Torah Reading
Torah Reading: Chayei Sarah (Genesis 23:1
Today in Jewish History:
Sarah lived to be 127 years old; these were the years of Sarah’s life. 2 Sarah died in Kiryat-Arba, also known as Hevron, in the land of Kena‘an; and Avraham came to mourn Sarah and weep for her. 3 Then he got up from his dead one and said to the sons of Het, 4 “I am a foreigner living as an alien with you; let me have a burial site with you, so that I can bury my dead wife.” 5 The sons of Het answered Avraham, 6 “Listen to us, my lord. You are a prince of God among us, so choose any of our tombs to bury your dead — not one of us would refuse you his tomb for burying your dead.”
7 Avraham got up, bowed before the people of the land, the sons of Het, 8 and spoke with them. “If it is your desire to help me bury my dead, then listen to me: ask ‘Efron the son of Tzochar 9 to give me the cave of Makhpelah, which he owns, the one at the end of his field. He should sell it to me in your presence at its full value; then I will have a burial site of my own.”
10 ‘Efron the Hitti was sitting among the sons of Het, and he gave Avraham his answer in the presence of the sons of Het who belonged to the ruling council of the city: 11 “No, my lord, listen to me: I’m giving you the field, with its cave — I’m giving it to you. In the presence of my people I give it to you.” 12 Avraham bowed before the people of the land 13 and spoke to ‘Efron in their hearing: “Please be good enough to listen to me. I will pay the price of the field; accept it from me, and I will bury my dead there.” 14 But ‘Efron answered Avraham, 15 “My lord, listen to me. A plot of land worth 400 silver shekels — what is that between me and you? Just bury your dead.” 16 Avraham got the point of what ‘Efron had said, so he weighed out for ‘Efron the amount of money he had specified in the presence of the sons of Het, 400 silver shekels of the weight accepted among merchants [ten pounds].
)• Hasmonean Holiday (137 BCE)
In Talmudic times, Cheshvan 23 was commemorated as the day on which the stones of the altar which were defiled by the Greeks were removed from the Holy Temple.
Daily Quote:
The forty-two "journeys" from Egypt to the Promised Land are replayed in the life of every individual, as the soul journeys from its descent to earth at birth to its return to its Source[Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Chayei Sarah, 5th Portion Genesis 24:53-24:67 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Genesis Chapter 24
53And the servant took out silver articles and golden articles and garments, and he gave [them] to Rebecca, and he gave delicacies to her brother and to her mother. נגוַיּוֹצֵ֨א הָעֶ֜בֶד כְּלֵי־כֶ֨סֶף וּכְלֵ֤י זָהָב֙ וּבְגָדִ֔ים וַיִּתֵּ֖ן לְרִבְקָ֑ה וּמִ֨גְדָּנֹ֔ת נָתַ֥ן לְאָחִ֖יהָ וּלְאִמָּֽהּ:
and… delicacies: Heb. וּמִגְדָּנוֹת. An expression of sweet fruits (מְגָדִים), for he had brought with him various kinds of fruits of the Land of Israel. ומגדנות: לשון מגדים, שהביא עמו מיני פירות של ארץ ישראל:
54And they ate and drank, he and the men who were with him, and they lodged, and they arose in the morning, and he said, "Send me away to my master." נדוַיֹּֽאכְל֣וּ וַיִּשְׁתּ֗וּ ה֛וּא וְהָֽאֲנָשִׁ֥ים אֲשֶׁר־עִמּ֖וֹ וַיָּלִ֑ינוּ וַיָּק֣וּמוּ בַבֹּ֔קֶר וַיֹּ֖אמֶר שַׁלְּחֻ֥נִי לַֽאדֹנִֽי:
and they lodged: Wherever lodging is mentioned in Scripture, it refers to one night’s lodging. וילינו: כל לינה שבמקרא לינת לילה אחד:
55And her brother and her mother said, "Let the maiden stay with us a year or ten [months]; afterwards she will go." נהוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אָחִ֨יהָ֙ וְאִמָּ֔הּ תֵּשֵׁ֨ב הַנַּֽעֲרָ֥ה (כתיב הנער)אִתָּ֛נוּ יָמִ֖ים א֣וֹ עָשׂ֑וֹר אַחַ֖ר תֵּלֵֽךְ:
And her brother and her mother said: And where was Bethuel? He wanted to stop [Rebecca’s marriage]; so an angel came and slew him. — [Gen. Rabbah 60:12] ויאמר אחיה ואמה: ובתואל היכן היה, הוא היה רוצה לעכב ובא מלאך והמיתו:
a year: יָמִים [means] a year, as in (Lev. 25:29):“the time of its redemption shall be one full year (יָמִים).” For a maiden is granted a period of twelve months to outfit herself with ornaments. — [Kethuboth 57]. ימים: שנה, כמו (ויקרא כה כט) ימים תהיה גאולתו, שכך נותנין לבתולה זמן שנים עשר חדש לפרנס את עצמה בתכשיטים:
or ten: [Meaning] ten months, for if you say that יָמִים is [to be understood literally as] days, it is not customary for people who make requests to request a small thing and [to say,] “If you are unwilling, give us more than that.” - [Kethuboth 57]. או עשור: עשרה חדשים. ואם תאמר ימים ממש, אין דרך המבקשים לבקש דבר מועט ואם לא תרצה תן לנו מרובה מזה:
56But he said to them, "Do not delay me, since the Lord has made my way prosper. Send me away, and I will go to my master." נווַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲלֵהֶם֙ אַל־תְּאַֽחֲר֣וּ אֹתִ֔י וַֽיהֹוָ֖ה הִצְלִ֣יחַ דַּרְכִּ֑י שַׁלְּח֕וּנִי וְאֵֽלְכָ֖ה לַֽאדֹנִֽי:
57And they said, "Let us call the maiden and ask her." נזוַיֹּֽאמְר֖וּ נִקְרָ֣א לַנַּֽעֲרָ֑ה (כתיב לנער) וְנִשְׁאֲלָ֖ה אֶת־פִּֽיהָ:
And ask her: From here we learn that we may not marry off a woman except with her consent. — [Gen. Rabbah 60: 12] ונשאלה את פיה: מכאן שאין משיאין את האשה אלא מדעתה:
58And they summoned Rebecca, and they said to her, "Will you go with this man?" And she said, "I will go." נחוַיִּקְרְא֤וּ לְרִבְקָה֙ וַיֹּֽאמְר֣וּ אֵלֶ֔יהָ הֲתֵֽלְכִ֖י עִם־הָאִ֣ישׁ הַזֶּ֑ה וַתֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלֵֽךְ:
and she said, “I will go.”: of my own accord, even if you do not desire it. ותאמר אלך: מעצמי, ואף אם אינכם רוצים:
59So they sent away Rebecca their sister and her nurse and Abraham's servant and his men. נטוַיְשַׁלְּח֛וּ אֶת־רִבְקָ֥ה אֲחֹתָ֖ם וְאֶת־מֵֽנִקְתָּ֑הּ וְאֶת־עֶ֥בֶד אַבְרָהָ֖ם וְאֶת־אֲנָשָֽׁיו:
60And they blessed Rebecca and said to her, "Our sister, may you become thousands of myriads, and may your seed inherit the cities of their enemies." סוַיְבָֽרְכ֤וּ אֶת־רִבְקָה֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְרוּ לָ֔הּ אֲחֹתֵ֕נוּ אַ֥תְּ הֲיִ֖י לְאַלְפֵ֣י רְבָבָ֑ה וְיִירַ֣שׁ זַרְעֵ֔ךְ אֵ֖ת שַׁ֥עַר שֽׂנְאָֽיו:
may you become thousands of myriads: May you and your seed receive that blessing that was stated to Abraham on Mount Moriah (above 22:17): “and I will surely multiply your seed, etc.” “May it be His will that those children shall be from you and not from another woman.” את היי לאלפי רבבה: את וזרעך תקבלו אותה ברכה שנאמר לאברהם בהר המוריה (לעיל כב יז) הרבה ארבה את זרעך וגו'. יהי רצון שיהא אותו הזרע ממך ולא מאשה אחרת:
61And Rebecca and her maidens arose and rode on the camels, and they followed the man; and the servant took Rebecca and left. סאוַתָּ֨קָם רִבְקָ֜ה וְנַֽעֲרֹתֶ֗יהָ וַתִּרְכַּ֨בְנָה֙ עַל־הַגְּמַלִּ֔ים וַתֵּלַ֖כְנָה אַֽחֲרֵ֣י הָאִ֑ישׁ וַיִּקַּ֥ח הָעֶ֛בֶד אֶת־רִבְקָ֖ה וַיֵּלַֽךְ:
62Now Isaac was on his way, coming from Be'er Lachai Ro'i, and he dwelt in the land of the south. סבוְיִצְחָק֙ בָּ֣א מִבּ֔וֹא בְּאֵ֥ר לַחַ֖י רֹאִ֑י וְה֥וּא יוֹשֵׁ֖ב בְּאֶ֥רֶץ הַנֶּֽגֶב:
coming from Be’er Lachai Ro’i: where he had gone to bring Hagar to Abraham his father, that he should marry her (Gen. Rabbah 60:14). מבוא באר לחי ראי: שהלך להביא הגר לאברהם אביו שישאנה:
and he dwelt in the land of the south: Near that well, as it is said (above 20:1): “And Abraham traveled from there to the south land, and he dwelt between Kadesh and Shur,” and there the well was located, as it is said (above 16:14):“Behold it is between Kadesh and Bered.” יושב בארץ הנגב: קרוב לאותו באר, שנאמר (לעיל כ א) ויסע משם אברהם ארצה הנגב וישב בין קדש ובין שור, ושם היה הבאר, שנאמר (שם טז יד) הנה בין קדש ובין ברד:
63And Isaac went forth to pray in the field towards evening, and he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, camels were approaching. סגוַיֵּצֵ֥א יִצְחָ֛ק לָשׂ֥וּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶ֖ה לִפְנ֣וֹת עָ֑רֶב וַיִּשָּׂ֤א עֵינָיו֙ וַיַּ֔רְא וְהִנֵּ֥ה גְמַלִּ֖ים בָּאִֽים:
to pray: לָשׂוּחַ is an expression of prayer, as in (Ps. 102:1):“He pours out his prayer (שִׂיחוֹ).” - [Gen. Rabbah 60: 14, Ber. 26b] \b 64\b0 לשוח: לשון תפלה, כמו (תהלים קב א) ישפוך שיחו:
64And Rebecca lifted her eyes, and saw Isaac, and she let herself down from the camel. סדוַתִּשָּׂ֤א רִבְקָה֙ אֶת־עֵינֶ֔יהָ וַתֵּ֖רֶא אֶת־יִצְחָ֑ק וַתִּפֹּ֖ל מֵעַ֥ל הַגָּמָֽל:
and saw Isaac: She saw his majestic appearance, and she was astounded by him (Gen. Rabbah 60:14). ותרא את יצחק: ראתה אותו הדור ותוהא מפניו:
and she let herself down: She slipped off toward the earth, as the Targum כִינַת, “and she leaned.” She leaned towards the earth but did not reach the ground, as (above verse 14):“Please lower (הַטִּי) your pitcher,” [which the Targum renders:] אַרְכִינִי [tilt]. Similar to this, (II Sam. 22:10):“And He bent (וַיֵּט) the heavens,” [which the Targum renders:] וְאַרכִין, an expression of leaning towards the earth, and similarly (Ps. 37: 24):“Though he falls (יִפֹּל), he will not be cast down,” meaning that if he falls toward the earth, he will not reach the ground. ותפל: השמיטה עצמה לארץ, כתרגומו ואתרכינת הטתה עצמה לארץ ולא הגיעה עד הקרקע, כמו (פסוק יד) הטי נא כדך, ארכיני, (ש"ב כב י) ויט שמים, וארכין, לשון מוטה לארץ, ודומה לו (תהלים לז כד) כי יפול לא יוטל, כלומר אם יטה לארץ לא יגיע עד הקרקע:
65And she said to the servant, "Who is that man walking in the field towards us?" And the servant said, "He is my master." And she took the veil and covered herself. סהוַתֹּ֣אמֶר אֶל־הָעֶ֗בֶד מִֽי־הָאִ֤ישׁ הַלָּזֶה֙ הַֽהֹלֵ֤ךְ בַּשָּׂדֶה֙ לִקְרָאתֵ֔נוּ וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הָעֶ֖בֶד ה֣וּא אֲדֹנִ֑י וַתִּקַּ֥ח הַצָּעִ֖יף וַתִּתְכָּֽס:
and covered herself: וַתִּתְכָּס is in the reflexive form, as in (below 35:8) ַותִּקָּבֵר (and she was buried); (I Sam. 4:18) וַתִּשָּׁבֵר (and it was broken). ותתכס: לשון ותתפעל, כמו ותקבר, ותשבר:
66And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. סווַיְסַפֵּ֥ר הָעֶ֖בֶד לְיִצְחָ֑ק אֵ֥ת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָֽׂה:
And the servant told: (Gen. Rabbah 60:15) He revealed to him [Isaac] the miracles that were wrought for him, that the earth had shrunk for him and that Rebecca had come to him providentially as a result of his prayer. ויספר העבד: גלה לו נסים שנעשו לו שקפצה לו הארץ ושנזדמנה לו רבקה בתפלתו:
67And Isaac brought her to the tent of Sarah his mother, and he took Rebecca, and she became his wife, and he loved her. And Isaac was comforted for [the loss of] his mother. סזוַיְבִאֶ֣הָ יִצְחָ֗ק הָאֹ֨הֱלָה֙ שָׂרָ֣ה אִמּ֔וֹ וַיִּקַּ֧ח אֶת־רִבְקָ֛ה וַתְּהִי־ל֥וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֖ה וַיֶּֽאֱהָבֶ֑הָ וַיִּנָּחֵ֥ם יִצְחָ֖ק אַֽחֲרֵ֥י אִמּֽוֹ:
to the tent of Sarah his mother: He brought her to the tent, and behold, she was Sarah his mother; i.e., she became the likeness of Sarah his mother, for as long as Sarah was alive, a candle burned from one Sabbath eve to the next, a blessing was found in the dough, and a cloud was attached to the tent. When she died, these things ceased, and when Rebecca arrived, they resumed (Gen. Rabbah 60:16). האהלה שרה אמו: ויביאה האהלה ונעשית דוגמת שרה אמו, כלומר והרי היא שרה אמו, שכל זמן ששרה קיימת היה נר דלוק מערב שבת לערב שבת, וברכה מצויה בעיסה, וענן קשור על האהל, ומשמתה פסקו, וכשבאת רבקה חזרו:
for…his mother: It is the way of the world that, as long as a person’s mother is alive, he is attached to her, but as soon as she dies, he finds comfort in his wife. — [Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 32.] אחרי אמו: דרך ארץ כל זמן שאמו של אדם קיימת כרוך הוא אצלה, ומשמתה הוא מתנחם באשתו:
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 108 - 112
• Hebrew text
• English text
• Chapter 108
1. A song, a psalm by David.
2. My heart is steadfast, O God; I will sing and chant praises even with my soul.
3. Awake, O lyre and harp; I shall awaken the dawn.
4. I will thank You among the nations, Lord; I will sing praises to You among the peoples.
5. Indeed, Your kindness reaches above the heavens; Your truth reaches to the skies.
6. Be exalted upon the heavens, O God, [show] Your glory upon all the earth.
7. That Your beloved ones may be delivered, help with Your right hand and answer me.
8. God spoke in His holiness that I would exult, I would divide portions [of the enemies' land], I would measure the Valley of Succot.
9. Mine is Gilead, mine is Manasseh, and Ephraim is the stronghold of my head, Judah is my prince.
10. Moab is my washbasin, I will cast my shoe upon Edom, I will shout over Philistia.
11. Who brings me to the fortified city? Who led me unto Edom?
12. Is it not God, Who has [until now] forsaken us, and did not go forth, O God, with our armies?
13. Give us help against the adversary; futile is the help of man.
14. Through God we will do valiantly, and He will trample our oppressors.
Chapter 109
David composed this psalm while fleeing from Saul. At that time he faced many enemies who, despite acting friendly in his presence, spoke only evil of him; he therefore curses them bitterly.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O God of my praise, be not silent.
2. For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful have opened against me; they spoke to me with a false tongue.
3. They have surrounded me with words of hate, and attacked me without cause.
4. In return for my love they hate me; still, I am [a man of] prayer.
5. They placed harm upon me in return for my favor, and hatred in return for my love.
6. Appoint a wicked man over him; let an adversary stand at his right.
7. When he is judged may he go out condemned; may his prayer be considered a sin.
8. May his days be few; may another take his position.
9. May his children be orphans and his wife a widow.
10. May his children wander about and beg; may they seek charity from amid their ruins.
11. May the creditor seize all that he has, and may strangers plunder [the fruits of] his labor.
12. May he have none who extends him kindness, and may none be gracious to his orphans.
13. May his posterity be cut off; may their name be erased in a later generation.
14. May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered by the Lord, and the sin of his mother not be erased.
15. May they be before the Lord always, and may He cut off their memory from the earth.
16. Because he did not remember to do kindness, and he pursued the poor and destitute man and the broken-hearted, to kill [him].
17. He loved the curse and it has come upon him; he did not desire blessing, and it has remained far from him.
18. He donned the curse like his garment, and it came like water into his innards, like oil into his bones.
19. May it be to him like a cloak in which he wraps himself, as a belt with which he girds himself always.
20. This is from the Lord for the deeds of my enemies, and [for] those who speak evil against my soul.
21. And You, God, my Lord, do [kindness] with me for the sake of Your Name; for Your kindness is good, rescue me!
22. For I am poor and destitute, and my heart has died within me.
23. Like the fleeting shadow I am banished, I am tossed about like the locust.
24. My knees totter from fasting, and my flesh is lean without fat.
25. And I became a disgrace to them; they see me and shake their heads.
26. Help me, Lord, my God, deliver me according to Your kindness.
27. Let them know that this is Your hand, that You, Lord, have done it.
28. Let them curse, but You will bless; they arose, but they will be shamed, and Your servant will rejoice.
29. May my adversaries be clothed in humiliation; may they wrap themselves in their shame as in a cloak.
30. I will thank the Lord profusely with my mouth, and amid the multitude I will praise Him,
31. when He stands at the right of the destitute one to deliver him from the condemners of his soul.
Chapter 110
This psalm records the response of Eliezer, servant of Abraham (to those who asked how Abraham managed to defeat the four kings). He tells of Abraham killing the mighty kings and their armies. Read, and you will discover that the entire psalm refers to Abraham, who merited prominence for recognizing God in his youth.
1. By David, a psalm. The Lord said to my master, "Sit at My right, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.”
2. The staff of your strength the Lord will send from Zion, to rule amid your enemies.
3. Your people [will come] willingly on the day of your campaign; because of your splendid sanctity from when you emerged from the womb, you still possess the dew of your youth.
4. The Lord has sworn and will not regret: "You shall be a priest forever, just as Melchizedek!”
5. My Lord is at your right; He has crushed kings on the day of His fury.
6. He will render judgement upon the nations, and they will be filled with corpses; He will crush heads over a vast land.
7. He will drink from the stream on the way, and so will hold his head high.
Chapter 111
This psalm is written in alphabetical sequence, each verse containing two letters, save the last two verses which contain three letters each. The psalm is short yet prominent, speaking of the works of God and their greatness.
1. Praise the Lord! I will give thanks to the Lord with all my heart, in the counsel of the upright and the congregation.
2. Great are the works of the Lord, [yet] available to all who desire them.
3. Majesty and splendor are His work, and His righteousness endures forever.
4. He established a memorial for His wonders, for the Lord is gracious and compassionate.
5. He gave food to those who fear Him; He remembered His covenant always.
6. He has declared the power of His deeds to His people, to give them the inheritance of nations.
7. The works of His hands are true and just; all His mandates are faithful.
8. They are steadfast for ever and ever, for they are made with truth and uprightness.
9. He sent redemption to His people, [by] commanding His covenant forever; holy and awesome is His Name.
10. The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord; sound wisdom for all who practice it-His praise endures forever.
Chapter 112
This psalm, too, follows alphabetical sequence, each verse containing two letters, save the last two which contain three letters each. It speaks of the good traits man should choose, and of how to give charity-the reward for which is never having to rely on others.
1. Praise the Lord! Fortunate is the man who fears the Lord, and desires His commandments intensely.
2. His descendants will be mighty on the earth; he will be blessed with an upright generation.
3. Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever.
4. Even in darkness light shines for the upright, for [He is] Compassionate, Merciful, and Just.
5. Good is the man who is compassionate and lends, [but] provides for his own needs with discretion.
6. For he will never falter; the righteous man will be an eternal remembrance.
7. He will not be afraid of a bad tiding; his heart is steadfast, secure in the Lord.
8. His heart is steadfast, he does not fear, until he sees his oppressors [destroyed].
9. He has distributed [his wealth], giving to the needy. His righteousness will endure forever; his might will be uplifted in honor.
10. The wicked man will see and be angry; he will gnash his teeth and melt away; the wish of the wicked will be ruined.
---------------------
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 29
• Lessons in Tanya
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Thursday, Cheshvan 23, 5776 · November 5, 2015
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Thursday, Cheshvan 23, 5776 · November 5, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 29
The Alter Rebbe now focuses on the distinctive quality inherent in the halachot of the Oral Torah. It is these halachotthat reveal the Supernal Will, by defining what it actually requires of us in the performance of the mitzvot, in order thereby to draw down this lofty level of Divinity.
והנה מודעת זאת כי הנה רצון העליון ב"ה המלובש בתרי"ג מצות שבתורה שבכתב הוא מופלא ומכוסה טמיר ונעלם ואינו מתגלה אלא בתורה שבע"פ
Now, as is known, the Supernal Will as vested in the 613 commandments of the Written Torah, is hidden and covered, secreted and concealed. It is manifest only in the Oral Torah.1
כמו מצות תפילין עד"מ שנאמר בתושב"כ וקשרתם לאות על ידך והיו לטוטפות בין עיניך
For example, the precept of tefillin: In the Written Torah it is stated,2 "And you shall bind them for a sign on your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes."
והוא מאמר סתום ונעלם שלא פירש הכתוב איך ומה לקשור ומהו טוטפות והיכן הוא בין עיניך ועל ידך
This is an indistinct and obscure statement, for Scripture did not explain how and what to bind, nor what frontlets are, nor where is "between your eyes" or "on your hand,"
עד שפירשה תורה שבע"פ שצריך לקשור בית אחד על היד וד' בתים על הראש ובתוכם ד' פרשיות
until the Oral Torah explicates3 that one needs to bind a single box on the hand, and four boxes on the head, containing four Scriptural passages.
והבתים יהיו מעור מעובד ומרובעים דוקא ומקושרים ברצועות של עור שחורות דוקא
Moreover, the boxes are to be made of prepared leather, and necessarily square, and to be tied by means of leather straps which need to be black,4
וכל שאר פרטי הלכות עשיית התפילין שנאמרו בע"פ
with all the other detailed rulings governing the making of tefillin, that were stated orally, i.e., that are found in the Oral Torah.
ועל ידך היא הזרוע דוקא ולא כף היד ובין עיניך זה קדקוד ולא המצח
Also, "on your hand" refers only to the arm, and not to the palm of the hand;5 and "between your eyes" refers to the scalp, and not to the forehead.6
It is thus only the detailed halachot of the Oral Torah that enable us to perform this mitzvah in keeping with the Supernal Will.
וכן כל מצות שבתורה בין מ"ע בין מצות ל"ת אינן גלויות וידועות ומפורשות אלא ע"י תורה שבע"פ
Likewise all the commandments of the Torah, whether they be positive precepts or prohibitory precepts, are not revealed and known and made explicit except through the Oral Torah.
כמצות ל"ת שנאמר בשבת לא תעשה מלאכה ולא פי' מה היא מלאכה
For instance, the prohibitory precept that has been stated with respect to the Sabbath, "You shall do no work":7[the Written Torah] does not specify what constitutes work.
ובתורה שבע"פ נתפרש שהן ל"ט מלאכות הידועות ולא טלטול אבנים וקורות כבידות
In the Oral Torah, however, it is explicated8 to refer to the well-known 39 forms of work, and not (only) to the carrying of stones or heavy beams, which is only Rabbinically prohibited.9
Though carrying rocks and beams is more tiring than some of the39 prohibited forms of work, it does not fall into any of the categories of work that the Torah prohibits on Shabbat.
According to the alternative reading of our text ("and not only to the carrying of stones or heavy beams"), this work is prohibited by the Torah. Thus the Ramban on Parshat Emor10 states that the term Shabbaton ("a day of rest") that is used with regard to Yom Tov- and the same applies with regard to the commandment tishbot ("you shall rest") of Shabbat - refers also to those activities that do not formally fall within the 39 defined categories of prohibited work, but are nevertheless prohibited by the Torah since they rob a person of his rest and tranquillity.
In the first of his comments on this subject, the Maggid Mishneh argues that the Rambam11 also holds that "you shall rest "forbids even strenuous work that does not fall within any of the39 categories governed by the prohibition, "Do not do any work." (Though the Lechem Mishneh refutes this argument, this remains the view of the Maggid Mishneh.)
Others hold12 that both readings are valid. Each corresponds to one side of a debate in the Yerushalmi13 as to whether or not the Torah prohibits certain forms of work during the Sabbatical year (and by extension, during Shabbat as well) because it is a time of rest, even when there is no additional specific prohibition.
וכיוצא בהן הן כל המצות בין מ"ע בין מל"ת הן סתומות ולא מפורשות וגלויות וידועות אלא ע"י תורה שבע"פ
And as it is with these - [with the above examples of tefillin and Shabbat] - so it is with all the commandments, whether they be positive precepts or prohibitory precepts: they are indistinct, and are explicated and revealed and known only through the Oral Torah.
ומשום הכי כתיב על תושבע"פ אל תטוש תורת אמך כמ"ש בזהר
This is why Scripture says14 of the Oral Torah, "And you shall not cast off the teaching of your mother," as stated in theZohar.15
משום שעד"מ כמו שכל אברי הולד כלולים בטיפת האב בהעלם גדול והאם מוציאתו לידי גילוי בלידתה ולד שלם ברמ"ח אברים ושס"ה גידים
Metaphorically speaking, just as all the organs of a child are comprised, very latently, in the sperm of the father, and the mother brings this out into a state of manifestation when giving birth to a child complete with 248 organs and 365 sinews,
This is an instance of the16 "superior measure of Binah that was granted to woman," the power to make latent gifts manifest and corporeal].
ככה ממש כל רמ"ח מ"ע ושס"ה מל"ת באים מההעלם אל הגילוי בתושבע"פ
exactly so, do the 248 positive precepts and the 365 prohibitory precepts emerge from obscurity to manifestation through the Oral Torah, which is therefore called the "teachings of your mother."
ורישי' דקרא שמע בני מוסר אביך קאי אתורה שבכתב דנפקא מחכמה עילאה הנק' בשם אב
Whereas the beginning of the verse, "Heed, my son, the admonitions of your father," alludes to the Written Torah, which derives from the Supernal Chochmah which is called "father".
וז"ש אשת חיל עטרת בעלה כי התורה שבע"פ הנק' אשת חיל המולידה ומעמדת חיילות הרבה
This, then, is the meaning of the verse [quoted at the outsetof the present Epistle], "A woman of valor is the crown of her husband." For the Oral Torah is termed a "woman of valor" who gives birth to, and raises many legions.
כמ"ש ועלמות אין מספר אל תקרי עלמות אלא עולמות אלו הלכות דלית לון חושבנא כמ"ש בתיקונים
As it is written,17 "and alamot ('maidens') without number": Do not read alamot but olamot('worlds'),"18 [these innumerable worlds] alluding to the halachot that are without number, as stated in the Tikkunim.19
וכולן הן בחי' גילוי רצון העליון ב"ה הנעלם בתושב"כ
All of these [halachot] are manifestations of the Supernal Will which is hidden in the Written Torah.
The Oral Torah is thus called a "woman of valor," for it givesbirth to multitudinous legions of laws.
The Alter Rebbe will now answer one of his opening questions: Why is it that specifically halachot are referred to as the "crown of the Torah"? Also, why is the individual who studies specifically halachot every day assured of a share in the World to Come?
ורצון העליון ב"ה הוא למעלה מעלה ממעלת חכמה עילאה וכמו כתר ועטרה שעל המוחין שבראש
The Supernal Will which belongs to the Sefirah of Keter, lit., "crown" is exceedingly more sublime than the level of the Supernal Chochmah, just as a crown or wreath is higher than the brains in the head.
לכן נקראו ההלכות בשם תגא וכתרה של תורה
This is why the halachot are referred to as a "crown" and the "crown of the Torah," for they reveal the Supernal Will, which is at the level of Keter.
והשונה הלכות מובטח לו שהוא בן עוה"ב
Likewise, "Whoever studies [specifically] halachot is assured ofa share in the World to Come,"
ע"י התלבשות נר"נ שלו ברצון העליון ב"ה
by investing his Nefesh, Ruach and Neshamah in the Supernal Will,
כנ"ל
as stated above - that the garments for the soul in the World to Come are the mitzvot; these embody the Supernal Will, which is clarified and delineated by the halachot.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | In an intricate Kabbalistic analysis (in the Glosses on the Tanya published in Likkutei Levi Yitzchak), R. Levi Yitzchak Schneerson, father of the Rebbe, relates the above four expressions ("hidden and covered, secreted and concealed") to the correspondence between the 613 mitzvot of the Written Torah and the four letters of the Divine Name Havayah. In summary: The Name Havayah is merely written, but not given manifest articulation; it finds expression only through its variant pronunciation of Ad-nai, which, however, contracts it and conceals its Essence. In the Written Torah, the Supreme Will underlying the mitzvot is likewise hidden; it becomes revealed ("pronounced") only insofar as it is contracted in the Oral Torah, which corresponds to the Name Ad-nai. |
| 2. | Devarim 6:8. |
| 3. | See Menachot 34b ff., et al. |
| 4. | Note of the Rebbe: "See Rambam, Hilchot Tefillin 3:14, as well as other codifiers." |
| 5. | Note of the Rebbe: "...as it means in other places." |
| 6. | Note of the Rebbe: "...as was [the position of] the headband [of the High Priest]." |
| 7. | Text emended according to Shmot 20:10 and Devarim 16:8 |
| 8. | See Shabbat 73a, et al |
| 9. | Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat 24:12 |
| 10. | Shmot 23:24 |
| 11. | Hilchot Shabbat 21:1 |
| 12. | Likkutei Haggahot LeSefer HaTanya on this Epistle, p. 84 |
| 13. | Sanhedrin 7:5 |
| 14. | Mishlei 1:8 |
| 15. | In the Hashmatot to Zohar II, 276b, the phrase "your mother" is related to the Oral Torah, whereas in Kanfei Yonah 1:4 the Written Torah is called the "admonitions of your father" and the Oral Torah is called the "teachings of your mother." |
| 16. | Niddah 45b |
| 17. | Shir HaShirim 6:8 |
| 18. | See Shir HaShirim Rabbah 6:12; Avodah Zarah 35b |
| 19. | P. 14b (in the Introduction which begins Patach Eliyahu) |
---------------------
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
Thursda, Cheshvan 23, 5776 · November 5, 2015
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 287
Relatives' Testimony
"Fathers shall not be put to death on account of their children; neither shall children be put to death on account of their fathers"—Deuteronomy 24:16.
A judge may not accept testimony from a litigant's close relative—whether the testimony is in support of the litigant or against him.
This law applies to all cases – capital and monetary – and all close relatives. The verse refers specifically to a capital case and the testimony of a father to demonstrate the extent of this mitzvah. For the Torah even forbids accepting the testimony of a father, who presumably loves his child dearly, against his child (or vice versa) in a capital case—though we'd presume that such testimony is eminently credible.
This mitzvah is a supra-rational decree from Above.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Thursda, Cheshvan 23, 5776 · November 5, 2015
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 287
Relatives' Testimony
"Fathers shall not be put to death on account of their children; neither shall children be put to death on account of their fathers"—Deuteronomy 24:16.
A judge may not accept testimony from a litigant's close relative—whether the testimony is in support of the litigant or against him.
This law applies to all cases – capital and monetary – and all close relatives. The verse refers specifically to a capital case and the testimony of a father to demonstrate the extent of this mitzvah. For the Torah even forbids accepting the testimony of a father, who presumably loves his child dearly, against his child (or vice versa) in a capital case—though we'd presume that such testimony is eminently credible.
This mitzvah is a supra-rational decree from Above.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Relatives' Testimony
Negative Commandment 287
Translated by Berel Bell
The 287th prohibition is that a judge is forbidden from accepting the testimony of relatives — whether for each other or against each other.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Fathers shall not die through their sons, and sons shall not die through their fathers."
The interpretation of this verse is given in the Sifri,2 "Fathers shall not die through the testimony of their sons, and sons shall not die through the testimony of their fathers."
The same law applies to financial cases, but it was said in a capital case to take the most extreme case. One should not reason, "Since this involves the death penalty, the relative's testimony cannot be doubted, and we shall therefore act in accordance with his words. Since his testimony is causing the death of a relative, there is no doubt." To counter this claim the example is brought of the relatives who have the strongest and greatest love for each other — a father for his son and a son for his father. And even when a father testifies against his son, and even if it is to have him executed, we still cannot accept it. This is a decree of the Torah which has no explanation whatsoever. You should understand this well.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third chapter3 of tractate Sanhedrin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 24:16.
2.Parshas Ki Seitzei.
3.27b.
---------------------
• 1 Chapter: Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 2
English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• 1 Chapter: Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 2
English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Nedarim - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
[The same laws apply] whether one took the vow on his own [volition] or another person states a vow for him and he answers Amen or says something which like Amen implies that he accepts the matter.1
Halacha 2
A person who takes an oath is not forbidden [to partake of] the entity which he forbade to himself until he makes a verbal statement to that effect2 and his statements must match his intent, as we explained with regard to oaths.3
If, by contrast, one intended to take a nazirite vow and instead, vowed to bring a sacrifice, [intended to vow to bring] a sacrifice and instead, took a nazirite [vow], [intended to take] an oath and instead, [took] a vow, [intended to take] a vow and instead, [took] an oath, intended to say "figs" and instead, said "grapes," both are permitted to him.4 There is no vow.
Halacha 3
When a person takes a vow dependent on the intent of others, it is like he took an oath dependent on the intent of others.5 Similarly, if one takes a vow and retracts6 immediately thereafter or someone rebuked him immediately thereafter and he accepted their statement, he is permitted [to use the article mentioned].7 The laws applying to all these matters with regard to vows are the same as those applying to oaths.8
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply when] a person issued a stipulation before he made a vow, saying: "I am retracting from any vow that I will take from now until ten years in the future," "They are nullified," or other similar statements, and then took a vow: If he remembered the stipulation at the time he made the vow, the vow is effective, for by taking the vow, he nullified the stipulation.9 If, however, he did not remember the stipulation until after he made the vow, the vow is nullified10 even if [immediately after taking the vow], he brought the stipulation to mind and maintained it. Although he did not verbalize his retraction at the time [he made the vow], the retraction preceded the vow and he verbalized it beforehand.11 There is an authority who rules stringently and says that he must remember the stipulation immediately thereafter taking the vow.12
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply when] one made a stipulation [similar to that mentioned above]13 for a year or for ten years and afterwards took a vow, remembering at the time that he took the vow that he had made a stipulation, but forgetting the subject of that stipulation or what it involved. If [when taking the vow], he said:14 "I am acting according to my original intention,"15 his vow is not effective, for he has nullified it. If he does not make such a statement, he has nullified the stipulation and upheld the vow, for, at the time he took the vow, he remembered that there was a stipulation and, nevertheless, took the vow.16
Halacha 6
There are some of the Geonim who maintain that all of these statements are applicable only with regard to vows and not to oaths,17 but there is an authority who maintains that the laws pertaining to vows and oaths are the same in this regard. Thus one may issue a stipulation nullifying an oath [beforehand] in the same manner as was stated with regard to vows.18
Halacha 7
[When a person takes] a vow whose object is not clear,19 we rule stringently.20If he interprets them, there is room for both leniency and stringency.
What does this imply? If one says: "Let this produce be considered as salted meat and as wine poured as a libation for me," we ask him what his intent was. If he explained himself, saying "My intent was that salted meat refers to sacrificial meat21 and wine poured as a libation refers to libations poured on the Temple altar," he is forbidden [to partake of the produce].22 If, however, he says: "My intent was a sacrifice offered to a false deity23 and wine poured as a libation to it," he is permitted.24 If he took the vow without a specific intent, he is forbidden.
Halacha 8
Similar principles apply when one says: "This produce is considered as cherem(a dedication offering) for me." If [his intent was] a dedication offering for the upkeep of the Temple, he is forbidden [to partake of the produce].25 If [his intent] was a dedication offering for the priests, he is permitted, because [these offerings] become [the priests'] personal possessions and are not forbidden [to others].26 If [he took the vow] without a specific intent, he is forbidden.
Halacha 9
[If he states:] "May they be considered like the tithes for me," [we investigate his intent. If his intent was] the tithe taken from animals, [it becomes] forbidden, because these are sacrifices that he consecrates through his actions, as we explained.27 [If his intent was] the tithe taken from grain, it is permitted.28 If [he took the vow] without a specific intent, he is forbidden.
Halacha 10
[If he states:] "May they be considered like terumah for me," [we investigate his intent. If his intent was] the money donated for the sacrificial offerings,29 it is forbidden. If his intent was terumah [separated from] the grain heap, it is permitted.30 If [he took the vow] without a specific intent, he is forbidden. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 11
When does the above31 apply? In a place where the terms used have these two possible meanings. In a place where the term cherem without any further definition is used only to refer to the dedication offerings for the upkeep of the Temple,32 if he says: "[This produce is considered] as cherem for me," he is forbidden [to partake of the produce].33 Similarly, if their custom was to use the term cherem without any further definition to refer only to dedication offerings given the priests, he is permitted. Similar concepts apply in all analogous situations, for with regard to vows, we follow the connotations understood by the people in that place in that era.34
Halacha 12
[The ensuing rules apply] in all situations analogous to those exemplified: i.e., situations when a person takes a vow which appears to everyone to involve a prohibition, but he says: "My intent was for this and this specific instance,"35 for example, he takes a vow based on a cherem,36but [afterwards] said: "My intent was a sea cherem, i.e., a fishing net,"37 he took a vow based on an offering, but said: "My intent was an offering brought to the king," He told a colleague: "Myself is like a sacrifice for you," and then explained: "My intent was only to forbid him from [benefiting from] a bone38that I set aside so that I could take a vow as a lark," he took a vow that his wife could not benefit from him and then explained that his intent was his first wife whom he had divorced.
[In all the above situations,] if the person who took the vow was a Torah scholar, he is permitted and he need not ask a sage [for the vow to be released].39 If the one who took the vow is a common person, we make it appear to him that it is a vow, yet we give him an opportunity to ask for its release from another vantage point and then release the vow.40 Whether he is a Torah scholar or a common person, we rebuke him and teach him not to conduct himself in this manner with regard to vows and not to take vows as a lark or a caper.
Halacha 13
Similarly, when a person tells his wife: "You are considered as my mother to me," or he says: "Let this produce be considered as pig meat for me," the vow is not effective, as we explained.41 If the person who took the vow was a Torah scholar, he is permitted and he need not ask a sage [for the vow to be released].42 If the one who took the vow is a common person, he must ask a sage [for the vow to be released]. We make it appear to him that his wife is forbidden to him and that the produce is forbidden,43 but we give him an opportunity to ask for its release from another vantage point and then release the vow in order that people not act frivolously with regard to vows.44
Halacha 14
Although declaring property ownerless is not a vow,45 it resembles a vow, for the person is forbidden to retract.
What is meant by declaring property ownerless? A person says: "This property is free for everyone"46 to acquire. It applies to both movable property and landed property.
What is the law [applying to property] declared ownerless? Whoever comes first and acquires it,47 becomes the owner. He acquires it as his own and it becomes his. Even the person who declared the property ownerless has the same rights as others with regard to it. If he comes first and acquires it, it becomes his.48
Halacha 15
When a person declares his property ownerless [so that it can be acquired by] the poor, but not by the rich, it is not ownerless.49 He must declare it ownerless for everyone like the produce of the Sabbatical year.
Halacha 16
When a person declares landed property ownerless, whoever comes first and manifests his ownership52 over it acquires it.
According to Scriptural Law, even when a person declares his property ownerless in the presence of one person, it becomes ownerless and one is not required to tithe its produce,53 as will be explained in its place.54 According to Rabbinic decree, however, [property] is not ownerless until one declares as such in the presence of three people so that one can acquire it and two can act as witnesses.
Should one say: "This is ownerless and this," there is an unresolved doubt whether the second entity is ownerless.55 If he said: "...and this is like this" or "...and also this," he has associated the second entity [with the first], and it is definitely ownerless.
Halacha 17
When a person declares his field ownerless and no one else acquires it,56during the first three days, he may retract.57 After these three days, he may not retract unless he comes first and acquires it.58 He is like one acquiring ownerless property.59 [There is no difference] between him and another person.
Halacha 18
When a person says: "This field is declared ownerless for one day," "...for one week," "...for one month," "...for one year," or "...for one seven-year cycle," he may retract before he or another person acquires it.60 Once it is acquired, whether by the person himself or by someone else, he may not retract.
Why does he have the right to retract before it was acquired? Because this is an uncommon matter. [Generally,] a person will not declare [property] ownerless for a limited time.
Halacha 19
When a person comes and watches over ownerless property, looking at it so that another person will not take it, he does not acquire it by looking at it. Instead, he must lift it up if it were movable property61 or manifest ownership over it if it were landed property,62 as purchasers acquire property.63
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See the parallels in Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:1.
|
| 2. |
I.e., mere thought is not sufficient. With regard to vows, Numbers 30:7 mentions "the expression of her lips," implying that one must express his intent verbally.
|
| 3. |
Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:10-12. The latter point is also implied by the prooftext cited above, for the term "expression" implies bringing out something which exists, i.e., revealing one's thoughts. Thus if a statement does not match one's thoughts, it is not an "expression" (Kiryat Sefer).
|
| 4. |
The figs, because he did not make a statement concerning them and the grapes, because he did not intend to mention them.
|
| 5. |
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:15.
|
| 6. |
He must state his retraction verbally. It is not sufficient for him to have this intent in his heart [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 210:3)].
|
| 7. |
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17-18. As mentioned there, the term "immediately thereafter" has a specific halachic definition: the time it takes a student to tell his teacher: Shalom Elecha Rabbi. Since he retracts in this short time, it is considered as if the vow was never made.
|
| 8. |
For Numbers 30:3 associates the two together (Kessef Mishneh). See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 239:1).
|
| 9. |
For by taking the vow, he is indicating that he no longer desires to uphold the stipulation (seeNedarim 23b).
|
| 10. |
Kiryat Sefer explains this ruling as follows: Although Numbers 30:3 states: "He shall not desecrate his word," that applies only to a vow that has taken effect. In this instance, since he forgot his stipulation, it is as if he took the vow in error and it never took effect.
|
| 11. |
Our translation and bracketed additions are made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz.
|
| 12. |
Otherwise, according to that view, the vow takes effect and the fact that he remembers the stipulation afterwards is not significant. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 211:2) mentions the Rambam's view, but also that of the other authority and states that we should give weight to that authority's view. The Ra'avad also differs with the Rambam and offers another interpretation, stating that the nullification is only effective when he willingly accepts the stipulation immediately after remembering it.
As Nedarim, loc. cit., emphasizes, the most common application of this principle is the declaration customarily made after the release of vows on the day preceding Rosh HaShanah, when we nullify all the vows we will take in the year to come. This is also the source for the Kol Nidreiprayer recited at the beginning of Yom Kippur which nullifies all vows to be taken in the coming year. Note, however, the statement of Rama (Yoreh De'ah 211:1) that we do not rely on this stipulation without going to a sage for a formal annulment of a vow unless a great necessity was involved.
|
| 13. |
In this instance, he did not nullify all vows that he would make in the future, only those of a certain type, e.g., not to drink wine or eat meat [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 211:3)].
|
| 14. |
In one of his response, the Radbaz states that this intent need not be verbalized. It is sufficient that he have the intent at heart.
|
| 15. |
I.e., his intent is that if his original statement is discovered to run contrary to his vow, he desires to follow his original statement.
|
| 16. |
I.e., he was aware of the possibility that his vow could run contrary to his original statement and took it nonetheless.
|
| 17. |
For oaths have a more severe dimension, since God's name must be invoked. (See Hilchot Sh'vuot 12:2.) The Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 3:1) would appear to support this approach.
|
| 18. |
The Radbaz maintains that the Rambam follows this view as evidenced by the fact that he does not include this in the list of matters in which oaths differ from vows (Chapter 3, Halachah 1). The text for the nullification of vows rite recited on the day preceding Rosh HaShanah and the Kol Nidrei prayer mention oaths as well as vows.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 211:4) adds that the nullification of vows in this manner is possible only when one takes a vow on his own initiative, but not when he agrees to a vow proposed by a colleague, for the colleague does not have that person's original stipulation in mind. Thus by agreeing to his colleague's statement, he implies that he is not concerned with his original stipulation.
|
| 19. |
I.e., he does not know with regard to which prohibition he associated his vow (Rashi, Nedarim18b).
|
| 20. |
We say that he associated the vow with an object that causes entities to be forbidden (ibid.). The rationale is that if this was not his intent, he should have remained silent (Radbaz). See also Chapter 9, Halachah 4.
|
| 21. |
For it was necessary to salt all the sacrifices (Leviticus 2:13).
|
| 22. |
For when one equates produce with a sacrifice the vow is binding (Chapter 1, Halachot 7, 9).
|
| 23. |
For the gentiles would also salt their offerings.
|
| 24. |
For there is no way, he can cause an article to be forbidden as a sacrifice to a false deity through his vow. Hence, when he mentions such an object as the basis of a vow, the vow is not effective (Chapter 1, Halachot 8, 9).
|
| 25. |
For in such an instance, the articles dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple become consecrated and forbidden for ordinary use until they are redeemed.
|
| 26. |
Hence an entity that is made equivalent to them is likewise not forbidden.
|
| 27. |
Chapter 1, Halachah 13.
|
| 28. |
For the tithe taken from grain is not forbidden to be eaten by ordinary people. Moreover, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir who rules that ordinary people may not partake of these tithes, they are not forbidden due to a vow. Instead, it was forbidden to partake of the grain before they were separated and once, they were separated, they remain forbidden (Ritba, Nedarim 18b).
|
| 29. |
Terumat halishkah in Hebrew. See Hilchot Shekalim, ch. 2, which describes how these funds were collected and used.
|
| 30. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 11.
|
| 31. |
That we explore the person's intention.
|
| 32. |
Nedarim 18b explains that in the Galilee, it was not common for priests to live. Hence, when a person uses the term cherem there, his intent is a dedication offering for the upkeep of the Temple.
|
| 33. |
For we assume that his intent was a dedication offering to the Temple, even if he says that his intent was an offering to the priests.
|
| 34. |
See Chapter 9, Halachah 1.
|
| 35. |
I.e., a situation where the basis for the vow is a permitted entity and hence, the vow does not take effect.
|
| 36. |
I.e., he said: "Let this produce be like a cherem."
|
| 37. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 2:8), the Rambam cites Chabakuk 1:15 which employs such a term.
|
| 38. |
The Hebrew word atzmi means "myself," but it can also mean "my bone." Initially, it was thought that the person's intent was that he forbade his colleague from benefiting from his self. He clarified, however, that his intent was "his bone."
|
| 39. |
His word can be accepted when he says: "This was my intent." Hence, the vow is not effective at all. With regard to the release of vows, see Chapter 4, Halachah 5.
|
| 40. |
I.e., as stated in the following halachah, this is a safeguard to insure that the common people treat vows with the earnestness required.
|
| 41. |
Chapter 1, Halachah 30.
|
| 42. |
For we assume he knows that the vow is of no consequence. Note the Rama (Yoreh De'ah205:1) who states that in the present age, we consider everyone as a common person with regard to such matters.
|
| 43. |
The Rama (loc. cit.) states that the person is required to approach a sage only with regard to vows involving his wife, but not with regard to those involving other matters.
|
| 44. |
If the common person was allowed not to pay heed to his vow, he might take leniency with regard to other vows in the future, including some which would be halachically binding.
|
| 45. |
This implies that he does not have the potential to retract merely by making a statement (Radbaz,Ketzot HaChoshen 273:1). According to Rabbinic decree, the laws are more stringent with regard to landed property, but this is law in all other instances.
Ketzot HaChoshen discusses whether declaring an object ownerless is merely a retraction of one's own ownership over or does it involves transferring ownership to the person who will ultimately acquire it.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 6:1) explains that the declaration of property as ownerless is derived from the laws of the Sabbatical Year. In the Sabbatical year, this is done by Divine decree and here, by contrast, man declares the property ownerless.
|
| 46. |
Both the rich and the poor (Nedarim 7a). See the following halachah.
|
| 47. |
Through a formal act of acquisition (kinyan) as stated in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 2:1. See Halachah 19.
|
| 48. |
I.e., it is not like consecrated property for him (Radbaz).
See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 5:27 which states that in this way, a person frees himself from the obligation to tithe the crops of his field.
|
| 49. |
This is one of the indications that this declaration is not a vow. For were it a vow, it could be given to the poor alone (Jerusalem Talmud, loc. cit.).
|
| 50. |
I.e., are set free. Since they are released from their owner's property, they are free to be acquired by anyone and so they acquire themselves. Nevertheless, although the servant becomes his own man at this time, before he becomes a full-fledged member of the Jewish people, he must be given a bill of freedom (Hilchot Avadim 8:13).
|
| 51. |
Since they are below majority, they do not have an independent financial capacity and hence, cannot acquire themselves. Therefore any other person can acquire them.
|
| 52. |
Through a formal kinyan, e.g., locking a door or erecting a fence.
|
| 53. |
Rabbenu Asher and the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 273:7) states that even when one declares property ownerless without anyone else being present, the declaration is binding according to Scriptural Law.
|
| 54. |
See Hilchot Terumah 2:11; Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 5:27. Tithes are only required to be given from crops that one grew as one's own, not those acquired from ownerless property.
|
| 55. |
Nedarim 7b raises the question, but does not resolve it. Hence, if the original owner desires to retain possession, we do not expropriate it from him (Sefer Meirat Einayim 273:12).
|
| 56. |
If, however, another person acquires, it becomes that person's property. The original owner may not retract his declaration (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 57. |
According to Scriptural Law and even according to Rabbinic Law with regard to other property, when one declares his property ownerless, the declaration takes effect from the first day and he is forbidden to retract, as stated in Halachah 14. Nevertheless, if he does retract, the retraction is binding.
|
| 58. |
Our Sages, however, ordained this ruling as a safeguard against people declaring their fields ownerless and then retaking possession of them and in this way, freeing themselves from the responsibility of separating the tithes (Radbaz, Sefer Meirat Einayim 273:13).
|
| 59. |
And thus he is not liable to separate the tithes (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 60. |
I.e., even after three days pass. Since he is not intending to give up ownership entirely, even during the time he is willing to give up ownership, he still has a connection to the article and thus may withdraw his declaration (Radbaz).
|
| 61. |
Performing the kinyan of hagba'ah. Similarly, other kinyanim are also effective.
|
| 62. |
Performing the kinyan of chazzakah.
|
| 63. |
See Hilchot Mechirah 1:3, 3:1.
|
---------------------
|
• 3 Chapters: Edut Edut - Chapter 14, Edut Edut - Chapter 15, Edut Edut - Chapter 16 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Edut - Chapter 14
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Thursday, Cheshvan 23, 5776 · 05 November 2015
"Today's Day"
Sunday Cheshvan 23 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tol'dot, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 108-112.
Tanya: XXX. It is known (p. 585) ...for the initiated. (p. 587).
The Tzemach Tzedek was arrested twenty-two times during the Rabbinical conference in Petersburg, in 5603 (1843), for opposing the demands of the government regarding changes in education, etc. The minister in charge confronted him: "Is this not rebellion against the government?!"
The Tzemach Tzedek answered: "A rebel against the government is liable to be punished by death of the body; a rebel against the Kingdom of Heaven is punishable by death of the soul. Now which is worse?"
Audio: Listen | Download• Edut - Chapter 14
Halacha 1
Whenever a witness is disqualified from testifying on behalf of a colleague because he is married to the witness' relative, if that relative's wife dies, even if she left him sons, he is considered to have been released from any connection and is acceptable as a witness.
Halacha 2
When a person knew of evidence concerning a colleague before he became his son-in-law, and then became his son-in-law, he is not acceptable. The same law applies if a person was in control of his senses and then became a deaf-mute, was able to see and became blind - even though he is aware of the measure of land concerning which he testifies and can define its boundaries, or was intellectually and emotionally sound and then lost control of his faculties.
If, by contrast, a person knew of evidence concerning a colleague before he became his son-in-law, became his son-in-law, and then that colleague's daughterdied, the witness is acceptable. Similar laws apply if a person was in control of his senses, became a deaf-mute, and then regained control of his senses, was intellectually and emotionally sound, lost control of his faculties, and then regained control of them, or was able to see, became blind, and then regained his sight.
The general principle is: Whenever a person is an acceptable witness at the initial and the final stages, he is acceptable even though in the interim, he was not acceptable as a witness. If, however, initially he is unacceptable, even though ultimately, he would be acceptable, he is disqualified. Therefore when a person is aware of evidence as a child, it is of no consequence for him to testify with regard to it when he attains majority.
Halacha 3
There are matters concerning which we rely on the testimony which a person gives after he attains majority with regard to events that he observed when he was a child. The rationale is that these are matters of Rabbinical origin. The matters are as follows; a person's word is accepted when he states: a) "This is the signature of my father," "...my teacher," "...or my brother," the rationale is that the validation of legal documents is a Rabbinic requirement;
b) "I remember that when so-and-so was married, they performed the customs performed for a virgin"; since most women marry when virgins and a ketubah is a Rabbinic institution;
c) "This place is a beit hapras," for the ritual impurity associated with such a place is a Rabbinic safeguard;
d) "We would proceed until this point on the Sabbath," because the restriction of the Sabbath limits until only 2000 cubits is a Rabbinic restriction;
e) "So-and-so would leave school to immerse himself in a mikveh and eatterumah in the evening" or "he would receive a portion of terumah with us;"
f) "We would bring challah and presents of meat to so-and-so, the priest"; this applies when the presents were sent with the person himself;
g) "My father told me, 'This family is acceptable; this family is not acceptable";
h) "We ate from the fruit-barrel brought by the brothers of so-and-so to inform others that their brother, so-and-so, married a woman that was not appropriate for him.
All of the latter four points involve establishing a person as a priest to enable him to partake of terumah that is separated at present because of Rabbinic decree or to prevent him from partaking of it.
Halacha 4
The leniency granted in all these situations to accept the testimony of a person who reached majority with regard to what he knew when he was a minor is not granted when a gentile or a servant witnessed such matters and gave such testimony after he converted and was freed.
Halacha 5
If, before becoming a robber, a person knew of evidence concerning a colleague and recorded that evidence in a legal document and then became a robber, he cannot testify with regard to his signature. If, however, his signature to the legal document was validated in court before he became a robber, the legal document is acceptable.
Similarly, if a witness becomes a person's son-in-law, he may not testify concerning his signature on a legal document involving his father-in-law. Others, however, may testify concerning the son-in-law's signature. Even though the document is not validated by the court until after the witness becomes a person's son-in-law, it is acceptable. The disqualification of a witness because of a transgression is not the same as the disqualification of a witness because of a family connection, for a person disqualified because of a transgression is suspected of forging the document.
Halacha 6
When a legal document has only two witnesses signed upon it and they are related to each other or one of them is disqualified because of a transgression, even if the document was transferred in the presence of acceptable witnesses, it is worthless, like a shard, because of the invalid signatures inside it.
Halacha 7
The following rule applies when a person composes one legal document including testimony that he is granting all of his property to two people and the witnesses to the document are related to one of the recipients of the present, but not related to the other. The document is not acceptable, because it is one statement of testimony.
If, however, he writes in one legal document that he is giving this-and-this courtyard to Reuven and this-and-this field to Shimon, and the witnesses are related to one, but not to the other, the present given to the recipient to whom the witnesses are not related is binding. Even though the two statements are included in one legal document, they are considered as separate testimonies. To what can the matter be compared to a person who says: "Serve as witnesses that I gave Reuven this-and-this, that I gave Shimon this-and-this, and that I borrowed such-and-such from Levi." Although they were all included in the same legal document and there is only one person transferring the property, they are considered as three distinct statements.
Edut - Chapter 15
Halacha 1
Whenever a person will benefit from giving testimony, he may not give such testimony for it is as if he is testifying concerning himself. Therefore when a person comes to the inhabitants of a city with a complaint concerning the public bathhouse or thoroughfare, none of the inhabitants of the city can testify regarding this matter nor serve as a judge regarding this matter until they undertake a contractual act removing themselves from any connection to the property in question. Afterwards, they may testify or serve as a judges.
Halacha 2
The following rules apply when a communal Torah scroll is stolen from the inhabitants of a city. Since it is intended to be listened to by all the members of the community, it is impossible for a person to withdraw his share of ownership of it. Hence, the matter should not be adjudicated by the judges of the city, and the inhabitants of the city may not testify to prove the city's ownership. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
When a person says: "Give a manah to the poor people of my city," the matter may not be adjudicated by the judges of that city and the inhabitants of the city may not testify to prove that the pledge was made.
When does the above apply? When the poor people depend upon them and they allocate charity to them. In such a situation, even if two members of the city promised: "We will give the fixed amount required of us regardless; let us testify," we do not heed their request. For they receive benefit from the fact that these poor people become wealthier for the poor are dependent on the inhabitants of the city. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
The following rules apply when a person raises a protest and seeks to expropriate land that is owned by two partners from the possession of one of the partners. The other partner may not testify on behalf of his partner concerning the land unless he withdraws from ownership of the land and undertakes an act of contract affirming that he gave his portion to his partner and committing himself to reimburse him for its value if his own creditor expropriates it from his partner. After undertaking such an agreement, he may testify concerning the field. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
The following rules apply when a person protests the ownership of a field. If it contains produce, a sharecropper may not testify with regard to it. For the sharecropper wishes it to remain in the possession of the owner so that he will receive his portion of the crops. If there is no produce in the field, he may testify concerning it.
Different rules apply with regard to a renter. If he brings the rent with him and says: "Let whoever is established as the owner of this field take this," he may offer testimony. If, however, he already paid the rent to the owner of the field he may not testify. For if the field is expropriated by the claimant, he would have to pay him rent for all the years he dwelled in it. Hence, he may not offer testimony. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
The following rules apply if Shimon borrowed money and Reuven guaranteed the debt. Yehudah entered into litigation against Shimon and sought to expropriate landed property from his possession. If Shimon possesses another field equal in value to the debt guaranteed by Reuven, Reuven may testify with regard to the land, asserting that it belongs to Shimon. He does not derive any benefit from this, for even if Yehudah would expropriate the field, Shimon possesses another field from which the creditor could derive payment.
Similarly, a person who purchased a field may testify on behalf of another person who purchased a field from the same seller and affirm that the field is his. This applies provided the seller owns a field that is not on lien that is equivalent to the value of the field acquired by the first purchaser. In such a situation, the first purchaser does not derive any benefit from the field remaining in the possession of the second purchaser, for even if the field he purchased is expropriated from him, he may seek reimbursement from the seller and the seller possesses another field from which he could expropriate his due.
Edut - Chapter 16
Halacha 1
The following rule applies when Reuven stole a field or a garment from Shimon and Yehudah lodges a claim against Reuven, stating that the field or the garment is his. Shimon may not testify on Reuven's behalf that the field or the garment does not belong to Yehudah. The rationale is that Shimon desires to have the field or garment remain in the possession of Reuven who stole it from him so that he will have it returned to him from the thief. For it is possible that the proof Shimon uses to expropriate it from Reuven will not enable him to expropriate it from Yehudah.
Similarly, if Reuven sold or transferred as an inheritance the stolen field to Levi and Yehudah lodges a claim against Levi, Shimon may not testify that it does not belong to Yehudah. For perhaps it is more comfortable for him to expropriate it from Levi.
Halacha 2
The following rules apply if Reuven sold the stolen garment to Levi and Yehudah lodges a claim concerning it. If Reuven died, Shimon may testify that it does not belong to Yehudah. The rationale is that this garment will never be returned to Shimon, because the purchaser acquires it because of his despair of recovering it and its change of domain. Reuven, the thief, died, and thus he has no one from whom he could receive reimbursement.
If, however, Reuven is still alive, Shimon may not testify even concerning a garment. For he will receive benefit from the fact that it will not remain in Yehudah's possession so that he can bring proof that Reuven stole it and require him to make reimbursement for it.
Similarly, if the garment is in the possession of Reuven's heirs, Shimon may not testify concerning it. For ultimately, if the heir retains possession, it will be returned to the original owner. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
The following rule applies when Reuven sold a field to Shimon without taking financial responsibility for it and Yehudah issued a claim to expropriate it from Shimon. Reuven may not testify concerning it on Shimon's behalf. Even though he did not accept financial responsibility for the field, he desires that it remain in Shimon's possession. For if that is the case, one of Reuven's creditors may come and collect it as payment for Reuven's debt and thus Reuven will not be "a wicked person who borrows and does not repay."
Halacha 4
When, by contrast, Reuven sold a cow or a garment to Shimon and Yehudah raised a claim to expropriate it from Shimon, Reuven may testify that it belongs to Shimon. The rationale is that even if it were to remain in Shimon's possession, a creditor of Reuven does not have the right to expropriate movable property that was sold. This applies even when the movable property was designated as an apoteiki.
When does the above apply? When Shimon the purchaser admits that the cow or the garment certainly belonged to Reuven the seller and he knows that they truly belonged to him. If, however, Shimon does not acknowledge this, Reuven may not testify to deny Yehudah's right to the property. For if it is expropriated from Shimon, he will sue Reuven for its value, saying: "You sold me an article that did not belong to you, for witnesses came and stated that it belonged to Yehudah."
When do we accept Reuven's testimony to deny Yehudah's right to the movable property and thus leave it in Shimon's possession? When witnesses come and testify that Reuven never owned landed property. If, however, there are no witnesses to deliver such testimony, Reuven may not testify concerning a cow or a garment as well.
Why may he not testify concerning such objects? Because it is possible that he placed them on lien to his creditor by virtue of the latter's lien on landed property and in that contract stated: "That I will acquire," establishing a lien on them by virtue of the lien on the landed property. Thus his creditor has the right to expropriate a cow and a garment as well. Hence, Reuven should not testify concerning them. For he desires to have them remain in Shimon's possession so that his creditor can come and expropriate them. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
These matters are dependent solely on the discerning capacity of the judge and the greatness of his understanding when he comprehends the fundamental thrust of the judgments and knows how one thing leads to another, deepening his perception. If he sees that a witness will derive benefit from this testimony even in an uncommon and extraordinary manner, he should not allow that person to testify.
Just as a person should not testify with regard to a matter because he may have a vested interest in the case; so, too, he should not act as a judge concerning such a matter. Similarly with regard to other disqualifying factors, just as they disqualifying a person as a witness; so, too, they disqualify him as a judge.
Halacha 5
Therefore we do not appoint two judges to the Sanhedrin who are related to each other. This applies to both a minor Sanhedrin and the SupremeSanhedrin. With regard to the judges that are added to reach the number of seven charged with declaring a leap year as mentioned in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, it appears to me that it is of no consequence that there are relatives among them.
Halacha 6
Whoever is fit to act as a judge as fit to act as a witness. There are, however, some who are acceptable to act as a witness, but not to act as a judge. They include friends, enemies, converts, and freed slaves. Similarly, an elderly person, a eunuch, a bastard, and a person with one eye are acceptable as witnesses, but are not acceptable as judges as we explained.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Thursday, Cheshvan 23, 5776 · 05 November 2015
"Today's Day"
Sunday Cheshvan 23 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tol'dot, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 108-112.
Tanya: XXX. It is known (p. 585) ...for the initiated. (p. 587).
The Tzemach Tzedek was arrested twenty-two times during the Rabbinical conference in Petersburg, in 5603 (1843), for opposing the demands of the government regarding changes in education, etc. The minister in charge confronted him: "Is this not rebellion against the government?!"
The Tzemach Tzedek answered: "A rebel against the government is liable to be punished by death of the body; a rebel against the Kingdom of Heaven is punishable by death of the soul. Now which is worse?"
---------------------• Daily Thought:
A Light for 100
A dish of food will fill one stomach, but the next in line is still hungry.
Even a furnace demands more fuel as freezing souls gather to absorb its heat.
But a light that guides one person will guide a hundred.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment