Torah Reading
Kedoshim (Vayikra-Leviticus [KEDOSHIM] 19:1 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe, saying,
2 Speak unto kol Adat Bnei Yisroel, and say unto them, Ye shall be kedoshim (holy ones): for I Hashem Eloheichem am kadosh.
3 Ye shall fear every man his em, and his av, and be shomer over My Shabbatot: I am Hashem Eloheichem.
4 Turn ye not unto elilim, nor make to yourselves elohei massekhah (cast metal g-ds); I am Hashem Eloheichem.
5 And if ye offer a zevach shelamim unto Hashem, ye shall offer it for your acceptance.
6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the next day; and what remains until the yom hashelishi, it shall be burned in the eish.
7 And if it be eaten at all on the yom hashelishi, it is piggul (unclean sacrificial flesh); it shall not be accepted.
8 Therefore every one that eateth it shall bear his avon, because he hath desecrated as chillul the set-apart- as-kodesh thing of Hashem: and that nefesh shall be cut off from among his people.
9 And when ye reap the katzir of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy sadeh, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy katzir.
10 And thou shalt not glean thy kerem (vineyard), neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy kerem; thou shalt leave them for the oni (poor) and ger (stranger); I am Hashem Eloheichem.
11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither speak sheker (falsehood, deception, lie) to another.
12 And ye shall not swear by My Shem lasheker (falsely), neither shalt thou commit Chillul ha-shem Eloheicha; I am Hashem.
13 Thou shalt not defraud thy re’a (neighbor), neither rob him; the wages of him that is a sakhir (hired man) shall not abide with thee ad boker (until morning).
14 Thou shalt not curse the cheresh (deaf), nor put a michshol (stumbling block) before the ivver (blind), but shalt fear Eloheicha: I am Hashem.
15 Ye shall do no avel bamishpat (perversion of justice); thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favor the person of the gadol; but in tzedek shalt thou judge thy neighbor.
16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a rakhil (talebearer, slanderer) among thy people; neither shalt thou stand aside while thy neighbor’s dahm is shed; I am Hashem.
17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine lev; thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not bear chet because of him.
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the bnei ammecha (children of thy people), v’ahavta l’re’acha kamocha (but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself): I am Hashem.
19 Ye shall be shomer over My chukkot. Thou shalt not mate different kinds of animals; thou shalt not sow thy sadeh with mingled zera; neither shall a garment with shaatnez (mixed fibers) come upon thee [see Devarim 22:11].
20 And whosoever lieth carnally with an isha, that is a shifcha betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed, nor chufshah (freedom) given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she has not been chuppashah (freed).
21 And he shall bring his asham (trespass offering, guilt offering) unto Hashem, unto the entrance of the Ohel Mo’ed, even a ram of asham.
22 And the kohen shall make kapporah for him with the ram of the asham before Hashem for his chattat which he hath sinned; and the chattat which he hath sinned shall be forgiven him.
23 And when ye shall come into ha’aretz, and shall have planted all manner of food trees, then ye shall treat the fruit thereof as forbidden; shalosh shanim shall it be as forbidden unto you; it shall not be eaten of.
24 But in the shanah harev’i’it all the fruit thereof shall be kodesh to praise Hashem withal.
25 And in the shanah hachamishit shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am Hashem Eloheichem.
26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the dahm; neither shall ye practice divination, nor practice sorcery.
27 Ye shall not cut the edge of your scalp, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your basar for the dead, nor tattoo any marks upon you: I am Hashem.
29 Do not prostitute thy bat, to cause her to be a harlot; lest ha’aretz fall to whoredom, and ha’aretz become full of depravity.
30 Ye shall be shomer over My Shabbatot, and reverence My Mikdash; I am Hashem.
31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after Ovos (Mediums) and Yidonim (Spiritists), to be defiled by them: I am Hashem Eloheichem.
32 Thou shalt rise up before the old, and honor the face of the zaken, and fear Eloheicha: I am Hashem.
33 And if a ger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not mistreat him.
34 But the ger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were gerim in Eretz Mitzrayim: I am Hashem Eloheichem.
35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in scales, in weights, and dry measures.
36 Tzedek scales, tzedek weights, a tzedek ephah, and a tzedek hin, shall ye have: I am Hashem Eloheichem, which brought you out of Eretz Mitzrayim.
37 Therefore shall ye be shomer (on guard to keep) over all My chukkot (statutes), and all My mishpatim (judgments), and do them: I am Hashem.
20:1 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe, saying,
2 Again, thou shalt say to the Bnei Yisroel, Whosoever he be of the Bnei Yisroel, or of the ger that sojourn in Yisroel, that giveth any of his zera unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death; the Am HaAretz shall stone him with stones.
3 And I will set My face against that ish, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his zera unto Molech, to make tamei My Mikdash, and to commit chillul Hashem against Shem Kodshi (My Holy Name).
4 And if the Am HaAretz close their eyes when that man giveth of his zera unto Molech, and kill him not,
5 Then I will set My face against that ish, and against his mishpochah, and will cut him off, and all that go awhoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
6 And the nefesh that turneth to Ovos (Mediums) and Yidonim (Spiritists), to go a-whoring after them, I will even set My face against that nefesh, and will cut him off from among his people.
7 Consecrate yourselves as kadosh, therefore, and be ye kedoshim: for I am Hashem Eloheichem.
8 And ye shall be shomer over My chukkot, and do them: I am Hashem who sets you apart as kodesh.
9 For every one that curseth his av or his em shall be surely put to death; he hath cursed his av or his em; his dahm shall be upon him.
10 And the ish that committeth adultery with the wife of another ish, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the no’ef (adulterer) and the no’efet (adulteress) shall surely be put to death.
11 And the ish that lieth with the wife of his av hath uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their dahm shall be upon them.
12 And if an ish lie with his kallah (daughter-in-law), both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed tevel (perversion); their dahm shall be upon them.
13 If an ish also lie with zachar, as he lieth with an isha, both of them have committed to’evah; they shall surely be put to death; their dahm shall be upon them.
14 And if an ish take a wife and her em, it is zimmah; they shall be burned with eish, both he and they; that there be no zimmah among you.
15 And if an ish give his shikhvat to a behemah, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the behemah.
16 And if an isha approach unto any behemah, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the isha, and the beast; they shall surely be put to death; their dahm shall be upon them.
17 And if an ish shall take his achot, the bat of his av (father), or the bat of his em (mother), and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their Bnei Am; he hath uncovered the nakedness of his achot (sister); he shall bear his iniquity.
18 And if an ish shall lie with an isha during her davah (menstruous unwellness), and shall uncover her nakedness, he hath made bare her mekor (source), and she hath uncovered the source of her dahm; and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s achot (sister), nor of thy father’s achot (sister); for he uncovereth (i.e., incestuously dishonored) his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity.
20 And if an ish shall lie with the wife of his dod, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their chet; they shall die childless.
21 And if an ish shall take his brother’s wife, it is niddah; he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.
22 Ye shall therefore be shomer over all My chukkot, and all My mishpatim, and do them; that HaAretz, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out.
23 And ye shall not walk in the chukkot of HaGoy, which I cast out before you; for they committed all these things; therefore I abhorred them.
24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to inherit it, an Eretz zavat cholov udevash: I am Hashem Eloheichem, which have separated you from the peoples.
25 Ye shall therefore distinguish habehemah hatehorah from teme’ah, and between fowls tamei and tahor: and ye shall not make your nefashot sheketz (abomination) by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as tamei.
26 And ye shall be kadoshim unto Me: for I Hashem am kadosh, and have separated you from the nations, that ye should be Mine.
27 An ish also or isha who is an Ov (Medium) or a Yidoni (Spiritist), shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their dahm shall be upon them.)
-------
TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• BLESSING THE NEW MONTH
This Shabbat is Shabbat Mevarchim ("the Shabbat that blesses" the new month): a special prayer is recited blessing the Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") of upcoming month of Iyar, which falls on Wednesday and Thursday of next week.
Prior to the blessing, we announce the precise time of the molad, the "birth" of the new moon. Click here for molad times.
It is a Chabad custom to recite the entire book of Psalms before morning prayers, and to conduct farbrengens (chassidic gatherings) in the course of the Shabbat.
Links: On the Significance of Shabbat Mevarchim; Tehillim (the Book of Psalms); The Farbrengen
• ETHICS OF THE FATHERS: CHAPTER 1
In preparation for the festival of Shavuot, we study one of the six chapters of the Talmud's Ethics of the Fathers ("Avot") on the afternoon of each of the six Shabbatot between Passover and Shavuot; this week, being the first Shabbat after Passover, we study Chapter One. (In many communities -- and such is the Chabad custom -- the study cycle is repeated through the summer, until the Shabbat before Rosh Hashanah.)
Link: Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 1
• COUNT "TWELVE DAYS TO THE OMER" TONIGHT
Tomorrow is the twelvth day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer for tomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is twelve days, which are one week and five days, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day is Shavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Hod sheb'Gevurah -- "Humility in Restraint"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" -- Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed, Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• PASSING OF JOSHUA (1245 BCE)
Joshua (1355-1245 BCE), who assumed the leadership of the people of Israel after Moses' passing (see Jewish History for the 5th of Adar) and led them into the Holy Land (see Jewish History for the 10th of Nissan), passed away on Nissan 26. He passed away at the age of 110, in the 28th year of his leadership. He was buried in his own estate in Timnat-Serach, in Mount Ephraim.
Links:
Brief Biography of Joshua
More on Joshuah
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Kedoshim, 7th Portion Leviticus 20:23-20:27 with Rashi
• Chapter 20
23. You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am sending away from before you, for they committed all these [sins], and I was disgusted with them. כג. וְלֹא תֵלְכוּ בְּחֻקֹּת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מְשַׁלֵּחַ מִפְּנֵיכֶם כִּי אֶת כָּל אֵלֶּה עָשׂוּ וָאָקֻץ בָּם:
and so I was disgusted with them: Denotes “disgust,” just as [in the verse], “I am disgusted (קַצְתִּי) with my life” (Gen. 27:46), like a man who loathes (קָץ) his food [so God loathed those nations]. — [Torath Kohanim 20:125]
ואקץ: לשון מיאוס, כמו (בראשית כז מו) קצתי בחיי, כאדם שהוא קץ במזונו:
24. So I said to you, You shall possess their land, and I shall give it to you to possess it a land flowing with milk and honey. I am the Lord your God, Who has distinguished you from the peoples. כד. וָאֹמַר לָכֶם אַתֶּם תִּירְשׁוּ אֶת אַדְמָתָם וַאֲנִי אֶתְּנֶנָּה לָכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֹתָהּ אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הִבְדַּלְתִּי אֶתְכֶם מִן הָעַמִּים:
25. And you shall distinguish between clean animals and unclean ones, and between unclean birds and clean ones; thus you shall not make yourselves disgusting through [unclean] animals and birds and any [creature] which crawls on the earth, that I have distinguished for you to render unclean. כה. וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּם בֵּין הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהֹרָה לַטְּמֵאָה וּבֵין הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא לַטָּהֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבָעוֹף וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר הִבְדַּלְתִּי לָכֶם לְטַמֵּא:
And you shall distinguish between clean animals and unclean ones: It is not necessary for Scripture to say [that we must distinguish] between a cow and a donkey, since they are easily distinguishable and identifiable. Rather, [the Torah means that we must distinguish] between [an animal that] is clean because of you [i.e., permissible for you to eat because of your slaughtering], and [one that is] unclean because of you [i.e., forbidden for you to eat because of your slaughtering. [When an animal is slaughtered, both “signs,” i.e., organs, must be severed, namely, the esophagus, (gullet) and the trachea (windpipe), or at least, the majority of each. Thus, our verse here is referring to the following: The distinction] between an animal of which [one organ was severed completely and] the majority of the [other] organ was severed, [thus rendering the animal kosher], and [an animal of which one organ was completely severed] whereas only half the [other] organ was severed [thus rendering that animal nonkosher]. And what is the difference between its majority and half of it [that would mean the difference between kosher and nonkosher]? A hairbreadth [and consequently, Scripture commands us to make a careful distinction]. — [Torath Kohanim 20:116]
והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהרה לטמאה: אין צריך לומר בין פרה לחמור, שהרי מובדלין ונכרין הם, אלא בין טהורה לך לטמאה לך, בין שנשחט רובו של סימן לנשחט חציו. וכמה בין רובו לחציו, מלא שערה:
that I have distinguished for you to render unclean: [I.e.,] to render] forbidden [to eat, as above]. — [Torath Kohanim 20:116]
אשר הבדלתי לכם לטמא: לאסור:
26. And you shall be holy to Me, for I, the Lord, am holy, and I have distinguished you from the peoples, to be Mine. כו. וִהְיִיתֶם לִי קְדשִׁים כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה וָאַבְדִּל אֶתְכֶם מִן הָעַמִּים לִהְיוֹת לִי:
And I have distinguished you from the peoples, to be Mine: If you are separated from them [through your observance of Torah], you will be Mine, but if not, you will belong to Nebuchadnezzar and his ilk. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: How do we know that a person should not say, “I find pork disgusting,” or “It is impossible for me to wear a mixture [of wool and linen],” but rather, one should say, “I indeed wish to, but what can I do-my Father in heaven has imposed these decrees upon me?” Because Scripture says here, “And I have distinguished you from the peoples, to be Mine”-your very distinction from the other peoples must be for My Name, separating yourself from transgression and accepting upon yourself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven. — [Torath Kohanim 20:128]
ואבדל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי: אם אתם מובדלים מהם הרי אתם שלי, ואם לאו הרי אתם של נבוכדנצר וחביריו. רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר מנין שלא יאמר אדם נפשי קצה בבשר חזיר, אי אפשי ללבוש כלאים, אבל יאמר אפשי, ומה אעשה ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי, תלמוד לומר ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי, שתהא הבדלתכם מהם לשמי, פורש מן העבירה ומקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים:
27. And a man or a woman who has [the sorcery of] Ov or Yid'oni, shall surely be put to death; they shall pelt them with stones; their blood is upon themselves. כז. וְאִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יִהְיֶה בָהֶם אוֹב אוֹ יִדְּעֹנִי מוֹת יוּמָתוּ בָּאֶבֶן יִרְגְּמוּ אֹתָם דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם:
[And a man or a woman] who has [the sorcery of] Ov or Yid’oni: Here, regarding those [who practice the sorcery of Ov or Yid’oni,] Scripture states death, while above (verse 6), Scripture states excision. [With] witnesses and warning [not to commit the sin], they incur [death by] stoning, but if [the perpetrators transgress] willfully but without warning, they incur excision; and if they transgress unintentionally, [they must bring] a sin-offering. And this [general principle regarding death, excision or sin-offering,] applies to all who are subject to the death penalty, about whom excision is also stated.
כי יהיה בהם אוב וגו': כאן נאמר בהם מיתה ולמעלה כרת. עדים והתראה בסקילה, מזיד בלא התראה בהכרת ושגגתם חטאת, וכן בכל חייבי מיתות שנאמר בהם כרת:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapter 119, Verses 97-176
• Verses 97-176
97. O how I love Your Torah! All day it is my discussion.
98. Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, for they are ever with me.
99. From all my teachers I have gained wisdom, for Your testimonies are my discussion.
100. I will be more perceptive than elders, because I have guarded Your precepts.
101. I have restrained my feet from every evil path, that I might keep Your word.
102. I have not turned away from Your judgments, for You have instructed me.
103. How sweet are Your words to my palate, [sweeter] than honey to my mouth!
104. From Your precepts I gain understanding, therefore I hate every path of falsehood.
105. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
106. I have sworn-and I will fulfill it-to keep Your righteous judgments.
107. I am afflicted to the extreme; grant me life, O Lord, according to Your promise.
108. Accept with favor, O Lord, the offerings of my lips, and teach me Your laws.
109. My soul is in danger always, yet I have not forgotten Your Torah.
110. The wicked laid a snare for me, yet I have not strayed from Your precepts.
111. I have taken Your testimonies as an eternal heritage, for they are the joy of my heart.
112. I have inclined my heart to perform Your statutes, forever, to the last.
113. I despise vain thoughts, but I love Your Torah.
114. You are my refuge and my shield; I place hope in Your promise.
115. Turn away from me, you evildoers, and I will keep the commandments of my God.
116. Support me according to Your promise, and I will live; let me not be shamed because of my hope.
117. Sustain me, and I will be saved, and I will be engrossed in Your statutes always.
118. You trample all who stray from Your statutes, for their ploy is a lie.
119. You have purged all the wicked of the earth like dross, therefore I love Your testimonies.
120. My flesh bristles from fear of You, and I am in awe of Your judgments.
121. I practiced justice and righteousness; leave me not to my oppressors.
122. Guarantee Your servant goodness; let not the wicked exploit me.
123. My eyes long for Your salvation, and for the word of Your righteousness.
124. Treat Your servant according to Your kindness, and teach me Your statutes.
125. I am Your servant; grant me understanding, that I may know Your testimonies.
126. It is time to act for the Lord; they have abrogated Your Torah.
127. Therefore I love Your commandments more than gold, even fine gold.
128. Therefore I affirmed all Your precepts; I have hated every path of falsehood.
129. Your testimonies are wondrous, therefore does my soul guard them.
130. Your opening words illuminate, enlightening the simple.
131. I opened my mouth and swallowed, because I craved Your commandments.
132. Turn to me and favor me, as is [Your] law for those who love Your Name.
133. Set my steps in Your word, and let no iniquity rule over me.
134. Deliver me from the oppression of man, and I will keep Your precepts.
135. Let Your face shine upon Your servant, and teach me Your statutes.
136. My eyes shed streams of water, because they do not keep Your Torah.
137. Righteous are you, O Lord, and Your judgments are upright.
138. You commanded Your testimonies in righteousness and great faithfulness.
139. My zeal consumes me, because my enemies have forgotten Your words.
140. Your word is very pure, and Your servant cherishes it.
141. I am young and despised, yet I do not forget Your precepts.
142. Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your Torah is truth.
143. Trouble and anguish have taken hold of me, yet Your commandments are my delight.
144. Your testimonies are righteous forever; give me understanding, that I may live.
145. I call out with all my heart; answer me, O Lord; I will keep Your statutes.
146. I call out to You; save me, and I will observe Your testimonies.
147. I rose before dawn and cried out; my hope is in Your word.
148. My eyes preceded the night watches, that I may discuss Your word.
149. Hear my voice in keeping with Your kindness; O Lord, grant me life as is Your practice.
150. Those who pursue mischief draw near; they are far from Your Torah.
151. You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are truth.
152. From the beginning I discerned from Your testimonies that You had established them forever.
153. Behold my affliction and deliver me, for I have not forgotten Your Torah.
154. Wage my battle and redeem me; grant me life for the sake of Your word.
155. Salvation is far from the wicked, for they seek not Your statutes.
156. Your mercies are great, O Lord; grant me life as is Your practice.
157. My pursuers and my enemies are many, yet I did not turn away from Your testimonies.
158. I saw traitors and I quarreled with them, because they do not keep Your words.
159. Behold how I love Your precepts; grant me life, O Lord, according to Your kindness.
160. The beginning of Your word is truth, and forever are all Your righteous judgements.
161. Princes have pursued me without cause, but it is Your word my heart fears.
162. I rejoice at Your word, like one who finds abundant spoil.
163. I hate falsehood and abhor it, but Your Torah I love.
164. Seven times a day I praise You, because of Your righteous judgments.
165. There is abundant peace for those who love Your Torah, and there is no stumbling for them.
166. I hoped for Your salvation, O Lord, and I performed Your commandments.
167. My soul has kept Your testimonies, and I love them intensely.
168. I have kept Your precepts and Your testimonies, for all my ways are before You
169. Let my prayer approach Your presence, O Lord; grant me understanding according to Your word.
170. Let my supplication come before You; save me according to Your promise.
171. My lips will utter praise, for You have taught me Your statutes.
172. My tongue will echo Your word, for all Your commandments are just.
173. Let Your hand be ready to help me, for I have chosen Your precepts.
174. I long for Your salvation, O Lord, and Your Torah is my delight.
175. Let my soul live, and it will praise You, and let Your judgment help me.
176. I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek out Your servant, for I have not forgotten Your commandments.
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 43
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Shabbat, Nissan 26, 5774 • April 26, 2014
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 43
The Alter Rebbe explained in the previous chapter that every Jew has the ability to attain yirah tata‘ah, the lower level of fear of G d. This enables him to perform all the positive commandments and refrain from transgressing all the negative commandments. In the present chapter the Alter Rebbe goes on to explain the two levels of fear of G d, yirah tata’ah and yirah ila‘ah, the lower and higher levels of fear respectively.
This distinction clarifies a seeming contradiction. The Mishnah first states:1 “If there is no wisdom, there is no fear [of G d].” Wisdom must precede fear. But the Mishnah then goes on to say: “If there is no fear [of G d], there is no wisdom.” Fear must precede wisdom!
The explanation is as follows: The Mishnah refers to the two above-mentioned levels of fear. The first statement — “If there is no fear, there is no wisdom” — refers to the lower level of fear, yirah tata‘ah. Without this level of fear, it is impossible to attain wisdom, i.e., the performance of Torah and mitzvot. (This is deemed wisdom, since the ultimate purpose of wisdom is repentance and good deeds.) The second statement — “If there is no wisdom, there is no fear” — refers to the higher level of fear, yirah ila’ah. This level of fear must be preceded by wisdom, i.e., the performance of Torah and mitzvot. Only thus is one able to attain the higher level of fear.
The Alter Rebbe also explains in this chapter that just as there are two general levels of fear of G d, there are also two general levels of love of G d.
והנה על יראה תתאה זו, שהיא לקיום מצותיו יתברך, בבחינת סור מרע ועשה טוב
Concerning this level of yirah tata‘ah of which it was said in the previous chapter that it is in the province of every Jew, which is [necessary] for the fulfillment of His commandments, in both areas of “Turn away from evil and do good,” i.e., in the performance of the negative and positive commands,
אמרו: אם אין יראה, אין חכמה
it was said, by our Sages, “If there is no fear, there is no wisdom.” If fear of G d is lacking, then one cannot properly fulfill the Torah and mitzvot.
ויש בה בחינת קטנות ובחינת גדלות
It (this lower level of fear) comprises a quality of “smallness” and a quality of “greatness”.
The quality of “smallness” describes the fear which is experienced as a result of a Jew’s innate fear of G d, and which is merely revealed through meditating upon matters that lead to the fear of G d. Since it does not result from contemplating G d’s greatness it is deemed “small”. The quality of “greatness” characterizes the fear of G d that results from contemplating G d’s greatness as it can be discerned from creation.
דהיינו, כשנמשכת בחינת יראה זו מההתבוננות בגדולת ה׳
This means i.e., fear has the quality of “greatness” when this category of the lower level of fear is a result of contemplation on the greatness of G d as it is perceived through His providing life to creation —
דאיהו ממלא כל עלמין
that He fills all worlds,
G d provides all worlds with vitality by vesting Himself in them. This life-force is attuned to the innate spirituality of the particular world or created being in which it is vested; the higher the world or created being, the loftier its life-force.
ומהאר׳ לרקיע מהלך ת״ק שנה וכו׳, ובין רקיע לרקיע כו׳
and2 from the earth to the heavens is a distance of 500 years,... and the distance from one heaven to the next... is also a journey of 500 years,
רגלי החיות כנגד כולן וכו׳
[and] “the feet i.e., the lowest level of the angels called chayyot measure up to them all...”
The lowest level of the chayyot transcends all the other levels.
וכן השתלשלות כל העולמות, למעלה מעלה עד רום המעלות
and similarly with one’s contemplation on the evolvement of all the worlds, one above the other to the topmost heights of the most spiritual worlds.
When a person contemplates and gains a deep understanding of the divine life-force that provides life to all worlds and spiritual levels, and hence achieves a fear of G d, then this understanding may be described by the term “greatness”. However, if this is the case, why then is this level considered part of yirah tata‘ah, the lower level of fear?
The Alter Rebbe answers this by explaining that since this fear derives from contemplation of G dliness as it “fills all worlds” and thus is bound up with them, it is necessarily a lower level of fear. For this life-force is concealed in the worlds in such a way that they are still able to be aware of their own existence and being. As this level, the worlds merely nullify their being and existence in deference to their life-force. This is termed bittul hayesh, the self-nullification of a being that is aware of its own existence.
The fear which results from this contemplation can only belong to the level of bittul hayesh, and not the higher form of nullification known as bittul bimetziut, which is total and complete nullification of self. It is for this reason that even the fear which has the quality of “greatness” is still only on a level of yirah tata‘ah, the lower level of fear. And this is what the Alter Rebbe now says:
אף על פי כן נקראת יראה זו יראה חיצונית ותתאה, מאחר שנמשכת מהעולמות
Nevertheless, this fear is called an external and inferior fear, yirah tata‘ah, since it is derived from the worlds i.e., from understanding the greatness of G d as a result of meditating upon the divine life-force which animates them,
שהם לבושים של המלך, הקב״ה, אשר מסתתר ומתעלם ומתלבש בהם, להחיותם ולקיימם, להיות יש מאין וכו׳
for they are “garments” of the King, the Holy One, blessed be He, Who conceals and hides and clothes Himself in them, in these worlds, to animate them and give them existence, that they may exist ex nihilo,....
Before the worlds were created they did not exist at all; they were in a state of non-being. Through their creation they became “beings”, entities whose existence could be experienced. This is the manner in which the divine life-force animates (and clothes itself in) creation: that created beings should be able to perceive themselves as existing entities which, nevertheless, are nullified to their divine life-force. Therefore, as explained earlier, this contemplation can only result in the level of bittul hayesh and not in bittul bimetziut, which is the level of yirah ila‘ah, the higher level of the fear of G d.
רק שהיא השער והפתח לקיום התורה והמצות
It is only that this fear serves as the gate and entrance to the performance of Torah and mitzvot.
For, as mentioned earlier, yirah tata‘ah leads to the performance of Torah and mitzvot. And it is concerning this lower level of fear that our Sages have said, “If there is no fear, there is no wisdom”; fear of G d must precede the performance of Torah and mitzvot.
אך היראה עילאה, ירא בשת
However, as for yirah ila‘ah, a fear stemming from a sense of shame before G d’s greatness,
Fear of G d stemming from a sense of shame is similar to the shame and total sense of abnegation a person feels when he is in the presence of a truly outstanding tzaddik.3 His shame is not from that great man’s external and revealed powers, as would be the case when one fears a king.
Fearing a king only involves fear of his externality, which finds expression in his rule. (Generally, the more extensive the king’s domain, the greater will be the fear of him.)
The same is true of the fear of G d which results from contemplating the “garments” and revelation of G dliness in all worlds. It is therefore termed yirah tata‘ah, a lower level of the fear of G d, inasmuch as it does not evoke the same degree of shame and self-nullification as is evoked by recognizing the greatness of a truly righteous person. There, the shame and fear is prompted by the great man’s essence; the nullification and shame will therefore be total. Thus, yirah ila’ah is a fear which stems from a sense of shame when one is confronted by G d’s greatness.
ויראה פנימית, שהיא נמשכת מפנימית האלקות שבתוך העולמות
and an inner fear that derives from the inward aspects of G dliness within the worlds,
wherein the person is cognizant of the inward and essential aspects of G dliness and not only of the external qualities of G dliness which are clothed in all the worlds. The worlds are wholly nullified before this inward aspect of G dliness with a complete and total nullification, bittul bimetziut. Awareness of this higher level of nullification leads to the higher level of fear, yirah ila‘ah.
עליה אמרו: אם אין חכמה, אין יראה
concerning this level of fear it was said by our Sages, “If there is no wisdom, there is no fear.” This level of fear must be prefaced by wisdom.
דחכמה היא כ״ח מ״ה
For4 Chochmah is ko‘ach mah, the level of nullification which is termed mah (“What?”), as the verse says,5 “...and we are mah” — a phrase that expresses the complete and total nullification which is termed bittul bimetziut,
והחכמה מאין תמצא
and6 “Chochmah comes from ayin” (“nothingness”), for which reason Chochmah is ayin and nullity,
ואיזהו חכם, הרואה את הנולד. פירוש: שרואה כל דבר איך נולד ונתהוה מאין ליש, בדבר ה׳ ורוח פיו יתברך, כמו שכתוב: וברוח פיו כל צבאם
and our Sages said, moreover,7 “Who is wise? He who sees that which is born [and created].” That is to say, that the wise person is he who sees how everything is born and created from non-being to being by means of the Word of G d and the breath of His mouth, as it is written,8 “...and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts [were created].”
ואי לזאת, הרי השמים והאר׳ וכל צבאם בטלים במציאות ממש בדבר ה׳ ורוח פיו, וכלא ממש חשיבי, ואין ואפס ממש, כביטול אור וזיו השמש בגוף השמש עצמה
Therefore, the heavens and the earth and all their hosts, i.e., all of creation, are truly nullified out of existence within the Word of G d and the breath of His mouth — the level of their nullification is thus not that of bittul hayesh but of bittul bimetziut — and are accounted as nothing at all, as naught and nothingness indeed, just as the light and brightness of the sun are nullified within the body of the sun itself.
Once sunlight has left the sun one can perceive actual rays and illumination. However, when the light of the sun is found in its source, the body of the sun itself, it is completely nullified and does not exist in a luminous state; all that exists there is the source of light, the sun itself.
So, too, are all created beings nullified in their source, the Word of G d that creates them ex nihilo. When a person ponders this matter, it will so affect him that his nullification to G d will be at the level of bittul bimetziut.
ואל יוציא אדם עצמו מהכלל
And no man should except himself from this principle — from the principle governing all created beings, about which he understands that they are totally nullified to G d. He should realize:
שגם גופו ונפשו ורוחו ונשמתו בטלים במציאות בדבר ה׳
that also his body and Nefesh, Ruach and Neshamah are utterly nullified in the Word of G d that created them,
ודבורו יתברך מיוחד במחשבתו כו׳ וכנ״ל פרק כ׳ וכ״א באריכות, בדרך משל מנפש האדם, שדבור אחד מדבורו ומחשבתו כלא ממש כו׳
and His Word is united with His thought... and G d’s thought in turn is one with G d Himself. Thus, the nullification is not only to G d’s Word, but is a total nullification to G d Himself, as has been explained above at length (9chs. 20 and 21), by analogy with the human soul, one utterance of whose speech and thought are veritably as nothing..., when compared to the power of speech which is limitless.
Surely, one word pales utterly in comparison to man’s thought, which is the source of speech. Even more so when a single utterance is compared to the source of thought — the power of intellect or emotion, depending on whether the individual is thinking about intellectual or emotional things. Surely, then, this spoken word cannot in any way be compared to the soul itself.
There is, however, a difference between man’s speech and G d’s. When a human being speaks, the sound emitted from his mouth departs from its source and becomes a separate entity. G d’s creative speech, however, never departs — heaven forbid — from its source, that source being G d Himself, Who is omnipresent. Thus, divine speech is always found within its source.
It now becomes even more clear that G d’s Word, the source of creation, is truly and totally nullified to and unified with G d. Thus all of creation is completely nullified to G d.
וזה שאומר הכתוב: הן יראת ה׳ היא חכמה
This is what is meant by the verse:10 “Behold, the fear of G d, that is wisdom.”
For as explained earlier, the level of yirah ila‘ah and bittul bimetziut is the same as “wisdom”; it, too, is essentially bittul bimetziut.
אך אי אפשר להשיג ליראה וחכמה זו אלא בקיום התורה והמצות על ידי יראה תתאה החיצונית, וזה שכתוב: אם אין יראה, אין חכמה
However, one cannot attain this fear and wisdom except by means of the fulfillment of the Torah and mitzvot through yirah tata‘ah, which is an external fear. And this is what is meant by the statement, “If there is no fear, there is no wisdom.”
First must come yirah tata‘ah and the resulting performance of Torah and mitzvot; only then can one attain “wisdom” — yirah ila’ah and bittul bimetziut.
* * *
The Alter Rebbe now explains that there are also two general levels in the love of God. The higher level is called ahavah rabbah (“great love”). It is a gift from above, granted to an individual after he has attained the level of yirah ila‘ah. This love is so lofty that one cannot hope to achieve it unaided.
The second and lower level of love is attained by contemplating G d’s greatness. It is called ahavat olam (“eternal love,” and more literally, “love of the world”), because it emanates from one’s comprehension of the world, i.e., from one’s appreciation of the G dly life-force that animates the world.
והנה באהבה יש גם כן שתי מדרגות, אהבה רבה ואהבת עולם. אהבה רבה היא אהבה בתענוגים
Now, in love too there are two grades — ahavah rabbah and ahavat olam. Ahavah rabbah is a love of delight [and ecstasy], a love of G d which delights in Him. There is no other desire or goal present, such as the desire to cleave to Him or to expire in one’s yearning for Him. The love itself is comprised purely of delight in Him and cleaving to Him,
והיא שלהבת העולה מאליה
and it is a fiery flame that rises of itself. Man does not create or kindle this love within himself; rather, it comes forth spontaneously,
ובאה מלמעלה בבחינת מתנה למי שהוא שלם ביראה, כנודע על מאמר רז״ל: דרכו של איש לחזר אחר אשה, שאהבה נקראת איש וזכר, כמו שכתוב: זכר חסדו
and it comes from above by way of a gift to him who is perfect in fear, as is known from the saying of the Rabbis, of blessed memory:11 “The way of a man is to search for a woman.” And in spiritual terms: Love is called “man” or “male”, as it is written:12 “He has remembered his lovingkindness.”
The second letter of the verb (זכר) is vocalized with a patach; changing this vowel to a kamatz makes it mean “male”. Thus, love is alluded to as “male”,
ואשה יראת ה׳, כנודע
while a woman [symbolizes] “fear of G d,” as is known.
The connection between a female and the fear of G d is alluded to by the verse that says,13 “a G d-fearing woman.” This, then, is the spiritual meaning of the statement of the Sages, “The way of a man is to search for a woman”: the level of love (“man”) is revealed from above (“to search for”) where the level of fear (“woman”) is already present and complete.
ובלי קדימת היראה אי אפשר להגיע לאהבה רבה זו, כי אהבה זו היא מבחינת אצילות, דלית תמן קיצו׳ ופירוד, חס ושלום
Without the prerequisite of fear, it is impossible to attain the level of ahavah rabbah, for this love originates from the realm of Atzilut wherein there is no sundering or separateness, G d forbid.
In the World of Atzilut nothing exists which is separate from G dliness; nothing at that level feels that it exists independently of G d, and everything in Atzilut is totally nullified to G dliness. Understandably, the love that emanates from such a level cannot light upon one whose fear of G d is imperfect, and who still perceives himself as existing independently of Him. Complete self-abnegation is a prerequisite for this level of love.
אך אהבת עולם היא הבאה מהתבונה ודעת בגדולת ה׳, אין סוף ברוך הוא, הממלא כל עלמין וסובב כל עלמין
Ahavat olam, however, the second and lower level of love, is that which comes from the understanding and knowledge of the greatness of G d, the blessed Ein Sof, Who fills all worlds, animating them with a permeating mode of vitality, which is limited and tailored to the capacity of each creature, and encompasses all worlds, animating them with a vitality which transcends them, not being limited by the worlds and created beings it animates.
וכולא קמיה כלא ממש חשיב, וכביטול דבור אחד בנפש המשכלת בעודו במחשבתה או בחמדת הלב כנ״ל
and before Whom everything is accounted as nothing at all, like the nullity of one utterance within the intelligent soul while it is still in its thought or in the desire of the heart, as has been explained earlier.14
אשר על ידי התבוננות זו ממילא תתפשט מדת האהבה שבנפש מלבושיה
As a result of such contemplation the attribute of love which is in the soul will as a matter of course divest itself of its garments, which it had previously worn.
This means to say that the individual will cease loving those things he had previously loved (this love having previously led him to vest himself in those things), and all his love will be directed to G d alone.
דהיינו: שלא תתלבש בשום דבר הנאה ותענוג גשמי או רוחני, לאהבה אותו, ולא לחפו׳ כלל שום דבר בעולם בלתי ה׳ לבדו, מקור החיים של כל התענוגים
I.e., it will not clothe itself in anything of pleasure or enjoyment whether physical or spiritual, to love it, and will not desire anything whatever in the world other than G d alone, the Source of the vitality of all enjoyments,
שכולם בטילים במציאות, וכלא ממש קמיה חשיבי, ואין ערוך ודמיון כלל ביניהם, חס ושלום, כמו שאין ערוך לאין ואפס המוחלט לגבי חיים נצחיים
for they are all nullified in reality and are accounted as nothing at all, compared with Him, there being no manner of comparison or similitude between them, G d forbid — between all worldly pleasures and G d, the “Source of the vitality” of all pleasures, just as there is no comparison between that which is absolutely naught and nothing — and everlasting life.
Reflecting on this matter will lead the person to desire G d alone, and not to desire any worldly pleasures at all, seeking as he will the Source of all pleasures, which is G dliness.
וכמו שכתוב: מי לי בשמים, ועמך לא חפצתי באר׳
As it is written,15 “Whom have I in Heaven [to love other than G d]?” The verse goes on to say: “And there is nothing upon earth that I desire with You.”
This means to say that anything “with You” — that is subjugated and nullified to G d — is not desired as well.
כלה שארי ולבבי, צור לבבי וגו׳, וכמו שכתוב לקמן
The next verse continues: “My flesh and my heart yearn for You, Rock of my heart...,” as the various levels of love a Jew may attain by contemplating G d’s greatness will be explained later.16
All the above refers to a person who has a love for worldly matters, and divests himself of this love because of his contemplation of G d’s greatness. His love will then be felt for G d rather than for mundane things.
However, he who by nature is cold and removed from any feelings of love, whether to G d or otherwise, cannot simply transfer his love. It is much more difficult for such a person to awaken a feeling of love for G d. Nevertheless, the Alter Rebbe goes on to say, even he can arouse within himself a fiery love for G d through the above-mentioned contemplation.
וגם מי שאין מדת אהבה שבנפשו מלובשת כלל בשום תענוג גשמי אורוחני, יכול להלהיב נפשו כרשפי אש ושלהבת עזה ולהב העולה השמימה, על ידי התבוננות הנ״ל, כמו שכתוב לקמן
Also he, whose soul’s attribute of love is not vested at all in any physical or spiritual enjoyment, is able to kindle his soul as with burning coals and an intense fire and a flame that soars heavenward, by contemplating the above-mentioned matters, as shall be explained later on.
FOOTNOTES
1. 7Avot 3:17.
2. Cf. Chagigah 13a.
3. The Alter Rebbe explains this comparison in greater detail in his Siddur, in his notes on Tikkun Chatzot.
4. See ch. 19.
5. Shmot 16:7.
6. Iyov 28:12.
7. Tamid 32a.
8. Tehillim 33:6.
9. Parentheses are in the original text.
10. Iyov 28:28.
11. Kiddushin 2b.
12. Tehillim 98:3.
13. Mishlei 31:30.
14. Chs. 20-21.
15. Tehillim 73:25-26.
16. In ch. 44.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Shabbat, Nissan 26, 5774 • April 26, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 248
Denying a Debt
"Do not deny"—Leviticus 19:11.
It is forbidden for a person to deny a debt that he owes or to deny that a person entrusted him an object for safekeeping.
Denying a Debt
Negative Commandment 248
Translated by Berel Bell
The 248th prohibition is that we are forbidden to falsely deny that we owe money or that we were entrusted with an object.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not deny."
It is explained2 that this refers to a financial claim. The Sifra says, "We learn what the punishment is from the verse,3 'If he denies [illegally withholding another person's money] and swears falsely [...he must pay the principal and add one-fifth.]' Which verse serves as the actual prohibition?4 The verse, 'Do not deny.' "
You are aware that one who [falsely] denies possession of an object he was entrusted with — even if he does not swear falsely — is invalid to act as a witness. This is because he has transgressed the mitzvah, "Do not deny."5
The details of this mitzvah are explained in a number of passages in tractate Sh'vuos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 19:11.
2.Sanhedrin 86a.
3.Lev. 5:22.
4.Since every prohibition must have one verse which is the actual prohibition and another to dictate the punishment.
5.The Torah disqualifies a person from testifying only if he has violated a Biblical law. Since the person is disqualified even though he has not sworn falsely, we see that the prohibition applies even where there was no oath.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 249
Swearing Falsely in Denial of a Debt
"Do not lie to each other"—Leviticus 19:11.
It is forbidden to take a false oath in denial of a debt or any other financial obligation.
Swearing Falsely in Denial of a Debt
Negative Commandment 249
Translated by Berel Bell
The 249th prohibition is that we are forbidden to swear falsely regarding money that we owe.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not lie to one another."
If, for example, one [falsely] denies possessing an object he was entrusted with, he transgresses the prohibition, "do not deny."2 Should he swear falsely to substantiate his previous denial, he transgress the [present] prohibition "do not lie."
The Sifra says, "What does the Torah mean to teach us by saying 'do not lie'? The verse,3 'and he swears falsely' serves as the punishment. Which verse serves as the actual prohibition?4 The verse, 'do not lie.' "
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the fifth chapter of Sh'vuos, where it is explained that a person who makes a false oath in denying a financial claim transgresses two mitzvos — "do not swear falsely by My name"5 and "do not lie to one another."6
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 19:11.
2.N248.
3.Lev. 5:22.
4.See footnote 22.
5.Lev. 19:12.
6.I.e. N248 and N249.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Twelve Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Twelve
Halacha 1
When an animal, a beast or a fowl has been bitten by a snake or another poisonous anima, or it ate a poison that could kill a person, and the nature of the poison has not changed in the animal's body, it is forbidden to partake of meat from that animal, because of the deadly danger involved.
For this reason, if an animal, a beast, or a fowl was found with its feet cut off, although it is permitted and it is not considered taref because its feet were cut off, it is forbidden because of the possible danger, unless it is checked, because of the possibility that a poisonous crawling animal bit it.
How should such meat be checked? If should be roasted in an oven. If the meat does not break into pieces or react differently from ordinary roasted meat, it is acceptable.
Halacha 2
Similarly, figs, grapes, zucchini, squash, watermelons and cucumbers that have holes are forbidden, lest a snake or other poisonous animal have bitten them. This applies even if the produce was very large, and regardless of whether it was still growing or detached, even if it was placed within a container, as long as it has moisture, and it is discovered that it was bitten it is forbidden.
Even if one saw a bird or a rat sitting and making holes in the fruit, it is still forbidden. Perhaps they made the hole in the place of an existing hole.
Halacha 3
When the stem of a grape or a fig has been removed, the produce is not considered to have been left uncovered. Therefore, a person may eat figs and grapes at night without concern.
A fig that had a hole, but dried to the extent that it can be considered a dried fig, and a date that had a hole and dries, are both permitted.
Halacha 4
It is forbidden for a person to place coins or dinarim in his mouth, lest there be the remnants of dried spittle from a leper or a metzora, or sweat on them. For all sweat from a person is like poisonous venom, except sweat from one's face.
Halacha 5
Similarly, a person should not place the palm of his hand under his armpits, lest his hands have touched a leper or a poisonous substance, for "hands are active."
A person should not place a cooked dish under the couch on which he is reclining, even though he is in the midst of his meal, lest an entity that could harm him fall into the food without his noticing.
Halacha 6
Similarly, one should not stick a knife into an etrog or into a radish, lest a person fall on its point and die.
Similarly, it is forbidden for a person to pass under a wall that is leaning, or over a shaky bridge or to enter a ruin. Similarly, it is forbidden to enter all other places that are dangerous for these or other reasons.
Halacha 7
Similarly, it is forbidden for a Jew to enter into privacy with a gentile, for they are suspect for bloodshed. Nor should one accompany gentiles on a journey. If a Jew encounters a gentile on a journey, he should make sure the gentile is at his right.
If they are making an ascent or a descent together, the Jew should be careful that he should be in the higher position and the gentile in the lower position, but not vice versa, lest the gentile fall on him with the intent of killing him. Nor should a Jew bend down before a gentile, lest he crush his skull.
Halacha 8
If a gentile asks a Jew where he is going, he should give him a misleading answer, as Jacob gave a misleading answer to Esau, as Genesis 33:14 states: "Until I come to my master, in Seir."
Halacha 9
It is forbidden to take medication from a gentile, unless there is no hope that the sick person will live. It is forbidden to be healed by a heretic, even if there is no hope that the person will live.
It is permitted to take a medication from a gentile for an animal, or for an external affliction - e.g., a compress or a bandage. If, however, the affliction involves a danger to life, it is forbidden to take medication from them. The general rule is: One should not take medication from a gentile for any affliction for which one may desecrate the Sabbath.
Halacha 10
It is permitted to ask the opinion of a gentile doctor and follow his directives if he says: "This drug is good for you; you should perform these and these treatments." One should not take the prescription from him directly.
Halacha 11
It is forbidden to have one's hair cut by a gentile in a private domain, lest the barber kill him. If the person whose hair is being cut is an important personage, it is permitted, because the gentile will be afraid to kill him.
It is also permitted for a person who creates an impression of being an important personage for a gentile barber, so that he will fear him and not kill him, to have his hair cut by him.
Halacha 12
It is forbidden to sell gentiles any weaponry. We may not sharpen weapons for them or sell them a knife, chains put on the necks of prisoners, fetters, iron chains, raw Indian iron, bears, lions, or any other object that could cause danger to people at large. One may, however, sell them shields, for these serve only the purpose of defense.
Halacha 13
Just as it is forbidden to sell such weaponry to a gentile, so too, is it forbidden to sell it to a Jew who will sell it to a gentile.
It is permitted to sell weapons to the soldiers of the country in which one lives, because they defend the Jewish inhabitants of the land.
Halacha 14
Every article that is forbidden to be sold to a gentile is also forbidden to be sold to a Jewish robber, for by doing so one reinforces a transgressor and causes him to sin.
Similarly, anyone who causes a person who is blind with regard to a certain matter to stumble and gives him improper advice, or who reinforces a transgressor - who is spiritually blind, for he does not see the path of truth, because of the desires of his heart - transgresses a negative commandment, as Leviticus 19:14 states: "Do not place an obstacle in front of a blind man." When a person comes to ask advice from you, give him proper counsel.
Halacha 15
It is forbidden to give good advice to a wicked gentile or servant. It is even forbidden to counsel him to observe a mitzvah if he perseveres in his wickedness. Daniel was subjected to a test solely because he advised Nebuchadnezzar to give charity, as Daniel 4:24 states: "O King, let my counsel be acceptable to you. Redeem your sins through charity."
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 7, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 8, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 9
Shvuot - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
When a person issues a financial claim against a colleague which would require the latter to pay were he to admit [liability]1 and [the colleague] denies [his obligation] and takes an oath or the plaintiff administers an oath to him and he denies [any obligation]. [If he is lying,] the defendant is liable for an oath concerning a sh'vuat hapikadon.2
[The above applies] even if [the defendant] does not respond Amen.3 For with regard to a sh'vuat hapikadon, one is liable whether he took the oath on his own initiative or another person administered the oath to him and he denied [any obligation], even though he did not respond Amen. For denying the claim after the plaintiff administered the oath is equivalent to responding Amen.4
Halacha 2
[This does not apply] when [the plaintiff] lodges a claim which if acknowledged by the defendant, i.e., if he would admit that it is true, would not require him to make payment, e.g., he lodged a claim concerning a k'nas.5 For a person is not required to pay a k'nas based on his own admission.6 [In such an instance,] if a person denied [an obligation], he is exempt from a sh'vuat hapikadon, but liable for a sh'vuat bitui.7
Halacha 3
Similarly, if [the plaintiff] lodged a claim concerning landed property, a servant, or a promissory note, and [the defendant] denied [the claim] and took an oath, he is exempt from a sh'vuat hapikadon, but liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath.
Halacha 4
Why is one [who took an oath concerning such claims] exempt from [the obligations of a false] sh'vuat hapikadon? Behold, were he to have acknowledged [his obligation], he would have been held liable and [required] to pay what he denied. Because [Leviticus 5:21-22] states: "Concerning an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, a robbery; he oppressed his colleague, or discovered a lost object." All of this concerns movable property which if he would admit his liability he would have to make financial restitution from his own domain.
This excludes landed property for it is not movable property. For landed property is always revealed before its owner8 and is always in their possession.9[Similarly,] it excludes servants, for an equation is established between servants and landed property.10 And it excludes promissory notes, for their actual substance is not of financial value.11
Halacha 5
[The above laws apply] whether one took an oath after the plaintiff lodged a claim against him or whether he took it on his own initiative even though a claim was not lodged against him.12
What his implied? He took the initiative and said: "Why are you following me? Do I have any money belonging to you? I am taking an oath that I am not in possession of any of your money." Since he denied [an obligation] and took an oath, [he is liable,] even though [the plaintiff] did not lodge a claim against him.
Halacha 6
[One is liable] whether he took an oath to the person to whom he owes the money or to his agent who was given power of attorney. For a person's agent is equivalent to his own self.13
Halacha 7
One is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon unless he requires him to take an oath in a language that he understands.14
Halacha 8
When a person consciously takes a sh'vuat hapikadon, even though he takes a false oath and is warned by witnesses at the time he takes the oath, he is not liable for lashes, but instead must merely bring a guilt offering. For the Torah excluded him from those who are liable for lashes15 and obligated him to bring a guilt offering whether he transgressed willfully or inadvertently, as we explained.16
Halacha 9
If one denied [an obligation] and took an oath [concerning it] four or five times or the plaintiff administered an oath to him four or fives times and he denied each one of them, he is liable for a guilt offering for each individual oath.17 [This applies] whether this took place in a court or outside the court.
[The rationale is that] were he to have admitted his obligation after making his denial, he would be liable to make restitution even though he made the denial in a court. Thus with each denial, he is making himself exempt from payment. Hence, he is liable for each individual oath.
Halacha 10
If five different people were lodging claims against him and telling him: "Give us the entrusted article of ours that you have in your possession," and he responds: "[I am taking] an oath that I do not have anything of yours in my possession," [should his oath be false,] he is liable for only one sacrifice.18
[If he answers: "I am taking] an oath that I don't have anything of yours, or of yours,... or of yours, in my possession," he is liable for each [statement].19
Halacha 11
If his colleague told him: "Give me the entrusted object, [financial] deposit, stolen object, and lost object [of mine], that you have in your possession," and he responds: "[I am taking] an oath that I do not have anything of yours in my possession," [should his oath be false,] he is liable for only one [sacrifice].20 Even if the total of all the claims is [merely] a p'rutah, they are all included together and he is liable.21
Halacha 12
[If he answers: "I am taking] an oath that I don't have an entrusted object, [financial] deposit, stolen object, and lost object of yours in my possession," he is liable for each [statement].22
Halacha 13
[If the plaintiff says:] "Give me the wheat, barley, and buckwheat of mine that you have in your possession," and [the defendant responds]: "[I am taking] an oath that I do not have anything of yours in my possession," [should his oath be false,] he is liable for only one [sacrifice].23 [If he answers: "I am taking] an oath that I don't have any wheat, barley, and buckwheat of yours in my possession," he is liable for each [statement].
Halacha 14
If five different people were lodging claims against him and telling him: "Give us the entrusted article, [financial] deposit, stolen object, and lost object [of mine], that you have in your possession," and he responds to one of them: "[I am taking] an oath that I don't have an entrusted object, stolen object, lost object, and [financial] deposit of yours, or of yours,... or of yours in my possession," he is liable for each claim [made] by each individual. Thus he is liable for 20 guilt offerings.24
Halacha 15
If [the defendant] claims that he lost an entrusted object or denies [receiving it], he took an oath, and afterwards admitted [that it was in his possession], and then claimed that it was lost, took an oath, and then admitted [that it was in his possession], he must pay the principal and an additional fifth for each oath that he took.25 [This is derived from Leviticus 5:24 which literally translates as] "its fifths,"26 [implying that] the Torah took into account several fifths for [one sum of] principal.
What is implied? The principal was [worth] four [zuz]. One denied [receiving an entrusted article], took an oath, and then admitted [that he possessed it]. Afterwards, he claimed that it was lost, took an oath and then made a second admission, and then claimed that it was lost, took an oath and then made an admission another time. He is required to pay seven [zuz].27 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 16
A value less than a p'rutah is not considered as financially significant.28 Hence, if a person lodges a claim against a colleague for less than a p'rutah or for articles worth less than a p'rutah and [the defendant] denied the obligation and took an oath, he is exempt with regard to a sh'vuat hapikadon29 and liable for a sh'vuat bitui.30
FOOTNOTES
1.The qualifications the Rambam mentions here make a distinction between mammon, a financial claim, for which one is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon and k'nas, a fine, for which one is not liable, as stated in the following halachah.
2.The term literally means "an oath concerning an entrusted object." Its meaning in a halachic context is explained in this and the subsequent halachot.
If one takes such an oath falsely, he is liable to pay an additional fifth of the principal and bring a guilt offering as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 9.
3.With regard to other oaths, it is necessary for the person to answer Amen as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1. Nevertheless, a sh'vuat hapikadon is a unique instance, as the Rambam continues to explain.
4.If, however, he remains silent in response to the oath administered by the plaintiff, he is not liable even if he had denied his claim beforehand (Radbaz).
5.A fine. In Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 2:8, the Rambam defines a fine as an instance where a person pays more or less than the monetary value of the damage he caused.
6.See Hilchot Genevah 1:5. See also Chapter 8, Halachot 1-3, for illustrations of this concept.
7.For he is taking a false oath regarding his past activity.
8.In contrast to movable property which can be concealed.
9.In contrast to movable property where possession may determine ownership in a situation of doubt, with regard to landed property, a person must display proof of ownership. See also Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 5:1; Hilchot Gezeilah 8:14; 9:1.
10.See Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an, loc. cit.
11.Instead, they only serve as proof of an obligation (ibid.).
12.Note the contrast to an oath concerning testimony (Chapter 9, Halachah 6-7). The gloss of the Torah Temimah to the prooftext explains that since the verse speaks of "deny his [obligation to] a colleague," he is liable whether his colleague demands an oath of him or not.
13.See Hilchot Shluchim 3:5, 7. See the Lechem Mishneh who emphasizes that the principal must have given the agent power of attorney to require an oath of the defendant. If, however, he merely gave the agent the authority to prosecute the claim, he may not require him to take an oath.
14.For an oath can be taken in any language. Sotah 33a derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 5:1.
15.Neither is one who takes such a false oath liable for lashes for taking a false sh'vuat bitui.
16.See Chapter 1, Halachah 9, which explains that one is liable for a sacrifice whether he transgressed willingly or inadvertently. As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 1, Halachah 8, one is not liable for lashes either because the transgression does not involve a deed, or because financial compensation must be given and a person is not held liable both for financial restitution and lashes.
17.Note the contrast to an oath concerning testimony, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 18. He is also liable to pay an additional fifth of the principal for each false oath, as stated in Halachah 15.
18.Since his response included all of them in one statement, it is considered only as one oath.
19.Since he addressed each one individually, each statement is considered as an independent oath.
20.Since his response included all of these items in one statement, it is considered only as one oath.
21.In this instance, were they to have been considered individually, he would be exempt, for since each of the claims are less than a p'rutah, they are not significant individually. Nevertheless, since he included them in one statement, the sum is totaled as one and he is liable.
22.Since he mentioned each item individually, each statement is considered as an independent oath and it is necessary that each claim concern the worth of a p'rutah.
23.Although they are different species of grain, since he included them all in one statement, he is liable only once. Even though buckwheat is a subspecies of wheat, since it is mentioned individually, he is liable for it individually (Radbaz).
24.I.e., this combines the principles stated in Halachot 10 and 12.
25.Similarly, he is liable for a guilt offering for each oath as stated in Halachah 9.
26.It says chamishitav rather than chamishoto.
27.This figure can be explained as follows: The principal is four. He must pay an additional three, for each fifth is one fifth of the new total and not one fifth of the original principal (Chapter 11, Halachah 20). He is not, however, required to pay more than one for the second and third oaths, for one is required to pay one fifth of the principal and not a fifth of the fifths (Radbaz). Note, however, Hilchot Gezelah 7:12 which explains that if he already was held liable by a court for the additional fifth, it becomes considered as part of the principal.
28.This principle is also reflected in Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 3:1 and Hilchot Sanhedrin 20:11. In Hilchot Shekalim 1:3, the Rambam defines a p'rutah as half a barleycorn of silver. Shiurei Torah defines this as 1/40th of a gram of silver.
29.For such an oath concerns a financially significant claim and this does not. The Sifra derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 5:26.
30.For he took a false oath, as in Halachot 2-3.
Shvuot - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
A person is exempt [from liability for] a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following situation]: He stole an ox belonging to a colleague and slaughtered it or sold it.1 His colleague lodged a claim against him, telling him: "You stole my ox and you slaughtered it or sold it." [The defendant] responded: "I stole it, but did not slaughter it or sell it" and took an oath to support his claim.
[The reason for his exemption is that] were he to have acknowledged that he slaughtered or sold [the ox] on his own accord, he would not have been required to pay four and five times its worth for this is a fine, as explained in Hilchot Genevah.2 Thus it is as if he did not deny a financial obligation. Therefore he is exempt [from liability for] a sh'vuat hapikadon, but liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath, saying that he did not slaughter [the ox], when [in fact] he did.
Halacha 2
Similarly, a person is exempt [from liability for] a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following situations]. A person lodged a claim against him saying: "Your ox killed my servant," and he denied the incident and took an oath.3 A servant lodged a claim against his master saying: "You knocked out my tooth" or "You blinded my eye."4 For if he acknowledged the claim, he would not be obligated to pay because it is a fine.5 He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
When a person lodges a claim against a colleague concerning a matter that involves both a fine which he would not be obligated to pay if he admits his liability on his own initiative as explained [above] and a financial claim which he is liable to pay on his own admission, he denies the entire claim, and takes an oath, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon.6
What is implied? A person lodged a claim [against a colleague,] telling him: "You raped or you seduced my daughter."7 [The defendant] responded: "I did not rape or seduce her" and took an oath to this effect, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. For although he would not be required to pay the fine were he to have admitted [his guilt], he is obligated to pay for the embarrassment and damages even on his own admission.8
Similarly, if a person tells a colleague: "You stole my ox," and he says, "I did not steal it" and takes an oath, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. Although he would not obligated to make the double payment [for a stolen object] on the basis of his own admission,9 he would be obligated to pay the principal on the basis of his own admission.
Halacha 4
When a person tells a colleague: "You inflicted a wound upon me,"10 and [the defendant] denies it, or "Your ox killed my ox,"11 and [the defendant] denies it, taking an oath, [the defendant] is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. Had he admitted [his act], he would be obligated to make restitution.
Halacha 5
[A watchman] is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following instance]: A person entrusted his ox to an unpaid watchman, the ox died, and he lodged a claim against the watchman, saying: "Where is the ox I entrusted to you?" The watchman responded: "You did not entrust anything to me," "You entrusted it, but it was stolen," or "...lost"12 and took an oath [to that effect]. [The rationale is] that had he admitted and related the matter as it occurred, he would not have been liable to make financial restitution, because he is an unpaid watchman.13 He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
[Similarly, a person] is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following instance]: A person lent his ox to a colleague and then demanded its return, saying: "Where is the ox you borrowed from me?" Now the ox had died, but the borrower said: "It was stolen" or "...lost" and took an oath to this effect. [The rationale is that] he did not free himself from making restitution by his denial and is nevertheless liable to pay whether the animal died, was stolen, lost, or taken captive because he was a borrower, as will be explained in the appropriate place.14 He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 7
This is the general principle: Whoever does not free himself from financial responsibility unless he makes this denial is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon if he takes an oath. [This applies] whether he took the oath on his own initiative or the plaintiff administer the oath and he stated his denial even though he did not answer Amen nor utter the oath himself.
Halacha 8
[A thief] is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon [in the following instance]: He stole his colleague's ox. [The colleague] demanded payment, telling him: "You stole my ox."
[The thief] responded: "I did not steal it."
Why, then, is it in your possession?"
"You entrusted it to me [for safekeeping]" and he took an oath to that effect.15
[The rationale is that] had he admitting stealing it, he would have been liable to pay the value in any case.16 By saying now that it is an entrusted object, he exempts himself from liability for theft and for loss,17 i.e., were the ox to be lost or stolen after this admission, he is not obligated to pay.
Halacha 9
Similarly, if he were to claim that he rented it and took an oath to that effect, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon, for he freed himself for liability in the cases of injury or death. Similarly, if he claimed: "You lent it to me" and took an oath to that effect, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon, for he freed himself for liability if it dies while performing its work, as will be explained in Hilchot Sheilah.18
Halacha 10
Therefore if one says: "I did not steal it. Instead, you entrusted it to me...", "...hired me to watch it...", or "...lent it to me. Here is your ox. Take it." If he took an oath to that effect, he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon,19for he admitted owing the principle and did not exempt himself from any liability with this denial.20
Halacha 11
Similarly, he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon if he uses any of the following excuses and takes an oath to that effect: "You sold it to me, but I have not paid for it yet. If you want, take the money for it. If not, here is your ox," "You gave it to me as payment for work which I will perform for you. If you desire, I will perform the work. If you do not desire, take it and depart," "I found it wandering on the road and did not know that it was yours. Now that I know, take it and depart," or "It chased after my ox. Here, it's yours." He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath.
Halacha 12
When a person is financially obligated to two partners, one demands payment from him, he denies his obligation and takes an oath, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon21 for he denied a financial obligation. If they both demanded payment from him and he admitted the entire obligation to one of them, but said: "I borrowed only from this one,"22 should he take an oath to this effect, he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon, for he did not free himself from any liability. He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui.
Halacha 13
Similarly, if there was a person who owed a debt supported by a promissory note, but he denied it and took an oath to that effect, he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. [The rationale is that because of] the promissory note, [the person's] landed property is placed under lien. Thus the person is denying [an obligation involving] landed property. And as we have already explained,23 a person who denied a claim involving landed property is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, for he took a false oath.24
Halacha 14
If a person owed a debt to which there were witnesses, he denied [his obligation], and took an oath [to that effect], he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon. For by denying his obligation, he freed himself from the liability of paying immediately. When the witnesses will come, he will be obligated to pay and thus his denial will not be effective.25 It is, however, effective in that perhaps the witnesses will not come, they will come and their testimony will not be substantiated,26 or they will be disqualified.27 Therefore28 he is liable.
FOOTNOTES
1.In which instance, he is obligated to pay five times the value of the ox (Exodus 21:37).
2.Hilchot Genevah 1:5. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 2 above.
3.In which instance, the owner of the ox is liable to pay a fine of 30 shekalim to the owner of the servant (Exodus 21:32).
4.In which instance, the owner is required to free the servant (Exodus 21:26-27).
5.For in these instances, the person is not paying the worth of the damage, but an arbitrary amount that could be either more or less.
6.For he is denying a financial claim. The fact that it also includes a fine is not significant.
7.I.e., a virgin girl between the ages of three and twelve and a half (Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:1).
8.As explained in Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 2:1-2, a person who seduces a girl is required to pay a fine of 50 silver pieces, as stated in Exodus 22:15, for the embarrassment he causes her, and the damages due to her reduction in her value. A rapist must also pay for the pain he causes. The embarrassment and the damages are considered as financial obligations.
9.For that is a fine.
10.For the damages (more particularly, the unemployment assessment, the medical fees, and the allocation for embarrassment) he must pay his colleague for the wound are considered as a financial obligation and not as a fine (see Hilchot Chovel UMazik 5:7; Hilchot To'en V'Nitan 1:16).
11.Here as well, the damages one ox causes another are considered as a financial obligation. This applies with regard to an ox that has been distinguished as one which gores. If an ox is not known to have such a tendency, the half-payment for the damages that it causes is considered as a fine (see Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 2:8).
12.Since he would not have been liable had he told the truth, the fact that he took a false oath does not obligate him for a sh'vuat hapikadon.
13.He is not liable in cases involving death or other losses due to forces beyond his control.
14.Hilchot Sechirut 1:2; Hilchot Sheilah Ufikadon 1:1.
15.On his own volition; he is under no obligation to do so.
16.I.e., even if it dies or is destroyed by forces beyond his control.
17.Since he reduces his liability through his statements, he is liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon.
18.Hilchot Sheilah UFikadon 1:1.
19.He is, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui since he took a false oath.
20.For he told the owner to take his ox.
21.This applies even if he admits owing a portion of the debt to the other partner. Since he denied part of the debt, he is liable.
22.I.e., he admitted the entire debt, but said that he owed it only to one person and not to both partners.
23.Chapter 7, Halachot 2-3.
24.The Radbaz notes that this statement is seemingly redundant; it is made more than ten times in this and the previous chapter. He explains that it would appear that taking a false sh'vuat hapikadon is more severe than taking a false sh'vuat bitui, yet the punishment for a false sh'vuat bitui, lashes, is more severe than that for a false sh'vuat hapikadon, bringing a sacrifice. Hence, it is necessary for the Rambam to state the point explicitly each time.
25.And thus there is room to say that he is not liable for a sh'vuat hapikadon, as indicated by Halachah 7.
26.I.e., it will be disqualified through the process of cross-examination.
27.And thus be prevented from testifying.
28.I.e., because his denial has an immediate - and perhaps long-term - effect, he is liable.
Shvuot - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
When a plaintiff1 demands that witnesses testify concerning a matter that through their testimony alone2 will obligate the defendant to pay this plaintiff a financial claim involving moveable property,3 [the witnesses] denied [knowing] testimony and took an oath to this effect - whether in a court of law or outside of it - they are liable for sh'vuat haedut,4 for they caused the plaintiff a financial lost through their denial.
Similarly, if the plaintiff administered an oath to them and they denied the matter, [they are liable] even though they did not take an oath or answer Amen to the oath he [administered]. Since they denied the matter, they are liable, provided he administered the oath to them in court.5
Halacha 2
The witnesses are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut unless they deny [knowing testimony] in court. Whether they took the oath or the oath was administered to them in court or outside the court, the denial must be in court alone, as [can be derived from Leviticus 5:1]: "If he will not testify, he will bear his sin." [Implied is that] in the place he will testify and [that testify] will have an effect,6there, if he does not testify, he will be liable.
Halacha 3
When the plaintiff demands [that the witnesses] testify concerning a claim that does not involve a financial obligation,7 concerns landed property, servants, or promissory notes, they deny [knowing testimony], and take an oath to that effect, they are not liable for a sh'vuat edut. For they are liable when denying testimony concerning financial claims that resemble an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, a robbery, or a lost oject which the verse8 mentions in this passage. This refers to moveable property which is itself of financial worth9 that were they to testify on [the plaintiff's] behalf, [the defendant] would have to pay.
Halacha 4
Similarly, when one administers an oath to witnesses who [can testify regarding] a fine and they deny [knowledge] of the matter, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] were the defendant to come and acknowledge his liability for the fine first,10 he would not be liable to pay even though the witnesses came afterwards and testified accordingly. Thus the witnesses did not make him liable through their testimony alone. Instead, it was their testimony together with the denial of the defendant that made him liable. Since their testimony would not be effective if he acknowledged [his liability], if they denied [knowing of] the matter and took an oath, they are not liable.
Halacha 5
[When a plaintiff administers an oath to witnesses, saying:] "I am making you take an oath that you come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so owes me a double payment"11 or a four- or five-fold payment12 and the witnesses deny [knowledge of the matter], they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut because of the principle which is a financial obligation,13 but not because of the double payment which is a fine.
Similarly, if he administered an oath that they testify that they testify that so-and-so raped or seduced his daughter and they deny [knowledge of the matter], they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut because of the [payment due] for embarrassment and damages.14 For if the defendant acknowledged his obligation, he would have to pay these obligations, but not because of the fine. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
Witnesses are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut until they deny [knowledge of the matter] and take an oath after the plaintiff or his agent15 demand [that they testify]. If, however, they take an oath first, before a demand is made of them, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
Halacha 7
What is implied? [The witnesses] saw the plaintiff following after them, they told him: "Why are you following us? We are taking an oath that we do not know any testimony involving you," they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. [The rationale is that] the plaintiff did not make a demand of them. Instead, they took the oath first on their own initiative.16
Similarly, if the defendant administered an oath to them that if they knew testimony involving the plaintiff they should come and testify and they deny [knowledge of the matter], they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut unless the plaintiff makes them take the oath.17 Needless to say, if he administered an oath that they should come to testify that so-and-so owes so-and-so money and they deny [knowledge of the matter], they are not liable. For the person making this demand is not the plaintiff himself. Similarly, if the oath preceded [their knowledge of] the testimony, they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut, as [implied by Leviticus 5:1]: "And he heard the voice of an oath [when] he was a witness." [It can be inferred that knowledge of] the testimony preceded the oath and not that the oath preceded the knowledge of the testimony.
Halacha 8
What is implied? [The plaintiff says:] "I am administering to you an oath that if you will know of testimony concerning me that you come and testify," and the witnesses responded Amen and afterwards they observed a matter concerning him.18 If he demands that they testify and they deny [knowledge of the matter], they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut.
Halacha 9
Witnesses are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut until the plaintiff singles them out and administers an oath to them or they take an oath.19
What is implied? A person stood up in a synagogue and said: "I am administering an oath to anyone who knows testimony concerning me to come and testify on my behalf." They all - including his witnesses - responded Amen. Afterwards, he demanded of his witnesses that they testify and they denied [knowledge of the matter]. They are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut, because he did not single out the witnesses individually. If, however, he said: "I am administering an oath to all of those standing here that if they know testimony concerning me to come and testify on my behalf." [If] his witnesses were among those present and [then] they denied [knowledge of the matter], they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut, because he singled them out among the others.20
Halacha 10
Similarly, if he told the witnesses: "Come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so owes me a maneh" and then stands in a synagogue and said: "I am administering an oath to anyone who knows testimony concerning me to come and testify on my behalf," should they not come and testify, they are liable, because he made a demand of them previously. [This applies] provided they are present in the synagogue and a court is also there.21 If a court was not present, they are liable for a sh'vuat haedut if they answered Amen and deny [knowledge of the matter] while in a court of law.22 If they did not answer Amen, they are not liable.
Halacha 11
Whether one administers an oath to his witnesses or tells them "I am commanding you with an oath" or "I am binding you with an oath," they are liable provided he administers the oath23 with God's name or with one of the terms used to describe Him as explained.24
Halacha 12
The witnesses are not liable unless the oath is administered to them in a language that they understand.25
Halacha 13
Thus you have learned that witnesses are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut unless ten conditions are [met]. They are:26
a) [The witnesses] must be charged [with testifying] by the plaintiff;
b) [The matter] must involve a financial claim;
c) It must involve movable property;
d) Their testimony alone, had it been given, would be sufficient to require the defendant to pay;
e) They must deny [knowledge of the matter] after the plaintiff charges them;
f) They must issue their denial in court;
g) God's name or a term used to describe Him must be mentioned in the oath;
h) The knowledge of the matter must precede the oath;
i) The witnesses must be singled out at the time of the oath or at the time they are charged;
j) The oath must be in a language that they understand.
Halacha 14
Whenever we have used the expression "they are not liable" [in this chapter], the intent is that they are not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. They are, however, liable for a sh'vuat bitui, provided they take the oath or answer Amen to an oath administered by a colleague, because they took a false oath.27
When, by contrast, one is liable for a sh'vuat haedut, he is only liable for a sh'vuat haedutand is not liable for a sh'vuat bitui, even though he took a false oath and did so intentionally. [The rationale is that] the Torah removed a sh'vuat haedut from the category of sh'vuat bitui to make a person who deliberately [takes a false oath] liable for a sacrifice for its violation just as one who took it inadvertently.28 He is not, however, liable for lashes, as [can be derived from Leviticus 5:5 which] states: "For one of these."29 A person who takes a [false] oath is liable for one type of oath, but not two. [We do not hold him liable for both] a sh'vuat haedut and a sh'vuat bitui.
Halacha 15
[When the plaintiff says: "I am administering] an oath to you unless you come and testify that so-and-so has an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, stolen property, and a lost object of mine in his possession," [and the witnesses respond: "We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning you," they are liable for only [sacrifice].30 [If they say: "We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, stolen property, and a lost object of yours in so-and-so's possession, they are liable for each [statement].31
Halacha 16
[When the plaintiff says: "I am administering] an oath to you unless you come and testify that so-and-so has wheat, barley, and buckwheat of mine in his possession," and [the defendant responds]: "[We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning you," they are liable for only one [sacrifice].32[If they answer: "We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning any wheat, barley, and buckwheat of yours in his possession," he is liable for each [statement].
Halacha 17
Similarly, if many people charged them with testifying and they said: "[We are taking] an oath that we do not know of any testimony concerning you," they are liable for only one [sacrifice]. [If they said:] "...concerning you, and you, and you," they are liable for each [statement], as explained with regard to sh'vuat hapikadon.33
Halacha 18
When a person administers an oath to a colleague that he knows testimony concerning him and ultimately, it is discovered that he does not know testimony, [the colleague] is not liable, neither for a sh'vuat haedut34, nor for a sh'vuat bitui. [The rationale is that] a sh'vuat bitui involves only matters that have both a positive and negative dimension.35 Were the person to have said: "I am taking an oath that I do not know testimony concerning you," that would not be a sh'vuat bitui, but instead a sh'vuat haedut. Hence since the negative dimension of the statement is not a sh'vuat bitui, the positive dimension, taking an oath that one knows testimony, is not a sh'vuat bitui.36
Halacha 19
It is clear that when a person takes an oath to a colleague that he testified on his behalf and he did not testify or that he did not testify and he testified, he is liable for a sh'vuat bitui;37 there is no connection to a sh'vuat haedut at all.38
FOOTNOTES
1.This excludes instances when an oath is not made in response to the plaintiff's demands, as stated in Halachah 7. And it excludes an instance when the matter was observed by two pairs of witnesses, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 15.
2.This excludes a fine, because in that instance, the defendant does not become liable until he denies the obligation and the witnesses refute his denial. With regard to monetary claims, by contrast, once the witnesses testify, the defendant is liable regardless of whether he admits or disputes his liability. See Halachah 4.
3.Halachah 3 explains that this phrase excludes promissory notes, landed property, and servants.
4.This term literally means "the oath [concerning] testimony." As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 12, a person who takes this oath falsely is liable to bring an adjustable guilt offering.
5.As reflected by Halachah 10, when the oath is administered by the plaintiff and the witnesses do not answer Amen, the oath must be administered in court. If, however, the witnesses take the oath on their own accord or they answer Amen, they are liable even if this takes places outside a court, provided the denial takes place within a court, as stated in the following halachah (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh; see also Chapter 10, Halachah 7 and notes).
6.I.e., in court. See Halachah 10 and notes where this concept is discussed.
7.E.g., he demanded that they testify that he was a priest or a Levite (Chapter 10, Halachah 3).
8.Leviticus 5:21-22; see the explanations in Chapter 7, Halachah 4, and notes.
9.In contrast to promissory notes.
10.See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 2:8.
11.For a theft.
12.For the theft and slaughter or sale of a sheep or a cow.
13.For this must be paid even if he admits stealing himself.
14.See Chapter 8, Halachah 3, and notes.
15.This applies to a person who has been given power of attorney (see Chapter 7, Halachah 6). If he has not been given formal power of attorney, even if he is an agent acting on behalf of the principal, the oath he administers is not of consequence (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).
16.As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to Mishnah (Sh'vuot 4:12), Leviticus 5:1 states "If he does not tell" but the word "not" is written lamed alef vav. This implies both lamed alef "not," and lamed vav "to him." Implied is that he must say no to him, i.e., in response to his demand.
17.This can also be derived through the process of exegesis mentioned above. One can infer that the witnesses he must say no to him, to the plaintiff himself
18.I.e., at the time the oath was administered, they did not have knowledge of testimony concerning the plaintiff, but afterwards they observed the matter under investigation.
19.From the exegesis of the prooftext cited above, Sh'vuot 35a understands that the verse is speaking, not of people in general, but of persons singled out to serve as witnesses.
20.Although he spoke to the group as a whole, the oath was directed to each of the persons individually.
Rabbenu Nissim mentions another concept related to this ruling. A plaintiff may administer an oath to a person even when he is not certain that the person in fact knows testimony concerning him.
21.Since they did not take the oath or answer Amen, they are not liable unless the oath is administered in the presence of a court, as stated in Halachah 1.
22.For their denial must be made in a court of law, as stated in Halachah 2.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's decision, explaining that the Rambam follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir (Sh'vuot 30a), but the Ra'avad maintains that the halachah should be decided according to the Sages who differ with rabbi Meir. Similarly, the Ra'avad also differs with the Rambam's postulate that if the witnesses do not answer Amen, the oath must be administered in a court.
The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's position, explaining that since the witnesses did not take the oath themselves or respond Amen, it is their denial of knowledge of the testimony that constitutes acceptance of the oath. Accordingly, just as the denial must be made in court, the oath must be administered in court. For it is inappropriate that the oath itself be administered outside the court, while its acceptance is required to be in court. See also Chapter 10, Halachah 17 and notes.
23.Or includes God's name in any of the other expressions (Radbaz).
24.See Chapter 2, Halachot 2-4.
25.See Chapter 7, Halachah 7. This applies even if they answer Amen to the oath (Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 7:1).
26.All of these points have been discussed in the previous halachot.
27.Although the Rambam's position is shared by many other Rishonim, there are others (e.g., Rashi, Sh'vuot 25b), who differ and maintain that since the oath involves testimony, one is never liable for a sh'vuat bitui even when he is not liable for a sh'vuat haedut. See Halachah 18 and notes.
28.Sh'vuot 30a notes that with regard to all the other types of oaths, the Torah uses the expression "and it became concealed from him," but it does not use that expression with regard to a sh'vuat haedut. Implied is that even if the matter is not concealed, i.e., he transgresses deliberately, he is liable for a sacrifice. The Radbaz questions - without resolving - why the Torah gives the person a lesser punishment - a sacrifice - instead of lashes, when he purposefully violates this transgression.
29.The same passage mentions both a sh'vuat haedut and a sh'vuat bitui. This verse teaches that one can be held liable for only one of these types of oaths. This also applies with regard to the other false oaths for which the Torah holds one liable. One can be held liable only for one.
30.Because they included all the obligations in a single statement. Note the parallel to this and the subsequent laws in Chapter 7, Halachot 10-14.
31.For they singled out each object individually.
32.Although they are different species of grain, since he included them all in one statement, he is liable only once.
33.Because they included all the obligations in a single statement. Note the parallel to this and the subsequent laws in Chapter 7, Halachot 10-14.
34.For a sh'vuat haedut involves a situation when the witnesses refuse to testify.
35.See Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and notes.
36.Hence he is totally absolved from liability.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that one could raise a question based on Sh'vuat 25b. From that passage, it would appear that this and the concept stated in Halachah 14 are conflicting positions and one cannot accept both as halachah. Nevertheless, he explains that it is only in the preliminary stage of the Talmud's argument that the positions appear conflicting. After the Talmud cites the teaching derived from the prooftext, "for one of these," the two rulings can be reconciled. He cites other Rishonim who interpret the passage in this manner.
37.For he is taking an oath regard a specific activity which he performed or did not perform in the past. Since it has both a positive and negative dimension, he is liable. The fact that this oath does not have a future dimension - for if one takes an oath that he will not testify, he is negating a mitzvah, and hence, it is an oath in vain (Chapter 5, Halachah 15) and not a sh'vuat bitui - does not prevent one from being liable for the oath referring to the past.
38.For a sh'vuat haedut involves only the future.
--------
Hayom Yom:
• Shabbat, Nissan 26, 5774 • 26 April 2014
"Today's Day"
Shabbat, Nissan 26, 11th day of the omer, 5703
Bless Rosh Chodesh Iyar; say the entire Tehillim in the early morning. Day of farbrengen.
Haftora: Halo kivnei kushi'im.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Acharei mot, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 97 to end.
Tanya: Ch. 43. Concerning (p. 227)...enlarged upon later. (p. 231).
From a sicha of my father: Chassidus demands that one "...wash his flesh (Hebrew, et b'ssaro) with water, and clothe himself in them (the priestly robes)."1 The intellectual2 element of Chassidus must thoroughly cleanse the flesh and rinse away the habits of the flesh. The habits are alluded to by the word et ("and") in the quoted verse, signifying "that which is incidental to the flesh," the habits developed by the body. Only then can one clothe himself in the "sacred garments."
Pondering Chassidus, discussing Chassidus, and the practice of Chassidim to meditate before davening - these are "sacred garments," garments that were given from the heights of sanctity. But it is the person himself who must "wash his flesh with water..." The garments of the soul are given to the individual from On High. But washing away unwholesome "incidentals" that arise from bodily nature and making the body itself "flesh of sanctity," this is achieved solely by man's own efforts. This is what Chassidus demands; it is for this ideal that our great teacher (the Alter Rebbe) devoted himself totally and selflessly. He opened the channel of total devotion,3 sacrifice, for serving G-d through prayer, to be bound up with the Essence of the En Sof, infinite G-d. Chassidus places a chassid face to face with the Essence of the En Sof.
FOOTNOTES
1. Vayikra 16:24.
2. Chabad, by its name and philosophy, is a system based on intellect. The subject matter of the literature and doctrines is highly complex and abstract, challenging the finest intellect. Intellect has the power to dominate emotions, creating or uprooting them, and controlling man's behavior. (Another vital element in the Chabad system is developing the emotions, primarily ahava and yir'a - vaguely translated as love and fear or awe - exercised particularly in davening.) Here, in this text, the intellect is to be the "cleansing agent," preparing the chassid for davening. Note the emphasis in the text on the complementary functions of what man is given and what man does.
3. Mesirat nefesh, utter self-sacrifice.
-------
Daily Thought:
Wisdom of Repair
To create is to reveal the parts from the whole. To repair takes a greater wisdom. It is to discover the whole from the shattered parts. He creates a world, knowing it will be broken, so He may empower us with the wisdom to repair it.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment