Today in Judaism: Chabad.org in New York, New York, United States for Wednesday, 21 June 2017 - Today is Wednesday, 27 Sivan, 5777 - 21 June 2017
Today in Jewish History:
• R. Chananya ben Tradyon Killed (2nd century CE)
Rabbi Chananya ben Tradyon, one of the "Ten Martyrs" (see entry for Sivan 25) was killed on this date. When the Romans discovered him teaching the outlawed Torah they wrapped him in a Torah scroll, piled bundles of twigs around him, and before setting him afire they placed damp woolen cloths on him to prolong the agony of being burned to death.
As the flames engulfed him, his disciples asked him, "Master, what do you see?" Rabbi Chananya replied: "I see a scroll burning, but the letters flying up to Heaven."
Daily Quote:
I pray with the mind of a child [Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet ("Rivash")]
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Numbers Chapter 17
| 9The Lord spoke to Moses saying: | | טוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר: |
| 10Stand aside from this congregation, and I shall consume them in an instant." They fell on their faces. | | יהֵרֹ֗מּוּ מִתּוֹךְ֙ הָֽעֵדָ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את וַֽאֲכַלֶּ֥ה אֹתָ֖ם כְּרָ֑גַע וַיִּפְּל֖וּ עַל־פְּנֵיהֶֽם: |
| 11Moses said to Aaron, "Take the censer and put fire from the altar top into it and put incense. Then take it quickly to the congregation and atone for them, for wrath has gone forth from the Lord, and the plague has begun." | | יאוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֗ן קַ֣ח אֶת־הַ֠מַּחְתָּ֠ה וְתֶן־עָלֶ֨יהָ אֵ֜שׁ מֵעַ֤ל הַמִּזְבֵּ֨חַ֙ וְשִׂ֣ים קְטֹ֔רֶת וְהוֹלֵ֧ךְ מְהֵרָ֛ה אֶל־הָֽעֵדָ֖ה וְכַפֵּ֣ר עֲלֵיהֶ֑ם כִּֽי־יָצָ֥א הַקֶּ֛צֶף מִלִּפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה הֵחֵ֥ל הַנָּֽגֶף: |
| and atone for them: This secret was given over to him by the angel of death when he went up to heaven, that incense holds back the plague… as is related in Tractate Shabbath (89a). | | וכפר עליהם: רז זה מסר לו מלאך המות כשעלה לרקיע, שהקטרת עוצר המגפה כדאיתא במס' שבת (שבת פט א): |
| 12Aaron took [it], just as Moses had said, and he ran into the midst of the assembly, and behold, the plague had begun among the people. He placed the incense on it and atoned for the people. | | יבוַיִּקַּ֨ח אַֽהֲרֹ֜ן כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר | דִּבֶּ֣ר משֶׁ֗ה וַיָּ֨רָץ֙ אֶל־תּ֣וֹךְ הַקָּהָ֔ל וְהִנֵּ֛ה הֵחֵ֥ל הַנֶּ֖גֶף בָּעָ֑ם וַיִּתֵּן֙ אֶת־הַקְּטֹ֔רֶת וַיְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־הָעָֽם: |
| 13He stood between the dead and the living, and the plague ceased. | | יגוַיַּֽעֲמֹ֥ד בֵּֽין־הַמֵּתִ֖ים וּבֵ֣ין הַֽחַיִּ֑ים וַתֵּֽעָצַ֖ר הַמַּגֵּפָֽה: |
| He stood between the dead…: He took hold of the angel and held him against his will. The angel said to him, “Allow me to accomplish my mission.” He [Aaron] said to him, “Moses commanded me to stop you.” He said to him, “I am the messenger of the Omnipresent, and you are the messenger of Moses.” He said to him, “Moses does not say anything on his own volition, but only at the bidding of the Almighty. If you do not believe [me], the Holy One, blessed is He, and Moses are at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting; come with me and ask.” This is the meaning of the statement, “Aaron returned to Moses” (Mid. Tanchuma Tetzaveh 15). Another interpretation: Why with incense? Because the Israelites were slandering and vilifying the incense, saying that it was a deadly poison; through it Nadab and Abihu died; through it two hundred and fifty people were burnt. The Holy One, blessed is He, said, “You shall see that it will stop the plague, and it is sin that caused their death.” - [Mid. Aggadah. See Mechilta Beshallach (Vayassa 6:5, Ber. 33a] | | ויעמוד בין המתים וגו': אחז את המלאך והעמידו על כרחו. א"ל המלאך הנח לי לעשות שליחותי. א"ל משה צוני לעכב על ידך. א"ל אני שלוחו של מקום ואתה שלוחו של משה. א"ל אין משה אומר כלום מלבו אלא מפי הגבורה, אם אין אתה מאמין הרי הקב"ה ומשה אל פתח אהל מועד בא עמי ושאל. וזהו שנאמר וישב אהרן אל משה. דבר אחר למה בקטרת, לפי שהיו ישראל מליזין ומרננים אחר הקטרת לומר סם המות הוא, על ידו מתו נדב ואביהוא, על ידו נשרפו חמשים ומאתים איש, אמר הקב"ה תראו שעוצר מגפה הוא, והחטא הוא הממית: |
| 14The number of dead in the plague was fourteen thousand, seven hundred, besides those who died because of the matter of Korah. | | ידוַיִּֽהְי֗וּ הַמֵּתִים֙ בַּמַּגֵּפָ֔ה אַרְבָּעָ֥ה עָשָׂ֛ר אֶ֖לֶף וּשְׁבַ֣ע מֵא֑וֹת מִלְּבַ֥ד הַמֵּתִ֖ים עַל־דְּבַר־קֹֽרַח: |
| 15Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and the plague was checked. | | טווַיָּ֤שָׁב אַֽהֲרֹן֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶל־פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וְהַמַּגֵּפָ֖ה נֶֽעֱצָֽרָה: |
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 120
This psalm rebukes slanderers, describing how the deadly effect of slander reaches even further than weapons.
1. A song of ascents. I have called out to the Lord in my distress, and He answered me.
2. O Lord, rescue my soul from the lips of falsehood, from a deceitful tongue.
3. What can He give you, and what [further restraint] can He add to you, O deceitful tongue?
4. [You resemble] the sharp arrows of a mighty one, and the coals of broom-wood.
5. Woe unto me that I sojourned among Meshech, that I dwelt beside the tents of Kedar.
6. Too long has my soul dwelt among those who hate peace.
7. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.
Chapter 121
This psalm alludes to the Lower Paradise, from which one ascends to the Higher Paradise. It also speaks of how God watches over us.
1. A song of ascents. I lift my eyes to the mountains-from where will my help come?
2. My help will come from the Lord, Maker of heaven and earth.
3. He will not let your foot falter; your guardian does not slumber.
4. Indeed, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.
5. The Lord is your guardian; the Lord is your protective shade at your right hand.
6. The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night.
7. The Lord will guard you from all evil; He will guard your soul.
8. The Lord will guard your going and your coming from now and for all time.
Chapter 122
The psalmist sings the praises of Jerusalem and tells of the miracles that happened there.
1. A song of ascents by David. I rejoiced when they said to me, "Let us go to the House of the Lord.”
2. Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem;
3. Jerusalem that is built like a city in which [all Israel] is united together.
4. For there the tribes went up, the tribes of God-as enjoined upon Israel-to offer praise to the Name of the Lord.
5. For there stood the seats of justice, the thrones of the house of David.
6. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; may those who love you have peace.
7. May there be peace within your walls, serenity within your mansions.
8. For the sake of my brethren and friends, I ask that there be peace within you.
9. For the sake of the House of the Lord our God, I seek your well-being.
Chapter 123
The psalmist laments the length of time we have already suffered in exile.
1. A song of ascents. To You have I lifted my eyes, You Who are enthroned in heaven.
2. Indeed, as the eyes of servants are turned to the hand of their masters, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes turned to the Lord our God, until He will be gracious to us.
3. Be gracious to us, Lord, be gracious to us, for we have been surfeited with humiliation.
4. Our soul has been overfilled with the derision of the complacent, with the scorn of the arrogant.
Chapter 124
1. A song of ascents by David. Were it not for the Lord Who was with us-let Israel declare-
2. were it not for the Lord Who was with us when men rose up against us,
3. then they would have swallowed us alive in their burning rage against us.
4. Then the waters would have inundated us, the torrent would have swept over our soul;
5. then the raging waters would have surged over our soul.
6. Blessed is the Lord, Who did not permit us to be prey for their teeth.
7. Our soul is like a bird which has escaped from the fowler's snare; the snare broke and we escaped.
8. Our help is in the Name of the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
Chapter 125
1. A song of ascents. Those who trust in the Lord are as Mount Zion which never falters, but abides forever.
2. Mountains surround Jerusalem, and the Lord surrounds His people from this time and forever.
3. For the rod of wickedness will never come to rest upon the lot of the righteous; therefore the righteous need not stretch their hand to iniquity.
4. Be beneficent, O Lord, to the good and to those who are upright in their hearts.
5. But as for those that turn to their perverseness, may the Lord lead them with the workers of iniquity. Peace be upon Israel.
Chapter 126
The psalmist speaks of the future, comparing our Divine service in exile to one who sows arid land, then cries and begs God to send rain upon it so that the seed not be wasted. When he merits to reap the crop, he offers thanks to God.
1. A song of ascents. When the Lord will return the exiles of Zion, we will have been like dreamers.
2. Then our mouth will be filled with laughter, and our tongue with songs of joy; then will they say among the nations, "The Lord has done great things for these.”
3. The Lord has done great things for us; we were joyful.
4. Lord, return our exiles as streams to arid soil.
5. Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy.
6. He goes along weeping, carrying the bag of seed; he will surely return with songs of joy, carrying his sheaves.
Chapter 127
King David instructs his generation, and especially his son Solomon, to be sure that all one's actions be for the sake of Heaven. He also criticizes those who toil day and night in pursuit of a livelihood.
1. A song of ascents for Solomon. If the Lord does not build a house, then its builders labor upon it in vain. If the Lord will not guard a city, the vigilance of its watchman is in vain.
2. It is in vain for you, you who rise early, who sit up late, and who eat the bread of tension, for in fact He gives His loved ones sleep.
3. Behold, the heritage of the Lord is children; the fruit of the womb is a reward.
4. As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of youth.
5. Fortunate is the man who has his quiver full of them; they will not find themselves shamed when they speak with enemies in public places.
Chapter 128
This psalm extols one who enjoys the fruits of his own labor, avoiding theft and deception, even refusing gifts. It also describes behavior appropriate to the God-fearing.
1. A song of ascents. Fortunate is every man who fears the Lord, who walks in His ways.
2. When you eat of the labor of your hands, you will be happy, and you will have goodness.
3. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine in the inner chambers of your house; your children will be like olive saplings around your table.
4. Behold, so will be blessed the man who fears the Lord.
5. May the Lord bless you out of Zion, and may you see the goodness of Jerusalem all the days of your life.
6. And may you see children [born] to your children; peace upon Israel.
Chapter 129
The psalmist laments the troubles of Israel.
1. A song of ascents. Much have they persecuted me from my youth on. Let Israel declare it now-
2. "Much have they persecuted me from my youth on, [but] they have not prevailed against me.”
3. The plowmen plowed upon my back; they wished to make their furrow long.
4. But the Lord is just; He cut the cords of the lawless.
5. They will be humiliated and will be turned back, all the haters of Zion.
6. They will be as grass upon the rooftops that withers before one plucks it,
7. wherewith the reaper has never filled his hand, nor the sheaf-binder his arm;
8. and of which the passers-by never have said: "The blessing of the Lord be upon you; we bless you in the name of the Lord."
Chapter 130
The psalmist prays for an end to this long exile.
1. A song of ascents. Out of the depths I call to You, O Lord.
2. My Lord, hearken to my voice; let Your ears be attentive to the sound of my pleas.
3. God, if You were to preserve iniquities, my Lord, who could survive?
4. But forgiveness is with You, that You may be held in awe.
5. I hope in the Lord; my soul hopes, and I long for His word.
6. My soul yearns for the Lord more than those awaiting the morning wait for the morning.
7. Israel, put your hope in the Lord, for with the Lord there is kindness; with Him there is abounding deliverance.
8. And He will redeem Israel from all its iniquities.
Chapter 131
In this prayer, David declares that never in the course of his life was he haughty, nor did he pursue greatness or worldly pleasures.
1. A song of ascents, by David. O Lord, my heart was not proud, nor were my eyes haughty; I did not seek matters that were too great and too wondrous for me.
2. Surely I put my soul at peace and soothed it like a weaned child with his mother; my soul was like a weaned child.
3. Let Israel hope in the Lord from this time forth and forever.
Chapter 132
David composed this psalm while he and the elders of Israel wore sackcloth, in mourning over the plague that had descended upon the land, and their being distant from the Holy Temple. David therefore offers intense prayers, entreating God to remember the hardship and sacrifice he endured for the sake of the Temple.
1. A song of ascents. O Lord, remember unto David all his suffering,
2. how he swore to the Lord, and vowed to the Mighty Power of Jacob:
3. "I will not enter into the tent of my house; I will not go up into the bed that is spread for me;
4. I will not give sleep to my eyes, nor slumber to my eyelids;
5. until I will have found a place for the Lord, a resting place for the Mighty Power of Jacob.”
6. Lo, we heard of it in Ephrath; we found it in the field of the forest.
7. We will come to His resting places; we will prostrate ourselves at His footstool.
8. Ascend, O Lord, to Your resting place, You and the Ark of Your might.
9. May Your priests clothe themselves in righteousness, and may Your pious ones sing joyous songs.
10. For the sake of David Your servant, turn not away the face of Your anointed.
11. For the Lord has sworn to David a truth from which He will never retreat: "From the fruit of your womb will I set for you upon the throne.
12. If your sons will keep My covenant and this testimony of mine which I will teach them, then their sons, too, will sit on the throne for you until the end of time.
13. For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation.
14. This is My resting place to the end of time. Here will I dwell, for I have desired it.
15. I will abundantly bless her sustenance; I will satisfy her needy with bread.
16. I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her pious ones will sing joyous songs.
17. There I will cause David's power to flourish; there I have prepared a lamp for My anointed.
18. His enemies will I clothe with shame, but upon him, his crown will blossom."
Chapter 133
1. A song of ascents, by David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together.
2. Like the precious oil [placed] upon the head, flowing [in abundance] down the beard, the beard of Aaron which rests upon his garments.
3. Like the dew of Hermon which comes down upon the mountains of Zion, for there the Lord has commanded blessing, life unto eternity.
Chapter 134
The psalmist exhorts the scholarly and pious to rise from their beds at night, and go to the House of God.
1. A song of ascents. Behold: Bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord who stand in the House of the Lord in the nights.
2. Lift up your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.
3. May the Lord, Who makes heaven and earth, bless you from Zion.
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Wednesday, 27 Sivan 5777 - June 21, 2017
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 8
כי המעלה ומדרגה הראשונה אצל הנבראים היא החכמה, שלכן נקראת ראשית
For the first i.e., supreme quality and rank with regard to created beings is wisdom, for which reason it is called “the beginning,” as in the phrase, “the beginning of wisdom.”
So, too, Targum Yonatan interprets בראשית (in the verse, “In the beginning G‑d created...”) to mean “with wisdom.” Thus, “wisdom” also connotes that which is first in quality, and the source of all other attributes.
כי באמת היא ראשית ומקור כל החיות בנבראים
For it is indeed the beginning and fountainhead of all the life-force in creatures,
כי מהחכמה נמשכות בינה ודעת
for from wisdom are derived understanding and knowledge,
ומהן נמשכות כל המדות שבנפש המשכלת, כמו אהבה וחסד ורחמים וכיוצא בהן
and from them flow all the emotive attributes of the rational soul, such as love and kindness and mercy and the like; all of these derive from the intellectual attributes.
וכנראה בחוש, שהקטן שאין בו דעת הוא בכעס תמיד ואכזרי, וגם אהבתו היא לדברים קטנים שאין ראוי לאהבם
This is seen vividly — that a child, having no wisdom, is always angry and unkind, and even his love is for trivial things which are unworthy of being loved,
מפני שאין בו דעת לאהוב דברים הראויים לאהבם, שהאהבה כפי הדעת
because he lacks the understanding to love things which are worthy of love, for love varies with [the level of one’s] understanding.
Thus, the emotions are dependent on the intellect and understanding, inasmuch as they derive from them.
ומהמדות שבנפש, נמשכות בה תיבות ואותיות המחשבה
From the emotive attributes of the soul, words and letters of thought issue forth,
שהנפש מחשבת בדבר שאוהבת, או איך לפעול החסד והרחמים
for the soul thinks of that which it loves or of how to perform deeds of kindness and mercy.
וכן בשאר מדות
And so it is with the other emotive attributes: they all serve as a source for the words and letters of thought.
ובכל מחשבה שבעולם, מלובשת בה איזו מדה המביאה לחשוב מחשבה זו,ומדה זו היא חיותה של מחשבה זו
Within every thought in the world, there is clothed some emotive attribute that causes one to think that thought, and this attribute is the vivifying force of that thought.
ומאותיות המחשבה נמשכות אותיות הדבור, והן חיותן ממש
From the letters of [a man’s] thought proceed the letters of [his] speech, and they — the letters of thought — are their actual vivifying force.
והדבור מביא לידי מעשה הצדקה וחסד, כגון המלך שמצוה לעבדיו ליתן
Speech [in turn] gives rise to action, [such as] of charity and kindness, as in the case of a king who orders his servants to give [charity].
I.e., his speech causes his charitable thought to result in action.
וגם כשהאדם עושה בעצמו איזה דבר
And even when a man himself does some deed which he had thought of doing,
In this instance no speech is involved: his thought leads directly to action. Nevertheless — the Alter Rebbe goes on to say — here, too, in order for the life-force to descend from thought to action, it must pass through an intermediary stage which resembles speech.
הרי כח הנפש וחיותה, המתלבש בעשיה זו, הוא כאין ממש לגבי כח הנפש וחיותה המתלבש בדבור האדם
the power of the soul and its life-force, which clothes itself in this deed, is as absolute nothingness in relation to the power of the soul and its life-force which clothes itself in the speech of man;
וכערך ומשל הגוף לנשמה
[they are to each other] as the relation and comparison of the body to the soul.
To the same degree is there no comparison between the power of the soul and its life-force which clothes itself in the speech of man, and the power of the soul and its life-force which clothes itself in man’s actions. Therefore, when this power and life-force has descended so far that it is able to clothe itself in action, it has already undergone contractions and condensations which are far below the power of speech.
וכן ערך אותיות הדבור לאותיות המחשבה
Likewise — like the distance of body from soul — is the relation of the letters of speech to the letters of thought,
וכן ערך אותיות המחשבה למהות המדה המלובשת בה ומחיה אותה
and likewise is the relation of the letters of thought to the essence of the emotive attribute which is clothed in it and animates it;
I.e., the thought that derives from an emotion is in no way comparable to the emotion itself.
וכן ערך מהות וחיות המדה, לגבי החכמה בינה ודעת שכללותן הוא השכל, שממנו נמשכה מדה זו
and likewise the relation of the essence and life-force of the emotive attribute in comparison with the wisdom, understanding and knowledge which together constitute the intellect from which this attribute was derived.
We thus see that in the chain of descent from level to level — beginning with wisdom and culminating with action — each level bears no comparison at all even to the level that immediately precedes it; emotions cannot be compared to intellect, thought cannot be compared to emotions, and so on. Surely, then, there can be no comparison whatsoever between the lowest degree of action and the highest degree of wisdom.
וכל זה בנפש האדם ונפש כל הברואים שבכל העולמות עליונים ותחתונים, שבכולם החכמה היא ראשית ומקור החיות
All this applies to the soul of man and the soul of all the created beings in all the higher and lower worlds. In all of them, wisdom is the beginning and source of the life-force.
G‑d, however, as will soon be concluded, is as distant from the degree of wisdom as He is from that of action; from the Divine perspective, action and wisdom are humble equals
Wednesday, 27 Sivan 5777 - June 21, 2017
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 109 (Digest)
Immersing in a Mikvah (Ritual Pool)
"He shall bathe all his body in water"— Leviticus 15:16.
A person who chooses to become cleansed of any ritual impurity is commanded to immerse in a mikvah [a natural pool of water]. According to the tradition of the Oral Law, for a mikvah to be kosher it must contain enough water for [an average] person to submerge himself within them—unless it is a moving stream of water, in which case even the smallest amount of water suffices [for a smaller than average individual, or for immersing a ritually impure utensil].
Some details:
- Of all the types of ritually impure people, only the zav requires immersion in a moving stream of water.
- This mitzvah is not obligatory. As long as an individual has no intention of entering the Temple Mount, he may remain in his ritually impure state.
- An individual's purification process is not finalized until the sun sets on the day he immerses.
- There may not be anything separating between the person's body and the waters of the mikvah.
The 109th mitzvah is that we are commanded to immerse in the waters of a mikvah and thereby be purified from whichever form of tumah previously existed.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "He must immerse his entire body in water." The Oral Tradition explains that [the phrase "his entire body" also teaches that] there must be enough water to cover his entire body. This is the minimum size of a mikvah unless the water is from a spring, in which case there is no minimum amount, as explained in the laws which deal with this mitzvah.
Among the conditions [governing the mikvah] is that only in the case of a zav is spring water required, as the verse states, "mayim chaim."
When we say that immersion is a mitzvah, this does not mean that any person who is tameh is required to immerse himself — as one who wears a four-cornered garment must put tzitzis on it, or that anyone with a house must build a fence around the roof. [When I say, "it is a mitzvah,"] I refer to the laws of immersion — that we are commanded that anyone who wants purification from tumah can do so only through immersion in water, after which he becomes tahor.
The Sifra says, "One might think that the phrase 'He must immerse in water' is a Divine decree [and that it is an absolute requirement to immerse]. The verse therefore says, 'then he can return to the camp' [after being purified] from tumah." This hints to the principle I just explained, i.e. that the mitzvah is just the law, i.e. that one who wants to be purified should take certain steps. This law is itself the mitzvah. This does not mean however, that there is an independent requirement to immerse — should he want to remain tameh and not enter the machaneh Shechinah for any period of time, he may do so.
The Book of Truth (i.e. the Torah) explains that even though after the person immerses he becomes tahor, his purification is incomplete until sunset. The Oral Tradition also explains that during immersion he must be naked and that his entire body must come in contact with the water. As our Sages put it, "The phrase, 'his entire body' teaches that there can be nothing intervening between his body and the water."
We have therefore explained that this mitzvah of immersion includes the laws of mikvah, of intervening substances, and t'vul yom. This mitzvah is explained in tractates Mikva'os and T'vul Yom.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
Positive Commandment 237 (Digest)
Damage Caused by Goring
"If an ox gores..."— Exodus 21:28.
We are commanded regarding the laws [of liability] that apply if a person's ox [gores another's animal, or any other malicious damage cause by any animal belonging to an individual].
The 237th mitzvah is that we are commanded to follow the laws regarding [damage caused by] an ox.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "If an ox gores [a man or woman...]", and the verse, "If one person's ox injures the ox of another person...."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the first six chapters of tractate Bava Kama.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
Translation of (the unabridged text of) Sefer Hamitzvot by Rabbi Berel Bell, member of the Rabbinical Court of Montreal and director of Teacher Training for the Jewish Learning Institute.
• 1 Chapter A Day: To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 11
To`en veNit`an - Chapter 11
1 Whenever landed property is known to have belonged to a person, we presume that he is the owner even though the property is now in the possession of another person.
What is implied? Reuven was using a courtyard as a person would commonly use his own property, living in it, renting it to others, building and tearing down structures. After a while, Shimon came and lodged a claim against him, saying: "The courtyard that is in your possession belongs to me. I rented it to you," or "... I lent it to you."
Reuven replied: "It was yours, but you sold it to me," or "You gave it to me as a present."
If Shimon does not bring witnesses who testify that it was known to belong to him, Reuven is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset, and he is allowed to retain possession of the courtyard. If, however, Shimon brings witnesses who testify that this field belonged to him, our presumption is that Shimon is the owner. We tell Reuven: "Bring proof that he sold it to you or gave it to you." If he does not bring proof, we force him to leave and establish Shimon as the owner. This law applies even when Reuven does not admit that the field ever belonged to Shimon, because there are witnesses who support Shimon's claim.אכל הקרקעות הידועות לבעליהן אע"פ שהן עתה תחת יד אחרים הרי הן בחזקת בעליהן, כיצד ראובן שהיה משתמש בחצר כדרך שהעם משתמשין בחצרותיהן, דר בה ומשכירה לאחרים ובונה וסותר, ואחר זמן בא שמעון וטען עליו ואמר לו חצר זו שתחת ידך שלי היא ושכורה היא בידך או שאולה, והשיבו ראובן שלך היתה ואתה מכרתה לי או נתתה לי במתנה, אם אין עדים לשמעון שהיתה ידועה לו נשבע ראובן היסת ויעמוד במקומו, אבל אם הביא שמעון עדים שחצר זו שלו היתה הרי היא בחזקת שמעון ואומרין לראובן הבא ראיה שמכרה לך או נתנה לך, ואם לא הביא ראיה מסלקין אותו ממנה ומחזיקין אותה לשמעון אע"פ שאין ראובן מודה לשמעון שהיא היתה שלו שהרי יש עדים לשמעון.
2 When do we require Reuven to bring proof that he acquired the field or to depart? When he did not use the property for an extended time. If, however, Reuven brings witnesses who testify that he partook of the produce of this field for three consecutive years and benefited from it in its entirety in the manner in which any person would benefit from that field, we allow Reuven to maintain possession. This applies provided that it was possible for the original owners to know that this person had taken possession of the field, and they did not lodge a protest against him. Reuven must take a sh'vu'at hesset that Shimon sold him the field or gave it to him, and then he is released of all obligation.
The rationale for this decision is that we tell Shimon: "If your claim that you did not sell or give him the property is true, why is this person using your land year after year, when you do not have a legal document stating that it was rented to him or given to him as security for a loan, and yet you have not lodged a protest against him?"
If the plaintiff responds to this by claiming that the news that the other person was using his property did not reach him because he was in a distant country, we tell him: "It is impossible that the information did not reach you in three years. And when the information reached you, you should have lodged a protest in the presence of witnesses, telling them that 'So-and-so stole property from me, and in the future I will lodge a claim against him in court.' Since you did not issue a protest, you caused yourself a loss."
Therefore, if there was a war or a disruption of travel routes between the place where Reuven was located and the place where Shimon was located, we expropriate the property from Reuven even if he benefited from its produce for ten years. We return it to Shimon, because he could say: "I did not know that this person was using my property."בבמה דברים אמורים שמצריכין ראובן להביא ראיה או יסתלק בשלא נשתמש בה זמן מרובה, אבל אם הביא עדים שאכל פירות קרקע שלש שנים רצופות ונהנה בכולה כדרך שנהנין כל אדם באותה קרקע, והוא שיהיה אפשר לבעלים הראשונים שידעו בזה שהחזיק ולא מיחו בו, מעמידין אותה ביד ראובן וישבע ראובן היסת שמכרה לו שמעון או נתנה לו ויפטר, מפני שאומרים לו לשמעון אם אמת אתה טוען שלא מכרת ולא נתת למה היה זה משתמש שנה אחר שנה בקרקעך ואין לך עליו לא שטר שכירות ולא שטר משכונה ולא מחית בו, טען ואמר מפני שלא הגיע אלי הדבר שהרי הייתי במדינה רחוקה אומרים אי אפשר שלא יגיע לידך הדבר בשלש שנים וכיון שהגיע לך היה לך למחות בפני עדים ותודיע אותם שפלוני גזל אותי למחר אתבענו בדין הואיל ולא מחית אתה הפסדת על עצמך, לפיכך אם היתה מלחמה ושבוש דרכים בין המקום שהיה בו ראובן ובין המקום שהיה בו שמעון אפילו אכלה ראובן עשר שנים מוציאין אותה תחת ידו וחוזרת לשמעון מפני שיכול לומר לא ידעתי שזה משתמש בקרקעי.
3 Even in a situation where there was a war and a breakdown in communication, if Reuven brought witnesses who testify that each year Shimon came and stayed in this place" for 30 days or less, we tell Shimon: "Why didn't you protest when you came? You have lost your rights."
If Shimon claims: "I was very much occupied at the business fair and I did not know that so-and-so was in my courtyard," his claim is respected. For it is possible that a person will be occupied at a business fair for 30 days. If he stayed for more than 30 days and did not protest, he loses his rights.
It appears to me that this law applies only in the villages, for the people there are very much occupied with their business fairs.גהביא ראובן עדים שהיה שמעון בא בכל שנה ועומד במקום זה שלשים יום או פחות, אומרים לשמעון מפני מה לא מחית כשבאת אבדת זכותך, טען שמעון ואמר טרוד הייתי בשוק ולא ידעתי שזה בתוך חצרי הרי זו טענה, שכל שלשים יום יהיה אדם טרוד בשוק, ואם עמד יותר משלשים יום ולא מיחה אבד את זכותו, ויראה לי שהדין זה אינו אלא בכפרים שהעם טרודין בשווקים שלהן.
4 Why do we not tell Reuven: "If it is true that he sold the property to you or gave it to you as a present, why did you not take care of your deed of acquisition?" Because a person does not take care of his legal documents for his entire life, and it is an established presumption that a person will not take care of a legal document for more than three years. If by that time, he sees that no one is protesting his ownership, he will not take care of it any longer.דומפני מה אין אומרין לראובן אם אמת הדבר שמכר לך או נתן לך במתנה למה לא נזהרת בשטר שלך, מפני שאין אדם נזהר בשטרו והולך כל ימיו וחזקה שאין אדם נזהר בשטר אלא עד שלש שנים, וכיון שרואה שאין אדם ממחה בו שוב אינו נזהר.
5 If Shimon issued a protest in a distant country, why can Reuven not claim: "I did not hear that he lodged a protest against me so that I felt it necessary to safeguard my deed of acquisition"?
Because we tell him: "Your friend has a friend, and his friend has a friend. And it is an established presumption that word of the protest reached you. Hence, since you know that he lodged a protest against you within the three years, if it is true that you had a deed of acquisition and you did not safeguard it, you caused yourself a loss."ההרי שמיחה שמעון במדינה רחוקה מפני מה לא יטעון ראובן ויאמר לא שמעתי שמיחה בי כדי שאזהר בשטר, מפני שאומר לו חברך יש לו חבר וחבירו יש לו חבר וחזקה שהגיע אליך הדבר וכיון שידעת שמיחה בך בתוך שלש שנים באמת היה לך שטר ולא נזהרת בו אתה הפסדת על עצמך.
6 Therefore, if Shimon lodged a protest in the presence of witnesses, but told them: "Do not utter a word about this protest," the protest is of no consequence. If, however, the witnesses said on their own volition: "We will not utter a word about this," the protest is significant. For a person will ultimately speak of a matter that he was not charged to keep private.
Similarly, if the original owner told the witnesses: "Don't tell the person who took possession of the property about my protest," or the witnesses said on their own volition: "We will not notify him," the protest is of consequence. For even though they will not notify him, they will notify others, and ultimately the information will reach him.ולפיכך אם מיחה שמעון בפני עדים ואמר להם אל תוציאו דבר זה מפיכם אין זה מחאה, אבל אם אמרו העדים מעצמן אין דבר זה יוצא מפינו הרי גם זו מחאה, שהדבר שאין אדם מצווה עליו אומרו שלא בכוונה, וכן אם צוה לעדים ואמר להם אל תודיעוהו או שאמרו הן מעצמן אין אנו מודיעין אותו גם זו מחאה היא, אע"פ שאינן מודיעין אותו מודיעין הם לאחרים ודבר זה יגיע אליו.
7 What constitutes a protest? That the owner says in the presence of two witnesses: "So-and-so who is using my field is a robber. In the future, I will call him to court." Similarly, if he says: "The property is rented out to him or it was given to him as security for a loan. If he claims that I sold it to him or gave it to him as a present, I will lodge a claim against him in court." Similarly, if he makes other analogous statements, the protest is of consequence even though he did not issue it in the country where the person in possession of the land is located.
If, however, he told them merely: "So-and-so who is using my field is a robber," that is not a valid protest, for Reuven will say: "When I heard this, I said to myself: 'Maybe he was merely slandering me.' Therefore, I was not careful about keeping my deed of acquisition."זכיצד המחאה אומר בפני שנים פלוני שהוא משתמש בחצרי או בשדי גזלן הוא ולעתיד אני תובע אותו בדין, וכן אם אמר להם שכורה היא בידו או משכונה, ואם יטעון עלי שמכרתי או נתתי אני תובע אותו בדין וכן כל כיוצא בזה הרי זו מחאה, אע"פ שלא מיחה במדינה זו שהחזיק בה זה, אבל אם אמר להן פלוני שמשתמש בחצרי גזלן הוא אין זו מחאה, שהרי ראובן אומר כששמעתי אמרתי שמא חרף אותי בלבד ולפיכך לא נזהרתי בשטרי.
8 A protest made in the presence of two witnesses is of consequence. They may compose a legal record of it, even if the owner does not tell them to compose it.
Once the owner issued a protest in the first year, he does not have to issue another protest each year. There must not, however, be three full years between each protest. He must, therefore, issue a protest at the end of each three-year period. If he protested, delayed for three full years and protested afterwards, the protest is of no consequence.חמחאה בפני שנים מחאה וכותבין אע"פ שלא אמר להם כתובו, וכיון שמיחה בשנה ראשונה אינו צריך לחזור ולמחות בכל שנה ושנה, אבל צריך שלא יהיה בין מחאה למחאה שלש שנים גמורות, לפיכך צריך למחות בסוף כל שלש שנים, ואם מיחה ועמד שלש שנים גמורות ואחר כך מיחה אינה מחאה.
9 If Reuven brought witnesses who testify that Shimon, the owner of the field, gathered the produce of the field together and gave it to Reuven, he is allowed to retain possession of the field. This applies even if Reuven claims that Shimon sold him or gave him the field that day. The rationale is that if he did not give him or sell him the field, he would not have helped Reuven in the field and given him its produce.טהביא ראובן עדים שזה שמעון בעל השדה קבץ פירות שדה זו ונתנם לי תעמוד השדה ביד ראובן ואפילו טען ששמעון מכרה לו או נתן לו היום שאילו לא מכר או נתן לא היה משמש את ראובן בשדה זו ונותן לו פירותיה.
10 If Shimon responds, claiming: "It's true; that event transpired. I sold him the rights to the field's produce and it belonged to him, but I never sold him the field itself," his word is accepted and the field should be returned to Shimon. There is, however, an exception: when Reuven partook of the produce for three years with Shimon's knowledge and Shimon did not protest against him, as explained.יטען שמעון ואמר אמת היה הדבר ולפירות הורדתיו ושלו היו הפירות אבל הגוף לא מכרתי נאמן וחוזר לשמעון אלא אם כן אכלה ראובן בפניו שלש שנים ולא מיחה בו כמו שביארנו.
• 3 Chapters A Day: Mikvaot Mikvaot - Chapter 11, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter One, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Two
Mikvaot - Chapter 11
1 We already explained that washing one's hands and/or immersing them is a Rabbinic requirement. Hands that must be immersed may be immersed solely in an acceptable mikveh that contains 40 se'ah. For only in a place where a person immerses his body may he immerse keilim and hands. When, however, hands need only to be washed, if they were immersed in the water of a mikveh, they are pure. If they were immersed in drawn water, whether in a container or on the earth, the person's hands are not purified. Instead, drawn water poured from a container must fall upon his hands. For hands may only be washed from containers and using human effort, as we explained in Hilchot Berachot.אכבר ביארנו שנטילת ידים וטבילתן מדברי סופרים וידים שצריכות טבילה אין מטבילן אותן אלא במקוה כשר שיש בו ארבעים סאה שבמקום שהאדם טובל בו כלים ידים טובלין אבל ידים שאין צריכות אלא נטילה בלבד אם הטבילן במי מקוה טהורין ואם הטבילן במים שאובין בין בכלים בין בקרקעות לא טהרו ידיו עד שיפלו המים השאובים מן הכלי על ידיו שאין נוטלין לידים אלא מן הכלים ומכח נותן כמו שביארנו בהלכות ברכות:
2 Any substance that intervenes for one's entire body when immersing also intervenes for one's hands, both when immersing then and when washing them. Any substance that is included in the measure of a mikveh, e.g., flowing mud, is also included in the measure of a revi'it required for the washing of hands. Everyone who washes his hands must rub them together.בכל החוצץ בטבילה חוצץ בידים בין בטבילתן בין בנטילתן וכל העולה למדת המקוה כטיט הנרוק עולה לשיעור הרביעית שנוטלין בהן הידים וכל הנוטל ידיו צריך לשפשף:
3 When a person washes both of his hands to partake of terumah, he must wash them a second time with other water to remove the water that is on his hands. For the water with which he washed them first - it is called the first water - contracted impurity from his hands. Therefore if a loaf of bread that was terumah fell into the water with which one first washed his hands, it contracts impurity. If it fell into the water of the second washing, it does not contract impurity. If one poured the water of the first washing and the second washing into one place and a loaf that was terumah fell there, it contracts impurity.
If one washed one's hands with the first water, an intervening object was found on his hands, and he removed it and washed again, his hands are impure as they were before, because the second water imparts purity only to what remains of the first water on his hands.גהנוטל שתי ידיו לתרומה צריך לחזור וליטול פעם שנייה במים שניים כדי להסיר המים שעל גב ידיו שהרי המים שנטל בהן תחילה והן הנקראין מים ראשונים נטמאו בידיו לפיכך אם נפל ככר של תרומה לתוך המים שנטל בהן ידיו תחילה נטמא ואם נפל לתוך המים השניים לא נטמא ואם נטל ראשונים ושניים למקום אחד ונפל שם ככר של תרומה נטמא נטל את הראשונים ונמצא על ידיו דבר חוצץ והסירו ונטל את השניים הרי ידיו טמאות כשהיו שאין המים השניים מטהרין אלא הנשאר מן המים הראשונים ע"ג ידיו:
4 Hands contract impurity and are purified until the joint.
What is implied? One washed his hands the first time until the joint. The second time, he washed them, the water poured beyond the joint, his hands are pure. The rationale is that the second water is pure.
If, when he washed his hands the first time and the second time, the water poured beyond the joint and it returned to his hand, his hand contracts impurity. The rationale is that the first water that poured beyond the wrist contracted impurity because of his hand. The second water does not purify the water outside the joint. Hence, since the water that was beyond the joint returned to his hand, it imparts impurity to it.דהידים מתטמאות ומתטהרות עד הפרק כיצד נטל את הראשונים עד הפרק ונטל המים השניים חוץ לפרק וחזרו מחוץ לפרק לידיו הרי ידיו טהורות שהמים השניים טהורין הן נטל את הראשונים והשניים חוץ לפרק וחזרו לידו נטמאת ידו שהמים הראשונים שחוץ לפרק נטמאו מחמת ידיו ואין המים השניים מטהרים במים שחוץ לפרק ולפי שחזרו המים שחוץ לפרק לידו טמאוה:
5 If the first time, he washed one hand and changed his mind and washed both his hands together the second time, they are impure. The rationale is that the second water contracts impurity because of the hand that was not washed the first time and then they impart impurity to the other hand.
If he washed both his hands the first time and washed only one hand the second time, that one is pure. If he washed one hand and then rubbed it against his other hand which was not washed at all, the water upon the washed hand contracts impurity because of the unwashed hand and then imparts impurity to the hand which was washed. If he rubs it on his head or against the wall, it is pure.הנטל את הראשונים לידו אחת ונמלך ונטל את השניים לשתי ידיו טמאות שהשניים מתטמאין מחמת היד שלא ניטלה במים ראשונים וחוזרין ומטמאין את היד השנייה נטל את הראשונים לשתי ידיו ונטל את השניים לידו אחת האחת טהורה נטל ידו אחת ושפשפה בחבירתה נטמאו המים שעליה מחמת חבירתה שלא ניטלה וחוזרין ומטמאין את היד שנטלה שפשפה בראשו או בכותל הרי זו טהורה:
6 If one washes both hands with one washing, they are pure. We do not say that it is like washing one hand with the water that descended from the other hand. Moreover, even four or five people, one next to each other or one on top of the other, may wash in this manner, as long as they hold their hands open so that the water can flow over the entire hand.ונטל שתי ידיו משטיפה אחת הרי אלו טהורין ואין אומרין הרי זה כנוטל ידו אחת במים שירדו מעל ידו השנייה אפילו ארבעה או חמשה זה בצד זה או זה על גב זה ובלבד שירפו שיבואו בהן המים:
7 If one washed a portion of his hand and then washed the rest of his hand, his hand is impure as it was originally. If there is enough water to impart moisture to another substance on the portion of the hand washed first while the other part was being washed the hand] is pure.
When does the above apply? To the water of the first washing. With regard to the second washing, one may wash a portion of his hand and then wash again, adding to the portion washed.זנטל מקצת ידו וחזר והוסיף ונטל הנשאר מן ידו הרי ידו טמאה כשהיתה ואם עדיין יש על מקצת שנטל בתחילה טופח על מנת להטפיח הרי זו טהורה בד"א במים ראשונים אבל בשניים נוטל מקצת ידיו וחוזר ומוסיף על מקצתן:
8 The minimum measure of water with which one may wash one's hands initially is a revi'it for each and every person for both their hands. No less than this measure is acceptable, as explained with regarding to washing before partaking of bread.
With regard to the second washing, by contrast, two people may wash their hands with a revi'it, and half a log may be used for three or four. And from a log, even 100 may wash. The rationale is that the second water does not come to purify, but merely to wash off the first water.חשיעור המים שנוטלין בהן תחילה רביעית לכל אדם ואדם לשתי הידים אין פחות משיעור זה כמו שביארנו בנטילת ידים לפת אבל מים שניים יש לשנים ליטול ידיהן מרביעית ומחצי לוג נותנין לשלשה ולארבעה ומלוג נותנין אפילו למאה שאין המים השניים לטהר אלא להעביר המים הראשונים:
9 When there was a container that held a revi'it of water that was acceptable for the washing of hands and one added to it a small amount of water that is not acceptable for that purpose, the mixture is acceptable. If one removed the amount of water he added from the container and there remained only a revi'it as there was originally, it is unacceptable. The rationale is that water that is unacceptable made up the measure of the revi'it.טכלי שהיה בו רביעית מים כשרים לנטילת ידים ונתן לתוכו מעט מים פסולין לנטילת ידים הרי אלו כשרין נטל מן הכלי כשיעור שנתן ונשארה רביעית בלבד כשהיתה הרי זו פסולה מפני שהמים הפסולין השלימו שיעור הרביעית:
10 Any water that is deemed unacceptable for the first washing is unacceptable for the second washing. Any container that may not be used for the first washing is also unacceptable for the second washing. Just as the water of the first washing must be poured by human effort, so too, must the water of the second washing.יכל המים הפסולין לנטילה במים ראשונים כך הן פסולין במים שניים וכל כלי שאין נוטלין ממנו במים ראשונים כך אין נוטלין ממנו מים שניים וכשם שצריך להיות המים הראשונים מכח אדם כך המים השניים:
11 We already explained in Hilchot Berachot all of the factors that could disqualify water for the washing of hands and what makes them acceptable, all of the containers that may be used for the washing of the hands and those that may not be used, Just as any doubt regarding the washing of hands is considered as pure with regard to partaking of ordinary food, as explained there, so too, with regard to terumah, any doubt regarding the washing of hands is considered as pure.יאכבר ביארנו בפרק ששי מהלכות ברכות כל מיני המים הפסולין לנטילת ידים והכשרן וכל הכלים שנוטלין בהן לידים ושאין נוטלין ואי זו נתינה היא מכח נותן וכשירה ואי זה נתינה אינה מכח נותן ופסולה וכל אותן הדברים שביארנו שם בנטילת ידים לפת חולין כך הן לתרומה וכשם שכל ספק ידים טהורות לחולין כמו שביארנו שם כך הן לתרומה כל ספק ידים טהור:
12 It is a clear and apparent matter that the concepts of purity and impurity are Scriptural decrees and they are not matters determined by a person's understanding and they are included in the category of chukim. Similarly, immersion in a mikveh to ascend from impurity is included in the category of chukim, because impurity is not mud or filth that can be washed away with water. Instead, the immersion is a Scriptural decree and requires the focusing the intent of one's heart. Therefore our Sages said: "When one immersed, but did not intend to purify himself," it is as if he did not immerse.
Although it is a Scriptural decree, there is an allusion involved: One who focuses his heart on purifying himself becomes purified once he immerses, even though there was no change in his body. Similarly, one who focuses his heart on purifying his soul from the impurities of the soul, which are wicked thoughts and bad character traits, becomes purified when he resolves within his heart to distance himself from such counsel and immerse his soul in the waters of knowledge. And Ezekiel 36:25 states: "I will pour over you pure water and you will be purified from all your impurities and from all your false deities, I will purify you."יבדבר ברור וגלוי שהטומאות והטהרות גזירות הכתוב הן ואינן מדברים שדעתו של אדם מכרעתו והרי הן מכלל החוקים וכן הטבילה מן הטומאות מכלל החוקים הוא שאין הטומאה טיט או צואה שתעבור במים אלא גזירת הכתוב היא והדבר תלוי בכוונת הלב ולפיכך אמרו חכמים טבל ולא הוחזק כאילו לא טבל ואעפ"כ רמז יש בדבר כשם שהמכוין לבו לטהר כיון שטבל טהור ואף על פי שלא נתחדש בגופו דבר כך המכוין לבו לטהר נפשו מטומאות הנפשות שהן מחשבות האון ודעות הרעות כיון שהסכים בלבו לפרוש מאותן העצות והביא נפשו במי הדעת טהור הרי הוא אומר וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים וטהרתם מכל טומאותיכם ומכל גלוליכם אטהר אתכם השם ברחמיו הרבים מכל חטא עון ואשמה יטהרנו אמן:
Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.סליקו להו הלכות מקואות בס"ד:
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter One
Introduction to Hilchos Nizkei Mamon
[This text] contains four positive commandments; they are:
1) The laws regarding damage caused by [the goring of] an ox,
2) The laws regarding damage caused by the grazing [of an animal],
3) The laws regarding damage caused by a pit,
4) The laws regarding damage caused by fire.
These mitzvot are explained in the chapters [that follow]. הלכות נזקי ממון - הקדמה
יש בכללן ארבע מצות עשה. וזה הוא פרטן
: א) דין השור
ב) דין ההבער
ג) דין הבור
ד) דין הבערה
: וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו:
1Whenever a living animal owned by a person causes damages, the owner is required to pay, for the damage was caused by his property. [This is implied by Exodus 21:35:] "When a person's ox will gore an ox belonging to a colleague...." These laws apply equally to an ox and to any other animal, beast or fowl. The verse mentions an ox only because that is a common instance.אכל נפש חיה שהיא ברשותו של אדם שהזיקה הבעלים חייבין לשלם שהרי ממונם הזיק שנאמר כי יגוף שור איש את שור רעהו. אחד השור ואחד שאר בהמה וחיה ועוף לא דיבר הכתוב בשור אלא בהווה:
2How much must [the owner] pay? If [the animal] caused damage through the performance of an act that it performs frequently and that is its natural habit - e.g., an animal ate straw or fodder, or it caused damage by [treading on an object] with its feet while walking - [the owner] is obligated to pay the full amount of the damage, [giving up, if necessary,] his most choice property, as stated in [Exodus 22:4]: "Payment should be exacted from his choice field and his choice vineyard." If [the animal] deviated from its ordinary habit and performed acts that it does not usually perform and caused damage in this manner - e.g., a ox gored or bit [another animal] - the owner is obligated to pay half the damages caused. [The payment must be exacted] from the animal that caused the damage, as [Exodus 21:35] states: "And they shall sell the ox that is alive and divide the money."בוכמה משלם. אם הזיקה בדברים שדרכה לעשותם תמיד כמנהג ברייתה. כגון בהמה שאכלה תבן או עמיר או שהזיקה ברגלה בדרך הילוכה חייב לשלם נזק שלם מן היפה שבנכסיו שנאמר מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם. ואם שינתה ועשתה מעשים שאין דרכה לעשותם תמיד והזיקה בהן. כגון שור שנגח או נשך חייב לשלם חצי נזק מגוף המזיק עצמו שנאמר ומכרו את השור החי וחצו את כספו וגו':
3What is implied? When an ox that is worth a manehgores an ox that is worth 20 zuz and kills it, [leaving] a corpse that is worth four zuz, the owner of the ox [that caused the damage] is liable to pay eight zuz, half of the loss [suffered by the owner of the ox that was killed]. The payment must be exacted from the body of the animal that caused the damage, as it is written: "And they shall sell the ox that is alive." Therefore, if an ox that was worth 20 zuz killed an ox that was worth 200 zuz and its carcass was worth [only] a maneh, the owner of the dead ox cannot compel the owner of the living ox to give him 50 [zuz]. Instead, he should tell him: "Here is the ox that caused the damage. Take it and depart."[This applies] even if the [ox that gored] is worth only a dinar. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.גכיצד שור שוה מנה שנגח לשור שוה עשרים והמיתו והרי הנבילה שוה ארבעה בעל השור חייב לשלם שמונה שהוא חצי הנזק. ואינו חייב לשלם אלא מגוף השור שהזיק שנאמר ומכרו את השור החי. לפיכך אם המית שור שוה עשרים לשור שוה מאתים ונבלה שוה מנה אין בעל הנבלה יכול לומר לבעל החי תן לי חמשים. אלא אומר לו הרי שור שהזיק לפניך קחהו ולך אפילו אינו שוה אלא דינר. וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
4[An animal] that performs a deed it is accustomed to performing by nature is called a mu'ad. [When an animal] deviates from its ordinary pattern and performs an act that its species does not usually perform - e.g., an ox gores or bites - it is called a tam. If the animal continues to follow the deviant pattern on several occasions, it is considered to be mu'ad with regard to the deviation to which it has become habituated, as [implied by Exodus 21:36]: "Or it is known that it is a goring ox."דהעושה מעשה שדרכו לעשותו תמיד כמנהג ברייתו הוא הנקרא מועד. והמשנה ועשה מעשה שאין דרך כל מינו לעשות כן תמיד כגון שור שנגח או נשך הוא הנקרא תם. וזה המשנה אם הרגיל בשינויו פעמים רבות נעשה מועד לאותו דבר שהרגיל בו שנאמר או נודע כי שור נגח הוא:
5Five types of activities are considered to be abnormal for an animal. If it repeatedly performs any of them, it is considered to be mu'ad with regard to that activity. An animal is not considered to be prone to gore, to butt, to bite, to lie down on large utensils or to kick. If it becomes accustomed to such an activity, its owner should be forewarned. At the outset, [an animal] is, however, considered prone to eat foods that are appropriate for it and to break utensils [on which it treads] as it walks. Similarly, an animal is considered prone to lie down on small utensils and crush them.החמשה מעשים תמים יש בבהמה. ואם הועדה לאחד מהן נעשית מועדת לאותו מעשה ואלו הן. הבהמה אינה מועדת מתחילתה לא ליגח ולא ליגוף ולא לישוך ולא לרבוץ על כלים גדולים ולא לבעוט. ואם הועדה לאחד מהן הרי זו מועדת לו. אבל השן מועדת מתחילתה לאכול את הראוי לה. והרגל מועדת מתחילתה לשבר בדרך הילוכה. והבהמה מועדת מתחילתה לרבוץ על פכין קטנים וכיוצא בהם ולמעך אותן:
6Five species of animals are considered prone to cause damage from the beginning of their existence. [This applies] even if they have become domesticated. Therefore, if they cause damage or death by goring, biting, treading, lying down upon, or the like, [the owner] is liable for the entire amount of the damages. They are a wolf, a lion, a bear, a tiger and a leopard. Similarly, a snake that bites is considered to be mu'ad, even if it has been domesticated.וחמשה מיני בהמה מועדין מתחלת ברייתן להזיק ואפילו הן בני תרבות. לפיכך אם הזיקו או המיתו בנגיחה או בנשיכה ודריסה וכיוצא בהן חייב נזק שלם. ואלו הן א הזאב והארי והדוב והנמר והברדלס. וכן הנחש שנשך הרי זה מועד ואפילו היה בן תרבות.
7Whenever [an animal] is mu'ad, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damage, [even if this requires expropriating] his most choice property. Whenever, by contrast, an animal is considered a tam, [the owner] is required to pay [only] half the amount of the damages. [Moreover,] that half is taken only from the animal itself. When does the above apply? When the animal entered into the domain belonging to the person to whom damage was caused, and caused damage. When, however, the person to whom damage was caused entered into the domain of the person [whose animal] caused the damage, [the owner] is not liable for anything. For he can tell [the party who suffered the damages]: "If you had not entered my domain, you would not have suffered any damages." Indeed, this is explicitly stated in the Torah, as [Exodus 22:4] states: "And if he shall send forth his animals, and they pasture in another's field."זכל מועד משלם נזק שלם מן היפה שבנכסיו. וכל תם משלם חצי נזק מגופו. במה דברים אמורים בשנכנסה הבהמה לרשות הניזק והזיקתהו. אבל אם נכנס הניזק לרשות המזיק והזיקתהו בהמתו של בעל הבית הרי זה פטור על הכל. שהרי הוא אומר לו אילו לא נכנסת לרשותי לא הגיע לך היזק והרי מפורש בתורה ושלח את בעירה ובער בשדה אחר:
8[The following rules apply when a person's] animal causes damage in the public domain or in a courtyard that belongs neither to the owner of [the animal that] caused the damage nor to the party who suffered the damages, or in a courtyard owned jointly by both parties that is set aside to leave produce there and/or to harbor an animal - e.g., a valley. If [the animal] caused damage by eating or treading in its ordinary manner, the owner is not liable. For [the animal] has permission to go from here to there, and it is the habit of an animal to go and eat as it proceeds and to break [anything lying in its way] as it proceeds.[Different rules apply if] it [caused damage by] goring, butting, kicking or biting. If its status is tam, [the owner] must pay for half the damages. If its status is mu'ad, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damages.חהזיקה ברשות הרבים או בחצר שאינה של שניהם לא למזיק ולא לניזק או בחצר שהיא של שניהן והרי היא מיוחדת להניח בה פירות ולהכניס לה בהמה כגון הבקעה וכיוצא בה. אם בשן ורגל הזיקה כדרכה הרי זה פטור מפני שיש לה רשות להלך [כאן] וכאן ודרך הבהמה להלך ולאכול כדרכה ולשבר בדרך הילוכה. ואם נגחה או נגפה או רבצה או בעטה או נשכה. אם תמה היא משלם חצי נזק ואם מועדת נזק שלם:
9When a courtyard owned jointly by both parties is designated for produce and not for harboring an animal, and one of the parties lets his animal in and it causes damage, [the owner] is liable even for damage caused by eating or treading. Similarly, if both of them had the right to harbor an animal there, but only one had the right to keep produce there, if [an animal belonging to the other] damaged [that person's] produce, [its owner] is liable even for damage caused by eating or treading.טהיתה החצר של שניהן מיוחדת לפירות ולא להכניס בה בהמה והכניס שם אחד מן השותפין בהמתו והזיקה חייב אפילו על השן ועל הרגל. וכן אם היתה מיוחדת לבהמה לשניהם והיה רשות לאחד מהן בלבד להכניס לה פירות והזיקה פירותיו חייב על השן ועל הרגל:
10There are three categories of damages [caused by] an ox: a) goring, b) eating and c) treading. The derivatives of goring are butting, biting, lying upon and kicking.The derivatives of eating are causing damage when scratching itself on a wall for its benefit, and soiling produce for its benefit. The derivatives of treading are causing damage with its body while walking; causing damage with its hair while walking or by swishing its tail, or with its saddle, the bit in its mouth or the bell around its neck. Similarly, a donkey that causes damage with its burden while walking or a calf that is pulling a cart that causes damage while pulling it. All of these are derivatives of treading. In a public domain [the owner] is not liable, and in a domain belonging to the party who suffered the damages, he must pay for the entire amount of the damages.ישלשה אבות נזיקין בשור הקרן והשן והרגל. תולדות הקרן נגיפה נשיכה רביצה בעיטה. תולדות השן אם נתחככה בכותל להנאתה והזיקה בחיכוכה. וכן אם טנפה פירות להנאתה. תולדות הרגל הזיקה בגופה דרך הילוכה או שהזיקה בשערה דרך הילוכה או כשכשה בזנבה או באוכף שעליה בפרומביא שבפיה בזוג שבצוארה. וכן חמור שהזיק במשאו בשעת הילוכו ועגלה המושכת בקרון שהזיקה בשעת משיכתה כל אלו תולדות הרגל הן וברשות הרבים פטורין וברשות הניזק משלמין נזק שלם:
11When [an animal] swishes its tail repeatedly in an abnormal manner and causes damage in the public domain, or when it swishes its sexual organ and causes damage in the public domain, [the owner] is not held liable. If the person whose property was damaged seizes possession [of property belonging to the owner], he may take payment for half of the damages. [The rationale for that ruling is that] there is an unresolved question whether these acts are derivatives of goring, in which case [the owner] is liable [for damage caused] in the public domain, or whether they are derivatives of treading, in which case [the owner] is not liable [for damage caused] in the public domain, as has been explained.יאכשכשה בזנבה כשכוש רב שאין דרכה לעשותה תמיד והזיקה ברשות הרבים. או שכשכשה בגיד שלה ברשות הרבים והזיקה פטור. ואם תפש הניזק גובה חצי נזק ממה שתפש. שזה הדבר ספק הוא אם אלו תולדות הקרן שחייב עליה ברשות הרבים או תולדות הרגל שפטור עליה ברשות הרבים כמו שביארנו:
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Two
1[The following laws apply with regard to] the major categories of damages and their derivatives. [If a person's property is considered] mu'ad with regard to the major category, it is considered mu'ad with regard to its derivatives. [If it is considered] tam with regard to the major category, the same law applies with regard to its derivatives. From the outset, [a person's property is considered] to be mu'ad with regard to all the major categories of damage and their derivatives, with the exception of goring and its derivatives. In that instance, [an animal is considered] tam until it has been deemed prone [to goring], as explained.אאחד אבות נזיקין ואחד התולדות אם היה האב מועד תולדותיו מועדות ואם היה תם תולדותיו כמוהו. וכל אבות נזיקין וכל תולדותיהן מועדין הן מתחלתן חוץ מקרן ותולדותיו שהן תמים בתחלה עד שיועדו כמו שביארנו:
2All the derivatives of a category of damages are governed by the same laws as the major category, with the exception of stones that are propelled by an animal while walking. This activity is considered a derivative of the category of treading, and one is therefore not liable for damage caused in the public domain. Nevertheless, if such stones cause damage in a person's private domain, [the owner of the animal] must pay [for the damages] from his most choice property, as he must pay for damages caused by treading, the major category. And yet, he is required to pay only half the amount of the damages.בכל תולדה כאב שלה חוץ מצרורות המנתזין מתחת רגלי הבהמה בשעת הילוכה. שאע"פ שתולדת הרגל הם ופטור עליהן ברשות הרבים כרגל ואם הזיקו ברשות הניזק משלם מן היפה שבנכסיו כרגל שהוא אב אע"פ כן אינו משלם אלא חצי נזק:
3What is implied? When an animal enters a courtyard belonging to another person and proceeds to walk, and in doing so propels stones from under its feet that break utensils, [the owner of the animal] must pay half the amount of the damage from his most choice property. This matter is a law communicated by the Oral Tradition.גכיצד בהמה שנכנסה לחצר הניזק והלכה והיו צרורות מנתזין מתחת רגליה ושברו את הכלים משלם חצי נזק מן היפה שבנכסיו. ודבר זה הלכה מפי הקבלה היא:
4Similarly, if [an animal] was proceeding in the public domain and stones were propelled from under its feet into a domain belonging to someone else, and they broke utensils there, [the owner of the animal] must pay half the damages. If [an animal] treads on a utensil in a domain belonging to someone else and breaks it, and shards from the broken utensil fall on another utensil and break it, [the owner of the animal] must pay the entire [damages for the destruction of] the first utensil, and half [the damages for the destruction of] the second utensil.דוכן אם היתה מהלכת ברשות הרבים ונתזו צרורות מתחת רגליה לרשות הניזק ושברו את הכלים משלם חצי נזק. דרסה על הכלי ברשות הניזק ושברתו ונפל על כלי אחר ושברו. על הראשון משלם נזק שלם ועל האחרון משלם חצי נזק:
5If an animal was walking in the public domain and it kicked [the ground] and propelled stones that caused damage in the public domain, [the owner] is not liable. If the person whose property was damaged seized a fourth [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him. [The rationale is that] there is a doubt regarding the matter: perhaps this is considered a deviation from the ordinary pattern and it is not a derivative of treading, for [the animal] kicked.ה היתה מהלכת ברשות הרבים ובעטה והתיזה צרורות והזיקו ברשות הרבים פטור. ואם תפש הניזק רביע נזק אין מוציאין מידו. שהדבר ספק הוא שמא שינוי הוא ואינו תולדת רגל שהרי בעטה:
6If the animal kicked the earth in the domain belonging to another person and stones were propelled because of its kick and caused damages, [the owner] is liable to pay a fourth of the damages, for this is a deviation from the ordinary manner of propelling stones. If the person whose property was damaged seized half [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him. Even if an animal was walking in a place where it would be impossible for it not to propel stones, and it kicked [the earth] and propelled stones, [the owner] is liable to pay a fourth of the damages. If the person whose property was damaged seized half [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him.ובעטה בארץ ברשות הניזק והתיזה צרורות מחמת הבעיטה והזיקו שם חייב לשלם רביע נזק שזה שינוי הוא בהתזת הצרורות. ואם תפש הניזק חצי נזק אין מוציאין מידו. ואפילו היתה מהלכת במקום שאי אפשר לה שלא תתיז ובעטה והתיזה משלם רביע נזק ואם תפש הניזק חצי נזק אין מוציאין מידו:
7Whenever a person must pay full damages, the payment is considered to be a monetary obligation that he is liable to pay, as if he had borrowed [money] from his colleague. When, by contrast, a person must pay half the damages, the monetary obligation is considered a fine, with the exception of the half damages liable from stones, which is a halachah [transmitted by the Oral Tradition], as we have explained.זכל המשלם נזק שלם א הרי התשלומין ממון שהוא חייב לשלמו כמי שלוה מחבירו שהוא חייב לשלם. וכל המשלם חצי נזק הרי התשלומין קנס חוץ מחצי נזק של צרורות שהוא הלכה כמו שביארנו:
8This is the operating principle: Whenever a person pays for the damage that he caused, it is considered a monetary obligation. Whenever he pays more or less - e.g., the double payment (for theft) or half the amount of damages - the amount that is greater or less than the principal is considered to be a fine. A fine is required only when one is obligated through the testimony of witnesses. When a person admits that he is liable for a fine, he is absolved of the obligation.חזה הכלל כל המשלם מה שהזיק הרי זה ממון וכל המשלם יתר או פחות כגון תשלומי כפל או חצי נזק הרי היתר על הקרן או הפחות קנס ואין חייבין קנס אלא ע"פ עדים אבל המודה בכל קנס מן הקנסות פטור:
9[The following rules apply when] a rooster sticks its head inside a glass container, crows while doing so and breaks it [as a result of the sound]. If there were spices or the like inside [the container, and the rooster] stuck its head in to eat them, [the owner] must pay full damages for the spices and half the damages for the container, as one pays half damages for stones [that are propelled]. [The rationale is that this is the animal's] ordinary pattern. If, however, the container is empty, this is a deviation from the norm, and [the owner] is liable to pay half the damages, as in the case with other fines.ט תרנגול שהושיט ראשו לאויר כלי זכוכית ותקע בו ושברו. אם היו בתוכו תבלין וכיוצא בהן שהושיט ראשו כדי לאכלן. על התבלין משלם נזק שלם ועל הכלי משלם חצי נזק כחצי נזק צרורות שכך הוא דרכו. ואם היה הכלי ריקן הרי זה משונה ומשלם חצי נזק ככל הקנסות:
10Similarly, if a horse yelped or a donkey bellowed and utensils were broken as a result, the owner is obligated to pay only half the damages. Roosters are considered prone to break utensils as they proceed in their ordinary pattern. If there was a string or a strap tied to [a rooster's] legs and a utensil became entangled with the string and rolled and broke, [the owner] is required to pay half the damages.When does the above apply? When the string was tied to the rooster by a person. If, however, the string became ensnarled around the rooster's foot, its owner is not liable. If that string was owned by a given person, rather than being ownerless, the owner of the string is liable to pay half the damages, because the string is like a moving pit.יוכן סוס שצנף וחמור שנער ושבר את הכלים משלם חצי נזק. התרנגולין מועדין להלך כדרכן ולשבר. היה חוט או רצועה קשור ברגליהן ונסתבך כלי באותו החוט ונתגלגל ונשבר משלם חצי נזק. במה דברים אמורים כשקשרו אדם אבל אם נקשר על רגליהם מאליו בעל התרנגולין פטור. ואם היו לחוט בעלים ולא היה החוט הפקר בעל החוט חייב חצי נזק שהרי הוא כבור המתגלגל:
11If the owner of the string hid the string, and the roosters trod on it and took it out, and then it became ensnarled around their feet, and as a result utensils were broken, the owner of the string is also freed of liability, for [the damage] was beyond his control.יאהצניע בעל החוט את החוט והתרנגולים דרסו עליו והוציאוהו ונקשר ברגליהן ושברו בו את הכלים אף בעל החוט פטור שהרי אנוס הוא:
12[The following rules apply when] roosters flew from place to place and broke utensils. If they broke the utensils with their wings, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage. If the utensils were broken by the wind generated by [the roosters'] wings, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.יבתרנגולין שהיו מפריחין ממקום למקום ושברו את הכלים. אם בכנפיהם שברו משלם נזק שלם ואם ברוח שבכנפיהם משלם חצי נזק:
13[If roosters] were digging at dough or at produce and soiled it or pecked at it, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage. If they caused damages with the dust or stones that they raised with their feet or with their wings, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.יגהיו מהדסין על גבי עיסה או על גבי פירות וטנפו או נקרו משלמין נזק שלם. הזיקו בעפר או צרורות שהעלו בכנפיהן או ברגליהן משלמין חצי נזק:
14If [roosters] were pecking at a rope [that held a bucket], the rope tore, and the bucket broke, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage. [This applies when] the bucket rolled until it fell and broke because of them. If there was food on the rope, and the rope tore while they were eating, they are liable to pay the entire amount of the damage to the rope as well.יד היו מחטטין בחבל ונפסק החבל ונשבר הדלי משלמין נזק שלם. והוא שנתגלגל הדלי מחמתן עד שנפל ונשבר. ואם היה על החבל אוכל ובעת אכילתן פסקוהו משלם גם על החבל נזק שלם:
15When a dog or a goat jumps from a roof downward and breaks utensils, [the owner] is liable for the entire damages, because they are prone to this. Similarly, if they fell and caused damages, [their owner is liable], because the fact that they climbed to the roof is considered negligence. [Therefore,] even if they fell because of forces beyond [the owner's] control, [he is liable], because whenever a person is negligent at the outset, and damage subsequently occurs because of forces beyond his control, he is liable.טוהכלב והגדי שקפצו מראש הגג מלמעלה למטה ושברו את הכלים משלמין נזק שלם מפני שמועדים הן לדבר זה. וכן אם נפלו והזיקו שעלייתן לראש הגג פשיעה. ואע"פ שנפילתן אונס כל שתחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב:
16If [the animals] jump upward [and cause damage], [the owner] is liable for half. This applies when a goat climbs upward or a dog jumps. If, however, a dog climbed upward and a goat leaps, whether upward or downward, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage. Similarly, if a rooster jumps either upward or downward, [the owner] is liable to pay for the entire amount of the damage.טזקפצו ממטה למעלה משלמין חצי נזק. והוא שנתלש הגדי ונסרך וקפץ הכלב אבל נסרך הכלב ודלג הגדי בין מלמעלה למטה בין ממטה למעלה חייבין נזק שלם. וכן תרנגול שדלג בין מלמעלה למטה בין מלמטה למעלה משלם נזק שלם:
17[The following laws apply when] a dog takes a cake [from a fire where it is cooking, a coal is stuck to the cake], and [the dog] takes [the cake] to a grain heap. If it places [the cake] down on the grain heap, eats the cake and kindles the grain heap, [the owner] is liable to pay the full damages for the cake and the place where it placed the cake [in the grain heap]. For the remainder of the grain heap, he is required to pay only half the damages. If [the dog] dragged the cake all over the grain heap, burning it as it proceeded, [the owner] is liable to pay the entire damages for the cake. For the place of the coals, [the owner] is liable to pay half the damages, and for the remainder of the grain heap he is not liable at all.יז כלב שנטל את החררה והלך לו לגדיש. אם הניחה בגדיש ואכל את החררה והדליק את הגדיש על החררה ועל מקום החררה משלם נזק [א] שלם ועל שאר הגדיש חצי נזק. ואם היה מגרר את החררה על הגדיש והולך ושורף משלם על החררה נזק שלם ועל מקום הגחלים חצי נזק ועל שאר הגדיש פטור:
18When does the above apply? When the owner of the coal guarded his fire and closed the door, and yet the dog dug underneath [until it could enter and] take the cake from the fire. If, however, he did not guard his fire, the owner of the fire is liable for the burning of the grain heap, and the owner of the dog is liable for the cake and the place where it was placed.יח במה דברים אמורים כששמר בעל הגחלת את אשו וסתם הדלת ובא הכלב וחתר ונטל את החררה מעל האש. אבל אם לא שמר אשו בעל האש חייב על שריפת הגדיש ובעל הכלב חייב על אכילת החררה ועל מקומה:
19When a person sets a dog belonging to a colleague on a [third] individual, he is not held liable by mortal courts; the laws of heaven, however, obligate him to pay. The owner of the dog is liable to pay half the damages. Since he knows that if his dog is set upon [a person] maliciously he will bite him, he should not have allowed [his dog to be left to do this]. If [a person] set a dog [belonging to a colleague] to bite the person himself, the owner of the dog is not liable. For when there is already a deviation from the norm, and a person brings about a further deviation, [the owner] is not liable.יטהמשסה כלבו של חבירו בחבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים ובעל הכלב חייב חצי נזק שכיון שהוא יודע שאם שסה את כלבו להזיק נושך לא היה לו להניחו. ואם שסהו בעצמו בעל הכלב פטור שכל המשנה ובא אחר ושינה בו פטור:
20When there are two cows in the public domain, one lying down and one walking, if the one walking kicks the one lying down, [the owner] is liable for half the damages. Even though it would be the ordinary practice for [the cow] to tread on the cow that is lying down, it is not its ordinary practice to kick it.כשתי פרות ברשות הרבים אחת רבוצה ואחת מהלכת ובעטה מהלכת ברבוצה חייב חצי נזק שאע"פ שדרכה להלך עליה אין דרכה לבעט בה:
Today's Daily Study:
Wednesday, 27 Sivan 5777 - June 21, 2017
| Wednesday, | Sivan 27 | 5703 |
| Torah lessons: | Chumash: Korach, Revi'i with Rashi. |
| Tehillim: 120-134. |
| Tanya: And "He fills (p. 317)...finite and limited. (p. 317). |
"G‑d will bless you in whatever you do." Man needs but to make a receptacle for his livelihood and to endeavor with all his power that the receptacle be pure of any impurity or dross of cheating others and the like. This means that whatever he does conforms to Torah laws. Thus he becomes a "vessel" worthy of G‑d's blessing, in two ways: His livelihood will be ample and his earnings will be directed to desirable ends.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
|
Audio: 
No comments:
Post a Comment