Vayak'hel: Exodus 35:1 Moshe assembled the whole community of the people of Isra’el and said to them, “These are the things which Adonai has ordered you to do. 2 On six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is to be a holy day for you, a Shabbat of complete rest in honor of Adonai. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death. 3 You are not to kindle a fire in any of your homes on Shabbat.”
4 Moshe said to the whole community of the people of Isra’el, “Here is what Adonai has ordered: 5 ‘Take up a collection for Adonai from among yourselves — anyone whose heart makes him willing is to bring the offering for Adonai: gold, silver and bronze; 6 blue, purple and scarlet yarn; fine linen, goat’s hair, 7 tanned ram skins and fine leather; acacia-wood; 8 oil for the light, spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense; 9 onyx stones and stones to be set, for the ritual vest and the breastplate.
10 “‘Then let all the craftsmen among you come and make everything Adonai has ordered: 11 the tabernacle with its tent, covering, fasteners, planks, crossbars, posts and sockets; 12 the ark with its poles, ark-cover and the curtain to screen it; 13 the table with its poles, all its utensils and the showbread; 14 the menorah for the light, with its utensils and lamps, and the oil for the light; 15 the incense altar with its poles; the anointing oil; the fragrant incense; the screen for the entranceway at the entrance to the tabernacle; 16 the altar for burnt offerings, with its poles and all its utensils; the basin with its base; 17 the tapestries for the courtyard, with their posts and sockets; the screen for the gateway of the courtyard; 18 the tent pegs for the tabernacle; the tent pegs for the courtyard, with their ropes; 19 the garments for officiating, for serving in the Holy Place; and the holy garments for Aharon the cohen and the garments for his sons, so that they can serve in the office of cohen.’”
20 Then the whole community of the people of Isra’el withdrew from Moshe’s presence; (LY: ii) 21 and they came, everyone whose heart stirred him and everyone whose spirit made him willing, and brought Adonai’s offering for the work on the tent of meeting, for the service in it and for the holy garments. 22 Both men and women came, as many as had willing hearts; they brought nose-rings, earrings, signet-rings, belts, all kinds of gold jewelry — everyone bringing an offering of gold to Adonai. 23 Everyone who had blue, purple or scarlet yarn; fine linen; tanned ram skins or fine leather brought them. 24 Everyone contributing silver or bronze brought his offering for Adonai, and everyone who had acacia-wood suitable for any of the work brought it. 25 All the women who were skilled at spinning got to work and brought what they had spun, the blue, purple and scarlet yarn and the fine linen. 26 Likewise the women whose heart stirred them to use their skill spun the goat’s hair. 27 The leaders brought the onyx stones and the stones to be set, for the ritual vest and the breasplate; 28 the spices; and the oil for the light, for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense. 29 Thus every man and woman of the people of Isra’el whose heart impelled him to contribute to any of the work Adonai had ordered through Moshe brought it to Adonai as a voluntary offering.
(RY: ii, LY: iii) 30 Moshe said to the people of Isra’el, “See, Adonai has singled out B’tzal’el the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Y’hudah. 31 He has filled him with the Spirit of God — with wisdom, understanding and knowledge concerning every kind of artisanry. 32 He is a master of design in gold, silver, bronze, 33 cutting precious stones to be set, woodcarving and every other craft. 34 [Adonai] has also given him and Oholi’av the son of Achisamakh, of the tribe of Dan, the ability to teach others. 35 He has filled them with the skill needed for every kind of work, whether done by an artisan, a designer, an embroiderer using blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and fine linen, or a weaver — they have the skill for every kind of work and design.
36:1 “B’tzal’el and Oholi’av, along with all the craftsmen whom Adonai has endowed with the wisdom and skill necessary to carry out the work needed for the sanctuary, are to do exactly according to everything Adonai has ordered.”
2 Moshe summoned B’tzal’el, Oholi’av and every craftsman to whom Adonai had given wisdom, everyone whose heart stirred him, to come and take part in the work. 3 They received from Moshe all the offering which the people of Isra’el had brought for the work of building the sanctuary. But they still kept bringing voluntary offerings every morning, 4 until all the craftsmen doing the work for the sanctuary left the work they were involved with 5 to tell Moshe, “The people are bringing far more than is needed to do the work Adonai has ordered done.” 6 So Moshe gave an order which was proclaimed throughout the camp: “Neither men nor women are to make any further efforts for the sanctuary offering.” In this way, the people were restrained from making additional contributions. 7 For what they had already was not only sufficient for doing all the work, but too much!
(LY: iv) 8 All the skilled men among them who did the work made the tabernacle, using ten sheets of finely woven linen and of blue, purple and scarlet yarn. He made them with k’ruvim worked in that had been crafted by a skilled artisan. 9 Each sheet was forty-two feet long and six feet wide; all the sheets were the same size. 10 He joined five sheets one to another, and the other five sheets he joined one to another. 11 He made loops of blue on the edge of the outermost sheet in the first set and did the same on the edge of the outermost sheet in the second set. 12 He made fifty loops on the one sheet, and he made fifty loops on the edge of the sheet in the second set; the loops were opposite one another. 13 He made fifty fasteners of gold and coupled the sheets to each other with the fasteners, so that the tabernacle formed a single unit.
14 He made sheets of goat’s hair to be used as a tent covering the tabernacle; he made eleven sheets. 15 Each sheet was forty-five feet long and six feet wide; all eleven sheets were the same size. 16 He joined five sheets together and six sheets together. 17 He made fifty loops on the edge of the outermost sheet in the first set and fifty loops on the outermost sheet in the second set. 18 He made fifty fasteners of bronze to join the tent together, so that it would be a single unit.
19 He made a covering for the tent of tanned ram skins and an outer covering of fine leather.
(LY: v) 20 He made the upright planks of acacia-wood for the tabernacle. 21 Each plank was fifteen feet long and two-and-a-quarter feet wide. 22 There were two projections on each plank, and the planks were joined one to another. This is how he made all the planks for the tabernacle.
23 He made the planks for the tabernacle as follows: twenty planks for the south side, facing southward. 24 He made forty silver sockets under the twenty planks, two sockets under one plank for its two projections and two sockets under another plank for its two projections. 25 For the second side of the tabernacle, to the north, he made twenty planks 26 and their forty silver sockets, two sockets under one plank and two under another. 27 For the rear part of the tabernacle, toward the west, he made six planks. 28 For the corners of the tabernacle in the rear he made two planks, 29 double from the bottom all the way to the top but joined at a single ring. He did the same with both of them at the two corners. 30 Thus there were eight planks with their silver sockets, sixteen sockets, two sockets under each plank.
31 He made crossbars of acacia-wood, five for the planks of the one side of the tabernacle, 32 five crossbars for the planks of the other side of the tabernacle, and five crossbars for the planks at the side of the tabernacle at the rear toward the west. 33 He made the middle crossbar so that it extended from one end of the planks to the other, halfway up. 34 He overlaid the planks with gold, made gold rings for them through which the crossbars could pass and overlaid the crossbars with gold.
35 He made the curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely woven linen. He made them with k’ruvim worked in that had been crafted by a skilled artisan. 36 He made for it four posts of acacia-wood and overlaid them with gold, and gold hooks; and cast for them four silver sockets.
37 For the entrance to the tent he made a screen of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely woven linen, in colors, the work of a weaver; 38 with its five posts and their hooks. He overlaid their capitals and their attached rings for hanging with gold, while their five sockets were of bronze.
37:1 B’tzal’el made the ark of acacia-wood three-and-three-quarters feet long, two-and-a-quarter feet wide and two-and-a-quarter feet high. 2 He overlaid it with pure gold inside and outside and put a molding of gold for it around the top. 3 He cast four gold rings for it at its four feet, two rings on each side. 4 He made poles of acacia-wood and overlaid them with gold. 5 He put the carrying-poles for the ark in the rings on the sides of the ark.
6 He made a cover for the ark of pure gold, three-and-three-quarters feet long and two-and-a-quarter feet wide. 7 He made two k’ruvim of gold; he made them of hammered work for the two ends of the ark-cover — 8 one keruv for one end and one keruv for the other end; he made the k’ruvim of one piece with the ark-cover at its two ends. 9 The k’ruvim had their wings spread out above, so that their wings covered the ark; their faces were toward each other and toward the ark-cover.
10 He made the table of acacia-wood, three feet long, eighteen inches wide and eighteen inches high. 11 He overlaid it with pure gold and put a molding of gold around the top of it. 12 He made around it a rim a handbreadth wide and put a molding of gold around the rim. 13 He cast for it four gold rings and attached the rings to the four corners, near its four legs. 14 The rings to hold the carrying-poles for the table were placed close to the rim. 15 He made the carrying-poles for the table of acacia-wood and overlaid them with gold. 16 He made the utensils to be put on the table — its dishes, pans, bowls and pitchers — of pure gold.
(RY: iii, LY: vi) 17 He made the menorah of pure gold. He made it of hammered work; its base, shaft, cups, rings of outer leaves and flowers were a single unit. 18 There were six branches extending from its sides, three branches of the menorah on one side of it and three on the other. 19 On one branch were three cups shaped like almond blossoms, a ring of outer leaves and petals; likewise on the opposite branch three cups shaped like almond blossoms, a ring of outer leaves and petals; and similarly for all six branches extending from the menorah. 20 On the central shaft of the menorah were four cups shaped like almond blossoms, each with its ring of outer leaves and petals. 21 Where each pair of branches joined the central shaft was a ring of outer leaves of one piece with the pair of branches — thus for all six branches. 22 Their rings of outer leaves and their branches were of one piece with the shaft. Thus the whole menorah was one piece of hammered work made of pure gold. 23 He made its seven lamps, its tongs and its trays of pure gold. 24 The menorah and its utensils were made of sixty-six pounds of pure gold.
25 He made the altar on which to burn incense of acacia-wood, eighteen inches square and three feet high; its horns were a single unit. 26 He overlaid it with pure gold — its top, all around its sides and its horns; and he put around it a molding of gold. 27 He made two gold rings for it under its molding at the two corners on both sides, to hold the carrying-poles. 28 He made the poles of acacia-wood and overlaid them with gold.
29 He made the holy anointing oil and the pure incense of aromatic plant substances as would an expert perfume-maker.
38:1 (RY: iv, LY: vii) He made the altar for burnt offerings of acacia-wood, seven-and-a-half feet long and seven-and-a-half feet wide — it was square — and four-and-a-half feet high. 2 He made horns for it on its four corners, the horns were of one piece with it, and he overlaid it with bronze.
3 He made all the utensils for the altar — its pots, shovels, basins, meat-hooks and fire pans; all its utensils he made of bronze. 4 He made for the altar a grate of bronze netting, under its rim, reaching halfway up the altar. 5 He cast four rings for the four ends of the bronze grate to hold the poles. 6 He made the poles of acacia-wood and overlaid them with bronze. 7 He put the carrying-poles into the rings on the sides of the altar; he made it of planks and hollow inside.
8 He made the basin of bronze with its base of bronze from the mirrors of the women serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting.
9 He made the courtyard. On the south side, facing southward, the tapestries for the courtyard were made of finely woven linen, 150 feet long, 10 supported on twenty posts in twenty bronze sockets; the hooks on the posts and the attached rings for hanging were of silver. 11 On the north side they were 150 feet long, hung on twenty posts in twenty bronze sockets, with the hooks on the posts and their rings of silver. 12 On the west side were tapestries seventy-five feet long, hung on ten posts in ten sockets, with the hooks on the posts and their rings of silver. 13 On the east side were tapestries seventy-five feet long. 14 The tapestries for the one side [of the gateway] were twenty-two-and-a-half feet long, hung on three posts in three sockets; 15 likewise for the other side — on either side [of the gate] were tapestries twenty-two-and-a-half feet long on three posts in three sockets. 16 All the tapestries for the courtyard, all the way around, were of finely woven linen; 17 the sockets for the posts were of bronze; the hooks on the posts and their rings were of silver; the capitals of the posts were overlaid with silver; and all the posts of the courtyard were banded with silver.
(LY: Maftir) 18 The screen for the gateway to the courtyard was the work of a weaver in colors, of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely woven linen. Its length was thirty feet and its height seven-and-a-half feet all the way along, like the tapestries of the courtyard. 19 It had four posts in four bronze sockets, with silver hooks, capitals overlaid with silver and silver fasteners.
20 The tent pegs for the tabernacle and for the courtyard around it were of bronze.
Parshas Shekalim: Exodus 30:11 Adonai said to Moshe, 12 “When you take a census of the people of Isra’el and register them, each, upon registration, is to pay a ransom for his life to Adonai, to avoid any breakout of plague among them during the time of the census. 13 Everyone subject to the census is to pay as an offering to Adonai half a shekel [one-fifth of an ounce of silver]— by the standard of the sanctuary shekel (a shekel equals twenty gerahs). 14 Everyone over twenty years of age who is subject to the census is to give this offering to Adonai — 15 the rich is not to give more or the poor less than the half-shekel when giving Adonai’s offering to atone for your lives. 16 You are to take the atonement money from the people of Isra’el and use it for the service in the tent of meeting, so that it will be a reminder of the people of Isra’el before Adonai to atone for your lives.”
Shekalim: II Kings 11:17 Y’hoyada made a covenant between Adonai, the king and the people, that they would be Adonai’s people, and [a covenant] between the king and the people. 18 Then all the people of the land went to the house of Ba‘al and broke it down; they completely smashed its altars and images and killed Mattan the priest of Ba‘al in front of the altars.
Next, the cohen appointed officers over the house of Adonai. 19 He took the captains of hundreds, the Kari, the guards and all the people of the land; and they brought the king down from the house of Adonai, going by way of the gate of the guards to the royal palace. There he sat on the throne of the kings. 20 All the people of the land celebrated, and at last the city was quiet. That is how they killed ‘Atalyah with the sword at the royal palace.
12:1 (11:21) Y’ho’ash was seven years old when he began his reign. 2 (1) It was in the seventh year of Yehu that Y’ho’ash began to rule, and he ruled forty years in Yerushalayim. His mother’s name was Tzivyah, from Be’er-Sheva. 3 (2) Y’ho’ash did what was right from Adonai’s perspective throughout the lifetime of Y’hoyada the cohen, who instructed him. 4 (3) Nevertheless the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and presented offerings on the high places.
5 (4) Y’ho’ash said to the cohanim, “All the funds for sacred purposes which are brought to the house of Adonai — the half-shekel tax, the taxes on persons in a man’s household, and all the offerings anyone voluntarily brings to the house of Adonai — 6 (5) the cohanim are to receive from whoever personally makes contributions to them; and they are to use these funds to repair the damaged parts of the house, wherever damage is found. 7 (6) But twenty-three years into the reign of King Y’ho’ash, the cohanim had still not repaired the damaged places in the house. 8 (7) So King Y’ho’ash summoned Y’hoyada the cohen and the other cohanim and said to them, “Why aren’t you repairing the damaged places in the house? Therefore, you are no longer to take money from those who contribute it personally to you; you must hand it over to be used for repairing the damage in the house.” 9 (8) The cohanim agreed not to receive money from the people, and they would no longer be responsible for repairing the damage to the house.
10 (9) Then Y’hoyada the cohen took a chest, drilled a hole in its lid and set it by the altar, on the right, as one enters the house of Adonai; and the cohanim in charge of the entry put in it all the money brought into the house of Adonai. 11 (10) When they saw that there was a large amount of money in the chest, the king’s secretary and the cohen hagadol would come up, count the money found in the house of Adonai and put it in bags. 12 (11) Then they would give the weighed-out money to those supervising the work in the house of Adonai, who would use it to pay the carpenters and construction-workers doing the work in the house of Adonai, 13 (12) on masons, stone-workers, timber, worked stone and everything else needed for repairing the damaged places in the house of Adonai. 14 (13) But none of the money brought into the house of Adonai was used to make silver cups, snuffers, bowls, trumpets or other articles of gold or silver for the house of Adonai; 15 (14) because they gave the money to those doing the work, thus restricting its use to repairing the damage in the house of Adonai. 16 (15) Moreover, they did not require an accounting from the supervisors given the money to pay the workers, because they dealt honestly. 17 (16) Money from guilt offerings and sin offerings, however, was not brought into the house of Adonai; it went to the cohanim.
Today's Laws & Customs:• Parshat Shekalim
When the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem, each Jew contributed an annual half-shekel to the Temple. The 1st of Adar marked the beginning of the collection of the shekalim. In commemoration, the Torah reading of the Shabbat that falls on or before Adar 1 is supplemented with the verses (Exodus 30:11-16) that relate G-d's commandment to Moses regarding the first giving of the half-shekel.
"Parshat Shekalim" is the first of four special readings added during or immediately before the month of Adar (the other three being "Zachor", "Parah" and "Hachodesh")
Links: The Shekalim Reading w commentary; Partner; Charity: an Anthology
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayak'hel, 7th Portion Exodus 38:1-38:20 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 38
1And he made the altar for the burnt offerings of acacia wood, five cubits long and five cubits wide; [the altar was] square, and it [was] three cubits high. אוַיַּ֛עַשׂ אֶת־מִזְבַּ֥ח הָֽעֹלָ֖ה עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים חָמֵשׁ֩ אַמּ֨וֹת אָרְכּ֜וֹ וְחָמֵֽשׁ־אַמּ֤וֹת רָחְבּוֹ֙ רָב֔וּעַ וְשָׁל֥שׁ אַמּ֖וֹת קֹֽמָתֽוֹ:
2And he made its horns on its four corners; its horns were [all one piece] from it, and he overlaid it with copper. בוַיַּ֣עַשׂ קַרְנֹתָ֗יו עַ֚ל אַרְבַּ֣ע פִּנֹּתָ֔יו מִמֶּ֖נּוּ הָי֣וּ קַרְנֹתָ֑יו וַיְצַ֥ף אֹת֖וֹ נְחֽשֶׁת:
3And he made all the implements of the altar, the pots, and the shovels and the sprinkling basins and the flesh hooks and the [fire] pans; he made all its implements of copper. גוַיַּ֜עַשׂ אֶת־כָּל־כְּלֵ֣י הַמִּזְבֵּ֗חַ אֶת־הַסִּירֹ֤ת וְאֶת־הַיָּעִים֙ וְאֶת־הַמִּזְרָקֹ֔ת אֶת־הַמִּזְלָגֹ֖ת וְאֶת־הַמַּחְתֹּ֑ת כָּל־כֵּלָ֖יו עָשָׂ֥ה נְחֽשֶׁת:
4And he made for the altar a copper grating of netting work, beneath its ledge from below, until its middle. דוַיַּ֤עַשׂ לַמִּזְבֵּ֨חַ֙ מִכְבָּ֔ר מַֽעֲשֵׂ֖ה רֶ֣שֶׁת נְח֑שֶׁת תַּ֧חַת כַּרְכֻּבּ֛וֹ מִלְּמַ֖טָּה עַד־חֶצְיֽוֹ:
5And he cast four rings on the four ends of the copper grating, holders for the poles. הוַיִּצֹ֞ק אַרְבַּ֧ע טַבָּעֹ֛ת בְּאַרְבַּ֥ע הַקְּצָוֹ֖ת לְמִכְבַּ֣ר הַנְּח֑שֶׁת בָּתִּ֖ים לַבַּדִּֽים:
6And he made the poles of acacia wood, and he overlaid them with copper. ווַיַּ֥עַשׂ אֶת־הַבַּדִּ֖ים עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים וַיְצַ֥ף אֹתָ֖ם נְחֽשֶׁת:
7And he inserted the poles into the rings on the sides of the altar with which to carry it; he made it hollow, out of boards. זוַיָּבֵ֨א אֶת־הַבַּדִּ֜ים בַּטַּבָּעֹ֗ת עַ֚ל צַלְעֹ֣ת הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ לָשֵׂ֥את אֹת֖וֹ בָּהֶ֑ם נְב֥וּב לֻחֹ֖ת עָשָׂ֥ה אֹתֽוֹ:
hollow, out of boards: Heb. נְבוּב. נְבוּב means hollow, and similarly [we find in the verse]: “and its thickness was four fingers, hollow (נָבוּב) ” (Jer. 52:21). נבוב לחת: נבוב הוא חלול, וכן (ירמיה נב, כא) ועביו ארבע אצבעות נבוב:
hollow, out of boards: The boards of acacia wood were [placed] on all sides, and the hollow [part] was in the middle. נבוב לחת: הלוחות של עצי שטים לכל רוח והחלל באמצע:
8And he made the washstand of copper and its base of copper from the mirrors of the women who had set up the legions, who congregated at the entrance of the tent of meeting. חוַיַּ֗עַשׂ אֵ֚ת הַכִּיּ֣וֹר נְח֔שֶׁת וְאֵ֖ת כַּנּ֣וֹ נְח֑שֶׁת בְּמַרְאֹת֙ הַצֹּ֣בְאֹ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֣ר צָֽבְא֔וּ פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד:
from the mirrors of the women who had set up the legions: Heb. בְּמַרְאֹתהַצֹבְאֹת Israelite women owned mirrors, which they would look into when they adorned themselves. Even these [mirrors] they did not hold back from bringing as a contribution toward the Mishkan, but Moses rejected them because they were made for temptation [i.e., to inspire lustful thoughts]. The Holy One, blessed is He, said to him, “Accept [them], for these are more precious to Me than anything because through them the women set up many legions [i.e., through the children they gave birth to] in Egypt.” When their husbands were weary from back-breaking labor, they [the women] would go and bring them food and drink and give them to eat. Then they [the women] would take the mirrors and each one would see herself with her husband in the mirror, and she would seduce him with words, saying, “I am more beautiful than you.” And in this way they aroused their husbands desire and would copulate with them, conceiving and giving birth there, as it is said: “Under the apple tree I aroused you” (Song 8:5). This is [the meaning of] what is בְּמַרְאֹתהַצֹבְאֹת [lit., the mirrors of those who set up legions]. From these [the mirrors], the washstand was made, because its purpose was to make peace between a man and his wife. [How so?] By giving a drink from the water that was in it [the washstand] to [a woman] whose husband had warned her [not to stay in private with a certain man] and she secluded herself [with him anyway. The water would test her and either destroy her or prove her innocence. See Num. 5:11-31]. You should know that they were actually mirrors, because it is said: “The copper of the waving was seventy talents… From that he made…” (Exod. 38:29, 30), but the washstand and its base were not mentioned there [among the things produced from the seventy talents. Thus,] you have learned that the copper of the washstand was not of the copper of the waving. So did Rabbi Tanchuma expound [on the matter] (Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 9; Num. Rabbah 9:14). And so did Onkelos render: בְּמֶחְזְיַתנְשַׁיָא [“the mirrors of the women”], which is the Aramaic translation of מַרְאוֹת, mirrors in French. So we find in Isaiah (3:23) וְהַגִּלְיֹנִים (sic), which we render: וּמַחְזְיָתָא, and the mirrors. במראת הצובאת: בנות ישראל היו בידן מראות, שרואות בהן כשהן מתקשטות, ואף אותן לא עכבו מלהביא לנדבת המשכן, והיה מואס משה בהן, מפני שעשויים ליצר הרע, אמר לו הקב"ה קבל, כי אלו חביבין עלי מן הכל, שעל ידיהם העמידו הנשים צבאות רבות במצרים. כשהיו בעליהם יגעים בעבודת פרך, היו הולכות ומוליכות להם מאכל ומשתה ומאכילות אותם ונוטלות המראות, וכל אחת רואה עצמה עם בעלה במראה ומשדלתו בדברים, לומר אני נאה ממך, ומתוך כך מביאות לבעליהן לידי תאוה ונזקקות להם, ומתעברות ויולדות שם, שנאמר (שיר השירים ח ה) תחת התפוח עוררתיך, וזהו שנאמר במראות הצובאות. ונעשה הכיור מהם, שהוא לשום שלום בין איש לאשתו, להשקות ממים שבתוכו את שקנא לה בעלה ונסתרה, ותדע לך, שהן מראות ממש, שהרי נאמר (שמות לח כט ל), ונחשת התנופה שבעים ככר וגו', ויעש בה וגו', וכיור וכנו לא הוזכרו שם, למדת שלא היה נחשת של כיור מנחשת התנופה, כך דורש רבי תנחומא, וכן תרגם אונקלוס במחזית נשיא, והוא תרגום של מראות מירידויר"ש בלעז [מראות]. וכן מצינו בישעיה (ישעיה ג כג) והגליונים, מתרגמינן ומחזיתא:
who congregated: to bring their donation. אשר צבאו: להביא נדבתן:
9And he made the courtyard on the southern side [there were] hangings for the courtyard of twisted fine linen, one hundred cubits. טוַיַּ֖עַשׂ אֶת־הֶֽחָצֵ֑ר לִפְאַ֣ת | נֶ֣גֶב תֵּימָ֗נָה קַלְעֵ֤י הֶֽחָצֵר֙ שֵׁ֣שׁ מָשְׁזָ֔ר מֵאָ֖ה בָּֽאַמָּֽה:
10And their pillars [were] twenty and their sockets twenty of copper; the hooks of the pillars and their bands of silver. יעַמּֽוּדֵיהֶ֣ם עֶשְׂרִ֔ים וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֥ם עֶשְׂרִ֖ים נְח֑שֶׁת וָוֵ֧י הָֽעַמּוּדִ֛ים וַֽחֲשֻֽׁקֵיהֶ֖ם כָּֽסֶף:
11And for the northern end one hundred cubits, their pillars twenty, and their sockets twenty of copper; the hooks of the pillars and their bands of silver. יאוְלִפְאַ֤ת צָפוֹן֙ מֵאָ֣ה בָֽאַמָּ֔ה עַמּֽוּדֵיהֶ֣ם עֶשְׂרִ֔ים וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֥ם עֶשְׂרִ֖ים נְח֑שֶׁת וָוֵ֧י הָֽעַמּוּדִ֛ים וַֽחֲשֻֽׁקֵיהֶ֖ם כָּֽסֶף:
12And for the western side, hangings fifty cubits, their pillars ten and their sockets ten; the hooks of the pillars and their bands of silver. יבוְלִפְאַת־יָ֗ם קְלָעִים֙ חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים בָּֽאַמָּ֔ה עַמּֽוּדֵיהֶ֣ם עֲשָׂרָ֔ה וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם עֲשָׂרָ֑ה וָוֵ֧י הָֽעַמֻּדִ֛ים וַֽחֲשֽׁוּקֵיהֶ֖ם כָּֽסֶף:
13And for the eastern end, fifty cubits. יגוְלִפְאַ֛ת קֵ֥דְמָה מִזְרָ֖חָה חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים אַמָּֽה:
14The hangings on the shoulder [were] fifteen cubits, their pillars three and their sockets three. ידקְלָעִ֛ים חֲמֵֽשׁ־עֶשְׂרֵ֥ה אַמָּ֖ה אֶל־הַכָּתֵ֑ף עַמּֽוּדֵיהֶ֣ם שְׁלשָׁ֔ה וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם שְׁלשָֽׁה:
15And on the second shoulder on either side of the gate of the courtyard, [there were] hangings of fifteen cubits, their pillars three and their sockets three. טווְלַכָּתֵ֣ף הַשֵּׁנִ֗ית מִזֶּ֤ה וּמִזֶּה֙ לְשַׁ֣עַר הֶֽחָצֵ֔ר קְלָעִ֕ים חֲמֵ֥שׁ עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה אַמָּ֑ה עַמֻּֽדֵיהֶ֣ם שְׁלשָׁ֔ה וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם שְׁלשָֽׁה:
16All the hangings of the courtyard all around were of twisted fine linen. טזכָּל־קַלְעֵ֧י הֶֽחָצֵ֛ר סָבִ֖יב שֵׁ֥שׁ מָשְׁזָֽר:
17And the sockets for the pillars were copper; the hooks of the pillars and their bands were silver, and the overlay of their tops was silver, and they were banded with silver, all the pillars of the courtyard. יזוְהָֽאֲדָנִ֣ים לָֽעַמֻּדִים֘ נְח֒שֶׁת֒ וָוֵ֨י הָֽעַמּוּדִ֜ים וַֽחֲשֽׁוּקֵיהֶם֙ כֶּ֔סֶף וְצִפּ֥וּי רָֽאשֵׁיהֶ֖ם כָּ֑סֶף וְהֵם֙ מְחֻשָּׁקִ֣ים כֶּ֔סֶף כֹּ֖ל עַמֻּדֵ֥י הֶֽחָצֵֽר:
18And the screen of the gate of the courtyard was the work of an embroiderer, [made] of blue, purple, and crimson wool, and twisted fine linen, twenty cubits long, and its height in the width was five cubits, corresponding to the hangings of the courtyard. יחוּמָסַ֞ךְ שַׁ֤עַר הֶֽחָצֵר֙ מַֽעֲשֵׂ֣ה רֹקֵ֔ם תְּכֵ֧לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָ֛ן וְתוֹלַ֥עַת שָׁנִ֖י וְשֵׁ֣שׁ מָשְׁזָ֑ר וְעֶשְׂרִ֤ים אַמָּה֙ אֹ֔רֶךְ וְקוֹמָ֤ה בְרֹ֨חַב֙ חָמֵ֣שׁ אַמּ֔וֹת לְעֻמַּ֖ת קַלְעֵ֥י הֶֽחָצֵֽר:
corresponding to the hangings of the courtyard: [I.e.,] like the dimensions of the hangings of the courtyard. לעמת קלעי החצר: כמדת קלעי החצר:
19And their pillars [were] four and their sockets four, of copper, their hooks silver, and the overlay of their tops and their bands were silver. יטוְעַמֻּֽדֵיהֶם֙ אַרְבָּעָ֔ה וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֥ם אַרְבָּעָ֖ה נְח֑שֶׁת וָֽוֵיהֶ֣ם כֶּ֔סֶף וְצִפּ֧וּי רָֽאשֵׁיהֶ֛ם וַֽחֲשֻֽׁקֵיהֶ֖ם כָּֽסֶף:
20And all the pegs of the Mishkan and of the courtyard all around [were] copper. כוְכָל־הַיְתֵדֹ֞ת לַמִּשְׁכָּ֧ן וְלֶֽחָצֵ֛ר סָבִ֖יב נְחֽשֶׁת
---------------------
David composed this prominent psalm in alphabetical sequence-eight verses for each letter. Every verse contains one of the following words (referring to different aspects of Torah): Way; Torah; Testimony; Precept; Commandment; Statement (translated here as Word or Promise); Word; Judgement (or Laws); Righteousness; Statute. Replete with morals and prayers, this psalm should be recited daily, as a powerful preparation for the service of God. (In verses beginning with one of the letters of the mnemonic PeReTZ BeN DaMaH, the word "עדותיך" is pronounced "eidvotecha.")
1. Fortunate are those whose way is artless, who walk with the Torah of the Lord.
2. Fortunate are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with all their hearts.
3. Indeed, they have not done iniquity; they walk in His ways.
4. You have commanded Your precepts to be observed diligently.
5. My wish is that my ways be directed to keep Your statutes.
6. Then I will not be ashamed, when I behold all Your commandments.
7. I will give thanks to You with uprightness of heart, when I learn Your righteous judgments.
8. I will keep Your statutes; do not utterly forsake me
9. How can a young man keep his way pure? By observing Your word.
10. With all my heart I have sought You; do not let me stray from Your commandments.
11. I have harbored Your word in my heart, that I might not sin against You.
12. Blessed are You, O Lord; teach me Your statutes.
13. With my lips I have declared all the judgments of Your mouth.
14. I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, as I would with all riches.
15. I will speak of Your precepts, and gaze upon Your ways.
16. I will delight in Your statutes; I will not forget Your word.
17. Deal kindly with Your servant, that I may live to keep Your word.
18. Unveil my eyes, that I may behold wonders from Your Torah.
19. I am a sojourner on earth; do not hide Your commandments from me.
20. My soul is crushed with a longing for Your judgments every moment.
21. You have rebuked the accursed scoffers, those who stray from Your commandments.
22. Remove insult and contempt from me, for I have kept Your testimonies.
23. Though princes sat and spoke against me, Your servant speaks of Your statutes.
24. Indeed, Your testimonies are my delight; they are my counsellors.
25. My soul cleaves to the dust; revive me in accordance with Your word.
26. I have spoken of my ways, and You answered me; teach me Your statutes.
27. Make me understand the way of Your precepts, and I will speak of Your wonders.
28. My soul drips away out of grief; sustain me according to Your word.
29. Remove from me the way of falsehood, and graciously endow me with Your Torah.
30. I have chosen the way of faith; Your judgments have I laid before me.
31. I held fast to Your testimonies, O Lord; put me not to shame.
32. I will run on the path of Your commandments, for You will broaden my heart.
33. Teach me, O Lord, the way of Your statutes, and I will keep it to the last.
34. Grant me understanding and I will keep Your Torah; I will observe it with all my heart.
35. Direct me in the path of Your commandments, for that is my desire.
36. Incline my heart to Your testimonies, and not to greed.
37. Avert my eyes from seeing vanity; by Your ways give me life.
38. Fulfill for Your servant Your promise, which brings to the fear of You.
39. Remove my shame which I fear, for Your judgments are good.
40. Behold, I have longed for Your precepts; give me life in Your righteousness.
41. And let Your kindness come to fruition for me, O Lord, Your salvation as You promised.
42. I will offer a retort to those who taunt me, for I trust in Your word.
43. Do not at all remove the word of truth from my mouth, for I hope [to fulfill] Your judgments.
44. I will keep Your Torah continually, for ever and ever.
45. And I will walk in spacious paths, for I seek Your precepts.
46. I will speak of Your testimonies before kings, and I will not be ashamed.
47. And I will delight in Your commandments, which I love.
48. I will lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love, and I will speak of Your statutes.
49. Remember the word [promised] to Your servant, by which You gave me hope.
50. This is my comfort in my affliction, for Your word has given me life.
51. [Though] the wicked ridicule me severely, I have not strayed from Your Torah.
52. When I remember Your judgments of old, O Lord, I take comfort.
53. Trembling seized me because of the wicked, those who forsake Your Torah.
54. Your statutes have been my songs in the house of my wanderings.
55. At night I remembered Your Name, O Lord, and I kept Your Torah.
56. All this came to me because I kept Your precepts.
57. The Lord is my portion; I pledged to keep Your words.
58. I pleaded before You with all my heart: have compassion upon me according to Your word.
59. I contemplated my ways, and returned my feet to Your testimonies.
60. I hurried and did not delay to keep Your commandments.
61. Bands of wicked men plundered me, [but] I did not forget Your Torah.
62. At midnight, I rise to thank You for Your righteous judgments.
63. I am a friend to all who fear You, and to those who keep Your precepts.
64. Your kindness, O Lord, fills the earth; teach me Your statutes.
65. You have dealt goodness to Your servant, O Lord, in accord with Your promise.
66. Teach me the goodness and wisdom of the [Torah's] reasons, for I believe in Your commandments.
67. Before I afflicted myself, I would blunder; but now I observe Your word.
68. You are good and benevolent; teach me Your statutes.
69. The wicked have smeared me with lies, [when in truth] I keep Your precepts with all my heart.
70. Their hearts grew thick as fat; but as for me, Your Torah is my delight.
71. It is for my good that I was afflicted, so that I might learn Your statutes.
72. The Torah of Your mouth is better for me than thousands in gold and silver.
73. Your hands have made me and prepared me; grant me understanding, that I may learn Your commandments.
74. Those who fear You will see me and rejoice, because I hoped in Your word.
75. I know, O Lord, that Your judgments are just; righteously have You afflicted me.
76. Let Your kindness be my comfort, as You promised to Your servant.
77. Let Your mercies come upon me, that I may live, for Your Torah is my delight.
78. Let the scoffers be shamed, for they have maligned me with falsehood; but I will meditate upon Your precepts.
79. May those who fear You return to me, and those who know Your testimonies.
80. May my heart be perfect in Your statutes, so that I not be shamed.
81. My soul longs for Your salvation; I hope for Your word.
82. My eyes long for Your promise, saying, "When will You comfort me?”
83. Though I became [dried out] like a wineskin in smoke, I did not forget Your statutes.
84. How many are the days of Your servant? When will You execute judgment upon my pursuers?
85. The wicked have dug pits for me, in violation of Your Torah.
86. All Your commandments teach truth, [yet] they pursue me with lies, help me!
87. They nearly consumed me upon the earth, but I did not forsake Your precepts.
88. As befits Your kindness, grant me life, and I will keep the testimony of Your mouth.
89. Forever, O Lord, Your word stands firm in the heavens.
90. Your faithfulness persists for all generations; You established the earth, and it stands.
91. They stand ready today [to execute] Your judgments, for all are Your servants.
92. Had Your Torah not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction.
93. Never will I forget Your precepts, for through them You have sustained me.
94. I am Yours; save me, for I have sought Your precepts.
95. The wicked hope to destroy me, but I meditate upon Your testimonies.
96. To every goal I have seen a limit, but Your commandment is immensely broad.
• Shabbat, Adar I 25, 5776 · March 5, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 32
Up to now the Alter Rebbe has discussed the mitzvah of loving one’s fellow, on its own merits. He now proceeds to discuss the value of this mitzvah as the basis for all the commandments, thereby elucidating yet further the importance of “rejoicing with the joy of the soul alone.”
The Talmud relates that it was Hillel the Elder who authored the well-known statement that ahavat Yisrael (the love of one’s fellow Jew) is the basis of the entire Torah. For Hillel had been approached by a gentile who declared that he wished to convert to Judaism, but only if Hillel would teach him the entire Torah while he stood on one foot. Hillel replied, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is but commentary...
An obvious difficulty presents itself. All mitzvot fall into either of two categories: (a) bein adam lachaveiro — “between man and man,” and (b) bein adam laMakom — “between man and G‑d.”
It is readily understood how all the mitzvot of the former category may be motivated by one’s love of his fellow. But how can this love motivate one to fulfill any of the mitzvot belonging to the latter category — to observe the Sabbath, for example
The Alter Rebbe’s answer follows from his previously stated principle that the essence of ahavat Yisrael lies in giving priority to one’s soul rather than to his body. This indeed is the basis of the entire Torah — as the Alter Rebbe continues:
וזהו שאמר הלל הזקן על קיום מצוה זו: זהו כל התורה כולה, ואידך פירושא הוא וכו׳
This explains Hillel the Elder’s statement concerning the fulfillment of this mitzvah:1 “This is the entire Torah, the rest is but commentary.”
כי יסוד ושורש כל התורה הוא להגביה ולהעלות הנפש על הגוף מעלה מעלה עד עיקרא ושרשא דכל עלמין
For the basis and root purpose of the entire Torah is to elevate and exalt the soul high above the body, to [G‑d], the root and source of all worlds,
וגם להמשיך אור אין סוף ברוך הוא בכנסת ישראל, כמו שכתוב לקמן, דהיינו, במקור נשמות כל ישראל, למהוי אחד באחד דוקא
and also to draw down the infinite light of Ein Sof into the Community of Israel — as will be explained further, 2 meaning into the fountainhead of the souls of all Israel, so that “the One [G‑d] will reside within [Israel — but only insofar as they are] one,” i.e., united.
ולא כשיש פירוד חס ושלום בנשמות, דקודשא בריך הוא לא שריא באתר פגים
But this indwelling of the light of Ein Sof in the Community of Israel is impossible if there is disunity between the souls, G‑d forbid, for “G‑d does not dwell in an imperfect, fragmented, place.” 3
וכמו שכתוב: ברכנו אבינו כולנו כאחד באור פניך, וכמו שכתוב במקום אחר באריכות
So do we say in our prayers: 4 “Bless us, our Father, all as one with the light of Your Countenance,”indicating that “the light of G‑d’s Countenance” can be revealed only when we are united “all as one,” as explained elsewhere at length.
Since every Jew has a divine soul, and since the commandment to love one’s fellow is based on the essential unity of the souls, it follows that this commandment applies to every Jew without exception. In fact, however, we find the Talmudexhorting us to hate certain fellow Jews. How do we reconcile these apparently contradictory requirements
The Alter Rebbe proceeds to clarify:
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Shabbat 31a. |
| 2. | Ch. 41. |
| 3. | Cf. Zohar I, 216b. |
| 4. | Liturgy, final blessing in the Amidah. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Shabbat, Adar I 25, 5776 · March 5, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 7
Swearing in G‑d's Name
"And swear by His Name"—Deuteronomy 10:20.
When necessary to conclusively confirm or deny, we are commanded to swear solely in G‑d's Name. This constitutes an honor for, and exaltation of, G‑d.
It is forbidden to swear in the name of any other entity, such as an angel or constellation, unless the person's intention is only to swear in the name of the one and only Power who created these entities.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Shabbat, Adar I 25, 5776 · March 5, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 7
Swearing in G‑d's Name
"And swear by His Name"—Deuteronomy 10:20.
When necessary to conclusively confirm or deny, we are commanded to swear solely in G‑d's Name. This constitutes an honor for, and exaltation of, G‑d.
It is forbidden to swear in the name of any other entity, such as an angel or constellation, unless the person's intention is only to swear in the name of the one and only Power who created these entities.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Swearing in G‑d's Name
Positive Commandment 7
Translated by Berel Bell
The 7th mitzvah is that we are commanded to swear in G‑d's name whenever necessary — whether to insure something be done or to prevent ourselves from doing something. [We are required to swear in His name] because it exalts, glorifies, and magnifies G‑d.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "And swear in His name."
Our Sages said explicitly,2 "The Torah tells us 'swear in His name' and 'do not swear.' " This means that just as one may not make an unnecessary oath, which is a prohibition, one is commanded to make a necessary oath, which is a positive commandment.
Therefore, one may not swear in the name of any other creation, such as angels or stars. An exception is where the subject [i.e. G‑d] is obviously omitted, such as one who swears in "the truth of the sun," but means "the true G‑d of [i.e. Who created] the sun." It is in this manner that our nation swears in the name of Moshe — in order to gain honor through [mentioning] his name. It is as if the person uttered the oath, "in the G‑d of Moshe," or "in the One Who sent Moshe." However, when the person uttering the oath does not have this in mind, and swears in the name of a created being having in mind that this object is so true that he can swear on it, he has transgressed, and has "placed an object on the same level as G‑d." The Oral Tradition3 explains that "one who 'places an object on the same level as G‑d' is uprooted from the world."
This is the intention of the verse, "swear in His name," i.e. keep in mind that He alone is the True Existence that it is proper to swear by. In the first chapter of T'murah4 our Sages say, "what is the source that one may take an oath to fulfill a mitzvah? The verse, 'And swear in His name.' "
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 10:20.
2.Sh'vuos 35b.
3.Sukkah 45b.
4.3b.
---------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Beit Habechirah Beit Habechirah - Chapter 7 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Beit Habechirah - Chapter 7
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Beit Habechirah - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
There is a positive commandment to hold the Temple in awe,1 as [Leviticus 19:30] states: "And you shall revere my Sanctuary."2 Nevertheless, it is not the [physical building of] the Temple which must be held in awe, but rather, He who commanded that it be revered.3
Halacha 2
How is reverence for it manifest? A person should not enter the Temple Mount holding a staff,4 or with sandals on his feet,5 or wearing only underwear,6 with dust on his feet, or with money wrapped in his kerchief.7
Halacha 3
All who enter the Temple Mount12 should [face] the right side, walk around [in that direction],13 and leave on the left side.14 [This applies to everyone] except to one to whom [a grievous] event occurred. He would circle around towards the left side.15 Therefore, [those who met him] would ask him: "Why are you circling towards the left?"16
"Because I have become a mourner," [he would answer].
"May the One Who rests in this House comfort you," [they would reply].
[Or he might answer:] "Because I have been ostracized."17
[In which case, they would reply:] "May the One Who rests in this House bring about a change in your heart and thus, you will follow the words of your colleagues. Then, they will draw you near."18
Halacha 4
Anyone who has completed his service [in the Temple and desires] to leave, should not [turn around and] leave with his back to the Temple. Rather, he should walk backwards slightly19 and [then], walk slowly, and [turn] to his side20 until leaving the Temple Courtyard.21
Similarly, the members of the priestly watch,22 the representatives of the Jewish people,23 and the Levites [when they descend] from their platform,24should leave the Temple in this manner, similar to one who steps backwards after his prayers.25 All these [are expressions of] reverence for the Temple.
Halacha 5
A person should not act frivolously before the gate of Nicanor, the eastern gate of the Temple Courtyard,26 for it is positioned opposite the chamber of the Holy of Holies.
Everyone who enters the Temple Courtyard should walk in a dignified manner,27in the region where he is permitted to enter.28 He should conceive of himself as standing before God, as [I Kings 9:3] states: "My eyes and My heart will be there forever."
One should walk with awe, fear, and trembling,29 as [Psalms 55:15] states: "We would walk in the House of the Lord with fervor."30
Halacha 6
It is forbidden for anyone to sit in the Temple Courtyard,31 [for] sitting in the Temple Courtyard is prohibited32 except for the Kings of the House of David, as [II Samuel 7:18] states: "And King David entered and sat before the Lord."33
Halacha 7
Even though, the Temple is now in ruin because of our sins,36 a person must hold its [site] in awe, as one would regard it when it was standing.
[Therefore,] one should only enter a region which he is permitted to enter. He should not sit in [the area of] the Temple Courtyard, nor should he act frivolously when standing before [the place of] the eastern gate, as [implied byLeviticus 19:30]: "You shall observe My Sabbaths and you shall revere My Sanctuary." [Explaining the analogy between the two commands, the Sages comment:]37 "Just as the observance of the Sabbath [applies] for eternity, so too, the reverence for the Temple must be eternal. Even though it is in ruin, it remains holy."
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
At all times,40 a person may not defecate41 or sleep42 [with his body positioned] between the east and the west.43 It is superfluous to state that one should not place a toilet between the east and the west in any place [throughout the world,] for the Temple is in the west. Therefore, one should not defecate to the west nor to the east, for it is opposite the west. Rather, we should always defecate and sleep [with our bodies] to the north and south.44
Whoever urinates from Mt. Scopus inward to the city should not sit facing the Temple. Rather, [he should position himself] to the north or to the south, or have the Temple at his side.45
Halacha 10
A person may not make46 a house47 according to the Temple's design,48 a porch with the design of the Entrance Hall,49 a courtyard resembling the Temple Courtyard,50 a table according to the design of the Table for the Showbread, or a lamp in the design of the Menorah.51 However, one may make a lamp [resembling the Menorah] with five branches or with eight branches52 [even] with seven branches if it is not made of metal.53
Halacha 11
The [encampment of the Jewish people] in the desert[ was divided into] three areas:54
the camp of Israel, which was itself subdivided into four camps;55the camp of the Levites about which [Numbers 1:50] states: "They shall camp around the Sanctuary;"56and the camp of the Shechinah [which included the area] beginning at the entrance to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting inwards.57
Correspondingly, for [future] generations:
[The area] from the entrance to Jerusalem to the Temple Mount is comparable to the camp of Israel.58[The area] from the entrance to the Temple Mount until the entrance to the Temple Courtyard, the gate of Nicanor, is comparable to the camp of the Levites.59[The area] from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard inward, is comparable to the camp of the Shechinah.60
Halacha 12
The entire land of Eretz Yisrael is more sanctified than all other lands. How is its holiness expressed?
The Omer offering, the two loaves (offered on Shavuot), and the first fruits must be brought from its [territory] and cannot be brought from other lands.
Halacha 13
Eretz Yisrael has ten gradations of holiness, each higher than the preceding level. The cities which are surrounded by a wall are holier than the rest of the Land.
[How is this holiness expressed?]
Those afflicted by tzara'at are sent out of [these cities].A corpse cannot be buried inside them until the entire city or its seven chosen representatives agree.If a corpse has been taken outside a city, it should not be returned, even though all of the inhabitants are willing.
If the inhabitants of a city desire to disinter [a corpse] and remove it from the country, they may. The graves [of any individual] may be disinterred except for those of a king or of a prophet.
[The following rules apply in the case of a grave which was originally placed outside a city. Afterwards, the city grew in size to the point where] it surrounded the grave on all four sides, or merely on two sides which faced each other. If [originally,] there was more than 50 cubits between the grave and the city on either side, [the corpse] cannot be disinterred from the grave until every inhabitant of the city agrees. If a smaller distance [had originally been left,] it may be removed.
Halacha 14
Jerusalem is holier than other walled cities. We must eat the sacrifices of lesser sanctity and the second tithes within its walls.
[Because of this holiness], the following [restrictions] were enacted in regard to Jerusalem:
No corpse is left within [its boundaries] overnight.Human bones may not be transported within it.Homes cannot be rented within it.A resident alien may not be given the opportunity to settle in the city.No graves may remain within [its boundaries] except for the graves of the House of David and the grave of Chuldah, the prophetess, which were there from the days of the first prophets.We should not plant gardens or orchards within the city. It cannot be sowed or plowed [as a field], so that it will not smell foul. No trees may be maintained within it, except for a rose garden which was there from the days of the first prophets.We may not maintain a garbage dump there, because of creeping animals.We may not [build] balconies or protrusions extending into the public domain because of Tumat Ohel.We may not create furnaces within it because of the smoke.We may not raise chickens within it, because they may cause ritually pure articles [to become impure]. Similarly, a priest may not raise chickens throughout Eretz Yisrael, because they cause ritually pure articles [to become impure].A house in the city which is sold is never designated as the permanent property of the buyer.A house in the city is never designated as leprous.It cannot be judged as an "apostate city."An Eglah Arufah is never brought from it.
[The latter four statements apply] because [Jerusalem] was never divided among the tribes.
Halacha 15
The Temple Mount is holier than [the city of Jerusalem]. Zavim, Zavot, Niddot, and women who have given birth may not enter there. [However,] a corpse may be brought into the Temple Mount and one has contracted ritual impurity from a corpse may definitely enter there.
Halacha 16
The chayl is holier than the Temple Mount. Gentiles and those who contracted impurity through contact with a corpse or engaging in sexual relations with aNiddah may not enter there.
Halacha 17
The Women's Courtyard is holier than the chayl. A person who has immersed himself in a mikveh, but must wait until the sun sets to become ritually pure, may not enter there.
This prohibition was instituted by the Sages. According to Torah law, such a person may enter the camp of the Levites. [Similarly,] a person who contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse and who entered the Women's Courtyard, is not liable for a sin offering.
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
Halacha 20
Halacha 21
The Temple building is holier than [the area] between the Altar and the Entrance Hall. Only a priest who has sanctified his hands and feet may enter there.76
Halacha 22
The chamber of the Holy of Holies is holier than it. Only the High Priest may enter there, on Yom Kippur, while he is involved in the Temple service.77
Halacha 23
There was a place in the upper storey [of the Temple]78which was located directly opposite the Holy of Holies.79 It was entered only once in seven years, to [inspect it] and find out what is necessary for its repair.80
When builders [are required] to enter the Temple building to construct or repair it, or to remove an impure object,81 it is a mitzvah for the [craftsmen] who enter to be priests who do not possess any disqualifying physical deformities.82
If no [capable craftsmen meeting those criteria] can be found, priests with disqualifying deformities should enter.83
If none are found, Levites should enter.84
If none are found, Israelites should enter.
It is a mitzvah for [those who enter] to be ritually pure. If no [capable craftsman] who are ritually pure can be found, impure [craftsmen] may enter.85
[If there is a choice between a craftsman] who is impure and a priest with a disqualifying deformity, the priest with the deformity should enter, for [although the prohibitions against] ritual impurity are put aside in regard to matters which concern the entire people, [they are not relaxed completely].86
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot(Positive Commandment 21) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 254) consider this as one of the 613 mitzvot, incumbent on both men and women.
2.
As explained in Halachot 7-9, the fulfillment of this Mitzvah is not limited to the time when the Temple stood, but is applicable even at present.
3.
This clause is quoted from Yevamot 6a,b.Tosefot explain that such a clarification is necessary, lest the Jewish people worship the Temple per se, bowing down to the physical building or showing it other signs of reverence.
4.
The source for these statements is the Mishnah (Berachot 9:6). The Talmud accepts these as signs of reverence without even questioning the source for these practices.
5.
When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, He told him (Exodus 3:5): "Remove your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy." Similarly, on the Temple Mount, shoes had to be removed.
The Minchat Chinuch states that one may wear shoes on the Temple Mount if they are not made of leather.
6.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot, loc. cit.), the Rambam defines the word, afundaso, as "a garment which one will wear against his flesh to collect sweat, so that his sweat will not spoil his dress clothing."
7.
Tosafot, in Bava Metzia 26a, explain that only the public display of money is prohibited. One may carry money discreetly in his pockets.
8.
Berachot 62b explains that this concept may be inferred from the prohibition against wearing shoes. If wearing shoes which generally is not considered an act of disrespect is forbidden, then surely spitting is not allowed.
9.
The Har HaMoriah explains that this law was derived from Berachot 24b, which recommended this course of action to someone who has to spit in the midst of the Amidah prayers.
10.
Berachot, loc. cit., also considers this as a lack of respect.
11.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the latter concept is derived from Megillah 28b, where a similar statement is made in reference to a person's entering a synagogue.
12.
The Rambam's statements are based onMiddot 2:2. By quoting that mishnah here, he implies that these practices are also an expression of deference to the Temple (Rambam LeAm).
13.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes: "For example, one who enters through the gate of Shushan, [the eastern gate,] should not turn toward the Chuldah gates, [the southern gates,] but rather toward the Tadi gate, [the northern gate]."
14.
Tosafot Yom Tov explains that this does not necessarily mean that one would exit from the gate in the opposite direction. Rather, one would continue circling towards the right, even though it would be shorter to leave by turning towards the left.
15.
Tifferet Yisrael (Middot, loc. cit.) explains that this distinction was made so that all who see him would be aroused to pray for his welfare. See also Shabbat 67a.
16.
Magen Avraham 651:21 states that from these statements, it appears that only a person who suffered one of the fates listed would circle to the left. Generally, a left-handed person must give his left hand prominence, as others do the right. In this instance, however, he would circle to the right even though it is his weaker side.
17.
Under certain circumstances, the court would place a person who did not follow its directives under a ban of ostracism, restricting the business and social relations he could have with other Jews. See Hilchot Talmud Torah, chs. 6-7.
18.
The Mishnah (Middot, loc. cit.) relates that Rabbi Meir maintained that the people would answer: "May the One Who dwells in this House cause them to have a change of heart and accept you." Rabbi Yossi explained that such an expression makes it appear that the court was unfair in its judgment and suggests the phrase quoted by the Rambam.
19.
Yoma 53a explains that one must leave the Temple service facing in the same direction as when he entered.
20.
One need not walk backwards the entire way. However, it is also improper to turn one's back to the Temple.
21.
At which point he may walk in an ordinary manner.
22.
In order to allow the priests to serve in the Temple throughout the year in an organized manner, the prophets organized a rotation system, dividing the entire priestly family into 24 watches. Each watch would serve for a week and perform all the sacrificial functions required. The following week they would be replaced by a new watch according to the order of rotation. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, Chapter 4, Halachah 3.
23.
This refers to the Anshei Ma'amaad, who represented the entire Jewish people. InHilchot Klei HaMikdash, Chapter 6, Halachah 1, the Rambam describes their function as follows:
It is impossible for a person's offering to be sacrificed unless he is present. The communal offerings are the sacrifices of the entire Jewish people, [and hence, their presence should be required. Nevertheless,] since it is impossible for the entire Jewish people to be present in the Temple Courtyard while sacrifices are being offered, the first prophets established a practice of choosing worthy and God-fearing men....to serve as the representatives of all of Israel, and to be present at the sacrifices...They were divided into 24 watches.
See also Ta'anit 4:2.
24.
After accompanying the sacrifices with songs and music.
25.
After the conclusion of the Amidah prayer, one retreats backwards three steps as "a servant departs from his master's presence." (Yoma 53b. See also Hilchot Tefillah 5:10.
The commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 123:1) explain that since the prayers were instituted to replace the sacrifices, one should conclude his prayers in the same manner as the priests departed from their service.
26.
Rashi, commenting on Berachot 54a, explains that this also applies to someone standing outside the Temple Mount. See also Halachah 8.
27.
On this statement, the Ra'avad comments: "And not as common people conduct themselves."
28.
As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and in Chapter 5, Halachah 12, there were divisions in the Temple Courtyard for the priests and for the Israelites.
29.
The Targum Yonatan renders Leviticus 19:30: "And you shall revere My Sanctuary" as "Walk to My Sanctuary with fear." See also Ecclesiastics 4:17: "Guard your feet when you walk to the House of God."
30.
See Rashi, Avot 6:3.
31.
The Mishneh LiMelech states that this prohibition appears to have its source in the Torah itself.
Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 21, the Rambam includes this prohibition as one expression of reverence for the Temple.
32.
Rashi (Yoma 25a) explains that this prohibition is derived from Deuteronomy 18:5: "For the Lord has chosen him...to stand and to serve in the name of the Lord."
Tosafot (Yoma, ibid.) question whether the priests are permitted to sit in the courtyard when they partake of the sacrifices of the most holy order. From the Rambam's statements, it appears that he does not permit such leniency.
33.
The narrative in II Samuel relates that after sitting, David stated: "Who am I, O Lord, God, and what is my house that You have brought me this far." At the moment when he was granted this great honor, he displayed humility.
34.
Who sat.
35.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 17, and Chapter 6, Halachah 7.
36.
The Rambam uses the expressions "our sins," rather than "the sins of our ancestors," for all Israel, in every generation and every place, is one communal body.
The usage of the term "our" also implies a deeper concept. Our Sages declared: "Whoever does not witness the rebuilding of the Temple in his days must consider as if it was destroyed in his days."
The exile and the Temple's destruction were caused by the sins of the Jewish people. As soon as sin, the cause for the exile, is eradicated, the effect, the exile, will cease. Similarly, our Sages declared: "If Israel repents, she will immediately be redeemed."
37.
Midrash Tanchuma, Vayikra 6.
38.
As stated above, even when the Temple is destroyed, one may not act frivolously directly opposite the gate to the Courtyard. However, when the Temple was standing, that prohibition was extended, and included any place within sight of Jerusalem. (Meiri,Berachot 61b.)
39.
Berachot, loc. cit., explains that Mt. Scopus is the most distant point from which one can see the Temple site.
40.
I.e., even at present, when the Temple is destroyed. It must be noted that with slight emendations, the following laws are all quoted as Halachah by the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, sec. 3.
41.
Most of the Rabbis explain that there is no prohibition if the toilet is surrounded by a wall. However, the Rambam's phraseology does not imply such license. Therefore, some authorities recommend that, if possible, one should construct his home with the toilet facing the north or south.
42.
Most authorities follow the opinion of theTosafot (Berachot 5b) who explain that this prohibition only applies when sleeping with one's wife. However, Rav Yosef Caro emphasizes that according to the Rambam, the prohibition applies even when sleeping alone and strongly urges that this ruling be accepted.
43.
The Halachic authorities question whether the Rambam's intention is to stress the directions of east and west or the direction of the Temple itself. The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 9:5) states that, regardless of where one is located, one should not face the west, because "the Shechinah is in the west." On the other hand, certain authorities emphasize that according to the Babylonian Talmud (Berachot 61b), the location of Jerusalem is the determining factor.
44.
The Rabbis explain that although it is preferable to follow the Rambam's view, one may position his bed between the east and the west if there is no other alternative.
45.
Less severe restrictions are placed on urinating than on defecating. However, from the point where one can see the Temple site, Mt. Scopus, one should also control oneself in this regard.
46.
The Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 254), explains that this prohibition also stems from the command to revere the Sanctuary. A building or utensil that cannot be copied is obviously unique and special, and emphasis on its uniqueness will lead to reverence.
47.
Based on Avodah Zarah 43a, it would appear that the prohibition forbids constructing a building following the Temple's measurements exactly, but making a model in miniature would be permitted.
48.
The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 254) analyzes this prohibition in depth and raises a number of issues, including the following:
a) The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 43a) explains that the source for this prohibition is the command against making images, as the Torah commands (Exodus 20:20): "Do not make with Me gods of silver..." If so, on the surface, it would have been more appropriate for the Rambam to mention this concept within the laws of Avodah Zarah (worship of false gods) rather than in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah. Indeed, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:8, discuss these prohibitions in that context.b) As explained above, the structure of the Second Temple differed from the First and the dimensions of the Third Temple will not resemble those of the Second in their entirety. Thus, we must understand: Which structure are we forbidden to copy, that of the First or the Second Temple? Does the prohibition apply only when the Temple is standing, or does it apply to all three structures?
The Minchat Chinuch himself, tends towards the opinion that at present there is no prohibition to duplicate the previous structures of the Temple. Only in the Third Temple, may it be built speedily in our days, will this prohibition apply.
The text, Ma'asai LiMelech, explains that the Rambam's source for this prohibition is not the abovementioned Talmudic portion, but rather the obligation of awe and reverence referred to previously. It is not respectful to duplicate the Temple or its structures and use them for mundane purposes.
49.
Despite the fact that the Entrance Hall had walls on all four sides. Nevertheless, since its gate was large, 40 cubits high and 20 cubits wide, and open at all times, it resembled a porch.
50.
The Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) states that this prohibition does not extend beyond the Temple Courtyard. One may make a copy of the chayl, the rampart surrounding the Courtyard, or another similar structure.
51.
The Minchat Chinuch questions if these two utensils were mentioned only as examples, and the same prohibition applies to the other sacred utensils, or if the Rambam meant them exclusively. He concludes that we may not make a replica of any utensil whose exact dimensions are known to us.
He also emphasizes that the prohibition against making a replica of the Menorah applies even if the goblets, bulbs, and flowers are omitted, since the Menorah is acceptable without them when made from other metals (Chapter 3, Halachah 4).
52.
Indeed, it is customary to make Chanukah lamps in the shape of the Menorah.
53.
As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 18, the sacred utensils must be made of metal. Hence, there is no prohibition against making a replica from other substances.
54.
With these statements, the Rambam introduces the following twelve Halachot, which discuss various gradations of holiness. These statements are based on the Tosafta, Kelim 1:10 and Zevachim 116b.
55.
See Numbers 2:1-31, which describes the division of the twelve tribes into the camps of Judah, Reuven, Ephraim, and Dan.
56.
The Levites would dwell in a separate encampment, between the camp of Israel and the Courtyard of the Sanctuary. The particular encampment of each Levite family is described in Numbers, Chapter 3.
57.
No one was permitted to dwell in this region. People would enter only to participate in the service of the Sanctuary.
58.
The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 14.
59.
The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 15.
60.
The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 18.
61.
The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 16.
62.
The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 17.
63.
Parrallels to these divisions did not exist in the encampment in the desert. They were instituted when the First Temple was constructed.
64.
As mentioned in the commentary to Chapter 6, Halachah 4, the physical height of the different regions of the Temple Mount corresponded to the difference in spiritual level. There was a marked distinction between the Temple Courtyard and the preceding regions. Until this point, there was no Scriptural prohibition against entering when ritually impure. Correspondingly, the greatest rise in height between the different levels occurred at this point.
65.
In Hilchot Michusrei Kapporah (1:1), the Rambam writes:
There are four who are considered "lacking in purification:"
a) a zavah,
b) a woman who has just given birth,
c) a zav,
d) one afflicted with tzara'at.
Why are they called "lacking in purification?" Because in each of these cases, even though the individual has:
a) been purified from [the cause of] his impurity,
b) immersed [in a Mikveh,] and
c) waited until the day has passed,
he is still lacking. His purification process is not complete enough to entitle him to partake of the sacrifices until he brings the offering [required of] him.
66.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kelim1:8), the Rambam writes:
We have prevented a person from entering the Women's Courtyard though he has immersed himself in a mikveh, because he must wait until the sun sets to become ritually pure. However, we need not force away a person who has purified himself, but who has not brought the required sacrifices.[Why is there a distinction between the two?] Because the former is prohibited from eating Terumah, while the latter is permitted to partake of Terumah. The above is based on the principle mentioned above: "All those whose state of impurity is more severe will be banished in a more severe manner."
67.
Premature death by the hand of God.
68.
To clarify this distinction, the step between the two was a cubit high (See Chapter 6, Halachah 3) and marking posts were placed at either side.
69.
In connection with the peace-offerings,Leviticus 3:2 declares: "He shall lay his hands on the head of his offering." SeeHilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:6-13.
70.
A person who brings a sacrifice is not required to slaughter it. However, the slaughtering of a sacrifice need not be performed by a priest. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:1.
71.
In Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:14-15, the Rambam relates that a person offering a sacrifice is required to confess his sins while laying his hands on his sacrifice.
It must be noted that the source for this Halachah, Kelim 1:8, does not mention these confessional prayers. Note the commentary of the Har HaMoriah.
72.
With regard to the peace offerings, Leviticus 7:30-31 states: "With his own hands, he must bring the choice parts.... He shall wave the chest with the prescribed motions...." The waving of these offerings had to be performed by the person bringing the sacrifice himself. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:6-10.
73.
Leviticus 21:16-23 describes the various physical deformities which disqualify a priest from service in the Temple. The concluding verse of that passage reads: "He shall not come near the Parochet or approach the Altar." In Hilchot Biat HaMikdash (6:1) and inSefer HaMitzvot (neg. command 69), the Rambam explains that entering this area constitutes a violation of a Torah prohibition.
It must be noted that Nachmanides does not accept the Rambam' opinion and views this prohibition as Rabbinic in origin (Hasagot L'Sefer HaMitzvot).
74.
In Hilchot Biat HaMikdash (1:8), the Rambam writes:
A priest who has grown long hair is forbidden to enter [the area] beyond the Altar. If he transgresses [this command] and enters, he is liable to die by the hand of God, as a drunkard who participates in the Temple service, as it is said (Ezekiel 44:20-21): "All the priests shall not drink wine...nor shall they grow long hair."
75.
In Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 1:14, the Rambam explains that the Torah established an analogy between priests who have long hair and those whose priestly garments are torn, as Leviticus 10:6 states: "Do not let the hair of your heads grow long, nor rend your clothes." Therefore, the same prohibitions apply in both cases.
Kelim 1:9, which is the source for this Halachah, does not mention the prohibition against entering this region with torn garments. Also, it is significant to mention that in Hilchot Biat HaMikdash (1:1), the Rambam explains that a priest who has drunk wine is bound by the same prohibitions.
76.
The priests were obligated to sanctify their hands and feet before taking part in the Temple service. Thus, with this terminology, the Mishnah (Kelim, loc. cit., and the Rambam are referring to a priest involved in the Temple service.
The above statement can be compared withHilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:2, where the Rambam writes:
All the priests were warned not to enter the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies except when involved in the Temple service as [Leviticus 16:2] states: "Let him not enter the Sanctuary at all times, [to] the chamber of the Parochet." ["The Sanctuary"] refers to the Holy of Holies, "the chamber of the Parochet," to the entire Temple building.
77.
The above-mentioned verse in Leviticus continues: "In this manner, shall Aaron enter the Holy place" and proceeds to describe the details of the Yom Kippur service.
The High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies four times on Yom Kippur:
a) to bring the incense offering;b) to sprinkle the blood of the bull offered as atonement for himself;c) to sprinkle the blood of the goat sacrificed as atonement for the Jewish people;d) to remove the incense holder.
We recite a description of the High Priest's service on Yom Kippur in the Avodah portion of the Musaf prayers on Yom Kippur. See also Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim.
78.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.
79.
The Tosefta (Kelim 1:7) states:
Abba Saul declares: "[The status of] the upper storey of the Holy of Holies is more strict [than that of] the Holy of Holies. In regard to the Holy of Holies, the High Priest enters four times each year, on Yom Kippur...[In contrast,] they would only enter the upper storey of the Holy of Holies once in seven years..."They replied to him: "That is not considered a distinguishing quality."
Certain commentaries explain that the Rambam placed this Halachah here to indicate his acceptance of Abba Saul's view. Although there are other reasons to support this argument, it would appear that the Rambam subscribes to the other view mentioned in the Tosefta. In Halachah 13, he stated that there are ten levels of holiness and proceeded to enumerate them, concluding with the highest level in Halachah 22.
Furthermore, the opening phrase of each of those halachot, states: "... is holier than it..." and this halachah does not begin in that fashion.
80.
Pesachim 86a mentions three opinions concerning the frequency in which this chamber was entered: twice in seven years, once in fifty years, and once every seven years as quoted above. See Tosafot Yom Tov, Middot 4:5.
81.
Eruvin 104b and 105a explain that this impurity could be either the body of one of the eight crawling species (sheratzim) which convey ritual impurity, or alternatively, sacraments belonging to idol worship that were placed in the Temple. II Chronicles (Chapter 29) explains that the Temple was cleansed of idol worship by King Chezekiah, and that narrative serves as a source from which these laws were derived.
82.
As mentioned in Halachah 20, priests with disqualifying physical deformities were generally forbidden to proceed beyond the Priestly Courtyard.
83.
Eruvin, loc. cit., explains that the prohibition against these priests entering the more sanctified portions of the Temple implies the permission to enter should they be required for their craftmanship.
84.
The Levites are granted precedence, since they are allowed to proceed beyond the Israelites and to stand on the steps within the Priestly Courtyard.
85.
This leniency is allowed because the restrictions stemming from the laws of ritual purity do not apply to cases involving communal offerings for the entire Jewish people.
86.
This statement has stirred much controversy among the commentaries. See the Kessef Mishneh and the Mishneh LiMelech.
Although the Sages all agreed that the restrictions stemming from ritual impurity did not apply to cases involving communal offerings for the entire Jewish people, they debated (Yoma 6b) the nature of the leniency. Rav Nachman maintains that once a need arises, all the restrictions governing ritual impurity are relaxed entirely. Rav Sheshet argues that these restrictions are only "put aside" when there is no alternative, and wherever possible, the restrictions should be maintained. In Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:15, the Rambam rules according to Rav Sheshet's opinion.
In our mishnah, both a craftsman who is impure, and a priest with a disqualifying physical deformity, are prohibited from entering the Temple. The prohibition against entering while impure is more severe. Thus, Rav Sheshet's opinion would explain that although the restrictions against entering while impure are "put aside" to repair the Temple, total license is not granted. Hence, in this instance, since an alternative exists, it should be employed, and the priests with the deformities should be allowed to enter.
87.
Middot 4:5 mentions this practice only in regard to the Holy of Holies. However,Eruvin (loc. cit.) and the Tosefta (loc. cit.) apply the concept to the entire Temple building.
88.
Middot 4:5, and Rambam (Chapter 4, Halachah 13) explain that this practice was instituted "so that they would not satiate their eyes, [gazing at] the chamber of the Holy of Holies."
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 10, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 11, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 12 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Shvuot - Chapter 10
Audio: Listen | Download• Shvuot - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
If [both] or one of [the plaintiff's] witnesses was unacceptable, a relative,1 or even one of those disqualified from testifying by Rabbinic decree, the king - who is not fit to give testimony2 - was one of his witnesses, or the witnesses heard the testimony from other witnesses,3 [although] they both denied [knowing testimony] and took an oath, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut,4for had they testified, they would not have obligated [the defendant] to pay.5
Halacha 2
[If the plaintiff said:] "I am administering an oath to you that you come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so promised to give me 200 zuz, but he did not," and [the witnesses] denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. For even if they would testify concerning the matter, the defendant would not be liable financially because of his statement.6 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
If one charged [witnesses] with testifying that he was a priest or a Levite, or that he was not the son of a woman who underwent divorce or chalitzah,7 and [the witnesses] denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. For this is not a financial claim.
Halacha 4
[Similarly, although the witnesses] denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut [if the plaintiff] charges them with testifying [with regard to the following claims]:
his son inflicted a wound upon him,
so-and-so kindled his grainheap on the Sabbath,
so-and-so raped or seduced his virgin daughter who had been consecrated.
Halacha 5
If there was [only] one witness, he denied [knowledge of a financial claim], and an oath was administered to him, he is not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] the testimony of one witness does not obligate financial payment.10
Halacha 6
If one charged two witnesses with testifying that his wife committed adultery and they denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath to that effect, they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut. For if they had testified, they would have caused her to forfeit [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.11 Thus the one who charged them with testifying would be freed from liability. Hence the witnesses have denied a financial claim.
Halacha 7
If [a husband] charges witnesses - [either witnesses] who observed him administering a [sotah] warning12 or those who observed her entering into privacy with the man concerning whom she was warned - with testifying, and they denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath to that effect, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] even if they had testified, [the testimony] would not result in a financial claim only in the obligation to have her drink [the sotah] waters. Although this testimony [can] cause her to forfeit [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah if she does not drink [thesotah waters],13 a matter that could lead to a financial claim is not considered as a financial claim. For it is possible that she will drink the waters and not invalidate her ketubah.
Halacha 8
[A witness] is liable for a sh'vuat haedut [in the following situation. A man] issued a [sotah] warning to his wife. She entered into privacy [as observed by] two witnesses and then committed adultery, [as observed by] one witness after being warned and entering into privacy. If [the husband] administered an oath to this witness that he come and testify and he denied knowledge [of the matter], he is liable. Although he is only one witness, if he would have delivered this testimony, the woman would have been divorced without receiving [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah as explained in Hilchot Sotah.14
Halacha 9
Similarly, in any other instance where the testimony of one witness creates a financial obligation, if that witness denies knowledge [of the matter] and took an oath or an oath was administered to him in court supporting his denial, he is liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
Halacha 10
What is implied? Both the plaintiff and the defendant were reputed [to take false] oaths15and hence they are not given the opportunity to take oaths, [the plaintiff] administered an oath to one witness that he should come and testify that so-and-so owes him a maneh and he denied [knowledge of the matter], he is liable for a sh'vuat haedut. For were he to have testified, the defendant would have been required to pay because of his testimony, as will be explained in Hilchot To'en.16 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 11
When a woman administers an oath to one witness that he testify regarding the death of her husband and he denies [knowledge of the matter], he is liable for a sh'vuat haedut. Were he to have testified, she would have married and received [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.17
Halacha 12
When does the above apply? When she could have collected [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah from movable property.18 If, however, she could only have collected [this sum] by expropriating landed property, [the witness] is not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. This also applies if there are two witnesses, for when one administers an oath [to witnesses for claims] involving landed property, they are not liable [for a sh'vuat haedut,] as we explained.19
Halacha 13
When a person administers an oath to witnesses in a court and both denied [knowledge of the matter] at once, e.g., the second witness began his denial immediately after the statements of his colleague,20 they are both liable for ash'vuat haedut. Each one of them must bring a sin offering21 for his oath. If the first one denied [knowledge of the matter] and the second witness waited longer than the appointed time period and then denied [knowledge of the matter], the first [witness] is liable for a sh'vuat haedut and the second is exempt. For even if the second had acknowledged [the obligation], his testimony would not have obligated [the defendant] financially.22
Halacha 14
If one of the witnesses acknowledged [the claim] and the other denied [knowledge of it], the one who denied is liable whether he made his denial before [the other witness' acknowledgement] or afterwards.23 If they both denied [knowledge of the matter] at the same time and then one took the initiative and acknowledged [the matter] immediately thereafter,24 he is exempt and the witness that persists in his denial is liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
Halacha 15
When a person administered an oath to two pairs of witnesses who are both fit to deliver testimony and the first group denied [knowledge of the matter] and then the second pair denied knowledge of the matter, the first are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] they are relying on the testimony of the second pair and that testimony is sufficient to expropriate money. Hence the defendant would not be liable to make financial restitution because of the testimony of these [witnesses] who denied [knowledge of the matter] alone.25
If the second pair of witnesses were related to the plaintiff or to the defendant by marriage and their wives were on their deathbeds, the first pair of witnesses are also liable. For at the time the first pair made their denial, the second pair were not fit to give testimony even though they will soon be fit to give testimony when [the women] on their deathbeds die.26 If the second pair make their denial after their wives die, they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
Halacha 16
When a person charges his witnesses with testifying on his behalf and they deny [knowledge of the matter], he administers an oath and they answerAmen,27 he administers an oath four or five times and they respond to each oath outside the court, and when they come to the court, they acknowledge [the matter] and testify, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut, as we explained.28
If [when] they came to court, they persisted in their denial, they are liable for every one of the oaths [administered] outside the court.29
Halacha 17
When does the above30 apply? When they answered Amen. If, however, they did not answer Amen, but [merely] denied [knowledge of the matter] after every oath, they are not liable unless the oath is administered in court, as we explained.31 [The rationale is that] they did not utter the oath themselves or answer Amen.
Halacha 18
If [the plaintiff] administered an oath to [the witnesses] in court and they denied [knowledge of the matter] and then he administered an oath again four or five times and they deny [knowledge of the matter] each time, they are liable only once for a sh'vuat haedut.32 [This applies whether the oath was administered] in court or outside the court and even if they answered Amen or took the oath on their initiative time after time. [The rationale is that] after they denied [knowledge of the matter] in court, were they to retract and admit [knowledge of it], their testimony would no longer be effective.33
Halacha 19
It can thus be derived that all the oaths that they take after denying [knowledge of the matter] in court involve a denial of testimony that would not obligate [the defendant] financially. [In that instance, the witnesses] are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut, but they are liable for a sh'vuat bitui, as we explained.34
FOOTNOTES
1.
Relatives are also among these unacceptable as witnesses. See Hilchot Edut from ch. 9 onward for a detailed discussion of which witnesses are not acceptable.
2.
See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh toHilchot Melachim 3:7) which explains that since we are required to hold the king in awe, he is not allowed to testify. See alsoHilchot Edut 11:9.
3.
In which instance, their testimony would not be effective in cases of monetary law.
4.
It would seem that according to the Rambam, they are liable for a sh'vuat bitui. The same law applies with regard to the subsequent halachot. See Chapter 9, Halachah 14.
5.
Since their testimony is not effective, they are not liable.
6.
Making such a statement does not create a binding financial obligation (Sh'vuot 35a).
7.
I.e., were his mother to have undergone either divorce or chalitzah, he would be disqualified from the priesthood.
8.
The son is liable for execution for wounding his father (Hilchot Mamrim 5:5), the kindler is liable for desecrating the Sabbath, and the seducer or rapist for adultery.
9.
Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:13 explains that this concept is derived from the exegesis ofExodus 21:22.
10.
As stated in Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 1:2, one witness does not make one liable financially, but it does require an oath. There are times when this requirement will also lead to financial payment, for the defendant may chose to pay rather than to take the oath. Nevertheless, since the matter depends on the defendant's choice and not the witness's testimony, he is not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1. Nevertheless, as stated in Halachot 8-10 of this chapter, when the testimony of one witness does create an obligation for financial payment, the witness is liable for ash'vuat haedut.
11.
For a woman who commits adultery forfeits all the privileges granted her in her ketubah(ante nuptial agreement). See Hilchot Ishut24:6.
Generally, a person who is guilty of a transgression that involves capital punishment is not held liable for any financial responsibility. This case, however, is an exception, because the woman is not paying anything. It is just that her conduct voids her husband's obligation to pay her.
12.
In the era of the Temple, when a man suspected his wife of committing adultery, he would warn her not to enter into privacy with the suspect. Two witnesses had to observe that warning being given. If she in fact entered into privacy with him afterwards as verified by two witnesses, she would have to drink the special sotah waters. If she had indeed committed adultery, the water would cause internal hemorrhaging and she would die. If she was innocent, she would be granted blessings. Here we are speaking of the husband charging either of these two pairs of witnesses to testify.
13.
See Hilchot Sotah 2:1.
14.
Hilchot Sotah 1:14. Since there are witnesses who testify that she received a warning and that she entered into privacy with the man who was singled out, there is basis to assume that she committed adultery with him. Hence the testimony of one witness is sufficient.
15.
See Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 2:1 that mentions the individuals placed in this category: those who took false oaths in the past and those disqualified from testifying because of transgressions they performed.
16.
Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 2:4.
17.
See Hilchot Gerushin 12:15 which states that our Sages were lenient and accepted the testimony of only one witness in order to allow a woman to remarry. And since they allowed her to remarry on that basis, they also allowed her to collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.
18.
I.e., she took possession of movable property during the lifetime of her husband and after his death, sought to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from it. Otherwise, the moveable property left by her husband is not under lien to his obligations and she must expropriate his landed property. This applies according to the ruling of the Talmud. At present, however, our Rabbis have ordained that a person's movable property is on lien to all of his debts (Radbaz; see Hilchot Ishut 16:8).
19.
Chapter 9, Halachah 3. This ruling also applies to the situation described in Halachah 11.
20.
The term the Rambam uses has a specific halachic meaning: the time it takes to say: "Shalom Elecha Rabbi, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 17.
21.
More specifically, an adjustable guilt offering, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 12.
22.
Since the first witness denied knowledge of the matter, the testimony of the second witness will not be effective, for he is only one witness.
23.
He is liable, for had he testified, his testimony would have obligated the defendant.
24.
I.e., within the time period, toch k'dei dibbur, mentioned above. Even if he completed his own statements, his colleague spoke, and then he made the denial, he is exempt. See Chapter 2, Halachah 18.
25.
And hence they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut as stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 1.
26.
As long as a person is alive, he or she is considered as alive with regard to all the halachic ramifications of that state.
This and the following clause apply when the witnesses observed the testimony before they married the women in question. Otherwise, their testimony will not be acceptable, for they must be fit to testify both at the time they witness the testimony and at the time they deliver it in court.
27.
This constitutes acceptance of the oath. If, however, they remain silent outside the court, they are not considered to have accepted the oath.
28.
As stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 2, for witnesses to be liable, they must make their denial in court.
They are, however, liable for a sh'vuat bituifor every oath they accepted outside the court (Radbaz).
29.
For the same denial applies to all of them. Since they never denied the matter in court, each denial they make is still significant (in contrast to the instance mentioned in Halachah 18).
30.
That they are liable for an oath administered outside the court.
31.
Chapter 9, Halachot 1, 10.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this issue, stating that he has made a great error in interpreting the difference of opinion between Rabbi Meir and the Sages mentioned in Sh'vuot 30b. The Ra'avad maintains that their difference of opinion concerns only whether the denial of knowledge of the matter must be made in the presence of the court or outside of it. Both, however, agree that an oath is significant, whether made in the presence of the court or outside of it. The Rambam, however, maintains that since the witnesses did not take the oath themselves or respond to it, they are not liable. It is only when the oath is administered in court that the oath is significant even though the witnesses do not respond to it.
32.
They are, however, liable for a sh'vuat bituias stated in the following halachah.
33.
As stated in Hilchot Edut 3:5, once witnesses testify in court, they cannot change that testimony. Since their testimony would no longer have an effect, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
34.
Chapter 9, Halachah 14. This also applies to all the other instances in this chapter where it was stated that the witnesses were not liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
Shvuot - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
Just as there is a negative commandment forbidding an oath taken in vain and a false oath,1 so, too, there is a positive commandment for a person who is obligated to take an oath in court2 to take that oath in God's name,3 as [Deuteronomy 6:13] states: "And you shall take an oath in His name." This is a positive commandment.4 For taking an oath in His great and holy name is one of the paths of His service. It is a great measure of glorification and sanctification to take an oath in God's name.5
Halacha 2
It is forbidden to take an oath on any other matter together with God's name.6Whoever combines another matter with the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, in an oath will be uprooted from this world.7 For there is no one who is fit to give honor by taking an oath in his name except the [Absolute] One, blessed be He.
Halacha 3
It is permitted for a person to take an oath to fulfill a mitzvah in order to encourage himself [toward its performance]. Although he is under oath [to observe] it from Mount Sinai [onward],8 [he may take an oath, as implied byPsalms 119:106]: "I took an oath and I will uphold it - to observe Your righteous judgments."9
Halacha 4
The oath which the judges administer to individuals who are obligated to take an oath is called: "The oath of the judges." [This applies whether the person] is liable for an oath according to Scriptural Law or according to Rabbinic Law.
Halacha 5
There are three types of oaths for which one is obligated according to Scriptural Law:
a) A claim involving movable property10 was lodged against a person by a colleague. He admitted liability for a portion and denied liability for a portion.11
b) [The defendant] denied liability for all the movable property, but one witness testifies against him, contradicting his statements.12
These two oaths come in response to a definite claim and a denial.13
c) When a watchman claims that the article entrusted to him was lost, stolen, died, or the like, he is required to take an oath, because of the doubt, for the owner of the entrusted article does not know if the watchman is making a true claim or not.14 This oath is of Scriptural origin, as [Exodus 22:10] states: "The oath of God will be between them." 15
Halacha 6
All oaths which the judges require aside from these three are of Rabbinic origin. They are also called "the oath of the judges." Within these oaths of Rabbinic origin, there are also two categories:
a) Oaths administered because of a definite claim and denial: e.g., the oath [taken by] a hired worker,16 [the oath taken by] one who impugns his promissory note,17 and the like.18
b) Oaths taken when [the plaintiff] has a claim of a doubtful nature, e.g., the oaths taken by partners, sharecroppers, and the like.19
In the laws of financial matters, the obligation of all these types of oaths and the associated laws will be explained.
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
An oath of the judges, whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin, whether stemming from a definite or an indefinite claim is [administered in] the following [manner]: The person taking the oath holds a Torah scroll22 in his arm.23 He must stand24 and take the oath or recite a curse using God's name or one of the terms used to describe Him. [Either] he pronounces the oath himself or it is pronounced by the judges. My masters25 ruled that an oath of the judges is administered only in Lashon HaKodesh.26
Halacha 9
What is meant by an oath pronounced by [the defendant] himself? For example, he says: "I am taking an oath by God, the Lord of Israel...",27 "...by He whose name is graciousness...", "...by He whose name is mercy that I am not liable to this person at all." Similarly, if he says: "May one28 be cursed to God..." or "...cursed to He whose name is graciousness if I owes anything to that person."
Halacha 10
What is meant by an oath pronounced by the judges? For example, they tell him: We are administering an oath to you by God, the Lord of Israel...", "...by He whose name is graciousness that you are not liable to this person at all" and [the defendant] answers Amen.29 Or they say: "May so-and-so be cursed to God..." or "...cursed to He whose name is graciousness if he owes money to that person and does not acknowledge the debt" and [the defendant] answers Amen. This is the oath of the judges.
Halacha 11
When the judges administer an oath without the defendant holding a [sacred] article in his hand, they have made an error. He must take the oath again while holding a Torah scroll in his hand.30 If he was holding tefillin when they administered the oath to him, he is not required to take the oath again. For he held [an article equivalent to] the Torah in his hand,31 for they are like a scroll. If they administered the oath while [the defendant] was sitting, he does not have to take the oath again.
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
There is no difference between a sh'vuat heset and an oath of the judges except that [the latter] must be taken [while] holding a sacred article and a person who takes a sh'vuat heset does not hold a Torah scroll. Instead, an oath is administered to him by God's name or using one of the terms used to describe Him,34 either an oath or a curse which he utters or which the court states, as is the practice with regard to the oath of the judges. It has already become the universal custom for the synagogue attendant or another person to hold a Torah scroll while a sh'vuat heset is being administered to cast fear [into the heart of the defendant].
Halacha 14
The judges administer the oath to the person taking it in any language that he understands.35 The Geonim ruled in this manner. My masters, however, ruled that an oath should be administered only in Lashon HaKodesh. This ruling should not be relied upon.36
Although it has become customary to administer oaths in Lashon HaKodesh, the person taking the oath should be familiarized with the matter until he understands the wording of the oath. [The rationale is that] the oath of the judges is a sh'vuat hapikadon itself.37 People have even adopted the custom of administering a sh'vuat heset in Lashon HaKodesh.38
Halacha 15
Everyone who is obligated to take an oath of the judges that comes about because of a definite claim and denial,39 whether it is of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin, is subjected to a admonition, as will be explained.40 Everyone who is obligated to take an oath, whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin, because of a doubtful claim need not be subjected to an admonition.41
Halacha 16
How is an admonition administered to the person taking the oath? We tell him: Know that the entire world trembled at the time the Holy One, blessed be He, told Moses [Exodus 20:7]: "Do not take the name of God, your Lord, in vain." For with regard to all the transgressions in the Torah, as [Exodus 34:7] states: "And He shall cleanse." And with regard to [a false oath,] as [Exodus 20:7] states: "[God] will not cleanse one who takes His name in vain."42
With regard to all the transgressions in the Torah, retribution is exacted from him [alone], but with regard to [a false oath], retribution is exacted from him and from his family who conceal the matter for him.43 Moreover, this causes retribution to be exacted from "the enemies of the Jews,"44 for the entire Jewish people are responsible for each other,45 for [Hoshea 4:2-3] states: "Swearing, denying, murdering.... Therefore the land will mourn and all who inhabit it will be forlorn."
With regard to all the transgressions in the Torah, [retribution] is suspended for two or three generations if he possesses merit, but with regard to [a false oath], retribution is exacted immediately, as [Zechariah 5:4] states: 'I have let loose [the curse],' declares God, the Lord of Hosts, 'It will come into the house of the thief and the house of he who took an oath in My name falsely.'
"I have let loose" implies immediately. "It will come into the house of the thief" - this refers to deceiving people, i.e. one who does not have money owed to him by a colleague and yet lodges a claim against him to require him to take an oath. "He who took an oath in My name falsely" - this should be interpreted literally. [The verse continues:] "It shall destroy it, its wood, and its stones." Entities that cannot be destroyed by fire and water will be destroyed by a false oath.
Halacha 17
The concept [conveyed] by this admonition is told [to the person taking the oath] entirely in a language that they understand, so that they will understand the matter and the sinner will repent and correct [is conduct].
Halacha 18
If [the defendant] says: "I will take the oath," and [the plaintiff] persists in the claim, the people there say to each other: "Turn away from the tents of these wicked men."48
[The court] tell [the defendant]: "We are not administering the oath to you according to your understanding, but according to our understanding and the understanding of the court."49
Halacha 19
Halacha 20
It is a clear and that anyone who takes an oath of the judges or a sh'vuat heset falsely, is liable for taking a [false] sh'vuat hapikadon, the details of which have already been explained.52 Even though he willfully [took the false oath], he does not receive lashes. [Instead,] he is obligated to pay what he owes plus an additional fifth. [The fifth] is one fourth of the principal, so that the principal and the fifth are equal to five.53 And he must bring a guilt offering if the oath was taken in court, as we explained.54
FOOTNOTES
1.
See Chapter 1, Halachot 7-8.
2.
See Halachah 5 which mentions the oaths required by the court.
3.
See Halachot 8-9.
4.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 7) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 435) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Note the Hasagot of the Ramban to Sefer HaMitzvot and the Ra'avad' objections at the beginning of theMishneh Torah which differ and argue that this should not be considered as a positive commandment. See also Hilchot Nedarim1:4 which states that there is a positive Scriptural commandment for a person to carry out an oath or vow he took.
5.
For this reveals the reverence and awe in which God's name is held.
6.
For that implies drawing a certain equation between that other entity and God.
7.
See the Radbaz who explains why the expression: "As God lives and by the life of your soul" (II Kings 2:4, 4:30) is not a contradiction of this principle.
8.
When the Jewish people were compelled by God to accept the Torah by oath. One might think that we would apply the principle (see Chapter 5, Halachah 11, and notes) that one oath does not take effect when another is already in effect. Hence, taking the oath would be taking God's name in vain. This is not so as the Rambam continues to explain.
9.
Thus if David - a paradigm of pious conduct - could take an oath for this purpose, so can others.
10.
In contrast to landed property, servants, and promissory notes (Hilchot To'en V'Nitan5:1).
11.
This situation is referred to by our Sages with the term modeh bimiktzat: "one who admits a portion." See Hilchot To'en V'Nitan1:1.
12.
"Whenever [the testimony of] two [witnesses] would require him to make financial restitution, [the testimony of] one [witness] obligates him to take an oath" (Ibid.).
13.
If, however, the plaintiff suspects the defendant is liable, but is unsure of his claim, he cannot require the defendant to take an oath (ibid.:7). Similarly, if the defendant is unsure whether he is liable or not, he may not take a Scriptural oath to absolve himself of responsibility.
The Rambam's statements here are significant in another context. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if a plaintiff who makes a claim that is supported by the testimony of one witness must be certain of the veracity of the claim himself or whether he can be doubtful, but rely on the testimony of the witness. The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to Hilchot Gezelah4:17 and the Kessef Mishneh (in his gloss toHilchot To'en V'Nitan 3:6) maintain that the Rambam follows the latter view. Here, however, it appears otherwise.
14.
See ibid.:2; Hilchot Sechirut 1:2; 2:8.
15.
The Ma'aseh Rokeach states that the wordShema שמע serves as an acronym for the names of these three oaths: Shomrim, Modeh bimitzat eid echad, שומרים, מודה במקצת, עד אחד
16.
See Hilchot Sechirut 11:6 which explains that when an employer denies owing a worker his wage, the worker may take an oath and collect his due.
17.
See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 14:1.
18.
For example, Sh'vuot 44b mentions several other instances when such an oath is required of a defendant: a person who claims that property was stolen from him and their is substantial circumstantial evidence corroborating his claim (seeHilchot Gezeilah 4:2), a storekeeper who disputes a client's claims with regard to payment (Hilchot Mechirah 20:8).
19.
See Hilchot Shluchim V'Shutafim 9:1.
20.
I.e., in contrast to the oaths mentioned in the previous halachah which were established by the Sages of the Mishnah. Sh'vuot 40b states that this oath was ordained by Rav Nachman, one of the leading Sages in the midst of the era of the Gemara. See Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 1:3.
A defendant is required to take this oath whenever he denies entirely a claim registered against him by a plaintiff.
21.
The Seifer Meirat Einayim 75:16 interprets the term heset as meaning "placed upon," i.e., it is an oath which our Sages placed upon a person. Others interpret it as relating to the root meisit, meaning "entice." The purpose of this oath is to entice a defendant to admit an obligation.
22.
This will impress him with the seriousness of the matter.
23.
The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 87:15) quotes opinions stating that the defendant should not hold the scroll. Instead, it should be placed before him and he should place his hand on it.
24.
I.e., he may not sit. Note, however, Halachot 11-12.
25.
This term is used to refer to Rav Yosef Migash, the Rambam's teacher, and Rav Yitzchak Alfasi, Rav Yosef's teacher.
26.
"The Holy Tongue," i.e., the Hebrew of the Tanach and the Mishnah. With regard to this ruling, see Halachah 14.
27.
The Hagahot Maimoniot quote Rashi (Sh'vuot 38b) who states that it has become customary not to administer oaths using God's name, for the awesomeness of the punishment for taking His name in vain would lay waste to the world. This principle is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 87:19).
28.
He is referring to himself.
29.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
30.
For this is equivalent to a judge making an error in a law explicitly stated in the Mishnah, in which instance the law is that the judgment is revoked (Sh'vuot 38b).
The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 87:15) quoutes an opinion that states that a Torah scroll is not required. Any sacred text with God's name is sufficient. Similarly, in one of the Rambam's responsum, he writes that aChumash is sufficient.
31.
For Exodus 12:9 says of tefillin: "So that the Torah of God will be in your mouth."
32.
This is a token of respect for him. SeeSh'vuot 38b.
The Siftei Cohen 87:41 quotes Rav HaiGaon who states that the term Torah scholar has been given many definitions, but that employed today is "anyone who puts ontefillin." On this basis, the Siftei Cohen writes that in the present day, there is no difference between Torah scholars and ordinary individuals.
33.
See Halachah 8.
34.
The Ra'avad states that it is not customary to administer a sh'vuat hesit with God's name in the present age, for we fear that people will take false oaths. Hence to reduce the punishment that might be incurred, God's name is not mentioned. To compensate for that omission, the court should employ various techniques to impress the person taking the oath with the seriousness of the matter. As the Radbaz states, his argument with the Rambam appears to be practical, but not theoretical. In the era of the Talmud, the Rambam's ruling would be followed.
Other authorities do not accept the Rambam's view even theoretically. They maintain that even in the era of the Talmud, a sh'vuat heset was not administered with God's name. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 87:18) mentions the Rambam's view, but follows that of the other authorities.
35.
I.e., even languages other than Lashon HaKodesh.
36.
For the Sh'vuot 38b, 39a and the Tosefta, Sotah 7:1 states that an oath can be administered in any language.
37.
And a person is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon only if he understands what he is saying, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 7.
38.
See Halachah 20.
39.
See Halachah 6.
40.
In the following two halachot.
41.
For the prooftext from Zechariah cited in the admonition is speaking about a definite claim. See also Halachah 19.
42.
See also Chapter 12, Halachah 1; Hilchot Teshuvah 1:2.
43.
Sh'vuot 39a derives this concept from Ecclesiates 5:5 which states: "Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin." "Your mouth" refers to taking a false oath and "your flesh" to one's family."
44.
Here the intent is the Jewish people themselves. Our Sages (see Sukkah 29a) use this expression as a euphemism.
45.
The Sefer Meirat Einayim 87:58 notes that this concept applies, not only with regard to a false oath, but to all the transgressions mentioned in the Torah. Nevertheless, there is a stringent aspect that applies with regard to a false oath, for with regard to other transgressions, the interrelation affects one when he has the opportunity to rebuke the transgressor and with regard to a false oath, it applies even when one does not have such an opportunity.
46.
The Sefer Meirat Einayim 87:60 interprets this as meaning that he is sent away from the court. For once he leaves the court, he cannot change his mind and decide to take the oath.
47.
Once the plaintiff has retracted his request for the defendant to take the oath, he is considered to have waived his claim and can no longer prosecute it again. See Hilchot Mechirah 5:1.
48.
This malediction refers to the plaintiff as well. For as Sh'vuot 39b states, the negative repercussions of taking the oath affect them both. The Radbaz explains that the plaintiff shares in the responsibility, for he should have been more careful and not entered into a business arrangement without having the matter observed by witnesses. And if the oath is true, he should have been more careful with his accounts, so as not to require God's name to have been employed for such matters.
The Sefer Meirat Einayim 87:61 explains that when the plaintiff sees that the defendant is prepared to take a false oath, he should have offered a compromise rather than continue to pressure him and thus cause God's name to be taken in vain.
49.
As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 15-16, this measure is employed so that later, the defendant will not try to absolve himself saying: "I had this-and-this intent in my heart when taking the oath." Since the oath is being administered to him according to the understanding of others, it is their interpretation that is upheld. See Sh'vuot 29a and Nedarim 25a which speak of a defendant employing deception while taking an oath.
50.
Although he does not dispute the Rambam's ruling, the Radbaz questions why an admonition is not administered in these instances. The Meiri and the Sefer Meirat Einayim 87:61 explain that when the plaintiff is making a definite claim, it is one person's word against the other's. Thus there is reason to think that the defendant's oath is false and to prevent him from doing so, we issue this warning. When, however, an oath is taken because of a doubt, the defendant is not being challenged. Hence, there is less reason to suspect that he would take a false oath.
51.
For in all situations, it is preferable that an oath not be taken. For this reason, courts have adopted the policy of trying to negotiate compromises in all litigation (Radbaz).
52.
See Chapters 7 and 8.
53.
I.e., it is one fifth of the new total and not one fifth of the original principal.
54.
Chapter 1, Halachah 9.
The Ra'avad writes that at present since God's name is not mentioned in the oath administered by the judges, there is no liability for a guilt offering or to pay the additional fifth.
Shvuot - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
Although a person who took a false oath or an oath in vain is given lashes,1and similarly, one who takes a [false] sh'vuat haedut or sh'vuat hapikadonbrings a sacrifice,2 they do not receive complete atonement for the sin of taking a [false] oath, as [Exodus 20:7] states: "God will not cleanse [one who takes His name in vain]." He will not be absolved from the judgment of heaven until he receives retribution for his desecration of [His] great name, as [Leviticus 19:12] states: "[You shall not take a false oath in My name, for] you will desecrate the name of Your God." Therefore a person must be very careful with regard to this sin, more than with regard all other sins.3
Halacha 2
This sin is considered one of the severe transgressions, as explained inHilchot Teshuvah.4 Although it does not involve kerait or execution by the court, it involves the desecration of [God's] holy name which is more severe than all other sins.
Halacha 3
When a person takes an oath by the heaven and earth, by the sun, or the like, this is not an oath,5 even though his intent is He who created them. Similarly, one who takes an oath by one of the prophets or by one of the texts of the Holy Scriptures, this is not an oath, even if his intent is He who sent the prophet or gave the commandments in this text.6
Although these are not oaths, those who take them are subjected to a severe warning and we teach the people not to act frivolously in this manner. [Indeed,] we make it look as if these are oaths and give them an opening [to ask for their absolution] and absolve them.7
Halacha 4
When does the above apply? With regard to other holy texts. [Different rules apply,] however, when one takes an oath by the Torah.8 If one takes an oath by what is written in [the Torah],9 his intent is by the names of God [it contains].10If one takes an oath by it without any further definition, his intent is on the parchment [of the scroll] and it is not considered as an oath.11 If he took [the scroll] in his hand and took an oath by it,12 it is as if he took an oath by what was written in it and [the matter] is forbidden.13
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply when] a person takes an oath by the Torah without any further definition. If he is a Torah scholar, he does not need to be released by a sage.14 If he is a common person,15 it is necessary that he asked to be released by a sage so that he will not treat oaths frivolously.16
Halacha 6
When a servant takes an oath, his master does not have to compel him [to break the oath to nullify it].17 Instead, his [status] is the same after taking the oath as it was before he did so.18 [The rationale is that] his body is not his property for that the oath he takes will be effective. With regard to oaths, [Numbers 30:3] states: "To forbid something upon one's soul." [Implied is that the verse applies to] someone whose soul is his property. It excludes a servant who is someone else's property. Thus [a servant's taking an oath] is comparable to taking an oath regarding someone else's property.19
Halacha 7
[Even though] minors20 understand the significance of an oath take an oath, they are not obligated [to maintain their commitment].21 [Nevertheless,] we compel them to uphold their word to train them [in the observance of mitzvot] and to impress them with fear so that they do not act frivolously with regard to oaths. If the matter concerning which they took the oath is such that a minor could not maintain without suffering injury,22 e.g., he took an oath that he would fast or that he would not eat meat for a long time, his father or his teacher should beat him and rebuke him, and create the appearance that his oath [took effect, but] was released, so that he will not be habituated to treat oaths frivolously.
Halacha 8
We must be very careful with children and train them to speak words of truth without [resorting to] an oath so that they will not be habituate to swear at all times like gentiles do. This matter is tantamount to an obligation for their parents and for those who teach young children.
Halacha 9
When one hears a colleague mention God's name in vain, take a false oath in his presence, or recite a blessing that is unnecessary in which instance [his colleague] transgresses23 because he takes God's name in vain,24 as we explained in Hilchot Berachot,25 he must place him under a ban of ostracism.26If he does not, he himself should be ostracized. The ban should, however, be lifted immediately so that it will not present an obstacle to others, for they will not know that he was placed under a ban. And if one would say, "Make it known that he [is under ostracism]," the entire populace will be under ban for [people] have already habituated their tongues to iniquity27 and oaths at all times.
Halacha 10
When does the above apply? When the person taking this oath or reciting this blessing in vain does so intentionally? If, however, he does so inadvertently or does not know that this is forbidden,28 [a listener] is not obligated to place him under a ban of ostracism. Indeed, I maintain that it is forbidden to place him under a ban of ostracism, for the Torah did not [prescribe] punishment for an inadvertent transgressor. Instead, one should caution him and warn him not to repeat [the transgression].
Halacha 11
It is not only a false oath that is forbidden. Instead, it is forbidden to mention even one of the names designated for God29 although one does not take an oath. For the verse [Deuteronomy 28:58] commands us, saying: "to fear the glorious and awesome name."30 Included in fearing it is not to mention it in vain.31
Therefore if because of a slip of the tongue, one mentions [God's] name in vain, he should immediately hurry to praise, glorify, and venerate it so that it will not have been mentioned [entirely] in vain. What is implied? If he mentions God's name, he should say: "Blessed be He for all eternity," "He is great and exceedingly praiseworthy,"32 or the like so that it will not have been [mentioned entirely] in vain.
Halacha 12
It is permitted to approach [a sage] to have an oath released as we explained33 and there is no fault [in doing so]. [Indeed,] one who has hesitations about the matter is [showing] traces of heresy.34 Nevertheless, it is appropriate to show care in this regard. One should not respond [to a request] to release [an oath] unless it involves a matter concerning a mitzvah or a great need.35 It is of great benefit for a person never to take an oath at all.36If, however, one transgressed and took an oath, he should endure great difficulty and keep his oath,37 as [Psalms 15:4-5] states: "One who takes an oath to his own detriment and does not nullify it..., he who acts in this manner will never falter."
Blessed be God who grants assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Chapter 1, Halachot 3,7.
2.
But are not subjected to lashes, Chapter 1, Halachah 8.
3.
See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:10.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that lashes are sufficient to atone for a person's sin entirely. The Radbaz explains that the sin of taking a false oath is two dimensional, involving not only the particular transgression of taking a false oath, but also the desecration of God's name. The lashes atone for the particular transgression of the false oath, but not for the desecration of God's name. That requires more severe retribution as the Rambam explains.
4.
Hilchot Teshuvah 1:2.
5.
The Ra'avad states that although one is not liable for a sacrifice or lashes for such an oath, it is forbidden to take such an oath. At first, the Kessef Mishneh states that it is possible that this is also the Rambam's intent, but afterwards, states that the Rambam's wording implies that such statements are not considered oaths at all.
The Radbaz writes (and this understanding is borne out by one of the Rambam's responsa) that according to the Rambam, such an oath is not binding and need not be released. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that such oaths must be released and if they are false, one transgresses the prohibition against taking a false oath. See also the notes to the following halachah.
6.
See the following halachah and notes.
7.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 10; Hilchot Nedarim 2:12.
8.
The Ra'avad differs with this principle, maintaining that there is no difference between the Torah and the other books of the Holy Scriptures with regard to their fundamental holiness. Thus a person who takes an oath by the contents of any of the other books of the Bible is also liable.
The difference between these two understandings depends on whether one understands the passage from Nedarim 14b as referring to only vows (as is explicitly stated, and as is the Ra'avad's understanding) or as apply also to oaths (as the Rambam maintains). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 212:1) quotes the Rambam's view.
9.
I.e., he states that explicitly.
10.
In which instance the person is liable for taking an oath, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 2.
11.
For he is not taking an oath by God's name.
12.
The Chatam Sofer (in his commentary toNedarim 14b) states that the Rambam is referring to an instance where the person specifically picked up the Torah scroll for the purpose of taking an oath. Otherwise, even if he was holding the scroll in his hand before taking the oath, this law would not apply. Rashi understands the passage differently.
13.
For by taking the Torah scroll in his hand, the person is implying that he is considering the matter with the seriousness of an oath (Nimukei Yosef).
14.
For he knows the distinction mentioned in the previous halachah and thus understands that the oath is not effective and does not intend for it to be binding. Note, however, theBeit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 212) who severely criticizes scholars who take an oath by the Torah, knowing that it is not effective to deceive the people to whom they are taking the oath.
15.
Who does not know the above distinction.
16.
As explained in Halachah 3.
17.
Note the contrast to the law that applies when a servant takes a Nazirite vow (Hilchot Nazirut 2:7).
18.
The Ra'avad, however, maintains that the Rambam's ruling applies only to oaths that will affect the servant's capacity to work. If that is not the case, the oath can take effect. As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazirut 9:1), there is a difference between vows and oaths in this regard. The Ra'avad's statement will apply with regard to vows, but not to oaths (Or Sameach).
19.
Which is not effective as stated in Nedarim47a. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 1.
20.
Boys under 12 and girls under 11. SeeHilchot Nedarim 11:1.
21.
For they are not liable for any of the Torah's commandments.
22.
The Radbaz explains that we are not speaking about a person in mortal danger, for that would apply with regard to an adult as well. Instead, the intent is aggravation or sickness.
23.
The commentaries question whether the Rambam's intent is that he has transgressed a Scriptural commandment or merely a Rabbinic one. The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 30) states that the transgression is Scriptural in origin and the violator should be punished by lashing. This opinion is also mentioned by the Magen Avraham 215:6. From the Kessef Mishnehto Hilchot Milah 3:6, it appears that even the Rambam would consider the prohibition as Rabbinic in nature. The latter understanding is shared by many other Rishonim. Their position is - as explained by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 215:3 - since he is reciting a blessing, his mention of God's name is not entirely frivolous.
24.
See the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger who questions the Rambam's statements, based on the ruling that a person who is unsure whether or not he recited the Grace After Meals must recite the blessing again. Seemingly, the recitation of that blessing would be problematic, because there is a doubt whether or not he is required to do so or not. Thus it is possible that he is transgressing a Scriptural commandment.
In resolution, Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains that since the person is obligated to recite the blessing, even if that obligation stems from a doubt, he is not considered to be taking God's name in vain.
25.
Chapter 1, Halachah 15.
26.
See the concluding chapters of Hilchot Talmud Torah for a description of the implications of this ban.
27.
Cf. Jeremiah 9:4.
28.
The Turei Zahav 334:18 mentions that the Rambam's view is more lenient than that of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol who maintains that this leniency applies only when one does not know of the prohibition at all. According to his view, one who knows of the prohibition, but accidentally recites a blessing in vain must be placed under ban.
29.
I.e., the seven names for God mentioned inHilchot Yesodei HaTorah, ch. 6.
30.
See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 4) which quotes Sanhedrin56a and Temurah 4a as deriving this concept from another prooftext (Deuteronomy 6:13).
31.
For one does not treat something that is truly revered with such carelessness.
32.
See Hilchot Berachot 4:10 which states that when a person recites a blessing in vain, he should say Baruch shem kevod malchuto leolam va'ed, "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever."
33.
Chapter 6, Halachah 1.
34.
For this indicates that he does not accept the Oral Tradition that Moses communicated. For the release of vows is not explicitly stated in the Torah, but instead communicated by the Oral Tradition, as stated above.
35.
See Chapter 6, Halachot 9-10 which gives examples of such situations.
36.
For it is possible that unwittingly, he could take a false oath and thus bring severe retribution upon himself and others. SeeGittin 35a which explains how a woman unknowingly took a false oath and caused one of her sons to die.
37.
See Hilchot Nedarim 1:4 which states that keeping an oath or a vow fulfills a Scriptural mitzvah. Nevertheless, there is a difference between oaths and vows. As the Ra'avad (see also Hilchot Nedarim 13:25) mentions, it is desirable to have vows released. Oaths, by contrast, should be observed and not released.
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
• "Today's Day"
Shabbat, Adar I 25, 5776 · 05 March 2016
Tuesday 25 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 1-96.
Tanya: This is what (p. 145)...great length elsewhere. (p. 145).
Hoshi'einu (p. 76) is said after the Song of the Day on weekdays, Shabbat, Festivals, Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.---------------------• Daily Thought:
CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Friday, March 4, 2016 - Today is: Friday, Adar I 24, 5776 · March 4, 2016 - Candle Lighting
Everything that is for the sake of G-d should be of the best and most beautiful. When one builds a house of prayer, it should be more beautiful than one's own dwelling. When one feeds the hungry, one should feed them of the best and sweetest of one's table. When one clothes the naked, one should clothe them with the finest of one's clothes. Whenever one designates something for a holy purpose, one should sanctify the finest of one's possessions; as it is written (Leviticus 3:16), "All the fat is to G-d."[Maimonides]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayak'hel, 6th Portion Exodus 37:17-37:29 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 37
17And he made the menorah of pure gold; of hammered work he made the menorah, its base and its stem, its goblets, its knobs, and its flowers were [all one piece] with it. יזוַיַּ֥עַשׂ אֶת־הַמְּנֹרָ֖ה זָהָ֣ב טָה֑וֹר מִקְשָׁ֞ה עָשָׂ֤ה אֶת־הַמְּנֹרָה֙ יְרֵכָ֣הּ וְקָנָ֔הּ גְּבִיעֶ֛יהָ כַּפְתֹּרֶ֥יהָ וּפְרָחֶ֖יהָ מִמֶּ֥נָּה הָיֽוּ:
18And six branches coming out of its sides: three menorah branches from its one side and three menorah branches from its second side. יחוְשִׁשָּׁ֣ה קָנִ֔ים יֹצְאִ֖ים מִצִּדֶּ֑יהָ שְׁלשָׁ֣ה | קְנֵ֣י מְנֹרָ֗ה מִצִּדָּהּ֙ הָֽאֶחָ֔ד וּשְׁלשָׁה֙ קְנֵ֣י מְנֹרָ֔ה מִצִּדָּ֖הּ הַשֵּׁנִֽי:
19Three decorated goblets on one branch, a knob and a flower, and three decorated goblets on one branch, a knob and a flower; so for the six branches that come out of the menorah. יטשְׁלשָׁ֣ה גְ֠בִעִ֠ים מְשֻׁקָּדִ֞ים בַּקָּנֶ֣ה הָֽאֶחָד֘ כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפֶ֒רַח֒ וּשְׁלשָׁ֣ה גְבִעִ֗ים מְשֻׁקָּדִ֛ים בְּקָנֶ֥ה אֶחָ֖ד כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפָ֑רַח כֵּ֚ן לְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּֽצְאִ֖ים מִן־הַמְּנֹרָֽה:
20And on [the stem of] the menorah [were] four decorated goblets, its knobs and its flowers. כוּבַמְּנֹרָ֖ה אַרְבָּעָ֣ה גְבִעִ֑ים מְשֻׁ֨קָּדִ֔ים כַּפְתֹּרֶ֖יהָ וּפְרָחֶֽיהָ:
21And a knob under the two branches from it, and a knob under the two branches from it, and a knob under the two branches from it; [so] for the six branches that come out of it. כאוְכַפְתֹּ֡ר תַּ֩חַת֩ שְׁנֵ֨י הַקָּנִ֜ים מִמֶּ֗נָּה וְכַפְתֹּר֙ תַּ֣חַת שְׁנֵ֤י הַקָּנִים֙ מִמֶּ֔נָּה וְכַפְתֹּ֕ר תַּֽחַת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַקָּנִ֖ים מִמֶּ֑נָּה לְשֵׁ֨שֶׁת֙ הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּֽצְאִ֖ים מִמֶּֽנָּה:
22Their knobs and their branches were [all one piece] with it; all of it [was] one hammered mass of pure gold. כבכַּפְתֹּֽרֵיהֶ֥ם וּקְנֹתָ֖ם מִמֶּ֣נָּה הָי֑וּ כֻּלָּ֛הּ מִקְשָׁ֥ה אַחַ֖ת זָהָ֥ב טָהֽוֹר:
23And he made its lamps seven, and its tongs and its scoops of pure gold. כגוַיַּ֥עַשׂ אֶת־נֵֽרֹתֶ֖יהָ שִׁבְעָ֑ה וּמַלְקָחֶ֥יהָ וּמַחְתֹּתֶ֖יהָ זָהָ֥ב טָהֽוֹר:
24He made it of a talent of pure gold, and all its implements. כדכִּכָּ֛ר זָהָ֥ב טָה֖וֹר עָשָׂ֣ה אֹתָ֑הּ וְאֵ֖ת כָּל־כֵּלֶֽיהָ:
25And he made the incense altar out of acacia wood, one cubit long and one cubit wide, square, and two cubits high; its horns were [one piece] with it. כהוַיַּ֛עַשׂ אֶת־מִזְבַּ֥ח הַקְּטֹ֖רֶת עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים אַמָּ֣ה אָרְכּוֹ֩ וְאַמָּ֨ה רָחְבּ֜וֹ רָב֗וּעַ וְאַמָּתַ֨יִם֙ קֹֽמָת֔וֹ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ הָי֥וּ קַרְנֹתָֽיו:
26And he overlaid it with pure gold, [on] its top, its walls all around, and its horns; and he made for it a golden crown all around. כווַיְצַ֨ף אֹת֜וֹ זָהָ֣ב טָה֗וֹר אֶת־גַּגּ֧וֹ וְאֶת־קִֽירֹתָ֛יו סָבִ֖יב וְאֶת־קַרְנֹתָ֑יו וַיַּ֥עַשׂ ל֛וֹ זֵ֥ר זָהָ֖ב סָבִֽיב:
27And he made two golden rings for it underneath its crown on its two corners, on its two sides, as holders for poles with which to carry it. כזוּשְׁתֵּי֩ טַבְּעֹ֨ת זָהָ֜ב עָֽשָׂה־ל֣וֹ | מִתַּ֣חַת לְזֵר֗וֹ עַ֚ל שְׁתֵּ֣י צַלְעֹתָ֔יו עַ֖ל שְׁנֵ֣י צִדָּ֑יו לְבָתִּ֣ים לְבַדִּ֔ים לָשֵׂ֥את אֹת֖וֹ בָּהֶֽם:
28He made the poles out of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. כחוַיַּ֥עַשׂ אֶת־הַבַּדִּ֖ים עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים וַיְצַ֥ף אֹתָ֖ם זָהָֽב:
29And he made the holy anointing oil and the pure incense after the art of a perfumer. כטוַיַּ֜עַשׂ אֶת־שֶׁ֤מֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה֙ קֹ֔דֶשׁ וְאֶת־קְטֹ֥רֶת הַסַּמִּ֖ים טָה֑וֹר מַֽעֲשֵׂ֖ה רֹקֵֽחַ:
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
• "Today's Day"
Shabbat, Adar I 25, 5776 · 05 March 2016
Tuesday 25 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 1-96.
Tanya: This is what (p. 145)...great length elsewhere. (p. 145).
Hoshi'einu (p. 76) is said after the Song of the Day on weekdays, Shabbat, Festivals, Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.---------------------• Daily Thought:
Self Oppression
A tyrant can steal everything from you but your knowledge of who you are. That, only you can give away.
When someone else imprisons or enslaves you, you still know who you are—even if you are prevented from expressing it.
But when you make your goal in life to be someone you are not, or to be part of a people that are not your own, that is the ultimate surrender. There is no greater captivity, for your essence and being have been locked away in a dark cell.
It is an oppression of the worst sort, but also the easiest to escape. After all, you admitted yourself into this place. So who is preventing you from signing out?
---------------------CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Friday, March 4, 2016 - Today is: Friday, Adar I 24, 5776 · March 4, 2016 - Candle Lighting
Light Candles before sunset ––:––
Daily Quote:Everything that is for the sake of G-d should be of the best and most beautiful. When one builds a house of prayer, it should be more beautiful than one's own dwelling. When one feeds the hungry, one should feed them of the best and sweetest of one's table. When one clothes the naked, one should clothe them with the finest of one's clothes. Whenever one designates something for a holy purpose, one should sanctify the finest of one's possessions; as it is written (Leviticus 3:16), "All the fat is to G-d."[Maimonides]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayak'hel, 6th Portion Exodus 37:17-37:29 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 37
17And he made the menorah of pure gold; of hammered work he made the menorah, its base and its stem, its goblets, its knobs, and its flowers were [all one piece] with it. יזוַיַּ֥עַשׂ אֶת־הַמְּנֹרָ֖ה זָהָ֣ב טָה֑וֹר מִקְשָׁ֞ה עָשָׂ֤ה אֶת־הַמְּנֹרָה֙ יְרֵכָ֣הּ וְקָנָ֔הּ גְּבִיעֶ֛יהָ כַּפְתֹּרֶ֥יהָ וּפְרָחֶ֖יהָ מִמֶּ֥נָּה הָיֽוּ:
18And six branches coming out of its sides: three menorah branches from its one side and three menorah branches from its second side. יחוְשִׁשָּׁ֣ה קָנִ֔ים יֹצְאִ֖ים מִצִּדֶּ֑יהָ שְׁלשָׁ֣ה | קְנֵ֣י מְנֹרָ֗ה מִצִּדָּהּ֙ הָֽאֶחָ֔ד וּשְׁלשָׁה֙ קְנֵ֣י מְנֹרָ֔ה מִצִּדָּ֖הּ הַשֵּׁנִֽי:
19Three decorated goblets on one branch, a knob and a flower, and three decorated goblets on one branch, a knob and a flower; so for the six branches that come out of the menorah. יטשְׁלשָׁ֣ה גְ֠בִעִ֠ים מְשֻׁקָּדִ֞ים בַּקָּנֶ֣ה הָֽאֶחָד֘ כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפֶ֒רַח֒ וּשְׁלשָׁ֣ה גְבִעִ֗ים מְשֻׁקָּדִ֛ים בְּקָנֶ֥ה אֶחָ֖ד כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפָ֑רַח כֵּ֚ן לְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּֽצְאִ֖ים מִן־הַמְּנֹרָֽה:
20And on [the stem of] the menorah [were] four decorated goblets, its knobs and its flowers. כוּבַמְּנֹרָ֖ה אַרְבָּעָ֣ה גְבִעִ֑ים מְשֻׁ֨קָּדִ֔ים כַּפְתֹּרֶ֖יהָ וּפְרָחֶֽיהָ:
21And a knob under the two branches from it, and a knob under the two branches from it, and a knob under the two branches from it; [so] for the six branches that come out of it. כאוְכַפְתֹּ֡ר תַּ֩חַת֩ שְׁנֵ֨י הַקָּנִ֜ים מִמֶּ֗נָּה וְכַפְתֹּר֙ תַּ֣חַת שְׁנֵ֤י הַקָּנִים֙ מִמֶּ֔נָּה וְכַפְתֹּ֕ר תַּֽחַת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַקָּנִ֖ים מִמֶּ֑נָּה לְשֵׁ֨שֶׁת֙ הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּֽצְאִ֖ים מִמֶּֽנָּה:
22Their knobs and their branches were [all one piece] with it; all of it [was] one hammered mass of pure gold. כבכַּפְתֹּֽרֵיהֶ֥ם וּקְנֹתָ֖ם מִמֶּ֣נָּה הָי֑וּ כֻּלָּ֛הּ מִקְשָׁ֥ה אַחַ֖ת זָהָ֥ב טָהֽוֹר:
23And he made its lamps seven, and its tongs and its scoops of pure gold. כגוַיַּ֥עַשׂ אֶת־נֵֽרֹתֶ֖יהָ שִׁבְעָ֑ה וּמַלְקָחֶ֥יהָ וּמַחְתֹּתֶ֖יהָ זָהָ֥ב טָהֽוֹר:
24He made it of a talent of pure gold, and all its implements. כדכִּכָּ֛ר זָהָ֥ב טָה֖וֹר עָשָׂ֣ה אֹתָ֑הּ וְאֵ֖ת כָּל־כֵּלֶֽיהָ:
25And he made the incense altar out of acacia wood, one cubit long and one cubit wide, square, and two cubits high; its horns were [one piece] with it. כהוַיַּ֛עַשׂ אֶת־מִזְבַּ֥ח הַקְּטֹ֖רֶת עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים אַמָּ֣ה אָרְכּוֹ֩ וְאַמָּ֨ה רָחְבּ֜וֹ רָב֗וּעַ וְאַמָּתַ֨יִם֙ קֹֽמָת֔וֹ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ הָי֥וּ קַרְנֹתָֽיו:
26And he overlaid it with pure gold, [on] its top, its walls all around, and its horns; and he made for it a golden crown all around. כווַיְצַ֨ף אֹת֜וֹ זָהָ֣ב טָה֗וֹר אֶת־גַּגּ֧וֹ וְאֶת־קִֽירֹתָ֛יו סָבִ֖יב וְאֶת־קַרְנֹתָ֑יו וַיַּ֥עַשׂ ל֛וֹ זֵ֥ר זָהָ֖ב סָבִֽיב:
27And he made two golden rings for it underneath its crown on its two corners, on its two sides, as holders for poles with which to carry it. כזוּשְׁתֵּי֩ טַבְּעֹ֨ת זָהָ֜ב עָֽשָׂה־ל֣וֹ | מִתַּ֣חַת לְזֵר֗וֹ עַ֚ל שְׁתֵּ֣י צַלְעֹתָ֔יו עַ֖ל שְׁנֵ֣י צִדָּ֑יו לְבָתִּ֣ים לְבַדִּ֔ים לָשֵׂ֥את אֹת֖וֹ בָּהֶֽם:
28He made the poles out of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. כחוַיַּ֥עַשׂ אֶת־הַבַּדִּ֖ים עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים וַיְצַ֥ף אֹתָ֖ם זָהָֽב:
29And he made the holy anointing oil and the pure incense after the art of a perfumer. כטוַיַּ֜עַשׂ אֶת־שֶׁ֤מֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה֙ קֹ֔דֶשׁ וְאֶת־קְטֹ֥רֶת הַסַּמִּ֖ים טָה֑וֹר מַֽעֲשֵׂ֖ה רֹקֵֽחַ:
---------------------
This psalm recounts some of the wonders of the exodus from Egypt.
1. Praise the Lord! Offer praise, you servants of the Lord; praise the Name of the Lord.
2. May the Name of the Lord be blessed from now and to all eternity.
3. From the rising of the sun to its setting, the Name of the Lord is praised.
4. The Lord is high above all nations; His glory transcends the heavens.
5. Who is like the Lord our God, Who dwells on high
6. [yet] looks down so low upon heaven and earth!
7. He raises the poor from the dust, lifts the destitute from the dunghill,
8. to seat them with nobles, with the nobles of His people.
9. He transforms the barren woman into a household, into a joyful mother of children. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 114
This psalm explains why the tribe of Judah merited kingship.
1. When Israel went out of Egypt, the House of Jacob from a people of a foreign tongue,
2. Judah became His holy [nation], Israel, His domain.
3. The sea saw and fled, the Jordan turned backward.
4. The mountains skipped like rams, the hills like young sheep.
5. What is the matter with you, O sea, that you flee; Jordan, that you turn backward;
6. mountains, that you skip like rams; hills, like young sheep?
7. [We do so] before the Master, the Creator of the earth, before the God of Jacob,
8. Who turns the rock into a pool of water, the flintstone into a water fountain.
Chapter 115
A prayer that God bring this long exile to an end, for the sake of His Name-that it not be desecrated.
1. Not for our sake, Lord, not for our sake, but for the sake of Your Name bestow glory, because of Your kindness and Your truth.
2. Why should the nations say, "Where, now, is their God?”
3. Indeed, our God is in heaven; whatever He desires, He does.
4. Their idols are of silver and gold, the product of human hands.
5. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see;
6. they have ears, but cannot hear; they have a nose, but cannot smell;
7. their hands cannot touch; their feet cannot walk; they can make no sound in their throat.
8. Those who make them will become like them-all who put their trust in them.
9. Israel, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield.
10. House of Aaron, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield.
11. You who fear the Lord, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield.
12. The Lord who is ever mindful of us, may He bless: May He bless the House of Israel; may He bless the House of Aaron;
13. may He bless those who fear the Lord, the small with the great.
14. May the Lord increase [blessing] upon you, upon you and upon your children.
15. You are blessed by the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
16. The heavens are the Lord's heavens, but the earth He gave to the children of man.
17. The dead cannot praise the Lord, nor any who descend into the silence [of the grave].
18. But we will bless the Lord from now to eternity. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 116
This psalm contains magnificent praises to God. It also describes David's love for God, in light of all the miracles He performed for him. David does not know how to repay God, declaring it impossible to pay back for all God has done for him.
1. I would love if the Lord would listen to my voice, to my supplications;
2. if He would turn His ear to me on the days when I call.
3. The pangs of death encompassed me and the misery of the grave came upon me; I encounter trouble and sorrow.
4. I invoke the Name of the Lord, "Lord, I implore you, deliver my soul!”
5. The Lord is gracious and righteous; our God is compassionate.
6. The Lord watches over the simpletons; I was brought low, and He saved me.
7. Return, my soul, to your tranquility, for the Lord has bestowed goodness upon you.
8. For You have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling.
9. I shall walk before the Lord in the lands of the living.
10. I had faith even when I declared, "I am greatly afflicted";
11. [even when] I said in my haste, "All men are deceitful.”
12. How can I repay the Lord for all His beneficences to me?
13. I will raise the cup of deliverance and proclaim the Name of the Lord.
14. I will pay my vows to the Lord in the presence of all His people.
15. Grievous in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His pious ones.
16. I thank you, Lord, that since I am Your servant, I am Your servant the son of Your maidservant, You have loosened my bonds.
17. To You I will bring an offering of thanksgiving, and proclaim the Name of the Lord.
18. I will pay my vows to the Lord in the presence of all His people,
19. in the courtyards of the House of the Lord, in the midst of Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 117
This psalm of two verses alludes to the Messianic era, when the Children of Israel will enjoy their former glory. All will praise God, in fulfillment of the verse, "All will then call in the Name of God."
1. Praise the Lord, all you nations; extol Him, all you peoples.
2. For His kindness was mighty over us, and the truth of the Lord is everlasting. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 118
This psalm describes David's immense trust in God. It also contains many praises to God, Who has fulfilled that which He has promised us.
1. Offer praise to the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. Let Israel declare that His kindness is everlasting.
3. Let the House of Aaron declare that His kindness is everlasting.
4. Let those who fear the Lord declare that His kindness is everlasting.
5. From out of distress I called to God; with abounding relief, God answered me.
6. The Lord is with me, I do not fear-what can man do to me?
7. The Lord is with me among my helpers, and I will see [the downfall of] my enemies.
8. It is better to rely on the Lord than to trust in man.
9. It is better to rely on the Lord than to trust in nobles.
10. All the nations surrounded me, but in the Name of the Lord I will cut them down.
11. They surrounded me, they encompassed me, but in the Name of the Lord I will cut them down.
12. They surrounded me like bees, yet they shall be extinguished like fiery thorns; in the Name of the Lord I will cut them down.
13. You [my foes] repeatedly pushed me to fall, but the Lord helped me.
14. God is my strength and song, and He has been a help to me.
15. The sound of rejoicing and deliverance reverberates in the tents of the righteous, "The right hand of the Lord performs deeds of valor.
16. The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right hand of the Lord performs deeds of valor!”
17. I shall not die, but I shall live and recount the deeds of God.
18. God has indeed chastised me, but He did not give me up to death.
19. Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter them and praise God.
20. This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous will enter it.
21. I offer thanks to You, for You have answered me, and You have been my deliverance.
22. The stone which the builders scorned has become the chief cornerstone.
23. From the Lord has this come about; it is wondrous in our eyes.
24. This is the day which the Lord has made; let us be glad and rejoice on it.
25. We implore You, Lord, deliver us. We implore You, Lord, grant us success.
26. Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord; we bless you from the House of the Lord.
27. The Lord is a benevolent God and He has given us light; bind the festival offering with cords until [you bring it to] the horns of the altar.
28. You are my God and I will praise You, my God-and I will exalt You.
29. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
• Friday, Adar I 24, 5776 · March 4, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 32
כי מאחר שגופו נמאס ומתועב אצלו, והנפש והרוח, מי יודע גדולתן ומעלתן בשרשן ומקורן באלקים חיים
Since his body is despised and loathsome he will not love himself on account of his body more than he loves his fellow; and as for the soul and spirit, the differences between his own soul and that of his fellow surely will not diminish the love between them, for who can know their (the soul and spirit’s) greatness and excellence in their source and root — the living G‑d?
How, then, can one claim that his soul is superior to his fellow’s?
בשגם שכולן מתאימות, ואב אחד לכולנה
Furthermore, they are actually all equal; 1 and not only equal yet separate, but, furthermore, they all have one father — one source, and within their source they all comprise one entity.
ולכן נקראו כל ישראל אחים ממש מצד שורש נפשם בה׳ אחד
It is on account of this common root in the One G‑d that all of Israel are called “brothers” — in the full sense of the word, and not only figuratively, in the sense of “relatives” or “similar in appearance” and the like; 2
רק שהגופים מחולקים
only the bodies are distinct from each other.
This explains how it is at all possible to demand that one love his fellow as he loves himself. Self-love is innate, natural to man; love for one’s fellow is not. How can a generated love match a natural one
According to the principle stated here, this is readily understood. One Jew need not create a love for another. The love is an inborn characteristic of his soul, on account of its root in G‑dliness which is common to all souls; it is as natural as the love between brothers.
ולכן העושים גופם עיקר ונפשם טפלה אי אפשר להיות אהבה ואחוה אמיתית ביניהם אלא התלויה בדבר לבדה
Therefore, there can be no true love and fraternity between those who regard their bodies as primary and their souls secondary, but only a love based on an external factor.
Since the body separates us from each other, whereas the soul is that which binds us together, the greater value one places on his body at the expense of his soul, the more conscious he is of the differences between himself and his fellow. These differences require that he create a love for his fellow, and as said above, a created love can never equal a natural, innate love. Therefore, love between people who consider their bodies as primarily important, must be only a love based on some external factor, in which case the love is (a) limited to the importance of the motivating factor, and (b) destined to endure only as long as that factor is valid.
* * *
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Note the discrepancy: In speaking of the souls of Israel in general, the Alter Rebbe first writes, "Who can know `[can distinguish]' their greatness and excellence?", implying that there are in fact differences between one soul and another; here he writes, "They actually are all equal." The explanation: As discussed in chapter 2, the original source of all souls is the Sefirah of Chochmah in the World ofAtzilut. On this level, all the souls are indeed one entity. This is indicated in the words, "They all have one father" - "father" (Abba) being the kabbalisitic term for Chochmah. From this source, the souls progress downward through the variousSefirot and Worlds. It is this descent that creates differences between souls; one soul is more strongly affected by the descent, and another less so. The first stage in this descent is the Sefirah of Binah in the World of Atzilut; thus, it is at the level of Binah that the differences between souls first appear. This is alluded to in the words, "Who can know their greatness and excellence in their source and root - the living G-d?"; in kabbalistic terminology, "the living G-d" is a reference to the level of Binah in the World of Atzilut. Speaking of the souls at this level, the Alter Rebbe therefore says that feeling superior to one's fellow is unjustified, because "who can know their greatness and excellence...?" There are indeed differences between souls - but who knows them? When speaking of the souls having "one father," however, he writes that "they are all equal." |
| 2. | From a note by the Rebbe. (The two alternative meanings of "brothers" appear in the commentary of Rashi on Bereishit13:8.) |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Friday, Adar I 24, 5776 · March 4, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 248
Denying a Debt
"Do not deny"—Leviticus 19:11.
It is forbidden for a person to deny a debt that he owes or to deny that a person entrusted him an object for safekeeping.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
-----------------------------------------------------------
Negative Commandment 249
Swearing Falsely in Denial of a Debt
"Do not lie to each other"—Leviticus 19:11.
It is forbidden to take a false oath in denial of a debt or any other financial obligation.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Friday, Adar I 24, 5776 · March 4, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 248
Denying a Debt
"Do not deny"—Leviticus 19:11.
It is forbidden for a person to deny a debt that he owes or to deny that a person entrusted him an object for safekeeping.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Denying a Debt
Negative Commandment 248
Translated by Berel Bell
The 248th prohibition is that we are forbidden to falsely deny that we owe money or that we were entrusted with an object.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not deny."
It is explained2 that this refers to a financial claim. The Sifra says, "We learn what the punishment is from the verse,3 'If he denies [illegally withholding another person's money] and swears falsely [...he must pay the principal and add one-fifth.]' Which verse serves as the actual prohibition?4 The verse, 'Do not deny.' "
You are aware that one who [falsely] denies possession of an object he was entrusted with — even if he does not swear falsely — is invalid to act as a witness. This is because he has transgressed the mitzvah, "Do not deny."5
The details of this mitzvah are explained in a number of passages in tractate Sh'vuos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 19:11.
2.Sanhedrin 86a.
3.Lev. 5:22.
4.Since every prohibition must have one verse which is the actual prohibition and another to dictate the punishment.
5.The Torah disqualifies a person from testifying only if he has violated a Biblical law. Since the person is disqualified even though he has not sworn falsely, we see that the prohibition applies even where there was no oath.
Negative Commandment 249
Swearing Falsely in Denial of a Debt
"Do not lie to each other"—Leviticus 19:11.
It is forbidden to take a false oath in denial of a debt or any other financial obligation.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Swearing Falsely in Denial of a Debt
Negative Commandment 249
Translated by Berel Bell
The 249th prohibition is that we are forbidden to swear falsely regarding money that we owe.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not lie to one another."
If, for example, one [falsely] denies possessing an object he was entrusted with, he transgresses the prohibition, "do not deny."2 Should he swear falsely to substantiate his previous denial, he transgress the [present] prohibition "do not lie."
The Sifra says, "What does the Torah mean to teach us by saying 'do not lie'? The verse,3 'and he swears falsely' serves as the punishment. Which verse serves as the actual prohibition?4 The verse, 'do not lie.' "
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the fifth chapter of Sh'vuos, where it is explained that a person who makes a false oath in denying a financial claim transgresses two mitzvos — "do not swear falsely by My name"5 and "do not lie to one another."6
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 19:11.
2.N248.
3.Lev. 5:22.
4.See footnote 22.
5.Lev. 19:12.
6..e. N248 and N249.
----------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Beit Habechirah Beit Habechirah - Chapter 6 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Beit Habechirah - Chapter 6
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Beit Habechirah - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
The entire Temple complex was not built on flat ground, but rather on the incline1 of Mount [Moriah.] Thus, a person who entered from the Eastern Gate of the Temple Mount would proceed to the end of the chayl on one level.2
He would ascend from the chayl to the Woman's Courtyard on twelve steps. Each step was half a cubit high and half a cubit wide.3
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
One would proceed through the entire Priestly Courtyard,12 [the area of] the Altar,13 and the space between the Entrance Hall and the Altar14 on one level. From there, one would ascend to the Entrance Hall using twelve steps.15Each step was half a cubit high and half a cubit wide.16
The Entrance Hall and [the remainder of] the Temple building were both on the same level.17
Halacha 5
Thus, the ground [on which] the Temple building [was located] was 22 cubits higher than the ground [on which] the Eastern Gate [was located].18
The Eastern Gate was twenty cubits high.19 Accordingly, a person standing opposite the Eastern Gate could not see the Temple building.20 For this reason, the wall above this gate was low.21 Thus, the priest [who offered theParah Adumah] could see the opening of the Temple when he sprinkled its blood,22 while standing on the Mount of Olives.23
Halacha 6
There were chambers under the Courtyard of the Israelites opening up to the Women's Courtyard.24 There, the Levites stored their harps, lyres,25 cymbals, and other musical instruments.26
The Levites stood on the platform which ascends from the Courtyard of the Israelites to the Courtyard of the Priests, when they chanted songs over the sacrifices.27
Halacha 7
[Regarding] the chambers that were built on consecrated ground, but which opened up to an area that was not consecrated:28 If [their roofs] were on the same level as the earth of the Courtyard, their inner space is not consecrated,29 but their roofs are consecrated.30
If they are not on the same level [as the Courtyard], their roofs are also not consecrated, for the roofs and the upper floors [of the structures in the Temple Courtyard] were not consecrated.31
Halacha 8
[Regarding the chambers] which were built on unconsecrated ground, but were open to consecrated ground:36 Their inner space was considered consecrated when eating sacrifices of the most holy order.37 However, the sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were not slaughtered there. [Similarly,] a person who enters while ritually impure is not required [to bring a sin offering].38
The roofs [of these chambers] are considered as unconsecrated ground in all respects.39
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
We may not expand [the limits] of the city [of Jerusalem] or of the Temple Courtyard52 unless receiving the consent of the king, a prophet,53 the Urim V'Tumim,54 and the Sanhedrin of 71 judges,55 as [Exodus 25:9] states: "According to all that I show you, [the design of the Sanctuary]...so shall you make it." [The latter phrase was interpreted by our sages to mean that the same conditions should apply in] future generations.
[The presence of a king is required] because Moses, our teacher, was a king.56
Halacha 12
How do we extend [the limits of] the city?57 The Sanhedrin must offer two thanksgiving offerings.58 [Then, two priests]59 take the leavened breads from these offerings [and proceed]. The Sanhedrin would follow the thanksgiving offerings.60 The thanksgiving offerings [would not proceed together, but] one would follow the other.61
They would stand on each and every corner and every single stone in Jerusalem, [playing] harps, lyres, and cymbals, and reciting [Psalms 30]: "I exalt you, Lord, for You have uplifted me...."62
[They would proceed] until reaching the end of the place [which they desired to] consecrate. There, they would stand and eat one of the two thanksgiving offerings. The other was burnt. A prophet would determine which was eaten and which was burnt.63
Halacha 13
Similarly, [if the Sages desire] to extend the [limits of the] courtyard,64 they must consecrate it with the remaining portion of the meal offering. Just as the thanksgiving offering, which must be eaten inside Jerusalem consecrates it, so, too, the remaining portion of the meal offering, which may only be eaten inside the Temple Courtyard,65 consecrates it. It is to be eaten at the end of the space which they desire to consecrate.66
Halacha 14
Any place which was not [consecrated] with all the above [elements] and according to the above procedure is not thoroughly consecrated.67 Though Ezra offered two thanksgiving offerings68 [to dedicate the city,] he merely carried out a testimonial act. The Sanctuary was not consecrated through his deeds, for neither a King nor the Urim V'Tumim69 were present there.70
Halacha 15
Therefore, we may offer all the sacrifices [on the Temple site], even though the Temple itself is not built.73 Similarly, sacrifices of the most holy order can be eaten in the entire [area of the] Courtyard, even though it is in ruin and not surrounded by a divider.74
We may also eat sacrifices of lesser sanctity and Ma'aser Sheni75 throughout Jerusalem,76 even though [it is not surrounded by] a wall, for through its original consecration, it was consecrated for that time and for eternity.
16.77 Why do I say that the original consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem for eternity,78 while in regard to the consecration of the remainder of Eretz Yisrael, in the context of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and other similar [agricultural] laws, [the original consecration] did not sanctify it for eternity?79
Because the sanctity of the Temple and Jerusalem stems from theShechinah, and the Shechinah can never be nullified.80 Therefore, [Leviticus 26:31] states: "I will lay waste to your Sanctuaries." The Sages declared:81"Even though they have been devastated, their sanctity remains."82
In contrast, the [original] obligation to keep the laws of the Sabbatical year and tithes on the Land stemmed from the fact that it was conquered by the [Jewish people, as a] community.83 Therefore, when the land was taken from their hands [by the Babylonians,] their [original] conquest was nullified. Thus, according to Torah law, the land was freed from the obligations of the Sabbatical year and of tithes because it was no longer Eretz Yisrael.84
When Ezra returned [to Eretz Yisrael] and consecrated it, it was not sanctified by means of through conquest, but rather through Chazzakah.85 Therefore, every place which was repossessed by the [exiles returning from] Babylon and consecrated when Ezra consecrated [the land] the second time, is sacred today.
Thus, as explained in Hilchot Terumah, it is necessary to keep the laws of the Sabbatical years and the tithes [on this land] even though it was taken from [the Jewish people in later years].86
FOOTNOTES
1.
This concept is explained in this and the following four halachot. Note the accompanying diagram.
There is a homiletic aspect to the placement of the Temple on the incline of a mountain. A Jew must realize that his advance in holy matters resembles the climbing of a mountain.
When ascending a mountain it is difficult to remain in one position. One must either climb further upward or descend. Similarly, a Jew must always strive to advance in his spiritual service. Otherwise, he is likely to fall to a lower level.
2.
As explained in the commentary to Chapter 5, Halachah 6, a distance of approximately 213 cubits separated between the exterior wall surrounding the Temple Mount and the Eastern Wall of the Temple Courtyard. The Women's Courtyard was 135 cubits long. A thick wall surrounded it, leaving approximately 68 cubits between that wall and the exterior wall.
According to the Rambam's diagrams, see Chapter 5, Halachah 6, the ratio of space between the chayl and the exterior wall, and the space between the chayl and the Women's Courtyard, was approximately 3:1. Thus, the distance mentioned here was approximately 51 cubits.
3.
Thus, he ascended six cubits when climbing these steps.
This was the size of all the steps in the Temple complex, except for the step dividing the Courtyard of the Israelites from the Priestly Courtyard.
4.
135 cubits.
5.
The steps leading to the Temple Courtyard did not take up the entire width of the Courtyard, and the area on both sides was on the same level as the remainder of the Courtyard.
6.
Seven and a half cubits.
7.
Middot 2:5 relates that the steps were semicircular in shape. In the Simchat Beit HaShoevah celebrations, during the holiday of Sukkot, the Levites stood on these steps, sang, and played music.
8.
A distance of eleven cubits.
9.
This step departed from the standard height of half a cubit. It served as a clear line of demarcation between the two regions.
10.
On which the Levites would stand and chant while sacrifices were being offered, as described in Halachah 6.
11.
Thus, the height of the platform was 3 x 1/2, for a total height of one and a half cubits.
12.
The Priestly Courtyard was eleven cubits long. However, one and a half cubits were taken up by the Levites' platform.
13.
32 cubits in length. See Chapter 5, Halachah 12.
14.
22 cubits in length,
15.
See the commentary to Chapter 4, Halachah 9.
16.
The Kessef Mishneh questions this statement. It appears to contradict two explicit statements of the Mishnah. Middot2:3 states: "All the steps there [in the Temple complex] were half a cubit high and half a cubit wide, except for the steps of the Entrance Hall."
Similarly, Middot 2:6 states: "Twelve steps [led to the Entrance Hall]. They were half a cubit high and a cubit wide."
However, Yoma 16a quotes the latter mishnah, using the same text as the Rambam uses in this halachah.
17.
The commentaries explain that the differing heights of the various sections of the Temple Mount reflected their levels of holiness. Each level which was more sacred was actually physically higher than the preceding level. Since, as stated in the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 5, the Entrance Hall and the two inner chambers of the Sanctuary were considered one integral unit, there was no difference in altitude between them.
18.
The 22 cubits can be broken down as follows:
The steps leading to the Woman's Courtyard, 6 cubits
The steps leading to the Temple Courtyard, 7.5 cubits
The steps leading to the Priestly Courtyard, 2.5 cubits
The steps leading to the Entrance Hall, 6 cubits
19.
The standard height of the gates in the Temple complex.
20.
Five gates were placed in a straight line:
the Eastern Gate,
the gate to the chayl,
the gate to the Women's Courtyard,
the gate of Nicanor, and
the gate of the Entrance Hall.
Thus, had the Temple been built on flat ground, one would have been able to see through all the gates at once. However, because the person would be looking through the gates on an upward incline, he would only be able to see the steps leading to the Entrance Hall.
21.
All the other walls to the Temple Mount were very high. However, the eastern wall was only six cubits higher than the gate (Tifferet Yisrael, Middot 2:4).
22.
The Parah Adumah [Red Heifer] was necessary to purify those who had come in contact with a human corpse. Regarding its slaughter, Numbers 19:3-4 commands: "He shall take it outside the camp and ... take from the blood of the heifer and sprinkle it opposite the front of the Tent of Meeting." Similarly, in later generations, the Parah Adumah had to be sacrificed outside the Temple premises, but in view of the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was slaughtered on the Mount of Olives.
23.
The Mount of Olives is situated directly behind the Temple Mount, with the Kidron Valley in between. The priest stood on the Mount of Olives looking toward the Temple.
24.
As mentioned above, the mountain rose seven and a half cubits at this point. Thus, there was ample room to create storage chambers in the wall.
25.
The Sages explain that a harp and a lyre were similar in appearance, but the lyre had more strings.
26.
The Levites chanted Psalms while the daily communal sacrifices were offered and accompanied these songs with music. Also, on special occasions like the Simchat Beit HaShoevah celebrations, they played music for the people. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash3:2.
27.
The Har HaMoriah noted that in a number of places the Talmud states that this platform was used by the Levites in the manner described above (e.g., Yoma 20a and 53a,Arichin 13b). Nevertheless, the platform was also used for other purposes. Chagigah 16a and Rosh Hashanah 31b relate that the priests stood on this platform when they blessed the people. Indeed, the Hebrew name for the platform, Duchan, has become synonymous with the priestly blessing. (It must be noted that in Hilchot Nesiat Kapaim14:14, the Rambam writes that the priests would stand on the steps before the Entrance Hall when they blessed the people.)
28.
In this and the following two Halachot, the Rambam defines which structures of the Temple Courtyard share the sanctity of the area. This determination is significant in regard to three matters:
a) Sacrifices of the highest holy order of sanctity must be eaten within the Temple Courtyard.
b) Sacrifices of lesser degree of sanctity must be slaughtered within the Temple Courtyard.
c) Entry to the Temple Courtyard is forbidden when ritually impure.
See the Rambam's Commentary to Ma'aser Sheni 3:8.
29.
And does not share the sanctity of the Courtyard.
30.
And shares that level of holiness.
31.
Pesachim 86a explains that an exception to the latter principle was made regarding the upper storey of the Temple building itself.
I Chronicles 28:11 states: "Then David gave Solomon his son the design of the Entrance Hall, its houses, its treasure stores, its upper storeys, its inner chambers, and the place for the ark," implying that the upper storey shared the same level of holiness as the remainder of the Temple building.
32.
Sin offerings, guilt offerings, and communal peace offerings.
33.
Leviticus 6:6 requires the guilt offering to be eaten "in a sacred place," i.e. within the Temple courtyard. The same ruling applies to the other sacrifices of similar status.
34.
13for example, individual peace offerings, thanksgiving offerings, or the Passover sacrifice.
35.
Leviticus 3:8 states that individual peace offerings must be slaughtered "before the tent of meeting." In the Temple, that phrase refers to the Temple Courtyard. The same ruling applies to other sacrifices of similar status (Zevachim 55a).
36.
Among the chambers included in this category were those on the southern side of the Chamber of the Hearth. Though the latter was positioned outside the Temple Courtyard, these chambers were open to it. See Chapter 5, Halachah 10.
37.
Zevachim 56a explains that these chambers are by nature unconsecrated. However, the Torah made an exception in regard to the consumption of these sacrifices.
38.
Though there is no Scriptural prohibition against entering these chambers while ritually impure, the Sages forbade such an act.
39.
There is not even a Rabbinic prohibition against one who is ritually impure ascending to them.
40.
As mentioned above, many underground passageways were constructed on the Temple Mount.
41.
And all the laws applying to the Courtyard apply to them.
42.
Therefore, a ritually impure individual may enter them, as described in Chapter 5, Halachah 11.
43.
I.e., the apertures in the wall.
44.
I.e., the upper surface.
45.
The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishnehquestion these statements. Pesachim 86a states that the wall's upper surface is only considered an extension of the Courtyard when it is on the same level as the Courtyard (as the roofs of the chambers mentioned in Halachah 7.) If the wall is higher than the Courtyard, it is not considered consecrated.
The following explanation may be offered for the decision rendered by the Rambam: Rashi (Pesachim, loc. cit.) relates that thechayl was the major wall around the inner Temple complex and the wall of the Courtyard itself was not high. Since the Temple was built on an incline, it was possible that the latter wall would be on the same level as the floor of the Courtyard, even though the Courtyard wall was raised above the ground in front of it.
However, the Rambam himself definitely cannot accept such an interpretation. He already stated (Chapter 5, Halachah3) that the chayl was only 10 cubits high. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that it would be the major wall surrounding the inner Temple complex. That likelihood is further reduced by the fact that the chayl was set off from the Temple Courtyard by a considerable distance, especially on the northern and southern sides. See also Tosefot Yom Tov,Middot 2:3.
The above three halachot also apply to the city of Jerusalem as a whole. As stated above, the sacrifices of the most holy order could only be eaten within the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, a limitation was placed on where the sacrifices of lesser sanctity could be eaten. One could only partake of those offerings within the confines of the city of Jerusalem, and the definition of the city's limits were therefore of consequence. The particular decisions regarding the Courtyard's chambers, underground passageways, and upper surfaces of the wall, refer to the counterparts of these structures at the city's outer wall.
46.
This decision can only be made by the Supreme Sanhedrin, the court of 71 judges who were seated in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.
47.
And thus, extend the area in which sacrifices of lesser sanctity may be eaten.
48.
And thus, extend the area to which the three mitzvot mentioned in the notes to Halachah 7 apply.
49.
Tosafot (Zevachim 33a) explains that since the design for the Temple was conveyed byRuach HaKodesh, Divine inspiration, even the Sanhedrin could not add to the limits of the Courtyard unless they could find a verse in the Tanach to support their decision.
The passage cited in Zevachim and similarly, Sukkot 51b, reinforce the position of the Tosafot. However, the Yeriot Shlomoand other commentaries question whether the Rambam accepts that principle
50.
The Or Sameiach cites allusions from the Tanach which appear to limit the size of the Courtyard to the Temple Mount. Isaiah 2:3,Zechariah 8:3, and other prophets frequently referred to "the mountain of God," implying that the Temple could only be situated on that peak.
51.
Here, no restrictions are placed. Indeed, theMidrash relates that in the Messianic age, Jerusalem will encompass all of Eretz Yisrael, extending until Damascus.
52.
As the Rambam explains, the construction of the Temple and the establishment of its limits must conform to the pattern followed in the construction of the Shechinah's first resting place, the Sanctuary in the desert. See Sh'vuot 14a,b. Therefore, the expansion cannot take place unless the conditions mentioned by the Rambam are met.
53.
Moses was the master of all prophets.
54.
The stones of the breastplate of the High Priest. They served as oracles, and were consulted on all matters of national importance. See the commentary to Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
Tosafot (Sh'vuot 15a) questions the necessity for the Urim V'Tumim to be used in the establishment of the Courtyard's limits. Aharon, the High Priest, did not don the Urim V'Tumim until after the Sanctuary was constructed and its limits established. Since these requirements were set on the basis of the pattern followed when dedicating the Sanctuary, the Urim V'Tumim should not be required for dedicating future Sanctuaries.
Among the answers given to that question are that until Aharon's installation as High Priest, Moses served in that capacity and wore al the priestly garments (Ritbah).
55.
Some authorities maintain that the Sanhedrinwas established before the Sanctuary was built. Other opinions maintain that theSanhedrin was only established later. Nevertheless, Moses' participation is considered equivalent to that of theSanhedrin.
56.
The commentaries explain thatDeuteronomy 33:5: "And he was a king in Yeshurun," refers to Moses.
57.
13The entire procession described by the Rambam is described in detail in Sh'vuot15a-16a.
The source for these practices is the description of the dedication of Jerusalem inNechemiah 12:27-44. There, it is related that:
At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, they sought Levites...to bring them to Jerusalem to carry out the dedication with joy and thanksgiving, with songs, with cymbals, with harps, and with lyres....Then, I asked the princes of Judah to ascend the wall, and I brought up the greater portion of two thanksgiving offerings....They ascended to the wall by the stairs of the city of David....They offered great sacrifices that day, for God had made them rejoice with great joy....and the joy of Jerusalem was heard from far away.
58.
A thanksgiving offering includes three elements: the leavened breads, an animal which is sacrificed and loaves of unleavened bread.
Sh'vuot, loc. cit., explains that the leavened breads were chosen because Nechemiah's description of Jerusalem's dedication relates that he "brought up the greater portion of two thanksgiving offerings." That phrase alludes to the leavened breads of the thanksgiving offerings which rose, and thus, were more substantial than the unleavened breads.
59.
The bracketed addition was made on the basis of Rashi's commentary, Sh'vuot 16b.
60.
Sh'vuot, loc. cit. relates that the leaders of the people, the Sanhedrin, followed the thanksgiving offerings when Ezra and Nechemiah dedicated the city of Jerusalem.
This halachah is taken from the Mishnah,Sh'vuot 2:2. Many versions of that mishnah, including the one quoted in the Talmud, add the phrase: "And all of Israel followed after them." However, the Rambam's version of the text omits that phrase. Hence, it is also not included in this halachah.
61.
Similarly, in Nechemiah's narrative, the two offerings were separated.
62.
Psalm 30 is called "the song of the dedication of the House." Hence, it is appropriate for this occasion.
Sh'vuot, loc. cit., also relates that other Psalms, including 3, 91, and 100, were recited.
63.
This procedure was carried out at Nechemiah's dedication of Jerusalem. The prophets Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi participated in that dedication, and advised Nechemiah of the procedure to follow.
64.
There is no record of this practice ever being carried out. Rather, the Temple Courtyard remained the same size from the time it was dedicated by Ezra.
65.
Leviticus 2:1-3 states: "When a man offers a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour....the priest shall burn the memorial part of it on the Altar....and the remnant of the meal offering shall be Aharon's and his sons. It is of the sacrifices of the highest order of holiness." Hence it must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard.
66.
Ri Migash, the Rambam's teacher, commenting on Sh'vuot, loc. cit., emphasizes that eating the offerings are not merely signs that the consecration of the city or the Courtyard had been carried out, but rather, the consecration becomes effective by eating of these offerings. The Rambam's statements here appear to be based on that principle.
67.
The expression used "not thoroughly consecrated" is somewhat problematic. The Maharit explains that this expression can be understood within the context of the Mishnah's statements (Sh'vuot, loc. cit.): "[In regard to] any place [in the Temple Courtyard] which was not consecrated with all of these [i.e., a king, a prophet, etc.], one who enters [while ritually impure] is not liable [for a sin offering]."
Generally, throughout the Talmud, such an expression implies that though a sin offering is not required, the act is forbidden. Similarly, in this context, a consecration which lacks all the elements listed previously in the Mishnah is not totally effective. Therefore, entering the portion of the Courtyard consecrated in this manner does not obligate an impure individual to bring a sacrifice. Nevertheless, there is a Rabbinic prohibition against entering that area.
68.
As described in the passage from Nechemiah quoted above
69.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
70.
Although the dedication procedure carried out by Ezra and Nechemiah was merely a testimonial act, having no Halachic significance, we are forced to say that the testimonial was carried out in precise detail as if the city was actually being consecrated. Therefore, the description of their procedure can demonstrate the process necessary to actually dedicate the city.
71.
Since all sacrifices were offered there, we must conclude that it was indeed consecrated.
72.
13This concept is the subject of a debate in the Talmud (Sh'vuot 16a, Makkot 19a,Megillah 10a) and is discussed by the Rambam in the following two halachot.
73.
See the commentary to Chapter 2, Halachah 4 which explains that the exiles who returned from Babylon built an Altar before they completed the construction of the Second Temple. The prophets assured them that "all sacrifices could be offered on that Altar, even though the Temple itself was not [built] there [yet.]" The construction of the Temple took another twenty two years to complete.
Even in later generations, our spiritual leaders have desired to offer sacrifices on the Temple Mount. In the Middle Ages, the Sage, Rabbi Chayim (according to other sources, Rabbi Yechiel) of Paris madeAliyah and settled in Jerusalem. He was prepared to offer sacrifices on the Temple site and refrained from doing so only after his colleagues explained that sacrifices could not be offered because they were unaware of the proper location, size, and dimensions of the Altar.
74.
Twenty two years passed between the time that the exiles return to Jerusalem and the completion of the Second Temple. During that time, all the sacrifices were offered and eaten even though the walls of the Temple and the Courtyard were not built.
75.
The second tithe. After the first tithe was separated, a second tithe also had to be set aside. In four years out of the seven year agricultural cycle, Ma'aser Sheni was brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. See Deuteronomy:22-26, Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni.
76.
This statement is extremely problematic. InHilchot Ma'aser Sheni 2:1, the Rambam himself writes that "Ma'aser Sheni is only eaten in Jerusalem while the Temple is standing." Though some authorities have explained that the statement in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah refers to the time when the Altar is standing, there is no indication in the Rambam's words to that effect. Furthermore, there are other inconsistencies between the Rambam's statements here and in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni.
Even according to the Rambam's statements here, we are now prohibited from eating Ma'aser Sheni in Jerusalem. We are all ritually impure, and Ma'aser Sheni must be eaten in a state of ritual purity.
77.
In the previous halachot, the Rambam stated that the sanctity of the Temple Mount and Jerusalem would remain for eternity, because of the initial consecration by David and Solomon. Thus, when Ezra rededicated Jerusalem, as described in the Book of Nechemiah, his act was merely testimonial in nature. There was no need to reconsecrate the Temple, because its original holiness had never been nullified.
This seemingly contradicts the Rambam's statements in Sefer Zeraim, the portion of the Mishneh Torah which deals with the agricultural laws to be observed in Eretz Yisrael. There, the Rambam states that the original consecration of Eretz Yisrael was nullified after the Babylonian conquest. When Ezra returned from Babylon, he reconsecrated the Land, causing the various agricultural laws to be in effect again, though only M'd'Rabbanen, according to Rabbinic decree.
The portion he consecrated was considerably smaller than the original boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, his consecration remained in effect even after the Gentiles' subsequent conquests. Indeed, on the basis of that consecration, these agricultural laws must be observed inEretz Yisrael today.
To resolve that contradiction, the Rambam explains that the "consecration" of Jerusalem and of the Temple differs from the "consecration" of Eretz Yisrael as a whole. Jerusalem and the Temple were consecrated by the revelation of theShechinah in the Temple. That Divine act can never be nullified by man's deeds. In contrast, the consecration of Eretz Yisraelas a whole was brought about by the Jewish people. It can thus be nullified by the Gentiles.
78.
As stated above in Halachot 14 and 15.
79.
In Hilchot Terumah (1:5), the Rambam states:
Every [place] which those ascending from Egypt took possession of was consecrated in the initial consecration. When [the Jewish people] were exiled, that sanctity was nullified. The first consecration... sanctified the land for that time, but not for eternity.
80.
See the commentary to Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
81.
Megillah 28a.
82.
Support for this statement can be brought from God's response to King Solomon, II Chronicles 7:15: "For now, I have chosen and sanctified this house, that My Name be there for eternity, and My eyes and My heart will be there forever."
Similarly, Sh'vuot 16b states that the Temple was consecrated forever.
Nevertheless, that statement is not accepted by all Halachic authorities. Both Rashi and the Tosafot interpret the Talmud's statements in Sh'vuot in a manner which indicates that they do not accept its simple meaning.
Similarly, commenting on this and the above halachot, the Ra'avad writes:
This is [the Rambam's] opinion. I am not aware of his source... According to the opinion in the Talmud which states that it was not originally consecrated for eternity, no differentiation was made between the Temple, Jerusalem, and the remainder of Eretz Yisrael...Even R. Yossi who maintains that the second consecration consecrated the land for eternity made that statement only in regard to the remainder ofEretz Yisrael and not in regard to the Temple and Jerusalem.Ezra knew that ultimately [the status] of the Temple and Jerusalem would ultimately change and that they would be eternally consecrated by God's glory [in the Messianic age]. Hence, he did not consecrate it when consecrating the remainder of Eretz Yisrael.The above was revealed to me, [as it is said:] "The secrets of God [are conveyed] to those who fear Him."
83.
In contrast, lands that were conquered by only a certain portion of the Jewish community, for example, Syria, were not bound by these laws.
84.
After the Babylonians conquered Eretz Yisrael and exiled the people, the sanctity of the land was nullified. There was no obligation to keep any of the agricultural laws that apply in Eretz Yisrael during the seventy years of the Babylonian exile.
85.
Chazzakah is a manifestation of ownership. It is accepted by Torah law as one of the certain formal acts of contract which acknowledge the transfer of property from one person to another.
86.
The Kessef Mishnah finds these statements difficult to accept because of the following questions:
a) On what basis is Chazzakah considered a more effective means of acquisition than conquest?
b) After the initial conquest of Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people manifested their ownership over it and thus, effected aChazzakah. If so, why is Ezra's Chazzakah, which was not preceded by conquest, more effective than the Chazzakah which followed the original conquest? Why should the conquest detract from the consecration of the land?
These questions can be explained as follows: The Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 5:1) interprets Genesis 15:18: "I have given this land to your seed 48 to mean that from Abraham's time onward Eretz Yisraelbecame the property of the Jewish people. Though the land was still possessed by the Canaanites, the Jews were already its legal owners. See Bava Batra 119b.
Despite this claim of ownership, the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael came about only after the Jewish people entered the land, after the redemption from Egypt. At that time, they were commanded to conquer the land and take it forcefully from the Gentiles (SeeNumbers 32:29, Deuteronomy 3:21, etc.) Since God made the consecration of the land dependent on its conquest by Israel, it follows that conquest by a Gentile nation can nullify that holiness.
In contrast, Ezra was not commanded to reconquer Eretz Yisrael, but to settle it. In this instance, God made the sanctity of the land dependent on the Jewish people manifesting their ownership over the land which had been given to them as an eternal inheritance. Since Eretz Yisrael remains our land, regardless of how many times it has been conquered by Gentiles, the sanctity effected by that manifestation of ownership is also eternal. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 15, 102-109.
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 7, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 8, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 9 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Shvuot - Chapter 7
Audio: Listen | Download• Shvuot - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
When a person issues a financial claim against a colleague which would require the latter to pay were he to admit [liability]1 and [the colleague] denies [his obligation] and takes an oath or the plaintiff administers an oath to him and he denies [any obligation]. [If he is lying,] the defendant is liable for an oath concerning a sh'vuat hapikadon.2
[The above applies] even if [the defendant] does not respond Amen.3 For with regard to a sh'vuat hapikadon, one is liable whether he took the oath on his own initiative or another person administered the oath to him and he denied [any obligation], even though he did not respond Amen. For denying the claim after the plaintiff administered the oath is equivalent to responding Amen.4
Halacha 2
[This does not apply] when [the plaintiff] lodges a claim which if acknowledged by the defendant, i.e., if he would admit that it is true, would not require him to make payment, e.g., he lodged a claim concerning a k'nas.5 For a person is not required to pay a k'nas based on his own admission.6 [In such an instance,] if a person denied [an obligation], he is exempt from a sh'vuat hapikadon, but liable for a sh'vuat bitui.7
Halacha 3
Similarly, if [the plaintiff] lodged a claim concerning landed property, a servant, or a promissory note, and [the defendant] denied [the claim] and took an oath, he is exempt from a sh'vuat hapikadon, but liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath.
Halacha 4
Why is one [who took an oath concerning such claims] exempt from [the obligations of a false] sh'vuat hapikadon? Behold, were he to have acknowledged [his obligation], he would have been held liable and [required] to pay what he denied. Because [Leviticus 5:21-22] states: "Concerning an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, a robbery; he oppressed his colleague, or discovered a lost object." All of this concerns movable property which if he would admit his liability he would have to make financial restitution from his own domain.
This excludes landed property for it is not movable property. For landed property is always revealed before its owner8 and is always in their possession.9[Similarly,] it excludes servants, for an equation is established between servants and landed property.10 And it excludes promissory notes, for their actual substance is not of financial value.11
Halacha 5
[The above laws apply] whether one took an oath after the plaintiff lodged a claim against him or whether he took it on his own initiative even though a claim was not lodged against him.12
What his implied? He took the initiative and said: "Why are you following me? Do I have any money belonging to you? I am taking an oath that I am not in possession of any of your money." Since he denied [an obligation] and took an oath, [he is liable,] even though [the plaintiff] did not lodge a claim against him.
Halacha 6
[One is liable] whether he took an oath to the person to whom he owes the money or to his agent who was given power of attorney. For a person's agent is equivalent to his own self.13
Halacha 7
One is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon unless he requires him to take an oath in a language that he understands.14
Halacha 8
When a person consciously takes a sh'vuat hapikadon, even though he takes a false oath and is warned by witnesses at the time he takes the oath, he is not liable for lashes, but instead must merely bring a guilt offering. For the Torah excluded him from those who are liable for lashes15 and obligated him to bring a guilt offering whether he transgressed willfully or inadvertently, as we explained.16
Halacha 9
If one denied [an obligation] and took an oath [concerning it] four or five times or the plaintiff administered an oath to him four or fives times and he denied each one of them, he is liable for a guilt offering for each individual oath.17[This applies] whether this took place in a court or outside the court.
[The rationale is that] were he to have admitted his obligation after making his denial, he would be liable to make restitution even though he made the denial in a court. Thus with each denial, he is making himself exempt from payment. Hence, he is liable for each individual oath.
Halacha 10
If five different people were lodging claims against him and telling him: "Give us the entrusted article of ours that you have in your possession," and he responds: "[I am taking] an oath that I do not have anything of yours in my possession," [should his oath be false,] he is liable for only one sacrifice.18
[If he answers: "I am taking] an oath that I don't have anything of yours, or of yours,... or of yours, in my possession," he is liable for each [statement].19
Halacha 11
If his colleague told him: "Give me the entrusted object, [financial] deposit, stolen object, and lost object [of mine], that you have in your possession," and he responds: "[I am taking] an oath that I do not have anything of yours in my possession," [should his oath be false,] he is liable for only one [sacrifice].20Even if the total of all the claims is [merely] a p'rutah, they are all included together and he is liable.21
Halacha 12
[If he answers: "I am taking] an oath that I don't have an entrusted object, [financial] deposit, stolen object, and lost object of yours in my possession," he is liable for each [statement].22
Halacha 13
[If the plaintiff says:] "Give me the wheat, barley, and buckwheat of mine that you have in your possession," and [the defendant responds]: "[I am taking] an oath that I do not have anything of yours in my possession," [should his oath be false,] he is liable for only one [sacrifice].23 [If he answers: "I am taking] an oath that I don't have any wheat, barley, and buckwheat of yours in my possession," he is liable for each [statement].
Halacha 14
If five different people were lodging claims against him and telling him: "Give us the entrusted article, [financial] deposit, stolen object, and lost object [of mine], that you have in your possession," and he responds to one of them: "[I am taking] an oath that I don't have an entrusted object, stolen object, lost object, and [financial] deposit of yours, or of yours,... or of yours in my possession," he is liable for each claim [made] by each individual. Thus he is liable for 20 guilt offerings.24
Halacha 15
If [the defendant] claims that he lost an entrusted object or denies [receiving it], he took an oath, and afterwards admitted [that it was in his possession], and then claimed that it was lost, took an oath, and then admitted [that it was in his possession], he must pay the principal and an additional fifth for each oath that he took.25 [This is derived from Leviticus 5:24 which literally translates as] "its fifths,"26 [implying that] the Torah took into account several fifths for [one sum of] principal.
What is implied? The principal was [worth] four [zuz]. One denied [receiving an entrusted article], took an oath, and then admitted [that he possessed it]. Afterwards, he claimed that it was lost, took an oath and then made a second admission, and then claimed that it was lost, took an oath and then made an admission another time. He is required to pay seven [zuz].27 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 16
A value less than a p'rutah is not considered as financially significant.28Hence, if a person lodges a claim against a colleague for less than a p'rutahor for articles worth less than a p'rutah and [the defendant] denied the obligation and took an oath, he is exempt with regard to a sh'vuat hapikadon29and liable for a sh'vuat bitui.30
FOOTNOTES
1.
The qualifications the Rambam mentions here make a distinction between mammon, a financial claim, for which one is liable for ash'vuat hapikadon and k'nas, a fine, for which one is not liable, as stated in the following halachah.
2.
The term literally means "an oath concerning an entrusted object." Its meaning in a halachic context is explained in this and the subsequent halachot.
If one takes such an oath falsely, he is liable to pay an additional fifth of the principal and bring a guilt offering as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 9.
3.
With regard to other oaths, it is necessary for the person to answer Amen as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1. Nevertheless, ash'vuat hapikadon is a unique instance, as the Rambam continues to explain.
4.
If, however, he remains silent in response to the oath administered by the plaintiff, he is not liable even if he had denied his claim beforehand (Radbaz).
5.
A fine. In Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 2:8, the Rambam defines a fine as an instance where a person pays more or less than the monetary value of the damage he caused.
6.
See Hilchot Genevah 1:5. See also Chapter 8, Halachot 1-3, for illustrations of this concept.
7.
For he is taking a false oath regarding his past activity.
8.
In contrast to movable property which can be concealed.
9.
In contrast to movable property where possession may determine ownership in a situation of doubt, with regard to landed property, a person must display proof of ownership. See also Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an5:1; Hilchot Gezeilah 8:14; 9:1.
10.
See Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an, loc. cit.
11.
Instead, they only serve as proof of an obligation (ibid.).
12.
Note the contrast to an oath concerning testimony (Chapter 9, Halachah 6-7). The gloss of the Torah Temimah to the prooftext explains that since the verse speaks of "deny his [obligation to] a colleague," he is liable whether his colleague demands an oath of him or not.
13.
See Hilchot Shluchim 3:5, 7. See theLechem Mishneh who emphasizes that the principal must have given the agent power of attorney to require an oath of the defendant. If, however, he merely gave the agent the authority to prosecute the claim, he may not require him to take an oath.
14.
For an oath can be taken in any language.Sotah 33a derives this from the exegesis ofLeviticus 5:1.
15.
Neither is one who takes such a false oath liable for lashes for taking a false sh'vuat bitui.
16.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 9, which explains that one is liable for a sacrifice whether he transgressed willingly or inadvertently. As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 1, Halachah 8, one is not liable for lashes either because the transgression does not involve a deed, or because financial compensation must be given and a person is not held liable both for financial restitution and lashes.
17.
Note the contrast to an oath concerning testimony, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 18. He is also liable to pay an additional fifth of the principal for each false oath, as stated in Halachah 15.
18.
Since his response included all of them in one statement, it is considered only as one oath.
19.
Since he addressed each one individually, each statement is considered as an independent oath.
20.
Since his response included all of these items in one statement, it is considered only as one oath.
21.
In this instance, were they to have been considered individually, he would be exempt, for since each of the claims are less than ap'rutah, they are not significant individually. Nevertheless, since he included them in one statement, the sum is totaled as one and he is liable.
22.
Since he mentioned each item individually, each statement is considered as an independent oath and it is necessary that each claim concern the worth of a p'rutah.
23.
Although they are different species of grain, since he included them all in one statement, he is liable only once. Even though buckwheat is a subspecies of wheat, since it is mentioned individually, he is liable for it individually (Radbaz).
24.
I.e., this combines the principles stated in Halachot 10 and 12.
25.
Similarly, he is liable for a guilt offering for each oath as stated in Halachah 9.
26.
It says chamishitav rather than chamishoto.
27.
This figure can be explained as follows: The principal is four. He must pay an additional three, for each fifth is one fifth of the new total and not one fifth of the original principal (Chapter 11, Halachah 20). He is not, however, required to pay more than one for the second and third oaths, for one is required to pay one fifth of the principal and not a fifth of the fifths (Radbaz). Note, however, Hilchot Gezelah 7:12 which explains that if he already was held liable by a court for the additional fifth, it becomes considered as part of the principal.
28.
This principle is also reflected in Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 3:1 and Hilchot Sanhedrin20:11. In Hilchot Shekalim 1:3, the Rambam defines a p'rutah as half a barleycorn of silver. Shiurei Torah defines this as 1/40th of a gram of silver.
29.
For such an oath concerns a financially significant claim and this does not. The Sifraderives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 5:26.
30.
For he took a false oath, as in Halachot 2-3.
Shvuot - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
A person is exempt [from liability for] a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following situation]: He stole an ox belonging to a colleague and slaughtered it or sold it.1 His colleague lodged a claim against him, telling him: "You stole my ox and you slaughtered it or sold it." [The defendant] responded: "I stole it, but did not slaughter it or sell it" and took an oath to support his claim.
[The reason for his exemption is that] were he to have acknowledged that he slaughtered or sold [the ox] on his own accord, he would not have been required to pay four and five times its worth for this is a fine, as explained inHilchot Genevah.2 Thus it is as if he did not deny a financial obligation. Therefore he is exempt [from liability for] a sh'vuat hapikadon, but liable for ash'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath, saying that he did not slaughter [the ox], when [in fact] he did.
Halacha 2
Similarly, a person is exempt [from liability for] a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following situations]. A person lodged a claim against him saying: "Your ox killed my servant," and he denied the incident and took an oath.3 A servant lodged a claim against his master saying: "You knocked out my tooth" or "You blinded my eye."4 For if he acknowledged the claim, he would not be obligated to pay because it is a fine.5 He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
When a person lodges a claim against a colleague concerning a matter that involves both a fine which he would not be obligated to pay if he admits his liability on his own initiative as explained [above] and a financial claim which he is liable to pay on his own admission, he denies the entire claim, and takes an oath, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon.6
What is implied? A person lodged a claim [against a colleague,] telling him: "You raped or you seduced my daughter."7 [The defendant] responded: "I did not rape or seduce her" and took an oath to this effect, he is liable for ash'vuat hapikadon. For although he would not be required to pay the fine were he to have admitted [his guilt], he is obligated to pay for the embarrassment and damages even on his own admission.8
Similarly, if a person tells a colleague: "You stole my ox," and he says, "I did not steal it" and takes an oath, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. Although he would not obligated to make the double payment [for a stolen object] on the basis of his own admission,9 he would be obligated to pay the principal on the basis of his own admission.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
[A watchman] is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following instance]: A person entrusted his ox to an unpaid watchman, the ox died, and he lodged a claim against the watchman, saying: "Where is the ox I entrusted to you?" The watchman responded: "You did not entrust anything to me," "You entrusted it, but it was stolen," or "...lost"12 and took an oath [to that effect]. [The rationale is] that had he admitted and related the matter as it occurred, he would not have been liable to make financial restitution, because he is an unpaid watchman.13 He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
[Similarly, a person] is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following instance]: A person lent his ox to a colleague and then demanded its return, saying: "Where is the ox you borrowed from me?" Now the ox had died, but the borrower said: "It was stolen" or "...lost" and took an oath to this effect. [The rationale is that] he did not free himself from making restitution by his denial and is nevertheless liable to pay whether the animal died, was stolen, lost, or taken captive because he was a borrower, as will be explained in the appropriate place.14 He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 7
This is the general principle: Whoever does not free himself from financial responsibility unless he makes this denial is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon if he takes an oath. [This applies] whether he took the oath on his own initiative or the plaintiff administer the oath and he stated his denial even though he did not answer Amen nor utter the oath himself.
Halacha 8
[A thief] is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following instance]: He stole his colleague's ox. [The colleague] demanded payment, telling him: "You stole my ox."
[The thief] responded: "I did not steal it."
Why, then, is it in your possession?"
"You entrusted it to me [for safekeeping]" and he took an oath to that effect.15
[The rationale is that] had he admitting stealing it, he would have been liable to pay the value in any case.16 By saying now that it is an entrusted object, he exempts himself from liability for theft and for loss,17 i.e., were the ox to be lost or stolen after this admission, he is not obligated to pay.
Halacha 9
Similarly, if he were to claim that he rented it and took an oath to that effect, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon, for he freed himself for liability in the cases of injury or death. Similarly, if he claimed: "You lent it to me" and took an oath to that effect, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon, for he freed himself for liability if it dies while performing its work, as will be explained in Hilchot Sheilah.18
Halacha 10
Therefore if one says: "I did not steal it. Instead, you entrusted it to me...", "...hired me to watch it...", or "...lent it to me. Here is your ox. Take it." If he took an oath to that effect, he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon,19for he admitted owing the principle and did not exempt himself from any liability with this denial.20
Halacha 11
Similarly, he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon if he uses any of the following excuses and takes an oath to that effect: "You sold it to me, but I have not paid for it yet. If you want, take the money for it. If not, here is your ox," "You gave it to me as payment for work which I will perform for you. If you desire, I will perform the work. If you do not desire, take it and depart," "I found it wandering on the road and did not know that it was yours. Now that I know, take it and depart," or "It chased after my ox. Here, it's yours." He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath.
Halacha 12
When a person is financially obligated to two partners, one demands payment from him, he denies his obligation and takes an oath, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon21 for he denied a financial obligation. If they both demanded payment from him and he admitted the entire obligation to one of them, but said: "I borrowed only from this one,"22 should he take an oath to this effect, he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon, for he did not free himself from any liability. He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui.
Halacha 13
Similarly, if there was a person who owed a debt supported by a promissory note, but he denied it and took an oath to that effect, he is not liable for ash'vuat hapikadon. [The rationale is that because of] the promissory note, [the person's] landed property is placed under lien. Thus the person is denying [an obligation involving] landed property. And as we have already explained,23 a person who denied a claim involving landed property is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath.24
Halacha 14
If a person owed a debt to which there were witnesses, he denied [his obligation], and took an oath [to that effect], he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. For by denying his obligation, he freed himself from the liability of paying immediately. When the witnesses will come, he will be obligated to pay and thus his denial will not be effective.25 It is, however, effective in that perhaps the witnesses will not come, they will come and their testimony will not be substantiated,26 or they will be disqualified.27 Therefore28 he is liable.
FOOTNOTES
1.
In which instance, he is obligated to pay five times the value of the ox (Exodus 21:37).
2.
Hilchot Genevah 1:5. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 2 above.
3.
In which instance, the owner of the ox is liable to pay a fine of 30 shekalim to the owner of the servant (Exodus 21:32).
4.
In which instance, the owner is required to free the servant (Exodus 21:26-27).
5.
For in these instances, the person is not paying the worth of the damage, but an arbitrary amount that could be either more or less.
6.
For he is denying a financial claim. The fact that it also includes a fine is not significant.
7.
I.e., a virgin girl between the ages of three and twelve and a half (Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:1).
8.
As explained in Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 2:1-2, a person who seduces a girl is required to pay a fine of 50 silver pieces, as stated inExodus 22:15, for the embarrassment he causes her, and the damages due to her reduction in her value. A rapist must also pay for the pain he causes. The embarrassment and the damages are considered as financial obligations.
9.
For that is a fine.
10.
For the damages (more particularly, the unemployment assessment, the medical fees, and the allocation for embarrassment) he must pay his colleague for the wound are considered as a financial obligation and not as a fine (see Hilchot Chovel UMazik 5:7;Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 1:16).
11.
Here as well, the damages one ox causes another are considered as a financial obligation. This applies with regard to an ox that has been distinguished as one which gores. If an ox is not known to have such a tendency, the half-payment for the damages that it causes is considered as a fine (seeHilchot Nizkei Mammon 2:8).
12.
Since he would not have been liable had he told the truth, the fact that he took a false oath does not obligate him for a sh'vuat hapikadon.
13.
He is not liable in cases involving death or other losses due to forces beyond his control.
14.
Hilchot Sechirut 1:2; Hilchot Sheilah Ufikadon 1:1.
15.
On his own volition; he is under no obligation to do so.
16.
I.e., even if it dies or is destroyed by forces beyond his control.
17.
Since he reduces his liability through his statements, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon.
18.
Hilchot Sheilah UFikadon 1:1.
19.
He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bituisince he took a false oath.
20.
For he told the owner to take his ox.
21.
This applies even if he admits owing a portion of the debt to the other partner. Since he denied part of the debt, he is liable.
22.
I.e., he admitted the entire debt, but said that he owed it only to one person and not to both partners.
23.
Chapter 7, Halachot 2-3.
24.
The Radbaz notes that this statement is seemingly redundant; it is made more than ten times in this and the previous chapter. He explains that it would appear that taking a false sh'vuat hapikadon is more severe than taking a false sh'vuat bitui, yet the punishment for a false sh'vuat bitui, lashes, is more severe than that for a false sh'vuat hapikadon, bringing a sacrifice. Hence, it is necessary for the Rambam to state the point explicitly each time.
25.
And thus there is room to say that he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon, as indicated by Halachah 7.
26.
I.e., it will be disqualified through the process of cross-examination.
27.
And thus be prevented from testifying.
28.
I.e., because his denial has an immediate - and perhaps long-term - effect, he is liable.
Shvuot - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
When a plaintiff1 demands that witnesses testify concerning a matter that through their testimony alone2 will obligate the defendant to pay this plaintiff a financial claim involving moveable property,3 [the witnesses] denied [knowing] testimony and took an oath to this effect - whether in a court of law or outside of it - they are liable for sh'vuat haedut,4 for they caused the plaintiff a financial lost through their denial.
Similarly, if the plaintiff administered an oath to them and they denied the matter, [they are liable] even though they did not take an oath or answer Amento the oath he [administered]. Since they denied the matter, they are liable, provided he administered the oath to them in court.5
Halacha 2
The witnesses are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut unless they deny [knowing testimony] in court. Whether they took the oath or the oath was administered to them in court or outside the court, the denial must be in court alone, as [can be derived from Leviticus 5:1]: "If he will not testify, he will bear his sin." [Implied is that] in the place he will testify and [that testify] will have an effect,6there, if he does not testify, he will be liable.
Halacha 3
When the plaintiff demands [that the witnesses] testify concerning a claim that does not involve a financial obligation,7 concerns landed property, servants, or promissory notes, they deny [knowing testimony], and take an oath to that effect, they are not liable for a sh'vuat edut. For they are liable when denying testimony concerning financial claims that resemble an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, a robbery, or a lost oject which the verse8 mentions in this passage. This refers to moveable property which is itself of financial worth9that were they to testify on [the plaintiff's] behalf, [the defendant] would have to pay.
Halacha 4
Similarly, when one administers an oath to witnesses who [can testify regarding] a fine and they deny [knowledge] of the matter, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] were the defendant to come and acknowledge his liability for the fine first,10 he would not be liable to pay even though the witnesses came afterwards and testified accordingly. Thus the witnesses did not make him liable through their testimony alone. Instead, it was their testimony together with the denial of the defendant that made him liable. Since their testimony would not be effective if he acknowledged [his liability], if they denied [knowing of] the matter and took an oath, they are not liable.
Halacha 5
[When a plaintiff administers an oath to witnesses, saying:] "I am making you take an oath that you come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so owes me a double payment"11 or a four- or five-fold payment12 and the witnesses deny [knowledge of the matter], they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut because of the principle which is a financial obligation,13 but not because of the double payment which is a fine.
Similarly, if he administered an oath that they testify that they testify that so-and-so raped or seduced his daughter and they deny [knowledge of the matter], they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut because of the [payment due] for embarrassment and damages.14 For if the defendant acknowledged his obligation, he would have to pay these obligations, but not because of the fine. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
Witnesses are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut until they deny [knowledge of the matter] and take an oath after the plaintiff or his agent15 demand [that they testify]. If, however, they take an oath first, before a demand is made of them, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
Halacha 7
What is implied? [The witnesses] saw the plaintiff following after them, they told him: "Why are you following us? We are taking an oath that we do not know any testimony involving you," they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] the plaintiff did not make a demand of them. Instead, they took the oath first on their own initiative.16
Similarly, if the defendant administered an oath to them that if they knew testimony involving the plaintiff they should come and testify and they deny [knowledge of the matter], they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut unless the plaintiff makes them take the oath.17 Needless to say, if he administered an oath that they should come to testify that so-and-so owes so-and-so money and they deny [knowledge of the matter], they are not liable. For the person making this demand is not the plaintiff himself. Similarly, if the oath preceded [their knowledge of] the testimony, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut, as [implied by Leviticus 5:1]: "And he heard the voice of an oath [when] he was a witness." [It can be inferred that knowledge of] the testimony preceded the oath and not that the oath preceded the knowledge of the testimony.
Halacha 8
What is implied? [The plaintiff says:] "I am administering to you an oath that if you will know of testimony concerning me that you come and testify," and the witnesses responded Amen and afterwards they observed a matter concerning him.18 If he demands that they testify and they deny [knowledge of the matter], they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
Halacha 9
Witnesses are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut until the plaintiff singles them out and administers an oath to them or they take an oath.19
What is implied? A person stood up in a synagogue and said: "I am administering an oath to anyone who knows testimony concerning me to come and testify on my behalf." They all - including his witnesses - respondedAmen. Afterwards, he demanded of his witnesses that they testify and they denied [knowledge of the matter]. They are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut, because he did not single out the witnesses individually. If, however, he said: "I am administering an oath to all of those standing here that if they know testimony concerning me to come and testify on my behalf." [If] his witnesses were among those present and [then] they denied [knowledge of the matter], they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut, because he singled them out among the others.20
Halacha 10
Similarly, if he told the witnesses: "Come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so owes me a maneh" and then stands in a synagogue and said: "I am administering an oath to anyone who knows testimony concerning me to come and testify on my behalf," should they not come and testify, they are liable, because he made a demand of them previously. [This applies] provided they are present in the synagogue and a court is also there.21 If a court was not present, they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut if they answered Amen and deny [knowledge of the matter] while in a court of law.22 If they did not answerAmen, they are not liable.
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
The witnesses are not liable unless the oath is administered to them in a language that they understand.25
Halacha 13
Thus you have learned that witnesses are not liable for a sh'vuat haedutunless ten conditions are [met]. They are:26
a) [The witnesses] must be charged [with testifying] by the plaintiff;
b) [The matter] must involve a financial claim;
c) It must involve movable property;
d) Their testimony alone, had it been given, would be sufficient to require the defendant to pay;
e) They must deny [knowledge of the matter] after the plaintiff charges them;
f) They must issue their denial in court;
g) God's name or a term used to describe Him must be mentioned in the oath;
h) The knowledge of the matter must precede the oath;
i) The witnesses must be singled out at the time of the oath or at the time they are charged;
j) The oath must be in a language that they understand.
Halacha 14
Whenever we have used the expression "they are not liable" [in this chapter], the intent is that they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. They are, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, provided they take the oath or answer Amen to an oath administered by a colleague, because they took a false oath.27
When, by contrast, one is liable for a sh'vuat haedut, he is only liable for ash'vuat haedutand is not liable for a sh'vuat bitui, even though he took a false oath and did so intentionally. [The rationale is that] the Torah removed ash'vuat haedut from the category of sh'vuat bitui to make a person who deliberately [takes a false oath] liable for a sacrifice for its violation just as one who took it inadvertently.28 He is not, however, liable for lashes, as [can be derived from Leviticus 5:5 which] states: "For one of these."29 A person who takes a [false] oath is liable for one type of oath, but not two. [We do not hold him liable for both] a sh'vuat haedut and a sh'vuat bitui.
Halacha 15
[When the plaintiff says: "I am administering] an oath to you unless you come and testify that so-and-so has an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, stolen property, and a lost object of mine in his possession," [and the witnesses respond: "We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning you," they are liable for only [sacrifice].30 [If they say: "We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, stolen property, and a lost object of yours in so-and-so's possession, they are liable for each [statement].31
Halacha 16
[When the plaintiff says: "I am administering] an oath to you unless you come and testify that so-and-so has wheat, barley, and buckwheat of mine in his possession," and [the defendant responds]: "[We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning you," they are liable for only one [sacrifice].32[If they answer: "We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning any wheat, barley, and buckwheat of yours in his possession," he is liable for each [statement].
Halacha 17
Similarly, if many people charged them with testifying and they said: "[We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning you," they are liable for only one [sacrifice]. [If they said:] "...concerning you, and you, and you," they are liable for each [statement], as explained with regard tosh'vuat hapikadon.33
Halacha 18
When a person administers an oath to a colleague that he knows testimony concerning him and ultimately, it is discovered that he does not know testimony, [the colleague] is not liable, neither for a sh'vuat haedut34, nor for ash'vuat bitui. [The rationale is that] a sh'vuat bitui involves only matters that have both a positive and negative dimension.35 Were the person to have said: "I am taking an oath that I do not know testimony concerning you," that would not be a sh'vuat bitui, but instead a sh'vuat haedut. Hence since the negative dimension of the statement is not a sh'vuat bitui, the positive dimension, taking an oath that one knows testimony, is not a sh'vuat bitui.36
FOOTNOTES
1.
This excludes instances when an oath is not made in response to the plaintiff's demands, as stated in Halachah 7. And it excludes an instance when the matter was observed by two pairs of witnesses, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 15.
2.
This excludes a fine, because in that instance, the defendant does not become liable until he denies the obligation and the witnesses refute his denial. With regard to monetary claims, by contrast, once the witnesses testify, the defendant is liable regardless of whether he admits or disputes his liability. See Halachah 4.
3.
Halachah 3 explains that this phrase excludes promissory notes, landed property, and servants.
4.
This term literally means "the oath [concerning] testimony." As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 12, a person who takes this oath falsely is liable to bring an adjustable guilt offering.
5.
As reflected by Halachah 10, when the oath is administered by the plaintiff and the witnesses do not answer Amen, the oath must be administered in court. If, however, the witnesses take the oath on their own accord or they answer Amen, they are liable even if this takes places outside a court, provided the denial takes place within a court, as stated in the following halachah (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh; see also Chapter 10, Halachah 7 and notes).
6.
I.e., in court. See Halachah 10 and notes where this concept is discussed.
7.
E.g., he demanded that they testify that he was a priest or a Levite (Chapter 10, Halachah 3).
8.
Leviticus 5:21-22; see the explanations in Chapter 7, Halachah 4, and notes.
9.
In contrast to promissory notes.
10.
See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 2:8.
11.
For a theft.
12.
For the theft and slaughter or sale of a sheep or a cow.
13.
For this must be paid even if he admits stealing himself.
14.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 3, and notes.
15.
This applies to a person who has been given power of attorney (see Chapter 7, Halachah 6). If he has not been given formal power of attorney, even if he is an agent acting on behalf of the principal, the oath he administers is not of consequence (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).
16.
As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to Mishnah (Sh'vuot 4:12), Leviticus 5:1 states "If he does not tell" but the word "not" is written lamed alef vav. This implies bothlamed alef "not," and lamed vav "to him." Implied is that he must say no to him, i.e., in response to his demand.
17.
This can also be derived through the process of exegesis mentioned above. One can infer that the witnesses he must say no to him, to the plaintiff himself
18.
I.e., at the time the oath was administered, they did not have knowledge of testimony concerning the plaintiff, but afterwards they observed the matter under investigation.
19.
From the exegesis of the prooftext cited above, Sh'vuot 35a understands that the verse is speaking, not of people in general, but of persons singled out to serve as witnesses.
20.
Although he spoke to the group as a whole, the oath was directed to each of the persons individually.
Rabbenu Nissim mentions another concept related to this ruling. A plaintiff may administer an oath to a person even when he is not certain that the person in fact knows testimony concerning him.
21.
Since they did not take the oath or answerAmen, they are not liable unless the oath is administered in the presence of a court, as stated in Halachah 1.
22.
For their denial must be made in a court of law, as stated in Halachah 2.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's decision, explaining that the Rambam follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir (Sh'vuot 30a), but the Ra'avad maintains that the halachah should be decided according to the Sages who differ with rabbi Meir. Similarly, the Ra'avad also differs with the Rambam's postulate that if the witnesses do not answerAmen, the oath must be administered in a court.
The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's position, explaining that since the witnesses did not take the oath themselves or respond Amen, it is their denial of knowledge of the testimony that constitutes acceptance of the oath. Accordingly, just as the denial must be made in court, the oath must be administered in court. For it is inappropriate that the oath itself be administered outside the court, while its acceptance is required to be in court. See also Chapter 10, Halachah 17 and notes.
23.
Or includes God's name in any of the other expressions (Radbaz).
24.
See Chapter 2, Halachot 2-4.
25.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 7. This applies even if they answer Amen to the oath (Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 7:1).
26.
All of these points have been discussed in the previous halachot.
27.
Although the Rambam's position is shared by many other Rishonim, there are others (e.g., Rashi, Sh'vuot 25b), who differ and maintain that since the oath involves testimony, one is never liable for a sh'vuat bitui even when he is not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. See Halachah 18 and notes.
28.
Sh'vuot 30a notes that with regard to all the other types of oaths, the Torah uses the expression "and it became concealed from him," but it does not use that expression with regard to a sh'vuat haedut. Implied is that even if the matter is not concealed, i.e., he transgresses deliberately, he is liable for a sacrifice. The Radbaz questions - without resolving - why the Torah gives the person a lesser punishment - a sacrifice - instead of lashes, when he purposefully violates this transgression.
29.
The same passage mentions both a sh'vuat haedut and a sh'vuat bitui. This verse teaches that one can be held liable for only one of these types of oaths. This also applies with regard to the other false oaths for which the Torah holds one liable. One can be held liable only for one.
30.
Because they included all the obligations in a single statement. Note the parallel to this and the subsequent laws in Chapter 7, Halachot 10-14.
31.
For they singled out each object individually.
32.
Although they are different species of grain, since he included them all in one statement, he is liable only once.
33.
Because they included all the obligations in a single statement. Note the parallel to this and the subsequent laws in Chapter 7, Halachot 10-14.
34.
For a sh'vuat haedut involves a situation when the witnesses refuse to testify.
35.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and notes.
36.
Hence he is totally absolved from liability.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that one could raise a question based on Sh'vuat 25b. From that passage, it would appear that this and the concept stated in Halachah 14 are conflicting positions and one cannot accept both as halachah. Nevertheless, he explains that it is only in the preliminary stage of the Talmud's argument that the positions appear conflicting. After the Talmud cites the teaching derived from the prooftext, "for one of these," the two rulings can be reconciled. He cites other Rishonim who interpret the passage in this manner.
37.
For he is taking an oath regard a specific activity which he performed or did not perform in the past. Since it has both a positive and negative dimension, he is liable. The fact that this oath does not have a future dimension - for if one takes an oath that he will not testify, he is negating a mitzvah, and hence, it is an oath in vain (Chapter 5, Halachah 15) and not a sh'vuat bitui - does not prevent one from being liable for the oath referring to the past.
38.
For a sh'vuat haedut involves only the future.
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
• "Today's Day"
Friday, Adar I 24, 5776 · 04 March 2016
Monday 24 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 113-118.
Tanya: For whereas (p. 145)...on a (transitory) thing. (p. 145).
To R. Hillel Paritcher's question whether to review Chassidus even in towns where the people have no conception of Chassidus, the Mitteler Rebbe responded: "The soul hears words of Chassidus." It is written, "Flowing from Lebanon."1Lebanon is spelled (in Hebrew) l'b nu'n.2 "Lebanon" thus represents chochma and bina of the soul. When the soul3 hears, from there4 issues a "flow", a "stream of droplets" into that "radiance" or ha'ara of the soul which vitalizes the body;5 this results in a strengthening of "do good" expressed in the 248 positive mitzvot, and of "turn from evil" expressed in the 365 prohibitions.
FOOTNOTES
1. Shir HaShirim 4:15.
2. L'b numerically equals 32, representing the "32 paths of chochma," wisdom; nu'n equals 50, the "fifty portals of bina," understanding.
3. At its source-level of chochma and bina.
4. I.e. from that chochma/bina source-level, the "Lebanon" of the soul.
5. It is explained that only part of the soul invests itself in the body to give it life; this is called the "radiance" or reflection(ha'ara) of the soul, in contrast to the essence (Lebanon), which remains "above." While the simple person hearing Chassidus does not comprehend in the least, his soul does possess the qualities of intellect, chochma and bina, that do comprehend, though he is not conscious of this. However there is an effect on him, the "flow" from Lebanon, intellect.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
• "Today's Day"
Friday, Adar I 24, 5776 · 04 March 2016
Monday 24 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 113-118.
Tanya: For whereas (p. 145)...on a (transitory) thing. (p. 145).
To R. Hillel Paritcher's question whether to review Chassidus even in towns where the people have no conception of Chassidus, the Mitteler Rebbe responded: "The soul hears words of Chassidus." It is written, "Flowing from Lebanon."1Lebanon is spelled (in Hebrew) l'b nu'n.2 "Lebanon" thus represents chochma and bina of the soul. When the soul3 hears, from there4 issues a "flow", a "stream of droplets" into that "radiance" or ha'ara of the soul which vitalizes the body;5 this results in a strengthening of "do good" expressed in the 248 positive mitzvot, and of "turn from evil" expressed in the 365 prohibitions.
FOOTNOTES
1. Shir HaShirim 4:15.
2. L'b numerically equals 32, representing the "32 paths of chochma," wisdom; nu'n equals 50, the "fifty portals of bina," understanding.
3. At its source-level of chochma and bina.
4. I.e. from that chochma/bina source-level, the "Lebanon" of the soul.
5. It is explained that only part of the soul invests itself in the body to give it life; this is called the "radiance" or reflection(ha'ara) of the soul, in contrast to the essence (Lebanon), which remains "above." While the simple person hearing Chassidus does not comprehend in the least, his soul does possess the qualities of intellect, chochma and bina, that do comprehend, though he is not conscious of this. However there is an effect on him, the "flow" from Lebanon, intellect.
---------------------• Daily Thought:
Self Oppression
A tyrant can steal everything from you but your knowledge of who you are. That, only you can give away.
When someone else imprisons or enslaves you, you still know who you are—even if you are prevented from expressing it.
But when you make your goal in life to be someone you are not, or to be part of a people that are not your own, that is the ultimate surrender. There is no greater captivity, for your essence and being have been locked away in a dark cell.
It is an oppression of the worst sort, but also the easiest to escape. After all, you admitted yourself into this place. So who is preventing you from signing out?
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment