Today's Laws & Customs:
• Today's 'Nasi': Reuben
In today's "Nasi" reading (see "Nasi of the Day" in Nissan 1), we read of the gift bought by thenasi of the tribe of Reuben, Elitzur ben Shedeur, for the inauguration of the Mishkan.
Text of today's Nasi in Hebrew and English.
Today in Jewish History:
• Hospital Convoy Ambushed (1948)
On the morning of the 4th of Nissan, a civilian convoy of doctors and nurses traveling to the Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus (see Today in Jewish History for 20 Iyar) was attacked by Arab forces. Of the ten vehicles in the caravan, five escaped. The other five vehicles, however, which included two buses and an ambulance, were riddled with machine gun fire and later set ablaze. Altogether 77 Jewish civilians were massacred on that day.
Shortly afterwards, the hospital was closed down and moved to the western part of Jerusalem.
The Mt. Scopus hospital only reopened after the eastern part of Jerusalem was liberated by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. Primarily staffed by Israeli doctors, it is the largest and best equipped hospital in the eastern section of Jerusalem.
Daily Quote:
Behold, I shall rain down to you bread from heaven.[Exodus 16:4]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Metzora, 3rd Portion Leviticus 14:21-14:32 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 14
21But if he is poor and cannot afford [these sacrifices], he shall take one [male] lamb as a guilt offering for a waving to effect atonement for him, and one tenth [of an ephah] of fine flour mixed with oil as a meal offering, and a log of oil. כאוְאִם־דַּ֣ל ה֗וּא וְאֵ֣ין יָדוֹ֘ מַשֶּׂ֒גֶת֒ וְ֠לָקַ֠ח כֶּ֣בֶשׂ אֶחָ֥ד אָשָׁ֛ם לִתְנוּפָ֖ה לְכַפֵּ֣ר עָלָ֑יו וְעִשָּׂר֨וֹן סֹ֜לֶת אֶחָ֨ד בָּל֥וּל בַּשֶּׁ֛מֶן לְמִנְחָ֖ה וְלֹ֥ג שָֽׁמֶן:
and one tenth [of an ephah] of fine flour: for [the libation meal offering to accompany] this lamb, which is one, he shall bring one “tenth” [of an ephah of flour] for his libation offering [to accompany his one lamb]. ועשרון סלת אחד: לכבש זה שהוא אחד יביא עשרון אחד לנסכיו:
and a log of oil: to place some of it [upon the cartilage of the ear and] on the thumb and big toe. However, as far as the [amount of] oil required for the libation meal offerings, Scripture did not need to specify [for we know it from another passage (see Num. 15)]. ולוג שמן: לתת ממנו על הבהונות ושמן של נסכי המנחה לא הוזקק הכתוב לפרש:
22And two turtle doves or two young doves, according to what he can afford; one shall be a sin offering, and one a burnt offering. כבוּשְׁתֵּ֣י תֹרִ֗ים א֤וֹ שְׁנֵי֙ בְּנֵ֣י יוֹנָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּשִּׂ֖יג יָד֑וֹ וְהָיָ֤ה אֶחָד֙ חַטָּ֔את וְהָֽאֶחָ֖ד עֹלָֽה:
23And he shall bring them on the eighth day of his cleansing, to the kohen, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, before the Lord. כגוְהֵבִ֨יא אֹתָ֜ם בַּיּ֧וֹם הַשְּׁמִינִ֛י לְטָֽהֳרָת֖וֹ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֑ן אֶל־פֶּ֥תַח אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
on the eighth day of his cleansing: [I.e.,] on the eighth day after [he had brought] the birds and been sprinkled with the cedar stick, the hyssop, and the strip of crimson wool [for that procedure is also called a “cleansing,” albeit interim]. ביום השמיני לטהרתו: שמיני לצפרים ולהזאת עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת:
24And the kohen shall take the guilt offering lamb and the log of oil, and the kohen shall wave them as a waving, before the Lord. כדוְלָקַ֧ח הַכֹּהֵ֛ן אֶת־כֶּ֥בֶשׂ הָֽאָשָׁ֖ם וְאֶת־לֹ֣ג הַשָּׁ֑מֶן וְהֵנִ֨יף אֹתָ֧ם הַכֹּהֵ֛ן תְּנוּפָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
25And he shall slaughter the guilt offering lamb, and the kohen shall take some of the blood of the guilt offering's and place it on the cartilage of the right ear of the person being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. כהוְשָׁחַט֘ אֶת־כֶּ֣בֶשׂ הָֽאָשָׁם֒ וְלָקַ֤ח הַכֹּהֵן֙ מִדַּ֣ם הָֽאָשָׁ֔ם וְנָתַ֛ן עַל־תְּנ֥וּךְ אֹֽזֶן־הַמִּטַּהֵ֖ר הַיְמָנִ֑ית וְעַל־בֹּ֤הֶן יָדוֹ֙ הַיְמָנִ֔ית וְעַל־בֹּ֥הֶן רַגְל֖וֹ הַיְמָנִֽית:
26And the kohen shall then pour some of the oil into the left palm of the kohen. כווּמִן־הַשֶּׁ֖מֶן יִצֹ֣ק הַכֹּהֵ֑ן עַל־כַּ֥ף הַכֹּהֵ֖ן הַשְּׂמָאלִֽית:
27And the kohen shall sprinkle with his right index finger some of the oil that is in his left palm, seven times before the Lord. כזוְהִזָּ֤ה הַכֹּהֵן֙ בְּאֶצְבָּע֣וֹ הַיְמָנִ֔ית מִן־הַשֶּׁ֕מֶן אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־כַּפּ֖וֹ הַשְּׂמָאלִ֑ית שֶׁ֥בַע פְּעָמִ֖ים לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
28And the kohen shall place some of the oil that is in his palm, on the cartilage of the right ear of the person being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot, on the place of the blood of the guilt offering. כחוְנָתַ֨ן הַכֹּהֵ֜ן מִן־הַשֶּׁ֣מֶן | אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־כַּפּ֗וֹ עַל־תְּנ֞וּךְ אֹ֤זֶן הַמִּטַּהֵר֙ הַיְמָנִ֔ית וְעַל־בֹּ֤הֶן יָדוֹ֙ הַיְמָנִ֔ית וְעַל־בֹּ֥הֶן רַגְל֖וֹ הַיְמָנִ֑ית עַל־מְק֖וֹם דַּ֥ם הָֽאָשָֽׁם:
on the place of the blood of the guilt-offering: Even if the blood had been wiped off. This teaches us that the blood is not the determining factor, but the place is the determining factor. — [Torath Kohanim 14:54; Men. 10a] על מקום דם האשם: אפילו נתקנח הדם, למד שאין הדם גורם אלא המקום גורם:
29And what is left over from the oil that is in the kohen's palm, he shall place upon the head of the person being cleansed, to effect atonement for him, before the Lord. כטוְהַנּוֹתָ֗ר מִן־הַשֶּׁ֨מֶן֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־כַּ֣ף הַכֹּהֵ֔ן יִתֵּ֖ן עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַמִּטַּהֵ֑ר לְכַפֵּ֥ר עָלָ֖יו לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
30He shall then perform [the service of] one of the turtle doves or of the young doves, from whatever he can afford, לוְעָשָׂ֤ה אֶת־הָֽאֶחָד֙ מִן־הַתֹּרִ֔ים א֖וֹ מִן־בְּנֵ֣י הַיּוֹנָ֑ה מֵֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּשִּׂ֖יג יָדֽוֹ:
31[from] what he can afford, one as a sin offering, and one as a burnt offering, besides the meal offering, and the kohen shall effect atonement for the person being cleansed, before the Lord. לאאֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־תַּשִּׂ֞יג יָד֗וֹ אֶת־הָֽאֶחָ֥ד חַטָּ֛את וְאֶת־הָֽאֶחָ֥ד עֹלָ֖ה עַל־הַמִּנְחָ֑ה וְכִפֶּ֧ר הַכֹּהֵ֛ן עַ֥ל הַמִּטַּהֵ֖ר לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
32This is the law of one in whom there is a lesion of tzara'ath, who cannot afford [the full array of sacrifices], when he is to be cleansed. לבזֹ֣את תּוֹרַ֔ת אֲשֶׁר־בּ֖וֹ נֶ֣גַע צָרָ֑עַת אֲשֶׁ֛ר לֹֽא־תַשִּׂ֥יג יָד֖וֹ בְּטָֽהֳרָתֽוֹ:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 23 - 28
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 23
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• English text• Chapter 23
When King David was in the forest of Cheret and nearly died of starvation, God provided nourishment for him with a taste of the World to Come. David then composed this psalm, describing the magnitude of his trust in God.
1. A psalm by David. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall lack nothing.
2. He lays me down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters.
3. He revives my soul; He directs me in paths of righteousness for the sake of His Name.
4. Though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff-they will comfort me.
5. You will prepare a table for me before my enemies; You have anointed my head with oil; my cup is full.
6. Only goodness and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the House of the Lord for many long years.
Chapter 24
If the fulfillment of one's prayer would result in the sanctification of God's Name, he should pray that God act for the sake of the holiness of His Name. One should also invoke the merit of his ancestors, for we know that "the righteous are greater in death than in life"
1. By David, a psalm. The earth and all therein is the Lord's; the world and its inhabitants.
2. For He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers.
3. Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord, and who may stand in His holy place?
4. He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not used My Name in vain or sworn falsely.
5. He shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and kindness from God, his deliverer.
6. Such is the generation of those who search for Him, [the children of] Jacob who seek Your countenance forever.
7. Lift up your heads, O gates, and be lifted up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
8. Who is the glorious King? The Lord, strong and mighty; the Lord, mighty in battle.
9. Lift up your heads, O gates; lift them up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
10. Who is the glorious King? The Lord of Hosts, He is the glorious King for all eternity.
Chapter 25
The verses in this psalm are arranged according to the alphabet, excluding the letters Bet, Vav, and Kuf, which together equal the numerical value of Gehenom (purgatory). One who recites this psalm daily will not see the face of purgatory.
1. By David. To You, Lord, I lift my soul.
2. My God, I have put my trust in You. May I not be put to shame; may my enemies not gloat over me.
3. Indeed, may all who hope in You not be put to shame; let those who act treacherously without reason be shamed.
4. O Lord, make Your ways known to me; teach me Your paths.
5. Train me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation; I yearn for You all day.
6. O Lord, remember Your mercies and Your kindnesses, for they have existed for all time.
7. Do not recall the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions; remember me in accordance with Your kindness, because of Your goodness, O Lord.
8. Good and upright is the Lord, therefore He directs sinners along the way.
9. He guides the humble with justice, and teaches the humble His way.
10. All the paths of the Lord are kindness and truth for those who observe His covenant and testimonies.
11. For the sake of Your Name, O Lord, pardon my iniquity, for it is great.
12. Whoever is a God-fearing man, him will He teach the path that he should choose.
13. His soul will abide in well-being, and his descendants will inherit the earth.
14. The secret of the Lord is to those who fear Him; He makes His covenant known to them.
15. My eyes are always turned to the Lord, for He releases my feet from the snare.
16. Turn to me and be compassionate to me, for I am alone and afflicted.
17. The sufferings of my heart have increased; deliver me from my hardships.
18. Behold my affliction and suffering, and forgive all my sins.
19. See how numerous my enemies have become; they hate me with a violent hatred.
20. Guard my soul and deliver me; may I not be put to shame, for I place my trust in You.
21. Let integrity and uprightness guard me, for my hope is in You.
22. Redeem Israel, O God, from all its afflictions.
Chapter 26
In this psalm King David inundates God with prayers and acts of piety, because he envies those who are his spiritual superiors, saying, "If only I were on their level of piety and virtue!"
1. By David. Judge me, O Lord, for in my innocence I have walked, and in the Lord I have trusted-I shall not falter.
2. Try me, O Lord, and test me; refine my mind and heart.
3. For Your kindness is before my eyes, and I have walked constantly in Your truth.
4. I did not sit with men of falsehood, and with hypocrites I will not mingle.
5. I detested the company of evildoers, and with the wicked I will not sit.
6. I wash my hands in purity, and circle Your altar, O Lord,
7. to give voice to thanks, and to recount all Your wonders.
8. I love the shelter of Your House, O Lord, and the place where Your glory resides.
9. Gather not in my soul with sinners, nor my life with men of bloodshed,
10. In whose hands are schemes, and whose right hand is filled with bribes.
11. But I walk in my innocence; redeem me and show me favor.
12. My foot stands on level ground; in assemblies I will bless the Lord.
Chapter 27
King David acknowledges and praises God, placing his trust in Him because of his victories in war. "Nevertheless, it is not wars that I desire, for I cannot gain perfection with them. Only one thing do I ask: to abide day and night in the study hall studying Torah, to gain perfection so that my soul may merit the life of the World to Come."
1. By David. The Lord is my light and my salvation-whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life-whom shall I dread?
2. When evildoers approached me to devour my flesh, my oppressors and my foes, they stumbled and fell.
3. If an army were to beleaguer me, my heart would not fear; if war were to arise against me, in this I trust
4. One thing I have asked of the Lord, this I seek: that I may dwell in the House of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the pleasantness of the Lord, and to visit His Sanctuary.
5. For He will hide me in His tabernacle on a day of adversity; He will conceal me in the hidden places of His tent; He will lift me upon a rock.
6. And then my head will be raised above my enemies around me, and I will offer in His tabernacle sacrifices of jubilation; I will sing and chant to the Lord.
7. Lord, hear my voice as I call; be gracious to me and answer me.
8. In Your behalf my heart says, "Seek My countenance"; Your countenance, Lord, I seek.
9. Do not conceal Your countenance from me; do not cast aside Your servant in wrath. You have been my help; do not abandon me nor forsake me, God of my deliverance.
10. Though my father and mother have forsaken me, the Lord has taken me in.
11. Lord, teach me Your way and lead me in the path of righteousness, because of my watchful enemies.
12. Do not give me over to the will of my oppressors, for there have risen against me false witnesses, and they speak evil.
13. [They would have crushed me] had I not believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.
14. Hope in the Lord, be strong and let your heart be valiant, and hope in the Lord.
FOOTNOTES
1.I trust that “the lord is my light and salvation” etc. (Rashi)
Chapter 28
A prayer for every individual, entreating God to assist him in walking the good path, to prevent him from walking with the wicked doers of evil, and that He repay the wicked for their wickedness and the righteous for their righteousness.
1. By David. I call to You, O Lord; my Strength, do not be deaf to me; for should You be silent to me, I will be like those who descend to the pit.
2. Hear the sound of my pleas when I cry out to You, when I raise my hands toward Your holy Sanctuary.
3. Do not draw me along with the wicked, with evildoers who speak of peace with their companions, though evil is in their heart.
4. Give them according to their deeds, and the evil of their endeavors; give them according to their handiwork, render to them their just desserts.
5. For they pay no heed to the acts of the Lord, nor to the work of His hands; may He destroy them and not rebuild them.
6. Blessed is the Lord, for He has heard the voice of my pleas.
7. The Lord is my strength and my shield; in Him my heart trusted and I was helped; my heart exulted, and with my song I praised Him.
8. The Lord is a strength to them; He is a stronghold of deliverance to His anointed.
9. Grant salvation to Your people and bless Your heritage; tend them and exalt them forever.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 39• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Tuesday, Nissan 4, 5776 · April 12, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 39
• וכשעוסק שלא לשמה ממש, לשום איזו פניה לכבוד עצמו
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Tuesday, Nissan 4, 5776 · April 12, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work
Positive Commandment 138
The Return of Hereditary Property during the Jubilee Year
"Throughout the land of your possession, you shall give redemption for the land"—Leviticus 25:24.
During the Jubilee Year, all acquired land must be returned – free of charge – to its original owner, as explained in the Torah.
This mitzvah applies only to real estate that is not within a walled city, and is only practiced in the Land of Israel, and only when all of the tribes are settled therein, each in their ancestral portion of the Land.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• The Return of Hereditary Property during the Jubilee Year
Selling Land in Israel for Perpetuity
"The land shall not be sold forever"—Leviticus 25:23.
It is forbidden to sell real estate in the Land of Israel for perpetuity. [Instead, land must be sold with the understanding that it will return to its original owner during the Jubilee Year.]
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Selling Land in Israel for Perpetuity
Redeeming Property in Walled Cities
"And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city..."—Leviticus 25:29.
Properties within a walled city in the Land of Israel [walled since the times of Joshua] can be redeemed (i.e. repurchased) by the seller for an entire year following the sale. If the seller did not redeem the property within that window of time, the sold property remains permanently in the property of the buyer—it does not revert to the seller during the Jubilee Year.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
However, when one engages in divine service explicitly not lishmah but for an ulterior motive of self-glorification,
כגון להיות תלמיד חכם וכהאי גוונא
as, for example, in order to become a scholar, and the like,
אזי אותה פניה, שמצד הקליפה דנוגה, מתלבשת בתורתו
then this motive, which is derived from kelipat nogah, clothes itself in his Torah study,
והתורה היא בבחינת גלות בתוך הקליפה
and the Torah studied for this motive is in a state of exile within the kelipah;
לפי שעה, עד אשר יעשה תשובה, שמביאה רפואה לעולם
but only temporarily, until he repents, since1 “Repentance brings healing to the world.”
שבשובו אל ה׳, גם תורתו שבה עמו
For when he returns to G‑d, his Torah returns with him from kelipah to holiness.
ולכן אמרו רז״ל: לעולם יעסוק אדם וכו׳ שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה בודאי
Therefore our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said,2 “One should always engage [in Torah and mitzvot, evenshelo lishmah], for out of shelo lishmah he will certainly arrive at [study and observance] lishmah,
שבודאי סופו לעשות תשובה, בגלגול זה או בגלגול אחר
since it is certain that he will ultimately repent, whether in this incarnation or another,
כי לא ידח ממנו נדח
because3 “No one banished from Him by his sins will remain banished,” but will ultimately repent.
The Alter Rebbe thus perceives two novel insights in the statement that one should always engage in Torah and mitzvoteven shelo lishmah, etc.
(a) Progress from shelo lishmah to lishmah is a certainty, not a possibility, since every sinner will ultimately repent (— and the Alter Rebbe therefore adds the word “certainly” to the quotation);
(b) Not only will the person advance from the state of shelo lishmah to lishmah, but even the Torah that he studied shelo lishmah will be elevated, so that it attains the quality of lishmah; for when one repents and returns to G‑d, his Torah “returns” with him.
The aforesaid applies to one who engages in divine service for an ulterior motive, strictly shelo lishmah.
אך כשעושה סתם לא לשמה, ולא שלא לשמה, אין הדבר תלוי בתשובה
But if one acts neutrally, neither lishmah nor shelo lishmah, then the matter is not contingent on repentance.
אלא מיד שחוזר ולומד דבר זה לשמה, הרי גם מה שלמד בסתם מתחבר ומצטרף ללימוד זה, ופרחא לעילא
Rather, as soon as he reviews the subject lishmah, then even that which he had studied neutrally soars on high, attaching itself to and joining his present study,
מאחר שלא נתלבש בו עדיין שום קליפה דנוגה
since no kelipat nogah had yet clothed itself in [his previous study].
Because his earlier study was not motivated by selfish reasons, the Torah studied is not in exile within the kelipah; it merely lacks the quality of lishmah. This fault is remedied by reviewing the subject lishmah.
ולכן לעולם יעסוק אדם כו׳
Therefore, “A man should always occupy himself [with Torah...even shelo lishmah, for out of shelo lishmah he will come to lishmah”] — the Torah that he studied will itself be elevated to the level of lishmah. In this case, the lishmah “comes” automatically when one reviews his studies; it is not contingent on repentance (as it is in the case of Torah studied for personal motives).
וכן הענין בתפלה שלא בכוונה, כמו שכתוב בזהר
The same is true of prayer without kavanah, as discussed in the Zohar.4
When one recites the prayer once again, this time with kavanah, his earlier prayer ascends as well. Further in Tanya, the Alter Rebbe states that even if from all one’s prayers throughout the year, only one full prayer with kavanah can be assembled piecemeal (from one part of prayer said with kavanah one day, another part on another day, and so on), this one prayer is sufficient to elevate all the prayers of the entire year. For even where specific kavanah is lacking, the prayer is endowed with the comprehensive kavanah that one is praying to G‑d.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Cf. Yoma 86a. |
| 2. | Pesachim 50b. |
| 3. | Cf. II Shmuel 14:14. |
| 4. | The Rebbe notes: “It would seem that the reference is to Zohar II, 245b.” |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Tuesday, Nissan 4, 5776 · April 12, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work
Positive Commandment 138
The Return of Hereditary Property during the Jubilee Year
"Throughout the land of your possession, you shall give redemption for the land"—Leviticus 25:24.
During the Jubilee Year, all acquired land must be returned – free of charge – to its original owner, as explained in the Torah.
This mitzvah applies only to real estate that is not within a walled city, and is only practiced in the Land of Israel, and only when all of the tribes are settled therein, each in their ancestral portion of the Land.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• The Return of Hereditary Property during the Jubilee Year
Positive Commandment 138
Translated by Berel Bell
The 138th mitzvah is that we are commanded in this [Jubilee] Year to return all property which has been purchased to its original owners. It is released from the buyer's possession without payment.
The source of this mitzvah is G‑d's statement,1 "[Since the land is Mine, no land shall be sold permanently. You are foreigners and resident aliens as far as I am concerned,] and therefore, there shall be a time of redemption for all your hereditary lands." It is specifically explained for us that the redemption takes place in this particular year in G‑d's statement,2 "In this Jubilee Year, every man shall return to his hereditary property."
Scripture goes into the various details of this mitzvah and explains how the seller settles with the buyer if, before the Jubilee Year, he wants to repurchase the land he sold. It is also explained that this mitzvah applies only to land which is outside the wall of the city.3 Courtyards and houses built in villages are treated like fields and gardens since they were not built within walls.4 They are the batei hachatzerim referred to in the verse,5 "[Batei hachatzerim that do not have walls around them] shall be considered the same as open land; they shall thus be redeemable, and shall be released by the Jubilee."6
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Erachin.7
It too applies only in Eretz Yisrael and only when the Jubilee Year is in effect.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 25:24.
2.Ibid., 25:13.
3.Houses which are built within walled cities are governed by P139.
4.And they are therefore also governed by this mitzvah.
5.Lev. 25:31.
6.Since they are mentioned in a separate verse, one might think that batei hechatzerim constitute a separate mitzvah. The Rambam explains here that batei hachatzerim are included in this mitzvah, and that they are not counted separately. There are only two categories: houses within a wall and everything else.
7.29b.
Negative Commandment 227Selling Land in Israel for Perpetuity
"The land shall not be sold forever"—Leviticus 25:23.
It is forbidden to sell real estate in the Land of Israel for perpetuity. [Instead, land must be sold with the understanding that it will return to its original owner during the Jubilee Year.]
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Selling Land in Israel for Perpetuity
Negative Commandment 227
Translated by Berel Bell
The 227th prohibition is that we are forbidden from permanently selling land in Eretz Canaan.1
The source of this mitzvah is G‑d's statement,2 "And no land shall be sold permanently."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the end of tractate Erachin.3
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. Eretz Yisrael. In Hilchos Shemittah V'Yovel 11:1, the Rambam rules that even if one violates this prohibition and sells the land, the transaction has no legal value and the land remains in the possession of the previous owner. Both the buyer and the seller nevertheless transgress this prohibition.
2.Lev. 25:23.
3.29ff.
Positive Commandment 139Redeeming Property in Walled Cities
"And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city..."—Leviticus 25:29.
Properties within a walled city in the Land of Israel [walled since the times of Joshua] can be redeemed (i.e. repurchased) by the seller for an entire year following the sale. If the seller did not redeem the property within that window of time, the sold property remains permanently in the property of the buyer—it does not revert to the seller during the Jubilee Year.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Redeeming Property in Walled Cities
Positive Commandment 139
Translated by Berel Bell
The 139th mitzvah is that we are commanded that if one has possessions1 which are located within the walls of a city and they were sold, one has the right to redeem them only for one year. After the year has passed, the buyer becomes the full owner, and remains so even after the Jubilee Year.
The source of this mitzvah is G‑d's statement,2 "When a man sells a residential house in a walled city [he shall be able to redeem it until the end of one year after he has sold it]."
This mitzvah is known as "the law of batei arei chomah."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Erachin.3 It applies only in Eretz Yisrael.
FOOTNOTES
1.This includes houses and their adjacent land. Other fields, even if they are within the city's wall, are included in P138 above. See Rambam, ibid., 12:11.
2.Lev. 25:29.
3.31a.
• 1 Chapter: Maaseh Hakorbanot Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 11 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 11
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
Anyone1 who eats an olive-sized portion2 of the meat of a burnt-offering, whether before its blood is sprinkled [on the altar] or afterwards,3 is liable for lashes,4as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:17]: "You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain...5 and [the sacrifices brought because of] the vows that you take." According to the Oral Tradition,6 it was taught that this is a warning against partaking of the meat of a burnt-offering.7
Halacha 2
Its fat, its meat, and the flour, oil, and wine of its accompanying offering - all five [of these components] can be combined to comprise this olive-sized portion.8
Halacha 3
Similarly, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion9 of any of the portions of the sacrifices to be offered on the altar's pyre, whether before the blood [of the sacrifice] is sprinkled [on the altar] or afterwards, whether he is a priest or an Israelite, is liable for lashes.10 For the portions to be offered on the altar's pyre must be totally consumed like the totality of the burnt offering. Now [Leviticus 6:16] states with regard to a meal-offering of a priest: "It shall be totally consumed; it should not be eaten." [From this, we derive that] there is a negative commandment [prohibiting] partaking of anything that should be consumed by [the fire of] the altar.11 One is liable for lashes for eating an olive-sized portion [of such substances].
Halacha 4
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of any of the sacrifices - even sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity - before their blood is sprinkled [on the altar]14 is liable for lashes,15 as it is written: "You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil... and [the sacrifices brought because of] your pledges." Implied is that you may not eat [the sacrifices brought because of] your pledges in your gates before their blood is sprinkled [on the altar] in God's gates.
According to the Oral Tradition,16 it was taught that this is a warning against partaking of [the meat of] a thanksgiving-offering or a peace-offering before the sprinkling of its blood. This also applies to [the meat of] other sacrifices, whether sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity or those of a lesser degree.17 The six components of the thanksgiving offering, the fat, the meat, the flour, the oil, the wine,18 and the bread, may all be combined to comprise the olive-sized portion [for which one is liable].
Halacha 5
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of any of the [sacrifices of] the most sacred order that was taken outside of the walls of the Temple Courtyard and meat from [sacrifices of] a lesser degree of sanctity that was taken outside Jerusalem is liable for lashes,19 as [implied by] the verse: "You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your cattle and your sheep...." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that this is a warning against partaking of [the meat of] a sin-offering or a guilt-offering outside the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, one who partakes of [the meat of] the sacrifices of lesser sanctity outside Jerusalem is liable for lashes. For with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, the walls of Jerusalem are comparable to the walls of the Temple Courtyard with regard to sacrifices of the most sacred order. [Included equally are] the meat of the sin-offerings and the guilt-offerings and what remains of the meal-offerings.20
Halacha 6
Meat from [sacrifices of] the most sacred order that was taken outside of the walls of the Temple Courtyard and meat from [sacrifices of] a lesser degree of sanctity that was taken outside Jerusalem is disqualified and is forbidden forever. Even if it is taken back to its place, it is forbidden to partake of it. One who eats an olive-sized portion of it21 is liable for lashes, as [implied byExodus 22:30]: "Meat in a field [from an animal that is] treifah, you shall not eat." Once meat has left its designated place, it is considered as treifah, as we explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.22
Halacha 7
If meat from [sacrifices of] a lesser degree of sanctity was taken into the Temple Building, it is acceptable.23
Halacha 8
A non-priest who ate an olive-sized portion of meat from sacrifices of the most sacred order24 in the Temple Courtyard after their blood was sprinkled [on the altar] is liable for lashes,25 as [Exodus 29:33] states: "And they shall partake of [the sacrifices] which bring them atonement... and a non-priest shall not partake of them." [The association teaches26 that when sacrificial meat] was eaten by a non-priest in a place where a priest partakes of it and at a time when it is fit to be eaten, he is liable for lashes. If, however, a non-priest ate an olive-sized portion of meat from sacrifices of the most sacred order outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable for lashes for partaking of the sacrificial meat outside [the Temple Courtyard]27 and not because [of the prohibition against] a non-priest partaking of sacrificial foods,28 for they are not fit to be eaten by priests there. Similarly, if [a non-priest] partook of [such meat] in the Temple Courtyard before [the blood] was sprinkled [on the altar], he is liable for lashes only for partaking [of the meat] before the sprinkling of the blood, not because of [partaking of it] as a non-priest.
Halacha 9
A non-priest who ate an olive-sized portion of meat from a sin-offering from fowl is liable for two sets of lashes: one because he is non-priest partaking of sacred meat29 and one because he is partaking of a neveilah.30 For every [fowl killed by] melikah31 is a neveilah.32 When license was granted to partake of it, it was granted to priests, but not to non-priests. These two prohibitions are considered as two prohibitions that take effect at the same time,33 as we explained.34
FOOTNOTES
1.
This prohibition applies equally to priests and Israelites (Radbaz).
2.
This is a general principle with regard to all prohibitions involving eating. Lashes are given only for partaking of an olive-sized portion.
3.
Compare to Halachah 4.
4.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 146) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 447) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As explained in Hilchot Meilah 1:3, this negative commandment is also the source for the prohibition against deriving benefit from consecrated articles (meilah).
5.
This refers to the second tithe which must be brought to Jerusalem.
6.
Sifri to the above verse, Makkot 17a.
7.
For the latter term is understood as a reference to the burnt offering (ibid.).
8.
I.e., since they are all considered as components of the burnt offering, they are all forbidden. The Radbaz mentions that the omission of the blood of the sacrificial animal indicates that it is not included.
9.
The Radbaz explains that the Rambam explicitly mentions that one must partake of an olive-sized portion to be liable - instead, of allowing a reader to reach that conclusion on his own - because one might think that since the verse states that "It shall be totally consumed," as long as a person prevents it from being totally consumed, he is liable.
10.
Besides the prohibitions mentioned here, a person who partakes of these sacrificial components also violates the prohibition against meilah.
11.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 138) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 137) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Although the commandment specifically refers to the meal offering brought by a priest, the Sifraunderstands it as applying to a greater scope of sacrificial foods, as the Rambam explains.
12.
See Chapter 7, Halachot 2-4.
13.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 139) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 139) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. A separate commandment is necessary, for these sin-offerings are not burnt on the altar of the Temple.
14.
As stated in Hilchot Meilah 2:1, after the blood is sprinkled on the altar, even one who is not permitted to partake of these sacrifices is not liable for meilah, misappropriating the sacred articles for one's personal use.
15.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 147) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 448) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, in his listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of this set of halachot, the Rambam mentions this prohibition only with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity.
16.
For this is not the simple meaning of the verse (Rav Yosef Corcus).
17.
Makkot 17a explains the process of exegesis through which the prohibitions against partaking of the other sacrifices are derived.
18.
I.e., the flour, the oil, the wine that comprise the accompanying offering that is brought together with the thanksgiving-offering.
19.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 145) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 446) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, inSefer HaMitzvot and in his listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of this set of halachot, the Rambam mentions this prohibition only with regard to sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity although he does state that one who partakes of other sacrifices outside of Jerusalem is liable for lashes. When listing the prohibitions for which lashes are given in Hilchot Sanhedrin19:4, the Rambam lists these two activities separately.
20.
After the handful was taken to be offered on the altar. All of these are considered as sacrifices of the most sacred order.
21.
Whether it was returned to its place or not.
22.
Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:9. As the commentaries explain there, the term "field" is referring to a place which is not the natural place for the meat to be found. Being there causes it to be considered treifah, unfit to be eaten. Similarly, the fact that this meat is taken outside its natural place causes it to become forbidden.
23.
Since, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 3, after the fact, sacrifices of the most sacred order may be eaten in the Temple Building, taking sacrificial meat there is not considered as taking it outside its designated place. The Radbaz questions whether it is acceptable to eat meat from sacrifices of lesser sanctity in the Temple Building.
24.
The Radbaz emphasizes that this applies only to meat from a sin-offering or a guilt-offering. If, however, a non-priest partakes of meat from a burnt-offering, he is liable only for the prohibition against partaking of the meat of a burnt-offering (see Halachah 1) and not because of the prohibition against a non-priest partaking of sacrificial meat.
25.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 148) includes this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Sefer HaChinuch, however, does not include it.
26.
I.e., as Makkot 18b states, the prohibition against a non-priest partaking of this sacrificial meat applies only in an instance where atonement would be granted were a priest to partake of the meat there.
27.
As stated in Halachah 5.
28.
The Radbaz explains that there is a practical as well as a theoretical difference resulting from this concept, for if the non-priest was given a warning for partaking of the meat because he was a non-priest and not because he was partaking of it outside the Temple Courtyard, he is not liable.
29.
This law also applies only when the meat of the fowl was eaten in a time and a place when the fowl would have been permitted to be eaten by the priests (Radbaz).
30.
An animal that died without proper ritual slaughter.
31.
Snipping off its head, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 21.
32.
For this is not an acceptable process of ritual slaughter.
33.
At the time the fowl's head was snipped off, it becomes both forbidden to non-priests and a neveilah.
34.
Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8 states:
13There is a major general principle that applies with regard to all of the Torah's prohibitions. One prohibition does not take effect when another prohibition is in effect unless:a) both of the prohibitions take effect at the same time;b) the latter prohibition forbids additional entities besides [the entity that was originally] prohibited;c) the scope of the [latter] prohibition encompasses other entities together with [the entity that was originally] prohibited.
• 3 Chapters: Shemita Shemita - Chapter 9, Shemita Shemita - Chapter 10, Shemita Shemita - Chapter 11 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Shemita - Chapter 9
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Audio: Listen | Download• Shemita - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment1 to nullify a loan in the Sabbatical year, as [Deuteronomy 15:2] states: "All of those who bear debt must release their hold." A person who demands payment of a debt after the Sabbatical year passed2 violates a negative commandment,3 as it is stated [ibid.]: "One shall not demand [payment] from his friend and his brother."
Halacha 2
The nullification of debts applies according to Scriptural Law only in the era when the Jubilee year is observed4 and [the sale of] land is also nullified, for the land [that has been sold] returns to its original owners without financial payment.5 This matter was conveyed through the chain of tradition. Our Sages declared:6 In the era when you nullify [the sale of] land, you nullify debts everywhere, whether in Eretz Yisrael or in the Diaspora. In the era when you do not nullify [the sale of] land, you do not nullify debts anywhere, even in Eretz Yisrael.
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
The Sabbatical year does not nullify debts until its conclusion. [This is derived as follows: Deuteronomy 15:1-2] states: "At the end of seven years, you shall effect a remission. This is the matter of the remission." And [Deuteronomy 31:10] states:9 "At the end of seven years, at the time of the Sabbatical year, during the holiday of Sukkot." Just as in that instance, [the event takes place] after the seven [years], so too, the nullification of the debts takes place after the seven [years].
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
The Sabbatical year nullifies a loan, even a loan supported by a promissory note which creates a lien on one's possessions.16 If, however, the borrower designated a field [to serve as payment] for the loan, it is not nullified.17 The Sabbatical year also nullifies the obligation to take an oath,18 for [the prooftext] states: "He shall not demand," i.e., neither payment, nor an oath.
Halacha 7
When does the above apply? With regard to an oath imposed by the judges19and the like, i.e., obligations that were he to accept them, the Sabbatical year would nullify them. But oaths taken by watchmen or partners20 and the like, i.e., oaths that were he to admit [the obligation], he would be required to pay [after the Sabbatical year],21 he is required to take the oath after the Sabbatical year.
Halacha 8
If a person gave a colleague a loan and then demanded payment, [the colleague] denied the obligation and remained in denial when [the conclusion of] the Sabbatical year arrived and then he admitted his obligation or witnesses came [and testified to that effect] after the Sabbatical year [was concluded], the obligation is not nullified.22
Halacha 9
When a person lends money to a colleague and sets [the time of payment] in ten years time, it is not nullified [by the Sabbatical year. The rationale is that] although [ultimately, the command,] "Do not demand [payment]" will apply,23 at present, he may not demand payment.24 If he stipulated that he would not demand payment, [the debt] is nullified by the Sabbatical year.25
Halacha 10
When a person lends money to a colleague and he stipulates with [the borrower] that [the debt] will not be nullified by the Sabbatical year, it is nullified, for he cannot negate the law of the Sabbatical year.26 If [the borrower] stipulates that he will not nullify this debt, even in the Sabbatical year, the stipulation is binding, for any stipulation made regarding financial matters is binding. Thus this person took on a financial obligation which the Torah did not obligate him in.27
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
When a person hands over42 his promissory notes to the court, telling [the judges]: "Collect my debt for me," the debts are not nullified by the Sabbatical year. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 15:3]: "[a debt] that you have from your brother."[Implied is that debts demanded by "your brother," a private individual, are nullified by the Sabbatical year. [Payment for] these [debts, by contrast,] is being demanded by the court.
Similarly, if the court rendered a judgment, writing: "So-and-so, you are obligated to give this person this-and-this amount," [the debt] is not nullified. Such [a debt] is considered as if it has already been collected and entered [the creditor's] possession. It does not resemble a loan.
Halacha 16
When Hillel the Elder saw that the people would refrain from lending to each other and thus violated the Scriptural charge [Deuteronomy 15:9]: "Lest there be a wicked thought in your heart,"43 he ordained a pruzbol44 so that debts would not be nullified and people would lend to each other.
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
A pruzbol may be composed only when [the borrower possesses] land.55 If the borrower does not possess land, the lender should grant56 the borrower even the slightest amount of land - even enough to grow a cabbage stalk57- in his field. [Even if] he lent him place for an oven or a range, a pruzbol may be composed.58 If [the borrower] owns a field that was given as security, apruzbol may be composed on that basis.
Halacha 20
[A pruzbol] may be composed against a man59 based on property owned by his wife60 or against orphans on property owned by their guardian.61 If [the borrower] does not possess land, but the guarantor does, we can compose apruzbol because of it.62 If [a borrower] is owed a debt by a colleague and the colleague owns land - since that land is on lien [to the first borrower] - we may compose a pruzbol because of it.
Halacha 21
Halacha 22
When a person has a pruzbol composed and then he makes a loan, it is not effective. Instead, the loan will be nullified unless he composes [another]pruzbol after giving the loan. Thus one can conclude that any loan which precedes a pruzbol is not nullified because of this pruzbol. If the pruzbolprecedes the loan, it is nullified [despite] this pruzbol.65
Halacha 23
Accordingly, a pruzbol that is predated is valid, while one that is postdated, is invalid.
What is implied? One wrote a pruzbol in Nissan and predated it to Adar, it is valid, for he has impaired its legal power, for [only the loans given] until Adar are not nullified.66 If, however, he postdated it and dated it in Iyar, it is invalid, for he has strengthened its legal power, for [were it to be effective] the loans given until Iyar would not be nullified. This is unlawful, because it is only [the loans given] until Nissan that are not nullified, for that [is when] the matters were conveyed to the court.
Halacha 24
When a person produces a promissory note after the Sabbatical year without it being accompanied by a pruzbol, the debt is lost.67 If he says: "I possessed [a pruzbol] and it was lost, his word is accepted.68 For from the time of the danger69 onward,70 a creditor was allowed to collect his debt [after the Sabbatical year] without a pruzbol.
Moreover, when a creditor would bring the promissory note [to court] or would come and demand payment of a loan supported by a verbal commitment [alone], [the court] tells the defendant: "Pay him." If the defendant claims: "Where is his pruzbol?", the court asks the plaintiff: "Did you have a pruzbolthat was lost?" If he answers affirmatively, his word is accepted.71 If he admits that he did not have a pruzbol, the debt is nullified.
Halacha 25
[When the plaintiff] produces a pruzbol, the defendant claims: "The loan for which he is demanding payment was made after the pruzbol,"74 and the plaintiff retorts: "It was made before the pruzbol," the plaintiff's word is accepted. [The rationale is] were he to have claimed: "I had [a pruzbol] and it was lost," his word would have been accepted75 even though we do not know the date of the pruzbol that was lost.
Halacha 26
If the defendant claims: "I owe him a debt," and the plaintiff states: "No, it is an account from a store which is not nullified [by the Sabbatical year], because I have not yet considered it as a loan,"76 his word is accepted, for were he to desire,77he could say: "It was a loan, but I had a pruzbol and it was lost." [Leniency is granted in these instances,] because once the Sages instituted [the concept of] pruzbol, we operate under the assumption that a person will not forgo something permitted78 and partake of something that is forbidden.79
Halacha 27
When Torah Sages offer loans to each other80 and one conveys his words to his students,81 saying: "I am notifying you [that I reserve the right] to collect all the debts [owed] to me at any time I desire," he does not have to compose apruzbol.82 [The rationale is that Torah scholars] know that the nullification of debts in the present era is a Rabbinic decree and it can be negated verbally.
Halacha 28
[Whenever] anyone returns a debt [despite the fact] that the Sabbatical year has passed,83 the spirits of our Sages are gratified because of him.84 [When receiving the payment,] the lender must say to the one who is making restitution: "I am nullifying [the debt] and your [obligation] to me has been released."85 If the debtor says: "Nevertheless, I desire that you accept it," he should accept it. For the Torah states: "One shall not demand [payment]," and payment was not demanded.86
[The debtor] should not tell [the creditor]: "I am giving them to you as [payment of ] my debt. Instead, he should tell him: "[The money] is mine,87 and I am giving it to you as a present."
Halacha 29
If [a debtor] returned a debt, but did not make the above statements, [the lender] should turn the conversation to the point where the debtor says: "[The money] is mine, and I am giving it to you as a present." If [the debtor] does not make such statements, [the creditor] should not accept it from him.88 Instead, [the debtor] should take his money and depart.
Halacha 30
One who refrains from lending money to a colleague before the Sabbatical year lest [the repayment] of the debt be delayed and it be nullified, violates a negative commandment, 89 as [Deuteronomy 15:9] states: "Be careful [lest there be a wicked thought in your heart....]" It is a severe sin, for the Torah warned against it with two adjurations, for it is written: "Be careful lest," and whenever the Torah uses the expressions "Be careful," "lest," or "Do not," it is communicating a negative commandment.90 The Torah objected to this evil thought and called it "wicked" and the the verse continued warning and commanding one not to refraining [from lending], but to give [the loan], as [ibid.:10] states: "You shall certainly give him and your Heart should not regret giving him." [Indeed,] the Holy One, blessed be He, promised that the reward for this mitzvah will be granted in this world,91 as [the verse continues:] "Because of this God will bless you."
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 141) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 477) includes this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Rambam's wording implies that the nullification of the debt comes as a result of the person's action. It is not automatically nullified at the conclusion of the seventh year. For that reason, the Rambam states in Halachah 28, when a person comes to pay a debt after the conclusion of the seventh, the creditor must say that he is nullifying the debt (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XVII, p. 289ff.).
2.
For, according to the Rambam, the debt is not nullified until the conclusion of the Sabbatical year (Halachah 4).
3.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 230) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 475) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.
As stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 9, after the exile of the tribes of Reuven and Gad, the laws of the Jubilee year no longer applied according to Scriptural Law.
5.
See Chapter 10, Halachot 13, 15, for details regarding this concept.
6.
Gittin 36a.
7.
I.e., according to the Rambam's interpretation of Gittin, loc. cit., the nullification of debts applies in the present era, even in the Diaspora. His view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 67:1). In his gloss to that text, the Rama quotes different opinions among the Ashkenazic authorities. Some maintain that the Rabbis did not ordain the observance of this law in the present age. Others maintain that it should be observed as a custom. Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Halvaah 34, follows the Rambam's view.
8.
I.e., even according to Rabbinic Law (seeTosafot, Gittin, loc. cit.).
9.
With regard to the Hakhel ceremony. The interrelation of these verses has its source in the Sifri.
10.
According to other authorities, although the debt is not remitted until the end of the Sabbatical year, from the beginning of the Sabbatical year, the creditor is forbidden to demand payment. See Shulchan Aruch HaRav, loc. cit. 36.
11.
I.e., the sunset marking the advent of Rosh HaShanah.
12.
Because it is forbidden to demand its payment (Likkutei Sichot, loc. cit.).
13.
Since the people considered the day as a festival, the recipients of the meat could not pay for it in an ordinary manner. Hence they promised to pay for their shares later, considering the money as a debt [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 10:2)].
14.
When the laws of the annulment of debts would no longer apply. The Rambam is speaking about a situation that could have occurred in the time the new month was sanctified based on the testimony of witnesses (in contrast to the present era, when we follow a fixed calendar). In that era as well, the court had a presupposition of the day when Rosh HaShanah would fall and the people celebrated it as a holiday in anticipation of its sanctification. Nevertheless, the moon was not actually sanctified - and thus the holiday officially declared as such - unless witnesses came. Now it was possible, especially if the night was cloudy, that witnesses did not see the moon and hence could not go to the court to give testimony. Hence the day could not be declared as Rosh HaShanah.
15.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, based on the principle (stated in Halachah 11), that a debt stemming from money owed on account to a grocer is not nullified at the end of the Sabbatical year. Indeed, the source for this law (the Jerusalem Talmud, Sh'vi'it 10:1) states that it follows the opinion that maintains that such an account is nullified by the Sabbatical year. The Radbaz, however, explains that the situations are not identical. For it is common practice for a grocer to sell on account. A butcher, by contrast, expects immediate payment. A similar distinction is suggested by the Kessef Mishneh.
16.
I.e., once a loan is recorded in a promissory note, in the event the debtor does not pay, the creditor can use the promissory note to collect the debt from the landed property belonging to the debtor at the time of the loan (even if it was subsequently sold to others). Since the property is on lien, one might think that the situation is comparable to a loan supported by security (Halachah 14), which is not nullified by the Sabbatical year. That law, however, does not apply in the present instance, because although the lien applies to the debtor's property, it is not associated with a specific property.
17.
Since the land has been designated as payment, it is as if the loan has already been paid.
18.
For example, a person claimed that a colleague owed him 100 zuz and the colleague admitted only to owing 50. In such an instance, the colleague is required to take an oath regarding the other 50 zuz. If he fails to take the oath before the conclusion of the Sabbatical year, that obligation is nullified.
19.
This is a specific term that, as explained inHilchot Sh'vuot 11:5-6, refers to oaths administered because of the denial of a specific and definite claim that would create a monetary obligation were the defendant to have admitted to it.
20.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot, loc. cit., which explains that these individuals can be compelled to take an oath even though the plaintiff does not have a definite claim against them.
21.
With regard to a watchman, the explanation is that - unlike a loan - the property being watched is considered as always being in the possession of the owner. Hence, the obligation for it is not nullified by the Sabbatical year (see Radbaz). A partner is considered as a watchman (Bava Batra42b).
22.
The rationale is that the obligation was not firmly established before the conclusion of the Sabbatical year, for until the borrower's admission of the debt or the substantiation of the claim by witnesses, the creditor cannot press for payment in a court of law. Hence, the end of the year does not lead to the nullification of the debt. See the Jerusalem Talmud (Sh'vi'it 10:1). The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, but it is supported by the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh and quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 67:7). Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch does add to the Rambam's wording the concept that the debtor took an oath to support his denial. In his gloss to the Tur, the Darkei Moshe explains that addition, stating that unless the debtor has taken an oath to support his denial, then we are speaking of an ordinary loan and the conclusion of the Sabbatical year nullifies both the loan and the obligation of an oath to support one's denial, as stated in Halachah 6.
23.
For in ten years time, he will demand payment of the debt.
24.
For the loan has not become due. And as long as there is no payment demanded, the debt is not nullified, for the Sabbatical year only nullifies a debt for which payment is called for (the Responsa of Rabbenu Asher, sec. 86).
25.
The Radbaz and Rav Yosef Corcus explain that even though the collector has promised not to demand payment of the debt, since there is a payment date before the end of the Sabbatical year, the borrower is under obligation to pay. Hence, it is as if payment is being demanded from him.
26.
This is a general principle, applicable in many contexts. Whenever a person establishes a stipulation that runs contrary to the Torah's laws, his stipulation is nullified. For the Torah is not given over to man's will and no mortal can bend it to fit his whims (see Makkot 3b; Hilchot Ishut 6:9).
27.
The difference between this clause and the previous one can be explained as follows: In the previous instance, the person was attempting to postulate that the Torah's laws should not apply. This is not within a mortal's power. In the second clause, by contrast, the person is saying that although the laws of the Sabbatical Law do apply, he asks the borrower to accept an obligation even though the Torah releases him from it. Torah Law does not prevent him from accepting such an obligation. See the parallels inHilchot Mechirah 11:15.
See also the comments of Beit Yosef(Choshen Mishpat 67), that one is permitted to make such a stipulation. It is not merely that, after the fact, one is bound by it.
Based on this principle, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Halva'ah:35 draws the following conclusion:
At present, in these countries, it is not customary [to employ] a pruzbol. [Some] have explained the custom [as follows]: Since it has become customary to collect all debts after the Sabbatical year, even without a pruzbol, and the borrower knows of this practice, it is as if the lender made a stipulation at the time of the loan that [the loan was being given] on condition that the borrower never nullify this debt, even in the Sabbatical year. Thus [the borrower] made himself liable for a financial obligation not required of him by the Torah in which instance, his stipulation is binding and he is obligated according to Scriptural Law.
Nevertheless, that text continues, stating that "any G‑d-fearing person will be stringent with regard to his own conduct and make a pruzbol, [for] it is something that does not involve a loss and is easy to arrange."
28.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it10:1), the Rambam explains that until a summary of an account is made, it is not considered as a debt. Instead, the seller trusts the purchaser and is willing to wait for payment. Thus all of the different transactions are considered as one sale. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since it is not customary for the seller to demand payment of such accounts, the account is not bound by the prohibition: "Do not demand payment." Hence, the mitzvah to nullify the obligation also does not apply.
Similar concepts are reflected in the treatment of the subject by Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Halva'ah, subsec. 39, which states: "Since a storekeeper usually extends credit for a year or two and it is unusual for him to demand payment immediately, it is as if he set a time for payment after the Sabbatical year."
29.
The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 67:14 offers two explanations for "establish[ing it] as a debt":
a) setting a time for payment;
b) totaling up the account to arrive at a sum.
30.
For in such an instance, it is no different than any other debt.
31.
Here also the Kessef Mishneh explains that since it is not common for a worker to demand payment of his wages immediately, until he does so, they are not considered as a debt.
32.
See Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Hilchot Na'arah, ch. 1.
33.
See Exodus 22:15-16, Hilchot Na'arah, ch. 1.
34.
See Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Hilchot Na'arah, ch. 3.
35.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it10:2, the Rambam explains that debts are obligations which a person accepts upon himself. Hence they can be nullified. These obligations, by contrast, are penalties imposed upon the transgressor by God. Hence, he cannot absolve himself from them unless he makes payment.
The Kessef Mishneh questions this explanation, for the Torah also requires a person to satisfy the monetary obligations he takes upon himself. He therefore explains that the intent is that since these penalties are written in the Torah, it is as the debts were handed over to the court in which instance, they are not nullified by the Sabbatical year, as stated in Halachah 15.
Rambam LeAm explains the difference between the two on the basis between the distinction between mamon, a financial obligation between men, which a man can release, and k'nas, a penalty required by God from the transgressor that although paid to the person violated is not an obligation to him.
36.
The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat67:16) defines "establish[ing] as a debt" as calling the defendant to court. Sefer Meirat Einayim 67:31 emphasizes that once the court's decision is written up, it is considered as if the debt has been handed over to the court.
37.
The money he agrees to pay in the event of a divorce (or which his estate must pay in the event of his death).
38.
Since the obligation need not be paid until the woman demands payment, it is not considered as a debt that could be nullified by the Sabbatical year.
39.
I.e., she admitted that a certain portion of the money owed her had already been paid. SeeHilchot Ishut 16:14.
40.
Kiddushin 9b states: "A creditor acquires the security given him." Thus when the loan is given in return for security, it is as if he transferred ownership of the security for the loan until it is repaid [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 9:2)]. Thus it is as if there is no outstanding obligation for the Sabbatical year to nullify.
41.
For this amount is not in his possession. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quote other opinions which do not accept this view and maintain that this portion of the debt is not nullified. In his Kessef Mishneh, however, Rav Yosef Caro elaborates in support of the Rambam's position.
42.
Giving them the actual promissory note, not merely assigning it to them (Rav Yosef Corcus, explaining why this is acceptable according to Scriptural Law, while a pruzbolis merely a Rabbinic institution).
43.
The verse continues: "The Sabbatical year is drawing near and you will look negatively at your brother and refrain from giving him." See Halachah 30 which discusses this charge.
44.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it10:3), the Rambam cites the interpretation of this term in Gittin 37a: "the amendment of a matter."
45.
As stated in Halachah 2, the nullification of debts in the present era is a Rabbinic injunction. And since it is a Rabbinic institution, Hillel and his court had the power to institute a provision to reduce its application. Were it to have the power of a Scriptural Law, the Rabbis would not be able to institute such a provision.
46.
The Ra'avad differs with this concept, explaining that it applies even when the Sabbatical Law is observed according to Scriptural Law. The difference between the two authorities reflects a difference between the two Talmudic Sages, Abbaye and Rava, the Rambam follows Abbaye's understanding and the Ra'avad that of Rava. This, however, is slightly problematic, for theBava Metzia 22b states that, with the exception of six specific instances, whenever there is a difference of opinion between these two Sages, the halachah follows Rava's understanding.
The Radbaz explains the Rambam's viewpoint, stating that our Sages' preference for Rava's position applies only when these Sages are arguing concerning their own logical conclusions. When, by contrast, they are arguing about the interpretation of another Sages' position as in the present instance, the halachah can follow Abaye's view.
47.
They were the heads of the leading courts inEretz Yisrael shortly at the beginning of the post-Mishnaic era. Similarly, the court composing a pruzbol must be one of the leading courts in its region and in its era (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
48.
Gittin 36b explains that the institution of apruzbol depends on the principle hefker beit din, hefker; "When the Jewish court absolves a person's ownership, the absolution is binding." As proof of this principle, it cites examples of actions taken by Ezra the Scribe and Joshua. The Rambam understands the Talmud to be saying that even when a financial obligation is Rabbinic in origin, to absolve it, one must have authority comparable to that of Ezra and Joshua. (Significantly, in Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:6 - where the Rambam describes the above principle - and inHilchot Nachalot 6:12 - where he shows another application of it - he does not state that the courts involved must be made up of judges of unique distinction.)
49.
The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 67) does not accept the Rambam's ruling and maintains that a pruzbol may be composed by any court. The Ramah (loc. cit.:18) states that this leniency can be accepted. Note also the contrast between this law and Halachah 27.
50.
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 10:4).
51.
The Rambam is quoting the wording of the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 10:4). Although Rabbenu Nissim interprets this to mean that the Rambam accepts the view (Gittin 33a) that two judges are sufficient to compose apruzbol, most authorities require that there be at least three judges on a court which officiates over a pruzbol, as indicated by the statement of the law in the Shulchan Aruch(Choshen Mishpat 67:19).
52.
The creditor is not transferring the actual promissory note to the court - in which instance a pruzbol would not be necessary, as stated in Halachah 15. Instead, he is making a formal notification of the matter to the court. See Sefer Meirat Einayim 67:39.
53.
I.e., even after the Sabbatical year passes.
54.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that this wording teaches us that a judge may also serve as a witness. This is not allowed in questions involving Scriptural Law, but in questions involving Rabbinic Law, leniency is granted.
55.
The rationale is that when the borrower possesses land, the creditor's debt is secured, because he may expropriate the land in payment (Radbaz). Even though the land does not appear to be worth the full value of the debt, we follow the principle (seeHilchot Mechirah 13:8) that the land may never be considered overpriced (Sefer Meirat Einayim 67:41).
56.
Our text follows the manuscript copies and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text reads slightly differently.
The lender may transfer this property to the borrower without his knowledge, but not against his will [Shulchan Aruch and Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 67:22)].
57.
Even if he possesses only a flowerpot with a hole in it.
58.
Since the borrower is entitled to use the land, he is considered to have sufficient rights to it to enable a pruzbol to be written.
59.
I.e., the man referred to here is the borrower.
60.
Since he is entitled to the benefit from this property, it can be used for a pruzbol.
61.
I.e., when a guardian took out a loan for the sake of orphans, if the guardian possesses land a pruzbol can be composed because the guardian is considered like a guarantor.
62.
Because ultimately, the guarantor's property is also on lien to the loan.
63.
For each one must entrust his debt to the court.
64.
For in the one pruzbol, he entrusts all of his debts to the court.
65.
This halachah, based on Sh'vi'it 10:5, was the subject of much review and rethinking within the Rambam's own mind. He rewrote his commentary to this mishnah four times, each time, changing his thought somewhat.
At first, he wrote that only a pruzbol written before a loan prevents it from being nullified. Once a loan has already been given, the laws of the Sabbatical year apply to it, and apruzbol cannot nullify it. It was not until his second revision of his commentary that he changed it, amending it to read like his conclusion in the text above.
66.
Since that is the date on the pruzbol, its legal power takes effect from that date even though it was written later and it could have included the loans that were given until the date when it was actually composed.
67.
For it is nullified by the Sabbatical year.
68.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ketubot9:7), the Rambam explains that the lender's word is accepted based on the principle that a person will not sin when he could achieve the same result in a permitted manner (Gittin37b). Since he could easily preserve the debt by composing a pruzbol, we assume that he did so rather than transgress the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year, as stated in Halachah 26.
69.
I.e., in the Talmudic era, the Roman's passed many decrees with the intent of stamping out the observance of the mitzvot. One of them was a prohibition to make apruzbol (for by doing so, they would undermine the observance of the Sabbatical year). Failure to observe these decrees led to very severe punishment. In fear, many people would compose a pruzbol so that they could collect their debts, but destroy it lest it cause them danger (Kessef Mishneh).
70.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that even though the danger passed, the Rabbis never rescinded the leniency granted to allow for a uniformity in Jewish practice.
71.
Gittin, loc. cit. explains that this is like "opening the mouth of the dumb," i.e., offering support to a litigant to enable him to collect what is due him.
72.
Below the age of majority [Shulchan Aruch(Choshen Mishpat 67:28)].
73.
The Radbaz cites (Gittin 37a) which states that the Jewish court is considered as "the father of the orphans" and we assume that they do not want to impose Rabbinic decrees in a situation that will harm the orphan's interests. This applies both to loans that they themselves made or that their father made and which are due to his estate (Sefer Meirat Einayim 67:50).
74.
And thus the loan would be nullified by the Sabbatical year, as stated in Halachah 22.
75.
Based on the principle of migo, i.e., had he desired to lie, he would have told a more effective lie. This argument is reinforced by the accepted presumption mentioned previously: that if a person has a permitted way to perform a function, he will not use a forbidden path, i.e., he would make the loan with a valid pruzbol, rather than rely on an invalid one.
Generally, a migo is an accepted argument in its own right. Nevertheless, in this instance, the migo must be reinforced by the assumption, for migo is usually employed as an argument in defense of one's position and not to expropriate money and here the plaintiff is seeking to employ it to expropriate money (Biurei HaGra 67:58).
76.
See Halachah 11.
77.
To lie, i.e., here too, we are relying on the principle of migo, as reinforced by the assumption the Rambam proceeds to mention.
78.
Lending with a pruzbol.
79.
Lending without a pruzbol.
80.
The Rambam's wording implies that both the lender and the borrower must be Torah scholars. His ruling is quoted verbatim by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat67:20). The Rama, however, rules that not only Torah Sages, but even ordinary individuals can benefit from this leniency.
This leniency is part of the rationale, for the observance of the concept of pruzbol by the Ashkenazic community. Since all that is necessary to preserve a loan is a verbal statement made in the presence of three knowledgeable people, it is proper for everyone to do so (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Halva'ah:35).
81.
The Ra'avad (as understood by the Kessef Mishneh) objects to the Rambam's ruling, for, as stated in Halachah 17, the Rambam maintains that a pruzbol must be composed by a leading court, while here, he seems to imply that any few students are acceptable. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the apparent contradiction by saying that the students the Rambam refers to here are in fact distinguished judges, and there is no difference in practive between the subjects of the two halachot. Rav Yosef Corcus (in his gloss to Halachah 17) states that as long as the important court approves of such an act, the actual pruzbol may be made in the presence of lesser scholars.
82.
As stated in Halachah 18
83.
And thus, according to law, the debt is nullified and need not be repaid. This halachah is speaking about an instance where a pruzbol was not composed.
84.
I.e., they approve of this step and consider it pious behavior. The Sages thought it desirable for a debt to be returned, for in this way, people will continue lending each other money in the future.
85.
For according to law, he can no longer collect the debt.
86.
And thus, by accepting it, he is not violating the Torah's commandment to nullify the debt. Indeed, he has fulfilled the commandment to release the debt, for the Deuteronomy 15:2introduces this commandment with the phrase: "This is the matter (d'var) of remission." D'var, translated as "matter," also relates to the word dibbur meaning "speech," implying that it is sufficient to make a statement of remission to fulfill the mitzvah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 10:8)].
87.
For the debt has been absolved.
88.
Because it would resemble accepting payment for a debt.
89.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 231) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 480) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See also Halachah 16 above.
90.
Zevachim 106a; Sifri to the above verse. The fact that this commandment employs two such terms indicates that it is a severe prohibition.
91.
As opposed to many other mitzvot for which reward is granted only in the World-to-Come. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 1:1) for a discussion of this matter.
Shemita - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to count sets of seven years1 and to sanctify the fiftieth year,2 as [Leviticus 25:8-10] states: "And you shall count seven years for yourselves... and you shall sanctify the fiftieth year." These two mitzvot are entrusted to the High Court3 alone.4
Halacha 2
When did the counting begin? After the fourteen years following the entry intoEretz [Yisrael]. [This is derived from Leviticus 25:3]: "Six years shall you sow your field and six years shall you trim your vineyard." [Implied is that] each person must recognize his [portion of the] land. [The people] took seven years to conquer the land and seven years to divide it.5 Thus the counting began after the 2503rd year after the creation, from Rosh HaShanah,6 after the conjunction [of the sun and the moon before the creation] of Adam, which was in the second year of the creation.7 They declared the [two thousand,] five hundred, and tenth year after the creation which was the 21st year after the entry into Eretz Yisrael as the Sabbatical year. They counted seven Sabbatical years and then sanctified the fiftieth year which was the 64th year after they entered Eretz [Yisrael].
Halacha 3
The Jewish people counted 17 Jubilee years8 from the time they entered [Eretz Yisrael] until they departed.9 The year they departed, when the Temple was destroyed the first time, was the year following the Sabbatical year and the 36th year in the Jubilee cycle. For the First Temple stood for 410 years. When it was destroyed, this reckoning ceased.
After it ceased, the land remained desolate for seventy years.10 Then the Second Temple was built and it stood for 420 years. In the seventh year after it was built, Ezra ascended [to Eretz Yisrael]. This is referred to as the second entry.11 From this year, they began another reckoning. They designated the thirteenth year of the Second Temple as the Sabbatical year12 and counted seven Sabbatical years and sanctified the fiftieth year. Although the Jubilee year was not observed in [the era of] the Second Temple,13 they would count it in order to sanctify the Sabbatical years.
Halacha 4
It follows that the year in which the [Second] Temple was destroyed, [more precisely, the year] beginning from Tishrei that was approximately two months after the destruction14 - for the reckoning of Sabbatical and Jubilee years begins in Tishrei - was the year following the Sabbatical year. It was the fifteenth year of the ninth Jubilee cycle.15
Halacha 5
Nevertheless, all of the Geonim have said that they have received a tradition, transferred from teacher to student that in the seventy years between the destruction of the First Temple and the building of the Second Temple, they counted only Sabbatical years, not the Jubilee year. Similarly, after the destruction of the Second Temple, they did not count the fiftieth year. Instead, they counted only sets of seven from the beginning of the year of the destruction. [This interpretation] is also apparent from the Talmud in Avodah Zarah.19 This reckoning is a received tradition.
Halacha 6
[The reckoning of] the Sabbatical year is well-known and renowned among the Geonim and the people of Eretz Yisrael. None of them make any reckoning except according to the years of the destruction.20 According to this reckoning, this year which is the 1107th year after the destruction is the year following the Sabbatical year.21
Halacha 7
The Jubilee year is not counted in the set of Sabbatical years.25 Instead, the 49th year is a Sabbatical year and the fiftieth year is a Jubilee year. Then the 51st year is the first of the six years of the [next] Sabbatical cycle. This is true of every Jubilee year.
Halacha 8
From the time the tribes of Reuven and Gad and half the tribe of Menasheh were exiled,26 [the observance] of the Jubilee year ceased, as [implied byLeviticus 25:10]: "You shall proclaim freedom throughout the land to all of its inhabitants." [One can infer that this commandment applies only] when all of its inhabitants are dwelling within it. [Moreover,] they may not be intermingled, one tribe with another, but rather each tribe is dwelling in its appropriate place.27
Halacha 9
When [the laws of] the Jubilee year are observed, the laws of a Hebrew servant are observed,30 as are the laws of homes in a walled city, the laws of a field given as a dedication offering, and the laws of ancestral fields.31 We accept [a gentile as] a resident alien32 and the Sabbatical year is observed inEretz [Yisrael] and debts are nullified in all places according to Scriptural Law. In the era when the Jubilee year is not observed, none of these mitzvot are observed except the Sabbatical year in Eretz [Yisrael] according to Rabbinic Law and also the nullification of debts in all places according to Rabbinic Law, as we explained.33
Halacha 10
It is a positive commandment to sound the shofar on the tenth of Tishrei34in the Jubilee year.35 This mitzvah is entrusted to the [High] Court first,36 as [Leviticus 25:9] states: "You shall sound a shofar blast. Each and every individual is also obligated to sound the shofar, as [the verse] continues: "and you shall sound the shofar."37
Halacha 11
[The requirements] of shofar used for the Jubilee and Rosh HaShanah are the same in all matters.40 Both on Rosh HaShanah and in the Jubilee the tekiyotare sounded except in the Jubilee year, they are sounded41both in the court that sanctifies the new moon42 and in a court that does not sanctify the moon.43 [Moreover,] for the entire time the court is in session, every individual is obligated to sound [the shofar even] outside the presence of the court.
Halacha 12
When Rosh HaShanah falls on the Sabbath, by contrast, [the shofar] would be sounded only in a court that sanctified the new moon. Every individual may sound [the shofar] only in the presence of the court.44
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
From Rosh HaShanah49 until Yom Kippur, servants would not be released to their homes,50 nor would they be subjugated to their masters,51 nor would the fields return to their [original] owners.52 Instead, the servants would eat, drink, and rejoice, with crowns on their heads. When Yom Kippur arrives and theshofar is sounded in the court, the servants are released to their homes and the fields are returned to their owners.
Halacha 15
With regard to the land being allowed to rest, the laws of the Jubilee year are the same of those of the Sabbatical year. Whatever agricultural labors53 are forbidden54 in the Sabbatical year are forbidden in the Jubilee year. Whatever is permitted in the Sabbatical year is permitted in the Jubilee. Whenever the performance of a labor is punishable by lashes in the Sabbatical year,55 it is punishable by lashes in the Jubilee year. [Similarly,] the laws governing the eating,56 sale,57 and removal58 of the produce of the Jubilee year are the same as those governing the produce of the Sabbatical year in all respects.
Halacha 16
The Sabbatical year has an added dimension lacking in the Jubilee, for debts are nullified in the Sabbatical year,59 and they are not nullified in the Jubilee. The Jubilee year has an added dimension lacking in the Sabbatical year, for in the Jubilee, servants are released and land is released. This refers to the laws regarding the sale of land in the Torah.60 This is a positive commandment,61 as [Leviticus 25:24] states: "You shall grant redemption to the land.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 140) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 330) includes the commandment to count the sets of years among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As the Rambam states in Sefer HaMitzvot the mitzvah is not to count a 50 year cycle, but rather to count seven sets of seven year cycles.
2.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 136) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 332) includes the commandment to sanctify the fiftieth year among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam explains that the sanctification of the year is reflected in considering the produce of that year ownerless.
3.
The Sanhedrin, the court of 71 judges which served as Judaism's supreme Rabbinic authority.
4.
I.e., their fulfillment is not incumbent on each person individually, but on the people as a whole, and hence, on the High Court, who acts as their agent.
5.
Zevachim 118b derives the fact that it took the Jews seven years to conquer Eretz Yisrael from the statements of Caleb quoted in Joshua 14:7 and it postulates that the division also took seven years.
6.
Avodah Zarah 9a states that the Torah was given in the year 2448, when the forty years the Jews wandered in the desert and the fourteen years that the land was conquered and divided are added, a total of 2502 are reached. Thus the counting began in the 2503rd year.
7.
I.e., our counting begins from the creation of Adam which was on Rosh HaShanah, for Adam's creation superseded the creation that preceded his to the extent that Rosh HaShanah is considered the anniversary of creation and the beginning of the year and not the 25th of Elul even though that date was the first day of creation.
Adam's creation is mentioned as occurring in the second year after creation, because any portion of a year is considered as a year. Thus the five days from the 25th of Elul until Rosh HaShanah are the first year referred to here. Hence, there is a theoretical conjunction of the sun and the moon for that year. See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 6:8 and notes which mention the day and time of the first conjunction.
8.
I.e., they were in the midst of counting the seventeenth Jubilee as explained in the following note.
9.
I Kings 6:1 relates that the first Temple was built 480 years after the exodus from Egypt. When the 40 years of wandering in the desert and the 14 years when Eretz Yisraelwas conquered and divided is subtracted from that figure, 426 years remain. When the 410 years that the First Temple stood (as stated in Yoma 9a) are added, a total of 836 is reached. 836 divided by 50 equals 16. Thus the Jews were exiled in the 36th year of the seventeenth Jubilee cycle. Note the discussion of the Rambam's wording "17 Jubilees" by the Ra'avad, Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh and others based on Rosh HaShanah 9a.
10.
And for the 70 years of the Babylonian exile, the Jubilee year cycle was not followed. See Halachah 5.
11.
See also Chapter 12, Halachah 15.
12.
For they began counting from Ezra's arrival.
13.
See Halachah 8. The Rambam's intent is that the mitzvot of the Jubilee year were not observed.
14.
For the destruction took place on the ninth of Av.
15.
The Second Temple stood for 420 years (Yoma, loc. cit.). Thus if the reckoning of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years began in its seventh year, there is a total of 414. Eight Jubilee cycles produce a total of 400 years. Thus the year following the destruction was the 415th year and it was the year following the Sabbatical year.
16.
In the Talmudic era, it was customary to date legal documents from the time of Alexander the Great's ascent to the throne. See Hilchot Gerushin 1:27.
17.
This corresponds to 1176 C.E. This date is interesting in another context, for it gives us some insight into the Rambam's writing and editing of the Mishneh Torah. In his Introduction to the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam mentions the date of the composition of the work as 4937, and inHilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 11:16, he speaks of the date 4938. Thus it is apparent that he worked on the text for several years, wrote the Introduction in 4937, and then edited and added to the work in 4938.
18.
I.e., that date is 1121 years after the last Jubilee observed before the destruction of the Second Temple. Thus if that figure is divided by fifty, 21 years are left over. Hence, it is a Sabbatical year.
19.
See Avodah Zarah 9b.
20.
For it is accepted that the year following the destruction was the beginning of a Sabbatical cycle, as stated in Halachah 4.
21.
I.e., when 1107 is divided by 7, there is a remainder of 1.
22.
The Radbaz states that this was the practice in his day and this is the present practice in Eretz Yisrael and throughout the world, for the Rambam's ruling is accepted by both the Beit Yosef and Rama (Choshen Mishpat 67:1). See Sefer Meirat Einayim66:5.
23.
For the obligations of the second tithe and the tithe for the poor depend on the years of the Sabbatical cycle.
24.
I.e., the way the law has actually been observed.
25.
This applies whether the Jubilee year was observed in its full sense, as in most of the First Temple era, or it was merely counted as throughout the Second Temple era.
26.
The tribes of Reuven and Gad and half of the tribe of Menashe were exiled approximately 18 years before the remaining seven and a half tribes. They in turn were exiled approximately 130 years before the destruction of the Temple and exile of the tribe of Judah.
27.
For each tribe was given an ancestral heritage of its own.
28.
With regard to the freeing of Hebrew servants.
29.
I.e., it is the presence of the Jewish people in the land and not the existence of the Temple which determines the land's sanctity.
30.
See Hilchot Avadim, ch. 1-2.
31.
The laws governing the latter three subjects are described in Chapters 12 and 13.
32.
I.e., if a gentile accepts the observance of the Seven Laws Given to the Descendants of Noah, he is granted the right to dwell inEretz Yisrael. See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim10:6; Hilchot Melachim 8:10-11.
33.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 3, with regard to the nullification of debts. With regard to the observance of the Sabbatical year, the Rambam's statements are the subject of a difference of opinion among the commentaries. Our translation follows the version of the text suggested by Rav Yosef Corcus which is accepted by Rav Shabsi Frankel. It is also the conception followed by the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 331). TheKessef Mishneh, however, interprets the text differently, reading the last line as: "with the exception of the Sabbatical year in Eretz [Yisrael] and, according to Rabbinic Law, the nullification of debts." Some commentaries have suggested that the Rambam's statements in Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 135) support this interpretation. Most other Rishonim follow the conception that the observance of the Sabbatical Law is a Rabbinic ordinance in the present era. See also Chapter 12, Halachah 16, and notes and Hilchot Terumah 1:26 and notes.
34.
Yom Kippur.
35.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 137) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 331) includes this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This mitzvah also includes setting the servants free, as the Rambam mentions in his listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of these halachot.
Sefer Hamitzvot, loc. cit., states that, thematically, this sounding of the shofardiffers from the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah. On Rosh HaShanah, theshofar is sounded as "a remembrance before God." In the Jubilee, by contrast, the sounding of the shofar is the proclamation of freedom required by the Torah.
The commentaries note that this difference is also reflected in the wording used to describe the commandments. With regard to the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah, the Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 170, Hilchot Shofar1:1) states the mitzvah is to hear the sounding of the shofar, while here he states that the mitzvah is to sound the shofar.
36.
I.e., first, the shofar is sounded in the High Court (the Sanhedrin of 71 judges) and then it should be sounded by every individual.
37.
I.e., the verse uses two forms, the first singular, and the second plural, for the same verb. On this basis, it is derived that first, theshofar is sounded by the court for the people as a unified entity, and then, it is sounded by each person individually. SeeRosh HaShanah 30a, 34a.
38.
I.e., sounding three series of tekiah, shevarim, teruah, tekiah blasts. See Hilchot Shofar, ch. 3, for details.
39.
The Or Sameach interprets this phrasing to mean that although the Jubilee is observed in the Diaspora, the shofar is not sounded there.
40.
See Hilchot Shofar 1:1.
41.
I.e., even when Yom Kippur falls on the Sabbath.
42.
I.e., the Sanhedrin of 71 judges.
43.
I.e., an ordinary local court.
44.
See Hilchot Shofar 2:8-9.
45.
I.e., if these three mitzvot are not fulfilled, the Jubilee year is not granted its sanctity (Rosh HaShanah 9b).
46.
This would appear to refer to the sounding of the shofar by the High Court, and not its sounding by every individual.
47.
A Hebrew servant is granted his freedom in the Jubilee year, whether he was sold into slavery on his own initiative or by the court and even if he willingly extended his servitude, as Leviticus 25:40 states: "Until the Jubilee year, he will work with you." SeeHilchot Avadim, ch. 2.
48.
As described in the following chapter.
49.
Even though the laws of the Jubilee year do not take effect until the sounding of theshofar on Yom Kippur, the sanctity of the year begins on Rosh HaShanah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Rosh HaShanah 1:1)].
50.
Lest the shofar not be sounded in the court and thus the laws of the Jubilee year not apply, as stated in the previous halachah.
51.
For the likelihood is that it will be sounded.
52.
Even though the laws of the Jubilee year do not take effect until the sounding of theshofar on Yom Kippur, the sanctity of the year begins on Rosh HaShanah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Rosh HaShanah 1:1)].
53.
We have used this translation because both work with the land and work with trees are forbidden in the Sabbatical year. See Chapters 1 and 2 above.
54.
By both Rabbinic and Scriptural Law.
55.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 2.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 224-226) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 333-335) include the prohibitions against working the land, harvesting the aftergrowth of crops, and harvesting fruit in the Jubilee year among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
56.
I.e., the respect given to the produce of the Sabbatical year, as explained in Chapter 5.
57.
See Chapter 6.
58.
See Chapter 7.
59.
As related in Chapter 9.
60.
See Leviticus 25:23-28.
61.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 138) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 340) includes this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This mitzvah is described at the beginning of the following chapter.
62.
On Yom Kippur, as stated in Halachah 14.
63.
As stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 4.
Shemita - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
[The portions of] Eretz Yisrael that were divided among the tribes1 can never be sold permanently, as [Leviticus 25:23] states: "The land will not be sold in perpetuity." If one sells the land in perpetuity, both [the buyer and the seller] violate a negative commandment.2 Their deeds are of no consequence,3 and the land reverts to its [original] owner in the Jubilee year.
Halacha 2
When a person sells his field for 60 years, it is not returned in the Jubilee.4 For [the only property] that returns in the Jubilee year is property that is sold without qualification or property that is sold in perpetuity.
Halacha 3
A person should not sell his home or his ancestral field even though it returns to him eventually, unless he becomes impoverished, as [Leviticus 25:25] states: "If your brother becomes indigent and sells his ancestral heritage." One is not permitted to sell [such property] and hold the money in his pocket, engage in commerce with them, or purchase utensils, servants, or livestock. [He is only allowed to] sell to provide himself with sustenance. [Nevertheless,] if one transgressed and sold [such property], the sale is valid.
Halacha 4
Judgments are made with regard to a home in accordance with the laws of a walled city,5 and with regard to a field in accordance with the laws of a field that is an ancestral heritage.6 The laws of a person who sells a field that is an ancestral heritage [require] the calculation of the years remaining until the Jubilee. Whenever [the original owner] desires to redeem the field he should make a reckoning with the purchaser with regard to the years from which he benefited from the field and reduce that from the purchase price and return the remainder.7
Halacha 5
What is implied? There remained ten years until the Jubilee and a field was sold for 100 dinar.8 The purchaser benefited from the field for three years and then the seller desired to redeem his field. He should give him 70 dinar and then [the seller] should return the field. Similarly, if he benefited from the field for six years, he should give him 40 dinar and then [the seller] should return the field. If he did not redeem it, but instead left it in the purchaser's possession until the Jubilee, and then it should return to the owner without money, as [indicated by Leviticus 25:15]: "According to the number of years of [its] crops, he will sell it to you."
Halacha 6
If he sold it to him when it was filled with produce and then he redeemed it after two years, he cannot tell him: "Return it to me filled with produce as it was when I sold it to you." Therefore if he sold it to him filled with produce before Rosh HaShanah and redeemed it after two years, the purchaser will have benefited from three harvests in those two years. Nevertheless, [the reduction of the price] is calculated only according to two years, as [implied byibid. 27:18:9 "the priest shall calculate the money...] according to the remaining years," [i.e., the calculation is made according to years,] and not according to crops.10
Halacha 7
The shoots, the twigs, and the fruits from the wild fig trees contained within it belong to the purchaser like its other produce.11 If, however, [the branches of a tree] are cut down12 or it dries,13 they are both forbidden to benefit from it.14What should be done? It should be sold and land purchased with the proceeds. The purchaser is entitled to benefit from that land until the [original] field is redeemed from him.
