Today in Jewish History:
• Lisbon Earthquake (1755)
A great earthquake struck Lisbon, Portugal, destroying much of the city including the courthouse of the Inquisition.
Daily Quote:
Fix yourself up first, and then fix up others[Talmud, Bava Kama 107b]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Chayei Sarah, 4th Portion Genesis 24:27-24:52 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Genesis Chapter 24
27And he said, "Blessed is the Lord, the God of my master, Abraham, Who has not forsaken His loving kindness and His truth from my master. As for me, the Lord led me on the road to the house of my master's kinsmen." כזוַיֹּ֗אמֶר בָּר֤וּךְ יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵי֙ אֲדֹנִ֣י אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֲ֠שֶׁ֠ר לֹֽא־עָזַ֥ב חַסְדּ֛וֹ וַֽאֲמִתּ֖וֹ מֵעִ֣ם אֲדֹנִ֑י אָֽנֹכִ֗י בַּדֶּ֨רֶךְ֙ נָחַ֣נִי יְהֹוָ֔ה בֵּ֖ית אֲחֵ֥י אֲדֹנִֽי:
on the road: on the designated road, the straight road, on the very road that I needed. Likewise, every “beth,” “lammed,” and “hey,” that serve as a prefix and are vowelized with a “pattach” refer to something specific, already mentioned elsewhere, or of [some object] where it is clear and obvious about what one is speaking. [i.e., The“pattach” under the prefix denotes the הֵא הַיְדִיעָה, the definite article.] בדרך: דרך המיומן, דרך הישר, באותו דרך שהייתי צריך. וכן כל בי"ת ולמ"ד וה"א המשמשים בראש התיבה ונקודים בפת"ח מדברים בדבר הפשוט שנזכר כבר במקום אחר או שהוא מבורר וניכר באיזו הוא מדבר:
28And the maiden ran, and she told her mother's house what had happened. כחוַתָּ֨רָץ֙ הַנַּֽעֲרָ֔ה (כתיב הנער) וַתַּגֵּ֖ד לְבֵ֣ית אִמָּ֑הּ כַּדְּבָרִ֖ים הָאֵֽלֶּה:
her mother’s house: It was customary for women to have a house in which to stay to do their work, and a daughter confides only in her mother. — [Gen. Rabbah 60:7] לבית אמה: דרך הנשים היתה להיות להן בית לישב בו למלאכתן, ואין הבת מגדת אלא לאמה:
29Now Rebecca had a brother whose name was Laban, and Laban ran to the man outside, to the fountain. כטוּלְרִבְקָ֥ה אָ֖ח וּשְׁמ֣וֹ לָבָ֑ן וַיָּ֨רָץ לָבָ֧ן אֶל־הָאִ֛ישׁ הַח֖וּצָה אֶל־הָעָֽיִן:
and Laban ran: Why did he run and for what did he run? “Now it came to pass, when he saw the nose ring,” he said, “This person is rich,” and he set his eyes on the money. — [Gen. Rabbah 60:7] וירץ: למה וירץ ועל מה רץ, ויהי כראות את הנזם, אמר עשיר הוא זה, ונתן עיניו בממון:
30And it came to pass, when he saw the nose ring and the bracelets on his sister's hands, and when he heard the words of his sister Rebecca, saying, "So did the man speak to me, " that he came to the man, and behold, he was standing over the camels at the fountain. לוַיְהִ֣י | כִּרְאֹ֣ת אֶת־הַנֶּ֗זֶם וְאֶת־הַצְּמִדִים֘ עַל־יְדֵ֣י אֲחֹתוֹ֒ וּכְשָׁמְע֗וֹ אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֞י רִבְקָ֤ה אֲחֹתוֹ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר כֹּֽה־דִבֶּ֥ר אֵלַ֖י הָאִ֑ישׁ וַיָּבֹא֙ אֶל־הָאִ֔ישׁ וְהִנֵּ֛ה עֹמֵ֥ד עַל־הַגְּמַלִּ֖ים עַל־הָעָֽיִן:
over the camels: to guard them, as (above 18:8):“And he was standing over them,” in order to serve them. על הגמלים: לשמרן, כמו (לעיל יח ח) והוא עומד עליהם, לשמשם:
31And he said, "Come, you who are blessed of the Lord. Why should you stand outside, when I have cleared the house, and a place for the camels?" לאוַיֹּ֕אמֶר בּ֖וֹא בְּר֣וּךְ יְהֹוָ֑ה לָ֤מָּה תַֽעֲמֹד֙ בַּח֔וּץ וְאָֽנֹכִי֙ פִּנִּ֣יתִי הַבַּ֔יִת וּמָק֖וֹם לַגְּמַלִּֽים:
when I have cleared the house: of idolatry. — [Gen. Rabbah 60:7] פניתי הבית: מעבודה זרה:
32So the man came to the house and unmuzzled the camels, and he gave straw and fodder to the camels and water to wash his feet and the feet of the men who were with him. לבוַיָּבֹ֤א הָאִישׁ֙ הַבַּ֔יְתָה וַיְפַתַּ֖ח הַגְּמַלִּ֑ים וַיִּתֵּ֨ן תֶּ֤בֶן וּמִסְפּוֹא֙ לַגְּמַלִּ֔ים וּמַ֨יִם֙ לִרְחֹ֣ץ רַגְלָ֔יו וְרַגְלֵ֥י הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר אִתּֽוֹ:
and unmuzzled the camels: He loosened their muzzles, for he would shut their mouths so that they would not graze along the way in fields belonging to others. — [Gen. Rabbah 60:8, Targum Jonathan] ויפתח: התיר זמם שלהם, שהיה סותם את פיהם שלא ירעו בדרך בשדות אחרים:
33And [food] was set before him to eat, but he said, "I will not eat until I have spoken my words." And he said, "Speak." לגוַיּוּשָׂ֤ם (כתיב ויישם) לְפָנָיו֙ לֶֽאֱכֹ֔ל וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א אֹכַ֔ל עַ֥ד אִם־דִּבַּ֖רְתִּי דְּבָרָ֑י וַיֹּ֖אמֶר דַּבֵּֽר:
until I have spoken: Here אִם serves as an expression of אִשֶׁר, [that] and as an expression of כּי, as in (below 49: 10):“Until (עַד כִּי) Shiloh will come.” This is what our Sages of blessed memory said (Rosh Hashanah 3a): The word כִּי serves for four meanings. One of these is [the Aramaic] אִי, which is equivalent to [the Hebrew] אִם. עד אם דברתי: הרי אם משמש בלשון אשר ובלשון כי, כמו (לקמן מט י) עד כי יבא שילה, וזה שאמרו חכמינו ז"ל כי משמש בארבע לשונות, והאחת אי, והוא אם:
34And he said, "I am Abraham's servant. לדוַיֹּאמַ֑ר עֶ֥בֶד אַבְרָהָ֖ם אָנֹֽכִי:
35And the Lord blessed my master exceedingly, and he became great, and He gave him sheep and cattle, silver and gold, man servants and maid servants, camels and donkeys. להוַֽיהֹוָ֞ה בֵּרַ֧ךְ אֶת־אֲדֹנִ֛י מְאֹ֖ד וַיִּגְדָּ֑ל וַיִּתֶּן־ל֞וֹ צֹ֤אן וּבָקָר֙ וְכֶ֣סֶף וְזָהָ֔ב וַֽעֲבָדִם֙ וּשְׁפָחֹ֔ת וּגְמַלִּ֖ים וַֽחֲמֹרִֽים:
36And Sarah, my master's wife, bore a son to my master after she had become old, and he gave him all that he possesses. לווַתֵּ֡לֶד שָׂרָה֩ אֵ֨שֶׁת אֲדֹנִ֥י בֵן֙ לַֽאדֹנִ֔י אַֽחֲרֵ֖י זִקְנָתָ֑הּ וַיִּתֶּן־ל֖וֹ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לֽוֹ:
and he gave him all that he possesses: He showed them a gift deed. ויתן לו את כל אשר לו: שטר מתנה הראה להם:
37And my master adjured me, saying, 'You shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I dwell. לזוַיַּשְׁבִּעֵ֥נִי אֲדֹנִ֖י לֵאמֹ֑ר לֹֽא־תִקַּ֤ח אִשָּׁה֙ לִבְנִ֔י מִבְּנוֹת֙ הַכְּנַֽעֲנִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָֽנֹכִ֖י ישֵׁ֥ב בְּאַרְצֽוֹ:
You shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites: unless you first go to my father’s house, and she will not wish to follow you. לא תקח אשה לבני מבנות הכנעני: אם לא תלך תחלה אל בית אבי ולא תאבה ללכת אחריך:
38Instead, you must go to my father's house and to my family, and take a wife for my son.' לחאִם־לֹ֧א אֶל־בֵּֽית־אָבִ֛י תֵּלֵ֖ךְ וְאֶל־מִשְׁפַּחְתִּ֑י וְלָֽקַחְתָּ֥ אִשָּׁ֖ה לִבְנִֽי:
39And I said to my master, 'Perhaps the woman will not follow me?' לטוָֽאֹמַ֖ר אֶל־אֲדֹנִ֑י אֻלַ֛י לֹֽא־תֵלֵ֥ךְ הָֽאִשָּׁ֖ה אַֽחֲרָֽי:
Perhaps the woman will not follow me: It [the word אֻלַי (perhaps)] is written [without a“vav” and may be read] אֵלַי (to me). Eliezer had a daughter, and he was looking for a pretext so that Abraham would tell him, to turn to him, to marry off his daughter to him (Isaac). Abraham said to him,“My son is blessed, and you are cursed [Eliezer was a descendant of Canaan who had been cursed by Noah], and an accursed one cannot unite with a blessed one.” אלי לא תלך האשה: אלי כתיב, בת היתה לו לאליעזר והיה מחזר למצוא עילה שיאמר לו אברהם לפנות אליו להשיאו בתו, אמר לו אברהם בני ברוך ואתה ארור, ואין ארור מדבק בברוך:
40And he said to me, 'The Lord, before Whom I walked, will send His angel with you and make your way prosper, and you shall take a wife for my son from my family and from my father's house. מוַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑י יְהֹוָ֞ה אֲשֶׁר־הִתְהַלַּ֣כְתִּי לְפָנָ֗יו יִשְׁלַ֨ח מַלְאָכ֤וֹ אִתָּךְ֙ וְהִצְלִ֣יחַ דַּרְכֶּ֔ךָ וְלָֽקַחְתָּ֤ אִשָּׁה֙ לִבְנִ֔י מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתִּ֖י וּמִבֵּ֥ית אָבִֽי:
41You will then be absolved from my oath, when you come to my family, and if they do not give [her] to you, you will be absolved from my oath.' מאאָ֤ז תִּנָּקֶה֙ מֵאָ֣לָתִ֔י כִּ֥י תָב֖וֹא אֶל־מִשְׁפַּחְתִּ֑י וְאִם־לֹ֤א יִתְּנוּ֙ לָ֔ךְ וְהָיִ֥יתָ נָקִ֖י מֵאָֽלָתִֽי:
42So I came today to the fountain, and I said, 'O Lord, God of my master Abraham, if You desire to prosper my way upon which I am going מבוָֽאָבֹ֥א הַיּ֖וֹם אֶל־הָעָ֑יִן וָֽאֹמַ֗ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵי֙ אֲדֹנִ֣י אַבְרָהָ֔ם אִם־יֶשְׁךָ־נָּא֙ מַצְלִ֣יחַ דַּרְכִּ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָֽנֹכִ֖י הֹלֵ֥ךְ עָלֶֽיהָ:
So I came today: Today I left, and today I arrived. From here we learn that the earth shrank for him [i.e., his journey was miraculously shortened]. Rabbi Acha said: The ordinary conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs is more beloved before the Omnipresent than the Torah of their sons, for the section dealing with Eliezer is repeated in the Torah, whereas many fundamentals of the Torah were given only through allusions. — [Gen. Rabbah 60:8] ואבא היום: היום יצאתי והיום באתי, מכאן שקפצה לו הארץ. אמר רבי אחא יפה שיחתן של עבדי אבות לפני המקום מתורתן של בנים, שהרי פרשה של אליעזר כפולה בתורה, והרבה גופי תורה לא נתנו אלא ברמיזה:
43Behold, I am standing by the water fountain. When a maiden comes out to draw [water], I will say to her, 'Please, give me a little water to drink from your pitcher.' מגהִנֵּ֛ה אָֽנֹכִ֥י נִצָּ֖ב עַל־עֵ֣ין הַמָּ֑יִם וְהָיָ֤ה הָֽעַלְמָה֙ הַיֹּצֵ֣את לִשְׁאֹ֔ב וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י אֵלֶ֔יהָ הַשְׁקִֽינִי־נָ֥א מְעַט־מַ֖יִם מִכַּדֵּֽךְ:
44And [if] she will say to me, 'You too may drink, and I will also draw water for your camels,' she is the woman whom the Lord has designated for my master's son.' מדוְאָֽמְרָ֤ה אֵלַי֙ גַּם־אַתָּ֣ה שְׁתֵ֔ה וְגַ֥ם לִגְמַלֶּ֖יךָ אֶשְׁאָ֑ב הִ֣וא הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־הֹכִ֥יחַ יְהֹוָ֖ה לְבֶן־אֲדֹנִֽי:
You too: [The word] גַּם (also), includes the people who were with him. גם אתה: גם לרבות אנשים שעמו:
designated: [Meaning]: He clarified and made known, and likewise, every expression of הוֹכָחָה in Scripture denotes clarification of a matter. הוכיח: בירר והודיע, וכן כל הוכחה שבמקרא ברור דבר:
45I had not yet finished speaking thus in my heart, and behold, Rebecca came out with her pitcher on her shoulder, and she went down to the fountain and drew water, and I said to her, 'Please give me to drink.' מהאֲנִי֩ טֶ֨רֶם אֲכַלֶּ֜ה לְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־לִבִּ֗י וְהִנֵּ֨ה רִבְקָ֤ה יֹצֵאת֙ וְכַדָּ֣הּ עַל־שִׁכְמָ֔הּ וַתֵּ֥רֶד הָעַ֖יְנָה וַתִּשְׁאָ֑ב וָֽאֹמַ֥ר אֵלֶ֖יהָ הַשְׁקִ֥ינִי נָֽא:
I had not yet finished: [Meaning]:“I was not yet finishing.” And similarly, wherever the present tense is called for, sometimes the past tense is used, and it could have been written טֶרֶם כִּלִתִי (past tense), “I had not yet finished;” and sometimes the future tense is used. An example [that a verb denoting continuous action is sometimes expressed in the past and sometimes in the future] is (Job 1: 5):“for Job would say” (אָמַר) : this is in the past tense.“So would Job do” (יַעִשֶׂה) : this is in the future tense. But the meaning of both is in the present tense, [namely] “for so would Job say: Perhaps my sons have sinned? and so he would do this” [in a continuous fashion]. טרם אכלה: טרם שאני מכלה, וכן כל לשון הווה פעמים שהוא מדבר בלשון עבר ויכול לכתוב כמו טרם כליתי, ופעמים שמדבר בלשון עתיד, כמו (איוב א ה) כי אמר איוב, הרי לשון עבר, (שם) ככה יעשה איוב הרי לשון עתיד. ופירוש שניהם לשון הווה, כי אומר היה איוב (שם) אולי חטאו בני וגו' והיה עושה כך:
46And she hastened and lowered her pitcher from upon her, and she said, 'Drink, and I will also water your camels.' So I drank, and she also watered the camels. מווַתְּמַהֵ֗ר וַתּ֤וֹרֶד כַּדָּהּ֙ מֵֽעָלֶ֔יהָ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר שְׁתֵ֔ה וְגַם־גְּמַלֶּ֖יךָ אַשְׁקֶ֑ה וָאֵ֕שְׁתְּ וְגַ֥ם הַגְּמַלִּ֖ים הִשְׁקָֽתָה:
47And I asked her, and I said, 'Whose daughter are you?' And she replied, 'The daughter of Bethuel the son of Nahor, whom Milcah bore to him.' And I placed the nose ring on her nose and the bracelets on her hands. מזוָֽאֶשְׁאַ֣ל אֹתָ֗הּ וָֽאֹמַר֘ בַּת־מִ֣י אַתְּ֒ וַתֹּ֗אמֶר בַּת־בְּתוּאֵל֙ בֶּן־נָח֔וֹר אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָֽלְדָה־לּ֖וֹ מִלְכָּ֑ה וָֽאָשִׂ֤ם הַנֶּ֨זֶם֙ עַל־אַפָּ֔הּ וְהַצְּמִידִ֖ים עַל־יָדֶֽיהָ:
And I asked…and I placed: He reversed the sequence of events, because, in fact, he had first given [her the jewelry] and then asked [about her family]. But [he changed the order] lest they catch him in his words and say,“How did you give her [the jewelry] when you did not yet know who she was?” ואשאל ואשים: שנה הסדר, שהרי הוא תחלה נתן ואחר כך שאל, אלא שלא יתפשוהו בדבריו ויאמרו היאך נתת לה, ועדיין אינך יודע מי היא:
48And I kneeled and prostrated myself to the Lord, and I blessed the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, Who led me on the true path, to take the daughter of my master's brother for his son. מחוָֽאֶקֹּ֥ד וָֽאֶשְׁתַּֽחֲוֶ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה וָֽאֲבָרֵ֗ךְ אֶת־יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵי֙ אֲדֹנִ֣י אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֤ר הִנְחַ֨נִי֙ בְּדֶ֣רֶךְ אֱמֶ֔ת לָקַ֛חַת אֶת־בַּת־אֲחִ֥י אֲדֹנִ֖י לִבְנֽוֹ:
49And now, if you will do loving kindness and truth with my master, tell me, and if not, tell me, and I will turn to the right or to the left." מטוְ֠עַתָּ֠ה אִם־יֶשְׁכֶ֨ם עֹשִׂ֜ים חֶ֧סֶד וֶֽאֱמֶ֛ת אֶת־אֲדֹנִ֖י הַגִּ֣ידוּ לִ֑י וְאִם־לֹ֕א הַגִּ֣ידוּ לִ֔י וְאֶפְנֶ֥ה עַל־יָמִ֖ין א֥וֹ עַל־שְׂמֹֽאל:
to the right: [This refers to a wife] from the daughters of Ishmael. על ימין: מבנות ישמעאל:
to the left: [This refers to a wife] from the daughters of Lot, who dwelt to the left of Abraham (Gen. Rabbah 60:9). על שמאל: מבנות לוט שהיה יושב לשמאלו של אברהם:
50And Laban and Bethuel answered and said, "The matter has emanated from the Lord. We cannot speak to you either bad or good. נוַיַּ֨עַן לָבָ֤ן וּבְתוּאֵל֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מֵֽיהֹוָ֖ה יָצָ֣א הַדָּבָ֑ר לֹ֥א נוּכַ֛ל דַּבֵּ֥ר אֵלֶ֖יךָ רַ֥ע אוֹ־טֽוֹב:
And Laban and Bethuel answered: He [Laban] was wicked and jumped to reply before his father. ויען לבן ובתואל: רשע היה וקפץ להשיב לפני אביו:
We cannot speak to you: to refuse in this matter, either with an unfavorable reply, or with an appropriate reply, because it is obvious that the matter has emanated from the Lord, according to your words, that He designated her for you. לא נוכל דבר אליך: למאן בדבר הזה, לא על ידי תשובת דבר רע ולא על ידי תשובת דבר הגון לפי שניכר שמה' יצא הדבר, לפי דבריך שזימנה לך:
51Behold Rebecca is before you, take [her] and go, and let her be a wife for your master's son, as the Lord has spoken." נאהִנֵּֽה־רִבְקָ֥ה לְפָנֶ֖יךָ קַ֣ח וָלֵ֑ךְ וּתְהִ֤י אִשָּׁה֙ לְבֶן־אֲדֹנֶ֔יךָ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָֽה:
52Now it came to pass when Abraham's servant heard their words, that he prostrated himself on the ground to the Lord. נבוַיְהִ֕י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר שָׁמַ֛ע עֶ֥בֶד אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֶת־דִּבְרֵיהֶ֑ם וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ אַ֖רְצָה לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
that he prostrated himself on the ground: From here [we learn] that we must give thanks for good tidings. וישתחו ארצה: מכאן שמודים על בשורה טובה:
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 106 - 107
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 106
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 106
The psalmist continues the theme of the previous psalm, praising God for performing other miracles not mentioned previously, for "who can recount the mighty acts of God?" Were we to try, we could not mention them all!
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. Who can recount the mighty acts of the Lord, or proclaim all His praises?
3. Fortunate are those who preserve justice, who perform deeds of righteousness all the time.
4. Remember me, Lord, when You find favor with Your people; be mindful of me with Your deliverance;
5. to behold the prosperity of Your chosen, to rejoice in the joy of Your nation, to glory with Your inheritance.
6. We have sinned as did our fathers, we have acted perversely and wickedly.
7. Our fathers in Egypt did not contemplate Your wonders, they did not remember Your abundant kindnesses, and they rebelled by the sea, at the Sea of Reeds.
8. Yet He delivered them for the sake of His Name, to make His strength known.
9. He roared at the Sea of Reeds and it dried up; He led them through the depths, as through a desert.
10. He saved them from the hand of the enemy, and redeemed them from the hand of the foe.
11. The waters engulfed their adversaries; not one of them remained.
12. Then they believed in His words, they sang His praise.
13. They quickly forgot His deeds, they did not wait for His counsel;
14. and they lusted a craving in the desert, they tested God in the wilderness.
15. And He gave them their request, but sent emaciation into their souls.
16. They angered Moses in the camp, and Aaron, the Lord's holy one.
17. The earth opened and swallowed Dathan, and engulfed the company of Abiram;
18. and a fire burned in their assembly, a flame set the wicked ablaze.
19. They made a calf in Horeb, and bowed down to a molten image.
20. They exchanged their Glory for the likeness of a grass-eating ox.
21. They forgot God, their savior, Who had performed great deeds in Egypt,
22. wonders in the land of Ham, awesome things at the Sea of Reeds.
23. He said that He would destroy them-had not Moses His chosen one stood in the breach before Him, to turn away His wrath from destroying.
24. They despised the desirable land, they did not believe His word.
25. And they murmured in their tents, they did not heed the voice of the Lord.
26. So He raised His hand [in oath] against them, to cast them down in the wilderness,
27. to throw down their progeny among the nations, and to scatter them among the lands.
28. They joined themselves to [the idol] Baal Peor, and ate of the sacrifices to the dead;
29. they provoked Him with their doings, and a plague broke out in their midst.
30. Then Phineas arose and executed judgement, and the plague was stayed;
31. it was accounted for him as a righteous deed, through all generations, forever.
32. They angered Him at the waters of Merivah, and Moses suffered on their account;
33. for they defied His spirit, and He pronounced [an oath] with His lips.
34. They did not destroy the nations as the Lord had instructed them;
35. rather, they mingled with the nations and learned their deeds.
36. They worshipped their idols, and they became a snare for them.
37. They sacrificed their sons and daughters to demons.
38. They spilled innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land became guilty with blood.
39. They were defiled by their deeds, and went astray by their actions.
40. And the Lord's wrath blazed against His people, and He abhorred His inheritance;
41. so He delivered them into the hands of nations, and their enemies ruled them.
42. Their enemies oppressed them, and they were subdued under their hand.
43. Many times did He save them, yet they were rebellious in their counsel and were impoverished by their sins.
44. But He saw their distress, when He heard their prayer;
45. and He remembered for them His covenant and He relented, in keeping with His abounding kindness,
46. and He caused them to be treated mercifully by all their captors.
47. Deliver us, Lord our God; gather us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to Your Holy Name and glory in Your praise.
48. Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, forever and ever. And let all the people say, "Amen! Praise the Lord!"
Chapter 107
This psalm speaks of those who are saved from four specific perilous situations(imprisonment, sickness, desert travel, and sea travel) and must thank God, for their sins caused their troubles, and only by the kindness of God were they saved. It is therefore appropriate that they praise God and tell of their salvation to all.
1. Give thanks to the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. So shall say those redeemed by the Lord, those whom He redeemed from the hand of the oppressor.
3. He gathered them from the lands-from east and from west, from north and from the sea.
4. They lost their way in the wilderness, in the wasteland; they found no inhabited city.
5. Both hungry and thirsty, their soul languished within them.
6. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He delivered them from their afflictions.
7. He guided them in the right path to reach an inhabited city.
8. Let them give thanks to the Lord, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man,
9. for He has satiated a thirsting soul, and filled a hungry soul with goodness.
10. Those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, bound in misery and chains of iron,
11. for they defied the words of God and spurned the counsel of the Most High-
12. He humbled their heart through suffering; they stumbled and there was none to help.
13. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He saved them from their afflictions.
14. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and sundered their bonds.
15. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man,
16. for He broke the brass gates and smashed the iron bars.
17. Foolish sinners are afflicted because of their sinful ways and their wrongdoings.
18. Their soul loathes all food, and they reach the gates of death.
19. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He saved them from their afflictions.
20. He sent forth His command and healed them; He delivered them from their graves.
21. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man.
22. Let them offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, and joyfully recount His deeds.
23. Those who go down to the sea in ships, who perform tasks in mighty waters;
24. they saw the works of the Lord and His wonders in the deep.
25. He spoke and caused the stormy wind to rise, and it lifted up the waves.
26. They rise to the sky, plunge to the depths; their soul melts in distress.
27. They reel and stagger like a drunkard, all their skill is to no avail.
28. They cried out to the Lord in their distress, and He brought them out from their calamity.
29. He transformed the storm into stillness, and the waves were quieted.
30. They rejoiced when they were silenced, and He led them to their destination.
31. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man.
32. Let them exalt Him in the congregation of the people, and praise Him in the assembly of the elders.
33. He turns rivers into desert, springs of water into parched land,
34. a fruitful land into a salt-marsh, because of the wickedness of those who inhabit it.
35. He turns a desert into a lake, and parched land into springs of water.
36. He settles the hungry there, and they establish a city of habitation.
37. They sow fields and plant vineyards which yield fruit and wheat.
38. He blesses them and they multiply greatly, and He does not decrease their cattle.
39. [If they sin,] they are diminished and cast down through oppression, misery, and sorrow.
40. He pours contempt upon distinguished men, and causes them to stray in a pathless wilderness.
41. He raises the needy from distress, and makes their families [as numerous] as flocks.
42. The upright observe this and rejoice, and all the wicked close their mouth.
43. Let him who is wise bear these in mind, and then the benevolent acts of the Lord will be understood.
---------------------
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 29
• Lessons in Tanya
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 29
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Wednesday, Cheshvan 22, 5776 · November 4, 2015
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Wednesday, Cheshvan 22, 5776 · November 4, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 29
וז"ש בזוה"ק פ' פקודי (דרכ"ט ע"ב) דאינון עובדין טבין דעביד בר נש משכי מנהורא דזיווא עילאה לבושא כו' וחמי כו' בנועם ה' וכו'
This is the meaning of the statement in the sacred Zohar, Parshat Pekudei (p. 229b), that "the good deeds(i.e., the mitzvot) which man does, elicit a garment from the light of the Supernal Splendor... (i.e., from the level of Keter), and they behold ...the 'pleasantness of G-d...,"' and also, as the Zohar concludes, they experience the "pleasurable thirst" (i.e., the pnimiyut of Keter).
והגם דהתם מיירי בג"ע התחתון שהלבושים שם הם ממצות מעשיות ממש
Though there [the Zohar] speaks of the Lower Garden of Eden, where the garments derive from the truly practical commandments, so that they result not from the Supernal Will, as above, but from the merit of physical action,
אבל בג"ע העליון הלבושים הם מרעותא וכוונה דלבא באורייתא וצלותא כמ"ש בזהר שם (דר"י)
while in the Upper Garden of Eden the garments derive from the love and devotion of the heart with respect to Torah and prayer, as stated in the Zohar ad loc. (p. 210).
The Zohar states that once the soul possesses, while in the Lower Garden of Eden, the garments of the mitzvot that derive from physical actions, it then rises to the upper Garden of Eden.
הרי הכוונה היא כוונת עסקו בתורה לשמה מאהבת ה'
However, this devotion [from whence these garments derive] refers to the devotion of one's occupation with Torah for its own sake, out of one's love for G-d.
ומצות ת"ת היא ג"כ מכלל מצות מעשיות
The commandment to study Torah also belongs to the class of practical commandments,
דעקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה והרהור לאו כדבור דמי ואינו יוצא י"ח בהרהור לבדו
for1 "the movement of one's lips [in speech] is regarded as an act," and2 "meditation does not count as speech"; thus one does not discharge his duty by meditation alone.3
וכן בתפלה
The same applies to prayer4; here, too, one must actually articulate the words.
Since both Torah study and prayer require action, even the garments that are created by devout Torah and prayer are considered to be derived from the tangible and active aspect of mitzvot; they, too, are garments that derive from the light ofKeter].
ומה גם כי מעלת הכוונה על הדבור ומעשה אינה מצד עצמה כו'
And certainly so, considering that the superiority of devotion (kavanah) over speech and action in as much as devotion can create garments for the soul in the Upper Garden of Eden] is not due to its own merits..., as in the loving service of G-d,
אלא מצד הארת רצון העליון כו'
but because of the radiation from the Supernal Will...,
When a mitzvah is performed, the radiation of the Supernal Willis more manifest in its more spiritual aspect - in its devout and loving intent - than in its tangible and physical aspect.
כמ"ש בלק"א ח"א פל"ח באריכות ע"ש
as explained at length in Likkutei Amarim, Part I, ch. 38; see there.
The Alter Rebbe explains there that the illumination from the Supernal Will that shines within the devotion that accompanies an action, is likened to a "soul", relative to the illumination that shines in the action itself, which is likened to a "body" or garment for the soul.
The difference is thus only in the degree of contraction or emanation of this radiation. From the above it is clear that even the garments for the soul that are created from the devotion and feeling that accompany Torah and prayer, also result only from the radiation of the Supernal Will, which is the Supernal Keter.
* * *
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Sanhedrin 65a. |
| 2. | Berachot 20b. |
| 3. | The Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Hilchot Talmud Torah 2:12; see also Eruvin 54b. |
| 4. | The Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch 62:3 and 185:3. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Today's Mitzvah
Wednesday, Cheshvan 22, 5776 · November 4, 2015
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 286
Accepting Testimony from a Wicked Person
"Do not put your hand together with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness"—Exodus 23:1.
It is forbidden for a judge to accept testimony from an evil person – e.g., a robber or a desperado – and to issue a verdict based on that testimony.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Wednesday, Cheshvan 22, 5776 · November 4, 2015
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 286
Accepting Testimony from a Wicked Person
"Do not put your hand together with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness"—Exodus 23:1.
It is forbidden for a judge to accept testimony from an evil person – e.g., a robber or a desperado – and to issue a verdict based on that testimony.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Accepting Testimony from a Wicked Person
Negative Commandment 286
Translated by Berel Bell
The 286th prohibition is that a judge is forbidden from accepting testimony from a wicked person and from acting based on his testimony.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not place your hand with a wicked person to be a corrupt witness." The Oral Tradition2 explains that this means, "Do not place a wicked person as a witness; do not place a corrupt person as a witness." This disqualifies corrupt individuals and robbers, who are invalid for testimony, as it is written,3 "Do not take a corrupt witness against any person."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third chapter4 of tractate Sanhedrin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 23:1.
2.Mechilta, Parshas Shoftim.
3.Deut. 19:16. The verse actually reads, "If a corrupt witness...."
4.27a.
---------------------
• 1 Chapter: Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 1 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Nedarim - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
There are two categories of vows: The first is to forbid oneself [from benefiting] from entities permitted to him;1 e.g., he said: "The produce from this-and-this country is forbidden to me for 30 days" or "...forever." "This type of produce is forbidden to me" or "This produce is forbidden." Regardless of the language in which the prohibition is stated,2 they become forbidden to him, even though there is no oath at all, nor did it mention God's name or a term used to describe Him.3 Concerning this, the Torah [Numbers 30:3] states: "To cause a prohibition to take effect upon his soul," i.e., to cause permitted entities to become forbidden to him. Similarly, such a vow takes effect if he says: "They are forbidden to me." I call this category: "vows involving prohibitions."
Halacha 2
The second category is to obligate himself for a sacrifice that he is not required to bring. For example, he said: "I obligate myself [to bring] a burnt offering," "I obligate myself to bring a peace offering," "...a meal offering," or "This animal is a burnt offering," or "...a peace offering."
When he says: "I obligate myself [to bring]...", this is called a vow.4 When he says: "This is...", it is called a donation.5 Donations and vows are of the same type [of pledges], but [the one making the pledge] is responsible for a vow.6With regard to a donations, by contrast, he is not responsible.7 Concerning these the Torah states [Deuteronomy 12:17]: "Your vows which you pledge and your donations...." This category, I refer to as "vows of sanctification."
Halacha 3
The laws concerning the first category and its relevant matters are [the subject] we will discuss in these halachot. The laws concerning vows of sanctification and their particulars will be discussed in their appropriate place in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot.8
Halacha 4
It is a positive commandment of Scriptural origin for a person to carry out his oath or vow9 whether it be a vow involving prohibitions or a vow of sanctification, as [Deuteronomy 12:23] states: "Heed the utterances of your mouth and do as you vowed." And [Numbers 30:3] states: "He shall act in accordance with all that he uttered with his mouth."10
Halacha 5
When a person forbids himself from partaking of a particular type of food, e.g., he said: "Figs are forbidden to me," "Figs from such-and-such a country are forbidden to me," "These figs are forbidden to me," or the like, if he partakes of any amount of them, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law,11 as [Numbers, Ibid.] states: "He shall not desecrate his word."
There is no minimum measure [for the desecration of] a vow, for by taking a vow [not to partake of] a substance, it is as if one explicitly stated that he would not partake of even the slightest amount.12 If one said: "It is forbidden for me to eat the produce of this-and-this country" or "...to eat these fruit," he does not receive lashes unless he partakes of an olive-sized portion.
Halacha 6
If a person forbade himself from eating figs and grapes - whether in two vows or in one - the two can be combined to make up the measure of an olive-sized portion.13 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 7
When a person says: "This produce is considered like a sacrifice," or he tells a colleague: "Everything that I partake of with you is a sacrifice,"14 "...like a sacrifice," "or considered like a sacrifice for me," they are forbidden to him. For it is possible that a person will make a vow for a sacrifice and make an animal that is ordinary a sacrifice and thus be forbidden for him.15
Halacha 8
If, however, a person says: "This produce is considered for me...", "This type of produce is considered for me...", "What I will eat with so-and-so will be considered as pig meat," "...as a false deity," "...as nevelot and trefot," or the like, they are permitted and no vow takes effect. [The rationale is that] it is impossible for a person to make something that is not pig meat as pig meat.16
Halacha 9
This is the general principle [that applies] whenever anyone attempts to have permitted entities considered as forbidden entities: If he could have endowed that forbidden entity with its status by taking a vow,17 [the permitted entities] are forbidden. If he cannot endow it with its status by taking a vow,18 [the permitted entities] remain permitted.
Halacha 10
Sin-offerings and guilt-offerings cannot be brought as vows or as donations, as will be explained in the appropriate place.19 Nevertheless, it is possible for a person making a vow to offer them as a result of his vow. For a person who takes a nazirite vow must bring a sin offering,20 and if he becomes impure,21 he must bring a guilt offering, as will be stated.22 Accordingly, when one says: "This produce is considered for me like a sin-offering" or "...like a guilt-offering," or he says: "It is a sin-offering" or "It is a guilt-offering," it is forbidden. Needless to say, if he says: "It is a burnt-offering," "...a peace-offering," "...a meal-offering," or "...a thanksgiving-offering," it is forbidden, for all of these offerings can be brought as vows or as donations.23
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
If one says: "[This produce] is considered for me like the tithe-sacrifice of an animal,"30 it is forbidden, for the sanctity [of the tithe-sacrifices] is conveyed upon them by mortals.31 If he says: "[This produce] is considered for me like a firstborn,"32it is permitted, for the sanctity [of the firstborn] is not conveyed by mortals.33It cannot be designated [for another sacred purpose] with a vow, as [Leviticus 27:26] states: "A man should not consecrate it."34
Halacha 14
If one says: "[This produce] is considered for me like a devotion offering for Above,"35 it is forbidden, for the devotion offering for Above are [set aside] for improvements within the Temple.36
[A vow takes effect and produce] becomes forbidden although the person did not mention a sacrifice [if he makes any of the following statements]: "[This produce] is considered for me like the donations for the chamber,"37 "...like the daily sacrifices," "...like the storage rooms,"38 "...like the wood,"39 "...like the fire-offerings,"40 "...like the altar," or "...like any of the utensils of the altar," e.g., he said: "[This produce] is considered for me like the altar rakes,"41 "...like the ewers [for the blood of the sacrifices],"42 "...like the altar forks,"43 or the like. [This law also applies] if he says: "This produce] is considered for me like the Temple,"44 "...like Jerusalem."45 [The rationale is that] all of these statements are similar to saying: "[This produce] is considered for me like a sacrifice."
Halacha 15
[When there was] sacrificial meat - even meat from a peace offering whose blood had been poured [on the altar] which is permitted to non-priests - before a person and he said: "[This produce] is considered for me like this meat," it is forbidden. [The rationale is that] he attached [his vow] to the fundamental element of the meat, and that was forbidden.46
[Different rules apply if] the meat was from a firstborn sacrifice. If its blood had not been poured [on the altar], [the produce] is forbidden.47 If it had been poured, it is permitted.
Halacha 16
There are places where people are inarticulate and mispronounce words, calling subjects by different names. [In those places,] we follow the meaning of the local term.
What is meant by the statement that all the terms used for the word korban, "sacrifice," are equivalent to the term korban? When one says: "[This produce] is considered for me like a konam," "...a konach," or "...a konaz," they are all terms referring to a korban. Cherek, cheref, and cherech are all terms referring to a cherem (dedication offering).
Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. We follow the language used by people at large in that place and at that time.48
Halacha 17
Just as a person can make a vow forbidding entities to himself with such terms, so, too, if he consecrates an entity with such terms, the entity is consecrated. Nicknames for such terms,49 however, are not binding50 whether for vows involving prohibitions or vows involving the consecration of property.
Halacha 18
If a person tells a colleague: "Whatever I eat from your [property] will not be like ordinary food," "...will not be kosher," or "...will not be pure,"51 it is as if he told him: "Everything that I eat from your [property] will be like a sacrifice,"52 which is forbidden. Similarly, if he tells him: "Everything that I eat from your [property] will be an impure [sacrifice]," "...notar," or piggul,"53 it is forbidden.
Halacha 19
When a person tells a colleague: "Not ordinary food will I not eat from your [property]," it is as if he told him:54 "What I will eat from your [property] will not be like ordinary food, but instead, like a sacrifice."55
Similarly, if he tells him: "The sacrifice if I eat from your [property]," "A sacrifice if I eat from your [property]," or "Like a sacrifice if I eat from your [property]," he is forbidden [to eat from his property].56 If, by contrast, he tells him: "The sacrifice I will not eat from your [property]," "Like a sacrifice, I will not eat from your [property]," "For a sacrifice, I will not eat from your [property]," "A sacrifice I will not eat from your [property]," or "Not a sacrifice, I will not eat from your [property]," he is permitted in all of these instances.57 For all of these expressions do not have any implication other than he is taking an oath by a sacrifice that he will not eat from his [property] and taking an oath on a sacrifice is not binding. Alternatively, [his intent can be interpreted] as taking a vow that he will not partake of a sacrifice with him.
Halacha 20
[If he tells him:] "Ordinary food, I will eat from your [property]," "The ordinary food, I will eat from your [property]," "Like ordinary food, I will eat from your [property]," "Ordinary food, I will not eat from your [property]," "The ordinary food, I will eat not with you," "Like ordinary food, I will not eat from your [property]," it is permitted for him [to eat from his property].58
Halacha 21
If, by contrast, he says: "No impure [sacrifices] will I eat from your [property]," "No notar, will I eat from your [property]," or "No piggul will I eat from your [property]," he is forbidden. [The vow takes effect, because] the intent of his statements appears to be: "What I will eat will be piggul or impure. Therefore, I will not eat from your [property]."59
Halacha 22
[If he says:] "By the Temple, I will eat from your [property]," "The Temple, I will eat from your [property]," or "No Temple, I will eat from your [property]," [the vow is effective,60 and] it is forbidden. "The Temple, I will not eat from your [property]," "Like the Temple, I will not eat from your [property]," or "No Temple, I will not eat from your [property]," he is permitted.61 For this is like taking an oath by the Temple, that he will not eat from his [property]. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 23
When a person tells a colleague, "I am taking a vow from you," his statement implies that he will not speak with him.62 "I am separate from you" implies that he will not do business with him. "I am distant from you" implies that he will not sit within four cubits of him. That same implication is conveyed by telling him: "I am ostracized from you" or "I am banned from you."63
If, however, says "I am taking a vow from you in that I will not eat from your [property]," "I am separate from you in that I will not eat from your [property]," or "I am distant from you in that I will not eat from your [property]," he is forbidden to eat from his [property].64 If he eats an olivesized portion [of food] from any of his property, he is liable for lashes for [violating the prohibition]: "He shall not desecrate his word."
Halacha 24
Halacha 25
Halacha 26
If one says: "Let it be considered for me like the vows of the wicked..." or "...like the pledges of the upright73 that I will eat from your [property]," or "...if I eat from your property," he is forbidden [to do so], even if he did not make an explicit statement.74
If he said: "Like the vows of the upright," his statement is of no consequence, for the upright do not take vows to prohibit things out of anger. If he says: "I am like the vows of the wicked," and a nazirite was passing before him, he is obligated to observe a nazirite vow.75 If he says: "I am responsible, like the vows of the wicked," he is obligated to bring a sacrifice.76 "Like the vows of the wicked, I will not eat from it,"77 he is liable for an oath.78
Halacha 27
When a person takes a vow by the Torah, i.e., he says: "This produce is considered for me like this,"79 his statements are of no consequence80 and he need not ask a sage to release him from it.81 [An exception is made if] he is a common person so that he will not act frivolously with regard to vows.82
Halacha 28
Halacha 29
Halacha 30
When a person tells his wife: "You are considered to me as my mother," "...as my sister,"87 "...as orlah," or "...as mixed species in a vineyard,"88 it is as if one says concerning produce: "May it be like pig meat." Just as he is permitted to partake of that produce, as explained,89 so, too, he is permitted [to engage in relations] with his wife.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
For the intent of a vow is not to forbid what the Torah has prohibited, and certainly not to permit what the Torah has prohibited (Radbaz).
|
| 2. |
I.e., it need not be stated in Lashon HaKodesh (Biblical Hebrew).
|
| 3. |
As stated in Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:2, an oath must mention God's name or one of the terms used to describe Him.
|
| 4. |
I.e., he is personally responsible to bring a sacrifice; there is no set animal designated for that purpose.
|
| 5. |
I.e., the animal is designated to be offered as a sacrifice; there is no obligation on the person.
|
| 6. |
I.e., if the animal which he originally intended to be sacrificed is lost, he must provide another one, because he accepted personal responsibility. See Halachot 25 and 26 with regard to the distinction between the two terms.
|
| 7. |
For it was only the one animal that was designated as a sacrifice.
|
| 8. |
See Chapters 6 and 9 of those halachot which explain the difference between these types of sacrifices. There are also occasional references to such vows in these halachot. See, for example, Halachah 17 of this chapter.
|
| 9. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 94) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 575) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 10. |
Although there are two different verses which point to the same commandment, they are counted only as one mitzvah. For the verse from Deuteronomy could be interpreted as a reinforcement for the negative commandment mentioned in the following verse and the verse from Numbers can be interpreted as referring only to vows involving prohibitions (Radbaz). In his Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, the Ramban considers these as two separate mitzvot.
|
| 11. |
As is the punishment prescribed for the violation of any negative commandment. Sefer HaMitzvot(negative commandment 157) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 407) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 12. |
As evident from the continuation of the Rambam's statements, were the person to have mentioned "eating" in his vow, we would have interpreted the prohibition as involving an olive-sized portion, the minimum measure for eating that applies with regard to other prohibitions. Since he did not, the implication is that even the slightest amount is forbidden. Compare to Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1.
|
| 13. |
This does not apply with regard to oaths (Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:8). Even with regard to vows, it applies only when one uses the expression "eating." The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the law applies only when the two are included in the same oath. Their difference of opinion revolves around the understanding of Sh'vuot 22a.
|
| 14. |
I.e., the person wants to forbid himself from eating together with his colleague.
|
| 15. |
Just as a person cannot partake of a sacrifice until it is offered, so, too, he cannot partake of an entity forbidden by a vow. Just as the consecration of a sacrifice comes about because of a person's vow and his vow is what causes the sacrifice to become forbidden, so too, a vow causes an entity to be forbidden.
See Hilchot Meilah 4:9-10 which explains that with regard to the person forbidden by the vow, the article becomes like consecrated property. Hence, he is obligated to bring a sacrifice in atonement if he benefits from the article.
|
| 16. |
For these substances are inherently forbidden; they do not become prohibited because of man's statements. An animal consecrated as a sacrifice, by contrast, is inherently permitted. It is only man's statements that cause it to become forbidden.
|
| 17. |
As a person can cause a sacrifice to become forbidden.
The Rambam is explaining a fundamental principle with regard to vows. A vow becomes effective when a person establishes an equation between an entity (e.g., produce) and another entity (e.g., a sacrifice), provided it is possible for him to cause the latter entity to become forbidden on the basis of his vow alone.
|
| 18. |
I.e., objects which are inherently forbidden.
|
| 19. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:8, Hilchot Shegagot 1:1. These sacrifices are required when a person transgresses a prohibition. If he does not transgress, he may not bring such a sacrifice and if he does transgress, he is compelled to do so. Offering it is not dependent on his vow.
|
| 20. |
Hilchot Nazirut 6:11; 8:1.
|
| 21. |
Due to contact with a human corpse (ibid. 7:2).
|
| 22. |
Ibid. 6:11; see also Hilchot Shegagot 9:1.
|
| 23. |
And thus bringing them is obviously dependent on his making a vow.
|
| 24. |
Challah refers to a portion that must be separated from dough and given to a priest. Terumahrefers to a portion of grain that must be separated and given to a priest. Since they may not be eaten by a non-priest, one might think that they could be the subject of a vow. Aaron is mentioned, because he is the progenitor of the priestly family.
|
| 25. |
A person is required to separate these portions from his dough or grain. Although the amount he gives and the designation of the priest to whom he gives them is dependent on his will, he is obligated to make the gift. The Ra'avad offers a different rationale for this law.
|
| 26. |
Sacrificial meat that was left after its prescribed time and hence, forbidden to be eaten.
|
| 27. |
Sacrifices that were offered with the intent that they be eaten at a time when it was forbidden to do so and hence, become forbidden to be eaten.
|
| 28. |
And is thus forbidden to be eaten.
|
| 29. |
It is beyond his capacity to make the object concerning which he is taking a vow bound by any of the prohibitions mentioned. Nevertheless, all of these prohibitions involve sacrificial meat and sacrificial meat is forbidden to be eaten before it was offered in a proper way, because of his oath as above. Hence, the vow can take effect.
|
| 30. |
As Leviticus 27:32 states, a person must bring every tenth animal born to his herd as a tithe offering. See also Chapter 2, Halachah 9.
|
| 31. |
Although we are required to separate these offerings, the tithing process through which the holiness is conveyed upon the animal is a result of man's actions.
It is possible to differentiate between such offerings and terumah, for even before the terumahwas separated, the grain was not permitted to be eaten, because it was tevel. The animals, by contrast, could have been slaughtered, before the tithe was separated (see Radbaz, quoting Rabbenu Asher).
|
| 32. |
Which is sanctified from birth and offered as a sacrifice.
|
| 33. |
Instead, it is sanctified from birth.
|
| 34. |
The Kessef Mishneh quotes a responsum from the Rambam's son, Rav Avraham who addresses the following question that was posed to him: The prooftext from Leviticus has been interpreted by the Sifri as teaching that a firstborn may not be consecrated as another sacrifice (see Hilchot Temurah 4:11 where the Rambam quotes this concept). Moreover, although the firstborn is intrinsically holy, it is a mitzvah to consecrate it for that sacrifice (quoted by the Rambam in Hilchot Bechorot 1:5), and thus seemingly, the holiness is conveyed upon it by a mortal's actions.
Rav Avraham replies that since the holiness of the firstborn is inherent and it cannot be changed to that of another sacrifice, that is a proof that a vow cannot affect it. With regard to using a first born as the basis for a vow, see also Halachah 15 and notes.
|
| 35. |
See Hilchot Arachin V'Charamim 6:1 for a description of the nature of this pledge.
|
| 36. |
And are forbidden to be used for mundane purposes. Thus they represent an entity that was forbidden by man's pledge.
|
| 37. |
The Hebrew term terumat halishkah refers to the money collected from the half-shekel donations collected from the Jewish people and used for the communal sacrifices offered in the Temple. SeeHilchot Shekalim, ch. 2.
|
| 38. |
I.e., the chambers in the Temple. This and several of the following interpretations are based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 1:3).
|
| 39. |
For the altar.
|
| 40. |
I.e., the portions of the sacrifices offered on the Temple altar.
|
| 41. |
Used to rake the ashes on the altar.
|
| 42. |
Used to collect the blood from the sacrifices and then pour it on the altar.
|
| 43. |
Used to move portions of the sacrifices around on the altar's fire, so that they would be consumed by it.
|
| 44. |
I.e., like the sacrifices offered in the Temple.
|
| 45. |
Like the sacrifices eaten in Jerusalem.
|
| 46. |
Since fundamentally, before its blood was poured on the altar, the meat was forbidden, that is the factor that we consider. We do not take into consideration the fact that afterwards it became permitted. This ruling is the subject of an unresolved question in Nedarim 11b. Hence, we rule stringently (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 47. |
For then it is forbidden to everyone. Hence one might say that just as his designation of the firstborn causes the meat to be forbidden, making a vow using a firstborn sacrifice as a basis is effective.
This ruling has created difficulty among the commentaries, because in Halachah 13 the Rambam ruled that a firstborn animal cannot be used as the basis of a vow. Similarly, as the Ra'avad points out, the Rambam's ruling does not appear to be consistent with either of the positions mentioned inNedarim 12b, the source for this halachah. This leads the Kessef Mishneh to conclude that there was a printing error in the text of the Mishneh Torah and the proper version is "[the produce] is permitted." He states that he found an ancient text that reads this way. Similarly, the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah read in that manner, omitting the last phrase entirely.
The Kessef Mishneh, however, notes that the Rambam's son, Rav Avraham defends the ruling in the existing text of the Mishneh Torah, explaining that there is a difference between a firstborn sacrifice and the meat of a firstborn sacrifice.
|
| 48. |
For this is representative of the person's intent. Taking this concept further, the Rama Yoreh De'ah 207:1) quotes opinions that maintain that this surely applies to vows made in gentile languages. And conversely, he also mentions views that maintain that if someone makes a vow using the wording of our Sages without understanding what he is saying, it does not take effect.
|
| 49. |
Nedarim 10b gives examples: miknamna, miknachna, and miknasna.
|
| 50. |
For they are very distant from the original wording [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 207:1)]. Kin'at Eliyahu states that apparently, they also would not have been recognized universally as having the desired intent.
|
| 51. |
The Rambam states this expression twice: once in Aramaic and once in Lashon HaKodesh.
|
| 52. |
I.e., the opposite of ordinary food is sacrificial food that is consecrated. Similarly with regard to his statement about impure food, we assume that his intent is an impure sacrifice in which instance, his vow is effective. Although it is possible that his intent is impure terumah (in which instance, his vow would not be binding), we follow the principle (Chapter 2, Halachah 7): Whenever there is a doubt concerning the effectiveness of a vow, we rule stringently (Rabbenu Nissim).
|
| 53. |
See Halachah 11 for a definition of these terms.
|
| 54. |
I.e., we interpret his statement as the Rambam explains.
|
| 55. |
And hence, forbidden to be eaten (Nedarim 11b).
|
| 56. |
Even though none of these expressions is precise, they are still close enough to imply that his intent is that he is forbidding eating with his colleague like a sacrifice is forbidden.
|
| 57. |
I.e., his oath is not binding, for the reasons the Rambam continues to explain.
|
| 58. |
Because he does not mention a sacrifice in any of these expressions. The Ra'avad mentions that from Nedarim 11a, it would appear that some of these expressions would involve a vow. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's rulings.
|
| 59. |
Based on Nedarim 10b, the Lechem Mishneh explains that we offer this interpretation, because we assume that a person will not make statements unnecessarily. Hence, since his statements could be interpreted as implying a vow, we offer such an interpretation. The Kessef Mishnehstruggles with the meaning of the Rambam's words and suggests that perhaps an error crept into the text.
|
| 60. |
For he is forbidding himself from eating with his colleague, like he is forbidden to partake of the Temple's sacrifices.
|
| 61. |
Concluding with a negative expression implies that this is his intent, as in Halachah 19 (Radbaz). In this instance as well, the Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's wording.
|
| 62. |
This and the subsequent statements of this clause do not imply that he is forbidden to partake of the other person's food.
|
| 63. |
For this restriction applies when a person is under a ban of ostracism (see Hilchot Talmud Torah7:4).
The Turei Zahav 206:1 mentions the opinion of Rabbenu Asher who maintains that these vows are not effective at all.
|
| 64. |
He may, however, speak to him (Radbaz).
Although the person does not mention the terms "prohibition" or "sacrifice" in his vow, since his intent is obviously to prohibit himself from benefiting from the other person, that prohibition takes effect. This reflects the principle (Nedarim 3a): "The handles of vows are as vows." The intent is that even a statement that, like a handle to a cup, is merely an auxiliary to a vow is binding like a vow itself. See also a responsum authored by the Rambam's son, Rav Avraham, which explains that even when the intent of one's statements are not entirely clear, as in the present instance, they may constitute a vow, provided their intent is somewhat clear. This principle is also quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 206:1).
|
| 65. |
From Nedarim 7a, it appears that this expression creates an unresolved question whether the one taking the vow was merely promising not to come within four cubits of the other person or whether he intended to forbid partaking of that person's property. Because of the doubt, he is forbidden to partake of the property, but is not given lashes.
|
| 66. |
The term the Rambam uses relates to the Hebrew words na and nad which mean "wander" and "roam." Nevertheless, Nedarim 7a states that all authorities agree that this expression creates a binding commitment.
|
| 67. |
Since he does not use the words "eat" or "partake," we assume that he intended to create a more encompassing prohibition.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the expression means that he is not allowed to partake of his property in his presence. That interpretation is also discussed by the Kessef Mishneh.
|
| 68. |
The Rambam is referring to the wording of the Mishnah (Nedarim 1:1). The wicked make vows hastily and moreover, obligate themselves for vows which constitute a commitment incumbent on their person (Halachah 2). See also Chapter 13, Halachah 25, which states that it is undesirable to make vows.
|
| 69. |
I.e., he must accept a nazirite vow, bring a burnt offering, and is liable for lashes for taking a falsesh'vuat bitui.
|
| 70. |
See Chapter 13, Halachah 23.
|
| 71. |
The term the Rambam refers to "donations," i.e., animals which the person designates as a sacrifices, but if lost do not create a lien on his person (Halachah 2).
|
| 72. |
To uphold a nazirite vow and to bring a sacrifice. He is not, however, liable for an oath, because he did not mention an oath in his statements, since the upright do not take oaths casually.
|
| 73. |
In either case, his statement implies a binding commitment for the wicked make vows and the upright make pledges.
|
| 74. |
I.e., he did not explicitly attach his vow to a sacrifice. This is another example of "the handles of vows" mentioned above (Radbaz).
|
| 75. |
Since the nazirite was passing before him, we assume that this was his intent.
|
| 76. |
This applies even when an animal is not in his sight, for this appears to be his intent (Radbaz).
|
| 77. |
I.e., a loaf of bread [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 206:4)].
|
| 78. |
I.e., if he partakes of the food, he is liable for taking a false sh'vuat bitui.
|
| 79. |
I.e., a Torah scroll.
|
| 80. |
For the holiness of a Torah scroll is inherent. It is not established by man's actions.
|
| 81. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 5, and Hilchot Sh'vuot, ch. 6, which describe this practice.
|
| 82. |
I.e., the vow is not binding. Nevertheless, we make it appear that it is and require him to seek to be released for the reason stated by the Rambam. See the parallels in Chapter 2, Halachot 12-13 and Hilchot Sh'vuot 12:4-5.
|
| 83. |
The Rambam's explanation is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 1:3). With regard to oaths, by contrast, his intent is focused on God's name.
|
| 84. |
Since he knows what is written in the Torah and is holding it in a reverent manner, we assume that he is not making his statements in vain. Hence, we interpret them as referring to an option for which he would be liable.
|
| 85. |
Nedarim 8a derives this concept from Ezekiel 3:22-23 which states: "And He said to me: "Arise and go out to the valley and there I will speak to you. I arose and I went out to the valley and there the glory of God was standing." Since God promised to reveal Himself to Ezekiel, He kept his word, appearing even before Ezekiel arrived there.
|
| 86. |
From Nedarim 8a, it appears that although this statement establishes a binding commitment, it does not have the full power of a vow. The Tur and the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 213:2) consider this statement as an actual vow.
The Rambam's perspective appears to be that a vow involves making an object forbidden. This instance where the person accepts a commitment upon himself bears a closer resemblance to the obligation incurred when making an oath. Nevertheless, since the person did not employ the wording associated with an oath, it is not binding as an oath. Nonetheless, since a mitzvah is involved, a binding commitment is established.
|
| 87. |
With whom it is forbidden for him to engage in relations.
|
| 88. |
Of which it is forbidden to partake. See Leviticus 19:23, Deuteronomy 22:9.
|
| 89. |
Halachot 8-9. See also Chapter 2, Halachah 13.
|
| 90. |
A man is obligated to give his wife conjugal rights. Hence, he is not allowed to forbid himself from engaging in relations with her. Nevertheless, in this instance, since the vow also involves satisfaction that he could forbid him, it also includes this form of satisfaction.
|
| 91. |
For he did not forbid relations, but instead, the satisfaction relations bring him. See Chapter 12, Halachah 9.
|
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Edut Edut - Chapter 11, Edut Edut - Chapter 12, Edut Edut - Chapter 13 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Edut - Chapter 11
• 3 Chapters: Edut Edut - Chapter 11, Edut Edut - Chapter 12, Edut Edut - Chapter 13 • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Edut - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
When one does not read the Written Law, nor study the Oral Law, nor carry on ordinary social relationships, he can be assumed to be wicked and is disqualified as a witness according to Rabbinic decree. The rationale is that whenever a person has descended to such a degree, it can be assumed that he will transgress most transgressions that will present themselves to him.
Halacha 2
For this reason, unlearned people should not be designated as witnesses, nor do we accept such a person's testimony unless it has been established that he observes the mitzvot, performs acts of kindness, conducts himself in an upright manner, and carries on normal social relationships. The testimony of such a person may be accepted even though he is unlearned and is unfamiliar with both the Written and Oral Law.
Halacha 3
Thus one may conclude any Torah scholar may be assumed to be acceptable as a witness unless he is disqualified, and any unlearned person may be assumed to be unacceptable unless it is established that he follows just paths.
Halacha 4
Whoever accepts the testimony of an unlearned person before it is established that he possesses the above positive qualities or before witnesses come and testify that he observes the mitzvot and carries on ordinary social relations is a commoner and will be required to face judgment, for he has forfeited the financial resources of Jews on the basis of the testimony of the wicked.
Halacha 5
Similarly, base people are disqualified as witnesses by Rabbinic decree. This refers to people who walk through the marketplace eating in the presence of everyone, those who go unclothed in the marketplace when they are involved in ignoble tasks, and the like. The rationale is that they are not concerned with their own shame. All these people are considered as dogs; they will not be concerned with testifying falsely.
Included are those who partake of charity given by gentiles in public. Although they could derive this benefit in private, they denigrate themselves and accept it in public without showing concern for their honor. All of these individuals are disqualified according to Rabbinical decree.
Halacha 6
What is the difference between a person who is disqualified as a witness according to Scriptural Law and one who is disqualified by Rabbinic decree? The testimony of a person disqualified by Scriptural Law is nullified even though it was not announced in synagogues and houses of study that he is unacceptable.
Announcements must be made about a person who is disqualified by Rabbinic decree, by contrast, before his testimony is disqualified. Accordingly, any testimony that he gives before such announcements are made are accepted so that people who relied on him will not suffer a loss, for they did not know that he was unacceptable, and he is disqualified only by Rabbinic decree.
Halacha 7
The testimony of one witness is acceptable with regard to the Torah's prohibitions, even though his testimony is not accepted with regard to other matters. This is evident from the fact that when a wicked person known to transgress slaughters an animal, his slaughter is acceptable. We accept his word when he says: "I slaughtered it according to law." When, however, a person is suspected of violating a particular prohibition frequently, his word is not accepted with regard to his own matters. His word is accepted, however, with regard to others.
Halacha 8
For this reason, a person suspected of violating a particular prohibition may serve as a judge and as a witness for others. We operate under the assumption that a person will not transgress so that others will benefit.
What is implied? The word of an unlearned person is accepted if he states: "The produce of so-and-so has been tithed." Similarly, the word of a person who is suspected of selling the meat of a firstborn is accepted if he states: "The meat which so-and-so is selling is ordinary meat." Similar principles apply with regard to other prohibitions. For the wicked fear the Torah's prohibitions, but they do not fear causing others monetary loss.
Halacha 9
The Kings of Israel may not testify, nor is testimony given against them, because they are strong-armed men of power who do not subjugate themselves to the yoke of the judges. Testimony may be made against a High Priest, by contrast, and he may give testimony concerning the king in the Supreme Sanhedrin, as explained.
Halacha 10
Our Sages had no need to list informers, epicursim, and apostates among those who are not acceptable as witnesses. For they listed only the wicked among the Jewish people. These rebellious deserters of the faith are inferior to the gentiles. Gentiles need not be saved from a pit, but neither should they be pushed into one the pious among them will receive a share in the world to come. These deserters of the faith should be pushed into a pit and should not be saved from one; they will not receive a portion in the world to come.
Edut - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
Whenever a person is disqualified as a witness for committing a transgression, he is disqualified if two witnesses testify that he committed a transgression despite the fact that they did not warn him and hence, he does not receive lashes.
When does the above apply? When the person committed a transgression that is universally known among the Jewish people to be a sin, e.g., he took a false or an unnecessary oath, he robbed, he stole, he ate meat from an animal that was not slaughtered in a ritual manner, or the like. Different rules apply, however, if the witnesses see him transgress a prohibition which he most likely violated unknowingly. In such an instance, they must warn him. Afterwards, if he transgresses, he is disqualified.
What is implied? If witnesses saw a person tying or untying a knot on the Sabbath, they must inform him that this desecrates the Sabbath, because most people are unaware of this. Similarly, if they see him performing a forbidden labor on the Sabbath or a festival, they must inform him that the day is the Sabbath or the festival, lest he have forgotten.
Similarly, if a person gambles continually, becomes a the collector of the king's duty, or a tax collector takes more for himself, the witnesses must inform him that a person who does this is not acceptable as a witness. For the majority of the people are unaware of this matter. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. The general principle is: Whenever it appears to the witnesses that the person committing the transgression knew that he was acting wickedly and transgressed deliberately, he is not acceptable as a witness even though he was not given a warning and hence, does not receive lashes.
Halacha 2
A person is not disqualified as a witness because of a transgression on the basis of his own testimony. What is implied? A person comes to court and admits that he stole, robbed, or lent money at interest. Although his own statement is sufficient to obligate him to make financial restitution, it does not disqualify him as a witness. Similarly, if he states that he ate meat from an animal that was not slaughtered in a ritual manner or had relations with a woman forbidden to him, he is not disqualified until two witnesses testify concerning the transgression. The rationale is that a person is not deemed as wicked on the basis of his own testimony.
Accordingly, if Shimon testifies that Reuven lent money at interest, and Levi testifies: "Reuven lent me money at interest," Reuven is disqualified as a witness on the basis of the testimony of Shimon and Levi. Although Levi admitted that he borrowed money at interest, he is not deemed as wicked on the basis of his own testimony. Hence, his word is accepted with regard to Reuven, but not with regard to himself.
Similarly, if a person testifies that so-and-so sodomized him, whether against the will of the person sodomized or with his consent, the person sodomized and one other witness can join together and through their testimony have the sodomizer condemned to execution. If a person states: "So-and-so had relations with my wife," he and one other witness can join together and through their testimony have that person, but not the wife condemned to execution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If a person testifies: "So-and-so sodomized my ox," he and one other witness can join together and through their testimony have that person condemned to execution. The rationale is that a person is not considered as related to his property.
Halacha 3
When two people testify that a person is not acceptable as a witness because he committed one of the abovementioned transgressions and two others come and testify that he repented and renounced his improper conduct or received lashes as punishment for the transgression, he is acceptable. If, however, two witnesses came and contradicted the original witnesses, saying: "He did not commit the transgression and should not be disqualified," there is an unresolved doubt if he is disqualified as a witness or not. Therefore he should not testify, we do not expropriate money on the basis of his testimony, and he should not serve as a judge until he repents.
Halacha 4
Whenever a person was obligated to receive lashes, he is considered as an acceptable witness again when he repents or when he received lashes in court. Other persons who were disqualified as witnesses because of money which they seized or stole must repent even if they made financial restitution. Instead, they are disqualified until it is known that they repented from their evil ways.
Halacha 5
When is it considered that people who lend money at interest have repented? When they tear up their promissory notes on their own volition and manifest complete regret over their actions to the extent that they do not lend money at interest even to gentiles.
Halacha 6
When is it considered that dice-players have repented? When they break their dice on their own volition and manifest complete regret over their actions to the extent that they do not even play without monetary stakes.
Halacha 7
When is it considered that those who guide the flight of doves have repented? When they break the tools they use to snare them and manifest complete regret over their actions to the extent that they do not do this even in the desert.
Halacha 8
When is it considered that merchants of produce in the Sabbatical year have repented? When the Sabbatical year arrives, they are investigated and it is discovered that they did not sell such produce.
Expressing regret verbally is not sufficient. Instead, they must compose a document, stating: "I, so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, earned 200 zuz from the sale of the produce of the Sabbatical year and this sum is given as a present to the poor."
Halacha 9
When is it considered that a person suspected of benefiting from taking a false oath has repented? When he goes to a court which does not recognize him and tells them: "I am suspect to take a false oath." Alternatively, when he is obligated to take an oath in a court which does not recognize him with regard to a significant amount of money and he chooses to make financial restitution rather than take the oath.
Similarly, a butcher would check the animals he slaughtered by himself and market the meat who sold meat that was trefe is considered like those who partake of such meat and who are unacceptable as witnesses. Such a butcher is unacceptable as a witness until it is evident from his deeds that he regrets the evil he performed. He must wear black clothes, robe himself in black, and go to a place where his identity is not known and return a lost object that is significantly valuable or acknowledge that an animal that is significantly valuable which he owned and slaughtered is trefe.
Halacha 10
Similarly, a witnesses who was discovered to have lied who went to a place where he was not recognized and was offered a significant amount of money to deliver false testimony, but refused is considered to have repented and is reinstated as a witness. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Edut - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
Relatives are disqualified as witnesses according to Scriptural Law, as implied by Deuteronomy 24:16: "Fathers shall not die because of sons." According to the Oral Tradition, the verse is interpreted as meaning that included in this prohibition is that fathers should not die because of the testimony of sons, nor should sons die because of the testimony of fathers. Similar laws apply with regard to other relatives.
According to Scriptural Law, only paternal relatives are disqualified - i.e., a father with his sons and grandsons, paternal brothers with each other, and the sons of paternal brothers with each other. Needless to see the uncles may not testify with their brother's sons. Maternal relatives or people related by marriage are disqualified only by Rabbinic decree.
Halacha 2
Converts are not considered as relatives. Even two twin brothers who convert may testify on each others behalf. For a convert is considered as a newborn child.
Halacha 3
Brothers - whether maternal brothers or paternal - are considered as one degree removed. Their sons are considered as two degrees removed. And their grandsons are three degrees removed.
Halacha 4
A person who is three degrees removed may testify on behalf of one who is one degree removed. Needless to say, one who is three degrees removed may testify on behalf of one who is two degrees removed. But two who are both two degrees removed, and needless to say, one who is two degrees removed and one who is one degree removed are both disqualified from testifying.
Halacha 5
A father and his son are considered as one degree removed. Therefore a father is disqualified from testifying with his grandson. With his great-grandson, i.e., the fourth generation, he is acceptable, for he is of the first degree and the great-grandson, three degrees, removed. Similar laws apply with regard to women relatives.
What is implied? Two sisters or a brother and a sister - whether paternally or maternally related - are considered as one degree removed. Their children whether male or female are considered as two degrees removed and their grandchildren - including the sons of their sons and the daughters of their daughters - are considered as three degrees removed. Just as we count the degrees descendants are removed for males - one degree, two degrees, and three degrees - so, too, we count the degrees for females.
Halacha 6
Whenever a person is disqualified from testifying on behalf of a woman, he is also disqualified from testifying on behalf of her husband, for a husband is considered like his wife. Conversely, whenever a person is disqualified from testifying on behalf of a man, he is also disqualified from testifying on behalf of his wife, for a wife is considered like her husband.
Halacha 7
Whenever two women are removed by second degrees, their husbands may testify on behalf of each other. If, however, the women are one degree removed, e.g., a man married a woman, and a colleague married her daughter, the two men may not testify on each other's behalf.
Halacha 8
Similarly, the husbands of two sisters are disqualified with regard to each other and are considered as one degree removed.
Halacha 9
Similarly, a person should not testify on behalf of the son of his wife's sister, nor on behalf of the husband of the daughter of his wife's sister. He may, however, testify on behalf of the son of the husband of his wife's sister who was born to that person from another wife.
Halacha 10
Whenever a witness is disqualified from testifying on behalf of a colleague because he is married to the witness' relative, the witness may testify on behalf of the other relatives of that colleague, e.g., his son and his brother. Similarly, whenever a witness is disqualified from testifying on behalf of a woman because she is married to the witness' relative, the witness may testify on behalf of her other relatives, e.g., her son and her brother.
Halacha 11
The father of a bride and the father of a groom may testify on behalf of each other.
Halacha 12
A person's paternal brother may testify on behalf of that person's maternal brother and the maternal brother may testify on behalf of the paternal brother, for they have no connection whatsoever.
What is implied? Rachel married Joseph and bore him a son Reuven. Joseph had a son, Menashe, from another wife. Joseph died and Rachel married Shimon and bore him Judah. Menashe and Judah may testify on each other's behalf.
Halacha 13
A man and his wife are considered as being removed by one degree. Hence a husband may not testify on behalf of his wife's son, the wife of his wife's son, his wife's daughter, the husband of his wife's daughter, his wife's father, his wife's mother, the husband of his wife's mother, nor the wife of his wife's father.
Halacha 14
When a person has consecrated a woman, although the marriage bond has not been consummated, with regard to testimony, it is as if she is fully married.
To whom does the above apply? To the woman he consecrated herself; he may not testify on her behalf. If, however, he testifies on behalf of the relatives of the woman he consecrated, e.g., her sister's husband, her son or daughter, or the like, we do not disqualify him until he marries her.
Halacha 15
The Torah did not disqualify the testimony of relatives because we assume that they love each other, for a relative may not testify neither on his relative's behalf or against his interests. Instead, this is a Scriptural decree.
For this reason people who love each other or who hate each other are acceptable as witnesses even though they are not acceptable as judges. For the Scriptural decree disqualifies only relatives as witnesses.
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Wednesday, Cheshvan 22, 5776 · 04 November 2015
"Today's Day"
Shabbat Cheshvan 22 5704
Torah Lesson: Chumash: Chayei Sara, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 106-107.
Tanya: Now, it is (p. 583) ...as stated above. (p. 585).
One of the teachings of the Maggid of Mezritch, heard by the Alter Rebbe when he was in Mezritch for the first time, from late summer 5524 (1764) until after Pesach 5525 (1765):
"I (Anochi) have made the earth, and upon it created man."1 Anochi, He who is the true "I",2 unknown to and concealed from even the loftiest emanations, clothed His blessed Essence through numerous condensations to give rise to the emanations and creatures, 3 to Serafim, Chayot, Ofanim,4 angels and "worlds" beyond number. Through countless condensations, "I made this (physical) world and upon it created (barati) man." Man is the end-purpose of Creation, and barati is the end-purpose of man. (Barati, "I created," has the numerical equivalent of 613, the number of scriptural commandments). 5
As (the book of) Pardes quotes Sefer Habahir: "Said the attribute of Chessed (kindness) before the Holy One Blessed-be-He,Master of the Universe, since the days Avram has been on earth, I have not had to perform my task, because Avram stands and serves in my stead." Because Avraham - a soul clothed in a body, occupying himself with hospitality to strangers as a means of disseminating the idea of G-d in this lowly world - is actually on a higher plane and level than the attribute of kindness of Atzilut.
The complaint ("Said the attribute of Chessed before the Holy One etc.") is an expression of envy of Avraham's service by the attribute of kindness of Atzilut.
FOOTNOTES
1. Yeshayahu 45:12.
2. Lit.: "I, Whoever I Am."
3. The phrase defies accurate translation; in Hebrew the verb-form corresponding to "emanations," le'haatzil, is used to describe the coming-into-being of the ne'etzalim ("emanations"), and the verb livra for the nivra'im ("creations"). Awkward, but perhaps slightly more accurate, would be "...to separate off (or ("emanate") the emanations and to create the creatures."
4. Three forms of angels.
5. I.e. the end-purpose of Man is (that he perform) Mitzvot.---------------------•
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Wednesday, Cheshvan 22, 5776 · 04 November 2015
"Today's Day"
Shabbat Cheshvan 22 5704
Torah Lesson: Chumash: Chayei Sara, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 106-107.
Tanya: Now, it is (p. 583) ...as stated above. (p. 585).
One of the teachings of the Maggid of Mezritch, heard by the Alter Rebbe when he was in Mezritch for the first time, from late summer 5524 (1764) until after Pesach 5525 (1765):
"I (Anochi) have made the earth, and upon it created man."1 Anochi, He who is the true "I",2 unknown to and concealed from even the loftiest emanations, clothed His blessed Essence through numerous condensations to give rise to the emanations and creatures, 3 to Serafim, Chayot, Ofanim,4 angels and "worlds" beyond number. Through countless condensations, "I made this (physical) world and upon it created (barati) man." Man is the end-purpose of Creation, and barati is the end-purpose of man. (Barati, "I created," has the numerical equivalent of 613, the number of scriptural commandments). 5
As (the book of) Pardes quotes Sefer Habahir: "Said the attribute of Chessed (kindness) before the Holy One Blessed-be-He,Master of the Universe, since the days Avram has been on earth, I have not had to perform my task, because Avram stands and serves in my stead." Because Avraham - a soul clothed in a body, occupying himself with hospitality to strangers as a means of disseminating the idea of G-d in this lowly world - is actually on a higher plane and level than the attribute of kindness of Atzilut.
The complaint ("Said the attribute of Chessed before the Holy One etc.") is an expression of envy of Avraham's service by the attribute of kindness of Atzilut.
FOOTNOTES
1. Yeshayahu 45:12.
2. Lit.: "I, Whoever I Am."
3. The phrase defies accurate translation; in Hebrew the verb-form corresponding to "emanations," le'haatzil, is used to describe the coming-into-being of the ne'etzalim ("emanations"), and the verb livra for the nivra'im ("creations"). Awkward, but perhaps slightly more accurate, would be "...to separate off (or ("emanate") the emanations and to create the creatures."
4. Three forms of angels.
5. I.e. the end-purpose of Man is (that he perform) Mitzvot.---------------------•
Daily Thought:
Why?
The One who transcends all bounds desires to be found in all His essence within our tightly bounded world.
And that will come through us, struggling here with the bounds and challenges of our world.
And what is the reason He so desires?
There is none. This is the desire where all begins.
It is a desire that transcends reason; it is the place from which all reason is born.
And so it is unbounded and all-consuming.
For it is not a desire of a human being. It is not a desire of one who has limited will, or of any being or entity at all.
It is a desire that lies at the very core of all being.
There is nothing else.[
---------------------
Tanya, chapter 36. Sefer Hamaamarim 5666, first maamar.]
No comments:
Post a Comment