzvot will be abrogated after the Resurrection, for otherwise a Jew would arise wearing forbidden garments. The Rashba, cited there in Chiddushei HaRan, disagrees, holding that the mitzvot are abrogated as far as the individual is concerned only while he is deceased. As the Rashba understands the Gemara, they will not be abrogated after the Resurrection. The Rebbe uses this debate to resolve a seeming contradiction between two statements by the Alter Rebbe. In his Note to ch. 36 of Tanya (on p. 478 of Vol. II in the present series), the Alter Rebbe writes that “the [time of] receiving the reward is essentially in the seventh millennium.” Since this is after the time of the Resurrection, this is a time during which we are still intended to perform mitzvot. How, then, does the Alter Rebbe state here that mitzvot will be abrogated at the time of the Resurrection? The distinction: In the Note to ch. 36 the Alter Rebbe follows the view of the Rashba, who maintains that at the time of the Resurrection, mitzvot will continue to be in effect. (The Alter Rebbe also follows this view in his maamar in Likkutei Torahon the phrase VeHayah BaYom Hahu Yitaka BeShofar Gadol.) Here, however, he follows the view of Tosafot. The Rebbe goes on to say that drawing a distinction (as the Alter Rebbe does above) between the two periods, resolves most of the problematic queries posed by the MaHaratz Chayot, whose Glosses on Tractate Niddah cite those Talmudic sources which would seem to indicate that in future time the commandments will not be abrogated. For those sources speak of the era of the Messiah, before the Resurrection, while the teaching that they will be abrogated applies to the era that follows the Resurrection (according to the view of Tosafot). For further examonation of this subject, the Rebbe refers the reader to the sources listed in Sdei Chemed, Klalim 40:218 (Vol. III, p. 561c ff. in the Kehot edition) and in Divrei Chachamim, sec. 53 (p. 1962b ff.). |
| 7. | These brackets are in the original text. |
| 8. | This phrase, enclosed in parentheses in the printed Hebrew text, does not appear in some manuscripts. |
| 9. | Yeshayahu 65:20. |
| 10. | Mishlei 12:21. |
| 11. | Note of the Rebbe: “...For only with regard to the present time does Tosafot maintain (contrary to the view of Rashi) [that the promise of this verse applies] only to edibles (Chullin 5b), [for it is particularly shameful for a righteous person to eat forbidden food, even if unwittingly]. This [restriction to the present] may be derived from the underlying reasoning, viz.: In Time to Come the entire world will attain perfection. [At that time, therefore, no kind of unwitting sin will befall any of the Jewish people, since all will then be righteous].” |
| 12. | Yoma 28b; Kiddushin 82a. |
| 13. | Lech Lecha 11d. |
| 14. | Shemini 18c. |
| 15. | See Likkutei Torah, BeHaalot’cha 32d. |
| 16. | The last phrase in the Hebrew text has been emended according to the Table of Glosses and Emendations. |
| 17. | This Addendum is based on selections from Likkutei Sichot, Vol. III, p. 984ff., and footnotes there. |
| 18. | Yoma 82a; the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 617:2. |
| 19. | Chullin 39b. |
| 20. | Ruth Rabbah 6:6. |
| 21. | Taz (Turei Zahav) and Shach (Siftei Cohen) in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, end of sec. 81. |
| 22. | Cf. Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat, beginning of ch. 2. |
• Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Today's Mitzvah
Cheshvan 11, 5776 · October 24, 2015
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 282
Issuing a Capital Verdict by a One-Vote Majority
"You shall not follow the majority for evil"—Exodus 23:2.
It is forbidden for a judge in a capital case to follow the majority decisions if the majority is only one vote greater than the minority. I.e., if there's disagreement between the judges whether an individual is deserving of capital punishment, and the group of judges that wishes to convict is one vote more than the group that wishes to acquit—it is forbidden to execute the defendant.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 283
Independent Judicial Opinions
"You shall not respond concerning a lawsuit to follow"—Exodus 23:2.
A judge is forbidden to rely upon the reasoning presented by a fellow judge, to convict or aquit a defendant, without himself examining and analyzing the issue based on the case's foundations. He may not say, "I'm satisfied to simply agree with the opinion of the other great judge." Rather, each judge must state the opinion that he independently arrived at.
Another few laws are included in this mitzvah (all derived from the same words of the verse) [all these rules apply in capital cases only]:
One who originally argued in favor of the defendant may not afterwards argue to incriminate [though he may personally change his mind and vote to convict].
When hearing a capital case, the judges must open the proceedings with words in defense of the defendant.
If exculpatory evidence is found after a guilty verdict has been handed down, the verdict is discarded, and the court reconvenes to consider the new evidence. The inverse is not true—once a person is vindicated, he cannot be retried.
When the time comes for the judges to state their arguments [for or against the defendant], we do not start with the greatest of the judges [lest the others be influenced by his opinion].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Positive Commandment 229
Execution by Stoning
"And you shall stone them with stones that they die"—Deuteronomy 22:24.
Transgressors of certain sins are to be executed via lapidation.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Positive Commandment 228
Execution by Burning
"They shall be burnt with fire both he and they"—Leviticus 20:14.
Transgressors of certain sins are to be executed via burning [of their innards].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Today's Mitzvah
Cheshvan 11, 5776 · October 24, 2015
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 282
Issuing a Capital Verdict by a One-Vote Majority
"You shall not follow the majority for evil"—Exodus 23:2.
It is forbidden for a judge in a capital case to follow the majority decisions if the majority is only one vote greater than the minority. I.e., if there's disagreement between the judges whether an individual is deserving of capital punishment, and the group of judges that wishes to convict is one vote more than the group that wishes to acquit—it is forbidden to execute the defendant.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Issuing a Capital Verdict by a One-Vote Majority
Negative Commandment 282
Translated by Berel Bell
The 282nd prohibition is that a judge is forbidden from following majority rule [in a capital case] if there is only a majority of one. This means that if judges disagree regarding a transgressor — some saying that he should be executed and others saying that he should not, and those saying guilty are a majority of one — it is forbidden to execute him. G‑d has forbidden the judge from executing him until there is a majority of two.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not follow the majority to do evil." This means, "Do not follow just any majority in a capital case," which is the intention of the phrase "to do evil." In the words of the Mechilta, "If 11 judges rule he is innocent and 12 judges that he is guilty, I would think that he is guilty. The Torah therefore says, 'Do not follow the majority to do evil.' " It is also written there, "You can rule in his favor with a majority of one, and against him with a majority of two."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 4th chapter of tractate Sanhedrin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 23:2.
_____________________________________Negative Commandment 283
Independent Judicial Opinions
"You shall not respond concerning a lawsuit to follow"—Exodus 23:2.
A judge is forbidden to rely upon the reasoning presented by a fellow judge, to convict or aquit a defendant, without himself examining and analyzing the issue based on the case's foundations. He may not say, "I'm satisfied to simply agree with the opinion of the other great judge." Rather, each judge must state the opinion that he independently arrived at.
Another few laws are included in this mitzvah (all derived from the same words of the verse) [all these rules apply in capital cases only]:
One who originally argued in favor of the defendant may not afterwards argue to incriminate [though he may personally change his mind and vote to convict].
When hearing a capital case, the judges must open the proceedings with words in defense of the defendant.
If exculpatory evidence is found after a guilty verdict has been handed down, the verdict is discarded, and the court reconvenes to consider the new evidence. The inverse is not true—once a person is vindicated, he cannot be retried.
When the time comes for the judges to state their arguments [for or against the defendant], we do not start with the greatest of the judges [lest the others be influenced by his opinion].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Independent Judicial Opinions
Negative Commandment 283
Translated by Berel Bell
The 283rd prohibition is that a judge is forbidden to rely on the opinion on another judge — either to convict or to acquit — without investigating the case independently and formulating his own opinion and analysis based upon principles of law.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not speak up in a trial lintos."2 This means that in a trial, one should not merely choose an opinion to follow — e.g. that of the majority or of the higher judges — refraining from offering your own opinion in that case.
In the words of the Mechilta:3 "The verse 'Do not speak up in a trial lintos' teaches that when the votes are cast, you should not say to yourself, 'it's good enough to say the same as Rabbi so-and-so.' Rather, you should give your own opinion. One might think that the same law governs financial cases. The Torah therefore adds, 'A case must be decided based on majority rule.' "
From this prohibition it is also derived that after giving a vote of acquittal, a judge may not change his opinion to one of guilt. This is also conveyed by G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "Do not speak up in a trial lintos," i.e. your speech should not turn him towards conviction.
So too, from this verse it is derived that "capital cases may not be opened by the prosecution, as it is written, 'Do not speak up in a trial lintos'"; that a case may be reopened for acquittal [after conviction], but not for conviction [after acquittal]; and that [when the judges declare their verdict] they should not start from the eldest judge. All these laws are derived from the verse, "Do not speak up in a trial lintos," as explained in the 4th chapter of tractate Sanhedrin, where the details of this mitzvah are given.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid., 23:2.
2.Literally "to turn," meaning here "to turn after someone else's opinion" or "to follow."
3.Mechilta D'Rashbi.
____________________________________Positive Commandment 229
Execution by Stoning
"And you shall stone them with stones that they die"—Deuteronomy 22:24.
Transgressors of certain sins are to be executed via lapidation.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Execution by Stoning
Positive Commandment 229
Translated by Berel Bell
The 229th mitzvah is that we are commanded to execute by stoning1 those who transgress certain mitzvos.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "They shall be put to death by stoning." I will point out the mitzvos which are punishable by stoning when listing the prohibitions.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 6th chapter of tractate Sanhedrin.
Positive Commandment 230
FOOTNOTES
1.Although literally translated as "stoning," it actually consisted of being thrown from a high platform. Only if the person did not die from the fall were actual stones used.
2.Deut. 22:24.
____________________________________Positive Commandment 228
Execution by Burning
"They shall be burnt with fire both he and they"—Leviticus 20:14.
Transgressors of certain sins are to be executed via burning [of their innards].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Execution by Burning
Positive Commandment 228
Translated by Berel Bell
The 228th prohibition is that we are commanded to execute by burning1 those who transgress certain mitzvos.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "both he and they shall be burned with fire." I will point out the mitzvos which are punishable by sereifa when listing the prohibitions.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 7th chapter of tractate Sanhedrin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Although literally translated as "burning," it actually consisted of pouring molten metal down the convict's throat.
2.Lev. 20:14.
• 1 Chapter: Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 2
• English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Shvuot - Chapter 2
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Shvuot - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
Whether one takes one of these four oaths [falsely] on his own initiative or he is placed under oath by another person and answers Amen to his statements, he is liable.1 [This applies] even if he is placed under oath by a gentile2 or a minor3and responds Amen.
[The rationale is that] anyone who responds Amen or makes a statement equivalent to responding Amen, e.g., he says "Yes," "I am obligated in this oath," "I accept this oath upon myself," or the like in any language4 is considered to have taken an oath with regard to all matter,5 whether it be liability for lashes6 or for a sacrifice.7
Halacha 2
[The same laws apply whether] one took an oath - or another person administered an oath to him - with God's ineffable name8 - or with one of the descriptive terms used to refer to Him,9 e.g., he took an oath "on He whose name is Gracious," "on He whose name is Merciful," or "on He whose name is Patient," regardless of the language he used.10 The statement is considered an oath in the full sense of the term.11
Similarly, a statement with the terms eleh or erur12 is considered as an oath,13provided one mentions one of God's names or one of the terms used to describe Him. What is implied? When a person said: "May one who eats this-and-this entity be cursed unto God," or "...cursed unto He whose name is Gracious," "...cursed unto He whose name is Merciful" and then ate that entity, he has taken a false oath.14 Similar concepts apply with regard to the other types of oaths.
Halacha 3
Similarly, one who says: "[I am taking] an oath by God...," or "...by One whose name is Gracious that I will not eat," and he ate, "...that this is a woman," and it was a man, "...that I do not owe you anything," and he does, "that I do not know any testimony involving you," and he does,15 he is liable.
Halacha 4
If a person uses the term eleh or erur or an oath and does not mention God's name or a term describing Him, he is bound by a prohibition with regard to the entity concerning which he [desired to] take the oath. He is not, however, liable for lashes or for a sacrifice if he violated his oath unless it included one of God's names16 or a term describing Him as explained.
Halacha 5
Not only the term sh'vuah, but [the use of] any idiom used to refer to an oath is considered as [taking] an oath. For example, people in a given place were inarticulate and would call an oath shabutah or shakukah, or they were Aramites for whom the term for oath in their language is momata, and the inarticulate idiomatically refer to it is mohah. When a person makes a statement whose intent and meaning is that he is taking an oath, he is liable as if he used the term [in Lashon Hakodesh].17
Halacha 6
Similarly, when a person says: "No, no," repeating the negative twice as if he is taking an oath or "Yes, yes," and mentions God's name or a term used to describe Him, it is considered an oath.18 Similarly, if he says: "[By God's] right hand," it is an oath, or "[By God's] left hand," it is an oath, as [implied by Isaiah 62:5] "God swore by His right hand and by the arm of His strength."19 Similarly, when someone says "Mivtah20 that I will not do such-and-such," and mentions God's name or a term used to describe Him, it is considered an oath.
Halacha 7
When one says: "It is forbidden for God's [sake]" or "...for [the sake of] He whose name is Gracious that I will do..." or "...that I will not do [such-and-such]," it is considered an oath, because the wording he used has that implication.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
Similarly, if he took an oath and said: "I will not eat this meat," and then said: "This bread is like this meat," he is not liable for the bread, because he did not explicitly take an oath regarding it. Instead, he appended [the prohibition concerning it to his existing oath]. Although he is exempt from lashes and from a sacrifice, he is forbidden to partake of the bread that he appended to his oath.23
Halacha 10
[Although] a person has the intent to take an oath and resolves in his heart not to eat on that day or not to drink and has the intent for that activity to forbidden for him by oath, [if] he does not actually make such a statement, he is permitted [to eat or drink], as [implied by Leviticus 5:4]: "expressing with his lips." [Implied is that] a person who takes an oath is not liable until he explicitly states the matter the oath concerns with his lips.
Halacha 11
Similarly, if he resolved within his heart to take an oath and erred and uttered a statement that did not fit the intent in his heart, [the activity] is permitted.24
What is implied? A person had the intent that he would not eat in Reuven's [home], but when he actually came to state the oath explicitly, he swore not to eat in [Shimon's] home. [In such a situation,] he is permitted to eat in Reuven's [home] for he did not explicitly [swear not to eat there]. [And he is permitted to eat] in Shimon's [home] for he did not have the intent [to prohibit that].
Halacha 12
Similarly, with regard to the other types of oaths, one is not liable until his mouth and his heart are in concord.25 Therefore [the following law applies if] a person took an oath in our presence that he would not eat and ate. He was given a warning [before he ate] and he responded: "My intent was that I would not depart today. I had a slip of the tongue and mentioned eating although that was not my intent."26 is not liable for lashes unless, before he eats, he admits in the presence of witnesses that [his intent in] taking the oath was [not] to eat. Alternatively, [he is liable for lashes] if he accepted the warning and did not protest that he erred at the time of the warning. Even though he protested afterwards, we do not pay attention to him.27 Similarly, [he is liable] if they warned him and he said: "I never took an oath - or a vow - concerning this matter." Despite the fact that after they give testimony that he took an oath or vow, he says: "Yes, that is true, but my mouth and heart were not in concord," or "In my heart, I had a stipulation in mind concerning the vow,"28 we do not heed him29 and he is liable for lashes.
Halacha 13
Similarly, if [witnesses] told him: "Your wife took a vow," and he said: "My intent was to nullify the vow and I did so,"30 we heed his statements. If he is told, "She took a vow," and he denies it, but when he saw them testify against him, he said: "My intent was to nullify [the vow]," his word is not heeded.
Halacha 14
If he resolved within his heart not to partake of bread made from wheat, but took an oath not to partake of bread without qualifying his statement, he is forbidden to partake of bread from wheat. For when bread [is mentioned without qualification, the meaning] is bread from wheat.31
Halacha 15
When a person takes an oath, saying: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat today and my oath is dependent on your intent,"32 he cannot [later] say: "I had these-and-these thoughts in my heart." [The rationale is] that the person did not take the oath dependent on his own intent, but rather on the intent of others. Since his statements did concur with the intent of those on whose intent he took the oath he is liable. [The intent in] the heart of those individuals takes the place of his own intent. [This concept also applies] with regard to other types of oaths.
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
[The following law applies when a person] took an oath and his statements and his intent concurred at the time he took the oath, but after he becomes forbidden [in the particular activity mentioned in the oath], he changes his mind immediately, directly after he spoke. [The latter term has a specific halachic definition]: the time it takes a student to tell his teacher: Shalom Elecha Rabbi.35[If, in this interim, the person says:] "This is not an oath," "I changed my mind," "I retract," or the like, i.e., statements that imply that he seeks to release the prohibition he took on [himself], it is permitted.36 The oath is eradicated, for this resembles on who made a statement in error.
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
If a person took an oath and retracted within his heart39 within the above measure of time, it is of no consequence. Similarly, if others told him: "Retract," "It is permitted for you," or "It is absolved for you," and he accepted their words in his heart within the above measure of time, it is of no consequence. He must state his retraction explicitly like his oath.40
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The concept that a person is considered to have taken an oath when he responds Amen to the statements is derived from the Torah's statements with regard to a sotah, a woman suspected of adultery (Numbers 5:22). For she is required to answer Amen to the oath administered to her by the priest and yet, it is considered as if she took the oath herself.
|
| 2. |
Although in most instances, statements made by such gentiles are of no significance according to Jewish Law, this is an acceptance. Here also there is an allusion to this concept in the Torah itself. Ezekiel 17:13 and II Chronicles 36:13 speak of Nebuchadnetzar having King Tzidkayahu take an oath. Nedarim 65a states that this oath was binding. Similarly, Sh'vuot 36a speaks of an oath Moses took to Jethro, his gentile father-in-law (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 3. |
This is derived through a comparison to gentiles.
|
| 4. |
I.e., not only in lashon hakodesh, the Hebrew used in the Bible and by the Sages.
|
| 5. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 1, Chapter 8, Halachah 7, and Chapter 9, Halachah 1, which mentions instances where a person is considered to have taken an oath even if he does not respond Amen.
|
| 6. |
If he takes a false sh'vuat bitui or takes an oath in vain.
|
| 7. |
If he takes a false sh'vuat hapikadon or sh'vuat ha'edut.
|
| 8. |
I.e., the name Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei. See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:7 which states that this term also refers to the name Adonai. The same law holds true for any other of God's names.
|
| 9. |
Note, however, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:5, which states that even when these descriptions are used to refer to Him, they are not considered to have the same holiness as one of His names.
|
| 10. |
I.e., not only in lashon hakodesh, the Hebrew used in the Bible and by the Sages.
|
| 11. |
The Rambam uses the expression "in the full sense of the term" to differentiate between this instance and the law mentioned in Halachah 4. Note the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz who explains that there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim if a sh'vuat bitui must contain God's name for one to be liable as appears to be the Rambam's opinion or whether His name need not be mentioned as is the view of the Ramban, Rabbenu Asher, and others. The Ra'avad takes an intermediate view, stating that one transgresses by taking a false oath and is liable to bring a sacrifice, but he is not liable for lashes unless he mentions one of God's names.
All authorities agree that God's name must be mentioned for one to be liable with regard to ash'vuat haedut or a sh'vuat hapikadon. On that basis, the Radbaz supports the Rambam's position, asking why a differentiation should be made between one type of oath and another. SeeShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 237:1) and commentaries.
|
| 12. |
Both these terms mean "curse."
|
| 13. |
Sh'vuot 36a derives this concept from the verses cited above with regard to Tzidkayahu's oath, for there he used the term "curse." See also I Samuel 14, 24, 27 which indicate that saying that one will be cursed is equivalent to an oath.
|
| 14. |
And is liable for taking a false sh'vuat bitui, as indicated by Chapter 1, Halachah 3.
|
| 15. |
I.e., the Rambam is giving an example of all four types of oaths.
|
| 16. |
See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:2 for a list of the seven names of God.
|
| 17. |
For that reason, when called to take an oath in a secular court or the like, one should refuse. Instead of saying "I swear," he should say, "I affirm."
|
| 18. |
The repetition and the mention of God's name indicate that he is not merely making a statement, but intending that it have the severity of an oath. The Kessef Mishneh states that since the person mentioned God's name, seemingly, it is not necessary for him to repeat yes or no, the mention of His name alone should be sufficient for his statement to be considered an oath. He explains that we are speaking about an instance when God's name was not mentioned in direct connection with the statement. Nevertheless, the fact that he repeated no, or yes while mentioning God's name, albeit indirectly, is sufficient for his statements to be considered an oath.
|
| 19. |
2Nazir 3a states that "the arm of His strength" refers to His left arm. Otherwise, the verse would be redundant.
|
| 20. |
Sh'vuot 20a notes that Numbers 30:7 understands this term as referring to an oath.
|
| 21. |
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that the Rambam's choice of wording - "He is not liable" rather than "It is permitted" - implies that although he is not liable, he is forbidden to break the commitment he made. Although other Rishonim differ, he follows this interpretation in hisShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 239:9-10). See the following halachah.
|
| 22. |
This is one of the distinctions between oaths and vows. One who "appends" - i.e., says "And I will be like him" - to a colleague's vow is liable. See Hilchot Nedarim 3:3-4.
|
| 23. |
The Radbaz explains that the Rambam elaborates here - in contrast to the previous halachah - for here there is greater reason to think that he will not be obligated. The explanation is based on a fundamental understanding of the difference between a sh'vuah - oath - and a neder - vow. When a person takes an oath, he places a prohibition upon his person - he is forbidden to perform the activity concerning which he took the oath. When he takes a vow, the article becomes forbidden for him. Hence, since he spoke about the article and not himself, one might think that his statement has no effect at all.
|
| 24. |
For as Sh'vuot 26b implies, one's heart and one's lips must be in concord.
|
| 25. |
In some authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, this sentence is the conclusion of the previous halachah. The present halachah begins: "Therefore..." Compare to Halachot 15-16.
|
| 26. |
I.e., if he makes this statement when given the warning, we accept his word and do not hold him liable (Tosefta, Taharot 6:9).
|
| 27. |
As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2, to be liable for lashes, a transgressor must acknowledge the warning. Since, at that time, he did not mention the lack of concurrence between his intent and his statements, we assume that he is fabricating the matter.
|
| 28. |
And since the stipulation was not met, the vow is not binding.
|
| 29. |
For he has already lied concerning this oath.
|
| 30. |
There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries with regard to the interpretation of the Rambam's statements. Some explain that the intent is that the husband used the halachic convention of hafarah and made the statement nullifying his wife's vow in a hushed tone. If, however, he did not make a statement of hafarah at all, the vow is not nullified, as stated in Hilchot Nedarim 13:7). The Tzaphnat Paneach states that the intent is that he used the halachic convention of bittul. In such in instance, a statement need not be made (Hilchot Nedarim 13:4).
|
| 31. |
Thus the person cannot claim that his statement did not reflect his intent.
|
| 32. |
I.e., this law applies even if the person takes the oath on his own volition, not only if it is administered by others.
|
| 33. |
I.e., require an oath of a person who denies a plaintiff's claim. See Chapter 11, Halachah 18.
|
| 34. |
Thus afterwards the person cannot claim that he had these-and-these thoughts in mind when taking the oath (Radbaz). See also Nedarim 25a.
|
| 35. |
"Greetings to you, my teacher." We have cited the term in transliteration for we are speaking about the amount of time it takes to say these three Hebrew words.
|
| 36. |
Nedarim 87a states that this principle applies with the exception of four situations: a blasphemer, one who accepts a false deity, one who consecrates a woman as a wife, and one who divorces her. Rabbenu Nissim explains that when taking an oath, a person has in mind that he might change his mind in this brief amount of time. Hence, his oath is not binding until this time passes.
|
| 37. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, saying that the objections of others cannot by connected to his oath. In his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 210:3), Rav Yosef Caro and also the Radbaz explain that since the others protested immediately after his oath and his acceptance also came immediately afterwards, it is as if he never completed taking the oath.
|
| 38. |
This applies even if the oath has not taken effect as of yet (Radbaz).
|
| 39. |
I.e., without verbalizing his retraction.
|
| 40. |
The Radbaz emphasizes that he must also make his statements with intent. Just as his mouth and heart must concur when making an oath, so, too, they must concur when retracting it.
|
• 3 Chapters: Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem - Chapter 4, Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem - Chapter 5, Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem - Chapter 6
• English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download
• Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem - Chapter 4
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
• Shabbat, Cheshvan 11, 5776 · 24 October 2015
"Today's Day"
Tuesday Cheshvan 11 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayeira, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 60-65.
Tanya: XXVII. My beloved (p. 563) ...his paths forevermore. (p. 565).
(At this point there appears in the Hebrew text emendations of Torah Or on this week's sedra, meaningful only in Hebrew.Translator).
The maamar Patach Eliyahu has glosses1 by my father that he began writing in the winter of 5652 (1891-2).
FOOTNOTES
1. They have since been published by Kehot Publication Society, 5741.
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
At least one of the members of the Supreme Sanhedrin, a minor Sanhedrin, or a court of three must have received semichah (ordination) from a teacher who himself had been given semichah.
Our teacher, Moses ordained Joshua by placing his hands upon him, asNumbers 27:23 states: "And he placed his hands upon him and commanded him." Similarly, Moses ordained the 70 judges and the Divine presence rested upon them. Those elders ordained others, and the others still others in later generations. This tradition continued until the Talmudic era, when the Sages had received ordination one from the other in a chain extending back to the court of Joshua, and to the court of Moses.
A person who is ordained by the nasi and one ordained by another ordained judge have the same status, even if that ordained judge never served in aSanhedrin.
Halacha 2
How is the practice of semichah practiced for all time? The person conveying ordination does not rest his hands on the elder's head. Instead, he is addressed by the title of Rabbi and is told: "You are ordained and you have the authority to render judgment, even in cases involving financial penalties.
Halacha 3
The semichah which ordains elders as judges may be conveyed only by three individuals. One of the three must have received semichah from others as explained.
Halacha 4
The term Elohim can be applied only to a court which received semichah inEretz Yisrael alone . They are wise men who are fit to render judgment who were scrutinized by a court within Eretz Yisrael which appointed them and conveyed semichah upon them.
Halacha 5
At first, whoever, had received semichah would convey semichah on his students. Afterwards, as an expression of honor to Hillel, the elder, the Sages ordained that semichah would not be conveyed upon anyone unless license had been granted by the nasi.
They also ordained that the nasi should not convey semichah unless he is accompanied by the av beit din, and that the av beit din should not conveysemichah unless he was accompanied by the nasi. The other elders could convey semichah themselves after receiving license from the nasi, provided they were accompanied by two others. For semichah cannot be conveyed by less than three judges.
Halacha 6
Semichah may not be conveyed upon elders in the diaspora even if the judges conveying semichah received semichah in Eretz Yisrael. Even if the judges conveying semichah were in Eretz Yisrael and the elders to receive semichahwere in the diaspora, they should not convey semichah. Needless to say, this applies if the judges conveying semichah were in the diaspora and the elders to receive semichah were in Eretz Yisrael.
If both of them were in Eretz Yisrael, semichah may be conveyed even though the recipients are not in the same place as those conveying semichah. Instead, the judges conveying semichah send to the elder or write to him that he has been given semichah and that he has permission to adjudicate cases involving financial penalties.
This is acceptable, because both of them are located in Eretz Yisrael. The entire area of Eretz Yisrael which the Jews who left Egypt took possession of is fit to have semichah conveyed within it.
Halacha 7
Judges who themselves were granted semichah may convey semichah on many individuals - even 100 - at one time. King David once conveyed semichahon 30,000 individuals on one day.
Halacha 8
Such judges may appoint whoever they desire for particular matters, provided he is fit to adjudicate all matters.
What is implied? A court has the authority to give semichah to a remarkable judge who is fit to issue rulings with regard to the entire Torah and limit his authority to the adjudication of financial matters, but not to what is forbidden and permitted. Conversely, they may grant him authority with regard to what is forbidden and permitted, but not to adjudicate cases involving financial matters. Or they may give him license with regard to adjudicate both such manners, but not laws involving financial penalties, or to rule with regard to financial penalties, but not to rule that a blemish disqualifies a firstborn animal. Or they may give him license merely to absolve vows, to judge stains, or to rule only within other similarly limited parameters.
Halacha 9
Similarly, the judges conveying semichah have permission to give the person receiving semichah license to judge only for a specific time, telling him: "You have permission to judge or issue rulings until the nasi arrives here," or "...as long as you are together with us in this city," or to issue other similar restrictions.
Halacha 10
When a sage of remarkable knowledge is blind in one eye, he is not givensemichah with regard to matters of financial law although he may adjudicate such cases. The rationale is that he is not fit to judge all matters. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 11
If there was only one judge in Eretz Yisrael who possessed semichah, he should call two other judges to sit with him and they should convey semichah on 70 judges at one time or one after the other. Afterwards, he and these 70 should join together to make up the Supreme Sanhedrin and grant semichah to others to make up other courts.
It appears to me that if all the all the wise men in Eretz Yisrael agree to appoint judges and convey semichah upon them, the semichah is binding and these judges may adjudicate cases involving financial penalties and convey semichahupon others.
If so, why did the Sages suffer anguish over the institution of semichah, so that the judgment of cases involving financial penalties would not be nullified among the Jewish people? Because the Jewish people were dispersed, and it is impossible that all could agree. If, by contrast, there was a person who had received semichah from a person who had received semichah, he does not require the consent of all others. Instead, he may adjudicate cases involving financial penalties for everyone, for he received semichah from a court.
The question whether semichah can be renewed requires resolution.
Halacha 12
When a court received semichah in Eretz Yisrael and then departed to the diaspora, they may judge cases involving financial penalties in the diaspora in the same manner as they judge such cases in Eretz Yisrael. For the Sanhedrinexercises judicial authority in Eretz Yisrael and in the diaspora, provided the judges have received semichah in Eretz Yisrael.
Halacha 13
The exiliarchs in Babylon function instead of the kings. They have the authority to impose their rule over the Jewish people in all places and to judge them whether they consent or not. This is derived from Genesis 49:10: "The staff will not depart from Judah" - this refers to the exiliarchs of Babylon.
Halacha 14
Any judge who is fit to adjudicate cases and was given license to serve as a judge by the exiliarch has the authority to act as a judge throughout the entire world, whether in Eretz Yisrael or in the diaspora. Even though either or both of the litigants do not desire to argue the case before him, they are required to do so despite the fact that he does not have the authority to adjudicate cases involving financial penalties.
Any judge who is fit to adjudicate cases and was given license to serve as a judge by the court in Eretz Yisrael has the authority to act as a judge throughoutEretz Yisrael and in the cities which are located on its boundaries even though the litigants do not desire to argue the case before him. In the diaspora, by contrast, the license granted him does not afford him the authority to compel the litigants to appear before him. Although he has the sanction to adjudicate cases involving financial penalties in the diaspora, he may adjudicate such cases only when the litigants consent for him to judge. He does not have the authority to compel the litigants to accept his rulings unless he is granted such authority by the exiliarch.
Halacha 15
When a person is not fit to act as a judge because he is not knowledgeable or because he lacks proper character and an exiliarch transgressed and granted him authority or the court erred and granted him authority, the authority granted him is of no consequence unless he is fit. To cite a parallel: When a person consecrates an animal with a physical blemish to be sacrificed on the altar, the holiness does not encompass it.
Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
A king may not be enthroned except by the High Court of 71 judges. A minorSanhedrin for every tribe and every city may be appointed only by the High Court of 71 judges. A tribe that has been led to apostasy in its entirety, a false prophet, or a case in which the High Priest might be liable for capital punishment, may be judged only by the High Court of 71 judges. Financial cases involving a High Priest, by contrast, may be adjudicated by a court of three.
Similarly, the determination of a rebellious elder or a city led to apostasy and the decision to cause a woman suspected of adultery to drink the waters which test her may only be done by the High Court. Similarly, the decisions to extend the city limits of Jerusalem and the limits of the Temple Courtyard, to enter a voluntary war, and to measure the distance between a corpse and the nearby cities may be done only by the High Court of 71 judges. These concepts are derived from Exodus 18:22: "All the major matters will be brought to you."
Halacha 2
Cases involving capital punishment may not be judged by a court with less than 23 judges, i.e., a minor Sanhedrin. This applies not only to instances where humans are judged with regard to capital punishment, but also when animals face such judgment. Therefore an ox which is stoned to death and an animal used in bestial sexual practices is condemned to death only by a court of 23 judges. Even when a lion, a bear, or a cheetah that have been domesticated and which have owners kill a human, they are executed based on the judgment of a court of 23. When, however, a snake kills a human, even one ordinary person may kill him.
Halacha 3
When a person who spreads a malicious report concerning his wife, at the outset, the case is judged by a court of 23. For there is the possibility of a capital case arising if the husband's claim proves true and the woman is to be stoned to death. If the husband's claim is not substantiated, and the woman's father comes to demand payment of the fine, the matter may be judged by a court of three.
What is the source which teaches that capital cases may be judged only by a court of 23? Although this is a matter conveyed by the Oral Tradition, there is an allusion to it in the Torah. Numbers 35:24-25 states: "And the congregation shall judge... and the congregation shall save...." Implied is that there must be the possibility of a congregation judging - and condemning him to death - and a congregation saving - and seeking his acquittal. Now a congregation is no less than ten. Thus there are at least 20 judges. We add three judges so that there not be an equally balanced court and to allow the possibility of "following after the inclination of the majority."
Halacha 4
Lashes are decided upon by a court of three judges. Even though the person may die when lashes are administered to him.
Halacha 5
Decapitating the calf is performed by five judges.
Halacha 6
The enlargement of the month is decided upon by three judges.
Halacha 7
The enlargement of the year is decided upon by seven judges. All of the above must possess semichah as we explained.
Halacha 8
Cases involving financial penalties, robbery, personal injury, the payment of double for a stolen article, the payment of four and five times the value of a stolen sheep or ox, rape, seduction, and the like may be adjudicated only by three expert judges who have received semichah in Eretz Yisrael,
Other cases of financial law, e.g., admissions of financial liability and loans, do not require an expert judge. Even three ordinary people, or even one expert judge may adjudicate them. For this reasons, cases involving admissions of financial liability, loans, and the like may be adjudicated in the diaspora. Although a court in the diaspora is not referred to as Elohim, they carry out the charge of the court of Eretz Yisrael. This charge does not, however, give them license to adjudicate cases involving financial penalties.
Halacha 9
The courts of the diaspora adjudicate only cases that commonly occur and which involve financial loss, e.g., admissions of liability, loans, and property damage. Matters that occur only infrequently, by contrast, even though they involve financial loss, e.g., an animal that injures another, or events that commonly occur, but do not involve financial loss, e.g., a double payment for theft, are not adjudicated by the judges of the diaspora.
Similarly, all the financial penalties which our Sages imposed against a person who punches a colleague, slaps a colleague, or the like are not adjudicated by the judges of the diaspora. Whenever a person is required to pay half the damages for the destruction of property the matter is not adjudicated by the judges of the diaspora, with the exception of the half payment for damages caused by pebbles propelled by one's animals. For that is a reimbursement for financial loss and is not a financial penalty.
Halacha 10
Whenever the injuries a person suffers are evaluated by calculating his worth as one calculates the worth of a servant, the payment is not expropriated by the judges of the diaspora. Therefore if a person injures a colleague, compensation for the damages, the pain, and the embarrassment for which he is liable is not expropriated by the judges of the diaspora. Compensation for the inability to work and medical expenses is, by contrast, expropriated in the diaspora, because they involve a financial loss. The Geonim ruled in this manner and stated that it is a commonplace matter to expropriate compensation for the inability to work and medical expenses in the diaspora.
Halacha 11
The judges of the diaspora do not exact payment when an animal injures a person, because this is an uncommon occurrence. When, by contrast, a person damages an animal belonging to a colleague, he must pay the complete damages to his colleague regardless of where this takes place, just as he is responsible if he ripped his garments, broke his utensils, or cut down his produce.
Similarly, when an animal causes damage by eating or by treading, since its owner is forewarned that this is its inherent natural tendency, it is a common matter and the damages are expropriated by the judges of the diaspora. This applies whether it damaged another animal, e.g., it rubbed against it, it consumed produce that it would naturally eat or the like, or it damaged food or utensils by treading upon them in which instance he is obligated to pay full damages. Payment for all of these damages can be expropriated by the judges of the diaspora.
If, however, an animal was not prone to cause damage, then it caused damages to the extent that the owner was warned, and then it caused damage again, e.g., it bit, it butted with its body, it lay down, it kicked, or it gored, these damages are not expropriated by the judges of the diaspora. The rationale is that there is no concept of the owner of an animal being forewarned in the diaspora. Even if an animal caused its owner to be forewarned in Eretz Yisrael, and then it was taken to the diaspora where it caused damage, the damages are not expropriated, because this is an uncommon occurrence.
Halacha 12
Why is there no concept of warning an owner in the diaspora? Because testimony must be given against the owner in the presence of a court. And the concept of a court applies only with regard to judges who have been givensemichah in Eretz Yisrael.
Accordingly, if a court of judges from Eretz Yisrael were in the diaspora, just as they have the authority to judge laws involving financial penalties in the diaspora; so, too, testimony regarding an animal can be delivered in their presence in the diaspora.
Halacha 13
When a person steals or robs, the principal can be expropriated by the judges of the diaspora. They do not, however, expropriate the double payment.
Halacha 14
The judges of the diaspora do not expropriate payment in every situation where a person would be liable to make compensation based on his own statements. For the payment to a maiden's father for blemishing her virginity and for the embarrassment she suffers, and a person who must pay an atonement fee because his ox killed another person are situations where a person must make compensation, because of his statements. For example, he said: "I seduced so-and-so's daughter," or "My ox killed so-and-so." Nevertheless, such payments are not expropriated by the judges of the diaspora.
Halacha 15
Judgments involving situations where a person's actions served as a direct cause of damage are not equivalent to laws involving k'nasot and they may be adjudicated by the judges of the diaspora.
Halacha 16
Similarly, the laws applying to a person who gives money belonging to a colleague to gentiles - even if he merely threatens to do so - may be adjudicated by the judges of the diaspora.
Halacha 17
The custom of the yeshivot of the diaspora is that even though they do not expropriate money due as k'nasot, they place the person who causes the damage under a ban of ostracism until he satisfies the plaintiff or goes with him to Eretz Yisrael to have the case adjudicated.
Once the person who causes the damage pays the amount that he would be held liable for, the ban of ostracism is lifted whether the person who suffered the injury is appeased or not. Similarly, if the person who suffered the injury seizes an amount of property belonging to the person who causes the damage equivalent to the amount he would be awarded by the court, we do not expropriate it from his possession.
Halacha 18
When one person is an expert judge and he is known by many to possess such knowledge, although he is allowed to judge cases involving financial law alone, an admission of liability made in his presence is not considered as an admission made in the presence of a court. This applies even if he possesses semichah.
When, by contrast, a court is composed of three judges, even though they do not possesses semichah, and even if they are ordinary men and are not referred to as Elohim, an admission made in their presence is considered as an admission made in a court of law. Similarly, if a person denies an obligation in their presence and witnesses come and testify against him, he is established as one who has lied. He cannot offer another claim, as we have explained.
The general principle is: With regard to the admission of financial responsibility, cases involving debts, and the like, their authority is the same as that of a court composed of judges possessing semichah with regard to all matters.
Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
The following laws apply whenever a judge adjudicates a case involving financial matters and errs. If his error involves matters that are revealed and known - e.g., a law that is explicitly stated in the Mishnah or the Gemara, the ruling is reversed. The situation is returned to its original status and the judgment required by halachah is rendered. If it is impossible to return the matter to its original status, e.g., the person who unwarrantedly received the money traveled overseas, or he was a stubborn and strong person, the judge is not liable. Although he caused a loss, he did not have the intent of doing so. Similar laws apply if a judge ruled that a substance that was pure was impure, that an animal that was kosher was unacceptable and had it fed to the dogs, or the like.
Halacha 2
Different principles apply if the judge errs in a case requiring a decision to be made by using one's logic to weigh alternative positions, for example, a case arouse involving the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Mishnah or the Sages of the Gemara where it was not explicitly stated whose opinion the halachah follows. The judge decided to follow one opinion without knowing it had already been universally established practice within the Torah community to follow the other view.
In such a situation, if the judge was an expert who had been given license to adjudicate cases by the exiliarch, or even if he had not been given such license, but the litigants voluntarily accepted him as their judicial authority, the ruling is reversed. The rationale is that he is an expert.
If the ruling cannot be reversed, he is not liable to make restitution. This applies both to a judge who received permission from the exiliarch or one received permission from a Jewish court to adjudicate cases in Eretz Yisrael, but not to serve as judge in the diaspora, as explained.
Halacha 3
Different rules apply if the person who erred in a question of logical deduction was an expert judge, but he had not received license to adjudicate cases, nor was he accepted by the litigants as an authority, or was not an expert, but was accepted by the litigants to adjudicate their case according to Torah law. If he personally took property from one litigant and gave it to the other, his actions are irreversible and he should pay the damages from his own resources. If, however, he did not personally take the property from one and give it to the other, the decision should be reversed. If the decision cannot be reversed, he should pay the damages from his own resources.
Halacha 4
When, however, a person is not an expert and was not accepted by the litigants adjudicates a case, even though he was given permission to act as a judge, he is considered as one of the men of force and not as a proper judge. Therefore, the judgment he renders is of no consequence. This applies whether he erred or whether he did not err. Either one of the litigants may withdraw and have the case adjudicated by a proper court.
If such a judge erred and personally gave property from one litigant to the other, he is obligated to pay from his own resources. He may then regain the money from the litigant to whom he gave property unlawfully. If one litigant paid the other because of the ruling of such a judge and the recipient is unable to return the money or if the judge rendered an object ritually impure or gave meat that was kosher to the dogs to eat, the judge must bear the loss as is the law regarding anyone who causes damages. For such a person has the intent of causing damages.
Halacha 5
When a judge errs and obligates a person who is not required to take an oath to do so, and in order to free himself from the obligation to take the oath, this person negotiated a compromise with the other litigant, the compromise may be revoked. Even though he affirmed the compromise with a kinyan, it is of no substance. He agreed to pay or to waive the other person's liability only to free himself from the oath to which the person who erred obligated him. And whenever a kinyan is carried out on the basis of an error, it is annulled. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
When two people are involved in a dispute concerning a judgment, one states: "Let us have the matter judged here," and the other says, "Let us ascend to the Supreme Court, lest these judges err and expropriate money contrary to the law," we compel the latter litigant to have the matter adjudicated locally.
If he asks the judges: "Write down the rationale why you have rendered this judgment against me and give it to me, lest you have erred," they must write down their rationales and give him the transcript. Afterwards, they expropriate what he owes. If the local judges feel the need to ask for clarification regarding a matter from the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, they should write down their question and send it. After their inquiry, the judgment should be rendered in the local court on the basis of the answer written to them by the Supreme Court.
Halacha 7
When does the above apply? With regards to judgments dependent on claims issued by both litigants or a situation when a lender desires to have the case adjudicated locally and the borrower says: "Let us go to the Supreme Court." If, by contrast, the lender says: "Let us go to the Supreme Court," we compel the borrower to ascend with the lender, as implied by Proverbs 22:7: "A borrower is a servant to the lender."
Similarly, if a person claims that his colleague injured or damaged his person or his property or stole from him, and the plaintiff desires to ascend to the Supreme Court, the local court compels the defendant to ascend together with him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 8
When does the above apply? When the person from who property was stolen, the person who suffered injury or damage, or the lender has witnesses or proof that support his claim. When, however, his claim is unsupported, we do not obligate the defendant to leave his locale. Instead, he takes an oath there and is freed of obligation.
Halacha 9
Similar concepts apply in the present age, when there is no Supreme Court, but there are places where there are great sages whose expertise is renown and there are other places where there are scholars who are not on that level. If the lender says: "Let us go to this-and-this place in this-and-this land to have the case adjudicated by so-and-so, the great sage," we compel the borrower to go with him. This was the practice continually in Spain.
• English Text | Video Class
• Shabbat, Cheshvan 11, 5776 · 24 October 2015
"Today's Day"
Tuesday Cheshvan 11 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayeira, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 60-65.
Tanya: XXVII. My beloved (p. 563) ...his paths forevermore. (p. 565).
(At this point there appears in the Hebrew text emendations of Torah Or on this week's sedra, meaningful only in Hebrew.Translator).
The maamar Patach Eliyahu has glosses1 by my father that he began writing in the winter of 5652 (1891-2).
FOOTNOTES
1. They have since been published by Kehot Publication Society, 5741.
Daily Thought:
Being and Not Being
He made His world of contradictions, opposites that combine as one.
At their nexus, a world is formed: Neither can exist without the other, all function together as a single whole.
Being and not being,
infinity and finitude,
light and darkness,
form and matter,
quantity and quality,
giving and withholding.
the whole and the fragment
the community and the individual
miracle and nature.
They are mere modalities—He Himself is none of them. He mixes and matches them at whim.[
Paradox is our window upon the Unknowable.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment