Torah Reading
Torah Reading: Toldot (Genesis 25:
19 Here is the history of Yitz’chak, Avraham’s son. Avraham fathered Yitz’chak. 20 Yitz’chak was forty years old when he took Rivkah, the daughter of B’tu’el the Arami from Paddan-Aram and sister of Lavan the Arami, to be his wife. 21 Yitz’chak prayed to Adonai on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. Adonai heeded his prayer, and Rivkah became pregnant. 22 The children fought with each other inside her so much that she said, “If it’s going to be like this, why go on living?” So she went to inquire of Adonai, 23 who answered her, “There are two nations in your womb. From birth they will be two rival peoples. One of these peoples will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”
24 When the time for her delivery came, there were twins in her womb. 25 The first to come out was reddish and covered all over with hair, like a coat; so they named him ‘Esav [completely formed, that is, having hair already]. 26 Then his brother emerged, with his hand holding ‘Esav’s heel, so he was called Ya‘akov [he catches by the heel, he supplants]. Yitz’chak was sixty years old when she bore them.
27 The boys grew; and ‘Esav became a skillful hunter, an outdoorsman; while Ya‘akov was a quiet man who stayed in the tents. 28 Yitz’chak favored ‘Esav, because he had a taste for game; Rivkah favored Ya‘akov.
29 One day when Ya‘akov had cooked some stew, ‘Esav came in from the open country, exhausted, 30 and said to Ya‘akov, “Please! Let me gulp down some of that red stuff — that red stuff! I’m exhausted!” (This is why he was called Edom [red].) 31 Ya‘akov answered, “First sell me your rights as the firstborn.” 32 “Look, I’m about to die!” said ‘Esav. “What use to me are my rights as the firstborn?” 33 Ya‘akov said, “First, swear to me!” So he swore to him, thus selling his birthright to Ya‘akov. 34 Then Ya‘akov gave him bread and lentil stew; he ate and drank, got up and went on his way. Thus ‘Esav showed how little he valued his birthright.
26:1 A famine came over the land, not the same as the first famine, which had taken place when Avraham was alive. Yitz’chak went to G’rar, to Avimelekh king of the P’lishtim. 2 Adonai appeared to him and said, “Don’t go down into Egypt, but live where I tell you. 3 Stay in this land, and I will be with you and bless you, because I will give all these lands to you and to your descendants. I will fulfill the oath which I swore to Avraham your father — 4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky, I will give all these lands to your descendants, and by your descendants all the nations of the earth will bless themselves. 5 All this is because Avraham heeded what I said and did what I told him to do — he followed my mitzvot, my regulations and my teachings.”
)
Today in Jewish History:
• Flood ends (2104 BCE) On the 27th of Cheshvan of the year 1657 from creation (2104 BCE) "the earth dried" (Genesis8:14) completing the 365-day duration of the great flood that wiped out all life on earth save for the eight human beings and and the animals (two of each species) in Noah's ark; on this day G-d commanded Noah to "Come out of the ark" and repopulate, settle and civilize the earth.
[See entry for Cheshvan 17 for a Chronology of the Flood.]
Links: Life in a Box; Lunar Flood, Solar Year; The Discovery of Planet Earth; Noach Parshah Page
Daily Quote:
This is to teach us that taking in guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence[Talmud, Shevuot 35b, commenting on the fact that Abraham interrupted a visit from G-d to invite three passing wayfarers into his tent (Genesis 18:4)]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Toldot, 2nd Portion Genesis 26:6-26:12 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Genesis Chapter 26
6And Isaac dwelt in Gerar. ווַיֵּ֥שֶׁב יִצְחָ֖ק בִּגְרָֽר:
7And the men of the place asked about his wife, and he said, "She is my sister," because he was afraid to say, "[She is] my wife," [because he said,] "Lest the men of the place kill me because of Rebecca, for she is of comely appearance." זוַיִּשְׁאֲל֞וּ אַנְשֵׁ֤י הַמָּקוֹם֙ לְאִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֲחֹ֣תִי הִ֑וא כִּ֤י יָרֵא֙ לֵאמֹ֣ר אִשְׁתִּ֔י פֶּן־יַֽהַרְגֻ֜נִי אַנְשֵׁ֤י הַמָּקוֹם֙ עַל־רִבְקָ֔ה כִּֽי־טוֹבַ֥ת מַרְאֶ֖ה הִֽוא:
about his wife: Heb. לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, lit., to his wife, about his wife, like (above 20:13):“Say about me (לִי) , ‘He is my brother.’” לאשתו: על אשתו, כמו (לעיל כ יג) אמרי לי אחי הוא:
8And it came to pass, when he had been there for many days, that Abimelech, the king of the Philistines, looked out of the window, and he saw, and behold, Isaac was jesting with Rebecca his wife. חוַיְהִ֗י כִּ֣י אָֽרְכוּ־ל֥וֹ שָׁם֙ הַיָּמִ֔ים וַיַּשְׁקֵ֗ף אֲבִימֶ֨לֶךְ֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים בְּעַ֖ד הַֽחַלּ֑וֹן וַיַּ֗רְא וְהִנֵּ֤ה יִצְחָק֙ מְצַחֵ֔ק אֵ֖ת רִבְקָ֥ה אִשְׁתּֽוֹ:
when he had been there for many days: He said [to himself],“From now on, I need not worry since they have not violated her until now,” and he did not take precautions to beware. כי ארכו: אמר מעתה אין לי לדאוג מאחר שלא אנסוה עד עכשיו, ולא נזהר להיות נשמר:
that Abimelech…looked, etc: He saw him engaging in marital relations. [Gen. Rabbah 64:5] וישקף אבימלך וגו': שראהו משמש מטתו:
9So Abimelech called Isaac, and he said, "Behold, she is your wife; so how could you have said, 'She is my sister'?" And Isaac said to him, "Because I said, 'Lest I die because of her. '" טוַיִּקְרָ֨א אֲבִימֶ֜לֶךְ לְיִצְחָ֗ק וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ אַ֣ךְ הִנֵּ֤ה אִשְׁתְּךָ֙ הִ֔וא וְאֵ֥יךְ אָמַ֖רְתָּ אֲחֹ֣תִי הִ֑וא וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלָיו֙ יִצְחָ֔ק כִּ֣י אָמַ֔רְתִּי פֶּן־אָמ֖וּת עָלֶֽיהָ:
10And Abimelech said, "What have you done to us? The most prominent of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us." יוַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֔לֶךְ מַה־זֹּ֖את עָשִׂ֣יתָ לָּ֑נוּ כִּ֠מְעַ֠ט שָׁכַ֞ב אַחַ֤ד הָעָם֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתֶּ֔ךָ וְהֵֽבֵאתָ֥ עָלֵ֖ינוּ אָשָֽׁם:
The most prominent of the people: Heb. אַחַד הָעָם, the most prominent one of the people, meaning the king. [Gen. Targum Onkelos and Jonathan] אחד העם: המיוחד בעם זה המלך:
and you would have brought guilt upon us: Had he had relations, you would have brought guilt upon us. והבאת עלינו אשם: אם שכב, כבר הבאת עלינו אשם:
11And Abimelech commanded all the people, saying, "Whoever touches this man or his wife shall be put to death." יאוַיְצַ֣ו אֲבִימֶ֔לֶךְ אֶת־כָּל־הָעָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר הַנֹּגֵ֜עַ בָּאִ֥ישׁ הַזֶּ֛ה וּבְאִשְׁתּ֖וֹ מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת:
12And Isaac sowed in that land, and he found in that year a hundred fold, and the Lord blessed him. יבוַיִּזְרַ֤ע יִצְחָק֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיִּמְצָ֛א בַּשָּׁנָ֥ה הַהִ֖וא מֵאָ֣ה שְׁעָרִ֑ים וַיְבָֽרֲכֵ֖הוּ יְהֹוָֽה:
in that land: [The land yielded an abundant harvest] even though it was not considered as esteemed as the Land of Israel itself, i.e., as the land of the seven nations (Gen. Rabbah 64:6). בארץ ההיא: אף על פי שאינה חשובה כארץ ישראל עצמה, כארץ שבעה גויים:
in that year: Even though it was not as it should have been, for it was a year of famine (Gen. Rabbah ad loc.). בשנה ההיא: אף על פי שאינה כתקנה, שהיתה שנת רעבון:
in that land…in that year: Why both of them? To tell us that the land was hard and that the year was a hard one. בארץ ההיא בשנה ההיא: שניהם למה, לומר שארץ קשה והשנה קשה:
a hundred fold: For they had estimated how much it [the land] was fit to produce, and it produced for each measure that they had estimated, one hundred [measures], and our Rabbis said that the purpose of this estimate was for tithing. [Gen. Rabbah 64:6] מאה שערים: שאמדוה כמה ראויה לעשות ועשתה על אחת מאה שאמדוה. ורבותינו אמרו אומד זה למעשרות היה:
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 120 - 134
• Hebrew text
• English text
• Chapter 120
This psalm rebukes slanderers, describing how the deadly effect of slander reaches even further than weapons.
1. A song of ascents. I have called out to the Lord in my distress, and He answered me.
2. O Lord, rescue my soul from the lips of falsehood, from a deceitful tongue.
3. What can He give you, and what [further restraint] can He add to you, O deceitful tongue?
4. [You resemble] the sharp arrows of a mighty one, and the coals of broom-wood.1
5. Woe unto me that I sojourned among Meshech, that I dwelt beside the tents of Kedar.
6. Too long has my soul dwelt among those who hate peace.
7. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.
FOOTNOTES
1.Which remain hot on the inside while appearing cool to the touch (Rashi).
Chapter 121
This psalm alludes to the Lower Paradise, from which one ascends to the Higher Paradise. It also speaks of how God watches over us.
1. A song of ascents. I lift my eyes to the mountains-from where will my help come?
2. My help will come from the Lord, Maker of heaven and earth.
3. He will not let your foot falter; your guardian does not slumber.
4. Indeed, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.
5. The Lord is your guardian; the Lord is your protective shade at your right hand.
6. The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night.
7. The Lord will guard you from all evil; He will guard your soul.
8. The Lord will guard your going and your coming from now and for all time.
Chapter 122
The psalmist sings the praises of Jerusalem and tells of the miracles that happened there.
1. A song of ascents by David. I rejoiced when they said to me, "Let us go to the House of the Lord.”
2. Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem;
3. Jerusalem that is built like a city in which [all Israel] is united together.
4. For there the tribes went up, the tribes of God-as enjoined upon Israel-to offer praise to the Name of the Lord.
5. For there stood the seats of justice, the thrones of the house of David.
6. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; may those who love you have peace.
7. May there be peace within your walls, serenity within your mansions.
8. For the sake of my brethren and friends, I ask that there be peace within you.
9. For the sake of the House of the Lord our God, I seek your well-being.
Chapter 123
The psalmist laments the length of time we have already suffered in exile.
1. A song of ascents. To You have I lifted my eyes, You Who are enthroned in heaven.
2. Indeed, as the eyes of servants are turned to the hand of their masters, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes turned to the Lord our God, until He will be gracious to us.
3. Be gracious to us, Lord, be gracious to us, for we have been surfeited with humiliation.
4. Our soul has been overfilled with the derision of the complacent, with the scorn of the arrogant.
Chapter 124
1. A song of ascents by David. Were it not for the Lord Who was with us-let Israel declare-
2. were it not for the Lord Who was with us when men rose up against us,
3. then they would have swallowed us alive in their burning rage against us.
4. Then the waters would have inundated us, the torrent would have swept over our soul;
5. then the raging waters would have surged over our soul.
6. Blessed is the Lord, Who did not permit us to be prey for their teeth.
7. Our soul is like a bird which has escaped from the fowler's snare; the snare broke and we escaped.
8. Our help is in the Name of the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
Chapter 125
1. A song of ascents. Those who trust in the Lord are as Mount Zion which never falters, but abides forever.
2. Mountains surround Jerusalem, and the Lord surrounds His people from this time and forever.
3. For the rod of wickedness will never come to rest upon the lot of the righteous; therefore the righteous need not stretch their hand to iniquity.
4. Be beneficent, O Lord, to the good and to those who are upright in their hearts.
5. But as for those that turn to their perverseness, may the Lord lead them with the workers of iniquity. Peace be upon Israel.
Chapter 126
The psalmist speaks of the future, comparing our Divine service in exile to one who sows arid land, then cries and begs God to send rain upon it so that the seed not be wasted. When he merits to reap the crop, he offers thanks to God.
1. A song of ascents. When the Lord will return the exiles of Zion, we will have been like dreamers.
2. Then our mouth will be filled with laughter, and our tongue with songs of joy; then will they say among the nations, "The Lord has done great things for these.”
3. The Lord has done great things for us; we were joyful.
4. Lord, return our exiles as streams to arid soil.
5. Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy.
6. He goes along weeping, carrying the bag of seed; he will surely return with songs of joy, carrying his sheaves.
Chapter 127
King David instructs his generation, and especially his son Solomon, to be sure that all one's actions be for the sake of Heaven. He also criticizes those who toil day and night in pursuit of a livelihood.
1. A song of ascents for Solomon. If the Lord does not build a house, then its builders labor upon it in vain. If the Lord will not guard a city, the vigilance of its watchman is in vain.
2. It is in vain for you, you who rise early, who sit up late, and who eat the bread of tension, for in fact He gives His loved ones sleep.
3. Behold, the heritage of the Lord is children; the fruit of the womb is a reward.
4. As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of youth.
5. Fortunate is the man who has his quiver full of them; they will not find themselves shamed when they speak with enemies in public places.
Chapter 128
This psalm extols one who enjoys the fruits of his own labor, avoiding theft and deception, even refusing gifts. It also describes behavior appropriate to the God-fearing.
1. A song of ascents. Fortunate is every man who fears the Lord, who walks in His ways.
2. When you eat of the labor of your hands, you will be happy, and you will have goodness.
3. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine in the inner chambers of your house; your children will be like olive saplings around your table.
4. Behold, so will be blessed the man who fears the Lord.
5. May the Lord bless you out of Zion, and may you see the goodness of Jerusalem all the days of your life.
6. And may you see children [born] to your children; peace upon Israel.
Chapter 129
The psalmist laments the troubles of Israel.
1. A song of ascents. Much have they persecuted me from my youth on. Let Israel declare it now-
2. "Much have they persecuted me from my youth on, [but] they have not prevailed against me.”
3. The plowmen plowed upon my back; they wished to make their furrow long.
4. But the Lord is just; He cut the cords of the lawless.
5. They will be humiliated and will be turned back, all the haters of Zion.
6. They will be as grass upon the rooftops that withers before one plucks it,
7. wherewith the reaper has never filled his hand, nor the sheaf-binder his arm;
8. and of which the passers-by never have said: "The blessing of the Lord be upon you; we bless you in the name of the Lord."
Chapter 130
The psalmist prays for an end to this long exile.
1. A song of ascents. Out of the depths I call to You, O Lord.
2. My Lord, hearken to my voice; let Your ears be attentive to the sound of my pleas.
3. God, if You were to preserve iniquities, my Lord, who could survive?
4. But forgiveness is with You, that You may be held in awe.
5. I hope in the Lord; my soul hopes, and I long for His word.
6. My soul yearns for the Lord more than those awaiting the morning wait for the morning.
7. Israel, put your hope in the Lord, for with the Lord there is kindness; with Him there is abounding deliverance.
8. And He will redeem Israel from all its iniquities.
Chapter 131
In this prayer, David declares that never in the course of his life was he haughty, nor did he pursue greatness or worldly pleasures.
1. A song of ascents, by David. O Lord, my heart was not proud, nor were my eyes haughty; I did not seek matters that were too great and too wondrous for me.
2. Surely I put my soul at peace and soothed it like a weaned child with his mother; my soul was like a weaned child.
3. Let Israel hope in the Lord from this time forth and forever.
Chapter 132
David composed this psalm while he and the elders of Israel wore sackcloth, in mourning over the plague that had descended upon the land, and their being distant from the Holy Temple. David therefore offers intense prayers, entreating God to remember the hardship and sacrifice he endured for the sake of the Temple.
1. A song of ascents. O Lord, remember unto David all his suffering,
2. how he swore to the Lord, and vowed to the Mighty Power of Jacob:
3. "I will not enter into the tent of my house; I will not go up into the bed that is spread for me;
4. I will not give sleep to my eyes, nor slumber to my eyelids;
5. until I will have found a place for the Lord, a resting place for the Mighty Power of Jacob.”
6. Lo, we heard of it in Ephrath; we found it in the field of the forest.
7. We will come to His resting places; we will prostrate ourselves at His footstool.
8. Ascend, O Lord, to Your resting place, You and the Ark of Your might.
9. May Your priests clothe themselves in righteousness, and may Your pious ones sing joyous songs.
10. For the sake of David Your servant, turn not away the face of Your anointed.
11. For the Lord has sworn to David a truth from which He will never retreat: "From the fruit of your womb will I set for you upon the throne.
12. If your sons will keep My covenant and this testimony of mine which I will teach them, then their sons, too, will sit on the throne for you until the end of time.
13. For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation.
14. This is My resting place to the end of time. Here will I dwell, for I have desired it.
15. I will abundantly bless her sustenance; I will satisfy her needy with bread.
16. I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her pious ones will sing joyous songs.
17. There I will cause David's power to flourish; there I have prepared a lamp for My anointed.
18. His enemies will I clothe with shame, but upon him, his crown will blossom."
Chapter 133
1. A song of ascents, by David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together.
2. Like the precious oil [placed] upon the head, flowing [in abundance] down the beard, the beard of Aaron which rests upon his garments.
3. Like the dew of Hermon which comes down upon the mountains of Zion, for there the Lord has commanded blessing, life unto eternity.
Chapter 134
The psalmist exhorts the scholarly and pious to rise from their beds at night, and go to the House of God.
1. A song of ascents. Behold: Bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord who stand in the House of the Lord in the nights.
2. Lift up your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.
3. May the Lord, Who makes heaven and earth, bless you from Zion.
---------------------
Tanya: Kuntres Acharon, Essay 1
• Lessons in Tanya
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Monday, Cheshvan 27, 5776 · November 9, 2015
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Monday, Cheshvan 27, 5776 · November 9, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Kuntres Acharon, Essay 1
Kuntres Acharon, Essay One
The contents of this Kuntres Acharon al Kamah Perakim (“Later Booklet on Several Chapters”) are not near as homo-eneous as one might expect.
The ninth printing1 of the Tanya, which included Iggeret HaKodesh and Kuntres Acharon for the second time, was introduced by an “Approbation of the ... sons of the illustrious author.”2 This Approbation describes Kuntres Acharon as a work based “on certain chapters, which he wrote when he composed the Sefer Likutei Amarim” (i.e., the first part of Tanya). It is described as consisting of “profound discussions and insights in passages in the Zohar, Etz Chayim and Pri Etz Chayim, which appear to contradict one another, and in his understanding spirit [the Alter Rebbe] resolves each passage according to its context as explained in Likutei Amarim.”
As the Rebbe notes, however, close to half of the essays printed in current editions under the heading of Kuntres Acharon, beginning with Essay 6, appear to be letters of the Alter Rebbe that are quite unconnected with matters discussed in Tanya, Zohar, Etz Chayim, etc., and hence, seemimgly out of place in Kuntres Acharon. And, indeed, when Iggeret HaKodesh andKuntres Acharon were first included in Tanya (in the eighth edition; Koenigsburg, 1811), these essays were in fact not printed as part of Kuntres Acharon, but were grouped with Iggeret HaKodesh.
* * *
The first essay of Kuntres Acharon answers two questions:
(a) How does a Jew become connected with Supernal Wisdom (Chochmah of Atzilut) by reading the narratives of the Torah?
(b) What is meant by the statement of the Zohar that “thought accomplishes nothing”? (I.e., that if one merely thinks about words of Torah but does not articulate them vocally, he does not effect an “arousal from below” that elicits an “arousal from above.”)
As to question (a): We can readily understand how when a Jew studies the reasoning and the laws of the Torah he is connected with Supernal Wisdom, for the Torah is “G-d’s Will and Wisdom.” But what of the narrative passages? True enough, in addition to their truth as narrative (for3 “A verse never departs from its plain meaning”), these passages of course simultaneously allude to spiritual truths in the higher worlds. But if a reader knows nothing of this beyond the simple story, how is he thereby connected with Supernal Wisdom?
The Alter Rebbe answers this query by quoting Sefer HaKavanot of the AriZal, who states that at the very same moment at which a Jew is engaged in Torah in this world, the “likeness” of Supernal Man above (the source of the soul of this Jew) is also engaged in Torah. The source of this individual’s soul is thus bound up with Supernal Wisdom.
Now, this applies when this individual merely meditates upon words of Torah, in silence. When, however, he actually verbalizes them, then the sound of these words pierces the heavens, and ascends to the spiritual level to which that sound is related, i.e., the level which matches the level of service of the person involved. If he is a tzaddik who, like a chariot, has no independent will but waits to be steered by its Rider, then the sound of his Torah study rises to the World of Atzilut (as explained in Tanya, ch. 39); if he serves G‑d with intellectually-generated love and awe, the sound of his Torah study rises to the World of Beriah; if his love and awe of G‑d are innate, the sound of his Torah study rises to the World of Yetzirah (as explained in Tanya, ch. 16).
As to question (b), regarding the inability of unvoiced thought (on words of Torah) to elicit an illumination from above, the Alter Rebbe will presently explain that it is nevertheless expressly thought that can elevate one’s Torah study and one’s performance of the commandments to the higher realms.
This, however, appears to be contradicted by a teaching in the Zohar,4 that the kind of “arousal from below” that draws down the reciprocal “arousal from above,” is effected specifically by “deed and speech,” as distinct from unvoiced thought.
The Alter Rebbe therefore clarifies: It is true that the Zohar here teaches that thought alone cannot draw down the flow of Divine light. That is why, even when one serves G‑d with love and fear through the spiritual toil of the soul, he will not have fulfilled his obligation to perform the accompanying mitzvah unless these spiritual emotions find simultaneous expression in actual deeds or words (cf. Tanya, ch. 35). For the soul descended into this world in order to draw down Divine light, and thereby to refine and rectify the body and the animal soul. (The Divine soul itself is by definition not in need of rectification.) And it is only through “deed and speech” — the actual performance of mitzvot or articulated Torah study, for5 “the movement of the lips is also a [minor] deed” — that one draws the Divine light down into this world.
However, when it comes to the separate task of elevating one’s Torah study and performance of the commandments, this is accomplished specifically by means of positive thoughts, which include one’s devout intent (kavanah), and one’s love and awe of G‑d.
Examine6 Likkutei Amarim, ch. 40
The Alter Rebbe explained in ch. 407 that the love and fear of G‑d are mere “wings”.8 Though wings enable a bird to fly aloft, they are not its essence. Indeed, even “if its wings were removed, [a bird] is kosher,”9 so long as its head and body are intact.
So, too, Supernal Unions (yichudim) are effected through Torah and mitzvot themselves. Love and awe, which are their wings, merely elevate the Torah and mitzvot to that spiritual level where a particular union is to take place. It is at that level that there is revealed within one’s Torah and mitzvot an infinite Divine illumination that cannot be revealed in this physical world.
Thus, on one hand we say that love and fear do not bring about a Supernal Union, for they are mere “thought” and intent. On the other hand, we also say that it is specifically through one’s intent that one’s Torah and mitzvot are elevated to a height they could never ascend to unaided; once there, they bring about a Supernal Union and its resultant diffusion of Divine light.
להבין איך הקורא בסיפורי מעשיות שבתורה, הוא מקושר בחכמה עילאה
To understand how a person reading narratives in the Torah becomes connected with Chochmah Ila’ah(“Supernal Wisdom”):
When a Jew studies Torah intellectually, it stands to reason that he is then bound up with Supernal Wisdom — the Sefirahof Chochmah (the loftiest Divine emanation) in the World of Atzilut — for Torah law is “G‑d’s Will and Wisdom”; the rationale underlying a law is G‑d’s wisdom, while the ruling itself is G‑d’s will.
This is explained in ch. 5 of Tanya: “It so arose in His will that if, for example, Reuven would claim thus and Shimon thus, such and such should be the verdict between them.” Even if this litigation should never come to pass, still it is G‑d’s will that in such an instance the verdict should be such and such — in accordance with His will. The very knowledge of the ruling thus makes one aware of G‑d’s will.
Suppose, however, that instead of studying legal issues one merely reads the narratives of the Torah. While it is true that these narratives allude to spiritual matters in the higher worlds,10 yet since he perceives nothing beneath their seemingly simplistic surface, how is he thereby connected with Supernal Wisdom?
When, for example, the Alter Rebbe looked at the verse,11 “And Jacob kissed Rachel and lifted up his eyes and wept,” he saw12 that Jacob, who represents the attribute of Mercy of Atzilut, arouses compassion from the Supernal Source of Mercy upon Rachel, who personifies Malchut of Atzilut, the fount of all souls.
However, when one is unaware of the inner meaning of this verse, and merely follows the simple story, how is he then bound to Supernal Wisdom?
על פי מה שכתוב בכוונות, דף ט״ז עמוד ב׳: כמו שהאדם עוסק למטה, כך דיוקן האדם העליון למעלה כו׳
[This matter may be understood] in the light of what is written in the Kavanot, p. 16b13 — that just as a man is engaged [in Torah study] below, so too is the likeness of the Supernal Man [engaged in Torah study] above.
As the Alter Rebbe will soon explain, this “likeness” refers to the source of a man’s soul, which is rooted in the Sefirotabove. This is known as Supernal Man, for in the Kabbalah a complete configuration — a partzuf (lit., “visage”) of ten intellective and emotive Divine Sefirot — is referred to as a “Man”.14 Supernal Man occupies Himself in Torah above, at the same time that mortal man does so below. When one is engaged in Torah, be it even in the narratives of the Torah, he is thus connected with Supernal Wisdom, inasmuch as his “likeness” above is bound up with Supernal Wisdom.
According to this explanation, however, he is connected with Supernal Wisdom only by virtue of his connection with his likeness above, and not through his actual study. The Alter Rebbe therefore now goes on to state that this is so only when his study of the Written Torah remains in the realm of thought. If, instead, the individual verbalizes the words audibly, the very sound of his voice enables the letters here below to ascend even to the highest of levels, the World of Atzilut.
כן יש לומר, בהרהור באותיות הכתובות
This [vicarious connection] applies [only] when one is thinking about the written letters [of the Torah’s narratives].
אבל הדבור, יש לומר דבוקע וסליק לאצילות ממש
But as to articulated speech, we may say that it pierces and ascends to the actual [World of] Atzilut;
The Alter Rebbe here seeks to distinguish between “the actual World of Atzilut,” and the highest level (the “relativeAtzilut”) within each of the lower worlds. As explained above, the uttered words of a consummate tzaddik — like the rest of his Torah and mitzvot — ascend to the actual World of Atzilut.
או לבריאה, בדחילו ורחימו שכליים
alternatively, [the articulated speech of one’s Torah study rises] to Beriah, the world of comprehension, when impelled by intellectually-generated love and fear (i.e., a love and fear of G‑d that result from comprehending Him);
או ליצירה, בדחילו ורחימו טבעיים
or else [this speech rises] to Yetzirah, the world of emotions, when motivated by the innate awe and love of G‑d that are the heritage of every Jew.
This refers to the level of “concealed love” (ahavah mesuteret) that also includes fear.
ובמקרא
And through Scripture, i.e., when its words are merely uttered out of an acceptanc3e of G‑d’s yoke, without any of the above three levels of motivation,
סליק מעולם הזה ליו״ד ספירות דעשיה, משום דבקע אוירין וכו׳
[this speech] rises from This World to the Ten Sefirot of Asiyah, the level that relates to Torah and mitzvot that are performed merely out of acceptance of G‑d’s yoke,15 for “it pierces the atmospheres16...” between physical and spiritual Asiyah.
מה שאין כן בהרהור, אלא הדיוקן, שהוא שרש נשמתו וכו׳
In contrast, one’s [unvoiced] thought [does not ascend to the higher worlds; it affects] only the “likeness” which is the source of his soul..., and which at that time is also engaged above in Torah, thereby connecting him with Supernal Wisdom.
ומה שכתוב בזהר, חלק ג׳ דף ק״ה, דהרהור לא עביד מידי כו׳
As to the statement in the Zohar, Vol. III, p. 105, that “thinking achieves nothing,...”
והיינו, אפילו לטב
i.e., not even a beneficial effect, if the “arousal from below” of deed or speech are lacking,
Speaking of thought, the Zohar there refers to improper thoughts that “achieve nothing.” For it is only when one actually speaks (and not merely thinks) of mundane matters on Shabbat17 that he causes a blemish in the spiritual realms, since his speech ascends aloft and introduces mundanity within the sanctity of Shabbat above. In the same way, the Alter Rebbe adds, thought alone — unless it is accompanied by words or deeds — has no positive effect above.
עיין שם, ובדף ל״א עמוד ב׳
examine closely there, as well as p. 31b.
For the Zohar says there that in order to receive the sanctity and joy of the Jewish festivals, there must first be an “arousal from below” through deed or speech. It then goes on to say that mundane talk during Shabbat will cause a blemish above, though not mundane thoughts.
We thus see that the Zohar is speaking of the inability of thought alone to produce either positive or negative effects.
The same is true of the statement in Zohar III, 31b, that a deed below inspires a deed above. A holy deed brings forth an arousal of holiness from above that descends upon the doer, while a deed stemming from impurity causes a spirit of impurity to descend upon him. The Zohar concludes there, that whatever depends upon action affects action, while whatever depends upon speech affects speech.
This, too, indicates that both a positive and a negative impact can be made only through action or speech, and not through disembodied thought alone.
Now, if thought alone “accomplishes nothing,” how does this square with the earlier statement that when one reads the narratives of the Torah, even if he does so only in his thought, he causes the “likeness” of Supernal Man to study Torah, and thereby the person involved is united with Supernal Wisdom?
The Alter Rebbe resolves this seeming contradiction as follows: The Zohar only means that thought has no effect indrawing down illumination from above: it is true that it is not an “arousal from below” that elicits an “arousal from above.” However, thought does have a vital effect above: one’s thought and intention are indispensable in elevating one’s Torah study and performance of the commandments, and in effecting the consequent Supernal Unions.
To return now to the above-quoted statement that “thinking accomplishes nothing”:
יש לומר דהיינו לאתערא לעילא, שיומשך משם לתתא
We may say, that this [disability] refers only to arousing a reaction Above, to call forth a downward flow [of Divine light];
רק מחשבתו נשארה שם
the thought that rises above simply remains there,
ומוסיפה שם אור גדול
greatly increasing the illumination there.
בתוספת וריבוי האור באצילות, על ידי מקרא ומצות מעשיות שבעשיה
[This] increased illumination in Atzilut is brought about through the verbal study of Scripture and the practice of active mitzvot in Asiyah,
שעיקר היחוד הוא למעלה
for the [consequent] Union takes place primarily above, within Atzilut.
רק הפירות בעולם הזה, על ידי המשכת אור מעט מזעיר למטה על ידי הדבור ומעשה
Only [its] fruits reach this world, through the illumination that is called forth in minute measure, here below, by speech and deed, that serve as an “arousal from below” to draw down the “arousal from above.”
מה שאין כן בהרהור, לא נמשך כלום
Through thinking [alone], however, nothing is called forth [below]: the above-mentioned increased illumination remains entirely above.
ולכן לא יצא ידי חבותו
Hence, if one merely thinks the words of the Shema and does not verbalize them vocally, he has not fulfilled his obligation
מה שירדה נשמתו לעולם הזה, רק להמשיך אורות עליונים למטה
for which his soul descended into This World: viz., only to draw supernal illuminations into the lower world.
כמו שכתוב בעץ חיים, שער כ״ו: להמשיך אור
In the words of Etz Chayim, Shaar 26, [the purpose of the soul’s descent is] “to call forth illumination.”
The G‑dly soul does not descend into this world for its own sake, for it is not in need of any rectification. Rather, it descends here in order to rectify and refine the body and the animal soul, by drawing supernal illumination down into this otherwise dark world.
אבל להעלות ממטה למעלה
But to elevate [one’s Torah and mitzvot] from below upward,
הוא דוקא על ידי מחשבה טובה
there must be “good thought” — the positive intent that stems from love and fear of G‑d,
דבלא דחילו ורחימו, לא פרחא לעילא
for without awe and love, [his divine service in Torah and mitzvot] does not fly upward.
וכמו שכתוב בשער הנבואה, פרק ב׳: והמחשבה טובה כו׳
As is stated in Shaar HaNevuah, sec. 2, “And the good thought [is that which raises Torah and mitzvotaloft].”
But here we appear to have a contradiction.
ומה שכתוב: דבקע רקיעין וכו׳
Now, we have an expression, quoted in the Zohar above, [that the sound of Torah study] “pierces firmaments...,”
והיינו, אפילו בלא דחילו ורחימו
and this is true even when [the sound of Torah study] is without awe and love,
במכל שכן מדברים בטלים
by a fortiori reasoning from the case of idle words,
If idle or mundane words spoken on the Sabbath ascend and cause a blemish above, surely holy words ascend, even when they are not accompanied by awe and love of G‑d.18
דמדה טובה, מרובה
since19 “the measure of good is more generous [than its opposite].”
How are we to reconcile this with the statement that “without awe and love one’s [Torah study] does not fly upward”?
The Alter Rebbe now answers:
היינו, רקיעין דוקא, שהן ההיכלות והבתים
This refers only to “firmaments”, meaning the chambers and abodes, i.e., the external aspects of Supernal Man,
ולא בגוף האדם העליון
but not the “body” of Supernal Man.
I.e., if one’s Torah study is not propelled by a love and awe of G‑d, it does not ascend to the “body” of Supernal Man, which comprises the Ten Sefirot of the world involved.
וכל שכן בנפש רוח ונשמה
It certainly [does not ascend] to the Nefesh, Ruach and Neshamah of Supernal Man, the light of Atzilutthat illumines that world,
אפילו באדם דעשיה, שהן יו״ד ספירות, אורות וכלים
even not of the Supernal Man of Asiyah, meaning the Ten Sefirot, both its lights and vessels.
Without awe and love, one’s Torah study cannot ascend even to this level.
וזהו שכתוב בתקונים, דבלא דחילו ורחימו, לא יכלא לסלקא ולמיקם קדם ה׳ דוקא
This is the intention of the Tikkunim,20 that without fear and love it cannot ascend or stand before G‑d.
This means that it is capable of ascending to a higher world, but not before the G‑dliness of that world, i.e., the Sefirot of that world. In order for it to ascend there, there must be awe and love.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Shklov, 1814; see the Bibliographical Listing by the Rebbe, reproduced (in Hebrew) in the Bi-Lingual Edition of Tanya, p. 714. |
| 2. | It appeared in the Shklov edition of 1814 for the first time. See its English translation in Vol. I of the present series, p. 10. |
| 3. | Shabbat 63a. |
| 4. | III, 105a and 31b. |
| 5. | Sanhedrin 65a. |
| 6. | Note of the Rebbe: “[Examine], not simply See.” |
| 7. | See Vol. II above, p. 558ff. |
| 8. | R. Chayim Vital, in Shaar HaYichudim, ch. 11. |
| 9. | Note of the Rebbe in He’arot veTikkunim: “In the Mishnah (Chullin 3:4) we find, ‘If its wings were broken....’ [From this we learn that the same law applies] ‘when its wings were removed’; see the Bach and Taz, Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, beginning of sec. 53.” |
| 10. | Actually, this may be viewed the other way around: The real subject of such a narrative is a spiritual truth; this is echoed by the physical aspects of the corresponding episode as it took place below. In the words of Asarah Maamarot (Maamar Chikur Din 3:22), “The Torah speaks on high and hints at matters below.” |
| 11. | Bereishit 29:11. |
| 12. | Tanya, ch. 45. |
| 13. | I.e., Sefer HaKavanot of the AriZal (ed. Venice, 5380/1620). |
| 14. | Cf. Yechezkel 1:26. |
| 15. | Alternatively, it may be said that the degree of elevation varies with the subject of one’s study. If it is Kabbalah, which extends no further “down” than Atzilut, then one’s study is elevated as far “up” as Atzilut. If it is Talmud, which extends down to Beriah, then one’s study is elevated as far up as Beriah. If Mishnah, it is Yetzirah; if Scripture, it is Asiyah; — as the Alter Rebbe explains in the Note at the conclusion of ch. 40 in Tanya. The Alter Rebbe makes a point of noting there, that in fact all the above categories of Torah study belong in Atzilut, except that Scripture emanates all the way downward until Asiyah, Mishnah — only as far as until Yetzirah, and Talmud — until Beriah, while Kabbalah remains within the World of Atzilut. (See also Torah Or, p. 17a.) |
| 16. | Note of the Rebbe: “This expression is also found in Et’haleich [Liozna], [which is a book of discourses that includes these essays from Kuntres Acharon]. [However,] this warrants a critical comparison of early editions and manuscripts, for in many places (Tanya, ch. 40; Zohar III, as cited there; et al.), [the expression used is not ‘pierces atmospheres’ but ‘pierces] heavens.”’ |
| 17. | Cf. Yeshayahu 58:13: “If you honor it by...refraining...from speaking [worldly] things....” |
| 18. | At this point, the standard edition of Kuntres Acharon interpolates a phrase in brackets [זה אינו, דגם שם יש איזו תאוה], followed by a publisher’s note that this phrase does not appear in certain manuscripts. The interpolation means: “This is not the case, for there, too, there is some measure of desire.” In other words: The above proof, which relates to idle talk on Shabbat, does not withstand scrutiny, for there, too, there is some measure of desire. Since this motivating desire counts as a certain measure of spirituality, this speech is not an exclusively physical activity; if it were, it would not be able to ascend to a spiritual world. |
| 19. | Sotah 11a. |
| 20. | Tikkun 10, p. 25b. |
---------------------
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
Monday, Cheshvan 27, 5776 · November 9, 2015A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 318
Cursing a Parent
It is forbidden to curse a parent, even posthumously.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Cursing a Parent
Negative Commandment 318
Translated by Berel Bell
The 318th prohibition is that all people are forbidden from cursing their father or mother. The punishment for this transgression is stated explicitly in the Torah, in G‑d's statement,1 "Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death." The transgressor is executed by stoning.2 One who intentionally curses a parent using G‑d's Name is punished by stoning, even if the parent was already dead.
The source of the actual prohibition itself, however, is not written explicitly in the Torah.3 It does not say, "Do not curse your father," for example. But there is already a general prohibition against cursing any Jew,4 and it includes cursing both one's father and everyone else.
The Mechilta5 says, "The verse, 'Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death,' tells us the punishment. What is the source of the actual prohibition? The verse, 'Do not curse the judges.' If your father is a judge, he is included in [the prohibition of cursing] judges. If he is a Nasi, he is included in [the prohibition of cursing] the Nasi. If he is a regular Jew, [he is included in the prohibition of cursing a regular Jew,] as it is written, 'Do not curse the deaf.' From all three verses you can derive a general principle: just as these verses come to prohibit cursing any Jew, they also come to prohibit cursing your father."
The Sifra6 says the same as the Mechilta: "The verse,7 'Whoever curses his father or mother [shall be put to death]' tells us the punishment but not the actual prohibition. It is derived from the verse, 'Do not curse the judges.' "
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the seventh chapter of tractate Sanhedrin.8
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 21:17.
2.See P229.
3.Each prohibition in the Torah normally needs two verses: one to actually state the prohibition, and another to state the punishment. In this mitzvah, we have only one verse, which has the second element, the punishment.
4.N317.
5.Parshas Mishpatim.
6.Parshas Kedoshim, 9:7.
7.Lev. 20:9.
8.53a.
--------------------------------------Negative Commandment 319
Hitting a Parent
It is forbidden to hit a parent.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Hitting a Parent
Negative Commandment 319
Translated by Berel Bell
The 319th prohibition is that we are forbidden from striking [either of] our parents.
For this prohibition, too, there is no specific verse written in the Torah. Only the punishment is written,1 "Whoever strikes one's father or mother shall be put to death." The derivation of the actual prohibition against striking his father is similar to that of cursing one's father, as we explained.2 In this case, prohibition 300, which forbids striking any Jew, includes [the prohibition of striking] one's father.
The Mechilta3 says, "The verse, 'Whoever strikes his father or mother,' tells us the punishment. What is the source of the actual prohibition? That comes from the verse4 [which speaks of lashing a transgressor], 'Do not go beyond the limit and give him forty lashes.' This verse teaches us a kal v'chomer:5 If even one who it is a mitzvah to strike, it is prohibited to strike him [beyond the limit], one who it is a mitzvah not to strike, certainly it is prohibited to strike."
One who transgresses this prohibition by intentionally striking his father or mother and causes bleeding, is punished by chenek [strangulation].
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the end of tractate Sanhedrin.6
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 21:15.
2.See N318 above.
3.Parshas Mishpatim, ibid.
4.Deut. 25:3.
5.Literally, "from the light to the heavy." This principle allows one to generalize from a law stated explicitly in the Torah to a more obvious or more severe ("heavier") case which is not explicitly stated.
6.85b.
-------------------------------------- Positive Commandment 210
Honoring Parents
"Honor your father and your mother"—Exodus 20:12.
We are commanded to honor our parents. This mitzvah includes serving them food and drink, and helping them dress and go.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Honoring Parents
Positive Commandment 210
Translated by Berel Bell
The 210th mitzvah is that we are commanded to honor our parents.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Honor your father and your mother."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in many Talmudic passages, mostly and primarily in tractate Kiddushin.2
The Sifra3 says, "What constitutes 'honor'? To give them food and drink, to clothe and cover them, to bring them inside and take them outside."
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 20:12; Deut. 4:16.
2.30b ff.
3.Beginning of Parshas Kedoshim.
---------------------------------------Positive Commandment 211
Revering Parents
"Every man shall revere his mother and father"—Leviticus 19:3.
We are commanded to revere our parents; our consideration of them should be as we consider an individual whom we fear, who is able to administer punishment, such as a king.
This mitzvah includes not sitting in a place reserved for them, not voicing an opinion in their presence, and not contradicting them.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Revering Parents
Positive Commandment 211
Translated by Berel Bell
The 211th mitzvah is that we are commanded to fear our parents. We should think of them as we do of someone who people fear, and who is able to administer punishment,1 such as a king; and act towards them as we do with someone we fear can do us harm.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "A person shall fear his mother and his father."
The Sifra3 says, "What constitutes 'fear'? Not to sit in their seat, not to speak instead of them, and not to contradict them."
The details of this mitzvah are also explained in tractate Kiddushin.4
FOOTNOTES
1.See Kapach, 5731, footnote 3, that the Rambam describes two categories of fear: one, due to honor, such as that of a king, due to his power and importance ("who is able to administer punishment"), and secondly, the actual fear of being punished. The Rav Kook edition, followed by Chavel, combine them into one category.
2.Lev. 19:3.
3.Beginning of Parshas Kedoshim.
4.30b ff.
------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 6 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• 1 Chapter: Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 6 • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Nedarim - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
When a person tells a colleague: "Benefit that leads to your food is forbidden to me," or "Benefit that leads to my food is forbidden to you," the person who is forbidden should not borrow from the other person: a sifter, a strainer, a hand mill, an oven, or any other utensil used to prepare food. He may, however, borrow from him bracelets, rings, and other articles that are not used to produce food. He is forbidden to borrow from him a sack or a donkey to carry produce.1
Halacha 2
[In the above situation,] in a place where utensils are given out only for a fee, it is forbidden to borrow [without charge] even utensils that are not used to produce food.2If they were in a place where a fee is not charged and he borrowed from him utensils that are not used to produce food to look impressive to others because of them so that he will receive benefit from them3or he sought to pass through his property so that he could reach a place where he would derive benefit,4 there is an unresolved question whether it is prohibited.5 Therefore, if he transgresses, he is not liable for lashes.
Halacha 3
There is no difference between one who takes a vow not to benefit from a colleague and one who takes a vow not to derive benefit that leads to food except [permission to] pass through [property]6 and borrowing utensils that are not used to produce food in a place where they are borrowed without charge.7
Halacha 4
When Reuven was forbidden to benefit from Shimon, either through a vow or through an oath, Shimon may give the half-shekel which Reuven is obligated to give.8 Similarly, he may pay a debt that he owes. [The rationale is that] Reuven does not receive anything, all [Shimon does] is prevent a claim from being lodged against him. And preventing a claim from being lodged is not included in the prohibition against [giving] benefit.9
Therefore [Shimon] may provide food for [Reuven's] wife,10 his sons, and his servants, even his Canaanite servants,11 even though [Reuven] is obligated to provide for their sustenance. He may not, however, provide food for [Reuven's] animal, whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher one,12 for any increase in the animal's weight is benefit given to Reuven.
Halacha 5
If Shimon was a priest, he is permitted to offer sacrifices brought by Reuven. [The rationale is that] the priests are agents of God and not the agents of the person bringing the sacrifice.13
Halacha 6
Shimon may separate terumah on behalf of Reuven and separate his tithes with his consent.17 What is meant by "with his consent"? For example, Reuven said: "Whoever desires to separate terumah [from my produce] may do so." He may not, however, tell Shimon to separate terumah on his behalf, for then he is making him his agent and this is [deriving] benefit from him.
Halacha 7
[Shimon] may instruct [Reuven] in the Oral Law,18 for it is forbidden to charge a wage for teaching it.19 The Written Law, by contrast, may not be taught by him, because a wage can be charged for teaching it.20 If it is not customary [in that community] to charge for instruction in the Written Law, this is permitted. Regardless of [the local custom with regard to payment], [Shimon] may teach [Reuven's] son.21
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
When an animal belonging to Reuven becomes ill,25 Shimon should not give it veterinary attention. He may, however, tell him: "Do such and such for it."26
[Shimon] may wash with Reuven in a large bath,27 but not in a small bath, because he gives him pleasure by raising the water over him.28 He may sleep in the same bed as him in the summer,29 but not in the winter, because he warms him.30 He may sit on the same couch as him and eat at the same table,31but may not eat from the same plate or from the same food trough that is placed before workers. [The rationale is that we fear that] Shimon will leave a nice piece of meat and refrain from eating it so that Shimon will eat it or move it closer to him and in this way, bring him benefit.32 Similar concepts apply with regard to produce in a food trough. It is, however, permitted for Shimon to eat from a plate even though he knows that when he returns it to the host, the host will place it before Reuven. We do not fear that [Shimon] will leave a choice cut of meat for [Reuven].33
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
Reuven is forbidden to use Shimon's coal, but he is permitted to use his flame.37
Halacha 12
[The following laws apply if] Shimon owned a bathhouse or an olive press that were hired out [to others] in the city. If Shimon retains a hold on them, e.g., he left a portion for himself and did not hire it out, it is forbidden for Reuven to enter that bathhouse or tread in that olive press.38 [This applies] even if he retains merely one tub in the bathhouse or one press39 in the olive press. If he did not retain anything for himself, but rather hired it out in its entirety, it is permitted [for Reuven to enter].40
Halacha 13
It is forbidden for Reuven to partake of the produce of Shimon's field, even during the Sabbatical year when everything is ownerless, for he took the vow before the beginning of the Sabbatical year.41 If he took the vow in the Sabbatical year itself, [Reuven] may partake of the produce that hangs outside the field.42 He may not, however, enter the field even though the land is ownerless. [This is] a decree lest he remain there after he partook of [the produce],43 for the Torah declared [the land] ownerless only during the time the produce is found within it.
Halacha 14
When does the above apply? When he told him: "Benefit from this property is forbidden to you."44 If, however, [Shimon] told [Reuven]: "It is forbidden for you to benefit from my property,"45 or Reuven took an oath or a vow [prohibiting him from benefiting] from Shimon's property, when the Sabbatical year begins, he may partake of the produce of his field, for they have left Shimon's domain.46He may not, however, enter his field for the reasons we explained [in the previous halachah].
Halacha 15
[Different laws apply if] only benefiting from Shimon's food was forbidden to Reuven,47 If, either because of a vow or an oath, the prohibition took effect before the Sabbatical year, he may enter his field,48 but may not eat his produce.49If the prohibition took effect in the Sabbatical year, he may enter his field and partake of his produce, for this produce does not belong to Shimon. Instead, it is ownerless.50
Halacha 16
It is forbidden for Reuven to lend [articles] to Shimon. [This is] a decree, lest he borrow from him although it is forbidden for him to benefit from him. Similarly, it is forbidden for [Reuven] to give [Shimon] a loan. [This is] a decree, lest he borrow from him.51 Similarly, he may not sell something to him. [This is] a decree, lest he buy from him.52
Halacha 17
If it happened that [Shimon] was working with [Reuven], e.g., they were harvesting together, he should work far from him. [This is] a decree, lest he help him.
When [a father] takes a vow, forbidding his son to benefit from him because the son does not occupy himself in Torah study, the father is permitted to fill up a jug of water [for his son], light a lamp [for him], or roast a small fish. For [the father's] intent was only to forbid [his son] from deriving significant pleasure and these matters are not considered important by the son.53
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
For this also leads to him deriving pleasure from food.
|
| 2. |
For the money that he saved by not paying the fee could be used to purchase food.
|
| 3. |
E.g., he lent him attractive clothing which created a favorable impression on others who gave him gifts as a result.
|
| 4. |
To attend a feast, but not when going to his business as stated in the notes to the following halachah.
|
| 5. |
In both cases, he did not give him direct benefit, but he did enable him to receive benefit.
|
| 6. |
I.e., to tend to his business. If he took a vow against benefiting from him, he may not pass through the property, for he is deriving some benefit. Nevertheless, that benefit does not lead to food. Hence, one who prohibits all benefit is forbidden, but one who forbids benefit that leads to food is permitted. If, however, he wishes to pass through his property to attend a feast, he is forbidden in all instances, as stated in the previous halachah (Radbaz).
|
| 7. |
This is benefit, but not benefit that leads to food.
|
| 8. |
I.e., the half-shekel which every Jew is obligated to pay to the Temple treasury as his share in the communal sacrifices. See Hilchot Shekalim 1:1.
|
| 9. |
See Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 26:6 where the Rambam states that if "a person pays a promissory note of a colleague without that colleague's knowledge, even if it is a debt for which security was given, the borrower is not required to pay him anything. The borrower may take his security.... The other person forfeits his money. [The rationale is that] perhaps the borrower would have been able to appease the lender and have him waive the debt." Thus by paying Reuven's debt, Shimon is not considered to have given him anything.
|
| 10. |
See also Hilchot Ishut 12:19 which states that when a husband traveled to a distant country and left his wife without resources, if another person gives the woman money without clearly specifying that he is extending a loan to her, he forfeits his money. Even though the husband is obligated to pay for his wife's provisions, as long as a debt is not formally established, the person who pays the money has no claim upon him.
|
| 11. |
The qualifier "even" is mentioned for the Canaanite servants, because it is not as great a mitzvah to sustain them as the others who are full-fledged members of the Jewish people.
|
| 12. |
This applies even though the non-kosher animal may not be eaten by the Jew, he may sell it to a gentile and will receive a greater payment because of its increase in weight.
|
| 13. |
And thus he is not considered as having performed a favor for the person bringing the sacrifice.
|
| 14. |
For then, she is considered as having carried out the marriage. Her father is merely acting as her agent and thus is not considered as offering Reuven benefit.
|
| 15. |
A girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half who has manifested signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:1-2). Needless to say, this applies if the girl is a minor, in which instance, her consecration is dependent entirely on her father.
|
| 16. |
For at this age, she cannot marry without her father's consent, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 3:11.
|
| 17. |
If, however, Reuven does not consent, the separation of the terumah is not effective (Bava Metzia22a).
|
| 18. |
Since Shimon is forbidden to receive a wage from teaching Reuven, he is not giving him tangible benefit. Although he is enabling him to observe a mitzvah, the mitzvot were not given for our satisfaction (Eruvin 31a).
|
| 19. |
See Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:7, 3:10 where the Rambam issues such a ruling and explains that this is derived from Deuteronomy 4:5: "Behold, I [Moses] have taught you laws and statutes, as God commanded me." On this basis, Nedarim 37a teaches that Moses was implying: "Just as I learned at no cost, so, too, you have been instructed at no cost by me. And so, too, should you teach the coming generations at no cost."
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:3), the Rambam writes:
See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah Avot 4:7. It must, however, by noted that most authorities [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 246:5) allow a teacher to charge for the time he spends teaching Torah on the basis of the principle of sechar batalah, i.e., he could have spent the time he spends teaching working at another profession which would bring him an income. He is allowed to be reimbursed for the money he loses by choosing to teach Torah instead. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:2) does not accept the Rambam's ruling and forbids Shimon from teaching Reuven.
|
| 20. |
Nedarim 37a gives two reasons why it is permitted for a teacher of young children to charge a wage for his services: a) he is not charging for teaching; he is charging for being a disciplinarian; b) he is not charging for teaching the wordings of Torah; he is charging for teaching the cantillation notes. (For at that time, there were no texts with vowels and the Written Law was studied by memorizing its chants.) The first rationale does not apply with regard to adults, but the second does.
|
| 21. |
A father is obligated to teach his son the Torah. Hence, by instructing Reuven's son, Shimon is freeing him of an obligation. Nevertheless, this is not considered as providing him with benefit, for teaching his son is a mitzvah. And as stated above, the mitzvot were not given for our satisfaction. Moreover, it is possible that Reuven could find another person to teach his son without charge.
|
| 22. |
For this is also a mitzvah. Even though the sick person derives benefit from the person's visit, the benefit is not granted him directly (see Nedarim 39a).
|
| 23. |
I.e., pay a short visit and leave promptly. Since sitting with the sick person is worth money in that community, it is forbidden, by doing so, he will be providing the sick person with a tangible benefit. Payment is not given for visiting while standing. Therefore, there is no prohibition against doing so. See Siftei Cohen 221:19 who writes that if he charges for his time, he may sit and pay the sick person a longer visit.
|
| 24. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:4), the Rambam states that it is a mitzvah of Scriptural origin for a doctor to heal a sick person.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:4) states that when medical attention is given without charge, he may treat him without charge. If, however, it is customary for a doctor to charge, he must also do so.
|
| 25. |
In certain manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, this clause is included as the conclusion of the previous halachah rather than at the beginning of this one.
|
| 26. |
I.e., he may give him advice with regard to which treatments to employ, but may not treat the animal himself. The rationale is that treating a colleague's animal is not considered a mitzvah (Tosafot, Nedarim 41b). The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 221) explains that if there is no one else capable of treating the animal but Shimon, Shimon may do so, because the mitzvah of returning a lost object also includes doing what is necessary to save a colleague's livestock. The Radbaz also adds the rationale that Scriptural Law requires us to alleviate an animal's discomfort.
|
| 27. |
For the entrance of one person into a large bath is not significant.
|
| 28. |
And that is considered as pleasurable.
|
| 29. |
Because the increase in warmth is not desirable.
|
| 30. |
The more people under the same bed clothes, the greater the warmth produced. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:5) states that this applies with regard to a small bed. If the bed is large, even in the winter, it is permitted.
|
| 31. |
This alone is not enough to create suspicion that he will offer him food.
|
| 32. |
The Meiri explains that even though the two are at odds - and for that reason one has taken a vow not to offer the other benefit - we fear that he might make such a gesture out of good manners.
|
| 33. |
The custom was that before passing the tray to another person, the host would fill it up again. Hence there would be no need for Shimon to worry about leaving a piece for Reuven [Radbaz;Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:5)]. The Rama adds that if the serving plate contained a very large amount, there is no prohibition.
|
| 34. |
It was customary to drink wine in the house of mourners to help him overcome his sorrow (seeKetubot 8b).
|
| 35. |
A cup of hot water that was provided for bathers by the owner of the bathhouse (i.e., and not one belonging to Shimon).
Nedarim 38b states that Shimon may give Reuven "the cup of peace" and advances these two interpretations for the term. The Rambam does not consider the interpretations as mutually exclusive, for the same principle - that the satisfaction Shimon gives Reuven is minimal - applies in both instances (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 36. |
The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation than the Rambam, explaining that the "cup of the bathhouse" is given to save the person's life, lest he dehydrate. Moreover, he explains that since the cup belongs to Reuven, there is no difficulty. And he states that giving the cup of comfort is a mitzvah.
|
| 37. |
For the coal is considered an entity of substance, while the flame is not (Siftei Cohen 221:57).
|
| 38. |
Since Shimon retains a certain dimension of ownership, when Reuven makes use of it, he is still considered as benefiting from Shimon's property.
|
| 39. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Maaserot 1:7) the Rambam defines the term ekal as referring to a container made from ropes in which olives are placed and crushed.
|
| 40. |
Provided Shimon did not specifically forbid Reuven from entering these structures, as indicated by Halachah 14.
|
| 41. |
And once an entity has become forbidden because of a vow, it remains forbidden.
|
| 42. |
For that is ownerless and is not affected by the vow.
|
| 43. |
Although he is allowed to benefit from the produce, he is not allowed to set foot in Shimon's land, as stated in Halachah 3, and as the Rambam continues to explain.
|
| 44. |
For then, benefit from that particular field itself becomes forbidden to Reuven forever. Compare to Chapter 5, Halachah 5.
|
| 45. |
In which case, the prohibition involves only property actually owned by Shimon without applying to any particular property individually.
|
| 46. |
For the entrance of the Sabbatical year causes them to be considered as ownerless. Shimon cannot cause the produce to be forbidden for Reuven, for a person cannot cause food that does not belong to him to be forbidden to a colleague (Nedarim 42b). And when Reuven takes an oath or a vow not to benefit from Shimon's property, the oath or the vow does not pertain to this produce, for it does not belong to Shimon.
|
| 47. |
See Halachot 1 and 3.
|
| 48. |
Because in such a situation, he is not forbidden to enter Shimon's property.
|
| 49. |
Since the prohibition took effect before the Sabbatical year, it continues during the Sabbatical year, as stated in Halachah 13.
|
| 50. |
Hence Shimon cannot cause it to be forbidden for Reuven, as above.
|
| 51. |
Reuven is not receiving any benefit from lending out either his articles or his money. Nevertheless, he is forbidden lest Shimon reciprocate and that would involve receiving benefit.
|
| 52. |
In a sale, even though the purchaser receives an article in return for his money, the seller is considered to have benefited. For if this was not so, he would not have sold the article.
|
| 53. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, explaining the source for this law (Nedarim 38b) in another way. The Radbaz explains that halachically, both interpretations are acceptable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 223:1) quotes the Ra'avad's interpretation, but not of the Rambam. Accordingly, the Bayit Chadash maintains that according to the Shulchan Aruch, the Rambam's interpretation is not accepted. See also Turei Zahav 223:1 and Siftei Cohen 223:1.
|
| 54. |
See Chapter 3, Halachot 10-11, for details on how a vow of this nature must be worded for it to be effective.
|
| 55. |
The Baer HaGolah 221:65 rules that he may not write a note specifically for that person. Instead, he should write on the wall with the intent that the person see. Others, however, do not accept this stringency.
|
| 56. |
He may not, however, speak to the wall, for in this instance, it is obvious that he is speaking to his colleague. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 221) is even more stringent, stating that when it is obvious that he is intending for the person to whom he is forbidden to speak to hear, he may not speak even to another colleague.
|
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Mamrim Mamrim - Chapter 4, Mamrim Mamrim - Chapter 5, Mamrim Mamrim - Chapter 6 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Mamrim - Chapter 4
----------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Monday, Cheshvan 27, 5776 · 09 November 2015
"Today's Day"
Thursday Cheshvan 27 5704
Torah Lesson: Chumash: Tol'dot, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 120-134.
Tanya: Examine Etz Chayim (p. 595) ...as is known. (p. 597).
R. Aizik Homiler related: When I came to Lyozna I met elder chassidim who had been chassidim of the Maggid and of R. Menachem Mendel of Horodok. They used to say:
Have affection for a fellow-Jew and G-d will have affection for you;
do a kindness for a fellow-Jew and G-d will do a kindness for you;
befriend a fellow-Jew and G-d will befriend you.
• 3 Chapters: Mamrim Mamrim - Chapter 4, Mamrim Mamrim - Chapter 5, Mamrim Mamrim - Chapter 6 • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Mamrim - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
A rebellious elder who differed with the Supreme Sanhedrin concerning a matter whose willful violation is punishable by kerait and whose inadvertent violation requires a sin offering is liable for execution. This applies whether the court forbids the matter and he permits it or the court permits the matter and he forbids it. Even if he bases his statements on the received tradition, saying: "This is the tradition I received from my masters," and they say: "This is what appears to us as appropriate on the basis of logical analysis," since he differs with their ruling and performs a deed or directs others to do so, he is liable. Needless to say, this applies if they also rule on the basis of their having received teachings through the Oral Tradition.
Similarly, he is liable for execution if he differs with them with regard to a decree that they issued to safeguard a prohibition whose willful violation is punishable by kerait and whose inadvertent violation requires a sin offering is liable for execution. For example, if he permits the consumption of leaven on the fourteenth of Nissan during the sixth hour or forbids deriving benefit from it in the fifth hour, he is worthy of execution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 2
The above applies whether the rebellious elder disputes a matter whose willful violation is punishable by kerait and whose inadvertent violation requires a sin offering or he disputes a matter which leads to a situation involving a prohibition whose willful violation is punishable by kerait and whose inadvertent violation requires a sin offering.
What is implied? If they disputed whether relations with a woman are adulterous or incestuous, if a shade of blood would render a woman ritually impure or not, if a woman is impure because of birth or not, if a woman is a zavah or not, if this fat is forbidden or permitted and the like, their difference of opinion involves a prohibition whose willful violation is punishable by kerait and whose inadvertent violation requires a sin offering.
What is meant by a matter that will lead to a prohibition whose willful violation is punishable by kerait and whose inadvertent violation requires a sin offering. For example, the Sages differed concerning the declaration of a leap year, if the leap year must be declared before Purim or may be declared throughout Adar, he is liable. For this leads to partaking of chametz on Pesach. Similarly, if they differed with regard to a matter of financial law or with regard to the number of judges able to adjudicate matters of financial law, he is liable. For according to the opinion which maintains that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, everything which he expropriated from him was expropriated according to law and according to the decisions of the court. But according to the opposing view, whatever he expropriated is stolen property. If he uses it to consecrate a woman, she is not consecrated. And yet according to the opinion that the person expropriated his own property, the consecration is valid. If another person engages in relations with her willfully, he is liable for kerait and if he engages in relations with her inadvertently, he is liable to bring a sin offering. Thus their difference of opinion led to a matter whose willful violation is punishable by kerait and whose inadvertent violation requires a sin offering.
Similarly, if their difference of opinion concerned lashes, if one person was liable to receive lashes or not, or they differed with regard to the number of judges in whose presence lashes must be administered, he is liable. For according to the opinion who says that he should not be lashed, the court is injuring him and the judges are liable to make financial restitution. Anything expropriated from them is taken according to law. But according to the opinion which says that he is liable for lashes, everything he expropriates from them is stolen property. If he uses it to consecrate a woman, she is not consecrated.
Similarly, if they differed with regard to whether or not a person is obligated to pay after making an endowment evaluations or interdicted property, he is liable. For according to the opinion that says that he is not liable to pay, if it is taken from him, it is stolen property and if it is used to consecrate a woman, the consecration is not valid.
Similarly, he is liable if he differed with the majority concerning the redemption of consecrated property, had they been redeemed or not. For according to the opinion that the redemption is invalid, if he used that article to consecrate a woman, the consecration is not valid.
Similarly, if they differed with regard to bringing an eglah arufah, whether a city is obligated to bring or not, he is liable. For according to those who say that city is obligated to bring the calf, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it and if he uses it to consecrate a woman, the consecration is not valid. Similar concepts apply if they differed with regard to orlah. And similar concepts apply with regard to leket, shichechah, and pe'ah, if they differ whether it belongs to the poor or to the owner, he is liable. For according to the opinion which says that it belongs to the owner, it is stolen property in the hands of the poor and if one consecrates a woman with it, she is not consecrated.
Similarly, if the rebellious elder differs with the court with regard to a category of factors that impart ritual impurity, e.g., blemishes on the skin, blemishes on homes, or blemishes on garments, he is liable. For according to the opinion that the person is pure, he is permitted to enter the Temple and partake of consecrated foods, but according to the opinion that he is impure, if he enters the Temple or partakes of consecrated food willfully, he is punishable by kerait, and if he does so inadvertently, he is liable for a sin offering. Similar concepts apply if they differed with regard to the purification of a person afflicted bytzara'at, if he can be purified or not.
Similarly, he is liable if they differ with regard to the obligation to make a sotahdrink the water which conveys the curse: Is a woman required to drink the water or is she not required? For according to the person who says that she must drink, if her husband dies before she drinks, she is forbidden to her yevam, while according to the person who says that she is not required to drink, she may perform the rite of yibbum. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
It is necessary to investigate and examine whether a difference of opinion will lead to these consequences. If it will lead to another consequence - which after a series of even 100 consequences - that will bring about a situation involving a prohibition whose willful violation is punishable by kerait and whose inadvertent violation requires a sin offering, the rebellious elder is liable. This applies regardless of whether he ruled leniently and the others ruled stringently or he ruled stringently and they ruled leniently.
Halacha 3
If the difference of opinion between the rebellious elder and the court will not lead to such a situation, the rebellious elder is not liable for execution unless the difference of opinion concerns tefillin.
What is implied? If the rebellious elder gave a directive to add a fifth compartment to tefillin or he himself made tefillin with five compartment, he is liable. This applies provided he first made four compartments as required by law and then made a fifth compartment and attached it to the outer compartment. For when an outer compartment is not exposed to the open space at all times, it is unacceptable.
The obligation of a rebellious elder in such a matter is a law transmitted by the Oral Tradition. If, however, they differed with regard to other mitzvot, e.g., he disputed one of the laws concerning a lulav, tzitzit, or a shofar, one claiming that it is unacceptable and the other claiming that it is acceptable, one claiming that the person fulfilled his obligation and the other claiming he did not fulfill his obligation, or one says: "He is pure," and the other says: "He is impure two degrees removed," the elder is not liable for execution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Mamrim - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
A person who curses his father and mother should be executed by stoning, asLeviticus 20:9 states: "He cursed his father and his mother; he is responsible for his death." He is stoned to death whether he curses them while alive or after they died. It is necessary that his act be observed by witnesses and they warn him as is required with regard to other individuals executed by the court.
The above applies to both a man and woman, and also to a tumtum and an androgynus, provided they reached majority, the age when they can be subjected to punishment.
Halacha 2
A person is not liable for execution by stoning unless he curses his parents with one of God's unique names. If he cursed them with another term used to refer to Him, he is not liable for execution by stoning. He should, however, be lashed, as he would be lashed for cursing any other proper Jew.
Halacha 3
Similarly, a person who curses his paternal and maternal grandfather is considered as if he cursed any other person.
Halacha 4
What is the source which serves as a warning against cursing one's father and one's mother? We have heard the punishment explicitly stated, the warning, however, is not stated explicitly. Instead, it can be inferred from Leviticus 19:14: "Do not curse a deaf-mute." Since a person is warned not to curse any Jew, his father is also included, for he is also Jewish.
Halacha 5
A person who strikes his father or mother should be executed by strangulation, as Exodus 21:15 states: "One who strikes his father or his mother should certainly die." It is necessary that his act be observed by witnesses and they warn him as is required with regard to other individuals executed by the court.
The above applies to both a man and woman, and also to a tumtum, and anandrogynus provided they reached majority, the age when they can be subjected to punishment.
A person is not liable for strangulation until he wounds his parents. If he does not wound them, it is as if he strikes another Jew. If he strikes them after their death, he is not liable.
Halacha 6
When a person strikes his father on his ear and causes him to become deaf, he is liable for execution. The rationale is that it is impossible for him to become deaf without there being an internal wound. Instead, we can be certain that at least a drop of blood was released within the ear and that caused him to become deaf.
Halacha 7
When a person lets blood for his father, or if he was a doctor and amputated flesh or a limb, he is not liable. Even though he is not liable, the initial and preferred option is for him not to perform the operation. Nor should he remove a thorn from the flesh of his father or mother lest he cause a bruise.
When does the above apply? When there is another person there who is capable of performing these actions. If, however, there is no one else there capable of doing this but him and they are suffering, he may let blood or amputate according to the license that they grant him.
Halacha 8
What is the source which serves as a warning against striking one's father and one's mother? We have heard the punishment explicitly stated, the warning, however, is not stated explicitly. Since a person is warned not to strike any Jew, his father and mother are also included.
Halacha 9
A shituki is liable for cursing or striking his mother, but not his father. Although his mother is questioned and she says: "He is the son of so-and-so," he should not be executed by stoning or strangulation because of her testimony.
A person who is conceived through relations between a Jew and a maid-servant or a gentile woman, by contrast, is not liable for cursing or striking his father or his mother. Similarly, a convert - even if he was conceived outside the faith, but born within the faith - is not liable for cursing or striking his father.
Halacha 10
Just as such a person is not liable for cursing or striking his father, he is not liable for cursing or striking his mother. This is derived from Exodus 21:17: "One who curses his father and mother shall die." Implied is one who is liable for cursing his father is liable for cursing his mother. Since such a person is not liable for his father, he is not liable for his mother.
Halacha 11
A convert is forbidden to curse or to strike his gentile father or to degrade him, so that people will not say: "They came from a more severe level of holiness to a lesser level of holiness, for this person degrades his father."66 Instead, he should offer him certain measures of honor.
A servant, by contrast, has no connection to his natural parents. His natural father is as if he was not his father with regard to all matters. This applies even if they were both freed.
Halacha 12
When a person's father and mother are absolutely wicked and violate transgressions - even if they were sentenced to death and being taken to their execution - it is forbidden for a son to strike them or curse them. If he curses them or wounds them, however, he is not liable. If they repent, even if they are being taken to their execution, he is liable and is executed because of them.
To whom does the above apply? To the convicted person's son. If, however, an unrelated individual struck or cursed a person after he was sentenced to death, even though he repents, he is not liable, for that person will be executed. If, however, he embarrasses him, he is liable to pay a fine for embarrassing him.
Halacha 13
If a person's father or mother committed a transgression punishable by lashes and the son is a court attendant, he should not lash them. Similarly, if they were obligated to be placed under a ban of ostracism, he should not be the agent to apply this ban. Nor should he push them or degrade them while acting as the emissary of the court even though it is fit to do this to them and they have not repented.
Halacha 14
A son should not serve as an agent to strike or curse his parents except if they entice others to worship idols. For concerning such a person, the TorahDeuteronomy 13:9 states: "Do not have pity and do not cover up for him."
Halacha 15
In any situation where a person is obligated to take an oath to his son, we always saw that he never obligated him to take an oath that involves a curse. Instead, he should have him take an oath that does not involve a curse.
We already explained, that when a father kills his son, none of the slain person's brothers becomes "the redeemer of the blood."
The Torah showed concern not only for striking or cursing one's parents, but also for shaming them. Anyone who shames his parents, even with words alone or merely with an insinuation, is cursed by the Almighty, as Deuteronomy 27:16states: "Cursed be he who degrades his father and his mother." And Proverbs 30:17 states: "The eye that mocks a father and scorns the training of a mother, the ravens... will gouge it out." The court has the right to administer stripes for rebellious conduct because of this and to punish in the manner they see fit.
Mamrim - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
Honoring one's father and mother is a positive commandment of great importance, as is fearing one's father and mother. The Torah equates the honor and fear of one's parents with the honor and fear of God Himself. Exodus 20:12 states: "Honor your father and your mother," and Proverbs 3:9 states: "Honor God from your wealth." Similarly, with regard to one's father and mother, Leviticus 19:3 states: "A person must fear his mother and father," andDeuteronomy 6:13 states: "And you shall fear God, your Lord." Just as He commands us to honor and fear His great name; so, too, He commands us to honor and fear our parents."
Halacha 2
A person who curses his father or mother is executed by stoning and a person who blasphemes God is executed by stoning. Thus the punishment for the two is equated.
A father is mentioned before a mother with regard to honor and a mother is mentioned before a father with regard to fear to teach that they are both equal with regard to fear and honor.
Halacha 3
What is meant by fear and what is meant by honor? Fear is expressed by not standing in his place, not sitting in his place, not contradicting his words, nor offering an opinion that outweighs his.
He should not call him by name, neither during his lifetime or after his death. Instead, he should say: "My father and my master." If his father or his teacher had the same name as others, he should call those other people by a different name. It appears to me that one should be careful only with regard to this matter with regard to a name that is unusual which is not used frequently by people. With regard to the names which people are generally called, by contrast, e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the like, one can call others by that name in any language and at any time outside his father's presence without thinking anything of the matter.
What is meant by honoring them? One should bring them food and drink, clothe them and cover them from their resources. If a father does not have financial resources and a son does, the son is compelled to sustain his father and his mother according to his capacity. He should bring him out and bring him home and serve him in all the ways one serves a teacher. Similarly, he should stand before him as one stands before a teacher.
Halacha 4
When a father was the student of his son, the father need not stand in the presence of the son. The son, by contrast, must stand before his father even if he is his student.
A son is obligated to honor his father in other matters when he is carrying out his business and seeing to his concerns. What is implied? If a person went to a place because of his father's words, he should not say: "Hurry and free me on my own account," or "Let me go on my own account," instead "Hurry and free me because of my father," "Let me go because of my father." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. He should always include in his words statements that indicate that he is concerned with his father's honor and that he fears him.
Halacha 5
A son is obligated to honor his father even after his death. What is implied? If he repeats a teaching in his father's name, he should not say: "This is what my father said." Instead, he should say: "This is what my father, and teacher - may I serve as atonement for him - said."
When does the above apply? Within twelve months of his passing. After twelve months, he says of him: "May he be remembered for the life of the world to come."
Halacha 6
Both a man and a woman are obligated to honor and fear their parents. It is only that the man has the capacity to do this and a woman is subject to another's influence. Therefore if she is divorced or widowed, they are both equal.
Halacha 7
To what degree does the mitzvah of honoring one's father and mother extend? Even if one's parent takes his purse of gold and throws it into the sea in his presence, he should not embarrass them, shout, or vent anger at them. Instead, he should accept the Torah's decree and remain silent.
To what degree does the mitzvah of fearing them extend? Even if one was wearing fine garments and sitting at the head of the community, if one's father and mother came, ripped the clothes, struck him on the head, and spit in his face, he should not embarrass them. Instead, he should remain silent and fear the King of kings who commanded him to conduct himself in this manner. Were a mortal king to decree something which would cause him even more suffering he would not be able to move a limb in protest. Certainly, this applies when the command emanates from He who spoke and caused the world to come into existence as He desired it.
Halacha 8
Although these commands have been issued, a person is forbidden to lay a heavy yoke on his sons and be particular about their honoring him to the point that he presents an obstacle to them. Instead, he should forgo his honor and ignore any affronts. For if a father desires to forgo his honor, he may.
Halacha 9
A person who strikes a son who has attained majority should be placed under a ban of ostracism, for he is transgressing the charge, Leviticus 19:14: "Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind."
Halacha 10
When a person's father or mother lose control of their mental faculties, their son should try to conduct his relationship with them according to their mental condition until God has mercy upon them. If it is impossible for him to remain with them because they have become very deranged, he should leave them, depart, and charge others with caring for them in an appropriate manner.
Halacha 11
A mamzer is obligated to honor and fear his father even though he is not liable for striking him or cursing him until he repents. Even when his father was a wicked person who violated many transgressions, he must honor him and fear him.
If he sees his father violate Torah law, he should not tell him: 'Father, you transgressed Torah law.' Instead, he should tell him: 'Father, is not such-and-such written in the Torah?', as if he is asking him, rather than warning him.
Halacha 12
When a person's father tells him to violate the words of the Torah - whether he tells him to transgress a negative commandment or not to fulfill a positive commandment, even if all that is involved is a point of Rabbinic Law - he should not listen to him, as can be inferred from Leviticus 19:3: 'A person must fear his mother and his father and keep My Sabbaths.' Implied is that all are obligated in honoring Me.
Halacha 13
The following laws apply when a person's father tells him: 'Draw water for me,' and he has the opportunity to perform a mitzvah. If it is possible for the mitzvah to be performed by others, they should perform it and he should concern himself with honoring his father. For we do not negate the observance of one mitzvah, because of the observance of another mitzvah. If there are no others able to perform the other mitzvah, he should perform the mitzvah and neglect his father's honor. For he and his father are obligated to perform the mitzvah.
Torah study surpasses honoring one's father and mother.
Halacha 14
If a person's father tells him: 'Bring me a drink of water,' and his mother tells him: 'Bring me a drink of water,' he should overlook his mother's honor and honor his father first. For both he and his mother are obligated to honor his father.
Halacha 15
A person is obligated to honor his father's wife even though she is not his mother throughout his father's lifetime, for this is included in honoring his father. Similarly, he should honor his mother's husband throughout her lifetime. After her death, however, he is not obligated to honor her.
It is a Rabbinical decree that a person is obligated to honor his oldest brother as he is obligated to honor his father.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Monday, Cheshvan 27, 5776 · 09 November 2015
"Today's Day"
Thursday Cheshvan 27 5704
Torah Lesson: Chumash: Tol'dot, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 120-134.
Tanya: Examine Etz Chayim (p. 595) ...as is known. (p. 597).
R. Aizik Homiler related: When I came to Lyozna I met elder chassidim who had been chassidim of the Maggid and of R. Menachem Mendel of Horodok. They used to say:
Have affection for a fellow-Jew and G-d will have affection for you;
do a kindness for a fellow-Jew and G-d will do a kindness for you;
befriend a fellow-Jew and G-d will befriend you.
---------------------• Daily Thought:
The Here and Now
What will be in the next moment is not in this one now.
It does not yet exist.
It has yet to be created.
When its time comes, then it will be created by the Creator of all things,
out of nowhere, emerging from the void.
There is only one thing that exists at this moment: That in which you are engaged right now.
_____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment