Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: Monday, 26 Tishrei 5775 • 20 October 2014

Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: Monday, 26 Tishrei 5775 • 20 October 2014
Today's Laws & Customs:

Today in Jewish History:
DAILY QUOTE:

DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Parshat Noach, 2nd Portion (Genesis 7:1-7:16) with Rashi
• Chapter 7
1. And the Lord said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, for it is you that I have seen as a righteous man before Me in this generation. א. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה לְנֹחַ בֹּא אַתָּה וְכָל בֵּיתְךָ אֶל הַתֵּבָה כִּי אֹתְךָ רָאִיתִי צַדִּיק לְפָנַי בַּדּוֹר הַזֶּה:
for it is you that I have seen as a righteous man before Me: But it does not say: “a righteous man, perfect” [as it does in 6:9]. From here [we deduce] that we tell part of a person’s praise in his presence and all of it in his absence. — [Gen. Rabbah 32:3]
כי אותך ראיתי צדיק: ולא נאמר צדיק תמים. מכאן שאומרים מקצת שבחו של אדם בפניו וכולו שלא בפניו:
2. Of all the clean animals you shall take for yourself seven pairs, a male and its mate, and of the animals that are not clean, two, a male and its mate. ב. מִכֹּל | הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה תִּקַּח לְךָ שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא טְהֹרָה הִוא שְׁנַיִם אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ:
Of all the clean animals: that are destined to be clean for Israel. We learn [from here] that Noah studied the Torah. — [Zev. 116a]
הטהורה: העתידה להיות טהורה לישראל, למדנו שלמד נח תורה:
seven pairs: in order that he might offer up some as a sacrifice upon leaving [the ark]. — [Tan. Vayakhel 6]
שבעה שבעה: כדי שיקריב מהם קרבן בצאתו:
3. Also, of the fowl of the heavens, seven pairs, male and female, to keep seed alive on the face of the earth. ג. גַּם מֵעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה לְחַיּוֹת זֶרַע עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ:
Also, of the fowl of the heavens, etc.: Scripture speaks of the clean [fowl], and we learn that which is not explicit from that which is explicit. [i.e., Just as in the case of the animals, seven pairs of clean ones were to be brought into the ark, so was it in the case of the fowl, that seven pairs of clean ones were to be brought in, while of the unclean species, only one pair was to be saved.]
גם מעוף השמים וגו': בטהורים הכתוב מדבר. וילמד סתום מן המפורש:
4. For in another seven days, I will make it rain upon the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will blot out all beings that I have made, off the face of the earth." ד. כִּי לְיָמִים עוֹד שִׁבְעָה אָנֹכִי מַמְטִיר עַל הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה וּמָחִיתִי אֶת כָּל הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה:
For in another seven days: (Sanh. 108b) These are the seven days of mourning for the righteous Methuselah, for the Holy One, blessed be He, had consideration for his honor, and delayed the retribution. Go and calculate the years of Methuselah and you will find that they ended in the six-hundredth year of Noah’s life.
כי לימים עוד שבעה: אלו שבעת ימי אבלו של מתושלח הצדיק שחס הקב"ה על כבודו ועכב את הפורענות. צא וחשוב שנותיו של מתושלח ותמצא שהם כלים בשנת שש מאות שנה לחיי נח:
For in another seven days: What is the meaning of “another” ? A [period of] time following a [period of] time; this [period] was added to the one hundred and twenty years. — [See Rashi 6:14]
כי לימים עוד: מהו עוד, זמן אחר זמן, זה נוסף על מאה ועשרים שנה:
forty days: Corresponding to the [time required for the] formation of the fetus, for they sinned by burdening the One Who formed them, by fashioning the forms of mamzerim (children born of incestuous and forbidden unions). - [Gen. Rabbah 32:5]
ארבעים יום: כנגד יצירת הולד שקלקלו להטריח ליוצרם לצור צורת ממזרים:
5. And Noah did, according to all that the Lord had commanded him. ה. וַיַּעַשׂ נֹחַ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ יְהֹוָה:
And Noah did: This refers to his entrance into the ark.
ויעש נח: זה ביאתו לתיבה:
6. And Noah was six hundred years old, and the flood came about, water upon the earth. ו. וְנֹחַ בֶּן שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וְהַמַּבּוּל הָיָה מַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ:
7. And Noah went in and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him into the ark because of the flood waters. ז. וַיָּבֹא נֹחַ וּבָנָיו וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּנְשֵׁי בָנָיו אִתּוֹ אֶל הַתֵּבָה מִפְּנֵי מֵי הַמַּבּוּל:
And Noah…and his sons: The men separately and the women separately, because they were prohibited from engaging in marital relations since the world was steeped in pain. — [Tan. 11]
נח ובניו: האנשים לבד והנשים לבד, לפי שנאסרו בתשמיש המטה, מפני שהעולם היה שרוי בצער:
because of the flood waters: Noah, too, was of those who had little faith, believing and not believing that the Flood would come, and he did not enter the ark until the waters forced him to do so. — [Gen. Rabbah 32:6]
מפני מי המבול: אף נח מקטני אמנה היה, מאמין ואינו מאמין שיבא המבול ולא נכנס לתיבה עד שדחקוהו המים:
8. Of the clean beasts and of the beasts that are not clean, and of the fowl, and all that creeps upon the earth. ח. מִן הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנָּה טְהֹרָה וּמִן הָעוֹף וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר רֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאֲדָמָה:
9. Two by two they came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had commanded Noah. ט. שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם בָּאוּ אֶל נֹחַ אֶל הַתֵּבָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ:
they came to Noah: By themselves. — [Tan. Noach 12]
באו אל נח: מאליהן:
two by two: They were all equal in this number; the smallest number was two.
שנים שנים: כלם הושוו במנין זה, מן הפחות היו שנים:
10. And it came to pass after the seven days, that the flood waters were upon the earth. י. וַיְהִי לְשִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וּמֵי הַמַּבּוּל הָיוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ:
11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day, all the springs of the great deep were split, and the windows of the heavens opened up. יא. בִּשְׁנַת שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה לְחַיֵּי נֹחַ בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה נִבְקְעוּ כָּל מַעְיְנוֹת תְּהוֹם רַבָּה וַאֲרֻבֹּת הַשָּׁמַיִם נִפְתָּחוּ:
in the second month: Rabbi Eliezer says: This refers to Marheshvan; Rabbi Joshua says: this refers to Iyar. — [Seder Olam Rabbah, ch. 4]
בחדש השני: רבי אליעזר אומר זה מרחשון, רבי יהושע אומר זה אייר:
were split: to emit their waters.
נבקעו: להוציא מימיהן:
the great deep: Measure for measure. They sinned with [Gen. 6:5]“the evil of man was great,” and they were punished with “the great deep.” - [Sanh. 108a]
תהום רבה: מדה כנגד מדה, הם חטאו ברבה רעת האדם (בראשית ו ה) ולקו בתהום רבה:
12. And the rain was upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. יב. וַיְהִי הַגֶּשֶׁם עַל הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה:
And the rain was upon the earth: And further (verse 17) Scripture says: “Now the Flood was [upon the earth].” But when He brought them [the rains] down, He brought them down with mercy, so that if they would repent, they would be rains of blessing. When they did not repent, they became a flood. — [Midrash Hane’elam, Zohar Chadash 28a]
ויהי הגשם על הארץ: ולהלן הוא אומר (פסוק יז) ויהי המבול, אלא כשהורידן, הורידן ברחמים שאם יחזרו יהיו גשמי ברכה, וכשלא חזרו היו למבול:
forty days, etc.: The first day does not count because its night was not included with it, [i.e., on the night preceding it, no rain fell] for it is written (verse 11): “on this day, all the springs were split.” The result is that the forty days ended on the twenty-eighth of Kislev, according to Rabbi Eliezer. For the months are counted according to their order, one full [composed of thirty days], and one defective [composed of twenty-nine days], leaving twelve days of Marcheshvan and twenty-eight of Kislev [totalling forty].
ארבעים יום וגו': אין יום ראשון מן המנין לפי שאין לילו עמו, שהרי כתיב ביום הזה נבקעו כל מעינות, נמצאו ארבעים יום כלים בכ"ח בכסליו, לרבי אליעזר שהחדשים נמנין כסדרן אחד מלא ואחד חסר, הרי שנים עשר ממרחשון ועשרים ושמונה מכסליו:
13. On this very day, Noah came, and Shem and Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons, and Noah's wife and his sons' three wives with them, into the ark. יג. בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה בָּא נֹחַ וְשֵׁם וְחָם וָיֶפֶת בְּנֵי נֹחַ וְאֵשֶׁת נֹחַ וּשְׁלשֶׁת נְשֵׁי בָנָיו אִתָּם אֶל הַתֵּבָה:
On this very day: Scripture teaches you that the people of his generation were saying, “If we see him going into the ark, we will break it and kill him.” Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “I will bring him in before the eyes of all, and we will see whose word will prevail!” - [Sifrei Ha’azinu 337]
בעצם היום הזה: למדך הכתוב שהיו בני דורו אומרים אילו אנו רואים אותו נכנס לתיבה אנו שוברין אותה והורגין אותו, אמר הקב"ה אני מכניסו לעיני כלם ונראה דבר מי יקום:
14. They, and every beast after its kind, and every domestic animal after its kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every wing. יד. הֵמָּה וְכָל הַחַיָּה לְמִינָהּ וְכָל הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ וְכָל הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ לְמִינֵהוּ וְכָל הָעוֹף לְמִינֵהוּ כֹּל צִפּוֹר כָּל כָּנָף:
bird of every wing: It [the word צִפּוֹר is in the construct state [meaning]:“birds of every type of wing,” to include locusts. (The word כָּנָף means feather, as (Lev. 1:17):“And he shall split it apart with its feathers (בִכְנָפָיו)” for even its feathers were included in the burnt offering. Here too, [the meaning is] any bird with any kind of appearance of feathers). [Chul. 139b]
צפור כל כנף: דבוק הוא, צפור של כל מין כנף, לרבות חגבים (כנף לשון נוצה כמו (ויקרא א יז) ושסע אותו בכנפיו שאפילו נוצתה עולה, אף כאן צפור כל מין מראית נוצה):
15. And they came to Noah to the ark, two by two of all flesh in which there is the spirit of life. טו. וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל נֹחַ אֶל הַתֵּבָה שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם מִכָּל הַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים:
16. And those who came male and female of all flesh came, as God had commanded him, and the Lord shut him in. טז. וְהַבָּאִים זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה מִכָּל בָּשָׂר בָּאוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים וַיִּסְגֹּר יְהֹוָה בַּעֲדוֹ:
and the Lord shut him in: He protected him (Targum Onkelos) that they should not break it; He surrounded the ark with bears and lions, and they killed some of them (Tan. Buber Noach 10). The simple meaning of the verse is that He closed [the ark] in front of him against the water. Likewise, every בְּעַד in Scripture is an expression of “in front of.” (Below 20:18): “in front of (בְּעַד) every womb”; (II Kings 4:4): “in front of you (בַּעֲדֵךְ) and in front of (וּבְעַד) your sons”; (Job 2:4): “skin in front of (בְּעַד) skin” ; (Ps. 3:4): “a shield in front of me (בַּעֲדִי)”; (I Sam. 12:19): “Pray בְּעַד your servants,” meaning “in front” [on behalf] of your servants.
ויסגור ה' בעדו: הגין עליו שלא ישברוה, הקיף התיבה דובים ואריות והיו הורגים בהם. ופשוטו של מקרא סגר כנגדו מן המים וכן כל בעד שבמקרא לשון כנגד הוא (בראשית כ יח) בעד כל רחם, (מ"ב ד ד) בעדך ובעד בניך, (איוב ב ד) עור בעד עור, (תהלים ג ד) מגן בעדי, (ש"א יב יט) התפלל בעד עבדיך, כנגד עבדיך:
___________________________
Daily 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: Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 25
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Monday, 26 Tishrei 5775 • 20 October 2014.
Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 25
וזהו כי ה׳ אמר לו בעת ההיא ממש: קלל את דוד
(1And that is the meaning of the statement, “For G‑d told him (at that very moment when Shimi was speaking these words), ‘Curse David!’
I.e., G‑d did so by providing Shimi at that time with life and the power of speech.
ומי יאמר לו וגו׳
And who shall say to him, [‘Why did you do so?’]”
In the Table of Glosses and Emendations (Luach He’arot VeTikkunim) which is appended to standard editions of the Tanya, the Rebbe notes that the words “to him” (לו) seem to be unnecessary, inasmuch as the above-quoted verse simply states, without this addition, “And who shall say, ‘Why did you do so?’”
It has been suggested that the Rebbe notes that these words merely “seem” superfluous, rather than stating outright that they are, because at this point the Alter Rebbe is actually referring to another verse:2 “For the word of a king rules, and who shall say to Him, ‘What are You doing?’”
However, rather than adopt this labored assumption, that the Alter Rebbe suddenly changes direction and interpolates one word from another verse, it appears more reasonable to say that the words “to Him” are not intended as a quotation. Rather, since some commentators hold that the conclusion of our verse (“And who shall say to him...”) refers to Shimi, the Alter Rebbe here makes it clear that it in fact speaks of G‑d. I.e., having first related that G‑d “told” Shimi what to do, the verse ends by asking, “Who can possibly say to Him, ‘Why did You do so?’”
וכנודע מה שאמר הבעל שם טוב ז״ל על פסוק: לעולם, ה׳, דברך נצב בשמים
The teaching of the Baal Shem Tov, of blessed memory, on the verse,3 “Forever, O G‑d, Your word stands firm in the heavens,” is well known:
As mentioned above in Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 1, the Baal Shem Tov expanded and disseminated the following concept that appears in Midrash Tehillim:
שצירוף אותיות שנבראו בהן השמים, שהוא מאמר יהי רקיע כו׳
The combinations of the letters with which the heavens were created, i.e., the creative utterance,4 “Let there be a firmament...,”
הן נצבות ועומדות מלובשות בשמים לעולם, להחיותם ולקיימם
stand and remain vested in the heavens forever, to animate and sustain them.
As the Alter Rebbe explained in greater detail in Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, chs. 1 and 2, this is also the case with regard to all created beings.
ולא כהפלוסופים שכופרים בהשגחה פרטית
This differs from the view of the philosophers who deny the individual Providence of the Creator over each and every one of His creations.
ומדמין בדמיונם הכוזב את מעשה ה׳, עושה שמים וארץ, למעשה אנוש ותחבולותיו
Using their false analogy, they liken the work of G‑d, the Maker of heaven and earth, to the work of man and his devices.
כי כאשר יצא לצורף כלי, שוב אין הכלי צריך לידי הצורף
For when a metal-smith has completed a vessel, [it] no longer needs the hands of the smith;
שאף שידיו מסולקות הימנו, הוא קיים מעצמו
though his hands are removed from it, it remains intact by itself.
Some philosophers apply this model to the creation of heaven and earth, and imagine that once G‑d created them they need Him no more, G‑d forbid. These thinkers thus deny hashgachah pratit, individually-directed Divine Providence — the Creator’s constant and ongoing contact with His created beings.
וטח מראות עיניהם ההבדל הגדול שבין מעשה אנוש ותחבולותיו
But their eyes are bedaubed so that they cannot see the great difference between man’s work and schemes,
שהוא יש מיש
which is [the production of] something out of something (yesh miyesh),
רק שמשנה הצורה והתמונה
where he merely changes the form and the appearance,
The shapeless piece of silver that a craftsman transforms into a vessel (a) already existed, and (b) was innately malleable. The craftsman has thus innovated nothing, and the vessel once shaped will therefore not be dependent on him.
The philosophers, however, do not see the difference between this,
למעשה שמים וארץ, שהוא יש מאין
and the creation of heaven and earth, which is creatio ex nihilo (yesh me’ayin), creating something out of nothing.
As the Alter Rebbe will soon point out, something brought into existence out of nothing cannot continue to exist unless the power that creates it remains constantly vested within it.
והוא פלא גדול יותר מקריעת ים סוף, על דרך משל
This — the creation of heaven and earth ex nihilo — is an [even] greater wonder than, for example, the splitting of the Red Sea,
אשר הוליך ה׳ ברוח קדים עזה כל הלילה, ויבקעו המים
which G‑d drove back5 “by a strong east wind all that night,... and the waters were divided,” and stood upright like a wall.
ואילו פסק הרוח כרגע, היו המים חוזרים וניגרים במורד, כדרכם וטבעם, ולא קמו כחומה
If the wind had ceased even for a moment, the waters would again have flowed downward, as is their way and nature, and they would not have stood upright like a wall,
In the corresponding passage in Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, the Alter Rebbe adds the words “without a doubt.”
אף שטבע זה במים, הוא גם כן נברא ומחודש יש מאין
even though this characteristic of water — to flow downward — is also created and innovated ex nihilo.
As the Rebbe explains, not only the water itself, but also its characteristic of fluidity, was created ex nihilo.
Thus, when the wind caused the water to stand like a stone wall, this fluid nature had only to be replaced by the capability of a solid, so that it could stand erect. Nevertheless, since this quality is uncharacteristic of water, this innovation had to be constantly and continuously brought about by the power that first made it possible. (Indeed, were the wind to cease, the water would have reverted to its former self.) Thus, even when a yesh is merely changed into another yesh, the activating force must be constantly present.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to show how the property of fluidity is not intrinsic to water, but must be created within it.
Certain characteristics do not need to be created separately from a particular being, for they are intrinsic to all created beings; for example, all created beings occupy space. Water, however, need not necessarily flow. Other created beings exist quite happily without this property, and when water exists as a solid (as ice) it too possesses the quality of rigidity. The quality of fluidity is thus not intrinsic to water.
This is what the Alter Rebbe now goes on to say:
שהרי חומת אבנים נצבת מעצמה, בלי רוח, רק שטבע המים אינו כן
For a wall of stone stands erect by itself, without [the assistance of] any wind, but the nature of water is not so.
As stated above, the property of fluidity was something that G‑d created within the already existing entity of water. Though the wind had only to change one yesh to another, replacing the property of fluidity by the property of solidity, this is still considered a wondrous event. And in order for this to have been accomplished, the activating force — in this case, the wind — had to be working constantly.
How much more will this be the case, the Alter Rebbe will soon conclude, with regard to creating a yesh out of utter nothingness. And indeed, the Divine Source responsible for the innovation of the entire universe out of nothing, must be consistently vested within it, in order to enable it to endure and not revert to nothingness. Such a corollary should have been imperative even according to the philosophers. They thus err on two grounds — in their above-mentioned reliance on a misleading analogy, and in their failure to realize that the activating force must constantly be invested within the created being.
Thus, to resume the above argument, if for the miraculous splitting of the Red Sea that only involved the changing of one yesh to another, the continuous action of G‑d was necessary, —
וכל שכן וקל וחומר בבריאת יש מאין, שהוא למעלה מן הטבע, והפלא ופלא יותר מקריעת ים סוף
How much more so, with respect to the creation of an existent being out of nothing, for this transcends nature, and is far more wondrous than the splitting of the Red Sea;
על אחת כמה וכמה שבהסתלקות חס ושלום כח הבורא יש מאין מן הנברא, ישוב הנברא לאין ואפס ממש
surely if the creative power that creates an existent being out of nothing were (heaven forfend) to be withdrawn from a created being, that being would revert to utter naught and non-existence.
אלא צריך להיות כח הפועל בנפעל תמיד, להחיותו ולקיימו
Rather,6 the activating force of the Creator, which initially brings every created being into existence, must continuously be present within the thing created, to give it life and continued existence.
ובחינה זו היא דבר ה׳ ורוח פיו שבעשרה מאמרות, שבהן נברא העולם
This7 [force] is the “word of G‑d” and the “breath of His mouth,” that are to be found in the Ten Utterances by which the universe was created.
The Ten Utterances are the source of the “letters of speech” by means of which all of creation is brought into existence. Moreover, as explained in the first chapter of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, even those created beings which are not specifically mentioned in the Ten Utterances, likewise derive their vitality from the Ten Utterances by means of various combinations, substitutions and transpositions of these letters.
ואפילו ארץ הלזו הגשמית, ובחינת דומם שבה
And even as regards this physical earth and its inorganic component,
Earth8 possesses a potential (ko’ach hatzomeiach) that enables vegetation to grow. In the case of created beings that are part of the vegetative realm, growth thus visibly testifies to the presence of an activating force. Created beings that are part of the inanimate or inorganic realm that is represented in the earth, demonstrate no signs of life at all, not even growth.
חיותן וקיומן הוא דבר ה׳ מעשרה מאמרות, המלובש בהן ומקיימן, להיות דומם ויש מאין
their life-force and continued existence is the “word of G‑d” that is to be found in the Ten Utterances that is vested in them, maintaining them as inorganic matter and as substantiality ex nihilo,
ולא יחזרו לאין ואפס ממש, כשהיו
so that they will not revert to the absolute naught and nothingness they had been prior to their creation.
וזהו שאמר האריז״ל, שגם בדומם כאבנים ועפר ומים, יש בהם בחינת נפש וחיות רוחניית
And this is the meaning of the statement of R. Isaac Luria, of blessed memory,9 that there is a kind of soul and spiritual life-force even in inorganic matter such as stones and dust and water, entities that display no signs of life.
This “soul” and spiritual life-force is the “word of G‑d,” the potent Divine speech that continuously creates all beings; i.e., the Shechinah.
FOOTNOTES
1. Parentheses are in the original.
2. Kohelet 8:4.
3. Tehillim 119:89.
4. Bereishit 1:6.
5. (18) Shmot 14:21.
6. ׳Cf. Kuzari III, 11.
7. The Heb. זה has been emended to זו, according to the Table of Corrections (Luach HaTikkun) compiled by the Rebbe.
8. Note of the Rebbe: “It seems that the above comment understands eretz to mean ‘earth’ [in the sense of soil or dust], (as in the verse, ‘Let the soil bring forth...’). To me, however, it appears that eretz here is intended as a contrast to ‘heavens’ in the above-quoted phrase, ‘[Your word, O G‑d, stands firm in the] heavens,’ and likewise in contrast to ‘the upper and lower worlds’ [in the corresponding passage] (in ch. 1 of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah; see there). [The Alter Rebbe’s text should thus be translated, ‘And even as regards this physical world....’] The distinction drawn in the above comment between [those categories of created beings which have] the power of growth [and those which have not], etc., is thus not necessary. Moreover, [the Alter Rebbe] immediately goes on to speak explicitly of ‘inorganic matter such as stones and dust....’”
9. Etz Chayim, Shaar 39, ch. 3; see also Shaar 50.
____________________________

Rambam: 
Daily Mitzvah P245 Sefer Hamitzvot
Today's Mitzvah
Monday, 26 Tishrei 5775 • 20 October 2014

Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 245
Transactions
"And if you sell something to your neighbor..."—Leviticus 25:14.
We are commanded regarding the various methods that effect transactions, i.e., the ways to transfer property from one individual to another (or, in the case of a guardian of an object, the transfer of jurisdiction).
Transactions
Positive Commandment 245
Translated by Berel Bell
The 245th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the laws of buying and selling, i.e. the ways in which purchases and sales between the buyers and the sellers become legally binding.
The Torah taught about one method in G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "When you sell something to your neighbor, [or buy something from your neighbor's hand...]" Our Sages said,2 "[The word 'hand' teaches that the sale] refers to something which can pass from one hand to another," i.e. meshichah [physically moving the object].
It is explained that in Biblical law, transfer of money is sufficient to complete the transaction, and meshichah is necessary only by Rabbinic decree, as is mesirah [giving the vehicle of control, e.g. the reins of a horse, to the buyer] and hagba'ah [lifting the object].
The Gemara3 explicitly says, "Just as our Sages enacted a requirement of meshichah in order for a sale to be valid, so too they required meshichah in order for a watchman relationship to become valid." It is therefore clear that the requirement of meshichah in buying and selling is of Rabbinic origin, as explained in the relevant place.
However, other methods of acquiring land, etc., i.e. by means of a document or chazakah4 are traced5 to Biblical verses [and are therefore of Biblical, not Rabbinic, origin].
The details of this mitzvah — i.e. the manners of finalizing a sale in each category — are explained in the 1st chapter of tractate Kiddushin, the 4th and 8th chapters of Bava Metzia, and the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Bava Basra.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 25:14.
2.Bava Metzia 47b.
3.Ibid., 99a.
4.Such as building something on the land.
5.See Kiddushin 26a.

________________________________________

Rambam:

• 1 Chapter a Day: Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem - Chapter 26
Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem - Chapter 26
Halacha 1
Anyone who curses one of the judges of Israel transgresses a negative commandment, as Exodus 22:27 states: "Do not curse a judge." Similarly, if a person curses a nasi, whether the head of the Supreme Sanhedrin or a king, he transgresses a negative commandment, as the verse continues: "Do not curse a prince among your nation."
This prohibition does not apply only to a judge or a nasi. Instead, anyone who curses any other Jew receives lashes, as Leviticus 19:14 states: "Do not curse a deaf-mute." Why does the verse mention a deaf-mute? To teach you that even when a person who cannot hear and thus will not be bothered by being cursed, the person pronouncing the curse is lashed. It appears to me that a person who curses a child who is embarrassed receives lashes; the child resembles a deaf-mute.
Halacha 2
A person who curses a deceased person is not liable.
Since a person who curses any Jewish person is liable, why did the Torah set aside a special prohibition for a judge and for a nasi? For the person to be liable for two transgressions. Thus we learn that a person who curses any Jew, whether a man, woman, or child receives one set of lashes. If he curses a judge, he receives two sets of lashes. If he curses a nasi, he receives three sets of lashes. And if the son of a nasi curses his father, he is liable for four transgression, the three for which all others are liable and one for cursing his father.
Halacha 3
A person who curses himself receives lashes just as one who curses others, as Deuteronomy 4:9 states: "Take heed and guard your soul."
Whether a person curses himself, a colleague, a nasi, or a judge, he does not receive lashes unless he curses using one of God's names: Yaw, Elohim, Shaddai, or the like, or with one of the descriptive terms used to characterize God, e.g., the Merciful One, the Vengeful One, or the like. Since a person is liable if he cursed a colleague with any of these descriptive terms, he is also liable if he cursed him in any other language. For the names with which the gentiles refer to the Holy One, blessed be He, are comparable to all of these descriptive terms.
The term arur ("cursed") can imply an oath, a curse, and a ban of ostracism.
Halacha 4
A person is not punished by lashing unless he is given a warning in the presence of two witnesses as applies with regard to the transgression of any other negative commandment. If, however, a warning was not issued, a curse was uttered without mentioned God's name or a descriptive term, e.g., he said merely: "Cursed be so-and-so," the curse was uttered indirectly, e.g., he said: "May so-and-so not be blessed unto God," or "May God not bless so-and-so," or the like, he is not lashed.
Halacha 5
Even though he is not lashed, a person who curses a Torah scholar is placed under a ban of ostracism. And if the judges desire to have "stripes for rebellious conduct" administered to him, they can have him beaten and punished as they see fit, for he disgraced a learned elder.
If he denounces a common person, the judges may punish him as they see necessary according to the needs of the situation, depending on the person who gave the verbal abuse and the one who receives it.
Halacha 6
Although a judge or a nasi has the right to look past affronts to his honor, he cannot look past being cursed. Similarly, with regard to other people, even though the person who was cursed is prepared to look past the matter, the person who uttered the curse is lashed, for he committed a transgression and incurred liability.
If, however, a person is obligated to be placed under a ban of ostracism, because he conducted himself in an unbridled manner in court, and the judges desire to look past the affront to their honor and not impose a ban of ostracism, they have that license, provided it will not lead to a decline in the honor of the Creator. For example, people at large were repudiating the words of the Torah and the judges. Since the people overstepped the bounds, the court must act firmly and punish as they see necessary.
Halacha 7
When any person has a judgment adjudicated by gentile judges and their courts, he is considered a wicked person. It is as if he disgraced, blasphemed, and lifted up his hand against the Torah of Moses our teacher. This applies even if their laws are the same as the laws of the Jewish people. This is indicated by Exodus 21:1: "These are the judgments that you shall place before them." "Before them" and not before gentiles; "before them" and not before ordinary people.
The following procedure should be carried out if the gentiles have a powerful law enforcement system and the opposing litigant is a stubborn and powerful person from whom one cannot expropriate property through the judicial system of the Jewish people. One should summon him before the Jewish judges first. If he did not desire to come, one may receive license from the court and salvage one's property from the litigant by having the case tried in a gentile court.
____________________________
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters a Day: Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Eight, Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Nine, Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Ten
Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Eight
Halacha 1
When a person gives eggs to a chicken farmer with the intent that the chicken farmer have chickens sit on the eggs until they hatch, and then for the chicken farmer to raise the chicks with the profits to be divided between them, the owner of the eggs must provide the chicken farmer with a wage for his work and sustenance.
Similarly, when a person evaluates calves and ponies and then entrusts them to a caretaker with the intent that he tend to them until they grow into large animals with the profits to be divided between them, the owner of the animals must provide the caretaker with a wage for his work and sustenance for every day, like an unemployed worker. He must raise calves until they are three years old, and a donkey until it is capable of bearing a burden. He cannot sell the animal without the consent of his partner until this time.
Similarly, if one evaluates animals and then entrusts them to a caretaker to fatten them, with the profits to be divided between them, the owner of the animals must provide the caretaker with a wage for his work, like an unemployed worker. If the owner tells the caretaker: "Take the head and the fat tail for yourself in exchange for your work, aside from your share of the profits," it is permitted.
If the caretaker has other animals that he was also working to fatten in addition to this one that was evaluated, and similarly, if one has other calves, ponies or eggs, since he is caring for his own at the same time as he is caring for his colleagues', even if the owner gives him only a small amount as a wage for the entire period of the partnership, it is acceptable, and they may divide the profits equally. If the caretaker was already employed as the owner's sharecropper and he is taking care of animals belonging to both himself and the owner of the field, the owner does not have to pay him anything as a wage.
Halacha 2
When a person has calves or ponies evaluated, he has chickens sit on eggs, or he has an animal evaluated to be fattened with the profits to be divided between them and he does not pay a wage to the caretaker, the laws that govern such a relationship are the same as those that govern an investment of money. We see how much the animals or the eggs were evaluated for and how much profit was made, and the caretaker is given two thirds of the profit. If there is a loss, he is required to bear one third of the loss.
Halacha 3
We evaluate a cow, a donkey and any other animal that usually performs work and eats, and the profits are divided between the owner and the caretaker. For although care is required, the caretaker is able to derive other profit for himself because of the work of the animals. For he may hire them or work with them himself and benefit from the fee or their work.
One should not evaluate a calf together with its mother, or a pony with its mother. For the calf or the pony does not perform any work, and yet it requires care.
Halacha 4
When a person has an animal evaluated and entrusts it to a colleague, until when is the colleague obligated to care for it? For a female donkey, 18 months. For an animal that lives in a corral - e.g., sheep or cattle - 24 months. If the owner desires to divide the profits within this period, the caretaker can prevent him from doing so, because they entered into a partnership without making any stipulations.
We set these rules because the care and profit ratio for an animal for the first year cannot be compared to that of the second year. In the first year, it requires much care and brings little profit, because at the beginning it becomes heavier only with much difficulty. In the second year, by contrast, it requires little care and there is much profit, because it becomes much heavier, gaining every day. Therefore, the caretaker may prevent him from dissolving the partnership until the end of the second year.
If the animal that was evaluated gives birth while in the possession of the caretaker, the calf is considered part of the profit and is divided between them. In a place where the custom is that the caretaker raises the offspring, he should raise them and afterwards sell them. In a place where it is not customary that the caretaker raise the offspring, he is nevertheless required to care for the offspring for a limited period. For a lightweight animal, he is required to care for it for 30 days. For a large animal, he is required to care for it for 50 days. Afterwards, the offspring is sols and the profits are divided.
If the caretaker desires to care for them longer than this period, he should evaluate them before three men on the thirtieth or fiftieth day. Afterwards, any profit that is made should be divided between them as follows: The caretaker should receive three fourths of the profit, and his partner, one fourth. The rationale is that the caretaker owns half of the offspring and because he cares for the half belonging to his colleague, he is given half of that half - i.e., a total of three fourths. If the caretaker did not make such a stipulation in the presence of three witnesses, he is considered to have waived this extra profit, and the offspring are divided equally among them.
In a place where it is customary to figure in a porter's fee to the money invested, that fee should be added. The entire fee that the administrator receives for carrying the merchandise should be figured into the profit on the investment. Similarly, if it is the local custom to add an extra fee for handling an animal, it should be added. In a place where it is customary to add an extra fee to the caretaker's wages for handling offspring, it should be added. Whenever a person enters into an investment or partnership agreement, he should not deviate from the local business practices.
Halacha 5
The following rules apply when Reuven owns a field and invites Shimon to till it, to sow it or to plant within it, to manage the expenses spent on its account, to sell the produce, and to divide between them the profit that exceeds the cost. Whether they agreed to divide the profits equally or they agreed that Reuven would receive a larger share, whether all the expenses were undertaken by Reuven or by Shimon, any such arrangement is permitted. Even "the shade of interest" is not involved.
Shimon, who takes care of working the land, managing the expenses and selling the produce, is called a sharecropper. If the sharecropper claims: "I agreed to till the field for half the profits," but the owner of the field claims that they agreed on a third, we follow the local custom. The one whose claim departs from the local custom must bring proof to support his position.
Halacha 6
The following laws apply when a husband hires sharecroppers to till property belonging to his wife, and then he divorces her. If the husband is himself a sharecropper, since the husband does not have any connection to the property any longer, the sharecroppers' connection also ceases. If the value of the field increases, they are granted only the share of their expenses equal to the field's increase in value. And they must support their claim with an oath.
If the husband is not a sharecropper, we assume that the sharecroppers were hired according to the custom of the land, and they are given the share granted to other sharecroppers.
Halacha 7
When brothers or other heirs do not divide the estate of their benefactor, but instead, they all use it together, they are considered partners in all matters.
If one of a group of brothers or one of a group of partners was appointed to the service of the king, the profit he receives is divided among them. If one of them becomes ill and is cured, the expenses required for his cure should be shared. If, however, he became sick because of his own negligence, he went out in the snow, or in the sun during the summer until he became ill or the like, he is responsible for bearing the expenses for his cure by himself.
Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Nine
Halacha 1
The following - all types of partners, sharecroppers, guardians of orphans who were appointed by the court, a woman who does business in the family home or who was charged by her husband to serve as a storekeeper, and a member of the household - are all required by Rabbinic Law to take an oath, despite the fact that the claimant does not have a certain claim against them, lest they may have stolen something from their colleague while performing business on his behalf, or perhaps they were not exact when making a reckoning.
Why did the Sages ordain this oath? Because these people give themselves license, thinking that they are deserving of whatever they will take from the property of the owner, since they do business and work on his behalf. Therefore, the Sages ordained that they are required to take an oath despite the fact that the claimant does not have a certain claim against them, so that they will perform all their deeds justly and in good faith.
Halacha 2
None of the above are required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim until the plaintiff suspects them of taking two silver pieces - i.e., two silver me'ah, as will be explained. If, however, they are suspected of taking less than this amount, they are not required to take an oath.
Halacha 3
Based on this, my teachers ruled that if one partner died, the heirs cannot compel their father's partners to take an oath concerning an indefinite claim. For they are not knowledgeable about their father's affairs and do not know for certain that their father suspected the partner of wrongdoing so that it can be said that the heirs suspect the partner of taking two silver me'ah.
There are, however, others who rule that the heir may require him to take an oath despite the fact that his claim is indefinite. It is proper to rule in this manner. For we see that the heirs may require a widow who became a guardian during the lifetime of her husband to take an oath.
Halacha 4
Although there are no witnesses that a person was his colleague's sharecropper or partner, but rather he himself admits to this fact, saying: "I am his partner, sharecropper or member of his household - but I did not steal anything from him," he must take an oath while holding a sacred article. The rationale is that we do not employ the principle of migo to free a person from the responsibility of taking an oath, but only to free him from a financial commitment.
Which member of the household can be required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim? One who brings workers in and leads workers out, who brings produce in and takes produce out. When, however, a member of the household is not involved in the business affairs of the household, but merely enters and leaves, he cannot be required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim.
Similarly, a guardian appointed by the father of orphans before his death cannot be required by the orphans to take an oath because of an indefinite claim. Similarly, a woman who did not serve as a guardian in her husband's lifetime, and did not do business with the property of the estate after her husband's burial cannot be required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim.
Similarly, if she did business with the property of the estate between her husband's death and burial, she is not required to take an oath regarding the transactions conducted during this period. For if she were required to take an oath, she would not sell any property in order to make the burial possible, and the deceased would become loathsome.
Halacha 5
When a person sends an article with a colleague to sell, or sends money with him to purchase produce or merchandise for him, even though the principal did not pay the agent a wage, and the agent does not own any portion of the merchandise nor derive any benefit from it, since he did business with his colleague's money, he is considered a member of his household. Even though the principal has merely an indefinite claim, the agent can be required to take an oath that he did not steal anything from him when he brought him the merchandise that he purchased or a portion of it, or the money from the sale he conducted for him.
Halacha 6
When both partners are involved in the business of the partnership or the one who is involved in the business entrusts the merchandise - or a portion of the merchandise - or the funds belonging to the partnership without weighing, measuring or counting them, there is a doubt concerning both of them, and either one can require the other to take the oath required of a partner. If, however, only one of the partners does business and the other is not involved in the business dealings at all, only the former can be required to take this oath.
Halacha 7
The above oath can be administered when the initial relationship is still current. If, however, the partners or the sharecroppers dissolved their relationship, the woman was divorced, the member of the household went elsewhere, or the agent brought the principal the merchandise he purchased for him or the money from the merchandise he sold for him, the principal remained silent without making a claim against the other party, and the other party departed, the principal is not able to require that other party to take an oath because of an indefinite claim afterwards. If, however, the principal has a definite claim against him, he can require him to take an oath, and then require him to take additional oaths concerning anything he desires.
Similarly, if at a later time, the other person is required to take an oath to the principal - whether required by Scriptural Law or by Rabbinic Law - e.g., he became a partner or a member of the person's household again - the principal can require him to take an oath that he did not steal anything during their present partnership or while he was his partner, sharecropper, member of his household or guardian previously. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 8
When partners have dissolved their partnership, but the partnership is still owed debts by others, the partners cannot require each other to take an oath because of an indefinite claim, for they have already divided the partnership's resources. The debts that remain are not significant in this context, for they are matters of public knowledge. When any portion of the debt is repaid, they will each take their appropriate portion of the debt.
Similar concepts apply if it has been made known that cash remains in the coffers of the partnership, but the partners have not taken their portion of that cash. Neither may require an oath of the other, because cash is considered as if it is already divided.
Similarly, if a reckoning was made of the assets of the partnership possessed by all the partners, and it was determined that one partner was holding a specific and known entity belonging to another, it is considered as if the assets were divided, even though he had not taken it as of that time.
If, however, any of the produce belonging to the partnership remained, and it had not been divided or weighed, or any dimension of the partnership remained concerning which an accounting had not been made and thus, neither of them knew the extent of the portion that is due him, the partnership is still considered viable, and either may require the other to take the oath mentioned above.
Halacha 9
When a person issues a claim against a colleague after the dissolution of a partnership, he cannot compel him to take an oath except through the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, as explained above. He may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who stole from his colleague while he was his partner, sharecropper or member of his household, and does not admit that he stole.
Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Ten
Halacha 1
The following law applies when a partner claims that the partnership relationship with his colleague involved a certain stipulation, and the colleague denies that such a stipulation ever existed or admits the existence of a stipulation, but claims it was for a lesser amount than the plaintiff claims. The plaintiff may determine the oath the defendant takes.
The same ruling applies if the plaintiff asks that property belonging to the partnership be returned to him, and the defendant claims to have given it to him, but the plaintiff claims that he never received it, or the defendant claims that merchandise was his, while the plaintiff claims that it belongs to the partnership, or with regard to any other claims of this type.
What is implied? If the plaintiff desires not to require the partner to take the oath required of partners, but instead to require him to take merely a sh'vuat hesset on the claim he denies and does not admit to have taken place, he may require him to take only the lesser oath. If he desires, he can include all the claims in the oath required of a partner. Although he has an indefinite claim, he will require the partner to take an oath that he did not steal anything throughout the duration of the partnership, that these and these stipulations existed between the partners, that the merchandise was his, or that he paid this and this amount. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 2
The following rule applies when a person lodges a claim against a partner with the intent of obligating him to take the oath required of partners, the defendant claims: "We have already divided the assets of the partnership, and nothing that belongs to you remains in my possession," and the plaintiff differs, maintaining that the assets were not divided, nor was a reckoning made. The defendant cannot be required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim. [This ruling also applies when the plaintiff admits dividing the assets, but claims that the division was made with the stipulation that the defendant take the oath required of partners whenever the plaintiff demanded, and the defendant has constantly been procrastinating.
This ruling applies even when the defendant admits that after the division of the assets, he owed the plaintiff something, but claims that the plaintiff agreed to consider that as a debt, or considered it as an object entrusted to the defendant for safekeeping.
Even if there are witnesses that the two were once partners, the plaintiff cannot require an oath with an indefinite claim. Nor may the plaintiff require the defendant to take a sh'vuat hesset that they divided the assets or that they were never partners. The rationale is that a sh'vuat hesset is never required, nor even is a claim included in an oath using the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, unless the claim is such that if the defendant admitted it, he would be liable to pay money. If, however, the claim is one that if the defendant admitted it, he would be required only to take an oath, he may not be required to take an oath on the indefinite claim, even because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah. Geonim, who are masters of instruction, ruled in this manner.
Halacha 3
The following rule applies if the plaintiff claims: "You are still my partner, and property belonging to me worth such and such remains in your possession,"and the defendant counters, by claiming: "We already divided the assets of the partnership, and I no longer have anything belonging to you in my possession," or "I was never your partner." The defendant must take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not possess anything belonging to the plaintiff, and because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he must include in the oath that he did not steal anything from him. The defendant need not include in the oath that he was not his partner or that they already divided the assets of the partnership, for the reason explained above.
Halacha 4
The following rule applies when the plaintiff claims that he and the defendant are still partners, and that he therefore has the right to require him to take an oath because of an indefinite claim, while the defendant denies ever becoming the plaintiff's partner. If the plaintiff brings witnesses who testify that the defendant was his partner, and the defendant then claims: "We divided the assets of the partnership," his claim is not accepted. The rationale is that he was proven to be a liar with regard to this oath. Therefore, he is required to take the oath required of a partner. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
The convention of gilgul sh'vuah is also relevant in the following situation. Reuven placed 400 dinarim in the coffers of the partnership, while Shimon invested 200 dinarim. They worked as partners and did business together, but all the money was held by Reuven. If Reuven claimed that there was a loss of 500 dinarim, Reuven may not take the oath required of partners that he suffered such a loss to require Shimon to pay 50 dinarim from his own funds. Instead, Reuven should take the oath required of partners that there was a loss. He should take the maneh that is in his possession, but Shimon is not required to pay anything.
If Reuven claims that Shimon has definite knowledge of the loss, he may require Shimon to take the oath required of partners, and based on the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he may compel him to include that he does not have definite knowledge of this loss.
Different rules apply if Shimon was not at all involved in the work of the partnership. Shimon should take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not have definite knowledge of the loss, and he is then freed of liability. Moreover, if the maneh that remains was in Shimon's possession, it should be divided equally between them. The rationale is that a partner is not one of those who is required to take an oath and then collect money from the defendant. Instead, the oath he takes enables him merely to be freed of responsibility or to assume ownership of property in his possession. Be careful with regard to this law, for even masters of instruction have erred with regard to it.
Halacha 6
The following law also involves the division of the assets of a partnership. Shimon claims that he owes Levi a maneh because of this partnership. If he has resources of the partnership in his possession that are sufficient to pay the debt, and he can give them to Levi, his word is accepted. He should repay the debt, and afterwards he and Reuven should calculate how the assets should be divided.
If Shimon does not have funds from the partnership in his possession, we do not rely upon his word to expropriate money from Reuven or merchandise known to belong to the partnership, lest Shimon and Levi are perpetrating deception, seeking to obtain Reuven's property. Even if the loan is recorded in a promissory note, Reuven is not required to pay any portion of it.
If Shimon claims that Reuven has definite knowledge that the debt Shimon incurred came as a result of the partnership, and should be borne by both of them, Reuven is required to take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not know that the partnership has incurred this debt - or because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he should include this statement in the oath he takes as required of partners. Afterwards, Shimon should pay the debt from his own funds.
Similarly, if there is a promissory note stating that, due to Shimon, Levi owes the partnership 100 dinarim, and Shimon claims: "I received payment and returned the money to the coffers of the partnership," or "I extended credit to him for a two- or three-year period," his word is not accepted, lest he be perpetrating deception, seeking to obtain Reuven's property.
How should this case be adjudicated? Levi was already freed from obligation through Shimon's admission. If Shimon does not bring proof of his claim, Shimon must pay Reuven's share from his own funds. He should then demand payment from Levi at the end of the time span he mentioned. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
____________________________
Hayom Yom:
Monday, 26 Tishrei 5775 • 20 October 2014

"Today's Day"
Monday, Tishrei 26, 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: Noach, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 97 to end.
Tanya: (And that is (p. 535) ...dust, and water. (p. 537).
The interpretation of the verse, "Forever, O G-d, Your word stands firm in the heavens."1 (Tanya II:I and IV:25) is quoted by the Alter Rebbe in the Baal Shem Tov's name although that interpretation is found in Midrash Tehillim, as quoted in Likutei Torah in the maamar Ki bayom hazeh yechapeir. But the Alter Rebbe had a special reason for this: It was on the second day of Creation when G-d said: "Let there be a Heaven,"2 and it is this utterance which "stands firm in the Heavens." Associating the quotation with the Baal Shem Tov was to be an eternal memorial that the Baal Shem Tov was born on the second day of the week,3 on the eighteenth (chai) of Elul.
FOOTNOTES
1. Tehillim 119:89.
2. Bereishit 1:6.
3. Monday; paralleling the second day of Creation.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
Inside Workers
When you look at a human being, you see his hands working, his feet walking, his mouth talking. You don’t see his heart, his brain, his lungs and kidneys. They work quietly, inside. But they are the essential organs of life.
The world, too, has hands and feet—those who are making the news, moving things around, shaking things up.
The heart, the inner organs, they are those who work quietly from the inside, those unnoticed, those who do a simple act of kindness with no thought of reward.(Torat Menachem 5751 vol. 1, pg. 212; Ibid vol. 2, pg. 239.)
____________________________