Halacha 8
If a person purchases a field that is an ancestral heritage and plants trees15which increase the value [of the field], when it returns [to its original owner] in the Jubilee, we should evaluate the increase in value brought about by the trees in it and the owner of the field must pay this sum to the purchaser. [This is derived from ibid. 25:33]: "A home that was sold shall go out... [in the Jubilee]." [Implied is that the home] is returned, but not the increase in its value.
Halacha 9
When a person sells his field in the era when the Jubilee year is observed as we explained, he is not permitted to redeem it in less than two years, as [ibid.:15] states: "According to the number of years16 of [its] crops, he will sell it to you." Even if the purchaser was willing [to return it earlier], it is forbidden, as [the same verse] states: "According to the number of years17 after the Jubilee shall you purchase it from your colleague." [The purchaser must maintain possession for] at least two years from the date of the sale.18
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
If, however, the purchaser left it fallow one year and then benefited from it in the second year or benefited from it one year and then lightly plowed it, but did not sow it in the following year, [these years] are included in the reckoning.21 If he sold it in the Jubilee itself, the sale is not binding and the money should be returned to the seller.22
Halacha 12
If he sold it one year before the Jubilee, the purchaser benefits from it for a second year after the Jubilee,23 as [implied by the phrase]: "years of its crops."
Halacha 13
If he sold clefts that were filled with water or rocky [land] that was not fit to sow upon, he may redeem them in less than two years, as [implied by the phrase]: "years of its crops." One might infer that it is only a field that is fit to grow crops that is not redeemed in less than two years. [Nevertheless,] if the original owner did not redeem [this land], it returns to him in the Jubilee even though it is not fit to be sown.24
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
If a person sold his field to one person, that person sold it to a second, the second to a third - even if there were 100 consecutive sales - in the Jubilee, it returns to its original owner, as [implied by Leviticus 27:24]: "In the Jubilee year, the field will return to the one from whom he purchased it, whose ancestral heritage it was."27
Halacha 16
If [the owner] sold it to the first purchaser for 100 dinarim and [the latter] sold it to the second for 200, should the original owner desire to redeem it, he makes a reckoning only with the first purchaser, as [ibid. 25:27] states: "[And return the remainder] to the man to whom he sold it."28 If [the owner] sold it to a person for 200 and [the latter] sold it for 100, [the owner] makes a reckoning with the final [purchaser].29
Similarly, if he sold the field for 100 and it increased in value30 in the possession of the purchaser until it was appropriate to be sold for 200, the reckoning should be made according to the purchase price. If he sold it for 200 and its value diminished31 and it is now fit to be sold for 100, the reckoning should be made according to its present value. [The general principle is:] We always augment the legal power of the seller of an ancestral heritage and weaken the legal power of the purchaser.
Halacha 17
When a person sells a field that is an ancestral heritage, but he also possesses other fields and sells some of those other fields to redeem [his ancestral heritage] that he sold, his [request to redeem the field] is not heeded, for [ibid.:26] states: "And he attained enough to redeem it." [We can infer that] he must attain something that was not accessible to him at the time he sold it. Similarly, if he borrowed [money] to redeem [the field], his [request] is not heeded, for that verse states: "And he acquired." [Implied is that he must obtain the means on his own], not through a loan.
Halacha 18
If he attained a small amount [of resources] and desired to redeem half the field he sold, his [request] is not heeded, for that verse states: "enough to redeem it." Either he redeems the entire [field] or he does not redeem at all.
If a relative desired to redeem it, he may, as [ibid.:25] states: "And his redeemer who is related to him shall come...."32
Halacha 19
When a person gives his field away as a present, it returns to him in the Jubilee, as [ibid.:13] states: "Each man shall return to his ancestral heritage." This includes one who gave [it away as] a present.33
Halacha 20
Brothers who divide [an inheritance] are considered as purchasers34 and each one should return his portion to the other in the Jubilee, but their division is not nullified.35 Similarly, a firstborn36 and one who performs yibbum with his brother's wife,37 return the portion that they received in the Jubilee and take another portion instead of it.
Halacha 21
[Different rules apply with regard to a husband] who inherits his wife's [property]. Although a husband's inheritance of this property is a Rabbinic ordinance,38our Sages reinforced their decree as if it were of Scriptural origin and he is not required to return it [to the women's family] in the Jubilee year.39If he inherited a [family] cemetery from her, he should return it to her family members lest this blemish [the reputation of] the family.40 They should pay him its worth after deducting the value of his wife's grave, for he is obligated to bury her.41
FOOTNOTES
1.
For the entire passage speaks about an "ancestral heritage," i.e., land given to a person's ancestors when the land was originally divided among the tribes (Radbaz). This excludes Jerusalem which was never divided among the tribes (Rambam LeAm).
2.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 227) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 339) include the commandment for the land not to be sold in perpetuity among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
3.
For whenever a person acts in violation of Torah Law, his deeds are of no avail (Temurah 4b). Since their deeds are of no consequence, they are not punished by lashes (Mishneh LiMelech).
4.
Even though a Jubilee year will definitely fall within the span of the sale.
5.
As explained in the following chapter. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 139 andSefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 3410) include the commandment to carry out the laws pertaining to a walled city among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
6.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 138) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 340) include the command to enable a field to be redeemed or for it to be returned to its owner in the Jubilee year among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
7.
As the Rambam explains in the following halachah, the sale of such a field is considered as a rental agreement until the Jubilee year, with the purchase price being divided equally among the years remaining until the Jubilee. Thus each year has a set value. If the seller wants to redeem his field, he must pay back the money for the remaining years.
8.
Thus the right to use the field was sold for 10 dinar a year.
9.
Although this verse is speaking about the consecration of a field and its redemption from the Temple treasury, Arichin 29b-30a explains that the same principles should be applied to a sale to a private person.
10.
As one might conclude from Leviticus 25:15as cited in the previous halachah.
11.
For these are considered as temporary benefits which the field regularly produces.
12.
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 2:5). See also the Kessef Mishneh to Chapter 1, Halachah 15.
13.
And thus it has value only to be cut down as firewood.
14.
The purchaser is forbidden to benefit from it alone, because the tree is considered as part of the permanent features of the field and thus was not included in the original sale. On the other hand, the owner cannot take the entire benefit for himself, for the purchaser is entitled to benefit from it for the duration of his ownership of the property.
15.
If, however, the body of the land itself increases in value, that increase is not granted to the purchaser. See Halachah 16.
16.
The use of the plural form implies that the sale must be for at least two years.
17.
If, however, the body of the land itself increases in value, that increase is not granted to the purchaser. See Halachah 16.
18.
I.e., he cannot redeem it until the same date two years later. We do not count the years as beginning from Rosh HaShanah, but from the date of the sale.
19.
When it is forbidden to sow a field.
20.
Which prevented crops from growing in the entire land (Bava Metzia 106a).
21.
Since crops could have grown during those years, and he chose not to sow the land on his own, they are considered "years of its crops." The Kessef Mishneh states that this law also applies if the purchaser leaves it fallow for two years. The Radbaz, however, does not accept this conclusion.
22.
Arachin 29b explains that this is a logical conclusion. If the advent of the Jubilee causes a field that was sold to be returned to its original owners, it will certainly prevent the sale of one that was not sold as of yet from taking effect.
23.
As implied by the phrase "years of its crops," a sale must take effect for at least two years. Hence, the Jubilee does not nullify this sale and the land remains his for one year after the sale. Kin'at Eliyahu notes that since a Jubilee is always preceded by a Sabbatical year (when the purchaser cannot benefit from it), the land must have been sold two years before the Jubilee.
24.
For such land is still called "his ancestral heritage" (Arachin 14b).
25.
The bracketed addition is based on the gloss of the Radbaz who explains that this law would not apply to non-fruit trees. They could be redeemed within the two years. He also explains that the seller must have specifically stated that the sale does not include the land. Otherwise, a certain amount of land is automatically included as stated in Hilchot Mechirah 24:1-2. See also the notes to Hilchot Arichin 4:25.
26.
For the term "ancestral heritage" implies land.
27.
Although the verse is speaking about the return of a purchased field that was consecrated, similar principles apply even if the field was not consecrated.
28.
That purchaser must reimburse the person to whom he sold the field. Although the profit of the purchaser/seller is minimized according to the number of years remaining to the Jubilee, he still retains the profit for the years the sale was viable.
29.
I.e., the owner need not compensate the purchaser/seller for his loss.
30.
This is referring to an increase that comes about because of market fluctuations and not as a result of improvements made by the purchaser as indicated by Halachah 8 (Radbaz).
31.
Here also, the Rambam is speaking about a decrease as a result of market fluctuations. Needless to say, the same law would apply if the value of the land was reduced because of the purchaser's actions.
32.
The classic example of this is the redemption of the field sold by Elimelech by his relative, Boaz, as described at the conclusion of the book of Ruth.
33.
As the Radbaz mentions, in several sources (e.g., Chapter 12, Halachah 4), we find the principle that a present is considered as a sale. [Kin'at Eliyahu asks: If so, why is the prooftext necessary?]
34.
I.e., we consider it as if they sold the share the other received in return for the share that they received. We do not apply the principle of bereirah, i.e., consider the portion received as the portion destined for them at the outset (Bechorot 52b).
35.
I.e., there is no need to nullify the entire division and recalculate. Instead, it is sufficient to merely exchange portions (Kessef Mishneh).
36.
Who receives a double share of the inheritance. From the wording ofDeuteronomy 21:17, our Sages conclude that this double portion is given to the firstborn as a present. Hence, since a present is considered as a sale, the share is returned and the inheritance redivided [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 9:11)].
37.
And is therefore given his brother's share of the inheritance (Hilchot Nachalot 3:7). He is also called a "firstborn" (Deuteronomy 25:6)and thus the concepts mentioned in the previous note apply to him.
38.
See Hilchot Ishut 12:3; Hilchot Nachalot 1:8, 6:8.
39.
I.e., he is considered as a single heir and not as a purchaser.
40.
As the Maggid Mishneh states in his gloss toHilchot Mechirah 24:17, it is an embarrassment for the members of a family that their relatives will not be buried in the family plot.
41.
See Hilchot Ishut 12:2,4.
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
• Tuesday, Nissan 4, 5776 · 12 April 2016
Friday Nissan 4 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tazria, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 23-28.
Tanya: However, when a (p. 195)...discussed in the Zohar (p. 197).
The avoda of laymen has two categories:
1) Avoda with self: When actually at work, in a free moment in his store, for example, he should study a Mishna or two, or a chapter of Tanya. He should commit some Torah to memory - for example, Chumash, Mishna, Tehillim, Tanya, so that he will be able to review these while in the marketplace, the street or wherever.
2) Avoda with another: When discussing business, he should turn the conversation towards introducing a story with content, and seek some reason or opportunity to stimulate the other to study Torah, or to do similar activities.
• Daily Thought:
Tolerance
As the world came into being, so did tolerance. It may be the most amazing thing about our world—that it can keep chugging along while so loosely strung together, enduring so perfectly in its imperfection.
Without tolerance, the sages say, our world could not stand. Only a world that is allowed to stumble can stand on its own feet.
A world of perfection—a world that follows precisely every dictate from Above—is like a fetus that has never left its womb. In what way is it a world? In what way is it real?
A real world is one whose creatures can pass or can fail, or can blunder about until they eventually beat their path to the truth.
“And such a world,” says its Creator, “is worth My tolerance.”
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment